172 Bossuet's defence of declaration of Gal. Clergy,

Bossuet, as you know, gives a whole book of his "Defence of the Declaration of the Gallican Clergy" to this point, which seemed to him the only interpretation of the Council of Florence, by which it would have been honest towards the Greeks, viz. that the authority of the Pope was limited by the canons. He premises the third head of that declaration, which embodied the principle,—

“That hence the use of the Apostolic power was to be ruled by the canons made by the Spirit of God and consccrated by the reverence of the whole Church; that the rules, customs, and institutes received by the realm and Church of France do hold, and the boundaries of the fathers remain unmoved; and that this belongs to the amplitude of the Apostolic See, that the statutes and customs of so great a See, being established by the consent of the Churches, should retain their own proper stability."

I do not, of course, mean to claim Bossuet's authority for any thing beyond what he says. He begins the discussion by laying down that—

"We Gallicans, equally with the rest, have ever acknowledged in Peter and his successors a plenitude of ecclesiastical power, 'which no man besides Christ, nay, not the whole Church, could confer or take away;' but" (he adds) "they taught at the same time that the use and exercise of this power was to be ruled (moderandum) by the canons, which saying of Gerson, not only the University of Paris and the Gallican Church, and

Def. Decl. Cleri Gall. xi 1, Œuvres xxxiii. 291.

• Gers. De Potest. Eccl. Cons. i. et x. T. ii., pp. 227. 240. Serm. cont. Bull. Mendic. Ib. p. 432. De Stat. Eccl. de Stat. Præl. Consid. iv. Ib. p. 352.

that authority of Pope was to be ruled by Canons. 173

all our people, but also all highest authorities (optimi quiquc) throughout the world, have zealously maintained.

"This head (he adds) is twofold. For since ecclesiastical discipline is considered either universally or particularly, i. e., as it regards either the universal Church or particular Churches, as the Gallican, the Gallican fathers set forth, that in both respects the Church is not ruled arbitrarily by the Roman Pontiff, but the universal Church by the canons received every where, and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world'; and particular Churches, as the Gallican, by rules received in this Church. But under the name of rules they comprise approved customs, i. e. such as have obtained by the consent and use of the Apostolic See and of the Churches.

"This we lay (he says) as the foundation, that the Roman Church is in this even specially eminent, that it both follows the canons, and prescribes by its authority that others should follow them.

"This S. Gelasius professes in a celebrated place, where he teaches; "No See ought, more than others, to execute the enactment of Synods, all and each, which the assent of the universal Church has approved, than the first, which by its authority confirms every Synod; and, by a continued rule, guards the same.' See what the Roman See wills to execute and to direct to be executed, viz., what it has itself confirmed, and what the assent of the Universal Church has approved.

"And before him Zosimus, 1 But it is unbefitting to extort from Bishops, engaged in a Council on certain grounds, this which, being contrary to the statutes of the Fathers and the reverence of Trophimus, who was first sent from this See as Metropolitan of Arles, not even the authority of this See could grant or change". The excellent reason whereof he subjoins

The italics, &c., throughout are Bossuet's.

* Ib. c. 3. p. 293.

• Gelas. Ep. 13 ad Episc. Dard. Conc. iv. 1200.

1 Zosim. Ep. 7 ad Episc. Prov. Narb. et Vienn. Conc. ii. 1570.

2

[It is unexplained how, after this, in the dissension between

174 Sayings of Popes, on the supreme authority

in these words, For with us antiquity lives, never to be uprooted, the reverence to which the statutes of the Fathers have sanctioned.'

"This, which, on occasion of the Church of Arles, Zosimus says of the peculiar rights of Churches, is the same as we have seen contained in the second place, in this third head of the Gallican declaration.

"Hence Leo the Great, Too wrong, too perverted are those things, which are proved to be contrary to the most holy canons.'

"S. Gregory the Great; "If ye do not keep the canons, and will to uproot the statutes of the Fathers, I own you not.' "S. Martin, a most learned Pope and noble Martyr, "We cannot undo the ecclesiastical canons, who are maintainers and guardians, not transgressors of the canons."

66

"And S. Leo III. to the legates of Charlemagne, Far be it from me, not only that I should prefer myself, but that I should set myself on a par with them' (the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon) when he was asked to make a change in the discipline of singing the Creed".

68

"S. Leo IV., " We could not change the bounds set by the Fathers.'

"Nicholas I., that most energetic defender of Apostolic

S. Leo and Hilary of Arles, Leo came to think that the Metropolitan power had been by privilege conceded for a time to Patroclus, the immediate predecessor of Hilary. In act, he directly contravened Pope Zosimus.]

3 S. Leo, Ep. 80 ad Anastas. C. P.

S. Greg. M. Ep. L. iii. Ind. 11. Ep. 53 ad Joan. C. P. T. ii. 663.

Martin. 1. Ep. 9, ad Pantal. Conc. vi. 33.

Rescr. Leo III. ad Carol. M., Conc. vii. 1195.

"Leo could never be induced to add to the Creed the word Filioque: for he said, the fathers of Chalcedon prohibited any change. Then, soon after, he subjoined what Bossuet quoted" (Edit. Paris).

8

Fragm. Ep. Leon. IV. ad Loth. Imp. Conc. viii. 35.

of the Canons, binding on themselves. 175

9

authority, said of the deposition of Ignatius and substitution of Photius, contrary to the canons, These things we must necessarily meet, who hold the helm of our law, i. e. of the canons.' And afterwards, 'Let the ancient form of the canons of the Fathers be preserved.' And in another Epistle on the same subject, The Roman Church in all its acts ever follows the purest authorities of the holy Fathers.""

"So did the Roman Church require others to keep the ancient rules, which she herself was the first to keep. Hence also Nicholas I., in his Epistle to Photius, teaches that the Roman Church is the head of all Churches, and that "they should inquire of her and follow the right order in all ecclesiastical institutions, which she inviolably and irrefragably retained, according to the canonical and synodical sanctions of the holy Fathers.'

"Hence" (Bossuet observes") "we have scarcely any special canons for ordering the discipline in the Roman Church; but the same things which were enjoined in all Churches, either obtained from the first in the Roman Church, or were most diligently received and guarded in it. So celibacy was annexed to holy orders; translations were forbidden; and every thing which was forbidden to other Churches the Roman Church understood to be even specially forbidden to itself."

Bossuet instances the act of Boniface II. 4, who owned himself guilty before the Divine Majesty for having made a constitution whereby Vigilius should be his successor, contrary to the canons, and burned it; and that for near 900 years there was no translation to the Apostolic See. And even when the contumelies used towards Formosus, who had

Nicol. I. Ep. 2 ad Michael. Imp. Ib. 272.

1 Id. Ep. 5 ad eumd. col. 279.

Nicol. I. Ep. 6 ad Phot. Conc. viii. 283.

3 Ib. c. 4.

5

Lib. Pont. Anas. in Vit. Bonif. II. Conc. iv. 1682.
Pope A.D. 891.

176 Bossuet; even in tenth century, acts of Popes

been so translated, were condemned, it was guarded that this should not be a precedent, "since the sacred canons wholly forbid it." Even "in that most corrupt tenth century "

"John, who had been deposed, pleaded no privileges of his See, great and well-known as they were; neither he nor the Bishops adduced any canons as to his See; he supported himself by the statutes of the Fathers, by the authority of General Councils, the common canon, whereby courtiers and unexamined neophytes were debarred from the Clericature."

Bossuet gives also an instance so late as A. 948, where, in a French Synod, the restoration of Hugo of Rheims, which had been simply directed in a letter from Pope Agapetus, "containing nothing of canonical authority," was resisted; and "Hugh was enjoined to abstain from the communion and rule of the Bishopric of Rheims, until he had presented himself before a general Synod (of German and French Bishops) to clear himself."

French Bishops again resisted the consecration of a Basilica by a Cardinal delegated by John XVII., when Hugh, Archbishop of Tours, on canonical grounds, had refused it.

"The Gallican Bishops, hearing this, pronounced that this sacrilegious presumption proceeded from blind cupidity."

6 Conc. Rom. sub Joan. ix. c. 3. Conc. ix. 503. Boss. Ib. c. 5. p. 303.

› From Flodoard. in Chron. A. 948. Vid. Conc. T. ix., 622, 623.

' Rod. Glaber. ii. 4 ap. Duches. T. iv.