The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 30
CHAP. 30. Anſwer to the examples which Cardinal du Perron brings in the 34. ch. to prove, that notwithſtanding this Canon of Chalcedon, the Biſhops of Conſtantinople have been ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome.
Pag. 245.TO invalid this Canon which ſtrongly battereth the Papal See, the Cardinal brings ſome examples of the power and ſuperiority of the Biſhop of Rome over that of Conſtantinople.
He ſaith that Paul of Conſtantinople was reſtored to his See by Julius Biſhop of Rome, as Sozomenus ſaith. That Chryſoſtom Appealed by letters to Pope Innocent. That Flavianus appealed to Pope Leo. But we have ſhewed already that neither Paul nor Athanaſius were re-inveſted with their places by Julius: that his judgement had no effect; that Chryſoſtom never appealed to Innocent, and that the ſuperſcription of Chryſoſtoms letters to Innocent is falſe: Alſo that Flavianus appealed not unto Leo as to his Judge, but that he put into the hands of Leos Legats his appeal to the Council, beſeeching Leo that by his authority, and interceſſion with the Emperour, another Council ſhould be called, where his cauſe might be judged. Which Council Leo began preſently to deſire of the Emperour, but he was denied, for he undertook not the judgement of that buſineſs.
He adds the example of Anatolius himſelf, in whoſe favour this twenty eighth Canon of Chalcedon was made, which example the Cardinal ought to have concealed for the Popes credit. That Anatolius was unjuſtly, and unlawfully promoted to the Patriarchat of Conſtantinople by the falſe Council of Epheſus, and put in the place of Flavianus unjuſtly depoſed, and cruelly handled. That election being null, yet Leo ſeeing Anatolius ſupported by the Emperour, and knowing that all his efforts againſt Anatolius ſhould be vain, he approved that election as lawfull; and after, with a ridiculous arrogance writ to the Emperour Martianus, ſpeaking as if Anatolius held his place by his favour and approbation, ſaying(a)Leonis Epiſt. 32. ad Martianum. Satis ſit praedicto quod veſtrae pietatis auxilio & mei favoris aſſenſu Epiſcopatum tantae urbis oblinuit. Let it be enough for him, that by the help of your piety, and by the conſent of my favour he obtained the Biſhoprick of ſo great a City. It is not now that the Popes begin to give what they cannot take away, and to be gracious to thoſe whom they cannot oppreſs. Wherefore Anatolius was not moved with that: But without asking Leo's advice he eſtabliſhed a Patriarch in Antioch. About which Leo in the ſame Epiſtle to Martianus makes great complaints, but the Emperour did not regard them: Neither was the thing altered, or any amends made to Leo.
Anatolius was no more ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome, then Gennadius his immediate ſucceſſor in the Biſhoprick of Conſtantinople. This Gennadius who is reckoned among the Saints both by the Greek, and by the Latine Church, being informed that in the Roman Church the laying on of hands was conferred for mony, aſſembled a Council of the Biſhops of his Patriarchat, with whom he made a ſtrict decree againſt the traffick of Holy things: Which Decree, according to the care that the Patriarchs took of their fellow Patriarchs, he made known by letters unto Hilary Biſhop of Rome, that it might be received in all the Churches ſubject to the Roman Prelat. Theſe letters are found in the firſt Tome(b)Juris Graeca Romani tam Canonici quam Civilis à Leunclavio publicati, Tom. 1. pag. 187. foreign. of Greek-Roman Law, in which he ſaluteth thus the Biſhop of Rome, Gennadius and the Synod aſſembled in the Imperial City of Conſtantinople, to our companion in the Miniſtry of holy things, the moſt religious, &c. No higher title: And in the end of the Epiſtle he layeth upon him this Injunction. Let your Holineſs (ſaith he) take care with all diligence that theſe things be made known by copies tranſcribed to all the godly Biſhops that are ſubject unto you.
Here many things are to be obſerved: 1. That the Biſhop of Conſtantinople calls the Biſhop of Rome his companion. 2. That he ſignifieth the Decrees and Orders made by the Greek Church unto the Biſhop of Rome, (c)foreign.holding that the Biſhop of Rome is bound to obſerve them. 3. Above all it is obſervable that he ſends this Decree to the Biſhop of Rome, that he might notifie it to all the Biſhops ſubject unto the Roman Prelat. Gennadius could not more evidently declare that he and his Biſhops were not ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome. Elſe one might ſay that Gennadius required that this decree ſhould be ſignified to thoſe very men that had done it, and by conſequent to himſelf.
A few years after this Gennadius, came Acacius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, a man of great authority, who raiſed himſelf above the Biſhop of Rome, and uſed him as his inferiour, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.