DOCUMENTS FROM
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA
[THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL]
A.D. 325
SOURCE: Henry R. Percival, ed., _The Seven Ecumenical
Councils of the Undivided Church_, Vol XIV of Nicene and
Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd 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]
*************************************************
[3]
THE NICENE CREED
(Found in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and
Chalcedon, in the Epistle of Eusebius of Coesarea to his own Church,
in the Epistle of St. Athanasius Ad Jovianum Imp., in the
Ecclesiastical Histories of Theodoret and Socrates, and elsewhere, The
variations in the text are absolutely without importance.)
The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed.(1)
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.(2)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of
God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten
(<greek>gennhq</greek>,<greek>ent</greek><s201)>, not made,
being of one substance(<greek>omoousion</greek>,
consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made,
both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our
salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made
man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into
heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that
there was a time when the Son of God was not (<greek>hn</greek>
<greek>pote</greek> <greek>ote</greek> <greek>ouk</greek>
<greek>h</greek> <greek>n</greek>), or that before he was begotten
he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of
a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a
creature, or subject to change or conversion(3)--all that so say, the
Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
NOTES
The Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he presented to the council,
and which some suppose to have suggested the creed finally adopted.
(Found in his Epistle to his diocese; vide: St. Athanasius and
Theodoret.)
We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things
visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the Word
of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life, his only Son, the first-
born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom
also everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption,
who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day,
returned to the Father, and will come again one day in his glory to
judge the quick and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost We
believe that each of these three is and subsists; the Father truly as
Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as
our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach: Go and teach
all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
EXCURSUS ON THE WORD HOMOUSIOS.(4)
The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to
the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions
in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all
these were capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes
with much wit and penetration how he saw them nodding and winking
to each other when the orthodox proposed expressions which they had
thought of a way of escaping from the force of. After a series of
attempts of this sort it was found that something clearer and more
unequivocal must be adopted if real unity of faith was to be attained;
and accordingly the word homousios was adopted. Just what the
Council intended this
[4]
expression to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows: "That the
Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same
as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the
Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours: for in
us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine
commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his
generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not
only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the
Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself
said: 'The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the
Logos,' as the sun and its splendour are inseparable."(1)
The word homousios had not had, although frequently used before the
Council of Nice, a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the
Council of Antioch,(2) and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian
meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this
rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches. On the
other hand the word is used four times by St. Irenaeus, and Pamphilus
the Martyr is quoted as asserting that Origen used the very word in the
Nicene sense. Tertullian also uses the expression "of one substance"
(unius substanticoe) in two places, and it would seem that more than
half a century before the meeting of the Council of Nice, it was a
common one among the Orthodox.
Vasquez treats this matter at some length in his Disputations, (3) and
points out how well the distinction is drawn by Epiphanius between
Synousios and Homousios, "for synousios signifies such an unity of
substance as allows of no distinction: wherefore the Sabellians would
admit this word: but on the contrary homousios signifies the same
nature and substance but with a distinction between persons one from
the other. Rightly, therefore, has the Church adopted this word as the
one best calculated to confute the Arian heresy."(4)
It may perhaps be well to note that these words are formed like
<greek>omobios</greek> and <greek>omoiobios</greek>,
<greek>omognwmwn</greek> and <greek>omoiognwmwn</greek>,
etc., etc.
The reader will find this whole doctrine treated at great length in all
the bodies of divinity; and in Alexander Natalis (H.E. t. iv., Dies.
xiv.); he is also referred to Pearson, On the Creed; Bull, Defence of the
Nicene Creed; Forbes, An Explanation of the Nicene Creed; and
especially to the little book, written in answer to the recent criticisms
of Professor Harnack, by H. B. Swete, D.D., The Apostles' Creed.
EXCURSUS ON THE WORDS <greek>gennhqeta</greek>
<greek>ou</greek> <greek>poihqenta</greek>] (J. B. Lightfoot. The
Apostolic Fathers--Part II. Vol. ii. Sec. I. pp. 90, et seqq.)
The Son is here [Ignat. Ad. Eph. vii.] declared to be
<greek>gennh</greek><ss235><greek>os</greek> as man and
<greek>a</greek>,s204><greek>ennhtos</greek> as God, for this is
clearly shown to be the meaning from the parallel clauses. Such
language is not in accordance with later theological definitions, which
carefully distinguished between <greek>genhtos</greek> and
<greek>gennhtos</greek> between <greek>agenhtos</greek> and
<greek>agennhtos</greek>; so that <greek>genhtos</greek>,
<greek>agenhtos</greek> respectively denied and affirmed the eternal
existence, being equivalent to <greek>ktistos</greek>,
<greek>aktistos</greek>, while <greek>gennhtos</greek>,
<greek>agen</greek><s225<greek>htos</greek> described certain
ontological relations, whether in time or in eternity. In the later
theological language, therefore, the Son was
<greek>gennhtos</greek> even in his Godhead. See esp. Joann.
Damasc. de Fid. Orth. i. 8 [where he draws the conclusion that only
the Father is <greek>agennhtos</greek>, and only the Son
<greek>gennhtos</greek>].
There can be little doubt however, that Ignatius wrote
<greek>gennh?os</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>agennhtos</greek>, though his editors frequently alter it into
<greek>gennh?os</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>agennhtos</greek>. For (1) the Greek MS. still retains the
double [Greek nun] v, though the claims of orthodoxy would be a
temptation to scribes to
[5]
substitute the single v. And to this reading also the Latin genitus et
ingenitus points. On the other hand it cannot be concluded that
translators who give factus et non factus had the words with one v, for
this was after all what Ignatius meant by the double v, and they would
naturally render his words so as to make his orthodoxy apparent. (2)
When Theodoret writes <greek>gennhtos</greek> <greek>ex</greek>
<greek>agennhtou</greek>, it is clear that he, or the person before
him who first substituted this reading, must have read
<greek>gennhtos</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>agennhtos</greek>, for there would be no temptation to alter
the perfectly orthodox <greek>genhtos</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>agenhtos</greek>, nor (if altered) would it have taken this
form. (3) When the interpolator substitutes <greek>o</greek>
<greek>monos</greek> <greek>alhqinos</greek>
<greek>Qeos</greek> <greek>o</greek> <greek>agennhtos</greek>
. . . <greek>tou</greek> <greek>de</greek>
<greek>monogonous</greek> <greek>pathr</greek>
<greek>kai</greek> <greek>gennhtwr</greek>, the natural inference
is that he too, had the forms in double v, which he retained, at the
same time altering the whole run of the sentence so as not to do
violence to his own doctrinal views; see Bull Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 2 <s> 6.
(4) The quotation in Athanasius is more difficult. The MSS. vary, and
his editors write <greek>genhtos</greek> <greek>kai</greek>
<greek>agenhtos</greek>. Zahn too, who has paid more attention to
this point than any previous editor of Ignatius, in his former work (Ign.
v. Ant. p. 564), supposed Athanasius to have read and written the
words with a single v, though in his subsequent edition of Ignatius (p.
338) he declares himself unable to determine between the single and
double v. I believe, however, that the argument of Athanasius decides
in favour of the vv. Elsewhere he insists repeatedly on the distinction
between <greek>ktixein</greek> and <greek>gennan</greek>,
justifying the use of the latter term as applied to the divinity of the
Son, and defending the statement in the Nicene Creed
<greek>gennhton</greek> <greek>ek</greek> <greek>ths</greek>
<greek>ousias</greek> <greek>tou</greek> <greek>patros</greek>
<greek>ton</greek> <greek>uion</greek>
<greek>omoousion</greek> (De Synod. 54, 1, p. 612). Although he is
not responsible for the language of the Macrostich (De Synod. 3, 1, p.
590), and would have regarded it as inadequate without the
<greek>omoousion</greek> yet this use of terms entirely harmonizes
with his own. In the passage before us, ib. <s><s> 46, 47 (p. 607), he
is defending the use of homousios at Nicaea, notwithstanding that it
had been previously rejected by the council which condemned Paul of
Samosata, and he contends that both councils were orthodox, since
they used homousios in a different sense. As a parallel instance he
takes the word <greek>agennhtos</greek> which like homousios is
not a scriptural word, and like it also is used in two ways, signifying
either (1) T<greek>o</greek> <greek>on</greek>
<greek>men</greek>, <greek>mhte</greek> <greek>de</greek>
<greek>gennhqen</greek> <greek>mhte</greek>
<greek>olws</greek> <greek>ekon</greek> <greek>ton</greek>
<greek>aition</greek> or(2) T<greek>o</greek>
<greek>aktiston</greek>. In the former sense the Son cannot be called
<greek>agennhtos</greek>, in the latter he may be so called. Both
uses, he says, are found in the fathers. Of the latter he quotes the
passage in Ignatius as an example; of the former he says, that some
writers subsequent to Ignatius declare <greek>en</greek>
<greek>to</greek> <greek>agennhton</greek> <greek>o</greek>
<greek>pathr</greek>, <greek>kai</greek> <greek>eis</greek>
<greek>o</greek> <greek>ex</greek> <greek>autou</greek>
<greek>uios</greek> <greek>gnhsios</greek>,
<greek>gennhma</greek> <greek>alhqinon</greek>
<greek>k</greek>. <greek>t</greek>. <greek>l</greek>. [He may
have been thinking of Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 7, which I shall quote
below.] He maintains that both are orthodox, as having in view two
different senses of the word <greek>agennhton</greek>, and the same,
he argues, is the case with the councils which seem to take opposite
sides with regard to homousios. It is dear from this passage, as Zahn
truly says, that Athanasius is dealing with one and the same word
throughout; and, if so, it follows that this word must be
<greek>agennhton</greek>, since <greek>agenhton</greek> would
be intolerable in some places. I may add by way of caution that in two
other passages, de Decret. Syn. Nic. 28 (1, p. 184), Orat. c. Arian. i. 30
(1, p. 343), St. Athanasius gives the various senses of
<greek>agenhton</greek> (for this is plain from the context), and that
these passages ought not to be treated as parallels to the present
passage which is concerned with the senses of
<greek>agennhton</greek>. Much confusion is thus created, e.g. in
Newman's notes on the several passages in the Oxford translation of
Athanasius (pp. 51 sq., 224 sq.), where the three passages are treated
as parallel, and no attempt is made to discriminate the readings in the
several places, but "ingenerate" is given as the rendering of both alike.
If then Athanasius who read <greek>gennhtos</greek>
<greek>kai</greek> <greek>agennhtos</greek> in Ignatius, there is
absolutely no authority for the spelling with one v. The earlier editors
(Voss, Useher, Cotelier, etc.), printed it as they found it in the MS.;
but Smith substituted the forms with the single v, and he has been
followed more recently by Hefele, Dressel, and some other. In the
Casatensian copy of the MS., a marginal note is added,
<greek>anagnwsteon</greek>
[6]
<greek>agenhtos</greek> <greek>tout</greek> <greek>esti</greek>
<greek>mh</greek> <greek>poihqeis</greek>. Waterland (Works,
III., p. 240 sq., Oxf. 1823) tries ineffectually to show that the form
with the double v was invented by the fathers at a later date to express
their theological conception. He even "doubts whether there was any
such word as <greek>agennhtos</greek> so early as the time of
Ignatius." In this he is certainly wrong.
The MSS. of early Christian writers exhibit much confusion between
these words spelled with the double and the single v. See e.g. Justin
Dial. 2, with Otto's note; Athenag. Suppl. 4 with Otto's note; Theophil,
ad Autol. ii. 3, 4; Iren. iv. 38, 1, 3; Orig. c. Cels. vi. 66; Method. de
Lib. Arbitr., p. 57; Jahn (see Jahn's note 11, p. 122); Maximus in
Euseb. Praep. Ev. vii. 22; Hippol. Haer. v. 16 (from Sibylline Oracles);
Clem. Alex. Strom v. 14; and very frequently in later writers. Yet
notwithstanding the confusion into which later transcribers have thus
thrown the subject, it is still possible to ascertain the main facts
respecting the usage of the two forms. The distinction between the two
terms, as indicated by their origin, is that <greek>agenhtos</greek>
denies the creation, and <greek>agennhtos</greek> the generation or
parentage. Both are used at a very early date; e.g.
<greek>agenhtos</greek> by Parmenides in Clem. Alex. Strom. v. l4,
and by Agothon in Arist. Eth. Nic. vii. 2 (comp. also Orac. Sibyll.
prooem. 7, 17); and <greek>agennhtos</greek> in Soph. Trach. 61
(where it is equivalent to <greek>dusgenwn</greek>. Here the
distinction of meaning is strictly preserved, and so probably it always
is in Classical writers; for in Soph. Trach. 743 we should after Porson
and Hermann read <greek>agenhton</greek> with Suidas. In
Christian writers also there is no reason to suppose that the distinction
was ever lost, though in certain connexions the words might be used
convertibly. Whenever, as here in Ignatius, we have the double v
where we should expect the single, we must ascribe the fact to the
indistinctness or incorrectness of the writer's theological conceptions,
not to any obliteration of the meaning of the terms themselves. To this
early father for instance the eternal <greek>gen?hsis</greek> of the
Son was not a distinct theological idea, though substantially he held
the same views as the Nicene fathers respecting the Person of Christ.
The following passages from early Christian writers will serve at once
to show how far the distinction was appreciated, and to what extent
the Nicene conception prevailed in ante-Nicene Christianity; Justin
Apol. ii. 6, comp. ib. <s> 13; Athenag. Suppl. 10 (comp. ib. 4);
Theoph. ad. Aut. ii. 3; Tatian Orat. 5; Rhodon in Euseb. H. E. v. 13;
Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 7; Orig. c. Cels. vi. 17, ib. vi. 52; Concil.
Antioch (A.D. 269) in Routh Rel. Sacr. III., p. 290; Method. de Creat.
5. In no early Christian writing, however, is the distinction more
obvious than in the Clementine Homilies, x. 10 (where the distinction
is employed to support the writer's heretical theology): see also viii.
16, and comp. xix. 3, 4, 9, 12. The following are instructive passages
as regards the use of these words where the opinions of other heretical
writers are given; Saturninus, Iren. i. 24, 1; Hippol. Haer. vii. 28;
Simon Magus, Hippol. Haer. vi. 17, 18; the Valentinians, Hippol.
Haer. vi. 29, 30; the Ptolemaeus in particular, Ptol. Ep. ad. Flor. 4 (in
Stieren's Ireninians, Hipaeus, p. 935); Basilides, Hippol. Haer. vii. 22;
Carpocrates, Hippol. Haer. vii. 32.
From the above passages it will appear that Ante-Nicene writers were
not indifferent to the distinction of meaning between the two words;
and when once the othodox Christology was formulated in the Nicene
Creed in the words <greek>gennhqenta</greek> <greek>ou</greek>
<greek>poihqenta</greek>, it became henceforth impossible to
overlook the difference. The Son was thus declared to be
<greek>gennhtos</greek> but not <greek>genhtos</greek>. I am
therefore unable to agree with Zahn (Marcellus, pp. 40, 104, 223, Ign.
von Ant. p. 565), that at the time of the Arian controversy the
disputants were not alive to the difference of meaning. See for
example Epiphanius, Haer. lxiv. 8. But it had no especial interest for
them. While the orthodox party clung to the homousios as enshrining
the doctrine for which they fought, they had no liking for the terms
<greek>agennhtos</greek> and <greek>gennhtos</greek> as applied
to the Father and the Son respectively, though unable to deny their
propriety, because they were affected by the Arians and applied in
their own way. To the orthodox mind the Arian formula
<greek>ouk</greek> <greek>hn</greek> <greek>prin</greek>
<greek>gennhqhnai</greek> or some Semiarian formula hardly less
dangerous, seemed
[7]
always to be lurking under the expression <greek>Qeos</greek>
<greek>g</greek><ss210><greek>nnhtos</greek> as applied to the
Son. Hence the language of Epiphanius Haer. lxxiii. 19: "As you
refuse to accept our homousios because though used by the fathers, it
does not occur in the Scriptures, so will we decline on the same
grounds to accept your
<greek>ag</greek><ss210><greek>nnhtos</greek>." Similarly Basil
c. Eunom. i., iv., and especially ib. further on, in which last passage he
argues at great length against the position of the heretics,
<greek>ei</greek>
<greek>ag</greek><ss210><greek>nnhtos</greek>,
<greek>fasin</greek>, <greek>o</greek> <greek>pathr</greek>,
<greek>genntos</greek> <greek>de</greek> <greek>o</greek>
<greek>ui</greek><ss228><greek>s</greek>, <greek>ou</greek>
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>auths</greek>
<greek>ous</greek><ss217><greek>as</greek>. See also the
arguments against the Anomoeans in[Athan.] Dial. de Trin. ii. passim.
This fully explains the reluctance of the orthodox party to handle terms
which their adversaries used to endanger the homousios. But, when
the stress of the Arian controversy was removed, it became convenient
to express the Catholic doctrine by saying that the Son in his divine
nature was <greek>g</greek><ss210><greek>nnhtos</greek> but not
<greek>g</greek><ss210><greek>nhtos</greek>. And this
distinction is staunchly maintained in later orthodox writers, e.g. John
of Damascus, already quoted in the beginning of this Excursus.
[8]
THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED IN
THE CITY OF NICE, IN BITHYNIA.
CANON I.
IF any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical
operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain
among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated
himself, it behoves that such an one, if[already] enrolled among the
clergy, should cease[from his ministry], and that from henceforth no
such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said
of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves,
so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters,
and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to
the clergy.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME(1) OF CANON I.
Eunuchs may be received into the number of the clergy, but those
who castrate themselves shall not be received.
BALSAMON.
The divine Apostolic Canons xxi., xxii., xxiii., and xxiv., have taught
us sufficiently what ought to be done with those who castrate
themselves, this canon provides as to what is to be done to these as
well as to those who deliver themselves over to others to be
emasculated by them, viz., that they are not to be admitted among the
clergy nor advanced to the priesthood.
DANIEL BUTLER.
(Smith & Cheetham, Dict. Christ. Ant.)
The feeling that one devoted to the sacred ministry should be
unmutilated was strong in the Ancient Church .... This canon of Nice,
and those in the Apostolic Canons and a later one in the Second
Council of Arles(canon vii.) were aimed against that perverted notion
of piety, originating in the misinterpretation of our Lord's saying
(Matt. xix. 12) by which Origen, among others, was misled, and their
observance was so carefully enforced in later times that not more than
one or two instances of the practice which they condemn are noticed
by the historian. The case was different if a man was born an eunuch
or had suffered mutilation at the hands of persecutors; an instance of
the former, Dorotheus, presbyter of Antioch, is mentioned by
Eusebius(H. E. vii., c. 32); of the latter, Tigris, presbyter of
Constantinople, is referred to both by Socrates(H. E. vi. 16) and
Sozomen(H. E. vi. 24) as the victim of a barbarian master.
HEFELE.
We know, by the first apology of St. Justin(Apol. c. 29) that a century
before Origen, a young man had desired to be mutilated by physicians,
for the purpose of completely refuting the charge of vice which the
heathen brought against the worship of Christians. St. Justin neither
praises nor blames this young man: he only relates that he could not
obtain the permission of the civil authorities for his project, that he
renounced his intention, but nevertheless remained virgo all his life. It
is very probable that the Council of Nice was induced by some fresh
similar cases to renew the old injunctions; it was perhaps the Arian
bishop, Leontius, who was the principal cause of it.(1)
LAMBERT.
Constantine forbade by a law the practice condemned in this canon. "If
anyone shall anywhere in the Roman Empire after this decree make
eunuchs, he shall be punished with death. If the owner of the place
where the deed was perpetrated was aware of it and hid the fact, his
goods shall be confiscated."(Const. M. 0pera. Migne Patrol. vol. viii.,
396.)
BEVERIDGE.
The Nicene fathers in this canon make no new enactment but only
confirm by the authority of an Ecumenical synod the Apostolic
Canons, and this is evident from the wording of this canon. For there
can be no doubt that they had in mind some earlier canon when they
said, "such men the canon admits to the clergy." Not,
<greek>outos</greek> <greek>ok?nwn</greek>, but
<greek>o</greek> <greek>kanwn</greek>, as if they had said "the
formerly set forth
[9]
and well-known canon" admits such to the clergy. But no other canon
then existed in which this provision occurred except apostolical canon
xxi. which therefore we are of opinion is here cited.
[In this conclusion Hefele also agrees.]
This law was frequently enacted by subsequent synods and is inserted
in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum Gratiani. Pars. I. Distinctio
LV., C vij.
EXCURSUS ON THE USE OF THE WORD "CANON."
(Bright: Notes on the Canons, pp. 2 and 3.)
K<greek>anwn</greek>, as an ecclesiastical term, has a very
interesting history. See Westcott's account of it, On the New
Testament Canon, p. 498 if. The original sense, "a straight rod" or
"line," determines all its religious applications, which begin with St.
Paul's use of it for a prescribed sphere of apostolic work(2 Cor. x. 13,
15), or a regulative principle of Christian life(Gal. vi. 16). It represents
the element of definiteness in Christianity and in the order of the
Christian Church. Clement of Rome uses it for the measure of
Christian attainment(Ep. Cor. 7). Irenaeus calls the baptismal creed
"the canon of truth"(i. 9, 4): Polycrates(Euseb. v. 24) and probably
Hippolytus(ib. v. 28) calls it "the canon of faith;" the Council of
Antioch in A.D. 269, referring to the same standard of orthodox belief,
speaks with significant absoluteness of "the canon"(ib. vii. 30).
Eusebius himself mentions "the canon of truth" in iv. 23, and "the
canon of the preaching" in iii. 32; and so Basil speaks of "the
transmitted canon of true religion"(Epist. 204-6). Such language, like
Tertullian's "regula fidei," amounted to saying, "We Christians know
what we believe: it is not a vague 'idea' without substance or outline: it
can be put into form, and by it we 'test the spirits whether they be of
God.' " Thus it was natural for Socrates to call the Nicene Creed itself
a "canon," ii. 27. Clement of Alexandria uses the phrase "canon of
truth" for a standard of mystic interpretation, but proceeds to call the
harmony between the two Testaments "a canon for the Church,"
Strom. vi. 15, 124, 125. Eusebius speaks of "the ecclesiastical canon"
which recognized no other Gospels than the four(vi. 25). The use of
the term and its cognates in reference to the Scriptures is explained by
Westcott in a passive sense so that "canonized" books, as Athanasius
calls them(Fest. Ep. 39), are books expressly recognized by the
Church as portions of Holy Scripture. Again, as to matters of
observance, Clement of Alexandria wrote a book against Judaizers,
called "The Churches Canon"(Euseb. vi. 13); and Cornelius of Rome,
in his letter to Fabius, speaks of the "canon" as to what we call
confirmation(Euseb. vi. 43), and Dionysius of the "canon" as to
reception of converts from heresy(ib, vii. 7). The Nicene Council in
this canon refers to a standing "canon" of discipline(comp. Nic. 2, 5, 6,
9, 10, 15, 16, 18), but it does not apply the term to its own enactments,
which are so described in the second canon of Constantinople(see
below), and of which Socrates says "that it passed what are usually
called 'canons' "(i. 13); as Julius of Rome calls a decree of this Council
a "canon"(Athan. Apol. c. Ari. 25); so Athanasius applies the term
generally to Church laws(Encycl. 2; cp. Apol. c. Ari. 69). The use of
<greek>kanwn</greek> for the clerical body(Nic. 16, 17, 19; Chalc. 2)
is explained by Westcott with reference to the rule of clerical life, but
Bingham traces it to the roll or official list on which the names of
clerics were enrolled(i. 5, 10); and this appears to be the more natural
derivation, see "the holy canon" in the first canon of the Council of
Antioch, and compare Socrates(i. 17), "the Virgins enumerated
<greek>en</greek> <greek>tw</greek> <greek>ekklhsiwn</greek>
<greek>kan</greek> <ss228><greek>ni</greek>," and(ib. v. 19) on
the addition of a penitentiary "to the canon of the church;" see also
George of Laodicea in Sozomon, iv. 13. Hence any cleric might be
called <greek>kan</greek><ss228><greek>nikos</greek>, see Cyril
of Jerusalem, Procatech.(4); so we read of "canonical singers."
Laodicea, canon xv. The same notion of definiteness appears in
[10]
the ritual use of the word for a series of nine "odes" in the Eastern
Church service(Neale, Introd. East. Ch. if. 832), for the central and
unvarying element in the Liturgy, beginning after the
Tersanctus(Hammond, Liturgies East and West, p. 377); or for any
Church office(Ducange in v.); also in its application to a table for the
calculation of Easter(Euseb. vi. 29; vii. 32); to a scheme for exhibiting
the common and peculiar parts of the several Gospels(as the "Eusebian
canons") and to a prescribed or ordinary payment to a church, a use
which grew out of one found in Athanasius' Apol. c. Ari. 60.
In more recent times a tendency has appeared to restrict the term
Canon to matters of discipline, but the Council of Trent continued the
ancient use of the word, calling its doctrinal and disciplinary
determinations alike "Canons."
CANON II.
FORASMUCH as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of
individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical
canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and
who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to
the spiritual layer, and as soon as they have been baptized, are
advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to
us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the
catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after
baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being
lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the
devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out
about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three
witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall
transgress these[enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as
a person who presumes to disobey fie great Synod.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.
Those who have come from the heathen shall not be immediately
advanced to the presbyterate. For without a probation of some time a
neophyte is of no advantage(<greek>kakos</greek>). But if after
ordination it be found out that he had sinned previously, let him then
be expelled from the clergy.
HEFELE.
It may be seen by the very text of this canon, that it was already
forbidden to baptize, and to raise to the episcopate or to the priesthood anyone who had only been a catechumen for a short time: this
injunction is in fact contained in the eightieth(seventy-ninth)
apostolical canon; and according to that, it would be older than the
Council of Nicaea. There have been, nevertheless, certain cases in
which, for urgent reasons, an exception has been made to the rule of
the Council of Nicaea--for instance, that of S. Ambrose. The canon of
Nicaea does not seem to allow such an exception, but it might be
justified by the apostolical canon, which says, at the close: "It is not
right that any one who has not yet been proved should be a teacher of
others, unless by a peculiar divine grace." The expression of the canon
of Nicaea, <greek>yukikon</greek> <greek>ti</greek>
<greek>amarthma</greek>, is not easy to explain: some render it by
the Latin words animale peccatam, believing that the Council has here
especially in view sins of the flesh; but as Zonaras has said, all sins are <greek>yukika</greek> <greek>amarthmata</greek>. We must then
understand the passage in question to refer to a capital and very
serious offence, as the penalty of deposition annexed to it points out.
These words have also given offence, <greek>ei</greek>
<greek>de</greek> <greek>proiontos</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>krono</greek>,<greek>n</greek>; that is to say, "It is
necessary henceforward," etc., understanding that it is only those who
have been too quickly ordained who are threatened with deposition in
case they are guilty of crime; but the canon is framed, and ought to be
understood, in a general manner: it applies to all other clergymen, but
it appears also to point out that greater severity should be shown
toward those who have been too quickly ordained.
Others have explained the passage in this manner: "If it shall become
known that any one who has been too quickly ordained was guilty
before his baptism of any serious offence, he ought to be deposed."
This is the interpretation given by Gratian, but it must
[11]
be confessed that such a translation does violence to the text. This is, I
believe, the general sense of the canon, and of this passage in
particular: "Henceforward no one shall be baptized or ordained
quickly. As to those already in orders(without any distinction between
those who have been ordained in due course and those who have been
ordained too quickly), the rule is that they shall be de posed if they
commit a serious offence. Those who are guilty of disobedience to this
great Synod, either by allowing themselves to be ordained or even by
ordaining others prematurely, are threatened with deposition ipso
facto, and for this fault alone." We consider, in short, that the last
words of the canon may be understood as well of the ordained as of the
ordainer.
CANON III.
THE great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter,
deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta
dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such
persons only as are beyond all suspicion.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.
No one shall have a woman in his house except his mother, and sister,
and persons altogether beyond suspicion.
JUSTELLUS.
Who these mulieres subintroductae were does not sufficiently appear .
. . but they were neither wives nor concubines, but women of some
third kind, which the clergy kept with them, not for the sake of
offspring or lust, but from the desire, or certainly under the pretence,
of piety.
JOHNSON.
For want of a proper English word to render it by, I translate "to retain
any woman in their houses under pretenee of her being a disciple to
them."
VAN ESPEN
translates: And his sisters and aunts cannot remain unless they be free
from all suspicion.
Fuchs in his Bibliothek der kirchenver sammlungen confesses that this
canon shews that the practice of clerical celibacy had already spread
widely. In connexion with this whole subject of the subintroductae the
text of St. Paul should be carefully considered. 1 Cor. ix. 5.
HEFELE.
It is very terrain that the canon of Nice forbids such spiritual unions,
but the context shows moreover that the Fathers had not these
particular cases in view alone; and the expression
<greek>sun</greek><ss210><greek>isaktos</greek> should be
understood of every woman who is
introduced(<greek>sun</greek><ss210><greek>isaktos</greek>) into
the house of a clergyman for the purpose of living there. If by the word
<greek>sun</greek><ss210><greek>isaktos</greek> was only
intended the wife in this spiritual marriage, the Council would not
have said, any <greek>sun</greek><ss210><greek>isaktos</greek>,
except his mother, etc.; for neither his mother nor his sister could have
formed this spiritual union with the cleric. The injunction, then, does
net merely forbid the
<greek>sun</greek><ss210><greek>isaktos</greek> in the specific
sense, but orders that "no woman must live in the house of a cleric,
unless she be his mother," etc.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I., Distinc. XXXII., C. xvj.
CANON IV.
IT is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the
bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account
of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet
together, and the suffrages of the absent[bishops] also being given and
communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in
every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the
Metropolitan.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least
by three, the rest giving by letter their assent ; but this choice must be
confirmed by the Metropolitan.
ZONARAS.
The present Canon might seem to be opposed to the first canon of the
Holy Apostles, for the latter enjoins that a bishop ordained by two or
three bishops, but this by
[12]
three, the absent also agreeing and testifying their assent by writing.
But they are not contradictory; for the Apostolical canon by ordination
(<greek>keirotonian</greek>) means consecration and imposition of
hands, but the present canon by constitution
(<greek>katastasin</greek>) and ordination means the election, and
enjoins that the election of a bishop do not take place unless three
assemble, having the consent also of the absent by letter, or a
declaration that they also will acquiesce in the election(or
vote,(<greek>yhfw</greek>) made by the three who have assembled.
But after the election it gives the ratification or completion of the
matter--the imposition of hands and consecration--to the metropolitan
of the province, so that the election is to be ratified by him. He does so
when with two or three bishops, according to the apostolical canon, he
consecrates with imposition of hands the one of the elected persons
whom he himself selects.
BALSAMON
also understands <greek>kaqistasqai</greek> to mean election by
vote.
BRIGHT.
The Greek canonists are certainly in error when they interpret
<greek>keirotonia</greek> of election. The canon is akin to the 1st
Apostolic canon which, as the canonists admit, must refer to the
consecration of a new bishop, and it was cited in that sense at the
Council of Cholcedon--Session xiii.(Mansi., vii. 307). We must follow
Rufinus and the old Latin translators, who speak of "ordinari"
"ordinatio" and "manus impositionem."
HEFELE.
The Council of Nice thought it necessary to define by precise rules the
duties of the bishops who took part in these episcopal elections. It
decided(a) that a single bishop of the province was not sufficient for
the appointment of another;(b) three at least should meet, and(c) they
were not to proceed to election without the written permission of the
absent bishops; it was necessary(d) to obtain afterward the approval of
the metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the ordinary metropolitan
division in its two most important points, namely, the nomination and
ordination of bishops, and the superior position of the metropolitan.
The third point connected with this division--namely, the provincial
synod--will be considered under the next canon.
Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon. It may be
remembered that he had nominated bishops without the concurrence
of the other bishops of the province, and without the approval of the
metropolitan of Alexandria, and had thus occasioned a schism. This
canon was intended to prevent the recurrence of such abuses. The
question has been raised as to whether the fourth canon speaks only of
the choice of the bishop, or whether it also treats of the consecration of
the newly elected. We think, with Van Espen, that it treats equally of
both,--as well of the part which the bishops of the province should take
in an episcopal election, as of the consecration which completes it.
This canon has been interpreted in two ways. The Greeks had learnt by
bitter experience to distrust the interference of princes and earthly
potentates in episcopal elections. Accordingly, they tried to prove that
this canon of Nice took away from the people the right of voting at the
nomination of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to
the bishops of the province.
The Greek Commentators, Balsamon and others, therefore, only
followed the example of the Seventh and[so-called] Eighth(Ecu-
menical Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nice takes
away from the people the right previously possessed of voting in the
choice of bishops and makes the election depend entirely on the
decision of the bishops of the province.
The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with it also the people
have been removed from episcopal elections, but this did not happen
till later, about the eleventh century; and it was not the people only
who were removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the
election was conducted entirely by the clergy of the Cathedral Church.
The Latins then interpreted the canon of Nice as though it said nothing
of the rights of the bishops of the province in the election of their
future colleague(and it does not speak of it in a very explicit manner),
and as though it determined these two points only;(a) that for the
ordination of a bishop three bishops at least are necessary;(b) that the
right of confirmation rests with the metropolitan.
The whole subject of episcopal elections is treated fully by Van Espen
and by Thomassin, in Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l' Eglise, P.
II. 1. 2.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars I. Dist. LXIV. c. j.
[13]
CANON V.
CONCERNING those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have
been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the
canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out
by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be
made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness,
or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the
bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed
that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that
when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such
questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who
have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to
be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general
meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them.
And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift
may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let
the second be held about autumn.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
Such as have been excommunicated by certain bishops shall not be
restored by others, unless the excommunication was the result of
pusillanimity, or strife, or some other similar cause. And that this may
be duly attended to, there shall be in each year two synods in every
province--the one before Lent, the other toward autumn.
There has always been found the greatest difficulty in securing the
regular meetings of provincial and diocesan synods, and despite the
very explicit canonical legislation upon the subject, and the severe
penalties attached to those not answering the summons, in large parts
of the Church for centuries these councils have been of the rarest
occurrence. Zonaras complains that in his time "these synods were
everywhere treated with great contempt," and that they had actually
ceased to be held.
Possibly the opinion of St. Gregory Nazianzen had grown common, for
it will be remembered that in refusing to go to the latter sessions of the
Second Ecumenical he wrote, "I am resolved to avoid every meeting of
bishops, for I have never seen any synod end well, nor assuage rather
than aggravate disorders."(1)
HEFELE.
Gelasius has given in his history of the Council of Nice, the text of the
canons passed by the Council; and it must be noticed that there is here
a slight difference between his text and ours. Our reading is as follows:
"The excommunication continues to be in force until it seem good to
the assembly of bishops (<greek>tw</greek> <greek>koinw</greek>)
to soften it." Gelasius, on the other hand, writes:
<greek>mekris</greek> <greek>an</greek> <greek>tp</greek>
<greek>koinp</greek> <greek>h</greek> <greek>tp</greek>
<greek>episkopw</greek>, <greek>k</greek>. <greek>t</greek>.
<greek>l</greek>., that is to say, "until it seem good to the assembly
of bishops, or to the bishop (who has passed the sentence)," etc.
Dionysius the Less has also followed this vacation, as his translation of
the canon shows. It does not change the essential meaning of the
passage; for it may be well understood that the bishop who has passed
the sentence of excommunication has also the right to mitigate it. But
the variation adopted by the Prisca alters, on the contrary, the whole
sense of the canon: the Prisca has not <greek>ew</greek>
<greek>koinp</greek>, but only <greek>episkopw</greek>: it is in
this erroneous form that the canon has passed into the Corpus jurisc
an.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa XI, Quaest. III., Canon lxxiij., and the latter part in Pars
I., Distinc. XVIII., c. iij.
EXCURSUS ON THE WORD <greek>Prosferein</greek>.
(Dr. Adolph Harnack: Hist. of Dogma [Eng. Tr.] Vol. I. p. 209.)
The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is
plainly found in the dache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all, in Justin
(I. 65f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when (in cc. 40-
44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the
[14]
Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief
function of the former (44.4) <greek>prosferein</greek>. This is not
the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of
its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea,
as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by
the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a
sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi i. 11, demanded a solemn
Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14.3. In the second
place, all prayers were regarded as a sacrifice, and therefore the
solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In
the third place, the words of institution <greek>touto</greek>
<greek>poieite</greek>, contained a command with regard to a
definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be
represented as a sacrifice, and this the more, that the Gentile
Christians might suppose that they had to understand
<greek>poiein</greek> in the sense of <greek>quein</greek>. In the
fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapae"
connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and
wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these
offerings in the worship be regarded than as <greek>prosforai</greek>
for the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that
only the prayers were regarded as the <greek>qusia</greek> proper,
even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117). The elements are only
<greek>dpra</greek>, <greek>prosforai</greek>, which obtain their
value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of
creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is
made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God
(see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called
<greek>eukaristia</greek> (Justin, Apol. I. 66: <greek>h</greek>
<greek>trofh</greek> <greek>auth</greek> <greek>kaleitai</greek>
<greek>par</greek> <greek>hmin</greek>
<greek>eukaristia</greek>. Didache, 9. 1: Ignat.), because it is
<greek>trafh</greek> <greek>eukaristhqeisa</greek>. It is a mistake
to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the
object of <greek>poiein</greek>,(1) and therefore thought of a
sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper
consists rather, according to Justin, only in the
<greek>eukaristian</greek> <greek>poiein</greek>whereby
the<greek>koinos</greek> <greek>artos</greek> becomes the
<greek>artos</greek> <greek>ths</greek>
<greek>eukaristias</greek>.(2) The sacrifice of the Supper in its
essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the
Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer:
the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act
of prayer (See Apol. I. 14, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118).
Harnack (lib. cit. Vol. II. chapter III. p. 136) says that "Cyprian was
the first to associate the specific offering, i.e. the Lord's Supper with
the specific priesthood. Secondly, he was the first to designate the
passio Domini, nay, the sanguis Christi and the dominica hostia as the
object of the eucharistic offering." In a foot-note (on the same page) he
explains that "Sacrificare, Sacrificium celebrare in all passages where
they are unaccompanied by any qualifying words, mean to celebrate
the Lord's Supper." But Harnack is confronted by the very evident
objection that if this was an invention of St. Cyprian's, it is most
extraordinary that it raised no protest, and he very frankly confesses
(note 2, on same page) that "the transference of the sacrificial idea to
the consecrated elements which in all probability Cyprian already
found in existence, etc." Harnack further on (in the same note on p.
137) notes that he has pointed out in his notes on the Didache that in
the "Apostolic Church Order" occurs the expression
<greek>h</greek> <greek>prosqora</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>swmatos</greek> <greek>kai</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
<greek>aimatos</greek>.
[15]
CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the
other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to
be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the
consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a
man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall
from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the
rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law,
then let the choice of the majority prevail.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya,
and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome.
So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under
them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan,
let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by
the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of
no force.
Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most
important and most interesting of all the Nicene canons, and a whole
library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting
and some denying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any
one wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find
it in Phillips's Kirchenrecht (Bd. ii. S. 35). I shall reserve what I have
to say upon this subject to the notes on a canon which seems really to
deal with it, confining myself here to an elucidation of the words found
in the canon before us.
HAMMOND, W. A.
The object and intention of this canon seems clearly to have been, not
to introduce any new powers or regulations into the Church, but to
confirm and establish ancient customs already existing. This, indeed,
is evident from the very first words of it: "Let the ancient customs be
maintained." It appears to have been made with particular reference to
the case of the Church of Alexandria, which had been troubled by the
irregular proceedings of Miletius, and to confirm the ancient privileges
of that see which he had invaded. The latter part of it, however, applies
to all Metropolitans, and confirms all their ancient privileges.
FFOULKES.
(Dict. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicaea).
The first half of the canon enacts merely that what had long been
customary with respect to such persons in every province should
become law, beginning with the province where this principle had
been infringed; while the second half declares what was in future to be
received as law on two points which custom had not as yet expressly
ruled. ... Nobody disputes the meaning of this last half; nor, in fact,
would the meaning of the first half have been questioned, had it not
included Rome. ... Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch
and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction
they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when
they were so called. ... It is on this clause ["since the like is customary
for the Bishops of Rome also"] standing parenthetically between what
is decreed for the particular cases of Egypt and Antioch, and in
consequence of the interpretation given to it by Rufinus, more
particularly, that so much strife has been raised. Rufinus may rank low
as a translator, yet, being a native of Aquileia, he cannot have been
ignorant of Roman ways, nor, on the other hand, had he greatly
misrepresented them, would his version have waited till the
seventeenth century to be impeached.
HEFELE.
The sense of the first words of the canon is as follows: "This ancient
right is assigned to the Bishop of Alexandria which places under his
jurisdiction the whole diocese of Egypt." It is without any reason, then,
that the French Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican
Beveridge, and the Gallican Launoy, try to show that the Council of
Nice granted to the Bishop of Alexandria only the rights of ordinary
metropolitans.
BISHOP STILLINGFLEET.
I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of
Alexandria, for all the provinces of Egypt were under his immediate
care, which was Patriarchal as to extent, but Metropolical in the
administration.
[16]
JUSTELLUS.
This authority (<greek>exousia</greek>) is that of a Metropolitan
which the Nicene Fathers decreed to be his due over the three
provinces named in this canon, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, which
made up the whole diocese of Egypt, as well in matters civil as
ecclesiastical.
On this important question Hefele refers to the dissertation of Dupin,
in his work De Antiqua Ecclesoe Disciplina. Hefele says: "It seems to
me beyond a doubt that in this canon there is a question about that
which was afterward calm the patriarchate of the Bishop of
Alexandria; that is to say that he had a certain recognized
ecclesiastical authority, not only over several civil provinces, but also
over several ecclesiastical provinces (which had their own
metropolitans);" and further on (p. 392) he adds: "It is incontestable
that the civil provinces of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis and Thebais, which
were all in subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria, were also
ecclesiastical provinces with their own metropolitans; and
consequently it is not the ordinary fights of metropolitans that the
Sixth Canon of Nice confers on the Bishop of Alexandria, but the
rights of a superior Metropolitan, that is, of a Patriarch."
There only remains to see what were the bounds of the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of Antioch. The civil diocese of Oriens is shown by the
Second Canon of Constantinople to be conterminous with what was
afterward called the Patriarchate of Antioch. The see of Antioch had,
as we know, several metropolitans subject to it, among them Caesarea,
under whose jurisdiction was Palestine. Justellus, however, is of
opinion that Pope Innocent I. was in error when he asserted that all the
Metropolitans of Oriens were to be ordained by him by any peculiar
authority, and goes so far as to stigmatize his words as "contrary to the
mind of the Nicene Synod."(1)
EXCURSUS ON THE EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BISHOP OF ROME OVER THE SUBURBICAN CHURCHES.
Although, as Hefele well says, "It is evident that the Council has not in
view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church,
but simply his power as a patriarch," yet it may not be unimportant to
consider what his patriarchal limits may have been.
(Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. I., p. 397.)
The translation of this [VI.] canon by Rufinus has been especially an
apple of discord. Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Roma vetusta
consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Egypti vel hic suburbicariarum
ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat. In the seventeenth century this
sentence of Rufinus gave rise to a very lively discussion between the
celebrated jurist, Jacob Gothfried (Gothofredus), and his friend,
Salmasius, on one side, and the Jesuit, Sirmond, on the other. The
great prefecture of Italy, which contained about a third of the whole
Roman Empire, was divided into four vicariates, among which the
vicariate of Rome was the first. At its head were two officers, the
proefectus urbi and the vicarius urbis. The proefectus urbi exercised
authority over the city of Rome, and further in a suburban circle as far
as the hundredth milestone, The boundary of the vicarins urbis
comprised ten provinces--Campania, Tuscia with Ombria, Picenum,
Valeria, Samnium, Apulia with Calabria, Lucania and that of the
Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Gothfried and Salmasius
maintained, that by the regiones suburbicarioe the little territory of the
proefectus urbi must be understood; while, according to Sirmond,
these words designate the whole territory of the vicarius urbis. In our
time Dr. Maasen has proved in his book,(2) already quoted several
times, that Gothfried and Salmasius were right in maintaining that, by
the regiones suburbicarioe, the little territory of the proefectus urbi
must be alone understood.
Hefele thinks that Phillips "has proved" that the Bishop of Rome had
patriarchal rights over places outside the limits of the ten provinces of
the vicarius urbis; but does not agree
[17]
with Phillips in thinking Rufinus in error. As a matter of fact the point
is a difficult one, and has little to do with the gist of the meaning of the
canon. One thing is certain: the early Latin version of the canons,
called the Prisca, was not satisfied with the Greek wording and made
the Canon read thus: "It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city
of Rome should have a primacy (principatum), so that he should
govern with care the suburban places, AND ALL HIA OWN
PROVINCE."(1) Another interesting reading is that found in several
MSS. which begins, "The Church of Rome hath always had a primacy
(primatum)," and as a matter of fact the early date of this addition is
evinced by the fact that the canon was actually quoted in this shape by
Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon.
Hefele further on says, "The Greek commentators Zonaras and
Balsamon (of the twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their
explanation of the Canons of Nice, that this sixth canon confirms the
rights of the Bishop of Rome as patriarch over the whole West," and
refers to Beveridge's Syodicon, Tom. I., pp. 66 and 67. After diligent
search I can find nothing to warrant the great amplitude of this
statement. Balsamon's interpretation is very vague, being simply that
the Bishop of Rome is over the Western Eparchies
(<greek>tpn</greek> <greek>esperiwn</greek>
<greek>eparkiwn</greek>) and Zonaras still more vaguely says that
<greek>tpn</greek> <greek>esperiwn</greek>
<greek>arkein</greek> <greek>eqos</greek>
<greek>ekrathse</greek>. That the whole West was in a general way
understood to be in the Roman Patriarchate I have no doubt, that the
Greek scholiasts just quoted deemed it to be so I think most probably
the case, but it does not seem to me that they have said so in the
particular place cited. It seems to me that all they meant to say was
that the custom observed at Alexandria and Antioch was no purely
Eastern and local thing, for a similar state of affairs was found in the
West.
CANON VII.
SINCE custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of
AElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due
dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.
Let the Bishop of AElia be honoured, the rights of the Metropolis
being preserved intact.
There would seem to be a singular fitness in the Holy City Jerusalem
holding a very exalted position among the sees of Christendom, and it
may appear astonishing that in the earliest times it was only a
suffragan see to the great Church of Caesarea. It must be remembered,
however, that only about seventy years after our Lord's death the city
of Jerusalem was entirely destroyed and ploughed as a field according
to the prophet. As a holy city Jerusalem was a thing of the past for
long years, and it is only in the beginning of the second century that
we find a strong Christian Church growing up in the rapidly increasing
city, called no longer Jerusalem, but aelia Capitolina. Possibly by the
end of the second century the idea of the holiness of the site began to
lend dignity to the occupant of the see; at all events Eusebius(2) tells
us that "at a synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy in the
time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of
Jerusalem were presidents."
It was this feeling of reverence which induced the passing of this
seventh canon. It is very hard to determine just what was the
"precedence" granted to the Bishop of AElia, nor is it clear which is
the metropolis referred to in the last clause. Most writers, including
Hefele, Balsamon, Aristenus and Beveridge consider it to be Caesarea;
while Zonaras thinks Jerusalem to be intended, a view recently
adopted and defended by Fuchs; [3] others again suppose it is Antioch
that is referred to.
[18]
EXCURSUS ON THE RISE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF
JERUSALEM.
The narrative of the successive steps by which the See of Jerusalem
rose from being nothing but AElia, a Gentile city, into one of the five
patriarchal sees is sad reading for a Christian. It is but the record of
ambition and, worse still, of knavery. No Christian can for a moment
grudge to the Holy City of the old dispensation the honour shewn it by
the Church, but he may well wish that the honour had been otherwise
obtained. A careful study of such records as we possess shews that
until the fifth century the Metropolitan of Caesarea as often took
precedence of the Bishop of Jerusalem as vice versa, and Beveridge
has taken great pains to shew that the learned De Marca is in error in
supposing that the Council of Nice assigned to Jerusalem a dignity
superior to Caesarea, and only inferior to Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch. It is true that in the signatures the Bishop of Jerusalem does
sign before his metropolitan, but to this Beveridge justly replies that
the same is the case with the occupants of two other of his suffragan
sees. Bishop Beveridge's opinion is that the Council assigned
Jerusalem the second place in the province, such as London enjoys in
the Province of Canterbury. This, however, would seem to be as much
too little as De Marca's contention grants too much. It is certain that
almost immediately after the Council had adjourned, the Bishop of
Jerusalem, Maximus, convoked a synod of Palestine, without any
reference to Caesarea, which consecrated bishops and acquitted St.
Athanasius. It is true that he was reprimanded for doing so,(1) but yet
it clearly shews how lie intended to understand the action of Nice. The
matter was not decided for a century more, and then through the
chicanery of Juvenal the bishop of Jerusalem.
(Canon Venables, Dict. Christ. Biography.)
Juvenalis succeeded Praylius as bishop of Jerusalem somewhere about
420 A.D. The exact year cannot be determined. The episcopate of
Praylius, which commenced in 417 A.D., was but short, and we can
hardly give it at most more than three years. The statement of Cyril of
Scythopolis, in his Life of St. Euthymius (c. 96), that Juvenal died "in
the forty-fourth year of his episcopate," 458 A.D., is certainly
incorrect, as it would make his episcopate begin in 414 A.D., three
years before that of his predecessor. Juvenal occupies a prominent
position during the Nestorian and Eutychian troubles towards the
middle of the fifth century. But the part played by him at the councils
of Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as at the disgraceful
<greek>lhstrikh</greek> of 449, was more conspicuous than
creditable, and there are few of the actors in these turbulent and
saddening scenes who leave a more unpleasing impression. The ruling
object of Juvenal's episcopate, to which everything else was secondary,
and which guided all his conduct, was the elevation of the see of
Jerusalem from the subordinate position it held in accordance with the
seventh of the canons of the council of Nicaea, as suffragan to the
metropolitan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in the episcopate. Not
content with aspiring to metropolitan rank, Juvenal coveted patriarchal
dignity, and, in defiance of all canonical authority, he claimed
jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from which he sought to
remove Arabia and the two Phoenicias to his own province. At the
council of Ephesus, in 431, he asserted for "the apostolic see of
Jerusalem the same rank and authority with the apostolic see of Rome"
(Labbe, Concil. iii. 642). These falsehoods he did not scruple to
support with forged documents ("insolenter ausus per commentitia
scripta firmare," Leo. Mag. Ep. 119 [92]), and other disgraceful
artifices. Scarcely had Juvenal been consecrated bishop of Jerusalem
when he proceeded to assert his claims to the metropolitan rank by his
acts. In the letter of remonstrance against the proceedings of the
council of
[19]
Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the Oriental party, they complain that
Juvenal, whose "ambitious designs and juggling tricks" they are only
too well acquainted with, had ordained in provinces over which he had
no jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. 728). This audacious attempt to set
at nought the Nicene decrees, and to falsify both history and tradition
was regarded with the utmost indignation by the leaders of the
Christian church. Cyril of Alexandria shuddered at the impious design
("merito perhorrescens," Leo. u. s.), and wrote to Leo, then archdeacon
of Rome, informing him of what Juvenal was undertaking, and
begging that his unlawful attempts might have no sanction from the
apostolic See ("ut nulla illicitis conatibus praeberetur assensio," u. s.).
Juvenal, however, was far too useful an ally in his campaign against
Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the council met at Ephesus
Juvenal was allowed, without the slightest remonstrance, to take
precedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea, and to occupy the position
of vice-president of the council, coming next after Cyril himself
(Labbe, Concil. iii. 445), and was regarded in all respects as the
second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant assertion of his
supremacy over the bishop of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next
after Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance, and
his pretensions were at least tacitly allowed. At the next council, the
disgraceful Latrocinium, Juvenal occupied the third place, after
Dioscorus and the papal legate, having been specially named by
Theodosius, together with Thalassius of Caesarea (who appears to
have taken no umbrage at his suffragan being preferred before him), as
next in authority to Dioscorus (Labbe, Concil. iv. 109), and he took a
leading part in the violent proceedings of that assembly. When the
council of Chalcedon met, one of the matters which came before it for
settlement was the dispute as to priority between Juvenal and
Maximus Bishop of Antioch. The contention was long and severe. It
ended in a compromise agreed on in the Seventh Action,
<greek>meta</greek> <greek>pollhn</greek>
<greek>filoneikian</greek>. Juvenal surrendered his claim to the two
Phoenicias and to Arabia, on condition of his being allowed
metropolitical jurisdiction over the three Palestines (Labbe, Concil. iv.
613). The claim to patriarchal authority over the Bishop of Antioch put
forward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. TIle difficulty presented
by the Nicene canon does not appear to have presented itself to the
council, nor was any one found to urge the undoubted claims of the
see of Caesarea. The terms arranged between Maximus and Juvenal
were regarded as satisfactory, and received the consent of the
assembled bishops (ibid. 618). Maximus, however, was not long in
repenting of his too ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and
wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, who replied by the letter
which has been already quoted, dated June 11, 453 A.D., in which he
upheld the binding authority of the Nicene canons, and commenting in
the strongest terms on the greediness and ambition of Juvenal, who
allowed no opportunity of forwarding his ends to be lost, declared that
as far as he was concerned he would do all he could to maintain the
ancient dignity of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maximum,
119 [92]). No further action, however, seems to have been taken either
by Leo or by Maximus. Juvehal was left master of the situation, and
the church of Jerusalem has from that epoch peaceably enjoyed the
patriarchal dignity obtained for it by such base means.
CANON VIII.
CONCERNING those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over
to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod
decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the
clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in
writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic
and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with
persons who have been twice married, and with those who having
lapsed in persecution have had a period [of
[20]
penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all
things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church.
Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained
are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the
same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there
is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the
Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was
named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of
presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake
in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then
shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or
presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy,
and that there may not be two bishops in the city.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.
If those called Cathari come over, let them first make profession that
they are willing to communicate with the twice married, and to grant
pardon to the lapsed. And on this condition he who happens to be in
orders, shall continue in the same order, so that a bishop shall still be
bishop. Whoever was a bishop among the Cathari let him, however,
become a Chorepiscopus, or let him enjoy the honour of a presbyter or
of a bishop. For in one church there shall not be two bishops.
The Cathari or Novatians were the followers of Novatian, a presbyter
of Rome, who had been a Stoic philosopher and was delivered,
according to his own story, from diabolical possession at his
exorcising by the Church before his baptism, when becoming a
Catechumen. Being in peril of death by illness he received clinical
baptism, and was ordained priest without any further sacred rites being
administered to him. During the persecution he constantly refused to
assist his brethren, and afterwards raised his voice against what he
considered their culpable laxity in admitting to penance the lapsed.
Many agreed with him in this, especially of the clergy, and eventually,
in A.D. 251, he induced three bishops to consecrate him, thus
becoming, as Fleury remarks,(1) "the first Anti-Pope." His indignation
was principally spent upon Pope Cornelius, and to overthrow the
prevailing discipline of the Church he ordained bishops and sent them
to different parts of the empire as the disseminators of his error. It is
well to remember that while beginning only as a schismatic, he soon
fell into heresy, denying that the Church had the power to absolve the
lapsed. Although condemned by several councils his sect continued
on, and like the Montanists they rebaptized Catholics who apostatized
to them, and absolutely rejected all second marriages. At the time of
the Council of Nice the Novatian bishop at Constantinople, Acesius,
was greatly esteemed, and although a schismatic, was invited to attend
the council. After having in answer to the emperor's enquiry whether
he was willing to sign the Creed, assured him that he was, he went on
to explain that his separation was because the Church no longer
observed the ancient discipline which forbade that those who had
committed mortal sin should ever be readmitted to communion.
According to the Novatians he might be exhorted to repentance, but
the Church had no power to assure him of forgiveness but must leave
him to the judgment of God. It was then that Constantine said,
"Acesius, take a ladder, and climb up to heaven alone."(2)
ARISTENUS.
If any of them be bishops or chorepiscopi they shall remain in the
same rank, unless perchance in the same city there be found a bishop
of the Catholic Church, ordained before their coming. For in this case
he that was properly bishop from the first shall have the preference,
and he alone shall retain the Episcopal throne. For it is not right that in
the same city there should be two bishops. But he who by the Cathari
was called bishop, shall be honoured as a presbyter, or (if it so please
the bishop), he shall be sharer of the title bishop; but he shall exercise
no episcopal jurisdiction.
Zonaras, Balsamon, Beveridge and Van Espen, are of opinion that
<greek>keiroqetoumenous</greek> does not mean that they are to
receive a new laying on of hands at their reception into the Church,
but that it refers to their already condition of being ordained, the
meaning being that as they have had Novatian ordination they must be
reckoned among the clergy. Dionysius Exiguus takes a different view,
as does also the Prisca version, according to which the
[21]
clergy of the Novatians were to receive a laying on of hands,
<greek>keiroqetoumenous</greek>, but that it was not to be a
reordination. With this interpretation Hefele seems to agree, founding
his opinion upon the fact that the article is wanting before
<greek>keiroqetoumenous</greek>, and that <greek>autous</greek>
is added. Gratian(1) supposes that this eighth canon orders a re-
ordination.
EXCURSUS ON THE CHOREPISCOPI.
There has been much difference of opinion among the learned
touching the status of the Chorepiscopus in the early Church. The
main question in dispute is as to whether they were always,
sometimes, or never, in episcopal orders. Most Anglican writers,
including Beveridge, Hammond, Cave, and Routh, have affirmed the
first proposition, that they were true bishops, but that, out of respect to
the bishop of the City they were forbidden the exercise of certain of
their episcopal functions, except upon extraordinary occasions. With
this view Binterim(2) also agrees, and Augusti is of the same
opinion.(3) But Thomassinus is of a different mind, thinking, so says
Hefele,(4) that there were "two classes of chorepiscopi, of whom the
one were real bishops, while the other had only the title without
consecration."
The third opinion, that they were merely presbyters, is espoused by
Morinus and Du Cange, and others who are named by Bingham.(5)
This last opinion is now all but universally rejected, to the other two
we shall now devote our attention.
For the first opinion no one can speak more learnedly nor more
authoritatively than Arthur West Haddon, who writes as follows;
(Haddon, Dict. Christ. Antiq. s. v. Chorepiscopus.)
The chorepiscopus was called into existence in the latter part of the
third century, and first in Asia Minor, in order to meet the want of
episcopal supervision in the country parts of the now enlarged
dioceses without subdivision. [They are] first mentioned in the
Councils of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea A. D. 314, and again in the
Council of Nice (which is subscribed by fifteen, all from Asia Minor
or Syria). [They became] sufficiently important to require restriction
by the time of the Council of Antioch, A. D. 341; and continued to
exist in the East until at least the ninth century, when they were
supplanted by <greek>exarkoi</greek>. [Chorepiscopi are] first
mentioned in the West in the Council of Riez, A. D. 439 (the Epistles
of Pope Damasus I. and of Leo. M. respecting them being forgeries),
and continued there (but not in Africa, principally in France) until
about the tenth century, after which the name occurs (in a decree of
Pope Damasus II. ap. Sigeb. in an. 1048) as equivalent to archdeacon,
an office from which the Arabic Nicene canons expressly distinguish
it. The functions of chorepiscopi, as well as their name, were of an
episcopal, not of a presbyterial kind, although limited to minor offices.
They overlooked the country district committed to them, "loco
episcopi," ordaining readers, exorcists, subdeacons, but, as a rule, not
deacons or presbyters (and of course not bishops), unless by express
permission of their diocesan bishop. They confirmed in their own
districts, and (in Gaul) are mentioned as consecrating churches (vide
Du Cange). They granted <greek>eirenikai</greek>, or letters
dimissory, which country presbyters were forbidden to do. They had
also the honorary privilege (<greek>timwmenoi</greek>) of assisting
at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the mother city church,
which country presbyters had not (Conc. Ancyr. can. xiii.; Neo-
Caesar. can. xiv.; Antioch, can. x.; St. Basil M. Epist. 181; Rab. Maur.
De Instit. Cler. i. 5, etc. etc.). They were held therefore to have power
of ordination, but to lack jurisdiction, save subordinately. And the
actual ordination of a presbyter by Timotheus, a chorepiscopus, is
recorded (Pallad., Hist. Lausiac. 106).
[22]
In the West, i.e. chiefly in Gaul, the order appears to have prevailed
more widely, to have usurped episcopal functions without due
subordination to the diocesans, and to have been also taken advantage
of by idle or worldly diocesans. In consequence it seems to have
aroused a strong feeling of hostility, which showed itself, first in a
series of papal bulls, condemning them; headed, it is true, by two
forged letters respectively of Damasus I. and Leo. M. (of which the
latter is merely an interpolated version of Conc. Hispal. II. A.D. 619,
can. 7, adding chorepiscopi to presbyteri, of which latter the council
really treats), but continuing in a more genuine form, from Leo III.
down to Pope Nicholas I. (to Rodolph, Archbishop of Bourges, A.D.
864); the last of whom, however, takes the more moderate line of
affirming chorepiscopi to be really bishops, and consequently refusing
to annul their ordinations of presbyters and deacons (as previous popes
had done), but orders them to keep within canonical limits; and
secondly, in a series of conciliar decrees, Conc. Ratispon. A.D. 800, in
Capit. lib. iv. c. 1, Paris. A.D. 829, lib. i.c. 27; Meld. A.D. 845, can.
44; Metens. A.D. 888, can. 8, and Capitul. v. 168, vi. 119, vii. 187,
310, 323, 324, annulling all episcopal acts of chorepiscopi, and
ordering them to be repeated by "true" bishops; and finally forbidding
all further appointments of chorepiscopi at all.
That chorepiscopi as such--i.e. omitting the cases of reconciled or
vacant bishops above mentioned, of whose episcopate of course no
question is made--were at first truly bishops both in East and West,
appears almost certain, both from their name and functions, and even
from the arguments of their strong opponents just spoken of. If nothing
more could be urged against them, than that the Council of Neo-
Caesarea compared them to the Seventy disciples, that the Council of
Antioch authorises their consecration by a single bishop, and that they
actually were so consecrated (the Antiochene decree might mean
merely nomination by the word <greek>ginesqai</greek>, but the
actual history seems to rule the term to intend consecration, and the
[one] exceptional case of a chorepiscopus recorded [Actt. Episc.
Cenoman. ap. Du Cange] in late times to have been ordained by three
bishops [in order that he might be a full bishop] merely proves the
general rule to the contrary)--and that they were consecrated for
"villages," contrary to canon,--then they certainly were bishops. And
Pope Nicholas expressly says that they were so. Undoubtedly they
ceased to be so in the East, and were practically merged in
archdeacons in the West.
For the second opinion, its great champion, Thomassinus shall speak.
(Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Eglise, Tom. I.
Livre II. chap 1. iii.)
The chorepiscopi were not duly consecrated bishops, unless some
bishop had consecrated a bishop for a town and the bishop thus
ordained contrary to the canons was tolerated on condition of his
submitting himself to the diocesan as though he were only a
chorepiscopus. This may be gathered from the fifty-seventh canon of
Laodicea.
From this canon two conclusions may be drawn, 1st. That bishops
ought not to be ordained for villages, and that as Chorepiscopi could
only be placed in villages they could not be bishops. 2d. That
sometimes by accident a chorepiscopus might be a bishop, but only
through having been canonically lowered to that rank.
The Council of Nice furnishes another example of a bishop lowered to
the rank of a chorepiscopus in Canon viii. This canon shows that they
should not have been bishops, for two bishops could never be in a
diocese, although this might accidentally be the case when a
chorepiscopus happened to be a bishop.
This is the meaning which must be given to the tenth canon of
Antioch, which directs that chorepiscopi, even if they have received
episcopal orders, and have been consecrated bishops, shall keep within
the limits prescribed by the canon; that in cases of necessity, they
ordain
[23]
the lower clergy; but that they be careful not to ordain priests or
deacons, because this power is absolutely reserved to the Diocesan. It
must be added that as the council of Antioch commands that the
Diocesan without any other bishop can ordain the chorepiscopus, the
position can no longer be sustained that the chorepiscopi were
bishops, such a method of consecreting a bishop being contrary to
canon xix. of the same council, moreover the canon does not say the
chorepiscopus is to be ordained, but uses the word
<greek>genesqai</greek> by the bishop of the city (canon x.). The
Council of Neocaesarea by referring them to the seventy disciples (in
Canon XIV.) has shown the chorepiscopi to be only priests.
But the Council of Ancyra does furnish a difficulty, for the text seems
to permit chorepiscopi to ordain priests. But the Greek text must be
corrected by the ancient Latin versions. The letter attributed to pope
Nicholas, A.D. 864, must be considered a forgery since he recognises
the chorepiscopi as real bishops.
If Harmenopulus, Aristenus, Balsamon, and Zonaras seem to accord to
the chorepiscopi the power to ordain priests and deacons with the
permission of the Diocesan, it is because they are explaining the
meaning and setting forth the practice of the ancient councils and not
the practice of their own times. But at all events it is past all doubt that
before the seventh century there were, by different accidents,
chorepiscopi who were really bishops and that these could, with the
consent of the diocesan, ordain priests. But at the time these authors
wrote, there was not a single chorepiscopus in the entire East, as
Balsamon frankly admits in commenting on Canon xiii. of Ancyra.
Whether in the foregoing the reader will think Thomassinus has
proved his point, I do not know, but so far as the position of the
chorepiscopi in synods is concerned there can be no doubt whatever,
and I shall allow Hefele to speak on this point.
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I. pp. 17, 18.)
The Chorepiscopi (<greek>kwrepiskopoi</greek>), or bishops of
country places, seem to have been considered in ancient times as quite
on a par with the other bishops, as far as their position in synod was
concerned. We meet with them at the Councils of Neocaesarea in the
year 314, of Nicaea in 325, of Ephesus in 431. On the other hand,
among the 600 bishops of the fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon
in 451, there is no chorepiscopus present, for by this time the office
had been abolished; but in the Middle Ages we again meet with
chorepiscopi of a new kind at Western councils, particularly at those of
the French Church, at Langres in 830, at Mayence in 847, at Pontion
in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871.
CANON IX.
IF any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon
examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in
violation of the canon have laid hands upon them, notwithstanding
their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic
Church requires that [only] which is blameless.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX.
Whoever are ordained without examination, shall be deposed if it be
found out afterwards that they had been guilty.
HEFELE.
The crimes in question are those which were a bar to the priesthood--
such as blasphemy, bigamy, heresy, idolatry, magic, etc.--as the
Arabic paraphrase of Joseph explains. It is clear that these faults are
punishable in the bishop no less than in the priest, and that
consequently our canon refers to the bishops as well as to the
<greek>presbuteroi</greek> in the more restricted sense. These words
of the Greek text, "In the case in which any one might be
[24]
induced, in opposition to the canon, to ordain such persons," allude to
the ninth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea. It was necessary to pass
such ordinances; for even in the fifth century, as the twenty-second
letter to Pope Innocent the First testifies, some held that as baptism
effaces all former sins, so it takes away all the impedimenta
ordinationis which are the results of those sins.
BALSAMON.
Some say that as baptism makes the baptized person a new man, so
ordination takes away the sins committed before ordination, which
opinion does not seem to agree with the canons.
This canon occurs twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum Pars
I. Dist. xxiv. c. vij., and Dist. lxxxj., c. iv.
CANON X.
IF any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or
even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not
prejudice the canon of the Church for when they are discovered they
shall be deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X.
Whoso had lapsed are to be deposed whether those who ordained and
promoted them did so conscious of their guilt or unknowing of it.
HEFELE.
The tenth canon differs from the ninth, inasmuch as it concerns only
the lapsi and their elevation, not only to the priesthood, but to any
other ecclesiastical preferment as well, and requires their deposition.
The punishment of a bishop who should consciously perform such an
ordination is not mentioned; but it is incontestable that the lapsi could
not be ordained, even after having performed penance; for, as the
preceding canon states, the Church requires those who were faultless.
It is to be observed that the word <greek>prokeirizein</greek> is
evidently employed here in the sense of "ordain," and is used without
any distinction from <greek>keirizein</greek>, whilst in the synodal
letter of the Council of Nicaea on the subject of the Meletians, there is
a distinction between these two words, and
<greek>prokeirizein</greek> is used to signify eliger.
This canon is found in Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum. Pars I. Dist.
lxxxi. c.v.
CANON XI.
CONCERNING those who have fallen without compulsion, without
the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened
during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they
have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As
many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three
years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and
for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but
without oblation.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI.
As many as fell without necessity, even if therefore undeserving of
indulgence, yet some indulgence shall be shown them and they shall
be prostrators for twelve years.
On the expression "without oblation" (<greek>kwris</greek>
<greek>prosforas</greek>) see the notes to Ancyra, Canon V. where
the matter is treated at some length.
LAMBERT.
The usual position of the hearers was just inside the church door. But
Zonaras (and Balsamon agrees with him), in his comment on this
canon, says, "they are ordered for three years to be hearers, or to stand
without the church in the narthex."
I have read "as many as were communicants" (<greek>oi</greek>
<greek>pistoi</greek>) thus following Dr. Routh.
[25]
Vide his Opuscula. Caranza translates in his Summary of the Councils
"if they were faithful" and seems to have read <greek>ei</greek>
<greek>pistoi</greek>, which is much simpler and makes better
sense.
ZONARAS.
The prostrators stood within the body of the church behind the ambo
[i.e. the reading desk] and went out with the catechumens.
EXCURSUS ON THE PUBLIC DISCIPLINE OR EXOMOLOGESIS
OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
(Taken chiefly from Morinus, De Disciplina in Administratione
Sacramenti Poenitentioe; Bingham, Antiquities; and Hammond, The
Definitions of Faith, etc. Note to Canon XI. of Nice.)
"In the Primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that at the
beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin
were put to open penance, and punished in this world that their souls
might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by
their example, might be the more afraid to offend."
The foregoing words from the Commination Service of the Church of
England may serve well to introduce this subject. In the history of the
public administration of discipline in the Church, there are three
periods sufficiently distinctly marked. The first of these ends at the
rise of Novatianism in the middle of the second century; the second
stretches down to about the eighth century; and the third period shews
its gradual decline to its practical abandonment in the eleventh
century. The period with which we are concerned is the second, when
it was in full force.
In the first period it would seem that public penance was required only
of those convicted of what then were called by pre-eminence "mortal
sins" (crimena mortalia(1)), viz: idolatry, murder, and adultery. But in
the second period the list of mortal sins was greatly enlarged, and
Morinus says that "Many Fathers who wrote after Augustine's time,
extended the necessity of public penance to all crimes which the civil
law punished with death, exile, or other grave corporal penalty."(2) In
the penitential canons ascribed to St. Basil and those which pass by
the name of St. Gregory Nyssen, this increase of offences requiring
public penance will be found intimated.
From the fourth century the penitents of the Church were divided into
four classes. Three of these are mentioned in the eleventh canon, the
fourth, which is not here referred to, was composed of those styled
<greek>sugklaiontes</greek>, flentes or weepers. These were not
allowed to enter into the body of the church at all, but stood or lay
outside the gates, sometimes covered with sackcloth and ashes. This is
the class which is sometimes styled <greek>keimozomenoi</greek>,
hybernantes, on account of their being obliged to endure the
inclemency of the weather.
It may help to the better understanding of this and other canons which
notice the different orders of penitents, to give a brief account of the
usual form and arrangement of the ancient churches as well as of the
different orders of the penitents.
Before the church there was commonly either an open area surrounded
with porticoes, called <greek>mesaulion</greek> or atrium, with a
font of water in the centre, styled a cantharus or phiala, or sometimes
only an open portico, or <greek>propulaion</greek>. The first variety
may still be seen at S. Ambrogio's in Milan, and the latter in Rome at
S. Lorenzo's, and in Ravenna at the two S. Apollinares. This was the
place at which the first and lowest order of penitents, the weepers,
already referred to, stood exposed to the weather. Of these, St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus says: "Weeping takes place outside the door of the
church, where the sinner must stand and beg the prayers of the faithful
as they go in."
The church itself usually consisted of three divisions within, besides
these exterior courts
[26]
and porch. The first part after passing through "the great gates," or
doors of the building, was called the Narthex in Greek, and Faerula in
Latin, and was a narrow vestibule extending the whole width of the
church. In this part, to which Jews and Gentiles, and in most places
even heretics and schismatics were admitted, stood the Catechumens,
and the Energumens or those afflicted with evil spirits, and the second
class of penitents (the first mentioned in the Canon), who were called
the <greek>akowmenoi</greek>, audientes, or hearers. These were
allowed to hear the Scriptures read, and the Sermon preached, but
were obliged to depart before the celebration of the Divine Mysteries,
with the Catechumens, and the others who went by the general name
of hearers only.
The second division, or main body of the church, was called the Naos
or Nave. This was separated from the Narthex by rails of wood, with
gates in the centre, which were called "the beautiful or royal gates." In
the middle of the Nave, but rather toward the lower or entrance part of
it, stood the Ambo, or reading-desk, the place for the readers and
singers, to which they went up by steps, whence the name, Ambo.
Before coming to the Ambo, in the lowest part of the Nave, and just
after passing the royal gates, was the place for the third order of
penitents, called in Greek <greek>gonuklinontes</greek>, or
<greek>upopiptontes</greek>,and in Latin Genuflectentes or
Prostrati, i.e., kneelers or prostrators, because they were allowed to
remain and join in certain prayers particularly made for them. Before
going out they prostrated themselves to receive the imposition of the
bishop's hands with prayer. This class of penitents left with the
Catechumens.
In the other parts of the Nave stood the believers or faithful, i.e., those
persons wire were in full communion with the Church, the men and
women generally on opposite sides, though in some places the men
were below, and the women in galleries above. Amongst these were
the fourth class of penitents, who were called
<greek>sunestwtes</greek>, consistentes, i.e., co-standers, because
they were allowed to stand with the faithful, and to remain and hear
the prayers of the Church, after the Catechumens and the other
penitents were dismissed, and to be present while the faithful offered
and communicated, though they might not themselves make their
offerings, nor partake of the Holy Communion. This class of penitents
are frequently mentioned in the canons, as "communicating in
prayers," or "without the oblation;" and it was the last grade to be
passed through previous to the being admitted again to full
communion. The practice of "hearing mass" or "non-communicating
attendance" clearly had its origin in this stage of discipline. At the
upper end of the body of the church, and divided from it by rails which
were called Cancelli, was that part which we now call the Chancel.
This was anciently called by several names, as Bema or tribunal, from
its being raised above the body of the church, and Sacrarium or
Sanctuary. It was also called Apsis and Concha Bematis, from its
semicircular end. In this part stood the Altar, or Holy Table (which
names were indifferently used in the primitive Church), behind which,
and against the wall of the chancel, was the Bishop's throne, with the
seats of the Presbyters on each side of it, called synthronus. On one
side of the chancel was the repository for the sacred utensils and
vestments, called the Diaconicum, and answering to our Vestry; and
on the other the Prothesis, a side-table, or place, where the bread and
wine were deposited before they were offered on the Altar. The gates
in the chancel rail were called the holy gates, and none but the higher
orders of the clergy, i.e., Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were allowed
to enter within them. The Emperor indeed was permitted to do so for
the purpose of making his offering at the Altar, but then he was
obliged to retire immediately, and to receive the communion without.
[27]
(Thomassin. Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Eglise. Tom. I.
Livre II. chap. xvj. somewhat abridged.)
In the West there existed always many cases of public penance, but in
the East it is more difficult to find any traces of it, after it was
abolished by the Patriarch Nectarius in the person of the Grand
Penitentiary.
However, the Emperor Alexis Comnenus, who took the empire in the
year 1080, did a penance like that of older days, and one which may
well pass for miraculous. He called together a large number of bishops
with the patriarch, and some holy religious; be presented himself
before them in the garb of a criminal; he confessed to them his crime
of usurpation with all its circumstances. They condemned the Emperor
and all his accomplices to fasting, to lying prostrate upon the earth, to
wearing haircloth, and to all the other ordinary austerities of penance.
Their wives desired to share their griefs and their sufferings, although
they had had no share in their crime. The whole palace became a
theatre of sorrow and public penance. The emperor wore the hairshirt
under the purple, and lay upon the earth for forty days, having only a
stone for a pillow.
To all practical purposes Public Penance was a general institution but
for a short while in the Church. But the reader must be careful to
distinguish between this Public Penance and the private confession
which in the Catholic Church both East and West is universally
practised. What Nectarius did was to abolish the office of Penitentiary,
whose duty it had been to assign public penance for secret sin;(1) a
thing wholly different from what Catholics understand by the
"Sacrament of Penance." It would be out of place to do more in this
place than to call the reader's attention to the bare fact, and to supply
him, from a Roman Catholic point of view, with an explanation of why
Public Penance died out. "It came to an end because it was of human
institution. But sacramental confession, being of divine origin, lasted
when the penitential discipline had been changed, and continues to
this day among the Greeks and Oriental sects."(2) That the reader may
judge of the absolute can-dour of the writer just quoted, I give a few
sentences from the same article: "An opinion, however, did prevail to
some extent in the middle ages, even among Catholics, that confession
to God alone sufficed. The Council of Chalons in 813 (canon xxxiij.),
says: 'Some assert that we should confess our sins to God alone, but
some think that they should be confessed to the priest, each of which
practices is followed not without great fruit in Holy Church. ...
Confession made to God purges sins, but that made to the priest
teaches how they are to be purged.' This former opinion is also
mentioned without reprobation by Peter Lombard (In Sentent. Lib. iv.
dist. xvij.)."
CANON XII.
As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having
cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to
their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts
regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the
space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all
these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what
their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of
their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and
perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their
appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and
after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning
them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who
think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their
conversion, must fulfil the whole time.
[28]
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XII.
Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who
afterwards yielded go wickedness, and returned to the army, shall be
excommunicated for ten years. But in every case the way in which
they do their penance must be scrutinized. And if anyone who is doing
penance shews himself zealous in its performance, the bishop shall
treat him more lentently than had he been cold and indifferent.
LAMBERT.
The abuse of this power, namely, of granting under certain
circumstances a relaxation in the penitential exercises enjoined by the
canons--led, in later times, to the practice of commuting such
exercises for money payments, etc.
In his last contests with Constantine, Licinius had made himself the
representative of heathenism; so that the final issue of the war would
not be the mere triumph of one of the two competitors, but the triumph
or fall of Christianity or heathenism. Accordingly, a Christian who had
in this war supported the cause of Licinius and of heathenism might be
considered as a lapsus, even if he did not formally fall away. With
much more reason might those Christians be treated as lapsi who,
having conscientiously given up military service (this is meant by the
soldier's belt), afterwards retracted their resolution, and went so far as
to give money and presents for the sake of readmission, on account of
the numerous advantages which military service then afforded. It must
not be forgotten that Licinius, as Zonaras and Eusebius relate, required
from his soldiers a formal apostasy; compelled them, for example, to
take part in the heathen sacrifices which were held in the camps, and
dismissed from his service those who would not apostatize.
BRIGHT.
This canon (which in the Prisca and the Isidorian version stands as
part of canon 11) deals, like it, with cases which had arisen under the
Eastern reign of Licinius, who having resolved to "purge his army of
all ardent Christians" (Mason, Persec. of Diocl. p. 308), ordered his
Christian officers to sacrifice to the gods on pain of being cashiered
(compare Euseb. H. E. x. 8; Vit. Con. i. 54). It is to be observed here
that military life as such was not deemed unchristian. The case of
Cornelius was borne in mind. "We serve in your armies," says
Tertullian, Apol. 42 (although later, as a Montanist, he took a rigorist
and fanatical view, De Cor. 11), and compare the fact which underlies
the tale of the "Thundering Legion,"--the presence of Christians in the
army of Marcus Aurelius. It was the heathenish adjuncts to their
calling which often brought Christian soldiers to a stand (see Routh.
Scr. Opusc. i. 410), as when Marinus' succession to a centurionship
was challenged on the ground that he could not sacrifice to the gods
(Euseb. H. E. vii. 15). Sometimes, indeed, individual Christians
thought like Maximilian in the Martyrology, who absolutely refused to
enlist, and on being told by the proconsul that there were Christian
soldiers in the imperial service, answered, "Ipsi sciunt quod ipsis
expediat" (Ruinart, Act. Sanc. p. 341). But, says Bingham (Antiq. xi.
5, 10), "the ancient canons did not condemn the military life as a
vocation simply unlawful. ... I believe there is no instance of any man
being refused baptism merely because he was a soldier, unless some
unlawful circumstance, such as idolatry, or the like, made the vocation
sinful." After the victory of Constantine in the West, the Council of
Aries excommunicated those who in time of peace "threw away their
arms" (can. 2). In the case before us, some Christian officers had at
first stood firm under the trial imposed on them by Licinius. They had
been "called by grace" to an act of self-sacrifice (the phrase is one
which St. Augustine might have used); and had shown "their
eagerness at the outset" ("primum suum ardorem," Dionysius; Philo
and Evarestus more laxly, "primordia bona;" compare
<greek>thn</greek> <greek>agaphn</greek> <greek>sou</greek>
<greek>thn</greek> <greek>prwthn</greek>, Rev. ii. 4). Observe
here how beautifully the ideas of grace and free will are harmonized.
These men had responded to a Divine impulse: it might seem that they
had committed themselves to a noble course: they had cast aside the
"belts" which were their badge of office (compare the cases of
Valentinian and Valens, Soc. iii. 13, and of Benevoins throwing down
his belt at the feet of Justina, Soz. vii. 13). They had done, in fact, just
what Auxentius, one of Licinius' notaries, had done when, according
to the graphic anecdote of Philostorgius (Fragm. 5), his master bade
him place a bunch of grapes before a statue of Bacchus in the palace-
court; but their zeal, unlike his, proved to be too impulsive--they
reconsidered their position, and
[29]
illustrated the maxim that in morals second thoughts are not best
(Butler, Serm. 7), by making unworthy attempts--in some cases by
bribery--to recover what they had worthily resigned. (Observe the
Grecised Latinism <greek>benefikiois</greek> and compare the
Latinisms of St. Mark, and others in Euseb. iii. 20, vi. 40, x. 5.) This
the Council describes in proverbial language, probably borrowed from
2 Pet. ii. 22, but, it is needless to say, without intending to censure
enlistment as such. They now desired to be received to penance:
accordingly they were ordered to spend three years as Hearers, during
which time "their purpose, and the nature (<greek>eidos</greek>) of
their repentance" were to be carefully "examined." Again we see the
earnest resolution of the Council to make discipline a moral reality,
and to prevent it from being turned into a formal routine; to secure, as
Rufinus' abridgment expresses it, a repentance "fructuosam et
attentam." If the penitents were found to have "manifested their
conversion by deeds, and not in outward show
(<greek>skhmati</greek>), by awe, and tears, and patience, and good
works" (such, for instance, Zonaras comments, as almsgiving
according to ability), "it would be then reasonable to admit them to a
participation in the prayers," to the position of Consistentes, "with
permission also to the bishop to come to a yet more indulgent
resolution concerning them," by admitting them to full communion.
This discretionary power of the bishop to dispense with part of a
penance-time is recognized in the fifth canon of Ancyra and the
sixteenth of Chalcedon, and mentioned by Basil, Epist. 217, c. 74. It
was the basis of "indulgences "in their original form (Bingham, xviii.
4, 9). But it was too possible that some at least of these "lapsi" might
take the whole affair lightly, "with indifference"
<greek>adiakorws</greek>-not seriously enough, as Hervetas renders-
-just as if, in common parlance, it did not signify: the fourth Ancyrene
canon speaks of lapsi who partook of the idol-feast
<greek>adiakorws</greek> as if it involved them in no sin (see below
on Eph. 5, Chalc. 4). It was possible that they might "deem" the
outward form of "entering the church" to stand in the narthex among
the Hearers (here, as in c. 8, 19, <greek>skhma</greek> denotes an
external visible fact) sufficient to entitle them to the character of
converted penitents, while their conduct out of church was utterly
lacking in seriousness and self-humiliation. In that case there could be
no question of shortening their penance, time, for they were not in a
state to benefit by indulgence: it would be, as the Roman Presbyters
wrote to Cyprian, and as he himself wrote to his own church, a "mere
covering over of the wound" (Epist. 30, 3), an "injury" rather than "a
kindness" (De Lapsis, 16); they must therefore "by all means" go
through ten years as Kneelers, before they can become Consistentes.
There is great difficulty about the last phrase and Gelasius of Cyzicus,
the Prisca, Dionysius Exiguus, the pseudo-Isidore, Zonaras and most
others have considered the "not" an interpolation. I do not see how
dropping the "not" makes the meaning materially clearer.
CANON XIII.
CONCERNING the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be
maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must
not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if
any one should be restored to health again who has received the
communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among
those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the
case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist,
let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII.
The dying are to be communicated. But if any such get well, he must
be placed in the number of those who share in the prayers, and with
these only.
VAN ESPEN.
It cannot be denied that antiquity used the name "Viaticum "not only
to denote the Eucharist which was given to the dying, but also to
denote the reconciliation, and imposition of penance, and in general,
everything that could be conducive to the happy death of the person
concerned, and this has been shown by Aubespine (lib. 1, Obs. cap.
ii.). But while this is so, the more usual sense of the word is the
Eucharist. For this cannot be denied that the faithful of the first ages of
the Church looked upon the Eucharist as the complement of Christian
perfection, and as the last seal of
[30]
hope and salvation. It was for tiffs reason that at the beginning of life,
after baptism and confirmation, the Eucharist was given even to
infants, and at the close of life the Eucharist followed reconciliation
and extreme unction, so that properly and literally it could be styled
"the last Viaticum." Moreover for penitents it was considered
especially necessary that through it they might return to the peace of
the Church; for perfect peace is given by that very communion of the
Eucharist. [A number of instances are then cited, and various ancient
versions of the canon.] Balsamon and Zonaras also understand the
canon as I have done, as is evident from their commentaries, and so
did Josephus AEgyptius, who in his Arabic Paraphrase gives the
canon this title: "Concerning him who is excommunicated and has
committed some deadly sin, and desires the Eucharist to be granted to
him."
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian, Decretum
Pars. II. causa xxvi, Quaes. VI., c. ix.
EXCURSUS ON THE COMMUNION OF THE SICK.
There is nothing upon which the ancient church more strenuously
insisted than the oral reception of the Holy Communion. What in later
times was known as "Spiritual Communion" was outside of the view
of those early days; and to them the issues of eternity were considered
often to rest upon the sick man's receiving with his mouth "his food for
the journey," the Viaticum, before he died. No greater proof of how
important this matter was deemed could be found than the present
canon, which provides that even the stern and invariable canons of the
public penance are to give way before the awful necessity of fortifying
the soul in the last hour of its earthly sojourn.
Possibly at first the Italy Sacrament may have been consecrated in the
presence of the sick person, but of this in early times the instances are
rare and by was considered a marked favour that such a thing should
be allowed, and the saying of mass in private houses was prohibited
(as it is in the Eastern and Latin churches still to-day) with the greatest
The necessity of having the consecrated bread and wine for the sick
led to their reservation, a practice which has existed in the Church
from the very beginning, so far as any records of which we are in
possession shew.
St. Justin Martyr, writing less than a half century after St. John's death,
mentions that "the deacons communicate each of those present, and
carry away to the absent the blest bread, and wine and water."(1) It
was evidently a long established custom in his day.
Tertullian tells us of a woman whose husband was a heathen and who
was allowed to keep the Holy Sacrament in her house that she might
receive every morning before other food. St. Cyprian also gives a most
interesting example of reservation. In his treatise "On the Lapsed"
written in A.D. 251, (chapter xxvi), he says: "Another woman, when
she tried with unworthy hands to open her box, in which was the Holy
of the Lord, was deterred from daring to touch it by fire rising from it."
It is impossible with any accuracy to fix the date, but certainly before
the year four hundred, a perpetual reservation for the sick was made in
the churches. A most interesting incidental proof of this is found in the
thrilling description given by St. Chrysostom of the great riot in
Constantinople in the year 403, when the soldiers "burst into the place
where the Holy Things were stored, and saw all things therein," and
"the most holy blood of Christ was spilled upon their clothes."(2) From
this incident it is evident that in that church the Holy Sacrament was
reserved in both kinds, and separately.
Whether this at the time was usual it is hard to say, but there can be no
doubt that even in the earliest times the Sacrament was given, on rare
occasions at least, in one kind,
[31]
sometimes under the form of bread alone, and when the sick persons
could not swallow under the form of wine alone. The practice called
"intinction," that is the dipping of the bread into the wine and
administering the two species together, was of very early introduction
and still is universal in the East, not only when Communion is given
with the reserved Sacrament, but also when the people are
communicated in the Liturgy from the newly consecrated species. The
first mention of intinction in the West, is at Carthage in the fifth
century.(1) We know it was practised in the seventh century and by
the twelfth it had become general, to give place to the withdrawal of
the chalice altogether in the West.(2) "Regino(De Eccles. Discip. Lib.
I. c. lxx.) in 906, Burchard(Decr. Lib. V. cap. ix. fol. 95. colon. 1560.)
in 996, and Ivo(Decr. Pars. II. cap. xix. p. 56, Paris 1647) in 1092 all
cite a Canon, which they ascribe to a council of Tours ordering 'every
presbyter to have a pyx or vessel meet for so great a sacrament, in
which the Body of the Lord may be carefully laid up for the Viaticum
to those departing from this world, which sacred oblation ought to be
steeped in the Blood of Christ that the presbyter may be able to say
truthfully to the sick man, The Body and Blood of the Lord avail thee,
etc.'"(3)
The reservation of the Holy Sacrament was usually made in the church
itself, and the learned W. E. Scudamore is of opinion that this was the
case in Africa as early as the fourth century.(4)
It will not be uninteresting to quote in this connection the "Apostolic
Constitutions," for while indeed there is much doubt of the date of the
Eighth Book, yet it is certainly of great antiquity. Here we read, "and
after the communion of both men and women, the deacons take what
remains and place it in the tabernacle."(5)
Perhaps it may not be amiss before closing the remark that so far as we
are aware the reservation of the Holy Sacrament in the early church
was only for the purposes of communion, and that the churches of the
East reserve it to the present day only for this purpose.
Those who wish to read the matter treated of more at length, can do so
in Muratorius's learned "Dissertations" which are prefixed to his
edition of the Roman Sacramentaries(chapter XXIV) and in
Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, a work which can be absolutely
relied upon for the accuracy of its facts, however little one may feel
constrained to accept the logical justness of its conclusions.
CANON XIV.
CONCERNING catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great
Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as
hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV.
If any of the catechumens shall have fallen for three years he shall be a
hearer only, and then let him pray with the catechumens.
JUSTELLUS.
The people formerly were divided into three classes in the church, for
there were catechumens, faithful, and penitents; but it is clear from the
present canon there were two kinds of catechumens: one consisting of
those who heard the Word of God, and wished to become Christians,
but had not yet desired baptism; these were called "hearers." Others
who were of long standing, and were properly trained in the faith, and
desired baptism--these were called "competentes."
[32]
There is difference of opinion among the learned as to whether there
was not a third or even a fourth class of catechumens. Bingham and
Card. Bona, while not agreeing in particular points, agree in affirming
that there were more than two classes. Bingham's first class are those
not allowed to enter the church, the <greek>exwqoumenoi</greek>,
but the affirmation of the existence of such a class rests only on a very
forced explanation of canon five of Neocaesarea. The second class, the
hearers, audientes, rests on better evidence. These were not allowed to
stay while the Holy Mysteries were celebrated, and their expulsion
gave rise to the distinction between the "Mass of the
Catechumens"(Missa Catechumenorum) and the "Mass of the
Faithful"(Missa Fidelium). Nor were they suffered to hear the Creed or
the Our Father. Writers who multiply the classes insert here some who
knelt and prayed, called Prostrati or Genuflectentes(the same name as
was given to one of the grades of penitence). (Edw. H. Plumptre in
Dict. Christ. Antiq. s. v. Catechumens.)
After these stages had been traversed each with its appropriate
instruction, the catechumens gave in their names as applicants for
baptism, and were known accordingly as Competentes
<greek>sunaitountes</greek>. This was done commonly at the
beginning of the Quadragesimal fast, and the instruction, carried on
through the whole of that period, was fuller and more public in its
nature (Cyril Hieros. Catech. i. 5; Hieron. Ep. 61, ad Pammach. c. 4:).
To catechumens in this stage the great articles of the Creed, the nature
of the Sacraments, the penitential discipline of the Church, were
explained, as in the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, with
dogmatic precision. Special examinations and inquiries into character
were made at intervals during the forty days. It was a time for fasting
and watching and prayer(Constt. Apost. viii. 5; 4 C. Carth. c. 85;
Tertull. De Bapt. c. 20; Cyril. 1. c.) and, in the case of those who were
married, of the strictest continence(August. De fide et oper. v. 8).
Those who passed through the ordeal were known as the perfectiores
<greek>teleiwterot</greek>the electi, or in the nomenclature of the
Eastern Church as <greek>baptizomenoi</greek> or
<greek>fwtizowenoi</greek>, the present participle being used of
course with a future or gerundial sense. Their names were inscribed as
such in the album or register of the church. They were taught, but not
till a few days before their baptism, the Creed and the Lord's Prayer
which they were to use after it. The periods for this registration varied,
naturally enough, in different churches. At Jerusalem it was done on
the second(Cyril. Catech. iii.), in Africa on the fourth Sunday in
Lent(August. Serm. 213), and this was the time at which the
candidate, if so disposed, might lay aside his old heathen or Jewish
name and take one more specifically Christian(Socrat. H. E. vii. 21). . .
.It is only necessary to notice here that the Sacramentum
Catechumenorum of which Augustine speaks(De Peccat. Merit. ii. 26)
as given apparently at or about the time of their first admission by
imposition of hands, was probably the
<greek>eul</greek><s228<greek>giai</greek> or panis benedictus,
and not, as Bingham and Augusta maintain, the salt which was given
with milk and honey after baptism.
CANON XV.
ON account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is
decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the
Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter,
nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this
decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or
continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and
he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or
presbyter.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV.
Neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. But
they shall be sent back, should they attempt to do so, to the Churches
in which they were ordained.
HEFELE.
The translation of a bishop, priest, or deacon from one church to
another, had already been forbidden in the primitive Church.
Nevertheless, several translations had taken place, and even at the
Council of Nice several eminent men were present who had left their
first bishoprics to take others: thus Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia,
had been before Bishop of Berytus; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, had
been before Bishop of Berrhoea in Syria. The Council of Nice thought
it necessary to
[33]
forbid in future these translations, and to declare them invalid. The
chief reason of this prohibition was found in the irregularities and
disputes occasioned by such change of sees; but even if such practical
difficulties had not arisen, the whole doctrinal idea, so to speak, of the
relationship between a cleric and the church to which he had been
ordained, namely, the contracting of a mystical marriage between
them, would be opposed to any translation or change. In 341 the
Synod of Antioch renewed, in its twenty-first canon, the prohibition
passed by the Council of Nice; but the interest of the Church often
rendered it necessary to make exceptions, as happened in the case of
St. Chrysostom. These exceptional cases increased almost
immediately after the holding of the Council of Nice, so that in 382,
St. Gregory of Nazianzum considered this law among those which had
long been abrogated by custom. It was more strictly observed in the
Latin Church; and even Gregory's contemporary, Pope Damasus,
declared himself decidedly in favour of the rule of Nice.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars II.
Causa VII, Q. 1, c. xix.
EXCURSUS ON THE TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS.
There are few points upon which the discipline of the Church has so
completely changed as that which regulated, or rather which forbade,
the translation of a bishop from the see for which he was consecrated
to some other diocese. The grounds on which such prohibition rested
were usually that such changes were the outcome of ambition, and that
if tolerated the result would be that smaller and less important sees
would be despised, and that there would be a constant temptation to
the bishops of such sees to make themselves popular with the
important persons in other dioceses with the hope of promotion.
Besides this objection to translation, St. Athanasius mentions a
spiritual one, that the diocese was the bishop's bride, and that to desert
it and take another was an act of unjustifiable divorce, and subsequent
adultery.(1) Canon XIV. of the Apostolic Canons does not forbid the
practice absolutely, but allows it for just cause, and although the
Council of Nice is more stringent so far as its words are concerned,
apparently forbidding translation under any circumstances, yet, as a
matter of fact, that very council did allow and approve a translation.(2)
The general feeling, however, of the early Church was certainly very
strong against all such changes of Episcopal cure, and there can be no
doubt that the chief reason why St. Gregory Nazianzen resigned the
Presidency of the First Council of Constantinople, was because he had
been translated from his obscure see Sasima(not Nazianzum as
Socrates and Jerome say) to the Imperial City.(3)
From the canons of some provincial councils, and especially from
those of the Third and of the Fourth Council of Carthage, it is evident
that despite the conciliar and papal prohibitions, translations did take
place, being made by the authority of the provincial Synods, and
without the consent of the pope,(4) but it is also evident that this
authority was too weak, and that the aid of the secular power had often
to be invoked.
This course, of having the matter decided by the synod, was exactly in
accordance with the Apostolic Canon(no. xiv.). In this manner, for
example, Alexander was translated from Cappadocia to Jerusalem, a
translation made, so it is narrated, in obedience to heavenly revelation.
It will be noticed that the Nicene Canon does not forbid Provincial
Councils to translate
[34]
bishops, but forbids bishops to translate themselves, and the author of
the tract De Translationibus in the Jus Orient.(i. 293, Cit. Haddon. Art.
"Bishop," Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Chr. Antiq.) sums up the matter
tersely in the statement that <greek>h</greek>
<greek>metabasis</greek>
<greek>kekwlutak</greek>,<greek>ou</greek> <greek>mhn</greek>
<greek>h</greek> <greek>metaqesis</greek>: i.e., the thing
prohibited is "transmigration"(which arises from the bishop himself,
from selfish motives) not "translation"(wherein the will of God and the
good of the Church is the ruling cause); the "going," not the "being
taken" to another see. And this was the practice both of East and West,
for many centuries. Roman Catholic writers have tried to prove that
translations, at least to the chief sees, required the papal consent, but
Thomassinus, considering the case of St. Meletius having translated
St. Gregory of Nazianzum to Constantinople, admits that in so doing
he "would only have followed the example of many great bishops of
the first ages, when usage had not yet reserved translations to the first
see of the Church."(1)
But the same learned author frankly confesses that in France, Spain,
and England, translations were made until the ninth century without
consulting the pope at all, by bishops and kings. When, however, from
grounds of simple ambition, Anthimus was translated from Trebizonde
to Constantinople, the religious of the city wrote to the pope, as also
did the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, and as a result the
Emperor Justinian allowed Anthimus to be deposed.(2)
Balsamon distinguishes three kinds of translations. The first, when a
bishop of marked learning and of equal piety is forced by a council to
pass from a small diocese to one far greater where he will be able to do
the Church the most important services, as was the case when St.
Gregory of Nazianzum was transferred from Sasima to Constantinople,
<greek>?eta</greek>,s215><greek>esis</greek>; the second when a
bishop, whose see has been laid low by the barbarians, is transferred to
another see which is vacant, <greek>metabasis</greek>; and the third
when a bishop, either having or lacking a see, seizes on a bishopric
which is vacant, on his own proper authority
<greek>anabasis</greek>it is this last which the Council of Sardica
punishes so severely. In all these remarks of Balsamon there is no
mention of the imperial power.
Demetrius Chomatenus, however, who was Archbishop of
Thessalonica, and wrote a series of answers to Cabasilas, Archbishop
of Durazzo, says that by the command of the Emperor a bishop,
elected and confirmed, and even ready to be ordained for a diocese,
may be forced to take the charge of another one which is more
important, and where his services will be incomparably more useful to
the public. Thus we read in the Book of Eastern Law that "If a
Metropolitan with his synod, moved by a praiseworthy cause and
probable pretext, shall give his approbation to the translation of a
bishop, this can, without doubt, be done, for the good of souls and for
the better administration of the church's affairs, etc."(3) This was
adopted at a synod held by the patriarch Manuel at Constantinople, in
the presence of the imperial commissioners.
The same thing appears also in the synodal response of the patriarch
Michael, which only demands for translation the authority of the
Metropolitan and "the greatest authority of the Church."(4) But, soon
after this, translation became the rule, and not the exception both in
East and West.
It was in vain that Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the East
raised his voice against the constant translations made by the secular
power, and the Emperors of Constantinople were often absolute
masters of the choice and translations of bishops; and Thomassinus
sums up the matter, "At the least we are forced to the conclusion that
no translations could
[35]
be made without the consent of the Emperor, especially when it was
the See of Constantinople that was to be filled."
The same learned writer continues: "It was usually the bishop or
archbishop of another church that was chosen to ascend the patriarchal
throne of the imperial city. The Kings of England often used this same
power to appoint to the Primatial See of Canterbury a bishop already
approved in the government of another diocese."(1)
In the West, Cardinal Bellarmine disapproved the prevailing custom of
translations and protested against it to his master, Pope Clement VIII.,
reminding him that they were contrary to the canons and contrary to
the usage of the Ancient Church, except in cases of necessity and of
great gain to the Church. The pope entirely agreed with these wise
observations, and promised that he would himself make, and would
urge princes to make, translations only "with difficulty." But
translations are made universally, all the world over, today, and no
attention whatever is paid to the ancient canons and discipline of the
Church.(2)
CANON XVI.
NEITHER presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the
clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor
regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their
own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but
every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own
parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And
if anyone shah dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church
ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own
proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list
he has seceded, let the ordination be void.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI.
Such presbyters or deacons as desert their own Church are not to be
admitted into another, but are to be sent back to their own diocese. But
if any bishop should ordain one who belongs to another Church
without the consent of his own bishop, the ordination shall be
cancelled.
"Parish" in this canon, as so often elsewhere, means "diocese."
BALSAMON.
It seemed right that the clergy should have no power to move from city
to city and to change their canonical residence without letters
dimissory from the bishop who ordained them. But such clerics as are
called by the bishops who ordained them and cannot be persuaded to
return, are to be separated from communion, that is to say, not to be
allowed to concelebrate <greek>sunierourgein</greek> with them, for
this is the meaning of "excommunicated" in this place, and not that
they should not enter the church nor receive the sacraments. This
decree agrees with canon xv. of the Apostolical canons, which
provides that such shall not celebrate the liturgy. Canon xvj. of the
same Apostolical canons further provides that if a bishop receive a
cleric coming to him from another diocese without his bishop's letters
dimissory, and shall ordain him, such a bishop shall be separated.
From all this it is evident that the Chartophylax of the Great Church
for the time does rightly in refusing to allow priests ordained in other
dioceses to offer the sacrifice unless they bring with them letters
commendatory and dimissory from those who ordained them.
Zonaras had also in his Scholion given the same explanation of the
canon.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, divided into two.
Decretum. Pars II, Causa VII. Quaest. I. c. xxiij.; and Pars I. Dist.
LXXI., c. iij.
[36]
CANON XVII.
FORASMUCH as many enrolled among the Clergy, following
covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture,
which says, "He hath not given his money upon usury," and in lending
money ask the hundredth of the sum[as monthly interest], the holy and
great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to
receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or
otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any
other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed
from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII.
If anyone shall receive usury or 150 per cent. he shall be cast forth and
deposed, according to this decree of the Church.
VAN ESPEN.
Although the canon expresses only these two species of usury, if we
bear in mind the grounds on which the prohibition was made, it will
be manifest that every kind of usury is forbidden to clerics and under
any circumstances, and therefore the translation of this canon sent by
the Orientals to the Sixth Council of Carthage is in no respect alien to
the true intent of the canon; for in this version no mention is made of
any particular kind of usury, but generally the penalty is assigned to
any clerics who "shall be found after this decree taking usury" or
thinking out any other scheme for the sake of filthy lucre.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, in the first part of
the Decretum, in Dionysius's version. Dist. xlvii, c. ii, and again in
Isidore's version in Pars II, Causa xiv. Quaes. iv., c. viii.
EXCURSUS ON USURY.
The famous canonist Van Espen defines usury thus: "Usura definitur
lucrum ex mutuo exactum aut speratum;"(1) and then goes on to
defend the proposition that, "Usury is forbidden by natural, by divine,
and by human law. The first is proved thus. Natural law, as far as its
first principles are concerned, is contained in the decalogue; but usury
is prohibited in the decalogue, inasmuch as theft is prohibited; and this
is the opinion of the Master of the Sentences, of St. Bonaventura, of
St. Thomas and of a host of others: for by the name of theft in the Law
all unlawful taking of another's goods is prohibited; but usury is an
unlawful, etc." For a proof of usury's being contrary to divine law he
cites Ex. xxii. 25, and Deut. xxiii. 29; and from the New Testament
Luke vi. 34. "The third assertion is proved thus. Usury is forbidden by
human law: The First Council of Nice in Canon VII. deposed from the
clergy and from all ecclesiastical rank, clerics who took usury; and the
same thing is the case with an infinite number of councils, in fact with
nearly all e.g. Elvira, ij, Arles j, Carthage iij, Tours iij, etc. Nay, even
the pagans themselves formerly forbid it by their laws." He then quotes
Tacitus(Annal. lib. v.), and adds, "with what severe laws the French
Kings coerced usurers is evident from the edicts of St. Louis, Philip
IV., Charles IX., Henry III., etc."
There can be no doubt that Van Espen in the foregoing has accurately
represented and without any exaggeration the universal opinion of all
teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the
Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years. All interest
exacted upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its
reception was esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty. Those who
wish to read the history of the matter in all its details are referred to
Bossuet's work on the subject, Traite de l'Usure,(2) where they will
find
[37]
the old, traditional view of the Christian religion defended by one
thoroughly acquainted with all that could be said on the other side.
The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which
that which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured
into innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin! He made the
modern distinction between "interest" and "usury," and was the first to
write in defence of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry.(1)
Luther violently opposed him, and Melancthon also kept to the old
doctrine, though less violently(as was to be expected); today the whole
Christian West, Protestant and Catholic alike, stake their salvation
upon the truth of Calvin's distinction! Among Roman Catholics the
new doctrine began to be defended about the beginning of the
eighteenth century, the work of Scipio Maffei, Dell' impiego dell
danaro, written on the laxer side, having attracted a widespread
attention. The Ballerini affirm that the learned pope Benedict XIV.
allowed books defending the new morals to be dedicated to him, and
in 1830 the Congregation of the Holy Office with the approval of the
reigning Pontiff, Plus VIII., decided that those who considered the
taking of interest allowed by the state law justifiable, were "not to be
disturbed." It is entirely disingenuous to attempt to reconcile the
modern with the ancient doctrine; the Fathers expressly deny that the
State has any power to make the receiving of interest just or to fix its
rate, there is but one ground for those to take who accept the new
teaching, viz. that all the ancients, while true on the moral principle
that one must not defraud his neighbour nor take unjust advantage of
his necessity, were in error concerning the facts, in that they supposed
that money was barren, an opinion which the Schoolmen also held,
following Aristotle. This we have found in modern times, and amid
modern circumstances, to be an entire error, as Gury, the famous
modern casuist, well says, "fructum producit et multiplicatur per
se."(2)
That the student may have it in his power to read the Patristic view of
the matter, I give a list of the passages most commonly cited, together
with a review of the conciliar action, for all which I am indebted to a
masterly article by Wharton B. Marriott in Smith and Cheetham's
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities(s. v. Usury).
Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and
the West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two
churches are equally explicit and systematic in their condemnation of
the practice of usury. Among those belonging to the Greek church we
find Athanasius(Expos. in Ps. xiv); Basil the Great(Hom. in Ps. xiv).
Gregory of Nazianzum(Orat. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of
Nyssa(Orat. cont. Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem(Catech. iv. c. 37),
Epiphanius(adv. Haeres. Epilog. c. 24), Chrysostom(Hom. xli. in
Genes), and Theodoret(Interpr. in Ps. xiv. 5, and liv. 11). Among those
belonging to the Latin church, Hilary of Poitiers(in Ps. xiv);
Ambrose(de Tobia liber unus). Jerome(in Ezech. vi. 18); Augustine de
Baptismo contr. Donatistas, iv. 19); Leo the Great(Epist. iii. 4), and
Cassiodorus {in Ps. xiv. 10).
The canons of later councils differ materially in relation to this subject,
and indicate a distinct tendency to mitigate the rigour of the Nicaean
interdict. That of the council of Carthage of the year 348 enforces the
original prohibition, but without the penalty, and grounds the veto on
both Old and New Testament authority, "nemo contra prophetas, nemo
contra evangelia facit sine periculo"(Mansi, iii. 158). The language,
however, when compared with that of the council of Carthage of the
year 419, serves to suggest that, in the interval, the lower clergy had
occasionally been found having recourse to the forbidden practice, for
the general terms of the earlier canon, "ut non liceat clericis fenerari,"
are enforced with
[38]
greater particularity in the latter, "Nec omnino cuiquam clericorum
liceat de qualibet re foenus accipere"(Mansi, iv. 423). This supposition
is supported by the language of the council of Orleans(A.D. 538),
which appears to imply that deacons were not prohibited from lending
money at interest, "Et clericus a diaconatu, et supra, pecuniam non
commodet ad usuras"(ib. ix. 18). Similarly, at the second council of
Trullanum(A.D. 692) a like liberty would appear to have been
recognised among the lower clergy(Hardouin, iii. 1663). While, again,
the Nicaean canon requires the immediate deposition of the
ecclesiastic found guilty of the practice, the Apostolical canon enjoins
that such deposition is to take place only after he has been admonished
and has disregarded the admonition.
Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that the
Church imposed no penalty on the layman. St. Basil(Epist. clxxxviii.
can. 12), says that a usurer may even be admitted to orders, provided
he gives his acquired wealth to the poor and abstains for the future
from the pursuit of gain(Migne, Patrol. Groec. xxxii. 275). Gregory of
Nyssa says that usury, unlike theft, the desecration of tombs, and
sacrilege <greek>ierosulia</greek>, is allowed to pass unpunished,
although among the things forbidden by Scripture, nor is a candidate
at ordination ever asked whether or no he has been guilty of the
practice(Migne, ib. xlv. 233). A letter of Sidonius Apollinaris(Epist.
vi. 24) relating an experience of his friend Maximus, appears to imply
that no blame attached to lending money at the legal rate of interest,
and that even a bishop might be a creditor on those terms. We find
also Desideratus, bishop of Verdun, when applying for a loan to king
Theodebert, for the relief of his impoverished diocese, promising
repayment, "cure usuris legitimis," an expression which would seem to
imply that in the Gallican church usury was recognised as lawful
under certain conditions(Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iii. 34). So again a
letter(Epist. ix. 38) of Gregory the Great seems to shew that he did not
regard the payment of interest for money advanced by one layman to
another as unlawful. But on the other hand, we find in what is known
as archbishop Theodore's "Penitential"(circ. A.D. 690) what appears to
be a general law on the subject, enjoining "Sie quis usuras undecunque
exegerit . . . tres annos in pane et aqua"(c. xxv. 3); a penance again
enjoined in the Penitential of Egbert of York(c. ii. 30). In like manner,
the legates, George and Theophylact, in reporting their proceedings in
England to pope Adrian I.(A.D. 787), state that they have prohibited
"usurers," and cite the authority of the Psalmist and St.
Augustine(Haddan and Stubbs, Conc. iii. 457). The councils of
Mayence, Rheims, and Chalons, in the year 813, and that of Aix in the
year 816, seem to have laid down the same prohibition as binding both
on the clergy and the laity(Hardouin, Conc. iv. 1011, 1020, 1033,
1100).
Muratori, in his dissertation on the subject(Antichita, vol. i.), observes
that "we do not know exactly how commerce was transacted in the five
preceding centuries," and consequently are ignorant as to the terms on
which loans of money were effected.
CANON XVIII.
IT has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in
some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the
presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who
have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do
offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now
touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be
utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own
bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the
inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to
their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the
presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit
among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if,
after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from
the diaconate.
[39]
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIII.
Deacons must abide within their own bounds. They shall not
administer the Eucharist to presbyters, nor touch it before them, nor sit
among the presbyters. For all this is contrary to canon, and to decent
order.
VAN ESPEN.
Four excesses of deacons this canon condemns, at least indirectly. The
first was that they gave the holy Communion to presbyters. To
understand more easily the meaning of the canon it must be
remembered that the reference here is not to the presbyters who were
sacrificing at the altar but to those who were offering together with the
bishop who was sacrificing; by a rite not unlike that which to-day
takes place, when the newly ordained presbyters or bishops celebrate
mass with the ordaining bishop; and this rite in old times was of daily
occurrence, for a full account of which see Morinus De SS. Ordinat. P.
III. Exercit. viij. . . . The present canon does not take away from
deacons the authority to distribute the Eucharist to laymen, or to the
minor clergy, but only reproves their insolence and audacity in
presuming to administer to presbyters who were concelebrating with
the bishop or another presbyter.
The second abuse was that certain deacons touched the sacred gifts
before the bishop. The vulgar version of Isidore reads for "touched"
"received," a meaning which Balsamon and Zonaras also adopt, and
unless the Greek word, which signifies "to touch," is contrary to this
translation, it seems by no means to be alien to the context of the
canon.
"Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the
presbyters, and let the bishop or the presbyter administer to them." In
these words it is implied that some deacons had presumed to receive
Holy Communion before the presbyters, and this is the third excess of
the deacon which is condemned by the Synod.
And lastly, the fourth excess was that they took a place among the
presbyters at the very time of the sacrifice, or "at the holy altar," as
Balsamon observes.
From this canon we see that the Nicene, fathers entertained no doubt
that the faithful in the holy Communion truly received "the body of
Christ." Secondly, that that was "offered" in the church, which is the
word by which sacrifice is designated in the New Testament, and
therefore it was at that time a fixed tradition that there was a sacrifice
in which the body of Christ was offered. Thirdly that not to all, nor
even to deacons, but only to bishops and presbyters was given the
power of offering. And lastly, that there was recognized a fixed
hierarchy in the Church, made up of bishops and presbyters and
deacons in subordination to these.
Of course even at that early date there was nothing new in this
doctrine of the Eucharist. St. Ignatius more than a century and a half
before, wrote as follows: "But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine
touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are
contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the
widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the
prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from
eucharist(thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered
for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up."(1)
In one point the learned scholiast just quoted has most seriously
understated his case. He says that the wording of the canon shews
"that the Nicene fathers entertained no doubt that the faithful in the
holy Communion truly received 'the body of Christ.'" Now this
statement is of course true because it is included in what the canon
says, but the doctrinal statement which is necessarily contained in the
canon is that "the body of Christ is given" by the minister to the
faithful. This doctrine is believed by all Catholics and by Lutherans,
but is denied by all other Protestants; those Calvinists who kept most
nearly to the ordinary Catholic phraseology only admitting that "the
sacrament of the Body of Christ" was given in the supper by the
minister, while "the body of Christ," they taught, was present only in
the soul of the worthy communicant(and in no way connected with the
form of bread, which was but the divinely appointed sign and
assurance of the heavenly gift), and therefore could not be "given" by
the priest.(2)
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum. Pars I.
Dist. XCIII., c. xiv.
[40]
CANON XIX.
CONCERNING the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the
Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be
rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered
among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach,
let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic
Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they
ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and
generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their
clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses
such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no
imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX.
Paulianists must be rebaptised, and if such as are clergymen seem to
be blameless let then, be ordained. If they do not seem to be blameless,
let them be deposed. Deaconesses who have been led astray, since
they are not sharers of ordination, are to be reckoned among the laity.
FFOULKES.
(Dict. Chr. Ant. s.v. Nicaea, Councils of.)
That this is the true meaning of the phrase <greek>oros</greek>
<greek>ekteqeitai</greek>, viz. "a decree has now been made," is
clear from the application of the words <greek>oros</greek> in Canon
xvii., and <greek>wrisen</greek>, in Canon vi. It has been a pure
mistake, therefore, which Bp. Hefele blindly follows, to understand it
of some canon previously passed, whether at Aries or elsewhere.
JUSTELLUS.
Here <greek>keiroqesia</greek> is taken for ordination or
consecration, not for benediction, . .. for neither were deaconesses,
sub-deacons, readers, and other ministers ordained, but a blessing was
merely pronounced over them by prayer and imposition of hands.
ARISTENUS.
Their(the Paulicians') deaconesses also, since they have no imposition
of hands, if they come over to the Catholic Church and are baptized,
are ranked among the laity.
With this Zonaras and Balsamon also agree.
HEFELE.
By Paulianists must be understood the followers of Paul of Samosata
the anti-Trinitarian who, about the year 260, had been made bishop of
Antioch, but had been deposed by a great Synod in 269. As Paul of
Samosata was heretical in his teaching on the Holy Trinity the Synod
of Nice applied to him the decree passed by the council of Arles in its
eighth canon. "If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they
shall ask him to say the creed; and if they shall perceive that he was
baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, (1) he shall
have a hand laid on him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But
if in answer to their questioning he shall not answer this Trinity, let
him be baptized."
The Samosatans, according to St. Athanasius, named the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit in administering baptism(Oral. ii, Contra Arian. No.
xliii), but as they gave a false meaning to the baptismal formula and
did not use the words Son and Holy Spirit in the usual sense, the
Council of Nice, like St. Athanasius himself, considered their baptism
as invalid.
There is great difficulty about the text of the clause beginning
"Likewise in the case, etc.," and Gelasius, the Prisca, Theilo and
Thearistus,(who in 419 translated the canons of Nice for the African
bishops), the PseudoIsidore, and Gratian have all followed a reading
<greek>diakonwn</greek>, instead of <greek>diakonisspn</greek>.
This change makes all clear, but many canonists keep the ordinary
text, including Van Espen, with whose interpretation Hefele does not
agree.
The clause I have rendered "And we mean by deaconesses" is most
difficult of translation. I give the original,
'E<greek>mnhsqhm</greek><c210><greek>n</greek>
<greek>tpn</greek> <greek>en</greek> <greek>tp</greek>
<greek>skhmati</greek> <greek>exetasqeispn</greek>,
<greek>epei</greek> <s218.> <s235.> <s221.>. Hefele's translation
seems to me impossible, by <greek>skhmati</greek> he understands
the list of the clergy just mentioned.
[41]
EXCURSUS ON THE DEACONESS OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
It has been supposed by many that the deaconess of the Early Church
had an Apostolic institution and that its existence may be referred to
by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans(xvi. 1) where he speaks of
Phoebe as being a <greek>diakonos</greek> of the Church of
Cenchrea. It moreover has been suggested that the "widows" of 1 Tim.
v. 9 may have been deaconesses, and this seems not unlikely from the
fact that the age for the admission of women to this ministry was fixed
by Tertullian at sixty years(De Vel. Virg. Cap. ix.), and only changed
to forty, two centuries later by the Council of Chalcedon, and from the
further fact that these "widows" spoken of by St. Paul seem to have
had a vow of chastity, for it is expressly said that if they marry they
have "damnation, because they have cast off their first faith"(1 Tim. v.
12).
These women were called <greek>diakonissbi</greek>,
<greek>Presbutides</greek>(which must be distinguished from the
<greek>presbuterai</greek>, a poor class referred to in the Apostolic
Constitutions(ii. 28) who are to be only invited frequently to the love-
feasts, while the <greek>pr</greek>,s210><greek>sbutioes</greek>
had a definite allotment of the offerings assigned to their support),
<greek>khrai</greek>, diaconissoe, presbyteroe, and viduce.
The one great characteristic of the deaconess was that she was vowed
to perpetual chastity.(1) The Apostolical Constitutions(vi. 17) say that
she must be a chaste virgin(<greek>parqenos</greek>
<greek>agnh</greek>) or else a widow. The writer of the article
"Deaconess" in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities says: "It is
evident that the ordination of deaconesses included a vow of celibacy."
We have already seen the language used by St. Paul and of this the
wording of the canon of Chalcedon is but an echo(Canon xv). "A
woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under
forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if,
after she has had hands laid on her, and has continued for a time to
minister, she shall despise the Grace of God and give herself in
marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man who is united to
her." The civil law went still further, and by Justinian's Sixth Novel(6)
those who attempted to marry are subjected to forfeiture of property
and capital punishment. In the collect in the ancient office there is a
special petition that the newly admitted deaconess may have the gift of
continence.
The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female
candidates for holy baptism. At that time the sacrament of baptism
was always administered by immersion(except to those in extreme
illness) and hence there was much that such an order of women could
be useful in. Moreover they sometimes gave to the female
catechumens preliminary instruction, but their work was wholly
limited to women, and for a deaconess of the Early Church to teach a
man or to nurse him in sickness would have been an impossibility.
The duties of the deaconess are set forth in many ancient writings, I
cite here what is commonly known as the XII Canon of the Fourth
Council of Carthage, which met in the year 398:
"Widows and dedicated women(sanctimoniales) who are chosen to
assist at the baptism of women, should be so well instructed in their
office as to be able to teach aptly and properly unskilled and rustic
women how to answer at the time of their baptism to the questions put
to them, and also how to live godly after they have been baptized."
This whole matter is treated clearly by St. Epiphanius who, while
indeed speaking of deaconesses as an order(<greek>tagma</greek>),
asserts that "they were only women-elders, not priestesses in any
sense, that their
[42]
mission was not to interfere in any way with Sacerdotal functions, but
simply to perform certain offices in the care of women"(Hoer. lxxix,
cap. iij). From all this it is evident that they are entirely in error who
suppose that "the laying on of hands" which the deaconesses received
corresponded to that by which persons were ordained to the diaconate,
presbyterate, and episcopate at that period of the church's history. It
was merely a solemn dedication and blessing and was not looked upon
as "an outward sign of an inward grace given." For further proof of this
I must refer to Morinus, who has treated the matter most
admirably.(De Ordinationibus, Exercitatio X.)
The deaconesses existed but a short while. The council of Laodicea as
early as A.D. 343-381, forbade the appointment of any who were
called <greek>presbutides</greek>(Vide Canon xi); and the first
council of Orange, A.D. 441, in its twenty-sixth canon forbids the
appointment of deaconesses altogether, and the Second council of tile
same city in canons xvij and xviij, decrees that deaconesses who
married were to be excommunicated unless they renounced the men
they were living with, and that, on account of the weakness of the sex,
none for the future were to be ordained.
Thomassinus, to whom I refer tim reader for a very full treatment of
the whole subject, is of opinion that the order was extinct in the West
by the tenth or twelfth century, but that it lingered on a little later at
Constantinople but only in conventual institutions.(Thomassin,
Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l' Eglise, I Partie, Livre III.)
CANON XX.
FORASMUCH as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's
Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things
may be uniformly observed everywhere(in every parish), it seems good
to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX.
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not
kneeling.
HAMMOND.
Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive
Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of
standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and during the fifty days between
Easter and Pentecost. Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona
Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other ohservances
which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were
universally practised upon the authority of tradition. "We consider it
unlawful," he says, "to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord's day;
we enjoy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost." De
Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4. Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice,
the reason of which, as given by Augustine; and others, was to
commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and
joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured. This
canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of the importance formerly
attached to an uniformity of sacred rites throughout the Church, which
made the Nicene Fathers thus sanction and enforce by their authority a
practice which in itself is indifferent, and not commanded directly or
indirectly in Scripture, and assign this as their reason for doing so: "In
order that all things may be observed in like manner in every parish"
or diocese.
HEFELE.
All the churches did not, however, adopt this practice; for we see in
the Acts of the Apostles(xx. 36 and xxi. 5) that St. Paul prayed
kneeling during the time between Pentecost and Easter.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars III,
De Cone. Dist. III. c. x.
[43]
EXCURSUS ON THE NUMBER OF THE NICENE CANONS.
There has come down to us a Latin letter purporting to have been
written by St. Athanasius to Pope Marcus. This letter is found in the
Benedictine edition of St. Athanasius's works(ed. Patav. ii. 599) but
rejected as spurious by Montfaucon the learned editor. In this letter is
contained the marvellous assertion that the Council of Nice at first
adopted forty canons, which were in Greek, that it subsequently added
twenty Latin canons, and that afterwards the council reassembled and
set forth seventy altogether. A tradition that something of the kind had
taken place was prevalent in parts of the East, and some collections
did contain seventy canons.
In the Vatican Library is a MS. which was bought for it by the famous
Asseman, from the Coptic Patriarch, John, and which contains not
only seventy, but eighty canons attributed to the council of Nice. The
MS. is in Arabic, and was discovered by J. B. Romanus, S. J., who
first made its contents known, and translated into Latin a copy he had
made of it. Another Jesuit, Pisanus, was writing a history of the
Nicene Council at the time and he received the eighty newly found
canons into his book; but, out of respect to the pseudo-Athanasian
letter, he at first cut down the number to seventy; but in later editions
he followed the MS. All this was in the latter half of the sixteenth
century; and in 1578 Turrianus, who had had Father Romanus's
translation revised before it was first published, now issued an entirely
new translation with a Proemium(1) containing a vast amount of
information upon the whole subject, and setting up an attempted proof
that the number of the Nicene Canons exceeded twenty. His argument
for the time being carried the day.
Hefele says, "it is certain that the Orientals(2) believed the Council of
Nice to have promulgated more than twenty canons: the learned
Anglican, Beveridge,(3) has proved this, reproducing an ancient
Arabic paraphrase of the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils.
According to this Arabic paraphrase, found in a MS. in the Bodleian
Library, the Council of Nice must have put forth three books of
canons. . . . The Arabic paraphrase of which we are speaking gives a
paraphrase of all these canons, but Beveridge took only the part
referring to the second book--that is to say, the paraphrase of the
twenty genuine canons; for, according to his view, which was perfectly
correct, it was only these twenty canons which were really the work of
the Council of Nice, and all the others were falsely attributed to it."(4)
Hefele goes on to prove that the canons he rejects must be of much
later origin, some being laws of the times of Theodosius and Justinian
according to the opinion of Renaudot.(5)
Before leaving this point I should notice the profound research on
these Arabic canons of the Maronite, Abraham Echellensis. He gives
eighty-four canons in his Latin translation of 1645, and was of opinion
that they had been collected from different Oriental sources, and sects;
but that originally they had all been translated from the Greek, and
were collected by James, the celebrated bishop of Nisibis, who was
present at Nice. But this last supposition is utterly untenable.
Among the learned there have not been wanting some who have held
that the Council of Nice passed more canons than the twenty we
possess, and have arrived at the conclusion independently of the
Arabic discovery, such are Baronius and Card. d'Aguirre, but their
arguments have been sufficiently answered, and they cannot present
anything able to weaken the conclusion that flows from the
consideration of the following facts.
[44]
(Hefele: History of the Councils, Vol. I. pp. 355 et seqq.[2ded.])
Let us see first what is the testimony of those Greek and Latin authors
who lived about the time of the Council, concerning the number.
a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is the learned
Theodoret, who lived about a century after the Council of Nicaea. He
says, in his History of the Church: "After the condemnation of the
Arians, the bishops assembled once more, and decreed twenty canons
on ecclesiastical discipline."
b. Twenty years later, Gelasius, Bishop of Cyzicus, after much
research into the most ancient documents, wrote a history of the
Nicene Council. Gelasius also says expressly that the Council decreed
twenty canons; and, what is more important, he gives the original text
of these canons exactly in the same order, and according to the tenor
which we find elsewhere.
c. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He was born near
the period when the Council of Nicaea was held, and about half a
century after he wrote his celebrated history of the Church, in which
he inserted a Latin translation of the Nicene canons. Rufinus also
knew only of these twenty canons; but as he has divided the sixth and
the eighth into two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are
exactly the same as the twenty furnished by the other historians.
d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and the Bishop
of Rome, on the subject of appeals to Rome, gives us a very important
testimony on the true number of the Nicene canons. The presbyter
Apiarius of Sicca in Africa, having been deposed for many crimes,
appealed to Rome. Pope Zosimus(417-418) took the appeal into
consideration, sent legates to Africa; and to prove that he had the right
to act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nicaea, containing
these words: "When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by
his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall
have the business decided by judices in partibus." The canon quoted
by the Pope does not belong to the Council of Nicaea, as he affirmed;
it was the fifth canon of the Council of Sardica(the seventh in the Latin
version). What explains the error of Zosimus is that in the ancient
copies the canons of Nicaea and Sardica are written consecutively,
with the same figures, and under the common title of canons of the
Council of Nicaea; and Zosimus might optima fide fall into an error--
which he shared with Greek authors, his contemporaries, who also
mixed the canons of Nicaea with those of Sardica. The African
bishops, not finding the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek
or in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which Bishop
Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council of Nicaea, had
brought to Carthage. The legates of the Pope then declared that they
did not rely upon these copies, and they agreed to send to Alexandria
and to Constantinople to ask the patriarchs of these two cities for
authentic copies of the canons of the Council of Nicaea. The African
bishops desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same
step(Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418)--that he should ask for
copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and
Antioch. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, indeed,
sent exact and faithful copies of the Creed and canons of Nicaea; and
two learned men of Constantinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even
translated these canons into Latin. Their translation has been
preserved to us in the acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and it
contains only the twenty ordinary canons. It might be thought at first
sight that it contained twenty-one canons; but on closer consideration
we see, as Hardouin has proved, that this twenty-first article is nothing
but an historical notice appended to the Nicene canons by the Fathers
of Carthage. It is conceived in these terms: "After the bishops had
decreed these rules at Nicaea, and after the holy Council had decided
what was the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity
of faith were re-established between the East and the West. This is
what we(the African bishops) have thought it right to add according to
the history of the Church."
[45]
The bishops of Africa despatched to Pope Boniface the copies which
had been sent to them from Alexandria and Constantinople, in the
month of November 419; and subsequently in their letters to Celestine
I. (423-432), successor to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these
documents.
e. All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or Greek,
composed in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in the fifth century,
agree in giving only these twenty canons to Nicaea. The most ancient
of these collections were made in the Greek Church, and in the course
of time a very great number of copies of them were written. Many of
these copies have descended to us; many libraries possess copies; thus
Montfaucon enumerates several in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana.
Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the copies in his Bibliotheca
Groeca to those found in the libraries of Turin, Florence, Venice,
Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds that these copies also contain the
so-called apostolic canons, and those of the most ancient councils. The
French bishop John Tilius presented to Paris, in 1540, a MS. of one of
these Greek collections as it existed in the ninth century. It contains
exactly our twenty canons of Nicaea, besides the so-called apostolic
canons, those of Ancyra, etc. Elias Ehmger published a new edition at
Wittemberg in 1614, using a second MS. which was found at
Augsburg; but the Roman collection of the Councils had before given
in 1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicaea. This text of the
Roman editors, with the exception of some insignificant variations,
was exactly the same as that of the edition of Tilius. Neither the
learned Jesuit Sirmond nor his coadjutors have mentioned what
manuscripts were consulted in preparing this edition; probably they
were manuscripts drawn from several libraries, and particularly from
that of the Vatican. The text of this Roman edition passed into all the
following collections, even into those of Hardouin and Mansi; while
Justell in his Bibliotheca juris Canonici and Beveridge in his
Synodicon(both of the eighteenth century), give a somewhat different
text, also collated from MSS., and very similar to the text given by
Tilius. Bruns, in his recent Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, compares the
two texts. Now all these Greek MSS, consulted at such different times,
and by all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons of Nicaea,
and always the same twenty which we possess.
The Latin collections of the canons of the Councils also give the same
result--for example, the most ancient and the most remarkable of all,
the Prisca, and that of Dionysius the Less, which was collected about
the year 500. The testimony of this latter collection is the more
important for the number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Groeca
auctoritas.
f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further mention Photius,
Zonaras and Balsamon. Photius, in his Collection of the Canons, and
in his Nomocanon, as well as the two other writers in their
commentaries upon the canons of the ancient Councils, quote only and
know only twenty canons of Nicaea, and always those which we
possess.
g. The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only
these twenty canons of Nicaea. We have proof of this in the celebrated
Spanish collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St.
Isidore(it was composed at the commencement of the seventh
century), and in that of Adrian(so called because it was offered to
Charles the Great by Pope Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar,
Archbishop of Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his
turn attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicaea, and even
the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.
I add for the convenience of the reader the captions of the Eighty
Canons as given by Turrianus, translating them from the reprint in
Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. II. col. 291. The Eighty-four
Canons as given by Echellensis together with numerous Constitutions
and Decrees attributed to the Nicene Council are likewise to be found
in Labbe(ut supra, col. 318).
[46]
THE CAPTIONS OF THE ARABIC CANONS ATTRIBUTED TO
THE COUNCIL OF NICE.
CANON I. (1)
Insane persons and energumens should not be ordained.
CANON II.
Bond servants are not to be ordained.
CANON III.
Neophytes in the faith are not to be ordained to Holy Orders before
they have a knowledge of Holy Scripture. And such, if convicted after
their ordination of grave sin, are to be deposed with those who
ordained them.
CANON IV.
The cohabitation of women with bishops, presbyters, and deacons
prohibited on account of their celibacy.
We decree that bishops shall not live with women; nor shall a
presbyter who is a widower; neither shall they escort them; nor be
familiar with them, nor gaze upon them persistently. And the same
decree is made with regard to every celibate priest, and the same
concerning such deacons as have no wives. And this is to be the case
whether the woman be beautiful or ugly, whether a young girl or
beyond the age of puberty, whether great in birth, or an orphan taken
out of charity under pretext of bringing her up. For the devil with such
arms slays religious, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and incites
them to the fires of desire. But if she be an old woman, and of
advanced age, or a sister, or mother, or aunt, or grandmother, it is
permitted to live with these because such persons are free from all
suspicion of scandal.(2)
CANON V.
Of the election of a bishop and of the confirmation of the election.
CANON VI.
That those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be received by
another; and that those whose excommunication has been shown to
have been unjust should be absolved by the archbishop or patriarch.
CANON VII.
That provincial Councils should be held twice a year, for the
consideration of all things affecting the churches of the bishops of the
province.
CANON VIII.
Of the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of their jurisdiction.
CANON IX.
Of one who solicits the episcopate when the people do not wish him;
or if they do desire him, but without the consent of the archbishop.
CANON X.
How the bishop of Jerusalem is to be honoured, the honour, however,
of the metropolitan church of Caesarea being preserved intact, to
which he is subject.
CANON XI.
Of those who force themselves into the order of presbyters without
election or examination.
CANON XII.
Of the bishop who ordains one whom he understands has denied the
faith; also of one ordained who after that he had denied it, crept into
orders.
CANON XIII.
Of one who of his own will goes to another church, having been
chosen by it, and does not wish afterwards to stay there.
Of taking pains that he be transferred from his own church to another.
CANON XIV.
No one shall become a monk without the bishop's license, and why a
license is required.
CANON XV.
That clerics or religious who lend on usury should be cast from their
grade.
CANON XVI.
Of the honour to be paid to the bishop and to a presbyter by the
deacons.
CANON XVII.
Of the system and of the manner of receiving those who are converted
from the heresy of Paul of Samosata.
[47]
CANON XVIII.
Of the system and manner of receiving those who are converted from
the heresy the Novatians.
CANON XIX.
Of the system and manner of receiving those who return after a lapse
from the faith, and of receiving the relapsed, and of those brought into
peril of death by sickness before their penance is finished, and
concerning such as are convalescent.
CANON XX.
Of avoiding the conversation of evil workers and wizards, also of the
penance of them that have not avoided such.
CANON XXI.
Of incestuous marriages contrary to the law of Spiritual relationship,
and of the penance of such as are in such marriages.
[The time of penance fixed is twenty years, only godfather and
godmother are mentioned, and nothing is said of separation.]
CANON XXII.
Of sponsors in baptism.
Men shall not hold females at the font, neither women males; but
women females, and men males.
CANON XXIII.
Of the prohibited marriages of spiritual brothers and sisters from
receiving them in baptism.
CANON XXIV.
Of him who has married two wives at the same time, or who through
lust has added another woman to his wife; and of his punishment.
Part of the canon. If he be a priest he is forbidden to sacrifice and is
cut off from the communion of the faithful until he turn out of the
house the second woman, and he ought to retain the first.
CANON XXV.
That no one should be forbidden Holy Communion unless such as are
doing penance.
CANON XXVI.
Clerics are forbidden from suretyship or witness-giving in criminal
causes.
CANON XXVII.
Of avoiding the excommunicate, and of not receiving the oblation
from them; and of the
excommunication of him who does not avoid the excommunicated.
CANON XXVIII.
How anger, indignation, and hatred should be avoided by the priest,
especially because he has the power of excommunicating others.
CANON XXIX.
Of not kneeling in prayer.
CANON XXX.
Of giving[only] names of Christians in baptism, and of heretics who
retain the faith in the Trinity and the perfect form of baptism; and of
others not retaining it, worthy of a worse name, and of how such are to
be received when they come to the faith.
CANON XXXI.
Of the system and manner of receiving converts to the Orthodox faith
from the heresy of Arius and of other like.
CANON XXXII.
Of the system of receiving those who have kept the dogmas of the faith
and the Church's laws, and yet have separated from us and afterwards
come back.
CANON XXXIII.
Of the place of residence of the Patriarch, and of the honour which
should be given to the bishop of Jerusalem and to the bishop of
Seleucia.
CANON XXXIV.
Of the honour to be given to the Archbishop of Seleucia in the Synod
of Greece.
CANON XXXV.
Of not holding a provincial synod in the province of Persia without the
authority of the patriarch of Antioch, and how the bishops of Persia are
subject to the metropolitans of Antioch.
CANON XXXVI.
Of the creation of a patriarch for Ethiopia, and of his power, and of the
honour to be paid him in the Synod of Greece.
CANON XXXVII.
Of the election of the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is subject to the
patriarch of Antioch.
CANON XXXVIII.
That the ordination of ministers of the Church by bishops in the
dioceses of strangers is forbidden.
[48]
CANON XXXIX.
Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and
archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and
bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them
otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth
him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although
the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the
care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is
over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power,
just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all
patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is
given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who
is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole
Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is
excommunicated by the Synod.(1)
[I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis's Nova Versio LXXXIV. Arabic.
Canonum Conc. Nicoeni, that the reader may compare it with the
foregoing.]
Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four
writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince
and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome,
according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the
great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of
Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine
things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another
see of Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of
these four patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are
under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority
of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities
appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops
appoint him, for he is greater than they. Therefore let every man know
his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And
whosoever shall contradict this law which we have established the
Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.(2)
CANON XL.
Of the provincial synod which should be held twice every year, and of
its utility; together with the excommunication of such as oppose the
decree.
CANON XLI.
Of the synod of Archbishops, which meets once a year with the
Patriarch, and of its utility; also of the collection to be made for the
support of the patriarch throughout the provinces and places subject to
the patriarch.
CANON XLII.
Of a cleric or monk who when fallen into sin, and summoned once,
twice, and thrice, does not present himself for trial.
CANON XLIII.
What the patriarch should do in the case of a defendant set at liberty
unpunished by the decision of the bishop, presbyter, or even of a
deacon, as the case may be.
CANON XLIV.
How an archbishop ought to give trial to one of his suffragan bishops.
CANON XLV.
Of the receiving of complaints and condemnation of an archbishop
against his patriarch.
CANON XLVI.
How a patriarch should admit a complaint; or judgment of an
Archbishop against an Archbishop.
CANON XLVII.
Of those excommunicated by a certain one, when they can be and
when they cannot be absolved by another.
CANON XLVIII.
No bishop shall choose his own successor.
CANON XLIX.
No simoniacal ordinations shall be made.
CANON L.
There shall be but one bishop of one city, and one parochus of one
town; also the incumbent, whether bishop or parish priest, shall not be
removed in favour of a successor desired by some of the people unless
he has been convicted of manifest crime.
CANON LI.
Bishops shall not allow the separation of a wife from her husband on
account of discord--[in American, "incompatibility of temper"].
[49]
CANON LII.
Usury and the base seeking of worldly gain is forbidden to the clergy,
also conversation and fellowship with Jews.
CANON LIII.
Marriages with infidels to be avoided.
CANON LIV.
Of the election of a chorepiscopus, and of his duties in towns, and
villages, and monasteries.
CANON LV.
How a chorepiscopus should visit the churches and monasteries which
are under his jurisdiction.
CANON LVI.
Of how the presbyters of the towns and villages should go twice a year
with their chorepiscopus to salute the bishop, and how religious
should do so once a year from their monasteries, and how the new
abbot of a monastery should go thrice.
CANON LVII.
Of the rank in sitting during the celebration of service in church by the
bishop, the archdeacon and the chorepiscopus; and of the office of
archdeacon, and of the honour due the archpresbyter.
CANON LVIII.
Of the honour flue the archdeacon and the chorepiscopus when they sit
in church during the absence of the bishop, and when they go about
with the bishop.
CANON LIX.
How all the grades of the clergy and their duties should be publicly
described and set forth.
CANON LX.
Of how men are to be chosen from the diocese for holy orders, and of
how they should be examined.
CANON LXI.
Of the honour due to the deacons, and how the clerics must not put
themselves in their way.
CANON LXII.
The number of presbyters and deacons is to be adapted to the work of
the church and to its means.
CANON LXIII.
Of the Ecclesiastical Economist and of the others who with him care
for the church's possessions.
CANON LXIV.
Of the offices said in the church, the night and day offices, and of the
collect for all those who rule that church.
CANON LXV.
Of the order to be observed at the funeral of a bishop, of a
chorepiscopus and of an archdeacon, and of the office of exequies.
CANON LXVI.
Of taking a second wife, after the former one has been disowned for
any cause, or even not put away, and of him who falsely accuses his
wife of adultery.
If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her
fornication, or for other cause, as aforesaid, or cast her out of doors for
external good, or that he may change her for another more beautiful, or
better, or richer, or does so out of his lust which is displeasing to God;
and after she has been put away for any of these causes he shall
contract matrimony with another, or without having put her away shall
take another, whether free or bond; and shall have both equally, they
living separately and he sleeping every night with one or other of
them, or else keeping both in the same house and bed, let him be
deposed. If he were a layman let him be deprived of communion. But
if anyone falsely defames his wife charging her with adultery, so that
he turns her out of doors, the matter must be diligently examined; and
if the accusation was false, he shall be deposed if a cleric, but if a
layman shall be prohibited from entering the church and from the
communion of the faithful; and shall be compelled to live with her
whom he has defamed, even though she be deformed, and poor, and
insane; and whoever shall not obey is excommunicated by the Synod.
[Note.--The reader will notice that by this canon a husband is deposed
or excommunicated, as the case may be, if he marry another woman,
after putting away his wife on account of her adultery. It is curious that
in the parallel canon in the collection of Echellensis, which is
numbered LXXI., the reading is quite different, although it is very
awkward and inconsequent as given. Moreover, it should be
remembered that in some codices and editions this canon is lacking
altogether, one on the right of the Pope to receive appeals taking its
place. As this canon is of considerable length, I only quote the
interesting parts.]
Whatever presbyter or deacon shall put away his wife without the
offence of fornica-
[50]
tion, or for any other cause of which we have spoken above, and shall
east her out of doors . . . such a person shall be east out of the clergy, if
he were a clergyman; if a layman he shall be forbidden the communion
of the faithful.. . . But if that woman[untruly charged by her husband
with adultery], that is to say his wife, spurns his society on account of
the injury he has done her and the charge he has brought against her,
of which she is innocent, let her freely be put away and let a bill of
repudiation be written for her, noting the false accusation which had
been brought against her. And then if she should wish to marry some
other faithful man, it is right for he; to do so, nor does the Church
forbid it; and the same permission extends as well to men as to
women, since there is equal reason for it for each. But if he shall return
to better fruit which is of the same kind, and shall conciliate to
himself the love and benevolence of his consort, and shall be willing to
return to his pristine friendship, his fault shall be condoned to him
after he has done suitable and sufficient penance. And whoever shall
speak against this decree the fathers of the synod excommunicate him.
CANON LXVII.
Of having two wives at the same time, and of a woman who is one of
the faithful marrying an infidel; and of the form of receiving her to
penance.[Her reception back is conditioned upon her leaving the
infidel man.]
CANON LXVIII.
Of giving in marriage to an infidel a daughter or sister without her
knowledge and contrary to her wish.
CANON LXIX.
Of one of the faithful who departs from the faith through lust and love
of an infidel; and of the form of receiving him back, or admitting him
to penance.
CANON LXX.
Of the hospital to be established in every city, and of the choice of a
superintendent and concerning his duties. [It is interesting to note that
one of the duties of the superintendent is--"That if the goods of the
hospital are not sufficient for its expenses, he ought to collect all the
time and from all Christians provision according to the ability of
each."]
CANON LXXI.
Of the placing a bishop or archbishop in his chair after ordination,
which is enthronization.
CANON LXXII.
No one is allowed to transfer himself to another church [i.e., diocese]
than that in which he was ordained; and what is to be done in the case
of one cast out forcibly without any blame attaching to him.
CANON LXXIII.
The laity shall not choose for themselves priests in the towns and
villages without the authority of the chorepiscopus; nor an abbot for a
monastery; and that no one should give commands as to who should
be elected his successor after his death, and when this is lawful for a
superior.
CANON LXXIV.
How sisters, widows, and deaconesses should be made to keep their
residence in their monasteries; and of the system of instructing them;
and of the election of deaconesses, and of their duties and utility.
CANON LXXV.
How one seeking election should not be chosen, even if of
conspicuous virtue; and how the election of a layman to the aforesaid
grades is not prohibited, and that those chosen should not afterward be
deprived before their deaths, except on account of crime.
CANON LXXVI.
Of the distinctive garb and distinctive names and conversation of
monks and nuns.
CANON LXXVII.
That a bishop convicted of adultery or of other similar crime should be
deposed without hope of restoration to the same grade; but shall not be
excommunicated.
CANON LXXVIII.
Of presbyters and deacons who have fallen only once into adultery, if
they have never been married; and of the same when fallen as
widowers, and those who have fallen, all the while having their own
wives. Also of those who return to the same sin as well widowers as
those having living wives; and which of these ought not to be received
to penance, and which once only, and which twice.
CANON LXXIX.
Each one of the faithful while his sin is yet not public should be
mended by private exhortation and admonition; if he will not profit by
this, he must be excommunicated.
CANON LXXX.
Of the election of a procurator of the poor, and of his duties.
[51]
PROPOSED ACTION ON CLERICAL CELIBACY.
[The Acts are not extant.]
NOTES.
Often the mind of a deliberative assembly is as clearly shown by the
propositions it rejects as by those it adopts, and it would seem that this
doctrine is of application in the case of the asserted attempt at this
Council to pass a decree forbidding the priesthood to live in the use of
marriage. This attempt is said to have failed. The particulars are as
follows:
HEFELE.
(Hist. Councils, Vol. I., pp. 435 et seqq.)
Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm that the Synod of Nicaea, as
well as that of Elvira(can. 33), desired to pass a law respecting
celibacy. This law was to forbid all bishops, priests and
deacons(Sozomen adds subdeacons), who were married at the time of
their ordination, to continue to live with their wives. But, say these
historians, the law was opposed openly and decidedly by Paphnutius,
bishop of a city of the Upper Thebais in Egypt, a man of a high
reputation, who had lost an eye during the persecution under
Maximian. He was also, celebrated for his miracles, and was held in so
great respect by the Emperor, that the latter often kissed the empty
socket of the lost eye. Paphnutius declared with a loud voice, "that too
heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and
married intercourse are of themselves honourable and undefiled; that
the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all
could not live in absolute continency: in this way(by not prohibiting
married intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more
certainly preserved(viz the wife of a clergyman, because she might
find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her married
intercourse). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also
be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to
the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders
without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but
those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not
to be separated from their wives(Gelasius adds, or being only a reader
or cantor)." This discourse of Paphnutius made so much the more
impression, because he had never lived in matrimony himself, and had
had no conjugal intercourse. Paphnutius, indeed, had been brought up
in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him
especially celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of
the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon
the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point
as he would.
If this account be true, we must conclude that a law was proposed to
the Council of Nicaea the same as one which had been carried twenty
years previously at Elvira, in Spain; this coincidence would lead us to
believe that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law
respecting celibacy at Nicaea. The discourse ascribed to Paphnutius,
and the consequent decision of the Synod, agree very well with the
text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the
Greek Church in respect to celibacy. The Greek Church as well as the
Latin accepted the principle, that whoever had taken holy orders
before marriage, ought not to be married afterwards. In the Latin
Church, bishops, priests, deacons. and even subdeacons, were
considered to be subject to this law, because the latter were at a very
early period reckoned among the higher servants of the Church, which
was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek Church went so far
as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if previously to it
they had expressly obtained from their bishop permission to do so.
The Council of Ancyra affirms this(c. 10). We see that the Greek
Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter; but in
reference to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their
ordination. Therefore, whilst the Latin Church exacted of those
presenting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they
should not continue to live with their wives if they were married, the
Greek Church gave no such prohibition; but if the wife of an ordained
clergyman died, the Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The
Apostolic Constitutions decided this point in the same way. To leave
their wives from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests;
and the Synod of Gangra(c. 4) took
[52]
up the defence of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius,
however, was not alone among the Greeks in opposing the marriage of
all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin
discipline on this point. St. Epiphanius also inclined towards this side.
The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigour in reference to
priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by degrees it came to be
required of bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that
they should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the
compilation of the Apostolic Canons(c. 5) and of the Constitutions; for
in those documents mention is made of bishops living in wedlock, and
Church history shows that there were married bishops. for instance
Synesius, in the fifth century. But it is fair to remark, even as to
Synesius, that he made it an express condition of his acceptation, on
his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to live the
married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously
require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the
episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek
bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod(c.
13.) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of
priests. Baro-nius, Valesius, and other historians, have considered the
account of the part taken by Paphnutius to be apocryphal. Baronius
says, that as the Council of Nicaea in its third canon gave a law upon
celibacy it is quite impossible to admit that it would alter such a law
on account of Paphnutius. But Baronius is mistaken in seeing a law
upon celibacy in that third canon; he thought it to be so, because,
when mentioning the women who might live in the clergyman's house-
-his mother, sister, etc.--the canon does not say a word about the wife.
It had no occasion to mention her, it was referring to the
<greek>suneisaktoi</greek> whilst these <greek>suneisaktoi</greek>
and married women have nothing in common. Natalis Alexander gives
this anecdote about Paphnutius in full: he desired to refute Ballarmin,
who considered it to be untrue and an invention of Socrates to please
the Novatians. Natalis Alexander often maintains erroneous opinions,
and on the present question he deserves no confidence. If, as St.
Epiphanius relates, the Novatians maintained that the clergy might be
married exactly like the laity, it cannot be said that Socrates shared
that opinion, since he says, or rather makes Paphnutius say, that,
according to ancient tradition, those not married at the time of
ordination should not be so subsequently. Moreover, if it may be said
that Socrates had a partial sympathy with the Novatians, he certainly
cannot be considered as belonging to them, still less can he be accused
of falsifying history in their favour. He may sometimes have
propounded erroneous opinions, but there is a great difference
between that and the invention of a whole story. Valesius especially
makes use of the argument ex silentio against Socrates.(a) Rufinus, he
says, gives many particulars about Paphnutius in his History of the
Church; he mentions his martyrdom, his miracles, and the Emperor's
reverence for him, but not a single word of the business about
celibacy.(b) The name of Paphnutius is wanting in the list of Egyptian
bishops present at the Synod. These two arguments of Valesius are
weak; the second has the authority of Rufinus himself against it, who
expressly says that Bishop Paphnutius was present at the Council of
Nicaea. If Valesius means by lists only the signatures at the end of the
acts of the Council, this proves nothing; for these lists are very
imperfect, and it is well known that many bishops whose names are
not among these signatures were present at Nicaea. This argument ex
silentio is evidently insufficient to prove that the anecdote about
Paphnutius must be rejected as false, seeing that it is in perfect
harmony with the practice of the ancient Church, and especially of the
Greek Church, on the subject of clerical marriages. On the other hand,
Thomassin pretends that there was no such practice, and endeavours
to prove by quotations from St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, Eusebius, and
St. John Chrysostom, that even in the East priests who were married at
the time of their ordination were prohibited from continuing to live
with their wives. The texts quoted by Thomassin prove only that the
Greeks gave especial honour to priests living in perfect continency,
but they do not prove that this continence was a duty incumbent upon
all priests; and so much the less, as the fifth and twenty-fifth Apostolic
canons, the fourth canon of Gangra, and the thirteenth of the Trullan
Synod, demonstrate clearly enough what was the universal custom of
the Greek Church on this point. Lupus and Phillips explained the
words of Paphnutius in another sense. According to them, the
Egyptian bishop was not speaking in a general way; he simply desired
that the contemplated law should not include the subdeacons. But this
explanation does not agree with the extracts quoted from Socrates,
Sozomen, and Gelasius, who believe Paphnutius intended deacons and
priests as well.
[53]
THE SYNODAL LETTER.
(Found in Gelasius, Historia Concilii Nicaeni, lib. II, cap. xxxiii. ;
Socr., H. E., lib. I., cap. 6; Theodor., H. E., lib. I., cap. 9.)
To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of GOD, holy and great;
and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity
throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under
heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicea,
wish health in the LORD.
FORASMUCH as the great and holy Synod, which was assembled at
Niece through the grace of Christ and our most religious Sovereign
Constantine, who brought us together from our several provinces and
cities, has considered matters which concern the faith of the Church, it
seemed to us to be necessary that certain things should be
communicated from us to you in writing, so that you might have the
means of knowing what has been mooted and investigated, and also
what has been decreed and confirmed.
First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign
Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety
and transgression of Arias and his adherents; and it was unanimously
decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized,
together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he
indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from
things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and
that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by
his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a
creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even
enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous
words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, ye
have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should
seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting
recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed,
that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of
Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.
But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and
blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance
and division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the
matter of the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained
by him; and concerning this part of our work we now, beloved
brethren, proceed to inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The
Synod, then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius(for in strict
justice he deserved no leniency), decreed that he should remain in his
own city, but have no authority either to ordain, or to administer
affairs, or to make appointments; and that he should not appear in the
country or in any other city for this purpose, but should enjoy the bare
title of his rank; but that those who have been placed by him, after they
have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, shall on
these conditions be admitted to communion: that they shall both have
their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be altogether the
inferiors of all those who are enrolled in any church or parish, and
have been appointed by our most honourable colleague Alexander. So
that these men are to have no authority to make appointments of
persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest names, nor to do
anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of the Catholic
and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy colleague
Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through your
prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are without
spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority to
make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the
clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance
of the Church. But, if it happen that any of the clergy who are now in
the Church should die, then those who have been lately received are to
succeed to the office of the deceased; always provided that they shall
appear to be worthy, and that the people elect them, and that the
bishop of Alexandria shall concur in the election and ratify it. This
concession has been made to all the rest; but, on account of his
disorderly conduct from the first, and the rashness and precipitation of
his character, the same decree was not
54
made concerning Meletius himself, but that, inasmuch as he is a man
capable of committing again the same disorders, no authority nor
privilege should be conceded to him.
These are the particulars, which are of special interest to Egypt and to
the most holy Church of Alexandria; but if in the presence of our most
honoured lord, our colleague and brother Alexander, anything else has
been enacted by canon or other decree, he will himself convey it to
you in greater detail, he having been both a guide and fellow-worker in
what has been done.
We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement
concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your
prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who
formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate
the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans
and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the
beginning.
Wherefore, rejoicing in these wholesome results, and in our common
peace and harmony, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive ye
with the greater honour and with increased love, our colleague your
Bishop Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence, and who at
so great an age has undergone so great fatigue that peace might be
established among you and all of us. Pray ye also for us all, that the
things which have been deemed advisable may stand fast; for they
have been done, as we believe, to the well-pleasing of Almighty God
and of his only Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
Ghost, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.
From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)
When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom[the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
[55]
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
EXCURSUS ON THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE EASTER
QUESTION.
(Hefele: Hist. of the Councils, Vol. I., pp. 328 et seqq.)
The differences in the way of fixing the period of Easter did not indeed
disappear after the Council of Nicea. Alexandria and Rome could not
agree, either because one of the two Churches neglected to make the
calculation for Easter, or because the other considered it inaccurate. It
is a fact, proved by the ancient Easter table of the Roman Church, that
the cycle of eighty-four years continued to be used at Rome as before.
Now this cycle differed in many ways from the Alexandrian, and did
not always agree with it about the period for Easter--in fact(a), the
Romans used quite another method from the Alexandrians; they
calculated from the epact, and began from the feria prima of
January.(b.) The Romans were mistaken in placing the full moon a
little too soon; whilst the Alexandrians placed it a little too late.(c.) At
Rome the equinox was supposed to fall on March 18th; whilst the
Alexandrians placed it on March 21st.(d.) Finally, the Romans differed
in this from the Greeks also; they did not celebrate Easter the next day
when the full moon fell on the Saturday.
Even the year following the Council of Nicea--that is, in 326--as well
as in the years 330, 333, 340, 341, 343, the Latins celebrated Easter on
a different day from the Alexandrians. In order to put an end to this
misunderstanding, the Synod of Sardica in 343, as we learn from the
newly discovered festival letters of S. Athanasius, took up again the
question of Easter, and brought the two parties(Alexandrians and
Romans) to regulate, by means of mutual concessions, a common day
for Easter for the next fifty years. This compromise, after a few years,
was not observed. The troubles excited by the Arian heresy, and the
division which it caused between the East and the West, prevented the
decree of Sardica from being put into execution; therefore the Emperor
Theodosius the Great, after the re-establishment of peace in the
Church, found himself obliged to take fresh steps for obtaining a
complete uniformity in the manner of celebrating Easter. In 387, the
Romans having kept Easter on March 21st, the Alexandrians did not
do so for five weeks later--that is to say, till April 25th--because with
the Alexandrians the equinox was not till March 21st. The Emperor
Theodosius the Great then asked Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria for
an explanation of the difference. The bishop responded to the
Emperor's desire, and drew up a chronological table of the Easter
festivals, based upon the principles acknowledged by the Church of
Alexandria. Unfortunately, we now possess only the prologue of his
work.
[56]
Upon an invitation from Rome, S. Ambrose also mentioned the period
of this same Easter in 387, in his letter to the bishops of AEmilia, and
he sides with the Alexandrian computation. Cyril of Alexandria
abridged the paschal table of his uncle Theophilus, and fixed the time
for the ninety-five following Easters--that is, from 436 to 531 after
Christ. Besides this Cyril showed, in a letter to the Pope, what was
defective in the Latin calculation; and this demonstration was taken up
again, some time after, by order of the Emperor, by Paschasinus,
Bishop of Lilybaeum and Proterius of Alexandria, in a letter written by
them to Pope Leo I. In consequence of these communications, Pope
Leo often gave the preference to the Alexandrian computation, instead
of that of the Church of Rome. At the same time also was generally
established, the opinion so little entertained by the ancient authorities
of the Church--one might even say, so strongly in contradiction to their
teaching--that Christ partook of the passover on the 14th Nisan, that he
died on the 15th(not on the 14th, as the ancients considered), that he
lay in the grave on the 16th, and rose again on the 17th. In the letter
we have just mentioned, Proterius of Alexandria openly admitted all
these different points.
Some years afterwards, in 457, Victor of Aquitane, by order of the
Roman Archdeacon Hilary, endeavoured to make the Roman and the
Alexandrian calculations agree together. It has been conjectured that
subsequently Hilary, when Pope, brought Victor's calculation into use,
in 456--that is, at the time when the cycle of eighty-four years came to
an end. In the latter cycle the new moons were marked more
accurately, and the chief differences existing between the Latin and
Greek calculations disappeared; so that the Easter of the Latins
generally coincided with that of Alexandria, or was only a very little
removed from it. In cases when the <greek>id</greek> fell on a
Saturday, Victor did not wish to decide whether Easter should be
celebrated the next day, as the Alexandrians did, or should be
postponed for a week. He indicates both dates in his table, and leaves
the Pope to decide what was to be done in each separate case. Even
after Victor's calculations, there still remained great differences in the
manner of fixing the celebration of Easter; and it was Dionysius the
Less who first completely overcame them, by giving to the Latins a
paschal table having as its basis the cycle of nineteen years. This cycle
perfectly corresponded to that of Alexandria, and thus established that
harmony which had been so long sought in vain. He showed the
advantages of his calculation so strongly, that it was admitted by
Rome and by the whole of Italy; whilst almost the whole of Gaul
remained faithful to Victor's canon, and Great Britain still held the
'cycle of eighty-four years, a little improved by Sulpicius Severus.
When the Heptarchy was evangelized by the Roman missionaries, the
new converts accepted the calculation of Dionysius, whilst the ancient
Churches of Wales held fast their old tradition. From this arose the
well-known British dissensions about the celebration of Easter, which
were transplanted by Columban into Gaul. In 729, the majority of the
ancient British Churches accepted the cycle of nineteen years. It had
before been introduced into Spain, immediately after the conversion of
Reccared. Finally, under Charles the Great, the cycle of nineteen years
triumphed over all opposition; and thus the whole of Christendom was
united, for the Quartodecimans had gradually disappeared.(1)