The Constitution Of The State Ch

The Church's constitution received its permanent form in this period. The

conciliar system was carried to its logical completion in the ecumenical

council representing the entire Church and standing at the head of a

system which included the provincial and patriarchal councils, at least in

theory. The clergy were organized into a hierarchy which rested upon the

basis of the single bishop in his diocese, who had under him his clergy

and culminated in the patriarchs placed over the great divisions of the

State Church, corresponding to the primary divisions of the Empire. The

Emperor assumed the supreme authority in the Church, and the foundation

was laid for what became under Justinian Caesaropapism. By the institution

of the hierarchical gradation of authority and jurisdiction, for the most

part corresponding to the political and administrative divisions of the

Empire, the Church both assumed a rigidly organized form and came more

easily under the control of the secular authority.





(A) The Ecumenical Council





The Council of Nicaea was held before there was any definition of the place

of an ecumenical council. Many councils were held during the Arian

controversy that were quite as representative. It was taken for granted

that the councils were arranged in a scale of authority corresponding to

the extent of the Church represented. The first clear statement of this

principle is at the Council of Constantinople A. D. 382.





Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, Canon 2. Text, Hefele, § 98.





The so-called second general council was held in 381, but in the

next year nearly the same bishops were called together by

Theodosius (cf. Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V. 9). In a letter

addressed to the Western bishops at a council at Rome this council

speaks of their previous meeting at Constantinople in 381 as being

an ecumenical council. The query suggests itself whether,

considering the fact that it actually only represented the East

and did represent more than one patriarchate, "ecumenical" might

not be understood as being used in a sense similar to that in

which the African bishops spoke of their councils as

universalis. See Hefele, § 100, note.





The following canon is printed as the sixth canon of

Constantinople, A. D. 381, in Hefele and the other collections,

e.g., Bruns and Percival.





If persons who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor condemned,

nor charged with crime claim to have a complaint in matters ecclesiastical

against the bishop,(124) the holy synod commands such to bring their

charges first before all the bishops of the province, and to prove before

them the charges against the accused bishop. But should it happen that the

comprovincials be unable to settle the charges alleged against the bishop,

the complainants shall have recourse then to the larger synod of the

bishops of that diocese,(125) who shall be called together on account of

the complaint; and the complainants may not bring their complaint until

they have agreed in writing to take upon themselves the same punishment

which would have fallen upon the accused, in case the complainants in the

course of the matter should be proved to have brought a false charge

against the bishop. But if any one, holding in contempt these directions,

venture to burden the ear of the Emperor, or the tribunals of the secular

judges, or disturb an ecumenical synod,(126) dishonoring the bishops of

their patriarchal province, such shall not be admitted to make complaint,

because he despises the canons and violates the Church's order.





(B) The Hierarchical Organization





(a) Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325, Canons. Text, Hefele, § 42. Cf.

Kirch, nn. 364-368.





Canons of organization.





Canon 4 regulates the ordinations of bishops; Canon 5 orders that

excommunications in one diocese shall hold good everywhere; Canon

6 defines the larger provincial organization which eventually

resulted in the patriarchates; Canon 7 defines the position of the

bishopric of Jerusalem; Canons 15 and 16 place the bishops

permanently in their sees and the clergy under their own proper

bishop.





Canon 4. It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by

all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on

account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should

assemble, and the suffrages of the absent should also be given and

communicated in writing, and then the ordination should take place. But in

every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the

metropolitan.



Canon 5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have

been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provisions of the

canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by

some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made

whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or

contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishops.

And that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in

every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all

the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may be

thoroughly examined by them, that so those who have confessedly offended

against their bishop may be seen by all to be for just causes

excommunicated, until it shall appear fit to a general meeting of the

bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be

held, the one before Lent (that the pure gift may be offered to God after

all bitterness has been put away) and let the second be held about autumn.



Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail,

that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction in all these, since

the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also.(127) Likewise in

Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges.

And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop

without the consent of his metropolitan, the great synod has declared that

such a man ought not to be bishop. If, however, two or three bishops

shall, from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of

the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical

law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.



Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop

of AElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honored, let him, saving its due

dignity to the metropolis, have the next place of honor.



Canon 15. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it

is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the

canon must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor

deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of

the holy and great synod, shall attempt any such thing or continue in such

course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to

the church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.



Canon 16. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among

the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor

regarding the ecclesiastical canon, shall recklessly remove from their own

church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every

constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes;(128)

and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if one shall

dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own church ordain a man

belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop from

whom, although he was enrolled in the clergy list, he has seceded, let the

ordination be void.





(b) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341. Canons, Bruns, I, 80 f., Cf.

Kirch, nn. 439 ff.





For the Council of Antioch, see § 65, c. These canons on

discipline were held in highest authority in the Church, although

enacted by Arians whose creed was rejected. They obtained this

position in the law of the Church because they carried further the

natural line of development long since taken in the ecclesiastical

system. Cf. Hefele, § 56.





Canon 2. All who enter the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but

do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason

of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the eucharist, are to be cast

out of the Church until, after they shall have made confession, have

brought forth fruits of penance, and have made earnest entreaty, they

shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with

excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with

those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one church those who

do not assemble with another church. And if any one of the bishops,

presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the canon shall be found

communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated,

as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.



Canon 3. If any presbyter or deacon or any one whatever belonging to the

priesthood shall forsake his own parish and shall depart, and, having

wholly changed his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time

in another parish, let him no longer officiate; especially if his own

bishop shall summon and urge him to return to his own parish, and he shall

disobey. And if he persist in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from

his ministry, so that no further room be left for his restoration. And if

another bishop shall receive a man deposed for this cause, let him be

punished by the common synod as one who nullifies the ecclesiastical laws.



Canon 4. If any bishop be deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon,

who has been deposed by his bishop, shall presume to execute any part of

the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former function, or

a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of

restoration in another synod, nor any opportunity of making his defence;

but they who communicate with him shall be cast out of the Church, and

particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the persons

aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them.



Canon 6. If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not

be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop,

or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his

defence, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different

sentence. And let this decree apply to the laity, and to the presbyters

and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy list.



Canon 9. It behooves the bishops in each province to acknowledge the

bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought of the

whole province; because all men of business come together from every

quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence

in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him,

according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the time of our

fathers, or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes

and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his

own parish, both to manage it with piety, which is incumbent on every one,

and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent upon his

city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with

judgment. But let him not undertake anything further without the bishop of

the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.



Canon 10. The holy synod decrees that those [bishops] living in village

and country districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though

they have received ordination to the episcopate, shall regard their own

limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the

care and administration of these; but they may ordain readers, subdeacons,

and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these; but they shall

not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent

of the bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if

he shall dare to transgress these decrees, he shall be deposed from the

rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop

of the city to which he is subject.





(c) Council of Sardica, A. D. 343 or 344, Canons, Bruns, I, 88. Cf.

Mirbt, n. 113, and Kirch, nn. 448 ff.





The Council of Sardica was intended to be composed of

representatives from the entire Empire who might be able to settle

once and for all the Arian question. It met at Sardica on the

boundary between the two divisions of the Empire as they were then

defined. The Eastern ecclesiastics, strongly Arian, found

themselves outnumbered by the Western bishops who supported

Athanasius and the Nicene definition of faith. The Eastern

representatives withdrew to Philippopolis near by, and held their

own council. The following canons were intended to provide a

system of appeal for cases like that of Athanasius, and although

they do not seem to have been acted upon enough to have become a

part of the Church's system, yet they were of great importance

inasmuch as subsequently they were used as late as the ninth

century for a support to a wholly different system of appeals.

These canons were very early attributed to the Council of Nicaea A.

D. 325.





Canon 3. Bishop Hosius said: This, also, it is necessary to add--that

bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in

which there are bishops, unless perchance they are invited by their

brethren, that we seem not to close the door to charity. But if in any

province a bishop have an action against his brother bishop, neither shall

call in as judge a bishop from another province. But if judgment shall

have gone against any bishop in a case, and he think that he has a good

case, in order that the question may be heard, let us, if it be your

pleasure, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who

have tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall

decide that the case should be retried, let it be retried, and let him

appoint judges; but if he shall be satisfied that the case is such that

what has been done should not be disturbed, what has been decreed shall be

confirmed.



Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered: It is our pleasure.



Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, it is necessary to add

to this sentence, which full of sincere charity thou hast pronounced, that

if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who

happened to be in the vicinity, and he asserts that he has fresh matter in

defence, a new bishop is not to be settled in his see, unless the bishop

of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.



Latin Version of Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you,

there ought to be added to this sentence, which full of holiness thou hast

pronounced, that if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those

bishops who dwell in the vicinity, and he asserts that the business ought

to be conducted by him in the city of Rome, another bishop should in

nowise be ordained in his see after the appellation of him who appears to

have been deposed, unless the cause shall have been determined by the

judgment of the bishop of Rome.



Canon 5.(129) Bishop Hosius said: Let it be decreed that if a bishop shall

have been accused and the assembled bishops of the same region shall have

deposed him from his office, and he, so to speak, appeals and takes refuge

with the bishop of the Roman Church and wishes to be heard by him, if

he(130) think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be

pleased to write to those of fellow-bishops who are nearest the province

that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give

their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any

one demand that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seems

good to the bishop of Rome to send presbyters from his own side, let it be

in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and

decides it to be right, that some be sent to be judges with the bishops

and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also

ordained. But if he thinks that they [the bishops] are sufficient for the

hearing and determining of the matter of the bishop, let him do what shall

seem good in his most prudent judgment.



The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.





(d) Gratian and Valentinian, Rescript; A. D. 378. (MSG, 13:586.)

Mirbt, nn. 118, f.





This rescript was sent in answer to a petition addressed to the

emperors by a Roman council under Damasus. It is, therefore, found

connected with an epistle in the works of Damasus. It does not

seem to have been the foundation of any claim or to have played

any considerable part in the development of the Roman primacy. It

is of importance in the present connection as illustrating the

part emperors took in the internal affairs of the Church. For

Damasus and the disturbances in connection with his election, v.

infra, § 74, a. The rescript may be found in Mansi, III, 624;

Hardouin, I, 842; and in Gieseler, I, 380.





6. If any one shall have been condemned by the judgment of Damasus, which

he shall have delivered with the council of five or seven bishops, or by

the judgment or council of those who are Catholics, and if he shall

unlawfully attempt to retain his church,(131) in order that such a one,

who has been called to the priestly judgment, shall not escape by his

contumacy, it is our will that such a one be remitted by the illustrious

prefects of Gaul and Italy, either by the proconsul or the vicars, use

having been made of due authority, to the episcopal judgment, and shall

come to the city of Rome under an escort; or if such insolence of any one

shall appear in parts very far distant, the entire pleading of his case

shall be brought to the examination of the metropolitan of the province in

which the bishop is, or if he himself is the metropolitan, then of

necessity he shall hasten without delay to Rome, or to those whom the

Roman bishop shall assign as judges, so that whoever shall have been

deposed shall be removed from the confines of the city in which they were

priests. For we punish those who deserve punishment less severely than

they deserve, and we take vengeance upon their sacrilegious stubbornness

more gently than it merits. And if the unfairness or partiality of any

metropolitan, bishop, or priest is suspected, it is allowed to appeal to

the Roman bishop or to a council gathered of fifteen neighboring bishops,

but so that after the examination of the case shall have been concluded

what was settled shall not be begun over again.





(e) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 2; Feb. 27, A. D. 380. Cf. Kirch, n.

755.





The following edict was issued by Gratian, Valentinian and

Theodosius, requiring the acceptance of the orthodox faith by all

subjects. In other words, the emperors, following the example of

Constantius and Valens in enforcing Arianism, are now enforcing

the Nicene theology. Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., VII, 4, gives the

circumstances under which this edict was issued.





It is our will that all the peoples whom the government of our clemency

rules shall follow that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the

present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, and which it is

evident the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of

apostolic sanctity, follow; that is, that according to the apostolic

discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the Father

and the Son and the Holy Ghost of equal majesty, in a holy trinity. Those

who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of

Catholic Christians; but others, indeed, we require, as insane and raving,

to bear the infamy of heretical teaching; their gatherings shall not

receive the name of churches; they are to be smitten first with the divine

punishment and after that by the vengeance of our indignation, which has

the divine approval.





(f) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 3.





Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to Auxonius, proconsul of

Asia.





To enforce still further the principles of Nicene orthodoxy

certain bishops were named as teachers of the true faith,

communion with whom was a test of orthodoxy.





We command that all churches be forthwith delivered up to the bishops who

confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be of one majesty and

power; of the same glory and of one splendor, making no distinction by any

profane division, but rather harmony by the assertion of the trinity of

the persons and the unity of the Godhead, to the bishops who are

associated in communion with Nectarius, bishop of the Church of

Constantinople, and with Timotheus in Egypt, bishop of the city of

Alexandria; in the parts of the Orient, who are in communion with

Pelagius, bishop of Laodicaea and Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus; in

proconsular Asia and in the diocese of Asia, who are in communion with

Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, and Optimus, bishop of Antioch; in the

diocese of Pontus, who are in communion with Helladius, bishop of Caesarea,

and Otreius, bishop of Melitina, and Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Terennius,

bishop of Scythia, Marmarius, bishop of Marcianopolis. Those who are of

the communion and fellowship of approved priests(132) ought to be admitted

to possess the Catholic churches; but all who dissent from the communion

of the faith of those whom the special list has named ought to be expelled

from the churches as manifest heretics; and no opportunity whatsoever

ought to be allowed them henceforth of obtaining episcopal churches(133)

that the priestly orders of the true and Nicene faith may remain pure and

no place be given to evil cunning, according to the evident form of our

precept.





(g) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. Address to Theodosius. See

Mansi, III, 557.





The following letter illustrates the relation of the councils in

the East to the imperial authority. The emperors called the

various general councils, directed their discussions and confirmed

the results. In this way their findings were given the force of

laws and authority throughout the Church. V. infra, §§ 90, 91.





To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the holy synod of bishops

assembled in Constantinople out of different provinces.



We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established

the Empire of your Piety for the common peace of the churches and for the

support of the true faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in

duty bound, we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in

the holy synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according

to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart

each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions,

ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies

which have sprung up contrary thereto. Besides these things, we also

framed certain canons for the better ordering of the churches, all which

we have subjoined to this our letter. We therefore beseech your Piety that

the decree of the synod may be ratified, to the end that as you have

honored the Church by your letter of citation, so you should set your seal

to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May the Lord establish your

Empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it from generation to

generation; and may He add unto your earthly powers the fruition of the

heavenly kingdom also. May God, by the prayers of the saints, show favor

to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an

Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.





(h) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341, Canons, Bruns, I, 80.





The following canons passed at Antioch are the first touching a

habit which they did little to correct. The so-called sixth canon

of Constantinople, 381, in reality a canon of the council of the

next year, took up the matter again. All through the great

controversies appeals were constantly made to the emperors

because, after all, they alone had the authority. Cf. Hefele, §

56.





Canon 11. If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon

shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and

letters of his bishop of the province and particularly of the bishop of

the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not

only from the communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have

had; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor, beloved of

God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall

require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and

consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him

undertake his journey with the letters from them.



Canon 12. If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any

bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare trouble the ears of the Emperor,

when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and

to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by

the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall

trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he

have opportunity of defence, nor any hope of future restoration.