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