7 ecumenical councils - XVII.
15 Cave). Hist. Lit., Lib. I., cap. v
16 S. Leon., M., Opp., ed. Ballerini, Tom. III., p. xxiv.
17 Smith and Wace). Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. Eusebius of Caesarea).
1 This list of names varies in the different mss. and versions.
2 This phrase in the Greek has dropped out in Labbe, and Mansi; it is found in Zoraras, etc).
1 This is the title in the Paris Edition of Zonaras. The Bodleian text simply reads “The Canons of the Synod at Gangra.”
2 (Mt 19,12 Mt 19,
3 (1Co 7,38 1Co 7,
4 (Ap 14,4
5 Hermes Pastor). Sim. x., xj.
6 Justin. M). Apol.. i.15.
7 Conc. Trid sessio 24,De Matr., can. 10,It is curious to note that while Eustathius and his followers held all marriage to be sinful, Luther (at least at one time) taught that it was a sin for anyone to remain unmarried who could “increase and multiply!” The Synod of Gangra in this canon sets forth the unchanging position of the Cathoilc Church upon this point).
1 Vide their edition of Opp. S. Leonis M., Tom. III., pp. 124, 685, 755).
1 Lightfoot adopts Laurents’ emendation and reads nvto). Sigavto has also been suggested and Hort’s thinks sthvtw to be the genuine reading. It all comes to the same thing, however, the meaning being perfectly clear).
1 Most interesting literature on the whole eubject will be found in conoexion with the frescoes and cups, etc., found in the catacombs).
1 Hefele thinks this list of provinces is probably an interpolation. In the Latin version this letter is followed by the names of the bishops).
1 This is the title in the codices of Zoraras; the Parisian edition of Balsamon simply reads “The Synod at Antioch.” The Bodleian ms. reads “Canons of the Synod at Antioch in Syria.”
2 There seems but little doubt that the Gregorian Calendar will be introduced before many years into Russia).
1 I confess I do not know what the phrase katav tina ajtaxivan means, nor do the Greek Commentators give much help. I have translated “by reason of some disorder” in the canon itself, and in the notes, but Beveridge renders it propter aliquam insolentiam, which to me appears very unsatisfactory. The pro quoedam intemperantia of the ordinary Latin seems no better. The same word is used in the next canon).
1 Hefele seems to have overlooked this. The note referring to the Apostolic Canons is all wrong (p.68, n. 1).
1 Hefele on the preceding page (p.61, n. I) says “Of course the sentence or canon to which the adversaries of Chrysostom referred must he distinguished from the fourth and twelfth true Antiochan canons. It seems somewhat difficult to reconcile this with what I have cited above, and with the following (p.65): ”“In the affair of St. Chrysostom the canon employed against him was represented as proceeding from the Arians. and all attempts to deny its identity with our fourth and twelfth Antiochian canons are fruitless”).
1 Pagi: crit. in Annal. Baron., a.d. 314, n. 25,Baronius’s view that this synod was held before that of Nice because the book of Judith is not mentioned among the books of the 0. T., and because its canons are sometimes identical with those of, Nice, is universally rejected.
2 Hefele: Hist. of the Councils:, Vol.11., p. 298.
3 Gratian: Decretum. Pars I., Dist. xx., c. 1. It is from Leo’s letter to the British Bishops).
1 Such is the caption in the Parisian edition of Zonaras; so too reads the Amerbachian codex; adding, however, that the number of canons is 60, and substituting for “Pacatiana” “Capatiana”, a not unusual form of the same word).
1 More accurately “a tumultuons and riotous mob” vide Liddell and Scott).
1 “Simples” (simplici) are distinguished from “doubles” (duplici)in not having their antiphons said double but only once.
1 I do not understand this note, as to-day in the Divine Office of the Greek Church the Psalms are still divided by Lessons. Vide The Horologion (wJrovlogion to; mevga) and an English translation by G. V. Shann, entitled Euchology, A Manual of Prayers of the Holy Orthodox Church).
1 Vide Tertullian.
2 Histoire du Bréviaire Romain. Paris. 1893. An English translation has since (1898) appeared by the Ap A. M. Y. Bayley, which is not in principle changed so far as this discussion is concerned).
3 Longfellow). The Golden Legend II. Liddon’s remarks upon this hymn are well worth the reader’s attention, Bampton Lectures, Lect. VII., where Keble’s translation will he found.
4 Taken from the Church Quarierly Review, 1898).
1 J.M. Neale). Essays on Liturgiology.
2 (Ac ij. 42.
3 Pierre Le Brun). Explic. Tom. II.,Diss. j .p.II et seqq.
4 Probst). Liturgie der drei ersten Christichen Jarhunderten.
5 Apolog. Cap. LXVII.
6 I venture to draw the reader’s attention to the rest of this article as containing information not readily found elsewhere.
7 The ms. from which this was printed was found in a library in Arezzo. Silvia was a lady of rank, living in the times of Theodosius, who madea pligrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Places from Meridian Gaul To us the chief interest of her book lies in the account she gives of the services. The following is the title, S. Silvioe Aquittane peregrinatio ad loca Sancta. It will be found in the Biblioteca dell’ Accademia storica giuridica. Tom. IV. Rome, 1887, and again in the Studi e Documenti di storia e dir itto, April-September, 1888, and the liturgical parts in in appendix to Duchesne. Of the other books the best edition is Adolf Harnack’s).
8 Bingham, Antiquities, XIII. 6.
9 Hammond). The Ancient Liturgy of Antiorh (Oxford, 1879).
10 The reader will, of course, recognize the foregoing as a piece of “Higher Criticism,” and need not be told that it rests upon no foundation more secure than probable guess-work).
11 An interesting and instructive book has recently been published on this subject by F. E. Warren, F S.A., entitled The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church, in which all the theories from Vitringa to Bickell are carefully considered. The book is one of the S. P. C. K. series, “Side-lights of Church History.”
1 It is interesting to note that the ancient custom is in full use in the Angilcan Church today, ordered expressly by the rubrics of the Prayer Book.
2 Eusebius). Hist. Eccl., V. 24).
3 What follows down to the next asterisk is a foot-note to p. 379 of Duchesne’s book).
1 (So both Zonaras and Balsamon give the number, but in this they follow the Latin numbers of the African Code, the Greek number is lxiij).
1 Aug). Epist. ad Januar.
1 See new edition of his collected works, vol. viij., pp. 66 et seqq.
2 Hefele). Hist. of the Councils, Vol. II., pp. 323, 324,
3 Leonis, Opp., Ed. Ballerini, tom. iii., p. 441, n. xiviij).
1 Theodosius was Emperor of the East. Gratian was Emperor of the West, but had no share in calling the council).
2 Orsi, 1st. Eccl, xviii., 63
3 E. B. Pusey). The Councls of the Church, a.d. 51–381, p. 306. Tillemont). Mémioires, xvj., 662, who says, “If none of those who die out of communion with Rome can merit the title of Saints and Confessors, Baronius should have the names of St. Meletins, St. Elias of Jerusalem and St. Daniel the Stylite stricken from the Martyrology.” Cf. F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and See of Rome.pp.174 and 238.
Many attempts have been made to explain this fact away, but without success. Not only was the president of the Council a persona non grata to the Pope, but the memhers of the Council were well aware of the fact, and much pleased that such was the case, and Hefele acknowledges that the reason the council determined to continue the Meletian Schism was because allowing Panlinus to succeed to Meletins would be “too great a concession to the Latins” (vol.III., p.346).
4 F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations. I. On monogevne" Qevo" in Scripture and tradition, II. On the Constantinopolitan Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the 4th Century. It should he added that Dr. Hort acknowledges that, “we may well believe that they [i.e. the 150 fathers of Constantinople] had expressed approval ”of the creed ordinarily attributed to them (p. 115). The whole dissertation is a fine example of what Dr. Salmon so well called Dr. Hort’s “perfervidum ingenium as an advocate,” and of his “exaggeration of judgment.” (Salmon). Criticism of the Text of the New Testament, p.12, also see p.34). Swainson. in his The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, has all the material points found in Hort’s Dissertation.Harnack goes much further. He is of opinion that the Creed of Constantinople (as we call it), the Creed which has been the symbol of orthodoxy for fifteen hundred years, is really a Semi-Arian, anti-Nicene, and quasi Macedonian confession ! The first contention he supports, not without a show of plausibility, by the fact that it omits the words (which were really most crucial) “that is to say of the substance of the Father.” In support of the second opinion he writes as follows: “The words [with regard to the Holy Ghost] are in entire harmony with the form which the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had in tbe sixties. A Pueumatochian could have subscribed this formula at a pinch; and just because of this it is certain that the Council of 381 did not accept this creed.” Some scholars arrive at “certainty” more easily than others, even Harnack himself only attains this “certainty” in the foot-note! The reader will remark that what Harnack is “certain ”of in the foot-note is that the Council “did not accept” this creed, not that it “did not frame” it, which is entirely a different question. (Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, [Eng. Trans.], Vol. iv., p.99)).
1 This is the title in the Ac of the IVth Council. Labbe, Conc:, iv, 342).
2 Soc., H. E., II.. 10; Soz., H. E.. III. 5; Athanas., De Synod., C. xxij.
3 I have used Petavius’s edition, Cologne. 1682; there are some differences in the various editions about the numbering of the chapters, and this seems to be the origin of the curious mistake Hefele makes in confounding the longer with the shorter creed.
4 This would be the year 374, that is to say seven years before this Second Ecumenical Council which was held at Constantlinople in 381).
5 In fact the contention of the Latins was that the words were inserted by II. Nice! To this the Easterns answered most pertinently “Why did you not tell ns this long ago?” They were not so fortunate when they insisted that St. Thomas woud have quoted it, for some scholars have thought St. Thomas but ill acquainted with the proceedings at the Seventh Synod. Vide Hefele, Concil.XLVIII., §810.
6 E. B. Pusey). On the clause “and The Son,” p. 68.
7 Hefele). Hist. of the Councils, Vol.III., p.175.
8 Hefele). Hist. Counc., Vol. IV., p. 416.
9 Hefele). Hist. Counc., Vol. IV., p.470; Vol. V., p.208.
10 Muratorius). Ord Rom., Tom.I. col. 541.
11 Mabillon. Mus. Ital., Tom. I., p.31 and p.376.
12 Labbe and Cossart). Concilia., Tom. vij., col. 1194.
13 Capit. Reg). Franc., Tom I., p. 483.
14 Fleury). Hist. Eccl., liv. xlv., chap. 48).
15 Pet. Damian). Opusc., xxxviij.
16 Leo Allat Graec. Orthod., Tom. I., p. 173
17 E. B. Pusey). On the clause,. “and the Son,” p.48.
18 Epiphanius, Ancoraus, cxx).
19 Peter of Antioch about a.d. 1054, says that he had heard the name of the Roman Pontiff recited from the Diptychs at the mass at Constantinople forty-five years before. Le Quien, p. xii.
20 E. B. Pusey). On the Claause “and the Son,” p.72.
21 Tillemont). Mémoires, Tom. ix.. art. 78, in the treatise on St. Greg. Nonz).
1 On the whole subject of the prayers of the Saints see H. R. Percival, The Invocation of Saints. (Longmans. London, 1896). I have the less hesitation in referring to my own work as it is, so far as I can discover, the only book In the English language devoted to an historical and theological consideration of the subject. Of course the subject is treated of cursorily in numerous theological treatises and dictionaries).
1 Such is the caption in the old Greek codices. The vijth of the Ides is July 9th. “From this (says Hefele) we may conclude that this synod which according to Socrates E., V. 8) begun May 381, lasted until July of that year.”
2 The theological views of Gess and Ebrard I know only from the statements of them in writers on the subject of the Incarnation, especially from those made by the Ap A B. Bruce, D D., Professor at Free Church College, Glasgow, in his work “The Humiliation of Christ.” (Lecture IV). The following passage cited by Dr. Bruce) seems to prove his contention so far as Gess is concerned. “Dass eine wahrhaft menschliche Seele in Jesu war. versteht sich für und von selbt: er war ja sonst kein wirlicher Mensch. Aber die Frage ist, ob der in’s Werden eingegangene Logos selbst diese menschliche Seele, oder oh neben dem in’s Werden eingegangenen Logos noch eine becondere menschliche Seele in Jesu war ?” (Gess). Die Lehre 5,d. Person Christi, ii.. p.321). Bruce understands Gess to teach that “The only difference between the Logos and a human soul was, that he became human hy voluntary kenosis, while an ordinary human soul derives its existence from a creative act.” (And refers to Gess, ut supra, p.325 et seqq). For Ebrard’s view, see his Christliche Dogmatik, II., p.40. Ritschl dubbed the whole kenotic theory as “Verschümter Socinianismus.”
1 The reader will notice that this is not even an approximately contemporaneous interpretation, but more than a century and a half later, after Leo I. had done so much to establish the power of his see).
2 T. W. Allies). The Ch. of Eng. cleared from the Charge Schism.(Written while an Anglican) p.94 (2nd Edition).
3 For some reason this canon does not seem to be any more acceptable to modern champions of the Papacy than it was to the Church of Rome fifteen hundred years ago. I give as a sample of this thefollowiug from a recent Roman Catholic writer :“The decree which goes by the name of the Third Canon of Constantinople was the germ of the successful mendacity of the arch-rebel Photius.” (Rivington). The Prim Ch., p.263). The phraseology seems to suggest warm discontent at the canon).
1 This canon is broken into two by the Ancient Epitome).
2 Photius, De Synodis,, p.1143, ed. Justelli.
3 Greg., Epist., Lib. I., 25).
4 In his edict against the Three Chapters.
5 Leo, Epist. 106,n., ed. Ballerini, t. i., p.1165).
1 Found in Theod., H. E. 5,9. The reader is warned against inaccurate translations of the dogmatic portions).
1 Rohrbacher, in his famous Histoire Universelle de l’Élise Catholique, Tome IV,. (Septième Edition), Livre xxxix., p.394, informs us that this letter gives the names of some of Cyril’s calumniators! The text he used must have heen different from the one now accessible to scholars).
1 Tillemont, Mémoires. Tom. XIV., p.405).
1 Vide notes on this expression).
2 This passage is very difficult and I have followed the Latin in omitting one Qeovn).
3 There is a most curious blunder in the editing of this Epistle in Migne, where this passage, which is but one text, viz.: Isaiah 25,8 is made into two, the first few words being assigned in the margin to Hosea, 13,14. As a matter of fact the whole sentence is turned into nonsense by making the words kai; pavlin as a connective supplied by St. Cyril. What the text really says is that Death prevailed indeed, but God wiped away again the tears death had caused. The same error is found in the letter as it occurs in Labbe and Cossart, and it should be remarked that it is both in the Greek and Latin. I rather suspect that St. Cyril had a purer text of the LXX. than ours which read—“And he hath swallowed death up and hath wiped away, etc.,” as the Vulgate and A. V. read. This is the reading the context certainly seems to call for.
4 For critical notes and proposed emendations of the text, see Routh’s Scriptorum Qo Opuscula. Tom. II. (Ed. III)., p.17).
1 Petavius gives a seholion on every anathematism and a résumé of the Orientals’ objections and of Theodoret’s criticisms, with answers.
2 This is a late form of Qeiws, but used only in its secondary sense).
3 Cf. Bp.Lightfoot’s criticism on Gibbon as an historian, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol.I., p.46 n. Macaulay’s History of England will of course instantly present itself to the reader as a sample of the brilliant variety of histories referred to in the text).
4 The date is not certain, it may have been a year or so different.
5 Theod., Hist. Eccl., I., 4.
6 Pearson, An Epos. of the Creed, Art. III., n. 36.
7 I take this passage as cited by Hefele, Hist. Counc., Vol. III., 9,
8 Ignat., Ad. Eph., 7,
9 Ibid. xviij.
10 Melito, Fragm. 14 (ed. Otto); cit. Lightfoot, Apost. Fath., II., 1, p. 48. n).
11 Pearson, An Expos. of the Creed,Art. III., n. 36).
1 The editor of the English translation to this reference adds the following note: “This is the reference in the original; but the editor is unable to say to what it refers.” (!) (Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol.III.. p.36, n. 3). “(Ex utero ante Luciferum genui te,” the third verse of the Psalm Dixit Dominus, cix., by the Hebrew numbering 110,
1 Complaint of all this has very justly been made recently by the Rev. Lc Rivington, a Romau Catholic writer, in his work The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, p 336.
1 It should be noted that in the Ac Cyril is described as having “the place of the most holy and sacred Archbishop of the Roman Church C(lestine.” Hefele says “that Cyril presided as Pope’s vicar is asserted also by Mennas of Constantinople and other Greek bishops in their letter to Pope Vigilius, in Mausi, t. ix., p. 62; Hardouin,t . iii.. p.10.” (Hef.,Hist. of the Councils, Vol.111., p.46, n. 4).
2 This seems to me to be the climax of improbable statements. There are many other things which will induce the curious reader to suspect that the Ac are not in good shape).
1 This letter we know was originally written in Latin, and that it was tsanslated into Greek and then read afterwards in that language to the Council. There would seem to be no doubt that the Greek text we now find in the Ac is that first translation, but whether the Latin is the original or whether it is a translation back again from the Greek is not known, so far as I am aware. Certainly the Latin is of the most extraordinary character. and suggests that it was the work of one not skilled in that tongue. The text in several places is manifestly corrupt and the Greek and Latin do not always agree. If I may venture to express an opinion I should say that the Greek was more lucid. Although in nineteen places Labbe considers the true reading uncertain).
1 This seems to be ceertainly corrupt. I have literally followed the Greek).
1 This is the caption in most mss., but in the Cod. Seguierianus it is quite different). Vide Labbe). Conc.. III., 802.
2 Tillemont, Mémoires, Tom. 14,
1 It should read “Celestius”; see Scholion on Canon I.
2 Petav. De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag). Hoer., Cap. 4,
3 I am chiefly indebted to Michaud for this last).
1 Hefele, Conciliengesch. XLVIII., §810).
2 Cyril. Alex., Ep. xxxv., Ad Acac. Melit.
3 E.B. Pusey, Lib. cit., p. 86
4 Labbe and Cossart. Tom. 5,col. 455.
5 In the Codex Caesareus, mentioned by Lambecius, Lib. 7,, cod 77).
1 Ecclesiasticus, xxxii., 19- “Do nothing without advice” (sine consilio nihil facias): The deutero-canonical book of Ecclesiasticus is here by an Ecumenical Council styled “divinely-inspired Scripture.”
1 Plural in the Greek but singular in the Latin, which the critical editors consider the correct reading.
2 It seems that e[xonta" and not e,kovnta", is the true reading.
3 The Latin adds, “Then all the bishops subscribed their names”).
1 They were therefore Nestorians).
1 The text, as the side note remarks, “seems to be mutilated and depraved ”in this passage, but the meaning is clear enough as given by Hefele in the note).
1 This whole paragraph reads with material differences in the Latin. Moreover while the Greek text is clear and grammatical, the Latin is most incorrect and halting. Leo is described as “Pope of the city of Rome,” instead of “bishop of Rome.”
2 This statement, so absolutey contrary to fact. has been a sore dificulty to the commentators. Arendt (Leo the Great and his Times, § 270) says that this meant only that “he had, without permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there, and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.” Almost the same is the explanation of the Ballerini (Leo M). Opera, Tom. 2,460. n. 15).
3 The Latin here has the usual form “amplissimus senatus,” for which the Greek is perifanevstatoi sugkletikoi;).
1 Added in the Latin acts.
1 The translation here given is that of Ap Wm. Bright. D.D., found in his Select Sermons of S.Leo the Great on the Incararnation with his XXVIIIth Epistle called the “Tome”. London, 1886.
2 It will be noticed here that the virgin-birth is as distinctily defined as the virgin-conception).
2 The translation of the Engilsh Hefele (iv. 328) “in communion with” is most extraordinary).
1 Vide Parallel note from Hefele).
1 The English translation of Hefele asserts twice (Hist. of the Councils, Vol. III., pp.173 and 376), that Bassianus was “deposed”. This is entirely a mistake, he was deprived of his diocese, but retained his episcopal rank).
1 Not given in Hefele, and incorrectly printed in Van Espen as Causa XII. Instead of VII).
1 Hefele does not give this reference, and Van Espen gives it incorrectly as causa 19,instead of 16,
1 “The City,” that is to say Constantinople.
1 The reader may like to see the vow on this subject taken by King Charles I. of England, and which was made public by Archbishop Sheldon after the Restoration. The vow is as follows “I do here promise and solemnly vow, in the presence and service of Almighty God, that if it shall please the Divine Majesty of his infinitegoodness to restore me to my just Kingly rights, and to re-establish me in my throne. I will wholly give back to his Church all those impropriations which are now held by the Crown; and what lands soever I do now or should enjoy, which have been taken away either from any episcopal see or any cathedral or collegiate church, from any abbey or other religious house, I likewise promise for hereafter to hold them from the Church under such reasonable fines and rents as shall he set down by some conscientious persons, whom I propose to choose with all uprightness of heart to direct me in this particular And I humbly beseech God to accept of this my vow, and to bless me in the design I have now in hand through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
“OXFORD, April 13, 1646.”
1 I think this is the first time I have ever noticed Van Espen to have omitted giving the reference).
1 It is curious that both the French and English translations of Hefele give this reference incorrectly, and each makes the error, giving Dist. lxxix. instead of lxxxix).
1 Such is not the case in Aristenus as found in Beveridge, Tom. I., p. 147).
2 Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrétien, p. 24).
3 “Apostolic Chair of Rome” in the Greek of the acts).
1 These words do not occur in the Acts.
2 i.e., a conciliar decree).
1 These words are found only in the Latin).
1 Addis and Arnod). A Catholic Dictionary. Sixth Ed with imprimatur signed by Cards. Manning and McCloskey, s.v. Three Chapters).
1 From here to the next asterisk the text varies. Hefele says he follows the Paris codex with “abridgments”.
2 The emperor could say that the letter was condemned at Chalcedon, because the Ac of Ephesus were read in the first session of Chalcedon. Garnier is in error with regard to this, as Hefele points out.
3 This I have given in full).
1 Thus far the mss. agree almost word for word. The divergence for the rest is most marked.
2 There is some doubt about this name.
3 This was the “Constitutum”).
1 This, of course, refers to Pope Vigilius).
1 The text here is uncertain, and the Latin and Greek do not agree). Vide Hefele.
2 i.e. “as an abstraction (th/` qewrivaJ movnh/).”
3 The text here is uncertain).
4 Hefele). Hist. Councils Vol IV., p 230, note).
5 Hefele). Hist. Councils Vol IV., p 223.
6 Speech of Ascidas in the V. Session.
7 Harnack). Hist. of Dogma, Vol. IV., n. 249 (Eng. Trans)..
8 Ibid., p.245, note 2.
9 Ibid., p. 349).
1 The following is Hefel’s note (Hist. Councils, Vol. IV., p.226, note 1):
“Paragagei`n can in no way be translated, as it has hitherto been, by pr(tergressus or ‘passed over0’: ‘That Christ has gone over to all corporeity on heaven and earth,0’ which gives no sense). Paravgein means here, like paragwgev in the second anathematism, creare producere ‘create0’, ‘bring into existence.0’ Suicer, in his Thesaurus, completely overlooked this. Cf. Stephani, s. vv paravgw and paragwghv.”
1 The reader should carefully study the entire tractate of the Emperor against Origen of which these anathematisms are the conclusion. It is found in Labbe and Cossart, and in many other collections.
2 The text is, I think corrupt, at all events the Latin and Greek do not agree).
1 In this sentence I have followed De Marca’s Latin version, but I must confess that I am not at all satisfied with the construing of the long phrase beginning Ou)tw" w,").
2 The reader will notice that this is hardly distinguishable from the “moral growth” and “ethical development” which the modern “kenotists” attribute to the Incarnate Son of God).
3 i.e). a.d. 553.
4 The last sentence of the Constitutum, the sentence which the Pope gave and which the council rejected, is as follows: “We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one who stands in ecclesiastical order of office, to write or bring forward, or undertake, or teach anything contrary to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the Three Chapters. or, after this declaration begin a new controversy about them. And if anything has already been done or spoken in regard of the Three Chapters in contradiction of this our ordinance by anyone whomsoever, this we declare void by the authority of the Apostolic See.” It is perfectly clear that the Emperor is the “anyone” referred to).
1 The word “our” omitted in the Latin).
1 The words in brackets are not quoted by Bossuet).
2 Only in the Latin).
3 Meo affectu: Kat, e,mh;n diavqesin).
4 Propter fastidium, what this may mean I have no idea; the Greek is still more extraordinary: p;aqumiva" (vel). Baruqumiva") cavrin).
5 The meaning of this passage is clear enough but the text is slightly corrupt).
6 I.e., the imperial edicts).
1 “Old” omitted in Latin).
2 “Old” omitted in Latin).
1 Psalm C., verse 8 (He ci.). ult). neither LXX. nor Vulgate version).
2 Penuacchi, De Honorii I., Romani Pontificis, causa in Concilio VI.
3 Hefele). History of the Councils. Vol V., p.190 et seqq.
4 “Also Honorins). qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt”.
5 Ed. Eugène de Rozière. Paris, 1869, No.84.
6 Bossuet). Def. Cleri Gal., Lib. vij., cap. xxvj).
1 This statement of Fleury’s is contested by those who agree with Asseman in thinking that the Sixth Synod was held in Santa Sophia, vide Biblioth. Jur., Orient. Tom. 5,, p.85).
2 Cf. Hefele, l.c., Vol. V., 237. On the other hand vide Assensan (l.c. Tom. V. pp.30, 69), who thinks Alexandria and Jerusalem were vacant at the time!
1 Latin reads “mind or soul”.
2 Latin,“ believed in.”
1 The Ultramontane Roisselet de Sauclières, in his Histoire chronologique et doqmatique des Conciles de la Chrétieté, Tome III., p. 131, curiously divides this into two councils. This blunder is also made by Ivo, cf. Gratian’s Dec., P. I., Dist. xvi.c. vii., note by correctors).
1 (Jn Fulton, Index Canonum, p.29 (N.Y., 1892).
2 Ibid., p. 294).
3 (Mt 19,29 Lc 18,29 Lc 18, Mc 10,29 is found the same incident recorded. but while “wife” is mentioned among the things “left,” no “wife” is found among the things gained.
4 (1Tm iii., 2 and 12; Titus 1., 6.
5 Hieron). A dv. Jovin. Lib. I). Confer also the In Apolg .pro libris Adv. Jovina).
6 Epiph). Exposit). Fid. Cath., c. xxi.
7 Ibid). Hoeresi. 48, n. 7).
8 Epiph. Hoeresi, 59, n. 4.
9 Ibid). ut supra.
10 Hieron). Apolog. pro. lib. adv. Jovin.
11 It is curious that this is just four centuries, the same length of time as from the Reformation.
12 L’Ami du Clergé, 6 Aofit, 1896, pp.677 and 678).
13 This letter is found in full in the Addenda to the Appendix at the end of the seventh volume of Burnet’s History of the Reformation (London. Orr & Co., 1850, p. cxlviij).).
1 It is curious that Balsamon quotes this canon at xl., i.e., the Latin numbering and not the Greek which he himself uses In his scholia).
1 Van Espen says that in his copy of Gratian this canon is assigned to the VIIth Synod. Such is not the case in the edition in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, where the reference is given as ex VI). Synodo). c. II., and Judoerum is found in the text instead of the eorum of which Van Espen complains).
1 Clement VIII. made a decree in conforinity with this canon that a Greek presbyter who was married shall abstain from his wife for a week or three days before he offered the sacrifice of the mass). Const. 33, in Bull. Rom (cit. Van Espen l.c).
1 A faculty is allowed for earlier ordination, but since 1804 only to be granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This limitation is, however, only of Parliamentary sanction (44 Geo. III., ch. 43).).
1 It is curious that so learned a scholar as the late Henry Bradsbsw in his article "“Subdeacon”" in Smith & Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christ. Antiq. should give the date of this synod as 447. Hefele fixes it at 527 or 531. Baronius, Binius. Lablbe, and many others at 531. A very ancient ms. assigns it to the year 565 of the Spanish era, i.e. 527, and this is the date Cardinal de Aguirre adopts, and is also the one given to the council by the editors of L’Art de Vérifier les dates.
1 I have not followed the Oxford translation, which seems to me to have reversed the point. In a foot-note to that translation (Chrysostom on Acts, Part 1P 199) will be found a translation of this canon).
1 Can this mean the Pope?
1 I have followed the reading ajpeivrw").
2 It is not generally known that this evident citation of Canon XIX. of the Quinisext Council forms part of the action enforcing the XXXIX. Articles of the Church of England).
1 I.e., of the Mass.
7 ecumenical councils - XVII.