| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? News & Reviews: Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
BOOK 17.PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP
The Time From The End Of The Sixth Oecumenical Council, To The Beginning Of The Dispute Respecting Images. SEC. 325. THE SYNODS BETWEEN A.D. 680 AND 692. AS we, know, shortly before the opening of the sixth OEcumenical Council, a Roman Synod, in October 679, had decided in favor of S. Wilfrid, the banished archbishop [bishop?] of York, and Pope Agatho had sent envoys to England in order to bring about the reinstatement of Wilfrid and the pronouncing of anathema on Monothelitism at an English general Synod (vol. 4 p. 492). In order to respond at least to a part of the papal request, as far as it concerned Monothelitism, Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury held the Synod of Heathfield, already mentioned (p. 140); but he remained, as before, prepossessed against Wilfrid, and when he, after being present at the Roman Synod at Easter 680 (p. 140 f.), returned home, Theodore did so little for him, that, on the contrary, King Egfrid of Northumbria was able, unhindered, to assemble the grandees and prelates of his kingdom in a kind of Synod, A.D. 680 or 681, and to condemn Wilfrid to a hard imprisonment. He remained nine months in prison, until, at the intercession of the Abbess Ebba, a relation of the King, he was set free on the condition that he would not enter Northumbria. He now became the apostle of the still heathen inhabitants of Sussex, and after King Egfrid’s death (685), and after Archbishop Theodore had, in a remarkable manner, become reconciled to him, he became, under King Alfrid of Northumbria, reinstated in his property, his monasteries, and bishoprics — Hexham, Lindisfarne, and York. That he soon became involved in new disputes, we shall find out later on. When we last encountered (A.D. 675) one of the numerous Synods of Toledo, the eleventh, the great King Wamba sat upon the Spanish throne, and Archbishop Quiricius upon the metropolitan throne of Toledo. The year 680 brought great changes. The archbishop died in January and S. Julian became his successor, and King Wamba resigned. One of his palatines, Count Ervig, a very able man but extremely ambitious, made an effort to reach the throne, and brought to the old King, October 14, 680, a bad draught, to deprive him, not of life, but of reason. Wamba immediately fell into a state of stupefaction, and, after the fashion of the time, they cut his hair off, as from a dying man, in order to remove him into the order of penitents (vol. 4 p. 79). By means of powerful restoratives, Wamba, after twenty-four hours, came back to his senses, but voluntarily remained among the penitents, retired into the monastery at Pampliega, and, not suspecting Ervig’s guilt, recommended him as his successor. The grandees agreed, and Archbishop Julian anointed the new King, October 22, 680. To secure himself in the possession of the throne, as what he had done had partly got abroad, Ervig convoked the bishops and grandees of the kingdom to a national Synod, the twelfth of Toledo. It lasted from January 9 to 25, 681, and there were present,-in the Church of SS. Peter and Paul, — under the presidency of Julian of Toledo, 35 bishops and archbishops, abbots, 3 representatives of absent bishops, and 14 secular viri illustres officii palatini . The King opened the assembly in his own person with a short speech, in which he thanked the bishops for their presence, and requested them to find out remedies for the evils of the times. After he had withdrawn, by his command a lengthy royal address, a tome, was read to the Synod. In this the bishops were requested to establish good ordinances in general, but specially to examine two laws: (a) the new law in reference to the Jews by King Ervig; and (b) the older law of Wamba, that all (noble men) who withdrew from service in war, or deserted (in Wamba’s war against his General Paul in Navarre, who had rebelled), should be declared civilly degraded. As by this means nearly half of all the Spaniards, says the tome, are affected and incapacitated from bearing witness and the like, the bishops were requested to consider whether an alteration of this law was not necessary. Generally, they were required to examine and improve all the laws of the State, and the rectores provinciarum and duces Hispaniae then present should introduce in their provinces the improvements recognized by the Synod. (1) In the first of their 13 Capitula the Synod declared, first of all, their agreement with the faith of the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and recited the Creed which, as they remarked, is also used in the Mass (the Niceno-Constantinopolitan with the filioque ). It is the same which the eighth Synod of Toledo also placed at the head of their decrees (vol. 4 p. 470). Moreover, in this chapter the elevation of King Ervig was confirmed and all the people required to be loyal to him, after the Synod had seen the original documents, in which the grandees of the kingdom testified that King Wamba had received the sacred tonsure, and had himself, with his own hand, selected Ervig as his successor, and requested Archbishop Julian to anoint him. The subsequent chapters run as follows: (2) It has often happened that those who in health have desired the fruits of penitence have become so sick that they could no longer speak, and have lost their senses. Out of compassion, those belonging to them then took the vow in their stead (fraternitas talium necessitates in fide sua suscepit ), so that they might be able to receive the viaticum. When, however, they recover their health, they defend themselves against the act of their friends, so as to make themselves free again from the tonsure and from the religious habit, asserting that they were not bound by that vow, because they had not themselves asked for penance and had not received it knowingly. They ought, however, to consider that they did not ask for baptism, nor did they receive it knowingly, but only in fide proximorum (l. c . since those belonging to them made the promise for them). As, then, their baptism is valid, so also is the donum poenitentiae (cf. cc. 7 and 8 of the Synod of Toledo, vol. 4 p. 471). Whoever, then, has received penitence in any way may no more return ad militare cingulum (said with reference to King Wamba, in case he should regret what had been done). The cleric, however, who gives penance to anyone who is not in his senses, or unless, at least, he has requested penance by clear signs, is excommunicated for one year. (3) In accordance with the ancient canons, the right to pardon civil offenders stands only with the King. Whoever, then, is pardoned by the King shall be received back into Church communion. (4) Archbishop Stephen of Merida complains that King Wamba compelled him to raise the monastery of Aquis, where the body of S. Pimenius reposes, to be a bishopric. The bishops declare that Wamba (of whom they use strong language) had allowed several similar acts of violence, and they resolve, with reference to older canons, that the new bishopric shall fall into disuse, and that Aquis shall remain a monastery. The Bishop Cuniuldus of Aquis, who was uncanonically elevated, shall not, however, be punished, because he did not seek the bishopric, but only accepted it from obedience to the King. In requital, another vacant bishopric shall be given him. (5) Some priests, when they offer the sacrifice (of the Mass) several times in one day, receive the holy communion only at the last celebration. This must no longer take place, under penalty of excommunication for a year for every omitted communion; and as often as a priest offers the sacrifice he must receive. (On the saying of several Masses in one day, cf. Binterim, Denkwurd . Bd. 4 Thl. in. S. 261.) (6) If a bishop dies, the see often remains vacant for a very long time, until the King hears of the death, and the other bishops can give their assent to the new election made by the King. Therefore, in future, the archbishop of Toledo, saving the rights of the other metropolitans, may place in his see (ordain) any bishop newly named by the King, to whatever ecclesiastical province he may belong, if he holds it to be necessary. The bishop ordained must, however, present himself before his own metropolitan within three months, under penalty of excommunication, in order to receive instructions from him. The like applies also in regard to the other rectors of churches. (7) The too severe law of Wamba in regard to those who avoid service in the army shall, with consent of the King, be softened, so that those who have thereby lost the qualification of being able to testify, in case they have offended in nothing else, may again become capable of testifying. (8) Whoever separates from his wife, except for the cause of fornication, will be excommunicated until he returns to her. If he does not do so after repeated admonition from the bishop, he shall lose his dignity of palatine and noble so long as he remains in his fault. (9) The twenty laws put forth by King Ervig against the Jews (received into the Leges Wisigoth . tit. 12, 3) are approved, and shall henceforth have validity forever, namely, (a) The law in regard to the renewal of the old laws against the Jews; (b) The law against the blasphemers of the Trinity; (c) That the Jews shall withdraw neither themselves nor their sons and servants from baptism; (d) That they shall not celebrate the Passover after their manner, practice circumcision, or dare to alienate a Christian from the faith; (e) That they may not celebrate their Sabbaths and feasts; (f) They must abstain from work on Sundays; (g) They must make no difference between meats; (h) nor marry relations; (i) nor attack our religion, nor defend their sects, nor go abroad that they may be able to apostatize again; (k) That no Christian may receive from a Jew a gift that is injurious to the faith; (l) That no Jew may read the books which are rejected by the Christian faith; (m) nor have any Christian slaves; further, (n) The law relating to the case that a Jew gives himself out for a Christian, and therefore will not emancipate the Christian slave; (o) The law relating to the confession of faith of converted Jews, and the oath which they have to take; (p) The law relating to those Christians who are slaves of Jews, and do not confess themselves as Christians; (q) That no Jew, unless he have authority from the King, may rule or punish a Christian; (r) That slaves of Jews, if they become Christians, shall be free; (s) That no Jew may rule as villicus or actor (steward) over a Christian family (of servants); (t) That every Jew who comes into the kingdom must present himself immediately before the bishop or priest of his locality, and that the bishop shall call the Jews before him on appointed days, and so forth. (10) With assent of the King, the right of asylum in churches is renewed, and thirty steps before the gates of the church declared to belong to the place of asylum. (11) The relics of heathenism shall be rooted out. Servants who still addict themselves to idolatrous worship shall be beaten and placed in irons. If their masters do not punish them, these shall be excommunicated. If a freeman practices idolatry, he must be punished with excommunication and severe banishment. (12) In every province the bishops shall annually assemble, on thelst of November, in a provincial Synod. (13) These decrees shall for ever remain in force. May God the Lord, to whom be honor, and who inspired the Synod, grant to the King a happy reign! King Ervig confirmed and subscribed the Acts of the Synod on January 25, the closing day of the assembly, with the remark, that all their decrees, from that day onwards, should come in force. The biographer of S. Ansbert, archbishop of Rouen, the monk Aigrad assigns to the year 682 a Synod held at Rouen (Rothomagensis ), under the presidency of the said archbishop, which drew up many beneficial decrees, and accorded to the monastery of Fontenelle a privilege with regard to the free election of its abbot. Nothing is known more exactly on the subject; and moreover, the date of this assembly is very doubtful Sirmond assumed the date of 682, which certainly is only interpolated in the old biography of Aigrad; Labbe, on the other hand, decided for 692; Mabillon, for 689; Bessin, the editor of the provincial Synods of Rouen, wavered between 689 and 693. Still less do we know of a Synod at Arles, which Mansi, reckoning from probability, ascribed to the year 682. At the invitation of King Ervig of Spain, already mentioned, a great special national Synod, the thirteenth of Toledo, was opened on November 4, 683, again in the Church of SS. Peter and Paul. Like the twelfth, this was also a concilium mixture , Synod and Parliament (Diet) at once. Under the presidency of Julian of Toledo, there were present 48 bishops and archbishops from the provinces of Toledo, Braga, Merida, Seville, Tarragona, and Narbonne, 27 representatives of bishops, several abbots, and 26 secular grandees. Again the King began with a short address, and then presented to the Synod a tome, in which the points were indicated which he wished to be handled. In particular, he laid before the Synod, for its advice, several sketches of laws respecting matters of State. The Synod, first of all, again recited the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol, and then drew up the following thirteen Capitulo : — (1) In regard to those who, under King Wamba, attached themselves to the rebellion of General Paul (p. 208), and therefore were punished with loss of position and confiscation of goods, the Synod decrees, in agreement with King Ervig, the restitution of them and their children. Also, the goods of which the royal exchequer took possession shall be restored to them, with the exception of those which the King has already presented to others. The same avails for those declared to be degraded under King Chintila. (2) In agreement with the King, it is ordained that no palatine and no cleric shall be deprived of his office, chained, flogged, or deprived of his goods and thrown into prison, as has often happened hitherto, by an arbitrary act of the King. On the contrary, he must be placed before the assembly of bishops, seniors, and guardians (belonging to the highest officials of the palace; see Du Cange, Gloss ., s.v.), and be judged by these. Also, the other nobles, who have not the dignity of palatine, are to be judged in a similar manner; and even if the King, as is the custom, strikes them, they shall not for that reason be deprived either of honor or of goods. If in future a King violates this decree, he becomes liable to excommunication. (3) The Synod confirms the royal edict by which the taxes long due to the State, up to the first year of the reign of Ervig, are remitted. (The royal decree referred to is given as an appendix to the synodal Acts.) (4) On the second day the Synod confirmed the edict of Ervig for the safety of his own family; and decreed: Eternal anathema shall strike him who shall persecute, rob, strike, injure, or forcibly remove into the state of penance, the sons of the King, the Queen, or any one belonging to the royal house. (5) No one, not even a King, may marry the widow of the departed King, or have intercourse with her, under penalty of exclusion from all communion with Christians and eternal damnation; for the Queen, who was mistress, shall not serve the desire of one of her subjects; and as wife and husband are one body, the body of the dead King must not be defiled in his widow. (6) As it previously happened that slaves and freedmen were raised to the office of palatine, through favor of the King, and then persecuted their former masters, such elevation may not take place in the future. Only the slaves or freemen belonging to the exchequer may henceforth be promoted to such offices (because they previously had no other master than the King, and were not in the position of private servants). (7) Some clergy have a mind to revenge themselves on those who oppose or injure them by stopping divine service, stripping the altars, extinguishing the lights. This (and so an interdict) is henceforth forbidden, under penalty of degradation and. deposition. Only one who does so (stops divine service) from fear of the desecration of the sanctuary, or on account of hostile attacks or siege, or because in his conscience he knows himself to be unworthy to celebrate divine service, is free from such penalty. (8) If a bishop is summoned by the metropolitan or King, whether to the celebration of a festival, as Easter, Pentecost, or Christmas, or for the transaction of business, or for the ordination of a new bishop, etc., and does not appear on the appointed day, he will be excluded from the communion of those whom he neglected (King or metropolitan). If he was sick or the roads impassable, he must prove this by witnesses. (9) The decrees of the twelfth Synod of Toledo are confirmed anew, particularly also that de Concessa Toletano pontifici generalis synodi potestate , ut episcopi alterius provinciae cum conniventia principum in urbe regia ordinentur (see above, p. 209). (10) On the third day it was decreed: If a bishop or priest has, in a sickness, entered the state of penitents, but in so doing has known himself guilty of no crimen mortale , he shall, after recovering again, return to the priestly office, after he has received, through the metropolitan, the usual reconciliation of penitents. (11) If any one receives a foreign or escaped cleric or monk, remotum se a suis officiis noverit esse (l. c . he falls under the suspensio latae sententiae . Cf. Kober, Die Suspension , 1862, S. 48 f.). (12) If any one takes proceedings against his own bishop, he may appeal to the metropolitan. A bishop, however, who thinks himself aggrieved by his metropolitan, may bring his cause before a strange metropolitan. If two strange metropolitans have refused him a hearing, he may appeal to the King. (13) These decrees shall remain permanently in force. Honor to God. Thanks to the King. All present subscribed the minutes, and the King confirmed the Synod in a document of Nov. 13, 683. Pope Leo II died, after reigning not quite a year, on July 3, 683, and his successor, Benedict II, immediately instructed the notary Peter to require the Spanish bishops, as Leo II had recommended, to recognize and subscribe the decrees of the sixth OEcumenical Council. As we saw above (pp. 185, 201), it is possible that the letter which is generally ascribed to Leo II may belong to Pope Benedict. King Ervig did not, remain inactive. It was not, indeed, possible to convoke a Spanish general Synod, as Ervig wished; but he requested the particular metropolitans to respond to the wish of the Pope at provincial Synods. The ecclesiastical province of Toledo (here called Carthagenian; see vol. 4 sec. 239) was commanded to take the lead, the other provinces were to accept the decrees of Toledo, and for this reason every metropolitan had to send a vicar to the Synod of Toledo. This was done, and the fourteenth Synod of Toledo assembled in November 684. There were present seventeen bishops of the province of Toledo (Archbishop Julian at their head), six abbots, and the vicars of the metropolitans of Tarragona, Narbonne, Merida, Braga, and Seville, also representatives of two absent suffragans of Toledo. (1) In the first Capitulum the bishops mention the convocation of this Synod by King Ervig, ob confutandum Apollinaris dogma pestiferum (thus they describe Monothelitism). (2) That Pope Leo had sent them a transcript of the gesta synodalia of the Council of Constantinople (the sixth (Ecumenical) with a letter, and had requested their recognition of these gesta . (3) That the documents sent front Rome had reached them, when they had ended a general Synod (the thirteenth). This and the bad weather had rendered an early new general Synod impracticable. But they had, in separate assemblies, read those documents, and had approved the doctrine contained in them of two wills and operations in Christ. (4) That a Spanish general Synod should have examined and adopted these gesta synodalia . (5) As, however, such a Synod was not possible, another way had been chosen; and first, the bishops of the Carthagenian (Toledan) province, in presence of the vicars of the other metropolitans, had compared those gesta with the decrees of the earlier Councils, and found them fully, and almost literally in agreement with the faith of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. (6, 7) The Acts of the new Council were therefore, in so far as they agree with the old Synods, honored by them, and the new Synod placed in order after that of Chalcedon (the fifth OEcumenical Synod was not at that time fully recognized by the Spaniards: see vol. 4 p. 365). (8-11) The bishops exhort their flocks immediately to acknowledge in simplicity the true faith in regard to the natures and wills in Christ, which they present in brief, neque enim quae sunt divina , discutienda sunt , sed credenda . (12) Glory be to God. God save the King! To the same year, 684, belongs another Irish Council, of which we merely know that (but not why ) it was held, and an English at Twyford, under the presidency of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury. At the latter, Bishop Trumbert of Hexham was deposed, for reasons not known to us, and the pious hermit, Cuthbert of Farne, who long resisted, was raised to be his successor. At a French [Frankish?] Council at Villeroi (Villa Regia ), in the year 684 or 685 (according to others, 678), several bishops were deposed through the violence of the Major Domus Ebroin. S. Leodegar (Leger) of Autun did not dare to appear at the assembly, but was separated by King Theoderic, tried, and condemned to death. An old authority in Galanus gives a short notice of an Armenian Conciliabulum at Manaschierte which sanctioned monophysitism, about the year 687. In the year 687 died King Ervig of Spain, and on his deathbed designated as his successor his daughter’s husband Egiza, a nephew of Wamba. The palatines consented, and Egiza was solemnly anointed by Archbishop Julian on November 20, 687. He convoked the fifteenth Synod of Toledo, a Spanish general Council, at which sixty-one bishops, several abbots and representatives of bishops, also seventeen secular grandees, were present. The assembly, presided over by Julian of Toledo, was celebrated in the principal Church of SS. Peter and Paul, and began on May 11, 688. King Egiza opened it in his own person, spoke a few friendly words, and presented a tome, and then departed. This tome represented to the Synod that the King had taken two oaths, which, he feared, could not be kept together. First, he had sworn to his predecessor Ervig, when he gave him his daughter Cixlona to wife, in all things to protect the sons of Ervig. But a second oath Ervig had exacted from him on his deathbed, namely, to be just towards every one. But the case might arise that he, in order to be just to every one, might have to decide here and there against Ervig’s sons. On this subject, and also on other points, the Synod was requested to give its advice. After the reading of the tome, the Synod again recited the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and then passed on to some doctrinal points. In order to declare their agreement with the orthodox doctrine of the sixth OEcumenical Council, the Spanish bishops had, two years before, sent to Rome a memorial drawn up by Archbishop Julian of Toledo (Liber Responsionis fidei nostrae , also entitled Apologia , now lost). It consisted of four chapters, and Pope Benedict II, who thought he discovered some objectionable expressions in it, requested an alteration of the passages in question. The Spaniards, however, showed so little inclination to respond to this wish, that, on the contrary, they defended the inculpated expression in a manner by no means courteous. In the first chapter of their memorial, the Pope had found fault with the words: Voluntas genuit voluntatem They now say, he had read it too hastily, and had had too much in view the analogy of man. In the case of a man, certainly, we could not say, The will begets the will, but The will goes forth ex mente . With God, however, it is otherwise, as His will and thought, etc., are one. Athanasius and Augustine too had similarly expressed themselves. In the second chapter of their apology, they had spoken of three substances in Christ, and the Pope had found fault with this. Evidently he was wrong, they said. Every man consisted of two substances, body and soul; but in Christ there was a third substance, the divine nature. Here, too, the Fathers and the Holy Scriptures also were on their side. Finally, they said, they had taken the third and fourth chapters almost literally from Ambrose and Fulgentius; and these Fathers no one would find fault with. If anyone should not be in accord with their doctrine, taken from the Fathers, they would have no dispute with him: their answer could displease only ignorant rivals. The Synod then gave their judgment in regard to the two oaths, that in eases of collision the second should take precedence of the first. As, however, Egiza wished information respecting a third oath which Ervig had required from the whole people for the securing of his sons, the Synod examined also this subject, and found nothing in it which was doubtful or unrighteous. Archbishop Julian now drew up a second apology, in order to remove all the doubts of the Romans with respect to the orthodoxy of Spain, and sent it to Rome, when Pope Sergius (687-701) declared himself in full agreement with it. Soon afterwards, A.D. 690, S. Julian died, and the former Abbot Sisebert became archbishop of Toledo. On November 1, 691, at the command of King Egiza, the bishops of the Spanish ecclesiastical province of Tarragona assembled in a provincial Synod at Saragossa (Caesaraugustana III), and decreed: (1) The old law, that churches, like clerics, may be consecrated only on Sundays, remains in force. (2) So also the law that bishops residing near at hand shall at Easter have recourse to their primate (metropolitan), and celebrate the festival in common with him. (3) Secular persons may not be received in monasteries as guests, except in houses specially destined for that purpose. (4) If a bishop has emancipated slaves belonging to the Church, they must, after his death, present their letters of emancipation to his successor. (5) The ordinance of the thirteenth Synod of Toledo in regard to widowed queens not only remains in force, but is extended to this: that every widowed queen shall, immediately after the death of her husband, put off her secular habit, and put on the religious, and enter a monastery; for it is intolerable, what often happens, that former queens should be insulted, persecuted, and badly treated. SEC. 326. EXAMINATION OF THE ACTS OF THE SIXTH OECUMENICAL COUNCIL. In the year 685 died the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, and was succeeded by his son, Justinian II, who, in the second year of his reign (687), convoked a great assembly of clerics and laymen, in order to protect the Acts of the sixth OEcumenical Council from falsification. We learn this from his letter to Pope John V. in reference to this subject, which certainly is extant only in a bad and in many parts scarcely intelligible Latin translation. Pope John V. had himself, as Roman deacon and legate, been present at the sixth Synod; but now, when the Emperor wrote to him, he was already dead, but the news of this had not reached Constantinople. The Emperor’s letter was received by his successor, Pope Conon. The Emperor says: “Cognitum est nobis quia synodalia gesta eorumque definitionem, quam et instituere noscitur sanctum sextum concilium…apud quosdam nostros judices remiserunt. Neque enim omnino praevidimus, alterum aliquem apud se detinere ea, sine nostra piissima serenitate, eo quod nos copiosa misericordia noster Deus custodes constituit ejusdem immaculatae Christiancrum fidei.” This means: “I have learnt that the Acts of the sixth OEcumenical Synod have been sent back by some to the Judices who had lent them to them. I did not, indeed, foresee that anyone would venture to have these Acts without my permission; for God, in His abundant mercy, has appointed me to be the keeper of the unfalsified faith of Christ.” The Emperor proceeds to say that he has now convoked the patriarchs, the papal deputy, the archbishops and bishops, and many officials of State and officers of the army, in order to have the Acts of the sixth Synod read to them and have them sealed by them. He had then taken them out of their hands, in order to prevent al1 falsification, and he was desirous, by God’s assist-ante, to carry the matter through. He communicated this to the, Pope for his information. This matter is also mentioned in the Vita Cononis Papae (in Mansi, t. 11 p. 1098), with the words:” Hic (Conon) suscepit divalem jussionem (l. c . an imperial decree) domni Justiniani principis, per quem significat reperisse acta sanctae sextae synodi, et apud se habere.” The Acts (certainly the originals) had thus been previously imparted to others, but now had come again into the hands of the Emperor. SEC. 327. THE QUINISEXT OR TRULLAN SYNOD, A.D. 692. A little later, the Emperor Justinian II summoned the Synod which is known under the name of the Quinisext. It was, like the last ecumenical Synod, held in the Trullan hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople, and therefore is also called the second Trullan, often merely the Trullan kat j ejxoch>n. The name Quinisexta , however, or penqe>kth , it received for the reason that it was intended to be a completion of the fifth and sixth OEcumenical Synods. Both of these had drawn up only dogmatic decrees, and had published no disciplinary canons; and therefore these must now be added to them, and the complementary Synod, summoned for that purpose, should also be called OEcumenical, and should be regarded and honored as a continuation of the sixth. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that it was held in the same locality as that was. So the Greeks intended, and so they regard it to this day, and designate the canons of the Quinisext as canons of the sixth Synod. The Latins, on the other hand, declared from the beginning, as we shall see, against the Quinisext, and called it, in derision, erratica . Three views have prevailed as to the time of the holding of this Synod. The Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople asserted, at the seventh OEcumenical Synod at Nicaea: “Four or five years after the sixth OEcumenical Synod had the same bishops, in a new assembly under Justinian II., published the (Trullan) canons mentioned.” Following him, the seventh OEcumenical Synod repeated the same assertion. Supporting themselves on this, several decided to ascribe the Quinisext to the year 686. This assumption is disproved, however, by the chronological date given by the Synod itself in its third canon, where it speaks of the 15th of January of the past 4th Indiction, or the year of the world 6109. The Indict. 4:in no way agrees with A.D. 686; it must therefore be read Indictio 14:Besides, it is quite incorrect to assert that the same bishops were present at the sixth OEcumenical Synod and at the Quinisext. A comparison of the subscriptions in the synodal Acts of the two assemblies shows this at the first glance. That the number of the year, 6109, is incorrect, and the number 90 has dropped out, so that 6199 must have been read, the advocates of the second and third view are agreed. But the former reckon the 6199 years after the Constantinopolitan era, according to which they coincide with A.D. 691; whilst, according to the third hypothesis, we should refer to the Alexandrian era, and therefore to A.D. 706. The latter is certainly incorrect, for after the close of the Trullan Synod, the Emperor sent its Acts, as we shall see (at the end of this section), for confirmation to Pope Sergius; but he had died in the year 701. So, too, the Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, who presided over the Trullan Council, died in 693. There remains, then, only the second theory. The year 6199 of the Constantinopolitan era coincides, as we have said, with the year 691 after Christ, and the 4th Indiction ran from September 1, 690, to August 31, 691. If, then, our Synod, in the 3rd canon, speaks of the. 15th of January in the past Indiction iv., it means January, 691; but it belongs itself, accordingly, to the 5th Indiction, i.e. it was opened after September 1, 691, and before September 1, 692. What we possess of the Acts of this Synod consists in its address to the, Emperor, and in 102 canons with the subscription of the members. In the former it is said: The evil enemy always persecutes the Church, but God ever sends her protectors, and so the present Emperor, who wishes to free his people from sin and destruction. As the two last OEcumenical Synods, under Justinian I. and Constantine Pogonatus, gave no disciplinary ordinances, the moral life has in many ways fallen into decay. Therefore the Emperor has convoked “this holy and God-chosen OEcumenical Synod” in order to bring the Christian life again into order, and to root out the remains of Jewish and heathen perverseness. At the close, the bishops called out to the Emperor the words which formerly the second OEcumenical Synod addressed to Theodosius: “As thou by the letter of convocation (to this Synod) hast honored the Church, so mayest thou also seal up that which has been decreed.” (1) At the head of their canons — as they must begin with God — the Synod placed the declaration of their adhesion to the apostolic creed, and to the declarations of faith and anathematizms of the six OEcumenical Councils. Among other things, the anathema pronounced by the sixth Synod on Pope Honorius is renewed. Moreover, with genuine Greek flattery, it is said that the decree of the faith of the sixth OEcumenical Synod has so much more force as the Emperor has subscribed it. — After this follow the proper disciplinary ordinances. (2) The 85 apostolic canons shall remain in force and be confirmed, as having been already received by the Fathers, with the exception, however, of the apostolic constitutions, although these are named in the apostolic canons. But they were early corrupted by the heretics. Further, there shall remain in force the canons of the Synods of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, of the second, third, and fourth OEcumenical Synods, of the Synods of Sardica, Carthage, Constantinople under Nectarins (A.D. 394), Alexandria under Theophilus. So also the canons of Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, of Peter of Alexandria, of Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neo- Caesarea, of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, of Amphilochius of Iconium, Timothy of Alexandria, and the canon of Cyprian and his Synod, which had validity only in Africa. (3) In regard to the purity and continence of the clergy, the Romans have a more stringent, the Constantinopolitans a milder canon. These must be mingled. Thus: (a) All clerics married a second time, who do not reform before the 15th of January of the expired 4th Indiction, or of the year 6109 (more correctly 6199, as we saw), shall be canonically deposed. (b) Those, however, who, before the publication of our decree, have given up that unlawful union, done penance, and learnt continence, or their wives of the second marriage have died, shall, if priests or deacons, be removed from the divine service, but may, when for some time they have done penance, maintain the place belonging to their rank in the Church, and must be contented with this place of honor. (c) Priests, deacons, and sub-deacons, who marry only once, but a widow, or marry after ordination, shall, after having done penance for a time, be restored to their office, but may obtain no higher degree. (d) In future, however, in accordance with the ancient canons, no one may become a bishop., or a cleric in general, who has married twice after his baptism, or has had a concubine, or married a widow, or one divorced, or a prostitute, or a female slave, or an actress (see Can. Apost. 17 and 18). (4) A cleric who has had intercourse with a woman dedicated to God is deposed. A layman who has done so is excommunicated. (5) No cleric may have in his house any woman except those allowed in the ancient canons (Nicaen , c. 3). The eunuchs also are bound by this rule. (6) The ordinance of the apostolic canons (No. 27), in consequence of its being often disobeyed, is renewed, namely, that only lectors and cantors, but not sub-deacons, may marry after receiving the dedication to their office. (7) A deacon, whatever his office may be, must never have his seat before the priests, unless he is acting (e.g., at Synods) as representative of his patriarch or metropolitan; for then he takes his seat (cf. Nicaen , c. 18). (8) At least once a year a Synod shall be held in each province, between Easter and the month of October. (9) No cleric may be an innkeeper. (10) No bishop, priest, or deacon may take interest, on penalty of deposition if he does not desist (cf. vol. 1:pp. 145, 190, 424, 476). (11) No Christian, whether layman or cleric, may eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, have confidential intercourse with Jews, receive medicine from them, or bathe with them. The cleric who does so is deposed, the layman excommunicated. (12) In Africa, Libya, and elsewhere, it comes to pass that bishops, even after their ordination, still live with their wives. This gives offense, and is henceforth forbidden under penalty of deposition. (13) In the Roman Church, those who wish to receive the diaconate or presbyterate must promise to have no further intercourse with their wives. We, however, in accordance with the apostolic canons (No. 6), allow them to continue in matrimony. If anyone seeks to dissolve such marriages, he shall be deposed; and the cleric who, under pretense of religion, sends away his wife, shall be excommunicated. If he persists in this, he is to be deposed. But sub-deacons, deacons, and priests, at the time when they have to celebrate divine service, must refrain from their wives, since it has already been ordained by the Synod of Carthage, that he who ministers in sacred things must be pure. (14) In accordance with the ancient laws, no one shall be ordained priest before thirty years, or deacon before twenty-five. A deaconess must be forty years old. (15) A sub-deacon must be twenty years old. If anyone is ordained too early to any degree, he shall be deposed. (16) The Synod of Neo-Caesarea ordained (c. 15) that only seven deacons should be appointed to one city, however large it may be, because in the Acts of the Apostles mention is made only of so many. But the seven deacons of the Acts did not serve at the mysteries, but only in the administration of caring for the poor. (17) No cleric may, without written consent of his bishop, go over to another church, under penalty of deposition for him and for the bishop who receives him. (18) If clerics have gone abroad on account of the incursions of the barbarians, they must, when peace is restored, come back again. (19) The higher functionaries of the Church must daily, but especially on Sunday, instruct the people, and explain the Scriptures according to the exposition of the Fathers (cf. Can. Apost. 58). (20) A bishop may not teach in a strange city. (21) Those who by offenses have been degraded to the status laicalis , if they voluntarily forsake their sin, may cut their hair after the manner of clerics. In the other case, they must wear their hair like laymen. (22) If anyone has obtained ordination for money, he must be deposed, together with him who ordained him. (23) No cleric may demand money for the administering of holy communion (th~v ajcra>ntou koinwni>av ), under penalty of deposition as a follower of Simon. (24) No cleric or monk may take part in horse-races or theatres. If he is at a marriage, he must depart when the games take place. (25) Renewal of canon 7 of Chalcedon: see vol. in. p. 392. (26) A priest who, through ignorance, has contracted an irregular marriage, retains (c. 3) his place of honor, but may discharge no spiritual functions. The unlawful marriage must, of course, be dissolved. (27) Both at home and when travelling, the cleric must wear his clerical dress, under penalty of excommunication for a week. (28) In some churches it is the custom for the faithful to bring grapes to the altar, and the priests unite them with the unbloody sacrifice and administer them at the same time with that. This is no longer allowed, but the grapes must be specially blessed and distributed. Cf. Can. Apost. 4; vol. 2 p. 399, c. 23. (29) The African practice of receiving the eucharist, on Maundy Thursday, after a meal, is disapproved (see vol. 2 p. 399, c. 28). Thereby injustice is done to the whole of Lent. (30) If priests, in the lands of barbarians, think that they should transgress the apostolic canon (No. 6), which forbids the sending away of a wife under the pretext of religion, and abstain from their wives with their consent, we will allow this to them, but only to them, in regard to their anxiety and their strange manners; but in that case they may not live again with their wives. (31) Divine service may be held in private oratories, or baptisms celebrated, but only with the consent of the bishop. (32.) The use of the Armenians, to employ only wine without water at the holy sacrifice, is forbidden under penalty of deposition. (33) So also the other custom of the Armenians, to ordain only descendants of the families of priests as clerics, and to appoint untonsured men as cantors and lectors. (34) Renewal of canon 18 of Chalcedon (see vol. 3 p. 404). (35) No metropolitan, when a bishop of his province has died, may appropriate anything from his private property, or from the property of the church vacated, but a cleric belonging to the Church must administer everything until the election of a new bishop. Cf. c. 22 of Chalcedon. (36) Renewing the decrees of the second and fourth OEcumenical Synods, we decide that the see of Constantinople shall enjoy the same rights (tw~n i]swn ajpolau>ein presbei>wn ) as that of Old Rome, shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople comes the see of Alexandria, then Antioch, and next that of Jerusalem. Cf. vol. 2 p. 357 ff.; vol. 3 p. ff.; and Assemani, l . c . t. 1 p. 426 sqq. (37) It has happened that bishops have been unable to enter upon the sees for which they were consecrated, because of the incursions of the barbarians (especially of the Saracens). This shall not be a disadvantage to them (cf. c. 37 Apost. vol. 1:and c. 18 of Antioch, vol. 2:p. 71); but their rank remains to them, and their right to confer orders. (Beginning of bishops in partibus infidelium .) (38) If a city is renewed by imperial command, its ecclesiastical position is regulated, according to ancient law, by its new civil rights (c. 17 of Chalcedon; vol. in. p. 402 ff.). (39) The archbishop of Cyprus, in consequence of the incursions of the barbarians, has gone abroad into the province of the Hellespont, into the city of New-Justinianopolis. He shall retain the rights there which the Synod of Ephesus conceded to the archbishop of Cyprus (vol. in. p. 71) (that he should not be subject to the patriarch of Antioch). He shall have the right of Constantinople (to< di>kaion th~v Kwnstantinoupo>lewv ), Shall take precedence of all bishops of the province of the Hellespont, and also of those of Cyzicus, and shall be consecrated by his own bishops. (40) If anyone will enter the monastic life, he must be at least ten years old. (41) If anyone wishes to inhabit a cell of his own, he must have previously lived three years in a monastery. If he has then taken possession of the cell, he may not afterwards leave it. (42) As there are hermits who frequent the streets in black clothes and with long hair, and have intercourse with men of the worth, it is ordained that they must go into a monastery with short hair and in the habit of their order. If they will not do so, they must be driven out of the cities. (43) Anyone may become a monk, however he may have hitherto lived. (44) A monk who is guilty of unchastity, or takes a wife, is punished as unchaste. (45) It comes to pass that women who wish to go into a convent are led to the altar covered with gold and precious stones, in order to strip off all their splendor and exchange it for the black robe. This must in future no longer happen, so that it may not appear that they only unwillingly forsake the vanities of the world. (46) Nuns may not leave the convent without the permission and benediction of the superior, and then only in company with other women of the convent. Otherwise they may not sleep outside. So likewise monks may not; go out without the benediction of the superior. (47) No woman may sleep in a men’s monastery, and conversely, under penalty of excommunication. (48) If anyone is consecrated bishop, his wife must go into a convent at a considerable distance. But the bishop must provide for her. If she is worthy, she may become a deaconess. (49) Monasteries which have once been consecrated with the permission of the bishop, may not be turned into secular dwellings;. Moreover, what has once belonged to them, may never be given to seculars. (50) To clerics and laymen, playing at dice is forbidden; under penalty of deposition to the former, of excommunication to the others. (51) This holy and OEcumenical Synod forbids actors and their plays, the exhibitions of hunts, and theatrical dances. Whoever gives himself to these things, if a cleric, shall be deposed, if a layman, excommunicated. (52) On all days in Lent, except Saturdays, Sundays, and the Annunciation of the Virgin, there is held only a liturgia praesanctificatorum . (53) Those who are sponsors to children may not marry their mother. The spiritual relationship is higher than the bodily. (54) Incestuous marriages are forbidden, under penalty of excommunication for seven years, and dissolution of the marriage. (55) In Rome they fast every Saturday in Lent. This is contrary to the 66th apostolical canon, and may no longer be done. If anyone does so, he will, if cleric, be deposed, if layman, excommunicated. (56) In Armenia and elsewhere, on Sundays in Lent, they eat eggs and cheese. But these kinds of food come also from animals, and ought not to be partaken of in times of fasting, on penalty of deposition for clerics, of excommunication for laymen. In the whole Church one kind of fasting must prevail. (57) Honey and milk may not be offered on the altar. Cf. Can. 3 Apost. vol. 1 ad fin . (58) If a bishop, priest, or deacon is present, no layman may administer holy mysteries (communion) to himself, under penalty of excommunication for a week. (59) Baptism is not allowed in private oratories. Cf. above, canon 31. (60) Those who represent themselves as demoniacs should be subjected to the same pains (maceration’s and the like) which are imposed upon those who are really demoniacal, in order to deliver them. (61) If anyone consults a soothsayer or so called hecatontarch, in order to find out the future, he shall be subject to the penalty appointed for six years by the Fathers of Ancyra (canon 24 of Ancyra, vol. 1 p. 221). So also those who take about bears and similar animals to the injury of the simple, who show men’s destiny, cast their nativity, drive away the clouds, give out amulets, etc. (62) The remains of heathen superstition of all kinds are forbidden, the festivals of the Kalendar, the Nora (in honor of Pan), the Brumalia (in honor of Bacchus), the assemblies on the 1st of March, public dances of women, clothing of men like women, and inversely, putting on comic, satyric, or tragic masks, the invocation of Bacchus at the winepress, etc. (63) False histories of martyrs, invented in order to insult; the martyrs and to mislead the people to unbelief, shall be burnt. (64) No layman may publicly, in religious services, come forward as speaker or teacher, under penalty of excommunication for forty days. (65) It is forbidden, on the new moons, to light fires before the dwellings or workshops, and leap upon them (as the impious Manasseh did, 2 Kings 21.). (66) The whole week after Easter, until the next Sunday, must be kept as an ecclesiastical festival. All horse-races and public spectacles in this week are forbidden. (67) The eating of the blood of animals is forbidden in Holy Scripture. A cleric who partakes of blood is to be punished by deposition, a layman with excommunication. (68) No one may annul or cut up a book of the Old or New Testament, or of the holy Fathers, or sell it to others (e.g. vendors of salves), who annul it and sell it, when it has become useless through moths, etc., on penalty of excommunication for a year. The like punishment is pronounced on anyone who buys such a book in order to annul it. (69) No layman must enter the place where the altar stands, except, according to ancient tradition, the Emperor when he brings an offering. (70) Women are not allowed to speak during divine service ( Corinthians 14:34 f.). (71) Those who receive instruction in the civil laws (the young jurists) may not allow themselves in heathen usages, nor appear at the theater, nor wear strange clothes, and the like, under penalty of excommunication. (72) Marriages between the orthodox and heretics are forbidden, under penalty of excommunication, and must be dissolved. It is otherwise when both sides were formerly unbelieving (heretical), and one became orthodox. Here applies 1 Corinthians 7:12 ff. (73) Reverence for the holy cross requires that the form of the cross shall never be found on the floor, so that it may never be trodden under foot. (74) Love feasts (ajga>pai ) within the churches are forbidden. (75) Psalm singing shall not be disorderly or noisy. (76) In the neighborhood of the church there shall be no wine-shops, cook-shops, or booths, etc., allowed. (77) No man, whether layman or cleric, may bathe with a woman. Cf. c. 30 of Laodicea, vol. 2 p. 316. (78) The catechumens of the first class must learn the Creed, and recite it on Thursday before the bishop or the priests. Cf. c. 46 of Laodicea, vol. 3 p. 319. (79) It is in some places the custom for the people, on the day after the birth of Christ, to send presents of food to each other in honor of the childbed (ta< locei~a ) of the blessed Virgin (childbed presents). As, however, the childbearing of the blessed Virgin was without childbed (i.e. without bodily weakness and pains), because miraculous, we forbid this custom. (80) If a cleric or layman, without great hindrance, or without being of necessity on a journey, fails to go to church for three successive Sundays, the cleric shall be deposed, the layman excommunicated. Cf. canon 11 of Sardica, vol. 2 p. 143. (81) It is not allowed to add to the Trisagion the words: “Who was crucified for us.” Cf. vol. 3 pp. 454, 457; vol. 4 pp. 26, 29; and Assemani, l . c . t.5:8, p. 348 sqq. (82) For the future, in pictures, instead of the Lamb, the human figure of Christ shall be represented (ajnasthlou~sqai ). (83) The Eucharist may not be given to a dead man. Cf. vol. 2 p. 397, canon 4. (84) If, in the case of a child, it is not certain that it has been baptized, baptism must be administered to it. Cf. vol. 2 p. 424, canon 7; vol. 3 p. 3. (85) The emancipation of a slave should take place before three witnesses. (86) If anyone keeps a brothel, he shall, if a cleric, be deposed and excommunicated, if a layman, excommunicated. (87) If anyone forsakes his wife and marries another, he shall (according to the 57th canon of S. Basil) remain for a year in the lowest, two years in the second, three years in the third, and one year in the fourth grade of penitence. (88) No cattle may be driven into the church except in the greatest need, if a stranger has no shelter and his animals would otherwise perish. (89) The fast in Passion Week [Holy Week] must last until midnight of the great Saturday. (90) From Saturday evening to Sunday evening no one may bend the knee. Only at Compline on Sunday may the knees again be bent. (91) Whoever gives or receives medicine for destroying the fruit of the womb, shall be punished as a murderer. Cf. canon 21 of Ancyra, vol. p. 220. (92) Whoever ravishes a woman, in order to marry her, or assists in such rape, shall, if a cleric, be deposed, if a layman, excommunicated. Cf. c. 27 of Chalcedon, vol. 3 p. 410. (93) If a wife marries before she has sure intelligence of the death of her husband, who has disappeared, or gone off on travel, or is absent in war, she is guilty of adultery. Yet is her act excusable, because the death of her husband had great probability. If a man, deserted by his wife, has married another woman without her knowing of his first marriage, she must give way, if the first wife returns; and she has committed fornication, but in ignorance. She may marry again, but it is better if she does not. If a soldier returns after a long time, and his wife in the meantime has married another, he may, if he will, take his wife back to him, and forgive her, as well as him who married her. (94) If anyone takes a heathen oath, he is to be excommunicated. (95) In reference to the baptism of returning heretics, the 7th canon of the second OEcumenical Synod is repeated, and an addition made, of which a double text is presented. The ordinary one, as it stands in the collections of the Councils, gives this sense: “The Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and all similar heretics, must (without being rebaptized) present a certificate, and therein anathematize the heresy, together with Nestorius and Eutyches and Dioscorus and Severus, etc., and then receive the holy communion.” This text is undoubtedly false, for (a) the baptism of the Gnostics was, according to the recognized ecclesiastical principle, invalid, and a Gnostic coming into the Church was required to be baptized anew; (b) besides, it would have us first to require of a Gnostic an anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches, etc. — More accurate, therefore, is the text, as it is given by Beveridge, and as Balsamon had it, to the effect that: “In the same way (as the preceding) are the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, and similar heretics to be treated (i.e. to be baptized anew); but the Nestorians must (merely) present certificates, and anathematize the heresy, Nestorius, Eutyches,” etc. Here we have only this mistake, that the Nestorians must anathematize, among others, also Eutyches, which they would certainly have done very willingly. At the best, we must suppose that there is a gap in the text, and that, after kai< tou These decrees were subscribed first by the Emperor, and this with vermilion. The second place was reserved for the Pope, and left empty.
Then followed the subscriptions of Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch (he subscribed here, remarkably, after the patriarch of Jerusalem), in the whole by bishops, or representatives of bishops; only Greeks and Orientals, also Armenians. According to an expression of Anastasius, no other Oriental patriarch besides the bishop of Constantinople appears to have been present (see below, p. 241); but in his biography of Pope Sergius (in Mansi, t. 12 p. 3), he himself mentions that the decrees of this Synod were subscribed by three patriarchs, those of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch, as well as by the other bishops, qui eo tempore illie convenerant . No ticing only the expression of Anastasius mentioned above, Christian Lupus maintained that; the names of the patriarchs of Alexandria and the rest had been added by a deception. Assemani partly agrees with him, and tried to show (l . c . t. 5 pp. 30, 69) from Greek authorities that, at the time of our Synod, the patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem were not occupied, on account of the incursions of the Saracens. On the other hand, like Pagi (ad ann . 692, 8), he rejects the statement of Baronius, that Callinicus had then taken possession of the see of Constantinople.
Callinicus followed after Paul’s death, A.D. 693.
As for the Pope, so also room was left for the subscriptions of the bishops of Thessalonica, Sardinia, Ravenna, and Corinth. Archbishop Basil of Gortyna, in Crete, added to his name the words: to But we learn from the Vita Sergii Papae of Anastasius (Mansi, t. 12 p. 3), that the legati of Pope Sergius by the Emperor decepti subscripserant . — Certainly ; but by legati are here to be understood the permanent papal representatives at Constantinople, and not those specially sent to the Synod, and the, instructed legati a latere . It was natural that these representatives, having no authority for that purpose, should not be personally present at the Synod. The fact, however, that they al1owed themselves to be deceived by the Emperor, and induced to subscribe, suggests to me the following theory. Pope Nicolas I writes, in his eighth letter to the Emperor Michael III of Constantinople: “His (the Emperor’s) predecessors had for a long time been sick with the poison of different heresies, and had either made those who wanted to save them partakers of their error, as at the time of pope Conon, or had persecuted them.” Here it is indicated that the Emperor Justinian II had won over the papal representatives to his error. As no such occurrence is known of the brief pontificate of Conon (687), and Sergius was the successor of Conon, that which happened under Sergius might, by a slight lapsus memoriae , quite easily be transposed to the time of Conon, and certainly then with right, since it was Conon who had sent these representatives to Constantinople.
If it is objected to this, that the representatives of Sergius, when they subscribed the Trullan canons, agreed to no heresy, it must be considered (a) that the Emperor Justinian II. is designated as entirely orthodox by the ancients, as, e.g ., by Anastasius in his Vitae Pontificum, and thus the error to which, according to the statement of Pope Nicolas I., he misguided the representatives, can have been no heresy in the ordinary sense; (b) but also, if Nicolas I. spoke of heresy, this would not be too strong, for the Trullan canons (13, 60, 36, 55) come very near to heresy, since they place Constantinople on an equality with Rome, thus certainly deny the primacy, and threaten several points of the Roman discipline with anathema.
SEC. 328. JUDGMENT OF ROME ON THE TRULLAN CANONS.
The Emperor Justinian II. immediately sent the Acts of this Synod to Rome, with the request that Pope Sergius would subscribe them at the place left vacant for him. But Sergius refused to do so, because quaedam capitula extra ritum ecclesiasticum fuerant in eo (the Council) annexa, did not accept the copy destined for him, rejected the synodal Acts as invalidi, and would rather die than novitatum erroribus consentire. FB1 In order to constrain him, the Emperor sent the Protospathar (officer of the imperial bodyguard) Zacharias to Rome, in order to bring the Pope to Constantinople. But the armies of the exarch of Ravenna and of the duchy of Pentapolis took the side of the Pope; troops of soldiers drew to Rome, in order to prevent his abduction, and surrounded the Lateran. Immediately on hearing of the arrival of the soldiers, the Protospathar had fled to the Pope and implored his help; now he even crept into his bed; and the Pope quieted the soldiers by going out to them and talking with them in a friendly manner. They withdrew again; the Protospathar, however, had to leave the city in shame. Thus relates Anastasius, and in agreement with him, more briefly, Bede and the deacon Paul. FB2 Justinian either could not or would not take revenge on account of what had happened. Soon afterwards he was deposed and banished, with his nose slit (hence his surname, JRino>tmhtov ). When he came again to the throne (705), Sergius was already dead (†701), and Justinian now sent two metropolitans to John VII. (the second successor of Sergius), with the request that he would arrange for a Council of the apostolic Church (i.e. a Roman Council), in order to efface those of the Trullan canons which were unacceptable, and confirm the others. The Pope, a timid man, would neither strike out nor confirm. He simply sent back again the copy which he had received. FB3 Justinian opened new negotiations with Pope Constantine, and invited him to come to him at Nicomedia, without doubt on account of the Trullan canons. In the retinue of the Pope was also the Roman deacon Gregory, subsequently his successor, as Gregory II., and Anastasius relates of him, that he had then inquired of the Emperor de quibusdam capitulis (the objectionable canons of the Trullan)optima responsione unamquamque sovlit quaestionem . That he and Pope Constantine succeeded in pacifying the Emperor, without his quite forgiving the matter, we see from the honors and favors with which he loaded the Pope. FB4 The process by which they came to an agreement is not recorded, but undoubtedly Constantine already struck that fair middle path which, as we know certainly, John VIII. (872-882) subsequently adhered to, in the declaration that “he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome.” That John VIII. had drawn up this decree, we learn from the Praefatio which Anastasius prefixed to his translation of Acts of the seventh OecumenicCouncil. He there addresses Pope John VIII. thus: “Unde apostolatu vestro decernente non solum illos solos quinquaginta canones (the first fifty apostolic, which Rome had hitherto recognised, whilst they rejected the remaining thirty-five) ecclesia recipit, sed et omnes eorum utpote Spiritus Sancti tubarum (i.e. the Apostles), quin et omnium omnino probabilium patrum et sanctorum conciliorum regulas et institutiones admittit; illas dumtaxat, quae nec rectae fidei nec probis moribus obviant, sed nec sedis Romanae decretis ad modicum quid resultant, quin potius adversarios, i.e. haereticos potenter impugnant. Ergo regulas, quas Graeci a sexta synodo perhibent editas (i.e. the Trullan, which the Greeks liked to call canones sextae synodi), ita in hac synodo principalis sedes admittit, FB5 ut nullatenus ex his illae recipiantur, quae prioribus canonibus vel decretis sanctorum sedis hujus pontificum, aut certe bonis moribus inveniuntur adversae; quamvis omnes hactenus ex toto maneant apud Latinos incognitae, quia nec interpretatae, sed nec in ceterarum patriarchalium sedium, licet Graeca utantur lingua, reperiantur archivis, nimirum quia nulla earum, cum ederentur, aut promulgans aut consentiens aut saltem praesens inventa est.”
FB6 Pope Hadrian I. seems to have been somewhat less prudent than John VIII. was ninety years before. When the latter refers to the Trullan rules with the words, “Quas Graeci a sexta synodo perhibent editas,” and thereby gives expression to the justifiable doubt, Hadrian accedes to the Greek tradition, without any such critical addition, in his letter to Tarasius of Constantinople (among the Acts of the second session of the seventh Oecumenical Council): “Omnes sanctas sex synodos suscipio cum omnibus regulis, quae jure ac divinitus ab ipsis promulgatae sunt, inter quas continetur, in quibusdam venerabilium imaginum picturis Agnus digito Praecursoris exaratus ostendi” (82nd Trullan canon). And in his letter to the Frankish bishops in defense of the seventh Oecumenical Synod he says, 100. 35: “Idcirco testimonium de sexta synodo Patres in septima protulerunt (namely, 100. 82 of the Trullan Synod), ut clarifice ostenderent, quod, jam quando sexta synodus acta est, a priscis temporibus sacras imagines et historias pictas venerabantur.” Probably Tarasius of Co |
