Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	church_n	council_n	3,236	5	6.7056	4	true

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

Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine invited Dyonisius of Alexandria chief of the Diocess of Egypt and Firmilian of Caesaria in Cappadocia chief of the Diocess of Pontus to the Convocation of a Council which was at length holden at Antioch without the order of Faelix Bishop of Rome and they did proceed against Paulus Samosatenus tho it doth not appear that any body I won't say presided but so much as assisted on the behalf of that Bishop and at length they ended the Assembly by a Synodal Letter which they sent to Dionysius whom they thought yet in possession of the Roman Chair tho he were dead in the Month of September the year before to Maternus Bishop of Alexandria and to all their fellow Bishops Priests and Deacons throughout the whole Earth and to the whole Catholick Church under Heaven This had been a very irregular proceeding if the Bishop of Rome had been the supreme Magistrate of the Church We may add to this what the Council of Alexandria did in regard of Origen under Demetrius for they condemned this Doctor whilst he was yet living and also under Theodosius in whose Reign they Anathematized his Doctrine and his Memory and all this without the Order Intention or Authority of the Bishop of Rome which they had not dared to have undertaken had they believed that this Bisop had had the supreme Authority in the Church From all this Truth which I have told you thus at large may be gathered That in these Primitive Ages of Christianity the See of Rome was really considered as the first in place as the Chair of St. Peter and the Center of Priestly Unity as St. Cyprian calls it in his Epistle to Cornelius but that it was not looked upon as the supreme Tribunal of things that concerned Religion Philér I gather from this Discourse that you have now made that in these Primitive Ages wherein the Holy Bishops of Rome aspired to no other Crown than that of Martyrdom and shared nothing amongst them but the Cross before the Spirit of Ambition and of Dominion had entred into the heads of any of these Prelates That the Spirit of Charity and of Humility which is the spirit of the Gospel did perfectly animate them and that all the Bishops living in this good understanding and in this union which Jesus Christ recommends so strictly to his Disciples they did communicate from one to the other the exigencies and necessities of their Churches that to heal the evils which molested them they chose out themselves the remedies which they judged most convenient and the most effectual means and that which they oftenest made use of was the Convocation of Synods to whom the Grace of the Holy Spirit as St. Cyprian says was never wanting for the good and edification of their Flocks And this which you have now related brings into my memory many such like methods of our Ancient Bishops of France which I think I have read in St. Gregory of Tours But can you shew me in the following Ages this same method of acting and this Tradition of the Church which you have called perpetual and constant Phila. I hope I shall make good my Promise I own that the Heathen Emperors having embraced Christianity the Church having been enriched by their liberality and her Ministers raised to a degree of Honour more considerable in the World by the effects of these Princes Piety things began to put on another face and the Bishops to take place according to the dignity of the Cities wherein they exercised their Ministry and to change that deference and honour that was given them before into a sort of jurisdiction as many people have own'd and among others * In Anno 39. Cardinal Baronius and as may be gathered out of the 17th Canon of the Council of Calcedon But whatever alteration the Conversion of Emperors and of Kings might have caused in the condition of the Prelates and in the Government of the Church it cannot be denied but that the Church Government remained still the same in substance and in what was essenrial to it and that they were always vigorously opposed who endeavoured to innovate and to introduce in the Church a Monarchical Government so that the Soveraign Authority remained always in the Councils who in these latter Ages have openly declared themselves against those who would have robbed them of this privilege The first example that I remember which justifieth the Soveraign Authority of the Church and which proves that the Bishops of Rome were dependants on it is that of the Council of Arles assembled if I am not mistaken by the Emperor Constantine in the year 314 and composed of 200 Bishops called together from divers Provinces of the Empire You know that the Causes of this Councils being called were the differences that happened between Donatus of Casanigra and Cecilian Bishop of Carthage who had been deposed by an Assembly of Bishops wherein Secundus the Bishop of Tigifis and Primate of Numidia presided these differences having divided Africa some Synodal Assemblies having established Cecilian and others Donatus I will not pretend to give an account of this History which you may have read in divers Authors † Euseb lib. 15. Optat. Mil. cont advers Parin lib. 1. and particularly in St. Austin in his Epistles 68. and 162 where you may see how Constantine commanded the Proconsul Aelius to hear all Parties and to give judgment and that the Donatists were were there condemned by the Sentance of the Proconsul The Schismaticks then applied themselves to the Emperor who to put an end to their differences named first of all Matronus Bishop of Cologne Delicius Bishop of Autun and Marinus Bishop of Arles and to these three he at length joyned Melciades Bishop of Rome and Fifteen other Italian Bishops of which number was the Bishop of Milan these Nineteen Bishops gave their judgments in favour of Cecilian the Donatists being condemned Appealed from this judgment and accused their Judges of being too precipitate What now did the Emperor Constantine He did not tell these Sectaries that the judgment that had condemned them had been given by the Soveraign Judge of the Church but he called a General Council in the City of Arles to examin the matter over again which had been judged by the Bishop of Rome and the other Eighteen Bishops which was done in the presence of two Priests and two Deacons whom Sylvester that succeeded Melciades had sent thither who sat also no higher than in the 5th place The condemnation of the Donatists was confirmed in this Assembly they also decided the question concerning the Baptism of Hereticks and gave it otherwise rhan the Bishop of Rome had adjudged it or St. Cyprian explained it which decision held the just medium between these two Opinions From hence it appeareth clearly enough That the Bishop of Rome did not believe himself above the Council since that he suffered what he had already adjudged

Councils of this nature they acted after the same manner Phila. As I have already promised you it is just that I keep my word to you but it shall be if you please in very few words and touching only upon what concerns our subject for should I make a relation of all it would be impossible for us to end it in this Discourse The second Oecumenical Council held against the Heretick Macedonius who disputed the Divinity of the Holy Ghost was called by the Emperor Theodosius in the City of Constantinople Anno 383. though the Pope Damasus desired that it might be held at Rome as you may see in the Synodal Epistle of this Council written to Damasus to Ambrose and to many others assembled at Rome and related by (e) Theod. lib. 5. cap. 9. Theodoret (f) Soc. lib. 5. cap. 8. Socrat. (g) Soz. lib. 7. cap. 7. Sozomen (h) Nicephor lib. 12. cap. 1. and Nicephorus This Council wherein the Pope Damasus neither assisted in person nor by his Deputies Established Nectarius Patriarch of Constantinople and Flavian Patriarch of Antioch It made two Canons which are for our subject namely the Sixth and the Third the Third importeth that after the Bishop of Rome the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the same Privileges of Honours c. And the Sixth says that the Bishop shall be judged by the other Bishops of his Province and that in case of Appeal the matter shall be ended by the other Bishops of the Diocess and lastly by a General Council You see then my dear Philéréne that it was the Council which created Patriarchs which is an act of Supreme Authority and which clearly sheweth that the Authority of Patriarchs is subalterne and dependant You see that the Councils regulate the place of Patriarchs giving the second to him of Constantinople because that this City was the new Rome and placing after him the Patriarch of Alexandria This sheweth that they followed the same order in Ecclesiastical Sees as in Bodie Politick and that their addition of Honour and Glory was attributed to the Rank and to the Magnificence of the Cities where they were Established You see that the Council doth not at last send Appeals from the Judgments of the Bishops to the See of Rome to be there finally determined but to an Oecumenical Council which sheweth evidently that this Council did not believe any thing above an Oecumenical Council and that every thing ought to be subject to it Philér But do not you know my dear Philalethe that Baronius and after him Binius have shewed by many reasons that the third Canon of this Council is counterfeit and that they have affirmed that the Sixth is not to be found in the Roman Code nor in the Abridgements of Caranza and of Sagittarius Phila. I know very well what the Cardinal Baronius hath said to make the Third Canon of this Council be suspected and I know the attempts of the Latin Collectors but you must consult the Originals in Greek which is sufficient to defeat entirely the reasons of Baronius We see in the Greek Originals the Seven Canons that this Council made among which are the Third and Sixth in the order and in the terms which we have them Add to this the Evidence of 630 Bishops who assisted in the Council of Chalcedon and who in the 20th Canon of this Council make mention of the 3d Canon made by the Fathers of Constantinople Philér This gives me some sort of satisfaction but I have one scruple more upon this Subject which is that it is not likely that the Council of Constantinople that was composed of 150 Fathers would pronounce upon this matter quite otherwise than the Councill of Sardica had done which was composed of Three hundred Bishops and held in the year 347 who in their 3d and 7th Canons reserve last Appeals to the See of Rome Phila. I agree with you in what you say concerning the Council of Sardica But first of all this Council was not received as Oecumenical tho it were called for that intention It was added to the Roman Code in the year 527. and it was afterward received in the year 591. to the second Canon of the 6th Council but as a particular Council and it was placed after the Councils of Constantinople and of Ephesus St. Gregory * Greg. lib. Ep. 24. himself doth not reckon it among the Oecumenical Councils Besides you must observe what was the cause of the making of these Canons and in what terms they were exprest The Cause was the evil dealing which the famous St. Athanasius met with at the hand of the Eastern Bishops who were all Arrians or Demi Arrians By the 12th Canon of the Council of Antioch which was held in the year 341. it was carried That a Bishop being deposed by the Synod of his Province ought to address himself to a greater Synod and undergo their judgment and by this greater was understood the Patriarchal Synod from which there was no Appeal as may be seen Nov. Just 123. cap. 22. In the 15th Canon of the same Council it is said That when all the Bishops of a Province were of one Opinion there was no Appeal Now St. Athanasius had been condemned by the Synod of his Diocess where he suspected almost all his Judges since they were his Enemies as had plainly appeared in their Cabal at the Councils of Tyre and of Antioch where the Eusebians were the Masters What could this Holy Bishop do less than have recourse to Julius Bishop of Rome who was Orthodox and to his Council composed of Fifty Western Bishops to save himself from their oppression Was not Julius and his Council now obliged to maintain in this conjuncture the Interest of this Man 's Injured Innocence and likewise of the Son of God who was himself persecuted in the person of his Servant This they did with a great deal of Zeal and Prudence They declared this Holy persecuted Man Innocent and admitted him to the Communion of the Bishop of Rome who wrote to his passionate Judges exhorting them to appear not before himself but before a Synod composed of lawful Judges according to the decisions of the Council of Nice which ordereth that what hath been treated of in one Council shall be examined before another These unjust Judges made a very ill return to the Kindness and Charity of Julius they sent him back a most injurious Answer and besides being broken up from Sardica where they had been Assembled by order of the Emperors Constance and Constantius to hold a General Council according to the advice that Hosius had given to Constance and retiring to Philipopolis they there held a Factious Cabal wherein these unworthy Prelates Excommunicate Julius Hosius and all those who had received St. Athanasius to their Communion What now did the true and lawful Council of Sardica in this Case On one hand they excommunicated these wretched men who had bee● so