Philippicus Bardanes (A. D. 711-713) made an effort to revive the Monothelite heresy; but his successor, Anastasius II., completely suppressed it.

Quite a number continued to exist for several centuries among the inhabitants of Libanus and Antilibanus, under the name of Maronites, from John Maron, who, in the latter part of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century, was both the religious and the political leader of his nation. The correctness of this derivation has, however, often been questioned.1

principibus illibate fine tenus permanet secundum ipsius domini Salvatoris divinam pollicitationem, quam suorum discipulorum principi in sacris evangeliis fatus est." (Luke xxii. 32.) (Luke xxii. 32.) Since this assertion met with no contradiction from the Council, and the papal legates present at the final decree did not enter protest against the anathema, but, on the contrary, subscribed to it, it is urged that it was both pronounced and understood in the sense of reus negligentiae and fautor haereseos. The interpretation of “nunquam,” except once, meaning that no Roman Pontiff ever erred, except Honorius, and he only once (in Ruckgaber, 1. c., p. 16-17), appears to us as strange as some of Pennachi's efforts at interpretation, whom Ruckgaber combats. The second argument in favor of this result is the form of the above decree: Expellimus et anathemati subjicimus Theodorum, Sergium, Paulum, Pyrrhum, etc. : et cum his (praeter hos Honorium quoque Papam veteris Romae. And it is in this form also that the emperor reports to the Pope: Anathematizamus et ejicimus Theodorum-Sergium-: praeterea autem Honorium quoque Papam veteris Romae, whom he, at the same time, calls a favorer, abettor, and fortifier of that heresy, who, he said, contradicted himself (ὁ τῆς αἱρέσεως βεβαιωτὴς καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ προσμαχόμενος). Also, the answer of Pope Leo II. is couched in the same form: Pariter anathematizamus novi erroris inventores: Theodorum,-Cyrum,-Sergium,-Pyrrhum, etc.—nec non et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apestolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, etc., as above. In like manner, the same Pope writes to King Ervig: Et cum eis Honorius Romanus, qui immaculatam apostolicae sedis regulam―maculari consensit. And it is in the same sense that the Seventh and Eighth Ecumenical Councils, as well as Pope Adrian II., repeated the anathema upon Honorius. The many doubts remaining on this controversy are for us effectually cleared up and removed by the above mentioned repeated declaration of the most learned contemporary, Abbot Maximus. Conf. Schneeman, on the Controversy of Honorius, p. 15–20.

1The first who combats this opinion is Faustus Nagronus, dissert. de orig. nom. et religione Maronitarum, Rom. 1679, and in Enoplia, fid. cath. rom. histor. dogm., Rom. 1694. He was opposed by Renaudot, hist. Patriarch. Alex. The arguments of both in Le Quien, Oriens christian., T. III., p. 3–40: ecclesia Maronitarum in monte Libano, and most recently again objected to by Palma, 1. c., T. II., p. 138–141. Wilh. Tyrius, XXII. 8.

It seems scarcely credible that, after so many controversies, always inspired by a living, but frequently misguided faith; after the play of passions, at once so strong and so various, disturbing both Church and State, that the Greek Church should, on a sudden, be struck with a moral and intellectual paralysis, and all religious and scientific life be so speedily extinguished.

1

The dogmatic decrees of the Church, in the order in which they were defined by successive Councils, were first collected and arranged in a thorough, systematic form, by St. John Damascene (†between 754 and 787). With this ends that work of the Greek Church which Origen conceived to be its peculiar task, but which he himself was in his day unable to accomplish.

From this date down to the present day, the Oriental church has been split into four principal parties, viz: the so-called orthodox Greeks, who are notoriously opposed to the Church of Rome; the united Greeks, who have given up all former points of difference, and united with the Catholic Church; and the Nestorians and Monophysites, who themselves are divided into many factions, known by different names.

OBSERVATION.-The Sixth Ecumenical Council met with such decided opposition that it was necessary to convoke the Second Trullan Synod (A. D. 692), in which its decrees were confirmed. This synod was also called " συνοδος πεvéкTMη” (Concilium Quinisextum), because it added one hundred and two canons relating to the organization and discipline of the Church to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which were almost exclusively of a dogmatical character. The most important of these canons, and those which were most decisive in their influence on the exterior relations of the Greek and Latin Churches, were the second on the number of the apostolic canons; the sixth and the thirteenth relating to the marriage of deacons and priests; the thirty-sixth on the rank of the Patriarch of Constantinople; the fifty-fifth, prohibiting fasting on Saturdays; and the eighty-second against images

2

1Joannis Damasceni, opp. πпуǹ yvwoɛws (source of information) consists of: Ι. τὰ φιλοσοφικά (things philosophical); II. περὶ αἱρέσεων (on heresies); and, especially, III. ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως (an accurate exposition of the orthodox faith); ed. Le Quien, Ord. Praedicat., Paris, 1712, 2 Tom. fol.

2 Acta concilii Quinisexti, in Mansi, T. XI., p. 921 sq.; Harduin, T. III., p. 1645 sq. Cf. Natalis Alex. h. e., saec. VII., dissert. III. de canonibus synodi Quinisextae et ejusdem epocha (T. X., p. 438 sq.) Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. III., p. 298–318, and Palma, praelectiones h. e. II., p. 151–160.

representing the Lamb. Subsequently, the questions of the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the eucharistic sacrifice, the dispute on divorce, and as to who could administer the sacrament of confirmation, besides the dispute mentioned above on the procession of the Holy Ghost a Patre Filioque, or per Filium, became, from this time forward, the principal subjects of discussion between the Greek and the Roman churches. Pope Sergius I. forbade the mulgation in the Western Church of the decrees of 692.

pro

CHAPTER III.

CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

For literature, conf. 22 52 and 82. The Imperial Laws relative to the Constitution of the Church, in the Cod. Theodos. and Justinian, stated by Riffel, in 1. c., Book II., p. 114–271. Thomassini, vetus et nova eccl. discipl., etc. Planck, Hist. of the Social Organization of the Church, Vol. I., p. 276 sq.

§ 125. Characteristic of the New Relations between Church and State.

The Catholic Church had, during the First Epoch, enjoyed under a Pagan government all the advantages of perfect freedom of action with regard to her internal affairs, her doctrine, and her discipline. But from this time forward she was obliged to pay the penalty of being the recognized religion of the State, defended and protected by it, and in consequence gradually lost something of her ancient independence by being obliged to share with the State the administration of ecclesiastical affairs.

The fact that Christianity was a Divine institution, independent of all human authority, that its very growth and development were based on this idea, should have been sufficient to have forever precluded the possibility of any conflict between Church and State, or any confusion of the rights and prerogatives of the one with those of the other. Constantine had, on many solemn occasions (cf. p. 470), recognized this clear distinction between the one and the other, but his policy was not always of a piece with his public utterances. His son Constantius, entirely disregarding the broad distinction between the two, frequently exercised a tyrannical violence in purely ecclesiastical and dogmatic affairs, and was often led to extreme measures by the counsel of bishops, who were not ashamed to sacrifice their convictions to the policy of the State, from which they held their titles and their honors. But there were others who were firm in their faith, and had

the courage to defend it, such as Athanasius, Hilary of Pictavium (Poitiers), Hosius of Corduba, Lucifer of Calaris, Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, and the Popes, who put aside all human respect, and manfully protested against this moral restraint and uncalled-for interference of the secular power in things which pertained to God alone. These, obedient to the command of Christ, "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's," and to the counsel of the Apostles, "We must obey God rather than man," not unfrequently

1

1Athanasius: Quis canon tradidit, Comites-ecclesiasticis praeesse rebus aut edicto judicia eorum, qui episcopi vocantur, promulgare ?-si namque illud episcoporum decretum est, quid illud attinet ad Imperatorem?-quandonam a saeculo res hujusmodi audita est? quandonam ecclesiae decretum ab Imperatore accepit auctoritatem aut pro decreto illud habitum est? Hist. Arianor., nros. 51 and 52, ed. Bened., Patav. 1777, T. I., p. 296 sq. Beautiful, says Neander, and worthy the frankness becoming a bishop, is the language of St. Hilary of Poitiers to Constantius: "Idcirco laboratis (Caesares) et salutaribus consiliis rempublicam regitis-ut omnes, quibus imperatis, dulcissima libertate potiantur. Certe vox exclamantium a tua mansuetudine exaudiri debet, Catholicus sum, nolo esse haereticus; Christianus sum, non Arianus: et melius mihi in hoc saeculo mori, quam alicujus privati potentia dominante castam veritatis virginitatem corrumpere. Aequumque debet videri sanctitati Tuae, ut qui timent Dominum Deum et divinum judicum, non polluantur aut contaminentur exsecrandis blasphemiis, sed habeant potestatem, ut eos sequantur episcopos et praepositos, qui et inviolata conservant foedera caritatis et cupiunt perpetuam et sinceram habere pacem. Nec fieri potest, nec ratio patitur, ut repugnantia congruant, dissimilia conglutinentur, vera et falsa misceantur.-Si ad fidem veram istiusmodi vis adhiberetur: episcopalis doctrina obviam pergeret diceretque: Deus universitatis est Dominus, obsequio non eget necessario, non requirit coactam confessionem." Ad Const., lib. I., n. 2 et 6, ed. Bened., Venet. 1750, T. II., p. 422. Still more bold is the language of Hilary in his lib. contr. Constant.: Atque utinam illud potius omnipotens-Deus aetati meae et tempori praestitisses, ut hoc confessionis meae in te atque in Unigenitum tuum ministerium Neronianis Decianisve temporibus explessem!-at nunc pugnamus contra persecutorem fallentem, contra hostem blandientem, contra Constantium Antichristum-qui Christum confitetur, ut neget, unitatem procurat, ne pax sit, haereses comprimit, ne Christiani sint; sacerdotes honorat, ne episcopi sint; ecclesiae tecta struit, ut fidem destruat.-Proclamo tibi, Constanti, quod Neroni loquuturus fuissem, quod ex me Decius et Maximianus audirent: Contra Deum pugnas, contra ecclesiam saevis, sanctos persequeris, praedicatores Christi odis, religionem tollis, tyrannus non jam humanorum, sed divinorum es-Antichristum praevenis et arcanorum mysteria ejus operaris, etc., n. 4-7, T. II., p. 445 sq. Lucifer of Calaris speaks out his mind with still greater boldness in his writings, directed principally against Constantius (see p. 544, note 2), whom he compares to the personages branded in Holy Writ.