The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 3. Of the Milevitan Council, and of the prohibition there made to Appeal unto Rome. The Cardinals answers are examined.

IN the year of our Lord 402. a Council sat at Milevis in Numidia; and another in the same town in the year 415. Of which two Councils since the Canons are confounded, we will speak here as if the two Councils were but one.

Two evils did vex the Churches of Africa. First, the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius. And in consequence of that first evil, the rebellion of some Clerks, who being condemned by the Church of Africa, would cross the Seas and come to Rome, to find support in the Bishop of Rome, who did greedily receive those Appeals, laboring thereby to raise his authority. Thus after that Celestius had been condemned in Africa, he had his recourse to Pope Zozimus, and that Pope received and defended him for a time against the Churches of Africa. But being better informed since, or despairing of his power to restore him, he forsook him.

That being then a new thing not practiced before, the Bishops of Africa would prevent that evil, and make in the Milevitan Council, either in the first or in the second, this excellent Canon which is the 22. It is decreed that the Priests, Deacons, and other inferior Clerks (if in their causes they complain of the judgment of their Bishops) be heard by the Bishops of the neighbourhood, who being adjoined by the consent of their Bishops shall decide their businesses. And if they think that they ought to Appeal also from their Bishops, let them not Appeal but to the Councils of Africa, or to the Primats of their Province, as it was often decreed about Bishops. But whosoever will Appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received to the Communion by any in Africa. This Canon is found set down in these terms in the Greek copies, and in Balsamon the most learned of all the Grecians in Ecclesiastical Law, and in Zonaras, and in many Latin copies, and is so alleged in the Council of Reims under Hugh Capet, and by Hinckmarus.

That by the Appeals beyond the Seas, the Appeals to Rome are forbidden, it is out of question; And Balsamons words are notable to that purpose, Since these present Canons were framed in Carthage, that is in Africa, by the judgments beyond the Seas, by all means those of Rome are understood; And hence it appears, that those of the Church of Rome glory in vain, saying that the differences of all the Churches must be judged by them upon Appeal: For if Rome be not allowed to receive the Appeals of Africa, how much less shall she have that right over all other Provinces?

The Reader must not find strange, that Balsamon saith that this Canon hath been framed at Carthage. For in the sixth Council of Carthage, this Canon hath been again confirmed, upon occasion of one Apiarius a Priest in Africa, who having been condemned by his Bishop Urban, had Appealed to Rome; at which the African Bishops were much offended, as we shall see hereafter.

This Canon being made by a multitude of good and holy Bishops, among whom were Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and Austin Bishop of Bona, who framed the Canons of this Council, whereby it is forbidden upon pain of excommunication to Appeal unto Rome, it is no wonder that the Advocates of Papacy have done all their endeavor to falsify it, and to corrupt both the sense and the words. The Roman Decree compiled by Gratian, Causa 2. Qu. 6. Can. Placuit, hath added an exception in the end which corrupteth the whole Canon. For after those words, If any will Appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received by any in Africa to the Communion, they have sewed up this tail, nisi forte Romanam sedem appellaverit, unless perhaps he hath Appealed to the Roman See. How should the Roman See be excepted, seeing that the Canon is expressly ma •• against those that Appealed to the Roman See?

But let us see what M. du Perron answereth to this; for he extends himself upon this subject in the 47. ch. of the 1. book. He saith two things; The one, that this Canon must be understood only of the lesser causes, not of the great, such as are the questions about the faith and the Sacraments. The other, that this Canon meaneth only the causes of Clerks of an inferior degree, as Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons. He confesseth then that the Bishops of Africa, of whom St. Austin is one, prohibit upon pain of excommunication to Appeal to the Bishop of Rome in the causes of Priests and Deacons; And that in such points they did not like that the Pope should meddle with their businesses: But that for the great causes, and for the causes of Bishops, this Council intended not to hinder the Appeals to him. Wherefore he maintains that this clause [as it was often decreed about the Bishops] must be razed, as added since. And yet the Greek copies published by our adversaries, and Balsamon, and Zonaras, and many Latin copies, have that clause, and put the causes of Bishops in the same rank, as the causes of Priests and Deacons. And which is more, we shall see hereafter, that the same Bishops assembled again set down that clause so plain, that the Cardinal himself doth acknowledge it.

To prove that clause to be false, he saith that it is not found in the Originals of the Milevitan Council, that is in the Copies written in the Council itself, which no man of this age hath seen. So this Prelat abuseth the Reader. He addeth, that Gratian hath not that clause, nor the German Centuriators. But I have lately shown how wickedly Gratian hath falsified that excellent Canon: And the Centuriators of Magdenburg have followed the Latin copies (that first came to their hand) corrupted by our adversaries, and wanting that clause. All his other reasons, this among others, that Austin in the 162. Epistle affirmeth, that by the ancient Discipline of Africa, the Bishops had that right to Appeal beyond the Sea, are likewise false or vain. Whoso will read that Epistle, shall find no such thing. Austin's words are; The question was not of Priests, Deacons, or other Clerks of the inferior order, but of the colleagues, who might reserve their whole cause to the judgment of the other Bishops, to the Apostolical Churches especially. There Austin speaks not of Appealing to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Apostolic Sees in general assembled in Council; such as were the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and Ephesus. And wheresoever in that 162. Epistle, mention is made of the Churches beyond the Sea, thereby not only the Churches of Italy are understood, but also those of Greece, of Gauls, and of all the East and West assembled in a Council; as Austin declares it in the same Epistle saying, Suppose that the Bishops that judged at Rome were not good Judges, the universal Council of the whole Church remained yet. And in the same place; There remained yet unto them thousands of colleagues beyond the Sea, where it was known that they might be judged, since they suspected their African and Numidian colleagues. Where it is plain, that by the Bishops beyond the Sea the Bishop of Rome is not only understood. Thus in the book of the unity of the Church, ch. 2. It remained that the Bishops beyond the sea that make the great part of the extent of the Catholic Church, should judge of the dissensions of the Africans. But to what end should we dispute, whether by that Canon the Bishops of Africa be forbidden to Appeal beyond the Sea, since we shall see hereafter that a few years after this Council of Milevis, the same Bishops being assembled in the sixth Council of Carthage, renew the same constitution? and write to Celestine Bishop of Rome very express letters upon that subject; where they say, that if the Appeals of Priests and Deacons to the Bishop of Rome are not receivable, much less ought he to receive the Appeals of Bishops, which belongs to the jurisdiction of their Metropolitans. The Cardinal acknowledgeth this, and so confutes himself.

Then to come to the Card •• als two answers unto this Canon; We are not ignorant that there are some greater, some lesser causes: All causes are not of the same importance, and there was no need for him to trouble himself to prove that; less yet to employ the testimony of Pope Innocent writing to Victricius Bishop of Roven, whom he makes to say, that the greatest causes must be referred to the Apostolic See, to prove that the greatest causes of Africa were referred to Rome: For besides that the Decretal Epistles of the ancient Popes are suspected of forgery, the testimony of Popes is not receivable in their own cause.

To no purpose he alledgeth in the same place Pope Gregory the first, and Pope Leo, who are come since, and very often attribute unto themselves a power that belongs not to them. And no witness (say I again) is receivable in his own cause. To allege Charlemagne, and Hinckmarus, and Gerson, as the Cardinal doth in the same place, is descending too low, even 1400. years after Christ. That which was done in the late ages in France, over which the Pope hath exercised a tyranny these six or seven hundred years, is very different from the condition of the Churches of Africa in St. Austin's time. But the Cardinal not being able to find any ancient African witness that reserveth the Appeals in great causes to the Bishop of Rome, nor any example in antiquity but such as he forgeth, hath been forced to rake in the dregs of the last ages, and authors of the late Gallican Church, to prove the Appeals of the ancient Bishops of the African Church unto Rome: Whereas we bring ancient and famous examples out of Africa itself; for it was a principal cause which was handled in the Council of Africa, assembled by Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage, even the doctrine of the Sacrament of baptism. Yet Agrippinus made no difficulty to decide such an important point of doctrine without, yea against the Roman Church. And yet the Bishop of Rome at that time shown not himself offended at it, and called not the cause before himself. For the Bishops of Rome in those days behaved themselves with more humility.

Cyprian Bishop of the same Church did the same, having purposely assembled a Council against the doctrine maintained by Steven Bishop of Rome, and did not for that incur any censure of the Roman Pope, but was followed by the most famous Bishops of the East, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Firmilianus of Cesarea in Cappadocia. Who knoweth not that the Bishops of Africa in St. Austin's time took great offense when Celestius condemned by them, went to Rome to Zozimus Bishop of the place, who favourably received him, and for a time defended him with his authority? It was about an important point, the Pelagian heresy. We shall see more examples hereafter, even out of Africa.

Yet suppose that this clause of the Milevitan -Canon, speaks only of the lesser causes, yet it is contrary to the Bishop of Rome, and debaseth his authority. For although the inferior Courts cannot judge definitively, and without Appeal, but of certain lower causes, and to a certain sum of money: yet it belongs not to them to make those limitations, but it belongs to a Sovereign Judge to set those limits. An inferior Court cannot prohibit, upon pain of death or fine, Appeals unto higher Courts in certain cases. Likewise if the African Councils had been inferior Judges, subject to the Bishop of Rome, it belonged not to them to prohibit Appeals unto the Bishop of Rome, in certain cases, upon pain of Excommunication, nor to write to him, that he should thereafter take heed of receiving such Appeals, or taking notice of them. But it had belonged to the Pope to set limits to them, and to grant them to judge definitively and without Appeal of some Causes of less moment, reserving to himself the knowledge of the Causes of a higher nature.

The Cardinals second answer was, that this Milevitan -Canon speaks not of the Causes of Bishops, and that these Fathers meant not to forbid the Episcopal Appeals; and that this clause was falsely added. But we shall presently hear the same Bishops expounding themselves upon that point, so plainly, that all matter of doubt shall be removed. But though that clause quarrelled at were put out, yet it is plain that this Canon forbids that no Appeals from Bishops be made beyond the Sea, that is, to the Bishop of Rome. For that Canon prohibits Appealing from the judgment of Bishops, to any but the Primates of Africa, or before the Synod of the Province. Now in case of Appeal from the judgment of a Bishop, the said Bishop is accused to have ill Judged, and he that was Judge becomes a party. The Bishop then is forbidden by this Canon to maintain the justice of his own Judgment before any, but the Judges of Africa, or before the Primates of his Province.

For these causes Baronius, who deals more roundly then our Cardinal, doth freely confess that this Canon displeased the Bishop of Rome, as being offensive to his authority. Yet this hindered not the Bishops of that same Council from writing Letters full of respect and love to Innocent Bishop of Rome, which are inserted among Austin's Epistles. To these Letters we will give a Chapter purposely, because Cardinal du Perron triumpheth about them, and alledgeth them upon every occasion.

CHAP. 4. Of the Schism happened at Rome, between Boniface and Eulalius.

IN the year of Christ, 417. Innocent died; Zozimus succeeds him, a favourer for a time of the Heretics Pelagius and Celestius. Baronius relates the Epistle which he writ in their defense. But Zozimus soon after changed opinion, being better informed.

The year following, he sent three Legates, Faustinus a Bishop, Philippus and Asellus Priests, to the Council of Africa assembled at Carthage. The same year Zozimus being dead, two Bishops, Boniface and Eulalius were elected, by two contrary factions of the Roman People and Clergy: For in those days there was no Cardinals in the Roman Church, and the election of Popes was made by the Votes of the Clergy and the people. The Prefect of the City, named Symmachus, would appease the sedition; but not being able to master the people, he writ speedily to the Emperor Honorius about it; who with his sister Placidia, and his nephew Valentinian, made his ordinary residence, now at Ravenna, now at Milan. Symmachus favored Eulalius, and persuaded the Emperor, who turning both these competitors out of the City, appointed guards to Boniface, to keep him from raising troubles. So small was then the Popes power, that a few Serjeants served to keep him prisoner. But Eulalius having made bold to return into Rome without the Emperors leave, and the Roman Clergy having sent to the Emperor, and petitioned for Boniface, the face of businesses changed, and both were summoned to appear before the Emperor at Ravenna, upon the seventh of February, to be heard in their Reasons, and to receive Judgment from his Imperial Majesty; which summon they obeyed. And that the Church of Rome might not be without conduct in their absence, Honorius appointed Achilles Bishop of Spoleto to discharge the Office of Bishop of Rome as a Delegate. The parties being heard, the Emperor gave sentence for Boniface, and expelled Eulalius. For in that time the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperor, as much as the least of the people; and no man entered into that Office without his approbation.

This trouble gave occasion to the Emperor Honorius to make a Law, which is inserted into the 79. Distinction of the Roman Decree, in these terms: If perhaps two be established against reason, by the rashness of the contenders, we shall suffer neither of them to be Bishop. But we decree, that he who by the judgment of God, and by the consent of the generality, shall be elected among the Clerks by a new Ordination, shall remain in the Apostolic See.

CHAP. 5. Of the Council of Carthage, called the sixth. Of the Appeals from Africa to Rome. The remonstrances of the Bishops of Africa to the Bishop of Rome upon that subject. Confutation of the XL. Chapter of the first Book of the Cardinal.

LEt us follow the thread of the History. In the year 419. happened a passage as memorable, as anything related in the Ecclesiastical History. The Bishops of Rome offended with the express order of the Milevitan Council, forbidding all Appeals from Africa to Rome, labored to heal that sore, and not being able to do it by violence, or censures, (for they should have been laughed at) they would go about it by subtlety.

There was then a Council sitting at Carthage, where two hundred and seven Bishops met. To that Council the three above-named Legates of the Bishop of Rome were sent, Faustinus, Philippus, and Asellus. That Council being but a particular Council, without any Patriarch present, it was then or never, that the Legates that represented the person of the Bishop of Rome, should have had the precedence, and been placed in an honorable rank; which yet was not deferred unto them: For Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided at the Council. And that which grieveth most our Adversaries, is, that after Aurelius, they placed Valentinus Bishop of the first See of Numidia, and after Valentinus, Faustinus the first Legate of the Bishop of Rome. This is found written in the Tomes of the Councils, in the beginning of the Council, and in the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, in these words, After the Pope Aurelius with Valentinus of the first See of Numidia, and Faustinus Legate of the Church of Rome, were set, &c. And that which is most remarkable, is, that Philippus and Asellus, because they were but Priests, were set at the very lowest end, under all the Bishops of Africa, although they were Legates of the Roman Pope, at which they were not offended, for they found that just and reasonable. Upon this our Cardinal is storming, in the 40. Chap. of his first Book, and giveth three answers; saying, that either the Copies of the Councils are corrupted, of which he brings no proofs; or that these Legates represented the negotiating person of the Pope, not his judiciary person. A distinction forged in his brains, which makes the Pope to have two persons: but it is confuted by the Council, where Faustinus, Philippus and Asellus are termed Legates, not Negotiatours. Also he suspecteth that their Commission was expired: Which also is confuted, in that they act in the Council as Legates; which they would not have done, had they not been avouched by the Bishop of Rome. Of Philippus and Asellus, put after all the Bishops of Africa, he saith nothing, finding no shift to excuse it.

These three Legates were charged in their instructions, to labor that thereafter it might be lawful to appeal from Africa to Rome, and to the Roman Bishops See, notwithstanding the Canon of the Milevitan Council, whîch had forbidden those Appeals, upon pain of Excommunication. But the contrary came to pass. For in that Council, the same Canon was renewed, and these Appeals prohibited upon the same penalties. And because one Apiarius, a Priest of Sicia in Africa, being excommunicated by his Bishop, was gone to Rome to Pope Zozimus, who had favourably received him, and admitted him to his communion, this displeased the Bishops of Africa, of whom Saint Austin was one.

Upon this the Legates of the Bishop of Rome arose, and labored to defend the Authority of the Roman Bishop, who had sent them. For that they alleged no Text of Scripture, and spake not of the Popes Primacy, by virtue of Saint Peters succession; for in those days they disputed not so: neither had they that in their memories: But they produced a forged Canon, which they falsely pretended to be of the Council of Nice, whereby it is permitted to Bishops to Appeal unto the Roman See: By a notorious falsehood they propounded a Canon of the Council of Serdica, where there was none but Occidental Bishops belonging to the Roman Patriarchat, who to spite the Oriental that had deposed Julius Bishop of Rome, conferred as much honor as they could upon Julius, but an arbitrary honor depending upon their will, as we proved before.

How little was the authority of that Canon, it was seen by that which followed: For all the Bishops of the Council hearing that pretended Canon of Nice, were much amazed, and said that the Canon was unknown unto them, and that they had never heard of such an Order. Among others, Alypius Legate of the Churches of Numidia, spake thus in the name of the Synod: Having consulted the Greek Copies, I know not how it came to pass that we have not found all these things in it. Wherefore Holy Pope Aurelius, we beseech your reverence, that since the authentical Copies of that Council are held to be in the City of Constantinople, you be pleased to send some [Legates] with Letters from your Holiness [to the Patriarch of that See], and not only to him, but also to the Venerable Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, that they may send us that Council, with stipulation [or attestation] by their Letters, that hereafter all ambiguity may be removed: For we have not found it to be as our brother Faustinus saith. Yet to appease that Faustinus, Alypius voted that this pretended Canon might be received promissionally, till the Deputies that were to be sent, should be returned. The Reader may observe by the way, that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, is called Pope by Alypius, and his Holiness: Titles which in our days are given only to the Bishop of Rome.

That advice was followed; only that provisional reception of the Canon was not admitted. And the twenty Canons of the Council of Nice were inserted into the Acts of the present Council according to the truth, without that Canon inserted by Faustinus: Who upon that desired the Council that they would not send to Constantinople, nor to Alexandria, or Antioch, for fear of sowing discord between the Churches, but that they should refer themselves about it to the testimony of the Bishop of Rome. But his Remonstrances were not received. In those days Popes and their Legates used Supplications and Remonstrances, of which the Assembly judged, but they used no commands.

According to the Councils order, Deputies were sent to the Bishops of the East, to bring the original Copies of the Council of Nice. While they were in their journey, Boniface Bishop of Rome died, and Celestinus succeeded. These Deputies brought the Originals to the Council of Carthage, which assembled again upon that subject; and in them nothing was found of all that Faustinus had said, and the imposture was discovered. Whereupon these Letters of Remonstrance were sent to Celestinus Bishop of Rome. After our bounden duty of salutation, We instantly beseech you, that hereafter you admit not so easily to your ears those that will come from hence; and that you receive no more to the Communion those whom we have excommunicated. For your Reverence shall also easily acknowledge that this is forbidden by the Council of Nice. For if it appear that this is forbidden to the inferior Clerks and Laymen, how much more would [that Council] have it practiced in Bishops? that they being suspended from the Communion, be not re-admitted to the Communion hastily or unduly by your Holiness. Let your Holiness also reject the wicked refuge of Priests and inferior Clerks. For no constitution of the Fathers hath taken that from the Church of Africa. And the Decrees of Nice have subjected both the Clerks of inferior Orders, and the Bishops to their Metropolitans. For they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun. Being confident that the grace of the Holy Ghost shall not be wanting to every Province, whereby the equity be prudently perceived and constantly kept by Christ's Priests. Especially seeing that it is lawful to everyone, if he be offended by the judgment of his judges, to appeal to the Council of his Province, or even to an Universal Council. Unless perhaps somebody believe that God can inspire to everyone of us the justice of the examination of a cause, and refuse it to a multitude of Bishops assembled in a Council. Or how can a judgment made beyond the Sea be valid, to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought by reason of the infirmity of their sex or age, or of many other intervening businesses? For this sending of men [to us] from your Holiness we do not find commanded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus our fellow-bishop, as belonging to the Council of Nice, we could not find it in the truest copies of the Councils, sent by holy Cyrillus, our Colleague, Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and by the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, which also we sent to Boniface your predecessor of venerable memory, by Innocent Priest, and Marcel Subdeacon. Take heed also of sending to us any of your Clerks for executors in favor of the first that asketh it, lest it seem that we will bring the fumous pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which beareth the light of simplicity, and the brightness of humility before them that desire to see God. That Epistle is excellent, and a precious jewel of Antiquity, which is found in the Tomes of the Councils, in the end of the VI. Council of Carthage: and in the Greek Canons published by Du Tillet; and in the Code of the Canons of the African Church, and in Balsamon: and is acknowledged as true by Baronius, Bellarmine, and generally by all our adversaries that have written of this controversy. Even in the Council of Reims held in the time of Hugh Capet, Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans makes use of this piece against the Popes authority. Note by the way that our Cardinal in the beginning of ch. 51. alledgeth this Council of Reims, and saith that it was held to oppress Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans: which is false; for this Council was not held against this Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans, but against another Arnulphus Archbishop of Reims. Baronius makes no difficulty to say that the things contained in that Epistle are somewhat hard; but especially that which the Fathers say in that Council, that the Popes should send no more Legates à latere, from his side, to Africa. But there are other clauses in it as hard; as that they like not his receiving of those that appeal to him from Africa, though they should be Bishops; nor that he send Commissioners or Executors from him, nor that he bring worldly pride into the Church. And their saying that the Canons produced by the Legates are false, and not to be found, is likewise very hard.

M. du Perron, though he use a thousand tricks to weaken the strength of that Epistle, yet cannot dissemble that it displeaseth him; and endeavors to show that these Fathers are in the wrong. He saith they have taken that license, and that the heat of choler fetched these words from them, and that their ignorance is excusable. But that which he brings against that excellent Epistle, where above two hundred Fathers speak with one accord, deserveth a Chapter by itself.

CHAP. 6. Examination of the LII. Chapter of the first Book of Cardinal du Perron, about the above mentioned Epistle of the VI. Council of Africa, written by the Fathers of the Council to Celestinus Bishop of Rome, concerning the Appeals from Africa to Rome.

IN that excellent Epistle of the VI. Council of Carthage to Celestinus, which we have inserted in the precedent ch. that which most displeaseth M. du Perron, is, that the Appeals of the Bishops of Africa to Rome, are put in the same rank as the Appeals of the least Clerks; yea that these Fathers say that it ought to be less permitted to Bishops to appeal to a Judge beyond the Sea, then to other inferior Clerks. If (say they) it appeareth that this (meaning the Appeals beyond the Sea) be forbidden to inferior Clerks, how much more did [the Council of Nice] intend that it should be practiced in the Bishops, that they being suspended from the Communion, be not hastily and unduly received to the Communion by your Holiness? In vain then did the Cardinal labor so much to prove that this clause was added to the Milevitan Council, since it is found so plainly and expressly approved by the same Bishops assembled at Carthage a few years after.

To weaken the authority of that Epistle, he maketh eight observations in his LII. Chapter. In the first he saith that after that Council the Appeals from Africa to Rome did continue. Which he proveth by an Epistle of the Emperor Valentinian, of which we shall show hereafter how it was extorted by the flattering arts of the Bishop of Rome; for it is much posterior to this Council of Carthage. He will prove it also by a Law of Marcianus made in the time of the Council of Chalcedon; which is nothing to this purpose; for it speaks not at all of Appeals of Bishops to the Roman Bishop. The Synod of Chalcedon (saith Marcianus) by the authority of the most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome eternal in glory, deferreth to Flavianus the reward of his life past and the palm of a glorious death. There no mention is made of Appeals. Besides, he takes this from the Tomes of the Greek Councils, newly published by our adversaries, brought forth out of the Popes Library, and framed according to the Popes pleasure: So these Greek Tomes are but a collection of forgeries and absurdities. Wherefore also between the Greek and the Latin Copies there is a perpetual disagreement; although both are alike absurd and forged, ill-agreeing with the Canons made in those Councils, which are of undoubted truth, and which were read in the entry of Councils. But in these new Tomes you shall find in the same Council Canons that tie short and bring low the authority of the Bishop of Rome; and together Preambles, Orations and Epistles of some private men which exalt and raise it, being forged long after to invalid the strength of the said Canons that are so troublesome to our adversaries: That will be seen especially in the Council of Chalcedon, out of whose Preambles that Law of Marcianus is taken, of which we shall speak when we come to the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

Of the like nature is the Epistle of Theodoret to Leon, and the Appeal of Flavian, of which M. du Perron speaks in the 25, and 52. ch. Of them we will speak also when the order of the History brings us to it.

His second Observation, is, that the Appeal of Apiarius, which was the thing in question, was none of the great causes. To this I have answered in the ch. before. If the cause of Apiarius, was of small moment, yet it drew another cause of the greatest importance; whether the Bishop of Rome ought to send Legates into Africa, and receive the Appeals of Bishops. Here M. du Perron returns to his ordinary faults, alleging Innocents testimony in his own cause. If the Popes must be believed, and received for Judges in their own cause, they cannot but win their cause. A little after, he saith, that the Milevitan Council sent back unto the Pope the final judgment of Celestius; which is altogether false, and no trace of that in Austin's Epistles, 106. and 92. which the Cardinal quoteth in the margin. Indeed the Fathers of that Council desire Innocent to join with them, and to help them with his authority; but they acknowledge him not for their Judge, and suspend not the conclusions of their Council, till the Pope hath approved of them. All that he adds out of Zozimus is of the like nature: it is true that Zozimus condemned Celestius, but herein he did not bear himself as a superior Judge above the African Councils; and the long allegations which the Cardinal brings to that end, speak not of Appeals. This Prelat fills the Paper and tireth the Reader with useless authorities which concern not the question at all. Only he brings a place of Paulinus which he never saw, but alledgeth it upon the faith of Baronius, who is very liberal of his lies in these matters.

His third Observation, is that the Africans disputed not with the Pope about the evocations which came from his own motion. This is confuted by the same Epistle of the Council to Celestinus, wherein they warn him that he send no more Legates or executing Commissioners into Africa; for such delegacies were done by the proper motion of the Bishop of Rome. The evocation of the cause of Athanasius made by Julius, which M. du Perron brings for example, is false, as we have shown. And we have seen how Julius being chosen for an Arbitrator, would make himself a Judge, and that having cited the adversaries of Athanasius, they derided him with taunting Letters, and refused to appear.

And Valentinians constitution, of which he speaks next, is a fraud and a trick of the Roman Bishop, as we hope to show. The example which he adds of Gregory the I. is of the end of the VI. age; and Hinckmarus whom he alledgeth, is near three hundred years after Gregory. The Cardinal who had limited himself within the time of the first four Councils, goeth lower when proofs fail him in antiquity. Besides, there is no doubt but that the Bishop of Rome did his utmost to evocate to himself the causes of the remote Provinces. But all that he desired was not done, and that which he commanded was not executed. And that which was done in France under Charles the Bald, is very different from that which was done in Africa four or five hundredth years before.

We must not here omit a notorious falsification of the Cardinal, who alledgeth thus the words of Innocents Epistle, which is the 96. among those of St. Austin, Pelagius must not expect to be called by us, but he must come to us that he may be absolved. The Original runs thus: Non à nobis accersi, sed ipse debet potius festinare ut possit absolvi: He must not be called by us, but he ought rather to make haste that he may be absolved. Innocent is so far from willing or hoping that Pelagius would appear before him, that he adds that Pelagius will never submit himself to his judgment, and that it is better that others call him that are nearer the place where Pelagius was. And when all is said, it is unjust to allege the Popes in their own cause.

His fourth Observation, is that it was not out of set purpose and first intention, that the African Fathers stirred the controversy of the Transmarine Appeals of Bishops, but by accident. Suppose that this is true, though it be false; Is it material upon what occasion they have stirred that Question? all is to know how they decided it.

The Reader also shall observe the Cardinals confession, that this Council hath opposed the Appeals of Bishops, which he made a show to doubt of in the 47. ch.

In the same place he returneth to his ordinary and fifty times repeated falsification, that Austin in the 162. Epistle, saith that Cecilianus might have reserved the Definition of his cause to transmarine judgments, that is (as M. du Perron understands it) to the Bishop of Rome. Truly in the Canon of the Milevitan Council confirmed in the VI. Council of Carthage, where the transmarine Appeals are forbidden upon pain of excommunication, the Appeals to Rome are forbidden. For the African Bishops did complain only that some Clerks condemned by the Bishops of Africa, were fled to Rome there to find refuge. But Austin in the 162. Epistle, by the transmarine judgments understands the judgment of the Churches out of Africa, which are beyond the Mediterranean Sea in respect of Africa, such as are the Churches of Gauls, Italy, Greece, Asia, &c. These are Austin's words in the said Epistle, Thousands of transmarine Colleagues remained, where it was evident that they might be judged that seemed to suspect the Africans and the Numidians. It is a great want of brains to think that by thousands of colleagues, that is Bishops, the Bishop of Rome alone must be understood. The same appears by this other passage of the same Epistle, They might reserve their whole cause to the judgment of other Colleagues, especially of the Apostolic Churches.

The Cardinal adds that the Bishops of that Council besought the Pope to send into the East, to see whether that order should be found among the Copies of the Council of Nice. But he should have added that Faustinus Legat to the Bishop of Rome, desired the Council to desire the Bishop of Rome alone to do that without sending to the other Churches, saying, It is sufficient that the most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome, as your Holiness now deals with him, make himself the inquiry, lest that it seem that contention is moved among the Churches; but that rather you may deliberate with brotherly kindness, he writing back to you that which is most expedient for you to observe. But that was not granted to him: and the Council judged that it was not reasonable that the Bishop of Rome alone be trusted about that matter: but they writ to the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria. Note by the way that the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, give him no higher title then that of Bishop of the City of Rome, which in these days would be a word of contempt and a mark of heresy. And that in that Council Aurelius is called Pope, and his Holiness. That Aurelius presiding in the Council, having heard the Proposition of Faustinus, decreed only that Boniface Bishop of Rome, whom he calls his Brother and Companion, should be made to understand by Letters all that was done. And against the will of Faustinus and his fellows, The Council sent to the East for the said Copies, which soon after were sent to the Africans.

Fifthly, M. du Perron goeth about to excuse Pope Zozimus, saying that it was not out of fraud, nor for his own advantage that he supposed the Canons of the Council of Serdica, as if they had been of Nice; For the Popes use to walk in great humility and simplicity: and the African Fathers were much to blame to accuse him that he would bring worldly pride into the Church. But none will believe, but he that will study to deceive himself, that the Council of Serdica was held an appendix of the Council of Nice, or that the Canons of Serdica were held in the Roman Church of those days to be the Canons of the Council of Nice. That is not only false, but also ridiculous, as was proved before. For that Hosius did preside in both, doth not make both one. In many Councils of Carthage, Aurelius is President: Which Councils nevertheless are counted for divers Councils. Athanasius also was present in both, but in that of Nice he was but a Deacon; and it is doubted with good reason, whether he had a deliberative voice in it. M. du Perron, to prove that it was the same Council, saith that the Council of Serdica was assembled to confirm the doctrine of the Council of Nice. But that very instance shows that they are divers Councils. For a Council is not convocated to confirm itself. Besides, other matters were treated at Serdica: For the business of the Council, was the restitution of Athanasius and some other Bishops into their Bishoprics. But the principal consideration is, that the Council of Serdica though convocated out of the Universal Empire, yet consisted only of Occidental Bishops, the Oriental having withdrawn themselves from the beginning of the Council. So that of a Council which in its convocation was Universal, were made two particular Councils, which condemned and excommunicated one another. Certainly an Universal Council cannot be the same thing as a particular. And if these Canons of Serdica had been held the same as those of Nice, so many learned African Bishops had heard of it, and had not been ignorant of such a noted thing. It is to no purpose to say that the Canons of the Council of Trull, are called the Canons of the VI. Council: But that may be said with good reason, because the VI. Council had made no Canons; and to supply that defect, the Bishops were by little and little gathered in the same Town; and most of those Bishops were the same that had been in the precedent Council.

The Cardinal ought to have forborne, for shame, to justfie Zozimus by the example of Gregory of Tours, who by oversight or ignorance mistakes the Canons of Gangra for those of Nice. That good man did it out of simplicity, in a cause where he had no interest. But here the Bishop of Rome was interested, who knowing that the Council of Serdica was of small authority, would make the Canons of Serdica to pass for those of Nice to make them of greater weight. Which if Zozimus did without fraud, his Legates cannot be excused of a notorious malice and perverseness, that they would suffer the Council of Carthage to send Deputies such a great way to clear themselves of a doubt, about which they could have satisfied the Council, declaring that those Canons had been made indeed at Serdica, not at Nice, but that the Roman Church received them as if they had been made at Nice.

The same is confirmed by the sixth Observation which the Cardinal addeth, though without proof, That the Copies of the Council of Serdica were lost in Africa, being suppressed by the Donatists. For if the Council of Serdica had ever been esteemed to be part of that of Nice, that would have raised it to such a credit that the Donatists could never have suppressed it. But this is but a conjecture of the Cardinal, forged by him without any witness. There is no more truth in that he saith in the 466. pag. That it was the custom of the Roman Church to cite the Canons of the Council of Serdica under the title of the Council of Nice. Whereas in the 8. book of Sozomenus ch. 26. there is an Epistle of Innocent Bishop of Rome to the Clergy of Constantinople, where he alledgeth the Council of Nice, and the Council of Serdica as two different Councils. And the testimonies of Zonaras, and Balsamon, and Glycas, which the Cardinal alledgeth in the 467. pag. say only that in the Council of Serdica the doctrine of the Council of Nice was confirmed, but say not that the Council of Serdica was a part, or an Appendix of the Council of Nice. And most false it is that Justinian confounds the Council of Serdica with that of Nice, in the 131. Novel related by Leunclavius; For Justinian neither there nor anywhere else doth confound these Councils: The Cardinal ought to have added Justinians words.

His seventh Observation, is, that these African Fathers made no decision about the Episcopal Appeals. Suppose that it be so; It is enough that they suppose that it was done already, saying, As it was oftentimes decreed concerning Bishops. And in their Epistle to Celestinus, saying, that the Council of Nice hath decreed it so; not only for inferior Clerks, but also for Bishops.

That which he adds for the eighth Observation, that after the VI. Council of Carthage, the Pope did nevertheless remain in possession of the Episcopal Appeals, shall not be found true, neither could he bring any example of it. We find the clean contrary in the II. Tome of the Councils, by an Epistle of Boniface Bishop of Rome, written about 187. years after that Council, to Eulalius Bishop of Thessalonica, which showeth that Aurelius and his successors long after would not bear the yoke of the Bishop of Rome. These are the words of the Epistle, Aurelius sometimes Bishop of the foresaid Church of Carthage, by the Devils instigation, in the time of our predecessors Boniface and Celestinus, began with his colleagues to grow proud against the Roman Church. But now Eulalius [ Bishop of Carthage] seeing himself separated from the Communion of the Roman Church, humbling himself, made his acknowledgement. Note by the way that in the title of the Epistle there is a fault crept in: for that Eulalius to whom it written, was Bishop of Thessalonica, not of Alexandria. Harding the Buckler of Popery in England, observeth that in some copies there is Bishop of Thessalonica; For the name of the Bishop of Alexandria of that time was not Eulalius. That which confirms the truth of this Epistle, is, that a form of Anathema is added to it again all those that are risen against the Church of Rome. Which form without question had been prescribed by the Bishop of Rome to Eulalius Bishop of Carthage and to his Clergy, when they were reconciled with the Roman Church. These writings we have only from our Adversaries, who to make them more authentical, have inserted them in the Tomes of the Councils, and among the Decretals of the Popes, of which it is said in the 19. Distinction in the Canon, In Canonicis Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistolae connumerantur; The Decretal Epistles are reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures. Especially a fragment of that Epistle of Boniface the second, is inserted in the Roman Decree, in the 89. Distinction in the Canon Ad hoc.

Another passage happened in Africa since the sitting of that Council at Carthage, showeth evidently that the African Church was not subject to the Roman Bishop. For Victor Tonensis in his Chronicle relateth, that in the year 549. ten years after the Consulat of Basilius, the Bishops of Africa assembled in Council, pronounced a sentence of Anathema and excommunication against Vigilius Bishop of Rome, yet reserving unto him place of repentance, having learned that the said Vigilius had condemned three heads or points which had been approved by the Council of Chalcedon. At that time Reparatus was Bishop of Carthage.

After these eight observations, M. du Perron spends many pages to relate the history of Apiarius, and to speak of the presenting of the Canons of Serdica, as if they had been of Nice; and he labors to make the Council of Serdica (though unknown to the Africans, and consisting only of Occidental Bishops) more authentical than that of Nice. All that more then needeth: For after all his bustling, he grants us what we ask, which is that in that Epistle the Fathers of that Council of Carthage writ to the Bishop of Rome Celestinus, such things as displease him, and such as he finds fault with, almost in every clause, and which oppose the authority of the Bishop of Rome. He saith that they took upon them to write to Celestinus, as taxing them to have written too boldly. He saith that the heat of the contention fetched those words from their mouth. Whereby he confesseth that these Fathers were contending with the Bishop of Rome. He saith also that they are excusable, and labors to excuse their ignorance. As also Baronius saith that the things contained in those Epistles are somewhat hard. See then these men, who boast to have the consent of the Fathers on their side; and yet when they examine the actions of the Fathers, they make bold to condemn them. Now which shall I rather believe, either above two hundred African Bishops, in whose number those two holy and famous men were, Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, and St. Austin Bishop of Bona, who made this Canon against the Appeals at Rome, which Canon was confirmed in the sixth Council of Carthage; or two Cardinals of this age, as Baronius and du Perron, whom the Pope kept tied by the belly, and who were slaves of the Roman See?

Among all this discourse many things scape our Cardinal, which must be pardoned him. In the 474. page, he falls again into that falsification which is so ordinary with him, saying that the ground of the Africans in their dispute against the Donatists, was, that Cecilianus after he had been deposed by the Bishops of Africa, could reserve the judgment of his cause to the transmarine Churches: Where he will have those words of transmarine Churches to be taken in the 162. Epistle of St. Austin in the same sense as in the Melevitan Council, that is, for the Roman Church. But there Austin by the transmarine Churches, understands the Churches both of East and West, and the Apostolic Sees; and saith, that Cecilian after the judgment of the Africans could yet Appeal to the transmarine Churches, and to the Apostolic Sees assembled in an Universal Council: Over which Apostolic Sees Austin ascribes no superiority to the Bishop of Rome.

In the 478. page, to prove that the Pope sometimes sent his delegats into Africa, who with soldiers and force of arms executed his orders, he alledgeth the 261. Epistle of Austin, saying that Antony Bishop of Fussal in Numidia, being condemned by the inhabitants of Fussal, having Appealed to the Pope, threatened them to bring troops of soldiers from the Pope to execute the judgments of the Apostolic See; so that these poor inhabitants feared to suffer worse things from a Christian Bishop, than from the Emperors Laws. But that Epistle is basely forged; for in the ancient copies of Austin there is but 206. Epistles; To which they have added of late 21. Epistles, and since 22. more; so that they are in all 249. Epistles. But Baronius speaks of other Epistles newly forged; so it is from Baronius that our Cardinal hath taken this false piece of coin as many others. And yet he often studies to confute them, and bestows whole Chapters upon that business, as the 48. ch. which fills forty pages. But how could the Pope have that power in those days, to send bands of soldiers into Africa, whereas we have seen, that at the same time Pope Boniface was kept prisoner by a few Sergeants, by the command of the Emperor Honorius. None but a raw novice in the history of those days, will believe that then the Bishop of Rome had the command of bands of soldiers, and could send them into far Countries, in the Emperors sight and without his leave. Should those Africans, who in the Epistle to Celestinus Bishop of Rome forbid him to send Legates into Africa to judge of their businesses, have been afraid that he should send bands of soldiers upon them?

In the same page he expounds fumosum typhum, a fumous whirl-wind, whereas it signifieth the fumous pride. He taketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the same thing, according to his ordinary ignorance in the Greek tongue; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not a whirl-wind. That in that Epistle typhus must be expounded pride, it appears, because typhus is opposed to humility; for fear (say these Fathers) that it seem that we will bring in fumosum typhum, the fumous pride of this world, into the Church of Christ, which beareth the light of simplicity and the brightness of humility, before them that desire to see God. This word is Austin's style: as ch. 3. of the 2. book of baptism against the Donatists, sine ullo typho sacrilegae superbiae, without any swelling of sacrilegious pride. Which shows that this excellent Epistle of the Council was made by Austin.

In the same 52. ch. towards the end, he alledgeth some testimonies according to his ordinary faith. We spake before of an Epistle of Pope Boniface to Eulalius, whereby he saith, that Aurelius and his fellows at the Devils instigation did rise against the Roman Church; of which fellows of Aurelius St. Austin was one. Whence it followeth, that Austin died out of the communion of the Roman Church. This seems to be contradicted by an Epistle of Pope Celestinus alleged by M. du Perron, where Celestinus saith, We had always Austin in our communion. But there is an Annotation in the margin of that Epistle, which accuseth that Epistle of falsehood from the 3. ch. to the 13. and last. Now there is no likelihood that five parts of the Epistle be false, and the sixth true. For my part, I choose rather to acknowledge that Epistle for true, seeing that Vincentius Lirinensis and Prosper against the Collator have copied passages out of it. And I easily believe that Celestinus might speak so. For the Popes not able to oppose themselves to Austin's authority, have been sometimes constrained to speak of him with honor. And it is possible, that this Epistle was falsified with some additions.

A little after he alledgeth these words of Fulgentius in the book of incarnation, 11. ch. The Roman Church is the head of all the world. That traduction is false. Fulgentius saith, Romana (quae mundi cacumen est) tenet & docet Ecclesia. He calls the Roman Church not the head, but the top and most eminent of all the world. If I say that Paris is the capital and the most eminent City of all the Kingdom of France, I do not thereby ascribe to it an Empire over Toulouze or Bordeaux. Thus in the 142. pag. he translateth summam Ecclesiam the Sovereign Church, instead of the most honorable and eminent.

It is usual with this Cardinal, to wrest the places of Fathers to his advantage by a false interpretation As in the 26. ch. he corrupts Optatus, whom he makes to say, by whom [Pope Syricius] all the world hath communion with us, as if the union of Christians was only by the Popes means; but there is in Optatus cum quo, not per quem. Wherefore also in the same place he calls Syricius his fellow; Syricius (saith he) who is our fellow.

Thus in the 34. ch. he translates these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We beseech thee to honor our decree with thy judgment: But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth not judgment, but only suffrage or vote. He will persuade that the • ouncil of Chalcedon submit their decrees to the Popes judgment. In the 25. ch. pag. 117. he alledgeth an Epistle which Chrysostom writeth generally to Bishops, and will persuade us that it is written to Pope Innocent. In that Epistle Chrysostom saith to them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be ye entreated to write letters. But the Cardinal to draw this to the Popes advantage, translateth, Be pleased to send word, or to command, as if Chrysostom desired the Pope to send his Mandates or Commandments. For although 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signify sometimes, but very seldom, I command, yet it cannot be so translated here, because these Bishops to whom Chrysostom writeth, had not the power to command. All his book swarms with such faults.

Towards the end of the Chapter he addeth the words of Eugenius Bishop of Carthage to Cubadus Lieutenant to Hunerick King of Africa, which saith that the Roman Church is the head of all the Churches. I answer, that these words import no superiority nor power over the other Churches. So we say that Virgil is the head and Prince of Latin Poets, and that London is the head and capital City of England, that is, the most noble and illustrious.

Note also that Eugenius speaks of none but of the Churches of the Roman Empire, and that this preeminence of the Church of Rome over the other Churches of the Roman Empire, was by reason of the towns dignity, it being decreed by many Councils, that Bishops should keep their ranks according to the civil order of the dignity of their towns; and that this is related by Victor of Utica, as happened the seventh year of Hunerick, which falls upon the year of the Lord 484. thirty three years after the fourth Council, which M. du Perron had set for his limits, having undertaken to prove his cause by the ancient Church in the time of the first four Universal Councils.

CHAP. 7. Notes upon the forty eighth and forty ninth Chapters of the first Book of Cardinal du Perron. His ignorance in Greek.

THe forty eighth Chapter of M. du Perron treats of the order and distinction of the Councils of Carthage. All that Chapter is employed to dispute against Cardinal Baronius, and to show that Baronius misreckoned himself in the supputation of times, and in the distinction and order of the Councils of Carthage, and to muster up his exact knowledge in Ecclesiastical History: which he doth with such a tedious diligence, that I have much ado to persuade myself, that any Reader can obtain of his Patience to read that Chapter to the end. As for our part, it is nothing to us which of these two Cardinals ought to be believed; for that Dispute concerns not our Controversies.

The same I say of the XLIX. Chapter, where he contends with the Grecians, and with some Authors of the Roman Church, which hold that the Council of Africa is a Council by itself; as also in the Tomes of the Councils, that Council is put in its order, having a hundred Canons in the Latin Tomes, and a hundred thirty five in the collection made by the Grecians. But the Cardinal maintaineth that it is a Rapsody compiled out of many Councils by some African Canonist, and perhaps he is in the right for that. But that is nothing to our controversy. Wherefore we leave those two Chapters unanswered, and let him alone disputing with men of his own Church.

Only we will observe that in that African Council the sixth Canon is such; Let not the Bishop of the first See be called Prince of Bishops, or Sovereign Bishop, or some such name, but only the Bishop of the first See; Which order, purposely made to keep in modesty the Primates of Africa which took proud titles, yet reflects upon the Bishop of Rome, whose ambition these Fathers labored to restrain.

The same Council in the 4. Canon decreeth that in the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, nothing be offered but bread and wine mingled with water. Which Canon is set down in more express terms; in the 37. Canon of the Code of the African Church in these words; That nothing be offered in the Sacraments but the body and blood of the Lord, as though Lord himself hath delivered unto us, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Where these Fathers declare that by these words, the body and the blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, bread and wine must be understood. And the same Canon repeated in the same words in the Council of Trull, Can. 32. But in the Latin copies these last words, That is bread and wine, have been maliciously pared away, because they overthrow transubstantiation.

I will also observe by the way, that the Cardinal in the same 49 ch. translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 studious, taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not studiosus, but expetitus & quod studiose appetitur; whence comes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , desired by everyone, and worthy to be desired.

CHAP. 8. Of St. Austin Bishop of Bona in Africa. Whither he did acknowledge the Bishop of Rome Head of the Universal Church. And what was in his time the order and dignity of Patriarchs, and Apostolic Sees.

IN that time St. Austin lived, a man of holy life, and of great learning. In whose writings a great humility and meekness is shining; who in his Controversy with Jerome showeth as much charity and patience, as Jerome doth choler and impatience, although Austin had the right on his side. Whosoever hath carefully perused this Author, will acknowledge that he was not subject to the Bishop of Rome; and that in those days the Pope had no rule over the Church of Africa, nor over the Universal Church.

This is that St. Austin, who being in the Milevitan Council, made the Canon wherein the transmarine Appeals, that is, to the Bishop of Rome, are forbidden upon pain of excommunication; These are the words, Whosoever shall appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received by any in Africa to the Communion.

This is that same Austin, who hath assisted in all or most Councils of Africa held under Aurelius Bishop of Carthage. In the sixth of which the prohibition of the Appeals to Rome was reiterated, and the Bishops of Africa writ Letters to Celestinus Bishop of Rome, warning him that thereafter he should not receive the Appeals of Priests, Bishops and other Clerks of Africa; and that he should send no more Legates, nor executing Commissioners into Africa, and that he should not bring the pride of the world into the Church: And that the Canons which he produced by his Legates as Canons of Nice, that by virtue of them he might draw to himself the Appeals of Africa, were false and supposititious. It is true, that the name of Austin is not among the subscriptions to that Epistle; but that hinders not but that he was present at that Council; for seldom would all the Bishops put all their names to the Epistles of a Council. And though he had been absent from that sixth Council, yet the Council was purposely assembled to confirm the Canon of the Milevitan Council made by Austin about those Appeals. And seeing this fi •• t Council represented all the African Churches, it is without all doubt that 〈…〉 subject to the orders made in the same, and did approve them.

〈◊〉 •• at Austin, who by the judgment of Pope Boniface the II. died out of the communion of the Roman Church, for rising against the Church of Rome by the Devils instigation: For these are the words of Boniface in the forealledged Epistle; Aurelius with his fellows began in the time of our predecessors Boniface and Celestinus, to grow proud against the Church of Rome by the Devils instigation. Now Austin was one of the fellows of Aurelius, and he that made the Canon against the Appeals to Rome. That which made that Epistle of Boniface dubious, is, that in the title Eulalius is called Bishop of Alexandria, whereas he was Bishop of Thessalonica, as we shown before. It is true, that between Austin's time and this Boniface, many godly men lived in Africa, who suffered Martyrdom, and spake honourably of the Church of Rome: For the Bishops of Rome that lived in that interval, bore with patience the censure of the Africans, and did not take it so heinously as this Boniface. Howsoever, we had that Epistle from our adversaries, who have inserted it in the Decretal Epistles of the Popes. And it is alleged in the Roman Decree, in the 89. Distinction .

It is the same Austin, who in the first book against Julian, ch. 2. saith that Julian being condemned by Innocent Bishop of Rome, appealed to the Oriental Churches. Then or never the Bishop of Rome should have condemned Julian for appealing from the Sovereign Head of the Universal Church to inferior judges subject to the Roman Pope. But Austin saith no such thing, but saith only that in vain he had appealed to the Oriental Churches, seeing that they agreed with the Occidental, and held the same faith.

It is the same Austin who in so many places, as in the 162. and 166. Epistles, in the book of the unity of the Church, ch. 16. and in the first book against Julian, ch. 2. relates how the Donatists condemned by Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and by his associates, had their recourse to the Emperor Constantine, who would have the cause to be revised by other Judges; and commanded that a Synod should meet at Arles, where the judgment of Melchiades was examined: who complained not that the dignity of his See was wronged by subjecting his judgment to the judgment of a particular Council, convocated by another then himself. That action of Constantine is very sharply condemned by Cardinal du Perron, so far as to say that it was done against all order, and to tax the Emperors Decree of irregularity and nullity; whereas Austin relates that action of Constantine with praise and approbation. For in that 162. Epistle, he saith, that the business belonged chiefly to the Emperors care, of which he was to give an account unto God. And that if it be not a crime to appeal to the Emperor, it was not a crime to be heard by the Emperor.

It is the same Austin, who in the Epistle 162. saith that Cecilianus and the Donatists after the judgment of the Africans, might reserve the whole judgment of their cause to the Apostolical Churches: And that there were yet thousands of transmarine Bishops where they might be judged. The same he saith in the book of the unity of the Church, ch. 2. He believed then that Cecilianus and the Donatists might appeal to others then the Bishop of Rome.

It is the same Austin, who in the 118. Epistle to Januarius, teacheth that in his time the Church of Rome fasted upon Saturday; but that the Church of Milan did not fast on that day; a certain proof that the Church of Milan was not subject unto the Roman. In which custom the Church of Milan followed the judgment of St. Ignatius, who in his Epistle to the Philippians, saith that whoso fasteth on the Lord's day, or upon Saturday, one only excepted, is a murderer of Jesus Christ. And in the 64. Canon of the Apostles, which expressly forbiddeth to fast upon those two days: And the Greek Churches that since that time assembled in the Palace of Trull at Constantinople, in Council, condemned the Roman Church by name for fasting upon Saturday, as Cassianus witnesseth; who in the 10. ch. of the 3. book, blameth the Roman Church for fasting upon Saturday. The same Cassian in the 10. Collation, ch. 2. saith that the Egyptians and Lybians celebrated the Theophania, or Christ's birth upon the sixth of January. An evident proof that the Church of Egypt was not subject unto the Roman. And that one may not say that the Roman Church suffered that diversity of observations about fasting as a thing indifferent, Innocent the I. who lived in Austin's time, in his Epistle to Decennius, ch. 4. doth expressly enjoin fasting upon Saturday; saith it is madness to have another opinion. But the Church of Milan did not change her custom for that, and would not submit to the constitution of the Roman Bishops. See Socrates in the 5. book of his History, ch. 21. and Zozomenus book 7. ch. 19. about the several customs then observed in the Churches of the Roman Empire.

Whosoever hath read Austin's life written by Possidonius, and whoso is acquainted with Austin's writings, knows that this holy man did not come to Episcopacy by the means without which none in these times can be made a Bishop in the Roman Church; For he was not promoted to that degree by the approbation of the Bishop of Rome; He took no Letters of investiture from the Pope; He paid no Annates for his reception; He took no Oath of Allegiance to the Pope in his Ordination, as all Bishops of this age do in the Roman Church, who in their reception take that abominable Oath which is inserted in the Roman Pontifical, whereby they promise not to preach the word of God faithfully according to the holy Scriptures, and speak neither good nor evil of God; but swear only to be faithful and obedient to the Pope, to maintain his rights, and defend his authority with all their power; and to dispose of no Ecclesiastical goods without his leave. That tyranny was not known in Austin's time, as also none spake in his days of kissing the Popes feet, or of bestowing adoration upon him, or of going to Rome to gain pardons, or of reserved cases to the Papal See, or of the Popes authority to depose Kings, and draw souls out of Purgatory, or of the Popes privilege to be unerring in the faith, or of the triple Crown of his Holiness. Neither did Austin ever beg of the Pope any Bulls of indulgence for his Town of Hippona, that he might thereby draw the people's contributions. He was not afraid of a lapse to be thundered out from Rome upon his livings; and after his death he was not Canonized by the College of the Roman Cardinals; for then the world had not heard either of Cardinals or of Canonization.

Indeed Austin according to his wonted meekness and humility, speaks of the Bishop of Rome with respect. For both the Church and the Bishop of Rome (though he styled himself Bishop of Rome only, not the Head of the Universal Church) were very much respected by reason of the dignity of the City, which was the Capital of that great Empire, and the most eminent and flourishing of the world; to which therefore there was a resort from all parts. Besides it was the common belief that St. Peter had founded the Church of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome was his successor, though not in the Apostleship, yet in the Episcopacy over that City. In the same manner the Patriarch of Antioch and that of Alexandria said themselves to be successors to the same Apostle; and the Patriarch of Jerusalem called himself successor of St. James. Wherefore all these Churches were called Apostolical Churches, & the Sees of the Bishops of those Churches, Apostolic Sees. Among which the Bishop of Rome was the first in order, by reason of the dignity of the City, yet without any power of jurisdiction over his fellows. All that only within the precincts of the Roman Empire; For the Churches without that verge did not acknowledge those Patriarchs at all, and sent no Deputies to the Councils within the Empire of Rome; and had no communication with the Bishop of Rome, so far were they from being subject unto him.

Now that order among the Patriarchs was established by an Ordinance from the Emperors, and by the constitution of Councils, but was not held to be of Divine right, or grounded in the word of God. Wherefore also the order was sometimes altered; and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was the last, was made the second by the Council of Chalcedon, and by the Imperial Laws, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: And sometimes those Imperial Laws would prefer the Bishop of Constantinople before that of Rome, as we shall see hereafter.

That the precedence of the Bishop of Rome was without power of jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs, besides the experience and so many examples which we have brought, and will bring again, we have a Law of Justinian, in the 31. Novell. ch. 2. which speaks thus, We decree according to the definitions of the four Councils, that the most holy Pope of the old Rome be the first of Bishops; and that the most high Archbishop of Constantinople, which is the new Rome, have the second place: But mark the title of that Law, De ordine sedendi Patriarcharum, Of the order of sitting of Patriarchs. Precedence and power of jurisdiction are several things: The one is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thus Christian Kings have or ought to have some order, how they must go or sit when they or their Ambassadors meet, although none of them have power over the others.

Still the Emperors reserved to themselves the power of convocating Councils; and would not suffer any to be chosen Patriarch without their leave and consent, and set limits unto Patriarchs, and defined what Provinces must belong to every Patriarchat. Thus in Austin's time, in the year of our Lord 421. Theodosius the second made a Law, whereby he decreed that Illyricum which is now Slavonia, should belong to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople, notwithstanding the pretences of the Bishop of Rome. All innovation ceasing, we command that the antiquity and the ancient Ecclesiastical Canons which hitherto have been observed, be observed over all the Provinces of Illyricum. And if some difference arise, it shall not be reserved to the sacred judgment of the sacerdotal Assembly, without the knowledge of the most Reverend Prelat of the Church of Constantinople, which enjoyeth the same prerogative as the ancient Rome. That Emperor conformably to the constitution of the Council of Chalcedon, (of which anon) would have the Bishop of Constantinople to be equal in all things to the Bishop of Rome. But of those Imperial Laws, and how the Emperors have sometimes raised the Bishop of Rome above that of Constantinople, sometimes that of Constantinople above that of Rome, we shall speak hereafter.

CHAP. 9. Of the Epistles of the Bishops of Africa (of whom St. Austin was one) to Innocent the first Bishop of Rome. And that our Cardinal labors without ground to draw them to his advantage.

ALL that was said before, is not contradicted by the Epistles of the African Bishops of St. Austin's time to Innocent the first Bishop of Rome, which the Cardinal mustereth up so often, making a great flourish with them, alleging the same testimonies above fifty times. For either he hoped not that the Reader would read his whole book, or he believed that they wanted memory. But these Epistles are rather against then for the Popes primacy.

Among Austin's Epistles, the 90. is an Epistle of the Bishops of the Province of Carthage to Innocent: Whereby they represent to him, what they have done against the Heretics, Pelagius and Celestius: And fearing lest that the Bishop of Rome should support them, and receive them to his communion (as it happened soon after) they desire him to join with them, and approving what they had done to help them with his authority. The humblest words which they use, and of which our Adversaries labor to take advantage, are these, Sir and holy brother, We thought fit to make known to your charity that which was done, that to the ordinances made by our mediocrity the authority of the Apostolic See may be joined. This place saith nothing that can serve the Cardinals turn. These Fathers, indeed, speak of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. But whosoever hath some authority, is not therefore Head of the Universal Church. In that time the authority of Austin was great, yea greater then that of Innocent; yet he did not for that challenge any superiority over his brethren and colleagues. As for the title of Apostolic See, it was common to many other Bishops. Thus Sozom. book 1. cap. 16. In that Council [of Nice] among the Bishops that held the Apostolic Sees, Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch upon the river Orontes, and Alexander near Maeotides paludes, did meet. Ruffinus book 2. ch. 21. In Alexandria Timothy, in Jerusalem John, repair the Apostolic Sees. Cyrillus also is called Prelat of the Apostolic See, that is of Jerusalem, in the 4. book, ch. 24. of Sozomenus. Theodoret in the 5. book, ch. 9. calls the Church of Antioch the most ancient and wholly Apostolical Church. And Basil in the 55. Epistle, saith that Ambrose Bishop of Milan was called to the Apostolical precedence. And Austin himself in the 162. Epistle, speaks of the Apostolic Sees in the plural, saying that Cecilian might reserve his cause to the judgment of Apostolic Sees, Jerome goes further, saying that all Bishops wheresoever they be, are successors of the Apostles. And Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions, ch. 20. saith that all Churches pure in doctrine, and joined together by the bond of peace and of the same doctrine, are all first Apostolical. And ch. 21. he calls all the Churches founded by the Apostles immediately originales & matrices.

Wherefore Gregorius Turonensis in the 4. book of his History, ch. 26. makes no difficulty to call the See of the Bishop of Tours the Apostolic See: For there the Legates sent from Tours to King Heribert speak thus, God save the glorious King; the Apostolic See sends most ample greeting to thine excellency. And Sidonius Apollinarii in the 4. Epistle of the 6. book, writes thus to Lupus Bishop of Troyes, whom he calls Sir Pope, Besides the duty which is perpetually due unto thine Apostleship, which is incomparably eminent. And in the 1. Epistle he saith, Lupus had past already nine times five years in the Apostolic See, that is, he had been Bishop 45. years. The same title he giveth to the Bishop of Vaison in the 6. book Epist. 7. and in the 7. book Epist 4.

To return to the Epistle of the African Bishops, one cannot see that the Bishops of the Province of Carthage by that address to Innocent subject their judgment unto his, or that they suspend their judgment till Innocent hath pronounced his, or that they acknowledge him Head of the universal Church.

That which moved them to write to Innocent, was, their fear that Innocent should undertake the defense of Pelagius and Celestius against them; and their fear was justified by the event, his successor Zozimus having for a time labored to excuse Celestius who was fled to him. The words of the Epistle show their fear; for they speak as having understood that Innocent held Pelagius to have been justly absolved by the Synod of Palestine. If then (say they) your reverence esteemeth that Pelagius was justly absolved by the Episcopal acts, which are said to have been made in the East; yet the erroneous doctrine and the impiety which hath so many assertors scattered in many places, ought to be anathematized by the authority of the Apostolic See. As if they said, If thou wilt favor the person of Pelagius, at the least thou must condemn the heresy which is put to his charge. And in the 95. Epistle Austin and his colleagues say, that some that favored Pelagius, affirmed that they did it by the persuasion of Innocent.

To that Epistle the answer of Innocent is added, which hath this clause put in the title in many editions; Innocent the Roman Pope answereth this Epistle. In this Epistle we find wanting the style, the spirit and the learning convenient to so great a Prelat. And that Epistle is justly thus branded on the forehead, for the style of it, ridiculous, barbarous, and vainly puffed up.

In that Epistle Innocent speaks like a Master, and receiveth the honor which the African Bishops had done him, to impart unto him what they had done against Pelagius, as a submission of subjects and inferior Judges, submitting their judgment to the authority of the Roman See, to which (if he may be believed) the knowledge of all things belonged. Which power nevertheless he groundeth not upon the Word of God, but upon the institution of the Fathers. Already the Bishops of Rome as well as those of Alexandria and Antioch, wanted no pride, and would spread their Feathers like Peacocks, aspiring to raise themselves, although their power was very little out of their Patriarchate: And I wonder how M. du Perron made no conscience to fill his book with a thousand of the like allegations, taken from the Epistles and Decretals of Popes, where they ascribe to themselves far more power then they had really.

The next Epistle, which is the 92. among St. Austin's Epistles, is an Epistle of the Milevitan Council in Numidia to Innocent Bishop of Rome: Where there is not one word sounding the language of subjects to their Superior. And whereas that Milevitan Council is the same that makes that excellent Canon, whereby it is prohibited upon pain of excommunication to appeal from Africa to Rome, yet these Fathers make no mention of that, writing to the Bishop of Rome. They make no excuse about it, as not bound to give him account of that or any of their actions: But fearing that he should favor Pelagius, whom they had condemned, they desire him to join with them, and to assist them with his authority. In that Epistle is found that text which our Cardinal inculcates and repeats so often: We believe with the mercy of the Lord, who is pleased to govern you when you consult him, and to hear you when you pray to him, that they that hold such perverse and pernicious tenets, will more easily yield to the authority of your Holiness drawn out of the holy Scriptures. But in that there is nothing that can serve to establish the Popes primacy over the Church of the whole World; and there is nothing there but may be said to any faithful Pastor. For the authority of the least Pastors it founded in the Scriptures. Observe that the word depromptae, drawn, which this Epistle chooseth rather to use then fundatae, grounded, showeth the meaning of these Fathers to be, that if Innocent will take the pains to write against the Pelagians, they shall more easily yield to the authority of the texts, which he shall draw out of the holy Scriptures.

To these Letters Innocent answereth in an arrogant and barbarous way: Wherefore also that Epistle is stigmatized in the forehead like the other. For there is in the title, Ejusdem genii epistola est, This Epistle is endited by the same Spirit as the former. There he commendeth the Fathers of the Milevitan Council for submitting themselves unto him, for acknowledging his authority, and for coming to draw an Answer from the Apostolical spring. And truly the Fathers of the Milevitan Council foresaw that he would make a wrong use of the honor which they deferred unto him, knowing the presumptuous humor of that Prelat; for in their Letters these words, are found, It would serve rather to make us guilty of negligence, if we were silent to your reverence of those things which ought to be represented to you for the good of the Church [by representing them to you] to make you receive them disdainfully or negligently. For by making a show that they fear not that he receive their Letters with pride, they make him a tacit Remonstrance and exhortation to humility. And in the end of their Letters they say that by writing to him, th • y would follow the example of the Bishops of the Province of Carthage, intimating that they had writ to him what had been done in their Council, not by duty or obligation, but to imitate the example of their neighbors. But Innocent followed rather his humor then their exhortations. And that in the same Epistle it might appear that the Bishop of Rome can err in the Doctrine, Innocent hath, by the way, put in a false doctrine; teaching that the Eucharist [or Lord's Supper] is necessary unto little children, that they may be saved: And there is in the margin, Etiam Romana Ecclesia credidit Eucharistiam pueris necessariam, The Roman Church also believed that the Eucharist is necessary to children. Austin also beareth him this testimony, in the first book against Julian, ch. 2. Innocent (saith he) hath defined that little children, unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man, cannot have life. The successors of Innocent would not follow his doctrine; And the Council of Trent doth condemn and anathematize it by an express Canon, in the 21. Session. Thus the Roman Church hath anathematized that Pope, above eleven hundred years after his death.

There is yet one Epistle of five Bishops of Africa, Austin being one of them, to the same Innocent, upon the same subject, that is, about the heresy of the Pelagians: It is the 95. Epistle among those of Austin. That Epistle is an excellent one, and filled with good doctrine, and relisheth Austin 's style altogether. In that letter there is not one word of submission, nor any mention of the Popes authority. But these Fathers endeavor only to represent unto Innocent the true doctrine concerning free will, and concerning grace and nature: declaring the cause why they write to him about it, even because they had heard that at Rome many favored Pelagius, being persuaded to it by Innocent. We have heard (say they) that in the City of Rome, where he lived long, some favor him for diverse causes, some give for their reason that you have persuaded them so; but most believe not that Pelagius holds such tenets. The truth is that they that taxed Innocent of savouring Pelagius, did calumniate him; Yet that report being come to Austin's ears and to his colleagues, moved them to write these Letters to Innocent: That was the true reason, not to give him an account of their actions. For excepting only the case of Pelagius, we do not find that the Bishops of Africa ever writ to the Bishop of Rome about the controversies in the doctrine agitated in Africa, but only to contradict him, as Cyprian did, and the VI. Council of Carthage.

To these last Letters Innocent answers by an Epistle, which is the 96. among those of Austin, in which he speaks more kindly, and sets his pride a pin lower: There he saith, that he never received any Letter from the Council of Palestine, where Pelagius had purged himself; and that he had no communication about that. Yet because that Epistle is rude and dry, and very far below the worth of the Epistle of the African Bishops; either Austin or some other that first published Austin's works, have set this title in scorn over that Epistle of Innocent, Innocent answereth the precedent Epistle after his manner, being more violent and peremptory then learned, and more ready to condemn then to teach.

CHAP. 10. A place examined of Austin's, 162. Epistle.

BEsides these Epistles about which the Cardinal keeps such a coil, there is a place in the 162. Epistle of Austin, which the Cardinal repeats without end, and thinks he can never allege it enough. The text is this, Carthage had a Bishop of no mean authority, who might very well not care for the conspiring multitude of enemies, seeing that he saw himself conjoined by Letters of communication with the Roman Church, in which the principality of the Apostolic See hath always been in vigor; and with the other Countries whence the Gospel came into Africa. The words of this place which seem to favor the Bishop of Rome, are, that in the Roman Church, the principality of the Apostolical Chair hath always been in vigor. But we have shown already in the precedent ch. that many other Churches had the same principality, and were called Apostolical, and their Chairs. Apostolic Sees. As for the title of Principality, it was a degree which all the Patriarchal Chairs did challenge, pretending to have the Superintendency over all the Churches. We shall see in the following Chapter, that Theodoret giveth to Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople the title of Governor of the Churches of all the world. Wherefore also the Patriarch of Constantinople took a little after Nestorius, the title of Oecumenical Patriarch, that is, the Prince of the Fathers of all the habitable earth; although his authority did not extend beyond the Roman Empire. Gregory Nazianzen speaks thus of Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Oration made of his praises, The Government of the people of Alexandria, which is as much as if one said, The Government of all the World, is given him in charge. And in the same place, Athanasius giveth Laws again to the habitable earth. Basil in the 50. Epistle, saith, that Meletius Patriarch of Antioch did preside over the whole body of the Church. Thus in the works of Athanasius there is an Epistle of Arsenius, where he speaks thus to him, We embrace peace and union with the Universal Church over which thou presidest. And we have shown by many examples, that every Patriarch had an eye over all the Churches of the Roman Empire, and that their care was not limited by the limits of their Patriarchate. No wonder then if to the Roman Patriarch that title of principality is given, since it was common to all the other Patriarchs, which is signified by the word Patriarch, which is as much as Prince of Fathers, that is of Bishops. Observe that Austin saith not that in the Roman Church the principality over the Apostolic Sees had always been in vigor. That would be exalting the Bishop of Rome above other Patriarchs, and making him their Prince; but only he attributes to the Bishop of Rome this honor, to have the principality of the Apostolic See. As then he that would say that the family of Capets had the pre-eminence of Royalty these six hundred years, should not thereby deny that all that time there was a Monarchy in England, and in Spain where the Kings had the like pre-eminence. Likewise, he that saith that the Bishop of Rome had in St. Austin's time the principality and pre-eminence of the Apostolic See, doth not deny that in other places there were Bishops having, within their verge, the same Principality, of which we need not seek far for proofs. For Austin in the same Epistle 162. speaks of the Apostolic Sees in the plural number, to which he saith, that the Bishops of Africa could appeal as well as to the Bishop of Rome. They could (saith he) reserve their whole cause to the judgment of their other colleagues, and chiefly to those of the Apostolical Churches. As it is one thing to have the pre-eminence of a King, another thing to have pre-eminence over Kings; so it is one thing to have the Principality or pre-eminence of Apostolical chair, another thing to have the Principality among, or over, the Apostolical chairs.

We have another place of Austin much like this, in the 2. book of the merit of sins, and of pardon, ch. 13. where he saith that St. Paul, tanti Apostolatus meruit principatum, obtained the principality of such an excellent Apostleship. He means not that St. Paul hath obtained to be Prince of the Apostles, but that he hath obtained the principality and dignity of an Apostle.

Truly although those titles were then common to many, and were taken in a more moderate sense, and less advantageous for ambition then in the latter ages: yet it must be confessed that these titles of honor given to a few Prelates in such a great Empire as the Roman, have been steps to raise them by degrees to an excessive power; And that hence the dissensions are come, and the incredible pride whereby the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople did since tear one another for so many Ages, and the Oriental Churches were made to justle against the Occidental. Had not the Saracens first, and the Turks next, beaten down the greatness of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, and brought them very low, yet to this day we should see them crossing and daring the Popes of Rome, although the Popes have been immeasurably enriched by the immense liberalities of the Kings of France, who having undergone the Popes yoke (which did insensibly grow from age to age) have brought also their Subjects to the like servitude. Yet to this day these Patriarchs, as low as they are, refuse to submit themselves unto the Pope: And the Patriarch of Constantinople doth now style himself Oecumenical, that is, Universal Patriarch.

CHAP. 11. Of Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople. Of the Convocation of the first Council of Ephesus, which was the third Universal: And that the Emperors by their own single Authority convocated the Councils.

IN the year of Christ 428. Sisinnius Patriarch of Constantinople died. Nestorius succeeded him, the greatness of whose dignity Theodoret showeth in the 4. book of Heresies, saying, The Government of the Catholic Church of the Orthodox people of Constantinople, yea of the whole habitable earth, was entrusted to Nestorius. Had the like been said of the Bishop of Rome, M. du Perron would allege that testimony a hundredth times, and would triumph about it. But Theodoret takes the Roman Empire for the whole World, and speaks thus, because every Patriarch had an eye to all the Churches of the Empire of Rome.

That Nestorius being exalted to honor, began to spread the venom of a dangerous Heresy, dividing the natures of Christ, and making one Christ man, and another Christ God, as if they had been two persons. Then was Celestinus Bishop of Rome, who assembled a particular Council in that City, where the Heresy of Nestorius was condemned: and writ Letters to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, whereby he exhorted him to assemble also a Council and there to depose Nestorius, unless within ten days after the signification he renounced his Heresy. Cyrillus did so, and assembled a Council at Alexandria, where he framed twelve Articles of Anathema against Nestorius. But for all that, Nestorius was not deposed; and notwithstanding the sentence of Celestinus and Cyrillus, he kept his place, because he was not subject unto them. Such depositions were but declarations that such a Patriarch would not acknowledge such a man for a Bishop: of which we have seen many examples. There was need then that the Emperors authority should intervene to assemble a Council from the whole Roman Empire, to judge definitively of that business.

CHAP. 12. Of the Convocation of the first Council of Ephesus. The Cardinals falsifications.

IN the year of Christ 430. the Emperor Theodosius the II. assembled a Council at Ephesus, which is the III. Universal. If the Bishop of Rome had been Head of the Universal Church, his sentence of deposition against Nestorius ought to have been sufficient. Or if there had been a necessity of convocating an Universal Council, it belonged to him to convocate it, and to call to it, not only the Bishops of the Roman Empire, but also those of Persia, Assyria, and other Churches without the Empire: Yet nothing of that was done. But the Emperor Theodosius called that Synod by his mere and sole authority. So saith Evagrius, book 1. ch. 3. The first Council of Ephesus was convocated by the command of the young Theodosius. And Nicephorus, book 14. ch. 34. Theodosius by his Imperial Patents commanded that the Bishops from all places should meet in the Capital City of Ephesus. Socrates saith the same, book 7. ch. 34. And that I may not multiply witnesses for a vulgar thing, the very Council testifieth so much; for the Canons of the Council begin thus: The holy and Oecumenical Council assembled at Ephesus by the command of the most religious Emperors. Of the Bishop of Rome not one word: But among the Acts of the Council there is an Epistle of the Council to Celestinus Bishop of Rome, where the Bishops of the Council tell him, that they are assembled to obey the Imperial significations and threatenings. Why do they not add, speaking to the Bishop of Rome, that they were also assembled by his commandment?

Liberatus Deacon of Carthage, though a flatterer of the Bishop of Rome, witnesseth the same in the 5. ch. of his Breviary, saying, that the Emperor writ another sacred Patent to all the Bishops, that they should meet at Ephesus to confer about the Books of Nestorius, and the judgment of Cyrillus. A little after he relateth how that Council met, saying that after the Feast of Easter, Nestorius with a great multitude came to Ephesus, where he found the Bishops assembled. Then he addeth these words, which M. du Perron falsifieth with a notorious malice. The words of Liberatus are, Porro Cyrillus cum suis, habens vices sedis Apostolicae, Concilio evocato ducentorum Episcoporum, Nestorium vocaverunt. The Cardinal translateth, Cyrillus with his attendance, provided with the Vicariat of the Apostolic See, having convocated a Synod, cited Nestorius. It is a false translation. For how should Liberatus say that Cyrillus convocated a Council, having said a little before that the Emperor Theodosius had convocated it? And having said that the Bishops were assembled at Easter, how should he say that Cyrillus did convocate them? Can one convocate a Council which is already convocated?

Certainly the fraud of the Cardinal is evident, who translates Concilio evocato, having convocated a Council, whereas he ought to have translated, the Council being convocated, or the Council being called. Not content with that falsification, he addeth another, translating Nestorium vocaverunt, he cited Nestorius, to persuade that Cyrillus did that alone, as representing the Pope of Rome. But Liberatus saith that this citation was not done by Cyrillus alone, but both by him and by the other Bishops his colleagues.

Hereby the Reader may judge how full the Cardinals book is with corrupted and falsely translated testimonies, seeing that in one page only he hath three notorious legerdemains of that kind. For besides that place of Liberatus to prove that Pope Julius had convocated the Council of Serdica, he alledgeth a testimony of Athanasius, making him say that Eusebius and the Eusebians desired Julius to convocate a Council. But herein he is wide of the truth; for the Council which Julius convocated at the request of Eusebius, was not that of Serdica, of which the convocation was Universal, and over all the Roman Empire, but a small Council which Julius assembled of his Diocese about Rome; A thing which all the Metropolitans could do in their Dioceses. Whereas to convocate a Council from the whole Roman Empire, past the power of Julius.

In the same page he alledgeth a place of Theodoret, where he translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to convocate, whereas it signifieth to invite, or desire to come: And thereby he will persuade us that Pope Damasus convocated the first Council of Constantinople; whereas the place of Theodoret saith only that Damasus invited the Bishops assembled at Constantinople to come to Rome, which summon those Bishops would not obey, as we have seen before.

CHAP. 13. That none but the Emperor could or ought to convocate an Universal Council; and that the Bishop of Rome did not meddle with that.

BEsides so many testimonies out of Antiquity, that the Emperors alone with their single and absolute authority convocated the Universal Councils, reason itself showeth it, and permitteth not that the convocating of a Council should belong to any other.

For since the Universal Councils were composed of Bishops of the Roman Empire only, it appears that a Council limited with the same limits as the Empire, was convocated by the Emperor. For if the Roman Pope in quality of head of the Church of the whole world had convocated the Universal Councils, he would have called to them, as well the Bishops without, as within the Roman Empire. This showeth evidently that the cause why the Bishops of Persia, Assyria, Ethiopia, &c. were not present in those Councils, was, because the Emperor had no right to command them. It was therefore at the Emperors, not the Bishop of Rome's cost, that the Bishops came. The Emperors furnished them with Horses, Coaches, and all that was called parangarias praestationes, and defrayed them during their sitting: He had his Comites and Officers that presided in the Assembly, representing the Emperors person. Which is seen by the Acts of this Council of Ephesus, in which the Comes or Count Candidianus did preside: And by the Council of Seleucia, as Socrates relateth in the second book, chap. 39. And it will appear yet more evidently by the Council of Chalcedon when we come to it. Hence it is that the Universal Councils have been greater or smaller, according to the largness or diminution of the Empire. I measure the greatness of a Council, not by the multitude of Bishops, but by the greatness, and number of the Provinces, that send Deputies to it. But nothing gives more light to this question then the commands which the Emperors made to the Bishops of Rome to go or to send Deputies to the Council. Before the VI. Universal Council, the letters patent of the Emperor to Donus Bishop of Rome are prefixed, which speak thus to him, We make an absolute command to your fatherly beatitude, to be no hindrance, but to send Legates. And before the second Council of Nice, which is put among the Universal Councils, there is an Epistle of Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople, who saith expressly that the Vicars of the Roman Pope came to that Council, by the eommand of the religious Emperors.

The same appears by the humble requests of the Bishops of Rome to the Emperor for the calling of a Council, which supplications very often were rejected. For either it pleased not the Emperors to assemble a Council, or they assembled it not at the time and place which they desired. Thus in the second book of Theodoret ch. 16. Liberius Bishop of Rome beseecheth the Emperor Constantius to assemble a Council: but the Emperor did not so much as give him an answer. Innocent Bishop of Rome, as we saw before, sent to the Emperor Arcadius five Bishops and two Priests to beseech him that a Council might be called to examine the cause of John Chrysostom; but his Legates were sent back with disgrace and ill words, as disturbers of the public peace. Leo the first beseecheth Theodosius to assemble a Council in Italy, saying All the Bishops beseech your meekness with sighs and tears, that you command that a general Council be celebrated in Italy. But Theodosius would have the Council to be kept at Ephesus. And the same Leo makes the like request to Marcianus successor of Theodosius, supplicating that at least it might please him to put off the Council: but he could obtain nothing of that he desired.

Of all these things the Cardinal saith nothing in chap. 41. of book 1. where he speaks of the convocation of Councils, and smothereth all that with silence. It is not to be said how negligently he handleth a thing so important to the Papal Monarchy. He is too wise to allege Jerome speaking thus to Ruffinus in his second Apology; Tell me who were the Consuls that year? What Emperor commandeth that such a Council should be assembled? or Socrates in the Preface of book 5. Since the Emperors began to be Christians, the businesses of the Church have depended from their will. And the great Councils were convocated, and are convocated still by their command.

CHAP. 14. Of the Patriarchs that were present in the first Council of Ephesus; and of the strife between Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and John Patriarch of Antioch.

TO this Council of Ephesus, Celestinus Bishop of Rome came not. For the Bishop of Rome would never come to any of the ancient Universal Councils: Because he feared that the precedence should be deferred to some Patriarch of Constantinople, or Alexandria, or Antioch, who also bore it very high, and were not deficient in ambition. Which might have been done very easily, because in those Universal Councils all was done in Greek, which the Bishops of Rome understood not. Wherefore the Letters which Celestinus writ to that Council of Ephesus were Latin, and were read by an Interpreter.

Then Celestinus Bishop of Rome sent three Legates to that Council, Arcadius, and Projectus Bishops in Italy, and Philippus a Roman Priest, to represent his person: There also was Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and Juvenalis Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Memnon Metropolitan of Ephesus. St. Austin was called to it by the Emperor, but he was then near his last gasp, being fallen sick while Bona his See was besieged by Gensericus King of the Vandals.

John Patriarch of Antioch came also, but too late, the Synod having proceeded to the condemnation of Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople: Which the said John interpreted as a contempt of his Patriarchat and Apostolic See, pretending that such a judgment could not have been given without him; and that without him the Council could not sit, nor do a decision that concerned the Universal Church, such as the condemnation of a Patriarch. For that cause the said John having assembled the Bishops of East subject unto his Patriarchat, pronounced a sentence of deposition against Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, and against Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, and degraded them from their charge. Cyrillus also in revenge pronounced the like sentence of deposition against John. All that without expecting the advice of the Bishop of Rome, which in those days was not thought necessary. But by the intervention of some persons that loved peace, these two Prelates were reconciled, and as Socrates saith having laid down their quarrels, they restored the one to the other their Sees.

The example is worth observing; for it showeth that all the Patriarchs of the Roman Empire challenged the same right and power, as Julius Bishop of Rome had assumed in the cause of Athanasius, namely that Councils could not be assembled, nor Canons made without his advice. The same example teacheth how Sozomenus must be understood, when he saith that Julius restored to Athanasius his See, and to some other Bishops dispossessed from their places by Constantius and by the Oriental Bishops. Also how the same Sozomenus must be expounded when he saith, that the Oriental Bishops deposed Julius Bishop of Rome, and Osius, and Maximus, from their charges. For neither were Athanasius and the other Bishops restored to their places by the decree of Julius, (for they were restored long after upon other occasions) Nor was Julius dispossessed of his Bishopric by their censures. But that deposition of Julius, as also that which John and Cyrillus pronounced the one against the other, were but declarations, whereby they declared that they would not acknowledge such a one for a Bishop, and as far as in them was, pronounced him deprived of his right to his Episcopacy. Likewise the restoring of Athanasius by Julius, was but a declaration that he acknowledged Athanasius to be a lawful Bishop, and worthy to be re-installed. He put him in his charge as much as it was in him, although his judgment was without effect. The same was done by Maximus Patriarch of Jerusalem, who having consented to the deposition of Athanasius, restored him afterwards, as we saw before.

CHAP. 15. Of the order of sitting in the first Council of Ephesus. And in what quality Cyrillus did preside in it. How M. du Perron corrupteth this History.

THE Acts of the Council of Ephesus show that the Comes or Count Candidianus, Officer of the Emperor Theodosius, did preside in it with absolute authority, as representing the Emperors person: and that he commanded the Bishops of the Council to proceed with order, and not to take a matter in hand before they had decided the precedent; and forbad them to treat of any Civil or criminal matter, reserving to himself the knowledge of such cases.

But among the Bishops, Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, a man of great authority, both for his courage and learning, and because of the dignity of his See, had the precedence. He was elected President by the Council, eighteen days before the coming of the Legates of Celestinus Bishop of Rome. An evident proof that in those days they thought not that for the keeping of an Universal Council the presence of the Bishop of Rome or his Legates was necessary.

When the three Legates of the Bishop of Rome were come, their place was assigned unto them. Arcadius the first Legat sat after Cyrillus: after Arcadius, was Juvenalis, Patriarch of Jerusalem, after Juvenalis, Projectus second Legat of the Bishop of Rome; after him Theodorus Bishop of Ancyra: and after Theodorus Philippus the third Legat of Celestinus Bishop of Rome. For in that Age, although one was a Legat of the Bishop of Rome, he might be placed after many Bishops.

It is a thing out of all controversy, that Cyrillus of Alexandria presided in that Council. This is certified by the Acts and superscriptions of the Council, and by the first Action of the Council of Chalcedon, where many things of that Council are repeated. In the preamhles of the same, Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople saith, that the Council of Ephesus was held under Cyrillus of holy memory; and Evagrius towards the end of the second book; The Council of Ephesus where Cyrillus Primat of Alexandria (who is among the Saints) presided.

But the dispute is under what name, and in what quality Cyrillus had the precedence: whether in his own name, and as a Patriarch of Alexandria, or as a Lieutenant of Celestinus, and holding his place by his concession, as Cardinal du Perron will have it, in chap. 36. of book 1. For we must know that about a year before the sitting of the Council, Celestinus had writ to Cyrillus, exhorting him to proceed vigorously against Nestorius, and desiring him to act both for him, and for himself, and to deal for him in his absence. The like had never been done by any Bishop of Rome. But in that time there was no speech as yet of the Council of Ephesus: And they are deceived that say that Celestinus desired Cyrillus to hold his place in that Council. Yet it is manifest that so much as Celestinus desired of Cyrillus, was done in policy. For knowing the authority of Cyrillus, and foreseeing that in all that should be done against Nestorius, Cyrillus should have the chief hand and the principal honor, he devised to yield the place to Cyrillus of his own accord, and to desire Cyrillus to act for him against Nestorius, and to do all Acts in his name in his absence. Howsoever, it was by entreaties that Celestinus prevailed with Cyrillus to do so much, not by any authority that he had over him; and Cyrillus accepted of that Commission before the Council of Ephesus was called or spoken of. But though Cyrillus had received a Proxy from Celestinus to deal for him in the Council in his absence, that could not have taken from the Council of Ephesus the liberty of choosing such a President, as they judged to be fittest to moderate. And by all the Acts of the Council, it appears not that the Council had deferred that precedence to Cyrillus in consideration of his Commission from Celestinus. In effect, Cyrillus was elected President many days before the coming of the Legates of Celestinus, to which Legates it belonged to declare upon that point, the will of him that sent them. And sure, if such a thing had been, the Letters of Celestinus to the Council, would have mentioned it. But in those Letters, which are extant, he saith only that he had sent Arcadius, Projectus and Philippus, to represent his person in that Council; without any mention of the Commission given to Cyrillus to hold his place in the Council. Wherefore also in the Greek Acts of that Council, Cyrillus and Memnon are often called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Presidents of the Council. But as for Celestinus Bishop of Rome, the Bishops say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that he sits with them: That is to be seen especially by the subscriptions added to the Acts of that Council;

Had Cyrillus presided as Legate or Vicar of Celestinus, had he not subscribed as a Legate of Celestinus, would he have omitted in his subscription that quality whereby he had presided in the Council? And if the title of Legate of the Bishop of Rome, gave necessarily the precedence in the Council, had Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, been preferred before two Legates of Celestinus? And whoever heard that in the ancient Councils, the Bishop of Rome absent, deferred the Presidency of the Council by Commission to any? In all the Council, Cyrillus speaks always in his own name, not as a Lieutenant or Vicar of Celestinus. Leo himself in the 47. Epistle 3. chap. saith that Cyrillus of holy memory presided in the Synod of Ephesus. Had he presided there in quality of Legate of the Roman Prelate, Leo would not have forgotten it.

To so many and so strong proofs, taken from the Council itself, Cardinal du Perron opposeth the testimony of Marcellinus Comes, a Latin Author, and a favourer of his Patriarch, who writ a hundred years after that Council. Also Balsamon and Nicephorus, new Authors, who tell tales to this purpose, which Baronius laughs at: But with M. du Perron Fables go for grave Histories, if they concur with his ends: All his other witnesses, as Liberatus and Theophanes, and the Acts of the Council, speak of the Deputation given to Cyrillus by Celestinus, long before the Council of Ephesus, and speak not of that imaginary Commission to hold his place in the Council of Ephesus.

The truth is, it was a legerdemaine of Celestinus, like to that which the Bishops of Rome have oftened practiced since the time of Gregory the VII. which was to give to a Prince, that which they could not take from him; or to give some Country or Kingdom to a King, upon condition that he shall conquer it, as if the same Princes would have presented the Pope with the Moon, upon condition that he should go and take it. If a Prince so presented by the Pope, suffers some harm for going about to obey the Pope, and comes short of his undertaking; his Holiness doth not bear him harmless. But if the enterprise is achieved, as when Charles of Anjou effected the conquest of the Kingdom of Naples, and achieved it, then the Pope will have that Prince to hold the conquered Kingdom in Fee from the Papal See, and to make homage for it to the Pope, as to his Landlord and Liege.

CHAP. 16. Some incidencies happened in the first Council of Ephesus, or by occasion of the same, conducing to this question.

IN this Council, in the entry of the Action, according to the custom, the Book of the holy Gospels was laid upon the Table, that the matters propounded in the Council, might be judged according to the doctrine contained in that Book. A custom which the Pope hath changed, having brought in of late an impious Ceremony of laying the Scripture at the Popes feet, himself sitting on a Throne, as it were to say, that the Word of God is subject unto him: And next to make the Officers of the Council, to come and take an Oath of Allegiance and Obedience unto him, with their hand upon the Book, laid at the feet of his Holiness. This is found practiced in the last Council of Lateran, under Julius the II. In the first Session these words are found; Officiales ad pedes sanctissimi Domini nostri tactis sacrosanctis Evangeliis, praestiterunt corporale juramentum. The Officers having touched the holy and sacred Gospels, at the feet of our most holy Lord, took their corporal Oath.

Divers relations being made to the Emperor Theodosius, about things done in the Council, with little order and much animosity: that good Emperor not knowing which of them he might believe, writ Letters to the Council, whereby he forbad the Bishops to go out of the Council, and commanded that Deputies should be sent to him from the Council, to give him an account of all the passages, and to inform him of the truth. And being prepossessed wiih the complaints and calumnies of Nestorius and his adherents, he sent John Count of the sacred Largitions, to Ephesus with Imperial Letters; whereby he declared, that his Majesty held Cyrillus and Memnon as justly deposed, and commanded that they should be apprehended and detained prisoners: Whereupon the Council sent seven Deputies to the Emperor, among whom were Arcadius and Philippus, the Roman Bishops Legates, who having informed the Emperor of the truth, made him alter his opinion, so that he approved the condemnation of Nestorius, and took from him the dignity of Patriarch of Constantinople.

By this it appeareth that Cardinal du Perron doth very little for the Bishop of Rome, by affirming that Cyrillus in that Council represented the person of Celestinus. For thereby he declareth that the Emperor made no great account of the Bishop of Rome, since he made no difficulty of committing that man prisoner, that represented the person of the Bishop of Rome. Had Celestinus been present, he had been served in the like manner. The Reader shall observe also, that the Popes Legates did not take it for a disparagement of their dignity, to be sent by the Council, as Deputies to the Emperor, with other Bishops, to appease his wrath.

Four years after the condemnation of Nestorius, John Patriarch of Antioch, according to the relation of Nicephorus, writ to the Emperor Theodosius with a remonstrance, that for the good of the Church he ought to expel Nestorius, and put him out of the Oriental Empire. Which was presently executed by Theodosius, who relegated Nestorius to Oasis. Had the Bishop of Rome done that which John of Antioch did, our Adversaries would triumph about it, and say, that the Emperors are subject to the Popes Decrees, and that they can bring the greatest Patriarchs to condign punishment, according to their pleasure.

The same Author relateth, that the said John sent to Cyrillus his Confession of Faith in writing. When some Bishop sends his Confession to the Bishop of Rome, our Adversaries take that for a most certain proof of subjection to the Papal See; to which they will have all obliged to give a reason of their Faith. But we have seen before, that Liberius Bishop of Rome, sent his Belief and Confession of Faith to Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria: and John being not subject to Cyrillus, yet sends his Confession to him.

CHAP. 17. Occasion of the second Council of Ephesus, and by whom it was Convocated.

IN the year of our Lord 448. this occasion of new trouble arose in the Churches of the Roman Empire. That Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, degraded and expelled a Priest named Eutyches, for confounding in one, the two natures of Jesus Christ. Which was the cause that the Emperor Theodosius convocated another Universal Council at Ephesus, and writ Letters about it to the Bishops of all the Provinces of the Roman Empire. His Letters to Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, are to be seen in the first Action of the Council of Chalcedon, in which he speaks thus, If any let pass a Synod so necessary and truly pleasing to God, and will not use all his endeavor to come to the appointed place, at the prefixed time, he shall find no excuse, neither with God, nor with our piety.

The same Emperor writ Letters to the same purpose to Leo Bishop of Rome: to which the said Leo answereth in the 9. Epistle, where he saith, that he hath sent to Theodosius his Confession of Faith: which in others is taken by our Adversaries as a testimony of subjection. In that Epistle he endeavoreth to dissuade the Emperor from assembling a Council at Ephesus, and beseecheth him to assemble it rather in Italy. Wherefore (saith he) if your piety will do so much as to consent to my counsel and supplication, that you command that a Council of Bishops be held within Italy, &c. These words teach us four things. 1. That this Council of Ephesus was not convocated by Leo Bishop of Rome, since it sat against his counsel, and notwithstanding his humble supplication to the Emperor, that it might rather be in Italy. 2. That the Bishop of Rome speaks to Theodosius, as to his Master, with submissive entreaties, beseeching him to command the assembling of a Council: and by consequent, acknowledging that the right of Convocation belonged to the Emperor. 3. Above all it is notable, that Leo was denied by the Emperor, who believed not that the consent of the Bishop of Rome was of necessity requisite for the assembling of a Council. 4. It is to be noted also, that the Bishop of Rome being denied, obeyed nevertheless the Emperors Order, and against his own will sent Legates to Ephesus.

Leo then writ the second time to Theodosius, That to obey his command, he had sent three Legates to the Council: Julianus a Bishop, Renatus a Priest, and Hilarius a Deacon, to represent his person, and to keep his place. And in another Epistle to the same Emperor, which is the 16. he saith, That although, for causes grounded upon good reason, it had been better not to call a Council, yet that he might in some manner obey the Emperors commands, he had sent Legates to supply the defect of his presence. Which he saith to excuse himself for not coming in person, according to the Emperors command.

The same Leo writes to Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, and tells him that he thought it needless to have a Council, and yet that to obey the Emperor, he had sent Legates to the Council.

It is then a thing out of question, that Leo did not convocate that Council, since himself did dissuade it; and yet by sending his Deputies to it, he approved the Convocation of the same.

The cause why Leo did so much desire that the Council should rather be assembled in Italy, is, that Italy was of his Patriarchate, and that he could have gathered a great number of Occidental Bishops; also that the language of the Council should have been Latin, and the President one that spoke Latin, who in all likelihood could have been no other but the Bishop of Rome: Whereas in Greece, the Grecians surpassing in number, all was done in Greek, and a Greek President was chosen; and they made the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, to sit after many Bishops: Which was the cause that the Bishop of Rome never would be present in the ancient Universal Councils.

Here then is justified the saying of Pius the II. in the first Book of the Acts of the Synod of Basil; That in old time for the Convocation of Councils, the authority of the Popes was not much requisite.

CHAP. 18. Of the things happened in the II. Council of Ephesus, and who presided in it.

THis Council, though justly infamous, and called by the Grecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the thievish Council, because in the same, Flavianus was not only unjustly condemned, and Eutychianism established, but Flavianus was also cruelly beaten, of which he died a year after in exile. Yet that Council had all that was requisite to make an Universal Council: For it was Convocated by the Emperor from all parts of the Empire; and there all the Patriarchs met, either in person, or by their Deputies. Leo Bishop of Rome had there his Deputies; and Dioscorus of Alexandria, Flavianus of Constantinople, Domnus of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, were there in person.

It happened that the Deputies of the Bishop of Rome, passing by Constantinople, were feasted by Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople, which furnished Eutyches and his faction with a cause of recusation of the said Deputies: This with other considerations, was the cause that Theodosius possessed with the persuasions of Chrysaphius Prefect of the Imperial Palace, gave order that Dioscorus should have the precedence among the Bishops: To which also the Council consented. So Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria was elected President, and the Deputies of the Bishop of Rome put under him. This History is related in the first Action of the Council of Chalcedon, where the things passed at Ephesus were examined and made void. There an Epistle of Theodosius to Dioscorus is recorded, where he tells him, We give the authority and the primacy to your beatitude. Of which we find not that the Deputies of the Bishop of Rome made any complaint, or that they took it as a contempt or an injustice, that the Primacy should be deferred to any but the Bishop of Rome: For Liberatus an African Deacon, and a flatterer of the Bishops of Rome, who writ about twelve hundred years after, is not a credible witness, when he saith that Leo 's Deputies would not sit, because the precedence was not deferred unto them. For the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, made for the advantage of the Bishop of Rome, are more to be credited in this matter. And Leo an aspiring man, and desirous to raise the dignity of his See, would not have forgotten to expostulate of the wrong done to him. Liberatus himself saying, that the Deputies of Rome opposed all that was done in the Council, and protested against it, thereby presupposeth their presence. It is false also (though M. du Perron affirms it as true) that the Primacy which Dioscorus had usurped was declared a tyranny. That cannot be found, and the testimony which he alledgeth to prove that, saith nothing of it; but saith only that Dioscorus by his tyranny absolved Eutyches, and restored to him his dignity, and rose against the Bishop of Rome: which was, when he excommunicated Leo. Besides, that place is taken from the Greek Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which are but a Collection of lies: As that which is said in that place, that Leo deposed Eutyches; for that was done by Flavianus, before that Leo was made acquainted with it. Deposing a man who is already deposed, is stripping a naked man: Though Leo would have restored Eutyches, he could not have done it.

Besides Dioscorus President of the Council, the Emperor had there Count Helpidius, with some other Patritii and Officers that represented his person, and presided as for the exterior order. To that Helpidius the Emperor sent letters, where these words are found. I command thee, that if thou seest any factious and raiser of tumults, to the prejudice of the truth, that thou commit him prisoner, and reserve unto me the knowledge of the cause. From that penalty he excepteth not the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, who were no less obnoxious to be punished by the Emperors then the other Bishops.

CHAP. 19. Of the Appeal of Flavianus, and of Theodoret Bishop of Cyr, to Leo Bishop of Rome. And of the Appeals in general. That the Cardinal did not understand the nature of those Appeals.

LIberatus a Deacon of Carthage, who writ some six score years after that Council, saith that Flavianus being condemned by the second Council of Ephesus, Appealed to Leo Bishop of Rome. This obligeth us to speak of the Appeals to the Bishop of Rome, and to examine those Appeals which Cardinal du Perron produceth in the 43. ch. of the 1. book.

He brings in the first place the example of Athanasius, of whom Theodoret speaks thus, Julius according to the Law of the Church, commanded them to come to Rome, and cited the Divine Athanasius to judgment. But for that it is better to believe Julius himself and Athanasius, by whose testimony we have shown before that Julius would take knowledge of that business, not because the judgment of it belonged to him, but because the Eusebians had desired so much of him, for they being parties against Athanasius, had requested him to arbitrate that difference. We shown also how these Eusebians, seeing that Julius abused insolently the power which they had deferred unto him, would not undergo his judgment, but writ to him letters full of scorn and threatenings, saying that they were not inferior to him: yea that they came so far, as to degrade and depose Julius from Episcopacy in the Council of Philippolis. We have seen also by Jerome's testimony, that Athanasius came to Rome not as cited to appear, but as not able to subsist in Egypt or in the East, which made him to retire to a Bishop of his communion, and to the protection of Constance, an Orthodox Emperor. The same is seen in the Oration of Gregory Nazianzen concerning Athanasius.

That which Sozomenus saith, that Julius restored unto Athanasius and Paulus, and other expelled Bishops, to each of them his See, must be so understood, that he pronounced judgment that they ought to be restored, and gave them restitution as far as in him was: For in effect, they were not re-installed for that. That restitution was done some years after, by the intervening of the Emperor Constance then reigning in the West; Who partly by threatenings, partly by entreaties caused Athanasius to be put in his place again, till the sitting of a Council, which should decide that business. But a little after, Constance being slain by Magnentius, Athanasius having lost his support, was expelled again, and constrained to fly: So that not only the judgment of Julius, but the assistance of Constance were without effect. Read Theodoret, and Socrates, and Sozomenus, and the Annals of Baronius, you shall see that Athanasius recovered not his See by the judgment of Julius Bishop of Rome. See also what we have said before in ch. 2. of our 5. book.

The example of John Chrysostom Appealing by letters to Innocent Bishop of Rome, was examined before, and upon that point we have convinced the Cardinal of manifest falsehood, and shown that these letters are not written to Innocent: and that though these letters had been written to him, yet it is not spoken there of any Appeal but to a Council, in which the proceedings of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria against him might be disannulled. And in effect Innocent took not upon him the judgment of that matter, but only sent to the Emperor Arcadius to beseech him to grant them a Council, which he could not obtain, but his Legates were sent back with contempt and disgrace.

The Cardinal insisteth much upon the Appeal of Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople to Leo Bishop of Rome. That will be found repeated fifty times over in his book. Although I could call the truth of that History in question for many reasons, Liberatus being a witness much posterior in time, and suspected, and of small authority; yet I will receive it as true: and show that M. du Perron never understood well Ecclesiastical History in this point of Appeals.

For in the ancient Ecclesiastical history the word Appeal is commonly taken otherwise then in civil matters. The Appeal of Flavianus to Leo was not to desire him to take knowledge of his cause, and to make himself Judge, as superior of the Council of Ephesus: That was beyond Leo 's power: Wherefore also he did not undertake it: But by that Appeal he had recourse unto Leo, that by his mediation and request to the Emperor another Council might be called, where his cause might be revised, and the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus made void. Neither did Leo himself understand it otherwise: For upon that Appeal he writ to the Emperor Theodosius, in these words; All the Churches of our parts are suppliant to your meekness with groanings and tears, that because our Deputies faithfully opposed themselves [to heretical decrees] and that Flavianus hath given them a bill of Appeal, you command that a Synod be celebrated in Italy. Experience is the strongest proof of all. For upon that Appeal Leo made not the parties to appear. He used no citation. He pronounced no sentence of condemnation, or deposition, or Anathema against Dioscorus: Only he assembled a particular Council at Rome of the Bishops of his neighbourhood, in which the proceedings of the second Council of Ephesus were disapproved: and acknowledging that such a judgment was not sufficient, he urged the Emperor to obtain a general Council. Neither did Liberatus understand it otherwise. For he saith that Leo in consideration of that Appeal petitioned the Emperor to assemble a Council. Of this, Leo himself is a witness, and his particular Council assembled at Rome of the Italian Bishops, who writ thus to the Emperor Theodosius; We beseech thee to command that all things be put again in the same state that they were in before the judgment, until a greater number of Bishops be convocated out of all parts of the world. Which words evidently demonstrate that Leo and his Council did not hold their judgment to be determining in that cause, and that there was need of a Council of greater authority; which Leo doth not command, but petitions for it in all humility. To this the Cardinal giveth an answer of the greatest absurdity that can be devised, saying that this petition of Leo and his Council to the Emperor, that all things might be put in their state again, was only intended for the temporal; Whereas there was question only of Ecclesiastical matters, the deposition of a Bishop, and the approbation or abrogation of a Council.

It is plain, that if Flavianus Appealed to Leo, he did it in the same manner as Julianus condemned by Innocent Bishop of Rome Appealed from his judgment to the Oriental Churches, as Austin saith in the first book against Julian, ch. 2. And in the same manner as Pelagius condemned by the Bishops of Africa, caused his cause to be revised in the East by the Council of Palestine, where he was cleared and absolved: And in the same manner as Austin saith in the 162. Epistle, that after the judgment of the African Bishops, there were many thousands of Bishops beyond the Sea, and Apostolic Sees, to which Cecilianus might reserve his cause, and have it judged again. All which Appeals to others then the Bishop of Rome, the Cardinal would not take as Appeals to a superior Judge; for indeed they were but a recourse to other Bishops, that by their mediation and authority a Council might sit, in which the condemned might be heard in their justifications, and might complain of their former Judges.

The Appeal of Theodoret is of the same nature, and must be understood as that of Flavianus. Yet it must be observed, that in the works of Theodoret there is no mention of that Appeal of Theodoret, but in an Epistle which is found in the second Tome of the Councils, and in the Acts of Chalcedon in the same Tome; which as well as the first, is top-full of falsifications, and where the most part of the Epistles are suspected, and rejected by Baronius and Bellarmine. I pass by the Manuscript Epistles which Baronius saith he hath seen in the Popes library, for that allegation hath no authority. Now whatsoever Theodoret hath done or said in the praise or exaltation of Leo Bishop of Rome, can be no more then what he saith of Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople; that he governed the Church of all the world. What the Cardinal saith in another place, that Eutyches being near to be deposed, Appealed to the Pope, is false. For the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, rehearsed in that of Ephesus and Chalcedon, say that he Appealed to a Council, where the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica should be.

In the same 43. ch. M. du Perron alledgeth the Council of Serdica thus decreeing, If a Bishop hath been deposed by the judgment of the Bishops of the neighbouring Provinces, and pretends to be heard again; let not another be substituted in his room, till the Bishop of Rome hath pronounced his sentence about it. But we have seen before that this order was made only by the Occidental Bishops, which were of the Roman Patriarchat, and that it was of no force in the other parts of the Empire, much less in the Churches without the Empire; and that it was unknown unto the Churches of Africa. Also that the constitution was only for the person of Julius Bishop of Rome, not for his successors, and under favor of the Bishops of the Council, to whose pleasure that constitution is submitted. And that the Occidental Bishops in the Council of Serdica did gratify Julius with all their power to displease the Oriental Bishops, who had degraded and deposed him in their Council which they held at the same time.

The other examples which the Cardinal alledgeth, are no Appeals. Valens and Ursacius desired the Bishop of Rome to forgive them, because they had offended him. The Council of Tyane restored to Eustathius his Bishopric at the recommendation of Liberius. Such examples are nothing to the purpose; for they are no examples of Appealing to the Bishop of Rome.

He adds the Epistle of Valentinian, to which we will give a Chapter apart; And heaps up many things out of the Greek Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which are all forged things, made to contradict the Canon of the same Council, whereby, notwithstanding the oppositions of the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is equalled unto the Roman in all things and without exception, as we shall see in the proper place.

The other examples which he brings, are much posterior in time to the fourth Universal Council, which is the term which he hath fixed to himself. And none of them is beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. Neither is all that anything in comparison of so many Councils of Africa where St. Austin was present, in which the Appeals to Rome are forbidden upon pain of excommunication; and the Bishops of Africa writ letters to Pope Celestinus, warning him to abstain from receiving any Appeals from Africa, not to take knowledge of their businesses, not to send Legates or Commissioners into Africa, and not to bring the fumous pride of this world into the Church of Christ; trusting that the Spirit of God shall not be wanting unto them to conduct their own businesses. Of which Councils we have spoken above in the sixth and seventh Chapters.

Let all that have some equity, judge whether the reasons and examples, which I will now bring, be not of far greater force then all that the Cardinal brings to establish the Appeals to Rome.

I. First the Reader may take notice, that the Cardinal could not bring any divine Ordinance, nor one word of Scripture whereby the Bishop of Rome is constituted a Sovereign Judge of the Universal Church, or Peters successor in the quality of head of the Universal Church.

II. Observe in the second place, that all the examples which the Cardinal brings are since the 340. year of Christ; so that three whole Ages since Christ and more, afford no example, and no mention of Appealing to Rome from the remote Provinces.

III. Consider in the third place, that all the examples of Appealing to Rome which the Cardinal brings are taken from within the verge of the Roman Empire: But over all his book he could not produce one example of any Church, or any particular man, without the precincts of the Empire, that ever Appealed to the Pope.

IV. We have proved that those very examples which he sets forth with so much show, are false and against the right history. That Athanasius never Appealed to Rome, and came to Rome without calling, seeking refuge against persecution. That Chrysostom never Appealed to Rome, and that there is no trace of that in Antiquity. That the Appeal of Flavianus to Leo Bishop of Rome, was but a request whereby he had recourse unto him, that by his intercession he might obtain from the Emperor another Council where his cause might be examined again; As also Leo did not understand it otherwise, seeing that he cited not the parties to appear, and bore not himself as a Sovereign, but applied himself only as an earnest Petitioner to the Emperor for the convocating of another Council.

V. It is easy to discern what the ancient Church thought of those Appeals, I say not to the Bishop of Rome (for none were made then in the sense that the Cardinal takes it) but to Councils and superior Assemblies. For Socrates in the 2. book, ch. 40. speaks thus of Cyrillus of Jerusalem, In this place we must know that Cyrillus was since accused, I know not why, and put down from his Bishopric. Now he was deposed, because being many times cited in judgment for the space of two years, he would not appear, fearing accusations. But being deposed, he signified in writing his Appeal to them that had deposed him, Appealing to a superior judgment; which Appeal the Emperor Constantius approved. Now Cyrillus alone did that, and was the first, who against the custom of Ecclesiastical rule made use of Appeals as in a civil judgment. That Cyrillus, condemned and deposed by a particular Council, had Appealed to an universal Council, a thing unusual before that time. How strange then had it looked if he had Appealed to the Bishop of Rome? The Cardinal could not rid himself of this difficult passage, but by breaking a gap to get out with a falsification, his ordinary way: For he disguiseth this history with incredible boldness. He saith that these words are not the words of Socrates, but of Sabinus, an heretical Author related by Socrates. A thing utterly false. In all that Chapter there is not one word spoken of Sabinus. And Socrates manifestly speaketh as from himself, and as desirous that his narration should find belief; saying, We must know that Cyrillus was accused. He saith not, We must know that Sabinus saith, &c. We must know saith he, that Cyrillus was accused and deposed, and that he Appealed contrary to the Canons, &c. It is true, that three pages before he sends the Reader to Sabinus, who makes a more particular relation of the things happened in the Council of Seleucia, and saith that he will content himself to say the principal things summarily. He saith, not as the Cardinal makes him speak, We running over, will extract only the heads. Socrates speaks not of extracting, but saith, We will only relate the principal things, as running. But suppose that Socrates had extracted that out of Sabinus, it is enough that he relates it as true. Shall we reject Justin or Xiphilinus because they have abbreviated Trogus and Dion? Doth he not himself condemn those that reject the book of Maccabees, because it is a summary of Jason?

VI. To that falsehood he joins another, saying that Cyrillus is condemned, not for Appealing to a greater Synod, but for getting a writ of Appeal from the Imperial Chancery. And as he saith a little after, for obtaining letters from the Emperor to get his appeal accepted. All that as false as the allegation of the words of Socrates, which he untruly saith to be the words of Sabinus; For of that writ of Appeal there is not one word in Socrates: Only he saith that the Emperor Constantius consented to the Appeal of Cyrillus, or had approved it. In effect Cyrillus Appealed not to the Emperor, but to a superior Council.

Had it been then the custom to Appeal to the Bishop of Rome, two Councils of Africa, the Milevitan where S. Austin was present, and the sixth Council of Carthage, had not prohibited to Appeal from Africa to Rome upon pain of excommunication.

VII. Austin in his 162. Epistle speaks thus to the Donatists concerning the judgment pronounced against them by Melchiades Bishop of Rome, and by the other Bishops his associates; Let us suppose that those Bishops that judged at Rome were no good Judges; there remained yet the full Council of the universal Church where the cause might be debated with the same Judges, so that if they could be convinced to have judged amiss, their judgment might be reversed. By these words doth he not presuppose that one might have appealed from the judgment of the Bishop of Rome to a Council? which is very far from appealing from the judgment of the Council to the Pope. The same Austin taught us before that Julianus condemned by the Bishop of Rome, had appealed to a particular Council of the Oriental Churches; so little account they made in those days of the judgments of the Bishop of Rome.

VIII. We allege also the VI. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which is the second Universal; If they say that they have some Ecclesiastical accusation against a Bishop, the holy Synod decreeth that they propound first their accusation before all the Bishops of the Province, &c. But if it happen that the Bishops of the Province be not sufficient to redress such accusations, let them address themselves to a greater Synod of Bishops of that Diocese, &c. And if any despising the things decreed according as it was declared before, make bold to trouble the Emperors ears, or the judical Seats of secular Magistrates, or disquiet the Universal Council, &c. Let him not be heard at all in his accusation. That Canon decreeeth that the Synod of the Diocese judge definitively and without appeal of the causes of Bishops. It is not material whether he speaks of the accusers of Bishops, or of the accused Bishops; for the Pope now pretends that both the accusing and the accused Bishops may appeal to him.

IX. The 9. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is more express yet to this purpose. If a Clark hath some business against his own Bishop, or against some other Bishop, let him cause it to be judged in the Synod of the Province. But if a Bishop or Clark hath some difference with the Metropolitan of the Province, let him address himself to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the See of the City of Constantinople, and there let him be judged. The Reader may observe that this Council is Universal, and by consequent gave orders for the whole Roman Empire, and that the Legates of the Roman Empire were present, who past this Canon without murmuring, wherein it is decreed that from the Synod of the Province one might appeal to the Exarch of the Diocese (for then a Diocese contained many Provinces, and the first Bishop of the Diocese was called an Exarch) and that he that would decline the judgment of the Exarch might appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who judged ultimately, and without appeal. But of appealing from him to the Bishop of Rome, the Synod speaks not; for it was not the custom.

This Canon displeased Pope Nicolas the I. so much, that to break the strength of it, he corrupted it with a notorious depravation. For in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael, by the Exarch or Primat of the Diocese he understands the Bishop of Rome; but because the Bishop of Rome (if he may be believed) hath the command of all Dioceses, that venerable Pope will have that word Diocese to be understood plurally, as if the Council of Chalcedon had said, Let him address himself to the Primat of Dioceses, that is, to the Bishop of Rome: Let none find it strange (saith he) that the word Diocese is put in the singular, for it must be known that it is as good as if he had said of the Dioceses. The Scriptures are full with speeches of that kind. And he brings for example that which is said, Gen. 2. that a fountain sprung up out of the earth, instead of saying, the fountains.

This is that Pope who being proud and false in the highest degree, groundeth his primacy upon that which was said to Peter, Kill and eat; and upon the command made to the same Apostle, Joh. 21. to draw to the shore the Net full of Fishes: also upon Christ's saying to him, When thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.

Cardinal du Perron in the same chap. alledgeth against himself a Law of Justinian, commanding that Clerks be judged first by their Bishops, next by their Metropolitans, and next by the Patriarch of the Nation, &c. Because against the sentences of Bishops the precedent Emperors had decreed that there should be no Appeal. The Cardinal suspecteth, after Balsamen, that the text of that Novell is corrupted; or that this ought to be understood only of the causes of inferior Clerks. But there are many other Laws of Emperors, so express, that they admit none of those shifts; as the Law of Leo and Constantine related by Leunclavius, in these words, The judgment of the Patriarch is not subject to appeal, and is not obnoxious to revision, or to be retracted by any other, seeing that he is Prince of the Ecclesiastical judgment, and that from his judgments all Ecclesiastical judgments depend, and are resolved into it, and thither do return. But it depends from none, and is not referred to any other: For such is the nature of principality. But that judgment is judged by itself by a spiritual judgment. That Law, in my opinion, is express enough.

CHAP. 20. Of the excommunication that Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria fulminated against Leo Bishop of Rome; and other censures pronounced against the Bishop of Rome.

DIoscorus Patriarch of Alexandria displeased that Leo Bishop of Rome had assembled a particular Council at Rome, in which he had condemned Eutyches and his doctrine; to be revenged of him, assembled a Council at Alexandria, in which he excommunicated Leo, and declared him excluded from the communion of the Church. This was a very perverse, proud and unjust action; for which, as also for his Heresy, and for his violence against Flavianus, he was condemned a little after, and deposed by the Council of Chalcedon.

Yet such examples show how little the other Patriarchs respected the Roman Prelate. With the like boldness Steven Patriarch of Antioch, with the Oriental Bishops (that had separated themselves from the Council of Serdica to make a Council apart, ) deposed Julius Bishop of Rome, as we shown before. It is true, they were Arians, and Dioscorus an Eutychian; But we find not in any of the ancients that have written against these Heretics, and exactly examined their errors, as Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Austin and Philastrius, that this was ever put among the errors of the Eutichians or Arians, that they did not subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome, and had not acknowledged him Head of the Universal Church.

Wherefore not only the Heretics, but also the Orthodox Bishops used the like boldness, and feared not to use censures against the Pope of Rome. Of that we have a notable example in St. Hilary, in his fragments alleged by Baronius, and published by Mr. Faber Tutor to the King now reigning. Where Hilary repeateth these words often, Anathema tibi à me Liberi. O Liberius, anatheme is denounced unto thee by me. The reason was, that Liberius Bishop of Rome, bowing under the persecution, had subscribed the confession of the Arians made at Syrmicum.

Nicephorus in the Ecclesiastical History, book 17. ch. 26. relateth how Vigilius Bishop of Rome grew so insolent as to exclude from the Communion for four months Menas Patriarch of Constantinople. Menas did the same unto Vigilius. But Justinian provoked to anger with such actions, sent men to take Vigilius, who being afraid, fled to the Altar of Sergius Martyr, and there embracing the holy Organs, could not be drawn from them without breaking them.

Victor Tunensis in his Chronicle, in the 10. year after the Consulat of Basilius, saith, that the African Bishops assembled in Council, hearing that Vigilius Bishop of Rome had condemned three Articles confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon, excommunicated Vigilius, yet reserving unto him time of repentance.

A little before, that is, in the year 484. two fierce beasts troubled the rest of the Church, Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople, and Felix Bishop of Rome, striving to exceed one another in pride. Felix assembled a Council at Rome of 77. Bishops, where he declared Acacius, not Heretic, but polluted with the communion of Heretics. Liberatus in the 18. ch. of his Breviary, saith, that the Legates sent to signify that sentence unto Acacius, durst not appear, but caused it to be surreptitiously delivered by a contemptible Monk. Nicephorus addeth, that some of them were killed, the others committed prisoners. Upon that Acacius fulminated against Felix Bishop of Rome, and commanded that his name should be put out of the Diptychs or Ecclesiastical Tables, as of an execrable and excommunicated man, not to be named in the Church. Which censure was for a long time observed, till the coming of an Emperor that was favorable to the Roman Bishop.

CHAP. 21. Of the Letters, and of the Law of Valentinian the third. And of the Law of the Emperor Leo, contrary to that of Valentinian.

IN that time Theodosius the second reigned in the East, who was a rare example of piety, meekness, and integrity of life. The Ecclesiastical Writers think that they can never praise him enough. See Sozomenus in the Preface of his History. And Theodoret book 5. ch. 37. where they exalt the virtues and the godliness of that Prince.

In one thing he cannot be commended, that in the latter end of his life he suffered himself to be too much possessed by Chrysaphius an Eutychian; by whose instigation he approved the condemnation of Flavianus, and the actions of Dioscorus in the Council of Ephesus. Of which yet he repented a little after, putting in the room of Flavianus an Orthodox Bishop, called Anatolius.

But in the same time a monster for vices reigned in the West, Valentinian the third, a base and effeminate man, a follower of Magicians and Wizards, as Procopius affirmeth, and so abandoning the care of his businesses, that by his idleness and cowardice the Empire fell, and became the Prey of barbarous Nations, and could never recover since. Sidonius Apollinaris in his verses calls him, semivir amens, a mad half man. It was he that killed Aetius, whose virtue was the bulwark of the Empire of the West, and ravished the wife of Maximus, a Patritian, who in revenge conspired against his life, and having killed him, usurped the Empire.

As much as Valentinian was idle and careless of his businesses, so much was Leo Bishop of Rome vigilant to do his, and industrious to advance the dignity of the Roman See. He had the care of Valentinian, and of his mother Galla Placidia, and abused the brutish understanding of that Emperor to further his own interest.

Valentinian and his mother being at Rome, Leo so prevailed with them by supplications and flatteries, that they writ to the Emperor Theodosius, to beseech him to permit that a general Council should assemble in Italy. The conformity of these Letters with the request which Leo made unto Theodosius for a Council in Italy, and the titles of praises and greatness which in Valentinians Letters are bestowed upon Leo and his See, show evidently that the Letters were written at the suggestion of Leo. It were an error to think that an Emperor that cared not for the ruin of his Empire, took the pains to read these Letters, and to examine the terms. There Leo is styled the Prince of Bishops, Peter 's successor, to whom it belongs to be judge of Bishops.

But the Emperor Theodosius that governed the East, made little account of these letters, and regarded not all these high titles. For he would not grant to Valentinian nor to Leo that a Council should be held in Italy.

Another occasion was presented to Leo to abuse the stupidity of Valentinian. And that was a quarrel between Leo & Hilary Bishop of Arles, who called himself Primat of the Churches of Gauls subject to the Roman Empire, that is, of Province and Daulfine. For the rest of the Gauls was then held by the Wisigoths, and by the Franks. The quarrel was, that Hilary conferred the degree of Bishop in his Diocese, not expecting the consent and approbation of the Bishop of Rome: But Leo would oblige him to acquaint the Roman See with it, & to get his approbation.

Upon that Leo sends Letters to the Bishops of Daulfine, where after he hath exalted in magnificent words the dignity of the Roman See, he adds, Hilary to trouble the state of the Church and the concord of Bishops by new presumptions, hath exceeded measure, desiring so to subject you to his power, that he will not suffer you to be subject to the blessed Apostle Peter, challenging to himself the Ordination of all the Churches in Gauls.

In the inscription of these Letters, though puffed up with pride, as also in other Letters, he takes no higher title then that of, Bistop of the City of Rome. And to sooth up the Bishops of Daulfine, he tells them, We will not challenge the ordination of your Provinces. That is, he would not himself confer Orders, or the Degree of Bishop in Daulfine, but he was contented that the Bishops elected and created might not do the functions of their charges, but after his approbation.

In that strife Leo according to his custom had his recourse to Valentinian, who presently without hearing what Hilary could say for himself, gave sentence for Leo, and made a Law which is extant in the Theodosian Code among the Novell constitutions, in the 24. title. That Law M. du Perron sets forth with much ostentation, and speaks of it very often; especially in the 25. ch. of the 1 book, where he alledgeth these words of that Epistle, Whereas the merit of Peter, who is the Prince of the Episcopal society, and the dignity of the Roman City, and the authority of the sacred Synod, have established the Primacy of the Apostolic See: Let not presumption attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See; for then shall the peace of the Churches be maintained everywhere, if the Universality do acknowledge their Governor. In which words the Reader may observe by the way, that Valentinian doth not ground the Popes primacy upon the word of God. He addeth, We Decree by a perpetual Ordinance, that it be not lawful either to the Bishops of Gauls, or to those of other Provinces to attempt anything against the ancient custom, without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City; but that to them and to all, whatsoever the authority of the Apostolic See hath decreed, or shall decree, may be a Law; so that what Bishop soever being evocated to the judgment of the Roman Prelat shall neglect to appear, he be constrained by the Governor of the Province to make his appearance.