3 E. B. Pusey. The Councls of the Church, a.d. 51-381, p. 306. Tillemont. Mémioires, xvj., 662, who says, "If none of those who die out of communion with Rome can merit the title of Saints and Confessors, Baronius should have the names of St. Meletins, St. Elias of Jerusalem and St. Daniel the Stylite stricken from the Martyrology." Cf. F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and See of Rome. pp.174 and 238.
Many attempts have been made to explain this fact away, but without success. Not only was the president of the Council a persona non grata to the Pope, but the memhers of the Council were well aware of the fact, and much pleased that such was the case, and Hefele acknowledges that the reason the council determined to continue the Meletian Schism was because allowing Panlinus to succeed to Meletins would be "too great a concession to the Latins" (vol.III., p.346).
4 F. J. A. Hort, Two Dissertations. I. On monoge/nej Qe/oj in Scripture and tradition, II. On the Constantinopolitan Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the 4th Century. It should he added that Dr. Hort acknowledges that, "we may well believe that they [i.e. the 150 fathers of Constantinople] had expressed approval "of the creed ordinarily attributed to them (p. 115). The whole dissertation is a fine example of what Dr. Salmon so well called Dr. Hort's "perfervidum ingenium as an advocate," and of his "exaggeration of judgment." (Salmon. Criticism of the Text of the New Testament, p.12, also see p.34.) Swainson. in his The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, has all the material points found in Hort's Dissertation. Harnack goes much further. He is of opinion that the Creed of Constantinople (as we call it), the Creed which has been the symbol of orthodoxy for fifteen hundred years, is really a Semi-Arian, anti-Nicene, and quasi Macedonian confession ! The first contention he supports, not without a show of plausibility, by the fact that it omits the words (which were really most crucial) "that is to say of the substance of the Father." In support of the second opinion he writes as follows: "The words [with regard to the Holy Ghost] are in entire harmony with the form which the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had in tbe sixties. A Pueumatochian could have subscribed this formula at a pinch; and just because of this it is certain that the Council of 381 did not accept this creed." Some scholars arrive at "certainty" more easily than others, even Harnack himself only attains this "certainty" in the foot-note! The reader will remark that what Harnack is "certain "of in the foot-note is that the Council "did not accept" this creed, not that it "did not frame" it, which is entirely a different question. (Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, [Eng. Trans.], Vol. iv., p.99.)
3 I have used Petavius's edition, Cologne. 1682; there are some differences in the various editions about the numbering of the chapters, and this seems to be the origin of the curious mistake Hefele makes in confounding the longer with the shorter creed.
5 In fact the contention of the Latins was that the words were inserted by II. Nice! To this the Easterns answered most pertinently "Why did you not tell ns this long ago?" They were not so fortunate when they insisted that St. Thomas woud have quoted it, for some scholars have thought St. Thomas but ill acquainted with the proceedings at the Seventh Synod. Vide Hefele, Concil. XLVIII., §810.