Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

illustrious persons of each Metropolis, and by all the Bishops of the Province, or the greater part of them; and that he should have the option of bringing the persons so elected to Constantinople, and ordaining them there, or of allowing them to obtain the decree confirming their election to the Bishopric in the Provinces. That, however, as regarded the Bishops of the different Provinces, they should be elected (or ordained xεporovεToba), by all the Bishops of the Province, or the greater part of them, the Metropolitan having the right of confirmation according to the Canon of the Fathers, the Archbishop of Constantinople taking no part in such ordinations." This the Judges said was their decision upon the subject, but they desired that the holy and Ecumenical Synod would deign to inform them what was their decision. Upon this all the Bishops cried out at once, that they approved and ratified this decision: but Lucentius entered his protest against all that had been done in his absence, which he said he would report to the Bishop of Rome, who was chief Bishop of the whole Church, that he might declare his sentiments respecting the wrong done to his own See, and the subversion of the Canons.

This was the termination of the Council; but Leo afterwards wrote various letters to the Emperors, to the Bishop of Constantinople, and others, in which, whilst he expressed his complete approval of the proceedings of the Council in matters of faith, he strongly condemned this Canon, which he declared was contrary to the Nicene Canons, and a most unjust usurpation on the part of the Bishop of Constantinople of the privileges of other Bishops, and particularly of those of the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who were next in rank to the Bishop of Rome. He went so far, in one of his letters to the Empress Pulcheria, as to say, that" by the authority of the Apostle Peter, he annulled all that was contrary to the Nicene Canons ;" but it is worthy of remark how in all his letters, though he is disposed to magnify his own authority, the whole burthen of his charge against the Bishop of Constantinople is, that the privileges which he claimed were contrary to the Nicene Canons, and an invasion of the independency and rights of other Churches.

XXIX. To reduce.] This Canon was more properly a decree

of the Synod, arising out of the dispute between Photius, Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus, an account of which is given in the note upon the 12th Canon. Eustathius had degraded the Bishops of the cities (six in number) over which he had usurped the authority, and who had been ordained by Photius, to the rank of Presbyters. The imperial Judges having been informed of this, committed the settlement of the matter to the Council, to whom alone it properly belonged; upon which the Roman Legates pronounced the sentence contained in the first part of the Canon, and Anatolius repeated it as it appears in the Canon, and all the Bishops confirmed it by acclamation. A full account of this matter is given at the end of the 4th Action of the Council.

XXX. Bishops of Egypt.] This Canon also was a decree of the Synod, the account of the making of which is given at length in the 4th Action. Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, having been deposed by the Synod as a follower of Eutyches, the Egyptian Bishops, when called upon to subscribe the letter of Leo, which contained a condemnation of the errors of Eutyches, and had been received and adopted by the Synod, requested to be allowed to defer subscribing to it, till a new Bishop of Alexandria was consecrated, alleging as their reason, that according to the Nicene Canons the Bishops of Egypt might do nothing without the consent of the Metropolitan of Alexandria. The Synod considered this a pretence of the Egyptian Bishops to avoid subscribing to the condemnation of Eutyches, and therefore pressed the subscription: but upon the earnest and continued supplications of the Bishops, who declared that if they subscribed before the appointment of their Metropolitan, they should be murdered on their return to Egypt, and therefore prayed permission to remain at Constantinople till a new Bishop of Alexandria was appointed, the Synod allowed the matter to be so settled, and made the decree which is contained in this Canon.

THE SECOND

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE,

COMMONLY CALLED

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL.

THE fifth Ecumenical Council was summoned by the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 553, to settle the controversy respecting the three Chapters, as they are called, or certain writings of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas Bishop of Edessa, which supported the Nestorian heresy. The Synod consisted of 165 Bishops, amongst whom were Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, and Stephanus, Georgius, and Damianus, who attended as proxies of Eustochius Patriarch of Jerusalem. Vigilius Bishop of Rome happened to be at Constantinople at the time, but though he fully concurred in all that was done in the Council, he declined being present at it, alleging that his predecessors had always abstained from personally attending the General Councils. He however took an active part in procuring the recognition of the Council by those of the Western Bishops, who at first were disposed to reject it. This Synod received and confirmed the decrees of the four first General Councils, and condemned the person and writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, the writings of Theodoret against the twelve Chapters (or Anathemas) of Cyril of

Alexandria, and against the Council of Ephesus, and in defence of Theodorus and Nestorius; and also the letter which was said to have been written by Ibas to a Persian heretic, of the name of Maris. The Synod added fourteen anathemas against these and other Nestorian errors. This Council was generally received throughout the East, but some Bishops of the West at first re-, jected it, under the persuasion that the condemnation of the writings of Theodoret and Ibas was contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, in which those Prelates had been received as orthodox, upon their giving a full explanation of their sentiments, and expressly anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches. The greater part of these Bishops however soon concurred with the rest of the Church in receiving this Council.

This Council also (as appears from the 11th Anathema, and the declarations in the 6th Council, and in the 2d of Nice) condemned certain opinions of Origen, but the parts of the Acts relating to this matter do not exist; indeed the whole of the original Greek of these Acts is lost, and what remains of them is only in a Latin translation, with the exception of a few fragments, and a long tract or Epistle of the Emperor Justinian to Menas the Patriarch of Constantinople, against the errors of Origen, and a confession of faith of the same Emperor, both of which are printed in the Collections of Councils at the end of the Acts of this Council. Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 186. See also the preface to the Acts in the Collection of Councils; and for the particulars relating to Theodoret and Ibas, see the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Act. viii. and x.

THE SENTENCE OR DEFINITION OF THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

The preliminary part of this sentence is of considerable length, recapitulating the proceedings of the Council in the examination of the writings of Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, and the grounds upon which the Synod rested their condemnation of the person of Theodorus, after his death, as well as of his writings, and their anathemas against the alleged writings of Theodoret and Ibas, which writings indeed the Council of Chalcedon had previously condemned, although they absolved Theodoret and Ibas themselves, upon their recanting their errors and anathematizing Nestorius. As however this part of the sentence is of little interest, it is not necessary to give it at length; the important part proceeds as follows.

Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, and we have approved, and do approve all that they defined respecting the one faith. And we account those who do not receive these things aliens from the Catholic Church. Moreover, we condemn and anathematize, together with all the other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized by the before-mentioned four holy Synods, and by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodorus, who was Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and also those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first Synod of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defence of Theodorus and

« ElőzőTovább »