dates A.D. 715, many years prior to the deuteroNicene council. The mention, therefore, of this council, and the 8th of Constantinople, is an interpolation. The truth of this is clearly seen in the Liber Diurnus itself, a work which, after it had been, as Cave observes, (Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 620, cited by Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. ii. 510), diu suppressum, diu desideratum, was at last published by Garner the Jesuit, in 1680. That part of it which relates to the councils has been re-published by the learned Routh in the work above referred to; and an extract from it will be found above, page 25, note (H). At what time the interpolation or addition took place it is not easy to ascertain, further than that it had not taken place in 862, nearly a century after the celebration of the deutero-Nicene council. In that year we find Pope Nicholas I. in the council at Rome, on occasion of passing sentence of condemnation against Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, recognizing only six. Hæc et his similia contra evangelica . .. . afferens, sit Dei omnipotentis et beatorum Apostolorum principum Petri et Pauli et omnium simul sanctorum, atque venerandorum sex universalium Conciliorum auctoritate, necnon et Spiritus Sancti per nos judicio, omni sacerdotali honore et nomine alienus. (Conc. viii. 287.) The Roman champions would fain have us believe that only six are here mentioned because there was no correct translation of the decrees of the deutero-Nicene at Rome!

66

Sex dumtaxat Synodos cecumenicas citat ideo, quia

acta septimæ Synodi Romæ extantia, ita ex Græco male reddita et translata habebantur, ut quantumvis ea ab Hadriano papa I. ejusque successoribus probata et confirmata essent; posteri tamen non eodem præconio, titulo nimirum oecumenico eadem prosecuti fuerint, &c." (Conc. viii. 774, 775.) As if during the lapse of a century there had not been time and opportunity for obtaining correct translations of the decrees of a council which had called forth the indignation of the Western Bishops, who, individually and collectively, had joined in condemning it; as will be seen below in the notes to the Table of Councils. But to let this folly pass. It is clear that up to 862 the deutero-Nicene synod had not been added to the General Councils to which, in the profession of faith, according to the Liber Diurnus, every new Pope was required to declare his adhesion. Whenever the addition was made it was not without complaint; for in the notes to the Canon Law, vol. i. p. 18, Paris 1687, we find one of Contius (who edited the Antwerp edition, 1570) upon the extract in question, in which he cites from Ivo to this effect. Contra falsam septimam Synodum. Septima Synodus quomodo dicitur, quæ non concordat præcedentibus sex universalibus Synodis ?

It would appear from Mabillon's notes (Museo Italico, p. 35, cited by Routh, as above, p. 511,) that the Liber Diurnus has long been obsolete (penitùs obsoletus). An attempt was made at the council of Constance, and again at Basle, to revive the profes

sion of adhesion to the General Councils on the part of the Popes, at their appointment. The form proposed at Constance runs thus :—

66

Ego N., electus in papam, omnipotenti Deo, cujus ecclesiam suo præsidio regendam suscipio, et beato Petro Apostolorum principi corde et ore profiteor, quamdiu in hac fragili vita constitutus fuero, me firmiter credere et tenere sanctam fidem catholicam, secundum traditiones Apostolorum, Generalium Conciliorum et aliorum Sanctorum Patrum, maxime autem sanctorum octo Conciliorum universalium, videlicet: primi Nicæni, secundi Constantinopolitani, tertii Ephesini, quarti Chalcedonensis, quinti et sexti Constantinopolitanorum, septimi item Nicæni, octavi quoque Constantinopolitani, necnon Lateranensis, Lugdunensis, et Viennensis generalium etiam Conciliorum." Conc. xii. 241.

It would appear from this that the Fathers at Constance received only one of the Lateran councils as general. The form proposed at Basle is the same as the preceding, only there is an addition of the words Constantiensis et Basiliensis after Viennensis. Conc. xii. 558. Whether these or any thing of the kind is now in use, I have been unable to ascertain.

TABLE

OF THE

REPUTED GENERAL COUNCILS AFTER THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

Constantinople, A.d. 754.

THE style of the seventh General Council was assumed by the synod of 338 bishops convened at Constantinople by the Emperor Constantine Copronymus in the year 754. They met to offer resistance to the grievous error of image-worship with which the Church at that time began to be afflicted. But their zeal was more particularly directed against images of Christ; for, as they argued, he being God as well as man (A), it was impossible to represent Him by an image. For either the image would represent only His manhood, which would not be Christ, but merely a division of the two natures which are in Him, or otherwise it must be supposed that the incomprehensible Deity was comprehended by the lines of human flesh in either case the guilt of blasphemy would be incurred. But they were

also opposed to the use of all images in religious worship; considering it to be a dishonour to the Saints, and a mere taint of heathenism. They show it to be condemned by the Scriptures, and uncountenanced by the fathers of the Church, citing Epiphanius, and Gregory, and Chrysostom, and Athanasius, and others, and accordingly they forbid images altogether, not suffering them even in private houses (B), for fear of their becoming a sort of Lares or household gods. This council is remarkable on two other accounts. First, for that it is the first which enjoined, under anathema, the invocation of the Virgin (c) and other saints (D). Secondly, for the remarkable evidence it indirectly affords against the modern doctrine of transubstantiation as taught in the Church of Rome; but which was then unknown to the Catholic church. One of the arguments which they bring against the use of images is that Christ himself had sanctioned one, and one only image of himself, even the bread in the holy Eucharist (E). It does not appear that this council was received as a general one by the Church at large at any time; and only by the Church of Constantinople for a short period.

VII. Constantinople, Nice 2. A.D. 787.

The synod to which the style of a General Council has been more usually allowed, is that of 350 bishops assembled by the Empress Irene and her son