The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 1 – Chapter 2
CHAP. 1. A Narration of that which hapned to John Chryſoſtom Patriarch of Conſtantinople.
IN the year 395. the Emperour Theodoſius being dead, his Son Arcadius ſucceeded him in the Empire of the Eaſt, and Honorius in the Empire of the Weſt. Then John Chryſoſtom, whoſe works we have, was Patriarch of Conſtantinople: A man full of zeal and eloquence, and of a holy auſtere life, but ſomewhat too free in his words.
The Empreſs Eudoxia not able to bear with his bold ſpeech in his Sermons,(a)Socrates l. 7. c. 14. & ſeq. and knowing that Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, a Prelate of great authority was his enemy, ſent for him to Conſtantinople; And he being come, aſſembled a Council, in which Chryſoſtome was condemned, and put from his place. But the fervent love of the people to him, cauſed him to return ſoon after, and to do his Office as before. In which, as he continued to uſe his former freedom, it happened that the Empreſs cauſed her ſilver Statue to be ſet up in the publick place, neer the Church, upon a Pillar of Porphyry, and that ſome threatenings of her were reported to John Chryſoſtom; who upon that made a violent Sermon, where he ſaid,(b)Nicep. l. 15. c. 18. Sozom. l. 8. c. 21. foreign. Herodias now rageth again, again ſhe is dancing, again ſhe asketh that Johns head be brought unto her in a charger, &c. Which moved the Emperour and the Empreſs to aſſemble another Council, where Chryſoſtom was again condemned and depoſed from his Epiſcopacy, for intruding and re-entring into his charge againſt the forms, after his depoſition in the precedent Council. To that depoſition the Emperour joyned baniſhment, where that golden mouth died a few years after.
Then was Innocent the firſt Biſhop at Rome, who if he had been Head of the Univerſal Church, ought to have hindered that evil, and ſent preſently Legats to reſtore Chryſoſtom to his place, and cite Theophilus before the Papal See to give account of his Actions; and in caſe of diſobedence, depoſe and excommunicate him. But nothing of all that was done. Sozomenus in book 8. of his Hiſtory, 26. ch. ſaith that Innocent writ conſolatory Letters to Chryſoſtom, and other Letters to the Clergy of Conſtantinople, wherein he bemoaned the condition of that holy man ſo unworthily uſed. He ſaid not in thoſe Letters that Theophilus had deſpiſed his authority. He uſed no threatenings, he took no knowledge of the cauſe. But this he ſaid,(c)Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. foreign. It is neceſſary that a Synod take knowledge of this, as we ſaid long ago that a Synod ought to be aſſembled: for a Synod onelyonly can ſtill the motions of ſuch ſtorms. Which that we may obtain, it is expedient to commit the remedy of it to the will of the great God and of Jeſus Chriſt.
Then to obtain that Council of the Emperour, he ſends both to the Emperour Arcadius, and to his brother Honorius ſome Biſhops and Prieſts, to beſeech them that a Council might aſſemble by their leave, to judge again of that buſineſs. So did the Roman Biſhops behave themſelves in thoſe days.
But Sozomenus in the ſame place relates that the enemies of John Chryſoſtom that were at Conſtantinople, gave to that proceeding a calumnious interpretation, ſaying that it was done to affront his Imperial Majeſty, and cauſed theſe Deputies to be ſent back as diſturbers of the Eaſtern Empire, and Chryſoſtom to be ſent into a remoter exile at Pityunta. George Biſhop of Alexandria (as Photius in his Library affirmeth) ſaith, That(d)foreign. Innocent ſuſtained many combates for that holy man, although his labour was without effect; and that he ſent Deputies, but they were ſent back ill uſed. And that he writ Letters, but that he could not atchieve any thing of that he laboured for. So weak and ineffectual was the interceſſion of the Biſhop of Rome at that time.
Upon that(e)25. ch. of the 1. book, p. 116. and ſeq. Cardinal du Perron heaps up many untruths and forgeries. He ſaith that Chryſoſtom had recourſe by Appeal to Pope Innocent the I. If that be true, It is a wonder that all the Hiſtorians of that time are ſilent about it, and that Chryſoſtom himſelf ſaith nothing of it in any of the Epiſtles which he hath written upon that matter. It is a wonder alſo that he did not appeal to Innocent in that very Council where he was condemned. For although he was not preſent, he might have made his Appeal by another, and ſignified his Appeal unto the Council. True it is, that two Letters of Chryſoſtom are found with this ſuperſcription,(f)foreign. To my Lord Innocent, Moſt reverend and moſt beloved of God. But that ſuperſcription is altogether falſe and ſpurious. For the reading of thoſe Epiſtles will evidently juſtifie that they are written either to the Biſhops of the Weſt, or to all the Biſhops of the Roman Empire, whom he calls foreign, My moſt honoured and moſt religious Lords. As alſo the whole Epiſtle ſpeaks in the plural. Of Innocent or the See of the Biſhop of Rome, not a word in theſe two Epiſtles; And no more of any Appeal to the Pope. Nay, Chryſoſtom in the firſt Epiſtle ſaith, that when he was condemned by Theophilus, he appealed from his judgement, not to the Biſhop of Rome. (for he ſpeaks never a word of him) but to another Council, and that he beſought the Emperour to convocate a lawful Council, where his cauſe might be judged. By the ſame Epiſtle he craveth his Brethren's help, and repreſents unto them the wrong done unto him, beſeeching them that by their means, things ſo unjuſtly done may have no force, and that the doers may be puniſht: To which end he deſireth that a Council may be aſſembled. If theſe be words of Appeal, it is the ſame Appeal which he made in the Council where he had been condemned. Wherefore alſo Innocent received not that Appeal, and reſerved not to himſelf the knowledge of this cauſe: Only he mediated with the Emperour for a Council, which he could never obtain. There is yet leſs colour in ſaying that by the ſecond Epiſtle Chryſoſtom appealed to Innocent: For it was written three years after his condemnation, when he had lived almoſt three years in exile. And that Epiſtle like the precedent ſpeaks to Biſhops in the plural, and ſpeaks neither of, nor to Innocent, nor of his See. So it is againſt all truth that the Cardinal affirms that Chryſoſtom appealed unto Innocent.
A long fragment of an Epiſtle of Chryſoſtom unto Innocent is extant, in the 13. book of Nicephorus, ch. 19. where he ſpeaks of no Appeals to Innocent, but only of the exceſſes and inſolencies of his enemies. In vain alſo the Cardinal heaps up ſome examples of Authors ſpeaking in the plural to one man, as if they ſpake to many. Theſe examples ought to have been taken out of the writings of Chryſoſtom himſelf, to ſhew that it was his ordinary ſtyle. Certainly in all languages it would be an abſurdity and a treſpaſs againſt common ſenſe, to ſay, My Lords, or my Brethren, ſpeaking to one man.
In the ſame place our Cardinal will ſhew himſelf an Hebrician, Pag. 137.ſaying that Rabbi ſignifieth many. It is true that Rabbi comes out of Rab which ſignifieth multus and potens, and Rabbim ſignifieth multi. But Rabbi doth not therefore ſignifie many, and is not a plural word: But it is a ſingular word, which in the Jewiſh tongue ſignifieth Maſter and Doctor.
To that Fable he addeth another of the like ſtuff; He ſaith that Innocent after the death of Chryſostom excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius and his Wife Eudoxia; And his Author for it is George of Alexandria, who above 200. years after compiled the life of Chryſoſtom out of ſeveral Authors, where he hath gathered many Fables contrary to the truth of the Hiſtory. It is the teſtimony which Photius gives him in his Library:(g)foreign, &c. It is plain that this Writer relateth many things contrary to the truth of the Hiſtory: But nothing hinders the Readers to chuſe what is good, and leave the reſt. And that which the Cardinal ſaith is moſt falſe, that herein Cedrenus followed George of Alexandria. For Cedrenus ſaith not that Eudoxia was excommunicated by Innocent or by any other, but only, foreign, that ſhe drew upon her ſelf a curſe, and a juſt hatred. This affirmation that Cedrenus ſaith, that Innocent excommunicated Arcadius or Eudoxia, is a notorious forgery of the Cardinal: That Fable being contradicted by all the Hiſtorians next unto Chryſoſtoms time. For beſides that Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomenus, who have exactly written all the paſſages of this Hiſtory of Chryſostom, ſay nothing of it; This is more, that Proſper and Marcellinus in their Chronicles, and Socrates in the 6. book, 16. ch. expreſly obſerves, that Eudoxia dyed in the Conſulat of Honorius and Ariſtenetus, which falls upon the year of our Lord 404. three years before Chryſoſtom's death, who dyed in the year 407. By this account Innocent excommunicated Eudoxia three years after her death. To oppoſe to antient Hiſtorians new Authors, as Nicephorus, and Zonaras, or Simeon Metaphraſtes, a Fabulous Writer, as the Cardinal doth, is no ſincere dealing. To invalid the teſtimony of Socrates, the Cardinal chargeth him to be a Novatian, and an enemy to the memory of Chryſostom. But I cannot comprehend that Socrates doth wrong to the memory of Chryſoſtom, by ſetting the death of Eudoxia before that of Chryſoſtom; eſpecially ſeeing that Socrates doth highly praiſe and exalt Chryſoſtom, and juſtifieth him with all his ſtrength. It is falſe alſo that Socrates was a Novatian; For he blameth the Novatians as Schiſmaticks, in book 5. ch. 19. where he taxeth them of ſeparation from the Church:(h)foreign. Since the time (ſaith he) that the Novatians ſeparated themſelves from the Church: and in the following ch. he puts them among the Hereticks: It is expedient (ſaith he) to paſs in ſilence over that which hapned among the others, that is among the Arians, the Novatians, the Macedonians, the Eunomians. This is enough to ſhew that the Cardinal layeth a falſe imputation upon that faithful Hiſtorian Socrates.
In the ſame place the Cardinal affirmeth many things againſt the truth:Pag. 119. & 320. As that Proſper Aquitanius, and Marcellinus Comes, put the death of the Empreſs Eudoxia many years before the death of Chryſoſtom. For Proſper ſpeaks not at all of the death of Chryſoſtom, and puts the death of Eudoxia one year after ſhe had ſet up her ſilver Statue upon a Pillar of Porphyry, againſt which Chryſoſtom preached. As for Marcellinus, he puts Chryſoſtoms death a year before the death of Eudoxia. So I do not believe that the Cardinal had ſeen theſe Authors, but truſted others that have abuſed him. With the like untruth he ſaith in the ſame place, that the revolt of the Iſauri happened ſince the exile of Chryſoſtom: For Chryſoſtome himſelf(i)Chryſoſt. Epiſt. 14. foreign. Epiſt. 14. affirmeth the contrary, ſaying that as he was going into exile, he was ſick in his journey with a burning fever, and that the incurſions of the Iſauri frighted him. And if Arzabacius who was ſent againſt them with an Army obtained victories over them ſince the death of Chryſoſtom, the Empreſs that favoured that Arzabacius (as Zozimus relateth) cannot be Eudoxia, as the Cardinal will perſwade us.
We have the life of Chryſoſtom written by Palladius, who ſpeaks not of the excommunication of Arcadius, and no more of Chryſoſtoms appeal to Innocent. It is true, he ſaith that Innocent judged that judgement of Theophilus ſhould be reverſed and nulled. Not that Innocent had pronounced a ſentence as a judge; But he judged that it ought to be reverſed by a Council. Wherefore alſo Palladius addeth how Innocent ſaid,(m)foreign. Verſio Bri…iani emendata a Frontone Ducaeo Jeſuita. Cogita urbis magnitudinē, &c. ſed de millibus infinitis & totius orbis capite. that another irreprehenſible Synod of the Prelates of Eaſt and Weſt ought to be kept. It is plain then that Innocent referred the judgement unto the Council.
It is then an evident lye of Pope Gelaſius, who writ a hundred years after, that Innocent abſolved John of Conſtantinople. Popes are not credible witneſſes in ſuch matters. And the Cardinal ought not to alledge their teſtimony in their own cauſe, as he doth a thouſand times, having filled all his book with ſuch teſtimonies. For the Biſhops of Rome to exalt their own dignity, will lye very liberally. Eſpecially this Gelaſius, who hath overgone all his predeceſſors in pride.
It was the cuſtom in thoſe dayes, that the Churches of the Roman Empire would maintain their union by communicatory letters, and ſend the one to the other the ſacred bread, and(k)Forms of bleſſing. Eulogies as they ſpake then, in ſign of concord. During that diſcord about the buſineſs of Iohn Chryſoſtom, Innocent and the Biſhops of the Weſt would not receive the communion from the Churches of Conſtantinople, and Alexandria, and ſeparated themſelves from their communion, as Theodoret witneſſeth in the fifth book of his hiſtory, chap. 34. John being dead, the Occidental men would never admit the communion of the Egyptians, nor of the Oriental men, nor of the Biſhops of Boſphorus and Thracia, &c. But after they had heard what honour the City of Conſtantinople had done to Chryſoſtome after his death, they were reconciled, as(l)Innocent. Ep. 17. ad Alexand…um. Innocent himſelf witneſſeth; Having learned (ſaith he) by thoſe you ſent, that all things had been accompliſht according to our deſire, I have, with thanks to God, received the communion of your Church. Theſe teſtimonies ſhew that the Popes in thoſe dayes did not excommunicate men and Churches out of their Patriarchat, by thundring anathema's as they have done ſince, but only declared that they would not receive their communion, and ſeparated themſelves from their union, for fear of partaking with their ſin.
But before I leave that holy man, I will alledge ſome places, wherein he ſpeaks of the City and Church of Antioch, where he preacht many years. In the third Homily to the people of Antioch, he ſpeaks thus of them, Conſider the greatneſs of the City, and that it is not here queſtion of one, or two, or three, or ten ſouls, but of infinite thouſands, and of the Head of the whole world. This City is that where Chriſtians were firſt ſo called. That holy man believed that the honour which God had done to Antioch, that in it the faithfull were firſt named Chriſtians, was a ſufficient conſideration to make it the firſt of all, and the head of all the world; and that by conſequent it ought to be preferred before the Church of Rome. The ſame Father, in the ſeventeenth Homily to the ſame people:(n)foreign. In Antioch the Diſciples were firſt called Chriſtians. No City in the whole habitable world hath that, no not the City of Romulus. Wherefore this City may lift up her ſight againſt the whole earth. And in the 25. Homily upon the Acts, The Diſciples have been firſt called Chriſtians in Antioch.(o)foreign. This is not a ſmall praiſe of this Town, whereby She is made able to ſtand againſt all. And in the Sermon upon Ignatius, he exalteth the dignity of the City of Antioch, becauſe St. Peter to whom Chriſt gave the keyes, and the government of his Church, made a long abode in it. Whence he inferreth that Antioch is not inferiour to any City of the world. His words are, foreign, that is, our City is equal in worth, or may be put in the ballance with all the habitable earth. That good Doctor would never have ſpoken ſo, if he had thought that the Church of Antioch was ſubject unto the Church of Rome. Wherefore when from a Prieſt of Antioch, he was raiſed to the Patriarchat of Conſtantinople, it was done without conſulting the Biſhop of Rome, and asking his approbation. To John Chryſoſtome, Arſacius ſucceeded in the Patriarchat of Conſtantinople, and after Arſacius Atticus Chryſoſtoms enemy.
Nicephorus in book 13. chap. 33. ſaith that Innocentius Biſhop of Rome excommunicated that Atticus, who for all that remained peaceable poſſeſſor of his place, being much honoured and reſpected; and there continued the ſpace of four and twenty years. For the judgements of the Biſhops of Rome out of their Patriarchat were of no effect. Beſides, ſuch excommunications were but declarations that one would not communicate with another.
CHAP. 2. Of the power of the Patriarcks of this fifth Age.
THE great authority which Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria uſed in the depoſition of Chyſoſtome without receiving any cenſure or Eccleſiaſtical puniſhment for it, remaining in a peaceable poſſeſſion of his Patriarchat untill death, giveth us occaſion of ſpeaking of the power which that Prelate then had, who aſpired unto higher things, and would have raiſed that See very high, if the events of the following ages had concurred with the grounds which he had laid.
Among the Epiſtles of Syneſius Biſhop of Ptolemais in Cyrene, there is one to this Theophilus. In the ſixty ſixth Epiſtle propounding a queſtion to him, he ſaith,(a)foreign. It is the interrogation to which the authority of the Apoſtolical ſucceſſion muſt ſimply and clearly anſwer. And in the following Epiſtle,(b)foreign. I will, and it is unto me a divine neceſſity to hold for a Law that which that throne decreeth. He ſpeaks of the See of Alexandria: Had he written in theſe terms to the Biſhop of Rome, our Adverſaries would be ſure to make a ſhew of theſe texts to the Popes primacy.
That Theophilus being dead in the year 412. Cyrillus ſucceeded, whoſe power was ſo great, that he durſt with his own authority drive the Jews out of Alexandria, whoſe multitude was incredible, & that without the conſent of Oreſtes the Emperours Lieutenant in the Province, whom he bearded, raiſing ſeditions againſt him: in one of which Oreſtes being hurt with a ſtone by a Monk called Ammonius, cauſed the Monk to be apprehended and put to death. Cyrillus interred the Monks corpſe honourably, and made a funeral Homily in his praiſe, as for a Martyr. In a ſhort time the power of the Patriarch of Alexandria grew ſo much, that it was objected to Dioſcorus Biſhop of that See, in the Council of Cbalcedon, that he had boaſted himſelf to be as much Maſter of Aegypt, as the Emperour. Of that time after the death of Theophilus, Socrates ſpeaks in chap. 7. of book 7. of his hiſtory in theſe words; From that time the Biſhop of Alexandria beſides the domination over the Clergy, got to himſelf the principality in the temporal.
On the other ſide the Biſhop of Rome was no leſs active to raiſe his greatneſs. Of theſe two Prelates Socrates in book 7. chap. 11. of his hiſtory ſpeaks thus, that(c)foreign. The Roman Epiſcopacy as well as that of Alexandria had paſt the bounds of Prieſthood, and had exalted its ſelf to a ſecular principality. The Cardinals ordinary anſwer when any thing is objected out of that Author, is to ſay, that Socrates was a Novatian Heretick, and therefore enemy to the Roman Church; But we have ſhewed out of the 5. book and 19. ch. of his Hiſtory, that he ſpeaks of the Novatians as of Schiſmaticks and Hereticks.
That the Church of Alexandria was not ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome in that time, it is clear by the 104. Canon of the(c)Juxta editionem Tilii, foreign. collection of the Councils of Africa. It was decreed that they ſhould write to the moſt holy Pope Innocent about the diſcord which is between the Roman Church, and the Church of Alexandria, that theſe Churches might keep that peace among themſelves which the Lord commandeth. That Canon commands not that the Church of Alexandria become ſubject to the Roman, but mediating between both, labours to make them agree, that they may live in concord. In that time the Church of Rome received every year the order about Eaſter-day from the Church of Alexandria, as we obſerved before. In that point the Roman Church was ſubject unto that of Alexandria.