Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Councils · On the Authority of Councils, Book I
Chapter 20: That the Pope Presided, Even the Adversaries Confess
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 first general Council was Nicaea. Of the President of this Council there are four opinions. Some will have the Emperor to have presided; so Brentius. Others, Eustathius of Antioch; so the Magdeburgians in the place noted, and Luther in his book on Councils, part 2. Others, Athanasius; so Calvin, also in the place noted. Others, the Bishop Hosius, and Vitus and Vincent, Presbyters, Legates of the Roman Pontiff.
The first opinion is most false. For, first, Constantine subscribed after all the Bishops, as the Emperor Basil testifies at the end of the eighth Synod; but the President subscribes in the first place. Next, Constantine did not dare to sit except in a seat lower than the Bishops', the Bishops assenting, as is gathered from Theodoret, Book 1 chapter 7 of the history, and Eusebius, Book 3 on the life of Constantine. Moreover Constantine in the Council itself professed that he ought to be judged by the Bishops, and to be subject to them, not set over them, as Rufinus writes, Book 10 chapter 2. How, then, would he not have fought with himself, if he had wished to preside in the Episcopal judgment? To these, Ambrose, letter 32, says that Constantine in the Council of Nicaea did not make himself judge, but left the judgment free to the Priests. Likewise Athanasius, in the second Apology, says that a Synod cannot be held in which not a Bishop but some Count has presided. And in his letter to those leading the solitary life, he vehemently arraigns Constantius for wishing to hold the first place in Councils: “If,” he says, “it is a judgment of Bishops, what has the Emperor in common with it?” And in the preceding he relates that Hosius wrote to the same Constantine: “Do not command us in this kind, but rather learn these things from us. To thee God has committed the empire; to us He has entrusted the things of the Church.” And not far from the end: “For who, seeing him in decreeing make himself prince of the Bishops, and preside over Ecclesiastical judgments, would not deservedly say that he is that very abomination of desolation which was foretold by Daniel?” Where he openly calls Constantius Antichrist, because he dared to preside in an Ecclesiastical judgment. Suidas too writes, in the life of Leontius, that when Leontius saw Constantius presiding and speaking in the Council, he said to him that he wondered that he, neglecting his own affairs — that is, wars and the other civil business — showed himself so curious in others' affairs, that is, Ecclesiastical ones. But certainly neither Athanasius, nor Hosius, nor Leontius would have reproved in Constantius that he wished to preside over Synods, if his father Constantine had before presided in the Council of Nicaea.
That Eustathius was not President is proved, first, because in the subscription Eustathius is not found first, nor second, nor third, but placed lower among the others. Secondly, because since there was in the Council Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, greater and worthier than the Antiochene, no reason allowed that Eustathius should precede him. But, say the Magdeburgians, in Eusebius, Book 3 on the life of Constantine, we read of him who sat first on the Emperor's right; and that he who gave the oration was Eustathius is established from Theodoret, Book 1 of the history chapter 7. I answer that Eustathius was the first of the right order of Bishops, as Eusebius says, yet not the first immediately after the Emperor. For it is established from Athanasius, in his letter to those leading the solitary life, that Hosius was the Prince of that Council, and accordingly sat before Eustathius.
And so (if it is lawful to conjecture) there were three orders of seats in the Council: one on the right, another on the left, and a third at the head of the whole hall; and in this third the Emperor sat in the midst, between the Bishops Hosius the Legate of the Pontiff and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and Vitus and Vincent, likewise Apostolic Legates. Then, first of that order which was on the right, sat Eustathius Bishop of Antioch; and of the other order, which was on the left, sat first Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem; and in this way the order of dignity among the chief Patriarchs was preserved — which it is very probable was preserved in that Synod. Or certainly, if it please, we can answer that a worthier place was given to Eustathius on account of the merit of his antiquity and holiness, but that he did not therefore preside over the Council. For otherwise the Emperor would have presided in the fourth and sixth Councils, who sat in the highest place. And so the presidency is to be gathered not so much from the place as from the subscription; for often, for honor's sake, he sits first who really does not hold the first place.
That Athanasius was not President scarcely needs proof, for Calvin alone, and without any reason, asserts it; and besides, it is established that Athanasius was then a Deacon, and went to the Council with his Bishop Alexander, and neither sat nor subscribed. See Rufinus Book 10 of the history chapter 14, and Sulpicius Book 2 of the sacred history, Gregory Nazianzen in his oration on Athanasius, and Athanasius himself in the second Apology. Moreover, for a Deacon to sit — much less to preside — in a Synod of Bishops, unless he hold the place of his Bishop, is altogether unheard of. But Athanasius did not hold his Bishop's place, since his Bishop Alexander himself was present. Finally, among the subscriptions there is indeed found the subscription of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, placed next after the subscription of the Roman Presbyters, but the subscription of Athanasius is nowhere found.
That, then, the Presidents were the Legates of the Pontiff — the Bishop Hosius, and Vitus and Vincent the Presbyters — is proved, first, from the subscriptions; for these three subscribed first of all. Secondly, from Cedrenus in the compendium of histories, and Photius in his book on the seven Synods, who say that Sylvester conferred authority on the Council of Nicaea through his Legates. Thirdly, from Athanasius in his letter to those leading the solitary life, where he says that Hosius was the Prince of that Council, and that it is he who composed the Creed which is called the Nicene. But since Hosius was a simple Bishop, and accordingly inferior to all the Patriarchs who were in that Council, without doubt he would never have had the first place, unless he had borne the person of the Roman Pontiff. And so in a certain preface of the Council of Sardica, which is had in the first volume of the Councils, and perhaps is by Dionysius Exiguus, a most learned man, it is had in express words that Hosius of Cordova acted in the Council of Nicaea as Legate of the Roman Pontiff; which also can be understood from the Greek Codex which is in the Vatican Library, whose testimony see in Book 2 on the Council of Nicaea, published by Alphonsus Pisanus of the Society of Jesus, at Cologne in the year 1581.
The second general Council was the first of Constantinople, in which it is established that the Emperor did not preside, but only sent to the Bishops the letters of the Roman Pontiff, by which they were called to the Council, as is plain from the letter of the Council to Damasus, in Theodoret Book 5 chapter 9. It is established also that the Roman Pontiff did not preside, but Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople; the cause of which is that the Roman Pontiff was not present, neither in person nor through Legates. For Pope Damasus had indeed convoked the Bishops of the East to Constantinople, but from that place he afterward wished them to come to Rome, where he had gathered a Synod of the Western Bishops, that a most full Council might be held at Rome. But the Easterners excused themselves for just causes, and joined themselves in mind and opinion with the Westerners, but not by bodily presence. See the letters of Damasus to the Council of Constantinople, and of the Council to Damasus, in Theodoret Book 5 chapters 9 and 10. And that, if Damasus had been present, he would without doubt have presided, is plain from those same letters, where they acknowledge Damasus as their head, and he calls them sons.
The third Council was the first of Ephesus, in which it is certain that the Emperor did not preside, but the Roman Pontiff through his Legates. That neither the Emperor, nor anyone in his name, is plain from his own letter — namely of Theodosius the younger — to the Synod of Ephesus, which is had in the volume of that Council chapter 32, where he says that he sent Candidianus the Count to the Council, not to mingle himself in Ecclesiastical questions, but for the defense of the Synod. See the letter of Nicholas I to the Emperor Michael. That the Roman Pontiff Celestine presided through his Legate Saint Cyril, all the historians testify: Evagrius Book 1 chapter 4, Photius in his book on the seven Synods, Prosper in the Chronicle, Nicephorus Book 14 chapter 34, and Liberatus the Abbot in the Breviary chapter 13. Finally Justinian in his Edict, and Nicholas I in his letter to Michael, and Celestine himself in his letter to Cyril, which is extant in this Synod chapter 16 and among the works of Cyril.
But Calvin answers that Celestine by some artifice sought at least the name of presidency, since he could not have the thing; and therefore, when he sent his men thither, he delegated his office to Cyril, who otherwise was to preside, that at least through him he might seem to preside. But this figment of Calvin, which he brings forward without any reason, is easily refuted. First, from Prosper, who says that Nestorius was chiefly resisted by the industry of Cyril and the authority of Celestine. Secondly, from the letter of Celestine, by which we see the office of the Roman Pontiff committed to Cyril long before the other Legates were sent. Thirdly, from Nicephorus, in the place noted, who says that the Easterners made so much of this privilege given to Cyril by Celestine, that thenceforth Cyril received the mitre and the name of Pope, and to be called judge of the whole world, and transmitted these ornaments even to his successors. Fourthly, from the letter of Cyril to the Constantinopolitans, in which he says that if Nestorius do not repent within the term prescribed by the holy Pope Celestine, he will be deprived of the communion of the Church. Fifthly, from the Synod itself, which, as Evagrius relates Book 1 chapter 4, and from the very sentence which is had in volume 2 chapter 10 of this Synod, when it wished to pronounce the condemnation against Nestorius, premised that it was necessarily compelled to so severe a sentence both by the other canons of the Church and chiefly by the letters of Pope Celestine. Finally, there is extant a letter of the Synod to Celestine, in which they reserve to the judgment of Celestine himself the cause of John Bishop of Antioch, that he himself may pass sentence upon him. All which are certain arguments that Celestine in fact was President and Prince in that Council.
The fourth Council is that of Chalcedon, in which at the beginning — that is, in the first action — the Emperor Marcian was present, and sat in the first place, yet did not preside as Judge, as he himself testified in his oration to the Synod, which is extant act 1, where he says that he came to confirm the faith, as of old Constantine the Great had done — that is, that he came not to explain the faith and judge the controversies, but to this end, that the faith explained by the Council should stand firm and safe, defended, namely, by the Emperor's aid and authority. Finally there were present in the Emperor's name, in the other actions, certain secular Judges, who were not Judges of the controversies of faith, but only whether all was done lawfully, without force, and fraud, and tumults. For because in the second Council of Ephesus Dioscorus the Bishop, soldiers being introduced, had by force compelled the Bishops to subscribe, in this Council either the Emperor or his Vicars were present to hinder violence. Which appears from the whole Council; for they never pass sentence, never subscribe, and acquiesce in all the opinions of the Bishops. And although at the end of the first action the secular judges seem to pass sentence upon Dioscorus and the other Bishops, yet in the third action it is declared that that sentence was conditional — namely, if it should please the Most Holy Bishops, to whom, as is there asserted, this was entrusted by the Lord God. And so those judges did not so much pass a judicial sentence as set forth what seemed to them. For the holy Synod, after that sentence of the judges, admonished Dioscorus a third time, and at last the Legates of the Pope passed sentence upon Dioscorus, as the true Presidents of the Council, which all the Bishops approved.
But truly the Legates of Pope Leo presided as Ecclesiastical Judges. For they are named first in all the actions, sit first, speak first, subscribe first; they pronounce the definitive sentence upon Dioscorus, in the name of the Pope and of the whole Council, act 3, in these words: “The most holy and most blessed Pope, head of the universal Church, Leo, through us his Legates, the holy Synod consenting, endowed with the dignity of Peter the Apostle, who is called the foundation of the Church and the rock of the faith and the doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, has stripped Dioscorus of the Episcopal dignity, and made him a stranger to all priestly work.” Finally blessed Leo and the whole Council confess it. Leo, letter 47 to the Council of Chalcedon, thus says: “In these brethren, the Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the Presbyters Boniface and Basil, who were sent from the Apostolic See, let your fraternity esteem that I preside over your Synod.” The Council of Chalcedon, in its letter to Leo, which is had act 3 in some copies, in others after the end of the Council: “Over which Bishops of the Council thou didst preside, as the head over the members, in those who held thy order, showing thy benevolence; but the Emperors presided most becomingly for adornment, etc.”
Calvin answers that in this Council indeed the Legates of the Roman Pontiff presided, but by a privilege of the Emperor which Pope Leo had wrung from him. “For when the second Council of Ephesus was held,” says Calvin, “Leo did not dare to ask the first seat in the Council, but sent Legates and suffered them to be under Dioscorus the Alexandrian Bishop, the President. But because the matter turned out ill, and Dioscorus did not rightly steer the ship, Leo, taking that occasion, asked of the Emperor that he permit another Council to be held over which his Legates should preside. The Emperor, because he saw that there were in the East no Bishops fit for so great a burden, from a defect of persons permitted the Roman Legates the presidency.” This history, which Calvin recites without any proof, is full of lies; for, first, that Leo did not dare to ask the first seat in the Council of Ephesus is a lie. For Liberatus writes in the Breviary chapter 12 that the Legates of the Roman Pontiff would not sit in the Council when they saw Dioscorus presiding, and the presidency not given to the holy Roman See. Moreover, that Dioscorus wrung that presidency from the Emperor against right, Zonaras writes in the life of Theodosius, and Evagrius Book 1 chapter 10. Whence also Leo, letters 24, 25, and 26 to Theodosius and Pulcheria, frequently repeats that Dioscorus claimed for himself the principality in that Synod. Where he also testifies that Flavian Bishop of Constantinople appealed from that Council to the Apostolic See, and delivered the document of appeal to the Roman Legates. How, then, would Leo not dare to ask the presidency in that Council, from which he was appealed to as to a greater? Next, that Leo asked of the Emperor that his Legates should preside in the Synod of Chalcedon, and that the Emperor granted it from a defect of Eastern persons, are most impudent lies; for no one narrates any such thing. Nay, we see Leo sent his Legates absolutely, to preside, no one's consent being asked, much less leave or permission.
The fifth Council was the second of Constantinople. In it presided not Menas (as Calvin falsely teaches, for the Council celebrated by Menas was not general but particular, as we demonstrated above), but Eutychius, the successor of Menas, who yet acknowledged and professed that the presidency was due to the Roman Pontiff, if he had wished to be present at the Council. Whence Zonaras, in the life of Justinian: “Under him the fifth Council was gathered, of one hundred and sixty-five Bishops, whose Prince was Vigilius the Roman Pope.” And Eutychius the Patriarch himself, in his letter to Vigilius, which is had at the end of the first collation of the fifth Synod: “We ask that, thy Beatitude presiding over us, inquiry and conference be made concerning the three chapters.” Which words of the Patriarch Eutychius refute not only the lie of Calvin, who wrote that Menas presided in that Council, but also the other of Illyricus, who, Century 6 chapter 9 column 309, asserted that Pope Vigilius would not be present at the Synod, lest he be forced to sit second to Eutychius. But how could he fear this, when Eutychius himself offered him the presidency?
The sixth Council was the third of Constantinople. In it the Presidents were the Legates of Agatho the Roman Pontiff — Peter and George, Presbyters, and John, Deacon. For this Zonaras affirms in the life of Constantine IV, and besides it is plain from the Synod itself, where in each action these are named, speak, and subscribe first of all. There was present at this Synod also the Emperor Constantine, with some illustrious men, and he presided — that is, sat in the first place — but was in no way Judge or formally President; for he passed no sentence, and subscribed last of all, not defining but consenting.
The seventh Council is the second of Nicaea, in which without controversy the Presidents were the Legates of Pope Adrian I, Peter the Archpresbyter and Peter the Abbot of Saint Sabas. For these are named first and subscribe first. The Emperor is read to have done nothing in this Synod.
The eighth Council is the fourth of Constantinople, in which also without controversy the Legates of Adrian II presided — namely Donatus and Stephen, Bishops, and Marinus, Deacon — who are named first and subscribe, and in the very first action, being asked by the Council to show the letters of the Pope by which the presidency was given them, straightway produced the letters of Adrian. Finally, at the end of the Council the first subscribes thus: “I, Donatus, by the grace of God Bishop of Ostia, holding the place of my lord Adrian the universal Pope, presiding over this holy and universal Synod, have promulgated all that is read above, and with my own hand subscribed.” But the Emperor Basil was indeed present, but at the end of the Council openly testified in a long oration that it was not his, nor any Layman's, to mingle in Ecclesiastical judgments. And at last he subscribed after all the Patriarchs, not defining but receiving and consenting, having also premised before that he ought to have subscribed after all the Bishops, as of old Constantine, Theodosius, and Marcian did; yet that he subscribed immediately after the Patriarchs, because the Bishops wished to honor him with such honor.
If, then, we add to these the remaining general Councils, in all of which without controversy the Roman Pontiff presided, we shall have, from the continuous custom of the Church, that the office of presiding in general Councils pertains properly to the Roman Pontiff. Of the rest which pertain to the form of Councils — as of the order in which the rest ought to sit, of the garments of the Bishops in a Synod, of the manner of proceeding, etc. — see John of Torquemada, Book 3 chapters 26 and 27, and the fourth Council of Toledo chapter 3, the eleventh of Toledo chapter 1, and the beginning of the Councils of Constance and Basel.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. Pontifex praefuerit etiam adversarii fatentur. Primum generale fuit Nicaenum : cie Praesi¬ de hujus Concilii, quatuor sunt opiniones. Aliqui volunt praesedisse Imperatorem; ita Brentius. Alii Eustathium Antiochenum; ita Magdeburgonses loco notato, et Lutherus in lib. de Conciliis par. 2. Alii Athanasium : ita Calvinus loco etiam notato. Alii Ilosium Episcopum, et Yitum ac Vincentium Pres¬ byteros Legatos Romani Pontificis. Prima opinio falsissima est. Nam in primis Constantinus postomnes Episcopos subscrip¬ sit, ut testatur Basiliuslmperator in fine VIII Synodi : at Praeses primo loco subscripsit. Deinde Constantinus non ausus est sedere, nisi in sede humiliori, quam essent Episco¬ porum, ei annuentibus Episcopis, ut colligi¬ tur ex Theodoreto lib. I. cap. 7. hist. etEu- sebio lib. III. de vita Constantini. Praeterea Constantinus in ipso Concilio professus est, se debere ab Episcopis judicari, eisque sub¬ jectum esse, non praepositum, ut scribit Rulfinus lib. X, cap. 2. Quomodo igitur non secum ipse pugnasset, si in Episcopali judi¬ cio praesidere voluisset? Ad haec Ambrosius epist. 32. dicit, Cons¬ tantinum in Concilio Nicaeno, non se fecisse judicem , sed liberum reliquisse judicium Sacerdotibus. Item Athanasius in secunda Apologia dicit, non posse haberi Synodum, in qua non Episcopus, sed Comes aliquis praesederit. Et in epistola ad solitarium vi¬ tam agentes, arguit vehementer Constan¬ tium, quod in Conciliis primas partes tenere vellet:« Si inquit, judicium Episcoporumest, quid cum eo commune habet Imperator ? » Et in praecedentibus refert Hosium scripsis¬ se eidem Constantino : «Ne, inquit, nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed ea potius a nobis disce. Tibi Deus imperium commisit, nobis ea, quae sunt Ecclesiae, concredidit. » Et non procul a fine : « Quis enim, inquit, vi¬ dens eum in decernendo principem se facere Episcoporum, et praesidere judiciis Ecclesias¬ ticis, non merito dicat, illuni eam ipsam abo¬ minationem desolationis esse, quae a Daniele praedicta eat? » Ubi aperte vocat Constan¬ tium Antichristum, quia ausus est praesidere in judicio Ecclesiastico. Scribit quoque Sui- das in vita Leontii, quod cum Leontius Constantium in Concilio praesidentem et lo- quentum videret, dixit ad eum, mirari se, quod ille propriorum negligens, id est, bello¬ rum, aliorumque civilium negotiorum, se in alienis, id est, Ecclesiasticis, tam curiosum praeberet. At certe nec Athanasius, nec Ho- sius, nec Leontius reprehendissent in Cons¬ tantio, quod Synodis praesidere voluisset, si antea pater ejus Constantinus inConcilio Ni¬ caeno praesedisset. Quod Eustathius non fuerit praeses, proba¬ tur primo, quia in subscriptione Eustathius non invenitur primus, nec secundus, nec ter¬ tius, sed inter alios inferius positus. Secun¬ do, quia cum esset in concilio Alexander, Alexandrinus Episcopus, Antiocheno major et dignior, nulla ratio sinebat, ut ipse prae¬ cederet. At, inquiunt Magdeburgenses, apudEuse- bium lib. III. de vita Constantini, legimus eum, qui primus sedebat a dextris Impera¬ toris : Eum autem, qui orationem habuit, constat, fuisse Eustathium ex Theodoreto lib. I hist cap. 7. Respondeo, Eustathium fuisse primumdextriordinisEpiscoporum, ut Euse- bius dicit, non tamen primum immediate post Imperatorem. Constat enim ex Athana- sio in epistola ad solitariam vitam agentes, Hosium fuisse Principem ejus Concilii, et proinde ante Eustathium sedisse. Itaque ( si conjectare licet) tres ordines se¬ dium erant in Concilio ; unus a dextris, al¬ ter a sinistris, et tertius in capite aulae totius, et quidem in hoc tertio sedebat medius Im¬ perator inter Episcopos Ilosium Legatum Pontificis et Alexandrum Episcopum Alexan¬ drinum, necnon Vitum et Vincentium Lega¬ tos item Apostolicos. Deinde primus ordi¬ nis ejus, qui erat a dextris, sedebat Eusta¬ thius Episcopus Antiochenus. Alterius autem ordinis, qui erat a sinistris, sedebat primus MachariusEpiscopus Hierosolyma?; atque hac ratione servabatur ordo dignitatis inter pri¬ marios Patriarchas ; quem certe valde pro¬ babile est servatum fuisse in ea Synodo, vel certe, si id placet, respondere possumus, Eustathio datum esse locum digniorem ob antiquitatis et sanctitatis ejus meritum, sed non propterea eum Concilio praesedisse. Nam alioquin Imperator praesedisset inCon¬ cilio IV et VI, qui in summo loco sedebat. Itaque non tam ex loco, quam ex subscrip¬ tione colligenda et praesidentia ; saepe enim honoris gratia ille sedet primus, qui revera primum locum non tenet. Quod vero Athanasius non fuerit praeses, vix eget probatione, solus enim Calvinus, et sime ulla ratione id asserit; et praeterea constat, Athanasium tunc fuisse Diaconum, et ivisse ad Concilium cum Episcopo suo Alexandro, et nec sedisse, nec subscripsisse. Yide Ruffinum lib. X. hist. cap. 14, et Sul- pitium lib. II. sacrae historiae, Gregorium Nazianzenum oratione in Athanasium, et ipsum Athanasium in secunda Apologia, Porro Diaconum sedere, nedum praesidere in Synodo Episcoporum, nisi locum teneat Episcopi sui, .est omnino inauditum. Non autem tenebat locum Episcopi Athanasius, cum Episcopus ipse Alexander adesset prae¬ sens. Denique inter subscriptiones invenitur quidem subscriptio Alexandrini Episcopi Alexandri, proxime posita post subscriptio¬ nem Romanorum Presbyterorum, at subs¬ criptio Athanasii nusquam reperitur. Quod ergo praesides fuerint Legati Pon¬ tificis Episcopus Hosius, Vitus et Yincentius Presbyteri, probatur, primo ex subscriptio¬ nibus. Hi enim tres primi omnium subscrip¬ serunt. Secundo, ex Gedreno, in compendio historiarum, et Photio in libro de septem Sy¬ nodis, qui dicunt Sylvestrum per suos Le¬ gatos Concilio Nicaeno auctoritatem contu¬ lisse. Tertio, ex Athanasio in epistola ad so¬ litariam vitam agentes, ubi dicit, Hosium Principem fuisse in eo Concilio, et ipsum esse, qui composuit Symbolum, quod dici¬ tur, Nicaenum. Cum autem Hosius fuerit simplex Episcopus, et proinde inferior omni¬ bus Patriarchis, qui erant in eo Concilio, si¬ ne dubio nunquam habuisset primum locum, nisi vicem gessissetRomani Pontificis. Itaque in praefatione quadam Concilii Sardicensis, quae habetur in primo tomo Conciliorum, et fortasse est Dionysii Exigui, viri doctissimi, disertis verbis habetur, Hosium Corduben- sem in Nicaeno Concilio Legatum egisse Ro¬ mani Pontificis ; quod etiam ex Codice Grae¬ co intelligi potest, qui in Yaticana Bibliothe¬ ca habetur; cujus testimonium vide in lib. II. de Concilio Nicaeno, edito ab Alphonso Pisano, Societatis Jesu, Coloniae anno MD LXXXI. Secundum Concilium generale fuit Consti- nopolitanum I, in quo constat non praesedis¬ se Imperatorem, sed tantum misisse ad Epis¬ copos litteras Romani Pontificis, quibus ad Concilium vocabantur, ut patet ex epistola Concilii ad Damasum, apud Tbeodoretum lib. Y. cap. 9. Constat etiam non praesedisse Romanum Pontificem, sed Nectarium Epis¬ copum Constantinopolitanum : cujusrei cau¬ sa est, quia Romanus Pontifex non interfuit nec per se, nec per Legatos. Pontifex enim Damasus convocaverat quidem Episcopos Orientis Constantinopolim, sed ex eo loco postea volebat eos Romam venire, ubi ipse coegerat Synodum Episcoporum Occidenta¬ lium ut Romae fieret plenissimum Concilium. Caeterum Orientales excusaverunt se justas ob causas, et conjunxerunt se animis, et sen¬ tentiis cum Occidentalibus, non autem prae¬ sentia corporali. Vide epistolas Damasi ad Concilium Constantinopolitanum, et Concilii ad Damasum, apud Theodoretum lib. V, cap. 9 et 10. Quod autem, si Damasus ad¬ fuisset, sine dubio praesedisset, patet ex eis¬ dem epistolis, ubi illi Damasum, ut caput suum agnoscunt, et ipse filios eos vocat. Tertium Concilium fuit Ephesinum I , in quo certum est , non praesedisse Imperato¬ rem, sed Romanum Pontificem per Legatos suos. Quod non Imperator, nec aliquis nomi¬ ne ejus , patet ex epistola ipsius , videlicet Theodosii Junioris ad Synodum Ephesinam, quae habetur tomo ejus Concilii cap. 32. ubi dicit, se misisse Candidianum Comitem , ad Concilium, non ut misceret se quaestionibus Ecclesiasticis , sed ad Synodi defensionem. Yide epistolam Nicolai I ad Michaelem Im¬ peratorem. Quod Romanus Pontifex Ccelesti- nus praesederit per Legatum suum S. Cyril- lum , testantur omnes historici: Evagrius lib. I, cap. 4. Photius in libro de septem Sy¬ nodis, Prosper in Chronico, Nicephorus lib. XIV, cap. 34. et Liberatus Abbas in Brevia¬ rio cap. 13. Denique Justinianus in Edicto, et Nicolaus 1 in Epistola ad Michaelem , et ipse Coelestinus in Epistola ad Cyrillum, quae exstat in hac Synodo, cap. 16. et inter opera Cyrilli. At Calvinus respondet, Ccelestinum aliquo artificio quaesivisse saltem nomen praesiden¬ ti ae , cum rem habere non posset, et ideo cum mitteret illuc suos, Cyrillo, qui alioqui praefuturus erat , vices suas delegasse , ut saltem per illum praesidere videretur. At figmentum istud Calvini , quod sine ulla ratione profert , facile refellitur. Pri¬ mum, ex Prospero, qui dicit, Nestorio prae¬ cipue restitisse Cyrilli industriam, et Coeles- tini auctoritatem. Secundo, ex epistola Cce- lestini , qua videmus mandari Cyrillo vices Romani Pontificis, multo ante, quam Legati cseteri mitterentur. Tertio, ex Nicaephoro, loco notato , qui dicit , adeo magni fecisse Orientales hoc privilegium, datum Cyrillo a Coelestino , ut deinceps Cyrillus mitram, et nomen Papae, atque ut judex orbis universi appellaretur , acceperit, et haec ornamenta etiam ad successores transmiserit. Quarto, ex epistola Cyrilli ad Constantinopolitanos, in qua dicit, quod si Nestorius intra termi¬ num a sancto Coelestino Papa praescriptum, non resipuerit, communione Ecclesiae priva¬ bitur. Quinto, ex ipsa Synodo, quae ut refert Evagrius lib. I, cap. 4. et ex ipsa sententia, quae habetur tomo II, cap. 10. hujus Syno¬ di, cum damnationem inNestorium pronun¬ tiare vellet , praemisit se cum aliis Ecclesiae canonibus, tum praecipue litteris Papae Gce- lestini, necessario compulsum ad tam seve¬ ram sententiam. Denique, extat epistola Sy¬ nodi ad Coelestinum, in qua reservant judi¬ cio ipsius Gcelestini causam Joannis Episcopi Antiocheni, ut ipse in eum sententiam ferat. Quae omnia sunt certa argumenta, quodCoe- lestinus re ipsa fuerit Praeses et Princeps in eo Concilio. Quartum Concilium est Chalcedonense, in quo initio, id est, in prima actione, Impera¬ tor Marcianus interfuit, et sedit primo loco, non tamen praesedit , ut Judex , ut ipsemet testatus est in oratione ad Synodum , quae exstat act. I. ubi ait , se venisse ad confir¬ mandam fidem, sicut olim fecerat Constan¬ tinus Magnus , id est, non venisse ad expli¬ candam fidem, et controversias judicandas ; sed ad hoc, ut fides a Concilio explicata, fir¬ ma , ac tuta consisteret , defensa videlicet Imperatoris ope et auctoritate. Interfuerunt denique nomine Imperatoris in aliis actioni¬ bus quidam Judices seculares. qui non erant Judices controversiarum fidei, sed tantum, an omnia fierent legitime, sine vi, et fraude, et tumultibus. Quia enim in Concilio Ephe- sino II, Dioscorus Episcopus militibus intro¬ ductis, vi coegerat Episcopos ad subscriben¬ dum : In hoc Concilio interfuerunt vel Im¬ perator, vel Vicarii ejus ad impediendam violentiam. Id quod ex toto Concilio appa¬ ret; nunquam enim sententiam ferunt, nun¬ quam subscribunt, et in omnibus sententiis Episcoporum acquiescunt. Et quamvis , in fine primae actionis, videantur judices saecu¬ lares terre sententiam in Dioscorum et alios Episcopos : tamen in tertia actione declara¬ tur, illam sententiam fuisse conditionatam, nimirum si id placeret Sanctissimo, Episco¬ pis, quibus, ut ibidem asseritur, id a Domi¬ no Deo creditum est. Itaque judices illi non tam sententiam judicariam tulerunt , quam exposuerunt quid sibi videretur. Nam sanc¬ ta Synodus, post illam judicum sententiam, tertio admonuit Dioscorum , et tandem Le¬ gati Papae sententiam in Dioscorum tulerunt, tanquam veri Concilii praesides, quam om¬ nes Episcopi probaverunt. Praefuerunt autem revera ut Judices Ec¬ clesiastici, Legati Leonis Papae. Ipsi enim in omnibus actionibus primi nominantur, primi sedent, primi loquuntur, primi subscribunt, ipsi sententiam definitivam in Dioscorum pro¬ ferunt, nomine Papae et totius Concilii act. 3. his verbis : « Sanctissimus ac beatissimus Papa caput universalis Ecclesiae Leo per nos Legatos suos, sancta Synodo consentiente, Petri Apostoli praeditus dignitate, qui Eccle¬ siae fundamentum, et petra fidei et coelestis regni janitor nuncupatur, Episcopali digni¬ tate Dioscorum nudavit et ab omni sacerdo¬ tali opere fecit extorrem. » Denique B. Leo et Goncilium totum id fatentur. Leo epist. 47. ad Concilium Chalcedonense , sic ait : a In his, inquit, fratribus Paschasino et Lu- centio Episcopis , Bonifacio et Basilio Pres¬ byteris, qui ab Apostolica sede directi sunt, me Synodo vestra fraternitas existimet prae¬ sidere. » Concilium Chalcedonense in epis¬ tola ad Leonem, quae habetur act. 3. in qui¬ busdam exemplarib. in aliis post finem Con¬ cilii : «Quibus Episcopis Concilii, tu quidem sicut membris caputpraeeras in his, qui tuum tenebant ordinem , benevolentiam praefe¬ rens. Imperatores vero ad ornandum decen¬ tissime praesidebant etc. » Calvinus respondet, in hoc quidem Conci¬ lio praesedisse Legatos Pontificis Romani; sed ex privilegio Imperatoris , quod extor¬ serat Leo Papa : « Cum enim fieret Gonci¬ lium Ephesinum secundum, inquit Calvinus, non est ausus Leo petere primam sedem in Concilio, sed misit Legatos, et passus est eos subesseDioscoro Alexandrino Episcopo Prae- sidi. Quia vero res male cessit, et Dioscorus non recte navim gubernavit, Leo, illa occa¬ sione accepta, petiit ab Imperatore, ut per¬ mitteret aliud Concilium fieri, cui Legati sui praeessent. Imperator, quia videbat, non es¬ se in Oriente ullos idoneos Episcopos tanto oneri, ex defectu personarum, permisit Ro¬ manis Legatis praesidentiam. » Haec historia, quam Calvinus sine ulla pro¬ batione recitat , plena est mendaciis ; nam in primis, quod Leo non sit ausus petere pri¬ mam sedem in Concilio Ephesino , menda¬ cium est. Scribit enim Liberatus in Brevia¬ rio cap. 12 , Legatos Romani Pontificis no¬ luisse in Concilio sedere, cum vidissent prae¬ sidere Dioscorum, et non datam sanctae sedi Romanae praesessionem. Porro Dioscorum extorsisse contra fas ab Imperatore praesiden- tiam illam , scribunt Zonaras in vita Theo¬ dosii, et Evagrius lib.I, cap. 10. Unde etiam Leo epist. 24, 23 et 26 ad Theodosium et Pulcheriam, frequenter repetit , Dioscorum in ea Synodo sibi vendicasse principatum. Ubi etiam testatur , Flavianum Episcopum Constantinopolitanum appellasse a Concilio illo ad Apostolicam sedem , et libellum ap¬ pellationis tradidisse Legatis Romanis : Quo¬ modo ergo non auderet Leo in eo Concilio praesidentiam petere, a quo ad se, tanquam ad majorem, appellabatur? Deinde, quod Leo petierit ab Imperatore , ut sui Legati praeessent in Synodo Chalcedonensi, et quod Imperator id concesserit defectu persona¬ rum Orientalium , mendacia impudentissi- ma sunt; nihil enim tale ab ullo narrat. Imo videmus Leonem Legatos misisse absolute, ut praesiderent, nullius consensu petito, ne¬ dum venia vel permissione. Quintum Concilium fuit Constantinopoli¬ tanum II. in eo praesedit non Menas, (ut fal¬ so Calvinus docet) Concilium enim a Mena celebratum, non generale , sed particulare fuit, ut supra demonstravimus; sed Euty- chius, Menae successor, qui tamen agnovit, et professus est, praesidentiam debitam fuis¬ se Romano Pontifici , si is interesse Concilio voluisset. Unde Zonaras in vita Justiniani : « Sub hoc, inquit, quintum Concilium est coactum centum sexaginta quinque Episco¬ porum, quorum Princeps fuit Vigilius Papa Romanus. » Et ipse Eutychius Patriarcha in Epistola ad Vigilium , quae habetur in fine primae collationis quintae Synodi : «Petimus inquit, praesidente nobis vestra Beatitudine de tribus capitulis quaeri et conferri. » Quae verba Patriarchae Eutychii non solum men¬ dacium Calvini refellunt, qui scripsit Menam in eo Concilio praesedisse, sed etiam alterum Illyrici, qui Centur. VI, cap. 9, colum. 309. asseruit, Vigilium Papa noluisse Synodo in¬ teresse, ne cogeretur secundus Eutychio as¬ sidere. At qui hoc timere potuit, cum ipse Eutychius praesidentiam illi offerret? Sextum Concilium fuit Constantinopolifca- numlll, in eo Praesides fuerunt Legati Aga-- thonis Romani Pontificis , Petrus et Geor- gius Presbyteri , ac Joannes Diaconus. Id enim affirmatZonaras invita Constantini IV, et praeterea ex ipsa Synodo patet, ubi in sin¬ gulis actionibus isti primi omnium nominan¬ tur, loquuntur, subscribunt. Interfuit in hac Synodo etiam Imperator Constantinus, cum nonnullis viris illustribus, et praesedit, id est, primo loco sedit, sed non fuit ullo modo Judex, aut formaliter Praeses , nam nullam sententiam tulit, et ultimus omnium subscrip¬ sit, non definiens, sed consentiens. Septimum Concilium est Nicaenum II , in quo sine controversia Praesides fuerunt Le¬ gati Papae Adriani I, Petrus Archipresbyter, et Petrus Abbas sancti Sabae. Isti enim pri¬ mi nominantur , et primi subscribunt. Im¬ perator nihil in hac Synodo egisse legitur. Octavum Concilium est Constantinopolita¬ num IV; in quo etiam sine controversia Le¬ gali Adriani II praesederunt, videlicet Dona¬ tus et Stephanus Episcopi , et Marinus Dia¬ conus , qui primi nominantur , et subscri¬ bunt, et in ipsa prima actione rogati a Con¬ cilio, ut ostenderent litteras Papae , quibus daretur eis praesidentia , mox exhibuerunt litteras Adriani. Denique , ad finem Concilii ita subscribit primus : « Ego Donatus Dei gratia Episcopus Ostiensis , locum obtinens Domini mei Adriani universalis Papae, huic sanctae et universali Synodo praesidens, om¬ nia, quae superius leguntur , promulgavi, et manu propria subscripsi.» Imperator autem Basilius adfuit quidem , sed in fine Concilii aperte testatus est longa oratione , non esse suum, nec ullius hominis Laici , miscere de Ecclesiasticis judiciis. Et tandem subscripsit post omnes Patriarchas non definiens , sed suscipiens, et consentiens , praefatus etiam antea se debuisse subscribere post omnes Episcopos , ut olim fecerunt Constantinus, Theodosius , et Marcianus ; tamen se sub¬ scripsisse immediate post Patriarchas, quia tali eum honore Episcopi afficere volue¬ runt. Si ergo his addamus reliqua generalia Concilia, in quibus omnibus sine controver¬ sia Pontifex Romanus praesedit, habebimus ex continua Ecclesiae consuetudine, proprie ad Romanum Pontificem pertinere munus in Conciliis generalibus praesidendi . De caeteris, quae ad formam pertinent Conciliorum , ut de ordine, quae caefceri sederedebent, de ves¬ tibus Episcoporum in Synodo ; de modo pro¬ cedendi, etc. vide Joannem-de Turrecremata lib. III, cap. 26 et 27. et Concilium Toleta¬ num IV, cap. 3. Toletanum XI , cap. d. et initium Conciliorum Constantiensis et Basi- leensis.