APPENDIX

Corrections and Additions to the First Volume of the History of the Councils, Taken from the Second German Edition.

P. 2. l. 8, add Mansi, t. ii. p. 469. 1. 14, add Mansi, t. ii. p. 478; Hardouin, t. i. p. 268. n. 1, add Mansi, l.c. p. 922.

P. 3. l. 17, after A.D. 449, add the Synod of Pisa, A.D. 1409; of Sinna, 1423, etc., and partly at the Councils of Constance and Basel.

P. 5. n. add Mansi, t. xvii. p. 310.

P. 6. l. 20, after distinguished, add or oldest.

P. 7. n. add Mansi, t. ix. p. 127. n. 2, add Mansi, t. xiii. p. 884. 1. 10, for houses, read horses. 1. 17, add Mansi, t. xxix. p. 77.

P. 8. n. add Mansi, t. xiii. p. 208.

P. 9. n. add Mansi, t. xi. p. 661; and for 1417, read 1471.

P. 10. l. 6, after Baronius, add, ad ann. 381, n. 19 and 20. n. 2, add Mansi, t. xi. p. 551.

P. 11. n. add Mansi, l.c. p. 1288. n. 4, for 910, read 980.

P. 13. n. add Mansi, t. vii. p. 546. n. 4, add Mansi, t. ix. p. 59. n. 5, add Mansi, t. ix. p. 64. n. 6, add Mansi, t. iii. p. 195.

P. 14. n. add Mansi, t. ix. pp. 457–488; t. ix. p. 414. n. 3, add Mansi, t. xi. p. 209. n. 4, add Mansi, t. xi. p. 195 sq. and p. 713. n. 5, add Mansi, t. xi. p. 683.

P. 15. n. add Mansi, t. xii. p. 985. n. 2, Mansi, t. xiii. p. 808. n. 3, Mansi, t. xvi. p. 20 sq. 1. 7 ab im., add., delete holy Synod of Trent, and read most recent Vatican Council, A.D. 1869; and to this the note: Cf. the treatise De jure Rom. pontificis, concilia œcumenica convocandi iisquc præsidandi, in Moy’s Archiv für Kirchenrecht, 1857, Bd. ii. S. 555 ff. and 675 ff.

p. 16. End of par. 3, add Cf. Lucius Ferraris, Biblioth. canonica, s.v. Concilium, art. iii.

p. 17. n. add Mansi, t. iv. p. 1207. n. 6, add Mansi, t. iv. p. 1114; t. vi. p. 551.

p. 18. n. add Mansi, t. ii. pp. 548, 693 sq.; t. iv. p. 1218. n. 5, Mansi, t. ix. 959. At the end of par. 4, add: Ferraris, on the other hand, remarks: Eodem suffragii decisivi jure gaudent etiam episcopi titulares, et ideo etiam ipsi sunt de jure vocandi ad generalia concilia. Licet enim a tyrannis infidelibus sint occupatæ ecclesiæ, ad quorum titulum sunt ordinati et consecrati episcopi, et consequenter in actu sccundo careant jurisdictione, ex quo non habeant territorium actuale … retinent tamen jurisdictionem in actu primo quoad suas titulares ecclesias, quæ, potest dari, quod liberentur a tyrannide infidelium, et sic etiam in actu secundo habeant territorium, in suo subditis, sic omnes alii episcopi jus dicere possint. (Bibliotheca canonica, etc., s.v. Concilium, art. i. n. 29.) At the latest. Vatican Council all titular bishops (in part. infidel.) were summoned, and there were 117 of them present, with full power of voting.

p. 20. n. add Mansi, t. ii. p. 5. n. 2, Mansi, t. ii. p. 476. n. 3, Mansi, t. iii. p. 880. n. 4, Mansi, l.c. p. 998. n. 6, Mansi, t. ii. p. 476 sq. n. 7, Mansi, t. ii. p. 5. n. 8, Mansi, t. iii. pp. 892 and 971. n. 9, Mansi, l.c. 1002. n. 10, Mansi, t. iv. p. 1211 sq.; t. vii. p. 135 sqq. n. 11, Mansi, t. xiv. p. 629 sq. n. 12, Mansi t. vi. p. 752.

p. 21. n. add Mansi, t. vi. p. 934. n. 2, Mansi, t. iii. p. 568 sqq.; t. vi. p. 935. At the end of par. 9, add: At Trent the procuratores absentium were admitted only in a very limited degree,—at the recent Vatican Council not at all, not even ad videndum et audiendum. They were not admitted into the Council hall. At the Council of Trent, the management was as follows: As Pope Paul III. saw that very many bishops remained away without reason, and sent procurators, he ordained that these should be admitted only ad excusandum. In case, however, they were prelates with a personal right of voting, they might present their own vote, but not that of another (X. Kal. Maii, 1545). On the representation of the German bishops, that they were unable to leave their dioceses on account of the Lutheran heresy, Paul III. allowed for them, as an exception, from December 5, 1545, the admission of procurators with right of voting. This concession was taken back by Pius IV. on August 26, 1562, who ordained generally that, in the general congregations, the procurators should be admitted, even if they were not prelates, but that they should sit behind all the other members, and not speak unless they were asked. At the congregations of theologians, however, they were, like the others, to have a Votum consultativum. So relates the general secretary of the Council of Trent, Bishop Masarelli, in his introduction to the still unprinted minutes of Trent. Pallavicino says the same. n. 4, add Mansi, t. iv. p. 1130 sq.; t. vi. pp. 583, 586. n. 5, Mansi, t. vi. p. 623.

p. 22. n. add Mansi, t. viii. p. 543. l. 9, for 1684, read 1624. 1. 18, for Dunstan, read Lanfranc (the error occurs in both editions of the German original). n. 4, add Mansi, t. xx. p. 452. n. 5, Mansi, t. xvii. pp. 314, 275, 318, 330.

p. 23. n. add Mansi, t. xx. p. 452. At the end of par. 11, add: In regard to the present state of the law, Ferraris says (Biblioth. canonica, l.c. n. 30): Ex privilegio et consuetudine vocandi sunt ad concilia generalia cum suffragio decisivo cardinales etiam non episcopi, abbates, et ordinum regularium generales. At the late Vatican Council, besides the cardinals and bishops, also the abbates nullius, the insulated general abbots of whole orders or congregations (e.g. the abbot of Einsiedeln as president of the Helvetic congregation of Benedictines), and the non-insulated generals and general vicars of the regular clergy and monastic orders were summoned, and nearly fifty were present.—Also a few bishops recently confirmed by the Pope, before their consecration, were present at the sessions, e.g. Keppel of Angus. On the other hand, consulting theologians and canonists were not introduced to the Council, as at Trent,—even the votes of the consultors assembled before the opening of the Council were placed in no connection with the Council. In Trent, however, there were not merely two congregations appointed from the number of the prelates: Prælatorum theologorum and canonistarum, but also the theologi minores (not prelates) had much to do. They had, in particular, the preparation and preliminary discussion in questions of dogma. The general secretary of the Council of Trent, Bishop Masarelli, says on this subject (l.c.): “Mos fuit in sacro Concilio Trid. tam sub Paulo III. quam Julio III. et Pio IV. p.m. perpetuo observatus, ut cum de dogmatibus fidei agendum esset, primum articuli inter catholicos et hæreticos controversi ex eorum libris colligerentur: qui antequam patribus propenerentur, exhibebantur disputandi ac discutiendi theologis minoribus.… His igitur theologis per aliquot dies ante articuli, super quibus sententias dicturi erant, exhibebantur unacum quibusdam interrogatoriis, ad quæ pro faciliori et aptiori ipsius dogmatis examinatione respondere tenerentur,” etc. The transactions and disputations of these theologians were public, and whoever liked could be present at them.—In regard to provincial Synods, and those who had a right to be summoned and to vote at them, cf. Ferraris, Bibl. canon. s.v. Concilium, art. ii., and the treatise, De conciliorum provincialium convocatione, in Moy, Archiv für Kirchenr. Bd. iii. Heft 5, S. 331.

p. 24. n. add Mansi, t. viii. p. 543. n. 2, Mansi, t. viii. p. 556. n. 3, Mansi, t. x. p. 617. n. 4, Mansi, t. x. p. 1223; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 968. n. 5, Mansi, t. viii. p. 719. n. 6, Mansi, t. xi. p. 68; t. xii. p. 170 E.

p. 25. At the end of par. 12, a new par. 13, so that 13 in English translation represents 14 in the second German edition: 13. Considering the great number of members present at most of the Synods, and the great diversities of education, disposition, character, and interests, even among the bishops, it is not surprising that the debates often became heated and passionate, and that much that was human crept in, so that Gregory of Nazianzus, when he had suffered much that was disagreeable at the second Œcumenical Synod, suffered himself to be carried away to bitter complaints against Synods: “I flee,” he says, “from every assembly of bishops, for I have never seen that a Synod has come to a good end, or that the evils of the Church have been removed instead of being increased; for indescribable quarrelling and rivalry reign there.” This was the utterance of an irritated and injured mind; and if we will judge quietly and reasonably, we shall agree with the words of one of the most important of the later Protestant historians of the Church: “With all these outbreaks of human passion (in the Councils of the Church), we must not overlook the fact that the Lord was guiding the helm of the ship of the Church, and saved it through all the wild waves and storms. The spirit of truth, which will never depart from her, always conquered error at last, and glorified itself even through weak instruments.”

p. 25. n. add Mansi, t. iv. p. 1119; t. vi. p. 563; t. vii. p. 129. n. 5, Mansi, t. xi. p. 210. n. 6, Mansi, t. xii. p. 1000; t. xiii pp. 502, 728; t. xvi. pp. 18, 81, 157.

p. 26. n. add Mansi, t. xv. p. 200. n. 2, Mansi, t. xvi. pp. 171, 406. n. 4, Mansi, t. x. pp. 615, 653. n. 5, Mansi, t. xiii. p. 884. l. 5, Constance, add and Basel.

p. 28. n. add Mansi, t. xvi. p. 423. n. 2, Mansi, t. xvi. p. 22 C, and 314 B. n. 3, Mansi, t. xvi. pp. 37, 38, 41 sqq. n. 4, Mansi, t. xvi. pp. 81, 96, 151, 398.

p. 29. n. Mansi, t. xvi. p. 159. n. 2, Mansi, l.c. pp. 188–190, 408 sqq. n. 3, Mansi, l.c. p. 206 B. n. 4, Mansi, l.c. pp. 18, 37, 44 sqq. n. 5, Mansi, l.c. pp. 159 E. and 178, 18 C; Hardouin, t. v. 764 E.

p. 30. n. add Mansi, t. xvi. p. 189. n. 2, Mansi, t. xii. p. 992. n. 3, Mansi, t. xiii. pp. 379 sq., 736 sq. n. 4, Mansi, t. xiii pp. 414, 415 D. E. n. 5, Mansi, l.c. p. 730. n. 6, Mansi, l.c. p. 379 sqq.

p. 31. n. add Mansi, t. xi. pp. 210, 218, 222, 230. n. 2, Mansi, t. xi. pp. 639, 655, 682. n. 3, Mansi, l.c. pp. 214 sq., 219 sqq., 226 sq., 231, 518 C. D., 523, 543, 547, 550 B. n. 5, Mansi, t. ix. p. 387.

p. 32. n. add Mansi, t. vi. p. 986. n. 3, Mansi, t. ix. p. 53. n. 4, add Mansi, t. vi. p. 147; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 655. n. 5, Mansi, t. vi p. 519. n. 6, Mansi, l.c. pp. 563, 938. n. 7, Mansi, l.c. pp. 583, 586, 606, 618, 623, 655 D. 953, 974. n. 8, Mansi, t. vii. pp. 128, 129 sqq.

p. 33. n. add Mansi, t. vii. p. 454 A; Hardouin, ii. p. 643. n. 3, Mansi, t. vi. p. 566. n. 4, Mansi, t. vii. p. 135 C. n. 6, Mansi, t. vi. p. 983 sqq. n. 5, add: That our interpretation of the words τῶν εἴσω and τῶν ἐκτός is the correct one, is shown (in opposition to Gieseler and others) by Dr. Schaff, Professor of Theology in Mercersburg in Pennsylvania, in his treatise “On the Œcumenical Councils with reference to Dr. Hefele’s History of the Councils,” in the Jahrbuch f. deutsche Theol. Bd. viii. S. 335. Ordinarily a distinction is made between a præsidentia honoraria (of the Emperor) and auctoritativa (of the papal legates).

p. 34. n. add Mansi, t. iv. p. 1119. n. 2, Mansi, t. iv. p. 556. n. 3, Mansi, t. iv. p. 1019.

p. 35. n. Mansi, t. iv. p. 1123. n. 3, Mansi, t. iv. pp. 1127, 1207, 1211. n. 7, Mansi, t. iv. p. 1363. n. 9, Mansi, t. ix. p. 62. Add the words of Vigilius in his Constitutum: In qua in legatis suis atque vicariis, id est, beatissimo Cyrillo Alexandrinæ urbis episcopo, Arcadio et Projecto episcopis et Philippo presbytero, beatissimus Cælestinus Papa senioris Romæ noscitur præsedisse. Add the following to par. 6: To a similar effect Bishop Mausuetus of Milan (A.D. 679) expresses himself in his letter to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus: “Ubi sanctse memoriæ Cyrillus Alexandrinæ ecclesiæ præsul auctoritate sedis apostolicæ præditus caput extitit (Mansi, t. xi. p. 204; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 1052). In other places Pope Cælestine and Cyril are mentioned in common as presidents of the third Œcumenical Synod; so repeatedly (which is of peculiar importance) in the Acts of the fourth Œcumenical Council: ὡρισμένα ἐπὶ τὴς πρώτης Ἐφεσιακῆς συνόδου, ἦς καθηγνταὶ γεγόνασιν ὁ μακαριώτατος Κελεστῖνος, ὁ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς καθέδρας πρόεδρος, καὶ ὁ μακαριώτατος Κύριλλος, κ.τ.λ. (Mansi, t. vii. p. 6 D.; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 401 A. So: ἦς ἡγεμόνες οἱ ἁγιώτατοι Κελεστῖνος καὶ Κύριλλος (Mansi, l.c. p. 109 B; Hardouin, l.c. p. 451 E). Similarly, the Emperor Marcian expressed himself, and the bishops of Armenia in their letter to the Emperor Leo in the eighth century (Mansi, t. vii. p. 588; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 742). Having regard to these ancient authorities, the view that Cyril presided in his quality of over-metropolitan (patriarch) must appear untenable.

p. 37. n. add Mansi, t. xvi. pp. 183, 488 sq. n. 2, for 71, read 17.

p. 40. n. add Hardouin, t. i. pp. 428, 451, 311 sqq.

p. 42. n. add Mansi, t. vi. p. 600. n. 4, Mansi, t. iii. p. 558.

p. 43. n. add Hardouin, t. i. p. 1615. n. 3, Hardouin, t. i. pp. 1670, 1715. n. 4, Mansi, t. vii. pp. 475, 478, 498, 502. n. 6, Mansi, t. xi. pp. 698, 909. n. 7, Mansi, t. xiii. pp. 414, 415 E; Hardouin, t. iv. (not ii.).

p. 44. n. Mansi, t. xvi p. 202. Under par. 1: δ. “Dionysius the Less,” etc. The author silently omits this paragraph from his second edition, perceiving that it added no strength to his argument.

p. 45. n. add Mansi, t. iii. p. 631.

p. 46. n. add Mansi, t. vi. p. 156; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 660 A. n. 2, Mansi, t. vi p. 215. n. 3, Mansi, t. vi. p. 279. n. 4, Mansi, t. vi. p. 226.

p. 47. n. add Mansi, t. ix. pp. 414 sqq., 457 sqq. n. 2, Mansi, t. xi. p. 683. n. 3, Mansi, t. xi. pp. 727, 1051. n. 7, Mansi, t. xiii. p. 808 C.

p. 48. n. add Mansi, t. xiii. pp. 759–810. n. 2, Mansi, t. xvi. p. 200 sqq. n. 3, Mansi, l.c. p. 206. n. 4, Mansi, l.c. p. 1.

p. 50. n. add Mansi, t. xxvii. p. 1201. The paragraph on p. 50, following after conciliariter, has been expanded as follows: We have shown, in the seventh volume of this history, S. 368 ff. (following up Hübler, Die Constanzer Reformation, Leipzig 1867), that the expression of Martin in question referred merely to the special question which was discussed at Constance (see Bd. vii. S. 367), and set forth, that what had been decided in materiis fidei, not merely by particular nations (nationaliter), but by the whole Council (conciliariter), was recognised by the Pope. It was therefore impossible that the Pope should say that he withheld his confirmation from all the other decrees of the Council which did not touch matters of the faith, for he must then have withheld his confirmation from the decrees of reform of the thirty-ninth session, and in a very unskilful manner have cut away the ground from under his feet, for even the decrees by which John XXIII. and Benedict XIII. were deposed and a new election ordered, did not deal de materiis fidei. Add to this that Martin V., in his bull of February 22, 1418, demanded of every one the recognition that the Council of Constance was Œcumenical, and that what it ordained in favorem fidei ET SALUTEM ANIMARUM must be held fast (Mansi, t. xxvii. p. 1211; Hardouin, t. viii. p. 914). He thus recognised the universally binding, and so œcumenical, character of other decrees than those in materiis fidei. Repeatedly he designated the Council of Constance as œcumenical, but he guarded himself against pronouncing a quite universal confirmation of it, and his words in favorem fidei et salutem animarum quite seem to have a restrictive character. He indicated by this that he excepted some decrees from the approbation, but, in the interests of peace, did not wish to express himself more clearly (see Bd. vii. S. 372).

How stands the case with Eugenius IV.? In his second bull, Dudum sacrum, of December 15, 1433, in which, after a long controversy, he recognised the Council of Basel, which he had previously endeavoured to dissolve or to remove to Bologna, he repeatedly calls it sacrum generale Basileense Concilium (so œcumenical), and says: Decernimus et declaramus, præfatum generale Concilium Basileense a tempore prædictæ inchoationis suæ legitime continuatum fuisse et esse.… ipsumque sacrum generale Concilium Basileense pure, simplicitcr, et cum effectu ac omni devotione et favore prosequimur et prosequi intendimus (Mansi, t. xxix. p. 78 sq.; Hardouin, t. viii. p. 1172 sq.). From this it is clear that Pope Eugenius recognised the previous state of the Council of Basel as lawful. And from this the Gallicans further infer that he recognised and ratified in particular all the decrees hitherto issued at Basel, and therefore also that respecting the superiority of a General Council over the Pope (see Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. t. ix. p. 425). Others, however, particularly the learned Spanish theologian (afterwards Cardinal) Torquemada, who was a member of the Synod of Basel, contest the validity of the Bull Dudum sacrum of December 15, 1433, because it was extorted from the Pope, during a sickness, by a threat that all the princes would abandon him if he did not yield; and Roncaglia, who defended the argument of Torquemada against Natalis Alexander (l.c.), adds further: Even in case the papal recognition of the Synod of Basel was not extorted, Eugenius approved of this Synod only in general, not all its particular decrees,—particularly not the principle that the Pope is subject to an Œcumenical Council. Other Councils, he argues, have been received generally, and yet particular decrees of theirs have been rejected, as, e.g., the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (see vol. iii. p. 410 ff.). Roncaglia appeals to the statement of Torquemada, according to which the members of the Council of Basel repeatedly demanded of the Pope the confirmation, not merely of the existence of the assembly, but also of its decrees, but always in vain; and that Eugenius had openly declared at Florence, in his presence and in that of Cardinal Julian Cesarini, and of others: “Nos quidem bene progressum Concilii approbavimus, volentes ut procederet ut inceperat; non tamen approbavimus ejus decreta.” It is known, moreover, Roncaglia proceeds, that Eugenius always protested against the thesis of Basel of the superiority of an Œcumenical Council over the Pope, and that his legates were not present at the eighteenth session, at which this proposition (after the restoration of peace with Eugenius) was again pronounced. In order to know accurately the view and opinion of Eugenius, we must consider another expression of his. On July 22, 1446, he wrote to his legate: “As his predecessors honoured the Œcumenical Synods, so he also recognised and honoured the Œcumenical Councils of Constance and Basel, the latter until its removal by him (after the twenty-fifth session), absque tamen præjudicio juris, dignitatis, et præeminentiæ s. sedis Apostolicæ” (Raynald, Cont. Annal. Baron. ad ann. 1446, 3). If we finally add to this, that Eugenius, in the Bull Moyses of September 4, 1439, expressly rejected the propositions which, in the thirty-third session of Basel, had been raised to the position of dogmas, on the superiority of an Œcumenical Council to the Pope, and its indissolubility by him (Hardouin, t. ix. p. 1006 sq.; Raynald, 1439, 29), it seems to me beyond all doubt that Eugenius would never approve of the thesis of the superiority of an Œcumenical Council over the Pope; that, therefore, in his second Bull Dudum sacrum he only recognised generally the existence of the Synod of Basel, and made use of expressions which implicite might appear to include an approval of that thesis. In the same way as Martin v., in the interests of peace he was unwilling to express himself clearly on this controverted point, reserving this for a more favourable time. And this seems to have come in the year 1439 (in the Bull Moyses) and in the year 1446 (in the letter to the legates). After all this, we are unable to approve of the statement, that even two Popes had declared the superiority of an Œcumenical Council over the Pope.

p. 52. After the paragraph ending “pronounced,” insert the following:—In all the controversies respecting Rome, the rule of the eighth Œcumenical Synod is to be kept in view, which in canon 21 (Greek, 13) sets forth: “Si synodus universalis fuerit congregata, et facta fuerit etiam de sancta Romanorum ecclesia quævis ambiguitas et controversia, oportet venerabiliter et cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quæstione sciscitari et solutionem accipere, aut proficere, aut profectum facere, non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos senioris Romæ pontifices.” Mansi, t. xvi. pp. 174, 406; Hardouin, t. v. pp. 909, 1103.

p. 53. After the paragraph ending “Œcumenical Councils,” add: When Augustine says that not merely the decrees of lesser Councils are improved by those which are Œcumenical, but that even the earlier are sometimes amended by the later, he refers to an advance in the development of Christian doctrine in the sense of Vincentius Lirinensis, of a “steady, homogeneous, and conservative progress within the truth, without any positive error, but not of a development through extreme opposites, in the sense of the dialectic process according to the Hegelian philosophy;” and therefore Augustine cannot be quoted as an opponent of the infallibility of Œcumenical Councils.

p. 55. At the end of Sec. 9, add: Pope Benedict XIV. also forbade such an appeal, and threatened the appellant with excommunication. (Constit. 14, incip. Pastoralis, S. 2.) The curialistic statement, however, that an appeal might be carried from an Œcumenical Council to the Pope (Ferraris, latest edition, l.c. s.v. Concilium, art. i. n. 92), rests on the totally false assumption that an Œcumenical Council is possible without a Pope. When I speak of an Œcumenical Council, the papal confirmation of it is assumed, and in that case there can, of course, no appeal to the Pope take place.

Sec. 10, add: Bellarmine is followed by most other theologians and canonists, e.g., by Lucius Ferraris in his Bibliotheca canonica, s.v. Concilium, art. i. n. 74. Apart from the fact, however, that to these eighteen the recent Vatican Council is to be added, we believe that many decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basel bear an Œcumenical character, and so there results the following table of twenty Œcumenical Councils.

After 14, “the second of Lyons,” read:

15. That of Vienne, in 1311.

16. The Council of Constance, in 1414–1418, partially, namely, (a) the last sessions under the presidency of Martin v. (Sess. 42–45 inclus.), and (b) of the decrees of the earlier sessions, those which Martin v. confirmed.

17. The Council of Basel, in 1431 ff., partially, namely, (a) only its first half or the twenty-five first sessions, until the removal of the Synod to Ferrara by Eugenius IV.; but (b) of these twenty-five sessions only those decrees have an Œcumenical character which have regard to three points: the rooting out of heresy, the restoration of peace in Christendom, and the general reform of the Church in its head and members, and at the same time do not derogate from the apostolic see, for only these were approved by Eugenius IV.

17b. Not as a separate Œcumenical Council, but as a continuation of the Synod of Basel, we are to consider that of Ferrara-Florence in the years 1438–1442; since the Synod of Basel was removed by Eugenius IV., first to Ferrara (January 8, 1438), and from thence to Florence (January, 1439).

18. The fifth Lateran Council, 1512–1517.

19. The Council of Trent, 1545–1563.

20. The Vatican, from December 8, 1869, to July 18, 1870 (uncompleted).

p. 58. l. 2 ab im., after “Pope Martin v.,” add: We have already seen that Martin v. repeatedly designated the Council of Constance as Œcumenical; and, in his Bull of February 22, 1418, demanded of everyone the recognition, that the Council of Constance was Œcumenical, and that what it ordained in favorem fidei et salutem animarum must be held fast. (Everyone suspected of heresy must be asked), ‘utrum credat, teneat, et asserat, quod quodlibet concilium generale, et etiam Constantiense universalem ecclesiam, repræsentat,’ and ‘item, utrum credat, quod illud, quod sacrum concilium Constantiense, universalem ecclesiam repræsentans, approbavit et approbat in favorem fidei et ad salutem animarum, quod hoc est ab universis Christi fidelibus approbandum et tenendum,’ etc. Mansi, t. xxvii. p. 1211; Hardouin, t. viii. p. 914. No less did Martin v., in the last session of Constance, on occasion of the controversy of Falkenberg, declare: ‘Quod omnia et singula determinata,’ etc. In the same manner his successor, Pope Eugene IV.… veneramur.” Thus in Raynald, 1446, 3, and in the Animadvers. of Roncaglia on Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccl. t. ix. p. 465a, ed. Ven. 1778. We should be betrayed into a contradiction of these papal Bulls and declarations, if we were to remove the Council of Constance completely out of the Œcumenical rank. It is quite evident that these two Popes wished many of the decrees of Constance to be regarded as the decisions of an Œcumenical Synod. Which of these are to be so regarded, neither Martin v. nor Eugenius IV. says in specie; but it is clear that both except from their approval those decrees of Constance which encroach upon the importance and the rights of the holy see, and so particularly the decrees of the third to fifth sessions of Constance,—a view which is contested by the Gallicans (cf. Nat. Alex. l.c. Diss. iv. pp. 286–363).

In concurrence with Bellarmine and most of the Catholic theologians and canonists, we have reckoned the Council of Ferrara-Florence among the Œcumenical; but it has not escaped us that the Synod of Basel, and all who with it denied to the Pope the right to remove an Œcumenical Council, were consequently obliged to contest the legality of the Council of Ferrara-Florence. This Gallican contention was also brought forward at Trent, since, in the debates which preceded the twenty-third general session, the French opposed the expression: to the Pope there had been delivered by Christ the plena potestas pascendi, regendi, et gubernandi ecclesiam universalem; and, in answer to the Italians who appealed in support of it to the precedent of the Council of Florence (in the decree of union Pro Græcis), replied that this was not Œcumenical (Sarpi, Hist. du Concile de Trente, liv. vii. n. lii.; Pallavacini, Hist. Concilii Trident. lib. xix. c. 12, n. 11; in the projected 8 canons for the twenty-third session the expression referred to was accepted). The attacks made by the Gallicans at Trent against the Florentine Council are mentioned also by Raynald (1563, 4) and Pallavacini (lib. xix. c. 16, n. 9),—by the latter with the remark that the celebrated Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, in a letter to Berton, his agent in Rome, which had to be read to the Pope (Pius IV.), declared: “A se approbari omni ex parte Synodum Constantiensem ac Basileensem, non item Florentinam.” Probably the passage is meant which Natalis Alexander (Hist. Eccl. Sec. xv. et xvi. Diss. x. De Synodo Florent. l.c. p. 489) quoted from the letter of the cardinal to Berton completely as follows: “Nunc superest titulorum ultimus e Florentina synodo depromtus (Rector universalis ecclesiæ), quem beatissimo Patri nostro tribuere volunt. Ego negare non possum quin Gallus sim et Parisiensis Academiæ alumnus, in qua Pontificem subesse Concilio tenetur et qui docent ibi contrarium, tanquam hæretici notantur. Apud Gallos Constantiense Concilium in partibus suis omnibus ut generale habetur, Basileense in auctoritatem admittitur, Florentinum perinde ac nee legitimum nee generale repudiatur.”

This strong opposition of the Gallicans, at the time of the Council of Trent, against the Council of Ferrara-Florence, subsequently became much weakened, so that, e.g., Natalis Alexander, although in other respects standing on the side of Basel, yet in a special dissertation (x.) fully defended the legitimate convocation and the Œcumenical character of this Council. Natalis Alexander, indeed, maintained, in generale, with the members of Basel, that an Œcumenical Council cannot be removed by the Pope, but he says, with Nicolas of Cusa: “Romanum Pontificem Conciliorum œcumenicorum decreta et canones temperare posse ac de iis dispensare, ubi id postulat publica necessitas aut evidens Ecclesiæ utilitas.” In the case before us, however, it had been absolutely necessary, on account of the union with the Greeks, to hold a Council in Italy. Thus the Council of Basel had been removed by Eugenius IV. de consensu SANIORIS partis Patrum to Ferrara; and, in conclusion, the Synod of Basel, in its nineteenth session, had itself conceded a removal ex justis causis et manifestis, in the words: “Obsecratque per viscera misericordiæ Jesu Christi … ut ante completam reformationem … nullatenus dissolutionis consensum præstent, nec loci mutationem fieri permittant, nisi ex justis causis et manifestis.” If the regular convocation of the Florentine Synod is granted, its Œcumenical character can be no longer effectually contested, as Pope and bishops were here assembled in unity, and the characteristics necessary for an Œcumenical Synod were not lacking. Nat. Alex. Hist. Eccles. Sec. xv. et xvi. Diss. x. l.c. pp. 487–493.

p. 57. n. add Mansi, t. xxvii. p. 1162; Hardouin, t. viii. p. 859; t. ix. p. 1719.

p. 63. add: The two Councils at Pavia and Siena, in the year 1423, were recognised as Œcumenical, and were so called by the Popes. (Cf. in the Bull of Martin v. in Mansi, t. xxix. p. 8; Hardouin, t. viii. l.c. p. 1109.) Those of Siena also designated themselves as a sacrosancta generalis (Mansi, t. xxviii. p. 1060; Hardouin, t. viii. p. 1015); but as both led to no result, and were essentially nothing but miscarried attempts to hold an Œcumenical Council, whilst the attempt succeeded eight years afterwards at Basel, there is no doubt that they should not be inserted in our table of Œcumenical Councils.

It is further to be remarked that even in the fifteenth century, the Popes, at their entrance on office, were required to swear to only eight Œcumenical Councils. We learn this from the papal legates at the Council of Basel (Mansi, t. xxx. p. 657). Thus the earlier formula of an oath for the Popes, as it is given in the Liber Diurnus (ed. de Rozière, 1869, pp. 177 sq. and 186), speaks of only six Œcumenical Councils, is explained by the antiquity of this formula, which belongs to the beginning of the eighth century (715). From this Liber Diurnus Gratian (Corp. jur. can. c. 8, Dist. xvi.) adduces octo Concilia (instead of six); and yet J. H. Böhmer, in his edition, thinks that this passage belongs to the year 715, and so to a time which was long previous to the seventh and eighth Œcumenical Councils.

When the Acts of the Florentine Synod were printed for the first time under Clement VII, in the year 1526, the superscription ran: Synodus Œcumenica OCTAVA. This designation came from a Greek notary (the Greeks accept only the first seven Œcumenical Synods), and in Rome they neglected to correct this error (cf. Baron. 869, 64; and Nat. Alex. l.c. 491a). [These sections have been, to a large extent, rearranged and rewritten. All the essential additions are here given.]

p. 64. n. add Mansi, t. ii. p. 476. n. 2, A partial exception occurred at the third Œcumenical Council.

p. 66. n. add Mansi, t. i. p. 10; t. x. p. 617. The manner of the opening of the latest Vatican Council is described in the Acta et Decreta SS. et Œcumen. Cone. Vat. Freiburg, Herder 1871, S. 120 ff. n. 2, Mansi, t, xxix. p. 377; cf. the author’s Concilicngesch. Bd. vii. S. 83; and Van der Hardt, Conc. Const. t. ii. pt. viii. p. 230; t. iv. pt. ii. p. 40.

p. 67. At the end of the par., line 7, add: Similarly, it was done at the recent Vatican Synod. The seven commissions which had been convoked a year before, and consisted of theologians of different countries, presented the work which they had prepared for it. This consisted of: (1) The Congregatio cardinalicia directrix (to which, in my insignificance, I was appointed as consultor); (2) the Commissio Cæremoniarum; (3) Politico-ecclesiastica; (4) Pro ecclesiis et missionibus Orientis; (5) Pro Regularibus; (6) Theologica-dogmatica; (7) Pro disciplina ecclesiastica. With (partial) use of the labours of these seven commissions, Schemata (sketches for decrees) were prepared and presented to the Council. In the Council itself there were seven deputations: (1) Pro recipiendis et expendendis Patrum propositionibus (ordered by the Pope himself); (2) Judices excusationum; (3) Judices querelarum et controversiarum (on controversies about rank, etc.); (4) Deputatio pro rebus ad fidem pertinentibus; (5) Deputatio pro rebus disciplinæ ecclesiasticæ; (6) Pro rebus ordinum regularium; (7) Pro rebus ritus orientalis et apost. missionibus (these six commissions chosen by the Synod itself). Further, the order of business was regulated by the apostolic letter Multiplices inter of November 27, 1869 (see Acta et Decreta S. Cone. Vat. Fasc. i. Friburgi, p. 66 sqq.); as, however, no end could in that way be reached (there were certainly speeches delivered on the Schemata presented, and proposals made, but it could not be known what would meet, and what not, the approval of the Synod), a new order of business for the general congregation was set out (printed in Acta et Decreta, etc., l.c. Fasc. ii. p. 16). If anyone had objections to raise against a proposed scheme, and proposals for improvement to make, he was required to hand them in in writing. These animadversions were then considered by the synodal deputation on the subject (e.g. pro rebus ad fidem pertinentibus), and the scheme was then altered, reformed. If anyone, however, still wished for alterations in it, he was required to present himself for a conference with the legates, and then first bring forward his proposals by word of mouth, then present them in writing, i.e. if he succeeded in coming to a conference. For the legates possessed and exercised the right, at the written request of the members, to require the assembly to vote on the point brought forward, if the debate was finished. The amendments given in the manner mentioned were collected by the synodal congregation in question, were taken into consideration, and then again were brought before the general congregation, so that votes should be taken by standing and sitting on the particular points, whether they should be accepted or not. Finally, the scheme again reformed in accordance with these proposals was accepted (or rejected), by placet or non placet or placet juxta modum, by a general congregation. This was followed by the solemn acceptance (by placet or non placet) at the public session. Against both the orders of business, both that of November 27, 1869 (Multiplices inter), and that of February 20, 1870, representations were delivered to the legates by many bishops (the minority) on January 2, and March 1, 1870, but without result (see Friedrich, Documenta ad illustrandum Concil. Vatican, t. i., Nördlingen 1871, p. 247 sqq. and p. 258 sqq.) They wished (January 2) particularly that the speeches which had been delivered (and stenographed) should be printed and sent to the members, and that the schemata belonging to them should be given out at once, that the bishops and nationalities should be divided into about six groups, who should then communicate their proposals and motions through their confidential representatives, etc. In the second memorial, however (of March 1), they gave expression to the fear that, on several points in the second order of business, the liberty of individual members would be endangered and the minority easily prevented from expressing their opinion by premature closing of the debate. The remaining prescriptions, having reference rather to the ceremonial at the Synod, are found in the document: Methodus servanda in prima sessione, etc., and in the Ordo Concil. Œcumen., etc., printed in the Freiburg edition of the Acta et Decreta, etc., l.c. fasc. ii. p. 110 sqq. and p. 120 sqq.

p. 68. l. 9, for 1657, read 1567.

p. 72. After the par. ending “chronology,” add: A new and most complete collection of the Acts of the Councils has been announced by the famous Parisian publisher, Victor Palme, edited by my honoured friend, Dr. Nolte, A.D. 1870. A collection of the later Councils, from 1682 onwards, is now being made by the Jesuits in Maria—Laach, and in the year 1870 the first quarto volume appeared (published by Herder, Freiburg) with the title, Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum. Collectio Lacensis. Like this work, the Acta et Decreta ss. Concilii Vaticani (Freiburg, Herder) also form a supplement to the earlier collections of Councils.

p. 75. After par. 9, add: 10. Roisselet de Saucliers, Histoire, etc., des Conciles, 6 volumes (vols. 4–6 by the Abbé Avalon), Paris 1844–1855. 11. Abbé Guérin, Les Conciles generaux et particuliers; t. i. Bar le Duc, 1868.

p. 75. After par. 6, add: Finally, there has appeared a French translation of our History of the Councils by Abbé Delarc, Paris: Adrien le Clerc, 1869 pp., in 6 octavo volumes, extending to the end of the eleventh century. An English translation of our first volume has been edited by William R. Clark, M.A. Oxon. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh and London 1871. One volume, large 8vo.

p. 78. n. for Hard. i. 1493, read 1463.

p. 80. Sec. 2. [The whole of this section has been rewritten, leaving hardly anything of what appeared in the first edition, and is here given entire.]

A second series of Synods of the second century was occasioned by the Easter controversies. If the controversy in the ancient Church respecting Easter was great and violent, the controversy which has arisen among modern scholars on this subject has been still greater and more violent.

First of all comes the question, whether there were, in the ancient Church, two or three diverging parties on the Easter question. In the first edition of this work we took the side of those scholars, particularly Weitzel, who assumed the existence of three such parties in the ancient Church. We started from the point that, in the apostolic age and in the period immediately following, there were not merely two tendencies, the Pauline and Petrine (Judaising), to be distinguished, but that, alongside the orthodox Jewish Christians, who, like Peter and James the Less, still observed the old Law, but did not make salvation dependent upon it, and moreover did not regard the Gentile Christians as bound to such observance (Acts 15:28), an Ebionitish-Jewish party showed itself, which could not separate itself dogmatically from Judaism, and maintained for all Christians the perpetual obligation of the Law. It was these who disquieted the churches in Galatia, Antioch, and Corinth, and, after the death of James the Less, when the Petrine Simeon was chosen as his successor in the bishopric of Jerusalem, set up Thebutis in opposition to him. We held it as an error on the part of the so-called Critical School (of Dr. Baur of Tübingen), that they obliterated this distinction between the Jewish Christians, casting into one mass Petrines and Jews proper, Simeon and Thebutis, in order to be able to accentuate the opposition between the free Pauline and the Judaising or Petrine tendency.

So it appeared to us, and even now it seems probable, that in the ancient Church many Judaisers celebrated the Paschal feast not merely at the Jewish time, but with Jewish observances; but history has preserved no record of this, and in the history of the Paschal controversy, as we have convinced ourselves by further study, this third party does not appear. What in the first edition of this work we thought we had discovered relating to it (vol. i. p. 298 ff.), certainly refers only to the so-called Johannean Quartodecimans, i.e. those believers, especially in Proconsular Asia, who always celebrated Easter on the (second) evening of the 14th of Nisan (quarta decima = ιδʹ), as was commanded in Ex. 12:6, and professed to derive this practice from the Evangelist John. From Eusebius, too (Hist Eccl. v. 15), and from the spurious but ancient appendix to Tertullian’s writing, De Præscriptione, c. 53 on Blastus, whom we previously indicated as the only Ebionite Quartodeciman known by name; from which it is clear that he Judaised (latenter Judaismum vult inducere, says pseudo—Tertullian), but not a word is said of his keeping of Easter.

The Hebrew word פֶּסַח, in Aramaic פַּסְחָא, signifies transitus, passing over (Ex. 12:21, 27), i.e. the passing over the dwellings of the Israelites by the destroying angel. The Jewish Passover was accordingly a feast of joy on the salvation and redemption of the children of Israel from the Egyptian bondage. As, then, the apostles and their disciples saw everywhere in the Old Testament types and figures of the New Testament, so it was natural, in the place of the ancient festival of redemption, to keep a New Testament festival of redemption from the power of Satan, and to see in the Jewish Paschal lamb a type of the Lamb of the New Testament, which had been slain almost at the same time with the old. Paul had already designated the crucified Saviour as τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν (1 Cor. 5:7), and both contending parties in the second century, the Quartodecimans and their opponents, declare with one accord that the apostles had introduced the Christian Passover.

A difference among the Christians in regard to the Paschal festival meets us for the first time immediately after the middle of the second century. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 24) relates, from a letter of S. Irenæus to Bishop Victor of Rome, the following: “When the blessed Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) came to Rome in the time of Anicetus (Anicetus was bishop of Rome from 157 to 168, or from 155 to 166), and they had a slight dispute about some other things (περὶ ἄλλων τινῶν), they immediately came to an understanding. On account of this point, however (the Easter festival), they contended a little. Anicetus could not move Polycarp no longer to observe that (μὴ τηρεῖν) which he had always observed in fellowship with John, the disciple of the Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with whom he had intercourse. But Polycarp was also unable to move Anicetus to observe (τηρεῖν is terminus technicus of the observance of Old Testament prescriptions, cf. S. John 9:16), as the latter declared that he was bound to hold fast the custom of his predecessors. Finally, they maintained communion with one another, and Anicetus, out of respect for him, allowed Polycarp (to celebrate) the Eucharist (in the church), and they departed from one another in peace. Both the τηροῦντες and the μὴ τηροῦντες had perfect ecclesiastical peace.”

From this fragment we do not learn the exact nature of the difference, but only two points: (a) That Polycarp referred his Easter practice to John and other apostles, Anicetus his to his predecessors; and (b) That the so-called Johannean practice was observed (τηρεῖν) in accordance with an Old Testament command.

A few years later, more violent controversies arose, so that Melito, bishop of Sardis (in Asia Minor), found it necessary to write two books περὶ τοῦ πάσχα (about the year 170). In a fragment of this, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iv. 26), Melito says: “When Servilius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia, and Bishop Sagaris (of Laodicea) was martyred, a violent controversy broke out respecting Easter, which festival was then close at hand.” But unfortunately not a word is said on the points of the controversy and the differences. Something more we learn from Melito’s contemporary and countryman, Apollinaris of Hieropolis, who also wrote a work on Easter. Two fragments of it are preserved in the Chronicon Paschale. There we read: (1) “Those err who believe that the Lord ate the lamb on the 14th of Nisan with His disciples, and that He died on the great day of unleavened bread (the 15th of Nisan). They maintain that Matthew so represents it, but their view does not agree with the Law, and the Gospels would then contradict one another.” And (2) “The 14th of Nisan is the true Passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice; instead of the Lamb, there is here the Son of God,” etc.

According to this, Apollinaris opposes those Christians who believe that the Lord partook of the legal Paschal lamb on the 14th of Nisan; for on this day, Apollinaris thinks, Christ, the new Paschal Lamb, died. He made his foundation here the chronology of the Gospel according to S. John, which places the death of the Lord on the 14th, the Supper on the 13th of Nisan.

Hilgenfeld, in his treatise Der Paschastreit, maintains repeatedly (e.g. s. 257) that Quartodecimans, opposed by Apollinaris, had appealed, in behalf of their practice, not only to Matthew, but also to the old Law; but it was not they who did this, but Apollinaris himself. He says: “Their opinion did not agree with the old Law.” How Apollinaris himself had brought his practice into harmony with the old Law is not said; it appears to me, however, he argued thus: “According to the old Law the Paschal lamb had to be slain on the 14th of Nisan; as, however, the Old Testament is a type of the New, it is necessary that the new Paschal Lamb should be slain on the 14th of Nisan,” i.e. Christ was already dead when the time of the Paschal Supper began, and that which He partook of with His disciples before His death was not the Paschal Supper. Apollinaris further maintains that his manner of Easter brings in harmony among the Evangelists, and thus he is the predecessor of those theologians who endeavour to bring the chronology of the Synoptics into agreement with that of John.

Further, from these fragments of Apollinaris it does not come out once with certainty whether he or his opponents, or whether both, were Quartodecimans, i.e. whether he or they, or both, kept the day of the week, or the day of the month, and celebrated, in the first case, the day of the death always on a Friday, the day of the resurrection always on a Sunday, or, in the other case (like the Quartodecimans), always kept the day of the month (the 14th of Nisan) upon whatever day of the week it fell. We might, indeed, conclude from the second fragment of Apollinaris, “The 14th of Nisan is the true Passover,” that he always celebrated the day of the death on the 14th of Nisan, without regard to the day of the week, and thus in the manner of the Quartodecimans. But we must not lay any weight upon this, as Clement of Alexandria, who was undoubtedly an opponent of the Quartodecimans, made use of the same expressions as Apollinaris. In answer to Melito, indeed, against him, Clement wrote his λόγος περὶ τοῦ πάσχα, and the Chronicon Paschale (l.c. p. 14) has also preserved us fragments of this. In the first it is said: “Christ, in His earlier years, always partook of the Passover with His disciples, but no longer in His last year, when He was Himself the Lamb slain on the cross.” The second fragment says: “Christ died on the 14th day of Nisan, and after His death, on the evening of the same day, the Jews held their Passover supper.”

In like manner, the Quartodecimans are opposed by Hippolytus, the learned Roman priest (and temporary anti-pope), at the beginning of the third century, and our Church historian, Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth century. The latter principally repeats, in the fragment published by A. Mai, from his treatise on Easter (see p. 420, not the arguments of Clement of Alexandria; but Hippolytus writes: “He (the opponent) says, Christ on that day (14th of Nisan) celebrated the Passover and suffered (ἐποίησε τὸ πάσχα ὁ Χριστὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν); therefore I must do as Christ did (i.e. hold the Paschal festival on the 14th of Nisan). He errs, however, not knowing that Christ then, when He suffered, partook of the Passover no longer in accordance with the Law; for He was then Himself the Passover which was announced beforehand, and came to fulfilment on the appointed day.”

In the second fragment from the treatise περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πάσχα, Hippolytus writes: “As Christ (S. Luke 22:16) said beforehand, ‘I will not again eat of this Passover,’ He certainly held the δεῖπνον (Supper) before the Passover (as S. John 13:1 relates); but the Passover He did not eat again, but died; it was not yet the time to eat it.” Still more clearly speaks Hippolytus in the Philosophoumena (formerly attributed to Origen): “Others, contentiously or ignorantly, demand that the Easter festival must be held on the 14th day of the first month, in accordance with the requirement of the (ancient) Law, upon whatever day it may fall, anxiously scrutinising the passage of the Law which says, ‘Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them’ (Deut. 27:26).” Hence it results that Hippolytus, like Clement of Alexandria and Apollinaris, maintains that Christ, in the week of His suffering, did not partake of the Passover supper, but kept the Lord’s Supper before it was time for the Passover; and that He died at the time of the (Jewish) Paschal lamb. He thus opposes those who thought that the Christian must still do as the Lord had done, keep Easter on the 14th of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall. With the latter point he indicated a chief peculiarity of the Quartodecimans. In the Easter controversy between Pope Victor and the churches of Asia Minor this comes out in full clearness. Pope Victor wished no longer to tolerate the Quartodeciman practice, and therefore, according to the chronicle of Jerome, wrote (A.D. 196) to the leading bishops of all countries, asking them to assemble Synods in their provinces, and by means of these introduce the Western Easter custom. In some letters, e.g. to Polycrates of Ephesus, there were also threats contained, in case of their refusal (see p. 426). Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 23) relates on this as follows: “At that time (he had in the previous chapters spoken of Pope Victor, of Polycrates of Ephesus, and other famous bishops towards the end of the second century) there arose a violent controversy, because all the Asiatic churches, in accordance with ancient tradition, thought themselves bound to celebrate the saving festival of Easter on the 14th day of the Moon (14th of Nisan), on which day the Jews were commanded to slay the lamb; and on this day, on whatever day of the week it might fall, they thought that the fast should cease; whilst the whole of the rest of the Church, according to apostolic tradition, kept another custom, which still prevails, that the fast should not come to an end on any other day but on that of the resurrection of the Lord. Therefore Synods and assemblies of bishops were held, and all unanimously passed the ecclesiastical law, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead should be celebrated and the Lenten fast should end on no other day than on Sunday. We still possess the letter of the bishops assembled in Palestine, at the head of whom stood Theophilus of Cæsarea in Palestine and Narcissus of Jerusalem. A second letter, still extant, is that of the Roman Synod, to which the name of Victor is prefixed. There are also letters from Portus under Bishop Palamas, and the Gallican churches over which Irenæus presided, as well as some from those of Osrhoene, and also from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth, and many others, who all presented the same view, and gave the same judgment.”

In the following chapter (Hist. Eccl. v. 24) Eusebius proceeds thus: “Among the bishops of Asia (chiefly Asia Proconsularis), who most strenuously defended the custom received from their forefathers, stood forward Polycrates (of Ephesus). In his letter to Victor and the Roman Church, he explained the tradition which had come down to him: ‘We celebrate the uncorrupted day (ἡμέραν ἁραδιούργητον, from ῥαδιουργέω = to act thoughtlessly) without adding anything or taking anything away. In Asia great lights have died.… Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who died at Hieropolis, and his two daughters, who remained virgins, also another daughter of his, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, and lies buried in Ephesus; further, John, who lay on the breast of the Lord, was also a priest, who bore a lamina (priestly frontlet), became a martyr and teacher, and lies buried in Ephesus; also Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and martyr; further, Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia and martyr, who (now) rests at Smyrna. Why should I speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who died at Laodicea (p. 421), of Papirius, of Melito of Sardis, the eunuch?… They all observed the day of the 14th of Nisan as Easter, according to the Gospel, altering nothing, but in all ways following the rule of the faith; as I also, Polycarp, the least among you all, in accordance with the traditions of my kindred, whom I have followed (in office); for before me there were seven bishops of the see, and I am the eighth. They all have ever celebrated the day (of Easter) on that day on which the people (of Israel) put away the leaven. I now, my brethren, who already reckon sixty-five years in the Lord, and have had intercourse with the brethren in all the world, and have read through the whole of the sacred Scriptures, I shall not be intimidated by threats. For those who are much more than I have said, “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). I would mention to you the bishops whom, in accordance with your wish, I have called together. If I should add their names, it would make a very great number. They have given their assent to (this) my letter, knowing that I do not bear these grey hairs in vain, but always order my conduct according to the Lord Jesus.’ ”

On this, Victor proposed, as Eusebius further relates, to shut out from communion with him the bishops of all Asia (Asia Proconsularis) and the neighbourhood, and with this view sent forth many letters; but this was not pleasing to all the bishops, and several entreated him to be more peacefully disposed. Such letters still existed, Eusebius says, and he gives a large extract from the (now lost) letter of Irenæus to Victor, which forms for us a principal source in reference to the Paschal controversy. Eusebius says: “Among them (the bishops who warned Victor) Irenæus, in the letter which he wrote in the name of his brethren in Gaul, whose president he was, defended the view that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated only on Sunday, but admonished Victor, in a suitable manner, not to exclude from communion whole churches who only followed an ancient tradition.” Among other things he says: “The controversy refers not merely to the day (of the Easter festival) but also to the way and manner of fasting. Some think that it is obligatory to fast only on one day, others two days, and again others several days; some again, τεσσαράκοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς τε καὶ νυκτερινὰς συμμετροῦσι τὴν ἡμέραν αὐτῶν. And this difference of those observing (τῶν ἐπιτηρούντων, sc. their difference from the non-observing) does not arise for the first time in these days, but from a much earlier time, in consequence of the want of foresight and the defective insight of many rulers. Nevertheless, they kept the peace among themselves, and also we kept the peace. Difference in fasting goes along with unity in faith.… The priests (Roman bishops), who ruled your Church before Soter (about the year 170), I mean Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, have neither themselves observed (the day prescribed in the Old Testament), nor have allowed such observance to their adherents. But although not observing, they have yet kept the peace with those who came to them from observing (Quartodeciman) dioceses … and have never excluded them from communion. Nay more, these non-observing priests before you sent the Eucharist to those who belonged to observing dioceses. When the blessed Polycarp came in the time of Anicetus to Rome,” etc., as above, p. 420 f.

From the same Irenæus we possess a fuller utterance in regard to the Eastern controversy, in the third of the fragments discovered by Pfaff. Here Irenæus says: “The apostles ordained that no man should be judged in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath day (Col. 2:16.) Whence now these conflicts? Whence these schisms? We keep the feasts, but in the leaven of wickedness, since we rend the Church of God, and observe that which is outward (τὰ ἐκτός), in order the better to cast away faith and love. That these feasts and fasts are displeasing to the Lord, we have heard from the prophets.”

If from the contents of these documents we extract the proper results, we find, first of all—

1. That Christian antiquity did not regard the difference, for which they contended in the question about Easter, as fundamental and dogmatic. It was not here the free Pauline Christianity contending against a half Judaism, but both parties upon a purely Christian foundation; with both, the kernel and the contents of the Paschal festival was thoroughly Christian. They contended, as Irenæus said in the fragment last quoted, for τὰ ἐκτός, for the external, for the time of the festival. That the difference of the Quartodeciman or Johnannean Easter practice from the rest of the world did not touch the faith, and was not of fundamental importance, is further clear from this, that (a) Pope Anicetus kept the peace with Polycarp in spite of this difference, and allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in his church, which was a sign of the highest unity and love; also (b) that the other ancient Popes admitted to divine service those Christians who came from Quartodeciman countries to Rome; and (c) sent the Eucharist to Quartodecimans. The same is clear from the fact (d) that Irenæus blamed Pope Victor for his severity towards the Quartodecimans, and added, that in earlier times the two parties had kept the peace with one another, and that so it was now in Gaul (“we keep the peace”). In order fully to estimate the importance of these points, we must remember how violently and severely the Apostle John expressed himself against Cerinthus, and so all the ancient teachers against that doctrinal apostasy; (e) further, Apollinaris and Hippolytus impute to their opponents only “contention and ignorance” (see above, p. 422 ff.), but in no way dogmatic error; (f) finally, the Synod of Arles (A.D. 314) and that of Nicæa (A.D. 325) regarded the difference as not dogmatic, as not touching the kernel and the dogmatic significance of the festival; and of the same view was Eusebius also, when in his Vita Constantini iii. 5 he wrote: “In one and the same feast has the difference of the time (and so no fundamental or dogmatic difference) caused so great a loss of unity.” But we shall have again to speak more at large on this subject below.

2. The Quartodecimans are designated as τηροῦντες, because they observed practically a feast day ordered in the old Law (the 14th of Nisan), and the author of the Philosophoumena states that the painful regard to the words of the Old Testament, “Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” was the occasion of their keeping the 14th of Nisan. But the special ground by which they were induced to do so, was not the Law, but the Gospel. Not because they wished to maintain the permanent obligations of the Law for Christians also (like the Judaisers), did they keep the 14th of Nisan, but because, on this day, Christ had celebrated the Passover. This is said expressly by Apollinaris and Hippolytus; and Eusebius, too, in his fragment on Easter (A. Mai, see above, p. 420), acknowledges that they had appealed to the example of Christ. He replied to them that “there was no legislation in a fast.” Further, Polycrates also says quite definitely: “They celebrate the 14th of Nisan as Passover according to the Gospel.” Had they regarded the Law as laying down a rule, then from the law-ordained Paschal period they would not have held merely a single day. That several opponents should so represent the matter as though merely or chiefly the regard for the legislation of the Old Testament had been the guide of the Quartodecimans, was an obvious remark. Appearance was in favour of it, and opponents are usually painted as black as possible.

3. But what festivals did they celebrate on the 14th of Nisan? Certainly not the slaying and eating of the lamb. Even with the Jews the Paschal lambs were allowed to be eaten only in Jerusalem, and since the destruction of this city the Paschal lambs of necessity fell quite out of use. But apart from this, the Quartodecimans held a New Testament festival on the day appointed in the Old Testament. None of their opponents brings the reproach that their festival is also Jewish; on the contrary, they always opposed and blamed them on account of the day. As, however, the Passover of the Old Testament was a feast of joy on account of the deliverance from Egypt, so was also the New Testament feast (for the Quartodecimans, as for their opponents) the festival of redemption. The difference was only this, that the Quartodecimans celebrated the festival of redemption (Pascha = transitus) on the day on which Christ, in their opinion, ate the Paschal supper, and began His sufferings, whilst their opponents celebrated the festival of redemption on the day on which His sufferings ended by the resurrection. But even they (the opponents of the Quartodecimans) did not regard it as quite a festival of resurrection, but as a festival of redemption, and only the latter and not the former had the name of Passover. Beyond all doubt, moreover, the Quartodecimans and their opponents alike began Easter in this way, they both had, on their festal day, solemn Agape and communion.

4. It is generally asserted that the Quartodecimans had, at their Easter, celebrated only the memorial of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. This seems to me to be incorrect. The Lord had already, at the institution of the Supper, brought that into closest connection with His death (“This is My Blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins,” S. Matt. 26:28); and expressly ordained: “As often as ye eat this bread, etc., ye do shew the Lord’s death until He come” (1 Cor. 11:26.) In accordance with the will of the Lord, the faithful, in fact, from the earliest time, in every Eucharistic celebration, at the same time also celebrated the death of the Lord, and the Quartodecimans made certainly here no unchristian exception. No one has ever brought such an accusation against them. And how could they have made such an exception, since they celebrated Easter as a festival of redemption? Could the Christian think of redemption without thinking of the death of our Lord? Add to this that the Quartodecimans had only one feast day for Easter, as Polycrates says, and so were specially constrained, on this one feast day, also to commemorate the great act of salvation, of our redemption by the death of Christ. Our supposition that they also celebrated the death of Christ on the 14th of Nisan is confirmed by Hippolytus and Theodoret. The former lets the Quartodeciman speak: ἐποίησε τὸ πάσχα ὁ Χριστὸς τὸτε τῇ ἡμερᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν. Theodoret says of the Quartodecimans, that they celebrate their Easter on any day of the week, as it may happen, and πανηγυρίζουσι τοῦ πάθους τὴν μνήμην.

5. In distinction from the Quartodecimans, the rest of the Christians, the great majority, celebrated the feast of redemption (Easter) always on a Sunday (the next Sunday after the ιδʹ) because Christ rose on the Sunday, and thereby placed the crown on His work of redemption. But along with this chief-day (with the solemn Easter Agape), they celebrated the death of Christ on the preceding Friday, and called also this day Easter (πάσχα). Tertullian, so early as about the year 200, distinguishes a double Paschal day, the dies paschæ, quo communis est et quasi publica jejunii religio, and where we merito deponimus osculum (sc. pacis), i.e. Good Friday (De Orat. c. 14), and the dies paschæ, from which until Pentecost the knees are no longer bent (De corona, c. 3), i.e. Easter Sunday. Much later these days were designated as πὰσχα σταυρώσιμον and ἀναστάσιμον.

6. As regards the second principal point of difference, the fasts, it is clear that the Quartodecimans ended the fasts on the 14th of Nisan, on whatever day of the week that might fall, whilst the rest of the Church did not end the fast until Sunday, on which day they celebrated the resurrection of the Lord. Eusebius states this quite expressly (Hist. Eccl. v. 23). The further differences in regard to fasts, of which Irenæus speaks (see p. 426), are, for our question, of no great importance; but it is probable that he understood the Quartodecimans to be among those who fasted only one day. This difference in fasting may be explained by the fact that the Quartodecimans finished all in one day, and then at the end of this Paschal day, as they did not celebrate a special day of the death, nor a special festival of the resurrection, had no reason for continuing the fast, while the rest of the Church, following the natural feeling of sorrow, fasted as long as the Sponsus ablatus erat, i.e. until the celebration of the resurrection.

7. The Quartodecimans referred their practice to the Evangelist John and the Apostle Philip. Whether this claim was well founded can no longer be determined. The practice was certainly of great antiquity; whilst it must be conceded that that which Polycrates says of the Apostle Philip and of John (that he wore the lamina, etc.) has a legendary sound. The so-called Tübingen School accepts very readily this statement of the Johannean origin of the Quartodeciman practice, and the “critical school” has here no critical doubts, because in that statement they think they have discovered a strong argument against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. The Quartodecimans, so they argue, maintain that Christ held the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, and that He died on the 15th of Nisan (see above, p. 421), but the Fourth Gospel says that Christ died on the 14th (not the 15th of Nisan). As the Quartodecimans represent the genuine Johannean chronology, the Fourth Gospel with its contradictory chronology cannot be Johannean. It is not our business to enter upon this great question; for us it suffices to have drawn attention to the legendary character of the statement of Polycrates, and to ask whether the critical school accepts as credulously the statement of the anti-quartodecimans, that their Easter practice came from the Apostle Peter (see below, No. 9), that is, the free Christian practice from the head of the unfree Judaising tendency of the τηροῦντες.

8. The home of the Quartodeciman practice, as Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 24) says, was Asia, i.e. Asia Proconsularis; but he adds, “and the neighbouring provinces,” and in fact we find them also in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria, as Athanasius testifies; yet this cannot refer to the whole of Cilicia, for the Emperor Constantine (Vit. Const. iii. 19) says that Cilicia followed the Western practice.

9. By far the greater part of Christendom was in opposition to the Quartodecimans, and always celebrated the great festival of Easter on Sunday. According to Eusebius (v. 23), the latter practice was observed by all the other churches in the whole world, with the exception of the Asiatics. In particular, he refers to Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, Osrhoene, Corinth, Phœnicia, and Alexandria; the Emperor Constantine the Great, however, asserts that “all the churches in the West, Sweden, and Norway, had this practice, particularly Rome, all Italy, Africa, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Lybia, all Achaia (Greece); even in the diocese of Asia and Pontus and in Cilicia it existed. From this it results that it is not quite exact to speak of this practice as Western; it would more correctly be described as communis. According to Socrates (Hist. Eccl. v. 22), it was referred to the Apostles Peter and Paul; and even Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. v. 23) says that it was derived ἐξ ἀποστολικῆς ποραδόσεως. Irenæus, on the contrary, as we saw (p. 428), adduces only the Popes of the beginning of the second century as its defenders.

If we hold by these results, we are now in a position to understand exactly what Eusebius, in his Vit. Const. iii. 5, says on the Paschal controversy: “Some maintained that we ought to follow the Jewish custom (i.e. observe Easter always on the 14th of Nisan, without regard to the day of the week). Others wish to have the hour of the time accurately observed, i.e. they wish to celebrate all the moments in the work of redemption: Death, rest in the grave, resurrection, accurately at the hour—and on the day of the week—when they actually took place. As in this way the peoples were long and widely in doubt, since at one and the same festival the difference of the time (thus no fundamental or doctrinal difference) caused the greatest want of uniformity, since the one were fasting and mourning whilst the others were giving themselves up to rest and joy (i.e. the Quartodecimans had ended their fast on the ιδʹ; whilst the rest of the Christians were fasting and mourning up to the coming Sunday), so that no one could bring help out of this evil. Only God and the Emperor Constantine could do so,” adds the courtier.

In our previous investigations we have learnt to know the Synods which were held towards the end of the second century on account of the Easter controversies:—

(a) Those in Palestine under Theophilus of Cæsarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem.

(b) The Roman Synod under Pope Victor.

(c) The Synod in Pontus under Bishop Palmas of Amastris.

(d) One or two Gallican Synods under Irenæus.

(e) The Synod in Osrhoene in Mesopotamia.

(f) The Synods at Ephesus under Polycrates. The latter Synods pronounced in favour of the Quartodeciman practice, all the others against it. See above, p. 425 f.

p. 102. After par. ending “heretics,” add: Certainly Cyprian communicated this decree also, and it was probably now (not after the second Carthaginian Synod on this matter) that the Pope showed that great unfriendliness towards the Africans to which Firmilian refers, refusing to receive their envoys, forbidding the faithful to receive them into their houses, and calling S. Cyprian a false Christian, false apostle, and dolosus operarius.

p. 103. After par. ending “genuine,” add: Recently Archbishop Tizzani, Professor at Rome, in his treatise, La celebre contesa fra S. Stefano e S. Cypriano, Roma 1862, has trod in his footsteps, attempting to show that the controversy between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian was not historical, and that the chapter in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which refers to it, is interpolated.

p. 112. A good deal of what was here contained in the first edition is omitted in the second. Sec. 3, after the quotation from Cyprian, and Sec. 4 appear in the following form: Vincentius Lirinensis (in his Commonitorium, c. 6) and Augustine (De Bapt. v. 25) understood these words as follows: “No innovation has taken place, but there is observed what is according to tradition, that the hand should be laid upon him for penance.” Others, on the contrary, translate: “To the convert there is nothing new, but what is in accordance with tradition, that the hand be laid upon him for penance.”

Whichever of these two explanations we accept, which are essentially the same, the question still arises, what we are to understand by the manus impositio ad pœnitentiam. Some scholars, in later times particularly Dr. Mattes, in the treatise (Tüb. Theolog. Quartalschrift) repeatedly referred to, are of the view that Pope Stephen required the manus impositio both for the confirmation of the converts and for their reconciliation through the sacrament of penance; whilst others, and recently in particular Professor Dr. Schwane, in Münster (l.c. S. 755 ff.), think it can only refer to a manus impositio in regard to reconciliation. The text is in favour of the later views, only we must add that to such converts, at their coming over, the full reception into the Church (by the second laying on of hands) was not given immediately, but only the first imposition of hands for admission to Church penance.

p. 119. n. add: Dittrich, Dionysius der Gr. v. Alex. 1867, S. 124; Kuhn, Dogmatik, Bd. ii.; Trinitätslehre, S. 97.

p. 124. n. add Knhn, l.c. S. 311 f.

p. 131. After the paragraph ending Biblioth. Eccles., add: A new edition, with a Spanish translation of the canons, appeared at Madrid 1849, in two quarto volumes, with the title, Coleccion de canones de la iglesa espanola, etc.

p. 132. n. add: Cf. Gams, Kircheng v. Spanien, Regensburg 1864, Bd. ii. S. 10 ff.; S. 14 ff.

p. 136. n. add: Gams, Kircheng 5. Spanien, Regensburg 1862, Bd. i. S. 298 ff.

p. 137. n. add: Gams decides that the Synod was held in May 306 (Kircheng. v. Spanien, ii. 8). The Martyria of Vincentius say expressly that the Præses, when he gave orders for the execution of this the Levite of Bishop Valerius, commanded: “Put this bishop forth, for it is right that he should endure banishment” (Gams, l.c. 8, 377).

p. 138. Can. 1. After idolaturus, add (leg. idololatraturus).

p. 138. Transl. of can.: “If an adult who has been baptised has entered an idol’s temple, in order to sacrifice, and so has committed a capital crime,” etc.

To the comment on can. 1, add: If we had no doubt before, that by communis here, and in a hundred other places, the reception of the holy supper, specially as viaticum for the dying, was to be understood, we are essentially confirmed in this view by the investigations of Frank in his treatise, Die Bussdisciplin (l867), S. 739, 745, 889, 896–903. According to this we must distinguish: (a) Sacramental absolution; (b) Reception of the communion; and (c) Canonical absolution (from works of penance). The latter was bound up with the solemn receiving back; sacramental absolution (from sins), on the contrary, was refused to no sinner, and was imparted before the canonical. One canon thus says: “To such sinners, even on their deathbed, the holy communion is not to be administered”; but that sacramental absolution was also withheld from them, is nowhere said.

After can. 3, add: Dr. Nolte would amend: Lusisse de dom. comm. or illusisse dominicæ communioni, and above, præstari instead of præstare (Tüb. Qu. Schrift, 1865, S. 309 and 312).

p. 141. Can. 8. “Some interpreters,” add: cf. Aubespine in Mansi. l.c. t. ii. p. 38. Add at the end of comment on can. 8: So that a Christian wife who leaves her Christian but adulterous husband, and marries another, should not be admitted to communion so long as the husband she has left is alive. Only in case of severe sickness she may be treated more indulgently, and admitted to the communion.

Add to can. 9: Nolte would change dare into the grammatically more correct dari. See Tüb. Theol. Quartr., 1865, S. 311.

p. 142. Add at end of page: On the views of the Fathers with respect to divorce, etc., cf. the notes of Cotelier on Pastor Hermæ, lib. ii. Mandatum ii. [in his edition of the Patres Apostolici].

p. 143. In can. 13, l. 2, after libidini, add (sc. carnis, de qua supra).

p. 144. After can. 15, add: Marriages between heathen men and Christian girls were very frequent in antiquity, especially (1) because of the greater number of Christian women than Christian men, and (2) in such mixed marriages the man, who was generally indifferent, did not hinder his wife from the exercise of her faith, and also left to her the religious education of the children. Our Synod therefore certainly disapproved such marriages, but imposed no penance upon them (cf. Gams, l.c. S. 60 ff.).

After can. 16: The Synod is much more strict in regard to the marriages with heretics and Jews than in regard to those with heathen. Heretics and Jews were not so indifferent as heathens, and not so yielding in the education of the children. Here there was much greater danger. The words neque hæreticos appear superfluous, as the reference, from the beginning of the canon, was to heretics.

After can. 17, add: The wife of a heathen priest was herself obliged to take part in the sacrifices; hence the greater stringency. The word forte, however, shows that such cases seldom occurred.

p. 145. Add to comment on can. 19: Our Council ordains that a Spanish cleric should exercise his business only within the four (subsequently five) provinces of Spain, in which he lived; and so also not in other parts of Spain, still less in Italy, Africa, etc.

Can. 20, add: cf. the author’s essay in the Tübingen Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 405 ff. (in the Beiträge, etc., Bd. i. S. 31 ff.).

After can. 21, add: The penalty here is a temporary exclusion from presence at divine service, connected with the withdrawal of those ecclesiastical rights which otherwise belonged to every member of the Church. Cf. Kober, Deposition, 1867, S. 59.

p. 146. Add to comment on can. 23: So well into the night, till midnight.

p. 148. At end of comment on can. 26, add: cf. Gams, l.c. S. 80.

p. 149. After can. 30, add: If anyone in his youth has been guilty of unchastity, he may not be a subdeacon, because he might then easily slip into a higher grade. If such an one has already been ordained (a subdeacon), he must be deposed.

After can. 32 remove the first part of the comment down to “ancient Church,” and substitute as follows: “If anyone through a serious lapse (into sin) has been betrayed into the ruin of (spiritual) death, he must do penance, not with a priest, but only with a bishop. If, however, a sickness presses, the priest may also administer the communion.”

The meaning of this canon is greatly contested. Morinus pronounced in favour of the view that, in cases of necessity and with permission of the bishop, even deacons could administer sacramental absolution. He is opposed by Binterim (Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 432 f.), who understood the canon thus: “In case of necessity even a priest might administer the holy communion, and at his request a deacon might assist him.” Frank, on the contrary, in his work, Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche, 1867, S. 243–257, distinguishes between sacramental absolution (from sins), canonical absolution (from ecclesiastical penalties), and understands our canon thus: “At the command of the bishop, even a deacon may administer to the penitent (who is already sacramentaliter absolved) canonical absolution, together with the holy Eucharist.”

p. 150. n. add Mansi, t. iii. p. 869.

p. 151. n. add Gams, l.c. S. 85–94.

After can. 35, add: There is no reference here to the vigils of the great festivals, and to the vigil service in the church. Participation in the latter was not denied to women. But only men, and not women, were allowed to hold the night watches upon the graves of the martyrs.

After can. 36, for the comment in ed. i., substitute the following: The only correct sense of this canon, which has been explained in various ways, has recently been given by the celebrated Roman archæologist Rossi (Roma Sotterreana, t. i. p. 97). He starts from the well-known fact that those localities for Christian service which were relatively the most secure (against a visit or an attack from the heathen) were in early times decorated with Christian wall paintings, e.g. the Catacombs at Rome. Into these subterranean localities the heathen could not easily penetrate. If a church were in the open air, they had to abstain from adorning it with specifically Christian pictures, in order that when the heathen entered they might not provoke derision or even persecution. As, however, the places of prayer in Spain were not now subterranean, and so not so secure, our Spanish Synod ordained that on the walls of these churches placed sub divo no pictures of the saints (quod colitur) and no representations of Christ (quod adoratur) should be introduced. There is no reference to any generally hostile tendencies against the images, and the many works of this kind which are known from the ancient Spanish Church, as the very beautiful sarcophagi of Saragossa, prove that there was no tendency in Spain hostile to the images. Cf. the most recent studies on the Roman Catacombs by Count Desbassayus de Richemont, Mainz 1872 (S. 7).

p. 152. In comment on can. 37, after “light the lamps,” add: If they nevertheless do so, they shall be expelled from the Church. Communis, at the end of the canon = communion with the Church. Even the demoniacs were in this, but to the holy communion they were admitted only at the end of their life. (Cf. Gams, l.c. S. 99.)

To the comment on can. 38, add: From this and other passages Mayer endeavours, in his work on the Catechumenate, etc. (1868, S. 185 ff.), to prove that the laying on of hands alone, without the chrism, was the matter of confirmation, because the chrism had been applied at baptism. This view is strongly supported by the second canon of the Synod of Orange, A.D. 441 (see vol. ii. sec. 162).

p. 154. At the end of notes on can. 39, add: I find myself unable to agree with this exposition. In can. 38 above, where sickness at sea is considered, a catechumen is assumed; but here, in can. 39, a heathen, who did not hitherto believe in Christ, and this explains why he should be treated more severely than that catechumen, i.e. should not be admitted to baptism, but only among the catechumens or aspirants. Cf. Nickes, l.c.

After can. 40, add: Heathen farmers brought offerings to Pan, to Flora, to Vertumnus, etc., and because the blessing which, in their opinion, was hereby obtained was for the benefit of the proprietor, they took into account the expense incurred in reckoning with the owner, and the owner accepted it as part payment. Accepto ferre has, in juristic Latin (the pandects), always the meaning: “Something regarded as received, and consequently no longer to be required of the debtor. That is to say,” etc.

p. 155. After comment on can. 42, add: Nolte suggests that, instead of ad primam fidem credulitatis, we should read, ad primam fidei credulitatem =“at the beginning of the inward conviction of the truths of the faith.” At the end of the canon he would read subveniri instead of subvenire (Tüb. theol. Quart. 1865, S. 311 f.).

p. 156. At end of comment on can. 45, add: Instead of de clero quisque, Nolte would place the more (linguistically) accurate quis, and, with Routh, at the end of the canon, he would read, in vetere homine deliquisse (Tüb. Quart. 1865, S. 312).

p. 157. At end of comment on can. 46, add: The shortened idolator and idolatria, instead of idololator and idololatria, frequently occur in Christian writers. Cf. Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v. and above, under can. 1.

p. 158. After comment on can. 49, add: Cf. Gams, l.c. S. 108 f.

p. 159. Add to can. 51: A heretic is here called fidelis = one who believes in Christ.

Add to comment on can. 53: Cf. Gams, l.c. S. 111; Kober, Kirchenbann, S. 188 and 453.

p. 161. In can. 56, after “Magistratus,” add (leg. magistratum).

p. 162. Add to comment on can. 58: Gams (l.c. S. 167 f.) explains this canon differently. He understands by prima cathedra episcopatus the first church of a diocese, i.e. the cathedral, and finds the following meaning: “Travelling Christians who bring letters of commendation shall everywhere be carefully inquired of by the priests at the bishop’s residence, whether everything is correctly represented in their communications, i.e. whether they had not fraudulently obtained the letters, and the like.

p. 163. End of comment on can. 59, add: Dr. Nolte, instead of et videat, would read vel or aut videat; and, at the close: Quodsi fecerit pari crimine teneatur, ac si fuerit fidelis, et post, etc. According to this, we should translate: “If a catechumen (Christian) goes to the capital as a heathen, in order to sacrifice, or even only to look on, he must, in regard to his offence, be placed with the faithful, but not, as these (can. 1), be shut out all their life, but, after ten years’ penance, be received back again.” Tüb. Quartalschr. 1855, S. 312 f. According to this, the catechumens would be placed, in regard to their offence, on a level with the baptized, but yet punished more gently.

p. 168. After can. 73, add: There is here no distinction made between true and false accusation. Every accusation, which occasioned punishments too severe, was to be punished.

After can. 74, for the comment in ed. 1, substitute the following: Falsus testis is here the witness for the accusation. He is called falsus, even if he proves his accusation (et probaverit). Such a witness is to be expelled in proportion to the offence on account of which he testified. If the offence is not one which is punishable with death, and if he can prove his accusation, he shall undergo penance for two years, because he has not kept silence. If he is unable to prove it before the clergy assembled at the penitential tribunal (conventu = qui convenit, see Tüb. Quartalschr. 1865, S. 313), he shall undergo penance for five years. The word probaverit, however, in accordance with the usage of the phrase, probare alicui aliquid = “to make something acceptable to another,” or “to bring it about, that one is contented with something,” might be taken to mean, “if the offence to which he testified does not belong to those upon which the punishment of death is placed, and if he could set forth valid reasons for the circumstance that he had not kept silence (e.g. that otherwise he would have been killed),” etc. Naturally, in this explanation, the ordinary punctuation must be restored to our canon, a comma placed after objecit and tacuerit, and the one after probaverit struck out. Others would read diu tacuerit, for non tacuerit, and translate: “If he can prove that he has been long silent, and thus did not give testimony willingly.” But the reading diu is not supported by any ancient manuscript. (See Gams, l.c. S. 133.)

p. 169. After can. 75, add: Cf. can. 14 of the Synod of Arles (A.D. 314).

p. 172. In the comment on can. 81, after “on the whole the same,” add: Gams, starting from the fact that in Spain the wife never takes the name of her husband, translates: “Wives shall not under their own names, without the name of their husbands, write to women who are believers, nor shall they receive from anyone else the letters of peace written merely to their name.”

p. 174. n. add: Marca, De Primatibus, p. 10 f. and p. 63 sq., ed. Francof. 1708; and Noris, Diss de synodo Quinta, ed. Ballerini, t. i. p. 743 sq. and p. 755, and t. iv. p. 1027 sq.

p. 187. After can. 5, add: On the horror of the ancient Christians in regard to all scenic and pantomimic performances, the author has treated at greater length in the Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 396 ff., and in the Beiträge, Bd. i. S. 28 ff.

p. 193. At the end of note on can. 15, add: Cf. the remarks on the 18th canon of Nicæa and the discussion by Dr. München, l.c. S. 76 ff.

p. 194. At the end of comment on can. 16, add: Kober, Kirchenbann, S. 452.

p. 196. After can. 22, add: To such sinners holy communion (the Eucharist) was not to be administered, but sacramental absolution, which preceded admission to the Eucharist, and reception back into the Church, was not denied even to such sinners. Cf. Frank, Die Bussdisciplin, S. 889.

p. 197. After can. 6 (29), add: Second Law of Celibacy, cf. can. 33 of Elvira.

p. 199, Sec. 16. l. 1, for “Maximilian,” read “Maximin.”

p. 209. l. 16, for “gods,” read “idols.”

p. 210. n. add: And Assemani, Bibliotheca juris orient. t. v. p. 126.

p. 213. After comment on can. 13, add: A simpler explanation might be given, if it were permitted to understand χειροτονεῖν, not of ordination proper, but in the sense of καθιστάναι, thus: It is not permitted to Chorepiscopi and city priests, without a commission from the bishop, to appoint a priest or a deacon (to a post) and to invest him. The latter idea is contained also in καθιστάναι.

p. 216. l. 5 ab im., after “Herbst,” etc., add: recently defended decidedly by Frank, in his treatise, Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche (1867), S. 589 ff.

p. 217. After comment on can. 17, add: In opposition to this, Prank (l.c. S. 567 and 589–592) takes λέπρα in the literal sense, and translates: “If those who have mixed themselves with an irrational brute, have thereby contracted an infectious disease,” etc. He holds it unjustifiable to assume a figurative meaning, when the literal sense is much more serviceable for the explanation of the whole. But, in the first place, it is not correct to say that leprosy is a consequence of bestiality; and, in the second, λεπρώσαντας, as we showed, is transitive, and cannot be translated, “has contracted an infectious disease”; in the third place, the figurative use of λέπρα is as little strange, as with us is the figurative use of contamination. To be consistent, Frank must also refuse to admit a figurative meaning in the sentence: “Those who have contaminated themselves and others by sin.”

p. 220. At end of comment on can. 21, after “Van Espen,”-add: and recently Dr. Kober, Kirchenbann, S. 103.

p. 221. Can. 23, translation, for “unpremeditated,” read “unintentional.”

p. 226. End of note on can. 5, add: On the correct sense of our canon, cf. particularly Mayer, Gesch. des Catechumenats, 1868, S. 52 f. 66.

p. 228. After transl. of can. 9, add: Canon Frank gives a fuller explanation of this canon in his treatise, Bussdisciplin der Kirche, Mainz 1867, S. 464 f.

p. 231. Sec. 18, at l. 10, after “others,” add: particularly Dionysius of Rome, and before him Callistus.

p. 232, n. add: Kuhn, Quartalschr. 1855, S. 343 ff., and the same writer’s Dogmatik, Bd. ii.; Trinitätslehre, S. 99–107, and S. 117–286.

p. 234, n. add: Kuhn, Trinitätslehre, 1857, S. 239–256; Dittrich, Dionysius d. Gr. von Alex. 1867, S. 91; Förster, Theodor. de doct. et sententia Dionysii M. 1865.

p. 235. l. 6, after “three gods,” add: It is hardly probable that he was here combating a special then existent tritheistic sect (certainly none such existed); rather are we to assume that he had in view the tritheistic inference that might be drawn from some expressions of the Alexandrian.

p. 236. n. add: cf. Kuhn, Trinitätslehre, S. 246–254.

p. 238. n. for Theod. i. 4, p. 15, read i. 5, p. 21.

p. 240. In par. γ, after “true God,” add: By means of this fundamental dualistic conception, Arius thought to hold fast the truth in Monarchianism, i.e. the full, unweakened notion of the one absolute Godhead, and also to be able to do justice to the Christian belief in the three divine Persons, since he placed, at the top, the proposition: “There is one God, the Father; nothing can attain to Him, the unutterable; He is absolutely and essentially separated from all other existence”; but immediately added the second proposition: “All besides Him exists merely by His will, and the Son is His immediate work; other things are made by the Father through the mediation of the Son.” (Cf. Kuhn, Trinitätslehre, S. 348.) The age of the Emperor Constantine, etc.

p. 246. l. 18, after “two,” delete comma.

p. 252. l. 5, for “Mother of God,” read “God-bearer”; note
add: Bishop Alexander meant to say: The generation of the Son is not like another finite generation. It is a generation, and yet no (ordinary) generation. Moreover, there was (at least in ordinary language) no difference at that time made between γενητός = become (from γίγυεσθαι), and γεννητός = begotten (from γεννάω). Cf. Kuhn, Trinitätslehre, S. 353. Arius, in particular, argued from the orthodox term: “The Son is not unbegotten” (ἀγέννητος), as if it were said, “He is not ἀγένητος” (not uncreated).

p. 257. At end of par. 1, add: Cf. Kuhn, Trinitätslehre, S. 359, n. 3.

p. 258. l. 5, for “the mighty God,” read “as mighty God”; n. add Mansi, xiii. 315.

p. 265. Par. 2. After “that assembly,” the remainder of the paragraph in ed. 2 stands as follows: The third book, as it lies before us, contains only three letters of Constantine; the whole of the third book, however, is still extant in a codex of the Ambrosian Library (Codex MS. miscellaneus Græcus, M. 88, see iii.) discovered by A. Mai, and described by Dr. F. Oehler in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift f. wissen. Theologie, 1861, Heft 4, S. 439 ff. Unfortunately it still remains unprinted.

p. 267. Par. 4. After “Council of Nicæa,” add: Another supposed Nicene document, the canon on the Easter festival, Pitra supposed that he had discovered (Spicil. Solesm, t. iv. p. 540) in the Collection of Canons by John of Constantinople; but it is of much more recent date, and nothing else than a collection of the ordinances passed at Nicæa on the subject in question (cf. below, sec. 37). On the 9th of February of this year (1872), H. Révillout gave out in the Academy of Inscriptions in Paris that he had discovered in the Museum of Turin, in a Coptist MS. going back to the fourth century, a fragment of the lost (?) Acts of the Nicene Council, that the fragment was a part of the sentences of the Council on Morals, and particularly had reference to the “spiritual sisters.” So long as the new discovery is not before us, naturally its value cannot be determined, and least of all can it be estimated whether it does or does not contradict our statement that more complete Acts of Nicæa have never existed. The reference to the spiritual sisters, however, might allow us to suppose a relationship between the Coptic fragment and the third Nicene canon.

p. 269. After line 6, add: He was bishop of the Catholic Goths in the Crimea (Besel, Leben des Ulfilas, S. 115).

p. 270. End of Sec. 24, add note: Cf. v. Sybel, Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzugs. S. 334 f.

p. 288. n. add: Cf. Zahn, Marcell v. Ancyra, 1867, S. 11 ff., 19, 22, 25, 87.

p. 294. n. l. 7 ab im., after “controversies,” add: It runs thus: “We confess our Lord Jesus, the Christ, who was begotten from all eternity by the Father according to the Spirit (i.e. according to His divine nature), and was in the last days born of the Virgin according to the flesh, one Person composed of heavenly Godhead and human flesh, and in His proper form man. He is quite God and quite man, quite God, also together with (i.e. in union, μετά, with) the body, but yet not God according to the body; and quite man also with the Godhead, but yet not man according to the Godhead; therefore in His completeness worthy of worship also with the body, but yet not worthy of worship according to the body; and in His completeness also with His Godhead, Himself worshipping (the Father), but yet not worshipping Him according to His Godhead; altogether uncreated, also with the body, but yet not uncreated as regards the body; altogether fashioned (πλαστόν) also with the Godhead, but yet not fashioned as regards the Godhead; altogether of one substance with the Father, also with the body, but yet not in regard to the body of one substance with the Father, as also in His Godhead, He is not of one substance with men, although after the flesh, also with the Godhead, He is of one substance with us. And if we name Him of one substance with God after the Spirit, we do not say that, after the Spirit, He is also of one substance with men; and again, when we name Him, after the flesh, of one substance with men, we do not say that, after the flesh, He is also of one substance with God. As, after the Spirit, He is not of one substance with us, but in this respect is of one substance with God, so, after the flesh, also, He is not of one substance with God, since in this respect He is of one substance with us. As, however, this explanation and elucidation must not serve for the rending asunder of the one Person of the undivided Christ, but for making clear how the attributes (ἰδιώματα) of the flesh and of the Logos have not become confused together (εἰς δήλωσιν τοῦ ἀσυγχύτου τῶν ἰδιωμάτων), so we also declare the union (σύνθεσις) of the undivided; i.e. we do not say that the natures in Christ become mixed (like the Monophysites), yet we do not separate them (like the Nestorians), but unite them.” From this extract it is quite clear that the creed in question belongs to the period of the Christological controversies, and so to the fifth century, and contains in itself the termini technici (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀδιαιρέτως) of the fourth Œcumenical Council at Chalcedon, A.D. 451.

p. 295. n. for Soz. i. 9, read Socrates i. 9.

Pp. 298–317, ending with “after that event,” cancelled in the second edition, and the following substituted:—

The second matter of importance on account of which the Synod of Nicæa was convoked, was the removal of existing differences in celebrating the festival of Easter. As we saw in sec. 2, even in the second century after Christ, several Synods were occasioned by the Paschal controversies. A part of the Christian Church, particularly in Asia Minor, always celebrated the Paschal feast on the same day with the Jews, on the 14th of Nisan (ιδʹ), on whatever day of the week that might fall, and also ended the fast on this day (the Quartodecimans), whilst the majority of Christendom, particularly the West, Egypt, and Greece, always celebrated Easter on the Sunday after the 14th of Nisan, and also continued the fast up to that time. In the controversy at that time between Pope Victor and the inhabitants of Asia Minor, Irenæus, as Eusebius remarks (Hist. Eccl. v. 24), became an εἰρηνοποῖος (peacemaker), and on this occasion wrote not only to Victor, but also to other bishops (S. 427 f.); but the differences continued in a disagreeable manner, and in the third century there emerged a new and important matter of difference in the festival, which we will call the astronomical.

The Quartodecimans always celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, the other Christians on the Sunday after the 14th of Nisan; but then the question came up: At what time of the year does the 14th of Nisan really occur? Or, How is this date of full moon to be brought into connection with the solar year? The ecclesiastical year of the Jews, the first month of which is called Nisan, begins in the spring. At the beginning of spring, and, in fact, about the time of the æquinox, the harvest is also ripe in Palestine; so that the month of Nisan is called the month of harvest, and the great feast in Nisan, the Passover, is also feast of the harvest, when the first fruits of the earth were offered. The 14th of Nisan, therefore, falls along with the full moon after the vernal æquinox; and although the lunar year of the Jews is shorter than the solar year, yet they lengthened it by means of their intercalary month, so that their 14th of Nisan always fell at the same time; and was indeed fixed by the ripeness of the harvest.

Upon this point—that the Paschal feast had been calculated by the ancient Hebrews, and in the times of Christ, immediately after the æquinox; and thus also that it must always take place after the beginning of spring—upon this point many Fathers of the Church laid quite special weight, remarking that this manner of reckoning for ιδʹ had been accurately observed by the Jews until the destruction of Jerusalem, and only after that time they had adopted the false practice, and had no longer fixed their ιδʹ after the æquinox.

P. 328. After par. ending “churches,” add: Certainly the learned Benedictine, now Cardinal Pitra, believed that he had discovered the Nicene canon on the Easter festival in the Collection of Canons of the Patriarch John of Constantinople, and edited this discovery in the 4th vol. of the Spicilegium Solesmense, p. 540 sq. (cf. above, 445). But as Hilgenfeld has already remarked (Paschastreit, S. 367 f.), the state of the text visibly points to a considerably later time, and the pretended Nicene canon is nothing else than a collection of the points respecting the Paschal controversy decided at Nicæa, made by an anonymous writer. The pretended canon runs: Τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου τῆς ἐν Νικάιᾳ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πάσχα• πέπρακται δὲ οὕτως τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῇ ἱέρᾳ συνόδῳ συνελθοῦσιν, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ Θεοσεβοῦς καὶ μεγάλου Κονσταντίνου, οἱ οἰ μόνον συνήγαγε τοὺς προγεγραμμένονς ἐπισκο πους εἰς ταὐτὸν, εἰρήνην ποιούμενος τῷ ἔθνει ἡμῶν• ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ συμπαρὼν τῇ τούτων ὁμηγύρει συνεξετάζει τὰ συμφέροντα τῇ καθολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ• ἐπεὶ δὲ τοίνυν, ἐξεταζομένου τοῦ πράγματος περί τοῦ δεῖν συμφώνως ἄγειν τὸ Πάσχα ἁπᾶσαν τὴν ὑπʼ οὐρανὸν ηὐρέθη τὰ τρία μέρη τῆς οἰκουμένης συμφώνως ποιοῦντα Ῥωμαίοις καὶ Ἀλεξανδρεῦσιν ἓν δὲ καὶ μόνον κλίμα τῆς ἀνατολῆς ἀμφισβητοῦν ἔδοξε, πάσης ζητήσεως περιαιρεθείσης καὶ ἀντιλογίας οὕτως ἄγειν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, ὡς ἄγουσιν Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ Ἀλεξανδρεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ πάντες πρὸς τὸ πάντας ἐν μίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ ὁμοφώνως ἀναπέμπειν τὰς εὐχὰς τῇ ἁγίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ Πάσχα• καὶ ὑπέγραψαν οἱ τῆς ἀνατολῆς ὡς διαφωνοῦντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους.

p. 337. not Hilgenfeld (Paschastreit, S. 379) sees, in these διατάξεις, a Quartodeciman edition of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions.

In the second edition the author cancels the paragraph beginning “S. Epiphanius” on p. 337, and ending on p. 338; also the paragraph beginning “We have seen,” p. 339, and ending near the top of p. 340.

p. 356. n. add: There are also manuscripts which contain only the canons of Sardica without those of Nicæa, and these nevertheless are called Nicene. Such a manuscript is found in the royal library at Munich.

p. 368. l. 11, for 419, read 410.

p. 369. At end of par. d, for “great,” read “greater.” At end of par. e, add: Moreover, it is possible that Pope Julius confounded the canons of Sardica with those of Nicæa.

p. 378. l. 12 ab im., add: Dr. Nolte, in a letter to me, proposed to read ψυχοκπόνον, i.e. soul-killing.

p. 381. n. add: The canon refers only to unmarried clerics. See Mittermüller in Moy’s Archiv, 1866, Heft 5.

p. 387. Note to transl. of canon: Cf. Kober, Kirchenbann, S. 188 and 221.

p. 403. The author cancels the par. beginning middle of p. 403, and ending middle of 404.

p. 411, l. 5 ab im., after “heretics,” add: The Greeks also understood our passage in this sense, since they prescribed a benedictio (εὐλογία), but not a new consecratio (χειροτονία), as Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople declared at the first session of the second Synod of Nicæa (Mansi, t. xii. p. 1022; Hardouin, t. iv. p. 51).

p. 411. n. add: Cf. Kober, Suspension, etc., S. 184, and Hergenröther, Photius, Bd. v. S. 335 ff.

p. 416. l. 1, for “several times,” read “twice.”

p. 420. Cancel the long note on canon 14, and substitute the following: It is doubtful whether the reference is to catechumens who had become lapsi in the Diocletian persecution, or to those who had committed other grievous sins, particularly sins of the flesh. The latter view was defended in earlier times, particularly by Hardouin, referring to c. 5 of Neo-Cæsarea (see vol. i. p. 222), more recently by Mayer in his Geschichte des Katechumenats, 1868, S. 46. The latter shows also that by the ἀκροώμενοι = audientes of our canons we must understand not a grade of the catechumenate, but a grade of penance, and that at that time grades of the catechumenate did not exist, whilst grades of penitence did (l.c. S. 54, 26, 34, 37, 51).

p. 423. n. add: Kober, Deposition, etc., S. 43 ff.

p. 424. l. 4, add: Whether by the words ἄκυρος ἔσται ἡ χειροτονία, the complete invalidity of such consecration is expressed, or only the suspensio ab officio, is doubtful. Cf. Kober, Deposition, 1867, S. 45 and 143.

p. 436. n. add: Cf. Assemani, Bibli. juris orient. t. v. pp. 124, 126, 141 sqq.

p. 442. Add to the notes: (1) Hardouin, t. i. p. 343; (2) Hardouin, t. i. p. 344; (3) (wanting in Hardouin); (4) Hardouin, t. i. p. 527; (5) Hardouin, t. i. p. 285.

p. 444. l. 20, for “præsento,” read “præsente.”

p. 447. In the second edition the author cancels par. d on p. 447.

P. 465. Add to note on canon 17 (16): The Greeks and also S. Jerome (Ep. 83 Ad Oceanum, and in his commentary on the Epistle to Titus) infer from this, that if anyone was married before baptism, and married for the second time after baptism, he might be a cleric. The Latin Church is decidedly opposed to this. Even in his time Pope Innocent I. writes (Ep. 1 Ad Victricium): Baptismo remittuntur peccata, non acceptarum mulierum numerus aboletur.”

p. 485. Add to note on canon 69 (68): By the τέτρας we are certainly to understand the first four days of Holy week; by παρασκευή, Good Friday or Easter Eve. Cf. Nickes, and Scheiner’s Zeitschrift, Bd. viii. S. 49.