whom they represent." This is precisely the doctrine held by the western church in opposition to the synod of Nice.

It is not disputed that in later ages, many private theologians, even in France, began to speak of it as the seventh general council; but this was merely their private opinion, and can have no authority. It arose from three causes: first, from exaggerated notions of the authority of the Roman see, which had been accustomed to admit this as a general council: secondly, from its being included among the general councils by Gratian in his "Decretum," or compilation of canons, completed in 1150, and which was immediately received as a text-book in all the universities of Europe

2 Collet, Theologia Scholastica, proof of doctrine. Stephen, bishop t. i. p. 635.

a The modern canon law was first reduced to a system, in the "Decretum" of Gratian, who included in his collection all the spurious decretals, and a number of other unauthentic pieces. Long before the end of the century, the Decretum was taught with great applause and profit in the Universities of Bologna, Oxford, Paris, Orleans, and many others. It became the fashionable study; and led the way to the highest honours. In

the fourteenth century it is said, that almost the whole multitude of scholars applied to this study, (R. Holcot apud Ant. Wood, lib. i. p. 160,) and with so much eagerness, that Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl. an. 1254) says, they neglected the languages and philosophy. Alexander of Hales, and other schoolmen, commonly cite the canon law as a sufficient

of Tournay from 1192 to 1203, in his epistles, part iii. ep. 251, (cited by DuPin), complains to the Pope, that the study of the Fathers was neglected, in order to follow the study of scholastic divines, and the decrees or canon laws. Pope Innocent IV. was obliged to publish a bull to prevent the clergy from neglecting philosophy and theology, and to prevent bishops from appointing to benefices and dignities, those who were only skilled in canon laws. (Bulai Hist. Univ. Paris, t. iii. p. 265.) See Fleury, Discours iv, v. sur l'Hist. Eccl.; and Hist. Eccl. liv. 70. s. 28, for further observations on the authority of the canon law in the middle ages. It is not to be wondered at, that, when the Scriptures and the Fathers were, in some degree, superseded by such studies, several erroneous opinions should have become common.

thirdly, from a cause alluded to by the learned Launoy, who having observed and proved that all the ancient Latin writers, and especially those of France, did not hold it as œcumenical, says: "In later ages the Gallican writers, as occasion offered, held the seventh synod to be universal and cecumenical. The reason why they did so, in my opinion, was, that the worship of holy images decreed by that synod pleased them. Therefore they admit it, and hold that Hadrian the First presided in it by his vicars "." As superstition increased, even the synod of Nice began to find advocates; and it was styled general by the synod of Constance but since this latter is itself of doubtful authority, as I shall prove; and since it is questioned by Roman theologians whether the church has the power of determining whether a disputed synod is really œcumenical; there is no presumption that the western church ever admitted the Greek synod of Nice to be the seventh œcumenical synod. Even if it had done so, however, and if the whole church had thus finally acknowledged it, still it must always remain of dubious authority, and can never be received except on mere opinion; because the church can only vary in matters of opinion, not in matters of faith.

Even in the sixteenth century it seems not to have been much known, or to have been still looked on with suspicion by some. Longolius published at Cologne, in 1540, the Nicene synod with this title: "Synodi Nicænæ quam Græci septimam vocant," &c. Merlinus published an edition of the councils in 1530, containing the six general councils, but omitting the synod of Nice. Bellarmine says: "It is very credible that St.

b Launoii Epistolæ, pars viii.

ep. 9.

C

Delahogue, De Eccl. Christi,

p. 175.

Thomas, Alexander of Hales, and other scholastic doctors had not seen the second synod of Nice, nor the eighth general synod;" he adds, that they "were long in obscurity, and were first published in our own age, as may be known from their not being extant in the older volumes of the councils; and St. Thomas and the other ancient schoolmen never make any mention of this Nicene synod "." This silence is very remarkable, because the Decretum Gratiani, which was then universally received, mentioned it as an oecumenical synod. In the fifteenth century, however, it is referred to by Thomas Waldensis as a general synod.

d

SECTION V.

THE SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE CAUSE OF
PHOTIUS.

A synod was assembled at Constantinople in 869 by the emperor Basil, which was attended by about 100 eastern bishops. The legates of Adrian II. of Rome presided. They acknowledged seven preceding synods, condemned Photius patriarch of Constantinople as having been unlawfully appointed, and confirmed the worship of images. This is now generally accounted the eighth œcumenical synod by Roman theologians. Bailly says: "It was confirmed by the pontiff and the whole Western church "." Delahogue says: "The œcumenicity of this council is certain and undoubted. The schismatical Greeks alone do not acknowledge it." These are strange assertions, when it is remembered

that pope Hadrian in 871 only acknowledged six general councils ; that cardinal Humbert, the Roman legate at Constantinople in 1054, only admitted seven general councils; that the chronicles of St. Bertin in the tenth century reject this synod '; that the continuator of Aimon's books de Gestis Francorum to the year 1165, also reprobates it; that it was annulled in 879 by a synod of 384 bishops at Constantinople, and has always since been rejected by the Eastern church; that in 1339, according to Barlaam, but six oecumenical synods were commonly received in the East"; that the synod of Florence, 1438, was styled the eighth œcumenical synod by its own acts, and in the papal licences. It is manifest from all this, that this synod has never been received by the catholic church.

A synod was assembled at Constantinople in 879 by the emperor Basil, on occasion of the restoration of Photius to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. It was attended by the legates of John VIII. of Rome, and by 384 bishops. Photius was in this synod declared legitimate patriarch, and the synod of 869 or 870 under Ignatius, was abrogated, rejected, and anathematized '. The second Nicene was acknowledged as the seventh œcumenical synod. This synod was rejected in the West: the Chronicle of St. Bertin alone describes it as the "seventh synod of Constantinople." Launoy says that some of the Eastern writers called it the eighth

œcumenical, but that others considered it a pseudosynod'. To this day, however, it has not been reckoned at any time by either the Eastern or the Western churches among the œcumenical synods.

CHAPTER XI.

COUNCILS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH AFTER A.D. 1054, IMPROPERLY TERMED ECUMENICAL.

Or the synods held in the West since 1054, when the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople separated mutually from communion, none have been received by the Eastern church as oecumenical or binding in matters of faith or discipline. These synods were therefore merely national or general synods of the West, and are not invested with the authority of the catholic church. More than one of these synods have advanced propositions which are very questionable and even erroneous; but it would be impossible to prove that the whole Western church has ever decreed what was contrary to faith. I shall reserve the synod of Trent for separate consideration.

SECTION I.

THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD LATERAN SYNODS.

The first Lateran synod was assembled by pope

Three hundred bishops are said There was no decree in faith made

Calixtus II. in 1123. to have attended.

Launoius, ut supra.