The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 27 – Chapter 28
CHAP. 27. Anſwer to the nullities which M. du Perron brings againſt this Canon of Chalcedon.
CArdinal du Perron bends all his ſtrength to diſmount this Canon. He chargeth it with no fewer then thirteen nullities, each of which deſerveth a daſh of our pen.
He ſaith 1. That this Canon hath been contrived and ſuggeſted by the Clarks of Conſtantinople. 2. At an undue hour. 3. In the abſence of the Judges and Patriarchs, but that of Antioch. 4. That they that ſigned it, did it againſt their will. To all theſe I anſwer in one word, That theſe nullities, if there was any, were all taken off the next day, when in the preſence of the Judges, and of the Popes Legats, and of all the Council, the buſineſs was debated, and the Canon approved and ratified by the Council; all crying with one voice, that they had ſigned it with their good will, and unconſtrained. And it is like that the Legats of Leo abſented themſelves purpoſely when that buſineſs was moved, that they might proteſt againſt it of nullity. But the buſineſs was reſumed in their preſence, and they were condemned notwithſtanding their proteſtations. Hereby alſo the ſixth nullity is confuted, that the Officers of Conſtantinople had fore-ſtalled the liberty of the Aſſembly, ſince all the Biſhops that had already approved that Canon, unanimouſly proteſted, that neither force nor fear had moved them to it; but that they had freely ſpoken their judgement. That which he ſaith of the abſence of the Patriarchs, is both falſe and ridiculous. For the Patriarch of Rome had his Legats in that Council, who might be preſent when they had a mind to it. Anatolius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Maximus of Antioch were preſent. The See of Alexandria was vacant, and had not yet any Patriarch ſince the depoſition of Dioſcorus, as(a)Pag. 260. M. du Perron acknowledgeth: It is then an error to reckon the Patriarch of Alexandria among the abſent.
He reckons for the fifth nullity, that the Clarks of Conſtantinople in the writing of this Canon committed two falſifications. The one, that they added the word equal, which was not in the(b)Conc. Conſtantinop. 1. Can. 3. foreign. third Canon of the firſt Council of Conſtantinople: The other, that they added the clauſe that commands that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople ordain the Metropolitans of Pontus, Aſia, and Thracia. But he was in an error if he thought that this Canon of Chalcedon was only a repetition of the third Canon of the firſt Council of Conſtantinople, for it was alſo made both to expound and to amplifie the ſame. Adding is not falſifying, when they that add do it with authority.
He brings for the ſeventh nullity, that Euſebius Biſhop of Dorylea ſurprized the Council, falſly affirming that he had heard from the mouth of Leo himſelf, that he approved this Canon. But of that Euſebius, partner of the ſufferings of Flavianus, the zeal and piety is commended, and he is more credible then Leo, who being acted by his own intereſt, and having ſince better conſidered what prejudice he might receive by that Canon, did alter his opinion. But howſoever, it was not upon the teſtimony of that Euſebius that the Council grounded his deciſion.
The eighth, ninth and tenth nullities are, that the Legats of Leo did oppoſe it, and proteſt againſt it; That Leo hath aboliſht and made void that Canon, and that Anatolius concealed it from the Council, detaining the letters of Leo. I anſwer, that theſe Legats were condemned, and the Council held not their oppoſition conſiderable. Neither is Leo's judgement of any weight in this caſe, for he is here a party, and ſpeaks for his own intereſt. He hath indeed declared that this Canon diſpleaſed him, but to abrogate and diſanull it, it was beyond his power. The Biſhops of Rome at that time had not climbed yet to that degree of pride, to boaſt that they were above Univerſal Councils. Wherefore alſo that Canon remained firm, and was practiſed in the following ages, notwithſtanding the oppoſition of the Roman Pope, as Liberatus ſaith in his ch. 13. As for the concealment of Leo's letters by Anatolius, Leo complains of it in his Epiſtles to Marcianus. But whether that expoſtulation be true or falſe, it doth not invalid that Canon, which ſo much grieveth our adverſaries. For this Council was ſufficiently inſtructed of the intention of Leo, by the inſtructions of his Legats, and by their oppoſition, and had no need of Leo's letters to learn his intentions. And if thoſe letters were written to Anatolius, not to the Council, Anatolius was not bound to read them to the Council.
For the eleventh nullity he adds, that Anatolius did himſelf wave thoſe priviledges that were granted to him by this Canon. But he brings no witneſs for that but Leo himſelf, who may juſtly be ſuſpected as a party too much intereſſed in that cauſe, to give an impartial teſtimony. Eſpecially ſeeing that the Biſhops of Rome of that time uſed to expound the letters of friendſhip that were written to them as ſo many Acts of ſubmiſſion, and the intreaties of thoſe that deſired to live with them in concord, as confeſſions of perſons that crave pardon: Alſo that they uſed to give what they cannot take away; to forgive thoſe whom they cannot puniſh; and to take from a man that which he hath already loſt. Of which this Anatolius will give us a fair example, as we ſhall ſee hereafter. So much I will ſay for Anatolius, that though he would have waved that priviledge, he could not have done it: For that priviledge was not perſonal nor particularly conferred upon the perſon of Anatolius, but upon the Church and Patriarchal See of Conſtantinople; and that, in conſideration of the Emperor and the Capital City of the Empire: ſo that others greater then Anatolius had an intereſt in it.
The Cardinals twelfth nullity, is, that this Canon was falſly inſerted in the Catalogue of the Canons of Chalcedon, and that a time was, that it was not in the Acts. Wherein he confutes himſelf, for a Canon muſt be put among the Canons, not within the Acts, which muſt be ſeparated from the Canons. Wherefore alſo that Canon is found in all the Editions of the ſaid Canons that I have ſeen. It is in Zonaras, in Balſamon, in Harmenopolus, in the Latin Tomes of the Councils printed by our adverſaries, in the Greek Canons ſet forth by du Tillet, in the Nomocanon of the Greek Churches publiſht by the learned Juſtellus: And that Canon is repeated in the ſame words in the ſixth Council aſſembled again at Trull, and inſerted in the Roman Decree, in the Canon Renovantes, in the two and twentieth diſtinction. Truly hardly in all antiquity can any thing be found more authentical, or any Canon eſtabliſht with better forms, or by a more ſolemn Aſſembly then this Canon. And I am confident that this objection of the Cardinal, that this Canon was not at the firſt in the Acts of the Council, is an invention of his own, forged againſt his conſcience.
For it is abuſing the Reader to ſend him (as the Cardinal doth) to a Manuſcript of the Library of Queen Catherine de Medicis, and to Dionyſius Parvus a Roman Abbot, who ſaith that this Council made but twenty ſeven Canons. That Abbot being at Rome, followed the inclinations of the Church of Rome, to which this Canon was alwayes very odious. Gratian, who hath compiled the Roman Decree, ſeeing that a Canon ſo publick and ſo authentical could not be ſuppreſt, hath inſerted it in the body of the Decrees, but with the moſt perfidious and bold falſifications that can be imagined. For whereas this Canon equalleth Constantinople with Rome in all things, even in the Eccleſiaſtical: Gratian hath put, but not in Eccleſiaſtical things; Sed non in Eccleſiaſticis, in ſtead of, Etiam in Eccleſiaſticis. And that corruption hath remained ſo many ages in a book which contains the Rules and Decrees of the Roman Church, and is as it were the Bible of the Roman Clergy, and the text of Lectures in the Schools of Canon-law.
Yet that we may deal kindly with the Cardinal, let us ſuppoſe that in the eſtabliſhing of that Canon all the forms requiſite were not obſerved, and that it was not a Canon of a Council. Yet this remains, that it is the voyce of above ſix hundred Biſhops, unanimouſly declaring their ſenſe. If they may not be conſidered as ſpeaking together, this cannot be denyed them, that they were ſo many ſingle witneſſes, and every one of them more credible then the Biſhop of Rome, who is a party in this cauſe, and who already in that time did not want ambition.
Alſo the Reader may obſerve, that when our adverſaries find in an antient Author ſome ſentence that ſeems to favour them, they make great trophies with it, and ſound the Trumpet before it; But if they find in Antiquity ſomething contrary to the Popes dignity, they fear not to tread Univerſal Councils under their feet, and to oppoſe the conſent of ſix hundred Fathers ſpeaking in a Council; preſuming to be wiſer then their Pope Gregory the firſt, who in the 24. Epiſtle of the 1. book declareth, that he receiveth this Council of Chalcedon with the like reverence as the Holy Goſpel.
CHAP. 28. A Confutation of the Expoſition which M. du Perron giveth to the Canon of the Council of Chalcedon.
TO invalid the ſtrength of this Canon, M. du Perron ſaith that Anatolius by this Canon pretended not to be equal unto the Pope in relation to the Pope, but under the Pope; and to have only the ſame priviledges over the other Patriarchs, as the Pope had over him and them: and that for all this he acknowledged himſelf inferiour and ſubject unto the Pope.
But the words of the Canon cannot bear that interpretation; for that Canon commands without exception that the See of Conſtantinople be equal unto that of Rome in Eccleſiaſtical things. The ſame is confuted by the example of the equality in civil things, upon which this Canon groundeth the equality in Eccleſiaſtical things, decreeing that there be between Rome and Conſtantinople an equality as well in the Eccleſiaſtical as in the Civil: as then Conſtantinople was not ſubject unto Rome in the Civil, although it was ſecond in order; ſo this Council decreeth that the Church of Conſtantinople may not be ſubject to that of Rome, although Rome be the firſt in order.
But the Cardinals ſhift is full of abſurdity, and of things inconſiſtent, when he ſaith that by this Canon Anatolius pretended to be equal unto the Pope, yet under the Pope: he that is under another is not equal to him. With the like abſurdity, he ſaith that by this Canon Anatolius pretended not to have the ſame power over the other Patriarchs as the Pope had over him and them: Certainly it is impoſſible that the Subject of a Monarchy have the ſame power over the other Subjects, as that which the Soveraign hath over him: for the Soveraign can reverſe the judgements of ſuch a one, and take away or diminiſh his power; ſuch a Subject ſhould be as much a King over the other Subjects, as the King is over him. Had one the like power over the French as the King of France, he ſhould not be the Kings Subject; for if the King could not puniſh him, and deprive him of life or dignity, by that ſubjection his power ſhould be much diminiſhed, and he could not execute all his will. I make no doubt, but that as the Cardinal giving that interpretation ſpake againſt common ſenſe, he ſpake alſo againſt his own ſenſe.