The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 21 – Chapter 24
CHAP. 21. Of the Letters, and of the Law of Valentinian the third. And of the Law of the Emperor Leo, contrary to that of Valentinian.
IN that time Theodoſius the ſecond reigned in the Eaſt, who was a rare example of piety, meekneſs, and integrity of life. The Eccleſiaſtical Writers think that they can never praiſe him enough. See Sozomenus in the Preface of his Hiſtory. And Theodoret book 5. ch. 37. where they exalt the vertues and the godlineſs of that Prince.
In one thing he cannot be commended, that in the latter end of his life he ſuffered himſelf to be too much poſſeſt by Chryſaphius an Eutychian; by whoſe inſtigation he approved the condemnation of Flavianus, and the actions of Dioſcorus in the Council of Epheſus. Of which yet he repented a little after, putting in the room of Flavianus an Orthodox Biſhop, called Anatolius.
But in the ſame time a monſter for vices reigned in the Weſt, Valentinian the third, a baſe and effeminate man, a follower of Magicians and Wizards, as(a)Procopius de bello Vandalico, l. 50. Baron. An. 455. §. 2. Procopius affirmeth, and ſo abandoning the care of his buſineſſes, that by his idleneſs and cowardize the Empire fell, and became the Prey of barbarous Nations, and could never recover ſince. Sidonius Apollinaris in his verſes calls him, ſemivir amens, a mad half man. It was he that killed Aetius, whoſe vertue was the bulwark of the Empire of the Weſt, and raviſht the wife of Maximus, (b)Sidonius Apollinaris in carminib. Aetium placidum mactavit ſemivir amens.a Patritian, who in revenge conſpired againſt his life, and having killed him, uſurped the Empire.
As much as Valentinian was idle and careleſs of his buſineſſes, ſo much was Leo Biſhop of Rome vigilant to do his, and induſtrious to advance the dignity of the Roman See. He had the care of Valentinian, and of his mother Galla Placidia, and abuſed the brutiſh underſtanding of that Emperour to further his own intereſt.
Valentinian and his mother being at Rome, Leo ſo prevailed with them by ſupplications and flatteries, that they writ to the Emperour Theodoſius, to beſeech him to permit that a general Council ſhould aſſemble in Italy. The conformity of theſe Letters with the requeſt which Leo made unto Theodoſius for a Council in Italy, and the titles of praiſes and greatneſs which in Valentinians Letters are beſtowed upon Leo and his See, ſhew evidently that the Letters were written at the ſuggeſtion of Leo. It were an errour to think that an Emperor that cared not for the ruine of his Empire, took the pains to read theſe Letters, and to examine the terms. There Leo is ſtyled(c)Princeps ſacerdotum, Petri ſucceſſor, cui fas ſit de ſacerdotibus judicare. the Prince of Biſhops, Peter's ſucceſſour, to whom it belongs to be judge of Biſhops.
But the Emperor Theodoſius that governed the Eaſt, made little account of theſe letters, and regarded not all theſe high titles. For he would not grant to Valentinian nor to Leo that a Council ſhould be held in Italy.
Another occaſion was preſented to Leo to abuſe the ſtupidity of Valentinian. And that was a quarrel between Leo & Hilary Biſhop of Arles, who called himſelf Primat of the Churches of Gauls ſubject to the Roman Empire, that is, of Province and Daulfine. For the reſt of the Gauls was then held by the Wiſigoths, and by the Franks. The quarrel was, that Hilary conferred the degree of Biſhop in his Dioceſe, not expecting the conſent and approbation of the Biſhop of Rome: But Leo would oblige him to acquaint the Roman See with it, & to get his approbation.
Upon that Leo ſends Letters to the Biſhops of Daulfine, where after he hath exalted in magnificent words the dignity of the Roman See, he adds,(d)Epiſt. 87. ad Epiſcopos per Viennenſem provinciam conſtitutos. Hilary to trouble the ſtate of the Church and the concord of Biſhops by new preſumptions, hath exceeded meaſure, deſiring ſo to ſubject you to his power, that he will not ſuffer you to be ſubject to the bleſſed Apoſtle Peter, challenging to himſelf the Ordination of all the Churches in Gauls.
In the inſcription of theſe Letters, though puffed up with pride, as alſo in other Letters, he takes no higher title then that of, Biſtop of the City of Rome. And to ſooth up the Biſhops of Daulfine, he tells them,(e)Non enim nobis ordinationes provinciarum veſtrarum defendimus. We will not challenge the ordination of your Provinces. That is, he would not himſelf confer Orders, or the Degree of Biſhop in Daulfine, but he was contented that the Biſhops elected and created might not do the functions of their charges, but after his approbation.
In that ſtrife Leo according to his cuſtom had his recourſe to Valentinian, who preſently without hearing what Hilary could ſay for himſelf, gave ſentence for Leo, and made a Law which is extant in the Theodoſian Code among the Novell conſtitutions, in the 24. title. That Law M. du Perron ſets forth with much oſtentation, and ſpeaks of it very often; eſpecially in the 25. ch. of the 1 book, where he alledgeth theſe words of that Epiſtle, Whereas the merit of Peter, who is the Prince of the Epiſcopal ſociety, and the dignity of the Roman City, and the authority of the ſacred Synod, have eſtabliſht the Primacy of the Apoſtolick See: Let not preſumption attempt any unlawful thing againſt the authority of that See; for then ſhall the peace of the Churches be maintained every where, if the Ʋniverſality do acknowledge their Governour. In which words the Reader may obſerve by the way, that Valentinian doth not ground the Popes primacy upon the word of God. He addeth, We Decree by a perpetual Ordinance, that it be not lawful either to the Biſhops of Gauls, or to thoſe of other Provinces to attempt any thing againſt the antient cuſtom, without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City; but that to them and to all, whatſoever the authority of the Apoſtolick See hath decreed, or ſhall decree, may be a Law; ſo that what Biſhop ſoever being evocated to the judgement of the Roman Prelat ſhall neglect to appear, he be conſtrained by the Governour of the Province to make his appearance.
(f)Author vitae Hilarii Arelatenſis apud Cujacium, Obſer. l. 15. c. 38.An unknown Author who hath written the life of that Hilary, ſaith that he was forced to bow under the Emperors will, and to go to Rome to make his peace with Leo. So the Myſterie of iniquity advanced it ſelf by the ſupport of impious Emperours: for never ſuch language was ſpoken before.
But Valentinian being deprived of Africa by the Vandals of Africa, and of Spain and Guienne by the Goths, and of moſt part of Gauls by the Franks, nothing remaining to him but Italy, Sicily, Province and Daulfine, all the Eaſt being in the power of Theodoſius; that Law had but ſmall vigour, and but a ſhort extent.
In vain M. du Perron to augment the force of that Law, ſaith, that it beareth the title of Theodoſius and Valentinian; for whenſoever two Emperors reigned in the ſame time, the one in the Eaſt, the other in the Weſt, as in the time of Valens and Valentinian the firſt, or of Theodoſius and Gratianus, or of Arcadius and Honorius, or of Theodoſius the II. and Valentinian the III. the Laws of the one bear the title of both, although one of them had made a Law without the communication or approbation of the other. Thus in the ſecond Council of Epheſus all the Letters of the Council were written to Theodoſius and Valentinian, although they were addreſſed to Theodoſius alone, who alone convocated and governed that Council; while the age, the courſe of life, the weakneſs, and the remoteneſs of Valentinian made him incapable to think of thoſe matters.
How much that Law was deſpiſed in the Empire of the Eaſt, it is eaſie to ſee. For in the year 472. that is about 22. or 23. years after that Law of Valentinian, a contrary Law was eſtabliſhed by the Emperor Leo, which is the 16. Law in the Code, de Sacroſanctis Eccleſiis; the words of the Law are theſe, whereby the Emperor decreeth that the Church of Conſtantinople be the firſt of all Churches, and the Biſhop of Conſtantinople the firſt of all Biſhops. Theſe are the words of the Law.(g)Sacroſanctam quoque hujus urbis Eccleſiam & matrem noſtrae pietatis & Chriſtianorum Orthodoxae religionis omnium, & ejuſdem religioſiſſimae urbis ſanctiſſimam ſedem privilegia & honores omnes ſuper Epiſcoporum creationibus & jus ante alios reſidendi, & caetera omnia quae ante imperium noſtrum vel nobis imperantibus habuiſſe dignoſcitur, habere in perpetuum firmiter regiae urbis intuitu, judicamus & ſancimus. We Judge and Decree that the moſt holy Church of this Town, which is Mother of our piety, and of all Chriſtians of the Orthodox Religion, and the moſt holy See of the ſame moſt Religious City, have all the priviledges and honours concerning the creations of Biſhops, and the right of ſitting before others; And that the ſaid Church may have perpetually and firmly, in conſideration of the Royal City, all that ſhe had before we were Emperors, or in time of our Empire. See alſo the 24. Law, bearing this title.(h)Conſtantinopolitana Eccleſia omnium aliarum eſt caput. The Church of Conſtantinople is the Head of all other Churches.
Baronius upon the year 472. of his Annals declaimeth againſt that Law of Leo; and ſaith that it proceeded from him, who is the Head over all the ſons of pride, which is the Devil. Wherein I will not contradict him; for both that Law, and that of Valentinian have been ſuggeſted by thoſe Prelats, who emulating one another, raiſed their Sees, and inſinuating into the favour of Emperors, wickedly abuſed their ſimplicity. Thus a little before that Law of Valentinian, the Patriarch of Conſtantinople had ſuggeſted a Law to Theodoſius, whereby the(i)Lege 6. Cod. de Sacroſanctis Eccleſiis. Omni innovatione ceſſante vetuſtatem & Canones priſtinos, &c. Illyric [now Slavonia] which the Roman Biſhops claimed, is ſubjected unto the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople; and the Emperor Mauritius (k)That is ſeen in the Epiſtles of Gregory the firſt.maintained the ſame Patriarch againſt Gregory Biſhop of Rome, and approved that he ſhould ſtyle himſelf Univerſal Biſhop, calling Gregory a fool for making ſo much noiſe about a word.
For my part, I am of opinion that theſe Laws and Imperial Epiſtles are of no force in this queſtion; and the force which they might have, if they had any, can have no ſtrength beyond the precincts or the duration of the Roman Empire; neither can it ſerve to make the Biſhop of Rome Head of the Univerſal Church. Rather theſe Laws ſerve to ſhew that the greatneſs of the Popes came by the conceſſion, and by the ſtupidity of Emperors, not by the word of God, of which not one word is alledged in this matter.
Then lived Sidonius Apollinaris Biſhop of Clermont in Auvergne, of whom we have the Epiſtles, great part of which are written to the Biſhops of Gauls his Colleagues: But in none of them is there any trace of ſubjection to the Roman See, or of communication with the Biſhop of Rome. The ſame(l)Sidon. l. 6. Epiſt. 1. & ſaepe alibi. Sidonius calls Lupus Biſhop of Troyes, Pope and Biſhop of Biſhops, and the firſt Biſhop of the World, and ſaith that he is ſitting in the Apoſtolick See.
Note alſo that in the ſame time great part of Gauls was poſſeſt by the Franks and Wiſigoths, who had invaded them upon the Roman Empire; without whoſe limits the Biſhops of Rome claimed no Superiority.
CHAP. 22. Of the Ordination of the Patriarch of Antioch by that of Conſtantinople.
IN the year 449. a little after the diſſolution of the Council of Epheſus, Anatolius an Orthodox Biſhop, and free of Eutychianiſm, was promoted to the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople by the Emperor Theodoſius: a certain proof that the Emperor was no Eutychian.
Anatolius raiſed to that dignity, created Maximus Patriarch of Antioch, and conferred the Ordination upon him. If Leo Biſhop of Rome had done ſo much, M. du Perron would triumph about it, and would take that for an undoubted proof of the primacy of the Biſhop of Rome over the Univerſal Church. That which is moſt conſiderable in that buſineſs, is, that Anatolius did that without asking Leo's counſel; wherefore Leo complains of it in an Epiſtle to the Emperour Martianus, ſaying, that it was a preſumptuous action of Anatolius: Yet in ſpite of Leo, Maximus remained in his place, and Leo durſt not take upon him to diſplace him. Already Valentinian's Law was vaniſht, and no more mention made of it. If that Law of Valentinian had been of ſome authority, Leo ought to have imployed it in that occaſion; but he knew that the Greek Churches, and all the Churches of the Eaſt received not that Law.
CHAP. 23. Of the aſſembling of the Council of Chalcedon, which is the IV. Univerſal Council.
IN the 450. year of Chriſt, dyed the good Emperor Theodoſius, having reigned 42. years. Martianus ſucceeded him: that Emperor upon the inſtant requeſt of the Biſhops, reſolved to convocate an Univerſal Council from all parts of the Empire. Leo Biſhop of Rome was the leaſt forward of all the Biſhops to deſire that Council, foreſeeing that it ſhould not be aſſembled in Italy, and that the Emperour would have it neer him; he petitioned then that at leaſt the Council might be put off till another time. But the Emperor Martian preſt by the Patriarch Anatolius, and by other Biſhops, reſolved to aſſemble it with ſpeed. This is ſeen in the 41. Epiſtle of Leo to that Emperor, where he ſpeaks thus to him,(a)Popoſceram à glorioſiſſima clementia veſtra ut Synodum quam pro reparanda pace Orientalis Eccleſiae à nobis etiam petita neceſſariam judicaſtis aliquantiſper differri ad tempus opportunius juberetis. I had petitioned your moſt glorious clemency, that you would be pleaſed to command that the Synod which you judged neceſſary to reſtore the peace of the Oriental Church, ſhould be put off to a more ſeaſonable time. Although then Leo's advice was, that the Council ſhould be put off, yet to obey the Emperor, he ſent Legats to it to repreſent his perſon, as he ſaith in the ſame Epiſtle. One may ſee alſo by his Epiſtle to the Empreſs Pulcheria, that he had petitioned that the Council ſhould be aſſembled in Italy: But the Emperor would have it to ſit at Nice; afterwards altering his reſolution, he would have it to ſit at Chalcedon. In the preambles of the Council of Chalcedon the Imperial Patents of Martian are ſet down, written to the Biſhops of the Empire, where he commands them to be at Nice upon the appointed day; and threateneth them together, Whoſoever will reject this Ʋniverſal Council, which ſhall be altogether uſeful, he ſins againſt God himſelf, and offends our piety. And Leo was ſo little informed of the alteration of the Emperors will about the place, that the Letters which he writ to the Council, of which his Legats were the bearers, were written to the Biſhops aſſembled at Nice in Council, as we learn of Evagrius, book 2. ch. 2. See alſo Liberatus, in the 13. ch. and Nicephorus in the 15. book, ch. 2.(b)Baron. an. 451. §. 8. Baronius himſelf acknowledgeth that the Council was aſſembled by the Emperors command: The Emperor (ſaith he) upon the tenth of the Calends of June publiſht an Ordinance for the Ʋniverſal Synod, to which he convocated the Biſhops. Here is then an Univerſal Council, which not only was not convocated by the authority of the Biſhop of Rome, but was alſo convocated to another place, and in another time then he had requeſted. For he had been a ſuppliant to the Emperor that it ſhould be put off, and that it might ſit in Italy. So the ſaying of Pope Pius the II.(c)Pius II. lib. 1. Hiſt. Concil. Baſilienſis. At ego dum veteres lego hiſtorias, dum actus perſpicio Apoſtolorum hunc equidem uſum non invenio ut ſoli Papae Concilia congregaverint, &c. Nec poſt tempora Conſtantini magni & aliorum Auguſtorum ad congreganda Concilia quae ſitus eſt magnopere Romani aſſenſus Papae. is made good. When I read the antient Hiſtories and the Acts of the Apoſtles, I find not this cuſtom, that the Popes alone aſſembled the Councils; and a little after, Since the time of great Conſtantine and of the other Emperors, the conſent of the Roman Pope was not much required for the aſſembling of Councils.
CHAP. 24. Who preſided in the Council of Chalcedon.
THis Council is one of the moſt grave and famous that have been at any time. For there the Emperor himſelf was preſent, and there 630. Biſhops met from all parts of the Empire. From the Kingdoms of France, Spain and Great Britain no Deputies were ſent, becauſe thoſe Countries were no more in the Roman Empire, nor in the Patriarchate of the Biſhop of Rome. And yet that Council is called Univerſal, becauſe it was convocated out of all the Roman Empire.
Some Patritians and Counts repreſenting the Emperors perſon, preſided in that Council, ſitting in the higheſt place, in the midſt, between two rows of Biſhops. This is ſeen in every Seſſion of the Acts of the Council, where they are always named the firſt. And it is evident by the Acts that the Biſhops ſpake only by their leave, and that they repreſt by their authority the Biſhops that behaved themſelves with inſolence and importunity. Thus in the firſt Action, a confuſed clamour being raiſed,(a)Glorioſſimi Judices & Senatus dixerunt, Acclamationes iſtae populares neque Epiſcopos decent, neque partes juvant. Patimini ergo univerſorum fieri lectionē. The moſt glorious Judges and Senate ſaid, Theſe popular acclamations neither become Biſhops, nor do good to the parties: have patience then till all be read. So in Evagrius, book 2. ch. 4.(b)foreign. The Senators have thus decreed. In the 16. Action the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome, ſpeak thus to the Judges:(c)Heſterna die, poſt quam poteſtas veſtra ſurrexit & humilitas noſtra veſtigia veſtra ſequuta eſt. Yeſterday after that your highneſs was riſen, and our lowneſs followed your ſteps: And a little after,(d)Poſcimus ut magnificentia veſtra haec relegi praecipiat. We petition that your magnificence command that theſe things be read again. The Biſhops had not ſo much power as to read a Paper the ſecond time, without the leave of thoſe Judges. A Biſhop preſenting a Petition, ſaid unto them, We fall down, petitioning before the knees of your Highneſs; as Evagrius relateth in the 18. ch. of his 2. book. Liberatus in the 13. ch. ſaith that(e)A judicibus & Epiſcopis omnibus illa contradictio ſuſcepta non eſt. the Legats of Rome having formed an oppoſition, the Judges and Biſhops would not regard it: a certain proof that thoſe Legats were not Judges.
Thoſe Senators had at their right hand Dioſcorus Patriarch of Alexandria, and Juvenalis Patriarch of Jeruſalem: and at their left hand Paſchaſinus and Lucentius Legats of the Biſhop of Rome, and Anatolius Patriarch of Conſtantinople. And although in the Acts of the Council theſe Legats be often named before Anatolius, yet Anatolius is alſo in many places named before them. And in all the actions generally Anatolius ſpeaks far more then they, and doth all the actions of a Preſident, and hath the chief authority in the Council. The words of Paſchaſinus Legat of Rome in the firſt Action are notable;(f)Pag. 20. Ecce nos Deo volente Dominum Anatolium primū habemus. Hi quintum poſuerunt beatū Flavianum. Behold (ſaith he) we hold, by the will of God, My Lord Anatolius for the firſt, but theſe have put Flavianus in the fifth place. Meaning, that although Anatolius was the firſt, yet the Eutychians in contempt had put Flavianus Predeceſſor of Anatolius in the fifth place. Which he ſaith, not becauſe the Patriarch of Conſtantinople was the firſt Patriarch: but becauſe in the preſent Action he held the firſt place, and preſided in the Council.