Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 9: The Apology Answered from Page 96 to Page 101: Saint Gregory's Head of the Faith, Saint Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, and Who Convokes General Councils
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Responsio ad Librum Inscriptum Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, an answer of 1608, published under the name of Matthaeus Tortus. 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).
As for what he adds lastly about absolving subjects from obedience towards their lawful king and prince, we have already taught above that the supreme ruler of the universal Church has this right, that if a prince falls away from the unity of the Church by heresy or schism, he can excommunicate him, or declare him excommunicated, and free his subjects from their allegiance and obedience; and that this is not a new doctrine, but approved in the Lateran Council, the greatest and most celebrated of all, and received in the practice of the Christian people through many centuries.
These things, as it were his prolegomena, despatched, the author of the Apology comes to explain the words of Saint Gregory, which he says were alleged by Bellarmine against the mind and sense of Gregory. The words are these, in letter 12 of book 11: “Let the reverence due to the Apostolic See be disturbed by no one’s presumption; for then the state of the members remains whole, if the head of the faith is struck by no injury, and the authority of the canons remains ever safe and inviolate.” Now the question is what is signified by “the head of the faith.” We affirm that Gregory himself, as Supreme Pontiff, is called the head of the faith, that is, the head of the faithful, the head of the Church, the head through which the Church both learns and teaches the faith. The adversary contradicts this in these words, page 97: “That Gregory by that term ‘head of the faith’ proclaimed himself the head of our faith or religion can in no way stand with the rest of his doctrine and writings. For first, when another was usurping the title of universal bishop, Gregory did not hesitate to say that whoever should take that name to himself was the forerunner of Antichrist; and that title is far below the one by which a man is named head of the faith.” I answer that the argument concludes nothing at all; since the term “universal bishop,” in the sense in which it is taken by Saint Gregory, utterly destroys the ecclesiastical hierarchy, while the term “head of the faith” constitutes that same hierarchy. For he is called universal bishop in Gregory who desires so to be the only bishop that he suffers no others to be bishops; for so Saint Gregory speaks, book 7, letter 69: “If one is universal, it remains that you are not bishops”; and book 4, letter 36: “If one is called universal patriarch, the name of patriarch is taken from the rest”; and letter 34 of the same book: “It is a very sad thing to be patiently borne, that, all others being despised, the aforesaid brother should try to be called the only bishop.” And certainly in this sense the whole hierarchy is taken away and confounded, which is constituted of bishops, archbishops and patriarchs under one head, the Supreme Pontiff; and that same hierarchy is not taken away but constituted when one presides over the others and preserves them in unity. Rightly, then, did Saint Gregory shrink from the term “universal bishop,” while he gladly accepted the term “head.” But the author of the Apology, feeling the weakness of his argument, adds and says: “Bellarmine will grant me leave to say of the one Gregory what he says of many, and often, out of the whole number of the Fathers: he spoke less cautiously.” And he alleges two places from Bellarmine’s books, one from book 2 On Christ, chapter 2, the other from book 2 On the Pontiff, chapter 10. But the adversary does not report Bellarmine’s writings in good faith, as I have warned elsewhere. For in book 2 On Christ, chapter 2, Bellarmine says only this, that we follow the doctrine of the Fathers when they all agree in the same opinion, not when one teaches something of his own with the rest opposing him; for then we believe one less than many. Nor is that phrase found in this place, “he spoke less cautiously.” And in book 2 On the Pontiff, chapter 10, it was not of the holy Fathers but of Nicholas of Lyra that he said, “he spoke less cautiously.” Since, then, Saint Gregory is one of the holy Fathers, and what he wrote is not repugnant to the doctrine of the rest, it cannot rightly be said of him in this place, “he spoke less cautiously.” But the adversary at last explains his opinion without circumlocution, when he adds: “Therefore, to take our Apostle out of his hands and recall him to ourselves, that he may henceforth be ours in this cause and not his: what he says in this place is indeed true, but in that sense in which he says it: when you attempt to disturb, or diminish, or abolish the right and authority of the Church, which resides in the royal head within his own dominions and bounds, you cut off its head, do injury to the supreme Governor, and disturb the frame and the members of the whole body.” So he, who has truly taken Saint Gregory from us and recalled him to himself, since by a wonderful art he has transformed him from a prelate of the Catholic Church into a Protestant heretic. But so great is this audacity and impudence that it is a wonder such an exposition could have occurred to a man of sound mind. For Saint Gregory was speaking of the Apostolic See, not of a king, when he said: “But this we admonish, that the reverence due to the Apostolic See be disturbed by no one’s presumption”; and then he proved it, saying: “For then the state of the members remains whole, if the head of the faith is struck by no injury.” Who, then, does not see that the Apostolic See is named the head of the faith? Add that in that letter the subject is the use of the pallium, and Saint Gregory admonishes the Archbishop of Palermo to use the sacred pallium sent to him from the Apostolic See only in those places and at those times at which other similar prelates use it, and not to presume anything beyond what is granted by the Apostolic See; and to this purpose he sets down the words recited above. What have kings to do with this business? What have kings to do with the pallium, which is the insignia of archbishops? But the author of the Apology, not content with this impudence, as if it were plain that kings were accustomed to be killed by the order of the Supreme Pontiff through hired assassins, advises that there should be suggested to the Pope and the cardinals what Saint Gregory, book 7, letter 1, orders to be suggested to Maurice through Sabinian, the emperor’s prefect: “If I had been willing to meddle in the death of the Lombards, today the nation of the Lombards would have neither king, nor dukes, nor counts, and would be divided in the utmost confusion; but because I fear God, I dread to meddle in the death of any man.” But as the adversary was deceived in this, that he thought Sabinian, to whom Saint Gregory writes, was the emperor’s prefect, whereas he was a cardinal deacon of the Roman Church, and the one who succeeded Saint Gregory in the pontificate; so he wished to deceive others by the mention of that suggestion, which, as can be understood from what we have demonstrated above, is nothing at all to the purpose. For the Supreme Pontiffs deal with disobedient princes not secretly through assassins, but publicly through ecclesiastical censures.
He then passes, page 99, from Saint Gregory to Saint Leo, three of whose sayings Bellarmine had set down in his letter; and since he could not by any means pervert the words of Saint Leo, he boldly censures Saint Leo, that while he praises Saint Peter beyond measure he attributes too much to himself. In which he shows himself a disciple of Calvin, who in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 7, having nothing to answer to the most evident testimonies of this most holy Pontiff, passed to abuse, and contended that Leo was greedy of glory and of dominion beyond all measure. Nor was the author of the Apology content to have branded with ambition Saint Leo, whom all antiquity has always venerated as a most learned and most excellent Pontiff, and most eminent in the glory of holiness; but he added also a false history. For he wrote on page 101: “At that time the Patriarch of Constantinople contended with him for the primacy; and in the Council of Chalcedon six hundred bishops, and more, ascribed equal authority to the patriarch of that see; nor did they in any way suffer a privilege of the Roman see above that of Constantinople, but fought against him with their decrees and their votes.” So he. But it is indeed true that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon wished to attribute equal privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople; yet it is false that the Patriarch of Constantinople contended with the Bishop of Rome for the primacy, for they understood equal privileges in respect of inferiors; so, however, that the Roman Pontiff should hold the first place, as he had always held it, and the Bishop of Constantinople should rise to the second, which place had before belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria. We prove this first from the very words of the Council of Chalcedon, where we read that the Fathers of the council wished to renew the canon of the Council of Constantinople. And the canon of the Council of Constantinople was this: “The Bishop of the city of Constantinople ought to have the honour of primacy after the Bishop of Rome, because it is the new Rome.” Secondly we prove it from the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Leo, in which it asked that its decrees be confirmed; in which letter they make no mention of equal privileges, but only say that they have renewed the canon of the second synod, by which the second honour was attributed to the Bishop of Constantinople. Thirdly we prove it from Leo himself, who in letter 59, answering the council’s letter, and in many other letters to the emperor and to various bishops on this cause, nowhere mentions equal privileges, but everywhere sharply condemns the ambitious desire of the Bishop of Constantinople in wishing to set himself before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. Fourthly we prove it from Saint Gregory, who affirms that the Bishop of Constantinople was subject to the Bishop of Rome even when he had already obtained what had been defined in the second and fourth synods. For so he writes, book 7, letter 63, to John of Syracuse: “As for the see of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Which both our most pious lord the emperor and my brother Eusebius, bishop of that city, continually profess.” Falsely, therefore, did the author of the Apology write that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon in no way suffered the Roman see to have any privilege above that of Constantinople; as also that the Bishop of Constantinople contended with the Roman Pontiff for the primacy of the Church. He adds lastly that Saint Leo, although he attributed too much to Saint Peter, nevertheless took nothing from Caesar, but attributed to him both titles of honour and privileges of authority and the power of convoking councils at his own discretion; which he proves from letter 9 to Theodosius, where we read thus: “If your piety would deign to assent to our suggestion and supplication, that you command an episcopal council to be held within Italy”; and from letter 16 to Flavian: “Because the most clement emperor, anxious for the peace of the Church, has wished to assemble a synod, although it is apparent that the matter in question by no means needs the deliberation of a synod”; and from letter 17 to Theodosius: “Although no reason permits me to attend on the day of the episcopal council which your piety has appointed.” To these places we answer briefly that it cannot be denied that in the summoning of general councils the emperor had some authority; for it was not fitting that in cities subject to the emperor so great a multitude of bishops should assemble without the consent and will of the emperor; and often too pious emperors, anxious for the common good and peace of the Churches, desired councils to be held, and summoned them with the Pontiff’s assent. But neither ought this to be denied, that the principal authority in summoning those same councils lay with the Supreme Pontiff, so that without the consent of the Supreme Pontiff no councils were valid, while without the consent of the emperor many were valid. And to adduce some testimonies: in the Council of Chalcedon, action 1, Dioscorus is ordered not to sit among the bishops, because he had dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See: “which,” they say, “has never been done.” And in the seventh synod, action 6, a certain council of Constantinople is judged void, because it had been assembled by the emperor without the consent of the Apostolic See. And in the fourth Roman council in the cause of Symmachus, when some bishops had said with priestly freedom to King Theodoric, who had convoked the synod, that the council ought to have been convoked by the Pope himself, the king answered that Pope Symmachus himself had requested this by letter; and when the bishops desired to see the Pontiff’s letter, the king at once ordered it to be shown. Similar is what we read in Theodoret, book 5 of the History, chapter 9, in the letter of the council to Damasus: “By the mandate,” say the Fathers, “of the letters sent last year by your Reverence to the most holy Emperor Theodosius, we prepared ourselves to make the journey only as far as Constantinople.” So Theodosius had indeed summoned the council, but by the mandate of the letters of Pope Damasus. Such also is what we have in the letter of Adrian II to the Emperor Basil, which was read in the eighth synod, action 1: “We wish,” says the Pope, “through the diligence of your piety, to convoke a numerous council at Constantinople.” Likewise what Pope Sixtus III, the predecessor of Saint Leo, writes in the letter to the Easterns: “The Emperor Valentinian convoked a synod by our authority.” Finally let us add one testimony of Pope Leo himself. He, in letter 93, which is to Turibius, says: “We have sent letters to our brethren and bishops, and have summoned for them the council of a general synod.” And so much for these matters, which are found most fully discussed in the books of Catholic writers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Quod postremo adjungit de absolvendis subditis ab obedientia erga legitimum re¬ gem et principem, jam supra docuimus su¬ premum Ecclesise universse rectorem id juris habere, ut si princeps ab Ecclesise unitate per hseiresim, vel schisma deficiat, possit eum excommunicare, vel excommunicatum declarare, et subditos ejus a fide et obedien¬ tia liberare. Neque esse hanc novam doctri¬ nam, sed in concilio Lateranensi omnium ma¬ ximo et celeberrimo approbatam; atque usu Christiani populi per multa saecula receptam. His quasi prolegomenis expeditis, accedit Auctor Apologise ad explicanda verba sancti Gregorii, quse a Bellarmino dicit esse contra mentem et sensum Gregorii allegata. Verba hsec sunt in epistola 12. lib. xi. « Ne Apo- stolicse Sedis reverentia ullius praesumptione turbetur : tunc enim status membrorum integer manet, si caput fidei nulla pulsetur injuria, et Canonum manet incolumis, atque intemerata semper auctoritas ». Quaestio autem est, (a) quid per Caput fidei signifi¬ cetur. Nos enim ipsum Grego rium, ut sum¬ mum Pontificem Caput fidei dictum esse affirmamus, id est, Caput fidelium, Caput . Ecclesiae, Caput, per quod Ecclesia fidem et discit, et docet. Adversarius contradicit his verbis pag. 97. « Quod Gregorius illo vocabulo Capitis fidei, caput se nostrae fidei aut Religionis praedicaverit, consistere nullo modo potest cum reliqua ejus doctrina, at¬ que scriptis. Primum enim cum alius uni¬ versalis Episcopi titulum occuparet, Grego¬ rius dicere non dubitavit : Quicumque illud nomen sibi assumeret , praecursorem esse eum Antichristi : qui titulus longe infra eum est, quo quis Caput fidei nominetur. » Re¬ spondeo, argumentum nihil omnino conclu¬ dere; quoniam vocabulum Episcopi univer¬ salis in eo sensu, quo a sancto Gregorio accipitur, hierarchiam Ecclesiasticam peni¬ tus destruit : vocabulum autem capitis fidei hierarchiam eamdem constituit. Is enim dicitur apud Gregorium Episcopus univer¬ salis, qui solus Episcopus ita esse cupit, ut nullos alios esse patiatur Episcopos : sic enim sanctus Gregorius loquitur lib. vn. epist. 69. « Si unus universalis est, restat ut vos Episcopi non sitis »; et lib. iv. epist. 36. « Si unus Patriarcha universalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen cseteris derogatur»; et epistol. 34. ejusdem libri : « Triste valde est, ut patienter feratur, quatenus despectis omnibus praedictus frater solus conetur ap¬ pellari Episcopus. » Et certe in hoc sensu hierarcha universa tollitur, atque confundi¬ tur, quse ex episcopis, archiepiscopis, Pa¬ triarchis sub uno capite summo Pontifice constituitur, quse eadem non tollitur, sed constituitur, dum unus aliis prsesidet, eos- que in unitate conservat. Merito igitur san¬ ctus Gregorius universalis Episcopi vocabu¬ lum exhorruit : vocabulum autem Capitis libenter accepit. Sed auctor Apologise sen¬ tiens argumenti sui debilitatem, subjungit et ait : « Dabit mihi veniam Bellarminus, ut id de uno Gregorio dicam, quod ille de multis, et ssepe dicit ex omni numero Pa¬ trum: Minus caute locutus est ». Allegat au¬ tem duo loca ex libris Bellarmini, unum ex lib. ii. de Christo cap. 2. alterum ex lib. ii. de Pontifice cap. 10. sed adversarius non bona fide, ut alias monui, scripta Bellarmini refert. Nam lib. n. de Christo cap. 2. id so¬ lum Bellarminus dicit, non sequi doctrinam Patrum, quando in eadem sententia omnes conveniunt, non quando unus aliquid pro¬ prii docet repugnantibus cseteris, tunc enim minus credimus uni, quam multis. Neque in hoc loco invenitur illud, Minus caute locu¬ tus est. In libro vero n. de Pontifice cap. 10. (a) Quid sit caput fidei in S. Gregorio. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 247 non de sanctis Patribus, sed de Nicolao Ly- rano dixit, Minus caute locutus est. Cum igitur sanctus Grego rius unus sit ex Patri¬ bus sanctis, et quod scripsit non repugnet doctrinae caeterorum ; non recte de eo dici potest hoc loco, Minus caute locutus est : sed adversarius tandem sententiam suam sine ambagibus explicat, cum addit : « Igi¬ tur ut Apostolum nostrum ex ejus manibus eximamus, ad nosque revocemus, ut noster porro sit in hac causa, non illius : est hoc quidem verum, quod dicit hoc loco, sed eo tamen sensu quo dicit : Cum disturbare, aut imminuere, aut abolere molimini jus aucto¬ ritatemque Ecclesiae, quae penes regium ca¬ put residet intra suas ditiones, atque fines, caput ejus abscinditis, summoque Guber¬ natore injuriam facitis, et totius corporis compagem, ac membra turbatis. » Haec ille, qui vere sanctum Gregorium a nobis abstu¬ lit, atque ad se revocavit, cum illum arte mirabili ex Catholicae Ecclesiae praesule, in Protestantem haereticum transformaverit. Sed tanta est haec audacia, et impudentia, ut mirum sit ejusmodi expositionem in homi¬ nem sanae mentis cadere potuisse. Nam sanctus Gregorius de Sede Apostolica, non de rege loquebatur, cum diceret : « Illud autem admonemus , ad Sedis Apostolieae reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur », ac deinde id probavit, dicens : « Tunc enim status membrorum integer manet, si caput fidei nulla pulsetur injuria ». Quis igitur non videt caput fidei Sedem Apostolicam nominari? Adde quod in ea epistola de usu pallii sermo est, et monet sanctus Grego¬ rius Archiepiscopum Panormitanum, ut sa¬ cro pallio ab Apostolica Sede ad se trans¬ misso, utatur iis tantum locis, et temporibus, quibus utuntur alii similes Sacerdotes : ne¬ que praesumat aliquid ultra ea, quae a Sede Apostolica concedantur ; atque ad hoc pro¬ positum ponit verba , quae supra recitata sunt : Quid in hoc negotio habent reges? quid regibus cum pallio, quod est insigne archicpiscoporum ? Sed auctor Apologiae hac impudentia non contentus, quasi planum fuisset, jussu summi Pontificis per immissos sicarios reges caedi consuevisse; admonet, Papae et Cardinalibus suggerendum esse, quod sanctus Gregorius lib. vil. epist. 1. per Sabinianum praefectum imperatoris jubet suggeri Mauritio : <t Si ego in morte Longo¬ bardorum me miscere voluissem, hodie Lon¬ gobardorum gens nec regem, nec duces, nec Comites haberet, atque in summa confusione esset divisa ; sed quia Deum timeo, in mor¬ tem cujuslibet hominis me miscere formi¬ do ». Sicut autem adversarius in eo dece¬ ptus est, quod Sabinianum, ad quem scribit sanctus Gregorius, existimavit praefectum imperatoris fuisse, cum esset diaconus Car¬ dinalis Ecclesiae Romanae, et qui sancto Gregorio in Pontificatu successit ; ita deci¬ pere alios voluit commemoratione illius suggestionis, quam nihil omnino ad rem facere, ex iis quae supra demonstravimus, intelligi potest. Summi enim Pontifices non occulte per sicarios, sed publice per censu¬ ras Ecclesiasticas cum Principibus inobe- dientibus agunt. , Transit deinde pag. 99. a S. Gregorio ad (a) sanctum Leonem, cujus tres sententias Bellarminus in Epistola sua posuerat, et quoniam verba S. Leonis non poterat ulla ratione pervertere , sanctum Leonem auda¬ cter reprehendit, quod dum sanctum Pe¬ trum immodice laudat, ipse sibi nimium tribuat. In quo discipulum se Calvini demon¬ strat, qui lib. iv. Institut. cap. 7. cum nihil haberet, quod evidentissimis testimoniis hu¬ jus sanctissimi Pontificis responderet, trans¬ iit ad convicia, ac Leonem avidum gloriae, et dominationis plus nimio fuisse contendit. Neque contentus fuit auctor Apologiae san¬ ctum Leonem ambitionis notasse, quem tota semper antiquitas ut doctissimum atque optimum Pontificem, et sanctitatis gloria excellentissimum venerata est; sed addidit etiam falsam historiam. Scripsit enim pag. 101. « Contendebat, inquit, tunc temporis cum eo de primatu Patriarcha Constantino - politanus; et in concilio Chalcedonensi, Epi¬ scopi sexcenti, et quod excedit, aequalem auctoritatem illius sedis Patriarchae adscri- pserunt; nec privilegium Romanae sedis su¬ pra Constantinopolitanam ullo modo passi sunt; sed contra eum decretis suis suffra¬ giisque pugnarunt ». Haec ille. Sed verum quidem est Patres concilii Chalcedonensis tribuere voluisse Episcopo Constantinopoli- tano paria .privilegia : falsum tamen est, quod de Primatu cum Episcopo Romano Constantinopolitanus Patriarcha contende¬ ret, paria enim privilegia intelligebant re¬ spectu inferiorum : sic tamen, ut Romanus (a) De S . Leone Pontifice. 248 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM Pontifex primum locum haberet, ut semper habuerat. Constantinopolitanus autem ad secundum ascenderet, qui locus Alexandrini Episcopi ante fuerat. Id probamus primo ex ipsis verbis concilii Chalcedonensis, ubi le¬ gimus , Patres concilii voluisse renovare canonem concilii Gonstantinopolitani. Canon autem concilii Constantinopolitani hic fuit ; « Constantinopolitanse Civitatis Episcopum habere oportet Primatus honorem post Ro¬ manum Episcopum, propterea quod sit no¬ va Roma ». Secundo probamus ex epistola concilii Chalcedonensis ad Leonem, qua pe¬ tiit confirmari decreta sua : in qua epistola nullam mentionem faciunt parium privile¬ giorum, solum dicunt se renovasse canonem secundae Synodi, quo secundus honor Epi¬ scopo Constantinopolitano tribuebatur. Ter¬ tio probamus ex ipso Leone, qui epistola 59. respondens ad concilii litteras, et in multis aliis epistolis ad imperatorem, et ad varios Episcopos de hac causa, nusquam meminit parium privilegiorum : sed ubique acriter damnat Episcopi Constantinopolitani am¬ bitiosam cupiditatem, quod se Alexandrino atque Antiocheno Episcopo anteponere vo¬ luisset. Quarto probamus ex sancto Gregorio, qui affirmat Constantinopolitanum Episco¬ pum subjectum fuisse Episcopo Rom., etiam quando jam obtinuerat, quod in secunda et quarta synodo definitum erat. Sic enim scri¬ bit lib. vii. epistol. 63. ad Joannem Siracu- sanum : « De sede, inquit, Constantinopoli- tana quis dubitet eam Apostolicae Sedi esse subjectam? quod et dominus piissimus im¬ perator, et frater meus Eusebius ejusdem civitatis Episcopus assidue profitentur ». Falso igitur auctor Apologise scripsit concilii Chalcedonensis Patres nullo modo passos esse, ut Romana sedes supra Constantino- politanam privilegium ullum haberet : ut etiam illud, Episcopum Constantinopolita¬ num cum Romano Pontifice de Primatu Ec¬ clesiae contendisse. Addit postremo sanctum Leonem, quamvis nimis multa sancto Petro tribuerit, nihil tamen Caesari ademisse, sed et honoris vocabula, et auctoritatis privi¬ legia, et potestatem convocandi concilia ar¬ bitratu suo ei tribuisse : id, quod probat ex epist. 9. ad Theodosium ; ubi sic legimus : « Si pietas Vestra suggestioni ac supplica¬ tioni nostrae dignetur annuere, ut intra Ita¬ liam haberi jubeatis Episcopale Concilium » , et ex epist. 1 6. ad Flavianum : « Quia Cle- mentissimus imperator, pro Ecclesiae pace sollicitus Synodum voluit congregare, quam¬ vis appareat, rem de qua agitur, nequa¬ quam Synodi indigere tractatu » , et ex epist. 17. ad Theodosium : « Quamvis ad diem concilii Episcopalis, quem Pietas Vestra con¬ stituit, occurrere me nulla ratio permittat ». Ad hsec loca breviter respondemus, (a) ne¬ gari non posse quin in conciliis Generalibus indicendis, aliqua esset imperatoris aucto¬ ritas : neque enim decebat, ut in Civitatibus imperatori subjectis, tanta Episcoporum multitudo conveniret, sine consensu et vo¬ luntate imperatoris, saepe etiam imperatores pii de communi bono Ecclesiarum, et pace solliciti, concilia fieri cupiebant, et annuente Pontifice indicebant, sed neque illud negari debet , praecipuam auctoritatem in iisdem indicendis conciliis fuisse apud summum Pontificem, ita ut sine consensu Pontificis maximi nulla concilia rata fuerint : sine consensu autem imperatoris multa fuerint rata. Ac ut aliqua testimonia adducamus, in conc. Chalcedonensiact. 1. jubetur Dioscorus non sedere inter Episcopos, eo quod syno- num facere ausus fuerit sine auctoritate Apostolicae Sedis : « Quod, inquiunt, num- quam factum est ». Et in septima synodo act. 6. irritum judicatur concilium quoddam Constantinopolitanum, quod ab imperatore congregatum fuisset, sine consensu Aposto¬ licae Sedis. Et in concilio quarto Romano in causa Symmachi , cum Episcopi aliquot Theodorico regi, qui synodum convocave¬ rat, libertate Sacerdotali dixissent, ab ipso Papa debuisse concilium convocari : respon¬ dit rex id ipsum per litteras Symmachum Pontificem postulasse. Et cum Episcopi lit¬ teras Pontificis videre cupivissent, rex con¬ tinuo jussit ostendi. Simile est quod legimus apud Theodoretum lib. v. Hist. cap. 9. in epist. Concilii ad Damasum : « Mandato , inquiunt Patres, litterarum superiore anno a vestra Reverentia ad sanctissimum impe¬ ratorem Theodosium missarum , ad iter dumtaxat Constantinopolim usque facien¬ dum nos praeparavimus ». Proinde Theo¬ dosius quidem concilium indixerat, sed ex mandato litterarum Pontificis Damasi. Quale est etiam, quod habemus in Epistola Adria- ni II ad Basilium imperatorem, quee lecta est in octava Synodo act. 1. « Volumus, in- ( a ) Num penes Impp. sit potestas indicendi Concilia. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 249 quit Papa, per Tuae Pietatis industriam, Constantinopoli numerosum convocare Con¬ cilium ». Item id quod scribit Sixtus Papa III. sancti Leonis praedecessor in eoistola ad Orientales : « Augustus, inquit, Valenti¬ nianus nostra auctoritate Synodum convo¬ cavit o. Denique addamus unum ipsius etiam Leonis Pontificis testimonium. Is. in epist. 93. quae est ad Turbium : « Dedimus, inquit, litteras ad fratres et Episcopos no¬ stros , eisque concilium synodi generalis indiximus » . Ac de his hactenus, quae in libris Catholicorum Scriptorum fusissime disputata inveniuntur.