The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 5 – Book 6

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 5 – Book 6

p. 289BOOK V. PROVING BY THE Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory From the year of our Lord 340. unto the year 400. That then firſt the Biſhop of ROME would begin to exalt himſelf, but miſſed of his attempt, and what hinderances he met with.

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

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

A Council was convocated to Tyre by Conſtantine. There Arius appeared, proteſting of his repentance, and giving a confeſſion of faith conformable in ſhew to that of Nice. Wherefore the Emperor Conſtantine commanded Athanaſius to receive him to the Communion. Which Athanaſius (knowing the hypocriſie of Arius) refuſed to do. This with other cauſes ſo incenſed Constantine, who was deſirous of peace, that he baniſhed Athanaſius, and ſent him to live at Triers. And the Council of Tyre being tranſported to Jeruſalem, ſent back Arius to Alexandria. Two years after, Conſtantine dyeth, having divided the Empire among his three ſons, Conſtantine, Conſtantius, and Conſtans; all three Orthodox p. 290at the firſt; but Conſtantius, to whoſe lot Conſtantinople and the Empire of the Eaſt was fallen, a Prince endowed with many vertues, yet was turned away from the true faith by the Arians.

Conſtantine the eldeſt of the three, ſent preſently for Athanaſius, and ſent him again to Alexandria, to be reſtored to his place. But ſhortly after, that Conſtantine being ſlain, his brother Conſtantius that favoured the Arians, called a Council to Antioch, where Athanaſius was depoſed, and one Gregory a Cappadocian was put in his place. Yet they that pronounced that judgement,(a)(a)Socrates l. 2. c. 7. where they ſpeak ſo; Nos neque Arii ſumus ſectatores, neque aliam fidem quam quae ab initio divulgata▪ eſt recipimus. made an open proteſtation that they were no Arians, and that they approved the Council of Nice, as for the ſubſtance; only they were of opinion that the word foreign or conſubſtantial, ſhould not be uſed.

Gregory (b)(b)Socrat. l. 2. c. 8.came to Alexandria attended with ſouldiers, where having invironed the Church with ſouldiers, Athanaſius being within, officiating in Gods ſervice with the people, and in the crowd of the people going out, Athanaſius eſcaped undiſcerned by his enemies that would lay hold of him; Then embarking himſelf ſecretly, he came to Italy to live under the protection of the Emperour Conſtans, who was Orthodox, and raigned in the Weſt, having inherited his brother Conſtantines ſhare. That Emperour received favourably Athanaſius: (c)(c)Ruffinus l. 1. c. 19. Nihil ſibi ultra jam tutū in regno Conſtantii praeſumens, ad Conſtantis partes profugus abſceſſit, à quo ſatis honorifice religioſeque ſuſceptus eſt.Athanaſius (ſaith Ruffinus) ſeeing that there was no more ſafety for him within the dominions of Conſtantius, fled to Conſtans his ſide, who received him with favour and reverence. Julius was then Biſhop of Rome, to whom Athanaſius retired himſelf.

The Biſhops of the Eaſt, who proteſted that they were no Arians, and that they agreed in belief with Julius and Athanaſius, to whom they imputed divers crimes, having heard that Athanaſius was eſcaped from them, and fled to Rome, ſent a Legat to Julius to deſire him to be Judge of their cauſe againſt Athanaſius, freely referring unto him the knowledge of the ſame,(d)(d)Socrat. l. 2. c. 9. Legatum ad Julium Epiſcopum Romanum mittunt, ut ipſe in cauſa Athanaſii judex eſſe vellet, litiſque dijudicationem ad ſe transferret. as Socrates ſaith in the 9. chap. of the 2. book. And Athanaſius in his ſecond Apology,(e)(e)foreign. They deſired Julius to aſſemble a Synod, and to be judge himſelf if he would.

(f)(f)Socrat. l. 2. c. 12. Theodoret. l. 2. c. 4.But Julius an ambitious man, and forward to lay hold of advantages, called preſently a Council of the neighbouring Biſhops: And the power that was deferred unto him as an Arbitratour, he would uſe as a Maſter, and an abſolute Judge, alledging the prerogatives of his See above other Sees: So he undertook the cauſe of Athanaſius, and of Paul of Conſtantinople, and other Biſhops likewiſe exiled. And he writ letters with his Synod to the Biſhops of the Eaſt, rebuking them or their raſh proceeding in the depoſition of perſons whom he judged to be innocent. And by the will of the Emperour Conſtantius (as(*)(*)Ruffin. l. 1. c. 19. Conſtantius ſimulata benignitate ultro venire ad ſe Athanaſium jubet, & levi increpatione perſtrictum ad Eccleſiam ſuam permittit ire. Ruffinus teſtifieth) he ſent Athanaſius and Paul to their ſeveral Churches, declaring that he reſtored them to their charges. They came then to their Churches, but were preſently expelled out of them. For the Biſhops of the Eaſt having received the letters of Julius, were very much amazed at his arrogance; and aſſembling themſelves at Antioch, they writ to him (as(g)(g)Sozomenus l. 3. c. 8. foreign. Sozomenus ſaith) letters full of ſcorn and inſultation, and of grievous threatnings; ſaying,(h)(h)Socr. l. 2. c. 15. in Graeco foreign. That it belonged not to him to over-rule them about thoſe whom they would expell out of the Church; as they alſo did not contradict him when he expelled Novatus out of the Church. They ſaid indeed that the Roman Church was honourable, and had been a ſchool of the Apoſtles, and had been from the beginning the capital City for piety: But they added, that they that inſtructed her, came out of the Eaſt; and that even themſelves were not inferiour to the Roman Church, though they were unequal in greatneſs and number; yea that they did even overcome the Roman Church in vertue. We ſee in the ſecond Apology of Athanaſius, (i)(i)Pag. 579. foreign.that the Euſebians (for ſo the Biſhops of the Eaſt, enemies to Athanaſius called themſelves, becauſe of Euſebius Biſhop of Nicomedia their head) ſaid that they held all Biſhops to be equal in honour, and that a Biſhops honour did not increaſe for being in a greater town: Which they ſaid, to p. 291give to underſtand unto Julius, that they held not themſelves to be inferior unto him.

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

(k)(k)Socrat. l. 2. cap. 13. in latin.The letters written with gall of the Oriental Biſhops, to Julius Biſhop of Rome being delivered to him, he ſent them an anſwer, but far milder and fuller of reſpect then his former letter; having by that time learned that in vain he juſtled againſt Biſhops over whom he had no power. He told them that their letters had very much grieved him, remonſtrating unto them that in not calling him to their Council, they had done againſt the Canons, ſeeing that there was an Eccleſiaſtical Canon(l)(l)foreign. foreign, that rules or laws muſt not be given to Churches againſt the advice of the Biſhop of Rome.

The Oriental men would not do ſo much for Julius as to anſwer his letters. And Sozomenus in ch. 9. of book 2 ſaith that Julius ſeeing how he profited nothing, and made no progreſs in the cauſe of Athanaſius, intreated the Emperor Conſtans to take care of that buſineſs: And Conſtans favourably receiving Athanaſius and Paul, and many other Biſhops who had been depoſed and expelled from their Churches, took that matter to heart, and writ to his brother Conſtantius, (m)(m)Socrat. l. 2. cap. 14.deſiring him to ſend him three Biſhops, that ſhould declare to him the cauſes why Athanaſius, and Paul, and many other Biſhops had been depoſed and expelled from their Churches. Conſtantius did ſo, and ſent him three, who brought only the confeſſion of faith of the Oriental men, and without doing any thing elſe, or ſpeaking of the caſe of Athanaſius, returned home. At which Conſtans being ſore diſpleaſed, writ to his brother again, deſiring him, that ſince his Embaſſadors were thus gone away without doing any thing, a general Council might be called by the conſent and authority of them both; which was granted, and the place was appointed at Sardica, a town of Slavonia, which town was ſince called Triaditſa. This was eleven years after the death of Conſtantine, father to theſe two Emperors.

(n)(n)Socrat. l. 2. c. 16.When the Biſhops were come to Sardica from all parts, the Oriental Biſhops were found to be but ſeventy ſix, many having excuſed themſelves from coming, for divers cauſes. But by the diligence and ſollicitation of Julius and Athanaſius, about three hundred Occidental Biſhops met at that Council. But the Oriental Biſhops foreſeeing that they ſhould be over-voted by number, would not enter into the Council, and withdrew themſelves to Philippolis in Thracia, where they held a Council by themſelves.

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

The Council of Sardica being diſſolved, the Emperor Conſtans ſeeing that he had advanced nothing, came to the laſt remedie, and writ to his brother Conſtantius, that unleſs he reſtored Athanaſius and the others that were unjuſtly expelled, he would denounce war unto him. Theſe letters were of more force then a Council; for preſently after Conſtantius writ kind letters to Athanaſius, permitting him to return to Alexandria. But Athanaſius, not daring to truſt him, ſtaid at Aquileia, and ſtirred not till Conſtantius had written to him three times. In p. 292the end after the third letters, he went to the Emperor, who received him with very great kindneſs, and reſtored him by Imperial letters patent, unto his Biſhoprick of Alexandria, giving him beſides, letters directed to the people of Alexandria for his reſtitution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. As for that pretended Canon forbiding to give any Laws to Churches againſt the advice of the Biſhop of Rome, it is not known by whom nor when it was made. For before this Julius it is not found that ever it was ſpoken of, or that ever any Biſhop of Rome made uſe of it. The experience of the p. 293following ages will ſhew that it was the cuſtom of the Biſhops of Rome to ſuppoſe or corrupt Canons, to advance their authority. So they did in the ſixth Council of Carthage, and ſince in the Council of Chalcedon, as we ſhall ſee hereafter. In particular, as for that Canon which Julius produced, we have ſeen that in the precedent ages the practice was contrary. For Agrippinus and Cyprian Biſhops of Carthage aſſembled Councils in diverſe times, in which they made Orders and gave Judgements contrary to the Roman Church, not expecting the advice of the Roman Biſhop, and thereby incurred no cenſure. And when the judgement of the Roman Biſhop Melchiades was reviſed and examined in the Council of Arles, the Council expected not the advice of Melchiades, ſince it was in queſtion of voiding or confirming his ſentence. Alſo we ſhall ſee hereafter many Canons and Ordinances contrary to that Canon, as the Canons and Epiſtles of the Councils of Africa, which excommunicate every African that appeals to Rome, and warn the Pope that he take no more knowledge of their buſineſſes. Wherefore the Biſhops rejected that Canon which Julius produced, and were ſo far from acknowledging,Socrat. l. 2. c. 2 that they could decree nothing but with the conſent of Julius Biſhop of Rome; that on the contrary, in that bitter Epiſtle which they write to him, they tell him (uſing the very terms of that Canon) foreign, that it belonged not to him to make Canons for them, or to over-rule them. They were Arians indeed, but they were not ignorant of the Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline. And this was never put among the errours of the Arians, that they were diſobedient to the Roman Biſhop, and did not acknowledge him head of the Univerſal Church.

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

I muſt not omit that(a)(a)Ch. 32. p. 196. M. du Perron alleadging this Canon, commits three falſifications. He ſaith, that the Council of Antioch was taxed of nullity, becauſe (ſaith Socrates) the Eccleſiaſtical Law (b)(b)Socrates l. 2. c. 8. foreign.prohibited the making of Canons or rules for Churches, without the ſentence of the Biſhop of Rome. But it is falſe that Socrates ſaith, that the Council of Antioch was taxed of nullity. Then the Cardinal interprets ill foreign by becauſe inſtead of although. And theſe words foreign ſignifie not as he thinks, without the ſentence, but againſt the advice.

He alledgeth many texts, either falſe, or taken in a wrong ſenſe. He quoteth in his margent the fifth Canon of Sardica, and ſends us to the Comment of Balſamon p. 294upon that Canon. That Canon of Sardica permits to the condemned Biſhops to appeal to the Biſhops of Rome. But that rule is made only for the Occidental Biſhops, belonging to the Roman Patriarchat: For in that Synod there was none but Occidental Biſhops that could not make Laws binding the Biſhops of the Eaſt, who never obeyed this Council. And we ſhall ſee hereafter that in Auſtins time, ſome 66. years after, theſe Canons of Sardica were unknown to the Churches of Africa. Beſides, theſe orders of Sardica were propounded by Hoſius, who preſided in the Council, as a new thing, and ſubmitted to the will of the Council; As in effect, that honour was deferred to Julius Biſhop of Rome to ſpite the Oriental Biſhops, who being aſſembled at the ſame time at Philippolis, had degraded Julius and his adherents with diſgrace. As for Balſamon, the Cardinal was wiſer then to produce his words upon the third Canon, which is of the ſame ſenſe as the fifth. Theſe are his words,(c)(c)foreign. The things determined concerning the Pope, muſt be taken alike concerning the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, becauſe he was made equal in honour in all things to the Pope by many Canons of Synods.

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

The Cardinal addeth,(d)(d)Pag. 197. that when the Council of Capua delegated Theophilus to examine the cauſe of Flavianus Patriarch of Alexandria, Ambroſe writ to him, that after he hath judged it, he muſt get his judgement confirmed by the Pope. All that is full of untruth.

St. Ambroſe indeed, Epiſt. 78. writes to Theophilus, but not in the terms that the Cardinal attributes unto him, but in theſe,(e)(e)Sane referendum arbitramur àd ſanctum fratrem noſtrum Romanae Sacerdotem Eccleſiae, quoniam praeſumimus te judicaturum quae etiam illi diſplicere nequeant. Ita enim utile erit & conſultum ſententiae, ita pacis & quietis ſecuritati, ſi id veſtro ſtatuatur conſilio quod communioni noſtrae diſſenſionem non afferat. Truly we eſteem that this ſhould be referred to our holy brother the Prieſt of the Roman Church; For we preſume that thou wilt judge things that cannot diſpleaſe him. For ſo it ſhall be uſeful for the ſentence and for the ſafety of peace and reſt, if that be eſtabliſhed by your counſel, which ſhall bring no diſſention to our communion. He ſpeaks only as giving Counſel. Yet Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Emperour Theodoſius, did clean contrary to that Counſel. For no report was made of it to the Biſhop of Rome, who was conſtrained to hold his peace, becauſe he could not hinder it, as we ſhall ſee hereafter. Which example, with many more, ſerveth to give the lye to the Acts of Epheſus produced by the Cardinal, which ſwarm with lyes; as that the Church of Antioch was alwayes governed by the Roman: whereas the Roman Church never had any power over that of Antioch. The thred of the times which we follow will lead us to more examples. And that which the Cardinal adds of the appeal of Flavianus, and of Theodoretus, and the like allegations, ſhall be examined in their order.

A little after(f)(f)Chap. 32. pag. 198. he alledgeth the 4. ch. of the 2. book of Evagrius, where it is ſaid that the Biſhop of Rome is called the head of the Churches. A place alledged according to the ordinary faith of the Cardinal, that is, falſly; for in that Chapter no ſuch thing can be found.

Indeed in that Chapter the Deputies of Leo Biſhop of Rome, attribute unto their Maſter more power then he had, ſaying that he had pardoned the Biſhops of the ſecond Council of Epheſus, who yet never asked him pardon. For the Popes will eaſily pardon thoſe whom they cannot puniſh. But they call not Leo the Head of all the Churches. And though they ſhould have called him ſo, it would p. 295have been of ſmall force in the mouth of men that repreſented the Popes perſon. The higheſt title they give him, is to call him,(g)(g)foreign. The moſt holy Archbiſhop of Rome the Great. They declare alſo that Leo had depoſed Dioſcorus. Which hindred not the Council from judging whether he ought to have been depoſed, and from examining his cauſe.

As for the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which the Cardinal brings in his Margent,(h)(h)P. 198. we ſhall ſee in the right place that the ſaid Council hath judged the clean contrary; and that the places which he alledgeth in his text, are different from the Greek which he hath put in his Margent, as if he would have convinced himſelf of falſhood. He makes the Council ſay, It appeareth thereby that all primacy and principal honour hath been alwayes deferred to the Biſhop of Rome. Theſe words all primacy, and this word alwayes, are of the Cardinals addition. There is according to the Greek,(i)(i)foreign. By the things done, and by the diſpoſition of every one, we perceive that before all things the priviledges and the excellency of honour are kept according to the Canons unto the moſt beloved of God, the Archbiſhop of the antient Rome. Is there any thing in that place that comes near the Cardinals verſion?

Now they are Senatours that ſpeak, not the Council: and the excellency of honour which they ſpeak of, is a right of precedency, without any power of juriſdiction. And that (ſay they) according to the Canons, not according to the Word of God; declaring that precedency to be of Eccleſiaſtical, not of Divine right. And in the ſame(k)(k)Tomo II. Concil. Latin. Edit. Colon. An. 1572. p. 212. Act. Conc. Chalced. Oportere autē & ſanctiſſimum Archiepiſcopum regiae Conſtantinopolitanae urbis ejuſdem primatus honoribus & ipſum dignum eſſe. Seſſion in ſpite of the Legats of Leo, the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is declared equal in all things to the Biſhop of Rome, as we ſhall ſee hereafter. And to go no further, the ſame Senatours after the forealledged words add theſe, The moſt holy Archbiſhop of the Royal City of Conſtantinople muſt have alſo the dignity of the ſame honours of primacy. To examine all the falſifications of the Cardinal, there is need of a volume by it ſelf.

II. The ſecond point in which the(l)(l)Book 1. ch. 43. p. 332. Cardinal finds matter of triumph, is the teſtimony(m)(m)Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 2. foreign. of Sozomenus, that becauſe to Julius the care of all things belonged, by reaſon of the dignity of his See, he reſtored to every one his Church.

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

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

p. 296And in the Oration of the praiſes of Athanaſius. They committed unto him the preſidency of the people of Alexandria, which is as much as ſaying, the government of the whole earth. And Theodoretus in the book of Hereſies, in the Chapter that ſpeaks of Nestorius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, (r)(r)foreign.They committed unto him the government of the Catholike Church of the Orthodox people of Conſtantinople, and together of the whole habitable earth. And John of Jeruſalem writ ſo to Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria. Thou like a man of God beareſt the care of all the Churches, as Hierom relateth in his Epiſtle to Panmachius. Wherefore alſo theſe Patriarchs were taken for one only head, making but one head among them; as Balſamon ſaith,(ſ)(ſ)Theodorus Balſamon de Patriarcharū legib. apud Leunclavium. foreign. We acknowledge the five moſt holy Patriarchs to be one head of the holy body of the Church of God. And Gregory the firſt Biſhop of Rome, in the 37. Epiſtle of the 6. book, ſpeaking of the three Sees, of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, ſaith that(t)(t)Cum ergo unius atque una ſit ſedes, cui ex authoritate divina tres Epiſcopi praeſident. it is but one See upon which three Biſhops are ſitting. It is then to be obſerved, that all theſe Patriarchs attributed to themſelves the care of all the Churches of the world, according to the ſtile then in uſe, and a long time after, to call the Roman Emperours, Emperours of all the world; and the Roman Empire, orbem Romanum, the Roman world; of which the examples are numberleſs.

According to that order taken among the Biſhops of the Roman Empire,(u)(u)Theod. l. 5. c. 8 Vita Gregorii Nazianzeni praefixa ejus operibus. Meletius Patriarch of Antioch confirmed the Biſhoprick of Constantinople unto Gregory Nazianzen. And Peter Patriarch of Alexandria having done the ſame, ſhortly after went about to ſet Maximus in his place. And Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria condemned Neſtorius; and Theophilus alſo Patriarch of Alexandria, went to Conſtantinople to judge of the carriage of Chryſoſtom. And Maximus Patriarch of Jeruſalem, though he was the leaſt of the Patriarchs, and ſubject to the Metropolitan of Caeſarea, yet aſſembled a Council, where he reſtored Athanaſius to his dignity, as we have ſeen. And the Biſhops of the Eaſt, among whom ſome were Patriarchs, ſent back Liberius to Rome with letters to re-inſtal him in the Biſhoprick of Rome.

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

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

III. The third point which the Cardinal obſerveth in the hiſtory of Athanaſius, is, that(x)(x)Theodoret hiſt. l. 2. c. 4. foreign. Theodoret witneſſeth that Julius following the Law of the Church, commanded the Euſebians to come to Rome, and cited the divine Athanaſius to judgement; and the Cardinal puts that in the beginning of the 43. Chapter of his firſt book, for the firſt example of appeals to the Pope; as though Athanaſius had appealed to Julius as to his Judge and Superiour.

But in this Socrates and Sozomenus contradict Theodoret, for I have ſhewed in p. 297the precedent Chapter by teſtimonies of thoſe two Authors, that Athanaſius was not cited to Rome to appear before Julius, but that he took ſhip ſecretly in Egypt, and ſcaped into Italy from the perſecution. Which is confirmed by Hierom in the Epitaph of Marcella: (y)(y)Athanaſius & Petrus perſecutionem Arianae haereſeos declinantes; quaſi ad tutiſſimum communionis ſuae portum confugerant. Vide & Sozomenum l. 6. c. 15. Petrus Epiſcopus Alexandrinus clam carcere elapſus, conſcenſa navi, ad Epiſcopum Romanum, utpote ejuſdem fidei fautorem, trajecit.Athanaſius (ſaith he) and Peter flying from the perſecution of the Arian hereſie, had their refuge to Rome, as to the ſafe harbour of their communion. We have ſeen indeed that the Euſebians voluntarily, and of their own accord deferred the knowledge of their buſineſs unto Julius; and that Julius abuſing the power which was deferred unto him as an Arbitrator, would act as an abſolute Judge, and commanded the Euſebians to appear before him; And that they being exaſperated by that arrogant dealing, writ to him taunting and threatning letters. Since then the Euſebians declared unto him that they cared not for his ſummons, what need was there to make any Summons or ſignification to Athanaſius reſiding at Rome to appear before Julius? for Julius knew that his adverſaries would not appear. And whereas Athanaſius in his ſecond Apology deſcribeth exactly all that he hath done, and all that happened unto him in this buſineſs; why doth he not make the leaſt mention of his Appeal to Julius, nor of any Summons made to him to appear before Julius? But if it were ſo; that ſuch a citation had been made to Athanaſius, I would ſay that in that point Julius was gone beyond his limits, and had done that which none of his Predeceſſors ever took upon him to do.

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

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

CHAP. 3. Of the Council of Sardica.

VVE have ſeen in the firſt Chapter, by whom, how, and for what cauſes the Council(a)(a)The Jeſuite Peter Cotton in the ſecond book of the militant Church ch. 23. ſheweth his ignorance, calling this the Council of Sardinia inſtead of Sardica. of Sardica was convocated: How in the very entry it was divided into two contrary Councils, and what matters were handled in both.

Whereupon a queſtion ariſeth, whether the Council being thus divided into two parts or rather parties, the party that remained at Sardica, muſt be honoured with the title of Univerſal Council? Cardinal du Perron (b)(b)Ch. 53. of the third Book.maintains that it was an univerſal Council, and about that ſpends five and thirty pages; thereunto moved, becauſe in that Council Appeals to the Biſhop of Rome are commanded, and his dignity (as he takes it) is very much exalted in the ſame.

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

Two things then I ſay. The one, that if by an Univerſal Council we muſt underſtand a Council aſſembled from the Churches of all the world, the Council of Sardica cannot be called Univerſal, ſince there was no Deputy from ſo many great Chriſtian Churches, which were without the limits of the Roman Empire. But if by an Univerſal Council, we mean a Council gathered from the whole Roman Empire, in vain do our adverſaries maintain that the Council of Sardica is Univerſal, to exempt it from the poſſibility of erring, ſeeing that God hath no p. 298where promiſed to the Councils that they cannot erre when they are aſſembled from the whole Roman Empire.

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

It happened then, that the Emperors Conſtantius and Conſtans having made an Univerſal convocation of Biſhops to meet at Sardica, the Biſhops of the Eaſt would not confer with thoſe of the Weſt, for the cauſes mentioned before; and withdrew themſelves to Philippolis in Thracia, where they held a Council by themſelves. Now the convocation had been made by the Emperors to rally the Eaſt with the Weſt; and therefore the convocation of that Council was called Univerſal, becauſe the Eaſt and the Weſt were convocated to it. That uniting of the Eaſt with the Weſt being not made at Sardica; it were ſpeaking againſt common ſenſe to call the Council of Sardica an Univerſal Council. Wherefore alſo Epiphanius in the hereſie of the Photinians, which is the 71. calls it foreign, an Occidental Synod: And(c)(c)Hilarius contra conſtantium. Damnas ſubſtantiae nomen quo te Sardicenſi Synodo & Syrmienſi pium eſſe Occidentalibus mentiebaris. Hilary the like in his book againſt Conſtantius.

Hinckmarus in the book of the 55. Chapters, ch. 20. The Council of Sardica, in which above three hundred Biſhops met from the Weſtern parts; Yet they do not put it among the Ʋniverſal Councils. Nothing is more vulgar in Antiquity, then to put the Council of Nice for the firſt Univerſal Council, the firſt of Conſtantinople for the ſecond, the firſt of Epheſus for the third, and the Council of Chalcedon for the fourth; as it is to be ſeen in all the Editions of the Councils, and in the book of Photius of the Councils. Theſe are thoſe four Councils of which the Emperor Juſtinian in the 131. Novel, ch. 1. ſaith(d)(d)Praedictarum quatuor Synodorum dogmata ſicut ſanctas Scripturas accipimus. that he receiveth them with obedience as the holy Scriptures. Pope Gregory the firſt ſaith the ſame.(e)(e)Epiſt. 24. l. 1. & l. 2. c. 10. They put not the Council of Sardica in the ſame rank, for they ſpeak not at all of it, although it be far more antient then the three laſt of thoſe four. M. du Perron himſelf, who in his book againſt his Majeſty of great Brittain limits himſelf to the time of the four firſt Councils, by thoſe four Councils underſtands the above named, among whom the Council of Sardica doth not make one.

Unleſs perhaps we muſt ſay with the Cardinal, that the Council of Nice and that of Sardica are but one Council: Which is a bold and prodigious conceit, ſeeing that there is two and twenty years between the Council of Nice and that of Sardica; for the Council of Nice was held in the year of the Lord 325. and the Council of Sardica in the year 347. That was a pretty long pauſe. Beſides they were convocated by other Emperors, and in another place, and for divers cauſes: The one being aſſembled to decide the controverſie of Arius; The other to judge of the crimes impoſed to Athanaſius, and of the juſtice or injuſtice of his depoſition. And if the faith eſtabliſhed in the Council of Nice hath been confirmed at Sardica, it is ſo far from reaſon, that thence it ſhould follow that it is the ſame Council, that on the contrary it followeth that it is another; For a Council is not aſſembled to confirm it ſelf. And by the ſame reaſon the firſt Council of Conſtantinople, and the firſt of Epheſus, and that of Chalcedon, ſhould be the ſame Council as that of Nice, becauſe in them the Symbol of Nice hath been confirmed. The Council of Nice was compoſed of Biſhops out of the whole Empire, but that of Sardica had none but of the Weſt. p. 299Then all the Antients teſtifie that the Council of Nice made but twenty Canons. And M. du Perron himſelf brings witneſſes for it. But if the Council of Sardica were the ſame as that of Nice, that of Nice ſhould have 41. Canons. Even in the Tomes of the Councils, publiſhed by our adverſaries, the Council of Sardica is not printed next to that of Nice, but many Councils are ſet between both. The ſame is found in Balſamon, Zonaras, and the Greek exemplaries of du Tillet. Had the Council of Sardica been held to be a part, or an appurtenance of Nice, it would have ſo raiſed the dignity of it, and made it ſo famous, that it would have been known and honoured all over the whole Univerſal Church, and it would have been impoſſible for the hereticks to have ſuppreſt the copies of them. Yet we ſhall ſee hereafter that in the year 419. the Biſhops of Africa had never heard of the Canons of that Council, and knew not what it was. Among which Biſhops were thoſe two great men, Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, and Auſtin Biſhop of Bona; ſo little was that Council of Sardica eſteemed, and ſo little known.

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

Pope Nicolas the firſt in his Epiſtle to Photius ſaith, that the Greek Church had not that Council. The ſame is averred by the Canon Quod dicitis in the ſixteenth diſtinction. And Dionyſius Parvus a Roman Abbot, contemporary to the Emperor Juſtinian, who made the verſion of the Greek Canons,Du Perron c. 53. p. 492. ſaith that he hath added to them the Canons of Sardica, having taken them out of the Latin exemplaries; For they were not in the Code of the Canons of the Univerſal Church.

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

But we need not to inſiſt any more upon that, ſince M. du Perron joyns with this truth; ſaying in the 41. ch. At the leaſt the convocation of it was Ʋniverſal. Page 117.Which we grant, and ſo muſt all thoſe Authors be underſtood whom the Cardinal brings forth, who give to this Council the title of Univerſal, unleſs we will ſay that they ſpake againſt common ſenſe.

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

Theſe are the Canons which Bonifacius and Celeſtinus preſented to the ſixth p. 300Council of Carthage, falſly affirming that they were the Canons of the Council of Nice; Which was acknowlegded for an impoſture by the Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 301CHAP. 5. Of the Preſidency in the Council of Sardica.

IN that Council the order of ſitting was ſuch, according to the teſtimony of Athanaſius (a)(a)Atha. Apol. 2. foreign.in the ſecond Apology. Hoſius Biſhop of Cordova preſided, and after him ſate the Deputies of Julius the Roman Biſhop, Archidamus and Philoxenus. Their ſubſcriptions were thus ſet down.

Hoſius ab Hiſpania,

Julius Romae, per Archidamum & Philoxenum

Presbyteros ſuos.

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

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

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

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

Who ſo will ſee the lowneſs and the ſubjection of the Roman Biſhop under the Emperor of Rome at that time, let him read ch. 16. of book 2. of the hiſtory of Theodoret, (b)(b)Sozom. l. 4. c. 10-where there is a Dialogue between Liberius and the Emperor Conſtantius, who ſpeaking with Liberius as a Monarch to his ſubject, baniſheth him, and appoints him 500 crowns to keep him in his exile. This Liberius after two years exile in the end yielded to the perſecution, and ſubſcribed to the Confeſſion of the Arians made at Syrmium (as Athanaſius (c)(c)foreign.teſtifieth in his Epiſtle to the Solitaries: And Hierome in his Catalogue, where he ſpeaks of Fortunatian; And Hilary in his fragments, and many more) For which cauſe the Emperour ſent p. 302him back to Rome, to govern the Church with Felix, ſo that they might be fellow-biſhops of Rome. And theſe two did govern jointly, till Felix being dead, Liberius remained alone. Certainly, if the Biſhop of Rome had been acknowledged at that time the Head of the Univerſal Church, the Univerſal Church would never have ſuffered two men to hold that place, and two Soveraign Prelates in one chair. We muſt not omit that which Ammianus Marcellinus obſerveth, that Conſtantius earneſtly deſired to draw Liberius Biſhop of the eternal City (that is of Rome) to his party, placing the dignity of the Roman Biſhops in the dignity of the City which was highly reſpected.

In the year of Chriſt 367. Liberius being dead, two competitors of the Biſhoprick, Damaſus and Ʋrſicinus came to handy blows, in ſo much that in a Church at Rome were found a hundred thirty and ſeven bodies of men ſlain in that ſedition, as Ammianus Marcellinus relateth, in ch. 2. of book 27. where that Pagan Author(d)(d)Neque ego abnuo hujus rei cupidos ad impetrandum quod appe…nt omni contentione laterum jurgari debere, quum id adepti futuri ſint adeo ſecuri ut ditentur oblationibus matronarum, procedamque vehiculis inſidentes, circumſpecte veſtiti, epulas curantes profuſas, adeo ut eorum convivia regales ſuperent menſas, &c. deſcribes the vices of the Biſhops of Rome, their greedineſs to catch the offerings of the Matrons, their ſumptuous garments, their ſuperfluous feaſts, their ambition to attain to that degree. His words are notable; I deny not, conſidering the magnificence of the State of the City, that they that ſeek that honour [to be Biſhops of Rome] have reaſon to ſtrive with all their ſtrength to obtain that end, ſeeing that when they have attained it they live ſecure, inriching themſelves with the oblations of Matrons, and riding abroad in Coaches, magnificently clad, making laviſh feaſts, ſo that their feaſts go beyond the Royal tables. They might be happy, if without regarding the greatneſs of the City, which they uſe as a covering of vices, they would imitate the ſobriety of ſome provincial Biſhops.

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

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

In the ſame time alſo Meletius Biſhop of Antioch, was famous in holineſs, of whom Baſil ſaith in the 50. Epiſtle, that(c)(c)foreign. he preſided over the whole body of the Church. If any in our days gave thoſe titles to ſome other then the Pope of Rome, he ſhould go for an heretick or a madman: Thus among the works of Athanaſius, there is an Epiſtle which Arſenius writes to him, where he ſaith,(d)(d)Pag. 610. Tom. 1. foreign. We embrace peace and union with the Ʋniverſal Church, over which thou preſideſt. For we have ſhewed that all the Patriarchs took care of all the Churches of the Roman Empire.

Then alſo Gregory Nazianzen was much eſteemed, who was ſo far from acknowledging any Head of the Univerſal Church by Divine right, that he wiſht that there had been no ſuperiority at all in the Church, and that all Paſtours had been equal.(e)(e)Greg. Naz. orat. de ſe ipſo redeunte in agro, foreign. Would to God (ſaith he) that there were no precedency, nor any p. 303degree of prerogative of honour, nor any tyrannical primacy, that we might he diſcerned by vertue only.

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

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

ABout the year 365. Arianiſm growing in the Eaſt by the countenance of the Emperour Valens; Baſilius Biſhop of Ceſarea in Cappadocia, and the other orthodox Biſhops of the Eaſt, called upon the help of the Biſhops of the Weſt, among whom that of Rome, Damaſus was the moſt reſpected, and asked them counſel and ayd in their affliction. But Damaſus would not ſtir for it; fearing (as it is likely) to offend the Emperour Valens. Euſebius Biſhop of Samoſate was of opinion that they ſhould ſend Legats into the Weſt to move the men of the Weſt to ſuccour their brethren: But Baſil was of contrary opinion, ſaying in his tenth Epiſtle,(a)(a)Baſil. Ep. 10. ad Euſeb. Samoſat. foreign. If the wrath of God remain upon us, foreign? What ſuccor can we receive from the pride of the Weſtern men? who neither know the truth, nor can abide to learn it, and being foreſtalled with falſe opinions, do now the things which they did before in the buſineſs of Marcellus; contending againſt them that announce the truth unto them, and ſtrengthening hereſie by themſelves. Of thoſe Weſtern the moſt remarkable by reaſon of the dignity of the city was Damaſus Biſhop of Rome, of whom he complains that he had countenanced the hereſie of Marcellus; and that ſtill both he and his aſſociates did the ſame, and by their connivence advanced the hereſie, and oppoſed the true doctrine.

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

In the ſame Epiſtle Baſil ſpeaks of Damaſus in theſe terms,(b)(b)Pag. 109. foreign. I would write to their head, but not of Eccleſiaſtical buſineſſes, but to give them ſilently to underſtand that they know not the truth of our buſineſſes, and will not receive the way to learn it. Note that he calls Damaſus the Head of the Occidental men, as being Patriarch in the Weſt. But he doth not acknowledge him for his head, or the head of the Oriental or Meridional Churches. By ſaying their head, he ſheweth manifeſtly that he did not acknowledge him for his head.

The Cardinal alledgeth a teſtimony out of the 52. Epiſtle of the ſame Baſilius: where he makes Baſil to ſpeak ſo; It ſeemed good to us to write to the Biſhop of Rome,Ch. 15. p. 108. that he watch for the things of this ſide, and give his judgement; that ſince it is difficult to ſend men thither from a common and Synodical decree, he uſe his authority in the buſineſs, and make choice of perſons capable of the labour of the journey. This place is tranſlated with little fidelity, and is maliciouſly clipt; For he tranſlateth foreign to give judgement; whereas it ſignifies only to give his advice. And as for the authority which he deſireth Damaſus to uſe, Baſil declareth for what he will have him to uſe it, namely for ſending men that be capable of the labour of the journey, and that may by their meekneſs and aſſiduity make remonſtrances to them that he have themſelves perverſly. And yet he will have them to be ſent ſecretly and without noiſe, that one may not think that he deſire Damaſus to ſend Legats with publike authority to pronounce judgments in his name. For he deſireth only that he ſend men by whom he may make them know his advice, and that be able to make exhortations and remonſtrances. For in that time they eſteemed very p. 310much the exhortations of brethren, and the mutual union among Biſhops. But the Cardinal hath clipt the laſt lines of this place, which ſhew how far the authority of Damaſus extended.

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

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

Chap. 25. p. 109.A little after the Cardinal brings another place of the 77. Epiſtle of Baſil, which by an extream ignorance he ſaith to be written to the Occidental men. The title of the Epiſtle is foreign, that is, to the Biſhops that live by the ſea-ſide, ſo he calls Iſlanders as the Cyprians, and thoſe of Rhodus, and Chio, and other Iſles of Archipelago, as Baſil declareth in the ſame Epiſtle, calling them foreign inſulares, living in Iſlands. And he calls upon their ſuccour,(d)(d)foreign. becauſe God hath joined the Iſlanders with the inhabitants of the Continent by charity, although it ſeem (ſaith he) that they are divided in habitation. But the Cardinal having but ſmall knowledge of the Greektongue, as he ſheweth in his whole book, tranſlateth foreign tranſmarinos: So he doth in the margent of the 233. page, and will have thoſe tranſmarini to be the Biſhops of the Weſt, and Damaſus Biſhop of Rome one of them. And that, becauſe in that Epiſtle there are ſome words hf ſubmiſſion, whereby Baſil and his colleagues ſay that they are ready to undergo the judgement of thoſe Iſlanders, and ſpeak to them as if they were heads of the Church. Theſe are Baſils words according to the Cardinals tranſlation; We are ready to undergo Judgement under you, ſo that they that calumniate us can abide to appear in perſon with us in the preſence of your veneration. The greater the ſubmiſſion of theſe words is, the more contrary are they to the Cardinal, ſince that honour is deferred to others then the Biſhop of Rome, namely to Iſlanders. Yet the Cardinal doth not tranſlate it right, and hath not underſtood the Greek. It is ſo word by word(e)(e)foreign. Being ready to enter into liſts under you, only if they that wrong us agree to appear face to face before your piety: foreign is to put off ones cloaths, as the wreſtlers did when they would enter the liſts; and foreign is not calumniating, but wronging with outrage; and foreign ſignifieth here piety, not veneration. Thus in page 126 of the ſame 25. chapter, he renders foreign reverencing, where as it ſignifies regarding; With the like learning as in page 126. he turneth foreign, diſcretion, whereas it ſignifies tryal or examination.

In the ſame Epiſtle there is another place which the Cardinal alledgeth for the Popes primacy,(f)(f)Ch. 33. pag. 233. in the 233. pag. where he makes Baſil and his colleagues to ſpeak thus to the Biſhop of Rome, (g)(g)foreign.Whether you account your ſelves to be Head of the Ʋniverſal Church, the head cannot ſay to the feet, You are not neceſſary to me, &c. But we have proved this to be altogether falſe, and that this is ſaid, not to the Biſhop of Rome, but to the Biſhops of Iſlands. Wherefore he ſpeaks to them in the plural, foreign and not foreign: Which the Cardinal would not perceive, and choſe rather to run into a manifeſt falſification.

p. 305Of the ſame Baſil we have an Epiſtle to the Biſhops of Gaules and Italy, which is the ſeventy, where he puts the Biſhops of Gaules before thoſe of Italy: that is, the Biſhop of Lyons before that of Rome, and calls them(h)(h)foreign. his brethren and fellows in holy ſervice. There alſo he calls thoſe Biſhops in general foreign, head, and exhorts them to ſuccour the Biſhops of the Eaſt, becauſe the head cannot ſay to the members, I have no need of you. That only manner of writing to the(i)(i)Ep. 74. Baſil. foreign. Occidental Biſhops in common, ſheweth in what eſteem the Biſhop of Rome was, ſince he is written to in the crowd, without naming: ſhould not that man be thought to be out of his ſenſes that would in our dayes write to the Pope, yet not name him, but comprehend him in the general title of a letter to all the Biſhops of Italy?

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

IN the year of the Lord 372. Athanaſius dyeth, and Peter ſucceedeth him in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. But being taken by the Officers of Valens, an Arian Emperor, and committed priſoner, he found a way to ſlip out, and ſcaped to Rome by ſea, addreſſing himſelf to Damaſus Biſhop of Rome, (a)(a)Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 19. foreign.becauſe (ſaith Sozomenus,) he was of the ſame belief as himſelf. Hierom in the Epitaph of Marcella ſaith the ſame.

(b)(b)Hieron. Epitaph. Marcell. Athanaſius & poſtea Petrus perſecutionem Arianae haereſeos declinantes, quaſi ad tutiſſimum communionis ſuae portum Romam confugerant.Athanaſius and Peter after him flying from the perſecution of the Arian hereſie, were retired to Rome as to a moſt fafe haven of their communion. It was not then by Appeal, or to appear before the Pope as before his judge that Peter came to Rome; as the Cardinal would make us believe. In Peters abſence, one(c)(c)Ruffin. l. 2. c. 13. Socrat. l. 4. c. 3. In Graeco. 36. Lucius an Arian invaded the Biſhoprick of Alexandria by violence, and cruelly perſecuted the flock.

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

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

p. 306CHAP. 10. Of the Convocating of the firſt Council of Conſtantinople, which is the ſecond Univerſal Council. How the Cardinal hath falſified the Epiſtle of the Oriental Biſhops to Damaſus Biſhop of Rome.

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

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

p. 307CHAP. 11. Of the invitation and requeſt of Damaſus Biſhop of Rome, whereby he deſired the Biſhops aſſembled in Council at Conſtantinople to tranſport themſelves to Rome, and come to the Council which Damaſus held there; and of the ſmall authority which the Council of Rome had in compariſon of that of Conſtantinople. The Cardinals faults.

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

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

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

Here I cannot wonder enough at the Cardinals want of conſcience, when he ſaith in the 34. ch. of the 1. book, that the Council of Constantinople is called Oecumenical or Univerſal, only by adjunction to the Roman Council. If that were ſo, the Roman Council ſhould rather be called Oecumenical; and the ſecond Univerſal Council ought, by that reaſon, be rather called the Council of Rome then of Conſtantinople. And how can theſe two Councils be taken for one, and the one be taken for a dependance of the other, ſeeing that the one was kept againſt the advice of the other, and hath not imparted its reſolutions to the other? Indeed the Cardinal is the firſt that ever bethought himſelf of ſuch an untrue and unreaſonable imagination. He could not bring one Author that ever put that p. 308Council of Rome among the Univerſals. But how could the Univerſal Council of Conſtantinople, and that of Rome where Damaſus preſided, be taken for the ſame Council, ſeeing that not only they ſate in ſeveral places, but alſo in ſeveral times; that of Rome being poſteriour by a year to that of Conſtantinople? which difference of time the Cardinal not obſerving, he miſtook the ſecond convocation of Biſhops made at Conſtantinople for the firſt: For it was the ſecond convocation that writ to Damaſus.

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

Obſerve alſo that in the Epiſtle which they writ to the Roman Council, they call the Church of Jeruſalem the Mother of all the Churches; a title which the Roman Church attributes to her ſelf in theſe dayes. So ſpeaks the Emperour Juſtinus (a)(a)Concil Tom. 11.in an Epiſtle to Hormiſdas Biſhop of Rome, where he calls the Church of Jeruſalem matrem Chriſtiani nominis, the Mother of the Chriſtian name, that is, of the Chriſtian Religion or Profeſſion.

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

IN that Council many things paſt which grieve our adverſaries. Nectarius was created Biſhop of Conſtantinople, without any communication about it with the Biſhop of Rome, and without expecting his approbation: Of which the Biſhop of Rome did not complain; For he pretended no right in that election. There alſo that Canon was made(a)(a)foreign. Let the Biſhop of Conſtantinople have his prerogatives after the Biſhop of Rome, becauſe it is the new Rome. This Canon diſpleaſeth our adverſaries two wayes; The one, becauſe(b)(b)Baron. An. 325. §. 128. the order of the Patriarchs is altered, without the conſent of Damaſus Biſhop of Rome; For before that Council, the Patriarch of Alexandria was the ſecond, and that of Antioch the third. The other becauſe the dignity of the Biſhop of Rome in this Canon is founded upon the dignity of the City of Rome, not upon the Word of God; as in effect the order of places among the Prelates of the Empire, was according to the civil Order which was among the Cities: For which cauſe the Biſhop of Jeruſalem, the City in which Chriſt dyed, and where the Apoſtles reſided, and where Chriſtianity begun, was ſubject to the Biſhop of Ceſarea, becauſe Ceſarea was the Metropolis of Paleſtina.

Our adverſaries diſſemble not that this Council diſpleaſeth them. The Jeſuite Cotton in the Preface of his Catholike inſtitution ſpeaks thus of it; Greece begins about the year 380. to make approaches of rebellion againſt the Holy See, and to traverſe the authority of the Biſhop of Rome, giving him the Biſhop of Conſtantinople for ſecond. The Jeſuite Coſterus in his Manual, in the Chapter de Summo Pontifice, ſaith that(c)(c)Hi namque in Conſtantinopolitana generali Synodo, inſciis Legatis Damaſi Papae, ſecundū ſibi locum uſurparunt in ſedibus Patriarchalibus contra omne fas. the Biſhops of Conſtantinople, in the ſecond Ʋniverſal Council of Conſtantinople, without the knowledge of the Legats of Pope Damaſus, did uſurp the ſecond place among the Patriarchal Sees, againſt all reaſon; Which is a great ignorance in that Jeſuite; For Damaſus had no Legats in that Council.

Bellarmin in his Preface upon the books de Pontifice, ſpeaks thus of that Council;(d)(d)Primi qui ſerio Primatum Romani Pontificis impugnarunt, videntur fuiſſe Graeci; ipſi enim jam inde ab Anno Domini 381. Epiſcopum Conſtantinopolitanum, qui antea ne Patriarcha quidem erat, tribus Patriarchis Orientis anteponere, & ſecundum à Romano Pontifice facere voluerunt. The firſt that oppoſed the primacy of the Roman Pope in good earneſt, ſeem to have been the Grecians. For already in the year 381. they would prefer the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, who before was not ſo much as a Patriarch, before the three Patriarchs of the Eaſt, and make him ſecond after the Roman Prelat. But it is certain, that in that the Council did not oppoſe the Biſhop of Rome: For Damaſus, who p. 309then was Biſhop of Rome, did not oppoſe himſelf to that conſtitution, and approved it by his ſilence. And the following Councils confirmed that Canon, in which the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is put in the ſecond place, even the Councils of Chalcedon and Trull. The Popes themſelves have approved it in the end, as Pope Innocent the third in the Council of Latran, ch. 5.

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

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

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

The ſame Hierom in his Preface upon the book of Didymus, of the Holy Ghoſt, ſpeaks thus of Rome, and of the Roman Clergy, which had ſpoken ill of his labour;(b)(b)Cum in Babylone verſarer, & purpuratae meretricis eſſem colonus, & jure Quiritium viverem, volui garrire aliquid de Spiritu Sancto, & coeptum opus ejuſdem urbis Pontifici dedicare. Et ecce olla illa quae in Jeremia poſt baculum cernitur, à facie Aquilonis coepit ardere, & Phariſaeorum conclamavit Senatus. When I lived in Babylon, and was inhabitant of the harlot clad in purple, and lived according to the Laws of the Citizens of Rome, I would prattle ſomewhat about the Holy Ghoſt, and dedicate my work begun to the Biſhop of that town. But behold that pot which in Jeremiah is ſeen after the ſtaffe, on the North ſide begins to boyl, and the Senat of the Phariſees begins to cry out.

How often doth Hierom, to make Chriſtians diſlike living at Rome, call it Babylon, and the harlot mentioned in the Revelation? In the Epiſtle to Marcella, under the name of Paula and Eustochium, he ſpeaks thus(c)(c)Et hic puto locus ſanctior eſt Tarpeia rupe, quae de coelo ſaepius fulminata, oſtendit quod Domino diſpliceret. Lege Apocalypſin Johannis, & quid de muliere purpurata & ſcripta in ejus fronte blaſphemia, ſeptem montibus, aquis multis, & Babylonis canitur exitu. Exite, inquit Dominus, ex illa, &c. I think that this place [of Bethlehem] is holier then the Tarpeian rock (meaning the Roman Capitol) which having been often fulminated from heaven, ſheweth that it is diſpleaſing unto God. p. 310Read St. Johns Revelation, and ſee what is foretold of the harlot clad in purple, and of the blaſphemy written in her forehead, and of the ſeven hills, and of many waters, and of the deſtruction of Babylon. Go out from her my people, be not partaker of her ſins, leſt that you receive of her plagues. She is fallen, ſhe is fallen, Babylon, &c.

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

It is notable alſo that by that Babylon, the ruine whereof is foretold in the Revelation, he underſtands alwayes the City of Rome; As towards the end of the ſecond book againſt Jovinian, he ſpeaks thus to the City of Rome, (d)(d)M…ledictionem quam tibi Salvator in Apocalypſi comminatus eſt, …ffugere potes poenitentia.Thou mayſt eſcape by repentance the curſe which the Saviour threateneth thee with in the Revelation. And in the 11. Queſt. to Algazia; (e)(e)Secundū Apocalypſin Joh…nnis in fronte purpuratae meretricis ſcriptum eſt nomen blaſphemiae, id eſt, Româ aeterna.According to Johns Revelation in the forehead of the Harlot clad in purple, there is a name of blaſphemy written, which is the eternal Rome.

The ſame Father in many places affirmeth(f)(f)Ep. ad Pammach. adv. errores Johannis Jeroſolymitani. Nihil intereſt inter Presbyterum & Epiſcopum; eadem dignitas mittentis & miſſi. that the charge of Prieſt, and that of a Biſhop, are the ſame Office, as for the Divine inſtitution: But that ſince, to avoyd Schiſms and diſſenſions, they thought fit to chooſe one that had preheminence over the other Prieſts, to whom they gave the name of Biſhop: As in the Epiſtle to Oceanus; (g)(g)Et Ep. ad Occanum. Apud veteres iidem Epiſcopi & Presbyteri fuerant, quia illud nomen dignitatis eſt, hoc aetatis.Among the Antients, Biſhops and Prieſts were all one; for the one is a name of dignity, the other a name of age. He ſaith the ſame in the Epiſtle to Pammachius; There is no difference between the Prieſt and the Biſhop; He that ſends and he that is ſent, have the ſame dignity.

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

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

It is to be noted alſo, that this Father never gives to the Roman Prelats any higher title then that of Biſhops of the City of Rome, and never calls them heads of the Univerſal Church; As in his Catalogue, Cornelius Romanae urbis Epiſcopus. And in the ſame place, Gaius ſub Zepherino Romanae urbis Epiſcopo; And in the ſame Catalogue, ſpeaking of Fortunatianus, (h)(h)In hoc habetur deteſtabilis, quod Liberiū Romanae urbis Epiſcopum, pro fide ad exilium pergentem, primus ſollicitavit & fregit, & ad ſubſcriptionem haereſeos compulit.In Fortunatianus this is deteſtable, that he is the firſt that ſollicited and overthrew Liberius Biſhop of the City of Rome, going into exile for the faith, and perſwaded him to ſubſcribe to hereſie. For Hierom did not believe that the Biſhop of Rome could not erre in the faith. Now that language is altered; for now to call the Pope the Biſhop of Rome only, without adding another quality, is as if one called the King of France, Lord of Paris only.

p. 311This Father hath that defect, which is none of the leaſt, that often he will ſpeak ill of the Apoſtle St. Paul, and ſpeaks of marriage with reproach and great contempt, as we ſhall ſhew hereafter in the 7. book, in the controverſie of the invocation of Saints.

In the year of our Lord 386.(i)(i)According to the Chronicle of Marcellinus in the year 383. Gratian, a meek and religious Emperor, was ſlain by the men of Maximus the Tyrant. This Gratian is the firſt of the Chriſtian Emperors that refuſed to be called Pontifex Maximus, holding that title which his Predeceſſors (though Chriſtians) had born, to be unſuitable with a Chriſtian Prince, as derived from the Pagans, and reliſhing of Paganiſm. Yet ſoon after, the Biſhops of Rome ſuffered themſelves to be called ſo, and took up that which an Emperor had rejected.

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

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

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

IN the ſame time lived holy Epiphanius Biſhop of Cyprus, who often calls Peter the Prince of the Apoſtles; but as for the perpetual ſucceſſion of the ragin of David and of Chriſt, promiſed in the Old Teſtament, he holds that it remained with the Biſhops of Jeruſalem ſucceſſors of James brother of Chriſt, not to the Biſhop of Rome. That is found in the(a)(a)foreign, &c. Hereſie of the Nazarens, which is the twenty ninth Hereſie in Epiphanius; And in that of the Antidicomarianites, being the ſeventy eighth Hereſie.(b)(b)foreign. James (ſaith he) hath received the firſt of all the Epiſcopal chair, as he to whom firſt the Lord committed his throne upon earth. It is that Epiphanius, who paſſing through a borough of Paleſtina named Anablata, and having ſeen in a Church a vail hanging where the Image of Chriſt was, or of ſome Saint, tore it in a zealous anger, ſaying that it was againſt the authority of the Scriptures, and adviſed that they ſhould rather make of it a winding ſheet for a corpſe, or ſome poor man.(c)(c)Cum vidiſſem in Eccleſia Chriſti contra authoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem, ſcidi illud, & magis dedi conſilium cuſtodibus ejus loci ut pauperem mortuū eo obvolverent. The Epiſtle of Epiphanius that makes this relation, is tranſlated by Hierom, and inſerted among his Epiſtles.

p. 312In the year of the Lord 395.(d)(d)Socrat. l. 6. c. 5. Nectarius died, to whom John Chryſoſtom ſucceeded, eſtabliſht in that Office by Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, not by the Biſhop of Rome, to whom it rather belonged to create the firſt Patriarch of the Eaſt, if it had been the belief of that time that the Biſhop of Rome was head of the Univerſal Church. At leaſt his conſent ſhould have been expected; but it was not; For it was not the cuſtom.

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

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

It was he that excommunicated the Emperor Theodoſius for the Maſſacre of the people of Theſſalonica, committed by his guards by his permiſſion. And he kept him eight whole months out of the communion of the Church, not ſo much as ſuffering him to enter into the Temple, till he had ſubmitted himſelf to do publick pennance, as Theodoret relateth at large in book 5. of his Hiſtory, 18. ch.(a)(a)Or 16. This was done by Ambroſe without either the advice or leave of Syricius Biſhop of Rome his neighbour, and without imparting the buſineſs unto him. Neither did Syricius complain of it, for he pretended no ſuperiority over Ambroſe. Such an action in our days would be accounted a raſh deed, and rebellion, and treaſon againſt the Papal Sea. For it is now one of the Maxims of State, and a fundamental Law ſet down by the Jeſuite Emanuel Sa, (b)(b)In voce Excommunicatio, Reges à ſolo Papa excommunicantur & cenſuris ligantur.Kings cannot be excommunicated and bound with cenſures but by the Pope alone. It is evident by many other proofs, that then the Church of Milan was not ſubject unto that of Rome; for we learn by Auſtin, (c)(c)Mater mea Mediolanum me conſecuta, invenit Eccleſiam Sabbato non jejunantem, &c. Et Paulo poſt, Cum Romam venio, jejuno Sabbato; cum hic ſum, non jejuno.Epiſt, 118. to Januarius, that the Church of Rome faſted upon Saturday, but that of Milan did not faſt upon that day. Of which the Biſhop of Rome did not complain, and did not labour to bring the Church of Milan to the ſame obſervation as that of the Roman Church. And Auſtin in the fore-alledged Epiſtle ſaith, that he indifferently obſerved both cuſtoms, according to the place where he hapned to be.

Ambroſe in the 1. ch. of the 3. book of the Sacraments (if theſe books be his) obſerveth another difference in the waſhing of feet, which was practiſed at Milan, not at Rome. Theſe are the words of Ambroſe. (d)(d)Non ignoramus quod Eccleſia Romana hanc conſuetudinem non habeat, cujus typum in omnibus ſequimur & formam. Hanc tamen conſuetudinem non habet ut pedes lavet. Vide ergo ne propter multitudinem declinaverit.We are not ignorant that the Roman Church hath not that cuſtom of which we follow the example and the form in all things: yet ſhe hath not that cuſtom of waſhing the feet. See then whether ſhe hath not declined becauſe of the great multitude. And a little after.(e)(e)In omnibus cupio ſequi Eccleſiam Romanam. Sed tamen & nos homines habemus ſenſum: Ideo quod ibi melius ſervatur, & nos recte cuſtodimus. I deſire to follow the Roman Church in all things. Yet we alſo are men that have ſenſe. Wherefore we do well to keep that which is better practiſed in other places. And a little after, oppoſing to the Roman Church St. Peters authority, he ſaith, What doth the Roman Church anſwer to that? The Reader may obſerve that Ambroſe held not himſelf to be of the Roman Church. He ſaith alſo that he deſires to follow the Roman Church in all things; but he ſaith not that he was bound to it; and that he ſaith, there is ſenſe and reaſon in departing from the Roman Church, when that which is p. 313practiſed in other Churches appeareth to be better. This place is like that of Hierome in the Epiſtle to Evagrius, where he condemneth the cuſtom of the Roman Church, which preferred Deacons before Prieſts, and ſaith that he preferred the cuſtom of all the world before the cuſtom of the City of Rome, which had brought pride into the Laws of the Church.

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

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

Durandus addeth that the ſame Council being aſſembled the ſecond time, the ſame buſineſs was propounded again; and it was concluded that both the Ambroſian and the Gregorian Miſſal ſhould be put upon St. Peters Altar, ſealed with the ſeals of many Biſhops, and that the Temple doors ſhould be ſhut; and that ſolemn Prayers ſhould be made that God would make them know which of theſe two Offices pleaſed him beſt, to be obſerved in the Church. And that this being done accordingly, the next day they found the Ambroſian Miſſal open, and in the ſame place where they had laid it; but the Gregorian torn and ſcattered all about the Church. Out of this the Pope and his Biſhops might have apparently gathered that the Gregorian ſervice ought to be quaſht and caſt away, but the Ambroſian kept. Yet they turned that to a contrary ſenſe, ſaying that this ſignified that the Gregorian Office muſt be ſpread and publiſht all about. For alſo (ſaith Durandus) Ambroſe had inſtituted many things according to the cuſtom of the Grecians. So Ambroſe loſt his cauſe four hundred years after his death. And this was done againſt the counſel of Gregory himſelf, the Author of that Roman Office, who was Biſhop of Rome in the year 596. For among(f)(f)Theſe interrogations are found towards the end of Gregories works; Cur cum una ſit fides, ſunt Eccleſiarum conſuetudin…s tam diverſae? & altera conſuetudo Miſſarum in Romana Eccleſia, altera in Gallia tenetur? Reſp. Mihi placet ut ſive in Romana, ſive in Gallicanorum, ſive in qualibet Eccleſia aliquid inveniſti quod plus Omnipotenti Deo placere poſſit, ſollicitè eligas. the interrogations of Auſtine the Monk to him, this is the third; Why is the cuſtom of Maſſes another in the Roman Church, and another in Gauls? To which Gregory anſwereth, I like it well that thou ſeek carefully that which thou ſhalt find moſt like to pleaſe Almighty God, whether it be in the Roman or in the Gallican Church. He doth not bind him to follow the Roman Office. That which moſt diſpleaſed the Pope in the Ambroſian Office, was this Prayer that was pronounced upon the Bread of the Lords Supper, Which Prayer is to be ſeen in Ambroſe's 4. book of the Sacraments, ch. 5.(g)(g)Fac nobis hanc oblationem aſcriptam rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod eſt Figura corporis & ſanguinis Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti. Grant that this offering may be accounted unto us, reaſonable and acceptable, which is the Figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. For although the Diſpute was not yet moved about Tranſubſtantiation, yet Satan began in the eight age to lick that bear, and ſecretly was contriving that piece of the myſtery of iniquity. Wherefore he laboured to aboliſh the Ambroſian Office in which that word Figure croſt his deſign. Beſides it grieved the Pope to ſee that the credit and authority of Ambroſe ſhould ſo prevail over the authority of the Roman Church.

Thus the Popes winding themſelves into the favour of Kings, made uſe of them to enlarge their limits and eſtabliſh their authority. Of which we have the like example in Spain, hapned in the time of King Alphonſus, and Pope Gregory the VII, and his ſucceſſor Ʋrban, who was made Pope in the year 1088. For then they had in Spain the antient Liturgy called the Mozarabick Office, or the Toledo Office, differing from the Roman Service. But Gregory the VII. having obtained p. 314of the King that the antient Service ſhould be aboliſht in his Dominions, and the Roman Service eſtabliſhed; The execution was found very difficult, by reaſon of the murmurings and the reſiſtance of the States of the Land. In the end they agreed to decide the difference by a Duel between two Knights. The King choſe a Knight that ſhould fight for the Roman Office, and the States of the Land another to fight for the Mozarabick. It happened that the Roman Champion was unhorſed and beaten down, to the Kings great diſcontent: Who yet required that another trial ſhould be made; That both the Offices ſhould be caſt into a great fire, and that the Office which ſhould not burn ſhould overcome. Upon that all parties betook themſelves to their prayers, and the trial being made, the Roman Office was conſumed, but the Mozarabick remained whole. Notwithſtanding all this, the King being engaged with promiſe unto the Pope, would have his will; And upon pain of loſs, not only of goods, but of life alſo, it was commanded that the Roman Service, which otherwiſe was called Gallican, ſhould be eſtabliſhed in Spain. This Hiſtory is related by Roderick Archbiſhop of Toledo in the 6. book, 25 and 26. ch.

To return to the Church of Milan; They would not obey the Emperor Charlemagne, and deſpiſing Pope Adrian and his Council, retained the Office of their antient Biſhop Ambroſe, and kept it long after. Paulus Aemilius in the life of Philip the I. praiſeth Pope Steven (h)(h)Quod Eccleſiam Mediolanenſem ad officium revocaſſet ducenteſſimo anno ex quo à Romana defeciſſet.for bringing to the obedience of the Roman Church the Church of Milan, which for two hundred years together had ſtood out diſobedient. Platina ſaith the ſame in the life of Steven the IX. who with Baronius is the X.

In the year of the Lord 1058. Guy Archbiſhop of Milan aſſembled a Council at Fontanet neer Navarre in Lombardy, where he condemned the Celibat of the Roman Church. For in that time the Clarks of Milan and Lombardy were married, as(i)(i)Mediolanenſis Eccleſia jampridem Romanae Eccleſiae authoritate relictà, praeceptis ejus haud quaquā obtemperabat. Sigonius affirmeth in the beginning of the 9. book of the Kingdom of Italy: Where alſo he ſaith, that of a long time the Church of Milan deſpiſed the authority of the Roman Church.

In the year of our Lord 1059. Pope Nicolas the II. to reduce to his obedience the Church of Milan, which till then had not been ſubject unto the Roman See, ſent Petrus Damianus Biſhop of Oetia to Milan to manage that work with dexterity. Then the Clarks of Milan were married, and in many things differed from the Roman Church. Petrus Damianus having won Guy Archbiſhop of Milan, and ſome of the Clergy, began to put his hand to the reformation. But the Clergy and the people of Milan reſiſted, ſaying, That(k)(k)Non debere Ambroſianam Eccleſiam Romanis legibus ſubjacere; Nullamque judicandi vel diſponendi vim Romano Pontifici in illa ſede competere. Nimis indignum (inquiunt) ut quae ſub progenitoribus noſtris ſemper exſtitit libera, ad noſtrae confuſionis opprobriumnunc alteri (quod abſit) Eccleſiae ſit ſubjecta. Damian. Ep. ad Hildebrand. Sigonius de regno Italiae. lib. 9. the Ambroſian Church muſt not be ſubjected unto the Roman Laws, and that the Roman Prelate had no right to judge, or to diſpoſe of any thing in that See. It is a thing too unworthy (ſaid they) that the Church of Milan, which in time of our progenitors hath been always free, now (which God forbid) become ſubject to another Church, to our diſgrace and confuſion. But Cardinal Damian an induſtrious and perſwaſive man, appeaſed the mutiny, which ſeemed to tend to ſedition: and in an Oration repreſented to the people that God had given to the Bleſſed bearers of the keys of eternal life (that is, to Peter and to the Popes) the Empire both of earth and heaven. And ſo prevailed with his practices, that by the help of the Archbiſhop Guy he took from the Clergy their wives, and ſubjected the Church of Milan unto the Roman. This relation is to be ſeen in an Epiſtle of that Cardinal Damian to the Archdeacon Hilderbrand, who ſince was Gregory the VII. And in the Annals of Baronius, an. 1059. In that Epiſtle Damianus ſaith that he laid upon Archbiſhop Guy a pennance of an hundred years, redeemable with money; as Sigonius ſaith in the forealledged place. But as ſoon as Damian was gone from Milan, preſently the people and the Clergy ſhook off the yoke, and the Archbiſhop himſelf gave leave to the Prieſts and other Clarks to take their wives again. At which Pope Nicolas being ſore angry excommunicated the Biſhops and Prieſts of Lombardy. And Damian writ Letters to them, wherein among other things he tells them,(l)(l)Ibid. Quod in Eccleſia Mediolanenſi non eſt novum, quae ſemper diverſi dogmatis homines habuit initio ab Auxentio & Ambroſio inchoato. That this was no new thing in the Church of Milan, where there had been always men of different Doctrines, beginning at Auxentius and Ambroſe. So poor Ambroſe was condemned many Ages after his death.

p. 315The Popes would oppoſe it, but in vain, till by ſeditious and violent wayes in the time of Alexander the ſecond, and Gregory the ſeventh, the people of Milan were oppreſt, and brought under the ſubjection o… the Roman Church.

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

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

The ſame uſage he offereth to the ſame Father in the 56. ch. of the firſt book,Pag. 326. where he alledgeth theſe words of Ambroſe, ch. 4. of the book of Incarnation,(m)(m)Petrus loci non immemor primatum egit; primatum utique confeſſionis, non honoris; primatū fidei, non ordinis. Peter not forgetful of his place did [or maintained] the primacy. A diſcourſe maliciouſly clipt: For Ambroſe addeth, The primacy indeed of confeſſion, not of honour; the primacy of faith, not of order.

In another place,(n)(n)Ch. 25. book 1. alledging Ambroſe, he commits a fault, which I am content to impute to his want of memory. He brings a text out of Ambroſe's Comment upon 1 Tim. 3. which he ſaith to be either of Ambroſe, or of a contemporary Author; Although all the world belong unto God, yet the Church is called the houſe of God, of which Damaſus is now the Governour. But himſelf in the 20. ch. of the laſt**Pag. 1025. and 1026. book diſputes againſt theſe Comments, as falſe and ſuppoſititious, and marks the abſurdities that he finds in them; ſaying that the true Comments of Ambroſe upon Pauls Epiſtles were already loſt in the time of Caſſiodorus; and that theſe Comments are Apocrypha and ſpurious, having nothing of the ſenſe and ſtile of Ambroſe.

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

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

p. 316CHAP. 17. Contention of Paulinus and Flavianus, Competitors of the Patriarchat of Antioch.

TOwards the end of the fourth age(a)(a)See Sozo. in the 7. book 11. ch. and 15. ch. And Socrat. in the 5. book ch. 15 Paulinus and Flavianus were Competitors of the Patriarchat of Antioch. Both took that quality, born by contrary factions.

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

That the citation of Paulinus and Flavianus, and that convocation of Biſhops was by the only command of the Roman Emperor, Hierom ſhews it in his Epiſtle to Euſtochium upon the death of Paula. (b)(b)Cum Orientis & Occidentis Epiſcopos ob quaſdam Eccleſiarum diſſenſiones imperiales litterae contraxiſſent, vidit admirabiles viros Chriſtique Pontifices, Paulinum Antiochenae urbis Epiſcopum, & Epiphanium Salaminae Cypri quae nunc Constantia dicitur.When the Imperial letters had drawn to Rome the Biſhops, both of the Eaſt and the Weſt, upon ſome Eccleſiaſtical diſſenſions, Paula ſaw there the admirable men and Prelats of Chriſt, Paulinus Biſhop of Antioch, and Epiphanius Biſhop of Salamina in Cyprus, which is now called Conſtantia. Of a command from the Pope he ſaith nothing. Wherefore M. du Perron in the 25. ch. of the 1. book, made uſe of his ordinary licentiouſneſs in faigning that which is not, ſaying that(c)(c)Falſification of the Ca…dinal. the Pope did evocate the cauſe unto Rome, and that the Popes letters were accompanied with thoſe of the Emperor Gratian; As if the Emperors letters had been but a dependance and addition to the Popes letters. All that is falſe, neither could he bring any witneſs of it.

In obedience to the Emperors command Paulinus came to Rome, and many other Biſhops. But Flavianus knowing that the Biſhops of the Weſt, that of Rome eſpecially, were contrary to him, and Ambroſe Biſhop of Milan (as it may be ſeen by his(d)(d)It is the firſt Epiſtle of book 10. 78. Epiſtle) would not appear, and uſed many ſhifts.

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

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

SO we are now come to the year of our Lord 400. In all that time we have found no Appeal from other Churches to the Roman See, no Law given by the Biſhop of Rome to the Univerſal Church. No Univerſal Council convocated by him. No Univerſal Council where he preſided. No care taken by him of the Churches without the Roman Empire. No obedience or ſubjection of the Biſhops of Aſia or Africa to the Roman Prelat, but all diſobedience when he offered to exceed his limits. No heretick condemned for diſobedience to the Roman p. 317See. No execution of the judgements pronounced by the Biſhop of Rome out of his Patriarchat. Very far was he from depoſing Kings or Emperors, or publiſhing indulgences, or giving pardons of two or three hundred thouſand years, or fetching ſouls out of Purgatory, or boaſting of infallibility in the faith, or giving his feet unto Emperors to kiſs, or keeping reſerved caſes to himſelf, which none but himſelf could diſpenſe with. In thoſe dayes the Pope wore no triple Crown, had no Court, no guards, and no temporal principality.

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

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

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

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

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

The Reader alſo may remember, that the Cardinal with all his diligence could p. 318find no ground for the Popes primacy in three hundred and fourty years after Chriſts birth, when Julius began to put out his horns, but was forced to pull them in again.

Towards the end of this fourth Age, the Monaſtical profeſſion paſt from Egypt and Syria into Europe. To which Martin in Gaules, and Hierom at Rome did very much contribute. That profeſſion began by ſome noble women, to whom Hierom writes many Epiſtles; who living at home, not in a Monaſtery, wore a courſe black-garment, inſtead of the white which the Roman people wore: and they uſed much abſtinence and auſterity in their dyet; and would work with their own hands. It is to be obſerved, that thoſe Monks of Egypt and Syria were moſt of them Hereticks Anthropomorphites, and had no communication with the Church of Rome, as(a)(a)Sozomenus in the 2. book. c. 21. relateth that the Monks of the deſart came to Alexandria to kill the Patriarch Theophilus, becauſe he was contrary to the Anthropomorphites. Sozomenus affirmeth in the 11. ch. of the 8. book, and the Author of the life of Fulgentius: For he relates that Eulatius Biſhop of Saragoſſa, diſſwaded Fulgentius from joyning with the Monks of Egypt: (b)(b)Omnes illi Monachi quorum praedicatur mirabilis abſtinentia, non habebunt tecum Sacramenta altaris communia.Thoſe Monks (ſaith he) whoſe admirable abſtinence is celebrated, ſhall not have the Sacraments of the Church common with thee. Caſſian in the 10. Collation, 2. and 3. ch. ſaith that all the Monks of Egypt and Syria were given to that opinion, and by conſequent deſpiſed the Communion of the Roman Church, as well as that of the Greek; Againſt which nevertheleſs the Biſhop of Rome uſed no cenſure, becauſe they were not ſubject unto him.

p. 319BOOK VI. PROVING BY THE PAPAL HISTORY From the year of our Lord 400. unto the Council of Chalcedon, which is the IV. Univerſal Council, held in the year 451. That in all that time the Biſhop of ROME was not acknowledged the Head of the Univerſal Church.