« PoprzedniaDalej »
of Antioch the supremacy (if it deserve the name) which consists in being able to have a cause re-heard by the bishops, (which, by the way, is all that the articles of Clarendon (8th) all that the 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, and all that the Reformalio Legum Ecclesiasticarum under Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth claimed for the king of England), than the bishop of Rome can cite these doubtful, or rather utterly spurious canons of Sardica, as a ground for bis monstrous usurpations. The African canon at the synod of Milevi, A.D. 416, before the dispute with Boniface and Celestine above referred to, may serve still more clearly to show the utter invalidity of the alleged canons of Sardica. Canon 22. “Let no one who shall think fit to make appeals to parts beyond sea, be received into communion by any one in Africa.” (See Johnson's Vade Mecum, ii. 163. Collier's Eccles. Hist. i. 30, &c. Beveridge's Pandect. ii. 199. Labbé and Cossart, ii. 1674. Conc. Sardic. Can. 3.)
Note (D), PAGE 10.
Athanasius in his Second Apology against the Arians, and in his Epistle, Ad Solitariam Vilam agentes, cited by Collier.
Note (E), Page 10. Sulpitii Severi, Hist. Sacr. lib. ii. cited by Collier, Eccles. Hist. i. 37.
Note (F), PAGE 10.
Although this council was composed of no more than 150 bishops, though all these bishops were from the East, though neither the bishop of Rome nor any representative of his was present at the council, much less presided at it, (see the notes of Binius in Labbé and Cossart, ii. 968,) yet has it been acknowledged by the whole Church as a general council. Nothing can show more indisputably that the claim of a council to the cha
racter and authority of an æcumenical one, is not to be determined by the number of bishops, nor of the countries they represent; nor by the authority of the president; but solely by the ex post facto testimony borne to it by the Church throughout the world, in the reception of its decrees. It is not irrelevant to the present purpose to observe that when in the following year the bishop of Rome desired to have a general council assembled at Rome, (concilium generale Romæ celebrandum indixit,) and by letters transmitted through the Emperor, invited the oriental bishops to attend, they civilly declined the invitation, and instead of attending, re-assembled at Constantinople, and sent him a synodical letter, in which they give him information of what had been done by them in the preceding year. (See Labbé and Cossart, ii. 1013 and 960.) Thus a synod convened by the bishop of Rome, and intended by him to be general, fell to the ground and is made no account of; while one at which he had not even a representative, and of the acts of which he appears to have had no official information till a year after it had taken place, was acknowledged by him as general, and has ever been so esteemed throughout the whole Church. It is a pity, for the present claims of the bishop of Rome, that Damasus did not excommunicate the eastern bishops for their independence, instead of confirming the decree of their council.
Note (G), PAGE 10.
So Socrates mentions in his Ecclesiastical History, v. 8. After these things the Emperor, without any delay, convokes a council of the bishops of his own faith. Sozomen repeats the same account (vii. 7.), and Theodoret (v. 7.), nor do any of these make the slightest allusion to any interference of the bishop of Rome: and what is still more remarkable, in the synodical epistle of the council to Theodosius, they ascribe the whole merit of convoking the council to him, without the slightest allusion to the bishop of Rome. (Labbé and Cossart, ii. 974.) And yet the Roman writers do not scruple to say that it was assembled
"auctoritate Damasi papæ and Theodosii senioris favore.” (Labbé and Cossart, ii. 965.) Whereas the utmost that Damasus had to do with it was that he joined with the bishops at the synod of Aquileia, in requesting the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to put a check upon some heresies. Compare the letter of the Aquileian Synod, Labbé and Cossart, ii. 993, with the allusion to it by the bishops at Constantinople in their letter to Damasus and the other Western bishops, as given in Theodoret, v. 9.
Note (H), PAGE 11. Strange as it may appear, the Roman writers who believe the bishops at this council to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, in their exposition of the creed, and their condemnation of heresies, suppose that He had deserted them, when at the self-same time and place, these self-same men enacted certain canons, which accordingly were not received by the Church of Rome. This is, indeed, to play fast and loose with inspiration. At the same time, to do them justice, they honestly admit that the chief cause of the rejection was the honour which in one of these canons was given to the bishop of Constantinople. (Labbé and Cossart, ii. 918.) And yet in the fifth canon of the fourth Lateran, which they receive as general and inspired, this honour to the See of Constantinople, which they before held sufficient to invalidate all the canons of Constantinople, is acknowledged, received, and confirmed. Out of such contradictions and absurdities have the Romans to extricate themselves in their vain attempt to make the records of the Church square with the new and heretical position which they have advanced.
Note (1), PAGE 11. The copy cited by Jeremy, patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 1576, omits the word, “ Lord and giver of life," in the article concerning the Holy Ghost. Likewise the words, “ God of God," in the article concerning the Son, are not to be found in many copies. “ Light of Light” is also wanting in some. Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. ii. 454.
Note (K), PAGE 11.
So Socrates expressly asserts (Hist. vii. 34); and Evagrius (Hist. i. 3). The Roman writers, however, state it to have been by the authority of the bishop of Rome (Labbé and Cossart, iii. 1241). There is nothing in his letter to the synod (ibid. iii. 614), to warrant the assertion.
Note (1), PAGE 12. Gregory (Lib. vi. Ep. 31. Ind. 15).
Note (m), PAGE 14. · These canons were passed on the twelfth day of the council ; the first twenty-seven in the presence and with the approbation of the Roman legates, the three last by the other bishops, after the Roman legates had left the assembly. On the following day the Roman legates remonstrated against this proceeding, and appealed to the Judges whom the Emperor had appointed as moderators of the synod, alleging that fraud and force had been used in obtaining subscriptions to them. This was denied by the bishops who had subscribed them, and in the full synod these canons were confirmed, under remonstrance from the two Roman legates. For the reason of the objection of the Roman legates, and the force of it, see the note on the canon itself. Labbé and Cossart, iv. 791—819.
Note (N), Page 16.
The express ratification of this sentence, which was required of the Roman Pontiffs on their appointnient, as appears from the
Liber Diurnus, published by Garner the Jesuit, is worthy of notice. It is as follows, speaking of the Fathers in the sixth council, “ Autores vero novi hæretici dogmatis Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, et Petrum, Constantinopolitanos, una cum Honorio, qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit ; pariterque et Theodorum ..... cum omnibus hæreticis scriptis atque sequacibus nexu perpetua anathematis devinxerunt. ... Propterea quosquos vel quæque sancta sex universalia Concilia abjecerunt, simili etiam nos condemnatione percellimus anathematis.” Reprinted from Garner's edition, Paris, 1680; by Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. ii. 501-509.
Note (o), PAGE 17.
Thus the second canon confirms the canon of Cyprian, directing the rebaptization of heretics; it also receives the eighty-five canons of the ante-Nicene code, called “ of the apostles;" whereas Rome, for reasons better known to herself, only receives fifty of them : this canon also, while ratifying the Oriental synods, omits to mention the Western (except Carthage). The 13th is against the Roman custom which forbade presbyters and deacons, to retain their wives. The 36th sets the See of Constantinople on a par with that of Rome. The 55th condemns, on pain of deposition and suspension from communion, the Roman custom of fasting on Saturday.
Note (P), Page 17. This Council, by reason of its being assembled to make good the omission of the fifth and sixth, is called by some the QuinSextine : by others the Trullan, from Trullo, the name given to the building in which it assembled. By some it is called the Sixth General Council; considered as a continuation of the Sixth.