The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 6 · Chapter 7 – Chapter 8
CHAP. 7. Notes upon the forty eighth and forty ninth Chapters of the firſt Book of Cardinal du Perron. His ignorance in Greek.
THe forty eighth Chapter of M. du Perron treats of the order and diſtinction of the Councils of Carthage. All that Chapter is imployed to diſpute againſt Cardinal Baronius, and to ſhew that Baronius miſreckoned himſelf in the ſupputation of times, and in the diſtinction and order of the Councils of Carthage, and to muſter up his exact knowledge in Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory: which he doth with ſuch a tedious diligence, that I have much ado to perſwade my ſelf, that any Reader can obtain of his Patience to read that Chapter to the end. As for our part, it is nothing to us which of theſe two Cardinals ought to be believed; for that Diſpute concerns not our Controverſies.
The ſame I ſay of the XLIX. Chapter, where he contends with the Grecians, and with ſome Authors of the Roman Church, which hold that the Council of Africa is a Council by it ſelf; as alſo in the Tomes of the Councils, that Council is put in its order, having a hundred Canons in the Latin Tomes, and a hundred thirty five in the collection made by the Grecians. But the Cardinal maintaineth that it is a Rapſody compiled out of many Councils by ſome African Canoniſt, and perhaps he is in the right for that. But that is nothing to our controverſie. Wherefore we leave thoſe two Chapters unanſwered, and let him alone diſputing with men of his own Church.
Only we will obſerve that in that African Council the ſixth Canon is ſuch; (a)Ʋt primae ſ…dis Epiſcopus non appelletur Princeps ſacerdotum aut ſummus ſacerdos, aut aliqu…d ejuſmod…, ſed tantum p…imae ſedis Epiſcopus.Let not the Biſhop of the firſt See be called Prince of Biſhops, or Sovereign Biſhop, or ſome ſuch name, but only the Biſhop of the firſt See; Which order, purpoſely made to keep in modeſty the Primates of Africa which took proud titles, yet reflects upon the Biſhop of Rome, whoſe ambition theſe Fathers laboured to reſtrain.
The ſame Council in the 4. Canon decreeth that in the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, nothing be offered but bread and wine mingled with water. Which Canon is ſet down in more expreſs terms; in the(b)Pag. 418. foreign. 37. Canon of the Code of the African Church in theſe words; That nothing be offered in the Sacraments but the body and blood of the Lord, as tho Lord himſelf hath delivered unto us, that is, bread and wine mingled with water. Where theſe Fathers declare that by theſe words, the body and the blood of the Lord in the Euchariſt, bread and wine muſt be underſtood. And the ſame Canon repeated in the ſame words in the Council of Trull, Can. 32. But in the Latin copies theſe laſt words, That is bread and wine, have been maliciouſly pared away, becauſe they overthrow tranſubſtantiation.
I will alſo obſerve by the way, that the Cardinal in the ſame 49 ch. tranſlates foreign ſtudious, taking foreign for foreign. For foreign ſignifies not ſtudioſus, but expetitus & quod ſtudioſe appetitur; whence comes foreign and foreign, deſired by every one, and worthy to be deſired.
CHAP. 8. Of St. Auſtin Biſhop of Bona in Africa. Whither he did acknowledge the Biſhop of Rome Head of the Ʋniverſal Church. And what was in his time the order and dignity of Patriarks, and Apoſtolick Sees.
IN that time St. Auſtin lived, a man of holy life, and of great learning. In whoſe writings a great humility and meekneſs is ſhining; who in his Controverſie with Hierom ſheweth as much charity and patience, as Hierom doth choler and impatience, although Auſtin had the right on his ſide. Whoſoever hath carefully peruſed this Author, will acknowledge that he was not ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome; and that in thoſe days the Pope had no rule over the Church of Africa, nor over the Univerſal Church.
This is that St. Auſtin, who being in the Milevitan Council, made the Canon wherein the tranſmarine Appeals, that is, to the Biſhop of Rome, are forbidden upon pain of excommunication; Theſe are the words, Whoſoever ſhall appeal beyond the Sea, let him not be received by any in Africa to the Communion.
This is that ſame Auſtin, who hath aſſiſted in all or moſt Councils of Africa held under Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage. In the ſixth of which the prohibition of the Appeals to Rome was reiterated, and the Biſhops of Africa writ Letters to Celeſtinus Biſhop of Rome, See theſe Letters in the 6. …h. of this preſent book.warning him that thereafter he ſhould not receive the Appeals of Prieſts, Biſhops and other Clarks of Africa; and that he ſhould ſend no more Legats, nor executing Commiſſioners into Africa, and that he ſhould not bring the pride of the world into the Church: And that the Canons which he produced by his Legats as Canons of Nice, that by vertue of them he might draw to himſelf the Appeals of Africa, were falſe and ſuppoſititious. It is true, that the name of Auſtin is not among the ſubſcriptions to that Epiſtle; but that hinders not but that he was preſent at that Council; for ſeldom would all the Biſhops put all their names to the Epiſtles of a Council. And though he had been abſent from that ſixth Council, yet the Council was purpoſely aſſembled to confirm the Canon of the Milevitan Council made by Auſtin about thoſe Appeals. And ſeeing this fi…t Council repreſented all the African Churches, it is without all doubt that … ſubject to the orders made in the ſame, and did approve them.
… …at Auſtin, who by the judgement of Pope Bonifacius the II. dyed out of the communion of the Roman Church, for riſing againſt the Church of Rome by the Devils inſtigation: For theſe are the words of Bonifacius in the forealledged Epiſtle; Aurelius with his fellows began in the time of our predeceſſors Bonifacius and Celeſtinus, to grow proud againſt the Church of Rome by the Devils inſtigation. Now Auſtin was one of the fellows of Aurelius, and he that made the Canon againſt the Appeals to Rome. That which made that Epiſtle of Bonifacius dubious, is, that in the title Eulalius is called Biſhop of Alexandria, whereas he was Biſhop of Theſſalonica, as we ſhewed before. It is true, that between Auſtins time and this Bonifacius, many godly men lived in Africa, who ſuffered Martyrdom, and ſpake honourably of the Church of Rome: For the Biſhops of Rome that lived in that interval, bore with patience the cenſure of the Africans, and did not take it ſo hainouſly as this Bonifacius. Howſoever, we had that Epiſtle from our adverſaries, who have inſerted it in the Decretal Epiſtles of the Popes. And it is alledged in the Roman Decree, in the 89. Diſtinction(a)Diſt. 89. Can. Ad hoc..
It is the ſame Auſtin, who in the firſt book againſt Julian, ch. 2. ſaith that Julian being condemned by(b)Non eſt ergo cur provoces ad Orientis An…iſtites, cum & ipſi utique Chriſtiani ſint, & utriuſque partis terrarum fides una ſit. Innocent Biſhop of Rome, appealed to the Oriental Churches. Then or never the Biſhop of Rome ſhould have condemned Julian for appealing from the Soveraign Head of the Univerſal Church to inferiour judges ſubject to the Roman Pope. But Auſtin ſaith no ſuch thing, but ſaith only that in vain he had appeal'd to the Oriental Churches, ſeeing that they agreed with the Occidental, and held the ſame faith.
It is the ſame Auſtin who in ſo many places, as in the 162. and 166. Epiſtles, in the book of the unity of the Church, ch. 16. and in the firſt book againſt Julian, ch. 2. relates how the Donatiſts condemned by Melchiades Biſhop of Rome, and by his aſſociates, had their recourſe to the Emperor Conſtantin, who would have the cauſe to be reviſed by other Judges; and commanded that a Synod ſhould meet at Arles, where the judgement of Melchiades was examined: who complained not that the dignity of his See was wronged by ſubjecting his judgement to the judgement of a particular Council, convocated by another then himſelf. That action of Conſtantin is very ſharply condemned by Cardinal du Perron, ſo far as to ſay that it was done againſt all order, and to taxe the Emperors Decree of irregularity and nullity; whereas Auſtin relates that action of Conſtantin with praiſe and approbation. For in that 162. Epiſtle, he ſaith, that(c)Ac non Imperator ita quaeri juſſerit, ad cujus curam, de qua rationem Deo redditurus eſſet, res illa maxima pertinebat? &c. Si autem criminis non est provocare ad Imperatorem, non eſt criminis audiri ab Imperatore. the buſineſs belonged chiefly to the Emperors care, of which he was to give an account unto God. And that if it be not a crime to appeal to the Emperor, it was not a crime to be heard by the Emperor.
It is the ſame Auſtin, who in the Epiſtle 162. ſaith that Cecilianus and the Donatiſts after the judgement of the Africans,(d)Reſtabat utique ut Epiſcopi tranſmarini, quae pars maxima diffundebatur Eccleſiae Catholicae, de Africanorum collegarum diſſenſionibus judicarent. might reſerve the whole judgement of their cauſe to the Apoſtolical Churches: And(e)Millia quippe collegarum tranſmarina reſtabant, ubi apparebat eos judicari poſſe qui videbantur Africanos vel Numidas habere ſuſpectos. And a little before, De collegis agebatur, qui poſſent aliorum collegarum judicio, praeſertim Apoſtolicarum Eccleſiarum, cauſam ſuam integram reſervare. that there were yet thouſands of tranſmarine Biſhops where they might be judged. The ſame he ſaith in the book of the unity of the Church, ch. 2. He believed then that Cecilianus and the Donatiſts might appeal to others then the Biſhop of Rome.
It is the ſame Auſtin, who in the 118. Epiſtle to Januarius, teacheth that in his time(f)Cum Romam venio, jejuno ſabbatho; cum hic ſum, non jejuno. the Church of Rome faſted upon Saturday; but that the Church of Milan did not faſt on that day; a certain proof that the Church of Milan was not ſubject unto the Roman. In which cuſtom the Church of Milan followed the judgement of St. Ignatius, who in his Epiſtle to the Philippians, ſaith that whoſo faſteth on the Lords day, or upon Saturday, one only excepted, is a murtherer of Jeſus Chriſt. And in the(g)foreign. 64. Canon of the Apoſtles, which expreſly forbiddeth to faſt upon thoſe two days: And the Greek Churches that ſince that time aſſembled in the Palace of Trull at Conſtantinople, in Council, condemned the Roman Church by name for faſting upon Saturday, as Caſſianus witneſſeth; who in the 10. ch. of the 3. book, blameth the Roman Church for faſting upon Saturday. The ſame Caſſian in the 10. Collation, ch. 2. ſaith that the Egyptians and Lybians celebrated the Theophania, or Chriſts birth upon the ſixth of January. An evident proof that the Church of Egypt was not ſubject unto the Roman. And that one may not ſay that the Roman Church ſuffered that diverſity of obſervations about faſting as a thing indifferent, Innocent the I. who lived in Auſtins time, in his Epiſtle to Decennius, ch. 4. doth expreſly enjoyn faſting upon Saturday;(h)Sabbatho eſſe jejunandum ratio evidentiſſima demonſtrat. Et ibidem, Dementis eſt bidui agere conſuetudinem Sabbatho praetermiſſo. ſaith it is madneſs to have another opinion. But the Church of Milan did not change her cuſtom for that, and would not ſubmit to the conſtitution of the Roman Biſhops. See Socrates in the 5. book of his Hiſtory, ch. 21. and Zozomenus book 7. ch. 19. about the ſeveral cuſtoms then obſerved in the Churches of the Roman Empire.
Whoſoever hath read Auſtins life written by Poſſidonius, and whoſo is acquainted with Auſtins writings, knows that this holy man did not come to Epiſcopacy by the means without which none in theſe times can be made a Biſhop in the Roman Church; For he was not promoted to that degree by the approbation of the Biſhop of Rome; He took no Letters of inveſtiture from the Pope; He paid no Annates for his reception; He took no Oath of Allegiance to the Pope in his Ordination, as all Biſhops of this age do in the Roman Church, who in their reception take that abominable Oath which is inſerted in the Roman Pontifical, whereby they promiſe not to preach the word of God faithfully according to the holy Scriptures, and ſpeak neither good nor evil of God; but ſwear only to be faithful and obedient to the Pope, to maintain his rights, and defend his authority with all their power; and to diſpoſe of no Eccleſiaſtical goods without his leave. That tyranny was not known in Auſtins time, as alſo none ſpake in his days of kiſſing the Popes feet, or of beſtowing adoration upon him, or of going to Rome to gain pardons, or of reſerved caſes to the Papal See, or of the Popes authority to depoſe Kings, and draw ſouls out of Purgatory, or of the Popes priviledge to be unerring in the faith, or of the triple Crown of his Holineſs. Neither did Auſtin ever beg of the Pope any Bulls of indulgence for his Town of Hippona, that he might thereby draw the peoples contributions. He was not afraid of a lapſe to be thundered out from Rome upon his livings; and after his death he was not Canonized by the Colledge of the Roman Cardinals; for then the world had not heard either of Cardinals or of Canonization.
Indeed Auſtin according to his wonted meekneſs and humility, ſpeaks of the Biſhop of Rome with reſpect. For both the Church and the Biſhop of Rome (though he ſtyled himſelf Biſhop of Rome onelyonly, not the Head of the Univerſal Church) were very much reſpected by reaſon of the dignity of the City, which was the Capital of that great Empire, and the moſt eminent and flouriſhing of the world; to which therefore there was a reſort from all parts. Beſides it was the common belief that St. Peter had founded the Church of Rome, and that the Biſhop of Rome was his ſucceſſour, though not in the Apoſtleſhip, yet in the Epiſcopacy over that City. In the ſame manner the Patriarch of Antioch and that of Alexandria ſaid themſelves to be ſucceſſours to the ſame Apoſtle; and the Patriarch of Jeruſalem called himſelf ſucceſſour of St. James. Wherefore all theſe Churches were called Apoſtolical Churches, & the Sees of the Biſhops of thoſe Churches, Apoſtolick Sees. Among which the Biſhop of Rome was the firſt in order, by reaſon of the dignity of the City, yet without any power of juriſdiction over his fellows. All that only within the precincts of the Roman Empire; For the Churches without that verge did not acknowledge thoſe Patriarks at all, and ſent no Deputies to the Councils within the Empire of Rome; and had no communication with the Biſhop of Rome, ſo far were they from being ſubject unto him.
Now that order among the Patriarks was eſtabliſhed by an Ordinance from the Emperors, and by the conſtitution of Councils, but was not held to be of Divine right, or grounded in the word of God. Wherefore alſo the order was ſometimes altered; and the Patriark of Conſtantinople, who was the laſt, was made the ſecond by the Council of Chalcedon, and by the Imperial Laws, without the conſent of the Biſhop of Rome: And ſometimes thoſe Imperial Laws would prefer the Biſhop of Conſtantinople before that of Rome, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.
That the precedence of the Biſhop of Rome was without power of juriſdiction over the other Patriarks, beſides the experience and ſo many examples which we have brought, and will bring again, we have a Law of Juſtinian, in the 31. Novell. ch. 2. which ſpeaks thus, We decree according to the definitions of the four Councils, that the moſt holy Pope of the old Rome be the firſt of Biſhops; and that the moſt high Archbiſhop of Conſtantinople, which is the new Rome, have the ſecond place: But mark the title of that Law, De ordine ſedendi Patriarcharum, Of the order of ſitting of Patriarchs. Precedence and power of juriſdiction are ſeveral things: The one is foreign, the other foreign. Thus Chriſtian Kings have or ought to have ſome order, how they muſt go or ſit when they or their Embaſſadors meet, although none of them have power over the others.
Still the Emperors reſerved to themſelves the power of convocating Councils; and would not ſuffer any to be choſen Patriarch without their leave and conſent, and ſet limits unto Patriarchs, and defined what Provinces muſt belong to every Patriarchat. Thus in Auſtins time, in the year of our Lord 421. Theodoſius the ſecond made a Law, whereby he decreed that Illyricum which is now Slavonia, ſhould belong to the juriſdiction of the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, notwithſtanding the pretences of the Biſhop of Rome. (i)Lege 6. Cod. de Sacroſ. Eccleſiis. Et Lege 45. de Epiſ. & Clericis Cod. Theodoſ. Omni innovatione ceſſante, vetuſtate, &c.All innovation ceaſing, we command that the antiquity and the antient Eccleſiaſtical Canons which hitherto have been obſerved, be obſerved over all the Provinces of Illyricum. And if ſome difference ariſe, it ſhall not be reſerved to the ſacred judgement of the ſacerdotal Aſſembly, without the knowledge of the moſt Reverend Prelat of the Church of Conſtantinople, which enjoyeth the ſame prerogative as the antient Rome. That Emperor conformably to the conſtitution of the Council of Chalcedon, (of which anon) would have the Biſhop of Conſtantinople to be equal in all things to the Biſhop of Rome. But of thoſe Imperial Laws, and how the Emperors have ſometimes raiſed the Biſhop of Rome above that of Conſtantinople, ſometimes that of Conſtantinople above that of Rome, we ſhall ſpeak hereafter.