THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
troversy (see Arianism; Constantinopolitan Creed). Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzen, and Nectarius successively presided. Gregory Nazianzen was made patriarch, but soon resigned, and Nectarius was then put in his place. Seven canons, four doctrinal and three disciplinary, are attributed to the council and accepted by the Greek Church, but the Roman Church accepts only the first four. (2) The Second Constantinople met in 553 under Justinian, and was an episode of the Three Chapter Controversy (q.v.). (3) The Third Constantinople, Nov. 7, 680-Sept. 16, 681, was called by Constantine Pogonatus and dealt with Monothelitism. It is also known as the First Trullan Council (see Monothelites; Trullan Councils). (4) The Fourth Constantinople, Oct. 5, 869-Feb. 2S, 870, was called by Emperor Basil the Macedonian and Pope Adrian II. (q.v.). It deposed and condemned Photius as patriarch (see Photius) and, of the four Eastern patriarchates, ranked Constantinople before Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (canon xxi.). Of other gatherings the most important are the Second Trullan in 692 (see Trullan Councils), and one which met under Constantine v., Copronymus, in 754 to condemn the presence of images in the churches (see Images and Image-worship, II.).
Bibliography: On the city and its history consult: W. J. Brodribb and W Besant, Constantinople and its Sieges, London, 1878; J. v. Tamamchef, Der Kampf um Constantinopel, Vienna, 1887; J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols., ib. 1889; P. Loti, Les Capitales du monde, Paris, 1892, Eng. transl., 2 vols., London, 1892; E. A. Grosvenor, Constantinople, 2 vols., ib. 1895; W. H. Hutton, Constantinople, ib. 1900; H. O. Dwight, Constantinople and Its Problems, New York, 1901; Diehl on the Hippodrome at Constantinople is in transl. in D. C. Munro and G. C. Sellery, Mediaeval Civilization, pp. 87-113. New York, 1904.
On the patriarchate consult: Krumbacher, Geschichte (pp. 911-1067 contain a sketch of Byzantine history by H. Gelzer, and on pp. 1068-1144 is an exhaustive bibliography)- M. Le Quien, Oriens christianus, especially vol. i., Paris, 1740; J. Hergenrother, Photius, 3 vols., Regensburg, 1867; M. J. Gedeon, Patriarchikoi Kafalogpi, ib. 1890; N. Nilles, Kalendarium manuale utriusque ecclesice, 2 vols., Innsbruck, 1896-97; E. W. Brooks, On the. Lists of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, 638-715, Leipsic, 1896; idem, London Catalogue of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, ib. 1898. On the councils and synods: Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. 1-33, 854-902, iii. 260-286, 328- 344, iv. 384-434, Eng. transl., vols. i.-v.
CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.
I. Texts. The Three Principal Texts (§ 1).
The Addition of " Filio-
que " (§ 2). The Omission of " in," and
the Use of the Singular
(§ 3).
Minor Texts or Forma (§4). II. Origin.
Nicene Creed Proper (§1.) Inadequacv Felt Later (§ 2).
Attempts to Remedy (§3).
Traditional Account of
Origin (§ 4). Its Difficulties: External (§ 5).
Its Difficulties: Internal (§ 6).
Modern Theory of Origin (§ 7).
III. History of its Acceptance. Acceptance in the West (§ 1).
Acceptance in the East (§ 2).
Theory as to Manner of
Sanction (§3). Conclusion (§ 4).
The Constantinopolitan Creed is second of the so-called ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church, and the one which has the best right to the term, being received not only by the Greek and Roman
Catholic communions, but by the various heretical bodies of the East and by the great majority of Protestant churches. It is known also as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, or simply as the Nicene Creed; this name, however, connotes, not the confession of faith adopted at the First Council of Nicsea in 325 (see Nic^a, Councils of, I.), tut a version professing to be a mere enlargement of it, traditionally supposed to have been adopied by the so-called ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 (see Arianism).
I. Texts: There are three principal texts of the creed. (1) The Greek text as found in the acts of the second (imperfectly), fourth, and sixth ecumenical councils and the works of the later Greek Fathers. (2) The Latin text, represented ty a series of translations from the Greek in various manuscripts, of which the most important
1. The are the so-called interpretation of Three Dionysius Exiguus, the acts of the
Principal Council of Toledo (589), those of the Texts. Council of FriuU (796), and that put
up by Leo III. in St. Paul's church at Rome. (3) The Greek text used in the Wett, as preserved in some manuscripts of the ninth md tenth centuries. Mention may also be made of certain ancient versions, such as the Syriac (Nitrian MS. of 562 in the British Museum), the AralMc- Coptic, and two Anglo-Saxon (MSS. of the eleventh and thirteenth centuries at Oxford and Cambridge). The Latin text, especially in its present form, as received by the entire West, is distinguished from the Greek, apart from small variations, by three principal peculiarities: the addition of the Filioque, the omission of in before unam ecclesiam, and the singular form of the words used for assent, Credo, confiteor, spero.
The addition of Filioque, first met with in the acts of the Third Council of Toledo (589), occurs in several Spanish documents of the subsequent age and in some of the Carolingian State Church (796;
see Filioque Controversy). The
2. The doctrine of the double procession of Addition of the Holy Ghost was formulated by " Filioque." Augustine, and was prevalent in the
West from the fifth to the seventh centuries. Its reception into the creed took place in Spain as a safeguard against Visigothic Arianism; thence it spread to the Carolingian empire, and was there accepted as the official version of the creed in the first decade of the ninth century. In Rome, though the Augustinian doctrine was approved, the creed was recited without the addition till the beginning of the ninth century, as is shown by the tablet of Leo III. and his reply to the Prankish envoys in 809. Soon after, however, it was introduced there also, as evidenced by the Ordo Romanus belonging possibly to the second half of the ninth century, and by the controversy with Photius.
The omission of in before ecclesiam was not accidental. It is coeval in the West with the first attestation of the creed. Some Latin versions restore the in, but they are either accurate translations by scholars, or to be referred to the fact that by the usage of that time in might be used merely to indicate that ecclesiam was the accusative.