THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF NICE, IN BITHYNIA
(CANONS I TO XX)
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 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 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 Treat 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 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 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.
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 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>.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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).
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 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 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. 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 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.
(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.
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 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 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, 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."
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 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 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 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.
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 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 circ