DOCUMENTS FROM
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
[THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL]
A.D. 381
SOURCE: Henry R. Percival, ed., _The Seven Ecumenical
Councils of the Undivided Church_, Vol XIV of Nicene and
Post Nicene Fathers, snd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry
Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1988)
[These texts are out of copyright, and a roughly scanned
version is available on the Internet at the Wheaton College
Ethereal Library of Christian Classics. There is underway there
a process of turning the texts into HTML documents. For many people,
however, plain ascii texts are more useful, and so are provided
here. Page numbers of the printed version are kept in square
brackets for reference purposes. Check the printed texts,
though, for serious academic purposes. Footnotes in the
printed version are note given here, although the fact that
there is a footnote is signaled by a number in parentheses.
The value of the Percival edition is that it not only provides
basic texts, but also has a number of well informed
excursuses on significant topics, as well as, after each canon
commentaries by later writers on the meaning.
Paul Halsall
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
WebSite: http://www.bway.net/~halsall
(C) Although the texts here are not copyrighted, the
specific electronic form of the document is. Permission
is given for free reproduction of the texts, including
multiple copies, as long as no charge is made]
*************************************************
[161]
Emperor.--THEODOSIUS.(1)
Pope.--DAMASUS.
Elenchus.
*Historical Introduction.
*The Creed and Epiphanius's two Creeds with an Introductory Note.
*Historical Excursus on the introduction of the words "and the Son."
*Historical Note on the lost Tome of this council.
*Synodal Letter to the Emperor.
*Introduction on the number of the Canons.
*The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
*Excursus to Canon I., on the condemned heresies.
*Excursus on the Authority of the Second Ecumenical Council.
*Synodical Letter of the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 382.
[162]
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.
In the whole history of the Church there is no council 'which bristles
with such astonishing facts as the First Council of Constantinople. It
is one of the "undisputed General Councils," one of the four which St.
Gregory said he revered as he did the four holy Gospels, and he would be
rash indeed who denied its right to the position it has so long
occupied; and yet
1. It was not intended to be an Ecumenical Synod at all.
2. It was a local gathering of only one hundred and fifty bishops.
3. It was not summoned by the Pope, nor was he invited to it.
4. No diocese of the West was present either by representation or in the
person of its bishop; neither the see of Rome, nor any other see.
5. It was a council of Saints, Cardinal Orsi, the Roman Historian, says:
"Besides St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Peter of Sebaste, there were also
at Constantinople on account of the Synod many other Bishops, remarkable
either for the holiness of their life, or for their zeal for the faith,
or for their learning, or for the eminence of their Sees, as St.
Amphilochius of Iconium, Helladius of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Optimus of
Antioch in Pisidia, Diodorus of Tarsus, St. Pelagius of Laodicea, St.
Eulogius of Edessa, Acacius of Berea, Isidorus of Cyrus, St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, Gelasius of Cesarea in Palestine, Vitus of Carres, Dionysius
of Diospolis, Abram of Bathes, and Antiochus of Samosata, all three
Confessors, Bosphorus of Colonia, and Otreius of Melitina, and various
others whose names appear with honour in history. So that perhaps there
has not been a council, in which has been found a greater number of
Confessors and of Saints."(1)
6. It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch
who was bishop not in communion with Rome,(2) who died during its
session and was styled a Saint in the panegyric delivered over him and
who has since been canonized as a Saint of the Roman Church by the Pope.
7. Its second president was St. Gregory Nazianzen, who was at that time
liable to censure for a breach of the canons which forbade his
translation to Constantinople.
8. Its action in continuing the Meletian Schism was condemned at Rome,
and its Canons rejected for a thousand years.
9. Its canons were not placed in their natural position after those of
Nice in the codex which was used at the Council of Chalcedon, although
this was an Eastern codex.
10. Its Creed was not read nor mentioned, so far as the acts record, at
the Council of Ephesus, fifty years afterwards.
11. Its title to being (as it undoubtedly is) the Second of the
Ecumenical Synods rests upon its Creed having found a reception in the
whole world. And now--mirabile dictu--an English scholar comes forward,
ready to defend the proposition that the First Council of Constantinople
never set forth any creed at all!(3)
[163]
THE HOLY CREED WHICH THE 150 HOLY FATHERS SET FORTH, WHICH IS CONSONANT
WITH THE HOLY AND GREAT SYNOD OF NICE.(1)
(Found in all the Collections in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.)
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
The reader should know that Tillemont (Memoires, t. ix., art. 78 in the
treatise on St. Greg. Naz.) broached the theory that the Creed adopted
at Constantinople was not a new expansion of the Nicene but rather the
adoption of a Creed already in use. Hefele is of the same opinion (Hist.
of the Councils, II., p. 349). and the learned Professor of Divinity in
the University of Jena, Dr. Lipsius, says, of St. Epiphanius: "Though
not himself present at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, A.D:
381, which ensured the triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental
Churches, his shorter confession of faith, which is found at the end of
his Ancoratus, and seems to have been the baptismal creed of the Church
of Salamis, agrees almost word for word with the Constantinopolitan
formula." (Smith and Wace, Dict. Chr. Biog., s. v. Epiphanius). "The
Ancoratus," St. Epiphanius distinctly tells us, was written as early as
A.D. 374, and toward the end of chapter cxix., he writes as follows.
"The children of the Church have received from the holy fathers, that is
from the holy Apostles, the faith to keep, and to hand down, and to
teach their children. To these children you belong, and I beg you to
receive it and pass it on. And whilst yon teach your children these
things and such as these from the holy Scriptures, cease not to confirm
and strengthen them, and indeed all who hear you: tell them that this is
the holy faith of the Holy Catholic Church, as the one holy Virgin of
God received it from the holy Apostles of the Lord to keep: and thus
every person who is in preparation for the holy laver of baptism must
learn it: they must learn it themselves, and teach it expressly, as the
one Mother of all, of you and of us, proclaims it, saying." Then follows
the Creed as on page 164.
{The CREED}
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth
and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men
and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the
Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also
for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third
day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again
with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall
have no end. (I)
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who
proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in
one, holy, (II) Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one
Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of
the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
NOTE I.
This clause had already, so far as the meaning is concerned, been added
to the Nicene Creed, years before, in correction of the heresy of
Marcellus of Ancyra, of whose heresy a statement will be found in the
notes on Canon I. of this Council. One of the creeds of the Council of
Antioch in Encaeniis (A.D. 341) reads: "and he sitteth at the right hand
of
[164]
the Father, and he shah come again to judge both the quick and the dead,
and he remaineth God and King to all eternity."(1)
NOTE II.
The word "Holy" is omitted in some texts of this Creed, notably in the
Latin version in the collection of Isidore Mercator. Vide Labbe, Conc.,
II., 960. Cf. Creed in English Prayer-Book.
NOTES.
THE CREED FOUND IN EPIPHANIUS'S Ancoratus (Cap. cxx.)(2)
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds,
that is of the substance of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very
God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all
things were made, both in heaven and earth who for us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and
the Virgin Mary, and was made man, was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and on the third day he
rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and from thence he shall come
again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom
shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life,
who proceedeth from the Father; who, with the Father and the Son
together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets: in one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come. And those who say that there was a time when
the Son of God was not, and before he was begotten he was not, or that
he was of things which are not, or that he is of a different hypostasis
or substance, or pretend that he is effluent or changeable, these the
Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.
Epiphanius thus continues:
"And this faith was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church,
the Holy City, from all the Holy Bishops together more than three
hundred and ten in number."
"In our generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and Valens, and
the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the tyrant,(3) you
and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church
together, make this address to those who come to baptism, in order that
they may proclaim and say as follows:"
Epiphanius then gives this creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things,
invisible and visible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God,
begotten of God the Father, only begotten, that is of the substance of
the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten
not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things
were made, both which be in heaven and in earth, whether they be visible
or invisible. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was
incarnate, that is to say was conceived perfectly through the Holy Ghost
of the holy ever-virgin Mary, and was made man, that is to say a perfect
man, receiving a soul, and body, and intellect, and all that make up a
man, but without sin, not from human seed, nor [that he dwelt] in a man,
but taking flesh to himself into one holy entity; not as he inspired the
prophets and spake and worked [in them], but was perfectly made man, for
the Word was made flesh; neither did he experience any change, nor did
he convert his divine nature into the nature of man, but united it to
his one holy perfection and Divinity.
For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, not two, the same is God, the same
is Lord, the same is King. He suffered in the flesh, and rose again, and
ascended into heaven in the same body, and with glory he sat down at the
right hand of the Father, and in the same body he will come in glory to
judge both the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no
end.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake in the Law, and preached in
the Prophets, and descended at Jordan, and spake in the Apostles, and
indwells the Saints. And thus we believe in him, that he is the Holy
Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Comforter,
uncreate, who proceedeth from the Father, receiving of the Son
(<greek>ek</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>Patros</greek>
<greek>ekporeuomenon</greek>, <greek>kai</greek> <greek>ek</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> <greek>Uiou</greek> <greek>lambanomenon</greek>), and
believed on. (<greek>kai</greek> <greek>pisteuomenon</greek>,
[165]
which the Latin version gives in quem credimus; and proceeds to insert,
Proeterea credimus in unam, etc. It certainly looks as if it had read
<greek>pisteuomen</greek>, and had belonged to the following phrase.)
[We believe] in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. And in one baptism of
penitence, and in the resurrection of the dead, and the just judgment of
souls and bodies, and in the Kingdom of heaven and in life everlasting.
And those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or when
the Holy Ghost was not, or that either was made of that which previously
had no being, or that he is of a different nature or substance, and
affirm that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are subject to change and
mutation; all such the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the mother both of
you and of us, anathematizes. And further we anathematize such as do not
confess the resurrection of the dead, as well as all heresies which are
not in accord with the true faith.
Finally, you and your children thus believing and keeping the
commandments of this same faith, we trust that you will always pray for
us, that we may have a share and lot in that same faith and in the
keeping of these same commandments. For us make your intercessions you
and all who believe thus, and keep the commandments of the Lord in our
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom, glory be to the Father
with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.
HISTORICAL EXCURSUS
ON THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE CREED OF THE WORDS "AND THE SON."
The introduction into the Nicene Creed of the words "and the Son"
(Filioque) has given rise to, or has been the pretext for, such bitter
reviling between East and West (during which many statements unsupported
by fact have become more or less commonly believed) that I think it well
in this place to set forth as dispassionately as possible the real facts
of the case. I shall briefly then give the proof of the following
propositions:
1. That no pretence is made by the West that the words in dispute formed
part of the original creed as adopted at Constantinople, or that they
now form part of that Creed.
2. That so far from the insertion being made by the Pope, it was made in
direct opposition to his wishes and command.
3. That it never was intended by the words to assert that there were two
'A<greek>rkai</greek> in the Trinity, nor in any respect on this point
to differ from the teaching of the East.
4. That it is quite possible that the words were not an intentional
insertion at all.
5. And finally that the doctrine of the East as set forth by St. John
Damascene is now and always has been the doctrine of the West on the
procession of the Holy Spirit, however much through ecclesiastico-
political contingencies this fact may have become obscured.
With the truth or falsity of the doctrine set forth by the Western
addition to the creed this work has no concern, nor even am I called
upon to treat the historical question as to when and where the
expression "and the Son" was first used. For a temperate and eminently
scholarly treatment of this point from a Western point of view, I would
refer the reader to Professor Swete's On the History of the Doctrine of
the Procession of the Holy Spirit. In J. M. Neale's History of the Holy
Eastern Church will be found a statement from the opposite point of
view. The great treatises of past years I need not mention here, but may
be allowed to enter a warning to the reader, that they were often
written in the period of hot controversy, and make more for strife than
for peace, magnifying rather than lessening differences both of thought
and expression.
Perhaps, too, I may be allowed here to remind the readers that it has
been said that while "ex Patre Filioque procedens" in Latin does not
necessitate a double source of the Holy Spirit, the expression
<greek>ekporeuomenon</greek> <greek>ek</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>patros</greek> <greek>kai</greek> <greek>ek</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> <greek>Uiou</greek> does. On such a point I am not
fit to give an opinion, but St. John Damascene does not use this
expression.
1. That no pretence is made by the West that the words in dispute ever
formed part of
[166]
the creed as adopted at Constantinople is evidently proved by the patent
fact that it is printed without those words in all our Concilias and in
all our histories. It is true that at the Council of Florence it was
asserted that the words were found in a copy of the Acts of the Seventh
Ecumenical which they had, but no stress was even at that eminently
Western council laid upon the point, which even if it had been the case
would have shewn nothing with regard to the true reading of the Creed as
adopted by the Second Synod.(1) On this point there never was nor can be
any doubt.
2. The addition was not made at the will and at the bidding of the Pope.
It has frequently been said that it was a proof of the insufferable
arrogancy of the See of Rome that it dared to tamper with the creed set
forth by the authority of an Ecumenical Synod and which had been
received by the world. Now so far from the history of this addition to
the creed being a ground of pride and complacency to the advocates of
the Papal claims, it is a most marked instance of the weakness of the
papal power even in the West.
"Baronius," says Dr. Pusey, "endeavours in vain to find any Pope, to
whom the 'formal addition' may be ascribed, and rests at last on a
statement of a writer towards the end of the 12th century, writing
against the Greeks. 'If the Council of Constantinople added to the
Nicene Creed, "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of life," and the
Council of Chalcedon to that of Constantinople, "perfect in Divinity and
perfect in Humanity, consubstantial with the Father as touching his
Godhead, consubstantial with us as touching his manhood," and some other
things as aforesaid, the Bishop of the elder Rome ought not to be
calumniated, because for explanation, he added one word [that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from the Son] having the consent of very many bishops
and most learned Cardinals.' 'For the truth of which,' says Le Quien,
'be the author responsible!' It seems to me inconceivable, that all
account of any such proceeding, if it ever took place, should have been
lost."(2)
We may then dismiss this point and briefly review the history of the
matter.
There seems little doubt that the words were first inserted in Spain. As
early as the year 400 it had been found necessary at a Council of Toledo
to affirm the double procession against the Priscillianists,(3) and in
589 by the authority of the Third Council of Toledo the newly converted
Goths were required to sign the creed with the addition.(4) From this
time it became for Spain the accepted form, and was so recited at the
Eighth Council of Toledo in 653, and again in 681 at the Twelfth Council
of Toledo.(5)
But this was at first only true of Spain, and at Rome nothing of the
kind was known. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Creed is found in its
original form.(6) The same is the case with the old Gallican
Sacramentary of the viith or viiith century.(7)
However, there can be no doubt that its introduction spread very rapidly
through the West and that before long it was received practically
everywhere except at Rome.
In 809 a council was held at Aix-la-Chapelle by Charlemagne, and from it
three divines were sent to confer with the Pope, Leo III, upon the
subject. The Pope opposed the insertion of the Filioque on the express
ground that the General Councils had forbidden any addition to be made
to their formulary.(8) Later on, the Frankish Emperor asked his bishops
what was "the meaning of the Creed according to the Latins,"(9) and
Fleury gives the result of the investigations to have been, "In France
they continued to chant the creed with the word Filioque, and at Rome
they continued not to chant it."(10)
[167]
So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced
into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Confessio in
St. Peter's at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and
on the other in Greek, without the addition. This act the Greeks never
forgot during the controversy. Photius refers to it in writing to the
Patriarch of Acquileia. About two centuries later St. Peter Damian(1)
mentions them as still in place; and about two centuries later on,
Veecur, Patriarch of Constantinople, declares they hung there still.(2)
It was not till 1014 that for the first time the interpolated creed was
used at mass with the sanction of the Pope. In that year Benedict VIII.
acceded to the urgent request of Henry II. of Germany and so the papal
authority was forced to yield, and the silver shields have disappeared
from St. Peter's.
3. Nothing could be clearer than that the theologians of the West never
had any idea of teaching a double source of the Godhead. The doctrine of
the Divine Monarchy was always intended to be preserved, and while in
the heat of the controversy sometimes expressions highly dangerous, or
at least clearly inaccurate, may have been used, yet the intention must
be judged from the prevailing teaching of the approved theologians. And
what this was is evident from the definition of the Council of Florence,
which, while indeed it was not received by the Eastern Church, and
therefore cannot be accepted as an authoritative exposition of its
views, yet certainly must be regarded as a true and full expression of
the teaching of the West. "The Greeks asserted that when they say the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, they do not use it because they
wish to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say,
that the Latins assert the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and
the Son, as from two principles and by two spirations, and therefore
they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son. But the Latins affirm that they have no intention when they
say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son to deprive the
Father of his prerogative of being the fountain and principle of the
entire Godhead, viz. of the Son and of the, Holy Ghost; nor do they deny
that the very procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the Son derives
from the Father; nor do they teach two principles or two spirations; but
they assert that there is one only principle, one only spiration, as
they have always asserted up to this time."
4. It is quite possible that when these words were first used there was
no knowledge on the part of those using them that there had been made
any addition to the Creed. As I have already pointed out, the year 589
is the earliest date at which we find the words actually introduced into
the Creed. Now there can be no doubt whatever that the Council of Toledo
of that year had no suspicion that the creed as they had it was not the
creed exactly as adopted at Constantinople. This is capable of the most
ample proof.
In the first place they declared, "Whosoever believes that there is any
other Catholic faith and communion, besides that of the Universal
Church, that Church which holds and honours the decrees of the Councils
of Nice, Constantinople, I. Ephesus, and Chalcedon, let him be
anathema." After some further anathemas in the same sense they repeat
"the creed published at the council of Nice," and next, "The holy faith
which the 150 fathers of the Council of Constantinople explained,
consonant with the great Council of Nice." And then lastly, "The holy
faith which the translators of the council of Chalcedon explained." The
creed of Constantinople as recited contained the words "and from the
Son." Now the fathers at Toledo were not ignorant of the decree of
Ephesus forbidding the making of "another faith" (<greek>eteran</greek>
<greek>pistin</greek>) for they themselves cite it, as follows from the
acts of Chalcedon; "The holy and universal Synod forbids to bring
forward any other faith; or to write or
[168]
believe or to teach other, or be otherwise minded. But whoso shall dare
either to expound or produce or deliver any other faith to those who
wish to be converted etc." Upon this Dr. Pusey well remarks,(1) "It is,
of course, impossible to suppose that they can have believed any
addition to the creed to have been forbidden by the clause, and,
accepting it with its anathema, themselves to have added to the creed of
Constantinople."
But while this is the case it might be that they understood
<greek>eteran</greek> of the Ephesine decree to forbid the making of
contradictory and new creeds and not explanatory additions to the
existing one. Of this interpretation of the decree, which would seem
without any doubt to be the only tenable one, I shall treat in its
proper place.
We have however further proof that the Council of Toledo thought they
were using the unaltered creed of Constantinople. In these acts we find
they adopted the following; "for reverence of the most holy faith and
for the strengthening of the weak minds of men, the holy Synod enacts,
with the advice of our most pious and most glorious Lord, King Recarede,
that through all the churches of Spain and Gallaecia, the symbol of
faith of the council of Constantinople, i.e. of the 150 bishops, should
be recited according to the form of the Eastern Church, etc."
This seems to make the matter clear and the next question which arises
is, How the words could have got into the Spanish creed? I venture to
suggest a possible explanation. Epiphanius tells us that in the year 378
"all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic Church together make
this address to those who come to baptism, in order that they may
proclaim and say as follows."(2) If this is to be understood literally
of course Spain was included. Now the creed thus taught the catechumens
reads as follows at the point about which our interest centres:
<greek>kai</greek> <greek>eis</greek> <greek>to</greek>
<greek>agion</greek> <greek>pneuma</greek> <greek>pisteuomen</greek>,
... <greek>ek</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>patros</greek>
<greek>ekporeuomenon</greek> <greek>kai</greek> <greek>ek</greek>
<greek>tou</greek> <greek>lambanomenon</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>pisteuomenon</greek>, <greek>eis</greek> <greek>mian</greek>
<greek>kaqolikhn</greek> <greek>k</greek>. <greek>t</greek>.
<greek>g</greek>. Now it looks to me as if the text had got corrupted
and that there should be a full stop after <greek>lambanomenon</greek>,
and that <greek>pisteuomenon</greek> should be
<greek>pisteuomen</greek>. These emendations are not necessary however
for my suggestion although they would make it more perfect, for in that
case by the single omission of the word <greek>lambanomenon</greek> the
Western form is obtained. It will be noticed that this was some years
before the Constantinopolitan Council and therefore nothing would be
more natural than that a scribe accustomed to writing the old baptismal
creed and now given the Constantinopolitan creed, so similar to it, to
copy, should have gone on and added the <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>ek</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>Uiou</greek>, according to
habit.
However this is a mere suggestion, I think I have shewn that there is
strong reason to believe that whatever the explanation may be, the
Spanish Church was unaware that it had added to or changed the
Constantinopolitan creed.
5. There remains now only the last point, which is the most important of
all, but which does not belong to the subject matter of this volume and
which therefore I shall treat with the greatest brevity. The writings of
St. John Damascene are certainly deemed entirely orthodox by the
Easterns and always have been. On the other hand their entire orthodoxy
has never been disputed in the West, but a citation from Damascene is
considered by St. Thomas as conclusive. Under these circumstances it
seems hard to resist the conclusion that the faith of the East and the
West, so far as its official setting forth is concerned, is the same and
always has been. And perhaps no better proof of the Western acceptance
of the Eastern doctrine concerning the eternal procession of the Holy
Spirit can be found than the fact that St. John Damascene has been in
recent years raised by the pope for his followers to the rank of a
Doctor of the Catholic Church.
[169]
Perhaps I may be allowed to close with two moderate statements of the
Western position, the one by the learned and pious Dr. Pusey and the
other by the none less famous Bishop Pearson.
Dr. Pusey says:
"Since, however, the clause, which found its way into the Creed, was, in
the first instance, admitted, as being supposed to be part of the
Constantinopolitan Creed, and, since after it had been rooted for 200
years, it was not uprooted, for fear of uprooting also or perplexing the
faith of the people, there was no fault either in its first reception or
in its subsequent retention.
"The Greeks would condemn forefathers of their own, if they were to
pronounce the clause to be heretical. For it would be against the
principles of the Church to be in communion with an heretical body. But
from the deposition of Photius, A.D. 886 to at least A.D. 1009, East and
West retained their own expression of faith without schism.(1)
"A.D. 1077, Theophylact did not object to the West, retaining for itself
the confession of faith contained in the words, but only excepted
against the insertion of the words in the Creed."(2)
And Bp. Pearson, explaining Article VIII. of the Creed says: "Now
although the addition of words to the formal Creed without the consent,
and against the protestations of the Oriental Church be not justifiable;
yet that which was added is nevertheless a certain truth, and may be so
used in that Creed by them who believe the same to be a truth; so long
as they pretend it not to be a definition of that Council, but an
addition or explication inserted, and condemn not those who, out of a
greater respect to such synodical determinations, will admit of no such
insertions, nor speak any other language than the Scriptures and their
Fathers spoke."
HISTORICAL NOTE ON THE LOST "TOME" OF THE SECOND COUNCIL.
We know from the Synodical letter sent by the bishops who assembled at
Constantinople in A.D. 382 (the next year after the Second Ecumenical
Council) sent to Pope Damasus and other Western bishops, that the Second
Council set forth a "Tome," containing a statement of the doctrinal
points at issue. This letter will be found in full at the end of the
treatment of tiffs council. The Council of Cholcedon in its address to
the Emperor says: "The bishops who at Constantinople detected the taint
of Apollinarianism, communicated to the Westerns their decision in the
matter." From this we may reasonably conclude, with Tillemont,(3) that
the lost Tome treated also of the Apollinarian heresy. It is moreover by
no means unlikely that the Creed as it has come down to us, was the
summary at the end of the Tome, and was followed by the anathemas which
now form our Canon I. It also is likely that the very accurate doctrinal
statements contained in the Letter of the Synod of 382 may be taken
almost, if not quite, verbatim from this Tome. It seems perfectly
evident that at least one copy of the Tome was sent to the West but how
it got lost is a matter on which at present we are entirely in the dark.
[170]
LETTER OF THE SAME HOLY SYNOD TO THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR THEODOSIUS THE
GREAT, TO WHICH ARE APPENDED THE CANONS ENACTED BY THEM.
(Found in Labbe, Concilia, Tom. II., 945.)
To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the Holy Synod of Bishops
assembled in Constantinople out of different Provinces. We begin our
letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established the empire
of your Piety for the common peace of the Churches and for the support
of the true Faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in duty
bound we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in the
Holy Synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according to
the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart
each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions,
ratifying the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the
heresies which have sprung up, contrary thereto. Besides these things,
we also framed certain Canons for the better ordering of the Churches,
all which we have subjoined to this our letter. Wherefore we beseech
your Piety that the decree of the Synod may be ratified, to the end
that, as you have honoured the Church by your letter of citation, so you
should set your seal to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May the
Lord establish your empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it
from generation to generation; and may he add unto your earthly power
the fruition of the heavenly kingdom also. May God by the prayers
(<greek>eukaiu</greek> <greek>twt</greek> <greek>agiwn</greek>) of the
Saints,(1) show favour to the world, that you may be strong and eminent
in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.
[171]
INTRODUCTION ON THE NUMBER OF THE CANONS.
(HEFELE, History of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 351.)
The number of canons drawn up by this synod is doubtful. The old Greek
codices and the Greek commentators of the Middle Ages, Zonaras and
Balsamon, enumerate seven; the old Latin translations--viz. the Prisca,
those by Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, as well as the Codex of Luna--
only recognize the first four canons of the Greek text, and the fact
that they agree in this point is the more important as they are wholly
independent of each other, and divide and arrange those canons of
Constantinople which they do acknowledge quite differently.
Because, however, in the Prisca the canons of Constantinople are only
placed after those of the fourth General Council, the Ballerini brothers
conclude that they were not contained at all in the oldest Greek
collections of canons, and were inserted after the Council of Chalcedon.
But it was at this very Council of Chalcedon that the first three canons
of Constantinople were read out word for word. As however, they were not
separately numbered, but were there read under the general title of
Synodicon Synodi Secundae, Fuchs concluded they were not originally in
the form in which we now possess them, but, without being divided into
numbers, formed a larger and unbroken decree, the contents of which were
divided by later copyists and translators into several different canons.
And hence the very different divisions of these canons in the Prisca,
Dionysius, and Isidore may be explained. The fact, however, that the old
Latin translations all agree in only giving the first four canons of the
Greek text, seems to show that the oldest Greek manuscripts, from which
those translations were made, did not contain the fifth, sixth, and
seventh, and that these last did not properly belong to this Synod, but
were later additions. To this must be added that the old Greek Church-
historians, in speaking of the affairs of the second General Council,
only mention those points which are contained in the first four canons,
and say nothing of what, according to the fifth, sixth, and seventh
canons, had also been decided at Constantinople. At the very least, the
seventh canon cannot have emanated from this Council, since in the sixth
century John Scholasticus did not receive it into his collection,
although he adopted the fifth and sixth. It is also missing in many
other collections; and in treating specially of this canon further on,
we shall endeavour to show the time and manner of its origin. But the
fifth and sixth canons probably belong to the Synod of Constantinople of
the following year, as Beveridge, the Ballerini, and others conjectured.
The Greek scholiasts, Zonaras and Balsamon, and later on Tillemont,
Beveridge, Van Espen and Herbst, have given more or less detailed
commentaries on all these canons.
[171]
CANONS OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT
CONSTANTINOPLE DURING THE CONSULATE OF THOSE ILLUSTRIOUS MEN, FLAVIUS
EUCHERIUS AND FLAVIUS EVAGRIUS ON THE VII OF THE IDES OF JULY.(1)
THE Bishops out of different provinces assembled by the grace of God in
Constantinople, on the summons of the most religious Emperor Theodosius,
have decreed as follows:
CANON I.
THE Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in
Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy
shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or
[Anomoeans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or
Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians,
and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.
Let the Nicene faith stand firm. Anathema to heresy.
There is a difference of reading in the list of the heretics. The
reading I have followed in the text is that given in Beveridge's
Synodicon. The Greek text, however, in Labbe, and with it agree the
version of Hervetus and the text of Hefele, reads: "the Eunomians or
Anomaeans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi,
the Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians." From this
Dionysius only varies by substituting "Macedonians" for "Semi-Arians."
It would seem that this was the correct reading. I, however, have
followed the other as being the more usual.
HEFELE.
By the Eudoxians, whom this canon identifies with the Arians [according
to his text, vide supra,] is meant that faction who, in
contradistinction to the strict Arians or Anomaeans on one side, and the
Semi-Arians on the other side, followed the leadership of the Court
Bishop Eudoxius (Bishop of Constantinople under the Emperor Valens), and
without being entirely Anomaean, yet very decidedly inclined to the left
of the Arian party--probably claiming to represent the old and original
Arianism. But this canon makes the Semi-Arians identical with the
Pneuma-tomachians, and so far rightly, that the latter sprang from the
Semi-Arian party, and applied the Arian principle to their doctrine of
the Holy Ghost. Lastly, by the Marcellians are meant those pupils of
Marcellus of Ancyra who remained in the errors formerly propounded by
him, while afterwards others, and indeed he himself, once more
acknowledged the truth.
EXCURSUS ON THE HERESIES CONDEMNED IN CANON I.
In treating of these heresies I shah invert the order of the canon, and
shall speak of the Macedonian and Apollinarian heresies first, as being
most nearly connected with the object for which the Constantinopolitan
Synod was assembled.
-THE SEMI-ARIANS, MACEDONIANS OR PNEUMATOMACHI.
Peace indeed seemed to have been secured by the Nicene decision but
there was an element of discord still extant, and so shortly afterwards
as in 359 the double-synod of Rimini
[173]
(Ariminum) and Selencia rejected the expressions hemousion and
homoeusion equally, and Jerome gave birth to his famous phrase, "the
world awoke to find itself Arian." The cause of this was the weight
attaching to the Semi-Arian party, which counted among its numbers men
of note and holiness, such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Of the
developments of this party it seems right that some mention should be
made in this place, since it brought forth the Macedonian heresy.
(Wm. Bright, D.D., St. Leo on the Incarnation, pp. 213 et seqq.)
The Semi-Arian party in the fourth century attempted to steer a middle
course between calling the Son Consubstantial and calling him a
creature. Their position, indeed, was untenable, but several persisted
in clinging to it; and it was adopted by Macedonius, who occupied the
see of Constantinople. It was through their adoption of a more
reverential language about the Son than had been used by the old Arians,
that what is called the Macedonian heresy showed itself. Arianism had
spoken both of the Son and the Holy Spirit as creatures. The
Macedonians, rising up out of Semi-Arianism, gradually reached the
Church's belief as to the uncreated majesty of the Son, even if they
retained their objection to the homoousion as a formula. But having, in
their previously Semi-Arian position, refused to extend their own
"homoiousion" to the Holy Spirit, they afterwards persisted in regarding
him as "external to the one indivisible Godhead," Newman's Arians, p.
226; or as Tillemont says (Mem. vi., 527), "the denial of the divinity
of the Holy Spirit was at last their capital or only error." St.
Athanasius, while an exile under Constantius for the second time, "heard
with pain," as he says (Ep. i. ad Serap, 1) that "some who had left the
Arians from disgust at their blasphemy against the Son of God, yet
called the Spirit a creature, and one of the ministering spirits,
differing only in degree from the Angels:" and soon afterwards, in 362,
the Council of Alexandria condemned the notion that the Spirit was a
creature, as being "no true avoidance of the detestable Arian heresy."
See "Later Treatises of St. Athanasius," p. 5. Athanasius insisted that
the Nicene Fathers, although silent on the nature of the Holy Spirit,
had by implication ranked him with the Father and the Son as an object
of belief (ad Afros, 11). After the death of St. Athanasius, the new
heresy was rejected on behalf of the West by Pope Damasus, who declared
the Spirit to be truly and properly from the Father (as the Son from the
Divine substance) and very God, "omnia posse et omnia nosse, et ubique
esse," coequal and adorable (Mansi, iii., 483). The Illyrian bishops
also, in 374, wrote to the bishops of Asia Minor, affirming the
consubstantiality of the Three Divine Persons (Theodoret, H. E., iv.,
9). St. Basil wrote his De Spirits Sancto in the same sense (see Swete,
Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, pp. 58, 67), and in
order to vindicate this truth against the Pneumatomachi, as the
Macedonians were called by the Catholics, the Constantinopolitan
recension of the Nicene Creed added the words, "the Lord and the Life-
giver, proceeding from the Father, with the Father and the Son
worshipped and glorified" etc., which had already formed part of local
Creeds in the East.
*From the foregoing by Canon Bright, the reader will be able to
understand the connexion between the Semi-Arians and Pneumatomachi, as
well as to see how the undestroyed heretical germs of the Semi-Asian
heresy necessitated by their development the condemnation of a second
synod.
THE APOLLINARIANS.
(Philip Schaff, in Smith and Wace, Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.
Apollinaris.)
Apollinaris was the first to apply the results of the Nicene controversy
to Christology proper, and to call the attention of the Church to the
psychical and pneumatic element in the humanity of Christ; but in his
zeal for the true deity of Christ, and fear of a double
[174]
personality, he fell into the error of a partial denial of his true
humanity. Adopting the psychological trichotomy of Plato
(<greek>swma</greek> <greek>yukh</greek>, <greek>pneuma</greek>), for
which he quoted I. Thess. v. 23 and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to Christ
a human body (<greek>swma</greek>) and a human soul (the
<greek>yukhalogos</greek>, the anima animans which man has in common
with the animal), but not a rational spirit (<greek>nous</greek>
<greek>pneuma</greek> <greek>yukh</greek> <greek>logikh</greek>, anima
rationalis,) and put in the place of the latter the divine Logos. In
opposition to the idea of a mere connection of the Logos with the man
Jesus, he wished to secure an organic unity of rite two, and so a true
incarnation; but he sought this at the expense of the most important
constituent of man. He reached only a <greek>Qeos</greek>
<greek>sarkoForos</greek>as Nestorianism only an <greek>anqrwpos</greek>
<greek>qeoForos</greek> instead of the proper <greek>qeandrwtos</greek>.
He appealed to the fact that the Scripture says, "the Word was made
flesh"--not spirit; "God was manifest in the flesh" etc, To which
Gregory Nazianzen justly replied that in these passages the term
<greek>sarx</greek> was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature.
In this way Apollinaris established so close a connection of the Logos
with human flesh, that all the divine attributes were transferred to the
human nature, and all the human attributes to the divine, and the two
merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could speak of a crucifixion of
the Logos, and a worship of his flesh. He made Christ a middle being
between God and man, in whom, as it were, one part divine and two parts
human were fused in the unity of a new nature. He even ventured to
adduce created analogies, such as the mule, midway between the horse and
the ass; the grey colour, a mixture of white and black; and spring, in
distinction from winter and summer. Christ, said he, is neither whole
man, nor God, but a mixture (<greek>mixis</greek>) of God and man. On
the other hand, he regarded the orthodox view of a union of full
humanity with a full divinity in one person--of two wholes in one whole-
-as an absurdity. He called the result of this construction
<greek>anqrwpoqeos</greek> , a sort of monstrosity, which he put in the
same category with the mythological figure of the Minotaur. But the
Apollinarian idea of the union of the Logos with a truncated human
nature might be itself more justly compared with this monster. Starting
from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, but denying the completeness
of Christ's humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which likewise put the
divine Logos in the place of rite human spirit in Christ. But he
strongly asserted his unchangeableness, while Arians taught his
changeableness (<greek>treptoths</greek>).
The faith of the Church revolted against such a mutilated and stunted
humanity of Christ which necessarily involved also a merely partial
redemption. The incarnation is an assumption of the entire human nature,
sin only excluded. The <greek>ensarkwsis</greek> is
<greek>enanqrwphsis</greek>. To be a full and complete Redeemer, Christ
must be a perfect man (<greek>teleios</greek> <greek>anqrwpos</greek>).
The spirit or rational soul is the most important element in man, his
crowning glory, the seat of intelligence and freedom, and needs
redemption as well as the soul and the body; for sin has entered and
corrupted all the faculties.
In the sentence immediately preceding the above Dr. Scruff remarks "but
the peculiar Christology of Apollinaris has reappeared from time to time
in a modified shape, as isolated theological opinion." No doubt Dr.
Schaff had in mind the fathers of the so-called "Kenoticism" of to-day,
Gess and Ebrard, who teach, unless they have been misunderstood, that
the incarnate Son had no human intellect or rational soul
(<greek>nous</greek>) but that the divine personality took its place, by
being changed into it.By this last modification, they claim to escape
from tire taint of the Apollinarian heresy.(1)
[175]
THE EUNOMIANS OR ANOMOEANS.
(Bright, Notes on the Canons, Canon I. of I. Const.)
"The Eunomians or Anomoeans." These were the ultra-Arians, who carried
to its legitimate issue the original Arian denial of the eternity and
uncreatedness of the Son, while they further rejected what Arius had
affirmed as to the essential mysteriousness of the Divine nature (Soc.,
H. E., iv., 7; comp. Athan., De Synod., 15). Their founder was Aetius,
the most versatile of theological adventurers (cf. Athan, De Synod., 31;
Soc., H. E., ii., 45; and see a summary of his career in Newman's
Arians, p. 347); but their leader at the time of the Council was the
dating and indefatigable Eunomius (for whose personal characteristics,
see his admirer Philostorgius, x., 6) He, too, had gone through many
vicissitudes from his first employment as the secretary of Aetius, and
his ordination as deacon by Eudoxius; as bishop of Cyzicus, he had been
lured into a disclosure of his true sentiments, and then denounced as a
heretic (Theod., H.. E., ii., 29); with Aetius he had openly separated
from Eudoxius as a disingenuous time-server, and had gone into
retirement at Chalcedon (Philostorg., ix., 4). The distinctive formula
of his adherents was the "Anomoion." The Son, they said, was not "like
to the Father in essence"; even to call him simply "like" was to obscure
the fact that he was simply a creature, and, as such, "unlike" to his
Creator. In other words, they thought the Semi-Arian "homoiousion"
little better than the Catholic "homoousion": the "homoion" of the more
"respectable" Arians represented in their eyes an ignoble reticence; the
plain truth, however it might shock devout prejudice, must be put into
words which would bar all misunderstanding: the Son might be called
"God," but in a sense merely titular, so as to leave an impassable gulf
between him and the uncreated Godhead (see Eunomius's Exposition in
Valesius's note on See., H. E., v., 10). Compare Basil (Epist., 233, and
his work against Eunomius), and Epiphanius (Hoer., 76).
THE ARIANS OR EUDOXIANS.
(Bright. Ut supra.)
"The Arians or Eudoxians." By these are meant the ordinary Arians of the
period, or, as they may be called, the Acacian party, directed for
several years by the essentially worldly and unconscientious Eudoxius.
His real sympathies were with the Anomoeans (see Tillemont, Memoires,
vi., 423, and compare his profane speech recorded by Socrates, H. E.,
ii., 43): but, as a bishop of Constantinople, he felt it necessary to
discourage them, and to abide by the vague formula invented by Acacius
of Caesarea, which described the Son as "like to the Father," without
saying whether this likeness was supposed to be more than moral (cf.
Newman, Arians, p. 317), so that the practical effect of this "homoion"
was to prepare the way for that very Anomoeanism which its maintainers
were ready for political purposes to disown.
THE SABELLIANS.
(Bright. Ut supra.)
"The Sabellians," whose theory is traceable to Noetus and Praxeas in the
latter part of the second century: they regarded the Son and the Holy
Spirit as aspects and modes of, or as emanations from, the One Person of
the Father (see Newman's Arians, pp. 120 et seqq.). Such a view tended
directly to dissolve Christian belief in the Trinity and in the
Incarnation (Vide Wilberforce, Incarnation, pp, 112, 197). Hence the
gentle Dionysius of Alexandria characterised it in severe terms as
involving "blasphemy, unbelief, and irreverence, towards the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Euseb., H. E., vii.. 6). Hence the deep
repugnance which it excited, and the facility with which the imputation
of "Sabellianizing" could be utilised by the Arians against maintainers
of the Consubstantiality (Hilary, De Trinit., iv., 4; De Synod., 68;
Fragm., 11; Basil, Epist., 189, 2). No organized Sabellian sect was in
existence
[176]
at the date of this anathema: but Sabellian ideas were "in the air," and
St. Basil could speak of a revival of this old misbelief (Epist., 126).
We find it again asserted by Chilperic I., King of Neustria, in the
latter part of the sixth century (Greg. Turon., Hist. Fr., v., 45).
THE MARCELLIANS.
(Bright. Ut supra.)
"The Marcellians," called after Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, who was
persistently denounced not only by the Arianizers, but by St. Basil, and
for a time, at least, suspected by St. Athanasius (Vide Epiphan., Hoer.,
72, 4) as one who held notions akin to Sabellianism, and fatal to a true
belief in the Divine Sonship and the Incarnation. The theory ascribed to
him was that the Logos was an impersonal Divine power, immanent from
eternity in God, but issuing from him in the act of creation, and
entering at last into relations with the human person of Jesus, who thus
became God's Son. But this expansion of the original divine unity would
be followed by a "contraction," when the Logos would retire from Jesus,
and God would again be all in all. Some nine years before the council,
Marcellus, then in extreme old age, had sent his deacon Eugenius to St.
Athanasius, with a written confession of faith, quite orthodox as to the
eternity of the Trinity, and the identity of the Logos with a pre-
existing and personal Son, although not verbally explicit as to the
permanence of Christ's "kingdom,"--the point insisted on in one of the
Epiphanian-Constantinopolitan additions to the Creed (Montfaucon,
Collect. Nov., ii., 1). The question whether Marcellus was personally
heterodox--i.e. whether the extracts from his treatise, made by his
adversary Eusebius of Caesarea, give a fair account of his real views--
has been answered unfavourably by some writers, as Newman (Athanasian
Treatises, ii., 200, ed. 2), and Dollinger (Hippolytus and Callistus, p.
217, E. T. p. 201), while others, like Neale, think that "charity and
truth" suggest his "acquittal" (Hist. Patr. Antioch., p. 106).
Montfaucon thinks that his written statements might be favourably
interpreted, but that his oral statements must have given ground for
suspicion.
THE PHOTINIANS.
(Bright. Ut supra. )
"The Photinians," or followers of Marcellus's disciple Photinus, bishop
of Sirmium, the ready-witted and pertinacious disputant whom four
successive synods condemned before he could be got rid of, by State
power, in A.D. 351. (See St. Athanasius's Historical Writings, Introd.
p. lxxxix.) In his representation of the "Marcellian" theology, he laid
special stress on its Christological position--that Jesus, on whom the
Logos rested with exceptional fulness, was a mere man. See Athanasius,
De Synodis, 26, 27, for two creeds in which Photinianism is censured;
also Soc. H. E. ii., 18, 29, 30; vii., 39. There is an obvious affinity
between it and the "Samosatene" or Paulionist theory.
CANON II.
THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying
outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let
the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the
affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone,
the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the
canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian
Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only
Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let
not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other
ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid
canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the
[177]
synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular
province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen
nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed
from the times of the Fathers.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.
No traveller shall introduce confusion into the Churches either by
ordaining or by enthroning. Nevertheless in Churches which are among the
heathen the tradition of the Fathers shall be preserved.
In the above Ancient Epitome it will be noticed that not only is
ordination mentioned but also the "inthronization" of bishops. Few
ceremonies are of greater antiquity in the Christian Church than the
solemn placing of the newly chosen bishop in the episcopal chair of his
diocese. It is mentioned in the Apostolical Constitutions, and in the
Greek Pontificals. Also in the Arabic version of the Nicene Canons. (No.
lxxi.). A sermon was usually delivered by the newly consecrated bishop,
called the "sermo enthronisticus." He also sent to neighbouring bishops
<greek>sullabai</greek> <greek>enqronistikai</greek>, and the fees the
new bishops paid were called <greek>ta</greek>
<greek>enqronistika</greek>.
VALESIUS.
(Note on Socrates, H.E.v., 8).
This rule seems to have been made chiefly on account of Meletius. Bishop
of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, and Peter of Alexandria. For Meletius
leaving the Eastern diocese had come to Constantinople to ordain Gregory
bishop there. And Gregory having abandoned the bishoprick of Sasima,
which was in the Pontic diocese, had removed to Constantinople. While
Peter of Alexandria had sent to Constantinople seven Egyptian bishops to
ordain Maximus the Cynic. For the purpose therefore of repressing these
[disorders], the fathers of the Synod of Constantinople made this canon.
BALSAMON.
Take notice from the present canon that formerly all the Metropolitans
of provinces were themselves the heads of their own provinces, and were
ordained by their own synods. But all this was changed by Canon xxviij
of the Synod of Chalcedon, which directs that the Metropolitans of the
dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and certain others which are
mentioned in this Canon should be ordained by the Patriarch of
Constantinople and should be subject to him. But if you find other
churches which are autocephalous as the Church of Bulgaria, of Cyprus,
of Iberia, you need not be astonished. For the Emperor Justinian gave
this honour to the Archbishop of Bulgaria. ... The third Synod gave this
honour to the Archbishop of Cyprus, and by the law of the same synod
(Canon viii.), and by the Sixth Synod in its xxxixth Canon, the judgment
of the Synod of Antioch is annulled and this honour granted to the
bishop of Iberia.
TILLEMONT.
Mem. ix., 489).
The Council seems likewise to reject, whether designedly or
inadvertently, what had been ordained by the Council of Sardica in
favour of Rome. But as assuredly it did not affect to prevent either
Ecumenical Councils, or even general Councils of the East, from judging
of matters brought before them, so I do not know if one may conclude
absolutely that they intended to forbid appeals to Rome. It regulates
proceedings between Dioceses, but not what might concern superior
tribunals.
FLEURY.
(Hist. Eccl. in loc.).
This Canon, which gives to the councils of particular places full
authority in Ecclesiastical matters, seems to take away the power of
appealing to the Pope granted by the Council of Sardica, and to restore
the ancient right.
HEFELE.
An exception to the rule against interference in other patriarchates was
made with regard to those Churches newly rounded amongst barbarous
nations (not belonging to the Roman Empire), as these were of course
obliged to receive their first bishops from strange patriarchates, and
remained after wards too few in number to form patriarchates of their
own and were therefore governed as belonging to other patriarchates, as,
for instance, Abyssinia by the patriarchate of Alexandria.
[178]
CANON III.
THE Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of
honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.
The bishop of Constantinople is to be honoured next after the bishop of
Rome.
It should be remembered that the change effected by this canon did not
affect Rome directly in any way, but did seriously affect Alexandria and
Antioch, which till then had ranked next after the see of Rome. When the
pope refused to acknowledge the authority of this canon, he was in
reality defending the principle laid down in the canon of Nice, that in
such matters the ancient customs should continue. Even the last clause,
it would seem, could give no offence to the most sensitive on the papal
claims, for it implies a wonderful power in the rank of Old Rome, if a
see is to rank next to it because it happens to be "New Rome." Of course
these remarks only refer to the wording of the canon which is
carefully guarded; the intention doubtless was to exalt the see of
Constantinople, the chief see of the East, to a position of as near
equality as possible with the chief see of the West.
ZONARAS.
In this place the Council takes action concerning Constantinople, to
which it decrees the prerogative of honour, the priority, and the glory
after the Bishop of Rome as being New Rome and the Queen of cities. Some
indeed wish to understand the preposition <greek>meta</greek> here of
time and not of inferiority of grade. And they strive to confirm this
interpretation by a consideration of the XXVIII canon of Chalcedon,
urging that if Constantinople is to enjoy equal honours, the preposition
"after" cannot signify subjection. But on the other hand the hundred and
thirtieth novel of Justinian,(1) Book V of the Imperial Constitutions,
title three, understands the canon otherwise. For, it says, "we decree
that the most holy Pope of Old Rome, according to the decrees of the
holy synods is the first of all priests, and that the most blessed
bishop of Constantinople and of New Rome, should have the second place
after the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome, and should be superior in
honour to all others." From this therefore it is abundantly evident that
"after" denotes subjection (<greek>upobibasmon</greek>) and diminution.
And otherwise it would be impossible to guard this equality of honour in
each see. For in reciting their names, or assigning them seats when they
are to sit together, or arranging the order of their signatures to
documents, one must come before the other. Whoever therefore shall
explain this particle <greek>meta</greek> as only referring to time, and
does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of dignity, does
violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor
good. Moreover in Canon xxxvj of the Council in Trullo,
<greek>meta</greek> manifestly denotes subjection, assigning to
Constantinople the second place after the throne of Old Rome; and then
adds, after this Alexandria, then Antioch, and last of all shall be
placed Jerusalem.
HEFELE.
If we enquire the reason why this Council tried to change the order of
rank of the great Sees, which had been established in the sixth Nicene
canon, we must first take into consideration that, since the elevation
of Constantinople to the Imperial residence, as New Rome, the bishops as
well as the Emperors naturally wished to see the new imperial residence,
New Rome, placed immediately after Old Rome in ecclesiastical rank also;
the rather, as with the Greeks it was the rule for the ecclesiastical
rank of a See to follow the civil rank of the city. The Synod of Antioch
in 341, in its ninth canon, had plainly declared this, and subsequently
the fourth General Council, in its seventeenth canon, spoke in the same
sense. But how these principles were protested against on the side of
Rome, we shall see further on in the history of the fourth General
Council. For the present, it may suffice to add that the aversion to
Alexandria which, by favouring Maximus, had exercised such a disturbing
influence on Church affairs in Constantinople, may well have helped to
effect the elevation of the See of Constantinople over that of
Alexandria. Moreover, for many centuries Rome did not recognize this
change of the old ecclesiastical order. In the sixteenth session of the
fourth General
[179]
Council, the Papal Legate, Lucentius, expressly declared this. In like
manner the Popes Leo the Great and Gregory the Great pronounced against
it; and though even Gratian adopted this canon in his collection the
Roman critics added the following note: Canon hic ex iis est, quos
Apostolica Romana Sedes a principio et longo post tempore non recepit.
It was only when, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins, a
Latin patriarchate was founded there in 1204, that Pope Innocent III,
and the twelfth General Council, in 1215, allowed this patriarch the
first rank after the Roman; and the same recognition was expressly
awarded to the Greek Patriarch at the Florentine Union in 1439.
T. W. ALLIES.(1)
Remarkable enough it is that when, in the Council of Chalcedon, appeal
was made to this third Canon, the Pope St. Leo declared that it had
never been notified to Rome. As in the mean time it had taken effect
throughout the whole East, as in this very council Nectarius, as soon as
he is elected, presides instead of Timothy of Alexandria, it puts in a
strong point of view the real self-government of the Eastern Church at
this time; for the giving the Bishop of Constantinople precedence over
Alexandria and Antioch was a proceeding which affected the whole Church,
and so far altered its original order--one in which certainly the West
might claim to have a voice. Tillemont goes on: "It would be very
difficult to justify St. Leo, if he meant that the Roman Church had
never known that the Bishop of Constantinople took the second place in
the Church, and the first in the East, since his legates, whose conduct
he entirely approves, had just themselves authorized it as a thing
beyond dispute, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum maintained that St. Leo
himself had approved it." The simple fact is, that, exceedingly
unwilling as the Bishops of Rome were to sanction it, from this time,
381, to say the least, the Bishop of Constantinople appears uniformly as
first bishop of the East.
Cardinal Baronius in his Annals (A.D. 381, n. 35, 36) has disputed the
genuineness of this Canon! As already mentioned it is found in the
Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXII, c. iij. The note
added to this in Gratian reads as follows:
NOTE IN GRATIAN'S "DECRETUM."
This canon is of the number of those which the Apostolic See of Rome did
not at first nor for long years afterwards receive. This is evident from
Epistle LI. (or LIII.) of Pope Leo I. to Anatolius of Constantinople and
from several other of his letters. The same thing also is shewn by two
letters of Leo IX.'s, the one against the presumptuous acts of Michael
and Leo (cap. 28) and the other addressed to the same Michael. But still
more clearly is this seen from the letter of Blessed Gregory (xxxj.,
lib. VI.) to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, and from
the letter of Nicholas I. to the Emperor Michel which begins
"Proposueramus." However, the bishops of Constantinople, sustained by
the authority of the Emperors, usurped to themselves the second place
among the patriarchs, and this at length was granted to them for the
sake of peace and tranquillity, as Pope Innocent III. declares (in cap.
antiqua de privileg.).(2)
This canon Dionysius Exiguus appends to Canon 2, and dropping 5, 6, and
7 he has but three canons of this Synod.
CANON IV.
CONCERNING Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in
Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and
is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no
order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning
him or by him, is declared to be invalid.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
Let Maximus the Cynic be cast out from among the bishops, and anyone who
was inscribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as profane.
EDMUND VENABLES.
Smith and Wace, Diet. Christ. Biog.)
MAXIMUS the Cynic; the intrusive bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 380.
Ecclesiastical history hardly presents a more extraordinary
[180]
career than that of this man, who, after a most disreputable youth, more
than once brought to justice for his misdeeds, and bearing the scars of
his punishments, by sheer impudence, clever flattery, and adroit manage-
merit of opportunities, contrived to gain the confidence successively of
no less men than Peter of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, and Ambrose,
and to install himself in one of the first sees of the church, from
which he was with difficulty dislodged by a decree of an ecumenical
council. His history also illustrates the jealousy felt by the churches
of Alexandria and Rome towards their young and vigorous rival for
patriarchal honours, the church of Constantinople; as well as their
claim to interfere with her government, and to impose prelates upon her
according to their pleasure. Alexandria, as the chief see of the Eastern
world, from the first asserted a jurisdiction which she has never
formally relinquished over the see of Constantinople, more particularly
in a vacancy in the episcopate (Neale, Pair. of Alexandria, i, 206). The
conduct of Peter, the successor of Athanasius, first in instituting
Gregory Nazianzen bishop of Constantinople by his letters and sending a
formal recognition of his appointment and then in substituting Maximus,
as has been remarked by Milman (History of Christianity, iii., 115,
note) and Ullman (Greg. Naz., p. 203 [Cox's translation]), furnish
unmistakable indications of the desire to erect an Oriental papacy, by
establishing the primacy of Alexandria over Constantinople and so over
the East, which was still further illustrated a few years later by the
high-handed behaviour of Theophilus towards Chrysostom.
Maximus was a native of Alexandria of low parentage. He boasted that his
family had produced martyrs. He got instructed in the rudiments of the
Christian faith and received baptism, but strangely enough sought to
combine the Christian profession with Cynic philosophy.
When he presented himself at the Eastern capital he wore the white robe
of a Cynic, and carried a philosopher's staff, his head being laden with
a huge crop of crisp curling hair, dyed a golden yellow, and swinging
over his shoulders in long ringlets. He represented himself as a
confessor for the Nicene faith, and his banishment to the Oasis as a
suffering for the truth (Orat. xxiii., p. 419). Before long he
completely gained the ear and heart of Gregory, who admitted him to the
closest companionship. Maximus proclaimed the most unbounded admiration
for Gregory's discourses, which he praised in private, and, according to
the custom of the age, applauded in public. His zeal against heretics
was most fierce, and his denunciation of them uncompromising. The
simple-hearted Gregory became the complete dupe of Maximus.
All this time Maximus was secretly maturing a plot for ousting his
unsuspicious patron from his throne. He gained the ear and the
confidence of Peter of Alexandria, and induced him to favour his
ambitious views. Gregory, he asserted, had never been formally enthroned
bishop of Constantinople; his translation thither was a violation of the
canons of the church; rustic in manners, he had proved himself quite
unfitted for the place. Constantinople was getting weary of him. It was
time the patriarch of the Eastern world should exercise his prerogative
and give New Rome a more suitable bishop. The old man was imposed on as
Gregory had been, and lent himself to Maximus's projects. Maximus found
a ready tool in a presbyter of Constantinople, envious of Gregory's
talents and popularity (de Vit., p. 13). Others were gained by bribes.
Seven unscrupulous sailor fellows were despatched from Alexandria to mix
with the people, and watch for a favourable opportunity for carrying out
the plot. When all was ripe they were followed by a bevy of bishops,
with secret instructions from the patriarch to consecrate Maximus.
The conspirators chose the night for the accomplishment of their
enterprise. Gregory they knew was confined by illness. They forced their
way into the cathedral, and commenced the rite of ordination. By the
time they had set the Cynic on the archiepiscopal throne, and had just
begun shearing away his long curls, they were surprised by the dawn. The
news quickly spread, and everybody rushed to the church. The magistrates
appeared on the scene with their officers; Maximus and his consecrators
were driven from the sacred precincts, and in the house or shop of a
flute-player the tonsure was completed. Maximums repaired to
Thessalonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He met with a cold
reception from the emperor, who committed the matter to Ascholius, the
much respected bishop of that city, charging him to refer it to pope
Damasus. We have two letters of Damasus's on this subject. In the first,
addressed to Ascholius and the Macedonian
[181]
bishops, he vehemently condemns the "ardor animi et feeds presumptio"
which had led certain persons coming from Egypt, in violation of the
rule of ecclesiastical discipline, to have proposed to consecrate a
restless man, an alien from the Christian profession, not worthy to be
called a Christian, who wore an idolatrous garb ("habitus idoli") and
the long hair which St. Paul said was a shame to a man, and remarks on
the fact that being expelled from the church they were compelled to
complete the ordination "intra parities alienos." In the second letter
addressed to Ascholius individually (Ep. vi.) he repeats his
condemnation of the ordination of the long-haired Maximus ("comatum")
and asks him to take special care that a Catholic bishop may be ordained
(Migne, Patrolog., xiii., pp. 366-369; Ep. 5; 5, 6).
Maximus returned to Alexandria, and demanded that Peter should assist
him in re-establishing himself at Constantinople. But Peter had
discovered the man's true character, and received him as coldly as
Theodosius had done. Determined to carry his point he presented himself
to the patriarch at the head of a disorderly mob, with the threat that
if he did not help him to gain the throne of Constantinople he would
have that of Alexandria. Peter appealed to the prefect, by whom Maximus
was driven out of Egypt. The death of Peter and the accession of
Timotheus are placed Feb. 14, 380. The events described must therefore
have occurred in 379. When the second ecumenical council met at Con-
stantinople in 381, the question of Maximus's claim to the see of
Constantinople came up for consideration. His pretensions were
unanimously rejected.
BRIGHT.
(Notes on the Canons, in loc.)
Maximus, however, having been expelled from Egypt, made his way into
Northern Italy, presented to Gratian at Milan a large work which he had
written against the Arians (as to which Gregory sarcastically remarks--
"Saul a prophet, Maximus an author!" Carm. adv. Mar., 21), and deceived
St. Ambrose and his suffragans by showing the record of his
consecration, with letters which Peter had once written in his behalf.
To these prelates of the "Italic diocese" the appeal of Maximus seemed
like the appeal of Athanasius, and more recently of Peter himself, to
the sympathy of the church of Rome; and they re quested Theodosius to
let the case be heard before a really General Council (Mansi, iii.
631). Nothing further came of it; perhaps, says Tillemont, those who
thus wrote in favour of Maximus "reconnurent bientot quel il etait"
(ix., 502): so that when a Council did meet at Rome towards the end of
382, no steps were taken in his behalf.
CANON V.
(Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year,
382. Vide. Introduction on the number of the Canons.)
IN regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in
Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
The Tome of the Westerns which recognizes the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit as consubstantial is highly acceptable.
Beveridge and Van Espen translate this canon differently, thus, "With
regard to the tome of the Westerns, we agree with those in Antioch [i.e.
the Synod of 378] who (accepted it and) acknowledged the unity of the
Godhead of the Father etc," In opposition to this translation Hefele
urges that <greek>apodekesqai</greek> in ecclesiastical language usually
refers to receiving persons and recognizing them, not opinions or
doctrines.
HEFELE.
This canon probably does not belong to the second General Council, but
to the Synod held in the following year at Constantinople consisting of
nearly the same bishops.
It is certain that by the "Tome of the Westerns" a dogmatic work of the
Western bishops is to be understood, and the only question is which Tome
of the Westerns is here meant. Several--for instance, the Greek
commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, and the spokesman of the Latins at
the Synod of Florence in 1439 (Archbishop Andrew of Rhodes)--understood
by it the decrees of the Synod of Sardica; but it seems to me that
[182]
this canon undoubtedly indicates that the Tome of the Westerns also
mentioned the condition of the Antiochian Church, and the division into
two parties of the orthodox of that place--the Meletian schism. Now, as
this was not mentioned, nay, could not have been, at the Synod of
Sardica --for this schism at Antioch only broke out seventeen years
later--some other document of the Latins must certainly be meant. But we
know that Pope Damasus, and the synod assembled by him in 369, addressed
a Tome to the Orientals, of which fragments are still preserved, and
that nine years later, in 379, a great synod at Antioch of one hundred
and forty-six orthodox Oriental bishops, under Meletius, accepted and
signed this Tome, and at the same time sought to put a stop to the
Meletian schism. Soon afterwards, in 380, Pope Damasus and his fourth
Roman Synod again sent a treatise on the faith, of which we still
possess a portion, containing anathemas, to the Orientals, especially to
Bishop Paul of Antioch, head of the Eustathians of that city. Under
these circumstances, we are justified in referring the expression "the
tome of the Westerns" either to the Roman treatise of 369 or to that of
380, and I am disposed to give the preference to the former, for the
following reasons:--
(1.) As has been already observed, this canon belongs to the Synod held
at Constantinople in 382.
(2.) We still possess in Theodoret a Synodal Letter to the Latins from
this later Synod.
(3.) The canon in question, as proceeding from the same source, is, of
course to a certain extent, connected with this letter.
(4.) In this Synodal Letter, the Eastern bishops, in order to convince
the Latins of their orthodoxy, appeal to two documents, the one a "tome"
of an Antiochian Synod, and the other a "tome" of the Ecumenical Council
held at Constantinople in 381.
(5.) By the Antiochian Synod here mentioned, I understand the great
synod of 378, and, as a necessary consequence, believe the "tome" there
produced to be none other than the Roman Tome of 369, which was then
accepted at Antioch.
(6.) It is quite certain that the Synod of Antioch sent a copy of this
Tome, with the declaration of its acceptance and the signatures of the
members, back to Rome, as a supplement to its Synodal Letter; and hence
Lucas Holstenius was still able to find fragments of it in Rome.
(7.) The Synod of Constantinople of 382 might well call this Tome, sent
back to Rome with the acceptance and signatures of the Easterns, a "Tome
established at Antioch," although it was really drawn up at Rome.
(8.) If, however, the Synod of Constantinople in its Synodal Letter
speaks of this Tome, we are justified in supposing that the one
mentioned in its canon is the same.
(9.) That which still remains of the Roman Tome of 369, treats expressly
of the oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost; and such were the contents of the Tome according to this canon.
(10.) It is true that the fragments still preserved of this Tome contain
no passage directly referring to the Antiochian schism; but, in the
first place, very little remains of it, and there is the more reason to
suppose that the Meletian schism was spoken of in the portion which has
been lost, as it was the same Antiochian Synod that accepted the Tome
which urged the putting an end to that schism. It is still more to the
purpose that the Italian bishops, in their letter to the Easterns in
381, expressly say that they had already long before (dudum) written to
the Orientals in order to put an end to the division between the
orthodox at Antioch. By this "dudum" I conclude that they refer to the
Roman Tome of 369; and if the Westerns in their letter to the Easterns
in 381 pointed to this Tome, it was natural that the Synod of
Constantinople of 382 should also have re ferred to it, for it was that
very letter of the Latins which occasioned and called the synod into
being.
Lastly, for the full understanding of this canon, it is necessary to
observe that the Latins, in their letter just mentioned of 381, say that
"they had already in their earlier missive (i.e. as we suppose, in the
Tome of 369) spoken to the effect that both parties at Antioch, one as
much as the other, were orthodox." Agreeing with this remark of the
Westerns, repeated in their letter of 381, the Easterns in this canon
say, "We also recognise all Antiochians as orthodox who acknowledge the
oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
[183]
CANON VI.
(Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year,
382. Vide Introduction on the number of Canons.)
FORASMUCH as many wishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order,
do contentiously and slanderously fabricate charges against the orthodox
bishops who have the administration of the Churches, intending nothing
else than to stain the reputation of the priests and raise up
disturbances amongst the peaceful laity; therefore it seemed right to
the Holy Synod of Bishops assembled together in Constantinople, not to
admit accusers without examination; and neither to allow all persons
whatsoever to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, nor,
on the other hand, to exclude all. If then, any one shall bring a
private complaint against the Bishop, that is, one relating to his own
affairs, as, for example, that he has been defrauded, or otherwise
unjustly treated by him, in such accusations no examination shall be
made, either of the person or of the religion of the accuser; for it is
by all means necessary that the conscience of the Bishop should be free,
and that he who says he has been wronged should meet with righteous
judgment, of whatever religion he may be. But if the charge alleged
against the Bishop be that of some ecclesiastical offence, then it is
necessary to examine carefully the persons of the accusers, so that, in
the first place, heretics may not be suffered to bring accusations
touching ecclesiastical matters against orthodox bishops. And by
heretics we mean both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom
we ourselves have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold
the true faith who have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up
conventicles in opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any who have
been condemned for faults and cast out of the Church, or excommunicated,
whether of the clergy or the laity, neither shall it be lawful for these
to bring an accusation against the bishop, until they have cleared away
the charge against themselves. In like manner, persons who are under
previous accusations are not to be permitted to bring charges against a
bishop or any other clergyman, until they shall have proved their own
innocence of the accusation brought against them. But if any, being
neither heretics, nor excommunicate, nor condemned, nor under previous
accusation for alleged faults, should declare that they have any
ecclesiastical charge against the bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first
lay their charges before all the Bishops of the Province, and before
them prove the accusations, whatsoever they may be, which they have
brought against the bishop. And if the comprovincials should be unable
rightly to settle the charges brought against the bishop, then the
parties must betake themselves to a greater synod of the bishops of that
diocese called together for this purpose; and they shall not produce
their allegations before they have promised in writing to undergo an
equal penalty to be exacted from themselves, if, in the course of the
examination, they shall be proved to have slandered the accused bishop.
And if anyone, despising what has been decreed concerning these things,
shall presume to annoy the ears of the Emperor, or the courts of
temporal judges, or, to the dishonour of all the Bishops of his
Province, shall trouble an Ecumenical Synod, such an one shall by no
means be admitted as an accuser; forasmuch as he has east contempt upon
the Canons, and brought reproach upon the order of the Church.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPlTOME OF CANON VI.
Even one that is of ill repute, if he have suffered any injury, let him
bring a charge against the bishop. If however it be a crime of
ecclesiastical matters let him not speak. Nor shall another condemned
before, speak. Let not one excommunicated, or cast forth, or charged
with any crimes speak, until he is cleared of them. But those who should
bring the charge are the orthodox, who are communicants, uncondemned,
unaccused. Let the case be heard by the provincials. If however they are
not able to decide the case, let them have recourse to a greater synod
and let them not be heard, without a written declaration of liability to
the same sufferings [i.e. of their readiness to be tried by the lex
[184]
talionis.] But should anyone contrary to the provisions appeal to the
Emperor and trouble him, let such be cast forth.
The phrase "who have the administration of the Churches," Hatch in his
Bampton Lectures (Lect. I., p. 41) erroneously supposes to refer only to
the administration of the Church's alms. But this, as Dr. Bright well
points out (" Notes on the Canons," in loc.) cannot be the meaning of
<greek>oikonamein</greek> when used absolutely as in this canon. He
says, "When a merely 'economic' function is intended, the context shows
it, as in Chalcedon, Canon xxvj." He also points out that in Canon ij.,
and in Eusebius (H. E. iv., 4), and when St. Basil wishes his brother to
<greek>oikonomein</greek> a church suited to his temperament (Epist.
xcviij., 2) the meaning of the word is evidently spiritual stewardship.
ZONARAS.
By "those who were cast out of the Church" are to be understood those
who were altogether cut off from the Church; but by those who were
"excommunicated" the holy fathers intend all those, whether clerics or
laymen, who are deprived of communion for a set time.
VAN ESPEN.
It is evident from the context of this canon that "Diocese" here does
not signify the district or territory assigned to any one bishop, as we
to-day use the word; but for a district, which not only contained many
episcopal districts, as today do ecclesiastical provinces, but which
contained also many provinces, and this was the meaning of the word at
the time of this Council's session.
ZONARAS.
We call Adrianople, for example, or Philopopolis with the bishops of
each a "Province," but the whole of Thrace or Macedonia we call a
"Diocese." When these crimes were brought forward to be corrected, for
the judging of which the provincial bishops were by no means sufficient,
then the Canon orders the bishops of the diocese to assemble, and
determine the charges preferred against the bishop.
VAN ESPEN.
Both the Canon and the Civil Law require the accusers to submit
themselves to the law of retaliation (lex talionis). Vide Gratian, Pt.
II., Causa II., Quaest. III., 2 and 3, where we read from the decree of
Pope Hadrian; "Whoever shall not prove what he advances, shall himself
suffer the penalty due the crime he charged." And under the name of
Damasus, "The calumniator, if he fail in proving his accusation, shall
receive his tale." The Civil Law is in L. x., Cod. de Calumniatoribus,
and reads, "Whoso charges a crime, shall not have licence to lie with
impunity, since justice requires that calumniators shall endure the
punishment due the crime which they failed to prove."
The Council wishes that all accusations of bishops for ecclesiastical
offences shall be kept out of the secular courts, and shall be heard by
synods of bishops, in the manner and form here prescribed, which is in
accordance with the Constitution which under the names of Valens,
Gratian, and Valentinian, the Emperors, is referred to in law xxiij. of
the Code of Theodosius, De Episcopis et Clericis.
Whatever may be said of the meeting of bishops at which this canon was
enacted, this is clear, no mention was made of the Roman Pontiff, nor of
the Council of Sardica, as Fleury notes in his Histoire Ecclesiastique,
Lib. xviij., n. 8. From this it is evident either that at that time the
Orientals did not admit, especially for bishops, appeals to the Roman
Pontiff; nor did they accept the authority of the Synod of Sardica, in
so far as it permitted that the sentence given in a provincial synod,
should be reopened by the neighbouring bishops together with the bishops
of the province, and if it seemed good, that the cause might be referred
to Rome.
WARNING TO THE READER TOUCHING CANON VII.
(Beveridge, Synodicon, Tom. II., in loc.)
This canon, I confess, is contained in all the editions of the
Commentaries of Balsamon and Zonaras. It is cited also by Photius in
Nomocanon, Tit. xii. ch. xiv., besides it is extant in a contracted form
in the Epitome of Alexius Aristenus. But it is wanting in all the Latin
versions of the Canons, in the ancient translations of Dionys. Exig.,
Isidore Mercator, etc.; also in the Epitome of Sym. Logothet., and the
Arabic paraphrase of Josephus AEgyp., and what is particularly to be
observed, in the collection and nomocanon of John of Antioch; and
[185]
this not through want of attention on his part, as is clear from this
namely, that in the order of the Canons as given by him he attributes
six Canons only to this second General Council, saying "... of the
Fathers who assembled at Constantinople, by whom six Canons were set
forth," so that it is clear the present was not reckoned among the
canons of this council in those days. Nay, the whole composition of this
canon clearly indicates that it is to be ascribed, neither to this
present council, nor to any other (unless perhaps to that of Trullo, of
which we shall speak afterwards). For nothing is appointed in it,
nothing confirmed, but a certain ancient custom of receiving converted
heretics, is here merely recited.
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 368.)
As we possess a letter from the Church at Constantinople in the middle
of the fifth century to Bishop Martyrius of Antioch, in which the same
subject is referred to in a precisely similar way, Beveridge is probably
right in conjecturing that the canon was only an extract from this
letter to Martyrius; therefore in no way a decree of the second General
Council, nor even of the Synod of 382, but at least eighty years later
than the latter. This canon, with an addition, was afterwards adopted by
the Quinisext Synod as its ninety-fifth, without, however, giving its
origin.
CANON VII.
THOSE who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who
are being saved, we receive according to the following method and
custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call
themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and
Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of
their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance
with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they
are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes,
nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, "The Seal of
the gift of the Holy Ghost." But Eunomians, who are baptized with only
one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and
Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry
other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies--for
there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the
country of the Galatians:--all these, when they desire to turn to
orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them
Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them
by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them
and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the
Scriptures; and then we baptize them.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.(note 1 - this can brokedn into two by
Ancient Epitome)
Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, and
Apollinarians ought to be received with their books and anointed in all
their organs of sense.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.
Eunomians baptized with one immersion, Sabellians, and Phrygians are to
be received as heathen.
ARISTEMUS (in Can. vij.).
Those giving up their books and execrating every heresy are received
with only anointing with chrism of the eyes, the nostrils, the ears,
the mouth, and the brow; and signing them with the words, "The Seal of
the gift of the Holy Ghost."
For the "Cathari," see Notes on Canon viii. of I. Nice.
HAMMOND.
Sabbatians. Sabbatius was a presbyter who adopted the sentiments of
Novatius, but as it is clear from the histories of Socrates and Sozomen,
that he did not do so till at least eight years after the celebration of
this council, it is of course equally clear that this canon could not
have been framed by this council.
[186]
Aristeri. This is probably a false reading for Aristi, i.e. the best. In
the letter above mentioned the expression is Cathari and Catheroteri,
i.e. the pure, and the more pure.
The Quarto-decimans, or Tetradites, were those persons who persisted in
observing the Easter festival with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of
the first month, whatever day of the week it happened to be.
Montanists. One of the older sects, so called from Montanus, who
embraced Christianity in the second century. He professed to be inspired
in a peculiar way by the Holy Ghost, and to prophesy. He was supported
in his errors by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who also pretended
to prophesy. His heresy infected many persons, amongst others
Tertullian, but being condemned by the Church. his followers formed a
sect remarkable for extreme austerity. But although they asserted that
the Holy Ghost had inspired Montanus to introduce a system of greater
perfection than the Church had before known, and condemned those who
would not join them as carnal, they did not at first innovate in any of
the articles of the Creed. This sect lasted a long time, and spread much
in Phrygia and the neighbouring districts, whence they were called
Phryges and Cata-phryges, and latterly adopted the errors of Sabellius
respecting the Trinity.
The other heresies mentioned in this canon have been treated of in the
excursus to Canon j.
EXCURSUS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II., pp. 370, et seqq.)
Lastly, to turn to the question of the authority of this Council, it
appears, first of all, that immediately after its close, in the same
year, 381, several of its acts were censured by a Council of Latins,
namely, the prolongation of the Meletian schism (by the elevation of
Flavian), and the choice of Nectarius as Bishop of Constantinople,
while, as is known, the Westerns held (the Cynic) Maximus to be the
rightful bishop of that city.
In consequence of this, the new Synod assembled in the following year,
382, at Constantinople, sent the Latins a copy of the decrees of faith
composed the year before, expressly calling this Synod
<greek>oikoumenikh</greek> and at the same time seeking to justify it in
those points which had been censured. Photius(1) maintains that soon
afterwards Pope Damasus confirmed this synod; but, as the following will
show, this confirmation could only have referred to the creed and not to
the canons. As late as about the middle of the fifth century, Pope Leo
I. spoke in a very depreciatory manner of these canons, especially of
the third, which concerned the ecclesiastical rank of Constantinople,
remarking that it was never sent to the See of Rome. Still later,
Gregory the Great wrote in the same sense: Romana autem Ecclesia eosdam
canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nec accepit ; in hoc
autem eam accepit, quod est per earn contra Macedonium definitum.(2)
Thus, as late as the year 600, only the creed, but not the canons of the
Synod of Constantinople were accepted at Rome; but on account of its
creed, Gregory the Great reckons it as one of the four Ecumenical
Councils, which he compares to the four Gospels. So also before him the
popes Vigilius and Pelagius II, reckoned this Synod among the Ecumenical
Councils.
The question is, from what date the Council of Constantinople was
considered ecumenical by the Latins as well as by the Greeks. We will
begin with the latter. Although as we have seen, the Synod of 382 had
already designated this council as ecumenical, yet it could not for a
long time obtain an equal rank with the Council of Nicaea, for which
reason the General Council of Ephesus mentions that of Nicaea and its
creed with the greatest respect, but is totally silent as to this Synod.
Soon afterwards, the so-called Robber-Synod in 449, spoke of two
(General) Councils, at Nicaea and Ephesus, and designated the latter as
<greek>h</greek> <greek>deutera</greek> <greek>sunodos</greek>, as a
plain token that it did not ascribe such a high rank to the assembly
[187]
at Constantinople. It might perhaps be objected that only the
Monophysites, who notoriously ruled the Robber-Synod, used this
language; bill the most determined opponent of the Monophysites, their
accuser, Bishop Eusebius of Doylaeum, in like manner also brought
forward only the two Synods of Nicaea and Ephesus, and declared that "he
held to the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at
Nicaea, and to all that was done at the great and Holy Synod at
Ephesus."
The Creed of Constantinople appears for the first time to have been
highly honoured at the fourth General Council, which had it recited
after that of Nicaea, and thus solemnly approved it. Since then this
Synod has been universally honoured as ecumenical by the Greeks, and was
mentioned by the Emperor Justinian with the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus,
and Chalcedon, as of equal rank.(1)
But in the West, and especially in Rome, however satisfied people were
with the decree of faith enacted by this Synod, and its completion of
the creed, yet its third canon, respecting the rank of Constantinople,
for a long time proved a hindrance to its acknowledgment. This was
especially shown at the Council of Chalcedon, and during the time
immediately following. When at that Council the creed of Constantinople
was praised, repeated, and confirmed the Papal Legates fully concurred;
but when the Council also renewed and confirmed the third canon of
Constantinople, the Legates left the assembly, lodged a protest against
it on the following day, and declared that the rules of the hundred and
fifty bishops at Constantinople were never inserted among the Synodal
canons (which were recognised at Rome). The same was mentioned by Pope
Leo himself, who, immediately after the close of the Council of
Chalcedon wrote to Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople: "that document of
certain bishops (i.e. the third canon of Constantinople) was never
brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See."(2)
Leo also, in his 105th letter to the Empress Pulcheria, speaks just as
depreciatingly of this Council of Constantinople; and Quesnel is
entirely wrong in maintaining that the Papal Legates at the Synod of
Chalcedon at first practically acknowledged the validity of the third
canon of Constantinople. Bishop Eusebius of Doylaeum was equally
mistaken in maintaining at Chalcedon itself, that the third canon had
been sanctioned by the Pope; and we shall have occasion further on, in
the history of the Council of Chalcedon, to show the untenable character
of both statements.
Pope Felix III. took the same view as Pope Leo, when, in his letter to
the monks at Constantinople and Bithynia in 485, he only spoke of three
General Councils at Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; neither did his
successor Gelasius (492-496) in his genuine decree, De libris
recipiendis, mention this Synod. It may certainly be said, on the other
hand, that in the sixth century its ecumenical character had come to be
most distinctly acknowledged in the Latin Church also, and, as we have
seen above, had been expressly affirmed by the Popes Vigilius, Pelagius
II., and Gregory the Great. But this acknowledgment, even when it is not
expressly stated, only referred to the decrees on faith of the Council
of Constantinople, and not to its canons, as we have already observed in
reference to the third and sixth of them.
[188]
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
A.D. 382.
THE SYNODICAL LETTER.
(note 1: found in Theod. H.E.v.9. The reader is warned against
inaccurate translations of the dogmatic portions)
To the right honourable lords our right reverend brethren and
colleagues, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius,
Basilius and the rest of the holy bishops assembled in the great city of
Rome, the holy synod of the orthodox bishops assembled at the great city
of Constantinople sends greeting in the Lord.
To recount all the sufferings inflicted on us by the power of the
Arians, and to attempt to give information to your reverences, as though
you were not already well acquainted with them, might seem superfluous.
For we do not suppose your piety to hold what is befalling us as of such
secondary importance as that you stand in any need of information on
matters which cannot but evoke your sympathy. Nor indeed were the storms
which beset us such as to escape notice from their insignificance. Our
persecutions are but of yesterday. The sound of them still rings in the
ears alike of those who suffered them and of those whose love made the
sufferers' pain their own. It was but a day or two ago, so to speak,
that some released from chains in foreign lands returned to their own
churches through manifold afflictions; of others who had died in exile
the relics were brought home; others again, even after their return from
exile, found the passion of the heretics still at the boiling heat, and,
slain by them with stones as was the blessed Stephen, met with a sadder
fate in their own than in a stranger's land. Others, worn away with
various cruelties, still bear in their bodies the scars of their wounds
and the marks of Christ. Who could tell the tale of fines, of
disfranchisements, of individual confiscations, of intrigues, of
outrages, of prisons? In truth all kinds of tribulation were wrought out
beyond number in us, perhaps because we were paying the penalty of sins,
perhaps because the merciful God was trying us by means of the multitude
of our sufferings. For these all thanks to God, who by means of Such
afflictions trained his servants and, according to the multitude of his
mercies, brought us again to refreshment. We indeed needed long leisure,
time, and toil to restore the church once more, that so, like physicians
healing the body after long sickness and expelling its disease by
gradual treatment, we might bring her back to her ancient health of true
religion. It is true that on the whole we seem to have been delivered
from the violence of our persecutions and to be just now recovering the
churches which, have for a long time been the prey of the heretics. But
wolves are troublesome to us who, though they have been driven from the
fold, yet harry the flock up and down the glades, daring to hold rival
assemblies, stirring seditious among the people, and shrinking from
nothing which can do damage to the churches. So, as we have already
said, we needs must labour all the longer. Since, however, you showed
your brotherly love to us by inviting us (as though we were your own
members) by the letters of our most religious emperor to the synod which
you are gathering by divine permission at Rome, to the end that since we
alone were then condemned to suffer persecution, you should not now,
when our emperors are at one with us as to true religion, reign apart
from us, but that we, to use the Apostle's phrase, should reign with
you, our prayer was, if it were possible, all in company to leave our
churches, and rather gratify our longing to see you than consult their
needs. For who will give us wings as of a dove, and we will fly and be
at rest? But this course seemed likely to leave the churches who were
just recovering quite uncle-fended, and the undertaking was to most of
us impossible, for, in accordance witch the letters sent a year ago from
your holiness after the synod at Aquileia to the most pious emperor
Theodosius, we had journeyed to Constantinople, equipped only for
travelling
[189]
so far as Constantinople, and bringing the consent of the bishops
remaining in the provinces of this synod alone. We had been in no
expectation of any longer journey nor had heard a word about it, before
our arrival at Constantinople. In addition to all this, and on account
of the narrow limits of the appointed time which allowed of no
preparation for a longer journey, nor of communicating with the bishops
of our communion in the provinces and of obtaining their consent, the
journey to Rome was for the majority impossible. We have therefore
adopted the next best course open to us under the circumstances, both
for the better administration of the church, and for manifesting our
love towards you, by strongly urging our most venerated, and honoured
colleagues and brother bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscianus, to
consent to travel to you.
Through them we wish to make it plain that our disposition is all for
peace with unity for its sole object, and that we are full of zeal for
the right faith. For we, whether we suffered persecutions, or
afflictions, or the threats of emperors, or the cruelties of prince, s,
or any other trial at the hands of heretics, have undergone all for the
sake of the evangelic faith, ratified by the three hundred and eighteen
fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia. This is the faith which ought to be
sufficient for you, for us, for all who wrest not the word of the true
faith; for it is the ancient faith; it is the faith of our baptism; it
is the faith that teaches us to believe in the name of the Father, of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. According to this faith there is one
Godhead, Power and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty being equal in
three perfect hypostases, i.e. three perfect persons. Thus there is no
room for the heresy of Sabellius by the confusion of the hypostases,
i.e. the destruction of the personalities; thus the blasphemy of the
Eunomians, of the Arians, and of the Pneumatomachi is nullified, which
divides the substance, the nature, dud the godhead, and super-induces on
the uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity a nature posterior,
created and of a different substance. We moreover preserve unperverted
the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that
the dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless nor mindless nor
imperfect; and knowing full well that God's Word was perfect before the
ages, and became perfect man in the last days for our salvation.
Let this suffice for a summary of the doctrine which is fearlessly and
frankly preached by us, and concerning which you will be able to be
still further satisfied if you will deign to read the tome of the synod
of Antioch, and also that tome issued last year by the Ecumenical
Council held at Constantinople, in which we have set forth our
confession of the faith at greater length, and have appended an anathema
against the heresies which innovators have recently inscribed.
Now as to the particular administration of individual churches, an
ancient custom, as you know, has obtained, confirmed by the enactment of
the holy fathers of Nicaea, that in every province, the bishops of the
province, and, with their consent, the neighbouring bishops with them,
should perform ordinations as expediency may require. In conforming with
these customs note that other churches have been administered by us and
the priests of the most famous, churches publicly appointed. Accordingly
over the new made (if the expression be allowable) church at
Constantinople, which, as through from a lion's mouth, we have lately
snatched by God's mercy from the blasphemy of the heretics, we have or-
dained bishop the right reverend and most religious Nectarius, in the
presence of the Ecumenical Council, with common consent, before the most
religious emperor Theodosius, and with the assent of all the clergy and
of the whole city. And over the most ancient and truly apostolic church
in Syria, where first the noble name of Christians was given them, the
bishops of the province and of the eastern diocese have met together and
canonically ordained bishop the right reverend and most religious
Flavianus, with the consent of all the church, who as though with one
voice joined in expressing their respect for him. This rightful
ordination also received the sanction of the General Council. Of the
church at Jerusalem, mother of all the churches, we make known that the
right reverend and most religious Cyril is bishop, who was some time ago
canonically ordained by the bishops of the province, and has in several
places fought a good fight against the Arians. We beseech your reverence
to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically settled by us,
by the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear
of the Lord, compelling the feelings of men, and making the edification
of churches of more importance than individual grace or favour. Thus
since among us there is agreement in the faith and Christian charity has
been established, we shall cease to use the phrase condemned by the
apostles, I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas, and all
appearing as Christ's, who in us is not divided, by God's grace we will
keep the body of the church unrent, and will boldly stand at the
judgment seat of the Lord.