N|[u]]f T5fl|pHll]ifl I I I I i i I I THE LIBRARIES COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY i 1 q rinJfrii^rp^fr^ffu^n^Tri^ m i I 1 la i 1 tffi.^rlljtir JJefterj* L i i PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON I SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED . UEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS. ,. A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN COUNCILS, FROM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, TO THE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL OF NICE A, A.D. 3 2 5. BY THE Right Rev. CHARLES JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D., BISHOP OF ROTTEN BURG, FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN. ftrauslakb from t\t (Strmatr, anb Oitca By WILLIAM R CLARK, M.A., PREBENDARY OF WELLS AND VICAR OF TAUNTON. SECOND EDITION, REVISED. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 1894. 1 8 9 1 6 G #* PREFACE. " IVT^ P or tion of Church History has been so much ne- JL 1 glected in recent times as the History of the Councils. "With the exception of a few monographs on particular synods, nothing of importance has appeared on this subject in our days. It is high time that this state of things should be altered, and altered not by a mere adaptation of old materials, but by a treatment of the subject suited to the wants of the present day. This has become less difficult, inasmuch as new docu- ments have been brought to light, and we live in an age when many errors have been abandoned, many prejudices have been put on one side, great progress has been made in critical studies, and a deeper insight into the development of the Christian Church has undoubtedly been gained. " I have been employed for a good many years in the com- position of a History of the Councils of the Church, which should be of a comprehensive character, and founded upon original documents. I may affirm that I have spared no pains to secure accuracy, and have done my best to consult all the literature which bears upon the subject." The hopes which Dr. Hefele thus expressed in his preface to the first volume of his History have been abundantly ful- filled. He has not only supplied an acknowledged want in his own country in a manner which leaves little to desire, but he has brought within the reach of all German scholars an amount of information in connection with the ancient councils which is to be found only in part even in those large collec- tions of Hardouin and Mansi, which are seldom to be met with in private libraries. It is to be hoped that the interest VI PREFACE. manifested in that portion of his work which is translated in this volume may induce the publishers to carry it forward at least to the close of the fourth (Ecumenical Council. The Translator was at first in doubt as to the best form in which to present this, History to the English public, — whether in the form of a paraphrase, in which case it must have been almost an original work, or as a simple translation. Various considerations induced him to adopt the latter course. There was little difficulty in doing so, as Dr. Hefele's German style, unlike that of many of his Protestant fellow-countrymen, is generally lucid and intelligible. The Editor, when he first undertook the work of preparing the History for English readers, intended to add a number of notes from writers who regard the subject from a different point of view. This he afterwards found to be unnecessary, and the additional notes are accordingly very few. Dr. Hefele is so fair in the state- ment of facts, that every reader may very easily draw his conclusions for himself. All possible care has been taken to make the references i and quotations correct. It is almost certain, however, that slight mistakes may still be found in these pages ; and the Editor will gratefully receive any corrections which may be forwarded to him, and make use of them should a second edition of the work be called for. Since writing the above, the Editor has received a very kind letter from the Author, which he desires to acknowledge the more gratefully, from the fact that he had delayed to write to Dr. Hefele until after the work of translation was considerably advanced. This delay was not, however, volun- tary. At the time when the translation was begun, the Bishop had gone to Rome to take part in the Vatican' Council, and it was felt that at such a time it would be unsuitable to address him. After the close of the Council, the Editor was himself engaged in various ways ; but he has now the satisfaction of making various corrections which, have been most kindly forwarded to him by the Author. TREFACE. VU Most of these have been inserted in their proper place ; but the following correction is of so much importance, that it has been thought better to introduce it here. At p. 50, line 4, the Author wishes the following passage to be substituted for that which previously appeared: — Erase from "Martin v." (line 4) to "a general theory" (line 15), and substitute : " When, therefore, Martin v. declared at the last session of the Council of Constance, that he ap- proved and ratified all that had been decreed by the present holy (Ecumenical Council of Constance in materiis field con- ciliaritcr (that is, by the whole Council, and not merely by individual nations), this approval had immediate reference only to the special matter of Falkenberg (see vol. vii. p. 368 of Heiele's Conciliengcschichte) : he said nothing at all on the decrees respecting the superiority of an oecumenical council to the Pope; and if this Pope, in the bull of the 2 2d February 1418, required of every one the recognition of the Council of Constance as being oecumenical, and that all which it had decreed in favorem field et salutem animarum must be re- ceived and believed (vol. vii. p. 347), he evidently avoided giving it a complete, and universal confirmation. His words, which we have quoted above, have a decidedly restrictive character. He indicated by them that he excluded some of the decrees of the Council from his approbation (evidently those referring to the superiority of the Council) ; but for the sake of peace, he did not choose to express himself more clearly. His successor, Eugenius IV., declared himself with greater distinctness in 1446, when he accepted the whole Council of Constance, and all its decrees, absque tamen prcrju- dicio juris, dignitatis, et prcceminentioz scclis apostolicct. There can be no question that by this he intended to exclude from his approbation the decrees of Constance respecting the supe- riority of an oecumenical synod to the Pope." The Editor has to thank several friends for directing his attention to a few mistakes in the first edition. Should any be still detected in the present, he will be grateful for their being pointed out. W. 11. C. CONTENTS. INTEODUCTIOK Sic »» M 1. Origin and Authority of Councils, 2. Different Kinds of Synods, 3. By whom are Synods convoked, 4. Members of Councils, 5. The Presidency of Councils, . 6. Confirmation of the Decrees of the Councils, 7. Relation of the Pope to the (Ecumenical Council, 8. Infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils, 9. Appeal from the Pope to an (Ecumenical Council, 30. Number of the (Ecumenical Councils, . 11. Customs observed in (Ecumenical Councils with respect natures, Precedence, Manner of Voting, etc., 12. Histories of the Councils, to Sis PAOB 1 2 6 16 27 42 49 52 54 55 64 67 BOOK I. ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS. CHAPTER I. COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. Secl 1. Synods relative to Montanism, . . , „ 2. Synods concerning the Feast of Easter, . „ 3. Doubtful Synods of the Second Century, 77 80 8ii x CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. FAfiB Sec. 4. First Half of the Third Century, . . . .86 ,, 5. First Synods at Carthage and Rome, on account of Novatianism and the Lapsi (251), * . ' ."." ' ' , i . . . 93 „ 6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256), . . 98 „ 7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260), . . . . .116 „ 8. Synods at Arsinbe and Rome ^255-260), . . . 117 „ 9. Three Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of Samosata (204- 269), ........ 118 CHAPTER III. THE SYNODS OF THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS OF THE FOURTH, CENTURY. Sec. 10. Pretended Synod of Sinuessa (303), . . . . 127 „ 11. Synod of Cirta (305), ...... 128 „ 12. Synod of Alexandria (306), . . . .130 „ 13. Synod of Elvira (305 or 306), . . . . , .-. 131 „ 14. Origin of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first Synods held on this account in 312 and 313, . . . .. 172 „ 15. Synod of Aries in Gaul (314), ..... ISO „ 16. Synod of Ancyra in 314, . . . . . 199 „ 17. Synod of Neocsesarea (314-325), . . . ;: 222 BOOK II. THE FIRST OECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NIC^EA, A.D. 325. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY. Sec. 18. Doctrine of the Logos prior to Arian ism, . * . 231 ,, 19. Arius, ........ 239 ,, 20. Synod of Alexandria in 320, and its Consequences, . . 247 „ 21. Arius obliged to leave Alexandria. His Letters and his Thalia, 252 „ 22. Synod in Bithynia. Intervention of the Emperor Constantine, 258 CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. EC 23. ;> 24. ?> 25. 99 26. 99 27. )) 28. r» 29. 99 30. >f 31. >) 32. »> 33. »» 34. >) 35. )> 36. 99 37. 99 38. >; 39. ?? 40. 99 41. ?> 42. 3> 43. 9> 44. THE DISCUSSIONS AT NICiEA. Synodal Acts, ..... The Convocation by the Emperor, Number of the Members of the Council, Date of the Synod, .... The Disputations, .... Arrival of the Emperor — Solemn Opening of the Council — rre sidency, ..... Mutual Complaints of the Bishops, . Manner of Deliberation, Paphnutius and Spiridion, Debates with the Eusebians — The opoovtrios, Creed of Eusebius of Csesarea, . The Nicene Creed, .... The Signatures, ..... Measures taken by the Emperor against the Arians, Decision of the Easter Question, The later Quartodecimans, The Audians, ..... Decision on the subject of the Meletian Schism, Number of the Nicene Canons, . Contents of the Nicene Canons, . , Paphnutius and the projected Law of Celibacy, Conclusion — Unpublished Documents, . rxGB 262 268 270 274 277 279 282 282 284 285 288 293 296 297 298 332 334 341 355 375 435 43» APPENDIX. The so-called Apostolic Canons, . 449 493 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, INTRODUCTION. Sec. 1. Origin and Authority of Councils. THE two synonymous expressions, concilium and e Church very nearly coincided with those of the Roman Empire. *.0W |4oq. SlNWfc. \HZl. 4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. one kingdom or nation, assembled under the presidency of tho patriarch, or primate, or first metropolitan, then we have re- spectively a national, or patriarchal, or primatial council, which frequently received the name of universal or •plenary Universale or plenarium). 1 The bishops of the Latin Church in Africa, for instance, metropolitans and suffragans, often as- sembled in synods of this kind under the Primate of Carthage; and in the same way the archbishops and bishops of all Spain under their primate, the Archbishop of Toledo. In still earlier times, the metropolitans and bishops of Syria assembled under the Archbishop of Antioch, their supreme metropolitan, after- wards called by the name of Patriarch. 4. A Provincial Synod is considerably smaller, and is formed by the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province, with his suffragan bishops and other privileged persons. 5. Intermediate between the third and fourth classes are those synods, which are not uncommon in the history of the Church, in which the bishops of several contiguous ecclesias- tical provinces united for the discussion of subjects of common interest. They may be called the Councils of several United Provinces; and they rank lower than the national or primatial synod in this respect, that it is not the complete provinces of a nation or of a primacy which are represented in them. G. By Diocesan Synods we understand those ecclesiastical assemblies which the bishop holds with his clergy, and over which he presides either personally or by his vicar-general. 7. Councils of a peculiar and even abnormal character, and known as avvoSot ivSrj/xovaai [Synods of Residents), were often held at Constantinople, when the Patriarch not unfrequently assembled around him bishops who happened to be staying (ivSiyjLovvres) at Constantinople on private or other business, from provinces and patriarchates the most widely separated, for the discussion of important subjects, particularly for the decision of contests between the bishops themselves. 2 We shall have occasion to adduce more on this subject when we 1 Cf. an article by the author in the Tiibinyer Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1852, pt. iii. p. 406. 2 Cf. the treatise of Quesnel, De Vita, etc., S. Leonls M,, Op. S. Leonls, t. ii. d. 521 if. (ed. Ballerini). INTRODUCTION. 5 come to discuss the ninth and twenty-eighth canons of Chalcedon. 8. Last of all, there appear in history not a few Mixed Councils (concilia mixta) ; assemblies in which the ecclesiastical and civil rulers of a kingdom meet together in order to take counsel on the affairs of Church and State. We come across them particularly in the beginning of the middle ages, — not unfrequently in France, in Germany, in England, in Spain, and in Italy. Of this character are the fourth to the seventh Synods of Toledo, many synods held under Pepin, under Charles the Great [Charlemagne] and his successors, among others the Synod of Mainz, A.D. 852, and that held in the year 876 in the Palatium apud Ticinum, at which the elec- tion of Charles the Fat was approved by the bishops and. princes of Italy. 1 "We shall further on meet with several. English mixed councils, at which even abbesses were present. All such assemblies were naturally summoned by the King, . who presided and brought forward the points which had to be discussed. The discussion was either carried on in common, . or the clergy and the nobility separated, and formed different, chambers, — a chamber of nobles, and a chamber of bishops,. — the latter discussing only ecclesiastical questions. The de- cisions were often promulgated in the form of royal decrees. 2 Six grounds for the convocation of great councils, particu- larly oecumenical councils, are generally enumerated : 1. When a dangerous heresy or schism has arisen. 2. When two Popes oppose each other, and it is doubtful which is the true one. 3. When the question is, whether to decide upon some great and universal undertaking against the enemies of the Christian name. 4. When the Tope is suspected of heresy or of other serious faults. 5. When .the cardinals have been unable or unwilling to undertake the election of a Pope. 6. When it is a question of the reformation of the Church, in its head and members. 1 Hard. vi. 1C9. » Cf. Salmon, TraiU de V Etude des Conciles, p. 851 fl., Paris 1726. 6 IIISTOEY OF THE C0UNCIL3. Besides these, there may be many other kinds of reasons for the convocation of smaller synods ; but all must have reference to the one supreme aim of all councils — " the pro- motion of the well-being of the Church through the mutual consultation of its pastors." In the ancient Church there were very many synods assembled, in order to resolve the contests of the bishops with one another, and to examine the charges brought against some of their number. Sec. 3. By wliom are Synods convoked ? If it is asked who convokes councils, there can be no con- troversy with regard to the greatest number of the eight kinds just specified. It is undoubted, that the ecclesiastical head of the diocese, the bishop, has to summon the diocesan synod ; the ecclesiastical head of the province, the metropolitan, the provincial synod ; the ecclesiastical head of a nation, a patri- archate, etc., the patriarch or primate, either at his own in- stance or at the wish of another, as of the sovereign, calls a national or primatial synod. It is equally clear, that when .several provinces meet in a combined synod, the right of con- vocation belongs to the most distinguished^imong the metro- politans who meet. At the avpoSos ivStiftovaa, it was, of course, naturally exercised by the Bishop of Constantinople. Consequently, and from the very nature of the case, the sum- mons to an oecumenical council must go forth from the oecu- menical head of the Church, the Pope ; except in the case, which is hardly an exception, in which, instead of the Pope, the temporal protector of the Church, the Emperor, with the previous or subsequent approval and consent of the Pope, summons a council of this kind. The case is similar with the other synods, particularly national synods. In the case of these, too, the temporal protector of the Church has occa- sionally issued the summons instead of the ecclesiastical ruler ; and this not merely in ancient times in the .Grseeo-Poman Church, but also later in the German and Roman States. Thus, e.g., Constantine the Great convoked the Synod of Aries in 314, and Theodosius the Great the Synod of Constan- tinople (already mentioned) in 381, in concert with the four Eastern patriarchs ; Childebert, king of the Franks, a national INTRODUCTION. 7 synod at Orleans in the year 549 j 1 and Charles the Great, in the year 794, the great Synod of Frankfurt. 2 Even the Arian sovereign, Theodoric the Great, at the beginning of the sixth century, gave orders for the discontinuance of several orthodox synods at Eome. Further examples are noted by Hardouin. 3 Among those councils which were called by the emperors, the latter undertook many kinds of expenses, particularly the expense of travelling incurred by the numerous bishops, for whom they ordered houses and carriages to be put at their disposal at the public expense. This was done by Constan- tine the Great at the calling of the Synods of Aries and Niccea. They also provided for the entertainment of the bishops during the sitting of those assemblies. 4 At the later councils — those of Florence and Trent, for example — many of the expenses were borne by the Popes, the Christian princes, and the cities in which the synods were held. Bellarmin endeavoured to prove, 5 that it was formally recognised in the ancient Church that the calling of synods belonged to the hierarchical chiefs, and the summoning ot oecumenical councils in particular to the Pope ; but several of the passages which he adduces in proof are from the Pseudo-Isidore, and therefore destitute of all importance, while others rest upon an incorrect explanation of the words re- ferred to. Thus, Bellarmin appeals above all to the legates of Leo I., who at the fourth (Ecumenical Council — that of Chalcedon in 451 — had demanded the deposition of the Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria, because he had ventured to call an oecumenical council without permission from Borne. Their words are : avvohov iroXfxrjae irou](sai liriTpo-Kr]v ' Pco/jiaicov irairav). 4 There is nothing said in particular of the Pope's taking part or not in the summoning of the Synod. On the other hand, it is perfectly certain that, according to Socrates, 5 Julius I., even in his time, about the year 341, ex- pressed the opinion that it was an ecclesiastical canon, ^ hetv irapa jvoj/xtjv tov 6ttlgkg7tov 'Poop.?]? tcavovl^eiv ra, 5 Ep. 54. • Epp. 55-58. 12 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Council would not be necessary, if the bishops without it would subscribe an orthodox confession of faith. 1 About this time Theodosius II. died, and was succeeded by his sister S. Pulcheria and her husband Marcian. Both of them intimated immediately to the Pope their disposition to call the Synod which had been desired, and Marcian in particular asked the Pope to write and inform him whether he would attend per- sonally or by legates, so that the necessary invitations might be issued to the Eastern bishops. 2 But Pope Leo now wished at least for a postponement of the Council. He went even so far as to say that it was no longer necessary ; a change in his views which has often been made a ground of reproach to him, but which will be thoroughly discussed and justified at the proper place in this History of the Councils. We will only point out, at present, that what Leo had mentioned in his 69 th letter, during the lifetime of Theodosius II., as a reason for dispensing with the Council, had actually taken place under Marcian and Pulcheria, inasmuch as nearly all the bishops who had taken part in the Robber-Synod had re- pented of their error, and in conjunction with their orthodox colleagues had signed the cpistola dogmatica of Leo to Flavian , which was, in the highest sense, an orthodox confession of faith. Moreover, the incursions of the Huns in the "West had made it then impossible for the Latin bishops to leave their homes in any great number, and to travel to the distant Chalcedon ; whilst Leo naturally wished, in the interest of orthodoxy, that many of the Latins should be present at the Synod. Other motives contributed to the same desire ; among these the fear, which the result proved to be well grounded, that the Synod might be used for the purpose of altering the hierarchical position of the Bishop of Constantinople. As, however, the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the Synod, the Pope gave his consent to its assembling, appointed legates, and wrote to the Synod describing their duties and business. 3 And thus he could say with justice, in his later epistle, addressed to the bishops assembled at Chalcedon, 4 that the Council was assembled " by the command of the 1 Ep. 69. 2 Epp. 73 and 76, among those of S. Leo. 2 Epp. 89-95. 4 Ep. 114. INTRODUCTION. 1 <-> Christian princes, and with the consent of the Apostolic See " (ex prcccepto Christianorum principum et ex consensu apos- tolical sedis) ; as, on the other hand, the Emperor at an earlier period wrote to the Pope, " The Synod is to he held tc auctorc." l The Pope's share in convoking the Council of Chalcedon was, moreover, so universally acknowledged, that, soon after, the Bishop of Msesia said, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo : " Many bishops are assembled at Chalcedon by the order of Leo the Roman Pontiff, who is truly the head of the bishops " (per jussioncm Leonis Romani Pontificis, qui vere caput episco- porwni). 2 5. There can be no doubt that the fifth (Ecumenical Synod in the year 553, like the first four, was convoked by the Emperor (Justinian I.) ; but it is also certain that it was not without consultation with the Pope. Vigilius says himself that he had agreed with the Emperor Justinian, in the pre- sence of the Archbishop Mennas of Constantinople and other ecclesiastical and civil rulers, that a great synod should be held, and that the controversy over the three chapters should rest until this synod should decide it. 3 Vigilius expressed his desire for such a synod in a second letter ad unitcrsam ecclcsiam, 4 whilst he strongly disapproved of the Emperor's in- tention of putting an end to the controversy by an imperial edict, and was for that reason obliged to take to flight. "When they had become reconciled, Vigilius again expressed his desire for the holding of a synod which should decide the contro- versy ; 5 and the deputies of the fifth Council afterwards de- clared that he had promised to be present at the Synod. 6 What is certain is, that Vigilius had desired the postponement of the opening, in order to wait for the arrival of several Latin bishops ; and in consequence, notwithstanding repeated and most respectful invitations, he took no part in the sessions of the Synod. 7 The breach was widened when, on the 14th of May 553, the Pope published his Constitutum, declaring that *Ep. 73. J Hard. ii. p. 710. * Cf. Frag, damnationis Theodorl (Aseidse) in Hardouin, t. iii. p. 8. Cf. Schrbckh, Kircheng. Bd. xviii. S. 590. 4 Hard. iii. p. 3. 5 Hard. iii. p. 12 E, and p. 13 B. • I.e. p. 65 B. T Hard. I.e. 63, 65 ss. 14 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. he could not agree with the anathematizing of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theocloret. 1 At the suggestion of the Emperor, the Synod at its seventh session, May 26, 553, decided that the name of Yigilius should be struck out of the diptychs, which was clone, so that the Pope and the Council were now in open antagonism. In his decree to Eutychius of Constan- tinople, however, dated December 8, 553, and in his second Constitutum of February 23, 554, Vigilius approved of the decrees of the fifth Synod, and pronounced the bishops who had put them forth — that is, the members of the Synod — to be his brethren and his fellow-priests. 2 6. The case of the sixth (Ecumenical Synod, A.D. 680, is quite the same as that of the third. The Emperor Constan- tine Pogonatus convoked it, 3 and requested the Pope to send legates to it. 4 Pope Agatho, however, not only did this, which involves an assent to the imperial convocation of the Synod ; but he sent to the Emperor, and thus also to the Council, a complete exposition of the orthodox faith, and thus prescribed to it a rule and directions for its proceedings ; and the Synod acknowledged this, as the Synod of Ephesus had done, inas- much as they say, in their letter to Agatho, " Through that letter from thee we have overcome the heresy . . . and have eradicated the guilty by the sentence previously brought con- cerning them through your sacred letter" (ex sentmtia p&r sacras vestras litcras cle its priiis lata). 5 7. The seventh (Ecumenical Synod — the second of Kicrea, in the year 787 — was suggested to the Empress Irene by the Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, who endeavoured to re- store the reverence for images and union with Eome. The Empress and her son, the Emperor Constantine, approved of this ; but before the imperial letters of convocation were issued, they sent an ambassador to Pope Hadrian I. with a letter (785), in which they requested him to be present at the projected (Ecumenical Synod, either personally or at least 1 Hard. I.e. pp. 10-48. [This must be distinguished from the Constitutum of 554.] 2 See at the end of this Constitutum in Hard. iii. pp. 21S-244 ; and in the decree, ib. pp. 213-218. 3 Hard. iii. p. 1055. * I.e. p. 1459. 6 Hard. iii. 143S. INTRODUCTION. 1 5 by his representatives. 1 In the October of the same year, Hadrian I. sent an answer to the Emperor and Empress, as well as to the Patriarch, and promised to send his legates to the intended Synod, which he afterwards did, and thereby practi- cally declared his consent to its convocation. Nay more, in his letter to Charles the Great, he goes so far as to say, " And thus they held that Synod according to our appoint- ment" (ct sic synodum istam secundum nostram ordinationcm) ; and thereby ascribes to himself a still closer participation in the holding of this Synod. 2 8. The last synod which was convoked by an emperor was the eighth oecumenical, which was held at Constantinople in the year 869. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian had de- throned his former colleague Michael in., or The Drunken, and deposed his creature, the schismatical Photius, from the patriarchal chair, replacing the unlawfully deposed Ignatius, and thereby restoring the union of the Greek and Latin Churches. As, however, Photius still had followers, the Em- peror considered it necessary to arrange the ecclesiastical re- lations by means of a new oecumenical council, and for that purpose sent an embassy to Pope Nicolas I., requesting him to send his representatives to the intended Council. In the meantime Nicolas died ; but his successor, Hadrian II., not only received the imperial message, but sent the legates, as it had been wished, to the Council, and thereby gave his consent to the convocation of this CEcumenical Synod. 3 All the subsequent oecumenical synods were held in the West, and summoned directly by the Popes, from the first of' Lateran, the ninth CEcumenical Synod, to the holy Synod of Trent, while smaller synods were still convoked by Kings and Emperors; 4 and Pope Leo X. declared in the most decided way, at the eleventh session of the fifth Lateran Synod, with a polemical reference to the so-called propositions of Con- stance, that the Pope had the right to convoke, to transfer, and to dissolve oecumenical synods. 5 1 Hard. iv. 21 ss. ■ Hard, ir. 813 E. * Hard. v. 765, 7G6. * Hard. xi. 107S sq, s Hard ix. 1828 a. 1'6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Sec. 4. Members of Councils. In considering the further question, who lias a right to be a member of a synod, it is necessary first to distinguish be- tween the diocesan and other synods. For whilst in the latter either the only members or at least the chief members sire bishops, the diocesan synod, with the exception of the president, is made up of the other clergy ; and whilst the privileged members of the other synods have a votum clcci- sivum, a vote in determining the decrees of the synod, those of the diocesan synod have only a votum consultativum, a light to be present and speak, but not to vote on the decrees. Here the bishop alone decides, the others are only his coun- sellors, and the decision is pronounced in his name. The members of the diocesan synod are divided into three classes. 1. Those whom the bishop is bound to summon, and who are bound to appear. To this class belong cleans, archpres- byters, vicarii foranei} the vicar-general, the parochial clergy by deputies ; and, according to more recent law and custom, the canons of cathedral churches, the provost and canons of collegiate churches, and the abbedes saicidarcs'} 2. Those whom the bishop may, but need not summon, but who are bound to come when he summons them ; for example, the prebendaries of cathedrals who are not canons. 3. Lastly, those who in general are not bound to appear, as the clcrici simplices. But if the synod has for its special pur- pose to introduce an improvement in the morals of the clergy, or to impart to them the decisions of a provincial synod, these must also appear when they are summoned. With respect to the members of other kinds of synods, ancient Church history gives us the following results : — 1 i.e. vicars-general for districts outside the bishop's see. — Ed. 2 It is more difficult to settle the question with reference to the regular clergy. Among these must be distinguished the exempt and the non-exempt. The latter, abbots and monks, must appear. The exempt regulars are divided into two classes : (1) those who, in conjunction with other houses of their own orders, are under a general chapter ; and (2) those who, being free, are subject to no such higher authority. The latter must appear ; the former generally not. They, however, are also bound to appear if they have parish churches or any other cure of souls. So it was ordered by the Council of Trent, sess. xxiv. c. 2, Dp reform. INTRODUCTION. 1 7 1. The earliest synods -were those held in Asia Minor at out the middle of the second century, on the occasion of Montanism. Eusebius does not say who were present at them ; L hut the libcllus synoclicus informs us that one of these synods was held at Hierapolis by Bishop Apollinaris with twenty-six other bishops, and a second at Anchialus by Bishop Sotas and twelve other bishops. 2 2. The next synods in order were those which were held respecting the celebration of Easter, in the second half of the second century. With reference to these, Polycrates of Ephesus tells us that Pope Victor had requested him to con- voke in a synod the bishops who were subordinate to him, that he did so, and that many bishops had assembled with him in synod. 3 In the chapters of Eusebius in which these two classes of councils are spoken of, 4 only bishops are men- tioned as members of the Synod. And, in the same way, the libcllus synoclicus gives the number of bishops present at each council of this time, without referring to any other members. 3. The letters of convocation for an oecumenical synod were directed to the metropolitans, and to some of the more eminent bishops ; and the metropolitans were charged to give notice to their suffragans. So it was, e.g., at the convocation of the third (Ecumenical Synod, for which an invitation was sent to Augustine, who was already dead. 5 The invitation to appear at the synod was sometimes addressed to the bishops collectively, and sometimes it was simply required that the metropolitans should personally appear, and bring merely the most able of their suffragans with them. The latter was the case, e.g., in the summoning of the third and fourth Councils ; " to Xictea, on the contrary, the bishops seem to have been in- vited without distinction. Sometimes those bishops who did not attend, or who arrived too late, were threatened with penalties, as well by the Emperors, e.g. by Theodosius II., as Vy earlier and later ecclesiastical canons. 7 4. The clwrcpiscopi (^wpe7rt'o-/<:o7rot), or bishops of country 1 Hist. Ecd. v. 16. 2 See, further on, Book i. c. i. sec. 1. 3 Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v. 24. 4 Loc. at. s Hard. i. 1419. c Hard. i. 1313, ii. 45. * Hard. i. 1346, 9S8 B, 1622; ii. 774, 104S, 1174; iii. 1029; vii. 1812; vui.96ff. B 4 18 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. places, seem to have been considered in ancient times as quite on a par with the other bishops, as far as their position in synods was concerned. We meet with them at the Councils of Neocaesarea in the year 314, of Nicrea in 325, of Ephesus in 43 1. 1 On the other hand, among the 600 bishops of the fourth CEcumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, there is no cliorepiscopus present, for by this time the office had been abolished ; but in the middle ages we again meet with clwr- episcopi of a new kind at "Western councils, particularly at those of the French Church, at Langres in 830, 2 at Mainz in 847, 3 at Pontion in 876, at Lyons in 886, at Douzy in 871 Bishops without a diocese have a certain resemblance to these; and such we meet with at synods, as in the year 585 at ]\lacon in France. 5 It is disputed whether those who are merely titular bishops have a right to vote at a council ; and it has generally been decided in this way, that there is no obligation to summon such, but when they are summoned they have a right to vote. 5. Towards the middle of the third century we find a de- parture from this ancient practice of having only bishops as members of synods, first in Africa, when Cyprian assembled, at those synods which he held with reference to the restora- tion of the lapsed, besides the bishops of his province and his clergy, confessorcs et laicos stantcs, i.e. those laymen who lay under no ecclesiastical penance. 7 So there were present at the Synod held by S. Cyprian on the subject of baptism by heretics, on the 1st of September (probably a.d. 256), besides eighty-seven bishops, very many priests and deacons, and maxima pars plcbis? And the Eoman clergy, in their letter to Cyprian 9 on the subject, request that the bishops will take counsel in synods, in common with the priests, deacons, and laicis stantibus. It must not be overlooked, however, that Cyprian makes a difference between the membership of the 1 Hard. i. 2SG, 314-320, 1486. 2 Hard. iv. 1364. 3 Hard. v. 5. 4 Hard. vi. 180, 39G ; v. 1316 B, 1318. 5 Hard. id. 466. G Walter, Khxhenr. (Canon La^v), S. 157 (S. 294, 11th ed.). ^Cypriani^. 11, p. 22 ; Ep. 13, p. 23; Ep. 66, p. 114; Ep. 71, p. 126 (ed. Baluz.) » Cypriani Opp. p. 029 (ed. Bal.). 9 Cyp. Epp. 31, p. 43. INTRODUCTION. 1 9 bishops and of others. We learn from his thirteenth letter, 1 that the bishops come together with the clergy, and the laity- are only present fyrcepositi cum clcro convenicntes, prcBsente ctiam stantium plebe) ; from his sixty-sixth letter, that the priests, etc., were the assessors of the bishops (comprcsbytcri, qui nobis assiclelant). In other places Cyprian speaks only of the bishops as members of the synod, 2 and from other passages 3 it comes out that the bishops had at these s} r nods taken the advice and opinion of the laity as well as the clergy. It is never, however, in the least degree indicated that either the clergy or the laity had a votum decisivum ; but the contrary- is evident, namely, that in the Synod of Cyprian referred to, which was held September 1, 256, only bishops were voters. 4 6. Eusebius relates 5 that a great number of bishops of Asia assembled in synod at Antioch in the year 264 or 265, on the subject of Paul of Samosata, and he adds that their priests and deacons came with them. In the following chapter Eusebius gives an account of the Synod at Antioch in 269, and makes special reference to the priest of Antioch, Malchion, who was present at the Synod, and by his logical ability compelled Paul of Samosata, who wanted to conceal his false doctrine, to explain himself clearly. In addition to this, Eusebius gives in the thirtieth chapter the circular letter which this Synod, after pronouncing the deposition of Paul, addressed to the rest of the Church. And this letter is sent forth not in the name of the bishops only, but of the other clergy who were present as well ; and among these Malchion is named in the superscription, whilst the names of many of the bishops — and according to Athanasius there were seventy present — are wanting. We see, then, that priests and deacons were members of several synods; but we cannot determine from the original documents how far their rights extended, and whether they had more than a mere consultative voice in the acts of the synod. As far as analogy can guide us, it would appear they had no more. 7. In the two Arabian Synods which were held on the 1 Pp. 23, 329. °- Ep. 71, P . 127 ; Ep. 73, pp. 129, 130. z Ep. 11, p. 22 ; Ep. 13, p. 23 ; Ep. 31, p. 43. * Cyp. Opp. pp. 330-33S (ed. Baluz.). 6 Hist. Eccl. vii. 28. 20 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. subject of Beryllus and the Hypnopsychites, Origen held a place similar to that which had been occupied by Malchion. The bishops summoned him to the Synod, so as to render his learning and ability serviceable to the Church ; but it was the bishops themselves who held the Synod. 8. In many synods of the following centuries, besides the bishops, priests and deacons were present. So it was at Elvira, 1 at Aries, 2 at Carthage 3 in 397, at Toledo 4 in 400, etc. The bishops and priests had seats, but the deacons had to stand. 5 The decrees of the ancient synods were for the most part signed only by the bishops. It was so at the Councils of Ancyra, of Neocoesarea — although in this case the subscriptions are somewhat doubtful ; at the first and second (Ecumenical Councils, those of Nicrea and Constantinople ; at the Councils of Antioch in 341, of Sardica, etc. Sometimes also the priests and deacons subscribed the decrees, and then either immediately after the name of their own bishop, as at Aries, 6 or else after the names of all the bishops. 7 It was, however, not so common for the priests and deacons to join in the subscription, and it did not occur in the fourth or fifth century : for we find that, even in the case of synods at which we know that priests and deacons were present, only bishops subscribed; as at Nicrea, at Carthage in 397, 389, 401, s at Toledo in 400, 9 and at the (Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. 10 At a later period we meet again, at some synods, with signatures of priests and deacons, as at Lyons in 830. 11 The difference between the rights of the priests and those of the bishops is made clear by the signa- tures of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian in 448. The deposition of Eutyches which was there pronounced was subscribed by the bishops with the formula, opiaas v7reypayp-a, dcfinicns subscripsi, and afterwards by twenty-three archiman- drites, or superiors of convents, merely with the word vireypa^ra without optaai. 12 At the Piobber-Synod of Ephesus, on the ' Hard. i. 250. 2 Hard. i. 266. 3 Hard. i. 9G1. 4 Hard. i. 9S9. 5 Hard. i. 989, 961, 250. 6 Hard. i. 26G ss. 7 Hard. i. 250. s Hard. i. 971, 986, 988. 9 I.e. p. 992. J o I.e. p. 1423 ss., ii. 400 ss. u Hard. iv. 1305 s. « Hard. ii. 167. INTRODUCTION. 2 1 contrary, along with other anomalies, we find the Archiman- drite Barsumas of Syria signing, as a fully privileged member of the Synod, with the word oplaas} and that because the Emperor Theodosius II. had summoned him expressly. 9. It is easily understood, and it is shown by the ancient acts of councils, that priests and deacons, when they were the representatives of their bishops, had a right to give, like them, a votum dccisivum, and subscribed the acts of the synod with the formula op/cra?.' 2 And this is expressed at a much later period by the Synods of Rouen in 1581, and of Bor- deaux in 1583, — by the latter with the limitation that only priests should be sent as the representatives of the bishops. 3 1 0. Other clergymen, deacons in particular, were employed at synods, as secretaries, notaries, and the like — at Ephesus and Chalcedon, for instance ; 4 and they had often no insignifi- cant influence, particularly their head, the iirimiccrius nota- riorum, although they had no vote. Some of these notaries were official, and were the servants of the synod ; but besides these, each bishop could bring his own notary or secretary with him, and employ him to make notes and minutes of the sessions : for it was only at the Eobber-Synod that the violent Dioscurus allowed no other notaries than his own, and those of some of his friends. 5 Erom the nature of the case, there is nothing to prevent even laymen from being employed in such work ; and we are informed distinctly by iEneas Sylvius that he performed such duties, as a layman, at the Synod of Basle. It is, moreover, not at all improbable that the secre- tarii clivini consistorii, who were present at some of the ancient synods — a t Chalcedon, for instance — were secretaries of the Imperial Council, and consequently laymen. 6 11. Besides the bishops, other ecclesiastics have always been brought in at councils, oecumenical as well as inferior, for the purpose of consultation, particularly doctors of theo- logy and of canon law, 7 as well as deputies of chapters and 1 Hard. ii. 272. - Hard. i. S15 ss., ii. 272. 3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379. 4 Hard. i. 1355, ii. 67, 70, 71 ss. 5 Hard. ii. 93. « Fuchs, Bihlloth. d. Kirchenvers. (Library of Councils), Bd. i. S. 149. 7 Thomas Aquinas was in this way summoned by Pope Gregory x. to the fourteenth (Ecumenical Council. 22 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. superiors of monasteries ; and bishops were even requested to bring such assistants and counsellors with them to the synod So it was at the Spanish Council at Tarragona in 516. 1 But, at the same time, the fundamental principle is undoubted, that the vote for the decision of a question belonged to the bishops, as to those whom the Holy Ghost has appointed to rule the Church of God, and to all others only a consultative voice ; and this was distinctly recognised by the Synods of Eouen in 1581, and Bordeaux in 1583 and 1684, partly in the most general way, 2 in part specifically with reference to the deputies of chapters, titular and commendatory abbots.* There has been a doubt with respect to abbots, whether they held a place similar to that of the bishops or not ; and a different practice seems to have prevailed at different places and times. We have already seen that in the ancient Church the archimandrites had no vote, even when they were priests. On the other hand, a Synod at London, under the famous Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, a.d. 1075, declares : " Be- sides the bishops and abbots, no one must address the Synod without the permission of the archbishop." 4 The abbots are here plainly assigned a place of equality with the bishops a? members of the Synod ; and they subscribed the acts of this Synod like the bishops. In the same way the abbots sub- scribed at other synods, e.g. at Pontion in France, a.d. 876, at the Council held in the Palatium Ticinum, at Cavaillon, and elsewhere ; 5 but, on the other hand, at many other councils of the same time, as well as at those of an earlier and later period, the bishops alone, or their representatives, signed the decrees. So it was at Epaon in 517, at Lyons in 517, at Ilerda and Valencia in Spain in 524, at Aries in 524, at Carthage in 525, at Orange in 529, at Toledo in 531, at Orleans in 533 ; G so also at Cavaillon in 875, at Beauvais in 875, at Bavenna in 877, at Tribur in 895. 7 The arch- deacons seem to have been regarded very much in the same way as the abbots, inasmuch as they appeared at synods not 1 Hard. ii. 1043. 2 Hard. xi. 132. 3 Hard. x. 1264, 1379. 4 Hard. vi. 1556. 5 Hard. vi. 138, 169, 17-1, ISO. c Hard. ii. 1052, 1054, 1067, 1070, 1071, 10S2, 1102, 1111, 1175- ' Hard. vi. 1C1, 164, 190, 456. INTRODUCTION. 23 merely as the representatives of their bishops ; but sometimes they signed the acts of the council, even when their bishop was personally present. So it was at the Synod of London already mentioned. 1 At the end of the middle ages it was the common view that abbots and cardinal priests and car- dinal deacons as well had a votum dccisivum at the synods, — a fact which is expressly stated, as far as regards the abbots, by the historian of the Synod of Basle, Augustinus Patricks, a Piccolomini of the fifteenth century. 2 He adds, that only the Council of Basle allowed the anomaly, and conceded to other ecclesiastics the right of voting. But we must remark that, according to the statement of the famous Cardinal DAilly, even so early as at the Synod at Pisa in 1409, the doctors of divinity and of canon law had a votum dccisivum ; and that the Council of Constance extended this right, by adopting the division of the Council into nations. These were, however, anomalies ; and after this stormy period had passed by, the ancient ecclesiastical order was restored, that only bishops, cardinals, and abbots should have the voUcm dccisivum. A place of ecpaality with the abbots was naturally assigned to the generals of those widespread orders, which had a central authority. This was done at the Council of Trent. "With regard to the abbots, a distinction was made between those who possessed real jurisdiction, and those who were only titular or commendatory. To these last there wast conceded no more than the votum consultativum ; e.g. in the Synod at Eouen in 1 5 8 1, and Bordeaux in 1 5 8 3. 3 The formei went so far as to refuse to acknowledge any such right aa belonging to the abbots ; and a later synod at Bordeaux, in the year 1624, plainly declared that it was an error (erroneto opinio) to affirm that any others besides bishops had a decisive voice in a provincial synod (jprceter cpiscopos quosdam cdios habere voccm decisivam in concilio provinciali). In practice, however, abbots were still admitted, only with the distinction that the bishops were members of the synod " by divine right " {jure divino), and the abbots only " by ecclesiastical appointment " (institutionc ccclcsiasticci). ' Hard. vi. 1557 ; cf. ib. 138. s Hard. ix. 1196. s Hard. x. 12G4, 1379. 4 Hani. xi. 132. 24 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 12. We have already seen, that in the time of Cyprian, both in Africa and in Italy, laymen were allowed to be present at synods. This custom was continued to later times. Thus, e.g., the Spanish Synod at Tarragona, in 516, ordained that the bishops should bring to the Synod with them, besides the clergy, their faithful sons of the laity. 1 Viventiolus Archbishop of Lyons, in the letter by which he summoned a synod at Epaon in 517, says : " Laicos permiltimus inter esse, ut quce a soils pontificibus orclinancla sunt ct populxis iiossit agnoscere." [We permit the laity to be present, that the people may know those things which are ordained by the priests alone.] Moreover, the laity had the power of bringing forward their complaints with reference to the conduct of the clergy, inasmuch as they had a right to ask for priests of good character. 2 The fourth Synod of Toledo, in 633, says ex- pressly, that laymen also should be invited to the synods.' So, in fact, we meet with distinguished laymen at the eighth Synod of Toledo in 653, 4 and at the second of Orange in 529. 5 In English synods we find even abbesses were present. 'Thus the Abbess Hilda was at the Collatio Pharcnsis, or Synod •of Whitby, in 664, where the question of Easter and of the tonsure, and other questions, were discussed ; and the Abbess JElfleda, the successor of Hilda, at the somewhat later Synod ■on the Nith in Northumberland. 6 This presence of abbesses of the royal family is, however, exceptional, even when these .assemblies were nothing else than concilia mixta, as Salmon, I.e., explains them to be. That, however, distinguished and well-instructed laymen should be introduced without delay into provincial synods, was expressly decided by the Congre- gatio interpret, concil. by a decree of April 22, 1598 ; and the Cwremonialc ejpiscoporum refers to the same, when it speaks of the seats which were to be prepared at provincial synods for the laity who were present. 7 Pignatelli recommends the bishops to be prudent in issuing such invitations to the laity f 1 Hard. ii. 1043. - Hard. ii. 1046. 3 Hard. iii. 580. * Hard. iii. 955. 5 Hard. ii. 1102. c Hard. iii. 993, 1826 E. Cf. Schrodl, First Century of the English Church (Das crsle Jahrhundert der engl. Kirche), pp. 220, 271. See also Salmon, Study on the Councils (Traiti de V Etude des Conciles), Paris 1726, p. 844. 7 Benedict xiv. De synodo dicec. lib. iii. c. 9, n. 7. 8 Bened. xiv. I.e. INTRODUCTION. 25 but we still find in 1736 a great many laymen of distinction present at the great Maronite Council which was held by Simon Assemani as papal legate. 1 At many synods the laity present signed the acts ; but at others, and these by far the most numerous, they did not sign. At the Maronite Council just mentioned, and at the second of Orange, they did sign. It is clear from the passage already adduced, referring to the Synod of Epaon, that these laymen were admitted only as witnesses and advisers, or as complainants. It is remarkable that the laity who were present at Orange signed with the very same formula as the bishops, — namely, consentiens sul- scripsi ; whilst in other cases the bishops made use of the words definiens subscripsi; and the priests, deacons, and laymen simply used the word subscripsi. As was natural, the position of the laity at the concilia mixta was different : from the very character of these, it followed that temporal princes appeared as fully qualified members, side by side with the prelates of the Church. 2 13. Among the laity whom we find at synods, the Emperors and Kings are prominent. After the Roman Emperors em- braced Christianity, they, either personally or by their repre- sentatives and commissaries, attended the great synods, and particularly those which were oecumenical. Thus, Constantine the Great was personally present at the first Oecumenical Council f Theodosius II. sent his representatives to the third, and the Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth ; and besides, at a later period, he was personally present, with his wife Pulcheria, at the sixth session of this Council of Chalcedon. 4 So the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus attended at the sixth (Ecumenical Council ; 5 at the seventh, on the other hand, Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus were present only by deputies ; whilst at the eighth the Emperor Basil the Macedonian took part, sometimes personally and some times by representatives. 6 Only in the case of the second and fifth CEcumenical Synods we find neither the Emperors nor their representatives present ; but the Emperors (Theo- 1 Bened. XIV. I.e. n. 5. 2 See above, p. 5. 1 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 10. * Hard. i. 1346, ii. 53, 463. * Hard. iii. 1055. • Hard. iv. 34, 534, 745, v. 764, S23, S96. 26 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. dosius the Great and Justinian) were at the time present in the city of Constantinople, where those councils were held, and in constant communication with the Synod. It was, as we perceive, simply at the oecumenical synods that the Emperors were present. To this fact Pope Nicholas I. expressly appeals in his letter to the Emperor Michael, a.d. 865, 1 and infers from it that all other synods ought to be held without the presence of the Emperor or his representa- tives. In agreement with this Pope, a few years later the eighth (Ecumenical Council declared, that it was false to maintain that no synod should be held without the presence of the Emperor; that, on the contrary, the Emperors had been present only at the oecumenical councils ; and, moreover, that it was not proper for temporal princes to be present at provincial synods, etc., for the condemnation of the clergy. 2 They might have added, that so early as the fourth century the bishops complained loudly when Constantine the Great sent an imperial commissioner to the Synod of Tyre in 335. 3 In the West, on the contrary, the Kings were present even at national synods. Thus, Sisenand, the Spanish King of the West Goths, was present at the fourth Council of Toledo in the year 633, and King Chintilan at the fifth of Toledo in 638 ; 4 Charles the Great at the Council of Frankfurt in 794, 5 and two Anglo-Saxon Kings at the Collatio Pharcnsis, already mentioned, in 664. We find royal commissaries at the eighth and ninth Synods of Toledo in 653 and 655. G In later times the opinion gradually gained ground, that princes had a right to be present, either personally or by representatives, only at the oecumenical councils. Thus Ave find King Philip le Bd of France at the fifteenth (Ecumenical Synod at Vienne in 1311, the Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Constance, and the representatives (oratorcs) of several princes at the last (Ecumenical Synod at Trent. Pius iv. and Pius v. forbid the presence of a royal commissary at the Provincial Synod of Toledo ; but the prohibition came too late. When, however, a second Provincial Synod was 1 Hard. v. 158 ; and in the Corp. jur. can. c. 4, diss. 96. : Hard. v. 907, 1103. 3 Athanas. Apolog. contra Arian. n. 8. ..* Hard. iii. 578, 597. 6 Hard. iv. S82. ' 6 Hard. iii. 968, 978. INTRODUCTION. 27 held at Toledo in 1582, in the presence of a royal commissary, Home, i.e. the Congrcgatio Concilii, delayed the confirmation of the decrees until the name of the commissary was erased from the acts of the Synod. The Archbishop of Toledo, Car- dinal Quiroga, maintained that such commissaries had been present at the ancient Spanish synods; but Borne held fast by the principle, that except in oecumenical synods, iibi agitur de fide, reformedione, ct pace (which treated of faith, reforma- tion, and peace), no commissaries of princes had a right to be present. 1 At the later oecumenical synods, this presence of princes or of their representatives be} T ond all doubt had no other significance than to ensure protection to the synods, to increase their authority, and to bring before them the special wishes of the different states and countries. The celebrated Cardinal D'Ailly long ago expressed this judgment clearly ; 2 and, as a matter of fact, there was never conceded to a prince or his orator the right to vote, unless he was also a bishop. In reference to the most ancient oecumenical synods, it has even been maintained that the Emperors were their presidents ; and this leads us to the further question of the presidency of the synods. Sec. 5. Tlie Presidency of Councils. As the presidency of a diocesan synod belongs to the bishop, of a provincial synod to the metropolitan, of a national to the primate or patriarch, so, in the nature of the case, the presidency of an oecumenical council belongs to the supreme ruler of the whole Church — to the Pope ; and this is so clear, that the most violent partisans of the episcopal system, who assign to the Pope only a primacy of honour (primatus honoris), yet do not in the least impugn his right to preside at oecumenical synods. 3 The Pope may, however, exercise this presidency in person, or he may be represented, as has frequently been the case, by his legates. Against this 1 Benedict xiv. De Synodo dicec. lib. iii. c. 9, n. 6. 2 Benedict xiv. I.e. n. 1. 3 It is unnecessary to remark that all this is simply a part of the Eomnn system, even as understood by Liberals more advanced than Dr. Hefele. In a mere translation it would lie usehss frequently even to point out, much mom to discuss, such questions. — Ed. 23 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. papal right of presidency at oecumenical synods the Reformers brought forward the objection, that the history of the Church showed clearly that the Emperors had presided at some of the first eight councils. There was, indeed, no difficulty in bringing forward proof in support of their assertion, since Pope Stephen v. himself writes that the Emperor Constantine presided at the first Council of Nicsea, 1 and the ancient acts of the synods frequently refer to a presidency of the Emperor or his representatives. But all such objections, however dangerous they may at first seem to be to our position, lose their power when we come to consider more closely the state of things in connection with the ancient councils, and are willing to dis- cuss the matter impartially. Let us begin with the eighth (Ecumenical Synod, as the last of those which here come into question — that is to say, the last of the Oriental Synods — and from this ascend back to the first. 1. Pope Hadrian II. sent his legates to the eighth (Ecumenical Synod, on the express written condition, addressed to the Emperor Basil, that they should preside. 2 The legates, Donatus Bishop of Ostia, Stephen Bishop of ISTepesina, and Marinus a deacon of Pome, read this letter before the Synod, without the slightest objection being brought forward. On the contrary, their names were always placed first in the minutes ; the duration of the sessions was decided by them ; and they gave permission for addresses, for the reading of the acts of the Synod, and for the introduction of other members of the Synod ; and appointed the questions for discussion. In short, they appear in the first five sessions without dispute as the presidents of the Synod. At the sixth and following sessions the Emperor Basil was present, with his sons Constantine and Leo ; and he obtained the presidency, as the acts relate. But these acts clearly distinguish the Emperor and his sons from the Synod ; for, after naming them, they add, " the holy and oecumenical Synod agreeing" (convcniente sancta ac uni- wrsali synodo). Thus we perceive that the Emperor and 3iis sons are not reckoned among the members of the Synod, 1 Hard. v. 1119. " Hard. v. 768, 1030. * Hard. v. 781, 782, 783, 785, 786 ss. 4 Hard. v. S23, S38, 89C, 1098. INTRODUCTION". 2 9 whilst the papal legates are constantly placed first among the members. It is the legates, too, who in these later sessions decide the subjects which shall be brought forward : * they also are the first who sign the acts of the Synod, and that expressly as presidents (prozsidentcs) ; whilst the Emperor gave a clear proof that he did not regard himself as the real presi- dent, by wishing to sign them after all the bishops. The papal legates, on the other hand, entreated him to place his own and his sons' names at the top ; but he decidedly refused this, and at last consented to sign after the representatives of the Pope and the Oriental bishops, and before the other bishops. 2 In perfect agreement with this, Pope Hadrian II., in his letter to the Emperor, commended him for having been present at this Synod, not as judge (judex), but as witness and protector (consents et obsecundator). 3 Still less than the Emperors themselves had the imperial commissaries who were present at synods a right of presidency, since their names were placed, in all minutes of the sessions, immediately after the representatives of the patriarchs, but before the other bishops, 4 and they did not subscribe the acts at all. On the other hand, it may be said that the patriarchs of the East — Ignatius of Con- stantinople, and the representatives of the others — in some measure participated in the presidency, since they are always named along with the Roman legates, and are carefully dis- tinguished from the other metropolitans and bishops. They form, together with the Roman legates, so to speak, the board of direction, deciding in common with them the order of the business, 6 regulating with them the rule of admission to the synod. They subscribe, like the legates, before the Emperor, and are named in the minutes and in the separate sessions before the imperial commissaries. But, all this being granted, the papal legates still take undeniably the first place, inas- much as they are always the first named, and first subscribe the acts of the Synod, and, what is particularly to be observed^ at the last subscription make use of the formula, " presiding over this holy and oecumenical synod" (hide sanctce ct univer- sali synodo precsidens) ; whilst Ignatius of Constantinople and 1 Hard. v. 898, 912. 2 Hani. v. 921-923, 1106. » Hard. v. 9C9 A. 4 Hard. v. 764, 7S2, 7S3 ss. 6 Hard. v. S98 D, 912 C. 30 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency, but subscribe simply with, the words, " As receiving this holy and oecumenical synod, and agreeing with all things which it has decided, and which are written here, and as defining them, I subscribe" (sanctam heme ct universalem synodum suscipiens, ct omnibus qucc ah ea judicata ct scrvpta sunt concordans, ct definiens suoscripsi). Moreover, as we find a remarkable dif- ference between them and the papal legates, so there is also, on the other side, a considerable difference between their signature and that of the other bishops. The latter, like the Emperor, have simply used the words, suscipiens subscripsi, without the addition of definiens, by which the votum decisivum was usually indicated. 1 2. At all the sessions of the seventh (Ecumenical Synod, the papal legates, the Archpresbyter Peter and the Abbot Peter, came first ; after them Tarasius Archbishop of Con- stantinople, and the representatives of the other patriarchs : next to them the other'bishops ; and, last of all, the imperial commissaries. 2 The decrees were signed in the same order, only that the imperial commissaries took no part in the sub- scription. 3 The Empress Irene and her son were present at the eighth and last session of the Council as honorary presi- dents, and signed the decrees of the first seven sessions, which had been already signed by the bishops. 4 According to a Latin translation of the acts of this Synod, it was only the papal legates, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the repre- sentatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, who on this occasion made use of the word definiens in subscribing the decrees, just as at the eighth Council ; 5 but the Greek version of the acts has the word 0/3/cra? in connection with the signature of the other bishops. 6 Besides, we must not omit to state that, not- withstanding the presidency of the papal legates, Tarasius Archbishop of Constantinople had the real management of the business at this Synod.' 3. At the sixth (Ecumenical Synod the Emperor Constan- 1 Hard. v. 923. 2 Hard. iv. 2S ss. 3 Hard. iv. 455 ss., 74S. 4 Hard. iv. 483, 486. 6 Hard. iv. 748 sq. 6 Hard. iv. 457 sq. 7 Compare the author's essay ou the second Council of Nicsea, in the Freiburg Kircheitlcxicon, Bd. vii. S. 503 INTRODUCTION. 3 1 tine Pogonatus was present in person, together with several high officials of the state. The minutes of the sessions name him as president, and give the names of his officials imme- diately after his own. They next proceed to the enumeration of the proper members of the Synod, with the formula, " the holy and oecumenical Synod being assembled" (avveXdovar)*; Be Kal tj}? ayias real oiicovfievLicrjs awooov), — thereby distin- guishing, as in the case already mentioned, the Emperor and his officials from the Synod proper; and name as its first members the papal legates, the priests Theodore and George, and the deacon John. 1 So these legates are the first to sub- scribe the acts of the Council ; and the Emperor signed at the end, after all the bishops, and, as is expressly stated, to give more authority to the decrees of the Synod, and to con- firm them with the formula, " We have read and consented " (legimus et consensimus). 2 He thus made a distinction between himself and the Synod proper ; whilst it cannot, however, be denied that the Emperor and his plenipotentiaries often con- ducted the business of the Synod. 3 4. At the fifth (Ecumenical Council, as has been already pointed out, 4 neither the Emperor (Justinian) nor yet the Pope or his legate was present. It was Eutychius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, who presided. 5 5. The fourth (Ecumenical Council is of more importance for the question now before us. So early as on the 24th of June 451, Pope Leo the Great wrote to the Emperor Mareian that he had named Paschasinus Bishop of Lilybamm as his legate (prcedictum fratrcm et cocjnscojmm matm vice meet synoelo convenit prcesielere)? This legate, Paschasinus, in the name of himself and his colleagues (for Leo associated with him two other legates — the Bishop Lucentius and the Priest Boniface), at the third session of Chalcedon, issued the announcement that Pope Leo had commanded them, insignificant as they were, to preside in his place over this holy synod (nostrum 1 Hard. iii. 1055, 1061, 1065, 1072. 2 Hard. iii. 1402, 1414, 1435. 3 Hard. iii. 1059, 1063, 1066, 1070, 1303 A, 1307, 1326, 1327. 4 Pp. 13 and 25. 5 Hard. iii. 202. 6 Leonis Ep. 89, t. i. p. 1062, ed. Bailer. That Leo here asserted a right, and did not merely prefer a petition for the presidency to the Emperor, lias been shown by Peter de Marca, De concord, sacerdotii et imp. lib. v. 6. 32 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. parvitatem huic sancto concilio pro sc prccsidcre prccccpif) ; ' and! soon after, Pope Leo wrote to the bishops of Gaul, speaking of his legates, in the following terms : " My brothers who pre- sided in my stead over the Eastern Synod " (Fratrcs met, qui vice mea orientali synodo prcesederunf). 2 Pope Vigilius after- wards asserted the same, when, in a circular letter addressed to the whole Church, he says, " over which our predecessor of holy memory, Pope Leo, presided by his legates and vicars" (cui sanctce recordationis dcccssor noster papa Leo per legatos suos vicariosquc pra:scdit)? Of still greater importance is it that the Council of Chalcedon itself, in its synodal letter to Pope Leo, expressly says, &v {i.e. the assembled bishops) as well as the seat of honour, was reserved for the imperial commissaries. The Pope's legates, although only having the first place among the voters, had the presidency, Kara ra daco, of the synod, that is, of the assembly of the bishops in specie; and when the imperial commissaries were absent, as was the case during the third session, they had also the direction of the business. 6 6. The Emperor Theodosius II. nominated the Comes Can- didian as his representative at the third Oecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431. In a letter addressed to the as- sembled fathers, the Emperor himself clearly determined the 1 Bailer, t. i. p. 10S9. 2 Hard. ii. 634. 3 Hard. ii. 53. * Hard. ii. 467, 366. 5 Euseb. Vita Const, lib. iv. c. 24. • Hard. ii. 310 ss. 34 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. situation of Candidian towards the Council. He says : " I have sent Candidian to your Synod as Comes sacrorum domesti- corum ; but he is to take no part in discussions on doctrine, since it is not allowable to any one, unless enrolled among the most holy bishops, to intermeddle in ecclesiastical dis- cussions " {aQkjxiTOV yap, top jirj tov KaraXcyov rcov uyLWTcnccv kiricKoiiOiv rvy^uvovra toZ? i/cfc\rjcnaGTt.Kol<; aKe/u./zaaci> . . . i77ifiiyvvadat). The Emperor then positively indicates what were to be the duties of Candidian : namely, that he was to send away the laity and the monks, if they repaired in too great numbers to Ephesus ; he was to provide for the tranquillity of the city and the safety of the Synod ; he was to take care that differences of opinion that might arise between the members of the Synod should not degenerate into passionate contro- versies, but that each might express his opinion without fear or hindrance, in order that, whether after quiet or noisy dis- cussions upon each point, the bishops might arrive at a unani- mous decision. Einally, he was to prevent any one from leaving the Synod without cause, and also to see that no other theological discussion should be entered into than that which had occasioned the assembling of the Synod, or that no private business should be brought up or discussed. 1 Pope Celestine I. on his side had appointed the two bishops Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest Philippus, as his legates, and had instructed them to act according to the advice of Cyril, and to maintain the prerogatives of the Apostolic See. 2 The Pope had before nominated Cyril as his representative in the ^"estorian matter, and in his letter of 10th of August 430 3 he invested him with full apostolic power. . It is known that from the beginning Candidian showed himself very partial to the friends of Xestorius, and tried to postpone the opening of the Council. When, how- ever, Cyril held the first sitting on the 24th June 431, the Count was not present, and so his name does not appear in the minutes. On the contrary, at the head of the list of the bishops present is found the name of Cyril, with this significant ob- servation, " that he took the place of Celestine, the most holy 1 Hard. i. 1346 aq. 2 Hard. i. 1347, 1473. 3 Hard. i. 13i>3. 1M110DUCTI0N. 35 Archbishop of Eome." 1 Cyril also directed the order of the business, either in person, as when he explained the chief object of the deliberations, 2 or else through Peter, one of his priests, whom he made primicervus notariorinn. 3 Cyril was also the first to sign the acts of the first session, and the sen- tence of deposition pronounced against ISTestorius. 4 In consequence of this deposition, Count Candidian be- came the open opponent of the Synod, and the protector of the party of Antioch, who held an unlawful council of their own under John of Antioch. Cyril notwithstanding fixed the 10th July 431 for the second session, and he presided ; and the minutes mention him again as the representative of Eome. 5 The other papal legates, who had not arrived in time for the first, were present at this second session ; and they shared the presidency with Cyril, who continued to be called in the accounts the representative of the Pope. G Cyril was the first to sign ; after him came the legate Arcadius : then Juvenal of Jerusalem ; next, the second legate Projectus ; then came Flavian bishop of Philippi ; and after him the third legate, the priest Philip. 7 All the ancient documents are unanimous in affirming that Cyril presided over the Council in the name of Pope Celestine. Evagrius 8 says the same ; so Pope Vigilius in the profession of faith which he signed ; 9 and Mansuetus Bishop of Milan, in his letter to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. 10 In other documents Pope Celestine and Cyril are indiscriminately called presidents of the third (Ecumenical Council ; the acts of the fourth 11 assert this several times, as well as the Emperor Marcian, 12 and in the fifth century the Armenian bishops in their letter to the Emperor Leo. 13 7. When we pass on to the second (Ecumenical Council, it is perfectly well known and allowed that it was not presided over either by the Pope Damasus or his legate ; for, as has been already said, this Council was not at first considered oecumeni- cal, but only a general council of the Eastern Church. The 1 Hard. i. 1353. 2 Hard. i. 1422. 3 Hard. i. 1355, 1419. 4 Hard. i. 1423. 5 Hard. i. 1466. 6 Hard. i. I486, 1510. 7 Hard. i. 1527. « Hist. Eccl. i. 4. » Hard. iii. 10. . 10 Hard. iii. 1052. . " Hard. i. 402, 451. " Hard. ii. 671. 13 Hard. ii. 742. 36 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. first sessions were presided over by Meletius Archbishop of Antioch, who was the chief of all the bishops present, as the Archbishop of Alexandria had not arrived at the beginning. After the death of Meletius, which happened soon after the opening of the Council, it was not the Archbishop of Alex- andria, but the Archbishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus, who was the president, and after his resignation his successor ISTectarius. This took place through the deci- sion of the Council, which in its third session had assigned to the Bishop of new Eome — that is, Constantinople — the prece- dency immediately after the Bishop of old Borne. 8. The solution of the question respecting the presidency of the first (Ecumenical Council is not without difficulty ; and the greatest acumen has been displayed, and the most venture- some conjectures have been made, in order to prove that in the first Council, at any rate, the Pope was not the president. They have endeavoured to prove that the presidency belonged to the Emperor, who in a solemn discourse opened the series of the principal sessions, and took part in them, seated in the place of honour. But Eusebius, who was an eye-witness of the Council, and pays the greatest possible respect to the Emperor, says most explicitly : " After that (meaning after the opening discourse by the Emperor) the Emperor made way for the presidents of the Synod" {irapehihov rov \6 4 It may be objected that Socrates also mentions, after Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, Arpocration Bishop of Cynopolis (in Egypt), although this episco- pal see had no such high rank. But, as has been remarked by the Bailer in i, Socrates simply intended to give a list of the patriarchs, or their representa- tives, according to rank. As for the other bishops, he contented himself with mentioning one only as antesignamts reliqui, and he took the first name in 40 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. An examination of the signatures of the Council of Nica?a leads us again to the same conclusion. It is true that there are many variations to be found in these signatures, if several manuscripts are consulted, and that these manuscripts are often faulty and defective, as Tillemont * has conclusively shown ; but in spite of these defects, it is a very significant fact, that in every copy, without one exception, Hosius and the two Eoman priests sign the first, and after them Alexan- der Patriarch of Alexandria signs. On this subject the two lists of signatures given by Mansi 2 may be consulted, as well as the two others given by Gelasius : in these latter Hosius expressly signs in the name of the Church of Borne, of the Churches of Italy, of Spain, and of the West ; the two Eoman priests appear only as his attendants. In Mansi's two lists, it is true, nothing indicates that Hosius acted in the Pope's name, whilst we are informed that the two Eoman priests did so. But this is not so surprising as it might at first sight appear, for these Eoman priests had no right to sign for themselves : it was therefore necessary for them to say in whose name they did so ; whilst it was not necessary for Hosius, who as a bishop had a right of his own. Schrockh 3 says that Hosius had his distinguished posi- tion on account of his great influence with the Emperor ; but this reasoning is very feeble. The bishops did not sign according as they were more or less in favour with Constan- tine. If such order had been followed, Eusebius of Ccesarea would have been among the first. It is highly important to remark the order in which the signatures of the Council were given. The study of the lists proves that they followed the order of provinces : the metropolitan signed first, and after his list after the Bishop of Alexandria. Cf. Bailer, de Antiq. Collect., etc., in Gallandi, de vetustis Canonum Collectionibus, i. 256. 1 I.e. p. 355. 2 ii. 692, 697. See also Mansi, ii. 882, 927. What has heen said above- also shows that Socrates consulted a similar list, in which Hosius and the Roman priests were the first to sign. These lists, especially the larger ones, which are generally translated into Latin (Mansi, ii. 882 sq.), contain, it is true, several inaccuracies in detail, but they are most certainly authentic oi> the whole. Cf. Bailer. I.e. p. 254 sq. 8 Schrockh, Kirchengesch. Thl. v. S. 336. INTRODUCTION. 41 him the suffragans ; the metropolitan of another province followed, and then his suffragan bishops, etc. The enumera- tion of the provinces themselves was in no particular order : thus the province of Alexandria came first, then the Thebaic! and Libya, then Palestine and Phoenicia ; not till after that the province of Antioch, etc. At the head of each group of signatures was always written the name of the ecclesiastical province to which they belonged ; and this is omitted only in the case of Hosius and the two Eoman priests. They signed first, and without naming a diocese. It will perhaps be objected, that as the Synod was chiefly composed of Greek bishops, they allowed the Westerns to sign first out of con- sideration for them ; but this supposition is inadmissible, for at the end of the lists of the signatures of the Council are- found the names of the representatives of two ecclesiastical provinces of the Latin Church. Since Gaul and Africa are placed at the end, they would certainly have been united to the province of Spain, if Hosius had represented that pro- vince only, and had not attended in a higher capacity. To- gether with the two Eoman priests, he represented no particular church, but was the president of the whole Synod : therefore the name of no province was added to his signature, — a fresh proof that we must recognise in him and his two colleagues the it p 6 eh p 01. spoken of by Eusebius. The analogy of the other oecumenical councils also brings us to the same conclu- sion ; particularly that of the Council of Ephesus, in which Cyril of Alexandria, an otherwise distinguished bishop, who held the office of papal legate, like Hosius at Mcasa, signed first, before all the other legates who came from Italy. It would be superfluous, in the consideration of the ques- tion which is now occupying us, to speak of the oecumenical councils held subsequently to these eight first, since no one doubts that these more recent councils were presided over either by the Pope or his legates. We will therefore conclude the discussion of this point with the remark, that if in some national councils the Emperor or Kings were presidents, 1 it was either an honorary presidency only, or else they were mixed 1 Thus Charles the Great at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794, and King Genulf at that of Becanceld in England in 799. Cf. Hard. iv. 882 E, 925 C. 42 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. councils assembled for State business as well as for that of the Church. The Robber- Synod of Ephesus, which was held in 449, departed from the rule of all the oecumenical councils in the matter of the presidency ; and it is well to mention this Synod, because at first it was regarded as an oecumenical council. We have before said that the presidency of it was refused to the Pope's legates ; and by order of the Emperor Theodosius II., who had been deceived, it was bestowed upon Dioscurus of Alexandria. 1 But the sensation produced by this unusual measure, and the reasons given at Chalcedon by the papal legates for declaring this Synod of Ephesus to be invalid, indisputably prove that we may here apply the well- known axiom, cxccptio firmed regulam. Sec. 6. Confirmation of the Decrees of the Councils. The decrees of the ancient oecumenical councils were con- firmed by the Emperors and by the Popes ; those of the later councils by the Popes alone. On the subject of the confir- mation of the Emperors we have the following facts : — 1. Constantine the Great solemnly confirmed the Mcene Creed immediately after it had been drawn up by the Council, and he threatened such as would not subscribe it with exile.' 2 At the conclusion of the Synod he raised all the decrees of the assembly to the position of laws of the empire ; declared tli em to be divinely inspired ; and in several edicts still par- tially extant, he required that they should be most faithfully observed by all his subjects. 3 2. The second (Ecumenical Council expressly asked for the confirmation of the Emperor Theodosius the Great, 4 and he responded to the wishes of the assembly by an edict dated the 30 th July 381.° 3. The case of the third Oecumenical Council, which was held at Ephesus, was peculiar. The Emperor Theodosius n. 1 Hard. ii. 80. - Eufin. Hist. Bed. i. 5 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 9. s Eusel). Vita Const, iii. 17-19 ; Socrat. i. 9 ; Gelasii Volumen actorum C'oncilii Nic. lib. ii. c. 36 ; in Hard. i. 445 sqq. ; Mansi, ii. 919. 4 Hard. i. 807. 6 Cod. Theodos. i. 3 ; de Fide Cath. vi. 9. See also Vaksiui' notes to Socrates, v. 8. INTRODUCTION. 4 3 had first been on the heretical side, but he was brought to acknowledge by degrees that the orthodox part of the bishops assembled at Ephesus formed the true Synod. 1 However, he did not in a general way give his confirmation to the decrees of the Council, because he would not approve of the deposition and exclusion pronounced by the Council against the bishops of the party of Antioch. 2 Subsequently, however, when Cyril and John of Antioch w 7 ere reconciled, and when the party of Antioch itself had acknowledged the Council of Ephesus, f he Emperor sanctioned this reconciliation by a special decree, threatened all who should disturb the peace ; and by exiling aSTestorius, and by commanding all the Nestorian writings to be burnt, he confirmed the principal decision given by the Council of Ephesus. 3 4. The Emperor Marcian consented to the doctrinal de- crees of the fourth (Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, by publishing four edicts on the 7th February, 13th March, Gth and 28 th July 452. 4 5. The close relations existing between the fifth CEcumenical Council and the Emperor Justinian are well known. This Council merely carried out and sanctioned what the Emperor had before thought necessary and decided ; and it bow r ed so obsequiously to his wishes, that Pope Vigilius would have nothing to do w r ith it. The Emperor Justinian sanctioned the decrees pronounced by the Council, by sending an official to the seventh session, and he afterwards used every endeavour to obtain the approbation of Pope Vigilius for this Council. 6. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus confirmed the de- crees of the sixth Council, first by signing them 5 (ultimo loco, as we have seen) ; but he sanctioned them also by a very long edict which Hardouin has preserved. 6 7. In the last session of the seventh CEcumenical Council, the Empress Irene, with her son, signed the decrees made in the preceding sessions, and thus gave them the imperial sanction. 7 It is not known whether she afterwards promulgated an especial decree to the same effect. ' 1 Mansi, v. 255, 659 ; Hard. i. 16G7. 2 Mansi, iv. 1465. 3 Mansi, v. 255, 413, 920. 4 Hard. ii. C59, 662, 675 8. B Hard. iii. 1435. 6 Hard. iii. 1446, 1633. * Hard. ii. 4S3-436. 44 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 8. The Emperor Basil the Macedonian and his sons signed the acts of the eighth (Ecumenical Council. His signature followed that of the patriarchs, and preceded that of the other bishops. 1 In 870 he also published an especial edict, making known his approval of the decrees of the Council. 2 The papal confirmation of all these eight first oecumenical councils is not so clear and distinct. 1. The signatures of the Pope's legates, Hosius, Vitus, and Vincentius, subscribed to the acts of the Council before the other bishops, must be regarded as a sanction from the See of Borne to the decrees of Nicoea. Five documents, dating from the fifth century, mention, besides, a solemn approval of the acts of the Council of Nicrea, given by Pope Sylvester and a Ptoman synod of 2 7 5 bishops. It is granted that these docu- ments are not authentic, as we shall show in the history of the Council of Nica?a ; but we nevertheless consider it very probable that the Council of Nicsea was recognised and ap- proved by an especial act of Pope Sylvester, and not merely by the signature of his legates, for the following reasons : — It is undeniable, as we shall presently see, that a. The fourth (Ecumenical Council looked upon the papal confirmation as absolutely necessary for ensuring the validity of the decrees of the Council ; and there is no good ground for maintaining that this was a new principle, and one which was not known and recognised at the time of the Nicene Council. /3. Again, in 485, a synod, composed of above forty bishops from different parts of Italy, was quite unanimous in assert- ing, in opposition to the Greeks, that the three hundred and eighteen bishops of Nicrea had their decisions confirmed by the authority of the holy Boman Church {confirmationcm rcrum atque auctoritatcm sanctce Romance Ecclesiw dctulcrunt)? y. Pope Julius I. in the same way declared, a few years after the close of the Council of Nicrea, that ecclesiastical decrees (the decisions of synods 4 ) ought not to be published without the consent of the Bishop of Pome, and that this is a rule and a law of the Church. 4 8. Dionysius the Less also maintained that the decisions of 1 See above, sec. 5. 2 Hard. v. 935. * Hard. ii. 856. * Soerat. Hist. Eccl. ii. 17. INTRODUCTION". 45 the Council of Niccea were sent to Borne for approval ;* and it is not improbable that it was the general opinion upon this point which contributed to produce those spurious documents which we possess. 2. When the Pope and the Western bishops heard the de- crees of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, subse- sequently accepted as the second (Ecumenical Council, they expressed in an Italian synod their disapproval of some of the steps taken, although they had not then received the acts of the Council. 2 Soon after they had received the acts, Pope Damasus gave his sanction to the Council. This is the account given by Photius. 3 This approval, however, must have related only to the Creed of Constantinople ; for the canons of this Council were rejected by Pope Leo the Great, and subsequently, towards the year 600, still more explicitly by Pope Gregory the Great. 4 That the Creed of Constanti- nople had, however, the approbation of the Apostolic See, is shown by the fact that, in the fourth General Council held at Chalcedon, the papal legates did not raise the least opposition when this creed was quoted as an authority, whilst they pro- tested most strongly when the canons of Constantinople were appealed to. It was, in fact, on account of the creed having been approved of by the Holy See, that afterwards, in the sixth century, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius IL, and Gregory the Great, formally declared that this Council was oecumenical, although Gregory at the same time refused to acknowledge the canons it had promulgated. 3. The third (Ecumenical Council was held in the time of Pope Celestine, and its decisions were signed by his legates, S. Cyril, Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Priest Philip. 5 Besides this sanction, in the following year Ce- lestine's successor, Pope Sixtus in., sanctioned this Council of Ephesus in a more solemn manner, in several circular and private letters, some of which have reached us. 6 1 Coustant. Epistolce Pont!/. Praf. pp. lxxxii. lxxix. ; Hard. i. 311. 2 Hard. i. 845. 3 De Synodis, in Mansi, iii. 595. 4 Gregor. Opp. torn. ii. lib. 1 ; Epist. 25, p. 515 ; Loonis I. Epist. 106 (80), ad Anatol. c. 2. See afterwards, in the history of the second (Ecumenical Council. s Hard. i. 1527. 8 Mansi, v. 374 s. We see from these considerations, of what value the sanc- tion of the Pope is to the decrees of a council. Until the Pope has sanctioned these decrees, the assembly of bishops which formed them cannot pretend to the authority belonging to an oecumenical council, however great a number of bishops may compose it ; for there cannot be an oecumenical council without union with the Pope. Sec. 8. — Infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils. This sanction of the Pope is also necessary for ensuring infallibility to the decisions of the council. According to Catholic doctrine, this prerogative can be claimed only for the decisions of oecumenical councils, and only for their decisions in rebus fidci ct mo-rum, not for purely disciplinary decrees. This doctrine of the Catholic Church upon the infallibility of oecumenical councils in matters of faith and morality, pro- ceeds from the conviction, drawn from Holy Scripture, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church of God (consequently also the Church assembled in an oecumenical council), and that K=> keeps it from all error ; 2 that Jesus Christ will be with His own until the end of the world ; 3 that the gates of hell (there- fore the powers of error) will never prevail against the Church. 4 The apostles evinced their conviction that the Holy Spirit is present in general councils, when they published their decrees with this formula, Visum est Spiritui sancto ct nobis* (it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us), at the Synod held at 1 Mansi, Nota in Natal. Alex. I.e. scholion ii. 286. 8 John xvi. 13, xiv. 2G. 3 Matt, xxviii. 20. * Matt. xvi. 18. c Acts xv. 28. INTRODUCTION. 53 Jerusalem. The Church, sharing this conviction of the apostles, has always taught that the councils are infallible in rebus field ct morum, and has considered all those who did not believe in this infallibility to be heretics, and separate from the Church. Constantine the Great called the decrees of the Synod of Nicrea a divine commandment (delav iv- roXrji/). 1 Athanasius, in his letter to the bishops of Africa, exclaimed : " What God hath spoken through the Council of Nicoea endureth for ever." S. Ambrose is so thoroughly con- vinced of the infallibility of the general council, that he ■writes : " Scquor tradatum Nicceni concilii a quo me nee mors ncc gladius poterit separare " 2 (I follow the guidance of the Nicene Council, from which neither death nor sword will be able to separate me). Pope Leo the Great, speaking of his explanation respecting the two natures in Jesus Christ, says expressly that it has already been corroborated by the " con- sensu irrctrartabili" of the Council of Chalcedon ; 3 and in another letter, " non p> oss& inter catholicos reputari, qui rcsis- tunt Nicarno vcl Chalcecloncnsi concilio " 4 (that they cannot be counted among Catholics who resist the Council of Nicoea or Chalcedon). Pope Leo again says in this same letter, that the decrees of Chalcedon were given " instrucnte Spiritu sancto," and that they are rather divine than human decrees. 6 Bellarmin 6 and other theologians quote a great number of other texts, drawn from the works of the Fathers, which prove that this belief in the infallibility of oecumenical councils has always been part of the Church's creed. We select from them this of Gregory the Great : " I venerate the four first oecumenical councils equally with the four Gospels" 7 (sicut quatuor Evangclia). Bellarmin 8 as well as Steph. Wiest 9 have refuted every objection which can be brought against the infal- libility of oecumenical councils. S £& ^t>V- V. PHlD. vCW ' o. The same infallibility must be accorded to councils which 1 Eusebi Vita Const, iii. 20. 2 Ep. 21. 3 Ep. 65, ad Theodoret. 4 Ep. 78, ad Leon. August. 8 Hard. ii. 702. 6 Lfisp. vol. ii. ; de Cone. lib. ii. c S 7 Lib. i. c. 24. • Bellar. Disput. vol. ii. ; de Concil. lib. iii. c. 6-9. * Jjtmonstratio rclljionis Catli, iii. 542 sq. 54 HISTORY OF THE CO&NCILS. are not oecumenical, when their decrees have received the sanction of the Pope, and been accepted by the whole Church. The only formal difference, then, existing between these coun- cils and those which are oecumenical is this, that all the bishops of the Church were not invited to take part in them. 1 Sec. 9. Appeal from the Pope to an (Ecumenical Council. . The question, whether one can appeal from the decision of a Pope to that of an oecumenical council, is highly important, and has often been ventilated. Pope Celestine I., as early as the fifth century, declared that such an appeal was inadmissible. 2 It is true that, in the first centuries, questions were often con- sidered by the councils which had before been decided by the Pope ; but, as Peter de Marca has shown, that was not an ap- peal properly so called. He also shows that the Emperor Frederick u. was the first who formally appealed from the de- cision of a Pope to that of a general council. 3 Pope Martin v., and subsequently Pope Pius II., 4 were led again to prohibit these appeals, because they recurred too often, and especially on account of the exorbitant demands of the Council of Con- stance. 5 Julius II. and Paul v. renewed these prohibitions in the sixteenth century. In 1717 a great sensation was caused by the appeal of many Jansenists to a general council against the Bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement xi. But in his brief Pastoralis officii the Pope threatened with excommunication every one who promoted the appeal, and did not sign the Bull Unigenitus ; and also compelled the abandonment of the appeal, and the dispersion of the appealing party. Even the Protestant historian Mosheim wrote against this appeal, and plainly showed the contradiction there was between it and the Catholic principle of the unity of the Church ; G and indeed it must be confessed, that to appeal from the Pope to 1 Bellarmin. I.e. lib. ii. c. v.-x. 2 C. 16 and 17 ; Causa ix. q. 3. 3 De Marca, de Concord, sacerd. et imperil, lib. iv. c. 17. 4 Cf. the bull of Pius ir. dated Jan. 18, 1459. & De Marca, de Concord, sacerd. et imperii, lib. iv. c. 17 ; and Schrochh, Kirchengesch. Bd. 32, S. 223 and 227. c Mosheim, de Gallorum apjyeUationibus ad concilium universal Ecclcsice, unilatem Ecclesiai spectabilis tollentibus, in the first vol. of his Dissert, ad Hist. Eccl. p. 577 sq. INTRODUCTION. 55 8 council, an authority usually very difficult to constitute and to consult, is simply to cloak ecclesiastical insubordination by a mere formality. 1 5 ^^ ">d^>. 6W Sec. 10. Number of the (Ecumenical Councils. Bellarmin reckons eighteen oecumenical councils as univer- sally acknowledged ; 2 but on the subject of the fifth Lateran Council, he says that it was doubted by many : "Aicfuerit vere generate ; idco usque ad liane diem quaistio superest, etiam inter catliolicosr z Some historians have also raised doubts as to the oecumenical character of the Council held at Vienne in 1311. There are therefore only the following sixteen councils which are recognised without any opposition as oecumenical : — 1. That of Nicsea in 325. 2. The first of Constantinople in 381. 3. That of Ephesus in 431. 4. That of Chalcedon in 451. 5. The second of Constantinople in 553. 6. The third of Constantinople in 680. JL The second of Mcsea in 787. 8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869. 9. The first Lateran in 1123. 10. The second Lateran in 1139. 11. The third Lateran in 1179. 12. The fourth Lateran in 1215. 13. The first of Lyons in 1245. 14. The second of Lyons in 1274. \[l \\. 15. That of Florence in 1439. 16. That of Trent, from 1545 to 1563. The oecumenical character of the following synods is con- tested : — 1. That of Sardica, about 343-344. 2, That in Trullo, or the Quinisext, in 692. 3 That of Vienne in 1311. 1 Cf. Walter, Kirchenr. I.e. § 153; and Ferraris, B'Miotlieca prompta, etc., ti.v. Appellatio. * De Conc'd. lib. i. c. 5. z De Condi, lib. ii. c. 15. 50 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 4. That of Pisa in 1400. 5. That of Constance, from 1414 to 1418. 6. That of Basle, from 1431 to 1439. 7. The fifth Lateran, from 1512 to 1517. "We have elsewhere 1 considered whether the Synod of Sardica can lay claim to the title of oecumenical, and we will again take up the question at the proper time. We may here recapitu- late, in five short propositions, the result of our researches : — a. The history of the Council of Sardica itself furnishes no reason for considering it to he oecumenical. b. No ecclesiastical authority has declared it to be so. c. We are not therefore obliged to consider it to be oecume- nical ; but we must also add, d. That it was very early, and has been in all ages, highly esteemed by the orthodox Church. e. Besides, it is of small importance to discuss its oecu- menical character, for it gave no decree in rebus ficlei, and therefore issued no decisions with the stamp of infallibility. As for disciplinary decrees, whatever council promulgates them, they are subject to modification in the course of time : they are not irreformable, as are the doctrinal decrees of oecumenical councils. The Trullan Council, also called the Quinisext, is con- sidered to be oecumenical by the Greeks only. The Latins could not possibly have accepted several of its decrees, which are drawn up in distinct opposition to the Pioman Church: for instance, the thirteenth canon, directed against the celibacy observed in the West ; the thirty-sixth canon, on the equal rank of the Bishops of Constantinople and of Rome ; and the fifty-fifth canon, which forbids the Saturday's fast. 2 The Council of Vienne is generally considered to be the fifteenth (Ecumenical Council, and Bellarmin also accedes to this. 3 The Jesuit Damberger, in his Synchronical History of the Middle Ages, expresses a different opinion. 4 " Many his- 1 Tilbinger Quartalschrlft, 1852, S. 399-415. 2 Of. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. vii. vol. v. p. 528. Bellarmin. I.e. 7. 3 De Concil. lib. i. c. 5. * Synchronistische Geschichte des Mittelallers, Bd. xiii. S. 177 f. INTRODUCTION. 5 7 torians ," he says, " especially French historians, consider this Council to be one of the most famous, the most venerable, and the most important which has been held, and regard it as the fifteenth (Ecumenical. The enemies of the Church will gladly accept such an opinion. It is true that Pope Clement v. wished to call an oecumenical council, and of this the Bull of Convocation speaks ; but Boniface VIII. had also the same desire, and yet no one would give such a name to the assembly which he opened at Eome on the 13th October 1302. It is also true that, after the bishops of all countries have been summoned, the title and weight of an oecumenical council cannot be refused to a synod under the pretext that many bishops did not respond to the invitation ; but the name demands at least that the assembly should be occupied with the common and universal concerns of the Church — that they should come to decisions which should then be promulgated for the obedience of the faithful. Now," says Damberger, " nothing of all this took place at the Council of Vienne." We reply, that this last statement is a mistake. The Council promulgated a whole series of decrees, which in great measure relate to the whole Church, and not merely to one province only — for example, those concerning the Templars ; and these decrees were certainly published. Moreover, the fifth Lateran Council, which we admit to be oecumenical, spoke of that of Vienne, in its eighth session, as a generale. 1 A different judgment must be given respecting the Council of Pisa, held in 1409. It was naturally from the beginning considered to be without weight or authority by the partisans of the two Popes whom it deposed, viz. Gregory XII. and Benedict xiii. 2 The Carthusian Boniface Ferrer, brother to S. Vincent Ferrer, and legate of Benedict xiii. at this Synod, called it an heretical and diabolical assembly. But its character as oecumenical has also been questioned by those who took no part for either of the two antipopes — by Cardinal de Bar, and a little subsequently by S. Antonine Archbishop of Florence. 3 We might add to these many friends of reform, like Nicholas of Clemonge and 1 Hard. ix. 1719. a Kaynald. Contin. Annal. Baron, ad an. 1409, n. 74. 3 Ci*. Bellarmin, de Condi, lib. i. c. 8 ; Mansi, Collect. Condi, xxvi. 1160; «md Lenfant, Hist, du Concile de Pise, p. 303 sq. 5§ HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Theodoric of Brie, wHo were dissatisfied with it. Gerson', on the contrary, who about this time wrote his book Be Avferibilitate Papce, defended the decrees of the Council of Pisa. Almost all the Gallicans have tried, as he did, to give an oecumenical character to this Council, because it was the first to make use of the doctrine of the superiority of a general council to the Pope. 1 But in order that a council should be oecumenical, it must be recognised as such by the whole of Christendom. Now, more than half the bishops of Christendom (cpiscopatus dispersus), as well as whole nations, have protested against its decisions, and would not receive them. For this reason, neither ecclesiastical authority nor the most trust- worthy theologians have ever numbered it among the oecume- nical councils. 2 It must also be said that some Ultramontanes have had too little regard for this Council, in saying that the election made by it of Pope Alexander v. was valueless, and that Gregory xii. was still the legitimate Pope until his volun- tary abdication in 141 5. 3 The Gallicans were very anxious to prove the Council of Constance to be oecumenical. It is true that it was assem- bled in a regular manner; but, according to the principles we have explained above, it necessarily lost its oecumenical character as long as it was separated from the head of the Church. The sessions, however, which were held after the election of Pope Martin v., and with his consent and approbation — that is, sessions 42 to 45 — must be considered as those of an oecumenical council. The same consideration must be given to the decrees of the earlier sessions, which concern the faith (res ficlci), and were given conciliaritcr as they were approved by Pope Martin v. ;; There was no special enumeration of them given by the Pope ; but he evidently 1 We may name Edmund Eicher, Historia Concll. gen. lib. ii. c. 2, sec. 6 ; Bossuet, Defensio deri gallic. P. ii. lib. ix. c. 11 ; N. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. xv. et xvi. diss. ii. vol. ix. p. 267 sq. 2 Cf. Animadversiones, by Eoncaglia, in Natal. Alex. I.e. p. 276 sq. 3 This is the opinion of Baynald in his Contin. Annalium Baron, ad ann., 1409, n. 79-81, and of Peter Ballerini, de Potestate ccclesiaslica summorum Pontificum et Condi, gen. c. 6. Bellanhln, on the contrary, considers Alex- ander v. as the legitimate Pope, and calls the Council of Pisa a "contilium generate nee approbation nee reprobatum." INTRODUCTION. 59 intended those condemning the heresies of Huss and Wickliffe* Natalis Alexander endeavours to show that this sanction also comprehended the fourth and fifth sessions, and their decrees establishing the superiority of councils over the Pope. 1 But Eoncaglia has refuted his opinion, and maintained the right view of the matter, which we have already asserted. 2 As for those who entirely refuse an oecumenical character to the Council of Constance in all its parts, it suffices for their refutation to recall, besides the approbation of Martin v., what Pope Eugene iv. wrote on the 2 2d July 1446 to his legates in Germany : " Ad imitationcm ss. PP. et prcedcccssorum nostrorum, sicut Mi gencralicc concilia vcncrari consucvcrunt, sic gcncrcdict concilia Constantiense ct Basilcense ah ejus initio usque acl trans- lationcm per nos factam, absque tamen prcejudicio juris, digni- tatis et prw-eminentim S. Scdis apostolicce . . . cum omni revcrcntia et devotione suscijnmus, convplcctimur ct vencramur" 3 [In imitation of the most holy Popes our predecessors, as they have been wont to venerate general councils, so do we receive with all reverence and devotion, embrace and venerate the General Councils of Constance and Basle, yet without prejudice to the right, dignity, and pre-eminence of the Holy Apostolic See]. The moderate Gallicans maintain that the Council of Basle was oecumenical until its translation to Perrara, and that it then lost this character ; for it would be impossible to consider as oecumenical the concilictbidum which remained behind at Basle, and was continued later at Lau- sanne under the antipope Pelix v. 4 Edmund Richer* and the advanced Gallicans, on the contrary, consider the whole of the Council of Basle to be oecumenical, from its stormy beginning to its inglorious end. Other theologians, on the contrary, refuse this character to the Council of Basle in all its sessions. This is the opinion of Bellarmin, Eoncaglia, and L. Holstenius. 6 1 Hist. Eccl. sec. xv. diss. iv. pp. 2S9, 317. 5 Roncagl. Animadv. ad Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. I.e. pp. 361, 359. 3 Roncagl. I.e. p. 465 ; Raynald. Cont. Annal. Baron, ad an. 1446, n. 3. 4 Nat. Alex. I.e. ix. 433 sq. 8 Hist. Concil. gener. lib. iii. c. vii. 6 Bell. De Concil. lib. 1. c. vii. ; Roneaglia, in liis Animadversiones in Nat. Alex. I.e. p. 461 ; and Lucas Holstenius, in a special diss, inserted in Mausi, xxix. 1222 si}. 60 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, According to Gieseler, 1 Bellarmin has given the title of oecu- menical to the Council of Basle in another passage of his celebrated Disputationes? This is not so. Bellarmin says that the Council of Basle was legitimate at its opening, that is to say, so long as the papal legate and a great number of bishops were present; but subsequently, when it deposed the Pope, it was only a conciliabulam scliismaticum, scditiosum, et uulliits prorsus auctoritatis. It was by Bellarmin's advice that the acts of the Council of Basle were not included in the collection of oecumenical councils made at Borne in 1609. Those who are absolutely opposed to the Council of Basle, and refuse the oecumenical character to all its sessions, give the following reasons : — a. There was only a very small number of bishops (7-8) at the first sessions of this Synod, and therefore one cannot possibly consider it to be an oecumenical council. b. Before its second session, this Council, promising no good results, was dissolved by Pope Eugene iv. c. From this second session, according to the undeniable testimony of history, the assembly was ruled by passion ; its members were embittered against each other : business was not carried on with becoming calmness, but in the midst of complete anarchy ; the bishops' secretaries spoke and shouted in the sessions, as iEneas Sylvius and others testify. 3 d. Eugene IV. did certainly at a later period, after the fifteenth session, confirm all that had been done in the pre- ceding ; but this confirmation was extorted from him when he was ill, and by the threat that, if he did not consent to give it, he should lose the adherence of the princes and cardinals, and be deposed from the papal chair. 4 c. This confirmation has no value, even supposing that the Pope gave it in full consciousness, and with entire freedom ; for it was only signed by him on condition that the members of the Council of Basle should repeal all the decrees which they had given against the authority of the Pope, which they never did. 5 1 Kirchengesch. Bd. ii. 4, S. 52. 2 De Eccl Milit. lib. iii. c. 16. 3 Cf. Roncagl, An'nnadver. I.e. p. 463 A. 4 Ci'. Turrecremata, in Eoncaglia, l.c. p. 463 A. 5 Hard. viiL 157 B, C. INTRODUCTION. 61 /. The Pope simply allowed the Council to continue its sessions, and he withdrew his bull of dissolution again ; but these concessions imply no sanction of what the Council had done in its preceding sessions, and the Pope took care to declare this himself. 1 It appears to us to be going too far to refuse an oecumenical character to the whole Council of Basle. The truth, accord- ing to our view, lies between this opinion and that of the moderate Gallicans in this way : a. The Council of Basle was a true one from the first session to the twenty-fifth inclusive, that is, uutil its transla- tion from Basle to Ferrara. b. In these twenty-five sessions we must accept as valid only such decrees as treat, 1st, Of the extinction of heresy ; 2d, Of the pacification of Christendom ; 3d, Of the refor- mation of the Church in its head and in its members ; — and always on condition that these decrees are not prejudicial to- the papal power, and are approved by the Pope. Our authority for the establishment of these two proposi- tions is Pope Eugene IV. himself, who, in a bull read during the sixteenth session of the Council of Basle, sanctions those decrees of the preceding sessions which treat of these three- points. In the letter already mentioned, which he wrote on the 2 2d July 1446 to his legates in Germany, he says: "As my predecessors have venerated the ancient councils (evidently meaning oecumenical councils), so do I receive cum omni rcverentia et devotione, etc., the General Councils of Constance and Basle, and this latter cib ejus initio usque ad translationcm per nos factam, absque tamen prajudicio juris, dignitatis et prx-emincntiw, S. Scdis apostolicw ac potestatis sibi et in eadcm canonice seclcntibus conccsscc." 2 But it is asked whether this acceptance be admissible, whether ecclesiastical authority had not already broken the staff over the whole Council of Basle. A passage in a bull published by Pope Leo X., in the eleventh session of the fifth CEcumenical Lateran Council, has been made use of for the support of this objection. It is as follows : " Cum ea omnia 1 Cf. Turrccremata in Roncaglia, I.e. p. 464, b. * Cf. Roncaglia, I.e. p. 465, a ; Eaynald ad. an. 1446, n. 3. 62 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. piost trdnslationem ejusdcm B'asilecnsis Concilii a Basilccnsi conciliabulo sett potius convcnticula qiiaz 'prcesertim post hujusmodi translationcm concilium arn/plius appellari non mercbatur, facta exstiterint ac propter ca nullum robur Jiabue- rint." 1 In this passage Pope Leo X. condemns what was resolved during the latter sessions of the Council of Basle, and which was taken into the pragmatic sanction of Bourges in 1438 ; and on this occasion he speaks of the Council of Basle in a very unfavourable manner. But apart from the fact that we might allege against this passage, which asserts the superiority of the Pope over a general council, what the Gallicans have already adduced against it, we will observe : (a.) Even in this passage Pope Leo distinguishes between the Council of Basle, the assembly held before the translation, and the conciliabidum which began after the translation. (&.) It is true that he does not speak favourably of the Council itself, and the word praiscrtim seems to imply blame ; but the Pope's language can be easily explained, if we reflect that he has in view the decrees which diminish the power of the Pope, — decrees which were afterwards inserted in the pragmatic sanction. He might therefore speak unfavourably of these decisions of the Council of Basle, as Pope Eugene iv. did, without rejecting the whole Synod of Basle. It must also be understood in what sense Father Ulrich Mayr of Kaisersheim was condemned by Pope Clement xiv., viz. for maintaining that the twenty-five first sessions of the Council of Basle had the character and weight of sessions of an oecumenical council. 2 The opinion of Mayr is very different from ours : we do not accept all the decrees of the twenty-five first sessions, but only those which can be accepted under the conditions enumerated above. Some theologians, particularly Gallicans, since the time of Louis xiv., 3 will not recognise the fifth Lateran Council as oecumenical, on account of the small number of its members ; but the true reason for their hostility against this Council is that, in union with the Crown of France, it abolished the pragmatic sanction of Bourges, which asserted the liberties of 1 Hard. ix. 1828. - Walch, Neuste ReUcjlons-gescldchte, Ed. v. S. 245. 3 Cf. Dupin, de Antiqua Ecclesice Disciplina, p. 344. INTRODUCTION. 63 r fche Gallican Church, and concluded another concordat. These attacks cannot, however, be taken into consideration: for the great majority of Catholic theologians consider this Council, to be oecumenical ; and even France, at an earlier period, recognised it as such. 1 Here, then, we offer a corrected table of the oecumenical councils : — 1. That of Nicaeain 325. 2. The first of Constantinople in 381. 3. That of Ephesus in 431. 4. That of Chalcedon in 451. 5. The second of Constantinople in 553. 6. The third of Constantinople in 680. 7. The second of Mcsea in 787. 8. The fourth of Constantinople in 869. 9. The first of Lateran in 1123. 10. The second of Lateran in 1139. 11. The third of Lateran in 1179. 12. The fourth of Lateran in 1215. 13. The first of Lyons in 1245. 14. The second of Lyons in 1274. 15. That of Viennein 1311. 16. The Council of Constance, from 1414 to 1418; that is to say : {a.) The latter sessions presided over by Martin v. (sessions 41-45 inclusive) ; (b.) In the former sessions all the decrees sanctioned by Pope Martin v., that is, those concern- ing the faith, and which were given conciliaritcr. 17. The Council of Basle, from the year 1431; that is to say : (a.) The twenty-five first sessions, until the transla- tion of the Council to Ferrara by Eugene iv. ■ (&.) In these twenty-five sessions the decrees concerning the extinction of heresy, the pacification of Christendom, and the general refor- mation of the Church in its head and in its members, and which, besides, do not strike at the authority of the apostolic chair ; in a word, those decrees which were afterwards sanc- tioned by Pope Eugene iv. 176. The assemblies held at Ferrara and at Florence (1438-42) cannot be considered as forming a separate oecu- menical council. They were merely the continuation of the 1 Cf. Roncaglia in N. Alex. I.e. p. 470. 64 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Council of Basle, which was transferred to Ferrara by Eugene iv. on the 8th January 1438, and from thence to Florence in January 1439. 18. The fifth of Lateran, 1512-17. 19. The Council of Trent, 1545-63. Sec. 11. Customs observed in (Ecumenical Councils with rcspc.t to Signatures, Precedence, Manner of Voting, etc. In some countries — for instance, in Africa — the bishops held rank in the councils according to the period of their consecration ; in other parts they ranked according to the episcopal see which they filled. The priests and deacons repre- senting their absent bishop occupied the place belonging to that bishop in those councils which were held in the East ; but in the West this custom was not generally followed. In the Spanish councils the priests always signed after the bishops. The Council of Aries (a.d. 314), in the signatures to which we cannot remark any order, decided that if a bishop brought several clerics with him (even in minor orders), they should give their signatures immediately after their bishop, and before the bishop who followed. The order of the signatures evidently indicates also the order of pre- cedence. This Council of Aries gives an exception to this rule, for the Pope's legates — the two priests Claudian and Vitus 1 — signed only after sevaral bishops ; whilst in all the other councils, and even in the Eastern, the legates always signed before all the other bishops and the patriarchs, even though they were but simple priests. 2 In the thirteenth century Pope Clement IV. ordained that, in order to distinguish the bishops from the exempt abbots in the synods, the latter should only have mitres bordered witli gold, without pearls, without precious stones, or gold plates. The abbots who were not " exempt" were only to have white mitres, without borders. 3 The members of the councils ordinarily were seated in the 1 Hard. i. 266. 2 See above, p. 27 f., on what we have said with regard to the president at tue cecum nical councils. 3 Salmon, Trailc de I 'Elude des Conciks, 1726, p. 860. INTRODUCTION 6 5 form of a circle, in the centre of which was placed the hook of the Holy Scriptures. There were added also sometimes the collections of the ecclesiastical canons, and the relics of the saints. Behind each bishop was generally seated the priest who accompanied him ; the deacon used to sit lower, on one side, or before the bishop. 1 With respect to the ceremonies at the opening of the ancient Spanish councils, we have an order of the fourth Council of Toledo, which met in 633 (can. 4), which pre- scribed as follows: "Before sunset on the day appointed (May 1 8), all those who are in the church must come out ; and all the doors must be shut, except the one by which the bishops enter, and at this door all the ostiarii (porters) will station themselves. The bishops will then come and take their places, according to the times of their ordination. When they have taken their places, the elected priests, and after them the deacons, will come in their turn to take their places. The priests sit behind the bishops ; the deacons are in front ; and all are seated in the form of a circle. Last of all, those laity are introduced whom the council by their election have judged worthy of the favour. The notaries who are necessary ure also introduced. "All keep silence. When the archdeacon says, 'Let us pray' {orate), all prostrate themselves upon the ground. After several moments, one of the oldest bishops rises and recites a prayer in a loud voice, during which all the rest remain on their knees. The prayer having been recited, all answer 'Amen;' and they rise when the archdeacon says, 'Stand up' (erigite vos). While all keep silent, a deacon, clad in a white alb, brings into the midst the Book of the Canons, and reads the rules for the holding of councils. When this is ended, the metropolitan gives an address, and calls on those present to bring forward their complaints. If a priest, a deacon, or a layman has any complaint to make, he makes it known to the archdeacon of the metropolitan church ; and the latter, in his turn, will bring it to the knowledge of the council. No bishop is to withdraw without the rest, and no one is to pronounce the council dissolved before all the busi- 1 Salmon, I.e. p. 861. £ 66 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ness is ended." The Synod concluded with a ceremony similar to that of the opening ; the metropolitan then pro- claimed the time of celebrating Easter, and that of the meeting of the next synod, and some bishops were chosen to assist the metropolitan at Christmas and Easter. 1 Before the Council of Constance, they voted by numbers in all the councils ; but at that Council, to neutralize the advan- tage the Italian prelates derived from their large number, the votes were given by nations. Five nations — Italy, France, Germany, England, and Spain — each had. right to one vote ; and within the nation they of course voted by numbers. Another arrangement was introduced into the Council. They divided, without distinctions of nationality, all who were present at the Synod into four great commissions — of the Faith, of the Peace, of the Reform of the Church, and of general business. Each commission had its own president, and they combined the commissions three times a week. "When a commission had made a decree, it was communi- cated to the other three ; and if it was approved by three commissions at the least, it was announced as a decree of the Synod by the president of the Council in a general session. 2 In the councils which followed that of Basle this manner of voting was abandoned ; and when, at the commencement of the Council of Trent, the Pope's legates asked if they would vote by nations or by heads, the latter was the method which was recommended, as being the most conformable to the tradi- tions of the Church. This is at least what Safpi 3 and Palla- vicini 4 relate. Sarpi adds, that several Fathers of the Council of Trent actually demanded to vote by nations; but this statement is refuted by Pallavicini, who proves that no one made that demand, and that the question asked by the legates was simply a prudential measure. 5 The Council of Trent introduced a practice which was a departure from ancient custom. In the ancient councils the discussions upon the decrees to be promulgated took place during the sessions 1 Hard. i. 6 sqq., iii. 5S0. 2 Hard. viii. 1439. 3 ii. 29. 4 vi. 4, n. 9. 5 See Briscliar, Beurthtilung der Controversen Sarins unci Pallav. Bd. i. S. 151 f. INTRODUCTION. 6 7 themselves ; and the acts of these councils contain discussions of great length. In the Council of Trent, on the contrary, each matter was first carefully discussed in particular com- missions ; and when all was ready, and in fact decided upon, they presented the decree to the general session for confirma- tion. The acts of the Council of Trent, for this reason, contain no discussions, but only decrees, etc. The decisions of the synods were regularly published in the name of the synod itself ; but sometimes, when the Pope presided, the decrees were published in the form of papal decrees, with the addition of the formula : " with the appro- bation of the sacred oecumenical council" {sacra universali synoclo approbantc). This took place at the third, the fourth, and the fifth Lateran Councils, and in part also at the Council of Constance. 1 Sec. 12. Histories of the Councils. James Merlin, canon and chief penitentiary of the metro- politan church of Paris, was the first who had a collection of the acts of the councils published. This edition, naturally very incomplete, appeared at Paris in 1523, in one folio volume, in two parts. A second impression was published at Koln in 1530, enriched by two documents, the golden bull of Charles iv., and the bull of Pius II. in which he for- bade an appeal from the Pope to an oecumenical council. The third edition, in octavo, published at Paris in 1536, had no additions. Like all the collections of the councils which have been made after it, with the exception of the Ptoman edition of 1609, the edition of Merlin contained, witlj the acts of the oecumenical councils, those of several provin- cial synods, as well as many papal decretals. It may be men- tioned that this alone had the collection of the false Isidorian Decretals printed in a continuous form, whilst in the more recent collections they are distributed in chronological order, assigning to each council or each Pope the part attributed to him by the pseudo-Isidore. 2 1 Hard. vi. P. ii. 1674 ; vii. 18, 24 ; ix. 1613, 1618, 1677, etc. 2 The longest details on Merlin's edition are found in the work of Salmon, doctor and librarian of the Sorbonne, Traite de V Etude des Conciles et de Jeurs GS HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. In 1538 there appeared at Koln a second collection of the acts of the councils (two volumes folio), fuller than that of Merlin. It was published by the Belgian Franciscan, Peter Crabbe, 1 who, to make it more complete, had searched in no less than five hundred libraries. The second edition, enlarged, dated 1551, is in three folio volumes. 2 Lawrence Servius, the celebrated convert and Carthusian, 3 published at Koln another and somewhat more complete collection of the councils in 165 7, in four folio volumes ; and the printer, Dominic Kicolini, put forth at Venice, in 1585, with the assistance of the Dominican Dominic Bollanus, a new im- pression, in five volumes folio. 4 Professor Severin Binius, canon of Koln, surpassed his pre- decessors by publishing another collection of the councils, in four volumes folio, in 1606. The text of the councils was enriched by historical and critical notes, taken for the most part from Baronius. The two later editions, which were pub- lished in 1618 and 1636, are still better than the first. The latter was published at Paris by Charles Morel, in nine volumes, 5 as the Eoman collection of the acts of the councils could here be made use of. This Eoman collection contained only the acts of the oecumenical councils. It consisted of four folio volumes, and was compiled between 1608 and 1612 under the authority of Pope Paul v. This work gave for the first time the original Greek text of many of the synodal acts, copied from the manuscripts of the Vatican and other MSS. 6 The learned Jesuit Sirmond was the principal author of this collection ; he wrote the interesting introduction which was prefixed to the whole work. At the beginning of the acts of each council there is a succinct but by no means worthless history of that council in Latin, which has been inserted into collections, etc., nouvelle edition, Paris 1726, pp. 2S8 sq. and 724. In tlria last passage Salmon points out the faults of Merlin's collections. 1 Pierre Grable in Fr. transl. — Ed. 2 On its character and defects, see Salmon, I.e. p. 291, etc., and 728-740. 3 He was born at Lubeck. 4 Salmon, I.e. pp. 296 sq. and 743-752. 3 On the character and the defects of the edition of Binius, see Salmon, l.c pp. 300, 756-7C9. 6 Salmon, l.c. pp. 301, 752 sqq. INTRODUCTION. 69 several other more modern collections,— in particular, into that of Man si. 1 We have already said that, by the advice of Bellarmin, the acts of the Synod of Basle were not admitted into this collection. This Roman edition has served as a basis for all subsequent editions : these have added the acts of the national and pro- vincial synods, besides the most important edicts and decrees of the Popes, all of them avoiding several faults and several singularities of the Roman editors. 2 In these more recent editions the text has often also been improved by the study of various mss., and has been enriched by many fragments and original documents which were wanting in the Roman edition. The first collection which was made after the Roman col- lection is the Cottedio Regia, which appeared at Paris in 1644 at the royal printing press, in thirty-seven folio volumes. 3 The printing and all the material part is magnificent, but the same praise cannot be awarded to the editing ; for even those faults of the Roman edition which had been pointed out by Father Sirmond still remained uncorrected. In spite of the great number of its volumes, the royal edition is nearly one-fourth less complete than that of the Jesuit Philip Labbe {Lcibbeus) of Bourges. Labbe died in 1G67, whilst he was. labouring on the ninth and tenth volumes of his collection ;. but Father Gabriel Cossart, a member of the same order, con- tinued his work, which appeared at Paris in 1674. 4 Stephen Baluze wished to add to this edition a supplement which would contain four volumes in folio, but only one volume has seen the light. 5 Almost all the French savans quote from this edition of Labbe's with Baluze's supplement, making use of all these works, and consulting, besides, a very large number of mss. John Hardouin, a Jesuit, gave a new Con- ciliorum Collcrtio rcgia maxima ad P. Zdbbei ct P. Gabriclis Cos- sarti . . . lahorcs hand modica acccssione facta, etc. 6 Hardouin 1 It is not found in that of Hardouin. 2 Salmon, I.e. p. 302. 3 Salmon, I.e. pp. 305, 769 sqq. 4 Seventeen vols, in folio ; Salmon, I.e. pp. 306, 772, 784. * Paris 1683 (another edition in 1707), under the title, Nova Collectlo Con- ciliorum: Supplementum Conc'dlorum Labbei. Of. Salmon, I.e. pp. 312, 784. 6 Paris 1715, in twelve vols, folio, containing eleven parts, the sixth part being in two volumes. 70 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. had been in 1685 entrusted with this work by the French clergy, on the condition that he submitted it for examination to Dr. Vitasse, professor of the Sorbonne, and to Le Merre, an advocate of the Parliament. Hardouin submitted only for a short time to this condition, as he gained the protection of Louis xiv., who accepted the dedication of the work, and allowed it to be printed at the royal press. These different circumstances gave to the work a kind of official character, which contributed not a little to render it suspected by the Jansenists and Gallicans, as Hardouin in his dedication to Louis xiv. showed himself a very warm partisan of the Bull Unigenitus, and the bull itself was inserted in the last volume ; besides which, the Index rcrum betrayed an oppo- sition to Gallican principles. He took care to point out especially (see, e.g., the art. on the authority of councils) the decisions of the Popes or of the councils which were opposed to the principles and maxims of the Gallican divines. Louis xiv. died at the moment when the printing of the work was almost finished; and as the Duke of Orleans, who then became Tegent, favoured the Jansenists, and showed himself hostile to the Bull Unigenitus, advantage was taken to complain to the Parliament of the publication of Hardouin's work. Parlia- ment ordered Elias Dupin, Chas. Vitasse, Denys Leger, and Philip Anquetil to draw up a report on the subject ; in conse- quence of which the sale of the work was prohibited, as being opposed to the principles of the State, and to those of the Gallican Church (1716). They destroyed all the copies they could seize, but happily some had already been sent from France. Later on, the Parliament was obliged to yield to the wishes loudly expressed in various quarters for the publica- tion of the work. They authorized it, but on the condition that the Jesuits should add a volume of corrections, thinking they would by these means weaken the Ultramontanism of Hardouin. This volume appeared in 1722, 1 printed at the royal press, under the title, Addition ordonnee par arret du Parlcment, pour etre jointc a la Collection clcs Conciles, etc. In the following year the Jesuits obtained the free publication of Hardouin's edition, without its being accompanied by the addi- 1 In folio, written in Latin and French. ..INTRODUCTION. 71 tional volume ; and tliey gained their point so well, that that volume was even suppressed. Since then the Jansenists have republished it at Utrecht in 1730 and 1751, with this title, Avis dcs censeurs nommes par le Parlcment de Paris pour exa- miner, etc. 1 Since Hardouin's edition has been widely circulated, it has become the favourite text-book of learned men among Catho- lics as well as Protestants. It is this which Benedict xiv. always quotes in his work, De synoclo Diceccsana. It is com- posed of a rich collection of conciliar acts and other important documents, and extends as far as 1714, thus going much further than Mansi's celebrated edition. It is recommended on account of its very beautiful and correct although small type, and especially for the five very complete tables which it contains. These tables contain : (1) a chronological table of all the Popes ; (2) a table of all the councils ; (3) an index episco- porum ct aliorum qui conciliis interfuerunt ; (4) an index gcographicus cpiscopatuum ; 2 (5) lastly, a very complete index rerum et vcroorum mcmorcibilium. On account of these ad- vantages, we have also used and quoted Hardouin's collection in our History of the Councils, along with the more complete work of Mansi. Salmon has analysed the details of Har- douin's collection, and has given a long list of its faults. 3 As doctor of the Sorbonne, Salmon was not able to judge favourably of Hardouin's collection, to which he would rather have preferred that of Labbe and Cossart. He has, how- ever, acknowledged the improvements and additions which distinguish Hardouin's work. The collections which follow have been made since the publication of Salmon's work. The first is that of Nicholas Coleti, which appeared at Venice under the title, Sacrosancta concilia ad rcgiam cditioncm exacta. 4 The Dominican Mansi, 1 On the history of Hardouin's edition, see Bower's Hist, of the Pope3 [Rambach's translation, Bd. iv. S. 68] — the preliminary dissertation on the col- lections of the councils. 2 See Salmon, I.e. p. 817 seq. , 3 Salmon, I.e. pp. 315-331, 786-831. ' * Twenty-three vols, folio, and 2 vols. Apparatus, 1728-1731. 72 ' HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. who became Archbishop of Lucca, his native town, com- piled a supplement to Coleti's work. 1 Several years after- wards, Mansi undertook a new collection of the acts of the councils, which should be more complete than all those which had hitherto appeared. He kept his word ; and at the com- mencement of 1759, thirty-one volumes in folio of this edition appeared at Florence, with the title, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collcctio, in qua prcctcr ca qua? Phil. Labbceus et Gabr. Cossartus et novissime Nicolaus Colcti in luccm cdidere, ea omnia insupcr suis in locis optime disposita cxhibcntur, quay Jo. Bom. Mansi Luccnsis, congrcgationis Matris Dei, evulgavit. Editio Novissima, ab codem Patre Mansi, potissimum favor em ctiam et opcm praistantc Em. Cardinali Dominico Passioneo, S. Scdis apostolicce bibliothccario, aliisque item cruditissimis viris manus auxiliatriccs ferentibus, eurata, novorum conciliorum, novorumque documentorumque additionibus locupleteda, ad MSS. codices Vaticanos Lucenscs cdiosque recensita et pcrfecta. Accc- dunt ctiam notoe ct disserted ioncs quam plurimce ; quce in cccteris. editionibus desiderantur. This edition was not completed, and the thirty-first volume reached only to the fifteenth century. It had consequently no indices, and its type, although larger and more modern than that of Hardouin's edition, is yet very inferior to the latter in accuracy. The order of the subjects in the latter volumes is sometimes not sufficiently methodical, and is at variance with the chronology. By the side of these general collections there are other works, which contain only the acts of the councils held in particular countries. To these belong — 1. The Concilia Gcrmanicc, by Schannat and Harzheim, in eleven volumes folio (Coin 1749-1790); Binterim, Prag- matische Geschichte der dcutscJicn National- Provincial- unci vor- ziiglichsten Pioccsan-concilicn 2 (Mainz 1835—1848), in seven volumes octavo, which reached as far as the end of the fifteenth century. We may, besides, consult, for the history of the German councils : («) Liinig, Entwurf der in Dcutschland von Anfang des Christcnthums gchaltencn Gcncrcd- Provincial- und 1 Six vols, folio, 1748-1752. 2 Pragmatic History of the National, Provincial, and principal Diocesan Synods of Germany. INTRODUCTION. 7 3 PartiTcularconcilien, in his Spicilegium des deutschen Bcichs- arcliivsf P. i. p. 822 ; (b) Pf'aff, Dclincatio collectionis noire conciliorum Germanim, reprinted in Fabricius, Biblioth. Gtccccc, ed. Harless, t. xii. p. 310 sqq. ; (c) Joh. And. Schmid, Diss. dc historid conciliorum Mo guntinensium, Helmst. 1713 ; (d) De conciliis Moguntinis, in the work of Georg Christian Johannes, Scriptor. Mogunt. vol. iii. p. 281 sqq. Cf. Walch, Hist, dcr Kirchcnvcrs. S. 53, and Salmon, I.e. p. 382 sqq. 2. Concilia antiqua Galliw, by Father Sirmond (Paris 1629), in three volumes folio, and one volume folio, — a supple- ment added by his cousin De la Lande in 1666. Concilia, novissima Galliw a tempore concilii Triclcntini celehrata, ed. Ludov. Odespun de la Mechiniere, a priest of Tours (Paris 1646), one volume folio. 3 Shortly before the Revolution, the Benedictines of the congregation of S. Maur undertook a complete collection of the councils of Prance ; but one folio volume alone appeared (Paris 1789), with the title, Concili- orum Gcdliai tarn editorum quam ineditorum Collectio, temporum online digesta ah anno Christ i 177 ad an. 1563, cum epistolis pontijicum, principum constitidionibus et cdiis ecclesiastical rei Gallicance monumentis. Opera ct studio monachorum congre- gations S. Mauri, t. i. ah anno 177 ad annum 591. Paris, sumptibus Petri Didot. In folio. 3. Garcias Loaisa was the first to publish a collection of the Spanish councils, at Madrid 1593, in one volume folio. That of Cardinal Joseph Saenz de Aguirre is much more com- plete : Collectio maxima Conciliorum omnium Hispaniai et novi orbis (Rome 1693), in four volumes folio. 4 More recent is the Collectio canonum Ecclcsice Hispance ex probatissimis ct pcrvctustis Codicibus nunc primum in luccm edita a publica 1 Sketch of the General, Provincial, and Particular Councils held in Germany since the commencement of Christianity. 2 " SpiciUge" of the Archives of the German Empire. 3 See, on the French collections, Salmon, I.e. p. 335 sqq., and Bower's History of the Popes, I.e. S. 76 ff. He speaks also of collections which include only- synods of certain ecclesiastical divisions of France, e.g. that of Tours, Nar. bonne, etc. 4 Cf. Salmon, I.e. p. 365 sq. ; and Bower, I.e., who, instead of 1693, gives a false date, 1639. Aguirre was not born until 1630. ; J 4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Matritcnsi bibliotheca (ggpr Feanc. Ant. Gonzalez, pull. Matr. hibl. praifectnni), Matriti, ex typographia rcgia, 1808. In folio. 4. England and Ireland had two collections. The older is that of Henry Spelman : Concilia, dccreta, leges, constitutioncs in re Ecclcsiarum orbis Britannici, London, X. i. 1639, t. ii. 1664 ; the third volume, although announced, never appeared. 1 That of David Wilkins followed, which is better and more complete : Concilia Magna Britannia? ct Hibcrnice, eel. Da v. Wilkins (London 1734), in four volumes folio. 2 5. Sacra concilia Ecclcsicc Bomano-catholica; in regno TJn- qaricc, a collection due to Father Charles Peterfy (Vienna 1.742), in two volumes folio. 6. There does not exist a general collection of the Italian councils, but the councils of certain periods or of certain pro- vinces have been in part collected. There is, e.g., a collection of the synods held at Milan, by S. Charles Borromeo (in his com- plete works) ; a Synoclicoii Bcncventanensis Ecclcsicc, by Vine. Mar. Orsini (Pope Benedict xiil), Beneventum 1695, folio. Among the numerous works on the history of the councils, the most useful to consult are : 1. John Cabassutius' Notitia Ecclcsiaslica hisloriarum con- ciliorum ct canonum, Lyons 1680, folio. Very often reprinted. 2. Hermant, Histoire eles Concilcs, liouen 1730, four volumes Svo. 3. Labbe, Synopsis Historica Conciliorum, in vol. i. of his Collection of Councils. 4. Edm. Richer, Historia conciliorum gcneralium (Paris 1680), three volumes 4to. Reprinted in Svo at Coin. 5. Charles Ludovic Eichard, Analysis conciliorum gcne- ralium ct particidarium. Translated from French into Latin by Dalmasus. Four volumes Svo, Augsburg 1778. i 6. Christ. Willi. Franz Walch, Entwurf cincr vollstancligcn Historic eler Kirclienvcrsammlungcnf Leipzig 1759. 7. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Grceca, edit. Harless, t. xii. p. 422 1 See Salmon, I.e. p. 376 sop ; and Bower, I.e. S. 94 ff., who did not know the more recent collection of Wilkins. ., - The firstvol. of a new edition of Wilkins, admirably edited by Haddan aid Stubbs, has lately appeared. — Ed. 3 Sketch of a coviplete History oj the Councils. INTRODUCTION. 75 sqq., in -which is contained an alphabetical table of all the coun- cils, and an estimate of the value of the principal collections. 8. Alletz, Concilien-Lcxihon, translated from French into German by Father Maurus Disch, a Benedictine and professor at Augsburg, 1843. 9. Dictionnairc universcl et complet des Concilcs, tant generaux que particuliers, etc., redige par M. 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 Nouvcllc Bibliothequc des auteurs Bcclesiastiqucs, by El. Dupin, and the Historia Literaria of Cave, and particularly in the excellent Eistoire des auteurs sacres, by Eemi Ceillier — we find matter relating to the history of the councils. Salmon, I.e. p. 387 sqq., and Walch in his Historic der Kirchenver- sammlungcn, 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 rjcneralium ac prorincialium decrcta ct canoncs, sclioliis, notis ac historica actorum dissertationc iilustrata,~Lou.v. 1665, Bruxelles 1673, five volumes 4to. 2. Lud. Thomassin, Dissertationum in Concilia gencralia ct particularia, t. i. Paris 1667; reprinted in Eocaberti, Bibl. Ijontificia, t. xv. 3. Van Espen, Tractatus Historicus, cxJiibcns scholia in omncs canoncs conciliorum, etc., in his complete works. 4. Earth. 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 Bibliothch dcr Kirchcnvcrsammlungcn (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 Introduction to the Study of the Councils, in his Traite de VEtude des Concilcs ct de leurs collections, Paris 1724, in 4to, which has often been reprinted. BOOK I. ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS. CHAPTER I. COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. THE first Christian Council, the type and model of all the others, was held at Jerusalem by the apostles between the years 5 and 5 2 A.D., in order to solve the ques- tion of the universal obligation of the ancient law. 1 No other councils were probably held in the first century of the Christian era ; or if they were, no trace of them remains in history. On the other hand, we have information of several councils in the second century. The authenticity of this information is not, it is true, equally established for all ; and we can acknowledge as having really taken place only those of which Eusebius Pamphili, the father of Christian Church history, speaks, or other early and trustworthy historians. To these belong, first of all : — Sec. 1. Synods relative to Montanism. Eusebius has given us, in his Church History? a fragment of a work composed by Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, 3 in which the following words occur : " The faithful of Asia, at many times and in many places {iroXKdKi P- 7? - DOUBTFUL SYNODS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 85 addressed letters to their brethren of Asia, and to Eleutherus Bishop of Home." x It will be seen that the question here is not of a synod, but of letters written by confessors (the Libcllus Sjjnodicus also mentions confessors). Finally, a ninth council, which is said to have conveyed to the Bishop of Seleucia a patriarchal right over the whole of Assyria, Media, and Persia, is evidently an invention ; and the mention of a Patriarchate on this occasion is a patent anachronism, as has been proved by Assemani in his Biblio- theque Orientate? 1 Cf. the dissertation of the author, der Montanismus, in the Freiburyer Kirchenlezkon, Bd. vii. S. 253. 8 T. iii. ; and Mansi, Collect. Cone. i. 706. CHAPTER II. THE SYNODS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. Sec. 4. First Half of the Third Century. THE series of synods of the third century opens with that of Carthage, to which Agrippinus bishop of that city had called the bishops of Numidia and of proconsular Africa. S. Cyprian speaks of this Synod in his seventy-first and seventy-third letters, saying that all the bishops present de- clared baptism administered by heretics to be void ; and he supports his own view on this subject by what had passed in this ancient Synod of Carthage. 1 This Synod was probably the most ancient of Latin Africa ; for Tertullian, 2 who recalls the Greek synods as a glory, tells not of one single council being held in his country. According to Uhlhorn 3 it was about 205, according to Hesselburg about 212, that the work of Tertullian, de Jcjuniis, was composed ; therefore the Synod in question must have been held either after 205 or after 212. It has not been possible up to this time to verify this date more exactly. But the newly-discovered (f>t,\o discussion on Origen in the Freibure/er Kirchenlcx. of Wetzer and Wclte, Bd. vii. S. 829. [A French translation is edited by Gbschler.] 6 Hieron. Ep. ad Pammochium et Oceanum, n. 84 (al. 65 seu 41), § 10, p. 751, t. i. ed. Migne. Further : Eufinus, lib. ii. in Hieron. n. 20 ; in Migne, p. 600, t xxi. of his Curaus Patrol. ; in the I'ened. ed. of S. Jerome, t. iv. pt. ii. p. 430. SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 89 with his opinions), and that for this reason Pontian had held a synod against Origen. 1 A little before this period, and before the accession of Pope Fabian, a synod was certainly held at Iconium in Asia Minor, which must have been of great authority in the controversy which was soon to begin on the subject of the baptism of heretics. Like the Synod of Carthage, presided over by Agrip- pinus, that of Iconium declared every baptism conferred by a heretic to be invalid. The best information upon this Council has been furnished us by the letter which Bishop Firmilian of Csesarea in Cappadocia, who showed himself so active in this controversy, addressed to S. Cyprian. 2 It says : " Some having raised doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we decided long ago, in the Council held at Iconium in Phrygia, with the Bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, and the other neighbouring provinces, that the ancient practice against heretics should be maintained and held firm (not to regard baptism conferred by them)." 3 Towards the end of the letter we read ; " Among us, as more than one Church has never been recognised, so also have we never recognised as holy any but the baptism of that Church. Some having had doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by those who receive new prophets (the Montanists), but who, however, appear to adore the same Father and the same Son as ourselves, we have assembled in great number at Iconium : we have very carefully examined the question (cliligcntissime tractavimus), and we have decided that all baptism administered outside the Church must be rejected." This letter then speaks of the Council of Iconium as of a fact already old ; and it says also, that it was occasioned by the question of the validity of baptism administered by Montanists. Now, as Firmilian wrote this letter about the middle of the third century, it follows that the Council of Iconium, of which he often speaks as of an ancient assembly held long before (jampridem), took place about twenty years before the writing of his letter Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third- century, also says : " It is not the Africans (Cyprian) who 1 Dbllinger, I.e. S. 260. 8 Cyp. Epp. n. 75. * Cyp. Opp. ed. Benedict., Paris 1726, p. 145 ; Mansi, I.e. p. 9H. 90 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. have introduced the custom of re-baptizing heretics : this measure had been taken long before Cyprian {irpo ttoWov), by other bishops at the Synod of Iconium and of Synnada." * In these two passages of his letter to S. Cyprian, Firmilian gives us a fresh means of fixing the date of the Synod of Iconium, saying formally several times : " We assembled our- selves at Iconium ; we have examined the question ; -we have decreed," etc. It results from this, that he was himself pre- sent at this Synod. On the other side, the jcnnpridcm and other similar expressions justify us in placing this Synod in the first years of Firmilian's episcopate. Now we know from Eusebius 2 that Firmilian flourished so early as in the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) as Bishop of Coesarea ; so that we can, with Valesius and Pagi, place the celebration of the Synod of Iconium in the years 2 3 0-2 3 5. 3 Baronius, by a very evident error, assigns it to the year 258. According to all probability, we must refer to the Synod of Iconium a short passage of S. Augustine, in the third chapter of his third book against Crcsconius, in which he speaks of a synod composed of fifty Eastern bishops. Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks, 4 we have seen, not only of the Synod of Iconium, but also of a Synod of Synnada, a town also situated in Phrygia. In this Synod, he says, the baptism by heretics was also rejected. We may conclude from his words that the two assemblies took place about the same time. We have no other informa- tion on this subject. 5 We know very little about the concilium Lamocsitanwm, which, says S. Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth letter to Pope Cor- nelius, had been held long before in the Lambcsitana Colonia (in Numidia) by ninety bishops, and condemned a heretic 1 Frag, of a letter of Dionysius to the Roman priest Philemon, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 7. 2 Hint. Eccl. vi. 26. 3 Valesius in his remarks on Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vii. 7 ; Pagi, Critica in Annates Baronii, ad ann. 255, n. 16 ; cf. Dbllinger, Hippolyt, S. 191 f. 4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 7. , 5 Dbllinger thinks (Hippolyt, S. 191) this Synod was almost contempo- raneous with that of Carthage under Agrippinus (between 21 S and 222). 6 Cyp. Opp. I.e. p. 84. SYNODS OF FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 91 named Privatus (probably Bishop of Lambese) as guilty of several grave offences." The Eoman priests also mention this Privatus in their letter to S. Cyprian j 1 but they do not give any further information concerning him. A better known council was that which was held about the year 244, at Bostra in Arabia Petroea (now Bosrah and Bosserat), on account of the errors of Beryllus, bishop of this town. It is known that Beryllus belonged to the party of the Monarchians, generally called Patripassianists. This, bishop held other erroneous opinions, which were peculiar to himself, and which it is now very difficult to distinguish. 2 The attempt made by the Arabian bishops to bring back Beryllus from his errors having failed, they called in Origen to their aid, who then lived at Ccesarea in Palestine. 3 Orio-en came and conversed with Beryllus, first in private, then in presence of the bishops. The document containing the dis- cussion was known to Eusebius and S. Jerome ; but it was- afterwards lost. Beryllus returned to the orthodox doctrine, and later expressed, it is said, his gratitude to Origen in a private letter. 4 Another controversy was raised in Arabia about the soul, as to whether it passed away (fell asleep) with the body, to rise (awake) at the resurrection of the body. At the request of one of the great Arabian synods, as Eusebius remarks, Origen had to argue against these Hypnopsychites, and he was as successful as in the affair of Beryllus. 5 The Zibcllus Synodicus adds 6 that fourteen bishops were present at the Synod, but it does not mention, any more than Eusebius, the place where it was held. About the same period must also have been held two 1 K 30, Cyp. Opp. I.e. p. 41, and Ep. 55, p. S4. Cf. Walch, Ketzerh. (Hist of Heretics), Bd. ii. S. 181 ff. 2 Cf. on this subject, Ullmann, De Beryllo Boslreno ejusque doctrina Com- mentatio, 1835 ; Kober, Beryll von Bostra, eine dogmenh. Untersuchung, in the Tubing, iheol. Quartalschrift, 1848, Heft 1 ; and Dorner, Lchrc von der Person Christi, 2 Aufl. Bd. i. S. 545 ff. [Eng. trausl. published by Clark of Edinburgh]. 3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 33. 4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 33 ; Hieron. in Catalog. Script. Eccl. c. 60. The Lihellus Synodicus refers also to this Synod, but very barely and inaccurately. s Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 37. u In Mansi, I.e. i. 790 ; Hard. v. 1495. 02 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ^Asiatic synods, on the subject of the anti-Trinitarian (ratri- passian) Noetus ; S. Epiphanius is the only one to mention them, and he does so without giving any detail, and without saying where they took place. 1 The assertion of the author •of Prcede&inatus? that about this time a synod was held in Achaia against the Valesians, who taught voluntary mutila- tion, 3 is still more doubtful, and very probably false. The very existence of this sect is doubtful. We are on more solid historical ground when we approach the tolerably numerous synods which were celebrated, chiefly in Africa, about the middle of the third century. The letters of S. Cyprian especially acquaint us with them. He first speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of an assembly of his col- leagues (the bishops of Africa), and of his fellow-priests (the presbyters of Carthage), and so of a Carthaginian 4 Synod, which had to decide upon a particular case of ecclesiastical discipline. A Christian named Geminius Victor, of Furni in Africa, had on the approach of death appointed a priest named Geminius Faustinus as guardian to his children. We have seen above, that an ancient synod of Africa, perhaps that held under Agrippinus, had forbidden that a priest should be a guardian, because a clergyman ought not to occupy himself with such temporal business. The Synod of Carthage, held under S. Cyprian, renewed this prohibition, and ordained, in the spirit of that ancient council, that no prayers should be said or sacrifices (oblationcs) offered for the deceased Victor, as he had no claim to the prayers of priests who had endeavoured to take a priest from the holy altar. In the letter of which we speak, S. Cyprian gave an account of this decision to the Christians of Furni. 5 The Benedictines of Saint Maur 6 presume that this letter was written before the outbreak of the persecution of Decius, which would place (this Synod in the year 249. 1 Epiphin. Hares. 57, c. 1, Cf. Mansi, I.e. p. 790. 2 Lib. i. c. 37. 3 Mansi, I.e. p. 790. * Mansi and the other collectors of the acts of councils have overlooked thii Synod. s Cypriani Ep. 66, p. 114, ed. Bened. a In their Life of S. Cyprian, n. iv. p. xlvi. ed. Bened. SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. 93 Sec. 5. First Synods at Carthage and Rome on account of Novalianism and the " Lapsi" (251). The schism of Felicissimus and the Novatian controversy soon afterwards occasioned several synods. When, in 248, S. Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, there was a small party of malcontents there, composed of five priests, of whom he speaks himself in his fortieth letter. Soon after the com- mencement of the persecution of Deems (at the beginning of the year 250) the opposition to Cyprian became more violent, because in the interest of the discipline of the Church he would not always regard the letters of peace which some martyrs without sufficient consideration gave to the lapsi} He was accused of exaggerated severity against the fallen, and his own absence (from February 250 until the month of April or May 251) served to strengthen the party which, was formed against him. An accident caused the schism to break out. Cyprian had from his retreat sent two bishops and two- priests to Carthage, to distribute help to the faithful poor (many had been ruined by the persecution). The deacon Felicissimus opposed the envoys of Cyprian, perhaps because he considered the care of the poor as an exclusive right of the deacons, and because he would not tolerate special commis- sioners from the bishop on such a business. This took place at the end of 250, or at the beginning of 251. Felicissimus had been ordained deacon by the priest Novatus unknown to Cyprian, and without his permission, probably during his re- treat. Now, besides the fact that such an ordination was con- trary to all the canons of the Church, Felicissimus was personally unworthy of any ecclesiastical office, on account of his deceit- fulness and his corrupt manners. 2 Cyprian, being warned by his commissioners, excommunicated Felicissimus and some of his partisans on account of their disobedience ; 3 but the signal for revolt was given, and Felicissimus soon had with him those five priests who had been the old adversaries of Cyprian, as well as all those who accused the bishop of being x Cf. Cypriani Epist. 14. s Cf. Cyp. Epp. 49, 37, 35 ; and Walch, Ketzerh. Bd. ii. S. 296. 5 Ep. 38. #4 " ' HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. too severe with regard to the lapsi, and of despising the letters of the martyrs. These contributed to give to the opposition quite another character. Till then it had only been composed of some disobedient priests ; henceforth the party took for a war-cry the severity of the bishop with re- gard to the lapsi. Thus not only the lapsi, but also some con- fessors (confcssorcs) who had been hurt by the little regard that Cyprian showed for the libclli fads, swelled the ranks of the revolt. 1 It is not known whether No vat us was in the num- ber of the five priests who were the first movers of the party; By some it is asserted, by others denied. After having in vain recalled the rebels to obedience, 2 Cyprian returned to Carthage, a year after the festival of Easter in 2 5 1 ; 3 and he wrote his book de Zapsis as a preparation for the Synod which he assembled soon afterwards, probably during the month of May 251. 4 The Council was composed of a great number of bishops, 5 and of some priests and deacons : 6 he excommuni- cated Felicissimus and the five priests after having heard them/ and at the same time set forth the principles to be followed with regard to the lapsi, after having carefully exa- mined the passages of Scripture treating of this question. 8 All the separate decrees upon this subject were collected into one book, 9 which may be considered as the first penitential book which had appeared in the Church ; but unfortunately it is lost, Cyprian makes us acquainted with the principal rules in his fifty-second letter : namely, that all hope must not be taken away from the lapsed, that, in excluding them from the Church, they may not be driven to abandon the faith, and to fall back again into a life of heathenism ; that, notwith- standing,, a long penance must be imposed upon them, and that they must be punished proportionally to their fault, 10 It is evident, continues Cyprian, that one must act differently with those who have gone, so to speak, to meet apostasy, 1 Walch, I.e. S. 305. 2 Walch, I.e. S. 299. 3 Cypr. Ep. 40, p. 55, ed. Bened. 4 Cypr. Ep. 40, p. 55 ; Ep. 52, p. G7. Cf. the Vita Cypriani by Prudentiua Maran, X. xviii. ; same ed. p. Ixxx. Cypr. Ep. 52, p. G7. « Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 87. 1 Cypr. Ep. 42, p. 57 ; Ep. 55, pp. 79, 83. 8 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67. 9 Cyprian speaks of this in his Ep. 52, p. C7. 10 Cypr. Ep. 52, p. 67. SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIAXISM, ETC. '95 spontaneously taking part in the impious sacrifices, and those who have been, as it were, forced to this odious sacrilege after long struggles and cruel sufferings : so also with those who have carried with them in their crime their wife, their children, their servants, their friends, making them also share their fall, and those who have only been the victims, who have sacrificed to the gods in order to serve their families and their houses ; that there should no less be a difference between the sacrificati and the libellatici, that is to say, be- tween those who had really sacrificed to the gods, and those who, without making a formal act of apostasy, had profited by the weakness of the Eoman functionaries, had seduced them, and had made them give them false attestations ; that the libellatici must be reconciled immediately, but that the sacri- ficati must submit to a long penance, and only be reconciled as the moment of their death approached; 1 finally, that as for the bishops and priests, they must also be admitted to penance, but not again permitted to discharge any episcopal or sacerdotal 2 function. Jovinus and Maximus, two bishops of the party of Felicis- simus, who had been reproved before by nine bishops for having sacrificed to the gods, and for having committed abominable sacrilege, appeared before the Synod of Carthage. The Synod renewed the sentence originally given against them ; but in spite of this decree, they dared again to present themselves, with several of their partisans, at the Synod of Carthage, held the following year." Cyprian and the bishops assembled around him decided to send their synodical decisions of 251 to Borne, to Pope Cor- nelius, to obtain his consent with regard to the measures taken against the lapsi* It was the more necessary to under- stand each other on the subject of these measures, as the Eoman Church had also been troubled by the Nbvatian schism. 5 Tope Cornelius assembled at Borne in the autumn — probably 1 Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 69, 70, 71. - Cypr. Ep. 68, pp. 119, 120. 3 Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Wakh, I.e. Ed. ii. S. 308. * Cypr. Ep. 52, pp. 67, 68. 6 Cf. Hefele's art. on this subject in the Kirchenkx. Bd. vii. S. 35S ff. 96 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. in the month of October 251 ' — a synod composed of sixty bishops, without counting the priests and deacons. The Synod confirmed the decrees of that of Carthage, and excom- municated Novatian and his partisans. The two authors who have preserved these facts for us are Cyprian 2 and Eusebius.' It must be remarked that several editors of the acts of the councils, and several historians, misunderstanding the original documents, have turned the two Synods of Carthage and Borne (251) into four councils. 4 The Libellus Synoclicus also speaks of another council which must have been held the same year at Antioch, again on the subject of the Novatians ; but one can hardly rely on the Libellus Synoclicus when it is alone in relating a fact. 5 The Novatian schism could not be extirpated by these synods. The partisans of Felicissimus and of JSTovatian made great efforts to recover their position. The Novatians of Carthage even succeeded in putting at their head a bishop of their party named Maximus, and they sent many complaints to Rome on the subject of Cyprian's pretended severity, as, on the other side, the persecution which was threatening made fresh measures necessary with regard to the lapsi. Cyprian assembled a fresh council at Carthage on the Ides of May 252, which sixty-six bishops attended. 6 It was probably at this council that two points were discussed which were brought forward by the African Bishop Fidus. 7 Fidus complained at first that Therapius Bishop of Bulla (near Hippo) had received the priest Victor too soon into the communion of the Church, and without having first imposed upon him the penance he de- served. The Synod declared that it was evidently contrary to the former decisions of the councils, but that they would 1 Cf. the Vita Cypriani in the Benedict, ed. p. xcii. 2 Ep. 52. 3 Hist. Eccl. vi. 43, pp. 242, 245, ed. Mog. 4 Cf. Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a Vhistoire cccUs. t. iii. art. viii., sur S. Corneille, etc., not. v. pp. 197, 348, ed. Brux. 1732. Cf. also Walch, Hist, Kirchenvers. S. 102, An. 1. 5 Mansi, i. 867, 871; Hard. v. 1498; Walch, I.e. S. 103. 6 Cypr. Ep. 59, p. 97, and Ep. 55, p. 84. 7 Tillemont, I.e. t. iv. p. 46, art. 30, sur S. Cyprien; Remi Ceillier, Hist, gtndrale cles auteurs sacrds, t. iii. pp. 585, 588,— have shown that these were not two councils ; whilst Prudentius Maran, in the Vita S. Cypriani, p. xcviii., holds for two councils. SYNODS RELATIVE TO NOVATIANISM, ETC. 97 content themselves for this time with blaming Bishop Thera- pius, without declaring invalid the reconciliation of the piiest Victor, which he had effected. In the second place, Fidus enunciated the opinion that infants should be baptized, not in the first days after their birth, but eight days after ; to observe, with regard to baptism, the delay formerly prescribed for circumcision. The Synod unanimously condemned this opinion, declaring that they could not thus delay to confer grace on the new-born. 1 The next principal business of the Synod was that concerning the lavsi ; and the fifty- fourth letter of S. Cyprian gives us an account of what passed on this subject. The Synod, he says, on this subject decided that, considering the imminent persecution, they might immediately reconcile all those who showed signs of repentance, in order to prepare them for the battle by means of the holy sacraments : Idoneus esse non potest ad martyrium qui ab Ecclcsia non armatur ad jprcelium? In addressing its synodical letter to Pope Cornelius (it is the fifty-fourth of S. Cyprian's letters), the Council says formally : Placuit nobis, sancto Spiritu surjgerente? The heretic Privatus, of the colonia Lavibcsitana, probably bishop of that town, who, as we have seen, had been condemned, again appeared at the Council ; but he was not admitted. Neither would they admit Bishops Jovinus and Maximus, partisans of Felicissimus, and condemned as he was ; nor the false Bishop Felix, consecrated by Privatus after he became a heretic, who came with him. They then united themselves with the fallen bishop Eepostus Saturnicensis, 4 who had sacrificed during the persecution, and they gave the priest Fortunatus as bishop to the lax party at Carthage. 5 He had been one of S. Cyprian's five original adversaries. 1 Cypriani Ep. 59, ad Fidum, p. 97 ss. 2 Cypriani Ep. 54, p. 78. Eouth has reprinted and commented upon this letter of S. Cyprian's, Reliquice sacrce, iii. 69 sqq., 10S sqq. This work also con- tains the acts of all the other synods held hy S. Cyprian, accompanied with a commentary. 3 Cypr. Ep. 54, p. 79 sqq. Cf. on this Council, Vita S. Cypriani, in the Tiened. ed. p. xciv. 4 The reading is here uncertain. Cf. the notes in the Bened. edition of S. Cyprian, p. 457. 6 Cypr. Ep. 55, p. 84. Cf. Vita Cypriani, p. xcvL G 98 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. A short' time after, a new synod assembled at Carthage on the subject of the Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides. Both had been deposed for serious faults, especially for having denied the faith. Basilides had judged himself to be unworthy of the episcopal dignity, and declared himself satisfied if, after undergoing his penance, he might be received into lay communion. Martial had also confessed his fault ; but after some time they both appealed to Home, and by means of false accounts they succeeded in gaining over Pope Stephen, who demanded that Basilides should be replaced in his bishopric, although Sabinus had been already elected to suc- ceed him. Several Spanish bishops seem to have supported the pretensions of Basilides and Martial, and placed them- selves, it appears, on their side ; but the Churches of Leon, of Asturia, and of Emerita, wrote on this subject to the African bishops, and sent two deputies to them — Bishops Sabinus and Felix, probably the elected successors of Basilides and Martial. Felix Bishop of Saragossa supported them with a private letter. S. Cyprian then assembled a council com- posed of thirty-seven bishops ; and we possess the synodical letter of the assembly, in his sixty-eighth epistle, in which the deposition of Martial and Basilides is confirmed, the election of their successors is declared to be legitimate and regular, the bishops who had spoken in favour of the deposed bishops are censured, and the people are instructed to enter into ecclesiastical communion with their successors. 1 Sec. 6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256). To these synods concerning the la/psi, succeeded three African councils on the subject of baptism by heretics. We have seen that three former councils — that of Carthage, pre- sided over by Agrippinus ; two of Asia Minor", that of Ico- nium, presided over by Firmilian, and that of Synnada, held at the same period — had declared that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid. This principle, and the consequent prac- tice in Asia Minor, would appear to have occasioned, towards the end of the year. 2 5 3, a conflict between Pope Stephen and the bishops of Asia Minor, Helenus of Tarsus and Firmilian ' 1 Cypr. Ep. 68, p. 117 sq. SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OP HERETICS. 99 of CiEsarea, sustained by all the "bishops of Ciiicia, of Cappa- docia, and the neighbouring provinces ; so that Stephen, accord- ing to Dionysius the Great, 1 threatened these bishops with excommunication because they repeated the baptism conferred by heretics. Dionysius the Great mediated with the Pope in favour of the bishops of Asia Minor ■ and the letter which he wrote prevented their being excluded from the Church. 2 The first sentence of this letter would even allow it to be sup- posed that peace was completely re-established, and that the bishops of Asia Minor had conformed to the demand of the Pope. However, later on, Eirmilian is again found in opposi- tion to Eoine. The Easterns then stirred up the controversy on the baptism of heretics before S. Cyprian ; and when Eusebius says, 3 irpiaro^ tcov rore Kwirpiavos, /c.r.A,, this passage must be thus under- stood : Cyprian was the most important, and in this sense the first, of those who demanded the re-baptism of heretics. 4 Let us now turn our attention to Africa, and particularly to S. Cyprian. Some African bishops being of the opinion that those who abandoned heretical sects to enter the Church must not be re-baptized, 5 eighteen bishops of Numidia, who held a different opinion, and rejected baptism by heretics, asked of the Synod of Carthage of 255 6 if it Avere neces- sary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics, when they entered the Church. 7 At this Synod, presided over by S. Cyprian, there were twenty-one bishops present : 8 the seventieth epistle of Cyprian is nothing 1 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 5. 2 Eusebius has preserved a fragment of this letter, Hist. Eccles. vii. 5. This fragment implies that the letter contained more than Eusebius has preserved of it, especially a prayer in favour of the bishops of Asia Minor. Cf. the words of another letter of Dionysius : de his omnibus ego ad ilium (Steplianum) epis- tolam misi rogans atque obtestans (Euseb. I.e.). Cf. on this point, Vita S. Cypriani, by Prudentius Maran, in the Bened. edition of S. Cyprian's works, p. ex. 3 Hist. Eccles. vii. 3. 4 Vita Cypriani, I.e. p. cxi. 5 Cypr. Ep. 71, p. 126. c This date is at least probable. Cf. Vita Cypriani, I.e. p. cxi. 7 Cypr. Ep. 70, p. 124. 8 Their names, and those of the eighteen bishops of Numidia, are to be found at ihe commencement of the seventieth epistle of Cyprian. 100 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. but the answer of the Synod to the eighteen Numidian bishops. It declares " that their opinion about the baptism of heretics is perfectly right ; for no one can be baptized out of the Church, seeing there is only one baptism which is in the Church," etc. Shortly afterwards, Cyprian being again consulted on the same question by Quintus, bishop in Mauritania, who sent him the priest Lucian, sent in answer the synodical letter of the Council which had just separated ; and besides, in a pri- vate letter joined to this official document, he stated his per- sonal opinion on the validity of the baptism of heretics, and answered some objections. 1 All the bishops of Africa were probably not satisfied with these decisions; 2 and some time after, about 256, Cyprian saw himself obliged to assemble a second and larger council at Car- thage, at which no fewer than seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian relates 3 that they treated of a multitude of questions, but the chief point was the baptism of heretics. The synodical letter of this great assembly, addressed to Pope Stephen, forms S. Cyprian's seventieth letter. The Council also sent to the Pope the letter of the preceding Synod to the eighteen Nu- midian bishops, as well as the letter of S. Cyprian to Quintus, and reiterated the assertion " that whoso abandoned a sect ought to be re-baptized ;" adding, " that it was not sufficient (piarum est) to lay hands on such converts ad accipiendum Bpiritum sanctum, if they did not also receive the baptism of the Church." The same Synod decided that those priests and deacons who had abandoned the catholic Church for any of the sects, as well as those who had been ordained by the sectarian false bishops, on re-entering the Church, could only be admitted into lay communion (communio laicalis). At the end of their letter, the Synod express the hope that these decisions would obtain Stephen's approval : they knew, hesides, they said, that many do not like to renounce an 1 Cypr. Ep. 71, p. 126 sq. 2 " Nescio qua pracsumptione ducuntur qui Jam de collegis nostris, ut putent eos, qui apud hsereticos tiucti sunt, quando ad nos venerint, baptizare non oportere," says S. Cyprian in Ins seventy-first epistle to Quintus, consequently •after tlie Council of 255. ' Ep. 72. SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 101 opinion which has once been adopted ; and more than one bishop, without breaking with his colleagues, will doubtless be tempted to persevere in the custom which he had embraced. Besides this, it is not the intention of the Synod to do violence to any one, or to prescribe a universal law, seeing that each bishop can cause his will to be paramount in the administra- tion of his Church, and will have to render an account of it to God. 1 " These words," Mattes has remarked, 2 " betray either the desire which the bishops of Africa had to see Stephen produce that agreement by his authority, which did not yet exist, and which was not easy to establish ; or else their appre- hensions, because they knew that there was a practice at Eome which did not accord with the opinion of Cyprian." This last was, in fact, the case ; for Pope Stephen was so little- pleased with the decisions of the Council of Carthage, that he- did not allow the deputies of the African bishops to appear- before him, refused to communicate with them, forbade all the- faithful to receive them into their houses, and did not hesitate- to call S. Cyprian a false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful workman {dolosus opcrarius). This is at least what Firmilian relates. 3 Pope Stephen then pronounced very explicitly, in opposition to the Africans, for the validity of the baptism of heretics, and against the custom of repeating the baptism of those who had already received it from heretics. The letter which he wrote on this occasion to Cyprian has unfortunately been lost, and therefore his complete argument is unknown to us ; but Cyprian and Firmilian have preserved some passages of the letter of Stephen in their writings, and it is these short fragments, with the comments of Cyprian and Firmilian,* which must serve to make known to us with some certainty the view of Stephen on the baptism of heretics. It is commonly admitted that S. Cyprian answered this violence of Stephen's by assembling the third Council of Car~ thagc ; but it is also possible that this assembly took place 1 Cypriani Ep. 72, p. 128 sq. 2 Mattes, Abhandlung iiber die Ketzertavfe, in the Tubinger QuartaUchrift, 1S49, S. 586. 3 In Cyprian, Ep. 75, pp. 150, 151. Cf. Vita Cypriani, I.e. p. cxii. sq. 4 Seventy-fourth and seventy-fifth letters of S. Cyprian. 102 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. before the arrival of the letter from Eome. 1 It was composed of eighty-seven bishops (two were represented by one proxy, Katalis Bishop of Oea) from proconsular Africa, from Numidia, and from Mauritania, and of a great number of priests and of deacons. A multitude of the laity were also present at the Synod. The acts of this Synod, which still exist, inform uS that it opened on the 1st September, but the year is not indicated. 2 It is probable that it was in 256. 3 First was read the letter of the African Bishop Jubaianus to Cyprian on the baptism of heretics, and the answer of Cyprian ; 4 then a second letter from Jubaianus, in which he declared himself now brought to Cyprian's opinion. The Bishop of Carthage then asked each bishop present freely to express his opinion on the baptism of heretics : he declared that no one would be judged or excommunicated for differ- ences of opinion; for, added he, no one in the assembly wished to consider himself as cpiscopus cjnscoporum, or thought to oblige his colleagues to yield to him, by inspiring them with a tyrannical fear (perhaps this was an allusion to Pope Stephen). Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in order, -Cyprian the last, all declaring that baptism given by heretics was invalid, and that, in order to admit them into the Church, it was necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics. /«.£". ^f ^(V.l/01 r About the same time Cyprian sent the deacon Eogatian with a letter to Firmilian Bishop of Caasarea, to tell him how the question about the baptism of heretics had been decided in Africa. He communicated to him at the same time, it appears, the acts and documents which treated of this busi- ness. Firmilian hastened to express, in a letter still extant, Ids full assent to Cyrian's principles. This letter of Firmi- lian's forms No. 75 of the collection of the letters of S. Cyprian : its contents are only, in general, an echo of what S. Cyprian had set forth in defence of his own opinion, and in opposition to Stephen ; only in Firmilian is seen a much 1 Cf. Mattes, S. 587. 2 These acts are printed. Cf. Cypriani Opera, p. 329 sqq. e *T • fa«. \\d Stephen adds, in pcenitentiam, that is, that " it is necessary that a penance should be imposed on the convert." According to the practice of the Church, a heretic who enters into the Church, ought first to receive the sacrament of penance, then that of confirmation. One may ask, if Stephen required these two sacraments, or if he only required that of penance ? Each of these sacraments comprehended the imposition of hands, as some words of Pope Vigilius 2 clearly indicate; and consequently by the expression, manus Mi imponatur, Stephen may under- stand the administration of the two sacraments. To say that there is only in pcenitentiam in the text, is not a very strong objection ; for this text is only a fragment, and Cyprian has transmitted to us elsewhere other texts of Stephen's thus abridged. 3 The manner in which the adversaries of Pope Stephen analysed his opinions shows that this Pope really required, besides penance, the confirmation of the converts. Thus, in his seventy-third letter, Cyprian accuses his adver- saries of self-contradiction, saying : " If baptism out of the Church is valid, it is no longer necessary even to lay hands on the converts, ut Spiritual Sanctum conscquatur et signdur; " that 1 Mattes, I.e. S. 628. The first interpretation of this passage is, besides, the one which was admitted by Christian antiquity ; and the words of Pope Stephen became a dictum classicum for tradition, as is proved by the use which Vincent of Lerins makes of them, Commonitorium, c. 9. 2 Vigilii Ep. 2, ad Profut. n. 4, in Migne, Cursus Patrol iii. 1263 ; and Mattes, I.e. S. 632. 3 Thus, above, for this text, Hceretici propria non baptizent. Cf. Mattes, I.e. pp. 629, 611. SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 113 is to say : You contradict yourselves if you attribute a real value to baptism by heretics ; you must also equally admit the validity of confirmation by heretics. Now you require that those who have been confirmed by heretics should be so again. S. Cyprian here forgets the great difference which exists between the value of baptism and of confirmation j 1 but his words prove that Stephen wished that not only penance but also confirmation should be bestowed upon converts. The same conclusion is to be drawn from certain votes of the bishops assembled at the third Council of Carthage (256). Thus Secundinus Bishop of Carpi said : " The imposition of hands (without the repetition of baptism, as Stephen required) cannot bring down the Holy Spirit upon the converts, because they have not yet even been baptized." 2 Nemesianus Bishop of Thubuni speaks still more clearly : " They (the adversaries) believe that by imposition of hands the Holy Spirit is im- parted, whilst regeneration is possible only when one receives the two sacraments (baptism and confirmation 3 ) in the Church." These two testimonies prove that Stephen regarded confirma- tion as well as penance to be necessary for converts. 4 4. What precedes shows that we must consider as incorrect and unhistorical the widespread opinion, that Stephen as well as Cyprian carried things to an extreme, and that the proper mean was adopted by the Church only as the result of their differences. 5 5. It is the part of Dogmatic Theology, rather than of a History of the Councils, to show why Cyprian was wrong, and why those who had been baptized by heretics should not be re-baptized. Some short explanation on this point will, how- ever, not be out of place here. S. Cyprian repeated essentially Tertullian's argument, yet without naming it, and thus summed it up : " As there is only one Christ, so there is only one Church : she only is the way of salvation ; she only can administer the sacraments ; 1 Mattes, I.e. p. 630 sq., shows the reasons which prove that heretics can legally administer baptism, hut not confirmation. 2 Cypr. Opp. p. 333. » Cypr. Opp. p. 330. 4 See more details in Mattes, I.e. pp. 615-636. 6 Cf. Mattes, I.e. p. 603. H 114 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. out of her pale no sacrament can be validly administered." ' He adds : " Baptism forgives sins : now Christ left only to the apostles the power of forgiving sins ; then heretics can- not be possessed of it, and consequently it is impossible for them to baptize." 2 Finally, he concludes : " Baptism is a new birth ; by it children are born to God in Christ : now the Church only is the bride of Christ ; she only can, therefore, be the means of this new birth." 3 In his controversy against the Donatists (who revived Cyprian's doctrine on this point), S. Augustine demonstrated with great completeness, and his accustomed spiritual power, two hundred and fifty years afterwards, that this line of argu- ment was unsound, and that the strongest grounds existed for the Church's practice defended by Stephen. The demon- stration of S. Augustine is as simple as powerful. 4 He brought out these three considerations : — a. Sinners are separated spiritually from the Church, as heretics are corporally. The former are as really out of the Church as the latter : if heretics could not legally baptize, sinners could not either ; and thus the validity of the sacra- ment would absolutely depend upon the inward state of the minister. o. We must distinguish between the grace of "baptism and the act of baptism : the minister acts, but it is God who gives the grace ; and He can give it even by means of an unworthy minister. c. The heretic is, without any doubt, out of the Church ; but the baptism which he confers is not an alien baptism, for it is not his, it is Christ's baptism, the baptism which He confers, and consequently a true baptism, even when con- ferred out of the Church. In leaving the Church, the heretics have taken many things away with them, especially faith in Jesus Christ and baptism. These fragments of Church truth are the elements, still pure (and not what they have 1 Cypr. Ep. 71, 73, 74. - Cypr. 70, 73. 3 Ep. 74. Mattes has perfectly recapitulated S. Cyprian's argument in the second art. of his Ahhandlunrj fiber Ketzertavfe, in Tuhinger Quartalschrlj't, 1850, S. 24 scp * In his work, dc Baptismo contra Donalislax. SYNODS RELATIVE TO THE BAPTISM OF HERETICS. 11a as heretics), which enable them by baptism to give birth to children of God. 1 After S. Augustine, S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Bonaventura, the editors of the Roman Catechism, and others, have dis- cussed the question anew ; and the principal propositions upon which the whole subject turns are the following : — (a.) He who baptizes is a simple instrument, and Christ can use any instrument whatever, provided that he does what Christ (the Church) wills that he should do. This instrument only performs the act of baptism ; the grace of baptism comes from God. Thus any man, even a heathen, can administer baptism, provided that he will do as the Church does ; and this latitude with respect to the administrant of baptism is not without reason : it is founded upon this, that baptism is really necessary as a means of salvation. (/3.) Baptism, then, by a heretic will be valid, if it is ad- ministered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and with the intention of doing as the Church does (intentio faciendi, quocl facit ccclcsia). (7.) Should he who has thus been baptized, after remaining a long time in heresy, acknowledge his error and his separa- tion from the Church, he ought, in order to be admitted into the Church, to submit to a penance (manus impositio ad Ijxnitentiam) ; but it is not necessary to re-baptize him. (S.) The sacraments are often compared to channels through which divine grace comes to us. Then, when any one is bap- tized in a heretical sect, but is baptized according to the rules, the channel of grace is truly applied to him, and there flows to him through this channel not only the remission of sins (vcmissio peccatorum), but also sanctification and the renewal of the inner man (sanctificatio ct rcnovatio interioris hominis) ; that is to say, he receives the grace of baptism. (e.) It is otherwise with confirmation. From the time of the apostles, they only, and never the deacons, their fellow- workers, had the power of giving confirmation. 2 Now, too, it is only the legitimate successors of the apostles, the bishops, who can administer this sacrament in the Church. If, there- 1 S. Augustine's arguments are given in detail in Mattes, I.e. pp. 30-45. " Acts viii. 1 4-1 7, xix. 6. 116 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. fore, any one has been confirmed whilst he was in heresy, he can have been so only by a schismatical or heretical bishop or priest ; so that his confirmation must be invalid, and it is necessary that the imposition of hands should be repeated, ut Spiritum sanctum conscquatur ct signetur. Doctor Mattes has brought out, with much depth, in the dissertation which we have already frequently quoted, the different reasons for believing that baptism and marriage may be administered by those who are not Christians. 2 Sec. 7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260). The councils of Christian Africa have chiefly occupied our attention so far : we are now to direct attention to those of the other countries of the Eoman Empire, and first to those of Gaul. It is known that, about the middle of the third century, seven missionary bishops were sent into Gaul by Pope Fabian, and that one of them was S. Paul, first bishop of Narbonne. The acts of his life which have reached us speak of a synod held at Narbonne on his account between 255 and 260. Two deacons, whom the holy bishop had often blamed for their incontinence, wished to revenge them- selves on him in a diabolical manner. They secretly put a pair of women's slippers under his bed, and then showed them in proof of the bishop's impurity. Paul found himself obliged to assemble his colleagues in a synod, that they might judge of his innocence or culpability. While the bishops conti- nued the inquiry for three clays, an eagle came and placed itself upon the roof of the house where they were assembled. Nothing could drive it away, and during those three clays a raven brought it food. On the third day Paul ordered public prayer that God would make known the truth. The deacons were then seized by an evil spirit, and so tormented, that they ended by confessing their perfidy and calumny. They could only be delivered through prayer, and they renewed their 1 Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 131, above, p. 112. 2 Tiibinrjer Quartalschri/t, 1850, S. 51-6G. See also in the Frcihurger Kirchen- lexicon, Bd. vi. S. 71 ff., Gruseha's article on the subject of baptism admini- stered by heretics. Gruscha also mentions the works to be consulted on this question. SYNODS AT AESINOE AND HOME. 117 confession. Instead of judging Paul, the bishops threw them- selves at his feet, and with all the people entreated his inter- cession with God. The eagle then took flight towards the East. 1 Such is the account given in the Acts. They are ancient, but full of fables, and, as Eemi Ceillier and others have already shown, cannot be regarded as a serious historical document. 2 Sec. 8. Synods at ArsinOe and Borne (255—260). We have, unlike the case last considered, the most tho- roughly historical records of the assembly over which Diony- sius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, presided at Arsinoe, 3 and of which he speaks himself in Eusebius. 4 Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, also a very venerable man, and author of some Christian canticles, had fallen into the error of the Mil- lenarians, and had endeavoured to spread it. 5 Dying some time after, he could not be judged ; and his primate, Dionysius the Great, had to content himself with refuting the opinions which he had propagated. He did so in two books, irepl eirayyeXiwv. Besides this, about 255, Dionysius being near to Arsinoe, where the errors of Nepos had made great pro- gress, assembled the priests (of Nepos) and the teachers of the place, and prevailed upon them to submit their doctrine to a discussion which should take place before all their brethren, who would be present at it. In the debate they relied upon a work by Nepos, which the Millenarians much venerated. Dionysius disputed with them for three days; and both parties, says Dionysius himself, showed much moderation, calmness, and love of truth. The result was, that Coration, chief of the party of Nepos, promised to renounce his error, and the dis- cussion terminated to the satisfaction of all. 6 1 Cf. Franc, de Bosquet, Hist. Eccl. Gall. lib. v. p. 106 ; and Mansi, i. 1002. - Remi Ceillier, Ilistolre ginirale des auteurs sacres, iii. 593 ; Walcli, Hist, (hr Kirchenvers. S. 110 ; Gallia Christiana, v. 5 ; Histoire die Languedoc, t. i. p. 129 sqq. 3 Arsinoe was an episcopal town in Egypt, in the province of Heptanomos, belonging to the patriarchate of Alexandria. 4 Lib. vii. 24. 5 Upon Nepos, see Freiburger Kirchenlezicon on this word, ■ Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 24. Il8 • HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Some years later, about 260, the same Dionysius the Great, from his manner of combating Sabellius, gave occasion for the holding of a Soman synod, of which we shall speak more at length in giving the history of the origin of Arianism. Sec. 9. Three Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of Samosata (2 64-2 G 9). Three synods at Antioch in Syria occupied themselves with the accusation and deposition of the bishop of that town, the well-known anti-Trinitarian, Paul of Samosata. Sabellius had wished to strengthen the idea of unity in the doctrine of the Trinity, by suppressing the difference between the persons, and only admitting, instead of the persons, three different modes of action in the one person of God ; conse- quently denying the personal difference between the Father and the Son, and identifying them both. In his doctrinal explanation of the mystery of the Trinity, Paul of Samosata took an opposite course : he separated the one from the other, the Father and the Son, far too much. He set off, as Sabellius did, from a confusion 1 of the divine persons, and regarded the Logos as an impersonal virtue of God in no way distinct from the Father. In JUS ITS he saw only a man penetrated by the Logos, who, although miraculously born of a virgin, 2 was yet only a man, and not the God-man. His inferior being was e/c irapOevov ; his superior being, on the contrary, was penetrated by the Logos. The Logos had dwelt in the man Jesus, not in person, but in quality, as virtue or power (pvic ovguoSm? ak\a Kara iroiorrjTa). Moreover, by an abiding penetration, He sanctified him, and rendered him worthy of a divine name/' Paul of Samosata further taught, that as the Logos is not a person, so also the Holy Spirit is only a divine virtue, imper- sonal, belonging to the Father, and distinct from Him only in thought. Thus, while Paul on one side approached Sabellianism, on 1 Nicht-unterscheidung. " Cf. Athanas. Contra Apollin. ii. 3. 3 See, upon the doctrine of Ya\\\ of Samosata, Dorncr, Lchrc v. d. Person Chrisli, Thl. i. S. 510 ff. ; Schwab, de Panli Samos. vita atquc docirina, Diss, inaug. 1839; Feuerlin, Disp. de kcercsi Pauli Samos.; Walch, Ketzcrhist. Ed. ii. S. 64-126. SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 110 the other side lie inclined towards the Siibbrdinalians of Alex- andria, We will not discuss whether Jcivish errors, of which Philastrius accuses him, were mixed with this monarchianism, as this is merely an accessory question. Theodoret says more accurately, that Paul sought, by his anti-Trinitarian doctrines, to please his protectress and sovereign Zenobia, who was a Jewess, and consequently held anti-Trinitarian opinions. 1 The new error was so much the more dangerous, as the ecclesiastical and political position of its author was of great importance. He filled the highest see in the East. We know also, that in 264 or 265 2 a great number of bishops assembled at Antioch ; particularly Firmilian of Cresarea in Cappadocia, Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother Athenodorus, the Archbishop Helenus of Tarsus in Cilicia, Nicomas of Iconium, Hymeneeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Coesarea in Palestine • (the friend of Origen), Maximus of Bostra, and many other bishops, priests, and deacons. Dionysius the Great of Alex- andria had also been invited to the Sy/xod ; but his age and infirmities prevented him from going in person, and he died a short time after. He had wished at least to be able in writ- ing to defend the doctrine of the Church against Paul of Samosata, as he had before defended it against Sabellius. 3 According to Eusebius, he addressed a letter to the church at Antioch, in which he would not even salute the bishop. Without entirely confirming this statement furnished by Eusebius, 4 Theodoret relates that in that letter Dionysius exhorted Paul to do what was right, whilst he encouraged the assembled bishops to redoubled zeal for orthodoxy. From these testimonies we may conclude that Dionysius wrote three- letters — one to Paul, another to the bishops in Synod, a third to the church at Antioch ; but it is also true that one single letter might easily contain all that Eusebius and Theodoret attribute to Dionysius. 5 1 Theodoret, Hceret. fabul. lib. ii. c. 8. 2 We know this date from that of the death of Dionysius of Alexandria, who, as Eusebius says, died soon after this Synod (vii. 28). 3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 27, 2S ; Theodoret, I.e. * I.e. 5 The letter by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata, containing ten questions of Paul's, and answers from Dionysius, which was first published by Tnrrianus, a Jesuit, and which is found also in Mansi, i. 1039 sq.", is not authentic. Opinions 120 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. In a great number of sessions and discussions they sought. to demonstrate the errors of Paul, and entreated him to return to orthodoxy ; but the latter, cleverly dissembling his doctrine, protested that he had never professed such errors, and that he had always followed the apostolic dogmas. After these de- clarations, the bishops being satisfied, thanked God for this harmony, and separated. 1 But they found that they were soon obliged to assemble again at Antioch. Firmilian appears to have presided over this fresh assembly, as he had over the first: its exact date is not certainly known. The Synod explicitly condemned the new doctrine introduced by Paul. As, however, Paul promised to renounce .•and retract his errors (as he had absolutely rejected them as his in the first Synod), Firmilian and the bishops allowed .themselves to be deceived a second time. 2 Paul did not keep his promise, and soon, says Theodoret, 3 the report was spread that he professed his former errors as before. However, the bishops would not cut him off imme- diately from communion with the Church : they tried again to bring him back to the right way by a letter which they .-addressed to him; 4 and it was only when this last attempt had failed that they assembled for the third time at Antioch, . are there attributed to Paul which he did not profess ; as, for example, that of two Christs, of two Sons : the name of mother of God is often given to Mary, and the whole betrays a period later than Nestorius. None of the ancients knew ■ of this letter. Cf. Remi Ceillier, iii. 277 ; Mbhler, Patrol, i. S. 632 ; Walch, JCetzergesch. ii. S. 71 ff., 83 if. 4 Theodoret, I.e.; Euseb. vii. 28. 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. 3 I.e. 4 Theodoret, I.e. The Jesuit Turrianus discovered a pretended letter from six bishops of the Synod of Antioch, addressed to Paul of Samosata, containing a complete creed, and ending with the demand that Paul should declare whether he agreed with it or not. This letter was first quoted in Latin by Baronius, ad ann. 266, n. 4, and taken for genuine. It is given in Greek and Latin by Mansi, i. 1033 ; and the creed which it contains is most accurately reproduced by Hahn, Biblioth. d. Symb. 1842, S. 91 ff. The letter in question was regarded as genuine by Mansi in his notes on Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. iv. 145, Venet. 177S ; but its genuineness was called in question by Dupin (Nouvelle Bibliotheque, etc., i. 214), by Remi Ceillier {Histoire des auteurs sacris, iii. 607), and still more by Gottfried Lumper (Historia theol. crit. xiii. 711), for these reasons : 1. The letter was unknown by the ancients ; 2. Paul of Samosata is spoken of in a friendly manner in the letter, although, as a matter of fact, several years before Dionvsius the Great of Alexandria would not even name him, and Paul had by this time become much worse ; 3. The letter is signed by SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 121 towards the close of the year 2G9. 1 Bishop Firmilian died at Tarsus in going to this Synod. According to Athanasius, the number of assembled bishops reached seventy, and eighty according to Hilarius. 2 The deacon Basil, who wrote in the fifth century, 3 raises it even to a hundred and eighty. Fir- milian being dead, Helenus presided over the assembly, as we are expressly assured by the Libcllus Synodicus* Besides Helenus, Hymenseus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Csesarea in Palestine, Maximus of Bostra, Nicomas of Iconium, and others, were present. Among the priests who were present at the Synod, Malchion was especially remarkable, who, after having taught rhetoric with much success at Antioch, had been ordained priest there on account of the purity of his manners and the ardour of his faith. He was chosen by the bishops assembled at Antioch as the opponent in discussion of Paul of Samosata, on account of his vast knowledge and his skill in logic. The notaries kept an account of all that was said. These documents still existed in the time of Eusebius and of Jerome ; but we have only some short fragments preserved by two writers of the sixth century — Leontius of Byzantium and Peter the deacon. only six bishops, whilst ten times that number were present at the Synod ; 4. In this letter Hymenams of Jerusalem is named as president, while we know that it was Helenus of Tarsus who presided at the third Synod of Antioch. Never- theless, more recently, Halm (I.e.) has adduced the creed contained in this letter as genuine ; but Dorner (Lehre v. der Person Clirlsti, 13d. i. S. 767, note 38 ; Eng. ed. of Clark, A, ii. 10 ff. ) shows that the proposition of this creed, "There are aiot two Christs," could have no reference to Paul of Samosata (cf. also Walch, Ketzerldst. Bd. ii. S. 117). Some learned men have ascribed the letter to the first Antiochene Synod, which is even less possible. It might rather have been published before or during the third S}'nod by six of its members. Even if it is genuine, it is impossible to prove that it is identical with the letter quoted above from Theodoret, and intended to bring back Paul to the truth. 1 We can determine this date, because we know that of the death of Firmilian, and of Dionysius of I!ome : the latter died 26th December 267. Cf. Lumper, Hist. Tlieol. xiii. 714. srp ; and Pagi, Critica in Annul. Baron, ad ami. 271, Ho. 2. 2 Athan. de Synodis, n. 43, vol. i. P. ii. p. 605, ed. Patav. ; Hilar. Pictav. de Synodis, n. S6, p. 1200. 3 In the acts of the Synod of Ephesns. Hard. I.e. i. 1335. 4 In Hard. I.e. v. 1498 ; and Mansi, I.e. i. 1099. 1 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30. ' In the Bibl. maxima PP., Lugdun., ix. 19G, 703 ; and in Mansi, I.e. i. 1102. 122 HISTORY. OF THE COUNCILS. In these disputations Paul of Samosata was convicted of error. The Council deposed him, excommunicated him, 1 and chose in his place Domnus, son of his predecessor Demetrian Bishop of Antioch. Before dissolving itself, the Council sent to Dionysius Bishop of Home, to Maximus of Alexandria, and to the bishops of all the provinces, an encyclical letter, which we still possess in greater part, in which was an account of the errors and manners of Paul of Samosata, as well as of the deliberations of the Council respecting him. 2 It is there said, " that Paul, who was very poor at first, had acquired great riches by illegal proceedings, by extortions and frauds, pro- fessedly promising his protection in lawsuits, and then de- ceiving those who had paid him. Besides, he was extremely proud and arrogant: he had accepted worldly employments, and preferred to be called duccnarius rather than bishop; 3 he always went out surrounded by a train of servants. He was reproached with having, out of vanity, read and dictated letters while walking ; with having, by his pride, caused much evil to be said of Christians; with having had a raised throne made for him in the church; with, acting in a theatrical manner — striking his thigh, spurning things with his foot, persecuting and scorning those who during his sermons did not join with the clappers of hands bribed to applaud him ; with having spoken disparagingly of the greatest doctors of the Church, and with applause of himself; with having sup- pressed the Psalms in honour of Christ, under the pretext that they were of recent origin, to substitute for them at the feast of Easter hymns sung by women in his honour ; with having caused himself to be praised in the sermons of his partisans, priests and chorepiscopi. The letter further declared that 1 Baronius says, ad aim. 265, n. 10, that Paul of Samosata had been con- demned before by a synod at Rome under Pope Dionysius. He was deceived by the ancient and false Latin translation of Athan. de Synodis, c. 43. 2 In Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30; in Mansi, I.e. t. i. p. 1095, and Hard. I.e. t. i. p. 195. According to S. Jerome, Catal. Script, eccles. c. 71, the priest Malchion edited this synodical letter. In Euseb. I.e. we also read at the head of this letter the name of one Malchion, but side by side with other names of the bishops, so that it is dcubtful whether this Malchion is the priest of whom we are speaking, or a bishop of that name. ;! The functionaries were thus named who annually claimed a revenue of ducenta rnsterlia. SYNODS CONCERNING PAUL OF SAMOSATA. 123 he had denied that the Son of God descended from heaven, hut that he personally had allowed himself to be called an angel come from on high ; that, besides, he had lived with the siibintroductce, and had allowed the same to his clergy. If he could not be reproached with positive immorality, he had at least caused much scandal. Finally, he had fallen into the heresy of Artemon ; and the Synod had thought it suffi- cient to proceed only on this last point. They had therefore excommunicated Paul, and elected Dommis in his place. The Synod prayed all the bishops to exchange the liltcras com- municatorias with Domnus, whilst Paul, if he wished, could write to Artemon. 1 It is with this ironical observation that the great fragment of the synodical letter preserved by Euse- bius terminates. It is thought that in Leontius of Byzantium 2 are to be found some more fragments of this letter treating of Paul's doctrine. Much more important is an ancient tradition, that the Synod of Antioch must have rejected the expression 6fioovcrio$. This is, at least, what semi-Arians have main- tained; whilst S. Athanasius says " that he had not the synodicai letter of the Council of Antioch before his eyes, but that the semi-Arians had maintained, in their Synod of Ancyra of 358, that this letter denied that the Son was 6[aoov appeal to this document, on account of the proposition, prima scdcs non judicatur a quoquam. The Roman breviary itself has admitted the account of Marcellinus' weakness, and of the sacrifice offered by him. 1 But it is beyond all doubt that this document is an amplification of the falsehood spread by the Donatists about the year 400. They maintain that during Diocletian's persecution Marcellinus had delivered up the Holy Scriptures, and sacrificed to the idols, — a falsehood which Augustine and Theodoret had already refuted. 2 Sec. 11. Synod of Cirta (305). If the Donatists have invented the Synod of Sinuessa, which never took place, they have, on the other hand, con- tested the existence of a Council which was certainly held in 305 at Cirta in Numidia. This Synod took place on the occasion of the installation of a new bishop of this town. 3 1 Nocturn. ii. 2Gtli April. 2 Augustine, De unico Bajitlsmo contra PetlUanum, c. 16; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 2. Details respecting the spuriousness of this document, and upon this whole question, are to be found in Pagi, Grit, in Annales Baronii, ad ami. 302, n. 18; Papebroch, in the Acta sanct. in Propyl. Mar/, vol. viii. ; Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. ste.c. iii. diss. xx. vol. iv. p. 135, ed. Yenet. 177S ; Itemi Ccillier, Hist, des auteurs sacrds, t. iii. p. 681. Sec, for Protestant authors, Bower, Gesch. d. Papste, Bd. i. S. 6S ft'. ; Walch, Hist. d. Papste, 8. 68 11. ; Hist, der KircJicnvers. S. 126. ' Now Constantiue. SYNOD OF CIRTA. 12$ Secundus Bishop of Tigisium, the oldest of the eleven "bishops present, presided over the assembly. A short time before, an edict of Diocletian had enacted that the sacred writings should be given up ; and a multitude of Christians, and even bishops, had proved weak, and had obeyed the edict. Most of the bishops present at Cirta were accused of this fall ; so that the president could say to almost all of them, when question- ing them according to their rank, Dicitur U tradidisse. They acknowledged themselves to be guilty, adding, one that God had preserved him from sacrificing to the idols (which would have been doubtless a much greater fall) ; another, that in- stead of the sacred books he had given up books of medicine ; a third, that he had been forced by violence, and so forth. All implored grace and pardon. The president then demanded of Purpurius Bishop of Limata, if it was true that he had killed two of his nephews. The latter answered, "Do you think you can terrify me like the others ? What did you do then yourself, when the curator commanded you to give up the Holy Scriptures?" This was to reproach him with the crime for which he was prosecuting the others ; and the pre- sident's own nephew, Secundus the younger, addressed his uncle in these words : " Do you hear what he says of you ? He is ready to leave the Synod, and to create a schism : he will have with him all those whom you wish to punish, and I know that they have reasons for condemning you." The president asked counsel from some of the bishops : they per- suaded him to decide that " each one should render an account to God of Ins conduct in this matter (whether he had given up the Holy Scriptures or not)." All were of the same opinion, and shouted, Deo gratias ! This is what is told us in the fragment of the synodical acts preserved by S. Augustine in the third book of his work against the Donatist Cresconius. 1 We also learn from this fragment, that the Synod was held in a private house belong- ing to Urbanus Donatus, during the eighth consulate of Dio- cletian and the seventh of Maximian, that is to say, in 303. Optatus of Mileve, 2 on the other hand, gives to this Donatus the surname of Carisius, and tells us that they chose a private 1 Contra Cresc. c. 27. 3 Hist. Donatist. lib. i. I 130' HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. house because the churches of the town had not yet "been restored since the persecution. As for the chronological question, S. Augustine says in another place, that the copy of the synoclical acts, which was carefully examined on occasion of the religious conference of Carthage with the Donatists, was thus dated : 'post considatum Dioclctiani navies ct Mctxi- miani octics, tertio nonas Martis} that is to say, March 5, 305. That is, in fact, the exact date, as Valesius has proved in his notes upon the eighth hook of the History of the Church by Eusebius, ch. 2. ISTatalis Alexander has also written a special dissertation upon this subject in his History of the Church? When the affair respecting the bishops who had yielded up the Holy Scriptures had been decided, they proceeded to the election of the new Bishop of Cirta. The bishops nominated the deacon Silvanus, although, as is proved by a fragment of the acts preserved by S. Augustine, 3 he had delivered up the sacred boohs in 303, together with his bishop Paul. This Silvanus and some others among the bishops assembled at Cirta, after having been so indulgent towards themselves, afterwards became the chiefs of the rigorous and exaggerated party of the Donatists, who saw traditores everywhere, even where there were none. Sec. 12. Synod of Alexandria (306). Almost at the same period, perhaps a year later, a synod was held at Alexandria, under the presidency of Peter, then archbishop of that place. The Bishop of Lycopolis, Meletius, author of the Meletian schism, was, as S. Athanasius tells us, deposed by this Synod for different offences; and among others, 1 Augustine, Breviculus coUatlonls c. Donatlstis, collat. diei Illlice, c. 17, n. 32, viii. 643, ed. Migne. 2 Hist. Eccles. stec. iv. diss. ii. 340, ed. Venet. 1778. 3 Contra Cres. lib. iii. c. 29. Baronius, ad aim. 303, n. 6, concludes from this fragment that the Synod of Cirta first elected Paul as bishop of that place. Baronius had, in fact, remarked that Paul had yielded up the Holy Scriptures in 303, being then Bishop of Cirta. But he is mistaken in supposing that this Synod had taken place in the spring of 303. The passage from the document preserved by Augustine, contra Crescon. iii. 29, ought to have proved to him that Paul was already Bishop of Cirta when the persecution began, consequently before the assembling of the Synod. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 131 for having sacrificed to idols. 1 These last words show that this Synod took place after the outbreak of Diocletian's per- secution, consequently after 303. S. Athanasius further adds, in his Ejristola ad cpiseopos : " The Meletians were declared schismatics more than fifty-five years ago." This letter having been written in 356 or in 361, the latter date would give the year 306 as that of the Synod ; and this is the date which we adopt. For on the other hypothesis (reckoning from the year 356) we should be brought to 301, when the persecu- tion of Diocletian had not begun. 2 To the beginning of the fourth century belongs the Sec. 13. Synod of Elvira (305 or 306). This Synod has been, more than any other, an occasion for many learned researches and controversies. The principal work on the subject is that by the Spaniard Ferdinand de- Mendoza, in 1593; it comprises three books, the title of which is. dc confirmando concilio Illiberitano ad Clcmcntcm viii. 3 The best text of the acts of this Council is found in the Collcctio canonum Ecclcsice Hispancc, by Franc. Ant. Gonzalez, librarian (Madrid 1808, in folio). It was compiled from nine ancient Spanish manuscripts. Brims has reproduced it in his Bibliotli. cedes. 4 Pliny the elder speaks of two towns named Illiberis : the one in Gallia rTarbonensis, which is now called Collioure, in Eoussillon (now French) ; the other in the south of Spain, in the province Bcetica, now Andalusia. 5 As it is a Spanish council, there can be no question but that it was the latter- town, as Illiberis in Karbonne had been demolished long before the time of Constantine the Great. Mendoza relates, that in his day the remains of walls bearing the name of Elbira might still be seen on a mountain not far from Granada ; and the gate of Granada, situated in this direction, is called the gate of Elbira, 6 There is also another Eliberis, but it 1 Athanas. Apolog. cont. Avian, c. 59, vol. i. P. i. p. 140, ed. Patav. '-' Upon this question of chronology, and upon the Meletian schism, cf. a dis- sertation by Dr. Hefele in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. vii. S. 38. Dom Ceillier adopts the year 301, Hist., etc., iii. 678. 3 Mansi, Collect. Cone. ii. 57-397. * Vol. i. P. ii. p. 1 sq. 5 Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. iii. c'. \, 4 fi Mendoza in Mansi, p. 5S. 132 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. dates only from the conquest of the Goths. Illibems, with a double I and a double r, is the true one, according to Mendoza. 1 The s) r nodical acts, whose genuineness could be doubted only by hypercriticism, 2 mention nineteen bishops as present at the Council. According to a Codex Pitlwanus of its acts, their number must have reached forty-three. The nineteen are : Felix of Acci (Cadiz), who, probably as being the eldest, was nominated president of the Synod ; Hosius 3 of Corduba, afterwards so famous in the Arian controversy as Bishop of Cordova; Sabinus of Hispalis (Seville), Camerismus of Tucci, Sinaginis of Epagra (or Bigerra), Secundinus of Castulo, Pardus of Mentesa, Flavian of Eliberis, Cantonius of Urci, Liberius of Emerita, Valerius of C?esaraugusta (Saragossa), Decentius of Legio (Leon), Melantius of Toledo, Januarius of Fibularia (perhaps Salaria in Hispania Tarraconcnsis), Vincent of Ossonoba, Quintianus of Elbora, Successus of Eliocroca, Eutychian of Basti (Baza), and Patricius of Malacca. There were therefore bishops from the most different parts of Spain ; so that we may consider this assembly as a synod representing the wdiole of Spain. The acts also mention twenty-four priests, and say that they were seated at the Synod like the bishops, whilst the deacons and the laity stood up. The decrees proceeded only from the bishops ; for the synodical acts always employed this formula : Episcopi imtiersi clixcrunt. 1. As for the date of this Synod, the acts tell us that it w r as celebrated, which means opened, at the Ides of May ; that is, on the loth May. The inscriptions on the acts also give the following particulars : Constantii temporibus eclitum, coclcvi tempore quo ct Niavna synoclus habita est. Some of the acts add: era 3G2. 4 Of course it refers to the Spanish era, which began to be used in Spain in the fifth century : it counted from the 1 Mendoza in Mansi, pp. 58,' 59. - Doubts have been raised, especially by Berardi (Gradiani Ccnwnes gemrini 1 Cf. canon 55. ' C. 43, dist 1. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 141 stituta, acta pcenitentia, denuo fuerit fornicatus, placuit nee in finem habere eum communionem. Can. 8. De fceminis qiice rclictis viris suis aliis nubunt. Item fcemina?, quae nulla prsecedente causa reliquerint viros suos et alteris se copulaverint, nee in finem accipiant com- munionem. Some interpreters have thought that the question here was that only of a Christian woman leaving her husband, still a pagan, without any reason ; for under no pretext could she leave a Christian husband to marry another. But the follow- ing canon proves conclusively that the eighth canon speaks of a Christian couple. If it adds without reason} that does not mean that there exist any cases in which a woman could leave her husband to marry another : the canon decrees only a more severe punishment if she should abandon her husband without reason ; whilst the following canon prescribes what punish- ment to inflict in case she should leave her husband not entirely without a cause (if, for example, the husband is an adulterer). The ninth canon, which has also been inserted in the Corpus juris canon, 2 is thus worded : — Can. 9. De fceminis quce aclulteros maritos relinqiiunt et aliis nubunt. Item fcemina fidelis, quae adulterum maritum reliquerit fidelem et alteram ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat ; si duxerit, non prius accipiat communionem, nisi quern reliquit de sseculo exierit, nisi forsitan necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit. The following canons are much more difficult to explain. Can. 1 0. De relicta catccliumeni si alterum duxerit. Si ea quam catechumenus relinquit duxerit maritum, potest ad fontem lavacri admitti : hoc et circa fceminas catechumenas erit observandum. Quodsi iuerit fidelis quse ducitur ab eo 1 Binterim thinks (I.e. p. 425) that sine causa means, "without the previous judgment of the bishop." s C. 8, causa xxxii. }. 7. 142 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. qui uxorem inculpatam relinquit, et quum scierit ilium habere uxorem, quam sine causa reliquit, placuit in finem liujusmodi dari communionem. Can. 11. De catccliumcna si graviter ccgrotaverit. Intra quinquennii autem tempora catechumena si graviter fuerit infirmata, dandum ei baptismum placuit non denegari. These two canons are difficult to explain, because the section between the two does not occupy its proper place. They treat of two quite different cases, and each of these cases is sub- divided into two others. 1. a, If a catechumen, without any cause, should leave his wife, who has not yet been baptized, and if the latter should marry another husband, she may be baptized. b. In the same way, if a female catechumen should, with- out reason, leave her husband, still unbaptized, and he should marry again, he may be baptized. Such is the first case. It supposes that the party who is left without cause is not baptized. Here the tenth canon should stop. What follows treats of another question, viz. if the party who has unlawfully left the other can be married again. The canon does not mention whether the party to be married is baptized, or only a catechumen, and it establishes the following : — 2. a. If a Christian woman marries a man whom she knows to have illegally divorced his wife, she may communicate only on her deathbed. As a Christian, she ought to have known that, according to S. Paul, 1 a Christian (and the cate- chumen is here considered as such) cannot put away his partner, though an unbeliever, if the latter wishes to continue to live with him. b. If a female catechumen marries a man who has illegally divorced his wife, her baptism shall be put off five years longer (a further period of trial), and she can be baptized before that time only in case of a serious illness. We think we have thus clearly and accurately explained the sense of these two canons, which have given so much trouble to commentators. * l Coi vii. 12. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 143 Ca> t . 12. Be mulicribus qiice Icnocinium fcccrint. Mater vel parens vel qucelibet fidelis, si lenocinium exer- cuerit, eo quod alienum vendiderit corpus vel potius suum, placuit earn nee in finem accipere communionem. We might have remarked on the two preceding canons, that their titles are not quite adapted to their contents. It is the same with this one. It threatens with perpetual excommuni- cation those fathers and mothers who should give up their children to prostitution, as well as all those who follow this shameful trade. The words vel potius suum corpus, etc., how- ever, evidently apply only to the parents of the young prosti- tute : in fact, they sell their own flesh and blood in selling, their daughter. Can. 13. Be virginibus Bco sacratis si adulteravcrint. Virgines quae se Deo dicaverunt, si pactum perdiderint vir- ginitatis atque eidem libidini servierint, non intelligentes quid admiserint, placuit nee in finem eis dandam esse communionem. Quod si semel persuasce aut infirmi corporis lapsu vitiate omni tempore vitoe sure hujusmodi fceminre egerint pcenitentiam, ut abstineant se a coitu, eo quod lapsas potius videantur, placuit eas in finem communionem accipere debere. When virgins consecrated to God (whether nuns properly so called, or young girls who have consecrated their youth to God, still remaining in their families) have committed a carnal sin without acknowledging their offence, and so continuing obstinately in their blindness (for it is thus that we must understand non intelligentes quid admiserint), they must remain permanently excommunicated ; but if they should acknowledge their sin, and do perpetual penance, without falling again, they may receive the communion at the end of their life. This canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can} Can. 14. Be virginibus scccularibus si mcecliaverint. Virgines quae virginitatem suam non custodierint, si eosdem qui eas violaverint duxerint et tenuerint maritos, eo quod solas nuptias violaverint, post annum sine poenitentia reconciliari debebunt; vel si alios cognoverint viros, eo quod mcechatee 1 C. 2o. causa xxvii. q. 1. Cf. c. 19 of the Synod of Ancyra. 144 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. sunt, placuit per quinquennii tempora, acta legitima pcenitentia, admitti eas ad communionem oportere. If a young girl who has taken no vows has committed a carnal sin, and if she marries him with whom she has been led away, she shall be reconciled at the end of one year, with- out being condemned to penance; that is to say, she may receive the communion at the end of one year, because she lias violated only the marriage law, the rights of which she (usurped before they were conferred upon her. Some manuscripts read, 'post pcenitentiam unius anni rccon- ■cilicntur ; that is to say, that one year's penance should be imposed upon her. The difference between this reading and ours is not important, for our reading also imposes on the guilty one minor excommunication for a year ; that is to say, privation of the communion, which we know was also a degree ■of penance, namely, the fourth. The canon only exempts her from the most severe degrees of excommunication, to which were attached positive works of penance. The other reading says nothing more. If this woman should marry any one ■except him with whom she had fallen, she would commit a sort of adultery, and ought to submit to five years of penance. The three following canons forbid to marry pagans, Jews, or heretics, and require no explanation : — Can. 15. Be conjugio corum qui ex gcntilitatc veniunt. Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in matri- monium dandse sunt virgines Christianas, ne setas in flore tumens in adulterium animoe resolvatur. Can. 1 6. De pucllis fidclibus ne infidclibus conjungantur. Hieretici si se transferre noluerint ad Ecclesiam catholicam, nee ipsis catholicas dandas esse puellas; sed neque Judoeis neque hsereticis dare placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societa? fideli cum infideli : si contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstineri per quinquennium placet. Can. 1 7. De his qui fdias suas sacerclotibus gcntilium con- jungunt. Si qui forte sacerdotibus idolorum filias suas junxerint placuit nee in finem iis dandam esse communionem. SYNOD OF ELVIEA. 145 Can. 18. Dc saccrdotibus et minisiris si mcecltavcrint. Episcopi, presby teres (!) et diacones si in ministerio positi detecti fuerint quod sint mcechati, placuit propter scandalum et propter profanurn crimen nee in fineni eos communionem accipere debere. We must here, as in other places, 1 understand by mcechare, not only adultery in specie, but all fornication in general. Can. 19. Be clcricis ncgotia et mundinas scctantibus. Episcopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones de locis suis negotiandi causa non discedant, nee circumeuntes provincias qusestuosas nundinas sectentur : sane ad victum sibi conquirendum aut filium aut libertum aut mercenarium aut amicum aut qnem- libet mittant, et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam nego- tientur. S. Cyprian, 2 in his work dc Zapsis, also complains that many bishops left their churches and went into foreign provinces for the sake of merchandise, and to give themselves up to trade. Can. 20. De clcricis et laicis usurariis. Si quis clericorum detectus fuerit usuras accipere, placuit eum degradari et abstineri. Si quis etiam laicus accepisse probatur usuras, et promiserit correptus jam se cassaturum nee ulterius exacturum, placuit ei veniam tribui : si vero in ea iniquitate duraverit, ab ecclesia esse projicienclum. 3 When we consider the seventeenth Mcene canon, which also forbids lending money at interest, we shall speak of the judgment of the ancient Church on this matter. The first part of our canon has been inserted by Gratian in the Corpus juris canon} Can. 21. Dc Ids quitardius ad ccclcsiam acccdunt Si quis in civitate positus tres dominicas ad ecclesiam non accesserit, pauco tempore abstineatur, ut correptus esse videatur. As we have said before, 5 Hosius proposed and had passed at the Council of Sardica a like statute against those who neglected 1 Cf. can. 2. 2 P- 183, ed. Bened. 3 Cf. the art. by the author in the Tuhinr/er Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 405 ff. * C. 5, dist. 47. 5 P- 135. K 146 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. to so to church. It is the eleventh canon of the Greek and the fourteenth of the Latin text of the decrees of Sardica. Can. 22. Dc catholicis in hccrcsim transcuntibus, si rcvcr- tantur. Si quis de catholica Ecclesia ad hseresim transitum fecerit rursusque recurrent, placuit rmic pcenitentiam non esse dene- gandam, eo quod cognoverit peccatum suum ; qui etiam decern annis agat pcenitentiam, cui post decern annos praestari com- munio debet ; si vero infantes fuerint transducti, quod non suo vitio peccaverint incunctanter recipi debent. Can. 23. Dc tcmporibus jcjuniormn. Jejunii superpositiones per singulos menses placuit celebrari, -exceptis diebus duorum mensium Julii et Augusti propter quorumdam infirmitatem. The superponcre (vTrepriOecrOaC), or the supcrpositio {vTrep- deais), was an extension or prolongation of the fast beyond the usual duration (until the evening). 1 Can. 24. Dc Ms qui in pcvcgrc oaptizantur, id act clcrum non vcniant. Omnes qui in peregre fuerint baptizati, eo quod eorum minime sit cognita vita, placuit ad clerum non esse promo- vendos in alienis provinciis. None could be admitted into the ranks of the clergy out of the province in which he had been baptized. This canon passed into the Corpus jur. can? Can. 25. Dc qnstolis communicatoriis confcssorum. Omnis qui attulerit literas confessorias, sublato nomine confessoris, eo quod omnes sub hac nominis gloria pas- sim concutiant simplices, communicatorias ei danda? sunt litterse. This canon has been interpreted in three ways. Mendoza, Baronius, and others, when commenting upon it, thought of the 1 Binterim, DenhvurdlgJceitcn, Bd. v. Th. ii. S. 93 ; Bohmer, Christlkhe AltcrOmmswissenschaft; Bd. ii. S. 98. * C. 4, dist. 98. SYNOD OF ELVIEA, 147 letters of peace {libelli pads) which the martyrs and confessors give to the lapsi, to procure for them a speedy reception into the Church. These libelli pads, indeed, induced many bishops to admit a lapsus too promptly ; but our canon does not speak of this abuse : it does not complain that these letters deceived the bishops : it says, coiicutiant simjrtiees. If the canon had been intended to warn the bishops against these libelli pacis, it would certainly not have said that they should give to the lapsis communiccdorias litems ; for this was what was wrono-, that they were admitted too soon to communion. Aubespine 1 and Herbst 2 were of the opinion that the canon had reference to some Christians who, before going a journey, did not ask for letters of communion from their bishop, but preferred letters of recommendation given by their confessor, regarding these as more important, and that this practice was forbidden by one synod. This, again, is a mistake. The meaning of the canon is this : " If a Christian, wishing to take a journey, submits to his bishop the draught of a letter of recommenda- tion, in which it is said that the bearer is a confessor, the bishop must erase the word confessor, sublato nomine confessoris, because many simple people are deceived by this title, and the bishop shall give common letters communicatorias." 3 Can. 26. lit omni sabbato jejunctur. Errorem placuit corrigi, ut omni sabbati die superpositiones celebremus. The meaning of this canon also is equivocal. The title seems to imply that it orders a severe fast every Saturday, and the suppression of the contrary practice followed up to that time. It is thus explained by Garsias in Binius 4 and Mendoza. 5 However, as the sixty-fifth apostolic canon pre- scribes that, except Holy Saturday, no Saturday should be a fast-day, our canon may also mean, "The ancient error of fasting strictly every Saturday must be abolished : " that is to 1 In Mansi, ii. 42. 2 Quartalsch. 1821, S. 30. 3 CT. Eemi Ceillier, I.e. p. 665; Migne, Die. des Conciles, i. 820; and Dr. Miinchen, "Abhandlung liber das erste Concil von Aries" (dissertation upon the first Council of Aries), in the Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philosophic u. Thcoloaie Heft 27 .", Mansi, ii. 31. 5 j okL p< ^ 148 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. say, the super positio is ordered only for Holy Saturday ; and {br- other Saturdays, as for Fridays, the statio only, that is to say, the half-fast is ordered. But in comparing this canon with the forty-third, where the same expressions are again found, we see that the ut determines what was to be henceforth observed, and not in what the error consisted. According to that, our decree would mean that the supcrpositio must be observed every Saturday, and we must adopt the explanation of Garsias. Can. 27. Be clericis ut cxtraneas fceminas in doino 11011 habcant. Episcopus vel quilibet alius clericus aut sororem aut filiam virginem dicatam Deo tantum sccum habeat ; extraneam nequaquam habere placuit. This canon is more severe than the third similar canon of the Council oi Nicrea. It allows the clergy to have with them in their house (ci) only their sisters, or their own daughters ; (b) and also that these must be virgins, and consecrated to God, that is, having vowed their virginity to God. 1 Can. 28. Be oblcdionibus corum qui non communicant. Episcopum placuit ab eo, qui non communicat, munus acci- pere non debere. In the same way as in the first canon, we must here under- stand by those qui non communicant, Christians who, like peni- tents or catechumens, are not in the commuvio (community), and who therefore do not receive the holy Eucharist. The meaning of the canon is : " The bishop cannot accept at the altar the offerings (oblata) of those who do not communicate." Can. 29. Be energumenis qucdUcr habcantur in ccclcsia. Energumenus qui ab erratico spiritu exagitur, hujus nomen neque ad altare cum oblatione esse recitandum, nee permitten- dum ut sua manu in ecclesia ministret. This canon, like the seventy-eighth apostolic canon, excludes demoniacs possessed by the evil spirit from active participation in divine service : they cannot present any offerings ; their 1 C£. the nineteenth canon of Ancyra. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 149 names cannot be read among those who are inscribed in the diptychs as offering the sacrifice (diptychis offer ciitium) ; and they must not be permitted to hold any office in the Church. 1 Can. 30. Be his qui post lavacrum mcechati sunt, ne subdia- concs fiant. Subdiaconos eos ordinari non debere qui in adolescentia sua fuerint mcechati, eo quod postmodum per subreptionem ad altiorem gradum promoveantur : vel si qui sunt in prceterituni ©rdinati, amoveantur. Can. 31. Be adolescent ibus qui post lavacrum mazcliati sunt. Adolescentes qui post iidem lavacri salutaris fuerint mcechati, cum duxerint uxores, acta legitima pcenitentia placuit ad com- munionem eos admitti. These two canons need no explanation. Can. 32. Be, excommunicatis prcsbyteris ut in necessitate communionem dent. Apud presbyterum, si quis gravi lapsu in ruinam mortis incident, placuit agere pcenitentiam non debere, sed potius apud episcopum : cogente tamen infirmitate necesse est pres- byterem (!) communionem prnestare debere, et diaconem si ei jusserit sacerdos. This canon is quite in conformity with the ancient custom, according to which the bishop only, and not a priest, could receive a penitent into the Church. It was only in a case of extreme necessity that a priest, or, according to the orders of a priest, a deacon, could give a penitent the communion, that is, could administer to him the eucharistic bread in siorn of reconciliation : deacons often gave the communion in the ancient Church. 2 The title of the canon is evidently wrong, and ought to be thus worded : Be prcsbyteris ut excommuni- catis in necessitate, etc. It is thus, indeed, that Mansi read it in several manuscripts. 1 Cf. below, the thirty-seventh canon. 2 Binterim (Katliollh, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 432 f.) thus understands this canon : *' Even in a case of urgent necessity, the priest only ought to give the com- munion ; but if he asks it, the deacon may help him." 150 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS Can. 33. De episcopis ct ministris ut ab uxoribus cibstincant. Placuit in totum prohibere episcopis, prcsbyteris et diaconi- bus vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio abstinere se a conjugibus suis et non generare filios : quicunque vero fecerit, ab bonore clericatus exterminetur. This celebrated canon contains the most ancient command of celibacy. The bishops, priests, and deacons, and in general all the clergy, qui in ministerio positi sunt, that is, who are specially employed in the service of the altar, 1 ought no longer to have any conjugal intercourse with their wives, under pain of deposition, if they were married when they took orders. The history of the Council of Mccea will give us the oppor- tunity of considering the question of celibacy in the primitive Church. We will only add here, that the wording of our canon is defective : -proliibere abstinere ct non- generare. The canon seems to order what, on the contrary, it would prohibit, viz. : " It is forbidden that the clergy should abstain from their wives." A similarly inexact expression is found in the eightieth canon. Can. 34. Ne ccrei in cosmeteriis incendantur. Cereos per diem placuit in ccemeterio non incendi, inquie- tandi enim sanctorum spiritus non sunt. Qui haec non obser- vaverint arceantur ab Ecclesire communione. It is forbidden to light wax candles during the day in ceme- teries, for fear of troubling the spirits of the saints. Garsias thus explains this canon : " for fear of troubling and distract- ing the faithful, who pray in the cemeteries." He thus makes sancti the synonym of faithful. Binterim has taken it in the same sense : 2 sanctorum with him is synonymous with sancta arjentium ; and he translates it, " so that the priests,. who fulfil their lioly offices, may not be distracted." Baronius, on the contrary, says : " Many neophytes brought the custom from paganism, of lighting many wax candles upon tombs. 1 That this is the true meaning, is seen from the parallel passage of the Council of Carthage of 390, c. ii., where it is said that bishops, priests, and Levites, vel qui sacramentis dlvinis hiserviunt, are pledged to celibacy. Hard., i. 951. ' Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 435. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. loT Tlie Synod forbids this, because metaphorically it troubles the souls of the dead; that is to say, this superstition wounds them." Aubespine gives a fourth explanation. He begins • with the supposition that the bishops of Elvira partook of the opinion, then very general, that the souls of the dead hovered over their tombs for some time. The Synod consequently forbade that wax candles should be lighted by day, perhaps to abolish a remnant of paganism, but also to prevent the repose of the souls of the dead from being troubled. 1 Can. 35. Nc fcemince in ccemctcriis pcrvigilcnt. Placuit prohiberi ne fceniinae in ccemeterio pervigilent, eo quod saepe sub obtentu orationis latenter scelera committunt. Can. 36. Ncpicturcc in ccclcsia fiant. Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur. These canons are easy to understand : we have elsewhere explained why the ancient Church did not tolerate images. 2 Binterim and Aubespine do not believe in a complete ex- clusion : they think that the Church in general, and the Synod of Elvira in particular, wished to proscribe only a certain kind of images. Binterim 3 believes that this Synod forbade only one thing, — namely, that any one might hang images in the Church according to his fancy, and often therefore inad- missible ones. Aubespine thinks that our canon forbids only images representing God (because it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also- says colitur, and the prohibition is conceived in very general terms. 4 Can. 37. De cncrgumcnis non baptizatis. Eos qui ab immundis spiritibus vexantur, si in fine mortis fuerint constituti, baptizari placet : si fideles fuerint, dandam. 1 Cf. Nat. Alex. Eccles. Hist. sasc. iii. I.e. iv. 143. 2 Cf. the art. C'hristusbilder, by Dr. Hefele, in the Kirchenlexicon of Wetzer et Welte, Bd. ii. S. 519 f. * Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 436. 4 Cf. Nat. Alex. Eccles. Hist. saec. iii. l.c. iv. 141 sq., 145, nottu 152 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. esse communionem. Proliibendum etiam ne lucernas hi pub- lice accendant ; si facere contra interdictum voluerint, absti- neatur a communione. This canon, like the 29 th, speaks of demoniacs. If they are catechumens, they may be baptized when at the point of death (in articulo mortis), but not before that. If they are baptized, the communion may be administered to them when at the point of death, but not before. However, as the 29 th canon had before forbidden any ministry in the Church to demoniacs, ours particularly adds that they could not fulfil the least service in the Church, not even light the lamps. Perhaps it may have been the custom to have the lamps of the 'Church lighted by those who were to be baptized, or by those who were to communicate, on the day when they were to -receive this sacrament ; and the Synod forbids that demo- niacs should do so, even if, in spite of their illness, they were able to receive a sacrament. The inscription of the •canon does not correspond to its whole tenor. Can. 38. Ut in necessitate, et ficlclcs baptizent. Loco peregre navigantes aut si ecclesia proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet nee sit bigamus, baptizare in necessitate infirmitatis positum, cate- chumenum, ita ut si supervixerit ad episcopum eum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici possit. During a sea voyage, or in general, if no church is near, a layman who has not soiled his baptismal robe (by apostasy), and is not a bigamist, may baptize a catechumen who is at the point of death ; the bishop ought afterwards to lay hands on the newly baptized, to confirm him. 1 Can. 39. I)e gcntilibus si in cliscrimine laptizciri expetunt. Gentiles si in infirmitate desideraverint sibi manum im- poni, si fuerit eorum ex aliqua parte honesta vita, placuit eis manum imponi et fieri Christianos. This canon has been interpreted in two different ways. Binius, 2 Katerkamp, 3 and others, hold that the imposition of 1 Cf. what is said above on the baptism of heretics, p. 112. » In Mausi, ii. p. 40. 3 Kirchengeschichte, ii. S. 21. SYNOD OF ELVIRA- 153 liands spoken of in this canon does not mean confirmation, but a ceremony by means of which any one was admitted into the lowest class of catechumens. These interpreters appeal principally to the pretended seventh canon of the second (Ecumenical Council. 1 We there read: "We admit them only as pagans : the first day we make them Christians (in the widest sense) ; the second, catechumens ; the third, we exorcise them," etc. etc. According to that, our canon would say: "When a heathen, having a good name, desires during an illness that hands should be laid upon him, it ought to be done, that he may become a Christian." That is to say, he ought by the imposition of hands to be admitted among those who wish to be Christians, consequently among the Christians in the widest sense. The forty-fifth canon also takes the word catcchumenus as synonymous with Chris- tian. Besides, we find Constantine the Great received the imposition of hands at the baths of Helenopolis before his bap- tism : a ceremony of this kind then preceded the reception of the first sacrament. 2 Relying upon these considerations, the commentators we mentioned say that the canon of Elvira does not speak of baptism, because this could not be admi- nistered until after much longer trial. The provost of the Cathedral at Koln, Dr. Miinchen, gives another explanation in his dissertation upon the first Synod of Aries. 3 According to him, — a. As the thirty-seventh canon allows the baptism of demoniacs, it is not probable that they would be more severe with respect to ordinary sick persons in the thirty-ninth canon. On the contrary, the Church has always been tender towards the sick : she has always hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation ; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism. b. In the thirty-eighth canon the Church allows a layman to baptize one who should fall seriously ill during a sea voyage, but not to confirm him. She certainly, then, would 1 We shall prove, when the time comes, that this canon does not belong to the second (Ecumenical Council, but is a little more recent. • Of. below, sec. 52. » Bonner Zeitschnftfur Phllos. u. Kathol. Theologte, Heft 26, S. 80 L 154 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. allow this sick person to be confirmed if a bishop were pre- sent in the ship. c. As for one who should fall ill upon land, he could easily call a bishop to him ; and therefore the case foreseen by the thirty-eighth canon does not apply to him : it would be easy to confer baptism and confirmation on him. d. The thirty-ninth canon, then, means : " Whoso shall fall ill upon land, and who can summon a bishop to him, may receive baptism and confirmation at the same time." e. Understood in this way, the canon is more in unison with the two preceding, and with the practice of the ancient Church towards the sick. Cax. 40. Nc id quod idolothytum est fidclcs accipiant. Prohibere placuit, lit quum rationes suas accipiunt posses- sores, quidquid ad idolum datum fuerit, accepto non ferant ; si post interclictum fecerint, per quinquennii spatia temporum a communione esse arcendos. That is to say : When the proprietors of lands and houses receive their rents (rationes),— to? example, fruits from their farmers, who perhaps are still pagans,— they ought not to admit anything which had been sacrificed to the gods, under pain of five years' excommunication. Can. 41. Ut proliihccint domini idola colcre scrvis suis. Admoneri placuit fideles, ut in quantum possunt prohibeant ne idola in domibus suis habeant ; si vero vim metuunt ser- vorum, vel se ipsos puros conservent ; si non fecerint, alieni ab ecclesia habeantur. The preceding canon had shown that many Christians had farmers who were pagans; the present canon supposes the case of a Christian having heathen slaves, and it enacts : a. That he ought not, even in this case, to tolerate idols in his house. b. That if he cannot conform to this rule, and must fear the slaves on account of their number, he may leave them their idols ; but he must so much the more keep at a dis- tance from them, and watch against every approach to idolatry. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 1 5 Can. 42. Be Ms qui ad fid cm veniunt quando laptizentur. Eos qui ad primam fidem credulitatis accedunt, si bona? fuerint conversationis, intra biennium temporum placuit ad baptismi gratiam admitti debere, nisi infirmitate compellente coegerit ratio velocius subvenire periclitanti vel gratiam pos- tulanti. He who has a good name, and wishes to become a Chris- tian, must be a catechumen for two years : then he may be baptized. If he should fall ill, and desire the grace of bap- tism, it may be granted to him before the expiration of two years. Can. 43. Be cclcbrationc Pentccostcs. Pravam institutionem emendari placuit juxta auctoritatem Scripturarum, ut cuncti diem Pentecostes celebremus, ne si quis non fecerit, novam hasresim induxisse notetur. Some parts of Spain had allowed the bad custom of cele- brating the fortieth day after Easter, not the fiftieth ; conse- quently the Ascension of Christ, and not Pentecost. Several ancient manuscripts, indeed, contain this addition : non qua- dragesimam. 1 The same addition is found in an ancient abridcr- ment of the canons of Elvira, with which Mansi makes us acquainted : 2 post Paseha quinquagesima tenccdur, non quadra- gesima. We learn also from Cassian, that in the primitive Church some Christians wished to close the paschal season with the feast of the Ascension, that is, at the fortieth clay. They regarded all Easter-time only as a remembrance of Christ's sojourn among His disciples during the forty clays which followed His resurrection ; and therefore they wished to close this period with the feast of the Ascension. 3 Herbst supposes that a Montanist party in Spain wished to suppress the feast of Pentecost altogether, because the Montanists be- lieved that the Holy Spirit did not descend until He came in Montanus, 4 who was regarded by his followers as the Com- forter. 1 Mansi, I.e. p. 13 ; Brans, he. p. 7, not. 16 ; Mendoza in Mansi, he. p. 295. 2 I.e. p. 21 sq. 3 Cassian, Collat. xxi. c. 20 ; Mendoza in Mansi, i.e. p. 297. 4 Tubinrjer Quartalschri/t, 1821, S. 39 f. 155 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Can. 44. Be merctricibus paganis si convertantur. Meretrix quae aliquando fuerit et postea habuerit maritum, si postmodum ad credulitatem venerit; incunctanter placuit esse recipiendam. If a pagan courtezan has given up this abominable way of life, and is married, being still a pagan, there is no particular obstacle to her admission into the Church. She ought to be treated as other pagan women. Can. 45. Be catcchumenis qui ecclesiam non frcquentant Qui aliquando fuerit catechumenus et per infinita tempora nunquam ad ecclesiam accesserit, si eum de clero quisque ■cognoverit esse Christianum, aut testes aliqui extiterint fideles, placuit ei baptismum non negari, eo quod veterem hominem •dereliquisse videatur. The case is here imagined of a catechumen who has not been to church for a long time, probably because he did not wish to be known as a Christian during a time of persecution ; but afterwards his conscience awakes, and he asks to be bap- tized. The canon ordains that if he is known to the clergy ■of the Church to which he belongs, and they know him to be a Christian, i.e. a believer in Christ, or if some of the faithful •can attest this, he shall be admitted to baptism, because he appears to have put off the lukewarmness of the old man. Aubespine 1 gives another interpretation which appears forced, and shows that he most probably had not the text be- fore him. According to him, the meaning of the canon would be: "When a catechumen has fallen away for a long time, .and still after all desires baptism and to become a Chris- tian, if he should suddenly lose speech, for example, from illness (the canon says not a word of all that), he may be baptized, provided a clergyman or several of the laity attest that he has •desired baptism, and has become a real Christian." The Abbe Migne has placed this explanation in his Dictionary of the Councils? Can. 46. Be fidclibus si apostaverint quamdiu pceniteant. »Si quis fidelis apostata per infinita tempora ad ecclesiam 1 Iu Mansi, ii. 50. a I.e. p. S24. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 157 non accesserit, si tamen aliquando fuerit reversus nee fuerit idololator, post decern annos placuit communionem accipere. The sin of a Christian who should absent himself from church for a long time was naturally much greater than that of a catechumen. For this reason, the baptized Christian who has in fact apostatized is only received to the communion after a ten years' penance, and even then if he has not sacri- ficed to the gods. It appears to us that this canon alludes to the time of Diocletian's persecution ; for during that terrible time more than one cowardly Christian did not go to church, gave no sign of Christian life, and thus apostatized in fact, without positively offering sacrifice to the idols. Can. 47. De co qui iixorcm habens sccpius mcechatur. Si quis fidelis habens uxorem non semel sed saspe fuerit mcechatus in fine mortis est conveniendus : quod si se pro- miserit cessaturum, detur ei communio : si resuscitatus rursus fuerit mcechatus, placuit ulterius non ludere eum de com- munione pacis. If a Christian who is married, and has been often guilty of adultery, is near death, they must go to see him (est con- veniendus), and ask him whether, if he should recover, he promises to amend his ways. If he promises, the holy com- munion should be administered to him ; if he should recover,, and should again be guilty of adultery, the holy communion: must not be allowed to be thus despised, it must hence- forth be refused to him, even in articulo mortis. The sixty- ninth and seventy-eighth canons complete the meaning of this one. Can. 48. De ba/ptizcubis ut nihil accipiat clcrus. Emendari placuit ut hi qui baptizantur, ut fieri solebat, numos in concha non mittant, ne sacerdos quod gratis accepic pretio distrahere videatur. Neque pedes eorum lavandi sunt a. sacerdotibus vel clericis. This canon forbids at the same time two things relative to baptism : 1. It was the custom in Spain for the neophytes, at the time of their baptism, to put an offering into the shell which 158 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. had been used at the baptism. This offering, afterwards called the stole-rights, 1 was to be suppressed. 2. The second part of the canon shows that there was the same custom in certain parts of Spain as at Milan 2 and in .Gaul, 3 but which, from the testimony of St. Ambrose, did not exist at Borne, viz. that the bishop and clergy should wash the feet of the newly baptized when they left the baptismal font. Our Synod forbids this, and this canon has passed into the Corp. jur. can* Can. 49. Defnigibus ftddium nc a Judcvis bencdicantur. Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructus suos, quos a Deo percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a Jucheis bene- dici, ne nostram irritam et infirmam faciant benedictionem : si quis post interdictum fa cere usurpaverit, penitus ab ecclesia abjiciatur. The Jews were so numerous and so powerful in Spain during the first centuries of the Christian era, that they might at one time have hoped to be able to Juclaize the whole country. According to the monuments — which, however, are of doubtful authority — they established themselves in Spain in the time of King Solomon. 5 It is more likely that they crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only about a hundred years before Christ. There they soon increased in number and importance, and could energetically carry on their work of proselytizing. 6 This is the reason that the Synod of Elvira had to forbid to the priests and the laity all intimate intercourse with Jews (can. 50), and especially marriage (can. 16); for there is no doubt that at this period many Chris- tians of high rank in Spain became Jews, as Jost shows in his work. 7 1 Something like surplice-fees. — Ed. 2 Cf. Ambros. lib. iii. de Sacramentis, c. i. p. 302, vol. ii. ed. Bened. 8 Mabillon in Missalibus Gotldco et Gallicanoveteri. Cf. Ceillier, I.e. iii. 670, and Herbst in Tubhujer Quartcilsch. 1821, S. 40. i 4 C. 104, causa i. q. 1. 5 Jost, Gescluchte dcr Israel'den seit der Zeit der Maccabiier lis auf unscre Tarje, Berlin 1S25, Till. v. S. 13. 6 Jost, I.e. S. 17. . 1 I.e. S. 32-34. See Hcfele on Cardinal Ximenes, 2d ed. S. 236 it • SYXOD OF ELVIKA. 1 ."9 CAN. 50. Dc Christianis qui cum Judccis vcscuntur. Si vero quis clericus vel fidelis cum Judceis cibuin sump- serit, placuit eum a communione abstineri, ut debeat enien- dari. Cax. 51, Dc liccrcticis ut ad clerum non promoxcantur. Ex omni hseresi fidelis si venerit, minime est ad clerum promovendus : vel si qui sunt iu prseteritum ordinati, sine dubio deponantur. These canons are easy to understand. Cax. 52. De Ids qui in ccclesia libcllos famosos ponunt. Hi qui inventi fuerint libellos famosos in ecclesia ponere anatliematizentur. This canon forbids the affixing of satires (libcllos famosos 1 ) in churches, or the reading of them. It has been inserted iu the Corp. fur. can.' 2 Cax. 53. Dc cpiscopis qui excommunicato alicno communi- cant. Placuit cunctis ut ab eo episcopo quis recipiat conrniunio- nem a quo abstentus in crimine aliquo quis fuerit ; quod si alius episcopus pnesumpserit eum admitti, illo adhuc minime faciente vel consentiente a quo fuerit communione privatus, sciat se hujusmodi causas inter fratres esse cum status sui periculo praestaturum. One excommunicated by a bishop can only be restored by the bishop who condemned him. Another bishop receiving him into communion, unless the first bishop acts at the same time, or approves of the reconciliation, must answer for it be- fore his brethren, that is to say, before the provincial synod, and must run the danger of being deprived of his office {status). Cax. 54. Dc parcntibus qui fidcm sponsaliorum framgwnt. Si qui parcntes fidem fregerint sponsaliorum, triennii tem- pore abstineantur ; si tamen idem sponsus vel sponsa in gravi crimine fuerint deprehensi, erunt excusati parentes ; si in 1 Cf. Suetonius, Vita Octavii Aug. c. 55. 2 C. 3, causa v. q. 1. ICO HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. iisciem fuerit vitium et polluerint se, superior sententia ssr- vetur. If the parents of those who are betrothed fail to keep the promises made at the betrothal, these parents shall be ex- cluded from the communion for three years, unless either of the betrothed persons be convicted of a very serious fault. In this case, the parents may break the engagement. If the betrothed have sinned together, the first arrangement con- tinues ; that is, the parents cannot then separate them. This canon is found in the Corp. juris can} Cax. 55. Dc sacerdotibus gcntilium qui jam non sacrificant. Sacerdotes qui tantum coronas portant, nee sacrificant nee de suis sumptibus aliquid ad idola priestant, placuit post bien- nium accipere communionem. It may be asked whether the word sacerdotes is to be under- stood as referring to pagan priests who wished to be admitted as Christians, or to Christians who, as we have seen above (can. 2), still bore the office of jiamincs. Aubespine is of the latter opinion, and according to him the canon would have this meaning : " The Christian who bears the office of flamen, and wears the distinctive sign— that is, the crown— without having sacrificed himself, or having contributed money to pagan sacrifices, must be excluded from eucharistic com- munion for two years." Aubespine gives the two following reasons in support of his explanation : (a.) When a pagan priest wished to become a Christian, he was not kept longer or more strictly than others as a catechumen, even when he had himself offered sacrifice. (&.) If it had referred to a pagan priest wishing to become a Christian, the Synod would have said, placuit post liennium accipere lavacrum (baptism), and not accipere communionem. This latter expression is used only for those who have been excluded for some time from the Church, and are admitted afresh into her bosom. For our part, we think that this fifty-fifth canon is nothing but a complement of the second and third canons, and that it forms with them the following gradation :— Can. 2. Christians who, as famines, have sacrificed to idols 1 C. 1, causa xxxi. rj. 3. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 161 and given public pagan games, cannot receive the communion, even when at the point of death. Can. 3. If they have not offered sacrifices, but have had the games celebrated, they may communicate at the close of their life, after a previous penance. Can. 55. If they have not offered sacrifice, nor contributed by their fortune to pagan sacrifices (and to such public games), they may receive the communion after two years of penance. This gradation is continued in the two following canons, the fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh : they refer to Christians who have not been flamincs, but who have borne other offices in a heathen state, and so have been brought into relation with paganism. The fifty-fifth canon evidently alludes to a former and not far distant time of persecution, during which Christians feared to refuse the office of flamincs which fell to their lot, and by a half compliance wore the distinctive mark of their office, the crown, in order to pass uninjured through the time of perse- cution. Can. 56. Dc magistratibus ct duumviris. Magistratus vero uno anno quo agit duumviratum, prohi- bendum placet ut se ab ecclesia cohibeat. What the consuls were at Borne, the duumviri were, on a small scale, in the Roman municipalities : their office also lasted only a year. These duumviri were obliged, by virtue of their office, to watch over pagan priests personally, and the temples of the town ; they had to preside at public solemni- ties, in processions, etc., which, like all the other national feasts of the Romans, had always more or less a semi-religious and pagan character. For this reason the Synod forbade the duumviri to enter the Church as long as they were in office. In limiting itself to this prohibition, it gave proof of great moderation and of wise consideration, which we ought to ap- preciate. An absolute prohibition to hold this office would have given up the charge of the most important towns to pagans. But the Council is much more severe in the fol- lowing canon. 162 HISTOllY OF THE COUNCILS. Can. 57. Dc his qui vcstimcnta ad ornandam pcmpam dfde- runt. Matrons vel earum mariti vestimenta sua ad ornandam sseculariter pompam non dent ; et si fecerint, triennio absti- neantur. This canon is directed against Christians who should lend their garments for worldly shows, i.e. for public, half-heathen- ish religious processions. They are punished with three years of excommunication. But why are they treated so much more severely than the duumviri ? Because these men and women were not obliged to lend their attire, whilst the duumviri were fulfilling their public duty as citizens. Per- haps also some gave their garments, that they might not be suspected during the persecutions. Can. 58. Dc his qui communicatorias litteras porlant, ut de fide interrogentur. Placuit ubique et maxime in eo loco, in quo prima cathedra constituta est episcopatus, ut interrogentur hi qui communica- torias litteras tradunt an omnia recte habeant suo testimonio comprobata. In Africa no metropolitan rights were attached to particu- lar towns : they always belonged to the oldest bishop of the province, whose bishopric was then called prima sedes) Carthage only was the metropolitan see. It appears to have been the same in Spain before Constantine the Great divided that country into seven political provinces, which entailed the division into ecclesiastical provinces. This may explain why the Bishop of Acci presided at the Synod of Elvira : he was probably the oldest of all the bishops present. What is elsewhere called prima scdes in our canon is prima cathe- dra ; and the bishops of the prima cathedra were to question Christian travellers about their respective dioceses, the latter were to present their recommendatory letters, and were to be asked if they could affirm that all was in a satisfactory state. 1 Cf. De Marcti, de Primatlbus, p. 10, in the Appendix to the hook de Concor- dia sacerdotii et imperii, and Van Espen. Commentar. in canones et decrcta, p. 315. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 163 Can. 59. Be fidclibus ne ad Capitolium causa sacrificandi ascendant. Prohibendum ne quis Christianus ut gentilis ad idolum Capitolii causa sacrificandi ascendat et videat ; quod si fecerit, pari crimine teneatur : si fuerit fidelis, post decern annos acta pcenitentia recipiatur. Like Home, many municipalities had a capitol, in the court of which sacrifices were offered to the gods, and many Chris- tians were present at the ceremonies of the pagan worship. Was it from curiosity ? was it in order to shelter themselves from inquiry, not to be known during the persecution, and to pass for heathen ? This is what we are unable to decide. At any rate, the Synod declared that — a. Any Christian, either baptized or a catechumen, who should be present at the sacrifices, should be considered as having offered sacrifice himself. b. Consequently any Christian who has been present at these sacrifices should be excommunicated and a penitent for ten years. The Synod says nothing about the punishment of guilty catechumens : in every case they were in general punished less severely than the faithful, and perhaps the fourth canon was applied to them by analogy. Can. 60. Be his qui destruentcs idola occidunhcr. Si quis idola fregerit et ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in Evangelio scriptum non est neque invenietur sub apostolis unquam factum, placuit in numero eum non recipi martyrum. It happened sometimes that too zealous Christians would destroy the idols, and have to pay for their boldness with their life. The Synod decrees that they must not be considered as martyrs, for the gospel does not require deeds of this kind, and the apostles did not act in this way ; but they considered it praiseworthy if a Christian, whom they might wish to oblige to offer sacrifice to an idol, should overthrow the statue, and break it, as Prudentius Clemens relates with commendation of Eulalia, who suffered martyrdom in Spain in 304, and there- fore a short time previous to this Synod. 1 1 Prudentius Clemens, Peristeph. iii. in hon. Eulal'm, p. 211, ed. Obba. C£ Rninart, Ada Martyr, ed. Galura, iii. 69 sqq. 164 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Can. 61. De his qui cluabus sororibus copulantiur. Si quis post obitum uxoris suae sororem ejus duxerit et ipsa fiierit fidelis, quinquennium a communione placuit ab- stineri, nisi forte velocius dari pacem necessitas coegerit in- firmitatis. When S. Basil the Great ascended the archiepiscopal throne of Cresarea, he forbade that a husband, after the death of his wife, should marry her sister; and when some one, of the name of Diodorus, reproached him upon this subject, Basil defended himself in a letter, which has been preserved, and proved that such marriages had always been prohibited at Coasarea. 1 The Spanish Fathers of Elvira shared S. Basil's opinions, as also did the Synod of Neocsesarea of 314, can. 2. as we shall see hereafter. It is well known that, according to canon law, these marriages are both forbidden and declared to be invalid. 2 Can. 62. De aurigis el pantomimis si convertantur. Si auriga aut pantomimus credere voluerint, placuit ut prius artibus suis renuntient, et tunc demum suscipiantur, ita ut ulterius ad ea non revertantur, qui si facere contra interdictunx tentaverint, projiciantur ab ecclesia. The " Apostolical Constitutions" 3 contain the same decree. On the subject of the repugnance of the ancient Church for all these pantomimic scenes, cf. Hefele, " Eigorismus in dem Leben und den Ansichten der alten Christen" (Severity in the Lives and Opinions of the early Christians), an essay published in the Tiibinger Thcol. Quartalschrift, 1841 (S. 396 ff.). The following series of canons treats of carnal sins : — ■ Can. 63. De vxoribus qum filios ex adulterio necant. Si qua per adulterium absente marito suo conceperit, idque post facinus occiderit, placuit nee in finem dandam esse com- inunionem, eo quod geminaverit scelus. * S. Basilii Eplst. 160, Opp. iii. 249, ed. Bened. *C. 1 and 8, x., de Consanguinilate el affinitate (iv. 14). Cf. Condi. Trid sessio 24, cap. 4, de ref. matrim. 3 Lib. viii. c. l>2. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 165 Can. 64. De fccminis quaz usque ad mortem cum alicnis viris adulterant. Si qua usque in finem mortis sure cum alieno viro fuerit mcechata, placuit, nee in finem dandam ei esse communionem. Si vero eum reliquerit, post decern annos accipiat communionem acta legitima poenitentia. Can. 65. De adultcris uxorious clericorum. Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit mcechata et scierit earn maritus suus mcechari et non earn statim projecerit, nee in finem accipiat communionem, ne ab his qui exemplum bon?e con- versationis esse debent, ab eis videantur scelerum magisteria procedere. The Shcjrfierd of Hernias 1 had before, like this canon, strin- gently commanded not only the clergy, but all Christians, not to continue to live conjugally with an adulterous spouse, who would not amend her ways, but would persevere in sin. 2 Dr. Herbst says, that what made the sixty-fifth canon necessary was probably the very frequent case of married men having taken orders, and not being able to have conjugal intercourse with their wives, who were therefore on that very account easily tempted to forget themselves. 3 The series of canons against carnal sins is continued in the following, which forbids marriage with a daughter-in-law : — Can. 66. De his qui privignas snas ducunt. Si quis privignam suam duxerit uxorem, eo quod sit incestus placuit nee in finem dandam esse communionem. Can. 67. De covjugio catechumence fcemince. Prohibendum ne qua fidelis vel catechumena aut comatos ant viros cinerarios habeant: qurecumque hoc fecerint, a com- munione arceantur. If we attach any importance to the title of this canon, it must be thought to indicate that Christian women, whether catechumens or baptized, were forbidden to marry those desi o 1 Lib. ii. mandat. iv. 8 See Hefele's ed. Opp. Patrum apostolicorum, p. 353, ed. 3. s Quarialschrift, 1821, S. 43. 1G6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. nated by the name of comatos and cinerarios. In other manu- scripts we read comicos and scenicos. If the latter reading ia the true one, the meaning of the canon is very clear — "A Christian woman must not marry an actor ; " and this prohibi- tion would explain the aversion of the ancient Church to the theatre, which has been before mentioned. But it is probable that, not having been able to find out the meaning of the words comati and cinerarii, later copyists have altered them, and changed them into comici and scenici. Imagining that here was a prohibition of marriage, they could not understand why a Christian woman was not to many a man having long hair, or even a hairdresser. We believe that Aubespine is right when he reminds us that many pagan women had foreign slaves, and especially hairdressers, in their service, who mi- nistered not only to the needs of luxury, but to the secret satisfaction of their passions. Perhaps these effeminate slaves ■ — these sjjadoncs — encouraging the licentiousness of their mistresses, wore long hair, or, coming from foreign countries — for instance, from Gallia comata — where long hair was always worn, they introduce d this name of comati. Tertullian speaks of the cinerarii {'percgrincc proccritatis), and describes them as foreigners, with slight figures, and forming part of the suite of a woman of the world. 1 He mentions them in connection with the spadones, who were ad licentiam secti, or, as S. Jerome says, in sccuram libidincm exsccti." Juvenal 3 has not forgotten to signalize these relations of Roman women with eunuchs : " Sunt, quas eunuchi imbelles et mollia semper Oscula delectent." Martial 4 denounces them, if possible, still more energetically. Perhaps these eunuchs Avore long hair like women in order that they might be called comati. Let us finally remark, that in the Glossary cinerarias is translated by SovXos iraipwi. 5 If this second explanation of the sixty-seventh canon is accepted, it can be easily imagined why it should be placed in a series of canons treating ol carnal sins. 1 Tertull. Ad Uxor. lib. 2, c. 8. > Hieron. Adv. Jovinia?i. lib. i. § 47, p. 277, vol. ii. ed. Migne. s Sat. vi. v. 366 sq. 4 hphjram. lib. vi. n. 67. * Cf. Index Lalinilatis Tertull in the ed. of Tertull. by Migne, ii. 1271. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 167 Can. 68. De catcclmmena adultcra qucv Jllium nccat. Catechumena, si per adulterium concepeiit et prrefocaverit, placuit earn in fine baptizari. If a catechumen should conceive by an adulterer, and should procure the death of the child, she can be baptized only at the end of her life. Can. 69. De viris covjugatis postea in adulterium lajJsis. Si quis forte habens uxorem semel fuerit lapsus, placuit eum quinquennium agere debere pcenitentiam et sic reconciliari, nisi necessitas infirmitatis coegerit ante tempus dari commu- nionem : hoc et circa fceminas observandum. Adultery committed once was punishable with five years of penance. 1 Can. 70. Dc fceminis quce consciis mantis adulterant. Si cum conscientia mariti uxor fuerit mcechata, placuit nee in finem dandam ei communionem ; si vero earn reliquerit, post decern annos accipiat communionem, si earn cum sciret adulteram aliquo tempore in domo sua retinuit. If a woman should violate conjugal fidelity with her hus- band's consent, the latter must not be admitted to communion, even at the end of his life. If he separated from his wife, after having lived with her at all since the sin was committed, he was to be excluded for ten years. Can. 71. Dc stwpratoribus puerorum. Stupratoribus puerorum nee in finem dandam esse com- munionem. Sodomites could not be admitted to communion, even on their deathbeds. Can. 72. De viduis mcechis si eumdem postea maritum duxcrint. Si qua vidua fuerit mcechata et eumdem postea habuerit maritum, post quinquennii tempus acta legitima pcenitentia, placuit earn communioni reconciliari : si alium duxerit relicto illo, nee in finem dandam esse communionem ; vei si i'uerit 1 Cf. can. 47, 78. 168 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. ille fidelis quern accepit, communionem non accipiet, nisi post decern annos acta legitima pcenitentia, vel si infirmitas coegerit velocius dari communionem. When a widow had sinned, and had married her accomplice, she was condemned to five years of penance ; if she should marry another man, she could never be admitted to com- munion, even on her deathbed ; and if her husband were bap- tized, he was subject to a penance for ten years, for having married a woman who, properly speaking, was no longer free. This canon was inserted in the Corp. jut. can} The following canons treat of informers and false witnesses. Can. 73. De dclatoriuus. Delator si quis extiterit fidelis, et per delationem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus vel interfectus, placuit eum nee in finem accipere communionem ; si levior causa fuerit, intra quin- quennium accipere poterit communionem ; si catechumenus fuerit, post quinquennii tempora admittetur ad baptismurn. This canon has been inserted in the Corp. jur. can? Can. 74. De falsis tcstibus. Falsus testis prout est crimen abstinebitur ; si tamen non fuerit mortale quod objecit, et probaverit quod non (other manuscripts have cliu) tacuerit, biennii tempore abstinebitur: si autem non probaverit convento clero, placuit per quinquen- nium abstineri. A false witness must be excluded from the communion for a time proportionate to the crime of which he has given false witness. Should the crime be one not punishable with death, and if the guilty one can demonstrate that he kept silence for a long time (cliu), that is, that he did not willingly bear witness, he shall be condemned to two years of penance ; if he cannot prove this, to five years. The canon is thus ex- plained by Mendoza, Eemi Ceillier in Migne's Dictionarij, etc., all preferring the reading cliu. Burchard 3 had previously read and quoted the canon with this variation, in his Col- lectio canonum} But Aubespine divides it into three quite 1 C. 7, causa "xxxi. q. I. 2 C. 6, causa v. q. 6. 3 He died iu 1025. 4 Lib. xvi. c. 18. Cf. Mendoz.1 in Mansi, ii. 3S1. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 1G9 distinct parts. The first, he says, treats of false, witnesses ; the second, of those who are too slow in denouncing a crime. They must be punished, but only by two years of penance, if they can prove that they have not (non) kept silence to the end. The third condemns those to five years of penance, who, without having borne false witness, still cannot prove what they affirm. 1 We confess that none of these explanations is quite satis- factory : the first would be the most easily admissible ; but it is hardly possible to reconcile it with the reading non tacuerit, which, however, is that of the best manuscripts. Can. 75. De his qui saccrdotes vol ministros accusant ncc prdbant. Si quis autem episcopum vel presbyterum vel diaconum falsis criminibus appetierit et probare non potuerit, nee in finem dandam ei esse communionem. Can. 76. De diaconibus si ante IiGnorcm pcccassc jjrobantur. Si quis diaconum se permiserit orclinari et postea fuerit detectus in crimine mortis quod aliquando commiserit, si sponte fuerit confessus, placuit eum acta legitima pcenitentia post triennium accipere communionem ; quod si alius eum de- texerit, post quinquennium acta pcenitentia accipere commu- nionem laicam debere. If any one should succeed in being ordained deacon, and it should be subsequently discovered that he had before that committed a mortal sin : a. In case he was the first to make known his fault, he must be received into communion (as a layman) at the end of three years of penance. b. In case his sin was discovered by another, at the end of five years. In both cases he was for ever suspended from his office of deacon. 2 Can. 77. De baptizatis qui nondum confirmati moriuntur. Si quis diaconus regens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus cos per benedictionem perficere 1 In Mansi, ii. 53. * Cf. canons 9, 10, and c. 2 of the Nicene Council. 170 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. debebit : quod si ante de sceculo recesserint, sub fide qua quis credidit poterit esse Justus. When Christianity spread from the large towns, where it had been at first established, into the country, the rural churches at first formed only one parish with the cathedral church of the town. Either priests, or Chorcpiscopi, or simple deacons, were sent to these rural assemblies, to exercise, within certain limits, the ministerial power. The solemnity of con- secrating the Eucharist, and all that had reference to penance, was reserved for the bishop of the town. The 77th canon refers to such deacons, and it ordains : a. That baptism administered by the deacon ought to be completed, finished by the bishop's benediction (that is to say, by 'xeipoTovla, or confirmation). 6. That if one who had been baptized by a deacon should die before having received this benediction from the bishop, he may notwithstanding be saved, by virtue of the faith which he professed on receiving baptism. Can. 78. Be fidelities conjugatis si cum Judcca xel gentili mccchatce (i) fuerint. Si quis fidelis habens uxorern cum Judsea vel gentili fuerit mcechatus, a communione arceatur : quod si alius eum de- texerit, post quinquennium acta legitima pcenitentia poterit dominicse sociari communioni. The 47th and 69th canons have already treated of adultery between Christians : the present canon speaks of a particular case of adultery committed with a Jewish or pagan woman, and decrees a penance of five years if the guilty one has not confessed himself. If he has made a spontaneous confession, the canon only gives this vague and general command, Arcea- tur, that is, that he should be excommunicated, but it does not say for how long a time : it might be supposed for three years, according to the analogy with the 76 th canon. 1 How- ever, it would be strange that adultery with a Jewish or pagan woman should be punished only by three years of penance, while the 69 th canon decrees, in a general way, five years' punishment to every adulterer. It is still more difficult to 1 This is the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 3S8. SYNOD OF ELVIRA. 171 explain why real adultery should be less severely punished in the 78 th canon than the evidently less criminal offence of a widow with a man whom she afterwards marries. 1 Can. 79. De his qui tabulam luclunt. Si quis fidelis aleam, id est tabulam, luserit numis, pla- cuit eum abstineri; et si emendatus cessaverit, post annum poterit communioni reconciliari. The thimbles of the ancients had not any points or figures upon their sides (tabula), like ours, but drawings, pictures of idols ; and whoever threw the picture of Venus, gained all, as Augustus says in Suetonius : 2 quos tollcbat universos, qui Venerem jcccrat. It is on this account that the ancient Chris- tians considered the game of thimbles to be not only immoral as a game of chance, but as having an essentially pagan character. 3 Can. 80. De lihcrtis. Prohibendum ut libcrti, quorum patroni in sseculo fuerint, ad clerum non promoveantur. He who should give a slave his freedom remained his patron ; he had certain rights and a certain influence over him. The freedman continued to be dependent upon his former master ; for this reason freedmen whose patrons were heathens could not take orders. This canon was placed in the Corp. jur. can.* Can. 81. Dc fceminavum cpistolis. Ne foemime suo potius absque maritorum nominibus laicis scribere audeant, qua3 (qui) fideles sunt vel literas alicujus pacificas ad suum solum nomen scriptas accipiant. II we should read qui instead of qum, as Mendoza makes it, on the authority of several manuscripts, our canon is easy to understand. It then divides itself into two parts : a. Women must not write in their own name to lay Chris- 1 Cf. 72d canon. - In Augusto, c. 71. 3 Cf. the document de Aleatorlhus, wrongly attributed to S. Cyprian, ed. of the works of this Father by the Ben. of S. Jlaur, Supplement, p. xviii. sq. • * C. 24, (list. liv. 172 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. tians, laicis qui fidclcs sunt ; they may do so only in the name of their husbands. b. They must not receive letters of friendship (pacificas) from any one, addressed only to themselves. Mendoza thinks that the canon means only private letters, and that it is for- bidden in the interests of conjugal fidelity. Aubespine gives quite another sense to the word littcras : he supposes that the Council wishes only to forbid the wives of bishops giving littcras communicatorias to Christian travellers in their own name, and that it also forbids them to receive such addressed to them instead of to their husbands. 1 If we read qucc, we must attach the words qua; fidclcs sunt to fcemincc. and the meaning continues on the whole the same. Besides these eighty-one authentic canons, some others are attributed to the Council of Elvira : for instance, in the Corp. jur. can. (c. 17, causa xxii. q. 4; also c. 21, dist. ii. dc consc- crat., and c. 15, causa xxii. q. 5), there is evidently a mistake about some of these canons, which, as Mendoza and Cardinal d'Aguirre have remarked, 2 belong to a Synodus Hclibcrnensis or Hibernensis. z We will remark finally, that whilst Baronius thinks little of the Synod of Elvira, which he wrongfully sus- pects of aSTovatian opinions, 4 Mendoza and Xatalis Alexander defend it eloquently. 5 Sec. 14. Origin of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first Synods held on this account in 312 and 313. The schism of the Donatists occasioned several synods at the beginning of the fourth century. Mensurius was bishop of Carthage during Diocletian's persecution. He was a worthy and serious man, who on the one side encouraged the faithful to courage and energy during the persecution, but on the other side strongly reproved any step which could increase the 1 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 391 ; Aubespine, ibid. p. 55. 2 I.e. p. 85. 3 These additional canons are found in Mansi, ii. 19, 20. Cf. also the two notes. 4 See above, p. 134. 6 Mendoza in Mansi, I.e. ii. 76 sq., and in many places where he is explain- ing particular canons. Natal. Alex. UisL Eccl. saec. 3, vol. iv. disseit. xxi. art. 2, p. 139 sqq. SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 173 irritation of the heathen. He especially blamed certain Chris- tians of Carthage, who had denounced themselves to the heathen authorities as possessors of sacred books (even when this was not really the case), in order to obtain martyrdom by their refusal to give up the Holy Scriptures. Nor would he grant the honours of martyrdom to those who, after a licentious life, should court martyrdom without being morally improved. 1 AVe see, by a letter of Mensurius, how he himself behaved during the persecution. He relates, that when they required the sacred books from him, he hid them, leaving in the church only heretical books, which were taken away by the persecutors. The proconsul had soon discovered this cunning ; but, however, did not wish to pursue Mensurius further. 2 Many enemies of the bishop, especially Donatus Bishop of Casse-Nigrre in Numidia, falsely interpreted what had passed : they pretended that Mensurius had, in fact, delivered up the Holy Scriptures ; 3 that, at any rate, he had told a sinful false- hood ; and they began to excite disturbance in the Church ot Carthage. 4 However, these troubles did not take the form of a miserable schism till after the death of Mensurius. A deacon named Felix, being persecuted by the heathen, took refuge in the house of Bishop Mensurius. As the latter refused to give him up, he was taken to Borne, to answer in person for his resistance before Maxentius, who since Diocle- tian's abdication had possessed himself of the imperial power in Italy and in Africa. Mensurius succeeded in obtaining an acquittal ; but he died on the way back to Carthage, and before arriving there, in 3 ll. 5 Two celebrated priests of Carthage, Botrus and Celestius, aspired to the vacant throne, and thought it their interest to invite to the election and ordination of the future bishop only the neighbouring prelates, and not those of Xumidia. It is doubtful whether this was quite according to order. Inasmuch as Kumidia formed a separate ecclesiastical 1 August. Breviculus collationls cum Donatistis, dieiiii. cap. 13, n. 25. Opp. vol. ix. p. 638, ed. Migne. Dupin in his ed. of Optatus of Milevis, de Sckismate DoncUist., Antwerp 1702, p. 174. * August. I.e. 3 Cf. the article de Lapsis, by Hefole, in the Frdhurger Kirchenlcxicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. i. S. 39. 4 August. I.e. c. 12 and 13. 6 Optat. de Schism. Don. i. 17. ! 174 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. province, distinct from the province of proconsular Africa, of which Carthage was the metropolis, the bishops of Numidia had no right to take part in the election of a Bishop of Carthage. But as the metropolitan (or, according to African language, the primate) of Carthage was in some sort the patriarch of the whole Latin Church of Africa ; and as, on this account, Numidia was under his jurisdiction, 1 the bishops of Numidia might take part in the appointment of a Bishop of Carthage. On the other side, the Donatists were completely in the wrong, when subsequently they pretended that the primate of Car- thage ought to be consecrated by that metropolitan whose rank was the nearest to his own (primas, or prima? sedis episcopus or scncx) ; consequently the new Bishop of Carthage ought to have been consecrated by Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, then metropolitan (Primas) of Numidia : 2 and it is with reason that S. Augustine replied to them in the name of the whole African episcopate, during a conference held at Carthage in 411, that even the Bishop of Rome was not consecrated by the primate nearest to him in rank, but by the Bishop of Ostia. 3 The two priests mentioned above found themselves deceived at the time of the election, which took place at Carthage : for the people, putting them on one side, elected Cccilian, who had been archdeacon under Mensurius ; and Felix Bishop of Aptunga, suffragan of Carthage, consecrated him immediately. 4 The consecration was hardly ended, when some priests and some of the laity of Carthage resolved to unite their efforts to ruin the new bishop. On his departure for Eome, Mensurius had confided the treasures of his church to the care of some Christians : at the same time he had given the list of every- thing entrusted to them into the hands of a pious woman, char trpotrcpepeiv he avrovs i) opuXelv i) o\(os Xeirovpyelv ti twv iepaTiKwv Xeirovp'yiwv /lit) e^elvat." '•' Priests who sacrificed (during the persecution), but after- wards repenting, resumed the combat not only in appearance, but in reality, shall continue to enjoy the honours of their office, but they may neither sacrifice or preach, nor fulfil any priestly office." In this translation we have left out a great incidental pro- position (from /mj)T€ TrpoKaTaaicevdaavTas to irpoaa^d^vai), be- 1 In Mansi, I.e. p. 539 ; Hard. v. 1499. 2 We find the Greek text of the canons of Ancyra, together with the olcL Latin translations by Dionysius the Less and Isidore, in Hardouin, i. 271, and Mansi, ii. 514 sqq. In Mansi there is also a more accurate transla- tion by Gentianus Hervetus. The Greek text is also found in the mediaeval! Greek commentaries of Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus, quoted by Beveridge, Synodicon, seu Pandsclce canon. (Oxon. 1672), i. 375 sq. The Greek text of the. canons of Ancyra is also to be found in Brans, Biblioth. Eccl. i. 66 sqq. Bouth has published it in his Reliquice sacrcc, iii. 405 sqq., with notes of his own, and of others, particularly those of Beveridge and Justell. We give here- the ordinary text, and place the most important readings of Kouth in brackets.. The canons of Ancyra have also been commented upon by Van Espen, C<\m- mentar. in canones et decreta (Colon. 1755), p. 107 sq., and by Herbst in the Tiibinger QuartaUchrift of 1821, S. 413 s^. 202 HISTORY OF THE COUXCIL& cause to be understood it requires some previous explanations Certain priests who had sacrificed to idols, wishing to be re- stored to favour, performed a sort of farce to deceive the bishop and the faithful. They bribed some officers and their subordinates, then presented themselves before them as Chris- tians, and pretended to submit to all kinds of tortures, which were not really, but only apparently applied to them, accord- ing to the plan which had been previously arranged. The Council also says : " Without having made any arrangements, and without its being understood and agreed that they should appear to submit to tortures which were only to be apparently inflicted on them." It was quite justifiable, and in accordance with the ancient and severe discipline of the Church, when this Synod no longer allowed priests, even when sincerely penitent, to discharge priestly functions. It was for this same reason that the two Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides were deposed, and that the judgment given against them was confirmed in 254 by an African synod held under S. Cyprian. 1 The first canon, together with the second and third, was inserted in the Corjms juris can? Can. 2. AiaKovovs o/Wco? Ovaavra^, p,era Be ravra avairaKaLaavra^ rt]V [iev aXkr}v rip.i)v e^eiv, ireiravaOai he avrovs iraari^ t?}? iepfc Xenovpytwi, tj}? re tov aprov ?} iroTi'ipiov ava$epeiv ?) K7]pvaaeLV, el fievroi. rwh twv eTUGKQ'nwv tovtols avvihotev ica- fiarov Tiva r) Tcnreivcocriv 7T/aaoT??TOTa ft lav ififiaWovTcov twv fiia^ojxevwv i) fipwfxd rt 77-009 avdyfCTjv Be^a/xivov;, ofiokojovvra^ Be Bio\ov otl elal Xpia- Tiavol, teal to irevdos tov crv/x(3dvTO<; del eTTiBeucvvfievovs Tjj izdajr Kcnacnokfi koX tu> cr^p-aTi teal ttj tov J31ov TaireivoTriTi' tovtov? co]i'af tovto Be o/jlolu><; eirl re twv €K rov K.\i)pov tcai twv tlWaiv Xa'i/cwv, Trpoae^rdadr] Be Ka/celvo, el Bvvavrca koli Xac/col rfj avrfj dvdytcr] vTroTrecrovTes irpoadyeadau eh Tu^tv eBo^ev ovv teal tovtovs &k /xrjBev rjfj.aprTjKaras, el teal i) rrpokafiovo-a evpiaicciro 6p6)j tov fiiov iro\iTela : 7rpo%eipL- ^eaOai. " Those who fled before persecution, but were caught, or were betrayed by those of their own houses, or in any othei way, who have borne with resignation the confiscation of their property, tortures, and imprisonment, declaring themselves to be Christians, but who have subsequently been vanquished, whether their oppressors have by force put incense into their hands, or have compelled them to take in their mouth the meat offered to idols, and who, in spite of this, have perse- vered in avowing themselves Christians, and have evinced their sorrow for what had befallen them by their dejection and humility, — such, not having committed any fault, are not to be deprived of the communion of the Church ; and if they have been so treated by the over-severity or ignorance of their bishop, they are immediately to be reinstated. This applies equally to the clergy and to the laity. In the same way it was to be inquired if the laity, to whom violence has been used (that is to say, who have been physically obliged to sacrifice), might be promoted to the ministry (ra'^9, ordo) ; and it was decreed that, not having committed any fault (in the case of these sacrifices), they might be elected, provided their former life was found to be consistent." The meaning of this canon is clear : " Physical constraint relieves from responsibility." That there had been physical constraint was proved in the following ways : — (a.) By the previous endurance with which they had borne confiscation, tortures, and imprisonment. SYNOD OF AKCYEA. 205 (j3.) By this, that during their sufferings they had always declared themselves Christians. Among the expressions of this canon the word nvepicr^icr- Oevras of the tcxtus vulgatus presents the chief difficulties. Zonaras translates it thus : " If their clothes have been torn from their bodies :" for TrepiayjXp means to tear away, and with tlvcl to tear off the clothes from any one. But the true reading is irepia-^eOevTa^, which Bouth has found in three mss. in the Bodleian Library, 1 and which harmonizes the best with the versions of Dionysius the Less and of Isidore. 2 We have used this reading (jrepLa^eOevTa'i) in our translation of the canon ; for irepie-^a) means to surround, to conquer, to subdue. Can. 4. Tlepl itov 77/90? (3iav Ouadvrcov, eVi. Se tovtol<; /cal rcov ZenrvrjadvTCdv eh to, e'tScoXa, octol pbev uTrajo/xevoc teal a^fxart aew<; rpierrj %povov, ^wpl? Trpoo~$>opa<; Se^0/)T(oaav' el Se fii] ecjiayov, Bvo VTroTreaoines err) ru> rpirw Koivoivrjcrcnwaav %6)/?i? Trpoctfiopas, iva to reXeiov rfj rerpaerla \d{3(i)v /3/o? kcu o fiera ravra i^era^iadco, nai oi/rw? ?} (pi\av0pa)7ria i r mp.eTpeta6w>. " Nevertheless, those who have appeared there (that is, at the feast of the sacrifices) in mourning habits, who have been full of grief during the repast, and have wept during the whole time of the feast, shall be three years amongst the siibstrati, and then be admitted, without taking part in the offering ; but if they have not eaten (and have merely been present at the feast), they are to be siibstrati "for two years, and the third year they shall take part in the offering (in the degree of the consistcntcs, Gvaraai^), so as to receive the complement (the holy communion) in the fourth year. The bishops shall have the power, after having tried the conduct of each, to mitigate the penalties, or to extend the time of penitence ; buc they must take care to inquire what has passed before and after their fall, and their clemency must be exercised accordingly." We may see that this canon is closely allied to the pre- ceding one, and that the one explains the other : there only remains some obscurity arising from the expression %&>pt? Trpoo-cpopas. Aubespine thought that there is here a reference to the offerings which were presented by penitents, in the hope of obtaining mercy ; but Suicer remarks 1 that it is not so, and that the reference here is certainly to those offerings which are presented by the faithful during the sacrifice (at the offertory). According to Suicer, the meaning of the canon would be : " They may take part in divine worship, but not actively ;" that is, " they may mingle their offerings with those of the faithful :" which corresponds with the fourth or last degree of penitence. But as those who cannot present their offerings during the sacrifice are excluded from the communion, the complete meaning of this canon is ; " They may be present at divine service, but may neither offer nor communicate with the faithful." Consequently %wpt5 Trpoa$opa<; also comprises 1 Thesaurus, s.v. rrpotqiofa. SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 207 the exclusion from the communion ; but it does not follow from this that irpoa^opa means the sacrament of the altar, as Herbst and Eouth have erroneously supposed. The eucharistic service has, we know, two parts : it is, in the first place, a sacrifice ; and then, as a reception of the Lord's Supper, it is a sacrament. And the whole act may be called irpoajjopd ; but the mere reception of the communion cannot be called irpoafyopd} The canon does not clearly point out the time during which penitents were to remain in the fourth degree of penitence, except in the case of those who had not actually eaten of the sacrificed meats. It says, that at the end of a year they could be received in full, that is to say, at the eucha- ristic table. The time of penitence is not fixed for those who had actually eaten the sacrificed meats : perhaps it was also a year ; or it may be they were treated according to the fourth, canon, that is to say, reduced for two years to the fourth degree of penitence. The penitents of the fifth canon, less culpable than those of the fourth, are not, as the latter, condemned to the second degree of penitence. Can. 6. ITepl twv direCkfj piovov el^dvrcou KoXdcreoo? icat, acfiai peered)*; virapyovTWV rj pLeroiKias icai OvcrdvTcov tcai p-e^pi tov irapovTOS icaipov (Mr) fieravorjcrdpTcov p,rj8e lirLarpe-^rdvTwv, vvv Se irapa tov Kaiphv t^5 avvoSov irpoae\6ovT(x>v icai els htavoiav ttj? eVt- (TTpocprjs yevoptivcov, eSo^e p^e-^pt T ^ ^y^V^ VP^epas els d/cpoacriv Be^dfjvai, teal p,era ttjv pbeyaXriv rjp,epav viroirecrelv Tpla err] teal p,erd dXKa Svo err/ /coivoovrjacu %«/)i9 irpoacpopas, teal ovtcos e\9elv eirl to Tekeiov, wcttc ti]v Trciaav e^aeTiav 7r\i]pojaar el Be Ttves irpb tt} he^Orjvat,. "As to those who yielded on the mere threat of punish- ment, or of the confiscation of their property, or of exile, and who have sacrificed, and to this day have not repented or returned, but who on the occasion of this Synod have repented, and shall resolve to return, it is decreed, that until the great feast 1 Cf. further on, can. 16. 208 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. (Easter) tliey shall be admitted to the degree of auclicntcs ; that they shall after the great feast be substrati for three years ; then that they shall be admitted, but without taking part in the sacrifice for two years, and that then only they shall be admitted to the full service (to the communion), so that the whole time will be six years. For those who have been admitted to a course of penitence previous to this Synod, the six years will be allowed to date from the moment of its commencement. If they were exposed to any danger, or threatened with death following any illness, or if there was any other important reason, they should be admitted, con- formably to the present prescription (ppos)." The meaning of the last phrase of the canon is, that if the sick regain their health, they will perforin their penance, according to what is prescribed. Zonaras thus very clearly explains this passage. 1 This canon is made intelligible by the two preceding. A similar decision is given in the eleventh Nicene canon. As wt have previously remarked (sec. 16), there is a chro- nological signification in the expression " till the next Easter," compared with that of " the six years shall be accomplished." According to the thirty-sixth (thirty-eighth) apostolic canon, a synod was to be held annually in the fourth week after Easter. If, then, a penitent repented at the time of the synod, and remained among the auclicntes till the next Easter, he had ■done penance for nearly a year. And adding three years for the degree of the substratio, and two for the last degree, the six years were completed. It is then with good reason that w r e have deduced from the sixth canon that the Council of Ancyra was held shortly after Easter, and very probably in the fourth week after this feast, that is, in the time prescribed by the apostolic canons. 2 Can. V. TIepi rcov GvveariaOevTwv ev eoprrj edvLtcf) ev tottw acfrcopicr- fxevcp Tot? eOvacois, IBia /3pcofx,ara e7rLKo/xtaa/u,ivcov icaX (payovrcov, ■eSotje Bterlav VTroTreaovTas Be^6i)vai,' To Be el %pj] fiera rf) ej38op.(p TeAe/co? Be^O/jroaav. " Those who, being compelled, have sacrificed two or three times, shall remain substrati for four years ; they shall take part in the worship, without presenting any offering, for two years (as consistcntcs of the fourth degree) ; the seventh they shall be admitted to the communion." 1 1 Cor. viii. O 21.0: history cf the councils. Can. 9. "Oaoi Se fxi] fJLOvov a7reo~Trjcrav aXXa tcai eiraveaTrjaav teat rjvdjKacrav dSs\(pov<; /cal ainoi iyevovTO tov dvaytcacrdrivai, ovtol €ttj fiev Tpta tov T>)? aKpodaecos he^dadcoaav Tcnrov, iv Be aWy k^aerla tov tj}? viroTTjoiaeoi^, aWov Be iviavTov KOLvoiv^aaTwaav ycooi? Trpoacpopas, i'va tijv Se/iaerlav ifki-jpooaavTe^ tov reXeiov ixeTaayodcnv iv jxevTot tovtw tu> %povcp teal tov IiWov avTcov iTTLTiipelaOat (3iov. " Those who have not only apostatized, but have become the enemies of their brethren, and have compelled them (to apostasy), or have been the cause of the constraint put upon them, shall remain for three years among the audicntcs (second degree), then six years with the suhstrati ; they shall then take part in the worship, without offering (in cpiality of con- sistcntes), for one year ; and not until the expiration of ten years shall they receive full communion (the holy Eucharist). Their conduct during all this time shall also be watched." 1 Can. l(f. Aiglkovoi boot KaQlaTavTcu, Trap avTijv ti)v kcltuo-tclo-iv et epapTvpavTO Kal efyaaav y^p?)vai 7n]aavTe diaKOVLai. " If deacons, at the time of their appointment (election), declare that they must marry, and that they cannot lead a celibate life, and if accordingly they marry, they may continue in their ministry, because the bishop (at the time of their institution) gave them leave to marry ; but if at the time of their election they have not spoken, and have agreed in taking holy orders to lead a celibate life, and if later they marry, they shall lose their diaconate." This canon has been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici? 1 Cf. the observations on the fourth canon. . 2 C. 8, (list. 28. Cf. Van Espen, Comment. I.e. \\ 112; Herbst, Tuhlnger Quartalsclirlft, 1821, S. 423, and our observations on the history of Papknutiua at the Council of Nicse3. SYNOD OF ANCYEA. 211 Can. 11. Ta$ fiv)]arev9etaa<; Kopas koX /jlcto, ravia vtt ciXkwv dpira- 7et'cra? eSo£ei> arrohiZoaOaL to?? 7i-po/j.V7]aT€vo~a/j,evoi<;, el kcli (Slav inr aurcov iraQotev. " Damsels who are betrothed, who are afterwards carried off by others, shall be given back to those to whom they are betrothed, even when they have been treated with violence." This canon treats only of betrothed women (by the sponsalia cle futuro), not of those who are married (by the sponsalia dc p-cescnti). In the case of the latter there would be no doubt as to the duty of restitution. The man who was betrothed was, moreover, at liberty to receive his affianced bride who had been carried off, or not. It was thus that S. Basil had already decided in canon 22 of his canonical letter to Amphi- lochius. 1 Can. 12. Toi><; irpo tou {3a7TTicr[MiT0<; reOu/coras /ecu fiera raura ficnrTta- flevrwi eSo^ev eh rd^iv TrpodjeaOac w? a.7io\ovcrapLivov<;. " Those who have sacrificed to the gods before their bap- tism, and who have afterwards been baptized, may be promoted to holy orders, as (by baptism) they are purified from all their former sins." This canon does not speak generally of all those who sacri- ficed before baptism ; for if a heathen sacrificed before having embraced Christianity, he certainly could not be reproached for it after his admission. It was quite a different case with a catechumen, who had already declared for Christianity, but who during the persecution had lost courage, and sacrificed. In this case it might be asked whether he could still be ad- mitted to the priesthood. The Council decided that a baptized catechumen could afterwards be promoted to holy orders. 2 The fourteenth canon of Nicrea also speaks of the catechu- mens who have committed the same fault. Can. 13. Xa)pe7riaK07rov 7roAeeo?, %eo/3t kclvovi, ireiravaQai €Lvrov KvpiaKoJ, oua eirLa-Kcirov fxrj 01/T09 Trpecrfiv-epoi eiroSXrjaav, avaficCXelaBai, (avaKaXeladaC) to Kvpiamv, ev Be rfj Kpicei rod eiriGKOTTOv elvai, eXirep irpoai]Ket aTroXafielv tijv Tip,rjv etVe teal /xj), Bid to woXXd/a? Tr t v elaoBov (yrpocroBov) t&v Treirpapevwv aTToZeBwicevcLi avTols tovtoiq i:\ei- ova ttjv TipLrjV. K If the priests, during the vacancy of an episcopal see. have sold anything belonging to the Church, 2 she (the Church) has the right to reclaim it (avciKaXeicrdai) ; and it is for the bishop to decide whether they (the buyers) are to receive the price given for the purchase, seeing that often the temporary use of the article sold to them has been worth more than the price paid for it." If the purchaser of ecclesiastical properties has realized more by the temporary revenue of such properties than the price of the purchase, the Synod thinks there is no occasion to restore him this price, as he has already received a suffi- cient indemnitv from the revenue, and as, according to the rules then in force, interest drawn from the purchase money was not permitted. 3 Besides, the purchaser had done wrong in buying ecclesiastical property during the vacancy of a see ie vacante). Beveridge and Iiouth have shown that in the text avaKaXelaBai and irpoauBov must be read. 4 1 ReViqidtz sacrce, iii. 440. 8 Kvpazir, that is, the Church, or the property of the Church. Cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s. h. v. 3 Herbst, Tiibinjer Quartahclmft, 1821, S. 43C. * Kouth. Reliqu'az sacrae, iii. 441 f. SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 215 Gas. 16. Tlepl -roiv aXoyeva-a/ievcov ?} Kal d\oyevop,evcov, ocrot rrplv eiKOcraereU yeveadat i'luaprov, irevre /ecu Biica erecrav i^era^eaOo) Be avrow Kal 6 ev -rfi v77077tcoct6l /3to?, Kal ovtccs Txrj\p.veT(oaav TJjs (f)i\av9pco77ia$' el 8e nves KaTaKopcos ev rot? d/iapTijfAaai yeyovaat, -n)v paxpav i^ircocrav viroTTTCccnv' octol he. inrepfidv-es rrp rjkiKiav rav-7]v Kal yvva?Ka? evov-ei irepiTre-TTTOiKacn raj d\iap7r)pjvri, nevre Kai eiKoai err] vTTorreaercDaav Kal KOivwvias Tiriyavk-waav rfjq ei? ra? irpoa- evyas, eha iKreXecravre^ irev-e err] ev rfj KOivcovia twv evyjuv Tir/xave-coaav r?}? irpocrcpopar el hi rives Kal yvvalKas eyovres Kal virepfidvTes rov Trevr-rjKovraeri] ypovov rifiaprov, eVl rfj e£ohcp rov /3i'ou rir/yavercoaav rrjs KOivcovias. " Those who have been or are now guilty of lying with beasts, supposing they are not twenty years old when they commit this sin, shall be substrati for fifteen years: they shall then be allowed to join in the prayers for live years (and will consequently live in the fourth degree of peni- tence) ; and after that time they may assist at the holy sacrifice. An examination must also be made of their con- duct while they were substrati, and also notice taken of the lives they led. As for those who have sinned immoderately in this way (i.e. who have for a long time committed this sin), they must undergo a long svMratio (no allowance will be made in their case). Those who are more than twenty, and have been married, and have nevertheless fallen into this sin, shall be allowed to share in the prayers only after a svMratio of twenty-five years; and after five years' sharing in the prayers, they shall be allowed to assist at the holy sacrifice. If married men more than fifty years old fall into this sin > they shall receive the communion only at the end of their lives/" On the expressions substrati, participation in prayers and in the sacrifice, cf. the remarks above on canons 4 and o. Can. 17. Tovs dXoyevaafievous Kal \e77povs ovrasyjroi \errpu>cravras,rov- tou? irpoaera^ev 7} dyia cvvchos e« raix; yeip.a^op.evov^ ei^eo-t^at. 216 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. It is not easy to give the real meaning of this canon. It may perhaps mean : " Those who have committed acts of bestiality, and, being lepers themselves, have now (jjroi) made others so, must pray among the %a puz^o fxevois." Others translate it : " Those who have committed acts of bestiality, and are or have been lepers (XeirpwaavTas, i.e. having been leprous), shall pray among the ^etfia^o/jLevoa." This last translation seems to us inexact ; for \eirp(aaavTa i - SYNOD OF ANCYRA. 217 the fientes. Secondly, it is clear that the words \eirpovs 9Pras\ etc., are added to give force to the expression dXoyev- trdixevoL. The preceding canon had decreed different penalties for different kinds of dXoyevad/jLevot. But that pronounced by canon 17 being much severer than the preceding ones, the aXoyevo-dfJLevoi 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 bestiality. But their sin was evidently greater when they tempted others to commit it. It is therefore \i7rpa 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." Can. 18. EX rivei k'KitJKOiToi KCLTaaTa6evT6 Tipi}? idv Be SiaaTacrLd&cri 7rpo? tou? fcadeaTtoras etcel eTnaKOTrovs, dfyaipeladai cxvtovs Kal tiju ■tijx^v rod irpeafivrepiov Kal }? cat in i?)? 6 copiapevos, ?) Be avaarpofyi] icai ?; TriarLS avrtov avv- repvet, tov ^povov. "As for those who have been often married, the duration 1 C. 9, dist. 28. SYNOD OF NEOOffiSAEEA. 225 of their penance is well known ; but their good conduct and faith may shorten that period." As the Greek commentators have remarked, 1 this canon speaks of those who have been married more than twice. It is not known what were the ancient ordinances of penitence which the Synod here refers to. In later times, bigamists were condemned to one year's penance, and trigamists from two to five years. S. Basil places the trigamists for three years among the audientcs, then for some time among the consistcntcs? Gratian has inserted this third canon of jNTeo- csesarea in the c. 8, causa 31, qiuest. 1, in connection with canon 7 of the same Synod. Can. 4. Eav Trpo0T]Tac Ti avru> a/xapTJ]fxari, Trepi'Triar), rrjv tov vTnjperov rdl-iv e^erw. " In the same way, the deacon who has committed the same sin must only have the office of an inferior minister." The preposition iv before tw avrm is struck out by Eouth, 1 on the authority of several mss. By ministri (irn-qperai) are meant the inferior officers of the Church — the so-called minor orders, often including the sub-deacons. 2 This canon, com- pletely distorted by false translations (of the Prisca and Isi- dore), was made into one canon with the preceding in the Corp, jur. can. 3 Can. 11. U pea (3vr epos Trpo rcov rpid/covra ircov prj yeiporoveiaOoi, iav /cal Trdvv fi 6 avOpwiros a%io tttw^ol"? Trpoa^epovai Tip-oopLevoL. " The chorcpiscopi represent the seventy disciples of Christ ; and, as fellow-workers, on account of their zeal for the poor, they have the honour of offering the sacrifice." A function is here assigned to the chorcpiscopi which is denied to country priests, namely, the offering of the holy sacrifice in the cathedral, in the presence of the bishop and the town priests. On the chorcpiscopi, compare c. 13 of Ancyra, and our remarks below on canon 57 of Laodicea. Many MSS. and editions have canons 13 and 14 in one. Can. 15. Au'ikovol eTTra 6(pei\ovo~w elvat, Kara rov Kavoia, tear rravv fLtyaXi) eh) ;} iroXt'i' TreiaOijcry Be tirro rrjs i3if3\ou tcov Tlpd^eayv. " In even the largest towns there must be, according to the rule, no more than seven deacons. This may be proved from the Acts of the Apostles.'' This canon was given in the Corp. jur. can.' 1 C. 12, dist 95. 2 C. 12, dirt. 95. BOOK II. THE FIEST (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OP NICiEA. a.d. 325. CHAPTER I. FEELIMINARY. 1 Sec. 18. The Doctrine of the Logos prior to Arianism. FPiOM the beginning, two points concerning the Logos and His relation to the Father have stood as divinely re- vealed in the consciousness of the Church. On the one hand, His real divinity and equality ivith the Father ; on the other, His personal distinction from the Father. But before the Council of Nicsea this sure doctrine of the faith had not been set forth in a sufficiently definite or positive manner. Whilst some of the ancient Fathers, in expounding the faith of the Church, had, without thoroughly mastering the formula of Nica3a, perfectly understood and taught its meaning, others selected less happy expressions, and sometimes erroneous ones — such as would, in their consequences, even lead to heresy. These same Fathers have, in different portions of their writings, expressed themselves sometimes with theological accuracy, sometimes with less accuracy. Thus, for example, S. Irenteus, Clement of Alexandria, S. Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neocoesarea, 2 1 Compare Hefele's treatise on the origin and character of Arianism, in the Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1851, He ft 2. 2 On the indecision in the expressions of Gregory, cf. H. Eitter, Geschiclrfe d. chistl. Plulosophk, Ed. ii. S. 14. 231 232 HISTORV OF THE COUNCILS. and Methodius, 1 did not always choose their expressions care- fully, but in substance they incontestably maintained the true doctrine. It is the same with Justin, Athenagoras, and Theo- philus, who expressed themselves irreproachably on the chief dogmatic points, but differ in some of their inferences from the rule of the Church. The Apologists, above all others, to make themselves more acceptable and intelligible to the heathen who were accustomed to the Platonic philosophy, made a less clear and exact declaration of the doctrine of the Logos. In this endeavour they have too often brought the Christian idea of the Logos near to that of Plato and Philo, and so have too often degraded the Son in His dignity and power, attributed a beginning to His existence, and consequently have not recog- nised His equality with the Father (thus, among the orthodox Fathers, Athenagoras and Theophilus ; among the more hetero- dox, Tatian, Tertullian, and especially Origen), and have empha- sized too much the personal distinction between the Father and the Son. On the other hand, they also tried to establish the second point of the traditional doctrine, the true divinity of the Son, and His equality with the Father, by declaring that the Logos was not a creature, and by saying that He came from the substance of the Father, and not from nothing, as the creatures do. 2 They sometimes deny that the Logos was subsequent to the Father in His existence, which they affirm in other places. Attaching themselves to the distinction established by Philo between the \6yos eVSm^eTo? and Trpofyopiicbs, several of the ancient Fathers, philosophizing on the Son of God in the sense of the Logos 7rpo(popiicb<; (that is, as He is personally distinct from the Father), speak of this Logos as of a being subordinate, and having an existence subsequent in time to that of the Father. In other places, on the contrary, they seem to suppress the distinction, purely nominal, between eVSm#eTo? and TrpcxpoptKos, and include the Logos completely in the divine substance. 3 These last passages correct all that is exaggerated in the 1 Cf. Ritter, I.e. S. 4 ff. 8 Petavius, de thcoloj. dogmat. de Trlnitat. prcpf. c. 1, § 12, 10, c. 3, § 3 sqq., and lib. i. 3. 1 ; i. 5. 7 ; i. 8. 2 ; Kuhn in the Tiling. Quart. 1850, S. 25G tf. » Kulin, I.e. S. 274, THE DOCTRINE Q* THE LOGOS PRIOR TO AR1ANISM. 233 others, and positively support the ancient Fathers on the solid basis of the Church. 1 In certain cases, the two principal points of the doctrine of the Logos — the unity cf the Son with the Father, and the dis- tinction between the Father and the Son — have been regarded, as contradictory propositions ; and instead of preserving each 1 The stability and permanence of the doctrine of the Church on the one side, and the uncertainty of several of the Fathers in expressing the doctrine of the- Logos on the other, were pointed out long ago by S. Augustine (on Ps. liv. (lv.), n. 22) and S. Jerome (adv. lib?: Rufin. ii. 440, ed. Migue). S. Augustine says : Numquid perfecte de Trlnitate disputatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani?' S. Jerome writes: Certe antequam in Alexandria quasi dcemonium meridianum Arms nasceretur, innocenter qncedam et minus caute locuti sunt. This uncer- tainty of the Fathers has been pointed out with still greater force by our great historian of dogma, Petavius. The Anglican Bull, however, regarded the fre& and scientific historical treatment of the subject by the Jesuit as an injury done to high church orthodoxy, and endeavoured, with great expenditure of learning, to demonstrate the indemonstrable, — namely, that all the ante-Nicene Fathers, held the Nicene faith exactly and precisely. In more recent times, Dr. Baur of Tubingen (Lehre von der Dreieinhjkeit, i. 110) has objected to Petavius, to the extent of accusing him of going beyond the Catholic point of view, — an accusa- tion which has been refuted in the treatise of Kuhn, already quoted, "the Vindication of Dionysius Petavius, and the Catholic Conception of the His- tory of Dogma." In direct opposition to Bull, writers with a Unitarian bias, like Sandius and others, endeavour to show that all or most of the cnite-Nicene Fathers were also a??) Wisdom of God (the X070? evZu'iOero's of Philo). " It is by this inner Wisdom (Ac'70? ivcuideTos) that God created Him (the A0709 7rpoc])opitcb?) and all things. 6. "Thus it is that by nature He is subject to change (rpeirTO';, that is to say, by nature liable to sin). 7. "He is a stranger to the divine ova la, and differs from it (£eVo? Te Kal d\\6Tpi,o<;). He does not know God perfectly ; He does not even know His own nature perfectly. 1 8. '• He was created for us, so that God might create us by Him as His instrument ; and He would not have existed (ov/c and in Gelasius Cyzic. in Hard. i. 366 sq. ; Mansi, ii. 703 ; most perfectly in Athanasius. Epiphanius relates {Hares. 69. 4) that Alexander sent seventy letters of this kind into the different provinces ; and we learn from Pope Liberius, that even Silvester, who was then Pope, received such a letter from Alexander (Coustant. Epist. Pontif. p. 426). 1 This is quite consistent, for the knowledge of the creature in its essence can Le derived only from the knowledge of its foundation or Creator. Eitter, Geschichte der Christ. Phil Bd. ii. S. 27- 250 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. &v' •uTfiarrr}), 'had He not been called into existence by God, through love for us." Bishop Alexander afterwards refutes these Arian doctrines by texts from the Holy Scriptures; 1 and at the end he im- plores the bishops not to admit the Arians into the communion of the Church, and to have no confidence in Eusebius and others like him. Theodoret 2 has preserved a second letter of Alexander's (and of his Synod), addressed, according to the title given by Theodoret, to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. But not only is this title wanting in three ancient manuscripts ; but besides, at the time the letter was written, the name Constan- tinople did not exist. Moreover, this letter was not addressed to one, but to several bishops, as the contents prove. It is said in the letter, that Arius and his friend Achillas went further than Colluthus had done, who had previously founded a sect in Alexandria. 3 Even Colluthus at this time blamed the conduct of the Arians, who did not submit to the Church, who held meetings in their dens of robbers, denied the God- head of our Saviour, misinterpreted those texts of Scripture for their own purpose which speak of the humiliation of Christ, which was for our salvation, and endeavoured to stir the people up against the orthodox, and to excite persecutions against them by calumnious pamphlets written by disorderly women. After having been for these several causes excluded from the Church, the Arians endeavoured by falsehoods, and by 1 Alius had endeavoured to prove his doctrine by separate passages of Scrip- ture, particularly by those which set forward the human side of Christ, and which speak of His ignorance of anything, of His pain, of His subordination to the Father, of His fiovsJ.ftcc-,) not merely to the Father, but also to the Son, so that he says, "The Son is TILE LETTERS OF APJUS. 255 i 4. "The Son is a perfect creature of God (fCTta/ia rov Geov Tekeiov), but yet distinct from all other creatures ; He is begotten, yet again He differs from all that is begotten. 5. " He is not, as is asserted by Valentinus, a projection (7rpo/3o\i]), nor yet, as the Maniehseans assert, a substantial part of the Father (/xepo? ofioovcnov rov Trarpos) ; 1 nor, as the Sabellians wish, the Son-Father ; 2 nor, as is said by Hieracas, light of light, or one torch emanating from another ; nor had He a previous existence, and was afterwards be- gotten and made the Son, — a thing which Bishop Alexander himself " (whom Alius still addresses as [laKupie it air a) " had often publicly controverted, and with reason. 6. " He was created bv the will of God before time, and before all worlds. He has received His life and His being from the Father, who also has communicated His glory to Him ; and without taking from Himself, has given Him the heritage of all things. 7. " There are three persons : God, who is the cause of all things, who is unique, and without beginning ; the Son, who is begotten of the Father before all things, created and estab- lished before the worlds. He was not until He was begotten ; but He was begotten before all time, before all things, and He alone was called by the Father (immediately) into being. 3 He is not, however, eternal or unbegotten, like the Father. He had not His being at the same time as the Father, as some say, who thus introduce two unbegotten principles ; but as God is the monad and the beginning, or the principle of all things, He is therefore before all things, and consequently also before the Son, as Bishop Alexander himself has declared in the Church. unchangeable by His own will." But I can hardly believe that this reproach of Miihler's is well-founded ; for in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theo- cloret, i. 5) Alius expresses himself in much the same way, but still so as to show that it was undoubtedly the will of the Father, and not that of the Son, which he intended (aXX' an 6iXy.fice.Ti xct) fiovXri VTiffrn Tpo xpovuv y.ai vrpo alalia* Tkvfr,; 0-o;): Cf. the translation of this passage, above, p. 253. Even Mohler has in his translation referred the words in question to the Father. . 1 The Jesus patibilis of the Maniehseans is a substantial part of the Jesus apqtibilis. 2 i.e. that there is no personal distinction. 8 i.e. everything else was made through the Son- 256 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 8. " The Son having received His being from God, who gave Him glory, life, and all things, so God must be His principle (upxn)> an( l must rule Him (ap^et avrov) as His God, and as being before Him. 9. "In conclusion, it is attempted to show that the biblical expressions, the Son is of the Father, ex utcro, etc., 1 do not refer to similarity of substance." 2 During his stay in Nicomedia, Arms wrote his principal work, called GdXeia, that is, " The Banquet." Only fragments of it remain. They are preserved in the works of S. Atha- nasius. 3 The book, it appears, was partly in prose and partly in verse. The ancients compared it to the songs of the Egyptian poet Sotades, and pronounced it highly effeminate and overwrought. According to Athanasius, 4 there were some of these " Thalias" already among the heathen, which were read at their banquets for the promotion of gaiety. Arms selected this light form, it seems, to familiarize the masses with the doctrine taught in his book. With the same intention he afterwards wrote songs for sailors, carpenters, and travellers. 5 Athanasius says 6 the Thalia was held in great honour by the friends of Arius, and that they venerated it as a second Bible. In reality, it contains Arianism in its- strongest form, and at the same time shows clearly its Philo- 1 Ps. ex. 3 ; S. John xvi. 28 ; Rom. xi. 36. 2 This letter of Alius is found in Athanasius, de synodis Arim'ni., etc., c. 10 ; Epiph. Hares. 69. 7 ; in German, in Fuehs, Bibliotheh der Kirchenversamvil. Thl. ii. S. 450 ff. In Epiphanius this letter is signed not only hy Arius, but also by fourteen of his friends. Their names are given above, p. 246. Against the genuineness of these signatures, we have (1) the fact that Ethales (I.e. Aithalos), Achillas, the second Arius, and others, who, as we have seen, are called deacons by Bishop Alexander, appear here as priests. (2) Pistus signs as Bishop of Alexandria, which, as we showed before, is contrary to all proba- bility. (3) Besides Pistus, several others sign as bishops, and yet the title of the letter says it is signed only by priests and deacons. (4) Finally, it is doubt- ful whether all these friends could have been at Nicomedia at the same time with Arius. 3 Athanas. Oratio i. contra Arianos, c. 5, 6, 10; de synodis Arimin., etc., n. 15. This writing is mentioned also by Athanas. de decretis synodi Nkance r c. 16 ; Epist. ad Episc. Egypti et Libyce, c. 7, 20 ; de sententia Dionysu, c. ; Oratio i. c. Arian. c. 2, 4, 7, 9, 10 ; Socrat. //. E. i. 9 ; Sozomen, //. E. i. 21. 4 Orat. i. c. Arian. c. 11. b Philostorgii Fragmenta, lib. ii. c. 2. THE THALIA OF ARIUS. 25? nian foundation. In one of these fragments 1 Ariiis boasts of being very celebrated (7repLK\vTo^), having had much to suffer for the glory of God (that is, because he gave the Father the glory due to Him, as opposed to the Son) ; and he goes on : " God has not always been Father ; there was a moment when He was alone, and was not yet Father : later He be- came so. The Son is not from eternity ; He came from nothing, etc. When God wished to create us, He first created a being which He called the Logos, Sophia, and Son, who should create us as an instrument. There are two Sophias : one is in God (i.e. ivSiddeTo?), by which even the Son was made. It is only by sharing (fiere^et) the nature of this inner Sophia of God that the Son was also called Wisdom (aocpia 77po(f)opiK6ithynia. After the lapse of so many centuries, and under the oppressive Turkish rule, it is so fallen from its ancient splendour, that under the name of Isnik it numbers now scarcely 1500 inhabitants. This is fewer than the number of guests it contained at the time when our Synod was held. Sec. 25. Numhcr of the Members of the Council. Eusebius says that there were more than two hundred and fifty bishops present at the Council of Nic?ea ; and he adds that the multitude of priests, deacons, and acolytes who accom- panied them was almost innumerable. 3 Some later Arabian documents 4 speak of more than two thousand bishops ; but it 1 It is to repeat the false allegations of the Pseudo-Isidore, to say that there was a sort of preparatory Synod at Rome before the assembly of Nica?a in 324, and that Arius was there anathematized. Cf. Mansi, iii. 615 ; and Walch, Gescli. der Kirchenvers. S. 142 f. * Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 6 and 9. 3 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 8. 4 The collections of the Melchitic and Coptic canons. Cf. Seidell, Com- mentor, ad Eutychii origines Alexand. p. 71 ; Mansi, ii. 1073 ; Bevercg. Synodicon, vol. ii. ; Annotat. in canones concilii Nicaini, pp. 43, 44. NICiEA: NUMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 271 is probable that the inferior orders of the clergy were reckoned with them, and perhaps all together they reached that num- ber. Besides, there must have been more bishops at Nicaea than Eusebius mentions ; for S. Athanasius, who was an eye- witness, and a member of the Council, often speaks x of about three hundred bishops, and in his letter ad Afros 2 he speaks expressly of three hundred and eighteen. This number was almost universally adopted ; and Socrates himself, who always follows Eusebius in his details respecting the commencement of the Nicene Synod, and copies him often word for word, nevertheless adopts the number three hundred and eighteen ; 3 also Theodoret, 4 Epiphanius, Ambrose, Gelasius, 7 Eufinus, s the Council of Chalcedon, 9 and Sozomen, who speaks of about three hundred bishops. 10 In fact, the number of bishops present varied according to the months : there were perhaps fewer at the beginning ; so that we may reconcile the testimonies cf the two eye-witnesses Eusebius and Athanasius, if we sup- pose that they did not make their lists at the same time. The number of three hundred and eighteen being admitted, it is natural that we should compare it with the three hun- dred and eighteen servants of Abraham. 11 S. Ambrose, 12 and several others after him, notice this parallel. Most of these three hundred and eighteen bishops were Greeks : among the Latins we find only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Marcus of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Domnus of Stridon (in Pannonia), the two Eoman priests Victor and Vincent, repre- sentatives of Pope Silvester. 13 With Hosius of Cordova, the most eminent members of the Council were those of the apos- 1 Historia Arianor. ad Monachos, c. 66 ; Apologia contra Arianos, c. 23 and 25 ; tie Synodis Arimin. c. 43. s C. 2. 3 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. I * Thcoil. Hist. Eccl. i. 7. 5 Epiph. Hears. 69. 11. 6 Ambros. de Fide ad Gratian. i. 1. 7 In Mansi, ii. 818. 8 Rufin. Hist. Eccl. i. 1 (or x. 1). 9 Condi. Chalced. Actio ii. in Hard. ii. 206 ; Mansi, vi. 955. 10 Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 17. » Gen. xiv. 14. " I.e. 13 Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 7 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 14 ; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 17. This latter puts by mistake Pope Julius in the place of Pcje Silvester. Many of the names mentioned are found only in the signatures of the Council of Nicasa, of which vce shall speak hereafter. Cf. Ballerini, de Antiquis Collec- tionibus et Collectoribus Canonum. In the collection of Galland, de Vetustis Cancmtm CoUectionlbus dissertationum Sylloge, i. 254 s>:. Theodoret and Sozomen, he adds, did not understand the expression of Eusebius, and therefore spoke of the Emperor's palace. The two apparently contradictory expressions of Eusebius in ch. 7 and ch. 10 (eixos iuxrr,p,o; and o'ixo; £«.. 36S sqq., ed. Venet. 1778k, 2S8 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by this, that His generation is different from that of human nature ; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but in- separable from the substance of the Father ; that He and the Father are one and the same, as the Son Himself said : " The Logos is always in the Father, and the Father always in the Loo-os, as the sun and its splendour are inseparable." 1 Athanasius speaks also of the internal divisions of the Eusebians, and of the discussions which arose in the midst of them, in consequence of which some completely kept silence, thereby confessing that they were ashamed of their errors.' 2 As they began more clearly to foresee that Arianism would be condemned, the Eusebians grew colder in its defence ; and the fear of losing their offices and dignities so influenced them, that they ended by nearly all subscribing to the ofioovata and the entire Nicene formula. 3 Eusebius of Nicomedia, in particular, proved himself very feeble and destitute of cha- racter ; so much so, that even the Emperor, before and after- wards his protector, publicly reproached him for his cowardice, in a letter which we still possess, and related how Eusebius had personally and through others entreated him to forgive him, and allow him to remain in his office. 4 Sec. 33. — The Creed of Eusebius of Cccsarca. Eusebius of Csesarea made a last attempt to weaken the stron^ expression o/Aoovaios, and the force of the stringently defined doctrine of the Logos. He laid before the Council the sketch of a Creed compiled by himself, which was read in the presence of the Emperor, and proposed for adoption by the assembly. After a short introduction, the Creed was con- ceived in these words : " We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible ; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for He is the Logos of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life, His only Son, the first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also 1 Athanas. de decret. Syn. Nic. c. 20, pp. 177, 178 ; and Mohler, Athanas. i. 232. 2 Athanas. de decret. Syn. Nic. c. 3, p. 165. 3 Athan. I.e. 4 Theodoret, i. 20. NICiEA: THE CREED OF EUSEBIUS OF CESAREA. 289 everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will come again one day in His glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost. We believe that each of these three is and subsists : the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost ; as our Lord also said, when He sent His disciples to preach : Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Eusebius added, that this was his true belief ; that he always had believed thus ; that he always would believe it, and anathematize every heresy. 1 He relates, that after the reading of this formula nobody arose to contradict him ; that, on the contrary, the Emperor praised it very highly, declared that he thus believed, exhorted every- body to accept the Creed and to sign it, only adding to it the word o/jlooihtios. 2 The Emperor, he adds, himself explained this word 6[xoovcno Trarpos did not imply that the Son was a part of the Father ; and that appeared to me to correspond with the true doctrine, which proclaims that the Son is of the Father, but not a part of His substance. For the sake of peace, and in order not to depart from the right doctrine, I would not resist the word o/ioovcnos. It is for the same reason that I admitted the formula, ' He is begotten, and not created,' after they had ex- plained to me that the word created designates in general all other things created by the Son, and with which the Son has nothing in common. He is not a 71-0177/m, He is not similar to things created by Himself ; but He is of a better substance than all creatures : His substance is, according to the teach- ing of the Scriptures, begotten of the Father ; but the nature of this generation is inexplicable and incomprehensible to the creature." " As to the word o/xoovaio^," Eusebius continues, " it is supposed that the Son is 6/j.oovaux; with the Father, not after the manner of bodies and mortal beings (£w nor in 1 Socrat. i. 8. a That is, not a? a man, e.g., is hpooiieios with his parents. mCJEA: THE CREED OF EUSEBIUS OF CyESAREA. 291 such a way that the substance and power of the Father are divided and rent, or transformed in any way ; for all that is impossible with a nature not begotten of the Father (ajivi]ro<; tbvais). The word o/xoovaios expresses that the Son has no resemblance with the creatures, but is like in all things to the Father who has begotten. Him, and that He is of no other hypostasis or substance (ovala) than that of the Father. I have agreed to this explanation, as I know that some ancient ' bishops and celebrated writers have also made use of the word 6fAoovcrio<;} After these explanations as to the meaning of the Nicene formula, which were supplied in the presence of the Emperor, w r e have all given our assent, and we have found nothing unacceptable in the anathema attached to the Creed, seeing that it prohibits expressions which are not found in Holy Scripture. In particular, it has seemed to me quite right to anathematize the expression, ' He was not before He was begotten;' for, according to the universal doctrine, the Son of God was before His corporeal birth, as the Emperor himself affirmed : by His divine birth He is before all eternity; and before being begotten de facto (ivepyeia) by the Holy Ghost of Mary, He was Kara Svva/xiv in the Father." 2 These last words certainly do no honour to the character of Eusebius. He must have known that the Arians did not hold what he attributed to them, — namely, that the Son was not before His appearance in the flesh (by Mary) ; for the Arian ex- pression ovk rjv irpo rov yevvrjOrjvat (He was not before He was begotten) refers evidently to the generation of the Son by the Father — a generation anterior to time — and not to His genera- 1 Eusebius probably has here in view Origen's Dial. c. Marc, and probably still more Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (in Ath. de dec. Syn. Nic. c. 25} and Gregory Thauraat. (deFide, e. 2). Cf. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. opoovnos. The Arians found fault with the word op. that it was not in the Holy Scriptures. In opposition to them, Athanasius defended it (de dec. Syn. Nic. c. 21) ; and Neander remarks (Ch. Hist. vol. iv.) : "The defenders of the Homoousion could say, It was not necessary to make use of merely scriptural expressions, but to teach Bible doctrine, although, in other words, new circumstances might render new forms of expression necessary for the development and defence of biblical truth, and the fear of unbiblical expressions might serve to hinder the refutation of doctrines which were unbiblical in their essence and spirit." 2 Eusebii Ep. in Ath. at the end of his book, de dec. Syn. Nic. ; and Theo- doret, I.e. Socrat. I.e. has omitted this passage. 292 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. tion in time by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, as Eusebius sophistically suggests. He must have known, besides, in what sense the Council rejected the ovk r\v irpo rod 5= rou; xplvavra; jjysv Wi tovto, aXXa natTi; Tpoaiplirii Ttl* u/.>,hiat iZio'tiouv. UiToir.y.utri Ss nvro Sixxius **' op^u; (I.e.). 8 See above, p. 2G0. 7 Cf. Neander, J.c kic.ea: the nicene creed. 293 Sec. 34. The Nicene Creed. Tillemont, 1 relying upon a passage of S. Athanasius, 2 has thought he might venture to attribute to Bishop Hosius the greatest influence in the drawing up of the Nicene Creed. But the assertion of S. Athanasius applies only to the part taken by Hosius in the development of the faith of Nica?a : he does not speak in any way of a special authorship in the compilation of the formula of Nicaea, It is the same with the expression of S. Hilary : Hujus igitur wtimandce cunctis fidci, Athanasius in Nicccna synodo diaconus, vchemens auctor exstiterat. 3 Here also only the great influence which S. Atha- nasius had in the deliberations of the Nicene Council is spoken of; but it is not said that he gave the idea of the Creed. We know, in fine, from S. Basil, 4 that Hermogenes, then a deacon, subsequently Bishop of Cresarea in Cappadocia, acted as secretary to the Synod, and that he wrote and read the Creed. This Creed, the result of long deliberations, many struggles, and scrupulous examination, as the Emperor 5 himself said, has been preserved to us, with the anathema which was affixed to it, by Eusebius, in a letter which he wrote to his Church, and which we have mentioned above : also by Socrates, 6 Gela- sius, 7 and others. It is as follows : niarevo/nev et? eva ©eov Tlarepa nravroKpinopa, Trdvtwv opaTMV T6 kuX dopdrcov 7roir)T?]V /cal els eva Kvpiov 'Irjaovv XpiGTOV TOV TlOV TOV 0€OV, ^eVV7]6eVTa 6/C TOV HaTpoS fXOVO- f/ovi], tovtIcttiv €k tt}<; ovaias rod JJaTpos, ©eov e/c ©eov, (ficos etc <^&)to9, ©eov d\rj6tvbv e'/c ©eov uXtjOlvov, r yevv7]6evra, ov Troirj- Oevra, 6/noovaiov tcZ Ilarpl, 8t ov tcl iravra ip. t. i. 2, p. 623). It is also found in Theodoret, Hist. Feci. i. 12 ; Socrat. i. 8 ; Gelasius, ii. 35 ; in tlnv Acts of the (Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and elsewhere. Sozomen, however (i. 20), from a regard to the discipline of the Arcana, would not transmit the Nicene Creed to us. A careful comparison of all these texts has been made by Walch, Bib. Symbol, p. 75 sqq. More recently August Hahn {Biblioth. der Symbole, 1842) has published such a comparison, but not, as he erroneously asserts, with the text from the Eusebian letter as its basis, but from the copy in Ath. Epist. ad Jovianum. An ancient Coptic translation of this Creed, or rather two fragments of it, were discovered by the renowned Zoega (see above, p. 265) half a century ago, and published by Pitra in the Spicilerjium Solesmense (Paris 1852, t. i. p. 513 sqq. N. I. II.). On the erroneous view of Valla, that the Synod of Nictea also drew up the so-called Apostles' Creed, cf. Ittig, I.e. p. 44. In the 7th vol. of the Scrip. Vet. Nova Collectio of Angelo Mai, p. 162, there is a Creed said to have been offered at Niccea in opposition to Paul of Samosata, but which is evidently directed against the Nestorians and Monophysites, and consequently is of later origin, and belongs to the period of the christological controversies. Einally, Zoega and Pitra (I.e. pp. 523-525) have published an ancient Coptic fragment (N. III.) which professes to contain Sententias Synodi Nicenai, but which sets forth not only the principal points ot the Nicene doctrine, but also speaks of the freedom of the human will. This fragment has no claim to proceed from the Nicene Synod, but is elaborated by a more recent writer, who wished to put together the principal points of the Nicene doctrine, and generally of the orthodox faitb. mCJEX : THE NICENE CREED. 295 made of nothing (He was created), or who say that He is of •another hypostasis, or of another substance (than the Father 1 ), or that the Son of God is created, that He is mutable, or subject to change, the Catholic Church anathematizes." All the bishops, with the exception of five, declared them- selves ready immediately to subscribe to this Creed, under the conviction that the formula contained the ancient faith of the .apostolic Church. This was so clear, that even the JSTovatian bishop Acesius, although separated from the Church on points of discipline, gave witness to its dogmatic truth, and adopted the Creed unconditionally, saying, "The Council has intro- duced nothing new in this act, Emperor ; this has been the universal belief since apostolic times." 2 The five bishops who at first refused to sign were : Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theo£nis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Mar- marica, und Secundus of Ptolemais. They even ridiculed the term 6/j.oovgtios, which could only refer, they said, to sub- stances emanating from other substances, or which came into existence by division, separation, and the like. 3 In the end, however, all signed except Theonas and Secundus, who were anathematized together with Arius and his writings. 4 They were also excommunicated. 5 But a writer on their own side, Philostorgius, says that these three bishops did not act honestly in their subscription ; for he relates that, by the advice of the Emperor, they wrote, instead of 6/j,oovaio=>, the word 6/j.oiovaio<; (similar in substance, instead of one in substance), which has almost the same sound and orthography. 6 "We see, indeed, from the beginning that the signatures of these three bishops were not considered sincere ; for Bishop Secundus, when he 1 That is, "not of one substance with the Father." The Xicene Creed still usrs the expressions oltrlu and virotrrairis as identical. - Socr. i. 10 ; Soz. i. 22 ; Gelas. ii. 29. 3 Socrat. i. 8. On Luther's repugnance to the word Sfte»£fi»s, cf. Ittig, I.e. p. 47. 4 Soz. i. 21. 5 Soz. i. 9 ; Theod. i. 7, 8. S. Jerome maintains erroneously (Dial, contra Luclftrum, c. 7) that Arius recanted, and adopted the i/teaifim. He probably confuses the Synod of Niciea with a later one at Jerusalem, or the presbyter Arius with the deacon of the same name. Cf. Walch, Ketzerh. ii. 480 ; Schrbckh. Kircheng. Thl. v. S. 350. 6 Philostorg. Fragmenta, i. 8, at the end of Valesius' ed. of Evagrius. £96 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. was exiled, said to Eusebius of Nicomedia : " Thou hast sub- scribed in order not to be banished ; but I hope the year will not pass away before thou shalt have the same lot." 1 Sec. 35. The Signatures. It appears that, at the time of S. Epiphanius (cir. 400), the signatures of all the 318 bishops present at Nicaea still existed. 2 But, in our own time, we have only imperfect lists of these signatures, disfigured by errors of copyists, differing from each other, and containing the names of only 228 bishops. Moreover, the rames of several bishops are omitted in these lists whom we know to have been present at Nicrca ; for instance, those of Spiridion and Paphnutius. The name even of Marcellus of Ancyra is inaccurately given as Pan- charius of Ancyra. 3 But in spite of these faults of detail, the lists may be regarded as generally authentic. They are, it is true, in Latin, but they bear evident traces of translation from the Greek. What proves their anticpuity still more, is the circumstance that the members of the Council are grouped in them by provinces, as in other ancient Synods ; for in- stance, at those of Aries and Chalcedon. That, however, which is of greatest importance, is the fact that the provinces named in these lists perfectly agree with their political divi- sion at the time of the jSTicene Council ; and particularly that those provinces whose limits were assigned at a later period are not mentioned. The bishops of these countries (e.g. Euphratesia, Osrhoene, etc.) are, on the contrary, classed quite correctly according to the names of the ancient provinces. This is why the Ballerini have with justice defended the authenticity of the lists of signatures at the Nicene Council against some objections made by Tillemont. 4 Zoe>a has discovered a new list of this kind in an ancient Coptic manuscript, and Pitra published it in the Spicilegium Solcsmensc. 5 He has given not only the Coptic text, but by 1 Philostorg. Frag. i. 9. " Epiphan. Hceres. 69. 11. 3 These lists are printed in all the best collections of the Councils, as Mansi, 3i. 692 sqq. 4 Ballerini, de Anliq. Collect.; in Galland. de Vetusiis Canonum CoHedioiii- bus, i. 254. Paris 1S52, i. 516 spp. s p., NICJEA: MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST THE AMANS. 297 comparing it with the Latin lists still extant he has made out a new list of Nicene bishops distributed equally in provinces, 1 and thus corrected and completed the lists known up to the present time. Even before Zoi : ga, Selden 2 had given another list trans- lated from the Arabic, which numbers altogether 318 per- sons, but includes the names of several priests, and frequently of many bishops, for one and the same town ; so much so, that Labbe 3 and Tillemont 4 have decidedly rejected this list as apocryphal. Another shorter list, given by Labbe, and after him by Mansi, does not belong at all to the Nicene Council, but to the sixth (Ecumenical. 5 In fine, Gelasius gives the shortest list : it mentions only a few bishops who sign for all the ecclesiastical provinces. 6 Sec. 36. Measures taken oy the Emperor against the Avians. When the formula of the Synod was laid before the Emperor, he looked upon it as inspired by God, as a revela- tion from the Holy Spirit dwelling in men so holy, 7 and he threatened to banish any one who would not sign it. 8 We have already seen the effect produced by these threats. But the Emperor fulfilled them without delay, and exiled to lllyria Arms and the two bishops Secundus and Theonas, who had refused to subscribe, as well as the priests who were attached to them. 9 At the same time he ordered the books of Arius and his friends to be burned, and he threatened all who concealed them with pain of death. He even wished to annihilate the name of Arians, and ordered them in future to be called Porphyrians, because Arius had imitated Porphyry in his enmity to Christianity. 10 Subsequently Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicsea were also deposed and banished, because, while admitting the Creed, they would not recognise the deposition of Arius, and had admitted Arians 1 P. 529 sqrii»r ; and Dullinger shows that this is not identical with the newly discovered tfi>.ax'^iifmtz. (Hippol. and Call. S. 7 if.). 8 Cf. Weitzel, I.e. S. 66 f. 3 Cf. Dollinger, Hlppobjlus u. Callldus. S. 100 f. 4 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 15. 5 le. c. 20. e Cf. the note of Eigaltius on c. 45. 7 ft'eitzel forcibly proves (S. 87), against Gieseler and Schwegler, that Blistus was no Montanist. 314 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. We thus reach the second period of the Paschal contro- versy. In the first, we have seen the two customs of the Church — the Johannean custom, and the usual one — existing side by side, each of these opposing only the Ebionite party. Now, on the contrary, the two purely Christian opinions are to be found in violent conflict. It was probably Pope Victor who was the cause of the struggle : the intrigues of Blastus doubtless resulted in setting him against the Quartodecimans, and leading him to forbid the celebration of the feast on the 14th Nisan. In 196, S. Jerome's Chronicle says that he wrote to the most eminent bishops of every country, asking them to assemble synods in their provinces, and by their means to introduce the Western mode of celebrating Easter. These letters — for example, those to Polycrates of Ephesus — also contained threats in case of resistance. 1 Numerous synods therefore assembled, as we learn from Eusebius ; 2 and all, with the exception of those of Asia Minor, unanimously declared " that it was a rule of the Church to celebrate the mystery of the resurrection only on a Sunday." They ac- quainted all the faithful with this declaration by synodical letters. 3 Eusebius 4 saw several of these synodical letters, especially those from the Synods of Palestine, presided over by Theophilus Bishop of Cresarea and Narcissus of Jeru- salem ; also those from the bishops of Pontus, under Palma ; from the bishops of Gaul, under Irenseus ; from the bishops of Osrhoene ; and, finally, the private letter from Bacchylus Bishop of Corinth. 5 They unanimously pronounced in favour of Victor's opinion, except Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus. The latter had also been president of a synod composed of a great number of the bishops of his province. He said that all approved of the remarkable letter which he proposed to send to Pope Victor, which Eusebius has preserved. 6 In this letter he says, "We celebrate the true day, without adding or subtracting anything ;" and he appeals, in justification of his practice, as we have before seen, to the Apostle Philip, who died at Hierapolis, to S. John the Evangelist, to Poly- 1 Cf. the answer of Polycrates to Victor, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 24. 3 Enseb. v. 23. 3 See above, upon these synods, sec. 2, and following. * Euseb. I.e. * See above, the same section. 6 Euseb. v. 24. NIC.EA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 315 carp, and others, who all kept Easter on the fourteenth day after the new moon. Seven of his own relations had been bishops of Ephesus before him, and had observed the same custom. " As he had attained the age of sixty-five years, Polycrates no longer feared any threatening, he said, for he knew that we ought to obey God rather than men." 1 Thereupon, says Eusebius, continuing his account, Pope Victor tried to excommunicate (dirorefiveiv ireiparat) the Churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces ; and he addressed an encyclical letter to this effect to all the Chris- tians of those countries. The words of Eusebius might also be understood to mean that Victor really launched a sentence of excommunication against these Churches, and they have been taken in this sense by the later Church historian So- crates ; 2 but it is more correct to say, as Valesius has shown, 3 that the Pope thought of excommunicating the Asiatics, and that he was kept from carrying out the sentence especially by S. Irenaeus. Eusebius says, indeed, " He tried to excom- municate them." He adds : " This disposition of Victor did not please other bishops, who exhorted him rather to seek after peace. The letters in which they blame him are still extant." However, Eusebius gives only the letter of S. Irenaeus, who, although born in Asia Minor, declared that the resurrection of the Saviour ought to be celebrated on a Sunday ; but also exhorted Victor not to cut off from com- munion a whole group of Churches which only observed an ancient custom. He reminds him that his predecessors had judged this difference with much more leniency, and that, in particular, Pope Anicetus had discussed it amicably with Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. 4 Eusebius here remarks, that Irenaeus, as his name indicates, had become elp^voirolo^, and that he addressed letters on this occasion, not only to Victor, but to other bishops. 5 Thus this debate did not bring about the uniformity which 1 Sec above, same section. 2 Socrat. v. 22. * In his remarks upon Euseb. v. 24. 4 See above, at the commencement of this section. ' Cf. Teller, Pars actorum inter Asiaticas et reliquas Ecclcslas super contra- vttso sacrorum Paschatos tempore, Helmst. 1757. S16 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Victor desired. However, as a consequence of these explana- tions and negotiations, some Churches of Asia, it appears, renounced their custom, and adopted that of the West, as Massuet 1 and Valesius 2 have concluded from the letter pub- lished by Constantine after the close of the Synod of Nicaea, in which he says : " Asia" (doubtless meaning some of its Churches), " Pontus, and Cilicia have adopted the universal custom." 3 This can apply only to a part of Cilicia, seeing that, according to the testimony of S. Athanasius, the custom of the Quartodecimans prevailed there. 4 Thus up to this time the controversy bore only upon these two points : 1st, Was the festival to be held according to the day of the week, or that of the month ? 2d. When was the fast to cease ? But in the third century, which we have now reached, a fresh difficulty arose to complicate the debate, which we may call briefly the astronomical difficulty. We have seen that with the Asiatics, as with the Westerns, Easter was determined by the 14th Nisan, with this differ- ence only, that the Asiatics always celebrated Easter on this day, whilst the Westerns kept it on the Sunday following (with them the Sunday of the resurrection was their greatest festival). But then this question arose : On what precise day of the year does the 1 4th Nisan fall ? or how can the lunar date of the 14th Nisan be reconciled with the solar year ? The Jews' ecclesiastical year, the first month of which is called Nisan, commences in the spring. At the beginning of spring, and particularly towards the equinox, barley is ripe in Palestine. For this reason the month Nisan is also called the month of sheaves; and the great festival of the month Nisan, the passover, is at the same time the feast of harvest, in which the first sheaf of barley is offered to God as first-fruits. 5 According to this, the 14th Nisan comes almost at the same time with the full moon after the vernal equinox ; and although the lunar year of the Jews is shorter 1 Opp. S. Irenteus, vol. ii. p. 73, n. 19. 2 In his observations upon Euseb. v. 23. 3 Euseb. Vila Const, iii. 19. 4 Atlianas. Ep. ad Afros, c. 2 ; and de synodh Arimin. et Seleuc. c. 5, Opp. ed. Bened, Patav. t. i. P. ii. pp. 574, 713. Cf. above, p. 306. * Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologic, Ed. i. S. 486, 487, 490. NICjEa : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 317 than the solar year, the}' made up the difference by an inter- calary month, so that the 14th Nisan always occurred at the ame period. 1 It was also partly determined by the ripeness of the barley. Many Fathers of the Church relied especially on the fact that the passover had always been kept by the ancient Hebrews, and by the contemporaries of our Saviour, after the equinox, 2 and so ordered that the festival should continue to be celebrated after the commencement of the spring. They remarked that the Jews had always determined the iS' in this way until the fall of Jerusalem. The defective practice of not fixing the iB' according to the equinox was not intro- duced among them until after that event. We may see clearly what resulted from this rule. Who- ever observed it, could no longer regulate his Easter according to the 14th Nisan of the Jews, inasmuch as this day occurred after the equinox. If the 14th fell before the equinox with the Jews, the Christians ought to have said : " The Jews this year celebrate the 14th Nisan at a wrong date, a month too soon : it is not the full moon before, but the full moon after the equinox, which is the true full moon of Nisan." We s&y full moon, for the 14th Nisan was always necessarily at the full moon, since each month among the Jews began with the new moon. In this case the Christians kept their Easter a month later than the Jews, and determined it ac- cording to the full moon after the vernal equinox. Hence it resulted — 1. That if a Johannean Quartodeciman 3 acted according to the equinox, he always celebrated his Easter exactly on the clay of the full moon after the equinox, without minding on what day of the week it fell, or whether it coincided with the Jewish 14th of Nisan or not. 2. That if a Western acted also according to the equinox, he always celebrated his Easter on the Sunday after the full moon which followed the vernal equinox. If the full moon 1 Ideler, I.e. Bd. i. S. 4SS-490. 2 Ideler, I.e. Bd. ii. S. 229 ; Weitzel, I.e. 20S, 224. 3 The Ebionite Quartodecimans acted entirely according to the Jewish man- ner of computation at this period. 318 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. fell on a Sunday, he kept the festival not on that Sunday, but on the following one, and that because the day of the resurrection (consequently his Easter) ought to be observed not on the very day of the iB' (being the day of Christ's death), but after the tS'. We shall presently see that the latter manner of computa- tion for regulating the celebration of the Easter festival was adopted by many, if not all, in the West ; but we cannot deter- mine whether many of the Asiatics did the same. The seventh (eighth) of the so-called Apostolic Canons, besides, ordered Easter to be celebrated universally after the vernal equinox. When abandoning the way of Jewish computation, the Christians had naturally much more difficulty in determining the period of their Easter. It was necessary to make special calculations in order to know when Easter would fall; and the most ancient known calculation on this point is that of Hippolytus, a disciple of S. Irenteus, who was erroneously called Bishop of Pontus, but who was in fact a Roman priest at the commencement of the third century, and was opposition Bishop of Rome about the year 220 to 235. 1 Eusebius 2 says of him, that in his book upon Easter he makes a computa- tion, and bases it upon a canon of sixteen years. Nothing more was known of this calculation or canon until in 1551, on the way to Tivoli, not far from the Church of S. Lawrence, there was discovered a marble statue of a bishop seated on his throne. It is at present in the Vatican Museum. It was recognised as the statue of Hippolytus, because a catalogue of the works of the bishop represented was inscribed upon die back of the throne. Upon the right side of the throne is a table of the Easter full moons, calculated for a period of a hundred and twelve years (from 222 to 333 after Christ). Upon the left side is a table of the Easter Sundays for the same period, and the calculation for both tables is based upon the cycle of sixteen years mentioned by Eusebius : so that, according to this calculation, after sixteen years, the Easter full moon falls on the same day of the month, and not of the week ; and after a hundred and twelve years it falls regularly on the same day of the month, and of the week also. Ideler justly 1 Photii Biblioth. cod. 121 ; Dollinger, I.e. S. 249. * Euseb. vi. 22. NICLEA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. S19 remarks that Hippolytus might have abridged his calculation one half, since according to it the full moon fell every eight years on the same day of the month, and that every fifty-six years it fell again on the same day of the month and of the week also. 1 This point being settled, Hippolytus lays down the follow- ing principles : — 1. The fast should not cease till the Sunday. This is expressly said in the inscription on the first table (engraven on the right side of the throne). 2 2. It is thence established that it is the Sunday which crives the rule, that the communion feast must then be cele- brated, and the day of Christ's death on the Friday. 3. As Hippolytus always places the tB' after the 18th March, doubtless he considered the 18th March as the equinox, and this day formed the basis of his Easter calcula- tions. 4. If the iS' fell on a Friday, he would keep Good Friday on that day. If the tS' fell on a Saturday, he would not keep Easter on the following day, but put it off for a week (as occurred in the year 222). In the same way, if the tS' fell on a Sunday, it was not that day, but the following Sun- day, which was his Easter day (for example, in 227). As Hippolytus was a disciple of S. Irenreus, and one of the principal doctors of the Church of Rome, we may con- sider his Easter calculation as exactly expressing the opinion of the Westerns, and especially of the Church of Eome, on the subject. The Church of Alexandria also did not celebrate Easter until after the equinox. The great Bishop Dionysius ex- pressly says so in an Easter letter, now lost, which is men- tioned by Eusebius. 3 According to him, Dionysius must also have published an Easter canon for eight years. At Alex- andria, the city of astronomers, it would, besides, have been easy for Bishop Dionysius to make a more exact computation than that of Hippolytus, who had settled the question satis- factorily for only a certain number of years. 4 1 Meier, I.e. Bd. ii. S. 222. 2 Cf. Weitzel, I.e. S. 200. 3 Euseb. vii. 20. * Ideler, Handb. der Chron. ii. 224 and 226. 320 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. But Dionysius was in his turn surpassed by another Alex- andrian — Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea in Syria since 270, who wrote a work upon the feast of Easter, 1 a fragment of which has been preserved by Eusebius. 2 He discovered the Easter cycle of nineteen years, and began it with the year 277, probably because in that year his calculation was established. 1. Anatolius proceeds upon the principle that the ancient Jews did not celebrate the passover until after the equinox, and that consequently the Christian's Easter ought never to be kept until after the vernal equinox. 2. He considers the 19th March as the 3 equinox. o. He says nothing about the old question relating to the fast, and the time when it should close ; but evidently, as he was an Alexandrian, he followed the usual custom (and not that of Asia). This cycle of nineteen years was soon subjected to different modifications, after which it was generally adopted in Alex- andria from the time of Diocletian. The chief modification was, that the Alexandrians placed the equinox not on the 19 th, but on the 21st March, which was tolerably exact for that period. Besides, when the iS' fell on a Saturday, they de- parted from the systems of Anatolius and Hippolytus, and celebrated Easter on the following day, as we do now. 4 The completion of this cycle of nineteen years is attributed to Eusebius of Cresarea. 5 Such was the state of the question at the commencement of the fourth century. It shows us that the differences in the time for the celebration of Easter were at that time greater than ever. The introduction of the question about the equinox had added fresh differences to the three former ones. Not only did some of the Asiatics 6 continue the Jewish calculation then in use, so that their Easter might fall before the equinox ; 1 Euseb. vii. 32, 33. 2 Cf. Ideler, I.e. ii. 227 ff., and the annotations (chiefly erroneous) by Peta- vius on Epiph. Hares. 51, vol. ii. p. 188 sqq. » Ideler, ii. 228. 4 Ideler, ii. 220, 234. * Ideler, ii. 232. 6 Weitzel, I.e. 236. "SIGMA : DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 321 but some of the Westerns, not consulting the last astrono- mical calculations, also celebrated their Easter before the equinox. The Quartodecimans, as well as those among the Westerns who did not consider the equinox at all, often celebrated Easter earlier than the rest of Christendom, and therefore called themselves Protopaschites. But also among the Equi- noctialists themselves there existed some difference : for the Alexandrians calculated Easter according to the cycle of nine- teen years, and took the 21st March as the date of the equinox ; whilst the Eomans, as they followed Hippolytus, observed the cycle of sixteen years (subsequently that of eighty-four years), and placed the equinox on the 18th March. 1 When the full moon occurred on the 19th March, it was considered by the Latins the Easter full moon, and they celebrated their festival on the following Sunday ; whilst with the Alexandrians this full moon was before the equinox, and consequently they waited for another full moon, and celebrated their Easter a month after the day considered right by the Latins. These serious and numerous differences were indeed very lamentable, and were the cause of many disputes and frequent troubles in countries where these different modes simulta- neously existed. They often made the Christians an object of the most bitter ridicule on the part of the heathen. 2 Indeed, the Council of Aries perfectly responded to the exigencies of the times, when in 314 it endeavoured to establish unanimity upon this question. This Synod commanded in its very first canon, that henceforth Easter should be celebrated uno die et uno tempore per omncm orbeni, and that, according to custom, the Pope should send letters everywhere on this subject. 3 The Synod therefore wished to make the Roman mode pre- dominant, and to suppress every other, even the Alexandrian (supposing that the difference between the Alexandrian and the Eoman calculation was known to the bishops at Aries). But the ordinances of Aries were not accepted everywhere, and they failed to establish uniformity in the Church. The decision of an oecumenical council became necessary ; and, in . 1 Ideler, I.e. ii. 247, 252. 2 Epiph. Hceres. 70. 14 ; Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 5. s Mansi, Collect. Cone. ii. 471 ; Hard. i. 263. See above, p. 184. X 322 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. fact, the first (Ecumenical Council of Nica^a was occupied with this business. We are ignorant of the detailed debates on this subject, knowing only the result as we find it in the encyclical letter of the Council, 1 and in the Emperor's circular. 2 In the former document, the Council thus addresses the Church of Alexandria, and its well-beloved brethren in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis : " We give you good news of the unity which has been established respecting the holy passover. In fact, according to your desire, we have happily elucidated this business. All the brethren in the East who formerly cele- brated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at the same time as the Eomans, with us, and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us." 3 The Emperor Constantine made the following announce- ment in his letter to all who were not present at the Council : " When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day ; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner ? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom, 4 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the present clay (according to the day of the week). We ought not therefore to have any- thing in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shoAvn us another way : our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week) ; and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we 1 Socrates, Hist. Ecclcs. i. 9. s Socrates, I.e. ; Thcodoiet, Hist. Eccl. i. 10 ; Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 17. 3 Socrates, i. 9. 4 We must read tSaus, not 'ifaivs, as the Mainz impression of the edition of Valerius has it. MCJEA: DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION". 323 desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detest- able company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, — they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason, but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them ? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question ; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. 1 We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error ? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by com- munications with such wicked people (the Jews). Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of His holy passion, and He desired (to establish) only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting, whilst others are seated at a banquet ; 2 and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still ob- serving a strict fast. 3 For this reason, Divine Providence 1 When the /S' fell before the equinox, the Jews kept the passover also before the equinox ; but as the new solar year had not then commenced, the Jews had celebrated two passovsrs in the course of one solar year (from one spring to another). 2 Supposing the tV fell on a Friday, the Ebionite Quartodeciman celebrated the feast of the passover on that day, but the Catholics regarded the day as a rigorous fast. But even among the orthodox it was possible that some should be fasting while others were feasting. The Johannean Quartodecimans (see above, p. 313) finished their fast on the il' at midnight, and thus it might be on Thursday, whilst the Westerns continued their fast till Sunday. Finally, the "Westerns, or followers of the ordinary custom, were not at one among themselves. Those, for instance, as the Protopaschites, who paid no regard to the equinox, or who placed it on a wrong day, might have (as we have seen, p. 321) their Easter feast and fast about a month earlier than the others, and consequently were fasting while these were feasting, and their fast was long past when it was beginning with the others. 3 When, e.g., the Protopaschites had celebrated their Easter, their fast was at an end, while the Equinoctialists still had their fast. Besides, the Johannean and Ebionite Quartodecimans ended their fast and had their Easter on the 3. G They are edited by Larsow. ? Of this again, further on, in the history of the Synod of Sardica. NIC/EA: .DECISION OF THE EASTER QUESTION. 329 Sardica from being put into execution ; therefore the Emperor Theodosius the Great, after the re-establishment of peace in the Church, found himself obliged to take fresh steps for obtaining a complete uniformity in the manner of celebrating Easter. In 387, the Pomans having kept Easter on the 21st March, the Alexandrians did not do so for five weeks later — that is to say, till the 25 th April — because with the Alexandrians the equinox was not till the 21st March. The Emperor Theodosius the Great then asked Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for an explanation of the difference. The bishop responded to the Emperor's desire, and drew up a chronological table of the Easter festivals, based upon the principles acknowledged by the Church of Alexandria. Un- fortunately, we now possess only the prologue of his work. 1 Upon an invitation from Iiome, S. Ambrose also men- tioned the period of this same Easter in 387, in his letter to the bishops of /Emilia, and he sides with the Alexandrian computation. Cyril of Alexandria abridged the paschal table of his uncle Theophilus, and fixed the time for the ninety- five following Easters, that is, from 436 to 531 after Christ. 2 Besides this, Cyril showed, in a letter to the Pope, what was defective in the Latin calculation ; and this demonstration was taken up again, some time after, by order of the Emperor, by Paschasinus Bishop of Lilybosum and Proterius of Alexandria, in a letter written by them to Pope Leo I. 3 In consequence of these communications, Pope Leo often gave the preference to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that of the Church of Pome. 4 At the same time also was generally established, the opinion so little entertained by the ancient authorities of the Church — one might even say, so strongly in contradiction to their teaching — that Christ partook of the passover on the 14th Nisan, that He died on the 15 th (not on the 14th, as the ancients considered), that He lay in the grave on the lGth, and rose again on the 17th. In the letter we have just mentioned, Proterius of Alexandria openly admitted all these different points. Some years afterwards, in 457, Victor of Aquitaine, by 1 Ideler, ii. 254. 2 Ideler, ii. 259. • Ideler, ii. 264-2G7. * Ideler, ii. 265. 330 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. order of the Roman 'Archdeacon Hilary, endeavoured to mate the Bom an and the Alexandrian calculations agree together. It has been conjectured that subsequently Hilary, when Pope, brought Victor's calculation into use, in 456, that is, at the time when the cycle of eighty-four years came to an end. 1 In the latter cycle the new moons were marked more accu- rately, and the chief differences existing between the Latin and Greek calculations disappeared ; so that the Easter of the Latins generally coincided with that of Alexandria, or was only a very little removed from it. In cases when the iB' fell on a Saturday, Victor did not wish to decide whether Easter should be celebrated the next day, as the Alexandrians did, or should be postponed for a week. He indicates both dates in his table, and leaves the Pope to decide what was to be done in each separate case. 2 Even after Victor's calculations, there still remained great differences in the manner of fixing the celebration of Easter ; and it was Dionysius the Less who first completely overcame them, by giving to the Latins a paschal table having as its basis the cycle of nineteen years. This cycle perfectly corresponded to that of Alexandria, and thus established that harmony which had been so long sought in vain. He showed the advantages of his calculation so strongly, that it was admitted by Borne and by the whole of Italy; 3 whilst almost the whole of Gaul remained faithful to Victor's canon, and Great Britain still held the cycle of eighty-four years, a little improved by Sulpicius Severus. 4 When the Heptarchy was evangelized by the Boman missionaries, the new converts accepted the calculation of Dionysius, whilst the ancient Churches of Wales held fast their old tradition. Prom this arose the well-known British dissensions about the celebra- tion of Easter, which were transplanted by Columban into Gaul. 5 In 729, the majority of the ancient British Churches accepted the cycle of nineteen years. It had before been introduced into Spain, immediately after the conversion of Reccared. Finally, under Charles the. Great, the cycle of nine- 1 Ideler, ii. 284. * Ideler, ii. 283. ■ 3 Ideler, ii. 293. * Ideler, ii. 2%. * See the article Columban in Kirchenlex. by Wetzer and Wulte, 13d. ii, • Ideler, ii. 297. . KIC/EA: decision of the easter question. 331 teen years triumphed over all opposition ; and thus the whole of Christendom was united, for the Quartodecimans had gra- dually disappeared. 1 Before returning to the Quartodecimans, we will here add some details for the completion of what has been said on the Easter question. In ancient times, the entire duration of a year was calculated erroneously. Thus it happened by degrees, that the equinox, instead of falling on the 21st March as announced by the calendar, really fell on the 11th March of the calendar then in use. The calculations upon the lunar months also contained many errors. For this reason, in 1582, Pope Gregory xin. introduced a calendar improved by Alois Lilius of Calabria, by the Jesuit Clavius, and others. The improvements of this calendar were : 1st, That the morrow of the 4th October 1582 was counted as the 15th October, and the calendar was thus made to agree with astronomical cal- culations ; 2d, The Easter full moon was calculated much more accurately than before, and rules were established for the future prevention of the difficulties which had been previously experienced. Every fourth year was to be leap year, with the exception of the secular year (i.e. the year at the end of the century) ; yet even in this case, in four secular years, one was to be leap year. Thus the years 1600 and 2000 are leap years, whilst the years 1700 and 1800 and 1900 are not so. 8 The Gregorian Calendar from this time came into use in all Catholic countries. The Greek Church would not admit it. Protestants accepted it in 1775, after long hesitation and much dissension. 3 In the time of Gregory xm. the difference between the calendar and the real astronomical year was ten days ; if this calendar had not been changed, it would have been eleven days in 1700, and twelve in 1800 : for this reason the Ptussians with their Julian Calendar are now twelve days behind us. 4 But even the Gregorian Calendar itself is not 1 Ideler, ii. 298. 2 Ideler, ii. 303. 3 Ideler, ii. 325. * With us indeed, the years 1700 and 1800 were not leap years, which they were according to the Julian Calendar. There are therefore altogether twelve days of difference between the two calculations. By not counting the years 1700 and 1800 as leap years, an entire agreement lias been established between the Gregorian Calendar and the real astronomical year. 332 • HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. quite exact ; for, according to the calculations of Lai ancle, which are now generally admitted, the duration of a tropical year is shorter by 24 seconds than the Gregorian Calendar, so that after 3600 years it would differ by one clay from the astronomical year. 1 Besides this, the Gregorian Calendar has not fixed the months with perfect accuracy. A somewhat de- fective cycle was selected on account of its greater simplicity ; so that, astronomically speaking, the Easter full moon may rise two hours after the time calculated by the calendar : thus, it might be at one o'clock on the Sunday morning, whilst an- nounced by the calendar for eleven o'clock on Saturday night. In this case Easter would be celebrated on that same Sunday, when it ought to be on the following Sunday. We remark, finally, that the Gregorian Calendar occasionally makes our Christian Easter coincide with the Jewish passover, as for instance in 1825. 2 This coincidence is entirely con- trary to the spirit of the Nicene Council ; but it is impossible to avoid it, without violating the rule for finding Easter which is now universally adopted. Sec. 38. TJie later Quartodccimans. The Council of Nicrea was to find more difficulty in the East than in the West in establishing complete uniformity in the celebration of Easter. Without regard to the synodical decisions, many Quartodecimans continued to celebrate Easter according to their old custom. The Synod of Antioch in 341 was even obliged to threaten them with ecclesiastical penal- ties if they did not adopt the common rules. It did so in these words, in its first canon : " All those who do not observe the decision respecting the holy festival of Easter made by the holy and great Synod of Nicrea, assembled in the presence of the most pious Emperor Constantine, are to be excommuni- cated and cut off from the Church if they continue obstinate in rejecting the legal rule." The preceding refers to the laity. But if a pastor of the Church, a bishop, priest, or deacon, acted contrary to this decree, and ventured, to the great scandal of the people, and at the risk of troubling the Church, to Judaize, and to celebrate Easter with the Jews, 1 Ideler, ii. 305. 2 Idelcr. ii. 320. KICjEAS THE LATER QUARTODECIMANS. 333 the Synod considered him as no longer forming part of the Church, seeing that lie not only bore the weight of his own sin, but that he was also guilty of the fall of several others. This clergyman is by the very fact itself deposed ; and not he alone, but also all those who continue to go to him after his deposition. Such as are deposed have no longer any right to any of the outward honour given them by the sacred office with which they were invested. 1 These threatenings were not entirely successful. On the contrary, we learn from S. Epiphanius 2 that in his time, about the year 400 after Christ, there were still many Quartodeci- mans, and that they were even disagreed among themselves. As to their faith, they are orthodox, said S. Epiphanius ; 3 but they hold too much to Jewish fables, i.e. they observe the Jewish Easter, and build upon the passage : " Cursed is he who does not celebrate his passover on the 14th Kisan." 4 All that we know respecting these Quartodecimans may be summed up as follows : — a. They celebrate one day only, whilst the Catholic Easter lasts for a whole week. 5 b. On that day, the day of the tS', they fast, and they communicate : they fast till three o'clock, consequently not a whole day ; w T hich S. Epiphanius ° disapproves. c. One party among them (in Cappadocia) always cele- brated Easter on the 25th March, on whatever day of the week it might fall, according to the (apocryphal) Acta Pilati, which says that Jesus Christ died on the 25 th March. 7 d. Others did not for that reason abandon the 14th Nisan, but hoped to make the two dates agree, by celebrating their Easter on the day of the full moon immediately follow- ing the 25 th March. 8 According to this, the Quartodecimans of S. Epiphanius fall into three classes, one of which abandons the 18', and con- sequently separates itself considerably from the Jews. It is 1 Mansi, Colled. Concil. ii. 1307 srp 2 Epiph. Hceres. 50. " Epiph. c. 1. 4 Ex. xii. 15. These exact words do not anywhere occur. They are a kind of summary of the requirements of the law. — Ed. s Epiph. Hceres. 50, c. 1. 6 Epiph. c. 2. * Epiph. c. 1. « Weitzel, I.e. S. 212, 249. 334 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. impossible to determine whether the other classes followed the ancient or the new method of the Jews in their calcula- tion for Easter; but the praise which S. Epiphanius gives them for their orthodoxy proves that they were not Ebionites, but that they were attached to the Johannean tradition which was for a long time prevalent in Asia Minor. Sec. 39. Tlie Audians. The Audians, or Odians, 1 are a remarkable branch of the Quartodecimans : they lived in cloisters, and followed the rules of the monastic life. Their foundation was derived from a certain Audius of Mesopotamia, about the time of the Synod of Nicrea. Audius had become celebrated by the severity of his asceticism ; and Epiphanius, who mentions him in his History of Heretics? treats him with all possible favour, so much so that the ascetic with whom he sympathizes makes him almost forget the schismatic. Audius, he says, 3 had cen- sured the abuses which had been introduced into the Church, particularly the luxury and avarice of several of the bishops and clergy, and had therefore brought upon himself much hatred and persecution. He had borne all with patience, when finally the blows and unworthy treatment of which he was the object, forced him, so to speak, to excommunicate himself, and together with a few partisans, among whom were found some bishops and priests, to form a particular sect. As for the rest, adds Epiphanius, he had certainly not fallen from the true faith : at most, he could be accused only of having expressed and maintained a singular opinion upon a point of small importance. Like several ancient doctors, e.g. Melito, Audius anthropomorphically considered the resem- blance of man to God to be in the body, — an opinion which S. Epiphanius has refuted in a rather long dissertation. 4 Before beginning the refutation of Audius, Epiphanius relates that this ascetic was consecrated bishop after he left the Church, by a bishop who had left the Church with him. He 1 Called also Audteans. See Epiph. Hour. 70 ; Aug. de Hares. 50. Cf, "Walch, iii. 300-321.— Ed. 2 Epiplian. Hceres. 70. * *•& c. 1. 4 Epiph. Hceres. 70, c. 2-8 inclusive. NIC/EA : THE AUDIANS. - 335 adds that the Audians lived by the work of their hands, and that their whole life was truly praiseworthy. 1 According to Epiphanius, the second difference between the Audians and the Church was about the celebration of the festival of Easter. From the ninth chapter S. Epiphanius seeks to express very explicitly what he understands by this difference, but his exposition is not clear. The Audians set out from this fundamental principle : Easter must be celebrated at the same time (but not in the same manner) as with the Jews. This practice had been that of the primitive Church ; and it was only from consideration for the Emperor Constantine, and in order to celebrate his birthday, that it had been abolished at Mcsea. Epiphanius refutes this last accusation of the Audians, by showing that, according to the rules of Niccea, Easter could not always fall on the same day of the month : therefore it could not always fall on the Emperor's birthday. 2 To support their manner of celebrating Easter, Epiphanius says, 3 that the Audians quoted a sacred book, Siardgei? twv aTToo-ToXcov. This book, Ave see, bears the same title as our so-called Apostolic Constitutions ; but the fragments of it given by S. Epiphanius are not to be found in our text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and especially upon the Easter ques- tion they disagree with the contents of these Constitutions. S. Epiphanius spares no praise of the orthodoxy of these StaTu^eis: he even finds that as to discipline it is quite conformed to the custom of the Church. Only the Audians interpret it erroneously in what concerns the celebration of the Easter festival. The apostles in these Siardgeis give the following rule : " You (that is, you Gentile Christians) ought to celebrate Easter at the same time as your brethren who have been Jews (e/c 7re/3n-Oyu%)." 4 The apostles meant : You ought to act like the rest of the faithful ; whilst the Audians interpreted their words thus : You ought to celebrate Easter with the Jews (ol iv 7re pirofirj). If, however, the apostolic rule meant, in a general way, that they ought to celebrate Easter with other Christians, Epiphanius concludes with 1 Epiph. Hares. 70, c. 2. 2 Epiph. Hares. 70, c. 9. 3 Epiph. Hares. 70, c. 10- * Epiph. Hares. 70. 10. 336 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. reason that the Audians ought now to bow to the commands of the Council of Nicaea ; for in speaking thus, the Siardgeis had in view the unity and uniformity of the Church. S. Epiphanius proves that the BtaTa^ea really only desired unity, and that they gave no directory of their own for the keeping of the festival. He quotes the following passage in support of his sentiments : " Even if those whose manner of celebrating Easter you have adopted should be mistaken in their views, you ought not to regard it." The Siardtjeis did not therefore intend to prescribe the best and most correct practice, but to induce the minority to follow the majority ; and as Christians who had been Jews formed this majority, they recommended Jewish practice for the establishment of unity. 1 Up to this S. Epiphanius is clear and intelligible ; but what follows is full ol difficulties, many of which are perhaps in- soluble. Here is all that we can say with any certainty about these riddles of CEdipus, as Petavius calls them in his notes upon Epiphanius. 2 To prove to the Audians that they should follow the sense and not the letter of the hiard^et^, he seeks to show that, taken in a literal sense, the text contains contradictions. In proof, he gives the following passage in the eleventh chapter : " Whilst the Jews have their festival of joy (the passover), you should weep and fast on their account, because it was on the day of this feast that they nailed the Saviour to the cross. And when they weep and eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs, you should celebrate your festival of joy." Now, as the Jews held this festival on a Sunday, it would follow, according to the SiaTd^eis, that Christians should weep and fast on the Sunday. But this is forbidden, and the Siardgeis themselves say, " Cursed be he who fasts on the Sunday." Here there is a manifest contradiction ; and, looked at closely, there is even a double contradiction : for, 1st, It is commanded to fast, and yet not to fast on the Sunday ; and 2d, This precept is in opposition to the other, which the Audians pretend to draw from the Siara^et?, namely, that they ought to celebrate Easter with the Jews. Thus, says Epiphanius, the Ziard^eis, according to the opinio^ 1 Epiph. I.e. c. 10 and 14. 8 Vol. ii. p. 297. NIC^EA: THE AUDIANS. 337 of the Audians on the one side, require Easter to be kept with the Jews ; and on the other, they require Christians to do the contrary of what the Jews do. S. Epiphanius then tries to smooth this difficulty about the literal sense, and does it in the following way : " When the Jews celebrate their feast after the equinox, you may do so at the same time as they ; but if, according to their new and wrong reckoning, they celebrate it before the equinox, you should not imitate them : for in that case there would be two celebrations of Easter in the same year." S. Epiphanius having this solution in mind, had already made allusion to it at the beginning of the eleventh chapter, by remarking that Easter was calculated according to the sun, the equinox, and the moon, whilst the Jews paid no attention to the equinox. By this remark he interrupts his demonstration of the contradictions contained in the hiard^ei^. He had said, indeed, at the end of the tenth chapter : " Even the terms (the terms of the Siardgeis:) contain a contradiction, for they contain the command to observe the fast of the vigil during the time of the feast of unleavened bread (fieaa^ovrcov tcov aty/xcov). Now, according to ecclesiastical calculation, that is not possible every year." With Petavius, I think that Epiphanius here simply says the same as in the eleventh chapter : " When the Jews feast, we should fast ; but the repast of the Jews often takes place on the Sabbath, during which day it is forbidden to fast." The meaning, then, of the words quoted above is this : " They demand that we should fast on the day of the feast of unleavened bread, that is, on the day of the tS' (fxecra^. uC. = during the time of unleavened bread). But, according to the Church calendar, that is not always possible, because sometimes the iS' falls on a Sunday." I regard, then, the last words of the tenth chapter as merely announcing the contradiction which is afterwards shown in the eleventh chapter. Weitzel gives another meaning to these words -, 1 " The vigil of Easter (be- fore the festival of the resurrection) should always fall in the middle of the week of unleavened bread, which is not always possible, according to the ecclesiastical calculation." 1 Die chrlstllche Passafeier, S. 258. Y 338 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. It is quite true that this coincidence could not always take place according to the calculation of Nicsea ; but it would have been of no use for Epiphanius to appeal to the Council of Nicsea, as it was no authority to the Audians. With them, on the contrary, the eve of the festival of the resurrec- tion always fell about the middle of the week of unleavened bread, that is to say, at the end of the second clay. Besides, the connection between the tenth and eleventh chapters, and the line of argument of S. Epiphanius, render necessary the explanation which we have given of this passage. In bringing forward these contradictions of the Btardgeis, S. Epiphanius simply wished to refute the exaggerated Quarto- decimanism of the Audians ; but he does not mean to say that these same Audians followed all these principles of the Biardtjeis. He does not say, " You celebrate Easter with the Jews, and you fast when they are eating the passover." On the contrary, it appears that they were ignorant of these further requirements of the Buna%ei<; ; for Epiphanius does not in the least reproach them with acting in this way. He does not suppose in any way that they so hold it, but he shows them that that is what the BcaTa^e^ teach. All that we know of the way of celebrating Easter in use among the Audians is therefore reduced to this : — a. They always celebrated Easter with the Jews, conse- quently on the day of the iB'. b. They did not separate themselves from the Jews, even when the latter kept their passover before the equinox. This twofold practice is entirely in harmony with what we know of the origin and character of the Audians. Before separating from the Church, they shared the sentiments of many Asiatic Christians; that is to say, they were Johannean Quarto- decimans, who celebrated their Easter, communicated, and ended their fast on the day of the iB'. The orthodoxy of the Church which they left (the Catholic Church of Asia Minor), and the praises of S. Epiphanius of their faith, do not allow us to suppose that they could have been Ebionite Quartodecimans. Epiphanius does not say that they cele- brate Easter in the same manner as the Jews, but only that they celebrate it at the same time as the Jews. Neither NIC/EA: THE AUDIANS. 339 must we conclude that they were Ebionites because they sometimes kept Easter with the Jews before the equinox. That only proves that they followed the cS' closely, simply, and literally, without troubling themselves with astronomical calculations. When the Jews celebrated the *S', they kept their Christian feast. We have seen that they appealed to an apocryphal book. We do not know if they followed the rules of this book on other points. The analysis which Epiphanius makes of all the passages of the Scardgeis shows us that the Audians did not follow entirely the rules given in this work about the celebration of Easter. It is not easy to determine the exact meaning of these rules. As Epiphanius understands them, they set forth the following requirements : — " When the Jews keep their passover after the equinox, you may celebrate Easter at the same time ; but if, according to their new and erroneous reckoning, they keep it before the equinox, you ought not to imitate them." Weitzel o;ives another meaning to this passage : " When the Jews eat," etc. He believes that the Bt,ard^et<; wish to establish a middle course between the Western and Eastern practices — that Quartodecimanism is their basis ; to which they add the two following direc- tions : — a. On the day of the iS', when the Jews keep their pass- over, you should fast and weep, because it is the day of Christ's death. b. But when the Jews are mourning on the days following the passover, or more exactly, on the Mazot days, you should feast, that is to say, you should celebrate your Easter festival on the day of the resurrection. They therefore preserved on one side the Asiatic practice, which required that Easter should be regulated according to the day of the month ; and on the other, they admitted the Pioman custom, which was to fast on the day of Christ's death, and to celebrate the festival on the day of His resurrection. The eve of that clay would then be the dir<>f re/erant. 360 .'.HISTORY OF. THE COUNCILS. and some collections do contain seventy. Happily, since the sixteenth century we have been in possession of these pre^- tended canons of JNTicam ; we can therefore judge them with certainty. The first who made them known in the West was the Jesuit J. Baptista Romanus, who, having been sent to Alex- andria by Pope Paul IV., found an Arabic MS.' in the house of the patriarch of that city, containing eighty canons of the Council of Mcsea. 1 He copied the ms., took his copy to Rome, and translated it into Latin, with the help of George of Damascus, a Maronite archbishop. The ' learned Jesuit Francis Turrianus interested himself in this discovery, and had the translation of Father Baptista '. revised and improved by a merchant of Alexandria who was in Pome. About the same time another Jesuit, Alphonso Pisanus, composed a Latin history of the Council of Nicaea, with the help of the work of Gelasius of Cyzicus, which had just been discovered ; and at his request Turrianus communicated to him the Latin translation of the Arabic canons. Pisanus received them into his work. 2 In the first edition 3 the testimony of the pre- tended letter of S. Athanasius to Marcus caused him to reduce the eighty canons to seventy ; but in the subsequent editions he renounced this abbreviation, and published all the eighty canons in the order of the Arabic MS. It was in this way that the Latin translation of the eighty so-called Arabic canons of Nica?a passed into the other collections of the Councils, particularly into that of .Venice and of Binius. Some more recent collections, however, adopted the text of a later translation, which Turrianus had made. Shortly after the first edition of Alphonso Pisanus ap- peared, Turrianus made the acquaintance of a young con- verted Turk called Paul Ursinus, who knew Arabic very well, and understood Latin and Italian. Turriantts confided to him a fresh translation of the eighty Arabic canons. Ursinus, in preparing it, made use of another ancient Arabian • l This ms. was subsequently bought by Joseph Simon. Assemani of the Coptic patriarch John ; it is now in the Vatican Library., Cf. Angelo Mai, PrivJ'. p. 5 Jio the tenth volume of his Scriptorum vet. nova Collect to. * Lib. iii. . ... >,-,>. , , 3 Dilling 1.'.72. NIC.EA : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 6 C 1 MS., discovered in the library of Pope Marcellus II. (1555). This second MS. agreed so well with that of Alexandria, that they might both be taken for copies from one and the same original. Turrianus published this more accurate transla- tion in 1578. He accompanied it with notes, and added a ProSmium, in which he tried to prove that the Council of Nicoca promulgated more than twenty canons. 1 All the collec- tions of the Councils since Turrianus have considered his posi- tion as proved, and have admitted the eighty canons. 2 In the following century, the Maronite Abraham Echellensis made . the deepest researches with reference to the Arabic canons of the Council of Nicsea ; and they led him to the opinion that these canons must have been collected from different Oriental nations, from the Syrians, . Chaldeans, Maron- ites, Copts, Jacobites, and Nestorians, and that they had been translated. into many Oriental languages. At the same time he started, and with truth, the suggestion that these Oriental collections were simply translations of ancient Greek originals, and that consequently in the Greek Church too they must have reckoned more than twenty canons of Mcrea. 3 After having compared other Arabian mss. which he had obtained, Echellensis gave a fresh Latin translation of these canons at Paris in 1645. According to these mss., there were eighty- four canons instead of eighty. However, this difference arose much more from the external arrangement than from the canons themselves. Thus the thirteenth, seventeenth, thirty- second, and fifty-sixth canons of Turrianus were each divided into two in the translation by Abraham Echellensis ;■ on the other hand, the forty-third and eighty-third of Echellensis each formed' two canons in the work of Turrianus. The .twenty-ninth, thirty-seventh, and forty-first of A. Echellensis are wanting in Turrianus ; but, again, Echellensis has not the forty-fifth canon of Turrianus. A superficial study of these two collections of canons would lead to the conclusion that they were almost identical ; but it is not so. The corre- 1 At the end of his Latin translation of the Const'd. Apostol. • 2 e.g. Mansi, ii. 947 sqq. ; Hard. i. 463 sqq. Mosfof our information re- specting the eighty Arahie canons is taken from the Frovmium of' P. Turrianus. a .Mansi,.ii. 1071, 1072. . 362 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. sponding canons in the two translations sometimes have an entirely different meaning. We can but conclude either that the Arabian translators understood the Greek original diffe- rently, or else that the MSS. which they used showed consider- able variations. The latter supposition is the most probable ; it would explain how the eighty-four Arabian canons contain the twenty genuine canons of Nicoea, but often with consider- able changes. Without reckoning these eighty-four canons, Echellensis has also translated into Latin, and published, a considerable number of ecclesiastical decrees, BiaTV7rd)o-ei<;, constitutioncs, also attributed to the Nicene Council. He added to this work a Latin translation of the Arabic preface, which preceded the entire collection in the MS., together with a learned dissertation in defence of the eighty-four canons, with a good many notes. Mansi 1 has retained all these articles, and Hardouin 2 has also reproduced the prin- cipal part of them. It is certain that the Orientals believed the Council of Nica3a to have promulgated more than twenty canons : the learned Anglican Bevericlge has proved this, reproducing an ancient Arabic paraphrase of the canons of the first four (Ecumenical Councils. According to this Arabic paraphrase, found in a MS. in the Bodleian Library, the Council of Mcsea must have put forth three books of canons : the first contain- ing eighty-four canons, referring to priests, monks, etc. ; the second containing the first twenty authentic canons ; the third being only a series of rules for kings and superiors, etc. 3 The Arabic paraphrase of which we are speaking gives a para- phrase 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, as we shall show, was perfectly correct, it was only these twenty canons which were really the work of the Council of Nic«3a, and all the others were falsely attributed to it. The little that Beveridge gives us of the paraphrase of the first book of the pretended canons shows, besides, that this first book tolerably coincided with the fifteen decrees 1 Mansi, ii. 982-1 0S2. 3 Hard. i. 478-523. 2 Beveregius, Synodlcon sive Pandectce Canonum, Oxon. 1672, i. 686. mCM&: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 365 edited by Echellensis, which concern monks, abbots, and abbesses. 1 Renaudot informs us that the third book of the Arabic paraphrase proves that the third book of the canons contained also various laws by Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian. 2 Beveridge believed this paraphrase to be the work of an Egyptian priest named Joseph, who lived in the fourteenth century, 3 because that name is given in the MS. accompanied by that chronological date ; but Renaudot proves 4 conclusively that the Egyptian priest named Joseph had been only the possessor of the MS. which dated from a much earlier period. However it may be as to the latter point, it is certain that these Arabic canons are not the work of the Council of Nicsea : their contents evidently prove a much more recent origin. Thus : a. The thirty-eighth canon (the thirty-third in Turrianus) ordains that the Patriarch of Ephesus should proceed to Constantinople, which is the urbs vcgia, ut honor sit regno ct sacerdotio simul. This decree therefore supposes that Byzan- tium was then changed into Constantinople, and that it had become the imperial residence. Now this change did not take place until about five years after the Council of Nicaia. At the period when the Council was held, Byzantium was still quite an insignificant town, almost reduced to ruins by a previous devastation. 5 The bishopric of Constantinople was only raised to the dignity of a patriarchate by the second and fourth (Ecumenical Councils. 6 Therefore this canon, translated into Arabic, could not have belonged to the Council of Nicoea, and does not date back further than the fourth (Ecumenical Council. b. The forty-second canon of A. Echellensis (thirty-sixth in Turrianus) forbids the Ethiopians to elect a patriarch : their spiritual head was to bear only the title of Catholicus, 1 Mansi. ii. 1011 sqq. 2 Renaudot, Hlstoria Patriarcharum Alexandrinoritm Jacobitarum, Paris 1713, p. 75. 3 Pnef. p. xix. sq. * P. 27. 5 Tillemont, Hist, des Emper. iv. 230 sq. ; Baron, ad anu. 330, n. 1 ; Iselin, Hint. Lexik. art. "Constantinople." •A. 381, can. 3 ; and a< 431, can. 28. 3G4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. '. and to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alex- andria, etc. This canon also betrays a more recent origin than the time of the Council of Nicsea. At that period, in- deed, Ethiopia had no bishop ; hardly had S. Frumentius begun the conversion of its people ; and it was only subse^ quently, when S. Athanasius was already Archbishop of Alex- andria, that S. Frumentius made him acquainted with the good results of his missions, and was consecrated by him bishop to the new converts. 1 Our canon, on the contrary, supposes a numerous episcopate to .be then existing in Ethiopia, and its head, the Catholicus, to be desirous to free himself from the mother church of Alexandria. This canon, as well as others quoted by Turrianus and by A. Echellensis, assumes that the institution of patriarchates was then in full vigour, which was not the case at the time of the Council of Nicasa. 2 c. Peter de Marca 3 has already proved the forty -third canon of the text of A. Echellensis (thirty-seventh in Turr.) to be more recent than the third (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). This Council of Ephesus rejected the pre- tensions of the Patriarch of Antioch respecting the choice of the bishops of Cyprus. 4 According to Marca's demonstration, this dependence of Cyprus upon the see of Antioch cannot be verified before the year 900 : for in the time of the Emperor Leo the Wise (911), we know, from the Notitia of his reign, that Cyprus was not then dependent upon Antioch ; whilst this Arabian canon makes out that this submission was already an accomplished fact, disputed by no one. 6 d. The fifty-third canon (forty-ninth in Turr.), which con- demns simony, has its origin from the second canon of the fourth (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. 6 It is therefore evident that it was not formed at Nicoea. c. In the .thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and forty-second canons (c. 33, 34, and 36 in Turr.), the Bishop of Seleucia, Almo- dajen, is already called Catholicus, — a dignity to which he 'See the author's dissertation upon "Abyssinia]' in the Kirchenlexik. of von Wetzer und Welte. 2 C. 8, 33, 35, 37, 46; Turr.; c. 8, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, Echel. 3 De concord, sacerdotii et imperii, lib. ii. c. 9. 4 Mansi, iv. 1470 ; Hard. i. 1619. 9 Cf. Bevereg. I.e. vol. ii.; AnnoLationes, p. 212, a. 6 Held in 451. KIC^A : NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 3G5' did not attain until the sixth century, under the Emperor Justinian. 1 In this canon, as Seleucia has the Arabian name of Almodajen, Benaudot concludes that these canons were not formed until the time of Mahomet. The Constitutioncs, edited by Echellensis, still less than the eighty-four canons, maintain the pretension of dating back to the Council of Mcsea. a. The first division of these Constitutions, that de Monachis et Anachoretis, presupposes an already strong development of monasticism. 2 It speaks of convents lor men and women, abbots and abbesses, the management of convents, and the like. But we know that, at the time of the Council of Mcsea, monasticism thus organized had scarcely made its appearance. Even in the first times after our Synod, there were none of those large convents mentioned in the Arabic canons, but only hamlets of monks, consisting of groups of cabins. b. The second series of Arabian Constitutions comprises nineteen chapters. 3 It also speaks of convents, abbots, the property and possession of convents, etc. (c. 1—10). The eighth canon shows that there were already many monks who were priests. Now this was certainly not the case at the time of the Council of Nicsea, when monasticism was in its infancy. The ninth chapter speaks of Constantinople as the imperial residence (urbs rcgia), which again betrays a later period. c. The third series comprises twenty-five chapters. 4 The Nicene Creed, which is contained in it, has here already the addition which was made to it in the second (Ecumenical Council. The Arabic Creed, besides, is much longer than the genuine one. The Orientals added several phrases, as Abraham Echellensis has remarked. 5 This Arabic Creed asserts that Jesus Christ is perfectus homo, vera anima intcl- lectuali et rationali prceditus ; words betraying an intention of opposing Apollinarism, as well as those following : duos habentes naturas, duas voluntatis, duas operationcs, in una per- sona, etc., which seem to be a protest against the heresy of the Monophysites and the Monothelites. 1 Renaudot, I.e. p. 73. 2 Mansi, ii. 1011 sq^. 8 Mansi, ii. 1019 sqq. 4 Mausi, ii. 1030 sqq. 8 Mansi, ii. 1079. 366' HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. .' Following this Creed, the Arabic text relates, falsely, that Constantine entreated the bishops assembled at Nicrea tc give the name of Constantinople to Byzantium, and to raise his bishopric to the rank of an archbishopric, equal to that of Jerusalem. 1 The decrees of this last series, examined in detail, also show that they are more recent than the Council of Nicsea, by mentioning customs of later origin. Thus the tenth chapter commands the baptism of infants ; the twelfth and thirteenth chapters, again, concern monks and nuns ; the fourteenth chapter finds it necessary to forbid that children should be raised to the diaconate, and more especially to the priesthood and episcopate. We may therefore sum up the certain proofs resulting from all these facts, by affirming that these Arabic canons are not genuine ; and all the efforts of Turrianus, Abraham Echellensis, and Cardinal d'Aguirre, cannot prevent an im- partial observer from coming to this opinion even with regard to some of those canons which they were anxious to save, while abandoning the others. 2 Together with the authenticity of these canons, the hypothesis of Abraham Echellensis also vanishes, which supposes them to have been collected by Jacob, the celebrated Bishop of Nisibis, who was present at the Nicene Synod. They belong to a later period. Assemani offers another supposition, supporting it by this passage from Ebed-jesu : 3 "Bishop Maruthas of Tagrit 4 translated the seventy-three canons of Nicaea." 5 Assemani believes these seventy-three canons to be identical with the eighty-four Arabic canons, but such identity is far from being proved. Even the number of the canons is different ; and if it were not so, we know, from what we saw above, that several of the Arabic canons indicate a more recent period than those of Bishop Maruthas. It is probable that Maruthas really trans- 1 The falseness of all this is evident from the fact that Byzantium was not aised by Constantine to the dignity of the metropolis until the year 330. 2 Cf. Pagi, Grit, in Annates Baron, ad ann. 325, n. 45 ; Pearson, Vindicia Epist. I gnat. P. i. p. 177; Richer, Hist. Councils-General, i. 110; Ludovici, Prsef. ad Ittig. Hist. Concil. Nic. 3 Sec. xiv. * Sec. v. 6 Assemani, Bibliolh. Orient, i. 23, 195 ; Angelo Mai, I.e. Praf. p. vii. KICJEA: NUMBER OF THE CANONS. 367 lated seventy-three canons, supposed to be Nicene; that is to say, that he had in his hands one of those MSS. spoken of above, which contained various collections of canons falsely attributed to the Council of Nicaea. 1 It will be asked why in some parts of the East they should have attributed so great a number of canons to the Council of Nicasa. It is not difficult to explain the mistake. We know, indeed, that the canons of various councils were at a very early period collected into one corpus ; and in this corpus the canons of Niccea always had the first place, on account of their importance. It happened afterwards, that either acciden- tally or designedly, some copyists neglected to give the names of the councils to those canons which followed the Nicene. We have already seen that even at Eome there was a copy containing, sub uno titulo, the canons of Niccea and those of Sardica. When these copies were circulated in the East, that which might have been foreseen took place in course of time : viz., from a want of the spirit of criticism, all the later canons which followed after the true canons were attributed to the Council of Nicsea. But it must also be said that certain learned men, especially Baronius 2 and the Spanish Cardinal d'Aguirre, 3 have tried hard to prove, from the only Greek and Latin memorials, and without these Arabic canons, that the Synod of Nicsea pub- lished more than twenty canons. a. The Synod, said Aguirre, certainly set forth a canon on the celebration of Easter ; and a proof of this is, that Balsamon, in his commentary upon the first canon of Antioch, mentions this Nicene canon as being in existence. There must there- fore, concludes Aguirre, have been above twenty Nicene canons. But it may be answered that the ancient authors make no mention of a canon, but only of a simple ordinance, of the Council of Nicasa respecting the celebration of the Easter festival ; and it is indeed certain that such a rule was given by the Council, as is proved by the synodical decree. 4 As for Balsamon, he says exactly the contrary to what Car- 1 Cf. Spittler, Gescldchte des Canonlschen Redds, S. 10S, note. 8 Annates, ad ann. 325, n. 156 sqq. • Collect. Coned. Hlspan. i. 1 ; Appar. Diss. 8. * Socrat. i 9. 368 .'. HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS.' dinal d'Aguirre maintains, — namely, iv f. ad Ittig. I.e. 4 Actio vii. JIansi, iv, 1468 ; Hard. i. 1620. 6 Sec. v. « Hard. v. 1453. ' 7 Tillemont, Mimoircs, vi. 2S8, b. • Ad arm. 325, n. 162 sq. 9 Cf. Natal. Alex. I.e. p. 387. nklea: contents of the canons. 375 is an expression of S. Basil's, 1 who affirms that the Council of Nicsea made rules for the punishment of the guilty, that future sins midit be avoided. Now the canons of Nictea in our possession, as we shall see hereafter, authorize S. Basil to speak in this way. 2 Some other objections of less import- ance not repeated by Aguirre might be noticed, but they have been sufficiently exposed and refuted by Katalis Alexander. 3 Sec. 42. Contents of the JSficene Canons. After having determined the number of authentic canons of the Council of Nicaea, we must now consider more closely their contents. The importance of the subject, and the historical value that an original text always possesses, has decided us to give the Greek text of the acts of the Council (according to the editions of Mansi and of Bruns 4 ), together with a translation and a commentary intended to explain their meaning. 5 Can. 1. El Tt? iv vocrw virb larpoov i^jeipovpyijdrj, rj virb fiapftdpwv i^er/xijOrj, ovto? fievero) iv toj K\rjpw' el Be T£? vyialvwv eavrbv i^eTe/jbe, tovtov kcu iv ru> Kkt)pa> ifrera^o/xevov ireiravaOai irpo- Gr]K,ei, real e/c tov Sevpo [irjheva to)v tolovtccv ^pijvat irpodyecrdaf coenrep 8e tovto irpohrfKov, otl irepl tcov iirtTT]hev6vTWV to 7rpdy/u,a Kai To\fA(ovTCi)v eavrovs itCTe/xveiv eXpr\rai % ovt7rov XP° V( P KaTr}yjt]6evra<; ev9u<; eVt to irvevpuaTiitov \ovrpov dyeiv, nal dfxa t&> $aiTTiaQr]vai irpoadyeiv ek imaKOTr^v rj 7rpea/3vTepelov /caAw? eBo^ev eyeiv, tov Xocirov p,r/Bev toiovto ylveaQav koX yap koX yjpovov Bel tu> KaTr\yovp,ev(p, teal fi€ra to fiu7TTicrfJ,a BoKip-aalaf TrXeiovos' aacpes ? virevavTia tj} p,eyd\y those already in orders (without any distinction between those who have been ordained in due course and those who have been ordained too quickly), the rule is that they shall be deposed if they commit a serious offence. Those who are guilty of disobedience to this great Synod, either by allowing themselves to be ordained or even by ordaining others pre- maturely, are threatened with deposition ipso facto, and for this fault alone." We consider, in short, that the last words of the canon may be understood as well of the ordained as of the ordainer. Can. 3. ATTTjyopevaev KaOokov i) /xeydXr] »t \ aud Beveridge, I.e. p. 46, b. 380 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. unions, even with penalties more severe than those with which she punished concubinage : for it happened that Chris- tians who would have recoiled from the idea of concubinage permitted themselves to form one of these spiritual unions, and in so doing fell. It is very certain that the canon of NicEea forbids this species of union, but the context shows moreover that the Fathers had not these particular cases in view alone ; and the expression avveicrcucTos should be under- stood of every woman who is introduced {avvelaaKroi) into the house of a clergyman for the purpose of living there. If by the word cvveio-aicTo<; was only intended the wife in this spiritual marriage, the Council would not have said, any <7W€iaaKTo<; except his mother, etc.; for neither his mother nor his sister could have formed this spiritual union with the cleric. The injunction, then, does not merely forbid the avvdaanTo^ in the specific sense, but orders that " no woman must live in the house of a cleric, unless she be his mother," etc. Because this interpretation presents itself naturally to the mind, several ancient authors have read in the Greek text i-TrelaaKTOv instead of avvdcaKTOv ; for instance, the Em- peror Justinian in his Novel 123 (c. 29), and Eufinus in his translation of the canon. 1 Several councils, amongst others the second of Tours (c. 11) and the fourth of Toledo (c. 42), have also received this reading, but wrongly, as is proved by the best Greek manuscripts. Beveridge, S. Basil, and Diony- sius the Less read avvelaaKTov with us. 2 On the meaning of the last words of this canon, it has been doubted whether the Council allows all persons who are free from suspicion to live in the house of a clerk, as it is understood by Gratian ; 3 or whether the true translation is this: "And his sisters and aunts cannot remain unless they be free from all suspicion." Van Espen 4 explains the text in this manner, but this inter- pretation does not seem altogether in accordance with the original. 1 Hist. Eccl. i. 6. s Beveridge, I.e. pp. 45 and 46. 3 Corpus jur. can. c. 16, Dist. 32. Interdixit per ovinia sancta synodus, non episcopo, non presbytero, non diacono, vel alicui omnino, qui in clero est, liccre eubinlroductam habere mulierem, nisi forte aid matrem, aut sororem, aut amitam, nut etiam eas idoneas 2>ersonas, qucefugiant mspicionea. < *l.c p. 88. NICEA : CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. JS 1 Another question has been raised on this subject, — namely, whether it supposes the marriage of priests, or whether it orders celibacy, and then the real wives of clerics would be included in the word avvdaaKToi. This last interpretation is that of Bellarmin ; but it is without foundation, for the (TvveiaaKroi are here forbidden to all clerks, and we know that at this period those in minor orders were permitted to marry. In conclusion, it cannot be overlooked that this canon shows that the practice of celibacy had already spread to a great extent among the clergy; as even Fuchs 1 confesses, and as Natalis Alexander has also remarked. 2 The question of the relation of the Council of Nicaea to celibacy will be considered when we come to the history of Paphnutius. Can. 4. *Etti(tkottov TrpocnfjKei ixdXicna fieu viro 7rdvrcov twi> iv rf} iirap^la KaOiaraadaf el Se 8var%epe<; elrf to tolovto, rj hid KaT€7rei fxi]Tpo7ro\irr}. 3 " The bishop shall be appointed by all (the bishops) of the eparchy (province) ; if that is not possible on account of pressing necessity, or on account of the length of journeys, three (bishops) at the least shall meet, and proceed to the imposition of hands (consecration) with the permission of those absent in writing. The confirmation of what is done belongs by right, in each eparchy, to the metropolitan." The Church was not obliged in principle to conform itself to the territorial divisions of the states or of the provinces in establishing its own territorial divisions. If, however, it often accepted these civil divisions as models for its own, it was to facilitate the conduct of business, and to prevent any disrup- 1 Fuclis, BlbUotheh der Kirchenversammlunym (Library of the Councils). Leipzig 1780, Thl. i. S. 392. 2 Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. iv. Dissert. 19, Propos. ii. p. 392, ed. Vehet. 177S. 3 See, in Pitra, Spicileg. Soksmensc, i. 526 sq., a Coptic translation of tlib canon newly discovered. 3S2 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. " tion of received customs. Thus the apostles often passed through the principal cities of one province for the purpose of preaching the gospel there before entering another, and after- wards they treated the faithful of that province as forming one community. For instance, S. Paul writes to the Church of God at Corinth, and to all the faithful of Achaia : * he unites, then, in his thoughts all the Christians of the province of Achaia, and at the head of the Churches of that province he places that of Corinth, which was its political capital. He addresses in the same manner another of his letters " to the Churches of the Galatians," 2 again uniting in his mind all the communities of that civil province. The result of this action of the Church was, that the bishops of the same province soon considered that there was a certain bond between them, and the bishop of the capital thus gained insensibly a sort of pre-eminence over his colleagues in the province. This pre-eminence could only be based in some cases on the civil importance of the capital ; but it must not be forgotten that the civil capital was often also the ecclesiastical, as being the first city in the province in which a Christian Church was founded, from which the gospel was made known to the other cities in the province. It is especially the civil importance that the Synod of Antiocli of 341 had in view when it said, in its ninth canon: "The bishops of each eparchy must understand that it is the bishop of the metropolis (political capital) who has charge of the business of the eparchy, because all meet at the metropolis to transact their business." The word eparchy here most cer- tainly designates the civil province ; and evidently the Synod wished to make the civil divisions the basis of ecclesiastical divisions. The Council of Nicoea follows the same course : it orders in this fourth canon that a bishop shall be chosen by the other bishops of the whole eparchy (political province) ; and in accordance with the ninth canon of the Synod of Antioch, it decides that the metropolitan shall have charge of the business of the eparchy. The first remark that there is to make on this canon is, then, to point out that the Council of Nicaea accepts the political division as the basis of the eccle- 1 2 Cor. i. 1. * GaL i. & NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 3S3 siastical division; but there were afterwards exceptions to this rule. 1 The second remark relates to the method of proceeding in the election of bishops. In apostolic times the apostles them- selves chose the bishops. During the period immediately after apostolic times it was the disciples of the apostles, iX\6- */i[xol arope?, as S. Clement calls them. Thus such men as Titus and Timothy nominated bishops ; but the election had to be approved by the whole community, avvevZoK^crda^ t?}? €KK\rj 7rao-?7?, as S. Clement says again ; 2 so that here a new agent appears in the choice of a bishop : the community has to make known whether it considers the person elected fitted or unfitted for the charge. After the death of the disciples of the apostles this practice changed ; there were no longer any bishops who had such an uncontested ascendency over the others. A letter of S. Cyprian tells us in a very clear manner how episcopal elections and consecrations were then carried on. " In almost all provinces," he writes, " the business is managed in this manner : The nearest bishops in the province meet in the city for which the election is to be held. The bishop is then elected plebe prcesente ; the people are bound to be present at the election, for singulorum vitam plmissime novit. The episcopal dignity is after that conferred universes fratcmitatis suffragio and episcoporum judicio." 3 Beveridge has explained this very important passage in the follow- ing manner. 4 The bishops of the province choose their future colleague, and the fraternitas — that is to say, the people and the clergy of the city — decide whether the choice is acceptable, whether the candidate is worthy of the episcopate. It seems to me that Beverido;e thus does violence to the expression suffragio, and does not quite accurately translate judicio. Suffragium is derived from sub and frango. 5 It pro- 1 Cf. upon this question a learned and very acute article by Friedrich Maassen, J. U. Dr., Der Primat des Bischo/s von Bom und die alten Patriarchalkirchen (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the ancient patriarchal Churches). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte da' Hierarchie, insbesondere zur Erluuterung des sechsten Canons des ersten allg. Concils von Nicaa, Bonn 1853, S. 1-13. 2 Clementis Epist. i. ad Corinth, c. 44 ; ed. Patrum apostol. by Hefele, ed. iii. p. 116. 3 Epist. 68. *U. p. 47. 5 [These etymological remarks are very doubtful. See White's Diet.— Ed.] 384: HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. perly means a fragment — a shred or scrap — and refers to the shell which the ancients used for voting in the assemblies of the people. This expression, then, ought here to signify that the people, the community, had the right of voting, but that the right of deciding — the judicium — was reserved to the bishops of the province. Van Espen gives the same explana- tion that we do in his canon law. 1 The fratemitas, he says — that is to say, the clergy and people of the community — who are interested in the choice had the right of presentation ; the bishops had afterwards to decide. They had then the principal part to perform. In certain cases the bishops elected and consecrated a candidate sine jorevvia plcbis clcctione — for instance, when the people would undoubtedly have made a bad choice. As it was by the judicium of the bishops that the new bishop was appointed, so it was also their duty to consecrate the newly elected. The Council of Nicoea thought it necessary to define by precise rules the duties of the bishops who took part in these episcopal elections. It decided, {a) that a single bishop of the province was not sufficient for the appointment of another ; (IS) three at the least should meet, and (c) they were not to proceed to election without the written permission of the absent bishops ; it was necessary (d) to obtain afterwards the approval of the metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the ordinary metropolitan division, in its two most important points, namely, the nomination and ordination of bishops, and the superior position of the metropolitan. The third point connected with this division — namely, the provincial synod — will be considered under the next canon. Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon. It may be remembered that he had nominated bishops without the concurrence of the other bishops of the province, and without the approval of the metropolitan of Alexandria, and had thus occasioned a schism. This canon was intended to prevent the recurrence of such abuses. The question has been raised 2 as to whether the fourth canon speaks only of the choice of the bishop, or whether it also treats of the consecra- i P. i. tit. 13, n. 10. ■ CL Van Espen, Commcntarlus in canones, etc., p. 89. NKLEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 385 tion of the newly elected. We think, with Van Espen, that it treats equally of both, — as well of the part which the bishops of the province should take in an episcopal election, as of the consecration which completes it. The Council of Mcrea had a precedent in the first apostolic canon, and in the twentieth canon of Aries, for the establish- ment of this rule. The canon of Nicsea was afterwards in its turn reproduced and renewed by many councils, — by that of Laodicea (c. 12), of Antioch (c. 19), by the fourth Synod of Toledo (c. 19), the second of Nicsea (c. 13) : it is also repro- duced in the Codex Ecclcsice Afric. (c. 13). It has been put into execution in the Greek Church as well as in the Latin Church, and inserted in all collections of ecclesiastical laws, especially in the Corpus juris canonici. 1 It has been, however, interpreted in different ways. The Greeks had learnt by bitter experience to distrust the inter- ference of princes and earthly potentates in episcopal elections. Accordingly, they tried to prove that this canon of Hicrea took away from the people the right of voting at the nomina- tion of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to the bishops of the province. In order to obtain a solid ground for this practice, the seventh Oecumenical Council held at Nicsea (c. 3) interpreted the canon before us in the sense that a bishop could be elected only by bishops ; and it threatens with deposition any one who should attempt to gain, by means of the temporal authority, possession of a bishopric. 2 One hundred years later, the eighth Oecumenical Council en- forces the same rule, and decides, 3 in accordance " with former councils," that a bishop must not be elected except by the college of bishops. 4 The Greek commentators, Balsamon and others, therefore, only followed the example of these two great Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nicsea takes away from the people the right previously possessed of voting in the choice of bishops, and makes the election depend en- tirely on the decision of the bishops 5 of the province. The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with it also the people have been removed from episcopal elections, 1 Can. c. 1, Dist. 64. 2 Hard. Collect. Concil. iv. 4S7. 3 C. 22. 4 Hard. v. 909. 5 Beveridge, I.e. p. 47. 2 B 386 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. but this did not happen till later, about the eleventh century ;* and it was not the people only who were removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the election was con- ducted entirely by the clergy of the cathedral church. 2 The Latins then interpreted the canon of Nicrea as though it said nothing of the rights of the bishops of the province in the election of their future colleague (and it does not speak of it in a very explicit manner), and as though it determined these two points only : (a) that for the ordination of a bishop three bishops at least are necessary; (&) that the right of confir- mation rests with the metropolitan. 3 In the Latin Church this right of confirmation passed in course of time from the metropolitans to the Pope, particularly by the concordats of Aschaffenburg. Can. 5. Uepi 7cov ukoivcovj'jtcov eBo^ev, eKacrrov iviavrov K.a& eKaarrjv kirapyiav ol? rov erovs avv6Bov rj tw eTna/coira, tc.r.X., that is to say, *' until it seem good to the assembly of bishops, or to the bishop (who has passed the sentence)," etc. . . . Dionysius the Less has also followed this variation, as his translation of the canon shows. 2 It does not change the essential meaning of the passage ; for it may be well understood that the bishop who has passed the sentence of excommunication has also the right to mitigate it. But the variation adopted by the Prisca 3 alters, on the contrary, the whole sense of the canon : the Prisca has not tg3 kolvw, but only iTricncoTrro : it is in this erroneous form that the canon has passed into the Corpus juris can} The latter part of the canon, which treats of provincial councils, has been inserted by Gratian. 5 Can. 6. Ta dp^aia eOrj KpareiTco to, iv AlyuTTTco real Atfivy /cat Uevjairokei, d'erre rbv 'AXe^avBpeias iiriahcoirov Trdvrcov tovtcov eveiv ttjv i^ovcrlav, iireiBrj /cal tu> iv rfj 'Poy/xji eTncncoirw tovtu cvvrjdejO'9 yevocro e7r/cr/co7ro?, rbv rocovrov r) p,e /cayai T7jv i/xavTov -^rrjcpov eVt rov ctvSpa). 5 Finally, we shall see a little further on that this sixth canon also decreed measures to prevent the rights of simple metropolitans being completely absorbed in the privileges of the patriarchs. II. The sixth canon of Nica?a acknowledged for the Bishop of Antioch the rights which it had acknowledged for the Bishop of Alexandria ; that is, as it would be expressed at a later period, the rights attached to a patriarchate. The second canon of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, proves that the patriarchate of the Bishop of Antioch was identical with the civil diocese of Oriens. This diocese of Oriens contained, according to the Notitia dignitatum, fifteen civil provinces : Paloestina, Fcenice, Syria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Arabia, Isauria Pakestina salutaris, Palsestina (ii.), Fcenice Lybani, Eufratensis, Syria salutaris, Osrhoena, Cilicia (ii.). 4 Whatever might be the number of civil provinces that the diocese of Oriens contained at the time of the Council of Nicaia, it is not less certain that, in the canon before us, a supremacy was acknowledged for the Bishop of Antioch, ex- tending to several provinces which had their own metropolitans. Thus, for example, Palestine acknowledged as its metropolitan 1 Maassen, I.e. S. 24. * Epist. 76. 3 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 20. * Booking, Notil. dign. t. L in part, orient, p. 9; Maassen, I.e. S. il. 394 HISTOHY OF THE COUNCILS. the Bishop of Csesarea, as we shall see in the seventh canon of the Council of Nicsea ; but the metropolitan of Coesarea, in his turn, was under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, as his superior metropolitan (patriarch). S. Jerome says expressly that these rights of the Church of Antioch proceeded from the sixth canon of Nicoea, " in which it was ruled that Antioch should be the general metropolis of all Oriens, and Cossarea the particular metropolis of the province of Palestine (which belonged to Oriens)." 1 Pope Innocent I. wrote to Alexander Bishop of Antioch : " The Council of Niccea has not established the Church of Antioch over a province, but over a diocese. As, then, in virtue of his exclusive authority, the Bishop of Antioch ordains metropolitans, it is not allowed that other bishops should hold ordinations without his knowledge and consent." 2 These passages show us in what the rights of the metro- politan of Antioch consisted: (a) He ordained the metro- politans immediately : (/9) The other bishops, on the contrary, were ordained by their metropolitan, yet by his permission ; whilst, as we have seen further back, the patriarchs of Alex- andria ordained immediately the suffragan bishops also. III. For the support of its rule, the Council of Nicoea points out that the Bishop of Bome has also rights analogous to those which it acknowledges for the Bishop of Alexandria (and for the Bishop of Antioch). 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 ; for only in relation to this could any analogy be established between Rome and Alexandria or Antioch. This subject will be con- sidered more in detail further on. IV. After having confirmed the claim of the three crreat metropolitan cities of Borne, Alexandria, and Antioch to patriarchal rights, our canon adds : " The rights {irpea^ela) of the Churches in the other eparchies must also be preserved." The question is, What is here understood by the words, "the Churches of the other eparchies ? " Salmasius and others think that the question in point here is about ordinary eccle- 1 Hieron. Ep. 61 ad Pammach. : 2Vi fallor, hoc ibi decernilur, ut Palozstinat metropolis Cvesarea sit, et lotius Orienlis Antiochia. Cf, Maassen, I.e. S. 44. 9 lunoceut i. Ep. IS ad Alex. Antiocli. Cf. Maassej), I.e. S. 45. NICJBA-: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 395 siastical provinces and their metropolitan cities ; but Valesius, 1 Lupin, 2 Maassen, 3 and others have maintained that this pas- sage relates to the three superior eparchies (sensu cmincnti) of Pontus, proconsular Asia, and Thrace, which possessed similar rights to those of the patriarchal Churches of Eome, Alex- andria, and Antioch, and which later were usually called exarchates. The metropolitan cities of these three eparchies, sensu eminenti, were Ephesus for proconsular Asia, CaBsarea in .Cappadocia for Pontus, and Heraclea (afterwards Constanti- nople) for Thrace. The Council of Constantinople, held in 381, speaks 4 of these three exceptional metropolitan cities; and for my own part, I see no difficulty in believing that the Council of Nicoea also speaks of them in this sentence : " The rights of the Churches must also be preserved in the other eparchies ; " for (a) our canon does not speak of ordinary eparchies (that is to say, of simple metropolitan cities), but of those which have particular rights (it pea field). (/3.) The word 6/u.oiax; shows that the Synod places these eparchies in the same rank as the sees of Alexandria and Antioch. (7.) It is very true that the sixth canon does not deter- mine these other eparchies sensu eminenti ; but as the second canon of the Council of Constantinople (381) groups these three sees of the eparchies of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace just in the same way as the Council of Nicoea had grouped the Churches of Eome. Antioch, and Alexandria, there can be no doubt that the Council of Niccea had also in view these three eparchies sensu eminenti. (8.) This passage, taken from a letter of Theodoret to Pope Flavian, may also be quoted : 5 " The Fathers of Constantinople had (by this second canon) followed the example of the Fathers of the Council of Mcsea, and separated the dioceses the one from the other." It follows from this, according: to Theodoret, that the Synod of Nicrca had acknowledged as ecclesiastical provinces, distinct and governed by a superior metropolitan, the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace (as it had done with regard to the dioceses of Eome, Alexandria, and Antioch); lor, as the Council of Constantinople desired to l Lc "l.c. p. 68. 3 l.c.S. 57 f. * Can. 2. 5 Epislola S6. ri 9fl HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. separate the dioceses the one from the other, it is evidently necessary that the limits of these dioceses should be known, and that the three patriarchates of Eome, Alexandria, and Antioch should not be the only ones distinct. 1 V. The sixth canon proceeds : " It is plain enough, that if any one has become a bishop without the approval of the metropolitan, the great Synod (of Niccea) does not allow him to remain bishop." By metropolitan, Valesius understands patriarch, and explains the passage in this manner : " With- out the consent of the patriarch, a bishop should never be instituted." Dupin 2 and Maassen 3 think, on the contrary, that the question is here that of an ordinary metropolitan, and explain the sentence in this manner : " In those ecclesiastical provinces which form part of a patriarchate, care must be taken to preserve the rights of the simple metropolitan, and for that reason no person can be made a bishop without the consent of his immediate metropolitan ; that is to say, the patriarch himself cannot ordain any one without the consent of the metropolitan of the future bishop." This explanation shows why the Synod of Niccea- repeats in its sixth canon this sentence already inserted in the fourth : " No one can be made a bishop without the consent of his metropolitan." VI. According to what has been said, the end of the sixth canon, " When, from a mere spirit of contradiction, two or three oppose an election which has been made by all, and which is at the same time reasonable and in accordance with the rules of the Church, the majority must prevail," should be explained in this manner : " When any one has been elected bishop by the majority of the clergy and of the bishops of the province, and with the consent of the metropolitan and of the patriarch, then," etc. VII. This sixth canon was possibly the result of the Meletian schism ; for, as it is a fact that these schismatics slighted the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria, this confu- sion probably decided the Synod of Nicrea to define clearly the rights of that bishop. VIII. It may now be seen how clear and intelligible the 1 Cf. Maassen, he. S. U f. * Lc p. 68. 3 I.e. S. 62. NlO.EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 397 ♦ sense of this sixth canon is, and yet it has been the object of the most wide-spread controversies. 1. The first question is, What is the value of the canon before us with respect to the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy ? And while some have desired to see in it a confirmation of the doctrine of the Koman primacy, others have adduced it as a weapon against the primacy of the Holy See. 1 Phillips re- marks with justice, in speaking of this canon : " It is evident that this canon cannot be used to demonstrate the primacy of the Pope ; for the Council of Nicsea did not speak of the primacy, which had no need of being established or confirmed by the Council of Nicaea." 2 It must not be forgotten that the Pope unites in him- self several ecclesiastical dignities : he is bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, and lastly, primate of the whole Church. Each one of these dignities may be regarded separately, and that is what the canon has done : it does not consider the Pope as primate of the universal Church, nor as simple Bishop of Eome ; but it treats him as one of the great metropolitans, who had not merely one province, but several, under their jurisdiction. 2. There has also been a question as to what extent was given to this metropolitan diocese of Eome by the Council of Nicrea ; but the very text of the canon shows that the Council of Mecca decided nothing on this point: it is content to ratify and confirm the order of existing things. There has been a great conflict of opinions to explain in what this order of things consisted. The translation of this canon by Eufinus has been especially an apple of discord. 3 Et iit cqmel Alex- andria™, ct in itrbe Roma vetusta consuctuclo scrvdur, ut vcl Me Mgy-pti vel hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudincm gerat. 4 In the seventeenth century this sentence of Eufinus gave rise to a very lively discussion between the celebrated 1 Franc. Ant. Zaccaria lias proved that this canon contains nothing contrary to the primacy of the Holy See. Cf. Diss, de rebas ad histor. afque antiquitat. Ecclesice pertlnentibus, t. i. No. 6, Fulig. 1781. There appeared at Leipzig in the Litt. Ztg. 1783, No. 34, a violent criticism on the work of Zaccaria. 2 Kirchenrecht, I.e. S. 36. 3 Rufinus has, besides, divided this canon into two parte 4 Kufini Hist. Eccl. i. (x.) 6. « 98 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. jurist Jacob Gothfried (Gothofredus) and his friend Salmasius on one side, and the Jesuit Sirmond on the other. The great prefecture of Italy, which contained about a third of the whole Eoman Empire, was divided into four vicariates, among which the vicariate of Eome was the first. At its head were two officers, the prccfcctus urbi and the vicarius urbis. The prcefectus urbi exercised authority over the city of Eome, and further in a suburban circle as far as the hundredth milestone. The boundary of the vicarius urbis comprised ten provinces — Campania, Tuscia with Ombria, Picenum, Valeria, Samnium, Apulia with Calabria, Lucania, and Brutii, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Gothfried and Salmasius maintained, that by the regiones suburbicarice the little territory of the prccfcctus urbi must be understood ; whilst, according to Sirmond, these words designate the whole territory of the vicarius urbis. In our time Dr. Maassen has proved * in his book, already quoted several times, that Gothfried and Salmasius were right in maintaining that, by the regiones suburbicarice, the little terri- tory of the prccfcctus urbi must be alone understood. But, on the other hand, according to Maassen, it is a complete mis- take to suppose the patriarchal power of the Bishop of Eome restricted to this little territory. The sixth canon of Niccea proves that it was not so ; for, on comparing the situation of the two Churches of Alexandria and of Eome, it evidently supposes that the patriarchate of Eome extended over several provinces. In fact, the ten provinces composing the territory of the vicarius urbis, and which were hundreds of times larger than the rcgio suburbi- caria, did not contain all the territory over which the autho- rity of the Pope as patriarch extended ; for, in our days, Phillips has proved, by reference to the work of Benetti (Pri- vilcgia S. Petri), 2 that the Bishop of Eome had the right of ordaining bishops, and consequently the rights of a patriarch, over other countries than those which are contained in the ten provinces of the vicarius urbis? If the question is put in this way, it must be said, either that Eufinus does not 1 I.e. S. 100-110. 2 Vol. iv. p. 115. 5 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, l.c. S. 41. Cf. Walter. Kirchenrecht, lite Aufl. S. 290, note 4. NIC.EA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 399 identify the ccclcsice suburbicaria; with the regiones suburbi- caricc, or that he is mistaken if he has clone so. Phillips thinks that Rufinus has not really fallen into this error. Having remarked that the provincial suburhicarice (that is to say, the ten provinces enumerated above) took their name from the vicarius urbis, he considered that the ccclesiai suburhi- carice also took theirs from the cpiscopus urbis ; and he has comprised under this name of ccclcsice suburbicarice all the churches which form part of the Roman patriarchate. For my part, I willingly believe that the expression oi Ptufinus is inaccurate ; for the Prisca (an old Latin translation of the canons) translates the passage of our canon in question as follows : Antiqui onoris est, ut urbis JRomce episcopus Jiabcat principatum, ut suburbicaria loca et omnem provinciam suam sollicitucline gubemet ; x (a) understanding by suburbicaria loca the little territory of the prar/eches urbi, but (b) not restricting the authority of the Pope as patriarch within the limits of this territory ; and therefore it adds, et omnem provinciam suam. But what was in fact the extent of this patriarchate of the Church of Rome ? The Greek commentators Zonaras and Balsamon (of the twelfth century) say very explicitly, in their explanation of the canons of Nicpea, that this sixth canon confirms the rights of the Bishop of Eome as patriarch over the whole West. We see, then, that even the Greek schismatics of former times admitted that the Roman patriarchate embraced the entire West, 2 as the following testimonies and considerations prove : — a. Mention is made a hundred times by the ancients, of the patriarchates into which the Churches of the East were divided (Alexandria, Antioch, etc.) ; but no one has ever hinted at the existence of a second patriarchate of the West. On the contrary, it may be seen that in all the West there was only one patriarchate. b. S. Augustine shows that the Bishop of Rome was looked upon as this Patriarch of all the West, for he gives to Pope Innocent I. the title of " President of the Church of the West." 3 1 Mansi, vi. 1127. 2 In Beveridge, Synodlcon seu Pandeclce Canonum, i. 66, 67. 3 Contra Julianum, lib. i. c. 6. 400 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. c. S. Jerome gives the same testimony. He writes to the presbyter Mark, " that he was accused of heresy on account of his clinging to the homoousios, and that this charge had been carried to the West and into Egypt ; that is to say, to Damasus Bishop of Rome, and to Peter (Bishop of Alexan- dria)." It may be seen that, as the Bishop of Alexandria is here regarded as Patriarch of Egypt, so the Bishop of Pome is considered the Patriarch of the West. 1 d. The Synod of Aries, held in 314, speaks in the same way. In a letter to Pope Sylvester, it says to him : Qui major 'es diceccses tenes? It considers, then, that the Bishop of Rome has under his jurisdiction several (civil) dioceses, while the other patriarchs had, as we have seen, only one. e. We may finally appeal to the authority of the Emperor Justinian, who in his 119th Novel, speaking of the ecclesi- astical division of the whole world, numbers five patriarch- ates : those of Rome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem. Now, as these four last patri- archates contain only the Church of the East, it is evident that the patriarchate of Rome contains in itself alone all the West. 3 The Roman patriarchate contained, then, eight dioceses, which at the beginning of the sixth century were divided into sixty-eight provinces ; 4 and although, at the accession of Theodosius the Great — that is to say, in 378— Eastern Illyricum ceased to form part of the Empire of the West, and was joined to that of the East, yet the provinces of this prefecture continued to be joined to Rome for ecclesiastical purposes, and a special papal vicar was charged with the 1 Hieron. Ep. 15 (al. 77), ad Marcum presb. Cf. Maassen, S. 117. 2 Hard. i. 262. 3 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 113 f.; and Wiltscli, Kircld. Statist',!;, Bd. i. S. 67. 4 They were — 1st, The prefecture of Italy, with the three dioceses of Italy, Illyricum, and Africa ; 2d, The prafectura Galliarum, with, the dioceses of Hispanice, Septem provincice (that is to say, Gaul, properly so called, with Belgia, Germania, prima et sccunda, etc.), and Britannia*. ; 3c?, The prefecture •of Illyricum, which became part of the empire of the East after the accession of Theodosius the Great (it is necessary to distinguish this prefecture of Illyricum from the province of Illyria, which formed part of the prefecture of Italy), with the provinces of Macedonia and Dacia. Cf. Notitia d'ujnit. ed. Bocking, t. ii. p. 9 sqrp, p. 13 sepp, and t. i. p. 13 sq[.; and Maassen, I.e. S. 125. nklea: contexts of the canons. 401 ecclesiastical government of these dioceses. The first of these vicars was Bishop Ascholius of Thessalonica, appointed by Pope Damasus. 1 It must not, lastly, be overlooked that the Bishop of Borne did not exercise in an equal degree, over the whole West, the full rights of patriarch ; for in several provinces simple bishops were ordained without his consent. On the other hand, the Pope exercised his patriarchal right in convoking at different renewals the general and private synods of the Western Church {synodos occidentalcs) — for example, the Synod of Aries in 314 — and in making himself the judge of the metropolitans of the West, either directly or indirectly, as in Illyricum by his vicar. 2 In some ancient Latin translations, this canon begins with the words, Ecclesia Romano, semper hahuit primatum ; 3 and this variation is also found in the Prisca. So the Emperor Valentinian in., in his edict of 445 on the subject of Hilary of Aries, issued also in the name of his Eastern colleague Theodosius II., maintained that the holy Synod had confirmed the primacy of the Apostolic See. 4 The Emperor Valentinian evidently makes allusion to the sixth canon of Nicsea ; for at that time the second canon of the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, which speaks in the same sense, was not yet known at Borne. 5 It must be added that, at the time of the sixteenth session of the fourth (Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, the Boman legate Paschasinus read the sixth canon of Nicnea in the fol- lowing manner : Quod Ecclesia Romana sender hdbuit prima- tum ; tencat autem et JEgijptus, ut episcopus Alexandria? omnium liahcat potcstatem, quoniam et Romano cpiscopo hece est consuetudo. The actual text of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon proves that the translation given by Paschasinus was placed over against the Greek text of the sixth canon of Nicsea. An attempt has been made to see in this juxtaposition a protest 1 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 126-129. 2 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 121-125, and S. 131. 3 Hard. i. 325 ; Mansi, ii. 687 ; Van Espen, Covimentar. in canones, etc., p. 93. 4 Printed in the edition of the Works of S. Leo the Great, published by the Ballerini, i. 642. It is the eleventh letter in this edition. 6 Cf. Maassen, I.e. S. 71, and 96 f. a c 402 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. of the S} r nod against the Roman translation ; but even if it is admitted that the portion of the acts which gives these two texts is perfectly authentic, it is very evident that the legate Paschasinus had no intention, in quoting the sixth canon of Nicsea, to demonstrate the primacy of the Holy See : he only desires to prove that the Bishop of Constantinople ought not to take precedence of those of Antioch and Alex- andria, because that would be a violation of the canon of Nicsea. It was not the words of the translation of Paschasinus with reference to the see of Rome which engaged the atten- tion of the Council ; it was those which referred to the sees of Antioch and Alexandria, and those were very faithfully translated from the Greek. On the other hand, the Ballermi have shown in a nearly conclusive way, in their edition of the Works of S. Leo the Great} that the acts of Chalcedon have been interpolated, that the Greek text of the sixth canon of Mcssa must have been introduced by some later copyist, and that the text of Paschasinus was the only one which was read in the Synod. We shall return to this ques- tion in the history of the Council of Chalcedon. It seems to us that Dr. Maassen goes too far, when he says 8 that the Council of Chalcedon expressly confirmed the Roman interpretation of the sixth canon of Nicaea, and consequently its recognition of the Roman primacy. It is true that, after the reading of the Latin version of the canon in question, followed by the reading of the first, second, and third canons of Constantinople (of 381 3 ), the imperial commissioners who were present at the Synod made this declaration : " After what has been cited on both sides, we acknowledge that the most ancient right of all {irpo itclvtccv ra TrpaiTela), and the pre- eminence {koX ttjv i^alperov rifirjv), belong to the Archbishop of old Pome ; 4 but that the same pre-eminence of honour (ra irpeafiela t?;? rifir}?) ought to be given to the Archbishop of new Rome." Maassen has considered that, after these words of the imperial commissioners, it may be concluded that the sixth 1 T. iii. p. xxxvii. sq. 2 I.e. S. 90-95. 3 Hard. ii. 638. These canons were read by the consistorial secretary Con- staiitine. * Hard. ii. 642. nicjea: contexts of the canons. 403 canon of the Council of ISTictea had already recognised, in fact, the right of the Pope to take precedence of all other bishops ; but it was not so. The commissioners said : On both sides that is to say, in what the papal legate has read, and in what lias been read by the consistorial secretary Constantine as well, the precedence of Borne is recognised. This is the same as saying : This precedence, which we do not in the least con- test (there is no question, in fact, of that), is set forth (a) in the Latin version of the sixth canon of Nicsea, read by Pas^ chasinus, and is contained (b) in the canons of Constantinople read by Constantine. But the imperial commissioners of the Synod go no further in their declarations ; and in particular, they have not declared that the original text of the sixth canon of Mcsea — a text which had not been read — contains affirmatively a recognition or a confirmation of the primacy of the Pope. But it will be said, How could the ancient translators of these canons, as well as the legates of the Pope and Emperors, suppose that the sixth canon of Nicoea included a confirmation of the primacy of Rome ? In answer to this question, Dr. ■Maassen has put forward a theory, which we produce simply as a theory ; " The Fathers (of iSTicrea) confirmed the rights of each see (of Alexandria, of Antioch, etc.). Why did they take as an example in their decree the constitution of the Tioman patriarchate ? Why were they not content simply to give their sanction to those patriarchal rights without ad- ducing this analogy ? We cannot imagine a more striking- proof of the deep respect that the Fathers of Nicrea had for the visible head of the Church ; for no one will suppose that the simple confirmation by the Council of the rights of superior metropolitans would not be perfectly sufficient But that which was sufficient for mere law did not satisfy the Fathers of Nicrea : their own sentiments on the utility of the institution of patriarchates did not appear sufficient to in- fluence their decree : they did not wish to present to the approbation of the Pope those decrees simply confirming the privileges of superior metropolitans. They preferred to refer to the fact that ' the Bishop of Eome already enjoyed the same position:' it was to show that at Pome an institution 404 • HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. existed analogous to that which they wished to confirm. In reserving to himself a certain number of provinces which he might deal with in a peculiar manner, did not the Pope most clearly recognise it as necessary that the same should be the case with other Churches ; and that a portion of the power which belonged exclusively to him in his position as chief pastor of the universal Church, should be committed to other bishops ? The Bishop of Home was then, strictly speaking, the founder of the institution of patriarchates (that is to say, he gave to certain patriarchs a portion of that power over the universal Church which belonged to him). He had himself given the type, that is, the motive, upon which the Fathers of Niccea founded their canon. Can we wonder, then, that the most remote antiquity found in this canon, to use the expression of Pope Gelasius I., 1 'an unique and irrefragable testimony ' in support of the primacy ? " The sixth canon of Mcaea has been inserted in the Corpus juris canonici, but there it has been divided into three smaller canons. 2 Can. 7. 'Eirei^r) crvvijOeia /ce/cpdrrjice kal irapdBoat<; dpyaia, ware rbv iv AlXla eTTLCTKOTTOV Ttp.dadaij i^irco TrjV aKoKovdlav tj}? Ti/iT;? rfj p,rjrpo7r6\ei au>%op,evov rov otK€iov a%ia>p.aTO<;. " As custom and ancient tradition show that the Bishop of iElia ought to be honoured (in a special manner), he shall have precedence ; without prejudice, however, to the dignity which belongs to the metropolis." Short as this canon is, its explanation presents great diffi- culties. One thing is certain : it is, that the Council desires to confirm an ancient right of the Bishop of iElia, that is to say, of Jerusalem, to enjoy certain honours; but in what they consisted, and what must be understood by the words uKoXovOia T77? t£/u%, we cannot easily determine. If the city of Jerusalem had not been taken and destroyed by Titus, August 31st, in the seventieth year after Christ, it would certainly have had, in the organization and economy of the Church, a very distinguished place as the ancient 1 Hard. ii. 919 ; Maassen. S. 140 f. 1 C. 6, Dist. lxv. ; c. 8, Dist. Ixiv. ; and c. 1, Dist. Izt. NICEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 405 Mother- Church of Christendom ; but of old Jerusalem there remained only three towers and a portion of the city wall : all the rest was levelled with the ground, and the plough had passed over the ruins. A short time after the year 70, certain Jewish and Chris- tian colonists settled in the midst of these ruins, and built huts there, and even a little Christian church in the place, in which the first believers were in the habit of meeting after the ascension of Christ to celebrate the eucharistic feast. 1 A short time after the commencement of the second century, the Emperor Hadrian had a new city built upon the ruins of Jerusalem, with a temple to Jupiter Ccqntolinus. He also gave the new city the name of JElia Capitolina, in remem- brance of this temple and of his own family. He peopled it with fresh colonists, after the entire exclusion of the Jews. We find in this new city a large community of Christians, converts from heathenism, who had at their head the Bishop Marcus ; 2 but for tw T o hundred years the name of Jerusalem appears no more in history. 3 The new city was treated as though it had nothing in common with the old ; there was even considerable difficulty in knowing and distinguishing the differences which existed between the one and the other. 4 Thus it happened that the city of Hadrian had not the ecclesiastical rank which belonged by right to old Jerusalem. After Jeru- salem had been destroyed by Titus, Caesarea (Turns Stratonis), which had formerly been only the second city in the country, became the civil and ecclesiastical metropolis, and the Bishop of JElin, was only a simple suffragan of the metropolitan of Ccesarea. But it micjht be foreseen that the reverence of all Christians for the holy places, sanctified by the life, sufferings, and death of our Lord, would contribute little by little to raise the importance of the old city, and consequently that of its Church and bishop ; and thus it came to pass that the metro- politan of Caesarea was gradually equalled, if not surpassed, by 1 Epiph. de mensims et ponderibiis, c 14, t. ii. p. 170, ed. Petav. 2 Euseb. Hkt. Eccles. iv. 6. 3 It is only after the Council of Niccea that the name of Jerusalem reappear*, Eusebius, for instance, always uses it. : 4 Beveridgs, I.e. p. 63. 406 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. the dignity of the Holy City /car i^o^rjv, — -"without, however, the subordinate ecclesiastiaal position of the latter being altered. Towards the end of the second century the gradation was already so sensible, that at a Synod of Palestine the Bishop of iElia occupied the presidency conjointly with the metro- politan of Csesarea (secundo loco, it is true) ; as Eusebius, who was himself afterwards metropolitan of Csesarea, plainly tells us in the fifth book and twenty-third chapter of his History : " At a Synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy in the time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Csesarea and Nar- cissus of Jerusalem were presidents." The same Eusebius shows us, in his fifth book and twenty-fifth chapter, how near in honour the Bishops of Jerusalem and Csesarea were *n each other; for, when writing a list of the bishops, ho places Narcissus of Jerusalem before the metropolitan Theo* philus of Caesarea. It is true that in the twenty-second chapter he does the contrary. The synodal letter of the bishops assembled at Antioch in 2G9 on the subject of the errors of Paul of Samosata is very remarkable on this point. It is signed first by Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, immediately afterwards by Hymenseus Bishop of Jerusalem, whilst Theo- tecnus Bishop of Csesarea signs only quarto loco. 1 It must not, however, be hastily concluded from this that the Bishop of Jerusalem had already at this time priority of the metro- politan of Csesarea ; but it cannot be doubted that the entirely exceptional position in which he found himself would of necessity raise difficulties between himself and his metropo- litan. It is this which probably induced the Synod of Nicsea to pass its seventh canon. The eminent De Marca, as well as other historians, have supposed that by this canon the Synod wished to grant the first place to the Bishop of Jeru- salem, immediately after the three great Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, without altogether raising him to the rank of Patriarch, and leaving him subject to the juris- diction of the metropolitan of Csesarea, Marca explains in this way the words i-^erco ttjv aicdkovOlav t?}9 Tififjs: 1. He should have the honour (respectu honoris) of following im- mediately after the metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria, and • Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vii. 30. Cf. c. 22. Sec further back, sec. 9. TSHCM&: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 407 Aiitioch; 2. The last words of the canon signify that the. dignity which belongs to the metropolitan must not, however.- be infringed. 1 Marca appeals in support of his theory to an old translation by Dionysius the Less, and to another yet older translation which was composed for the Synod of Carthage held in 419. But not one of these translations supports Marca, for not one of them gives any explanation of the words atcdXovdia t??? rifif}?. 2 Beveridge has especially taken it upon himself to refute Marca. A patriarch placed under the jurisdiction of a metropolitan is, according to him, an impossibility. He considers that, by the words e^eVo) n)v aKo\ov6lav, the Council of Nicoea has simply desired to con- firm to the Bishop of Jerusalem the first place after the metropolitan of Ccesarea, just as in the Anglican hierarchy the Bishop of London comes immediately after the Archbishop of Canterbury. Beveridge remarks on this, that it may be answered, that in this same Synod of Nicrea, where the bishops signed by provinces, Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem nevertheless signed before Eusebius the metropolitan of Cassarea. Beveridge acknowledges the accuracy of this reply ;. but he adds that two other bishops of Palestine also signed before Eusebius, and yet no one will maintain that they were not under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Coesarea.. The sin-natures at the Council of Nicam are not, then, con- elusive. It might be added that, in these same signatures of the Council, the metropolitan of the province of Isauria. is found signing in the fifth place, that is to say, after four of his suffragans ; and even the metropolitan of Ephesus did not sign first among the bishops of Asia Minor (although Ephesus was one of the largest metropolitan cities of the Church) : his name comes after that of the Bishop of Cyzicus. A more remarkable incident is, that almost immediately after the Council of Nicnea, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, convoked, without any reference to the Bishop of Cresarea, a Synod of Palestine, which pronounced in favour of S. Atha- nasius, and proceeded further to the consecration of bishops. 1 Marca, de Concordia sacerdotii ct imperii, lib. v. c. 12, n. 4. * See Mansi, vi. 112S. and iv. 411 : Hard. i. 1246. 408 .' HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. Socrates, who records this fact, adds, it is true, that he was reprimanded for having so acted. 1 But this fact. shows that the Bishop of Jerusalem was endeavouring to make himself independent of the Bishop of Csesarea. It may also be seen by the signatures of the second (Ecumenical Synod, that Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem wrote his name before that of Thalassius Bishop of Csesarea. And, on the other side, it is not less certain that in 395 John metropolitan of Csesarea nominated Por- phyrins, a priest of Jerusalem, Bishop of Gaza ; and that the Synod of Diospolis, held in 415, was presided over by Eulo- gius metropolitan of Csesarea, although John Bishop of Jeru- salem was present at the Synod. These different researches show us that the question of precedence between the Bishops of Csesarea and Jerusalem cannot be determined ; for sometimes it is the Bishop of Csesarea who is first, sometimes the Bishop of Jerusalem. This state of things lasted on to the time of the third (Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem took a very prominent place, and signed immediately after Cyril of Alexandria (it is true the Bishop of Coesarea in Palestine was not present). But this same Cyril was at this Synod a declared opponent of Juvenal ; and when the latter wished by the help of false documents to have his ecclesiastical primacy over Palestine acknowledged by the Council, Cyril appealed on the subject to the authority of the Roman See. 2 This same Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem had attempted, after a long contest wilh Maximus Bishop of Antioch, to make himself a patriaich; and the Bishop of Antioch, weary of the controversy, determined that the three provinces of Palestine should be under the patriarchate of Jerusalem, whilst Phoenicia and Arabia should remain attached to the see of Antioch. The fourth (Ecumenical Council held 1 Socrates, ii. 24. 2 Pope Leo the Great wrote on this subject, in his sixty-second letter to Bishop Maximus of Antioch : Sicut etiam in Ephcsina synodo, quce impium Nestorium cum dogmate suoperculit, Juvenalis episcopus ad obtinendum Palcestinw provincial principatum credidit se posse sufficere, et insolcntes ausus per commentitia scripta firmare. Quod sancice memories Cyrillus Alexandrine merito perhorrescens, scripiis suis mihi, quid prcedicta cupiditas ansa sit, indkavit et sollicita prece multum poposcU, ut nulla illkitis conatibus prceberetur assensio.— Bevei.idue, J.c p. 64 b. nklea: contents of the canons. 409 at Chalcedon ratified this division in its seventh session, with- out, as it appears, the least opposition being offered. 1 The last words of the seventh canon, rf] firjTpoTroXei, k.t.X., have also been explained in different ways. Most writers — and we share their opinion — think that these words desig- nate the metropolis of Csesarea ; others have supposed that the question is about the metropolis of Antioch ; but Fuchs 2 has supposed that the reference is wholly to Jerusalem. Ac- cording to him, the Council simply wished to show the reason of the existence of certain honours granted to this Church, because this metropolis (as an original Church) had a special dignity. This last theory clearly cannot be sustained : if the canon had this meaning, it would certainly have had a very different form. This seventh canon has been inserted in the Corpus juris cano?iici. 3 Can. 8. Tlepl rwv ovo/ia^ovTcov fiev eavTOV? KaOapovs irore, Trpoaep- •yofiivcov Be rfj KadoXiKy tcai aTToarokiKTJ "'EKKXrjala, eSo^e 777 ay la Kal fieyaXr] crvvoBa), ware ^eipoOeToufievovs avrovs fieveiv ovtw<; ev ra> K\rjp(p' irpo irdvTcov he. tovto ofioXoyrjaai avTovs eyypdcpcos TTpocrrjiceL, ore avv9i]aovrai Kal dftoXovOrjaovcn Toh t?}? tcado\iKrj<; Kal d7rocrToXiKT]<; 'EKKXrjaia? Soyfiacn' tovt eari Kal Biydjioi? KOivoavelv Kal xot«? ev tu> Buoyed) TrapaireTTTcoKocnv' €(}> d)V Kal xpovos reraKrai, Kal Kacpos copicrrac' coari avrovs aKoXovOelv ev irdcn tck? Boyfiaat rf]<; KaOoXiKi)? 'EKKXrjaria*;' evda fiev ovv Travres, etre ev Ku>fxai<$, et're ev iroXecnv avrol fiovoi evpicTKOivro xeipoTovrjdevres, 01 evpLaKOfievoi ev ru> KXijpw taovrat, iv T(o avTu> ayn'^jxarf el Be rov tt}? KaOoXiKry; ^EKKXrjo-las eVt- ctkottov fj Trpeafivrepov ovtos nrpoaep^ovrai rives, TrpoBrjXov, d><; 6 fxev eiriaKoiros tj}? 'EKKXrjalas e^ei to d^lwfxa tov Ittlckotzov^ 6 Be ovofia^ofievos rrapa toZs Xeyofievois KaOapols e-n Io-kottos rip rov irpeafivrepov rifirjv e%ec 7rXi]v el fxi) dpa BokoIt] tq> e7n/JLo\6yr]crav ra ?jp,apTr]fieva avroU, /cal ofioXoy^aavrcov avTOiv, irapa kclvovcl KLVOvp,evoi avdpcoTrot tois TOiovTOi? X e ^P a t7riTe6eiKa kclvovi t&> iiacXricr ia.GTLKu>' (rOevre<; yap KaQaipovvrai. " The lapsi who have been ordained in ignorance of their fall, or in spite of the knowledge which the orclainer had of it, are no exception to the canon of the Church, for they are to be deposed as soon as their unworthiness is known." The tenth canon differs from the ninth, inasmuch as it concerns only the lapsi and their elevation, not only to the priesthood, but to any other ecclesiastical preferment as well, and requires their deposition. The punishment of a bishop who should consciously perform such an ordination is not mentioned ; but it is incontestable that the lapsi could not be ordained, even after having performed penance : for, as the preceding canon states, the Church requires those who were faultless. It is to be observed that the word irpo^eipi^eiv is evidently employed here in the sense of " ordain," and is used without any distinction from ^eipl^eiv ; whilst in the synodal letter of the Council of ISTicsea on the subject of the Mele- tians, there is a distinction between these two words, and irpoyeipiCfiiv is used to signify clicjcrc? 1 Cf. Beveridge, I.e. p. 70. 2 C. 4, Dist. SI, and c. 7, Dist. 24. 3 Socrat. I.e. L 9. 416 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. This canon is found several times in the Corpus juris canonici} Can. 11. Uepl to)V 7rapa/3dvT(i)v ywpls dvdyKrjs rj % Ttov irpocrevywv. "As to those who lapsed during the tyranny of Licinius, without being driven to it by necessity, or by the confiscation of their goods, or by any danger whatever, the Synod decides that they ought to be treated with gentleness, although in truth they have shown themselves unworthy of it. Those among them who are truly penitent, and who before their fall were believers, must do penance for three years among the audientes, and seven years among the sulstrati. For two years following they can take part with the people at divine service, but without themselves participating in the oblation." The persecution of Licinius had come to an end only a few years before the meeting of the Council of Nictea, and at the downfall of that Emperor. The cruelty with which they were persecuted led a large number into apostasy. Thus the Council had to take notice in several of its canons of the lapsi; and as there were different classes to be made among these lapsi — that is to say, as some among them had yielded at the first threat, whilst others had undergone long tortures before their fall — the Synod wished to take account of the extenuating as well as of the aggravating circumstances, and to proportion the punishment to the degree of the fault. This canon does not say how the least guilty are to be treated ; but it decides that those who are the most guilty, and the least excusable, should pass three years in the second degree of penitence, seven years in the third, and two years in the fourth or lowest class. 2 The canon supposes that those who are to receive this treat* 1 C. 5, Dist. 81 ; c. CO, Dist. 50. 1 See the fifth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, sec. 16 NIOEA: CONTENTS OF THE CANONS. 41'7 meut were l>efore their fall fidclcs, i.e. members of the Church, and not simple catechumens. We shall see in the fourteenth canon what the Synod decides with respect to catechumens who showed themselves weak. 1 Can. 12. 01 Be 7rpocr/c\r]9evTe<; fiev virb t?}9 vq,pvro% /ecu ttjv Trpcorrjv cpjxrjv evhei^d/Jbevoi, /ecu dirode/nevoi ra? ^covets, fxerd Be ravra iirl tov ol/celov hfierov dvaBpap,ovTe<; a>? tevves, &>? riva$ /ecu apyvpia irpoeaOai, /ecu fievecpueiois /cciTopdaxrcu to dvaaTparevaaadaf ovroi Befca err) vir oirnn era) a av fierd tov tj;? Tpierovs aKpodaewi yjpovov. e'' OTpaai Be tovtois nrpoai]Kei e^erd^etv ri)v irpoaipeaiv, /cat to e28o9 rrj<> fxeravolwi. baoi /u,ev yap /ecu (pofiai /ecu Bd/epvac, teal vrropiovfi teal dya6oepyicu<>, et«OTa>9 twv evywv KOLvcovrjcrovat, fierd tov e^elvcu ra Irna icon (p, iccu v 6 7ra\cub<; teal fcavovucos vofios (bvXaxOijo-ercu teal vvv, ware, el Tt9 egoSevoi, rov reXevralov koi dvay/caioTdrov ecpoSiov p,r] airoarepelaOaf el Se air o^v war 6 eh Kal Koivwvias irafuv rv^^v, iraXiv ev roh tfacriv e^eraaOfi, fiera rcov kqivwvovvtwv 7% et^f;? fxovqs ecrru>' KaOokov he /cat irepi rravros ovnvocrovv et;o8evovTo<;, alrovvros rov fxerao-^etv Eu^a- picrrias, 6 eVt'(7«:o7ro? jxera So/ayuacria9 eirioora). " With respect to the dying, the old rule of the Church shall continue to be observed, which forbids that any one who is on the point of death should be deprived of the last and most necessary viaticum. If he does not die after having been absolved and admitted to communion, he must be placed amongst those who take part only in prayer. The bishop shall, however, administer the Eucharist, after necessary inquiry, to any one who on his deathbed asks to receive it." The Synod of Xicsea provides for the case of a lapsus being in danger of death before he has fulfilled the period of his 1 Mansi, ii. 681, 690, 899, vi. 1129. 2 In Beveridge, I.e. i. 73. 3 C. 4, Dist. 5. >liV ^ 420 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. penance, and decides that, in conformity with the old custom and with old rules — for example, the sixth canon of the Council of Ancyra — the holy Eucharist (i erepa* Sia(f)ipovra, ical %eipoTovr}crcu iv ry avTov i/c/cXrjala, purj Kavovt i%eTa$fievos, d/cvpo<; earcu rj ^eiporovta. " Priests, deacons, and clerics in general, who have with levity, and without having the fear of God before their eyes, left their church in the face of the ecclesiastical laws, must not on any account be received into another : they must be compelled in all ways to return to their dioceses ; and if they refuse to do so, they must be excommunicated. If any one should dare to steal, as it were, a person who belongs to another (bishop), and to ordain him for his own church, with- out the permission of the bishop from whom he was with- drawn, the ordination shall be null." This sixteenth canon has a good deal of connection with the preceding. It contains two general principles : a. Id threatens with excommunication all clerics, of whatever de- gree, if they will not return to their first church ; 4 b. It forbids any bishop to ordain for his own diocese a person belonging to another diocese. It may be supposed that the Council of 1 Cf. Neander, KirchengeschicJite, 2te Aufl. Bd. iii. S. 317. 2 Beveridge, I.e. ii. 81 ; Neander, I.e. 3 Cap. 19, causa vii. q. 1. 4 According to Balsamon, exclusion from communio clerical'*. 4'J4. history of the councils. Nicsea has here again in view the Meletian schism ; but it must not be forgotten that Meletius did not ordain strangers to his diocese, and retain them afterwards, but the reverse — he ordained clergymen for other dioceses. We notice also, that in this canon the expression iv tw kovovi i^era^o/xevo'i occurs twice to designate a cleric ; it means literally, any one who belongs to the service of the Church, who lives under its rule {icavwv), or whose name m inscribed in its list (icavcov)} Gratian has inserted this canon, and divided it into two. 2 Can. 17. 'EireiS)} ttoWoI iv tyo kclvovi e^era^ofxevoi tIjv 7r\eove%i'av kcli ti]v ala^poKepBeiav &/a>KOVTe<; iirekddovro tov Oeiov ypufifxaTO^ A.eyoiH'os* To upyvpiov avrov ovk e&w/cev eVt tokco' koCi havei- fyvTes eKaroara'i uTratrovatv iSifcaicoaev r\ dyta /cat jj.€