CANON V.

(Probably adopted at a Council held in Constantinople the next year, 

382. Vide. Introduction on the number of the Canons.)

IN regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in 

Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of 

the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.

The Tome of the Westerns which recognizes the Father, the Son, and the 

Holy Spirit as consubstantial is highly acceptable.

Beveridge and Van Espen translate this canon differently, thus, "With 

regard to the tome of the Westerns, we agree with those in Antioch [i.e. 

the Synod of 378] who (accepted it and) acknowledged the unity of the  

Godhead of the Father etc," In opposition  to this translation Hefele 

urges that     apodekesqai    in ecclesiastical language usually 

refers to receiving persons and recognizing them, not opinions or 

doctrines.

HEFELE.

This canon probably does not belong to the second General Council, but 

to the Synod held in the following year at Constantinople consisting of 

nearly the same bishops.

It is certain that by the "Tome of the Westerns" a dogmatic work of the 

Western bishops is to be understood, and the only question is which Tome 

of the Westerns is here meant. Several--for instance, the Greek 

commentators, Balsamon and Zonaras, and the spokesman of the Latins at 

the Synod of Florence in 1439 (Archbishop Andrew of Rhodes)--understood 

by it the decrees of the Synod of Sardica; but it seems to me that

this canon undoubtedly indicates that the  Tome of the Westerns also 

mentioned the condition of the Antiochian Church, and the division into 

two parties of the orthodox of that place--the Meletian schism. Now, as 

this was not mentioned, nay, could not have been, at the Synod of 

Sardica --for this schism at Antioch only broke out seventeen years 

later--some other document of the Latins must certainly be meant. But we 

know that Pope Damasus, and the synod assembled by him in 369, addressed 

a Tome to the Orientals, of which fragments are still preserved, and 

that nine years later, in 379, a great synod at Antioch of one hundred 

and forty-six orthodox Oriental bishops, under Meletius, accepted and 

signed this Tome, and at the same time sought to put a stop to the 

Meletian schism. Soon afterwards, in 380, Pope Damasus and his fourth 

Roman Synod again sent a treatise on the faith, of which we still 

possess a portion, containing anathemas, to the Orientals, especially to 

Bishop Paul of Antioch, head of the Eustathians of that city. Under 

these circumstances, we are justified in referring the expression "the 

tome of the Westerns" either to the Roman treatise of 369 or to that of 

380, and I am disposed to give the preference to the former, for the 

following reasons:--

(1.) As has been already observed, this canon belongs to the Synod held 

at Constantinople in 382.

(2.) We still possess in Theodoret a Synodal Letter to the Latins from 

this later Synod.

(3.) The canon in question, as proceeding from the same source, is, of 

course to a certain extent, connected with this letter.

(4.) In this Synodal Letter, the Eastern bishops, in order to convince 

the Latins of their orthodoxy, appeal to two documents, the one a "tome" 

of an Antiochian Synod, and the other a "tome" of the Ecumenical Council 

held at Constantinople in 381.

(5.) By the Antiochian Synod here mentioned, I understand the great 

synod of 378, and, as a necessary consequence, believe the "tome" there 

produced to be none other than the Roman Tome of 369, which was then 

accepted at Antioch.

(6.) It is quite certain that the Synod of Antioch sent a copy of this 

Tome, with the declaration of its acceptance and the signatures of the 

members, back to Rome, as a supplement to its Synodal Letter; and hence 

Lucas Holstenius was still able to find fragments of it in Rome.

(7.) The Synod of Constantinople of 382 might well call this Tome, sent 

back to Rome with the acceptance and signatures of the Easterns, a "Tome 

established at Antioch," although it was really drawn up at Rome.

(8.) If, however, the Synod of Constantinople in its Synodal Letter 

speaks of this Tome, we are justified in supposing that the one 

mentioned in its canon is the same.

(9.) That which still remains of the Roman Tome of 369, treats expressly 

of the oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 

Ghost; and such were the contents of the Tome according to this canon.

(10.) It is true that the fragments still preserved of this Tome contain 

no passage directly referring to the Antiochian schism; but, in the 

first place, very little remains of it, and there is the more reason to 

suppose that the Meletian schism was spoken of in the portion which has 

been lost, as it was the same Antiochian Synod that accepted the Tome 

which urged the putting an end to that schism. It is still more to the 

purpose that the Italian bishops, in their letter to the Easterns in 

381, expressly say that they had already long before (dudum) written to 

the Orientals in order to put an end to the division between the 

orthodox at Antioch. By this "dudum" I conclude that they refer to the 

Roman Tome of 369; and if the Westerns in their letter to the Easterns 

in 381 pointed to this Tome, it was natural that the Synod of  

Constantinople of 382 should also have re ferred to it, for it was that 

very letter of the Latins which occasioned and called the synod into 

being.

Lastly, for the full understanding of this canon, it is necessary to 

observe that the Latins, in their letter just mentioned of 381, say that 

"they had already in their earlier missive (i.e. as we suppose, in the 

Tome of 369) spoken to the effect that both parties at Antioch, one as 

much as the other, were orthodox." Agreeing with this remark of the 

Westerns, repeated in their letter of 381, the Easterns in this canon 

say, "We also recognise all Antiochians as orthodox who acknowledge the 

oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."