18 INTRODUCTION. but seeing the historians who lived in St Chrysostom's own time,' and who write very carefully about him, do not mention any such thing; seeing that, being the first act in the kind, [it] must have been very notable, and have made a great noise; seeing that story does not suit with the tenor of proceedings reported by those most credible historians in that case; seeing that fact does no wise sort to the condition and way of those times; that report cannot be true, and it must be numbered among the many fabulous narrations devised by some wanton Greeks to set out the life of that excellent personage. The same pope also alleges St Gregory M[agnus] denouncing excommunication and " deprivation of honour to all kings, bishops, judges," &c., who should violate the privilege granted to the monas- tery of St Medard.' But this (as are many such privileges) is a rank forgery, unworthily imposed on Pope Gregory (that prudent, meek, and holy man), much to his wrong and disgrace; which I will not be at trouble to confute, having shown St Gregory to have been of another judgment and temper than to behave himself thus towards princes, and seeing that task is abundantly discharged by that very learned man, M. Launoy.3 Indeed (upon this occasion to digress a little farther), it does not seem to have been the opinion of the ancient popes that they might excommunicate their sovereign princes; for if they might, why d;d they forbear to exercise that power when there was greatest reason and great temptation for it? Why did not Pope Julius or Pope Liberius excommunicate Con- stantius, the great favourer of the Arians, against whom Athanasius, St Hilary, and Lucifer Calar. [bishop of Cagliari] so earnestly in- veigh, calling him " heretic, antichrist," and what not? How did Julian himself escape the censure of Pope Liberius? Why did not Pope Damasus thunder against Valens, that fierce persecutor of Catholics?. Why did not Damasus censure the Empress Justina, the patroness of Arianism/ Why did not Pope Siricius censure Theo- dosius I. for that bloody fact for which St Ambrose denied him the communion? How was it that Pope Leo I. (that stout and high pope) had not the heart to correct Theodosius Junior in this way, who was the supporter of his adversary Dioscorus, and the obstinate pro- tector of the second Ephesine council, which that pope so much de- tested? Why did not that pope rather compel that emperor to I Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Palladius. 2 Siquis auteur regum, antistitum, judicum, vel quarumcumque secularium perso- narum, hujus apostolicze auctoritatis, et nostra; præceptionis, decreta violaverit .. . cujuscunque dignitatisvel sublimitatis sit, honore suo privetur. Greg. Dl. post Epist. xxxviii. lib. 2. 3 Ep., pars vii. [Johnde Launoi, doctor of divinity in the university of Paris.En.]
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=