"This great work is divided into three parts. The first part, in 101 Distinctions,' treats of ecclesiastical law, its origin, principles, and authority, and then of the different ranks and duties of the clergy. The second part, in thirty-six Causes,' treats of ecclesiastical courts and their forms of procedure. The third part, usually called De Consecratione,' treats of things and rites employed in the service of religion. From its first appearance the Decretum obtained a wide popularity, but it was soon discovered that it contained numerous errors, which were corrected under the directions of successive Popes down to Gregory XIII. Nor, although every subsequent generation has resorted to its pages, is the Decretum an authority to this day--that is, whatever canons or maxims of law are found in it possess only that degree of legality which they would possess if they existed separately; their being in the Decretum gives them no binding force. In the century after Gratian, several supplementary collections of Decretals appeared. These, with many of his own, were collected by the orders of Gregory IX., who employed in the work the extraordinary learning and acumen of St. Raymond of Pennafort, into five books, known as the Decretals of Gregory IX. These are in the fullest sense authoritative, having been deliberately ratified and published by that Pope (1234). The Sext, or sixth book of the Decretals, was added by Boniface VIII. (1298). The Clementines are named after Clement V., who compiled them out of the canons of the Council of Vienne (1316) and some of his own constitutions. The Extravagantes of John XXII., who succeeded Clement V., and the Extravagantes Communes, containing the decretals of twenty-five Popes, ending with Sixtus IV. (1484), complete the list. Of these five collections--namely the Decretals, the Sext, the Clementines, the Extravagants of John XXII. and the Extravagants Common--the Corpus Juris Ecclesiastici' of the West is made up." [46]
Into this body of canon law of course many of the canons we shall have to treat of in the following pages have been incorporated and so far as possible I shall give the reader a reference which will help his research in this particular.
[25] It was written in Latin but, says Bury (Appendix to Vol. V. of Gibbon's Rome, p. 525), "was also immediately after its publication in Latin, issued (perhaps incompletely) in a Greek form (cf. Zacharia Von Lingenthal, Gr. Röm. Recht, p. 6). Most of the later Novels are Greek, and Novel vij. [15, ed. Zach.] expressly recognizes the necessity of using the common Greek tongue.'"
[26] The Pandects or Digest was translated into Greek by Dorotheus, and Theophilus prepared a Greek paraphrase of the Institutes.
[27] Schoell, Hist. Litt. Grec., Tome vii., Lib. vi., chap. xcvij., p. 226.
[28] The two collections of John are published with a translation in the Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris of Voellus and Justellus, Vol. II.
[29] Ibid ut supra, p. 227.
[30] The "Ecloga" were edited in 1852 by Zacharia, and again in 1889 by Monferratus.
[31] Appendix to Vol. V. of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, pp. 525 and 526.
[32] Schoell, ut supra, p. 229. The best edition of the Basilica is by W. E. Heimbach in 6 vols. (1833-70).
[33] Schoell, ut ante, p. 238.
[34] Beveridge, Sunodikon sive Pandectæ, Tom. I. of the original ed. Reprinted in Lib. Anglo. Cath. Theol., appendix to Vol. XII. of Beveridge's Works, pp. xxi.-xxxix.
[35] 'Exegesis ton hieron kai theion kanonon ton te hagion kai septon 'Apostalon, k.t.l.
[36] Schoell, Hist. Lib. Grec., Tom. VII., p. 241.
[37] Beveridge, Pandectæ. Prol. § XXX.
[38] Ton ekklesiastikon diataxeon Sulloge.
[39] Beveridge, Pandects, Prol. § XIX.-XXII.
[40] Ibid., Prol. § XVI.-XIX.
[41] Found in Leunclavius, Jur. Grec. Rom., Vol. ii.
[42] Suntagma kata Stoicheon, found in Beveridge's Synodicon, but (says Schoell) "in a manner very little correct."
[43] Procheiron ton nomon. Of this there have been many editions since the first, which was that of Paris, 1540, edited by Snallenberg, without any Latin translation and without notes. The first Latin version was published at Cologne in 1547, a second at Lyons in 1556, and a third at Lausanne in 1580. At last in 1587, at Geneva, there appeared an edition in Greek and Latin.
[44] 'Epitome ton theion kai ieron kanonon. This work is found with a Latin version in the Collection of Loewenklaw.
[45] Hefele points out that Dr. von Drey's contention that "plurimi" refers to the Greeks cannot be sustained if it is pushed so far as to exclude from the West an acquaintance with these canons in their Greek form, for, as he well points out, Greek was a perfectly well understood language at this time in the West, especially in Italy, where it was largely spoken. (A Hist. Christ. Councils, Vol. I. Appendix, p. 449.)
[46] Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, sub voce Canon Law.
The First Ecumenical Council.
The First Council of Nice.
a.d. 325.
Emperor.--Constantine.
Pope.--Silvester.
Elenchus.
Historical Introduction.
The Creed and the Creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea.
Excursus on the word homousios
Excursus on the words gennethenta ou poiethenta .
The XX. Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Excursus to C. j, On the use of the word Canon
Excursus to C. v, On the word prospherein
Excursus to C. vj, On the Extent of Rome's Jurisdiction over Suburbican Churches.
Excursus to C. vij, On the Rise of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
Excursus to C. viij, On the Chorepiscopi
Excursus to C. xj, On the Public Discipline.
Excursus to C. xiij, On the Communion of the Sick.
Excursus to C. xv, On the Translation of Bishops.
Excursus to C. xvij, On Usury.
Excursus to C. xix, On Deaconesses.
Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons, with the Contents of the spurious Arabic Canons.
Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy.
The Synodal Letter with the Decree on the Keeping of Easter.
Historical Introduction.
The history of the Council of Nice has been so often written by so many brilliant historians, from the time of its sitting down to to-day, that any historical notice of the causes leading to its assembling, or account of its proceedings, seems quite unnecessary. The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect--to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others? When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of the assembled fathers from Holy Scripture, but whether it was the traditional faith of the Church. It was not the doctrine of Leo in the fifth century, but the doctrine of Peter in the first, and of the Church since then, that they desired to believe and to teach, and so, when they had studied the Tome, they cried out: [47]
"This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles!...Peter hath thus spoken by Leo! The Apostles thus taught! Cyril thus taught!" etc.
No Acts of either of the first two Ecumenical Councils have been handed down. [48]
[47] This is clearly set forth by Pope Vigilius as follows: "No one can doubt that our fathers believed that they should receive with veneration the letter of blessed Leo if they declared it to agree with the doctrines of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils, as also with those of blessed Cyril, set forth in the first of Ephesus. And if that letter of so great a Pontiff, shining with so bright a light of the orthodox Faith, needed to be approved by these comparisons, how can that letter to Maris the Persian, which specially rejects the First Council of Ephesus and declares to be heretics the expressed doctrines of the blessed Cyril, be believed to have been called orthodox by these same Fathers, condemning as it does those writings, by comparison with which, as we have said, the doctrine of so great a Pontiff deserved to be commended?"--Vigil., Constitutum pro dammatione Trium Capitulorum. Migne, Pat. Lat., tom. lxix., col. 162.
[48] About twenty-five years ago Mr. Eugène Révillout discovered, in the Museum of Turin, two fragments in Coptic which he supposed to be portions of the Acts of this Council (of which the rest are still missing) incorporated into the Acts of a Council held at Alexandria in 362. But there is too little known about these fragments to attribute to them any fixed value. I therefore only refer the reader to the literature on the subject--Journal Asiatique, Fevrier-Mars, 1873; Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, Juin, 1873; Revue de Questions Historiques, Avril, 1874; M. W. Guettée, Histoire de l'Église, t. III., p. 21; Eugène Révillout, Le Concile de Nicée et le Concile d'Alexandrie...d'après les textes Coptes.
The Nicene Creed.
(Found in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in the Epistle of Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own Church, in the Epistle of St. Athanasius Ad Jovianum Imp., in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Theodoret and Socrates, and elsewhere, The variations in the text are absolutely without importance.)
The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed. [49]
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice. [50]
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (gennethenta), not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (en pote hote ouk en), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [51] --all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
Notes.
The Creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which he presented to the council, and which some suppose to have suggested the creed finally adopted.
(Found in his Epistle to his diocese; vide: St. Athanasius and Theodoret.)
We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life, his only Son, the first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will come again one day in his glory to judge the quick and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost. We believe that each of these three is and subsists; the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach: Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
[49] This is the heading in the Acts of the IIId Council. Labbe, Conc., tom. iii., 671.
[50] This is the heading in the Acts of the IVth Council. Labbe, Conc., tom. iv., 339.
[51] This word, in the Greek trepton is translated in the Latin convertibilem, but see side note in Labbe.
Excursus on the Word Homousios. [52]
The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes with much wit and penetration how he saw them nodding and winking to each other when the orthodox proposed expressions which they had thought of a way of escaping from the force of. After a series of attempts of this sort it was found that something clearer and more unequivocal must be adopted if real unity of faith was to be attained; and accordingly the word homousios was adopted. Just what the Council intended this expression to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows: "That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours: for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands. Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself said: The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos,' as the sun and its splendour are inseparable." [53]