Distinction XVI

GRATIAN. Part I. The canons of the Apostles, which are said by some to have been translated by Clement, Roman Pontiff, are fifty. Isidore writes that these are not to be received but are reckoned among the apocrypha, saying:

The canons that are called those of the Apostles—whether because the apostolic see does not receive them, or because the holy fathers did not give their assent to them, since they are recognized as having been composed by heretics under the name of the Apostles—although useful things are found in them, nevertheless it is established that their enactments have been removed by canonical and apostolic authority and reckoned among the apocrypha.

Zephyrinus, however, writes to the bishops established throughout Sicily to the contrary [epistle I]:

The Apostles prescribed sixty judgments together with very many other bishops and judged that they were to be observed.

Likewise Pope Leo IX, against the letter of Abbot Nicetas. The fathers number Clement’s book—that is, the itinerary of Peter the Apostle—and the canons of the Apostles among the apocrypha, except for fifty chapters that they decreed should be joined to the orthodox faith.

It pleased this holy synod that henceforth the eighty-five chapters of the canons of the Apostles should be confirmed and valid. The epistle of Isidore at the beginning of the canons. Isidore, servant of Christ, to his fellow servant the reader. §1. Because of their authority, we place before the other councils the canons that are called those of the Apostles, although they are called apocryphal by some, since very many receive them, and the holy fathers strengthened their judgments by synodal authority and placed them among the canonical constitutions. Likewise. §2. The first order, as was said before, is contained concerning the celebration of a council; and afterward an abridgment of the canons of the Apostles, and of the first apostolic decretals—that is, from Saint Clement down to Saint Sylvester—and of diverse councils is interposed, following its order. GRATIAN. Likewise, since Pope Adrian receives the Sixth Synod with all its canons, and since also the holy eight universal councils have been strengthened by the profession of the Roman Pontiff, while in the Seventh Synod, or in the Sixth Council, the canons of the Apostles were received and approved, it is evident that they are not to be reckoned among the apocrypha.

Pope Adrian writes to Patriarch Tarasius:

I receive the holy Sixth Synod with all its canons. GRATIAN. But it is doubted concerning it whether it composed canons; this is easily resolved from the fourth action of the Sixth Synod. For Peter, bishop of Nicomedia, says:

I have a book containing the canons of the holy Sixth Synod. The patriarch said: §1. Some are scandalized through ignorance concerning these canons, saying: Did the Sixth Synod make canons? Let them therefore know that the holy Sixth Synod was gathered under Constantine against those who said that there was one operation and one will in Christ; in it the holy fathers anathematized them as heretics and expounded the orthodox faith. Part II. §2. This synod was dissolved in the fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years, the same holy fathers were gathered under Justinian, son of Constantine, and promulgated the aforesaid canons, concerning which let no one doubt. For the very same men who were in the synod under Constantine subscribed to these canons under Justinian. For it was necessary that a universal synod promulgate ecclesiastical canons. Likewise: §3. The holy Sixth Synod, after the definition against the Monothelites had been promulgated by it, Constantine the emperor, who had gathered it, having died not long afterward, and his son Justinian reigning in his place. §4. The same holy synod, divinely inspired, was gathered again at Constantinople in the fourth or fifth year and promulgated 102 canons for the correction of the Church. GRATIAN. From these things, therefore, it is gathered that the Sixth Synod was convened twice: first under Constantine, and it established no canons; second under his son Justinian, and it promulgated the aforesaid canons. Hence the holy fathers, gathered a second time in the same synod, said:

Since the holy and universal synods—the Fifth under Justinian Augustus and the Sixth under his father Constantine Augustus—while disputing most fully concerning the mystery of the faith, did not make canons, as the other four universal synods did, we therefore, assembling in this imperial city, have written sacred canons. Likewise: §1. It pleased this holy synod that henceforth the eighty-five chapters of the canons of the Apostles should be confirmed and valid. Likewise: §2. We also confirm the remaining canons and synods of the saints—that is, the Nicene, Ancyrene, Neocaesarean, Gangrene, Antiochene, Laodicean, Constantinopolitan, First Ephesian, Chalcedonian, Sardican, and Carthaginian—and the works of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria and martyr; Gregory Trismegistus, bishop of Neocaesarea; Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria; Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; Gregory the Theologian; Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium; Timothy, bishop of Alexandria; Germanus, bishop of Constantinople; Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; Cyprian, bishop of Carthage; and his synod.

Likewise, from the Liber Diurnus, the profession of the Roman Pontiff. I profess that I will preserve unmutilated down to one iota the holy eight universal councils—the first Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, the Fifth and the Sixth, the Constantinopolitan, likewise the Nicene, and also the Eighth Constantinopolitan—and hold them worthy of equal honor and veneration; that I will in every way follow and preach what they preached and established; and that I will condemn with mouth and heart whatsoever they condemned. Bede writes in the book On Times [c. 65] concerning the time at which the Sixth Synod, and the Second and the First, and the Fourth and the Fifth, were assembled, saying:

The Sixth Universal Synod was celebrated at Constantinople and written down in the Greek language, in the time of Pope Agatho, with the most pious prince Constantine carrying it out within his palace, and at the same time with the legates of the apostolic see and 150 bishops sitting. §1. The First Universal Synod was gathered at Nicaea against Arius, of 318 fathers, in the time of Pope Julius, under the prince Constantine. §2. The Second, at Constantinople, of 150 fathers, against Macedonius and Eudoxius, in the time of Pope Damasus and the prince Gratian, when Nectarius was ordained bishop of that city. [§3. Missing.] §4. The Fourth, at Chalcedon, of 630 fathers, under Pope Leo, in the time of the prince Marcian, against Eutyches, prelate of the most wicked monks. §5. The Fifth, at Constantinople, in the time of Pope Julius, under the prince Justinian, against Theodore and all heretics.

The First Synod, at Nicaea, of 318 fathers, was against Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who asserted three grades in the Trinity—the Father greater, the Son lesser, and the Holy Spirit a creature—in the time of the prince Constantine, Sylvester, Roman Pope, Macarius of Jerusalem, and Alexander of Alexandria. Having condemned that heresy, they established twenty canons, of which the aforesaid Bishop Alexander was especially the author. §1. The Second, at Constantinople, of 150 fathers, was against Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied that the Holy Spirit is God, in the time of the princes Gratian and Theodosius, Damasus, Roman Pope, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Nectarius of Alexandria. Having condemned the aforesaid heresy, they established three canons, of which blessed Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, was especially the author. §2. The Third, at Ephesus, of 300 fathers, was against Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who said that the blessed Virgin Mary was the mother not of God but only of a man, so that he made one person of the flesh and another of the Deity, in the time of the younger emperor, the prince Theodosius, Celestine, Roman Pope, Juvenal, bishop of Constantinople, and Cyril of Alexandria. Against the blasphemies of Nestorius they wrote, with the same Saint Cyril as author, fifteen chapters anathematizing an equal number of chapters. §3. The Fourth, at Chalcedon, of 630 fathers, was against Eutyches, abbot of Constantinople, who asserted that Christ, after the assumption of humanity, did not exist from two natures, but that the divine nature alone remained in him, in the time of the prince Marcian, Leo, Roman Pope, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Having condemned the aforesaid heresy, they established twenty-seven canons, of which the same Saint Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, was especially the author. §4. The Fifth, at Constantinople, was against Theodore Mosophenus and all heretics; this Theodore said that the Word of God was one and Christ another, and denied that holy Mary the Virgin was the mother of God, in the time of the prince Justinian, Vigilius, Roman Pope, Domninus of Antioch, and Eutychius of Constantinople. They wrote fourteen chapters anathematizing the blasphemies of Theodore and his companions. §5. The Sixth, at Constantinople, of 150 fathers, was against Macarius, bishop of Antioch, and his companions, who with a false supposition asserted one will and operation in Christ, in the time of the prince Constantine, Agatho, Roman Pope, and Gregory of Constantinople. Having condemned the aforesaid heresy, they wrote in anathematizing nine chapters annexed within.

The first entry is that of the Synod of Ancyra, which is reported to have been before the Nicene but is placed afterward because of the latter’s greater authority; in it eighteen fathers established twenty-four canons, of which Vitalis, bishop of Antioch, was especially the author. §1. The second is the Neocaesarean, which is read to have been after the Ancyrene and Antiochene; in it eighteen fathers established fourteen canons, of which Vitalis of Salamis was especially the author. §2. The third is the Gangrene, which is read to have been after the Nicene; in it seventeen fathers established twenty canons because of certain ecclesiastical necessities, especially against Eustathius, who said that no one placed in the married state, nor any faithful person who did not renounce everything he possessed, had hope toward the Lord, and many other poisonous things that it would be lengthy to enumerate. §3. The fourth is the Sardican, in which sixty fathers established twenty-one canons, of which Hosius, bishop of Corduba, Vincent, bishop of Capua, Januarius of Benevento, and Calepodius of Naples, legates of the holy Roman Church, were especially the authors. §4. The fifth is the Antiochene, in which thirty fathers established twenty-five canons, of which Eusebius, bishop of Palestine, was especially the author. §5. The sixth is the Laodicean, in which twenty-two fathers established fifty-eight canons, of which Bishop Theodosius was especially the author. §6. The seventh is the Carthaginian, in which 208 fathers established thirty-three canons, of which Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, was especially the author. Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo, is also read to have been in the same synod, in the time of Honorius Augustus. §7. The eighth is the African, under Theodosius the Younger, Augustus, in which 224 fathers recited and confirmed 105 canons that are read to have been written through diverse councils of the province of Africa in the time of Aurelius, bishop of Carthage. §8. The ninth is the Synod of Arles, in which 600 fathers established canons, of which Sylvester, bishop of the city of Rome, and Saint Maurinus, bishop of Arles, were especially the authors, in the time of Constantine Augustus, as some assert. §9. The tenth is likewise the Synod of Arles, in which nineteen fathers established canons, of which Caesarius, bishop of Arles, was especially the author. §10. The eleventh is likewise the Synod of Arles, in which eighteen fathers established canons. §11. The twelfth is likewise the Synod of Arles, at Vicus Ortensis, in which eleven fathers established canons, of which Saint Caesarius, bishop, was especially the author. §12. The thirteenth is likewise the Synod of Arles, in which nineteen fathers established canons, of which Sarpidius, bishop of Arles, was especially the author. §13. The fourteenth is the Synod of Orange, in which sixteen fathers established canons, of which Bishop Hilary was especially the author. §14. The fifteenth is the Synod of Epaon, in which twenty-six fathers established forty canons, of which Bishop Caesarius was especially the author. §15. The sixteenth is the Synod of Agde, in which thirty-three fathers established canons, of which Caesarius was especially the author. §16. The seventeenth is the Synod of Orléans, in which seventy-two fathers established canons, of which Aurelian, bishop of Arles, was especially the author. §17. The eighteenth is likewise the Synod of Orléans, in which thirty-one fathers established canons, of which Melanius, bishop of Rennes, was especially the author. §18. The nineteenth is likewise the Synod of Orléans, in which twenty-five fathers established canons, of which Saint Albinus, bishop of Angers, was especially the author. §19. The twentieth is the Synod of Auvergne, in which fifteen fathers established canons, of which Honoratus, bishop of Breut, was especially the author. §20. The twenty-first is the Synod of Mâcon, in which twenty-one fathers established canons, of which Priscus, bishop of Lyon, was especially the author. §21. The twenty-second is likewise the Synod of Mâcon, in which sixty-seven fathers established canons, of which the same Priscus, bishop of Lyon, was especially the author. §22. The twenty-third is the Synod of Lyon, in which seventeen fathers established canons, of which Philip, bishop of Vienne, was especially the author. §23. The twenty-fourth is likewise the Synod of Lyon, in which twenty fathers established canons, of which Priscus, bishop of Lyon, was especially the author. But the statement above that the Nicene Synod established twenty canons appears contrary to what is found in the epistle of Athanasius. For Athanasius of Alexandria writes to Pope Mark, saying thus:

We desire that, through the present legates, we may merit to receive from the see of your holy Church, by your authority, the seventy Nicene chapters that I brought from the aforesaid synod, at the command of my lord Alexander, as the decrees of all the bishops, and that were burned by fire. Likewise: §1. In our presence seventy chapters were treated in the aforesaid synod: thirty were published by the Greeks in the Greek language, and thirty by the Latins, similarly published in the Latin language. But it seemed good to the 318 bishops filled with the Holy Spirit, and especially to the already-mentioned Alexander and the representatives of the apostolic see, that ten chapters should be joined together and inserted in other suitable places, and that, according to the form of the seventy disciples or of the languages of the whole world, there should be seventy chapters of so great and so excellent a council, which would instruct the whole world of Christians. GRATIAN. How, therefore, are only twenty chapters said to have been established in the Nicene Synod, when seventy chapters, as Athanasius writes, are shown to have been established in it? The answer to these things is thus: Some chapters of the Nicene Synod have passed out of use; only twenty are held in the Roman Church.

Hence Pope Stephen writes, saying to Liutbert, bishop of Mainz:

Only twenty chapters of the Nicene Synod are held in the holy Roman Church; but through what neglect the others disappeared is uncertain. Very many think that they were inserted into the Council of Antioch. The Council of Sardica also is received by the authority of Pope Nicholas. Hence the same pope writes to the clergy of Constantinople:

As for your saying that you neither possess nor receive the Council of Sardica or the decretals of the holy fathers, the ability to believe you is not readily granted, especially since the Council of Sardica, which was held among you in your regions and which the whole Church receives—by what reasoning could it be fitting that this holy Church of Constantinople cast these things aside and, as has been said, did not receive them?