« PoprzedniaDalej »
Canon 49, PAGE 40. I would simply ask whether, if the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the Mass had now obtained, any impartial person can suppose that the sacrifice of the holy eucharist, would have been spoken of as it is here.
Canon 60, PAGE 41. As the Churches of Rome and England are agreed as to the books of the New Testament, there is no need to add the list furnished by this, which is the same as that acknowledged by both churches, except that, like most other lists of this date, it omits Revelations. The words "and Baruch, Lamentations and Epistles," are printed in the text in Italics, because it is doubtful whether they ought to be retained. The copy of the canons used by Aristenus has them not (see Beveridge's Pandect, i. 481.); nor that used by Isidore Mercator (see Labbé and Cossart, i. 1521). It is to be observed, that many copies of these canons omit this list altogether. As that of Dionysius Exiguus (Labbé and Cossart, i. 1515.); of John of Antioch (Bibl. Jur. Can. Paris, 1661. ii. 600); and the Epitome of Symeon (ibid. 731.). It is only of weight to show that, in the opinion of the council (if it be admitted to be genuine), or, at any rate, in that of the interpolator, none of the books which the Romans have added to the Jewish canon of the Old Testament were admitted to be canonical ; with the slight exception (if it be admitted to be an exception) of the Book of Baruch.
Canon 9, Page 42 This is a very remarkable canon, its genuineness is admitted by all; it was passed in the presence and with the approbation of the Roman legates ; nor did the Bishop of Rome offer any objection to it, when it was reported to him. As by Exarch of a
Province is to be understood the Metropolitan, so by Exarch of the Diocese, by which term the ancients designated a patriarchate, is to be understood the Patriarch, and so (as Beveridge points out) Justinian understood the regulation which he re-ordained (Novel. 123. c. 22.), directing that the most blessed Patriarch should judge the cause brought by a Bishop or clergyman against a Metropolitan : so Alexius Aristenus interprets it; and the ancient Latin version in Justel's edition, and that of Dionysius Exiguus, appear to have understood it in the same way: primam sedem, et primalem dioceseos being the terms in which they express it. Balsamon and Zonaras in like manner understood it of the chief ecclesiastical officer in each patriarchate. That by the throne of the Imperial Constantinople” is to be understood the Patriarch of that See, is admitted by all. And the undeniable meaning of the canon is, that from the decision of a Metropolitan and his synod, an appeal lay to the Patriarch of the Patriarchate in which the province was situated, or, if the parties preferred it, directly to the See of Constantinople; which is thus (apparently) by the authority of a general council, vested with greater pre-eminence than any other bishopric has ever received from the same source. Rome had claimed, as we have before seen, the same pre-eminence on the strength of the pretended canon of Sardica, but the claim was indignantly rejected by the African bishops, who denied the existence of any such regulation. The Roman writers make desperate plunges to get out of this difficulty (See Labbé and Cossart, iv. 996.): asserting that by Exarch of the Diocese, must be understood the Prince of Christendom, i. e., as they say the Bishop of Rome : a monstrous, absurd, and groundless interpretation, destitute of all countenance whatever. But even were it so, it is certain he is placed by this canon, but on a par with the Patriarch of Constantinople; it being for the choice of the appealing party to take the appeal either to Rome or Constantinople. I must honestly confess that I suspect that the canon does not mean what it appears to mean on the face of it: knowing the arrogant pretensions of Rome, even at that time, it seems to me unreasonable to suppose that the canon could have passed without the angry remonstrance of the Roman legates, and the still more strenuous opposition of the Bishop of Rome afterwards. I would therefore hazard the conjecture that it had a local and not a general meaning; having reference to the Patriarchates of Heraclea, Cæsarea and Ephesus, which were merged in that of Constantinople, though the chief officers in them still retained a precedency of rank; and that it had no reference to the Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, or any other districts but those above-named. Even admitting this, the total silence as to any appeal to Rome, is conclusive evidence of the usurping character of the Bishop of Rome's claim to any authority in the East. I bave ventured to differ with Johnson (Vade Mecum), in the translation of the last words of the canon, én' avrò èıxašéolw: which he renders, “let it be tried by him." He has countenance for his, from the decree of Justinian above-cited; but no where else. The version of Gentianus Hervetus, used by Routh in his “Opuscula,” gives it apud ipsum ; which, I suppose, is before and not by him. Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore Mercator, and the very ancient version in Justel, render it there : "apud ipsam," Dion. Exiguus ; "ibi,” Isidore Merca. ; "ibi.” Prisca. Canon. Edit. It would, I conceive, have been perfectly new and unheard of in the Christian Church, that a single bishop, of any See in the world, should overrule the decision of a provincial synod. The only tribunal capable of doing this, which the Church had hitherto recognized, was “a greater synod of bishops” (Antioch, Conc. 12.), the same as “ the greater synod of the bishops of the diocese” (patriarchate), (Constantinople. Conc. 6.): and the claim which, on the strength of the pretended Sardican canons, the Bishop of Rome had put forth, was not that he should decide a cause, but merely order it to be reheard (Sardic. Can. 6.) by other bishops : the same power, which, as we have seen, the African Councils allowed to rest with the emperor ; and which the Church of England concedes to the king : and is, after
all, a matter of very trifling importance. All I conceive the canon to mean is, to give the Bishop of Constantinople, throughout the whole of his patriarchate, an equal power with the Bishops of Heraclea, Ephesus, and Cæsarea, (churches of patriarchal rank,) of ordering causes to be reheard. There is, I think, one innovation upon primitive practice in this canon ; I mean where it allows a bishop, instead of hearing a cause himself, to depute it to referees agreed to by both the parties.
Canon 18, PAGE 44.
This canon, though made on the same day, and in the same place as all the foregoing twenty-seven, was not made under the same circumstances. It appears, that after the first twenty-seven had been passed and signed, the representatives of the Bishop of Rome left the assembly ; when the bishops who remained behind, including the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Heraclea, and upwards of twenty Metropolitans, passed and signed this and two others. On the next day, the Roman legates appealed to the lay judges, whom the emperor had appointed Moderators of the Council, alleging " that the canon was passed by fraud, and the signatures obtained by violence.” The bishops who had signed it, individually and collectively declared, that they had signed it willingly and of their own free accord; especially the Bishops of the Pontic and Asiatic Patriarchates, whose privileges seemed mostly affected: and one of them, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorilæum, declared that he had read this canon at Rome to the Pope, in the presence of some of the clergy of Constantinople, and that he had accepted it. The Roman legates persisting in their opposition, it was again put to the vote, and carried by the assent of the whole council, with the exception of the two Roman Bishops. When the matter was reported to the Bishop of Rome, he also refused his consent. The ground alleged by him was simply and solely that it interfered, as he pretended, with the decrees of Nice, respecting the privileges of Alexandria : an allegation without warrant, as any one will see by referring to the canon (6th) of Nice, relating to the matter ; and, be it how it will, this arrangement of precedency was confirmed afterwards by the Council of Lateran with the full consent of the Pope ; as we have before shown in the notes to the Council of Constantinople. However, because of the objection of the Roman legates at the time, and the subsequent rejection by the Bishop of Rome, the Roman writers distinguish between this canon and the preceding; and while they ascribe to the former the authority of a general council, deny that authority to this and the two following, though passed with the full consent of the whole council, with the exception of the two Roman legates. Happily their objection is a matter of very little importance, nay, it has been so far of use, that the two acts of the council, and the accusations of their writers as to the manner in which the canon was passed, have put it entirely out of their power to throw doubt upon the authenticity of the canon. Be it general, or be it provincial, yet this is beyond denial, that we have, so late as the middle of the fifth century, the concurrent testimony of the largest assembly of bishops ever collected together, that the claim for the precedency of the See of Rome in the Christian Church, does not rest on the vain pretence of the Bishop of that See being the chief or sole successor of St. Peter; but simply and solely on this, namely that the city of his bishopric had been the seat of the civil government.
This canon is of importance also as tending to throw light upon the 9th ; supporting, as it seems to me, the conjecture which I there hazarded, that that canon was a local one affecting only the old patriarchates of Cæsarea, Ephesus, and Heraclea (here called the Pontic, Asiatic, and Thracian dioceses, or patriarchates), and not the Christian Church generally. It also removes a difficulty which had occurred to Beveridge (Pandect. ii. 115). For Zonaras and Balsamon, in their notes to the 9th canon, had rendered ččapxov diolchoewç, not the patriarch, but the Metropolitan of the diocese; an unusual phrase, against which Beveridge takes exception (nimirum ac si Metropolila aliquis, præter Patri