Canon XIII.
Country presbyters may not make the oblation in the church of the city when the bishop or presbyters of the city are present; nor may they give the Bread or the Cup with prayer. If, however, they be absent, and he [i.e., a country presbyter] alone be called to prayer, he may give them.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canons XIII. and XIV.
A country presbyter shall not offer in the city temple, unless the bishop and the whole body of the presbyters are away. But if wanted he can do so while they are away. The chorepiscopi can offer as fellow ministers, as they hold the place of the Seventy.
Routh reads the last clause in the plural, in this agreeing with Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore. In many mss. this canon is united with the following and the whole number given as 14.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars I., Dist. xcv., c. xii. And the Roman correctors have added the following notes.
Roman Correctors.
(Gratian ut supra.)
"Nor to give the sacrificed bread and to hand the chalice;" otherwise it is read "sanctified" [sanctificatum for sacrificatum]. The Greek of the council is arton didonai en euche; but Balsamon has arton euches, that is, "the bread of the mystic prayer."
Instead of "let them only who are called for giving the prayer, etc.," read kai eis euchen klethe monos didosin, that is: "and only he that shall have been called to the mystic prayer, shall distribute."
Canon XIV.
The chorepiscopi, however, are indeed after the pattern of the Seventy; and as fellow-servants, on account of their devotion to the poor, they have the honour of making the oblation.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.
[Vide ante, as in many mss. the two canons are united in the Ancient Epitome.]
Van Espen.
The reference to the Seventy seems to intimate that the Synod did not hold the chorepiscopi to be true bishops, as such were always reputed and called successors, not of the Seventy disciples but successors of the Twelve Apostles. It is also clear that their chief ministry was thought to be the care of the poor.
Zonaras and Balsamon would seem to agree in this with Van Espen. See on the whole subject the Excursus on the Chorepiscopi.
Canon XV.
The deacons ought to be seven in number, according to the canon, even if the city be great. Of this you will be persuaded from the Book of the Acts.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XV.
Seven Deacons according to the Acts of the Apostles should be appointed for each great city.
This canon was observed in Rome and it was not until the xi^th century that the number of the Seven Cardinal Deacons was changed to fourteen. That Gratian received it into the Decretum (Pars. I., Dist. XCIII., c. xij.) is good evidence that he considered it part of the Roman discipline. Eusebius [128] gives a letter of Pope Cornelius, written about the middle of the third century, which says that at that time there were at Rome forty-four priests, seven deacons, and seven subdeacons; and that the number of those in inferior orders was very great. Thomassinus says that, "no doubt in this the Roman Church intended to imitate the Apostles who only ordained seven deacons. But the other Churches did not keep themselves so scrupulously to that number." [129]
In the acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is noted that the Church of Edessa had fifteen priests and thirty-eight deacons. [130] And Justinian, we know, appointed one hundred deacons for the Church of Constantinople. Van Espen well points out that while this canon refers to a previous law on the subject, neither the Council itself, nor the Greek commentators Balsamon or Zonaras give the least hint as to what that Canon was.
The Fathers of Neocæsarea base their limiting of the number of deacons to seven in one city upon the authority of Holy Scripture, but the sixteenth canon of the Quinisext Council expressly says that in doing so they showed they referred to ministers of alms, not to ministers at the divine mysteries, and that St. Stephen and the rest were not deacons at all in this latter sense. The reader is referred to this canon, where to defend the practice of Constantinople the meaning of the canon we are considering is entirely misrepresented.
[128] Eusebius, H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xliij.
[129] Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Église, Lib. II., Chap. xxix.
[130] Acta Conc. Chal., Actio x.
The Council of Gangra.
a.d. 325-381.
Emperor.--Constantine.
Elenchus.
Historical Introduction.
Synodal Letter.
The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Historical Introduction.
With regard to the Synod of Gangra we know little beside what we learn from its own synodal letter. Three great questions naturally arise with regard to it.
1. What was its date?
2. Who was the Eustathius it condemned?
3. Who was its presiding officer?
I shall briefly give the reader the salient points with regard to each of these matters.
1. With regard to the date, there can be no doubt that it was after Nice and before the First Council of Constantinople, that is between 325 and 381. Socrates [131] seems to place it about 365; but Sozomen [132] some twenty years earlier. On the other hand, Remi Ceillier [133] inconsistently with his other statements, seems to argue from St. Basil's letters that the true date is later than 376. Still another theory has been urged by the Ballerini, resting on the supposition that the Eusebius who presided was Eusebius of Cæsarea, and they therefore fix the date between 362 and 370. With this Mr. Ffoulkes agrees, and fixes the date, [134] with Pagi, at 358, and is bold enough to add, "and this was unquestionably the year of the Council." But in the old collections of canons almost without exception, the canons of Gangra precede those of Antioch, and Blondel and Tillemont [135] have sustained this, which perhaps I may call the traditional date.
2. There does not seem to be any reasonable ground to doubt that the person condemned, Eustathius by name, was the famous bishop of Sebaste. This may be gathered from both Sozomen [136] and Socrates, [137] and is confirmed incidentally by one of St. Basil's epistles. [138] Moreover, Eustathius's See of Sebaste is in Armenia, and it is to the bishops of Armenia that the Synod addresses its letter. It would seem in view of all this that Bp. Hefele's words are not too severe when he writes, "Under such circumstances the statement of Baronius, Du Pin, and others (supported by no single ancient testimony) that another Eustathius, or possibly the monk Eutactus, is here meant, deserves no serious consideration, though Tillemont did not express himself as opposed to it." [139]
The story that after his condemnation by the Synod of Gangra Eustathius gave up wearing his peculiar garb and other eccentricities, Sozomen only gives as a report. [140]
3. As to who was the president, it seems tolerably certain that his name was Eusebius--if Sozomen [141] indeed means it was "Eusebius of Constantinople," it is a blunder, yet he had the name right. In the heading of the Synodal letter Eusebius is first named, and as Gangra and Armenia were within the jurisdiction of Cæsarea, it certainly would seem natural to suppose that the Eusebius named was the Metropolitan of that province, but it must be remembered that Eusebius of Cappadocia was not made bishop until 362, four years after Mr. Ffoulkes makes him preside at Gangra. The names of thirteen bishops are given in the Greek text.
The Latin translations add other names, such as that of Hosius of Cordova, and some Latin writers have asserted that he presided as legate à latere from the pope, e.g., Baronius [142] and Binius. [143] Hefele denies this and says: "At the time of the Synod of Gangra Hosius was without doubt dead." [144] But such has not been the opinion of the learned, and Cave [145] is of opinion that Hosius's episcopate covered seventy years ending with 361, and (resting on the same opinion) Pagi thinks Hosius may have attended the Synod in 358 on his way back to Spain, an opinion with which, as I have said, Mr. Ffoulkes agrees. It seems also clear that by the beginning of the sixth century the Synod of Gangra was looked upon at Rome as having been held under papal authority; Pope Symmachus expressly saying so to the Roman Synod of 504. (Vide Notes on Canons vij. and viij.)
It remains only further to remark that the Libellus Synodicus mentions a certain Dius as president of the Synod. The Ballarini [146] suggest that it should be Bios, an abbreviation of Eusebius. Mr. Ffoulkes suggests that Dius is "probably Dianius, the predecessor of Eusebius." Lightfoot [147] fixes the episcopate of Eusebius Pamphili as between 313 and 337; and states that that of Eusebius of Cæsarea in Cappadocia did not begin until 362, so that the enormous chronological difficulties will be evident to the reader.
As all the proposed new dates involve more or less contradiction, I have given the canons their usual position between Neocæsarea and Antioch, and have left the date undetermined.
[131] Socrat. H. E., Lib. II., cap. xliij.
[132] Sozomen. H. E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv.
[133] Remi Ceillier. Hist. Générale des Auteurs Sacrés, Tom. IV., p. 735.
[134] E. S. Ffoulkes, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. Gangra.
[135] I am indebted to Hefele for this reference, and he gives Mémoires, note xxvij., sur St. Basile.
[136] Sozom. H. E., III., xiv.
[137] Socrat. H. E., II., xliij.
[138] S. Basil. M.,Ep. ccxxiij.
[139] Hefele. Hist. Councils, Vol. II., p. 337.
[140] Soz. H. E., Lib. III., cap. xiv. It is curious that Canon Venables in his article "Eustathius" in Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog., gives the story on Sozoman's authority as quoted by Hefele, but without giving Hefele's warning that it was a mere rumour. It would seem that Canon Venables could not have consulted the Greek, where the word used is logos; Hefele gives no reference. I have supplied this in the beginning of this note.
[141] Sozomen. H. E., Lib. IV., cap. xxiv.
[142] Baronius. Annal., Tom. iii., ad ann. 361, n. 44.
[143] Binius. Annotat. in Synod. Gang.
[144] Hefele. Hist. Councils, Vol. II., p. 327.
[145] Cave. Hist. Lit., Lib. I., cap. v.
[146] S. Leon., M., Opp., ed. Ballerini, Tom. III., p. xxiv.
[147] Smith and Wace. Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Eusebius of Cæsarea.
Synodical Letter of the Council of Gangra.
Eusebius, Ælian, Eugenius, Olympius, Bithynicus, Gregory, Philetus, Pappus, Eulalius, Hypatius, Proæresius, Basil and Bassus, [148] assembled in the holy Synod at Gangra, to our most honoured lords and fellow-ministers in Armenia wish health in the Lord.
Forasmuch as the most Holy Synod of Bishops, assembled on account of certain necessary matters of ecclesiastical business in the Church at Gangra, on inquiring also into the matters which concern Eustathius, found that many things had been unlawfully done by these very men who are partisans of Eustathius, it was compelled to make definitions, which it has hastened to make known to all, for the removal of whatever has by him been done amiss. For, from their utter abhorrence of marriage, and from their adoption of the proposition that no one living in a state of marriage has any hope towards God, many misguided married women have forsaken their husbands, and husbands their wives: then, afterwards, not being able to contain, they have fallen into adultery; and so, through such a principle as this, have come to shame. They were found, moreover, fomenting separations from the houses of God and of the Church; treating the Church and its members with disdain, and establishing separate meetings and assemblies, and different doctrines and other things in opposition to the Churches and those things which are done in the Church; wearing strange apparel, to the destruction of the common custom of dress; making distributions, among themselves and their adherents as saints, of the first-fruits of the Church, which have, from the first, been given to the Church; slaves also leaving their masters, and, on account of their own strange apparel, acting insolently towards their masters; women, too, disregarding decent custom, and, instead of womanly apparel, wearing men's clothes, thinking to be justified because of these; while many of them, under a pretext of piety, cut off the growth of hair, which is natural to woman; [and these persons were found] fasting on the Lord's Day, despising the sacredness of that free day, but disdaining and eating on the fasts appointed in the Church; and certain of them abhor the eating of flesh; neither do they tolerate prayers in the houses of married persons, but, on the contrary, despise such prayers when they are made, and often refuse to partake when Oblations are offered in the houses of married persons; contemning married presbyters, and refusing to touch their ministrations; condemning the services in honour of the Martyrs [149] and those who gather or minister therein, and the rich also who do not alienate all their wealth, as having nothing to hope from God; and many other things that no one could recount. For every one of them, when he forsook the canon of the Church, adopted laws that tended as it were to isolation; for neither was there any common judgment among all of them; but whatever any one conceived, that he propounded, to the scandal of the Church, and to his own destruction.