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
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
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 Tâ—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 subâ—ected as well inferior Clergymen as Bishops to their Metropolitans willing that Affairs should be determined where they began
Test quest 57. Tract 47. in Joh. St. Augustin We might add to this what (g) Tertull. Carm. Tertullian says That all the Apostles had an equal power and that they were all the same as St. Peter was as (h) Cypr. lib. de unitat Ecclesiae St. Cyprian explains it and that they had all the same dignity as Pope (i) Append. com Theod. Ep. 8. Gelasius says Philér I am very well satisfied as to your first proof and I think you have shewed sufficiently by the Holy Scripture that the supream Authority is in the Church and in the Council which represents it That St. Peter himself tho he were the Prince of the Apostles was subject to it and that he was not looked upon as the supreme Judge in things that concerned Religion but as the first Minister in the College of the Apostles I desire you now to pass on to your second proof and to shew me by the perpetual and constant Tradition of the Church that the Popes who have succeeded St. Peter were never considered as the supreme arbitrators of things concerning Religion but that the Soveraign Authority to which the Popes themselves ought to be subject was esteemed ever to be in the Council Phila. I will readily perform the promise I made to you but I would have you observe by the by That the Bishops of Rome have not succeeded St. Peter in the charge of his Apostleship which was a personal employment and particular to those whom Jesus Christ had immediately called whom he had Bapized by his Holy Spirit and enriched with extraordinary gifts by which means these blessed people were Infallible and possessed a soveraign and Independent Authority in the Church and a Ministry which was not restrained to a certain place but which was dispersed throughout the whole World. I would also have you observe That the succession of the Bishops of Rome to St. Peter was but in the charge of a Bishop whereof St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles did communicate the Rights or Prerogatives to their successors and that this Charge hath this common Right with the Apostleship that it confers the power of Preaching the Word of administring the Sacraments and of using the power of the Keys but it gives no infallibility or power of exercising the Ecclesiastical Ministry all the World over After this Observation which is not amiss to our purpose I come to what I promised you And I observe in the first place that in the most Ancient Monuments of Christian Antiquity I find no traces of this Supreme Power which the Roman Bishops of the last Ages would attribute to themselves We have the Epistles of St. Ignatius which are of an Apostolick Character but there is not so much as the least foot-step of this supreme Authority attributed to the See of Rome This Holy Prelate speaks of the Church of Rome as of other Churches He calleth it the Church sanctified and illuminated by the will of God without giving it the least authority over any other and in his 7th Epistle to those of Smyrna he directeth it to the Bishop in the name of the Church and acknowledgeth nothing above him which he would never have done had he believed the Bishop of Rome to have been not only above other Bishops but also above a Council St. Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians gives an account to the Emperor Antoninus of the behaviour of Believers in his time but there is not one word of a superior and supreme Master that resided at Rome and made his Soveraign decision concerning matters of Religion St. Polycarp the Disciple of St. John as Eusebius relates it in his Book of Ecclesiastical History came to Rome to confer with Anicetus who was there Bishop concerning the day whereon he was to keep Easter but yet he followed not this Bishops Opinion which without doubt he would have done if it had been true that the Bishop of Rome had been at that time held the supreme Judge of the Church St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome as †Lib. 5. cap. 2 24. Eusebius saith sharply reproves him for separating from his Communion the Eastern Church because they would not keep Easter upon the same day that he did How could this Bishop have reproved things of this nature if he had believed that Victor had been in this conjuncture the absolute judge to whose Decisions and to whose Tribunal the Church was obliged to submit There were several Synods held both in the East and West There was one in the East where Policrares Bishop of Ephesus presided wherein far from acknowledging the Bishop of Rome for the Arbitrator of the whole Church they condemn his opinion as Eusebius witnesseth Was not there a Council also held in France our own Country wherein the Bishop of Rome had no share But St. Irenaeus presided and wrote a very pressing letter to Victor to oblige him to retain Communion with the Eastern Churches Do you think now seriously that things would have been carried thus if they had believed that the Bishop of Rome had held a Soveraign authority in the Church Some time afterwards the Heretick Novatians whose Picture Cornelius Bishop of Rome hath drawn in his Epistle to Fabian Bishop of Antioch being deprived of the Roman Chair which he had usurped and where he had published this Error That they ought not to be admitted to Repentance who had fallen into grievous sins Cornelius did not undertake of himself to condemn this Error which he would have done without all question if he had thought himself to have been the soveraign Arbitrator of the Church but he assembled at Rome a Council of Sixty Bishops There were also held without any order of Cornelius many Councils in divers places namely at Antioch which had been an horrible attempt had Cornelius been the absolute Magistrate of the Christian Common-wealth Matthew Bishop of Arles having joyned himself to Novatian Faustinus Bishop of Lyons did not address himself to Cornelius but to St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who wrote to the neighbouring Bishops of France and to the Bishop of Rome to exhort them to do their Duty and in this Letter he saith That he held in his own hand the ballance of the Church Government Doth not all this then demonstratively prove that the Bishop of Rome was not at that time looked upon as the Monarch of the Church I add to these Examples that of the famous Council of Antioch held in the year 265. against Paulus Samosatenus wherein assisted more than 270. Bishops This sworn enemy of our Saviour's Divinity being relapsed into the Heresy which he had formerly abjured in an Assembly held in the same City and because he could not be brought back to his Duty by the Letters and Remonstrances of the neighbouring Bishops it was their Opinion to call a Council and to this purpose Helenus Bishop of Tharsus and