Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 12: Whose It Is to Convoke 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).
We have set forth the end; now we must explain the efficient cause. It is agreed, then, between us and the adversaries that Diocesan Councils ought to be convoked by the Bishop, Provincial by the Archbishop, National by the Patriarch or Primate. For this, with Augustine (letter 217 to Victorinus), all Catholics confess to be true. The same confesses Calvin, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 7, § 8, and Illyricus, Century 4, chapter 7, column 534.
But of a general Council there is the greatest controversy. For the Catholics will have the office of convoking general Councils to pertain properly to the Roman Pontiff — yet so that another too, with the Pontiff consenting, can proclaim a Council; nay, that it is enough if the Pontiff afterward ratify and confirm a proclamation made. But if neither he himself proclaims the Council, nor anyone else by his command or consent, nor does he at least approve the proclamation, then it will be not a Council, but a conventicle. But the heretics of this time attribute that authority to the Emperor. So expressly Luther, in his book on Councils, page 58, where he also says that the Councils are called universal because they were gathered by the universal lord of all, the Emperor. Charles Molinaeus, in his counsel on not receiving the Council of Trent, § 6, thence proves that the Council of Trent is not to be received, because it was proclaimed not by the Emperor but by the Pontiff. Likewise the little book of the Protestants in which they give the reason why they did not come to the Council of Trent. The same teach Calvin and the Magdeburgians in the place noted; and Brentius in the Prolegomena against Peter a Soto; and before all these, Nilus in his book on the primacy of the Pope.
But that it is really the Pontiff's, not the Emperor's, to gather a general Synod, can first be demonstrated from the divine letters. For a Council of the Church is not legitimate unless it be gathered in the name of Christ, as is said Matthew 18, and Calvin admits, Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 9, §§ 1 and 2. But to be gathered in the name of Christ seems nothing else than to be gathered by the authority of Christ — that is, by him who has from Christ the authority of gathering. For what Calvin says, that to be gathered in the name of Christ is so to be gathered that Christ alone presides and has no colleague but all subject, is neither according to the Scriptures, nor is it a sufficient mark to discern legitimate Councils. It is not, I say, according to the Scriptures; for in the Scriptures that phrase in the name is almost everywhere taken for that which is by authority, as Mark last chapter: In my name they shall cast out devils. John 5: I am come in the name of my Father. Matthew 7: Have we not prophesied in thy name? Acts 4: By what power, or in what name, have you done this? Nor perhaps will any place be found where to do something in the name of Christ signifies that Christ presides without a colleague. But whatever be of this, this is certain: that by this mark legitimate Councils cannot be discerned. For it is indeed true that in a legitimate Council Christ ought so to preside that no one is His colleague, but all subject; but who shall judge? who shall discern whether Christ so presides when a Council is gathered, or not? For Christ does not preside in Councils in a visible form.
Calvin answers that this can easily be discerned; for then Christ presides without a colleague, when He governs the whole assembly by His word and Spirit — that is, when the Bishops define nothing of their own head, but all according to the rule of Scripture. But this very thing is ambiguous and obscure; for both the adversaries in their Councils, and the Catholics in theirs, affirm that they invent nothing of their own head, but draw all from the divine letters. Who, then, shall judge which of them make a true Council? Wherefore, if to be gathered in the name of Christ is to have Christ as president, as Calvin expounds, it is impossible for us to discern legitimate Councils from illegitimate by any reasoning. Let it stand, then, as we said, that to be gathered in the name of Christ is nothing else than to be gathered by him who has from Christ the authority of gathering.
Now Christ, when He ascended into heaven and withdrew His visible presence from the Church, did not commit the Church to be governed — and accordingly to be gathered — to Tiberius, who then reigned, but to Peter the Apostle, to whom He says: Feed my sheep. Therefore those who are gathered by him who succeeds Peter are gathered in the name of Christ; but not those who are gathered by him who succeeds Tiberius. Moreover Peter, and he who legitimately succeeds Peter, is the Pastor of all the sheep of Christ, and accordingly also of Kings, Emperors, Priests; for He comprehends all who excepted none, when He said: Simon, son of John, feed my sheep. Whence Saint Leo, sermon 3 on the anniversary of his assumption: “Out of the whole world one Peter is chosen, who is set over both the calling of all nations, and all the Apostles, and all the Fathers of the Church; so that, although in the people of God there be many Priests and many Pastors, yet Peter properly rules all whom Christ principally rules.” But who does not see that it befits not the sheep to gather the shepherds, but the shepherd to gather the sheep? Therefore, since the Pontiff is the shepherd and the Emperor a sheep, the office of convoking the Councils of Bishops will belong not to the Emperor but to the Pontiff.
Secondly, a general Council ought to be proclaimed, by authority, by him who can compel all; but no Emperor ever had the whole Church subject, even as to civil actions, as the Pontiff has it as to spiritual actions. For the Emperors ruled most widely in the time of blessed Leo and blessed Prosper, and yet then the Christian world subject to the Pope was greater than the Roman world subject to the Emperor. For thus speaks Saint Leo, sermon 1 on Saints Peter and Paul: “Through the sacred See of blessed Peter, made the head of the world, (Rome) thou presidest more widely by divine religion than by earthly dominion.” And Prosper, in his book on the Ungrateful, thus sings: “Rome, the See of Peter, which, made the head of the world by pastoral honor, whatever it does not possess by arms, it holds by religion.” But now the Emperor could scarcely compel the Bishops of one province to a Council; for the Italians, Spaniards, French are not subject to the Emperor, but have their own Kings or temporal Princes. What if there were no Emperor — nay, no Christian Prince at all? Would Councils therefore be unable to be held?
Thirdly, provincial Councils are proclaimed by the Metropolitan, and national by the Primate or Patriarch, as we showed above, even by the testimony of the adversaries; therefore general Councils are to be proclaimed not by the Emperor, but by the supreme Pontiff. For if the Emperor ought to proclaim general Councils, then a King, or Duke, or civil Magistrate ought to proclaim provincial or national Councils. For as the Emperor of the world stands to a general Council, so a King or Duke of one province stands to the Council of that province or nation. As, therefore, they confess that provincial Councils are convoked not by the political Prince of that province, but by the Ecclesiastical one, why do they not by the same reason confess that general Councils ought to be gathered not by the political prince of the whole world, but by the Ecclesiastical one? But that the Roman Pope is the Ecclesiastical Prince of the whole Christian world we have a little before heard from the great Leo, and have most fully demonstrated in the books on the Pontiff.
Add that even if the Roman Pontiff were not the true Prince and Ecclesiastical Monarch, as we teach, but were only the Bishop of the first see, or first among the chief Patriarchs, as Nilus thinks, still the right of proclaiming general Councils would pertain to him. For Primates do not properly command other Bishops, and yet, because they hold the first place among the Bishops of their nation, they can by their own right proclaim national Councils. For the Metropolitan proclaims a provincial Synod because he presides over the whole province; but the supreme Pontiff presides over the whole world, as is plain from Leo, sermon 3 on the anniversary day of his assumption to the Pontificate, and letter 84 to Anastasius at the end.
Fourthly, it is proved from that most ancient canon by which it is established that Councils cannot be celebrated apart from the sentence of the Roman Pontiff. For this canon Pope Marcellus writes to be Apostolic, in his letter to the Bishops of the province of Antioch. The same the Council of Nicaea renewed, as the Alexandrian Synod testifies in its letter to Felix, and Julius I in his letter to the Eastern Bishops, of which Socrates makes mention, Book 2 chapter 13, Sozomen Book 3 chapter 9, and Nicephorus Book 9 chapter 5. If, then, it is not lawful to celebrate Councils without the consent of the Roman Pontiff, it follows that it is chiefly his to convoke them.
Calvin answers, in the place noted, that from that canon this only is made out, that the Roman Pontiff too ought to have been called to the Synod, because he was one of the chief Patriarchs. But if it were so, then also a canon could have been made that a Council should not be gathered apart from the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria or of Antioch; for these too were chief Patriarchs, and, according to Calvin, equal to or greater than the Roman Pontiff.
The Magdeburgians, Century 4, chapter 7, column 533, devised another solution. For they say that the words of Socrates do not signify that Councils ought not to be celebrated apart from the sentence of the Roman Pontiff, but that Churches ought not to be dedicated. For thus it is had in the Greek: [that it is not right, apart from the judgment of the Bishop of Rome, to kanonizein the churches]. But the Magdeburgians are mistaken; for [kanonizein tas ekklesias] cannot signify to dedicate temples, but to convoke a canonical assembly, or to proclaim a Council — in which way speak Marcellus and Julius the Pontiffs, who seem to have written in Latin, and in which way in Socrates and Sozomen Cassiodorus translated into Latin in the Tripartite history, Book 4, chapters 9 and 19; in which way also Nicephorus understood it, Book 9, chapter 5. But most clearly the whole matter can be demonstrated from the letter of Julius, which Socrates adduces; since in that letter Julius reproves the Easterners for having celebrated the Council of Antioch without his consent. And wishing to give the reason why he deservedly reproved them, he brings forward that canon. Either, then, the canon must be understood of the celebration of a Council, or Julius must have been foolish; and which of these is truer, who does not see? Add that no ancient makes mention of such a canon by which Churches are forbidden to be dedicated apart from the sentence of the Roman Pontiff; nay, there never was, nor is there now, in the Church any use of that canon.
Fifthly, it is proved from the Council of Chalcedon, act 1, where Dioscorus of Alexandria is commanded not to sit among the Bishops, because he had dared to hold a Synod without the authority of the Apostolic See: “Which,” it says, “was never lawful, was never done.” Something similar we have in the Seventh general Council, act 6, where a certain Council of Constantinople was judged void, because it had been gathered by the Emperor without the consent of the Roman Pontiff.
Sixthly, it is proved from the fourth Roman Council under Symmachus, in which, when King Theodoric said that he had convoked the Synod that the cause of Pope Symmachus might be judged, all the Bishops answered that the Synod ought to have been called by the Pope, not by the King, even though the Pope were accused. The King, indeed, said that he had convoked the Synod by the will and consent of the Pontiff; but the Bishops did not acquiesce until the King produced the Pontiff's letters, and the Pontiff himself, present, testified that it was so.
Seventhly, it is proved by the testimony of the ancient Pontiffs. Blessed Leo, in his letter to Turribius, which is the 93rd, chapter 17: “We have given letters to the brethren and our fellow-Bishops, and to them we have proclaimed the Council of a general Synod.” Pelagius II, in letter 1 to the Easterners: “The authority of convoking general Synods was delivered to the Apostolic See of blessed Peter by a singular privilege.” Sixtus III, who preceded both Pelagius and Leo, in his letter to the Easterners: “Valentinian Augustus convoked the Synod by our authority.” Adrian II, in his letter to the Emperor Basil, which was read in the Eighth Synod, act 1: “We wish, through the industry of thy piety, a numerous Council to be convoked at Constantinople.” To these let there be added the Emperor Valentinian, who, when he was asked by the Bishops to permit them to celebrate a Council, answered, as Sozomen relates, Book 6 chapter 7: “For me, who am in the lot of the people, it is not right to scrutinize such things too curiously; let the priests, whose care these things are, come together in whatever place they will.” Let there be added, last, many other Canons which are had in distinction 17, and the very many reasons which John of Torquemada makes, Book 3 chapter 6, and the last Lateran Council under Leo X, session 11, where it is asserted that it belongs to the Roman Pontiff to proclaim general Councils — which decree was made one year before the Lutheran heresy was born.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Cujus sit congregare Concilia. Exposuimus de fine , nunc de causa effi¬ ciente explicemus, oportet. Igitur convenit inter nos, et adversarios Concilia Dicecesana ab Episcopo; Provincialia ab Archiepiscopo; Nationalia a Patriarcha, vel Primate convo¬ cari debere. Id enim cum Augustino epist. 217. ad Victorinum, Catholici omnes verum esse fatentur. Idem fatetur Calvinus lib. IV Instit. can. 7, §. 8, et Illyricus Cent. IV, c. 7, coi. 534. At de Concilio generali maxima controver¬ sia est; si quidem Catholici, munus convo¬ candi Concilia generalia ad Romanum Pon¬ tificem proprie pertinere volunt, sic tamen, ut possit etiam alius, Pontifice consentiente, Concilium indicere, quin etiam satis sit , si indictionem factam , ipse postea ratam ha¬ beat , et confirmet. At si nec ipse indicat Concilium, nec aliquis alius de ejus manda¬ to, vel consensu , nec ipse saltem approbet indictionem, illud non Concilium, sed conci- liabulum fore. Hseretici autem hujus temporis eam auc¬ toritatem Imperatori attribuunt. Ita diserte Lutherus lib. de Conciliis pag. 58. ubi etiam dicit, ideo vocari Concilia universalia , quia ab universali omnium domino Imperatore cogebantur. Carolus Molinseus in consilio de Concilio Tridentino non recipiendo §. 6. in¬ de probat non esse recipiendum Tridentinum Concilium , quia non ab Imperatore , sed a Pontifice indictum fuit. Item libellus Protes- tantium, quo rationem reddunt, cur ad Con¬ cilium Tridentinum non venerint. Idem do¬ cent Calvinus et Magdeburgenses loco nota¬ to : necnon Brentius in Prolegomenis contra Petrum a Soto , et ante hos omnes Nilus in lib. de primatu Papse. Esse autem revera Pontificis, non Impera¬ toris congregare Synodum generalem, primo demonstrari potest ex divinis litteris ; nam Concilium Ecclesias non est legitimum : nisi congregetur in nomine Christi , ut dicitur Matth. XVIII. et Calvinus admittit lib. IV (1) Matth. XVIII, 20. t Instit. cap.9, §. 1 et 2. congregari autem in nomine Christi, nihil videtur esse aliud, quam congregari auctoritate Christi, hoc est, ab eo, qui a Christo habeat congregandi auc¬ toritatem. Nam quod Calvinus dicit, congre¬ gari in nomine Christi, esse ita congregari, ut solus Christus praesideat, et nullum colle¬ gam habeat , sed omnes subjectos , nec est secundum Scripturas, nec est nota sufficiens ad discernenda legitima Concilia : non est in¬ quam, secundum Scripturas ; nam in Scriptu¬ ris, illud : In nomine , ubique fere accipitur pro eo, quod est ex auctoritate, ut Marci ult. : In nomine meo daemonia ejicient. Jo.Y : Ego veni in nomine Patris mei. Mat. YII : Nonne in nomi¬ ne tuo prophetavimus ? Act. IV : In qua virtute , aut in quo nomine hoc fecistis ? (1) Nec ullus for¬ tasse occurret locus , ubi aliquid facere in nomine Christi significet Christum habere praesidem sine collega. Sed quidquid de hoc sit, illud est certum, non 'posse hac nota dis¬ cerni legitima Concilia ; nam verum quidem est in legitimo Concilio oportere Christum ita praesidere, ut nullus sit ei collega , sed omnes subjecti ; At quis judicabit? Quis dis¬ cernet, an Christus ita praesideat cum cogi¬ tur Concilium , an non? Nec enim Christus visibili forma in Conciliis praesidet. Respondet Calvinus , facile id posse dis¬ cerni ; tunc enim Christum sine collega prae¬ sidere, cum totum concessum verbo, et spi¬ ritu suo moderatur; hoc est, cum nihil de suo capite , sed omnia secundum Scripturae re¬ gulam Episcopi definiunt. At hoc ipsum est ambiguum, et obscurum, nam et adversarii in suis Conciliis, et Catho¬ lici in suis affirmant, se nihil ex proprio ca¬ pite comminisci, sed omnia ex divinis litte¬ ris depromere. Quis igitur judicabit , utri verum Concilium faciant? Quare si congre¬ gari in nomine Christi , est Christum praesi¬ dem habere , ut Calvinus exponit, fieri non potest, ut legitima Concilia a non legitimis ulla ratione discernamus. Maneat igitur quod diximus, congregari in nomine Christi, nihil aliud esse, quam ab eo congregari, qui ha¬ bet a Christo auctoritatem congregandi. Porro, Christus cum in coelum ascendit, ac visibilem suam praesentiam Ecclesiae abs¬ tulit, non commisit Ecclesiam gubernandam, ac proinde etiam congregandam Tiberio, qui tunc imperabat, sed Petro Apostolo, cui dicit : Pasce oves meas. Igitur qui congregan¬ tur ab eo , qui Petro succedit , in nomine Christi congregantur, non autem ii , qui ab eo congregantur , qui succedit Tiberio. Ad haec, Petrus et qui Petro legitime succedit, Pastor est omnium Christi ovium , proinde etiam Regum, Imperatorum, Sacerdotum; omnes enim comprehendit , qui nihil exce¬ pit, cum ait : Simon Joannis, pasce oves meas. Unde S. Leo serm. 3. anniversario suae assumptionis : « De toto, inquit, mundo unus Petrus eligitur, qui et universarum gentium vocationi , et omnibus Apostolis, cunctis Ecclesiae Patribus praeponatur , ut quamvis in populo Dei multi Sacerdotes sint, multique Pastores, omnes tamen proprie re¬ gat Petrus, quos principaliter regit et Chris¬ tus. » At quis non videt ovi ne conveniat congregare Pastores, an Pastori congregare oves? Igitur cum Pontifex pastor sit, Impe¬ rator ovis, non ad Imperatorem, sed ad Pon¬ tificem spectabit munus Concilia Episcopalia convocandi. Secundo, Concilium generale ab eo indici debet ex auctoritate, qui potest omnes co¬ gere ; at nullus unquam Imperatorum totam Ecclesiam subjectam habuit, etiam quoad actiones civiles, ut eam habet Pontifex quoad actiones spirituales : nam Imperatores latis¬ sime dominabantur tempore B. Leonis, et B. Prosperi, et tamen tunc major erat orbis Christianus subjectus Papae, quam orbis R o¬ manus subjectus Imperatori. Sic enim loqui¬ tur S. Leo serm. 1. de SS. Petro et Paulo : « Per sacram B. Petri sedem caput orbis, ef¬ fecta (Roma) latius priesides religione divi¬ na, quam dominatione terrena.» Et Prosper libro de ingratis ita canit : Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralis honoris, Facta caput mundo, quidquid non possidet armis, Relligione tenet. Nunc autem Imperator, vix unius provincia; Episcopos ad Concilium cogere posset, nec enim Itali, Hispani, Galli Imperatori subji¬ ciuntur, sed habent suos proprios Reges, vel Principes temporales. Quid si nullus esset Imperator, imo etiam nullus Princeps Chris¬ tianus, num ideo Concilia fieri non possent? Tertio, Concilia provincialia indicuntur a Metropolitano, et nationalia a Primate vel Patriarcha, ut supra ostendimus, etiam tes- (1) Mare. XVI, 17; Joan. V, 45; Mattk. YII, 22; Act. IV, 7. timonio adversariorum, igitur Concilia ge¬ neralia non ab Imperatore, sed a summo Pontifice indicenda sunt. Nam si Imperator indicere deberet generalia Concilia, deberet Rex, aut Dux, aut Magistratus civilis indi¬ cere Concilia provincialia, vel nationalia. Ut enim se habet Imperator orbis terrarum ad Concilium generale, ita se habet Rex aut Dux unius provinciae ad Concilium illius pro¬ vinciae, vel nationis : quemadmodum igitur fatentur Concilia provincialia non convocari a Principe illius provinciae politico, sed ab Ecclesiastico, cur non eadem ratione faten¬ tur, Concilia generalia non debere cogi a principe totius orbis terrae politico, sed ab Ecclesiastico? Esse autem Papam Romanum totius orbis Christiani Ecclesiasticum Prin¬ cipem, paulo ante ex magno Leone audivi¬ mus, et nos in libris de Pontifice fusissime demonstravimus. Adde, quod etiam si non esset Romanus Pontifex verus Princeps et Monarcha Eccle¬ siasticus, ut nos docemus, sed esset solum primae sedis Episcopus, seu primus inter primarios Patriarchas,, ut Nilus existimat; adhuc ad eum pertineret jus indicendi Con¬ cilia generalia. Primates enim non imperant proprie aliis Episcopis, et tamen quia pri¬ mum locum inter Episcopos nationis suae te¬ nent, jure suo Concilia nationalia indicere possunt. Nam ideo Metropolitanus indicit Synodum provincialem, quia toti provinciae preeest, at summus Pontifex toti orbi praeest, ut patet ex Leone serm. 3 . de anniversario die assumptionis suae ad Pontificatum, et ep. 84. ad Anastasium in fine. Quarto probatur, ex illo antiquissimo ca¬ none, quo statuitor praeter sententiam Ro¬ mani Pontificis non posse Concilia celebrari: hunc enim canonem Apostolicum esse scri¬ bit R. Marcellus Papa in epistola ad Episco¬ pos Antiochenae provinciae. Eumdem reno¬ vavit Concilium Nicaenum I ut testatur Sy¬ nodus Alexandrina in epistola ad Felicem, et Julius I in epist. ad Episcopos Orientales, cujus meminerunt Socrates lib. II, cap. 13. Sozomenus lib. III, cap. 9. et Nicephorus lib. IX, cap. 5. Si ergo sine Romani Pontifi¬ cis consensu non licet Concilia celebrare, sequitur ejus potissimum esse illa convo¬ care. Calvinus respondet loco notato , ex illo canone id solum effici, debuisse vocari ad Synodum etiam Romanum Pontificem, quia erat unus ex praecipuis Patriarchis. At si ita esset, tunc etiam potuisset fieri canon, ne praeter consensum Episcopi Alexandrini, vel Antiocheni cogeretur Concilium; nam isti etiam erant praecipui Patriarchae et Ro¬ mano Pontifici aequales, vel majores secun¬ dum Calvinum. Magdeburgenses Centur. IV, cap. 7, coi. 533. aliam excogitarunt solutionem. Dicunt enim verba ^ocratis non significare, praeter Romani Pontificis sententiam non debere cele¬ brari Concilia, sed non debere Ecclesias dedi¬ cari. Sic enim in Graeco habetur, ^ S$tv ■Kv.py. •yvwpjv to\j inurxonov /Jtopjg y.caovi&iv rdg ixxhjtriag. At falluntur Magdeburgenses, nam x«v<m$siv rag ixxhriaia.g, non potest significare, dedicare templa, sed canonicum coetum convocare, sive Concilium indicere, quomodo loquun¬ tur Marcellus, et Julius Pontifices, qui La¬ tine videntur scripsisse, et quomodo in So¬ crate, et Sozomeno Latine vertit Cassiodorus in historia Tripartita lib. IV, cap. 9. et 19. quomodo etiam intellexit Nicephorus lib. IX, cap. 5. Sed clarissime res tota ex epistola Julii, quam. Socrates adducit, demonstrari potest; siquidem in ea epistola Julius reprehendit Orientales, quod sine suo consensu Conci¬ lium Antiochiae celebrassent. Rationem au¬ tem reddere volens, cur merito eos repre¬ henderet, istum canonem in medium addu¬ cit. Vel igitur canon de Concilii celebratione intelligi debet, vel stultum sane fuisse Julium necesse est : utrum autem horum sit verius, quis non videt? Adde, quod nullus veterum meminit ejusmodi canonis, quo prohibentur Ecclesiae dedicari praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis; imo nec fuit unquam, nec est nunc usus in Ecclesia istius canonis. Quinto probatur, ex Concilio Chalcedo- nensi act. 1. ubi Dioscorus Alexandrinus ju¬ betur non sedere inter Episcopos, eo quod Synodum facere ausus fuisset sine auctori¬ tate Apostolicae sedis : « Quod, inquit, nun¬ quam licuit, nunquam factum est. » Simile quid habemus in Concilio VII generali, act. 6. ubi irritum judicatum est Concilium quoddam Constantinopolitanum , quia sine consensu Romani Pontificis coactum fuisset ab Impe¬ ratore. Sexto probatur, ex Concilio Romano IV sub Symmacho, in quo cum Rex Theodori¬ cus diceret se Synodum convocasse, ut ju¬ dicaretur causa Symmachi Papee : Respon¬ derunt Episcopi omnes, a Papa, non a Rege debuisse vocari Synodum, etiamsi Papa ac- cusaretur. Rex vero ait, se ex voluntate, et consensu Pontificis Synodum convocasse; Episcopi vero non prius acquieverunt. quam Rex litteras Pontificis proferret, et Pontifex ipse praesens testaretur ita esse. Septimo probatur, testimonio antiquorum Pontificum. B, Leo epistola ad Turbium, quae est 93. cap, 17. : « Dedimus, inquit, litteras ad fratres, et Goepiscopos nostros, eisque Concilium Synodi generalis indixi¬ mus. » Pelagius II in epist 1. ad Orientales: <c Generalium Synodorum convocandi auc¬ toritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singulari privilegio tradita est. » Sixtus III, qui et Pe¬ lagium, et Leonem praecessit, in epistola ad Orientales : « Valentinianus, inquit, Augus¬ tus nostra auctoritate Synodum convoca¬ vit, » Adrianus II in epistola ad Basilium Imperatorem quae lecta est in VIII Synodo, act. 1, : « Volumus, inquit, per tuae pietatis industriam Gonstantinopoli numerosum con¬ vocari Concilium. v> His accedat Valentinianus Imperator, qui cum ab Episcopis rogaretur, ut permitteret eis Concilium celebrare, respondit, ut refert Sozomenus lib. VI, cap. 7.: «Mihi, qui sum in sorte plebis, fas non est talia curiosius perscrutari, saperdotes, quibus ista curae sunt , quocumque voluerint loco conve¬ niant. » Accedant ultimo multi alii Canones, qui habentur dist. 17. et plurimae rationes, quas facit Joannes de Turrecremata lib. III, cap. 6. et Concilium Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X, sess. 11. ubi asseritur, Roma¬ ni Pontificis esse, generalia Concilia indi¬ cere : quod decretum factum est uno anno, antequam Lutherana haeresis nasceretur.