Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

duced to the following heads: suspension, degradation, exclusion from the communion, imprisonment, corporal punishment, and excommunication.

1. Suspension. This related either to the salary of the clergyman or to his office. Both methods of punishment were practised by the ancient church. An instance is related in the writings of Cyprian of some whose monthly wages were suspended, while they were allowed to continue in the discharge of their office.

Suspension from office was varied according to circumstances. At one time the offender was suspended from the performance of the active duties of his office, while he still retained his clerical rank with his brethren in the ministry. Decrees to this effect were ordained by the Councils of Nice, Ephesus, and Agde, in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. At another, he was forbidden to perform some of the duties of his office, while he continued in the discharge of others; and again, he was debarred the performance of all ministerial duties for a definite period of time.

2. Degradation.-This punishment consisted, as its name implies, in removing the offender from a higher to a lower grade of office. This sentence of degradation appears to have been final and irrevocable.2 Bishops were in this manner transferred from a larger to a smaller or less important diocese.3 Presbyters were degraded to the order of deacons; and deacons to that of subdeacons. This species of punishment was also inflicted upon bishops in Africa by superseding them in their expected succession to the office of archbishop or metropolitan.*

3. Exclusion from the communion. Of this there were two kinds, which were denominated communio peregrina, and communio laica. The former has sometimes been confounded with the latter, or it has been supposed to denote a communion in one kind, or communion only at the point of death, which, in the Romish church, was regarded as a kind of passport to the future world. The most probable explanation of this point, confessedly obscure, is, that the term communion implied not only a participation of the eucharist, but in all the rights and privileges of a member of the church. Travellers and strangers, unless they had testimonials certifying to their regular standing in the church, were presumed to be under censure, and were not allowed the privileges of full communion, though permitted to receive, if need be, a maintenance from the funds of the church. An instance is related of Chrysostom, who on a certain occasion hospitably enter

tained certain Egyptian monks who had fled from persecution to him at Constantinople; but they were not allowed to partake of the eucharist until it had been fully ascertained that no just accusation could be brought against them. Clergymen under censure were sometimes treated in this way in their own communion. They were placed in the same relations as strangers, which was denoted by the phrase communio peregrina. Under these circumstances they could neither officiate nor be present at the celebration of the Lord's supper, until they had given the prescribed satisfaction.

The act of communion was indeed the highest privilege of a layman; but it was a severe rebuke to one who had been elevated to the rank of the clergy to be again degraded to the condition of a layman, and to be required to communicate as a layman at the table of the Lord. This was a kind of mitigated excommunication. He was excluded from the body of the clergy and reduced to the condition of a humble individual. In this situation he was required to perform certain services for that same body from which he had been expelled. This was styled communio laica, and the subject of this penalty was said to be delivered over to the secular arm, curiæ tradi, in the phraseology of the ancient canonists.

4. Imprisonment.-The custom of confining delinquent clergymen in monasteries appears to have taken its rise in the fourth and fifth centuries. At a later period it became a frequent mode of punishment.

5. Corporal punishment.—This kind of punishment, together with the last-mentioned, was inflicted only on clergy of the inferior orders. This mode of punishment was by no means uncommon in the time of Augustin. A presbyter, who had given false witness, could first be deposed from his office; and then, as a layman, might be subjected to corporal punishment. Connected with the churches in large cities, such as Constantinople, there were houses of correction, decanica, for administering the correction of imprisonment and of corporal punishment.

6. Excommunication.-This was the last and highest form of ecclesiastical censure. It cut off all hope on the part of the offender from ever being again reinstated in the ministry, even if he were restored to the fellowship of the churches. None who had at any time been exposed to public censure, was restored again to his office." The above penalties appear to have been inflicted by authority of ecclesiastical councils alone, or at least to have been prescribed by them.

CHAPTER XXIII.

OF COUNCILS.

§ 1. THE ORIGIN OF COUNCILS.

THE apostolic churches were entirely independent of each other. Each individual church assumed the form of a little distinct republic or commonwealth; and, with regard to its internal concerns, was entirely regulated by a code of laws which may indeed have been derived from the apostles, but were received and sanctioned by the people constituting the church. But in the second century this primitive liberty and independence began to be relinquished and merged in a confederation of the churches of a province or country into a larger association, like the confederated republic of these United States, conventions being annually held by delegates from the several churches to consider and provide for the common interest and welfare of the whole. Whoever may have been the authors of this original confederation, it certainly had its origin in Greece. During the second century it extended into the confines of several of the Grecian states.

In process of time other provinces followed the example of Greece, until this form of government became general throughout the church. The conventions or assemblies held by delegates from the associated churches, to consult for the common welfare of the whole, were called by the Greeks synods, and the Latins, councils. The laws enacted by the deputies from the different churches in mutual council were called in the Greek language canons, which term was also adopted into the Latin language, and became the authorized nomenclature of the churches.

This view of the origin of councils is particularly confirmed by a passage from Tertullian on the observance of fasts appointed by authority of the bishops, which fasts were observed by the Montanists, but to which other Christians objected. Tertullian is defending the usage of the Montanists, in doing which he specifies the

powers of a bishop at this time, and asserts his right, on his own. authority, to appoint fasts, as being a part of the religious services which were, by virtue of his office, under his direction. On certain emergencies he might also require special contributions from the churches, such as in those times of peril and persecution were frequently arising, and which could not be provided for by the ordinary and stated charities of the church. To such calls by their bishop, he says, the churches were accustomed promptly to respond.

In addition to all this, he urges that councils of the churches are accustomed to be held in Greece for consultation upon the common interests of the churches, and that the enactments of these councils are treated with the greatest respect, notwithstanding they were of merely human origin and authority.*

From this accidental mention of the original formation of councils, several important conclusions may be derived:

1. They were appointed by merely human authority, and were regarded as being instituted neither by Christ nor by his apostles.

2. That at the close of the second century these councils were held neither in Assyria, nor in Egypt, nor in Rome, nor even in the Eastern churches generally, but solely in Greece and Asia Minor: per Græcias, that is in nations bearing the name of Greeks.

3. These councils had their origin in Greece, where the mutual relations and dependence of the Grecian republics evidently suggested the idea of a confederation of the churches. Indeed, it was little else than a modification of the celebrated Amphictyonic council, which was held "for the sole purpose of promoting harmony and celebrating common festivals; not from motives of foreign policy or party views."1 This was called the common council of the Greeks, τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων συνέδριον. It was composed principally of deputies from the several states, who met, like the ecclesiastical councils, in the spring and autumn of each year, for mutual counsultation.

* Aguntur præter ea per Græcias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et altiora quæque in commune tractantur et ipsa representatio totius nominis Christiani magna celebratione veneratur. Et hoc quam dignum fide auspicante congregari undique ad Christum? Vide quam bonum et jucundum habitare fratres in unum! Hoc tu psallere non facile nosti, nisi quo tempore cum compluribus cœnas. Conventus autem isti stationibus prius et jejunationibus operari, dolere cum dolentibus et ita demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt.De Jejuniis, c. xiii.

4. "At this time, certain established places, or certain cities, were already assigned for these councils of the Greeks, out of which they could not be held.

5. "In these councils, not business of minor importance, concerning which each church determined according to their own discretion, but public business, greater or more important concerns, were treated of, &c.

6. "The bishops in these councils represented their churches; that is, they decreed and enacted, not in their own private name, but in the name of the churches whose delegates they were. 'There is a representation of the whole Christian name celebrated.' Representatio totius nominis Christiani celebratur. The whole Christian name here is evidently the whole church which bears the name of Christ. Therefore, bishops were supposed to represent the whole church, united together by covenant, and each one of them the church which he was placed over; whence arose the respect of which councils were thought worthy. The opinion, therefore, had not yet arisen which afterward prevailed, that the bishops, collected in councils, judged and sanctioned in the place of Jesus Christ, and were legislators and judges of the Christian people by the very nature of their office."

The information thus afforded by Tertullian respecting the origin of councils is supported by collateral history. No notice whatever is given of any earlier councils; but from Eusebius we learn that, about the close of the second century, the practice of holding such councils passed into Palestine and Syria.2

About the middle of the third century, Firmilian, bishop of Casarea, wrote to Cyprian an epistle in which he took occasion to say, that "the bishop and elders annually assembled to deliberate upon ecclesiastical matters committed to their charge, that the most important of these might be adjusted by mutual consultation," 3 which confirms the account of Tertullian relative to this subject.

An ecclesiastical council may be defined to be a synod, composed of a number of representatives from several independent Christian communities, convened together to deliberate and decide upon matters relating to the welfare of the church.

These councils were popular deliberative assemblies, composed of representatives of independent churches from which they were sent." In such communities, where all had severally a right to bear a part in such deliberations, the council must of necessity have been composed of representatives from each. It is impossible that all

« ForrigeFortsett »