The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 14. Of the Baptism of Constantine mentioned in the same Donation.

ALthough it is not material for the Popes primacy by whom Constantine was baptized, yet the false coyners whom the Pope hath employed, have thought that it would increase the reverence of the nations towards the Papal See, if the world believed that the first Christian Emperor was baptized by the Pope of Rome in a miraculous way.

In that Donation it is related, that Constantine being covered with leprosy, physicians prescribed him a bath of infants blood: But he being moved with the cries of the mothers of those children, would not use that remedy. And that the next night St. Peter and St. Paul appeared unto him in a dream, and warned him that he should send for Sylvester Bishop of Rome, why lay hid in a hole of mount Soract for fear of the persecution raised by Constantine against the Christians, which Sylvester would give him another kind of bath that should heal him. He sent then for Sylvester, of whom he asked what God's Peter and Paul were among the Christians: Then he received the Baptism from Sylvesters hand, whereby he recovered health. That tale is taken out of the fabulous Legends of Sylvester, whose Author is unknown. Pope Adrian the first tells that fable in the first Action of the second Council of Nice, 360. years after Sylvesters death.

We must know that Baronius, who receiveth this fable for a truth, puts that Baptism in the nineteenth year of Constantine, eighteen years before his death, in the year of Christ 324. choosing rather to give credence to these Acts of Sylvester, which himself acknowledgeth to be much falsified and corrupted, then to the testimony of so many ancient Authors, who testify with one accord, that Constantine was baptized in the suburbs of Nicomedia in Bithynia, by Eusebius Bishop of that place, a few days before his death.

Eusebius of Cesarea, one of the Emperors family, towards the end of the fourth book of Constantine's life, saith, that he being sick in the Suburbs of Nicomedia, he called the Bishops, and told them that he had purposed long before to be baptized in the river Jordan, where our Savior was baptized. But seeing that God disposed it otherwise, he desired them to confer baptism upon him, which they presently did, a little before that Emperor gave up his spirit unto God. To which Baronius answereth, that Eusebius was an enemy to the Roman Church, that he was an Arian, and that he devised that Fable. Truly Eusebius in all his writings shows no enmity against the Roman Church: But that which grieveth our adversaries, is, that he being the ancientest and the most famous Christian Historian, deferreth not any primacy to the Bishop of Rome, but speaks of him as of another Bishop, and condemneth the action of Victor, who for a difference about the Feast of Easter, separated himself from the Communion of the Oriental Church.

But what have they to object against Jerome, who in his Chronicle speaks thus, Constantine in the end of his life being baptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, inclineth towards Arianism?

Ambrose saith the same in his Oration upon the death of Theodosius; Unto whom [speaking of Constantine] although the grace of Baptism conferred in his last hour have pardoned all his sins, &c.

Socrates in the 39. Chapter of the first book of his History, Constantine went from Helenopolis, and came to Nicomedia, and there being lodged in the suburbs, he received the baptism of Christian religion.

Theodoret in the 32. Chapter of his History; Constantine being at Nicomedia fell sick, and knowing the uncertainty of human life, received the gift of the sacred baptism, which he had delayed till that time, desiring to receive it in the river of Jordan.

Sozomenus in the last Chapter of the second book, Constantine was carried to Nicomedia, where, being in the suburbs, he was consecrated with the holy baptism.

What more? a multitude of Bishops assembled at Remini write thus to Constantius son to Constantine. Being gone from among men after he had been baptized, and transported to the rest that was reserved to him. They speak of Constantine's death. That Epistle is found in Socrates in book 2. chap. 29. and in Sozomenus, book 4. chap. 17.

So many witnesses near Constantine's time, ought in my opinion to be more believed then a fabulous Legend of Sylvester, of which the Author is not known, and which Baronius acknowledgeth to be full of untruths.

It is to be noted that Constantine embraced the Christian faith in the year of the Lord 312. and that from his conversion he never ceased to do good to the Christians. In that same year he made edicts in favor of the Christians, granted immunities to Church-men, and relieved with his own money those that had been persecuted by Maxentius and Maximus, as is to be seen in Eusebius in Constantine's life.

In the year of our Lord 313. the Donatists appealed to Constantine as to a Christian Prince, who gave them some Bishops for Judges, and convocated a Synod at Arles.

In the year 318. having overcome Licinius, a cruel persecutor of the Church, and being the sole possessor of the Empire, he raised Christian Religion in honor and wealth everywhere; began to build magnificent Churches, gave to Christians the Temples of the Pagans, and never gave over promoting Christian Religion which he professed.

How can all that agree with the fabulous relation of the baptism of Constantine by Sylvester, as it is set down in the Donation of Constantine? For whereas that baptism was in the 324. year of Christ (if we believe Baronius ) that is eleven years after Constantine's conversion, nevertheless in that Donation the Emperor speaks as having received baptism immediately after his conversion to Christian Religion, and as having always been a Pagan till that time; saying, The God's of the Gentiles which I have served hitherto are Devils; and as having so little knowledge of Christian Religion, that he knew not whether Peter and Paul were God's or men: Which is repugnant to that Christian profession which he had made twelve years before with so much zeal and constancy; and to that which Baronius saith, that Constantine from his infancy had been instructed in the Christian Religion by his mother Helena.

But this is worse yet. That narration of Constantine's baptism, which Baronius will have to be in the year 324. speaks of that Emperor as of a persecutor, who had persecuted the Church before his baptism; so that Sylvester Bishop of Rome, was forced to hide himself in a Cave of Mount Soracte to avoid persecution. Is it like that Constantine began to persecute the Church when he was a Christian, and twelve years after his conversion to the faith, seeing that even when he was a Pagan he never persecuted it? Doth any Author speak of any man whom he hath put to death, or banished, or stripped of his goods for the Christian faith? Such are the brakes of contradictions wherein those that have sold their pen unto the Pope, entangle themselves; men to whom all fables are good, so they may serve to exalt the Papal Empire.

CHAP. 1. Of the persecutions happened to Athanasius. And how Julius Bishop of Rome would make himself Judge of his cause. Of the convocating, sitting, and success of the Council of Serdica.

NOw we are come to the time when the Bishop of Rome began to show his pride, and to encroach upon the other Bishops of the Roman Empire; not by virtue of St. Peters primacy, or of any authority from the Word of God, but by virtue of some Canons and Ecclesiastical constitutions. He called himself indeed successor of St. Peter, as did also the Bishop of Antioch: But that succession was only in his Office of Bishop of the City of Rome. In that consideration he challenged no superiority.

A Council was convocated to Tyre by Constantine. There Arius appeared, protesting of his repentance, and giving a confession of faith conformable in show to that of Nice. Wherefore the Emperor Constantine commanded Athanasius to receive him to the Communion. Which Athanasius (knowing the hypocrisy of Arius ) refused to do. This with other causes so incensed Constantine, who was desirous of peace, that he banished Athanasius, and sent him to live at Triers. And the Council of Tyre being transported to Jerusalem, sent back Arius to Alexandria. Two years after, Constantine dieth, having divided the Empire among his three sons, Constantine, Constantius, and Constance; all three Orthodox at the first; but Constantius, to whose lot Constantinople and the Empire of the East was fallen, a Prince endowed with many virtues, yet was turned away from the true faith by the Arians.

Constantine the eldest of the three, sent presently for Athanasius, and sent him again to Alexandria, to be restored to his place. But shortly after, that Constantine being slain, his brother Constantius that favored the Arians, called a Council to Antioch, where Athanasius was deposed, and one Gregory a Cappadocian was put in his place. Yet they that pronounced that judgment, made an open protestation that they were no Arians, and that they approved the Council of Nice, as for the substance; only they were of opinion that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or consubstantial, should not be used.

Gregory came to Alexandria attended with soldiers, where having environed the Church with soldiers, Athanasius being within, officiating in God's service with the people, and in the crowd of the people going out, Athanasius escaped undiscerned by his enemies that would lay hold of him; Then embarking himself secretly, he came to Italy to live under the protection of the Emperor Constance, who was Orthodox, and reigned in the West, having inherited his brother Constantine's share. That Emperor received favourably Athanasius: Athanasius (saith Ruffinus) seeing that there was no more safety for him within the dominions of Constantius, fled to Constance his side, who received him with favor and reverence. Julius was then Bishop of Rome, to whom Athanasius retired himself.

The Bishops of the East, who protested that they were no Arians, and that they agreed in belief with Julius and Athanasius, to whom they imputed divers crimes, having heard that Athanasius was escaped from them, and fled to Rome, sent a Legat to Julius to desire him to be Judge of their cause against Athanasius, freely referring unto him the knowledge of the same, as Socrates saith in the 9. chap. of the 2. book. And Athanasius in his second Apology, They desired Julius to assemble a Synod, and to be judge himself if he would.

But Julius an ambitious man, and forward to lay hold of advantages, called presently a Council of the neighbouring Bishops: And the power that was deferred unto him as an Arbitratour, he would use as a Master, and an absolute Judge, alleging the prerogatives of his See above other Sees: So he undertook the cause of Athanasius, and of Paul of Constantinople, and other Bishops likewise exiled. And he writ letters with his Synod to the Bishops of the East, rebuking them or their rash proceeding in the deposition of persons whom he judged to be innocent. And by the will of the Emperor Constantius (as Ruffinus testifieth) he sent Athanasius and Paul to their several Churches, declaring that he restored them to their charges. They came then to their Churches, but were presently expelled out of them. For the Bishops of the East having received the letters of Julius, were very much amazed at his arrogance; and assembling themselves at Antioch, they writ to him (as Sozomenus saith) letters full of scorn and insultation, and of grievous threatenings; saying, That it belonged not to him to over-rule them about those whom they would expel out of the Church; as they also did not contradict him when he expelled Novatus out of the Church. They said indeed that the Roman Church was honorable, and had been a school of the Apostles, and had been from the beginning the capital City for piety: But they added, that they that instructed her, came out of the East; and that even themselves were not inferior to the Roman Church, though they were unequal in greatness and number; yea that they did even overcome the Roman Church in virtue. We see in the second Apology of Athanasius, that the Eusebians (for so the Bishops of the East, enemies to Athanasius called themselves, because of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia their head) said that they held all Bishops to be equal in honor, and that a Bishops honor did not increase for being in a greater town: Which they said, to give to understand unto Julius, that they held not themselves to be inferior unto him.

As for Athanasius, his living at Alexandria displeased the Emperor Constantius, but because the people of Alexandria and Egypt maintained him zealously, he held his peace at the first; but soon after upon new accusations he threatened to put him to death. At which Athanasius being afraid, kept himself hidden for the space of three years, till the fourth year after his return; when being invited by secret letters of Julius, he escaped to Rome again.

The letters written with gall of the Oriental Bishops, to Julius Bishop of Rome being delivered to him, he sent them an answer, but far milder and fuller of respect then his former letter; having by that time learned that in vain he justled against Bishops over whom he had no power. He told them that their letters had very much grieved him, remonstrating unto them that in not calling him to their Council, they had done against the Canons, seeing that there was an Ecclesiastical Canon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that rules or laws must not be given to Churches against the advice of the Bishop of Rome.

The Oriental men would not do so much for Julius as to answer his letters. And Sozomenus in ch. 9. of book 2 saith that Julius seeing how he profited nothing, and made no progress in the cause of Athanasius, entreated the Emperor Constance to take care of that business: And Constance favourably receiving Athanasius and Paul, and many other Bishops who had been deposed and expelled from their Churches, took that matter to heart, and writ to his brother Constantius, desiring him to send him three Bishops, that should declare to him the causes why Athanasius, and Paul, and many other Bishops had been deposed and expelled from their Churches. Constantius did so, and sent him three, who brought only the confession of faith of the Oriental men, and without doing anything else, or speaking of the case of Athanasius, returned home. At which Constance being sore displeased, writ to his brother again, desiring him, that since his Ambassadors were thus gone away without doing anything, a general Council might be called by the consent and authority of them both; which was granted, and the place was appointed at Serdica, a town of Slavonia, which town was since called Triaditsa. This was eleven years after the death of Constantine, father to these two Emperors.

When the Bishops were come to Serdica from all parts, the Oriental Bishops were found to be but seventy six, many having excused themselves from coming, for divers causes. But by the diligence and solicitation of Julius and Athanasius, about three hundred Occidental Bishops met at that Council. But the Oriental Bishops foreseeing that they should be over-voted by number, would not enter into the Council, and withdrew themselves to Philippolis in Thracia, where they held a Council by themselves.

There they condemned the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Consubstantial, and deposed and degraded from the Episcopal charge, Julius Bishop of Rome, and Hosius Bishop of Corduba, and all the favorers and adherents of Athanasius. On the contrary, the Occidental Bishops assembled at Serdica, confirmed the doctrine of the Council of Nice, and restored (as much as in them lay) unto their Offices and Churches Athanasius, and the other expelled Bishops, deposed those that had deposed them; And to anger the Oriental, who had deposed Julius the Roman Bishop, they raised the dignity of Julius with all their power. Thus the East was separated from the West, and the limit of the separation was a Mountain between Slavonia and Thracia, named by Socrates Tisucis, and by Nicephorus Susacis.

The Council of Serdica being dissolved, the Emperor Constance seeing that he had advanced nothing, came to the last remedy, and writ to his brother Constantius, that unless he restored Athanasius and the others that were unjustly expelled, he would denounce war unto him. These letters were of more force then a Council; for presently after Constantius writ kind letters to Athanasius, permitting him to return to Alexandria. But Athanasius, not daring to trust him, staid at Aquileia, and stirred not till Constantius had written to him three times. In the end after the third letters, he went to the Emperor, who received him with very great kindness, and restored him by Imperial letters patent, unto his Bishopric of Alexandria, giving him besides, letters directed to the people of Alexandria for his restitution.

Athanasius now strong with these letters, goeth from the Court, and passeth through Jerusalem, where Maximus was Bishop, who had consented to the deposition of Athanasius; Athanasius signified to the said Maximus the Emperors ordinance, and the Decree of the Council of Serdica: Of any sentence pronounced by Julius Bishop of Rome he spake not to him: as also Julius had given no judgment this last exile of Athanasius. It is true that Athanasius brought letters from Julius bishop of Rome to the Church of Alexandria, which letters Socrates sets down whole in ch. 18. of book 2. And indeed they are worth reading, for they contain no sentence, and no judgment given by him for the restitution of Athanasius, but only exhortations, and thanksgivings, that God had sent them again so good a Pastor, who had been taken from them; and praises and justifications of Athanasius.

Maximus Patriarch of Jerusalem, having heard the Emperors command, without delay assembled many Bishops of Syria and Palestine, gave the communion again to Athanasius, and restored unto him his charge of Bishop of Alexandria, as Socrates relateth in ch. 24. of book 2. Maximus (saith he) without delay restored to Athanasius the Communion, and his dignity. This example is notable, to show the power which all the Patriarchs pretended unto; Among whom that of Jerusalem was the least of all.

That being done, Athanasius went from Jerusalem, and came to Alexandria, where he was received with the applauses and unspeakable joy of the people of Alexandria, and restored to his charge.

CHAP. 2. Three points which the Cardinal finds in this History to establish the Popes Primacy. And the falsifications which he accumulateth in this matter.

AMong many things that abase the Bishop of Rome's power in this history, Cardinal du Perron finds three which he perpetually employeth for the establishing and exalting of the Popes power.

I. The first is that Ecclesiastical Canon which Julius produced, whereby it is forbidden to give laws or Canons to the Churches against the advice of the Bishop of Rome.

II. The second, that which Sozomenus saith, that to Julius, because of the preeminence of his See the care of all things belonged, and therefore he restored everyone to his Church. These two things are repeated and inculcated in the Cardinals book above fifty times; so much he mistrusteth the Readers memory. These two testimonies, with one of Irenaeus which he falsifieth, and the appeal of Flavianus to Leo, help very much towards the bulk of his book, so frequently he doth repeat them.

III. The third point is, that Athanasius condemned by the Synod of Antioch, appealed (as he saith) to Julius Bishop of Rome. Of these three points it will be easy for us to show the untruth, or the weakness, or the absurdity and impertinence.

I. As for that pretended Canon forbidding to give any Laws to Churches against the advice of the Bishop of Rome, it is not known by whom nor when it was made. For before this Julius it is not found that ever it was spoken of, or that ever any Bishop of Rome made use of it. The experience of the following ages will show that it was the custom of the Bishops of Rome to suppose or corrupt Canons, to advance their authority. So they did in the sixth Council of Carthage, and since in the Council of Chalcedon, as we shall see hereafter. In particular, as for that Canon which Julius produced, we have seen that in the precedent ages the practice was contrary. For Agrippinus and Cyprian Bishops of Carthage assembled Councils in diverse times, in which they made Orders and gave Judgments contrary to the Roman Church, not expecting the advice of the Roman Bishop, and thereby incurred no censure. And when the judgment of the Roman Bishop Melchiades was revised and examined in the Council of Arles, the Council expected not the advice of Melchiades, since it was in question of voiding or confirming his sentence. Also we shall see hereafter many Canons and Ordinances contrary to that Canon, as the Canons and Epistles of the Councils of Africa, which excommunicate every African that appeals to Rome, and warn the Pope that he take no more knowledge of their businesses. Wherefore the Bishops rejected that Canon which Julius produced, and were so far from acknowledging, that they could decree nothing but with the consent of Julius Bishop of Rome; that on the contrary, in that bitter Epistle which they write to him, they tell him (using the very terms of that Canon) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that it belonged not to him to make Canons for them, or to over-rule them. They were Arians indeed, but they were not ignorant of the Ecclesiastical Discipline. And this was never put among the errors of the Arians, that they were disobedient to the Roman Bishop, and did not acknowledge him head of the Universal Church.

But to do a kindness to our adversaries, I will grant to the Cardinal that this Canon is not forged, nor suggested by the Bishop of Rome. But let him make the best of it; it cannot serve to establish the Popes primacy over the Churches of all the world, seeing that this Canon is but an order made among the Bishops of the Roman Empire: As also the ancient Roman Bishops never made use of this Canon, nor of any other to pretend a superiority over the Churches without the precincts of the Roman Empire, and never meddled with their businesses. Yea such Canons ruin and undermine the foundation of the Papal Monarchy, and rob it of all that is alleged for it out of the Word of God. For if God commands in his Word that the Bishop of Rome be head of the Universal Church, what need is there of making Ecclesiastical Canons that command the same thing? To what purpose had Julius alleged this Canon, if he had had a divine rule at hand from his holy Word? Pope Gelasius who lived some 150. years after this Julius, perceived that very well, and renounced all such Canons as useless. For in the Roman Council held about the year 499. he speaks thus, The holy Roman Church is preferred before all other Churches, not by any Synodical constitutions, but by the voice of the Lord and Savior. But that which is the strongest against that Canon which Julius alledgeth, and makes it of no use to the Cardinal, is, that all the Patriarchs of the Roman Empire pretended to have the same right, that no important thing should be concluded without them. John Patriarch of Antioch grounding himself upon that rule, excommunicated and deposed Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, for proceeding to the condemnation of Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, without expecting his coming. And we shall see in this same Chapter, that every Patriarch took care of all the Ecclesiastical important affairs within the Roman Empire.

I must not omit that M. du Perron alleging this Canon, commits three falsifications. He saith, that the Council of Antioch was taxed of nullity, because (saith Socrates) the Ecclesiastical Law prohibited the making of Canons or rules for Churches, without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome. But it is false that Socrates saith, that the Council of Antioch was taxed of nullity. Then the Cardinal interprets ill 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by because instead of although. And these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify not as he thinks, without the sentence, but against the advice.

He alledgeth many texts, either false, or taken in a wrong sense. He quoteth in his margent the fifth Canon of Serdica, and sends us to the Comment of Balsamon upon that Canon. That Canon of Serdica permits to the condemned Bishops to appeal to the Bishops of Rome. But that rule is made only for the Occidental Bishops, belonging to the Roman Patriarchat: For in that Synod there was none but Occidental Bishops that could not make Laws binding the Bishops of the East, who never obeyed this Council. And we shall see hereafter that in Austin's time, some 66. years after, these Canons of Serdica were unknown to the Churches of Africa. Besides, these orders of Serdica were propounded by Hosius, who presided in the Council, as a new thing, and submitted to the will of the Council; As in effect, that honor was deferred to Julius Bishop of Rome to spite the Oriental Bishops, who being assembled at the same time at Philippolis, had degraded Julius and his adherents with disgrace. As for Balsamon, the Cardinal was wiser then to produce his words upon the third Canon, which is of the same sense as the fifth. These are his words, The things determined concerning the Pope, must be taken alike concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople, because he was made equal in honor in all things to the Pope by many Canons of Synods.

A little after, the Cardinal alledgeth an Epistle of the Council of Serdica to Julius Bishop of Rome, which Epistle is not found in the Council of Serdica, but in certain fragments of Hilary newly come forth. In that Epistle these words are found, That it is most just and most convenient, that from all Provinces the Bishops refer their businesses to their Head, that is, to the See of Peter the Apostle. But that ought not to be understood of the Bishops of the whole world, which is said only of the Bishops of the West that were within the Patriarchate of Rome. The Bishops of the West only made this Canon, and made it for themselves: For they could not give Laws to the Bishops of the East, or to those of Africa. Much less could they give Laws to Bishops that lived without the Roman Empire. And this word Head is attributed also to other Bishops, as we hope to show in this Chapter, and is given to the Bishops of Rome in consideration of the dignity of that Town.

The Cardinal addeth, that when the Council of Capua delegated Theophilus to examine the cause of Flavianus Patriarch of Alexandria, Ambrose writ to him, that after he hath judged it, he must get his judgment confirmed by the Pope. All that is full of untruth.

St. Ambrose indeed, Epist. 78. writes to Theophilus, but not in the terms that the Cardinal attributes unto him, but in these, Truly we esteem that this should be referred to our holy brother the Priest of the Roman Church; For we presume that thou wilt judge things that cannot displease him. For so it shall be useful for the sentence and for the safety of peace and rest, if that be established by your counsel, which shall bring no dissention to our communion. He speaks only as giving Counsel. Yet Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Emperor Theodosius, did clean contrary to that Counsel. For no report was made of it to the Bishop of Rome, who was constrained to hold his peace, because he could not hinder it, as we shall see hereafter. Which example, with many more, serveth to give the lie to the Acts of Ephesus produced by the Cardinal, which swarm with lies; as that the Church of Antioch was always governed by the Roman: whereas the Roman Church never had any power over that of Antioch. The thread of the times which we follow will lead us to more examples. And that which the Cardinal adds of the appeal of Flavianus, and of Theodoretus, and the like allegations, shall be examined in their order.

A little after he alledgeth the 4. ch. of the 2. book of Evagrius, where it is said that the Bishop of Rome is called the head of the Churches. A place alleged according to the ordinary faith of the Cardinal, that is, falsely; for in that Chapter no such thing can be found.

Indeed in that Chapter the Deputies of Leo Bishop of Rome, attribute unto their Master more power then he had, saying that he had pardoned the Bishops of the second Council of Ephesus, who yet never asked him pardon. For the Popes will easily pardon those whom they cannot punish. But they call not Leo the Head of all the Churches. And though they should have called him so, it would have been of small force in the mouth of men that represented the Popes person. The highest title they give him, is to call him, The most holy Archbishop of Rome the Great. They declare also that Leo had deposed Dioscorus. Which hindered not the Council from judging whether he ought to have been deposed, and from examining his cause.

As for the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which the Cardinal brings in his Margent, we shall see in the right place that the said Council hath judged the clean contrary; and that the places which he alledgeth in his text, are different from the Greek which he hath put in his Margent, as if he would have convinced himself of falsehood. He makes the Council say, It appeareth thereby that all primacy and principal honor hath been always deferred to the Bishop of Rome. These words all primacy, and this word always, are of the Cardinals addition. There is according to the Greek, By the things done, and by the disposition of everyone, we perceive that before all things the privileges and the excellency of honor are kept according to the Canons unto the most beloved of God, the Archbishop of the ancient Rome. Is there anything in that place that comes near the Cardinals version?

Now they are Senators that speak, not the Council: and the excellency of honor which they speak of, is a right of precedency, without any power of jurisdiction. And that (say they) according to the Canons, not according to the Word of God; declaring that precedency to be of Ecclesiastical, not of Divine right. And in the same Session in spite of the Legates of Leo, the Bishop of Constantinople is declared equal in all things to the Bishop of Rome, as we shall see hereafter. And to go no further, the same Senators after the forealledged words add these, The most holy Archbishop of the Royal City of Constantinople must have also the dignity of the same honors of primacy. To examine all the falsifications of the Cardinal, there is need of a volume by itself.

II. The second point in which the Cardinal finds matter of triumph, is the testimony of Sozomenus, that because to Julius the care of all things belonged, by reason of the dignity of his See, he restored to everyone his Church.

Here first of all it is needful to know what was the dignity of the See of Julius the Bishop of Rome at that time. His dignity was not to be Head of the Church of all the world by Divine right. For that he brought no text of the Word of God. About that there was no dispute at that time. But that which he pretended by virtue of the forementioned Canon was, that being Bishop of the first City of the Empire, a Council could not be assembled within the Roman Empire, nor any Laws made to oblige all the Churches of the Empire, without his consent.

We must know then that in the time of Julius there were four principal Bishops in the Roman Empire, which were since called Patriarchs. That of Rome, that of Alexandria, that of Antioch, and that of Jerusalem, (for that of Constantinople was added since) which sat according to the rank and dignity of their Towns in civil matters. All these Prelates, the three first especially, had that power to take care of all the Churches of the Roman Empire, and wheresoever any disorder did arise in any Church of the Empire, it was their duty to put their hand to it, and to endeavor to mend it. Thus Basilius in the 52. Epistle saith, that Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria had care of all the Churches as of his own; and he calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the head and Sovereign of all. Which is the title that Sidonius Apollinaris in the first Epistle of the 6. book, giveth to Lupus Bishop of Troyes. Thou art (saith he) without difficulty, the first Prelate of the whole world. The same Basilius in the 10. Epistle saith, that Meletius Patriarch of Antioch presided over the whole body of the Church. Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration upon Cyprian speaks thus of him, Cyprian presided not only over the Church of Carthage, nor over Africa only, but also well nigh over all the West, and even over the quarters of the East, from the South to the North.

And in the Oration of the praises of Athanasius. They committed unto him the presidency of the people of Alexandria, which is as much as saying, the government of the whole earth. And Theodoretus in the book of Heresies, in the Chapter that speaks of Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, They committed unto him the government of the Catholic Church of the Orthodox people of Constantinople, and together of the whole habitable earth. And John of Jerusalem writ so to Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria. Thou like a man of God bearest the care of all the Churches, as Jerome relateth in his Epistle to Panmachius. Wherefore also these Patriarchs were taken for one only head, making but one head among them; as Balsamon saith, We acknowledge the five most holy Patriarchs to be one head of the holy body of the Church of God. And Gregory the first Bishop of Rome, in the 37. Epistle of the 6. book, speaking of the three Sees, of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, saith that it is but one See upon which three Bishops are sitting. It is then to be observed, that all these Patriarchs attributed to themselves the care of all the Churches of the world, according to the style then in use, and a long time after, to call the Roman Emperors, Emperors of all the world; and the Roman Empire, orbem Romanum, the Roman world; of which the examples are numberless.

According to that order taken among the Bishops of the Roman Empire, Meletius Patriarch of Antioch confirmed the Bishopric of Constantinople unto Gregory Nazianzen. And Peter Patriarch of Alexandria having done the same, shortly after went about to set Maximus in his place. And Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria condemned Nestorius; and Theophilus also Patriarch of Alexandria, went to Constantinople to judge of the carriage of Chrysostom. And Maximus Patriarch of Jerusalem, though he was the least of the Patriarchs, and subject to the Metropolitan of Cesarea, yet assembled a Council, where he restored Athanasius to his dignity, as we have seen. And the Bishops of the East, among whom some were Patriarchs, sent back Liberius to Rome with letters to re-instal him in the Bishopric of Rome.

Now then it is easy to apprehend how and in what sense Sozomenus saith that to Julius, by reason of the dignity of his See, it belonged to take care of all things; And that the same might be said of all the other Patriarchs, over whom the Bishop of Rome had indeed a right of precedency, because of the dignity of the City, but had no jurisdiction over them.

As for that which Sozomenus addeth, that Julius restored to everyone, that is to Athanasius, and Paul, and other Bishops their several Sees; It is true, that Athanasius and Paul returned into their Churches, with letters from Julius; but it is false that they were received by virtue of those letters, for they were received by the love of the Churches that expected them with an impatient zeal. But the Chapter next before this hath shown that Athanasius could not subsist in Alexandria; for a little after he came, he was forced to keep himself hidden for many years, and never was made Possessour of his Bishopric, but by the express order of the Emperor Constantius. For these depositions or restitutions of Bishops made by other Bishops who had no power over them, were but mere declarations of that they judged fit to be done. Thus Maximus of Jerusalem deposed, and then restored Athanasius. And the Council of Serdica put Athanasius again in his Office; that is, the Council judged that he had been unjustly deposed, for Athanasius was not actually re-established by that Act. And John Patriarch of Antioch, and Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria deposed and degraded one another, in the time of the first Council of Ephesus, and kept their places nothing the less for that. The following history will afford many the like examples.

III. The third point which the Cardinal observeth in the history of Athanasius, is, that Theodoret witnesseth that Julius following the Law of the Church, commanded the Eusebians to come to Rome, and cited the divine Athanasius to judgment; and the Cardinal puts that in the beginning of the 43. Chapter of his first book, for the first example of appeals to the Pope; as though Athanasius had appealed to Julius as to his Judge and Superior.

But in this Socrates and Sozomenus contradict Theodoret, for I have shown in the precedent Chapter by testimonies of those two Authors, that Athanasius was not cited to Rome to appear before Julius, but that he took ship secretly in Egypt, and scaped into Italy from the persecution. Which is confirmed by Jerome in the Epitaph of Marcella: Athanasius (saith he) and Peter flying from the persecution of the Arian heresy, had their refuge to Rome, as to the safe harbor of their communion. We have seen indeed that the Eusebians voluntarily, and of their own accord deferred the knowledge of their business unto Julius; and that Julius abusing the power which was deferred unto him as an Arbitrator, would act as an absolute Judge, and commanded the Eusebians to appear before him; And that they being exasperated by that arrogant dealing, writ to him taunting and threatening letters. Since then the Eusebians declared unto him that they cared not for his summons, what need was there to make any Summons or signification to Athanasius residing at Rome to appear before Julius? for Julius knew that his adversaries would not appear. And whereas Athanasius in his second Apology describeth exactly all that he hath done, and all that happened unto him in this business; why doth he not make the least mention of his Appeal to Julius, nor of any Summons made to him to appear before Julius? But if it were so; that such a citation had been made to Athanasius, I would say that in that point Julius was gone beyond his limits, and had done that which none of his Predecessors ever took upon him to do.

We shall also see hereafter that the Appeals then made to the Bishop of Rome, or to some other Prelat, were but supplications, that by his mediation and request to the Emperors, a Council might be assembled, to revise the cause of him that appealed from a condemnation.

In all the ancient history not one example shall be found, that upon an Appeal made to the Bishop of Rome, he made the parties to appear before him, and gave judgment in the cause; but that upon the Appeal the Bishop labored by petitioning the Emperors to obtain a Council to revise the affair of the complaining party. This will be seen in the example of Flavian, in its proper place.

CHAP. 3. Of the Council of Serdica.

WE have seen in the first Chapter, by whom, how, and for what causes the Council of Serdica was convocated: How in the very entry it was divided into two contrary Councils, and what matters were handled in both.

Whereupon a question ariseth, whether the Council being thus divided into two parts or rather parties, the party that remained at Serdica, must be honored with the title of Universal Council? Cardinal du Perron maintains that it was an universal Council, and about that spends five and thirty pages; thereunto moved, because in that Council Appeals to the Bishop of Rome are commanded, and his dignity (as he takes it) is very much exalted in the same.

For my part, I hold that dispute to be not only useless, but also absurd and impertinent. For besides that it is indifferent to us, how that Council is called, the dispute in effect is about a thing, which our adversaries and we are agreed upon, the thing being so clear, that he must want common sense that finds any doubt in it.

Two things then I say. The one, that if by an Universal Council we must understand a Council assembled from the Churches of all the world, the Council of Serdica cannot be called Universal, since there was no Deputy from so many great Christian Churches, which were without the limits of the Roman Empire. But if by an Universal Council, we mean a Council gathered from the whole Roman Empire, in vain do our adversaries maintain that the Council of Serdica is Universal, to exempt it from the possibility of erring, seeing that God hath no where promised to the Councils that they cannot err when they are assembled from the whole Roman Empire.

The second thing is, that to know whether a Council be Universal, we must consider first the convocation of it, and then the sitting of the same. For it is very possible that a Council assembled from the Universal Empire will break into pieces, and be divided into several dissenting conventicles: In which case it would be a senseless part to call every piece by the name of the whole, and to affirm that a party of Bishops keeping their meetings apart are an universal Council: It is then manifest that a Council, the calling whereof was Universal, may become particular in the sitting. It is manifest also, that to know whether a Council be Universal, we must look more to the sitting then to the calling of it; because when the Council is called, it is not yet a Council. Also that when an Emperor hath convocated a Council out of all the Churches of his Empire to keep them in concord, and to reunite the dissenting parties; If such a Council breaking into pieces becomes a match of discord instead of a bond of union, that Council having changed his nature, must also change his name.

It happened then, that the Emperors Constantius and Constance having made an Universal convocation of Bishops to meet at Serdica, the Bishops of the East would not confer with those of the West, for the causes mentioned before; and withdrew themselves to Philippolis in Thracia, where they held a Council by themselves. Now the convocation had been made by the Emperors to rally the East with the West; and therefore the convocation of that Council was called Universal, because the East and the West were convocated to it. That uniting of the East with the West being not made at Serdica; it were speaking against common sense to call the Council of Serdica an Universal Council. Wherefore also Epiphanius in the heresy of the Photinians, which is the 71. calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an Occidental Synod: And Hilary the like in his book against Constantius.

Hinckmarus in the book of the 55. Chapters, ch. 20. The Council of Serdica, in which above three hundred Bishops met from the Western parts; Yet they do not put it among the Universal Councils. Nothing is more vulgar in Antiquity, then to put the Council of Nice for the first Universal Council, the first of Constantinople for the second, the first of Ephesus for the third, and the Council of Chalcedon for the fourth; as it is to be seen in all the Editions of the Councils, and in the book of Photios of the Councils. These are those four Councils of which the Emperor Justinian in the 131. Novel, ch. 1. saith that he receiveth them with obedience as the holy Scriptures. Pope Gregory the first saith the same. They put not the Council of Serdica in the same rank, for they speak not at all of it, although it be far more ancient then the three last of those four. M. du Perron himself, who in his book against his Majesty of great Britain limits himself to the time of the four first Councils, by those four Councils understands the above named, among whom the Council of Serdica doth not make one.

Unless perhaps we must say with the Cardinal, that the Council of Nice and that of Serdica are but one Council: Which is a bold and prodigious conceit, seeing that there is two and twenty years between the Council of Nice and that of Serdica; for the Council of Nice was held in the year of the Lord 325. and the Council of Serdica in the year 347. That was a pretty long pause. Besides they were convocated by other Emperors, and in another place, and for divers causes: The one being assembled to decide the controversy of Arius; The other to judge of the crimes imposed to Athanasius, and of the justice or injustice of his deposition. And if the faith established in the Council of Nice hath been confirmed at Serdica, it is so far from reason, that thence it should follow that it is the same Council, that on the contrary it followeth that it is another; For a Council is not assembled to confirm itself. And by the same reason the first Council of Constantinople, and the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, should be the same Council as that of Nice, because in them the Symbol of Nice hath been confirmed. The Council of Nice was composed of Bishops out of the whole Empire, but that of Serdica had none but of the West. Then all the Ancients testify that the Council of Nice made but twenty Canons. And M. du Perron himself brings witnesses for it. But if the Council of Serdica were the same as that of Nice, that of Nice should have 41. Canons. Even in the Tomes of the Councils, published by our adversaries, the Council of Serdica is not printed next to that of Nice, but many Councils are set between both. The same is found in Balsamon, Zonaras, and the Greek exemplaries of du Tillet. Had the Council of Serdica been held to be a part, or an appurtenance of Nice, it would have so raised the dignity of it, and made it so famous, that it would have been known and honored all over the whole Universal Church, and it would have been impossible for the heretics to have suppressed the copies of them. Yet we shall see hereafter that in the year 419. the Bishops of Africa had never heard of the Canons of that Council, and knew not what it was. Among which Bishops were those two great men, Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and Austin Bishop of Bona; so little was that Council of Serdica esteemed, and so little known.

In the Council of Chalcedon, in the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus, the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church was brought forth, in which the Canons of the Council of Serdica were not contained, as the Cardinal confesseth. Which Code he calls in contempt a Rapsody, and yet that Rapsody was in such esteem; that it was read in the Universal Councils. And that which the Cardinal saith is false, that in the Council of Chalcedon another copy of those Canons was produced where the Councils were distinct. For there was but one copy produced, in which the Canons of the Councils are set down all along without distinction of the Councils. Only the Canons of the Councils are set in order, according to the time of the sitting of every Council. Thus in the fourth and sixth Action of the Council of Chalcedon, the 3, 4, 6, and 17. Canons of the Council of Antioch, are read under the simple quotation of the Canon 84, 85, 94, and 95. without any mention of the Council of Antioch. That which the Cardinal saith, that in the Council of Chalcedon in the fourth and fifteenth Action, the fourth and sixth Canons of Nice are alleged, may probably serve to show that there were copies in the Council of Chalcedon of every Council by itself, but not that a Code of the Universal Church was produced where the Councils were distinct. And which is more. It shall not be found that such allegations were made, as the Cardinal saith. So there is falsehood in this.

Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Photios saith, that the Greek Church had not that Council. The same is averred by the Canon Quod dicitis in the sixteenth distinction. And Dionysius Parvus a Roman Abbot, contemporary to the Emperor Justinian, who made the version of the Greek Canons, saith that he hath added to them the Canons of Serdica, having taken them out of the Latin exemplaries; For they were not in the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church.

Many the like things show that this Council was little esteemed among the Ancients: so far it was from being put among the Universal Councils. And it is evident, that although the convocation of it was general, yet the sitting was particular.

But we need not to insist anymore upon that, since M. du Perron joins with this truth; saying in the 41. ch. At the least the convocation of it was Universal. Which we grant, and so must all those Authors be understood whom the Cardinal brings forth, who give to this Council the title of Universal, unless we will say that they spake against common sense.

Now the cause why M. du Perron exalteth with all his power the authority of the Council of Serdica, is, that three Canons were made there, wherein Hosius President of the Council beseecheth the Assembly to consent, that hereafter the condemned Bishops who think themselves aggrieved, may address themselves to Julius Bishop of Rome, who will appoint other Judges to revise the business: And that if a Bishop be deposed, another may not be put in his place before the Bishop of Rome hath taken it into his consideration.

These are the Canons which Boniface and Celestinus presented to the sixth Council of Carthage, falsely affirming that they were the Canons of the Council of Nice; Which was acknowlegded for an imposture by the Council.

To know of what weight these Canons may be, we must consider, that they were made by the Occidental Bishops only, such as belonged to the Roman Patriarchat: And by consequent that this Law cannot oblige the Churches of the whole Roman Empire, as in effect we have seen, and shall see that this ordet was unknown in Africa.

It is also to be considered that Julius had been deposed and reviled by the Bishops of the East, which were at the same time assembled at Philippolis: which made the Western Bishops to exalt Julius as much as they could to grieve the Eastern Bishops. It is very remakable also that this order is set down in words of the future, and that Hosius who makes the motion, desireth that it may be so hereafter, showing thereby that it was not so before. But that which is most considerable, is, that this order is submitted to the will and pleasure of the Bishops of the Council, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if it seems good unto you, or if it be your pleasure; which is a manifest declaration that it was not so before, and that this order is not grounded upon the word of God, which must not be submitted unto the will of men, and hath no need to be authorized by Ecclesiastical Canons. Wherefore also it had no force, and was not practiced, as the history of the following times will justify.

CHAP. 4. Of the Convocation of the Council of Serdica. How much the Cardinal is mistaken in it.

CArdinal du Perron in ch. 42. of his first book, will persuade us that the Council of Serdica was convocated by Julius Bishop of Rome. This is contradicted by the Antient writers. Socrates in book 2. ch. 16. A general Council is published to meet at Serdica by the ordinance of both the Emperors.

And Sozomenus in book 2. ch. 10. By the ordinance of the two Emperors it was decreed that the Bishops of both sides should meet at Serdica, a town of Illyricum or Slavonia, upon an appointed day. The Bishops themselves being assembled at Serdica, testify the same in the Epistle which they write to all the Bishops of the Roman Empire, related by Theodoret in the second book of his history, ch. 7. The most religious Emperors, hy the assistance of God's grace have convocated us from divers Provinces and Towns, and have assembled this most holy Synod in the town of Serdica. These (in my opinion) are credible witnesses.

Here M. du Perron to prove that Julius had convocated the Council of Serdica, alledgeth some places out of Athanasius, in which Julius is desired by Eusebius of Nicomedia to convocate a Synod. But herein the Cardinal commits an evident fraud; for the Council which Julius assembled at the request of the Eusebians, was not the Council of Serdica, of which the convocation was universal, but a Council of Bishops about Rome, which was no more then all Metropolitans could do in their Diocese. Of that petty Council assembled by Julius, we spake before in ch. 1. of this book 5.

CHAP. 5. Of the Presidency in the Council of Serdica.

IN that Council the order of sitting was such, according to the testimony of Athanasius in the second Apology. Hosius Bishop of Cordova presided, and after him sat the Deputies of Julius the Roman Bishop, Archidamus and Philoxenus. Their subscriptions were thus set down.

Hosius then in the quality of Bishop of Spain (for he takes no other quality) presideth in that Council, and sits above the Legates of the Bishop of Rome. That honor was deferred unto him in consideration of his age and his virtue. It cannot be said that he was Legat of Julius, and that he presided in that quality; for not only he takes not that quality, but also he is put in a place by itself, and set before Julius himself: for after that subscription, Hosius ab Hispania, it is added, Julius Romae per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros suos.

If Hosius had presided as a Legat of the Roman Prelate, Julius ought to have subscribed thus, Julius Romae, per Hosium Episcopum Hispaniae, & per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros suos. They that affirm that Hosius was the Popes Legat in this Council, speak it without proof, and bring no ancient Author for it.

CHAP. 6. Of Liberius Bishop of Rome, and of the Schism after his death.

ABout the year of the Lord 352. Julius being dead, Liberius succeeded him in the Bishopric of the City of Rome. That Liberius following the steps of his predecessor, would at the first use command and authority over Athanasius, and bear himself as judge of his businesses. But the Bishops of Egypt being eighty in number, assembled in a Synod, defended their Patriarch. This stopped Liberius, and moved him to seek peace with Athanasius his old friend: So he writ to him letters full of respect and love, and sent to him his confession and sense about the faith. If (saith he) thou art of my opinion, I beseech thee before God the Judge, and before Jesus Christ, that thou subscribe to it, that we may be certified that thou art of the same opinion as we, and that thou holdest the same things concerning the true faith, that I may be assured without doubting of the things that thou wilt command me. O how remote is that style from the pride of our time! And what Pope would undergo the command of any other Bishop? or receive rules of his faith from him? Or give reason of his faith to him by expess letters?

Who so will see the lowness and the subjection of the Roman Bishop under the Emperor of Rome at that time, let him read ch. 16. of book 2. of the history of Theodoret, where there is a Dialogue between Liberius and the Emperor Constantius, who speaking with Liberius as a Monarch to his subject, banisheth him, and appoints him 500 crowns to keep him in his exile. This Liberius after two years exile in the end yielded to the persecution, and subscribed to the Confession of the Arians made at Syrmium (as Athanasius testifieth in his Epistle to the Solitaries: And Jerome in his Catalogue, where he speaks of Fortunatian; And Hilary in his fragments, and many more) For which cause the Emperor sent him back to Rome, to govern the Church with Felix, so that they might be fellow-bishops of Rome. And these two did govern jointly, till Felix being dead, Liberius remained alone. Certainly, if the Bishop of Rome had been acknowledged at that time the Head of the Universal Church, the Universal Church would never have suffered two men to hold that place, and two Sovereign Prelates in one chair. We must not omit that which Ammianus Marcellinus observeth, that Constantius earnestly desired to draw Liberius Bishop of the eternal City (that is of Rome ) to his party, placing the dignity of the Roman Bishops in the dignity of the City which was highly respected.

In the year of Christ 367. Liberius being dead, two competitors of the Bishopric, Damasus and Ursicinus came to handy blows, in so much that in a Church at Rome were found a hundred thirty and seven bodies of men slain in that sedition, as Ammianus Marcellinus relateth, in ch. 2. of book 27. where that Pagan Author describes the vices of the Bishops of Rome, their greediness to catch the offerings of the Matrons, their sumptuous garments, their superfluous feasts, their ambition to attain to that degree. His words are notable; I deny not, considering the magnificence of the State of the City, that they that seek that honor [to be Bishops of Rome] have reason to strive with all their strength to obtain that end, seeing that when they have attained it they live secure, enriching themselves with the oblations of Matrons, and riding abroad in Coaches, magnificently clad, making lavish feasts, so that their feasts go beyond the Royal tables. They might be happy, if without regarding the greatness of the City, which they use as a covering of vices, they would imitate the sobriety of some provincial Bishops.

CHAP. 7. Of the Fathers famous in that time, Hosius, Athanasius, Meletius, Gregory Nazianzen.

IN that time Hosius Bishop of Cordova and Athanasius were famous and of great credit. The first of these made the Nicene Creed; and the second, the Symbol that beareth his name, which for a long time have served for a mark, and a livery to discern the Orthodox from the heretics. If a Bishop of Rome had done so much, our Adversaries would triumph about it, and say that the Pope hath given laws to the Universal Church, as being the Head of the whole body. Of this Athanasius, Basil speaks thus in the 52. Epistle. Thou hast the care of all the Churches as much as of thine own. And Gregory Nazianzen in the Oration upon Athanasius, They gave him in charge the government of Alexandria, which is as much as if one said the government of the whole world. And in the same place, Athanasius gives again laws to all the world.

In the same time also Meletius Bishop of Antioch, was famous in holiness, of whom Basil saith in the 50. Epistle, that he presided over the whole body of the Church. If any in our days gave those titles to some other then the Pope of Rome, he should go for an heretic or a madman: Thus among the works of Athanasius, there is an Epistle which Arsenius writes to him, where he saith, We embrace peace and union with the Universal Church, over which thou presidest. For we have shown that all the Patriarchs took care of all the Churches of the Roman Empire.

Then also Gregory Nazianzen was much esteemed, who was so far from acknowledging any Head of the Universal Church by Divine right, that he wisht that there had been no superiority at all in the Church, and that all Pastors had been equal. Would to God (saith he) that there were no precedency, nor any degree of prerogative of honor, nor any tyrannical primacy, that we might he discerned by virtue only.

It is seen also in the works of Athanasius, that every time that he speaks of Liberius Bishop of Rome, he calls him only Bishop of Rome, not Head of the Universal Church.

CHAP. 8. Of Damasus Bishop of Rome, and of Basil Arch-bishop of Cesarea. Ignorance of the Cardinal in the Greek tongue.

ABout the year 365. Arianism growing in the East by the countenance of the Emperor Valens; Basilius Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, and the other orthodox Bishops of the East, called upon the help of the Bishops of the West, among whom that of Rome, Damasus was the most respected, and asked them counsel and aid in their affliction. But Damasus would not stir for it; fearing (as it is likely) to offend the Emperor Valens. Eusebius Bishop of Samosate was of opinion that they should send Legates into the West to move the men of the West to succor their brethren: But Basil was of contrary opinion, saying in his tenth Epistle, If the wrath of God remain upon us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? What succor can we receive from the pride of the Western men? who neither know the truth, nor can abide to learn it, and being forestalled with false opinions, do now the things which they did before in the business of Marcellus; contending against them that announce the truth unto them, and strengthening heresy by themselves. Of those Western the most remarkable by reason of the dignity of the city was Damasus Bishop of Rome, of whom he complains that he had countenanced the heresy of Marcellus; and that still both he and his associates did the same, and by their connivence advanced the heresy, and opposed the true doctrine.

M. du Perron translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the brow of the Occidental men, weakening purposely that fine place by an obscure version. For althoug 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify also an eye-brow, it is clear that in this place it signifieth pride and arrogance, as supercilium in Latin, signifieth pride. He translates also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to trust in their own advice: Which is very far from the Greek.

In the same Epistle Basil speaks of Damasus in these terms, I would write to their head, but not of Ecclesiastical businesses, but to give them silently to understand that they know not the truth of our businesses, and will not receive the way to learn it. Note that he calls Damasus the Head of the Occidental men, as being Patriarch in the West. But he doth not acknowledge him for his head, or the head of the Oriental or Meridional Churches. By saying their head, he showeth manifestly that he did not acknowledge him for his head.

The Cardinal alledgeth a testimony out of the 52. Epistle of the same Basilius: where he makes Basil to speak so; It seemed good to us to write to the Bishop of Rome, that he watch for the things of this side, and give his judgment; that since it is difficult to send men thither from a common and Synodical decree, he use his authority in the business, and make choice of persons capable of the labor of the journey. This place is translated with little fidelity, and is maliciously clipt; For he translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to give judgment; whereas it signifies only to give his advice. And as for the authority which he desireth Damasus to use, Basil declareth for what he will have him to use it, namely for sending men that be capable of the labor of the journey, and that may by their meekness and assiduity make remonstrances to them that he have themselves perversely. And yet he will have them to be sent secretly and without noise, that one may not think that he desire Damasus to send Legates with public authority to pronounce judgments in his name. For he desireth only that he send men by whom he may make them know his advice, and that be able to make exhortations and remonstrances. For in that time they esteemed very much the exhortations of brethren, and the mutual union among Bishops. But the Cardinal hath clipt the last lines of this place, which show how far the authority of Damasus extended.

Basil adds Let these persens have with them all the things that have been done at Rimini, that those things may be dissolved that were done there by constraint. He desires not Damasus that he abolish by his authority the acts of Rimini, but that the men whom Damasus shall send may have the Acts of Rimini, that the Oriental men being informed of the things that past there, may proceed to the disannulling of that Council.

All that can be drawn from that Epistle to exalt the dignity of Damasus, is but small in comparison of that which is said in the same Epistle of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria; Thou takest care (saith he) of all the Churches as much as of thine own. Then he took care of Rome also. Again, we have recourse unto thy perfection, as to him that is head over all things. And he saith often that he receiveth his commandments, although Cesarea of which Basil was Bishop, was not under the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But in those days Bishops would give titles of honor to one another, and were liberal in titles of respect, especially to the Patriarchs. Upon which custom who so will ground either the preeminence or the Empire of a Bishop over his colleagues (as Cardinal du Perron useth to do when he meets with letters wriitten to the Bishop of Rome with some ordinary complemental deferences) showeth himself little skilled in the style of the Ancients.

A little after the Cardinal brings another place of the 77. Epistle of Basil, which by an extreme ignorance he saith to be written to the Occidental men. The title of the Epistle is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, to the Bishops that live by the sea-side, so he calls Islanders as the Cyprians, and those of Rhodus, and Chio, and other Isles of Archipelago, as Basil declareth in the same Epistle, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 insulares, living in Islands. And he calls upon their succor, because God hath joined the Islanders with the inhabitants of the Continent by charity, although it seem (saith he) that they are divided in habitation. But the Cardinal having but small knowledge of the Greektongue, as he showeth in his whole book, translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 transmarinos: So he doth in the margent of the 233. page, and will have those transmarini to be the Bishops of the West, and Damasus Bishop of Rome one of them. And that, because in that Epistle there are some words hf submission, whereby Basil and his colleagues say that they are ready to undergo the judgment of those Islanders, and speak to them as if they were heads of the Church. These are Basils words according to the Cardinals translation; We are ready to undergo Judgment under you, so that they that calumniate us can abide to appear in person with us in the presence of your veneration. The greater the submission of these words is, the more contrary are they to the Cardinal, since that honor is deferred to others then the Bishop of Rome, namely to Islanders. Yet the Cardinal doth not translate it right, and hath not understood the Greek. It is so word by word Being ready to enter into lists under you, only if they that wrong us agree to appear face to face before your piety: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to put off ones clothes, as the wrestlers did when they would enter the lists; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not calumniating, but wronging with outrage; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth here piety, not veneration. Thus in page 126 of the same 25. chapter, he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reverencing, where as it signifies regarding; With the like learning as in page 126. he turneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , discretion, whereas it signifies trial or examination.

In the same Epistle there is another place which the Cardinal alledgeth for the Popes primacy, in the 233. pag. where he makes Basil and his colleagues to speak thus to the Bishop of Rome, Whether you account yourselves to be Head of the Universal Church, the head cannot say to the feet, You are not necessary to me, &c. But we have proved this to be altogether false, and that this is said, not to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Bishops of Islands. Wherefore he speaks to them in the plural, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Which the Cardinal would not perceive, and chose rather to run into a manifest falsification.

Of the same Basil we have an Epistle to the Bishops of Gauls and Italy, which is the seventy, where he puts the Bishops of Gauls before those of Italy: that is, the Bishop of Lions before that of Rome, and calls them his brethren and fellows in holy service. There also he calls those Bishops in general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , head, and exhorts them to succor the Bishops of the East, because the head cannot say to the members, I have no need of you. That only manner of writing to the Occidental Bishops in common, showeth in what esteem the Bishop of Rome was, since he is written to in the crowd, without naming: should not that man be thought to be out of his senses that would in our days write to the Pope, yet not name him, but comprehend him in the general title of a letter to all the Bishops of Italy?

CHAP. 9. Of Peter Bishop of Alexandria, and of his retreat to Rome, and of Gregory Nazianzen Patriarch of Constantinople.

IN the year of the Lord 372. Athanasius dieth, and Peter succeedeth him in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But being taken by the Officers of Valens, an Arian Emperor, and committed prisoner, he found a way to slip out, and scaped to Rome by sea, addressing himself to Damasus Bishop of Rome, because (saith Sozomenus,) he was of the same belief as himself. Jerome in the Epitaph of Marcella saith the same.

Athanasius and Peter after him flying from the persecution of the Arian heresy, were retired to Rome as to a most fafe haven of their communion. It was not then by Appeal, or to appear before the Pope as before his judge that Peter came to Rome; as the Cardinal would make us believe. In Peters absence, one Lucius an Arian invaded the Bishopric of Alexandria by violence, and cruelly persecuted the flock.

While Peter was at Rome, Damasus used him kindly, but took no knowledge of his cause, and undertook not the defense of it, and cited not the contending parties, for that past his power: Only six years after, Valens having given leave to Peter to return to Alexandria, Damasus accompanied him with letters of recommendation to his Church: And the people of Alexandria received Peter joyfully, expelling Lucius the usurper from the See.

About the same time Gregory Nazianzen was sent to Constantinople by the Bishops of Asia to govern that Church: He was installed in that place, by Peter of Alexandria, who soon after sent his Legates to remove him, and to put in his place one Maximus, a Cynic: but the Church of Constantinople did oppose it. All that was done without taking advice of Damasus Bishop of Rome; The Bishop of Alexandria in those days taking upon him the authority of making and unmaking Patriarchs.

CHAP. 10. Of the Convocating of the first Council of Constantinople, which is the second Universal Council. How the Cardinal hath falsified the Epistle of the Oriental Bishops to Damasus Bishop of Rome.

IN the year of the Lord 381. the Emperor Theodosius, to appease the troubles stirred by the Arians, and the Macedonians that denied the God-head of the Holy-Ghost, called a General Synod to Constantinople. That convocation was made without the counsel and communication of Damasus, who then was Bishop of Rome; who also was not present at that Synod, and sent no Legates to it; so that all was done without him. Socrates in book 5. ch. 8. speaking of that Council of Constantinople saith, The Emperor without delay assembled a Council of Bishops that embraced his belief. And Sozomenus in book 7. chap. 7. The Emperor Theodosius presently assembled a Council of Bishops consenting with him.

Here I cannot but lay open the Cardinals foul dealing in ch. 42. of book 1. He would persuade us that this Council was called by Damasus Bishop of Rome: To that end he alledgeth a testimony of Theodoret, book 5. ch. 9. where the Bishops assembled at Constantinople write to Damasus, Ambrose, Brito, and other Bishops of the West, and say to them, While you celebrated (by the will of God) the Synod of Rome, you have convocated us by a brotherly charity as your own limbs, by the letters of the most religious Emperor. There he commits four notable faults. First in that he brings this Epistle as written by the Universal Council sitting at Constantinople: For it was written by another Assembly of Bishops sitting in the same place the year following. Secondly in that he would have us to believe, upon that testimony, that the Bishops assembled at Constantinople were convocated by Damasus. For the Council of which that Epistle speaks, is the Council of Rome, to which Damasus had invited the said Bishops, but they would not come, as we shall see in the next chapter. Thirdly, that he corrupteth that place by a false interpretation, translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to convocate, whereas it signifies to call, and invite, and desire to come. For these Bishops mean that Damasus had invited them, and desired them to come to the Synod of Rome: not that he had convocated them to Constantinople. Fourthly, he intends to prove by that text, that the Emperor Theodosius had called that Council, being moved to it by the letters of Damasus: But he is deceived thinking that the Emperor here mentioned is he that assembled the Council of Constantinople, which was Theodosius; But the Emperor of whom these Bishops speak, is Gratian, who at the request of Damasus had written Letters of exhortation to these Bishops assembed at Constantinople, to desire them to transport themselves to Rome, where Damasus kept a particular Synod: For Damasus hoped to obtain that of them easily. That is the sense of these words, You have invited us by the letters of the most religious Emperor. But who so will by that Emperor understand Theodosius, shall find that these words have no sense.

CHAP. 11. Of the invitation and request of Damasus Bishop of Rome, whereby he desired the Bishops assembled in Council at Constantinople to transport themselves to Rome, and come to the Council which Damasus held there; and of the small authority which the Council of Rome had in comparison of that of Constantinople. The Cardinals faults.

THere is nothing in all Antiquity that makes the state of the Antient Church better known, and what was the power of the Bishop of Rome, then the sitting of the first Council of Constantinople. For that Council is one of the four first Universal Councils, which is not inferior to any Council in authority. Yet so far it is that it was convocated by Damasus Bishop of Rome, or that he did preside in it, that he was not so much as present there, and sent no Legates to it, nor any that represented his person. And both he and his colleagues assembled at Rome in Council, of whom Ambrose Bishop of Milan was one, writ to the Bishops assembled again in Council at Constantinople, beseeching them to transport themselves to Rome, and to join the two Councils in one: which the said Bishops refused to do, saying that they were not sent by their Provinces but to Constantinople; and writ letters of excuses to Damasus, Ambrose, Brito, and others assembled at Rome, representing the reasons, why they could not go to Rome, nor hold the Council anywhere but at Constantinople.

In the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople, Meletius Patriarch of Antioch presided. That History is exactly described by Theodoret in the fifth book of his History, c. 8. and 9. &c. Many things in it are worth observing. For here is an Universal Council, acknowledged for such by the Roman Church, and by all that have written of Councils, which hath not only been convocated without the consent of the Bishop of Rome, but was also kept without him, and to which he never delegated any person. An evident proof that an Universal Council may be assembled without the Pope, yea against his advice.

That which is most considerable, is, that after that Universal Council, the same Bishops being assembled again in Council, at the same time a Council sat at Rome, where Damasus Bishop of Rome presided, and where the Bishops of the West were assembled. Is there any of our adversaries that will not presume that a Council where the Pope was present and president, is of greater authority then a Council assembled without, yea against, the Popes advice? and where the Pope had no Legat? and where a Bishop of Antioch presided? Yet here is the clean contrary: For that Roman Council is of no esteem, in comparison of that of Constantinople. Hardly do we know what past in it, and the name only remaineth. Yea our adversaries themselves put it among the particular Councils. But this Council of Constantinople is the second Universal Council, which hath made Canons that have set rules unto the following ages, and were read at the entry of Councils. The cause of that difference of esteem, is, that the Council of Constantinople was called by the Emperor, but that of Rome by the Roman Bishop.

Here I cannot wonder enough at the Cardinals want of conscience, when he saith in the 34. ch. of the 1. book, that the Council of Constantinople is called Oecumenical or Universal, only by adjunction to the Roman Council. If that were so, the Roman Council should rather be called Oecumenical; and the second Universal Council ought, by that reason, be rather called the Council of Rome then of Constantinople. And how can these two Councils be taken for one, and the one be taken for a dependence of the other, seeing that the one was kept against the advice of the other, and hath not imparted its resolutions to the other? Indeed the Cardinal is the first that ever bethought himself of such an untrue and unreasonable imagination. He could not bring one Author that ever put that Council of Rome among the Universals. But how could the Universal Council of Constantinople, and that of Rome where Damasus presided, be taken for the same Council, seeing that not only they sat in several places, but also in several times; that of Rome being posterior by a year to that of Constantinople? which difference of time the Cardinal not observing, he mistook the second convocation of Bishops made at Constantinople for the first: For it was the second convocation that writ to Damasus.

Observe also that the Bishops of the East did not think themselves bound to obey Damasus, and would not come to the Council to which he invited them.

Observe also that in the Epistle which they writ to the Roman Council, they call the Church of Jerusalem the Mother of all the Churches; a title which the Roman Church attributes to herself in these days. So speaks the Emperor Justinus in an Epistle to Hormisdas Bishop of Rome, where he calls the Church of Jerusalem matrem Christiani nominis, the Mother of the Christian name, that is, of the Christian Religion or Profession.

CHAP. 12. Remarkable passages in the Council of Constantinople.

IN that Council many things past which grieve our adversaries. Nectarius was created Bishop of Constantinople, without any communication about it with the Bishop of Rome, and without expecting his approbation: Of which the Bishop of Rome did not complain; For he pretended no right in that election. There also that Canon was made Let the Bishop of Constantinople have his prerogatives after the Bishop of Rome, because it is the new Rome. This Canon displeaseth our adversaries two ways; The one, because the order of the Patriarchs is altered, without the consent of Damasus Bishop of Rome; For before that Council, the Patriarch of Alexandria was the second, and that of Antioch the third. The other because the dignity of the Bishop of Rome in this Canon is founded upon the dignity of the City of Rome, not upon the Word of God; as in effect the order of places among the Prelates of the Empire, was according to the civil Order which was among the Cities: For which cause the Bishop of Jerusalem, the City in which Christ died, and where the Apostles resided, and where Christianity begun, was subject to the Bishop of Cesarea, because Cesarea was the Metropolis of Palestine.

Our adversaries dissemble not that this Council displeaseth them. The Jesuit Cotton in the Preface of his Catholic institution speaks thus of it; Greece begins about the year 380. to make approaches of rebellion against the Holy See, and to traverse the authority of the Bishop of Rome, giving him the Bishop of Constantinople for second. The Jesuit Costerus in his Manual, in the Chapter de Summo Pontifice, saith that the Bishops of Constantinople, in the second Universal Council of Constantinople, without the knowledge of the Legates of Pope Damasus, did usurp the second place among the Patriarchal Sees, against all reason; Which is a great ignorance in that Jesuit; For Damasus had no Legates in that Council.

Bellarmine in his Preface upon the books de Pontifice, speaks thus of that Council; The first that opposed the primacy of the Roman Pope in good earnest, seem to have been the Grecians. For already in the year 381. they would prefer the Bishop of Constantinople, who before was not so much as a Patriarch, before the three Patriarchs of the East, and make him second after the Roman Prelat. But it is certain, that in that the Council did not oppose the Bishop of Rome: For Damasus, who then was Bishop of Rome, did not oppose himself to that constitution, and approved it by his silence. And the following Councils confirmed that Canon, in which the Bishop of Constantinople is put in the second place, even the Councils of Chalcedon and Trull. The Popes themselves have approved it in the end, as Pope Innocent the third in the Council of Latran, ch. 5.

Also the Reader is desired to take notice, that M. du Perron having made many Chapters about the order of sitting in every Universal Council, especially the 35, and 36. Chapters, and the following, hath skipt over this Council, and speaks not one word of the order of the places, and of the presidency in this Council, because the Bishop of Rome had no part, neither in the convocation, nor in the sitting; and that things were done there (as our adversaries hold) with much contempt of his See. He could find no way to disguise the truth, which appears here very plain.

CHAP. 13. Of Jerome, And of the title of Pontifex left by the Emperor Gratian.

IN the same time a Priest called Jerome flourished, whose works we have; A man that went beyond all the Fathers for Latin eloquence, and for learning in Greek and Hebrew. Having been a household servant of Damasus, he was a good friend to the See of Rome. Nevertheless in that point, as in many others, he is very unequal; for sometimes he exalteth the Roman See, sometimes he vilifieth it, according as his choler prompts him, and according as he is used by the Roman Clergy, with whom he did not very well agree. Being a Priest, he was offended, that at Rome they esteemed Deacons more then Priests. Upon that, in the Epistle to Evagrius, he opposeth the consent of all the other Churches to the authority of the Church of Rome, saying that the world is greater then a town. Wheresoever a Bishop be, whether at Rome or at Agobio; at Constantinople, or at Rhegio; at Alexandria, or at Tanis, they are of the same merit, and have but one Priesthood. The power of wealth and the low estate of poverty, make not a Bishop higher or lower. After all, they are all successors of the Apostles. And rejecting the custom of the Roman Church; Why (saith he) dost thou bring me the custom of one town? Why dost thou defend, against the laws of the Church, the lesser number from which pride is sprung? All that Jerome writ purposely to equal all the other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, because the authority of the Church of Rome was used to prefer the Deacons before the Priests.

The same Jerome in his Preface upon the book of Didymus, of the Holy Ghost, speaks thus of Rome, and of the Roman Clergy, which had spoken ill of his labor; When I lived in Babylon, and was inhabitant of the harlot clad in purple, and lived according to the Laws of the Citizens of Rome, I would prattle somewhat about the Holy Ghost, and dedicate my work begun to the Bishop of that town. But behold that pot which in Jeremiah is seen after the staff, on the North side begins to boil, and the Senate of the Pharisees begins to cry out.

How often doth Jerome, to make Christians dislike living at Rome, call it Babylon, and the harlot mentioned in the Revelation? In the Epistle to Marcella, under the name of Paula and Eustochium, he speaks thus I think that this place [of Bethlehem] is holier then the Tarpeian rock (meaning the Roman Capitol) which having been often fulminated from heaven, showeth that it is displeasing unto God. Read St. Johns Revelation, and see what is foretold of the harlot clad in purple, and of the blasphemy written in her forehead, and of the seven hills, and of many waters, and of the destruction of Babylon. Go out from her my people, be not partaker of her sins, lest that you receive of her plagues. She is fallen, she is fallen, Babylon, &c.

Thus spake Jerome before his anger was over. But being retired from Rome into Syria, and having digested his choler, another subject of anger was offered to him in Syria. For he fell out with the Clergy of Syria about the word hypostasis: And seeing himself baffled and contradicted in the East, he had his refuge to the West, and began to exalt the See of Damasus, and of the Roman Church. He writ then letters unto Damasus, where he saith that he hath his recourse unto St. Peters chair, as being joined with the same in communion. That he that gathereth not with Damasus, scattereth abroad. That the Sun did rise in the West; but that in the East Lucifer had his throne over the stars. But with all these fair words he attributes no power to Damasus over the Universal Church. For all that may be said of every faithful Bishop, that communion must be had with him; that out of his communion one cannot be saved; and that who so gathereth not with him, scattereth away. And the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, boasted also that they had St. Peters chair. Note that in the same place Jerome saith, Nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, that he followed and acknowledged none first but Christ. A place which in some copies is wickedly corrupted; for instead of primum, they have put premium.

It is notable also that by that Babylon, the ruin whereof is foretold in the Revelation, he understands always the City of Rome; As towards the end of the second book against Jovinian, he speaks thus to the City of Rome, Thou mayst escape by repentance the curse which the Savior threateneth thee with in the Revelation. And in the 11. Quest. to Algazia; According to Johns Revelation in the forehead of the Harlot clad in purple, there is a name of blasphemy written, which is the eternal Rome.

The same Father in many places affirmeth that the charge of Priest, and that of a Bishop, are the same Office, as for the Divine institution: But that since, to avoid Schisms and dissensions, they thought fit to choose one that had preeminence over the other Priests, to whom they gave the name of Bishop: As in the Epistle to Oceanus; Among the Ancients, Bishops and Priests were all one; for the one is a name of dignity, the other a name of age. He saith the same in the Epistle to Pammachius; There is no difference between the Priest and the Bishop; He that sends and he that is sent, have the same dignity.

It is also ordinary with Jerome to call all Bishops Popes. In the Epistle to Ruffinus, he calls Chromatius Bishop of Aquilea Pope. In the Epistle to Pammachius, he calls John of Jerusalem Papam beatissimum. And Epiphanius Bishop of Constance in Cyprus, he calls also Pope. One of his Epistles to Austin Bishop of Bona, ends thus, Memento mei sancte & venerabilis Papa; Holy and venerable Pope, remember me.

The same Doctor commends the poverty and simplicity of ancient Bishops, and tacitly compareth it with the luxury of the Bishops of his time: As in the Epistle to Demetrius he giveth these titles to Anastasius a Bishop of Rome dead long before, Vir ditissimae paupertatis, & Apostolicae sollicitudinis; A man of a most rich poverty, and of an Apostolical carefulness.

It is to be noted also, that this Father never gives to the Roman Prelates any higher title then that of Bishops of the City of Rome, and never calls them heads of the Universal Church; As in his Catalogue, Cornelius Romanae urbis Episcopus. And in the same place, Gaius sub Zepherino Romanae urbis Episcopo; And in the same Catalogue, speaking of Fortunatianus, In Fortunatianus this is detestable, that he is the first that solicited and overthrew Liberius Bishop of the City of Rome, going into exile for the faith, and persuaded him to subscribe to heresy. For Jerome did not believe that the Bishop of Rome could not err in the faith. Now that language is altered; for now to call the Pope the Bishop of Rome only, without adding another quality, is as if one called the King of France, Lord of Paris only.

This Father hath that defect, which is none of the least, that often he will speak ill of the Apostle St. Paul, and speaks of marriage with reproach and great contempt, as we shall show hereafter in the 7. book, in the controversy of the invocation of Saints.

In the year of our Lord 386. Gratian, a meek and religious Emperor, was slain by the men of Maximus the Tyrant. This Gratian is the first of the Christian Emperors that refused to be called Pontifex Maximus, holding that title which his Predecessors (though Christians) had born, to be unsuitable with a Christian Prince, as derived from the Pagans, and relishing of Paganism. Yet soon after, the Bishops of Rome suffered themselves to be called so, and took up that which an Emperor had rejected.

CHAP. 14. Of the abolition of the Penitentiary Priest by Nectarius.

IN that time there was in every town a Penitentiary Priest, to whom sinners confessed their sins in secret: And that Priest judged whether the sin was of such a nature as to require a public penance. But at Constantinople a Lady having confessed to the Penitentiary Priest her cohabitation with a Deacon in the Church; and that sin being laid open by the Penitentiary, the scandal was so great, that Nectarius Patriarch of Constantinople, to avoid the like scandals, abolished that Penetentiary Priest over all the East, and would have everyone, without that obligation of secret confession, to present himself to be partaker of the holy mysteries: Not to the total abolishing of public pennances, but only of the Penitentiary Priests, and of the secret Confession to any but the Bishop, that he might judge whether the case deserved public penance. That alteration was made without the advice of the Bishop of Rome, and without any regard to the custom of the Roman Church, which was contrary. It would be taken for a rebellion against the Pope, if the Archbishop of Lions or Bourges would expel auricular confession out of their Dioceses without the Popes permission. That history is to be seen in Socrates, in the 5. book. ch. 19. and in Sozomenus, book. 7. ch. 16.

CHAP. 15. Of Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, and of John Chrysostom.

IN the same time lived holy Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, who often calls Peter the Prince of the Apostles; but as for the perpetual succession of the ragin of David and of Christ, promised in the Old Testament, he holds that it remained with the Bishops of Jerusalem successors of James brother of Christ, not to the Bishop of Rome. That is found in the Heresy of the Nazarens, which is the twenty ninth Heresy in Epiphanius; And in that of the Antidicomarianites, being the seventy eighth Heresy. James (saith he) hath received the first of all the Episcopal chair, as he to whom first the Lord committed his throne upon earth. It is that Epiphanius, who passing through a borough of Palestine named Anablata, and having seen in a Church a veil hanging where the Image of Christ was, or of some Saint, tore it in a zealous anger, saying that it was against the authority of the Scriptures, and advised that they should rather make of it a winding sheet for a corpse, or some poor man. The Epistle of Epiphanius that makes this relation, is translated by Jerome, and inserted among his Epistles.

In the year of the Lord 395. Nectarius died, to whom John Chrysostom succeeded, established in that Office by Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, not by the Bishop of Rome, to whom it rather belonged to create the first Patriarch of the East, if it had been the belief of that time that the Bishop of Rome was head of the Universal Church. At least his consent should have been expected; but it was not; For it was not the custom.

CHAP. 16. Of Ambrose Bishop of Milan; and that in his time the Church of Milan was not subject unto the Church of Rome. The Cardinals foul dealing in alleging the Fathers.

IN the year of Christ 397. died Ambrose Bishop of Milan, a man of holy life, and of great authority; who being Prefect of the City of Milan, and the Emperors Lieutenant in Lombardy, was by the zeal of the people, and the Emperors approbation, made a Bishop, though he was then but a Catechumen, and not baptized. This was done without the advice and consent of the Roman Bishop, and Ambrose took no Letters of investiture from him, for it was not the custom.

It was he that excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius for the Massacre of the people of Thessalonica, committed by his guards by his permission. And he kept him eight whole months out of the communion of the Church, not so much as suffering him to enter into the Temple, till he had submitted himself to do public penance, as Theodoret relateth at large in book 5. of his History, 18. ch. This was done by Ambrose without either the advice or leave of Syricius Bishop of Rome his neighbor, and without imparting the business unto him. Neither did Syricius complain of it, for he pretended no superiority over Ambrose. Such an action in our days would be accounted a rash deed, and rebellion, and treason against the Papal Sea. For it is now one of the Maxims of State, and a fundamental Law set down by the Jesuit Immanuel Sa, Kings cannot be excommunicated and bound with censures but by the Pope alone. It is evident by many other proofs, that then the Church of Milan was not subject unto that of Rome; for we learn by Austin, Epist, 118. to Januarius, that the Church of Rome fasted upon Saturday, but that of Milan did not fast upon that day. Of which the Bishop of Rome did not complain, and did not labor to bring the Church of Milan to the same observation as that of the Roman Church. And Austin in the fore-alleged Epistle saith, that he indifferently observed both customs, according to the place where he happened to be.

Ambrose in the 1. ch. of the 3. book of the Sacraments (if these books be his) observeth another difference in the washing of feet, which was practiced at Milan, not at Rome. These are the words of Ambrose. We are not ignorant that the Roman Church hath not that custom of which we follow the example and the form in all things: yet she hath not that custom of washing the feet. See then whether she hath not declined because of the great multitude. And a little after. I desire to follow the Roman Church in all things. Yet we also are men that have sense. Wherefore we do well to keep that which is better practiced in other places. And a little after, opposing to the Roman Church St. Peters authority, he saith, What doth the Roman Church answer to that? The Reader may observe that Ambrose held not himself to be of the Roman Church. He saith also that he desires to follow the Roman Church in all things; but he saith not that he was bound to it; and that he saith, there is sense and reason in departing from the Roman Church, when that which is practiced in other Churches appeareth to be better. This place is like that of Jerome in the Epistle to Evagrius, where he condemneth the custom of the Roman Church, which preferred Deacons before Priests, and saith that he preferred the custom of all the world before the custom of the City of Rome, which had brought pride into the Laws of the Church.

In one thing chiefly it is evident that the Church of Milan was not then subject to the Church of Rome; that they had another Liturgy at Milan then at Rome For the Church of Milan hath for many ages retained the Ambrosian service which was different from the Roman.

Durand Bishop of Mende in the 5. book of his Rational, ch. 2. relates that, before Pope Adrian (who was made Pope in the year of Christ 771) the Ambrosian service was in far greater credit, and more used then the Gregorian Office or Roman Mass: But that Adrian assembled a Council, in which he commanded that the Roman Office should be established everywhere, and the Ambrosian abolished. For which Charlemagne helped him with strong hand, constraining the Clergy in Italy and France by several punishments to follow the form of the Roman service, and to burn the Ambrosian Office. President Fauchet in the 7th book of the French Antiquities, saith, that the year of that change was the year 798.

Durand addeth that the same Council being assembled the second time, the same business was propounded again; and it was concluded that both the Ambrosian and the Gregorian Missal should be put upon St. Peters Altar, sealed with the seals of many Bishops, and that the Temple doors should be shut; and that solemn Prayers should be made that God would make them know which of these two Offices pleased him best, to be observed in the Church. And that this being done accordingly, the next day they found the Ambrosian Missal open, and in the same place where they had laid it; but the Gregorian torn and scattered all about the Church. Out of this the Pope and his Bishops might have apparently gathered that the Gregorian service ought to be quasht and cast away, but the Ambrosian kept. Yet they turned that to a contrary sense, saying that this signified that the Gregorian Office must be spread and published all about. For also (saith Durand) Ambrose had instituted many things according to the custom of the Grecians. So Ambrose lost his cause four hundred years after his death. And this was done against the counsel of Gregory himself, the Author of that Roman Office, who was Bishop of Rome in the year 596. For among the interrogations of Augustine the Monk to him, this is the third; Why is the custom of Masses another in the Roman Church, and another in Gauls? To which Gregory answereth, I like it well that thou seek carefully that which thou shalt find most like to please Almighty God, whether it be in the Roman or in the Gallican Church. He doth not bind him to follow the Roman Office. That which most displeased the Pope in the Ambrosian Office, was this Prayer that was pronounced upon the Bread of the Lord's Supper, Which Prayer is to be seen in Ambrose 's 4. book of the Sacraments, ch. 5. Grant that this offering may be accounted unto us, reasonable and acceptable, which is the Figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. For although the Dispute was not yet moved about Transubstantiation, yet Satan began in the eight age to lick that bear, and secretly was contriving that piece of the mystery of iniquity. Wherefore he labored to abolish the Ambrosian Office in which that word Figure crossed his design. Besides it grieved the Pope to see that the credit and authority of Ambrose should so prevail over the authority of the Roman Church.

Thus the Popes winding themselves into the favor of Kings, made use of them to enlarge their limits and establish their authority. Of which we have the like example in Spain, happened in the time of King Alphonsus, and Pope Gregory the VII, and his successor Urban, who was made Pope in the year 1088. For then they had in Spain the ancient Liturgy called the Mozarabick Office, or the Toledo Office, differing from the Roman Service. But Gregory the VII. having obtained of the King that the ancient Service should be abolished in his Dominions, and the Roman Service established; The execution was found very difficult, by reason of the murmurings and the resistance of the States of the Land. In the end they agreed to decide the difference by a Duel between two Knights. The King chose a Knight that should fight for the Roman Office, and the States of the Land another to fight for the Mozarabick. It happened that the Roman Champion was unhorsed and beaten down, to the Kings great discontent: Who yet required that another trial should be made; That both the Offices should be cast into a great fire, and that the Office which should not burn should overcome. Upon that all parties betook themselves to their prayers, and the trial being made, the Roman Office was consumed, but the Mozarabick remained whole. Notwithstanding all this, the King being engaged with promise unto the Pope, would have his will; And upon pain of loss, not only of goods, but of life also, it was commanded that the Roman Service, which otherwise was called Gallican, should be established in Spain. This History is related by Roderick Archbishop of Toledo in the 6. book, 25 and 26. ch.

To return to the Church of Milan; They would not obey the Emperor Charlemagne, and despising Pope Adrian and his Council, retained the Office of their ancient Bishop Ambrose, and kept it long after. Paulus Aemilius in the life of Philip the I. praiseth Pope Steven for bringing to the obedience of the Roman Church the Church of Milan, which for two hundred years together had stood out disobedient. Platina saith the same in the life of Steven the IX. who with Baronius is the X.

In the year of the Lord 1058. Guy Archbishop of Milan assembled a Council at Fontanet near Navarre in Lombardy, where he condemned the Celibate of the Roman Church. For in that time the Clerks of Milan and Lombardy were married, as Sigonius affirmeth in the beginning of the 9. book of the Kingdom of Italy: Where also he saith, that of a long time the Church of Milan despised the authority of the Roman Church.

In the year of our Lord 1059. Pope Nicolas the II. to reduce to his obedience the Church of Milan, which till then had not been subject unto the Roman See, sent Petrus Damianus Bishop of Oetia to Milan to manage that work with dexterity. Then the Clerks of Milan were married, and in many things differed from the Roman Church. Petrus Damianus having won Guy Archbishop of Milan, and some of the Clergy, began to put his hand to the reformation. But the Clergy and the people of Milan resisted, saying, That the Ambrosian Church must not be subjected unto the Roman Laws, and that the Roman Prelate had no right to judge, or to dispose of anything in that See. It is a thing too unworthy (said they) that the Church of Milan, which in time of our progenitors hath been always free, now (which God forbid) become subject to another Church, to our disgrace and confusion. But Cardinal Damian an industrious and persuasive man, appeased the mutiny, which seemed to tend to sedition: and in an Oration represented to the people that God had given to the Blessed bearers of the keys of eternal life (that is, to Peter and to the Popes) the Empire both of earth and heaven. And so prevailed with his practices, that by the help of the Archbishop Guy he took from the Clergy their wives, and subjected the Church of Milan unto the Roman. This relation is to be seen in an Epistle of that Cardinal Damian to the Archdeacon Hilderbrand, who since was Gregory the VII. And in the Annals of Baronius, an. 1059. In that Epistle Damianus saith that he laid upon Archbishop Guy a penance of an hundred years, redeemable with money; as Sigonius saith in the forealledged place. But as soon as Damian was gone from Milan, presently the people and the Clergy shook off the yoke, and the Archbishop himself gave leave to the Priests and other Clerks to take their wives again. At which Pope Nicolas being sore angry excommunicated the Bishops and Priests of Lombardy. And Damian writ Letters to them, wherein among other things he tells them, That this was no new thing in the Church of Milan, where there had been always men of different Doctrines, beginning at Auxentius and Ambrose. So poor Ambrose was condemned many Ages after his death.

The Popes would oppose it, but in vain, till by seditious and violent ways in the time of Alexander the second, and Gregory the seventh, the people of Milan were oppressed, and brought under the subjection o • the Roman Church.

This digression serveth to prove that which I said, that Ambrose and the Church of Milan were not subject unto the Church of Rome. Which considerations, with many more, make it doubtful, whether the books of the Sacraments be of Ambrose; For how could he have said, I desire to follow the Roman Church in all things, seeing he differed from her in so many Articles?

Here I cannot wink at the Cardinals foul dealing, who in the 25. ch. of the 1. book, alledgeth that testimony of Ambrose in these words, We follow in all things the example and the form of the Roman Church. But he kept himself from adding that which follows; Yet we also are men not destitute of sense, wherefore we do well to keep that which is better observed in other places.

The same usage he offereth to the same Father in the 56. ch. of the first book, where he alledgeth these words of Ambrose, ch. 4. of the book of Incarnation, Peter not forgetful of his place did [or maintained] the primacy. A discourse maliciously clipt: For Ambrose addeth, The primacy indeed of confession, not of honor; the primacy of faith, not of order.

In another place, alleging Ambrose, he commits a fault, which I am content to impute to his want of memory. He brings a text out of Ambrose 's Comment upon 1 Tim. 3. which he saith to be either of Ambrose, or of a contemporary Author; Although all the world belong unto God, yet the Church is called the house of God, of which Damasus is now the Governor. But himself in the 20. ch. of the last book disputes against these Comments, as false and supposititious, and marks the absurdities that he finds in them; saying that the true Comments of Ambrose upon Paul's Epistles were already lost in the time of Cassiodorus; and that these Comments are Apocrypha and spurious, having nothing of the sense and style of Ambrose.

In the same place he alledgeth this place of Optatus Milevitanus in the second book against Parmenian; Thou canst not deny that unto Peter the Episcopal chair was assigned at Rome, in which Peter the head of all the Apostles sat; wherefore also he was called Cephas, &c. Optatus believed that Cephas signifieth a head, whereas it signifieth a stone. But what doth that testimony against us, the question between us being not whether St. Peter had some superiority or honor among the Apostles? the question is about the power of jurisdiction. Neither is the question whether Peter hath been at Rome, nor whether the Bishop of Rome hath been his successor in the Roman Episcopacy; but whether that Apostle hath constituted the Bishop of Rome his successor in the Apostleship, and in the quality of Head of the Church of all the world? Optatus is so far from that, that in the same book he calls the Bishop of Rome his companion. Damasus and Syricius who at this day is our companion, with whom all the world agreeth with us, by the commerce of Epistles formed in one communion of society.

In the year of Christ 398. Syricius Bishop of Rome, the capital enemy of marriage, being dead, Anastasius succeeded him, who to please Jerome, was adversary to Ruffinus, pretending that he had translated some books of Origen into Latin.

CHAP. 17. Contention of Paulinus and Flavianus, Competitors of the Patriarchat of Antioch.

TOwards the end of the fourth age Paulinus and Flavianus were Competitors of the Patriarchat of Antioch. Both took that quality, born by contrary factions.

The Bishops of the West, one of them being the Bishop of Rome, maintained Paulinus, and disapproved the election of Flavianus as unlawful. Upon that Gratian commanded both the parties to come to Rome, and convocated a great number of Bishops to end that difference.

That the citation of Paulinus and Flavianus, and that convocation of Bishops was by the only command of the Roman Emperor, Jerome shows it in his Epistle to Eustochium upon the death of Paula. When the Imperial letters had drawn to Rome the Bishops, both of the East and the West, upon some Ecclesiastical dissensions, Paula saw there the admirable men and Prelates of Christ, Paulinus Bishop of Antioch, and Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina in Cyprus, which is now called Constantia. Of a command from the Pope he saith nothing. Wherefore M. du Perron in the 25. ch. of the 1. book, made use of his ordinary licentiousness in faigning that which is not, saying that the Pope did evocate the cause unto Rome, and that the Popes letters were accompanied with those of the Emperor Gratian; As if the Emperors letters had been but a dependence and addition to the Popes letters. All that is false, neither could he bring any witness of it.

In obedience to the Emperors command Paulinus came to Rome, and many other Bishops. But Flavianus knowing that the Bishops of the West, that of Rome especially, were contrary to him, and Ambrose Bishop of Milan (as it may be seen by his 78. Epistle) would not appear, and used many shifts.

Paulinus being dead, his faction chose Evagrius in his place. In the mean while a Council sat at Capua by the authority of the Bishop of Rome; In that Council Flavianus was condemned, and declared unjust possessor of the Bishopric of Antioch. But that Council was not received in the East: And the authority of the Emperor Theodosius, Gratians successor, intervened, who maintained Flavianus in his place, having approved of his reasons, and preferred them to the decision of the Council of Capua, and the Bishop of Rome. So Anastasius Bishop of Rome, and his successor, Innocent the first, were forced to consent to it, and to acknowledge Flavian the lawful Bishop of Antioch, after they had persecuted him with all their power (as he also for his part had highly scorned them, and refused to acknowledge them for his Judges.) For the Bishops of Rome were very meek and gracious to them whom they could not hurt.

CHAP. 18. Observations upon the History of the four first Ages. And how the Cardinal hath found nothing in it for his purpose.

SO we are now come to the year of our Lord 400. In all that time we have found no Appeal from other Churches to the Roman See, no Law given by the Bishop of Rome to the Universal Church. No Universal Council convocated by him. No Universal Council where he presided. No care taken by him of the Churches without the Roman Empire. No obedience or subjection of the Bishops of Asia or Africa to the Roman Prelat, but all disobedience when he offered to exceed his limits. No heretic condemned for disobedience to the Roman See. No execution of the judgments pronounced by the Bishop of Rome out of his Patriarchat. Very far was he from deposing Kings or Emperors, or publishing indulgences, or giving pardons of two or three hundred thousand years, or fetching souls out of Purgatory, or boasting of infallibility in the faith, or giving his feet unto Emperors to kiss, or keeping reserved cases to himself, which none but himself could dispense with. In those days the Pope wore no triple Crown, had no Court, no guards, and no temporal principality.

Only so much is found in the Fathers of the four first Ages; That Peter was called the first and the Prince of the Apostles, yet without power of jurisdiction over his colleagues. That the Bishop of Rome was held successor of St. Peter in the Office of Bishop of the City of Rome, not in the Apostleship, or in the principality over the Universal Church. That the Bishop of Rome was the first of the Patriarchs of the Empire; not by Divine right, but by the Ecclesiastical Canons, and because of the dignity of the City. That this dignity did not exceed the limits of the Empire. That it was a primacy without power of jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs, and a precedence without domination. That all the Patriarchs took care of all the Churches of the Empire. That the Bishops of Rome of the three first Ages till the year 340. were very low, of small authority, and scarce known.

And that Julius the first, was he that begun to offer to raise himself, but gave over presently, having met with resistance. Satan hath been long beating that anvil. One may see in the following ages, how the Roman Prelat hath ascended from degree to degree, but with small progress, as long as he was subject to the Roman Empire.

And this is of perpetual observation, that all the examples alleged by Cardinal du Perron to show what the power of the Bishop of Rome was in ancient time, are included within the limits of the Roman Empire, and that he could not bring so much as one example, that the Bishop of Rome ever meddled with the businesses of the Churches of Persia, or Media, or Ethiopia, or the East Indies, or Assyria, or Chaldea, or Armenia, or Arabia: because these Churches were without the Roman Empire, and sent no Deputies to the Councils, and acknowledged not the Patriarchs of the Churches of the Empire of Rome. Some small portion of Arabia hath been sometimes subject to the Roman Emperors, as also Armenia, by certain intervals. Of which Nations nevertheless M. du Perron brings not any • xample. This only observation serveth to answer thirty Chapters of the Cardinals first book, from the 25. ch. to the 55. which hold above 500. pages. For all the things which he brings in all these Chapters, although they were as true and faithfully alleged, as they are fraudulently and maliciously disguised, yet they are things happened only within the precincts of the Roman Empire.

Suppose that the Bishop of Rome had an absolute Empire over all the Churches of the Empire of Rome, what doth that to show that he is by Divine right the Head of the Universal Church? Nay, doth not that show that his power hath begun by human constitutions, since it is limited by the limits of a certain worldly Kingdom, and extends not unto other Kingdoms? How comes it to pass, that of a thousand allegations of the Cardinal out of the ancient History, he brings not one testimony of the Popes power over the Churches of Arabia, India, Persia, Ethiopia, &c? At least he ought to have brought some passage, or some action, whereby it might appear that the Bishop of Rome challenged domination, or power of jurisdiction over those Churches; or some expostulation that those Churches yielded him no obedience. But of that there is no trace in all Antiquity: No wonder that the Cardinal could bring no president for it.

But we have shown that even the Churches of the Roman Empire did not acknowledge him for their Head; and we will show it again, with God's assistance, following the thread of the History unto the last of the first four Universal Councils: Which is the term that the Cardinal hath set to himself, and the time within which he limits himself in the dispute with his Majesty of Great Britain.

The Reader also may remember, that the Cardinal with all his diligence could find no ground for the Popes primacy in three hundred and forty years after Christ's birth, when Julius began to put out his horns, but was forced to pull them in again.

Towards the end of this fourth Age, the Monastical profession past from Egypt and Syria into Europe. To which Martin in Gauls, and Jerome at Rome did very much contribute. That profession began by some noble women, to whom Jerome writes many Epistles; who living at home, not in a Monastery, wore a course black-garment, instead of the white which the Roman people wore: and they used much abstinence and austerity in their diet; and would work with their own hands. It is to be observed, that those Monks of Egypt and Syria were most of them Heretics Anthropomorphites, and had no communication with the Church of Rome, as Sozomenus affirmeth in the 11. ch. of the 8. book, and the Author of the life of Fulgentius: For he relates that Eulatius Bishop of Saragossa, dissuaded Fulgentius from joining with the Monks of Egypt: Those Monks (saith he) whose admirable abstinence is celebrated, shall not have the Sacraments of the Church common with thee. Cassian in the 10. Collation, 2. and 3. ch. saith that all the Monks of Egypt and Syria were given to that opinion, and by consequent despised the Communion of the Roman Church, as well as that of the Greek; Against which nevertheless the Bishop of Rome used no censure, because they were not subject unto him.

CHAP. 1. A Narration of that which happened to John Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople.

IN the year 395. the Emperor Theodosius being dead, his Son Arcadius succeeded him in the Empire of the East, and Honorius in the Empire of the West. Then John Chrysostom, whose works we have, was Patriarch of Constantinople: A man full of zeal and eloquence, and of a holy austere life, but somewhat too free in his words.

The Empress Eudoxia not able to bear with his bold speech in his Sermons, and knowing that Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, a Prelate of great authority was his enemy, sent for him to Constantinople; And he being come, assembled a Council, in which Chrysostom was condemned, and put from his place. But the fervent love of the people to him, caused him to return soon after, and to do his Office as before. In which, as he continued to use his former freedom, it happened that the Empress caused her silver Statue to be set up in the public place, near the Church, upon a Pillar of Porphyry, and that some threatenings of her were reported to John Chrysostom; who upon that made a violent Sermon, where he said, Herodias now rageth again, again she is dancing, again she asketh that Johns head be brought unto her in a charger, &c. Which moved the Emperor and the Empress to assemble another Council, where Chrysostom was again condemned and deposed from his Episcopacy, for intruding and re-entering into his charge against the forms, after his deposition in the precedent Council. To that deposition the Emperor joined banishment, where that golden mouth died a few years after.

Then was Innocent the first Bishop at Rome, who if he had been Head of the Universal Church, ought to have hindered that evil, and sent presently Legates to restore Chrysostom to his place, and cite Theophilus before the Papal See to give account of his Actions; and in case of disobedence, depose and excommunicate him. But nothing of all that was done. Sozomenus in book 8. of his History, 26. ch. saith that Innocent writ consolatory Letters to Chrysostom, and other Letters to the Clergy of Constantinople, wherein he bemoaned the condition of that holy man so unworthily used. He said not in those Letters that Theophilus had despised his authority. He used no threatenings, he took no knowledge of the cause. But this he said, It is necessary that a Synod take knowledge of this, as we said long ago that a Synod ought to be assembled: for a Synod only can still the motions of such storms. Which that we may obtain, it is expedient to commit the remedy of it to the will of the great God and of Jesus Christ.

Then to obtain that Council of the Emperor, he sends both to the Emperor Arcadius, and to his brother Honorius some Bishops and Priests, to beseech them that a Council might assemble by their leave, to judge again of that business. So did the Roman Bishops behave themselves in those days.

But Sozomenus in the same place relates that the enemies of John Chrysostom that were at Constantinople, gave to that proceeding a calumnious interpretation, saying that it was done to affront his Imperial Majesty, and caused these Deputies to be sent back as disturbers of the Eastern Empire, and Chrysostom to be sent into a remoter exile at Pityunta. George Bishop of Alexandria (as Photios in his Library affirmeth) saith, That Innocent sustained many combats for that holy man, although his labor was without effect; and that he sent Deputies, but they were sent back ill used. And that he writ Letters, but that he could not achieve anything of that he labored for. So weak and ineffectual was the intercession of the Bishop of Rome at that time.

Upon that Cardinal du Perron heaps up many untruths and forgeries. He saith that Chrysostom had recourse by Appeal to Pope Innocent the I. If that be true, It is a wonder that all the Historians of that time are silent about it, and that Chrysostom himself saith nothing of it in any of the Epistles which he hath written upon that matter. It is a wonder also that he did not appeal to Innocent in that very Council where he was condemned. For although he was not present, he might have made his Appeal by another, and signified his Appeal unto the Council. True it is, that two Letters of Chrysostom are found with this superscription, To my Lord Innocent, Most reverend and most beloved of God. But that superscription is altogether false and spurious. For the reading of those Epistles will evidently justify that they are written either to the Bishops of the West, or to all the Bishops of the Roman Empire, whom he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , My most honored and most religious Lord's. As also the whole Epistle speaks in the plural. Of Innocent or the See of the Bishop of Rome, not a word in these two Epistles; And no more of any Appeal to the Pope. Nay, Chrysostom in the first Epistle saith, that when he was condemned by Theophilus, he appealed from his judgment, not to the Bishop of Rome. (for he speaks never a word of him) but to another Council, and that he besought the Emperor to convocate a lawful Council, where his cause might be judged. By the same Epistle he craveth his Brethren's help, and represents unto them the wrong done unto him, beseeching them that by their means, things so unjustly done may have no force, and that the doers may be punished: To which end he desireth that a Council may be assembled. If these be words of Appeal, it is the same Appeal which he made in the Council where he had been condemned. Wherefore also Innocent received not that Appeal, and reserved not to himself the knowledge of this cause: Only he mediated with the Emperor for a Council, which he could never obtain. There is yet less color in saying that by the second Epistle Chrysostom appealed to Innocent: For it was written three years after his condemnation, when he had lived almost three years in exile. And that Epistle like the precedent speaks to Bishops in the plural, and speaks neither of, nor to Innocent, nor of his See. So it is against all truth that the Cardinal affirms that Chrysostom appealed unto Innocent.

A long fragment of an Epistle of Chrysostom unto Innocent is extant, in the 13. book of Nicephorus, ch. 19. where he speaks of no Appeals to Innocent, but only of the excesses and insolencies of his enemies. In vain also the Cardinal heaps up some examples of Authors speaking in the plural to one man, as if they spake to many. These examples ought to have been taken out of the writings of Chrysostom himself, to show that it was his ordinary style. Certainly in all languages it would be an absurdity and a trespass against common sense, to say, My Lord's, or my Brethren, speaking to one man.

In the same place our Cardinal will show himself an Hebrician, saying that Rabbi signifieth many. It is true that Rabbi comes out of Rab which signifieth multus and potens, and Rabbim signifieth multi. But Rabbi doth not therefore signify many, and is not a plural word: But it is a singular word, which in the Jewish tongue signifieth Master and Doctor.

To that Fable he addeth another of the like stuff; He saith that Innocent after the death of Chrysostom excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius and his Wife Eudoxia; And his Author for it is George of Alexandria, who above 200. years after compiled the life of Chrysostom out of several Authors, where he hath gathered many Fables contrary to the truth of the History. It is the testimony which Photios gives him in his Library: It is plain that this Writer relateth many things contrary to the truth of the History: But nothing hinders the Readers to choose what is good, and leave the rest. And that which the Cardinal saith is most false, that herein Cedrenus followed George of Alexandria. For Cedrenus saith not that Eudoxia was excommunicated by Innocent or by any other, but only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that she drew upon herself a curse, and a just hatred. This affirmation that Cedrenus saith, that Innocent excommunicated Arcadius or Eudoxia, is a notorious forgery of the Cardinal: That Fable being contradicted by all the Historians next unto Chrysostom's time. For besides that Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomenus, who have exactly written all the passages of this History of Chrysostom, say nothing of it; This is more, that Prosper and Marcellinus in their Chronicles, and Socrates in the 6. book, 16. ch. expressly observes, that Eudoxia died in the Consulat of Honorius and Aristenetus, which falls upon the year of our Lord 404. three years before Chrysostom 's death, who died in the year 407. By this account Innocent excommunicated Eudoxia three years after her death. To oppose to ancient Historians new Authors, as Nicephorus, and Zonaras, or Simeon Metaphrastes, a Fabulous Writer, as the Cardinal doth, is no sincere dealing. To invalid the testimony of Socrates, the Cardinal chargeth him to be a Novatian, and an enemy to the memory of Chrysostom. But I cannot comprehend that Socrates doth wrong to the memory of Chrysostom, by setting the death of Eudoxia before that of Chrysostom; especially seeing that Socrates doth highly praise and exalt Chrysostom, and justifieth him with all his strength. It is false also that Socrates was a Novatian; For he blameth the Novatians as Schismatics, in book 5. ch. 19. where he taxeth them of separation from the Church: Since the time (saith he) that the Novatians separated themselves from the Church: and in the following ch. he puts them among the Heretics: It is expedient (saith he) to pass in silence over that which happened among the others, that is among the Arians, the Novatians, the Macedonians, the Eunomians. This is enough to show that the Cardinal layeth a false imputation upon that faithful Historian Socrates.

In the same place the Cardinal affirmeth many things against the truth: As that Prosper Aquitanius, and Marcellinus Comes, put the death of the Empress Eudoxia many years before the death of Chrysostom. For Prosper speaks not at all of the death of Chrysostom, and puts the death of Eudoxia one year after she had set up her silver Statue upon a Pillar of Porphyry, against which Chrysostom preached. As for Marcellinus, he puts Chrysostom's death a year before the death of Eudoxia. So I do not believe that the Cardinal had seen these Authors, but trusted others that have abused him. With the like untruth he saith in the same place, that the revolt of the Isauri happened since the exile of Chrysostom: For Chrysostom himself Epist. 14. affirmeth the contrary, saying that as he was going into exile, he was sick in his journey with a burning fever, and that the incursions of the Isauri frighted him. And if Arzabacius who was sent against them with an Army obtained victories over them since the death of Chrysostom, the Empress that favored that Arzabacius (as Zozimus relateth) cannot be Eudoxia, as the Cardinal will persuade us.

We have the life of Chrysostom written by Palladius, who speaks not of the excommunication of Arcadius, and no more of Chrysostom's appeal to Innocent. It is true, he saith that Innocent judged that judgment of Theophilus should be reversed and nulled. Not that Innocent had pronounced a sentence as a judge; But he judged that it ought to be reversed by a Council. Wherefore also Palladius addeth how Innocent said, that another irreprehensible Synod of the Prelates of East and West ought to be kept. It is plain then that Innocent referred the judgment unto the Council.

It is then an evident lie of Pope Gelasius, who writ a hundred years after, that Innocent absolved John of Constantinople. Popes are not credible witnesses in such matters. And the Cardinal ought not to allege their testimony in their own cause, as he doth a thousand times, having filled all his book with such testimonies. For the Bishops of Rome to exalt their own dignity, will lie very liberally. Especially this Gelasius, who hath overgone all his predecessors in pride.

It was the custom in those days, that the Churches of the Roman Empire would maintain their union by communicatory letters, and send the one to the other the sacred bread, and Eulogies as they spake then, in sign of concord. During that discord about the business of John Chrysostom, Innocent and the Bishops of the West would not receive the communion from the Churches of Constantinople, and Alexandria, and separated themselves from their communion, as Theodoret witnesseth in the fifth book of his history, chap. 34. John being dead, the Occidental men would never admit the communion of the Egyptians, nor of the Oriental men, nor of the Bishops of Bosphorus and Thracia, &c. But after they had heard what honor the City of Constantinople had done to Chrysostom after his death, they were reconciled, as Innocent himself witnesseth; Having learned (saith he) by those you sent, that all things had been accomplisht according to our desire, I have, with thanks to God, received the communion of your Church. These testimonies show that the Popes in those days did not excommunicate men and Churches out of their Patriarchat, by thundering anathema's as they have done since, but only declared that they would not receive their communion, and separated themselves from their union, for fear of partaking with their sin.

But before I leave that holy man, I will allege some places, wherein he speaks of the City and Church of Antioch, where he preached many years. In the third Homily to the people of Antioch, he speaks thus of them, Consider the greatness of the City, and that it is not here question of one, or two, or three, or ten souls, but of infinite thousands, and of the Head of the whole world. This City is that where Christians were first so called. That holy man believed that the honor which God had done to Antioch, that in it the faithful were first named Christians, was a sufficient consideration to make it the first of all, and the head of all the world; and that by consequent it ought to be preferred before the Church of Rome. The same Father, in the seventeenth Homily to the same people: In Antioch the Disciples were first called Christians. No City in the whole habitable world hath that, no not the City of Romulus. Wherefore this City may lift up her sight against the whole earth. And in the 25. Homily upon the Acts, The Disciples have been first called Christians in Antioch. This is not a small praise of this Town, whereby She is made able to stand against all. And in the Sermon upon Ignatius, he exalteth the dignity of the City of Antioch, because St. Peter to whom Christ gave the keys, and the government of his Church, made a long abode in it. Whence he inferreth that Antioch is not inferior to any City of the world. His words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, our City is equal in worth, or may be put in the balance with all the habitable earth. That good Doctor would never have spoken so, if he had thought that the Church of Antioch was subject unto the Church of Rome. Wherefore when from a Priest of Antioch, he was raised to the Patriarchat of Constantinople, it was done without consulting the Bishop of Rome, and asking his approbation. To John Chrysostom, Arsacius succeeded in the Patriarchat of Constantinople, and after Arsacius Atticus Chrysostom's enemy.

Nicephorus in book 13. chap. 33. saith that Innocentius Bishop of Rome excommunicated that Atticus, who for all that remained peaceable possessor of his place, being much honored and respected; and there continued the space of four and twenty years. For the judgments of the Bishops of Rome out of their Patriarchat were of no effect. Besides, such excommunications were but declarations that one would not communicate with another.

CHAP. 2. Of the power of the Patriarchs of this fifth Age.

THE great authority which Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria used in the deposition of Chysostome without receiving any censure or Ecclesiastical punishment for it, remaining in a peaceable possession of his Patriarchat until death, giveth us occasion of speaking of the power which that Prelate then had, who aspired unto higher things, and would have raised that See very high, if the events of the following ages had concurred with the grounds which he had laid.

Among the Epistles of Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais in Cyrene, there is one to this Theophilus. In the sixty sixth Epistle propounding a question to him, he saith, It is the interrogation to which the authority of the Apostolical succession must simply and clearly answer. And in the following Epistle, I will, and it is unto me a divine necessity to hold for a Law that which that throne decreeth. He speaks of the See of Alexandria: Had he written in these terms to the Bishop of Rome, our Adversaries would be sure to make a show of these texts to the Popes primacy.

That Theophilus being dead in the year 412. Cyrillus succeeded, whose power was so great, that he durst with his own authority drive the Jews out of Alexandria, whose multitude was incredible, & that without the consent of Orestes the Emperors Lieutenant in the Province, whom he bearded, raising seditions against him: in one of which Orestes being hurt with a stone by a Monk called Ammonius, caused the Monk to be apprehended and put to death. Cyrillus interred the Monks corpse honourably, and made a funeral Homily in his praise, as for a Martyr. In a short time the power of the Patriarch of Alexandria grew so much, that it was objected to Dioscorus Bishop of that See, in the Council of Cbalcedon, that he had boasted himself to be as much Master of Egypt, as the Emperor. Of that time after the death of