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
he was forthwith condemned for his disobedience in a Synod of ten Provinces held at Attini We may add to this example of Hincmare that of Arnulph A B. of Rheims who was condemned and deposed for several crimes in an Assembly of many Bishops held at Rheims who declared that they acted by the Authority which had been given to the Apostles and which had been left to them This sufficiently sheweth that an Apostolick spirit reigned in the souls of our Prelates and that in spight of the enterprizes and attempts of the Court of Rome they maintained this general opinion of their worthy Predecessors That they held their charges and the authority which belongeth to them from God and not from the See of Rome They shewed the same zeal in the A B. of Sens his Affair at the Synod of Pontignon and in that of Saire concerning a Church in the Diocess of Tours held by a Cardinal sent by John the 20. Which they call a Sacriledg and a contradiction to the Holy Canons which ordain that a Bishop can do nothing in anothers Diocess without his consent And in that of Geofry Bishop of Chartres in whose place one Ivo had been surrogated by Pope Vrban 2d whom Richarius A B. of Sens Mertropolitan of Chartres together with the Bishops of Paris Troys and Meaux opposed They also shewed this same spirit in the advice they gave to Philip the August to appeal to the next Council from the Sentence of Innocent 3 as from an abuse in the Pragmatick Sanction which St. Lewis made by their advice and in the Council which they gave together with others assembled at Paris in the year 1209 to Philip the Fair against the enterprizes of Boniface 8 not to mention the famous Book call'd Somnium Viridarii writ and published by the order of Charles the Fifth called the Wise noâ— of the Laws and Rules wich Charles the 6. his Son made against the Usurpations of the Court of Rome which sheweth sufficiently that the Authority of the See of Rome was not looked upon as the superior Authority in France But after that the Council of Constance had formally explained it self upon this matter men spoke bolder in France than they had done in former times Charles 7th forbad the French Prelates to go to the Council called at Ferrara in the year 1427. And he himself called in the City of Bourges a great and famous Assembly of the Princes of his Blood Officers of his Crown Prelates and Ecclesiastical persons members of his great Council Doctors in Law as well Divine as Humane and Professors of the Universities together with the Legates of Eugenius 4th After that the Doctors of the Universities had represented in the name of the whole Gallican Church her former state her Rights and the attempts which had been made upon her Liberties they besought his Majesty to remedy this disorder that he would be pleased to Authorize some Decrees and Canons of the General Councils of Constance and of Basil such as that is which declares that General Councils lawfully assembled and representing the Church militant have their power immediately from Jes Christ and are above the Pope which Councils they themselves had judged ought to be observed Wherupon the King approved confirmed the aforesaid decrees ordered all people to observe and keep them inviolaby This is that which was called the pragmatick Sanction 32 years afterwards Lewis 11. being won by the flatteries of Pius 2d and through evil suggestions as may be seen in the Book of the three Estates of the year 1483 revoked the Pragmatick Sanction without any consultation of the States before hand or of the Gallican Church The Kings Attorny General and the Rector of the University of Paris formally opposed the Registring the Kings Letters concerning these his Decrees The Court of Parliament it self represented in writing the great evils that would happen upon the abolishing of so just a Sanction to so good effect that Lewis 11th far from abolishing it gave orders for its confirmation as amongst others that of the 16 of August 1478 whereby it is forbidden to go the Rome to seek after any Benefice or to pay in any money upon pain of Confiscation of Body and Goods and to prevent Anathema's from Rome he caused his Parliament of Paris at the request of his Attorny-General to pass an Act that in case the Pope should undertake any thing to the prejudice of his Ordinances he should appeal to the next Council The Estates of the Kingdom whereof the Clergy is the first Order being Assembled at Tours present a Petition to King Charles the 8th in the first Article of which they desire His Majesty to keep and maintain inviolably the Pragmatick Sanction of Bourges founded upon the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and of Basil And in the National Council which Lewis the 12th Assembled in the same City of Tours in the year 1510 the observation of the Pragmatick Sanction was fully resolved upon Observe how our venerable Prelates have ever maintained the Interest and the Privileges of the Church against the attempts of the Court of Rome and how they make appear to the whole World that they do Religiously keep in their hearts the Sentiments which they had received from their Ancestors that they believed that the supreme Authority resided in General Councils and that how eminent soever that of the See of Rome might be it was still dependant upon theirs This is the Doctrine which hath been taught and maintained by the University of Paris as may be seen in the Writings of her most famous Doctors such as are the Chancellor (c) Tract de potest Eccles Gerson James Almain c. to which to may add a great many more as (d) Niâ— Cus de concord can lib. 2. cap. 2. the Cardinal of Cambray Nicho Cusan (e) Pan. in cap. signif extrav de elect the Abbot Panormitan (f) Abulensis in cap. 18. Matt. quaest 108. Abulensis (g) Fran. vict T. de potes Eccles Franciscus de Victoria (h) Alph. a Cast lib. 7. de just pun haer Alphonsus a Castro and all the Divnes of the Council of Trent which is spoken of in the 7th Book of the History of this Council who maintained with our Bishops of France and those of Spain that the jurisdiction of Bishops and their residence was of Divine Right Philer All that you have said perswades me sufficiently that the Authority of Councils is above that of the Popes but there are some scruples that I desire to be resolved in before that I can cordially embrace your Opinion These scruples arise from two things wherein you will agree with me The one is That the Popes have been ever desired to confirm Councils which without doubt had never been if their Authority had not depended on that of the Popes And the other is That the Title of Head of the Council is given to the Pope
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
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 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
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
and namely in the second Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon Phila. What you say cannot be disproved but I think that the consequences that you draw from these Principles are not right for you must in the first place acknowledg that the consent to an confirmation of General Councils was desired of all great Sees which did not regard the Decrees of Councils as Obligatory till after they had themselves consented to them Thus the Decree of the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius was of no force in the East till that John of Antioch and all the Metropolitans depending upon his Diocess had agreed to it And the judgment of the 5th General Council against the Tria Capitula was without force till the Diocesses of Africa France Spain and of Illyricum had confirmed it not that the confirmation and consent demanded by General Councils of Great Sees besides that of Rome did infer that the Councils did depend upon these Sees as all men do agree Nor can you infer That the Councils did depend upon the Pope upon pretence that they demanded his consent and confirmation to their Decrees You may add to this That Superiors have many times desired their Inferiors to confirm their Acts The Council of Sardica desired all the Churches to whom they send their Synodal Epistle That they would confirm what they had Decreed The 15th Council of Toledo confirmed the Decrees of the 6th General Council at the request of Leo * Conc. Toled cap. 2. lib. 1. the 2d Pelagius the first desired his Clergy to confirm his demand concerning Ordinations Julian Bishop of Cales the Popes Legate at the Council of Chalcedon says in his Letters to the Emperor Leon That this Prince had commanded all Bps that they should confirm the Doctrine of the Holy Apostles and in the year 465 the Prelates of the 3d Province of Lyons being Assembled at Rennes under Perpetuus Merropolitan of Tours sent their Decrets to Victorius and Thalassius of Angiers who were not present that by their Authorites they might confirm them which clearly proves that the confirmation of the Decrees of Councils by the Popes is not a mark of the Popes superiority over Councils Now for the quality of Head which was given to the Pope in the Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon as you have observed besides that they were his own Legates that gave him this Title in the Council of Ephesus Act 2. and that St. Cyril of Alexandria and Juvenal of Jerusalem presiding the Council sufficiently shewed that they did not own the Pope as the Soveraign Head of the Church I say that this quality of Head carried with it no preheminence of Magistracy and of Dominion but only a preheminence of Order of Direction and of Excellence And it is in this sense that Gregory Nyssen said in the second General Council That by the death of Meletius the Council had lost its Head and there is nothing more ordinary among Authors whether they treat of Politick or Ecclesiastical Affairs than to give the Title of Head and Chief to them who preside in Societies It is in this sense that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon give Pope Leo who there presided in the person of his Legates the name of Head of this Council according to the Order of the Emperor Martianus Besides if the Title of Head in matters of Faith and of Religion hath been given to some Prelates as to Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Alexandria to St. Athanasius to St. Basiâ— to Nicetius Bp of Treves to Gregory of Tours and some others by reason of the Eminence of their Sees or because of their Learning of their Piety and of their good Conduct With how much more justice may the Bp of Rome have been honoured with it he who was not only the Metropolitan of some Bps or the Exarch of a Diocess composed of Ten Provinces but who to speak with * Epist 52. Theodorus Studita was the first of the whole Body of the Church and who occupied the first See of all Christendom and the See which was esteemed the most eminent either because it had been occupied by St. Peter and St. Paul two the most famous of the Apostles the first of which is called even by the Holy Fathers the Prince of the Society of the Apostles or because it was established in a City wherein resided the Majesty of the whole Roman Empire and which was the Capital City of the World Philâ—r I am fully satisfied and thank you for the kindneâ—s you have shewed in discoursing with me so long upon this matter I now perceive the Truth and the importance of it and I profess my self without more ado to be of your opinion but it is time for us to think of retiring FINIS