The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 22. Of the Ordination of the Patriarch of Antioch by that of Constantinople.

IN the year 449. a little after the dissolution of the Council of Ephesus, Anatolius an Orthodox Bishop, and free of Eutychianism, was promoted to the Patriarchate of Constantinople by the Emperor Theodosius: a certain proof that the Emperor was no Eutychian.

Anatolius raised to that dignity, created Maximus Patriarch of Antioch, and conferred the Ordination upon him. If Leo Bishop of Rome had done so much, M. du Perron would triumph about it, and would take that for an undoubted proof of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Universal Church. That which is most considerable in that business, is, that Anatolius did that without asking Leo 's counsel; wherefore Leo complains of it in an Epistle to the Emperor Martianus, saying, that it was a presumptuous action of Anatolius: Yet in spite of Leo, Maximus remained in his place, and Leo durst not take upon him to displace him. Already Valentinian 's Law was vanished, and no more mention made of it. If that Law of Valentinian had been of some authority, Leo ought to have employed it in that occasion; but he knew that the Greek Churches, and all the Churches of the East received not that Law.

CHAP. 23. Of the assembling of the Council of Chalcedon, which is the IV. Universal Council.

IN the 450. year of Christ, died the good Emperor Theodosius, having reigned 42. years. Martianus succeeded him: that Emperor upon the instant request of the Bishops, resolved to convocate an Universal Council from all parts of the Empire. Leo Bishop of Rome was the least forward of all the Bishops to desire that Council, foreseeing that it should not be assembled in Italy, and that the Emperor would have it near him; he petitioned then that at least the Council might be put off till another time. But the Emperor Martian pressed by the Patriarch Anatolius, and by other Bishops, resolved to assemble it with speed. This is seen in the 41. Epistle of Leo to that Emperor, where he speaks thus to him, I had petitioned your most glorious clemency, that you would be pleased to command that the Synod which you judged necessary to restore the peace of the Oriental Church, should be put off to a more seasonable time. Although then Leo 's advice was, that the Council should be put off, yet to obey the Emperor, he sent Legates to it to represent his person, as he saith in the same Epistle. One may see also by his Epistle to the Empress Pulcheria, that he had petitioned that the Council should be assembled in Italy: But the Emperor would have it to sit at Nice; afterwards altering his resolution, he would have it to sit at Chalcedon. In the preambles of the Council of Chalcedon the Imperial Patents of Martian are set down, written to the Bishops of the Empire, where he commands them to be at Nice upon the appointed day; and threateneth them together, Whosoever will reject this Universal Council, which shall be altogether useful, he sins against God himself, and offends our piety. And Leo was so little informed of the alteration of the Emperors will about the place, that the Letters which he writ to the Council, of which his Legates were the bearers, were written to the Bishops assembled at Nice in Council, as we learn of Evagrius, book 2. ch. 2. See also Liberatus, in the 13. ch. and Nicephorus in the 15. book, ch. 2. Baronius himself acknowledgeth that the Council was assembled by the Emperors command: The Emperor (saith he) upon the tenth of the Calends of June published an Ordinance for the Universal Synod, to which he convocated the Bishops. Here is then an Universal Council, which not only was not convocated by the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but was also convocated to another place, and in another time then he had requested. For he had been a suppliant to the Emperor that it should be put off, and that it might sit in Italy. So the saying of Pope Pius the II. is made good. When I read the ancient Histories and the Acts of the Apostles, I find not this custom, that the Popes alone assembled the Councils; and a little after, Since the time of great Constantine and of the other Emperors, the consent of the Roman Pope was not much required for the assembling of Councils.

CHAP. 24. Who presided in the Council of Chalcedon.

THis Council is one of the most grave and famous that have been at any time. For there the Emperor himself was present, and there 630. Bishops met from all parts of the Empire. From the Kingdoms of France, Spain and Great Britain no Deputies were sent, because those Countries were no more in the Roman Empire, nor in the Patriarchate of the Bishop of Rome. And yet that Council is called Universal, because it was convocated out of all the Roman Empire.

Some Patritians and Counts representing the Emperors person, presided in that Council, sitting in the highest place, in the midst, between two rows of Bishops. This is seen in every Session of the Acts of the Council, where they are always named the first. And it is evident by the Acts that the Bishops spake only by their leave, and that they represt by their authority the Bishops that behaved themselves with insolence and importunity. Thus in the first Action, a confused clamour being raised, The most glorious Judges and Senate said, These popular acclamations neither become Bishops, nor do good to the parties: have patience then till all be read. So in Evagrius, book 2. ch. 4. The Senators have thus decreed. In the 16. Action the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, speak thus to the Judges: Yesterday after that your highness was risen, and our lowness followed your steps: And a little after, We petition that your magnificence command that these things be read again. The Bishops had not so much power as to read a Paper the second time, without the leave of those Judges. A Bishop presenting a Petition, said unto them, We fall down, petitioning before the knees of your Highness; as Evagrius relateth in the 18. ch. of his 2. book. Liberatus in the 13. ch. saith that the Legates of Rome having formed an opposition, the Judges and Bishops would not regard it: a certain proof that those Legates were not Judges.

Those Senators had at their right hand Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, and Juvenalis Patriarch of Jerusalem: and at their left hand Paschasinus and Lucentius Legates of the Bishop of Rome, and Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople. And although in the Acts of the Council these Legates be often named before Anatolius, yet Anatolius is also in many places named before them. And in all the actions generally Anatolius speaks far more then they, and doth all the actions of a President, and hath the chief authority in the Council. The words of Paschasinus Legat of Rome in the first Action are notable; Behold (saith he) we hold, by the will of God, My Lord Anatolius for the first, but these have put Flavianus in the fifth place. Meaning, that although Anatolius was the first, yet the Eutychians in contempt had put Flavianus Predecessor of Anatolius in the fifth place. Which he saith, not because the Patriarch of Constantinople was the first Patriarch: but because in the present Action he held the first place, and presided in the Council.

CHAP. 25. Of that which past in the Council of Chalcedon, and of the Canons made in the same about the order of the Patriarchs, and the Ecclesiastical policy.

IN the fourth Action of this Council a memorable accident happened. The Legates of Leo Bishop of Rome having produced in the Council the Epistle of Leo, comprehending the wholesome doctrine about the two natures of Christ, did instantly require that the Bishops of Egypt should approve and subscribe it, that it might appear that they were not of the sect of their Patriarch Dioscorus, who a few days before had been deposed by the Council. But the Bishops of Egypt refused to subscribe, saying that they had no Archbishop, without whose authority it was not lawful for them to do anything. Whereupon they desired the Council to give them leave to assemble apart to elect an Archbishop; which being elected, they would do what they should command them; Their request was granted, and they elected an Archbishop in the place of Dioscorus, by whose leave they might afterwards sign the said Epistle. This example showeth, that the Bishops of Egypt held not themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome nor to his Legates, since they thought it not lawful for them to do what the said Legates required of them, without the permission of their Patriarch. Who also was elected by the Bishops of Egypt only.

In the same Council this Canon, related before, ch. 19. was made, which is the ninth. If a Clark hath some difference with his Bishop, or with any other Bishop, let him be judged by the Synod of the Province. But if a Bishop or a Clark hath a difference with the Metropolitan of the same Province, let him address himself either to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the See of the Royal City of Constantinople. In the Roman Empire there were thirteen or fourteen Dioceses, and every Diocese contained many Provinces, each of which had many Bishops, and over these Bishops a Metropolitan. The first Bishop of the Diocese was called Exarch, to whom many Metropolitans obeyed: Such Exarchs were the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, Cappadocia, Carthage, Rome, Constantinople, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Arles, &c. Among which some by an especial honor were called Patriarchs, as the Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and had preeminence among the Exarchs, save only the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was even subject to the Bishop of Cesarea, because Cesarea was the Capital City of Palestine, according to the civil order. For the Bishops of the Roman Empire had their places according to the dignity of the Cities. I find also in Gregory of Tours in book 5. of the history of the Franks, ch. 20. and in the Council of Mascon, that the Bishop of Lions is called a Patriarch.

This digression was necessary for the intelligence of that Canon: Of which the sense is this: That if a Clark hath a difference with his Bishop, he must be judged by the Synod of his Province. If he have a difference with the Metropolitan Bishop, let him address himself to the Exarch of his Diocese. And among the Exarchs that privilege is given to that of Constantinople, that from all Dioceses Appeals may come to him: and that who so will not undergo the judgment of his Exarch, may remove the cause, and evocate it to the judgment of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who shall judge the cause ultimately, and without Appeal. A certain proof that there was no Appeal from his judgment to the Bishop of Rome.

This is that Canon which Pope Nicolas the first in the Epistle to the Emperor Michael doth wickedly corrupt, putting Dioceses for Diocese, the plural for the singular; and by the Exarch of the Dioceses, meaning the Bishop of Rome only; as if the Canon said, Let him address himself to the Exarch of the Dioceses, that is, to the Roman Pope. A great licentiousness, to corrupt and change the words of such an express Canon; which though we should pass by and wink at it, still this would remain, that the Bishop of Constantinople is by that Canon equalled unto the Bishop of Rome; if so be that the Canon decreeth, that he that hath a difference with a Metropolitan, must address himself to the Pope of Rome, or to the Bishop of Constantinople, and giveth no leave to Appeal from the judgment, either of the one or the other.

The twelfth Canon of the same Council acknowledgeth, that when the Emperors made a City to be Metropolitical for civil causes; according to the increase of the civil dignity, the Ecclesiastical dignity grew also, and the Bishop was styled Metropolitan. The words of the Canon are, Let all the Cities which by Royal letters have already been honored with the title of Metropolitan, enjoy that only honor, &c.

The seventeenth Canon saith the same, If by the Imperial power a City hath received, or hereafter shall receive some new degree, let the order of Ecclesiastical Parishes be also conformable to the civil and public form. There the word Parish signifieth all that is under a Bishops jurisdiction, and is the same thing as is now called a Diocese. The ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch confirms that very thing, saying. The Bishops of every Province must acknowledge the Bishop of the Metropolitical City, and take care of the whole Province; because all they that have businesses resort to the Metropolitical City: therefore we have decreed that he should be preheminent in honor. Of which we have an example in the second Novel of Justinian: where that Emperor giveth to the first Justinianea (the City of his birth) the title of Metropolitical and Archiepiscopal over many Provinces.

This is the true source and origin of the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome, even because Rome was the Capital City of the Roman Empire: As it is said in very express terms in the same Council of Chalcedon, in the twenty eighth Canon, The Fathers have with good reason given prerogatives to the See of the ancient Rome, because that City reigneth. That is, it is the Capital City of the Empire.

If the ancient Church had regarded Peters being at Rome, and dying there; no doubt but the Church of Antioch where they say that St. Peter kept his See seven years, should have preceded the Church of Alexandria founded by St. Mark only. And the Church of Jerusalem where Christ taught, and where he died, and where all the Apostles a long time resided, ought to have been the first. But because in the civil order Alexandria was before Antioch, and that Jerusalem was subject to Cesarea the Metropolitical City of Palestine, the Bishops also sat according to that order, and followed the civil order.

For this reason the first Council of Constantinople, in the third Canon, decreeth, that since the City of Constantinople is become another Rome, and the second Capital City of the Empire, that the Bishop of Constantinople also should have the preeminence next to the Bishop of Rome, which was a posteriority in order without any subjection. So much is declared by the title of the 31. Novel of Justinian, De ordine sedendi Patriarcharum. Of the order of sitting among the Patriarchs. Which the Council of Chalcedon hath more plainly expressed in the 28. Canon, where the Bishop of Constantinople is declared equal to the Bishop of Rome in all things, although according to the civil order Constantinople be the second after Rome. To which Canon that made so much noise, and which still makes our adversaries heart ache, we owe a Chapter apart.

CHAP. 26. Of the XXVIII. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the protestation which the Legates of Leo Bishop of Rome made against it: And how they offered to falsify a Canon of the Council of Nice.

THE Council of Chalcedon was one of the most solemn Assemblies of Christian Prelates that ever was; they were 630. Bishops chosen out of all the Roman Empire. Pope Leo the first then living, acknowledgeth in the thirty seventh Epistle to the Emperor Leo, that this Council was assembled by the Holy Ghost. It is the fourth among the Universal Councils; Of which four Councils, Justinian in the 131. Novel, chap. 1. and Pope Gregory the first, say, that they receive and honor them with the like respect as the four Gospels.

In that Council that famous Canon was made whereby the Bishop of Constantinople is equalled to the Bishop of Rome in all things, and the City of Constantinople, though second in order after Rome, among the Cities of the Empire, is declared equal to Rome, as well in Ecclesiastical as in Civil things. The Canon is this, The Fathers with good reason have given prerogatives to the See of the ancient Rome, because that City reigneth. And the hundred and fifty Bishops [of the first Council of Constantinople] most beloved of God, moved with the like consideration, have attributed to the most holy See of the new Rome [ which is Constantinople] equal privileges, judging with good reason that the City honored with the Empire and the Senate, and having the same privileges as the ancient Imperial Rome, ought to be magnified as much as that City in Ecclesiastical things, being the next after her.

Three things displease our Adversaries in this Canon. The first is, that there the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome is founded only upon the Civil dignity of the City of Rome, which is the seat of the Empire, and the capital City. The second is, that by this Canon, the Bishop of Constantinople is declared as equal in Ecclesiastical things to the Bishop of Rome, as the City of Constantinople was equal to the City of Rome in Civil things, and to have the same privileges. Whence it followeth, that the Bishop of Constantinople was not subject to that of Rome, although Constantinople was the second in order. The third is, that by this Canon the order of the Patriarchs is changed, and the Bishop of Constantinople, who sometimes was but suffragant to the Metropolitan of Heraclea, is preferred before the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and Antioch, and is made the second among the Patriarchs; and that without the consent of Leo Bishop of Rome, and without acquainting him with it, and notwithstanding the opposition of his Legates in the Council: and that which grieveth most our Adversaries, is, that this order hath held and continued firm for many Ages, and was renewed in the Universal Councils that followed, especially in the sixth Council assembled again in the Palace of Trull to make Canons, where the same Canon is repeated in the same terms. And indeed since that time the Patriarchs of Alexandria, who had the chief interest to oppose that change, did not dispute the precedence to the Bishop of Constantinople, but without contestation obeyed the order of the Council. The Bishops of Rome would have acquiesced unto it, but that the strength of the Emperors was falling in Italy, and barbarous Kings were then invading Rome and Italy, and the Empire of the West; so that the Bishop of Rome being then subject to other Masters, might without danger despise the authority of the Emperors.

Our Adversaries boasting of the authority of Councils, show here that they speak not in earnest. For they declaim against this which they acknowledge to be Universal, and dispense themselves from the rules established in it. M. du Perron among others, doth his worst to weaken the authority of this Council.

He saith in chap. 34. that in the evening of the twelfth day Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople spying the occasion that the Popes Legates (for so he calls always the Bishop of Rome, although the name of Pope was then common to all Bishops) and the Senate were retired, and all that could cross him; caused that Decree to be drawn and signed by some Bishops of the neighbouring Provinces. His witness for this relation is Liberatus, who in such matters is liberal of his lies. But M. du Perron was sure not to say that it appeareth by the Acts of the Council, that the Legates of the Bishop of Rome made their complaints the next day, saying that they had been surprised, that they were not present when the Council had made this Canon, and that violence was used to make that Canon to pass. And that upon their exceptions all the Bishops cried out with one voice, that they had voluntarily subscribed that Canon, not by constraint; and all declared in the presence of the said Legates, that they approved and confirmed that Canon. And which is more, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylea arose, and affirmed, that being at Rome he had communed with Leo about that matter, and that Leo thought it just that such an Order should be made. So that Article was ratified, and remained to posterity.

It is true that the Greek Acts say, that the Council writ to Leo about it, beseeching him to approve that Canon. But those Acts swarm with untruths, and experience gives them the lie. For if the Council had submitted this Article to the judgment of Leo, that resolution of the Council should have been broken, and the Canon disanulled, when Leo declared a little after, that he could not approve that doctrine. But it remained fixed notwithstanding Leo 's oppositions, and was practiced without hindrance since the sitting of that Council, as long as the Empire of Constantinople stood. And all that Leo declaimed against, it was without effect; as Liberatus saith in chap. 13. of his Breviary: Although the Apostolic See to this day contradict that Decree, yet the resolution of the Synod remains in some sort, by the Emperors protection. For to allege here (as the Cardinal doth) Leo 's Epistles, wherein he speaks to Anatolius as a Master, and as forgiving him, would be an abuse offered to the Reader; for who cares to hear the Pope bearing witness in his own cause? Never is the Pope sooner inclined to pardon, then when he can do no harm, and when the offenders are not in his power. Of which this same Anatolius, in whose favor this Canon was made, affords us a notable example, which we shall see hereafter.

Also the Cardinal was too wary to say that Leo 's Legates in this Council to defend his authority brought forth the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice; but corrupted, and beginning by this clause falsely added, Quod Romana Ecclesia semper habeat primatum; That the Roman Church hath always the primacy. And that thereupon Aetius an Arch-deacon brought forth out the Archives of the Church of Constantinople, the original of the Canons of the Council of Nice, where that clause was not found.

Thus all the nullities which M. du Perron brings against this Canon vanish away. He saith that it was suggested and contrived by the Clerks of the Church of Constantinople, in an undue hour, in the absence of those that had interest in it; and that the Clerks of Constantinople have added some words to it, that were not in the first Council of Constantinople. But all these nullities (if there were any) were taken off the next day, when in the presence of the Judges and the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarchs, and the whole Council, the business was resumed, the reasons of the Roman Legates were heard, and all they could say against it: and the Canon was generally approved and ratified by the Council. Neither did the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who were chiefly concerned in it, either at that time, or since that time, oppose it.

The prudent Reader will observe this, That when our Adversaries find a text of an ancient Author, which seems to favor them, they set it out with great show and noise, and with a little meat they make three dishes, repeating the same text a hundred times over, as Cardinal du Perron doth. But when they meet in Antiquity with something that displeaseth them, they make no difficulty to condemn whole Councils, yea and the Universal, and to find fault with their Canons. It is certain that of all the Canons made in that Council, this was that which was established with most solemnity and authority, seeing that it was more examined and debated then any, and that after the hearing and weighing of all the oppositions, it was approved and confirmed by the Council, and practiced in the following ages. But let us suppose that in the passing of that Canon, all the requisite forms were not practiced. Yet this remains, that above six hundred Bishops approved this Canon, yea those whose dignity was most imbezelled by it. If you will not take the votes of those Bishops as suffrages pronounced in an Universal Council: Yet those Bishops are six hundred Fathers, and so many particular witnesses, more credible then the Bishop of Rome, who was a party, and cannot be Judge in his own cause. Neither would he have been so bold as to contradict an Universal Council approved by the Emperor, and by all the Bishops, his own Legates only excepted, if the Roman Empire had kept its former vigor in Italy, and in the other Western Provinces. But it was the time when the Occidental Empire was falling, and at the last gasp. Valentinian who still kept the name of the Empire in Italy, being rather a monster then a man, and a shadow, then an Emperor: with whom the Empire fell in the West soon after. Be sure that if Leo Bishop of Rome and his successors had been subject to the Roman Emperors reigning at Constantinople, as they had been until the time of Honorius, Uncle to this Valentinian, they could never have had the boldness to contradict a decree so solemnly established.

How weakly did those Legates of the Roman Bishop plead their Masters cause against that Canon, whereby the Bishop of Constantinople is made equal unto that of Rome in all things, even in the Ecclesiastical, as it is related in the sixteenth Action of that Council? The question being of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in that solemn Assembly, then or never those Legates ought to have alleged those texts of the Gospel, which are used in our days for that end, Thou art Peter, &c. And Feed my sheep. But that they do not: For the Council would have derided those proofs. They grounded themselves only upon a Canon of Nice, which they falsified, but so grossly, that the falsehood was presently manifested.

CHAP. 27. Answer to the nullities which M. du Perron brings against this Canon of Chalcedon.

CArdinal du Perron bends all his strength to dismount this Canon. He chargeth it with no fewer then thirteen nullities, each of which deserveth a dash of our pen.

He saith 1. That this Canon hath been contrived and suggested by the Clerks of Constantinople. 2. At an undue hour. 3. In the absence of the Judges and Patriarchs, but that of Antioch. 4. That they that signed it, did it against their will. To all these I answer in one word, That these nullities, if there was any, were all taken off the next day, when in the presence of the Judges, and of the Popes Legates, and of all the Council, the business was debated, and the Canon approved and ratified by the Council; all crying with one voice, that they had signed it with their good will, and unconstrained. And it is like that the Legates of Leo absented themselves purposely when that business was moved, that they might protest against it of nullity. But the business was resumed in their presence, and they were condemned notwithstanding their protestations. Hereby also the sixth nullity is confuted, that the Officers of Constantinople had fore-stalled the liberty of the Assembly, since all the Bishops that had already approved that Canon, unanimously protested, that neither force nor fear had moved them to it; but that they had freely spoken their judgment. That which he saith of the absence of the Patriarchs, is both false and ridiculous. For the Patriarch of Rome had his Legates in that Council, who might be present when they had a mind to it. Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Maximus of Antioch were present. The See of Alexandria was vacant, and had not yet any Patriarch since the deposition of Dioscorus, as M. du Perron acknowledgeth: It is then an error to reckon the Patriarch of Alexandria among the absent.

He reckons for the fifth nullity, that the Clerks of Constantinople in the writing of this Canon committed two falsifications. The one, that they added the word equal, which was not in the third Canon of the first Council of Constantinople: The other, that they added the clause that commands that the Bishop of Constantinople ordain the Metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia. But he was in an error if he thought that this Canon of Chalcedon was only a repetition of the third Canon of the first Council of Constantinople, for it was also made both to expound and to amplify the same. Adding is not falsifying, when they that add do it with authority.

He brings for the seventh nullity, that Eusebius Bishop of Dorylea surprised the Council, falsely affirming that he had heard from the mouth of Leo himself, that he approved this Canon. But of that Eusebius, partner of the sufferings of Flavianus, the zeal and piety is commended, and he is more credible then Leo, who being acted by his own interest, and having since better considered what prejudice he might receive by that Canon, did alter his opinion. But howsoever, it was not upon the testimony of that Eusebius that the Council grounded his decision.

The eighth, ninth and tenth nullities are, that the Legates of Leo did oppose it, and protest against it; That Leo hath abolished and made void that Canon, and that Anatolius concealed it from the Council, detaining the letters of Leo. I answer, that these Legates were condemned, and the Council held not their opposition considerable. Neither is Leo 's judgment of any weight in this case, for he is here a party, and speaks for his own interest. He hath indeed declared that this Canon displeased him, but to abrogate and disannul it, it was beyond his power. The Bishops of Rome at that time had not climbed yet to that degree of pride, to boast that they were above Universal Councils. Wherefore also that Canon remained firm, and was practiced in the following ages, notwithstanding the opposition of the Roman Pope, as Liberatus saith in his ch. 13. As for the concealment of Leo 's letters by Anatolius, Leo complains of it in his Epistles to Marcianus. But whether that expostulation be true or false, it doth not invalid that Canon, which so much grieveth our adversaries. For this Council was sufficiently instructed of the intention of Leo, by the instructions of his Legates, and by their opposition, and had no need of Leo 's letters to learn his intentions. And if those letters were written to Anatolius, not to the Council, Anatolius was not bound to read them to the Council.

For the eleventh nullity he adds, that Anatolius did himself wave those privileges that were granted to him by this Canon. But he brings no witness for that but Leo himself, who may justly be suspected as a party too much interested in that cause, to give an impartial testimony. Especially seeing that the Bishops of Rome of that time used to expound the letters of friendship that were written to them as so many Acts of submission, and the entreaties of those that desired to live with them in concord, as confessions of persons that crave pardon: Also that they used to give what they cannot take away; to forgive those whom they cannot punish; and to take from a man that which he hath already lost. Of which this Anatolius will give us a fair example, as we shall see hereafter. So much I will say for Anatolius, that though he would have waved that privilege, he could not have done it: For that privilege was not personal nor particularly conferred upon the person of Anatolius, but upon the Church and Patriarchal See of Constantinople; and that, in consideration of the Emperor and the Capital City of the Empire: so that others greater then Anatolius had an interest in it.

The Cardinals twelfth nullity, is, that this Canon was falsely inserted in the Catalogue of the Canons of Chalcedon, and that a time was, that it was not in the Acts. Wherein he confutes himself, for a Canon must be put among the Canons, not within the Acts, which must be separated from the Canons. Wherefore also that Canon is found in all the Editions of the said Canons that I have seen. It is in Zonaras, in Balsamon, in Harmenopolus, in the Latin Tomes of the Councils printed by our adversaries, in the Greek Canons set forth by du Tillet, in the Nomocanon of the Greek Churches published by the learned Justellus: And that Canon is repeated in the same words in the sixth Council assembled again at Trull, and inserted in the Roman Decree, in the Canon Renovantes, in the two and twentieth distinction. Truly hardly in all antiquity can anything be found more authentical, or any Canon established with better forms, or by a more solemn Assembly then this Canon. And I am confident that this objection of the Cardinal, that this Canon was not at the first in the Acts of the Council, is an invention of his own, forged against his conscience.

For it is abusing the Reader to send him (as the Cardinal doth) to a Manuscript of the Library of Queen Catherine de Medicis, and to Dionysius Parvus a Roman Abbot, who saith that this Council made but twenty seven Canons. That Abbot being at Rome, followed the inclinations of the Church of Rome, to which this Canon was always very odious. Gratian, who hath compiled the Roman Decree, seeing that a Canon so public and so authentical could not be suppressed, hath inserted it in the body of the Decrees, but with the most perfidious and bold falsifications that can be imagined. For whereas this Canon equalleth Constantinople with Rome in all things, even in the Ecclesiastical: Gratian hath put, but not in Ecclesiastical things; Sed non in Ecclesiasticis, instead of, Etiam in Ecclesiasticis. And that corruption hath remained so many ages in a book which contains the Rules and Decrees of the Roman Church, and is as it were the Bible of the Roman Clergy, and the text of Lectures in the Schools of Canon-law.

Yet that we may deal kindly with the Cardinal, let us suppose that in the establishing of that Canon all the forms requisite were not observed, and that it was not a Canon of a Council. Yet this remains, that it is the voice of above six hundred Bishops, unanimously declaring their sense. If they may not be considered as speaking together, this cannot be denied them, that they were so many single witnesses, and everyone of them more credible then the Bishop of Rome, who is a party in this cause, and who already in that time did not want ambition.

Also the Reader may observe, that when our adversaries find in an ancient Author some sentence that seems to favor them, they make great trophies with it, and sound the Trumpet before it; But if they find in Antiquity something contrary to the Popes dignity, they fear not to tread Universal Councils under their feet, and to oppose the consent of six hundred Fathers speaking in a Council; presuming to be wiser then their Pope Gregory the first, who in the 24. Epistle of the 1. book declareth, that he receiveth this Council of Chalcedon with the like reverence as the Holy Gospel.

CHAP. 28. A Confutation of the Exposition which M. du Perron giveth to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

TO invalid the strength of this Canon, M. du Perron saith that Anatolius by this Canon pretended not to be equal unto the Pope in relation to the Pope, but under the Pope; and to have only the same privileges over the other Patriarchs, as the Pope had over him and them: and that for all this he acknowledged himself inferior and subject unto the Pope.

But the words of the Canon cannot bear that interpretation; for that Canon commands without exception that the See of Constantinople be equal unto that of Rome in Ecclesiastical things. The same is confuted by the example of the equality in civil things, upon which this Canon groundeth the equality in Ecclesiastical things, decreeing that there be between Rome and Constantinople an equality as well in the Ecclesiastical as in the Civil: as then Constantinople was not subject unto Rome in the Civil, although it was second in order; so this Council decreeth that the Church of Constantinople may not be subject to that of Rome, although Rome be the first in order.

But the Cardinals shift is full of absurdity, and of things inconsistent, when he saith that by this Canon Anatolius pretended to be equal unto the Pope, yet under the Pope: he that is under another is not equal to him. With the like absurdity, he saith that by this Canon Anatolius pretended not to have the same power over the other Patriarchs as the Pope had over him and them: Certainly it is impossible that the Subject of a Monarchy have the same power over the other Subjects, as that which the Sovereign hath over him: for the Sovereign can reverse the judgments of such a one, and take away or diminish his power; such a Subject should be as much a King over the other Subjects, as the King is over him. Had one the like power over the French as the King of France, he should not be the Kings Subject; for if the King could not punish him, and deprive him of life or dignity, by that subjection his power should be much diminished, and he could not execute all his will. I make no doubt, but that as the Cardinal giving that interpretation spake against common sense, he spake also against his own sense.

CHAP. 29. Of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the little credit which ought to be given to the Tomes of the Councils, both Greek and Latin.

THe most certain Monuments of the ancient Councils are the Canons and Symbols made in them. We have that obligation to the Greek Churches that they have preserved for us with great care and fidelity, those excellent Monuments, which contain in a Summary the whole substance and result of the deliberations and matters treated in the ancient Councils, and which therefore were read in the beginning of Councils.

As for the Acts and Preambles of the Councils, and the History of all the passages of the same, the Grecians were not careful to preserve them, and the Latins have labored to corrupt them. They are found in the Latin Tomes that are published by our adversaries, which swell at every new Edition, and receive a continual alteration: These Tomes, the first especially, and part of the second, are the most corrupt Books, and fullest of falsifications that ever were made in matter of Religion. There the Father of lying had free scope, and multiplied forgeries at his own pleasure: There for a suitable beginning to the work you have eight books of Apostolical Constitutions falsely ascribed to Clement, contemporary to the Apostles, there the falsehood is evident; For in the 6. book, ch. 24. the Author saith that then the Romans had renounced the Pagan Religion, and kept the Jews tributary, showing that the Book was made when the Roman Emperors were Christians. Then follow about threescore Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the three first Ages, the falsehood of which Epistles is known by the date of the Consuls, by the barbarousness of the style, and by divers other evident errors. Pope Leo the IV. Can. de libellis, in the 20. Distinction, acknowledgeth no Decrees, and no Rules of Popes before Sylvester. And both Baronius and Bellarmine freely acknowledge the falsehood of these Epistles: in the same first Tome of Councils, whole Councils are found which never were, as the Council of Sinuessa under Marcellinus, and the Roman Council under Sylvester. The donation of Constantine is of the same stuff, and many the like pieces forged purposely to exalt the Popes power, but so grossly, that the learned among our adversaries, as Baronius and Bellarmine dare not defend them, and acknowledge the falsehood of them.

In the same Tomes of Councils the Acts of the Councils are so confused and depraved, that it appears plainly impossible that things should have been done in that manner.

Of late the same Acts of the Councils have been published in Greek, drawn out of the Manuscripts of the Vatican, made by our adversaries, who have given them to us such as they listed. Between those Greek and Latin exemplaries there is such a discord, that we could never take them for the same Councils, did not the titles tell us so much. Of this Council of Chalcedon especially, Baronius acknowledgeth that the Acts are corrupted: and the Greek Copies agree not with the Latin, so that one cannot discern whether the Latin must be corrected by the Greek, or the Greek by the Latin. In the Latin Copies the order of the Sessions is troubled: and it is easy to know that the Acts are falsified both in the Latin and in the Greek. For the ninth and the twenty eighth Canons of this Council which we have produced, are contrary to the Roman Prelat, and derogate to his Primacy, as we have shown: But in the third Session of those Acts there is a Synodical Epistle of the Council to Leo, where the Fathers of the Council acknowledge him for their Head, and submit their decisions to his judgment, beseeching him to ratify them. Which words the Cardinal allegeth very often: But God permitted that the falsehood of that Epistle should appear by the date of the month and the year; for in the end of the Epistle these words are found, Scripsi pridie Calendas Apriles feria tertia Indictione decima tertia, I writ this the last of March, being Tuesday, in the thirteenth Indiction: But the Synod of Chalcedon was separated long before that month of March, having begun the third day of October, and ended towards the end of the same month. And Martian, under whose Empire that Council sat, lived not till the thirteenth Indiction, but died in the eighth, as Baronius observeth. But is it credible that the Fathers of this Council (who knew already that Leo condemned their Canon, and upon that had given a repulse to his Legates, and despised their protestations against the said Canon) would submit to his judgment? And how had they submitted to it, seeing that, notwithstanding all the invectives of Leo and his successors against that Canon, they remained fixed in their resolution, and that this Canon was kept in force to posterity? and that the Popes have always complained that their authority was despised by that Council?

The same I say of some other Epistles of private men, where Leo is called the Universal Pope and Head, who hath the preeminence over the members: For the Canons of that Council speak a contrary language. In brief, all that the Cardinal brings out of the Acts of the Councils, for the Pope, is without strength, suspected of falsehood, and grounded upon that sandy foundation of the fidelity of our adversaries, who of late have published Greek Acts which never were seen before.

CHAP. 30. Answer to the examples which Cardinal du Perron brings in the 34. ch. to prove, that notwithstanding this Canon of Chalcedon, the Bishops of Constantinople have been subject to the Bishop of Rome.

TO invalid this Canon which strongly battereth the Papal See, the Cardinal brings some examples of the power and superiority of the Bishop of Rome over that of Constantinople.

He saith that Paul of Constantinople was restored to his See by Julius Bishop of Rome, as Sozomenus saith. That Chrysostom Appealed by letters to Pope Innocent. That Flavianus appealed to Pope Leo. But we have shown already that neither Paul nor Athanasius were re-invested with their places by Julius: that his judgment had no effect; that Chrysostom never appealed to Innocent, and that the superscription of Chrysostom's letters to Innocent is false: Also that Flavianus appealed not unto Leo as to his Judge, but that he put into the hands of Leos Legates his appeal to the Council, beseeching Leo that by his authority, and intercession with the Emperor, another Council should be called, where his cause might be judged. Which Council Leo began presently to desire of the Emperor, but he was denied, for he undertook not the judgment of that business.

He adds the example of Anatolius himself, in whose favor this twenty eighth Canon of Chalcedon was made, which example the Cardinal ought to have concealed for the Popes credit. That Anatolius was unjustly, and unlawfully promoted to the Patriarchat of Constantinople by the false Council of Ephesus, and put in the place of Flavianus unjustly deposed, and cruelly handled. That election being null, yet Leo seeing Anatolius supported by the Emperor, and knowing that all his efforts against Anatolius should be vain, he approved that election as lawful; and after, with a ridiculous arrogance writ to the Emperor Martianus, speaking as if Anatolius held his place by his favor and approbation, saying Let it be enough for him, that by the help of your piety, and by the consent of my favor he obtained the Bishopric of so great a City. It is not now that the Popes begin to give what they cannot take away, and to be gracious to those whom they cannot oppress. Wherefore Anatolius was not moved with that: But without asking Leo's advice he established a Patriarch in Antioch. About which Leo in the same Epistle to Martianus makes great complaints, but the Emperor did not regard them: Neither was the thing altered, or any amends made to Leo.

Anatolius was no more subject to the Bishop of Rome, then Gennadius his immediate successor in the Bishopric of Constantinople. This Gennadius who is reckoned among the Saints both by the Greek, and by the Latin Church, being informed that in the Roman Church the laying on of hands was conferred for money, assembled a Council of the Bishops of his Patriarchat, with whom he made a strict decree against the traffick of Holy things: Which Decree, according to the care that the Patriarchs took of their fellow Patriarchs, he made known by letters unto Hilary Bishop of Rome, that it might be received in all the Churches subject to the Roman Prelat. These letters are found in the first Tome of Greek-Roman Law, in which he saluteth thus the Bishop of Rome, Gennadius and the Synod assembled in the Imperial City of Constantinople, to our companion in the Ministry of holy things, the most religious, &c. No higher title: And in the end of the Epistle he layeth upon him this Injunction. Let your Holiness (saith he) take care with all diligence that these things be made known by copies transcribed to all the godly Bishops that are subject unto you.

Here many things are to be observed: 1. That the Bishop of Constantinople calls the Bishop of Rome his companion. 2. That he signifieth the Decrees and Orders made by the Greek Church unto the Bishop of Rome, holding that the Bishop of Rome is bound to observe them. 3. Above all it is observable that he sends this Decree to the Bishop of Rome, that he might notify it to all the Bishops subject unto the Roman Prelat. Gennadius could not more evidently declare that he and his Bishops were not subject to the Bishop of Rome. Else one might say that Gennadius required that this decree should be signified to those very men that had done it, and by consequent to himself.

A few years after this Gennadius, came Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople, a man of great authority, who raised himself above the Bishop of Rome, and used him as his inferior, as we shall see hereafter.

CHAP. 31. A summary Answer to the examples posterior to the IV. Universal Council, brought by the Cardinal in his thirty fourth Chapter.

IN the end with God's assistance we are come in the deduction of the History of Papacy as far as the year of the Lord 451. and the sitting of the fourth Universal Council, which is the term that Cardinal du Perron had set unto himself, taking the Fathers of the time of the first four Universal Councils, for his Judges. But esteeming not his cause made strong enough by the history of those times, he goeth further, and brings examples of the Popes power over the Bishops of Constantinople, from the last Council to Cyriacus and John Bishops of Constantinople, who lived in the end of the sixth Age. He brings also the examples of Acacius, Macedonius, John, Anthimus, Patriarchs of Constantinople, over which the Bishop of Rome made use of his power, or that were punished by him, or that have yielded obedience to him. He adds, that the Bishop of Pataria in Lycia saith, that Sylverius was Pope over all the earth: That Pope Gregory the first in an Epistle saith that the Church of Constantinople was subject unto the Apostolic See.

It were an easy task to show that of these examples some are false, some to no purpose. For example in chap. 25. he alledgeth Evagrius saying, that Felix Bishop of Rome sent to Acacius a sentence of deposition. But he forgets to add that which Evagrius addeth, that Acacius rejected that as a thing done against the Canons. Besides Evagrius giveth no credit to that story, as reported by one Zacharias, who (saith he) was ignorant of all that was done in that matter, and related that which he had but superficially heard. It must be considered also, that Italy being then possessed by the Heruls, and since by the Ostrogoths, the Pope had changed Master, and was no more subject to the Emperors of Constantinople. Wherefore he began to speak more boldly to the Emperor, and masterfully to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who also answered him with the like liberty. And while the Emperor upheld the Patriarchs of Constantinople, they despised the censures and arrogant words of the Roman Bishops. And at the same time the Emperor Leo, Martian's successor, made the forementioned Law, that the Patriarch of Constantinople should have the precedence before all, and that the Church of Constantinople should be the first of the world.

It was also in that time that the Bishops of Asia, having (by the force and constraint which the Tyrant Basilicus used with them) subscribed to the condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, presented a petition to Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople, not to the Bishop of Rome, beseeching him to forgive them their offense. This Acacius in the year 479. created Stephen Patriarch of Antioch by his single authority, without communing with the other Patriarchs about it, or with the Roman Pope.

At the same time also Acacius deposed Calendion from the Patriarchat of Antioch, and established in it a pernicious man, called Peter the Fuller.

The same Acacius born by the Emperors favor misused the Bishops of Rome. For Felix the Roman Prelat having assembled a Council of Italian Bishops condemned Acacius, not as an heretic, but as polluted with the communion of heretics. But Acacius caused the bearers of that sentence to be apprehended, some of which were killed, some imprisoned, as Nicephorus relateth. And he caused the name of Felix to be put out of the Diptycha, as we related before.

Acacius being dead, his successors Flavitas and Euphemius preserved his memory with honor, and would have his name registered in the Diptychs, and solemnly read in the Church; which so angered Felix, and his successors Gelasius and Hormisdas, that they excommunicated all the Oriental Orthodox Churches, because they honored the memory of Acacius. Whereupon Euphemius commanded Gelasius, as his subject, to appear before the See of Constantinople, to give an account of his actions. That injury Gelasius bore with admirable patience.

This is that Gelasius who in the second Distinction saith, that to take the bread without the cup in the Eucharist is a great sacrilege: Of which Canon we shall say more in the proper place.

This is that Gelasius who in the Decree about the Apocrypha's saith, that the Roman Church is that Church which hath neither spot nor wrinkle, Ephes. 5.27. falsely ascribing to the Roman Church, that which the Apostle saith of the Universal Church of God's elect; for in earth there is no visible society without some imperfection.

This is that Gelasius, who in the Commonitory or instruction which he gives to his Legat Faustus, saith, that the Greek Churches blasphemed against St. Peters See, and accused the Bishops of Rome of pride; and in the same commonitory declareth, that the Bishop of Rome cannot give absolution to the dead, because it is written, That which thou shalt loose on earth, not under the earth; condemning his successors that give indulgences to the dead, and fetch souls out of Purgatory. In the book of the Tax of the Apostolical Chancery these words are found, For a dead man excommunicated, for whom his kindred supplicate, the letter of absolution is sold for one ducat and nine pence.

This is that Gelasius who in the same Commonitory saith, it is not only lawful for the Bishop of Rome to excommunicate one heretical Bishop of what place soever he be, but that it is also lawful for any other Bishop: thereby confuting all the examples of condemnations and excommunications of Bishops out of the Roman Patriarchat, made by the Bishop of Rome, whereby the Cardinal goeth about to prove the Popes primacy. And indeed the same Gelasius in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, speaking of the excommunication of Acacius, saith not that the Bishop of Rome hath cut him off from the communion of the Church, but that he hath rejected or separated him from his communion, and removed him from his society. That is, he had declared that he would communicate no more with Acacius; who notwithstanding the excommunication pronounced by the Bishop of Rome, enjoyed still the communion of the Church, and possessed his Patriarchat peaceably, and fulminated against the Bishop of Rome, whom without question he had overthrown, so powerful was this Acacius, if Rome had then been in the Roman Emperors power. But the Goths reigned at Rome at that time, who acknowledged not the Emperor.

This Gelasius in chap. 12. of the first Epistle, following the example of his predecessors, forbids baptizing at any other time but Easter and Whitsuntide. A certain proof that he held not baptism to be necessary for salvation. Wherefore the present Roman Church rejecting that rule, baptizeth at all times. Before they hold Baptism necessary to salvation, in ch. 11. of the same Epistle, he proveth that the Laws of the Roman Church ought to be followed, because it is written (at least as he alledgeth it) Ordain charity towards me, and go about Zion, and embrace it, and tell the towers thereof. Which are concluding proofs and jolly reasons: Are they not?

The same Gelasius in the Tome of the bond of Anathema disputes against the authority of Universal Councils, against the Council of Chalcedon especially, upon which he bestoweth many ill words. And the reason he giveth, why he will not have all that is prescribed by Universal Councils to be received, is that even in the holy Scripture many profane and wicked actions are recorded, which we must neither respect nor follow. Wherefore his judgment is, that of Universal Councils, and of Scripture likewise, the good be kept, and the evil rejected: And to exalt himself, not only above the Universal Councils, but above Scripture, he disputes against Jesus Christ for saying, that to those that blaspheme against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the other. And pronounceth a contrary judgment in these words, Note that to all that blaspheme against the Holy Ghost in any sort, if they repent and amend, it shall be forgiven both in this world and in that which is to come. In the same place he gives many examples of persons to whom it was forgiven, after they had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. And by divers proofs he endeavors to show, that all that holy Scripture saith, is not always accomplished.

The same being angry, because the Emperor had restored Peter of Alexandria, and absolved him from the crimes laid to his charge, saith, that God hath ordained that Emperors should have need of Popes to have eternal life: and that Popes should make use of the Imperial Laws for temporal things, and should not meddle with secular matters. For then the Bishops of Rome, though puffed up with pride, were not yet Princes, and did not meddle with the affairs of Empires and Kingdoms. And indeed in the forealledged Commonitory he saith, that having written to the Emperor letters full of respect, the Emperor never honored him so much as to answer him; for he made little account of this Gelasius, and laughed at his pride.

By the same Commonitory it appears how small was the Roman Bishops authority in Greece and in the East, when he saith that Calendion Patriarch of Antioch was expelled without his advice, and that the Greek Churches, that is, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, had been so bold, as to cite the Bishop of Rome to judgment to justify himself before the Patriarchs See.

This same Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius speaks with an arrogant humility, mingled with impiety. For after he hath exalted his Primacy, to which he will have all men to be subject, he addeth, Therefore in the presence of God, I beseech your piety, with purity and sincerity, and adjure and exhort you, that you receive my petition without indignation: I beseech you (I say) that you rather hear me petitioning to you in this life, then to have me (which God forbid) your accuser in judgment before God. It is to be feared that this Pope shall have so much to do to answer for himself, that he shall want leisure to accuse others. With the like pride in the Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania he puts himself in the place of Christ, speaking thus of himself, He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad, Matth. 12. That pride made this Gelasius odious to the Greek and Oriental Churches. Wherefore he saith in the same Epistle, Yet they persist to call the Apostolic See proud and arrogant. For this was the quarrel; Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople had fulminated against the Bishops of Rome, and used them as his inferiors. Against him also the Bishops of Rome had retorted thundering excommunications, which hindered him not from keeping the quiet possession of his Patriarchat till death, for the space of seventeen years. After his death (which was in the year of Christ 488.) the Bishops of Rome labored to make his memory odious, and required that the Churches of Greece and Asia should put the name of Acacius out of the Diptychs, or Ecclesiastical tables. But the successors of Acacius and the Oriental Churches, did so much the more honor and cherish his memory: Wherefore the Bishops of Rome excommunicated all the Churches of the East; not for any heresy, but only for the name of a dead man, whose memory the Patriarchs would not disgrace, by racing his name out of their tables. For such a small matter so many millions of persons of the same faith and Religion as the Roman Church, that were no causes of this quarrel, have been for the space of near forty years separated from the Communion of the Church of Rome. And our adversaries hold, that all that are dead in all the Empire of the East during that time are eternally damned; The Bishops of Rome, of which this Gelasius is one, rather choosing that all these millions of souls should perish, then to suffer the name of Acacius to stand in a register. Was that the part of a good Pastor and Father of the Church, that hath a tenderness for the salvation of souls? Therefore the Eastern Churches accused Gelasius of pride, and detested his arrogance: So far, that Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople commanded the Bishop of Rome to appear before his See to give an account of his actions. Which he did in a bravado, not out of any hope that the Bishop of Rome should obey his command.

I did a little extend upon this Gelasius, who was Bishop in the year of Christ 495. because he spoke with more arrogance then any of his predecessors, and that the Reader, observing the progress of the mystery of iniquity, may acknowledge that all that pride which then did rise, is nothing in comparison of that which happened since. For the Popes did not speak as yet of giving and taking away Kingdoms, nor of degrading Emperors, nor of drawing souls out of Purgatory, nor of Canonizing Saints, nor of forbidding the people to read Scripture, nor of denying the cup in the Eucharist unto the people, nor of giving his feet to kiss, nor of causing himself to be adored, nor of calling himself God, nor of giving a hundred thousand years of pardon. Of tripple Crown, of infallibility in the faith, and of a College of Cardinals there was no speech yet in those days.

To resume now the history from the time of this Gelasius, The authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople was so great at that time, that the Patriarch Euphemius threatened the Emperor Anastasius to hinder him from being Emperor, unless he promised in writing to embrace the Catholic Faith. But Anastasius being confirmed in the Empire, turned out that Euphemius, and gave him Macedonius for successor, who also favored the memory of Acacius, in spite of the Bishops of Rome. And for that only reason (so prodigious was the ambition and the hatred of those Prelates) the Roman Church was separated in communion from the Greek and Oriental.

That Schism lasted till the Emperor Justin; who in the year 518. being desirous of concord, and delighting besides to depress the Patriarchs of Constantinople who grew too great, made the Patriarch John to agree with Hormisdas Bishop of Rome, and the name of Acacius to be put out of the Diptychs, together with the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, as of abominable and damned persons; although these two last had suffered hard persecutions under the heretic Emperor Anastasius, for the defense of the true doctrine.

But the Churches of the East (among whom the memory of Euphemius and Macedonius was precious, as of faithful defendors of the truth) chose rather to be without the Communion of the Roman Church, then to race their names out of the Church tables, and disgrace their memory after their death. Only John Patriarch of Constantinople, to obey the Emperor, put out their names out of the Church tables of Constantinople, and put in the names of Leo and Hormisdas Bishops of Rome, which had been put out before. Baronius brings an Epistle of that Hormisdas, where he giveth a reason why he remained firm in denying to receive the Oriental Churches to his Communion, before those names that offended him were blotted out of the Diptychs; His reason is, because it is written, None that puts his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.

In the year of Christ 523. died Hormisdas, John succeeded him, who was sent Ambassador to the Emperor Justin by King Theodorick, to intercede for the Arians, whom Justin had deprived of their Churches. But when he returned, the King put him to death in prison, because he had not executed that Embassy to his mind.

Athalarick succeeded Theodorick in the Kingdom of Italy, who made a Law which is to be seen in Cassiodorus, in the Epistle of Athalarick to Pope John, whereby he decreeth that the Bishops of Rome for their entry, pay to the Kings coffers three thousand crowns, and the other Prelates two thousand, and forbids Simony and factions to enter into the Episcopacy; and commands that who so will enter by such ways be declared execrable, and punished by competent Judges. In the following Epistle he commands Salvantius Prefect of the City to write that Law in Marble, and set it before the Bishop of Rome 's house. Justinian who a little after reconquered Italy, continued that Law, taxing every Patriarch in twenty pounds weight of gold for his reception.

After Athalarick, Theodatus reigned, who sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome Ambassador to the Emperor Justinian, who made use of him to depose Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople; which is more then Agapetus could have done without the strength and authority of the Emperor. In the same manner as Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria being come to Constantinople, and there upheld by the authority of the Emperor Arcadius, deposed John Chrysostom from his place. Which authority Peter of Alexandria would have used a little before towards Gregory Nazianzen Bishop of Constantinople. And it was so that Acacius made and unmade the Patriarchs of Antioch, as we have seen.

This Emperor Justinian is he that caused the body of the civil Law to be made up. The Code and Novels of the same have several Laws and constitutions about the Christian faith and Ecclesiastical policy, wherein he giveth absolute commands to the Clerks, and useth sovereign power and authority towards the Bishops, without excepting the Clergy, or sparing the Bishop of Rome. For example, in the first book of the Code, there is a title, De Episcopis & Clericis, Of Bishops and Clerks, where in the Law Generaliter sancimus, he speaks thus to the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, We decree that this be observed, not only in the old Rome, or in this Royal City of Constantinople, but also over all the earth where the Christian name is honored. And his Laws subject the Clerks to the penalties attending the Civil Laws, as much as the rest of the people. Thus in the same title, the Law Presbyteri speaks thus, Priests and Deacons, if they be convicted to have born false testimony, if it be in a pecuniary cause, let them be suspended from the sacred Ministry for three years only, and shut up in a Monastery to be tormented. But if it be a criminal cause, let him be devested of the honor of the Clergy, and punished legally. But let the other Clerks be by the common Law put by their Ecclesiastical Offices, and chastened with rods, without distinction. In the Code and among the Authenticks of that Emperor there is a great number of those Laws.

Upon this Baronius An. 528. laboring to excuse the Emperor in some sort, yet saith that against right and reason he presumed to do the part of a builder of sacred Laws, and to give Laws to Bishops, and lay penalties upon them: Yea he comes so far as to say, that thereby he cast himself headlong into a gulf of heresy, and that it is the old malady of Kings to be infested with that itch of seeking to usurp that which belongeth to Bishops. But I find not that the Church of that age and the next following blamed Justinian for making these Laws; wherein he imitated the good Kings, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, who gave Laws to the sacerdotal order, and made constitutions for Ecclesiastical policy. Neither do I find that the very Bishops of Rome complained that this Emperor undertook to give Laws to the Roman Bishop and Clergy. For he could not complain of it without accusing the good Emperors that had been before, as Constantine the Great, Valentinian the I. and the two Theodosii, of whom we have many Ecclesiastical Laws in the Theodosian Code, and in that of Justinian.

Among many Laws of that Emperor, two especially displease our adversaries; The 123. Novel in the 3. ch. whereby the Bishop of Rome is to pay 20. pound weight of gold for the investiture of his Bishopric; And the Law which is found in the same Novel in the Greek Editions, that the public service be celebrated with a loud voice, intelligible unto the people.

As for Menas whom the Cardinal mentioneth, it is he who in Justinians time (as Nicephorus relateth) excommunicated Vigilius Bishop of Rome for four months; And shortly after the same Vigilius was excommunicated by the Bishops of Africa assembled in Council.

The Epistle of the Bishop of Patara in Lycia who calls Sylverius Pope of the whole earth, is found in the second Tome of the Councils, which is stuffed with false and supposititious Epistles. And though that Epistle should be true, yet the like things are said of other Patriarchs, as Athanasius, Meletius, Nestorius, and others, as we have seen; for by these words of the whole earth, the Roman Empire is understood.

In that time the Bishops of Constantinople styled themselves Oecumenical, as having the Government of the Churches of all the habitable world. The Council of Constantinople held under Menas, gives that title to that Patriarch. And Justinian giveth the same title to Epiphanius predecessor of Menas. Yea there is in the second Council of Nice an Epistle of Adrian Bishop of Rome to Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, where he calleth him Universal Bishop. Wherefore it was with little reason that Gregory the first took it so ill, that Cyriacus and John the Faster, Patriarchs of Constantinople took that title after the example of their Predecessors; saying, that if one is Universal Bishop the others are no more Bishops, and there is no more Bishop but him alone in the world: For the Patriarchs of Constantinople meant not thereby to make themselves the only Bishops. And if that be true, which Gregory the first so often repeateth in his Epistles, that the Council of Chalcedon offered unto Leo the title of Universal Bishop, is it credible that the Bishops of that Council offering that title unto Leo, intended thereby to depose themselves, and to put off their Episcopacy? Now because the Emperor Maurice upheld Cyriacus and John Bishops of Constantinople, all the coyl that Gregory the first kept about that, turned into smoke, and wrought no effect; And Maurice writ to Gregory that he was a fool to make so much noise for a word. This Emperor Maurice being slain with his wife and children by a Captain of his Guards called Phocas, Pope Gregory began to flatter that Tyrant, and to commend such an execrable action. For he writ to him, and in his letters spake thus to that Monster; We rejoice that the meekness of your piety is attained to the Imperial dignity. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, and let the people of the whole Commonwealth, which hitherto was in deep affliction, rejoice at your meek actions. But Gregory did not long enjoy the fruit of his abominable flattery; for he died soon after. As for Phocas, when he could not obtain from his Patriarch the approbation of his parricide, he began to bring him low, and to exalt the Bishop of Rome; and made a Law, whereby he commanded that the Bishop of Rome should step before that of Constantinople. So much Platina saith, Boniface the third, with great striving obtained of the Emperor Phocas that the See of St. Peter the Apostle, which is the head of all the Churches, should be called and acknowledged such by all. Which degree the Church of Constantinople endeavored to attribute unto its self. The Reader may observe by what ways the Papal See was advanced.

Yet though the Bishops of Rome were already very corrupt, and though Satan was then advancing the mystery of iniquity, yet all their pride and malice was but modesty and simplicity, compared to that height of iniquity which they came to some ages after. For this very Gregory speaks to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch as to his equals, and acknowledgeth that he had no authority to command them. In the 30. Epistle of the 7. book, he speaks thus to the Bishop of Alexandria, Your beatitude [or blessedness] speaks to me saying [as you have commanded me] Which word of commanding, I beseech you to put far from mine ears: For I know who I am, and who you are. You are my brethren in degree, and my Fathers in manners. I give you no command, but I have declared to you what I thought to be profitable to you. And in the 5. book, 60. Epistle, he saith to the same Patriarch, that they preside mutually the one upon the others See, So that (saith he) it seems that I preside upon the Disciples See because of the Master, and that you preside upon the Masters See because of the Disciple. And in the 37. Epistle of the 1. book, exalting the dignity of the three chairs of St. Peter, of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch, he saith, that they are but one See, over which three Bishops preside by divine authority.

It was then the year 595. And the Bishops of Rome were not yet temporal Princes, and wore no triple Crown, dispensed not from oaths, exacted no adoration nor kissing of their feet, took not upon them to degrade Kings, and gave no indulgences. There was no speech then of the treasure of the Church, where the Pope layeth up the superabounding satisfactions of the Saints, to distribute them by his indulgences; nor of the Roman stations, nor of the tax of the Roman Chancery, where every absolution of sin and the dispensations are taxed at a certain rate. The Popes then boasted not that they could not err: They canonized no Saints, and drew no souls out of Purgatory. Neither did they oblige the other Bishops to swear fidelity to them in their reception, or to pay them annats and first fruits: These things and many more were by degrees introduced by the following ages, and by an insensible increase, whilst Satan was pouring a thick mist of ignorance upon the minds of the people, giving them images instead of the Word of God, and fables of Legends for the doctrine of the Gospel.

That then I may not tire the Reader with long and tedious histories, and examine all those which the Cardinal allegeth, all posterior to the fourth Council; I will say but three things. The one, that though they were all true, yet they are but examples of things happened within the verge of the Roman Empire; which showeth that the Popes greatness grew upon the greatness of that Empire, but did not exceed the limits of the same. Neither did the Pope pretend any right over the Churches of Persia, Assyria, India or Ethiopia.

The second is, that all his proofs are human, and are wanting in one point, which is to show by the Word of God, that God hath appointed the Bishop of Rome to be Peters successor, in the Office of Head over the Universal Church.

The third, that whensoever the Bishops of Rome would attribute unto themselves some superiority in Councils, in the time of the four first Councils, they never alleged Scripture for it, or made use of Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter, &c. But only they brought some Canons, and those always with some falsification; and were always cast in their suit.

CHAP. 32. A multitude of falsifications of Cardinal du Perron.

THE Cardinals book which everywhere swarmeth with forgeries and corruptions, abounds in that ware, especially about the questions of the Church, and of the Popes Primacy. There chiefly he exerciseth his faculty. We have shown many of them, which may serve for a scantling to judge of the whole piece; for if I would have examined them all, there had been need of a volume apart; I will mark here a few more.

In the second Observation, ch. 2. he saith that the Catholic Church in the Council of Nice had made a Law, commanding the observation of Easter upon the Lord's day after the fourteenth Moon of March, upon pain of anathema; and proves it by the testimony of Socrates in the 5. book ch. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, that the Council of Nice denounced excommunication to the Quartodecimani of Asia. If the Reader will take the pains to consult the place, he shall find that Socrates in these words speaks not of the Council of Nice, but of Victor Bishop of Rome. The Cardinal falsely attributeth to the Council of Nice that which was done by Victor, and makes Socrates to speak contrary to his mind.

In the 2. ch. of his 3. book, pag. 774. to prove that we must consult the Church rather then the Law of God, he corrupts a text of Deut. 18. The Lord will raise Prophets unto you, you shall hear them. But there is according to the Hebrew, yea according to the Roman vulgar version, The Lord thy God shall raise up a Prophet unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him you shall hearken. That this Prophet is Christ, Steven teacheth it, Act. 37. The Prophet knew well enough, that if it be here spoken of one Prophet only, who is Christ, that text cannot serve to send the people to the Pastors of the Church to learn of them the unwritten Word. Therefore he corrupted the text to make it serve his turn.

In the same place he makes Calvin to say that which he never thought on. He saith that Calvin in his Comment upon the Pentateuch expounds that text, Deut. 18. of sending the people from the Law to the Prophets. This shall not be found in Calvin. And though Calvin had said, that in that text God sends us from the Law to the Prophets, yet we ought not thereby to understand, that God sends us back to the Prophets to learn the traditions and an unwritten Word from them, but to learn the exposition of the Law by the Law itself.

Christ Matth. 22. proveth the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection unto the Sadducees, by these words of God himself, Exod. 3. I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, for (saith Christ) God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. But the Cardinal, pag. 775. disputes against Christ, and brings many reasons to prove, that there is neither reason nor consequence in the proof that Christ brings. And to confirm his affirmation, he saith, that the Doctors of the Jews wondered at it, as at a new thing. A thing altogether false. For first, the Gospel saith not that the Doctors, but the multitudes were astonished at his doctrine. Then it was the excellency of his doctrine, not the novelty, that the multitude did wonder at; as the Cardinal will make us believe.

In chap. 2. of the third book he makes Calvin to say, that such as sacrificed with another fire then that which was come down from heaven, were cursed, and quoteth in the Margin Calvin's Comment upon 1 Cor. 10. Who so will consult that place, shall find that false, and that Calvin saith no such thing.

In chap. 25. of the first book he alledgeth the thirty seventh Epistle of book 2. of the Epistles of Gregory the first, where he makes him say, If one of the four Patriarchs had committed such an Act, such a disobedience could not have past without a most grievous scandal. He translateth contumaciam, disobedience, whereas it signifieth obstinacy to resist. But the Cardinal would persuade the world that Gregory pretended that other Patriarchs owed him obedience. Whereas Gregory himself in Epist. 30. of book 7. writing to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, acknowledgeth that he had no power at all to command him, as we have observed in the chapter before, and set down the words of Gregory.

In chap. 14. of the third book, to weaken a text of Hilary, who saith upon Psal. 132. That which is not contained in the book of the Law, we ought not so much as to be curious to know it. He saith that Hilary means, that such things as are set forth in the quality of holy Scripture, and are not found in the body of Canonical Scriptures, ought to be rejected. For (saith he) it was question of an Apocrypha, which said, that the Angels coming to lust after the daughters of men, would assemble in mount Hermon. The Cardinal would make the world believe that they against whom Hilary disputeth in that place alleged that Apocrypha as a Canonical book: Which is a plain untruth, for Hilary saith nothing of that, and the question in that place, is only whether that history be true, not whether the book whence it is taken be Canonical. Therefore the sentence of Hilary disputing for the perfection of Scripture remaineth firm, That which is not contained in Scripture, we ought not so much as to be curious to know it.

In chap. 34. the Cardinal falsely affirmeth that the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was offered to the Bishop of Rome in the Council of Chalcedon. It is true that Gregory the first who lived about a hundred forty five years after that Council, boasteth of that, and addeth that the Bishop of Rome refused that title as arrogant, and robbing other Bishops of their quality of Bishop: For (saith he) if any be Universal Bishop, the others are not Bishops. But the contrary is seen by the twenty eighth Canon of that Council, in which, in spite of the Legates of Leo, it is decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople be equal unto that of Rome in Ecclesiastical things, as those two Cities were equal in the Civil. It is clearer then the day, that they that made that Canon, never had an intention to confer the Universal Sovereignty upon the Bishop of Rome; much less to give him a title whereby they should devest themselves of their Episcopal Office. And if they offered that title to the Bishop of Rome, it shows that he had it not before: And that by decreeing that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equal unto the Bishop of Rome, they decreed also that the Bishop of Constantinople should be called Oecumenical or Universal. Of that nothing at all is found in the place quoted by the Cardinal, which is the third Action of the Council of Chalcedon, in the request of the Clergy of Alexandria. In all the Tomes of Councils that ever I saw, I find no such request. And though it might be found there, who knows not how much those Acts are falsified, and that the Greek Acts agree very ill with the Latin? Yet let us suppose that the Clergy of Alexandria deferred that title to the Bishop of Rome: Must the titles which some private persons defer to the Bishops of Rome, be taken for an Ordinance of an Universal Council? This I say, because in the Acts of the said Council some Epistles are found, of some private men, that give that title to the Bishop of Rome. But I find also that the Council of Constantinople, held under the Emperor Justinian, gives many times the same title to Menas Patriarch of Constantinople; And that the same Emperor in the Law to Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople, styleth the said Epiphanius Oecumenical Patriarch. And before him Justin giveth the same title to John Patriarch of Constantinople. What more? In the second Council of Nice, where Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople did preside, there is an Epistle of Adrian Bishop of Rome to the same Tharasius, with this title, To my well beloved brother Tharasius General Patriarch, &c.

In the same chapter he alledgeth the promise which Anthimus Patriarch of Constantinople made in his reception, to do all that the Sovereign Pope of the great Rome should decree: but he cuts off the head of that sentence, which is Anthimus using fraudulent words, promised to do all, &c. So then Anthimus did not speak in earnest: But he was forced to make that promise by the Emperor, who for some considerations labored to depress the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who since the time of Acacius had bearded the Emperor, and over-mastered and abused the Bishops of Rome. Note, that the Cardinal translates the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to his advantage, decreeing, instead of suggesting, advising, or representing.

In chap. 35. of book 1. he saith that Athanasius in the second Apology puts Hosius, Vito and Vincentius in the same place: which is false, since by the same place, he understands the same rank. For that is the question. Or if by the same place, he understands the same line: one may say that the Scripture puts God and the Devil in the same place, by naming them in the same line.

In the following page he makes Photios to say in the Treatise of the Synods, With Vito and Vincentius was joined Hosius Bishop of Corduba. That Treatise of the seven Councils composed by Photios is found in the beginning of the first Tome of the Councils; which whosoever will consult, shall find that there is no mention at all of Hosius. But he shall find these words in the first chapter, where he speaks of the Council of Nice, Alexander was President there, who held the See of Constantinople, and Sylvester, &c.

In chap. 39. of book 1. he falsely relateth the History of Pope Vigilius. That Vigilius being but a Deacon, secretly treated with the Empress Justinians wife who promised him to make him Pope, if he would promise to embrace the opinion of the Eutychian heretics, and by express letters to confirm their faith, and condemn the Council of Chalcedon. To compass these ends Belizarius the Emperors Lieutenant in Italy, having got a promise from Vigilius of two hundred pound weight of gold, deposed Sylverius, and banished him, and caused Vigilius to be elected Pope in his place. Vigilius fearing lest that Sylverius should be restored by the Emperor, obtained of Belizarius that Sylverius should be put in his hands. And when he had him, he starved him to death in prison. Sylverius being dead, Vigilius fulfilled his promise, and writ letters to the Eutychian Bishops. The title of the letters was, Vigilius to my Lord's, and Christ's, &c. And in these letters he openly declared himself an Eutychian, and denied that Jesus Christ had two natures.

That History is related by Victor Tunensis in his Chronicle, and by Liberatus Deacon of Carthage, in chap. 22. of his Breviary, where he puts very expressly the death of Sylverius before these letters of Vigilius, whereby he declared himself an Eutychian. And Victor Tunensis addeth, that he was for that reason excommunicated by the Bishops of Africa assembled in Council.

But Cardinal du Perron, that it may not be believed that the Popes can fall into heresy, would persuade us that this Epistle, whereby Vigilius approveth heresy, was written before the death of Sylverius, and that Sylverius at that time was not yet a lawful Bishop, contradicting the two only historians that relate that history; Liberatus especially, who speaks thus, Sylverius carried into the I will of Palmaria, and being kept prisoner, died for want of meat. But Vigilius by the means of Antonina wife to Belizarius, fulfilling the promise made to the Emperess, writ such letters, Vigilius to my Lord's, and Christ's, &c. After these letters the Author makes no more mention of Sylverius, and of his death. But that which is most express to discover the Cardinals error, is that Victor Tunensis puts the ordination of Vigilius in the place of Sylverius, and the letters written by Vigilius in favor of the Eutychian heresy, in the second year after the Consulat of Basilius; But he saith that after that, in the tenth year after that Consulat of Basilius (that is eight or nine years after these letters written) Vigilius was excommunicated by the Bishops of Africa. Now it is to be observed that since the coming of Sylverius to the Bishopric of Rome, to his death there is not two full years. Whence it is evident that the condemnation of Vigilius for being a favourer of heresy, happened eight years after the death of Sylverius.

Sometimes our Cardinal will play the Philosopher, as in chap. 34. of the first book, he saith that the Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon understood not that the dignity of the City of Rome was the next, conjunct, and immediate cause of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but the antecedent, objective and remote cause. Children that have tasted the first elements of Philosophy know that there is no cause but antecedent, whether it be near or remote; for always the causes go before the effects, the efficient causes especially, which are the matter in question in this place. Yea, the final causes which are posterior as for the execution, are antecedent as for the intention. With the like absurdity he speaks of objective causes, for there are no objective causes, and these words have no sense. If any cause might be called objective, it should be the final, because the agents aim at it; but the question is not here of the final cause, but of the efficient.

It becomes him no better to play the Cosmographer, as when he saith in ch. 31. of book 1. that Idumea is seated towards the West of the Meridional Judea; contradicting Scripture, which saith that the Mediterranean Sea is at the West of Judea, as Numb. 32.6. As for the Western border, you shall even have the great sea for a border. And Josh. 1.4. The great sea towards the going down of the Sun shall be your coast. He hath little knowledge in the situation of Countries, that knows not that the West border of Judea is the Mediterranean Sea, not Idumea, which is meridional to Judea, yet so, that it bends a little Eastward. And this is so true, that in Hebrew the same word signifieth both the West and the Sea: Look Northward, and Southward, and Eastward, and towards the Sea, that is, Westward: as also the vulgar Latin Bible (the only approved by the Council of Trent ) translateth it. And Exod. 10.19. The Lord turned a mighty strong wind from the sea. Both the Vulgar and the English version translate a Westwind, See Isa. 49.12. & Gen. 24.14. & Exod. 26.22. & Ezek. 48.17. & Jos. 15.12. Sanctes Pagninus, a Monk of Luca, in his Lexicon upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mare, & Occidens, id est, plaga Occidentalis, eo quod mare magnum sit ad plagam Occidentalem terrae Israel.

This Cardinal never made conscience of feeding the people with false allegations and forged stories. Even in the solemn Assembly of the States sitting at Paris an. 1615. he was not ashamed in his Oration, to allege Scripture falsely, to prove that the Pope can depose Kings. Samuel (said he) deposed Saul, or declared him deposed. Again, The Prophet Ahija deposed Roboam from the Royal right over the ten tribes. Again, The Prophet Elijah deposed Ahab, because he embraced the Religion of false God's. Again, Azariah the Priest expelled King Uzziah from the conversation of the people, wherefore the administration of the Kingdom was taken from him. This Oration was sent by our Cardinal to his Majesty of great Britain, who seeing both the Crown and the life of Kings subjected to the Popes pleasure by that Oration, made an answer to it, and laid open his false dealing both in these and in other allegations. The Cardinal did quietly swallow that dishonor, and made no answer, though he lived four years after the Kings answer.

Of his ignorance in Greek, I have brought forth many examples: to which I will add this. In the first chapter of his Treatise of the Sacrifice, whereas these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify non amplius polluent, they shall pollute no more; he translates, They shall smoke no more.

FIRST CONTROVERSY OF THE Invocation of SAINTS.