The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 26
CHAP. 26. Of the XXVIII. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the proteſtation which the Legats of Leo Biſhop of Rome made againſt it: And how they offered to falſifie a Canon of the Council of Nice.
THE Council of Chalcedon was one of the moſt ſolemn Aſſemblies of Chriſtian Prelats that ever was; they were 630. Biſhops choſen out of all the Roman Empire. Pope Leo the firſt then living, acknowledgeth in the thirty ſeventh Epiſtle to the Emperour Leo, that this Council was aſſembled by the Holy Ghoſt. It is the fourth among the Univerſal Councils; Of which four Councils,(a)Praedictarum quatuor Synodorum dogmata ſicut ſanctas Scripturas accipimus & regulas ſicut leges obſervamus. Juſtinian in the 131. Novel, chap. 1. and(b)Sicut ſancti Evangelii quatuor libros ſic quatuor Concilia ſuſcipere & venerari me fateor, Nicenum, &c. Pope Gregory the firſt, ſay, that they receive and honour them with the like reſpect as the four Goſpels.
In that Council that famous Canon was made whereby the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is equalled to the Biſhop of Rome in all things, and the City of Conſtantinople, though ſecond in order after Rome, among the Cities of the Empire, is declared equal to Rome, as well in Eccleſiaſtical as in Civil things. The Canon is this, The Fathers with good reaſon have given prerogatives to the See of the antient Rome,(c)foreign. becauſe that City reigneth. And the hundred and fifty Biſhops [of the firſt Council of Conſtantinople] moſt beloved of God, moved with the like conſideration, have attributed to the moſt holy See of the new Rome [which is Conſtantinople] equal priviledges, judging with good reaſon that the City honoured with the Empire and the Senat, and having the ſame priviledges as the antient Imperial Rome, ought to be magnified as much as that City in Eccleſiaſtical things, being the next after her.
Three things diſpleaſe our Adverſaries in this Canon. The firſt is, that there the preheminence of the Biſhop of Rome is founded only upon the Civil dignity of the City of Rome, which is the ſeat of the Empire, and the capital City. The ſecond is, that by this Canon, the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is declared as equal in Eccleſiaſtical things to the Biſhop of Rome, as the City of Conſtantinople was equal to the City of Rome in Civil things, and to have the ſame priviledges. Whence it followeth, that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople was not ſubject to that of Rome, although Conſtantinople was the ſecond in order. The third is, that by this Canon the order of the Patriarchs is changed, and the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, who ſometimes was but ſuffragant to the Metropolitan of Heraclea, is preferred before the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and Antioch, and is made the ſecond among the Patriarchs; and that without the conſent of Leo Biſhop of Rome, and without acquainting him with it, and notwithſtanding the oppoſition of his Legats in the Council: and that which grieveth moſt our Adverſaries, is, that this order hath held and continued firm for many Ages, and was renewed in the Univerſal Councils that followed, eſpecially in the ſixth Council(d)Concil. Conſtantinop. VI. in Trullo. c. 36. Pag. 241. aſſembled again in the Palace of Trull to make Canons, where the ſame Canon is repeated in the ſame terms. And indeed ſince that time the Patriarchs of Alexandria, who had the chief intereſt to oppoſe that change, did not diſpute the precedence to the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, but without conteſtation obeyed the order of the Council. The Biſhops of Rome would have acquieſced unto it, but that the ſtrength of the Emperours was falling in Italy, and barbarous Kings were then invading Rome and Italy, and the Empire of the Weſt; ſo that the Biſhop of Rome being then ſubject to other Maſters, might without danger deſpiſe the authority of the Emperours.
Our Adverſaries boaſting of the authority of Councils, ſhew here that they ſpeak not in earneſt. For they declaim againſt this which they acknowledge to be Univerſal, and diſpenſe themſelves from the rules eſtabliſhed in it. M. du Perron among others, doth his worſt to weaken the authority of this Council.
He ſaith in chap. 34. that in the evening of the twelfth day Anatolius Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſpying the occaſion that the Popes Legats (for ſo he calls alwayes the Biſhop of Rome, although the name of Pope was then common to all Biſhops) and the Senate were retired, and all that could croſs him; cauſed that Decree to be drawn and ſigned by ſome Biſhops of the neighbouring Provinces. His witneſs for this relation is Liberatus, who in ſuch matters is liberal of his lyes. But M. du Perron was ſure not to ſay that it appeareth by the Acts of the Council, that the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome made their complaints the next day, ſaying that they had been ſurprized, that they were not preſent when the Council had made this Canon, and that violence was uſed to make that Canon to paſs. And that upon their exceptions all the Biſhops(e)Acts 16. Reverendi Epiſcopi clamaverunt. Nemo coactus eſt. cryed out with one voice, that they had voluntarily ſubſcribed that Canon, not by conſtraint; and all declared in the preſence of the ſaid Legats, that they approved and confirmed that Canon. And which is more, Euſebius Biſhop of Dorylea aroſe, and affirmed, that being at Rome he had communed with Leo about that matter, and that Leo thought it juſt that ſuch an Order ſhould be made. So that Article was ratified, and remained to poſterity.
It is true that the Greek Acts ſay, that the Council writ to Leo about it, beſeeching him to approve that Canon. But thoſe Acts ſwarm with untruths, and experience gives them the lye. For if the Council had ſubmitted this Article to the judgement of Leo, that reſolution of the Council ſhould have been broken, and the Canon diſanulled, when Leo declared a little after, that he could not approve that doctrine. But it remained fixt notwithſtanding Leo's oppoſitions, and was practiſed without hinderance ſince the ſitting of that Council, as long as the Empire of Conſtantinople ſtood. And all that Leo declaimed againſt, it was without effect; as Liberatus ſaith in chap. 13. of his Breviary: Although the Apoſtolick See to this day contradict that Decree, yet the reſolution of the Synod remains in ſome ſort, by the Emperours protection. For to alledge here (as the Cardinal doth) Leo's Epiſtles, wherein he ſpeaks to Anatolius as a Maſter, and as forgiving him, would be an abuſe offered to the Reader; for who cares to hear the Pope bearing witneſs in his own cauſe? Never is the Pope ſooner inclined to pardon, then when he can do no harm, and when the offendors are not in his power. Of which this ſame Anatolius, in whoſe favour this Canon was made, affords us a notable example, which we ſhall ſee hereafter.
Alſo the Cardinal was too wary to ſay that Leo's Legats in this Council to defend his authority brought forth the ſixth Canon of the Council of Nice; but corrupted, and beginning by this clauſe falſly added, Quod Romana Eccleſia ſemper habeat primatum; That the Roman Church hath always the primacy. And that thereupon Aetius an Arch-deacon brought forth out the Archives of the Church of Conſtantinople, the original of the Canons of the Council of Nice, where that clauſe was not found.
Thus all the nullities which M. du Perron brings againſt this Canon vaniſh away. He ſaith that it was ſuggeſted and contrived by the Clarks of the Church of Conſtantinople, in an undue hour, in the abſence of thoſe that had intereſt in it; and that the Clarks of Conſtantinople have added ſome words to it, that were not in the firſt Council of Conſtantinople. But all theſe nullities (if there were any) were taken off the next day, when in the preſence of the Judges and the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome, and the Patriarchs, and the whole Council, the buſineſs was reſumed, the reaſons of the Roman Legats were heard, and all they could ſay againſt it: and the Canon was generally approved and ratified by the Council. Neither did the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who were chiefly concerned in it, either at that time, or ſince that time, oppoſe it.
The prudent Reader will obſerve this, That when our Adverſaries find a text of an antient Author, which ſeems to favour them, they ſet it out with great ſhew and noiſe, and with a little meat they make three diſhes, repeating the ſame text a hundred times over, as Cardinal du Perron doth. But when they meet in Antiquity with ſomething that diſpleaſeth them, they make no difficulty to condemn whole Councils, yea and the Univerſal, and to find fault with their Canons. It is certain that of all the Canons made in that Council, this was that which was eſtabliſht with moſt ſolemnity and authority, ſeeing that it was more examined and debated then any, and that after the hearing and weighing of all the oppoſitions, it was approved and confirmed by the Council, and practiſed in the following ages. But let us ſuppoſe that in the paſſing of that Canon, all the requiſite forms were not practiſed. Yet this remains, that above ſix hundred Biſhops approved this Canon, yea thoſe whoſe dignity was moſt imbezelled by it. If you will not take the votes of thoſe Biſhops as ſuffrages pronounced in an Univerſal Council: Yet thoſe Biſhops are ſix hundred Fathers, and ſo many particular witneſſes, more credible then the Biſhop of Rome, who was a party, and cannot be Judge in his own cauſe. Neither would he have been ſo bold as to contradict an Univerſal Council approved by the Emperour, and by all the Biſhops, his own Legats only excepted, if the Roman Empire had kept its former vigour in Italy, and in the other Weſtern Provinces. But it was the time when the Occidental Empire was falling, and at the laſt gaſp. Valentinian who ſtill kept the name of the Empire in Italy, being rather a monſter then a man, and a ſhadow, then an Emperour: with whom the Empire fell in the Weſt ſoon after. Be ſure that if Leo Biſhop of Rome and his ſucceſſors had been ſubject to the Roman Emperours reigning at Conſtantinople, as they had been untill the time of Honorius, Uncle to this Valentinian, they could never have had the boldneſs to contradict a decree ſo ſolemnly eſtabliſhed.
How weakly did thoſe Legats of the Roman Biſhop plead their Maſters cauſe againſt that Canon, whereby the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is made equal unto that of Rome in all things, even in the Eccleſiaſtical, as it is related in the ſixteenth Action of that Council? The queſtion being of the primacy of the Biſhop of Rome in that ſolemn Aſſembly, then or never thoſe Legats ought to have alledged thoſe texts of the Goſpel, which are uſed in our days for that end, Thou art Peter, &c. And Feed my ſheep. But that they do not: For the Council would have derided thoſe proofs. They grounded themſelves only upon a Canon of Nice, which they falſified, but ſo groſly, that the falſhood was preſently manifeſted.