Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

munity require more attention, inasmuch as they cause greater hurt; and especially since the Bishop of Antioch has not so much as followed an ancient custom, in performing ordinations in Cyprus, as those most religious persons who have come to the holy Synod have informed us, by writing and by word of mouth, we declare, that they who preside over the holy Churches which are in Cyprus, shall preserve without gainsaying or opposition their right of performing by themselves the ordinations of the most religious Bishops, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers, and the ancient custom. The same rule shall be observed in all the other Dioceses, and in the Provinces everywhere, so that none of the most religious Bishops shall invade any other Province, which has not heretofore from the beginning been under the hand of himself or his predecessors. But if any one has so invaded a Province, and brought it by force under himself, he shall restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers may not be transgressed, nor the pride of secular dominion be privily introduced under the appearance of a sacred office, nor we lose by little, the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, has give us by his own blood. The holy and Ecumenical Synod has therefore decreed, that the rights which have heretofore and from the beginning belonged to each Province, shall be preserved to it pure and without restraint, according to the custom which has prevailed of old. Each Metropolitan having permission to take a copy of the things now transacted for his own security. But if any one shall introduce any regulation contrary to what has been now defined, the whole holy and Ecumenical Synod has decreed that it shall be of no effect.

NOTES.

Beveridge, in his annotations upon the first Canon of this Council, observes, that none of these Canons appear in the Latin Editions of Canons, of Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore Mercator, and others, nor in the Arabic collection of Josephus Egyptius, and, therefore, they are not inserted in the Latin Code of Canons of the Roman Church. And indeed (as he goes on to say) no one can look at them, and not immediately perceive that they were not put forth separately as the Canons of other Councils are, but were annexed to some other document. This is clear from the particle "But" with which they commence; and from the subsequent passage, "we make known unto your Holiness and Love,” it seems clear that they originally formed part of an Epistle. This was certainly the case with the first six Canons which are contained in the Synodal Epistle given above, in their usual order, and in the same words, and to which Epistle it is added, “and all the Bishops present subscribed." Those six Canons relate entirely to Celestius and Nestorius, and their followers. The seventh and eighth Canons were originally decrees of the Council, and afterwards added in the form of Canons.

CANON I. 1. The schismatical assembly.] This schismatical assembly consisted of the Bishops mentioned in the Synodal letter, under John of Antioch, who having, under various pretences, delayed coming to Ephesus till after the meeting of the Council, and the deposition of Nestorius, professed great indignation at the matter having been settled in his absence, and with the other Bishops formed this schismatical Council,in which he deposed Cyril of Alexandria, and Memnon of Ephesus, and excommunicated all the other Bishops, who took part in the Council.

2. Celestius.] Celestius was a disciple of Pelagius, and held the same opinions with his master, and, therefore, the sect of Pelagians were also called Celestians. The common opinion of both was, that the sin of Adam only injured himself and not the human race; and that infants when they are born are in the same state in which Adam was before he sinned. Some of the Bishops who joined with John of Antioch in his schism, were, as it ap

pears, followers of Celestius; and, therefore, this Council, although originally assembled only against Nestorius, joined the Celestians with the Nestorians in their sentence of condemnation, noticing the Celestians by themselves in the present Canon, and in conjunction with the Nestorians in the fourth.

VII. 1. The Presbyter Charisius.] This Canon as well as the next are not found in the Synodal Epistle which contains the six former, but are decrees of the Council which were made respecting other matters which came before it. As regards the present Canon, it was occasioned by an application made to the Council by Charisius, who was a Presbyter and Economus of the Church of Philadelphia. He informed the Fathers who were assembled in Council, by a writing which he exhibited to them, that a certain James who had come from Constantinople, and had been recommended as orthodox to the Bishops of Lydia, by Anastasius and Photius, two Nestorian Presbyters, had, in despite of the Creed of the Nicene Council, composed another profession of faith, and had persuaded some of the more simple of the Clergy to subscribe to it; and had proceeded so far as to require of those persons who were converted from heresy to the Catholic Church, that they should, before they were admitted, subscribe this Creed, which had been introduced by him, and which was filled with heretical, i. e., Nestorian opinions. The Fathers who were assembled in Council, having heard the charge of Charisius, and read the new Creed, immediately made the present decree, which afterwards came to be reckoned amongst the Canons of the Council. From this account appears what is meant by the words at the beginning of the Canon, “these things having been read," that is, the writing of Charisius, and the new Nestorian Creed, upon hearing which the Fathers made this decree. The full account of this transaction is to be found in the 6th Action of the 2d part of the Acts of this Council, in any of the collections of Councils. The Nestorian Creed which is referred to in it is very artfully composed, and calculated to deceive persons not thoroughly alive to the niceties of expression which render an exposition of the doctrine of the Incarnation orthodox or heretical. It begins with great apparent deference to the ancient faith, and gives rather an amplified form of the Catholic doctrine respecting the Trinity,

thus preparing the way for a more lengthened statement of the doctrines respecting the Incarnation of the Word, in which the Nestorian hypothesis of two Persons is stealthily introduced, so that the heresy might escape discovery at first. Afterwards, however, it is stated more openly, by way of recapitulation, as follows: -"We, therefore, say that there is one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made: considering primarily God the Word, the Son of God and Lord according to substance; and further considering with him that which was assumed, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Spirit and power, as partaking of the Sonship and dominion by the connection with God the Word, &c." In the Acts of the 5th and 6th General Councils this Creed is ascribed to Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and was recited amongst other extracts from his works which were read to the former of these Councils, and upon which the sentence of condemnation pronounced against him was founded.

VIII. 1. Rheginus.] This Canon, like the preceding one, was in the first instance passed in the form of a decree, but afterwards numbered amongst the Canons. The occasion of it was this. Rheginus, Bishop of Constantia, the Metropolis of Cyprus, and Zeno, Bishop of Curium, and Euagrius, Bishop of Soli, in the same island, presented a memorial to the Council, in which they complained of the attempts which had been made by the Bishop of Antioch, to usurp authority over the Bishops of Cyprus, “contrary to the Apostolical Canons (Can. Apost. 35.) and the decisions of the most holy Synod of Nice." They further stated, that Dionysius, the imperial governor of Antioch, had, at the suggestion of the Bishop of that city, written to the commander of the troops at Cyprus, as well as to the Clergy of Constantia, requiring the former to prevent the ordination of a Bishop of Constantia, in the room of Troilus, who had lately died, till the question as to the right of ordination had been settled by the Council at Ephesus,, and cautioning the latter not to receive any person as their Bishop who should in the mean time be ordained by any one. Bishops produced these letters before the Council, and prayed that the privileges which they had always enjoyed, even from the times of the Apostles, might be preserved, and that the Council would pronounce a sentence in their favor which might prevent

The

their being again invaded. The Council had the letters read before them; and having, by the examination of the Bishops, ascertained that there was no instance to be produced, from the times of the Apostles, of the Bishop of Antioch ordaining the Metropolitan of Constantia, or any other Bishop in Cyprus, and that Troilus, the late Metropolitan, and his predecessors, Sabinus and Epiphanius, had been ordained by the Bishops of their Province, they passed this decree in favor of the Province of Cyprus, and extended it to all similar cases which might occur in other Provinces and Dioceses. The authority, therefore, which the Bishops of Rome, in after ages, claimed and usurped over the British and other Western Churches, is clearly contrary to this Canon, as well as to those of the Council of Nice. The account of this transaction is contained at length in the Acts of the Council, Part ii. Act. 7.

In addition to the Decrees and Canons enacted by the Ephesine Fathers themselves, the twelve Anathemas which Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, pronounced against Nestorius, were considered and adopted by them, and inserted amongst the Acts of the Council, as authorized declarations of the true doctrine respecting the Incarnation of our Lord. They are to be found in the 3d part of the Council, with the explanation of Cyril, and the objections made against them by the Eastern Bishops, and Cyril's further defence of them. They are frequently referred to in subsequent Councils. I have, therefore, added a translation of them.

1. If any one does not confess Emmanuel to be true God, and that, therefore, the holy Virgin was the bringer forth of God, inasmuch as she brought forth, according to the flesh, the Word of God who was made flesh; Let him be anathema.

2. If any one does not confess that the Word of God the Father was personally united to the flesh, and is one Christ with his own flesh, the same both God and man; Let him be, &c.

3. If any one divides the Persons of the one Christ after the union, and connects them with a bare connection of dignity, or authority, or power, and not rather with that of an union of the natures; Let him be, &c.

4. If any one attributes the expressions which occur in the

« ElőzőTovább »