C

CABERSUSSA (394). See CARTHAGE, 393.

CAIRO (or MISRA) (1086). Held in 1086. Certain bishops of Egypt having, by their conduct, given offence to many of the principal Christian inhabitants of Misra, the latter requested Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, to deprive them of his communion; and such was their importunity in this request, that they extorted from the patriarch a written promise of compliance. So far was he, however, from fulfilling this promise, that, with one exception, he retained about himself the very parties against whom exception had been taken. The other prelates, indignant at this conduct, presented a memorial to the vizier, requesting him to examine and pass sentence upon the conduct of their patriarch.

The synod, accordingly, assembled in a country-house belonging to the vizier, at Misra, near Cairo. The vizier opened it by an harangue, in which he severely rebuked the prelates for having neglected to pay that honour which, as he was informed, was due from them to their patriarch; it was impossible, he said, for him, unacquainted with their customs, and ignorant of their laws, to judge in the case before him; he therefore requested both the accusers and the accused to prepare from their canons and laws such a compendium as they thought most likely to enable him to pronounce a correct judgment. This was, accordingly, done by both parties, and at the end of three weeks (in the course of which he punished with death his head gardener for his contemptuous conduct towards the patriarch) the vizier summoned the bishops before him, and telling them that he had not read the collection of canons which they had put into his hands, and that he did not intend to read them; declared that he could do nothing else but exhort them to unity and peace, as worshippers of the same God, and as professors of the same religion; that he had already heard complaints of the love of money exhibited by some of those before him; that the proper use which a bishop should make of money, was not to pamper his appetite and to minister to his luxuries, but as Christ Himself has commanded, to give alms to the poor, &c. After much more excellent advice, he concluded by directing that each prelate should receive a written document assuring him of security and protection.

Cyril and his suffragans retired from his presence, rejoicing that so dangerous an appeal had had so happy an issue.—Neale’s Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church.

CAIRO (1239). The peace of the Church being much disturbed by the complaints which were urged against Cyril, seventy-fifth patriarch of Alexandria, fourteen bishops met together in council at Misra, near Cairo, and held a conference with him, the end of which was their agreeing to return into concord with him, upon condition of his subscribing certain chapters containing the points necessary to be reformed in the Church. To this Cyril consented, and the chapters were drawn up accordingly. At the head of these chapters was placed the confession of faith according to the decisions of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus (which alone are recognised by the Jacobites). Then follows a profession concerning the observation of all things contained in Holy Scripture, the apostolical canons, and the decrees of those councils which the Jacobite Church receives, as well as of those customs which were in use in the Coptic Church.

Amongst the new decrees then made were the following:—That the patriarch should not excommunicate any one in the diocese of another bishop, except upon lawful and canonical grounds; and not even so, except the bishop, having been duly admonished to do this, should refuse, without assigning an adequate cause.

That (on the other hand) the patriarch should not absolve one excommunicated by his own bishop, unless it should appear that the excommunication was unjust, and the bishop himself, after two monitions, should refuse to do so.

That each bishop should have entire control over his own diocese; that nothing should be taken from it territorially; and that so in like manner each bishop should always confine himself to what had been the boundaries of his diocese on the day of his consecration. That the patriarch should not apply to his own use the offerings made in the churches on festival days, and at certain accustomed times, but that they should be at the disposal of the bishop of the diocese; except the patriarch should consent, at his consecration, to take such offerings in lieu of his usual pension.—Le Quien, Neale, vol. ii. p. 302.

CALNE (979). [Concilium Calnense.] Held in 979, in the fourth year of St Edward, king and martyr, in consequence of the dispute then rife between the monks and clergy, the former of whom were unduly favoured by Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the great prejudice of the latter. Dunstan himself presided in this council, at the head of the chief nobility, the bishops, and other ecclesiastics. No decision was, however, arrived at, owing to a singular accident which broke up the council—the floor of the chamber in which they were assembled giving way, all were precipitated to the ground, except Dunstan, whose seat escaped.—Baronius, A.D. 977. Tom. ix. Conc. p. 724. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 263.

CAMBRAI (1565). [Concilium Cameracense.] Held in August 1565, Maximilian, Archbishop and Duke of Cambrai, presiding, assisted by the Bishops of Arras, St Omer, and Namur. Twenty-two decrees were published, each of which contains several chapters.

The titles of the decrees are as follow:—

              1.              Of heretical books.

              2.              Of theological lectures in chapters and monasteries.

              3.              Of schools.

              4.              Of seminaries.

              5.              Of doctrine, and the preaching of the word of God.

              6.              Of ceremonies, and the holy offices.

              7.              Of the ministry.

              8.              Of the life and conversation of clerks.

              9.              Of the examination of bishops.

              10.              Of the examination of pastors.

              11.              Of the residence of bishops and curates.

              12.              Of the residence of pastors, and their duties.

              13.              Of visitation.

              14.              Of the ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction.

              15.              Of matrimony.

              16.              Of tithes, &c.

              17.              Of purgatory.

              18.              Of monasteries.

              19.              Of the saints.

              20.              Of images.

              21.              Of relics.

              22.              Of indulgences.

The third, relating to schools, contains six chapters; it orders that they be visited by the curate every month, and by the rural dean at least once in each year, in order that a report may be made to the bishop.

The twelfth enjoins the wearing of the surplice and stole by the priests, when they carry the holy sacrament to the sick, and also that a clerk carry a lighted taper and bell, that the people may be warned of its approach, and of their duty towards the holy sacrament and to the sick person.

Finally, the council confirmed the decrees of the Council of Trent.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 147.

CANTERBURY (603). [Concilium Cantuariense.] Held about 603, by St Augustine, in order to confirm the foundation of a monastery which he was about to build near Canterbury, to be dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul. The King Ethelbert and his Queen Bertha were present. Augustine did not live to finish this monastery and church; but the work was completed by Archbishop Laurence, who succeeded him.—Spelman, Conc. Angl., cited by Wilkins, vol. i. p. 28.

CANTERBURY (969). Held in 969, by Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, Edgar, the king, being present, who, advocating the celibacy of the secular clergy, spoke with warmth of their present negligent and dissolute conduct. “How negligently,” he said, “they conduct the services of the Church: they seem to come there rather for their own amusement than to sing the praises of the Almighty. I cannot refrain from speaking about a matter which is the cause of tears to all good people, and a subject of profane jesting to the wanton. The clergy give themselves up to the pleasures of the table, and to every shameful excess: they expend in gambling and debauchery those revenues which were left for the support and comfort of the poor.” At the end of this celebrated speech of King Edgar, a plain hint is given of the violent measures then in contemplation by that monarch and the archbishop. “What wilt thou reply,” said the prince, “to these complaints? I know, I know what thou wilt reply: when thou sawest a thief, thou didst not run with him, neither didst thou have thy portion with the adulterers. Thou hast convicted, thou hast besought, thou hast rebuked them. Words have been despised; we must come to blows; and the royal authority shall not be wanting to thee.”—Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 246.

CANTERBURY (991). Held in 991, in which those of the clergy of the cathedral who refused to become monks were turned out, and monks established in their places, to whom also great privileges and possessions were granted.—Spelman, Conc. Ang.

CANTERBURY (1439). Held November 1, 1439, by Henry Chichely, Archbishop of Canterbury. A constitution was made for augmenting vicarages.

It declares that there were in the province of Canterbury many vicarages belonging to rich churches, too poor to afford a livelihood to their vicars, who were unable to afford the necessary expense of prosecuting a suit before the ordinary for the augmentation of their portion. It then orders that proceedings in such cases shall thenceforth be summary, and conducted in a plain manner, and that ordinaries shall admit such vicars to prosecute such causes “in formâ pauperum,” and shall take care to assign them such portions as shall be suitable to the revenues of their several churches. See for a history of the long struggle against the appropriation of the great tithes, which was maintained in England both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, Bishop Kennet, Case of Impropriations, sect. 18–24.—Johnson, Ecc. Canons, A.D. 1439. Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1282. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. iii. p. 535.

CANTERBURY (1554). Held in 1554, by Cardinal Pole, in which, for the sake of peace, the alienation of Church property, made in the preceding reigns, was sanctioned.—Wilkins’ Conc., vol. iii. p. 101.

CAPPADOCIA (372). Held in 372, but it is uncertain at what place. In this synod the rights of the newly elected metropolitan see of Tyana were defined, both Basilius the Great, of Cesarea, and Anthimus, of Tyana, claiming metropolitical jurisdiction over the sees of Cappadocia Secunda. The synod endeavoured to settle the dispute by erecting the new see of Sasima, which, however, Anthimus afterwards, by some means, got under his own jurisdiction.

CAPPADOCIA (376). Held in 376, in which the book of St Basil on the Holy Spirit was approved.

CAPUA (389). [Concilium Capuanum.] Held about the year 389, for the purpose of putting an end to the schism which divided the Church at Antioch. The Emperor Theodosius granted it at the instant prayer of the Western Christians. The circumstances of the case were as follow:—After the death of Paulinus, Flavianus remained the sole bishop of Antioch, but Paulinus, before his death, had nominated Evagrius to succeed him, who was recognised by the party of Paulinus as bishop. None of the acts of the council have come down to us; but St Ambrose, who was present, speaks of it as having been numerously attended by bishops; he also says that the absence of Flavianus was the reason why the affair could not be finally decided in this council. However, in order to preserve the peace of the Church, they granted communion to all the Eastern bishops who professed the Catholic faith, and entrusted to Theophilus of Alexandria and the other Egyptian bishops the decision of the differences between Flavianus and Evagrius, because they were biassed by no prejudices, and had not joined the communion of either party. See the Councils of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria (362), &c., on this subject.

Several regulations were also made, one of which, given in III. con., Carthage, forbids to re-baptise or re-ordain any person; another forbids the translation of bishops.

Moreover, in the council, Bonosus, Bishop of Macedonium in Macedonia, was condemned, who said that the blessed Virgin ceased to be a Virgin after parturition, and also, Helvidius, the founder of the Antidico-marianites, who asserted that the Virgin had other children after the Lord’s birth.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1039. Ital. Sacr., vol. vi. p. 301. St Ambrose.

CARIA (368). Held in the end of 367 or early in 368, by the semi-Arians of Asia, of whom thirty-four were present, in which they refused to admit the word “Homo-ousion,” and adhere to the creed of Antioch and Seleucia. In consequence of this council, that which was called to meet at Tarsus in the spring of 368 for the furtherance of orthodox faith in the East, was forbidden.

CARLISLE (1138). By the Legate Albericus, Bishop of Ostia. The king, David, held his court here, at the time; nothing is known of what passed.—Skinner, 249.

CARPENTRAS (527). [Concilium Carpentoractense.] Held in 527. Cæsarius of Arles presiding at the head of sixteen bishops. They published but one canon, which forbids the bishop to take any thing from the parishes within his diocese, provided he has a sufficient revenue for his maintenance. In this council also, Agrecius, Bishop of Antibes, was suspended during a year for conferring orders contrary to the canons.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1663.

CARRION (1130). St Zoil de Carrion in Spain, where Cardinal Humbert presided, February 4, 1130, when the bishops of Oviedo, Leon, and Salamanca were deposed. See those bishops in Esp. Sagrada, t. 19, p. 307, t. 20, p. 497, t. 18, p. 122, and t. 16, p. 200.

CARTHAGE (or AFRICA) (253). [Concilium Carthaginiense.] Held by St Cyprian, at the head of sixty-six bishops, about 253 (?). Here a letter was read from Fidus, who informed them that another bishop named Therapis, had granted reconciliation to Victor, who had been ordained priest a long time before, without his having undergone a full and entire course of penance, and that, too, when the people had not required it, nor even known any thing about it; and there was no plea of necessity, such as illness, to constrain him. The council expressed great indignation at the act, and administered a strong rebuke to Therapis; nevertheless, they would not deprive of communion Victor, who had been admitted to it by his own bishop.

This same Fidus also started the opinion, that holy baptism should not be administered to infants until the eighth day, that being the divine law in regard to circumcision; but no bishop present supported him. On the contrary, they decided, unanimously, that God hath no respect either to persons or ages; that circumcision was but the figure of the mystery of Jesus Christ, and that no one may be shut out from the grace of God. St Cyprian, who wrote this decision to Fidus in his own name and in that of his colleagues, gives the reason for it in these words: “If the greatest sinners coming to the faith receive remission of sin and baptism, how much less can we reject a little infant just born into the world, free from actual sin, and only so far a sinner as being born of Adam after the flesh, and by its first birth having contracted the pollution of the former death; it ought to have so much the easier access to the remission of sins, inasmuch, as not its own sins, but those of others are remitted.”

These words are quoted by St Jerome in his three dialogues against the Pelagians; and by St Augustine in his 294th sermon, in order to prove that belief in original sin has always been the faith of the Church.—Cyprian, Epist. 55. Tom. i. Conc. p. 741.

CARTHAGE (254). Held in 254, by St Cyprian, at the head of thirty-six bishops. It was decided that Basilides, Bishop of Leon, and Martial, Bishop of Astorga, could not be any longer recognised as bishops, being both of them amongst the “Libellatici,” and also guilty of various crimes.—Fleury. Tom. i. Conc. p. 746.

CARTHAGE (255). Held in 255. Eighteen bishops of Numidia having applied to St Cyprian for advice upon the subject of baptism, those who, having received the form out of the Church, were anxious to be received into her; he, with the assent of the council, replied that they ought, by all means, to follow the ancient practice, which was to baptise everyone received into the Church, who had previously been baptised only by heretics or schismatics.—Cyp., Ep., 79. Tom i. Conc. p. 761.

CARTHAGE (255). About this time several councils were held at Carthage upon the same subject. In this council seventy-one bishops were present from the provinces of Africa and Numidia, St Cyprian presiding. They decided that there can be no valid baptism out of the Catholic Church, and addressed a synodical letter to Stephen upon the subject, informing him of their decision upon this and other matters. With regard to external baptism they speak thus:—“Eos qui sint foris extra ecclesiam tincti, et apud hæreticos et schismaticos profanæ aquæ labe maculati, quando ad nos atque ad ecclesiam, quæ una est, venerint, baptizari oportere; eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere ad accipiendum Spiritum S. nisi accipiant et ecclesiæ baptismum.”—St Cyp., Ep., 72.

Nothing is more clear than that the whole of Africa followed this custom from ancient times, as well as Cappadocia, Galatia, Cilicia, and several other Asiatic provinces.

This matter was the cause of a dispute between St Cyprian and Stephen of Rome; which last had no sooner received the synodical letter above-mentioned, than he refused to confirm the decision of the council, and instantly separated himself from the communion of Cyprian and the other bishops composing the council.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 763.

CARTHAGE (255). Another council was held in September in the same year, attended by eighty-seven bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania. The letter of Jubayen was read, who had written to consult St Cyprian upon the subject of baptism, and likewise the answer of Cyprian. Also the letter of Cyprian and the former council to Stephen was read, and the answer of the latter. It does not appear that this answer, although accompanied by threats of excommunication, had the effect of shaking the opinion of St Cyprian.

After these papers had been read, St Cyprian delivered a discourse, in which forcibly, yet mildly, testifying his disapproval of the conduct of those who would, as it were, make themselves bishops over other bishops, in wishing to compel them, by a tyrannical fear, to submit absolutely to their opinion; he again protested that he left to each full liberty in his faith as to the subject before them, without judging or desiring to separate them from communion with himself on that account. The other bishops present then delivered their opinion, afterwards St Cyprian himself declared his own, and all agreed unanimously.

Nevertheless, Pope Stephen, filled with anger, refused even to grant an audience to the deputies of the council, and St Cyprian wrote upon the subject to Firmilian, Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia. The latter in his answer declares twice, that in his opinion the pope had entirely broken peace with Africa; and that he did not fear to assert that Stephen, by the very act of separating all others from his communion, had, in fact, separated himself from all the other faithful, and therefore from the Communion of the Catholic Church; and, by so doing, had really become himself schismatical. This contest lasted until the pontificate of Sixtus, who succeeded Stephen, and it seems the bishops of Africa, little by little, yielded their opinion. St Jerome says, that many of the same bishops who had declared in council the invalidity of heretical baptism, afterwards concurred in a contrary decree.

As for St Cyprian himself, the Church of Rome has always expressed veneration for him, and has admitted his name into the sacred canon of the mass, and probably he died in communion with her; his martyrdom took place in 258, under Valerian, and after the death of Stephen, which happened in 257.

“This holy bishop,” writes St Augustine, “presiding though he did over so magnificent a church, and being himself so distinguished for understanding and eloquence, and for virtue, nevertheless, permitted others to combat his opinion without desiring to separate himself from their communion; and when we consider what multitudes would have followed him had he separated, we cannot but admire the spirit of real charity which distinguished him throughout this celebrated dispute.”—Tom. i. Conc. p. 786. Pagi.

CARTHAGE (311). Held in 311, by seventy bishops of Numidia, under Secundus, Bishop of Tigisis, and primate of Africa, at the instigation of the notorious Donatus, Bishop of Casa Nigra, who, vexed at not having been called upon to consecrate Cecilianus, condemned him in his absence, for the offence of which he had himself been guilty (see C. CIRTA), and consecrated Majorinus in his place; many of the bishops present were also those which had been condemned at Cirta. They annulled the election of Cecilianus to the see of Carthage on the plea that Felix of Apthonga, who had consecrated him, was a Traditor, and elected Majorinus in his stead. (See C. ROME, 313. C. CIRTA, 305.)

CARTHAGE (348). Held in 348 or 349, after a great number of the Donatists had united themselves to the Church, under Gratus, Bishop of Carthage. Bishops from all the provinces of Africa attended it, but neither their number nor the names of the greatest part of them are come down to us.

Gratus having returned thanks to Almighty God for the termination of the schism which had for so many years rent the African Church, they proceeded to publish fourteen canons. The first forbids to re-baptise those who have been baptised in the name of the Sacred Trinity; the second forbids to honour those as martyrs, who, by their indiscretion, have been instrumental in bringing about their own death, and treats generally of the honour due to the martyrs; the third and fourth forbid the clergy to dwell with women; it was also ruled, that three bishops are necessary in order to judge a deacon, six for the trial of a priest, and twelve for that of a bishop.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 713.

CARTHAGE (390). Held in 390, by Genethlius, Bishop of Carthage. The number of the bishops present is unknown. They first drew up a profession of the Catholic faith, and then proceeded to publish thirteen canons.

The first enjoins belief in the Holy Trinity.

The second enjoins continence upon all the clergy

The third forbids the consecration of the chrism by priests, as also the consecration of virgins, and the reconciliation of penitents at public mass, by them.

The fourth allows a priest to re-admit to communion a penitent, being thereto authorised by his bishop.

The seventh orders, that those of the clergy receiving excommunicated persons shall be also excommunicated.

The twelfth forbids the consecration of a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan.

From the canons of this council it appears plainly, that the bishop was the ordinary minister in cases of penance, and the priest only in his absence, or in cases of necessity.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1158.

CARTHAGE (397). Held on August 28, 397, under Aurelius, the bishop, at the head of forty-four or forty-eight bishops, amongst whom was St Augustine. They published fifty canons, The first orders every bishop to ascertain from the primate, yearly, the day upon which the festival of Easter should be celebrated. The second enjoins that a council be held annually. The third directs that all the bishops and clergy shall acquire a knowledge of the canons of the Church before their consecration. The fourth forbids the ordination of deacons or the veiling of the consecrated virgins before their twenty-fifth year. The sixth forbids the administration of baptism or the eucharist to the dead. The twenty-first forbids any bishop to ordain the clergy of another diocese. The twenty-fourth forbids to offer anything at the altar but that which the Lord Himself commanded, i.e., Bread and wine mixed with water. The twenty-ninth orders that mass be said fasting except on Holy Thursday. The thirty-fourth allows the baptism of sick persons unable to speak, if their desire of this be guaranteed by their friends. The thirty-ninth forbids the consecration of a bishop by less than three bishops. The forty-sixth forbids the translation of bishops. The forty-seventh canon forbids the reading of any thing in the Church under the name of sacred Scripture, except the canonical writings, among which are included the apocryphal books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of Maccabees.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1165.

CARTHAGE (398). Held November 8th, 398, under Aurelius of Carthage, at the head of two hundred and fourteen or two hundred and fifteen bishops, including St Augustine. One hundred and four canons were published, chiefly relating to the life and conduct of the clergy.

1. Enjoins that no one be elevated to the episcopate without accurate inquiry first made as to his faith and moral character, in order to ascertain whether he hold the catholic faith, and have all the virtues necessary for the office; whether he be prudent, docile, moderate, chaste, sober, charitable, humble, well instructed in the word of God, &c.

The eight canons following are upon the ordination of bishops, priests, deacons, and sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, &c.

The 15th directs that bishops shall have nothing but what is plain and simple, either at table or in their furniture, and recommends that they should distinguish themselves only by the lustre of their faith and virtue.

The 16th prohibits bishops from reading the works of heathens, but allows those of heretics to be read in case of necessity.

The 22nd forbids that a bishop should ordain any one without the consent of his clergy, and the testimony of the laity.

The 24th orders that all persons leaving the church during the time of sermon be excommunicated.

The 34th forbids a bishop, whilst seated, to keep a priest standing.

The 36th speaks of priests as already fixed in parishes.

The 38th permits a deacon, in cases of great necessity, to administer the eucharist in the presence of a priest.

The 44th forbids clerks to let their hair grow long or to shave the beard.

The 51st and two following canons order the clergy to get their living by some honest trade.

The 61st orders that a clergyman swearing by any creature be severely rebuked, and if he continues in fault he is to be excommunicated.

The 64th declares those persons not to be catholics who fast upon Sunday.

The 66th enjoins that the clergy who consider themselves harshly treated by their bishop, may appeal to a synod.

The 70th forbids all the clergy to keep company with heretics and schismatics.

The 83rd directs that greater respect be paid to old people, and to the poor, than to others.

The 84th allows every person whatever, whether heretic, Jew, or pagan, to remain in church until the mass of the catechumens.

The 85th excommunicates those who on the Festival Day of the Church absent the services and go to spectacles.

The 90th directs that the exorcists shall lay their hands on energumens daily.

The 92nd directs the exorcists to carry to the energumens, which sat in the church, their daily bread.

The 93rd and 94th order that the offerings of those who are at variance, or those who oppress the poor, be rejected.

The 99th forbids a woman, however well instructed and holy, to presume to teach in an assembly of men.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1196.

CARTHAGE (or AFRICA) (401). Held about the year 401, in June, by Aurelius, at the head of sixty-two bishops. It was agreed that deputies should be sent to Rome and to Milan, to submit for approval a scheme for putting into the order of clergy the children of Donatists who had been converted. The great scarcity of clergy in Africa arose chiefly from the oppression of the Donatists, and the extreme caution of the bishops in making choice of fit persons. Fifteen canons were drawn up, one of which directs that the bishop shall live at his cathedral church. The decree concerning the continence of the clergy was confirmed.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1241.

CARTHAGE (411). Held on the 1st of June 411, with a view of uniting the Donatists to the Church, and convincing them of the necessity of seeking for salvation in the Catholic Church.

These heretics appear to have increased to that degree in Africa, that they were in a fair way to overwhelm the catholics altogether, and from the time of their obtaining full liberty they were guilty of acts of violence equal to those of the greatest persecutors.

The catholic bishops having at last persuaded the Emperor Honorius to allow a public conference with the Donatists, Marcellinus was sent over to Africa by order of that prince, who appointed the first of June for the day of meeting. He also ordered that seven bishops only on each side should take part in the conference, to be chosen by the whole number, but that each party might have seven other bishops, with whom the disputants might take counsel, if they needed it; that no other bishop should be permitted to take part in the conference than the fourteen disputants; and lastly, that each party should bind itself to stand by the acts of those whom they had named to represent them, and that notes of what passed should be taken by public notaries.

The Donatists, however, refused these terms, and desired that all their bishops should be present. The catholics, on their part, wrote to Marcellinus, accepting his offers. In this letter they declare their object to be to show that the holy Church throughout all the world cannot perish, however great may be the sins of those who are members of it; and further they declare their willingness, if the Donatists can show that the Catholic Church is reduced to their communion, to submit themselves entirely to them, to vacate their sees and all their rights; but if the Catholics, on the other hand, can show that the only true Church is in their communion, and that the Donatists are in error, that they will, nevertheless, preserve to them the episcopal honour; that in cities where there are both a Catholic and a Donatist bishop, both shall sit alternately in the episcopal chair, and that when one of the two shall die, the survivor shall remain sole bishop.

Then they named, as their representative bishops in the conference, Aurelius of Carthage, Alipius of Tagaste, St Augustine, Vincentius of Capua, Fortunatus of Cirtha, Fortunatianus of Sicca, and Possidius of Calama. Seven others were also named for consultation, and four more as sureties that the result of the conference should be observed faithfully. The Donatists also (being compelled) named their representatives in the same order.

In the second sitting, after a long discussion, a delay was granted to the Donatists.

In the third sitting the Donatists did every thing in their power to prevent the question of the origin of the schism being inquired into; but Marcellinus caused the statement of Anulinus the Proconsul to be read, in which he set forth the complaints of the Donatists against Cecilianus. The Donatists, being thus hard pushed, presented a memorial, in which they endeavoured to show, from Holy Scripture, that bad pastors are spots and defilements in the Church, and that she cannot have amongst her children any that are openly wicked. After this document had been read, the Catholics answered it through St Augustine. He strongly established this verity, that the Church in this world must endure evil members, both open and concealed, and that the good, although they are mingled with the evil, do not participate in their sin. From St Cyprian he showed that it was in the Church that the devil sowed the tares (which was contested by the Donatists), the object of the Catholics being to prove that neither the faults of Cecilianus nor of any one else could in any way affect their communion. Augustine then proceeded to say that Holy Scripture may not be so interpreted as to contradict itself, and that those passages which each party brought forward in support of their own views must in some way be reconciled. He showed that the Church is to be regarded in two lights, first, as she is, militant in this world, having within her both good and bad men; and secondly, as she will be, triumphant in Heaven, when all evil shall be purged out of her; he also explained how the faithful are bound in this life to separate from the evil, viz., by withdrawing from all participation in their evil deeds, not by separating from them outwardly.

When the Donatists found themselves too closely pressed by the reasoning of Augustine, they declared plainly that they did not conceive themselves to be permitted to join in any act of devotion with those who were not perfectly just, and true saints, for which reason they regarded the holy sacraments as utterly null and void, except they were administered by persons whom they conceived to be of irreproachable life, and for the same cause they insisted upon rebaptising Catholics. St Augustine, in reply, showed plainly that such a notion went at once to overthrow all external religion whatever, since difficulties without end must arise upon the question of the personal holiness of ministers.

They now proceeded to inquire into the original cause of the rupture between the Donatists and Catholics. The former maintained that they were justified in separating from Cecilianus, who had been consecrated by men who were themselves “Traditores.” However, the proofs which they alleged were without weight, and Augustine, in few words, again refuted their error, and further unravelled all their tricks and shifts. He bade them bear in mind, that Mensurius, the predecessor of Cecilianus, although charged with the same crime of having given up the sacred volumes, was yet never publicly condemned; that the Council of Carthage against Cecilianus condemned him in his absence, and that this was done by bishops who in the Council of Cirtha had been pardoned for the very same crime, in proof of which he caused the acts of the Council of Cirta, A.D. 305, to be read.

After various shifts on the part of the Donatists in the matter of this last-mentioned council, the acts of the Council of Rome, in 313, absolving Cecilianus, were read, and also the letter of Constantine to Eumalus, upon the subject of the contradictory judgment which that prince had given in the matter of Cecilianus. It seemed, indeed, as M. Tillemont observes, as if the Almighty constrained the Donatists to speak in spite of themselves, since the very document which they produced served only to bring out more clearly the innocence of Cecilianus, for, first, wishing to show that Constantine, after having absolved Cecilianus, had condemned him again by a later judgment, they were blind enough to produce a petition which they had formerly addressed to the prince, in which it appeared that he had himself condemned them, and maintained the innocence of Cecilianus; secondly, they produced a letter of Constantine, in which he acknowledges that the cause of Felix of Aptonga had not been examined and judged impartially, and in which he ordered that Inquitius should be sent to him, who allowed that he had told a lie, in order to bring about the condemnation of Felix.

Now, nothing could better serve the cause of the Catholics and more confound the Donatists, than to show that this very Felix was in truth innocent of the charge upon which he had been condemned; for properly speaking, their charge against Cecilianus was, that he had been consecrated by a man who had delivered up the Holy Scriptures. But to complete the proof of the innocence of Felix, the Catholics produced the statement of the proconsul Œlianus, who had acted as judge in the affair, and the very acts of the judgment, to none of which had the Donatists any thing to object; and finally, the Catholics having entirely established every thing that they had asserted, Marcellinus gave sentence, two hundred and eighty-one articles of which still remain to us; it was to the effect that the Donatists had been entirely refuted by the Catholics; that Cecilianus had been justified, and that even had the crimes with which he had been accused been proved against him, it would in no way have affected the Catholic Church, and that, accordingly, those of the Donatists who should refuse to unite themselves to the Church, should be punished as the laws directed.

From this sentence the Donatists appealed to the Emperor, but in vain. Honorius confirmed the acts of the conference of Carthage by a law, bearing date the 30th of August 414.

This conference may be said to have given the death-blow to Donatism. From this time the sectarians came in crowds to unite themselves to the true Church, and the heresy declined.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1335.

CARTHAGE (416). Held in 416, against Pelagius and Celestius. It was composed of sixty-seven bishops, whose names are preserved; Aurelius of Carthage presiding. The letters of Heros and Lazarus were read, in which they accused Pelagius and Celestius of errors worthy to be visited with the censures of the Church. Then the acts of the council of 412, against Celestius, were read. It was finally resolved that both he and Pelagius should be anathematised, unless they would unequivocally abjure their wicked doctrine. A synodical letter was also addressed to Pope Innocent, to inform him of the affair, in order that he might add the weight of his authority to their decree. In this letter the principal errors of Pelagius are specified and refuted summarily from Holy Scripture; to it were added the letter of Heros and Lazarus, and the acts of the council of 412, in which Celestius was condemned.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1533.

CARTHAGE (417). Held about November 417, by Aurelius, at the head of two hundred and fourteen bishops. St Augustine, in several places, calls it a council of Africa. In it, certain decrees concerning the faith were made against the Pelagians, which were subsequently approved by the whole Church. Prosper has preserved one of these decrees, in which the fathers in council declare that the grace of God given to us through Jesus Christ, not only assists us to know what is right, but also to practice it in each particular action; so that without it we can neither have, nor think, nor say, nor do any thing which appertains to holiness and true piety.

At the head of these decrees, the two hundred and fourteen bishops wrote to Zosimus, the pope, declaring that they were resolved that the sentence passed by his predecessor Innocent, against Pelagius and Celestius, should remain in force against them, until both of them should clearly recognise the necessity of divine grace, agreeably to the decrees of the council; and that so they need never hope to return into the bosom of the Church without abjuring their errors. They also reminded the pope of the mean opinion which Innocent had of the Council of Diospolis, and represented to him that he ought not to have given ear so readily to the representations of a heretic. Lastly, they laid before him all that had passed in Africa upon the subject. This letter was carried to Rome by Marcellinus, Subdeacon of Carthage.—Bar. 416. xxv. Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1576.

CASHEL (1171). [Concilium Cassiliense.] Held in 1171, by Radulphus, Archdeacon of Llandaff, by order of Henry, King of England; Christian, Bishop of Lismore, presided. All the archbishops, bishops, and abbots of Ireland were present, who swore fidelity to Henry. Eight canons were published, intended to remedy the disorders which prevailed. By the first canon, we learn that polygamy was, at this time, common amongst the Irish, and it directs that no marriages shall be celebrated other than the law permits. The third orders the payment of the tithe of cattle, fruit, and all other produce, to the parish church; for many did not even know that it was due, and had never paid it. The seventh orders that the Irish Church shall thenceforth follow the customs of the Church of England.—Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 472.

CATALONIA (1246). [Concilium Catalauniense.] Held in May 1246, by the Archbishop of Tarragona, and six other bishops. Amongst other things, they ordered that Saracenic slaves, who demanded to be baptised, should remain some days with the rector of the parish, in order to give proof of their conversion.—See TARRAGONA, 1329, Can. 24, p. 20 at end.

CEALCHYTHE (785). [Concilium Celchytum.] Held in 785 or 787, by Gregory, Bishop of Ostia (the legate of Pope Adrian), who, in his letter to the pope, declares that Alfwald, the King, and Eanbald, the Archbishop of York, with all the bishops and abbots of the country were present, besides the senators, dukes, and people of the land. Twenty canons were published, which appear to have been previously drawn up by the legates and approved in council.

1. Insists upon the Nicene definition of faith being held by all clerks: orders the annual examination (in the faith) of all priests, by the bishops, in their synods; receives the first six œcumenical councils.

2. Orders the administration of holy baptism at the canonical times only, except in cases of necessity; and defines the duties of sponsors.

3. Orders that two councils be held annually; that every bishop visit his “parish” every year, orders them to preach to and confirm their flocks, and to separate incestuous; exhorts to the due fulfilment of all pastoral duties, and quotes Holy Scripture most appositely to that effect.

4. Directs bishops to take care that canons live canonically, and that monks and nuns behave themselves regularly, both as to diet and apparel, avoiding “the dyed colours of India and precious garments.”

5. Relates to the election of abbots and abbesses.

6. Relates to the ordination of priests and deacons.

7. Directs that at all public churches the canonical hours be said with reverence.

8. Confirms ancient privileges conferred by the see of Rome on any churches; cancels all uncanonical privileges.

9. Forbids ecclesiastics to eat in private (unless on account of great infirmity).

10. Forbids ministers to celebrate mass with naked legs; orders that a loaf be offered by the faithful, and not crumbs of bread only (crustula); forbids chalices made of horn; also forbids bishops to judge secular matters, quoting 2 Tim. 2:4; and entreats that prayer be made assiduously for the Church.

11. Relates to right government by kings; orders princes to obey their bishops, because to them is committed the power of binding and loosing; exhorts all persons to honour the Church.

12. Relates to the election of kings; orders that it shall be made by the priests and elders of the people; orders all men to honour the king, and directs that, if a bishop or priest shall conspire against him, he shall, like Judas, be thrust out from the apostolical degree.

13. Exhorts the great and rich to judge righteously, and without regard to persons or bribes.

14. Forbids to impose unjust tributes upon the Church; exhorts to concord amongst all Christian people.

15. Forbids incestuous marriages.

16. Declares the sons of whores and nuns and those born in adultery, to be deprived of lawful inheritance; declares a virgin devoted to God to be the spouse of Christ; declares that the council presumes not to add to nor take from what has been prescribed in the canon, and in the Gospel, and in the decrees of the apostles, concerning lawful marriage and its use.

17. Declares that many refusing to pay tithe are often reduced themselves to a tenth, and orders the payment of tithe, and that men should live upon and give alms from the remaining nine parts; also forbids usury and unjust weights and measures.

18. Exhorts to the faithful discharge of vows made in prosperity or adversity.

19. Forbids all Pagan rites, &c.; forbids the wearing of Gentile garments, the maiming of horses, the use of sorcery, and the eating of horse-flesh, which last practice is mentioned as not uncommon.

20. Exhorts all to prepare for death, by confessing, receiving the holy eucharist, and repenting; forbids prayer to be made for such as die without confession and repentance.

After the signatures appended to these canons, the legate proceeds, in his letter to the pope, to say, “When this was finished, and we had given our blessing, we departed, taking with us the legate of the king, and the archbishop, &c., who carried the decree with them to the Council of the Mercians, where the glorious king, Offa, with the counsellors of the land, together with Janbyrht, the Archbishop of the holy church of Canterbury, and the rest of the bishops of the country, were assembled.” It then appears that the canons were again approved, and signed by Offa and his lords, by the archbishop and twelve bishops, and by four abbots, in this Mercian council.

There were two councils held in the same year, in which these canons, called “the canons of Cealchythe,” were read and approved: the first in Northumberland, and the second in Mercia; in which of these two kingdoms the place called Cealchythe was situated is unknown. Bishop Gibson suggests that it was probably the same with Kelcheth, in Lancashire, on the borders of Cheshire. Litchfield was erected into an Archiepiscopal see at about this time.

The date of this council, according to Sir H. Spelman, is 797.—Johnson’s Ecc. Canon. Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1861. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. ii. p. 145.

CEALCHYTHE (816). Held July 26, 816, Wulfred, Archbishop of Canterbury, presiding. Besides Kenulf, King of the Mercians, and his lords, there were present twelve bishops, amongst whom were those of Rochester, Selsea, Hereford, Lindisfarn, and London. Many abbots, priests, and deacons also attended Eleven canons were published.

1. Relates to the faith and canonical precepts of the fathers.

2. Orders that churches newly built be consecrated by the bishop of the diocese, and that certain relics, or at least the eucharist, be there deposited; that it be written up to what saints the churches are dedicated.

3. Exhorts to unity, and mutual prayer one for another.

4. Gives to every bishop the power of electing the abbots and abbesses of his diocese, with the consent and advice of the family; orders due enquiry to be made respecting the fitness of those to be elected.

5. Forbids any one of Scottish extraction to usurp to himself the sacred ministry in any one’s diocese, and to attend the priest when he celebrates mass.

6. Forbids the judgments of former bishops, confirmed by a synodical decree, to be infringed; directs that, in all cases, whatever has been corroborated with the sign of the cross shall remain in full force.

7. Forbids bishops, abbots, and abbesses to diminish the estates of their churches, or to grant away the inheritance of them for any longer time than for one man’s life (and this with the consent of the fraternity); enumerates a few cases in which such alienation is allowable.

8. Directs that houses once erected into monasteries, with the advice of the bishop, shall remain so for ever; any priest, deacon, clerk, or nun offending against this canon to be deposed, anathematised, and excommunicated.

9. Relates to synodical judgments.

10. Orders that upon the death of a bishop, one-tenth of his substance be given, for his soul’s sake, to the poor, that all his English slaves be set free, that at the sound of the bell throughout the parishes every congregation should meet in the basilicon, and there sing thirty Psalms together for the soul of the deceased, that afterwards, every prelate and abbot should sing six hundred Psalms, cause one hundred and twenty masses to be celebrated, and set free three slaves, giving them three shillings each; it further orders that for thirty days, when the canonical hours were finished, seven belts of pater nosters should be said for the departed soul, and that his obiit be renewed on the thirtieth day.

11. Orders that bishops be content with their own dioceses, and abstain from interfering in those of others; charges all priests not to refuse baptism, directs them not to pour water on the child’s head, but to immerse it in the font, and that thrice.—Johnson’s Ecc. Canon. Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1484. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 169.

CESAREA in PALESTINE (197). Held in 197. The causes which led to the assembling of this council were as follows. The Asiatic churches wished that Easter should be celebrated on the same day on which the Jews were directed to kill the Paschal Lamb, i.e., on the fourteenth day of the moon, on whatever day of the week it might happen to fall, and in after times they who supported this opinion were called quarto-decimani. Other churches preserved the custom which they had received by apostolical tradition, of ending the fast and celebrating Easter on that day of the week on which our Lord rose. Theophilus, Bishop of Cesarea, and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided. Cassius of Tyre and Clarius of Ptolemais were present, with many other bishops. They decided that Easter day should be celebrated on the Sunday, and wrote a synodal letter to that effect.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 596.

CESAREA (334). Pseudo-council.

CHALCEDON (451). [Concilium Chalcedonense.] The fourth œcumenical council was held at Chalcedon in 451, against the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies.

The heresy of Eutyches consisted in his acknowledging only one nature in our Lord Jesus Christ: he was a priest, and abbot of a monastery near Constantinople; and Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylæum, having cited him to give an account of his faith before a council consisting of thirty-three bishops and twenty-three abbots, Eutyches there refused to retract, and was condemned, and separated from the communion of the faithful. He then took upon him to write to St Leo, the pope, imploring his protection, and sent to him a pretended profession of faith. Leo, deceived by these pretences, wrote to Flavianus of Constantinople, expressing his surprise at the sentence passed upon Eutyches. Flavianus, however, wrote back to him a true account of the matter, declaring that Eutyches maintained, that before His Incarnation our Blessed Lord had Two Natures, the Divine and Human, but that after His Incarnation He had but One; and he further entreated the pope to add his own testimony to the condemnation of Eutyches. By these statements Leo was convinced of the justice of the sentence, and, moreover, perceived the bad results which must follow from the patronage which the Emperor Theodosius extended to Eutyches, especially in convoking a council at Ephesus to reconsider the sentence of excommunication which had been passed upon him.

This pseudo-council assembled at Ephesus in 449, consisting of one hundred and thirty bishops, with Dioscorus of Alexandria, the great friend of Eutyches, as president; the censure before passed upon the latter was annulled, and Flavianus, who had condemned him, was with the utmost violence deposed. This pseudo-council, from the extreme irregularity and violence which accompanied all its acts, has been always known by the name of the “Latrocinium.” Leo, distressed at these proceedings, wrote to the emperor a letter worthy of a Christian bishop, setting clearly before him what impious and sacrilegious acts had been done in that council, in open violation of the Catholic faith and of the canons of the Church; and he implored him in the name of all the churches of the West to convoke an œcumenical council in Italy. At the same time, he wrote to Pulcheria to entreat her to use all her influence to hinder this attack upon the Catholic faith from having more fatal results. He, lastly, addressed the clergy and people of Constantinople, and exhorted them to persevere in the true faith.

Dioscorus, irritated by the opposition which his designs met with, and especially by that of St Leo, separated himself from his communion, and by threats or otherwise, induced ten other bishops to concur in this schismatical act. This only caused Leo to redouble his efforts, and availing himself of the opportunity of a voyage which the emperor, Valentinian III., made to Rome at the time, he forcibly set before him the danger with which the true faith was threatened, and conjured him to induce Theodosius to repair by his authority the evil that had been committed at Ephesus, and to annul all that they had decreed there in an œcumenical assembly. But although Valentinian wrote upon the subject to Theodosius, he refused to permit the question to be re-agitated, and endeavoured to justify the act of the pseudo-council of Ephesus.

However, Theodosius dying in that very year in consequence of injuries received by a fall from his horse, Marcian, by his marriage with Pulcheria, became emperor, and all obstacles to the holding of the council were removed. His chief desire was to see all his subjects united in one faith; and the empress herself wrote to St Leo, to assure him of her anxiety to see peace restored to the Church, and to banish all error and heresy, and for that end to cause the council to be assembled. An account of the events which occurred up to the time of the assembling of the Council of Chalcedon, will be found under the head of the Council of Constantinople, 448.

Marcian, at the petition of the bishops, consented to convoke an œcumenical council, as the only true remedy for the evils under which the Church laboured; and first he appointed Nicea as the place for holding it, by a letter addressed to Anatolus of Constantinople, and to all metropolitans, ordering them to attend there with the bishops of their respective provinces, and the most learned and talented of their clergy, declaring that all factions and cabal should be prevented, and that he would himself attend in person.

As custom and the state of things in the empire hindered St Leo from appearing at the council, he sent Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybæum (Marsala, in Sicily), and Bonifacius, to assist Lucentius and Basil (whom he had already sent into the East to investigate the case of the bishops who condemned Flavianus in the “Latrocinium”), as his legates; and these four, by the emperor’s desire, were appointed to act as presidents in the approaching council.

Whilst the bishops were assembling at Nicea, certain troubles broke out in Illyria, which rendered it impossible for Marcian to absent himself so far from Constantinople; and he, accordingly, transferred the council to Chalcedon, which was separated from Constantinople by the Bosphorus only. Thither, then, the bishops came in vast multitudes towards the end of September; their number is reckoned at six hundred and thirty; all from the East, except the four legates of the pope. Three other distinguished bishops, however, were also present, viz., Maximus of Antioch, Eusebius of Dorylæum, and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, the celebrated writer and historian of the Church, whom the emperor had recalled from exile.

The emperor sent as his representatives the chief officers of the empire: Anatolius, a nobleman, Palladius, Prefect of the Pretorium in the East; the Prefect of Constantinople, Vincomulus; Sporacius, Captain of the Imperial Guard; various other persons of the highest dignity were also present. Moreover, Marcian, from the high idea which he had formed of St Leo, wishing him to have the chief authority in the council; Leo in his letter begged them to consider his legates as his representatives, and especially designated Paschasinus, Bishop of Lilybæum, in Sicily, to act as president in his absence, rightly judging that there needed at the head of the council a man of firm mind, and one incapable of being turned aside from the right path.

It was arranged that the officers of the emperor should propose the questions for discussion, draw up the various motions, and pronounce the decision, after that the bishops had given their votes.

On the 8th of October 451, the council assembled in the Church of St Euphemia; in the centre sat the officers of the emperor, at their left, or on the epistle side, sat the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Cesarea in Cappadocia, and of the other Eastern dioceses, and Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, together with the four legates; on the other side were Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius of Cesarea, and the other bishops of Egypt, Palestine, and Illyria, most of whom had been present in the pseudo-council of Ephesus. In the midst were the Holy Gospels, placed upon a raised seat. When they had taken their seats, the legates of the pope demanded that Dioscorus should withdraw from the assembly, accusing him of his scandalous conduct at Ephesus, and declaring that otherwise they would depart. Then the imperial officers ordered him to withdraw from the council, and to take his seat amongst the accused.

At the request of Eusebius of Dorylæum, the petition which he had presented to the emperor against Dioscorus was read. In this petition Eusebius demanded justice for the evils which Dioscorus had done to himself and Flavianus of Constantinople; he charged him with having favoured Eutyches in every thing; with having made use of notorious violence and the most unworthy means, in order to procure the absolution of Eutyches. He then required that the acts of the pseudo-council of Ephesus should be read, by which he hoped to show the injustice of Dioscorus in deposing Flavianus and himself. In the course of reading many passages occurred highly injurious to Theodoret, which induced the emperor to order, by his officers, that he should enter, and take his place in the council, but the Egyptians, with great tumult, refused to allow this, saying that such an act would be to overthrow the faith, and that he must remain in the sole character of an accuser.

Many of the Oriental bishops also interrupted the reading of these acts with exclamations about the violence which they had suffered from Dioscorus, and when the latter pleaded in excuse that all that had passed at the council was with the consent of those present, the bishops exclaimed with vehemence against his assertion, declaring that they had been forced, and even beaten, and threatened with banishment, that soldiers had repulsed them when they desired to depart, and that they had, in short, been compelled to sign a blank paper.

After this, the acts of the Council of Constantinople were read, which were inserted in those of the pseudo-council of Ephesus. Amongst others they read the second letter of St Cyril to Nestorius, and that which he had written to the Eastern Church; these being ended, the bishops unanimously exclaimed that they contained their own belief and their own doctrine, and as Flavianus had approved these two letters in the Council of Constantinople, the legates, with Maximus of Antioch and Eustachius of Berythus, declared that in their opinion the faith of Flavianus was strictly in accordance with the true faith and the letter of Cyril. The Eastern bishops, also, with one voice, agreed that Flavianus had truly asserted the Catholic faith, and at the same time the bishops of Palestine passed over from the right hand to the side on the left of the imperial officer, to testify that they abandoned the Egyptian party, so that in the end Dioscorus was left with about twelve bishops.

Thus the innocence of Flavianus was established, and, at the same time, necessarily, the pseudo-council of Ephesus condemned; none of the bishops who had taken any share in the proceedings attempting to defend themselves. But although every one declared himself in favour of Flavianus, Dioscorus did not in the slightest degree abate his arrogance, declaring, that for his part he belonged to no party, and professed no faith but the Catholic and apostolic faith, neither did he regard men, but God alone.

After this, the opinion which Eustachius of Berythus had delivered at the Council of Ephesus, came under consideration, maintaining that it is an error to believe in two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the right faith is, that there is in Him but one nature incarnate. This opinion was unanimously condemned. In the third place the confession of Eutyches, which had been approved by Dioscorus at the Council of Ephesus, was read in it: he declared his belief that in our Lord were two natures before His incarnation, and but one afterwards. This opinion was at once anathematised by the fathers in council, and when the sentence which Dioscorus had pronounced against Flavianus had been read, they proceeded to anathematise Dioscorus himself; and with one voice demanded that he, together with Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Cesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustachius of Berythus, and Basil of Seleucia, who had presided at the council, should be deposed from the episcopate.

On this day the acts of the first session only of the pseudo-council at Ephesus were read.

The second session begun on the 10th October. On this occasion Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, and Basil were absent. The bishops were now entreated on the part of the emperor to decide matters relating to the faith, in order to settle the minds of those who have been led astray; they replied that a new exposition of the faith was not needed, but that the fathers had left a sufficient exposition of the true faith, which they ought to follow, and that the letter of St Leo, which all the bishops in council had already subscribed, was a sufficient antidote to the heresy of Eutyches.

However, the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople were read, and also the letter of St Leo to Flavianus, in which the doctrine of the incarnation was admirably developed. The doctrine which is taught is as follows: “The divine nature and the human nature, each remaining perfect, have been united in one person, to the intent that the same Mediator might die, being yet immortal and impassible.… Neither nature is altered by the other; He who is truly God is also truly man.… The Word and the flesh preserve each its proper functions. Holy Scripture proves equally the verity of the two natures. He is God, since it is written, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.’ He is also man, since it is written, ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.’ As man, He was tempted by the devil; as God, He is ministered unto by angels. As man, He wept over the tomb of Lazarus; as God, He raised him from the dead. As man, He is nailed to the cross; as God, He makes all nature tremble at His death. It is by reason of the unity of person that we say that the Son of Man came down from Heaven, and that the Son of God was crucified and buried, although He was so only as to His human nature.”

This exposition of the faith was approved by all the bishops, and anathema declared against all who should deny it.

After this, the Bishops of Illyria and Palestine earnestly demanded that pardon should be granted to the chiefs of the pseudo-council at Ephesus, specially naming Dioscorus. The Eastern bishops, however, without taking notice of the others, insisted upon the banishment of Dioscorus.

The third session was held on the 13th of October, at which the officers of the emperor were not present; probably, as Tillemont says, in order that it might not be said that the bishops were not permitted to pass a free judgment upon Dioscorus.

The petition of Eusebius was read, in which he demanded, that Dioscorus, having now been convicted of many crimes, the council should anathematise his impious dogmas; that it should punish him according to his deserts; that it should confirm the true faith, and annul all that had been done in the false Council of Ephesus; he also requested that Dioscorus should be cited before the council to answer him, and this was accordingly done; but Dioscorus, upon various pretexts, refused to appear. The petitions of the clergy and laity of Alexandria against Dioscorus were then read, in which they accused him of grievous crimes, stating that he had been guilty of homicide, had burnt and pulled down houses, had lived an infamous life, had bought up corn in order to enhance the price, and had connived at the residence of women of ill-fame in his diocese, and had even kept them in his own home. After this, Dioscorus was cited a third time to appear, but with as little success as before; and the deputies having made their report to the council, the legate, in a few words, enumerated the crimes of which Dioscorus had been convicted, and declared him to be deprived by himself, as, acting for the pope, and by the council, of his episcopal office, and of all his ecclesiastical dignities. After this, they requested the council to make a decree conformable to the canons of the Church, and accordingly, each of the bishops present, with a loud voice, condemned Dioscorus, and the sentence being committed to writing, they all signed it; the whole number of signatures amounting to three hundred. They then drew up an act to signify to Dioscorus the judgment passed against him, and a letter to the emperor, informing him of the causes which compelled them to depose the former; lastly, his deposition was gravely pronounced irrevocable, and soon after he was banished to Gangra, in Paphlagonia, where, in the course of three years, he died.

At the fourth session, October 17, the emperor’s officers were again present, and perceiving that the bishops were averse to drawing up any new definition of the faith, they contented themselves with demanding whether they received the letter of St Leo as agreeing with the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople. At the request of the bishop, Paschasinus declared it to be the faith of the council, and that they held to the definition of Nicea, and that of Constantinople, under Theodosius, as also to the exposition of St Cyril, and to the writings of St Leo against the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches.

After this, the bishops, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eustachius, having made open profession of the true faith, were absolved by the unanimous vote of the council, which considered that the deposition of Dioscorus ought to suffice, and that matters should not be pushed too far, for fear of originating a fresh schism.

Some other matters of minor importance were also transacted in this session.

Fifth session, October 22. Although the bishops had before expressed an unwillingness to draw up any new definition of the faith, they, upon further consideration, resolved to do so, endeavouring, however, to follow exactly all that had previously been decided by the fathers. They resolved that the definition of the faith as to the matter in question, should be examined into, and they appointed a committee of twenty-two, who assembled in the oratory of St Euphemia. Having accordingly examined the existing definition of the faith, they proceeded to draw up a new form, in which, however, several bishops objected to the expression, that Jesus Christ was of two natures, and not in two natures, which, although, strictly speaking, true, yet was such a definition as the Eutychians could have received as well as the Catholics; after many difficulties and much discussion, they agreed to follow exactly the letter of St Leo, and the decree containing the definition was accordingly altered, and, in the end, accepted by the whole Church. This decree is not in the form of a creed, brief and abridged, but rather of a long discourse, in which both the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds are inserted; the two letters of St Cyril against Nestorius were added to it, and also that of St Leo to Flavianus against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches; the council itself added a brief statement of the true faith, in respect to the incarnation, of which the following are the most important articles:—

“We confess and with one accord teach one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in the divinity, perfect in the humanity, truly God and truly Man, consisting of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father, according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us, according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted: who was begotten of the Father before all ages, according to the Godhead; and in the last days, the same was born, according to the Manhood, of Mary the Virgin, Mother of God, for us and for our salvation: who is to be acknowledged one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only begotten in two natures, without mixture, change, division, or separation; the difference of natures not being removed by their union, but rather the propriety of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person and in one ὑπόστασις, so that He is not divided or separated into two persons, but the only Son, God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, and one and the same person.”

When this decree was read, the bishops, with one voice, cried out that it contained the faith of the fathers, and it was unanimously received by them, to the number of three hundred and fifty-six. The council then forbade any one to hold or teach any other faith, upon pain, if a bishop or clergyman, of being deposed, if a monk or layman, of being anathematised.

At the sixth session, October 25, the emperor was present in person, and delivered a speech in Latin, in which he unfolded what had been his intentions in convoking the council, and declared that his sole motive in attending it was to give his assistance in settling the true faith, and not at all to hinder the freedom of their deliberations. Then the above-mentioned decree was read, upon which the emperor asked if the council was agreed as to this confession, and the bishops, unanimously declaring that they were so, severally subscribed it.

This done, the emperor declared his will that the city of Chalcedon, in which the council had been held, should thenceforward enjoy the privileges of a metropolitan see; saving the dignity of the metropolitan of Nicomedia.

In the seventh session the arrangement which Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, had made upon certain disputes connected with their sees, were ratified.

In the eighth session Theodoret was re-established in his church, having pronounced anathema against Nestorius, and subscribed the letter of Leo.

In the ninth session the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, was considered, who complained of having been persecuted by Eutyches, and deposed in the pseudo-council of Ephesus in his absence.

These three sessions appear to have been held on the same day, viz., October 26.

In the tenth session, October 27, Ibas was pronounced to be orthodox, and his re-establishment in his see ordered.

In the eleventh session, October 29, Bassianus, Bishop of Ephesus, was declared to have intruded into that see, having obtained his chair by violence; and Stephen, who also pretended to the same bishopric, was similarly condemned: it was, therefore, decreed, that it was necessary to proceed to a fresh election.

In the twelfth session, October 30, it was decreed, that although Stephen and Bassianus should be deprived of the see of Ephesus, the rank of bishop should not be taken from them, and that they should receive a maintenance out of the revenues of that Church.

In the thirteenth session, on the same day, it was decreed that the Bishop of Nicomedia should have the authority of metropolitan over the churches of Bithynia, and that the Bishop of Nicea should have metropolitan honour only, and submit to the see of Nicomedia.

In the fourteenth session, October 31, judgment was pronounced in the difference between Sabianus, Bishop of Perrha, in Syria, and Athanasius, who was also bishop of the same city, but who had been deposed, and afterwards replaced in the chair; it was ordered that Sabianus should fill the see, Anastasius having been justly deposed for his crimes.

In this session, October 31, twenty-eight canons were published.

1. Confirms all canons before made by the fathers in different councils; in other words, the code of the universal Church, containing one hundred and seventy canons, taken from the Councils of Nicea (20), Ancyra (25), Neo-Cesarea (14), Gangra (20), Antioch (25), Laodicea (59), and Constantinople (7)

2. Declares that if a bishop shall receive any money, &c., in consideration of conferring orders, both he himself and the person so ordained shall be deposed; and that any person acting in any way as the intermediate party on the occasion shall, if a clerk, be deposed; if a monk or layman, be anathematised.

3. Forbids any ecclesiastic or monk to undertake the management or stewardship of the property of others, or intrude himself into worldly ministrations. Amongst a few other exceptions, however, it is permitted to them to undertake the care of the property of orphans and widows, and other afflicted persons, with the bishop’s consent.

4. Forbids the erection of any monastery or oratory without the permission of the bishop of the diocese. Orders all monks to submit to the bishop of the diocese, and not to meddle in any ecclesiastical or civil matters, out of their monastery, unless they be permitted to do so, for some necessary purpose, by their bishop. Lastly, orders all bishops to keep watch over the conduct of the monks within their dioceses; offenders to be excommunicated.

5. Renews the prohibition made in a former council, forbidding the bishop or clergy of one church to quit their own church in order to go and serve in another.

6. Forbids a bishop to ordain a clerk unless he is, bonâ fide, intended to serve in some particular church, or chapel, or monastery, and declares all ordinations not made in accordance with this law to be null and void.

7. Forbids, under pain of anathema, those who have been ordained, or who have entered the monastic state to forsake their condition.

8. Enjoins the clergy attached to monasteries, chapels of martyrs, hospitals, &c., to submit to their bishops; offenders to be excommunicated.

9. Orders that all disputes between the clergy shall be settled before their bishop, and in no secular court, except by his permission. That if a dispute arise between a bishop and one of the clergy, it shall be judged in the provincial council. That all disputes between a bishop or clergyman and his metropolitan, shall be brought before the exarch of the diocese [i.e., the patriarch] or the Bishop of Constantinople.

10. Absolutely forbids a clergyman to be on the list of the church of two cities at the same time, and orders that such as act thus, shall be restored to the church in which they were first ordained.

11. Orders that letters of peace (or of communion) be given to poor persons going abroad, after examination; and that letters commendatory be given to those persons only who are of distinction.

12. Forbids any bishop, under pain of deposition, to divide the province, by obtaining letters-patent from the emperor, erecting his bishopric into a metropolitan see.

13. Forbids that a foreign or unknown ecclesiastic be permitted to exercise any function in the church, except he bring letters commendatory from his bishop.

14. Forbids the lower order of ecclesiastics (readers, chanters, &c.), to whom it was permitted to marry, to marry Jewesses, or pagan, or heretical women, except they should promise to become Christians.

15. Forbids the ordination of a deaconess under forty years of age; if after ordination she shall marry, she shall be anathematised with her husband.

16. Orders that virgins marrying after having consecrated themselves to God, be separated from communion for as long a period as the bishop shall deem proper.

17. Makes over to the bishop for ever parishes in the country over which he has exercised jurisdiction for thirty years.

18. Deposes those of the clergy or monks, who form cabals against their bishop or any of their fellow clergy.

19. Renews the decree of the Council of Nicea, which directs that provincial councils be held twice in every year; and enjoins, that bishops who wilfully neglect to attend shall be reproved.

20. Directs that if any bishop shall receive a clergyman belonging to another bishop, both the bishop and the clergyman shall be separated from communion until the said clergyman shall return to his own bishop.

21. Forbids the receiving an accusation against a clergyman from any person without first inquiring into his character.

22. Forbids the clergy to take possession of the property of their bishop after his decease, under pain of losing their rank.

23. Directs that the defender of the Church of Constantinople shall drive out of the city all strange clergy or monks, coming there without letters from their bishop, and causing trouble and disturbance.

24. Orders that houses which have once been erected into monasteries, and consecrated, shall ever after be devoted to the same purpose.

25. Directs that the metropolitan shall consecrate to a vacant bishopric within three months after the death of the bishop.

26. Directs that in every diocese there shall be a steward (œconomus) chosen from amongst the clergy, who shall manage the property of the Church according to the bishop’s directions.

27. Anathematises those who have been guilty of rape or abduction, and all who have aided and abetted in those crimes, or who have consented to them; if any one of the clergy be amongst the guilty, he shall be deposed.

28. “We, following in all things the decisions of the holy fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty most religious bishops, which has just been read, do also determine and decree the same things respecting the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, the new Rome. For the fathers properly gave the primacy to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the one hundred and fifty most religious bishops, being moved with the same intention, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome; judging, with reason, that the city which was honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified, like her, in ecclesiastical matters, and be second after her. And (we decree) that the metropolitans only of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, and, moreover, the bishops of the aforesaid dioceses who are amongst the barbarians, shall be ordained by the above-mentioned throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses ordaining the bishops of the provinces, as has been declared by the divine canons; but the metropolitans themselves of the said dioceses shall, as has been said, be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, the proper elections being made according to custom, and reported to him.”

It appears that the Roman legates had refused to be present when this last canon was carried; however, immediately after, they called for an assembly of the council, and protested against it, alleging that it was contrary to the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea, which, as they asserted, commenced with these words, “The Roman see hath always had the primacy;” this, however, was shown to be only an interpolation, and after it had been proved that all things had been done rightly and canonically, the imperial judges delivered their opinion, which was to the effect, that granting to the bishop of ancient Rome, according to the canons, the primacy and prerogative of honour, the Bishop of Constantinople ought nevertheless to enjoy the same ecclesiastical privileges of honour, and that he should have the right of consecrating metropolitans in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. The bishops having then declared their entire concurrence in this opinion, and denied the assertion of the legates, viz., that they (the bishops) had been compelled to sign the twenty-eighth canon, the officers pronounced the decision, that the twenty-eighth canon must stand, declaring that the council had confirmed all that had been proposed. This was the last act of the Council of Chalcedon.

Leo constantly opposed this twenty-eighth canon, upon the plea that it contradicted the sixth of Nicea, which assigned the second place in dignity to Alexandria; however, in spite of his opposition and that of his successors, the canon remained and was executed.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1–1003.

CHALONS (603). [Concilium Cabilonense.] Held in 603, in which St Desiderius, Bishop of Vienne, was deposed and banished at the instigation of Brunichild and Saint(!) Aridius, by whose contrivance he was afterwards murdered. Domnolus was elected into the place of St Desiderius at this council.—Fredegarii Chron., pp. 605–9.

CHALONS (649). [Concilium Cabilonense.] Held in 649, by order of Clovis II.; present, thirty-nine bishops, the deputies of six who were absent, six abbots, and one archdeacon. Agapius and Bobonus, Bishops of Digne in Provence, were here deposed from the episcopate for violation of the canons. The council also drew up twenty canons. The first orders that the true faith, as taught by the Council of Nicea and confirmed by that of Chalcedon, be observed. The fourth forbids the consecration of more than one bishop to the same Church at the same time. The fifth forbids the laity to meddle in the administration of churches and church property. The fourteenth directs that the clergy who serve chapels shall be subject to the bishop in all things. The sixteenth is directed against simony. The nineteenth inflicts penalties upon lascivious dancers, and women who sang immodest songs within the church enclosure, on saints’ days and festivals of dedication.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 387.

CHALONS (813). Held in 813, by order of Charlemagne, for the reformation of the Church and clergy. This council was assembled from all Gaul Lyonnoise (except the province of Tours, which met in a separate synod). Sixty-six canons were published.

The first eleven relate to bishops, and direct that they shall read the Holy Scriptures, the Councils, and the Pastoral of St Gregory; that they shall preach to their people and edify them, establish schools, abstain from all shameful means of gain, &c., &c., &c. The twelfth forbids priests, deacons, or monks to become farmers. Fourteenth and fifteenth forbid ordinaries to put their clergy to any expense during their visitations. The twenty-seventh forbids the repetition of confirmation. The thirty-second declares that spiritual sins must be confessed, as well as bodily sins. Thirty-third declares that “some say confession is to be made to God alone, others that our sins must be confessed to a priest.” Commends both practices, and declares God to be the author of our salvation, who grants it sometimes in an invisible manner by His omnipotence, and sometimes by His physician (the priest). The thirty-fifth censures those who, when forbidden wine and meat, as a penance, make up for them by indulging in other delicacies and delicious drinks. Thirty-sixth declares that almsgiving avails only to release from venial sins, arising from frailty, and reproves those who go on in sin, thinking to escape punishment for their much almsgiving. Thirty-ninth orders prayers for the dead to be said at every mass, and declares it to be an ancient custom in the church to commend to the Lord the spirits of those asleep. Forty-third declares the ordination of certain priests and deacons conferred by certain Scotch persons calling themselves bishops to be null and void, being done without the consent of their diocesans, and with suspicion of simony. Forty-fifth condemns pilgrimages made in order to obtain remission of sins, which, on that pretext, the persons about to make the pilgrimage go on committing more freely; pilgrimages made from proper devotional motives are commended. Forty-seventh orders all Christians to receive the holy eucharist on Maunday Thursday.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1270.

CHALONS (1062). Held in 1062, by Peter d’Amien, cardinal and legate, at the head of thirteen bishops. The subject of the council was the confirmation of the privileges of the abbey of Clugny, which Drogon, Bishop of Maçon, had attacked. Peace was restored between him and the abbot.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1177.

CHALONS (1129). St Bernard was present. Henry of Blois, brother of Stephen, King of England, was deposed from the see of Verdun, on the ground of having forcibly seized it. He was afterwards Bishop of Winchester and created cardinal. He died 1164.

CHARROUX (989). [Concilium Karrofense.] Held about 989, by six bishops. Three canons were published. 1. Excommunicates those who break into churches, or carry away any thing out of them. 2. Excommunicates those who rob the poor. 3. Those who lay violent hands upon the clergy.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 733.

CHARROUX (1028). Held in 1028, against the Manichæans, by William, Duke of Aquitaine.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 860.

CHARTRES (1146). Held on the third Sunday after Easter, 1146, at which all the French bishops were present, together with the king, Louis VII. The object was to arrange matters relating to the crusade, and to persuade St Bernard to accept the office of leader, which, however, he constantly refused. (See C. VEZELAI, 1146.)—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1102.

CHATEAUX GONTIER, in ANJOU (1231). [Concilium apud Castrum Gontherii.] Held in 1231, by the Archbishop of Tours and his suffragans, who published thirty-seven canons or regulations, of which the following are of most consequence. The first against clandestine marriages, ordering that those persons who have been so united be separated. 3. Exacts an oath from every clerk presented to a benefice, to the effect that he had neither directly nor indirectly given or promised any thing in return. 4. Orders the bishops to see that all beneficed clerks serve their own cures. 9. Forbids communicants to communicate with excommunicated persons. 10. Forbids the frequent use of general excommunication. 15. Deprives patrons who present unfit persons of their patronage. 16. Forbids to present to a living any one ignorant of the language of the place. 24, and some others relate to the conduct of monks. 30. Orders the sentence of excommunication against usurers to be read every Sunday. 33. Forbids to receive the testimony of Jews against Christians.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 438.

CHICHESTER (1157). [Concilium Cicestrense.] Held at Whitsuntide 1157, concerning the privileges of the Abbey “de Bello,” i.e., Battle Abbey, founded by William the Conqueror, who (it was alleged by the abbot, but disputed by the Bishop of Chichester) had founded it to be “free and at ease from all claim of servitude, and from all subjection, oppression, and domination of bishops, as is Christ Church, Canterbury.”—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1176; Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 428.

CHICHESTER (1289). Held in 1289, under Gilbert, Bishop of Chichester. In this council forty-one canons were drawn up.

1 and 2. Recommend to all curates, prayer and reading, humility, continence, and all the evangelical virtues, and forbids them to attend plays, tournaments, indecent shows, and taverns.

4. Sentences those curates who shall seduce their own parishioners to perpetual imprisonment in some monastery, after having first made a penitential pilgrimage during fifteen years.

8. Imposes a fine of sixty shillings, to be applied towards the fabric of the cathedral at Chichester, upon all those who appoint to the care of a parish priests who are notorious fornicators, or convicted or suspected of incontinence.

9. Relates to the priestly garments.

10. Orders that well-informed and pious men only be made curates.

15. Orders that the hours be said by the priests at the appointed times, and in such a manner as to minister to edification and true religion.

16. Directs that the priests shall visit the sick on every Sunday and festival, and administer the sacraments to them in their own houses at their own hour. It forbids also (what some had presumed to do) the sending of the eucharist to the rich by the hands of a deacon, while they are themselves indulging in drinking or other carnal pleasures.

19. Declares that neither the viaticum nor burial is to be refused on account of secret crimes.

20. Forbids every curate to receive confession or administer the communion to strange parishioners without the leave of their own curate, or of the pope.

21. Forbids all mention of tithes, or other temporal affairs, during the time of confession.

22. Orders that the communion be administered at Easter, and that no money be taken for so doing.

29. Orders that all churches be provided with suitable vessels, books, and ornaments; and that the font and the chrism be kept under lock and key.

33. Directs that the monks shall present to the bishop those monks whom they desire to appoint to parishes belonging to them.

37 and 38. Relate to marriages.

39. Condemns false preachers, who, without lawful mission, preached and received confession for the sake of gain.

40 and 41. Excommunicate church plunderers, calumniators, &c., &c., &c.—Wilkins’ Conc., vol. ii. p. 169; Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1346.

CHICHESTER (1292). Held in 1292, by the same prelate; here seven canons were published.

1. Forbids the permitting any animals, except tithe lambs, and those for fifteen days only, to feed in churchyards.

2. Forbids any restraint upon voluntary offerings made by the people to the Church.

3. Excommunicates, ipso facto, those who retain the tithe.

4. Orders silence and decent behaviour in church.

5. Forbids indiscriminate burial within the church; the lord of the manor, and the patron, with their wives, the rector, and the curate, are excepted.

6. Forbids the putting up an alms-box in the church without the bishop’s permission.

7. Directs that these regulations shall be published four times in each year.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1361. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. ii. p. 183.

CILICIA (423). [Concilium Ciliciense.] Held in 423, against the Pelagian heresy. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was considered as one of the heads of this heresy, himself pronounced anathema against Julian, who had before retired to him, in order to write his eight books against St Augustine, and whom the latter had crushed by his writings.—Marius Mercator, p. 219.

CIRTA (in NUMIDIA) (305). [Concilium Cirtense.] Held in 305, to fill up the vacant bishopric of Cirta. Secundus, the Primate of Numidia, presided, and drew from eleven or twelve of the bishops present, a confession that they had been guilty of betraying the sacred books during the persecution. The better to understand their crime, it must be borne in mind that, during the Diocletian persecution, an edict was promulgated, ordering the destruction of the churches, and obliging the magistrates every where to take from the bishops and priests of the Church their copies of the Holy Scriptures. This edict was executed with the greatest rigour in Numidia; the magistrates themselves entered into the churches, and into the houses of the bishops and clergy, to search for the Scriptures, that they might burn them, threatening with the penalty of death all who refused to discover them. Many of the Christians were content to suffer any torment, and death itself, rather than betray them; but there were also many not merely among the lower orders of ecclesiastics, but also among the priests, and even bishops, who, through fear of death, were guilty of delivering up the sacred volumes: such were styled “Traditores.” At Cirta there were many bishops and others of the clergy, who had committed this breach of trust, and were charged by Secundus with having done so; but eventually it appeared that he had himself been equally guilty, upon which there followed a mutual amnesty. After that the bishops had confessed their sin in the council, Secundus gave them absolution.—Fleury. E. H. (Newman’s Trans.), A.D. 411, p. 191. Pusey, p. 96.

Silvanus, a subdeacon, who had also been a Traditor, was elected to the bishopric.—Tom. i. Conc. p. 936.

CIRTA. (412). Held in 412, in the month of June, under Silvanus, Primate of Numidia, assisted by several bishops of the province and St Augustine, upon the subject of the Donatists, who, finding themselves entirely worsted in the conference of Carthage, spread abroad a report, to cover the shame of their defeat, that Mercellinus, the judge of the conference, had been bribed by the Catholics, and that the Donatists had not been permitted a fair hearing. The fathers wrote a letter, dictated by St Augustine, in which these calumnies are refuted.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1518.

CLARENDON (1164). [Concilium Clarendonense.] Held on the 25th of January 1164. This was not, strictly speaking, an ecclesiastical synod, since, besides the two archbishops and twelve bishops, there were present, the king and thirty-nine lay barons. Here the king laid before them certain laws, which he called the “Customs of England;” most of these customs (especially the twelfth) were, in fact, infringements upon the then existing rights and privileges of the Church; they were as follow:

1. All suits, whether between lay persons or clerks, or laymen and clerks, concerning advowsons and presentations, &c., to be prosecuted in the civil courts.

2. Churches which are fees of the crown, not to be granted in perpetuity without the king’s consent.

3. Clergy accused of any crime to be prosecuted in the civil courts, and in case of conviction, to forfeit the immunity of their character, and be protected by the Church no longer.

4. No archbishops or bishops and others belonging to the kingdom to leave the country without the king’s licence, and to give security that during their stay abroad they will solicit nothing to the prejudice of the king or kingdom. (Nec per quirent malum regi, &c.)

5. The laity not to be prosecuted in ecclesiastical courts, except there be legal and reputable witnesses to prove the charge.

6 Excommunicated persons not to be bound to give security for remaining in their present places of abode.

7. No chief tenant of the crown to be excommunicated without the king’s consent.

8. All appeals in spiritual causes to be carried from the archdeacon to the bishop, thence to the archbishop; and from him in the last place to the king; in order that by his order the cause be finally tried in the archbishop’s court; and no farther appeal be allowed without the king’s leave.

9. In case of any dispute between a layman and clergyman, concerning a tenement which the latter declares to be holden by frank almoigne, and the former to be a lay fee, if it be proven upon trial, before twelve reputable men, to be a lay fee, and not an ecclesiastical fee, the cause to be finally tried in a civil court.

10. If one residing on the demesne lands of the crown, or holding of the king, be cited by the archdeacon or bishop on account of any fault, they may put him under interdict, but they may not excommunicate him for non-appearance in the spiritual court, until the king’s chief officer in the place where he resides be summoned to compel him by civil authority to give satisfaction to the Church.

11. Archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, holding of the king in chief, to be regarded as barons of the realm, and bound to bear the burdens belonging to their rank, and to attend the king in council, &c.

12. The revenues of every archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory, during a vacancy, to belong to the king; and the election to be made by such members of the chapter as he is pleased to summon for that purpose to court; the election to be made in the chapel royal, with the consent of the king, and by the advice of such persons of the government as he shall think fit to consult.

13. If any baron or tenant in capite should encroach upon the rights or property of any archbishop, bishop, or archdeacon, the king to employ his authority in compelling him to make restitution and satisfaction; if, on the other hand, any of them should throw off their allegiance to the king, or encroach upon his lands, &c., the bishops to assist the king with spiritual censures.

14. No goods forfeited to the king to be detained in churches or churchyards, to secure them from seizure, &c.

15. The clergy not to attempt to enforce the payment of debts contracted on oath or promise; such cases to be determined by the civil courts.

16. Sons of copyholders not to be ordained without the consent of their lord.

Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the utmost of his power, resisted these encroachments; but the other bishops, being overawed by the presence and threats of the lay barons, yielded; and finally the archbishop signed the constitutions, and promised, “with good faith and without reserve to observe them.” Immediately afterwards, when liberty of action was given to him, he revoked his assent, and appealed to the pope. The king, not daring openly to impeach him, accused him of not appearing in person to a summons served upon him, and sentenced him to confiscation of all his goods; after this, Becket retired into France, where he remained six years, during which time Henry enjoyed the revenues of the see of Canterbury, as well as the plunder of many of the archbishop’s friends, whom he fined heavily for assisting him in his distress.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1425. See also Churton’s Early English Church, chap. 18. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 435.

CLERMONT (535). [Concilium Claromontanum (or Arvernense).] Held on the 8th of November 535; Honoratus, Archbishop of Bourges, presiding over fourteen other bishops. Sixteen other canons were published.

The second deprives of communion those who endeavour to get themselves appointed to bishoprics by the influence of persons in high station, or by artifice or bribery; and declares that those persons shall be consecrated who have been duly elected by the clergy and people, with consent of the metropolitan. The eighth forbids to lend the ornaments of the church upon occasion of wedding festivities, and the like. Fifteenth directs that the priests who serve chapels in the country shall come together to celebrate the principal festivals with their bishop.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1803.

CLERMONT (1095). Held in November 1095, by Pope Urban II., at the head of thirteen archbishops, two hundred and five bishops and abbots. Here the crusade was determined upon. Philip I., King of France, who had deserted his lawful wife, and married Bertrade, was a second time excommunicated. The “Treve de Dieu” was confirmed, as was the primacy of Lyons: the Archbishop of Tours, also, in this council recovered his jurisdiction over Bretagne, and the Bishop of Dol, who had the title of archbishop, was compelled to submit to the Archbishop of Tours. Lastly, thirty-two canons were published.

1. Declares the days upon which the “Treve de Dieu” shall be kept, and orders that it shall be observed towards the clergy, monks, and women.

2. Declares that the pilgrimage to deliver Jerusalem, undertaken from motives of piety, supplies the place of every other penance.

5. Forbids to appoint laymen, and every one under the order of subdeacon, to bishoprics.

6. Forbids the purchase of a benefice of any kind by any person for himself or another; orders that benefices so purchased shall lapse to the bishop to dispose of.

8. Forbids the exaction of any fee for burials.

10. Forbids any woman, save those permitted by former canons, to dwell in the same house with a clergyman.

11. Forbids the ordination of illegitimates.

12 and 14. Forbid pluralities.

13. Every clerk to remain “semper” in the title to which he was ordained.

15 and 16. Forbid the clergy to receive any ecclesiastical preferment at the hand of a layman, and kings, &c., to make any such investiture.

18. Forbids the laity to have chaplains independent of the bishop.

23. Forbids to eat flesh from Ash-Wednesday to Easter.

24, Directs that holy orders shall be conferred only in the Ember seasons and on Quadragesima Sunday.

28. Directs that all who communicate shall receive the Body and Blood of Christ under both kinds, unless there be necessity to the contrary.

29 and 30. Accord the same safety to those who, when pursued by their enemies, take refuge by a cross, as if in the church itself.

32. Devotes to eternal infamy those who arrest or throw into prison a bishop.

However, of all the acts of this council the most celebrated is the publication of the crusade to recover the Holy Land. This project was conceived by Gregory VII.; and Urban, yielding to the earnest entreaties of Peter the hermit, put it into execution; declaring that all penitents who assumed the cross, should be henceforward absolved from all their sins, and freed from the duty of fasting, and every other penitential work, in consideration of the perils and fatigues they would have to encounter. Those who, having taken the cross failed to fulfil their vow, were excommunicated.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 506.

CLOVES-HOO (or CLIFF’S-HOE) (742). [Concilium Clovehonense.] Held in 742; Ethelbald, King of the Mercians, and Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, presiding. Several bishops attended, and diligent inquiry was made how matters relating to religion, and partcularly to the creed, were ordered in the infancy of the Church of England, and in what esteem monasteries then were.

The ordinance of King Wihtred concerning the election and authority of the heads of monasteries, made in the Council of Becanceld, A.D. 692, was read, and renewed by Ethelbald in these words:

“I, Ethelbald, King of the Mercians, for the health of my soul and the stability of my kingdom, and out of reverence to the venerable Archbishop Cuthbert, confirm it by the subscription of my own munificent hand, that the liberty, honour, authority, and security of the Church of Christ be contradicted by no man; but that she and all the lands belonging to her, be free from all secular services, except military expedition, and the building of a bridge or castle. And we charge that this be irrefragably and immutably observed by all, as the aforesaid King Wihtred ordained for him and his.”—Johnson’s Ecc. Canon. Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1532. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 86.

CLOVES-HOO (747). Held in the beginning of September 747, in the presence of Ethelbald, King of the Mercians, Cuthbert of Canterbury presiding; eleven bishops and several priests attended. Two letters from Pope Zachary were read, after which thirty canons were drawn up.

1. Charges every bishop to be ready to defend his pastoral charge, and the canonical institutions of the Church of Christ with his utmost endeavours, and to be an example of good, not of worldliness, to his people, and to preach sound doctrine.

2. Exhorts bishops to unity and charity amongst themselves, so that, however far distant in sees, they may yet be joined together in mind by one spirit, serving God in faith, hope, and charity, and praying for each other.

3. Orders annual personal and thorough episcopal visitations of the whole diocese, and directs the bishop to call the people of every condition together to convenient places, and to plainly teach them, and forbid them all pagan and superstitious observances, &c.

4. Directs bishops to exhort all abbots and abbesses within their dioceses to exhibit a good example in their lives, and to rule well their houses.

5. Orders bishops to visit those monasteries which, owing to the corruption of the times, were governed by laymen.

6. Directs due inquiry to be made concerning the good life and sound faith of candidates for priest’s orders.

7. Directs bishops, abbots, and abbesses to take care that their “families” do incessantly apply their minds to reading.

8. Exhorts priests to the right discharge of their duty; to desist from secular business; to serve at the altar with the utmost application; carefully to preserve the house of prayer and its furniture; to spend their time in reading, celebrating masses, and psalmody, &c.

9. Exhorts priests, in the places assigned to them by their bishops, to attend to the duties of the apostolical commission, in baptising, teaching, and visiting, and carefully to abstain from all wicked and ridiculous conversation.

10. Directs that priests should learn how to perform, according to the lawful rites, every office belonging to their order; that they shall also learn to construe and explain in their native tongue the Lord’s Prayer and creed, and the sacred words used at mass and in holy baptism; that they shall understand the spiritual signification of the sacraments, &c.

11. Relates to the faith held by priests, orders that it shall be sound and sincere, and that their ministrations shall be uniform; that they shall teach all men that “without faith it is impossible to please God;” that they shall instil the creed into them, and propose it to infants and their sponsors,

12. Forbids priests “to prate in church,” and “to dislocate or confound the composure and distinction of the sacred words” by theatrical pronunciation; directs them to follow the “plain song” according to the custom of the Church; or, if they cannot do that, simply to read the words. Also forbids priests to presume to interfere in episcopal functions.

13. Orders the due observation of the festivals of our Lord and Saviour, and of the nativity of the saints, according to the Roman martyrology.

14. Orders the due observation of the Lord’s day.

15. Orders that the seven canonical hours of prayer be diligently observed.

16. Orders that the Litanies or rogations be kept by the clergy and people, with great reverence, on St Mark’s day, and on the three days preceding Ascension Day.

17. Orders the observance of the “birth-days” of Pope Gregory, of St Augustine of Canterbury, who “first brought the knowledge of faith, the sacrament of baptism, and the notice of the heavenly country,” to the English nation.

18 Orders the observance of the Ember fasts in the fourth, seventh, and tenth months, according to the Roman ritual.

19. Relates to the behaviour and dress of monks and nuns.

20. Charges bishops to take care that monasteries, as their name imports, be honest retreats for the silent and quiet, not receptacles for versifiers, harpers, and buffoons; forbids too much familiarity with laymen, especially to nuns; bids the latter not spend their time in filthy talk, junketting, drunkenness, luxury, nor in making vestments of divers and vain-glorious colours, but rather in reading books and singing psalms.

21. Enjoins all monks and ecclesiastics to avoid the sin of drunkenness, and forbids them to help themselves to drink before three in the afternoon, except in cases of necessity.

22. Admonishes monks and ecclesiastics to keep themselves always prepared to receive the holy communion.

23. Encourages boys among the laity to receive frequently the communion, while they are not yet corrupted; also bachelors and married men who avoid sin, lest they grow weak for want of the salutary meat and drink.

24. Orders that laymen be well tried before they be admitted into the ecclesiastical state or into monasteries.

26. Relates to almsgiving.

27. Relates to psalmody, as used for the cure of the soul, and as a satisfaction for sin.

28. Forbids to receive greater numbers into monasteries than can be maintained; relates to the dress of monks and nuns.

29. Forbids clerks, monks, and nuns, to dwell with lay persons.

30. Enjoins, amongst other things, that prayer be made by all monks and ecclesiastics for kings and dukes, and for the safety of all Christian people.—Johnson, Ecc. Canons. Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1565. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 94. Godwin, De Præt. Angl., p. 44. (Ed. Richardson.)

CLOVES-HOO (800). Held in 800, by Athelhard, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of Kenulf, King of the Mercians. Laws were made for the preservation of Church property, and the faith of the Church declared to be substantially the same as that delivered by St Augustine. Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1153. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 162.

CLOVES-HOO. (803). Held October 12, 803, by Athelhard of Canterbury, with twelve bishops of his province, and four priest abbots. The object of this council was to settle the primacy finally at Canterbury, and to restore the dioceses which had been taken from that province by King Offa and Pope Adrian, viz., Lichfield, Worcester, Leicester, Sidnachester, Hereford, Helman, and Thetford. All these sees had been united to make a province for the Archbishop of Lichfield, who at this time was Adulf. Leo III., upon his attaining the popedom, favoured the request of King Kenulf and Athelhard, that the dismembered dioceses should be restored to the archbishopric of Canterbury, which was finally done in this council, which Adulf himself attended. It was decreed, “that the see archiepiscopal, from this time forward, should never be in the monastery of Lichfield, nor in any other place but the city of Canterbury, where Christ’s Church is, and where the Catholic faith first shone forth in this island.” The deed is signed by Athelhard and twelve bishops, each making beside his signature the sign of the cross.—Johnson, Ecclesiastical Canon Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1189. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 166.

CLOVES-HOO (822). Held in 822. Cænwulf, King of Mercia, having forcibly seized several of the Church lands in Kent, threatening the Archbishop Wulfred with banishment in case of resistance, gave them to his daughter Wendritha, Abbess of Whinchcombe in Gloucestershire. After the death of Cænwulf, Wulfred was enabled to obtain redress, and in this council the property of the Church was restored.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1527. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 172.

CLOVES-HOO (824). Held in 824. In this council the difference which had existed between Herbert of Worcester and the monks of Berkley, concerning the monastery of Westbury, was settled; the monastery being surrendered to the bishop. The decree, dated October 30, was signed by the king, twelve bishops, four abbots, the pope’s deputy, and several lords.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1555. Wilkins’ Conc., vol. i. p. 175.

COBLENTZ (922). [Concilium Confluentinum.] Held in 922, by order of the two kings, Charles the Simple, of France, and Henry of Germany. Eight bishops were present, Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne, presiding, who drew up eight canons, of which no more than five have come down to us. The sixth directs that monks shall submit in all things to the jurisdiction and control of the bishop of the diocese; also marriages between relations, as far as the sixth degree, are forbidden.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 579.

COGNAC (1238). [Concilium Copriniacense.] Held on the Monday after the octave of Easter, 1238, by Gerard de Malemort, Archbishop of Bordeaux, together with his suffragans. Thirty-eight canons, or articles of regulation, were published, amongst which we find some which show what great abuses had then crept into the monastic system.

9. Orders that each bishop shall take care that sentences of excommunication pronounced by a brother bishop be enforced within his own diocese.

12 and 13. Forbid priests and monks to act as advocates in any cause, save that of their own churches or of the poor.

18. Fines those who continue forty days in a state of excommunication.

19. Directs that not only those persons who maltreat a clergyman shall be excluded from holding any ecclesiastical office or preferment, but their descendants also to the third generation.

20. Forbids abbots to give money to their monks in lieu of board, lodging, and clothing; also to take any entrance fee from new comers. Orders that, if the revenues of the house are too small for the maintenance of a large number of monks, the number shall be reduced.

22. Forbids monks to leave their walls without leave, and to eat abroad.

25. Orders that if either monk or canon shall be found to possess any property, he shall be deprived of church burial.

29. Forbids them to eat their meals with lay persons.

30. Forbids their living alone in priories, &c.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 556.

COGNAC (1255). Held in 1255, by the same archbishop, in which thirty-nine canons were published. The first seventeen are but a repetition of those of the Council of Cognac, 1238.

19. Relates to fasting and abstinence.

20. Prohibits, under pain of excommunication, to eat flesh in Lent, especially on the first Sunday.

21. Contains a list of festivals to be observed throughout the year.

22. Declares that there are but ten prefaces.

23. Forbids the laity to enter the choir during service.

24. Directs that women about the time of their confinement shall confess and communicate.

26. Excommunicates those who attend fairs and markets on Sundays or festival days.

38. Forbids the married clergy to exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

39. Forbids to bury any corpse within the church, except that of the founder, the patron, or the chaplain.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 746.

COGNAC (1260). Held in 1260, by Pierre de Roncevaux, Archbishop of Bordeaux. Nineteen statutes were made.

1. Forbids night-service or vigils either in the church or churchyard, on account of the disorders committed by the people who attended.

2. Forbids an ancient custom of dancing within the church on the day of the festival of the Holy Innocents, and choosing a mock bishop.

5. Forbids a priest to marry parties belonging to another parish without the licence of the chaplain or prior belonging to that parish.

7. Forbids, under anathema, cock-fighting, then much practised in schools.

15 and 16. Forbid extra-parochial burial without the curate’s permission. One object of this canon was to prevent the ecclesiastical burial of excommunicated persons—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 799.

COGNAC (1262). Held in 1262, by the same Archbishop of Bordeaux. Seven statutes were published.

1. Lays under an interdict those places in which ecclesiastical persons or property were forcibly detained.

5. Enjoins the clergy to say the office within churches with closed doors in places under interdict, and forbids any of the parishioners attending.

Another council was held by the same archbishop in the following year; the place is uncertain. Seven articles were agreed upon, of which the second declares that a person under sentence of excommunication for twelve months shall be looked upon as a heretic.—Tom. xi. p. 820–822.

COLOGNE (346). [Coloniense.] A council of fourteen bishops was held here (according to Sirmondus in 345) when Euphratas, the Bishop of Cologne, was deposed as a follower of Photinus, denying the divinity of Christ. As Euphratas, Bishop of Cologne, was present at Sardica in the year following, Pagi infers that his successor bore the same name; Sirmondus, that he had recanted and been restored to his see. Schram. i. 207.

COLOGNE (887). Held on the 1st of April 887. In it the ancient canons were confirmed, and censures pronounced against those who pillaged the property of the Church, oppressed the poor, and married within the forbidden limits.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 396.

COLOGNE (1260). Held on the 12th of March 1260, by Conrad, Archbishop of Cologne. In it were drawn up fourteen canons of discipline for the clergy, and eighteen for monks. Amongst the former:

1. Is directed against those of the clergy who kept mistresses: forbids them to be present at the marriage of their children, and to leave them any thing by will.

3. Declares that all clergy should know how to read, and to chaunt the praises of God; and orders such as cannot do so to provide a deputy.

7. Orders that in churches belonging to canons, if there be no dormitory, one shall be forthwith built, and that the said canons shall occupy it, that they may be always ready to assist at matins; also forbids them to eat or sleep out of the confines of their church.—Tom. xi. Conc., p. 784.

COLOGNE (1266). Held in 1266, by Engilbert, Archbishop of Cologne. Fifty-four canons were drawn up, which are chiefly against the plunderers of the Church, and those who killed, injured, and defrauded ecclesiastics. The last orders that the name of sacrilegious persons shall be kept in a book, and constantly read out.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 835.

COLOGNE (1280). Held in 1280, by Sifridus, Archbishop of Cologne; eighteen canons were drawn up.

1. Relates to the life and conversation of the clergy, and forbids them to play at games of chance; directs them to say daily the office of the Blessed Virgin.

3. Relates to the state, &c., of the religious, and forbids monks or nuns to have any sort of property.

7. Treats at length of the sacrament of the altar, and directs that before celebrating the communion, the priests shall have said matins and prime, and have confessed, if they have the opportunity.

8. Treats of the sacrament of penance, and forbids priests to say, themselves, the masses which they impose by way of penance.

9. Of orders.

10. Of matrimony.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1107.

COLOGNE (1300). Held about the year 1300, by Wichbold, Archbishop of Cologne; twenty-two canons were published. The second orders deans to deliver in writing a list of all non-resident incumbents in their deaneries. 15. Orders all priests in the diocese to excite their parishioners to contribute towards the fabric of the cathedral of Cologne. 17. Orders that the clerks appointed to ring the bells shall not be illiterate persons, who, if occasion require, may be able to assist the priest at the altar. (See next council.)—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1439.

COLOGNE (1310). Held on the 9th of March 1310, by Henry, Archbishop of Cologne, and three bishops. Twenty-nine canons were published.

11. Directs that the epistles and gospels shall be read only by persons in holy orders.

16. Directs that those persons, whose office it is to ring the church bells, shall know how to read, in order that they may be able to make the responses; and also that they shall wear the alb during divine service.

17. Directs that the rural deans shall provide that all their churches be furnished with proper ornaments.

21. Forbids to pronounce a curse against any person in the church, and to sing the “Media Vita” against any one, without the bishop’s leave.

23. Directs that in future the year shall commence at the festival of Christmas, according to the use of the Roman Church.

Others forbid parishioners to receive the holy communion, at Easter, at the hands of any but their own curates; order nuns to keep close to their cloisters, and monks to observe strictly the rule of poverty.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1517.

COLOGNE (1423). Held in 1423, by Theoderic, Archbishop of Cologne. Eleven canons were made. Amongst other things, it was decreed, that clergymen convicted of incontinence should be deposed, if, after due warning, they did not amend their scandalous life; that priests alone should be named to preach indulgences and to collect alms; that canons and other clerks refrain from talking during divine service, under penalty of losing the allowance.

The ninth canon is directed against the doctrines of Wickliff and John Huss.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 360.

COLOGNE (1452). Held in 1452, by Cardinal Nicolas de Cusa, legate à latere for Germany. Here it was decreed that a provincial council should be held at Cologne every three years, so that a synod should be held every year in one of the three dioceses; that all Jews, of both sexes, should have their dress marked with a circle, in order to distinguish them; that the clergy should keep their hair cut short; also, that processions with the holy sacrament should not be permitted to take place too frequently, and then that all should be done with extreme reverence.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1378.

COLOGNE (1536). Held in 1536, by Hermann Weiden, Archbishop of Cologne, assisted by his suffragans, and several others. This prince-prelate afterwards forsook the doctrines of the Church for those of Luther and the reformers of Germany. He established Bucer at Bonn in 1542, and invited Melancthon, Pistorius, and others. His clergy opposed him, and appealed to Rome, where he was cited to appear. In his absence he was excommunicated, April 16, 1546, and all his subjects released from their oath of allegiance. The clergy were ready to act upon this, but the nobles, whom the mild and virtuous life of the prelate had attached to him, refused to do so. Eventually, for the sake of peace, Weiden resigned, January 25, 1547, and died 1552. His successor, Prince Adolphus of Schawemburg, re-established the Catholic faith. The acts of this council are divided into fourteen articles, each article containing several decrees relating to the discipline of the Church.

Art. 1. Consists of thirty-six canons, and treats of the duties of bishops, especially in ordaining and visiting. Amongst other things:—4. Buying and selling of benefices, and worldly motives in giving them, are denounced as detestable; also, 32. Pluralities are condemned, and those who have the pope’s licence for a plurality of benefices are bidden to inquire of their consciences whether they have God’s licence also.

Art. 2. Relates to the offices of the Church, &c., and contains thirty-two canons. Bishops are exhorted to reform their Breviaries where they are defective, and to purge out all false or doubtful legends, which have been inserted, “nescimus qua incuria,” instead of passages from Holy Scripture; directions are given that the Breviary be recited with reverence and attention, and that the mass be celebrated with proper devotion. Canon 15. Defines the proper use of organs, which, it states, are intended to excite devotion, and not profane emotions of joy. With regard to the morals and conduct of the clergy, it states (canon 22), that pride, luxury, and avarice are the principal causes of their evil reputation; and (in canons 23, 24, 25,) that they ought to abstain from great feasts and good living, and from drunkenness and other like vices.

Arts. 3, 4, and 5, relate to cathedral and other churches, and those who serve them, to the mendicant friars, &c., and contain in all fifty-seven canons. Canons are ordered to live canonically, as their name imports, to remember the original intention of their institution, which was, that they should dwell together, &c.; if they fail on any occasion to be present at mass after the epistle, or at the hours after the first Psalm, they shall be deprived of their allowance. Non-residence is forbidden. Persons having cure of souls are exhorted to be careful to exhibit a pattern to their flocks.

Art. 6. Relates to the preaching of the word of God, and contains twenty-seven canons; states that the preacher ought constantly to read in and meditate upon the Holy Scriptures; to accommodate his discourse to the understanding of his hearers; to avoid profane eloquence and worldly declamation, and everything tending to the ridiculous; shows how the clergy are to instruct the people upon controverted subjects, and to repress vice. Canon 26 directs that the decalogue and creed shall be plainly recited immediately after the sermon.

Art. 7. Relates to the sacraments of the Church, and contains fifty-two canons. It reckons seven sacraments; directs that the clergy should instruct the people that the visible part of a sacrament is but the sensible sign of the effect produced upon the soul; it treats of each of the seven sacraments in detail. Amongst other things, it declares, that, in order to be admitted to the communion, it is necessary to have a pure conscience, a heart truly penitent, and a lively faith, to realise the truth of Christ’s body, offered and his blood poured forth in that sacrament. With regard to the communion in both kinds, canon 15 directs the priest to teach those of his parishioners who are hurt at the denial of the cup, that the layman who receives the bread only, receives as fully and completely both the body and the blood of our Lord, as the priest does who receives in both kinds; that the Church, out of reverence to the sacrament, and for the salvation of the faithful, hath thought proper so to order it, and that, consequently, the laity, being assured that they do receive both the body and the blood of Christ, should submit to its judgment.

Art. 8. Containing seven canons, is upon the subject of the maintenance of the clergy; it forbids any fee for the administration of the sacraments or for burials; it also enjoins the restoration of tithes by those laymen who had usurped them.

Art. 9. Containing twenty-one canons, speaks of the usages and customs of the Church; directs that fasting, being an ordinance of the Church, may not be neglected, and declares that to eat delicious first-meals on days appointed to be observed with fasting, is not to obey the spirit of the Church’s injunction; it also explains the appointment of Rogation days, and declares that Sunday is to be observed and kept holy; that on that day it is the duty of the faithful to hear mass and the sermon, and to sing psalms and hymns; forbids fairs to be held on that day, and the frequenting of taverns.

Art. 10. Contains nineteen canons, and relates to monastic discipline.

Art. 11. Contains eight canons, relating to almshouses, hospitals, and similar establishments; states that it is the bishop’s duty to look after the repair of those which have fallen into decay, and to provide for the spiritual care of those persons who dwell in them.

Art. 12. Contains nine canons, relating to schools, libraries, &c.

Art. 13. Relates to contests about ecclesiastical jurisdiction, &c., and contains four canons.

Art. 14. Relates to episcopal and other visitations, and contains twenty-four canons.—Tom. xiv. Conc. p. 484.

COLOGNE (1549). Held in 1549, by prince Adolphus de Schawemburg, archbishop. Several statutes were made for the reformation of the Church; the six principal methods recommended are the following.

1. The restoration of learning.

2. The examination of candidates for holy orders.

3. Care and diligence on the part of the clergy in the performance of their sacred function.

4. Episcopal and archidiaconal visitations.

5. The frequent convocation of synods.

6. The removal of the principal abuses.

1. As to the first, it was ordered that the education of the young should be confided only to persons of known purity of faith and life, and who had undergone an examination by the ordinary, or by persons approved by him. That no suspected nor contagious works should be allowed in colleges or universities.

2. It is declared that the examination of candidates for orders, and of persons to be instituted to benefices, belongs to the bishop alone, or to persons authorised by him; and that those who desire to be ordained shall give public notice of the same.

3. The clergy are ordered to inflict the penalty enjoined by the canons upon those whose sins have deserved it, and not to remit it for money. Pluralities are forbidden.

4. The end of episcopal visitations is declared to be the correction of vice, and the restoration of purity of life and discipline. Bishops are exhorted to take but few followers with them in their visitations, to avoid burdening their clergy.

5. The necessity of holding ecclesiastical synods is shown, in order to preserve the faith and discipline of the Church in their integrity, and to maintain purity of morals, to ensure the reformation of abuses.

6. Treats of the re-establishment of ecclesiastical discipline.

The statutes were approved by the emperor’s letters patent.—Tom. xiv. Conc. p. 627.

COMPIEGNE (756). [Concilium Compendiense.] Held in 756. At this council, Pepin, King of France, several bishops and lords, together with the legates of Pope Stephen, were present. An organ sent by the Eastern emperor to Pepin was received. Eighteen canons were published, chiefly relating to questions about marriages.

1. Orders the separation of parties marrying within the fourth degree.

3. Declares that a wife taking the veil without her husband’s consent, must be given up to him, if he requires it.

5. Allows a free man who marries a slave under the idea that she was free, to put her away and to marry again; also allows the same to a free woman.

9. Declares baptism administered by an unbaptised priest, in the name of the Blessed Trinity, valid.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1694.

COMPIEGNE (1235). Held on the 5th August 1235, concerning certain articles which, according to the Archbishop of Rheims, violated the liberties of the Church. The archbishop and six of his suffragans proceeded to St Denys, in order to make a second monition to the king, which step induced the lords to prefer a complaint by letter to the pope against the bishops and clergy; this letter is dated September, 1235. The king (St Louis), by an ordinance, declared that his own vassals and those of the lords, were not bound, in civil matters, to answer any charge in the ecclesiastical courts; and that if the ecclesiastical judge should proceed to excommunicate any one in such a case, he should be compelled to remove the excommunication by the seizure of his temporalities. The pope exhorted St Louis to revoke this ordinance, declaring, amongst other things, that God had confided to the pope both the temporal and spiritual government of the world. However, the letter seems to have had little effect upon St Louis, who refused to revoke the edict.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 503.

COMPIEGNE (1277). Held in 1277, by Peter Barbet, Archbishop of Rheims, with eight of his suffragans. They made a decree relating to the insubordinate conduct of the chapters of the cathedral churches of the province, who pretended, amongst other things, to a right to put a stop to divine service, and to lay the city under an interdict, for the sake of protecting their own immunities.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1031.

COMPIEGNE (1304). Held on the 4th January 1304, by Robert de Courtenay, Archbishop of Rheims, assisted by eight bishops, and the deputies of three absent. They made five decrees.

2. Forbids the levying imposts upon the clergy under false pretences.

5. Restricts the dinner of the clergy of the province to two dishes, over and above the pottage or soup, except they have any great person at the table.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1402.

COMPOSTELLA (899). Held on Sunday, May 6th, 899, upon occasion of the dedication of the church to the Saviour and St James. In this synod Oviedo was raised to a metropolitan see.—Esp. Sagr. Tom. xix. p. 944. Seventeen bishops were present, together with King Alfonso, his family, and many others.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 482.

COMPOSTELLA (1061). Held in 1061, by Cresconius, Bishop of Compostella. Amongst other things, it was decreed that all bishops and priests should say mass daily, and that the clergy should wear hair shirts on days of fasting and penitence.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1087. Aguirre tom. iii. p. 322, and Hardouin.

CONSTANCE (1414 to 1418). [Concilium Constantiense.] This council was assembled by Pope John XXIII., in accordance with the writ of the Emperor Sigismund. One of its chief objects was to put an end to the schism which had afflicted the Church for thirty years, and which was caused by the several claimants of the papacy. At this time, besides John (Balthasar Cossa), two others claimed the title of pope, viz., Pedro of Luna, a native of Catalonia, who styled himself Benedict XIII., and Angelo Corrario, a Venetian, who assumed the name of Gregory XII.

Another object of the council was to take cognisance of the heresies of Huss and Wickliff. The council was convoked to meet at Constance on the festival of All Saints, A.D. 1414, and so great was the influx of persons, that it was reckoned that not less than thirty thousand horses were brought to Constance, which may give us some idea of the enormous concourse of people.

The council was opened on the 5th, with solemn prayer, and the first session held on the 16th November, in which John the pope presided, and delivered an address, in which he exhorted all present to give themselves entirely to the business of the council. After which the bull of convocation was read, and the officers of the council were appointed, viz.,

Ten notaries.

One guardian of the council.

Four Scrutators, viz., one auditor of the camera, one auditor of the Rota, one “Scriptor apostolicus” and one canon of Rome.

Four advocates.

Two promoters.

Four officers to superintend all matters relating to arrangement and ceremony.

Lastly, the canon of the eleventh Council of Toledo, held in 675, was read, which relates to the gravity and decorum to be observed in such assemblies.

In the interval between the first and second session, John Huss, who, upon the strength of the emperor’s safe-conduct had ventured to Constance, was treacherously seized and thrown into prison. His accusers, who are said to have been also his personal enemies, drew up a catalogue of his imputed errors, which they presented to the pope and to the council. Amongst other things, they charged him with having taught publicly that the laity had a right to the communion in both kinds; that in the holy sacrament of the altar the substance of the bread remains unchanged after consecration; that priests living in mortal sin cannot administer the sacraments; that, on the contrary, any other person, being in a state of grace, can do so; that by “the Church,” is not to be understood either the pope or the clergy; that the Church cannot possess any temporalities, and that the laity have a right to deprive her of them.

In this interval, moreover, vast numbers of temporal and spiritual dignitaries arrived; amongst others, the well-known Peter D’Ailly, Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray; also the Emperor Sigismund, who, on Christmas day, assisted at mass in the habit of a deacon, and chanted the gospel. In the month of February the deputies of Gregory and Benedict arrived, and now several congregations were held, and steps taken to persuade John to abdicate, on account of his notoriously immoral conduct. It was resolved to take the opinion of the various nations composing the council, and for that purpose it was divided into four classes, according to their nations, viz., 1, Italy; 2, France; 3, Germany; 4, England. From each class a certain number of deputies were elected, having at their head a president, who was changed every month. The deputies of each nation then met separately to deliberate upon such measures as they considered best to propose to the council, and when any one class of deputies had agreed upon a measure, it was carried to the general assembly of the four nations; and if the measure, upon consideration, was approved, it was signed and sealed, to be presented at the next session, in order to receive the sanction of the whole council.

In one of these congregations a list of heavy accusations against Pope John XXIII. was presented, and, in consequence, deputies were sent to him to engage him to resign the pontificate. He, in answer, promised to do so, if his two competitors would, on their part, engage to do the same. Nevertheless, he put off from day to day making any clear and formal act of cession; and during that time the deputies of the university of Paris arrived with Gerson their chancellor.

In the second session, March 22, 1415, John made a formal declaration, accompanied with an oath, to the effect that he would abdicate, if by that means the schism could be healed. But, when, in a subsequent congregation, they proceeded to deliberate about a new election to the pontificate, John, disguised in a postillion’s dress, secretly escaped from the city to the castle of Schaffhausen. The council proceeded, nevertheless, to labour to effect the union of the Church, and Gerson made a long discourse tending to establish the superiority of the council over the pope.

This discourse was the origin of the question, which was then very warmly agitated, viz., whether the authority of an œcumenical council is greater than that of a pope or not? Gerson proves that in certain cases the Church, or, which is the same thing, an œcumenical council, can assemble without the command or consent of the pope, even supposing him to have been canonically elected, and to live respectably. These peculiar cases he states to be—

1. If the pope, being accused, and brought into a position requiring the opinion of the Church, refuse to convoke a council for the purpose.

2. When important matters concerning the government of the Church are in agitation, requiring to be set at rest by an œcumenical council, which, nevertheless, the pope refuses to convoke.

In the third session, March 25, the Cardinal of Florence read a declaration made in the name of the council, by which it is declared, first, that the council is lawfully assembled; secondly, that the flight of the pope cannot dissolve it, and that it shall not separate, nor be transferred to another place, until the union of the Church shall have been effected, and the Church reformed as to faith and morals; thirdly, that John XXIII. shall not withdraw his officers from Constance without the approval and consent of the council, nor shall the prelates leave the council without just cause.

The Emperor Sigismund was himself present in the fourth session, March 30, in which the Cardinal of Florence read the five articles upon which the fathers of the council had agreed. The most worthy of note is the decree, which declares that the aforesaid Council of Constance having been lawfully assembled in the name of the Holy Spirit, and forming an œcumenical council of the whole Church militant, hath received its authority immediately from our Lord Jesus Christ; a power which every person whatsoever, of whatever state or dignity he may be, even the pope himself, must obey in all matters relating to the faith, the extirpation of schism, and the reformation of the Church in its head and in its members. It was also decreed that the pope should not transfer the council to any other place, and declared null and void all processes and censures directed by the pope against those attending the council.

In the fifth session, April 6, the articles which had been read in the last, were a second time read, and unanimously approved. The departure of John was declared to be unlawful, and that he would justly subject himself to corporal punishment and imprisonment should he refuse to return. The emperor was charged to arrest all persons endeavouring to quit Constance in disguise. Also the decree of the Council of Rome against the writings of Wickliff was confirmed.

The emperor was present in the sixth session, April 16, in which Pope John XXIII. was summoned to present himself at the council, or to issue a bull, declaring that he had vacated the pontificate. It is, however, easy to see by his answer to the deputies, that his design was only to amuse the council, and thenceforward the fathers resolved to proceed against him as against a notorious heretic and schismatic. A citation was also issued against Jerome of Prague.

In the seventh session, May 2, John was cited to appear in person with his adherents within nine days, in order to justify himself with respect to the charges of heresy, schism, simony, and various other enormous crimes brought against him; in case of refusal, they declared that they would proceed against him. It may be observed that John, after many removals, had at this time settled at Brisac.

In this session the affair of Jerome of Prague was again discussed.

In the eighth session, May 4, the condemnation of Wickliff’s errors was proceeded with. The errors imputed to him were contained in forty-five articles or propositions. He is said in the first three to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation and a real corporal presence. In 4, to assert that a bishop or priest, in mortal sin, cannot perform the proper functions of his office. In 6, that God is obliged to obey the devil. 8, That a bad pope has no power over the Church. In 13, that they who hinder preaching will be held excommunicated by Christ in the last day. 16, That the temporal powers may, at will, take away the property of the Church. 18, That tithes are merely charitable offerings, which may be denied to the bad ministers. 27, That all things happen by an absolute necessity. 28, That confirmation, ordination, and consecration of places have been reserved to the pope and to bishops solely for the sake of gain. 29, That universities, schools, &c., are mere vanities, which help the devil as much as they do the Church. 34, That all of the order of mendicants are heretics. 35, That no one entering into any order of religion can keep the Divine precept, and therefore cannot attain to the kingdom of heaven. 37, That the Church of Rome is the synagogue of Satan. 38, That the decretals are apocryphal, and the clergy who study them fools. 39, That the emperor and secular princes who endowed the Church were seduced by the devil. 41, That it is not necessary to salvation to believe that the Roman Church is supreme amongst all other churches. 42, That it is folly to put faith in the indulgences of popes and bishops. 44, That Augustine, Benedict, and Bernard are damned, unless they repented of having had property, and of having entered the religious state. 45, That all religions indifferently have been introduced by the devil. All of these forty-five articles, together with all the books written by him, were condemned, and his bones ordered to be dug up, and cast out of consecrated ground.

In the interval between sessions eight and nine, John XXIII. was arrested at Fribourg.

In this session, May 13, a proposition was received from the pope, offering to send three cardinals to the council to answer the charges brought against him; but the council rejected the offer. Two cardinals and five prelates were nominated to summon the pope thrice at the door of the church, and as he did not appear, an act declaring this citation was drawn up.

After this session the depositions of witnesses against John were taken; amongst the ten who came forward were bishops, abbots, and doctors.

On the following day, in the tenth session, May 14, the commissioners made their report of the depositions against the pope. After which, having been again cited thrice without appearing, the council proceeded to declare John XXIII. convicted of the charges brought against him; viz., of having brought scandal upon the Church by his corrupt life, and of having publicly been guilty of simony, and as such, suspended from the exercise of any of the functions of the papal office and from every administration temporal or spiritual, with a prohibition, at the same time, to every Christian, of whatever rank or condition, to obey him thenceforth directly or indirectly, under penalty of being punished as an abettor of schism. The accusations were contained under seventy heads, all well proved; but fifty only were read in the council (in the following session), relating chiefly to his simony, his worldly life, his vexatious conduct, his false oaths, &c.; other things which decency required to be passed over in silence, were suppressed. Sentence of suspension having been thus pronounced, messengers were sent to him to notify what the council had decreed. He did not deny the justice of his sentence, recognised the council as holy and infallible, and delivered up the seal, ring, and book of supplications, which they demanded of him, begging the council to take measures for his subsistence and honour.

In the eleventh session, May 25, the various heads of the accusation against John XXIII. were read. Jerome of Prague, who had endeavoured to escape, was arrested, and thrown into prison.

In the following session, May 29, the sentence of deposition against John XXIII. having been read, and unanimously approved, was definitively passed; at the same time, all the three competitors for the papacy were declared incapable of being elected again.

In the thirteenth session, June 15, a decree was made, in reply to a petition presented by the Hussites, upon the subject of the communion in both kinds, to this effect, that although Jesus Christ instituted the holy sacrament of the Eucharist after supper, under the two kinds of bread and wine, nevertheless, the use sanctioned by the Church is not to celebrate that sacrament after supper, nor even to permit the faithful to receive it otherwise than fasting, except in cases of sickness or other necessity; and that, secondly, although in the primitive Church this sacrament was received by the faithful in both kinds, yet, in after-ages, the laity had been permitted to receive in one kind only, viz., the bread, and for this reason, because it ought to be most surely believed that the whole body and the whole blood of Jesus Christ is truly contained under the species of bread; that, therefore, the custom introduced by the Church must be regarded as a law, which may not be rejected or altered at the will of individuals, without the sanction of the Church; and that to maintain that this custom is sacrilegious or unlawful is an error, such that the obstinate perseverance in it deserves to be punished as heresy, and even with the secular arm, if necessary.

In this session, July 4, several decrees were read: the first of which forbad to proceed to the election of a new pope, without the consent of the council; also the abdication of Gregory XII. was received, being made in his name by Charles de Malatesta and Cardinal Dominic. Pedro of Luna was called upon to do the same; but he steadily refused to the day of his death, which happened in 1424.

In the fifteenth session, July 6, the trial of Huss, who was brought before the council, was terminated.

The promoters of the council demanded that the articles preached and taught by John Huss, in Bohemia and elsewhere, being heretical, seditious, deceitful, and offensive to pious ears, should be condemned by the council, and that the books from which they were extracted should be burned. Huss not being willing to retract, was condemned to be degraded and given over to the secular arm, and in the end was cruelly burned alive, on the 6th of July 1415. In the same session, the opinion of John Petit, a D.D. of Paris, was condemned as heretical, scandalous, and seditious; he maintained that any individual had a right to take away the life of a tyrant, and that the deed was even meritorious; no sentence, however, was passed upon the author of this opinion, who was protected by the Duke of Burgundy and other powerful friends.

In the two following sessions, July 11 and 15, preparations were made for the departure of King Sigismund, who proposed to go in person to the King of Arragon, to induce him to renounce the cause of Pedro of Luna.

In the eighteenth session, August 17, various decrees were made, one declaring the same credit and obedience to be due towards the bulls of the council, as to those of the holy see.

In the next session, September 23, Jerome of Prague, terrified by the horrible end of Huss, was induced to make a recantation of the errors imputed to him. A declaration was also made, in which it was stated that, notwithstanding the safe conduct of kings, inquisition might always be made into the conduct of heretics.

In the twentieth session, November 21, at which Andrew, titular Archbishop of Rhodes, was present, the differences between the Bishop of Trent and Duke Frederick of Austria were discussed. The twelve Chapters of Narbonne agreed upon between King Sigismund, and the deputies of the council, and the deputies of Benedict, were approved.

After the session, an assembly was held to consider concerning the reformation of the Church, and the repression of simony.

Also, in the interval between the twentieth and twenty-first sessions, several congregations were held; in one, the affair of John Petit was further discussed; in another, held April 27, 1416, Jerome of Prague, whose retractation was suspected, was brought forward.

In the next session, May 30, 1416, Jerome was again brought before the council, and revoking his forced retractation, spoke boldly in favour of his original opinions; sentence was then passed upon him, he was declared to be a relapsed heretic, was excommunicated and anathematised, and lastly, was handed over to the secular arm, and burned.

Measures were taken in this session, October 15, to unite the Arragonese to the council, they having hitherto acknowledged Benedict XIII.

In the twenty-third session, November 5, 1416, the proceedings against Benedict XIII. (Pedro of Luna) commenced, and he was definitively condemned in the thirty-seventh, July 26, 1417, when he was deposed, and declared to be a perjurer, and to have brought scandal upon the whole Church, &c.; and, as such, the council degraded and deposed him, deprived him of all his dignities and offices, forbidding him thenceforward to consider himself as pope, and all Christian people who obey him, under pain of being dealt with as abettors of schism and heresy.

To the thirty-fifth session, the countries acknowledging Benedict sent deputies.

In the thirty-eighth session, July 28, the decree of the council, annulling all sentences and censures uttered by Benedict XIII. against the ambassadors or allies of the King of Castile, was read. It forbad the pope for the future to take the first-fruits of vacant benefices, which it declared to belong to those to whom ancient use gave them.

In the thirty-ninth session, October 9, the question of Church reform was entered upon, and several decrees made, one of which declares the necessity of frequently holding councils, in order to check the progress of heresy and schism, and directs that another œcumenical council shall be held five years after the dissolution of the present; a third, seven years after the second; and, after that, one every ten years, in a place appointed by the pope at the close of each council, with the approbation and consent of the council; in case of war or pestilence, the pope, with the concurrence of the cardinals, to have power to appoint any other place, and to hasten, but not to retard, the time for assembling. Another decree provides for cases of schism, and orders that, when there shall be two claimants of the papal chair, a council shall be held in the very next year, and that both claimants shall suspend every administration until the council shall have commenced its sittings. The third decree relates to the profession of faith, which the newly elected pope was to make in the presence of his electors; in it eight œcumenical councils are recognised, besides the general councils of Lateran, Lyons, and Vienne. A fourth decree is directed against the translation of bishops.

In the fortieth session, October 30, a decree, containing eighteen well-matured articles of reformation, was proposed. It was there provided that the new pope, whom they were about speedily to elect, should labour to reform the Church, in its head and in its members, as well as the court of Rome, in concert with the council, or the national deputies. Its principal articles relate to the annates, the reserves of the apostolic see, the collations to benefices, and the expectatives; what causes may or may not be carried to Rome; in what cases it is lawful to depose a pope, and how it can be done; to the extirpation of simony; to dispensations; to indulgences, and to tithes.

The article upon the annates or first-fruits was very warmly discussed by the cardinals and national deputies, but the latter finally declared that it was necessary to suppress them altogether, and chiefly for this reason, that whereas they had been originally but a voluntary offering to the Roman see, they had subsequently been made, under pretext of custom, an obligatory payment. In fact, we find no mention of annates before the time of Clement V., who for three years imposed them upon England, but was opposed by the parliament. Boniface IX. was the first who pretended to claim them as a right attached to the dignity of sovereign pontiff. Moreover, the taxing of benefices was pronounced a simoniacal exaction.

In the forty-first session, November 8, it was decreed, that for this time alone, six prelates of different nations should be chosen within the space of ten days, in order to proceed to the election of the pope with the college of cardinals. Accordingly the electors held a conclave, and on the 11th of November after, Cardinal Colonna was elected pope, and took the style of Martin V. After his coronation, the national deputies having required of him that he would labour to effect a reformation of the Church, he renewed his promise to do so.

In the forty-second session, December 28, the new pope presided, and the emperor was present. A bull was read, releasing the emperor from the custody of Balthasar, and ordering him to be delivered over to the pope. The national deputies presented a memorial on the subject of reform to the pope. Martin, troubled by their importunity, gave in a scheme of reformation, based upon the eighteen articles proposed in session forty.

Between this and the forty-third session the pope issued a bull confirming the acts, &c., of the Council of Constance. In the edition of Haguenau, A.D. 1500, this bull is regarded as the act of the council itself, whereas in other editions it appears to be the pope who approves and confirms the council. However this may be, the first article of this bull is worthy of remark, for in it Martin desires that any one suspected in the faith shall swear that he receives all the œcumenical councils, and especially that of Constance, which proves that the pope considered this council lawful and œcumenical, and as he desired that all the acts of this council should be received by all persons, he thereby approves that passed in the fifth session, which declares the superiority of the council to the pope.

In the forty-third session, March 21, 1418, decrees were published restraining the abuse of exemptions and dispensations, and condemning simony. The canons relating to modesty of dress in ecclesiastics were renewed, but no other objects of reform were proposed besides those contained in the decree of the fortieth session, and of them six only were drawn up in this forty-third session. The reformation of the college of cardinals and of the court of Rome, which had been decreed by the council, was passed over without notice.

The pope, in order to satisfy the decree made in the thirty-ninth session, April 19, appointed Pavia for the meeting of the next council.

On the 22nd of April 1418, the last session was held. After the celebration of high mass, the pope read a discourse to the council, which being ended, one of the cardinals, by order of the pope and council, dismissed the assembly with the words, “Go in peace.” This council lasted three years and a half.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 1–294. Herman Vander Hart, Acta Concil. Const. 6 vols. in fol. 1698. Bourgeois de Chastenet, Hist. du Conc. du Constance. Paris, 1718.

CONSTANTINOPLE (359). [Concilium Constantino-politanum.] Ten bishops from the Arian, and ten from the semi-Arian factions at Seleucia, attended at the opening of this council, which Acacius of Cesarea persuaded the emperor to call together. Ursacius and Valens and other Arians afterwards appeared from Ariminum, pretending to represent that council. On their arrival they communicated with the Acacian legates from Seleucia. The emperor strenuously endeavoured to compel all to subscribe the creed of Ariminum, with the Acacian alterations, and even threats and violence were employed, so that eventually Constantius’ will prevailed, and most of the semi-Arian legates from Seleucia agreed; the exception was Basil of Ancyra. Eleusius of Cyzicus, Eustachius of Sebastia, and some others were deposed and excommunicated. Also Aelius, accused of many crimes, was deposed from the priesthood, and St Cyril of Jerusalem, reinstated in his see at the Council of Seleucia, was here again deposed, also St Hilary of Poitiers, who was present, was, by the emperor’s orders, sent back to his see, and Basil was banished to Illyria. According to some these events took place in two councils held nearly concurrently.

CONSTANTINOPLE (360). Held by Acacius of Cesarea, in which sixty-two bishops, mostly Anomæans, excommunicated and deposed Macedonius, the Arian bishop of Constantinople; Basil, Bishop of Ancyra; Eleusius of Cyzicus, and others. Basil was banished to Illyria.—Socrates, Lib. 2. cap. 42.

CONSTANTINOPLE (381). The second œcumenical council was held at Constantinople, A.D. 381, probably before Easter, convoked by order of the Emperor Theodosius.

The principal objects for which this council was convoked were the following:

To confirm the faith as delivered at Nicea.

To appoint a bishop to the church of Constantinople.

To take measures for the union of the Church.

To make regulations for the good of the Church.

Bishops attended from all parts of the East, except (in the early part of the council) Egypt. The number of those present, as commonly received, was one hundred and fifty, but the signatures amount to one hundred and forty-two only. Amongst the more celebrated of the bishops were St Gregory of Nazianzum, Isidorus of Tyre, Gelasius of Cesarea, St Meletius of Antioch, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Peter of Sebaste, St Amphilochius of Iconium, St Pelagius of Laodicea, St Eulogius of Edessa, St Cyril of Jerusalem, Helladius of Cesarea in Cappadocia, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Acacius of Berea. “Never were there,” says Tillemont, “in any council of the Church, so large a number of saints and confessors.” It does not appear that any letter or deputies were sent on the part of Damasus, the pope, or of any other bishop in the West. Theodosius assembled this council from the Eastern Church only. St Meletius at first presided, although his ill health obliged him frequently to absent himself.

The first question considered was that relating to the Church of Constantinople, and it was declared that Maximus, called the Cynic, had not been lawfully made bishop; that his ordination, and all that he had since done in his pretended character of bishop, was null and void, and that in fine he was a usurper of the see of Constantinople. Then they proceeded to elect to the see St Gregory of Nazianzum, and eventually, notwithstanding his entreaties and tears, obliged him to accept the office. During these proceedings, St Meletius, whose health had been rapidly failing, passed away, and St Gregory of Nazianzum succeeded him as president of the council. He endeavoured with all his powers that Paulinus should be left in the see of Antioch, with the view of appeasing the divisions of that Church; but his efforts were ineffectual. The council refused to confirm Paulinus in the see, and recommended St Flavianus, the choice of the people of Antioch, who subsequently was elected, and the schism continued for seventeen years longer, Evagrius having been set up to fill the place of Paulinus, by his followers, and even uncanonically consecrated by Paulinus himself. Flavianus was put out of the communion of the whole West and of Egypt. The Macedonian bishops and those of Egypt (who had now arrived) vehemently opposed him, objecting to his election upon the ground that, being already bishop of another see (which he strictly was not), he ought not to have been translated to that of Constantinople. In consequence of this, St Gregory entreated the fathers to permit him to resign the see of Constantinople, which he, in the end, did, and Nectarius, a senator of Tarsus, was elected in his room. During this interval, Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria, presided over the council; but Nectarius, immediately after his election, took that office upon himself. Now Nectarius, so far from having passed through the inferior degrees, as the canons direct, had not been even baptised.

The exact time at which the following acts were passed in the council is unknown. After labouring in vain to unite the Macedonians to the Church, by proposing to them to receive the faith as settled at Nicea, and which they had previously accepted, they were pronounced to be heretics. The council published in all seven canons.

1. Confirms the faith of the Council of Nicea, and anathematises (“extrema execratione ac detestatione”) all who deny it, especially the Arians, Eunomians, Eudoxians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, and others.

2. Forbids bishops to go beyond their borders, and to trouble other dioceses. Orders that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the sole administration of Egypt, and that the privileges given to the Church of Antioch by the Nicene canons shall be preserved. Orders that the affairs of the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses shall be severally administered by their respective bishops, and that the synod of each province shall administer the affairs of the province, according to the canon of Nicea.

3. By this canon the primacy of honour is given to the Bishop of Constantinople after the Bishop of Rome, on account, as it states, of its being “the new Rome.”

4. Declares the nullity of the consecration and of the episcopal acts of Maximus.

5. As regards the Book of the Western Church, we have also received those in Antioch, who confess one and the same Divinity in the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

6. Lays down a rule for ecclesiastical judgments, and permits all persons whatever to bring an accusation against a bishop or any other ecclesiastic on account of any private injury or wrong said to have been received; but in Church matters it directs that no accusation shall be received coming from heretics or schismatics, or from persons excommunicated or deposed, or accused of any crime, before they shall have justified themselves.

7. Gives direction as to the manner in which heretics ought to be received into the Church; Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimani, and Apollinarians, were simply to be required to renounce their errors in writing, to anathematise all heresies, and to be anointed with the holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and ears, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Others, such as the Eunomians (who baptised with one immersion), Montanists, Sabellians, &c., were to be received as heathens, i.e., to be catechised, exorcised, and baptised.

As to the faith, the council (in canon 1) condemned the Arians, semi-Arians, and Eunomians, who denied the proper Divinity of the Word; the Macedonians, who refused to recognise that of the Holy Spirit; and the Apollinarians, who denied the truth of the Incarnation.

The consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, was set forth, the acts of the Council of Nicea were confirmed, and all the recent heresies anathematised; further, the creed of the Church, as laid down at Nicea, was extended to meet the heresies of the Apollonarians and Macedonians. Thus for the words, “He was incarnate,” as contained in the Nicene creed, were substituted “He was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary.” The original creed of Nicea said simply, “He suffered and the third day He rose again, ascended into heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.”

The Constantinopolitan creed says, “He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered, and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.”

The Nicene creed also makes mention only of the Holy Spirit, omitting the Church. The creed, as settled at Constantinople, is exactly the same with that which is said at this day at communion in all Catholic churches, with the exception of the words, “and the Son,” in the article concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; the council said only that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the words, “and the Son” (filioque), were subsequently added by the Western Church, first in Spain in 589. See C. TOLEDO, A.D. 589, and Hammond’s Canons of the Church, Const. 381.

The acts of this council remaining to us are the creed, the seven canons, and the letter addressed to the Emperor Theodosius, requesting him to confirm the acts of the council—“We, therefore, entreat your clemency … as by your letter convoking the council, you have honoured the Church, so now you would, by your sentence and seal, confirm the summary of its acts, and the conclusion arrived at.”—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 911.

CONSTANTINOPLE (394). Held on the 29th September 394, on occasion of the dedication of the church of the apostles, Peter and Paul, built by Ruffinus, Prefect of the Pretorium. The dispute concerning the bishopric of Bostra was brought before this council. Nectarius of Constantinople presided, in the presence of Theophilus of Alexandria, and Flavianus of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, Palladius of Cesarea in Cappadocia, and many other bishops of note. It was determined, that although three bishops are sufficient to consecrate, a larger number is required in order to depose.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1151.

CONSTANTINOPLE (403). Held in 403, by forty or sixty bishops, in support of St Chrysostom, unjustly deposed by the pseudo-council, “ad Quercum,” because of his nonappearance there. Although Arcadius had weakly confirmed this deposition, and banished him into Bithynia, his exile lasted but for one day, for the Empress Eudoxia, frightened by a terrible earthquake, which happened at the time, sent after him to recall him, and he re-entered Constantinople in triumph.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1331. D.

CONSTANTINOPLE (403). Held in the same year. After the restoration of St Chrysostom to his bishopric, he ordered those priests and bishops who, upon his condemnation, had intruded into the sees and benefices of his followers, to be deposed, and the rightful pastors to be restored; he then demanded of the emperor that his own cause should be considered in a lawful synod. Upon which sixty bishops assembled, who came to the same conclusion with the last council, viz., that St Chrysostom had been unlawfully deposed in the council, “ad Quercum,” and that he should retain the bishopric.—Soz. l. 8, c. 19.

CONSTANTINOPLE (427). Held in 427, under the Patriarch Sisinnius. The acts of the Council of Sida, against the Messaliani were read and confirmed.—Pagi, in Baron. A.D. 427., No. viii.

CONSTANTINOPLE (448). Held on the 8th day of November 448, by Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, for the condemnation of Eutyches. The following is a slight sketch of the man and of his errors:—

Eutyches was abbot of a large monastery near Constantinople; he was already advanced in life when he began to publish his heresies. St Leo speaks of him as an old man, equally imprudent and ignorant; in fact, he had neither learning nor talent, but a great deal of pride, and choosing rather to follow his own private judgment, than the teaching of the Church, with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation, he fell away. Wishing to refute the heresy of Nestorius, who maintained that the Son of the Virgin was man only, and not God, he went so far as to declare that He was not truly man, and that He had but the appearance, and not the reality of a human body.

According to Nestorius, the Word of God was not made man, in uniting the human to His Divine nature; according to Eutyches, He was made man in such a way, that the Divine and human nature being united in Him, formed but one substance and one nature. This was the distinctive point in his heresy, and all the offsets from it, that there is in our Lord only one nature.

In order in some degree to qualify this notion, he declared that our Lord “had two natures before the union, but that after the union of the two natures they formed but one;” an error from which the most fatal consequences necessarily flow; for in taking from our Lord the reality of His human nature, he took from Him His character of Mediator, and, at the same time, destroyed the reality of His sufferings, death, and resurrection.

Eutyches seems to have been drawn into this error by degrees, and at last he spread his doctrine, not by his writings, but by means of the discourses which he delivered before the monks over whom he presided, and others. When his heresy was beginning to work its way amongst the people, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylæum, zealously set himself to oppose it, and may justly be considered as the main cause of the first condemnation of Eutyches. After having in vain tried to convince the latter of his error, Eusebius warned Flavianus of what was going on, and seized the opportunity afforded by the assembling of a council, to settle certain differences between the metropolitan of Lydia, and two of his suffragans, to present a petition, in which he accused Eutyches of heresy, and earnestly prayed that they would take the case into consideration, and cite Eutyches to appear before them, which was accordingly done.

In the second session, held November 15th, there were present eighteen bishops; and at the request of Eusebius, the letter of St Cyril to Nestorius, confirmed by the Council of Ephesus, and another by the same, were read. This done, Eusebius maintained that these letters contained the true faith, and that from them he would refute those who attacked the faith of the Church.

Flavianus declared his adherence to the doctrine contained in these letters, and further explained the faith with respect to the mystery of the incarnation: he said that our Lord is perfect God and perfect man, consubstantial with the Father as to His Godhead, and consubstantial with His mother as to His manhood; that the two natures are united in one ὑπόστασις and one person, so that after the incarnation there resulted one Jesus Christ.

All the bishops agreed to this definition of the faith, which was subsequently more authoritatively confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon; Flavianus then went on to say, “If any one maintains a contrary faith, we separate him from the ministry of the altar and from the body of the Church,” which sentence was unanimously approved.

In the meantime, Eutyches, who had been cited to appear, excused himself to the deputies by saying that, on retiring from the world, he had made the resolution never to leave his monastery, and that, besides, Eusebius was his personal enemy; that as to his faith, he was ready to agree to the exposition of faith made in the holy Councils of Nicea and Ephesus, and to subscribe to their interpretations; at the same time, if the fathers in those councils had been deceived, or had erred in some few of their expressions, he declared that he neither would condemn nor follow them, but that he would follow the Holy Scriptures alone, as a more sure guide than the expositions of the fathers.

The deputies having reported this answer of Eutyches, in the third session, the council judged it right to cite him a second time; and in the interval, it was proved that he was endeavouring to form a party amongst the monks of his own and other monasteries. When the deputies of the council, who were sent to cite him the second time, had arrived, he persisted in saying that he could not violate the resolution which he had made. This answer being also reported to the council, it was resolved to cite him for the third and last time, but still he refused to appear; nevertheless, he sent to the council the archimandrite Abraham, to plead his cause; he was, however, refused a hearing, upon the ground that it was the duty of Eutyches to appear in person. Subsequently, he promised to attend on the 22nd of November, and the fathers, at the instigation of Flavianus, granted him this delay. Eutyches, however, availed himself of it only to have recourse to the eunuch Chrysapius, a chief officer of the emperor; and upon the plea that his life would be in danger if he were to present himself at the council, he obtained a large escort of soldiers to accompany him there.

In the sixth session, of the 22nd November, thirty bishops being present, they demanded whether Eutyches was in attendance, and presently he arrived in great state, surrounded by a large body of monks and soldiers; an officer then presented a letter from the Emperor Theodosius, to the effect that he had chosen the patrician Florentius to assist in the deliberations of the council. This appointment Flavianus had opposed to the best of his power, but in vain. The letter having been read, cheers were given for the emperor, and shortly after Florentius arrived. The acts of the preceding sessions were then read, and Eutyches was questioned as to whether he believed in a union of the two natures. In his answer he declared it to be his opinion that there were two distinct natures before the incarnation. Eusebius then inquired of him whether he confessed two natures in our Lord after the incarnation, and that He was of the same substance with mankind as to the flesh? Feeling himself in a strait, and hard pressed, he declared that he had not come there to dispute, but to give an account of his faith, and at the same time presented a paper, which he said contained the substance of his belief. Being told to read it to the council, he refused, and Flavianus then decided that it could not be received; upon which Eutyches said that he confessed that Jesus Christ incarnate was born of the blessed Virgin, and was made perfect man for our salvation.

Flavianus, however, wishing for a more precise declaration, demanded of him whether he believed our Lord to be consubstantial with His mother and with us, as to the flesh, and to be of two natures; the first point he confessed; as to the second, in answer to a question put to him by Florentius, he said that our Lord had been of two natures before the union, but that after the union he recognised one nature only. Basil of Seleucia then said, “If you do not admit two natures after the union, you admit a mixture and confusion of natures.” Eutyches was then told that he must anathematise every thing contrary to the doctrine which had just been read from St Cyril’s writings; this, however, he absolutely refused, saying that if he were wretched enough to do so, he should be anathematising the fathers, upon which all the bishops in council rose up, crying out that Eutyches himself was anathema. The sentence of the council was, that he should be deposed; but before pronouncing judgment, fresh entreaties were made to him to induce him to recognise in the Lord Jesus Christ two natures after the incarnation. Even Florentius exhorted him to confess the two natures. Eutyches, however, only replied to those entreaties by bidding them read certain writings, as he said, of St Athanasius,—probably some spurious work attributed to him, and perhaps written by Apollinaris. Since he would yield nothing, it was unanimously agreed that it was in vain to make any further attempts to persuade him, and his sentence was accordingly read by the priest Asterius.

The sentence was to the effect that Eutyches, having been fully convicted of following the errors of Valentinus and Apollinaris, was thenceforth entirely deprived of all ecclesiastical dignity, excluded from the communion of the Church, and deprived of his monastery; and that whoever would not withdraw from intercourse with him should be excommunicated. This sentence was signed by thirty or thirty-two bishops, and by twenty-three abbots. It is said that Eutyches, in a low voice, declared to Florentinus that he appealed to an œcumenical council, and that he gave to him, after the council was over, a petition to that effect. The condemnation of Eutyches was signed by the abbots of Constantinople, and by the eastern bishops; but the Egyptian monks rejected it. In the end, Eutyches prevailed upon the emperor to summon a council at Ephesus to try his case. [Latrocinium Ephesinum, 449.]

On the 9th of April, in the following year, the act of condemnation against Eutyches was confirmed in another council, consisting of thirty bishops.—Tom. iii. Conc. p. 1466 and 1470.

CONSTANTINOPLE (450). Held in 450, under Anatolius, the successor of Flavianus in the see of Constantinople, who had died of the injuries he received in the Latrocinium, or pseudo-council of Ephesus. All the bishops, abbots, priests, and deacons at the time in Constantinople were present. The letter of St Leo to Flavianus was read, together with the passages from the holy fathers which he adduced in support of his doctrine. Nestorius and Eutyches, together with their dogmas, were anathematised. The pope’s legates returned thanks to God that all the Church was thus unanimous in the true faith. Several of the bishops who had yielded to the violence of Dioscorus in the Latrocinium, were present in this assembly, and having testified their sorrow for what they had done, desired to condemn the act with its authors, in order to be received back into the communion of the Church; they were subsequently received into communion, and restored to the government of their respective churches.—Tom. iii. Conc. p. 1475.

CONSTANTINOPLE (459). Held in 459, under the Patriarch Gennadius, seventy-three bishops attending. One canon, against simony, and the synodical letter, without date, remains. The Eutychian heresy, there is good reason to believe, was also again condemned, and the church of the Anastasis or Resurrection, built by Marcian, the Œconomus, upon the site of that in which St Gregory Nazianzen delivered his celebrated orations, was consecrated.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1025.

CONSTANTINOPLE (478). Held in 478; in which Peter the Fuller, John of Apamæa, and Paul of Ephesus, were condemned.

CONSTANTINOPLE (518). Held on the 20th July, 518, under the Emperor Justin. The Patriarch John II. brought together in this council forty bishops of the neighbourhood. The abbots of the city, to the number of fifty-four, accompanied by a large concourse of the people, presented a petition, requesting that the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, and that of Pope Leo, should be inserted in the diptychs or sacred registers. All those persons who had been banished on account of these two patriarchs were recalled and re-established. The names of the fathers present in the first and œcumenical councils were also inserted in the diptychs. Severus of Antioch, and some others, were anathematised.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1586.

CONSTANTINOPLE (533). A conference was held in 533 between the Catholics and followers of Severus; the latter were silenced, and many of them returned into the Church.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1763.

CONSTANTINOPLE (536). Held in 536, by Pope Agapetus in person. Anthymus was there deposed, who, although bishop of another see, had been raised to the patriarchate of Constantinople, contrary to the canons, by the influence of the Empress Theodora. He had refused to make an open profession of the Catholic faith, being opposed to the Council of Chalcedon. Mennas, Abbot of the monastery of St Sampson in Constantinople, was consecrated in his stead by the pope.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE (536). Held in the same year by Mennas, by order of the Emperor Justinian, and attended by sixty bishops, and fifty-four abbots of monasteries in Constantinople.

In the first session, Anthymus was cited to appear within three days, and in the fifth, not having appeared, sentence of deposition was passed upon him. At the same council Severus of Antioch, Peter of Apamæa, and other Acephalists, were anathematised and banished by the emperor.—Tom. v. Conc. at the beginning.

CONSTANTINOPLE (538). Held about the year 538, according to Baronius, under Mennas. The edict of Justinian, anathematising Origen and the errors attributed to him, was approved. This condemnation of Origen gave occasion to Theodorus of Cesarea in Cappadocia, a follower of Origen, and secretly an Acephalist, to demand the condemnation of the three well-known chapters, containing, 1. The writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia; 2. The books which Theodoret of Cyrus wrote against the twelve anathemas of St Cyril; and 3. The letter of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, to one Maris, a Persian, concerning the Council of Ephesus, and the condemnation of Nestorius. Theodorus had flattered the Emperor Justinian, that if these three chapters were condemned, the sect of the Acephalists would rejoin the Church and acknowledge the Council of Chalcedon.

CONSTANTINOPLE (547). Held in 547; Pope Vigilius, who had been sent to Constantinople by Justinian, presided, at the head of seventy bishops. Facundus, Bishop of Hermium, in Africa, strongly defended the three chapters in this assembly. This council came to no decision, owing to the fearful divisions and disputes then raging, Justinian having just condemned the three chapters. So great was the scandal produced by this act, that Theodorus of Cesarea confessed that both Pelagius, the legate who had caused the condemnation of Origen, and himself, who had caused that of the three chapters, deserved to be burned alive for originating it. Subsequently, in 548, Vigilius gave his “judicatum,” by which he condemned three chapters, without prejudice to the Council of Chalcedon. This step, however, satisfied neither the friends nor the enemies of the three chapters, and the bishops of Africa and Illyricum refused to communicate with him until he had retracted his “judicatum.”—Tom. v. Conc. p. 390.

CONSTANTINOPLE (553). The fifth œcumenical council was held on the 4th of May 553, at Constantinople, summoned by the Emperor Justinian. The causes which led to the assembling of this council were principally these:—

I. The troubles excited by many of the monks with reference to the errors attributed to Origen.

II. The three chapters, and the edict of the emperor against them, drawn up by Theodorus of Cesarea; which the emperor required every bishop to subscribe under pain of banishment, but which many refused to sign, from an ill-rounded fear that by so doing they should impugn the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. To add to the troubles originating from this question, the pope had condemned these chapters in his “judicatum,” and for so doing had been excommunicated by some of the African bishops, the most celebrated of whom was Facundus, who composed a treatise in defence of the three chapters.

The council was opened on the 4th of May 553, in the cathedral. In the first and second sessions, which were styled conferences, Eutychius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who presided, Apollinaris of Alexandria, and Domnus of Antioch, were present, together with three bishops, deputies of Eustachius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem; there were in all one hundred and sixty-five bishops, amongst whom were five Africans, the only bishops who attended from the West.

The emperor’s edict upon the subject of the three chapters was read, May 4, in which the reasons for convoking the council were stated. In it he represents, that the four preceding œcumenical councils had been convoked by his predecessors; that the Nestorians, no longer daring to speak of Nestorius, had put forward:—1. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, his master, who had advanced blasphemies even worse than those of Nestorius; 2. The impious writings of Theodoret of Cyrus against St Cyril; and 3. The detestable letter of Ibas of Edessa, which two latter writings they pretended had been sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon. In conclusion, he says, “As there are still many persons who persist in adhering to these three impious chapters, we have called you together to this city, and exhort you to declare your opinion upon the subject.”

Besides this, the confession of faith given by Eutychius to Vigilius was read, together with the answer of the pope, and other letters, and means were proposed for inducing the latter, who was in Constantinople at the time, to come to the council.

In the second conference, May 8, the acts of the foregoing conference were read. The deputies sent to Pope Vigilius made their report of his answer, which was to the effect that being sick he could not attend the council, but that he would, after a time, send his written opinion of the three chapters to the emperor.

In the third, May 9, the bishops declared that they received the doctrine of the first four œcumenical councils, and that they adhered to that of the fathers; viz., of St Athanasius, St Hilary, St Basil, St Gregory Nazianzen, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Theophilus, St John Chrysostom, St Cyril, St Leo.

In the fourth conference, May 12, the question of the three chapters was entered upon, the first enquiry was made into the doctrine of Theodorus of Mopsuestia. Amongst other errors, he maintained that Jesus Christ is the image of God, that He is to be honoured as one would honour the image of an earthly prince; that He is but an adopted Son, like other men, &c., &c., &c. The fathers of the council, after hearing these repeated errors read, cried, “Anathema to Theodorus of Mopsuestia! Anathema to his writings! This creed was composed by Satan!”

After this fourth conference, Pope Vigilius gave his decree or Constitutum, addressed to the emperor, in which, first, he rejected the errors attributed to Theodorus; secondly, he undertook the defence of Theodoret of Cyrus, upon the ground that the fathers at Chalcedon had required nothing further from him than that he should anathematise Nestorius and his doctrine, which he had done; and thirdly, with respect to the letter of Ibas, he said that this bishop had been declared innocent and orthodox in that same council, although the fathers had not approved of such parts of his letter as were injurious to St Cyril. This constitutum was signed by sixteen bishops, but it had no effect, and was not read in the council.

In the next conference, May 13, certain extracts were first read from the books of St Cyril, directed against Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and other papers which the same Cyril had written in answer to what had been urged in his defence; then the question was agitated whether or not it was lawful to condemn those who were dead, and two passages (from St Cyril and St Augustine) were cited to prove that it was lawful. The example of Origen was alleged, who had been condemned by Theophilus at Alexandria. The second of the three chapters then came under discussion, and extracts were read from the works of Theodoret of Cyrus, proving that he had defended Nestorius and opposed St Cyril; at the same time it was remarked that Theodoret had anathematised Nestorius and his impious doctrine at Chalcedon.

In the sixth conference, May 19, were read the letter of Ibas, the acts of the Council of Ephesus approving the letters of St Cyril, and those of the Council of Chalcedon approving the letters of St Leo. Afterwards it was discussed whether the last-mentioned council had really approved of the letter of Ibas; the letter was compared with the creeds of the Church, and, amongst other things, this proposition, viz., “Those who maintain that the Word was incarnate, and made man, are heretics and Apollinarians.” The fathers declared that this was entirely contrary to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, and unanimously condemned it as heretical, but spared the memory of its writer.

In the following conference, May 26, the declarations which the Pope Vigilius had made to the emperor, anathematising the three chapters, were read, as well as the oath which he had taken to concur with all his power in the condemnation of those writings, and his letters to Valentinian and Aurelian, Bishop of Arles, to the same effect.

In the eighth and last conference, June 10, the sentence of the council condemning the three chapters was read; it is drawn up in these terms:

“We receive the four holy councils, of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; we teach according to their definition of the faith. We condemn Theodorus of Mopsuestia and his writings, together with the impieties written by Theodoret against the true faith, the twelve anathemas of St Cyril, and the Council of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in favour of Nestorius and Theodorus. We anathematise the impious letter said to have been written by Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian, which denies that the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, which accuses St Cyril of being an heretic and an Apollinarian, and which blames the Council of Ephesus for having deposed Nestorius without examination, and defends Theodorus and Theodoret. We, therefore, anathematise the three chapters, together with their defenders, who pretend to support them by the authority of the fathers and of the Council of Chalcedon.” Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus, about 380, was also condemned as a heretic.

The bishops, to the number of one hundred and sixty-five, subscribed this sentence.

To this sentence the fathers added fourteen anathemas, which contain in an abridged and theological form the doctrine of the Incarnation, as opposed to the errors which they had just condemned. Lastly, the authority of the Council of Chalcedon was solemnly confirmed, while the heresy of Eutyches and the doctrine of a confusion of natures in our Lord, were unequivocally condemned. The condemnation of Origen does not appear amongst the acts of this council which remain to us; it is, however, generally believed that his doctrines were condemned here, and the fifteen canons still extant, condemning the chief of his errors, and entitled “the canons of the one hundred and sixty fathers assembled in council at Constantinople,” are assigned to this synod.—See Le Quien, tom. iii. col. 210.

The acts of this council were approved by Pope Vigilius in the same year, as appears from his letter to the Patriarch Eutychius.

For a long time it was not received by the Churches of Africa, Spain, and France, from a false idea that its acts were repugnant to those of the Council of Chalcedon; and Pope Gregory the Great appears to have had no great veneration for this council for the same reason. In after years, when the truth of the question became more generally known, all Churches, both in the West and in the East, received this Council as œcumenical.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 411.

CONSTANTINOPLE (588). Held by the Patriarch John IV., surnamed Jejunator, who, in the letters of convocation addressed to the bishops of the whole East, styled himself œcumenical patriarch, a title which gave great offence to Pope St Gregory. The cause of this council was to examine into charges brought against Gregory of Antioch, who was accused of incest and other crimes, and was fully acquitted. Pelagius, who was then Bishop of Rome, was violently excited by this proud attempt of John, and wrote letters to the council annulling the title by his own mere will and authority, and threatening to excommunicate John.—See Cave on Pelagius, 2. tom. i. p. 536. Evagrius, lib. 6. c. 7.

CONSTANTINOPLE (680). The sixth and last œcumenical council was opened at Constantinople on the 7th November 680, and concluded on the 16th September 681. It was convened against the heresy of the Monothelites, by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, a secret favourer of the errors of Eutyches, was the author of this heresy, whereby he hoped to revive the false doctrine of a unity of natures. The heresy of the Monothelites consisted in acknowledging only one will and one operation in our Lord Jesus Christ, after the union of the Divine and human natures. Now this error destroyed the perfection of His human nature, which it assumed to be deprived of will and operation; and it was impossible to maintain this doctrine without denying our Lord to be truly man.

Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, set himself strenuously against this heresy, and assembled a council at Jerusalem, from which he wrote a letter to the bishops of the chief sees, declaring his faith. He laboured to prove the unity of person in opposition to Nestorius, and the distinction of natures in opposition to Eutyches; then he established the true doctrine of the Church upon the subject of the two operations and two wills. “For,” said he, “as each nature preserves its own properties, so each operates that which is proper to itself, since natures are known only by their operation.”

St Maximus, Abbot of the monastery of Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon, was also a strenuous defender of this article of the Catholic faith, and laid down his life in its defence; as also did Pope Martin, who, having been exiled by the Emperor Constans for his opposition to the Monothelite heresy, died in banishment.

Pope Agatho having been informed of the convocation of this council, sent thither four deputies, two priests, a deacon and subdeacon, with sound instructions. Agatho, in his letter to the council, declares: “Sperabamus deinde de Britannia, Theodorum confamulam atque coepiscopum nostrum, magnæ insulæ Britanniæ archiepiscopum et philosophum, cum aliis, qui ibidem hactenus demorantur, exinde ad humilitatem nostram conjungere, et hac de causâ hue usque concilium distulimus.” John, Bishop of Reggio, in Naples, was a papal legate here. John, Bishop of Thessalonica, and papal vicar apostolical in Illyria, is also said to have been legate in this council. These instructions lay down in the clearest manner the Catholic doctrine, proving by authority of holy Scripture and of the Catholic fathers that as the Three Persons in the blessed Trinity have but one nature, so have they but one will; but that two natures being in Jesus Christ, He also hath two operations and two wills.

The sittings of the council, in number, eighteen, took place in a chapel in the palace, called in Latin, Trullus, i.e., the dome. The number of bishops present is variously stated; the Greek annals speak of two hundred and eighty-nine; Photius, in his book “de Synodis,” says one hundred and seventy; Paul, the Deacon, one hundred and fifty. The whole number of bishops, and of priests and deacons acting as deputies, who subscribed, was one hundred. The Roman legates and the representatives of the see of Jerusalem sat on the left hand, being the place of chief dignity; George I., the Patriarch of Constantinople, Macarius of Antioch, and the representatives of the see of Alexandria, then vacant, on the right. On a raised seat sat the Emperor Constantine with his officers; and in the midst of the assembly, as was usual, were placed the holy gospels, upon a raised and highly ornamented stand, representing Christ Himself.

In the first session, November 7th, the emperor was present with thirteen of his officers. Only about forty bishops attended this first sitting, the others not having been able to reach Constantinople in time. The legates of the pope were the first to address the council, showing that forty years before, Sergius of Constantinople had originated this heresy, which had also been encouraged by other patriarchs his successors, viz., Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. Macarius of Antioch, the leader of the Monothelite party in the council, answered them; and, in support of his views, requested that the acts of Ephesus might be read; with which, and the remarks of the two parties upon the various passages as they occurred, the time of the first session was consumed.

The second session was held on the 10th of November. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon were read, containing the letter of St Leo to Flavianus, in which he writes: “Each nature performs that which is proper to itself with the participation of the other. The Word operates in that which belongs to the Word, and the flesh in that which belongs to the flesh.” To this Macarius of Antioch and those of his party had no solid answer to give.

In the third session, November 13th, the preface to the acts of the fifth œcumenical council was read; and the pope’s legates complained that one passage had been falsified by the Monothelites, and that Pope Vigilius had been made to say that there was but one operation in Jesus Christ. Upon which the emperor and many of the bishops having examined into the matter, and found it to be so, the reading of the preface was ordered to be omitted, and the acts of the council to be read; this was accordingly done, and nothing to favour the notions of the Monothelites having been found, the emperor ordered that Macarius and his adherents should prove their doctrine (according to their promise) from the fathers.

On the 15th November the letters of Pope Agatho to the two emperors, and that of the Roman council to the assembly at Constantinople, were read. Several documents which had been falsified by the Monothelites were verified, especially those relating to the fifth œcumenical council.

In the fifth session, December 10th, Macarius produced certain passages from the fathers, by which he pretended to prove that Jesus Christ has but one will identical with that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.

In the following session, February 12th, a complaint was urged to the emperor, that Macarius had corrupted the passages adduced, and leave was demanded to compare them with the original works, from which those passages had been extracted.

In the seventh session, February 13th, the legate of the pope produced a collection from the fathers, proving the doctrine of two wills and two operations, which were read, whereupon George and Macarius asked leave to compare those passages with their own copies of the authors.

In the following session, 7th of March, 681, the Patriarch George, of Constantinople, declared that he had compared the passages, adduced in the last session, with the originals, and found them to be correct; upon which he, together with the bishops in his obedience, declared that they received the two letters of Agatho and his council, and that they confessed two wills and two operations. Macarius of Antioch, however, refused to do the same; and being, moreover, convicted of having falsified the passages which he had brought forward in the fifth session, as from the fathers, in support of his heresy, he was subsequently anathematised as a new Dioscorus, and stripped of his pall.

The examination of the passages adduced from the fathers having been concluded, March 8th, the council addressed itself to Stephen, a monk, and follower of Macarius, to this effect: “So far are you and your master, Macarius, from having proved but one will in Jesus Christ, that we find that St Athanasius clearly teaches two wills, although you have garbled his words according to your wont; and accordingly, have been convicted of corrupting the doctrines of the fathers, we declare you stripped of all your dignities, and of your sacerdotal office.”

In the following session, March 18th, by order of the emperor, the collection of passages from the fathers, made by the Roman legates, proving the two wills and two operations in Jesus Christ, was read, and when compared with the originals found to be correct; it consisted of thirty-nine passages taken out of thirteen fathers.

The letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem to Sergius was read, March 20th, as were also some heretical writings of Macarius and his disciples.

The emperor named four magistrates to appear at the council for him, March 22nd. By this time the number of bishops present had increased to eighty. The letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius (also a Monothelite), and the answer of the latter was read, as was also a letter from Sergius to Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, who, together with Sergius, had advised the Emperor Heraculius to publish the Ecthesis in 638. Notaries were sent to Macarius to take his recognition of his writings, which he confessed to be his own. The bishops then demanded that he should be banished from Constantinople, and another elected into his patriarchate.

In the thirteenth session, March 28th, judgment was pronounced in these words: “Having examined the letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus, and the answer of Honorius to Sergius, and having found them to be repugnant to the doctrine of the apostles, and to the opinion of all the fathers; in execrating their impious dogmas, we judge that their very names ought to be banished from the holy Church of God; we declare them to be smitten with anathema; and, together with them, we judge that Honorius, formerly pope of ancient Rome, be anathematised, since we find in his letter to Sergius, that he follows in all respects his error, and authorises his impious doctrine.

In the fourteenth session, April 2nd, the investigation into the falsification of the acts of the fifth œcumenical council (viz., Constantinople, A.D. 553) was proceeded with, (see third session), and the bishops having examined the original documents relating to the seventh session, they discovered that the pretended discourse of Mennas to Vigilius was interpolated, as well as that of Vigilius to Justinian. The council then unanimously anathematised those who had been guilty of the act, together with all who taught one will and one operation only in Jesus Christ.

Held on the 26th April. In this session, Polychronius, a priest and monk, accused of maintaining the errors of Macarius, was called upon to explain his faith, and his explanation being altogether unsatisfactory, he was deposed from the priesthood, both as a manifest heretic, and as an impostor, in that he had dared to tempt the Holy Spirit, by saying that he would raise one from the dead in confirmation of his doctrine, and by vainly endeavouring to do so, in the presence of the members of the council and the populace.

In the sixteenth session, on the 9th of August, Constantine, a priest of the Church of Apamæa, in Syria, was heard in defence of his faith; he was found to follow the error of Macarius, and was driven from the council.

In the seventeenth session, they agreed upon a definition of faith.

In the last session, September 16th, the emperor himself was again present, and more than one hundred and sixty bishops. The definition of faith was read; it declares that the council adheres to the five preceding œcumenical councils, and the creeds of Nicea and Constantinople; it condemns the authors of the Monothelite heresy, naming the following, Theodorus of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, Bishops of Constantinople, Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, and Stephen, his disciple; that it receives the synodical letters of Pope Agatho and the one hundred and twenty-five bishops assembled at Rome from Italy, France, and Britain. It further explains the mystery of the incarnation, and declares that there are in Jesus Christ two natural wills and two natural operations, without division, conversion, or confusion, or opposition, and forbids to teach any other doctrine under penalty of deposition, if a clerk, and of anathema if a layman.

After this, the anathemas against the heretics were reiterated, without any exception in favour of Pope Honorius; the legate and one hundred and sixty-five bishops subscribed their hands thereto, and the definition of faith was confirmed unanimously.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 587. Hammond’s Canons of the Church. Palmer’s Treatise on the Church.

CONSTANTINOPLE (691). Held in the autumn of the year 691. This council is commonly known as the council “in Trullo,” from the circumstance of its having been held in the “Dome” chapel of the palace; it has also received the name of “Concilium Quinisextum,” as having been in some sort supplementary to the fifth and sixth councils, in which no canons of discipline were published. Cave asserts boldly its claim to be regarded as Œcumenical, and brings forward, amongst other, the following arguments: (1) that the Synod itself laid claim to the title of Œcumenical in its acts; (2) that it was lawfully convoked by the emperor, who called together the bishops from all parts; (3) the very nature of many of the canons enacted which are applicable not only to this or that particular church but to the universal Church, others, by name, apply to the African and Roman Churches, enactments which would have been simply ridiculous had not the council been conscious of universal authority; (4) the opinion generally entertained of the authority of this council by those who lived near the time of its celebration. He then meets the objection that no bishops attended from the West, and that the pope was not represented in it, by showing that Basilius, Archbishop of Gortynia, and the Archbishop of Ravenna were present as legates of the Apostolic see.

In this council one hundred and two canons, forming together a complete body of discipline, were published. In the first, the council declared its adherence to the apostolic faith, as defined by the first six œcumenical councils, and condemned those persons and errors which in them had been condemned.

In the second, the canons which they received and confirmed were set forth, viz., the eighty-five canons attributed to the apostles, those of Nicea, Ancyra, Neocesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicæa, and those of the œcumenical councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, also those of the Councils of Sardica and Carthage, and those of Constantinople, under Nectarius and Theophilus; further, they approved the canonical epistles of St Dionysius of Alexandria, of St Athanasius, St Basil of Cesarea, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Gregory the divine, St Amphilochius of Iconium, of Saints Timothy, Theophilus, and Cyril of Alexandria, of Gennadius, and lastly a canon of St Cyprian.

Canon 3. Enacts that all priests and deacons who, being married to a second wife, refuse to repent, shall be deposed; that those whose second wives are dead, or who have repented, and live in continence, shall be forbidden to serve at the altar, and to exercise any priestly function in future, but shall retain their rank; that those who have married widows, or who have married after ordination, shall be suspended for a short time, and then restored, but shall never be promoted to a higher order.

7. Restrains the arrogance of deacons; forbids them to take precedence of priests whatever ecclesiastical office they may hold.

9. Forbids clerks to keep taverns.

11. Forbids familiarity with Jews.

13. Allows (notwithstanding the decrees of the Roman Church to the contrary) that married men, when raised to holy orders, should keep their wives and cohabit with them, excepting on those days on which they are to celebrate the holy communion; and declares that no person who is otherwise fit for and desirous of ordinations, shall be refused on account of his being married, and that no promise shall be extorted from him at the time of ordination, to abstain from his wife, lest God’s holy institution of matrimony be thereby dishonoured; orders further, that they who shall dare to deprive any priest, deacon, or subdeacon of this privilege, shall be deposed, and that, also, any priest or deacon separating from his wife on pretence of piety, shall, if he persist, be deposed.

14. Enacts that men be not ordained priests before they are thirty years of age, nor deacons before twenty-five. Deaconesses to be forty.

15. Subdeacons to be twenty.

17. Forbids clerks to go from one church to another.

19. Orders those who preside over churches to teach the people at least every Sunday; forbids them to explain Scripture otherwise than the lights of the Church and the doctors have done in their writings. This is said to be the first trace of the Theologal.

21. Orders that deposed clerks, who remain impenitent, shall be stripped of every outward mark of their clerical state, and be regarded as men of the world; those who are penitent are permitted to retain the tonsure.

22. Against simony.

23. Forbids to require any fee for administering the holy communion.

24. Forbids all in the sacerdotal order to be present at plays, and orders such as have been invited to a wedding, to rise and depart before anything ridiculous is introduced.

32. Declares that in some parts of Armenia water was not mixed with the wine used at the altar, condemns the novel practice; sets forth the foundation for the catholic use, and orders that every bishop and priest who refuses to mix water with the wine “according to the order handed down to us by the apostles,” shall be deposed. (See C. ARMENIA.)

36. Decrees that the see of Constantinople, according to the canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon, shall have equal privileges with the throne of old Rome.

40, 41. Of those who shall be admitted into the monastic state.

42. Of hermits.

The five following relate to the religious.

48. Orders that the wife of one who has been raised to the episcopate, having first separated from her husband of her own free-will, shall be kept, at the bishop’s expense, in a monastery far from him, or shall be promoted to the diaconate.

53. Forbids a man to marry her to whose children by a deceased husband he has become god-father.

55. Forbids any to fast on Saturdays and Sundays, even during Lent.

56. Forbids to eat eggs or cheese in Lent.

57. Forbids to offer milk and honey at the altar.

58. Forbids a lay person to take himself the holy mysteries, when there is a bishop, priest, or deacon present; offenders to be separated for a week, “that they may be thereby taught not to be wiser than they ought to be.”

64. Forbids lay persons to teach, and bids them rather learn of others who have received the grace to teach.

66. Orders all the faithful, for seven days after Easter, to occupy themselves at church in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.

67. Forbids to eat the blood of any animal; offenders, if clerks, to be deposed.

68. Forbids injury to any of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

69. Forbids lay persons to enter within the altar rails.

72. Forbids marriage with heretics.

73. Forbids the use of the cross upon the ground, lest by treading on it men should dishonour it.

74. Forbids to celebrate the Agapæ in churches.

75. Relates to the manner of singing psalms to be observed.

80. Expressly forbids to represent our Lord under the figure of a lamb.

83. Forbids to administer the holy Eucharist to dead bodies.

84. Orders the baptism of those of whose baptism there exists any doubt.

88. Forbids to take any beast into a church, unless in case of great need a traveller be compelled to do so.

89. Orders the faithful to observe Good Friday with fasting and prayer, and compunction of heart, until the middle of the night of the great Sabbath.

90. Forbids to kneel at church from Saturday night to Sunday night.

111. Of penance and absolution.

The Emperor Justinian first subscribed these canons. Then the four patriarchs signed, viz., Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch, successor of Macarius. Then followed all the other bishops, to the number of two hundred and eleven. A vacant place was also left for the signature of Pope Sergius 1st, to whom the emperor forwarded a copy of the acts of the council; the pope, however, obstinately refused to subscribe them, pretending that the council was null and void. Some of the canons were subsequently approved by Rome, whilst others were condemned.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1124.

CONSTANTINOPLE (715). Held in the year 715, by Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, against Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, John, and other Monothelites.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1451.

CONSTANTINOPLE (730). Held in January 730, against the use of images, by the Emperor Leo, one of the most violent and intemperate opponents of the practice of adorning churches, &c., with images and pictures. A decree was published not only against the abuse, but against the use of them, which the emperor endeavoured to compel Germanus the patriarch to subscribe, and upon his refusal he was forcibly expelled from his see, and Anastasius set up in his place.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1461.

CONSTANTINOPLE (754). Held in 754, upon the same subject, by the Emperor Constantine Copronymus. It consisted of three hundred and thirty-eight oriental bishops, and assumed the title of œcumenical; no patriarch was present, nor any deputies from the great sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. A decree was published, condemning not only the worship and undue veneration of images, &c., but enjoining the absolute rejection, from every church, of every image or picture of what kind soever, and forbidding all persons to make such in future, or to set them up in any church or private house, under pain, if a bishop, priest, or deacon, of deposition, if a layman or monk, of anathema, over and above the punishment enjoined by the imperial edicts. At the same time Germanus of Constantinople, George of Cyprus, and John Damascenus, who had by their writings defended the use of images, were anathematised. To this decree they added several articles, in the form of canons, with anathema.

This council, the proceedings of which were, at the very least, uncharitable, and at variance with the ancient practice of the Church, has, with the preceding, never been recognised by the Western Church.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1661. Palmer’s Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 200.

CONSTANTINOPLE (786). Held on the 2nd August 786, by the Inconoduli, but broken by the violence of the opposite party.—Ignatius in vita Tarasii.

CONSTANTINOPLE (815). Held in 815, by the Iconoclasts, under the Emperor Leo; the abbots of Constantinople excused themselves from attending, and the monks deputed to bear to the council their reasons for so doing were driven from the assembly; also those of the bishops who differed in opinion from the dominant party, were trampled upon and maltreated. The council condemned the acts of the second Council of Nicea, A.D. 787, and decreed that all paintings in churches should be defaced everywhere, the sacred vessels destroyed, as well as all Church ornaments. This council has never been recognised by the Western Church.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1299.

CONSTANTINOPLE (842). Held in 842, by the Emperor Michael and Theodora his mother. In this council the second Council of Nicea was confirmed, the Iconoclasts anathematised, images restored to the churches, the Patriarch John deposed, and Methodius elected in his stead. In memory of this council the Greek Church still keeps the first Sunday in Lent, which corresponds with our Quinquagesima (the day on which it was held), holy, as the festival of orthodoxy.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1782. Le Quien (Or Christ), vol. i. p. 244.

CONSTANTINOPLE (858). Held in 858, by the bishops of the province of Constantinople on account of the banishment of Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the Cesar Bardas, to whom he had justly refused communion after having charitably warned him of the scandal occasioned by his irregular life. They deposed Photius, who had been intruded into the see, with anathema, as well against himself as against all who should dare to acknowledge him to be patriarch. This Photius was one of the most learned and able men of his age, but led astray by his boundless ambition; by his artifices he procured his election to the patriarchate, although a layman, and was consecrated by Gregory Asbesta, the deposed Bishop of Syracuse, December 25, 857. Forty days after his consecration he held a council, in which sentence of deposition and anathema was pronounced against Ignatius and his followers; and in 861 he convoked another council, at which three hundred and eighteen bishops (including the pope’s legates) attended, together with the Emperor Michael and a large number of lords and people. To this council Ignatius, having been cited, refused to come, protesting against its irregularity, but some days afterwards he was seized and forcibly brought before it. After a sort of mock trial, he was condemned, and sentence of deposition passed upon him; he was then imprisoned, and subjected to great cruelties. The pope, it should be added, had been deceived into sending legates to this council, and the latter, when at Constantinople, by threats were forced to yield an assent to the proceedings of the council. Ignatius subsequently, in order to deliver himself from the cruelties which he endured, signed (or rather was forced to sign) a confession declaring that he had been unlawfully elevated to the see; after this he was delivered from prison, and escaped from Constantinople. Photius then wrote an artful letter to Pope Nicholas to induce him to recognise his elevation to the patriarchate, which he, however, refused to do, and held a council at Rome (863), in which Zachary, one of the legates who attended the pseudo-council of Photius, was excommunicated, the other remanded, and Photius himself condemned and deposed. (See C. ROME, 863.) Upon this Photius, in 866, called together another assembly, wherein the Emperors Michael and Basil presided, together with the legates of the three great Eastern sees, in which, after hearing witnesses against Nicholas the Pope, sentence of deposition and excommunication was pronounced against him. Twenty-one bishops signed this sentence, and about one thousand false signatures were said to have been added. After so bold a step it was impossible to keep up appearances with Rome any longer, and he wrote a circular letter to the Oriental bishops, in which he dared to charge with error the whole Western Church. Amongst other accusations, he charged the Latins with adding the word “Filioque” to the original creed. Subsequently, Michael died, and the Emperor Basil succeeding to the sole power, Ignatius was restored to his see, and Photius driven away.—Tom. viii. Conc. pp. 651–2, 695, 735.

CONSTANTINOPLE (867). Held in 867. In this council Photius was deposed and driven into banishment. Ignatius, by a decree of the Emperor Basil, having been restored to the see.—Pagi.

CONSTANTINOPLE (869). Held in 869, by the Emperor Basil, and attended by about one hundred Eastern bishops, and by three legates from Pope Adrian II.

The council was opened on the 5th October in the church of St Sophia. The pope’s legates, who had been received by the emperor with the most marked attention and honour, had the first seats assigned to them; the legates of the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem were also present. The first bishops who entered the council-chamber were the twelve who had suffered persecution from Photius in the cause of Ignatius; then the pope’s letters to the emperor and to the patriarch were read, also the form of reconciliation which the Roman legates had brought with them.

In the second session, October 7, the bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons who had yielded to Photius, appeared, and testified their repentance, urging, at the same time, in excuse, the evils that they had been made to suffer.

In the third and fourth sessions, October 11 and 13, Theophilus and Zachary were questioned. The legates from Antioch declared that Photius had never been acknowledged by the Church of Antioch. Also a letter from the pope to the Emperor Michael was read.

Fifth session, October 20. Photius himself was brought before the council, and questioned. Being required to submit to the council and to Ignatius, in order to be received into lay communion, he refused to give a definite answer, and was withdrawn.

In the sixth session, October 25, the Emperor Basilius was present, and occupied the chief place. Several bishops who took part with Photius were introduced, and exhorted to renounce their schism; they, however, continued firm in their fidelity to him, and Zachary, Bishop of Chalcedon, in a long oration, defended Photius from the charges brought against him. The emperor himself, at some length, endeavoured to persuade them to renounce Photius and to submit to Ignatius, but they resolutely refused. Ten days were granted them in which to consider of the matter.

In the seventh session, October 29, Photius again appeared, and with him Gregory of Syracuse; an admonition to himself and his partisans was read, exhorting them, under pain of anathema, to submit to the council. Photius merely answered, that he had nothing to say in reply to calumnies, whereupon the legates directed the sentence of excommunication against Photius and Gregory to be read.

In the eighth session, November 5, the acts of the council against Ignatius, and several of the books written by Photius, were burned; anathema was pronounced against the Iconoclasts, and finally, the sentence of anathema against Photius was repeated.

The ninth session was held three months afterwards, February 12, 870. The false witnesses whom the Emperor Michael, at the instigation of Photius, had brought forward to give evidence against Ignatius, were put to penance. In this session, the emperor was not present, but the legate of the Patriarch of Alexandria attended.

In the tenth and last session, February 28, the Emperor Basil attended, with his son, Constantine, twenty patricians, the three ambassadors of Louis, Emperor of Italy and France, and those of Michael, King of Bulgaria; also a hundred bishops were present. They acknowledged seven preceding œcumenical councils, and declared this to be the eighth. The condemnation pronounced by the Popes Nicholas and Adrian against Photius was confirmed. Twenty-seven canons, which had been drawn up in the previous sessions, were read; they were chiefly directed against Photius:

3. Enjoins the worship of the sacred image of our Lord equally with the books of the Holy Gospels (æquo honore cum libris S. E.); also orders the worship of the cross and of images of saints.

7. Forbids persons labouring under anathema to paint the holy images.

11. Anathematises all who believed with Photius that the body contains two souls.

12. Forbids princes to meddle in the election of bishops.

13. Orders that the higher ranks in each Church shall be filled by the ecclesiastics of that Church, and not by strangers.

16. Reprobates the sacrilegious use made of the holy vestments and garments by the Emperor Michael, who employed them in profane shows and games.

21. Enjoins reverence to all the patriarchs, especially to the pope, and declares that even in an œcumenical synod, any matter of complaint or doubt involving the Roman Church should be treated with suitable reverence, without presuming to pass any sentence against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

Further, a definition of faith was published in the name of the council, with anathema against all heretics, especially naming Monothelites and Iconoclasts.

The acts of this council were subscribed, in the first place, by the three legates of the pope (the emperor, through humility, refusing to sign first), then by the Patriarch Ignatius, and after him by Joseph, legate of Alexandria, Thomas, Archbishop of Tyre, who represented the vacant see of Antioch, and the Legate of Jerusalem, then by the emperor and his two sons Constantine and Leo, and lastly by one hundred and one bishops.

This council has not the slightest claim to be considered œcumenical; it was, indeed, anulled in the following council, and has always been rejected by the Eastern Church.—Tom. viii. Conc. p. 962.

CONSTANTINOPLE (879). Held in 879, by the Emperor Basil, upon the restoration of Photius to the patriarchate of Constantinople, vacated by the death of Ignatius. The legates of Pope John VIII., and of all the Eastern patriarchs, attended, with not less than three hundred and eighty bishops.

In the first session Photius presided; the legate of John, Cardinal Peter, declared the pope’s willingness to recognise Photius as his brother, and produced the presents which he had brought for the latter from Rome. Much was said by Zacharias, Bishop of Chalcedon, and others, in praise of Photius, which was greatly applauded by the assembly.

In the second session, November 16, the letter of the pope to the emperor, translated into Greek, was read, those parts which were unfavourable to Photius having been altered. The council received the pope’s letter relating to union with Photius, but rejected that which claimed Bulgaria as belonging to the Roman obedience. The letter of the pope to Photius was then read, that part, however, being suppressed which declared that Photius ought to have consulted him before returning to the see of Constantinople, and to have asked pardon in full council. The bishops declared that no force or violence had been used by Photius, in order to procure his re-establishment in the see, and that all had been done quietly and in order; afterwards, Photius himself spoke, declaring that he had been elevated to the patriarchate against his own will, to which the whole council assented. This done, the letters of the Eastern patriarchs to the emperor and to Photius were read, being all highly favourable to the latter, acknowledging him to be the lawful patriarch of Constantinople, and inveighing against the synod of 869.

In the third session, November 18, the letter of John VIII. to the Church of Constantinople was first read, then the acts of all previous councils condemning Photius were annulled, the council declaring, “We reject and anathematise that pretended council (the preceding) in uniting ourselves to the Patriarch Photius.”

In the following session, Christmas Eve, the letter of Theodosius I., the Patriarch of Antioch, to Photius, was read; it was approved by the council, which declared that the Eastern sees had all along recognised Photius. Afterwards, the articles of union were discussed; they were five, 1, respecting Bulgaria, concerning which nothing was determined; 2, relating to the consecration of laymen to the see of Constantinople; 3, forbidding the election of any person to the patriarchate of Constantinople from another Church; 4, condemning all the councils held against Photius; 5, excommunicating all who refused to communicate with Photius. The last four were unanimously approved.

In the fifth session, January 26, the second Council of Nicea was approved, and received as œcumenical. After the publication of certain canons, the bishops present proceeded to subscribe the acts of the council, the Roman legates being the first, who declared that they acknowledged Photius to be the legitimate patriarch, that they rejected the Council of Constantinople in 869, against him, and that if any schismatics should still separate themselves from Photius, their lawful pastor, they ought to be excluded from communion, until they would return to obedience.

The sixth session, March 10, was held in the palace; the Emperor Basil was present. Here it was agreed to follow the decisions of the seven œcumencial councils in drawing up a profession of faith; thereby, in fact, condemning the addition of the words “Filioque.”

In the seventh and last session, held on Sunday, March 13, in the church, the definition of faith agreed to in the former session, was read and subscribed, after which the council was dissolved.

The acts of this council were subscribed by the emperor. This council was rejected by the Western Church. John VIII., very shortly after, sent Marinus, his legate, to Constantinople, to revoke his consent to its proceedings, and to declare his concurrence in the sentence of excommunication previously passed against Photius. Neither does it seem to have been universally received in the East.—Tom. ix. Conc. pp. 324, 329.

CONSTANTINOPLE (901). Held about 901, by the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus, in which he condemned the marriage of the Emperor Leo VI. with his fourth wife Zoe, as contrary to the law of the Episcopalian Church—deposed Thomas, a priest, who celebrated, and forbad the emperor to enter the church.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1054). Held in June 1054, by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius. In this council the great schism between the Greek and Roman Churches was (as it were) consummated. Cerularius had previously written a letter in his own name and that of Leo, Archbishop of Acrida, to John, Bishop of Trani, in Apulia, in which he publicly accused the Latin Church of error. Amongst other things laid to their charge was the use of unleavened bread in the holy communion; single immersion in holy baptism; the use of signs by bishops, &c. To this letter Leo IX. returned an angry answer, and held a council at Rome, in which the Greek Churches were excommunicated. The emperor, however, was anxious to appease matters, and by his order, Leo sent three legates to Constantinople, Cardinal Humbertus, Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi, and Frederick, Chancellor of the Church of Rome (afterwards Stephen IX.), who, by their own conduct, fully seconded the arrogance of the pope, and in 1054, in the Church of St Sophia, solemnly excommunicated Michael Cerularius and Leo of Acrida, with all their adherents; and leaving a written document to this effect upon the altar, departed, shaking off the dust from their feet. Upon this, Michael called together this council, in which he excommunicated the three legates with all those who adhered to their views.

The jealousy with which the bishops of Rome regarded the claim of the patriarchs of Constantinople to the supremacy over the Churches of their own obedience, was the true cause of this rupture.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1084). A council was held by Nicholas III., the patriarch, about the year 1084, in which the decree made in the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 842, in favour of the use of images, was confirmed. Symeon, Patriarch of Jerusalem, twenty-three archbishops and bishops, together with many hegumens of monasteries, were present. The case of Leo, Archbishop of Chalcedon, was discussed, and his opinion unanimously condemned, which was to the effect that an “absolute” worship, and not merely “relative,” was due to the holy images. Leo himself submitted to the decision of the council, retracted, and was admitted to communion. Leo also had accused the Emperor Alexius Comnenus of the Iconoclast heresy, because he had broken up the sacred vessels of gold, on which images were sculptured, in order to coin them into money for defraying the expenses of the war.—La Quien, t. i. p. 265.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1118). Held in 1118, under John IX., in which the sect of the Bogomili was condemned, and its leader, Basilius, anathematised and sentenced to be burned.

This sect took its rise in Bulgaria. Like the Massalians in earlier times, they attributed an excessive importance to prayer, and walked about perpetually muttering prayer to themselves; the Lord’s prayer they repeated seven times every day, and five times in the night, many of them very much more frequently. From this habit of much praying, they derived the name of Bogomili, which in the Sclavonic language means, “God have mercy upon us.” In their heretical notions they resembled the Manichæans and Paulicians, which last sect arose about the same time. They affected an appearance of extreme sanctity, and wore the monkish dress. Their leader, Basilius, a physician, had twelve principal followers whom he designated his Apostles, and also some women, who went about spreading the poison of his doctrine everywhere.

Basilius, when before the council, refused to deny his doctrine, and declared that he was willing to endure any torment, and death itself. One peculiar notion of this sect was, that no torment could affect them, and that the angels would deliver them even from the fire. Basilius himself was burnt in this year. Several of his followers, when seized, retracted; others, amongst whom were some of those whom he called his apostles, were kept in prison and died there.

Several councils were held upon this subject.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1143). Held on the 20th August 1143, by the Patriarch Michael Oxytes, in which the consecration of two bishops, Clemens and Leontius, performed by the metropolitan alone, was declared to be null and void. They were further condemned as favourers of the sect of the Bogomili.—Leo Allat. Const. l. 11, c. 12, p. 671.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1143). Held about 1143. Nyphon, a monk (who had been sentenced in a previous council to be imprisoned until further evidence could be procured against him), was condemned for blasphemy; amongst other things, for saying “Anathema to the God of the Hebrews.” He was put into prison, and remained there during the patriarchate of Michael.—Leo Allat. Const. p. 681. Mansi, note, Baronius, A.D. 1143, Tom. xviii.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1150). Held in 1150, by the Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1156). Held in 1156, under the Patriarch, Lucas Chrysoberges; in which the errors of Soterichus Panteugenus, the patriarch elect of Antioch, and of some others, were condemned. They asserted that the sacrifice upon the Cross, and the unbloody sacrifice of the altar, were offered to the Father and to the Holy Spirit alone, and not also to the Word, the Son of God. The origin of this error seems to have been the fear of admitting the Nestorian doctrine of two persons in Jesus Christ. In a subsequent sitting, Soterichus confessed his error, but was judged unworthy of the priesthood.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1166). Held in 1166 or 1167, on the case of the Alamanui, residing in Constantinople, whom certain of the Greeks accused of heresy, in teaching that the Son is inferior to the Father because of His assumption of the Manhood. The Synod declared in favour of the Alamanui.—Joh. Cinnamus. Hist., lib. 6. n. 2.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1171). Held in 1171, by Michael Auchialus the Patriarch. Five canons were published, one of which enacts that clerks coming from one diocese shall not be ordained in any other.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1262). Held in 1262, by the Emperor Michael Paleologus, to deliberate upon the recall of Arsenius I. the Patriarch, who had withdrawn from Constantinople. The circumstances of the case were as follows:—Arsenius (Autorianus) was a monk of Mount Athos, who had been raised to the office of Patriarch of Constantinople by the Emperor Theodorus Lascaris the younger, in 1255. Upon the death of the latter, Michael Paleologus was, in the absence of Arsenius, appointed regent, and shortly after having been associated in the imperial dignity with the young Emperor John, Arsenius was obliged, against his own wishes, to crown him; this, however, he did only upon condition that John should hold the first rank. Subsequently, seeing that this condition was not fulfilled, and that Michael was going on in an ill course, he withdrew from his see; to which Michael immediately appointed Nicephorus of Ephesus in 1260, who died in 1262, when Michael convoked this council to consider about the expediency of recalling Arsenius. After some debate, in the course of which some of the bishops present maintained that Arsenius had not lawfully and canonically vacated the see; and others that he had sufficiently signified his abdication by his words and actions; it was resolved to send a deputation from the council to Arsenius, to entreat him to return, which he subsequently did, the emperor promising to forget all that had passed.—Or. Christ. Tom. i. p. 282.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1266). Held in 1266, by the same Michael Paleologus, in which the Patriarch Arsenius was deposed and banished. Arsenius, after his recall in 1262, had given offence to the emperor by refusing to acknowledge the consecration of Nicephorus to the patriarchate during his absence; and subsequently learning that Michael had cruelly put out the eyes of the young Emperor John, he had boldly excommunicated him, and cut him off from the Church. Upon this Michael grievously persecuted him, and he was in this synod excommunicated deposed, and banished, and Germanus set up in his place, to whom succeeded Joseph. This caused a schism amongst the Greeks of Constantinople, most of them refusing to acknowledge Joseph; Arsenius died in banishment in 1273.—Or. Christ. Tom. i. pp. 283–4.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1277). Held in 1277, in which John Veccus or Beccus, who succeeded Joseph I. in the patriarchate, made profession of the faith as held by the Church of Rome, and excommunicated those of the Greeks who refused to return into union with that Church. A long synodal letter was written to the pope, humbly deploring the division of the two Churches, acknowledging the primacy of Rome, and confessing the Latin faith. This, however, was not done without great opposition, and a new schism arose.—Tom. xi. Conc. pp. 1032, 1037.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1280). Held on the 3rd May 1280, by the same Patriarch, John Veccus, at which eight metropolitans and eight archbishops were present. A passage was read from the writings of St Gregory of Nyssa, in which the following words occur, “Spiritus vero Sanctus et a Patre dicitur et ex Filio esse affirmatur.” The word “ex,” it appeared, had been wilfully erased, and thus the sense of the passage was altered, which, otherwise, would have assisted towards the re-establishment of union between the Churches, since it tended to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. The zeal of Veccus for a reunion with Rome, and in favour of the Latin faith, brought upon him the ill-will of the Greeks.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1125.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1283). Held in 1283, in which the Patriarch Veccus was condemned: and in a council held in the following year, in the palace of Blaquemæ, the celebrated treaty of union agreed upon in the Council of Lyons in 1274, and publicly ratified by Veccus, was annulled, and Veccus himself exiled.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1341). Held in 1341, under John XIV., Patriarch, who presided, the Emperor Andronicus the younger being present. To this council Gregory Palamas, the chief of the Quietists or Hesychastæ, of Mount Athos, was cited to answer the accusation of Barlaam, a Calabrian monk (afterwards Bishop of Gieræcé in Calabria). These Quietists believed that by intense and constant contemplation, it was possible to arrive at a tranquillity of mind entirely free from perturbation; and, accordingly, they used to sit in one fixed posture gazing at the pit of their stomach (hence the title Umbilicani given them by Barlaam), and pretended, that when so occupied, they could see a Divine light beaming forth from the soul, and that this light was the glory of God, and the same that illuminated Christ during the Transfiguration. The event of the council, however, was that Gregory triumphed, and Barlaam was condemned, and made to ask pardon for his hasty accusation; he subsequently returned to Italy.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1872.

Five other councils were held upon this same subject within the nine following years.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1345). A council was held about the year 1345, at which the two legates from Rome, Francis, Archbishop of Bosphorus, and Richard, Bishop of Chersonesus, an Englishman, were present. Their object was to enter into a negotiation for a union of the two Churches. As neither the Patriarch, John XIV., nor his bishops were capable of managing the business, Nicephorus Gregoras, a learned layman, was called in, by whose advice they avoided all discussion with the legates, and the matter fell to the ground.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1450). Held about the year 1450, upon the subject of the union of the Greek and Latin Churches, agreed upon at Florence in 1439. Gregory IV., Patriarch of Constantinople, was deposed, on account of the consent which he had given, as he allowed, willingly, to that union, and Athanasius elected to his place. This was done in the first session. In the second the unfair means used by the Latins at Florence, in order to effect the union, were dilated on. In the third the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit was argued, and the Latin doctrine on that subject endeavoured to be refuted. In the fourth they discussed the following subjects—

1. The authority claimed by the pope over the oriental and all other Churches.

2. The fire of purgatory.

3. The fruition of the saints.

4. The words of consecration.

In all of which they differed from the view taken by the Roman Church. They then added twenty-five articles of complaints against the Latin Church.

1. That they did not paint the images like the archetype.

2. That they adapted secular tunes to ecclesiastical psalmody.

3. That they permitted men and women to sit together in their churches.

4. That they forbad marriage to the clergy.

5. That they did not pray towards the East.

6. That they used unleavened bread in the holy sacrifice.

7. That they asserted whatever is in God to be substance.

8. That the pope had that cross depicted upon his feet which Christ carried on His shoulder

9. That they allowed the bed-ridden (cubantem) to participate in the holy mysteries, and that not with sufficient reverence.

10. That they accepted money from harlots.

11. That they fasted on Saturdays.

12. That they, contrary to the decree of the seventh synod, made paintings to represent the Father.

13. That in crossing themselves they began on the left.

14. That the pope usurped a secular authority.

15. That the pope, for money, absolved Christians from the obligation to fast.

16. That, contrary to Holy Scripture, they permitted parents to make their eldest sons sole heirs.

17. That they gave to the image of Christ and to the cross the worship of Latria, which is due only to the Word.

18. That they adored images.

19. That they permitted priests, in a state of fornication, to celebrate mass.

21. That they did not at once anoint the heads of the baptised.

22. That they did not pray standing on Saturdays and Sundays.

23. That they ate of things suffocated.

24. That they punished with temporal fires those who erred in the faith.

25. That they did not enjoin those who had done any injury to any one to seek forgiveness of him.

The synod, which was numerous, ended with the following session.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1365.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1572). Held in 1572, by Hieremias II., the patriarch, for the purpose of repressing simony.—Hist. Ecc. Turio-Gr. lib. ii. p. 179.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1593). Held in 1593. A great synod, in which Jeremiah II., Patriarch of Constantinople, and Meletius of Alexandria presided. Joachim VII., Patriarch of Antioch, was also present. All things relating to the foundation of the new patriarchate of Moscow were confirmed in this council.

Up to the end of the sixteenth century, Russia was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople; but about that time, Jeremiah II. being at Moscow, the monks of that city earnestly besought him, that the people and empire of Moscow might be subjected to an archbishop, αὐτοκέφαλος, “qui sui juris esset;” subject, that is, to no superior. This petition the patriarch at once, of his own accord, granted, and confirmed his promise by an oath, at the same time giving a deed drawn up in the Sclavonic tongue, by which the new patriarchate of Moscow was erected: which deed was subscribed by all the priests and monks who were present with him.

Having executed this deed, Jeremiah convoked a synod on the 26th January 1589, in the imperial city of Moscow, composed of all the bishops and abbots of the empire; in which the Liturgy having been first said in the presence of the emperor, his wife, and the whole senate, Job, Archbishop of Rostof, was elected, and declared the first primate and patriarch of the empire of Moscow.

Upon the return of Jeremiah to Constantinople, a numerous council of bishops was assembled in the month of February 1593, by which the erection of the new patriarchate of Moscow was confirmed; and it was declared to be just and right that the state of Moscow, strictly orthodox, &c., &c., should receive ecclesiastical honours in accordance with the spirit of the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, and for other sufficient reasons there stated.

Then it was settled and decreed that the Church of Moscow should be thenceforward a patriarchate; that all Russia, with its tributaries northwards, should be subject to it in all matters ecclesiastical; and the patriarch of Moscow should rank next after the patriarch of Jerusalem, and take precedence of all metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, throughout the whole Catholic and Orthodox Church of Christ. It was further decreed that the election of the patriarch of Moscow should be confirmed by the patriarch of Constantinople, to whom a fixed tribute should be paid. Job, Archbishop of Rostof, was then consecrated primate of the empire of Moscow, and patriarch.—Le Quien.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1638). Held September 24, 1638, by Cyril of Berrhea, Patriarch of Constantinople, for the purpose of anathematising the memory of Cyril Lucar, his predecessor, who died about three months previously, and who was accused of holding many of the peculiar tenets of Calvin. It was decreed that Cyril Lucar should be publicly denounced, and delivered over to an anathema, as well as all those who received his vain dogmas. Thirteen anathemas were then published against him, of which the following is a summary:—

1. To Cyril, surnamed Lucar, who has falsely asserted that the whole Eastern Church is of the same belief as Calvin, anathema.

2. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that the holy Church of Christ can lie, anathema.

3. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that God hath chosen some to glory before the foundation of the world, and predestinated them without works, and hath reprobated others without cause, and that the works of none are sufficient to demand a reward before the tribunal of Christ, anathema.

4. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that the saints are not our mediators and intercessors with God, anathema.

5. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that man is not endued with free will, that every man has the power of sinning, but not of doing good, anathema.

6. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that there are not seven sacraments, but that only two—i.e., baptism and the Eucharist—were handed down to us by Christ in His Gospel, anathema.

7. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that the bread offered at the altar, and also the wine, is not changed by the blessing of the priest, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, into the real body and blood of Christ, anathema.

8. To Cyril, who teaches and believes that they who have fallen asleep in piety and good works, are not assisted by the alms of their relations and the prayers of the Church, anathema.

9. To Cyril, a new Iconoclast, and the worst of all, anathema.

The 10th and 11th are merely an amplification of the last, and the 12th and 13th a recapitulation and enforcement of the whole.

The acts of the council are signed by three patriarchs, viz., Cyril of Constantinople, Metrophanes of Alexandria, and Theophanes of Jerusalem; also by twenty-four archbishops and bishops, and by twenty-one dignitaries of the great Church of Constantinople. Neale’s History of the Oriental Church.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1641). Held in 1641, by Parthenius; eight prelates and four dignitaries of the Church attended. The teaching of Cyril Lucar was again condemned, and the use of the word μετουσίωσις, authorised to express the change in the elements after consecration; but not without opposition, as a term unknown to the fathers, and the offspring of Latin scholasticism.—Neale’s History of the Oriental Church.

CONSTANTINOPLE (or JASSY) (1642). Held at Jassy in Moldavia, but commonly named the Synod of Constantinople; Parthenius, the œcumenical patriarch, presided: and the acts of the council (which are incorporated with and authenticated by those of the Council of Bethlehem, A.D. 1682) are signed by twenty-three archbishops and bishops, amongst whom was Peter Moglias, Archbishop of Kieff, the author of the “Confessio Orthodoxæ Ecclesiæ Catholicæ et Orientalis,” which, as revised by Meletius Syriga, was formally approved. Most of the signatures, however, appear to have been added subsequently, the number of prelates actually present being small.

The decrees of this synod are contained in seventeen chapters, and the condemnation of Cyril Lucar is more fully expressed than it had been in the synod of 1638. All the chapters of Cyril, except the seventh on the Incarnation, are condemned.—Neale’s History of the Oriental Church.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1713.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1718). Held April 12, 1718; the Patriarch, Jeremias of Constantinople, Samuel of Alexandria, and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem, being present, with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople. In this council the twelve proposals of the Scotch and English nonjuring bishops upon the subject of an union between the Greek Church and the nonjuring British Churches was considered. The circumstances which led to this scheme were as follows:—In 1716, Arsenius, Metropolitan of Thebais in Egypt, was in London, and the Scotch bishop, Campbell, forming an acquaintance with him, was led to mention the subject of an union to him; Arsenius entered warmly into the matter, and undertook to forward to the orientals any proposals upon the subject which the British bishops might agree upon.

In consequence twelve proposals were drawn up, which were translated into Greek by Bishop Spinkes; and to them was added a declaration, expressing wherein they agreed and disagreed with the Oriental Church. The five points of disagreement were as follows:

1. That they denied to the canons of œcumenical councils the same authority with Holy Scripture.

2. That they could not pay any kind of worship to the blessed Virgin.

3. That they could not pray to saints or angels.

4. That they could give no religious veneration to images.

5. That they could not worship the host in the eucharistic sacrifice.

In the year 1721, “The answer of the orthodox in the East to the proposals sent from Britain for an union and agreement with the Oriental Church,” was transmitted through Arsenius, who was then at Moscow. This answer was the synodical judgment agreed upon in this council; it was contained in a long paper, in Greek, accepting the twelve proposals and the articles of agreement under certain explanations, but warmly defending the Greek Church on the subject of the five articles of disagreement, and insisting upon an entire conformity in each of these particulars. At the same time they forwarded the two declarations of their Church drawn up in the Synod of Constantinople (or Bethlehem), under Doritheus, in 1672, and in that under Callinicus, in 1791.—Skinner’s Eccl. Hist. Scot. vol. ii. p. 634.

CONSTANTINOPLE (1723). Held in September 1723, upon the same subject. Jeremias of Constantinople, Athanasius of Antioch, Chrysanthus of Jerusalem, Callinicus of Heraclea, Auxentius of Cyzicum, Paisius of Nicomedia, Gerasimus of Nicea, Parthenius of Chalcedon, Ignatius of Thessalonica, Arsenius of Prusa, Theoctistus of Polypolis, and Callinicus of Varna, being present.

Upon the receipt of the synodical judgment of the last council, the English bishops, in a synod held at London, in May 1722, drew up a reply defending their former position, by appropriate passages from Holy Scripture, and from the fathers, and concluding with the following proposal: “If our liberty, therefore, is left us in the instances above-mentioned, if the Oriental patriarchs and bishops will authentically declare us not obliged to the invocation of saints and angels, the worship of images and the adoration of the host; if they please publicly and authoritatively, by an instrument under their hands, to pronounce us perfectly disengaged in these particulars, both at home and abroad, in their churches and in our own: these relaxing concessions allowed, we hope may answer the overtures on both sides, and conciliate an union.”

In the present council this second communication of the British bishops was considered, and a final answer drawn up and forwarded, telling the Anglican prelates that they had nothing to say different from their former reply; and far from acceding to any compromise, they boldly declare, that “these doctrines have been long since examined, and rightly and religiously defined and settled by the holy and œcumenical synods, so that it is neither lawful to add anything to them, nor to take any thing from them; therefore, they who are disposed to agree with us in the Divine doctrines of the orthodox faith, must necessarily follow and submit to what has been defined and determined by the ancient fathers and by the holy and œcumenical synods, from the time of the apostles and their holy successors, the fathers of our Church, to this time; we say they must submit to them with sincerity and obedience, and without any scruple or dispute, and this is a sufficient answer to what you have written.” To this epistle they added the confession of faith agreed upon in the Synod of Bethlehem, in 1672.—Skinner’s Ecc. Hist. Scot. vol. ii. p, 637.

COPENHAGEN (1425). [Concilium Hafniense.] The place in which this council was held is not altogether certain; it was assembled by Peter Lukius, Archbishop of Lund, in 1425. His suffragans, Bishops of Wirtzburg, Roschild, and other suffragans, and some other bishops, abbots, &c., were present. A synodical letter was drawn up for the re-establishment of discipline, and the reformation of morals amongst both clergy and laity. These rules forbid luxury, drunkenness, frequenting wine shops, carrying arms, having concubines, &c. All troublers of State or Church were excommunicated; nuns were forbidden to leave their convent without leave, and bishops to ordain any one belonging to another diocese without the permission of the bishop of that diocese.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 380.

CORDOVA (839). See Esp. Sagr. Tom. xv. Preface.

COYANZA (1050). [Concilium Coyancense or Cojancense.] Held in 1050, at Coyanza, or Coyace, in diocese of Oviedo in Spain, by Ferdinand I. of Castile. Nine bishops attended, and thirteen decrees were published, relating partly to the Church and partly to the State.

The second orders, under anathema, that all abbots and abbesses shall govern their houses according to the rule of St Isidore, or St Benedict, and shall submit in all things to their bishop.

3. Orders that Churches and the clergy shall be under the control of their bishop, and not under that of any lay person; that suitable vessels and ornaments be provided; that no chalice of wood or earthenware shall be allowed; that the altar shall be made entirely of stone, and shall be consecrated by the bishop.

5. Enjoins that archdeacons shall present for ordination only such clerks as shall know the whole psalter, with the hymns and canticles, epistles, gospels, and prayers.

6. Orders all Christian persons to go to church on Saturday evenings, and on Sunday to be present at the matins, mass, and at all the hours; to do no work, nor travel on that day, unless for the purposes of devotion, visiting the sick, burying the dead, executing a secret order of the king, or of defence against the Saracens. Those who break this canon are, according to their rank, either to be deprived of communion for a year, or to receive a hundred lashes.

11. Commands fasting on Friday.

12. Forbids the forcible seizure of those who have taken refuge in a church, or within thirty-one paces of it.

There appears to be some difference in the copies of these canons.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1063.

CTESIPHON (414). Held by authority of Marietus, Bishop of Martyropolis, the ambassador of Theodosius the Younger, in Persia, and Jaballa, Metropolitan of Seleucia. The acts of the Synod of Seleucia, 410, were confirmed, and the Nicene Creed received. Ctesiphon and Seleucia formed, as it were, one city, being built on opposite banks of the Tigris.

CYPRUS (401). Held by St Epiphanius, Metropolitan, in 401, and in which the errors of Origen were condemned. He also induced Theophilus of Alexandria to pronounce the same condemnation in synod. (See ALEXANDRIA, 399; JERUSALEM, 399.)