unusual is to be done in the monastery, let the abbot call together the
whole congregation and himself explain the question before them. And
having heard the advice of the brethren, he shall consider it by himself,
and let him do what he judges most advantageous. And for this reason,
moreover, we have said that all ought to be called to take counsel;
because it is often to a younger person that the Lord reveals what is
best. The brethren, moreover, ought, with all humble subjection, to give
their advice so that they do not too boldly presume to defend what seems
good to them, but it should rather depend upon the judgment of the abbot;
so that, whatever he decides upon as the more salutary, they should all
agree to it.…
4. _Concerning the instruments of good works._
5. _Concerning obedience._ The first grade of humility is prompt
obedience. This becomes those who, on account of the holy service which
they professed, or on account of the fear of hell or the glory of eternal
life, consider nothing dearer to them than Christ; so that as soon as
anything is commanded by their superior, they may not know how to suffer
delay in doing it, even as if it were a divine command.…
6. _Concerning silence._ 7. _Concerning humility._ 8. _Concerning the
Divine Offices at night._ 9. _How many Psalms are to be said at night._
10. _How in summer the Nocturnal Praises shall be carried on._ 11. _How
Vigils shall be conducted on Sunday._ 12. _Concerning the order of Matins
on Sunday._ 13. _Concerning the order of Matins on week days._ 14.
_Concerning the order of Vigils on Saints’ days._ 15. _Concerning the
occasions when the Alleluias shall be said._ 16. _Concerning the order of
Divine Worship during the day._ 17. _On the number of Psalms to be said at
these times._ 18. _Concerning the order in which the Psalms are to be
said._ 19. _Concerning the art of singing._ 20. _Concerning the reverence
in prayer._ 21. _Concerning __ the Deans of monasteries._ 22. _How monks
shall sleep._ 23. _Concerning excommunication for faults._ 24. _What ought
to be the measure of excommunication._ 25. _Concerning graver faults._ 26.
_Concerning those who without being ordered by the Abbot, associate with
the excommunicated._ 27. _What care the Abbot should exercise with regard
to the excommunicated._ 28. _Concerning those who, being often rebuked, do
not amend._ 29. _Whether brothers who leave the monastery ought to be
received back._ 30. _Concerning boys under age, how they should be
corrected._ 31. _Concerning the Cellarer of the monastery, what sort of
person he should be._ 32. _Concerning the utensils or property of the
monastery._
33. _Whether monks should have anything of their own._ More than anything
else is this special vice to be cut off root and branch from the
monastery, that one should presume to give or receive anything without
order from the abbot, or should have anything of his own; he should have
absolutely nothing, neither a book nor tablets nor a pen, nothing at
all—for indeed it is not allowed to have their own bodies or wills in
their own power. But all things necessary they must receive from the
father of the monastery; nor is it allowable to have anything which the
abbot has not given or permitted.…
34. _Whether all ought to receive necessaries equally._ 35. _Concerning
the weekly officers of the kitchen._ 36. _Concerning infirm brothers._ 37.
_Mitigation of the rule for the very old and the very young._ 38.
_Concerning the weekly reader._
39. _Concerning the amount of food._ We believe, moreover, that for the
daily refection of the sixth and for that of the ninth hour as well two
cooked dishes, on account of the infirmities of the different ones, are
enough in all months for all tables; so that whoever, perchance, cannot
eat of one may partake of the other. Therefore let two cooked dishes
suffice for all the brethren; and if it is possible to obtain apples or
fresh vegetables, a third may be added. One full pound of bread shall
suffice for a day, whether there be one refection or breakfast and supper.
But if they are to have supper, the third part of that same pound shall be
reserved by the cellarer to be given back to those when they are about to
sup. But if perchance some greater labor shall have been performed, it
shall be in the will and power of the abbot, if it is expedient, to
increase anything.… But to younger boys the same quantity shall not be
served, but less than to the older ones, as moderation is to be observed
in all things. But every one shall abstain altogether from eating the
flesh of four-footed beasts except alone in the case of the weak and the
sick.
40. _Concerning the amount of drink._ Each one has his own gift from God,
one in this way and another in that. Therefore it is with some hesitation
that the amount of daily sustenance for others is fixed by us.
Nevertheless, considering the weakness of the infirm, we believe that a
half pint of wine a day is enough for each one. Those, moreover, to whom
God has given the ability of enduring abstinence should know that they
will have their own reward. But the prior shall judge if either the needs
of the place, or labor, or heat of the summer require more; considering,
in all things, lest satiety or drunkenness creep in. Indeed, we read that
wine is not suitable for monks at all. But, because in our times it is not
possible to persuade monks of this, let us agree at least as to the fact
that we should not drink until we are sated, but sparingly. For wine can
make even the wise to go astray. Where, moreover, the limitations of the
place are such that the amount written above cannot be found, but much
less or nothing at all, those who live there shall bless God and shall not
murmur. And we admonish them as to this, above all, that they be without
murmuring.
41. _At what hours the brethren ought to take their refection._ 42. _That
after Compline no one shall speak._ 43. _Concerning those who come late to
Divine Service or to table._ 44. _Concerning those who are excommunicated
and how they shall render satisfaction._ 45. _Concerning those who make
mistakes in the oratory._ 46. _Concerning those who err in other matters._
47. _Concerning the announcement of the hour of Divine Service._
48. _Concerning the daily manual labor._ Idleness is the enemy of the
soul. Therefore at fixed times the brethren ought to be occupied in manual
labor; and again at fixed times in sacred reading. Therefore we believe
that according to this disposition both seasons ought to be so arranged
that, from Easter until the first of October, going out early from the
first until about the fourth hour, they shall labor at what might be
necessary. Moreover, from the fourth until about the sixth hour, they
shall give themselves to reading. After the sixth hour, moreover, rising
from table, they shall rest in their beds with all silence; or perchance
he that wishes to read may so read to himself that he shall not disturb
another. And nones shall be said rather early, about the middle of the
eighth hour; and again they shall work at what is necessary until vespers.
But if the exigency or the poverty of the place demands that they shall be
occupied by themselves in picking fruits, they shall not be cast down; for
then they are truly monks if they live by the labor of their hands, as did
also our Fathers and the Apostles.
From the first of October until the beginning of Lent, they shall give
themselves unto reading until the second full hour. At the second hour
tierce shall be said, and all shall labor at the task which is enjoined
upon them until the ninth. When the first signal of the ninth hour shall
have been given they shall each leave off his work and be ready when the
second signal strikes. Moreover, after the refection they shall give
themselves to their reading or to the Psalms.
And in the days of Lent, from dawn until the third full hour, they shall
give themselves to their reading; and until the tenth hour they shall do
the labor that is enjoined upon them. In the days of Lent they shall all
receive separate books from the library, which they shall read through
completely in order; these books shall be given out on the first day of
Lent. Above all, there shall certainly be appointed one or two elders to
go around the monastery at the hours in which the brethren are engaged in
reading and see to it that no troublesome brother is to be found who is
given to idleness and chatting and is not intent upon his reading and is
not only of no use to himself but disturbing the others. If such an one
(and may there not be such!) be found, he shall be admonished once and a
second time. If he does not amend, he shall be subject under the rule to
such punishment that others may fear. Nor shall the brethren assemble at
unsuitable hours.
On Sundays all shall give themselves to reading except those who are
deputed to various duties. But if any one be so negligent and lazy that he
will not or cannot meditate or read, some task shall be imposed upon him
which he can perform, so that he be not idle. On feeble and delicate
brothers such a labor or art is to be imposed that they shall neither be
idle nor so oppressed by the burden of labor as to be driven to take to
flight. Their weakness is to be taken into consideration by the abbot.
49. _The observance of Lent._ 50. _Concerning brothers who labor far from
the oratory or are on a journey._ 51. _Concerning brothers who do not
journey very far._ 52. _Concerning the oratory of the monastery._ 53.
_Concerning the reception of guests._ 54. _As to whether a monk should be
allowed to receive letters or anything._ 55. _Concerning the Vestiarius
and Calciarius._ 56. _Concerning the table of the Abbot._ 57. _Concerning
the artificers of the monastery._
58. _Concerning the manner of receiving brethren._ When any one newly
comes for conversion of life, an easy entrance shall not be granted him,
but as the Apostle says: “Try the spirits whether they be of God” [I John
4:1]. Therefore if one who comes perseveres in knocking, and is seen after
four or five days to endure patiently the insults heaped upon him and the
difficulty of ingress and to persist in his request, let entrance be
granted him, and let him be for a few days in the guest cell. After this
let him be in the cell of the novices, where he shall meditate and eat and
sleep. And an elder shall be appointed for him such as shall be capable of
winning souls, who shall altogether intently watch him, and be zealous to
see if he in truth seek God, if he be zealous for the work of God, for
obedience, for suffering shame. And above all the harshness and roughness
of the means through which one approaches God shall be told him in
advance. If he promise perseverance in his steadfastness after the lapse
of two months, this Rule shall be read over to him in order, and it shall
be said to him: Behold the law under which thou didst wish to serve; if
thou canst observe it, enter; but if thou canst not, depart freely. If he
shall have stood firm thus far, then he shall be led into the aforesaid
cell of the novices, and again he shall be proven with all patience.
And after the lapse of six months, the Rule shall be reread to him, that
he may know upon what he is entering. And if he persist thus far, after
four months the same Rule shall still again be read to him. If, after
deliberating with himself, he shall promise that he will observe all
things and to obey all the commands laid upon him, then he shall be
received into the congregation, knowing that it is decreed that by the law
of the Rule he shall from that day not be allowed to depart from the
monastery, nor to shake free from his neck the yoke of the Rule, which
after such painful deliberation he was at liberty to refuse or receive.
He who is to be received shall make in the oratory, in the presence of
all, a promise before God and His saints concerning his stability
[_stabilitas loci_] and the change in the manner of his life [_conversio
morum_] and obedience [_obedientia_],(275) so that if at any time he act
contrary he shall know that he shall be condemned by Him whom he mocks.
And concerning this, his promise, he shall make a petition addressed by
name to the saints whose relics are there, and to the abbot who is
present. And this petition he shall write out with his own hand; or, if he
be really unlearned in letters, let another at his request write it, and
to that the novice shall make his sign. With his own hand he shall place
it upon the altar. And when he has placed it there, the novice shall
immediately begin this verse: “Receive me O Lord according to Thy promise
and I shall live; and cast me not down from my hope” [Psalm 119:116,
Vulgate version]. And this verse the whole congregation shall repeat three
times adding: Glory be to the Father, etc. Then that brother novice shall
prostrate himself at the feet of each one that they may pray for him. And
already from that day he shall be considered as in the congregation.
If he have any property, he shall first either present it to the poor or,
making a solemn donation, shall confer it on the monastery, receiving
nothing at all for himself; and he shall know for a fact that from that
day he shall have no power even over his own body. Immediately thereafter,
in the monastery, he shall take off his own garments in which he was clad,
and shall put on the garments of the monastery. Those garments,
furthermore, which he has taken off shall be placed in the vestiary to be
preserved; so that if, at any time, on the devil’s persuasion, he shall
wish to go forth from the monastery (and may it never happen) then, taking
off the garments of the monastery let him be cast out. But the petition he
made and which the abbot took from upon the altar, he shall not receive
again, but it shall be preserved in the monastery.
59. _Concerning the sons of nobles and poor men who are presented._ If by
chance any one of the nobles offers his son to God in the monastery, and
the boy himself is a minor in age, his parents shall make the petition of
which we have spoken above. And with an oblation, they shall wrap the
petition and the hand of the boy in the linen cloth of the altar; and thus
shall they offer him. Concerning their property, either they shall promise
in the present petition, under an oath, that they will never, either
indirectly or otherwise, give him anything at any time, or furnish him
with means of possessing it. Or, if they be unwilling to do this, and wish
to offer something as alms to the monastery for their salvation, they
shall make a donation of those things which they wish to give to the
monastery, retaining for themselves the usufruct if they so wish. And let
all things be so observed that no suspicion may remain with the boy; by
which, as we have learned from experience, being deceived, he might perish
(and may it not happen). The poorer ones shall do likewise. Those who have
nothing at all shall simply make their petitions; and with an oblation
they shall offer their sons before witnesses.
60. _Concerning priests who may wish to dwell in the monastery._ 61.
_Concerning pilgrim monks, how they are to be received._ 62. _Ordination
of monks as priests._ 63. _Concerning rank in the congregation._ 64.
_Concerning the ordination of an Abbot._ 65. _Concerning the Prior of the
monastery._ 66. _Concerning the Doorkeepers of the monastery._ 67.
_Concerning brothers sent on a journey._ 68. _If impossibilities are
imposed on a brother._ 69. _That in the monastery one shall not presume to
defend another._ 70. _That no one shall presume to strike another._ 71.
_That they shall be obedient to one another._ 72. _Concerning the good
zeal which monks ought to have._
73. _Concerning the fact that not every just observance is decreed in this
Rule._ We have written down this Rule, that we may show those observing it
in the monasteries how to have some honesty of character or beginning of
conversion. But for those who hasten to the perfection of living, there
are the teachings of the holy Fathers; the observance of which leads a man
to the heights of perfection. For what page or what discourse of divine
authority in the Old or New Testament is not a more perfect rule of human
life? Or what book of the holy and Catholic Fathers does not trumpet forth
how by the right road we shall come to our Creator?
Also the reading aloud of the Fathers, and their decrees and lives; also
the Rule of our holy Father Basil—what else are they except instruments of
virtue for good living and obedient monks? But to us who are idle and evil
livers and negligent there is the blush of confusion. Thou, therefore,
whoever hastens to the heavenly fatherland, perform with Christ’s aid this
Rule written out as the least beginnings; and then at length, under God’s
protection, thou wilt come to the greater things that we have mentioned—to
the summits of teaching and virtue.
(_b_) _Formulæ._
The following _formulæ_ are given to illustrate the Rule in its working.
The first group bear upon the vow of _stabilitas loci_. The case not
infrequently arose that a brother wished to go to a monastery in which the
observance of the Rule was stricter. In case a new foundation was begun
anywhere, the first monks were almost always from another monastery. If
therefore the monk is to remove, he must obtain permission of his abbot,
and this was not regarded as a violation of the vow of _stabilitas loci_
and obedience to his abbot. These _formulæ_ were not uniform throughout
the Church, but the following are given as samples of early practice.
1. _Letters dimissory._ (MSL, 66:859.)
(_a_) To all bishops and all orders of the holy Church, and to all
faithful people.
Be it known unto you that I have given license to this our brother, John
or Paul by name, that where he finds it agreeable to dwell in order to
lead the monastic life, he shall have license to dwell for the benefit of
himself and the monastery.
(_b_) Since such a brother desires to dwell in another monastery, where,
as it seems to him, he can save his soul and serve God, know then that by
these letters dimissory, we have given him license to go to another
monastery.
(_c_) From the _Consuetudines_ of the Monastery of St. Paul at Rome.
I, a humble abbot. You should know, beloved, that this brother, John or
Paul by name, has asked us to give him permission to dwell with you. And,
because we know that you observe the Rule of the order, we assent to his
dwelling with you. I now commend him to you, that you may treat him as I
would, and for him you are to render an account to God as I would have had
to render.
(_d_) Another from the same.
To the venerable father the abbot of ( … ) monastery, the abbot of ( … )
monastery greeting with a holy kiss. Since our monastery has been burdened
with various embarrassments and poverty, we beseech your brotherliness
that you will receive our brother to dwell in your monastery, and we
commend him by these letters of commendation and dismission to your
jurisdiction and obedience.
Alternate conclusion:
We send him from our obedience to serve the Lord under your obedience.
2. _Offering of a child to a monastery._ (MSL, 66:842.)
The following forms should be compared with chapter 59 of the
Rule. Children so offered were known as _oblati_, _i.e._, offered.
These forms are from a manuscript of the ninth century.
(_a_) To offer children to God is sanctioned in the Old and New Testaments
as Abraham(276) … are related to have done. Moved by the example of these
and many others, I ( … ) do now, for the salvation of my soul and for the
salvation of the souls of my parents, offer in the presence of the abbot (
… ) this my son ( … ) to Almighty God and to St. Mary His mother,
according to the Rule of the blessed Benedict in the Monastery of Mons
Major, so that from this day forth it shall not be lawful for him to
withdraw his neck from the yoke of this service; and I promise never, by
myself or by any agent, to give him in any way opportunity of leaving, and
that this writing may be confirmed I sign it with my own hand.
(_b_) Brief form.
I give this boy in devotion to our Lord Jesus Christ, before God and His
saints, that he may remain all the days of his life and become a monk
until his death.
3. _Ceremony of receiving a monk into a Benedictine monastery._ (MSL,
66:829.)
(_a_) From Peter Boherius, _Commentary on the Regula S. Benedicti_, ch. 58
of the Rule, _v. supra_.
When the novice makes his solemn profession, the abbot vests to say mass,
and after the offertory the abbot interrogates him saying:
Brother (such a one): Is it your will to renounce the world and all its
pomps?
He answers: It is.
Abbot: Will you promise obedience according to the Rule of St. Benedict?
Answer: I will.
Abbot: May God give you his aid.
Then the novice, or some one at his request, reads the aforesaid
profession, and when it has been read he places it upon his head, and then
upon the altar. After this, when he has prostrated himself on his knees in
four directions in the form of a cross, he says the verse: Receive me, O
Lord, etc. And then the _Gloria Patri_, the _Kyrie Eleison_, the _Pater
Noster_ and the Litany are said, the novice remaining prostrate on the
ground before the altar, until the end of the mass. And the brothers ought
to be in the choir kneeling while the Litany is said. When the Litany has
been said, then shall follow very devoutly the special prayers as
commanded by the Fathers, and immediately after the communion and before
the prayer is said, the garments of the novice, which have been folded and
placed before the altar, shall be blessed with their proper prayers; and
they shall be anointed and sprinkled with holy water by the abbot. After
“_Ite, missa est_”(277) the novice rises from the ground, and having put
off his old garments which were not blessed he puts on those which have
been blessed, while the abbot recites: _Exuat te Dominus_, etc.
And when the kiss has been given by the abbot, all the brothers in turn
give him the kiss of peace, and he shall keep silence for three days
continuously after this, going about with his head covered and receiving
the communion every day.
(_b_) From Theodore of Canterbury, _ibid._, 827.
In the ordination of monks the abbot ought to say mass, and say three
prayers over the head of the novice; and for seven days he veils his head
with his cowl, and on the seventh day the abbot takes the veil off.
(_c_) The Vow. From another form, _ibid._
I promise concerning my stability and conversion of life and obedience
according to the Rule of St. Benedict before God and His saints.
§ 105. Foundation of Mediæval Culture and Schools
Schools never wholly disappeared from Western society, either during the
barbarian invasion or in the even more troublous times that followed.
Secular schools continued throughout the fifth century. During the sixth
century they gave way for the most part to schools fostered by the Church,
or were thoroughly transformed by ecclesiastical influences. In the fifth
and sixth centuries, the great compends were made that served as
text-books for centuries. Boethius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, and
Bede represent great steps in the preparation for the mediæval schools.
But, apart from the survival of old schools, there was a real demand for
the establishment of new schools. The new monasticism needed them. It
required some reading and study every day by the monks. As children were
constantly being received, ordinarily at the age of seven, these _oblati_
needed instruction. The monastic schools, which thus arose, early made
provision for the instruction of those not destined for the monastic life
in the external schools of the monasteries. Then again, the need of clergy
with some literary training, however simple, was felt, especially as the
secular schools declined or were found not convenient, and conciliar
action was taken in various countries to provide for such education. In
the conversion of the English, schools seem very early to have been
established, and the encouragement given these schools by the learned
Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, bore splendid fruit, not
merely in the great school of Canterbury but still more in the monastic
schools of the North, at Jarrow and Wearmouth and at York. It was from the
schools in the North that the culture of the Frankish kingdom under
Charles the Great largely came. There was always a marked difference of
opinion as to the value of secular literature in education, as is shown by
the attitude already taken by Gregory the Great in his letter to
Desiderius of Vienne, a letter which did much to discourage the literary
study of the classics.
(_a_) Augustine, _De Doctrina Christiana_, II, 40 (§ 60). (MSL, 34:63).
The Christian’s use of heathen writers.
The whole book should be examined carefully to see the working out
of the same idea in detail. St. Augustine was a man of literary
culture, although he was imperfectly acquainted with Greek. He
speaks from his own experience of the help he had derived from
this culture. The work _On Christian Doctrine_ is, in fact, not at
all a treatise on theology but on pedagogy, and was of immense
influence in the Middle Ages.
If those who are called philosophers and especially the Platonists have
said anything true and in harmony with the faith, we ought not only not to
shrink from it, but rather to appropriate it for our own use, taking it
from them as from unlawful possessors. For as the Egyptians had not only
the idols and heavy burdens, which the people of Israel hated and fled
from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver and clothing which
the same people on going out of Egypt secretly appropriated to themselves
as for a better use, not on their own authority but on the command of God,
for the Egyptians in their ignorance lent those things which they
themselves were not using well [Ex. 3:22; 12:35]; in the same way all
branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies
and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil which each of us, in going out under
the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to hate
and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which it is well to
adapt to the use of truth and some most useful precepts of morality; and
some truths in regard even to the worship of the one God are found among
them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they
themselves did not create, but dug, as it were, out of certain mines of
God’s providence, which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are
perversely and unlawfully misused to the worship of devils. These,
therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the
miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them for their
proper use in preaching the Gospel. Their clothing also, that is, human
institutions, adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable
for this life, it is right to take and to have so as to be turned to
Christian use.
(_b_) John Cassian. _Institutiones_, V, 33, 34. (MSL, 49:249.)
Cassian, born 360, was one of the leaders of the monastic
movement. He founded monasteries near Marseilles, and did much to
spread the monastic movement in Gaul and Spain. His
_Institutiones_ and _Collationes_ were of influence, even after
his monasteries had been entirely supplanted by the Benedictines.
The opinion here given is probably that prevalent in the
monasteries in Egypt. It is utterly different from the spirit of
Basil, and the great theologians of Asia Minor who, in the matter
of secular studies, hold the same opinion as the older Alexandrian
school of Clement and Origen.
Ch. 33. We also saw the abbot Theodore, a man endowed with the utmost
holiness and with perfect knowledge not only of things of the practical
life but also of the meaning of the Scriptures, which he had acquired, not
so much by study and reading, or secular scholarship, as by purity of
heart alone; since he was able only with difficulty to understand or speak
even but a few words in the Greek language. This man, when he was seeking
an explanation of some most difficult question, continued indefatigably
seven days and nights in prayer until, by a revelation of the Lord, he
knew the answer to the question propounded.
Ch. 34. This man, therefore, when some of the brethren were wondering at
the splendid light of his knowledge, and were asking him some meanings of
Scripture, said: “A monk desiring to attain to a knowledge of the
Scriptures ought in no wise to spend his labor on the books of the
commentators, but rather to keep all the efforts of his mind and the
intentions of his heart set on purification from carnal vices. When these
are driven out, at once the eyes of the heart, when the veil of passions
has been removed, will begin, as it were, naturally to gaze on the
mysteries of Scripture, since these were not declared unto us by the grace
of the Holy Ghost to remain unknown and obscure; but they are rendered
obscure by our vices, as the veil of our sins cover the eyes of the heart,
and for these, when restored to their natural health, the mere reading of
Holy Scripture is amply sufficient for the perception of the true
knowledge; nor do they need the instruction of commentators, just as these
eyes of flesh need no man’s assistance to see provided they are free from
the dimness or darkness of blindness.”
(_c_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Desiderium_, Reg. XI, ep. 54. (MSL,
77:1171.)
Desiderius was bishop of Vienne. This letter was sent with several
others written in connection with the sending of Mellitus to
England; see Bede, _Hist. Ec._, I, 27, 29.
Many good things have been reported to us regarding your pursuits, and
such joy arose in our hearts that we could not bear to refuse what your
fraternity had requested to have granted you. But afterward it came to our
ears, what we cannot mention without shame, that thy fraternity is in the
habit of expounding grammar to certain persons. This thing pained us so
and we so strongly disapproved of it that we changed what had been said
before into groaning and sadness, since the praises of Christ cannot find
room in the one mouth with the praises of Jupiter. And consider thyself
what a grave and heinous offence it is for bishops to sing what is not
becoming even for a religious layman. And, though our most beloved son
Candidus, the presbyter, who was strictly examined on this matter when he
came to us, denied it and endeavored to excuse you, yet still the thought
has not left our mind that, in proportion as it is execrable for such a
thing to be related of a priest, it ought to be ascertained by strict and
veracious evidence whether or not it be so. If, therefore, hereafter what
has been reported to us should prove to be evidently false, and it should
be clear that you do not apply yourself to trifles and secular literature,
we shall give thanks to God, who has not permitted your heart to be
stained with the blasphemous phrases of what is abominable; and we will
treat without misgiving or hesitation concerning granting what you have
requested.
We commend to you in all respects the monks whom, together with our most
beloved son Laurentius, the presbyter, and Mellitus, the abbot, we have
sent to our most reverend brother and fellow-bishop Augustine, that by the
help of your fraternity no delay may hinder their journey.
(_d_) Council of Vaison, A. D. 529, _Canon_ 1. Bruns, II, 183.
Vaison is a small see in the province of Arles. The synod was
attended by about a dozen bishops. It is, therefore, not
authoritative for a large district, but when taken in connection
with the following selection indicates a wide-spread custom.
That presbyters in their parishes shall bring up and instruct young
readers in their houses. It was decided that all presbyters who are placed
in parishes should, according to a custom which we learn is very
beneficially observed throughout Italy, receive young readers, as many as
they have who are unmarried, into their house where they dwell, and as
good fathers shall endeavor to bring them up spiritually to render the
Psalms, and to instruct them in the divine readings, and to educate them
in the law of the Lord, that so they may provide for themselves worthy
successors, and receive from the Lord eternal rewards. But when they come
to full age, if any of them, on account of the weakness of the flesh, wish
to marry, they shall not be denied the right of doing so.
(_e_) II Council of Toledo, A. D. 531, _Canon_ 1. Bruns, I, 207.
Concerning those whom their parents voluntarily give in the first years of
their childhood to the office of the clergy, we have decreed this to be
observed; namely, that as soon as they have been tonsured or have been
given to the care of appointed persons, they ought to be educated by some
one set over them, in the church building, and in the presence of the
bishop. When they have completed their eighteenth year, they shall be
asked by the bishop, in the presence of all the clergy and people, their
will as to seeking marriage. And if by God’s inspiration they have the
grace of chastity, and shall have promised to observe the profession of
their chastity without any necessity of marriage, let these who are more
desirous of the hardest life put on the most gentle yoke of the Lord, and
first let them receive from their twentieth year the ministry of the
subdiaconate, probation having been made of their profession, that, if
blamelessly and without offence they attain the twenty-fifth year of their
age, they may be promoted to the office of the diaconate, if they have
been proved by their bishop to be able to fulfil it.…
(_f_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, III, 18. (MSL, 95:144.)
Sigebert became king of the East Angles about 631 and died 637.
The facts known of him are briefly recorded in DCB.
At this time the kingdom of the East Angles, after the death of Earpwald,
the successor of Redwald, was subject to his brother Sigebert, a good and
religious man, who long before had been baptized in France, whilst he
lived in banishment, flying from the enmity of Redwald; when he returned
home and had ascended the throne he was desirous of imitating the good
institutions which he had seen in France, and he set up a school for the
young to be instructed in letters, and was assisted therein by Bishop
Felix, who had come to him from Kent and who furnished him with masters
and teachers after the manner of that country.
(_g_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, IV, 2. (MSL, 95:173.)
Theodore arrived at his church the second year after his consecration, on
Sunday, May 27, and held the same twenty-one years, three months and
twenty-six days. Soon after he visited all the islands, wherever the
tribes of the Angles dwelt, for he was willingly entertained and heard by
all persons. Everywhere he was attended and assisted by Hadrian, and he
taught the right rule of life and the canonical custom of celebrating
Easter.(278) This was the first archbishop whom all the English Church
obeyed. And forasmuch as both of them were, as has been said, well read in
sacred and secular literature, they gathered a crowd of scholars and there
daily flowed from them rivers of knowledge to water the hearts of their
hearers; and together with the books of the holy Scriptures they also
taught them the arts of ecclesiastical poetry, astronomy, and arithmetic.
A testimony of which is that there are still living at this day [_circa_
A. D. 727] some of their scholars who are as well versed in the Greek and
Latin tongues as in their own, in which they were born. Never were there
happier times since the English came to Britain; for their kings were
brave men and good Christians and were a terror to all barbarous nations,
and the minds of all men were bent upon the joys of the heavenly kingdom
of which they had just heard. And all who desired instruction in sacred
reading had masters at hand to teach them. From that time also they began
in all the churches of the English to learn sacred music which till then
had been only known in Kent. And excepting James, mentioned above, the
first singing-master(279) in the churches of the Northumbrians was Eddi,
surnamed Stephen, invited from Kent by the most reverend Wilfrid, who was
the first of the bishops of the English nation that taught the churches of
the English the Catholic mode of life.
(_h_) Council of Clovesho, A. D. 747, _Canon_ 7. Haddan and Stubbs, III,
360.
They decreed in the seventh article of agreement that bishops, abbots, and
abbesses should by all means take care and diligently provide that their
families should incessantly apply their minds to reading, and that
knowledge be spread by the voices of many to the gaining of souls and to
the praise of the eternal King. For it is sad to say how few(280) in these
times do heartily love and labor for sacred knowledge and are willing to
take pains in learning, but they are from their youth up rather employed
in divers vanities and the affectation of vainglory; and they rather
pursue the amusements of this present unstable life than the assiduous
study of holy Scriptures. Therefore let boys be kept and trained up in
such schools, to the love of sacred knowledge, and that, being by this
means well learned, they may become in all respects useful to the Church
of God.
Chapter IV. The Revolution In The Ecclesiastical And Political Situation
Due To The Rise Of Islam And The Doctrinal Disputes In The Eastern Church
In the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, the ecclesiastical and
political situation altered completely. This change was due, in the first
place, to the rise of the religion and empire of the Moslems, whereby a
very large part of the Eastern Empire was conquered by the followers of
the Prophet, who had rapidly extended their conquests over Syria and the
best African provinces. Reduced in extent and exposed to ever fresh
attacks from a powerful enemy, the Eastern Empire had to face new
political problems. In the second place, as the provinces overrun
contained the greater number of those dissatisfied with the doctrinal
results of the great councils, the apparently interminable contests over
the question as to the two natures of Christ came to an unexpected end.
This did not take place until a new cause for dispute had arisen among the
adherents of Chalcedon, due to an attempt to win back the Monophysites by
accounting for the unity of the person of Christ by positing one will in
Jesus. Monotheletism at once became among the adherents of Chalcedon a
burning question. It was finally condemned at the Sixth General Council,
Constantinople, A. D. 683, at which Pope Agatho played a part very similar
to that played by Pope Leo at Chalcedon, but at the cost of seeing his
predecessor, Honorius, condemned as a Monothelete. It was the last triumph
of the West in the dogmatic controversies of the East. The Eastern
ecclesiastics, irritated at the diplomatic triumph of Rome, expressed
their resentment at the Concilium Quinisextum, in 692, where, in passing
canons to complete the work of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, an
opportunity was embraced of expressly condemning several Roman practices.
In the confusion resulting in the next century from the attempt of Leo the
Isaurian to put an end to the use of images in the churches, the Roman see
was able to rid itself of the nominal control which the Emperor still had
over the papacy by means of the exarchate of Ravenna. When the Lombards
pressed too heavily upon the papacy it was easy for the Bishop of Rome to
make an alliance with the Franks, who on their side saw that it was
profitable to employ the papacy in the advancement of their own schemes.
In this way arose that alliance between the pontiff and the new Frankish
monarchy upon which the ecclesiastical development of the Middle Ages
rests. But Iconoclasm suffered defeat at the Seventh General Council, 787,
in which the doctrinal system of the East was completed. As this was the
last undisputed general council, it may be taken as marking the
termination of the history of the ancient Church. In following the further
course of the Western Church there is no longer need of a detailed tracing
of the history of the Eastern Church, which ceased to be a determining
factor in the religious life of the West. The two parts of Christendom
come in contact from time to time, but without formal schism they have
ceased to be organically united.
§ 106. The Rise and Extension of Islam
Mohammed (571-632) began his work as a prophet at Mecca about 613, having
been “called” about three years earlier. He was driven from Mecca in 622
and fled to Yathrib, afterward known as Medina. Here he was able to unite
warring factions and, placing himself at their head, to build up despotic
authority over the surrounding country. He steadily increased the
territory under his sway, and by conquests and diplomacy was able to gain
Mecca in 629. Before his death in 632 he had conquered all Arabia. His
authority continued in his family after his death, and the course of
conquest went on. Damascus was conquered in 635; in 636 the Emperor
Heraclius was driven to abandon Syria, which now fell into the hands of
the Moslems. In 637 the Persians were forced back. In 640 Egypt was taken,
and by 650 all between Carthage and the eastern border of Persia had been
acquired for Islam. In 693, after a period of civil war, the work of
conquest was resumed. In 709 all the African coast as far as the Straits
of Gibraltar was gained, and in 711 the Moslems entered Spain. They at
once made themselves masters of the peninsula with the exception of a
small strip in the north in the mountains of Asturias, the kingdom of
Gallicia. Crossing the Pyrenees, they attempted to possess Gaul, but were
forced to retreat from central Gaul by Charles Martel at the battle at
Tours and Poitiers in 732. They maintained themselves north of the
Pyrenees until 759 when they were driven out of Narbonne and across the
mountains.
Additional source material: _The Koran_, standard translation by
E. H. Palmer, in the _Sacred Books of the East_; Stanley
Lane-Poole, _Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Mohammed_.
(_a_) Mohammed, _Koran_ (translation of E. H. Palmer).
Surah CXII.
The Unity of God.
The following surah or chapter of the Koran, entitled “The Chapter
of Unity,” Mohammed regarded as of value equal to two-thirds of
the whole book. It is one of the shortest and most famous.
In the name of the merciful and compassionate God, say:
“He is God alone!
God the Eternal.
He begets not and is not begotten!
Nor is there like unto Him any one.”
Surah V, 73, 76, 109 _ff._
The teaching as to the nature and mission of Jesus.
[73.] Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Sabæans,
and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the last day and does
what is right, there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
[76.] They misbelieve who say, “Verily, God is the Messiah, the son of
Mary”; but the Messiah said, “O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord
and your Lord.” Verily he who associates aught with God, God hath
forbidden him paradise, and his resort is the fire, and the unjust shall
have none to help them.
They misbelieve who say, “Verily, God is the third of three”; for there is
no God but one, and if they do not desist from what they say, there shall
touch those who misbelieve amongst them grievous woe.
Will they not turn toward God and ask pardon of Him? for God is forgiving
and merciful.
The Messiah, the son of Mary, is only a prophet; prophets before him have
passed away: and His mother was a confessor.
[109.] When God said, “O Jesus, son of Mary! remember my favors towards
thee and towards thy mother, when I aided thee with the Holy Ghost, till
thou didst speak to men in the cradle and when grown up.
“And when I taught thee the Book and wisdom and the law and the gospel;
when thou didst create of clay, as it were, the likeness of a bird, by my
power, and didst blow thereon, it became a bird;(281) and thou didst heal
the blind from birth, and the leprous by my permission; and when thou
didst bring forth the dead by my permission; and when I did ward off the
children of Israel from thee, and when thou didst come to them with
manifest signs, and those who misbelieved among them said: ‘This is naught
but obvious magic.’
“And when I inspired the Apostles that they should believe in Him and in
my Apostle, they said, ‘We believe; do thou bear witness that we are
resigned.’ ”
[116.] And when God said, “O Jesus, son of Mary! is it thou who dost say
to men, take me and my mother for two gods, beside God?” He said: “I
celebrate thy praise! what ails me that I should say what I have no right
to? If I had said it, Thou wouldest have known it; Thou knowest what is in
my soul, but I know not what is in Thy soul; verily Thou art one who
knoweth the unseen. I never told them save what Thou didst bid me,
‘Worship God, my Lord and your Lord,’ and I was a witness against them so
long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me away to Thyself Thou
wert the watcher over them, for Thou art witness over all.”…
Surah IV, 152.
Relation of Islam to Judaism and Christianity.
[152.] The people of the Book will ask thee to bring down for them a book
from heaven; but they asked Moses a greater thing than that, for they
said, “Show us God openly”; but the thunderbolt caught them in their
injustice. Then they took a calf, after what had come to them of manifest
signs; but we pardoned that, and gave Moses obvious authority. And we held
over them the mountain at their compact, and said to them, “Enter ye the
door adoring,” and we said to them, “Transgress not on the Sabbath day,”
and we took from them a rigid compact.
But for that they broke their compact, and for their misbelief in God’s
signs, and for their killing the prophets undeservedly, and for their
saying, “Our hearts are uncircumcised”—nay, God hath stamped on them their
misbelief, so that they cannot believe, except a few—and for their
misbelief, and for their saying about Mary a mighty calumny, and for their
saying, “Verily we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the
apostle of God,” but they did not kill Him, and they did not crucify Him,
but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about Him
are in doubt concerning Him; they have no knowledge concerning Him, but
only follow an opinion. They did not kill Him, for sure! nay God raised
Him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise!…
[164.] O ye people of the Book! do not exceed in your religion, nor say
against God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is but
the apostle of God and His Word, which He cast into Mary and a spirit from
Him; believe then in God and His apostles, and say not “Three.” Have done!
it were better for you. God is only one God, celebrated be His praise that
He should beget a Son!
Surah LVI.
The delights of heaven and the pains of hell.
This description of the future life has been taken as
characteristic of the religion of Mohammed, but not quite fairly.
It is simply the Bedouin’s idea of complete happiness, and is by
no means characteristic of the religion as the whole.
In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.
When the inevitable [day of judgment] happens; none shall call its
happening a lie!—abasing—exalting!
When the earth shall quake, quaking! and the mountains shall crumble,
crumbling, and become like motes dispersed!
And ye shall be three sorts;
And the fellows of the right hand—what right lucky fellows!
And the fellows of the left hand—what unlucky fellows!
And the foremost foremost!
These are they who are brought nigh,
In gardens of pleasure!
A crowd of those of yore, and a few of those of the latter day!
And gold-weft couches, reclining on them face to face.
Around them shall go eternal youths, with goblets and ewers and a cup of
flowing wine; no headache shall feed therefrom, nor shall their wits be
dimmed!
And fruits such as they deem the best;
And flesh of fowl as they desire;
And bright and large-eyed maids like hidden pearls;
A reward for that which they have done!
They shall hear no folly there and no sin;
Only the speech, “Peace, Peace!”
And the fellows of the right—what right lucky fellows!
Amid thornless lote trees.
And tal’h(282) trees with piles of fruit;
And outspread shade,
And water poured out;
And fruit in abundance, neither failing nor forbidden;
And beds upraised!
Verily we have produced them(283) a production,
And made them virgins, darlings of equal age (with their spouses) for the
fellows of the right!
A crowd of those of yore, and a crowd of those of the latter day!
And the fellows of the left—what unlucky fellows!
In hot blasts and boiling water;
And a shade of pitchy smoke,
Neither cool nor generous!
Verily they were affluent ere this, and did persist in mighty crime; and
used to say, “What, when we die, have become dust and bones, shall we
indeed be raised? or our fathers of yore?”
Say, “Verily, those of yore and those of the latter days shall surely be
gathered together unto the tryst of the well-known day.”
“Then ye, O ye who err! who say it is a lie! shall eat of the Zaqqum(284)
tree and fill your bellies with it! a drink of boiling water! and drink as
drinks the thirsty camel!”
(_b_) Paulus Diaconus, _Historia Langobardorum_, VI, 46 ff. (MSL, 95:654.)
The Advance of the Saracens.
Ch. 46. At that time [A. D. 711] the people of the Saracens, crossing over
from Africa at a place which is called Ceuta, invaded all Spain. Then
after ten years, coming with their wives and children, they invaded as if
to settle in Aquitania, a province of Gaul. Charles(285) had at that time
a dispute with Eudo, prince of Aquitania. But they came to an agreement
and fought with perfect harmony against the Saracens. For the Franks fell
upon them(286) and slew three hundred and seventy-five thousand of them;
but on the side of the Franks only fifteen hundred fell. Eudo with his men
broke into their camp and slew many and laid waste all.
Ch. 47. At the same time [A. D. 717], the same people of the Saracens with
an immense army came and encompassed Constantinople and for three years
besieged it until, when the people had called upon God with great
earnestness, many of the enemy perished from hunger and cold and by war
and pestilence and so wearied out they abandoned the siege. When they had
left they carried on war against the people of the Bulgarians who were
beyond the Danube, but, vanquished by them also, they fled back to their
ships. But when they had put out to the deep sea, a sudden storm fell upon
them and many were drowned and their vessels were destroyed. But in
Constantinople three hundred thousand men died of the pestilence.
Ch. 48. Now when Liutprand heard that the Saracens, when Sardinia had been
laid waste, had also polluted those places where the bones of the holy
bishop Augustine, on account of the devastation of the barbarians, had
formerly been transported and solemnly buried, he sent thither and when he
had given a large sum obtained them and transported them to the city of
Pavia, where he buried them with the honor due so great a father.(287) In
these days the city of Narnia was conquered by the Lombards.
§ 107. The Monothelete Controversy and the Sixth General Council,
Constantinople A. D. 681
The Monothelete controversy was the natural outcome of the earlier
Christological controversies. With the assertion of the two complete and
persisting natures of Christ, the question must sooner or later arise as
to whether there was one will or two in Christ. If there were two wills,
it seemed to lead back to Nestorianism; if there was but one, either the
humanity was incomplete or the position led to virtual monophysitism. But
political causes played even a greater part than the theological
dialectic. The Emperor Heraclius, in attempting to win back the
Monophysite churches, on account of the war with Persia and later on
account of the advancing Moslems, proposed that a union should be effected
on the basis of a formula which asserted that there was but one will in
the God-man. This had been suggested to him in 622 by Sergius, patriarch
of Constantinople [Hefele, §§ 291, 295]. In 633 Cyrus of Phasis, since 630
patriarch of Alexandria, brought about a union between the Orthodox Church
and the Egyptian Monophysites on the basis of a Monothelete formula,
_i.e._, a statement that there was but one will or energy in Christ. At
once a violent controversy broke out. The formula was supported by
Honorius of Rome, but attacked by Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, and
after the fall of Jerusalem in 638, by the monk Maximus Confessor. In 638
Heraclius tried to end the controversy by an _Ecthesis_ [_Hefele_, § 299],
and Constans II (641-668) attempted the same in 648, by his _Typos_. But
at the Lateran Council of 649, under Martin I, Monotheletism as well as
the _Ecthesis_ and _Typos_ were condemned. For this Martin was ultimately
banished, dying in misery, 654, in the Chersonesus, and Maximus, after a
long, cruel imprisonment, and horrible torture and mutilation, died in
exile, 662. But Constantius Pogonatus (668-685), the successor of Constans
II, determined to settle the matter by a general council. Pope Agatho
(678-682) thereupon held a great council at Rome, 679, at which it was
decided to insist at the coming general council upon the strictest
maintenance of the decisions of the Roman Council of 649. On this basis
Agatho dictated the formula which was accepted by the Council of
Constantinople, A. D. 681, which sent its proceedings and conclusions to
the Pope to be approved. Along with them was an express condemnation of
Honorius. Leo II (682-683), Agatho’s successor, approved the council with
special mention of Honorius as condemned for his heresy.
(_a_) Cyrus of Alexandria, _Formula of Union_, A. D. 633, Hahn, § 232.
The author of this formula, known also as Cyrus of Phasis, under
which name he was condemned at Constantinople, A. D. 680,
attempted to win over the Monophysites in Alexandria and met with
great success on account of his formula of union. The first five
anathemas, the form in which the formula is composed, are clearly
based upon the first four councils. The sixth is slightly
different; and the seventh, the most important, is clearly tending
toward Monotheletism. The document is to be found in the
proceedings of the Sixth General Council in Mansi, and also in
Hardouin. For a synopsis, see Hefele, § 293, who is most valuable
for the whole controversy.
6. If any one does not confess the one Christ, the one Son, to be of two
natures, that is, divinity and humanity, one nature become flesh(288) of
God the Word, according to the holy Cyril, unmixed, unchanged,
unchangeable, that is to say, one synthetic hypostasis, who is the same,
our Lord Jesus Christ, being one of the holy homoousian Triad, let such an
one be anathema.
7. If any one, saying that our one Lord Jesus Christ is to be regarded in
two natures, does not confess that He is one of the Holy Triad, God the
Word, eternally begotten of the Father, in the last times of the world
made flesh and born of our all-holy and spotless lady, the Theotokos and
ever-virgin Mary; but is this and another and not one and the same,
according to the most wise Cyril, perfect in deity and the same perfect in
humanity, and accordingly only to be thought of as in two natures; the
same suffering and not suffering, according to one or the other nature, as
the same holy Cyril said, suffering as a man in the flesh, inasmuch as he
was a man, remaining as God without suffering in the sufferings of His own
flesh; and the one and the same Christ energizing the divine and the human
things with the one theandric energy,(289) according to the holy
Dionysius; distinguishing only in thought those things from which the
union has taken place, and viewing these in the mind as remaining
unchanged, unalterable, and unmixed after their union according to nature
and hypostasis; and recognizing in these without division or separation
the one and the same Christ and Son, inasmuch as he regards in his mind
two as brought together to each other without commingling, making the
theory of them as a matter of fact, but not by a lying imagination and
vain combinations of the mind; but in nowise separating them, since now
the division into two has been destroyed on account of the indescribable
and incomprehensible union; saying with the holy Athanasius, for there is
now flesh and again the flesh of God the Word, now flesh animated and
intelligent, and again the flesh of the animated and intelligent God the
Word; but should under such expressions understand a distinction into
parts, let such an one be anathema.
(_b_) Constans II, _Typos_, A. D. 648, Mansi, X, 1029. _Cf._ Kirch, nn.
972 _f._
The attempt to end the controversy by returning to the condition
of things before the controversy broke out, an entirely futile
undertaking. The question having been raised had to be discussed
and settled by rational processes. See Hefele, § 306.
Since it is our custom to do everything and to consider everything which
can serve the welfare of the Christian State, and especially what concerns
our true faith, by which we believe all our happiness is brought about, we
perceive that our orthodox people are greatly disturbed, because some in
respect to the Economy(290) of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ
assert that there is only one will, and that one and the same affects both
the divine and human deeds; but others teach two wills and two operations
in the same dispensation of the incarnate Word. The former defend their
views by asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ was only one person in two
natures, and therefore without confusion or separation, working and
willing as well the divine as the human deeds. The others say that because
in one and the same person two natures are joined without any separation,
so their differences from each other remain, and according to the
character of each nature one and the same Christ works as well the divine
as the human; and from this our Christian State has been brought to much
dissension and confusion, so that differing from one another they do not
agree, and from this the State must in many ways needs suffer.
We believe that, under God’s guidance, we must extinguish the flames
enkindled by discord, and we ought not to permit them further to destroy
human souls. We decree, therefore, that our subjects who hold our
immaculate and orthodox Christian faith, and who are of the Catholic and
Apostolic Church, shall from the present moment on have no longer any
permission to raise any sort of dispute and quarrel or strife with one
another over the one will and energy, or over two wills and two energies.
We order that this is not in any way to take anything from the pious
teaching, which the holy and approved Fathers have taught concerning the
incarnation of God the Word, but with the purpose that all further strife
in regard to the aforesaid questions cease, and in this matter we follow
and hold as sufficient only the Holy Scriptures and the tradition of the
five holy general councils and the simple statements and unquestioned
usage and expressions of the approved Fathers (of which the dogmas, rules,
and laws of God’s holy Catholic and Apostolic Church consists), without
adding to or taking from them anything, or without explaining them against
their proper meaning, but everywhere shall be preserved the former
customs, as before the disputes broke out, as if no such dispute had
existed. As to those who have hitherto taught one will and one energy or
two wills and two energies, there shall be no accusation on this account;
excepting only those who have been cast forth as heretics, together with
their impious doctrines and writings, by the five holy universal councils
and other approved orthodox Fathers. But to complete the unity and
fellowship of the churches of God, and that there remain no further
opportunity or occasion to those who are eager for endless dispute, we
order that the document,(291) which for a long time has been posted up in
the narthex of the most holy principal church of this our God-preserved
royal city, and which touches upon the points in dispute, shall be taken
down. Whoever dares to transgress this command is subject before all to
the fearful judgment of Almighty God, and then also will be liable to the
punishment for such as despise the imperial commands. If he be a bishop or
clergyman, he will altogether be deposed from his priesthood or clerical
order; if a monk, excommunicated and driven out of his residence; if a
civil or military officer, he shall lose his rank and office; if a private
citizen, he shall, if noble, be punished pecuniarily, if of lower rank, be
subjected to corporal punishment and perpetual exile.
(_c_) Council of Rome, A. D. 649, _Canons_, Mansi, X, 1150. _Cf._
Denziger, nn. 254 _ff._
Condemnation of Monotheletism, the _Ecthesis_, and the _Typos_, by
Martin I.
Text of canons or anathematisms and abstract of proceedings in
Hefele, § 307.
Canon 18. If any one does not, according to the holy Fathers, and in
company with us, reject and anathematize with mind and mouth all those
whom as most wicked heretics the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of
God, that is, the five universal synods and likewise all approved Fathers
of the Church, rejects and anathematizes, with all their impious writings
even to each point, that is, Sabellius, etc. … and justly with these, as
like them and in equal error … Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of
Constantinople, and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul, persisting in their
pride, and all their impious writings, and those who to the end agreed
with them in their thought, or do so agree, that there is one will and one
operation of the deity and manhood of Christ; and in addition to these the
most impious _Ecthesis_, which, by the persuasion of the same Sergius, was
put forth by the former Emperor Heraclius against the orthodox faith,
defining, by way of adjustment, one will in Christ our God, and one
operation to be venerated; also all those things which were impiously
written or done by them; and those who received it, or any of those things
which were written or done for it; and along with these, furthermore, the
wicked _Typos_, which, on the persuasion of the aforesaid Paul, was
recently issued by our most serene prince Constans against the Catholic
Church, inasmuch as it equally denies and excludes from discussion the two
natural wills and operations, a divine and a human, which are piously
taught by the holy Fathers to be in Christ, our God, and also our Saviour,
and also the one will and operation, which by the heretics is impiously
venerated in Him, and therefore declaring that with the holy Fathers also
the wicked heretics are unjustly freed from all rebuke and condemnation,
to the destruction of the definitions of the Catholic Church and its rule
of faith … let him be condemned.
(_d_) Sixth General Council, Constantinople, A. D. 681, _Definition of
Faith_. Mansi, XI, 636 _ff._
The concluding, more strictly dogmatic portion of this symbol is
to be found in Greek in Hahn, § 150, and in Latin and Greek in
Denziger, nn. 289, _ff._ See also PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.
The holy, great, and ecumenical synod assembled by the grace of God and
the religious decree of the most religious, faithful, and mighty Emperor
Constantine, in this God-preserved and royal city of Constantinople, New
Rome, in the hall of the imperial palace called Trullus, has decreed as
follows:
The only begotten Son and Word of God the Father, who was made man, like
unto us in all things, without sin, Christ our true God, has declared
expressly in the words of the Gospel: “I am the light of the world; he
that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
life” [John 8:12]; and again: “My peace I leave with you, My peace I give
unto you” [John 14:27]. Our most gracious Emperor, the champion of
orthodoxy and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this
divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having assembled this our holy and
ecumenical synod, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore
this our holy and ecumenical synod, having driven away the impious error
which has prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely
the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its
assent to the five holy and ecumenical synods—that is to say, to that of
the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa against the
insane Arius; and the next at Constantinople of the one hundred and fifty
God-inspired men against Macedonius, the adversary of the Spirit, and the
impious Apollinaris; and also the first at Ephesus of two hundred
venerable men assembled against Nestorius, the Judaizer; and that in
Chalcedon of six hundred and thirty God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches
and Dioscurus, hated of God; and in addition to these the last, that is
the fifth, holy synod assembled in this place against Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret
against the twelve chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the epistle which
was said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian—without
alteration this synod renews in all points the ancient decrees of
religion, chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our
holy and ecumenical synod, inspired of God, has set its seal to the creed
of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and again religiously confirmed
by the one hundred and fifty, which also the other holy synods gladly
received and ratified for the removal of every soul-destroying heresy.
Then follow:
The Nicene Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers.
_We believe_, etc.
The Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled at
Constantinople. _We believe_, etc., but without the _filioque_.
The holy and ecumenical synod further says that this pious and orthodox
creed of the divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and
confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who in the
beginning availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the
poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner
now, having found suitable instruments for the accomplishment of his
will—that is to say, Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan; Sergius,
Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were prelates of this royal city; and also
Honorius, who was pope of Old Rome; Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria,
Marcarius, lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen, his disciple—has not
ceased with their declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-assembled and
holy synod; for according to the sentence spoken of God: “Where two or
three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them”
[Matt. 18:20], the present(292) holy and ecumenical synod, faithfully
receiving and saluting with uplifted hands also the suggestion which by
the most holy and blessed Pope Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, was sent to our
most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those
who taught or preached one will and operation in the dispensation of the
incarnation of Christ(293) our very God, has likewise adopted that other
synodal suggestion which was sent by the council held under the same most
holy Pope, composed of one hundred and twenty-five bishops beloved of
God,(294) to his God-instructed tranquillity [_i.e._, the Emperor], as
consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and the _Tome_ of the most holy
and blessed Leo, Pope of the same Old Rome, which was directed to the holy
Flavian, which also the council called the pillar of a right faith; and
also agrees with the synodical letters written by the blessed Cyril
against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental bishops.
Following(295) the five holy and ecumenical synods and the most holy and
approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must
be confessed to be our very God, one of the holy and consubstantial and
life-giving Trinity, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity,
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial
with His Father as to His godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His
manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 4:15]; begotten of
His Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in these last
days for us men and for our salvation begotten of the Holy Ghost and of
the Virgin Mary, strictly and in truth Theotokos, according to the flesh;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, in two natures
unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly to be recognized; the
peculiarities of neither nature lost by the union, but rather the
properties of each nature preserved, concurring in one person,(296) and in
one subsistence,(297) not parted or divided into two persons, but one and
the same only begotten Son, the Word of God,(298) the Lord Jesus Christ,
according as the prophets of old have taught, and as Jesus Christ Himself
hath taught, and the creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us;(299)
we likewise declare that in Him are two natural wills or willings and two
natural operations indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly,
according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills
are not contrary one to the other (which God forbid), as the impious
heretics say, but His human will follows, not as resisting or reluctant,
but rather therefore as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it
was right that the will of the flesh should be moved, but be subject to
the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as His flesh
is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of
His flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as He Himself
says: “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of
the Father which sent Me,” [John 6:38], wherein he calls His own will the
will of the flesh, inasmuch as His flesh was also His own. For as His most
holy and immaculately animated flesh was not destroyed because it was
deified [θεωθεῖσα], but continued in its own state and nature, so also His
human will, although deified, was not taken away, but rather was preserved
according to the saying of Gregory the Theologian:(300) “His will, namely
that of the Saviour, is not contrary to God, but altogether deified.”
We glorify two natural operations, indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably,
unconfusedly, in the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, that is to
say, a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine
preacher Leo, who most distinctly says as follows: “For each form does in
communion with the other what pertains to it, namely the Word doing what
pertains to the Word, and the flesh what pertains to the flesh.”(301) For
we will not admit one natural operation of God and of the creature, that
we may not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we
bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited for those
things which have been made. We recognize the miracles and the sufferings
as of one and the same person, but of one or of the other nature of which
He is, and in which He has His existence, as the admirable Cyril said.
Preserving in all respects, therefore, the unconfusedness and
indivisibility, we express all in brief phrase: Believing that our Lord
Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity also after the incarnation, is our true
God, we say that His two natures shone forth in His one subsistence
[hypostasis], in which were both the miracles and the suffering throughout
the whole incarnate life,(302) not in appearance merely but in reality,
the difference as to nature being recognized in one and the same
subsistence; for, although joined together, each nature wills and operates
the things proper to it.(303) For this reason we glorify two natural(304)
wills and operations concurring most fitly in Him for the salvation of the
human race.
Since these things have been formulated by us with all diligence and care,
we decree that to no one shall it be permitted to bring forward or write
or to compose or to think or to teach otherwise. Whosoever shall presume
to compose a different faith or to propose, or to teach, or to hand to
those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth from the
heathen or the Jews or from any heresy any different symbol, or to
introduce a new mode of expression to subvert these things which have now
been determined by us, all these, if they be bishops or clergy, shall be
deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clergy from the clerical
office; but if they be monks or laymen, they shall be anathematized.
(_e_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681, _Sessio_ XIII. Mansi, XI,
1050. _Cf._ Mirbt, n. 188.
The condemnation of the Monotheletes, including Honorius of Rome.
The condemnation of Honorius has become a _cause célèbre_,
especially in connection with the doctrine of papal infallibility.
It should be observed, however, that the doctrine of papal
infallibility, as defined at the Vatican Council, A. D. 1870
(_cf._ Mirbt, n. 509), requires that only when the Pope speaks _ex
cathedra_ is he infallible, and it has not been shown that any
opinion whatever held by Honorius was an _ex cathedra_ definition
of faith and morals according to the Vatican Council. The matter
is therefore a mere question of fact and may be treated apart from
the Vatican dogma. It should be borne in mind, further, that the
Sixth General Council was approved by Pope Leo II, A. D. 682
(_cf._ Mirbt, n. 189), who included Honorius by name among those
whose condemnation was approved. That he did so approve it is also
stated in the _Liber Pontificalis_ (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 190), and
according to the _Liber Diurnus_, the official book of formulæ
used in the papal business, the Pope took an oath recognizing
among others the Sixth General Council, and condemning Honorius
among other heretics (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 191). That Honorius was
actually a heretic is still another matter; for it seems not at
all unlikely that he misunderstood the point at issue and his
language is quite unscientific. The text of the letters of
Honorius may be found in Kirch, nn. 949-965, and in Hefele in a
translation, §§ 296, 298. On the condemnation of Honorius, see
Hefele, § 324.
The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise
made to your highness,(305) the doctrinal letter written by Sergius, at
one time patriarch of this royal God-preserved city, to Cyrus, who was
then bishop of Phasis, and to Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, as well
as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, and finding that the
documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the definitions of
the holy councils, and to all the approved Fathers, and that they follow
the false teachings of the heretics, we entirely reject them, and execrate
them as hurtful to the soul.
But the names of those men whom we execrate must also be thrust forth from
the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius, sometime bishop of this
God-preserved royal city, who was the first to write on this impious
doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter,
who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with
them; and that of Theodore, sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the
most holy and thrice-blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion
to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected
because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we
declare are subject to anathema. And with these we decree that there shall
be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius, who
was Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius,
that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious
doctrine.
We have also examined the synodal letter(306) of Sophronius, of holy
memory, sometime patriarch of the holy city of our God, Jerusalem, and
have found it in accordance with the true faith and with apostolic
teachings, and with the teachings of the holy and approved Fathers.
Therefore, we have received it as orthodox and salutary to the holy and
Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his
name be inserted in the diptychs of the holy churches.
§ 108. Rome, Constantinople, and the Lombard State Church in the Seventh
Century
The Sixth General Council was the last great diplomatic triumph of Rome in
the East in matters of faith, though two centuries after, in the matter of
Photius, Rome played a brilliant part in the internal affairs of the
Eastern Church. Immediately after the council of 681, it was felt that the
West, of which the Greeks had grown very jealous, had triumphed over the
East, especially as several of the leading patriarchs had been condemned.
Monotheletism, furthermore, was too strongly intrenched in the East to be
removed by a single conciliar action. It was felt necessary to take action
to confirm the results of Constantinople in 681. The fifth and sixth
general councils had been occupied entirely with doctrinal matters and had
not issued any disciplinary canons. A new council might be gathered to
complete the work of the Sixth General Council, not only to reaffirm it,
but in connection with some much-needed legislation to retort upon the
West by condemning some Roman practices. In this way the Second Trullan
Council, or Concilium Quinisextum, came about in 692. The Roman see, in
the meanwhile, although it had triumphed at Constantinople in 681, did not
enjoy an independent political position in Italy. It was still under the
Roman Emperor at Constantinople, as had been most painfully perceived in
the treatment of Martin I by Constans. Although the Pope had his
apocrisiarius, or nuncio, at Constantinople, he came into immediate
contact with the exarch of Ravenna, the Emperor’s representative in Italy.
In Italy, furthermore, the Arian heresy long persisted among the Lombards,
although greater toleration was shown the Catholic Church.
Additional source material: The canons of the Quinisext Council
may be found complete in Percival, _Seven Ecumenical Councils_,
PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.
(_a_) Concilium Quinisextum, A. D. 692, _Canons_. Bruns, I, 34, _ff._
This council was commonly regarded as the continuation of the
Sixth General Council, and has been received in the East, not as a
separate council, but as a part of the sixth. The West has never
accepted this opinion and has only to a limited extent admitted
the authority of its canons, though some have been current in the
West because, like much conciliar action, they were re-enactments
of older canons. Occasionally some of the canons have been cited
by popes as belonging to the Sixth Council. The canons given here
are, for the most part, those which were in some point in
opposition to the Roman practice.
Canon 1. _Renewal of the Condemnations of the Sixth Council._
We, by divine grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that the faith
set forth by the God-chosen Apostles, who themselves had both seen the
Word and were ministers of the Word, shall be preserved without any
innovation, unchanged and inviolate. Moreover the faith of the three
hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, etc.
[Here follows a detailed statement of the first five general
councils.]
Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which
first assembled in this royal city in the time of Constantine, our
Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater
confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own
signet what was written, for the security of every future age. And again
we confess that we should guard the faith unaltered and openly
acknowledged; that in the Economy of the incarnation of our one Lord Jesus
Christ, the true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two
natural operations; and have condemned by a just sentence those who
adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord,
our God, Jesus Christ, there is but one will and operation, that is to
say, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius,
Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city,
Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch, Stephen who was his disciple, and the
insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth of the communion of the
body of Christ our God.…
Canon 2. _On the Sources of Canon Law._
This canon opposed Rome in two respects: it accepted eighty-five
Apostolic Canons, whereas Rome received but fifty; it drew up a
list of councils and of Fathers whose writings should have
authority as canons, and omitted the important Western councils,
except Carthage, and all the papal decrees. With this canon should
be compared the decretal of Gelasius, _De Libris Recipiendis, v.
supra_, § 92.
It has also seemed good to this holy synod that the eighty-five canons
received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also
handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, should
from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and
the healing of disorders. And since in these canons we are bidden to
receive the _Constitutions of the Holy Apostles_ by Clement, in which, in
old time, certain spurious matter entirely contrary to piety was
introduced by heterodox persons for the polluting of the Church, which
obscures to us the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees; we,
therefore, for the edification and security of the most Christian flock,
reject properly such constitutions; by no means admitting the offspring of
heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the
Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set
forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the three hundred and
eighteen God-fearing Fathers assembled at Nicæa, and those at Ancyra;
further, those at Neo-Cæsarea and at Gangra, and besides these those at
Antioch in Syria [A. D. 341], those too at Laodicea in Phrygia, and
likewise those of the one hundred and fifty assembled in this
God-preserved imperial city and of the two hundred, who assembled for the
first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and of the six hundred and
thirty holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon; in like manner those of
Sardica and those of Carthage; those also who assembled in this
God-preserved imperial city under Nectarius [A. D. 394], and under
Theophilus, archbishop of Alexandria; likewise too the canons(307) of
Dionysius, formerly archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and of
Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, and martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker,
archbishop of Neo-Cæsarea; of Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria; of
Basil, archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa;
of Gregory the Theologian;(308) of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy,
archbishop of Alexandria; of the first Theophilus, archbishop of the same
metropolis of Alexandria; of Gennadius, patriarch of the God-preserved
imperial city; moreover the canons set forth by Cyprian, archbishop of the
country of the Africans, and martyr, and by the synod under him,(309)
which have been kept in the country of the aforesaid bishops and only
according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed
to transgress the aforesaid canons, or to receive other canons besides
them, supposititiously set forth by some who have attempted to make a
traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon
them, or attempting to overturn any of the aforementioned canons, he shall
be condemned to receive the penalty which the canon imposes and so to be
cured of his transgressions.
Canon 13. _On the Marriage of the Clergy._
The following canon permits subdeacons and priests if married
before ordination to continue to live in marriage relations with
their wives. But they are not allowed to marry a second time or to
marry a widow. Neither are bishops to remain married; but if they
are married when elected, their wives must enter a monastery at a
distance. With this canon should be compared the earlier
legislation of Nicæa, _v. supra_, § 78, and also the law of
Justinian, _v. supra_, § 94.
Since we know that it is handed down in the canonical discipline in the
Roman Church that those who are about to be deemed worthy of ordination to
the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to live maritally
with their wives, we, pursuing the ancient rule of apostolic discipline
and order, will that henceforth the lawful marriage of men in holy orders
remain firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives, nor
depriving them of intercourse with each other at a convenient season.…
Therefore, if any one shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons,
to deprive any one in holy orders, that is, any presbyter, deacon, or
subdeacon, of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him
be deposed; likewise also if any presbyter or deacon, on pretence of
piety, puts away his wife, let him be excluded from communion; but if he
persists let him be deposed.
Canon 36. _On the Rank of the Patriarchal Sees._
Rome always rejected the claim of Constantinople to rank as
second. _Cf._ Leo’s opinion, _v. supra_, § 87.
Renewing the enactments of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled in
the God-preserved and imperial city, and the six hundred and thirty
assembled at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall
enjoy equal privilege with the see of Old Rome, and in ecclesiastical
matters shall be as highly regarded as that is, and second after it. And
after this [Constantinople] shall be ranked the see of the great city of
Alexandria, and after that the see of Antioch, and after that the see of
Jerusalem.
Canon 37. _On Bishops of Sees among Infidels._
This canon is cited here, though not entering into the controversy
between the East and the West, because it is significant of the
changed position of the Eastern Church at this time, due to the
Moslem and other conquests. The Monophysite bishops in Egypt and
Syria were not molested by the Moslems. This canon marks the
beginning of the practice of ordaining bishops _in partibus
infidelium_.
Since at different times there have been invasions of the barbarians, and
consequently very many cities have come into the possession of the
infidels, so that as a consequence the prelate of a city may not be able,
after he has been ordained, to take possession of his see and to be
settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to perform and manage, according
to custom, the ordinations and all other things which appertain to the
bishop; we, preserving the honor and veneration of the priesthood, and in
nowise wishing to make use of the heathen injury to the ruin of
ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that they who have been thus ordained,
and for the aforesaid causes have not settled in their sees, may be kept
from any prejudice from this thing, so that they may canonically perform
the ordination of the different clerics and use the authority of their
offices according to proper limits, and that whatever administration
proceeds from them may be valid and legitimate. For the exercise of his
office shall not be circumscribed by reason of necessity, when the exact
observance of the law is circumscribed.
Canon 55. _On Fasts in Lent._
As stated in the canon, this enactment is aimed at the Roman
usage, and refers to the 64th Apostolic Canon, which Rome
rejected. For the Apostolic Canons, see ANF, VII, 504.
Since we have learned that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of
Lent, they fast on the Sabbaths(310) contrary to the traditional
ecclesiastical observance, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in
the Church of the Romans the canons shall be in force without wavering
which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on Sunday or on the
Sabbath except on one occasion only,(311) he shall be deposed; and if a
layman he shall be excommunicated.
Canon 67. _On Eating Blood._
This canon is less distinctly aimed at Rome. In the West the
prohibition against eating blood seems to have been little
observed, as it had been given another interpretation. At the time
of the Second Trullan Council the practice was very common.
Augustine, it might be said, did not consider the apostolic
command as binding except in the special circumstance in which it
was issued. _Cf._ Augustine, _Contra Faustum_, 32:13.
The divine Scriptures command us to abstain from blood, from things
strangled, and from fornication. Those, therefore, who, on account of a
dainty stomach, prepare by any art for food the blood of animals and so
eat it, we punish suitably. If any one henceforth venture to eat in any
way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman let him be deposed; if a
layman, let him be excommunicated.
Canon 82. _On Pictures of the Lamb of God._
The custom which is here condemned was prevalent in the West.
In some pictures of the holy icons, a lamb is painted to which the
Forerunner(312) points his finger, and this is received to serve as a type
of grace, indicating beforehand through the Law our true lamb, Christ our
God. Embracing therefore the ancient types and shadows as symbols and
patterns of the truth, which have been given to the Church, we prefer
“grace and truth,” receiving it as the fulfilment of the Law. In order,
therefore, that what is perfect may be delineated to the eyes of all, at
least in colored expression, we decree that the figure of the lamb who
taketh away the sin of the world, Christ our God, be henceforth exhibited
according to human form in the icons, instead of the ancient lamb, so that
all may understand, by means of it, the depth of the humiliation of the
Word of God, and that we may recall to our memory His life in the flesh,
His passion and salutary death, and the redemption resulting therefrom for
the whole world.
(_b_) _Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum_, n. 58.
Notification to the Emperor of an Election of a Pontiff.
The _Liber Diurnus_ was the book of official formulæ used on
occasions such as elections of pontiffs and the conferring of the
pallium. It was composed between 685 and 751, and was employed in
the papal chancellery down to the eleventh century, when it became
antiquated on account of the changes in the position of the popes.
The modern editions of the book are by Rozière, Paris, 1869, and
by Sickel, Vienna, 1889. The text may be found in Mirbt, n. 195,
where may also be found numerous other useful extracts.
Although it has not been without the merciful divine ordering that, after
the death of the supreme pontiff, the votes of all should agree in the
election of one, and that there be perfect harmony so that no one at all
is to be found who would oppose it, it is yet necessary that we ought
obediently to pour forth the prayers of our petitions to our most serene
and most pious lord, who is known to rejoice in the concord of his
subjects, and graciously to grant what has been asked by them in
unanimity. And so when our Pope (_name_) of most blessed memory died, the
assent of all was given, by the will of God, to the election of (_name_),
the venerable archdeacon of the Apostolic See, because from the beginning
of his life he had so served the same church, and in all things shown
himself so able that he ought deservedly to be placed, with the divine
approval, over the ecclesiastical government, especially since by his
constant association with the aforesaid most blessed pontiff (_name_), he
has been able to attain to the same distinctions of so great merit, by
which the same prelate of holy memory is known to have been adorned, who
by his words always stirred up his mind, being desirous of heavenly joys,
so that whatsoever good we have lost in his predecessor we are confident
that we have certainly found in him. Therefore, in tears, all we your
servants pray that the piety of the lords may deign to hear the
supplication of their servants, and the desires of their petitioners may
be granted by the command of their piety, for the benefit of the Empire,
that command may be given for his ordination; so that when we have been
placed by your sacred and exalted clemency under him as our pastor, we may
always pray for the life and empire of our most serene lords to the Lord
Almighty and to the blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, to whose church
it has been granted that a worthy ruler be ordained.
Subscription of the priests.
I (_name_), by the mercy of God, presbyter of the holy Roman Church,
consenting to this action made by us in regard to (_name_), the venerable
archdeacon of the holy Apostolic See and our elected Pope, have
subscribed.
Subscription of the laity.
I (_name_), servant of your piety, consenting to this action drawn up by
us in regard to (_name_), the venerable archdeacon of the holy Apostolic
See and our elected Pope, have subscribed.
(_c_) _Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum_, ch. 60.
Notification of the Election of a Pontiff to the Exarch of
Ravenna.
The text may be found in part in Mirbt, _loc. cit._
To the most excellent and exalted lord, graciously to be preserved to us
for a long life in his princely office (_name_), exarch of Italy, the
priests, deacons, and all the clergy of Rome, the magistrates, the army,
and the people of this city of Rome as suppliants send greeting.
Providence is able to give aid in human affairs and to change the weeping
and groaning of the sorrowing into rejoicing.…
Inasmuch as (_name_), of pontifical memory, has been called from present
cares to eternal rest, as is the lot of mortals, a great load of sorrow
oppressed us, for as guardians we were deprived of our own guardian. But
the accustomed kindness of our God did not permit us to remain long in
this affliction because we hoped in Him. For after we had humbly spent
three days in prayer that the heavenly kindness might, for the merits of
all, make known whom as worthy it commanded to be elected to succeed to
the apostolic office, with the aid of His grace which inspired the minds
of all; and after we had assembled as is customary, that is, the clergy
and the people of Rome with the presence of the nobility and the army,
from the least to the greatest, so to speak; and the election, with the
help of God and the aid of the holy Apostles, fell upon the person of
(_name_), the most holy archdeacon of this holy Apostolic See of the Roman
Church. The good and chaste life of this man, beloved of God, was in the
opinion of all so deserving that none opposed his election, no one was
absent, and none dissented from it. For why should not men agree
unanimously upon him whom the incomparable and unfailing providence of our
God had foreordained to this office? For without doubt this had been
determined upon in the presence of God. So solemnly performing his decrees
and confirming with our signatures the desires of hearts concerning his
election, we have sent you our fellow-servants as the bearers of this
letter (_names_), most holy bishop (_name_), venerable presbyter (_name_),
regionary notary (_name_), regionary subdeacons (_names_), honorable
citizens, and from the most flourishing and successful Roman army
(_name_), most eminent consul, and (_names_) chief men, tribunes of the
army, begging and praying together that your excellency, whom may God
preserve, may with your accustomed goodness agree with our pious choice;
because he, who has been unanimously elected by our humility, is such that
so far as human discernment is able to see, no spot of reproach appears in
him. And therefore we beg and beseech you, by God’s inspiration, to grant
our petition quickly, because there are many questions and other matters
arising daily which require for remedy the care of pontifical favor. And
the affairs of the province and the need of causes connected therewith
also seek and await the control of due authority. Besides we need some one
to keep the neighboring enemy in check, which can only be done by the
power of God, and of the Prince of the Apostles through his vicar, the
bishop of Rome; since it is well known that at various times the bishop of
Rome has driven off enemies by his warnings, and at other times he has
turned aside and restrained them by his prayers; so that by his words
alone, on account of their reverence for the Prince of the Apostles, they
have offered voluntary obedience, and thus they, whom the force of arms
had not overcome, have yielded to the warnings and prayers of the Pope.
Since these things are so, we again and again beseech you, our exalted
lord, preserved by God, that, with the aid and inspiration of God in your
heart, you may quickly give orders to adorn the Apostolic See by the
completed ordination of the same, our father. And we, your humble
servants, on seeing our desires fulfilled, may then give unceasing thanks
to God and to you, and with our spiritual pastor, our bishop, enthroned in
the Apostolic Seat, we may pour out prayers for the life and health and
complete victories of our most exalted and Christian lords (_names_), the
great and victorious emperors, that the merciful God may give manifold
victories to their royal courage, and cause them to triumph over all
peoples, and that God may give them joy of heart, because the ancient rule
of Rome has been restored. For we know that he whom we have elected Pope
can, with his prayers, influence the divine omnipotence; and he has
prepared a joyful increase for the Roman Empire, and he will aid you in
this, in the government of this province of Italy, which is subject to
you, and will aid and protect all of us, your servants, through many
years.
Subscription of the priests.
I, (_name_), the humble archpriest of the holy Roman Church, have with
full consent subscribed to this document which we have made concerning
(_name_), most holy archdeacon, our bishop elect.
And the subscription of the laity.
I, (_name_), in the name of God, consul, have with full consent subscribed
to this document which we have made concerning (_name_), most holy
archdeacon, our bishop-elect.
(_d_) Paulus Diaconus, _Hist. Langobardorum_, IV, 44. (MSL, 95:581.)
Agilulf may have been a convert to the Catholic faith, _v. supra_,
§ 99. His successors were not. In fact, not until 653, when
Aribert, the nephew of Theodelinda, ascended the throne, were the
Lombards permanently under Catholic rulers.
44. After Ariwald (626-636) had reigned twelve years over the Lombards he
departed this life, and Rothari of the family of Arodus took the kingdom
of the Lombards. He was a strong, brave man, and walked in the paths of
justice; in Christian faith, however, he did not hold to the right way,
but was polluted by the unbelief of the Arian heresy. The Arians say, to
their confusion, that the Son is inferior to the Father and, in the same
way, the Holy Ghost is inferior to the Father and the Son; we, Catholic
Christians, on the contrary, confess that the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost are one true God in three persons, equal in power and glory. In
the times of Rothari there were in nearly all the cities of his kingdom
two bishops, a Catholic and an Arian.
To this very day there is shown in the city of Ticinus [Pavia] the place
where the Arian bishop resided, at the church of St. Eusebius, and held
the baptistery while the Catholic bishop was at the head of another
church. The Arian bishop, however, who was in this city, whose name was
Anastasius, accepted the Catholic faith and afterward ruled the Church of
Christ. This king Rothari caused the laws of the Lombards to be reduced to
writing and named the book _The Edict_; the law of the Lombards up to that
time had been retained merely in memory and by their use in the courts.
This took place, as the king in the preface to his law-book says, in the
seventy-seventh year(313) after the Lombards came into Italy.
§ 109. Rome, Constantinople, and the Lombards in the Period of the First
Iconoclastic Controversy; the Seventh General Council, Nicæa, A. D. 787
By the eight century the veneration of pictures or icons had become
wide-spread throughout the Eastern Church. Apart from their due place in
the cultus, grave abuses and superstitions had arisen in many parts of the
Church in connection with the icons. To Leo III the Isaurian (717-741),
and to the army, the veneration of the icons, as practised by the
populace, and especially by the monks, seemed but little removed from the
grossest idolatry. Accordingly, in an edict issued in 726, Leo attempted
to put an end to the abuses by preventing all veneration of the icons.
Meeting with opposition, his measures passed from moderate to severe. In
Italy, although the use of icons was not developed to the same extent as
in the East, sympathy was entirely against the Iconoclasts. Gregory II
(715-731) and Gregory III (731-741) bitterly reproached and denounced the
action of the Emperor. Nearly all the exarchate willingly passed under the
power of the Lombards. Other parts of northern Italy also broke with the
Emperor. Leo retaliated by annexing Illyricum to the see of Constantinople
and confiscating the papal revenues in southern Italy. From that time the
connection between the Pope and the Emperor was very slight. The Emperor
Constantine V Copronymus (741-775) was more severe than his father, and in
many respects even fiercely brutal in his treatment of the monks. A synod
was assembled at Constantinople, 754, attended by three hundred and
thirty-eight bishops, who, as was customary in Eastern synods, supported
the Emperor. His son, Leo IV Chazarus (775-780) was less energetic and
disposed to tolerate the use of icons in private. But his widow, Irene,
the guardian of her infant son, Constantine VI, was determined to restore
the images or icons. A synod held at Constantinople in 786 was broken up
by the soldiery of the capital. In 787 at Nicæa, a council was called at a
safe distance and Iconoclasm was condemned.
Additional source material: _St. John Damascene on Holy Images_,
Eng. trans. by Mary H. Allies, 1898; St. John of Damascus,
_Exposition of the Orthodox Faith_, PNF, ser. II, vol. IX;
Percival, _Seven Ecumenical Councils_ (PNF).
(_a_) _Liber Pontificalis, Vita Gregorii_ II. Ed. Duchesne, I, 403.
Disorders in Italy consequent upon Iconoclasm.
The following passage from the _Liber Pontificalis_ gives a vivid
and, on the whole, accurate picture of the confusion in Italy
during the last years of the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire
in the peninsula. It is hardly likely that the Emperor ordered the
death of the pontiff as recorded, and more probable that his
over-officious representatives regarded it as a means of
ingratiating themselves with their master. The passage is strictly
contemporaneous, as the _Liber Pontificalis_, at least in this
part, is composed of brief biographies of Popes written
immediately after their decease and in some instances during their
lives. For a fuller statement of the whole period, see Hefele, §§
332 _ff._, who gives an abstract of the following and also of two
letters alleged to have been written by Gregory II to the Emperor,
which Hefele accepts as genuine. For a criticism of these letters,
see Hodgkin, _op. cit._, VI, 501-505. Hodgkin gives an excellent
account of King Liutprand in ch. XII of the same volume, pp.
437-508, and throws much light on the following passage.
For the events immediately preceding this, see Paulus Diaconus,
_Hist. Langobardorum_, VI, 46-48, given above in § 106. Paulus
refers to the capture of Narnia in the last sentence of ch. 48.
and his next chapter is apparently a condensation of the following
sections of the official papal biography.
At that time [_circa_ A. D. 725] Narnia(314) was taken by the Lombards.
And Liutprand, the king of the Lombards, advanced upon Ravenna with his
entire army, and besieged it for some days. Taking the fortress of
Classis, he bore off many captives and immense booty. After some time the
duke Basilius, the chartularius Jordanes, and the subdeacon John, surnamed
Lurion, conspired to kill the Pope; and Marinus, the imperial spatarius,
who at that time held the government of the duchy of Rome, having been
sent by the command of the Emperor to the royal city, joined their
conspiracy. But they could not find an opportunity. The plot was broken up
by the judgment of God, and he therefore left Rome. Later Paulus, the
patrician, was sent as exarch to Italy, who planned how at length he might
accomplish the crime; but their plans were disclosed to the Romans, These
were so enraged that they killed Jordanes and John Lurion. Basilius,
however, became a monk and ended his life hidden in a certain place. But
the exarch Paulus, on the command of the Emperor, tried to kill the
pontiff because he hindered the levying of a tax upon the province,
intending to strip the churches of their property, as was done in other
places, and to appoint another [Pope] in his place. After this another
spatarius was sent with commands to remove the pontiff from his seat. Then
again the patrician Paulus sent, for the accomplishment of this crime,
such soldiers as he could withdraw from Ravenna, with his guard and some
from the camps. But the Romans were aroused, and from all sides the
Lombards gathered for the defence of the pontiff at the bridge of Solario,
in the district of Spoleto, and the dukes of the Lombards, surrounding the
Roman territories, prevented this crime.
In a decree afterward sent, the Emperor ordered that there no longer
should be in any church an image(315) of any saint, or martyr, or angel
(for he said that all these were accursed); and if the pontiff assented he
should enjoy his favor, but if he prevented the accomplishment of this
also he should fall from his position. The pious man, despising therefore
the profane command of the prince, armed himself against the Emperor as
against an enemy, rejecting this heresy and writing everywhere to warn
Christians of the impiety which had arisen.
Aroused by this, the inhabitants of the Pentapolis(316) and the armies of
Venetia resisted the command of the Emperor, saying that they would never
assent to the murder of the pontiff, but on the contrary would strive
manfully for his defence. They anathematized the exarch Paulus, him who
had sent him, and those who sided with him, refusing to obey them; and
throughout Italy all chose leaders(317) for themselves, so eager were all
concerning the pontiff and his safety. When the iniquities of the Emperor
were known, all Italy started to choose for itself an emperor and conduct
him to Constantinople, but the pontiff prevented this plan, hoping for the
conversion of the prince.
Meanwhile, in those days, the duke Exhiliratus,(318) deceived by the
instigation of the devil, with his son Adrian, occupied parts of Campania,
persuading the people to obey the Emperor and kill the pontiff. Then all
the Romans pursued after him, took him, and killed both him and his son.
After this they chased away the duke Peter [governor of Rome under the
Emperor], saying that he had written against the pontiff to the Emperor.
When, therefore, a dissension arose in and about Ravenna, some consenting
to the wickedness of the Emperor and some holding to the pontiff and those
faithful to him, a great fight took place between them and they killed the
patrician Paulus [exarch at that time]. And the cities of Castra Æmilia,
Ferrorianus, Montebelli, Verabulum, with its towns, Buxo, Persiceta, the
Pentapolis, and Auximanum, surrendered to the Lombards.(319) After this
the Emperor sent to Naples Eutychius Fratricius, the eunuch, who had
formerly been exarch, to accomplish what the exarch Paulus, the spatarii,
and the other evil counsellors had been unable to do. But by God’s
ordering his miserable craft was not so hidden but that his most wicked
plot was disclosed to all, that he would attempt to violate the churches
of Christ, to destroy all, and to take away the property of all. When he
had sent one of his own men to Rome with written instructions, among other
things, that the pontiff should be killed, together with the chief men of
Rome, this most bloody outrage was discovered, and the Romans would at
once have killed the messenger of the patrician if the opposition of the
Pope had not prevented them. But they anathematized the same exarch
Eutychius, binding themselves, great and small, by an oath, never to
permit the pontiff, the zealous guardian of the Christian faith and the
defender of the churches, to be killed or removed, but to be ready all to
die for his safety. Thereupon the patrician [Eutychius], promising many
gifts to the dukes and to the king of the Lombards, attempted to persuade
them by his messengers to abandon the support of the pontiff. But they
despised the man’s detestable wiles contained in his letters; and the
Romans and the Lombards bound themselves as brothers in the bond of faith,
all desiring to suffer a glorious death for the pontiff, and never to
permit him to receive any harm, contending for the true faith and the
salvation of Christians. While they were doing this that father chose, as
a stronger protection, to distribute with his own hand such alms to the
poor as he found; giving himself to prayers and fastings, he besought the
Lord daily with litanies, and he remained always more supported by this
hope than by men; however, he thanked the people for their offer, and with
gentle words he besought all to serve God with good deeds and to remain
steadfast in the faith; and he admonished them not to renounce their love
and fidelity to the Roman Emperor.
At that time in the eleventh indiction,(320) the castle of Sutri was taken
by the Lombards by craft, and was held by them for a period of forty
days,(321) but urged by the constant letters of the pontiff and warnings
sent to the king, when very many gifts had been made, as a gift at least
for all the towns, the king of the Lombards restored them and gave them as
a donation to the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. At the same time,
in the twelfth indiction [A. D. 729], in the month of January, for ten
days and more, a star, called Gold-bearing,(322) with rays, appeared in
the west. Its rays were toward the north and reached to the midst of the
heavens. At that time, also, the patrician Eutychius and King Liutprand
made a most wicked agreement, that when an army had been gathered the king
should subject Spoleto and Beneventum,(323) and the exarch of Rome, and
they should carry out what was already commanded concerning the pontiff.
When the king came to Spoleto, oaths and hostages were received from both
[_i.e._, the dukes of Spoleto and Beneventum], and he came with all his
troops to the Campus Neronis.(324) The pontiff went forth and presented
himself before him and endeavored to the extent of his ability to soften
the mind of the king by pious warnings, so that the king threw himself at
his feet and promised to harm no one; and he was so moved to compunction
by the pious warnings that he abandoned his undertaking and laid on the
grave of the Apostle his mantle, his military cloak, his sword belt, his
short two-edged sword, and his golden sword, as well as a golden crown and
a silver cross. After prayer he besought the pontiff to consent to make
peace with the exarch, which also was done. So he departed, for the king
forsook the bad designs with which he had entered into the plot with the
exarch. While the exarch remained in Rome, there came into Tuscany to
Castrum Maturianense,(325) a certain deceiver, Tiberius by name, called
also Petasius,(326) who attempted to usurp the rule of the Roman Empire
and deceived some of the less important, so that Maturianum, Luna, and
Blera [Bieda] took oath to him. The exarch, hearing of this, was troubled,
but the most holy Pope supported him, and, sending with him his chief men
and an army, he advanced and came to Castrum Maturianense. Petasius was
killed, his head was cut off and sent to Constantinople, to the prince;
nevertheless the Emperor showed no great favor to the Romans.
After these things the malice of the Emperor became evident, on account of
which he had persecuted the pontiff. For he compelled all the inhabitants
of Constantinople, by force and persuasion, to displace the images of the
Saviour as well as of His holy mother, and of all saints, wherever they
were, and (what is horrible to tell) to burn them in the fire in the
middle of the city, and to whitewash all the painted churches. Because
very many of the people of the city withstood the commission of such an
enormity, they were subjected to punishment; some were beheaded, others
lost a part of their body. For this reason also, because Germanus, the
prelate of the church of Constantinople, was unwilling to consent to this,
the Emperor deprived him of his pontifical position, and appointed in his
place the presbyter Anastasius, an accomplice. Anastasius sent to the Pope
a synodical letter, but when that holy man saw that he held the same
error, he did not regard him as brother and fellow-priest, but wrote him
warning letters, commanding him to be put out of his sacerdotal office
unless he returned to the Catholic faith. He also charged the Emperor,
urging wholesome advice, that he should desist from such execrable
wickedness, and he warned him by letter.(327)
(_b_) John of Damascus, _De Fide Orthodoxa_, IV, 16. (MSG, 94:1168.)
John of Damascus (_ob. ante_ 754) was the last of the Church
Fathers of the East. He became the classical representative of the
theology of the Eastern Church, and his system forms the
conclusion and summing up of the results of all the great
controversies that had distracted that part of the Church. His
greatest work, _De Fide Orthodoxa_, may be found translated in
PNF. In the following chapter John sums up briefly the arguments
which he uses in his three orations _In Defence of Images_ (to be
found in MSG, 94:1227 _ff._; for translation see head of section).
By images one should understand pictures rather than statues. The
latter were never common and fell entirely out of use and were
forbidden. They seemed too closely akin to idols. In the
translation, the phrase “to show reverence” is the equivalent of
the Greek προσκυνέω.
Since some find fault with us for showing reverence and honoring the image
of our Saviour and that of our Lady, and also of the rest of the saints
and servants of Christ, let them hear that from the beginning God made man
after His own image. On what other grounds, then, do we show reverence to
each other than that we are made after God’s image? For as Basil, that
most learned expounder of divine things, says: “The honor given to the
image passes over to the prototype.”(328) Now a prototype is that which is
imaged, from which the form is derived. Why was it that the Mosaic people
showed reverence round about the tabernacle which bore an image and type
of heavenly things, or rather the whole creation? God, indeed, said to
Moses: “Look that thou make all things after the pattern which was shewed
thee in the mount” [Ex. 33:10]. The Cherubim, also, which overshadowed the
mercy-seat, are they not the work of men’s hands? What is the renowned
temple at Jerusalem? Is it not made by hands and fashioned by the skill of
men? The divine Scriptures, however, blame those who show reverence to
graven images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks
sacrificed and the Jews also sacrificed; but the Greeks to demons; the
Jews, however, to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and
condemned, but the sacrifice of the just was acceptable to God. For Noah
sacrificed, and God smelled a sweet savor of a good purpose, receiving,
also, the fragrance of a good-will toward Him. And so the graven images of
the Greeks, since they were the images of demon deities, were rejected and
forbidden.
But besides this, who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal,
uncircumscribed, and formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is
the height of folly and impiety. And therefore in the Old Testament the
use of images was repressed. But after God, in the bowels of His mercy,
became for our salvation in truth man, not as He was seen by Abraham in
the semblance of a man, or by the prophets, but He became in truth man,
according to substance, and after He lived upon earth and dwelt among men,
worked miracles, suffered, and was crucified, He rose again, and was
received up into heaven; since all these things actually took place and
were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of
us who were not present at that time, in order that, though we saw not, we
may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But
since all have not a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, it
appeared good to the Fathers that those events, as acts of heroism, should
be depicted on images(329) to be a brief memorial of them. Often,
doubtless, when we have not the Lord’s passion in mind and see the image
of Christ’s crucifixion, we remember the passion and we fall down and show
reverence not to the material but to that which is imaged; just as we do
not show reverence to the material of the Gospel, nor to the material of
the cross, but that which these typify.(330) For wherein does the cross
that typifies the Lord differ from a cross that does not do so? It is the
same also as to the case of the Mother of God.(331) For the honor which is
given her is referred to Him who was incarnate of her. And similarly also
the brave acts of holy men stir us to bravery and to emulation and
imitation of their valor and to the glory of God. For, as we said, the
honor that is given to the best of fellow servants is a proof of good-will
toward our common lady, and the honor rendered the image passes over to
the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also to show
reverence toward the East and to the cross, and very many similar
things.(332)
A certain tale is told also that when Augarus [_i.e._, Abgarus] was king
over the city of the Edessenes, he sent a portrait-painter to paint a
likeness of the Lord; and when the painter could not paint because of the
brightness that shone from His countenance, the Lord himself put a garment
over His divine and life-giving face and impressed on it an image of
Himself, and sent this to Augarus to satisfy in this way his desire.
Moreover, that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul the
Apostle of the Gentiles writes: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold
the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by
epistles [II Thess. 2:14]. And to the Corinthians he writes: Now I praise
you, brethren, that ye remembered me in all things and keep the traditions
as I have delivered them to you [I Cor. 2:2].
(_c_) Basil the Great, _De Spiritu Sancto_, ch. 18. (MSG, 32:149.)
Basil is speaking of the three persons of the Trinity, and says
that although we speak of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we must
not count up “by way of addition gradually increasing from unity
to multitude,” but that number must be understood otherwise in
speaking of the three divine persons.
How then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a
king and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The power is not
parted nor the glory divided. The power ruling over us is one, and the
authority one, and so also the doxology ascribed by us is one and not
plural; because the honor paid to the image passes over to the prototype.
Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the
other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is
dependent upon the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded
nature the union consists in the communion of the godhead.
(_d_) The Seventh General Council, Nicæa, A. D. 787, _Definition of
Faith_. Mansi, XIII, 398 _ff._
In addition to Hefele, and PNF, ser. II. vol. XIV, see Mendham,
_The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicæa, in which the
Worship of Images was Established; with copious notes from the
__“__Caroline Books,__”__ compiled by order of Charlemagne for its
Confutation_, London, n. d.
The holy, great and ecumenical synod which, by the grace of God and the
command of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine, and Irene
his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nicæa, the
illustrious metropolis of the eparchy of Bithynia, in the holy Church of
God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic
Church, hath defined as follows:
Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of
Himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness,
having espoused to Himself His holy Catholic Church without spot or
defect, promised that He would so preserve her; and assured His holy
disciples, saying, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”
[Matt. 28:20], which promise He made, not only to them, but to us also who
through them should believe in His name. But some, not considering this
gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy,
have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the tradition of
the Catholic Church, they have erred from the knowledge of the truth, and
as the proverb saith: “The husbandmen have gone astray in their own
husbandry, and have gathered in their hands sterility,” because certain
priests in deed, but not priests in reality, had dared to slander the
God-approved ornaments of the sacred monuments. Of whom God cries aloud
through the prophet: “Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have
polluted my portion” [Jer. 12:10; _cf._ LXX]. And, forsooth, following
profane men, trusting to their own senses, they have calumniated His holy
Church espoused to Christ our God, and have not distinguished between holy
and profane, styling the images of the Lord and of His saints by the same
name as the statute of diabolical idols. Seeing which things, our Lord God
(not willing to behold His people corrupted by such manner of plague) hath
of His good pleasure called us together, the chief of His priests, from
every quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of
our Emperors, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the divine tradition
of the Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree.
Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and
investigation, and following the trend of the truth, diminishing naught,
adding naught, we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the
Catholic Church, and following the six ecumenical synods, especially that
which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nicæa, as also that which was
afterward gathered together in the God-preserved royal city.
We believe in one God … life of the world to come. Amen.(333)
We detest and anathematize Arius and all who agree with him and share his
absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who, following him, are well
styled foes of the Spirit.(334) We confess that our lady, St. Mary, is
properly and truly the Theotokos, because she bore, after the flesh, one
of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has
already defined, when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with
his allies, because he introduced a personal [προσωπικὴν] duality [in
Christ]. With the Fathers of this synod we confess the two natures of Him
who was incarnate for us of the immaculate Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary,
recognizing Him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of
Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium as
blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscurus; and placing with them Severus, Peter,
and a number of others blaspheming in divers fashions. Moreover, with
these we anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in
accordance with the decision of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople.
We affirm that in Christ there are two wills and operations according to
the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Council held at
Constantinople taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus,
Macarius, and those who are unwilling to be reverent and who agree with
these.
To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical
traditions handed down to us, written or unwritten, and of these one is
the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the
preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but
especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown
forth as real and not merely fantastic, for these have mutual indications,
and without doubt have also mutual significations.