LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAICN 270,2 P41s Classics The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 'OCT 2 5 1982 • 7 ^ii- DEC Mr] AUG *S ^ APR i L161— O-1096 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/sevenecumenicalcOOperc A SELECT LIBRARY NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. J&econti Series. TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUME XIV. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. OXFORD: JAMES PARKER AND COMPANY. NEW YORK: THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY. M DCCCC. ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL. Printed by Messrs. James Parker & Co. at their Printing Office, Crown Yard, Cornmarket Street, Oxford. Pi- is. THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. THEIR CANONS AND DOGMATIC DECREES, TOGETHER WITH THE CANONS OF ALL THE LOCAL SYNODS WHICH HAVE RECEIVED ECUMENICAL ACCEPTANCE. EDITED WITH NOTES GATHERED FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE GREATEST SCHOLARS BY HENRY R. PERCIVAL, M.A., D.D. r^oj 224 a 2 CONTENTS Preface, • . vn General Introduction, xi 1. Method of Treatment, xi. 2. Concerning Ecumenical Councils in General, xi. 3. The Number of the Ecumenical Synods, xv. Biographical Introduction, xvii Appended Note on the Eastern Editions of Synodical Literature, xxiii A Bibliographical Index of the Printed Editions of the Canons of the Apostles and of the Councils in the Slavonic and Russian Languages, xxiii, xxv Excursus on the History of the Roman Law and its Relation to the Canon Law, . . xxix The First Ecumenical Council — The First Council of Nice, a.d. 325, . . 1 Historical Introduction, .... 2 The Nicene Creed, 3 Excursus ou the Word Homousios, . . 3 Excursus on the Words yew-qbei/To. 6v -noiri- Srtvra, . . .... 4 The Canons of 318 Holy Fathers assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia, . . 8 Excursus on the Use of the word " Canon," 9 Excursus on the Word -npoafytpetv, . . 13 Excursus on the Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Suburbi- carian Churches, 16 Excursus on the Rise of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, 18 Excursus on the Chorepiscopi, . ..21 Excursus ou the Public Discipline or Ex- omologesis of the Early Church, . . 25 Excursus on the Communion of the Sick, 30 Excursus on the Translation of Bishops, . 33 Excursus on Usury, 36 Excursus on the Deaconess of the Early Church, 41 Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons, .43 The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attrib- uted to the Council of Nice, . . .46 Proposed Action ou Clerical Celibacy, . 51 The Synodal Letter, 53 Excursus on the Subsequent History of the Eastern Question, 55 II. The Canons of the Councils of Ancy- ra, Gangra, Neocesarea, Antioch and Laodicea — Which Canons were Ac- cepted and Received by the Ecumeni- cal Synods, 58 Introductory Note to the Canons of Pro- vincial Synods, 59 i. The Council of Ancyra, a.d. 314 — Histor- ical Note, 61-62 The Canons of the Council of Ancyra, . 63 Excursus on Second Marriages, Called Digamy, .72 ii. The Council of Neocsesarea c. a.d. 315 — Historical Note, .... 77-78 The Canons of the Holy and Blessed Fath- ers who Assembled at Neocsesarea, . 79 iii. The Council of Gangra, a.d. 325-381 -His- torical Introduction Synodical Letter of the Council of Gangra. The Canons of the Holy Fathers Assembled at Gangra, ...... iv. The Synod of Antioch in Encamiis — a.d. 341 Historical Introduction, .... The Synodal Letter, . . The Canons of the Blessed and Holy Fath- ers Assembled at Antioch in Syria, v. Synod of Laodicea, a.d. 343-381, Historical Introduction, .... The Canons of the Synod held in the City of Laodicea, in Phrygia Pacatiana, Excursus on the Choir Offices of the Early Church, 134 Excursus on the Worship of the Early Church, . • 136 Excursus on the Vestments of the Early Church, "141 Excursus on the Minor Orders of the Early Church, \ 144 91 92 104 105 107 108 123 124 125 III. The Second Ecumenical Council — The First Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, Historical Introduction, .... The Holy Creed which the 150 Fathers set forth, which is Consonant with the Holy and Great Synod of Nice, Historical Excursus on the Introduction into the Creed of the Words "and the Son," , Historical Note on the Lost " Tome " of the Second Council Letter of the Same Holy Synod to the Most Pious Emperor Theodosius the Great, to which are Appended the Can- ons Enacted by Them, • Introduction on the Number of the Canons. Canons of the 150 Fathers who Assembled at Constantinople Excursus on the Heresies Condemned in Canon I. Warning to the Reader Touching Canon VII Excursus on the Authority of the Second Ecumenical Council, .... The Council of Constantinople, a.d. 382 — The Synodical Letter, .... 161 162 163 165 169 170 171 172 184 186 189 CONTENTS PAGE IV. The Thied Ecumenical Council— The Council of Ephesus, a.d. 431, . . . 191 Historical Introduction, .... 192 Note on the Emperor's Edict to the Synod. 196 Extracts from the Acts — Session I. , . . 197 The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, . . 197 Extracts from the Acts — Session I. (con- tinued), 199 Historical Introduction to St. Cyril's Anathematisms, 199 The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius with the XII. Anathematisms, .... 201 The Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius, 206 Excursus on the Word QsotSkos, . . 206 Excursus on How Our Lord Worked Mira- cles, 215 Extracts from the Acts — Session I. (Con- tinued) 218 Decree of the Council Against Nestorius, . 218 Extracts from the Acts — Session II., . 219 The Letter of Pope Coelestine to the Synod of Ephesus, 220 Extracts from the Acts — Session II. (Con- tinued), 222 Extracts from the Acts — Session III., . 223 The Canons of the 200 Holy and Blessed Fathers Who Met at Ephesus, . . 225 Excursus on the Conciliabulum of John of Antioch, 226 Excursus on Pelagianism, .... 229 Observation of the Roman Editors (Ed. 1608), 231 Observation of Philip Labbe, S. J. P., . 231 Excursus on the Words irianv krcpav, . 232 The Letter of the Same Holy Synod of Ephesus to the Sacred Synod in Pamphy- lia Concerning Eustathius who had been Their Metropolitan, . . . .236 The Letter of the Synod to Pope Celestine. 237 The Definition of the Holy and Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus Against the Impious Messaliaus, who are also Called Euchetse and Enthusiasts, 240 Note on the Messalians or Massalians, . 240 Decree of the Synod in the Matter of Eu- prepius and Cyril, . . . . 242 V." The Fourth Ecumenical Council— The Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451, . . 243 General Introduction, .... 244 Extracts from the Acts — Session I., . . 247 Extracts from the Acts — Session II. , . 248 The Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch, . 251 Extracts from the Acts — Session II. (con- tinued), 253 The Tome of St. Leo, . . . .254 Extracts from the Acts — Session II. (con- tinued), III., 259 The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus, . . 260 Extracts from the Acts— Session IV. , . 260 Extracts from the Acts — Session V., . 261 The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, 262 Extracts from the Acts — Session VI., . 265 Decree on the Jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Antioch, 266 The Decree with Regard to the Bishop of Ephesus — Session XII., .... 266 Decree with Regard to Nicomedia — Ses- sion XIII., 267 The XXX. Canons of the Holy and Fourth Synod of Chalcedon, . . . .267 Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII. , .288 Extracts from the Acts — Session XVI., . 292 VI. The Fifth Ecumenical Council — The Second Council of Constantinople, a.d. 553, 297 Historical Introduction, .... 299 Excursus on the Genuineness of the Acts of the Fifth Council, . . . .301 Extracts from the Acts — Session I., . . 302 Extracts from the Acts — Session VII., . 304 The Sentence of the Synod, . . .306 The Capitula of the Council, . . .312 Excursus on the XV. Anathemas Against Origen, . 316 The Anathemas Against Origen, . .318 The Anathematisms of the Emperor Jus- tinian Against Origen, .... 320 The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, 321 Historical Excursus on the After History of the Council, 323 VII. The Sixth Ecumenical Council — The Third Council of Constantinople, a.d. 680-681, 325 Historical Introduction, .... 326 Extracts from the Acts — Session I., . . 327 The Letter of Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, to the Emperor, and the Letter of Agatho and of 125 Bishops of the Roman Synod, Addressed to the Sixth Council, . . 328 Introductory Note 328 The Letter of Pope Agatho, . . .328 The Letter of Pope Agatho and of the Ro- man Synod of 125 Bishops which was to Serve as an Instruction to the Legates Sent to Attend the Sixth Synod, . . 340 Extracts from the Acts — Session VIII., . 342 The Sentence Against the Monothelites — Session XIII 342 Extracts from the Acts — Session XVI., . 343 The Definition of Faith, . . . .344 The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor, . 347 Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, . . 349 Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius, 351 The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church, near what is Called the Dicymbala, . . . 353 VIII. The Canons of the Council in Trullo : Often Called The Quinisext Council, a.d. 692, 355 Introductory Note, 356 The Canons of the Council in Trullo, . 359 Excursus on the Marriage of the Clergy, . 365 IX. The Canons of the Synods of Sar- dica, Carthage, Constantinople, and Carthage Under St. Cyprian, which Canons were Received by the Council in Trullo and Ratified by Nice II. , . 409 Introductory Note, . , . . . 410 CONTENTS i. The Council of Sardica, a.d. 343 or 344, . 411 Introduction on the Date of the Council, 413 Note on the Text of the Canons, . . 414 The Canons of the Council of Sardica, . 415 Excursus as to Whether the Sardica Council was Ecumenical, . . . 435 ii. The Canons of the CCXVII. Blessed Fath- ers who Assembled at Carthage, Commonly Called the Code of Canons of the African Church, a.d. 419, 437 Introductory Note, .... 438 An Ancient Introduction, . . . 440 The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers who Assembled at Carthage, . . 441 iii. Council of Constantinople held Under Nec- tarius, a.d. 394, 511 Introductory Note, .... 512 Council of Constantinople under Nec- tarius of Constantinople and The- ophilus of Alexandria, . . . 513 iv. The Council of Carthage Held Under Cyprian, a.d. 257, 515 Introductory Note, .... 516 The Synod Held at Carthage over which Presided the Great and Holy Martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a.d. 257. 517 Epistle LXX. Cyprian, Liberalis, Cale- donius, etc., to Their Brethren, Jan- uarius, etc., Greeting, . . . 518 X. The Seventh Ecumenical Council — The Second Council op Nice, a.d. 787, . . 521 Introduction, 523 The Divine Sacra Sent by the Emperors Constantine and Irene to the Most Holy and Blessed Hadrian, Pope of Old Rome, 529 The Imperial Sacra Read at the First Ses- sion, 530 Extracts from the Acts — Session I., . . 533 Extracts from the Acts — Session II., . 536 Extracts from the Acts — Session III., . 539 Extracts from the Acts — Session IV., . 539 Extracts from the Acts — Session VI., . 542 Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclas- tic Conciliabulum, Held in Constantino- ple, a.d. 754, 543 Excursus on the Conciliabulum Styling Itself the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but Commonly Called the Mock Synod of Constantinople, ..... 546 The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumeni- cal Synod, the Second of Nice, . . 549 Excursus on the Present Teaching of the Latin and Greek Churches on the Sub- ject, 551 The Canons of the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council, 555 Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress, . . . . . . 571 Examination of the Caroline Books, . 578 Excursus on the Council of Frankfort, a.d. 794, 583 Historical Note on the So-called " Eighth General Council " and Subsequent Coun- cils, 586 Appendix Containing Canons and Rulings, not having conciliak origin, but ap- PROVED by Name in Canon II. op the Synod in Trullo, 589 Prefatory Note 590 1. The Apostolical Canons, .... 591 The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles 594 2. The Canons of the Blessed Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria, and Martyr, which are Found in His Sermon on Penitence, . . 601 3. The Canonical Epistle of St. Gregory, Arch- bishop of Neocaesarea, who is Called Thau- maturgus, Concerning them that During the Incursion of the Barbarians Ate of Things Offered to Idols, and Committed Certain Other Sins, 602 4. The Epistle of St. Athanasius to the Monk Ammus, 602 The Epistle of the Same Athanasius Taken from the XXXIX. Festal Epis- tle, 603 The Epistle of St. Athanasius to Ruf- finian, 603 5. The First Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, 604 The Second Canonical Epistle of the Same 605 The Third Epistle of the Same to the Same, 607 6. The Canonical Epistle of St. Gregory, Bish- op of Nyssa, to St. Letoi'us, Bishop of Mity- lene, 611 7. From the Metre Poems of St. Gregory The- ologus, Specifying which Books of the Old and New Testament Should be Read, . 612 8. From the Iambics of St. Amphilochius, the Bishop to Seleucus on the Same Sub- ject, 612 9. The Canonical Answers of Timothy, the Most Holy Bishop of Alexandria, who was One of the CL. Fathers Gathered Together at Constantinople, to the Questions Pro- posed to Him Concerning Bishops and Clerics, 612 10. The Prosphonesus of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, when the Holy Epiphanies Happened to Fall on a Sunday, . . .613 The Commonitory of the Same which Amnion Received on Account of Ly- cus, 614 The Narrative of the Same Concerning those Called Cathari, . . . .615 11. The Canonical Epistle of our Holy Father among the Saints, Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, on the Hymns. — Cyril to Dom- nus. — Of the Same to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis, .... . 615 12. The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius, Patri- arch of Constantinople, and of the Holy Synod Met with Him to all the Holy Metro- politans, and to the Pope of the City of Rome, 615 Index of Authors, Index of Names, Index of Words and Phrases, Index of Places, Index of Subjects, . 619 622 628 630 633 PREFACE. The work intrusted to me of preparing this volume evidently can be divided into two separate parts. The first, the collecting of the material needed and the setting of it before the reader in the English tongue ; the other, the preparation of suitable intro- ductions and notes to the matter thus provided. Now in each of these departments two courses were open to the editor : the one, to be original ; the other, to be a copyist. I need hardly say that of these the former offered many temptations. But I could not fail to recognize the fact that such a course would greatly take from the real value of the work, and therefore without any hesitation I have adopted the other alternative, and have endeavoured, so far as was at all possible, to keep myself out of the question alto- gether ; and as a general rule even the translation of the text (as distinguished from the notes) is not mine but that of some scholar of well-established reputation. In the carrying out of this method of procedure I have availed myself of all the translations which I could find, and where, after comparing them with the original, I have thought them substantially accurate, I have adopted them and reproduced them. Where I have thought that the translation was misleading, I have amended it from some other translation, and, I think, in no case have I ventured a change of translation which rests upon my own judgment alone. A very considerable portion, however, of the matter found in this volume is now translated into English for the first time. For some of this I am indebted to my friends, who have most kindly given me every assistance in their power, but even here no translation has been made from the Greek without care- ful reference being had to the traditional understanding, as handed down in the Latin versions, and wherever the Latin and Greek texts differ on material points the difference has been noted. I have not thought it necessary nor desirable to specify the source of each particular translation, but I have provided for the use of the reader a list of all the translations which I have used. I should also add that I have not considered any one text sufficiently well established as to command any deference being paid to it, and that I have usually followed (for my own convenience rather than for any other reason) the text contained in Labbe and Cossart's Concilia. No doubt Hardouin and Mansi are in some respects superior, but old prejudices are very strong, and the reader will remem- ber that these differing Concilia gave rise to a hard-fought battle in the history of the Gallican Church. I should add, however, that where more recent students of the sub- ject have detected errors of importance in Labbe's text, I have corrected them, usually noting the variety of reading. With regard then to the text I entirely disclaim any responsibility, and the more so as on such a matter my opinion would be entirely valueless. And with regard to the translation my responsibility goes no further than the certifying the reader that, to all intents and purposes, the meaning of the original is presented to him in the English language and without interpretation being introduced under the specious guise of translation. Some portions are mere literal translations, viii PREFACE and some are done into more idiomatic English, but all — so far as I am able to judge — are fair renderings of the original, its ambiguities being duly preserved. I have used as the foundation of the translation of the canons of the first four synods and of the five Provincial Synods that most convenient book, Index Canonum, by the Rev. John Ful- ton, D.D., D.C.L., in which united to a good translation is a Greek text, very well edited and clearly printed. In preparing the other division of the book, that is to say, the Introduction and Notes, I have been guided by the same considerations. Here will be found no new and brilliant guesses of my own, but a collection of the most reliable conclusions of the most weighty critics and commentators. Where the notes are of any length I have traced the source and given the exact reference, but for the brief notes, where I have not thought this necessary, the reader may feel the greatest confidence that he is not reading any surmises of mine, but that in every particular what he reads rests upon the authority of the greatest names who have written on the subject. In the bibliographical table already referred to I have placed the authorities most frequently cited. I think it necessary to make a few remarks upon the rule which I have laid down for myself with regard to my attitude on controverted questions bearing upon doctrine or ecclesiastical discipline. It seems to me that in such a work as the present any expression of the editor's views would be eminently out of place. I have therefore con- fined myself to a bare statement of what I conceive to be the facts of the case, and have left the reader to draw from them what conclusions he pleases. I hope that this vol- ume may be equally acceptable to the Catholic and to the Protestant, to the Eastern and to the Western, and while I naturally think that the facts presented are clearly in accordance with my own views, I hope that those who draw from the same premises different conclusions will find these premises stated to their satisfaction in the following- pages. And should such be the case this volume may well be a step toward " the union of all " and toward " the peace of all the holy churches of God," for which the unchang- ing East has so constantly prayed in her liturgy. I wish to explain to the reader one other principle on which I have proceeded in preparing this volume. It professes to be a translation of the decrees and canons of certain ecclesiastical synods. It is not a history of those synods, nor is it a theological treatise upon the truth or otherwise of the doctrines set forth by those synods in their legislation. I have therefore carefully restricted my own historical introductions to a bare statement of such facts as seemed needed to render the meaning of the matter sub- sequently presented intelligible to the reader. And with regard to doctrine I have pursued the same course, merely explaining what the doctrine ta tght or condemned was, without entering into any consideration of its truth or falsity. For the history of the Church and its Councils the reader must consult the great historians ; for a defence of the Church's faith he must read the works of her theologians. I need hardly say that the overwhelming majority of the references found in this volume I have had no opportunity of verifying, no copy of many of the books being (so far as I know) to be found in America. I have, however, taken great pains to insure accuracy in reproducing the references as given in the books from which I have cited them ; this, however, does not give me any feeling of confidence that they may be relied on, especially as in some cases where I have been able to look them up, I have found errors of the most serious kind. PREFACE ix It now only remains that I thank all those who have assisted me in this work, and especially I must mention his Excellency the High Procurator of the Holy Governing Synod of Russia, who directed the bibliographical table of Russian editions of the Canons, etc., which is found in this volume, to be prepared for me by Professor Glubokoffski of the Ecclesiastical Academy at St. Petersburgh. My special thanks are due to the learned professor just named for the very admirable manner in which he has performed the work, and to Mr. W. J. Birkbeck, who has added one more to his numerous labours for making the "West better acquainted with the East by translating the Russian MS. into English. I cannot but pause here to remark how deep my regret is that my igno- rance of the Russian and Slavic tongues has prevented me from laying before my readers the treasures of learning and the stores of tradition and local illustration which these volumes must contain. I am, however, extremely well pleased in being able to put those, who are more fortunate than myself in this respect, in the way of investigating the matter for themselves, by supplying them with the titles of the books on the subject. I desire also to offer my thanks to Professor Bolotoff for the valuable information he sent me as well as for a copy of his learned (and often most just) strictures upon Pro- fessor Lauchert's book, " Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den Apostolischen Kanones." (Freiburg in B. und Leipzig, 1896.) The Rev. Wm. McGarvey has helped me most kindly by translating parts of the Second Council of Nice, and one or more of the African Canons ; and by looking over the translation of the entire African Code. The Rev. F. A. Sanborn translated two of St. Cyril's letters, and the Rev. Leighton Hoskins the Sardican Canons. To these and many other of my friends, who in one way or another helped me, I wish to return my deep thanks ; also to the Nashotah Theo- logical Seminary and to the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Mt. Airy, Philadel- phia, for having placed their libraries entirely at my disposal ; nor can I end this list without mention of my sister, who has assisted me most materially through the entire progress of the work, and without whom I never could have undertaken it. When I think of the great number of authors cited, of the rapidity with which most of the translation has had to be done, of the difficulty of getting access to the necessary books, and of the vast range of subjects touched upon (including almost every branch of ecclesiastical and theological learning), I feel I must throw myself and my work upon the reader's indulgence and beg him to take all this in consideration in making his esti- mate of the value of the work done. As for me, now that it is all finished, I feel like crying out with the reader, in deep shame at the recollection of the many blunders he has made in reading the lesson, " Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis ! " In conclusion I would add that nothing I have written must be interpreted as mean- ing that the editor personally has any doubt of the truth of the doctrines set forth by the Ecumenical Councils of the Christian Church, and I wish to declare in the most distinct manner that I accept all the doctrinal decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods as infallible and irreformable. Henry R. Percival. Pentecost, 1899. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. I. METHOD OF TREATMENT. It is absolutely necessary that a few words should be said on the general arrange- ment of the work. The reader will find given him in the English tongue, so far as they have come down to us, all the doctrinal definitions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (councils which have always, and still do, receive the unqualified acceptance of both East and West), and all the canons, disciplinary and doctrinal, which were enacted by them. To these has been added a translation in full of all the canons of the local synods which received the approval and sanction of the aforesaid Ecumenical Councils. Besides this, as throwing light upon the subject, large extracts from the Acta have been given, in fact all that seemed to illustrate the decrees ; and, that nothing might be lack- ing, in an appendix has been placed a collection of all the non-synodal canons which have received the sanction of the Ecumenical Synods, the " Canons of the Apostles " (so called) being given in full, and the others in a shortened form, for the most part in the words of the admirable and learned John Johnson. This then is the text of the volume ; but it is manifest that it stood in need of much comment to make its meaning clear to the reader, even if well informed on ordinary matters. To provide for this, to each synodal canon there has been added the Ancient Epitome. Of this Epitome Bishop Beveridge treats with great learning in section xxvi. of his "Prolegomena " to his Synodicon, and shows that while some attributed this epitome to the Greek mediaeval scholiast Aristenus, it cannot be his, as he has taken it for the text of his commentaries, and has in more than one instance pointed out that whoever he was who made it had, in his judgment, missed the sense. 1 The Epitome must indeed be much older, for Nicholas Hydruntinus, who lived in the times of Alexis Angelus, when intending to quote one of the canons of Ephesus, actually quotes words which are not in that canon, but which are in the Epitome. " Wherefore," says Beveridge, " it is manifest that the Epitome is here cited, and that under the name of the whole canon." This being established we may justly look upon the Ancient Epitome as supplying us with a very ancient gloss upon the canons. To this Epitome have been added Notes, taken from most of the great commentators, and Excursuses, largely made up from the writings of the greatest theologians, canonists, archaeologists, etc., with regard to whom and their writings, all the information that seems necessary the reader will find in the Bibliographical Introduction. II. CONCEBNING ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IN GENERAL. An Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. 2 It is not necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I. Constantinople ; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I. Constantinople ; it is 1 Vide Apostolic Canon LXXV., and Ancyr. Canon XIX. 2 This was until the division of the East and West the definition accepted by all the whole Christian world. But since the Church has been divided, while the East has kept to the old definition and has not pretended to have held any Ecumenical Councils, the Ro- man Church has made a new definition of the old term and has then proceeded to hold a very considerable number of synods which she recognizes as Ecumenical. I say " a very considerable number," for even among Roman Catholic theologians there is much dispute as to the number of these " Ecumenical Synods," the decrees of which, like those of Trent and the Vatican, have never been received by about half of the Christian world, including four of the?five patriarchates, and of the fifth patriarchate all the Anglican communion. According to modern Roman writers the definition of these non-ecumenically received Ecumenical Synods is " Ecu- menical councils are those to which the bishops and others entitled to vote are convoked from the whole world under the Presidency of the Pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians." Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, s. v. Councils. The reader will notice that by this definition one at least (I. Constantinople), probably three, of the seven undisputed Ecumenical Synods cease to be such. xii GENERAL INTRODUCTION not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited. All that is necessary is that its de- crees find ecumenical acceptance afterwards, and its ecumenical character be univer- sally recognized. The reader will notice that in the foregoing I have not proceeded from the theologi- cal foundation of what an Ecumenical Synod should be (with this question the present volume has nothing to do), but from a consideration of the historical question as to what the Seven Councils have in common, which distinguishes them from the other councils of the Christian Church. And here it is well to note that there have been many " General Councils " which have not been " Ecumenical." It is true that in ordinary parlance we often use the expressions as interchangeable, but such really is not the case. There are but seven universally recognized and undisputed " Ecumenical Councils " ; on the other hand, the number of " General Councils " is very considerable, and as a matter of fact of these last several very large ones fell into heresy. It is only necessary to mention as examples the Latrocinium and the spurious " Seventh Council," held by the iconoclastic heretics. It is therefore the mere statement of an historical fact to say that General Councils have erred. The Ecumenical Councils claimed for themselves an immunity from error in their doc- trinal and moral teaching, resting such claim upon the promise of the presence and guid- ance of the Holy Ghost. The Council looked upon itself, not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, its decisions therefore were in themselves ecumenical, as being an expression of the mind of the whole body of the faithful both clerical and lay, the sensus communis of the Church. And by the then teaching of the Church that ecumenical consensus was considered free from the suspicion of error, guarded, (as was believed,) by the Lord's promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church. This then is what Catholics mean when they affirm the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. Whether this opinion is true or false is a question outside the scope of the present discussion. It was necessary, however, to state that these Councils looked upon themselves as divinely protected in their decisions from error in faith and morals, lest the reader should otherwise be at a loss to understand the anathematisms which follow the decrees, and which indeed would be singularly out of place, if the decrees which they thus emphatically affirm were sup- posed to rest only upon human wisdom and speculation, instead of upon divine authority. Theologians consider that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, like all juridical decrees, must be construed strictly, and that only the point at issue must be looked upon as decided. The obiter dicta of so august a body are no doubt of the greatest weight, but yet they have no claim to be possessed of that supreme authority which belongs to the definition of the particular point under consideration. 1 The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the commandment and will of Princes ; without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople) 2 ; without any consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know 3 ; and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome. In the history of the Christian Church, especially at a later period in connection with the Great Schism, much discussion has taken place among the learned as to the relative powers of a General Council and of the Pope. It will be remembered by every- one that the superior authority of the council was not only taught, but on one occasion 1 Vide Vasquez, P. m., Disp. 181, c. 9 ; Bellarmin., De Concil., Lib. II., cap. svij. ; Veron, Rule of the Cath. Faith, Chap. I., §§ 4, 5, and 6. 2 See Hefele's answer to Baronius's special pleading. Hist. Councils, Vol. I., pp. 9, 10. 3 It should be stated that at the Sixth Synod it was said that I, Nice was "summoned by the Emperor and Pope Sylvester," on what authority I know not, GENERAL INTRODUCTION xiii acted on, by a council, but this is outside of the period covered by the Seven Ecumen- ical Synods, and I shall therefore only discuss the relations of these seven synods to the Roman See. And in the first place it is evident that no council has ever been re- ceived as ecumenical which has not been received and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. But, after all, this is only saying that no council has been accepted as ecumenical which has not been ecumenically received, for it must be remembered that there was but one Patriarchate for the whole West, that of Rome ; and this is true to all intents and pur- poses, whether or no certain sections had extrapatriarchal privileges, and were " auto- cephalous." But it would be giving an entirely unfair impression of the matter to the reader were he left to suppose that this necessity for Rome's confirmation sprang necessarily from any idea of Rome's infallibility. So far as appears from any extant document, such an idea was as unknown in the whole world then as it is in four of the five patri- archates to-day. And it should be borne in mind that the confirmation by the Emperor was sought for and spoken of in quite as strong, if not stronger, terms. Before passing to a particular examination of what relation each of the Councils bore to the Roman See, it may be well to note that while as an historical fact each of the Seven Ecumen- ical Councils did eventually find acceptance at Rome, this fact does not prove that such acceptance is necessary in the nature of things. If we can imagine a time when Rome is not in communion with the greater part of the West, then it is quite possible to im- agine that an Ecumenical Council could be held whose decrees would (for the time being) be rejected by the unworthy occupant of the Apostolic See. I am not asserting that such a state of affairs is possible from a theological standpoint, but merely stating an historical contingency which is perfectly within the range of imagination, even if cut off from any practical possibility by the faith of some. We now come to a consideration of how, by its acts, each of the Seven Synods in- timated its relation to the Roman See : 1. The First Council of Nice passed a canon in which some at least of the Roman rights are evidently looked upon as being exactly on the same plane as those of other metropolitans, declaring that they rest upon " custom." It was the Emperor who originated this council and called it together, if we may believe his own words and those of the council ; and while indeed it is possible that when the Emperor did not preside in person, Hosius of Cordova may have done so (even uniting the two Roman Presbyters who were the legates of the Roman See with him), yet there is no evidence that anything of the kind ever took place, and a pope, Felix III. (a.d. 483-492), in his Fifth Epistle (ad Imp. Zen.) declares that Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, presided at this council. 1 The matter, however, is of little moment as no one would deny the right of the See of Rome to preside in a council of the whole Church. 2. The Second Ecumenical Council was called together by the Emperor without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff. Nor was he invited to be present. Its first presi- dent was not in communion at the time of its session with the Roman Church. And, without any recourse to the first of all the patriarchs, it passed a canon changing the order of the patriarchates, and setting the new see of Constantinople in a higher place than the other ancient patriarchates, in fact immediately after Rome. Of course Prot- estants will consider this a matter of very minor importance, looking upon all patri- archal divisions and rank and priority (the Papacy included) as of a disciplinary char- acter and as being jure ecclesiastico, and in no way affecting doctrine, but any fair reading of the third canon of this synod would seem plainly to assert that as the first rank of Rome rested upon the fact of its being the capital city, so the new capital city should have the second rank. If this interpretation is correct it affects very materially the Roman claim oijure divino primacy. 3. Before the third of the Ecumenical Synods was called to meet, Pope Celestine had already convicted Nestorius of heresy and deposed and excommunicated him. When ' Cf. Theod. B. K, Lib. I., e. 6. xiv GENERAL INTRODUCTION subsequently the synod was assembled, and before the papal legates had arrived, the Council met, treated Nestorius as in good standing, entirely ignoring the sentence already given by Rome, and having examined the case (after summoning him three times to appear that he might be heard in his own defence), proceeded to sentence Nestorius, and immediately published the sentence. On the 10th of July (more than a fortnight later), the papal legates having arrived, a second session was held, at which they were told what had been done, all of which they were good enough to approve of. 1 4. The Council of Chalcedon refused to consider the Eutychian matter as settled by Rome's decision or to accept Leo's Tome without examination as to whether it was ortho- dox. Moreover it passed a canon at a session which the Papal legates refused to attend, ratifying the order of the Patriarchates fixed at I. Constantinople, and declaring that " the Fathers had very properly given privileges to Old Rome as the imperial city, and that now they gave the same (ra laa Trpecrfieia) privileges " to Constantinople as the seat of the imperial government at that time. 5. The fifth of the Ecumenical Synods refused to receive any written doctrinal com- munication from the then pope (Vigilius), took his name from the diptychs, and re- fused him communion. 6. The Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth of the Ecumenical Synods, ex- communicated Pope Honorius, who had been dead for years, for holding and teaching the Monothelite heresy. 7. It is certain that the Pope had nothing to do with the calling of the Seventh Synod, 2 and quite possible that it was presided over by Tarasius and not by the Papal legates. Such is, in brief, the evidence which the Ecumenical Councils give on the subject of what, for lack of a better designation, may be called the Papal claims. Under these cir- cumstances it may not be deemed strange that some extreme ultramontanists have ar- rived at the conclusion that much of the acts and decisions as Ave have them is spurious, or at least corrupted in an anti-papal direction. Vincenzi, who is the most learned of these writers, argues somewhat thus ' if the members of the Ecumenical Synods believed as we do to-day with regard to the Papacy it is impossible that they should have acted and spoken as they did, but we know they must have believed as we do, ergo they did not so act or speak.' The logic is admirable, but the truth of the conclusion depends upon the truth of the minor premise. The forgeries would have been very extensive, and who were they done by ? Forgeries, as the false decretals, to advance papal claims we are unfortunately familiar with, but it is hard to imagine who could have forged in Greek and Latin the acts of the Ecumenical Synods. It is not necessary to pursue the matter any further, perhaps its very mention was uncalled for, but I wish to be abso- lutely fair, that no one may say that any evidence has been suppressed. 3 1 Protestant Controversialists, as well as others, have curious ways of stating historical events without any regard to the facts of the case. A notable instance of this is found in Dr. Salmon's Infallibility of the Church (p. 426 of the 2d Edition) where we are told that " the only one of the great controversies in which the Pope really did his part in teaching Christians what to believe was the Eutychian controversy. Leo the Great, instead of waiting, as Popes usually do, till the question was settled, published his sen- timents at the beginning, and bis letter to Flavian was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon. This is what would have always hap- pened if God had really made the Pope the guide to the Church. But this case is quite exceptional, resulting from the accident that Leo was a good theologian, besides being a man of great vigour of character. No similar influence was exercised either by his pred- ecessors or successors." This sentence is not pleasant reading, for it is an awe-inspiring display of one of two things, neither of which should be in the author of such a book. We need only remind the reader that Celestine had condemned Nestorius and his teaching before the Council of Ephesus ; that Honorius had written letters defining the question with regard to the will or wills of the Incarnate Son before the HI. Council of Constantinople (which excommunicated him as s. heretic for these very letters) ; that Pone Vigilius condemned the " Three Chapters " before the H. Council of Constantinople ; and that Gregory II. condemned the iconoclastic heresy before the Seventh Synod, if the letters attributed to him be genuine (which is not quite certain, as will be shewn in its proper place). Thus the only two great questions not decided, one way or another, by the See of Rome before the meeting of a General Council were Arianism and Macedonianism, and some have held (though mistakenly as is generally thought) that Arius was condemned by a synod held at Rome before that of Nice. 2 See Michaud's brilliant answer to Hefele, Discussion sur les Sept Conciles (Ecuminiques, p. 327. 3 The reader may easily satisfy himself on this matter by reading the somewhat extensive works of Aloysius Vincenzi, published in Rome in 1875 and thereabouts. GENERAL INTRODUCTION xv III. THE NUMBEB OF THE ECUMENICAL SYNODS. It may not be unjustly expected that some reasons should be assigned for limiting the number of the Ecumenical Synods to seven. There is no need here to enter into any proof that Nice, I. Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon are Ecumenical, since so long ago as the time of St. Gregory the Great, that Saint and Doctor said of them : " I venerate the first four Ecumenical Councils equally with the Four Gospels (sicut quatuor Evangelia)," * and no one has been found to question that in so saying he gave expression to the mind of the Church of his day. Of the fifth and sixth synods there never was any real doubt, although there was trouble at first about the reception of the fifth in some places. The ecumenical character of the seventh is not disputed by East or West and has not been for near a thousand years, and full proof of its ecumenicity will be found in connection with that council. There is therefore no possible doubt that these seven must be included, but it may be asked why certain others are not here also. The following is a list of those that might seem to have a claim : Sardica (343 circa), Quinisext (692), Constantinople (869), Lyons (1274), and Florence (1439). The reasons for rejecting the claims of Sardica will be found in connection with the canons set forth by that council. The same is the case with regard to the claims of the Synod in Trullo. It is true that IV. Constantinople, holden in A.D. 869, was for a short while held as Ecumenical by both East and West, and continues to be held as such by the Latin Church down to this day, but it was soon rejected by the East and another synod of Constantinople (879), which undid much of its work, has for the Greeks taken its place. However the Easterns do not claim for this synod an ecumenical character, but confine the number to seven. The Councils of Lyons and Florence both fail of ecumenicity for the same reason. At both the East was represented, and at each an agreement was arrived at, but neither agreement was subsequently accepted in the East, and the decrees therefore have failed, as yet, of receiving eciimenical acceptance. We are left therefore with Seven Ecumenical Councils, neither more nor less, and these are fully treated of in the pages that follow. > Epistle XXIV. of Lib. I. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION. To the student of the ancient synods of the Church of Christ, the name of William Beveridge must ever stand most illustrious ; and his work on the canons of the undi- vided Church as received by the Greeks, piiblished at Oxford in 1672, will remain a lasting glory to the Anglican Church, as the " Concilia " of Labbe and Cossart, which appeared in Paris about the same time, must ever redound to the glory of her sister, the Gallican Church. Of the permanent value of Beveridge's work there can be no greater evidence than that to-day it is quoted all the world over, and not only are Anglicans proud of the bishop of St. Asaph, but Catholics and Protestants, Westerns and Easterns alike quote him as an authority. In illustration of this it will be sufficient to mention two ex- amples, the most extensive and learned work on the councils of our own day, that by the Roman Catholic bishop Hefele, and the " Compendium of Canon Law," by the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Greek Hungarian Church, 1 in both of which the reader will find constant reference to Beveridge's " Synodicon." This great work appeared in two volumes full folio, with the Greek text, beauti- fully printed, but of course with the ligatures so perplexing to the ordinary Greek reader of to-day. It should however be noted that the most learned and interesting Prolegomena in HvvoSikov sive Pandectce Canonum, as well as the Praefationem ad annotationes in Canones Apostolicos, is reprinted as an Appendix to Vol. XII. of " The Theological Works of William Beveridge, sometime lord bishop of St. Asaph," in the " Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology," (published at Oxford, 1848), which also contains a reprint of the " Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Primitive vindicatus ac illustratus," of which last work I shall have something to say in connection with the Apostolical Can- ons in the Appendix to this volume. Nothing could exceed the value of the Prolegomena and it is greatly to be wished that this most unique preface were more read by students. It contains a fund of out- of-the-way information which can be found nowhere else collected together, and while indeed later research has thrown some further light upon the subject, yet the main conclusions of Bishop Beveridge are still accepted by the learned with but few ex- ceptions. I have endeavoured, as far as possible to incorporate into this volume the most important part of the learned bishop's notes and observations, but the real stu- dent must consult the work itself. The reader will be interested to know that the greatest English scholars of his day assisted Bishop Beveridge in his work, among whom was John Pearson, the defender of the Ignatian Epistles. I think I cannot do better than set out in full the contents of the Synodicon so that the student may know just what he will find in its pages : " TZvvohbicov sive Padectae Canonum SS. Apostolorum, et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptorum ; necnon Canonicorum SS. Patrum Epistolarum : Una cum Scholiis Antiquorum singulis eorum annexis, et scriptis aliis hue spectantibus ; quorum plurima e Biblothecse Bodleianse aliarumque MSS. codicibus nunc primum edita : reliqua cum iisdem MSS. summa fide et diligentia collata. Totum Opus in duos Tomos divisum, Guilielmus Beverigius, Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter, Recensuit, Prolegomenis muni- vit, et Annotationibus auxit. Oxonii, E Theatro Sheldoniano. M.DC.LXXII." Such is the title in full. I proceed to note the contents, premising that for all the Greek a Latin translation is given in a parallel column : Volume I. The Canons of the Holy Apostles, with the Ancient Epitome, and the scholia of Bal- samon, Zonaras and Aristenus. The Canons of the Council of Nice with notes ut supra and so throughout. 1 As one of the few books of the Eastern Church ever translated into a Western tongue, the reader may be glad to have its full title. Compendium des Kanonischen Rechtes der einen heiligen, allgemeinen und apostoliochen Kirche verfaszt von Andreas Frei- herrn von Schaguna. Hermannstadt, Buchdruckerei des Josef Droklieff, 1868. VOL. XIV. b xviii BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION The Canons of the Council of Constantinople. The Canons of the Council of Ephesus. The Canons of the Council of Chalcedon. The Canons of the Sixth Council in Trallo. The Canons of the Seventh (Ecumenical Council. The Canons of the Council of Constantinople called the First-and-Second [in the time of Photius]. The Canons of the Council held in the Temple of Wisdom [which confirmed the Seventh (Ecumenical Synod] . All these with notes as before. The Canons of the Council of Carthage [over which St. Cyprian, the Martyr, pre- sided] with the notes of Balsamon and Zonaras. The Canons of the Council of Ancyra. The Canons of the Council of Neocsesarea. The Canons of the Council of Gangra. The Canons of the Council of Antioch. The Canons of the Council of Laodicea. The Canons of the Council of Sardica. All these with full notes as before. The Canons of the 217 blessed Fathers who met at Carthage, with the epitome, and scholia by Balsamon and Aristenus, and on the actual canons by Zonaras also. To these some epistles are added, likewise annotated. Then, ending Volume I. is a version of Josephus iEgyptius's Arabic Introduction and Paraphrase on the Canons of the first four General Councils, bearing the following title : Josephi iEgyptii Proaemia et Paraphrasis Arabica in Quatuor Preorum Generalium Conciliorum Canones, interprete Guilielmo Beverigio, the Arabic being given in the left hand column. Volume II. Part I. The Canons of Dionysius of Alexandria, with the scholia of Balsamon and Zonaras. The Canons of Peter of Alexandria. The Canons of Gregory Thaumaturgus. The Canons of St. Athanasius. All these with scholia as above. The Canons of St. Basil, with the Ancient Epitome and scholia of Balsamon, Zona- ras, and Aristenus. The Canons of St. Gregory Nyssen with scholia of Balsamon. The Canonical Answer of Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria. The Canons of Theophilus of Alexandria. The Canonical Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria. Extracts from the metrical poems of St. Gregory Theologus, concerning what books of the Old and New Testaments should be read. Extracts from the iambics of St. Amphilochius the bishop to Seleucus on the same subject. The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Epistle of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Adrian, Pope of Rome, con- cerning simony. All of these with Balsamon's scholia. Part II. The Sjmopsis by Alexius Aristenus of the letters called Canonical. The questions of Certain Monks and the Answers sent by the Synod of Constantino- ple. With notes by Balsamon. 1 The Alphabetical Syntagma of all that is contained in the Sacred and Divine Can- ons, by Mathew Blastares, the Monk. 2 Concerning the Holy and (Ecumenical Synod which restored Photius, the most holy Patriarch to the See of Constantinople, and dissolved the scandal of the two Churches 1 According to the Eleuchus, in the beginning of this volume, both of these writings are found in the First Part and not in the econd Part of the volume. 2 Schoell says that the test is not accurately given. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xix of Old and New Borne ; [Styled by some the " Eighth CEcumenical Synod."] to which is added the Letter of the Blessed John Pope of Borne to the most holy Photius, Archbishop of Constantinople. An Index Berum et Verborum of both volumes. Beveridge's own Notes on the Canons of the Councils. An Index Berum et Verborum of the Notes. Such are the contents of Bishop Beveridge's great work, and it is impossible to exaggerate its value. But it will be noticed that it only covers the disciplinary action of the Councils, and does not give the dogmatic decrees, these being excluded from the author's plan. Before leaving the collections of the canons we must mention the great work of Justellus (the Preface and notes of which are found reprinted in Migne's Pat. Lai., Tom. LXVII.) ; Canonwn Ecclesice Universal Gr. et Lot. cum Prcefatione Notisque Christoph. Justelli. The author was counsellor and secretary to the King of France, was born in Paris 1580, and died in 1649. After his death there appeared at Paris in 1661 a work in 2 volumes folio, with the following title : Bibliotheca juris canonici vetus . . . ex an- tiquis codicibus MSS. Bibliothecce Ghristopheri Justelli. . . . Opera et studio Gul. Voelli et Henrici Justelli. The Church in Paris had the honour of having among its Cathedral clergy the first scholar who published a collection of the Acts of the councils. James Merlin was Canon and Grand Penitentiary of the Metropolitan Church, and the first edition of his work he put out in 1523 in one volume folio. This work passed through several edi- tions within a few years, but soon gave place to fuller collections. 1 In 1538, the Belgian Franciscan Peter Crabbe (Pierre Grable) issued at Cologne an enlarged collection in two volumes, and the second edition in 1551 was enlarged to three folio volumes. Besides these, there was Lawrence Surius's still more complete collection, published in 1557 (4 vols, folio), and the Venice collection compiled by Dom- enick Bollauus, O. P., and printed by Dominic Nicolini, 1585 (5 vols, folio). But the renowned collection of Professor Severin Binius surpassed all its predeces- sors, and its historical and critical notes are quoted with respect even to-day. The first edition, in four volumes folio, was issued at Cologne in 1606, and later editions, better than the first, in 1618 and 1636. This last edition was published at Paris in nine vol- umes, and made use of the Boman collection. To the learned Jesuit Sirmond belongs the chief glory of having compiled this Bo- man collection, and the " Introduction " is from his pen. The work was undertaken by the authority of Pope Paul V., and much of the Greek text, copied from MSS. in the Vatican Library, was now for the first time given to the reading public. This collection contains only the Ecumenical Councils according to the Boman method of reckoning, and its compilation took from 1608 to 1612. No collection appeared from this date until the " Collectio Begia," a magnificent series of thirty-seven volumes folio, at the royal press at Paris in 1644. But while it was superb in get up, it left much to be desired when looked at critically, for many faults of the Boman edition already pointed out by Sirmond were not corrected. And now we have reached the time when the first really great Concilia ap- peared, which while only filling seventeen volumes in folio was yet far more complete — Hefele says twenty-five per cent, more complete — than the great Collectio Begia just described. This edition was the work of Philip Labbe (Labbeus in Latin), S. J., and was completed after his death in 1667, by Father Gabriel Cossart of the same Society — " Almost all the French savants quote from this edition of Labbe's with Baluze's supplement," 2 and I have followed their lead, availing myself of the corrections 1 I am indebted to Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 67 et seqq., for this account of Merlin's Collection, as also for most of the statements that follow. Hefele says (footnote to page 67) : "The longest details on Merlin's edition are found in a work of Salmon, Doctor and Librarian of the Sorbonne, Traite de V Etude des Conciles et de leurs Collections, etc. Paris, 1726. " s Hefele, Hist. Councils, vol. I, p. 69. xx BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION made by later editors. The title of the edition used in this work is : " Sacrasancta Concilia ad Regiam Editionem exacta. Studio Philip. Labbei et Gabr. Cossartii, Soc. Jesu Presbyterorum. Lutetiae Parisioram. MDCLXXI. Cum Privilegio Regis Chris- tianissimi." Anything more perfect than these precious volumes it would be hard to conceive of, and while of course they contain the errors of chronology et cetera of their age, yet their general accuracy and marvellous completeness leave them even to-day as the greatest of the great, although the later edition of Hardouin is more often used by English and American scholars, and is the one quoted by Pope Benedict XIV. in his famous work De Synodo Dicecesana. Hardouin's edition did certainly correct many of the faults of Labbe and Cossart, yet had itself many faults and defects which are pointed out by Salmon ' in a long list, although he fully acknowledges the value of Hardouin's improvements and additions. Perhaps, not unnaturally, as a Professor at the Sorbonne, he preferred Labbe and Cossart. It may not be amiss to add that Hardouin was very anti-Gallican and ultramontane. The Domiuican Archbishop of Lucca, Mansi, in 1759, put out his " Concilia " in thirty-one volumes folio at Florence, styled on the title-page " the most ample " edition ever printed, and claiming to contain all the old and much new matter. It was never finished, only reaching to the XVth century, has no indices, and (says Hefele) "is very inferior to Hardouin in accuracy. The order of the subjects in the later volumes is sometimes not sufficiently methodical, and is at variance with the chronology." 2 I shall now present the reader with some bibliographical notes which I extract ver- batim from Hefele (Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 74). Among the numerous works on the history of the councils, the most useful to con- sult are : 1. John Cabassutius, Notitia ecclesiastica historiarum conciliorum et canonum. Lyons 1680, folio. Very often reprinted. 2. Hermant, Histoire des Conciles, Rouen 1730, four volumes, 8vo. 3. Labbe, Syno]Jsis historica Conciliorum, in vol. i. of his Collection of Councils. 4. Edm. Richer, Historia conciliorum generalium (Paris, 1680), three volumes, 4to. Reprinted in 8vo. at Cologne. 5. Charles Ludovic Richard, Analysis conciliorum generalium et particularium. Translated from French into Latin by Dalmasus. Four volumes, 8vo, Augsburg, 1778. 6. Christ. AVilh. Franz Walch, Entwurf einer vollstandigen Historie der Kirchenver- sammlungen, Leipzig, 1759. 7. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Grceca, edit. Harless. t. xii., p. 422 sqq., in which is con- tained an alphabetical table of all the councils, and an estimate of the value of the prin- cipal collections. 8. Alletz, Concilien-Lexikon, translated from French into German by Father Maurus Disch, a Benedictine and professor at Augsburg, 1843. 9. Dictionnaire universel et complet des Conciles, tant generaux que particidicrs, etc., redige parM. l'abbe P , pretre du Diocese de Paris, published by the Abbe Migne (Paris, 1846), two volumes, 4to. In the great works on ecclesiastical history — for example, in the Nouvelle Biblio- theqtie des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, by El. Dupin, and the Historia Literaria of Cave, and particularly in the excellent Histoire des Auteurs Sacres, by Remi Ceillier — we find mat- ter relating to the history of the councils. Salmon, 1. c, p. 387, and Walch in his His- toric der Kirchenversammlungen, pp. 48-67, have pointed out a large number of works on the history of the councils. There are also very valuable dissertations on the same subject in — 1. Christian Lupus, Synodorum generalium ac provincialium decreta et canones, scholiis, notis ac historica actorum dissertatione illustrata, Louv., 1665 ; Brussels, 1673 ; five volumes, 4to. 1 Salmon, I. c, pp. 315-331, 786-831. 2 Hefele, Hist. Councils, vol. 1, p. 72. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxi 2. Laid. Thomassin, Dissertationum in Concilia generalia et particular ia, t. i., Paris, 1667 ; reprinted in Rocaberti, Bibl. pontificia, tr. XV. 3. Van Espen, Tractatus Historicus exhibens scholia in omnes canones conciliorum, etc., in his complete works. 4. Barth. Caranza has written a very complete and useful abstract of the acts of the councils in his Summa Conciliorum, which has often been re-edited. 5. George Daniel Fuchs, deacon of Stuttgart, has, in his BibliotheJc tier Kirchenver- sammlungen, four volumes, Leipsic, 1780-1784, given German translations and abstracts of the acts of the councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. 6. Francis Salmon, Doctor and Librarian of the Sorbonne, has published an Intro- duction to the Study of the Councils, in his Traite de V Etude des Conciles et de leurs collections, Paris, 1724, in 4to, which has often been reprinted. To these I would add the following : 1. Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique. This work in many volumes, part of which has been translated into English, is most useful and accurate, and contains a resume of the separate canons and definitions as well as the history of the proceedings. 2. Denziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum quai de rebus Jidei et morum a Conciliis (Ecumenicis et Summis Pontificibus emanarunt. A most useful handbook in the original. 3. Hefele, Conciliengeschicte. This, the most recent work upon the subject, is also in some respects the most satisfactory, and it is a matter of real regret that only the first part of the work, down to the end of the Seventh (Ecumenical Council, has been translated into English. The last volume of the author's revised edition appeared in 1890. The first volume of the first edition was published in 1855, and the seventh and last in 1874. The entire book was translated into French some years ago (with full indices) by M. l'abbe Goschlerand and M. l'abbe Delarc (Paris, Adrien le Clere et Cie). It should in fairness, however, be remarked that Bishop Hefele was one of the minority who opposed the opportuneness of the definition of Papal infallibility at the Vatican Council, and while indeed afterwards he submitted to the final decree, yet he has been a somewhat suspected person since to those who held extreme views on this doctrine. So far as I am aware no serious work has been done upon the councils by any writer using the English tongue in recent times, with the exception of the useful Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, by Canon Win. Bright. The following is a list of the English translations which I have consulted or fol- lowed : John Johnson, The Clergyman's Vade-mecum (London, 2d Ed., 1714). Wm. A. Hammond, The Definitions of Faith and Canons of Discipline of the Six (Ecumenical Councils, etc. (Oxford. 1843.) William Lambert, The Canons of the First Four General Councils of the Church and those of the Early Greek Synods (London, s. d. Preface dated 1868). John Fulton, Index Canonum. [This work ends with the Council of Chalcedon.] (New York, 1872. 3d Ed., 1892.) John Mendham, The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nice (London, s. d.). H. B. Percival, The Decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods. Appendix I. to A Digest of Theology (London, Masters, 1893). It only remains that I mention two other works. Dr. Pusey's book, The Councils of the Church from the Council of Jerusalem A.D. 51 to the Council of Constantinople, 381 (1857) should not be omitted, and certainly the reader's attention should be called to that most accurate and valuable volume by Herm. Theod. Bruns, Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum Veterum Selecti (Berolini, 1839), which has been constantly referred to in preparing this work. APPENDED NOTE ON THE EASTERN EDITIONS OF SYNOD- ICAL LITERATURE. From the presses of the East, especially those at Athens, a number of editions more or less complete of the Greek text of the Canons of trie Ecumenical and of the Local Councils have been issued, and the notes of Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus have been added in some cases. Professor BolotofF writes however that so far as Greek litera- ture on the subject is concerned, with the exception of purely topographical researches in the environs of Constantinople, it is simply putting into Greek what was originally in German. The Eussian Church has done somewhat more and as will be seen from the follow- ing table, some attempts have been made at providing scholia, but when the scheme of this present work was shewn him, Professor Bolotoff said : "We have nothing analo- gous to this undertaking in Russia." The learned professor remarks that all the best Russian literature upon the subject is contained in magazine articles, especially those of Professor Zaozersky of the Moscow Theological Academy, and of Professor A. S. Pavloff, of the University of Moscow ; he mentions also the latter's article in the Ortho- dox Revieio, and adds that "An Essay on a Course of Church Legislation," by Joann Smolensk (St. Petersburg, 1851) should be referred to. BIBLIOGRAFICESKIJ UKAZATEL' PECATNYH IZDANIJ APOSTOL'SKIH I SOBORNYH PRAVIL NA SLAVJANSKOM I RUSSKOM JAZYKAH. V pravoslavnoj Russkoj Cerkvi izdanija sobornyh pravil i opredelenij soversalis' tol'ko po neposredstvennomu rasporjazeniju i soizvoleniju vyssej cerknovnoj vlasti i fakticeski izjaty iz kompetencii castnoj ucenoj predpriimcivosti. Poetomu podrobnyja izdanija vypuskalis' v Rossii lis' po mere prakticeskoj potrebnosti. (1) Pervoe po vremeni pecatnoe izdanie nazvannyh pravil bylo v slavjanskoj "Kormcej Knige" (=grec. Ylri§a\.iov), kotoraja nacata pecataniem pri Moskovskom patriarhe Iosife v Moskve 7 go oktjabrja 1649 g. i okoncena lgo ijulja 1650 g., no patr. Nikon podverg ego sobornomu peresmotru, pri cem neskol'ko listov bylo perepecatano i vneseno vnov'. 1 Po semu ekzempljary etoj "Kormcej" byli razoslany po cerkvam dlja cerkovnago upotre- blenija i postupili v obrascenie ne ranee 1653 g. Vtoroe izdanie "Kormcej" bylo v 1787 g. posle peresmotra eja mitropolitom Novgorodskim i S. Peterburgskim Gavriilom, 2 a zatem i drugija (napr., v 1804 g., 1816 g. i 1823 g.) bez osobyh peremen. Pozdnejsija izdanija otlicajutsja ot Nikonovskago v castnostjak, no eto ne kasaetsja cerkovnyh pravil, kotoryja pomescajutsja v pervoj casti "Kormcej" i soderzat 85 apostol'skih pravil, pos- tanovlenija 16 -i soborov (Nikejskago, Ankirskago, Neokesarijskago, Gangrskago, Antiohij- skago, Laodikijskago, Il-go, Ul-go, IV-go vselenskih, Sardikskago, Karfagenskago, Kon- stantinopol'skago, pri Nekoparge, TrulVskago 692 g., Vll-go vselenskago, Dvukratnago i v cerkvi sv. Sofii) i pravila 13-ti sv. otcov. (2) V pecatnoj "Kormcej" kanony izlozeny ne v polnom tekste, a v sokrascennom, inogda dajuscem lis' ves'ma nedostatocnoe predstavlenie o soderzanii podlinnika. Poetomu izdavna delalis' popytki celostnyh perevodov, 3 no poslednie ne pojavljalis' v pecati. Tol'ko uze v 1839 g. sv. Sinodom vypusceno bylo v S. Peterburge takoe izdanie: "Kniga pravil 1 Poetomu nekotorye bibliografy sjiravecllivo scitajut zdes' dva izdanija, iz koih 1653 g. — in folio — sostoit iz 37 + 1 + 60 -f- 1 + 16 -f 679 listov i bylo perepecatano staroobrjadeami (raskol'nikami) v 1785 g. v Varsave. 2 Eto izdanie in folio v Moskve v dvuli castjah i knigah — v 1-j 2 nenum. -f 38 + 5 -f- 60 + 300 + 39 numerovannyh listov, — VO 2-j 1 + 2 + 235 + 16 + 37 listo v. 3 Vo vtoroj polovine XVII v. perevodil kanony Epifanij Slavineckij, a v pervoj polovine XVIII v. pravila apostol'ski- ja i sobornyja byli perevedeny Vasiliem Kozlovskim i Grigoriem Poletikoju po greceskomu tekstu "Synodicon" a Beveregii, s kakovago izdanija sdelan byl novyj perevod v 1782 g. xxiv APPENDED NOTE ON SYNODICAL LITERATURE sv. apostol, sv. soborov vselenskih i pomestnyh i sv. otec ", napecatannaja v bol'soj list v "carstvujuscem grade sv. Petra pervyni tisneniem, v leto ot sozclanija mira 7347, ot Rozdestva ze po ploti Boga Slova 1839, indikta 12"; v nem 4 nenumerovannye lista i 455 numerovannyh strannic. Na kazdoj strannice dve kolonny dlja podlinnika i novago slavjanskago perevoda po polnomu tekstu, no bez tolkovanij vizantijskih kanonistov; redko na osnovanii Zonary ili Val'samona dajutsja primecanija, ne vsegda tocnyja isto- riceski (napr. k 10 pravilu Ankirsk., 3 Sard., 4 Karfag. i o dvukratnom sobore 861 g.), a po mestam i samyj tekst ne ispraven (napr., v 13-m prav. I-go vsel. sobora). Eta "Kniga" imela potom sledujuscija izdanija: (2) v Moskve v Sinodal'noj tipografii v 1862, in folio 8 11.+ 672 + 74 numer. strn., s tekstom greceskim i slavjanskim (3) ibid, v 1866 g. in quarto, 3 11.+ 373 strn.+ l 1.+ 59 strn., s odnim slavjanskim tekstom; (4) ibid, v 1874 g., in octavo, 411. + 455 strn. + 2 11.+ 104 + 4 strn., toze s odnim slavjanskim tekstom; (5) ibid, v 1886 g., in folio, 3 11.+ 395 +42 strn.+ l 1., opjat' v odnom slavjanskom tekste. (3) "Kniga pravil" nicut' ne predstavljaet avtorizovannago textus receptus, i posle eja izdanija sam Sv. Sinod ne redko privodil v svoih ukazah pravila po slavjanskoj redakcii "Kormcej knigi," a potom rekomendoval Afinskoe izdanie "Sintagmy" dlja vseh duhovno- ucebnyh zavedenij. Eto otkryvalo mesto dlja novoj obrabotki, kotoraja s razresenija vyssej duhovnoj vlasti i byla predprinjata Moskovskim "Obscestvoni ljubitelej duhov- nago prosvescenija". Objavlenie ob etom bylo sdelano v N-re 3 "Moskovskih Eparhialnyh Cerkovnyli Vedomostej" za 1875 g., a v janvarskoj knizke togoze goda Moskovskago zurnala "Ctenija v Obscestve ljubitelej duhovnago prosvescenija" byla napecatana i samaja "programma" izdanija (strn. 79-90 v otdele bibliografii. Po povodu eja professor kanoni- ceskago prava v Novororossijskom Universitete (skoncavsijsja 16go avgusta 1898 g. pro- fessorom Moskovskago Universiteta) Aleksej Stepanovic Pavlov sdelal "Zamecanija na programmu izdanija, v russkom perevode, cerkovnyli pravil s tolkovanijami " v "Zapiskah Imperatorskago Novorossijskago Universiteta", t. XVI (Odessa 1875 g.) strn. 1-17 prilozenij (i v otdeTnoj brosure), a posle perepecatal ih — s nekotorymi dopolnenijami — v Moskovskom zurnale "Pravoslavnoe Obozrenie" za aprel' 1876 g. (strn. 730-746) pod zaglaviem "O novom perevode tolkovanij na cerkovnyja pravila". Na eti vozrazenija otvecal professor cerkovnago prava v Moskovskoj Duhovnoj Akademii Aleksandr Feo- dorovic Lavrov v zurnale "Ctenija v Obscestve ljubitelej duhovnago prosvescenija" (6. II, strn. 158-194 za 1877 g.) "Pecatnym pis'mom k Alekseju Stepanovicu Pavlovu". Tak postepenno opredelilsja plan izdanija, kotoroe pecatalos' snacala v prilozenijah k zurnalu "Ctenija v Obscestve i pr.", a potom javilos' i otdel'no in octavo v sledujuscih vypuskah: (a) I-j "Pravila svjatih Apostol s tolkovanijami" v dvuh izdanijah — Moskva 1876 g. iz "Ctenij 1875 g., strn. 1-163) 4 + 12 + 175 strn., i ibid. 1887 g., 5+12 + 163 strn.; II-j "Pravila svjatyh vselennyh soborov s tolkovanijami" (iz "Ctenij" 1875 g., strn. 165-328; 1876 g., strn. 329-680; 1877 g., strn. 681-900) v dvuh castjah: 1-ja "pravila soborov 1-4" Moskva 1877 g., 260 strn., 2-ja "pravila soborov 5-7" ibid., 736 strn.; b) "Pravila svjatyh pomestnyh soborov s tolkovanijami" toze v dvuh vypuskah (iz "Ctenij" 1877 g., strn.'900-1066; 1878 g., strn. 1067-1306; 1879 g., strn. 1307-1410: 1-j (pravila soborov Ankirskago, Neokesarijskago, Gangrskago, Antiohijskago, Laodikijskago i Sardikijskago) Moskva 1880, strn. 359; 2-j (pravila soborov Karfagenskago [s poslanijami k pape Vonifatiju i pape Kelestinu], Konstantinoporskago, Dvulo^atnago i vo hrame premudrosti slova Bozija) ibid. 1881, strn. 876; c) "Pravila svjatyh otec s tolkovanijami" ibid. 1884, strn. 626. Pri nih imeetsja otdeTnyj "Ukazatel' predmetov, soderzascihsja v izdanii pravil apostol'skih, sobornyh i svjatyh otcev s tolkovanijami", Moskva 1888, 58 strn. in octavo. Greceskij tekst pravil privoditsja po izdaniju ^vvTay/xa twv ®eia>v teal iepwv Kavovcov . . . biro T. A. PdWr) ical M. IIo'tXt?, ' 'Adrjvrjaiv 1852-1854, rjadom s nim po- mescajetsja doslovnyj slavjanskij perevod tolkovanij vizantijskih kommentatorov (Zonary, Aristina, Val'samona), tekst i tolkovanija slavjanskoj Kormcej; vse eto soprovozdaetsja vydanijami i vsjakago roda pojasnenijami (istoriceskimi, filologiceskimi i t. p.). Izdanie APPENDED NOTE ON SYNODIOAL LITERATUKE xxv eto specialistami spravedlivo scitaetsja ves'ma cennym v naucnom otnosenii. Glavnym redaktororu i dejatelem ego byl prof. A. F. Lavrov (v monasestve Aleksij, skoncavsijsja arhiepiskopom Litovskim i Vilenskim), no privlekalis' k ucastiju mnogija drugija lica i mezdu nimi prof. A. S. Pavlov. (4) Russkij perevod pravil imeetsja tol'ko pri izdanijah Kazanskoj Duhovnoj Akademii: a) "Dejanija vselenskih soborov v perevode na russkij jazyk", 1. 1 VII (7), Kazan' 1859- 1878 (nekotorye tomy vo vtorom izdanii) i b) "Dejanija devjati pomestnyh soborov v perevode na russkij jazyk", odin torn, Kazan' 1878. Etot perevod sdelan po porucenii Sv. Sinoda, a pravila peredajutsja v nem po tekstu sobornyh dejanij. Iz predstavlennago ocerka pecatnyk izdanij sobornyh pravil vidno, cto oni — v predelah svoej fakticeskoj primenimosti — pocitajutsja istocnikom dejstvujuscago prava v Russkoj pravoslavnoj cerkvi, pocemu dlja neja osobennuju vaznost' imejut lis' av- toritetnyja vizantijskija, tolkovanija, o kotoryh suscestvujut izsledovanija V. Demidova, harakter i znacenie tolkovanij na kanoniceskij kodeks greceskoj cerkvi — Aristina, Zonary i Val'samona — v "Pravoslavnom Obozrenii" t. II-j za 1888 g., Kazanskago prof. V. A. Narbskago, Tolkovanija Val'samona na nomokanon Fotija, Kazan' 1889, i Jur'evskago (= Derptskago) prof. M. U. Krasnozena, Tolkovateli kanoniceskago kodeksa vostocnoj cerkvi: Aristin, Zonara i Val'samon, Moskva 1892. OtdeTnyh naucnyh tolkovanij vseh sobornyh pravil v russkoj literature net, no oni izlagajutsja i razjasnjajutsja v kursah cerkovnago prava (arhimandrit. [f ep. Smolens- kago] Ioanna, prof. N. S. Suvorova, I. S. Berdnikova, P. A. Laskareva, M. A. Ostrou- mova), v socinenijah po istorii vselenskih soborov (ep. Ioanna, prof. Alekseja Petrovica Lebedeva), v kanoniceskih i cerkovno-istoriceskih monografijah. Kasatel'no kriticeskago izdanija podlinnago teksta pravil est' ucenaja i poleznaja stat'ja (o knige Fr. Lauchert, Die Kanones usw., Freiburg i. Br. und Leipzig 1896) professora cerkovnnoj istorii v S. Peterburgskoj Duhovnoj Akademii Vasilija Vasilievica Bolotova v "Hristianskom Ctenii", vyp. IV- j za 1896 g., strn. 178-195. Professor S. -Peterburgskoj Duhovnoj Akademii po kafedre Sv. Pisanija Novago Zaveta Nikolaj Gltjbokovskij. S.-Peterburg, 1898, X, 1 1- voskresenie. A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE CANONS OF THE APOSTLES AND OF THE COUNCILS IN THE SLAVONIC AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES. (Prepared by Nicolas Glubokoffski, Professor of the Chair of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament in the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburgh.) l In the orthodox Russian Church, editions of the Conciliar Canons and Decrees have only been issued under the immediate disposition and sanction of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, and, in fact, are amongst those things which it is not within the competence of private scholars to undertake. Such editions therefore have been published in Russia only in accordance with practical requirements. 1. The earliest printed edition of the afore-mentioned canons appeared in the Sla- vonic " Kormchaja Kniga " 2 (= Gk. itt]M\iqv), the printing of which was commenced at Moscow, on October 7th, 1649, under the Patriarch Joseph of Moscow, and was finished on July 1, 1650 ; but the Patriarch Nicon caused it to be submitted to a Council for revision, in consequence of which certain pages were reprinted and inserted afresh into it. 3 Thereupon copies of this " Kormchaja " were distributed for use amongst the 1 Translated into English by W. J. Birkbeck, Esq., F. S. A. * Steering-Book. W. J. B. 'Accordingly some bibliographers correctly reckon this as two editions, of which that of 1653 in folio consists of 37+1+60+1 + 16 + 6T9 pages, and was reprinted by the " Old Ritualists " (Kascolniki*), in 1785 at Warsaw. * Rascolniki, lit. Schismatics ; i.e., the Russian Dissenting sects which in the 17th century left the Church rather than accept the service-books as corrected by the Patriarch Nicon.— W. J. B. xxvi APPENDED NOTE ON SYNODICAL LITEEATUEE churches, and came into general circulation not earlier than the year 1653. The second edition of the " Kormchaja " appeared in 1787, after a revision under the Metropolitan Gabriel of Novgorod and St. Petersburgh, 1 and was followed by others (e.g., those of 1804, 1816, and 1823) without any alterations of importance. The latest editions differ from that of Nicon in certain particulars, but these particulars do not concern the ec- clesiastical Canons, which are placed in the first part of the "Kormchaja" and include the 85 Apostolic Canons, the decrees of the sixteen councils (of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo- csesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, the 2d, 3d, and Jfth Ecumenical, Sardica, Carthage, Constantinople under Nectarius, in Trullo, A.D. 69%, the 7th Ecumenical, the First- and-Second [council of Constantinople] and that in the church of St. Sophia) and the Canons of the 13 Holy Fathers. 2. In the printed " Kormchaja " the canons are set forth, not in their full text, but in a shortened form which sometimes gives but a very insufficient representation of the contents of the original. On this account attempts at full translations were made many years back, but these never appeared in print. It was not until 1839 that such an edition as this was put forth by the Holy Synod at St. Petersburgh, under the title : " The Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the Holy Ecumenical and local Councils, and of the Holy Fathers," printed in large folio in " the Imperial city of St. Peter, the first impression in the 7347th year from the creation of the world, and the 1839th from the Birth in the flesh of God the Word, indict. 12." In this edition there are 4 unnumbered leaves and 455 numbered pages. On each page there are two col- umns, for the original text and the new translation of the whole text into the Slavonic respectively, but without the commentaries of the Byzantine Canonists ; occasionally, but rarely, notes based upon Zonaras or Balsamon are given, which are not always his- torically accurate (for instance, that to the 10th Canon of Ancyra, the 3d of Sardica the 4th of Carthage, and the one which deals with the First-and-Second Council of a.d. 861) while in some places the text itself is not correct (for instance, in the 13th Canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council). This " Book of the Canons" subsequently went through the following editions : the 2d, printed in Moscow at the Synodal Press in 1862, in folio 8 leaves + 672 + 74 numbered pages, with Greek and Slavonic texts ; the 3d ibid in 1866, in quarto, 3 leaves + 373 pages + 1 leaf + 59 pages, with the Slavonic text only ; the 4th, ibid in 1874, in octavo, 4 leaves + 455 pages + 2 leaves + 104 + 4 pages, also Avith the Slavonic text only ; the 5th, ibid, in 1886, in folio, 3 leaves + 395 + 42 pages + 1 leaf, again with Slavonic text only. 3. The " Book of Canons " by no means represents an authorized textus receptus, and after its publication, the Holy Synod itself not unfrequently introduced the Canons as given in the Slavonic edition of the " Kormchaja Kniga " into its edicts, and moreover recommended the Athenian Edition of the " Syntagma " for all the ecclesiastico-educa- tional establishments. This opened the way for a new work, which, with the permis- sion of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, was undertaken by the Moscow " Society of Amateurs of Spiritual Enlightenment." The announcement of this was made in No. 3 •of the " Moscow Diocesan Church Gazette " of the year 1875, whilst in the same year in the January number of the Moscow Journal, " Lectures delivered in the Society of Amateurs of Spiritual Enlightenment," the " programme " of the edition itself was printed (pages 79-90 in the section devoted to bibliography). In criticism of it the Professor of Canonical Law in the University of Novorossiisk, Alexis Stepanovich Pavloff (who died on August 16, 1898, as Professor of the University of Moscow) wrote " Notes on the programme of an edition, in a Russian translation of the Canons of the Church with Commentaries " in the sixteenth volume of " Memoirs of the Imperial University of Novorossiisk " (Odessa, 1875), pages 1-17 of the Appendix (and in a separate pamphlet), which was afterwards reprinted with certain additions in the Moscow Journal, " Ortho- dox Review," of April, 1876 (pages 730-746), under the title : " A new translation of the Commentaries upon the canons of the church." To these criticisms the Professor of 1 This edition was published at Moscow in folio in two parts and volumes, in the 1st there are 2 unnumbered + 38 + 5 — 60 + 300 + 39 numbered pages ; in the 2d 1 + 2 + 235 + 16 + 37 pages. APPENDED NOTE ON SYNODICAL LITERATURE xxvii Ecclesiastical Law in the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, Alexander Tkeodorovich Lavroff, wrote a reply in " Lectures delivered in the Society of Amateurs of Spiritual Enlightenment " (for the year 1877, part 2, pages 158-194), entitled " A printed letter to Alexis Stepanovich Pavloff." Thus the plan of the edition gradually took shape. It was first printed in the Appendices to the Journal " Lectures in the Society, etc.," and subsequently was published separately in octavo in the following parts (A) I. " The Canons of the Holy Apostles with Commentaries " in two editions — Moscow, 1876, (from " Lectures," 1875, pages 1-163) 4 + 12 + 175 pages, and ibid., 1887, 5-12 + 163 pages; II. "Canons of the Holy Ecumenical Councils with Commentaries " (from " Lectures " 1875, pages 165-325 ; 1876, pages 329-680 ; 1877, pages 8^1-900), in two parts : 1st " The Canons of the Councils I.-IV.," Moscow, 1877, 260 pages ; 2d. " The Canons of Councils V.-VIL," ibid., 736 pages ; (B) " The Canons of the Holy Local Councils with Commentaries," also in two parts (from " Lectures " 1877, pages 900- 1066 ; 1878, pages 1067-1306 ; 1879, pages 1307-1410) : the 1st (The Canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Neocsesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, and Sardica) Moscow, 1880, 359 pages ; the 2d (The Canons of the Councils of Carthage [with the letters to Pope Boniface and to Pope Celestine], Constantinople, the First-and-Second, and that in the Temple of the Wisdom of the Word of God) ibid., 1881, 876 pages; (C) "The Canons of the Holy Fathers with Commentaries," ibid., 1884, 626 pages. Together with these is a separate " Index of subjects contained in the edition of the Canons of the Apostles, Councils and Holy Fathers with Commentaries," Moscow, 1888, 58 pages in octavo. The Greek text of the canons follows the edition Swrayfia tcov &eia>v /ecu iepwv Kdvovcov . . . vtto T. A. PdWrj ical M. JJoTkr], AS^vrjaiv 1852-1854, and alongside of it is placed a literal Slavonic translation, after which follows a Russian translation of the Commentaries of the Byzantine Canonists (Zonaras, Aristenus, Balsamon), and the text and commentaries of the Slavonic " Kormchaja ; " all this is accompanied by in- troductions and explanations of all sorts (historical, philological, etc.). This edition is rightly considered by specialists to be of very great value from a scientific point of view. Professor A. Th. Lavroff (who became a monk under the name Alexis, and died Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilna) was its chief editor and had most to do with it, but many others took part in the work, and amongst these Professor A. S. Pavloff. 4. The only Russian translation of the canons which exists is contained in the pub- lications of the Ecclesiastical Academy of Kazan : (a) " The Acts of the Ecumenical Councils translated into Russian," 7 volumes. Kazan, 1859-1878 (some of these volumes have run into a second edition) and (b) " Acts of the nine local councils trans- lated into Russian," 1 volume, Kazan, 1878. This translation was made under the direction of the Holy Synod, and the Canons are reproduced in it according to the text of the Acts of the Councils. From the outline here presented of the printed editions of the Canons of the Coun- cils, it will be seen that, within the limits of their practical applicability, they are rev- erenced as the source of the operative law in the Russian orthodox church, and therefore for her it is only the authoritative Byzantine commentaries which have any particular importance. There are works upon these by V. Demidoff^ " The character and sig- nificance of the commentaries upon the Canonical Codex of the Greek Church — of Aristenus, Zonaras, and Balsamon," in the " Orthodox Review," vol. ii. of 1888, and of Professor V. A. Narbekojf, of Kazan, "The commentaries of Balsamon upon tne Nomocanon of Photius," Kazan, 1889, and of Professor 31. E. Krasnozlien, of Jurieff (Dorpat) " The Commentators of the Canonical Codex of the Eastern Church : Aris- tenus, Zonaras, and Balsamon." Moscow, 1892. No separate scientific commentaries upon all the canons of the councils exist in Russian literature, but they are described, and explained in courses of Ecclesiastical law (of the Archimandrite John [who, when he died, was Bishop of Smolensk] of Professors N. S. Suvoroff, T. S. Berdnikoff. N. A. Lashkareff, M. A. Ostroiimoff) xxviii APPENDED NOTE ON SYNODIOAL LITERATURE in our works upon the history of the Ecumenical Councils (by Bishop John, and Professor Alexis Petrovich Lebedeff), and in monographs dealing with Canon Law and Church History. As far as a critical edition of the original text of the canons is con- cerned, there is a learned and useful article (upon a book by Fr. Lauchert, Die Kanones usw., Freiberg i. Br. und Leipsig, 1896), by Vasili Vasilievich Bolotoff, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the St. Petersburgh Ecclesiastical Academy in the " Christian Beading," vol. iv. for 1896, pp. 178-195. EXCURSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LAW AND ITS RELATION TO THE CANON LAW. The foregoing bibliographical outline would be entirely incomplete did I not give the reader at least a sketch of how those canons adopted by the various councils gradu- ally won admission to the law-code of the Empire, and how that code itself came into being. For those wishing to study the matter in detail I would name as the most recent authorities upon the Roman Law, Mr. Muirhead, who has published with additions and notes his article on the subject in the " Encyclopaedia Britannica," and Mr. Bury's new edition of Gibbon's Rome just being issued with most learned notes. But neither of these writers has put the matter exactly as I desire for this purpose, and I have therefore been forced to seek elsewhere the information I now lay before the reader. The study of Jurisprudence did not form a separate department among the ancient Greeks, but among the Romans it was quite otherwise, and a very elaborate system was developed, so elaborate as to demand the care of a special class of men, who de- voted themselves to this business alone and handed down to their successors a con- stantly increasing mass of legal matter. "When Greece fell under the Bom an yoke the laws of the victor were imposed upon the vanquished, but even then the Greeks did not take to legal studies. In fact not un- til the seat of the Empire was removed to Constantinople did the East become a centre of jurisprudence or the residence of the chief legal experts. In the whole period before the fourth century of our era we know of but one barrister who wrote in Greek, and he came from the West, Herennius Modestinus. He was a disciple of Ulpian and precep- tor to the Emperor Maximian the Younger. From the time of Hadrian to that of Alexander Severus the influence of the legal schools of Borne had been paramount. The Emperors consulted them and asked them to decide difficult points. But after the death of Alexander this custom fell into entire disuse, and the Emperors themselves decided the matters formerly entrusted to the lawyers. After this time the Imperial Constitutions became the chief sources of Bo- man law. It is only in the time of Constantine the Great that we find once again the lawyers rising into prominence and a flourishing school at Beyroot in Syria. It was at this time that the Imperial Constitutions or Edicts were first collected, for until then they existed only in detached documents. This collection was made by two lawyers, Gregory or Gregorian, and Hermogenes. Gregory's collection contains the laws set forth from the time of Hadrian to Constantine, and Hermogenes wrote a supplement. Although this was but a private enterprise, yet it was cited in the courts of law, just as Lord Lyndwood's Provinciate is with us to-day. It is interesting to note that it was about this same time that the first attempt was made to collect the ecclesiastical canons, and so the Civil Law and the Canon Law (as we know them in after times) had their rise about the same period. The law of the Empire was not, however, to be left to private and unofficial action, but by the care of Theodosius the Younger its first official collection was made. This prince directed eight men learned in the law to gather into one body of laws all the Im- perial Constitutions published since the last included in the collections of Gregory and Hermogenes. This is the " Theodosian Code," and contains the laws set forth by Con- stantine and his successors. It was promulgated in 438 in the East, and received by the then Emperor of the West, Yalentinian III. To this were subsequently added such laws as each set forth, under the title of " New Constitutions." The Emperor Justinian determined still further to simplify the attaining of judicial decisions. It is true that the making of the legal collections referred to had added greatly to the ease of determining the law in any given case, but there was a source of great confusion in the endless number of legal decisions which by custom had acquired xxx EXCURSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LAW the force of law, and which were by no means always consistent between themselves; these were the famous response/, jurisperitorum. To clear up this difficulty was no small task, but the Emperor went about it in the most determined fashion and appointed a commission, consisting of Tribonian and ten other experts, to make a new collection of all the imperial constitutions from Hadrian to his own day. This is the famous Jus- tinian Code, which was promulgated in 529, and abrogated all previous collections. 1 This, however, was not sufficient to remove the difficulty, and Tribonian next, together with sixteen lawyers, spent three years in making extracts from the great mass of deci- sions of the ancient jurists, filling as they did nearly two thousand volumes. These they digested and did their best to clear away the contradictions. When the work was finished it appeared to the world as the " Pandects," because it was intended to contain all there was to be said upon the subject. It is also known as the " Digest." This work was set forth in 533 and from that time such of the former decisions as were not incorporated ceased to have any force. It must however be remembered that, while this was the case, all the decisions con- tained in the Pandects did not obtain the force of law. The Pandects are not a code of laws, but a system of public jurisprudence composed by public authority. To the Pan- dects were added by the Emperor two ordinances, the first to forbid any copyist to write them in an abbreviated form ; and the second forbidding commentators to treat them in anything but their literal sense. While this work was in progress some points Avere so complicated and obscure that the Emperor had to be appealed to, and his writings in these particulars are the origin of the " Fifty Decisions." At the same time was prepared the " Institutes," containing the elements of the whole Eoman law. 2 Later, new laws having been made, the Code had to be revised ; the former edition was abrogated in 534, and a new one set forth with the title " Codex repetitae praelec- tionis." The last of Justinian's labours in the field of jurisprudence (if indeed they were not collected after his death) are his " Novels," a series of imperial constitutions issued be- tween 535 and 559 (Neapal AiaTa^w^. There are one hundred and sixty-eight of these Novels, but the ancient glosses only know ninety-seven, and the rest have been added since, as they have been found. Such is the origin of the Corpus Juris Civilis, and its history needed to be set forth in this place on account of its close connection with the Corpus Juris Canonici. In the foregoing I have followed M. Schoell in his admirable Histoire de la Litterature Orecque Profane, to which I am also chiefly indebted for the following notes upon the jurists of the sixth and ensuing centuries. A work which is often looked upon as the origin of the Canon Law was composed by a lawyer of Antioch, somewhere near the middle of the sixth century. This jurist was John of Antioch, surnamed Scholasticus. He was representative or apocrisiarius of the Church of Antioch at Constantinople, and afterward was made Patriarch of that see, over Avhich he ruled from 564 until his death in 578. While still a simple priest at Antioch he made his Collection of the Canons of the Councils. " He was not the first who conceived the idea of such a work. Some writers, resting upon a passage in Socrates, have been of opinion that this honour belonged to Sabinus, bishop of Heraclea, in Thrace, at the beginning of the fifth century ; but Socrates is not speaking of a collection of canons at all, but of the synodal acts, of the letters written by or addressed to the synods. If, however, Sabinus did not make a collection of canons, it is certain nevertheless that before John of Antioch there existed one, for he himself cites it many times, although he does not name the authors." 3 1 It was written in Latin but, says Bury (Appendix to Vol. V. of Gibbon's Rome, p. 525), " was also immediately after its pub- lication in Latin, issued (perhaps incompletely) in a Greek form (Gf . Zacharia Von Lingenthal, Gr. Rom. Recht., p. 6). Most of the later Novels are Greek, and Novel vij. [15, ed. Zach.] expressly recognizes the necessity of using ' the common Greek tongue.' " 2 The Pandects or Bigest was translated into Greek by Borotheus, and Theophilus prepared a Greek paraphrase of the Institutes. 3 Schoell, Hist. Litt. Grec, Tome vii., Lib. vi., chap, xcvij., p. 226. EXCURSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LAW xxxi " In gathering together thus the canons of the councils John of Antioch did not form a complete body of ecclesiastical law. By his Novel CXLL, Justinian had indeed given to the canons of the Church the force of law, but he himself published a great number of constitutions upon Church matters. Now it was necessary to harmonize these constitutions and canons, and to accomplish this feat was the object of a second work undertaken by John of Antioch, to which he gave the title of Nomocanon (Nofio/cdvav), 1 a word which from that time has served to designate any collection of this sort." 2 Bury says, " In the troubles of the Vllth century the study of law, like many other things, declined, and in the practical administration of justice the prescriptions of the Code and Digest were often ignored or modified by the alien precepts of Christianity. The religion of the Empire had exerted but very slight influence — no fundamental influ- ence, we may say — on the Justinian law. Leo III., the founder of the Syrian (vulgarly called Isaurian) dynasty, when he restored the Empire after a generation of anarchy, saw the necessity of legislation to meet the changed circumstances of the time. The settlements of foreigners — Slavs and Mardaites — in the provinces of the Empire created an agrarian question, which he dealt with in his Agrarian Code. The increase of Slav- onic and Saracenic piracy demanded increased securities for maritime trade, and this was dealt with in a Navigation Code. But it was not only for special relations that Leo made laws ; he legislated also, and in an entirely new way, for the general relations of life. He issued a law book (in a.d. 740 in the name of himself and his son Constantine), which changed and modified the Roman law, as it had been fixed by Justinian. The Ecloga, 3 as it is called, may be described as a Christian law book. It is a deliberate attempt to change the legal system of the Empire by an application of Christian princi- ples. Examples, to illustrate its tendency, will be given below. The horror in which the iconoclasts were held on account of their heresy by the image-worshippers, cast dis- credit upon all their works. This feeling had something to do with the great reaction, which was inaugurated by Basil I., against their legal reforms. The Christian Code of Leo prevailed in the empire for less than a century and a half ; and then, under the auspices of Basil, the Roman law of Justinian was (partially) restored. In legal activity the Basilian epoch faintly reflected the epoch of Justinian itself. A handbook of ex- tracts from the Institutes, Digest, Code, and Novels, was published in a.d. 879, entitled the Prochiron, to diffuse a knowledge of the forgotten system. But the great achieve- ment of the Basilian epoch is the 'Basilica' — begun under Basil, completed under Leo VI. — a huge collection of all the laws of the Empire, not only those still valid, but those which had become obsolete. It seems that two commissions of experts were ap- pointed to prepare the material for this work. One of these commissions compiled the Prochiron by the way, and planned out the Basilica in sixty Books. The other com- mission also prepared a handbook called the Epanagoge, which was never actually pub- lished (though a sketch of the work is extant), and. planned out the Basilica in forty Books. The Basilica, as actually published, are arranged in sixty Books, compiled from the materials prepared by both commissions. " The Basilian revival of Justinianean law was permanent ; and it is outside our pur- pose to follow the history further, except to note the importance of the foundation of a school of law at Constantinople in the 11th century by the Emperor Constantine IX. The law enacting the institution of this school, under the direction of a salaried Nomo- phylax, is extant. John Xiphilin (see above) was the first director. This foundation may have possibly had some influence on the institution of the school at Bologna half a century later." 4 I take from Schcell the following description of the " Basilica " : "The 'Basilica' are a body of Roman law in the Greek language, extracted from the Institutes, the Pandects, the Codes and the Novels of Justinian as well as from the Im- 1 The two collections of John are published with a translation in the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris of Voellus and Justellus, Vol. n. 2 Ibid ut supra, p. 227. 3 The " Ecloga " were edited in 1852 by Zacharia, and again in 1889 by Monferratue. ♦ Appendix to Vol. V. of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, pp. 525 and 526. xxxii EXCUKSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LAW perial Constitutions posterior to that prince ; also extracts from the interpretations of such jurists as had won a fixed authority in the courts, and the canons of the councils. Here is found together the civil and the ecclesiastical law of the Greeks, these two laws having been in an intimate union by reason of the authority which the Emperors exer- cised over the Church ; on the other hand, in the West there was formed step by step a canon law separate from the civil law, and having a different source." J Such, then, were the " Basilica," but what is most singular is that this collection was not given the force of law, neither by Leo VI. nor by Constantine VI., although it was prepared at their order, under their authority, and was written in the language which was spoken by their subjects. The Justinian code of law, although in Latin, still continued to be the only authority in the entire East. An anonymous writer pre- pared an Epitome of the Basilica, digested into Alphabetical order, and beginning with " Of the Orthodox faith of Christians." In 883 Photius published a " Syntagma canonum " and a " Nomocanon " with the title TIpoKavibv, because it was placed before the canons. This last work at the com- mand of Constantine VI. Avas revised and soon took the place of the Nomocanon of John of Antioch, over which work it had the advantage of being more recent and of being digested in better order. In citing the canons, only the titles are given ; but the text of the civil laws appears in full. " As in the Eastern Church the influence of the imperial authority increased at the expense of that of the councils, and as these princes made ecclesiastical affairs a principal part of their government, it came to pass that the Nomocanon of Photius became of more frequent and more necessary use than his Syn- tagma, [which contained the actual text of the canons of the councils down to 880]. Many commentators busied themselves with it, while the collection of the councils was neglected. Thus it has happened that the Nomocanon has become the true foundation of the ecclesiastical law of the East." 2 But while this is true, yet there were not lacking commentators upon the Canon law, and of the three chiefest of these some notice must be taken in this place. As I have already pointed out it is to Bishop Beveridge that we owe the publication not only of Photius's Collection of Canons which are found in his " SvvoBiko v sive Pandectae," but also of the scholia of all three of these great commentators, Zonaras, Aristenus, and Balsamon, and from his most learned Prolegomena to the same work I have chiefly drawn the following facts, referring the curious reader to the introduction 3 itself for further particulars. John Zonaras was probably the same person who wrote the Byzantine History which bears his name. He flourished under Alexis Comnenus, and enjoyed the high office of Grand Drungarius Viglae {Apovyyapios t»}? jB/y?u??) and Chief of the Clerks. After some years of secular life he retired to a monastery and devoted himself to literary pursuits. While here, at the command of his superiors, and moved by the persuasion of his friends, he wrote that great book which has made his fame, which he entitled " An Exposition of the Sacred and Divine Canons, as well those of the holy and ven- erable Apostles, as also those of the sacred CEcumenical Synods, and those of the local or particular councils, and those of the rest of the Holy Fathers ; by the labour of John Zonaras the monk, who was formerly Grand Drungarius Viglae and Chief of the Clerks." 4 One of the greatest peculiarities of this work, and one which distinguishes it very markedly from the later work of Balsamon upon the same subject, is that Zonaras con- fines himself strictly to the canon law and rarely makes any references to the civil law whatever ; and in such canons as bear no relation to the civil law Balsamon often adopts Zonaras's notes without change or addition. These commentaries were first brought to light by John Quintin, a professor of canon law at Paris, who published a Latin translation of the scholia upon the Apostolic 1 Schoell, ut supra, p. 229. The best edition of the Basilica is by W. E. Heimbach in 6 vols. (1833-70). 5 Schoell, ut ante, p. 238. 3 Beveridge, 'S.vvohtKbv sive Pandectoe, Tom. I. of the original ed. Reprinted in Lib. Anglo. Cath. Theol., appendix to Vol. XII. of Beveridge's Works, pp. xxi.-xxxix. * 'EfifyTjtris tux/ Upon* Ka\ Oeitav kolvovuhi Ttav T€ oyi'w^ teal trenTiov ' A.nocrTa.^(tiv, k. t. A. EXCURSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LAW xxxiii Canons. This was in 1558. In 1618 Antonius Salmatia edited his commentaries on the canons of the Councils done into Latin. To this Latin version the Paris press added the Greek text from the MS. codex in the Koyal Library and printed it in 1618. In 1622 the same press issued his commentaries upon the Epistles of the Holy Fathers, together with those of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Macarius of Egypt, and Basil. But Beveridge collected them in his Oxford Edition for the first time into one work ; preparing a somewhat critical text by collation with some manuscripts he found at home. The second of these great Greek scholiasts is Alexis Aristenus. As Beveridge points out, he must have flourished before or at the same time as Balsamon, for this latter speaks of him in high terms of commendation in his scholion on the Sixth of the Apos- tolic Canons, describing him as tov virkpn^ov. Aristenus was Nomophylax, Orphano- trophe and Protecdekas, or chief of the Syndics of the Communes, called Ecdics ("EkSikoi). He wrote the excellent series of notes upon the Epitomes of the Canons which are given the reader in Beveridge's Pradects. Schcell says that it is an error to attribute to him the " Extract of the Ancient Ecclesiastical Laws," " which is none of his." l Aristenus was Grand Economus of the Church of Constantinople and a man of great distinction ; and his opinion was sought after and his decision followed even when in opposition to one of the Patriarchs, viz. : Nicephorus of Jerusalem. Beveridge was the first to print Aristenus's Scholia, and he did so from four MSS., in England, for a description of which I refer the reader to the bishop's prolegomena. Theodore Balsamon is the last of the three great Greek scholiasts. He flourished in the time of the Emperor Isaac Angelus and bore the title of Patriarch of Antioch, although at that time the city was in the hands of the Latins and had been so since 1100. He was looked upon as the greatest jurist of his times both in ecclesiastical and civil matters. Somewhere about the year 1150, he wrote by the order of Manuel Coni- nenus a series of " Scholia upon the Nomocanon of Photius," and another set styled " Scholia upon the Canons of the Apostles, of the Councils and of the Fathers of the Church; " he also prepared a "Collection of [imperial] Constitutions upon ecclesiasti- cal matters," 3 in three books, which has been published (by Lcewenklaw) at Frankfort, 1595, under the title " Paratitles." There remains also a great number of his opinions on cases presented to him, notably his " answers to sixty-four canonical questions by Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria." These most learned writings were unknown and forgotten, at least in the West, until they were set forth in a Latin translation during the time the Council of Trent was sitting, in 1561, and not till 1620 did the Greek text appear in the Paris edition of that date. But this text was imperfect and corrupt, and Beveridge produced a pure text from an Oxford MS., with which he compared several others. Moreover in his Pandects he amended the Latin text as well in numberless particulars. For further particulars of the bibliography of the matter see Beveridge. 4 It may not be amiss to add that abundant proof of the high esteem in which Balsa- mon was held is found in contemporary authors, and no words can give an exaggerated idea of the weight of his opinion on all legal matters, religious and profane ; his works were undertaken at the command of the Emperor and of the Patriarch, and were received with an unmixed admiration. 5 In the thirteenth century a certain Chumnus who had been Nomophylax and was afterwards elevated to the Archiepiscopal chair of Thessalonica wrote a little book on the " Degrees of Relationship." 6 In the fourteenth century we find Matthew Blastares writing " An Alphabetical Table " 7 of the contents of the canons of the councils, and of the laws of the Emperors. And in the same century we find Constantine Harmenopulus, who was born in 1320. He was, when thirty years of age, a member of the first court of civil justice (Judex i Schcell, Hist. Lib. Grec, Tom VII., p. 241. » Beveridge, Pandect®. Pro!. § XXX. 3 Tun iKK\-qo-i.a.v voixav. Of this there have been many editions since the first, which was that of Paris, 1540, edited by Snallen- berg, without any Latin translation and without notes. The first Latin version was published at Cologne in 1547, a second at Lyons in 155G, and a third at Lausanne in 1580. At last in 1587, at Geneva, there appeared an edition in Greek and Latin. 2 'E7UTojir| twi/ BeiCiv nai Lep&v Kavovmv. This work is found with a Latin version in the Collection of Loewenklaw. 3 Hefele points out that Dr von Drey's contention that " plurimi " refers to the Greeks cannot be sustained if it is pushed so far as to exclude from the West an acquaintance with these canons in their Greek form, for, as he well points out Greek was a perfectly well understood language at this time in the West, especially in Italy, where it was largely spoken. {A Mist. Christ. Councils, Vol. I. Appendix, p. 449.) EXCURSUS ON THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN LAW xxxv knows it as " Gratian's Decretum," and with it begins the " collections " of Canon law, if we consider it as a system in present force. " This great work is divided into three parts. The first part, in 101 ' Distinctions,' treats of ecclesiastical law, its origin, principles, and authority, and then of the different ranks and duties of the clergy. The second part, in thirty-six ' Causes,' treats of eccle- siastical courts and their forms of procedure. The third part, usually called ' De Con- secratione,' treats of things and rites employed in the service of religion. From its first appearance the Decretum obtained a wide popularity, but it was soon discovered that it contained numerous errors, which were corrected under the directions of suc- cessive Popes down to Gregory XIII. Nor, although every subsequent generation has resorted to its pages, is the Decretum an authority to this day — that is, whatever canons or maxims of law are found in it possess only that degree of legality which they would possess if they existed separately ; their being in the Decretum gives them no binding force. In the century after Gratian, several supplementary collections of Decretals appeared. These, with many of his own, were collected by the orders of Gregory IX., who employed in the work the extraordinary learning and acumen of St. Raymond of Pennafort, into five books, known as the Decretals of Gregory IX. These are in the fullest sense authoritative, having been deliberately ratified and published by that Pope (1234). The Sext, or sixth book of the Decretals, was added by Boniface VIII. (1298). The Clementines are named after Clement V., who compiled them out of the canons of the Council of Yienne (1316) and some of his own constitutions. The Extravagantes of John XXII., who succeeded Clement V., and the Extravagantes Communes, containing the decretals of twenty-five Popes, ending with Sixtus IY. (1484), complete the list. Of these five collections — namely the Decretals, the Sext, the Clementines, the Extrava- gants of John XXII. and the Extravagants Common — the 'Corpus Juris Ecclesiastici ' of the West is made up." x Into this body of canon law of course many of the canons we shall have to treat of in the following pages have been incorporated and so far as possible I shall give the reader a reference which will help his research in this particular. 1 Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, sub voce Canon Law. THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICE A.D. 325 Emperor. — Constantine. Pope. — Silvester. Historical Introduction. TJie Greed and the Greed of Eusebius of Ccesarea. Excursus on the ivord honionsios. Excursus on the toords jTos, though his editors frequently alter it into yevrjTos nal dyeV^ros. For (1) the Greek MS. still retains the double [Greek nun] v, though the claims of orthodoxy would be a temptation to scribes to 1 Athanas, Be Beeret. Syn. Nic, c. six. et seq. - Vide Swainson, in Smith and Wace, Diet. Christ. Biog., suh voce Homousios, p. 134. 3 Vasquez, Bisput. cix., cap. v. " Rightly doth the Church use the expression Homousios (that is Consubstantial) to express that the Father and the Son are of the same nature." 4 Vasquez may also well be consulted on the expressions i)vaia, substantia, imSo-rams, etc. I. NICE. A.D. 325 substitute the single v. And to this reading also the Latin genitus et ingenitus points. On the other hand it cannot be concluded that translators who give /actus et non /actus had the words with one v, for this was after all what Ignatius meant by the double v, and they would naturally render his words so as to make his orthodoxy apparent. (2) When Theodore t writes yewijTos ££ ayevvrfrov, it is clear that he, or the person before him who first substituted this reading, must have read yevnjros «, justifying the use of the latter term as applied to the divinity of the Son, and defending the statement in the Nicene Creed yevvrjTov e« t^s owrtag tov 7rarpos rbv vlbv 6fioovav, as an ecclesiastical term, has a very interesting history. See Westcott's account of it, On the New Testament Canon, p. 498 ff. The original sense, "a straight rod" or " line," determines all its religious applications, which begin with St. Paul's use of it for a prescribed sphere of apostolic work (2 Cor. x. 13, 15), or a regulative principle of Chris- tian life (Gal. vi. 16). It represents the element of definiteness in Christianity and in the order of the Christian Church. Clement of Rome uses it for the measure of Christian attainment (Ep. Cor. 7). Ireneeus calls the baptismal creed " the canon of truth " (i. 9, 4) : Polycrates (Euseb. v. 24) and probably Hippolytus (ib. v. 28) calls it " the canon of faith ; " the Council of Antioch in a.d. 269, referring to the same standard of orthodox belief, speaks with significant absoluteness of "the canon" (ib. vii. 30). Eusebius himself mentions " the canon of truth " in iv. 23, and " the canon of the preaching " in iii. 32 ; and so Basil speaks of " the transmitted canon of true religion " (Epist. 204-6). Such language, like Ter- tullian's "regula fidei," amounted to saying, "We Christians know what we believe : it is not a vague ' idea ' without substance or outline : it can be put into form, and by it we ' test the spirits whether they be of God.' " Thus it was natural for Socrates to call the Nicene Creed itself a " canon," ii. 27. Clement of Alexandria uses the phrase " canon of truth " for a stand- ard of mystic interpretation, but proceeds to call the harmony between the two Testaments "a canon for the Church," Strom, vi. 15, 124, 125. Eusebius speaks of "the ecclesiastical canon " which recognized no other Gospels than the four (vi. 25). The use of the term and its cognates in reference to the Scriptures is explained by Westcott in a passive sense so that " canonized " books, as Athanasius calls them (Fest. Ep. 39), are books expressly recog- nized by the Church as portions of Holy Scripture. Again, as to matters of observance, Clement of Alexandria wrote a book against Judaizers, called " The Church's Canon " (Euseb. vi. 13) ; and Cornelius of Rome, in his letter to Fabius, speaks of the " canon " as to what we call confirmation (Euseb. vi. 43), and Dionysius of the " canon " as to reception of converts from heresy (ib. vii. 7). The Nicene Council in this canon refers to a standing " canon " of discipline (comp. Nic. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18), but it does not apply the term to its own enactments, which are so described in the second canon of Constantinople (see below), and of which Socrates says " that it passed what are usually called ' canons ' " (i. 13), as Julius of Rome calls a decree of this Council a " canon " (Athan. Apol. c. Ari. 25) ; so Athanasius applies the term generally to Church laws (Encycl. 2 ; cp. Apol. c. Ari. 69). The use of kuvwv for the clerical body (Nic. 16, 17, 19 ; Chalc. 2) is explained by Westcott with refer- ence to the rule of clerical life, but Bingham traces it to the roll or official list on which the names of clerics were enrolled (i. 5, 10) ; and this appears to be the more natural derivation, see "the holy canon " in the first canon of the Council of Antioch, and compare Socrates (i. 17), " the Virgins enumerated iv t<3 tuw ZkkXtjo-iuiv kovovi," and (ib. v. 19) on the addition of a penitentiary " to the canon of the church ; " see also George of Laodicea in Sozomon, iv. 13. Hence any cleric might be called kcivovikos, see Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatech. 4 ; so we read of "canonical singers." Laodicea, canon xv. The same notion of definiteness appears in 10 I. NICE. A.D. 325 the ritual use of the word for a series of nine " odes " in the Eastern Church service (Neale, Introd. East. Ch. ii. 832), for the central and unvarying element in the Liturgy, beginning after the Tersanctus (Hammond, Liturgies East and West, p. 377) ; or for any Church office (Ducange in v.) ; also in its application to a table for the calculation of Easter (Euseb. vi. 22 ; vii. 32) ; to a scheme for exhibiting the common and peculiar parts of the several Gospels (as the " Eusebian canons ") and to a prescribed or ordinary payment to a church, a use which grew out of one found in Athanasius' Apol. c. Ari. 60. In more recent times a tendency has appeared to restrict the term Canon to matters of discipline, but the Council of Trent continued the ancient use of the word, calling its doc- trinal and disciplinary determinations alike "Canons." CANON II. Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual laver, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, " Not a novice ; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon II. Those who have come from the heathen shall not be immediately advanced to the presbyterate. For without a probation of some time a neophyte is of no advantage (ko.k6<;). But if after ordi- nation it be found out that he had sinned pre- viously, let him then be expelled from the clergy. Hefele. It may be seen by the very text of this canon, that it was already forbidden to bap- tize, and to raise to the episcopate or to the priesthood anyone who had only been a cate- chumen for a short time : this injunction is in fact contained in the eightieth (seventy- ninth) apostolical canon ; and according to that, it would be older than the Council of Nicaea. There have been, nevertheless, certain cases in which, for urgent reasons, an excep- tion has been made to the rule of the Coun- cil of Nicsea— for instance, that of S. Ambrose. The canon of Nicaea does not seem to allow such an exception, but it might be justified by the apostolical canon, which says, at the close : " It is not right that any one who has not yet been proved should be a teacher of others, unless by a peculiar divine grace." The expression of the canon of Nicsea, \pv\i-i P uv. (Dr. Adolph Harnack : Hist, of Dogma [Eng. Tr.] Vol. I. p. 209.) The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is plainly found in the Di- dache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and above all, in Justin (I. 65f.) But even Clement of Rome pre- supposes it, when (in cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the 1 Greg. Naz. Ep. ail Procop. ; Migne Pat. Grxc, No. cxxx. 14 I. NICE. A.D. 325 Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44.4) irpoo-cjiepeiv to Siopa. This is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal ; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi i. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice : see my notes on Didache, 14.3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as a sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of institution tovto Troieire, contained a com- mand with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be rep- resented as a sacrifice, and this the more, that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand ttoluv in the sense of Ovuv. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the " agapa3 " connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration ; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship be regarded than as -Kpoa^opal f or the purpose of a sacrifice? Yet the spiritual idea so pre- vailed that only the prayers were regarded as the Ovaia proper, even in the case of Justin {Dial. 117). The elements are only Swpa, irpoafyopai, which obtain their value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called evxapLaua (Justin, Apol. I. 6G : y tock/»/ avr-q KoXzirai Trap {jpuv eu^apwrTta. Didache, 9. 1 : Ignat.), because it is rpacfir) evxa.picrTr)6etopa rov crw/xaTos «al tot) cu/xaTos. 1 Harnack seems to know only the printed (and almost certainly incorrect) reading of the modern texts of the I. Apology (Chap- ter LXVI) where toOto eon has taken the place of TovTeori.. The passage did read, tovto 7roi€iTe, ei? Ti)V 6.vay.vy\o-iv jllov, TOVTeo-Tt to o-ujiKi M<™ ; in which it is evident that the words "my body " are in apposition with toCto and the object of iroun-e, which has its sacrificial sense "to offer," as in the Dialogue with Trypho, 6 Kvpios Yifxuiv 7Tape'oWe noieiv (chapter xlj). 2 Harnack evidently does not fully appreciate the Catholic doc- trine of the Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. No Catholic theolo- gian teaches that the essence of that sacrifice is to offer up the already present Body of Christ, but that the essence of the Sacri- fice is the act of consecration; the "making the Eucharistic Sacrifice," as he accurately says, "whereby the common bread becomes the Bread of the Eucharist." Harnack says truly that " the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer," but he does not seem to know that this is the Catholic doctrine to-day, nor to appreciate at its Catholic value the " Prayer of Consecration." The act of consecration is the essence of the Christian Sacrifice according to the teaching of all Catholics. I. NICE. A.D. 325 15 CANON VI. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Koine also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VI. The Bishop of Alexandria shall have juris- diction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Borne. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metro- politan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force. Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most important and most interesting of all the Niceue canons, and a whole library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting and some de- nying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any one wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find it in Phillips's Eirchenrecht (Bd. ii. S. 35). I shall reserve what I have to say upon this subject to the notes on a canon which seems really to deal with it, confining myself here to an elucidation of the words found in the canon before us. Hammond, W. A. The object and intention of this canon seems clearly to have been, not to introduce any new powers or regulations into the Church, but to confirm and establish ancient customs already existing. This, indeed, is evident from the very first words of it : "Let the ancient cus- toms be maintained." It appears to have been made with particular reference to the case of the Church of Alexandria, which had been troubled by the irregular proceedings of Mile- tius, and to confirm the ancient privileges of that see which he had invaded. The latter part of it, however, applies to all Metropoli- tans, and confirms all their ancient privileges. Ffoulkes. (Diet. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicaea). The first half of the canon enacts merely that what had long been customary with re- spect to such persons in every province should become law, beginning with the province where this principle had been infringed ; while the second half declares what was in future to be received as law on two points which custom had not as yet expressly ruled. . . . Nobody disputes the meaning of this last half ; nor, in fact, would the meaning of the first half have been questioned, had it not included Rome. . . . Nobody can main- tain that the bishops of Antioch and Alexan- dria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when they were so called. . . . It is on this clause ["since the like is customary for the Bishops of Rome also"] standing parenthetically be- tween what is decreed for the particular cases of Egypt and Antioch, and in consequence of the interpretation given to it by Rufinus, more particularly, that so much strife has been raised. Rufinus may rank low as a translator, yet, being a native of Aquileia, he cannot have been ignorant of Roman ways, nor, on the other hand, had he greatly misrepresented them, would his version have waited till the seventeenth century to be impeached. Hepele. The sense of the first words of the canon is as follows : " This ancient right is assigned to the Bishop of Alexandria which places under his jurisdiction the whole diocese of Egypt." It is without any reason, then, that the French Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican Beveridge, and the Gallican Launoy, try to show that the Council of Nice granted to the Bishop of Alexandria only the rights of ordi- nary metropolitans. Bishop Stillingfleet. I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of Alexandria, for all the provinces of Egypt were under his im- mediate care, which was Patriarchal as to ex- tent, but Metropolical in the administration. 16 I. NICE. A.D. 325 JuSTELLUS. This authority (zijovo-ia) is that of a Metro- politan which the Nicene Fathers decreed to be his due over the three provinces named in this canon, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, which made up the whole diocese of Egypt, as well in matters civil as ecclesiastical. On this important question Hefele refers to the dissertation of Dupin, in his work Be Antiqua Ecclesice Bisciplina. Hefele says : " It seems to me beyond a doubt that in this canon there is a question about that which was afterward called the patriarchate of the Bishop of Alexandria ; that is to say that he had a certain recognized ecclesiastical author- ity, not only over several civil provinces, but also over several ecclesiastical provinces (which had their own metropolitans) ; " and further on (p. 392) he adds : " It is incontestable that the civil provinces of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis and Thebai's, which were all in subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria, were also ecclesias- tical provinces with their own metropolitans ; and consequently it is not the ordinary rights of metropolitans that the Sixth Canon of Nice confers on the Bishop of Alexandria, but the rights of a superior Metropolitan, that is, of a Patriarch." There only remains to see what were the bounds of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch. The civil diocese of Oriens is shewn by the Second Canon of Constantinople to be conterminous with what was afterward called the Patriarchate of Antioch. The see of An- tioch had, as we know, several metropolitans subject to it, among them Csesarea, under whose jurisdiction was Palestine. Justellus, however, is of opinion that Pope Innocent I. was in error when he asserted that all the Metropolitans of Oriens were to be ordained by him by any peculiar authority, and goes so far as to stigmatize his words as " contrary to the mind of the Nicene Synod." 1 EXCUKSUS ON THE EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE BISHOP OF ROME OVER THE SUBURBICAN CHURCHES. Although, as Hefele well says, " It is evident that the Council has not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, but simply his power as a patriarch," yet it may not be unimportant to consider what his patriarchal limits may have been, (Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. I., p. 397.) The translation of this [VI.] canon by Rufinus has been especially an apple of discord. Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Egypti vel hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat. In the seventeenth century this sentence of Rufinus gave rise to a very lively discussion between the celebrated jurist, Jacob Goth- fried (Gothofredus), and his friend, Salmasius, on one side, and the Jesuit, Sirmond, on the other. The great prefecture of Italy, which contained about a third of the whole Roman Empire, was divided into four vicariates, among which the vicariate of Rome was the first. At its head were two officers, the prcefectus urbi and the viearius urbis. The prcefectus urbi exercised authority over the city of Rome, and further in a suburban circle as far as the hun- dredth milestone. The boundary of the viearius urbis comprised ten provinces — Campania, Tuscia with Ombria, Picenum, Valeria, Samnium, Apulia with Calabria, Lucania and that of the Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. Gothfried and Salmasius maintained, that by the regiones suburbicarice the little territory of the prcefectus urbi must be understood ; while, according to Sirmond, these words designate the whole territory of the viearius urbis. In our time Dr. Maasen has proved in his book, 2 already quoted several times, that Gothfried and Salmasius were right in maintaining that, by the regiones suburbicarice, the little territory of the prcefectus urbi must be alone understood. Hefele thinks that Phillips " has proved " that the Bishop of Rome had patriarchal rights over places outside the limits of the ten provinces of the viearius urbis ; but does not agree i Contra mentem Synodi Nicceni. I goes on to express the opinion that the patriarchal power of Rome 2 Friedrich Maasen : Der Primal des Bischofs von Rom, und was much larger. die alten Patriarchalkirchen. Bonn, 1S53. § 100-110. Maasen | I. NICE. A.D. 325 17 with Phillips in thinking Rufinus in error. As a matter of fact the point is a difficult one, anil has little to do with the gist of the meaning of the canon. One thing is certain : the early Latin version of the canons, called the Prisca, was not satisfied with the Greek wording and made the Canon read thus : " It is of ancient custom that the bishop of the city of Rome should have a primacy (principatum), so that he should govern with care the suburbi- can places, and all his own peovince." 1 Another interesting reading is that found in several MSS. which begins, " The Church of Rome hath always had a primacy (primatum)," and as a matter of fact the early date of this addition is evinced by the fact that the canon was actually quoted in this shape by Paschasinus at the Council of Chalcedon. Hefele further on says, " The Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon (of the twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their explanation of the Canons of Nice, that this sixth canon confirms the rights of the Bishop of Rome as patriarch over the whole West," and refers to Beveridge's Syodicon, Tom. I., pp. 66 and 67. After diligent search I can find nothing to warrant the great amplitude of this statement. Balsamon's interpretation is very vague, being simply that the Bishop of Rome is over the Western Eparchies (twv etnrepiwv i-rrdp^wv) and Zonaras still more vaguely says that twv kvirepiwv dpxeiv 4'^os iKparrjae. That the whole West was in a general way understood to be in the Roman Patriarchate I have no doubt, that the Greek scholiasts just quoted deemed it to be so I think most probably the case, but it does not seem to me that they have said so in the particular place cited. It seems to me that all they meant to say was that the custom observed at Alexandria and Antioch was no purely Eastern and local thing, for a similar state of affairs was found in the West. CANON VII. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of iElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VII. Let the Bishop of JElia be honoured, the rights of the Metropolis being preserved intact. There would seem to be a singular fitness in the Holy City Jerusalem holding a very ex- alted position among the sees of Christendom, and it may appear astonishing that in the ear- liest times it was only a suffragan see to the great Church of Caesarea. It must be re- membered, however, that only about seventy years after our Lord's death the city of Jeru- salem was entirely destroyed and ploughed as a field according to the prophet. As a holy city Jerusalem was a thing of the past for long years, and it is only in the beginning of the second century that we find a strong Christian Church growing up in the rapidly increasing city, called no longer Jerusalem, but JElia Capitolina. Possibly by the end of 1 Vide Labbe's Observation. Tom. II., col. 47. the second century the idea of the holiness of the site began to lend dignity to the occupant of the see ; at all events Eusebius 2 tells us that " at a synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy in the time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Csesarea and Narcissus of Jeru- salem were presidents." It was this feeling of reverence which in- duced the passing of this seventh canon. It is very hard to determine just what was the "precedence " granted to the Bishop of iElia, nor is it clear which is the metropolis referred to in the last clause. Most writers, including Hefele, Balsamon, Aristenus and Beveridge consider it to be Csesarea ; while Zonaras thinks Jerusalem to be intended, a view re- cently adopted and defended by Fuchs ; 3 others again suppose it is Antioch that is re- ferred to. 2 Eusebius : Hist. Eccl. Lib. v., c. 23. 3 Fuchs : Bib. der Kirchenversammlungen. Bd. i., 9. 399. VOL. XIV. 18 I. NICE. A.D. 325 \ EXCURSUS ON THE RISE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM. • The narrative of the successive steps by -which the See of Jerusalem rose from being nothing but .ZElia, a Gentile city, into one of the five patriarchal sees is sad reading for a Christian. It is but the record of ambition and, "worse still, of knavery. No Christian can for a moment grudge to the Holy City of the old dispensation the honour shewn it by the Church, but he may well wish that the honour had been otherwise obtained. A careful study of such records as we possess shews that until the fifth century the Metropolitan of Coesarea as often took precedence of the Bishop of Jerusalem as vice versa, and Beveridge has taken great pains to shew that the learned De Marca is in error in supposing that the Council of Nice assigned to Jerusalem a dignity superior to Csesarea, and only inferior to Rome, Alex- andria, and Antioch. It is true that in the signatures the Bishop of Jerusalem does sign before his metropolitan, but to this Beveridge justly replies that the same is the case with the occupants of two other of his suffragan sees. Bishop Beveridge's opinion is that the Council assigned Jerusalem the second place in the province, such as London enjoys in the Province of Canterbury. This, however, would seem to be as much too little as De Marca's contention grants too much. It is certain that almost immediately after the Council had adjourned, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Maxhnus, convoked a synod of Palestine, without any reference to Caesarea, which consecrated bishops and acquitted St. Athanasius. It is true that he was reprimanded for doing so, 1 but yet it clearly shews how he intended to understand the action of Nice. The matter was not decided for a century more, and then through the chi- canery of Juvenal the bishop of Jerusalem. (Canon Venables, Diet. Christ. Biography.) Juvenalis succeeded Praylius as bishop of Jerusalem somewhere about 420 a.d. The exact year cannot be determined. The episcopate of Praylius, which commenced in 417 a.d., was but short, and we can hardly give it at most more than three years. The statement of Cyril of Scythopolis, in his Life of St. Euthymius (c. 96), that Juvenal died "in the forty-fourth year of his episcopate," 458 a.d., is certainly incorrect, as it would make his episcopate begin in 414 a.d., three years before that of his predecessor. Juvenal occupies a prominent posi- tion during the Nestorian and Eutychian troubles towards the middle of the fifth century. But the part played by him at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as at the dis- graceful Xrja-TpiKr] o-woSos of 449, was more conspicuous than creditable, and there are few of the actors in these turbulent and saddening scenes who leave a more unpleasing impression. The ruling object of Juvenal's episcopate, to which everything else was secondary, and which guided all his conduct, was the elevation of the see of Jerusalem from the subordinate posi- tion it held in accordance with the seventh of the canons of the council of Nicsea, as suffragan to the metropolitan see of Ceesarea, to a primary place in the episcopate. Not content with aspiring to metropolitan rank, Juvenal coveted patriarchal dignity, and, in defiance of all canonical authority, he claimed jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from which he sought to remove Arabia and the two Phcenicias to his own province. At the council of Ephesus, in 431, he asserted for " the apostolic see of Jerusalem the same rank and author- ity with the apostolic see of Rome " (Labbe, Condi, iii. 642). These falsehoods he did not scruple to support with forged documents (" insolenter ausus per commentitia scripta fir- mare," Leo.~'Mag. Ep. 119 [92]), and other disgraceful artifices. Scarcely had Juvenal been consecrated bishop of Jerusalem when he proceeded to assert his claims to the metropolitan rank by his acts. In the letter of remonstrance against the proceedings of the council of 1 Socrates : Hist Eccl., ii. 24. I. NICE. A.D. 325 19 Epliesus, sent to Theodosius by the Oriental party, they complain that Juvenal, whose " ambitious designs and juggling tricks " they are only too well acquainted with, had or- dained in provinces over which he had no jurisdiction (Labbe, Condi, iii. 728). This auda- cious attempt to set at nought the Nicene decrees, and to falsify both history and tradition was regarded with the utmost indignation by the leaders of the Christian church. Cyril of Alexandria shuddered at the impious design ("merito perhorrescens," Leo. u. s.), and wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of Borne, informing him of what Juvenal was undertaking, and beg- ging that his unlawful attempts might have no sanction from the apostolic See (" ut nulla illicitis conatibus preeberetur assensio," it. s.). Juvenal, however, was far too useful an ally in his campaign against Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the council met at Ephe- sus Juvenal was allowed, without the slightest remonstrance, to take precedence of his met- ropolitan of Caesarea, and to occupy the position of vice-president of the council, coming next after Cyril himself (Labbe, Concil. iii. 445), and was regarded in all respects as the second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant assertion of his supremacy over the bishop of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next after Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance, and his pretensions were at least tacitly allowed. At the next council, the disgraceful Latrocinium, Juvenal occupied the third place, after Dioscorus and the papal legate, having been specially named by Theodosius, together with Thalassius of Ceesarea (who appears to have taken no umbrage at his suffragan being preferred before him), as next in authority to Dioscorus (Labbe, Concil. iv. 109), and he took a leading part in the violent proceedings of that assembly. When the council of Chalcedon met, one of the matters which came before it for settlement was the dispute as to priority between Juvenal and Maximus Bishop of Antioch. The contention was long and severe. It ended in a compro- mise agreed on in the Seventh Action, ju.£t. 17, 18.) The Chorepiscopi (xG>p«ri whilst in the synodal letter of the Council of Nicsea on the subject of the Meletians, there is a distinction between these two words, and npox^-pi^iv is used to signify eligere. This canon is found in Corpus Juris Canon- ici. Decretum. Pars I. Dist. lxxxi. c. v. CANON XI. Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers ; for seven years they shall be prostrators ; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XI. As many as fell without necessity, even if therefore undeserving of indulgence, yet some indulgence shall be shown them and they shall be prostrators for twelve years. On the expression " without oblation " {\u>p\dpio, this may possibly mean a side chapel, and does occur in mens, faithful, and penitents ; but it is clear from the present canon there were two kinds of catechumens : one consisting of those who heard the Word of God, and wished to become Christians, but had not yet desired baptism ; these were called " hearers." Others who were of long standing, and were properly trained in the faith, and desired baptism — these were called " competentes." the Book of Maccabees in this sense ; but its classical use is to signify the shrine of a god, and while so distinguished a writer as Pierre Le Brun adopts the later meaning, the no less famous Durant, together with most commentators, translate as I have done above. In either case for the present purpose, the quotation is conclusive of the practice of the primitive church in regard to this matter. Liddell and Scott give " Trao-ro^opos, one carrying the image of a god in a shrine," , , _ 32 I. NICE. A.D. 325 There is difference of opinion among the learned as to whether there was not a third or even a fourth class of catechumens. Bing- ham and Card. Bona, while not agreeing in particular points, agree in affirming that there were more than two classes. Bingham's first class are those not allowed to enter the church, the Z£(i>$oviJ.evoi., but the affirmation of the ex- istence of such a class rests only on a very- forced explanation of canon five of Neocses- area. The second class, the hearers, audi- entes, rests on better evidence. These were not allowed to stay while the Holy Mysteries were celebrated, and their expulsion gave rise to the distinction between the " Mass of the Catechumens " (llissa Catechumenorum) and the " Mass of the Faithful " (Missa Fidelium). Nor were they suffered to hear the Creed or the Our Father. Writers who multiply the classes insert here some who knelt and prayed, called Prostrati or Genuflectentes (the same name as was given to one of the grades of penitence). (Edw. H. Plumptre in Diet. Christ. Antiq. s. v. Catechumens.) After these stages had been traversed each with its appropriate instruction, the catechu- mens gave in their names as applicants for baptism, and were known accordingly as Gom- petentes (o-waiTowrcs). This was done com- monly at the beginning of the Quadragesimal fast, and the instruction, carried on through the whole of that period, was fuller and more public in its nature (Cyril Hieros. Catech. i. 5 ; Hieron. Ep. 61, ad Pammach. c. 4). To catechumens in this stage the great articles of the Creed, the nature of the Sacraments, the penitential discipline of the Church, were ex- plained, as in the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, with dogmatic precision. Special examinations and inquiries into char- acter were made at intervals during the forty days. It was a time for fasting and watching and prayer (Constt. Apost. viii. 5 ; 4 C. Carth. c. 85 ; Tertull. De Bapt. c. 20; Cyril. 1. c.) and, in the case of those who were married, of the strictest continence (August. De fide et oper. v. 8). Those who passed through the ordeal were known as the perfectiores (reXuonepoi) the electi, or in the nomenclature of the Eastern Church as (ia-KTit,6fxevoi or ^um^d/tevoi, the pres- ent participle being used of course with a fut- ure or gerundial sense. Their names were inscribed as such in the album or register of the church. They were taught, but not till a few days before their baptism, the Creed and the Lord's Prayer which they were to use after it. The periods for this registration varied, naturally enough, in different churches. At Jerusalem it was done on the second (Cyril. Gatech. iii.), in Africa on the fourth Sunday in Lent (August. Serm. 213), and this was the time at which the candidate, if so disposed, might lay aside his old heathen or Jewish name and take one more specifically Christian (Socrat. H. E. vii. 21). . . . It is only nec- essary to notice here that the Sacramentum Catechumenorum of which Augustine speaks (De Peccat. Merit, ii. 26) as given apparently at or about the time of their first admission by imposition of hands, was probably the cvXoytat or panis benedictus, and not, as Bing- ham and Angusti maintain, the salt which was given with milk and honey after baptism. CANON XV. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away ; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or con- tinue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XV. Neither bishoji, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. But they shall be sent back, should they attempt to do so, to the Churches in which they were ordained. Hefele. The translation of a bishop, priest, or dea- con from one church to another, had already been forbidden in the primitive Church. Nevertheless, several translations had taken place, and even at the Council of Nice several eminent men were present who had left their first bishoprics to take others : thus Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, had been before Bishop of Berytus ; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, had been before Bishop of Berrhcea in Syria. The Council of Nice thought it necessary to I. NICE. A.D. 325 33 forbid in future these translations, and to de- clare them invalid. The chief reason of this prohibition was found in the irregularities and disputes occasioned by such change of sees ; but even if such practical difficulties had not arisen, the whole doctrinal idea, so to speak, of the relationship between a cleric and the church to which he had been or- dained, namely, the contracting of a mystical marriage between them, would be opposed to any translation or change. In 341 the Synod of Antioch renewed, in its twenty-first canon, the prohibition passed by the Council of Nice ; but the interest of the Church often rendered it necessary to make exceptions, as happened in the case of St. Chrysostom. These excep- tional cases increased almost immediately after the holding of the Council of Nice, so that in 382, St. Gregory of Nazianzum con- sidered this law among those which had long been abrogated by custom. It was more strictly observed in the Latin Church ; and even Gregory's contemporary, Pope Damasus, declared himself decidedly in favour of the rule of Nice. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars II. Causa VII, Q. 1, c, xix. EXCUESUS ON THE TRANSLATION OF BISHOPS. There are few points upon which the discipline of the Church has so completely changed as that which regulated, or rather which forbade, the translation of a bishop from the see for which he was consecrated to some other diocese. The grounds on which such prohibition rested were usually that such changes were the outcome of ambition, and that if tolerated the result would be that smaller and less important sees would be despised, and that there would be a constant temptation to the bishops of such sees to make themselves popular with the important persons in other dioceses with the hope of promotion. Besides this objection to translation, St. Athanasius mentions a spiritual one, that the diocese was the bishop's bride, and that to desert it and take another was an act of unjustifiable divorce, and subse- quent adultery. 1 Canon XIV. of the Apostolic Canons does not forbid the practice abso- lutely, but allows it for just cause, and although the Council of Nice is more stringent so far as its words are concerned, apparently forbidding translation under any circumstances, yet, as a matter of fact, that very council did allow and approve a translation. 2 The general feeling, however, of the early Church was certainly very strong against all such changes of Episcopal cure, and there can be no doubt that the chief reason why St. Gregory Nazianzen resigned the Presidency of the First Council of Constantinople, was because he had been translated from his obscure see Sasima (not Nazianzum as Socrates and Jerome say) to the Imperial City. 3 From the canons of some provincial councils, and especially from those of the Third and of the Fourth Council of Carthage, it is evident that despite the conciliar and papal pro- hibitions, translations did take place, being made by the authority of the provincial Synods, and without the consent of the pope, 4 but it is also evident that this authority was too weak, and that the aid of the secular power had often to be invoked. This course, of having the matter decided by the synod, was exactly in accordance with the Apostolic Canon (no. xiv.). In this manner, for example, Alexander was translated from Cappadocia to Jerusalem, a translation made, so it is narrated, in obedience to heavenly revelation. It will be noticed that the Nicene Canon does not forbid Provincial Councils to translate 1 Athanas. Apol. ij. 2 Sozom. IT. E. I. 2. 3 By no one has this whole matter of the translation of bishops been more carefully and thoroughly treated than by Thomassinus, and in what follows I shall use his discussion as a thesaurus of facts. The title of his book is Ancienne et Kouvclle Discipline de VEglise (There is also an edition in Latin). In the Third Part, and the Second Book, Chapter LX. treats of " Translations of bishops in the Latin Church during the first five centuries." VOL. XIV. D Chapter LXI. " Translations in the Eastern Church, during the first five centuries." Chapter LXLT. "Translation of bishops and bishoprics be- tween the years five hundred and eight hundred." Chapter LXIII. "Translation under the empire of Charle- magne and his descendants." Chapter LXIV. "Translation of bishops after the year one thousand." Of all this I can in the text give but a brief resume". 4 Thomassin. I. c. lx. viij. 34 I. NICE. A.D. 325 bishops, but forbids bishops to translate themselves, and the author of the tract Be Transla- tionibus in the Jus Orient, (i. 293, Git. Hacldon. Art. "Bishop," Smith and Cheetham, Diet. Ghr. Antiq.) sums up the matter tersely in the statement that f/ tteTa/?ao-is kckw\vtm } oi prjv i'j IMerdSeais : i.e., the thing prohibited is " transmigration " (which arises from the bishop himself, from selfish motives) not " translation " (wherein the will of God and the good of the Church is the ruling cause) ; the " going," not the " being taken " to another see. And this was the practice both of East and West, for many centuries. Roman Catholic writers have tried to prove that translations, at least to the chief sees, required the papal consent, but Thomas- sinus, considering the case of St. Meletius having translated St. Gregory of Nazianzum to Constantinople, admits that in so doing he " would only have followed the example of many great bishops of the first ages, when usage had not yet reserved translations to the first see of the Church. " 1 But the same learned author frankly confesses that in France, Spain, and England, trans- lations were made until the ninth century without consulting the pope at all, by bishops and kings. When, however, from grounds of simple ambition, Anthimus was translated from Trebizonde to Constantinople, the religious of the city wrote to the pope, as also did the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, and as a result the Emperor Justinian allowed Anthi- mus to be deposed. 3 Balsamon distinguishes three kinds of translations. The first, when a bishop of marked learning and of equal piety is forced by a council to pass from a small diocese to one far greater where he will be able to do the Church the most important services, as was the case when St. Gregory of Nazianzum was transferred from Sasima to Constantinople, /xera^eo-is ; the second when a bishop, whose see has been laid low by the barbarians, is transferred to another see which is vacant, /xera/Jaa-ts ; and the third when a bishop, either having or lacking a see, seizes on a bishopric which is vacant, on his own proper authority cW/?ao-is. And it is this last which the Council of Sardica punishes so severely. In all these remarks of Balsa- mon there is no mention of the imperial power. Demetrius Chomatenus, however, who was Archbishop of Thessalonica, and wrote a series of answers to Cabasilas, Archbishop of Durazzo, says that by the command of the Emperor a bishop, elected and confirmed, and even ready to be ordained for a diocese, may be forced to take the charge of another one which is more important, and where his services will be incomparably more useful to the public. Thus we read in the Book of Eastern Law that "If a Metropolitan with his synod, moved by a praiseworthy cause and probable pre- text, shall give his approbation to the translation of a bishop, this can, without doubt, be done, for the good of souls and for the better administration of the church's affairs, etc." 3 This was adopted at a synod held by the patriarch Manuel at Constantinople, in the pres- ence of the imperial commissioners. The same thing appears also in the synodal response of the patriarch Michael, which only demands for translation the authority of the Metropolitan and "the greatest authority of the Church." 4 But, soon after this, translation became the rule, and not the exception both in East and West. It was in vain thai Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the East raised his voice against the constant translations made by the secular power, and the Emperors of Constantinople were often absolute masters of the choice and translations of bishops ; and Thomassinus sums up the matter, "At the least we are forced to the conclusion that no translations could 1 Thomassin, I. cit, Chap. LI., § xiij. 2 This is Thomassinus's version of the matter, in fact the charge of heresy was also made against Anthimus, but his unca- nonical translation was a real count in the accusation. 3 Juris. Orient, torn. I. p. 240, 241. * Ibid. p. 5. I am not at all clear as to what this last phrase means. I. NICE. A.D. 325 35 be made without the consent of the Emperor, especially when it was the See of Constantino- ple that was to be filled." The same learned writer continues : " It was usually the bishop or archbishop of another church that was chosen to ascend the patriarchal throne of the imperial city. The Kings of England often used this same power to appoint to the Primatial See of Canterbury a bishop already approved in the government of another diocese." 1 In the West, Cardinal Bellarmine disapproved the prevailing custom of translations and protested against it to his master, Pope Clement VIIL, reminding him that they were con- trary to the canons and contrary to the usage of the Ancient Church, except in cases of necessity and of great gain to the Church. The pope entirely agreed with these wise obser- vations, and promised that he would himself make, and would urge princes to make, transla- tions only " with difficulty." But translations are made universally, all the world over, to-day, and no attention whatever is paid to the ancient canons and discipline of the Church. 2 CANON XVI. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church ; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes ; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVI. Such presbyters or deacons as desert their own Church are not to be admitted into another, but are to be sent back to their own diocese. But if any bishop should ordain one who be- longs to another Church without the consent of his own bishop, the ordination shall be can- celled, " Parish " in this canon, as so often else- where, means " diocese," Balsamon. It seemed right that the clergy should have no power to move from city to city and to change their canonical residence without let- ters dimissory from the bishop who ordained them. But such clerics as are called by the bishops who ordained them and cannot be persuaded to return, are to be separated from communion, that is to say, not to be allowed to concelebrate {awizpovpydv) with them, for this is the meaning of " excommunicated " in 1 Thomassin. lib cit., chap. LXIV. § x. 2 1 'believe this is true of all churches, Catholic and Protestant, having an episcopal form of government (including the Protestant Church of Sweden, and the Methodist Episcopal Church), with the this place, and not that they should not enter the church nor receive the sacraments. This decree agrees with canon xv. of the Apos- tolical canons, which provides that such shall not celebrate the liturgy. Canon xvj. of the same Apostolical canons further provides that if a bishop receive a cleric coming to him from another diocese without his bishop's let- ters dimissory, and shall ordain him, such a bishop shall be separated. From all this it is evident that the Chartophylax of the Great Church for the time does rightly in refusing to allow priests ordained in other dioceses to offer the sacrifice unless they bring with them letters commendatory and dimissory from those who ordained them. Zonaras had also in his Scholion given the same explanation of the canon. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, divided into two. Decretum. Pars II, Causa VII. Qusest. I. c. xxiij. ; and Pars I. Dist. LXXI, c. iij. exception of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in which the ancient prohibition of the translation of diocesan bishops is observed in all its Nicene strictness. D 3 36 I. NICE. A.D. 325 CANON XVII. Foeasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, " He hath not given his money upon usury," and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum [as monthly interest], the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by de- manding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII. If anyone shall receive usury or 150 per cent, he shall be cast forth and deposed, accord- ing to this decree of the Church. Van Espen. Although the canon expresses only these two species of usury, if we bear in mind the grounds on which the prohibition was made, it will be manifest that every kind of usury is canon sent by the Orientals to the Sixth Coun- cil of Carthage is in no respect alien to the true intent of the canon ; for in this version no mention is made of any particular kind of usury, but generally the penalty is assigned to any clerics who " shall be found after this decree taking usury " or thinking out any other scheme for the sake of filthy lucre. This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, in the first part of the Decretum, in Dionysius's version. Dist. xlvii, c. ii, and forbidden to clerics and under any circum- i again in Isidore's version in Pars II, Causa stances, and therefore the translation of this ! xiv. Quses. iv., c. viii. EXCURSUS ON USURY. The famous canonist Van Espen defines usury thus : " Usura definitur lucrum ex mutuo exactum aut speratum ; " x and then goes on to defend the proposition that, " Usury is for- bidden by natural, by divine, and by human law. The first is proved thus. Natural law, as far as its first principles are concerned, is contained in the decalogue ; but usury is prohibit- ed in the decalogue, inasmuch as theft is prohibited ; and this is the opinion of the Master of the Sentences, of St. Bonaventura, of St. Thomas and of a host of others : for by the name of theft in the Law all unlawful taking of another's goods is prohibited ; but usury is an unlawful, etc." For a proof of usury's being contrary to divine law he cites Ex. xxii. 25, and Deut. xxiii. 29 ; and from the New Testament Luke vi. 34. " The third assertion is proved thus. Usury is forbidden by human law : The First Council of Nice in Canon VII. deposed from the clergy and from all ecclesiastical rank, clerics who took usury ; and the same thing is the case with an infinite number of councils, in fact with nearly all e. g. Elvira, ij, Aries j, Carthage iij, Tours iij, etc. Nay, even the pagans themselves formerly forbid it by their laws." He then quotes Tacitus (Annal. lib. v.), and adds, "with what severe laws the French Kings coerced usurers is evident from the edicts of St. Louis, Philip IV., Charles IX., Henry III, etc." There can be no doubt that Van Espen in the foregoing has accurately represented and without any exaggeration the universal opinion of all teachers of morals, theologians, doctors, Popes, and Councils of the Christian Church for the first fifteen hundred years. All interest exacted upon loans of money was looked upon as usury, and its reception was esteemed a form of theft and dishonesty. Those who wish to read the history of the matter in all its de- tails are referred to Bossuet's work on the subject, Traite de I'Usure, 2 where they will find 1 Van Espen. DUserMio de Usura, Art. I. 2 Bossuet, (Euvres Comp. xxxj. I. NICE. A.D. 325 3? the old, traditional view of the Christian religion defended by one thoroughly acquainted with all that could be said on the other side. The glory of inventing the new moral code on the subject, by which that which before was looked upon as mortal sin has been transfigured into innocence, if not virtue, belongs to John Calvin ! He made the modern distinction between "interest" and "usury," and was the first to write in defence of this then new-fangled refinement of casuistry. 1 Luther violently opposed him, and Melancthon also kept to the old doctrine, though less violently (as was to be expected) ; to-day the whole Christian West, Protestant and Catholic alike, stake their salvation upon the truth of Calvin's distinction ! Among Koman Catholics the new doctrine began to be defended about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the work of Scipio Maffei, DeW impiego dell clanaro, written on the laxer side, having attracted a wide- spread attention. The Ballerini affirm that the learned pope Benedict XIV. allowed books defending the new morals to be dedicated to him, and in 1830 the Congregation of the Holy Office with the approval of the reigning Pontiff, Pius VIII., decided that those who considered the taking of interest allowed by the state law justifiable, were "not to be disturbed." It is entirely disingenuous to attempt to reconcile the modern with the ancient doctrine ; the Fathers expressly deny that the State has any power to make the receiving of interest just or to fix its rate, there is but one ground for those to take who accept the new teaching, viz. that all the ancients, while true on the moral principle that one must not defraud his neigh- bour nor take unjust advantage of his necessity, were in error concerning the facts, in that they supposed that money was barren, an opinion which the Schoolmen also held, following Aristotle. This we have found in modern times, and amid modern circumstances, to be an entire error, as Grury, the famous modern casuist, well says, "fructum producitet multiplica- tur per se." 2 That the student may have it in his power to read the Patristic view of the matter, I give a list of the passages most commonly cited, together with a review of the conciliar action, for all which I am indebted to a masterly article by Wharton B. Marriott in Smith and Cheet- ham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (s. v. Usury). Although the conditions of the mercantile community in the East and the West differed materially in some respects, the fathers of the two churches are equally explicit and system- atic in their condemnation of the practice of usury. Among those belonging to the Greek church we find Athanasius (Expos, in Ps. xiv) ; Basil the Great (Horn, in Ps. xiv). Gregory of Nazianzum (Oral. xiv. in Patrem tacentem). Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. cont. Usurarios); Cyril of Jerusalem (Gatech. iv. c. 37), Epiphanius (adv. Haeres. Epilog, c. 24), Chrysostom (Horn. xli. in Genes), and Theodoret (Interpr. in Ps. xiv. 5, and liv. 11). Among those belonging to the Latin church, Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. xiv); Ambrose (de Tobia liber units). Jerome (in Ezech. vi. 18) ; Augustine de Baptismo contr. Donatistas, iv. 19); Leo the Great (Epist. iii. 4), and Cas- siodorus (in Ps. xiv. 10). The canons of later councils differ materially in relation to this subject, and indicate a distinct tendency to mitigate the rigour of the Nicasan interdict. That of the council of Carthage of the year 348 enforces the original prohibition, but without the penalty, and grounds the veto on both Old and New Testament authority, " nemo contra prophetas, nemo contra evangelia facit sine periculo" (Mansi, iii. 158). The language, however, when com- pared with that of the council of Carthage of the year 419, serves to suggest that, in the inter- val, the lower clergy had occasionally been found having recourse to the forbidden practice, for the general terms of the earlier canon, "ut non liceat clericis fenerari," are enforced with 'Funk (Zins und Wuclier, p. 104) says that Eck and Hoog- I ^Gtiry, Corap. TJieol, Moral (Ed. Ballerini) vol, ii. p. Oil, Btraten had already verbally defended this distinction at Bologna. | I. NICE. A.D. 325 greater particularity in the latter, "Nee omnino cuiquam elericorum liceat de qualibet re fcenus accipere " (Mansi, iv. 423). This supposition is supported by the language of the council of Orleans (a.d. 538), which appears to imply that deacons were not prohibited from lending money at interest, "Et clericus adiaconatu, et supra, pecuniam noncommodet ad usuras " {ib. ix. 18). Similarly, at the second council of Trullanum (a.d. 692) a like liberty would appear to have been recognised among the lower clergy (Hardouin, iii. 1663). While, again, the Nictean canon requires the immediate deposition of the ecclesiastic found guilty of the practice, the Apostolical canon enjoins that such deposition is to take place only after he has been admonished and has disregarded the admonition. Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that the Church imposed no penalty on the layman. St. Basil (Epist. clxxxviii. can. 12), says that a usurer may even be admitted to orders, provided he gives his acquired wealth to the poor and abstains for the future from the pursuit of gain (Migne, Patrol. Orcec. xxxii. 275). Gregory of Nyssa says that usury, unlike theft, the deseci'ation of tombs, and sacrilege (IcpocrvXia), is allowed to pass unpunished, although among the things forbidden by Scripture, nor is a candidate at ordina- tion ever asked whether or no he has been guilty of the practice (Migne, ib. xlv. 233). A letter of Sidonius Apollinaris (Epist. vi. 24) relating an experience of his friend Maximus, appears to imply that no blame attached to lending money at the legal rate of interest, and that even a bishop might be a creditor on those terms. We find also Desideratus, bishop of Verdun, when applying for a loan to king Theodebert, for the relief of his impoverished dio- cese, promising repayment, " cumusurislegitimis," an expression which would seem to imply that in the Gallican church usury was recognised as lawful under certain conditions (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, iii. 34). So again a letter (Epist. ix. 38) of Gregory the Great seems to shew that he did not regard the payment of interest for money advanced by one layman to another as unlawful. But on the other hand, we find in what is known as archbishop Theo- dore's "Penitential" (circ. a.d. 690) what appears to be a general law on the subject, en- joining " Sie quis usuras undecunque exegerit . . . tres annos in pane et aqua " (c. xxv. 3) ; a penance again enjoined in the Penitential of Egbert of York(c. ii. 30). In like manner, the legates, George and Theophylact, in reporting their proceedings in England to pope Adrian I. (a.d. 787), state that they have prohibited "usurers," and cite the authority of the Psalmist and St. Augustine (Haddan and Stubbs, Cone. iii. 457). The councils of Mayence, Kheiins, and Chalons, in the year 813, and that of Aix in the year 816, seem to have laid down the same prohibition as binding both on the clergy and the laity (Hardouin, Cone. iv. 1011, 1020, 1033, 1100). Muratori, in his dissertation on the subject (Antichitd, vol. i.), observes that "we do not know exactly how commerce was transacted in the five preceding centuries," and conse- quently are ignorant as to the terms on which loans of money were effected. CANON XVIII. It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Eurthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presby- ters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate. I. NICE. A.D. 325 39 NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XVIII. Deacons must abide within their oam bounds. They shall not administer the Eucharist to presbyters, nor touch it before them, nor sit among the presbyters. For all this is contrary to canon, and to decent order. Van Espen. Four excesses of deacons this canon con- demns, at least indirectly. The first was that they gave the holy Communion to presbyters. To understand more easily the meaning of the canon it must be remembered that the refer- ence here is not to the presbyters who were sacrificing at the altar but to those who were offering together with the bishop who was sacrificing ; by a rite not unlike that which to-day takes place, when the newly ordained presbyters or bishops celebrate mass with the ordaining bishop ; and this rite in old times was of daily occurrence, for a full account of which see Morinus De SS. Ordinat. P. III. Exercit. viij. . . . The present canon does not take away from deacons the author- ity to distribute the Eucharist to laymen, or to the minor clergy, but only reproves their insolence and audacity in presuming to ad- minister to presbyters who were concelebrat- ing with the bishop or another presbyter. The second abuse was that certain deacons touched the sacred gifts before the bishop. The vulgar version of Isidore reads for "touched" "received," a meaning which Bal- samon and Zonaras also adopt, and unless the Greek word, which signifies "to touch," is con- trary to this translation, it seems by no means to be alien to the context of the canon. "Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let the bishop or the presbyter administer to them." In these words it is implied that some deacons had presumed to receive Holy Communion be- fore the presbyters, and this is the third excess of the deacon which is condemned by the Synod. And lastly, the fourth excess was that they took a place among the presbyters at the very time of the sacrifice, or " at the holy altar," as Balsamon observes. From this canon we see that the Nicene fathers entertained no doubt that the faithful in the holy Communion truly received " the body of Christ." Secondly, that that was " offered " in the church, which is the word by which sacrifice is designated in the New Testament, and therefore it was at that time a fixed tradition that there was a sacrifice in which the body of Christ was offered. Thirdly that not to all, nor even to deacons, but only to bishops and presbyters was given the power of offering. And lastly, that there was recog- nized a fixed hierarchy in the Church, made up of bishops and presbyters and deacons in subordination to these. Of course even at that early date there was nothing new in this doctrine of the Eucharist. St. Ignatius more than a century and a half before, wrote as follows : " But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, hoAV that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they al- low not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his good- ness raised up." l In one point the learned scholiast just quoted has most seriously understated his case. He says that the wording of the canon shews " that the Nicene fathers entertained no doubt that the faithful in the holy Com- munion truly received ' the body of Christ.' " Now this statement is of course true because it is included in what the canon says, but the doctrinal statement which is necessarily con- tained in the canon is that "the body of Christ is given " by the minister to the faith- ful. This doctrine is believed by all Catho- lics and by Lutherans, but is denied by all other Protestants ; those Calvinists who kept most nearly to the ordinary Catholic phrase- ology only admitting that "the sacrament of the Body of Christ " was given in the supper by the minister, while " the body of Christ," they taught, was present only in the soul of the worthy communicant (and in no way con- nected with the form of bread, which was but the divinely appointed sign and assurance of the heavenly gift), and therefore could not be " given " by the priest. z This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Decretum. Pars I. Dist. XCIIL, c. xiv. 1 Ifrnat. Ad Smyr. § vi. Lightfoot's translation. Apost. Fath. Vol. II. Sec. I. p. 569. 2 Cf. Art. xxviij. of the "Articles of Religion " of the Church of England, which declares that "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper," etc. 40 I. NICE. A.D. 325 CANON XIX. Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized ; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and with- out reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church ; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XIX. Paulianists must be rebaptised, and if such as are clergymen seem to be blameless let them be ordained. If they do not seem to be blame- less, let them be deposed. Deaconesses who have been led astray, since they are not sharers of ordination, are to be reckoned among the laity. Ffoulkes. (Diet. Chr. Ant. s.v. Nicsea, Councils of.) That this is the true meaning of the phrase 6'pos eKTe'^eu-cci, viz. "a decree lias now been made," is clear from the application of the words opos in Canon xvii., and wpLo-ev, in Canon vi. It has been a pure mistake, therefore, which Bp. Hefele blindly follows, to under- stand it of some canon previously passed, whether at Aries or elsewhere. Justellus. Here x ei P°^ £(T ^ a is taken for ordination or consecration, not for benediction, for neither were deaconesses, sub-deacons, readers, and other ministers ordained, but a blessing was merely pronounced over them by prayer and imposition of hands. Aeistenus. Their (the Paulicians') deaconesses also, since they have no imposition of hands, if they come over to the Catholic Church and are baptized, are ranked among the laity. With this agree. Zonaras and Balsamon also Hefele. By Paulianists must be understood the fol- lowers of Paul of Samosata the anti-Trinita- rian who, about the year 260, had been made bishop of Antioch, but had been deposed by a great Synod in 269. As Paul of Samosata was heretical in his teaching on the Holy Trinity the Synod of Nice applied to him the decree passed by the council of Aries in its eighth canon. "If anj'one shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to say the creed ; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 1 he shall have a hand laid on him only that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if in answer to their question- ing he shall not answer this Trinity, let him be baptized." The Samosatans, according to St. Athana- sius, named the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in administering baptism (Orat. ii, Contra Arian. No. xliii), but as they gave a false meaning to the baptismal formula and did not use the words Son and Holy Spirit in the usual sense, the Council of Nice, like St. Ath- anasius himself, considered their baptism as invalid. There is great difficulty about the text of the clause beginning " Likewise in the case, etc.," and Gelasius, the Prisca, Theilo and Thearistus, (who in 419 translated the canons of Nice for the African bishops), the Pseudo- Isidore, and Gratian have all followed a read- ing SiaKovcuv, instead of Siclkovlo-o-wv. This change makes all clear, but many canonists keep the ordinary text, including Van Espen, with whose interpretation Hefele does not agree. ■I The clause I have rendered "And we mean by deaconesses " is most difficult of translation. I give the original, 'E/xv^cr^/xev 81 SiaKovicrawv twv iv tuj cr^/xari. i^eTaadeLcrwv, brel k. t. A. Hefele's translation seems to me impossible, by crx*?!"- "" 1 he understands the list of the clergy just mentioned. 1 lu Patre et Filio ct Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum. I. NICE. A.D. 325 41 EXCURSUS ON THE DEACONESS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. It lias been supposed by many that the deaconess of the Early Church had an Apostolic institution and that its existence maybe referred to by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 1) where he speaks of Phoebe as being a 8ta; diaconissce, presbyter a?, and viduce. The one great characteristic of the deaconess was that she was vowed to perpetual chas- tity. 1 The Ajjostolical Constitutions (vi. 17) say that she must be a chaste virgin (-Trapdevos ayvrj) or else a widow. The writer of the article "Deaconess " in the Dictionary of Christian Antiq- uities says: "It is evident that the ordination of deaconesses included a vow of celibacy." We have already seen the language used by St. Paul and of this the wording of the canon of Chalcedon is but an echo (Canon xv). " A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has had hands laid on her, and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the Grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man who is united to her." The civil law went still further, and by Justinian's Sixth Novel (6) those who attempted to marry are subjected to forfeiture of property and capital punishment. In the collect in the ancient office there is a special petition that the newly admitted deaconess may have the gift of continence. The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female candidates for holy baptism. At that time the sacrament of baptism was always administered by immersion (except to those in extreme illness) and hence there was much that such an order of women could be useful in. Moreover they sometimes gave to the female catechumens preliminary instruc- tion, but their work was wholly limited to women, and for a deaconess of the Early Church to teach a man or to nurse him in sickness would have been an impossibility. The duties of the deaconess are set forth in many ancient writings, I cite here what is commonly known as the XII Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, which met in the year 398 : " Widows and dedicated women (sanctimoniales) who are chosen to assist at the baptism of women, should be so well instructed in their office as to be able to teach aptly and prop- erly unskilled and rustic women how to answer at the time of their baptism to the questions put to them, and also how to live godly after they have been baptized." This whole matter is treated clearly by St. Epiphanius who, while indeed speaking of deaconesses as an order (rayixa), asserts that "they were only women-elders, not priestesses in any sense, that their 1 In 1836, the Lutheran Pastor Fliedner, of a little town on the Rhine, opened a parish hospital the nurses of which he called " Deaconesses." This " Deaconess House " at Kaiserswerth, was the mother-house from which all the deaconess establishments of the present day have taken their origin. The Methodists have adopted the system successfully. Some efforts have been made to domesticate it, in a somewhat modified form, also in the Angli- can Churches but thus far with but little success. Of course these " Deaconesses " resemble the Deaconesses of the Early Church only in name. The reader who may be interested in seeing an effort to connect the modern deaconess with the deaconess of an- tiquity is referred to The Ministry of Deaconesses by Deaconess Cecilia Robinson. This book, it should be said, contains much valuable and accurate information upon the subject, but accepts as proven facts the suppositions of the late Bishop Lightfoot upon the subject ; who somewhat rashly asserted that "the female diaconate is as definite an institution as the male diaconate. Phcebe is as much a deacon as Stephen or Philip is a deacon ! " 42 I. NICE. A.D. 325 mission Avas not to interfere in any way with Sacerdotal functions, but simply to perform certain offices in the care of women" (Hcer. lxxix, cap. iij). From all this it is evident that they are entirely in error who suppose that " the laying on of hands " which the deaconesses received corresponded to that by which persons were ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate at that period of the church's history. It was merely a solemn dedication and blessing and was not looked upon as " an outward sign of an inward grace given." For further proof of this I must refer to Morinus, who has treated the matter most admirably. (De Ordinationibus, Exereitatio X.) The deaconesses existed but a short while. The council of Laodicea as early as a.d. 343-381, forbade the appointment of any who were called Trparjixm^ ( Vide Canon xi) ; and the first council of Orange, a.d. 441, in its twenty-sixth canon forbids the appointment of deaconesses altogether, and the Second council of the same city in canons xvij and xviij, de- crees that deaconesses who married were to be excommunicated unless they renounced the men they were living with, and that, on account of the weakness of the sex, none for the future were to be ordained. Thomassinus, to whom I refer the reader for a very full treatment of the whole subject, is of opinion that the order was extinct in the West by the tenth or twelfth century, but that it lingered on a little later at Constantinople but only in conventual institutions. (Thom- assin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de I'Eglise, I Partie, Livre III.) CANON XX. Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed every- where (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XX. On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling. Hammond. ■ Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of standing at prayer on the Lord's day, and during the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost. Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona Militis, which is often qtioted, mentions it amongst other observ- ances which, though not expressly command- ed in Scripture, yet were universally prac- tised upon the authority of tradition. ' : We consider it unlawful," he says, " to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord's day ; we en- joy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost." De Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4. Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice, the reason of which, as given by Augustine and others, was to commemorate the resur- rection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured. This canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of the importance former- ly attached to an uniformity of sacred rites throughout the Church, which made the Ni- cene Fathers thus sanction and enforce by their authority a practice which in itself is in- different, and not commanded directly or in- directly in Scripture, and assign this as their reason for doing so : "In order that all things may be observed in like manner in every par- ish " or diocese. Hefele. All the churches did not, however, adopt this practice ; for we see in the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 36 and xxi. 5) that St, Paul prayed kneeling during the time between Pen- tecost and Easter. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Decretum, Pars III, De Cone. Dist. III. c. x. I. NICE. A.D. 325 43 EXCURSUS ON THE NUMBER OF THE NICENE CANONS. There has come down to us a Latin letter purporting to have been written by St. Atha- nasius to Pope Marcus. This letter is found in the Benedictine edition of St. Athanasius's works (ed. Patav. ii. 599) but rejected as spurious by Montfaucon the learned editor. In this letter is contained the marvellous assertion that the Council of Nice at first adopted forty canons, which were in Greek, that it subsequently added twenty Latin canons, and that after- wards the council reassembled and set forth seventy altogether. A tradition that some- thing of the kind had taken place was prevalent in parts of the East, and some collections did contain seventy canons. In the Vatican Library is a MS. which was bought for it by the famous Asseman, from the Coptic Patriarch, John, and which contains not only seventy, but eighty canons attrib- uted to the council of Nice. The MS. is in Arabic, and was discovered by J. B. Romanus, S. J., who first made its contents known, and translated into Latin a copy he had made of it. Another Jesuit, Pisanus, was writing a history of the Nicene Council at the time and he received the eighty newly found canons into his book ; but, out of respect to the pseudo- Athanasian letter, he at first cut down the number to seventy ; but in later editions he fol- lowed the MS. All this was in the latter half of the sixteenth century ; and in 1578 Turri- anus, who had had Father Romanus's translation revised before it was first published, now issued an entirely new translation with a Proemium 1 containing a vast amount of informa- tion upon the whole subject, and setting up an attempted proof that the number of the Nicene Canons exceeded twenty. His argument for the time being carried the day. Hefele says, " it is certain that the Orientals 2 believed the Council of Nice to have promul- gated more than twenty canons : the learned Anglican, Beveridge, 3 has proved this, repro- ducing an ancient Arabic paraphrase of the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils. According to this Arabic paraphrase, found in a MS. in the Bodleian Library, the Council of Nice must have put forth three books of canons. . . . The Arabic paraphrase of which we are speaking gives a paraphrase of all these canons, but Beveridge took only the part referring to the second book — that is to say, the paraphrase of the twenty genuine canons ; for, according to his view, which was perfectly correct, it was only these twenty canons which were really the work of the Council of Nice, and all the others were falsely attributed to it." 4 Hefele goes on to prove that the canons he rejects must be of much later origin, some being laws of the times of Theodosius and Justinian according to the opinion of Renaudot. 5 Before leaving this point I should notice the profound research on these Arabic canons of the Maronite, Abraham Echellensis. He gives eighty-four canons in his Latin translation of 1645, and was of opinion that they had been collected from different Oriental sources, and sects ; but that originally they had all been translated from the Greek, and were collected by James, the celebrated bishop of Nisibis, who was present at Nice. But this last supposi- tion is utterly untenable. Among the learned there have not been wanting some who have held that the Council of Nice passed more canons than the twenty we possess, and have arrived at the conclusion independently of the Arabic discovery, such are Baronius and Card. dAguirre, but their arguments have been sufficiently answered, and they cannot present anything able to weaken the conclusion that flows from the consideration of the following facts. Vide Labbe. Cone. ii. 287. ' by mistake,' whicb were not Nicene, as popes Zosimus, Innocent 2 Who exactly these "Orientals" were Hefele does not speci- fy, but Ffonlkes well points out (Diet. Christ. Antiq. sub voce Councils of Nicaea) that it is an entire mistake to suppose that the Greek Church " over quoted other canons [than the xx] as Nicene and Leo did." 3 Beveridge Synod, sive I'and. i. < 4 Hefele : Hist. Councils, I. 362. 5 Renaudot : Hist. Patriarchamm Alexandrianorum Jacob- itarum. Paris, 1713, p. 75. 44 I. NICE. A.D. 325 (Hefele : History of the Councils, Vol. I. pp. 355 el seqq. [2d ed.]) Let us see first what is the testimony of those Greek and Latin authors who lived about the time of the Council, concerning the number. a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is the learned Theodoret, who lived about a century after the Council of Nicsea. He says, in his History of the Church : "After the condemnation of the Arians, the bishops assembled once more, and decreed twenty canons on ecclesiastical discipline." b. Twenty years later, Gelasius, Bishop of Cyzicus, after much research into the most ancient documents, wrote a history of the Nicene Council. Gelasius also says expressly that the Council decreed twenty canons ; and, what is more important, he gives the original text of these canons exactly in the same order, and according to the tenor which we find elsewhere. c. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He was born near the period when the Council of Nicsea was held, and about half a century after he wrote his celebrated history of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin translation of the Nicene canons. Kufi- nus also knew only of these twenty canons ; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth into two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly the same as the twenty fur- nished by the other historians. d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and the Bishop of Rome, on the subject of appeals to Rome, gives us a very important testimony on the true number of the Nicene canons. The presbyter Apiarius of Sicca in Africa, having been deposed for many crimes, appealed to Rome. Pope Zosimus (417-418) took the appeal into considera- tion, sent legates to Africa ; and to prove that he had the right to act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nicsea, containing these words: " When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have the business decided by jadiccs in partibus." The canon quoted by the Pope does not belong to the Council of Nicsea, as he affirmed ; it was the fifth canon of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version). What explains the error of Zosimus is that in the ancient copies the canons of Nicsea and Sardica are written consecutively, with the same figures, and under the common title of canons of the Council of Nicsea ; and Zosimus might optima fide fall into an error — which he shared with Greek authors, his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons of Nicsea with those of Sardica. The African bishops, not finding the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek or in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council of Nicsea, had brought to Carthage. The legates of the Pope then declared that they did not rely upon these copies, and they agreed to send to Alexandria and to Constantinople to ask the patriarchs of these two cities for authentic copies of the canons of the Council of Nicsea. The African bishops desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same step (Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418) — that he should ask for copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and faithful copies of the Creed and canons of Nicsea ; and two learned men of Constantinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even translated these canons into Latin. Their translation has been pre- served to us in the acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and it contains only the twenty ordinary canons. It might be thought at first sight that it contained twenty-one canons ; but on closer consideration we see, as Hardouin has proved, that this twenty-first article is nothing but an historical notice appended to the Nicene canons by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived in these terms : " After the bishops had decreed these rules at Nicsea, and after the holy Council had decided what was the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity of faith were re-established between the East and the West. This is what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to add according to the history of the Church." I. NICE. A.D. 325 45 The bishops of Africa despatched to Pope Boniface the copies which had been sent to them from Alexandria and Constantinople, in the month of November 419 ; and subsequently in their letters to Celestine I. (423-432), successor to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these documents. e. All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in the fifth century, agree in giving only these twenty canons to Nicsea. The most ancient of these collections were made in the Greek Church, and in the course of time a very great number of copies of them were written. Many of these copies have descended to us ; many libraries possess copies ; thus Montfaucon enumerates several in his BibliotJieca Coisliniana. Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the copies in his Biblio- theca Grceca to those found in the libraries of Turin, Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds that these copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those of the most ancient councils. The French bishop John Tilius presented to Paris, in 1540, a MS. of one of these Greek collections as it existed in the ninth century. It contains exactly our twenty canons of Nicsea, besides the so-called apostolic canons, those of Ancyra, etc. Elias Ehmger published a new edition at Wittemberg in 1614, using a second MS. which was found at Augsburg ; but the Roman collection of the Councils had before given in 1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicsea. This text of the Boman editors, with the exception of some insignificant variations, was exactly the same as that of the edition of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit Sirmond nor his coadjutors have mentioned what manuscripts were consulted in preparing this edition ; probably they were manuscripts drawn from several libraries, and particularly from that of the Vatican. The text of this Roman edition passed into all the following collections, even into those of Hardouin and Mansi ; while Justell in his Bibliotheca juris Canonici and Beveridge in his Synodicon (both of the eighteenth century), give a somewhat different text, also collated from MSS., and very simi- lar to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, compares the two texts. Now all these Greek MSS. consulted at such different times, and by all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons of Nicsea, and always the same twenty which we possess. The Latin collections of the canons of the Councils also give the same result — for exam- ple, the most ancient and the most remarkable of all, the Brisca, and that of Dionysius the Less, which was collected about the year 500. The testimony of this latter collection is the more important for the number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Grceca auctoritas. f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further mention Photius, Zonaras and Balsamon. Photius, in his Collection of the Canons, and in his Nomocanon, as well as the two other writers in their commentaries upon the canons of the ancient Councils, quote only and know only twenty canons of Nicaea, and always those which we possess. g. The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only these twenty canons of Nicsea. We have proof of this in the celebrated Spanish collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St. Isidore (it was composed at the commencement of the seventh century), and in that of Adrian (so called because it was offered to Charles the Great by Pope Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his turn attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicsea, and even the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more. I add for the convenience of the reader the captions of the Eighty Canons as given by Turrianus, translating them from the reprint in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. II. col. 291. The Eighty-four Canons as given by Echellensis together with numerous Constitutions and Decrees attributed to the Nicene Council are likewise to be found in Labbe (ut supra, col. 318). 46 I. NICE. A.D. 325 THE CAPTIONS OF THE ARABIC CANONS ATTRIBUTED TO THE COUNCIL OF NICE. Canon I. 1 Insane persons and energumens should not be ordained. Canon II. Bond servants are not to be ordained. Canon III. Neophytes in the faith are not to be or- dained to Holy Orders before they have a knowledge of Holy Scripture. And such, if convicted after their ordination of grave sin, are to be deposed with those who ordained them. Canon IV. The cohabitation of women with bishops, presbyters, and deacons prohibited on ac- count of their celibacy. We decree that bishops shall not live with women ; nor shall a presbyter who is a wid- ower ; neither shall they escort them ; nor be familiar with them, nor gaze upon them per- sistently. And the same decree is made with regard to every celibate priest, and the same concerning such deacons as have no wives. And this is to be the case whether the woman be beautiful or ugly, Avhether a young girl or beyond the age of puberty, whether great in birth, or an orphan taken out of charity under pretext of bringing her up. For the devil with such arms slays religious, bishops, pres- byters, and deacons, and incites them to the fires of desire. But if she be an old woman, and of advanced age, or a sister, or mother, or aunt, or grandmother, it is permitted to live with these because such persons are free from all suspicion of scandal. 2 Canon V. Of the election of a bishop and of the con- firmation of the election. Canon VI. That those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be received by another ; and that those whose excommunication has been shown to have been unjust should be absolved by the archbishop or patriarch. Canon VII. That provincial Councils should be held twice a year, for the consideration of all things i Turrianus calls them "Chapters." 2 1 have translated this canon in full because the caption did not seem to give fairly its meaning. In Labbe will be found a long and most curious note. affecting the churches of the bishops of the province. Canon VIII. Of the patriarchs of Alexandria and An- tioch, and of their jurisdiction. Canon IX. Of one who solicits the episcopate when the people do not wish him ; or if they do desire him, but without the consent of the archbishop. Canon X. How the bishop of Jerusalem is to be hon- oured, the honour, however, of the metropol- itan church of Csesarea being preserved in- tact, to which he is subject. Canon XI. Of those who force themselves into the or- der of presbyters without election or exam- ination. Canon XII. Of the bishop who ordains one whom he understands has denied the faith ; also of one ordained who after that he had denied it, crept into orders. Canon XIII. Of one who of his own will goes to another church, having been chosen by it, and does not wish afterwards to stay there. Of taking pains that he be transferred from his own church to another. Canon XIV. No one shall become a monk without the bishop's license, and why a license is required. Canon XV. That clerics or religious who lend on usury should be cast from their grade. Canon XVI. Of the honour to be paid to the bishop and to a presbyter by the deacons. Canon XVII. Of the system and of the manner of receiv- ing those who are converted from the heresy of Paul of Samosata. I. NICE. A.D. 325 47 Canon XVIII. Of the system and manner of receiving those who are converted from the heresy of the Novatians. Canon XIX. Of the system and manner of receiving those who return after a lapse from the faith, and of receiving the relapsed, and of those brought into peril of death by sickness before their penance is finished, and concerning such as are convalescent. Canon XX. Of avoiding the conversation of evil work- ers and wizards, also of the penance of them that have not avoided such. Canon XXI. Of incestuous marriages contrary to the law of spiritual relationship, and of the pen- ance of such as are in such marriages. [The time of penance fixed is twenty years, only godfather and godmother are mentioned, and nothing is said of separation.] Canon XXII. Of sponsors in baptism. Men shall not hold females at the font, neither women males; but women females, and men males. Canon XXIII. Of the prohibited marriages of spiritual brothers and sisters from receiving them in baptism. Canon XXIV. Of him who has married two wives at the same time, or who through lust has added another woman to his wife ; and of his pun- ishment. Part of the canon. If he be a priest he is forbidden to sacrifice and is cut off from the communion of the faithful until he turn out of the house the second woman, and he ought to retain the first. Canon XXV. That no one should be forbidden Holy Communion unless such as are doing penance. Canon XXVI. Clerics are forbidden from suretyship or witness-giving in criminal causes. Canon XXVII. Of avoiding the excommunicate, and of not receiving the oblation from them ; and of the excommunication of him who does not avoid the excommunicated. Canon XXVIII. How anger, indignation, and hatred should be avoided by the priest, especially because he has the power of excommunicating others. Canon XXIX. Of not kneeling in prayer. Canon XXX. Of giving [only] names of Christians in baptism, and of heretics who retain the faith in the Trinity and the perfect form of bap- tism ; and of others not retaining it, worthy of a worse name, and of how such are to be received when they come to the faith Canon XXXI. Of the system and manner of receiving con- verts to the Orthodox faith from the heresy of Arius and of other like. Canon XXXII. Of the system of receiving those who have kept the dogmas of the faith and the Church's laws, and yet have separated from us and afterwards come back. Canon XXXIII. Of the place of residence of the Patriarch, and of the honour which should be given to the bishop of Jerusalem and to the bishop of Seleucia. Canon XXXIV. Of the honour to be given to the Archbishop of Seleucia in the Synod of Greece. Canon XXXV. Of not holding a provincial synod in the province of Persia without the authority of the patriarch of Antioch, and how the bishops of Persia are subject to the metropolitans of Antioch. Canon XXXVI. Of the creation of a patriarch for Ethiopia, and of his power, and of the honour to be paid him in the Synod of Greece. Canon XXXVII. Of the election of the Archbishop of Cyprus, who is subject to the patriarch of Antioch. Canon XXXVIII. That the ordination of ministers of the Church by bishops in the dioceses of stran- gers is forbidden. 48 I. NICE. A.D. 325 Canon XXXIX. Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate ; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Borne over all. Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces ; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit ; for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them ; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Borne, is the head and prince of all patriarchs ; in- asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. 1 [I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis's Nova Vcrsio LXXXIV. Arabic. Canonum Cone. Nicceni, that the reader may compare it with the foregoing.] Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Borne, accord- ing as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the bish- ops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs ; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops ap- point him, for he is greater than they. There- fore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And Avhosoever shall contradict this law which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema. 3 1 1 have translated the whole canon literally ; the reader will judge of its antiquity. - Canon XXXIX. of this series has nothing to do with the Pa- triarchs or with the see of Rome and its prerogatives. Canon XL. Of the provincial synod which should be held twice every year, and of its utility ; to- gether with the excommunication of such as oppose the decree. Canon XLI. Of the synod of Archbishops, which meets once a year with the Patriarch, and of its utility ; also of the collection to be made for the support of the patriarch throughout the provinces and places subject to the patriarch. Canon XLII. Of a cleric or monk who when fallen into sin, and summoned once, twice, and thrice, does not present himself for trial. Canon XLIII. What the patriarch should do in the case of a defendant set at liberty unpunished by the decision of the bishop, presbyter, or even of a deacon, as the case may be. Canon XLIV. How an archbishop ought to give trial to one of his suffragan bishops. Canon XLV. Of the receiving of complaints and con- demnation of an archbishop against his pa- triarch. Canon XLVI. How a patriarch should admit a complaint or judgment of an Archbishop against an Archbishop. Canon XLVII. Of those excommunicated by a certain one, when they can be and when they cannot be absolved by another. Canon XLVIH. No bishop shall choose his own successor. Canon XLIX. No simoniacal ordinations shall be made. Canon L. There shall be but one bishop of one city, and one parochus of one town ; also the in- cumbent, whether bishop or parish priest, shall not be removed in favour of a successor desired by some of the people unless he has been convicted of manifest crime. Canon LI. Bishops shall not allow the separation of a wife from her husband on account of discord — [in American, "incompatibility of tem- per"]. I. NICE. A.D. 325 49 Canon LII. Canon LXIV. Usury and the base seeking of worldly gain ■ Of the offices said in the church, the night is forbidden to the clergy, also conversation I and day offices, and of the collect for all those and fellowship with Jews. who rule that church, Canon LIII. Marriages with infidels to be avoided. Canon LIV. Of the election of a chorepiscopus, and of his duties in towns, and villages, and monas- teries. Canon LV. How a chorepiscopus should visit the churches and monasteries which are under his jurisdiction. Canon LVI. Of how the presbyters of the towns and vil- lages should go twice a year with their chor- episcopus to salute the bishop, and how re- ligious should do so once a year from their monasteries, and how the new abbot of a monastery should go thrice. Canon LVII. Of the rank in sitting during the celebra- tion of service in church by the bishop, the archdeacon and the chorepiscopus ; and of the office of archdeacon, and of the honour due the archpresbyter. Canon LVIII. Of the honour due the archdeacon and the chorepiscopus when they sit in church during the absence of the bishop, and when they go about with the bishop. Canon LIX. How all the grades of the clergy and their duties should be publiclv described and set forth. Canon LX. Of how men are to be chosen from the dio- cese for holy orders, and of how they should be examined. Canon LXI. Of the honour due to the deacons, and how the clerics must not put themselves in their way. Canon LXII. The number of presbyters and deacons is to be adapted to the work of the church and to its means. Canon LXIII. Of the Ecclesiastical Economist and of the others who with him care for the church's possessions. VOL. XIV, Canon LXV. Of the order to be observed at the funeral of a bishop, of a chorepiscopus and of an arch' deacon, and of the office of exequies, Canon LXVI. Of taking a second wife, after the former one has been disowned for any cause, or even not put away, and of him who falsely accuses his wife of adultery. If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her fornication, or for other cause, as aforesaid, or cast her out of doors for external good, or that he may change her for another more beautiful, or better, or richer, or does so out of his lust which is displeasing to God ; and after she has been put away for any of these causes he shall contract matri- mony with another, or without having put her away shall take another, whether free or bond ; and shall have both equally, they living separately and he sleeping every night with one or other of them, or else keeping both in the same house and bed, let him be deposed. If he were a layman let him be deprived of communion. But if anyone falsely defames his wife charging her with adultery, so that he turns her out of doors, the matter must be diligently examined ; and if the accusation was false, he shall be deposed if a cleric, but if a layman shall be prohibited from entering the church and from the communion of the faithful ; and shall be compelled to live with her whom he has defamed, even though she be deformed, and poor, and insane ; and who- ever shall not obey is excommunicated by the Synod. [Note. — The reader will notice that by this canon a husband is deposed or excommuni- cated, as the case may be, if he marry another woman, after putting away his wife on ac- count of her adultery. It is curious that in the parallel canon in the collection of Echel- lensis, which is numbered LXXL, the reading is quite different, although it is very awkward and inconsequent as given. Moreover, it should be remembered that in some codices and editions this canon is lacking altogether, one on the right of the Pope to receive ap- peals taking its place. As this canon is of considerable length, I only quote the inter- esting parts.] Whatever presbyter or deacon shall put away his wife without the offence of forniea- 50 I. NICE. A.D. 325 tion, or for any other cause of which we have spoken above, and shall cast her out of doors . . . such a person shall be cast out of the clergy, if he were a clergyman ; if a layman he shall be forbidden the communion of the faithful. . . . But if that woman [untruly charged by her husband with adultery], that is to say his wife, spurns his society on ac- count of the injury he has done her and the charge he has brought against her, of which she is innocent, let her freely be put away and let a bill of repudiation be written for her, noting the false accusation which had been brought against her. And then if she should wish to marry some other faithful man, it is right for her to do so, nor does the Church forbid it; and the same permission extends as well to men as to women, since there is equal reason for it for each. But if he shall return to better fruit which is of the same kind, and shall conciliate to himself the love and benevolence of his consort, and shall be willing to return to his pristine friendship, his fault shall be condoned to him after he has done suitable and sufficient penance. And whoever shall speak against this decree the fathers of the synod excommunicate him. Canon LXVII. Of having two wives at the same time, and of a woman who is one of the faithful marry- ing an infidel ; and of the form of receiving her to penance. [Her reception back is conditioned upon her leaving the infidel man.] Canon LXVIII. Of giving in marriage to an infidel a daughter or sister without her knowledge and contrary to her wish. Canon LXIX. Of one of the faithful who departs from the faith through lust and love of an infidel ; and of the form of receiving him back, or admit- ting him to penance. Canon LXX. Of the hospital to be established in every city, and of the choice of a superintendent and concerning his duties. [It is interesting to note that one of the duties of the superintendent is — " That if the goods of the hospital are not sufficient for its expenses, he ought to collect all the time and from all Christians provision according to the ability of each."] Canon LXXI. Of the placing a bishop or archbishop in his chair after ordination, which is enthronization. Canon LXXII. No one is allowed to transfer himself to another church [i.e., diocese] than that in which he was ordained ; and what is to be done in the case of one cast out forcibly with- out any blame attaching to him. Canon LXXIII. The laity shall not choose for themselves priests in the towns and villages without the authority of the chorepiscopus ; nor an abbot for a monastery ; and that no one should give commands as to w r ho should be elected his successor after his death, and when this is lawful for a superior. Canon LXXIV. How sisters, widows, and deaconesses should be made to keep their residence in their monasteries ; and of the system of in- structing them ; and of the election of dea- conesses, and of their duties and utility. Canon LXXV. How one seeking election should not be chosen, even if of conspicuous virtue ; and how the election of a layman to the aforesaid grades is not prohibited, and that those chosen should not afterward be deprived before their deaths, except on account of crime. Canon LXXVI. Of the distinctive garb and distinctive names and conversation of monks and nuns. Canon LXXVII. That a bishop convicted of adultery or of other similar crime should be deposed with- out hope of restoration to the same grade ; but shall not be excommunicated. Canon LXXVIII. Of presbyters and deacons who have fallen only once into adultery, if they have never been married ; and of the same when fallen as widowers, aud those who have fallen, all the while having their own wives. Also of those who return to the same sin as well wid- owers as those having living wives ; and which of these ought not to be received to penance, and which once only, and which twice. Canon LXXIX. Each one of the faithful while his sin is yet not public should be mended by private ex- hortation and admonition ; if he will not profit by this, he must be excommunicated. Canon LXXX. Of the election of a procurator of the poor, and of his duties, PROPOSED ACTION ON CLERICAL CELIBACY, [TJie Acts are not extant.] NOTES. Often the mind of a deliberative assembly is as clearly shown by the propositions it re- jects as by those it adopts, and it would seem that this doctrine is of application in the case of the asserted attempt at this Council to pass a decree forbidding the priesthood to live in the use of marriage. This attempt is said to have failed. The particulars are as follows : Hefele. (Hist. Councils. Vol. I., pp. 435 el seqq.) Socrates, Sozomen, and Gelasius affirm that the Synod of Nicrea, as well as that of Elvira (can. 33), desired to pass a law respecting celibacy. This law was to forbid all bishops, priests and deacons (Sozomen adds sub- deacons), who were married at the time of their ordination, to continue to live with their wives. But, say these historians, the law was opposed openly and decidedly by Paphnutius, bishop of a city of the Upper Theba'is in Egypt, a man of a high reputation, who had lost an eye during the persecution under Maximian. He was also celebrated for his miracles, and was held in so great respect by the Emperor, that the latter often kissed the empty socket of the lost eye. Paphnutius declared with a loud voice, "that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy ; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honourable and undefiled ; that the Church ought not to be injured by an ex- treme severity, for all could not live in abso- lute continency : in this way (by not prohibit- ing married intercourse) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from her mari'ied intercourse). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards ; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives (Gelasius adds, or being only a reader or cantor)." This discourse of Paph- nutius made so much the more impression, because he had never lived in matrimony him- self, and had had no conjugal intercourse. Paphnutius, indeed, had been brought up in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point as he would. If this account be true, we must conclude that a law was proposed to the Council of Nicsea the same as one which had been carried twenty years joreviously at Elvira, in Sj>ain ; this coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Nicsea. The dis- course ascribed to Paphnutius, and the conse- quent decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the Greek Church in respect to celibacy. The Greek Church as well as the Latin accepted the prin- ciple, that whoever had taken holy orders be- fore marriage, ought not to be married after- wards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons, and even sub-deacons, were con- sidered to be subject to this law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek Church went so far as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if previously to it they had expressly obtained from their bishop permission to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (c. 10). We see that the Greek Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter ; but in refer- ence to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their ordination. Therefore, whilst the Latin Church exacted of those presenting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they should not continue to live with their wives if they were married, the Greek Church gave no such prohibition ; but if the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests ; and the Synod of Gangra (c. 4) took E 2 52 I. NICE. A.D. 325 up the defence of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however, was not alone among the Greeks in opposing the mar- riage of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin discipline on this point. St. Epiphanius also inclined tow- ards this side. The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by de- grees it came to be required of bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the compilation of the Aj)OS- tolic Canons (c. 5) and of the Constitutions ; for in those documents mention is made of bishops living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were married bishops, for instance Synesius, in the fifth century. But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it an express condition of his accep- tation, on his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the epis- cojDal office ; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod (c. 13.) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of priests. Baro- nius, Valesius, and other historians, have con- sidered the account of the part taken by Paph- nutius to be apocryphal. Baronius says, that as the Council of Nicpea in its third canon gave a law upon celibacy, it is quite impossi- ble to admit that it would alter such a law on account of Pajmnutius. But Baronius is mis- taken in seeing a law upon celibacy in that third canon ; he thought it to be so, because, when mentioning the women who might live in the clergyman's house — his mother, sister, etc. — the canon does not say a word about the wife. It had no occasion to mention her, it was referring to the not from Xenpau) and therefore cannot mean " have been lepers," but "have made others rough and scabby." It is only in the passive and in Alexandrian Greek that it has the mean- ing to become leprous. Vide Liddell and Scott. There seems but little doubt that the word is to be understood spiritually as suggested above. The last word of the canon is also a source of confusion. Both Beveridge and Bouth understand by the x^^f-^ 01 those possessed with devils. Suicer however (Thesaurus) thinks that the penitents of the lowest degree are intended, who had no right to enter the church, but were exposed in the open porch to the inclemencies (x €L l JLl " v ) °f the weather. But, after all it matters little, as the possessed also were forced to remain in the same place, and shared the same name. Besides the grammatical reason for the meauing of XeTrpwo-avras given above there is another argument of Hefele's, as follows : Hefele. It is clear that \e-pwo-avTas cannot possibly mean " those who have been lepers " ; for there is no reason to be seen why those who were cured of that malady should have to re- main outside the church among the flentes. Secondly, it is clear that the words AeTrpous oVra?, etc. are added to give force to the ex- pression aXoyevo-djxevoi. The preceding canon had decreed different penalties for different kinds of dXoyevcrdp.ivoi. But that pronounced by canon xvii. being much severer than the ANCYEA. A.D. 314 71 preceding ones, the dXoyetW/xaoi of this canon must be greater sinners than those of the former one. This greater guilt cannot consist in the fact of a literal leprosy ; for this malady was not a consequence of besti- ality. But their sin was evidently greater when they tempted others to commit it. It is therefore AeVpa in the figurative sense that we are to understand, and our canon thus means ; " Those who were spiritually leprous through this sin, and tempting others to commit it made them leprous." CANON XVIII. If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honour. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honour of the pres- byterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled. NOTES. Ancient Epitome oe Canon XVIII. If a bishop ivho has been duly constituted, is not received by the Church to which he was elected, but gives trouble to other bishops, let him be excommunicated. If he wishes to be numbered among the pres- byters, let him be so numbered. But if he shall be at outs with the bishops duly constituted there, let him be deprived of the honour of being even a presbyter. The word I have translated " suspended from office and communion " is d<£opi£eo-#ai. Suicer in his Thesaurus shews that this word does not mean only, as some have supposed, a deprivation of office and dignity (e.g., Van Espen), but also an exclusion from the com- munion of the Church. CANON XIX. If any persons who profess virginity shall disregard their profession, let them fulfil the term of digamists. And, moreover, we prohibit women who are virgins from living with men as sisters. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XIX. Whoever has professed virginity and after- wards annuls it, let him be cut of for four years. And virgins shall not go l to any as to brothers. Hammond. According to some of the ancient canons digamists were to be suspended from com- munion for one or two years, though Beve- ridge and others doubt whether the rule was not meant to apply to such marriages only as were contracted before a former one was dis- solved. Bingham thinks that it was intended to discountenance marrying after an unlawful divorce. (Ant, Bk. xv, c. iv., § 18.) 3 1 Aristenus understands this to mean to " live with," using the Verb avav for xpoi-w and accordingly translate " of the heathen." 1 That is, receive the Sacraments. Van Espen. It is greatly to be desired that bishops and pastors to-day would take example from the fathers of Ancyra and devote their attention strenuously to eliminate superstition from the people, and would expound with ani- mation to the people the enormity of this crime. ANCYKA. A.D. 314 75 CANON XXV. One who had betrothed a maiden, corrupted her sister, so that she conceived. After that he married his betrothed, but she who had been corrupted hanged herself. The parties to this affair were ordered to be received among the co-standers after ten years [of penance] according to the prescribed degrees. NOTES. Ancient Epitome to Canon XXV. A certain body after being engaged to marry a young girl, violates her sister and then takes her to wife. The first is suffocated. All who were cognizant of the affair arc to be subject to penance for ten years. I have followed the usual translation " hanged herself," which is the ordinary dic- tionary-meaning of u7rayx w > hut Hefele says that it signifies any and every variety of suicides. Balsamon. In this case we have many nefarious crimes committed, fornication, unlawful marriage [i.e. with the sister of one's mistress] and murder. In that case [mentioned by St. Basil in Canon lxxviij. -where only seven years penance is enjoined] there is only a nefarious marriage [i.e. with a wife's sister]. THE COUNCIL OF NEOC^ESAREA :.."': A.D. 315 (circa). ;. ... ." (Hefele thinks somewhat later, but before 325.) .". Elenclms, , . "Historical Note. The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes. HISTOKICAL NOTE. (Zonaras and Balsamon prefix to the canons this note.) The Synod gathered together at Neocsesarea, which is a city of Pontus, is next in order after that of Ancyra, and earlier in date than the rest, even than the First Ecumenical Synod at Nice. In this synod the Holy Fathers gathered together, among 1 whom was the holy Martyr Basil, bishop of Amasea, adopted canons for the establishing of ecclesiastical order as follow — 79 THE CANONS OF THE HOLY AND BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEM- BLED AT NEOCLESAREA, WHICH ARE INDEED LATER IN DATE THAN THOSE MADE AT ANCYRA, BUT MORE ANCIENT THAN THE NICENE: HOWEVER, THE SYNOD OF NICE HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THEM ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PECULIAR DIGNITY. 1 (Annotations by Routh, and reprint of the Notes of Christopher Justellus and of Bp. Beveridge will be found in Vol. iv. of the Reliquiae Sacrce.) CANON I. If a presbyter marry, let him be removed from his order ; but if he commit forni- eation or adultery, let him be altogether cast out [i.e. of communion] and put to penance. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon I. If a presbyter marries lie shall be deposed from his order. If he commits adultery or whoredom he shall be expelled, and shall be put to penance. Aeistenus. A presbyter who marries is removed from the exercise of the priesthood but retains his honour and seat. But he that commits for- nication or adultery is cast forth altogether and put to penance. Van Espen. These fathers [i.e. of Neoc&sarea] shew how much graver seemed to them the sin of the presbyter who after ordination committed fornication or adultery, than his who took a wife. For the former they declare shall sim- ply be deposed from his order or deprived of the dignity of the Priesthood, but the latter is to "be altogether cast out, and put to pen- ance." . . . Therefore such a presbyter not only did they remove from the priestly functions, or the dignity of the priesthood, but perfectly or altogether cast him out of the Church. This canon Gratian has inserted in the Corpus Juris Canon ici. Dccrctum. Pars I., Dist. xxviii., c. ix. Gratian has followed Isi- dore in adding after the word "penance" the words " among the laity " (inter laicos) which do not occur in the Greek, (as is noted by the Roman Correctors) nor in the version of Dionysius Exiguus ; these same correctors fall however themselves into a still graver error in supposing that criminous clerks in the early days of the Church were sent out to wander over the country, as Van Espen well points out. On the whole subject of the marriage of the clergy in the Early Church see the Excur- sus devoted to that subject. CANON II. If a woman shall have married two brothers, let her be cast out [i.e. of communion] until her death. Nevertheless, at the hour of death she may, as an act of mercy, be re- ceived to penance, provided she declare that she will break the marriage, should she recover. But if the woman in such a marriage, or the man, die, penance for the siirvivor shall be very difficult. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon II. A woman married to two brothers shall be ex- pelled all her life. But if ivhen near her death she promises that she ivill loose the marriage should shcrecover, sheshallbe admitted topenance. 1 This is the title in the Paris edition of Zonaras. But if one of those coupled together die, only with great difficulty shall penitence be allowed to the one still living. It will be carefully observed that this canon has no provision for the case of a man marry- ing two sisters. It is the prohibited degree 80 NEOCiESAREA. A.D. 315 of brother's wife, not that of wife's sister which is in consideration. Of course those who hold that the affinity is the same in each case will argue from this canon by parity of reasoning, and those who do not accept that position will refuse to do so. In the Greek test of Balsamon (Vide Bev- eridge, Synod.) after the first clause is added, "if she will not be persuaded to loose the marriage." Van Espen. The meaning of this canon seems to be that which Balsamon sets forth, to wit, that if a woman at the point of death or in extremis promises that if she gets better she will dis- solve the marriage, or make a divorce, or abstain from the sacrilegious use of matri- mony, then "■ she may be received to penance as an act of mercy " ; and surely she is im- | mediately absolved from the excommunica- . tion inflicted upon her when she was cast out \ and extruded from the Church. For it is ; certain that according to the discipline of the Fathers he was thought to be loosed from ex- , communication whoever was admitted to | penance, and it is of this that the canon speaks ; x but he did not obtain perfect recon- ciliation until his penance was done. To this performance of penance this woman was to be admitted if she got well and dis- solved the marriage according to her promise made when she was in peril of death, as the Greek commentators note ; and this too is the sense given by Isidore. CANON III. Concerning those who fall into many marriages, the appointed time of penance is well known ; but their manner of living and faith shortens the time. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon III. The time of polygamists is ivcll known. A seed for penance may shorten it. Hefele. As the Greek commentators have remarked, this canon speaks of those who have been married more than twice. It is not known what were the ancient ordinances of peni- tence which the synod here refers to. In later times digamists were condemned to one year's penance, and trigamists from two to five years. St. Basil places the trigamists for three years among the " hearers," and then for some time among the consistentes. Van Espen. "The appointed time of penance is well known." These words Zonaras notes must refer to a custom, for, says he, " before this synod no canon is found which prescribes the duration of the penance of bigamists [i.e. diga- mists]." It is fortius reason that St. Basil says (in Epist. ad Amphilogium, Can. 4) in speaking of the penance of trigamists " we have re- ceived this by custom and not by canon, but from the following of precedent," hence the Fathers received many things by tradition, and observed these as having the force of law. From the last clause of this canon we see the mind of the Fathers of this synod, which 1 Van Espen gives "fructum pccnitcnticc consequatur" as the translation of efet r'rjv fxeTiivoiay. agrees with that of Ancyra and Nice, that with regard to the granting of indulgences, ro in shortening the time of penance, atten- tion must be paid to the penitence, and con- versation, or " conversation and faith " of each one separately. With this agrees Zonaras, whose remarks are worthy of consideration. On this whole subject of the commutation of the primitive penance and of the rise of the modern indul- gences of the Roman Church Van Espen has written at length in his excursus Dc Indul- gentiis (Jure Eeelcs., P. I. i., Tit. vij.) in which he assigns the change to the end of the Xlth century, and remarks that its introduction caused the " no small collapse of penitential discipline." 3 This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian, Deeretum, Pars II., Causa xxxi., Qusest. i, c. viij. where for " conver- sio," (arao-rpocjir)) is read " conversatio," and the Greek word is used in this sense in Polybius, and frequently so in the New Testa- ment. " The reader is referred also to Amort, De Origine, progressu. valore ac fructu Indulgentiarmn , and to the article " Ablass " in the Kirchen Lexicon of Wetzer and Welte. Also for the Eng- lish reader to T. L. Green, D.D., Indulgences, Absolutions, ayid, Tax tables, etc. Some of the difficulties which Roman theologians experience in explaining what are called " Plenary Indulgences" are set forth by Dr. Littledale in his Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome, in which the matter is discussed in the usual witty, and unscrupulous fashion of that brilliant writer. But while this remark is just, it should also be remarked that ater the exaggeration is removed there yet remains a difficulty offthe most serious character, NEOC^ESAREA. A.D. 315 81 CANON IV. If any man lusting after a woman purposes to lie with her, and his design does not come to effect, it is evident that he has been saved by grace. NOTES, Ancient Epitome of Canon IV. Whoso histeth but doth not accomplish Ms pleas- ure is preserved of God. Hefele. Instead of einSvix^a-ai we must read, with Beveridge and Bouth, who rely upon several MSS., £7rt5t^o-as. They also replace /*er' avTrjiiva.i must mean more than that they are forgiven by ordination, for they had been forgiven long ago by God upon true contrition, but that they were made to be non-existent, as if they had never been, so that they were no hinderance to the exercise of the spiritual office. I offer no explanation of the difficulty and only venture to doubt the satisfactory character of any of the ex- planations given by the commentators. More- over it is hard to grasp the logical connexion of the clauses, and what this " blotting out " of to. XoLira has to do with the matter I entirely fail to see. The koX after ttoXKoI may possibly suggest that something has dropped out. This canon and the following are together in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Deere- turn, Pars II., Causa xv., Qusest. viii., c. i. CANON X. Likewise, if a deacon have fallen into the same sin, let him have the rank of a minister. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon X. A deacon found in the same crime shall remain a minister (vTnjpiTtji). Aristenus understands this of fornication. Hefele. By ministers (vnr'jpeTai) are meant inferior officers of the Church — the so-called minor orders, often including the subdeaeons. G 3 84 NEOC.ESAREA. A.D. 315 This canon is in the Corpus Juris Canon- ici, ■ Gratian's Decrctum, Pars II., Causa xv., following curious form : " Similiter et dia- conus, si in eodem culpte genere fuerit involu- Qupcst. viii,, united with canon ix. 3 and in the ' tus, sese a ministerio cohibebit." CANON XI. Let not a presbyter be ordained before lie is thirty years of age, even though he be in all respects a worthy man, but let him be made to wait. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach in his thirtieth year. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XI. Unless he be xxx. years of age none shall he presbyter, even should he be worthy, following the example of the baptism of our Saviour. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Disk lxxviii., c. iv. Gkatian. (Ut supra, Nota.) This is the law, and we do not read that Christ, or John the Baptist, or Ezechiel, or some other of the Prophets prophesied or preached before that age. But Jeremiah and Daniel we read received the spirit of prophecy before they had arrived even at youth, and David and Solomon are found to have been anointed in their youth, also John the Evan- gelist, while still a youth, was chosen by the Lord for au Apostle, and we find that with the rest he was sent forth to preach : Paul also, as we know, while still a young man was called by the Lord, and was sent out to pleach. The Church in like manner, when necessity compels, is wont to ordain some un- der thirty years of age. For this reason Pope Zacharias in his Let- ter to Boniface the Bishop, number vi., which begins " Benedictus Deus" says, C. v. In case of necessity presbyters may be ordained at xxv. years of age. If men thirty years old cannot be found, and necessity so demand, Levites and priests may be ordained from twenty-five years of age upwards. Van Espex. The power of dispensing was committed to the bishop, and at length it was so frequently exercised that in the space of one centuiy [i.e. by the end of the xiith century] the law be- came abrogated, which was brought about by necessity, so that it passed into law that a presbyter could be ordained at twenty-five. And from this it may appear how true it is that there is no surer way of destroying dis- cipline and abrogating law than the allowing of dispensations and relaxations. Vide Thom- assinus, De Disc. Eccles., Pars. IV., Lib. I., cap. 4G. CANON XII. If any one be baptized when he is ill, forasmuch as his [profession of] faith was not voluntary, but of necessity [i.e. though fear of death] he cannot be promoted to the presbyterate, unless on account of his subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XII. Aeistenus. One baptized on account of sielcncss is not to be He that is baptised by reason of illness, made presbyter, unless in reward for a contest ' and, therefore come to his illumination not which lie afterwards sustains and on account of freely but of necessity, shall not be admitted scarcity of men. The word used in the Greek for "baptized," is " illuminated " ((poiTiaSf/), a very common expression among the ancients. to the priesthood unless both these conditions concur, that there are few suitable men to be found and that he has endured a hard conflict after his baptism. NEOC.ESAREA. A.D. 315 85 With this interpretation agree also Zonaras and Balsamon, the latter expressly saying, " If one of these conditions is lacking, the canon must be observed." Not only has Isi- dore therefore missed the meaning by chang- ing the copulative into the disjunctive con- junction (as Van Espen points out) but Bp. Beveridge has fallen into the same error, not indeed in the canon itself, but in translating the Ancient Epitome. Zonaras explains that the reason for this prohibition -was the well-known fact that in those ages baptism was put off so as the longer to be free from the restraints which baptism was considered to impose. From this interpretation only Aubespine dissents, and Hefele points out how entirely without reason. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici; Gratian's Decretum., Pars. I., Dist. lvii., c. i. CANON XIII. Country presbyters may not make the oblation in the church of the city when the bishop or presbyters of the city are present ; nor may they give the Bread or the Cup with prayer. If, however, they be absent, and ho [i.e., a country presbyter] alone be called to prayer, he may give them. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canons XIII. and XIV. A country presbyter shall not offer in the city temple, unless the bishop and the tohole body of the presbyters are away. But if wanted he can do so while they arc away. The chorcpiscopi can offer as fellow ministers, as they hold the place of the Seventy. Routh reads the last clause in the plural, in this agreeing with Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore. In many MSS. this canon is united with the following and the whole number given as 14. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars I., Dist. xcv., c. xii. And the Roman correctors have added the following notes. Roman Corkectors. (Gratian ut supra.) " Nor to give the sacrificed bread and to hand the chalice ; " otherwise it is read " sanc- tified " [sanctificatum for saerificatum]. The Greek of the council is aprov StSoVat iv evxfj ; but Balsamon has aprov eu^s, that is, " the bread of the mystic prayer." Instead of " let them only who are called for giving the prayer, etc.," read koI eh ei^v i<\rj9rj /xoros St'Swcrir, that is : " and only he that shall have been called to the mystic prayer, shall distribute." CANON XIV. The chorepiscopi, however, are indeed after the pattern of the Seventy ; and as fellow-servants, on account of their devotion to the poor, they have the honour of mak- ing the oblation. NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canon XIV. [Vide ante, as in many MSS. the two canons are united in the Ancient Epitome.] Van Espen. The reference to the Seventy seems to inti- mate that the Synod did not hold the chore- piscopi to be true bishops, as such were always reputed and called successors, not of the Seventy disciples but successors of the Twelve Apostles. It is also clear that their chief ministry was thought to be the care of the poor. Zonaras and Balsamon would seem to agree in this with Van Espen. See on the whole subject the Excursus on the Chore- piscopi. SO NEOC^ESAREA. A.D. 315 CANON XV. The deacons ought to be seven in number, according to the canon, even if the city be great. Of this you will be persuaded from the Book of the Acts. NOTES. Ancient Epitome oe Canon XV. Seven Deacons according to the Acts of the Apostles should be appointed for each great city. This canon was observed in Rome and it was not until the xith century that the num- ber of the Seven Cardinal Deacons was changed to fourteen. That Gratian received it into the Decretum (Pars. I., Dist. XCIII., c. xij.) is good evidence that he considered it part of the Roman discipline. Eusebius 1 gives a letter of Pope Cornelius, written about the middle of the third century, which says that at that time there were at Rome forty-four priests, seven deacons, and seven subdeacons ; and that the number of those in inferior orders was very great. Thomassinus says that, "no doubt in this the Roman Church intended to imitate the Apostles who only ordained seven deacons. But the other Churches did not keep themselves so scrupu- lously to that number." 2 1 Eusebius, //. £'., Lib. VI., cap. xliij. 3 Thomassin, Ancicnne ct Xouvelle Disci2>tinc de VEglise, Lib. II., Chap. xxix. Iu the acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is noted that the Church of Edessa had fif- teen priests and thirty-eight deacons. 3 And Justinian, we know, appointed one hundred deacons for the Church of Constantinople. Van Espen well points out that while this canon refers to a previous law on the sub- ject, neither the Council itself, nor the Greek commentators Balsamon or Zonaras give the least hint as to what that Canon was. The Fathers of Neocsesarea base their limiting of the number of deacons to seven in one city upon the authority of Holy Script- ure, but the sixteenth canon of the Quinisext Council expressly says that in doing so they showed they referred to ministers of alms, not to ministers at the divine mysteries, and that St. Stephen and the rest were not dea- cons at all in this latter sense. The reader is referred to this canon, where to defend the practice of Constantinople the meaning of the canon we are considering is entirely mis- represented. 3 Acta Cone. Chal., Actio s. THE COUNCIL OF GANGEA. A.D. 325-381. Emperor Constantine. Elenchus. Historical Introduction. Synodal Letter, Canons tvith the Ancient Epitome and Notes. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. With regard to the Synod of Gangra we know little beside what we learn from its own synodal letter. Three great questions naturally arise with regard to it. 1. What was its date ? 2. Who was the Eustathius it condemned? 3. Who was its presiding officer ? I shall briefly give the reader the salient points with regard to each of these matters. 1. With regard to the date, there can be no doubt that it was after Nice and before the First Council of Constantinople, that is between 325 and 381. Socrates 1 seems to place it about 365 ; but Sozomen 2 some twenty years earlier. On the other hand, Remi Ceillier 3 inconsistently with his other statements, seems to argue from St. Basil's letters that the true date is later than 376. Still another theory has been urged by the Ballerini, resting on the supposition that the Eusebius who presided was Eusebius of Csesarea, and they therefore fix the date between 362 and 370. With this Mr. Ffoulkes agrees, and fixes the date, 4 with Pagi, at 358, and is bold enough to add, "and this was unquestionably the year of the Coun- cil." But in the old collections of canons almost without exception, the canons of Gangra precede those of Antioch, and Blondel and Tillemont 5 have sustained this, which perhaps I may call the traditional date. 2. There does not seem to be any reasonable ground to doubt that the person condemned, Eustathius by name, was the famous bishop of Sebaste. This may be gathered from both Sozomen 6 and Socrates, 7 and is confirmed incidentally by one of St. Basil's epistles. 8 More- over, Eustathius's See of Sebaste is in Armenia, and it is to the bishops of Armenia that the Synod addresses its letter. It would seem in view of all this that Bp. Hefele's words are not too severe when he writes, "Under such circumstances the statement of Baronius, Du Pin, and others (supported by no single ancient testimony) that another Eustathius, or possibly the monk Eutactus, is here meant, deserves no serious consideration, though Tillemont did not express himself as opposed to it." 9 The story that after his condemnation by the Synod of Gangra Eustathius gave up wear- ing his peculiar garb and other eccentricities, Sozomen only gives as a report. 10 3. As to who was the president, it seems tolerably certain that his name was Eusebius — if Sozomen 11 indeed means it was "Eusebius of Constantinople," it is a blunder, yet he had the name right. In the heading of the Synodal letter Eusebius is first named, and as Gangra and Armenia were within the jurisdiction of Cresarea, it certainly would seem natural to sup- pose that the Eusebius named was the Metropolitan of that province, but it must be remem- bered that Eusebius of Cappadocia was not made bishop until 362, four years after Mr. Ffoulkes makes him preside at Gangra. The names of thirteen bishops are given in the Greek text. The Latin translations add other names, such as that of Hosius of Cordova, and some Latin writers have asserted that he presided as legate a latere from the pope, e.g., Baronius 12 and Binius. 13 Hefele denies this and says : "At the time of the Synod of Gangra Hosius was 1 Socrat. H. B., Lib. II., cap. xliij. 2 Sozomen. H. £,'., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv. 3 Remi Ceillier. Hist. Gintrale des Auteurs Sacris, Tom. IV., p. 735. 4 E. S. Ffoulkes, In Smith and Cheetham, Diet. Christ. Antiq., s. v. Gangra. 5 1 am indebted to Hefele for this reference, and he gives Mi- moires, note xxvij., sur St. Basile. 6 Sozom. H. £'., III., xiv. 'Socrat. H. B., II., xliij. 8 S. Basil. M., Bp. cexxiij. * Hefele. Hist. Councils, Vol. II,, p. 337. 10 Soz. H. B.. Lib. III., cap. xiv. It is curious that Canon Venables in his article " Eustathius " in Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christ. Biog., gives the story on Sozomen' s authority as quoted by Hefele, but without giving Hefele's warning that it was a mere rumour. It would seem that Canon Venables could not have consulted the Greek, where the word used is Adyo? ; Hefele gives no reference. I have supplied this in the beginning of this note. 11 Sozomen. II. E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv. 12 Baronius. Annal., Tom. iii., ad aim. 361, n. 44. 13 Binius. Annotat. in Synod. Gang. 90 GANGEA. A.D. 325-381 without doubt dead." 1 But such has not been the opinion of the learned, and Cave' is of opinion that Hosius's episcopate covered seventy years ending with 361, and (resting on the same opinion) Pagi thinks Hosius may have attended the Synod in 358 on his way back to Spain, an opinion with which, as I have said, Mr. Ffoulkes agrees. It seems also clear that by the beginning of the sixth century the Synod of Gangra was looked upon at Rome as having been held under papal authority ; Pope Symmachus expressly saying so to the Roman Synod of 504. (Vide Notes on Canons vij. and viij.) It remains only further to remark that the IAbellns Synodieus mentions a certain Dius as president of the Synod. The Ballarini 3 suggest that it should be Bios, an abbreviation of Eusebius. Mr. Ffoulkes suggests that Dius is " probably Dianius, the predecessor of Euse- bius." Lightfoot ' fixes the episcopate of Eusebius Pamphili as between 313 and 337; and states that that of Eusebius of Cpesarea in Cappadocia did not begin until 362, so that the enormous chronological difficulties will be evident to the reader. As all the proposed new dates involve more or less contradiction, I have given the canons their usual position between Neoca;sarea and Antioch, and have left the date undetermined. 1 Hefele. Hist. Councils, Vol. II., p. 327. 2 Cave. Hist. Lit,, Lib. I., cap. v. 3 S. Leon., M., Opp., cd. Balleriiti, Tom, III., p. ssiv. 1 Smith and Wacc. Csesarea. Diet. Christ. Biog., s. v. Eusebius of SYNODICAL LETTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF GANGBA. Eubebius, iElian, Eugenius, Olympius, Bithynicus, Gregory, Philetus, Pappus, Eula- lius, Hypatius, Proaeresius, Basil and Bassus, 1 assembled in the holy Synod at Gangra, to our most honoured lords and fellow-ministers in Armenia wish health in the Lord. Foeasmuch as the most Holy Synod of Bishops, assembled on account of certain necessary matters of ecclesiastical business in the Church at Gangra, on inquiring also into the matters which concern Eustathius, found that many things had been unlawfully done by these very men who are partisans of Eustathius, it was compelled to make definitions, which it has hastened to make known to all, for the removal of whatever has by him been done amiss. For, from their utter abhorrence of marriage, and from their adoption of the proposition that no one living in a state of marriage has any hope towards God, many misguided married women have forsaken their husbands, and hus- bands their wives : then, afterwards, not being able to contain, they have fallen into adultery ; and so, through such a principle as this, have come to shame. They were found, moreover, fomenting separations from the houses of God and of the Church ; treating the Church and its members with disdain, and establishing separate meetings and assemblies, and different doctrines and other things in opposition to the Churches and those things which are done in the Church ; wearing strange apparel, to the destruction of the common custom of dress ; making distributions, among themselves and their adherents as saints, of the first-fruits of the Church, which have, from the first, been given to the Church ; slaves also leaving their masters, and, on account of their own strange apparel, acting insolently towards their masters ; women, too, disre- garding decent custom, and, instead of womanly apparel, wearing men's clothes, think- ing to be justified because of these ; while many of them, under a pretext of piety, cut off the growth of hair, which is natural to woman ; [and these persons were found] fast- ing on the Lord's Day, despising the sacredness of that free day, but disdaining and eating on the fasts appointed in the Church ; and certain of them abhor the eating of flesh ; neither do they tolerate prayers in the houses of married persons, but, on the contrary, despise such prayers when they are made, and often refuse to partake when Oblations are offered in the houses of married persons ; contemning married presbyters, and refusing to touch their ministrations ; condemning the services in honour of the Martyrs 2 and those who gather or minister therein, and the rich also who do not alien- ate all their wealth, as having nothing to hope from God ; and many other things that no one could recount. For every one of them, when he forsook the canon of the Church, adopted laws that tended as it were to isolation ; for neither was there any common judgment among all of them ; but whatever any one conceived, that he pro- pounded, to the scandal of the Church, and to his own destruction. "Wherefore, the Holy Synod present in Gangra was compelled, on these accounts, to condemn them, and to set forth definitions declaring them to be cast out of the Church ; but that, if they should repent and anathematize every one of these false doctrines, then they should be capable of restoration. And therefore the Holy Synod has particularly set forth everything which they ought to anathematize before they are received. And if any one will not submit to the said decrees, he shall be anathematized as a heretic, and excommunicated, and cast out of the Church ; and it will behove the bishops to ob- serve a like rule in respect of all who may be found with them. > This list o£ names varies in the different MSS. and versions. a This phrase in the Greek has dropped out in Labbe, and Mansi ; it is found in Zonaras, etc. THE CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED AT GAN- GEA, WHICH WERE SET FORTH AFTER THE COUNCIL OF NICE. 1 CANON I. If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon I. Anathema to him who disregards legitimate marriage. When one considers how deeply the early church was impressed with those passages of Holy Scripture which she understood to set forth the superiority of the virgin over the married estate, it ceases to be any source of astonishment that some should have run into the error of condemning marriage as sinful. The saying of our Blessed Lord with reference to those who had become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," 2 and those words of St. Paul " He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better," 3 together with the striking passage in the Revelation of those that were " not defiled with women, for they- are virgins," 1 were considered as set- tling the matter for the new dispensation. The earliest writers are filled with the praises of virginity. Its superiority underlies the allegories of the Hermes Pastor ; 3 St. Justin Martyr speaks of "many men and women of sixty and seventy years of age who from their childhood have been the disciples of Christ, and have kept themselves uncorrupted," and from that time on there is an ever-swelling tide of praise ; the reader must be referred to SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusa- lem, Jerome, Augustine, etc., etc. In fact the Council of Trent (it cannot be denied) only gave expression to the view of all Chris- tian antiquity both East and West, when it condemned those who denied that "it is more blessed to remain virgin or celibate than to be joined in marriage." ' This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonic), Gratian's Deeretum, Pars I., Dis- tine, xxx., c. xii. (Isidore's version), and again Dist. xxxi., c. viii. (Dionysius's version). Gratian, however, supposes that the canon is directed against the Manichfeans and refers to the marriage of priests, but in both mat- ters he is mistaken, as the Roman Correctors and Van Espen point out. CANON II. If any one shall condemn him who eats flesh, which is without blood and has not been offered to idols nor strangled, and is faithful and devout, as though the man Avere without hope [of salvation] because of his eating, let him be anathema. NOTES. . Ancient Epitome of Canon II. Anathema edso to him who condemns the eat- ing of flesh, except tlud of a sajfoccded animal or that offered to idols. Hefele. This canon also, like the preceding one, is not directed against the Gnostics and Mani- 1 This is the title in the Paris Edition of Zonaras. The Bod- leian text simply reads " The Canons of the Synod at Gangra." » Matt. xix. 12. 3 1 Cor. vii. 33. * Rev. xiv. 4. 6 Hermes Pastor. Sim. x., xj. cheans, but against an unenlightened hyper* asceticism, which certainly approaches the Gnostic-Manichean error as to matter being Satanic. We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apos» tolic Synod with regard to blood and tilings strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, 6 Justin M. Apoh, i. 15. 7 Cone. Trid , scssio xxiv. De Matr., can. x. It is curious to note that while Eustathius and his followers held all marriage to he sinful, Luther (at least at one time) taught that it was a sin for anyone to remain unmarried who could "increase and multi- ply ! " The Synod of Gaus:a in this canon sets forth the un- changing position of the Catholic Church upon this point. GANGKA. A.D. 325-381 93 indeed, it continued always in force as their Eucliologies still show. Balsamon also, the welhknown commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah ; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed Ecumenical Synods, can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuser, like other laws. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonki, Gratian's Dccretum, Pars I., Dist, XXX., c. xiii. CANON III. If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon III. Anathema to him who persuades a slave to leave his master under pretence of religion. Van Espen. This canon is framed in accordance with the doctrine of the Apostle, in I. Timothy, chapter six, verse 1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own mas- ters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." And again the same Apostle teaches his dis- ciple Titus that he should " exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things ; not answer- ing again ; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity ; that they may adorn the doc- trine of God our Saviour in. all things." (Titus ii. 9 and 10.) These texts are likewise cited by Balsamon and Zonaras. This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris [ Canonici, Gratian's Deerctum, Pars. II., Causa XVII., Q. IV, c. xxxvij. in the version of Isi- dore, and again in c. xxxviij. from the collec- tions of Martin Bracarensis (so says Van Espen) and assigned to a council of Pope | Martin, Canon xlvii. CANON IV. If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that is not lawful to par- take of the oblation when he offers it, let him be anathema. NOTES Ancient Epitome of Canon IV. Anathema to him who hesitates to receive com- mun ion from presbyters joined in matrimony. Hefele. As is well known, the ancient Church, as tinue t-o live in matrimony. Compare what was said above in the history of the Council of Nicsea, in connection with Paphnutius, con- cerning the celibacy and marriage of priests in the ancient Church. Accordingly this canon speaks of those clergy who have wives and now the Greek Church, allowed those clergy I live in wedlock ; and Baronius, Binius, and who married before their ordination to con- I Mitter-Miiller gave themselves useless trouble 94 GANGRA. A.D. 325-381 in trying to interpret it as only protecting those clergy who, though married, have since their ordination ceased to cohabit with their wives. The so-called Codex Ecclesice Romance pub- lished by Quesnel, which, however, as was shown by the Ballerini, 1 is of Gallican and not Roman origin, has not this canon, and consequently it only mentions nineteen canons of Gangra. CANON V. If any one shall teach that the house of God and the assemblies held therein are to be despised, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon V. MHioso styles the house of God contemptible, let Mm be anathema. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. x. The commentators find nothing to say upon the canon, and in fact the despis- ing of the worship of God's true church is and always has been so common a sin, that it hardly calls for comment ; no one will forget that the Prophet Malachi complains how in his days there were those who deemed "the table of the Lord contemptible " and said of his worship " what a weariness is it." (Mai. i., 7 and 13.) CANON VI. If any one shall hold private assemblies outside of the Church, and, despising the canons, shall presume to perform ecclesiastical acts, the presbyter with the consent of the bishop refusing his permission, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VI. Wlioso privately gathers a religious meeting let him be anathema. Hefele. Both these canons, [V. and VI.] forbid the existence of conventicles, and conventicle services. It already appears from the second article of the Synodal Letter of Gangra, that the Eustathians, through spiritual pride, j separated themselves from the rest of the j congregation, as being the pure and holy, i avoided the public worship, and held private services of their own. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh articles of the Synodal Letter give us to understand that the Eustathians especi- j ally avoided the public services, when married clergy officiated. We might possibly con- 1 elude, from the words of the sixth canon : fj.r) cruiwros tov Tpeafivrepov Kara yvutfxrjv tov iwLo-KOTrov, that no priest performed any part in their private services ; but it is more proba- ble that the Eustathians, who did not reject the priesthood as such, but only abhorred the married clergy, had their own unmarried clergy, and that these officiated at their sepa- rate services. And the above-mentioned words of the canon do not the least contradict this supposition, for the very addition of the words Kara yi'wfirjv tov iino-KOTrov indicate that the sectarian priests who performed the ser- vices of the Eustathians had received no permission to do so from the bishop of the place. Thus did the Greek commentators, Balsamon, etc., and likewise Van Espen, inter- pret this canon. The meaning of this canon is very obscure. The Latin reads non convenient^ presbytero,de episcopi sententia ; and Lambert translates "without the presence of a priest, with con- sent of the bishop." Hammond differs from this and renders thus, " without the concur- rence of the presbyter and the consent of the bishop." I have translated literally and left the obscurity of the original. • Vide their edition of Opp. S. Leonis M., Tom. III., pp. 124, 695, 755. GANGRA. A.D. 325-381 05 CANON VII. If any one shall presume to take the fruits offered to the Church, or to give them out of the Church, without the consent of the bishop, or of the person charged with such things, and shall refuse to act according to his judgment, let him be anathema. Ancient Epitome op Canon VII. Wlioso performs church acts contrary to the will of a bishop or of a presbyter, let him be anathema. CANON VIII. If anyone, except the bishop or the person appointed for the stewardship of bene- factions, shall either give or receive the revenue, let both the giver and the receiver be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon VIII. IVlioso gives or receives offered fruits, except the bishop and the economist appointed to disburse charities, both he that gives, and he that receives shall be anathema. Pope Symmachus. (In his Address to the Synod of Borne a.d. 504. Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, torn, iv., col, 1373.) In the canons framed by Apostolic author- ity [i.e., by the authority of the Apostolic See of Rome, cf. Ffoulkes, Smith and Cheetham, Diet Christ. Antiq., art. Gangra] we find it written as follows concerning the offerings of fruits which are due to the clergy of the church, and concerning those things which ai'e offered for the use of the poor ; " If any- one shall presume, etc." [Canon VII.] And again at the same council, " If anyone except the bishop, etc." [Canon VIII.] And truly it is a crime and a great sacrilege for those whose duty it is chiefly to guard it, that is for Christians and God-fearing men and above all for princes and rulers of this world, to transfer and convert to other uses the wealth which has been bestowed or left by will to the venerable Church for the remedy of their sins, or for the health and repose of their souls. Moreover, whosoever shall have no care for these, and contrary to these canons, shall seek for, accept, or hold, or shall unjustly defend and retain the treasures given to the Church unless he quickly repent himself shall be stricken with that anathema with which an angry God smites souls ; and to him that accepts, or gives, or possesses let there be anathema, and the constant accompaniment of the appointed penalty. For he can have no defence to offer before the tribunal of Christ, who nefariously without any regard to religion has scattered the substance left by pious souls for the poor. CANON IX. If any one shall remain virgin, or observe continence, abstaining from marriage because he abhors it, and not on account of the beauty and holiness of virginity itself, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon IX. Wioso xyreserves virginity not on account of its beauty bat because he abhors marriage, let him be anathema. The lesson taught by this canon and that which follows is that the practice of even the highest Christian virtues, such as the preser- vation of virginity, if it does not spring from a worthy motive is only deserving of execra- tion. ZONARAS. Virginity is most beautiful of all, and conti- nence is likewise beautiful, but only if we fol- 96 GANGRA, A.D. 325-381 low theni for their own sake and because of the sanctification which comes from them. But should anyone embrace virginity, because he detests marriage as impure, and keep himself chaste, and abstains from commerce with wom- en and marriage, because he thinks that they are in themselves wicked, he t is subjected by this canon to the penalty of anathema. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccrctum, Pars I., Dist, xxx,, c, v., and again Dist. xxxi., c. ix. CANON X. If any one of those avIio are living a virgin life for the Lord's sake shall treat arro- gantly the married, let him be anathema. NOTES Ancient Epitome of Canon X. Whoso treats arrogantly those joined in matri- mony, let him be anathema. On this point the fathers had spoken long- before, I cite two as examples. St. Clement. (Epist. I., 38, Lightfoot's translation.) So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject unto his neighbour, according as also he was appointed with his special grace. Let not the strong neglect the weak ; and let the weak respect the strong. Let the rich min- ister aid to the poor and let the poor give thanks to God, because he hath given him one through whom his wants may be sup- plied. Let the wise display his wisdom, not in words, but in good works. He that is lowly in mind, let him not bear testimony to himself, but leave testimony to be borne to him by his neighbour. He that is pure in the flesh, let him be so, 1 and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestoweth his conti- nence upon him. Let us consider, brethren, of what matter we were made ; who and what manner of beings we were, when we came into the world ; from what a sepulchre and what darkness he that moulded and created us brought us into his world, having prepared his benefits aforehand ere ever we were born. Seeing therefore that we have all these things from him, we ought in all things to give thanks to him, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. St. Ignatius. (Epist. ad Polyc. 5, Lightfoot's translation.) Flee evil arts, or rather hold thou discourse about these, Tell my sisters to love the Lord and to be content with their husbands in flesh and in spirit. In like manner also charge my brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to love their wives, as the Lord loved the Church. If anyone is able to abide in chas- tity to the honour of the flesh of the Lord, let him so abide without boasting. If he boast, he is lost ; and if it be known beyond the bishop, he is polluted. It becometh men and women, too, Avhen they marry to unite themselves with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord and not after concupiscence. Let all things be done to the honour of God. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. iv. CANON XL If anyone shall despise those who out of faith make love-feasts and invite the brethren in honour of the Lord, and is not willing to accept these invitations because he despises what is done, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XI. IVIioso spurns those who invite to the agape, and who ivhen invited, will not communicate with tliese, let him be anathema. 1 Lightfoot adopts Laurents' emendation and reads >jtu>. Siyi™ uine reading. It all comes to the same thing, however, has also been suggested, and Hort's thinks o-njTuj to be the gen- ing being perfectly clear. There are few subjects upon which there has been more difference of opinion than upon the history and significance of the Agapce or Love-feasts of the Early Church. r, the mean- GANGRA. A.D. 333-381 To cite here any writers would only mislead the reader, I shall therefore merely state the main outline of the discussion and leave every man to study the matter for himself. All agree that these feasts are referred to by St. Jude in his Epistle, and, although Dean Plumptre has denied it (Smith and Cheetham, Did., Christ Antiq., s.v. Agapse), most writers add St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corin- thians xi. Estius (in he.) argues with great co- gency that the expression "Lord's Supper " in Holy Scripture never means the Holy Euchar- ist, but the love-feast, and in this view he has been followed by many moderns, but the prev- alent opinion has been the opposite. There is also much discussion as to the order in which the Agapse and the celebra- tions of the Holy Sacrament were related, some holding that the love-feast preceded others that it followed the Divine Mysteries. There seems no doubt that in early times the two became separated, the Holy Sacrament being celebrated in the morning and the Agapse in the evening. All agree that these feasts were at first copies of the religious feasts common to the Jews and to the heathen world, and that soon abuses of one sort or another came in, so that they fell into ill repute and were finally prohibited at the Council in Trullo. This canon of Gangra is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xlii., c. i. Van Espen is of opinion that the agapse of our canon have no real connexion with the religious feasts of earlier days, but were merely meals provided by the rich for the I poor, and Avith this view Hefele agrees. But the matter is by no means plain. In fact at | every point we are met with difficulties and uncertainties. There would seem to be little doubt that the " pain beni " of the French Church, and the "Antidoron" of the Eastern Church are remains of the ancient Agapse. The meaning, however, of this canon is plain enough, to wit, people must not despise, out of a false asceticism, feasts made for the poor by those of the faithful who are rich and liberal. 1 CANON XII. If any one, under pretence of asceticism, should wear a ])eribolceum and, as if this gave him righteousness, shall despise those who with piety wear the berus and use other common and customary dress, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XII. WJioso despises those ivho wear bcruscs, let him be anathema. Hefele. The (3-qpoi (lacemce) were the common upper garments worn by men over the tunic ; but the TrepifioXaia. were rough mantles worn by philosophers to show their contempt for all luxury. Socrates (H. E., ii. 43) and the Synodal Letter of Gangra in its third article say that Eustathius of Sebaste wore the philosopher's mantle. But this canon in no way absolutely rejects a special dress for monks, for it is not the distinctive dress but the proud and superstitious over-estimation of its worth which the Synod here blames. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. xv. CANON XIII. If any woman, under pretence of asceticism, shall change her apparel and, instead of a woman's accustomed clothing, shall put on that of a man, let her be anathema. NOTES Ancient Epitome of Canon XIII. 'Whatever ivomen wear men's clothes, anath ema to them. Hefele. adoption by one sex of the dress of the other, was forbidden in the Pentateuch (Deut. xxii., 5), and was therefore most strictly inter- dicted by the whole ancient Church. Such The Synodal letter in its Sixth article also ' Most interesting literature on the whole subject will be i * * in • u , r. t ,i found in connexion with the frescoes and cups, etc., found in speaks of this. Exchange of dress, or the | the catacombs. VOL. XIV. II 98 GANGRA. A.D. 325-381 change of attire was formerly adopted mainly for theatrical purposes, or from effeminacy, wantonness, the furtherance of unchastity, or the like. The Eustathians, from quite opposite and hyper-ascetical reasons, had recommended women to assume male, that is probably monk's attire, in order to show that for them, as the holy ones, there Avas no longer any distinction of sex ; but the Church, also from ascetical reasons, forbade this change of attire, especially when joined to superstition and puritanical pride. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canoniei, Gratian's Decrektm, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. vi, CANON XIV. If any woman shall forsake her husband, and resolve to depart from him because she abhors marriage, let her be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV Women who keep (may from their husbands because they abominate marriage, anathema to them. Hepele. This canon cannot in any way be employed in opposition to the practice of the Catholic Church. For though the Church allows one of a married couple, with the consent of the other, to give up matrimonial intercourse, and to enter the clerical order or the cloister, still this is not, as is the case with the Eusta- thians, the result of a false dogmatic theory, but takes place with a full recognition of the sanctity of marriage. Van Espen.. It would seem that the Eustathians chiefly disapproved of the use of marriage, and under pretext of preserving continence in- duced married women to abstain from its use as from something unlawful, and to leave their husbands, separating from them so far as the bed was concerned ; and so the Greek interpreters understand this canon ; for the Eustathians were never accused of persuad- ing anyone to dissolve a marriage a vinculo. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canoniei, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist., xxx., c. iii., but in Isidore's version, which misses the sense by implying that a divorce a vinculo is intended. The Roman Correctors do not note this error. CANON XV. If anyone shall forsake his own children and shall not nurture them, nor so far as in him lies, rear them in becoming piety, but shall neglect them, under pretence of asceticism, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XV, Whosoever they be that desert tJtcir children and do not instruct them in the fear of God let them be anathema. Van Espen. ■ The fathers of this Synod here teach that it is the office and duty of parents to provide for the bodily care of their children, and also, as far as in them lies, to mould them to the practice of piety. And this care for their children is to be preferred by parents to any private exercises of religion. In this connex- ion should be read the letter of St. Francis de Sales, (Ep. xxxii., Lib. 4.) It may perhaps be noted that this canon has not infrequently been violated by those who are accepted as Saints in the Church. This canon is found, in Isidore's version, in the Corpus Juris Canoniei, Gratian's Decre- tum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. xiv. GANGRA. A.D. 325-381 99 CANON XVI. If, under any pretence of piety, any children shall forsake their parents, particularly [if the parents are] believers, and shall withhold becoming reverence from their par- ents, on the plea that they honour piety more than them, let them be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVI. If children leave their parents who are of the faithful let them he anathema. Zonaras notes that the use of the word "particularly" shews that the obligation is universal. The commentators all refer here to St. Matthew xv., where our Lord speaks of the subterfuge by which the Jews under pre- text of piety defrauded their parents and made the law of God of none effect. Van Espen. Of the last clause this is the that according to the Eustathians " piety towards God" or "divine worship," or rather its pretence, should be preferred to the honour and reverence due to parents. This canon, in Isidore's version, is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. i. The Roman correct- ors advertize the reader that the version of Dionysius Exiguus " is much nearer to the original Greek, although not altogether so." CANON XVII. If any woman from pretended asceticism shall cut off her hair, which God gave her as the reminder of her subjection, thus annulling as it were the ordinance of subjection, let her be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII. Whatever women shave their hair off, pretend- ing to do so out of reverence for God, let them be anathema. Hefele. The apostle Paul, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 10, represents the long hair of women, which is given them as a natural veil, as a token of their subjection to man. We learn from the Synod of Gangra, that as many Eustathian women renounced this sub- jection, and left their husbands, so, as this canon says, they also did away with their long hair, which was the outward token of this sub- jection. An old proverb says :1 duo si faciunt idem, non est idem. In the Catholic Church also, when women and girls enter the cloister, they have their hair cut off, but from quite other reasons than those of the Eustathian women. The former give up their hair, be- cause it has gradually become the custom to consider the long hair of women as a special beauty, as their greatest ornament ; but the Eustathians, like the ancient Church in general, regarded long hair as the token of subjection to the husband, and, because they renounced marriage and forsook their hus- bands, they cut it off. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Can- onici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. ij. CANON XVIII. If any one, under pretence of asceticism, shall fast on Sunday, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVIII. 'Whoso fasts on the Lord's day or on the Sab- bath let him be anathema. Zonaras. Eustathius appointed the Lord's day as a fast, whereas, because Christ rose from the II 2 100 GANGRA. A.D. 325-381 grave and delivered human nature from sin on that day, we should spend it in offering- joyous thanks to God. But fasting carries with it the idea of grief and sorrow. For this reason those who fast on Sunday are subject- ed to the punishment of anathema. Balsamon. By many canons we are warned against fasting or grieving on the festal and joyous Lord's day, in remembrance of the resurrec- tion of the Lord", but that we should cele- brate it and offer thanks to God, that we be raised from the fall of sin. But this canon smites the Eustathians with anathema because they taught that the Lord's days should be fasted. Canon LXIV. of the Apostolic Canons cuts off such of the laity as shall so fast, and deposes such of the clergy. See also Canon LV. of the Council in Trullo. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccrctum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. vij. CANON XIX. If any of the ascetics, without bodily necessity, shall behave with insolence and disregard the fasts commonly prescribed and observed by the Church, because of his perfect understanding in the matter, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIX. Whoso neglects the fasts of the Church, let him he anathema. I have followed Hefele's translation of the last clause, with which Van Espen seems to agree, as well as Zonaras. But Hardouin and Mansitake an entirely different view and trans- late " if the Eustathian deliberately rejects the Church fasts." Zonoras and Balsamon both refer to the LXIXth of the Apostolical Canons as being the law the Eustathians violated. Balsamon suggests that the Eustathians shared the error of the Bogomiles on the subject of fasting, but I see no reason to think that this was the case, Eustathius's action "seems rather to be attributable to pride, and a desire to be different and origi- nal, "I thank thee that I am not as other men are," (as Van Espen points out). All that Socrates says (H. K, II., xliii.,) is that "he commanded that the prescribed fasts should be neglected, and that the Lord's days should be fasted." This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decrctum, Pars I., Dist. xxx., c. viii., in an imperfect translation but not that of either Isidore or Dionysius. CANON XX. If any one shall, from a presumptuous disposition, condemn and abhor the assem- blies [in honour] of the martyrs, or the services performed there, and the commemora- tion Of them, let him be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XX. Whoever thinks lightly of the meetings in honour of the holy martyrs, let him he anathema. Hefele. Van Espen is of opinion that the Eusta- thians had generally rejected the common service as only fit for the less perfect, and that the martyr chapels are only mentioned here, because in old times service was usually held there. According to this view, no especial weight need be attached to the expression. But this canon plainly speaks of a disrespect shown by the Eustathians to the martyrs. Compare the twelfth article of the Synodal Letter. Fuchs thought that, as the Eustathians resembled the Aerians, who rejected the service for the dead, the same views might probably be ascribed to the Eustathians. But, in the first place, the Aerians are to be regarded rather as opposed than related in opinion to the Eustathians, being lax in contrast to these ultra-rigorists, GANGBA. A.D. 325-381 101 Besides which, Epiphanius ouly says that they rejected prayer for the salvation of the souls of the departed, but not that they did not honour the martyrs ; and there is surely a great difference between a feast in honour of a saint, and a requiem for the good of a departed soul. Why, however, the Eusta- thians rejected the veneration of martyrs is nowhere stated ; perhaps because they con- sidered themselves as saints, ko.t e&xrjv, exalted above the martyrs, who were for the most part only ordinary Christians, and many of whom had lived in marriage, while according to Eustathian views no married person could be saved, or consequently could be an object of veneration. Lastly, it must be observed that the first meaning of enW£is, is an assembly for divine service, or the service itself; but here it seems to be taken to mean avvaywyi) the place of worship, so that the crwa|«s twv fiapTvprnv seems to be identical with martyria, and different from the Xtnovpyiai held in them, of which the latter Avords of the canon speak. EPILOGUE. These things we write, not to cut off those who Avish to lead in the Church of God an ascetic life, according to the Scriptures ; but those who carry the pretence of asceti- cism to superciliousness ; both exalting themselves above those who live more simply, and introducing novelties contrary to the Scriptures and the ecclesiastical Canons. We do, assuredly, admire virginity accompanied by humility ; and we have regard for con- tinence, accompanied by godliness and gravity ; and we praise the leaving of worldly occupations, [when it is made] with lowliness of mind ; [but at the same time] Ave honour the holy companionship of marriage, and Ave do not contemn Avealth enjoyed with uprightness and beneficence ; and Ave commend plainness and frugality in apparel, [Avhich is Avorn] only from attention, [and that] not over-fastidious, to the body ; but dissolute and effeminate excess in dress Ave escheAv ; and Ave reverence the houses of God and em- brace the assemblies held therein as holy and helpful, not confining religion Avithin the houses, but reverencing every place built in the name of God ; and Ave approve of gath- ering together in the Church itself for the common profit ; and Ave bless the exceeding charities done by the brethren to the poor, according to the traditions of the Church ; and, to sum up in a word, Ave Avish that all things Avhich have been delivered by the Holy Scriptures and the Apostolical traditions, may be observed in the Church. NOTES. This is lacking in the ancient epitome ; and while it occurs after Canon XX. in the ver- sions of Dionysius Exiguus and of Isidore Mercator, it is not numbered as a canon. Moreover in John of Antioch's Collection and in Photius's Nomocanon, the number of canons is said to be 20. Only the Greek Scholiasts number it as Canon XXL, but its genuine- ness is unquestioned. It is curiously enough found in the Corpus Juris Canonic!, diAided into two canons ! Gra- tian's Becrctum, Pars I., Dist. XXX, c. xvj., and Dist. xli., c. v. Van Espen. The Fathers of Gangra recognize not only the Holy Scriptures, but also the Apostolical traditions for the rule of morals. From this [canon] it ia by no means doubt- ful that the fathers of this Synod considered that the Eustathians had violated some al- ready existing ecclesiastical canons. Bever- idge is of opinion that these are those com- monly called the Canons of the Apostles {Synod. I. 5). Nor is this unlikely to be true, for there can be no doubt that the doctrines of the Eustathians condemned by this synod are directly opposed to those very " Canons of the Apostles " ; and no small argument is draAvn for the authority and antiquity of the Canons of the Apostles from the large num- ber of Eustathian teachings found to be therein condemned, as Beveridge has pointed out and as can easily be seen by comparing the tAvo. THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN ENCJ2NIIS. A.D. 341. Elenchus. Historical Introduction. The Synodal Letter, The Canons, ivith the Ancient Epitome and Notes. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Of the Synod of Antioch which adopted the canons subsequently received into the code of the universal church we knoAV the exact date. This is fixed by the fact that the synod was held at the time of the dedication of the great church in Antioch, known as the " Golden," which had been beguu by his father, Constantine the Great, and was finished in the days of Constantius. The synod has for this reason always been known as the Synod of Antioch in Encceniis, i.e., at the dedication (in Dedicatione), and was holden in the summer of the year 341. Ninety-seven bishops assembled together and a large number of them were hostile to St. Athanasius, being professed Eusebians, all of them were Orientals and most of them belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch. Not a single Western or Latin bishop was present and the pope, Julius, was in no way represented. This fact gave Socrates the histo- rian the opportunity of making the statement (around which such polemics have raged), that " an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches should not make decrees against the opinion of the bishop of Rome." l But while this much is all clear, there is no council that presents a greater amount of difficulty to the historian as well as to the theologian. No one can deny that St. Hilary of Poictiers, who was a contemporary, styled it a Synod of Saints (Synodus Sanctorum) 2 ; that two of its canons were read at Chalcedon as the " canons of the Holy Fathers " ; and that Popes John II., Zacharias, and Leo. IV. all approved these canons, and attributed them to " Holy Fathers." And yet this synod set forth creeds ^to rival that of Nice, and, it is said, that some of the canons were adopted to condemn Athanasius. Various attempts have been made to escajje from these difficulties. It has been suggested that there really were two Synods at Antioch, the one orthodox, which adopted the canons, the other heretical. Father Emanuel Schelstraten, S. J. 3 improved on this theory. He supposed that the Eusebians stopped behind in Antioch after the orthodox bishops left and then passed the decrees against Athanasius, giving out that the synod was still in session. This has been adopted by Pagi, Remi Ceillier, "Walch, and to a certain extent by Schrockk and others. But Tillemont demurs to this view, urging that according to Socrates 4 the deposition of Atha- nasius came first and the adoption of the canons afterwards. But Tillemont would seem to have misunderstood Socrates on this point and this objection falls to the ground. But an- other objection remains, viz., that both Socrates and Sozomen say that the creeds were drawn up after the deposition of Athanasius, " and yet " (as Hefele remarks, Vol. II., p. 63), " St. Hilary says that these creeds proceeded from a ' Synod of Saints.' " Schelstraten's hypothesis not being satisfactory, the learned Ballerini, in their appendix to the Opera S. Lconis M., have set forth another theory with which Mansi agrees in his " Notes on Alexander Natalis's Church History." These maintain that the canons did not come from the Council in Encceniis at all, but from another synod held before, in 332 ; but Hefele rejects this hypothesis altogether, on the following grounds. First and chiefest be- cause it has no external evidence to support it ; and secondly because the internal evidence is most unsatisfactory. But even if the 25 canons were adopted by a synod at Antioch in 332, the real difficulty would not be obviated, for Socrates says 5 of that synod that there too the 'Socrates. H. E., Lib, II., cap. viij. Hefele thinks the state- ment may rest upon nothing more than the letter of Julius I. that the matter should first have been referred to Rome. (Hefele. Hist. Councils, Vol. n., p. 59, n. 2.) But the word used by Soc- lates is xavdvl 2 Hilar. Pict. De Synodis, seu de Fide Orient., C. xxxii. Ed. Ben., 1170. 3 Schelstraten, S. J. Sacrum Antioehenum Concil. auctoritati suce restitution. (Ant. 1680.) 4 Socrates. H. E., Lib. n., Cap. viij. 6 Socrates. H. E., Lib. I., Cap. xxiv. 106 ANTIOCH IN ENCiENIIS. A.D. 311 " opposers of the Niceue faith " were able to elect their candidate to fill the place of the banished bishop Eustathius ! Hefele seems to give the true solution of the whole difficulty when he says : " Certainly Athanasius identified the Eusebians with the Arians and we regard them as at least Semi- arians ; but at that time, after they had made the orthodox confession of faith, and repeatedly declared their disapproval of the heresies condemned at Nice, they were considered, by the greater number, as lawful bishops, and thoroughly orthodox and saintly men might with- out hesitation unite with them at a synod." L Pope Julius styles the very Eusebian synod that deposed Athanasius "dear brethren" while blaming their action, and invited them to a common synod to enquire into the charges made against the Saint. In view of all this we may well believe that both orthodox and Eusebians met together at the consecration of the Emperor's new church, and that the whole church afterwards awarded the canons then adopted a rank in accordance with their intrin- sic worth, and without any regard to the motives or shades of theological opinion that swayed those who drafted and voted for them. i Hefele. History of the Councils. Vol., II., p. 6G. I have in tbie introduction done little more than condense Hefele. THE SYNODAL LETTER. (Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. II., col. 559. It really is no part of the canons, but I have placed it here, because, as Labbe notes, " it is usually prefixed to the canons in the Greek.") The holy and most peaceful Synod which has been gathered together in Antioch from the provinces of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Isauria ; 1 to our like-minded and holy fellow Ministers in every Province, health in the Lord. The grace and truth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath regarded the holy Church of the Antiochians, and, by joining it together with unity of mind and concord and the Spirit of Peace, hath likewise bettered many other things ; and in them all this betterment is wrought by the assistance of the holy and peace-giving Spirit. Wherefore, that which after much examination and investigation, was unanimously agreed upon by us bishops, who coming out of various Provinces have met together in Antioch, we have now brought to your knowledge ; trusting in the grace of Christ and in the Holy Spirit of Peace, that ye also will agree with us and stand by us as far as in you lies, striving with us in prayers, and being even more united with us, following the Holy Spirit, uniting in our definitions, and decreeing the same things as we ; ye, in the concord which proceedeth of the Holy Spirit, sealing and confirming what has been determined. Now the Canons of the Church which have been settled are hereto appended. 1 Hefele thinks this list of provinces is probably an interpolation. In the Latin version this letter is followed by the names of the bishops, THE CANONS OF THE BLESSED AND HOLY FATHERS AS- SEMBLED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA. 1 CANON I. Whosoever shall presume to set aside tlie decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter ; if they shall obstinately per- sist in opposing what was [then] rightl} ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church ; this is said concerning the laity. But if any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the churches, by observing Easter [at the same time] with the Jews, the holy S} 7 nod decrees that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only heaps sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and sub- version to many ; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them. And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honour, of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood partake. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon I. Whoso endeavours to change the lawful tradi- tion of Easter, if he be a layman let him be ex- communicated, but if a cleric let him be cast out of the Church. The connexion between these canons of Antioch and the Apostolical Canons is so evident and so intimate that I shall note it, in each case, for the convenience of the student. Zonaras and Balsamon both point out that from this first canon it is evident that the Council of Nice did take action upon the Paschal question, and in a form well known to the Church. Van Espen. From this canon it appears that the fathers did not deem laymen deserving of excom- munication who merely broke the decrees, but only those who "obstinately persist in oppos- ing the decrees sanctioned and received by the Church ; for by their refusal to obey they are attempting to overturn." And this being the case, why should such not be repelled or cast forth from the Church as rebels ? Finally this Canon proves that not only bishops and presbyters, but also deacons were reckoned among them who, "preside in the Church." An argument in favour of the opinion that the deacons of that time were entrusted with hierarchical functions. It is curious that as a matter of fact the entire clergy and people of the West fell under the anathema of this canon in 1825, when they observed Easter on the same day as the Jews. This was owing to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and this misfort- une while that calendar is followed it is al- most impossible to prevent. 2 Compare Apostolic Canons ; Canon VII. CANON II. All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not com- municate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits of penance, and made 1 This is the title in the codices of Zoraras ; the Parisian edition I - There seems but little doubt that the Gregorian Calendar will of Balsamon simply reads " The Synod at Antioch." The Bod- be introduced before many years into Russia, leian MS. reads " Canons of the Synod at Antioch in Syria." ANTIOCH IN ENCiENIIS. A.D. 341 109 earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness ; and it is unlawful to communi- cate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church ; or to receive in one Church those who do not assemble with another Church. And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon II. Whoso comes to church, and attentively hears (lie holy Scriptures, and then despises, goes forth from, and turns his bach upon the Communion, let him be cast out, until after having brought forth fruits of penance, he shall be indulged. And who- so communicates with one excommunicated, shall be excommunicated, and ivhoso prays with him ivho prays not with the Church is guilty, and even whoso receives him who does not attend the ser- vices of the Church is not without guilt. Balsamon. In the Eighth and Ninth canons of the Apostles it is set forth how those are to be punished who will not wait for the prayers, and the holy Communion : So, too, in the Tenth canon provision is made with respect to those who communicate with the excom- municated. In pursuance of this the present canon provides that they are to be cut off who come to church and do not wait for the prayer, and through disorder [? dra£iai>] 1 will not receive the holy Communion ; for such are to be cast out until with confession they shew forth worthy penance. Zonaras. In this canon the Fathers refer to such as go to church but will not tarry to the prayer nor receive holy Communion, held back by some perversity or license, that is to say with- out any just cause, but petulantly, and by reason of some disorder [dTa£tai'] ; these are forbidden to be expelled from the Church, that is to say cut off from the congregation of the faithful. But the Fathers call it a turn- ing away from, not a hatred of the divine Communion, which holds them back from communion ; a certain kind of flight from it, brought about perchance by reverence and lowliness of mind. Those who object to com- municate by reason of hatred or disgust, such must be punished not with mere separation, but by an altogether absolute excommunica- tion, and be cursed with anathema. It need hardly be remarked that this canon has no reference to such of the faithful as tarry to the end of the service and yet do not partake of the holy sacrament, being held back by some good reason, recognized by the Church as such. It will be remembered that the highest grade of Penitents did this habit- ually, and that it was looked upon as a great privilege to be allowed to be present when the Divine Mysteries were performed, even though those assisting as spectators might not be partakers of them. What this canon condemns is leaving the Church before the service of the Holy Eucharist is done ; this much is clear, the difficulty is to understand just why these particular people, against whom the canon is directed, did so. This canon should be compared with the Apostolic canons viij., ix., x., xj., xij. and xiij. CANON III. If any presbyter or deacon, or any one whatever belonging to the priesthood, shall for- sake his own parish, and shall depart, and, having wholly changed his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time in another parish, let him no longer officiate ; espe- cially if his own bishop shall summon and urge him to return to his own parish and he shall disobey. And if he persist in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from his ministry, so that no further room be left for his restoration. And if another bishop shall receive a man deposed for this cause, let him be punished by the Common Synod as one who nullifies the ecclesiastical laws. 1 1 confess I do not know what the phrase koto riva ara^iav means, nor do the Greek Commentators give much help. I have translated " by reason of some disorder" in the canon itself, and in the notes, but Beveridge renders it propter aliquam insolen- tiam, which to me appears very unsatisfactory. The pro qaos- dam intern perantia of the ordinary Latin seems no better. The same word is used in the next canon, 110 ANTIOCH IN ENC/ENIIS. A.D. 341 NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon III. If any cleric leaves his own parish and (joes off to another, travelling here and there, and stays for a long time in that other, let him not offer the sacri- fice (AetTovpyetVw), especially if lie do not return when called by his own bishop. But if he per- severes in his insolence let him be deposed, neither afterwards let him have any power to return. And if any bishop shall receive him thus deposed, he shall be punished by the Common Synod for breach of the ecclesiastical laics. Compare with Canons of the Apostles xv, and xvi. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonic!, Gratian's Becretum, Pars II., Causa VII,, Qusest. I., Can. xxiv. 1 CANON IV. If any bishop who has been deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon who has been deposed by his bishop shall presume to execute any part of the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former custom, or a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of restoration in another Synod ; nor any opportunity of making his defence ; but they who communicate with him shall all be cast out of the Church, and particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the persons afore- mentioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon IV. Jf a bishop deposed by a synod shall dare to celebrate the liturgy, let him have no chance of re- turn. This canon derives its chief interest from the fact that it is usually considered to have been adopted at the instigation of the party ojoposed to St. Athanasius and that afterwards it was used against St. Chrysostom. But while such may have been the secret reason why some voted for it and others prized it, it must be remembered that its provision is identical with that of the Apostolic Canons, and that it was read at the Council of Chal- cedon as Canon eighty-three. Remi Ceillier (Histoirc General des Autheurs, p. G59) tries to prove that this is not the canon which St. Chrysostom and his friends rejected, but He- fele thinks his position "altogether unten- able " (Hist, of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 62, n. 1), and refers to Tillemont (Memoires, p. 329, Sur les Avians, and Fuchs' Bib. dev Kirchen- versammlungen, P. II., p. 59. 2 ) Compare Apostolic Canon xxviij. This canon is found twice in the Juris Cor- pus Canonic!, Gratian's Becretum, Pars II., Causa XL, Qua?st. III., Can. vj., and Can. vij. in the version of Martin Bracarensis. This version is very interesting as expanding the phrase " to execute any part of the ministry " into " to make the oblation, or to perform the morning or evening sacrifice as though he were in office just as before, etc." CANON V. If any presbyter or deacon, despising his own bishop, has separated himself from the Church, and gathered a private assembly, and set up an altar ; and if, when summoned by his bishop, he shall refuse to be persuaded and will not obey, even though he sum- mon him a first and a second time, let such an one be wholly deposed and have no fur- ther remedy, neither be capable of regaining his rank. And if he persist in troubling and disturbing the Church, let him be corrected, as a seditious person, by the civil power. 1 Uefe'.e seems to have overlooked this. The note referring to the Apostolic Canons is all wrong (p. 68, n. 1.) a Hefele on the preceding page (p. 61, n. 1) says "Of course the sentence or canon to which the adversaries of Chrysostom re- ferred must be distinguished from the fourth and twelfth true An- tioehian canons. It seems somewhat difficult to reconcile this with what I have cited above, and with the following (p. 65): "In the affair of St. Chrysostom the canon employed against him was represented as proceeding from the Ariaus. and all attempts to deny its identity with our fourth and twelfth Antiochian canons are "fruitless." ANTIOCH IN ENCJENIIS. A.D. 341 111 NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canon V. Any presbyter or deacon who spurns his bishop, and ivithdraivs from him, and sets tip another altar, if after being thrice called by the bishop, he shall persist in his arroyancy, let him be deposed and be deprived of all hope of restoration . It will be noted that the Ancient Epitome mentions three warnings, and the canon only two. The epitome in this evidently follows the Apostolical Canon, number thirty-one. It is somewhat curious that Aristenus in com- menting on this canon does not note the dis- crepancy. Van Espen. This canon, together with the preceding was read from the Code of Canons at the Coun- cil of Chalcedon, at the Fourth Session in connexion with the case of Carosus and Dor- otheeus, and of other monks who adhered to them. And a sentence in accordance with them was conceived in these words against those who would not obey the Council in the condemnation of Eutyches, "Let them know that they together with the monks who are with them, are deprived of grade, and of all dig- nity, and of communion, as w r ell as he, so that they cease to preside over their monasteries : and if they attempt to escape, this holy and uni- versal great council decrees the same punish- ment shall attach to them, that is to say the ex- ternal authority, according to the divine and holy laws of the Fathers, shall carry out the sentence passed against the contumacious." This canon shews that monks and clerics who were rebellious were sometimes coerced by the Secular Power, when the ecclesiastical power was not sufficient to coerce them, and hence it was that the secular arm was called in. Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXI. The last clause of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonic i, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II. Causa XI, Qua>st VIII. Can. vij. (The Latin however for " by the civil power " is, as is pointed out by the Roman Correctors, per forinsccam potestatcm or per forasticam potes- tatem. CANON VI. If any one lias been excommunicated by liis own bishop, let him not be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defence, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence. And let this decree apply to the laity, and to presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy-list. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VI. The sentence of the greater synod upon a clerk excommunicated by his bishop, whether of acquittal or condemnation, shall stand. Compare Apostolic Canons numbers XII. and XXXII. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Deeretum, Pars II, Causa XI, Qutest. Ill, Can. ij. CANON VII. No stranger shall be received without letters pacifical. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VII. A traveller having no letter pacific with him is not to be received. Compare XXXIII. the Apostolic Canon number For a discussion of the Letters styled paci- fic!, see notes on next canon. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Can- onici, Gratian's Deeretum, Pars I, Dist. had., c. ix. in Isidore's version. The Roman Cor- rectors note that Dionysius must have had a different reading from the Greek we know. 113 ANTIOCII IN ENC^ENIIS. A.D. 341 CANON VIII, Let not country presbyters give letters canonical, or let tliem send sucli letters only to the neighbouring bishops. But the chorepiscopi of good report may give letters paci- fical, NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon VIII. A country presbyter is not to give canonical let- ters, or\at most] onty to a neighbouring bishop. These " letters canonical " were called in the West letters "formates" and no greater proof of the great influence they had in the early days of the Church in binding the faith- ful together can be found than the fact that Julian the Apostate made an attempt to in- troduce something similar among the pagans of his empire. "Commendatory letters" (Ima-ToXal crvara- tlkciI) are spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 1, and the reader will find some interesting re- marks on this and cognate subjects in J. J. Blunt's, The Christian Church during the first three Centuries (Chapter II). By means of these letters even the lay peo- ple found hospitality and care in every part of the world, and it was thrown up against the Donatists as a mark of their being schis- matics that their canonical letters were good only among themselves. Pseudo-Isidore informs us that it was stated at the Council of Chalcedon by Atti- cus, bishop of Constantinople, that it was agreed at the Council of Nice that all such letters should be marked IT. Y. A. IT. (i. e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and it is asserted (Herzog, Ileal-Encyh, s. v. Literre Formatse) that this form is found in German documents of the sixth century. As will be seen among the Canons of Chal- cedon, the old name, Letters Commendatory, is continued, but in this canon and in the 41st of Laodicea the expression " Canonical Letters " is used. In the West, at least, these letters received the episcopal seal of the dio- cese to avoid all possibility of imposture. Dean Plumptre (whom I am following very closely in this note) believes the earliest evi- dence of this use of the diocesan seal is in St. Augustine (Fjpist. lix. al. cexvij.) He also re- fers to Ducange, s. r. Formatoe. As these letters admitted their bearers to communion they were sometimes called "Communion letters" (kouwikcu), and are so described by St. Cyril of Alexandria ; and by the Council of Elvira (canon xxv.), and by St. Augustine (Epist. xliii. al. clxii). The " Letters Pacifical " appear to have been of an eleemosynary character, so that the bearers of them obtained bodily help. Chalcedon in its eleventh canon ordains that j these "Letters pacifical " shall be given to the poor, whether they be clerics or laics. The same expression is used in the preceding canon of the synod. A later form of ecclesiastical letter is that with which we are so familiar, the "letter dimissory." This expression first occurs in Canon XVII. of the Council in Trullo. On this expression Suicer (Thesaurus, s. r. AttoXv- TiKrj) draws from the context the conclusion that "letters dimissory " were given only for permanent change of ecclesiastical residence, while "letters commendatory " were given to j those whose absence from their diocese was ! only temporary. CANON IX. It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province ; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city ; to ordain presbyters and deacons ; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis ; neither the latter without the consent of the others. ANTIOCH IN ENCiENIIS. A.D. 341 113 NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon IX. Bishops should be bound to the opinion of the metropolitan, and nothing should they do without his knowledge except only such things as have re- ference to the diocese of each, and let them ordain men free from blame. Van Espen. From this canon we see that causes of more importance and greater moment are to be considered in the Provincial Synod which consisted of the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. By the "ancient canon" of which mention is here made, there can scarcely be a doubt is intended the xxxiv. of the Canons of the Apostles, since in it are read the same pro- visions (and almost in the same words) as here are set forth somewhat more at length ; nor is there any other canon in which these provisions are found earlier in date than this synod, wherefore from this is deduced a strong argument for the integrity of the Canons of the Apostles. The wording of this canon should be com- pared with the famous sentence so often quoted of St. Irenteus. "Ad banc enim eccle- siam [i. e. of Rome] propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fi- deles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undi- que, conservata est eaque est ab Apostolis traditio." Is it not likely that in the lost Greek origi- nal the words translated convenire ad were awrpix^v iv ? Vide on the meaning of con- venire ad, F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Borne, pp. 32 ct seqq. Compare Apostolic Canon XXXIV. CANON X. The Holy Synod decrees that persons in villages and districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though they may have received ordination to the Episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the care and administration of these ; but they may ordain readers, sub-deacons and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these, but shall not presume to or- dain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent of bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if he shall dare to transgress [these] decrees, he shall be deposed from the rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be ap- pointed by the bishop of the city to which he is subject. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon X. A chorepiscopus makes Exorcists, Lectors, Sub- deacons and Singers, but not a presbyter or a dea- con without the bishop) of the city. Who dares to transgress this laiv let him be deposed. The bishop of the city mcikes the chorepiscopus. For the Minor Orders in the Early Church see the Excursus on the subject appended to Canon XXIV. of Laodicea. " Ordination to the episcopate." In trans- lating thus I have followed both Dionysius and Isidore, the former of whom translates "although they had received the imposition of the hand of the bishop and had been con- secrated bishops ; " and the latter " although they had received from bishops the imposition of the hand, and had been consecrated bishops." VOL. XIV, Van Espen. There can be no doubt that the Chorepis- copi, the authority of whom is limited by this canon, are supposed to be endowed with the episcopal character. Among the learned there is a controversy as to whether Chore- piscopi were true bishops by virtue of the ordination to that office, and endowed with the episcopal character or were only bishops when accidentally so. But whatever may be the merits of this controversy, there can be no doubt from the context of this canon that the Fathers of Antiochtookit for granted that the chorepiscopi were true bishops by virtue of their ordination, but it is also evident that they were subject to the bishop of the greater city. It must also be noted that these chore- piscopi were not instituted by the canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Neocsesarea, or even of Nice, for these speak of them and make 1U ANTIOCII IN ENCVENIIS. A.D. 341 their decrees as concerning something already existing, And from the very limitations of this canon it is by no means obscure that the fathers of Antioch supposed these chorepiscopi to be real bishops, for otherwise even -with the license of the bishop of _ the city they could not ordain presbyters or deacons. CANON XL If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from the rank Avhich he happens to have ; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with letters from them. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XI. A bishop or presbyter ivho of liis own motion and not at the bidding of the Metropolitan of the province goes to the Emperor shad be dcprivcdboth of communion and dignity. This canon is one of those magnificent efforts which the early church made to check the already growing inclination to what we have in later times learned to call Erastian- ism. Not only did the State, as soon as it became Christian, interfere in spiritual mat- ters at its own motion, but there were found bishops and others of the clergy who not being able to attain their ends otherwise, appealed to the civil power, usually to the Emperor himself, and thus the whole disci- pline of the Church was threatened, and the authority of spiritual synods set aside. How unsuccessful the Church often was in this struggle is only too evident from the remarks of the Greek commentator Balsamon on this very canon. Hefele. Kellner (Das Buss, tmd Strafversahren, p. 61) remarks with reference to this, that de- position is here treated as a heavier punish- ment than exclusion from communion, and therefore the latter cannot mean actual excommunication but only suspension. CANON XII. If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them ; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defence, nor any hope of future restoration. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XII. One deposed, if he shad hare troubled the Emperor, shall seek the greater synod, and sub- mit to its decree. But if he again misbehave him- self, he shall not have any chance of restoration. and it was used against St. Chrysostom by his enemies. Vide Socrates, Ecclesiastical His- tory, Book II, Chapter viij., and Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, Book III., chapter v. ; also ibid. Book VII. , chapter xx. It is usually supposed that this canon, as , This canon is found in the Corpus Juris well as the fourth, and the fourteenth and [ Canonici, Gratian's Decrctum, Pars II, Causa fifteenth, was directed against St. Athanasius, I XXL, Quest. V, Can. ij., in Isidore's Version. ANTIOCH IN ENC^ENIIS. A.D. 341 111 CANON XIII. No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordina- tion of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregu- larity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIII. If without invitation a bishop shall go into an- other province, and shall ordain, and administer affairs, what he docs shall be void and he himself shall be deposed. Compare with this Apostolic Canon xxxv. ; also canon xxii. of this same synod. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decrcfum, Pars II., Causa ix., Qusest. II., Can. vj. in the Versio Prisca. The Roman Correctors are not satisfied with it, however, nor with any version and give the Greek text, to which they add an accurate translation. CANON XIV. If a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the accused inno- cent, and others guilty ; for the settlement of all disputes, the holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the neighbouring province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and thus, with those of the province, confirm what is determined. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV. If the bishops of the province disagree among themselves as to an accused bishop, that the con- troversy may be certainly settled, let other neigh- bouring bishops be called in. Zonakas. When any bishop shall have been con- demned with unanimous consent by all the bishops of the province, the condemnation can- not be called into doubt, as this synod has set forth in its fourth canon. But if all the bish- ops are not of the same mind, but some con- tend that he should be condemned and others the contrary, then other bishops may be called in by the metropolitan from the neighbouring provinces, and when their votes are added to one or other of the parties among the bishops, then controversy should be brought to a close. This also is the law of the Synod of Sardica, canons iii. and v. Aristenus. Every bishop accused of crimes should be judged by his own synod, but if the bishops of the province differ, some saying that he is innocent and some that he is guilty, the metro- politan can call other bishops from a neigh- bouring province that they may solve the controversy agitated by the bishops. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa vi., Quasst. iv., can. j. The Roman Correctors note that the Latin translation implies that the neighbouring metropolitan is to be in- vited and say, "But, in truth, it hardly seems fitting that one metropolitan should come at the call of another, and that there should be two metropolitans in one synod," CANON XV. If any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict concerning him, he shall not be again judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of the bishops of the prov- ince shall stand firm. I 2 116 ANTIOCH IN ENCLENIIS. A.D. 341 NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XV. If all the bishops of a province agree with regard to a bishop already sentenced, a new trial shall not be granted him, Van Espen. By the phrase "by others " must be under- stood bishops called from a neighbouring province, of which mention is made in the previous canon, where in the case of an agree- ment among the bishops, the synod did not wish to be called in, even if it were demanded by the condemned bishop. This canon, there- fore, is a supplement as it were to the preced- ing. And for this reason in the Breviarium and in Cresconius's Collection of Canons they are placed under a common title, cap. 144, "Concerning the difference of opinion which happens in the judgment of bishops, or when a bishop is cut off by all the bishops of his province." From these canons it is manifest that at first the causes of bishops were agitated and decided in provincial synods, and this disci- pline continued for many centuries, and was little by little departed from in the Vlllth and IXth centuries. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa VI., Qusest. IV., Can. v. Gratian adds a note which Van Espen remarks smacks of his own date rather than of that of the Synod of An- tioch. CANON XVI. If any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And that shall be [accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XVI. j cil of Chalcedon, from the book of the canons, _ T „ .,, . . ,, , , .-,, , ,, I in which this is called the 95th and the fol- • Whoever without the full synod and without the lowiag the 96th, according to the order ob- Metrqpolitan Conned, shall go over to a vacant Sfirvfifl - n +llflt hnolr of ihp Railons . church, even if he has no position, he shall be ejected. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XCII., Can. viij. in Isidore's version, and the This, together with the following canon, j Eoman Correctors note its departure from the was recited by Bishop Leontius in the Coun- ! original. CANON XVII. If any one having received the ordination of a bishop, and having been appointed to preside over a people, shall not accept his ministry, and will not be persuaded to pro- ceed to the Church entrusted to him, he shall be excommunicated until he, being con- strained, accept it, or until a full synod of the bishops of the province shall have deter- mined concerning him. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVII. IVJioso has received orders and abandoned them let him be excommunicated, until he shall have repented and been received. Zonaeas. If any one called to the rule of the people refuse to undertake that office and ministry, let him be removed from communion, that is separated, until he accept the position. But should he persist in his refusal, he can by no means be absolved from his separation, unless perchance the full synod shall take some ac- tion in his case. For it is possible that he may assign reasonable causes why he should be excused from accepting the prelature of- ANTIOCH IN ENC^ENIIS. A.D. 341 117 fered him, reasons which -would meet with the approbation of the synod. Balsamon explains the canon in the same sense and adds that by "ordination" here is intended ordination proper, not merely elec- tion, as some have held. Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXVI. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonic!, Gratian's Decrctum, Pars I., Dist. XCIL, C. vij. The Roman Correctors note that Dionycius's version is nearer the Greek. CANON XVIII. If any bishop ordained to a parish shall not proceed to the parish to which he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because of the rejection of the people, or for any other reason not arising from himself, let him enjoy his rank and ministry ; only he shall not disturb the affairs of the Church which he joins ; and he shall abide by whatever the full synod of the province shall determine, after judging the case. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVIII. Let a bishop ordained but not received by his city have his part of the honour, and offer the liturgy only, waiting for the synod of the prov- ince to give judgment. Balsamon. In. canon xvij. the fathers punished him who when ordained could not be persuaded to go to the church to which he was assigned. In the present canon they grant pardon to him who is willing to take the charge of the diocese, for which he was consecrated, but is prevented from doing so by the impudence of the people or else by the incursions of the infidel ; and therefore they allow him to enjoy, in whatever province he may happen to be, the honour due his rank, viz., his throne, his title, and the exercise of the episcopal office, with the knowledge and con- sent of the bishop of the diocese. He must not, however, meddle with the affairs of the church of which he is a guest, that is to say he must not teach, nor ordain, nor perform any episcopal act without the consent of the bishop of the diocese ; but he must observe quiet, until he learns what he ought to do by the determination of the full Synod. Aristenus explains that by keeping quiet is intended that he should not "use any military help or other power. " This canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dec-return, Pars I., Dist. xcii., c. iv. and v. ; in the versions of Martin Bracarensis and of Dionysius. CANON XIX. A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropoli- tan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with him ; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were better that all should meet ; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority ; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the majority shall prevail. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIX. If there be no synod and metropolitan, let there do not meet together, at least let the greater number, or let them give their assent by letter. But if after the a fair is all settled afeto are contentious, be no bishop. If on account of some difficulty all I let the vote of the majority stand firm. 118 ANTIOCII IN ENaENIIS. A.D. 341 ZONARAS. In tlie first place it must be noted that by " ordination " in this place is meant election, and the laying on of the bishop's hand. Balsamon. The method of choosing a bishop is laid down in the canons of Nice, number iv., but the present canon adds the provision that an election -which takes place in violation of the provisions of this decree is null and invalid : and that when those who are electing are divided in opinion as to whom to choose, the votes of the majority shall prevail. But when you hear this canon saying that there should be no election without the presence of the Metropolitan, you must not say that he ought to be present at an election (for this was prohibited, as is found written in other canons) but rather say that his presence here is a permission or persuasion, without which no election could take place. Compare Apostolic Canon number j. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Lccrctum, Pars I., Dist. LXV., can. iij. Gratian has chosen Isidore's version, and the Roman Correctors point out that Dionysius' is preferable. CANON XX. With a view to the good of the Church and the settlement of disputes, it is decreed to be well that synods of the bishops, (of which the metropolitan shall give notice to the provincials), should be held in every province twice a year, one after the third week of the feast of Easter, so that the synod may be ended in the fourth week of the Pen- tecost ; and the second on the ides of October which is the tenth [or fifteenth] day of the month Hyperberetseus ; so that presbyters and deacons, and all who think them- selves unjustly dealt with, may resort to these synods and obtain the judgment of the synod. But it shall be unlawful for any to hold synods by themselves without those who are entrusted with the Metropolitan Sees. NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canon XX. On account of ecclesiastical necessities the synod in every province shall meet twice a year, in the fourth week of Pentecost and on the tenth day of Hypcrbcrctceus. ScHELESTEATius (tit Van Espen). The time fixed bj* the Council of Nice be- fore Lent for the meeting of the synod was not received in the East, and the bishops kept on in the old custom of celebrating the coun- cil in the fourth week after Easter, for the time before Lent often presented the great- est difficulties for those in the far separated cities to come to the provincial metropolis. Van Espen. In this canon the decree of Nice in canon v. is renewed, but with this difference that the Nicene synod orders one synod to be held before Lent, but this synod that it should be held the fourth week after Easter. It will be remembered that the whole pe- riod of the great fifty days from Easter to "Whitsunday was known as "Pentecost." Compare with this Apostolic Canon number XXXVII. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccrctum, Pars I., Dist. XVIIL, c. xv., attributed to a council held by Pope Martin. The Boman Correctors point out that this "Pope Martin" was a bishop of Braga (Bracarcnsis) from whose collection of the decrees of the Greek synods Gratian often quotes ; the Correctors also note, " For bishops in old times were usually called Popes" (Antiquitus enim episcopi Papce dice- bantu r). CANON XXI. A bishop may not be translated from one parish to another, either intruding himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the people, or by constraint of the bishops ; but he shall remain in the Church to which he was allotted by God from the ANTIOCII IN ENC/ENILS. A.D. 341 119 beginning, and shall not be translated from it, according to the decree formerly passed on the subject. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXI. A bishop even if compelled by the people, and compelled by the bishops, must not be translated to another diocese. See the treatment of the translation of bishops in the Excursus to canon xv. of Nice. Compare this canon with Apostolical Can- on number xiv. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccretum, Pars II., Causa VII., Qusest. I., can. xxv., from Isidore's ver- sion. CANON XXII. Let not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself, nor into a dis- trict which does not belong to him, either to ordain any one, or to appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place. And if any one shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void, and he himself shall be punished by the synod. NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canon XXII. A bishop shall not go from city to city ordain- ing people, except by the will of the bishop of the city: otherwise the ordination shall be without force, and he himself exposed to censure. If we do not draw a rash conclusion, we should say that the interference of bishops in dioceses not their own, must have been very frequent in early days. This one synod en- acted two canons (number XIII. and this present canon) on the subject. The same prohibition is found in canons XIV. and XXXV. of the Apostolic canons, in canon XV. of Nice, canon ij. of I. Constantinople and in many others. On account of the similarity of this canon to canon xiii. some have sup- posed it to be spurious, the enactment of some other synod, and this was the opinion of Godefrides Hermantius (Vita S. Athana- sii, Lib. IV., cap. xij.) as well as of Alexander Natalis (Hist. Scec, IV., Dissert, xxv.). Van Espen, however, is of opinion that the two canons do not cover exactly the same ground, for he says Canon XIII. requires letters both from the Metropolitan and from the other bishops of the province, while this canon XXII. requires only the consent of the dioce- san. He concludes that Canon XIII. refers to a diocese scde vacante, when the Metropoli- tan with the other bishops took care of the widowed church, but that Canon XXII. refers to a diocese with its own bishop, whose will is all that is needed for the performance of episcopal acts by another bishop. And this distinction Schelestratius makes still more evident by his discussion of the matter in his scholion on Canon XIII. Compare with this canon of the Apostolic Canons number XXXV. also number XIV. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccretum, Pars II., Causa IX., Qusest. II., can. vij., butin a form differ- ing far from the Greek original, as the Roman Correctors point out ; and even Gratian's present text is not as he wrote it, but amended. CANON XXIII. It shall not be laAvful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint another as successor to himself ; and if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void. But the ecclesiastical law must be observed, that a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with the judgment of the bishops, who have the authority to promote the man who is worthy, after the falling asleep of him who has ceased from his labours.'' NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIII. Nothing could be more important than the A dying bishop shall not appoint another bishop, provision of this canon. It is evidently in- But when he is dead a worthy successor shall be tended to prevent nepotism in every form, provided by a synod of those who have this poiver. | and to leave the appointment to the vacant 1:30 ANTIOOH IN ENC2ENIIS. A.D. 341 see absolutely to the free choice of the Metro- politan and his synod. The history of the Church, and its present practice, is a curious commentary upon the ancient legislation, and the appointment of coadjutor bishops cum jure succcssionis, so common in later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious way of escaping the force of the canon. Van Espen, however, re- minds his readers of the most interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself narrates in his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop of Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ig- norant of the fact that it was prohibited by the canons. And how when in his old age the people wished him to have one chosen bishop to help him till his death and to suc- ceed him afterwards, he declined saying: "What was worthy of blame in my own case, shall not be a blot likewise upon my son." He did not hesitate to say who he thought most worthy to succeed him, but he added, "he shall be a presbyter, as he is, and when God so wills he shall be a bishop." Van Es- I pen adds ; "All this should be read carefully ! that thence may be learned how St. Augustine i set an example to bishops and pastors of tak- ing all the pains possible that after their j deaths true pastors, and not thieves and wolves, should enter into their flocks, who in a j short time would destroy all they had accom- plished by so much labour in so long a time." (Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xj. and cap. xxxij.) Compare Apostolic Canon number LXXVI. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Becretum, Pars II., Causa j VIII., Qu^est. I., can. III., in Dionysius's ver- I sion, and again Canon IV. in that of Martin : Bracarensis. CANON XXIV. It is right that what belongs to the Church be preserved with all care to the Church, with a good conscience and faith in God, the inspector and judge of all. And these things ought to be administered under the judgment and authority of the bishop, who is entrusted with the whole people and with the souls of the congregation. But it should be manifest what is church property, with the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons about him ; so that these may know assuredly what things belong to the Church, and that nothing be concealed from them, in order that, when the bishop may happen to depart this life, the property belonging to the Church being well known, may not be embezzled nor lost, and in order that the private property of the bishop may not be disturbed on a pretence that it is part of the ecclesiastical goods. For it is just and well-pleasing to God and man that the private property of the bishop be be- queathed to whomsoever he will, but that for the Church be kept whatever belongs to the Church ; so that neither the Church may suffer loss, nor the bishop be injured un- der pretext of the Church's interest, nor those who belong to him fall into lawsuits, and himself, after his death, be brought under reproach. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIV. All the clergy should be cognizant of ecclesias- tical matters ; so that ivhcn the bishop dies the Church mag preserve her own goods; but ichat belongs to the bishop shall be disposed of according to his directions. Van Espen. This canon shews the early discipline ac- cording to which the presbyters and deacons of the episcopal city, who were said to be "about him " or to pertain to his chair, rep- resented the senate of the church, who to- gether with the bishop administered the church affairs, and, when the see was vacant, had the charge of it. All this Martin of Braga sets forth more clearly in his version, and I have treated of the matter at large in my work on Ecclesiastical Law, Pars I., Tit. viii., cap. i., where I have shewn that the Cathe- dral chapter succeeded to this senate of pres- byters and deacons. Compare with this canon Apostolical Can- on XL. This canon in a somewhat changed form is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccrctum, Pars II., Causa XII., Qua?st. I., can. xx., and attributed to "Pope Martin's Council " ; also compare with this the ensu- ing canon, number XXI. ANTIOCH IN ENCiENIIS. A.D. 341 121 CANON XXV. Let the bishop have power over the funds of the Church, so as to dispense them with all piety and in the fear of God to all who need. And if there be occasion, let him take "what he requires for his own necessary uses and those of his brethren sojourning with him, so that they may in no way lack, according to the divine Apostle, who says, " Having food and raiment, let us therewith be content." And if he shall not be con- tent with these, but shall apply the funds to his own private uses, and not manage the revenues of the Church, or the rent of the farms, with the consent of the presbyters and deacons, but shall give the authority to his own domestics and kinsmen, or brothers, Ol- sons, so that the accounts of the Church are secretly injured, he himself shall submit to an investigation by the synod of the province. But if, on the other hand, the bishop or his presbyters shall be defamed as appropriating to themselves what belongs to the Church, (whether from lands or any other ecclesiastical resources), so that the poor are oppressed, and accusation and infamy are brought upon the account and on those who so administer it, let them also be subject to correction, the holy synod determining what is right. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXV. The bishop shall have power over ecclesiastical goods. Bid should he not be content ivith those things ivhicli are sufficient for him but shall alienate the goods and revenues of the church, without the advice of the clergy, penalties shall be exacted from him in the presence of the synod. But if he has converted to his oim uses ivhativas given for the poor, of this also let him give cm ex- planation to the synod. Compare with this canon Apostolic Canon number XLI. This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's JDecretum, Pars II., Causa XII., Qusest I., can. XXIII. and with this should be compared canon XXII. immediately preceding. At the end of this canon in Labbe's ver- sion of Dionysius we find, these words added. "And thirty bishops signed who were gath- ered together at this Synod." Isidore Mer- cator has a still fuller text, viz. : "I, Eusebius, being present subscribe to all things consti- tuted by this holy Synod. Theodore, Nicetas, Macedonius, Anatolius, Tarcodimantus, Mt\\e- reus, Narcissus, Eustachius, Hesychius, Mau- ricius, Paulus, and the rest, thirty bishops agreed and signed." Van Espen after noting that this addition is not found in the Greek, nor in Martin Bracarensis, adds " there is little probability that this clause is of the same antiquity as the canons." SYNOD OF LAOBICEA. A.D. 343-381. Elenclais. Historical Introduction. The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes. Excursus to Canon XVIII. , On the Choir Offices of the Early Church. Excursus to Canon XIX., On the Worship of the Early Church. Excursus to Canon XXII, On the Vest- ments of the Early Church. Excursus to Canon XXIV., On the Minor Orders in the Early Church. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. The Laodicea at which, the Synod met is Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, also called Lao- dicea ad Lycuni, and to be carefully distinguished from the Laodicea in Syria. This much is certain, but as to the exact date of the Synod there is much discussion. Peter de Marca fixed it at the year 365, but Pagi in his Critica on Baronius's Annals : seems to have over- thrown the arguments upon which de Marca rested, and agrees with Gothofred in placing it circa 363. At first sight it would seem that the Seventh Canon gave a clue which would set- tle the date, inasmuch as the Photinians are mentioned, and Bishop Photinus began to be prominent in the middle of the fourth century and was anathematized by the Eusebians in a synod at Antioch in 344, and by the orthodox at Milan in 345 ; and finally, after several other condemnations, he died in banishment in 366. But it is not quite certain whether the word "Photinians " is not an interpolation. Something with regard to the date may perhaps be drawn from the word TLa.K.o.Tiavris as descriptive of Phrygia, for it is probable that this division was not yet made at the time of the Sardican Council in 343. Hefele concludes that " Under such circumstances, it is best, with Remi Ceillier, Tillemont, and others, to place the meeting of the synod of Laodicea generally somewhere between the years 343 and 381, i.e., between the Sardican and the Second Ecumenical Council — and to give up the at- tempt to discover a more exact date." 2 But since the traditional position of the canons of this Council is after those of Antioch and immediately before those of First Constantinople, I have followed this order. Such is their position in " very many old collections of the Councils which have had their origin since the sixth or even in the fifth century," says Hefele. It is true that Matthew Blastares places these canons after those of Sardica, but the Quinisext Synod in its Second Canon and Pope Leo IV., according to the Corpus Juris Canonici, 3 give them the position which they hold in this volume. 1 Pagi : Crit. in Anna!. Baron., a.d. 314, n. xsv. Baronius's view that this synod was held before that of Nice because the book of Judith is not mentioned among the books of the O. T., and because its canons are sometimes identical with those or Nice, is universally rejected. 2 Hefele : Hist, of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 298. 3 Gratian : Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xx,, c. 1. It is from Leo's letter to the British Bishops. THE CANONS OF THE SYNOD HELD IN THE CITY OF LAODICEA, IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA, IN WHICH MANY BLESSED FATHERS FROM DIVERS PROVINCES OF ASIA WERE GATHERED TOGETHER. 1 The holy synod which assembled at Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, from divers regions of Asia ; set forth the ecclesiastical definitions which are hereunder annexed. NOTE. This brief preface, by some ancient col lector, is found in the printed editions of Amerbachian manuscript Zonaras and of Balsamon and also in the CANON I. It is right, according to the ecclesiastical Canon, that the Communion should by indulgence be given to those who have freely and lawfully joined in second marriages, not having previously made a secret marriage ; after a short space, which is to be spent by them in prayer and fasting. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon I. A digamist not secretly married, after devot- ing himself for a short time to praying shall be held blameless afterwards. Van Espen. Many synods imposed a penance upon digamists, although the Church never con- demned second marriages. On this whole subject of second marriages see notes on Canon VIII. of Nice, on Canons III. and VII. of Neocaesarea, and on Canon XIX. of Ancyra. In treating of this canon Hefele does little but follow Van Espen, who accepts Bishop Beveridge's conclusions in opposition to Justellus and refers to him, as follows, "See this observation of Justellus' refuted more at length by William Beveridge in his notes on this canon," and Bj). Beve- ridge adopted and defended the exposition of the Greek commentators, viz. : there is some fault and some punishment, they are to be held back from communion for "a short space," but after that, it is according to the law of the Church that they should be admitted to communion. The phrase "not having previously made a secret marriage " means that there must not have been intercourse with the woman before the second marriage was " lawfully " contracted, for if so the pun- ishment would have been for fornication, and neither light nor for "a short space." The person referred to in the canon is a real diga- mist and not a bigamist, this is proved by the word " lawfully " which could not be used of the second marriage of a man who already bad a living wife. CANON II. They who have sinned in divers particulars, if they have persevered in the prayer of confession and penance, and are wholly converted from their faults, shall be received again to communion, through the mercy and goodness of God, after a time of penance appointed to them, in proportion to the nature of their offence. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon II. | the penance suitable to them, shall be favourably Those who have fallen into various faults and. received. have confessed them with compunction, and done \ 1 Such is the caption in the Parisian edition of Zonaras ; so | number of canons is 60, and substituting for "Pacatiana' too reads the Amerbachian codex; adding, however, that the j "Capatiana," a not unusual form of the same word. 120 SYNOD OP LAODIOEA. A.D. 343-381 Hefele. Van Espen and others were of opinion that this canon treated only of those who had themselves been g'uilty of various criminal acts, and it has been asked whether any one guilty not only of one gross sin, but of several of various kinds, might also be again received into communion. It seems. to me, however, that this canon with the words, "those who have sinned in divers particu- lars," simply means that " sinners of various kinds shall be treated exactly in proportion to the extent of their fall." That the ques- tion is not necessarily of different sins com- mitted by the same person appears from the words, "in proportion to the nature of their offence," as the singular, not the plural, is here used. But Van Espen, with Aubespine, is clearly right in not referring the words, "if they persevere in confession and repentance," to sacramental confession, to which the expres- sion " persevere " would not be well suited. Here is evidently meant the oft-repeated con- trite confession before God and the congre- gation in prayer of sins committed, which preceded sacramental confession and absolu- tion. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Ganonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXVI., Quest, vii., can. iv. CANON III. He who has been recently baptized ought not to be promoted to the sacerdotal order. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon III. A ncophite is not ordainabJc. light, Nectarius, just separated from the flock of the catechumens, when he had washed away t the sins of his life in the divine font, now This rule is laid down in the Second Nicene j pure himself, he put on the most pure dig- canon. Balsamon also compares Apostolic n ity of the episcopate, and at the same time Canon lxxx, Balsamon. Notwithstanding this provision, that great became bishop of the Imperial City, and president of the Second Holy Ecumenical Synod. CANON IV. They who are of the sacerdotal order ought not to lend and receive usury, nor what is called hemiolire. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon IV. A priest is not to receive usury nor hcmiolice. The same rule is laid down in the seven- teenth Canon of Nice. For a treatment of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore have num- bered this canon v., and our fifth they have as iv. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris the whole subject of usury see excursus to j Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. that canon. I XLVL, can. ix. CANON V. Ordinations are not to be held in the presence of hearers. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon V. Ordinations are not to be performed in tlic presence of hearers. Balsamon. This canon calls elections "laying on of hands," and says that since in elections un- SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 127 worthy things are often said with regard to those who are elected, therefore they should not take place in the presence of any that might happen to come to hear. Zonaras also agrees that election is here intended, but Aristenus dissents and makes the reference to called, as follows : ordinations properly so- Aeistenus. The prayers of ordination are not to be said out loud so that they may be heard by the people. CANON VI. It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VI. The holy place is forbidden to heretics. Aeistenus. Heretics are not to be permitted to enter the house of God, and yet Basil the Great, before this canon was set forth, admitted Valens to the perfecting of the faithful [i.e., to the witnessing the celebration of the Divine Mysteries]. Van Espen. A heretic who pertinaciously rejects the doctrine of the Church is rightly not allowed to enter the house of God, in which his doc- trine is set forth, so long as he continues in his heresy. For this reason when Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria, was consulted con- cerning the admission of heretics to church, answered in the IXth Canon of his Canonical Epistle, that unless they were ready to promise to do penance and to abandon their heresy, they could in no way be admitted to the prayers of the faithful. Contrast with this Canon lxxxiv., of the so- called IVth Council of Carthage, a,d. 398, CANON VII. PERSONS converted from heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quarto- decimans, whether they were catechumens or communicants among them, shall not be received until they shall have anathematized every heresy, and particularly that in which they were held ; and afterwards those who among them were called communicants, hav- ing thoroughly learned the symbols of the faith, and having been anointed with the holy chrism, shall so communicate in the holy Mysteries. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VII. Novatians and Photinians, and Quartodeci- mans, unless they anathemalMse their own and other heresies, are not to be received. When they have been anointed, after their abjuration, let them communicate. I have allowed the word " Photinians " to stand in the text although whether it is not an interpolation is by no means certain. They certainly were heretical on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore differed from the other dissidents mentioned in the canon, all of whom were orthodox on this matter. It is also worthy of note that the word is not found in Ferrandus's Condensation (Breriatio Cano- ninn, n. 177) nor in Isidore's version. More- over there is a Latin codex in Lucca, and also one in Paris (as is noted by Mansi, v. 585 ; ij. 591) in which it is lacking. It was rejected by Baronius, Binius, and Bemi Ceillier. The word " Catechumens " is wanting in many Greek MSS. but found in Balsamon, moreover, Dionysius and Isidore had it in their texts. This canon possesses a great interest and value to the student from a different point of view. Its provisions, both doctrinal and dis- ciplinary, are in contrariety with the provis- ions of the council held at Carthage in the time of St. Cyprian, and yet both these canons, contradictory as they are, are accepted by the Council in Trullo and are given such ecumeni- cal authority as canons on discipline ever can possess, by the Seventh Ecumenical. This is not 128 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 the only matter in which the various conciliar actions adopted and ratified do not agree inter se, and from this consideration it would seem evident that it was not intended that to each particular of each canon of each local synod adopted, the express sanction of the Universal Church was given, but that they were received in block as legislation well calculated for the good of the Church. And that this must have been the understanding at the time is evinced by the fact that while the Trullan canons con- demned a number of "Western customs and usages, as I shall have occasion to point out in its proper place, no objection was made by the Roman legates to the canon of the Seventh Ecumenical which received them as authori- tative. CANON VIII. Persons converted from the heresy of those who are called Phrygians, even should they be among those reputed by them as clergymen, and even should they be called the very chiefest, are with all care to be both instructed and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the Church, NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VIII. When Phrygians return they arc to he bap- tised aneiv, even if among them they were reckoned clergymen. Hefele. This synod here declares the baptism of the Montanists invalid, while in the preceding canon it recognised as valid the baptism of the Novatians and Quartodecimans. From this, it would appear that the Montanists were suspected of heresy with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. Some other authori- ties of the ancient Church, however, judged differently, and for a long time it was a ques- tion in the Church whether to consider the baptism of the Montanists valid or not. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria was in favour of its validity : but this Synod and the Second General Council rejected it as invalid, not to mention the Synod of Iconium (235), which declared all heretical baptism invalid. This uncertainty of the ancient Church is ac- counted for thus : (a) On one side the Monta- nists, and especially Tertullian, asserted that they held the same faith and sacraments, especially the same baptism (eadem lavacri sacramenta) as the Catholics. St. Epiphanius concurred in this, and testified that the Mon- tanists taught the same regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as did the Catholic Church, (b) Other Fathers, how- ever, thought less favourably of them, and for this reason, that the Montanists often ex- pressed themselves so ambiguously, that they might, nay, must be said completely to iden- tify the Holy Ghost with Montanus. Thus Tertullian in quoting expressions of Monta- nus, actually says: "the Paraclete speaks" ; and therefore Firmilian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, and other Fathers, did in fact, reproach the Montanists with this identi- fication, and consequently held their baptism to be invalid, (c) Basil the Great goes to the greatest length in this direction in maintain- ing that the Montanists had baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of Mon- tanus and Priscilla. But it is very probable, as Tillemont conjectured, that Basil only founded these strange stories of their manner of baptizing upon his assumption that they identified Montanus with the Hoby Ghost ; and, as Baronius maintains, it is equally probable that the Montanists did not alter the form of baptism. But, even admitting all this, their ambiguous expressions concerning Montanus and the Holy Ghost would alone have rendered it advisable to declare their baptism invalid, (d) Besides this, a consid- erable number of Montanists, namely, the school of iEschines, fell into Sabellianism, and thus their baptism was decidedly invalid. (Vide Article in Wetzer and Welte Kirehcn- lexicon s. v. Montanus ; by myself [i. e. Hefele] ). In conclusion, it must be observed that Balsamon and Zonaras rightly understood the words in our text, " even though they be called the very chiefest," "though they be held in the highest esteem," to refer to the most distinguished clergy and teachers of the Montanists. SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 129 CANON IX. The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service ; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time ; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon IX. Whoso prayeth in the cemeteries and martyries of heretics is to be excommunicated. Zonabas. By the word " service " (9epaireia<;) in this canon is to be understood the healing of sick- ness. The canon wishes that the faithful should under no pretence betake themselves to the prayers of heretical pseudo-martyrs nor pay them honour in the hope of obtaining the healing of sickness or the cure of their various temptations. And if any do so, they are to be cut off, that is for a time forbidden communion (and this refers to the faithful who are only laymen), but when they have done penance and made confession of their fault, the canon orders that they are to be re- ceived back again. Balsamon. As canon vi. forbids heretics to enter the house of God, so this canon forbids the faithful to go to the cemeteries of heretics, which are called by them " Martyries." . . . For in the days of the persecution, certain of the heretics, calling themselves Christians, suffered even to death, and hence those who shared their opinions called them "martyrs." Van Espen. As Catholics had their martyrs, so too had the heretics, and especially the Montanists or Phrygians, who greatly boasted of them. Apollinaris writes of these as may be seen in Eusebius (H. E., Lib. v., cap. xvj.) The places or cemeteries in which rested the bodies of those they boasted of as martyrs, they styled "Martyries" (martyria) as similar places among Catholics were wont to be called by the same name, from the bones of the mar- tyrs that rested there. From the Greek text, as also from Isidore's version it is clear that this canon refers to all the faithful generally, and that " the members of the Church " (Lat. Ecclesiastici, the word Dionysius uses) must be taken in this wide signification. tics CANON X. The members of the Church shall not indiscriminately marry their children to here- NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon X. Thou shalt not marry a heretic. Fuchs. (Bib. der Eirchenvers., pt. ii., p. 324) " Indiscriminately " means not that they might be given in marriage to some heretics and not to others ; but that it should not be considered a matter of indifference whether they were married to heretics or orthodox. Zonaras and Balsamon, led astray by the similar canon enacted at Chalcedon (number xiv.), suppose this restriction only to apply to the children of the clergy, but Van Espen has shewn that the rule is of general application, He adds, however, the following : Van Espen. Since by the custom of the Greeks, ecclesi- astics are allowed to have wives, there is no doubt that the marriage of their children with heretics would be indecent in a very special degree, although there are many things which go to shew that marriage with heretics was universally deemed a thing to be avoided by Catholics, and was rightly forbidden. CANON XL Peesbytides, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church. VOL. XIV. K 130 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XL Widows called presidents shall not oc appoint- ed in churches. Balsamon. In old days certain venerable women (7rpeo-- fivT&es) sat in Catholic churches, and took care that the other women kept good and modest order. But from their habit of using improperly that which was proper, either through their arrogancy or through their base self-seeking, scandal arose. Therefore the Fathers prohibited the existence in the Church thereafter of any more such women as are called presbytides or presidents. And that no one may object that in the monaster- ies of women one woman must preside over the rest, it should be remembered that the renunciation which they make of themselves to God and the tonsure brings it to pass that they are thought of as one body though many ; and all things which are theirs, relate only to the salvation of the soul. But for a woman to teach in a Catholic Church, where a multitude of men is gathered together, and women of different opinions, is, in the highest degree, indecorous and pernicious. Hefele. It is doubtful what was here intended, and this canon has received very different inter- pretations. In the first place, what is the meaning of the words 7rpeo-/3uTiSes and -n-poKa- Srjjx^vai (" presbytides " and female presi- dents) ? I think the first light is thrown on the subject by Epipkanius, who in his treatise against the Collyridians (Hcer., lxxix. 4) says that " women had never been allowed to offer sacrifice, as the Collyridians presumed to do, but were only allowed to minister. There- fore there were only deaconesses in the Church, and even if the oldest among them were called ' presbytides,' this term must be clearly distinguished from presbyteresses. The latter would mean priestesses (UpiWas), but 'presbytides ' only designated their age, as seniors." According to this, the canon ap- pears to treat of the superior deaconesses who were the overseers (vpoKa&i]fievai) of the other deaconesses ; and the further words of the text may then probably mean that in future no more such superior deaconesses or eldresses were to be appointed, probably be- cause they had often outstepped their author- ity. Neander, Fuchs, and others, however, think it more probable that the terms in question are in this canon to be taken as simply mean- ing deaconesses, for even in the church they had been wont to preside over the female por- tion of the congregation (whence their name of " presidents ") ; and, according to St. Paul's rule, only widows over sixty years of age were to be chosen for this office (hence called " presbytides "). We may add, that this direction of the apostle was not very strictly adhered to subsequently, but still it was repeatedly enjoined that only elder per- sons should be chosen as deaconesses. Thus, for instance, the Council of Chalcedon, in its fifteenth canon, required that deaconesses should be at least forty years of age, while the Emperor Theodosius even prescribed the age of sixty. Supposing now that this canon simply treats of deaconesses, a fresh doubt arises as to how the last words — " they are not to be appointed in the Church " are to be under- stood. For it may mean that " from hence- forth no more deaconesses shall be appoint- ed ; " or, that " in future they shall no more be solemnly ordained in the church." The first interpretation would, however, contra- dict the fact that the Greek Church had dea- conesses long after the Synod of Laodicea. For instance, in 692 the Synod in Truth (Can. xiv.) ordered that " no one under forty years of age should be ordained deaconess." Con- sequently the second interpretation, " they ! shall not be solemnly ordained in the church," j seems a better one, and Neander decidedly prefers it. It is certainly true that several | later synods distinctly forbade the old prac- j tice of conferring a sort of ordination upon : deaconesses, as, for instance, the first Synod i of Orange (Arausicanum I. of 441, Can. xxvj.) in the words — diaconce omnimodis non ordi- ' nandce ; also the Synod at Epaon in 517 j (Can. xxj.), and the second Synod at Orleans j in 533 (Can. xviij.) ; but in the Greek Church I at least, an ordination, a xeiporovetcr^ai, took | place as late as the Council in Trullo (Can. 1 xiv.). But this Canon of Laodicea does not i speak of solemn dedication, and certainly not of ordination, but only of Ka&'oraon&u. These reasons induce us to return to the first inter- pretation of this canon, and to understand it as forbidding from that time forward the ap- pointment of any more chief deaconesses or "presbytides." Zonaras and Balsamon give } T et another ex- planation. In their opinion, these " presby- tides " were not chief deaconesses, but aged I women in general {ex populo), to whom was SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 131 given the supervision of the females, in church. The Synod of Laodicea, however, did away with this arrangement, probably be- cause they had misused their office for pur- poses of pride, or money-making, bribery, etc. Compare with the foregoing the Excursus on Deaconesses, appended to Canon XIX. of Nice. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Ccmonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XXXIL, c. xix., in Isidore's version ; but Van Espen remarks that the Roman Correctors have pointed out that it departs widely from the Greek original. The Roman Correctors further say " The note of Balsamon on this point should be seen ; " and with this inter- pretation Morinus also agrees in his work on Holy Orders {Be Ordinationibus, Pars III., Exercit. x., cap. iij., n. 3), CANON XII. Bishops are to be appointed to the ecclesiastical government by the judgment of the metropolitans and neighbouring bishops, after having been long proved both in the foundation of their faith and in the conversation of an honest life. NOTE. Ancient Epitome of Canon XII. Wlwever is most approved in faith and life and most learned, he is ft to be chosen bishop. 1 The first part of this canon is in con- formity with the provision in the IV, canon of Nice. CANON XIII. The election of those who are to be appointed to the priesthood is not to be com- mitted to the multitude. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIII. Wlioso is chosen by seculars is ineligible. Balsamon. From this canon it is evident that in an- cient times not only bishops but also priests were voted for by the multitude of the peo- ple. This is here forbidden. Aeistenus. Bishops are elected by metropolitans and other bishops. If anyone in this manner shall not have been promoted to the Episco- pate, but shall have been chosen by the multi- tude, he is not to be admitted nor elected. [It is clear from this that by " the Priest- hood " Aristenus understands the episcopate, and I think rightly.] Van Espen. The word in the Greek to which "multi- tude " corresponds (oxXos) properly signifies a tumult. 1 What the fathers intend to forbid are tumultuous elections, that is, that no atten- tion is to be paid to riotous demonstrations on the part of the people, when with acclama- tions they are demanding the ordination of anyone, with an appearance of sedition. Such a state of affairs St. Augustine admirably describes in his Epistola ad Albinam (Epist. cxxvi., Tom. II., col. 548, Ed. Gaume). And it is manifest that by this canon the people were not excluded from all share in the election of bishops and priests from what St. Gregory Nazianzen says, in Epistola ad Ccesarienses, with regard to the election of St. Basil. From this what could be more evi- dent than that after this canon was put out the people in the East still had their part in the election of a bishop ? This also is clear from Justinian's "Novels" (Novellce, cxxiij., c.j., and cxxxvij., c. ij.) This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. lxiii., can. vj., but in proof of the proposition that laymen were hereby forbidden to have any share in elections. Van Espen notes that Isidore's version favours Gratian's misunder- standing, and says that "no doubt that this version did much to exclude the people from the election of bishops." 1 More accurately " a tumultuous and riotous mob " vide Lidclell and Scott. ; K 2 132 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 CANON XIY. The holy tilings are not to be sent into other dioceses at the feast of Easter by way of eulogize. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV. It is not right to send the holy gifts to another parish. Hefele. It was a custom in the ancient Church, not indeed to consecrate, but to bless such of the several breads of the same form laid on the altar as were not needed for the com- munion, and to employ them, partly for the maintenance of the clergy, and partly for dis- tributing to those of the faithful who did not communicate at the Mass. The breads thus blessed were called eulogice. Another very ancient custom was, that bishops as a sign of Church fellowship, should send the conse- crated bread to one another. That the Roman Popes of the first and second centuries did so, Iren?eus testifies in his letter to Pope Victor in Eusebius. In course of time, however, instead of the consecrated bread, only bread which had been blessed, or eulogice, were sent abroad. For instance, Paulinus and Augus- tine sent one another these eulogice. But at Easter the older custom still prevailed ; and to invest the matter with more solemnity, instead of the eidogice, the consecrated bread, i.e., the Eucharist, was sent out. The Synod of Laodicea forbids this, probably out of reverence to the holy Sacrament. Binterim (Denlciviirclegkciten, vol. IV., P. iij., p. 535.) gives another explanation. He starts from the fact that, with the Greeks as well as the Latins, the wafer intended for commun- ion is generally called sancta or ayia even before the consecration. This is not only perfectly true, but a well-known fact ; only it must not be forgotten that these wafers or oblations were only called sancta by anticipa- tion, and because of the sanctificatio to which they were destined. Binterim then states that by ayia in the canon is to be understood not the breads already consecrated, but those still unconsecrated. He further conjectures that these unconsecrated breads were often sent about instead of the eulogice, and that the Synod of Laodicea had forbidden this, not during the whole year, but only at Easter. He cannot, however, give any reason, and his statement is the more doubtful, as he cannot prove that these unconsecrated communion breads really used before to be sent about as eulogice. In connection with this, however, he adds another hypothesis. It is known that the Greeks only consecrate a square piece of the little loaf intended for communion, which is first cut out with the so-called holy spear. The remainder of the small loaf is divided into little pieces, which remain on or near the altar during Mass, after which they are dis- tributed to the non-communicants. These remains of the small loaf intended for conse- cration are called avTiSwpa. and Binterim's second conjecture is, that these avriSvpa might perhaps have been sent as eidogice and may be the iiyia of this canon. But he is unable to prove that these dvTi'Scopa were sent about, and is, moreover, obliged to confess that they are nowhere called eulogice, while this canon certainly speaks of eulogice. To this must be added that, as with regard to the unconsecrated wafer, so we see no suffi- cient cause why the Synod should have for- bidden these uvnSwpa being sent. CANON XV. No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the anibo and sing from a book. Ancient Epitome of Canon XV, NOTES. No one should ascend the ambon unless he is tonsured. Hefele. The only question [presented by this canon] is whether this synod forbade the laity to take any part in the Church music, as Binius and others have understood the words of the text, or whether it only intended to forbid those who were not cantors taking the lead. Van Espen and Neander in particular were in favour of the latter meaning, pointing to the fact that certainly in the Greek Church after the Synod of Laodicea the people were accus- tomed to join in the singing, as Chrysostom and Basil the Great sufficiently testify. Bing- ham propounded a peculiar opinion, namely, SYNOD OP LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 133 that this Synod did indeed forbid the laity to sing in the church, or even to join in the singing, but this only temporarily, for certain reasons. I have no doubt, however, that Van Espen and Neander take the truer view. CANON XVI. The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XVI. The Gospel, the Epistle [dirdo-roAos] and the other Scriptures are to be read on the Sabbath. Balsamon. Before the arrangement of the Ecclesiastical Psalmody was settled, neither the Gospel nor the other Scriptures were accustomed to be read on the Sabbath. But out of regard to the canons which forbade fasting or kneeling on the Sabbath, there were no services, so that there might be as much feasting as possible. This the fathers prohibit, and decree that on the Sabbath the whole ecclesiastical office shall be said. Neander (Kirchc)igesch., 2d ed., vol. iij., p. 565 et scq.) suggests in addition to the inter- pretation just given another, viz.: that it was the custom in many parts of the ancient Church to keep every Saturday as a feast in commemoration of the Creation. Neander also suggests that possibly some Judaizers read on the Sabbath only the Old Testament ; he, however, himself remarks that in this case cwyye'Ata and kripwv ypa^ihv would require the article. Van Espen. Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept exactly as the Lord's day except so far as the cessation of work was concerned, wherefore the Council wishes that, as on Sundays, after the other lessons there should follow the Gospel. For it is evident that by the intention of the Church the whole Divine Office was de- signed for the edification and instruction of the people, and especially was this the case on feast days, when the people were apt to be present in large numbers. Here we may note the origin of our present [Western] discipline, by which on Sundays and feast days the Gospel is wont to be read with the other Scriptures in the canonical hours, while such is not the case on ferial days, or in the order for ferias and " simples." 1 CANON XVII. The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson shall intervene after every psalm. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XVII. In time of service lessons shall be interspersed with the Psalms. Aristenus. It was well to separate the Psalms by les- sons when the congregation was gathered in church, and not to keep them continuously singing unbroken psalmody, lest those who had assembled might become careless through weariness. Zonae as. This was an ancient custom which has been laid aside since the new order of ecclesiastical matters has been instituted. 3 Van Espen. Here it may be remarked we find the real reason why in our present rite, the lections, verses, etc., of the nocturns are placed be- tween the Psalms, so as to repel weariness. 1 "Simples" (simplici) are distinguished from "doubles" (dw- plici) in not having their antiphons said double but only once. 2 1 do not understand this note, as to-day in the Divine Office of the Greek Church the Psalms are still divided by Lessons. Vide The Horologion (up6Koyi.ov to txiya.) and an English transla- tion by G. V. Shann, entitled Euchology, A Manual of Prayers of the Holy Orthodox Church. 134 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 CANON XVIII. The same service of prayers is to be said always botli at nones and at vespers. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XVIII. The same prayers shall be said at nones and vespers, Hefele. Some feasts ended at the ninth hour, others only in the evening, and both alike with prayer. The Synod here wills that in both cases the same prayers should be used. Thus does Van Espen explain the words of the text, and I think rightly. But the Greek commen- tator understands the Synod to order that the same prayers should be used in all places, thus excluding all individual caprice. Ac- cording to this, the rule of conformity would refer to places ; while, according to Van Espen, the nones and vespers were to be the same. If, however, this interpretation were correct, the Synod would not have only spoken of the prayers at nones and vespers, but would have said in general, " all dioceses shall use the same form of prayer." EXCURSUS ON THE CHOIR OFFICES OF THE EARLY CHURCH. Nothing is more marked in the lives of the early followers of Christ than the abiding sense which they had of the Divine Presence. Prayer was not to them an occasional exercise but an unceasing practice. If then the Psalmist sang in the old dispensation "Seven times a day do I praise thee " (Ps. cxix. 164), we may be quite certain that the Christians would never fall behind the Jewish example. We know that among the Jews there were the " Hours of Prayer," and nothing would be, d priori, more likely than that with new and deeper sig- nificance these should pass over into the Christian Church. I need not pause here to re- mind the reader of the observance of " the hour of prayer " which is mentioned in the New Testament, and shall pass on to my more immediate subject. Most liturgiologists have been agreed that the " Choir Offices " of the Christian Church, that is to say the recitation of the Psalms of David, with lessons from other parts of Holy Scripture and collects, 1 was an actual continuation of the Jewish worship, the melodies even of the Psalms being carried over and modified through the ages into the plain song of to- day. For this view of the Jewish origin of the Canonical Hours there is so much to be said that one hesitates to accept a rival theory, recently set forth with much skill and learning, by a French priest, who had the inestimable happiness of sitting at the feet of De Rossi. M. Pierre Battifol 2 is of opinion that the Canonical Hours in no way come from the Jewish Hours of Prayer but are the outgroAvth of the Saturday Vigil service, which was wholly of Christian origin, and which he tells us was divided into three parts, j., the evening service, or lucernarhtm, which was the service of Vespers ; ij., the midnight service, the origin of the Noc- turns or Mattins ; iij., the service at daybreak, the origin of Lauds. Soon vigils were kept for all the martyr commemorations ; and by the time of Tertullian, if not before, Wednes- days and Fridays had their vigils. With the growth of monasticism they became daily. This Mr. Battifol thinks was introduced into Antioch about a.d. 350, and soon spread all over the East. The " little hours," that is Terce, Sext, and None, he thinks were monastic in origin and that Prime and Compline were transferred from the dormitory to the church, just as the martyrology was ti'ansferred from the refectory. Such is the new theory, which, even if rejected, at least is valuable in drawing attention to the great importance of the vigil-service in the Early Church, an importance still attach- ing to it in Russia on the night of Easter Even. 1 Vide Tertulliau. 2 Histoire du Breviaire Romain. Paris. 1893. Ail English trans- lation has since (1893) appeared by the Rev. A. M. Y. which is not in principle changed so far as this discussion is con- cerned. Bayley, SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 135 Of the twilight service we have a most exquisite remains in the hymn to be sung at the light- ing of the lamps. This is one of the few Psalmi idiotici which has survived the condemna- tion of such compositions by the early councils, in fact the only two others are the Gloria in Excelsis and the Te Deum. The hymn at the lighting of the lamps is as follows: " gladsome light Of the Father Immortal, And of the celestial Sacred and blessed Jesus, our Saviour ! '•' Now to the sunset Again hast thou brought us ; And seeing the evening Twilight, we bless thee, Praise thee, adore thee ! u Father omnipotent ! Son, the Life-giver ! Spirit, the Comforter ! Worthy at all times Of worship and wonder ! " ' Dr. Battifol's new theory was promptly attacked by P. Suibbert Baumer, a learned Ger- man Benedictine who had already written several magazine articles on the subject before Battifol's book had appeared. The title of Baumer' s book is Geschichte des Breviers, Vcrsuch e'mer quellenmassigen Darstcl- lung dcr EntwicMung des cdtltirchen und des rdmesclicn Officiumsbis aufunscre Tagc. (Freiburg in Briesgau, 1895.) The following a may be taken as a fair resume of the position taken in this work and most ably defended, a position which (if I may be allowed to express an opinion) is more likely to prevail as being most in accordance with the previous researches of the learned. "The early Christians separated from the Synagogues about a.d. 65; that is, about the same time as the first Epistle to Timothy was written, and at this moment of separation from the Synagogue the Apostles had already established, besides the liturgy, at least one, proba- bly two, canonical hours of prayer, Mattins and Evensong, Besides what we should call sermons, the service of these hours was made up of psalms, readings from Holy Scripture, and extempore prayers. A few pages on (p. 42) Baumer allows that even if this service had been daily in Jerusalem in the Apostles' times, yet it had become limited to Sundays in the sub-Apostolic times, when persecution would not allow the Apostolic custom of daily morn- ing and evening public prayer. Yet the practice of private prayer at the third, sixth, and ninth hours continued, based upon an Apostolic tradition ; and thus, when the tyranny of persecution was overpast, the idea of public prayer at these hours was saved and the prac- tice carried on." The student should by no means omit to read Dom Prosper Gueranger's Institutions Litur- giques, which while written in a bitter and most partisan spirit, is yet a work of the most pro- found learning. Above all anyone professing any familiarity with the literature on the subject must have mastered Cardinal Bona's invaluable Be Divina Psahnodia, a mine of wis- dom and a wonder of research. 1 Longfellow. The Golden Legend II. Liddon's remarks upon this hymn are well worth the reader's attention, Bampton Lectures, Lect. VII., where Keble's translation will be found. 3 Taken from the Church Quarterly Review, 1898. 136 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 CANON XIX. After the sermons of the Bishops, the prayer for the catechumens is to be made first by itself ; and after the catechumens have gone out, the prayer for those who are under penance ; and, after these have passed under the hand [of the Bishop] and de- parted, there should then be offered the three prayers of the faithful, the first to be said entirely in silence, the second and third aloud, and then the [kiss of] peace is to be given. And, after the presbyters have given the [kiss of] peace to the Bishop, then the laity are to give it [to one another], and so the Holy Oblation is to be completed. And it is lawful to the priesthood alone to go to the Altar and [there] communicate. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XIX. After the {trayers of the catechumens shall be said those of the Penitents, and afterwards those of the faithful. And after the peace, or em- brace, has been given, the offering shall be made. Only priests shall enter the sanctuary and make there their communion . The Greek commentators throw but little if any light upon this canon. A question has been raised as to who said the prayers men- tioned. Van Espen, following Isidore's trans- lation " they also pray who are doing pen- ance," thinks the prayer of the penitents, said by themselves, is intended, and not the prayer said by the Bishop. But Hefele, following Dionysius's version — "the prayers over the catechumens," "over those who are doing penance " — thinks that the liturgical prayers are intended, which after the sermon were wont to be said " over " the different classes. Dionysius does not say "over" the faithful, but describes them as " the prayers of the faithful," which Hefele thinks means that the faithful joined in reciting them. EXCURSUS ON THE WORSHIP OF THE EARLY CHURCH. (Percival, H. R. : Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia, Vol. V., s. v. Liturgies.) St. Paul is by some learned writers supposed to have quoted in several places the already existing liturgy, especially in I. Cor. ij. 9., 1 and there can be no doubt that the Lord's prayer was used and certain other formulas which are referred to by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles 2 as " the Apostles' prayers." How early these forms were committed to writing has been much disputed among the learned, and it would be rash to attempt to rule this question. Pierre Le Brun 3 presents most strongly the denial of their having been written during the first three centuries, and Probst 4 argues against this opinion. While it does not seem possible to prove that before the fourth century the liturgical books were written out in full, owing no doubt to the influence of the disciplina arcani, it seems to be true that much earlier than this there was a definite and fixed order in the celebration of divine worship and in the administration of the sacraments. The famous passage in St. Justin Martyr 5 seems to point to the existence of such a form in his day, shewing how even then the service for the Holy Eucharist began with the Epistle and Gospel. St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom bear witness to the same thing. 6 Within, comparatively speaking, a few years, a good deal of information with regard to the worship of the early Church has been given us by the discovery of the AtSa^, and of the fragments the Germans describe as the K. O., and by the publication of M. Gamurrini's transcript of the Pcregrinatio Sihiee. 1 1 J. M. Neale. Essays on Liturgiology. 2 Actsij. 42. 3 Pierre Le Brim. Explic. Tom. II., Diss, j, p. n., et seqq. 4 Probst. Liturgie derdrei ersten Ckristichen Jahrhunderten. b Apolog. Cap. LXVTI. " I venture to draw the reader's attention to the rest of this arti- cle as containing information not readily found elsewhere. ' The MS. from which this was printed was found in a library in Arezzo. Silvia was a lady of rank, living in the times of Theo- dosius, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Places from Meridian Gaul. To us the chief interest of her book Ues in the account she gives of the services. The following is the title, ,S\ Silvias Aquittanoz pcregrinatio ad loca Sancta. It will be found in the Biblioteca deW Accademia storica giuridica. Tom. SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 137 From all these it is thought that liturgical information of the greatest value can be obtained. Moreover the first two are thought to throw much light upon the age and con- struction of the Apostolical Constitutions. "Without in any way committing myself to the views I now proceed to quote, I lay them before the reader as the results of the most ad- vanced criticism in the matter. (Duchesne. Origines du Quite Chretien, p. 54 et seqq.) All known liturgies may be reduced to four principal types — the Syrian, the Alexandrian, the Roman, and the Gallican. In the fourth century there certainly existed these four types at the least, for the Syrian had already given rise to several sub-types which were clearly marked. The most ancient documents of the Syrian Liturgy are : 1. The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, delivered about the year 347. 2. The Apostolic Constitutions (Bk. II., 57, and Bk. VIII., 5-15). 3. The homilies of St. John Chrysostom. St. John Chrysostom often quotes lines of thought and even prayers taken from the lit- urgy. Bingham * was the first to have the idea of gathering together and putting in order these scattered references. This work has been recently taken in hand afresh by Mr. Ham- mond. 2 From this one can find much interesting corroborative evidence, but the orator does not give anywhere a systematic description of the liturgy, in the order of its rites and prayers. The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril are really a commentary upon the ceremonies of the mass, made to the neophytes after their initiation. The preacher does not treat of the missa catechumenorum because his hearers had so long been familiar with it ; he presupposes the bread and wine to have been brought to and placed upon the altar, and begins at the moment when the bishop prepares himself to celebrate the Holy Mysteries by washing his hands. In the Apostolic Constitutions a distinction must be drawn between Book II. and Book VIII. The first is very sketchy ; it only contains a description of the rites without the words used, the other gives at length all the formulas of the prayers, but only from the end of the Gospel. We know now that the Apostolical Constitutions in the present state of the Greek text represent a melting down and fusing together of two analogous books — the Didaskalc of the Apostles, of which only a Syriac version is extant ; and the Didake of the Apostles, recently discovered by the metropolitan, Philotheus Bryennius. The first of these two books has served as a basis for the first six books of the Apostolical Constitutions. The second, much spread out, has become the seventh book of the same collection. The eighth book is more homogeneous. It must have been added to the seven others by the author of the recension of the Didaskale and of the DidaJcc. This author is the same as he who made the interpola- tions in the seven authentic letters of St. Ignatius, and added to them six others of his own manufacture. He lived at Antioch in Syria, or else in the ecclesiastical region of which that city was the centre. He wrote about the middle of the fourth century, at the very high tide of the Subordination theology, which finds expression more than once in his different com- positions. He is the author of the description of the liturgy, which is found in Book II. ; in fact, that whole passage is lacking in the Syriac DidasJccde. Was it also he who composed the liturgy of the VIHth book ? This is open to doubt, for there are certain differences between this liturgy and that of the lid book. 3 I shall now describe the religious service such as these documents suppose, noting, where necessary, their divergences. IV. Rome, 1887, and again in the Studi e Document! di sto- ria e dir itto, April-September, 1888, and the liturgical parts in an appendix to Duchesne . Of the other books the best edition is Adolf Harnack's. 1 Bingham, Antiquities, XIII. 6. 2 Hammond. The Ancient Liturgy of Antioch (Oxford, 1879). a The reader will, of course, recognize the foregoing as a piece of " Higher Criticism," and need not be told that it rests upon no foundation more secure than probable guess-work. 138 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 The congregation is gathered together, the men on one side the women on the other, the clergy in the apsidal chancel. The readings immediately begin ; they are interrupted by chants. A reader ascends the ambo, which stood in the middle of the church, between the clergy and the people, and read two lessons ; then another goes up in his place to sing a psalm. This he executes as a solo, but the congregation join in the last modulations of the chant and continue them. This is what is called the " Kesponse " (psalmus responsorhts), which must be distinguished carefully from the " An tiphon," which was a psalm executed alternately by two choirs. At this early date the antiphon did not exist, only the response was known. There must have been a considerable number of readings, but we are not told how many. The series ended with a lection from the Gospel, which is made not by a reader but by a priest or deacon. The congregation stands during this lesson. When the lessons and psalmodies are done, the priests take the word, each in his turn, and after them the bishop. The homily is always preceded by a salutation to the people, to which they answer, "And with thy spirit." After the sermon the sending out of the different categories of persons who should not assist at the holy Mysteries takes place. First of all the catechumens. Upon the invitation of the deacon they make a prayer in silence while the congregation prays for them. The deacon gives the outline of this prayer by detailing the intentions and the things to be prayed for. The faithful answer, and especially the children, by the supplication Kyric clei- son. Then the catechumens rise up, and the deacon asks them to join with him in the prayer which he pronounces ; next he makes them bow before the bishop to receive his bene- diction, after which he sends them home. The same form is used for the energumens, for the competentes, i.e., for the catechumens who are preparing to receive baptism, and last of all for the penitents. When there remain in the church only the faithful communicants, these fall to prayer ; and prostrate toward the East they listen while the deacon says the litany — " For the peace and good estate of the world ; for the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ; for bishops, priests ; for the Church's benefactors ; for the neophytes ; for the sick ; for travellers ; for little children ; for those who are erring," etc. And to all these petitions is added Eyrie eleison. The litany ends with this special form " Save us, and raise us wp, O God, for thy mercy's sake." Then the voice of the bishop rises in the silence — he pronounces a solemn prayer of a grave and majestic style. Here ends the first part of the liturgy ; that part which the Church had taken from the old use of the synagogues. The second part, the Christian liturgy, properly so-called, be- gins by the salutation of the bishop, followed by the response of the people. Then, at a sign given by a deacon, the clergy receive the kiss of peace from the bishop, and the faithful give it to each other, men to men, women to women. Then the deacons and the other lower ministers divide themselves between watching and serving at the altar. The one division go through the congregation, keeping all in their proper place, and the little children on the outskirts of the sacred enclosure, and watching the door that no profane person may enter the church. The others bring and set upon the altar the breads and the chalices prepared for the Sacred Banquet ; two of them wave fans backwards and forwards to protect the holy offerings from insects. The bishop washes his hands and vests himself in festal habit ; the priests range themselves around him, and all to- gether they approach the altar. This is a solemn moment. After private prayer the bishop makes the sign of the cross upon his brow and begins, " The grace of God Almighty, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you always ! "And with thy spirit. SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 139 " Lift up your hearts. " We lift them up unto the Lord. " Let us give thanks unto our Lord. " It is meet and right so to do. " It is very meet," etc. And the eucharistic prayer goes on . . . concluding at last with a return to the mys- terious Sanctuary where God abides in the midst of spirits, where the Cherubims and the Seraphims eternally make heaven ring with the trisagion. Here the whole multitude of the people lift up their voices and joining their song with that of the choir of Angels, sing, "Holy, Holy, Holy," etc. When the hymn is done and silence returns, the bishop continues the interrupted eucharistic prayer. " Thou truly art holy," etc., and goes on to commemorate the work of Redemption, the Incarnation of the Word, his mortal life, his passion ; now the officiant keeps close to the Gospel account of the last supper ; the mysterious words pronounced at first by Jesus on the night before his death are heard over the holy table. Then, taking his inspiration from the last words, " Do this in remembrance of me," the bishop develops the idea, recalling the Passion of the Son of God, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, the hope of his glori- ous return, and declaring that it is in order to observe this precept and make this memorial that the congregation offers to God this eucharistic bread and wine. Finally he prays the Lord to turn upon the Oblation a favourable regard, and to send down upon it the power of his Holy Spirit, to make it the Body and Blood of Christ, the spiritual food of his faithful, and the pledge of their immortality. Thus ends the eucharistic prayer, properly so-called. The mystery is consummated. . . . The bishop then directs the prayers . . . and when this long prayer is fin- ished by a dosology, all the congregation answer "Amen," and thus ratify his acts of thanks and intercession. After this is said "Our Father," accompanied by a short litany. . . . The bishop then pronounces his benediction on the people. The deacon awakes the attention of the faithful and the bishop cries aloud, " Holy things for holy persons." And the people answer, "There is one only holy, one only Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father," etc. No doubt at this moment took place the fraction of the bread, a ceremony which the documents of the fourth century do not mention in express terms. The communion then follows. The bishop receives first, then the priests, the deacons, the sub-deacons, the readers, the singers, the ascetics, the deaconesses, the virgins, the widows, the little children, and last of all the people. The bishop places the consecrated bread in the right hand, which is open, and supported by the left ; the deacon holds the chalice — they drink out of it directly. To each communi- cant the bishop says, " The Body of Christ " ; and the deacon says, " The Blood of Christ, the Cup of life," to which the answer is made, " Amen." During the communion the singers execute Psalm XXXIII. [XXXIV. Heb. numbering] Benedicam Dominum, in which the words " 0, taste and see how gracious the Lord is," have a special suitability. When the communion is done, the deacon gives the sign for prayer, which the bishop offers in the name of all ; then all bow to receive his blessing. Finally the deacon dismisses the congregation, saying, " Go in peace." 1 1 An interesting and instructive book has recently been pub- I theories from Vitringato Bickell are carefully considered. The lished on this subject by P. E. Warren, F.S.A., entitled The book is one of the S. P. C. K. series, "Side-lights of Church Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church, in which all the | History." 140 SYNOD OF LAODIOEA. A.D. 343-381 CANON XX. It is not right for a deacon to sit in the presence of a presbyter, unless he be bidden by the presbyter to sit down. Likewise the deacons shall have worship of the sub- deacons and all the [inferior] clergy. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XX. A deacon shall not sit down unless hidden. This is another canon to curb the ambition of Levites who wish to take upon themselves the honours of the priesthood also. Spiritual Cores seem to have been common in early times among the deacons and this is but one of many canons on the subject. Compare Canon XVIII of the Council of Nice. Van Espen points out that in the Apostolic Consti- tutions (Lib. II., cap. lvij), occurs the follow- ing passage, " Let the seat for the bishop be set in the midst, and on each side of him let the presbyters sit, and let the deacons stand, having their loins girded." Van Espen. Here it should be noted, by the way, that in this canon there is presented a hierarchy consisting of bishops, presbyters, and deacons and other inferior ministers, each with their mutual subordination one to the other. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccrctum, Pars I., Dist. xciii., c. sv., in Dionysius's version. CANON XXI. The subdeacons have no right to a place in the Diaconicum, nor to touch the Lord's vessels. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXI. A subdeacon shall not touch the vessels. The "Lord's vessels "are the chalice and what we call the sacred vessels. Aeistenus. The ecclesiastical ministers shall not take into their hands the Lord's vessels, but they shall be carried to the Table by the priests or deacons. Both Balsamon and Zonaras agree that by vwepeTcu is here meant subdeacons. Hefele. It is doubtful whether by diaconkumis here meant the place where the deacons stood dur- ing service, or the diaconicum generally so called, which answers to our sacristy of the present day. In this diaconicum the sacred vessels and vestments were kept ; and as the last part of the canon especially mentions these, I have no doubt that the diaconicum must mean the sacristy. For the rest, this canon is only the concrete expression of the rule, that the subdeacons shall not assume the functions of the deacons. With regard to the last words of this canon, Morinus and Van Espen are of opin- ion that the subdeacons were not altogether forbidden to touch the sacred vessels, for this had never been the case, but that it was intended that at the solemn entrance to the altar, peculiar to the Greek service, the sacred vessels which were then carried should not be borne by the subdeacons. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Dccrctum, Pars I., Dist. xxiii., c. xxv j. CANON XXII. The subdeacon has no right to wear an orarium [i.e., stole], nor to leave the doors. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXII. The "orarium" is what we call now the A subdeacon must not wear an orarium nor stole * leave the doors. In old times, so we are told by Zonaras SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 141 and Balsamon, it was the place of the sub- deacons to stand at the church doors and to bring in and take out the catechumens and the penitents at the proper points in the service. Zonaras remarks that no one need be surprised if this, like many other ancient customs, has been entirely changed and abandoned. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxxii., canon xxvij., but reads Iwstias instead of ostia, thus making the canon forbid the subdeacons to leave the Hosts ; and to make this worse the ancient Glossator adds, " but the subdeacon should remain and consume them with the other ministers." The Roman Correctors indeed note the error but have not felt themselves at liberty to correct it on account of the authority of the gloss. Van Espen remarks "To-day if any Hosts remain which are not to be reserved, the celebrant consumes them himself, but perchance in the time the gloss was written, it was the custom that the subdeacons and other ministers of the altar were accustomed to do this, but whenever the ministers present gradually fell into the habit of not receiving the sacra- ment, this consumption of what remained devolved upon the celebrant." 1 EXCURSUS ON THE VESTMENTS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. It would be out of place to enter into any specific treatment of the different vestments worn by the clergy in the performance of their various duties. For a full discussion of this whole matter I must refer my readers to the great writers on liturgical and kindred matters, especially to Cardinal Bona, Be Bebus Liturgkis ; Pugin, Ecclesiastical Glossary ; Rock, Church of our Fathers ; Hefele, Seitrage su Kircheschichte, Archdologie unci LiturgiJc (essay in Die Lit- urgischen Gervander, vol. ij., p. 184 sqq.). And I would take this opportunity of warning the student against the entirely unwarranted conclusions of Durandus's Bationale Divinorum Officiorum and of Marriott's Vestiarium Christianum. i The manner in which the use of the stole is spoken of in this canon shews not only the great antiquity of that vestment but of other ecclesiastical vestments as well. Before, how- ever, giving the details of our knowledge with regard to this particular vestment I shall need no apology for quoting a passage, very germane to the whole subject, from the pen of that most delightful writer Curzon, to whose care and erudition all scholars and students of manuscripts are so deeply indebted. (Robert Curzon, Armenia, p. 202.) Here I will remark that the sacred vestures of the Christian Church are the same, with very insignificant modifications, among every denomination of Christians in the world ; that they have always been the same, and never were otherwise in any country, from the remotest times when we have any written accounts of them, or any mosaics, sculptures, or pictures to explain their forms. They are no more a Popish invention, or have anything more to do with the Roman Church, than any other usage which is common to all denominations of Christians. They are and always have been, of general and universal — that is, of Catholic — use ; they have never been used for many centuries for ornament or dress by the laity, having been considered as set apart to be used only by priests in the church during the celebration of the worship of Almighty God. Thus far the very learned Curzon. As is natural the distinctive dress of the bishops is the first that we hear of, and that in connexion with St. John, who is said to have worn a golden mitre or fillet. 2 1 It is interesting to note that the ancient custom is in full use in the Anglican Church to-day, ordered expressly by the rubrics of the Prayer Book. 3 Eusebius. Hist, Eccl, v. 24. 142 SYNOD OP LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 (Duchesne, Origines du Quite Chretien, p. 376 et sqq.) It was not the bishops alone who were distinguished by insignia from the other ecclesi- astics. Priests and deacons had their distinctive insignia as well. There was, however, a difference between Rome and the rest of the world in this matter. At Rome it would seem that but little favour was extended at first to these marks of rank ; the letter of Pope Celes- tine to the bishops shews this already. But what makes it evident still more clearly, is that the ovarium of the priest and of the deacon, looked upon as a visible and distinctive mark of these orders, was unknown at Rome, at least down to the tenth century, while it had been adopted everywhere else. To be sure, the ovarium is spoken of in the ordincs of the ninth century ; but from these it is also evident that this vestment was worn by acolytes and subdeacons, as well as by the superior clergy, and that its place was under the top vestment, whether dalmatic or chasuble, and not over it. But that ovarium is nothing more than the ancient sweat-cloth (sudarium), the handkerchief, or cravat which has ended up by taking a special form and even by becom- ing an accessory of a ceremonial vestment : but it is not an insignia. I know no Roman representation of this earlier than the twelfth century. The priests and deacons who figure in the mosaics never display this detail of costume. But such is not the case elsewhere. Towards the end of the fourth century, the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia forbade inferior classes, subdeacons, readers, etc., to usurp the ovarium. St. Isidore of Pelusium knew it as somewhat analogous to the episcopal pallium, except that it was of linen, while the pallium was of wool. The sermon on the Prodigal Son, sometimes attributed to St. John Chrysostom [Migne's Ed., vol. viij., 520], uses the same term, 696vr]; it adds that this piece of dress was worn over the left shoulder, and that as it swung back and forth it called to mind the wings of the angels. The deacons among the Greeks wear the stole in this fashion down to to-day, perfectly visible, over the top of the upper vestment, and fastened upon the left shoulder. Its ancient name (wpapiov) still clings to it. As for the ovarium of the priests it is worn, like the stole of Latin priests, round the neck, the two ends falling in front, almost to the feet. This is called the epitrachilion (liriTpayri^iov). These distinctions were also found in Spain and Gaul. The Council of Braga, in 561, ordered that deacons should wear these or aria, not under the tunicle, which caused them to be confounded with the subdeacon, but over it, over the shoulder. The Council of Toledo, in 633, describes the ovarium as the common mark of the three superior orders, bishops, priests, and deacons ; and specifies that the deacon should wear his over his left shoulder, and that it should be white, without any mixture of colours or any gold embroidery. An- other Council of Braga forbade priests to say mass without having a stole around their necks and crossed upon the breast, exactly as Latin priests wear it to-day. St. Germanus of Paris speaks of the insignia of a bishop and of a deacon ; to the first he assigns the name of pallium, and says that it is worn around the neck, and falls down upon the breast where it ends with a fringe. As for the insignia of a deacon he calls it a stole (stola) ; and says that deacons wear it over the alb. This fashion of wearing the stole of the deacon spread during the middle ages over nearly the whole of Italy and to the very gates of Rome. And even at Rome the ancient usage seems to have been maintained with a compromise. They ended up by adopting the stole for deacons and by placing it over the left shoulder, but they covered it up with the dalmatic or the chasuble. The priest's stole was also accepted : and in the mosaics of Sta. Maria in Trasterere is seen a priest ornamented with this insignia. It is worthy of notice that the four popes who are represented in the same mosaic wear the pallium but no stole. The one seems to exclude SYNOD OP LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 143 the other. And as a matter of fact the ordines of the ninth century in describing the costume of the pope omit always the stole. One can readily understand that who bore one of these insignia should not wear the other. However, they ended by combining them, and at Ravenna, where they always had a taste for decorations, bishop Ecclesius in the mosaics of San Vitale wears both the priest's stole and the Roman pallium. This, however, seems to be unique, and his successors have the pal- lium only. The two are found together again in the Sacramentary of Autun ( Vide M. Lelisle's reproduction in the Gazette Archeologique, 1884, pi. 20), and on the paliotto of St. Ambrose of Milan ; such seems to have been the usage of the Franks. In view of these facts one is led to the conclusion that all these insignia, called pallium, omophorion, ovarium, stole, epitrachilion, have the same origin. They are the marks of dig- nity, introduced into church usage during the fourth century, analogous to those which the Theodosian code orders for certain kinds of civil functionaries. For one reason or another the Roman Church refused to receive these marks, or rather confined itself to the papal pal- lium, which then took a wholly technical signification. But everywhere else, this mark of the then superior orders of the hierarchy was adopted, only varying slightly to mark the degree, the deacon wearing it over the left shoulder, the bishop and priest around the neck, the deacon over the tunicle which is his uppermost vestment, the priest under the chasuble; the bishop over his chasuble. ^However, for this distinction between a bishop and priest we have very little evidence. The Canon of III Braga, already cited, which prescribes that priests shall wear the stole crossed over the breast, presupposes that it is worn under the chasuble, but the council understands that this method of wearing it pertains distinctively to priests, and that bishops have another method which they should observe ; for the word sacerdotes, used by the council, includes bishops as well as priests. The rest of the Spanish ecclesiastical literature gives us no information upon the point. In Gaul, St. Germanus of Paris (as we have seen) speaks of the episcopal pallium after having described the chasuble, which makes one believe that it was worn on top. I have already said that Bishop Ecclesius of Ravenna is represented with the stole pendant before, under the chasuble and at the same time with the pallium on top of it ; and that this usage was adopted in France in the Carlo- vingian times. Greek bishops also wear at the same time the epitrachilion and the omophor- ion. This accumulation of insignia was forbidden in Spain in the seventh century ( Vide IV Toledo, Canon XXXIX), and (as we have stated) the Pope abstained from it until about the twelfth century, contenting himself with the pallium without adding to it the stole.* The pallium, with the exception of the crosses which adorn its ends, was always white ; so too was the deacon's stole and also that of the priest and bishop. The pallium was always and everywhere made of wool ; in the East the deacon's stole was of linen ; I cannot say of what material the priest's and deacon's stole was in the West. CANON XXIII. The readers and singers have no right to wear an orarium, and to read or sing thus [habited]. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIII. Cantors and lectors shall not wear the orarium. * What follows down to the next asterisk is a foot-note to p. 379 of Duchesne's book, Van Espen. Rightly Zonoras here remarks, "for the same reason (that they should not seem to wish to usurp a ministry not their own) it 144 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 is not permitted to these to wear the stole, for readers are for the work of reading, and singers for singing," so each one should per- form his own office. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxiii., can. xxviij. CANON XXIV. No one of the priesthood, from presbyters to deacons, and so on in the ecclesiastical order to subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, door-keepers, or any of the class of the Ascetics, ought to enter a tavern. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIV. which contains exceptions not here speci- fied. No clergyman should enter a tavern. Compare this with Apostolic Canon LTV, This canon is contained in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xliv., c. ij. EXCURSUS ON THE MINOR ORDERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH. (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius, Vol. I., p. 258.) Some of these lower orders, the subdeacons, readers, door-keepers, and exorcists, are mentioned in the celebrated letter of Cornelius bishop of Rome (a.d. 251) preserved by Eusebius (H.E., vi., 43), and the readers existed at least half a century earlier (Tertull., cle Pracscr., 41). In the Eastern Church, however, if we except the Apostolic Constitutions, of which the date and country are uncertain, the first reference to such offices is found in a canon of the Council of Antioch, a.d. 341, where readers, subdeacons, and exorcists, are mentioned, this being apparently intended as an exhaustive enumeration of the ecclesiastical orders below the diaconate ; and for the first mention of door-keepers in the East, we must go to the still later Council of Laodicea, about a.d. 363, (see III., p. 240, for the references, where also fuller information is given). But while most of these lower orders certainly existed in the "West, and probably in the East, as early as the middle of the third century the case is different with the " singers " (xpaXrai) and the " labourers " (/<07naTai). Setting aside the Apostolic Constitutions, the first notice of the " singers " occurs in the canons of the above-mentioned Council of Laodicea. This, however, may be accidental. The history of the word copiatai affords a more precise and conclusive indication of date. The term first occurs in a rescript of Constantius (a.d. 357), "clerici qui copiatai appellantur," and a little later (a.d. 361), the same emperor speaks of them as "hi quos copiatas recens usus instituit nuncupari." (Adolf Harnack, in his little book ridiculously intituled in the English version Sources of the Apostolic Canons, page 85.) Exorcists and readers there had been in the Church from old times, subdeacons are not essentially strange, as they participate in a name (deacon) which dates from the earliest days of Christianity. But acolytes and door-keepers (mAw/ooi ) are quite strange, are really novel- ties. And these acolytes even at the time of Cornelius stand at the head of the ordines minores : for that the subdeacons follow on the deacons is self-evident. Whence do they come ? Now if they do not spring out of the Christian tradition, their origin must be explained from the Roman. It can in fact be shown there with desirable plainness. With regard to subdeacons the reader may also like to see some of Harnack's specula- tions. In the volume just quoted he writes as follows (p. 85 note) : According to Cornelius and Cyprian subdeacons were mentioned in the thirtieth canon SYNOD OP LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 145 of the Synod of Elvira (about 305), so that the sub diaconate must then have been acknowl- edged as a fixed general institution in the whole west (see Dale, The Synod of Elvira, Lond., 1882). The same is seen in the "gesta apud Zenophilum." As the appointment of the lower orders took place at Rome between about the years 222-249, the announcement in the Liber Pontificcdis (see Duchesne's edition, fasc. 2, 1885, p. 148) is not to be despised, as according to it Bishop Fabian appointed seven subdeacons : " Hie regiones dividit dia- conibus et fecit vii. subdiaconos." The Codex Liberianus indeed (see Duchesne, fasc. 1, pp. 4 and 5 ; Lipsius, Chronohgie d. rom Bischofe, p. 267), only contains the first half of the sen- tence, and what the Liber Pontif. has added of the account of the appointment of subdea- cons (. . . qui vii notariis imminerent, ut gestas martyrum in integro fideliter colliger- ent) is, in spite of the explanation of Duchesne, not convincing. According to Probst and other Catholic scholars the subdiaconate existed in Rome a long time before Pabian (Kireld. Disciplin, p. 109), but Hippolytus is against them. Besides, it should be observed that the officials first, even in Carthage, are called hypo-deacons, though the word subdiaconus was by degrees used in the West. This also points to a Roman origin of the office, for in the Roman church in the first part of the third century the Greek language was the prevailing one, but not at Carthage. But to return to the Acolythes, and door-keepers, whom Harnack thinks to be copies of the old Roman temple officers. He refers to Marquardt's explanation of the sacrificial sys- tem of the Romans, and gives the following resume (page 85 ct scqq.) : 1. The temples have only partially their own priests, but they all have a superintendent (cedituus-curator tempU). These ceditui, who lived in the temple, fall again into two classes. At least " in the most important brotherhoods the chosen cedihius was not in a position to undertake in person the watching and cleaning of the saccllum. He charged therefore with this service a freedman or slave." " In this case the saceUum had two ceditui, the temple- keeper, originally called magister cedihius, and the temple-servant, who appears to be called the cedihius minister." "To both it is common that they live in the temple, although in small chapels the presence of the servant is sufficient. The temple-servant opens, shuts, and cleans the sacred place, and shows to strangers its curiosities, and cdloivs, according to the rules of the tem- ple, those persons to offer up prayers and sacrifices to whom this is permitted, while he sends away the others." 2. " Besides the endowment, the colleges of priests were also supplied with a body of servants " — the under officials — ; " they were appointed to the priests, ... by all of whom they were used partly as letter-carriers (tabellarii), partly as scribes, partly as assistants at the sacrifices." Marquardt reckons, (page 218 and fol.) the various categories of them among the sacerdotes publici, lictores, pullarii, victimarii, tibicines, viatores, sixthly the calatores, in the priests' colleges free men or freedmen, not slaves, and in fact one for the per- sonal service of each member. Here we have the forerunners of the Church door-keepers and acolytes. Thus says the fourth Council of Carthage, as far as refers to the former : " Ostiarius cum ordinatur, post- quam ab archidiacono instructus fuerit, qualiter in domo dei debeat conversari, ad suggest- ionem archidiaconi, tradat ei episcopus claves ecclesise de altari, dicens. Sic age, quasi reddi- turus deo rationem pro his rebus, quse hisce clavibus recluduntur." The ostiarius (7rvAwpos) is thus the tedituus minister. He had to look after the opening and shutting of the doors, to watch over the coming in and going out of the faithful, to refuse entrance to suspicious persons, and, from the date of the more strict separation between the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium, to close the doors, after the dismissal of the catechumens, against those doing penance and unbelievers. He first became necessary when there were special vol. xiv. L 14G SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 church buildings (there were such even in the second century), and they like the temples, together with the ceremonial of divine service, had come to be considered as holy, that is, since about 225. The church acolytes are without difficulty to be recognised in the under officials of the priests, especially in the " calatores," the personal servants of the priests. According to Cyprian the acolytes and others are used by preference as tabellarii. Accord- ing to Cornelius there were in Rome forty-two acolytes. As he gives the number of priests as forty-six, it may be concluded with something like certainty that the rule was that the number of the priests and of the acolytes should be equal, and that the little difference may have been caused by temporary vacancies. If this view is correct, the identity of the calator with the acolyte is strikingly proved. But the name "acolyte" plainly shows the acolyte was not, like the door-keeper, attached to a sacred thing, but to a sacred person. (Lightfoot. Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, ad Antioch, xj., note. Vol. II., Sec. II., p. 240.) The acolytes were confined to the Western Church and so are not mentioned here. On the other hand the " deaconesses " seem to have been confined to the Eastern Church at this time. See also Apost. Const., iii., 11. ; viii., 12 ; comp. viii., 19-28, 31 ; Apost. Can., 43 ; Cone. Laodie., Can. 24; Cone. Antioch, Can. 10. Of these lower orders the "subdeacons" are first mentioned in the middle of the third century, in the passage of Cornelius already quoted and in the contemporary letters of Cyprian. The " readers " occur as early as Ter- tullian de Prcescr. 41 "hodie diaconus, qui eras lector," where the language shows that this was already a firmly established order in the Church. Of the " singers " the notices in the Apostolieal Constitutions are probably the most ancient. The "door-keepers," like the sub- deacons, seem to be first mentioned in the letter of Cornelius. The KcwruuvTes first appear a full century later; see the next note. The " exorcists," as we have seen, are mentioned as a distinct order by Cornelius, while in Apost. Const., viii., 26, it is ordered that they shall not be ordained, because it is a spiritual function which comes direct from God and manifests itself by its results. The name and the function, however, appear much earlier in the Chris- tian Church ; e.g., Justin Mart., Apol. ii., 6 (p. 45). The forms eVop/ao-Tjjs and e^op/aor^s are convertible; e.g., Justin Mart., Dial., 85 (p. 311). The "confessors" hardly deserve to be reckoned a distinct order, though accidentally they are mentioned in proximity with the different grades of clergy in Apost. Const., viii., 12, already quoted. Perhaps the accidental connexion in this work has led to their confusion with the offices of the Christian ministry in our false Ignatius. In Apost. Const., viii . , 23, they are treated in much the same way as the exorcists, being regarded as in some sense an order and yet not subject to ordination. Possibly, however, the word o/xoXoyoTal has here a different sense, " chanters," as the corre- sponding Latin " confessores " seems sometimes to have, e.g., in the Sacramentary of Gregory " Oremus et pro omnibus episcopis, presbyteris, diaconibus, acolythis, exorcistis, lectoribus, ostiariis, confessoribus, virginibus, viduis, et pro omni populo sancto Dei ; " see Ducange, Gloss. Lat., s. v. (11. p. 530, Henschel). In a law of the year 357 (Cod. Theod., xiii., 1) mention is made of " clerici qui copiatee appellantur," and another law of the year 361 (Cod. Theod., xvi., 2, 15) runs " clerici vero vel his quos copiatas recens usus instituit nuncupari," etc. From these passages it is clear that the name Komwvres was not in use much before the middle of the fourth century, though the office under its Latin name " fossores " or " fossarii " appears somewhat earlier. Even later Epiphanius (Expos. Fid., 21) writes as if the word still needed some explanation. In accordance with these facts, Zahn (I. v., A. p. 129), correctly argues with regard to our Ignatian writer, urging that on the one hand he would not have ascribed such language to Ignatius if the word had been quite recent, while on the other hand his using the participle (toi>5 KOTi-idivTa?) rather than the substantive indicates that it had not yet firmly established SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 147 itself. For these "copiatre" see especially de Rossi, Roma Sotteranea, III., p. 533 sq., Gothofred on God. Theod., II., cc, and for the Latin "fossores" Martigny, Diet, des Antiq. Ghrtt. s.v. See also the inscriptions, C. I. (?., 9227, Bull, de Corr. Bellen., vii., p. 238, Journ. of Hellen. Stud., vi., p. 3G2. CANON XXV. A subdeacon must not give the Bread, nor bless the Cup. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXV. A subdeacon may not give the bread and the cup. Aristenus. Subdeacons are not allowed to perform the work of presbyters and deacons. Wherefore they neither deliver the bread nor the cup to the people. Hefele. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, the communion was administered in the fol- lowing manner : the bishop gave to each the holy bread with the words : " the Body of the Lord," and the recipient said, " Amen," The deacon then gave the chalice with the words : "the Blood of Christ, the chalice of life," and the recipient again answered, " Amen." This giving of the chalice with the words : " the Blood of Christ," etc., is called in the canon of Laodicea a " blessing " (evkoyew). The Greek commentator Aristenus in accordance with this, and quite rightly, gives the meaning of this canon. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XCIII., c. xix. ; but reads "Deacons" instead of "Subdeacons." The Roman Correctors point out the error. CANON XXVI. They who have not been promoted [to that office] by the bishop, ought not to adjure, either in churches or in private houses. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVI. No one shall adjure without the bishop's pro- motion to that office. Balsamon. Some were in the habit of " adjuring," that is catechising the unbelievers, who had never received the imposition of the bishop's hands for that purpose ; and when they were accused of doing so, contended that as they did not do it in church but only at home, they could not be considered as deserving of any punishment. For this reason the Fathers rule that even to "adjure" (ec^opKi'^civ) is an ecclesiastical minis- try, and must not be executed by anyone who shall not have been promoted thereto by a bishop. But the " Exorcist " must be excepted who has been promoted by a Chorepiscopus, for he can indeed properly catechize although not promoted by a bishop ; for from Canon X. of Antioch we learn that even a Chorepis- copus can make an Exorcist. Zonaras notes that from this canon it ap- pears that " Chorepiscopi are considered to be in the number of bishops." Van Espen. "Promoted" (Trpoa^eWa?) by the bishops, by which is signified a mere designation or appointment, in confoi'mity with the Greek discipline which never counted exorcism among the orders, but among the simple ministries which were committed to certain persons by the bishops, as Morinus proves at length in his work on Orders (De Ordinationi- bus, Pars III., Ex. XIV, cap. ij.). Double is the power of devils over men, the one part internal the other external. The former is when they hold the soul captive by vice and sin. The latter when they disturb the exterior and interior senses and lead any- one on to fury. Those who are subject to the interior evils are the Catechumens and Penitents, and those who are subject to the exterior are the Energumens, Whoever are L 3 148 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 occupied with the freeing from the power of the devil of either of these kinds, by prayers, exhortations, and exorcisms, are said " to exorcize " them ; which seems to be what Balsamon means when he says — " ' exorcize ' that is ' to catechize the unbelievers.' " Vide this matter more at length in Ducange's Glossary (Gloss., s. v. Exorcizare). This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXIX. c. ij., Isidore's version, CANON XXVII. Neither they of the priesthood, nor clergymen, nor laymen, who are invited to a love feast, may take away their portions, for this is to cast reproach on the ecclesiastical order. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XXVII. A clergyman invited to a love feast shall carry nothing away xoith him ; for this ivould bring his order into shame. Hefele. Van Espen translates : "no one holding any office in the Church, be he cleric or lay- man," and appeals to the fact that already in early times among the Greeks many held offices in the Church without being ordained, as do now our sacristans and acolytes. I do not think, however, with Van Espen, that by " they of the priesthood " is meant in general any one holding office in the Church, but only the higher ranks of the clergy, priests and deacons, as in the preceding twenty-fourth canon the presbyters and deacons alone are expressly numbered among the kpariKois and distinguished from the other (minor) clerics. And afterwards, in canon XXX., there is a similar mention of three different grades, lepaTiKoi, kXijpikol, and dcjKijTOu. The taking away of the remains of the agape is here forbidden, because, on the one hand, it showed covetousness, and, on the other, was perhaps considered a profanation. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XLII., c. iij. CANON XXVIII. It is not permitted to hold love feasts, as they are called, in the Lord's Houses, or Churches, nor to eat and to spread couches in the house of God. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XXVIII. Beds shall not be set up in churches, nor shall love feasts be held there. Hefele. Eusebius (H. K, Lib. IX., Cap. X.) employs the expression KvpiaKa. in the same sense as does this canon as identical with churches. The prohibition itself, however, here given, as well as the preceding canon, proves that as early as the time of the Synod of Laodicea, many irregularities had crept into the agape. For the rest, this Synod was not in a position permanently to banish the usage from the Church ; for which reason the Trullan Synod in its seventy-fourth canon repeated this rule word for word. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist, XLII, c. iv, CANON XXIX. Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day ; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if amr shall be found to be iudaizers, let them be anathema from Christ, any shall be found to be judaizers Ancient Epitome of Canon XXIX. A Christian shall not stop work on the Sab- bath, but on the Lord's Day. NOTES. Balsamon. Here the Fathers order that no one of the faithful shall stop work on the Sabbath as do SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 149 the Jews, but that they should honour the Lord's Day, on account of the Lord's resurrec- tion, and that on that day they should abstain from manual labour and go to church. But thus abstaining from work on Sunday they do not lay down as a necessity, but they add, " if they can." For if through need or any other necessity any one worked on the Lord's day this was not reckoned against him. CANON XXX. None of the priesthood, nor clerics [of lower rank] nor ascetics, nor any Christian or layman, shall wash in a bath Avith women ; for this is the greatest reproach among the heathen. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXX. It is an abomination to bathe with women. This canon was renewed by the Synod in Trullo, canon lxxvij. Zonaras explains that the bathers were en- tirely nude and hence arose the objection which was also felt by the heathen. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXXXI., c. xxviij. CANON XXXI. It is not lawful to make marriages with all [sorts of] heretics, nor to give our sons and daughters to them ; but rather to take of them, if they promise to become Christians. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXI. It is not right to give children in marriage to heretics, but they should be received if they promise to become Christians. Van Espen. By this canon the faithful are forbidden to contract marriage with heretics or to join their children in such ; for, as both Balsamon and Zonaras remark, " they imbue them with their errors, and lead them to embrace their own perverse opinions." CANON XXXII. ./ It is unlawful to receive the eulogiae of heretics, for they are rather aXoyiai [i.e., fol- lies], than eulogiae [i.e., blessings]. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXII. The blessings of heretics are cursings. To keep the Latin play upon the words the translator has used bene-dictioncs and II., Quaest. I., Can. lxvj male-dictiones, but at the expense of the ac- curacy of translation. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa CANON XXXIII. No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics. NOTES Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIII. i Thou shall not pray with heretics or schis Van Espen. matics The underlying principle of this canon is the same as the last, for as the receiving of 150 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 the Eulogize which were sent by heretics as a sign of communion, signified a communion with them in religious matters, so the sharing with them common prayer is a declaration of the same communion, and therefore to be avoided. This is also set forth in Apostolical Canon number xlv. CANON XXXIV. No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics ; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXIV. Wlwso honours an heretical pseudo-martyr let him be anathema. Hefele. This canon forbids the honouring of mar- tyrs not belonging to the orthodox church. The number of Montanist martyrs of Phrygia was probably the occasion of this canon. The phrase which I have translated "to those who formerly were heretics " has caused great difficulty to all translators and scarcely two agree. Hammond reads " those who have been reputed to have been heretics ; " and with him Fulton agrees, but wrongly (as I think) by omitting the "to." Lambert translates "to those who before were heretics" and cor- rectly. With him agrees Van Espen, thus, vel cos qui prius herctici fuere. CANON XXXV. Cheistians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema ; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXV. Whoso calls assemblies in opposition to those of the Church and names angels, is near to idol- atry and let him be anathema. Van Espen. Whatever the worship of angels condemned by this canon may have been, one thing is manifest, that it was a species of idolatry, and detracted from the worship due to Christ. Theodoret makes mention of this supersti- tious cult in his exposition of the text of St. Paul, Col. ii., 18, and when writing of its condemnation by this synod he says, " they were leading to worship angels such as were defending the Law ; for, said they, the Law was given through angels. And this vice lasted for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore it was that the synod which met at Laodicea in Phrygia, prohibited by a canon, that prayer should be offered to angels, and even to-day an oratory of St. Michael can be seen among them, and their neighbours." In the Capitular of Charlemagne, a.d 789 (cap. xvi.), it is said, "In that same council (Laodicea) it was ordered that angels should not be given unknown names, and that such should not be affixed to them, but that only they should be named by the names which we have by authority. These are Michael, Gabriel, Raphael." And then is subjoined the present canon. The canon forbids " to name " (6vop,6.£,uv) angels, and this was under- stood as meaning to give them names instead of to call upon them by name. Perchance the authors of the Capitular had in mind the Roman Council under Pope Zachary, a.d. 745, against Aldebert, who was found to invoke by name eight angels in his prayers. It should be noted that some Latin ver- sions of great authority and antiquity read angulos for angclos. This would refer to do- ing these idolatrous rites in corners, hiddenly, secretly, occulte as in the Latin. But this reading, though so respectable in the Latin, has no Greek authority for it. SYNOD OF LAOBICEA. A.D. 343-381 151 This canon has often been used in contro- versy as condemning the cultus which the Catholic Church has always given to the an- gels, but those who would make such a use of this canon should explain how these inter- pretations can be consistent with the cultus of the Martyrs so evidently approved by the same council ; and how this canon came to be accepted by the Fathers of the Second Coun- cil of Nice, if it condemned the then universal practice of the Church, East and West. Cf. Forbes, Considerationcs Modestce. CANON XXXVI. They who are of the priesthood, or of the clergy, shall not be magicians, enchant- ers, mathematicians, or astrologers ; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we command to be cast out of the Church. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXVI. Whoso will be priest must not be a magician, nor one ivho uses incantations, or mathematical or astrological charms, nor a putter on of amulets. Some interesting and valuable information on charms will be found in Ducange (Glossa- rium, s. v. Phylacterea). Balsamon. " Magicians " are those who for any pur- pose call Satan to their aid. " Enchantors " are those who sing charms or incantations, and through them draw demons to obey them. " Mathematicians " are they who hold the opinion that the celestial bodies rule the universe, and that all earthly things are ruled by their influence. " Astrologers " are they who divine by the stars through the agency of demons, and place their faith in them. Van Espen. Zonaras also notes that the science of mathematics or astronomy is not at all hereby forbidden to the clergy, but the excess and abuse of that science, which even more easily may happen in the case of clergymen and consecrated persons than in that of laymen. CANON XXXVII. It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them. CANON XXXVIII. It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety. CANON XXXIX. It is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of their god- lessness. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canons XXXVII., XXXVIII. and XXXIX. Tlwu shall not keep feaxts with Hebrews Apostles, and Canon lx 1 of the Synod of Carthage. Aristenus. Light hath no communion with darkness. or heretics, nor receive festival offerings from r , , , . . t nem Therefore no Christian should celebrate a Balsamon. Read canon lxx. and canon lxxj. of the Holy feast with heretics or Jews, neither should he receive anything connected with these feasts such as azymes and the like. 1 So both Zonaras and Balsamon give the number, but in this they follow the Latin numbers of the African Code, the Greek number is lxiij. 152 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 CANON XL. Bishops called to a synod must not be guilty of contempt, but must attend, and either teach, or be taught, for the reformation of the Church and of others. And if such an one shall be guilty of contempt, he will condemn himself, unless he be detained by ill health. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XL. Whoso summoned to a synod shall spurn the invitation, unless hindered by the force of 'cir- cumstances, shall not be free from blame. Hefele. By avujxaXia, illness is commonly under- stood, and Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore translated it, the former ceyritudinem, and the latter infirmitatem. But Balsamon justly re- marks that the term has a wider meaning, and, besides cases of illness includes other unavoidable hinderances or obstacles. This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XVIII., c. v. CANON XLI. None of the priesthood nor of the clergy may go on a journey, without the bidding of the Bishop. CANON XLII. None of the priesthood nor of the clergy may travel without letters canonical. NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canons XLI. and XLII. No clergyman shall undertake a journey with- out canonical letters or unless he is ordered to do so. Van Espen (On Canon xli.) It is well known that according to the true discipline of the Church no one should be ordained unless he be attached to some church, which as an ecclesiastical soldier he shall fight for and preserve. As, then, a secu- lar soldier cannot without his prefect's bidding leave his post and go to another, so the canons decree that no one in the ranks of the ecclesi- astical military can travel about except at the bidding of the bishop who is in command of the army. A slight trace of this discipline is observed even to-day in the fact that priests of other dioceses are not allowed to celebrate unless they are provided with Canonical let- ters or testimonials from their own bishops. (On Canon xlii.) The whole subject of Commendatory and other letters is treated of in the note to Canon VIII. of the Council of Antioch. Canon xlj. is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars III., Dist. V, De Consecrat, can. xxxvj. Canon xli j . is appended to the preceding, but, curiously enough, limited to laymen, reading as follows: "a layman also without canonical J letters," that is "formed letters," should not travel anywhere. The Roman Correctors re- : mark that in the Greek order this last is canon ! xli., and the former part of Gratian's canon, canon xlij. of the Greek, but such is not the or- der of the Greek in Zonaras nor in Balsamon. The correctors add that in neither canon is there any mention made of laymen, nor in Dionysius's version ; the Prisca, however, read for canon xlj., " It is not right for a minister of the altar, even for a layman, to travel, etc." CANON XLIIL The subdeacons may not leave the doors to engage in the prayer, even for a short time. SYNOD OF LAODIOEA. A.D. 343-381 153 NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XLIII. A subdeacon should not leave the gates, even for a short time, to pray. On this canon the commentators find noth- ing to say in addition to their remarks on Canons xxj., and xxij., except that the " prayer " is not their own private prayer, but the prayer of the Liturgy. It has struck me that possibly when there was no deacon to sing the litany outside the Holy Gates while the priest was going on with the holy action within, subdeacons may have left their places at the doors, assumed the deacon's stole and done his part of the office, and that it was to prevent this abuse that this canon was enacted, the " prayer " being the litany. But as this is purely my own suggestion it is probably valueless. CANON XLIV. Women may not go to the altar. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XLIV. The altar must not be approached by ivomen. Van Espen. The discipline of this canon was often renewed even in the Latin Church, and there- fore Balsamon unjustly attacks the Latins when he says ; " Among the Latins women go without any shame up to the altar whenever they wish." For the Latins have forbidden and do forbid this approach of women to the altar no less than the Greeks ; and look upon the contrary custom as an abuse sprung of the insolence of the women and of the negli- gence of bishops and pastors. ZONAKAS. If it is prohibited to laymen to enter the Sanctuary by the lxixth canon of the Sixth synod [i.e. Quinisext], much more are women forbidden to do so who are unwillingly indeed, but yet truly, polluted by the monthly flux of blood. CANON XLV. [Candidates] for baptism are not to be received after the second week in Lent. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon XLV. After two weeks of Lent no one must be ad- mitted for illumination, for all such should fast from its beginning. Van Espen. To the understanding of this canon it must be remembered that such of the Gentiles as desired to become Catholics and to be bap- tized, at first were privately instructed by the catechists. After this, having acquired some knowledge of the Christian religion, they were admitted to the public instructions given by the bishop in church ; and were therefore called Audientes and for the first time properly-speaking Catechumens. But when these catechumens had been kept in this rank a sufficient time and had been there to the tried, they were allowed to go up higher grade called Genuflcctentes. And when their exercises had been com- pleted in this order they were brought by the catechists who had had the charge of them, to the bishop, that on the Holy Sab- bath [Easter Even] they might receive bap- tism, and the catechumens gave their names at the same time, so that they might be set down ! for baptism at the coming Holy Sabbath. Moreover we learn from St. Augustine ' (Serm. xiii., Ad Neophitos,) that the time for the giving in of the names was the beginning of Lent. This council therefore in this canon decrees that such as do not hand in their names at the beginning of Lent, but after two weeks are past, shall not be admitted to baptism on the next Holy Sabbath. 154 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 CANON XL VI. They who are to be baptized must learn the faith [Creed] by heart, and recite it to the bishop, or to the presbyters, on the fifth day of the week. NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canon XL VI. Vide infra. Hepele. It is doubtful whether by the Thursday of the text was meant only the Thursday of Holy Week, or every Thursday of the time during which the catechumens received instruction. The Greek commentators are in favour of the latter, but Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, and after them Bingham, are, and probably rightly, in favour of the former meaning. This canon was repeated by the Trullan Synod in its seventy-eighth canon. CANON XLVII. They who are baptized in sickness and afterwards recover, must learn the Creed by heart and know that the Divine gifts have been vouchsafed them. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canons XLVI. and XLVII. Whoso is baptised by a bishop or presbyter let him recite the faith on the fifth feria of the week. Also anyone baptized clinically a short while afterwards, Balsamon. Some unbelievers were baptized before they had been catechized, by reason of the urgency of the illness. Now some thought that as their baptism did not follow their being cate- chumens, they ought to be catechized and baptized over again. And in support of this opinion they urged Canon XII. of Neocpesarea, which does not permit one clinically baptized to become a priest rashly. For this reason it is that the Fathers decree that such an one shall not be baptized a second time, but as soon as he gets well he shall learn the faith and the mystery of baptism, and to appreciate the divine gifts he has received, viz., the con- fession of the one true God and the remission of sins which comes to us in holy baptism. CANON XLVIII. They who are baptized must after Baptism be anointed with the heavenly chrism, and be partakers of the Kingdom of Christ. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XLVIII. Those illuminated should after their baptism be anointed. Van Espen. That this canon refers to the anointing with chrism on the forehead of the baptized, that is to say of the sacrament of confirmation, is the unanimous opinion of the Greek commen- tators, and Balsamon notes that this anointing is not simply styled " chrism " but "the heav- enly chrism," viz. : " that which is sanctified by holy prayers and through the invocation of the Holy Spirit ; and those who are anointed therewith, it sanctifies and makes partakers of the kingdom of heaven." Aubespine. (Lib. i., Observat. cap. xv.) Formerly no one was esteemed worthy of the name Christian or reckoned among the perfect who had not been confirmed and en- dowed with the gift of the Holy Ghost. The prayers for the consecration of the Holy Chrism according to the rites of the East and of the West should be carefully read by the student. Those of the East are found in the Euchologion, and those of the West in the Pontificale Romanian, De Officio in feria v. Ccena Domini. SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 155 CANON XLIX. During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only. NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon XLIX. In Lent the offering should be made only on the Sabbath and on the Lord's day. Heeele. This canon, which was repeated by the Trullan Synod in its fifty-second canon, or- ders that on ordinary week days during Lent, only a Missa Prcesanctificatorum should take place, as is still the custom with the Greeks on all days of penitence and mourning, when it appears to them unsuitable to have the full liturgy, and as Leo Allatius says, for this reason, that the consecration is a joyful act. A comparison of the above sixteenth canon, however, shows that Saturday was a special exception. To the Saturdays and Sundays mentioned by Hefele must be added the feast of the Annunciation, which is always solemnized with a full celebration of the Liturgy, even when it falls upon Good Fridaj^, CANON L. The fast must not be broken on the fifth day of the last week in Lent [i.e., on Maunday Thursday], and the whole of Lent be dishonoured ; but it is necessary to fast during all the Lenten season by eating only dry meats. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon L. It is not right on the fifth feria of the last week of Lent to break the fast, and thus spoil the whole of Lent ; but the whole of Lent should be kept with fasting on dry food. That long before the date of the Quinisext Synod' the fasting reception of the Holy Eucharist was the universal law of the Church no one can doubt who has devoted the slight- est study to the point. To produce the evi- dence here would be out of place, but the reader may be referred to the excellent pres- entation of it in Cardinal Bona's De Rebus Liturgicis. I shall here cite but one passage, from St. Augustine : " It is clear that when the disciples first re- ceived the body and blood of the Lord they had not been fasting. Must we then censure the Universal Church because the sacrament is everywhere partaken of by persons fasting ? Nay, verily ; for from that time it pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian ; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. For the fact that the Lord instituted the sacrament after other food had been partaken of does not prove that brethren should come together to partake of that sacrament after having dined or supped, or imitate those whom the Apostle reproved and corrected for not distinguishing between the Lord's Supper and an ordinary meal. The Saviour, indeed, in order to commend the depths of that mystery more affectingly to his disciples, was pleased to impress it on their hearts and memories by making its in- stitution his last act before going from them ■ to his passion. And, therefore, he did not I prescribe the order in which it was to be ob- served, reserving this to be done by the Apos- tles, through whom he intended to arrange | all things pertaining to the churches. Had he appointed that the sacrament should be always partaken of after other food, I believe that no one would have departed from that practice. But when the Apostle, speaking of this sacrament, says, 'Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another, and if any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto con- demnation,' he immediately adds, 'And the rest will I set in order when I come.' Whence we are given to understand that, since it was too much for him to prescribe completely in an epistle the method observed by the Uni- versal Church throughout the world it was one of the things set in order by him in per- son ; for we find its observance uniform amid all the variety of other customs." l ' Aug. Epist. ad Januar. 156 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 In fact the utter absurdity of the attempt to maintain the opposite cannot better be seen than in reading Kingdon's Fasting Com- munion, an example of special pleading and disingenuousness rarely equalled even in con- troversial theological literature. A brief but crushing refutation of the position taken by that writer will be found in an appendix to a pamphlet by H. P. Liddon, Evening Commu- nions contrary to the Teaching and Practice of the Church in all Ages. But while this is true, it is also true that in some few places the custom had lingered on of making Maundy Thursday night an excep- tion to this rule, and of having then a feast, in memory of our Lord's Last Supper, and after this having a celebration of the Divine Mysteries. This is the custom which is pro- hibited by this canon, but it is manifest both from the wording of the canon itself and from the remarks of the Greek commentators that the custom was condemned not because it necessitated an unfasting reception of the Holy Eucharist, but because it connoted a feast which was a breaking of the Lenten fast and a dishonour to the whole of the holy season. It is somewhat curious and a trifle amusing to read Zonaras gravely arguing the point as to whether the drinking of water is forbidden by this canon because it speaks of "dry meats," which he decides in the negative ! Balsamon. Those, therefore, who without being ill, fast on oil and shell-fish, do contrary to this law ; and much more they who eat on the fourth and sixth ferias fish. CANON LI. The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord's days. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LI. Commemorations of Martyrs shall only be held on Lord's days and Sabbaths. By this canon all Saints-days are forbidden to be observed in Lent on the days on which they fall, but must be transferred to a Sab- bath or else to the Sunday, when they can be kept with the festival service of the full liturgy and not with the penitential incom- pleteness of the Mass of the Presanctified. Compare canon xlix. of this Synod, and canon lij. of the Quinisext Council. Balsamon. The whole of Lent is a time of grief for our sins, and the memories of the Saints are not kept except on the Sabbaths. Van Espen remarks how in old calendars there are but few Saints-days in those months in which Lent ordinarily falls, and that the multitude of days now kept by the Roman ordo are mostly of modern introduc- tion. CANON LII. Marriages and birthday feasts are not to be celebrated in Lent. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LII. { natalitia martyrum is not to be understood as Marriage shall not be celebrated in Lent, nor in the preceding canon, but the birthday feasts of princes. This, as well as the pre- ceding rule, was renewed in the sixth century by Bishop Martin of Bracara, now Braga, in By "birthday feasts" in this canon the Portugal. birthdays. Hefele. CANON LIII. Christians, when they attend weddings, must not join in wanton dances, but mod- estly dine or breakfast, as is becoming to Christians. SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 157 NOTES. Ancient Epitome op Canon LIII. It is unsuitable to dance or leap at weddings. Van Espen. This canon does not call for explanation but for reflexion, and greatly it is to be desired that it should be observed by Chris- tians, and that through like improprieties, wedding-days, which should be days of holy joy and blessing, be not turned, even to the bride and groom themselves, into days of cursing. Moreover the Synod of Trent ad- monishes bishops (Sess. xxiv., Be Reform, Mat, cap. x.) to take care that at weddings there be only that which is modest and proper. CANON LIV. Members of the priesthood and of the clergy must not witness the plays at wed- dings or banquets ; but, before the players enter, they must rise and depart. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LIV. Priests and clerics should leave before tlieplay. Aristenus. Christians are admonished to feast mod- estly when they go to weddings and not to dance nor (3a\\tt,eiv, that is to clap their hands and make a noise with them. For this is unworthy of the Christian standing. But consecrated persons must not see the play at weddings, but before the thymelici begin, they must go out. Compare with this Canons XXIV. and LI., of the Synod in Trullo. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars III., De Conseerat Dist. v., can. xxxvij. CANON LV. Neither members of the priesthood nor of the clergy, nor yet laymen, may club to- gether for drinking entertainments. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LV. Neither a layman nor a cleric shall celebrate a club feast. These meals, the expenses of which were defrayed by a number clubbing together and sharing the cost, were called " symbola " by Isidore, and by Melinus and Crabbe " comis- salia," although the more ordinary form is "commensalia" or " comessalia." Cf. Du- cange Gloss., s. v. Commensalia and Confer- tum. This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XLIV., c. x. (Isidore's version), and c. xij., (Martin of Braga's version). CANON LVI. Presbyters may not enter and take their seats in the bema before the entrance of the Bishop : but they must enter with the Bishop, unless he be at home sick, or absent. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LVI. A presbyter shall not enter the bema before the bishop, nor sit doivn. It is difficult to translate this canon with- out giving a false idea of its meaning. It does not determine the order of dignity in an ecclesiastical procession, but something en- tirely different, viz., it provides that when the bishop enters the sanctuary he should not be alone and walk into a place already occupied, but that he should have with him, as a guard 158 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 of honour, the clergy. Whether these should •walk before or after him would be a mere matter of local custom, the rule juniores priores did not universally prevail. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XCV., can. viij. CANON LVII. Bishops must not be appointed in villages or country districts, but visitors; and those who have been already appointed must do nothing without the consent of the bishop of the city. Presbyters, in like manner, must do nothing without the consent of the bishop. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LVII. A bishop shall not be established in a village or in the country, but a periodeutes. But should one be appointed he shall not perform any function ivithout the bishop of the city. On the whole subject of Chorepiscopi see the Excursus to Canon VIII. of Nice, in this volume. Hefele. Compare the eighth and tenth canons of the Synod of Antioch of 341, the thirteenth of the Synod of Ancyra, and the second clause of the sixth canon of the Synod of Sardica. The above canon orders that from henceforth, in the place of the rural bishops, priests of higher rank shall act as visitors of the country dioceses and country clergy. Dionysius Exi- guus, Isidore, the Greek commentators, Van Espen, Remi Ceillier, Neander, and others thus interpret this canon ; but Herbst, in the Tubingen Review, translates the word {irtpio- Seurai) not visitors but physicians — physicians of the soul, — and for this he appeals to pas- sages from the Fathers of the Church collected by Suicer in his Thesaurus. This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXXX., c. v. CANON LVIII. The Oblation must not be made by bishops or presbyters in any private houses. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LVIII. |to the mind Neither a bishop nor a presbyter shall make the \ Zonaras says : offering in private houses. Van Espen. of the Greek interpreters. ' The faithful can pray to God and be intent upon their prayers everywhere, whether in the house, in the field, or in any place they possess : but to offer or perform By " the oblation " here is intended the ' the oblation must by no means be done ex- oblation of the unbloody sacrifice according j cept in a church and at an altar." CANON LIX. No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LIX. Psalms of private origin, or books uncanoni- cal are not to be sang in temples ; but the ca- nonical ivritings of the old and new testaments. Hefele. Several heretics, for instance Bavdesanes, Paul of Samosata, and Apollinaris — had composed psalms, i.e., Church hymns. The Synod of Laodicea forbade the use of any composed by private individuals, namely all unauthorized Church hymns. Liift remarks that by this it w r as not intended to forbid the use of all but the Bible psalms and hymns, for it is known that even after this Synod many hymns composed by individual Chris- SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 159 tians, for instance, Prudentius, Clement, and Ambrose, came into use in the Church. Only those not sanctioned were to be banished. This idea was greatly exaggerated by some Gallicans in the seventeenth century who wished that all the Antiphons, etc., should be in the words of Holy Scripture. A learned but somewhat distorted account of this whole matter will be found in the Institutions Liturgiqites by Dom Prosper Gueranger, tome ij., and a shorter but more temperate account in Dr. Batiffol's Histoire du Breviaire Bomain, Chap, vj, CANON LX. [N. B. — This Canon is of most questionable genuineness.'] These are all the books of the Old Testament appointed to be read : 1, Genesis of the world ; 2, The Exodus from Egypt ; 3, Leviticus ; 4, Numbers ; 5, Deuteronomy ; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun ; 7, Judges, Ruth ; 8, Esther ; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second ; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth ; 11, Chronicles, First and Second ; 12, Esdras, First and Second ; 13, The Book of Psalms ; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon ; 15, Ecclesiastes ; 16, The Song of Songs ; 17, Job ; 18, The Twelve Prophets ; 19, Isaiah ; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle ; 21, Ezekiel ; 22, Daniel. And these are the books of the New Testament : Four Gospels, according to Mat- thew, Mark, Luke and John ; The Acts of the Apostles ; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude ; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon LX. Bat of the new, the four Gospels — of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John ; Acts ; Seven Catho- lic epistles, viz. of James one, of Peter two, of John three, of Jade one ; of Paul fourteen, viz. : to the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Uebreivs one, to Timo- thy two, to Titus one, and to Philemon one. It will be noticed that while this canon has often been used for controversial purposes it really has little or no value in this connexion, for the absence of the Revelation of St. John from the New Testament to all orthodox Christians is, to say the least, as fatal to its reception as an ecumenical definition of the canon of Holy Scripture, as the absence of the book of Wisdom, etc., from the Old Testa- ment is to its reception by those who accept the books of what we may call for conven- ience the Greek canon, as distinguished from the Hebrew, as canonical. We may therefore leave this question wholly out of account, and merely consider the matter from the evidence we possess. In 1777 Spittler published a special trea- tise J to shew that the list of scriptural books was no part of the original canon adopted by Laodicea. Hefele gives the following re- sume of his argument : 2 (a) That Dionysius Exiguus has not this canon in his translation of the Laodicean de- crees. It might, indeed, be said with Dal- leeus and Van Espen, that Dionysius omitted this list of the books of Scripture because in Rome, where he composed his work, another by Innocent I. was in general use. (b) But, apart from the fact that Dionysius is always a most faithful translator, this six- tieth canon is also omitted by John of Anti- och, one of the most esteemed and oldest Greek collectors of canons, who could have had no such reasons as Dionysius for his omission. (c) Lastly, Bishop Martin of Braga in the sixth century, though he has the fifty-ninth, has also not included in his collection the six- tieth canon so nearly related to it, nor does the Isidorian translation appear at first to have 1 See new edition of his collected works, vol. viij., pp. 66 et seqq. 2 Hefele. Hist, of the Concils, Vol. II., pp, 323, 324. 160 SYNOD OF LAODICEA. A.D. 343-381 had this canon. 1 Herbst, in the Tubingen "Re- view, also accedes to these arguments of Spitt- ler's, as did Fuchs and others before him. Mr. Ffoulkes in his article on the Council of ness of the list, but his conclusions can hardly be accepted when the careful consid- eration and discussion of the matter by- Bishop Westcott is kept in mind. (History Laodicea in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary ' of the Canon of the New Testament, Hid. Pe- of Christian Antiquities at length attempts to riod, chapter ii. [p. 428 of the 4th Edition.]) refute all objections, and affirms the genuine 1 Leonis, Opp., Ed. Ballerini, torn, iii., p. 441, n. xlviij. THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381. Emperor. — Theodosius. 1 Pope. — Damasus. Historical Introduction. TJie Creed and Epiphanius's two Creeds toith 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. Elenchus. The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes. Excursus to Canon L, on the condemned heresies. Excurstis on the Authority of the Second Ecumenical Council. Synodical Letter of the Council of Con- stantinople, A.D. 382. 1 Theodosius was Emperor of the Bast. Gratian was Emperor of the West, but had no share in calling this council. VOL, XIV, M HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. In the whole history of the Church there is no council which bristles with such astonish- ing 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. Amphi- lochius 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 Batnes, 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." J 6. It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was the 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 cen- sure 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 — mirabUe dictu — an English scholar comes forward, read}' to defend the proposition that the First Council of Constantinople never set forth any creed at all ! 3 » Orsi, 1st. Eccl, xviii., 63. his "exaggeration of judgment." (Salmon. Criticism of the 2 E. B. Pusey. The Councils of the Church, A.D. 51-381, p. ; Text of the New Testament, p. 12, also see p. 34.) Swainson, in 306. Tillemont, Mimoires, xvj., 662, who says, '• If none of those his The A'icene and Apostles' Creeds, has all the material points who die out of communion with Rome can merit the title of j found in Hort's Dissertation. Harnack goes much further. He Saints and Confessors, Baronius should have the names of St. is of opinion that the Creed of Constantinople (as we call it), Meletius, St. Elias of Jerusalem and St. Daniel the Stylite the Creed which has been the symbol of orthodoxy for fifteen stricken from the Martyrology." Cf. F. W. Puller, The Primi- . hundred years, is really a Semi-Arian, auti-Nicene, and quasi tive Saints and the See of Rome, pp. 174 and 23S. Macedonian confession ! The first contention he supports, not Many attempts have been made to explain this fact away, but without a shew of plausibility, by the fact that it omits the words without success. Not only was the president of the Council a ' (which were really most crucial) "that istosav of the substance persona non grata to the Pope, but the members of the Council ; of the Father." In support of the second opinion he writes as were well aware of the fact, and much pleased that such was the follows: "The words [with regard to the Holy Ghost] are in case, and Hefele acknowledges that the reason the council deter- entire harmony with the form which the doctrine of the Holy mined to continue the Meletian Schism was because allowing j Spirit had in the sixties. A Pneumatochian could have subscribed Panlinus to succeed to Meletius would be "too great a conces- this formula at a pinch; and just because of this it is certain sion to the Latins " (vol. in., p. 346). \ that the Council of 381 did not accept this creed." Some scholars 3 F. J. A. Hort, Tuo Dissertations. I. On (xovoye'ir;? ©e'o; in arrive at "certainty" more easilv than others, even Harnack Scripture and tradition, IT. On the Constantinopolitan Creed himself only attains this "certainty" in the foot-note! The and other Eastern Creeds of tlte ith Century. It should be added ' reader will remark that what Harnack is " certain " of in the that Dr. Hort acknowledges that, " we may well believe that they ; foot-note is that the Council "did not accept" this creed, not [i.e. the 150 fathers of Constantinople] had expressed approval" ' that it "did not frame " it. which is entirely a different ques- of the creed ordinarily attributed to them (p. 115). The whole j tion. (Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, [Eug. Trans.], Vol. dissertation is a fine example of what Dr. Salmon so well called [ iv., p. 99.) Dr. Hort's " perfervidum ingenium as an advocate," and of 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 Chcdcedon.) 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 expan- sion of the Nicene but rather the adoj)tion 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 Uni- versity 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, Diet. 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 you 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 j'ou : 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, pro- claims it, saying." Then follows the Creed as on page 164. We believe in one God, the Father Al- mighty, 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 sub- stance 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 Avas made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suf- fered and was buried, and the third day lie rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the Rkht 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 be- lieve] in one, holy, (II) Catholic and Apos- tolic 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 mean- ing is concerned, been added to the Nicene Creed, j^ears 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 Encpeniis (a.d. 341) reads : " and he sitteth at the right hand of This is the title in the Acts of the IVth Council. Labbe, Cone., iv., 343. M 3 164 I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 the Father, and he shall 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, Cone, II., 960. Cf. Creed in English Prayer-Book. NOTES. The Creed Found in Epiphanius's Ancoratus (Cap. cxx.) 3 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, begot- ten 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 Aj)Ostles and in the Church, the Holy i Soc, U. E., II., 10 ; Soz., //. E., III. 5 ; Athanas., De Synod., C. xxij. 2 1 have used Petavius's edition, Cologne. 1C82 ; there are some differences in the various editions about the numbering of the chapters, and this seems to be the origin of the curious mistake Hefele makes in confounding the longer with the shorter creed. 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, :i 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 in- visible. Who for us men and for our salva- tion 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, re- ceiving 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 1 he will come in glory to judge both the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Aud we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake in the Law, and preached in the Proph- ets, 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 pro- ceedeth from the Father, receiving of the Son (sk rov Tlarpos iK~opev6/xevov, kcu e« tov Ylov Aa/i- Pavo/jLtrov), and believed on. (kcu mo-revofievoi', 3 This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held a't Constanti- nople in 381. I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 1G5 which the Latin version gives in quern credi- mus ; and proceeds to insert, Prceterea credi- mus in unam, etc. It certainly looks as if it had read TnoTzvojj.iv, and had belonged to the following phrase.) [We believe] in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. And in one baptism of penitence, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the mother both of you and of its, anathematizes. And further we anathematize such as do not con- fess 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 believ- and in the resurrection of the dead, and the ■ ing and keeping the commandments of this just judgment of souls and bodies, and in the i same faith, we trust that you will always pray Kingdom of heaven and in life everlasting. for us, that we may have a share and lot in And those who say that there was a time j that same faith and in the keeping of these when the Son Avas not, or when the Holy : same commandments. For us make your Ghost was not, or that either was made of that j intercessions you and all who believe thus, which previously had no being, or that he is and keep the commandments of the Lord in of a different nature or substance, and affirm our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are : with whom, glory be to the Father with the subject to change and mutation ; all such the I 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 opposi- tion to his wishes and command. 3. That it never Avas intended by the words to assert that there were two 'Apxal 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 " Avas first used. For a temperate and emi- nently 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 Avill be found a statement from the oppo- site 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 Avere often written in the period of hot controversy, and make more for strife than for peace, magnifying rather than lessening dif- ferences both of thought and expression. Perhaps, too, I may be allowed here to remind the readers that it has been said that AA-hile " ex Patre Filioque procedens " in Latin does not necessitate a double source of the Holy Spirit, the expression tKiroptvoiLzvov in tov Trarpos jcai e« rov Ylov does. On such a point I am not fit to give an opinion, but St. John Damascene does not use this expression. 1. That no pretence is made by the West that the words in dispute ever formed part of 166 I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 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 fre- quently 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, consub- stantial 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 Kome 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 incon- ceivable, 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. 1 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 inser- tion 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 1 In fact the contention of the Latins was that the words were inserted by II. Nice ! To this the Easterns answered most perti- nently " Why did you not tell us this long ago ? " They were not so fortunate when they insisted that St. Thomas would have quoted it. for some scholars have thought St. Thomas but ill ac- quainted with the proceedings at the Seventh Synod. Vide Ile- fele, Concil. XLVIII., § 610. a E. B. Pusey. On the clause " and The Son," p. 6S. 3 HefeIe. Hist, of tlw Councils. Vol. III., p. 1T5. * Ilefele. Hist. Counc, Vol. IV.. p. 41H. 6 Hefele. Hist. Counc, Vol. IV., p. 470 ; Vol. V., p. 208. 6 Muratorius. Ord. Rom.. Tom. I., col. 541. 7 Mabillon. Mus. Ital., Tom. I., p. 313 and p. 3T6. " Labbe and Cossart. Concilia., Tom. vij, col. 1194. a Capit. Keg. Franc, Tom. I., p. 483. 10 Fleury. Hist. Bed., Liv. xlv., chap. 48. I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 1G7 So firmly resolved was the Pope that the clause should not be introduced into the creed that he presented two silver shields to the Gonfessio in St. Peter's at Rome, on one of which was engraved the creed in Latin and on the other in Greet, 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 l mentions them as still in place ; and about two centuries later on, Veccur, 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 Ave 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 " an- other faith " (kripav ttio-tlv) 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 1 Pet. Damiau. Opusc, sxxviij. 2 Leo Allat. Grtec. Orthod., Tom. I„ p. 173. 168 I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 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 frepav 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 Re- carede, that through all the churches of Spain and Gallsecia, the symbol of faith of the coun- cil 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 374 " 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." ~ 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 : Ken ets to ayiov Tryeu/xa TTiaTevofid', «k tov 7rarpos iKiropevoiieiov kcu Ik tov Ytov Xa.jxfio.v6' l±evov iro testations 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 determina- tions, will admit of no such insertions, nor speak any other language than the Scriptures and their Fathers spake." 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 this council. The Council of Chalcedon 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 pres- ent we are entirely in the dark. 1 Peter of Antioch about a.d. 1054, says that he had heard the name of the Roman Pontiff recited from the Diptychs at the mass at Constantinople forty-five years before. Le Quien, p. xii. 2 E. B. Pusey. On the clause "and the Son," p. 72. 3 Tillemont. Memoircs, Tom. is., art. 78, in the treatise on St. Greg. Nonz. LETTEB OF THE SAME HOLY SYNOD TO THE MOST PIOUS EMPEBOR THEODOSIUS THE GREAT, TO WHICH ARE APPENDED THE CANONS ENACTED BY THEM. {Found in Labbe, Concilia, Tom. II , Olfi.) To the most religious Emperor Theodosins, 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 pra} T ers {ev^a-h rwv dytcov) of the Saints, 1 shew 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. 1 On the whole subject of the prayers of the Saints see H. R. j devoted to an historical and theological consideration of the sub- Perciva',, The Invocation of Saints. (Longmans. London, 1S9G.) ject. Of course the subject is treated of cursorily in numerous I have the less hesitation in referring to my own work as it is, I theological treatises and dictionaries, so far as I can discover, the only book in the English language | INTEODUCTION 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 ; but 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 Chal- cedon. But it was at this very Council of Chalcedon that the first three canons of Constan- tinople were read out word for word. As however, they were not separately numbered, but were there read under the general title of Synodicon Synodi Secunda?, Fuchs concluded that they were not originally in the form in which we now possess them, but, without being di- vided 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, accord- ing 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 cen- tury 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 Constan- tinople, 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 Bithy- nia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathema- tized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomteans, the Avians 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 Niccne faith stand firm. Anathema to heresy. ties with the Arians [according to his text, vide siqjra,] is meant that faction who, in con- tradistinction to the strict Arians or Anompc- ans on one side, and the Semi-Arians on the There is a difference of reading in the list I other side, followed the leadership of the of the heretics. The reading I have followed Court Bishop Eudoxius (Bishop of Constan- in the text is that given in Beveridge's Sy- tinople under the Emperor Valens), and with- nodicon. The Creek text, however, in Labbe, | out being entirely Anomsean, yet very decid- and with it agree the version of Hervetus and : e dly inclined to the left of the Arian party— the text of Hefele, reads : " the Eunomians or j probably claiming to represent the old and Anomseans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the Semi- 1 original Arianism. But this canon makes Arians or Pneumatomachi, the Sabellians, ; the Semi-Arians identical with the Pneuma- Marcellians, Photinians and Apollinarians." | tomachians, and so far rightly, that the latter From this Dionysius only varies by substi- J sprang from the Semi-Arian party, and ap- tuting "Macedonians " for "Semi-Arians." j plied the Arian principle to their doctrine of It would seem that this was the correct read- j the Holy Ghost. Lastly, by the Marcellians ing. I, however, have followed the other as | are meant those pupils of Marcellus of Ancy- ra who remained in the errors formerly pro- pounded by him, while afterwards others, and indeed he himself, once more acknowl- being the more usual. Hefele. By the Eudoxians, whom this canon identi- edged the truth. EXCURSUS ON THE HERESIES CONDEMNED IN CANON 1 In treating of these heresies I shall 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 ele ment of discord still extant, and so shortly afterwards as in 359 the double-synod of Rimini 1 Such is the caption in the old Greek codices. The vijth of I that this synod which according to Socrates E., v. 8) begun the Ides is July 9th. " From this (says Hefele) we may conclude \ May 381, lasted until July of that year." I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 173 (Ariminuin) and Selencia rejected the expressions homousion and liomosusion 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 Mace- donian 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 Avians, p. 226 ; or as Tille- mont says {Man. 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 after- wards, in 362, the Council of Alexandria condemned the notion that the Spirit was a creat- ure, 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 re- jected 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 Spiritu 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-givei", 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 connex- ion between the Semi-Arians and Pneumatomachi, as well as to see how the undestroyed heretical germs of the Semi-Arian heresy necessitated by their development the condemna- tion of a second synod. The Apollinarians. (Philip Schaff, in Smith and Wace, Diet. Christ. Biog., s. v. Apollinaris.) Apollinaris was the first to apply the results of the Nicene controversy to Christology proper, and to call the attention of the Church to the psychical and pneumatic element in the humanity of Christ ; but in his zeal for the true deity of Christ, and fear of a double 174 I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 personality, he fell into the error of a partial denial of his true humanity. Adopting the psychological trichotomy of Plato (a-up-a, ipvxq, weii/Aa), for which he quoted I. Thess. v. 23 and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to Christ a human body (awp.a) and a human soul (the ^/v^q aAoyos, the anima animans which man has in common with the animal), but not a rational spirit (voEs, Trvev/xa, \pvxq koyiKt], 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 the two, and so a true incarnation ; but he sought this at the expense of the most important constituent of man. He reached only a ©cos o-api7ro/?i/?ao7J.6v) and diminution. And otherwise it would be im- possible to guard this equality of honour in each see. For in reciting their names, or assigning them seats when they are to sit to- gether, or arranging the order of their signa- tures to documents, one must come before the other. Whoever therefore shall explain this particle fiera 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, ixera manifestly denotes subjection, assigning to Constantinople the second place after the throne of Old Rome ; and then adds, after this Alexandria, then Anti- och, 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 consid- eration that, since the elevation of Constanti- nople to the Imperial residence, as New Rome, the bishops as well as the Emperors naturally wished to see the new imperial resi- dence, 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 Alex- andria which, by favouring Maximus, had ex- ercised such a disturbing influence on Church affairs in Constantinople, may well have helped to effect the elevation of the See of Constan- tinople 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 1 The reader will notice that this is not even an approximately | half later, after Leo I. had done so much to establish the power contemporaneous interpretation, but more than a century and a | of his see. I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 179 Council, the Papal Legate, Lucentius, express- ly declared this. In like manner the Popes Leo the Great and Gregory the Great pro- nounced against it ; and though even Gratian adopted this canon in his collection the Ro- man critics added the following note : Canon hie ex iis est, quos Apostolica liomana Secies a principio et longo post tempore non recepit. It was only when, after the conquest of Con- stantinople by the Latins, a Latin patriarchate was founded there in 1204, that Pope Inno- cent 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 through- out 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 prece- dence over Alexandria and Antioch was a pro- ceeding 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 Dory- j Iseum maintained that St. Leo himself had ap- proved it. " The simple fact is, that, exceeding- 1 ly unwilling as the Bishops of Rome were to sanction it, from this time, 381, to say the least, I the Bishop of Constantinople appears uni- ' formly 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 Gkatian'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." J However, the bishops of Constantinople, sus- j tained 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. antiqiia 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 Constanti- nople on his account, it is decreed that Maxinms 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. Edmund Venables. Let Maximus the Cynic be cast out from (Smith and Wace, Diet Christ. Biocj.) among the bishops, and anyone who was in- Maximus the Cynic ; the intrusive bishop of scribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as Constantinople, a.d. 380. Ecclesiastical his- profane. | tory hardly presents a more extraordinary 1 T. W. Allies. The Ch. of Eng. cleared from the Charge I 2 For some reason this canon (toes not seem to be any more ac- of Schism. (Written while an Anglican) p. 94 (,2d Edition). j ceptable to modern champions of the Papacy than it was to the N 2 ISO I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 career than that of this man, who, after a most disreputable youth, more than once brought to justice for his misdeeds, and bear- ing the scars of his punishments, by sheer impudence, clever flattery, and adroit manage- ment 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 illus- trates 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 juris- diction which she has never formally relin- quished over the see of Constantinople, more particularly in a vacancy in the episcopate (Neale, Patr. of Alexandria, i., 206). The con- duct 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, hi., 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 Alexan- dria over Constantinople and so over the East, which was still further illustrated a few years later by the high-handed behaviour of The- ophilus 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 com- bine the Christian profession with Cynic phi- losophy. 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 uncom- promising. The simple-hearted Gregory be- came the complete dupe of Maximus. All this time Maximus was secretly matur- ing 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. Greg- ory, he asserted, had never been formally en- throned bishop of Constantinople ; his trans- lation thither was a violation of the canons of the church ; rustic in manners, he had proved himself quite unfitted for the place. Con- stantinople Avas 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 Constan- tinople, envious of Gregory's talents and popu- larity (de Tit., 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 oppor- tunity for carrying out the plot. When all was ripe they were followed by a bevy of bishops, with secret instructions from the pa- triarch 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 com- menced the rite of ordination. By the time they had set the Cynic on the archiepiscojml 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 ap- peared on the scene with their officers ; Maxi- mus and his consecrators were driven from the sacred precincts, and in the house or shop of a flute-player the tonsure was completed. Maximus repaired to Thessalonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He met with a cold reception from the emperor, who com- mitted the matter to Ascholius, the much re- spected 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 Mace- Chnrch of Rome fifteen hnndred years ago. I give as a sample 1 nople was the germ of the successful mendacity of the arch-rebel of this the following from n recent Roman Catholic writer : " The Photius." (Rivfngton. The Prim. Ch„ p. 263). The phraseology decree which goes by the name of the Third Canon of Constanti- | seems to suggest warm discontent at the canon. T. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 181 donian bishops, lie vehemently condemns the " ardor animi et fceda presumptio " which had led certain persons coming from Egypt, in violation of the rule of ecclesiastical disci- pline, to have proposed to consecrate a rest- less man, an alien from the Christian profes- sion, not worthy to be called a Christian, who wore an idolatrous garb (" habitus idoli ") and the long hair which St. Paul said Avas a shame to a man, and remarks on the fact that being expelled from the church they were compelled to complete the ordination "intra parietes alienos." In the second letter, ad- dressed 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 maybe ordained (Migne, Patrolog., xiii., pp. 366-369 ; Ep. 5 ; 5, 6). Maximus returned to Alexandria, and de- manded 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 pre- sented 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 Con- stantinople he would have that of Alexandria. Peter appealed to the prefect, by whom Maxi mus was driven out of E ; Peter and the , s ypt. The death of 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. Max., 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 sym- pathy of the church of Borne ; 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. duction on the number of the Canons.) Vide. Intro- 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 con- substantial 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 (accept- ed it and) acknowledged the unity of the Godhead of the Father etc." In opposition to this translation Hefele urges that diroSixea-- 9ai in ecclesiastical language usually refers to receiving persons and recognizing them, not opinions or doctrines. Hefele. This canon probably does not belong to the second General Council, but to the Synod held in the following year at Constantinople consisting of nearly the same bishops. It is certain that by the "Tome of the Westerns " a dogmatic work of the Western bishops is to be understood, and the only question is which Tome of the Westerns is here meant. Several — for instance, the Greek commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, and the spokesman of the Latins at the Synod of Florence in 1439 (Archbishop Andrew of Rhodes) — understood by it the decrees of the Synod of Sardica ; but it seems to me that 182 I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 this canon undoubtedly indicates that the Tome of the Westerns also mentioned the con- dition of the Antiochian Church, and the di- vision 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 360, 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 Mele- tian 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 Constan- tinople in 382. (2.) We still possess in Theodoret a Syno- dal 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 men- tioned, 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 ac- cepted 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 signa- tures of the members, back to Rome, as a supplement to its Synodal Letter ; and hence Lucas Holstenius was still able to find frag- ments 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 Constanti- nople 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 pre- served of this Tome contain no passage di- rectly 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 alreadj' long before (dudum) written to the Orientals in order to put an end to the divis- ion 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 Avhich occasioned and called the synod into being. Lastly, for the full understanding of this 1 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 or- thodox." Agreeing with this remark of the Westerns, repeated in their letter of 381, the Easterns in this canon say, " We also recog- nise all Antiochians as orthodox who acknowl- edge the oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 1. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.f). 38i 183 CANON VI. (Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 382. Introduction on the number of Canons.) Vide Forasmuch as many Avishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order, do con- tentiously 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 Avithout 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 Ave ourselves have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold the true faith Avho have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles in opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any Avho have been condemned for faults and cast out of the Church, or excommunicated, Avhether of the clergy or the laity, neither shall it be laAvful for these to bring an accusation against the bishop, until they have cleared aAvay the charge against themselves. In like manner, persons Avho are under previous accu- sations are not to be permitted to bring charges against a bishop or any other clergy- man, until they shall have proved their oavii 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 ecclesi- astical 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, Avhatso- ever they may be, Avhich they have brought against the bishop. And if the compro- vincials 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 them- selves, if, in the course of the examination, they shall be proved to have slandered the accused bishop. And if anyone, despising Avhat 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 Ecu- menical Synod, such an one shall by no means be admitted as an accuser ; forasmuch as he has cast contempt upon the Canons, and brought reproach upon the order of the Church. NOTES. Ancient Epitome or Canon VI. Even one that is of ill repute, if he have suf- fered any injury, let him bring a charge against the bishop. If however it be a crime of eccle- siastical matters let him not speak. Nor shall another condemned before, spieale. Let not one excommunicated, or cast forth, or charged with any crimes speak, until he is cleared of them. But those ivho should bring the charge are the ortho- dox, who are communicants, uncondcmned, un- accused. Let the case be heard by the provin- cials. If hoivever they are not able to decide the case, let them have recourse to a greater synod and let them not be heard, ivithout a writ- ten declaration of liability to the same suffer- ings [i.e. of their readiness to be tried by the lex 184 1 CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 taliouis.] 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 sup- poses 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 olKovafjalv when used absolutely as in this canon. He says, " When a merely ' economic ' function is intended, the context shews it, as in Chalce- don, Canon xxvj." He also points out that in Canon ij., and in Eusebins (H. E. iv., 4), and when St. Basil wishes his brother to oikovojiuv a church suited to his temperament (Epist. xcviij., 2) the meaning of the word is evi- dently spiritual stewardship. ZONAKAS. 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 dis- trict or territory assigned to any one bishop, as we to-day use the word ; but for a district, which not only contained many episcopal dis- tricts, as to-day 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 Philorj- opolis 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 judg- ing 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 tal/onis). Vide Gratian, Pt. j II., Causa II., Qiuest. III., 2 and 3, where we read from the decree of Pope Hadrian ; " Who- ever 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 Calunvniatoribus, and reads, " Whoso charges a crime, shall not have licence to lie with impunity, since justice re- quires that calumniators shall endure the pun- ishment 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 Emper- ; ors, is referred to in law xxiij. of the Code of Theodosius, De Episcop>is el C/ericis. Whatever may be said of the meeting of bishops at which this canon was enacted, this is clear, no mention was made of the Boman Pontiff, nor of the Council of Sardica, as Fleury notes in his Hisfoire Ecclesiastique, Lib. xviij., 1 n. 8. From this it is evident either that at that time the Orientals did not admit, especially for bishops, appeals to the Boman Pontiff ; nor ! did they accept the authority of the Synod of Sardica, in so far as it permitted that the sen- tence given in a provincial synod, should be reopened by the neighbouring bishops to- gether with the bishops of the province, and if it seemed good, that the cause might be re- ferred to Borne. 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 iEgyp., and what is particularly to be observed, in the collection and nomocanon of John of Antioch ; and I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 185 this not through want of attention on his part, as is clear from this namely, that in the order of the Canons as given by him he attributes six Canons only to this second General Council, saying " . . . of the Fathers who assembled at Constantinople, by whom six Canons were set forth," so that it is clear the present was not reckoned among the canons of this council in those days. Nay, the whole conrposition 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 con- firmed, 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 cen- tury 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 Mace- donians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristeri, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a writ- ten renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accord- ance 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 Euno- mians, 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 Avho come from the country of the Galatians : — all these, Avhen they desire to turn to orthodoxy, Ave receive as heathen. On the first clay Ave make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, Ave exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears ; and thus Ave instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures ; and then Ave baptize them. NOTES. Ancient Epitome of Canon VII. 1 Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, Arians, Mace- donians, Sabbatians, and Apollinarians ought to be received loith their books and anointed in cdl their organs of sense. Ancient Epitome of Canon VIII. ing with chrism of the eyes, the nostrils, the ears, the mouth, and the broAv ; and signing them with the words, " The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." For the "Cathari," see Notes on Canon viij. of I. Nice. Hammond. Sabbatians. Sabbatius Avas a presbyter Eunomians baptized uith one immersion, Sa- , 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. bellians, and Phrygians are to be received as heathen. Aristemus (in- Can. vij.). Those giA-ing up their books and execrat- ing every heresy are received Avith only anoint- 1 This canon is broken into two by the Ancient Epitome. 186 I. CONSTANTINOPLE. A..D. 381 Aristeri. This is probably a false reading , others Tertullian, but being condemned by for Aristi, i.e. the best. In the letter above j the Church, his followers formed a sect re- mentioned the expression is Cathari and Ca- ; markable for extreme austerity. But al- theroteri, i.e. the pure, and the more pure. I though they asserted that the Holy Ghost The Quarto-decimans, or Tetradites, were ; had inspired Montanus to introduce a system those persons who persisted in observing the ; of greater perfection than the Church had be- Easter festival with the Jews, on the four- . fore known, and condemned those who would teenth day of the first month, whatever day ; not join them as carnal, they did not at first of the week it happened to be. innovate in any of the articles of the Creed. Montanists. One of the older sects, so | This sect lasted a long time, and spread much called from Montanus, who embraced Chris- in Phrygia and the neighbouring districts, tianity in the second century. He professed j whence they were called Phryges and Cata- to be inspired in a peculiar way by the Holy : phryges, and latterly adopted the errors of Ghost, and to prophesy. He was supported ! Sabellius respecting the Trinity, in his errors by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who also pretended to prophesy. The other heresies mentioned in this canon His heresy infected many persons, amongst 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, ct 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 Con- stantinople, sent the Latins a copy of the decrees of faith composed the year before, expressly calling this Synod oIkov/jlcviktj and at the same time seeking to justify it in those points which had been censured. Photius ] maintains that soon afterwards Pope Dainasus 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, Poise 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 : Homana autem Ecclesia eosdam canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet, nee accepit ; in hoc autem cam accepit, quod est per earn contra Macedonium definition. 2 Thus, as late as the year 600, only the creed, but not the canons of the Synod of Con- stantinople were accepted at Borne ; 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 ecumeni- cal 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 Nicsea and Ephesus, and designated the latter as fj SevTepa o-woSos, as a plain token that it did not ascribe such a high rank to the assembly 1 Photius, De Synodis, p. 1143, ed. Justelli. a Greg., EpUt, Lib. L, 25. L CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 381 187 at Constantinople. It might perhaps be objected that only the Monophysites, who notori- ously ruled the Bobber-Synod, used this language ; but the most determined opponent of the Monophysites, their accuser, Bishop Eusebius of Doylseum, in like manner also brought forward only the two Synods of Nicpea 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 Nicsea, 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 Nicsea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, as of equal rank. 1 But in the West, and especially in Bome, however satisfied people were with the decree of faith enacted by this Synod, and its completion of the creed, yet its third canon, respect- ing 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 con- firmed 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 Bome). 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 predeces- sors 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 Euse- bius of Doylseum 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 Niceea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon ; neither did his successor Gelasius (492-496) in his genuine decree, De libris rccipiendis, 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 Constanti- nople, and not to its canons, as we have already observed in reference to the third and sixth of them. 1 In his edict against the Three Chapters. » Leo, Epist, cvi. u., ed. Ballerini, t. i., p. 11C5. 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 Avere not already well acquainted with them, might seem superfluous. For Ave do not suppose your piety to hold Avhat is befalling us as of such secondary importance as that you stand in any need of informa- tion on matters Avhich cannot but evoke your sympathy. Nor indeed AA'ere the storms Avhich 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 oavu. It Avas but a day or tAvo ago, so to speak, that some released from chains in foreign lands returned to their oavu churches through manifold afflictions ; of others Avho had died in exile the relics Avere 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 Avas the blessed Stephen, met with a sadder fate in their own than in a stranger's land. Others, Avorn aAvay Avith various cruelties, still bear in their bodies the scars of their Avounds and the marks of Christ. Who covdd tell the tale of fines, of disfranchisements, of individual confiscations, of intrigues, of outrages, of prisons ? In truth all kinds of tribulation Avere Avrought out beyond number in us, perhaps because we Avere paying the penalty of sins, perhaps because the merciful God Avas trying us by means of the multi- tude of our sufferings. For these all thanks to God, Avho 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 Avhole we seem to have been delivered from the A-iolence of our persecutions and to be just now recoA T ering the churches which haA r e for a long time been the prey of the heretics. But Avolves are troublesome to us Avho, though they haA r e been driven from the fold, }-et harry the flock up and doAvn the glades, daring to hold rival assemblies, stirring seditions among the people, and shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches. So, as we haA T e already said, we needs must labour all the longer. Since, however, you sliOAved your brotherly love to us by inviting us (as though Ave Avere your own members) by the letters of our most religious emperor to the synod Avhich you are gathering by divine permission at Rome, to the end that since Ave alone Avere then condemned to suffer persecution, you should not uoav, Avhen our emper- ors are at one with us as to true religion, reign apart from us, but that Ave, to use the Apostle's phrase, should reign Avith you, our prayer was, if it Avere possible, all in com- pany to leave our churches, and rather gratify our longing to see you than consult their needs. For Avho 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 Avho Avere just recovering quite unde- fended, and the undertaking was to most of us impossible, for, in accordance Avith the let- ters sent a year ago from your holiness after the synod at Aquileia to the most pious emperor Theodosius, Ave had journeyed to Constantinople, equipped only for traA'elliug 1 Found in Tlieod., ir. E. v. 9. The reader is warned against inaccurate translations of the dogmatic portions. CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 382 189 so far as Constantinople, and bringing the consent of the bishops remaining in the prov- inces 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 prep- aration 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 major- ity 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 Gyriacus, 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 princes, or any other trial at the hands of heretics, have undergone all for the sake of the evan- gelic faith, ratified by the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicaaa 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 h} T postases, i.e. the destruction of the personalities ; thus the blasphemy of theEunomians, of the Arians, and of the Pneumato- machi is nullified, which divides the substance, the nature, and 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 soidless 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 bish- ops 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 though from a lion's mouth, we have lately snatched by God's mercy from the blasphemy of the heretics, Ave have or- dained bishop the right reverend and most religious Nectarius, in the presence of the Ecu- menical 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 Avas 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, avIio as though Avith 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, Ave make knoAvn that the right reverend and most religious Cyril is bishop, avIio Avas some time ago canonically ordained by the bish- ops of the province, and has in several places fought a good fight against the Arians. We beseech your reverence to rejoice at Avhat has thus been rightly and canonically set- tled by us, by the intervention of spiritual love and by the influence of the fear of the 190 CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 382 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 aud 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. THE THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS. A.D. 431 Emperors. — Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. Pope. — Celestine I. Elenchus. Historical Introduction. Note on the Emperor's Edict to the Synod. Extracts from the Acts, Session I. St. Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, Intelligo quos dam. Continucdion of Session I. Historical Introduction to Cyril's Anathe- matisms. The Canonical Epistle of St. Cyril, Cum Salvator noster. The XII. Ancdhematisms of St. Cyril, and Decree against Nestorius, with Notes. Extracts from the Acts, Session II. St. Celestine's Letter to the Synod. Continuation of Session II. Session III. The Canons, loitli the Ancient EpAtome, and Notes. Excursus to Canon j., On the Conciliahu- lum of John of Aniioch. Excursus to Canon iv., On Pelagianism. Excursus to Canon vii., On the words Nestorius 's Counter - ancdhematisms, with ttI Tillemont, Meuioires. Tom. XIV., p. 405. EPHESUS. A.D. 431 201 Council: "The [letter] of the Twelve Anathemas which is inserted in the holy Council of Ephesus, and which you cannot deny to be synodical, why did not Chalcedon receive it ? " etc., etc. From this it is evident that the prevailing opinion, then as now, was that the Twelve Anath- emas were defined as part of the faith by the Council of Ephesus. Perhaps I may close this treatment of the subject in the words of Denziger, being the caption he gives the xij. Anathematisms in his Enchiridion, under "Decrees of the Third Ecumenical Council, that of Ephesus." " The Third Synod received these anathematisms ; the Fourth Synod placed them in its Acts and styled the Epistles of Cyril ' Canonical ' ; the Fifth Synod defended them." THE EPISTLE OF CYEIL TO NESTORIUS WITH THE XII. ANATHE- MATISMS. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 395; Migne, Pair. Grcec, Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril, Opera, Tom. X.], col. 105 et seqq.) To the most reverend and God-loving fellow-minister Nestorius, Cyril and the synod assembled in Alexandria, of the Egyptian Province, Greeting in the Lord. When our Saviour says, clearly: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me : and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," what is to become of us, from whom your Holiness requires that we love you more than Christ the Saviour of us all? Who can help us in the day of judgment, or what kind of excuse shall we find for thus keeping silence so long, with regard to the blasphemies made by you against him ? If you injured yourself alone, by teaching and holding such things, perhaps it would be less matter ; but you have greatly scan- dalized the whole Church, and have cast among the people the leaven of a strange and new heresy. And not to those there [i.e. at Constantinople] only; but also to those everywhere [the books of your ex- planation were sent]. Hoav can we any longer, under these circumstances, make a defence for our silence, or how shall we not be forced to remember that Christ said : " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth : I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daugh- ter against her mother." For if faith be in- jured, let there be lost the honour due to parents, as stale and tottering, let even the law of tender love towards children and brothers be silenced, let death be better to the pious than living ; " that they might obtain a better resurrection," as it is written. Behold, therefore, how we, together with the holy synod which met in great Rome, presided over by the most holy and most reverend brother and fellow-minister, Celes- tine the Bishop, also testify by this third letter to you, and counsel you to abstain from these mischievous and distorted dog- mas, which you hold and teach, and to re- ceive the right faith, handed down to the churches from the beginning through the holy Apostles and Evangelists, who " were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word." And if your holiness have not a mind to this according to the limits defined in the writings of our brother of blessed memory and most reverend fellow-minister Celes- tine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, be Avell assured then that you have no lot with us, nor place or standing (Xoyov) among the priests and bishops of God. For it is not possible for us to overlook the churches thus troubled, and the people scandalized, and the right faith set aside, and the sheep scattered by you, who ought to save them, if indeed we are ourselves adherents of the right faith, and followers of the devotion of the holy fathers. And Ave are in commun- ion with all those laymen and clergymen cast out or deposed by your holiness on account of the faith ; for it is not right that those, avIio resolved to believe rightly, should suffer by your choice ; for they do Avell in opposing you. This very thing you have mentioned in your epistle Avritten to our most holy and felloAV-bishop Celes- tine of great Rome. But it Avould not be sufficient for your reverence to confess with us only the sym- 202 EPHESUS. A.D. 431 bol of the faith set out some time ago by the Holy Ghost at the great and holy synod convened in Nice : for you have not held and interpreted it right] y, but rather pervert Aj ; even though you confess with your voice the form of words. But in addition, in writing and by oath, you must confess that you also anathematize those polluted and unholy dogmas of yours, and that you will hold and teach that which we all, bishops, teachers, and leaders of the people both East and West, hold. The holy synod of Rome and we all agreed on the epistle written to your Holiness from the Alexandrian Church as being right and blameless. We have added to these our own letters and that which it is necessary for you to hold and teach, and what you should be careful to avoid. Now this is the Eaith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox Bishops, both East and West, agree : "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is, of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten, not made, be- ing of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and Avas made man. He suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those that say, There Avas a time Avhen he A\ r as not, and, before he was begotten he Avas not, and that he Avas made of that Avhich previously Avas not, or that he A\ r as of some other substance or essence ; and that the Son of God Avas capable of change or al- ; teration ; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes." FolloAving in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers Avhich they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and follow- ing the scope of their opinions, and going, as it Avere, in the royal Avay, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heaven and the things in the I earth, coming doAvn for our salvation, mak- ing himself of no reputation (KaSeU kavrbv eh Kevcoaiv), Avas incarnate and made man ; j that is, taking flesh of the holy Virgin, and j having made it his own from the AA r omb, he subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, Avithout casting j off that which he Avas ; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained Avhat he Avas, God in essence and in truth. Neither do Ave say that his flesh Avas changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God AA-as laid aside for the nature of flesh ; for he is unchanged and absolutely un- changeable, being the same always, accord- ing to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in SAvaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and Avas a felloAA T -ruler with him avIio begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and can- not have limits. Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, Ave adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ : Ave do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the tAvo natures were mutualty united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do Ave give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a Avoman ; but Ave knoAv only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own Flesh. For as man he was anointed with us, although it is he himself who gives the Spirit to those avIio are worthy and not in measure, according to the saying of the blessed EA'angelist John. But Ave do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man ; for although the Word tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ " dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily " ; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dAvell in the saints, but Ave define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality (Kara tov "crov iv avrco rpoTrov)-. But being made one Kara (pvaiv, 1 and not converted into flesh, he made his indwell- i Vide notes on this expression. EPHESUS. A.D. 431 203 iug in such a way, as Ave may say that the soul of man does in his own body. One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity 1 of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures ; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition, for this does not suffice for natural oneness (7rpo9 evcoaov (pvai/crjv). .Nor yet according to relative participation, as we are also joined to the Lord, as it is written " we are one Spirit in him." Rather Ave deprecate the term of "junction" {o-vvafyeias) as not having sufficiently signified the oneness. But we do not call the Word of God the Father, the God nor the Lord of Christ, lest we openly cut in two the one Christ, the Son and Lord, and fall under the charge of blasphemy, making him the God and Lord of himself. For the Word of God, as we have said already, was made hypo- statically one in flesh, yet he is God of all and he rules all ; but he is not the slave of himself, nor his own Lord. For it is fool- ish, or rather impious, to think or teach thus. For he said that God was his Father, although he was God by nature, and of his substance. Yet we are not ig- norant that while he remained God, he also became man and subject to God, ac- cording to the laAv suitable to the nature of the manhood. But how could he become the God or Lord of himself ? Conse- quently as man, and with regard to the measure of his humiliation, it is said that he is equally with us subject to God ; thus he became under the Law, although as God he spake the Law and was the Law-giver. We are careful also how we say about Christ: "I worship the One clothed on account of the One clothing him, and on account of the Unseen, I worship the Seen." It is horrible to say in this con- nexion as follows : " The assumed as well as the assuming have the name of God." For the saying of this divides again Christ into two, and puts the man separately by himself and God also by himself. For this 1 This passage is very difficult, and 1 have followed the Latin in omitting one ©eric. saying denies openly the Unity according to which one is not worshipped in the other, nor does God exist together with the other; but Jesus Christ is considered as One, the Only-begotten Son, to be honoiired with one adoration together with his own flesh. We confess that he is the Son, begotten of God the Father, and Only-begotten God ; and although according to his own nature he was not subject to suffering, yet he suffered for us in the flesh according to the Scriptures, and although impassible, yet in his Crucified Body he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh; and by the grace of God he tasted death for all : he gave his own Body thereto, although he was by nature himself the life and the re- surrection, in order that, having trodden down death by his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh, he might become the first born from the dead, and the first-fruits of them that slept. And that he might make a way for the nature of man to attain incorruption, by the grace of God (as Ave just noAV said), he tasted death for every man, and after three days rose again, having despoiled hell. So although it is said that the resurrection of the dead Avas through man, yet Ave understand that man to have been the Word of God, and the poAver of death was loosed through him, and he shall come in the fulness of time as the One Son and Lord, in the glory of the Father, in or- der to judge the Avorld in righteousness, as it is written. We will necessarily add this also. Pro- claiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it ; God forbid ; nor as of a man sanctified and as- sociated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine in- d welling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and AA'hen he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us : Verily, verily, I say unto 204 EPIIESUS. A.D. 431 you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood. For we must not think that it is flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature ?) but as having become tru- ly the very own of him who for tis both be- came and was called Son of Man. Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of himself, we do not divide between two hy- postases or persons. For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two (e« Bvo) and they diverse, yet he has joined them in an indi- visible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person (7rap' ivbs elprjaSai). For when as God he speaks about him- self: "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father," and " I and my Father are one," we consider his ineffable divine nature according to which he is One with his Father through the identity of essence — " The image and impress and brightness of his glory." But when not scorning the measure of his humanity, he said to the Jews : " But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth." Again no less than before we recognize that he is the Word of God from his identity and like- ness to the Father and from the circum- stances of his humanity. For if it is neces- sary to believe that being by nature God, he became flesh, that is, a man endowed with a reasonable soul, what reason can certain ones have to be ashamed of this language about him, which is suitable to him as man? For if he should reject the words suitable to him as man, who compelled him to become man like us ? And as he humbled himself to a voluntary abasement (tcevaHriv) for us, for what cause can any one reject the words suitable to such abasement ? There- fore all the words which are read in the Gospels are to be applied to One Person, to One hypostasis of the Word Incarnate. For the Lord Jesus Christ is One, accord- ing to the Scriptures, although he is called " the Apostle and High Priest of our pro- fession," as offering to God and the Father the confession of faith which we make to him, and through him to God even the Fath- er and also to the Holy Spirit ; yet we say he is, according to nature, the Only-begot- ten of God. And not to any man different from him do we assign the name of priest- hood, and the thing, for he became "the Mediator between God and men," and a Reconciler unto peace, having offered him- self as a sweet smelling savour to God and the Father. Therefore also he said : " Sac- rifice and offering thou wouldest not ; but a body hast thou prepared me : In burnt offer- ings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God." For on account of us he offered his body as a sweet smelling savour, and not for himself ; for what offer- ing or sacrifice was needed for himself, who as God existed above all sins? For "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," so that we became prone to fall, and the nature of man has fallen into sin, yet not so he (and therefore we fall short of his glory). How then can there be further doubt that the true Lamb died for us and on our account? And to say that he offered himself for himself and us, could in no way escape the charge of im- piety. For he never committed a fault at I all, neither did he sin. What offering then j did he need, not having sin for which sac- ' rifices are rightly offered ? But when he , spoke about the Spirit, he said: "He shall [ glorify me." If we think rightly, we do not say that the One Christ and Son as needing glory from another received glory from the I Holy Spirit ; for neither greater than he nor above him is his Spirit, but because he used the Holy Spirit to show forth his ' own divinity in his mighty works, therefore ! he is said to have been glorified by him just ! as if any one of us should say concerning his inherent strength for example, or his knowledge of anything, " They glorified ' me." For although the Spirit is the same | essence, yet we think of him by himself, as he is the Spirit and not the Son ; but he is not different from him ; for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the Truth, and he is sent by him, just as, moreover, he is from God and the Father. When then the Spirit worked miracles through the hands of the holy apostles after the Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, he glo- rified him. For it is believed that he who works through his own Spirit is God ac- Therefore he said : " He mine, and shall shew it cording to nature. shall receive of EPHESUS. A.D. 431 205 unto yon." But we do not say this as if the Spirit is wise and powerful through some sharing with another ; for he is all perfect and in need of no good thing. Since, therefore, he is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father (that is, of the Son), he is evidently Wisdom and Power. And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh accord- ing to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh. For " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God," and he is the Maker of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and Crea- tor of all; but, as we have already said, since he united to himself hypostatically human nature from her womb, also he sub- jected himself to birth as man, not as need- ing necessarily in his own nature birth in time and in these last times of the world, but in order that he might bless the begin- ning of our existence, and that that which sent the earthly bodies of our whole race to death, might lose its power for the future by his being born of a woman in the flesh. And this : " In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children," being removed through him, he showed the truth of that spoken by the prophet, " Strong death swallowed them up, and again God hath wiped away every tear from off all faces." x For this cause also we say that he attended, having been called, and also blessed, the marriage in Cana of Galilee, with his holy Apostles in accordance with the economy. We have been taught to hold these things by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and all the God-inspired Scriptures, and in the true confessions of the blessed Fathers. To all these your reverence also should agree, and give heed, without any guile. And what it is necessary your reverence should anathematize we have subjoined to our epistle. 3 i There is a most curious blunder in the editing of this Epistle in Migne, where this passage, which is but one text, viz.: Isaiah xxv. 8, is made into two, the first few words being assigned in the margin to Hosea, xiii. 14. As a matter of fact the whole sen- tence is turned into nonsense by making the words ko\ -rr&kiv as a connective supplied by St. Cyril. What the text really says is that Death prevailed indeed, but God wiped away again the tears death had caused. The same error is found in the letter as it occurs in Labbe and Cossart, and it should be remarked that it is both in the Greek and Latin. I rather suspect that St. Cyril had a purer text of the LXX. than ours which read — " And he'hath swallowed death up and hath wiped away, etc.," as the Vulgate and A. V. read. This is the reading the context certainly seems to call for. 2 For critical notes and proposed emendations of the text, see Eonth's Scrivtorum Eccles. Opuscula. Tom. II. (Ed. III.), p. IT. THE XII. ANATHEMATISMS OF ST. CYRIL AGAINST NESTORIUS. {Found in St. Cyril's Opera. Migne, Pat. Grrsec, Tom. LXXVIL, Col. 110; and the Concilia.) If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (&6ot6ko<;), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, " The Word was made flesh "] : let him be anathema. NOTES. THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE HER- ETIC NESTORIUS AGAINST CYRIL. (Found best in Migne' 8 edition of Murius Mercator.) I. If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it ; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel ; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anath- ema. Petavius. 1 (Be Incarnationc, Lib. vj. cap. xvij.) In this anathematism certain words are found in the Greek copy of Dionysius which are lacking in the ordinary copies, viz. " ac- cording as it is written, 'And the Word was made flesh ' ; " unless forsooth Dionysius sup- plied them of his own authority. For in the Lateran Synod in the time of Martin I. this anathematism was quoted without the appended words. This anathematism breaks to pieces the chief strength of the Nestorian impiety. For it sets forth two facts. The one that the Emmanuel, that is he who was born of a wom- an and dwelt with us, is God : the other, that Mary who bare such an one is Mother of God. That Christ is God is clearly proved from the Nicene Creed, and he shews that the same that was in the beginning the Son of God, afterwards took flesh and was born of Mary, Avithout any change or confusion of natures. St. Cyril explains that by aapKiKws, carnali- ter, he meant nothing else than Kara o-apra, se- cundum cam cm, "according to the flesh." And it was necessary to use this expression to over- throw the perfidy of Nestorius ; so that we may understand that the most holy Virgin was the parent not of a simple and bare man, but of God the Word, not in that he was God, but in that he had taken flesh. For God the Father was the parent of the same Son ^eucws 8 (divinely) as his mother was crup/aKius (after the flesh). And the word (o-ap/aKu>s) in no degree lessens the dignity of his begetting and bring- ing forth ; for it shews that his flesh was not simulated or shadowed forth ; but true and like to ours. Amphilochius distinctly uses the word, saying " Except he had been born carnally (o-ap«u