Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n ancient_a church_n father_n 3,954 5 5.0522 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A65321 Dialogues between Philerene and Philalethe, a lover of peace and a lover of truth, concerning the Pope's supremacy. Part I Watts, Thomas, 1665-1739. 1688 (1688) Wing W1156; ESTC R27584 35,721 46

There are 6 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

to be examined in the Council It appeareth also that both the Bishops of those days and the Emperor Constantine believed the Authority of Councils to be Soveraign and that in matters of Faith a Council may decide otherwise than the Pope since that the Council of Arles did pronounce concerning Baptism of Hereticks otherwise than the Pope did You may see also notable proofs of this same spirit which animated the Bishops of those times in the famous Council of Nice composed of 318 Bishops Assembled in the 325. year of our Lord under the same Constantine The reason why this Council was called was as you know the Heresy of Arrius which set all the East in confusion and the difference among the Churches concerning the day whereon they should keep Easter You know without doubt that this Heresiarck having appeared in the year 315 Alexander his Bishop endeavoured to reduce him from his Error He called together two Councils of all the Bishops of Egypt of Lybia and of Pentapolis who depended upon his See and in these Councils Arrius was Deposed and Excommunicated without the mediate or immediate intervention of the Bishop of Rome to whom Alexander thought it sufficient to gie advice of all that passed in the Councils but the Emperor seeing to his great regret that all the care of Alexander could not hinder the great progress of this Heresie he made the famous Hosius to come from Corduba and sent him to Alexander to endeavour to end the difference All the endeavours of this famous Prelate proving fruitless he joyned his Prayers to those of Alexander and they both of them humbly intreated his Imperial Majesty to apply a speedy and an effectual remedy to this evil by the Convocation of an Oecumenical Council This Great Prince who had nothing more at heart than the Glory of God and the good of his Church gave a favourable answer to the intentions of Alexander and of Hosius He Assembled a Council at Nice a City of Bithynia which was opened the 22. of May in the year 325 and ended the 25th of August in the same year Never was there in any Assembly so much Learning and Piety whatever there was either Learned or Holy in the whole Earth you had in that blessed Assembly which hath been and ever will be a Rampart to the true Christian Faith. St. Sylvester Bishop of Rome not being able to be there himself assisted by his Envoys who were Vitus and Vincentius Presbyters of his Church The Admirable Hosius there presided and they there solemnly condemned Arrius and his Doctrine They there regulated the difference about Easter and Ordained that it should be Celebrated the Sunday after the Full Moon of March. They made in all Twenty five Canons whereof the Fifth doth prohibit Bishops to receive to their Communion those who should have been Excommunicated by others and because those who were Excommunicated might complain that they had been unjustly proceeded against it was Ordained that the justice of their Excommunication should be examined in the Council of Bishops of each Province And the Sixth Canon gave bounds and limits to the Diocesses of Metropolitans according to the Ancient Customs that those who were subject to their inspection might so remain but also that no greater extent should be given them and that accordingly the Bishop of Alexandria should have power in Egypt in Lybia and in Pentapolis and the Bishop of Rome in the Diocess which was under him Quia says the Council Episc Rom. pariter Mos est A man must wilfully shut his eyes not to see in all this proceeding that in those days it was a vain thing to doubt of the Supreme Authorities being in the Council and that all Bishops he of Rome not excepted were subject to it For first of all you see that when Arrius would have taught against the purity of the Faith Alexander having used the way of giving him particular admonishment had no recourse to the Bishop of Rome for the condemnation of this Heretick but himself assembled the Council of the Great Diocess whereof he was Head which certainly he would not have done had he thought that the Supreme Authority belonged absolutely to the Bishop of Rome Secondly Hosius and Alexander having conferred together and found that the only remedy for this Heresie was the Convocation of a General Synod addressed themselves to the Emperor Constantine to desire him to call it If they had believed that the Soveraign Tribunal of the Church had been the See of Rome why did not they cite Arrius thither Why did they take the way of a Council which is the longest and the most difficult or at least why did they not apply themselves to the Bishop of Rome to call it as hath been done since the Popes have raised themselves above these Ancient Rules Thirdly If the Bishops of the Council had believed that the Bishops of Rome had had the Supreme Authority why did they place Hosius Bishop of Corduba in the Chair of President rather than Vitus and Vincentius the Popes Envoys and Deputies as hath been practised in the late Councils of the Latin Church Fourthly If these Fathers had believed that the last Decision of Ecclesiastical Affairs belonged to the Pope how would they have dared to start the question upon what day they should keep Easter since that the Bishop of Rome had explained himself long since upon this matter Fifthly If the Fathers of this Council had looked upon the Pope as a Superior Judg over the Council how could they have Ordained that those who had been Excommunicated by one Bishop could not be received by another And how could they have committed to Provincial Synods the Examination of the validity or invalidity of Excommunications Might not they rather have permitted those who were grieved by the sentence of Excommunication to appeal to the See of Rome to quash or to confirm it as they should think fit Lastly Since they regulate the power of the Bishop of Alexandria after the example of the Bishop of Rome within the limits of the Ancient Usage doth not this shew that the Bishop of Rome should not extend his power over other Churches than those which had been under him by the Ancient Customs and that he should govern these Churches after the same manner as the Bishop of Alexandria did govern those of Egypt of Lybia and of Pentapolis which depended upon him and that so his Authority was restrained within certain bounds and subject as well as that of the Bishop of Alexandria and other Metropolitans to the Authority of the Council Philér You have methinks sufficiently shewed by all that passed in this Holy and famous Council of Nice whose conduct and form ought for ever to be a Pattern and Model to the Church that there is no other Soveraign Authority in the Church than that of Oecumenical Councils but to confirm me the more in this opinion do me the favour to shew me that in all other
The 19th in the Morning they spoke every man in this turn upon the Subject of their Commission and at Night the Company being re-assembled they by a general Consent approved of a Declaration which contains these following Propositions The First is That neither the Pope nor the Church it self hath any Power directly nor indirectly over the Temporality of Kings That they cannot be deposed and that their Subjects cannot be absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance to them upon any account whatsoever The Second is That the Council is above the Pope according to the Doctrine established in the 14th Session of the Council of Constance which the Assembly declares to have had the full Power and Approbation of the Church The Third is That the Use of the Pope's Power ought to be limited by the Canons and that he can do nothing to the Prejudice of the Ancient Customs and Liberties of the Gallicane Church The Fourth is That the Pope hath the Chief or Principal Authority in things which concern the Faith but so that his Decisions are not certain without the Churches Consent The Assembly ordered at the same time That this Declaration should be written in Latine and sent to all the Prelates of France to be Signed by them and that the King should be petitioned to make an Edict for the Execution of it throughout the whole Kingdom Philalethe This is Brave and looks like the Apostolical Vigour and Heroick Courage of our Ancient Prelates Philér This is not all These Lords Commissioners were dispatched away to the King and having given an exact Account of the Behaviour of the Clergy they demanded an Edict in the Kings Name for the Execution of their Declaration His Majesty granted them the Edict which was made as followeth And by this Edict the King ordains That this Declaration shall be Registred in all the Courts of Parliament of the Kingdom and in all the Faculties of Divinity and of the Canon-Law And his Majesty doth Prohibit under grievous Penalties even Foreigners within his own Kingdom and all as well Seculars as Regulars to teach any thing contrary to what is contained in this Declaration This Edict hath been executed The Parliament of Paris hath Registred this Declaration of the Clergy with that Zeal and Readiness that cannot be too much commended and which all other Parliaments of the Kingdom ought to imitate Phila. It cannot be denied but that our Prince is incomparable in all his Actions that France never saw upon the Throne a Monarch of so High a Character and of so great a Power that he maintains most worthily upon all occasions the Glorious Title of Lewis the Great which his Heroick Actions have acquired him And that the Parliament of Paris hath done well to express the great Zeal which they have always had for the Rights of the Crown and for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Enterprizes of the Court of Rome You may have read in our Histories what heretofore Philip the August Philip the Fair Charles the 6th 7th and 8th Lewis the 9th 11th and 12th did You know also the Conduct of the same Parliament under all these Great Princes to maintain according to their Will and Pleasure the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Gallican Church And I believe also that you have heard of the Decrees which this Honourable House hath sent forth under Lewis the 13th against the Scandalous Books of Sa●terel and of Bellarmin But we may say without excess That Lewis the Great in this Conjuncture hath shewed more stedfastness and greatness of Mind in the Opposition which he hath made against the Attempts of the Court of Rome than all his Illustrious Predecessors ever did And it cannot also be denied but that the Parliament of Paris hath gone on worthily in the Footsteps of their Glorious Ancestors Philér It is not in this single Affair only that this Honourable House of Parliament have shewed their Zeal to Second the Intentions of his Majesty and to maintain the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Gallican Church They have also given notable Proofs of it in the Affair of Father Buhi the Carmelite Phila. I have also heard of a Thesis which this Father had maintained the 4th of December last and it was said that they had caused him some Trouble about it at Rome but I do not precisely know what were the Propositions which this Father did maintain Philér If my Memory doth not fail me I think there were Six The First of them is That there are some Ecclesiastical Laws to which the Pope himself is subject The Second is That he cannot upon all occasions dispence with the Canons of General Councils The Third is That he cannot Depose Kings nor impose Tributes upon their Estates without their Consent The Fourth That Bishops hold their Jurisdiction from God. The Fifth That the Faculty of Divinity at Paris doth not esteem the Pope to be Infallible And the Sixth That the Right of the Regale is neither a Fancy nor an Usurpation These Propositions greatly stirred up the Pope against this Father he ordered the Commissary General of the Carmelites to declare him deprived of the privileges of his Order and uncapable of performing any function either Administration of the Sacraments or Preaching This Command was sent to the Superior of the Carmelites of the place Maubert * A Street in Paris so called to whom this Commissary General had given advice of the Noise that this Thesis of Father Buhi had made at Rome and of the misfortune wherewith the whole Order was threatned This Father demanded a Copy of the Letter of his Superior that he might consult his Friends about it which was granted him The Affair coming at length to the King's ear there came forth a Letter under the Seal to the Superior forbidding him to execute any Order from Rome against Father Buhi without the King's knowledg and consent Yet notwithstanding this the Superior caused the Order to be Registred which he had received from the Commissary General of the Carmelites the 18th of February last But the Parliament shewed the same vigour in this Affair as in that of the Declaration of the Clergy for after many proceedings made at the instance of the Attorny General the Parliament ordered that the Superior of the Carmelites should be admonished for his Disobedience and expresly forbad the execution of the Order against Father Foelix Buhi to which they added That he should continue in his Function of Divinity Reader expresly forbidding any person to molest him and at length they Order that the Commissary General 's Letter should be razed out of the Register and laid aside And this by order of Parliament the 14th day of April 1682. Phila. The Parliament did very bravely in this Affair and shewed that the same spirit of Zeal and Courage still reigns in that Honourable Assembly Thilér But ought not we to fear that this should
rash as to excommunicate him and confirmed the Sentence given by Julius and by his Council in favour of St. Athanasius and on the other that the Catholick Bishops who should be agrieved by the Sentence of the Eastern Bishops who were the most part of them Arrians or Semi-Arrians might find a means to free themselves from their oppression they declared by the 3d and 4th Canons That if any person should find himself agrieved by the Sentence of any Synod of his Province he might have recourse from their judgment in which Case the Bishops of the Province who had judged should write to Julius the Reasons of their Judgment That if these Reasons were approved of by Julius the Judgment should hold but if on the contrary the Reasons were not found pertinent the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops of the neighbouring Province to examin the matter over a-new and to judge of it according to the Canons Wherein you see that the design of the Council was only to justify the conduct of St. Athanasius who had had recourse to Julius Bishop of Rome and likewise the behaviour of Julius and of his Council and to provide an effectual remedy for the misfortune of Schism to preserve Innocence from being oppressed in an evil conjuncture But you cannot conclude from the behaviour of this Council that the Pope was looked upon as their Superior on the contrary it appears plainly that it was the Council that did acts of Superiority be it for that they examined a-new the affair of St. Athanasius which the Pope and his Council had judged or for that the Council wrote to the Pope to publish his Decrees in Sicily Sardinia and Italy or because they accepted the excuse which the Pope made them for his absence all which things are acts of Superiority To which we must not forget to add that the Fathers of this Council calling the Pope in the Letter which they wrote to him their Brother and their fellow Minister makes it very apparent that they did not acknowledg him for their Superior Besides let me advertise you as we proceed that this Council was not composed of 300 Bishops as you have said they were but about 100. and they all Western except Macarius and Asterius who were of the East It is true that the Emperors Constance and Constantius had called together this Council of Bishops out of these two Empires and that there came to Sardis to the number of 150. as St. Athanasius witnesseth but all the Eastern Bishops who were for the most part Arrians retired to Philipopolis And altho St. Athanasius saith in some places that the Council was composed of 300 Bishops it is because it was subscribed by a great number of Prelates that did not assist at it Philér Can you shew me that the same Spirit reigned in the two other great Councils namely in the Council of Ephesus and in that of Chalcedon Phila. The thing is not difficult you know the History of these two Councils and are not ignorant that the first was called by the Emperor Theodosius in the year 431. as may be seen in * Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 33. Socrates and in † Evag. lib. 1. cap. 3. Evagrius and that it was Assembled against the Heresy of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople who divided Jesus Christ into two persons Celestin Bishop of Rome being advertised of this Heresy by Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria called together at Rome his Synod which condemned it and excommunicated Nestorius Cyrill who for his part had done all that he could to convince and bring back this wandring Sheep Assembled also his Synod who did no less than that of Rome had done but as these particular Councils were not a sufficient remedy there was called an Oecumenical one in the City of Ephesus whither Celestin sent his Legates namely two Bishops and one Priest and wherein presided Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria after whom the first of Celestines Legates was seated Here were made Eight Canons of which the eighth makes chiefly for our purpose For to restrain the attempts of the Patriarch of Antioch upon the liberties of the Churches of Cyprus it ordaineth that not only in Cyprus but in all other Diocesses and Provinces of the World no Bishop should usurp any Province which from the beginning had not been of his dependance and that every Province should preserve inviolably the Rights which she hath had from the beginning and according to the Ancient Custom Who can say but that this Council doth all the acts of a Supreme Authority And that the Bishop of Rome doth none at all If he had had any after that he and his Council had condemned Nestorius it had not been necessary to call a General Council for it the first of his Legates would without question have presided in this Council and this Holy Assembly would not have undertaken to make General Decrees which limit the Power of all Bishops without excepting even him of Rome You have also read without doubt what the same Socrates says of the Council of Chalcedon called by the Emperor Martianus in the year 451. to stifle the Heresy of Eutiches who confounded the two Natures in Jesus Christ you may thence have learned that a General Council having been called by Theodosius the second in the City of Ephesus Eutiches by the intrigues and artifices of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria set himself in this Factious Cabal against Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople who was there deposed because he had deposed and condemned this Heretick for which Reason this unhappy Assembly was called Latrocinium or the Robbery that at length the Orthodox Bishops as namely Leo the great Bishop of Rome as may be seen in the 23 25 and 26 of his Letters intreated the Emperor to call an Oecumenical Council which because Theodosius either could not or would not do Martianus who succeeded him did it having Assembled this Council not at Rome as Leo would have had it but first at Nice and then at Chalcedon as is to be seen in the 43 44 49 50 and 51 of this Popes Epistles This Council composed of 630 Bishops restored the memory of Flavian by condemning and deposing Dioscore and Eutiches They made many Canons in their 17th it is ordained that the order of Parishes in the Church should be according to the Politick and Civil form In the 29th they Decree that a Clergy-man having a difference with his Bishop shall be judged by the Synod of his Province and if a Bishop hath a difference with the Metropolitan of the Province let him address himself to the Exarch of the Diocess or to the Bishop of the Royal City of Constantinople And in the 28th they do ordain That according to the decision of 150 Fathers of Constantinople Privileges equal to those of old Rome should be given to the most Holy See of New Rome because she was honoured with the seat of the Empire and of the Senate and that
in things Ecclesiastical she ought not to be held in lesser dignity tho she took but the second place A Man must wilfully shut his eyes not to see that this Council did not consider the Bishop of Rome as having in his hands the Supreme Authority since that they do not send the differences that might happen between Bishops and their Metropolitans to him for their last determination and that they make the Bishop of Constantinople equal to him in Ecclesiastical Affairs reserving to him simply the primacy of Order because his See was the City of Rome where the Emperors and the Senate formerly did reside To which we ought to add what we read in the Letter of the Fathers of this Council to Leo Bishop of Rome where they say freely That they had appointed and confirmed what had been already ordain'd by the Council of Constantinople tho Leo's Legates opposed it wherein they tell him that he ought to acquiesce not only for the conservation of Order but also out of Deference to the Emperors who had given them so absolute an Authority that their Judgments passed for a Law reflecting without doubt upon the Ordinance of Valentinian the third made in favour of the See of Rome Lastly We ought to observe That the Fathers who composed this Council founded not the Privilege of Episcopal Sees but upon the Civil and Politick Prerogatives of the Cities where they were which sheweth That the Eminence of that of Rome was not founded upon the Primacy of St. Peter who had been the first Bishop of it so much as upon the dignity of the City I could add to the Authority of these four great Councils that of the second Council of Constantinople which is the Fifth Oecumenical one called by the Emperor Justin in the year 553. to condemn the writings of Theodorus Mopsuestia those of Theodoret and the Epistles of Ibas to Maris for this Council sollicited Vigilius Bishop of Rome to judge the Question which they were handling not separately from them but conjointly with them And the Emperor Justinian in his Letters to Eutichius of Constantinople and to Apollinarius of Alexandria declares That the care of Emperors hath always been to extirpate Heresies and to preserve the purity of the Faith by the means of Councils which sheweth clear enough what superior Judge was acknowledged in the Church I might joyn to the Authority of this 5th Oecumenical Council that of the 6th and 7th which make but one this last having only added some Canons to the decisions of the sixth which was held under Constantine Pogonatus in the Palace called T●ullum since that in the 36th Canon of this last Council were confirmed the Canons of Constantinople and of Chalcedon which made the Bishops of Rome and of Constantinople equal in Ecclesiastical Affairs and condemned Honorius Bishop of Rome with many others as tainted with the Heresy of the Monotholites but our Discourse hath already been so long that I ought not to tire out your patience any further Philér I am not at all wearied with your Discourse but it is not fit to exact too much upon your kindness but to refer the other reflections which you can make upon this Subject to another conversation The Third Dialogue PHilér You were so kind my dear Philalethe in our last walk to make me hope for some more of your reflections upon the subject whereon we were discoursing I 'le be obliged to you if you will impart them to me now Phila. I will pursue this matter since you desire it but you will not take it amiss if I abridg it as much as I can After the Authority and Judgment of Oecumenical Councils I see nothing of greater force than what passed in the African Councils and namely in the Milevitan Council held in the Month of August of the year 402 wherein St. Austin assisted as appeareth in his 117th Epistle In this Council they confirmed what had been decreed against the Donatists by a former Council of Carthage and in the Sixth Council of Carthage which was the Univesal of Africa begun in the year 418 and continued to the year 423. In the first of these Councils they made a Canon which is the 22 or the 31 according to Balzamon by which it was Ordained that Priests Deacons and other Clergymen should appeal from the Judgment of their Bishops to the other Neighbouring Bishops and from them to the Council of Africa or to the Primate and to no other upon pain of Excommunication as it hath been Ordained heretofore concerning Bishops You may see it thus expressed in the Greek Copies in Zonaras and in some Latin Copies and in the Council of Rheims held under Hugh Capet where this Milevitan Council is alledged It is true that * 1 Cans 2. qu. 6. Gratian excepts Appeals to the See of Rome but that was added of his own head since it was Appeals themselves which these Fathers did design wholly to prohibit In the second of these Councils which is the Sixth of Carthage composed of 207 Bishops of whose number was St. Augustin and wherein presided Aurelius Bishop of Carthage they again had reason to renew this Decree against Appeals beyond Sea and see here the occasion Apiarius Presbyter of Sicca in Numidia was Deposed and Excommunicated for his Crimes by some Bishops he Appealed from their Sentences before the Pope Zosimus who by the judgment that he gave declared him innocent and delivered him from the Penalties to which he had been condemned This Apiarius having acknowledged his fault before the Council and there asked pardon for it was restored to the Exercise of his Charge but not in the Church of Sicca by reason of the Scandal he had there given This wretched fellow falling again into his Disorders was Deposed by Sylvanus his Bishop He Appealed again from this Judgment to Celestin who then held the See of Rome The Pope sent the Bishop Faustinus to the Council with two Presbyters to maintain these the Rights of his See. Faustinus acquitted himself very well in his Commission He represented that by virtue of the Canons of the Council of Nice it was allowable to Appeal to the See of Rome and demanded that the Milevitan Canon should be annulled which prohibited Appeals beyond the Seas The Bishops being surprized upon what Faustinus had said because he cited a Canon wholly unknown to them consulted the Copy of the Acts of the Council of Nice The procedure in the Affair of Apiarius having been lawfully done they confirmed the condemnation from which he had Appealed and wrote a Synodical Letter to Celestin which was Superscribed in these Terms To our most Dear and Honourable Brother Celestin And in this Letter they desire him not to receive to his Communion those whom they should Excommunicate according to the Decrees of the Council of Nice which have sub●ected as well inferior Clergymen as Bishops to their Metropolitans willing that Affairs should be determined where they began
assuring themselves that the Grace of the Holy Spirit would never be wanting to every Province and after having shewed him the inconveniencies that would follow these sorts of Appeals they give him to understand that they had not found in the Acts of the Council of Nice which had been sent them from Constantinople and from Antioch this Canon which Faustinus had alledged Not satisfied with this Letter which contained their Opinions they make a Canon which renewed that of the Milevitan Council signifying that Priests Deacons and other inferior Clergymen should not Appeal beyond the Seas but to the Primate of their Provinces as hath been often resolved concerning Bishops Who is there now but seeth that the Fathers of this Council did not believe that the Bishop of Rome had the Supreme Authority in the Church since that not only his Legate Faustinus did not preside in it but was seated after Valentinus Bishop of the first See of Numidia that they examin over again the Affair of Apiarius as though it had not been judged by the Bishop of Rome that they give him only the name of Brother and will not at all permit that any Clergy-man of Africa should appeal to Rome Philér This indeed appears very strong but do not you know that it is generally agreed that in the Milevitan Canon there is nothing said of the Bishops and that the clause that concerns them hath been since added that besides the Canon produced by Faustinus to his Colleagues was in some respects a Canon of the Council of Nice since that it was of the Council of Sardica which is but an Addition a Supplement and as it were the Seal of the Council of Nice Phila. These Interpretations appear to me but weak for the Milevitan Canon in the Greek and in some Latin Copies doth comprehend the Clause concerning Bishops Besides the Fathers of this Council of Africa in the Epistle which they wrote to Celestin make it known sufficiently that they did not understand that Bishops could appeal beyond the Seas no more than other inferior Clerks seeing that at the same time which they wrote this Epistle they had before them not only the Appeal of Apiarius but also that which Anthony Bishop of Fossat had brought against the Sentence of his Provincial Synod before the Pope Boniface who restored him for which reason † Epist 162. St. Augustin wrote a Letter to Celestin this Popes Successor concerning these pretended Additions to the Council of Nice for that of Sardica was called by different Emperors in a far distant place and after a considerable Interval of time for Motives and Reasons also different as every body knoweth that hath any knowledg of History If this Council had been a Supplement of the Council of Nice as they pretend why is it not placed in the order of Oecumenical Councils Whence comes it that the Fathers of the Council of Carthage amongst whom were St. Augustin Aurelius and Alipandus the most famous Bishops of their time were ignorant of this Canon And why did not Faustinus say plainly that this Canon was truly of the Council of Sardica rather than that it was of equal authority to the Council of Nice to which it was but the Supplement and the Seal I will not enlarge to you upon what passed in the year 397 in the Council of Turin where they judged the difference that was between Proclus Bishop of Marseilles and Metropolitan of the first Province of Narbonne and the Bishops of the second Province who would not depend upon him and the contest that there was between the Bishops of Arles and of Vienne concerning the honour of Primacy and the right of Ordination which the Fathers of this Council would not have dared to undertake had they believed that the Soveraign Authority had belonged to the Bishop of Rome You may learn the same thing from what passed in the Council of Toledo against the Priscilianists and of the conjunction which these Fathers make of Ambrose Bishop of Milan and of Siricus Bishop of Rome Nor will I entertain you with the Council of Francfort called by the Emperor Charlemagne in the year 794 wherein assisted the Bishops of France of Germany and of Italy wither the Pope Adrian sent his Legates and wherein the Canon of the second Council of Nice concerning the Religious Worship of Images was annulled though this Council had been approved of by Adrian I will not speak to you neither of the Councils which were held in France our own Country which vigorously opposed this immoderate Worship which the second Council of Nice would have established and which the Popes maintained to their utmost In good faith now if the Fathers of the Council of Francfort or if the Prelates of France had believed the See of Rome to be Soveraign would they have spoken would they have acted as they did I come now to the Council of Constance held in the year 1414. whose Authority and Decision my Lords the Bishops make use of to support their opinion He that will penetrate well into the spirit of this Council must take the thing in its original and observe that a lamentable Schism had raged near 30 years and produced a great many evil effects during the Pontificate of Peter de Luna called Benedict the 13th and under that of Angelus Corrarius called Gregory the 12th Anti-popes the Cardinals of either party being Assembled agreed for the putting an end to these Schisms to call a Council at Pisa This Council being Assembled in the year 1409. declares That this Affair belonged to them as they represented the Universal Church and they condemned Peter de Luna and Angelus Corrarius as notorious Schismaticks defenders and favourers of Schism Hereticks and as having deviated from the Faith c. After the deposing of these two Anti-popes by the Council the Cardinals who there assisted chose Peter de Candia Pope who was called Alexander the 5th and who lived but about Ten months After his death the same Cardinals elected the Cardinal Balthasar of St. Eustace who called himself John the 23. or 24. Thus there were three Anti-popes who condemned one another To find out a remedy for this disorder the Emperor Sigismond advised Pope John to order that the Council of Pisa should be continued in the City of Constance whereupon this Pope called thither all those that had a deliberative voice the Emperor and all Christian Princes Pope John opened the Assembly in the Emperors presence and in the second Session he would have renounced the Papacy provided his competitors would do the same but they refusing they were all three judged and condemned by the Council Pope John for many crimes whereof he was accused and convicted and the others for the same reasons that they had been condemned at Pisa and they chose Odo Colomna Pope who called himself Martin the 3d or the 5th And to the end that no man might doubt of the power which the Council had
of Judging Soveraignly in all Ecclesiastical Affairs they in their 4th Session made this following Canon The General Council lawfully Assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost and representing the Catholick Church militant holdeth immediately its power from Jesus Christ to which Council all manner of Persons of what estate or quality soever nay the Pope himself is bound to obey in things which concern the Faith the extirpation of Schisms and the General Reformation of the Head and Members And for as much as in the 39th Session this Council did ordain that for time to come there should be held a General Council at the end of every Ten years and that the next Council should be called in Five years and the following one in Seven the Council accordingly was called together at Pavia where it began and was afterward continued at Siena and finally in 1431. it was transferred to Basil where it was decided according to the Council of Constance that it was a most Catholick truth that Councils were above Popes and that Popes could not by their own wills either dissolve or prorogue Councils from place to place P. Have you no other proof which justifieth this Opinion And have not there been Popes who have acknowledged the superiority of Councils Phil. There are many other proofs which might be made use of which are even of the same kind as those whereof we have already spoken for we might remember several examples of the Ancient Bishops of Rome who have suffered their judgments to be examined in General Councils and have submitted themselves to their Decrees nay there are some who have desired that the Decrees which they had made might be examined in Council and amongst others Leo the Great who demanded of Theodosius that what he had decreed as well as what had been decreed in the pretended Council of Ephesus should be examin'd in a Gen. Council There have been also many other Popes that have acknowledged the Tribunal of particular Councils and amongst others the Pope Damasus who disputing with Vrsicinus concerning the Pontificate submits himself to the judgment of a Synod which decided this Affair and when this Pope was accused of Adultery by two Deacons Concordius and Castorius he justified himself before a Council of 44 Bps. Assembled at Rome in the year 378. I could add the evidence of several Popes upon this subject and amongst others that of Zozimus who in his 1st Ep. says That the Authority of his See cannot add nor change any thing against the Ordinances of the Holy Fathers which is a mark of subjection and of dependence And also that of Gregory the Great who in some place protested that he reverenced the Authority of the four Great Councils like that of the four Gospels Philér Were I not afraid of trespassing upon your patience I would desire you to give me some particular account of our Gadican Church and to let me know whether she always believed the Superiority of the Councils above the Popes Phila. I will do it my dear Philéréne but it shall be but very short that I may not tire you It cannot be doubted but that in the first Centuries our Churches of France acknowledged the Authority of Councils as superior to all others since that in the question concerning the day of Celebrating Easter our Prelates without the knowledg and participation of the Pope called a Synod wherein St. Irenae●s presided who by order of the Synod wrote a Letter extreamly pressing to Pope Victor about this Affair as may be seen in Eusebius which this Bishop would never dare to have done if the Pope had been considered in the Gallican Church as the Supreme Magistrate of the Church and the Decretal Epistles attributed to the first Bishops of Rome cannot be objected to the contrary because that these Epistles have such visible characters of being counterfeited that it is beyond all doubt And in the Council of Arles above mentioned our Bishops of France shewed sufficiently that the Pope was subject to the Authority of Councils since that they examined an Appeal brought before them from the Popes Sentence Since that time divers Synods have been held in France by the order and permission of our Kings to treat of things concerning the Faith or Discipline of the Church wherein they judged of ●aith by the Oracles of the Scripture and by Tradition and of Discipline by the Canons of the Church that is to say of Councils Such was for example that which was held in the reign of our K Clovis at Orleance c. Also the second Council of Mascon Ordained that Provincial Councils should be called by the Metropolitans and that of the whole Kingdom by the Bishop of Lions with the Kings permission It is true that the Gallican Church received a great abridgment of its Liberties in the year 445 by the Ordinance of Valentinian the 3d who made the judgments of all the French Prelates subject to the Pope But this Ordinance of Valentinian received divers oppositions in France as it were easie to justifie by many famous examples In the 8. Century the Churches of France received another blow by introducing the Code of the Roman Canons which Charlemaign obliged himself to receive in France as well as the Roman Office in acknowledgment of the good turns which Po. Adrian had done him who in an Assembly of 15 Bishops and many Abbots declared Charlemaign Patrician or a Nobleman of Rome and acknowledged that it was in his power to Elect Popes to regulate the Apostolick See to institute through all the Provinces Archbishops and Bishops in a word he invested him with all the Rights which the Roman Emperors enjoyed Nevertheless this great Prince found in the exceution of his promise great opposition from the Clergy whom he forced to receive the Code of these aforesaid Canons by constraint Minis Suppliciis says the Original nor were these Canons received but by the Authority of our Kings having been published but under the name of Charlemaign and as Ordinances made by him His Successors have trod in the same footsteps always ordering that the Laws which they made by the advice of the Prelates of their Kingdoms and which are to be read in their Capitulars should be published under their Majesties Names and that the Popes themselves should be subject to them C. de Capi destin 10. and C. nos de Compet 2. Quest 7. But whatever increase the Authority of the Pope had gained in France by this Ordinance of Valentinian and by this Introduction of Charlemaign this did not hinder our Bishops from shewing upon all occasions a great deal of vigor in maintaining their Privileges and the Authority of the Church It is manifest by divers Examples which History affordeth and chiefly by that of Hincmare B. of Laon this Prelate was censured and condemned for his ill actions by a Synod held at Vervins he would have appealed to Rome but far from having any regard to his appeal