|
(Critical Annotations on the text
will be found in Dr. Routh's Scriptorum Eccl. Opusc.
Tom. II. [Ed. III.] p. 85.)
The holy and ecumenical Synod,
gathered together in Ephesus by the decree of our most religious Emperors, to
the bishops, presbyters, deacons, and all the people in every province and
city:
When we had assembled, according to
the religious decree [of the Emperors], in the Metropolis of Ephesus, certain
persons, a little more than thirty in number, withdrew from amongst us, having
for the leader of their schism John, Bishop of Antioch. Their names are as follows:
first, the said John of Antioch in Syria, John of Damascus, Alexander of
Apamea, Alexander of Hierapolis, Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of Heraclea,
Helladius of Tarsus, Maximin of Anazarbus, Theodore of Marcianopolis, Peter of
Trajanopolis, Paul of Emissa, Polychronius of Heracleopolis, Euthyrius of
Tyana, Meletius of Neocaesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Apringius of Chalcedon,
Macarius of Laodicea Magna, Zosys of Esbus, Sallust of Corycus in Cilicia,
Hesychius of Castabala in Cilicia, Valentine of Mutloblaca, Eustathius of
Parnassus, Philip of Theodosia, and Daniel, and Dexianus, and Julian, and
Cyril, and Olympius, and Diegenes, Polius, Theophanes of Philadelphia, Trajan
of Augusta, Aurelius of Irenepolis, Mysaeus of Aradus, Helladius of Ptolemais.
These men, having no privilege of ecclesiastical communion on the ground of a
priestly authority, by which they could injure or benefit any persons; since
some of them had already been deposed; and since from their refusing to join in
our decree against Nestorius, it was manifestly evident to all men that they
were all promoting the opinions of Nestorius and Celestius; the Holy Synod, by
one common decree, deposed them from all ecclesiastical communion, and deprived
them of all their priestly power by which they might injure or profit any
persons.
CANON I.
WHEREAS it is needful that they who
were detained from the holy Synod and remained in their own district or city,
for any reason, ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant of the
matters which were thereby decreed; we, therefore, notify your holiness and
charity that if any Metropolitan of a Province, forsaking the holy and
Ecumenical Synod, has joined the assembly of the apostates, or shall join the
same hereafter; or, if he has adopted, or shall hereafter adopt, the doctrines
of Celestius, he has no power in any way to do anything in opposition to the
bishops of the province, since he is already cast forth from all ecclesiastical
communion and made incapable of exercising his ministry; but he shall himself
be subject in all things to those very bishops of the province and to the
neighbouring orthodox metropolitans, and shah be degraded from his episcopal
rank.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.
If a metropolitan, having deserted
his synod, adheres or shall adhere to Celestine, let him be cast out.
NICHOLAS HYDRUNTINUS.
Scholion concerning Celestine and
Celestius. Whose finds at the end of the fourth canon of the Holy Synod of
Ephesus [and the
same is true of this first canon.
Ed.] "Clerics who shall have consented to Celestine or Nestorius, should
be deposed," let him not read "Celestine" with an "n,"
but "Celestius" without the "n." For Celestine was the holy
and orthodox Pope of Rome, Celestius was the heretic.
It is perfectly certain that this
was no ac-
226
cident on the part of Aristenus,
for in his commentary on Canon V., he expressly says that "Celestine was
Bishop of Rome" and goes on to affirm that, "The Holy Synod decreed
that they who embraced the opinions of Nestorius and Celestine," etc. What
perhaps is equally astonishing is that Nicholas Hydruntinus, while correcting
the name, still is of opinion that Celestius was a pope of Rome and begins his
scholion with the title. peri kelestinou kai kelestiou Papwn Pwmhs. Beveridge
well points out that this confusion is all the more remarkable as in the
Kalendar of the Saints observed at that very time by the Greeks, on the eighth
day of April was kept the memory of "Celestine, Pope of Rome, as a Saint
and Champion against the Nestorian heretics." (Bev., Annot, in C. v.).
Simeon the Logothete adds to this
epitome the words, kai to exhs adioikhtos which are necessary to make the sense
complete.
EXCURSUS ON THE CONCILIABULUM OF
JOHN OF ANTIOCH.
The assembly referred to in this
canon is one held by John of Antioch who had delayed his coming so as to hamper
the meeting of the synod. John was a friend of Nestorius and made many
fruitless attempts to induce him to accept the orthodox faith. It will be
noticed that the conciliabulum was absolutely silent with respect to Nestorius
and his doctrine and contented itself with attacking St. Cyril and the orthodox
Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus. St. Cyril and his friends did indeed accuse the
Antiochenes of being adherents of Nestorius, and in a negative way they
certainly were so, and were in open opposition to the defenders of the orthodox
faith; but, as Tillemont (1) has welI pointed out, they did not theologically
agree with the heresy of Nestorius, gladly accepted the orthodox watchword
"Mother of God," and subsequently agreed to his deposition.
The first session of the Council of
Ephesus had already taken place on June 22, and it was only on June 26th or
27th, that John of Antioch arrived at last at Ephesus.
(Hefele, History of the Councils,
Vol. III., p. 55 et scqq.)
The Synod immediately sent a
deputation to meet him, consisting of several bishops and clerics, to show him
proper respect, and at the same time to make him acquainted with the deposition
of Nestorius, so that he might not be drawn into any intercourse with him. The
soldiers who surrounded Archbishop John prevented the deputation from speaking
to him in the street; consequently they accompanied him to his abode, but were
compelled to wait here for several hours, exposed to the insults of the
soldiers, and at last, when they had discharged their commission, were driven
home, ill-treated and beaten. Count Irenaeus, the friend of Nestorius, had
suggested this treatment, and approved of it. The envoys immediately informed
the Synod of what had happened, and showed the wounds which they had received,
which called forth great indignation against John of Antioch. According to the
representation of Memnon, excommunication was for this reason pronounced
against him; but we shall see further on that this did not take place until
afterwards, and it is clear that Memnon, in his brief narrative, has passed
over an intermediate portion -- the threefold invitation of John. In the
meantime, Candidian had gone still further in his opposition to the members of
the synod, causing them to be annoyed and insulted by his soldiers, and even
cutting off their supply of food, while he provided Nestorius with a regular
body-guard of armed peasants. John of Antioch, immediately after his arrival,
while still dusty from the journey, and at the time when he was allowing the
envoys of the synod to wait, held at his town residence a Conciliabulum with
his adherents, at which, first of all Count Candidian related how Cyril and his
friends, in spite of all warnings, and in opposition to the imperial decrees,
had held a session five days before, had contested his (the count's) right to
be present, had dismissed the bishops sent by Nestorius, and had paid no
attention to the letters of
227
others. Before he proceeded
further, John of Antioch requested that the Emperor's edict of convocation
should be read, whereupon Candidian went on with his account of what had taken
place, and in answer to a fresh question of John's declared that Nestorius had
been condemned unheard. John found this quite in keeping with the disposition
of the synod since, instead of receiving him and his companions in a friendly
manner, they had rushed upon them tumultuously (it was thus that he described
what had happened). But the holy Synod, which was now assembled, would decide
what was proper with respect to them. And this synod, of which John speaks in
such grandiloquent terms, numbered only forty-three members, including himself,
while on the other side there were more than two hundred.
John then proposed the question [as
to] what was to be decided respecting Cyril and his adherents; and several who
were not particularly pronounced Nestorian bishops came forward to relate how
Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus had, from the beginning, maltreated the Nestorians,
had allowed them no church, and even on the festival of Pentecost had permitted
them to hold no service. Besides Memnon had sent his clerics into the
residences of the bishops, and had ordered them with threats to take part in
his council. And in this way he and Cyril had confused everything, so that
their own heresies might not be examined. Heresies, such as the Arian, the
Apollinarian, and the Eunomian, were certainly contained in the last letter of
Cyril [to Nestorius, along with the anathematisms]. It was therefore John's
duty to see to it that the heads of these heresies (Cyril and Memnon) should be
suitably punished for such grave offences, and that the bishops who had been
misguided by them should be subjected to ecclesiastical penalties.
To these impudent and false
accusations John replied with hypocritical meekness "that he had certainly
wished that he should not be compelled to exclude from the Church any one who
had been received into the sacred priesthood, but diseased members must certainly
be cut off in order to save the whole body; and for this reason Cyril and
Memnon deserved to be deposed, because they had given occasion to disorders,
and had acted in opposition to the commands of the Emperors, and besides, were
in the chapters mentioned [the anathematisms] guilty of heresy. All who had
been misled by them were to be excommunicated until they confessed their error,
anathematized the heretical propositions of Cyril, adhered strictly to the
creed of Nice, without any foreign addition, and joined the synod of
John."
The assembly approved of this
proposal, and John then announced the sentence in the following manner:--
"The holy Synod, assembled in
Ephesus, by the grace of God and the command of the pious Emperors, declares:
We should indeed have wished to be able to hold a Synod in peace, but because
you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinate
disposition, although we were already in the neighbourhood, and have filled
both the city and the holy Synod with confusion, in order to prevent tire
examination of your Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies, and have not
waited for the arrival of the holy bishops of all regions, and have also
disregarded the warnings and admonitions of Candidian, therefore shall you, Cyril
of Alexandria, and you Memnon of this place, know that you are deposed and
dismissed from all sacerdotal functions, as the originators of the whole
disorder, etc. You others, who gave your consent, are excommunicated, until you
acknowledge your fault and reform, accept anew the Nicene faith [as if they had
surrendered it!] without foreign addition, anathematize the heretical
propositions of Cyril, and in all things comply with the command of the
Emperors, who require a peaceful and more accurate consideration of the
dogma."
This decree was subscribed by all
the forty-three members of the Conciliabulum:
The Conciliabulum then, in very
one-sided letters informed the Emperor, the imperial
228
ladies (the wife and sister of the
Emperor Theodosius II.), the clergy, the senate, and the people of
Constantinople, of all that had taken place, and a little later once more
required the members of the genuine Synod, in writing, no longer to delay the
time for repentance and conversion, and to separate themselves from Cyril and
Memnon, etc., otherwise they would very soon be forced to lament their own
folly.
On Saturday evening the
Conciliabulum asked Count Candidian to take care that neither Cyril nor Memnon,
nor any one of their (excommunicated) adherents should hold divine service on
Sunday. Candidian now wished that no member of either synodal party should
officiate, but only the ordinary clergy of the city; but Memnon declared that
he would in no way submit to John and his synod, and Cyril and his adherents
held divine service. All the efforts of John to appoint by force another bishop
of Ephesus in the place of Memnon were frustrated by the opposition of the
orthodox inhabitants.
CANON II.
IF any provincial bishops were not
present at the holy Synod and have joined or attempted to join the apostacy; or
if, after subscribing the deposition of Nestorius, they went back into the
assembly of apostates; these men, according to the decree of the holy Synod,
are to be deposed from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.
If any bishop assents to or favours
Nestorius, let him be discharged.
It was not unnatural that when it
was seen that the Imperial authority was in favour of the Antiochene party that
some of the clergy should have been weak enough to vacillate in their course,
the more so as the Conciliabulum was not either avowedly, nor really, a
Nestorian assembly, but one made up of those not sympathizing with Nestorius's
heresy, yet friendly to the heretic himself, and disapproving of what they
looked upon as the uncalled-for harshness and precipitancy of Cyril's course.
CANON III.
IF any of the city or country
clergy have been inhibited by Nestorius or his followers from the exercise of
the priesthood, on account of their orthodoxy, we have declared it just that
these should be restored to their proper rank. And in general we forbid all the
clergy who adhere to the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod in any way to submit to
the bishops who have already apostatized or shall hereafter apostatize.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.
To whom Nestorius forbids the
priesthood, he is most worthy; but whom he approves is profane.
It would seem from this canon that
any bishop who had become a member of the Conciliabulum of John, was considered
as eo ipso having lost all jurisdiction. Also it would seem that the clergy
were to disregard the inhibition of Nestorian prelates or at least these
inhibitions were by some one to be removed. This principle, if generally
applied, would seem to be somewhat revolutionary.
LIGHTFOOT.
(Apos. Fath. Ign. Ad Rom. i., Vol.
II., Sec. I., p. 191.)
The words kwros
("place"), kwra ("country"), and kwrion
("district"), may be distinguished as implying locality, extension,
and limitation, respectively. The last word commonly denotes either "an
estate, a farm," or "a fastness, a stronghold," or (as a
mathematical term) "an area." Here, as not unfrequently in later
writers, it is "a region, a district," but the same fundamental idea
is presumed. The relation of kwros to kwrion is the same as that of arguros,
krusos to argurion, krusion, the
229
former being the metals themselves,
the latter the metals worked up into bullion or coins or plate or trinkets or
images, e.g. Macar. Magn. Apocr.
iii. 42 (p. 147).
CANON IV.
IF any of the clergy should fall
away, and publicly or privately presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius
or Celestius, it is declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be
deposed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
If any of the clergy shall consent
to Celestine (1) or Nestorius, let them be deposed.
EXCURSUS ON PELAGIANISM.
The only point which is material to
the main object of this volume is that Pelagius and his fellow heretic
Celestius were condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for their heresy.
On this point there can be no possible doubt. And further than this the Seventh
Council by ratifying the Canons of Trullo received the Canons of the African
Code which include those of the Carthaginian conciliar condemnations of the
Pelagian heresy to which the attention of the reader is particularly drawn. The
condemnation of these heretics at Ephesus is said to have been due chiefly to
the energy of St. Augustine, assisted very materially by a layman living in
Constantinople by the name of Marius Mercator. Pelagius and his heresy have a
sad interest to us as he is said to have been born in Britain. He was a monk
and preached at Rome with great applause in the early years of the fifth
century. But in his extreme horror of Manichaeism and Gnosticism he fell into
the opposite extreme; and from the hatred of the doctrine of the inherent
evilness of humanity he fell into the error of denying the necessity of grace.
Pelagius's doctrines may be briefly stated thus. Adam's sin injured only
himself, so that there is no such thing as original sin. Infants therefore are
not born in sin and the children of wrath, but are born innocent, and only need
baptism so as to be knit into Christ, not "for the remission of sins"
as is declared in the creed. Further he taught that man could live without
committing any sin at all. And for this there was no need of grace; indeed
grace was not possible, according to his teaching. The only "grace,"
which he would admit the existence of, was what we may call external grace,
e.g. the example of Christ, the teaching of his ministers, and the like.
Petavius (2) indeed thinks that he allowed the activity of internal grace to
illumine the intellect, but this seems quite doubtful. Pelagius's writings have
come down to us in a more or less -- generally the latter -- pure form. There
are fourteen books on the Epistles of St. Paul, also a letter to Demetrius and
his Libellus fidei ad Innocentium. In the writings of St. Augustine are found
fragments of Pelagius's writings on free will. It would be absurd to attempt in
the limits possible to this volume to give any, even the most sketchy,
treatment of the doctrine involved in the Pelagian controversy: the reader must
be referred to the great theologians for this and to aid him I append a
bibliographical table on the subject. St. Augustine. St. Jerome. Marius
Mercator, Commonitorium super nomine Coelestii. Vossius, G. J., Histor. de
controv. quas Pel. ejusque reliquioe moverunt.
230
Noris. Historia Pelagiana.
Garnier, J. Dissertat. in Pelag. in Opera Mar. Mercator.
Quesnel, Dissert. de conc. Africanis in Pelag. causa celebratis etc.
Fuchs, G. D., Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen.
Horn, De sentent. Pat. de peccato orig.
Habert, P. L., Theologioe Groecorum Patrum vindicatoe circa univers.
materiam gratioe. Petavius, De Pelag. et Semi-Pelag. (1)
The English works on the subject
are so well known to the English reader as to need no mention. As it is
impossible to treat the theological question here, so too is it impossible to
treat the historical question. However I may remind the reader that Nestorius
and his heresy were defended by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and that he and
Celestius were declared by Pope Zosimus to be innocent in the year 417, a
decision which was entirely disregarded by the rest of the world, a
Carthaginian Synod subsequently anathematizing him. Finally the Pope retracted
his former decision, and in 418 anathematized him and his fellow, and gave
notice of this in his "epistola tractoria" to the bishops. Eighteen
Italian bishops, who had followed the Pope in his former decision of a twelve
month before, refused to change their minds at his bidding now, and were
accordingly deposed, among them Julian of Eclanum. After this Pelagius and
Celestius found a fitting harbour of refuge with Nestorius of Constantinople,
and so all three were condemned together by the council of Ephesus, he that
denied the incarnation of the Word, and they twain that denied the necessity of
that incarnation and of the grace purchased thereby.
CANON V.
IF any have been condemned for evil
practices by the holy Synod, or by their own bishops; and if, with his usual
lack of discrimination, Nestorius (or his followers) has attempted, or shall
hereafter attempt, uncanonically to restore such persons to communion and to
their former rank, we have declared that they shall not be profited thereby,
but shall remain deposed nevertheless.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
If one condemned by his bishop is
received by Nestorius it shall profit him nothing.
This canon is interesting as
shewing that thus early in the history of the Church, it was not unusual for
those disciplined for their faults in one communion to go to another and there
be welcomed and restored, to the overthrow of discipline and to the lowering of
the moral sense of the people to whom they minister.
CANON VI.
LIKEWISE, if any should in any way
attempt to set aside the orders in each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus,
the holy Synod decrees that, if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall
absolutely forfeit their office; and, if laymen, that they shall be
excommunicated.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.
If any layman shall resist the
Synod, let him be excommunicated. But if it be a cleric let him be discharged.
How courageous the passing of this
canon was can only be justly appreciated by those who are familiar with the
weight of the imperial authority at that day in ecclesiastical matters and who
will remember that at the very time this canon was passed it was extremely
difficult to say whether the Emperor would support Cyril's or John's synod.
231
OBSERVATION OF THE ROMAN EDITORS
(Ed:1608).
In the Vatican books and in some
others only these six canons are found; but in certain texts there is added, under
the name of Canon VII., the definition of the same holy Synod put forth after
the Presbyter Charisius had stated his case, and for Canon VIII. another decree
of the synod concerning the bishops of Cyprus.
OBSERVATION OF PHILIP LABBE, S.J.P.
In the Collections of John Zonaras
and of Theodore Balsamon, also in the "Code of the Universal Church"
which has John Tilius, Bishop of St. Brieuc and Christopher Justellus for its
editors, are found eight canons of the Ephesine council, to wit the six which
are appended to the foregoing epistle and two others: but it is altogether a
subject of wonder that in the Codex of Canons, made for the Roman Church by
Dionysius Exiguus, none of these canons are found at all. I suppose that the
reason of this is that the Latins saw that they were not decrees affecting the
Universal Church, but that the Canons set forth by the Ephesine fathers dealt
merely with the peculiar and private matters of Nestorius and of his followers.
The Decree of the same holy Synod,
pronounced after hearing the Exposition [of the Faith] by the Three hundred and
eighteen holy and blessed Fathers in the city of Nice, and the impious formula
composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and given to the same holy Synod at Ephesus
by the Presbyter Charisius, of Philadelphia:
CANON VII.
WHEN these things had been read,
the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to
write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established
by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose
a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to
the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or
from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen;
bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be
laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether
bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the
doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius
concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable
and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be
subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be
a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a
clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a
layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.
Any bishop who sets forth a faith
other than that of Nice shall be an alien from the Church: if a layman do so
let him be cast out.
The heading is that found in the
ordinary Greek texts. The canon itself is found verbatim in the Acts -- Actio
VI. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 689.)
BEVERIDGE.
"When these things had been
read." Balsamon here makes an egregious mistake, for it was not after the
reading of the decree of this council and of the Nicene Creed, that this canon
was set forth, as Balsamon affirms; but after the reading of the libellum of
Charisius, and of the Nestorian Creed, as is abundantly evident from what we
read in the Acts of the
232
council. From this it is clear that
Balsamon had never seen the Acts of this council, or at least had never
carefully studied them, else he could not have written such a comment.
[With regard to Charisius,
Balsamon] makes another mistake. For not only did this presbyter not follow the
evil opinions of Nestorius, but as a matter of fact exhibited to the synod his
libellum written against Nestorius; in which so far from asserting that
Nestorius was orthodox, he distinctly calls him kakodoxos.
Photius has included this canon in
his Nomocanons, Title I., cap. j.
|