period so extensive: but that even then, the Emperor neither sat with the Bishops in the Council, nor in any instance exercised his authority upon the Subject in debate. This however I directly deny for we are informed by Theodoret, that the Emperor Constantine, † in the Council of Nice, not only took his seat with the Bishops, but also exhorted them to determine the ques * *Historia Eccles. lib. i. cap. 5. In "the Defence of the Apologie," pp. 677-80. Bishop Jewell has collected a vast number of testimonies from the Ancient Fathers and Councils, all clearly demonstrating that the Emperors in the earliest and purest ages of the Gospel were the Supreme heads of the Church. "Constantinus erat Vocalissimus Dei præco et quasi Servator ac Medicus animarum." "* The Emperor Constantine was a most eloquent Preacher of the Word of God, and as it were the Saviour and Physician of Souls. Nicephorus † when addressing the Emperor Emmanuel Palæologus, says; "Tu es Dux Professionis Fidei Nostræ." Your Majesty is the Head of the Profession of our Faith. Eusebius* writes to the same effect. Sedit tota Synodus reverenter, ut par fuit, cum silentio expectans adventum Principis. The whole Council sat in becoming and reverent Silence anxiously awaiting the arrival of the Prince. And at the Council of Nice, when the Bishops were engaged in a warm dispute on certain points of Church Discipline, they offered their books of Accusation not to the Pope or his Legates, for whom they had no respect, but to the Emperor. *Eusebius in Vita Constant. Orat. 1. † Nicephorus in Præfat. ad Emmanuel. Socrates, lib. i. cap. 8. tion then under discussion by the Writings of the Apostles and Prophets; "In discussions of this nature," says the Emperor; "we have before our eyes the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost which we ought to follow: for the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles; and the Oracles of the Prophets clearly point out to us, what opinions we ought to entertain concerning the Will of God:"* and, according to Socrates, † the Emperor Theodosius not only sat amongst the Bishops, but was also the sole Judge or Moderator of the dispute in question; destroying * Eusebius de vita Constantini, lib. iii. c. 10, 12, 13, edit. Vales. + Socrates Hist. Ecclesiæ, lib. v. cap. 10. The Emperor Theodosius, to establish the unity of the Church, commanded the Bishops and most learned men of his Empire to appear before him, and each one to write a separate Confession of his Faith, that he himself might decide on the excellency of their Tenets. Having received their writings he ordered the celebration of Public worship, and prayed himself both openly and privately, that it would please God to assist him with his Holy Spirit, and enable him to decide justly. After this he carefully perused each separate Confession, and upon mature deliberation pronounced in favour of the Catholic Doctrine; condemning the Confessions of Faith written by the Arians and Eunomians, and ordering them to be destroyed. Sozomen, lib. vii. cap. 12. the Writings of the Heretics, and sanctioning and confirming the Decrees of the Catholics. In the Council of Chalcedon, a Civil Magistrate, on his own authority, condemned for Heretics the Bishops Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius; and degraded them from their Dignities in the Church. * In the third Council of Constantinople, Constantine, a Civil Magistrate, not only took his seat amongst the Bishops, but also subscribed with them. "We have," says he, "both read and subscribed." In the second Arausicanian Council, * Videtur nobis justum esse eidem pænæ Dioscorum Reverendum Episcopum Alexandriæ, et Juvenalem Reverendum Episcopum Hierosolymorum, et Thalassium Reverendum Episcopum Cæsareæ Cappadociæ subjacere; et a Sancto Concilio secundum Regulas ab Episcopali dignitate fieri alienos. We deem it right that Dioscorus the Reverend Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenal the Reverend Bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius the Reverend Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia be subjected to the same punishment, and degraded from their Episcopal Dignities by the Council according to the Canons. Concil. Chalced Act i. p. 831, and Evagrius, lib. ii. cap. 4. The same Council also decreed that the city of New Rome (Constantinople) being now the seat of Empire and the Senate, should enjoy equal Privileges with the Elder Rome; and have the same Majesty and authority in Ecclesiastical affairs. the Ambassadors of Princes, who were noblemen by birth; not only expressed their opinions on the subject of Religion, but also subscribed amongst the Bishops: for thus it is written at the latter end of that Council; Petrus Marcellinus, and Felix Liberius, Patricians, Men of Rank, and celebrated Captains of France have consented and subscribed: Syagrius, Opilio, Pantagathus, Deodatus, * Cariatho, and Marcellus, all men of Honour, and Magistrates have subscribed. . If Military Officers and Noblemen could then subscribe in the Councils, may not Emperors. and Monarchs do so now? In a case so self evident, a long argument and laboured defence would appear useless, were we not contending with men, who from a Spirit of Strife and Sophistry are accustomed to deny even the plainest facts; nay even those very things which they see with their eyes, and know to be absolutely true, The Emperor Justinian † passed : * Some editions have Cariattho. The Emperor Justinian* in Ecclesiastical causes fre * Authen. Collat. i. Tit. 6. Quomodo oportet Episcopos. Consult also Concil. Chalced. Actio i. pag. 780. Concil. Paris. i. Marius Victorinus Contra Aria a Law for improving the Morals, and curbing the Insolence of the Clergy: and although he was both a Christian and Catholic Monarch, he deposed Sylverius and Vigilius, two Popes, the Successors of St. Peter, and Vicars of Christ, from the Papal throne. * quently makes use of these expressions: Definimus, Mandamus, Jubemus. We determine, we conclude, we command, and alluding to the neglect of the Bishops, he says; definimus ut nullus Deo amabilium Episcoporum foris a sua Ecclesia plus quam per totum annum abesse audeat. We decree that no Godly Bishop shall dare to be absent from his Church for a longer period than a year. nos. lib. ii. Evagrius, lib. ii. cap. 4. Sozomen, lib. iv. cap. 16. Aneas Sylvius, &c. and the Defence of the Apologie, pp. 686–90. * Even the warmest advocates of Popery have not denied this power in the Emperor. For Franciscus Zarabella says, Papa potest accusari coram imperatore de quolibet crimine notorio, et Imperator requirere potest a Papa rationem Fidei; The Pope for any notorious crime may be accused before the Emperor; and the latter may compel his Holiness to give an account of his Faith. And Hervæus + adds, Si Papa sit incorrigibilis, nec Cardinales possint per se amovere scandalum de Ecclesia, tunc in Subsidium juris deberent supplicando invocare Brachium Sæculare, et tuuc Imperator, requisitus a Cardinalibus deberet procedere contra Papam. If the Pope is incorrigible, and the Cardinals of themselves are unable to remove the Scandal from the Church, then ought they to call *Francis. Zarabella. De Schemate et Concilio. |