expressions in the evangelical and apostolic writings, or which have been
said concerning Christ by the saints, or by Himself concerning Himself,
and shall apply some to Him as to a man regarded separately apart from the
Word of God, and shall apply others, as appropriate to God only, to the
Word of God the Father; let him be anathema.
V. If any one dare to say that the Christ is a god-bearing man, and not
rather that He is in truth God, as an only Son by nature, because “The
Word was made flesh,” and hath share in flesh and blood as we have; let
him be anathema.
VI. If any one shall dare to say that the Word of God the Father is the
God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess Him as
at the same time both God and man, since according to the Scriptures the
Word became flesh; let him be anathema.
VII. If any one say that Jesus is, as a man, energized by the Word of God,
and that the glory of the Only begotten is attributed to Him as being
something else than His own; let him be anathema.
VIII. If any one say that the man assumed ought to be worshipped together
with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and recognized
together with Him as God, as one being with another (for this phrase
“together with” is added to convey this meaning) and shall not rather with
one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay Him one glorification, because
“the Word was made flesh”; let him be anathema.
IX. If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by
the Spirit, so that He used through Him a power not His own, and from Him
received power against unclean spirits, and power to perform divine signs
before men, and shall not rather confess that it was His own spirit,
through which He worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.
X. The divine Scriptures say that Christ was made the high priest and
apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1], and that for our sakes He offered
Himself as a sweet odor to God the Father. If then any one say that it is
not the divine Word himself, when He was made flesh and had become man as
we are, but another than He, a man born of a woman, yet different from Him
who has become our high priest and apostle; or if any one say that He
offered Himself as an offering for Himself, and not rather for us,
whereas, being without sin, He had no need of offering; let him be
anathema.
XI. If any one shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord is
life-giving, and belongs to the Word of God the Father as His very own,
but shall pretend that it belongs to another who is united to Him
according to worthiness, and who has served as only a dwelling for the
Divinity; and shall not rather confess that that flesh is life-giving, as
we say, because it has been made the possession of the Word who is able to
give life to all; let him be anathema.
XII. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God suffered in the
flesh, and that He was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise He tasted
death in the flesh, and that He is become the first-born from the dead
[Col. 1:18], for as God He is the life and life-giving; let him be
anathema.
(_b_) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. _Condemnation of Nestorius_. Mansi,
IV, 1211.
The text may also be found in Hefele, § 134, under the First
Session of the Council.
The holy synod says: Since in addition to other things the impious
Nestorius has not obeyed our Citation and did not receive the most holy
and God-fearing bishops who were sent to him by us, we were compelled to
proceed to the examination of his impieties. And, discovering from his
letters and treatises and from the discourses recently delivered by him in
this metropolis, which have been testified to, that he has held and
published impious doctrines, and being compelled thereto by the canons and
by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the
Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence
against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he has blasphemed, decrees through
the present most holy synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal
dignity and from all priestly communion.
(_c_) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, _Ep. ad Celestinum_. Mansi, IV,
1330-1338.
The letter is very long and gives an almost complete history of
the council. It may be found complete in PNF, _loc. cit._, p. 237.
It is of special importance in connection with the Pelagian
controversy, as it states that the Council of Ephesus had
confirmed the Western deposition of the Pelagians.
The letters were read which were written to him [Nestorius] by the most
holy and reverend bishop of the church of Alexandria, Cyril, which the
holy synod approved as being orthodox and without fault, and in no point
out of agreement, either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with
the faith handed down and set forth in the great synod by the holy Fathers
who were assembled some time ago at Nicæa, as your holiness, also rightly
having examined this, has given witness.…
When there had been read in the holy synod what had been done touching the
deposition of the irreligious Pelagians and Celestinians, of Celestius,
Pelagius, Julianus, Præsidius, Florus, Marcellinus, and Orontius, and
those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right that the
determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and
firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed.
(_d_) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, _Canons_, Bruns, I, 24.
The text may be found also in Hefele, § 141.
Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy synod and
remained in their own district or city for any reason, ecclesiastical or
personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were decreed by the
synod; we therefore notify your holiness and charity that——
I. If any metropolitan of a province, forsaking the holy and ecumenical
synod, has joined the assembly of apostasy [the council under John of
Antioch], or shall join the same hereafter; or if he has adopted, or shall
adopt, the doctrines of Celestius,(185) he has no power in any way to do
anything in opposition to the bishops of the province because he is
already cast forth by the synod from all ecclesiastical communion, and is
without authority; but he shall be subjected to the same bishops of the
province and to the neighboring bishops who hold the orthodox doctrines,
to be degraded completely from his episcopal rank.
II. If any provincial bishops were not present at the holy synod, and have
joined or attempted to join the apostasy; or if, after subscribing to the
deposition of Nestorius, they went back to the assembly of apostasy,
these, according to the decree of the holy synod, are to be deposed
completely from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.
(_e_) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, _Manifesto of John of Antioch and his
council against Cyril and his council_. Mansi, IV, 1271.
The holy synod assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and at the
command of the pious emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished to
be able to hold a synod in peace, according to the canons of the holy
Fathers and the letters of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors; but
because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and
obstinate disposition, although, according to the letters of our most
pious emperors, we were in the neighborhood, and because you have filled
both the city and the holy synod with every sort of confusion, in order to
prevent the examination of points agreeing with the Apollinarian, Arian,
and Eunomian heresies and impieties, and have not waited for the arrival
of the most religious bishops summoned from all regions by our pious
emperors, and when the most magnificent Count Candidianus warned you and
admonished you in writing and verbally that you should not hear such a
matter, but await the common judgment of all the most holy bishops;
therefore know thou, O Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and thou, O Memnon,
bishop of this city, that ye are dismissed and deposed from all sacerdotal
functions as the originators and leaders of all this disorder and
lawlessness, and those who have violated the canons of the Fathers and the
imperial decrees. And all ye others who seditiously and wickedly, and
contrary to all ecclesiastical sanctions and the royal decrees, gave your
consent are excommunicated until you acknowledge your fault and reform and
accept anew the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicæa, adding to it
nothing foreign or different, and until ye anathematize the heretical
propositions of Cyril, which are plainly repugnant to evangelical and
apostolic doctrine, and in all things comply with the letters of our most
pious and Christ-loving emperors, who require a peaceful and accurate
consideration of the dogma.
(_f_) Creed of Antioch A. D. 433. Hahn, § 170.
This creed was probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus, and was
sent by Count Johannes to the Emperor Theodosius in 431 as
expressing the teaching of the Antiochian party. The bitterest
period of the Nestorian controversy was after the council which is
commonly regarded as having settled it. The Antiochians and the
Alexandrians attacked each other vigorously. At last, in 433,
John, bishop of Antioch, sent the creed given below to Cyril of
Alexandria, who signed it. The creed expresses accurately the
position of Nestorius. In this way a union was patched up between
the contending parties. But the irreconcilable Nestorians left the
Church permanently. This creed in the form in which it had been
presented to the Emperor was at the beginning and the end worded
somewhat differently, _cf._ Hahn, _loc. cit._, note.
We therefore acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only
begotten, complete God and complete man, of a rational soul and body;
begotten of the Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in
the last days for us and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, according
to the manhood; that He is of the same nature as the Father according to
His godhead, and of the same nature with us according to His manhood; for
a union of the two natures has been made; therefore we confess one Christ,
one Son, one Lord. According to this conception of the unconfused union,
we confess that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, because God the Word was
made flesh and became man, and from her conception united with Himself the
temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical and apostolic
utterances concerning the Lord, making common, as in one person, the
divine and the human characteristics, but distinguishing them as in two
natures; and teaching that the godlike traits are according to the godhead
of Christ, and the humble traits according to His manhood.
§ 90. The Eutychian Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon A. D. 451
What is known as the Eutychian controversy is less a dogmatic controversy
than a struggle between the patriarchs of the East for supremacy, using
party theological differences as a support. Few passages in the history of
the Church are more painful. The union made in 433 between the Antiochian
and Alexandrian parties lasted fifteen years, or until after the death of
those who entered into it. At Antioch Domnus became bishop in 442, at
Alexandria Dioscurus in 444, and at Constantinople Flavian in 446. Early
in 448 Dioscurus, who aimed at the domination of the East, began to attack
the Antiochians as Nestorians. In this he was supported at Constantinople
by Chrysaphius, the all-powerful minister of the weak Theodosius II, and
the archimandrite Eutyches, the godfather of the minister. Eusebius of
Dorylæum thereupon accused Eutyches, who held the Alexandrian position in
an extreme form, of being heretical on the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Eutyches was condemned by Flavian at an endemic synod [_cf._ DCA, I. 474].
November 22, 448. Both Eutyches and Flavian [_cf._ Leo the Great, _Ep._
21, 22] thereupon turned to Leo, bishop of Rome. Leo, abandoning the
traditional Roman alliance with Alexandria, on which Dioscurus had
counted, supported Flavian, sending him June 13, 449, a dogmatic epistle
(the _Tome, Ep._ 28) defining, in the terms of Western theology, the point
at issue. A synod was now called by Theodosius at Ephesus, August, 449, in
which Dioscurus with the support of the court triumphed. Eutyches was
restored, and the leaders of the Antiochian party, Flavian, Eusebius,
Ibas, Theodoret, and others deposed. Flavian [_cf._ Kirch, nn. 804 _ff._],
Eusebius, and Theodoret appealed to Leo, who vigorously denounced the
synod as a council of robbers (Latrocinium Ephesinum). At the same time
the situation at the court, upon which Dioscurus depended, was completely
changed by the fall of Chrysaphius and the death of Theodosius. Pulcheria,
his sister, and Marcian, her husband, succeeded to the throne, both
adherents of the Antiochian party, and opposed to the ecclesiastical
aspirations of Dioscurus. A new synod was now called by Marcian at
Chalcedon, a suburb of Constantinople. Dioscurus was deposed, as well as
Eutyches, but Ibas and Theodoret were restored after an examination of
their teaching. A definition was drawn up in harmony with the _Tome_ of
Leo. It was a triumph for Leo, which was somewhat lessened by the passage
of canon 28, based upon the third canon of Constantinople, A. D. 381, a
council which was henceforth recognized as the “Second General Council.”
Leo refused to approve this canon, which remained in force in the East and
was renewed at the Quinisext Council A. D. 692.
Additional source material: W. Bright, _Select Sermons of S. Leo
the Great on the Incarnation; with his twenty-eighth Epistle
called the __“__Tome__”_, Second ed., London, 1886; Percival, _The
Seven Ecumenical Councils_ (PNF); Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, II, 1-5,
18, Eng. trans., London, 1846 (also in Bohn’s _Ecclesiastical
Library_); also much material in Hefele, §§ 170-208.
(_a_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, _Acts_. Mansi, VI, 741 _ff._
The position of Eutyches and his condemnation.
Inasmuch as Eutyches was no theologian and no man of letters, he
has left no worked-out statement of his position. What he taught
can be gathered only from the acts of the Council of
Constantinople A. D. 448. These were incorporated in the acts of
the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, and as his friends were there
they may be regarded as trustworthy. The acts of the Council of
Ephesus, A. D. 449 were read in the Council of Chalcedon, A. D.
451, and in this way the matter is known.
The following passages are taken from the seventh sitting of the
Council of Constantinople, November 22, 448.
Archbishop Flavian said: Do you confess that the one and the same Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with His Father as to His divinity,
and consubstantial with His mother as to His humanity?
Eutyches said: When I intrusted myself to your holiness I said that you
should not ask me further what I thought concerning the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost.
The archbishop said: Do you confess Christ to be of two natures?
Eutyches said: I have never yet presumed to speculate concerning the
nature of my God, the Lord of heaven and earth; I confess that I have
never said that He is consubstantial with us. Up to the present day I have
not said that the body of our Lord and God was consubstantial with us; I
confess that the holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that of her
our God was incarnate.…
Florentius, the patrician, said: Since the mother is consubstantial with
us, doubtless the Son is consubstantial with us.
Eutyches said: I have not said, you will notice, that the body of a man
became the body of God, but the body was human, and the Lord was incarnate
of the Virgin. If you wish that I should add to this that His body is
consubstantial with us, I will do this; but I do not understand the term
consubstantial in such a way that I do not deny that he is the Son of God.
Formerly I spoke in general not of a consubstantiality according to the
flesh; now I will do so, because your Holiness demands it.…
Florentius said: Do you or do you not confess that our Lord, who is of the
Virgin, is consubstantial and of two natures after the incarnation?
Eutyches said: I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union
[_i.e._, the union of divinity and humanity in the incarnation], but after
the union one nature.… I follow the teaching of the blessed Cyril and the
holy Fathers and the holy Athanasius, because they speak of two natures
before the union, but after the union and incarnation they speak not of
two natures but of one nature.
Condemnation of Eutyches.
Eutyches, formerly presbyter and archimandrite, has been shown, by what
has taken place and by his own confession, to be infected with the heresy
of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and to follow stubbornly their blasphemies,
and rejecting our arguments and teaching, is unwilling to consent to true
doctrines. Therefore, weeping and mourning his complete perversity, we
have decreed through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by
him, that he be deprived of every sacerdotal office, that he be put out of
our communion, and deprived of his position over a monastery. All who
hereafter speak with him or associate with him, are to know that they also
are fallen into the same penalty of excommunication.
(_b_) Leo the Great, _Epistola Dogmatica_ or the _Tome_. Hahn, § 176.
(MSL, 54:763.)
This letter was written to Flavian on the subject which had been
raised by the condemnation of Eutyches in 448. It is of the first
importance, not merely in the history of the Church, but also in
the history of doctrine. Yet it cannot be said that Leo advanced
beyond the traditional formulæ of the West, or struck out new
thoughts [_cf._ Augustine, _Ep._ 187, text and translation of most
important part in Norris, _Rudiments of Theology_, 1894, pp.
262-266]. It was to be read at the Council of Ephesus, 449 A. D.,
but was not. It soon became widely known, however, and was
approved at the endemic Council of Constantinople, A. D. 450, and
when read at Chalcedon, the Fathers of the council cried out:
“Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo.”
It may be found translated in PNF, ser II, vol. XII, p. 38, and
again vol. XIV, p. 254. The best critical text is given in Hahn, §
224. A translation with valuable notes may be found in Wm. Bright,
_op. cit._ Hefele, § 176, gives a paraphrase and text with useful
notes. The most significant passages, which are here translated,
may be found in Denziger, nn. 143 _f._
Ch. 3. Without detracting from the properties of either nature and
substance, which came together in one person, majesty took on humility;
strength, weakness; eternity, mortality; and to pay off the debt of our
condition inviolable nature was united to passible nature, so that as
proper remedy for us, one and the same mediator between God and man, the
man Jesus Christ, could both die with the one and not die with the other.
Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born,
complete in what was His and complete in what was ours.…
Ch. 4. There enters, therefore, these lower parts of the world the Son of
God, descending from His heavenly seat, and not quitting the glory of His
Father, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order: because
He who was invisible in His own nature, was made visible in ours; He who
was incomprehensible [could not be contained], became comprehensible in
ours; remaining before all times, He began to be in time; the Lord of all,
He took upon Him the form of a servant, having obscured His immeasurable
majesty. He who was God, incapable of suffering, did not disdain to be
man, capable of suffering, and the immortal to subject Himself to the laws
of death. Born by a new nativity: because the inviolate virginity knew not
concupiscence, it ministered the material of the flesh. The nature of the
Lord was assumed from the mother, not sin; and in the Lord Jesus Christ,
born of the womb of the Virgin, because His nativity is wonderful, yet is
His nature not dissimilar to ours. For He who is true God, is likewise
true man, and there is no fraud(186) since both the humility of the man
and the loftiness of God meet.(187) For as God is not changed by the
manifestation of pity, so the man is not consumed [absorbed] by the
dignity. For each form [_i.e._, nature] does in communion with the other
what is proper to it [_agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione
quod proprium est_]; namely, by the action of the Word what is of the
Word, and by the flesh carrying out what is of the flesh. One of these is
brilliant with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word
does not depart from equality with the paternal glory, so the flesh does
not forsake the nature of our race.(188)
(_c_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Definition_. Mansi, VII, 107.
The definition of Chalcedon lays down the fundamental principles
upon which rests the doctrine of the incarnation, both in Eastern
and Western theology. It is the necessary complement and result of
the discussion that led to the definition of Nicæa, and is
theologically second only to that in importance. At Nicæa the true
and eternal deity of the Son who became incarnate was defined; at
Chalcedon the true, complete, and abiding humanity of manhood of
the incarnate Son of God. In this way two natures were asserted to
be in the incarnate Logos. According to Chalcedon, which came
after the Nestorian and the Eutychian controversies, these natures
are neither to be confused so that the divine nature suffers or
the human nature is lost in the divine, nor to be separated so as
to constitute two persons. The definition was, however, not
preceded by any clear understanding of what was to be understood
by nature in relation to hypostasis. This was left for later
discussion. There was even then left open the question as to the
relation of the will to the nature, and this gave rise to the
Monothelete controversy (see § 110). But the definition of
Chalcedon is important not merely for the history of doctrine but
also for the general history of the Church. The course of
Christianity in the East depends upon the great controversies, and
in Monophysitism the Church of the East was split into permanent
divisions. The divisions of the Eastern Church prepared the way
for the Moslem conquests. The attempts made to set aside the
definition of Chalcedon as a political move led to a temporary
schism between the East and the West.
In this definition, it should be noted, the Council of
Constantinople, A. D. 381, for the first time takes its place
alongside of Nicæa and Ephesus, A. D. 431, and the so-called creed
of Constantinople is placed on the same level as the creed put
forth at Nicæa. The creed of Constantinople eventually took the
place of the creed of Nicæa even in the East.
The text of the definition may be found in its most important
dogmatic part in Hefele, § 193; Hahn, § 146; Denziger, n. 148. For
a general description of the council, see Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._,
II, 3, 4. Extracts from the acts in PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, 243
_ff._
The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God and
the command of our most religious and Christian Emperors Marcian and
Valentinian, Augusti, at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the province of
Bithynia, in the martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has
decreed as follows:
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of the
faith in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his
neighbor concerning the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation
of the truth might be set forth equally to all men, said: “My peace I
leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” But since the Evil One does not
desist from sowing tares among the seeds of godliness, but ever invents
something new against the truth, therefore the Lord, providing, as He ever
does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful, and zealous
sovereign, and He has called together unto Himself from all parts the
chief rulers of the priesthood, so that, with the grace of Christ, our
common Lord, inspiring us, we may cast off every plague of falsehood from
the sheep of Christ and feed them with the tender leaves of truth. And
this we have done, with unanimous consent driving away erroneous doctrine
and renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all the
creed of the three hundred and eighteen [_i.e._, the creed of Nicæa], and
to their number adding as Fathers those who have received the same summary
of religion. Such are the one hundred and fifty who afterward assembled in
great Constantinople and ratified the same faith. Moreover, observing the
order and every form relating to the faith which was observed by the holy
synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of
Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders [_i.e._, Ephesus A. D. 431],
we do declare that the exposition of the right and blameless faith made by
the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, assembled at
Nicæa in the reign of Constantine, of pious memory, shall be pre-eminent,
and that those things shall be of force also which were decreed by the one
hundred and fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople for the uprooting of the
heresies which had then sprung up and for the confirmation of the same
Catholic and apostolic faith of ours.
Then follow:
“The Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers at Nicæa.” The
so-called Constantinopolitan creed, without the “filioque.”
This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect
knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect
doctrine concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the
incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But forasmuch
as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have
through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings, some of
them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation for us and
refusing to use the name Theotokos in reference to the Virgin, while
others bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that there
is one nature of the flesh and the godhead, maintaining that the divine
nature of the Only begotten is by mixture capable of suffering; therefore
this present, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude from them
every device against the truth and teaching that which is unchanged from
the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the three
hundred and eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate. And on account
of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine
afterward delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the one
hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in the imperial city, which
doctrine they declare unto all men, not as though they were introducing
anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to
explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost
against those who were seeking to destroy His sovereignty. And on account
of those who are attempting to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation
[_i.e._, the incarnation], and who shamelessly pretend that He who was
born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical
letters of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church of Alexandria,
addressed to Nestorius and to the Easterns,(189) judging them suitable for
the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius and for the instruction
of those who long with holy ardor for a knowledge of the saving symbol.
And to these it has rightly added for the confirmation of the orthodox
doctrines the letter of the president of the great and old Rome, the most
blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop
Flavian, of blessed memory,(190) for the removal of the false doctrines of
Eutyches, judging them to be agreeable to the confession of the great
Peter and to be a common pillar against misbelievers. For it opposes those
who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a duad of Sons; it
repels from the sacred assembly those who dared to say that the godhead of
the Only begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those who imagine
there is a mixture or confusion in the two natures of Christ; it drives
away those who fancy His form as a servant is of an heavenly or of some
substance other than that which was taken of us,(191) and it anathematizes
those who foolishly talk of two natures of our Lord before the union,(192)
conceiving that after the union there was only one.(193)
Following the holy Fathers,(194) we all with one voice teach men to
confess that the Son and our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, that
He is perfect in godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man,
of a reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with His Father as touching
His godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood,(195) in all
things like unto us, without sin; begotten of His Father before all worlds
according to His godhead; but in these last days for us and for our
salvation of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, according to His manhood, one
and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten Son,(196) in(197) two
natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably; the
distinction of natures being preserved and concurring in one person and
hypostasis,(198) not separated or divided into two persons, but one and
the same Son and Only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as
the prophets from the beginning have spoken concerning Him, and as the
Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the creed of the Fathers
has delivered us.
These things having been expressed by us with great accuracy and
attention, the holy ecumenical synod decrees that no one shall be
permitted to bring forward another faith,(199) nor to write, nor to
compose, nor to excogitate, nor to teach such to others. But such as dare
to compose another faith, or to bring forward, or to teach, or to deliver
another creed to such as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the
truth from among the Gentiles or the Jews, or any heresy whatever; if they
be bishops or clerics, let them be deposed, the bishops from the
episcopate, the clerics from the clerical rank; but if they be monks or
laymen, let them be anathematized.
(_d_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Canon_ 28. Bruns, I, 32.
The rank of the see of Constantinople.
This canon is closely connected with Canon 3 of Constantinople, A.
D. 381, but goes beyond that in extending the authority of
Constantinople. With this canon should be compared Canons 9 and 17
of Chalcedon, which, taken with Canon 28, make Constantinople
supreme in the East. For the circumstances in which the Canon was
passed, see Hefele, § 200. The letter of the council submitting
its decrees to Leo for approval and explaining this canon is among
the Epistles of Leo, _Ep._ 98. (PNF, ser. II, vol. XII, p. 72.)
For Leo’s criticism, _v. supra_, § 86. See W. Bright, _Notes on
the Canons of the First Four General Councils_, 1882. A valuable
discussion of the canon in its historical setting is in
Hergenröther, _Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel_, 1867, I,
74-89.
Texts of the canon may be found in Kirch, n. 868, and Hefele,
_loc. cit._
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and
acknowledging the canon, which has just been read, of the one hundred and
fifty bishops, beloved of God we also do enact and decree the same things
concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople or New
Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of Old
Rome, because it was the royal city, and the one hundred and fifty most
religious bishops, moved by the same considerations, gave equal privileges
to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging with good reason that the
city which is honored with the sovereignty and the Senate, and also enjoys
equal privileges with old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters
also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that in the
dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace the metropolitans, and such bishops
also of the dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be
ordained only by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of
Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with
the bishops of his province ordaining bishops of the province, as has been
declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been said above, the
metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses shall be ordained by the
archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held
according to custom and have been reported to him.
(_e_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Protests of the Legates of Leo
against Canon_ 28. Mansi, VII, 446.
Lucentius, the bishop [legate of Leo], said: The Apostolic See gave orders
that all things should be done in our presence [Latin text: The Apostolic
See ought not to be humiliated in our presence], and therefore whatever
was done yesterday during our absence, to the prejudice of the canons, we
pray your highnesses [_i.e._, the royal commissioners who directed the
affairs of the council] to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our
protest be placed in these acts [_i.e._, the minutes of the council then
being approved], so that we may know clearly what we are to report to that
apostolic and chief bishop of the whole Church [Latin text: to that
apostolic man and Pope of the universal Church], so that he may be able to
take action with regard either to the indignity done to his see or to the
setting at naught of the canons.
§ 91. Results of the Decision of Chalcedon: the Rise of Schisms from the
Monophysite Controversy
The definition of the Council of Chalcedon, in spite of its condemnation
of Nestorius and its approval of the letters of Cyril, was a triumph of
the Antiochian school and a condemnation of Alexandrian theology. At
Chalcedon no more than at Nicæa was a controversy settled. So far from
being settled at the council, Monophysitism began with it its long career
in the Eastern Church only to end in permanent schisms. As soon as the
results of Chalcedon were known the Church was in an uproar. Riots broke
out in Jerusalem against the patriarch. At Alexandria, Timothy Ælurus, a
Monophysite, was able to drive out the orthodox patriarch. In Antioch,
Petrus Fullo did the same and added to the liturgical Trisagion [Is. 6:3]
the Theopaschite phrase: “God who was crucified for us.” The Emperor
Marcian died 457 and was succeeded by Leo I (457-474). His grandson Leo II
(474) was succeeded by his father Zeno (474-475, 477-491). Zeno was
temporarily deposed by Basiliscus (475-477), who, basing his authority
upon the Monophysite faction, issued an Encyclion condemning Chalcedon and
Leo’s Epistle, and making Monophysitism the religion of the Empire. Zeno
was restored by a Dyophysite faction under the lead of Acacius, patriarch
of Constantinople. Zeno, to win back the Monophysites, issued in 482 the
_Henoticon_, setting aside Chalcedon and making only the definition of
Nicæa authoritative. Dissatisfaction arose on both sides, and minor
schisms in the East took place. With Rome a schism arose lasting 484-519.
Additional source material: Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, lib. III.
(_a_) Basiliscus, _Encyclion_; A. D. 476; in Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, III,
4. (MSG, 86, II:2600.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 879 _f._
Although an anti-encyclion was issued in 477 condemning Eutyches
as well as Nestorius, the attempts of Basiliscus were in vain.
The Emperor Cæsar Basiliscus, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme,
ever-worshipful Augustus, and Marcus, the most noble Cæsar, to Timotheus,
archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, most reverend and
beloved of God.
Whatever laws the pious emperors before us, who worshipped the blessed and
immortal and life-giving Trinity, have decreed in behalf of the true and
apostolic faith, these laws, we say, as always beneficial for the whole
world, we will at no time to be inoperative, but rather we promulgate them
as our own. We, preferring piety and zeal in the cause of our God and
Saviour, Jesus Christ, who created and has made us glorious before all
diligence in human affairs, and also believing that concord among the
flocks of Christ is the preservation of ourselves and our subjects, the
firm foundation and unshaken bulwark of our Empire, and, accordingly,
being rightly moved with godly zeal and offering to God and our Saviour,
Jesus Christ, the unity of the holy Church as the first-fruits of our
reign, do ordain as the basis and confirmation of human felicity, namely,
the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were in time
past assembled with the Holy Ghost at Nicæa, into which both ourselves and
all our believing subjects were baptized; that this alone should have
reception and authority with the orthodox people in all the most holy
churches of God as the only formulary of the right faith, and sufficient
for the utter destruction of all heresy and for the complete unity of the
holy churches of God; the acts of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers
assembled in this imperial city, in confirmation of the sacred symbol
itself and in condemnation of those who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost,
retaining their own force; as well as of all done in the metropolitan city
of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently
favored his opinions.(200) But the proceedings which have disturbed the
unity and good order of the holy churches of God, and the peace of the
whole world, that is to say, the so-called _Tome_ of Leo, and all things
done at Chalcedon in innovation upon the before-mentioned holy symbol of
the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, whether by way of definition
of the faith or setting forth of symbols, or interpretation, or
instruction, or discourse; we decree that these shall be anathematized
both here and everywhere by all the most holy bishops in every church and
shall be given to the flames by whomsoever they shall be found, insomuch
as it was so enjoined respecting all heretical doctrines by our
predecessors of pious and blessed memory, Constantine and Theodosius the
younger [_v. supra_, § 73], and that, having thus been rendered null, they
shall be utterly cast out from the one and only Catholic and Apostolic
Orthodox Church, as superseding the everlasting and saving definitions of
the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and those of the blessed Fathers
who, by the Holy Ghost, decreed at Ephesus [it is possible that there is a
fault in the text here; the expected reading of the passage would be: and
of the one hundred and fifty bishops who decreed concerning the Holy
Spirit; and of those who were assembled at Ephesus] that no one, either of
the priesthood or laity, be allowed to deviate in any respect from that
most sacred constitution of the holy symbol, and we decree that these be
anathematized together with all the innovations upon the sacred symbol
which were made at Chalcedon and the heresy of those who do not confess
that the only begotten Son of God was truly incarnate and made man of the
Holy Ghost and of the holy and ever-virgin Mary, Theotokos, but falsely
allege that either from heaven or in mere phantasy and seeming He took
flesh; and, in short, every heresy and whatever else at any time in any
manner or place in the whole world, in either thought or word, has been
devised as an innovation upon and in derogation of the sacred symbol. And
inasmuch as it belongs especially to imperial providence to furnish to
their subjects, with forecasting deliberation, security not only for the
present but for the future, we decree that everywhere the most holy
bishops shall subscribe to this our sacred circular letter when exhibited
to them, and shall distinctly declare that they submit to the sacred
symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers alone, which the one
hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed, as it was also defined by the
most holy Fathers who subsequently assembled in the metropolitan city of
the Ephesians, that they should submit to the sacred symbol of the three
hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, as the definition of faith, and shall
anathematize everything done at Chalcedon as an offence to the orthodox
people and utterly cast it out of the churches as an impediment to the
general happiness and our own.(201) Those, moreover, who after the issuing
of this our sacred letter, which we trust has been issued according to
God, in an endeavor to bring about that unity which all desire for the
holy churches of God, shall attempt to bring forward or so much as to name
the innovation upon the faith made at Chalcedon, either in discourse,
instruction, or writing, in whatsoever manner or place—those persons, as
the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of God and among the
whole body of our subjects, and as enemies of God and to our safety, we
command (in accordance with the laws ordained by our predecessor
Theodosius, of blessed and pious memory, against such sorts of evil
designs, which laws are subjoined to this our sacred circular) that, if
they be bishops or clergy, they be deposed; if monks or laymen, that they
be subjected to banishment and every mode of confiscation and the severest
penalties. For so the holy and homoousian Trinity, the Creator and
Life-giver of the universe, which has ever been adored by us in piety, now
also is served by us in the destruction of the before-mentioned tares and
the confirmation of the true and apostolic traditions of the holy symbol,
becoming favorable and gracious both to our souls and to every one of our
subjects, shall ever aid us and preserve in peace human affairs.
(_b_) Zeno, _Henoticon_; in Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, III, 14. (MSG, 86,
II:2620.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 883 _f._
Zeno published his _Henoticon_ in 482 as an attempt to win back
the Monophysites. Evagrius says, in a note to the document: “When
these things were read, those who were in Alexandria were joined
to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” The effect so far as
the West went was just the opposite. Felix III protested and
threatened. But Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, who was chiefly
responsible for the document, refused to listen. Felix (_cf._
Evagrius, III, 18) and Acacius thereupon issued mutual
excommunications. On the accession of the Emperor Anastasius
[491-518] the _Henoticon_ continued in force, as his sympathies
were with the Monophysites. It will be noted that the _Henoticon_
not merely sets aside Chalcedon but introduces phrases which make
it appear that the same moral subject is present in every act,
whether of humility or majesty, and that it is God who suffers.
These are characteristic Monophysite positions.
The Emperor Cæsar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme,
ever-worshipful Augustus, to the most reverend bishops and clergy, and to
the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.
Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible
shield of our sovereignty, is the only right and true faith, which the
three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa set forth by
divine inspiration, and the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who in like
manner met at Constantinople, confirmed; we night and day employ every
means of prayer, of zealous care, and of laws, that the holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church of God in every place may be multiplied, which is the
incorruptible and immortal mother of our sceptre; and that the pious
laity, continuing in peace and unanimity in respect to God, may, together
with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the
archimandrites, and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications in
behalf of our sovereignty. So long as our great God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ, who was made man and brought forth of Mary, the holy Virgin and
Theotokos, approves and readily accepts the praise we render by concord
and our service, the power of enemies will be crushed and swept away, and
all will bend their necks to our power, which is according to God, and
peace and its blessings, kindly temperature, abundant produce, and
whatever else is beneficial will be liberally bestowed upon men. Since,
then, the irreprehensible faith is the preserver of both ourselves and
Roman affairs, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites
and hermits and other venerable persons, imploring with tears that there
be unity for the most holy churches, and the parts should be joined to
parts which the enemy of all good has of old time attempted to keep apart,
knowing that, if he assails the body of the Church sound and complete, he
will be defeated. For, since it happens that of unnumbered generations
which during the lapse of so many years in time have withdrawn from life,
some have departed deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have
been borne away on the inevitable journey of man without having partaken
of the divine communion; and innumerable murders have also been committed;
and not only the earth, but the very air has been filled by a multitude of
blood-sheddings, who would not pray that this state of things might be
transformed into good? For this reason we were anxious that you should
know that neither we nor the churches everywhere have ever held or shall
hold, nor are we aware of any persons who hold, any other symbol or
teaching or definition of faith or creed than the aforementioned holy
symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, which the aforesaid
one hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed. If any person should hold
such, we regard him as an alien; for we are confident that this symbol
alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty. And all the people
desiring the saving illumination were baptized, receiving this faith only,
and this the holy Fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed; who deposed
the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments. And
this Nestorius we also anathematize, together with Eutyches and all who
entertain opinions contrary to the above-mentioned, receiving at the same
time the twelve chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly archbishop of
the holy Catholic Church of the Alexandrians. We confess, moreover, that
the only begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly became man, namely,
our Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with the Father as to his
godhead, and the same consubstantial with ourselves as respects his
manhood; that having descended and become flesh of the Holy Ghost and
Mary, the Virgin and Theotokos, He is one and not two; for we affirm that
both His miracles and the sufferings which He voluntarily endured in the
flesh, are of one; for we do not in any degree admit those who either make
a division or a confusion or introduce a phantom; inasmuch as His truly
sinless incarnation from the Theotokos did not produce an addition of a
son, because the Trinity continued as a Trinity, even when one of the
Trinity, God the Word, did become incarnate. Knowing, then, that neither
the holy orthodox churches of God in all places nor the priests, highly
beloved of God, who are at their head, nor our own sovereignty, have
allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the
before-mentioned holy teaching, we have united ourselves thereunto without
hesitation. And these things we write, not as making an innovation upon
the faith, but to satisfy you; and every one who has held or holds any
other opinion, either at the present or at another time, whether at
Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematize; and specially the
aforementioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their
doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother, the
Church, and in her enjoy divine communion with us, according to the
aforesaid one and only definition of the faith of the three hundred and
eighteen holy Fathers. For your all-holy mother, the Church, waits to
embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your gentle voice so long
withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for by so doing you will both draw
toward yourselves the favor of our Master and Saviour and God, Jesus
Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty.
§ 92. The Church of Italy under the Ostrogoths and during the first Schism
between Rome and the Eastern Church
The schism between New and Old Rome lasted from 484 to 517, but attempts
were made on both sides to end the deplorable situation. The two
successors of Acacius were willing to resume communion with Rome and
restore the name of the bishop of Rome to the diptychs, but refused to
take the names of their predecessors from the same, as required by the
latter. Gelasius (492-496), Anastasius II (496-498), and Symmachus
(498-514) held firmly but unavailingly to the Roman contention that,
before any communion was possible, the name of Acacius must be struck from
the diptychs—in the case of the dead an act as condemnatory as
excommunication in the case of the living. Meanwhile the Roman see boldly
asserted the independence of the Church, and protested against the action
of the Emperor in setting aside the decree of Chalcedon as usurpation and
tyranny. This is most clearly set forth by Gelasius, in his epistle to the
Emperor Anastasius. The schism finally came to an end in 519, in
accordance with the ecclesiastical policy of Justinian, and at that time
the _Formula_ of Hormisdas (514-523) was accepted by the heads of the
Eastern Church by an act constituting a complete surrender of the claims
of the Orientals.
While the schism was still existing and Rome was treating with the East
upon an independent footing, the situation in Italy was far less
brilliant. The Arian king, the Ostrogoth Theodoric (489, 493-526) ruled
Italy, and the attitude of the Roman see was far less authoritative toward
the local ruler. It was, however, a period of great importance for the
future of the Church; Boethius, Cassiodorus, Dionysius Exiguus, and
Benedict of Nursia (_v. infra_, §§ 104, 105) all belong to this period and
the decree of Gelasius, _De Recipiendis Libris_, was of permanent
influence upon the theological science of the West.
Additional source material: Cassiodorus, _Varia_, Eng. trans.
(condensed), by T. Hodgkin (_The Letters of Cassiodorus_), London,
1886.
(_a_) Gelasius, _Ep. ad Imp. Anastasium_. (MSL, 59:42.)
A definition of the relation between the secular and religious
authority.
The date of this epistle is 494. The period is not dealt with at
any length in English works on ecclesiastical history; see,
however. T. Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, II, pp. 41-84, the
chapter entitled “Papal Prerogative under Popes Gelasius and
Symmachus.”
After Gelasius has alluded to the circumstances in which he is
writing and excused his not writing, he mentions his natural
devotion to the Roman Emperor—being himself by birth a Roman
citizen—his desire as a Christian to share with him the right
faith, and as vicar of the Apostolic See his constant anxiety to
maintain the true faith; he then proceeds:
I beseech your piety not to regard as arrogance duty in divine affairs.
Far be it from a Roman prince, I pray, to regard as injury truth that has
been intimated to him. For, indeed, there are, O Emperor Augustus, two by
whom principally this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the pontiffs
and the royal power. Of these the importance of the priests is so much the
greater, as even for kings of men they will have to give an account in the
divine judgment. Know, indeed, most clement son, that although you
worthily rule over the human race, yet as a man of devotion in divine
matters you submit your neck to the prelates, and also from them you await
the matters of your salvation, and in making use of the celestial
sacraments and in administering those things you know that you ought, as
is right, to be subjected to the order of religion rather than preside
over it; know likewise that in regard to these things you are dependent
upon their judgment and you should not bend them to your will. For if, so
far as it pertains to the order of public discipline, the priests of
religion, knowing that the imperial power has been bestowed upon you by
divine providence, obey your laws, lest in affairs of exclusively mundane
determination they might seem to resist, with how much more gladness, I
ask, does it become you to obey them who have been assigned to the duty of
performing the divine mysteries. Just as there is no light risk for the
pontiffs to be silent about those things which belong to the service of
the divinity, so there is no small peril (which God forbid) to those who,
when they ought to obey, refuse to do so. And if it is right that the
hearts of the faithful be submitted to all priests generally who treat
rightly divine things, how much more is obedience to be shown to the
prelate of that see which the highest divinity wished to be pre-eminent
over all priests and which the devotion of the whole Church continually
honors?
(_b_) Gelasius, _Epist. de Recipiendis et non Recipiendis Libris_. Mansi,
VIII, 153 _ff._
This decretal is evidently made of matter of different dates, as
has been shown by Hefele, § 217, and probably contains matter
which may be later than Gelasius. In the first section of the
decretal is a list of the canonical books of the Bible, as in the
Vulgate; the decretal then sets forth the claims of the Roman see
(§ 2), the books to be received (§ 3), and the books which the
Roman Church rejects (§ 4). In respect to several there are
various comments added, but these have in several cases been
omitted for the sake of brevity, where they are of less
importance. Portions of the decretal in Denziger, nn. 162-164; the
full text of the decretal may be found in Mansi VIII, 153 _ff._
Preuschen, _Analecta_, vol. II, pp. 52 _ff._; Mirbt, n. 168.
II. Although the one dwelling of the universal Catholic Church spread
through the world is of Christ, the holy Roman Church, however, has been
placed before the other churches by no synodical decrees, but has obtained
the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, saying, “Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” etc.(202) To it was
given the fellowship of the most blessed Apostle Paul, that chosen vessel
who not at a different time, as heretics prate, but at one time and on one
and the same day by a glorious death, was crowned together with Peter in
agony in the city of Rome under the Emperor Nero. And they equally
consecrated the said holy Roman Church to Christ and placed it over all
the others in the whole world by their presence and venerable triumph.
III. Therefore the first see of Peter the Apostle is the Roman Church, not
having any spot or wrinkle or any such thing. The second see was
consecrated at Alexandria in the name of the blessed Peter by Mark, his
disciple and the evangelist. He himself, having been directed by the
Apostle Peter to Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a
glorious martyrdom. But as the third see of the same most blessed Apostle
Peter is held the see of Antioch, since he held that before he came to
Rome, and there the name of the new people, the name of Christians, arose.
IV. 1. And although no other foundation can be laid than that which has
been laid, which is Christ Jesus, yet after the writings of the Old and
New Testaments,(203) which we receive regularly, the same holy Roman
Church does not prohibit these following writings to be received for the
purposes of edification:
2. The holy synod of Nicæa, according to the three hundred and eighteen
Fathers, under the Emperor Constantine.
3. The holy synod of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned with the
consent of the most blessed Pope [_papa_] Celestine, held under Cyril, the
prelate of the see of Alexandria, and Acadius, a bishop sent from Italy.
4. The holy synod of Chalcedon, which was held under the Emperor Marcian
and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, and in which Nestorius, Eutyches,
and Dioscurus were condemned.
V. 1. Likewise the works of the blessed Cæcilius Cyprianus, martyr, and
bishop of Carthage; 2. … of Gregory the bishop of Nazianzus; 3. … of
Basil, bishop of Cappadocia; 4. … of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria; 5.
… of John [Chrysostom], bishop of Constantinople; 6. … of Theophilus,
bishop of Alexandria; 7. … of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; 8. … of Hilary,
bishop of Poitiers; 9. … of Ambrose, bishop of Milan; 10. … of Augustine,
bishop of Hippo; 11. … of Jerome, the presbyter; 12. … of Prosper; 13. …
likewise the Epistle of the blessed Pope Leo to Flavian, bishop of
Constantinople, against Eutyches and other heretics; and if any one
dispute even so much as an iota of the text of the epistle, and will not
reverently receive it in all points, let him be anathema.
14. Likewise the works and treatises of the orthodox Fathers are to be
read, who in no respect have deviated from the union with the holy Roman
Church, nor have separated from its faith and teaching; but, by the grace
of God, have shared in communion with it even to the last days of their
life.
15. Likewise the decretal epistles which the most blessed Popes at
different times have given from the city of Rome, in reply to
consultations of various fathers, are to be reverently received.
16. Likewise the acts of the holy martyrs.… But, according to an ancient
custom and singular caution, they are not to be read in the holy Roman
Church, because the names of those who wrote them are not known.…
17. Likewise the lives of the fathers Paul, Antony, Hilarion, and all
hermits which the most blessed Jerome has described, we receive in honor.
18. Likewise the acts of the blessed Sylvester, prelate of the Apostolic
See, although the name of the writer is unknown; however, we know that it
is read by many Catholics in the city of Rome, and on account of its
ancient use many churches have copied it.
19. Likewise the writing concerning the discovery of the cross and another
concerning the discovery of the head of the blessed John the Baptist.…
20. Rufinus, a most religious man, has published many books on
ecclesiastical affairs and has also translated several writings. But
because the venerable Jerome has criticised him in various points for his
freedom in judgment, we are of the same opinion as we know Jerome is, and
not only concerning Rufinus but all others whom, out of zeal toward God
and devotion to the faith, Jerome has condemned.
21. Likewise several works of Origen which the blessed Jerome does not
reject we receive as to be read; the remaining works along with their
author we declare are to be rejected.
22. Likewise the chronicles of Eusebius of Cæsarea and the books of his
_Ecclesiastical History_, although in the first book of his narrative he
has been a little warm and afterward he wrote one book in praise and
defence of Origen, the schismatic, yet on account of the mention of
several things, which pertain to instruction, we say that they are to that
extent not to be rejected.…
23. Likewise we approve Orosius; 24. … the works of Sedulius; 25. … the
works of Juvencus.…
VI. Other works which have been written by heretics or schismatics the
Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in no respect receives, and these,
although they are not received and are to be avoided by Catholics, we
believe ought to be added below.
There follow a list of thirty-five apocryphal gospels, acts, and
similar documents. The epistle continues:
36. The book which is called _The Canons of the Apostles_; 37. the book
called _Physiologus_, written by heretics and ascribed to Ambrose; 38. the
history of Eusebius Pamphilius; 39. the works of Tertullian; 40. … of
Lactantius or Firminianus; 41. … of Africanus; 42. … Postumianus and
Gallus; 43. … of Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla; 44. … all the works
of Faustus the Manichæan; 45. the works of Commodus; 46. the works of
another Clement of Alexandria; 47. the works of Thascius Cyprianus; 48. of
Arnobius; 49. of Tichonius; 50. of Cassianus a presbyter of Gaul; 51.
Victorinus of Pettau; 52. of Frumentius the blind; 53. of Faustus of Reiz;
54. the Epistle of Jesus to Abgar; 55. Passion of St. Cyricus and Julitta;
56. Passion of St. Georgius; 57. the writings which are called the "Curse
of Solomon"; 58. all phylacteries which have been written not with the
names of angels, as they pretend, but rather of demons; 59. these works
and all similar to them which Simon Magus [a list of heretics down to]
Peter [Fullo] and another Peter [Mongus], of whom one defiled Alexandria
and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his adherents, as
also all heretics or disciples of heretics or schismatics have taught or
written, whose names we do not remember are not only repudiated by the
entire Roman Catholic Church, but we declare are bound forever with an
indissoluble anathema together with their authors and followers of their
authors.
(_c_) Hormisdas, _Formula_. Mansi, VIII, 407. _Cf._ Denziger, nn. 171 _f._
The formula which Hormisdas of Rome (514-523) proposed in 515, and
which was accepted Easter 519 by the patriarch John II of
Constantinople and many other Orientals, and which ended the
schism between Rome and Constantinople occasioned by Acacius. As
soon as this formula was accepted the leading Monophysites fled to
Egypt.
The beginning of salvation is to preserve the rule of a correct faith and
to deviate in no respect from the constitutions of the fathers. And
because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to fail,
who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,”
etc. [Matt. 16:18], these things which were said are proved by the effects
of things, because in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved
without spot or blemish. Desiring in no respect to be separated from this
hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we
anathematize all heretics, and especially the heretic Nestorius, who was
once bishop of the city of Constantinople, and condemned in the Council of
Ephesus by Pope Celestine and by the holy Cyril, prelate of the city of
Alexandria. Likewise we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscurus of Alexandria,
condemned in the holy synod of Chalcedon which we follow and embrace;
adding to these Timotheus the parricide, known as Ælurus, and also his
disciple and follower Peter [Mongus], also Acacius, who remained in the
society of their communion; because he mixed himself with their communion
he deserves the same sentence of condemnation as they; no less condemning
Peter [Fullo] of Antioch with his followers and the followers of all those
above named. We receive and approve, therefore, all the universal Epistles
of Pope Leo which he wrote concerning the Christian religion. And
therefore, as we have said, following in all things the Apostolic See and
approving all of its constitutions, I trust that I may be deemed worthy to
be in the communion with you, in which as the Apostolic See declares there
is, complete and true, the totality of the Christian religion.
Period III. The Dissolution Of The Imperial State Church And The
Transition To The Middle Ages: From The Beginning Of The Sixth Century To
The Latter Part Of The Eighth
The third period of the ancient Church under the Christian Empire begins
with the accession of Justin I (518-527), and the end of the first schism
between Rome and Constantinople (519). The termination of the period is
not so clearly marked. By the middle and latter part of the eighth
century, however, the imperial Church has ceased to exist in its original
conception. The Church in the East has become, in great part, a group of
national schismatic churches under Moslem rulers, and only the largest
fragment of the Church of the East is the State Church of the greatly
reduced Eastern empire. In the West, the imperial influence has ceased,
and the Roman see has allied its fortunes with the rising Frankish power,
and the rise of a Western empire is already foreshadowed.
In this period, the imperial ecclesiastical system, which had begun with
Constantine, found its completion in the Cæsaropapism which was
definitively established by Justinian as the constitution of the Eastern
Church. But at the same time the Monophysite churches seceded and became
permanent national churches. The long Christological controversy found, at
least as regards Monophysitism, its settlement on a basis derived from the
revived Aristotelian philosophy; and the mystical piety of the East, with
its apparatus of hierarchy and sacraments, found its characteristic
expression in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.
While in the East the Church was assuming its permanent form, in the West
the condition of the Church was being profoundly influenced by the
completely changed political organization of what had been the Roman
Empire of the West, but was now parcelled out among new Germanic
nationalities. The Church in the various kingdoms, in spite of its
adherence to the see of Rome as the centre of Catholic unity, came, to no
small extent, under the secular authority, and Christianity in Ireland, in
Spain, among the Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and even among the Lombards in
Italy assumed a national character, coming largely under the control and
subject to the laws and customs of the nation. In this period were laid
the foundations of the leading ecclesiastical institutions of the Middle
Ages, as the Church, although still under the influence of antiquity,
adapted itself and its institutions to the changed condition due to the
political situation and took up its duty of training the rude peoples that
had come within its fold.
The seventh and eighth centuries saw the completion of the revolution in
the ecclesiastical situation. In the East, in the territories in which the
national churches of the Monophysites were established, the Moslem rule
protected them from the attempts of the orthodox emperors to enforce
uniformity. The attempts made to recover their allegiance before they
succumbed to Islam had only ended in a serious dispute within the Orthodox
Church, the Monothelete controversy, which ended in the Sixth General
Council of 681. In Italy the Arian Lombards were gradually won to the
Catholic faith, but the Roman see soon found itself embarrassed by the too
near secular authority. Accordingly, when the controversy with the East
over Iconoclasm broke out, the Roman Church became practically independent
of the Eastern imperial authority, and in its conflict with the Lombards
came into alliance with the rising Frankish power. With this, the
transition to the Middle Ages may be said to have been completed. It was,
however, only the last of a series of acts whereby the Church was severing
itself from the ancient order and coming into closer alliance with the new
order in the life of the West. Henceforth the Church, which found its
centre in the Roman see, belongs to the West, and its relations to the
East, although no formal schism had occurred, are of continued and
increasing estrangement or alienation.
The _Cambridge Medieval History_, vol. II, will cover the entire
period and give ample bibliographical references.
Chapter I. The Church In The Eastern Empire
The century extending from the accession of Justin I (518-528) to the end
of the Persian wars of Heraclius (610-641), or from 518 to 628, is the
most brilliant period of the Eastern Empire. The rise of Islam had not yet
taken place, whereby the best provinces in Asia and Africa were cut off
from the Empire. A large part of the West was recovered under Justinian,
and under Heraclius the power of Persia, the ancient enemy of the Roman
Empire, which had been a menace since the latter part of the third
century, was completely overthrown in the most brilliant series of
campaigns since the foundation of the Roman Empire. With the death of
Justin II (565-578), the family of Justin came to an end after occupying
the throne for sixty years. But under Tiberius (578-582) and Maurice
(582-602) the policy of Justinian was continued in all essentials in the
stereotyped form known as Byzantinism. The Church became practically a
department of the State and of the political machinery. The only
limitation upon the will of the Emperor was the determined resistance of
the Monophysites and smaller factions. Maurice was succeeded by the rude
Phocas (602-610), whom a military revolution placed upon the throne, and
who instituted a reign of terror and blood. Upon his downfall, Heraclius
(610-641) ascended the throne.
§ 93. The Age of Justinian
Justinian I, the greatest of all the rulers of the Eastern Empire,
succeeded his uncle Justin I (518-527); but he had, from the beginning of
the latter’s reign, exercised an ever-increasing influence over the
imperial policy, and to him can be attributed the direction of
ecclesiastical affairs from the accession of Justin. No reign among the
Eastern emperors was more filled with important events and successful
undertakings. His first great work was the reduction of the vast mass of
Roman law to what approached a system. This was accomplished in 534,
resulting in the Digest, made up of the various decisions and opinions of
the most celebrated Roman legal authorities, the Codex, comprising all the
statute law then in actual force and applicable to the conditions of the
Empire, and the Institutes, a revision of the excellent introductory
manual of Gaius. No body of law reduced to writing has been more
influential in the history of the world. The second great undertaking, or
series of undertakings, was the reconquest of the West. In 533 Belisarius
recovered North Africa to the Empire by the overthrow of the Vandal
kingdom. In 554 the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses was
completed. Portions of Spain had also been recovered. No Eastern Emperor
ruled over a larger territory than did Justinian at the time of his death.
The third great line of work on the part of Justinian was his regulation
of ecclesiastical and theological matters. In this he took an active
personal part. The end of the schism with the West had been brought about
under the reign of his uncle. Three controversies fill the reign of
Justinian: the Theopaschite (519-533) over the introduction of the phrase
into the Trisagion, stating that God was crucified for us, so that the
Trisagion read as follows, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was
crucified for us, have mercy upon us”; the Second Origenistic controversy
(531-543) in which those elements of Origen’s teaching which had never
been accepted by the Church were condemned along with Origen himself; and
the Three Chapters controversy, 544-553, in which, as an attempt to win
back the Monophysites, which began even before the Conference with the
Severians in 533, three of the leading Antiochians were condemned. In
connection with the two last controversies, the Fifth General Council was
held A. D. 553.
Additional source material: Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, Lib. IV-VI;
John of Ephesus, _The Third Part of His Ecclesiastical History_,
trans. by R. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1860; Percival, _Seven
Ecumenical Councils_ (PNF).
(_a_) Justinian, _Anathematisms against Origen_. Mansi, IX, 533. (MSG,
86:1013; MSL, 65:221.)
The Origenistic controversy arose in Palestine, where the learned
monks were nicknamed Origenists by the more ignorant. The abbot
St. Sabas was especially opposed to the group which had received
this name. But several, among whom the more important were
Domitian and Theodore Askidas, won the favor of Justinian and the
latter received promotion, becoming bishop of Cæsarea in
Cappadocia. Supported by them, struggles broke out in various
places between the Sabaites and the Origenists. Ephraem, patriarch
of Antioch, in a synodal letter thereupon condemned Origenism. The
Origenists tried in vain to win the support of John, patriarch of
Constantinople. But he turned to Justinian, who thereupon
abandoned the Origenists and issued an edict condemning Origen and
his writings, and appending a summary of the positions condemned
in ten anathematisms. Text in Denziger, nn. 203 _f._ Synods were
ordered for the condemnation of Origen, and among these was the
synod under Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, in which were
issued fifteen anathematisms based upon the ten of Justinian
(Hefele, §§ 257, 258). With this action, the controversy may be
said to be closed, were it not that in spite of the renewed
condemnation at the Fifth General Council (see below) disputes and
disturbances continued in Palestine until 563.
1. If any one says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, that is, that
they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that satiated with
the vision of God, they turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in
them became cold [ἀποψυγείσας] and they were there named souls [ψυχάς] and
were condemned to punishment in bodies, let him be anathema.
2. If any one says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was
united with God the Word before the incarnation and conception of the
Virgin, let him be anathema.
3. If any one says or thinks that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was
first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that afterward there was
united with it God the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be
anathema.
4. If any one says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to all
heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim He was a cherub and for the
seraphim a seraph, in short, like all the superior powers, let him be
anathema.
5. If any one says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will
arise spherical in form and not like our present form, let him be
anathema.
6. If any one says or thinks that the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars,
and the waters above the firmament have souls and are spiritual and
rational beings, let him be anathema.
7. If any one says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future age will be
crucified for demons as He was for men, let him be anathema.
8. If any one says or thinks that the power of God is limited and that He
created only as much as He was able to comprehend, let him be anathema.
9. If any one says or thinks that the punishment of demons and impious men
is only temporary and will have an end, and that a restoration
[_apocatastasis_] will take place of demons and impious men, let him be
anathema.
10. Let Origen be anathema together with that Adamantius who set forth
these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable doctrine, and
whoever there is who thinks thus or defends these opinions, or in any way
hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.
(_b_) Vigilius, _Judicatum_. Mansi, IX, 181.
This important document was addressed to Menas of Constantinople
and is dated April 11, 548. Unfortunately it exists only in
detached fragments, which are given below, taken from the text as
given by Hefele, § 259. The first is given in a letter of
Justinian to the Fifth Council, an abridgment of which may be
found in Hefele, § 267. Other fragments are from the _Constitutum_
(see below), where they are quoted by Vigilius from his previous
letter to Menas, which Hefele has identified with the _Judicatum_.
In this opinion Krüger (art. “Vigilius” in PRE). and Bailey (art.
“Vigilius” in DCB) and other scholars concur. The force of the
first is that the writings condemned by the Three Chapters are
heretical; of the others, that the credit of the Council of
Chalcedon must be maintained. How the two positions were
reconciled is not clear.
1. And because certain writings under the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia
have been handed to us which contain many things contrary to the right
faith, we, following the warnings of the Apostle Paul, who said: Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good, therefore anathematize Theodore, who
was bishop of Mopsuestia, with all his impious writings, and also those
who defend him. We anathematize also the impious epistle which is said to
have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, as contrary to the right
faith, and also all who defend it and say that it is right. We
anathematize also the writings of Theodoret which were written contrary to
the right faith and against the capitula of Cyril.(204)
2. Since it is evident to us by sufficient reason, that whosoever attempts
to do anything to the disparagement of the aforesaid council, will rather
sin against himself.
3. If it had been shown conclusively by us to be contained in the acts
[_i.e._, of the Council of Chalcedon], no one would have dared to be the
author of so great a presumption or would have regarded as doubtful or
undecided anything which was brought before that most holy judgment; since
it is to be believed that those then present could have investigated
things diligently even apart from writing, and have defined them
positively, which appears to us after so much time and on account of
unknown causes still unsettled; since also it is a part of reverence for
the synods that in those things which are less understood one recognizes
their authority.
4. All things being accepted and remaining perpetually established which
were defined in the venerable councils at Nicæa, and Constantinople, in
the first at Ephesus, and at Chalcedon, and confirmed by the authority of
our predecessors; and all who in the said holy councils were deposed are
without doubt condemned, and those are no less absolved whose absolution
was decreed by the same synods.
5. Subjecting also him to the sentence of anathema who accepts as of any
force whatsoever may be found against the said synod of Chalcedon, written
in this present letter, or in anything in the present case whatever done
by us or by any one; and let the holy synod of Chalcedon, of which the
authority is great and unshaken, perpetual and reverenced, have the same
force as that which the synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, and the first at
Ephesus have.
6. We anathematize also whoever does not faithfully follow and equally
venerate the holy synods of Nicæa. of Constantinople, the first of
Ephesus, and the synod of Chalcedon as most holy synods, agreeing in the
one and immaculate faith of the Apostles, and confirmed by the pontiffs of
the Apostolic See, and whoever wishes to correct as badly said, or wishes
to supply as imperfect, those things which were done in the same councils
which we have mentioned.
(_c_) Vigilius, _Oath to Justinian_, August 15, A. D. 550. Mansi. IX, 363.
(MSL, 69: 121.)
The _Judicatum_ met with great opposition in the West. Vigilius,
to still the clamor against it, withdrew it and proposed other
measures in consultation with Justinian. In connection with this
he bound himself with an oath to support Justinian in putting
through the condemnation of the Three Chapters, and this oath
Justinian produced later, when Vigilius had presented his
_Constitutum_ to him refusing to condemn the chapters. The Emperor
thereupon suppressed the _Constitutum_.
The most blessed Pope Vigilius has sworn to the most pious lord Emperor in
our presence, that is of me, Theodorus, bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia
[see DCB, _Theodorus of Askidas_], and of me, Cethegus, the patrician, by
the sacred nails with which our Lord God Jesus Christ was crucified and by
the four holy Gospels, as also by the sacred bridle,(205) so also by the
four Gospels; that, being of one mind and will with your piety, we shall
so will, attempt, and act, as far as we are able, so that the three
chapters, that is, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the epistle attributed to Ibas,
and the writings of Theodoret against the orthodox faith and his sayings
against the twelve capitula of the holy Cyril, may be condemned and
anathematized; and to do nothing, either by myself or by those whom we can
trust, either of the clerical or lay order, in behalf of the chapters,
against the will of your piety, or to speak or to give counsel secretly in
behalf of those chapters. And if any one should say anything to me to the
contrary, either concerning these chapters or concerning the faith, or
against the State, I will make him known to your piety, without peril of
death, and also what has been said to me, so that on account of my place
you do not abandon my person; and you have promised, because I observe
these things toward your piety, to protect my honor in all respects, and
also to guard my person and reputation and to defend them with the help of
God and to protect the privileges of my see. And you have also promised
that this paper shall be shown to no one. I promise further that in the
case of the three chapters, we shall treat in common as to what ought to
be done, and whatsoever shall appear to us useful we will carry out with
the help of God. This oath was given the fifteenth day of August,
indiction XIII, the twenty-third year of the reign of our lord Justinian,
the ninth year after the consulship of the illustrious Basil. I, Theodore,
by the mercy of God bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, have subscribed
hereunto as a witness to this oath; I, Flavius Cethegus, patrician, have
subscribed hereunto as a witness to this oath.
(_d_) Vigilius, _Constitutum_, May 14, 553. (MSL, 69:67.)
The synod known as the Fifth General Council met May 5, 553, and
proceeded to condemn the Three Chapters, as directed by the
Emperor. Vigilius refused to attend, but consented to pronounce
his judgment on the matter apart from the council. This he did in
his _Constitutum ad Imperatorem_, May 14, 553. In it he condemns
the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but opposes the
condemnation of Theodore himself, inasmuch as he had died in the
communion of the Church. He also opposes the condemnation of
Theodoret and Ibas, because both were acquitted at Chalcedon. This
_Constitutum_ is to be distinguished from the _Constitutum_ of 554
(MSL, 69:143, 147), in which, after the council had acceded to the
proposals of the Emperor and condemned the Three Chapters and had
excommunicated Vigilius by removing his name from the diptychs,
the latter confirmed the decisions of the council and joined in
the condemnation of the Three Chapters. For a discussion of the
whole situation, see Hefele, §§ 272-276. The devious course
followed by Vigilius has been the subject of much acrimonious
debate. The facts of the case are now generally recognized. The
conclusion of Cardinal Hergenröther, KG. I, 612, is the best that
can be said for Vigilius: “In the question as to the faith,
Vigilius was never wavering; but he was so, indeed, in the
question as to whether the action was proper or opportune, whether
it was advisable or necessary to condemn subsequently men whom the
Council of Chalcedon had spared, to put forth a judgment which
would be regarded by the Monophysites as a triumph of their cause,
which was most obnoxious for the same reason, and its supposed
dishonoring of the Council of Chalcedon, and was likely to create
new divisions instead of healing the old.”
The portions of the _Constitutum_ given below are the conclusions
of Vigilius as to each of the Three Chapters. The whole is a
lengthy document.
All these things have been diligently examined, and although our Fathers
speak in different phrases yet are guided by one sentiment, that the
persons of priests, who have died in the peace of the Church, should be
preserved untouched; likewise the constitutions of the Apostolic See,
which we have quoted above, uniformly define that it is lawful for no one
to judge anew anything concerning the persons of the dead, but each is
left in that condition in which the last day finds him; and especially
concerning the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, what our Fathers determined
is clearly shown above. Him, therefore, we dare not condemn by our
sentence, and we do not permit him to be condemned by any one else; the
above-written chapters of dogmas, which are damned by us, or any sayings
of any one without name affixed, not agreeing with, or consonant with, the
evangelical and apostolic doctrine and the doctrines of the four synods,
of Nicæa, of Constantinople, of the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon,
we, however, do not suffer to be admitted to our thought or even to our
ears.
But concerning the writings which are brought forward under the name of
that venerable man, Theodoret, late bishop, we wonder, first, why it
should be necessary or with what desire anything should be done to the
disparagement of the name of that priest, who more than a hundred years
ago, in the judgement of the sacred and venerable Council of Chalcedon,
subscribed without any hesitation and consented with profound devotion to
the Epistle of the most blessed Pope Leo.… The truth of these things
having been considered, we determine and decree that nothing be done or
proposed by any one in judgement upon him to the injury and defamation of
a man most approved in the synod of Chalcedon, that is to say, Theodoret
of Cyrus. But guarding in all respects the reverence of his person,
whatsoever writings are brought forward under his name or under that of
another evidently in accord with the errors of the wicked Nestorius and
Eutyches we anathematize and condemn.
Then follow these five anathematisms, the test of which may be
found in Hahn, § 228:
1. If any one does not confess that the Word was made flesh, and the
inconvertibility of the divine nature having been preserved, and from the
moment of conception in the womb of the virgin united according to
subsistence [hypostatically] human nature to Himself, but as with a man
already existing; so that, accordingly, the holy Virgin is not to be
believed to be truly the bearer of God, but is called so only in word, let
him be anathema.
2. If any one shall deny that a unity of natures according to subsistence
[hypostatically] was made in Christ, but that God the Word dwelt in a man
existing apart as one of the just, and does not confess the unity of
natures according to subsistence, that God the Word with the assumed flesh
remained and remains one subsistence or person, let him be anathema.
3. If any one so divides the evangelical, apostolic words in reference to
the one Christ, that he introduces a division of the natures united in
Him, let him be anathema.
4. It any one says that the one Jesus Christ, God the Word and the same
true Son of Man, was ignorant of future things or of the day of the last
judgment, and was able to know only so far as Deity revealed to Him, as if
dwelling in another, let him be anathema.
5. If any one applies to Christ as if stripped of His divinity the saying
of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews,(206) that He knew obedience
by experience and with strong crying and tears offered prayers and
supplications to God who was able to save Him from death, and who was
perfected by the labors of virtue, so that from this he evidently
introduces two Christs or two Sons, and does not believe the one and the
same Christ to be confessed and adored Son of God and Son of Man, of two
and in two natures inseparable and undivided, let him be anathema.
… We have also examined concerning the Epistle of the venerable man Ibas,
once bishop of the city of Edessa, concerning which you also ask if in
early times anything concerning it was undertaken by our Fathers, or
discussed, or examined, or determined. Because it is known to all and
especially to your piety, that we are ignorant of the Greek language, yet
by the aid of some of our company, who have knowledge of that tongue, we
discover clearly and openly that in the same synod the affair of the
venerable man Ibas was examined, from the action taken regarding Photius,
bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, that this epistle,
concerning which inquiry is made, was brought forward against him by his
accusers; and when, after discussion of the affair was ended, it was asked
of the venerable Fathers what ought to be done concerning the matter of
the same Ibas, the following sentence was passed:
Paschasius and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Boniface, presbyter,
holding the place of the Apostolic See (because the apostolic delegates
are accustomed always to speak and vote first in synods), by Paschasius
said: “Since the documents have been read, we perceive from the opinion of
the most reverend bishops that the most reverend Ibas is approved as
innocent; for now that his epistle has been read we recognize it as
orthodox. And on this account we decree that the honor of the episcopate
be restored to him, and the church, from which unjustly and in his absence
he was driven out, be given back.” [The patriarchs of Constantinople and
Antioch agreed, and their opinions are also quoted by Vigilius from the
Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.]
… Therefore we, following in all things the discipline and judgment of the
holy Fathers, and the disposition of all things according to the account
which we have given of the judgment of the Council of Chalcedon, since it
is most evidently true, from the words of the Epistle of the venerable man
Ibas, regarded with the right and pious mind, and from the action taken
regarding Photius and Eustathius, and from the opinions of bishop Ibas,
discussed in his presence by those present, that our Fathers present at
Chalcedon most justly pronounced the faith of the same venerable man Ibas
orthodox and his blaming the blessed Cyril, which they perceive to have
been from error of human intelligence, purged by appropriate satisfaction,
by the authority of our present sentence, we determine and decree in all
things so also in the often-mentioned Epistle of the venerable Ibas, the
judgment of the Fathers present at Chalcedon remain inviolate.
Conclusion of the _Constitutum_:
These things having been disposed of by us in every point with all caution
and diligence, in order to preserve inviolate the reverence of the said
synods and the venerable constitutions of the same; mindful that it has
been written [_cf._ Prov. 22:26], we ought not to cross the bounds of our
Fathers, we determine and decree that it is permitted to no one of any
ecclesiastical rank or dignity to do anything contrary to these things
which, by this present constitution, we assert and determine, concerning
the oft-mentioned three chapters, or to write or to bring forward, or to
compose, or to teach, or to make any further investigation after this
present definition. But concerning the same three chapters, if anything
contrary to these things, which we here determine and assert, is made in
the name of any one, in ecclesiastical order or dignity, or shall be found
by any one or anywheresoever, such a one by the authority of the Apostolic
See, in which by the grace of God we are placed, we refute in every way.
(_e_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553, _Definition_. Mansi, IX, 367.
Condemnation of the Three Chapters.
This action is taken from the Definition of the council, a rather
wordy document, but ending with a passage indicating the action of
the council. From this concluding passage this condemnation is
taken. See Hefele, § 274, also PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, pp.
306-311.
We condemn and anathematize with all other heretics who have been
condemned and anathematized by the before-mentioned four holy synods, and
by the Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore, who was bishop of
Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and also those things which
Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith and against the twelve
capitula of the holy Cyril, and against the first synod of Ephesus, and
also those which he wrote in defence of Theodore and Nestorius. In
addition to these, we also anathematize the impious epistle which Ibas is
said to have written to Maris the Persian, which denies that God the Word
was incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and accuses
Cyril, of holy memory, who taught the truth, of being a heretic and of the
same sentiments with Apollinaris, and blames the first synod of Ephesus
for deposing Nestorius without examination and inquiry, and calls the
twelve capitula of Cyril impious and contrary to the right faith, and
defends Theodore and Nestorius, and their impious dogmas and writings. We,
therefore, anathematize the three chapters before mentioned, that is the
impious Theodore of Mopsuestia with his execrable writings, and those
things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is
said to be by Ibas, together with their defenders and those who have
written or do write in defence of them, or who dare to say that they are
correct, and who have defended or do attempt to defend their impiety with
the names of the holy Fathers or of the holy Council of Chalcedon.
(_f_) Council of Constantinople A. D. 553. _Anathematism_ 11. Mansi, IX,
201. _Cf._ Denziger. n. 223.
Condemnation of Origen.
Appended to the Definition of the council are fourteen
anathematisms, forming (1-10) an exposition of the doctrine of the
two natures, and concluding with condemnation of Origen, together
with other heretics, and of the Three Chapters (11-14). These
anathematisms are based upon a confession of faith of the Emperor
Justinian, a lengthy document, but containing thirteen
anathematisms. This confession of faith was composed before the
council, probably in 551. For an analysis of it, see Hefele, §
263. The text of the council’s anathematisms may be found in
Hefele, § 274, also in Hahn, § 148. Attempts have been made by
older scholars to show that the name Origen was a later insertion.
For arguments, see Hefele, _loc. cit._
If any one does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris,
Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, with their impious writings, as also all
other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four holy synods, and all those
who have been or are of the same mind with the heretics mentioned, and who
remain to the end in their impiety, let him be anathema.
§ 94. The Byzantine State Church under Justinian
According to Justinian’s scheme of Church government, the Emperor was the
head of the Church in the sense that he had the right and duty of
regulating by his laws the minutest detail of worship and discipline, and
also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church. This
is shown, not merely in his conduct of the Fifth General Council, but also
in his attempt, at the end of his life, to force Aphthartodocetism upon
the Church. This position of the Emperor in relation to the Church is
known as Cæsaropapism. (See Bury, _Later Roman Empire_, chap. XI.) The
ecclesiastical legislation of Justinian should also be considered. At the
same time Justinian strictly repressed the lingering heathenism and, in
the interest of the schools at Constantinople, closed the schools at
Athens, the last stronghold of paganism.
(_a_) Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, IV, 39. (MSG, 86 II:2781.)
Aphthartodocetism of Justinian.
Among the many variations of Monophysitism flourishing under
Justinian was Aphthartodocetism, according to which the body of
Christ, before as well as after his resurrection, was “a glorified
body,” or incapable of suffering. See selection for description.
At that time Justinian, abandoning the right road of doctrine and
following the path untrodden by the Apostles and Fathers, became entangled
in thorns and briars; and he attempted to fill the Church also with these,
but failed in his purpose, and thereby fulfilled the prediction of
prophecy.… Justinian, after he had anathematized Origen, Didymus, and
Evagrius, issued what the Latins call an edict, after the deposition of
Eustochius [A. D. 556], in which he termed the body of the Lord
incorruptible and incapable of the natural and blameless passions;
affirming that the Lord ate before His passion in the same manner as after
His resurrection, His holy body having undergone no conversion or change
from the time of its actual formation in the womb, not even in respect to
the natural and voluntary passions, nor yet after the resurrection. To
this he proceeded to compel bishops in all parts to give their assent.
However, they all professed to look to Anastasius, the Bishop of Antioch,
and thus avoided the first attack.
(_b_) Justinian, _Novella VI_ “Preface.”
Church and State according to Justinian.
Among the greatest gifts of God bestowed by the kindness of heaven are the
priesthood and the imperial dignity. Of these the former serves things
divine; the latter rules human affairs and cares for them. Both are
derived from the one and the same source, and order human life. And,
therefore, nothing is so much a care to the emperors as the dignity of the
priesthood; so that they may always pray to God for them. For if one is in
every respect blameless and filled with confidence toward God, and the
other rightly and properly maintains in order the commonwealth intrusted
to it, there is a certain excellent harmony which furnishes whatsoever is
needful for the human race. We, therefore, have the greatest cares for the
true doctrines of God and the dignity of the priesthood which, if they
preserve it, we trust that by it great benefits will be bestowed by God,
and we shall possess undisturbed those things which we have, and in
addition acquire those things which we have not yet acquired. But all
things are well and properly carried on, if only a proper beginning is
laid, and one that is acceptable to God. But this we believe will be so if
the observance of the sacred canons is cared for, which also the Apostles,
who are rightly to be praised, and the venerated eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word of God, delivered, and which the holy Fathers have
also preserved and explained.
(_c_) Justinian, _Novella CXXXVII_, 6.
The following section from the conclusion of a _novella_
illustrates the manner in which Justinian legislated in matter of
internal affairs for the Church and instituted a control over the
priesthood which was other than that of the Church’s own system of
discipline.
We command that all bishops and presbyters shall offer the sacred oblation
and the prayers in holy baptism not silently, but with a voice which may
be heard by the faithful people, that thereby the minds of those listening
may be moved to greater contrition and to the glory of God. For so,
indeed, the holy Apostle teaches (I Cor. 14:16; Rom. 10:10).… Therefore it
is right that to our Lord Jesus Christ, to our God with the Father and the
Holy Ghost, be offered prayer in the holy oblation and other prayers with
the voice by the most holy bishops and the presbyters; for the holy
priests should know that if they neglect any of those things they shall
render an account at the terrible judgment of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ, and that we shall not quietly permit such things
when we know of them and will not leave them unpunished. We command,
therefore, that the governors of the epachies, if they see anything
neglected of those things which have been decreed by us, first urge the
metropolitans and other bishops to celebrate the aforesaid synods, and do
whatsoever things we have ordered by this present law concerning synods,
and, if they see them delaying, let them report to us, that from us may
come a proper correction of those who put off holding synods. And the
governors and the officials subject to them should know that if they do
not observe these matters they will be liable to the extreme penalty
[_i.e._, death]. But we confirm by this present law all things which have
been decreed by us in various constitutions concerning bishops,
presbyters, and other clerics, and further concerning lodging-places for
strangers, poor-houses, orphan asylums and others as many as are over the
sacred buildings.
(_d_) Justinian, _Novella CXXIII_, 1.
Laws governing the ordination of bishops.
We decree that whenever it is necessary to ordain a bishop, the clergy and
the leading citizens whose is the bishop who is to be ordained shall make,
under peril of their souls, with the holy Gospels placed before them,
certificates concerning three persons, testifying in the same certificates
that they have not chosen them for any gifts or promises or for reasons of
friendship, or any other cause, but because they know that they are of the
true and Catholic faith and of honest life, and learned in science and
that none of them has either wife or children, and know that they have
neither concubine nor natural children, but that if any of them had a wife
the same was one and first, neither a widow nor separated from her
husband, nor prohibited by the laws and sacred canons; and know that they
are not a curial or an official, or, in case they should be such, are not
liable to any curial or official duty; and they know that they have in
such case spent not less than fifteen years in a monastery. This also is
to be contained in the certificate: that they know the person selected by
them to be not less than thirty years of age; so that from the three
persons for whom these certificates were made the best may be ordained by
the choice and at the peril of him who ordains. But a curial or an
official who, as has been said, has lived fifteen years in a monastery and
is advanced to the episcopate is freed from his rank so that as freed from
the curia he may retain a fourth part of his property, since the rest of
his property, according to our law, is to be claimed by the curia and
fisc. Also we give to those who make the certificate the privilege that if
they deem a layman, with the exception of a curial or an official, worthy
of the said election, they may choose such layman with the two other
clergy or monks, but so, however, that the layman who has in this way been
chosen to the episcopate shall not be ordained at once, but shall first be
numbered among the clergy not less than three months, and so having
learned the holy canons and the sacred ministry of the Church, he shall be
ordained bishop; for he who ought to teach others ought not himself to be
taught by others after his consecration. But if by chance there are not
found in any place three persons eligible to such election, it is
permitted those who make the certificates to make them for two or even for
only one person, who shall each have the testimonials mentioned by us. But
if those who ought to elect a bishop do not make this certificate within
six months, then, at the peril of his soul, let him who ought to ordain
ordain a bishop, provided, however, that all things which we have said be
observed. But if any one is made bishop contrary to the aforesaid rules,
we command that he be driven entirely from the episcopate; but as for him
who dared to ordain him against these commands, let him be separated from
the sacred ministry for a year and all his property, which at any time or
in any way shall come into his possession, shall be seized on account of
the crime he has committed against the rule of the Church of which he was
a bishop.
Ch. 13. We do not permit clergy to be ordained unless they are educated,
have the right faith, and an honorable life, and neither have, nor have
had, a concubine or natural children, but who either live chastely or have
a lawful wife and her one and only, neither a widow not separated from her
husband, nor forbidden by laws and sacred canons.
Ch. 14. We do not permit presbyters to be made less than thirty years old,
deacons and sub-deacons less than twenty-five, and lectors less than
sixteen; nor a deaconess to be ordained(207) in the holy Church who is
less than forty years old and who has been married a second time.
(_e_) Justinian, _Codex_, I, 11.
Law against paganism.
The following laws of Justinian, though of uncertain date, mark
the termination of the contest between Christianity and paganism.
In the second of these laws there is a reference to the
prohibition of pagan teachers. It is in line with the closing of
the schools of the heathen teachers at Athens. The decree closing
the schools has not been preserved.
Ch. 9. We command that our magistrates in this royal city and in the
provinces take care with the greatest zeal that, having been informed by
themselves or the most religious bishops of this matter, they make inquiry
according to law into all impurities of pagan(208) superstitions, that
they be not committed, and if committed that they be punished; but if
their repression exceed provincial power, these things are to be referred
to us, that the responsibility for, and incitement of, these crimes may
not rest upon them.
(1) It is permitted no one, either in testament or by gift, to leave or
give anything to persons or places for the maintenance of pagan impiety,
even if it is not expressly contained in the words of the will, testament,
or donation, but can be truly perceived in some other way by the judges.
(2) But those things which are so left or given shall be taken from the
persons and places to whom they have been given or left, and shall belong
to the cities in which such persons dwell or in which such places are
situated, so that they may be paid as a form of revenue. (3) All penalties
which have been introduced by previous emperors against the errors of
pagans or in favor of the orthodox faith are to remain in force and effect
forever and guarded by this present pious legislation.
Ch. 10. Because some are found who are imbued with the error of the
impious and detestable pagans, and do those things which move a merciful
God to just wrath, and that we may not suffer ourselves to leave
uncorrected matters which concern these things, but, knowing that they
have abandoned the worship of the true and only God, and have in insane
error offered sacrifices, and, filled with all impiety, have celebrated
solemnities, we subject those who have committed these things, after they
have been held worthy of holy baptism, to the punishment appropriate to
the crimes of which they have been convicted; but for the future we decree
to all by this present law that they who have been made Christians and at
any time have been deemed worthy of the holy and saving baptism, if it
appear that they have remained still in the error of the pagans, shall
suffer capital punishment.
(1) Those who have not yet been worthy of the venerable rite of baptism
shall report themselves, if they dwell in this royal city or in the
provinces, and go to the holy churches with their wives and children and
all the household subject to them, and be taught the true faith of
Christians, so that having been taught their former error henceforth to be
rejected, they may receive saving baptism, or know, if they regard these
things of small value, that they are to have no part in all those things
which belong to our commonwealth, neither is it permitted them to become
owners of anything movable or immovable, but, deprived of everything, they
are to be left in poverty, and besides are subject to appropriate
penalties.
(2) We forbid also that any branch of learning be taught by those who
labor under the insanity of the impious pagans, so that they may not for
this reason pretend that they instruct those who unfortunately resort to
them, but in reality corrupt the minds of their pupils; and let them not
receive any support from the public treasury, since they are not permitted
by the Holy Scriptures or by pragmatic forms [public decrees] to claim
anything of the sort for themselves.
(3) For if any one here or in the provinces shall have been convicted of
not having hastened to the holy churches with his wife and children, as
said, he shall suffer the aforesaid penalties, and the fisc shall claim
his property, and they shall be sent into exile.
(4) If any one in our commonwealth, hiding himself, shall be discovered to
have celebrated sacrifices or the worship of idols, let him suffer the
same capital punishment as the Manichæans and, what is the same, the
Borborani [certain Ophitic Gnostics; _cf._ DCB], for we judge them to be
similar to these.
(5) Also we decree that their children of tender years shall at once and
without delay receive saving baptism; but they who have passed beyond
their earliest age shall attend the holy churches and be instructed in the
Holy Scriptures, and so give themselves to sincere penitence that, having
rejected their early error, they may receive the venerable rite of
baptism, for in this way let them steadfastly receive the true faith of
the orthodox and not again fall back into their former error.
(6) But those who, for the sake of retaining their military rank or their
dignity or their goods, shall in pretence accept saving baptism, but have
left their wives and children and others who are in their households in
the error of pagans, we command that they be deprived of their goods and
have no part in our commonwealth, since it is manifest that they have not
received holy baptism in good faith.
(7) These things, therefore, we decree against the abominable pagans and
the Manichæans, of which Manichæans the Borborani are a part.
§ 95. The Definitive Type of Religion in the East: Dionysius the
Areopagite
The works of Dionysius the Areopagite first appear in the controversies in
the reign of Justinian, when they are quoted in the Conference with the
Severians, 531 or 533. There are citations from the works of the
Areopagite fifteen or twenty years earlier in the works of Severus, the
Monophysite patriarch of Antioch. In this is given the latest date to
which they may be assigned. They cannot be earlier than 476, because the
author is acquainted with the works of Proclus (411-485) and uses them;
also he refers to the practice of singing the Credo in divine service,
which was first introduced by the Monophysites at Antioch in 476. No
closer determination of the date is possible. The author is wholly
unknown.
That he was Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts 17:34) is maintained by no
scholar to-day. His standpoint is that of the later Eastern religious
feeling and practice, with its strong desire for mysteries and sacramental
system. But he brings to it Neo-Platonic thought to such a degree as to
color completely his presentation of Christian truth. The effect of the
book was only gradual, but eventually very great. In the East it gave
authority, which seemed to be that of the apostolic age, for its highly
developed system of mysteries, which had grown up in the Church. In the
West it served as a philosophical basis for scholastic mysticism. On
account of the connection between Dionysius and the later Greek philosophy
and the mediæval philosophy, Dionysius the Areopagite occupies a place in
the histories of philosophy quite out of proportion to the intrinsic merit
of the writer.
Additional source material: English translations of Dionysius the
Areopagite, Dean Colet, ed. by J. H. Lupton, London, 1869, and J.
Parker, Oxford, 1897 (not complete); a new translation into German
appeared in the new edition of the _Kempten Bibliothek der
Kirchenväter_, 1912.
(_a_) Dionysius Areopagita, _De Cælesti Hierarchia_, III, 2. (MSG, 3:165.)
Dionysius thus defines “Hierarchy”:
He who speaks of a hierarchy indicates thereby a holy order … which in a
holy manner works the mysteries of illumination which is appropriate to
each one. The order of the hierarchy consists in this, that some are
purified and others purify; some are illuminated and others illuminate;
some are completed and others complete.
(_b_) _De Cælesti Hierarchia_, VI, 2. (MSG, 3:200.)
The heavenly hierarchy.
Theology has given to all heavenly existences new explanatory titles. Our
divine initiator divides these into three threefold ranks. The first is
that, as he says, which is ever about God, and which, as it is related
(Ezek. 1), is permanently and before all others immediately united to Him;
for the explanation of the Holy Scripture tells us that the most holy
throne and the many-eyed and many-winged ranks, which in Hebrew are called
cherubim and seraphim, stand before God in the closest proximity. This
threefold order, or rank, our great leader names the one, like, and only
truly first hierarchy, which is more godlike and stands more immediately
near the first effects of the illuminations of divinity than all others.
As the second hierarchy, he names that which is composed of authorities,
dominions, and powers, and as the third and last of the heavenly
hierarchies he names the order of angels, archangels, and principalities.
(_c_) _De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia_, I, 1. (MSG, 3:372.)
The nature of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
That our hierarchy … which is given by God, is God-inspired and divine, a
divinely acting knowledge, activity, and completion, we must show from the
supernal and most Holy Scriptures to those who through hierarchical
secrets and traditions have been initiated into the holy consecration.…
Jesus, the most divine and most transcendent spirit, the principle and the
being and the most divine power of every hierarchy, holiness, and divine
operation, brings to the blessed beings superior to us a more bright and
at the same time more spiritual light and makes them as far as possible
like to His own light. And through our love which tends upward toward Him,
by the love of the beautiful which draws us up to Him, He brings together
into one our many heterogeneities; that He might perfect them so as to
become a uniform and divine life, condition, and activity, He gives us the
power of the divine priesthood. In consequence of this honor we arrive at
the holy activity of the priesthood, and so we ourselves come near to the
beings over us, that we, so far as we are able, approximate to their
abiding and unchangeable holy state and so look up to the blessed and
divine brilliancy of Jesus, gaze religiously on what is attainable by us
to see, and are illuminated by the knowledge of what is seen; and thus we
are initiated into the mystic science, and, initiating, we can become
light-like and divinely working, complete and completing.
(_d_) _De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia_, V, 3. (MSG, 3:504.)
The most holy consecration of initiation has as the godlike power or
activity the expiatory purification of the imperfect, as the second the
illuminating consecration of the purified, and as the last, which also
includes the other two, the perfecting of the consecrated in the knowledge
of the consecrations that belong to them.…
5. The divine order of the hierarch(209) is the first under the
God-beholding orders; it is the highest and also the last, for in it every
other order of our hierarchy ends and is completed.(210) For we see that
every hierarchy ends in Jesus, and so each one ends in the God-filled
hierarchs.
6. The hierarchical order, which is filled full of the perfecting power,
performs especially the consecrations of the hierarchy, imparts by
revelation the knowledge of the sacred things, and teaches the conditions
and powers appropriate to them. The order of priests which leads to light
leads to the divine beholding of the sacred mysteries all those who have
been initiated by the divine order of the hierarchs and with that order
performs its proper sacred functions. In what it does it displays the
divine working through the most holy symbols [_i.e._, sacraments] and
makes those who approach beholders and participants in the most holy
mysteries, sending on to the hierarch those who desire the knowledge of
those sacred rites which are seen. The order of the liturges [or deacons]
is that which cleanses and separates the unlike before they come to the
sacred rites of the priests, purifies those who approach that it may
render them pure from all that is opposing and unworthy of beholding and
participating in the sacred mysteries.
(_e_) _De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia_, I, 3. (MSG, 3:373.)
The sacraments.
The mysteries or sacraments, according to Dionysius the
Areopagite, are six in number: baptism, the eucharist, anointing
or confirmation, the consecration of priests, the consecration of
monks,(211) and the consecration of the dead. These he discusses
in chs. 2-7 of the _Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_.
Salvation can in no other way come about than that the saved are deified.
The deification is the highest possible resemblance to God and union with
Him. The common aim of all the hierarchy is the love which hangs upon God
and things divine, which fills with a divine spirit and works in godlike
fashion; and before this is the complete and never retreating flight from
that which is opposed to it, the knowledge of being as being, the vision
and knowledge of the holy truth, the divinely inspired participation in
the homogeneous perfection of the One himself, so far as man can come to
that, the enjoyment of the holy contemplation, which spiritually nourishes
and deifies every one who strives for it.
Chapter II. The Transition To The Middle Ages. The Foundation Of The
Germanic National Churches
While the doctrinal system of the Church was being wrought out in the
disputes and councils of Rome and the East, the foundations of the
Germanic national churches were being laid in the West. In the British
Isles the faith was extended from Britain to Ireland and thence to
Scotland (§ 96). Among the inmates of the monasteries of these countries
were many monks who were moved to undertake missionary journeys to various
parts of Western Europe, and among them St. Columbanus. But even more
important for the future of Western Christendom was the conversion of the
Franks from paganism to Catholic Christianity. At a time when the other
Germanic rulers were still Arian, Clovis and the Franks became Catholics
and, as a consequence, the champions of the Catholic faith. The Franks
rapidly became the dominant power in the West, and soon other Germanic
races either were conquered or followed the example of the Franks and
became Catholics (§ 97). The State churches that thus arose were more
under the control of the local royal authority than the Catholic Church
had previously been, and the rulers were little disposed to favor outside
control of the ecclesiastical affairs of their kingdoms (§ 98). Toward the
end of the sixth century the greatest pontiff of the ancient Church,
Gregory the Great, more than recovered the prestige and influence which
had been lost under Vigilius. By his able administration he did much to
unite the West, to heal the schism resulting from the Fifth Council, and
to overcome the heresies which divided the Arians and the Catholics. At
the same time he advanced the authority of the see of Rome in the East as
well as in the West (§ 99). Of the many statesman-like undertakings of
Gregory none had more far-reaching consequences than the conversion of the
Anglo-Saxons and the establishment in England of a church which would be
in close and loyal dependence upon the Roman see, and in consequence of
that close connection would be the heir of the best traditions of culture
in the West (§ 100).
§ 96. The Celtic Church in the British Isles
Christianity was probably planted in the British Isles during the second
century; as to its growth in the ante-Nicene period little is definitely
known. Representatives of the British Church were at Arles in 314. The
Church was in close connection with the Church on the Continent during the
fourth century and in the fifth during the Pelagian controversy. The
Christianity thus established was completely overthrown or driven into
Wales by the invasion of the pagan Angles, Jutes, and Saxons _circa_
449-500. (For the conversion of the newcomers, _v. infra_, § 100.) Early
in the fifth century the conversion of Ireland took place by missionaries
from Britain. In this conversion St. Patrick traditionally plays an
important part.
Additional source material: Bede, _Hist. Ec._, Eng. trans. by
Giles, London, 1894; by A. M. Sellar, London, 1907 (for Latin
text, _v. infra_, _a_); Adamnani, _Vita S. Columbæ_, ed. J. T.
Fowler, 1894 (with valuable introduction and translation); St.
Patrick, _Genuine Writings_, ed. G. T. Stokes and C. H. H. Wright,
Dublin, 1887; J. D. Newport White, _The Writings of St. Patrick_,
1904. For bibliography of sources, see Gross, _The Sources and
Literature of English History_, 1900, pp. 221 _f._
(_a_) Bede, _Hist. Ec. Gentis Anglorum_, I, 13. (MSL, 95:40.)
The Venerable Bede (672 or 673-735), monk at Jarrow, the most
learned theologian of the Anglo-Saxon Church, was also the first
historian of England. For the earliest period he used what written
sources were available. His work becomes of independent value with
the account of the coming of Augustine of Canterbury, 597 (I, 23).
The history extends to A. D. 731. The best critical edition is
that of C. Plummer, 1896, which has a valuable introduction,
copious historical and critical notes, and careful discrimination
of the sources. Wm. Bright’s _Chapters on Early English Church
History_ is an elaborate commentary on Bede’s work as far as 709,
the death of Wilfrid. Translation of Bede’s History by J. A.
Giles, may be found in Bohn’s _Antiquarian Library_, and better by
A. M. Sellar, 1907.
In the following passage we have the only reference made by Bede
to the conversion of Ireland, and his failure to mention Patrick
has given rise to much controversy, see J. B. Bury, _The Life of
St. Patrick __ and his Place in History_, 1905. This passage,
referring to Palladius, is a quotation from the _Chronica_ of
Prosper of Aquitaine (403-463) ann. 431 (MSL, 51, critical edition
in MGH, _Auct. antiquiss_, 9:1); from Gildas, _De excidio
Britanniæ liber querulus_ (MSL, 69:327, critical edition in MGH,
_Auct. antiquiss_, 13. A translation by J. A. Giles in _Six Old
English Chronicles_, in Bohn’s _Antiquarian Library_), is the
reference to the letter written to the Romans; from the Chronica
of Marcellinus Comes (MSL, 51:913; critical edition in MGH, _Auct.
antiquiss_, 11) is the reference to Blæda and Attila.
In the year of the Lord’s incarnation, 423, Theodosius the younger
received the empire after Honorius and, being the forty-fifth from
Augustus, retained it twenty-six years. In the eighth year of his reign,
Palladius was sent by Celestinus, the pontiff of the Roman Church, to the
Scots(212) that believed in Christ to be their first bishop. In the
twenty-third year of his reign (446), Aëtius, the illustrious, who was
also patrician, discharged his third consulate with Symmachus as his
colleague. To him the wretched remnants of the Britons sent a letter
beginning: “To Aëtius, thrice consul, the groans of the Britons.” And in
the course of the letter they thus express their calamities: “The
barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea drives us back to the barbarians;
between them there have arisen two sorts of death; we are either slain or
drowned.” Yet neither could all this procure any assistance from him, as
he was then engaged in a most dangerous war with Blæda and Attila, kings
of the Huns. And though the year next before this, Blæda had been murdered
by the treachery of his brother Attila, yet Attila himself remained so
intolerable an enemy to the republic that he ravaged almost all Europe,
invading and destroying cities and castles.
(_b_) Patrick, _Confessio_, chs. 1, 10. (MSL, 53:801.)
The call of St. Patrick to be a missionary.
There is much dispute and uncertainty about the life and work of
St. Patrick. Of the works of Patrick, two appear to be genuine,
his _Confessio_ and his _Epistola ad Coroticum_. The other works
attributed to him are very probably spurious. The genuine works
may be found in Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils and Ecclesiastical
Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland_, vol. II, pt. ii,
296 _ff._
I, Patrick, a sinner, the most ignorant and least of all the faithful, and
the most contemptible among many, had for my father Calpornius the deacon,
son of the presbyter Potitus, the son of Odissus, who was of the village
of Bannavis Tabernia; he had near by a little estate where I was taken
captive. I was then nearly sixteen years old. But I was ignorant of the
true God(213) and I was taken into captivity unto Ireland, with so many
thousand men, according to our deserts, because we had forsaken God and
not kept His commandments and had not been obedient to our priests who
warned us of our salvation. And the Lord brought upon us the fury of His
wrath and scattered us among many nations, even to the end of the earth,
where now my meanness appears to be among strangers. And there the Lord
opened the senses of my unbelief, that I might remember my sin, and that I
might be converted with my whole heart to my Lord God, who looked upon my
humbleness and had mercy upon my youth and ignorance, and guarded me
before I knew Him, and before I knew and distinguished between good and
evil, and protected me and comforted me as a father a son.
… And again after a few years(214) I was with my relatives in Britain, who
received me as a son, and earnestly besought me that I should never leave
them after having endured so many great tribulations. And there I saw in a
vision by night a man coming to me as from Ireland, and his name was
Victorinus, and he had innumerable epistles; and he gave me one of them
and I read the beginning of the epistle as follows: “The voice of the
Irish.” And while I was reading the epistle, I think that it was at the
very moment, I heard the voice of those who were near the wood of
Fochlad,(215) which is near the Western Sea. And thus they cried out with
one voice: We beseech thee, holy youth, to come here and dwell among us.
And I was greatly smitten in heart, and could read no further and so I
awoke. Thanks be to God, because after many years the Lord granted them
according to their cry.
(_c_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, III, 4. (MSL, 95:121.)
St. Ninian and St. Columba in Scotland.
In the year of our Lord 565, when Justin the younger, the successor of
Justinian, took the government of the Roman Empire, there came into
Britain a priest and abbot, distinguished in habit and monastic life,
Columba by name, to preach the word of God to the provinces of the
northern Picts, that is, to those who are separated from the southern
parts by steep and rugged mountains. For the southern Picts, who had their
homes within those mountains, had long before, as is reported, forsaken
the error of idolatry, and embraced the true faith, by the preaching of
the word to them by Ninian,(216) a most reverend bishop and holy man of
the British nation, who had been regularly instructed at Rome in the faith
and mysteries of the truth, whose episcopal see was named after St.
Martin, the bishop, and was famous for its church, wherein he and many
other saints rest in the body, and which the English nation still
possesses. The place belongs to the province of Bernicia, and is commonly
called Candida Casa,(217) because he there built a church of stone, which
was not usual among the Britons.