The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 32 – Controversy 1
CHAP. 32. A multitude of falſifications of Cardinal du Perron.
THE Cardinals book which every where ſwarmeth with forgeries and corruptions, abounds in that ware, eſpecially about the queſtions of the Church, and of the Popes Primacy. There chiefly he exerciſeth his faculty. We have ſhewed many of them, which may ſerve for a ſcantling to judge of the whole piece; for if I would have examined them all, there had been need of a volume apart; I will mark here a few more.
In the ſecond Obſervation, ch. 2. he ſaith that the Catholick Church in the Council of Nice had made a Law, commanding the obſervation of Eaſter upon the Lords day after the fourteenth Moon of March, upon pain of anathema; and proves it by the teſtimony of Socrates in the 5. book ch. 21. foreign foreign, that is, that the Council of Nice denounced excommunication to the Quartodecimani of Aſia. If the Reader will take the pains to conſult the place, he ſhall find that Socrates in theſe words ſpeaks not of the Council of Nice, but of Victor Biſhop of Rome. The Cardinal falſly attributeth to the Council of Nice that which was done by Victor, and makes Socrates to ſpeak contrary to his mind.
In the 2. ch. of his 3. book, pag. 774. to prove that we muſt conſult the Church rather then the Law of God, he corrupts a text of Deut. 18. The Lord will raiſe Prophets unto you, you ſhall hear them. But there is according to the Hebrew, yea according to the Roman vulgar verſion,(a)Prophetā de gente tua & de fratribus tuis ſicut me ſuſcitabit tibi Dominus Deus tuus, ipſum audies. The Lord thy God ſhall raiſe up a Prophet unto thee, from the midſt of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him you ſhall hearken. That this Prophet is Chriſt, Steven teacheth it, Act. 37. The Prophet knew well enough, that if it be here ſpoken of one Prophet only, who is Chriſt, that text cannot ſerve to ſend the people to the Paſtors of the Church to learn of them the unwritten Word. Therefore he corrupted the text to make it ſerve his turn.
In the ſame place he makes Calvin to ſay that which he never thought on. He ſaith that Calvin in his Comment upon the Pentateuch expounds that text, Deut. 18. of ſending the people from the Law to the Prophets. This ſhall not be found in Calvin. And though Calvin had ſaid, that in that text God ſends us from the Law to the Prophets, yet we ought not thereby to underſtand, that God ſends us back to the Prophets to learn the traditions and an unwritten Word from them, but to learn the expoſition of the Law by the Law it ſelf.
Chriſt Matth. 22. proveth the immortality of the ſoul, and the reſurrection unto the Sadduces, by theſe words of God himſelf, Exod. 3. I am the God of Abraham, of Iſaac, and of Jacob, for (ſaith Chriſt) God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. But the Cardinal, pag. 775. diſputes againſt Chriſt, and brings many reaſons to prove, that there is neither reaſon nor conſequence in the proof that Chriſt brings. And to confirm his affirmation, he ſaith, that the Doctors of the Jews wondered at it, as at a new thing. A thing altogether falſe. For firſt, the Goſpel ſaith not that the Doctors,(b)Mat. 22.33. foreign. but the multitudes were aſtoniſhed at his doctrine. Then it was the excellency of his doctrine, not the novelty, that the multitude did wonder at; as the Cardinal will make us believe.
In chap. 2. of the third book he makes Calvin to ſay, that ſuch as ſacrificed with another fire then that which was come down from heaven, were curſed, and quoteth in the Margin Calvins Comment upon 1 Cor. 10. Who ſo will conſult that place, ſhall find that falſe, and that Calvin ſaith no ſuch thing.
In chap. 25. of the firſt book he alledgeth the thirty ſeventh Epiſtle of book 2. of the Epiſtles of Gregory the firſt, where he makes him ſay, If one of the four Patriarchs had committed ſuch an Act, ſuch a diſobedience could not have paſt without a moſt grievous ſcandal. He tranſlateth contumaciam, diſobedience, whereas it ſignifieth obſtinacy to reſiſt. But the Cardinal would perſwade the world that Gregory pretended that other Patriarchs owed him obedience. Whereas Gregory himſelf in Epiſt. 30. of book 7. writing to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, acknowledgeth that he had no power at all to command him, as we have obſerved in the chapter before, and ſet down the words of Gregory.
In chap. 14. of the third book, to weaken a text of Hilary, Pag. 841.who ſaith upon Pſal. 132. That which is not contained in the book of the Law, we ought not ſo much as to be curious to know it. He ſaith that Hilary means, that ſuch things as are ſet forth in the quality of holy Scripture, and are not found in the body of Canonical Scriptures, ought to be rejected. For (ſaith he) it was queſtion of an Apocrypha, which ſaid, that the Angels coming to luſt after the daughters of men, would aſſemble in mount Hermon. The Cardinal would make the world believe that they againſt whom Hilary diſputeth in that place alledged that Apocrypha as a Canonical book: Which is a plain untruth, for Hilary ſaith nothing of that, and the queſtion in that place, is only whether that hiſtory be true, not whether the book whence it is taken be Canonical. Therefore the ſentence of Hilary diſputing for the perfection of Scripture remaineth firm, That which is not contained in Scripture, we ought not ſo much as to be curious to know it.
In chap. 34. the Cardinal falſly affirmeth that the title of Oecumenical or Univerſal Biſhop was offered to the Biſhop of Rome in the Council of Chalcedon. It is true that Gregory the firſt who lived about a hundred forty five years after that Council, boaſteth of that, and addeth that the Biſhop of Rome refuſed that title as arrogant, and robbing other Biſhops of their quality of Biſhop: For (ſaith he) if any be Univerſal Biſhop, the others are not Biſhops. But the contrary is ſeen by the twenty eighth Canon of that Council, in which, in ſpite of the Legats of Leo, it is decreed that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople be equal unto that of Rome in Eccleſiaſtical things, as thoſe two Cities were equal in the Civil. It is clearer then the day, that they that made that Canon, never had an intention to confer the Univerſal Soveraignty upon the Biſhop of Rome; much leſs to give him a title whereby they ſhould deveſt themſelves of their Epiſcopal Office. And if they offered that title to the Biſhop of Rome, it ſhews that he had it not before: And that by decreeing that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople ſhould be equal unto the Biſhop of Rome, they decreed alſo that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople ſhould be called Oecumenical or Univerſal. Of that nothing at all is found in the place quoted by the Cardinal, which is the(c)See the ſecond Tome of the Councils in the third Action of the Council of Chalcedon in the Edition of Collen an. 1567. third Action of the Council of Chalcedon, in the requeſt of the Clergy of Alexandria. In all the Tomes of Councils that ever I ſaw, I find no ſuch requeſt. And though it might be found there, who knows not how much thoſe Acts are falſified, and that the Greek Acts agree very ill with the Latin? Yet let us ſuppoſe that the Clergy of Alexandria deferred that title to the Biſhop of Rome: Muſt the titles which ſome private perſons defer to the Biſhops of Rome, be taken for an Ordinance of an Univerſal Council? This I ſay, becauſe in the Acts of the ſaid Council ſome Epiſtles are found, of ſome private men, that give that title to the Biſhop of Rome. But I find alſo that the Council of Conſtantinople, held under the Emperour Juſtinian, (d)Act. 2. Dilecto fratri Tharaſio Generale Patriarchae Adrianus, &c.gives many times the ſame title to Menas Patriarch of Conſtantinople; And that the ſame Emperour in the Law to Euphemius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, ſtileth the ſaid Epiphanius Oecumenical Patriarch. And before him Juſtin giveth the ſame title to John Patriarch of Conſtantinople. What more? In the ſecond Council of Nice, where Tharaſius Patriarch of Conſtantinople did preſide, there is an Epiſtle of Adrian Biſhop of Rome to the ſame Tharaſius, with this title, To my well beloved brother Tharaſius General Patriarch, &c.
In the ſame(e)Pag. 246. & 247. chapter he alledgeth the promiſe which Anthimus Patriarch of Conſtantinople made in his reception, to do all that the Soveraign Pope of the great Rome ſhould decree: but he cuts off the head of that ſentence, which is(f)foreign. Anthimus uſing fraudulent words, promiſed to do all, &c. So then Anthimus did not ſpeak in earneſt: But he was forced to make that promiſe by the Emperour, who for ſome conſiderations laboured to depreſs the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople, who ſince the time of Acacius had bearded the Emperour, and over-maſtered and abuſed the Biſhops of Rome. Note, that the Cardinal tranſlates the word foreign to his advantage, decreeing, inſtead of ſuggeſting, adviſing, or repreſenting.
Pag. 282.In chap. 35. of book 1. he ſaith that Athanaſius in the ſecond Apology puts Hoſius, Vito and Vincentius in the ſame place: which is falſe, ſince by the ſame place, he underſtands the ſame rank. For that is the queſtion. Or if by the ſame place, he underſtands the ſame line: one may ſay that the Scripture puts God and the Devil in the ſame place, by naming them in the ſame line.
In the following page he makes Photius to ſay in the Treatiſe of the Synods, With Vito and Vincentius was joyned Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba. That Treatiſe of the ſeven Councils compoſed by Photius is found in the beginning of the firſt Tome of the Councils; which whoſoever will conſult, ſhall find that there is no mention at all of Hoſius. But he ſhall find theſe words in the firſt chapter, where he ſpeaks of the Council of Nice, (g)Alexand. &c. praeſidebat.Alexander was Preſident there, who held the See of Conſtantinople, and Sylveſter, &c.
Pag. 308.In chap. 39. of book 1. he falſly relateth the Hiſtory of Pope Vigilius. That Vigilius being but a Deacon, ſecretly treated with the Empreſs Juſtinians wife who promiſed him to make him Pope, if he would promiſe to embrace the opinon of the Eutychian hereticks, and by expreſs letters to confirm their faith, and condemn the Council of Chalcedon. To compaſs theſe ends Belizarius the Emperours Lieutenant in Italy, having got a promiſe from Vigilius of two hundred pound weight of gold, depoſed Sylverius, and baniſht him, and cauſed Vigilius to be elected Pope in his place. Vigilius fearing leſt that Sylverius ſhould be reſtored by the Emperour, obtained of Belizarius that Sylverius ſhould be put in his hands. And when he had him, he ſtarved him to death in priſon. Sylverius being dead, Vigilius fulfilled his promiſe, and writ letters to the Eutychian Biſhops. The title of the letters was, Vigilius to my Lords, and Chriſts, &c. And in theſe letters he openly declared himſelf an Eutychian, and denyed that Jeſus Chriſt had two natures.
That Hiſtory is related by Victor Tunenſis in his Chronicle, and by Liberatus Deacon of Carthage, in chap. 22. of his Breviary, where he puts very expreſly the death of Sylverius before theſe letters of Vigilius, whereby he declared himſelf an Eutychian. And Victor Tunenſis addeth, that he was for that reaſon excommunicated by the Biſhops of Africa aſſembled in Council.
But Cardinal du Perron, that it may not be believed that the Popes can fall into hereſie, would perſwade us that this Epiſtle, whereby Vigilius approveth hereſie, was written before the death of Sylverius, and that Sylverius at that time was not yet a lawful Biſhop, contradicting the two only hiſtorians that relate that hiſtory; Liberatus eſpecially, who ſpeaks thus,(h)Qui in Palmariam inſulam adductus ſub eorum cuſtodia defecit inedia. Vigilius autem per Antoninam Beliſarii conjugem impleus promiſſionem ſuam quam Auguſtae fecerat talem ſcripſit Epiſtolam, Dominis & Chriſtis Vigilius. Sylverius carried into the Ile of Palmaria, and being kept priſoner, died for want of meat. But Vigilius by the means of Antonina wife to Belizarius, fulfilling the promiſe made to the Empereſs, writ ſuch letters, Vigilius to my Lords, and Chriſts, &c. After theſe letters the Author makes no more mention of Sylverius, and of his death. But that which is moſt expreſs to diſcover the Cardinals error, is that Victor Tunenſis puts the ordination of Vigilius in the place of Sylverius, and the letters written by Vigilius in favour of the Eutychian hereſie, in the ſecond year after the Conſulat of Baſilius; But he ſaith that after that, in the tenth year after that Conſulat of Baſilius (that is eight or nine years after theſe letters written) Vigilius was excommunicated by the Biſhops of Africa. Now it is to be obſerved that ſince the coming of Sylverius to the Biſhoprick of Rome, to his death(i)See Platina in the life of Sylverius, where he ſaith that Sylverius was Pope but a year and five moneths. And Baron. an 540. §. 2. there is not two full years. Whence it is evident that the condemnation of Vigilius for being a favourer of hereſie, happened eight years after the death of Sylverius.
Sometimes our Cardinal will play the Philoſopher, as in chap. 34. of the firſt book,(k)Pag. 249. he ſaith that the Biſhops of the Council of Chalcedon underſtood not that the dignity of the City of Rome was the next, conjunct, and immediate cauſe of the Primacy of the Biſhop of Rome, but the antecedent, objective and remote cauſe. Children that have taſted the firſt elements of Philoſophy know that there is no cauſe but antecedent, whether it be near or remote; for alwayes the cauſes go before the effects, the efficient cauſes eſpecially, which are the matter in queſtion in this place. Yea, the final cauſes which are poſteriour as for the execution, are antecedent as for the intention. With the like abſurdity he ſpeaks of objective cauſes, for there are no objective cauſes, and theſe words have no ſenſe. If any cauſe might be called objective, it ſhould be the final, becauſe the agents aim at it; but the queſtion is not here of the final cauſe, but of the efficient.
It becomes him no better to play the Coſmographer, as when he ſaith in ch. 31. of book 1. that Idumea is ſeated towards the Weſt of the Meridional Judea; contradicting Scripture, which ſaith that the Mediterranean Sea is at the Weſt of Judea, as Numb. 32.6. As for the Weſtern border, you ſhall even have the great ſea for a border. And Joſh. 1.4. The great ſea towards the going down of the Sun ſhall be your coaſt. He hath little knowledge in the ſituation of Countreys, that knows not that the Weſt border of Judea is the Mediterranean Sea, not Idumea, which is meridional to Judea, yet ſo, that it bends a little Eaſtward. And this is ſo true, that in Hebrew the ſame(l)foreign word ſignifieth both the Weſt and the Sea: Look Northward, and Southward, and Eaſtward, and (m)The Engliſh verſion hath Weſtward.towards the Sea, that is, Weſtward: as alſo the vulgar Latin Bible (the only approved by the Council of Trent) tranſlateth it. And Exod. 10.19. The Lord turned a mighty ſtrong wind from the ſea. Both the Vulgar and the Engliſh verſion tranſlate a Weſtwind, See Iſa. 49.12. & Gen. 24.14. & Exod. 26.22. & Ezek. 48.17. & Joſ. 15.12. Sanctes Pagninus, a Monk of Luca, in his Lexicon upon the word foreign ſaith thus; foreign Mare, & Occidens, id eſt, plaga Occidentalis, eo quod mare magnum ſit ad plagam Occidentalem terrae Iſrael.
This Cardinal never made conſcience of feeding the people with falſe allegations and forged ſtories. Even in the ſolemn Aſſembly of the States ſitting at Paris an. 1615. he was not aſhamed in his Oration, to alledge Scripture falſly, to prove that the Pope can depoſe Kings.(n)That is ſeen in the Oration of this Cardinal publiſhed by himſelf. Samuel (ſaid he) depoſed Saul, or declared him depoſed. Again, The Prophet Ahija depoſed Roboam from the Royal right over the ten tribes. Again, The Prophet Elijah depoſed Ahab, becauſe he embraced the Religion of falſe Gods. Again, Azariah the Prieſt expelled King Uzziah from the converſation of the people, wherefore the adminiſtration of the Kingdom was taken from him. This Oration was ſent by our Cardinal to his Majeſty of great Brittain, who ſeeing both the Crown and the life of Kings ſubjected to the Popes pleaſure by that Oration, made an anſwer to it, and laid open his falſe dealing both in theſe and in other allegations. The Cardinal did quietly ſwallow that diſhonour, and made no anſwer, though he lived four years after the Kings anſwer.
Of his ignorance in Greek, I have brought forth many examples: to which I will add this. In the firſt chapter of his Treatiſe of the Sacrifice, whereas theſe words foreign ſignifie non amplius polluent, they ſhall pollute no more; he tranſlates, They ſhall ſmoke no more.