Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

in Galatia, who lived about or shortly after the time of the Council of Nice. He asserted that at the end of the world Christ would give up his kingdom and his subsistence, so that he would neither reign nor subsist for ever, but be dissolved at the last into the Father. He founded his opinion upon 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. It was apparently to meet this heresy that the Constantinopolitan Fathers made that addition to the Nicene Creed, "of whose kingdom there shall be no end," as it was to meet the Macedonian heresy that they added the articles relating to the Holy Ghost.

The Photinians, from Photinus, a disciple of Marcellus, and afterwards Bishop of Sirmium. He maintained the absolute unity of the Godhead, denying any Trinity of Persons, or the Personality of the Word, or the Holy Ghost. He asserted that Christ was a mere man, and that he had the beginning of his existence from the Virgin Mary.

The Apollinarians, or Apollinaristans. Apollinarius was a native of Laodicea, and taught that our Lord took our body without a rational or intellectual soul; and that his divine nature supplied the place of the soul, or at any rate of the intellectual faculty.

II. 1. The Bishops must not go.] The occasion of making this Canon was, that Meletius, an Eastern Bishop, had before the time of this Council, in conjunction with some others, ordained Gregory of Nazianzum, Bishop of Constantinople. And some time afterwards, Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, had sent some Bishops from Egypt who had ordained Maximus the Cynic, Bishop of the same see: to prevent such disorderly practices for the future, this Canon was made. It is observable that no mention is made in it of any particular powers being given to the Bishop of Constantinople, which city was in the Thracian Diocese. Indeed the only two Bishops expressly mentioned in the Canon to whom any particular authority is allowed in their respective Dioceses, are those of Alexandria and Antioch. For an account of the different Dioceses, mentioned in this Canon, and of the Provinces contained in them, see Bingham, b. ix. c. i. s. 5.

III. 1. Primacy of honor.] It is clear, from no mention being made in the preceding Canon, of any particular powers being

given to the Bishop of Constantinople in the Diocese of Thrace, that the Primacy conferred by this Canon was only honorary; it is indeed expressly stated to be the Primacy of honor (rà πρɛσßɛîα Ts Tipñs), not the Primacy of authority, nor even the Primacy generally. The expression therefore is merely equivalent to that which is used respecting the Bishop of Elia or Jerusalem, in the 7th Nicene Canon, to whom an honorary precedence (dxodovbía τñs Tiμñs) was given, which however did not interfere with the authority of his proper Metropolitan. It is true that afterwards the Bishops of Constantinople did by custom obtain a patriarchal power not only over the Thracian Diocese, but over the Pontic and Asian also, which power was confirmed to them by the Council of Chalcedon, as "a custom which had long prevailed," and expressly distinguished from the Primacy which was conferred by this Canon. This honorary Primacy, by virtue of which the Bishop of Constantinople had the precedence of all the Bishops of the Church after the Bishop of Rome, is expressly stated to be given to him because Constantinople is new Rome, thus showing the nature and origin of the Primacy of Rome itself. This indeed is stated distinctly by the Emperor Justinian, Novell. 131. c. 2. We decree, according to the decision of the Canons, that the most holy (Archbishop) of the elder Rome, should be altogether first of all the Priests, and that the most holy Archbishop of Constantinople, which is new Rome, should have the second rank after the most holy Apostolic throne of the elder Rome, and should be honored before all others."

[ocr errors]

IV. 1. Maximus the Cynic.] This Maximus was an Egyptian by birth, and a Cynic philosopher. He was converted to the faith by Gregory Nazianzen, and baptized and ordained by him. Afterwards being led by ambition to desire the Bishopric of Constantinople, he suborned certain Egyptian Bishops, and brought them to Constantinople to elect and ordain him Bishop. Before, however, the ordination was completed, they were driven out of the Church by the people, and retired into a private house, where they performed the ordination. This whole transaction, however, was so completely at variance with all the laws and customs of the Church, that the Synod would not recognize it in any way, and therefore did not decree that Maximus should be de

[ocr errors]

posed, but that all ecclesiastical acts done towards him, or by him, were utterly void and of none effect.

V. 1. The Western Bishops.] There are considerable doubts as to whether this and the two following Canons were made in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, or were added afterwards, and perhaps by a Council which was assembled the following year at the same place. They are not found in the old Latin version, nor in that of Dionysius Exiguus, nor in the Arabic version of Josephus Egyptus; and Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, who have given a particular account of what was transacted at the Ecumenical Council, notice only the matters contained in the four preceding Canons, without any reference to what is contained in this and the two following ones. Beveridge therefore considers it probable that they were added afterwards. As regards the object of this 5th Canon, none of the explanations given of it (supposing it to be genuine), are at all satisfactory; but supposing it to have been added afterwards, the explanation which Beveridge gives of it seems to be probable. When the Bishops were assembled at Constantinople the second time, they received a letter from certain Western Bishops, who were assembled in Synod at Rome, under Damasus, inviting them to meet at Rome. The Eastern Bishops, however, unwilling to take so long a journey, wrote to the Bishops at Rome a synodal letter, which is to be found in Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., to explain the reason of their not coming, and to declare their faith in the one Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these their sentiments respecting the Trinity were, they say, more fully explained in the General Council of the preceding year, and still more particularly in a book or writing composed by a certain Synod held at Antioch, about that time. The present Canon therefore seems to be an epitome in matters of faith of this Synodal letter. According to this interpetation, the book of the Western Bishops means the letter which the Western Bishops sent to the Bishops of Constantinople inviting them to Rome, which invitation they declined, but returned a full exposition of their faith, to which they could have added nothing had they gone to Rome.

VI. 1. Assembled at Constantinople.] From this expression it appears that this Canon was made at a Synod held at Constantinople, though probably not the Ecumenical one,

.2 Heretics.] The Canon includes under this title three classes of persons, who are distinguished in other ecclesiastical writings, heretics, schismatics, and maintainers of conventicles. Heretics, properly so called, were those who maintained doctrines and opinions contrary to the orthodox faith. Schismatics were those who separated from the Church on matters of discipline, and questions of doctrine, which were capable of being reconciled with the orthodox faith. Maintainers of conventicles were those who either amongst the Clergy or the Laity withdrew from their own Churches, and established private meetings.

3. Canonical Bishops.] Beveridge shows satisfactorily that the word Canonical (kavovikoīs) is probably a corrupt reading, inasmuch as that title, though proper to all the other Clergy, was never given to Bishops, and that we ought to read Koivwvikais, the Bishops in communion with us, a phrase which is often used with reference to orthodox Bishops.

VII. 1. As regards.] There can be little doubt that this Canon is not genuine. It appears to have been taken from a certain letter which was written from Constantinople to Martyrus, who was Bishop of Antioch, from A. D. 455 to 463, in which the writer gives an account of the manner and custom of receiving heretics in almost precisely the same words as those of this Canon. It seems very improbable that if this Canon had been made by the Ecumenical Council, the writer of that letter would have omitted all allusion to the Canon, and only stated that such was the "manner and custom." This letter, however, reduced to the form of a Canon by the omission of the beginning and ending of it, appears to have been added to the genuine Canons some time between the years 560 and 860, for it is not noticed by John of Antioch who wrote the former year, but is noticed by Photius who flourished about the latter. It is inserted almost word for word in the 95th Canon of the Council in Trullo A. D. 692, but no notice is there taken of its having been established by any preceding Council. Most of the heresies mentioned in it have been noticed already; those which have not are the following.

Sabbatians. Sabbatius was a Presbyter who adopted the sentiments of Novatius, but as it is clear from the histories of Socrates and Sozomen, that he did not do so till at least eight

years after the celebration of this Council, it is of course equally clear that this Canon could not have been framed by this Council.

Aristeri. This is probably a false reading for Aristi, i. e. the best. In the letter above mentioned the expression is Cathari and Catheroteri, i. e. the pure, and the more pure.

The Quartodecimans, or Tetradites, were those persons who persisted in observing the Easter festival with the Jews, on the fourteenth day of the first month, whatever day of the week it happened to be.

Montanists. One of the older sects, so called from Montanus, who embraced Christianity in the second century. He professed to be inspired in a peculiar way by the Holy Ghost, and to prophesy. He was supported in his errors by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who also pretended to prophesy. His heresy infected many persons, amongst others Tertullian, but being condemned by the Church, his followers formed a sect remarkable for extreme austerity. But although they asserted that the Holy Ghost had inspired Montanus to introduce a system of greater perfection than the Church had before known, and condemned those who would not join them as carnal, they did not at first innovate in any of the Articles of the Creed. This sect lasted a long time, and spread much in Phrygia and the neighboring districts, whence they were called Phryges and Cataphryges, and latterly adopted the errors of Sabellius respecting the Trinity.

2. Make them Christians.] According to the language of the ancient Church, the name Christian was never allowed to any heretics, but they were always spoken of as heathen. It was, however, in a certain sense, applied to Catechumens, who although not perfect Christians before baptism, were still considered as belonging to the Church, and therefore Christians of an inferior and imperfect sort. The meaning of the expression in the Canon seems therefore to be, that the heretics who before their conversion were accounted and called heathens, were upon their conversion first acknowledged as Christians, in the lower sense of the word, next they were formally admitted amongst the Catechumens, and so on till they were baptized. See Bingham, b. i. ch. 3.

« ElőzőTovább »