The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 6
CHAP. 6. Examination of the LII. Chapter of the firſt Book of Cardinal du Perron, about the above mentioned Epiſtle of the VI. Council of Africa, written by the Fathers of the Council to Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome, concerning the Appeals from Africa to Rome.
IN that excellent Epiſtle of the VI. Council of Carthage to Celeſtinus, which we have inſerted in the precedent ch. that which moſt diſpleaſeth M. du Perron, is, that the Appeals of the Biſhops of Africa to Rome, are put in the ſame rank as the Appeals of the leaſt Clarks; yea that theſe Fathers ſay that it ought to be leſs permitted to Biſhops to appeal to a Judge beyond the Sea, then to other inferiour Clarks.(a)Nam [&] ſi de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur hoc praecaveri, quanto magis hoc de Epiſcopis voluit obſervari? &c. If (ſay they) it appeareth that this (meaning the Appeals beyond the Sea) be forbidden to inferior Clarks, how much more did [the Council of Nice] intend that it ſhould be practiſed in the Biſhops, that they being ſuſpended from the Communion, be not haſtily and unduly received to the Communion by your Holineſs? In vain then did the Cardinal labour ſo much to prove that this clauſe was added to the Milevitan Council, ſince it is found ſo plainly and expreſly approved by the ſame Biſhops aſſembled at Carthage a few years after.
To weaken the authority of that Epiſtle, he maketh eight obſervations in his LII. Chapter. In the firſt he ſaith that after that Council the Appeals from Africa to Rome did continue. Which he proveth by an Epiſtle of the Emperor Valentinian, of which we ſhall ſhew hereafter how it was extorted by the flattering arts of the Biſhop of Rome; for it is much poſteriour to this Council of Carthage. He will prove it alſo by a Law of Marcianus made in the time of the Council of Chalcedon; which is nothing to this purpoſe; for it ſpeaks not at all of Appeals of Biſhops to the Roman Biſhop. The Synod of Chalcedon (ſaith Marcianus) by the authority of the moſt bleſſed Biſhop of the City of Rome eternal in glory, deferreth to Flavianus the reward of his life paſt and the palm of a glorious death. There no mention is made of Appeals. Beſides, he takes this from the Tomes of the Greek Councils, newly publiſhed by our adverſaries, brought forth out of the Popes Library, and framed according to the Popes pleaſure: So theſe Greek Tomes are but a collection of forgeries and abſurdities. Wherefore alſo between the Greek and the Latin Copies there is a perpetual diſagreement; although both are alike abſurd and forged, ill-agreeing with the Canons made in thoſe Councils, which are of undoubted truth, and which were read in the entry of Councils. But in theſe new Tomes you ſhall find in the ſame Council Canons that tye ſhort and bring low the authority of the Biſhop of Rome; and together Preambles, Orations and Epiſtles of ſome private men which exalt and raiſe it, being forged long after to invalid the ſtrength of the ſaid Canons that are ſo troubleſome to our adverſaries: That will be ſeen eſpecially in the Council of Chalcedon, out of whoſe Preambles that Law of Marcianus is taken, of which we ſhall ſpeak when we come to the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
Of the like nature is the Epiſtle of Theodoret to Leon, and the Appeal of Flavian, of which(b)Pag. 126 & 437. M. du Perron ſpeaks in the 25, and 52. ch. Of them we will ſpeak alſo when the order of the Hiſtory brings us to it.
His ſecond Obſervation, is, that the Appeal of Apiarius, which was the thing in queſtion, was none of the great cauſes. To this I have anſwer'd in the ch. before. If the cauſe of Apiarius, was of ſmall moment, yet it drew another cauſe of the greateſt importance; whether the Biſhop of Rome ought to ſend Legats into Africa, and receive the Appeals of Biſhops. Here M. du Perron returns to his ordinary faults, alledging Innocents teſtimony in his own cauſe. If the Popes muſt be believed, and received for Judges in their own cauſe, they cannot but win their cauſe. A little after, he ſaith,(c)Pag. 452: that the Milevitan Council ſent back unto the Pope the final judgement of Celeſtius; which is altogether falſe, and no trace of that in Auſtins Epiſtles, 106. and 92. which the Cardinal quoteth in the margin. Indeed the Fathers of that Council deſire Innocent to joyn with them, and to help them with his authority; but they acknowledge him not for their Judge, and ſuſpend not the concluſions of their Council, till the Pope hath approved of them. All that he adds out of Zozimus is of the like nature: it is true that Zozimus condemned Celeſtius, but herein he did not bear himſelf as a ſuperiour Judge above the African Councils; and the long allegations which the Cardinal brings to that end, ſpeak not of Appeals. This Prelat fills the Paper and tireth the Reader with uſeleſs authorities which concern not the queſtion at all. Only he brings a place of Paulinus which he never ſaw, but alledgeth it upon the faith of Baronius, who is very liberal of his lyes in theſe matters.
His third Obſervation, is that the Africans diſputed not with the Pope about the evocations which came from his own motion. This is confuted by the ſame Epiſtle of the Council to Celeſtinus, wherein they warn him that he ſend no more Legats or executing Commiſſioners into Africa; for ſuch delegacies were done by the proper motion of the Biſhop of Rome. The evocation of the cauſe of Athanaſius made by Julius, which M. du Perron brings for example, is falſe, as we have ſhewed. And we have ſeen how Julius being choſen for an Arbitrator, would make himſelf a Judge, and that having cited the adverſaries of Athanaſius, they derided him with taunting Letters, and refuſed to appear.
And Valentinians conſtitution, of which he ſpeaks next, is a fraud and a trick of the Roman Biſhop, as we hope to ſhew. The example which he adds of Gregory the I. is of the end of the VI. age; and Hinckmarus whom he alledgeth, is neer three hundred years after Gregory. The Cardinal who had limited himſelf within the time of the firſt four Councils, goeth lower when proofs fail him in antiquity. Beſides, there is no doubt but that the Biſhop of Rome did his utmoſt to evocate to himſelf the cauſes of the remote Provinces. But all that he deſired was not done, and that which he commanded was not executed. And that which was done in France under Charles the Bald, is very different from that which was done in Africa four or five hundreth years before.
52. ch. pag. 461.We muſt not here omit a notorious falſification of the Cardinal, who alledgeth thus the words of Innocents Epiſtle, which is the 96. among thoſe of St. Auſtin, Pelagius muſt not expect to be called by us, but he muſt come to us that he may be abſolved. The Original runs thus: Non à nobis accerſi, ſed ipſe debet potius feſtinare ut poſſit abſolvi: He muſt not be called by us, but he ought rather to make haſte that he may be abſolved. Innocent is ſo far from willing or hoping that Pelagius would appear before him, that he adds that Pelagius will never ſubmit himſelf to his judgement, and that it is better that others call him that are neerer the place where Pelagius was. And when all is ſaid, it is unjuſt to alledge the Popes in their own cauſe.
Pag: 462.His fourth Obſervation, is that it was not out of ſet purpoſe and firſt intention, that the African Fathers ſtirred the controverſie of the Tranſmarine Appeals of Biſhops, but by accident. Suppoſe that this is true, though it be falſe; Is it material upon what occaſion they have ſtirred that Queſtion? all is to know how they decided it.
The Reader alſo ſhall obſerve the Cardinals confeſſion, that this Council hath oppoſed the Appeals of Biſhops, which he made a ſhew to doubt of in the 47. ch.
In the ſame place he returneth to his ordinary and fifty times repeated falſification, that Auſtin in the 162. Epiſtle, ſaith that Cecilianus might have reſerved the Definition of his cauſe to tranſmarine judgements, that is (as M. du Perron underſtands it) to the Biſhop of Rome. Truly in the Canon of the Milevitan Council confirmed in the VI. Council of Carthage, where the tranſmarine Appeals are forbidden upon pain of excommunication, the Appeals to Rome are forbidden. For the African Biſhops did complain only that ſome Clarks condemned by the Biſhops of Africa, were fled to Rome there to find refuge. But Auſtin in the 162. Epiſtle, by the tranſmarine judgements underſtands the judgement of the Churches out of Africa, which are beyond the Mediterranean Sea in reſpect of Africa, ſuch as are the Churches of Gauls, Italy, Greece, Aſia, &c. Theſe are Auſtin's words in the ſaid Epiſtle,(d)Millia collegarum tranſmarina reſtabant, ubi apparebat eos judicari …poſſe qui videbantur Africanos vel Numidas habere ſuſpectos. Thouſands of tranſmarine Colleagues remained, where it was evident that they might be judged that ſeemed to ſuſpect the Africans and the Numidians. It is a great want of brains to think that by thouſands of colleagues, that is Biſhops, the Biſhop of Rome alone muſt be underſtood. The ſame appears by this other paſſage of the ſame Epiſtle,(e)Qui poſſent aliorum collegarum judicio, praeſertim Apoſtolicarum Eccleſiarum, cauſam ſuam integram reſervare. They might reſerve their whole cauſe to the judgement of other Colleagues, eſpecially of the Apoſtolick Churches.
The Cardinal adds that the Biſhops of that Council beſought the Pope to ſend into the Eaſt, to ſee whether that order ſhould be found among the Copies of the Council of Nice. But he ſhould have added that Fauſtinus Legat to the Biſhop of Rome, deſired the Council to deſire the Biſhop of Rome alone to do that without ſending to the other Churches, ſaying,(f)Concil. Carthage. VI. c. 5. Sufficit ut & ipſe Beatiſſimus Epiſcopus urbis Romae, ſicuti veſtra ſanctitas apud ſe tractat, ita & ipſe inquirat, ne contentio inter Eccleſias nata videatur. It is ſufficient that the moſt bleſſed Biſhop of the City of Rome, as your Holineſs now deals with him, make himſelf the inquiry, leſt that it ſeem that contention is moved among the Churches; but that rather you may deliberate with brotherly kindneſs, he writing back to you that which is moſt expedient for you to obſerve. But that was not granted to him: and the Council judged that it was not reaſonable that the Biſhop of Rome alone be truſted about that matter: but they writ to the Biſhops of Conſtantinople and Alexandria. Note by the way that the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome, give him no higher title then that of Biſhop of the City of Rome, which in theſe days would be a word of contempt and a mark of hereſie. And that in that Council Aurelius is called Pope, and his Holineſs. That Aurelius preſiding in the Council, having heard the Propoſition of Fauſtinus, decreed only that Bonifacius Biſhop of Rome, whom he calls(g)Fratri & conſacerdoti noſtro. his Brother and Companion, ſhould be made to underſtand by Letters all that was done. And againſt the will of Fauſtinus and his fellows, The Council ſent to the Eaſt for the ſaid Copies, which ſoon after were ſent to the Africans.
Fifthly, M. du Perron goeth about to excuſe Pope Zozimus, ſaying that it was not out of fraud, nor for his own advantage that he ſuppoſed the Canons of the Council of Sardica, as if they had been of Nice; For the Popes uſe to walk in great humility and ſimplicity: and the African Fathers were much to blame to accuſe him that he would bring worldly pride into the Church. But none will believe, but he that will ſtudy to deceive himſelf, that the Council of Sardica was held an appendix of the Council of Nice, or that the Canons of Sardica were held in the Roman Church of thoſe days to be the Canons of the Council of Nice. That is not only falſe, but alſo ridiculous, as was proved before.(h)Book 5. ch. 1. of this work. For that Hoſius did preſide in both, doth not make both one. In many Councils of Carthage, Aurelius is Preſident: Which Councils nevertheleſs are counted for divers Councils. Athanaſius alſo was preſent in both, but in that of Nice he was but a Deacon; and it is doubted with good reaſon, whether he had a deliberative voice in it. M. du Perron, to prove that it was the ſame Council, ſaith that the Council of Sardica was aſſembled to confirm the doctrine of the Council of Nice. But that very inſtance ſhews that they are divers Councils. For a Council is not convocated to confirm it ſelf. Beſides, other matters were treated at Sardica: For the buſineſs of the Council, was the reſtitution of Athanaſius and ſome other Biſhops into their Biſhopricks. But the principal conſideration is, that the Council of Sardica though convocated out of the Univerſal Empire, yet conſiſted only of Occidental Biſhops, the Oriental having withdrawn themſelves from the beginning of the Council. So that of a Council which in its convocation was Univerſal, were made two particular Councils, which condemned and excommunicated one another. Certainly an Univerſal Council cannot be the ſame thing as a particular. And if theſe Canons of Sardica had been held the ſame as thoſe of Nice, ſo many learned African Biſhops had heard of it, and had not been ignorant of ſuch a noted thing. It is to no purpoſe to ſay that the Canons of the Council of Trull, are called the Canons of the VI. Council: But that may be ſaid with good reaſon, becauſe the VI. Council had made no Canons; and to ſupply that defect, the Biſhops were by little and little gathered in the ſame Town; and moſt of thoſe Biſhops were the ſame that had been in the precedent Council.
The Cardinal ought to have forborn, for ſhame, to juſtfie Zozimus by the example of Gregory of Tours, who by overſight or ignorance miſtakes the Canons of Gangra for thoſe of Nice. That good man did it out of ſimplicity, in a cauſe where he had no intereſt. But here the Biſhop of Rome was intereſted, who knowing that the Council of Sardica was of ſmall authority, would make the Canons of Sardica to paſs for thoſe of Nice to make them of greater weight. Which if Zozimus did without fraud, his Legats cannot be excuſed of a notorious malice and perverſeneſs, that they would ſuffer the Council of Carthage to ſend Deputies ſuch a great way to clear themſelves of a doubt, about which they could have ſatisfied the Council, declaring that thoſe Canons had been made indeed at Sardica, not at Nice, but that the Roman Church received them as if they had been made at Nice.
The ſame is confirmed by the ſixth Obſervation which the Cardinal addeth, though without proof, That the Copies of the Council of Sardica were loſt in Africa, being ſuppreſt by the Donatiſts. For if the Council of Sardica had ever been eſteemed to be part of that of Nice, that would have raiſed it to ſuch a credit that the Donatiſts could never have ſuppreſt it. But this is but a conjecture of the Cardinal, forged by him without any witneſs. There is no more truth in that he ſaith in the 466. pag. That it was the cuſtom of the Roman Church to cite the Canons of the Council of Sardica under the title of the Council of Nice. Whereas in the 8. book of Sozomenus ch. 26. there is an Epiſtle of Innocent Biſhop of Rome to the Clergy of Conſtantinople, where he alledgeth the Council of Nice, and the Council of Sardica as two different Councils. And the teſtimonies of Zonaras, and Balſamon, and Glycas, which the Cardinal alledgeth in the 467. pag. ſay only that in the Council of Sardica the doctrine of the Council of Nice was confirmed, but ſay not that the Council of Sardica was a part, or an Appendix of the Council of Nice. And moſt falſe it is that Juſtinian confounds the Council of Sardica with that of Nice, in the 131. Novel related by Leunclavius; For Juſtinian neither there nor any where elſe doth confound theſe Councils: The Cardinal ought to have added Juſtinians words.
His ſeventh Obſervation, is, that theſe African Fathers made no deciſion about the Epiſcopal Appeals. Suppoſe that it be ſo; It is enough that they ſuppoſe that it was done already, ſaying, As it was oftentimes decreed concerning Biſhops. And in their Epiſtle to Celeſtinus, ſaying, that the Council of Nice hath decreed it ſo; not only for inferiour Clarks, but alſo for Biſhops.
That which he addes for the eighth Obſervation, that after the VI. Council of Carthage, the Pope did nevertheleſs remain in poſſeſſion of the Epiſcopal Appeals, ſhall not be found true, neither could he bring any example of it. We find the clean contrary in the II. Tome of the Councils, by an Epiſtle of Bonifacius Biſhop of Rome, written about 187. years after that Council, to Eulalius Biſhop of Theſſalonica, which ſheweth that Aurelius and his ſucceſſours long after would not bear the yoke of the Biſhop of Rome. (i)Aurelius praefatae Carthaginenſis Eccleſiae olim Epiſcopus, cum collegis ſuis inſtigante Diabolo, ſuperbire temporibus praedeceſſorum noſtrorum Bonifacii atque Celeſtini contra Romanam Eccleſiam coepit.Theſe are the words of the Epiſtle, Aurelius ſometimes Biſhop of the foreſaid Church of Carthage, by the Devils inſtigation, in the time of our predeceſſors Bonifacius and Celeſtinus, began with his colleagues to grow proud againſt the Roman Church. But now Eulalius [Biſhop of Carthage] ſeeing himſelf ſeparated from the Communion of the Roman Church, humbling himſelf, made his acknowledgement. Note by the way that in the title of the Epiſtle there is a fault crept in: for that Eulalius to whom it written, was Biſhop of Theſſalonica, not of Alexandria. Harding the Buckler of Popery in England, (k)Sect. 28. de primatu Papae. Anathematizamus omnes qui contra ſanctam Romanam & Apoſtolicam Eccleſiam ſuperbiendo ſuas erigunt cervices.obſerveth that in ſome copies there is Biſhop of Theſſalonica; For the name of the Biſhop of Alexandria of that time was not Eulalius. That which confirms the truth of this Epiſtle, is, that a form of Anathema is added to it again all thoſe that are riſen againſt the Church of Rome. Which form without queſtion had been preſcribed by the Biſhop of Rome to Eulalius Biſhop of Carthage and to his Clergy, when they were reconciled with the Roman Church. Theſe writings we have only from our Adverſaries, who to make them more authentical, have inſerted them in the Tomes of the Councils, and among the Decretals of the Popes, of which it is ſaid in the 19. Diſtinction in the Canon, In Canonicis Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epiſtolae connumerantur; The Decretal Epiſtles are reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures. Eſpecially a fragment of that Epiſtle of Bonifacius the ſecond, is inſerted in the Roman Decree, in the 89. Diſtinction in the Canon Ad hoc.
Another paſſage happened in Africa ſince the ſitting of that Council at Carthage, ſheweth evidently that the African Church was not ſubject to the Roman Biſhop. For Victor Tonenſis in his Chronicle relateth, that in the year 549. ten years after the(m)Poſt conſulatum Baſilii V.C. an. X. Africani Antiſtites Vigilium R…manum Epiſcopū damnatorem trium capitulorum ſynodaliter à Catholica communione, reſervato ei poenitentiae loco, excludunt. Conſulat of Baſilius, the Biſhops of Africa aſſembled in Council, pronounced a ſentence of Anathema and excommunication againſt Vigilius Biſhop of Rome, yet reſerving unto him place of repentance, having learned that the ſaid Vigilius had condemned three heads or points which had been approved by the Council of Chalcedon. At that time Reparatus was Biſhop of Carthage.
After theſe eight obſervations, M. du Perron ſpends many pages to relate the hiſtory of Apiarius, and to ſpeak of the preſenting of the Canons of Sardica, as if they had been of Nice; and he labours to make the Council of Sardica (though unknown to the Africans, and conſiſting only of Occidental Biſhops) more authentical than that of Nice. All that more then needeth: For after all his buſtling, he grants us what we ask, which is that in that Epiſtle the Fathers of that Council of Carthage writ to the Biſhop of Rome Celeſtinus, ſuch things as diſpleaſe him, and ſuch as he finds fault with, almoſt in every clauſe, and which oppoſe the authority of the Biſhop of Rome. He ſaith that they took upon them to write to Celeſtinus, as taxing them to have written too boldly. He ſaith that the heat of the contention fetcht thoſe words from their mouth. Whereby he confeſſeth that theſe Fathers were contending with the Biſhop of Rome. He ſaith alſo that they are excuſable, and labours to excuſe their ignorance. As alſo(n)An. 419. §. 78. Baronius ſaith that the things contained in thoſe Epiſtles are ſomewhat hard. See then theſe men, who boaſt to have the conſent of the Fathers on their ſide; and yet when they examine the actions of the Fathers, they make bold to condemn them. Now which ſhall I rather believe, either above two hundred African Biſhops, in whoſe number thoſe two holy and famous men were, Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, and St. Austin Biſhop of Bona, who made this Canon againſt the Appeals at Rome, which Canon was confirmed in the ſixth Council of Carthage; or two Cardinals of this age, as Baronius and du Perron, whom the Pope kept tyed by the belly, and who were ſlaves of the Roman See?
Among all this diſcourſe many things ſcape our Cardinal, which muſt be pardoned him. In the 474. page, he falls again into that falſification which is ſo ordinary with him, ſaying that the ground of the Africans in their diſpute againſt the Donatiſts, was, that Cecilianus after he had been depoſed by the Biſhops of Africa, could reſerve the judgement of his cauſe to the tranſmarine Churches: Where he will have thoſe words of tranſmarine Churches to be taken in the 162. Epiſtle of St. Auſtin in the ſame ſenſe as in the Melevitan Council, that is, for the Roman Church. But there Auſtin by the tranſmarine Churches, underſtands the Churches both of Eaſt and Weſt, and the Apoſtolick Sees; and ſaith, that Cecilian after the judgement of the Africans could yet Appeal to the tranſmarine Churches, and to the Apoſtolick Sees aſſembled in an Univerſal Council: Over which Apoſtolick Sees Auſtin aſcribes no ſuperiority to the Biſhop of Rome.
In the 478. page, to prove that the Pope ſometimes ſent his delegats into Africa, who with ſouldiers and force of arms executed his orders, he alledgeth the 261. Epiſtle of Auſtin, ſaying that Antony Biſhop of Fuſſal in Numidia, being condemned by the inhabitants of Fuſſal, having Appealed to the Pope, threatned them to bring troops of ſouldiers from the Pope to execute the judgements of the Apoſtolick See; ſo that theſe poor inhabitants feared to ſuffer worſe things from a Chriſtian Biſhop, than from the Emperors Laws. But that Epiſtle is baſely forged; for in the antient copies of Auſtin there is but 206. Epiſtles; To which they have added of late 21. Epiſtles, and ſince 22. more; ſo that they are in all 249. Epiſtles. But Baronius ſpeaks of other Epiſtles newly forged; ſo it is from Baronius that our Cardinal hath taken this falſe piece of coyn as many others. And yet he often ſtudies to confute them, and beſtows whole Chapters upon that buſineſs, as the 48. ch. which fills fourty pages. But how could the Pope have that power in thoſe dayes, to ſend bands of ſouldiers into Africa, whereas we have ſeen, that at the ſame time Pope Bonifacius was kept priſoner by a few Sergeants, by the command of the Emperor Honorius. None but a raw novice in the hiſtory of thoſe dayes, will believe that then the Biſhop of Rome had the command of bands of ſouldiers, and could ſend them into far Countries, in the Emperors ſight and without his leave. Should thoſe Africans, who in the Epiſtle to Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome forbid him to ſend Legats into Africa to judge of their buſineſſes, have been afraid that he ſhould ſend bands of ſouldiers upon them?
In the ſame page he expounds fumoſum typhum, a fumous whirle-wind, whereas it ſignifieth the fumous pride. He taketh foreign & foreign for the ſame thing, according to his ordinary ignorance in the Greek tongue; for foreign ſignifies not a whirle-wind. That in that Epiſtle typhus muſt be expounded pride, it appears, becauſe typhus is oppoſed to humility;(o)Executores clericos veſtros quihuſque petentibus nolite mittere; nolite concedere, ne fumoſum typhum ſaeculi in Eccleſiam Chriſti quae lucem ſimplicitatis & humilitatis diem Deum videre cupientibus praeſert, videamur inducere. for fear (ſay theſe Fathers) that it ſeem that we will bring in fumoſum typhum, the fumous pride of this world, into the Church of Chriſt, which beareth the light of ſimplicity and the brightneſs of humility, before them that deſire to ſee God. This word is Auſtins ſtyle: as ch. 3. of the 2. book of baptiſm againſt the Donatiſts, ſine ullo typho ſacrilegae ſuperbiae, without any ſwelling of ſacrilegious pride. Which ſhews that this excellent Epiſtle of the Council was made by Auſtin.
In the ſame 52. ch. towards the end, he alledgeth ſome teſtimonies according to his ordinary faith. We ſpake before of an Epiſtle of Pope Bonifacius to Eulalius, whereby he ſaith, that Aurelius and his fellows at the Devils inſtigation did riſe againſt the Roman Church; of which fellows of Aurelius St. Auſtin was one. Whence it followeth, that Auſtin dyed out of the communion of the Roman Church. This ſeems to be contradicted by an Epiſtle of Pope Celeſtinus alledged(p)Ch. 52. p. 480. by M. du Perron, where Celeſtinus ſaith, We had alwayes Auſtin in our communion. But there is an Annotation in the margin of that(q)That Epiſtle is found in the 1. Tom. of the Councils. Epiſtle, which accuſeth that Epiſtle of falſhood from the 3. ch. to the 13. and laſt. Now there is no likelyhood that five parts of the Epiſtle be falſe, and the ſixth true. For my part, I chooſe rather to acknowledge that Epiſtle for true, ſeeing that Vincentius Lirinenſis and Proſper againſt the Collator have copied paſſages out of it. And I eaſily believe that Celeſtinus might ſpeak ſo. For the Popes not able to oppoſe themſelves to Auſtins authority, have been ſometimes conſtrained to ſpeak of him with honour. And it is poſſible, that this Epiſtle was falſified with ſome additions.
A little after he alledgeth theſe words of Fulgentius in the book of incarnation, 11. ch. The Roman Church is the head of all the world. That traduction is falſe. Fulgentius ſaith, Romana (quae mundi cacumen eſt) tenet & docet Eccleſia. He calls the Roman Church not the head, but the top and moſt eminent of all the world. If I ſay that Paris is the capital and the moſt eminent City of all the Kingdom of France, I do not thereby aſcribe to it an Empire over Toulouze or Bordeaux. Thus in the 142. pag. he tranſlateth ſummam Eccleſiam the Soveraign Church, inſtead of the moſt honourable and eminent.
It is uſual with this Cardinal, to wreſt the places of Fathers to his advantage by a falſe interpretation(r)Pag. 145. As in the 26. ch. he corrupts Optatus, whom he makes to ſay,(ſ)Syricius hodie qui noſter eſt ſocius: cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis ſocietare Epiſtolarum concordat. by whom [Pope Syricius] all the world hath communion with us, as if the union of Chriſtians was only by the Popes means; but there is in Optatus cum quo, not per quem. Wherefore alſo in the ſame place he calls Syricius his fellow; Syricius (ſaith he) who is our fellow.
Thus in the 34. ch. he tranſlates theſe words foreign.Pag: 247. We beſeech thee to honour our decree with thy judgement: But foreign ſignifieth not judgement, but only ſuffrage or vote. He will perſwade that the …ouncil of Chalcedon ſubmit their decrees to the Popes judgement. In the 25. ch. pag. 117. he alledgeth an Epiſtle which Chryſoſtom writeth generally to Biſhops, and will perſwade us that it is written to Pope Innocent. In that Epiſtle Chryſoſtom ſaith to them foreign, be ye intreated to write letters. But the Cardinal to draw this to the Popes advantage, tranſlateth, Be pleaſed to ſend word, or to command, as if Chryſoſtom deſired the Pope to ſend his Mandates or Commandements. For although foreign ſignifie ſometimes, but very ſeldom, I command, yet it cannot be ſo tranſlated here, becauſe theſe Biſhops to whom Chryſoſtom writeth, had not the power to command. All his book ſwarms with ſuch faults.
Towards the end of the Chapter he addeth the words of Eugenius Biſhop of Carthage to Cubadus Lieutenant to Hunerick King of Africa, Ch. 52. p. 480.which ſaith that the Roman Church is the head of all the Churches. I anſwer, that theſe words import no ſuperiority nor power over the other Churches. So we ſay that Virgil is the head and Prince of Latin Poets, and that London is the head and capital City of England, that is, the moſt noble and illuſtrious.
Note alſo that Eugenius ſpeaks of none but of the Churches of the Roman Empire, and that this preheminence of the Church of Rome over the other Churches of the Roman Empire, was by reaſon of the towns dignity, it being decreed by many Councils, that Biſhops ſhould keep their ranks according to the civil order of the dignity of their towns; and that this is related by Victor of Ʋtica, as happened the ſeventh year of Hunerick, which falls upon the year of the Lord 484. thirty three years after the fourth Council, which M. du Perron had ſet for his limits, having undertaken to prove his cauſe by the antient Church in the time of the firſt four Univerſal Councils.