The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Internet Archive

1211. The Canonical Epistle of our Holy Father among the Saints, Cyril,Archbishop of Alexandria, on the Hymns. — Cyril to Domnus. — Of theSame to the Bishops of Libya and Pentapolis,12. The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, andof the Holy Synod met with Him to all the Holy Metropolitans,and to the Pope of the City of Rome,

13PREFACET HE work intrusted to me of preparing this volume evidently can bedivided into two separate parts. The first, the collecting of the materialneeded and the setting of it before the reader in the English tongue; theother, the preparation of suitable introductions and notes to the matterthus provided. Now in each of these departments two courses were opento the editor: the one, to be original; the other, to be a copyist. I needhardly say that of these the former offered many temptations. But I couldnot fail to recognize the fact that such a course would greatly take from thereal value of the work, and therefore without any hesitation I have adoptedthe other alternative, and have endeavored, so far as was at all possible, tokeep myself out of the question altogether; and as a general rule even thetranslation of the text (as distinguished from the notes) is not mine butthat of some scholar of well-established reputation.In the carrying out of this method of procedure I have availed myself of allthe translations which I could find, and where, after comparing them withthe original, I have thought them substantially accurate, I have adoptedthem and reproduced them. Where I have thought that the translation wasmisleading, I have amended it from some other translation, and, I think, inno case have I ventured a change of translation which rests upon my ownjudgment alone. A very considerable portion, however, of the matter foundin this volume is now translated into English for the first time. For some ofthis I am indebted to my friends, who have most kindly given me everyassistance in their power, but even here no translation has been made fromthe Greek without careful reference being had to the traditionalunderstanding, as handed down in the Latin versions, and wherever theLatin and Greek texts differ on material points the difference has beennoted. I have not thought it necessary nor desirable to specify the sourceof each particular translation, but I have provided for the use of the readera list of all the translations which I have used. I should also add that I havenot considered any one text sufficiently well established as to command

14any deference being paid to it, and that I have usually followed (for myown convenience rather than for any other reason) the text contained inLabbe and Cossart’s Concilia. No doubt Hardouin and Mansi are in somerespects superior, but old prejudices are very strong, and the reader willremember that these differing Concilia gave rise to a hard-fought battle inthe history of the Gallican Church. I should add, however, that wheremore recent students of the subject have detected errors of importance inLabbe’s text, I have corrected them, usually noting the variety of reading.With regard then to the text I entirely disclaim any responsibility, and themore so as on such a matter my opinion would be entirely valueless. Andwith regard to the translation my responsibility goes no further than thecertifying the reader that, to all intents and purposes, the meaning of theoriginal is presented to him in the English language and withoutinterpretation being introduced under the specious guise of translation.Some portions are mere literal translations, and some are done into moreidiomatic English, but all — so far as I am able to judge — are fairrenderings of the original, its ambiguities being duly preserved. I have usedas the foundation of the translation of the canons of the first four synodsand of the five Provincial Synods that most convenient book, IndexCanonum, by the Rev. John Fulton, D.D., D.C.L., in which united to agood translation is a Greek text, very well edited and clearly printed.In preparing the other divisions of the book, that is to say, theIntroduction and Notes, I have been guided by the same considerations.Here will be found no new and brilliant guesses of my own, but acollection of the most reliable conclusions of the most weighty critics andcommentators. Where the notes are of any length I have traced the sourceand given the exact reference, but for the brief notes, where I have notthought this necessary, the reader may fell the greatest confidence that heis not reading any surmise of mine, but that in every particular what hereads rests upon the authority of the greatest names who have written onthe subject. In the bibliographical table already referred to I have placedthe authorities most frequently cited.I think it necessary to make a few remarks upon the rule which I have laiddown for myself with regard to my attitude on controverted questionsbearing upon doctrine or ecclesiastical doctrine. It seems to me that in sucha work as the present any expression of the editor’s views would be

15eminently out of place. I have therefore confined myself to a barestatement of what I conceive to be the facts of the case, and have left thereader to draw from them what conclusions he pleases. I hope that thisvolume may be equally acceptable to the Catholics and to the Protestant,to the Eastern and to the Western, and while I naturally think that thefacts presented are clearly in accordance with my own views, I hope thatthose who draw from the same premises different conclusions will findthese promises stated to their satisfaction in the following pages. Andshould such be the case this volume may well be a step toward “the unionof all: and toward “the peace of all the holy churches of God,” for whichthe unchanging East has so constantly prayed in her liturgy.I wish to explain to the reader one other principle on which I haveproceeded in preparing this volume. It professes to be a translation of thedecrees and canons of certain ecclesiastical synods. It is not a history ofthose synods, nor is it a theological treatise upon the truth or otherwise ofthe doctrines set forth by those synods in their legislation. I have thereforecarefully restricted my own historical introductions to a bare statement ofsuch facts as seemed needed to render the meaning of the mattersubsequently presented intelligible to the reader. And with regard todoctrine I have pursued the same course, merely explaining what thedoctrine taught or condemned was, without entering into any considerationof its truth or falsity. For the history of the Church and its Councils thereader must consult the great historians; for a defense of the Church’s faithhe must read the works of her theologians.I need hardly say that the overwhelming majority of the references foundin this volume I have had no opportunity of verifying, no copy of many ofthe books being (so far as I know) to be found in America. I have,however, taken great pains to insure accuracy in reproducing the referencesas given in the books from which I have cited them; this, however, doesnot give me any feeling of confidence that they may be relied on,especially as in some cases where I have been able to look them up, I havefound errors of the most serious kind.In now only remains that I thank all those who have assisted me in thiswork, and especially I must mention his Excellency the High Procurator ofthe Holy Governing Synod of Russia, who directed the bibliographical

16table of Russian editions of the Canons, etc., which is found in thisvolume, to be prepared for me by Professor Glubokoffski of theEcclesiastical Academy at St. Petersburgh. My special thanks are due tothe learned professor just named for the very admirable manner in whichhe has performed the work, and to Mr. W.J. Birkbeck, who has added onemore to his numerous labours for making the West better acquainted withthe East by translating the Russian MS. into English. I cannot but pausehere to remark how deep my regret is that my ignorance of the Russianand Slavic tongues has prevented me from laying before my readers thetreasures of learning and the stores of tradition and local illustration whichthese volumes must contain. I am, however, extremely well pleased inbeing able to put those, who are more fortunate than myself in thisrespect, in the way of investigating the matter for themselves, bysupplying them with the titles of the books on the subject. I desire also tooffer my thanks to Professor Bolotoff for the valuable information he sentme as well as for a copy of his learned (and often most just) stricturesupon Professor Lauchert’s book, “Die Kanones der wichtigstenaltkirchlichen Concilien nebst den Apostolischen Kanones.” (Freiburg inB. und Leipzig, 1896.)The Rev. Wm. McGarvey has helped me most kindly by translating partsof the Second Council of Nice, and one or more of the African Canons; andby looking over the translation of the entire African code.The Rev.F.A. Sanborn translated two of St. Cyril’s letters, and the Rev.Leighton Hoskins the Sardican Canons. To these and many others of myfriends, who in one way or another helped me, I wish to return my deepthanks; also to the Nashotah Theological Seminary and to the LutheranTheological Seminary at Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, for having placed theirlibraries entirely at my disposal; nor can I end this list without mention ofmy sister, who as assisted me most materially through the entire progressof the work, and without whom I never could have undertaken it.When I think of the great number of authors cited, of the rapidity withwhich most of the translation has had to be done, of the difficulty ofgetting access to the necessary books, and of the vast range of subjectstouched upon (including almost every branch of ecclesiastical andtheological learning), I feel I must throw myself and my work upon the

17reader’s indulgence and beg him to take all this in consideration in makinghis estimate of the value of the work done. As for me, now that it is allfinished, I feel like crying out with the reader, in deep shame at therecollection of the many blunders he has made in reading the lesson, —“Tu autem, Domine, miserere nobis!”In conclusion I would add that nothing I have written must be interpretedas meaning that the editor personally has any doubt of the truth of thedoctrines set forth by the Ecumenical Councils of the Christian Churhc,and I wish to declare in the most distinct manner that I accept all thedoctrinal decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods as infallible andirreformable.HENRY R. PERCIVAL.PENTECOST, 1899.

18GENERAL INTRODUCTIONI. METHOD OF TREATMENTIT is absolutely necessary that a few words should be said on the generalarrangement of the work. The reader will find given him in the Englishtongue, so far as they have come down to us, all the doctrinal definitionsof the Seven Ecumenical Councils (councils which have always, and stilldo, receive the unqualified acceptance of both East and West), and all thecanons, disciplinary and doctrinal, which were enacted by them. To thesehas been added a translation in full of all the canons of the local synodswhich received the approval and sanction of the aforesaid EcumenicalCouncils. Besides this, as throwing light upon the subject, large extractsfrom the Acta, have been given, in fact all that seemed to illustrate thedecrees; and, that nothing might be lacking, in an appendix has been placeda collection of all the non-synodal canons which have received the sanctionof the Ecumenical Synods, the “Canons of the Apostles” (so called) beinggiven in full, and the others in a shortened form, for the most part in thewords of the admirable and learned John Johnson.This then is the text of the volume; but it is manifest that it stood in needof much comment to make its meaning clear to the reader, even if wellinformed on ordinary matters. To provide for this, to each synodal canonthere has been added the Ancient Epitome.Of this Epitome Bishop Beveridge treats with great learning in section 26.of his “Prolegomena” to his Synodicon, and shows that while someattributed this epitome to the Greek mediaeval scholiast Aristenus, itcannot be his, as he has taken it for the text of his commentaries, and hasin more than one instance pointed out that whoever he was who made ithad, in his judgment, missed the sense.The Epitome must indeed be much older, for Nicholas Hydruntinus, wholived in the times of Alexis Angelus, when intending to quote one of the

19canons of Ephesus, actually quotes words which are not in that canon, butwhich are in the Epitome. “Wherefore,” says Beveridge, “it is manifestthat the Epitome is here cited, and that under the name of the wholecanon.” This being established we may justly look upon the AncientEpitome as supplying us with a very ancient gloss upon the canons.To this Epitome have been added Notes, taken from most of the greatcommentators, and Excursus, largely made up from the writings of thegreatest theologians, canonists, archaeologists, etc., with regard to whomand their writings, all the information that seems necessary the reader willfind in the Bibliographical Introduction.II. CONCERNING ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IN GENERALAN Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of whichhave found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. It is notnecessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishopspresent should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I.Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with theintention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I.Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should havebeen represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have beeninvited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptanceafterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized.The reader will notice that in the foregoing, I have not proceeded from thetheological foundation of what an Ecumenical Synod should be (with thisquestion the present volume has nothing to do), but from a considerationof the historical question as to what the Seven Councils have in common,which distinguishes them from the other councils of the Christian Church.And here it is well to note that there have been many “General Councils”which have not been “Ecumenical.” It is true that in ordinary parlance weoften use the expressions as interchangeable, but such really is not thecase. There are but seven universally recognized and undisputed“Ecumenical Councils”; on the other hand, the number of “GeneralCouncils” is very considerable, and as a matter of fact of these last several

20very large ones fell into heresy. It is only necessary to mention asexamples the Latrocinium and the spurious “Seventh Council,” held by theiconoclastic heretics. It is therefore the mere statement of an historical factto say that General Councils have erred.The Ecumenicals Councils claimed for themselves an immunity from errorin their doctrinal and moral teaching, resting such claim upon the promiseof the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Council looked uponitself, not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once forall delivered to the Saints, its decisions therefore were in themselvesecumenical, as being an expression of the mind of the whole body of thefaithful both clerical and lay, the sensus communis of the Church. And bythe then teaching of the Church that ecumenical consensus was consideredfree from the suspicion of error, guarded, (as was believed,) by the Lord’spromise that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church. Thisthen is what Catholics mean when they affirm the infallibility ofEcumenical Councils. Whether this opinion is true or false is a questionoutside the scope of the present discussion. It was necessary, however, tostate that these Councils looked upon themselves as divinely protected intheir decisions from error in faith and morals, lest the reader shouldotherwise be at a loss to understand the anathematisms which follow thedecrees, and which indeed would be singularly out of place, if the decreeswhich they thus emphatically affirm were supposed to rest only uponhuman wisdom and speculation, instead of upon divine authority.Theologians consider that the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, like alljurdicial decrees, must be considered strictly, and that only the point atissue must be looked upon but yet they have no claim to be possessed ofthat supreme authority which belongs to the definition of the particularpoint under consideration.The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at thecommandment and will of Princes; without any knowledge of the matteron the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople); withoutany consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know; andcontrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when heonly gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had alreadyconvoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical

21Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of theSee of Rome.In the history of the Great Christian Church, especially at a later period inconnection with the Great Schism, much discussion has taken place amongthe learned as to the relative powers of a General Council and of the Pope.It will be remembered by everyone that the superior authority of thecouncil was not only taught, but on one occasion acted on, by a council,but this is outside of the period covered by the Seven Ecumenical Synods,and I shall therefore only discuss the relations of these seven synods tothe Roman See. And in the first place it is evident that no council has everbeen received as ecumenical which has not been received and confirmed bythe Roman Pontiff. But, after all, this is only saying that no council hasbeen accepted as ecumenical which has not been ecumenically received, forit must be remembered that there was but one Patriarchate for the wholeWest, that of Rome; and this is true to all intents and purposes, whetheror no certain sections h

The Canons of the 217 Blessed Fathers who Assembled at Carthage, 3. Council of Constantinople held Under Nectarius,A.D. 394, Introductory Note, Council of Constantinople under Nectarius of Constantinople under Nectarius of Constantinople and Theophilus of Alexandria, 4. The Council of Carthage Held Under Cyprian, A.D. 257, Introductory Note,