DOCUMENTS OF THE
SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
(THE FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE)
A.D. 381
translated by Henry R. Percival,
1899.
The
Holy Creed Which the 150 Holy Fathers Set Forth, Which
is Consonant with the Holy and Great Synod of Nice :
We
believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven
and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from
heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the
Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also
for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried,
and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the Right Hand
of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to
judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall
have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver-of-Life,
who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father
and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who
spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism
for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Letter of the Holy Synod to the Most Pious Emperor
Theodosius the Great, to Which are Appended the Canons
Enacted by Them.
(Found
in Labbe, Concilia, Tom. II., 945.)
To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the Holy Synod
of Bishops assembled in Constantinople out of different
Provinces.
We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God,
who has established the empireof your Piety for the
common peace of the Churches and for the support of
the true Faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto
God, as in duty bound we lay before your Piety the things
which have been done in the Holy Synod.
When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according
to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed
our unity of heart each with the other, and then we
pronounced some concise definitions, ratifying the Faith
of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies
which have sprung up, contrary thereto. Besides these
things, we also framed certain Canons for the better
ordering of the Churches, all which we have subjoined
to this our letter. Wherefore we beseech your Piety
that the decree of the Synod may be ratified, to the
end that, as you have honoured the Church by your letter
of citation, so you should set your seal to the conclusion
of what has been decreed. May the Lord establish your
empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it from
generation to generation; and may he add unto your earthly
power the fruition of the heavenly kingdom also. May
God by the prayers of the Saints [euchais ton hagion]
show favour to the world, that you may be strong and
eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly
pious and beloved of God.
Canons of the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers Who Assembled
at Constantinople During the Consulate of Those Illustrious
Men, Flavius Eucherius and Flavius Evagrius on the VII
of the Ides of July
The
Bishops out of different provinces assembled by the
grace of God in Constantinople, on the summons of the
most religious Emperor Theodosius, have decreed as follows:
Canon
I
The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers
assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside,
but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized,
particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomoeans, the
Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or
Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that
of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and
that of the Apollinarians.
Ancient Epitome of Canon I: Let the Nicene faith stand
firm. Anathema to heresy.
[There is a difference of reading in the list of the
heretics. The reading I have followed in the text is
that given in Beveridge's Synodicon. The Greek text,
however, in Labbe, and with it agree the version of
Hervetus and the text of Hefele, reads: "the Eunomians
or Anomaeans, the Arians or Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians
or Pneumatomachi, the Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians
and Apollinarians." From this Dionysius only varies
by substituting "Macedonians" for "Semi-Arians."
It would seem that this was the correct reading. I,
however, have followed the other as being the more usual.]
Canon
II
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches
lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on
the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according
to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt;
and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone,
the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned
in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the
bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs
only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and
the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let
not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination
or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they
be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses
being observed, it is evident that the synod of every
province will administer the affairs of that particular
province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of
God in heathen nations must be governed according to
the custom which has prevailed from the times of the
Fathers.
Ancient Epitome of Canon II: No traveller shall introduce
confusion into the Churches either by ordaining or by
enthroning. Nevertheless in Churches which are among
the heathen the tradition of the Fathers shall be preserved.
Valesius This rule seems to have been made chiefly on
account of Meletius. Bishop of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen,
and Peter of Alexandria. For Meletius leaving the Eastern
diocese had come to Constantinople to ordain Gregory
bishop there. And Gregory having abandoned the bishoprick
of Sasima, which was in the Pontic diocese, had removed
to Constantinople. While Peter of Alexandria had sent
to Constantinople seven Egyptian bishops to ordain Maximus
the Cynic. For the purpose therefore of repressing these
[disorders], the fathers of the Synod of Constantinople
made this canon.
Balsamon: Take notice from the present canon that formerly
all the Metropolitans of provinces were themselves the
heads of their own provinces, and were ordained by their
own synods. But all this was changed by Canon xxviij
of the Synod of Chalcedon, which directs that the Metropolitans
of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and certain
others which are mentioned in this Canon should be ordained
by the Patriarch of Constantinople and should be subject
to him. But if you find other churches which are autocephalous
as the Church of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Iberia [Georgia],
you need not be astonished. For the Emperor Justinian
gave this honour to the Archbishop of Bulgaria. ...
The third Synod gave this honour to the Archbishop of
Cyprus, and by the law of the same synod (Canon viii.),
and by the Sixth Synod in its xxxixth Canon, the judgment
of the Synod of Antioch is annulled and this honour
granted to the bishop of Iberia.
Canon
III
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the
prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because
Constantinople is New Rome.
Ancient Epitome of Canon III: The bishop of Constantinople
is to be honoured next after the bishop of Rome.
Zonaras: In this place the Council takes action concerning
Constantinople, to which it decrees the prerogative
of honour, the priority, and the glory after the Bishop
of Rome as being New Rome and the Queen of cities. Some
indeed wish to understand the preposition meta ["after"]
here of time and not of inferiority of grade. And they
strive to confirm this interpretation by a consideration
of the XXVIII canon of Chalcedon, urging that if Constantinople
is to enjoy equal honours, the preposition "after"
cannot signify subjection. But on the other hand the
hundred and thirtieth novel of Justinian,1 Book V of
the Imperial Constitutions, title three, understands
the canon otherwise. For, it says, "we decree that
the most holy Pope of Old Rome, according to the decrees
of the holy synods is the first of all priests, and
that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople and of
New Rome, should have the second place after the Apostolic
Throne of the Elder Rome, and should be superior in
honour to all others." From this therefore it is
abundantly evident that "after" denotes subjection
[hypobibasmon] and diminution. And otherwise it would
be impossible to guard this equality of honour in each
see. For in reciting their names, or assigning them
seats when they are to sit together, or arranging the
order of their signatures to documents, one must come
before the other. Whoever therefore shall explain this
particle meta as only referring to time, and does not
admit that it signifies an inferior grade of dignity,
does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning
neither true nor good. Moreover in Canon xxxvj of the
Council in Trullo, meta manifestly denotes subjection,
assigning to Constantinople the second place after the
throne of Old Rome; and then adds, after this Alexandria,
then Antioch, and last of all shall be placed Jerusalem.
Note in Gratian's "Decretum" (Roman Catholic):
This canon is of the number of those which the Apostolic
See of Rome did not at first nor for long years afterwards
receive. This is evident from Epistle LI. (or LIII.)
of Pope Leo I. to Anatolius of Constantinople and from
several other of his letters. The same thing also is
shewn by two letters of Leo IX.'s, the one against the
presumptuous acts of Michael and Leo (cap. 28) and the
other addressed to the same Michael. But still more
clearly is this seen from the letter of Blessed Gregory
[the Great or Dialogus] (xxxj., Lib. VI.) to Eulogius
of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, and from the
letter of Nicholas I. to the Emperor Michel which begins
"Proposueramus."
This canon Dionysius Exiguus appends to Canon 2, and
dropping 5, 6, and 7 he has but three canons of this
Synod.
Canon
IV
Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which
has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is
decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop;
that those who have been ordained by him are in no order
whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done
concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.
Ancient Epitome of Canon IV: Let Maximus the Cynic be
cast out from among the bishops, and anyone who was
inscribed by him on the clergy list shall be held as
profane.
Canon
V
(Possibly adopted at a Council held in Constantinople
the next year, 382. Vide In regard to the tome of the
Western [Bishops], we receive those in Antioch also
who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Ancient Epitome of Canon V: The Tome of the Westerns
which recognizes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
as consubstantial is highly acceptable. [Beveridge and
Van Espen translate this canon differently, thus, "With
regard to the tome of the Westerns, we agree with those
in Antioch [i.e. the Synod of 378] who (accepted it
and) acknowledged the unity of theGodhead of the Father
etc..." In oppositionto this translation Hefele
urges that apodechesthai in ecclesiastical language
usually refers to receiving persons and recognizing
them, not opinions or doctrines.]
Canon
VI
(Possibly adopted at a Council held in Constantinople
the next year, 382. Vide Forasmuch as many wishing to
confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order, do contentiously
and slanderously fabricate charges against the orthodox
bishops who have the administration of the Churches,
intending nothing else than to stain the reputation
of the priests and raise up disturbances amongst the
peaceful laity; therefore it seemed right to the Holy
Synod of Bishops assembled together in Constantinople,
not to admit accusers without examination; and neither
to allow all persons whatsoever to bring accusations
against the rulers of the Church, nor, on the other
hand, to exclude all. If then, any one shall bring a
private complaint against the Bishop, that is, one relating
to his own affairs, as, for example, that he has been
defrauded, or otherwise unjustly treated by him, in
such accusations no examination shall be made, either
of the person or of the religion of the accuser; for
it is by all means necessary that the conscience of
the Bishop should be free, and that he who says he has
been wronged should meet with righteous judgment, of
whatever religion he may be. But if the charge alleged
against the Bishop be that of some ecclesiastical offence,
then it is necessary to examine carefully the persons
of the accusers, so that, in the first place, heretics
may not be suffered to bring accusations touching ecclesiastical
matters against orthodox bishops. And by heretics we
mean both those who were aforetime cast out and those
whom we ourselves have since anathematized, and also
those professing to hold the true faith who have separated
from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles
in opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any who
have been condemned for faults and cast out of the Church,
or excommunicated, whether of the clergy or the laity,
neither shall it be lawful for these to bring an accusation
against the bishop, until they have cleared away the
charge against themselves. In like manner, persons who
are under previous accusations are not to be permitted
to bring charges against a bishop or any other clergyman,
until they shall have proved their own innocence of
the accusation brought against them. But if any, being
neither heretics, nor excommunicate, nor condemned,
nor under previous accusation for alleged faults, should
declare that they have any ecclesiastical charge against
the bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first lay their
charges before all the Bishops of the Province, and
before them prove the accusations, whatsoever they may
be, which they have brought against the bishop. And
if the comprovincials should be unable rightly to settle
the charges brought against the bishop, then the parties
must betake themselves to a greater synod of the bishops
of that diocese called together for this purpose; and
they shall not produce their allegations before they
have promised in writing to undergo an equal penalty
to be exacted from themselves, if, in the course of
the examination, they shall be proved to have slandered
the accused bishop. And if anyone, despising what has
been decreed concerning these things, shall presume
to annoy the ears of the Emperor, or the courts of temporal
judges, or, to the dishonour of all the Bishops of his
Province, shall trouble an Ecumenical Synod, such an
one shall by no means be admitted as an accuser; forasmuch
as he has cast contempt upon the Canons, and brought
reproach upon the order of the Church.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VI: Even one that is of ill
repute, if he have suffered any injury, let him bring
a charge against the bishop. If however it be a crime
of ecclesiastical matters let him not speak. Nor shall
another condemned before, speak. Let not one excommunicated,
or cast forth, or charged with any crimes speak, until
he is cleared of them. But those who should bring the
charge are the orthodox, who are communicants, uncondemned,
unaccused. Let the case be heard by the provincials.
If however they are not able to decide the case, let
them have recourse to a greater synod and let them not
be heard, without a written declaration of liability
to the same sufferings [i.e. of their readiness to be
tried by the lex talionis.] But should anyone contrary
to the provisions appeal to the Emperor and trouble
him, let such be cast forth.
Zonaras: By "those who were cast out of the Church"
are to be understood those who were altogether cut off
from the Church; but by those who were "excommunicated"
the holy fathers intend all those, whether clerics or
laymen, who are deprived of communion for a set time
... We call Adrianople, for example, or Philopopolis
with the bishops of each a "Province," but
the whole of Thrace or Macedonia we call a "Diocese."
When these crimes were brought forward to be corrected,
for the judging of which the provincial bishops were
by no means sufficient, then the Canon orders the bishops
of the diocese to assemble, and determine the charges
preferred against the bishop.
Canon
VII
Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the
portion of those who are being saved, we receive according
to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians,
and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari
or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and
Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written
renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every
heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first
sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead,
eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them,
we say, "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost."
But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion,
and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians,
who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry
other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all
other heresies -- for there are many such here, particularly
among those who come from the country of the Galatians:
-- all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy,
we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them
Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third,
we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and
ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend
some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures;
and then we baptize them.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VII: [This canon is broken
into two by the Ancient Epitome.] Quarto-decimans or
Tetradites, Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, and Apollinarians
ought to be received with their books and anointed in
all their organs of sense.
Ancient Epitome of Canon VIII: Eunomians baptized with
one immersion, Sabellians, and Phrygians are to be received
as heathen.
Aristemus (in Can. vij.): Those giving up their books
and execrating every heresy are received with only anointing
with chrism of the eyes, the nostrils, the ears, the
mouth, and the brow; and signing them with the words,
"The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost."
[This canon is contained in all the editions of the
Commentaries of Balsamon and Zonaras. It is cited also
by Photius in Nomocanon, Tit. xii. ch. xiv., besides
it is extant in a contracted form in the Epitome of
Alexius Aristenus. But it is wanting in all the Latin
versions of the Canons, in the ancient translations
of Dionys. Exig., Isidore Mercator, etc.; also in the
Epitome of Symeon the Logothete, and the Arabic paraphrase
of Josephus the Egyptian, and in the collection and
nomocanon of John of Antioch.]
Synodical
Letter of the Local Council Held at Constantinople the
Following Year, A.D. 382
(From
Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, v. 9)
To the right honourable lords our right reverend brethren
and colleagues, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerianus,
Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius and the rest of the holy
bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy
synod of the orthodox bishops assembled at the great
city of Constantinople sends greeting in the Lord.
To recount all the sufferings inflicted on us by the
power of the Arians, and to attempt to give information
to your reverences, as though you were not already well
acquainted with them, might seem superfluous. For we
do not suppose your piety to hold what is befalling
us as of such secondary importance as that you stand
in any need of information on matters which cannot but
evoke your sympathy. Nor indeed were the storms which
beset us such as to escape notice from their insignificance.
Our persecutions are but of yesterday. The sound of
them still rings in the ears alike of those who suffered
them and of those whose love made the sufferers' pain
their own. It was but a day or two ago, so to speak,
that some released from chains in foreign lands returned
to their own churches through manifold afflictions;
of others who had died in exile the relics were brought
home; others again, even after their return from exile,
found the passion of the heretics still at the boiling
heat, and, slain by them with stones as was the blessed
Stephen, met with a sadder fate in their own than in
a stranger's land. Others, worn away with various cruelties,
still bear in their bodies the scars of their wounds
and the marks of Christ. Who could tell the tale of
fines, of disfranchisements, of individual confiscations,
of intrigues, of outrages, of prisons? In truth all
kinds of tribulation were wrought out beyond number
in us, perhaps because we were paying the penalty of
sins, perhaps because the merciful God was trying us
by means of the multitude of our sufferings. For these
all thanks to God, who by means of such afflictions
trained his servants and, according to the multitude
of his mercies, brought us again to refreshment.
We indeed needed long leisure, time, and toil to restore
the church once more, that so, like physicians healing
the body after long sickness and expelling its disease
by gradual treatment, we might bring her back to her
ancient health of true religion. It is true that on
the whole we seem to have been delivered from the violence
of our persecutions and to be just now recovering the
churches which, have for a long time been the prey of
the heretics. But wolves are troublesome to us who,
though they have been driven from the fold, yet harry
the flock up and down the glades, daring to hold rival
assemblies, stirring seditious among the people, and
shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches.
So, as we have already said, we needs must labour all
the longer.
Since, however, you showed your brotherly love to us
by inviting us (as though we were your own members)
by the letters of our most religious emperor to the
synod which you are gathering by divine permission at
Rome, to the end that since we alone were then condemned
to suffer persecution, you should not now, when our
emperors are at one with us as to true religion, reign
apart from us, but that we, to use the Apostle's phrase,
should reign with you, our prayer was, if it were possible,
all in company to leave our churches, and rather gratify
our longing to see you than consult their needs. For
who will give us wings as of a dove, and we will fly
and be at rest?
But this course seemed likely to leave the churches
who were just recovering quite undefended, and the undertaking
was to most of us impossible, for, in accordance witch
the letters sent a year ago from your holiness after
the synod at Aquileia to the most pious emperor Theodosius,
we had journeyed to Constantinople, equipped only for
travelling so far as Constantinople, and bringing the
consent of the bishops remaining in the provinces of
this synod alone. We had been in no expectation of any
longer journey nor had heard a word about it, before
our arrival at Constantinople. In addition to all this,
and on account of the narrow limits of the appointed
time which allowed of no preparation for a longer journey,
nor of communicating with the bishops of our communion
in the provinces and of obtaining their consent, the
journey to Rome was for the majority impossible.
We have therefore adopted the next best course open
to us under the circumstances, both for the better administration
of the church, and for manifesting our love towards
you, by strongly urging our most venerated, and honoured
colleagues and brother bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius and
Priscianus, to consent to travel to you.
Through them we wish to make it plain that our disposition
is all for peace with unity for its sole object, and
that we are full of zeal for the right faith. For we,
whether we suffered persecutions, or afflictions, or
the threats of emperors, or the cruelties of princes,
or any other trial at the hands of heretics, have undergone
all for the sake of the evangelic faith, ratified by
the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicæa
in Bithynia. This is the faith which ought to be sufficient
for you, for us, for all who wrest not the word of the
true faith; for it is the ancient faith; it is the faith
of our baptism; it is the faith that teaches us to believe
in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.
According to this faith there is one Godhead, Power
and Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost; the dignity being equal, and the majesty
being equal in three perfect hypostases, i.e. three
perfect persons. Thus there is no room for the heresy
of Sabellius by the confusion of the hypostases, i.e.
the destruction of the personalities; thus the blasphemy
of the Eunomians, of the Arians, and of the Pneumatomachi
is nullified, which divides the substance, the nature,
and the godhead, and super-induces on the uncreated
consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity a nature posterior,
created and of a different substance.
We moreover preserve unperverted the doctrine of the
incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that
the dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless nor
mindless nor imperfect; and knowing full well that God's
Word was perfect before the ages, and became perfect
man in the last days for our salvation.
Let this suffice for a summary of the doctrine which
is fearlessly and frankly preached by us, and concerning
which you will be able to be still further satisfied
if you will deign to read the tome of the synod of Antioch,
and also that tome issued last year by the Ecumenical
Council held at Constantinople, in which we have set
forth our confession of the faith at greater length,
and have appended an anathema against the heresies which
innovators have recently inscribed. Now as to the particular
administration of individual churches, an ancient custom,
as you know, has obtained, confirmed by the enactment
of the holy fathers of Nicæa, that in every province,
the bishops of the province, and, with their consent,
the neighbouring bishops with them, should perform ordinations
as expediency may require. In conforming with these
customs note that other churches have been administered
by us and the priests of the most famous, churches publicly
appointed. Accordingly over the new made (if the expression
be allowable) church at Constantinople, which, as though
from a lion's mouth, we have lately snatched by God's
mercy from the blasphemy of the heretics, we have ordained
bishop the right reverend and most religious Nectarius,
in the presence of the Ecumenical Council, with common
consent, before the most religious emperor Theodosius,
and with the assent of all the clergy and of the whole
city. And over the most ancient and truly apostolic
church in Syria, where first the noble name of Christians
was given them, the bishops of the province and of the
eastern diocese have met together and canonically ordained
bishop the right reverend and most religious Flavianus,
with the consent of all the church, who as though with
one voice joined in expressing their respect for him.
This rightful ordination also received the sanction
of the General Council. Of the church at Jerusalem,
mother of all the churches, we make known that the right
reverend and most religious Cyril is bishop, who was
some time ago canonically ordained by the bishops of
the province, and has in several places fought a good
fight against the Arians. We beseech your reverence
to rejoice at what has thus been rightly and canonically
settled by us, by the intervention of spiritual love
and by the influence of the fear of the Lord, compelling
the feelings of men, and making the edification of churches
of more importance than individual grace or favour.
Thus since among us there is agreement in the faith
and Christian charity has been established, we shall
cease to use the phrase condemned by the apostles, "I
am of Paul" and "I of Apollos" and "I
of Cephas", and all appearing as Christ's, who
in us is not divided, by God's grace we will keep the
body of the church unrent, and will boldly stand at
the judgment seat of the Lord.
APPENDIX:
on the Number of the Canons
(Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 351.)
The number of canons drawn up by this synod is doubtful.
The old Greek codices and the Greek commentators of
the Middle Ages, Zonaras and Balsamon, enumerate seven;
the old Latin translations -- viz. the Prisca, those
by Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, as well as the Codex
of Luna -- only recognize the first four canons of the
Greek text, and the fact that they agree in this point
is the more important as they are wholly independent
of each other, and divide and arrange those canons of
Constantinople which they do acknowledge quite differently.
Because, however, in the Prisca the canons of Constantinople
are only placed after those of the fourth General Council,
the Ballerini brothers conclude that they were not contained
at all in the oldest Greek collections of canons, and
were inserted after the Council of Chalcedon. But it
was at this very Council of Chalcedon that the first
three canons of Constantinople were read out word for
word. As however, they were not separately numbered,
but were there read under the general title of Synodicon
Synodi Secundæ, Fuchs concluded they were not
originally in the form in which we now possess them,
but, without being divided into numbers, formed a larger
and unbroken decree, the contents of which were divided
by later copyists and translators into several different
canons. And hence the very different divisions of these
canons in the Prisca, Dionysius, and Isidore may be
explained. The fact, however, that the old Latin translations
all agree in only giving the first four canons of the
Greek text, seems to show that the oldest Greek manuscripts,
from which those translations were made, did not contain
the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and that these last did
not properly belong to this Synod, but were later additions.
To this must be added that the old Greek Church-historians,
in speaking of the affairs of the second General Council,
only mention those points which are contained in the
first four canons, and say nothing of what, according
to the fifth, sixth, and seventh canons, had also been
decided at Constantinople. At the very least, the seventh
canon cannot have emanated from this Council, since
in the sixth century John Scholasticus did not receive
it into his collection, although he adopted the fifth
and sixth. It is also missing in many other collections
... But the fifth and sixth canons probably belong to
the Synod of Constantinople of the following year, as
Beveridge, the Ballerini, and others conjectured. The
Greek scholiasts, Zonaras and Balsamon, and later on
Tillemont, Beveridge, Van Espen and Herbst, have given
more or less detailed commentaries on all these canons.
Back
to contents
|