Canons of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381)

Canon 1

The holy fathers assembled at Constantinople established that the creed of the faith may not be abolished, but must remain in full force—the creed which the three hundred and eighteen fathers, gathered at Nicaea in Bithynia, set forth—and that every heresy must be delivered to anathema, namely: that of the Eunomians or Eudoxians, and of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and of the Sabellians, and of the Marcellians, and of the Photinians, and of the Apollinarians.

(II Ecum. 7; Trullo 1, 75; Gangra 21; Laodicea 7, 8; Carthage 2; Basil the Great 1).

— We have given this canon following the text of the same in the Athenian Syntagma. The text in Beveregius agrees with this text. In others, especially in more recent printed editions, it is somewhat different. Thus in both Russian synodal editions (1843 and 1862), in the edition of Bruns (1839), and in the edition of Riga, after the heresy of the Eunomians, the heresies of the Anomoeans and Arians are also mentioned, and in these editions, after the words about the Nicene creed, the text reads: “every heresy must be delivered to anathema, namely: that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, of the Arians or Eudoxians, and of the Semi-Arians…” We shall presently see that this addition changes nothing in the general sense of the canon.

By this canon the fathers of the Council of Constantinople complete their creed, which they set forth at the council, and deliver to anathema all the heresies, namely those named in the canon.

In the first place the heresy of the Eunomians is delivered to anathema. Up to the middle of the 4th century, in the consideration of the doctrine of the Trinity, attention was directed exclusively to the relation of the second Person of the Holy Trinity to the first Person. The question of the relation of the third Person to the first and second, of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, had not been raised. The Arians had not touched upon this question in their teaching, so that the Council of Nicaea had no explicit occasion to say more about the Holy Spirit in its creed than: πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. But in the course of time Arianism, standing upon its negative view in the doctrine of the Son, could not avoid the question of the Holy Spirit also. Having denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, it necessarily had to come to the question of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. The idea of some being mediating between God and the world could still, in the case of the Son, retain some shadow of possibility, as was taught; but to determine a place for the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity while denying His divinity could be done in no other way than by regarding the Holy Spirit as a member of the Holy Trinity still more subordinate than the Son. And this is what Eunomius, bishop of Cyzicus,[1] did, around the year 360, proclaiming that the Holy Spirit is by order and by nature third, that He was created by the will of the Father with the cooperation of the Son, and must be honored in the third place, as the first and greatest among created beings, and the only one so created by the Only-begotten; but that He is not God, nor does He possess in Himself any power of creating.[2] From this Eunomius the heretics called Eunomians took their name.

With the Eunomians this canon identifies the “Eudoxians,” who received and professed the false teaching of Eunomius. They are so named from Eudoxius, who lived in the first half of the 4th century, and who was first bishop of Germanicia, then of Antioch, and finally of Constantinople.[3] As bishop of Constantinople, he it was who ordained Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus.[4] The teaching of the Eudoxians was similar to that of the Eunomians. Of the Son they taught that he was not even like the Father, and thus they went further even than the Arians. They rebaptized those who passed over into their fellowship, and this by a single immersion (Ap. can. 50); they taught that there is no meaning in the Orthodox doctrine of future punishment and eternal torments. The Eunomians are also called Anomoeans, because they denied consubstantiality, teaching that the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity are in no respect similar in essence to the first Person.[5]

Further the canon delivers to anathema the Semi-Arians, whom it identifies with the Pneumatomachi (“Spirit-fighters”). The Pneumatomachi gave occasion for the holding of this ecumenical council. The chief of the heresy was Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople. He taught that the Holy Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, that he is similar to the angels, and finally that he is a creature.[6] Taking advantage of the reign of Julian, the Pneumatomachi (otherwise called Macedonians) spread their teaching widely, so that at this ecumenical council there were thirty-six Pneumatomachian bishops.[7] Because the Semi-Arians likewise taught of the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the Pneumatomachi, this canon could identify them together. But the Semi-Arians were greater heretics even than the Pneumatomachi, for the latter at least acknowledged the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, whereas the former denied consubstantiality with the Father not only for the Holy Spirit but also for the Son. Moreover, when this canon identifies the Semi-Arians with the Pneumatomachi, it certainly has in view the period after the year 360, when in Asia Minor those many councils of the Pneumatomachi, together with the Semi-Arians, were held, and when the Semi-Arians, for a time at least, had renounced their teaching of the like-substantiality of the Son with the Father.[8]

Further the canon mentions the heresy of the Sabellians. Defending the divinity of the Son of God against the theory of subordinationism, and to demonstrate more strongly the equality of the Son with the Father, Sabellianism came to deny the hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of the Sabellians, together constitute one and the same hypostasis, thus without any distinction among the Persons of the Holy Trinity.[9] The chief of Sabellianism was Sabellius, a Libyan, bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis, who lived in the first half of the 3rd century.[10] During the time of Callistus I (218–223) he was first excommunicated from the Church[11], and thereafter at several councils of the 4th century.[12] Among the Western fathers the Sabellians are also called Patripassians, on account of their teaching, according to which, since the Father constitutes one hypostasis with the Son, and the Son suffered on the cross, therefore the Father too, as not personally distinct from the Son, must likewise have suffered on the cross.

The Patripassians trace their origin from the last years of the 2nd century, when Praxeas began to preach his antitrinitarian doctrine at Rome. The essence of Praxeas’s teaching, according to Tertullian, consists in the following: “Christ the Savior is Himself God the Father (ipse Deus Pater), Himself the almighty Lord. In Himself, in His own essence, this God is Spirit, invisible, immortal, unlimited, subject neither to space, nor to time, nor to suffering, nor to death, nor to any of the conditions or changes to which man is subject. In Christ the Savior this God became incarnate personally, so that the one and the other constitute one and the same hypostasis; God the Father was born of Mary, lived together with men, suffered, was crucified on the cross, died, and was buried.”[13] “Patrem crucifixit,” says the same Tertullian of Praxeas, expressing his whole indignation against these heretics.[14] Another principal representative of the Patripassian antitrinitarians was Noetus, who likewise preached at Rome, in the first half of the 2nd century. Of Noetus, among the first of the church writers to speak of him are Hippolytus[15] and Epiphanius[16], and after them Augustine[17], Theodoret[18], and others. The teaching of Noetus is in essentials identical with that of Praxeas, save that he developed it more broadly and gave it a fuller form. A further representative of the Patripassian antitrinitarians was Sabellius, who reworked the teaching of Praxeas and Noetus and gave it a new, more perfected and more scientific character.[19] Of the Sabellians there is also mention in canon 7 of this same council, and their baptism is regarded as null, so that when they enter the Orthodox Church they must be received as pagans.

The Marcellians likewise are delivered to anathema by this canon. They trace their origin from Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who lived around the middle of the 4th century.[20] Marcellus was present at the First Ecumenical Council and there showed himself the most ardent opponent of Arius and a zealous defender of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.[21] He continued to dispute with the Arians even after the Council of Nicaea, and chiefly with the Semi-Arians. Against one of the chief representatives of Arianism, Asterius,[22] Marcellus also wrote a great work, which has come down to us in fragments, which Eusebius of Caesarea reproduced in his books “Contra Marcellum.” In this work of his, Marcellus takes issue, besides with Asterius, also with Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, with Eusebius of Nicomedia, against Origen, against Narcissus, and even against Eusebius of Caesarea himself. But, refuting the Arian and Semi-Arian doctrine of Christ, Marcellus became too carried away in his polemic against his opponents and fell into Sabellianism, and thereafter drew close to the teaching of Paul of Samosata.[23] Eusebius of Caesarea, in his treatise “On Ecclesiastical Theology,” directed entirely against Marcellus, set forth in the greatest detail the teaching of the Marcellian heresy.[24] The same teaching is set forth by Eusebius also in two books directed against Marcellus.[25] Besides the well-known Sabellian doctrine of Christ, which Marcellianism shared with small exceptions, Marcellus, by the consistent development of the principles he had laid down concerning the Son, came to deny the eternal hypostasis of the Son, and accordingly taught that, when the world comes to an end, then also the kingdom of Christ will come to an end, and even His very being. That such was indeed the teaching of the Marcellians is attested to us, besides by Eusebius, by Athanasius in his book “De synodis,”[26] by Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechesis “On the Second Coming of Christ,”[27] by Hilary, Basil the Great, Socrates, Theodoret, and many others.[28] We have mentioned by name all these fathers and teachers of the Church who speak of the Marcellian heresy because certain more recent Western theologians[29] have wished to prove the orthodoxy of Marcellus, basing themselves on the fact that he was vindicated at the council of Rome in the year 341, and that his teaching was acknowledged as orthodox at the Council of Sardica, chiefly through the defense which Marcellus found with Pope Julius.[30] However, together with the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church in acknowledging the falsity of Marcellus’s teaching stand many among the most sainted of more recent Western minds, so that the question of Marcellus’s heresiarchy is already fully settled among them, and thus the soundness and justice of the condemnation pronounced against the Marcellians by this holy council is proven.

Beveregius expresses the opinion that it was certainly on account of this heresy that the words—καὶ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος, “and of his kingdom there shall be no end”—were inserted by this Council of Constantinople into the Nicene creed, words which are not found in the original redaction of the Nicene creed. We fully share this thought of Beveregius, which he confirms with the following argument: “These words,” he says in his notes on this canon, “are found in no edition of this creed as set forth by the Council of Nicaea; they are found, however, in all editions of this creed as added by this (Second Ecumenical) council and confirmed together with the other additions. Our supposition is best confirmed by the fact that Marcellus himself, in his own confession of faith, declares that he acknowledges in every respect the faith set forth at the Council of Nicaea, for he says: ‘We neither think, nor have we ever thought, otherwise than as the ecumenical and true canon, established at the Council of Nicaea, states’ (apud Epiphan. haer. LXXII, sect. 10). Had these words, ‘and of His kingdom there shall be no end,’ already at that time been placed in the Nicene creed, Marcellus, who denied the eternity of Christ’s kingdom, could not have made this declaration of his acceptance of that creed—therefore these words were added by this council, and indeed in accordance with the condemnation pronounced against the heresy of the Marcellians, which arose in the period between the Nicene and this council.”[31]

The council further delivers to anathema the Photinians. Photinus was a disciple of Marcellus. He was born at Ancyra, and after spending a long time in the diaconate, finally became bishop of Sirmium.[32] His teaching was, with small differences, the teaching of Paul of Samosata. He did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity; God, the Creator of all things, he called Spirit, and of the Son he taught that he was merely the word by which God expresses his will in the accomplishing of his works, or otherwise, that he is a kind of mechanical instrument necessary to God in creation. Of Christ he taught that he was a mere man, who served as an instrument in the accomplishment of the will of God on earth, that he was thus neither similar, still less consubstantial, with God—consequently, that he was not eternal, but received his beginning from Mary.[33] A Western council in the year 345 delivered Photinus to anathema[34]; two years later, a second Western council confirmed the anathema pronounced against Photinus.[35]

Finally the council anathematizes the Apollinarians. Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicea in Syria, around the middle of the 4th century. The fathers and teachers of the Church mention him as a man of deep learning.[36] To Christology he applied the principles of trichotomy, drawn from the psychology of Plato, arguing that just as man consists of three elements—body, soul, and spirit—so too the God-man consists of three elements: body, soul, and Logos. This last takes, in the God-man, the place of the human spirit. By this reasoning Apollinaris arrived at a clear exposition of the union in Christ of humanity and divinity in such a way that they are found in Christ not simply placed side by side, but united in him. If, he said, one is to acknowledge in Christ a human spirit, one must then also acknowledge in him freedom, and consequently mutability (mutabilitas), and this would already cast doubt upon our faith in our redemption. Only by denying a human spirit in Christ can we arrive at a pure conception of the union in Christ of the two natures and at a firm conviction of the truth of our redemption.[37] But Apollinaris, reasoning thus, did not consider that he was thereby destroying the God-man and thereby arriving at a complete denial of humanity in the Redeemer.[38] The falsity of Apollinaris’s Christological teaching was demonstrated and refuted by many fathers of the Church, and chiefly by Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, and Epiphanius, who demonstrated to full evidence the complete divinity, and equally the complete humanity, of Christ, and consequently, against Apollinaris, that in Christ there was a human soul entirely like that in other men.[39] At the council of Alexandria in the year 362, convened by Athanasius, the teaching of Apollinaris concerning the humanity of Christ was examined and condemned.[40] Likewise at the councils of 374–376 and 380, held at Rome under Pope Damasus, the teaching of Apollinaris was condemned and all the bishops who shared this teaching were deposed[41]; finally it was delivered to anathema by this council. Moreover, as we shall see further on in our examination of canon 7 of this council, the baptism of the Apollinarians was recognized as valid, and they were received into the Church only by chrismation, after presenting a written renunciation of their teaching. “These heretics,” says Zonaras, “need not be baptized anew, for, as regards baptism, they do not differ from us in anything, but perform it as do the Orthodox.”[42]

These aforementioned heresies are delivered to anathema. What anathema is, we have already generally stated in our commentary on Ap. canon 5. We add here to what was said there. Ἀνάθεμα, the same word as ἀνάθημα among the Greek classics, comes from ἀνατίθημι and denotes a gift consecrated to the gods and placed in temples. In this sense the word is also used among the writers of the Christian Church. The Evangelist Luke, speaking of the Temple at Jerusalem, says that it was “adorned with goodly stones and gifts (ἀναθήμασιν).”[43] Eusebius describes the temple built by Constantine in honor of the Resurrection of Christ: “In it there were twelve columns, according to the number of the Apostles of Christ, and all were adorned with great silver vessels—a rich gift (κάλλιστον ἀνάθημα) which he offered to his God.”[44] Zonaras describes a maiden consecrated to God: “She is Christ’s bride and consecrated to God (ἀνατεθειμένη τῷ θεῷ) as a holy vessel.”[45] But most commonly this word was used in the New Testament (and there, in its other form—ἀνάθεμα) in the sense of condemnation, exclusion from the community, eternal perdition. Thus, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul writes: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed (anathema)” (16:22); in the same epistle: “To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (5:5). In the Epistle to the Romans: “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren’s sake” (9:3); and in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (1:8)—and in all these places the word ἀνάθεμα is used. The most precise notion of anathema is given us by Chrysostom in his 16th homily on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Speaking in that homily of Paul, Chrysostom thus defines anathema: “What is anathema? Hear him say it himself: ‘Whosoever loveth not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema’—that is, let him be excluded from communion, and let him be estranged from all. For as that which is consecrated to God may not be touched by anyone’s hands, nor may anyone approach it, so also he who has been excluded from the Church must be far from all who are faithful to the Church, nor may anyone dare approach him, shuddering even from contact with him.”[46] Anathema, taken in the sense of these passages of the Apostle Paul, has two meanings, namely, first, it denotes final separation, exclusion (exsecratio, separatio, abalienatio), and second—eternal perdition (aeternum exitium).

Balsamon, in his commentary on canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople of 879, says: “Anathema is separation from God.”[47] Likewise Theophylact: “Anathema is separation, exclusion.”[48] Here belong also those words of the Apostle: “Whosoever loveth not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”[49] On these words of the Apostle, Theodoret remarks: “Let him be anathema—that is, let him be excluded from the common body of the Church, whoever is not devoted to Christ the Lord with ardent love.”[50] And Chrysostom, in his homily against the Anomoeans, adds: “What else is anathema, but that such a one is delivered over to the devil, and that he no longer has any hope of salvation, and that he is entirely alien to Christ.”[51] These same words of Chrysostom are cited by Balsamon in his preface to the Council of Gangra.[52] Athanasius thus interprets the aforesaid words of the Apostle: “Let him be excluded from the Church and from the faithful, and let every one who does not believe be estranged from the people.”[53] Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea, speaking of those who observe Jewish customs, says: “let them be anathema from Christ”[54] — which words Zonaras interprets thus: “let them be estranged and excluded from Christ.”[55] In his commentary on the aforesaid canon of the Council of Constantinople, Balsamon says: “let such a one be anathema; let him be excluded from God and let him be delivered to the devil, as an anathema.”[56] From this arose that manner of expression, both in Greek and in Latin, and in our own language: “to deliver to anathema.”[57]

Besides exclusion, separation, cutting off, anathema also means eternal perdition. Thus the Apostle Paul declares that he himself would wish to be anathema, only that he might save his brethren, who were his kin according to the flesh.[58] Chrysostom interprets this wish of Paul in the sense of eternal perdition, and writes: “Therefore I am tormented, says the Apostle, and if it were possible, I would gladly be excluded and estranged from that fellowship which is with Christ; not from His love—no—but of that joy and that glory I would gladly be deprived…. I would gladly renounce even the kingdom of heaven and that great glory, and I would endure every misfortune.”[59] In his other writings, Chrysostom interprets the anathema expressed in this passage of the Apostle exactly in the sense of eternal perdition. Thus in one homily he interprets thus the Apostle’s words: “I would rather fall into Gehenna than see the Israelites unfaithful”[60]; in his book on the priesthood he says of Paul: “after so many exalted deeds, after so many countless victories he wished to go into Gehenna and be delivered to eternal punishment (εἰς γέενναν ἀπελθεῖν καὶ αἰωνίῳ παραδοθῆναι κολάσει), only that the Jews might be saved.”[61] — After this, the notion of what anathema is, is now clear to us. In the canons we shall very often come upon this word, and always, in accordance with what has been set forth here, we shall understand anathema in the sense of final exclusion from the Church, which brings with it eternal perdition.

Canon 2

Bishops are not to extend their authority beyond their own diocese to churches belonging to others, nor to throw churches into confusion; but, according to the canons, let the bishop of Alexandria administer only those churches which are in Egypt; let the bishops of the East take care only of the East, the privileges granted to the church of Antioch by the Nicene canons being preserved; let the bishops of the diocese of Asia take care only in Asia; those of the Pontic diocese only in Pontus; those of Thrace shall administer only in Thrace. Unless invited, bishops are not to cross the boundaries of their diocese for the purpose of ordination or of any other business pertaining to church administration. When the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses is fully observed, it is clear that, as was established at Nicaea, the affairs of each several eparchy will be administered by the eparchial council in question. And those churches which are among the barbarian nations are to be administered according to the ancestral custom hitherto observed.

(Ap. 34, 37; I Ecum. 4, 5, 6, 7; II Ecum. 3; III Ecum. 8; IV Ecum. 17, 19, 28; Trullo 8, 25, 36, 38, 39; VII Ecum. 3, 6; Antioch 9, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23; Laodicea 40; Carthage 11, 13, 18, 26, 34, 73, 76, 95, 98, 120; Sardica 3; Protodeutera 14).

— In this canon there is mentioned in the first place διοίκησις (dioecesis, diocese), and after it ἐπαρχία (provincia, eparchy). By the first the canon understands a broad ecclesiastical territory, by the second—a smaller one. Both corresponded exactly to the political division of the state, so that the same political terms passed over into ecclesiastical practice as well. A διοίκησις was composed of several smaller territories, of several eparchies, whereas an ἐπαρχία constituted one part of a diocese. The head of an eparchy was, within defined limits, subordinate to the head of the diocese; the head of the diocese had under his subordination, again within defined limits, a fixed number of eparchial heads. This is the sense of the canon when it speaks of diocese and eparchy.

A certain difficulty presents itself in the interpretation of the words with which the canon begins: Τοὺς ὑπὲρ διοίκησιν ἐπισκόπους ταῖς ὑπερορίοις ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ἐπιέναι, which we have translated: “bishops are not to extend their authority beyond their own diocese to churches belonging to others.” We have followed, as the basis of our work, the Athenian text. Our translation agrees with the translations of all the critical editions of the canons in the West. Beveregius translated it thus: “Episcopi ultra dioecesin in ecclesias extra suos terminos ne accedant.” The same reading is found thus in the Codex of John [of Antioch]. Likewise in Hefele. In the collection of Dionysius Exiguus it is otherwise. In him that ὑπέρ is translated as “super” (over), so that the sense of the canon becomes altogether different: “Qui sunt super dioecesin episcopi, nequaquam ad ecclesias, quae sunt extra, praefixos sibi terminos accedant.” Cardinal C. de Riga has copied Dionysius’s text, so that in him too this altered sense of the canon emerges. This latter sense we must altogether reject, first, because the most ancient authentic manuscripts and the most critical editions of more recent times of our canons justify our redaction, and second, because in the translation of Dionysius, and consequently in the edition of Riga, an evident error of the translator is apparent. According to Dionysius’s redaction there would appear a contradiction between the opening words of the canon and what follows further in the canon, whereas according to the redaction which we follow, no such contradiction can arise. Standing on the very text of this canon and on the corresponding commentary of Zonaras thereon, we must maintain that the fathers of the council, in issuing this canon, did not by any means apply the aforesaid words only to certain designated senior bishops, but to all bishops without distinction. The further passage in the canon—“unless invited, bishops are not to cross the boundaries of their diocese for the purpose of ordination or of any other business pertaining to church administration”—best proves this to us.[62][63][64][65]

This canon, in its essence, is nothing other than a repetition of canon 6, and in part of canon 5, of the Council of Nicaea. According to Socrates, the occasion for issuing this canon was that many bishops, fleeing from persecution, moved from their own territory into other territories, and thereby the hierarchical order in the Church was being disrupted. Although this may in some respect be attributed as an occasion for the issuing of this canon, the chief occasion was certainly another. A little while before the council, Meletius of Antioch had come to Constantinople and there, among others, had consecrated a bishop also for the see of Constantinople in the person of Gregory of Nazianzus. Peter of Alexandria, shortly afterward, sent several bishops to Constantinople to install Maximus, the Cynic philosopher, as bishop of Constantinople. In the political division, these three places, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, lay in three different dioceses. Antioch, from which Meletius came, lay in the East; Alexandria, from which Peter sent the bishops, in Egypt; and Constantinople, in which the aforesaid ordinations were carried out, lay in the diocese of Thrace. Since this had caused great disorders in the Church, the fathers of the council, when they had examined the state of affairs and the causes which could give rise to such a state, found it necessary to establish by law that, as regards boundaries, church administration must conform to the political, and accordingly they issued this canon, by which they established the boundaries of church territories fully in accordance with the boundaries of political territories, so that the political division must in every particular apply also to the ecclesiastical, and, just as it was not permitted to political governors to extend their power beyond the boundaries of their own province, so too the same must apply to the heads of the several church territories. In the time of Constantine the whole Roman state was divided into four prefectures, of which one was the Prefecture of the East. The prefect of the East had under his authority five dioceses, each composed of several provinces; these dioceses were: of the East, of Egypt, of Asia (Asia proconsularis), of Pontus, and of Thrace. In the first there were fifteen provinces, in the second six, in the third ten, in the fourth eleven, in the fifth six. Of these political provinces the council speaks and acknowledges them as autonomous in ecclesiastical division as well, ordaining that, just as Egypt is to be administered by the bishop of Alexandria, so too the other territories are to be administered by their own first-bishops, nor may anyone cross the boundaries of his own territory for the sake of ordination or of anything else pertaining to church administration, but each must attend only to the affairs of his own territory. This limitation of the authority of the individual first-bishops to their own territories serves as a measure also for other, lower bishops within their own territories, so that, just as it was not permitted to the former to extend their authority beyond the established boundaries, so too it could in no way be permitted to the latter. The first-bishops of a diocese, or senior metropolitans, or, as they were afterward called, once Thrace, Pontus, and Asia had been subordinated to the see of Constantinople, patriarchs, extended, within defined boundaries, their authority over their diocese, that is, over the heads of the provinces, or, as the canon calls them, the heads of the eparchies, in other words, the metropolitans; these metropolitans extended their authority again within the boundaries of their own eparchy, that is, over the bishops of that eparchy; the bishops, in turn—within the boundaries of their own subordinate, smaller territory. This canon, accordingly, establishes the boundaries of the authority both of the senior metropolitans (or patriarchs) and of the metropolitans and of the bishops. In acknowledging the seniority (πρεσβεῖα) of the senior metropolitans, the council does not thereby concentrate in their persons unconditional authority over every metropolitan or bishop of their territory. The council acknowledges to them supreme oversight in the whole diocese, precedence among all the other bishops of the diocese, and the right of presidency at the diocesan councils, when all the metropolitans of the diocese together with their bishops are assembled. Governance within the individual metropolitan territories of one diocese lies outside their competence and belongs exclusively to the council of the bishops in question under the presidency of their metropolitan. In issuing such a provision, the Council of Constantinople follows in full exactness the provision of the Council of Nicaea.[66][67]

As regards the churches which are among the barbarian nations (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἔθνεσι, in barbaris gentibus), the council establishes that they are to be administered in the manner in which they had been administered up to that time. These churches, which lay beyond the boundaries of the Roman state, were too few in number to compose a diocese, and therefore the council determines nothing particular concerning them, but leaves them to be administered according to the previous manner, namely, either to remain subordinate to the individual diocesan or eparchial bishops—as, for example, Abyssinia was subordinated to the bishop of Alexandria—or to be administered independently, without dependence upon one or another first-bishop.

Relying upon the words of Socrates in his description of this council: “they (the fathers of the Council of Constantinople) established the patriarchs,” and taking into account the period in which Socrates wrote, one might hold, as some indeed do hold, that this council established five or six patriarchates in the East and, in general, that the formal institution of the patriarchate belongs to this council. However, this cannot be maintained when the authentic written monuments that have come down to us from this council are examined. That the fathers of the Council of Constantinople laid the foundation of the institution of the patriarchate, which afterward came into being, cannot be disputed; but the institution itself cannot be ascribed to them. By the aforesaid words, Socrates by no means intends to designate the institution of patriarchs, but rather he means thereby to designate those bishops whom, as Orthodox, the emperor Theodosius names in his legal edict, and who, like the patriarchs of the Old Testament, had to guide the faithful. After the conclusion of the council, Theodosius issued the following law: “We command that immediately all churches be handed over to bishops who confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as one divinity of equal power and glory, and who think nothing impious, and who are in communion with Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, in Egypt with Timothy of Alexandria, in the East with Pelagius of Laodicea and Diodore of Tarsus, in proconsular Asia and in the diocese of Asia with Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch, in the diocese of Pontus with Helladius of Caesarea, Otreius of Melitene, and Gregory of Nyssa, and finally in Moesia and Scythia with Terentius of Scythia and Martyrius of Marcianopolis. All those who are not in communion with the aforesaid must be regarded as excommunicated heretics, and as such must be expelled from the Church, nor may they ever again receive episcopal authority in the Church.” Speaking of patriarchs, Socrates certainly meant the aforesaid bishops as extraordinary plenipotentiaries, whose task it was to confirm the true faith in the individual church territories; for, had Socrates understood by that word true patriarchs, that is, those who were afterward such in church administration, he would, in listing the aforesaid bishops, certainly have named only one per diocese, whereas he mentions several of them in one and the same diocese—for example, in the diocese of Pontus he mentions Helladius and Gregory, in the diocese of Asia, Amphilochius and Optimus—by which he clearly shows that he does not by those words intend true patriarchs, but extraordinary plenipotentiaries, representatives of pure Orthodoxy.[68] It is in this sense, then, and not in another, that the words of Socrates, “they established the patriarchs,” are to be understood. The institution of the patriarchate, accordingly, was first given its foundation by canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea, as we have already spoken of, and thereafter by this canon of the Council of Constantinople—but the true, formal institution of the patriarchate belongs to a later period, as we shall see in its proper place.[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]

Canon 3

The bishop of Constantinople is to have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because that city is New Rome.

(IV Ecum. 28; Trullo 36).

— Socrates confirms for us the authenticity of this canon, saying: “The fathers of the council established the canon by which the bishop of Constantinople must enjoy the primacy of honor after the Roman, because Constantinople is New Rome.”[77] The same is said by Sozomen: “They (the fathers of the council) established that after the bishop of Rome the bishop of Constantinople must have the primacy of honor, for he administers the bishopric of New Rome.”[78] In the West, notwithstanding all these and similar testimonies, the authenticity of this canon has been called into doubt—and the reason is quite understandable. This doubt, moreover, belongs to a more recent period. In the Prisca canonum versio we find this canon standing side by side with the other authentic canons.[79] In the Codex canonum universae ecclesiae we find the same.[80] In the Codex canonum ecclesiasticorum of Dionysius likewise.[81] In Gratian’s Decretum likewise.[82] Cardinal Baronius wished to overthrow the authority of this canon, in order, presumably, to justify that remark of the Roman censors upon this canon in Gratian’s Decretum: “Canon hic ex his est, quod apostolica Romana sedes a principio, et longo post tempore non recepit.”[83] Baronius’s endeavor has remained unsuccessful, and the authenticity of canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council is acknowledged by the best scholars of the West.[84]

What gave occasion for the issuing of this canon is evident from the concluding words of the canon itself. “The city of Byzantium,” says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, “did not have the dignity of an archbishopric, but its bishop, in ancient times, used to be ordained by the metropolitan of Heraclea. History tells us that Byzantium had formerly had an independent government, but that it was afterward conquered by the Roman emperor Severus and made subject to the Perinthians—and Perinthus is Heraclea. When Constantine the Great transferred the scepter of the Roman Empire to this city, it was named Constantinople, New Rome, and the queen of all cities.”[85] In the history of Sozomen we read: “Constantinople had not only a senate and classes of citizens and a magistracy, as did old Rome, but the relations of the citizens of Constantinople were also governed by the Roman laws that were in force in Italy; in a word, Constantinople enjoyed all the rights and privileges in equal measure with old Rome.”[86] Taking into account this elevation of Constantinople above the other cities, the fathers of the council found it fitting to raise likewise in honor the bishop of Constantinople above the other bishops, and accordingly they acknowledge to the bishop of Constantinople the primacy of honor among all the bishops, after the bishop of old Rome—primacy of honor (πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς, prioris honoris partes), quite similarly to how the fathers of the Council of Nicaea had acknowledged such to the bishop of Jerusalem. From a comparison of this canon with canon 2 of the same council the sense of this canon is best shown. The fathers of the council express themselves precisely in this canon of theirs and acknowledge πρεσβεῖαν τῆς τιμῆς (primatum honoris) to the bishop of Constantinople, but they do not yet acknowledge to him πρεσβεῖαν τῆς ἐξουσίας or πρεσβεῖαν in general—that is, they acknowledge that he may take the first place before others in general assemblies, but they grant him no authority whatever over others. Whereas all the rights of a metropolitan come down either to primacy τῆς ἐξουσίας, or to primacy τῆς τιμῆς, the fathers of the council acknowledge to the bishop of Constantinople only this latter primacy before others; more than this they could not acknowledge to him, since they had already issued the preceding canon. Standing on the words of Socrates, who places Nectarius of Constantinople as chief guardian of the faith for Thrace, and relying upon a similar passage in Theodoret, one must nevertheless hold that it is not a bare honor, without any authority whatsoever, that is acknowledged to the bishop of Constantinople by this canon.[87][88] Primacy of authority he could not have had over the other bishops, for the council does not acknowledge that to him, but he did have authority within his own territory, such as Thrace must certainly be acknowledged to be. Besides Socrates and Theodoret, we have further testimony of the definite authority of the bishop of Constantinople in his right, whereby he, for instance, appoints Eunomius as bishop of Cyzicus, Eutropius as bishop of Bithynia, and so forth.[89] “They are greatly mistaken,” says Valesius in this regard in his notes on the history of Socrates, “who hold that at the time of the Second Ecumenical Council the bishop of Constantinople did not have his own diocese.”[90] Authority, then, the bishop of Constantinople had, within the boundaries of his own territory, equally with the other metropolitans; primacy of honor he had over all the bishops, after the Roman. By this canon there was laid, in a certain manner, the foundation of that patriarchal authority which the bishop of Constantinople would receive only later, at the Council of Chalcedon. This canon was understood in the sense that we give it by all the bishops of Constantinople who came afterward, and especially by John Chrysostom, Nectarius’s successor. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, basing themselves on this canon and on the same considerations, will afterward acknowledge to the bishop of Constantinople that authority which belonged to him by virtue of his position. It is worthy of note that the fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council, in issuing this canon, do not speak of any sacred or ecclesiastical prerogatives of the see of Constantinople, for example, of apostolic succession or the like, but only of the outward, civil importance of that place which the bishop of Constantinople occupies—“because that city is New Rome,” and nothing more. In view of this, the fathers of the council place his see before others much older and apostolic, such as, for example, were the sees of Antioch and Alexandria. Thus even in the very honor which they acknowledge to the bishop of Constantinople, they have in view only the hierarchical order and the outward significance of the hierarch. This same consideration, evidently, the fathers have in view when they speak also of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and acknowledge to him that primacy before all other bishops for no other reason than that his see is situated in the old capital. In this the fathers of the council are guided by the same principle which had guided the fathers of the Council of Nicaea in establishing the outward ecclesiastical system, and by which they applied to the church division the political division of the Roman state. Of this question we shall speak further, at greater length, in our examination of canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon and canon 36 of the Council of Trullo.

Canon 4

Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorders which he caused in Constantinople, we declare: Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, and likewise those are not lawfully ordained whom he appointed to any degree of the clergy whatsoever; everything that was done by him and through him is null and void.

— Particulars concerning Maximus and the disorders which he caused in the Church are found in the biography of Gregory of Nazianzus,[91] in the verses of Gregory himself on his own life,[92] and in the church history of Sozomen.[93] Maximus was born at Alexandria of pious parents, around the middle of the 4th century; by his manner of life he belonged to the Cynic school of philosophy, and, adhering strictly to the Cynic way of life, he succeeded in gaining a reputation among his contemporaries.[94] Among others, he was able at first to win over even Basil the Great himself to his side, who commends him in one of his letters. Cunning to the highest degree and ambitious to the point of baseness, he passed himself off as a strict Orthodox believer, and even as a confessor of the faith.[95] Jerome mentions one work of Maximus’s: De fide adversus Arianos librum, which he presented to the emperor Gratian at Milan.[96] Having succeeded by cunning in winning the favor of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he procured from Peter a letter in which the latter recommends him to the faithful of Constantinople, and with this same letter, after a short time, Maximus set out for Constantinople. At Constantinople he found Gregory of Nazianzus, whom he so charmed with his words and his bearing that Gregory took him into his own house, at his own table, baptized him, and shortly afterward enrolled him among his own clergy and gave him the first place after himself in the church of Constantinople. Maximus’s ambition was still not satisfied even by this, and in his evil soul he conceived the plan of removing Gregory from the episcopal see and of securing that see for himself. With this intention he sent letters and money to Alexandria, requesting that two or three bishops come to Constantinople who might ordain him to the position which Gregory occupied. His request was answered at Alexandria, and two bishops were dispatched at once. As soon as the Egyptian bishops arrived at Constantinople with the authorization of Peter of Alexandria, the ordination of Maximus was to have been carried out at once, and it would indeed have been carried out at once, had not the faithful, learning of this and enraged against the brazen usurper, driven both him and the bishops out of the church. He did not, however, quiet down, but withdrew, together with the Egyptian bishops, to the house of a certain musician (in choraulae cujusdam aedibus), and there carried out the unlawful ordination—“although he could gain no advantage whatsoever from this crime, for no one was willing, nor able, to recognize him as bishop, except a few of his own partisans, enemies of Gregory of Nazianzus, whom he hastened to ordain to various degrees of the clergy”—so remark Balsamon and Zonaras in their commentaries on this canon.[97] The enraged people forced him to leave Constantinople, and he returned to Alexandria, whence, after he had begun to stir up trouble there too and to form a party against Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, and to ordain all sorts of persons, he was banished by decree of the prefect.[98] It was against this Maximus that this canon was issued by the Council of Constantinople, establishing that Maximus cannot be regarded as a bishop, since his ordination was unlawful, and that likewise all the ordinations which he carried out must be regarded as unlawful, since he possessed no authority whatsoever to ordain. “When it was afterward discovered that Maximus was moreover a follower of the Apollinarian heresy, he was delivered to anathema,” adds Balsamon at the place cited.[97] There are, then, two reasons on account of which the Council of Constantinople issued such a provision concerning Maximus, as Beveregius also observes in his notes on this canon.[99] The first is that Maximus employed money with the bishop of Alexandria, Peter, in order to obtain the episcopal see of Constantinople. Balsamon and Zonaras attest to this in their commentaries mentioned above, and further the scholiast Harmenopulus attests to it likewise, who says: “This Maximus, the Cynic philosopher, who was baptized by Gregory the Theologian, was ordained bishop by certain persons by means of money.”[100] The second reason is that he was appointed not by the bishop of that territory, but by foreign bishops who came from Egypt. Thereby two canons (4 and 6) of the Council of Nicaea were violated: the first, which ordains that all the bishops of a province, either directly or indirectly, must take part in the appointment of a bishop, whereas here they not only did not take part, but were even opposed; and the second, which establishes that any ordination carried out without the knowledge of the metropolitan in question must be regarded as null—and Maximus was appointed not only not by the metropolitan of Heraclea, to whom the bishop of Constantinople was at that time subject, but he did not even obtain that metropolitan’s consent in this matter. Accordingly, the ordination of Maximus had to be regarded as unlawful, therefore null—and this nullity is declared by this canon.

The conduct of the Roman Church in this affair was not the most honorable. When Maximus received ordination from the Egyptian bishops at Constantinople, he wrote at once to the bishops of Italy, informing them of his ordination, and sent them the letter of Peter of Alexandria, in which the latter attests that he stands in communion with the church of Alexandria. The Italian bishops, who were at that time assembled at a council at Aquileia, having read the letters of Maximus, received him into their fellowship, all the more readily in that they did not look with favor upon Gregory, on account of his fame, and did not regard the installation of Gregory to the see of Constantinople as lawful. What is more, when Maximus was afterward deposed by the fathers of our council and Nectarius elected in his place, the Western bishops, informed of this, refused solemnly to recognize Nectarius, but wrote to the emperor Theodosius, requesting that he order the Eastern bishops to come to Rome for a council, at which the question of Nectarius and Maximus was, as it were, to be resolved.[101] “A fitting opportunity,” remarks upon this Peter de Marca, “which the Western bishops, with Damasus at their head, eagerly seized, in order to extend their authority over the see of Constantinople.”[102] It appears that at the beginning Damasus had condemned the election of Maximus—at least this can be inferred from two letters which he addressed to Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica—but afterward, when it seemed to him that from this affair the authority of the Roman see might be raised, he again took the side of Maximus and began to defend his election against Nectarius. In the East they acted as the state of affairs at that time demanded, and instead of answering the wish of the pope and smoothing his path to the achievement of his aim, the bishops assembled by themselves in council and confirmed the election of Nectarius, and the emperor then sent his envoys to Rome to communicate the council’s decision and to request that it be taken as final.[103] It was natural that, though against their will, the Italian bishops and Damasus had nevertheless to abandon their pretension and to acknowledge the council’s decision.[104]

Canon 5

As regards the tome of the Westerners—we too accept those from Antioch who confess the single divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(II Ecum. 1; Trullo 1; Carthage 1, 2.)

— This canon has been interpreted in various ways. The tome of the Westerners (τόμος τῶν δυτικῶν, volumen occidentalium, tomus occidentalium) has been understood differently.[105] Some, namely the Greek commentators of the Middle Ages, maintain that this “tome” denotes the confession of faith of the Council of Sardica of the year 343, whereas others, scholars of more recent times, demonstrate that by it must be understood the letter of the Roman council of 369 to the Eastern bishops, which was received and signed, in the year 378, at the council of Antioch.[106] We cannot accept the first assertion, for it is impossible to justify it by contemporary evidence. Zonaras, who was the first to put forward such an assertion, speaks thus in his commentary on this canon: “The emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having gone over to Arianism, sought to destroy the decrees of the First Council. The pope of old Rome informed Constans, brother of Constantius, of this. Constans threatened his brother by letter with war, should he not cease persecuting the true faith. The result was that both emperors agreed that a council should be convened and that the Nicene confession of faith should there be taken up for examination. At Sardica there assembled 376 fathers, who set forth in writing their confirmation of the Nicene creed and the excommunication of all those who believe otherwise. This written statement of the Council of Sardica the Second Council calls the ‘tome of the Westerners,’ and it accepts those who received this tome at Antioch. The council calls the bishops assembled at Sardica Westerners. Their written statement of faith it calls the ‘tome of the Westerners’ because it was signed only by the Western bishops, for the 170 Eastern bishops (Arians) declared that they would not take part in the council until Paul the Confessor and Athanasius the Great had left the council.”[107] Balsamon says likewise.[108] The scholiast of Harmenopulus’s collection says on this canon of ours: “When Constantius had gone over to Arianism, a council of 341 bishops was convened by the bishop of Rome at Sardica, at which this tome (hoc tomum sive scriptum) was set forth, which Constans, Constantius’s brother, confirmed.”[109] It is not possible to agree with this assertion, first because this “tome of the Westerners” would certainly have had to speak of the state of the church of Antioch, and second, because it would have had, in particular, to concern the division among the faithful at Antioch, namely the Meletian schism.[110] But in the decrees of the Council of Sardica there is nothing of this, nor could there have been any mention of it, for the simple reason that this council was held no less than seventy-four years before the appearance of the Meletian schism. Moreover, the fathers of our council, it is evident, have in view here some recent council, and certainly not the Council of Sardica, which had been held thirty-eight years before.[111] It is not, then, the decree of the Council of Sardica that is to be understood here under the “tome of the Westerners,” but some other document. Peter de Marca, Valesius, Beveregius, G. Cave, Hefele, and Archimandrite Joann hold approximately one and the same view of this matter.[112][113][114][115][116][117] We shall accordingly regulate our own judgment.

In the year 369 a council was held at Rome, whose chief task was to proclaim the faith in the consubstantiality of the divine Persons and to anathematize Auxentius, bishop of Milan, the chief protector of Arianism in the West.[118] Having set forth their confession of faith, the council dispatched its letter to the Eastern bishops at Antioch, informing them of the council’s decision and requesting that they declare their judgment on the matter.[119] Nine years afterward a great council was convened at Antioch, at which there were one hundred and forty-six Orthodox bishops, with a twofold aim: to abolish the schism which had arisen among the Orthodox, and to devise means whereby the Church might be given the victory over Arianism. In order to achieve especially this latter aim, the assembled bishops first examined and then adopted and signed the letter of the Roman council of the year 369, having added several dogmatic explanations to what the letter contained; and this the council (of Antioch) sent to Rome, as an addendum to their written report, together with a copy of that same letter of the Roman council (of the year 369) bearing their signatures and their declaration on the matter of the faith in consubstantiality.[120][121] After a short time the Western bishops wrote to the Eastern bishops concerning the discord which had by then arisen among the Orthodox, and in their letter they recall to them their first epistle (τόμος), in which they had already declared that they recognized both parties at Antioch as Orthodox. The Eastern fathers, assembled at the Council of Constantinople, moved among other things to speak of the Antiochenes, and this because they were anxious lest the then-existing dispute between the two bishops there, Meletius and Paulinus, should bring some harm to Orthodoxy, declared, as it were in answer to the declaration of the Westerners made in their first epistle concerning the Antiochenes, that they too recognize as Orthodox the Christians at Antioch. Accordingly—this “tome of the Westerners,” this τόμος τῶν δυτικῶν (tomus occidentalium, volumen occidentalium) is not the confession of faith of the Council of Sardica, as the Greek commentators maintain, but it is that letter of the Roman council of the year 369, which the Eastern fathers received and confirmed with their signatures at the council of the year 378 at Antioch. Accordingly, this canon of ours, which, it must be admitted, is not set forth with the greatest clarity, could be set forth otherwise, in this manner: “As regards the tome, τόμος, which we have received from the Westerners, and which was drawn up at the Roman council of the year 369 and received and signed at the council of the Eastern bishops at Antioch in the year 378, we declare that we too recognize as Orthodox those from Antioch who confessed the single divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

In the collection of canons of John Scholasticus the following is added to this canon: “The bishops who made this declaration of theirs are: Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, and the remaining one hundred and fifty fathers.”[122] This addition to our canon is significant especially because it refutes the opinion of those who cast doubt on the issuing of this canon by the Second Ecumenical Council, endeavoring to demonstrate that it was issued after the conclusion of the Second Ecumenical Council, and consequently, that it is not authentic.

Canon 6

Since many, intending to confuse and destroy order in the Church, maliciously and slanderously invent certain accusations against Orthodox bishops who govern the churches, with no other purpose than by this to besmirch the good name of the priesthood and stir up peaceable peoples to sedition; for this reason the holy council of bishops assembled at Constantinople decrees that accusers are not to be received without discrimination, and thus it is proper neither to permit all, nor to forbid all, to bring accusations against the rulers of the church. But if anyone brings against a bishop some accusation of his own, that is, a private complaint—whether on account of an injury done to his property, or on account of some other wrong committed by the bishop—in such accusations one need not take into consideration either the persons of the accusers, nor their faith. For it is altogether necessary that the bishop’s conscience be clear, and that he who considers himself wronged should find justice, of whatever faith he may be. But if the transgression of which the bishop is accused is an ecclesiastical one, then the person of the accuser must be examined. And before all else, heretics must be forbidden to bring accusations against Orthodox bishops in ecclesiastical matters; and by heretics we understand both those who have long since been excluded from the Church, and those who have afterward been anathematized by us. Besides these, this must also be forbidden to those who pretend to confess the true faith, but among these have gone over into schism, or who form conspiracies against our canonically appointed bishops. Moreover, if any have previously been condemned by the Church on account of some accusations and excluded, or excommunicated—whether they be of the clergy or of the order of laymen—such persons likewise are not to be permitted to bring accusations against bishops until they first free themselves from their own transgression. Likewise, accusations against a bishop or against other clergy are not to be received from those who are themselves under some charge, until they prove that they themselves are free of the transgressions of which they are accused. But if some, who are neither heretics, nor have been excommunicated, nor condemned, nor accused of any transgressions, declare that they have some accusation against a bishop in ecclesiastical matters, the holy council decrees that such persons must first present their accusation before the bishops of the eparchy, and before them prove the transgressions of which they accuse the bishop; but if it happens that the bishops of the eparchy are unable to pronounce judgment on the transgressions brought against the bishop, then the accusers shall proceed to the greater council of the bishops of that diocese, gathered expressly for that accusation; yet even these shall not be permitted to bring their accusation before they declare in writing that they will submit to an equal penalty if, after the ensuing hearing, it is proven that they have slandered the accused bishop. But whoever, after what we have now said, despising the decrees issued, presumes to trouble the emperor, or the courts of the secular authorities, or to disturb the ecumenical council, such a one shall in no wise be permitted to bring his accusation, for he has violated the canons and disturbed the order of the Church.

Protodeutera 13; Theophilus of Alexandria 9

— In the 74th and 75th Apostolic canons we saw to whom the church trial belonged and what it was like for consecrated persons in the first centuries of the Church, and at the same time we saw who could be accusers against consecrated persons; in the present canon the prescriptions of the aforementioned Apostolic canons, and of other canons issued on the same subject at particular councils held before the Second Ecumenical Council,[123] are repeated and supplemented.

The occasion for the issuing of this canon is clear from the opening words of the canon: “Since many, intending to confuse and destroy order in the Church, maliciously and slanderously invent certain accusations against Orthodox bishops who govern the churches, with no other purpose than by this to besmirch the good name of the priesthood and stir up peaceable peoples to sedition,” the holy fathers, in order to forestall such occurrences in the future, found it good to issue this canon. In it they speak, first, of the distinction between accusations of a private character and accusations of an ecclesiastical character; then of the persons who may bring the one or the other kind of accusation against bishops; and lastly, of the competent courts.

Under accusations of a private character are to be understood those which do not concern the Church and in which the Church has no business—for example, when someone accuses a bishop on account of some wrong done to him, or because he has seized his property, or because he has done him some injury, or the like; under accusations of an ecclesiastical character—those which entail excommunication or deposition from holy orders, such as sacrilege, simony, and the like. To bring the first kind of accusation against bishops the canon permits everyone without distinction, for here every member of society has his own rights, guaranteed to him by the exact civil laws: “in such accusations one need not take into consideration either the persons of the accusers, or their faith, for it is altogether necessary that the bishop’s conscience be clear, and that he who considers himself wronged should find justice, of whatever faith he may be,” says the canon. As regards the second kind of accusation, the canon commands that the most serious attention be paid to the persons who come forward as accusers, and it categorically forbids such accusations to be brought by a) heretics, b) schismatics, c) those who form illegal assemblies, d) deposed clergy, e) laymen excommunicated from the Church, and f) those who are under trial and have not yet cleared themselves.

By the general name of heretics the fathers in their canon call not only those who teach falsely concerning the faith, but also schismatics and those who form assemblies against a bishop. In his letter to Amphilochius of Iconium, Basil the Great precisely distinguishes heretics from schismatics and from those who form illegal assemblies. According to Basil, αἵρεσις [heresy] occurs when some preach something wholly contrary to the Orthodox faith and have wholly estranged themselves from the Church; σχίσμα [schism] occurs when some think differently about particular ecclesiastical matters and questions which admit of reconciliation; παρασυναγωγή [an illicit assembly] occurs when unruly presbyters or bishops gather together with some part of the people into illegal assemblies, opposing the ordinances of authority (canon 1). From the juxtaposition of the words about heretics in our canon, where schismatics too are called by the same name, with the aforementioned words of Basil, where schismatics are strictly distinguished from heretics, one might draw out a certain contradiction, which Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, seeks to resolve in the following way: “When you hear,” he says, “that this canon calls heretics also those who pretend to confess our faith purely, but who meanwhile have separated and gather in assemblies against our canonically appointed bishops, do not suppose that this contradicts the other (alias, the first) canon of Basil the Great, which does not call schismatics heretics; rather, say that this canon calls heretics those schismatics who think altogether differently but who show themselves pretending to be Orthodox, while in fact being heretics; whereas the canon of Saint Basil speaks of other schismatics, who are in fact Orthodox, but who through some misunderstanding have voluntarily separated from the brotherhood.”[124] This effort of Balsamon’s to bring the canon of this council into agreement with the canon of Basil the Great is altogether superfluous, nor can it be justified. If the sense of this canon were to be interpreted in this way, it would then be superfluous, as Beveridge rightly observes, to add in the canon a separate word about schismatics. This canon not only does not contradict the canon of Basil the Great, but rather confirms it. In it the fathers clearly indicate that one must distinguish heretics from schismatics and from those who form illegal assemblies, for they mention each of the three separately. Only the fathers do not understand heretics here in the ordinary, narrow sense, but in a broader sense, so that under it are understood not only recognized heretics, but also schismatics and those who form illegal assemblies. The thought of the fathers might accordingly be expressed thus: “we forbid the bringing of accusations against bishops by all heretics, understanding by this name of heretics not only those who are such in fact, and whom we or our fathers have condemned for their false teaching, but also all those who have gone over into schism, and those who form illegal assemblies against canonically appointed bishops, notwithstanding that they pretend to confess the Orthodox faith.” In the writings of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church, schismatics are quite often designated by the name of heretics. And indeed, we find many schisms which at their beginning still hold to Orthodoxy, but afterward gradually depart from Orthodoxy and adopt one heresy or another, from which they thereafter never separate. In the commentary of Blessed Jerome on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Titus we read: “Inter haeresim et schisma hoc esse arbitrantur, quod haeresis perversum dogma habeat; schisma propter episcopalem dissensionem ab ecclesia separetur. Quod quidem in principio aliqua ex parte intelligi potest. Caeterum nullum schisma non sibi aliquam confingit haeresim, ut recte ab ecclesia recessisse videatur.”[125] And in Augustine: “Neque enim scissio vel schisma fieri potest, nisi diversum aliquid sequantur qui faciunt; haeresis autem schisma inveteratum.”[126] Rightly, then, in our canon schismatics are placed together with heretics on an equal footing, as persons who have no right to bring an accusation against Orthodox bishops in church matters, for by their very nature they cannot but accuse, in all manner of invented transgressions, those bishops from whom they have separated. For this reason Athanasius too does not permit the Meletians to be his accusers, because they are schismatics. “Meletiani enim sunt,” he says in his apology against the Arians, “qui accusant, quibus nulla fides habenda, utpote qui non jam solum, sed a tempore beati Petri episcopi et martyris, schismatici fuerint et ecclesiae inimici; qui ipsi Petro insidiati, Achillam ejus successorem calumniati sunt et Alexandrum apud ipsum imperatorem accusarunt. Postquam enim talia moliti sunt, Athanasium tandem adorti, nihil agunt a sua improbitate alienum.”[127]

To heretics, then, and after them to schismatics, and further to those who form illegal assemblies against canonically appointed bishops, this canon forbids, in the first place, the bringing of accusations against a bishop. This canon was followed by all the Christian churches from the most ancient times. The canons of the councils of Antioch, Sardica, and Carthage bear witness to this (Carth. 128, 129; Antioch 14; Sardica 3, 4, 5). Athanasius the Great, in his apology to the Emperor Constantius, denies all significance to the accusations which the Arians brought against him;[128] Augustine likewise expresses himself concerning the accusations of heretics against the Orthodox.[129] Filled with the intention of preserving the standing of the Orthodox, Justinian issues a law by which he forbids heretics not only to be accusers, but even to be witnesses against the Orthodox: “Sancimus, contra orthodoxos quidem litigantes nemini haeretico esse in testimonia communionem, sive utraque pars orthodoxa sit, sive altera.”[130] The same law thereafter entered the Basilica, and was carried to the point that “ex haereticis Manichaei… nulla in re testimonium perhibeant.”[131] In the Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles we find set out in detail all the legal enactments touching upon this question.[132]

Besides these, the canon forbids the bringing of accusations against a bishop by deposed clergy, laymen excommunicated from the Church, and those who are under trial. Such a prohibition is naturally altogether necessary for them, for all of these, being by law under trial, as persons accused can have no right to bear witness, still less themselves to bring accusations. These were also forbidden to bring accusations by more ancient canons—for example, the canons of the Council of Carthage. In general, in the same regard church practice was governed in this matter by the same rule as governed civil affairs under the civil laws.[133]

To all others, “who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated from the church’s fellowship, nor under accusation for transgressions,” adds the canon, it is permitted, if they have cause, to come forward as accusers against a bishop. But even here the canon does not issue its prescription unconditionally. It requires that such persons give a written undertaking “that they are ready themselves to submit to that same penalty which would befall the accused bishop, should it be proved, upon the hearing of the accusation, that the bishop is innocent and that they were merely slanderers of the bishop.” This condition was required both by the ecclesiastical and by the civil laws. In the Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, as likewise in the Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles, special sections are devoted to this matter. In the former we find Title XVI, under the heading: “De episcopis, qui accusantur, et de iis qui ad accusandum debent, aut non debent, admitti.”[134] In the latter we find a special chapter under the heading: “Τίνες, καὶ παρὰ τίσι κατηγοροῦσιν ἐπισκόπῳ.”[135] In Justinian’s Code, under the title De calumniatoribus, we read the law of Honorius and Theodosius: “Quisquis crimen intendit, non impunitam fore noverit licentiam mentiendi, cum calumniantes ad vindictam poscat similitudo supplicii.”[136] The same we read also in the Basilica.[137]

Only after the observance of all the aforementioned conditions does the canon permit that an accusation be brought against a bishop. As regards the conduct of the trial itself, the fathers of the council repeat and supplement earlier canons: the 74th Apostolic canon, the 5th canon of the First Council of Nicaea, canons 14, 15, and 20 of the Council of Antioch, and others. The accusation must be brought to the council of all the bishops τῆς ἐπαρχίας, that is, to the council composed of all the bishops of one metropolitan province, in which the presiding place belongs by right to the metropolitan. By ἐπαρχία is understood in the canons, as we have already noted in several places, a church province in which there are several bishops, all of whom are dependent upon one chief bishop, who is usually called the metropolitan. Ἐπαρχία gives us the concept of a metropolitanate in the sense in which the 34th Apostolic canon presents it to us. Before such an eparchial, or in other words metropolitan, council, then, the accusation against a bishop must first be brought and there heard. If this council cannot hear the accusation and pronounce final judgment, the matter must then be transferred to the council of the bishops τῆς διοικήσεως, that is, to the council composed of all the bishops and metropolitans of a great church province, or of a patriarchate, in which the presiding place belongs by right to the patriarch. Διοίκησις corresponds, as we have seen in the commentaries on the Nicene canons and on the 2nd canon of this council, to the concept of the present-day patriarchate, and accordingly the diocesan council corresponds to the concept of the patriarchal council, at which the members are all the metropolitans and bishops of one patriarchate under the presidency of the patriarch. Like Zonaras, let us adduce an example from our own time, that this may be better understood. One ἐπαρχία today is formed by Thessaly, in which there are eight bishops: of Kitros, of Kampania, of Platamon, of Servia (and Kozani), of Polyani (and Vardaria), of Petra, of Ardameri, and of Ieria, and all of these are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, and all of them together with their several districts compose the metropolitan province of Thessaly; or Crete, in which there are the bishops of Arkadia, of Avlopotamos (and Rethymno), of Kydonia (and Kissamos), of Petra, of Sitia (and Ierapetra), and of Chersonesos, and all of these are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Crete, and all of them together with their several districts compose the metropolitan province of Crete; or Thrace, in which are the bishops of Gallipoli (and Madytos), of Myriophyton (and Peristasis), and of Metrai (and Athyra), who are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Heraclea and compose the metropolitan province of Thrace. All these metropolitans—of Thessaly, of Crete, of Thrace, and seventy-eight others besides—together compose one διοίκησις, at the head of which is the Patriarch of Constantinople, and all of them gathered together compose the diocesan (or patriarchal) council.[138] At this diocesan council, our canon prescribes, final judgment must be pronounced upon every accusation brought against a bishop. Against the sentence of this council there could be no further appeal anywhere—except in extraordinary cases, when the matter was of special importance, and then it was decided by the ecumenical council.

The fathers of the council conclude this canon of theirs with a categorical prohibition against receiving as accusers against a bishop those who, despising this ordinance, presume to turn to the secular authorities. By this the fathers of the council in the main repeat the prescription of the 12th canon of the Council of Antioch. At that time many clergy and laymen, in their accusations concerning church affairs, turned directly to the civil authorities, bypassing the ecclesiastical court, and, having been condemned by the ecclesiastical court, endeavored to obtain from the civil authorities the annulment of the sentence. This was the cause of much disorder and much injustice in the affairs of church administration. The ecclesiastical court was losing its force. Those condemned by law by their own authorities managed, by deceit or by other means, to win over to their side the civil power, which, especially under the rule of the non-Orthodox emperors Constantius, Julian, and Valens, annulled the sentences not only of individual bishops, but even of whole councils, so that the guilty were vindicated while the innocent underwent undeserved punishments. The canon prescribes that at the great council of bishops every case must be brought to a close, without any further appeal; and whoever despises this lawful authority of the Church and presumes to turn to the civil authorities thereby, “having offended against the canons and disturbed the order in the Church,” himself becomes guilty and forfeits every right he had until then enjoyed in this regard. The interference of civil authority in church affairs was always condemned by the canons in the most decisive manner. As an example, among countless others, let us take the conduct of John Chrysostom and Athanasius the Great, who, having been condemned by many councils, would in no wise consent to resume their sees anew, even though they had been restored by imperial power, until such time as they had been fully vindicated by councils greater and of more authority than those which had before condemned them.[139] This ecclesiastical principle, that it is unseemly for secular power to interfere in church affairs, was always sacredly preserved in the Church, and the civil authorities themselves, for the most part, only reluctantly took upon themselves the hearing of church affairs. Even the non-Orthodox civil authorities, at least in later centuries, were unwilling to involve themselves in such affairs, leaving them to the ecclesiastical authority and recognizing its full competence in this regard. This ordinance of the Second Ecumenical Council, that church matters must not be brought before the judgment of civil authorities, was solemnly repeated at the Fourth Ecumenical Council.[140]

Canon 7

We receive those who are converted from heresy to Orthodoxy, and are numbered among those who are being saved from among the heretics, according to the following order and custom: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari and “the left” [ἀριστεροί][141], likewise also the Quartodecimans, or Tetradites, and the Apollinarians, we receive when they present a document in their own hand and anathematize every heresy that does not teach as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God teaches—sealing them, that is, anointing them with the holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, and as we seal them we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. But the Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, the Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, the Sabellians, who preach Son-Fatherhood [υἱοπατορία] and do other evil deeds, and all the other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those who come from the region of Galatia)—all these, when they wish to join the Orthodox, we receive as Greeks [pagans]: on the first day we make them Christians, on the second, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcise them with a threefold insufflation upon the face and into the ears, and then, after we have sufficiently instructed them in the truths of the faith and have taken care that they remain in the church for a long time and listen to the Holy Scripture, we then baptize them.

Carthage 57; Basil the Great 1, 5, 47

— The great multitude of heretics of every kind that existed in the fourth century called forth from the fathers of the Church an unceasing legislative activity concerning them. The fathers’ striving to root out heresies and to win heretics over to the Orthodox Church shows through at every step. By this striving, among other things, is explained the relative indulgence of the fathers in the conditions for receiving heretics into the Church—an indulgence which otherwise could not be justified, considering the gravity of some heresies in particular. The fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council mention in this canon of theirs the chief heresies that still existed at that time, and establish the manner in which the various heretics are to be received into the Orthodox Church. They issue, moreover, no new special ordinances of their own, but confirm a custom that had existed until then, giving it only the force of law.

The manner of receiving heretics into the Church was, as is evident from this canon, various. This difference depended on the fact that some among the heretics had only injured the fundamental dogmas of the faith in some respect, but had not yet wholly denied them, whereas others had destroyed them altogether; some had, at least in form, in outward shape, a correct baptism, others did not recognize it as a mystery, while yet others had so distorted Orthodox baptism that the last trace of its correctness had disappeared in it. According to this difference, some, on passing over to Orthodoxy, were not baptized a second time, but only chrismated, after, of course, a solemn renunciation of heresy; others had to be baptized anew, exactly as pagans or Jews. Among the first the fathers of the council mention the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Tetradites, and Apollinarians; among the second—the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, and those who arose in Galatia. Of the heresies among the first—the Arian, Macedonian, Novatian, and Apollinarian—we have already spoken; and of those among the second—the Eunomian and the Sabellian.[142] We have also spoken of the heresies which the council says arose in Galatia, for by them are meant the Marcellian and the Photinian.[143] We shall here note something concerning the remaining three heresies which the fathers mention, namely the Sabbatians, the Tetradites, and the Montanists.

The Sabbatians are named after Sabbatius. He was a follower of the Novatian teaching, of which we have spoken sufficiently in the commentary on the 8th canon of the Council of Nicaea. Sabbatius, having become a Christian from among the Jews, was ordained presbyter by Marcian, bishop of the Novatians. Being in the highest degree ambitious, he conceived of attaining the episcopate by every means, but, being unable to succeed in this during Marcian’s lifetime, since a successor had already been designated for him in the person of Sisinnius, Sabbatius, while always remaining faithful to the Novatian teaching, conceived of forming for himself a special circle, and, denying the indulgence of the Novatian bishops of that time, began to preach a new strictness of life and to introduce Jewish customs, especially in the celebration of Pascha. Two other presbyters, Theoctistus and Macarius, joined him and began to work together with him. In a short time Sabbatius grew so strong and raised such disorder in the Novatian community that at a council which the Novatians held in Bithynia around the year 380 he was condemned and deposed. “I would rather,” we read in the history of Socrates that Marcian said of Sabbatius, “lay my hand upon a thorn-bush than upon Sabbatius, at the time when I was ordaining him presbyter.”[144] Zonaras says of the Sabbatians: “The head of the Sabbatians was a certain Sabbatius, who was a presbyter in the heresy of Novatus, but who had something more than his teacher, and surpassed the teacher of the heresy in malice, and celebrated together with the Jews.”[145]

The Quartodecimans, or Tetradites (τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατῖται ἤτοι τετραδῖται, quartadecimani sive tetraditae), taught that Pascha ought to be celebrated on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it fell, and they fasted on that day. “Quartodecimans or Tetradites,” says Balsamon in his commentary on this canon, “are those who celebrate Pascha not on a Sunday, but when the moon is fourteen days old, on whatever day of the week that fourteenth falls—just as the Jews do. They are called Tetradites because, in celebrating Pascha, they do not release themselves from the fast, but fast, just as we fast on Wednesday [τετράς]—again after the Jewish custom.”[146] Of the time of the celebration of Pascha we have spoken in the commentary on the 7th Apostolic canon, and we speak of it also in the commentary on the 1st canon of the Council of Antioch, where the decision of the Council of Nicaea on this matter is set forth. But this decision could not bring about universal unity, and we find many sects that persisted stubbornly in holding to the old custom regarding the time of the celebration of Pascha. The church historians mention Ebionites, Tetradites, Sabbatians, Audians, and many others, all of whom are known under the common name of Quartodecimans.[147] Several councils before this one had already found themselves compelled to issue canons specifically against them, thus: the Council of Antioch (canon 1), the Council of Laodicea (canon 7), and others. At last the fathers of the Council of Constantinople too issue their canon against the Quartodecimans. The fathers of the council do not, however, tell us just which Quartodecimans they have in mind in their canon—and there were, at the time of the council, that is, in the last quarter of the fourth century, Quartodecimans of various and mutually differing teachings. Epiphanius helps us learn what we cannot learn from the fathers. He mentions many Quartodecimans of that time and says that they were not all of the same teaching. As regards the faith, they are Orthodox, says Epiphanius, but they are much taken up with Jewish fables and are excessively terrified by the word of Moses: “Cursed be everyone who does not celebrate Pascha on the 14th of Nisan” (Ex. 12:15). From everything that Epiphanius says of the Quartodecimans in his work Contra Quartodecimanos, we may conclude the following about them at the time of the Second Ecumenical Council: “They celebrate Pascha for one day only, in contrast to the Orthodox, who celebrate it a whole week, and that one day they spend in fasting and communicate. Some of them, namely those from Cappadocia, always celebrate Pascha on 25 March, on whatever day of the week it falls, holding in this to the Acta Pilati, which say that Jesus Christ died on 25 March.”[148] Such were the Quartodecimans of whom Epiphanius tells us.[149] Given that our council too permits them to be received into the Church without a new baptism, we may freely conclude that these were precisely those of whom Epiphanius tells, and whom he acknowledges, as to their faith, to be Orthodox.

The Montanists trace their beginning to Montanus, who began to preach his teaching around the middle of the second century in Phrygia. The ancient sources call the Montanists, after the region from which they sprang, Phrygians or Cataphrygians. In Theodoret they are also called Pepuzians, after the place Pepuza, in which they chiefly dwelt and which they called Jerusalem.[150] The insufficient data that have been preserved do not allow us to describe with precision the person of Montanus, still less the persons of those two prophetesses, Maximilla and Priscilla, who are always mentioned together with Montanus and who, as his constant companions, assisted him in his preaching. The most recent criticism regards Montanus’s companions as an abstraction of that rigorist tendency which is known in church history by the name of Montanism.[151] In any case, the question of the person of Montanus and of his companions, and of whether they belong to the realm of myth or not, is a matter of indifference to us. It suffices for us to establish that Montanism existed as a particular tendency in the teaching of the Christian Church, and that it was the object of the activity of many councils, beginning from the second century of the Church.[152] Ecstatic visions and prophecies, resting on immediate divine revelation, of which Montanus was a passive instrument; the prediction of a soon-coming blessedness and a new heavenly Jerusalem; the demand for the strictest ascetic life and strict repentance—this is, in the main, what constituted the substance of the whole Montanist teaching in the first period of its appearance.[153] Montanism found support at first especially in Asia Minor, and was not yet then decisively condemned by the Church. Eusebius mentions many defenders of this teaching, among them Proclus, a person held in high regard, whom Tertullian calls “Proculus noster.”[154] Tertullian himself was infected with this teaching, though he did not thereby betray his Orthodox faith.[155] Of the Orthodox teaching of the Montanists in their earliest times Epiphanius too bears witness, assuring us that the Montanists teach concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Orthodox.[156] In the course of time the Montanists’ teaching about the Holy Trinity began to lose its former purity. The fathers of the Church began already to condemn this teaching. The excessive exaltation of Montanus in the teaching of the later Montanists, and especially their vague manner of speaking about the Holy Trinity, gave occasion to think that they identified the Holy Spirit with Montanus. Tertullian himself is not clear on this point in his own discourse, and, mentioning once a saying of Montanus, he says: “The Paraclete says.”[157] Firmilian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others especially denied in Montanism this identification of the Holy Spirit with Montanus.[158] But it was Basil the Great who rose up most decisively against them, in his letter to Amphilochius: “The baptism of the Pepuzians [Montanists] cannot be justified by anything, and I marvel how the great Dionysius, who is skilled in the canons, did not notice this.[159] The Pepuzians are manifest heretics, for they have raised blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, impiously and without any shame appropriating the name of the Comforter for Montanus and Priscilla. For deifying a man they are liable to condemnation, and for insulting the Holy Spirit by identifying Him with men they are liable to eternal condemnation. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. Is it in any way possible to acknowledge as valid a baptism performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and Montanus or Priscilla? Therefore, notwithstanding that the great Dionysius did not notice this, we are nonetheless not obliged to hold to what is not correct. The impropriety here is manifest and clear in itself to anyone who has any measure of reason.” Around the middle of the fourth century we find the Montanists infected with Sabellianism as well, and against them the Council of Laodicea issues a special canon: “Those who turn to the Church from the heresy of the so-called Phrygians (Montanists) must be diligently catechized, and then baptized by the bishop and presbyters of the church, and this must hold good also for those who belonged to their false clergy and were called the highest among them” (canon 8).[160] At last our council too directs its canons against them.

Among all the heretics mentioned, the canon permits that there may be received into the Church without baptism: Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Sabbatians, and Tetradites. The first—that is, the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians—although they taught contrary to Orthodox doctrine, nevertheless performed baptism correctly in form, namely, they performed it in the name of the Holy Trinity, which they did not deny, but only interpreted distortedly. It was already sufficient for their baptism to be acknowledged as correct, for the teaching of the Orthodox Church has always been and is that every baptism performed in the name of the Holy Trinity is good and valid, whoever the one performing it may be. He who baptizes is nothing more than an instrument which Christ uses to gain a man for His kingdom. This instrument only performs the rite, but the grace comes from God. Only from this standpoint could the Church acknowledge, and did acknowledge, the baptism of such heretics as the Arians and Macedonians were. The others, namely the Novatians, Sabbatians, and Tetradites, were not, in the proper sense, heretics at all, but schismatics: they were separated from the Orthodox only by particular opinions, but in dogma they were one with them. If the fathers of the council did not find it necessary to prescribe that baptism be repeated over the first group, still less could they have found it necessary to prescribe this with regard to the second. All the heretics mentioned, the canon requires, are to be received into the Church under only two conditions: first, that they renounce in writing every heresy, and second, that they be chrismated.

A written renunciation upon entering the Church was required, as we have already seen, by the Council of Nicaea as well, of the Novatians: “Above all, they must confess in writing that they will hold to and in all things follow the dogmas of the catholic and apostolic Church” (canon 8). In the history of Socrates we read that Liberius of Rome demanded of the followers of Macedonius a written document by which they attested that they were joining the Orthodox: “When they had declared this, Liberius summoned them to set out their confession in writing. They then gave him a document, in which the words of the Nicene faith were written.”[161] Sozomen mentions to us the written memorandum of Valens and Ursacius, by which they consign the Arian heresy to anathema and attest their faith in the consubstantial.[162] Basil the Great, in his letter to the Eusebians, mentions heretics who wish to justify themselves, and says: “If they say that they have come to their senses, let them hand over in writing that they repent and anathematize every heresy.”[163] Such documents the fathers of our council likewise require of the aforesaid heretics, if they wish to be received into the Church. After they present such documents, such written renunciations, the canon prescribes that they be chrismated, and then received into the communion of the Church. The prescription concerning the chrismation of certain heretics, when they enter the Orthodox Church, had already been issued at the Council of Laodicea (canon 7). The custom that at this rite the body must be anointed in several places, as our canon says, was general throughout the whole Eastern Church. Cyril of Jerusalem bears witness to this best of all, among all: “De primum in fronte peruncti estis, ut ab ea verecundia liberemini, quam primus homo transgressor ubique circumferebat (Gen. 3:7,8); utque retecta facie gloriam Domini tanquam in speculo contemplaremini (II Cor. 3:18). Deinde in auribus: ut aures acciperetis divinorum mysteriorum, audientes de quibus Isaias dicebat: Et addidit mihi Dominus auriculam ad audiendum (Is. 50:4); Dominusque Jesus in Evangelio: Qui habet aures ad audiendum, audiat (Matt. 11:15). Postea ad nares, ut divinum amplectentes unguentum diceretis: Christi bonus odor sumus Deo, in iis qui salvi fiunt (II Cor. 2:15). Tum vero et pectus peruncti estis, ut induentes thoracem justitiae, staretis adversus insidias diaboli (Eph. 6:14 et 11).”[164] The significance of chrismation in this is shown us by Symeon of Thessalonica: “so that thereby the hierarch anoints him with the divine chrism, which is not plain oil, but is compounded of many fragrant substances, and symbolically represents the abundance of the soul[‘s gifts] and the manifold variety of the gifts of the Spirit, and at the same time the fragrance of His holiness. The chrism is given as the seal and sign of Christ. As Christ Himself is called the Anointed One, precisely because He had, even bodily, in Himself from the Father the whole power of the Spirit, of which Isaiah tells us: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me (ch. 61, v. 1)—so also they, having received from Him grace through the chrism, are called Christians and become the anointed of the Lord… Anointing him, the hierarch says: σφραγὶς δωρεᾶς Πνεύματος Ἁγίου—the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and thereby shows that the anointing is a sign of Christ, for the very anointing is done in the form of a cross, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is thereby received.”[165] In the West, when heretics were received into the Church, they were not marked with the holy chrism; there they considered the mere laying on of hands sufficient.[166] The indulgence of the West in this is explained by the viewpoint from which every baptism there was considered valid, however it had been performed—a viewpoint which gave occasion to all those disputes between the Western and Eastern bishops. Among the canons of the Concilium Arausiacum we read: “Si ad ecclesiam aliquis de Afrorum seu Donatistarum haeresi venerit, et in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto baptizatus est, manus ei tantum imponatur, ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum.”[167] The same is prescribed by the Councils of Arles and Epao.[168] In the letter of Siricius of Rome we find the same.[169] It is only incomprehensible how Siricius can appeal to our council, when this council speaks precisely and in the greatest detail about chrismation. Here are the words of Siricius: “Baptizatos ab Arianis nec cum Novatianis aliisque haereticis, sicut est in synodo Constantinopolitana constitutum, per invocationem solam septiformis Spiritus, episcopalis manus impositione, catholicorum conventui sociamus, quod etiam totus Oriens Occidensque custodit.”[170] And also Leo of Rome: “Si ab haereticis baptizatum fuisse quemquam constiterit, erga hunc nullatenus sacramentum regenerationis iteretur, sed hoc tantum, quod ibi defuit, conferatur, ut per episcopalem manus impositionem virtutem Spiritus Sancti consequatur.” Of this difference between East and West, and of the resemblance which the Western Church considers its own laying on of hands to bear to the chrismation of the Eastern Church in receiving heretics, we read in Gregory of Rome: “Arianos per impositionem manus Occidens, per unctionem vero sancti chrismatis ad ingressum sanctae ecclesiae Oriens reformat.”[171]

Having issued such a prescription regarding the reception into the Church of Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Novatians, Sabbatians, and Tetradites, the fathers of the council issue an altogether different prescription regarding the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, and those heretics who come from Galatia, namely the Marcellians and Photinians. They require that the aforesaid heretics and those like them must first be catechized, and then baptized anew. Before we say what rite was to be performed in receiving these heretics, let us briefly survey the question of heretical baptism, as it presents itself to us in the primitive Church.

The question of heretical baptism, and the struggle that arose over it between the Eastern and Western fathers in the first centuries of Christianity, represents an important moment in the development of the idea of the Orthodox Church and its mysteries. As soon as the Church became conscious of its unity and universality over against various heresies, and consequently of its own infallibility, as the sole guardian of revealed truth, the question of the validity of the mysteries, and above all of the mystery of baptism, had naturally to come to the fore out of its struggle with the heretics. The consistency of the Orthodox standpoint could permit only one single conclusion, namely: since heretics are deprived of a share in salvation, they are thereby directly deprived also of the possibility of being mediators of men’s salvation. The baptism of heretics is no baptism at all; it is not only unable to cleanse, but on the contrary defiles, just as the heresy itself defiles, into which a man enters by means of such a false baptism. For this reason, all those baptized by heretics must be regarded as unbaptized, and when they pass over to the Orthodox Church they must be baptized. A great number of the fathers and teachers of the Church in the first half of the third century held to this view in its full strictness. Clement of Alexandria calls heretical baptism no baptism at all, and that this testimony has validity for the whole Egyptian Church is proved, among other things, by the account of Dionysius of Alexandria concerning his predecessor Heraclas, who did not baptize among heretics only those who had previously been Orthodox, then passed into heresy, and afterward returned again to Orthodoxy.[172][173] Tertullian recognizes only one baptism and one Church; he denies all significance to heretical baptism—“first,” he says, “because they are outside the Church, and second, because they do not acknowledge the same God, nor the same Christ, whom the Orthodox acknowledge.”[174] Cyprian tells us of a council held at the beginning of the third century at Carthage under the presidency of Agrippinus, which unanimously proclaimed the invalidity of heretical baptism.[175] Eusebius tells us of two councils in Asia Minor from the first half of the third century, at which the same conclusion was reached.[176] How ancient this institution must already have been at that time is evident from the words of Firmilian, who affirms that no one remembers it ever having had a beginning: “they have always known only one Church, and one baptism, which that Church alone can perform.”[177] Likewise the Apostolic Constitutions also deny all validity to baptism performed by heretics.[178] In general everyone considered baptism by heretics unclean, and required, as does this our canon, that such persons be baptized before being received into the Church. Altogether different was the viewpoint of the Roman Church on this question. At Rome they regarded heretics, even though baptized outside the Church, merely as Christian apostates, and received them into the Church simply through the laying on of hands, as with every other sinner. When the Novatians, following their groundless conception of the sanctity of the Church, established that the Orthodox who passed over to them must be baptized anew, at Rome they began to defend their own standpoint yet more vigorously. This brought many Numidian bishops into confusion, and they began to doubt the correctness of the manner of proceeding of the Egyptian bishops, who shared the Roman Church’s standpoint regarding heretical baptism; and eighteen of them turned to Cyprian, who was then at a council in Carthage with his bishops, asking him to resolve their doubt.[179] This council, having taken up the question for consideration, unanimously declared the invalidity of heretical baptism. In the same sense Cyprian answered a like question of Quintus, the Mauretanian bishop.[180] A second council of the same year, at which seventy-one bishops were present, confirmed the earlier conclusion and sent its letter to Stephen, bishop of Rome, who was then in dispute with the Eastern bishops over this question.[181] At several councils of Asia Minor the principle of the invalidity of heretical baptism was anew adopted; the bishops Helenus of Tarsus and Firmilian of Caesarea displayed particular zeal in this. Stephen, all of whose efforts to win over the bishops of Asia Minor to his side proved vain, allowed himself to be carried so far that he began to threaten them with excommunication from the communion of the Church. Vain, too, remained the effort of Dionysius of Alexandria, who was likewise against the validity of heretical baptism, as is evident from his letters in Eusebius, but who wished to stand far from the strife, in order to restore peace between the parties; “he could not prevent the strife which the pride and passion of the Roman bishop had wilfully and unreasonably provoked,” remarks a modern scholar on this.[182][183] The opposition of the Eastern bishops to Rome reached its height when Stephen, calling himself episcopus episcoporum, wished to compel all bishops to submit to his authority. The Valerian persecution of the year 257 put an end to the strife, claiming as its victim the great Cyprian.

The dispute between East and West arose again on the occasion of the question of the baptism of the Donatists, who, proceeding from the Novatian standpoint on the sanctity of the Church, taught that a priest who had fallen into mortal sin could perform no mystery.[184] They accordingly rebaptized everyone who passed over to them from the Orthodox Church. The question of the Donatists was debated at the Council of Carthage of the year 348 (al. 345), and there a certain indulgence toward Cyprian’s teaching already showed itself, such that by the 1st canon it was established that a new baptism need not be recognized as necessary without distinction for every heretic. From the concluding words of the president of the council, Bishop Gratus, it is evident that both the Eastern direction, represented by Cyprian, and the Western direction, represented by Stephen, were considered excessive.[185] To find a middle way between these two directions became a necessity for the sake of peace and unity in the Church—and that middle way was found. The Council of Nicaea was the first to show a reasonable indulgence in this matter, issuing its well-known 8th canon.[186] Socrates and Sozomen bear witness that the example of the Council of Nicaea met with the best response throughout the whole Church, becoming at last a general rule for the whole Church.[187] The canon of this Council of Constantinople, which was afterward, with minor additions, repeated at the Council in Trullo, gives us the best testimony of this.

In accordance with the general prescriptions of the councils and the fathers on the question of baptism performed in a non-Orthodox society, the principle of the Orthodox Church in this matter may be outlined as follows: baptism, as belonging to Jesus Christ, can be performed only in His Church, and consequently can only in the Church be correct and salvific; but if other Christian societies too, which are outside the Orthodox Church, have the conscious intention of bringing the newly baptized into the Church of Christ—that is, if they have the intention, through baptism, to impart to him the grace of God, that he, by the power of the Holy Spirit, may become a true member of the body of Christ and a regenerate child of God—then the baptism given in those societies too, insofar as it is performed on the basis of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, must be regarded as a valid baptism; for where such a baptism has been given and received in faith, it must act with blessing, and Christ’s help cannot fail to be present. Every society that distorts the doctrine of God and does not acknowledge the Trinity of the holy Persons in God cannot perform a correct baptism, and the baptism performed in such a society is not baptism, for such a society stands outside Christianity. The Orthodox Church, accordingly, recognizes as valid and salvific the baptism of every Christian society found outside its borders, whether it be called heretical or schismatic, if that baptism was truly performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[188]

Let us continue the commentary on our canon. — The fathers of the council require that the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, Marcellians, and Photinians, when they pass over to the Orthodox Church, must first be catechized, then baptized. The baptism of the aforesaid heretics could in no way be acknowledged as a true baptism.[189] The Eunomians not only altogether denied the equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but would not even baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and those who had been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity they rebaptized; they baptized with a single immersion only, and that into the death of Christ, thereby themselves distorting the very mystical sense of baptism.[190] In Theodoret we find of them: “They have distorted, with regard to baptism, the ancient rule which the Lord and the apostles handed down to us, and have invented a new teaching, that the newly baptized need not be immersed three times, nor the Trinity invoked, but only once, and that into the death of Christ.”[191] We have already seen, in the 50th Apostolic canon, the condemnation of those who baptize with a like baptism. What the baptism of the Montanists was we have said in the commentary on this canon; the invalidity of Montanist baptism is manifest. “The Sabellians,” says the canon, “preach Son-Fatherhood [υἱοπατορία, huiopatoria].” Sabellius used the expression Υἱοπάτωρ to signify that the Father and the Son are not personally distinct, but are one person with two names. Of the Sabellians we have made mention in the 1st canon of this council. Given such an understanding of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Sabellians could not baptize in the name of the Trinity either, and consequently their baptism, as not performed in the name of the Trinity, could not be considered valid. Just as little could the baptism of the Marcellians or of the Photinians be considered valid. Of them too we have spoken in the commentary on the 1st canon of this council. In accordance with their antitrinitarian teaching, these could not perform baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, so that it had to be null for the Orthodox. Of all the heretics mentioned, the canon says that they are to be received as Greeks [pagans], “and on the first day we make them Christians (ποιοῖμεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς).” This must be understood in the narrowest sense, namely, that they will only be introduced into the society of those who believe in Orthodox fashion, and that by prayer and blessing the way into the Church is opened to them. In this sense the catechumens too were called Christians. On the second day they were received into the number of the catechumens, and the teaching of the Orthodox Church began to be preached to them by degrees.[192] In the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 39) we find set out in detail the order by which Orthodox teaching was imparted to catechumens. After this an exorcism was performed over them, by which the unclean spirit which had until then held them bound to false teaching was driven from them. Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others bear witness to the universality of this rite before baptism.[193] After that they had to remain still some time longer among the catechumens, listening to the Holy Scripture and showing by examples of strict abstinence their firm resolve to renounce false teaching and to come to the Church. Gregory, Cyril, Justin, and Tertullian tell us that this was the general requirement for every adult preparing for baptism.[194] A very significant example in this regard is given us by Socrates, telling of a certain deceiving Jew who wished to obtain baptism by fraud, without submitting himself to the trial.[195] At last they were baptized.[196]

In this canon the Novatians are called ἀριστεροί, “the left.” That the Novatians called themselves by this name too does not appear from the acts of our council. Their usual name for themselves was ἄριστοι (the best), καθαροί (the pure), and καθαρώτεροι (the purest), and it was only the Orthodox who designated them by the name of “the left,” to note thereby a peculiarity of their manner of life.[197] According to Balsamon, they are called ἀριστεροί because “they abhor the left hand, and do not permit themselves to take anything with the left hand.”[198] Harmenopoulos, in his work De Sectis, says the same: “iidem et sinistri propterea vocati sunt, quod manum sinistram abominentur, per eam praehendere quidquam omnino non audentes.”[199] As we have already said, we would more readily have adopted the reading in which ἄριστοι stands, as in the Book of Rules, since that reading is justified by the whole history of the Novatians; but, according to the plan we have set for this our work, we could not allow ourselves to depart from the text of the canons of the Athens edition that is basic for us.[200]

In Aristenus we also find an eighth canon of this council. It reads: “The Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, the Sabellians, and the Phrygians must be received in the same way as the Greeks [pagans].”[201] As is evident, this is nothing other than an excerpt from the 7th canon according to the reading of the Athens Syntagma, and it is accordingly superfluous to speak of it separately.