Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 5: The Approved General Councils
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Conciliis (De Conciliorum Auctoritate), On Councils, Book I (of the controversy On Councils and the Church). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The approved general Councils are hitherto numbered eighteen. The first is that of Nicaea, which indeed was celebrated from the year of the Lord 327 to the year 330, which was the 13th year of Pope Sylvester and the twentieth of the Emperor Constantine. There came together 318 Bishops, among whom were the Patriarchs Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, and Metrophanes of Constantinople — although these two last were not at that time Patriarchs, but long after obtained that dignity. Some, too, will have it that Metrophanes was present not in person, but through his Legate Alexander, who afterward succeeded him in the bishopric. See Metaphrastes in his oration on the things done at Nicaea. And two controversies chiefly were defined: one about the day of Easter; the other about the Divinity of Christ, against the heresy of the Arians — Arius himself, the head of the heresy, dying foully after ten years in the privies, while he purged his bowels.
But because all these things might be called into doubt because of the discrepant opinions of the writers, each must be briefly demonstrated. First, of the time of the Council there is a wonderful variety of opinions, but the truth of our opinion can be confirmed by this reasoning. It is established that the Council of Nicaea received its end in the 20th year of the reign of Constantine; for this Eusebius writes, Book 3 on the life of Constantine, and Socrates, Book 1 of the history, chapter 12. But Constantine began to reign in the year of Christ 311, as is plain from the Chronicle of Saint Jerome, from Gregory Haloander, and other Chronologists. It is made out, therefore, that in the year of Christ 330 was the 20th year of Constantine and the end of the Council of Nicaea.
Likewise the Council was begun when Paulinus and Julian were consuls, as Socrates relates, Book 1, chapter 9 (elsewhere 13), and Nicephorus, Book 8, chapter 26. And it lasted three years, as the same Nicephorus testifies in the same place. Now the consulate of Paulinus and Julian Cassiodorus noted in the 17th year of Constantine, from which it follows that the Council was finished in the 20th year of the same; and accordingly begun in the year of Christ 327, finished in the year 330. Indeed Onuphrius Panvinius, because he sets the consulate of Paulinus and Julian in the year of Christ 325, sets the beginning of the Synod of Nicaea in this same year.
Next, that the time of the Council fell within the Pontificate of Sylvester — not of Sylvester and Julius, as Photius teaches in his book on the seven Synods, nor of Julius alone, as Sozomen writes, Book 1, chapter 16 (and from Sozomen, Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 7, § 1, and Joachim Camerarius in the history of the Synod of Nicaea, where he affirms himself to have been a most diligent reader of the ancient writers) — can easily be demonstrated. For, as we said above, in the 20th year of Constantine the end was put to the Council, which Camerarius too confesses in the cited book. But Sylvester was created Pontiff in the sixth year of Constantine, as is plain from the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome, and sat in the Apostolic See above 20 years, as Damasus, Onuphrius, and absolutely all writers testify. Therefore the 20th year of Constantine and the end of the Council of Nicaea necessarily fell within the Pontificate of Sylvester.
Moreover Miltiades, the predecessor of Sylvester, sat while this same Constantine reigned, as Optatus testifies, Book 1 against Parmenian, and Augustine in letters 162 and 165, and Constantine himself too in Eusebius, Book 10 of the history, chapter 5. Sylvester, therefore, could not obtain the Apostolic See except after the beginning of Constantine's reign. But he held it, by the consent of all, above 20 years. Therefore in the 20th year of Constantine, which was the last of the Council of Nicaea, not Julius but Sylvester governed the Apostolic See. Wherefore rightly Damasus in the Pontifical, Jerome in the Chronicle, Theodoret Book 1 of the history chapter 3, the Sixth Synod act 18, the Council of Florence session 3, and very many other authors wrote that the Synod of Nicaea was held in the times of Pope Sylvester.
Of the number of Bishops who were present at that Council, the opinions seem various. For Eusebius, Book 3 on the life of Constantine, says that above 250 Bishops came together. Athanasius, in his book on the opinion of the Synod of Nicaea, says there were more or less 300 Bishops. Eustathius, in Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 8 of the history, says above 270 were numbered. Sozomen, Book 1, chapter 16, sets about 310. But the true and common opinion is that there were 318. For Epiphanius, heresy 69, wrote that down to his time the names of the individual Bishops had been preserved, and that they were precisely 318. Hilary too, in his book on Synods near the end, and Ambrose in the preface to his books on the faith, say that the number of the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea is mystical and sacred, and was long before prefigured in those 318 servants with whom Abraham carried off the victory over five kings. Finally Jerome in the Chronicle, Sulpicius Book 2 of the history, Theodoret Book 1 chapter 7, and all the rest constantly set this number.
Now that there were two causes of that Council — namely the question of Easter and the question of the Divinity of Christ — Eusebius testifies, Book 3 on the life of Constantine, Athanasius in his book on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, and Epiphanius, heresy 70, which is of the Audians.
Finally, whether the Council of Nicaea was celebrated before the shameful death of Arius is not altogether certain. For Epiphanius, heresy 69, openly writes that the Council was celebrated after the death of Arius; but the contrary the historians write — Rufinus Book 10 chapter 13, Socrates Book 1 chapters 19 and 25, and the rest. Nor can these opinions be reconciled by saying that there were two Ariuses, as Sulpicius signifies, Book 2 of the sacred history; for even if there were two Ariuses, yet there is one who perished in the privies. And this one Epiphanius sets before the Council, Rufinus and the rest after the Council. And truly the historians seem to have thought better, especially since in the Fifth Synod it was treated whether it is lawful to condemn heretics after death — which certainly could not have come into doubt if the Synod of Nicaea had condemned Arius already dead. But the matter is not of so great moment that we should consume more time on it.
The second Synod is that of Constantinople, which was celebrated against Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, under the Emperor Theodosius the elder and Damasus the supreme Pontiff. There came together from diverse provinces 150 Bishops, among whom the Patriarchs were Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Now the time of this second Synod falls, Prosper witnessing in the Chronicle, in the consulate of Gratian and Theodosius the Augusti, that is, in the year of the Lord 383 — or in the following year, as Socrates will have it, who Book 5 of the history chapter 8 writes that the Council came together when Syagrius and Eucherius were consuls, that is, in the year 384; or, if you follow the reckoning of Onuphrius, in the year 381. Psellus, in his book on the seven Synods, sets an interval of 56 years between the first and second Synods. And if to the number 327, at which time we said the first Synod was begun, you add the number 56, you make the number 383, which is the number that Prosper noted in the Chronicle.
It is to be observed that at this Council no one was present from the Western Provinces. For Pope Damasus had gathered at Rome a Synod of the Westerners, and had invited to that place the Bishops who had come together at Constantinople, that in that way a most full Council might be celebrated at Rome; but because the Eastern Fathers for just causes could not come to Rome, Damasus accepted their excuse, and in mind and opinion those two Synods were joined, as if they had been one and the same. And because of this conjunction the Synod of Constantinople was held for one of the ecumenical and legitimate Synods. See Theodoret, Book 5 of the history, chapters 9 and 10.
The third Synod is the first of Ephesus, which was gathered under the Emperor Theodosius the younger and Celestine I the supreme Pontiff. There came together 200 Bishops, among whom the Patriarchs were Cyril of Alexandria, who also held the place of the Roman Pontiff, John of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem — although John, because the Council's decree had been made while he was still on the journey, at first began to dissent from Cyril, yet afterward they were reconciled, and thought the same. The cause of the Council was the new heresy of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, which divided Christ into two persons. The Council was celebrated when Bassus and Antiochus were consuls, as Prosper in the Chronicle and Socrates Book 7 chapter 34 indicated; and that was the year of the Lord 434. What Psellus followed, who sets an interval of only 40 years between the second and third Synods, and Onuphrius, who noted this Synod celebrated in the year of the Lord 430, when Theodosius (for the 13th time) and Valentinian (for the third) were consuls, I cannot say — especially since in the Synod itself, volume 2, chapter 1, we read in express words that the Synod was begun after the consulate of Theodosius for the 13th time and Valentinian for the third; nor could Onuphrius have been ignorant that it is not the same to say “when Theodosius for the 13th and Valentinian for the third were consuls” and “after the consulate of Theodosius for the 13th and Valentinian for the third.” Add that Vincent of Lerins, in his book on the profane novelties of words near the end, who lived at that very time, speaks thus: “About three years ago, in Asia at Ephesus, a Council was celebrated, the most illustrious men Bassus and Antiochus being consuls.” What clearer? Of this whole Synod see Liberatus in the Breviary, chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and following, Socrates Book 7 chapter 34, Evagrius Book 1 chapter 4, and the Synod itself lately translated from Greek into Latin and comprised in two volumes.
The fourth Synod is that of Chalcedon, which was gathered against the heresy of Eutyches the Archimandrite, which asserted only one nature in Christ after the incarnation. This Synod was held under Leo I the supreme Pontiff and Marcian the Augustus, in the consulate of the same Marcian, as the Council itself testifies, act 1. And this consulate of Marcian falls in the year of Christ 454 according to the computation of Matthew Palmerius and Gregory Haloander, or 432 according to Marianus Scotus and Sigebert, or 451 according to Onuphrius in his book on the Roman Pontiffs. Psellus puts 30 years between the third and fourth Synods; but he, as he took ten years from the former number and put 40 for 50, so now adds ten years and puts thirty for twenty — unless it be an error of the copyists. There were present 630 Bishops, among whom were the Patriarchs Dioscorus of Alexandria (who yet was soon cast out), Maximus of Antioch, Anatolius of Constantinople, and Juvenal of Jerusalem. See Liberatus in the Breviary, chapter 11 and following, and Evagrius Book 2 of the history, chapters 2, 3, and 4.
The Fifth general Synod is not, as many think, that which was celebrated under Agapetus and Menna, and which in the second volume of the Councils is contained under the name of the Fifth Synod in four sessions; for that was particular, and preceded the Fifth Synod, as in express words John Zonaras teaches in the life of Justinian, and Nicephorus Book 17 chapter 9. But the true Fifth Synod was gathered at Constantinople, under Vigilius the supreme Pontiff and Justinian the elder Emperor, in the twelfth year after the consulate of Basilius, as we read at the beginning of that Synod — which is the year of the Lord's incarnation 553, or 556 according to Psellus, who will have the Fifth Synod later than the fourth by 102 years. There came together 165 Bishops, as the same Psellus delivers, among whom were the Patriarchs Eutychius of Constantinople, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, and Eustochius of Jerusalem, who yet was present not in person but through Legates. But the supreme Pontiff was present neither in person nor through Legates; yet he confirmed the Synod by a document, as Nicephorus writes, Book 17 chapter 27. The cause of gathering the Council was the heresy of Origen, which was then growing strong. And so Origen was condemned, and with him Didymus and Evagrius his followers; likewise the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Theodoret of Cyrus, and the letter which was said to be of Ibas to Maris the Persian. See of this Synod Zonaras in the place cited, Nicephorus Book 17 chapter 27, Saint Gregory Book 1 letter 24, Evagrius Book 4 chapter 38, and Liberatus in the Breviary chapters 23 and 24 — though what Liberatus says is to be read very cautiously; for either they are not his own, or he was deceived by some false report. Certainly they do not agree with the narrations of the other Catholic Fathers.
The Sixth Synod was celebrated at Constantinople in the twelfth year of Constantine IV, Paul the Deacon witnessing in his life — which indeed was the year of the Lord 684 or 685, according to Psellus, who sets 129 years between the Fifth and Sixth Synods. But that in the Council itself the 28th year of the same Constantine is everywhere ascribed is not an error of the printers, as Illyricus thinks, Century 7 chapter 9. For although Constantine reigned after his father's death only 17 years, yet he reigned also many years with his father, as Zonaras signified, when he says that he was crowned by his father himself before his departure into Sicily. And so the Council numbers the years of Constantine from his first coronation, but Paul the Deacon from the death of Constans, Constantine's father. There came together 289 Bishops, as the same Paul the Deacon testifies, and the number agrees which is had in the Seventh Synod, act 3. Bede, however, in his book on the six ages near the end, Regino Book 1, Ado of Vienne, and Freculphus in the Chronicle, number only 150 Fathers. There were two Patriarchs, George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch; for of the Churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem only certain Legates were present. The supreme Pontiff Agatho too was present and presided through his Legates. In that Synod was condemned the heresy of those who would have only one will in Christ. See of this Synod, besides the authors cited, Albert Pighius in the Diatribe, and Francis Turrianus in the Apology for the Sixth and Seventh Synods. For Albert grants that these two Synods, the sixth and seventh, as they now stand, are adulterated and supposititious; on the contrary Turrianus teaches that they are true and genuine. What seems to us truer we have already explained in Book 4 on the Pontiff, chapter 11.
The Seventh Synod was gathered at Nicaea in the 8th year of Constantine and Irene, as Paul the Deacon writes, Book 33 of Roman affairs, and Cedrenus in the compendium of histories. And that was the year of Christ 781, if we believe Paul the Deacon, or 786, if we believe Cedrenus. Onuphrius sets the 10th year of Constantine and the year of Christ 789. Psellus will have only 60 years between the Sixth and Seventh Synods, which in no way coheres with the truth; therefore some think it a fault of the copyists, and that Psellus himself wrote a hundred years. There came together, as the same Psellus has it, 350 Bishops, among whom one Patriarch was Tarasius of Constantinople; of the other Patriarchs only Legates were present. Pope Adrian presided through his Legates, and together with the rest of the Synod condemned those who despoiled of all honor the sacred images of Christ and the Saints. Of this Synod see, if you please, what we discoursed when we treated of the Council of Frankfurt, in the disputation on the cult of images.
The Eighth Synod is the fourth Council of Constantinople, which was celebrated under Adrian II the supreme Pontiff and Basil the Augustus, in the third year of the same Basil, as the first acts in the Synod itself signify — which year was the year of the Lord 870. There came together 383 Bishops, among whom one Patriarch was Photius, and then Ignatius of Constantinople; the rest were present through Legates.
Here it is to be observed that three Synods were celebrated at Constantinople in the cause of Photius. One was celebrated in the time of Pope Nicholas I and the Emperor Michael, in which Ignatius was deposed and Photius ordained; of which Synod Zonaras makes mention in the life of Michael; nor is there any doubt that this was a profane Synod, as is plain from the letters of Nicholas I and Adrian II. The other Synod is that which we have called the eighth, which is extant, though imperfect, in the volumes of the Councils, in which, Photius being deposed, Ignatius was again restored; and of this Synod Zonaras makes mention in the life of the Emperor Basil. The third is that which, in the time of the same Basil, John VIII, Adrian's successor, celebrated through his Legates, in which Synod, Ignatius being now dead, Photius was again restored; and, if the things be true which the Greeks say in the Council of Florence session 6, and which Francis Turrianus relates from this Synod in his book on the acts of the sixth, seventh, and eighth Synod, the acts of the preceding Synod under Adrian were plainly rescinded — nay, it was even decreed that that particle (Filioque) should be taken away from the Creed; but this has no likelihood. Therefore I easily persuade myself either that all the things said of John VIII are fabricated, as Saint Antoninus teaches in the historical Summa, part 3, title 22, chapter 13, § 10; or certainly that it is indeed true that Photius was restored by John VIII through Legates to the see of Constantinople after the death of Ignatius, but that the rest are supposititious and adulterated, and fabricated by the Greeks, as Turrianus shows from Manuel Calecas in the cited book. And I am confirmed in this opinion, both because Zonaras makes mention indeed of the restoration of Photius, but not of the abrogation of the Eighth Council, nor of the taking of that particle (Filioque) from the Creed; and also because the Greeks in the Council of Florence session 6 do not acknowledge for an ecumenical Synod that Council under John VIII, though it might have profited them much had it been a legitimate and genuine Council. And thus far of the Eastern Councils; now we will briefly add the Western.
The ninth Council is the First Lateran, of 900 Bishops and more, in the year 1123, against the Saracens, for the recovery of the holy land, in the time of Callistus II and the Emperor Henry V. Platina, Onuphrius. It is not extant.
The tenth is the Second Lateran, of a thousand Bishops, in the year 1139, against the Antipopes and for the right of the Clergy, in the time of Innocent II and the Emperor Lothair. Platina, Onuphrius. Not extant.
The eleventh is the Third Lateran, of nearly 300 Bishops, for the reformation of the Church and against the Waldenses, in the year 1180, in the time of Alexander III and the Emperor Frederick I. Platina, Onuphrius, likewise William of Tyre, who was present, Book 20 on the holy war, chapter 26.
The twelfth is the Fourth Lateran, of 1283 Fathers, among whom were 1173 Bishops, in the year 1213, against various heresies and for the holy land, in the time of Innocent III and Frederick II. Matthew Palmerius, Onuphrius, Platina.
The thirteenth is the First of Lyons, in the year 1243, against the Emperor Frederick and for the holy land, in the time of Innocent IV and Frederick II. Matthew Palmerius, Platina, Onuphrius. Some decrees of this Council are extant in the Sext of the Decretals.
The fourteenth is the Second of Lyons, of nearly a thousand Fathers, among whom were 300 Bishops, in the year 1274, against the error of the Greeks, in the time of Gregory X and the Emperor Rudolf. Matthew Palmerius, Platina, Onuphrius. Some things from this Council are extant in the Sext of the Decretals.
The fifteenth is that of Vienne, of 300 Bishops, in the year 1311, against various heresies, in the time of Clement V and the Emperor Henry VII. Palmerius, Platina, Onuphrius. From this Council are extant the decrees which are called the Clementines.
The sixteenth is that of Florence (I omit Pisa, Constance, and Basel, of which later), in the year 1439, of 141 Fathers who subscribed, and of many others who had departed before the subscription, as is noted at the end of the Council, against the errors of the Greeks, in the time of Eugene IV and the Emperor Albert. Matthew Palmerius, Platina.
The seventeenth is the Fifth Lateran, of 114 Fathers, against schisms and for various affairs, in the time of Julius II and Leo X and the Emperor Maximilian; it began in the year 1512 and had its end in 1517.
The eighteenth is that of Trent, begun in the year 1545, finished in the year 1563, against the heresies of the Lutherans, in the time of Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV, and of the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. The number of the Fathers is described in these words by Gaspar Villalpandus, disputation 5 on the Council of Trent: “There are present,” he says, “six Cardinals, four Legates, three Patriarchs, thirty-two Archbishops, two hundred and twenty-eight Bishops, five Abbots, seven Generals of the ministers of orders, and very many procurators of Bishops.”
Of these Councils there is none which is not approved by the Pontiff and received by Catholics; for of the first eight Councils it is plain from the decree, distinction 16, canon Sancta octo. Of the nine following Synods it is plain that they are approved from this, that in them the supreme Pontiff presided. Of the last it is plain from the confirmation of Pius IV. But the Greeks receive only the first seven Councils, as is known from the Council of Florence sessions 5 and 6. The Lutherans, however, receive only the first six, as is plain from the Magdeburgians Century 8 chapter 9 and Century 9 chapter 9. The Eutychians, who are still found in Asia, receive only the first three. The Nestorians, who also are left in the East, receive only the first two. The Trinitarians, who now dwell in Hungary and Poland, receive none.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Concilia generalia approbata. Concilia generalia approbata numerantur hucusque decem et octo. Primum est Nicse- num, quod quidem celebratum est ab anno Domini 327 usque ad annum 330, qui fuit annus 13 Sylvestri Papae, et vicesimus Con¬ stantini Imperatoris ; convenerunt Episcopi 318 e quibus erant Patriarchae, Alexander Alexandrinus, Eustatius Antiochenus, Maca- rius Hierosolymitanus, et Metrophanes Con- stantinopolitanus ; quamvis hi duo postremi non erant eo tempore Patriarchse, sed diu postea eam dignitatem adepti sunt. Quidam etiam Metrophanem non per se, sed per Le¬ gatum Alexandrum, qui postea ei successit in Episcopatu adfuisse volunt. Vide Meta- phrastem in Orat, de rebus gest. apud Ni¬ caeam. Ac duae potissimum controversiae definitae sunt : una de die Paschatis : altera de Divinitate Christi adversus hseresim Aria- norum, ipso Ario Principe haereseos post an¬ nos decem in latrinis dum alvum purgaret fcede defuncto. Sed quia haec omnia in dubium revocari possent propter discrepantes Scriptorum sen¬ tentias, paucis singula demonstranda sunt. Primum, de tempore Concilii mira est opi¬ nionum varietas, sed veritas nostrae senten¬ tiae hac ratione confirmari potest. Constat, Concilium Nicaenum finem accepisse anno 20 Imperii Constantini. Id enim scribit Eu- sebius lib. III de vita Constantini, et Socra¬ tes lib. I histor. c. 12. coepit autem Constan¬ tinus imperare anno Christi 311 ut ex Chro¬ nico S. Hieronymi, ex Gregorio Haloandro, aliisque Chronologis patet. Efficitur igitur, ut anno Christi 330 fuerit annus Constantini 20 et finis Nicaeni Concilii. Item inchoatum est Concilium Paulino, et Juliano consulibus, ut Socrates refert lib. I, cap. 9. alias 13. et Nicephorus lib. VIII, cap. 26. Duravit autem annis 3. ut idem Ni¬ cephorus ibidem testatur. Porro consulatum Paulini, et Juliani Cassiodorus annotavit an¬ no 17 Constantini, ex quo sequitur finitum Concilium fuisse anno 20 ejusdem; proinde inchoatum anno Christi 327, finitum anno 330. Sane Onuphrius Panvinus, quia consu¬ latum Paulini, et Juliani ponit anno Christi 325. hoc ipso anno ponit initium Synodi Ni¬ caenae. Deinde incidisse Concilii tempus in Syl¬ vestri Pontificatum, non Sylvestri et Julii, ut Photius docet in lib. de septem Synodis, vel Julii solius, ut Sozomenus scribit lib. I, cap. 16. et ex Sozomeno Calvinus lib. IV In- stitut. cap. 7, §. 1. et Joachimus Camerarius in historia Nicaenae Synodi , ubi se diligen- tissimum scriptorum veterum lectorem fuisse affirmat, facile demonstrari potest. Nam, ut supra diximus anno 20 Constantini, finis Concilio impositus est , quod etiam fatetur Camerarius lib. cit. Sylvester autem creatus est Pontifex anno sexto Constantini, ut ex Chronico Eusebii, ac Hieronymi patet, et se¬ dit in Apostolica sede supra 20 annos , ut Damasus, Onuphrius, et omnes omnino scrip¬ tores testantur. Igitur annus 20 Constantini, et finis Nicaeni Concilii in Sylvestri Pontifi¬ catum necessario incidit. Praeterea Milthiades Sylvestri praedeces¬ sor sedit eodem Constantino imperante, ut testantur Optatus lib. I contra Parmenian. et Augustinus in epist. 162 et 165. et ipse etiam Constantinus apud Eusebium lib. X hist. cap. 5. non igitur potuit Sylvester nisi post inchoatum Constantini imperium Apos- tolicam sedem adipisci. Tenuit autem eam omnium consensu supra 20 annos. Ergo 20 anno Constantini, qui fuit postremus Nicaeni Concilii, non Julius, sed Sylvester Apostoli- cam sedem moderabatur. Quare recte Da¬ masus in Pontificali, Hieronymus in Chroni¬ co, Theodoretus lib. I hist. cap. 3. sexta Sy¬ nodus act. 18. et Concilium Florentinum sess. 3. aliique permulti auctores Nicaenam Synodum Sylvestri Papas temporibus factam esse scripserunt. De numero Episcoporum, qui eidem Con¬ cilio interfuerunt, videntur esse sententiae variae. Nam Eusebius lib. III de vita Con¬ stantini dicit convenisse Episcopos supra 250. Athanasius lib. de smitentia Nicaenas Synodi ait, fuisse Episcopos plus minus 300. Eustathius apud Theodoretum lib. I, c. 8. hist. dicit numeratos supra 270. Sozomenus lib. I, cap. 16. ponit circiter 310. Vera ta¬ men, et communis, sententia est, fuisse 318. Nam Epiphanius haeresi 69. scripsit , usque ad sua tempora fuisse conservata nomina singulorum Episcoporum , et fuisse praecise 318. Hilarius quoque in lib, de Synodis pro¬ pe extremum, et Ambrosius praefatione li¬ brorum de fide, mysticum et sacrum dicunt esse numerum Patrum Concilii Nicaeni, et multo antea praefiguratum in illis 348 militi¬ bus, quibus Abraham victoriam de quinque regibus reportavit. Denique Hieronymus in Chronico, Sulpitius lib. II hist, Theodoretus lib. I, c. 7. et omnes alii constanter hunc numerum ponunt. Jam vero duas fuisse causas ejus Concilii: quaestionem videlicet de Paschate, et quaes¬ tionem de Christi Divinitate, testantur Eu¬ sebius lib. III de vita Constantini, Athana¬ sius in libro de Synodis Arimini, et Seleu- ciae, et Epiphanius haeresi 70 quae est Audia- norum. Denique, utrum Nicaenum Concilium ante mortem probrosam Arii celebratum sit, non est omnino certum. Epiphanius enim haeresi 69. aperte scribit , Concilium post mortem Arii celebratum fuisse : at contrarium scri¬ bunt historici. Ruffinus lib. X, cap. 13. So¬ crates lib. I, cap. 19 et 25. et caeteri. Neque possunt hae sententiae conciliari , si dicamus duos Arios fuisse, ut significat Sulpitius 1. II sacrae historiae. Nam etiamsi duo Arii fue¬ rint, unus tamen est ille, qui periit in latri¬ nis. Hunc autem ipsum Epiphanius ante Con¬ cilium, Ruffinus et caeteri post Concilium ponunt. Et sane videntur historici melius sensisse, praesertim cum in Y Synodo trac¬ tatum sit, an liceat haereticos post mortem damnare quod certe in dubium venire non potuisset, si Arium jam mortuum Synodus Nicaena damnasset. Sed res non est tanti mo¬ menti, ut propterea oporteat nos plus tem¬ poris in ea consumere. Secunda Synodus est Constantinopolitana, quae celebrata est adversus Macedonium, negantem Spiritus sancti divinitatem, Theo¬ dosio seniore Imperatore, ac Damaso sum¬ mo Pontifice. Convenerunt autem Episcopi ex diversis provinciis 150 , e quibus Patri¬ archae fuerunt Nectarius Constantinopolita- nus , Timotheus Alexandrinus, Meletius Antiochenus, et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Porro tempus Synodi hujus secundae inci¬ dit, Prospero teste in Chronico, in Consula¬ tum Gratiani et Theodosii Augustorum, hoc est, in annum Domini 383, vel in annum se¬ quentem, ut vult Socrates, qui lib. Y histor. cap. 8. scribit, Concilium convenisse Coss. Syagrio et Eucberio, hoc est in annum 384, vel si rationem Onuphrii sequaris, in annum 381, quos eodem Prospero et Cassiodoro, et aliis constat Consulatum gessisse post con¬ sulatum Gratiani c-t Augusti. Psellus in libro de septem Synodis ponit intervallum anno¬ rum 56. inter primam et secundam Syno¬ dum. Si autem ad numerum annorum 327, quo tempore diximus inchoatam fuisse Sy¬ nodum primam, addas numerum annorum 56, efficies numerum annorum 383 , qui est numerus, quem Prosper in Chronico adno- tavit. Est vero animadvertendum, in hoc Conci¬ lio, neminem adfuisse ex Provinciis Occiden¬ talibus. Siquidem Damasus Papa Romce coegerat Synodum Occidentalium, atque ad ' eum locum invitaverat Episcopos, qui Con- stantinopoli convenerant, ut eo modo Romae celebraretur Concilium plenissimum ; sed quia patres Orientales justis de causis Ro¬ mam venire non potuerunt , accepit Dama- sus excusationem eorum, et animis ac sen¬ tentiis, duae illae Synodi conjunctae sunt, ac si una et eadem fuissent. Atque propter hu¬ jusmodi conjunctionem habita est Synodos Constantinopolitana una ex QEcumenicis et legitimis Synodis. Yide Theodoretum lib. Y liist. cap. 9 et 10. Tertia Synodus est Ephesina I quae coacta est Theodosio juniore Imperatore, et Celes- tino I summo Pontifice; Convenerunt Epis¬ copi 200. Ex quibus Patriarchae fuerunt Cy- rillus Alexandrinus, qui locum etiam Ro¬ mani Pontificis obtinebat, Joannes Antioche¬ nus, et Juvenalis Hierosolymitanus ; quam¬ quam Joannes, quia, se adhuc in itinere constituto, Concilii decretum factum fuerat, initio dissentire coepit a Cyrillo, postea ta¬ men reconciliati sunt, atque idem senserunt. Causa Concilii fuit Nestorii Episcopi Constan- tinopolitani nova haeresis , quae Christum in duas personas dividebat. Celebratum vero Concilium est Rasso et Antiocho Consulibus , ut Prosper in Chroni¬ co, et Socrates lib. YII, cap. 34. indicarunt; Is autem erat annus Domini 434. Quid secuti sint Psellus,' qui ponit solum intervallum an¬ norum 40 inter secundam et tertiam Syno¬ dum, et Onuphrius, qui adnotavit hanc Sy¬ nodum celebratam anno Domini 430, Coss. Theodosio decimumtertium, et Yalentiniano tertium, non possum dicere, praesertim cum in ipsa Synodo tom. II, cap. 1. disertis ver¬ bis legamus Synodum inchoatam post Con¬ sulatum Theodosii decimumtertium, et Va¬ lentiniani tertium , nec ignorare potuerit Onuphrius, non esse idem Coss. Theodosio decimumtertium, et Yalentiniano tertium, et post consulatum Theodosii decimumtertium et Valentiniani tertium. Adde, quod Vincentius Lirinensis in lib. de profanis vocum novitatibus prope extre¬ mum, qui ipso tempore vixit, ita loquitur : « Ante triennium ferme in Asia apud Ephe¬ sum celebratum Concilium est, viris clarissi¬ mis Basso, Antiochoque Consulibus. » Quid clarius ? De tota hac Synodo vide Liberatum in Breviario cap. 5, 6, 7, 8 et sequentibus, Socratem lib. YII, c. 34. Evagrium 1. I, c. 4. et ipsam Synodum nuper ex Graeco in Lati¬ num sermonem conversam, ac tomis duobus comprehensam. Quarta Synodus est Chalcedonensis, quae collecta est adversum hceresim Eutychetis Archimandritae, quae unam tantum in Christo naturam asserebat post incarnationem. Acta vero est haec Synodus Leone I Pontifice Ma¬ ximo, et Martiano Augusto, Consulatu ejus¬ dem Martiani, ut ipsum Concilium testatur act. I. Incidit autem is Martiani Consulatus in annum Christi 454. juxta computum Mat¬ thaei Palmerii, et Gregorii Haloandri, vel 432. juxta Marianum Scotum et Sigebertum, vel 451. juxta Onuphrium in lib. de Roma¬ nis Pontificib. Psellus 30 annos interponit inter tertiam et quartam Synodum ; sed is, ut superiori numero detraxit annos decem, ac posuit 40 pro 50, ita nunc addit annos 10, ac posuit triginta pro viginti , nisi sit error Librariorum. Porro Episcopi adfuerunt 630 ex quibus erant Patriarchae , Bioscorus Ale¬ xandrinus, qui tamen mox ejectus est, Maxi¬ mus Antiochenus, Anatholius Constantino- politanus, et Juvenalis Hierosolymitanus. Yide Liberatum in Breviario cap. 11 . et se¬ quentibus, et Evagrium lib. II histor. c. 2, 3 et 4. Quinta Synodus generalis non est, ut multi putant, ea quae sub Agapeto et Menna cele¬ brata est, quaeque in secundo tomo Concilio¬ rum sub nomine quintae Synodi quatuor ac¬ tionibus continetur; siquidem illa particula¬ ris fuit, et quintam Synodum antecessit, ut disertis verbis docent Joannes Zonaras in vita Justiniani, et Nicephorus lib. XVII, cap. 9. Coacta est autem quinta Synodus vera apud Constantinopolim, Vigilio summo Pon¬ tifice, et Justiniano seniore Imperatore, an¬ no duodecimo post Consulatum Basilii, ut initio ejusdem Synodi legimus, qui est annus Dominica: incarnationis 553 vel 556, juxta Psellum, qui annis 102 vult posteriorem esse quintam Synodum quarta. Convenerunt Epis¬ copi 165, ut idem Psellus tradit; e quibus erant Patriarchae Eutychius Constantinopo- litanus, Apollinaris Alexandrinus, Domninus Antiochenus, et Eustochius Hierosolymita¬ nus, qui tamen non per se , sed per Legatos interfuit. Summus autem Pontifex , nec per se, nec per Legatos interfuit. Synodum ta¬ men per libellum confirmavit, ut Nicephorus scribit lib. XVII, c. 27. Causa congregandi Concilii fuit Origenis hseresis, quce tunc invalescebat. Itaque dam¬ natus est Origenes, et simul Dydimus et Evagrius ejus sectatores : necnon Theodori Mopsuesteni, et Theodoreti Cirensis scripta, et epistola, quae dicebatur Iba3 ad Marim Persam. Yide de hac Synodo Zonaram loco citato, Nicepliorum lib. XVII, cap. 27, S. Gregorium lib. I, epist. 24. Evagrium 1. IV, cap. 38. et Liberatum in Breviario cap. 23 et 24 : tametsi -quse Liberatus dicit, valde caute legenda sunt; aut enim non sunt ipsius, aut ipse falsa aliqua relatione deceptus fuit. Certe non congimunt cum aliorum Catholi¬ corum Patrum narrationibus. Sexta Synodus celebrata est apud Con- stantinopolim anno duodecimo Constantini IV teste Paulo Diacono in vita ejusdem , qui quidem erat annus Domini 684 vel 685, juxta Psellum. qui annos 129 ponit inter quintam et sextam Synodum. Quod vero in ipso Con¬ cilio passim adscribitur annus 28 ejusdem Constantini, non est error Typographorum, ut censet Illyricus Cent. VII, cap. 9. Nam etiamsi non imperavit Constantinus post mortem patris, nisi annis 17, tamen impe¬ ravit etiam annis multis cum patre suo , ut Zonaras significavit, dum illum ait ab ipso patre coronatum fuisse ante discessum in Siciliam. Itaque Concilium numerat annos Constantini a prima coronatione. Paulus ve¬ ro Diaconus a morte Constantis patris Con¬ stantini. Convenerunt Episcopi 289, ut idem Pau¬ lus Diaconus testatur, et consentit numerus, qui habetur in VII Synodo act. 3. Beda ta¬ men in lib. de sex aetatibus, prope finem, Rhegino lib. I. Ado Viennensis , et Frecul- phus in Chronico, solum centum quinqua¬ ginta Patres numeran.t. Patriarchae fuerunt duo, Georgius Constantinopolitanus , et Ma- carius Antiochenus. Nam Alexandrinae et Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiarum solum Legati quidam adfuerunt. Summus quoque Pontifex Agatho per Legatos suos interfuit, et praese¬ dit. In ea Synodo damnata est haeresis eo¬ rum , qui unam tantum in Christo volunta¬ tem esse volebant. Vide de hac Synodo prae¬ ter citatos auctores, Albertum Pigbium in Diatriba, et Franciscum Turrianum in Apo- logia pro VI et VII Synodo. Albertus enim has duas Synodos sextam et septimam , ut modo exstant, adulterinas, et supposititias esse concedit. Contra Turrianus veras et gennanas esse docet. Quid nobis verius vi¬ deatur in lib. IV de Pontifice cap. 11. jam explicavimus. Septima Synodus ‘apud Nicaeam congre¬ gata est anno 8 Constantini et Irense, ut scribunt Paulus Diaconus lib. XXXIII rerum Romanorum, et Cedrenus in compendio his¬ toriarum. Fuit autem is annus Christi 781, si Paulo Diacono credimus, vel 786, si cre¬ dimus Cedreno. Onuphrius ponit annum Constantini 10 et Christi 789 ; Psellus annos duntaxat 60 inter sextam et septimam Syno¬ dum esse volunt; quod nullo modo cum ve¬ ritate cohaeret. Ideo quidem mendum esse putant Librariorum, ac Psellum ipsum an¬ nos centum scripsisse. Convenerunt Epis¬ copi, ut idem Psellus habet 350 , e quibus Patriarcha unus fuit Tharasius Constantino¬ politanus, caeterorum Patriarcharum solum Legati adfuerunt. Adrianus Papa per Lega¬ tos suos praesedit, ac una cum reliqua Sy¬ nodo eos damnavit, qui sacras Christi et Sanctorum imagines omni honore spolia¬ bant. De hac Synodo vide, si placet, quae nos disseruimus, cum ageremus de Concilio Francofordiensi, in disputatione de cultu imaginum. Octava Synodus est Concilium IV Con- stantinopolitanum , quod celebratum est Adriano II. summo Pontifice, et Basilio Au¬ gusto, anno tertio ejusdem Basilii, ut in ipsa Synodo acta prima significant, qui annus erat Domini 870. Convenerunt Episcopi 383 e quibus unus Patriarcha Photius, ac deinde Ignatius Constantinopolitanus , caeteri per Legatos adfuerunt. Est autem hoc loco animadvertendum, tres Synodos in causa Photii Constantino- poli celebratas. Una tempore Nicolai I Pon¬ tificis, etMichaelis Imperatoris celebrata est, in qua depositus fuit Ignatius, et ordinatus Photius ; cujus Synodi meminit Zonaras in vita Michaelis; nec est dubium , hanc fuisse profanam Synodum, ut patet ex epistolis Ni¬ colai I et Adriani II. Altera Synodus est ea, quam nos diximus octavam, quae exstat, quamvis imperfecta, in tomis Conciliorum, in qua deposito Pho- tio, iterum restitutus est Ignatius, atque hu¬ jus Synodi meminit Zonaras in Basilii Impe¬ ratoris. Tertia est ea, quam tempore ejusdem Ba¬ silii celebravit per Legatos suos Joannes VIII, Adriani successor, in qua Synodo, de¬ functo jamlgnatio, iterum resti tutus est Pho- tius; et, si vera sunt, quas Graeci dicunt in Concilio Florentino sess. 6. et quae refert ex hac Synodo FranciscusTurrianus, in lib. de actis VI, VII et VIII Synodi, rescissa plane acta praecedentis Synodi, subAdriano: quin etiam statutum, ut tolleretur de Symbolo illa particula (Filioque), sed id nullam habet verisimilitudinem. Idcirco facile mihi per¬ suadeo, aut esse omnia conficta, quae dicun¬ tur de Joanne VIII, ut S. Antoninus docet in Summa historiali part. 3. tit. XXII. cap. 13. §. 10. aut certe verum quidem esse, Ph otium a Joanne VIII per Legatos restitu¬ tum in sedem Gonstantinopolitanam post mortem Ignatii; at caetera supposititia, et adulterina esse, et a Graecis conficta, ut ex Manuele Calleca Turrianus ostendit lib. ci¬ tato. Confirmor autem in hac sententia, tum quia Zonaras meminit quidem restitutionis Photii, non autem abrogationis Concilii VIII, nec ablationis illius particulae (Filioque) ex Symbolo ; tum etiam, quia Graeci in Conci¬ lio Florentino sess. 6. non agnoscunt pro Sy¬ nodo Oecumenica Concilium illud sub Joanne VIII, etsi illis multum prodesse potuisset, si legitimum et germanum Concilium fuisset. Atque hactenus de Conciliis Orientalibus, nunc addemus breviter Occidentalia. Nonum Concilium est Lateranense Pri¬ mum, Episcoporum 900 et amplius, anno 1123, contra Saracenos, pro recuperanda terra sancta, tempore Callisti II et Henrici V Imperatoris. Platina, Onuphrius. Non ex¬ stat. Decimum est Lateranense II, Episcoporum mille, anno 1139, contra Antipapas, et pro iure Cleri, tempore Innocentii II et Lotharii Imperatoris. Platina, Onuphrius. Non ex¬ stat. Undecimum est Lateranense III, Episco¬ porum fere 300, pro reformatione Ecclesiae, et contra Waldenses, anno 1180, tempore Alexandri III et Frederici I Imperatoris. Pla¬ tina, Onuphrius, item Gulielmus Tyrius, qui interfuit, lib. XX de bello sacro, cap. 26. Duodecimum est Lateranense IV, Patrum 1283, ex quibus erant Episcopi 1173, anno 1213, contra varias haereses , et pro terra sancta, tempore Innocentii III etFriderici II. Matthaeus Palmerius, Onuphrius, Platina. Tertiumdecimum est Lugdunense Pri¬ mum, anno 1243, contra Imperatorem Fri- dericum, et pro terra sancta, tempore Inno¬ centii JV et Frederici II. Matthaeus Palm. Platina, Onuphrius. Exstant hujus Concilii aliqua decreta in Sexto decretalium. Decimumquartum est Lugdunense II, Pa¬ trum fere mille, ex quibus Episcopi erant 300, anno 1274, contra errorem Graecorum, tempore Greg. X et Rodulphi Imperatoris. Matthaeus Palm. Platina, Onuphrius. Ex¬ stant ex hoc Concilio quaedam in Sexto de¬ cretalium. Decimumquintum est Viennense, Episco¬ porum 300, anno 1311, contra varias liaere- ses, tempore Clementis V et Henrici VII Im¬ peratoris. Palmerius, Platina, Onuphrius. Exstant ex hoc Concilio decreta, quae dicun¬ tur Clementinae. Decimumsextum est Florentinum, (Omitto Pisanum , Constantiense et Basileense de quibus postea) anno 1439, Patrum 141, qui subscripserunt, et multorum aliorum, qui ante subscriptionem discesserant ; ut in fine Concilii annotatur, contra errores Graeco¬ rum, tempore Eugenii IV et Alberti Impe¬ ratoris. Matth. Palmerius, Platina. Decimumseptimum est Lateranense V, Pa¬ trum 114, contra schismata, et pro variis ne¬ gotiis, tempore Julii II et Leonis X et Maxi- miliani Imperatoris, coepit anno 1512, finem habuit 1517. Decimumoctavum est Tridentinum, anno 1545 inchoatum, anno 1563 finitum, contra haereses Lutheranorum, tempore Pauli III, Julii III ac Pii IV, et Caroli V ac Ferdinandi Imperatorum. Numerus Patrum his verbis describitur a Gaspare Villalpandaeo, dispu¬ tatione quinta de Concilio Tridentino. « Ad¬ sunt, inquit, sex Cardinales, quatuor Legati, Patriarchae tres, Archiepiscopi triginta duo, Episcopi ducenti vigintiocto. Abbates quin¬ que, Generales ordinum ministri septem, Episcoporum procuratores plurimi. » Ex his Conciliis nullum est, quod non sit a Pontifice probatum, et a Catholicis reci¬ piatur ; nam de primis octo Conciliis patet ex decr. dist.16. can. Sancta octo. De novem sequentibus Synodis, ex eo patet esse pro¬ batas, quod in eis praefuerit summus Ponti¬ fex. De ultima patet ex confirmatione Pii IV. At Graeci tantum recipiunt prima septem Concilia, ut notum est ex Concilio Florent, sess. 5 et 6. Lutherani autem tantum reci¬ piunt prima sex, ut patet ex Magdeburgen- sibus Cent. VIII. cap. 9. et Centur. IX. cap. 9. Eutychiani, qui adhuc inveniuntur in Asia, tantum recipiunt prima tria. Nestoria- ni, qui etiam in Oriente reliqui sunt, tantum recipiunt prima duo. Trinitarii, qui in Hun- garia et Polonia nunc versantur, nullum re¬ cipiunt.