OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Seventh Ecumenical Council/Extracts from the Acts 3

Extracts from the Acts.
Session III.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 188.)
Constantine, the most holy bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, said: Since I, unworthy that I am, find that the letter which has just been read, which was sent from the East to Tarasius the most holy archbishop and ecumenical patriarch, is in no sense changed from that confession of faith which he himself had before made, to these I consent and become of one mind, receiving and saluting with honour the holy and venerable images. But the worship of adoration I reserve alone to the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity. And those who are not so minded, and do not so teach I cast out of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and I smite them with anathema, and I deliver them over to the lot of those who deny the incarnation and the bodily economy of Christ our true God.
Notes.
Hefele.
(Hist. Councils, Vol. V., p. 366.)
By false translation and misunderstanding the Frankish bishops subsequently at the Synod of Frankfort, a.d. 794, and also in the Carolingian books (iii. 17), understood this to mean that a demand had been made at Nicæa that the same devotion should be offered to the images as to the Most Holy Trinity.
Under these circumstances it is clear that the Franks could do nothing but reject the decrees. I have treated of this whole matter elsewhere.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Seventh Ecumenical Council/Excursus 6

Excursus on the Convention said to have been held in Paris, a.d. 825.
It is curious that besides the Caroline Books and the second canon of Frankfort, another matter of great difficulty springs up with regard to the subject of the authority of the Seventh Synod. In 1596 there appeared what claims to be an ancient account of a convention of bishops in Paris in the year 824. The point in which this interests us is that the bishops at this meeting are supposed to have condemned the Seventh Council, and to have approved the Caroline books. The whole story was rejected by Cardinal Bellarmine and he promptly wrote a refutation. Sismondi accepted this view of the matter, and Labbe has excluded the pretended proceedings from his “Concilia” altogether.
But while scholars are agreed that the assigned date is impossible and that it must be 825, they have usually accepted the facts as true, I need not mention others than such widely differing authors as Fleury (Hist. Eccles., Lib. xlvij. iv.), Roisselet de Sauclières (Hist. Chronol., Tome III., No. 792, p. 385), and Hefele (Concilien, § 425).
It would be the height of presumption were I to express any opinion upon this most disputed point, the reader will find the whole matter at length in Walch (Bd. XI., S. 135, 139). I only here note that if the account be genuine, then it is an established fact that as late as 825, an assembly of bishops rejected an Ecumenical Council accepted by the pope, and further charged the Supreme Pontiff with having “commanded men to adore superstitiously images (quod superstitiose eas adorare jussit),” and asked the reigning Pontiff to correct the errors of his predecessors, and all this without any reproof from the Holy See!
Hefele points out also that they not only entirely misrepresent the teaching of Hadrian and the Seventh Council, but that they also cite a passage from St. Augustine, “which teaches exactly the opposite of that which this synod would make out, for the passage says that the word colere can be applied to men.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ This is reprinted in full in Mansi, and from him in Migne’s Pat. Lat., Tom. XCVIII., col. 1299, et seqq. Cardinal Bellarmine’s refutation is also found in Migne’s Charlemagne, and in Labbe and Cossart, Tom. VII., of the Concilia.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Seventh Ecumenical Council/Excursus 3

Excursus on the Two Letters of Gregory II. To the Emperor Leo.
(J. B. Bury, Appendix 14 to Vol. V. of his edition of Gibbon’s Rome. 1898.)
It is incorrect to say that “the two epistles of Gregory II. have been preserved in the Acts of the Nicene Council” [as Gibbon does]. In modern collections of the Acts of Ecclesiastical Councils, they have been printed at the end of the Acts of the Second Nicene Council. But they first came to light at the end of the XVIth. century and were printed for the first time in the Annales Ecclesiastici of Baronius, who had obtained them from Fronton le Duc. This scholar had copied the text from a Greek ms. at Rheims. Since then other mss. have been found, the earliest belonging to the XIth., if not the Xth century.
In another case we should say that the external evidence for the genuineness of the epistles was good. We know on the authority of Theophanes that Gregory wrote one or more letters to Leo (ἐπιστολὴν δογματικήν , sub a. m. 6172, οι ἐπιστολῶν, sub a. m. 6221); and we should have no external reasons to suspect copies dating from about 300 years later. But the omission of these letters in the Acts of the Nicene Council, though they are stated to have been read at the council, introduces a shadow of suspicion. If they were preserved, how comes it that they were not preserved in the Acts of the Council, like the letter of Gregory to the Patriarch Germanus?  There is no trace anywhere of the Latin originals.
Turning to the contents, we find enough to convert suspicion into a practical certainty that the documents are forgeries. This is the opinion of M. l’abbé Duchesne (the editor of the Liber Pontificalis), M. L. Guérard (Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, p. 44 sqq., 1890); Mr. Hodgkin (Italy and her Invaders, Vol. vi., p. 501 sqq.). A false date (the beginning of Leo’s reign is placed in the XIVth. instead of the XVth. indiction), and the false implication that the Imperial territory of the “Ducatus Romæ” terminated at twenty-four stadia, or three miles, from Rome, point to an author who was neither a contemporary of Leo nor a resident in Rome. But the insolent tone of the letters is enough to condemn them. Gregory II. would never have addressed to his sovereign the crude abuse with which these documents teem. Another objection (which I have never seen noticed) is that in the First Letter the famous image of Christ which was pulled down by Leo, is stated to have been in the “Chalkoprateia” (bronzesmith’s quarter), whereas, according to the trustworthy sources, it was above the Chalkâ gate of the Palace.
Rejecting the letters on these grounds—which are supported by a number of smaller points—we get rid of the difficulty about a Lombard siege of Ravenna before a.d. 727: a siege which is not mentioned elsewhere and was doubtless created by the confused knowledge of the fabricator.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon XIV

Canon XIV.
The chorepiscopi, however, are indeed after the pattern of the Seventy; and as fellow-servants, on account of their devotion to the poor, they have the honour of making the oblation.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.
[Vide ante, as in many mss. the two canons are united in the Ancient Epitome.]
Van Espen.
The reference to the Seventy seems to intimate that the Synod did not hold the chorepiscopi to be true bishops, as such were always reputed and called successors, not of the Seventy disciples but successors of the Twelve Apostles. It is also clear that their chief ministry was thought to be the care of the poor.
Zonaras and Balsamon would seem to agree in this with Van Espen. See on the whole subject the Excursus on the Chorepiscopi.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon XV

Canon XV.
The deacons ought to be seven in number, according to the canon, even if the city be great. Of this you will be persuaded from the Book of the Acts.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XV.
Seven Deacons according to the Acts of the Apostles should be appointed for each great city.
This canon was observed in Rome and it was not until the xith century that the number of the Seven Cardinal Deacons was changed to fourteen. That Gratian received it into the Decretum (Pars. I., Dist. XCIII., c. xij.) is good evidence that he considered it part of the Roman discipline. Eusebius gives a letter of Pope Cornelius, written about the middle of the third century, which says that at that time there were at Rome forty-four priests, seven deacons, and seven subdeacons; and that the number of those in inferior orders was very great. Thomassinus says that, “no doubt in this the Roman Church intended to imitate the Apostles who only ordained seven deacons. But the other Churches did not keep themselves so scrupulously to that number.”
In the acts of the Council of Chalcedon it is noted that the Church of Edessa had fifteen priests and thirty-eight deacons. And Justinian, we know, appointed one hundred deacons for the Church of Constantinople. Van Espen well points out that while this canon refers to a previous law on the subject, neither the Council itself, nor the Greek commentators Balsamon or Zonaras give the least hint as to what that Canon was.
The Fathers of Neocæsarea base their limiting of the number of deacons to seven in one city upon the authority of Holy Scripture, but the sixteenth canon of the Quinisext Council expressly says that in doing so they showed they referred to ministers of alms, not to ministers at the divine mysteries, and that St. Stephen and the rest were not deacons at all in this latter sense. The reader is referred to this canon, where to defend the practice of Constantinople the meaning of the canon we are considering is entirely misrepresented.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Eusebius, H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xliij.
* ↑ Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l’Église, Lib. II., Chap. xxix.
* ↑ Acta Conc. Chal., Actio x.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Title Page

The Council of Neocæsarea.
a.d. 315 (circa).
(Hefele thinks somewhat later, but before 325.)
Elenchus.
Historical Note.
The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon XIII

Canon XIII.
Country presbyters may not make the oblation in the church of the city when the bishop or presbyters of the city are present; nor may they give the Bread or the Cup with prayer. If, however, they be absent, and he [i.e., a country presbyter] alone be called to prayer, he may give them.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canons XIII. and XIV.
A country presbyter shall not offer in the city temple, unless the bishop and the whole body of the presbyters are away.  But if wanted he can do so while they are away. The chorepiscopi can offer as fellow ministers, as they hold the place of the Seventy.
Routh reads the last clause in the plural, in this agreeing with Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore. In many mss. this canon is united with the following and the whole number given as 14.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Pars I., Dist. xcv., c. xii. And the Roman correctors have added the following notes.
Roman Correctors.
(Gratian ut supra.)
“Nor to give the sacrificed bread and to hand the chalice;” otherwise it is read “sanctified” [sanctificatum for sacrificatum]. The Greek of the council is ἄρτον διδόναι ἐν εὐχῇ; but Balsamon has ἄρτον εὐχῆς, that is, “the bread of the mystic prayer.”
Instead of “let them only who are called for giving the prayer, etc.,” read καὶ εἰς εὐχὴν κληθῇ μόνος δίδωσιν, that is:  “and only he that shall have been called to the mystic prayer, shall distribute.”
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis
## Contents

* Title Page
* Historical Introduction
* The Synodal Letter
* Canons
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Historical Note

Historical Note.
(Zonaras and Balsamon prefix to the canons this note.)
The Synod gathered together at Neocæsarea, which is a city of Pontus, is next in order after that of Ancyra, and earlier in date than the rest, even than the First Ecumenical Synod at Nice.  In this synod the Holy Fathers gathered together, among whom was the holy Martyr Basil, bishop of Amasea, adopted canons for the establishing of ecclesiastical order as follow—
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis/Canons
## Contents

* Canon I
* Canon II
* Canon III
* Canon IV
* Canon V
* Canon VI
* Canon VII
* Canon VIII
* Canon IX
* Canon X
* Canon XI
* Canon XII
* Canon XIII
* Canon XIV
* Canon XV
* Canon XVI
* Canon XVII
* Canon XVIII
* Canon XIX
* Canon XX
* Canon XXI
* Canon XXII
* Canon XXIII
* Canon XXIV
* Canon XXV
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 1/The Council of Neocaesarea/Canons/Canon XII

Canon XII.
If any one be baptized when he is ill, forasmuch as his [profession of] faith was not voluntary, but of necessity [i.e. though fear of death] he cannot be promoted to the presbyterate, unless on account of his subsequent [display of] zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XII.
One baptized on account of sickness is not to be made presbyter, unless in reward for a contest which he afterwards sustains and on account of scarcity of men.
The word used in the Greek for “baptized” is “illuminated” (φωτισθῇ), a very common expression among the ancients.
Aristenus.
He that is baptised by reason of illness, and, therefore come to his illumination not freely but of necessity, shall not be admitted to the priesthood unless both these conditions concur, that there are few suitable men to be found and that he has endured a hard conflict after his baptism.
With this interpretation agree also Zonaras and Balsamon, the latter expressly saying, “If one of these conditions is lacking, the canon must be observed.” Not only has Isidore therefore missed the meaning by changing the copulative into the disjunctive conjunction (as Van Espen points out) but Beveridge has fallen into the same error, not indeed in the canon itself, but in translating the Ancient Epitome.
Zonaras explains that the reason for this prohibition was the well-known fact that in those ages baptism was put off so as the longer to be free from the restraints which baptism was considered to impose. From this interpretation only Aubespine dissents, and Hefele points out how entirely without reason.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum., Pars. I., Dist. lvii., c. i.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book V/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.—Concerning Lucifer and Eusebius, Bishops of the West. Eusebius with Athanasius the Great and Other Bishops collect a Council at Alexandria, and confirm the Nicene Faith by defining the Consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. Their Decree concerning Substance and Hypostasis.
After the return of Athanasius, Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, and Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, a city of Liguria in Italy, returned from the upper Thebaïs.
They had been condemned by Constantius to perpetual exile in that country. For the regulation and general systematizing of ecclesiastical affairs, Eusebius came to Alexandria, and there, in concert with Athanasius, to hold a council for the purpose of confirming the Nicene doctrines.
Lucifer sent a deacon with Eusebius to take his place in the council, and went himself to Antioch, to visit the church there in its disturbances.
A schism had been excited by the Arians then under the guidance of Euzoïus, and by the followers of Meletius, who, as I have above stated, were at variance even with those who held the same opinions as themselves. As Meletius had not then returned from exile, Lucifer ordained Paulinus bishop.
In the meantime, the bishops of many cities had assembled in Alexandria with Athanasius and Eusebius, and had confirmed the Nicene doctrines. They confessed that the Holy Ghost is of the same substance as the Father and the Son, and they made use of the term “Trinity.”
They declared that the human nature assumed by God the Word is to be regarded as consisting of not a perfect body only, but also of a perfect soul, even as was taught by the ancient Church philosophers. As the Church had been agitated by questions concerning the terms “substance” and “hypostasis,” and the contentions and disputes about these words had been frequent, they decreed, and, as I think, wisely, that these terms should not henceforth at the beginning be used in reference to God, except in refutation of the Sabellian tenet; lest from the paucity of terms, one and the same thing might appear to be called by three names; but that one might understand each by its peculiar term in a threefold way.
These were the decrees passed by the bishops convened at Alexandria. Athanasius read in the council the document about his flight which he had written in order to justify himself.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Athan. Hist. Arian. 33; Apol. de fuga sua, 4. The whole of the Tomus ad Antioch.; Soc. iii. 5–8; Ruf. H. E. i. 27–30; Theodoret, H. E. iii. 4, 5.
* ↑ Soc. iii. 6.
* ↑ Soc. gives a considerable extract, iii. 8, from Athan. Apol. de fuga sua.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book V/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—The Partisans of Macedonius disputed with the Arians concerning Acacius.
At this period the adherents of Macedonius, among whom were Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius, who now began openly to be called Macedonians, as constituting a distinct sect, adopted the bold measure on the death of Constantius, of calling together those of their own sentiments who had been convened at Seleucia, and of holding several councils. They condemned the partisans of Acacius and the faith which had been established at Ariminum, and confirmed the doctrines which had been set forth at Antioch, and afterwards approved at Seleucia.
When interrogated as to the cause of their dispute with the partisans of Acacius, with whom, as being of the same sentiments as themselves they had formerly held communion, they replied by the mouth of Sophronius,
a bishop of Paphlagonia, that while the Christians in the West maintained the use of the term “consubstantial,” the followers of Aëtius in the East upheld the dogma of dissimilarity as to substance; and that the former party irregularly wove together into a unity the distinct persons of the Father and of the Son, by their use of the term “consubstantial,” and that the latter party represented too great a difference as existing in the relationship between the nature of the Father and of the Son; but that they themselves preserved the mean between the two extremes, and avoided both errors, by religiously maintaining that in hypostasis, the Son is like unto the Father. It was by such representations as these that the Macedonians vindicated themselves from blame.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Soc. iii. 10, gives a direct extract; Soz. leaves out some words purposely.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Sozomen/Book V/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—Concerning Paulinus and Meletius, Chief-Priests of Antioch; how Eusebius and Lucifer antagonized One Another; Eusebius and Hilarius defend the Nicene Faith.
On the termination of the council, Eusebius repaired to Antioch and found dissension prevailing among the people.
Those who were attached to Meletius would not join Paulinus, but held their assemblies apart. Eusebius was much grieved at the state of affairs; for the ordination ought not to have taken place without the unanimous consent of the people; yet, from respect towards Lucifer, he did not openly express his dissatisfaction.
He refused to hold communion with either party, but promised to redress their respective grievances by means of a council. While he was thus striving to restore concord and unanimity, Meletius returned from exile, and, finding that those who held his sentiments had seceded from the other party, he held meetings with them beyond the walls of the city. Paulinus, in the meantime, assembled his own party within the city; for his mildness, his virtuous life, and his advanced age had so far won the respect of Euzoïus, the Arian president, that, instead of being expelled from the city, a church had been assigned him for his own use. Eusebius, on finding all his endeavors for the restoration of concord frustrated, quitted Antioch. Lucifer fancied himself injured by him, because he had refused to approve the ordination of Paulinus; and, in displeasure, seceded from communion with him. As if purely from the desire of contention, Lucifer then began to cast aspersions on the enactments of the council of Alexandria; and in this way he seems to have originated the heresy which has been called after him, Luciferian.
Those who espoused his cause seceded from the church; but, although he was deeply chagrined at the aspect affairs had taken, yet, because he had deputed a deacon to accompany Eusebius in lieu of himself, he yielded to the decrees of the council of Alexandria, and conformed to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. About this period he repaired to Sardinia.
In the meantime Eusebius traversed the Eastern provinces, restored those who had declined from the faith, and taught them what it was necessary to believe. After passing through Illyria, he went to Italy, and there he met with Hilarius, bishop of Poictiers
in Aquitania. Hilarius had returned from exile before Eusebius, and had taught the Italians and the Gauls what doctrines they had to receive, and what to reject; he expressed himself with great eloquence in the Latin tongue, and wrote many admirable works, it is said, in refutation of the Arian dogmas. Thus did Hilarius and Eusebius maintain the doctrines of the Nicæan council in the regions of the West.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ruf. H. E. i. 30, 31; Soc. iii. 9, 10. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. iii. 4, 5; Sulp. Sev. H. S. ii. 45.
* ↑ Soc. iii. 10, who says his source is Sabinus, ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν συνοδικῶν.