7 ecumenical councils - XVII.
Answer. Let him be illuminated, i.e. baptized, for he is called by God.
Question II.
If baptism be desired for a catechumen that is possessed, what shall be done?
Answer. Let him be baptized at the hour of death, not otherwise.
Question III.
Ought a communicant to communicate, if he be possessed?
Answer. If he do not expose or blaspheme the Mysteries, let him communicate not always, but at certain times.
Question IV.
If a catechumen be sick, and in a frenzy, so that he cannot make profession of his faith, can he be baptized, at the entreaty of his friends?
Answer. He may, if he be not possessed).
Question V.
Can a man or woman communicate after performing the conjugal act over night?
Answer. No. 1Co 7,5.
Question VI.
The day appointed for the baptism of a woman; on that day it happened that the custom of women was upon her; ought she then to be baptized?
Answer. No, not till she be clean.
Question VII.
Can a menstruous woman communicate?
Answer. Not until she be clean.
Question VIII.
Ought a woman in child-bed to keep the Paschal fast?
Answer. No.
Question IX.
Ought a clergyman to perform the oblation, or pray, while an Arian or heretic is present?
Answer. As to the divine oblation, the deacon, after the kiss, makes a proclamation, “Let all that are not Communicants walk off;” therefore such persons ought not to be present, except they promise to repent, and renounce their heresy.
Question X.
( sick man obliged to keep the Paschal fast?
Answer. No.
Question XI.
If a clergyman be called to celebrate a marriage, and have heard that it is incestuous; ought he to comply, and perform the oblation?
Answer. No; he must not be partaker of other men’s sins.
Question XII.
If a layman ask a clergyman whether he may communicate after a nocturnal pollution?
Answer. If it proceed from the desire of a woman, he ought not: but if it be a temptation from Satan, he ought; for the tempter will ply him when he is to communicate.
Question XIII.
When are man and wife to forbear the conjugal act?
Answer. On Saturday, and the Lord’s day; for on those days the spiritual sacrifice is offered.
Question XIV.
Shall there be an oblation for him, who being distracted, murders himself?
Answer. Not except the case be very clear that he was distracted.
Question XV.
If one’s wife be possessed to such a degree, as that she be bound with irons, and the man cannot contain, may he marry another?
Answer. I can only say it would be adultery so to do.
Question XVI.
If a man in washing or bathing, swallow a drop of water, may he communicate after it?
Answer. If Satan find an occasion of hindering us from the communion, he will the oftener do it.
Question XVII.
Are they, who hear the Word, and do it not, damned?
Answer. If we neither do it, or repent that we have not done it.
Question XVIII.
At what age are sins imputed to us by God?
Answer. According to every one’s capacity and understanding; to one at ten, to another when older.
The Prosphonesus of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, When the Holy Epiphanies Happened to Fall on a Sunday.1
Canon I.
Because the fast of Epiphany chances to fall on a Lord’s day, let us take a few dates, and so break our fast, and honour the Lord’s day, and shew our dislike of heresy, and yet not wholly neglect the fast which should be observed on this day; eating no more till our evening assembly at three afternoon).
The Commonitory of the Same Which Ammon Received on Account of Lycus.
Canon II.
Let [the priests] who have communicated with the Arians, be retained or rejected, as the custom of every church is; but so, that other orthodox [priests] be ordained, though the others continue. As the orthodox bishops did in Thebais, so let it be in other cities. They who were ordained by Bishop Apollo, and afterwards communicated with the Arians, if they did it of their own accord, let them be censured; but if they only did it in obedience to the bishop, let them be continued; but if all the people abdicate them, others must be ordained. And if Bistus the priest be found to have committed uncleanness with a woman dismissed from her husband, let him not be permitted to be a priest. But this is no prejudice to the bishop who ordained him, if he did it ignorantly; since the Holy Synod commands unworthy men to be ejected, though they be not convicted until after ordination.
Canon III.
Let Bishop Apollo’s sentence against his priest Sur prevail, though he has the liberty of being further heard.
Canon IV.
If Panuph the deacon married his brother’s daughter before baptism, let him continue among the clergy, if she be dead, and he had not to do with her after his baptism; but if he married her, and cohabited with her while he was a communicant, let him be ejectedfrom the clergy, without prejudice to the bishop who ordained him, if he did it ignorantly.
Canon V.
If it do evidently appear, that Jacob, while he was reader, did commit fornication, and was ejected by the priests (presbuterwn), and yet afterwards ordained, let him be ejected, and not otherwise.
Canon VI.
That all in holy orders unanimously choose those who are to be ordained, and then the bishop examine [them]; or that the bishop ordain them in the midst of the church, all that are in holy orders consenting, and the bishop with a loud voice asking the people, who are then to be present, whether they can give their testimony [to the parties to be ordained]; and that ordination be not performed in private; if there be in the remote country, who while they were communicants [with the Arians] communicated in their opinions, let them not be ordained until they be examined by orthodox clergymen, in the presence of the bishop, who is to charge the people, that there be no running up and down in the middle of the church, or service.
Canon VII.
Let the clergymen distribute all that is offered by way of sacrifice, after so much as was necessary has been consumed in the Mysteries. Let not the catechumens taste of them, but clergymen and communicants only.1
Canon VIII.
One, Hierax, had delated a clergyman as guilty of fornication. Bishop Apollo defended him. Theophilus orders the matter to be examined.
Canon IX.
That an Oeconomus he created, by the consent of all that are in Holy Orders, with the concurrence of Bishop Apollo, that so the goods of the Church be expended as they ought.
Canon X.
That the widows, poor, and travellers be not disturbed; and that no one make a property of the goods of the Church.
Of the Same to Agatho the Bishop.
Whereas Maximus has for ten years lived in unlawful marriage, but pretends that it was through ignorance, and that they are now parted by mutual consent, let them stand among the catechumens, if it appear that they be in earnest.
Of the Same to Menas the Bishop.
Theophilus was informed, that the priest in Geminus, a village, had repelled Kyradium (a woman) from the communion: Theophilus approves of it, because she had done wrong, and was unwilling to make satisfaction; but orders her to be admitted to communion upon repentance).
The Narrative of the Same Concerning Those Called Cathari.
Because the great synod held at Nice has decreed, That [the clergymen] who come over to the Church from the Novatians be ordained; do you ordain those that come over, if their life be upright, and there be no objection.
The Canonical Epistle of Our Holy Father Among the Saints, Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, on the Hymns.1
Cyril to Domnus.
This letter contains a complaint of one, Peter, deposed from his See, yet retaining the character of a bishop, who thought his cause good, but complains that he had not time and opportunity given him for his defence; and that whatever he had, was taken away from him. He desires Domnus, who was a Metropolitan, that he would call a synod, and let him have a hearing; and that such bishops as Peter suspected of prejudice against him should not be permitted to be his judges. He thinks it very hard, that not only what belonged to the Church, but every thing else was taken from him; and complains that all bishops were called to account for every thing they received, whether from the Church, or by any other means. Peter had indeed signed an instrument of resignation; but Cyril says, that he was terrified into it; and that he would have no such resignation be of force except he that made it deserved deposition.
Of the Same to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis.
There is another Epistle of the same father, complaining to the bishops of Libya and Pentapolis. That some who had been refused ordination by their own bishop, or east out of the monasteries for their irregularity, were ordained by a surprise upon some other bishop, and that just as they came from their bride-bed, and then went and performed the oblation, or any other office, in the monasteries from which they had been ejected, which gave great offence. He charges the bishops to take care of this for the future and, if any were to be ordained, to enquire into their lives, and whether they are married, and when, and how; and orders, that catechumens, who had been separated for lapsing, be baptized at the hour of death.
The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius
Patriarch of Constantinople and of the Holy Synod Met with Him to All the Holy Metropolitans and to the Pope of the City of Rome).
To the most beloved of God, fellow-minister, Gennadius and the most holy synod assembled in the royal city which is New Rome, sendeth greeting.
As our Lord without money and without price ordained his Apostles, so should we ordain the clergy, for the Lord has placed us in their grade and in their stead (ei" ton ekeinwn baqhon te kai topon). Nor should we use anyingenious sophisms to avoid this plain duty,explicitly laid upon us, not only by the words of the Gospel but also by a canon of the greatEcumenical Synod of Chalcedon.parparpar
[i]
1 Vide Apostolic canon LXXV., and Ancyr. Canon XIX.
2 This was until the division of the East and West the definition accepted by all the whole Christian world. But since the Church has been divided, while the East has kept to the old definition and has not pretended to have held any Ecumenical Conncils, the Roman Church has made a new definition of the old term and has then proceeded to hold a very considerable number of synods which she recognizes as Ecumenical. I say “a very considerable number,” for even among Roman Catholic theologians there is much dispute as to the number of these “Ecumenical Synods,” the decrees of which, like those of Trent and the Vatican, have never been received by about half of the Christian world, including four of the five patriarchtaes and of the fifth patriarchate all the Anglican communion. According to modern Roman writers the definition of these non-ecumenically received Ecumenical Synods is “Ecumenical councils are those to which the bishops and others entitled to vote are convoked from the whole world under the Presidency of the Pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received Papal confirmation, bind all Christians.” Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, s.v. Councils. The reader will notice that by this definition one at least (I. Constantinople), probably three, of the seven undisputed Ecumenical Synods cease to be such).
3 Vide Vasquez, P. III., Disp. 181. c. 9; Bellarmin., De Concil., Lib. II., cap. xvij.; Veron, Rule of the Cath. Faith, Chap. I., §§, 4, 5, and 6.
4 See Hefele’s answer to Baronins’s special pleading). Hist. Councils, Vol. I, pp. 9, 10.
5 It should be stated that at the Sixth Synod it was said that I. Nice was “summoned by the Emperor and Pope Sylvester,” on what authority I know not.
6 Cf. Theod). H.E., Lib. I., e. 6).
7 Protestant Controversialists, as well as others, have curious ways of stating historical events without any regard to the facts of the case. A notable instance of this is fonnd in Dr. Salmon’s Infallibility of the Church (p.426 of the 2d Edition) where we are told that “the only one of the great controversies in which the Pope really did his part in teaching Christians what to believe was the Eutychian controversy. Leo the Great, instead of waiting, as Popes usually do, till the question was settled, published his sentiments at the beginning, and his letter to Flavian was adopted by the Council of Chalcedon. This is what would have always happened if God had really made the Pope the guide to the Church. But this case is quite exceptional, resulting from the accident that Leo was a good theologian, besides being a man of great vigour of character. No similar influence was exercised either by his predecessors or successors.” This sentence is not pleasant reading, for it is an awe-inspiring display of one of two things, neither of which should be in the author of such a book. We need only remind the reader that Celestine had condemned Nestorius and his teaching before the Council of Ephesus; that Honorius had written letters defining the question with regard to the will or wills of the Incarnate Son before the III Council of Constantinople (which excommunicated him as a heretic for these very letters) ; that Pope Vigilius condemned the “Three Chapters” before the II. Council of Constantinople; and that Gregory II. condemned the iconoclastic heresy before the Seventh Synod, if the letters attributed to him be genuine (which is not quite certain, as will be shewn in its proper place). Thus the only two great questions not decided, one way or another, by the See of Rome before the meeting of a General Council were Arianism and Macedonianism, and some have held (though mistakenly as is generally thought) that Arius was condemned by a synod held at Rome before that of Nice.
8 See Michaud’s brillant answer to Hefele, Discussion sur les Sept conciles Oecuméniques, p. 327.
9 The reader may easily satisfy himself on this natter by reading the somewhat extensive works of Aloysius Vincenzi, published in Rome in 1875 and thereabouts).
10 Epistle XXIV. of Lib. 1).
11 As one of the few books of the Eastern Church ever translated into a Western tongne, the reader may be glad to have its full title). Compendium des Kanonischen Rechtes der einen heiligen, allgemeinen und apostoliochen Kirche verfaszt von Andreas Freiherrn von Schaguna. Hermannstadt, Buchdruckerei des Josef Droklieff, 1868.
12 According to the Eleuchus, in the beginning of this volume, both of these writings are found in the First Part and not in the Second Part of the volume.
13 Schoell says that the text is not accurately given).
14 I am indebted to Hefele, History of the Councils. Vol. I.. p.67 et seqq., for this acconut of Merlin’s Collection, as also for most of the statements that follow. Hefele says (footnote to page 67): “The longest details on Merin’s edition are found in a work of Salmon. Doctor and Librarian of the Sorbonne, Traité de l’Etudes des Cinciles et de leurs Collections, etc. Paris, 1726.”
15 Hefele, Hist. Councils, vol.1, p.69).
16 Salmon, l. c., pp. 315–331, 786–831.
17 It was written in Latin but, says Bury (Appendix to Vol. V. of Gibbon’s Rome, p.525), “was also immediately after its publication in Latin, issued (perhaps incompletely) in a Greek form (Cf. Zacharia Von Lingenthal, Gr. Röm. Recht, p.6). Most of the later Novels are Greek, and Novel vij). [15, ed. Zach.] expressly recognizes the necessity of using ‘the common Greek tongue.0’”
18 This is clearly set forth by Pope Vitilius as follows : “No one can doubt that our fathers believed that they should receive with veneration the letter of blessed Leo if they declared it to agree with the doctrines of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils, as also with those of blessed Cyril, set forth in tue first of Ephesus. And if that letter of so great a Pontiff, shining with so bnight a light of the orthodox Faith, needed to be approved by these comparisons, how can that letter to Maris the Persian, which specially rejects the First Council of Ephesus and declares to be heretics the expressed doctrines of the blessed Cyril, he believed to have been called orthodox by these same Fathers, condemning as it does those writings, by comparison with which, as we have said, the doctrine of so great a Pontiff deserved to be commended ? ”—Vigil., Constitutum pro dammatione Trium Capitulorum. Migne, Pat. Lat., tom. lxix., col. 162.
19 This is clearly set forth by Pope Vitilius as follows : “No one can doubt that our fathers believed that they should receive with veneration the letter of blessed Leo if they declared it to agree with the doctrines of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils, as also with those of blessed Cyril, set forth in tue first of Ephesus. And if that letter of so great a Pontiff, shining with so bnight a light of the orthodox Faith, needed to be approved by these comparisons, how can that letter to Maris the Persian, which specially rejects the First Council of Ephesus and declares to be heretics the expressed doctrines of the blessed Cyril, he believed to have been called orthodox by these same Fathers, condemning as it does those writings, by comparison with which, as we have said, the doctrine of so great a Pontiff deserved to be commended ? ”—Vigil., Constitutum pro dammatione Trium Capitulorum. Migne, Pat. Lat., tom. lxix., col. 162.
20 About twenty-five years ago Mr. Eugene Rèvillout discovered, in the Museum of Turin, two fragments in Coptic which he supposed to be portions of the Ac of this Council (of whict the rest are still missing) incorporated into the Ac of a Council held at Alexandria in 362. But there is too little known abont these fragments to attribute to them any fixed value. I therefore only refer the reader to the literature on the subject—Journal Asiatique, Fevrier-Mars, 1873 Annales de Philosophie Chrétiennc, Juin, 1873; Revue de Questions Historiques, Avril, 1874; M. W. Guetteée, Histoire de l’ Église, t. III,.,p. 21; Eugène Révillout, LeConcile de Nicée et le Concile d’ Alexandrie
d’après les textes Coptes).
1 Beveridge, Synodicon., tom.I., p. 6,et seqq. (Bev). Works, tom. II., Append. p. 13,et seqq). [Anglo.-Cath. Lib.])).
1 This is the heading in the Ac of the IIId Council. Labbe, Conc., tom. iii., 671.
2 This is the heading in the Ac of the IVth Council. Labbe, Conc., tom. iv., 339.
3 This word, in the Greek trepto;n is translated in the Latin convettibilem, but see side note in Labbe.
4 Our older English writers usually wrote this word “homoonusion,” and thus spoke of the doctrine as “the doctrine of the homoousion.” For the Arian word they wrote “homoiousion.” Later writers have used the norninative masculine, “homoousios” and “homoiousios”. The great Latin writers did not thus transliterate the word, but, wrote “homousios,” and for the heretical word “homoaesios” or “homaesios.” I have kept for the noun signifying the doctrine, our old English “Homoousion,” but for the adjective, I have used the ordinary latinized form “homousios,” in this copying Smith and Wace, Dict. Christian Antiquities).
5 Athanas, De Decret. Syn.Nic. c. xix. et seq.
6 Vide Swainson, in Srnith and Wace, Dict. Chridt. Biog., sub voce Homousios, p 134.
7 Vasquez). Disput. cix., cap. 5,“Rightly doth the Church use the expression Homousios (that is Consubstantial) to express that the Father and the Son are of the same nature”.
8 Vasquez may also well be consulted on the expressions ousiva, substantia, u/povstasi", etc).
1 For the authority of this opitome vide Introduction.
2 Leontius while still a presbyter lived with a subintroducta at Antioch, whose name was Eustolion, so we learn from St. Athanasius, Theodoret (H. E. 2,24) and Socrates (H. E. 2,26); as he could not part from her and wished to prevent her leaving him, he mutilated himself. His bishop deposed him for this act, but the Emperor Constantius (not Constantine, as by a mistake in the English Hefele, 1P 377) practically forced him into the episcopal throne of Antioch).
1 Greg. Naz. Ep. ad Procop., Graec., No. 130,
2 Harnack seems to know only the printed (and almost certainly incorrect) reading of the modern texts of the I. Apology (Chapter LXVI) where tou`to ejsti has taken the place of touvtesti. The passage did read tou`to poie`ite, eiv" teJn a,navmnhsin mou, touvtesti toJ sw`mav mou; in which it is evident that the words“my body” are in apposition with tou`to and the object of poiei`te, which has its sacrificlal sense “to offer”, as in the Dialogne with Trypho, oJ kuvrio" hJmw`n parevdwke poiei`n (chapter xlj).
3 Harnack evidently does not fully appreciate the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist. No catholic theologian teaches that the essence of that sacrifice is to offer up the already present Body of Christ, but that the essence of the Sacrifice is the act of consecration; the “making the Eucharistic Sacrifice,” as he accurately says, “whereby the common bread becomes the Bread of the Eucharist.” Harnack says truly that “the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer,” but he does not seem to know that this is the Catholic doctrine to-day, nor to appreciate at its Cathoilc value the “Prayer of Consecration”. The act of consecration is the essence of the Christian Sacrifice according to the teaching of all Catholics).
1 Contra mentem Synodi Nicoeni.
2 Friedrich Massen: Der Primat des Bischofs von Rorn. und die alten Patriarchalkircheu. Bonn, 1853. §100–110. Maasen goes on to express the opinion that the patriarchal power of Rome was much larger).
3 Vide Labbe’s Observation. Tom. II. col. 47.
1 Eusebius: Hist. Qo Lib. 5,, c. 23.
2 Fuchs: Bib. der Kirchenversammlungen. Bd. i., S.399).
3 Socrates: Hist. Eccl., 2,24).
1 Fleury, Hist. Eccles. 54,VI., liii.
2 Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 1,10). Vide also Tillemont, Mémeoires, etc., tom. vi., art. 17, and Sozoman, H. E. 1,22).
3 Gratian, Decretum, Corp. Juris Canon, Pars. II. Causa I. Quaest. 7, Can. viii
4 Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. 1. part 2,pp. 386–414.
5 Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. 11,p.159 et seqq.
6 Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, vol.ii. p.322.
7 Bingharn, Antiquities, 2,xiv. 2.3).
1 Cyprian). De Bono Patient., cap. xiv.
2 Morinus, De P(nitent., lib. 5,, cap. 5).
3 Vide, Thomassin). Lib). cit. Livre II Chapitre 7, §xiii. where the whole matter of Nectarius’s action is discussed.
4 Addis and Arnold). A Catholic Dictionary; ,sub voce Penance, Sacrament of).
1 Just M). Apol. I. cap. lxv.
2 Chrys). Ep. ad Innoc.. Sec. 3).
3 I give the reference as in Scudamore’s Not. Euch. from whicn I have taken it). De Prom. et Praed. Dei; Dimid. Temp. c. 6; inter Opp. Prosperi. p.161. ed. 1609.
4 Cf. Scudamore, Not). Euch. p. 705.
5 Cf. Scudamore). Notit. Ruch. p.707.
6 W. E. Scudamore). Notitia Eucharistica [2d. Ed.] p. 1025.
7 Apost. Const. Lib. 8,cap. xiij. The word used is pastofovriaoria, this may possibly mean a side chapel, and does occur in the Book of Maccabees in this sense; bnt its classical use is to signify the shrine of a god, and while so distinguished a writer as Pierre Le Brun adopts the later meaning, the no less famous Durant, together with most commentators, translate as I have done above. In either case for the preseut purpose, the quotation is conclnsive of the practice of the primitive church in regard to this matter. Liddell and Scott give “pastofovro", one carrying the image of a god in a shrine.”
1 Athanas). Apol ij.
2 Sozom). H. E.. I. 2.
3 By no one has this whole matter of the translation of bishops been more carefully and thoroughly treated than by Thomassiuns, and in what follows I shall use his discussion as a thesaurus of facts. The title of his book is Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l’Eglise (There is also an edition in Latin). In the Third Part. and the Second Book,
Chapter LX. treats of “Translations of bishops in the Latin Chmch during the first five centuries.”
Chapter LXI. “Translations in the Eastern Church, during the first five centuries.”
Chapter LXII. “Translation of bishops and bishoprics between the years five hundred and eight hundred.”
Chapter LXIII. “Translation under the empire of Charlemagne and his descendants.”
ChaPter LXIV. “Translation of bishops after the year one thousand.”
Of all this I can in the text give but a brief resumé.
4 Thomassin. 50,c. lx. viij).
5 Thomassen, l. cit., Chap LI., §xiij..
6 This is Thomassinus’s version of the matter, in fact the charge of heresy was also made against Anthimus, but his uncainonical translation was a real count in the accusation.
7 Juris. Orient. tom. 1. p.240, 241.
8 Ibid. p.5. I am not at all clear as to what this last phrase means).
9 Thomassin. lib cit.. chap. LXIV. §x.
10 I believe this is true of all churches, Catholic and Protestant, having an episcopal form of government (including the Protestant Church ot Sweden, and the Methodist Episcopal Church), with the exception of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in which the ancient prohibition of the translation of diocesan bishops is observed in all its Nicene strictness).
1 Van Espen. Dissertatio de Usura, Art. 1.
2 Bossuet). Oeuvres Comp. xxxj).
3 Funk (Zins und Wucher, p.104) says that Eck and Hoogsträten had already verbally defended this distinction at Bologna.
4 Gury, Comp. Theol. Moral (Ed. Ballerini) vol. 2,p. 611).
1 Ignat). Ad Smyr. § 6,Lightfoot’s translation). Apost. Fath.Vol.II. Sec. I. p.569.
2 Cf. Art. xxviij. of the “Articles of Religion” of the Church of England, which declares that “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper,” etc).
1 In Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum).
2 In 1836, the Lutheran Pastor Fliedner, of a little town on the Rhine, opened a parish hospital the nurses of which he called “Deaconesses”. This “Deaconess House ”at Kaiserswerth. was the mother-house from which all the deaconess establishments of the present day have taken their origin. The Methodists have adopted the system successfully. Some efforts have been made to domesticate it, in a somewhat modified form, also in the Anglican Churches but thus far with but little success. Of course these “Deaconesses” resemble the Deaconesses of the Early Church only in name. The reader who may be interested in seeing an effort to connect the modern deaconess with the deaconess of antiquity is referred to The Ministry of Deaconesses by Deaconess Cecilia Robinson. This book. it should be said, contains much valuable and accurate information upon the subject, but accepts as proven facts the suppositions of the late Bishop Lightfoot upon the subject ; who somewhat rashly asserted that “the female daconate is as definite an institution as the male diaconate. Phoebe is as much a deacon as Stephen or Philip is a deacon!”
1 Vide Labbe). Conc. 2,287.
2 Who exactly these Orientals were Hefele does not specify, but Ffoulkes well points out (Dict. Christ. Antiq. sub voce Counclis of Nicea) that it is an entire mistake to suppose that the Greek Church “ever quoted other canons [than the xx] as Nicene ‘by mistake,0’ which were not Nicene, as popes Zosimus, Innocent and Leo did.”
3 Beveridge Synod. sive Pand. 1,686.
4 Hefele : Hist. Councils,I.362.
5 Renaudot: Hist. Patriarcharum Alexandrianorum Jacobitarum.Paris, 1713, p.75).
1 Turrianus calls them “Chapters”.
2 I have trsnslated this canon in full because the caption did not seem to give fairly its meaning. In Labbe will be found a long and most curious note).
3 I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader will judge of its antiquity.
4 Canon XXXIX. of this series has nothing to do with the Patriarchs or with the see of Rome and its prerogatives).
1 We must read e(thou", not e(thnou", as the Mayence impression of the edition of Valerius has it).
2 It is curious that after all the attempts that have been made to get this matter settled, the Church is still separated into East and West—the latter having accepted the Gregorian Calendar from which the Eastern Church, still using the Julian Calendar, differs in being twelve days behinid And even in the West we have succeeded in breaking the spirit of the Nicene decree, for in 1815 the Christian Easter coincided with the Jewish Passover!
1 Beveridge, Synodicon., tom.I., p. 6,et seqq. (Bev). Works, tom. II., Append. p. 13,et seqq). [Anglo.-Cath. Lib.])).
1 Not “Maxitnilian,” as in tbe English translation of Hefele’s History of the Councils, Vol. I.. p.199 (revised edition). Maximian died in 310, Galerius in 311, Maxentius in 312, and Diocletian in 313).
1 jAnakalei`sqan for ajnabalei`sqai and provsodon for ei(sodon).
1 Aristenus understands this to mean to “live with,” using the verb sunanastrevfesqai.
2 This view of Bingham’s would seem to be untenable, since the penance would have been for adultery not for digamy had the former marriage still been in force).
3 The reader may recall the words of Dido: Ille meos. primusqui me sibi junxit, amores Abstulit; ille habeat secum servetque sepulcro).
1 That is, receive the Sacraments).
1 This is the title in the Paris edition of Zonaras).
1 Van Espen gives “fructum poenitentice consequatur” as the translation of e(xei th;n metavnoian.
1 The reader is referred also to Amort, De Origine, progressu; valore ac fructu Indulgentiarum, and to the article “Ablass” in the Kirchen Lexicon of Wetzer and Welte. Also for the English reader to T. L Green, D.D., Indulgences, Absolutions, and Tax tables, etc. Some of the difficulties which Roman theologians experience in explaining what are called “Plenary Indulgences” are set forth hy Dr. Littledale in his Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome, in which the matter is discussed in the usual witty, and unscrupulous fashion of that brilliant writer. But while this remark is just, it should also he remarked that after the exaggeration is removed there yet remains a difficulty of the most serious character).
1 Balsamon’s note is most curious reading. but beside being irrelevant to the present canon of Neoc(sarea, would hardly bear translation into the vernacular).
1 Bp. Beveridge for “that one” translates “the digamist.” The meaning is very obscure at best).
1 Aristenus understands this of fornication).
1 Eusebius, H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xliij.
2 Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l’Église, Lib. II., Chap. xxix.
3 Acta Conc. Chal., Actio 10,
1 Socrat). H. E., Lib. II., cap. xliij.
2 Sozomen). H.E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv.
3 Remi Ceillier). Hist). Générale des Auteurs Sacrés, Tom. IV., p. 735.
4 E. S. Ffoulkes, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. 5,Gangra.
5 I am indebted to Hefele for this reference, and he gives Mémoires, note xxviij., sur St. Basile.
6 Sozom). H. E., III., xiv.
7 Socrat). H. E., II., xliij.
8 S. Basil. M., Ep. ccxxiij.
9 Hefele). Hist. Councils, Vol.II., p. 337.
10 Soz). H.E., Lib. III., cap. xiv. It is curious that Canon Venables in his article “Eustathius”in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog., gives the story on Sozoman’s authority as quoted by Hefele, but without giving Hefele’s warning that it was a mere rumour. It would seem that Canon Venables could not have consulted the Greek, where the word used is lovgo"; Hefele gives no reference. I have supplied this in the beginning of this note.
11 Sozomen). H. E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv.
12 Baronius). Annal., Tom. iii., ad ann. 361, n. 44.
13 Binius). Annotat. in Synod. Gang.
14 Hefele). Hist. Councils, Vol.II., p. 327.
7 ecumenical councils - XVII.