The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 19
CHAP. 19. Of the Appeal of Flavianus, and of Theodoret Biſhop of Cyr, to Leo Biſhop of Rome. And of the Appeals in general. That the Cardinal did not underſtand the nature of thoſe Appeals.
LIberatus a Deacon of Carthage, who writ ſome ſix ſcore years after that Council, ſaith that Flavianus being condemned by the ſecond Council of Epheſus, Appealed to Leo Biſhop of Rome. This obligeth us to ſpeak of the Appeals to the Biſhop of Rome, and to examine thoſe Appeals which Cardinal du Perron produceth in the 43. ch. of the 1. book.
He brings in the firſt place the example of Athanaſius, of whom(a)Theod. l. 2. c. 4. Theodoret ſpeaks thus, Julius according to the Law of the Church, commanded them to come to Rome, and cited the Divine Athanaſius to judgement. But for that it is better to believe Julius himſelf and Athanaſius, by whoſe teſtimony we have ſhewed before that Julius would take knowledge of that buſineſs, not becauſe the judgement of it belonged to him, but becauſe the Euſebians had deſired ſo much of him, for they being parties againſt Athanaſius, had requeſted him to arbitrate that difference. We ſhewed alſo how theſe Euſebians, ſeeing that Julius abuſed inſolently the power which they had deferred unto him, would not undergo his judgement, but writ to him letters full of ſcorn and threatnings, ſaying that they were not inferior to him: yea that they came ſo far, as to degrade and depoſe Julius from Epiſcopacy in the Council of Philippolis. We have ſeen alſo by(b)Hieron. Epitaph. Marcellae. See before, ch. 2. of the 5. book. where this matter is treated at large. Hieroms teſtimony, that Athanaſius came to Rome not as cited to appear, but as not able to ſubſiſt in Egypt or in the Eaſt, which made him to retire to a Biſhop of his communion, and to the protection of Conſtans, an Orthodox Emperor. The ſame is ſeen in the Oration of Gregory Nazianzen concerning Athanaſius.
That which(c)Sozom. l. 3. c. 7. Sozomenus ſaith, that Julius reſtored unto Athanaſius and Paulus, and other expelled Biſhops, to each of them his See, muſt be ſo underſtood, that he pronounced judgement that they ought to be reſtored, and gave them reſtitution as far as in him was: For in effect, they were not re-inſtalled for that. That reſtitution was done ſome years after, by the intervening of the Emperor Conſtans then raigning in the Weſt; Who partly by threatnings, partly by entreaties cauſed Athanaſius to be put in his place again, till the ſitting of a Council, which ſhould decide that buſineſs. But a little after, Conſtans being ſlain by Magnentius, Athanaſius having loſt his ſupport, was expelled again, and conſtrained to fly: So that not only the judgement of Julius, but the aſſiſtance of Conſtans were without effect. Read Theodoret, and Socrates, and Sozomenus, and the Annals of Baronius, you ſhall ſee that Athanaſius recovered not his See by the judgement of Julius Biſhop of Rome. See alſo what we have ſaid before in ch. 2. of our 5. book.
The example of John Chryſoſtom Appealing by letters to Innocent Biſhop of Rome, was examined before,(d)In ch. 2. of this book 6. and upon that point we have convinced the Cardinal of manifeſt falſhood, and ſhewed that theſe letters are not written to Innocent: and that though theſe letters had been written to him, yet it is not ſpoken there of any Appeal but to a Council, in which the proceedings of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria againſt him might be diſannulled. And in effect Innocent took not upon him the judgement of that matter, but only ſent to the Emperor Arcadius to beſeech him to grant them a Council, which he could not obtain, but his Legats were ſent back with contempt and diſgrace.
The Cardinal inſiſteth much upon the Appeal of Flavianus Patriarch of Conſtantinople to Leo Biſhop of Rome. That will be found repeated fifty times over in his book. Although I could call the truth of that Hiſtory in queſtion for many reaſons, Liberatus being a witneſs much poſterior in time, and ſuſpected, and of ſmall authority; yet I will receive it as true: and ſhew that M. du Perron never underſtood well Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory in this point of Appeals.
For in the antient Eccleſiaſtical hiſtory the word Appeal is commonly taken otherwiſe then in civil matters. The Appeal of Flavianus to Leo was not to deſire him to take knowledge of his cauſe, and to make himſelf Judge, as ſuperior of the Council of Epheſus: That was beyond Leo's power: Wherefore alſo he did not undertake it: But by that Appeal he had recourſe unto Leo, that by his mediation and requeſt to the Emperor another Council might be called, where his cauſe might be reviſed, and the Acts of the Synod of Epheſus made voyd. Neither did Leo himſelf underſtand it otherwiſe: For upon that Appeal he writ to the Emperor Theodoſius, in theſe words;(e)Epiſt. Leonis 23. Omnes partiū noſtrarum Eccleſiae, omnes manſuetudini veſtrae cum gemitibus & lachrymis ſupplicant ſacerdotes, ut quia & noſtri fideliter reclamarunt, & ciſde… libellū appellationis Flavianus Epiſcopus dedit, generalem Synodum intra Italiam jubeatis celebrari. All the Churches of our parts are ſuppliant to your meekneſs with groanings and tears, that becauſe our Deputies faithfully oppoſed themſelves [to heretical decrees] and that Flavianus hath given them a bill of Appeal, you command that a Synod be celebrated in Italy. Experience is the ſtrongeſt proof of all. For upon that Appeal Leo made not the parties to appear. He uſed no citation. He pronounced no ſentence of condemnation, or depoſition, or Anathema againſt Dioſcorus: Only he aſſembled a particular Council at Rome of the Biſhops of his neighbourhood, in which the proceedings of the ſecond Council of Epheſus were diſapproved: and acknowledging that ſuch a judgement was not ſufficient, he urged the Emperor to obtain a general Council. Neither did Liberatus underſtand it otherwiſe. For he ſaith that Leo in conſideration of that Appeal petitioned the Emperor to aſſemble a Council. Of this, Leo himſelf is a witneſs, and his particular Council aſſembled at Rome of the Italian Biſhops, who writ thus to the Emperor Theodoſius; (f)And a little before; Omnia in eo ſtatu eſſe jubeatis in quo fuerunt ante omne judiciū, donec major ex toto orbe numerus ſacerdotum congregetur. And Liberat. cap. 12. Leo Theodoreti querelas ſuſcipiens, litteris ſuis Theodoſium petit, ut fieret intra Italiam generale Concilium.We beſeech thee to command that all things be put again in the ſame ſtate that they were in before the judgement, untill a greater number of Biſhops be convocated out of all parts of the world. Which words evidently demonſtrate that Leo and his Council did not hold their judgement to be determining in that cauſe, and that there was need of a Council of greater authority; which Leo doth not command, but petitions for it in all humility. To this the Cardinal giveth an anſwer of the greateſt abſurdity that can be deviſed, ſaying that this petition of Leo and his Council to the Emperor, that all things might be put in their ſtate again, was only intended for the temporal; Whereas there was queſtion only of Eccleſiaſtical matters, the depoſition of a Biſhop, and the approbation or abrogation of a Council.
It is plain, that if Flavianus Appealed to Leo, he did it in the ſame manner as Julianus condemned by Innocent Biſhop of Rome Appealed from his judgement to the Oriental Churches, as Auſtin ſaith in the firſt book againſt Julian, ch. 2. And in the ſame manner as Pelagius condemned by the Biſhops of Africa, cauſed his cauſe to be reviſed in the Eaſt by the Council of Paleſtina, where he was cleared and abſolved: And in the ſame manner as Auſtin ſaith in the 162. Epiſtle, that after the judgement of the African Biſhops, there were many thouſands of Biſhops beyond the Sea, and Apoſtolick Sees, to which Cecilianus might reſerve his cauſe, and have it judged again. All which Appeals to others then the Biſhop of Rome, the Cardinal would not take as Appeals to a ſuperior Judge; for indeed they were but a recourſe to other Biſhops, that by their mediation and authority a Council might ſit, in which the condemned might be heard in their juſtifications, and might complain of their former Judges.
The Appeal of Theodoret is of the ſame nature, and muſt be underſtood as that of Flavianus. Yet it muſt be obſerved, that in the works of Theodoret there is no mention of that Appeal of Theodoret, but in an Epiſtle which is found in the ſecond Tome of the Councils, and in the Acts of Chalcedon in the ſame Tome; which as well as the firſt, is top-full of falſifications, and where the moſt part of the Epiſtles are ſuſpected, and rejected by Baronius and Bellarmin. I paſs by the Manuſcript Epiſtles which Baronius ſaith he hath ſeen in the Popes library, for that allegation hath no authority. Now whatſoever Theodoret hath done or ſaid in the praiſe or exaltation of Leo Biſhop of Rome, can be no more then what he ſaith of Neſtorius (g)Lib. Haereſeon cap. de Neſtorio.Patriarch of Conſtantinople; that he governed the Church of all the world. What the Cardinal ſaith in another place, that Eutyches being near to be depoſed, Appealed to the Pope, is falſe. For the Acts of the Council of Conſtantinople, rehearſed in that of Epheſus and Chalcedon, ſay that he(h)Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 1. p. 114. foreign. Appealed to a Council, where the Biſhops of Rome, Alexandria, Jeruſalem, and Theſſalonica ſhould be.
In the ſame 43. ch. M. du Perron alledgeth the Council of Sardica thus decreeing, If a Biſhop hath been depoſed by the judgement of the Biſhops of the neighbouring Provinces, and pretends to be heard again; let not another be ſubſtituted in his room, till the Biſhop of Rome hath pronounced his ſentence about it. (i)See above book 5. ch. 3.But we have ſeen before that this order was made only by the Occidental Biſhops, which were of the Roman Patriarchat, and that it was of no force in the other parts of the Empire, much leſs in the Churches without the Empire; and that it was unknown unto the Churches of Africa. Alſo that the conſtitution was only for the perſon of Julius Biſhop of Rome, not for his ſucceſſors, and under favor of the Biſhops of the Council, to whoſe pleaſure that conſtitution is ſubmitted. And that the Occidental Biſhops in the Council of Sardica did gratifie Julius with all their power to diſpleaſe the Oriental Biſhops, who had degraded and depoſed him in their Council which they held at the ſame time.
The other examples which the Cardinal alledgeth, are no Appeals. Valens and Ʋrſacius deſired the Biſhop of Rome to forgive them, becauſe they had offended him. The Council of Tyane reſtored to Euſtathius his Biſhoprick at the recommendation of Liberius. Such examples are nothing to the purpoſe; for they are no examples of Appealing to the Biſhop of Rome.
He adds the Epiſtle of Valentinian, to which we will give a Chapter apart; And heaps up many things out of the Greek Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which are all forged things, made to contradict the Canon of the ſame Council, whereby, notwithſtanding the oppoſitions of the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome, the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is equalled unto the Roman in all things and without exception, as we ſhall ſee in the proper place.
The other examples which he brings, are much poſterior in time to the fourth Univerſal Council, which is the term which he hath fixed to himſelf. And none of them is beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. Neither is all that any thing in compariſon of ſo many Councils of Africa where St. Auſtin was preſent, in which the Appeals to Rome are forbidden upon pain of excommunication; and the Biſhops of Africa writ letters to Pope Celeſtinus, warning him to abſtain from receiving any Appeals from Africa, not to take knowledge of their buſineſſes, not to ſend Legats or Commiſſioners into Africa, and not to bring the fumous pride of this world into the Church of Chriſt; truſting that the Spirit of God ſhall not be wanting unto them to conduct their own buſineſſes. Of which Councils we have ſpoken above in the ſixth and ſeventh Chapters.
Let all that have ſome equity, judge whether the reaſons and examples, which I will now bring, be not of far greater force then all that the Cardinal brings to eſtabliſh the Appeals to Rome.
I. Firſt the Reader may take notice, that the Cardinal could not bring any divine Ordinance, nor one word of Scripture whereby the Biſhop of Rome is conſtituted a Soveraign Judge of the Univerſal Church, or Peters ſucceſſor in the quality of head of the Univerſal Church.
II. Obſerve in the ſecond place, that all the examples which the Cardinal brings are ſince the 340. year of Chriſt; ſo that three whole Ages ſince Chriſt and more, afford no example, and no mention of Appealing to Rome from the remote Provinces.
III. Conſider in the third place, that all the examples of Appealing to Rome which the Cardinal brings are taken from within the verge of the Roman Empire: But over all his book he could not produce one example of any Church, or any particular man, without the precincts of the Empire, that ever Appealed to the Pope.
IV. We have proved that thoſe very examples which he ſets forth with ſo much ſhew, are falſe and againſt the right hiſtory. That Athanaſius never Appealed to Rome, and came to Rome without calling, ſeeking refuge againſt perſecution. That Chryſoſtom never Appealed to Rome, and that there is no trace of that in Antiquity. That the Appeal of Flavianus to Leo Biſhop of Rome, was but a requeſt whereby he had recourſe unto him, that by his interceſſion he might obtain from the Emperor another Council where his cauſe might be examined again; As alſo Leo did not underſtand it otherwiſe, ſeeing that he cited not the parties to appear, and bore not himſelf as a Soveraign, but applyed himſelf only as an earneſt Petitioner to the Emperor for the convocating of another Council.
V. It is eaſie to diſcern what the antient Church thought of thoſe Appeals, I ſay not to the Biſhop of Rome (for none were made then in the ſenſe that the Cardinal takes it) but to Councils and ſuperior Aſſemblies. For Socrates in the 2. book, ch. 40.(k)Is the 32. in the Latin verſion. ſpeaks thus of Cyrillus of Jeruſalem, In this place we muſt know that Cyrillus was ſince accuſed, I know not why, and put down from his Biſhoprick. Now he was depoſed, becauſe being many times cited in judgement for the ſpace of two years, he would not appear, fearing accuſations. But being (l)foreign.depoſed, he ſignified in writing his Appeal to them that had depoſed him, Appealing to a ſuperior judgement; which Appeal the Emperor Conſtantius approved. Now Cyrillus alone did that, and was the firſt, who againſt the cuſtom of Eccleſiaſtical rule made uſe of Appeals as in a civil judgement. That Cyrillus, condemned and depoſed by a particular Council, had Appealed to an univerſal Council, a thing unuſual before that time. How ſtrange then had it lookt if he had Appealed to the Biſhop of Rome? The Cardinal could not rid himſelf of this difficult paſſage, but by breaking a gap to get out with a falſification, his ordinary way: For he diſguiſeth this hiſtory with incredible boldneſs. He ſaith that theſe words are not the words of Socrates, but of Sabinus, an heretical Author related by Socrates. A thing utterly falſe. In all that Chapter there is not one word ſpoken of Sabinus. And Socrates manifeſtly ſpeaketh as from himſelf, and as deſirous that his narration ſhould find belief; ſaying, We muſt know that Cyrillus was accuſed. He ſaith not, We muſt know that Sabinus ſaith, &c. We muſt know ſaith he, that Cyrillus was accuſed and depoſed, and that he Appealed contrary to the Canons, &c. It is true, that three pages before he ſends the Reader to Sabinus, who makes a more particular relation of the things happened in the Council of Seleucia, and ſaith that he will content himſelf to ſay the principal things ſummarily. He ſaith, not as the Cardinal makes him ſpeak, We running over, will extract only the heads. Socrates ſpeaks not of(*)foreign. And in the verſion. Nos capita rerum breviter perſtringemus. extracting, but ſaith, We will only relate the principal things, as running. But ſuppoſe that Socrates had extracted that out of Sabinus, it is enough that he relates it as true. Shall we reject Juſtin or Xiphilinus becauſe they have abbreviated Trogus and Dion? Doth he not himſelf condemn thoſe that reject the book of Maccabees, becauſe it is a ſummary of Jaſon?
VI. To that falſhood he joyns another, ſaying that Cyrillus is condemned, not for Appealing to a greater Synod, but for getting a writ of Appeal from the Imperial Chancery. And as he ſaith a little after, for obtaining letters from the Emperor to get his appeal accepted. All that as falſe as the allegation of the words of Socrates, which he untruly ſaith to be the words of Sabinus; For of that writ of Appeal there is not one word in Socrates: Only he ſaith that the†foreign. Emperor Conſtantius conſented to the Appeal of Cyrillus, or had approved it. In effect Cyrillus Appealed not to the Emperor, but to a ſuperior Council.
Had it been then the cuſtom to Appeal to the Biſhop of Rome, two Councils of Africa, the Milevitan where S. Auſtin was preſent, and the ſixth Council of Carthage, had not prohibited to Appeal from Africa to Rome upon pain of excommunication.
VII. Auſtin in his 162. Epiſtle ſpeaks thus to the Donatiſts concerning the judgement pronounced againſt them by Melchiades Biſhop of Rome, and by the other Biſhops his aſſociates;(m)Ecce putemus illos Epiſcopos qui Romae judicarunt non bonos judices fuiſſe, reſtabat adhuc plenarium Eccleſiae univerſae Concilium ubi etiam cum ipſis judicibus cauſa poſſet agitari, ut ſi male judicaſſe convicti eſſent eorum ſententiae ſolverentur. Let us ſuppoſe that thoſe Biſhops that judged at Rome were no good Judges; there remained yet the full Council of the univerſal Church where the cauſe might be debated with the ſame Judges, ſo that if they could be convinced to have judged amiſs, their judgement might be reverſed. By theſe words doth he not preſuppoſe that one might have appealed from the judgement of the Biſhop of Rome to a Council? which is very far from appealing from the judgement of the Council to the Pope. The ſame Austin taught us before that Julianus condemned by the Biſhop of Rome, had appealed to a particular Council of the Oriental Churches; ſo little account they made in thoſe days of the judgements of the Biſhop of Rome.
VIII. We alledge alſo the VI. Canon of the firſt Council of Conſtantinople, which is the ſecond Univerſal; If they ſay that they have ſome Eccleſiaſtical accuſation againſt a Biſhop, the holy Synod decreeth that they propound firſt their accuſation before all the Biſhops of the Province, &c. (n)foreign, &c. foreign.But if it happen that the Biſhops of the Province be not ſufficient to redreſs ſuch accuſations, let them addreſs themſelves to a greater Synod of Biſhops of that Dioceſe, &c. And if any deſpiſing the things decreed according as it was declared before, make bold to trouble the Emperors ears, or the judical Seats of ſecular Magiſtrates, or diſquiet the Ʋniverſal Council, &c. Let him not be heard at all in his accuſation. That Canon decreeeth that the Synod of the Dioceſe judge definitively and without appeal of the cauſes of Biſhops. It is not material whether he ſpeaks of the accuſers of Biſhops, or of the accuſed Biſhops; for the Pope now pretends that both the accuſing and the accuſed Biſhops may appeal to him.
IX. The 9. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon is more expreſs yet to this purpoſe.(o)foreign. If a Clark hath ſome buſineſs againſt his own Biſhop, or againſt ſome other Biſhop, let him cauſe it to be judged in the Synod of the Province. But if a Biſhop or Clark hath ſome difference with the Metropolitan of the Province, let him addreſs himſelf to the Exarch of the Dioceſe, or to the See of the City of Conſtantinople, and there let him be judged. The Reader may obſerve that this Council is Univerſal, and by conſequent gave orders for the whole Roman Empire, and that the Legats of the Roman Empire were preſent, who paſt this Canon without murmuring, wherein it is decreed that from the Synod of the Province one might appeal to the Exarch of the Dioceſe (for then a Dioceſe contained many Provinces, and the firſt Biſhop of the Dioceſe was called an Exarch) and that he that would decline the judgement of the Exarch might appeal to the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, who judged ultimately, and without appeal. But of appealing from him to the Biſhop of Rome, the Synod ſpeaks not; for it was not the cuſtom.
This Canon diſpleaſed Pope Nicolas the I. ſo much, that to break the ſtrength of it, he corrupted it with a notorius depravation.(p)Quem autem primatem dioceſcos ſancta Synodus dixerit praeter Apoſtoli primi Vicarium nullus penitus intelligitur, &c. Nec vero moveat quia ſingulari numero dioceſeos dictum eſt. Sciendum eſt quia tantundem valet dixiſſe primatem dioceſeos quantum ſi perhibuiſſet dioceſeon. Plenae ſunt enim Scripturae tali forma locuſionis. For in his Epiſtle to the Emperor Michael, by the Exarch or Primat of the Dioceſe he underſtands the Biſhop of Rome; but becauſe the Biſhop of Rome (if he may be believed) hath the command of all Dioceſes, that venerable Pope will have that word Dioceſe to be underſtood plurally, as if the Council of Chalcedon had ſaid, Let him addreſs himſelf to the Primat of Dioceſes, that is, to the Biſhop of Rome: Let none find it ſtrange (ſaith he) that the word Dioceſe is put in the ſingular, for it muſt be known that it is as good as if he had ſaid of the Dioceſes. The Scriptures are full with ſpeeches of that kind. And he brings for example that which is ſaid, Gen. 2. that a fountain ſprung up out of the earth, inſtead of ſaying, the fountains.
This is that Pope who being proud and falſe in the higheſt degree,(q)In the ſame Epiſtle. groundeth his primacy upon that which was ſaid to Peter, Kill and eat; and upon the command made to the ſame Apoſtle, Joh. 21. to draw to the ſhore the Net full of Fiſhes: alſo upon Chriſt's ſaying to him, When thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.
Cardinal du Perron in the ſame chap. alledgeth againſt himſelf a Law of Juſtinian, commanding that(r)Pag. 513. & 514. Clarks be judged first by their Biſhops, next by their Metropolitans, and next by the Patriarch of the Nation, &c. Becauſe againſt the ſentences of Biſhops the precedent Emperours had decreed that there ſhould be no Appeal. The Cardinal ſuſpecteth, after Balſamen, that the text of that Novell is corrupted; or that this ought to be underſtood only of the cauſes of inferiour Clarks. But there are many other Laws of Emperours, ſo expreſs, that they admit none of thoſe ſhifts; as the Law of Leo and Conſtantinus related by Leunclavius, in theſe words,(ſ)Lib. qui inſcribitur, foreign, &c. Tit. 10. cap. 6. pag. 99. foreign, &c. The judgement of the Patriarch is not ſubject to appeal, and is not obnoxious to reviſion, or to be retracted by any other, ſeeing that he is Prince of the Eccleſiaſtical judgement, and that from his judgements all Eccleſiaſtical judgements depend, and are reſolved into it, and thither do return. But it depends from none, and is not referred to any other: For ſuch is the nature of principality. But that judgement is judged by it ſelf by a ſpiritual judgement. That Law, in my opinion, is expreſs enough.