A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Of the COUNCIL of Sardica.

THE Emperours Constantius and Constans desiring to restore Peace to the Church, call'd a Synod * 1.1 of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Sardica in the Year 347 a 1.2 Thither came 100 Bishops from the West, and 73 Bishops from the East b 1.3 But those of the East having declared to those of the West, that they would not be present at the Council, unless St. Athanasius, Marcellus and the other Bishops that were condemned, were excluded from Ecclesiastical Communion, and the We∣stern Bishops refusing to accept of this Condition, the Council was divided and the Eastern Bishops withdrew. Those of the West, of whom Hosius was the Head and President, c 1.4 did notwithstanding hold a Synod in their absence, to treat of the Faith, and of the Accusations charg'd upon St. Athana∣sius and the other Catholick Bishops, and to make Canons concerning the Discipline of the Church. In Matters of Faith, they all Agreed that they must not make any new Creed, but must hold to that of the Council of Nice: Yet some particular Persons would have made a new Creed, in imitation of the Bishops of the East, but all the Council disapproved their Design. The Creed then drawn up is preserved by Theodoret Ch. 8. of the 2d. B. of his History. Afterwards the Council took into their consideration the personal Accusations against St. Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra. The First justified himself and was acquitted; the Second having alledged that Eusebius and his Adversaries took for Affirmations what he propos'd as Objections, was also restor'd. Asclepas Bishop of Gaza was restor'd; Theodorus of Heraclea, Narcissus of Neronius, Stephen of Antioch, George of Laodicea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, were Excommunicated and Deposed.

Lastly, the Council produced Twenty Canons and wrote Three Letters. The First which was ad∣dress'd to all the Bishops, is to the Church of Alexandria by St. Athanasius, and by St. Hilary in his Fragments; the Second is to Julius which is in St. Hilary in the same place, and the Third produced by St. Athanasius. There was also a long Letter to the Emperours, which was in St. Hilary's Book, but is not now in his Fragments, nor any where else.

On the other side the Eastern Bishops who withdrew from Sardica, assembled at Philippopolis, and wrote a Letter from thence, which they dated from Sardica, addressed to all the Bishops of the World. There they cry out upon St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas, and make them

pass for wicked Rogues. They declare, That they do not join with the Bishops of the West, be∣cause they had receiv'd into their Communion those Bishops who were deposed in the East, and upon the account of this pretended violation of their Authority they excommunicate Hosius, Pro∣togenes, Gaudentius, Maximinus and Julius. They complain that the whole World was turn'd up∣side down, and the whole Church disturbed for the sake of One or Two wicked Fellows. They ac∣cuse the Bishops of the West of Arrogance, and reprove them for endeavouring to establish a new Law, to give themselves the liberty of examining a new what had been determined in the East. They observe that the ancient Discipline of the Church is contrary to this Practice, and that the Judgments given in the East ought to be confirm'd in the West, as those of the West were received in the East. They prove this Rule by several Examples. Lastly, they add to this Letter a Confes∣sion of Faith, wherein they make profession of Believing in the Son of God begotten of the Father be∣fore all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, who Created all things; and they condemn those who say. That the Son was made of nothing, or that he is of another Substance than the Divine Substance, and that he is not of God, or that there was a time when he was not the Son of God; as also they ana∣thematize those who say, That there are Three Gods, or that Jesus Christ is not God; or that there is not one Christ•• only the Son of God, or that he is the same Person with the Father or the Holy Spirit. This Letter which is preserved in the Fragments of St. Hilary is address'd to Gregory of Alexandria, to Amphion of Nicomedia, and to several other Bishops, and among the rest to Donatus of Carthage. For which Reason the Donatists urge it in the Conference of Carthage, and the Catholick Bishops being ignorant of this History, say, that the Council of Sardica was made up of Arian Bishops. Some say, That Paul of Constantinople was restor'd in the Council of Sardica, others who follow Epiphanius, say, That Photinus was condemned there. They are both mistaken; for Paul was dead, and Photinus was not condemned in this Synod.

I have only now to give an Abridgment of the subject Matter of the Canons of the Council of Sar∣dica. These Canons were not compos'd as those of other Councils in the form of Laws; but they are propositions made by Hosius and some other Bishops, which are approved by all the Synod.

In the 1st. Hosius says, That they ought wholly to abolish a wicked Custom and pernicious Abuse, by hindering Bishops to pass from one See to another. And having declared that Avarice and Ambi∣tion are the only causes of these Translations, because there is no Example of a Bishop who ever quit∣ted a great Bishoprick to take a little one. He proposes for a severe Punishment of this Fault, that those who are guilty of it shall be excluded from Lay-Communion. And all the Fathers of the Council answered, We agree to it.

In the 2d. Canon, Hosius adds, That the same Sentence ought to be pronounced against those who excuse themselves, because they were desired by the Faithful of their Second Church; and the Synod ordains that it shall be so.

The three following Canons concern Ecclesiastical Decisions. It had been ordained in the Council of Antioch, That the Decision of the Council of the Province could not be invalidated, and that if the Bishops of the Province could not agree, they should call in those of the neighbouring Province.

The Council of Sardica falls foul upon these Two Decisions: For in the Third Canon Hosius pro∣poses, First, That it should be forbidden to appeal to Judges of a neighbouring Province; and Se∣condly, he says, That for the Honour of the Memory of St. Peter, he judg'd it convenient, with the leave of the Council, to Ordain; That if a Bishop condemned in his own Country thought himself innocent, those who had judged him should write of it to the Bishop of Rome, to enquire whether the Cause of the Bishop accused should be examined a-new: That if he, and the Judges whom he should name were of this Opinion, they must proceed to a-new Decision upon the place; but if he did not think fit that the Cause should be examined a-new, then the Sentence already past must stand good.

Gaudentius adds in the Fourth Canon, That a Bishop deposed by the Synod of the Province, who desires this new Decision, must not be expell'd his See, till the Bishop of Rome has determined, whether the Cause ought to be examined a-new.

Lastly, In the 5th. Canon, according to the Greek, and the 7th. according to the Edition of Dio∣nysius Exiguus, Hosius says, That when the Bishop of Rome thinks fit that the Cause of a Bishop should be examined a Second time, he ought to write to the Bishops next adjoyning to his Pro∣vince, That they examine the whole Matter with Care and Exactness; That he must also be im∣powered to send Legates in his own Name to this New Synod, unless he think it more convenient to leave the judging of the Cause to the neighbouring Bishops of the Province only, without send∣ing thither his Legates. The Bishops of the Council approve these Propositions of Hosius and Gau∣dentius. These three Canons have occasioned great Disputes, which would quickly vanish, if Men would confine themselves to the Words of the Council of Sardica, which sufficiently discover; First, That the Discipline which these Fathers establish is New; Secondly, That they do not give the Bi∣shop of Rome power to judge the Cause of a Bishop in his own Tribunal at Rome; but they only give him Authority to enquire whether it were well or ill determined; and in case he find that it was determined wrong to Order a New Decision of it in the Country, and by the neighbouring Bi∣shops of the Province where it was determined, whither he might send Legates in his own Name to be present, if he thought it convenient. This is the Natural Sence of the three Canons of this Council, which I have explained more at large in my Second Dissertation of the Discipline of the Church.

The 5th. Canon according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus declares, That if there remains but one Bishop in a Province, and he will not ordain other Bishops, the Bishops ought to come to him and joyn with him in ordaining; but if he persist in his unwillingness and will not meet

them for ordaining Bishops, the neighbouring Bishops alone may then ordain them without his Con∣sent. This is the Proposition of Hosius, to which the Council agreed.

The 6th. is, That a Bishop ought not to be ordained in a Borrough or little City, where a Priest is sufficient, lest the Dignity of a Bishop be lessened.

The following Canons are about the Journeys of Bishops to Court. Hosius for hindering them to go thither continually, and importune the Emperour by their frequent Petitions, thought fit to ordain,

First, That none of the Bishops shall go to Court, unless he be required by the Emperour's Letters.

Secondly, That those who shall have Requests or Petitions to make for the Poor of their Churches, shall only send thither a Deacon.

Thirdly, That this Deacon, before he goes to Court shall address himself to his Metropolitan, to whom he shall make known the occasion of his Petitions, and of whom he shall obtain Letters of Re∣quest and Recommendation.

Fourthly, That those who shall go to Rome, shall address themselves to the Bishop of that City, who having examined their Petitions, shall write of them to Court if he finds them Just.

Fifthly, Gaudentius adds, That for putting these Rules in Execution, the Bishops which lie upon the Road, shall ask the Bishops whom they shall see going to Court, and if they find that they have not observed the Canons above-mentioned, they shall not receive them into their Communion. But because these Rules were New, Hosius moderates this Penalty, and says, That they must first make them known to these Bishops, and persuade them to send a Deacon to Court from the place where they shall be, and then return to their own Diocess. These Propositions are approved by the Council, and contained in the Canons 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

In the 13th. Hosius says, That he thought it necessary to ordain, That Bishopricks shall only be given to those who have discharged the Offices of Reader and Deacon, or Priest, for a considerable time. The Bishops of the Council approve this Proposition.

In the 14th. Hosius says, That it ought to be ordained, that a Bishop should not continue longer than three Weeks, in the Diocess of another, and out of his own. All the Bishops are of this Opi∣nion: But Hosius moderates this Law in the following Canon, in favour of those who have an Estate out of their Diocess, and who are obliged to continue there more than three Weeks for their Affairs, but he would have them forbidden after this time is spent, to go to the great Church of the City, and orders them to be present only at the Offering of a Priest.

In the 16th. Hosius proposes the renewing of that Law, which forbids a Bishop to give the Commu∣nion to him who is excommunicated by his own Bishop: And the Bishops of the Council say, That this Rule will preserve Peace and Concord.

The 17th. allows Priests and Deacons who are condemned by their own Bishop to appeal to the Judgment of the Bishops of the Province.

In the 18th. the Bishop Januarius desires that a Bishop may be forbidden to sollicite the Clergy of another Bishop, that he may ordain them in his own Diocess. The Council answers, That these Contests occasion Discord among Bishops, and is of Opinion, that it ought not to be done.

Hosius adds in the 19th. Canon, That the Ordination of a Clergy-man of another Diocess ought to be void, and that the Bishop who shall do it, ought to be punished.

In the 20th. the Bishop Aëtius having remonstrated that many Priests and Deacons, Strangers, con∣tinued a long time at Thessalonica, the Synod ordains, That the Rules made with respect to Bishops may oblige these Persons.

The 21st. Canon according to the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus which we have followed, declares, That according to the Remonstrance of the Bishop Olympus, the Council is of Opinion, that a Bi∣shop forc'd away from his own Diocess for the Defence of the Discipline of the Church, or of the Faith and Truth, may continue in the Bishoprick of another, till he can return to his own, for it would be great Inhumanity not to receive him who is persecuted, and that on the contrary, much Civility and Kindness ought to be shewn to him.

There are in the Greek two other Canons which concern a particular Business. The Bishop Gau∣dentius says to the Bishop Aëtius, That since he had had no trouble in his Diocess from the time that he was Bishop of it, he thought that he ought to receive those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus. Hosius judged that he ought not to admit those who being ordained would not con∣tinue in the Churches to which they are nam'd. He adds, That Eutychianus and Musaeus ought not to be look'd upon as Bishops, but if they desir'd Lay-Communion, it should not be refus'd them.

These Canons end with these Words in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus, The whole Council hath said; The Catholick Church spread over all the Earth, shall observe what has been now ordain'd.

However, the Canons of the Council of Sardica were never received by the Catholick Church, as general Laws. They were never put into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church, approv'd by the Council of Chalcedon. The East never received them, neither would the Bishops of Africa own them. The Popes only used them, and cited them under the Name of the Council of Nice, to give them the greater Weight and Authority.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of Sardica, 347.
• a 1.2

  The Emperours Constantius and Constans called a Council at Sardica in the Year 347.] Socrates B. II. Ch. 20. and Sozomen B. III. Ch. 11. testify that it was called in this Year. St. Athanasius confirms this Epo∣cha, because he says, that it was held a Year after the Council of Milan. It appears by the express Testi∣monies of St. Athanasius, that this Council was called by the Emperours. Hosius says the same thing in his Letter to the Emperour, and the Historians, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Sulpitius Severus follow this Opinion. Socrates indeed says, the Bishops of the East complain'd that Julius had allowed too little time for coming to the Synod; but he confounds what they say about the Council of Rome, with what concerns the Council of Sardica.
• b 1.3

  Thither came 100 Bishops from the West, and 73 from the East.] St. Athanasius in his Letter to those that lead a Monastick Life, says, that this Council consisted of 170 Bishops or thereabouts. Now it appears by the Subscriptions of the Letter of the Bishops of the East, that these Bishops from the East were 73. St. Atha∣nasius indeed says, That the Letter of the Council of Sardica containing his Absolution was sign'd by 300 Bishops, but this is to be understood not only of those who were present at the Council, but also of those who subscribed after the Council was over, to its Sy∣nodical Letter.
• c 1.4

  Of whom Hosius was Head and President.] The Name of this Bishop is the First in the Subscriptions which are in St. Athanasius, who says, That he was the Head and President of all the Councils where he was present. Theodoret says expresly, That he presided in this Council B. II. Ch. 15. of his History, as well as Sozomen B. III. Ch. 11. and the Council of Chalcedon in their Discourse to Marcianus, Tome IV. of the Councils, p. 825. Petrus de Marca has affirm'd, That he presi∣ded in this Council in the Name of the Pope but his Opinion is not founded on any solid Argument. The Pope's Legates sign'd after him, and declared, That they only represented his Person: Julius Romae per Archidamum & Philoxenum Presbyteros.