7 ecumenical councils - XVII.
2 Maundy Thursday).
1 Chrysos). In Mt XXVI.-29—I have taken the Oxford translation, “Library of the Fathers.”
1 The Latin adds, “That is, separate and remote from others.”
1 Latin adds “and favour.”
2 Latin reads, “germanely and sincerely.”
3 Beveridge translates stuvle by columna but I think incorrectly. Cf. Liddell and Scott).
1 Gerbert makes it quite evident that from about 850 until 1200, that is from Amalarius until Durand, the same view was held in the West). Vide Gerbertus). Vetus Liturgia Allomanica, p.855 et .seqq).
2 The English reader is referred to G. V. Shann, Euchology", and The Book of Needs, for excellent translations of the Greek offices; J. M. Neale’s Introdnction to the History of the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church will of course, be consulted).
1 Bev. reads o(ti.
2 Bev. reads e,pifheromevnou".
1 Not found in Mansi).
1 levgwn in Beveridge’s text).
1 Only in the Latin.
2 II Kgs. 21,5 & 6).
1 The Latin adds, “and holy”).
1 The Latin adds “that is to say ‘Exercisers,0’ (Exercitatores) or monks.”
1 The Latin adds “and measure.”
1 “the evening and the morning wre the first day,”—Gn 1,5).
1 These words only in the Latin.
2 It is curious to note that so great was the care of the clergy for their wigs that the very shape of the vestments was changed so as not to disturb them, and the surplices were slit all the way down the front, as they coutinue in some places even down too our own days, after the original cause had long passed away).
1 Oxford Translation, p. 279).
1 The whole of this Dissertation is worthy of careful study).
1 At this point begins the Greek text as given in Bev).
1 Here the Greek text begins as given by Bev.
1 Here the Greek text in Bev. begins).
1 Here the Greek begins (reading a[ei, for i[na and e[xetavzoito) according to Beveridge).
1 Here begins the Greek text, according to Bev).
1 Here begins the Greek text according to Bev).
1 Here begins the Greek text according to Bev., and ends at the asterisk).
1 The Greek text of Bev. begins here).
1 The Greek text of Bev. begins here).
2 The reference is given incorrectly in the English Hefele).
1 The Greek text of Bev. begins here and ends at the asterisk).
1 Here begins the Canon xxj., according to the Greek text of Bev).
2 Athanas). Apol. contra Arian., C. 44.
3 Hilar). Fragm., t ii., 1283.
4 Theodoret). Hist. Eccl., Lib. II., cap. 6.
5 Athanas). Apol. ctr. Arian., cf. 37,and again in chapter 41 (this last, which is really the same, is addressed to the bishops of Egypt and Libya).
6 Hilar). Fragment., Tom. ii.
7 Bower). Hist. Popes, in loc.
8 Fuchs’ Bibliothe der Kirchen vers., vol.ii., p 128 (cit. by Hef).
9 Hefele, History Councils, vol. ii., p. 166).
10 Hefele refers to his having himself treated this matter fully in the Theologischer Quartalschrift of Tübingeu, 1854.
11 Nat Alex). H. E., sec. iv., Diss. xxvij., Art. 3.
12 Socrates). H. E., Lib. ii., cap. 20).
13 Greg. M. Lib). ii., Epist. 10.
14 Isidor. Hispal). Etymolog., Lib. vi., cap. 16.
15 Jno. Bapt. Palma). Proelctiones Hist. Qo quas in Collegio Urbaono habuit. Rome, l838. Tom. i., P.ii., p. 85).
1 I do not understand what Johnson means by this statement. Vide Can. j. of Chalcedon.
2 Hefele). Hist. of the Councils, vol.ii., p.461, Note 1).
3 For this statement I am indebted to Mr. Ffoulkes in art. “African Councils.”Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Christ Antiq).
4 The reader must not com plain if he finds the meaning of the translation often obscure. So great a scholar as Hefele says of one of these speeches, “This, I believe, must be the meaning of he somewhat unintelligible text, etc.,” and again of another passage be says that it “is even more obscure.” and that “the text is undoubtedly corrupt. The sense is probably, etc.”
5 I have followed in this passage the Greek text as a trifle less incomprehensible).
1 Or “have learned.”
2 In assignmg these canons to the several synods that adopted them, I have simply followed Hefele.
1 The text here is corrupt).
1 For Greek 20,and 21,see Latin Canon XVIII).
2 It would seem that this must be the meaning).
1 The Greek reads “katav tou;" i,divou" o(pou",” and so it was understood at the Council of Trullo, as is evident from Canon XIII, of that synod. The Latin is “secundum propria statuta,” but Bruns reads “priora”.
1 Not found in the Greek of Beveridge, but in that given by Labbe.
1 This found only in Latin).
1 This is not found in the Greek of Beveridge.
2 Ballerini, edit). S. Leon M., Tom. II., p. 966.
1 Not found in the Greek of Beveridge).
1 Found only in Latin.
1 “Of the Church” in Dion. Exig).
1 Only found in the Latin.
2 These interludes or “Digressions”, as Van Espen calls them, are found in Dionysius and in the Greek texts.
3 In the Greek this reads xvith.
4 The text here I suspect is much corrupted. The Greek and Latin do not agree).
5 In Gustavus Willmaun’s Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Vol. viii,, p.47, the reading is given as Vegese1itanoe, in one word. The town was Vegesesla, and unfortunately there were two towns having the same name and not far one from the other). Cf. map 20, Spruner-Sieglin, Atlas Antiquus.
6 The verb is lacking. The Ed of Migne’s Dion, Exig. suggests legit.
1 The Greek reads for “bishop”, “a Primate.”
1 This is Johnson’s spelling here, but not in the last phrase of this same note).
1 This last clause seems manifestly to be corrupt and should read “unless when, etc.”
1 The Latin is aut.
1 Found only in the Greek.
2 In the Greek “doing penance.”
1 Found only in the Greek.
2 Not in the Greek.
3 Latin reads “among them” instead of “by Donstists.”
1 I have followed the Greek text here, the Latin is very confused).
1 Notice the African use of the phrase, convenire ad..
1 The Greek reads “to depose him,” and varies considerably from the Latin. I have followed the Latin but confess that in part I have failed to catch a meaning. The Greek is perfectly clear, as usual).
1 The Latin “noscuntur” is almost certainly corrupt, Van Espen suggests “absoluta sunt” as the meaning.
1 Vide Corripus (Partsch’s ed)). Johannid in Mon. Germ). Hist.(in the Series Auctores Antiquissimi), Proem, p. xiv. It seems from Orosius that the same province was called Tripolitana and Regio Arzugum, and that Arzuges was a race name of wider appilcation).
1 The meaning of this whole canon is very obscure, the text is almost certainly corrupt; and the Greek in many places in no way corresponds to the Latin.
2 Migne’s text reads this negatively “ut non constituas,” but I have followed Labbe and Cossart and have omitted the “non”).
1 The common reading “vinaicent” is almost certainly wrong, and is not even mentioned by Bruns).
1 I have followed the Greek text. The Latin reads: “Instant etiam aliae necessitates religlosis imperitorbius postulandae.”
1 This must mean “who had heard the cause or been present at the hearing,” and so the Greek has it).
1 Here ends the Greek text).
1 The Greek reads “when we have gathered them together.”
1 In the Greek, “since the episcopal authority is spurned.”
1 The Greek and Beveridge introduce a second “not.”
1 I think this is the probable meaning of the canon).
1 All mention of the "“tractory”" is omitted in the Greek version).
1 Bruns says, Locus corruptus).
1 Hefele says (Hist. Councils.. Vol. II., p. 428) that Vagiensem not Bagagensem is the true reading).
1 Nine, in some mss.
2 In the Greek this is made part of the last sentence, and for “Of” it reads “for the sake of” (diav)).
1 i.e. Carthage. Migne reads “of that Church” and differs in what follows).
1 Vide Kraus). Real. Encyclopedie).
2 The text is corrupt and the Greek and Latin do not agree in many places).
3 In the Greek, “The acts of the present synod have not been written out here in full, etc.”
4 The Greek text here is much to be preferred, “wherefore a brief synopsis of what was studiously enacted in this synod is here set forth.”
1 The Latin text here is certainly corrupt.
2 This is placed by Beveridge under Greek canon xcviij).
1 Mansi notes that this refers to the heathen priests, and quotes Cod. Theod. 47, de decurionibus).
1 “And” in the Greek. which omits the preceding “either”.
2 Between these asterisks all is missing in the Greek).
1 The Latin here is corrupt.
2 Here begins Canon CIX. of the Latin text).
1 In the Latin “Matrici”).
1 Not Calusita).
1 The Latin here is evidently corrupt).
1 The text here is very uncertain. I follow Allies.
2 It is evident that the Latin text here is corrupt in more places than one. There would seem to he no doubt that for Migne’s reading quoe sibi, the Greek translators had). quoe si ibi and accordingly ,rendered it a(tena e,a;n e,kei`. and so the text stands in Labbe and Cossart. The following sentence is also clearly in a somewhat altered form from its original.
3 L. and C. insert here wrongly a nisi.
4 This order of naming the sees is worthy of note.
5 (So in the Greek; the Latin reads Et alia manu).
1 The Greek adds “and the canons.”
2 No year is given in the Greek nor in Migne’s Latin.
3 Bruns says “all the books” read “xvij. Kal.,” but, as a fact, Easter was “xiv. Kal.” that year.
1 (So in the Greek, vel in Latin).
2 No year in the Greek nor in Migne’s Latin.
3 Bruns notes with Justellus and Hardouin and the Codd. Hisp. this should read 8,for ix.
4 In the Greek the creed is not given here in full, but as follows: “We believe in one God the Father; and then the holy creed as written in the first synod.”
1 This translation is by Allies).
1 Labbe and Cossart). Concilia, Tom. II., col. 1151.
2 Tillemont). Memoires, ix., 592).
1 Johnson). Clergyman’s Vade Mecum. Notes in loc.
2 Baronius). Annal. ad ann., 692.
3 Asseman). Bib. Jur. Orient. Tom. I., p.414.
4 Hefele). Hist. Council:, Vol. V., p.224, note 2).
1 These words are omitted in Zonaras’s Greek ! The very gist of the matter for the Easterns.
2 These words are omitted in Zonaras’s Greek ! The very gist of the matter for the Easterns.
3 These will be found translated in full in the Oxford “Library of the Fathers,” Vol.17. “St. Cyprian’s Epistles,” p. 286; also in the American reprint of the " “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. V. “Hippolitus, Cyprian, etc.,”" p.565).
1 Who was possibly at least not the president, vide Michaud. Sept). Conc. Oeuméniques, p.330.
2 Worship is “relative ”or “absolote”, what Gibbon means by “direct” would be hard to say. How entirely false the whole statement is, Gibbon himself would have recognized had be read the acts.
3 Dr. Neale complains that the acts display a painful lack of critical knowledge and that several spurious passages are attributed to tbe Fathers. But I confess this does not seem to me either surprising or disgraceful. The attributing of books, even in our critical days, to persons who were not their authors is not so uncommon as to make us wonder such a thing might have occurred in such stormy times, when learning of this sort must have suffered by the adversities of the Church and State, the Iconoclastic persecutions and the Moslem incursions).
4 “It is certain,” confesses Dr. Neale (History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. II., p.113; in his attempt to overthrow the authority of this council) “that Poiltian approved (S. Theod. Stud. Ep. xviij). although he was not present at the council of Nicea; and the controversy, which had never much disturbed Africa, may henceforth be considered as terminated in the Diocese of Alexandria.”
5 As a sample of all that bigotry and dishonesty can do when writing on such a subject, the reader is referred to a little book by the R ev. F. Meyrick (a canon of the Church of England) published in Paris for the Anglo-Continental Society. 1877, entitled, Du Schisme d’Orient et de l’authorite du pretendu septieme concile.
6 The true date is 825.
7 Vide the Synod’s Letter to the Emperor and Empress).
8 The treatise of St. Jn Damascene on The Holy Images has very recently been published in an English translation by M. H. Allies. (London. Thos. Baker, 1898)).
1 “Divine” here, as usually in such connections, means “imperial”.
2 Mendham (The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicea.. Loodon, s.d). by a curious blunder takes the adjective for the substantive, and translates “The Sacred Divalis”. This is a mere trip, for he knows the word “sacra”, as appears a few pages further on).
1 Thus far there was no expression of opinion from wich the Iconoclasts would have dissented, for in all that regarded the Blessed Virgin and the Saints and their invocation and patronage, the heretics agreed with the orthodox. Protestants have been in the habit of treating the Iconoclasts as if they were substantially agreed with them with regard to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin and of the other Saints. What an error this is, is easily proved hyciting two of the anathematisms of their Conciliabulum.
“If anyone shall not confess that the Ever-virgin Mary is properly and truly the Mother of God, and more exalted than every creature, whether visible or invisible, and does not seek her intercessions with sincere faith because she has confidence in approaching our God. who was born of her, let him be anathema.” (L. and C.). Conc., Tom VII col. 524).
“If anyone does not coufess that all the Saints from the beginning down to now, who whether before the Law, or under the Law, or in grace pleased God, should he honoured in his presence both with soul and body, and does not seek their prayers, according to the tradition of the Church as of those having confidence to plead for the world let him be anathema.” Ibid.col. 528)).
2 Mendham seems to have reversed the sense here altogether.
3 In the English Hefele (Vol. V.. p. 363) this appears in the following most extraordinary form. “John
declared that the veneration of images was the worst of all heresies ’‘because it detracted from the Economy (Incarnation) of the Redeemer.0’” (!)
1 This statement seems somewhat open to criticism in view of the position taken hy St. Leo, and of the assertion of Pope Gelasius that Constantinople was a suffragan see to Heraclea).
2 The meaning of the passage is obscure, but Mendham’s translation seems clearly wrong.
3 Compare with this the statement of the famous historian, Gibbon (Chapter XLIX., N. 79), “The pope’s legates were casual messengers, two priests without any special commission, and who were disavowed on their return. Some vagabond monks were persuaded by the Catholics to represent the Oriental patriarchs. This curious anecdote is revealed by Theodore Studites, one of the warmest Iconoclasts of the age.” And yet to this tissue of false statements Bury, in his just-published edition of Gibbon (1898), has no note of correction to make! And this has passed, and will pass, for history among the overwhelming majority of English readers! Nor does there seem to be any possible excuse for Gibbon in either particular, the first statement is proved to be false by the letters of Hadrian, the second statement is equally disproved by the letters of the "high priests of the East," in which it is quite clear that no claim was set up that they represented the Patriarchs, but the Patriarchates, which they did, as they proved, in a very real sense. This letter Gibbon must have seen, if indeed he ever took the trouble to read the Acts, for it is spread out in full in Actio Secunda and was read at length to the Council.
4 Mendham here has translated “The Scriptures,” following the Latin, the Greek is grafikw`".
5 Mendham translates scetko\ “relative,” which is a quite possible rendering).
1 It is impossible in English to reprodnce the play upon the words Grhgovrio" oJ gregorw`n eij" ta; qei`a nohvmata, k. t. l.
2 We have seen that this is an error. Vide Introduction to Trullan Canons.
3 The reference is to Ps 74,3, but the text is quite different from ours).
4 This obscure phrase Mendham omits altogether).
1 In this epitome of the verbose definition of the council, I have followed for the most part Hefele. (Hist. of the Councils, Vol. V., p. 309 et seqq).
2 Now four years old).
3 These are Hefele’s words).
4 These are Hefele’s words).
5 These are not given in full but are sufficient to give the true gist).
1 Anastasins in his Interpretatio (Migne, Pat.. Lat.Tom. CXXIX., col. 458), gives the word, “Filioque”. Cardinal Julian in the Fifth Session of the Concil of Florence gave evidence that there was then extant a very ancient codex containing these words; and this ms., which was in Greek, was actually shown. The Greek scholar Gemistius Pletho remarked that if this were so, then the Latin theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas would long ago have appealed to the Synod. (Cf, Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol ., p. 374,Note 2). This reasoning is not conclusive if Cardinal Bellarmine is to be believed, who says that St. Thomas had never seen the Ac of this synod. (De Imag. Sanct., Lib. ii., cap. xxii)).
2 Constantine Copronymus turned many monasteries into soldiers’ barracks. In this he has been followed by other crowned enemies of Christ).
3 The reader will remember that while of great weight the Catechism was not set forth by the Council, nor are its statements de fide in the Latin Church).
4 This is not found in Schaff’s, The Creeds of Christendom. Vol. II., although part of the Orthodox Concession (viz. Pt. I). is reprinted. The editor explains (p. 275) that he has printed "“the doctrinal part in full,”" and has omitted the rest because it “belongs to Ethics rather than Symbolics.” A somewhat extraordinary opinion to be held by anyone who has read the omitted parts).
1 This is tbe caption as given in the Greek of Beveridge’s Synod.
2 But see notes to canon of that synod).
1 Bev. adds in the Latin “by imposition of hands.”
1 Not found in Bev.
1 Bev, “To serve God and mammon.”
1 Bev. Neither shall a nun eat alone).
1 “Presbyters” in LXX).
2 It was during this period that St. Theodore, writing in 525 to Arsenius, observes: “Rome has not received it as an Ecumenical Council, but only as a provincial Synod, assembled to remedy a partlcuiar evil; Legates of the other Patriarchs were not there; those of Rome had come on different business: Legates, indeed, there were from the East, but they were brought by our deputies, not sent by tbeir Patriarchs, who knew nothing of the matter till after-wards. Our countrymen acted thus for the purpose of more easily bringing back the heretics by persuading them that it was an (cumenical Council.” “Theodore, however, it is fair to add, afterwards changed his opinionon.” Such is Dr. Neale’s candid addmission). Hist. of the East. Ch., Vol.II., p.135. How often, alas has this passage been quoted by controversialists, and the word of waming to the reader been wholly omitted).
3 It is curious that Michaud (Sept. Conciles Oecuméniques. p. 294) should say “the title priest given to those who composed the book proves that no one of them was a bishop.” The Latin is “Sacerdotum Praelatorum”!
4 Mansi, Tom. xii., 981,
5 Hefele). Hist. of Councils, Bk xx., chap. ij., §400).
6 “Here on the wall is an image of the Saint and under its feeta little window, and a lamp, in the glass bowl of which the fire burns.” Fortun. (Migne., Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVIII)). De Vita S.Martin, Lib. iv., 690 (col. 426).
7 “And adore ”In the Latin.
8 Michaud). Discussion sur les Sept Conciles Oecuméniques, p. 300).
9 This has been explained by saying that the last meeting was in the palace at Constantinople).
10 This is reprinted in full in Mansi, and fromm him in Migne’s Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVIII. col. 1299, et seqq.Cardinal Bellarmine’s refutation is also found in Migne’s Charlemagne, and in Labbe and Cossart, Tom. VII., of the Concilia.
11 Hefele). Concilien, § 487, also Fleury.
12 The definition of faith says: “also we confess that the Seventh Holy and Ecumenical synod, which met in Nice for the second time, taught in accordance with orthodoxy, etc.” (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VIII., col. 1147)).
13 For which Baronius condemns him in his Annales, a.d. 869).
1 The reader may remember that when it was proposed in a first draft to the Council of Trent to say the “Psalms of David,”the Fathers refused to pass it as proposed, because the Psalter contained Psalms not by David, and substituted the expression “The Davidic Psalter” (Psalterium Davidicum”).
2 Matthieu de Larroque). Observationes
et in Annot. Bev.in Can. Apost. 1674.
3 It is most unfortunate that the Ap A. B. Grosart, LL D., in the article “Beveridge” in that usually accurate and learned work. the Dictionary of English Biography. should have written “regretting” this republication of the Vindicatio, on the ground that Bp Beveridge in its pages “demonstrates that he lacked the instincts of the genuine scholar as distinguished from the merely largely read man !.” There seem to be a great many soidisant “genuine scholars” who lack all sense of humour!
4 Cf. Ballerini). Opp. S. Leon. M., Vol. III. p.158; Mansi). Conc., Tom. VIII., 170.
5 Cf (for catena) Bickell, Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, S. 82.
6 Neue Unter suchungen über die Const. und Canones der Apostel. Tübing., 1832).
7 Bev. Proefatio ad Annotat. in Can. Apost., ( 13,
8 The Latin caption is “The Ecclesiastical Rules of the Holy Apostles, set forth by Clement, Pontiff of the Roman Church.”
1 The numbering which I have followed is Hammond’s, but, where it differs from that given by Hefele, I have placed Hefele’s numbering in parenthesis. With Hefele agree Van Espen and Bruns (in his alternative numbering) and Johnson’s marginal numbering. The numbering that Johnson himself follows is that of Cotelrius.
2 The text here varies.
3 Hammond seems to have omitted wJ" klhrikw), which I have supplied).
4 Hammond has omitted these words.
5 I have changed Hammond’s rendenring of this last phrase, “in like manner with respect to the other clergy.”
6 The text here differs; 1 follow Beveridge. Hammond reads. “Through the Lord Jesus Christ. and the Father through the Lord by the Holy Spirit. even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
7 Hammond adds. “or deacon.”
8 Hammond translates “bearing false inscriptions,” the Greek is pseudepigrapha.
9 Hammond translates differently with the same meaning.
10 Hammond substitutes “any Saturday,” and omits the word “only”.
11 This last phrase is omitted by Hammond, but is found in the Latin and in some of the Greek texts).
12 According to Hefele, these words are only in the Latin, but they are in the Greek text of Beveridge.
13 According to Hefele this is only in the Latin, but it is found in the Greek of Beveridge.
14 I have changed Hammond’s translation here).
15 The text of this canon is quite different in the different codices and versions. I have departed from Hammond’s version.
1 I have followed in the captions to all these non-conciliar canons the Greek text of Beveridge in his Synodicon (Tom. II)..
1 I have here placed Johnson’s epitome of these canons; the Ancient Epitome is lacking.
2 In the Greek “the body and blood of Christ.”
1 According to Johnson, St. Peter of Alexandria was martyred a.d. 311 in the persecution in the time of Diocletian. carried on by Maximian.
2 In Beveridge will he found Balsamon’s and Zonaras’s notes.
3 Johnson remarks, “The truth is, there is occasion for a critic, for the Greek is certainly corrupted.”
4 This canon contains the legend, refuted by St. Jerome, that St John the Baptist was taken by St. Elizabeth away from tbe danger of Herod’s edicts against the Innocents and escaped by flight, his father, Zacharlas, the meanwhile. being slain between the temple and the altar).
1 Johnson says this was about the vear of grace 240, after the Goths had ravaged Asia, duriug the reign of Gallienus. The letter. he thinks, was an Encyclical sent to every bishop of his province, by Euphrosynus. who was one of these bishops and whom he calls his “old friend.” In the beginning of the letter he addresses each one of the bishops as “most holy pope.”
2 I.e., The bishops, cf. St Justin Martyr, Tertullian. etc.
3 Literally “abdicate from Prayers.” Johnson explains this to mean that they became Prostrators.
4 I.e., St. Gregory.
5 Johnson has a note that this canon is not “St. Gregory’s but an addition by some other hand.”
1 In English translation named Amun.
1 Johnson says: “This contains the Canon of Scripture as we now receive it in all respects, save that the Epistle of Baruch is reckoned in the Canon, but Est is not. He tells us, there are other books never reckoned in the Canon but authorized by the fathers to be read by the Catechumens, viz. : Wisdom of Solomon. of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobias, and that which is called The Doctrine of the Apostles, and Pastor. These (says he) are read, the other reckoned of the Cenons: Apocryphal books are the invention of heretics.” To this Johnson appends a note, to wit: “It is the common opinion of learned men that the reason why some of the ancients reckoned the book of Est not to belong to the Canon. was the Apocryphal chapters added to it by anotber hand. That The Doctrine of the Apostles is a book now lost, see Dr. Grabe’s Essay on this subject.”
Who these “learned men” may be, I do not know, but at the time of the writing of St. Athanasius the position of the Hebrew Est was not well assured in the restricted Palestinian Jewish Canon. On this point the reader should make himself familiar with The Canon of the Old Testament by the Rt. Rev. Tobias Mullen, Roman Catholic Bishop of Erie, U.S. A).
1 These canons of St. Basil’s are annotated by Zonaras, Balsamon and Aristenus, and of them there is also the Ancient Epitome whicb will he found in Beveridge (Synod., Tom. II.. p.47). Johnson gives the date of these canons as later than the year 370.
2 Johnson adds this note, “i.e. a clergyman, Monk, Deaconess, etc.” See Can. Nic., xvj).
1 Johnson by mistake has the singular instead of the plural).
1 I.e., at the end, after the Epistle of Gennadius.
1 These Canons, in Beveridge’s Synodicon, are annotated only by Balsamon
1 Not being satisfied with Johnson, I have supplied a translation from Beveridge. It also is found in Aristenus’s Epitome. Balsamon has written a brief scholion adding nothing of importance to the text.
2 This seems to imply a knowledge of the Revelation, although it is not mentioned.
1 That is the canon of Holy Scripture. I have substituted my own Epitome, in the room of Johnson’s, translating the original as it is found in Beveridge’s Synodicon, Tom. II., p.179. It is also In Aristenus’s Epitome, Balsamon has no scholion on this passage.
1 Beveridge’s Synodicon gives notes by Balsamon only).
1 Johnson gives the date as about a.d. 385. These are annotated on]y by Balsamon).
1 Johnson gives this note. “To eat the main of what was left, was not at all inconsistent with reserving so much as was necessary for foreseen and unforseen emergencies.”
1 Johnson gives the date of this as about the year 412 a.d.
[i]Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume XIV, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc). 1997.
7 ecumenical councils - XVII.