Nicaean Councils

Nicaean Councils

(Concilium Nicoenum). Important ecclesiastical assemblies were held at Nicaea or Nice, formerly a city of Bithynia, in Asia Minor, situated on the eastern shore of Lake Ascania. It was built, or rather rebuilt (for an older town had existed on its site), by Antigonus, the son of Philip (B.C. 316), and received the name of Antigonea, which Lysimachus changed to Nicoea, in honor of his wife. It was a handsome town, and of great importance in the time of the Roman and Byzantine emperors; all the streets crossed each other at right angles, and from a magnificent monument in the center the four gates of the city were visible. It was the second city of Bithynia, only twenty English miles from the imperial residence of Nicomedea, and easily accessible by sea and land from all parts of the empire. It became of such importance that it even disputed with Nicomaedea the title of metropolis of Bithynia. Under the Byzantine emperors it was long a bulwark against the Arabs and Seljuks, the latter of whom conquered it about 1080. Before the end of the century it was taken from them by the soldiers of the first crusade, but was restored at the next treaty of peace. In 1204, Constantinople having become the seat of a Latin empire, Theodore Lascaris made Nicaea the capital of a Greek kingdom or empire in Western Asia, comprehending Bithynia, Mysia, Ionia, and a part of Lydia. He was succeeded by John Ducas Vatatzer (1222-55), Theodore II (1255-59), John Lascaris (1259), and Michael Palueologus, who in 1261 transferred the seat of power to Constantinople. In 1330 the city surrendered to Orkhau, and was incorporated with the recently founded Ottoman capital. Nicaea is now a miserable Turkish village, Isnik (corrupted from Είς Νίκαιαν ) . of only some 1500 inhabitants, and there remains nothing but a rude picture in the solitary church of St. Mary to the memory of the event which has given the place a name in the history of the world.

I. Two Church councils have been held at Nicaea, but only one of these was properly oecumenical, and it is regarded as the first and most important of such councils. "Next to the apostolic council at Jerusalem," says Schaff, "it is the most important and the most illustrious of all the councils of Christendom" (Ch. Hist. 3:630). It was convened by the emperor Constantino in A.D. 325. With the imperial invitation for attendance the different bishops were proffered the service of public conveyances for themselves and two presbyters and three servants; and when the 318 bishops who had complied with the emperor's request gathered at Nicaea, the emperor himself opened the council on June 19 in his own palace, and its use for future sessions was afforded to the ecclesiastical gathering, as it appears from the records that the sessions, continuing for two months, were held sometimes at the palace and sometimes at a church or some public building. The empire, at the time of the call of the council, had in all about 1800 bishops (1000 for the Greek provinces, 800 for the Latin), and of these, if 318 attended, as reported by Athanasius (Ad Afros, c. 2, et al.), Socrates (Hist. Eccles. bk. viii), and Theodoret (Hist.  Ecclesiastes 1:7), there were one sixth of the episcopal sees represented at Nicaea — a large number, indeed, if we take into consideration the vastness of the imperial realm and the difficulties of travel in those times. Including the presbyters and deacons and other attendants, the number may have amounted in all to between 1500 and 2000. Most of the Eastern provinces were strongly represented. Besides a great number of obscure mediocrities, there were several distinguished and venerable men, as e.g. Eusebius of Caesarea, who was most eminent for learning; the young archdeacon Athanasius, who accompanied the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, for zeal, intellect, and eloquence. Some, as confessors, still bore in their body the marks of Christ from the times of persecution: Paphnutius of the Upper Thebaid, Potamon of Heraklea, whose right eye had been put out, and Paul of Neo-Caesarea, who had been tortured with red-hot iron under Licinius, and was crippled in both his hands. Others were distinguished for extraordinary ascetic holiness, and even for miraculous works; like Jacob of Nisibis, who had spent years as a hermit in forests and caves, and lived like a wild beast on roots and leaves, and Spyridion (or St. Spiro) of Cyprus, the patron of the Ionian Isles, who even after his ordination remained a simple shepherd. The Latin Church, on the contrary, had only seven delegates: from Spain, Hosius or Osius of Cordova, the ablest and most influential of the Western representatives; from France, Nicasius of Dijon; from North Africa, Cecilian of Carthage; from Pannonia, Domnus of Stride; from Italy, Eustorgius of Milan and Marcus of Calabria; from Rome, the two presbyters Victor or Vitus and Vincentius, as delegates of the aged pope Sylvester I, who found it impossible to attend in person. A Persian bishop, John, also, and a Gothic bishop, Theophilus, the forerunner and teacher of the Gothic Bible translator Ulfilas, were present.

Various theories have been propounded to explain Constantine's aim in calling this council. By some it is represented as having served a political purpose (based on Eusebius, Vita Constant. 3:4); by others it is regarded as intended to restore quiet to the Church, and unite all its parties in the great Trinitarian question on which the Church was at that time greatly divided there existing three parties: one, which may be called the orthodox party, held firmly to the doctrine of the deity of Christ; the second was the Arian party, (See Arianism); and the third, which was in the majority, taking conciliatory or middle ground, and consenting to the use of such christological expressions as all parties could consistently agree upon; they acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general Biblical terms, but avoided the use of the term Ὁμοούσιος , (See Homoousian), which the Arians decried as unscriptural, Sabellian, and materialistic. According to Pusey, "He (i.e. Constantine) did not understand the doctrine, and attached as much or more importance to uniformity in keeping Easter as to unity of faith. Indeed, he himself at this time believed in no doctrine but that of Providence, and spared no terms of contempt as to the pettiness of the dispute between Alexander and Arius" ( Councils Of The Church, p. 102); yet it would seem that Constantine only called a council when he believed it impossible to restore peace between the contending parties, led respectively by Arius and Alexander, and now turned over the case for settlement to the bishops, who appeared to him to be the representatives of God and Christ, the organs of the divine Spirit "that enlightened and guided the Church," and he appears to have hoped that when in council assembled, analogous to the established custom of deciding controversies in the single provinces by assemblies composed of all the provincial bishops, they would be able to dispose of the present controversy. No complete collection of the transactions of this Nicaean oecumenical council have come down to us. Some account of the bishops who composed this assembly is given by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. It is uncertain who presided, but it is generally supposed that ‘ the president was Hosius, bishop of Corduba (Cordova), in Spain. From the reports of two of its attendants, Athanasius and Eusebius of Caesarea, we learn that it was busy mainly with the settlement of the different ehristological views. The opening seasons were principally devoted, according to these writers, to a consideration of Arian views, and resulted finally in the personal examination of Arius himself. He did not hesitate to maintain that the Son of God was a creature, made from nothing; that there was a time when he had no existence; that he was capable of his own free will of right and wrong. Athanasius, although at the time but a deacon, drew the attention of the whole council by his marvelous penetration in unraveling and laying open the artifices of the heretical views of Arius and his followers; he resisted Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris, the chief supporters of Arius, and evinced such zeal in defense of the true faith that he attracted both the admiration of all Catholics and the bitter hatred of the Arian party. We are told that so great and far-reaching was the influence of Athanasius's criticism that many of the Arians became doubtful of their own stand-point, and eighteen of them abandoned the cause of Arius. The orthodox themselves became enthusiastic in behalf of their cause, and when Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a confession of faith — an ancient Palestinian confession, which was very similar to the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general Biblical terms. but avoided the term in question, Οὑμοούσιος , consubstantialis, of the same essence — they rejected it, though the emperor had seen and approved this confession, and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it. They wished a. creed which no Arian could honestly subscribe, and especially insisted on inserting the expression homousios, which the Arians so much objected to. The fathers finally presented through Hosius of Cordova another confession, which became the substance of what is now known and owned by the orthodox churches of Christianity as the well-known Nicene Creed (q.v.). The following is the Latin text of this creed:

"Credimus in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, omninim visililium et invisibilium Creatorem. Et in Dominum Jesum Christum Filimn Dei, natum ex Patre, et Unigenitum, hoc est, ex substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum ex Deo vero, genitumm no factun, et consubstautialem Patri per quem omnnia facta sult, tam in coelis quam in terra. Qui propter nos homiiies et propter nostram salutem descendit, et iucarnmartns est et homo factus est; passus est, et resurrexit tertia die et ascendit in ccelos, venturns inde ad judicanidum vivos et morttLos. Et in Spirituin Sanctum."

Eleven copies of this creed in Greek are extant. The decision of the council having been laid before Constantine, he saw clearly that the Eusebian formula would not pass; and, as he had at heart, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the disputed word, and declared that he recognized in the unanimous consent of the bishops the work of God, and received it with reverence, declaring that all those persons should be banished who refused to submit to it. Upon this the Arians, through fear, also anathematized the dogmas condemned, and subscribed the faith laid down by the council; that they did so only outwardly was shown by their subsequent conduct. It was declared by its advocates that it was presented after mature deliberation, and after diligent consultation of all that the holy evangelists and apostles have taught upon the subject; and it proceeded to set forth the true doctrine of the Church in a creed, in which, in order to defy all the subtleties of the Arians, the council thought good to express by the term "consubstantial," Ὁμοούσιος , the divine essence or substance which is common to the Father and the Son. According to Athanasius, this creed was in a great measure composed by Hosius of Cordova. It was written out by Hermogenes, bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, and subscribed, together with the condemnation of the dogmas and expressions of Arius, by all the bishops present with the exception of a few of the Arians. Socrates (lib. I, ch. 5) says that all the bishops except five; Baronius, that all except Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea assented to the use of the word Ὁμοούσιος . According to Cave, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theognis of Marmorica alone refused, and Eusebius signed. Arius himself was banished by Constantine's order to Illyria, where he remained until his recall, which took place five years after. See for further details the article (See Arianism).

The main object of the council being thus achieved, the fathers proceeded to determine other matters which were brought before them: First. They considered the subject of the Meletian schism, which for some time past had divided Egypt, and they decreed that Meletius should keep the title and rank of bishop in his see of Lycopolis, in Egypt, forbidding him however to perform any episcopal functions; also that they whom he had elevated to any ecclesiastical dignities should be admitted to communion, upon condition that they should take rank after those who were enrolled in any parish ( Παροικία ; the district under a bishop's jurisdiction, which we now call a "diocese," was so styled in the primitive Church) or church, and who had been ordained by Alexander. Second. They decreed that throughout the Church the festival of Easter should be celebrated on the Sunday after the full moon which happens next after March 21. Third. They published twenty canons:

1. Excludes from the exercise of their functions those persons in holy orders who have made themselves eunuchs.

2. Forbids to raise neophytes to the priesthood or episcopate.

3. Forbids any bishop, priest, or deacon to have women in their houses, except their mothers, sisters, aunts, or such women as shall be beyond the reach of slander.

4. Declares that a bishop ought if possible to be constituted by all the bishops of the province, but allows of his consecration by three at least with the consent of the absent bishops, signified in writing; the consecration to be finally confirmed by the metropolitan.

5. Orders that they who have been separated from the communion of the Church by their own bishop shall not be received into communion elsewhere. Also that a provincial synod shall be held twice a year in every province to examine into sentences of excommunication. One synod to be held before Lent, and the second in autumn.

6. Insists upon the preservation of the rights and privileges of the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and other provinces. (The sixth canon of Nicaea, according to the version of Dionysius Exiguus, "Antiqua consuetudo servatur per A Egyptum, Lilyam, et Pentapolim, ut Alexandrinius episcoptns horum omnium habeat potestatem; quia et urbis Romre episcopo parilis mos est. Similiter antem et npud Antiochiam ceterasqne provincias suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis. Illud aueni generaliter clarnm est qwud si qnis prseter mevropolitani sententiam fuerit factus episcopus, hunlc niagna synodus defilivit episcopnm esse non oportere," etc.).

7. Grants to the bishop of A Elia A Elia Capitolina, the new city built by A Elius Hadrianus upon the site of Jeirusalem, or near to it), according to ancient tradition, the second place of honor.

8. Permits those who had been ministers among the Cathari (q.v.), and who returned into the bosom of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, having received imposition of hands, to remain in the rank of the clergy. Directs, however, that they shall, in writing, make profession to follow the decrees of the Church; and that they shall communicate with those who have married twice, and with those who lave performed penance for relapsing in time of persecution. Directs, further, that in places where there is a Catholic bishop and a converted bishop of the Cathari, the former shall retain his rank and office, and the latter be considered only as a priest; or the bishop may assign him the place of a chorepiscopus.

9. Declares to be null and void the ordination of priests made without due inquiry, and of those who have, before ordination, confessed sins committed.

10. Declares the same of persons ordained priests in ignorance, or whose sin has appeared after ordination.

11. Enacts that those who have fallen away in time of persecution without strong temptation shall be three years among the hearers, seven among the prostrators, and for two years shall communicate with the people without offering ("communicate with the people in prayer, without being admitted to the oblation;" i.e. to the holy eucharist, according to Johnson's way of understanding it).

12. Imposes ten years' penance upon any one of the military, who, having been deprived of a post on account of the faith, shall, after all, give a bribe, and deny the faith, in order to receive it back again.

13. Forbids to deny the holy communion to any one likely to die.

14. Orders that catechumens who have relapsed shall be three years among the hearers.

15. Forbids bishops, priests, or deacons to remove from one city to another: any one offending against this canon to be compelled to return to his own church, and his translation to be void.

16. Priests or deacons removing from their own church, not to be received into any other; those who persist, to be separated from communion. If any bishop dare to ordain a man belonging to another church, the ordination to be void.

17. Directs that clerks guilty of usury shall be deposed.

18. Forbids deacons to give the encharist to priests, and to receive it themselves before the priests, and to sit among the priests; offenders to be deposed.

19. Directs that Paulianists (q.v.) coming over to the Church shall be baptized again. Permits those among their clergy who are without reproach, after baptism, to be ordained by the Catholic bishops: orders the same thing of deaconesses.

20. Orders that all persons shall offer up their prayers on Sundays and Pentecost standing.

It was also proposed to add another canon, enjoining continence upon the married clergy: but Paphnutius warmly opposed the imposition of such a yoke, and prevailed, so that the proposal fell to the ground. The creed acid the canons were written in a book, and signed by the bishops. The council issued a letter to the Egyptian and Libyan bishops as to the decision of the three main points; the emperor also sent several edicts to the churches, in which he ascribed the decrees to divine inspiration, and set them forth as laws of the realm. On July 29, the twentieth anniversary of his accession, the emperor gave the members of the council a splendid banquet in his palace, which Eusebius (quite too susceptible to worldly splendor) describes as a figure of the reign of Christ on earth; Constantine remunerated the bishops lavishly, and dismissed them with a suitable valedictory, and with letters of commendation to the authorities of all the provinces on their homeward way. Thus ended the Council of Nicaea. It is styled emphatically "the great and holy council," holds the highest place among all the councils, especially with the Greeks, and still lives in the Nicene Creed, which is second in authority only to the ever venerable Apostles' Creed. Athanasius calls it "a true monument and token of victory against every heresy;" Leo the Great, like Constantine, attributes its decrees to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and ascribes even to its canons perpetual validity; the Greek Church annually observes (on the Sunday before Pentecost) a special feast in memory of it.

There afterwards arose a multitude of apocryphal orations and legends in glorification of it, of which Gelasius of Cyzicus in the 5th century collected a whole volume. The decision of this council had not the effect of restoring tranquillity to the Eastern Church, for the Arian controversy was still warmly carried on, but it has supplied that mode of stating the doctrine of the Trinity (as far as relates to the Father and the Son) in which it has ever since been received by the orthodox. Says Dr. Schaff, "The Council of Nicaea is the most important event of the 4th century, and its bloodless intellectual victory over a dangerous error is of far greater consequence to the progress of true civilization than all the bloody victories of Constantine and his successors. It forms an epoch in the history of doctrine, summing up the results of all previous discussions on the deity of Christ and the incarnation, and at the same time regulating the further development of catholic orthodoxy for centuries." Dr. Shedd is incorrect in saving (Hist. of Ch. Doctrine, 1:308), "The problem to be solved by the Nicene council was to exhibit the doctrine of the ‘ Trinity in its completeness; to bring into the creed statement the total data of Scripture upon both the side of unity and trinity." This was not done till the Council of Constantinople in 381, and strictly not till the still later Symbolum Athanasianum (comp. Schaff, Ch. Hist. 3:629). For a minute and picturesque description of this council, see dean Stanley's Lectures on the History of the Eastern Ch. p. 105; Schaff objects to it as too graphically minute at the expense of the dignity of historical statement. For more trustworthy information, see Ittigus, Hist. Concilii Niceeni (Lips. 1712); Richerus, Hist. Concil. General. 1:10; Walch, E'ntwuuf einer Conciliengesch. p. 157; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 1:249 sq. Boyle, Hist. View of the Council of Nice (N.Y. 1856); Kaye. Council of Niccea (Lond. 1852, 8vo); Tillemont, Hist. Eccles.; Schaff Ch. Hist. 3:22 sq.; Neander, Ch. Hist. 2:372 sq.; Landon, Man. of Councils, s.v. For the sources, see (1) the twenty Canones, the doctrinal' Symbol, and a Decree of the Council of Nicaea, and several Letters of bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the emperor Constantine (all collected in Greek and Latin in Mansi, Collect. sacrorum Conciliorum, 2:635-704). Official minutes of the transactions themselves were not at that time made; only the decrees as adopted were set down in writing and subscribed by all (comp. Euseb. Vita Const. 3:14). All later accounts of voluminous acts of the council are sheer fabrications (comp. Hefele, 1:249 sq.). (2) Accounts of eye-witnesses, especially Eusebius, Vita Const. 3:4-24 (superficial, rather Arianizing, and a panegyric of the emperor Constantine). The Church History of Eusebius, which should have closed with the Council of Nice, comes down only to the vear 324. Athanasius, De decretis Synodi lVic.; Orationes iv contra Arianos; Epist. ad Afros, and other historical and and Arian tracts in tom. i and ii of his Opera (ed. Bened.), and the more important of them also in the first vol. of Thilo's Bibliotheca Patrum Grcec. dogmait. (Lips. 1853; Engl. transl. in the Oxford Library of the Fathers.) (3) The later accounts of Epiphanius, Hacr. 69; Socrates, H. E. 1:8 sq.; Sozomen, H. E. 1:17 ‘ sq.; Theodoret, H. E. 1:1-13; Rufinus, H. E. 1:1-6 (or lib. x, if his transl. of Eusebius be counted in). Gelasius Cyzicenus (about 476), Commentarius actorum Concilii Nicceni (Greek and Latin in Mansi, 2:759 sq.; it professes to be founded on an old MS., but is filled with imaginary speeches). Comp. also the four Coptic fragments in Pitra, Spicilegiuqn Solesmense (Par. 1852), 1:509 sq., and the Syriac fragments in Analecta Nicoena Fragments relating to the Council of Nicaa. The Syriac text from an ancient MS. by H. Cowper (London 1857).

II. The second Council of Nicaea, called also the seventh OEcumenical Council, though falsely so, was assembled Aug. 17, 786, by order of the empress Irene and her son Constantine. Owing to the tumults raised by the Iconoclastic party, it was dissolved and reconvened on Sept. 24, 787. (Theophanfes, who was present, says that the opening of the council was made on Oct. 11.) Three hundred and seventy-five bishops were present from Greece, Thrace, Natolia, the Isles of the Archipelago, Sicily, and Italy. Pope Hadrian and all the Oriental patriarchs sentlegates to represent them in the synod, those of Rome taking the first place; two commissioners from the emperor and empress also assisted at it. The causes which led to the assembling of this council were briefly as follows: The emperor Leo (and afterwards his son Constantine Copronymus), offended at the excess of veneration often offered to the images of Christ and the saints, made a decree against the use of images in any way, and caused them everywhere to be removed and destroyed. These severe and ill-advised proceedings raised an opposition almost as violent, and both the patriarch of Constantinople (Germanus) and the pope (Hadrian) defended the use of images, declaring them to have been always in use in the churches, and showing the difference between absolute and relative worship. However, in a council assembled at Constantinople in 754, composed of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, a decree was published against the use of images. But at this time Constantine Copronymus died, and Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, induced the empress Irene and her son Constantine to convoke this council, in which the decrees of the council of 754 at Constantinople were set aside.

The first session was held in the church of St. Sophia. Tarasius, the patriarch, spoke first, and exhorted the bishops to reject all novelties, and to cling to the traditions of the Church. After this, ten bishops were brought before the council, accused of following the party of the Iconoclasts. Three of whom, Basil of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra, and Theodosius of Amorium, recanted, and declared that they received with all honor the relics and sacred images of Jesus Christ, the blessed Virgin, and the saints; upon which they were permitted to take their seats; the others were remanded to the next session. The forty-second of the apostolical canons, and the eighth of Nicaea, and other canons relating to the reception of converted heretics, were read.

In the second session the letters of pope Hadrian to the empress and to the patriarch Tarasius were read. The latter then declared his entire concurrence in the view taken of the question by the bishop of Rome, viz. that images are to be adored with a relative worship, reserving to God alone faith and the worship of Latria. This opinion was warmly applauded by the whole council.

In the third session the confession of Gregory of Neo-Cesarea, the leader of the Iconoclast party, was received, and declared by the council to be satisfactory; whereupon he was, after some discussion, admitted to take his seat, and with him the bishops mentioned above. Then the letters of Tarasius to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and their replies, as well as the confession of Theodore of Jerusalem, were read and approved. The passages of Holy Scripture relating to the cherubim which overshadowed the ark of the covenant, and which ornamented the interior of the Temple, were read, together with other passages taken from the fathers, showing that God had, in other days, worked miracles by means of images.

In the fifth session the patriarch Tarasius endeavored to show that the innovators. in their attempts to destroy all images, were following in the steps of the Jews, pagans, Manichaeans, and other heretics. The council then came to the conclusion that the images should be re stored to their usual places, and be carried in processions as before. In the sixth session the refutation of the definition of faith made in the council of Iconoclasts at Constantie nople was read. They had there declared that the eucharist was the only image allowed of our Lord Jesus Christ; but the fathers of the present synod, in their refutation, maintained that the eucharist is nowhere spoken of as the image of our Lord's body, but as thevery body itself. After this, the fathers replied to the passages from Holy Scripture and from the fathers which the Iconoclasts had adduced in support of their views, and in doing so insisted chiefly upon perpetual tradition and the infallibility of the Church. In the seventh session a definition of faith was read, which was to this effect: "We decide that the holy images, whether painted or graven, or of whatever kind they may be. ought to be exposed to view; whether in churches, upon the sacred vessels and vestments, upon walls, or in private houses, or by the wayside; since the oftener Jesus Christ, his blessed mother, and the saints are seen in their images, the more will men be led to think of the originals, and to love them. Salutation and the adoration of honor ought to be paid to images, but not the worship of Latria, which belongs to God alone: nevertheless it is lawful to burn lights before them, and to incense them, as is usually done with the cross, the books of the Gospels, and other sacred things, according to the pious use of the ancients; for honor so paid to the image is transmitted to the original, which it represents. Such is the doctrine of the holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church; and we order that they who dare to think or teach otherwise, if bishops or other clerks, shall be deposed; if monks or laymen, shall be excommunicated." This decree was signed by the legates and all the bishops.

Another session (not recognized either by Greeks or Latins) was, held at Constantinople, to which place the bishops had been cited by the empress Irene, who was present, with her son Constantine, and addressed the assembly., The decree of the council and the passages from the fathers read at Nicaea were repeated, and the former was again subscribed. The Council of Constantinople against image-worship was anathematized, and the memory of Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and George of Cyprus held up to veneration. Twenty-two canons of discipline were published.

1. Insists upon the proper observation of the canons of the Church.

2. Forbids to consecrate those who do not know the Psalter, and will not promise to observe the canons.

3. Forbids princes to elect bishops.

7. Forbids to consecrate any church or altar in which relics are not contained.

14. Forbids those who are not ordained to read in the synaxis from the Ambon.

15 and

16. Forbid plurality of benefices, and luxury in dress among the clergy.

20. Forbids Double monasteries, for men and for women. This council was not for a long period recognized in France. The grounds upon which the French bishops opposed it are contained in the celebrated Caroline Books, written by order of Charlemagne. Their chief objections were these:

1. That no Western bishops, except the pope, by his legates, were present.

2. That the decision was contrary to their custom, which was to use images, but not in any way to worship them.

3. That the council was not assembled from all parts of the Church, nor was its decision in accordance with that of the Catholic Church.

The Caroline Books were answered by pope Adrian, but with little effect so far as the Gallican Church was concerned, which continued long after this to reject this council altogether. See Labbe. Cone. 7:1-963; Mansi, Concil. 12:951; 13:820; Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, 10:419 sq.; Neander, Ch. Hist. 3:318 sq.