| |
BOOK I.
ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS.
CHAPTER III.
THE SYNODS OF THE FIRST TWENTY
YEARS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.
SEC. 10. Pretended Synod of Sinuessa (303).
IF the document which, tells us of
a Synod of Sinuessa (situated
between Rome and Capua) could have any pretension to authenticity, this Synod
must have taken place about the beginning of the fourth century, in 303. It
says: “The Emperor Diocletian had pressed Marcellinus Bishop of Rome to
sacrifice to the gods. At first steadfast, the bishop had finally allowed
himself to be dragged into the temple of Vesta and
of Isis, and there offered incense to the idols. He was followed by three
priests and two deacons, who fled the moment he entered the temple, and spread
the report that they had seen Marcellinus sacrificing to the gods”. A Synod
assembled, and Marcellinus denied the fact. The inquiry was continued in a
crypt near Sinuessa,
on account of the persecution. There were assembled many priests, no fewer than
three hundred bishops; a number quite impossible for
that country, and in a time of persecution. They first of all condemned the three priests and the two deacons for having abandoned their
bishop. As for the latter, although sixty-two witnesses had sworn against him,
the Synod would not pronounce judgment: it simply demanded that he should
confess his fault, and judge himself; or, if he was not guilty, that he should
pronounce his own acquittal. On the morrow fresh witness arose against
Marcellinus. He denied again. The third day the three hundred bishops
assembled, once more condemned the three priests and the two deacons, called up
the witnesses again, and charged Marcellinus in God’s name to speak the truth.
He then threw himself on the ground, and covering his head with ashes, loudly
and repeatedly acknowledged his sin, adding that he had allowed himself to be
bribed by gold. The bishops, in pronouncing judgment, formally added : “Marcellinus has condemned himself, for the occupant
of the highest see cannot be judged by any one (prima sedes non judicatur a quoquam)”. The consequence
of this Synod was, that Diocletian caused many bishops who were present at it
to be put to death, even Pope Marcellinus himself, on the 23d of August 303.
This account
is so filled with improbabilities and evidently false dates, that in modern
times Roman Catholics and Protestants have unanimously rejected the
authenticity of it. Before that, some Roman Catholics were not unwilling to
appeal to this document, on account of the proposition, prima sedes non judicatur a quoquam. The Roman breviary
itself has admitted the account of Marcellinus weakness, and of the sacrifice
offered by him. But it is beyond all doubt that this document is an
amplification of the falsehood spread by the Donatists about the year 400. They
maintain that during Diocletian’s persecution Marcellinus had delivered up the
Holy Scriptures, and sacrificed to the idols, a falsehood which Augustine and Theodoret had already refuted.
SEC. 11.
Synod of Cirta (305).
If
the Donatists have invented the Synod of Sinuessa, which never took place, they have, on the
other hand, contested the existence of a Council which was certainly held in
305 at Cirta in
Numidia. This Synod took place on the occasion of the
installation of a new bishop of this town. Secundus, Bishop of Tigisium, the oldest of the eleven bishops present,
presided over the assembly. A short time before, an edict of Diocletian had
enacted that the sacred writings should be given up; and a multitude of
Christians, and even bishops, had proved weak, and had obeyed the edict. Most
of the bishops present at Cirta were
accused of this fall; so that the president could say to almost all of them,
when questioning them according to their rank, Dicitur te tradidisse.
They acknowledged themselves to be guilty, adding, one that God had preserved
him from sacrificing to the idols (which would have been doubtless a much
greater fall); another, that instead of the sacred books he had given up books
of medicine; a third, that he had been forced by violence, and so forth. All
implored grace and pardon. The president then demanded of Purpurius Bishop of Limata, if it was true that he
had killed two of his nephews. The latter answered, “Do you think you can
terrify me like the others? What did you do then yourself, when the curator
commanded you to give up the Holy Scriptures? This was to reproach him with the
crime for which he was prosecuting the others; and the president’s own
nephew, Secundus the
younger, addressed his uncle in these words: “Do you hear what he says of you?
He is ready to leave the Synod, and to create a schism: he will have with him
all those whom you wish to punish, and I know that they have reasons for
condemning you”. The president asked counsel from some of the bishops : they persuaded him to decide that “each one should
render an account to God of his conduct in this matter (whether he had given up
the Holy Scriptures or not)”. All were of the same opinion, and shouted,
Deo gratias!
This is what is told us in the fragment of the synodical acts
preserved by S. Augustine in the third book of his work against the Donatist Cresconius.
We also learn from this fragment, that the Synod was held in a private house
belonging to Urbanus Donatus, during the eighth consulate of Diocletian and the
seventh of Maximian, that is to
say, in 303. Optatus of Mileve, on the other hand, gives
to this Donatus the surname of Carisius, and tells us that they
chose a private house because the churches of the town had not yet been
restored since the persecution. As for the chronological question, S. Augustine
says in another place, that the copy of the synodical acts,
which was carefully examined on occasion of the religious conference of
Carthage with the Donatists, was thus dated : post consulatum Diocletiani novies et Maximiani octies, tertio nonas Martis, that is
to say, March 5, 305. That is, in fact, the exact date, as Valesius has proved in his
notes upon the eighth book of the History of the Church by Eusebius, chr 2. Natalis Alexander has also written a special dissertation upon this subject in his
History of the Church.
When the
affair respecting the bishops who had yielded up the Holy Scriptures had been
decided, they proceeded to the election of the new Bishop of Cirta. The bishops nominated the
deacon Silvanus, although, as is proved by a fragment of the acts preserved by
S. Augustine, he had delivered up the sacred books in 303, together with his
bishop Paul. This Silvanus and some others among the bishops assembled at Cirta, after having been so
indulgent towards themselves, afterwards became the chiefs of the rigorous and
exaggerated party of the Donatists, who saw traditores everywhere, ever where there
were none.
SEC. 12.
Synod of Alexandria (306).
Almost
at the same period, perhaps a year later, a synod was held at Alexandria, under
the presidency of Peter, the archbishop of that place. The Bishop of Lycopolis, Meletius,
author of the Meletian schism, was, as S.
Athanasius tells us, deposed by this Synod for different offences; and among
others for having sacrificed to idols. These last words show that this Synod
took place after the outbreak of Diocletian’s persecution, consequently after
303. S. Athanasius further adds, in his Epistola ad episcopos : “The Meletians were declared schismatics more than fifty-five years ago”. This
letter having been written in 356 or in 361, the latter date would give the
year 306 as that of the Synod; and this is the date which we adopt. For on the
other hypothesis (reckoning from the year 356) we should be brought to 301,
when the persecution of Diocletian had not begun. To the beginning of the
fourth century belongs the Synod of Elvira.
SEC. 13. Synod
of Elvira (305 or 306).
This
Synod has been, more than any other, an occasion for many learned researches and controversies. The principal work on the
subject is that by the Spaniard Ferdinand de Mendoza, in 1593; it comprises
three books, the title of which is, de confirmando concilia Illiberitano ad Clementem VIII.
The best text of the acts of this Council is found in the Collectio canonum Ecclesiae Hispanae, by Franc. Ant.
Gonzalez, librarian (Madrid 1808, in folio). It was compiled from nine ancient
Spanish manuscripts. Bruns has reproduced
it in his Biblioth.
Eccles.
Pliny the elder speaks of two towns
named Illiberis: the
one in Gallia Narbonensis, which is now
called Collioure, in
Roussillon (now French); the other in the south of Spain, in the province Boetica, now Andalusia. As it is
a Spanish council, there can be no question but that it was the latter town,
as Illiberis in
Narbonne had been demolished long before the time of Constantine the Great.
Mendoza relates, that in his day the remains of walls bearing the name of Elbira might still be seen
on a mountain not far from Granada; and the gate of Granada, situated in this
direction, is called the gate of Elbira.
There is also another Eliberis,
but it dates only from the conquest of the Goths. Illiberris, with a double l and a double r, is the
true one, according to Mendoza.
The synodical acts,
whose genuineness could be doubted only by hypercriticism, mention nineteen
bishops as present at the Council. According to a Codex Pithoanus of its acts,
their number must have reached forty-three. The nineteen are : Felix of Acci (Cadiz), who, probably
as being the eldest, was nominated president of the Synod; Hosius of Corduba, afterwards so famous in the Arian
controversy as Bishop of Cordova; Sabinus of Hispalis(Seville), Camerismus of Tucci, Sinaginis of Epagra(or Bigerra), Secundinus of Castulo, Pardus of Mentesa,
Flavian of Eliberis, Cantonius of Urci, Liberius of Emerita; Valerius of Caesaraugusta(Saragossa), Decentius of Legio(Leon), Melantius of
Toledo, Januarius of Fibularia(perhap Salaria in Hispania Tarraconensis), Vincent of Ossonob, Quintianus of Elbora, Successus of Eliocroca, Eutychian of Basti(Baza), and Patricius of
Malacca. There were therefore bishops from the most different parts of Spain;
so that we may consider this assembly as a synod representing the whole of
Spain. The acts also mention twenty-four priests, and say that they were seated at the Synod like the bishops, whilst the deacons and
the laity stood up. The decrees proceeded only from the bishops; for the synodical acts always employed this formula: EPISCOPI universi dixerunt.
1. As for the date of this Synod, the acts
tell us that it was celebrated, which means opened, at the Ides of May; that
is, on the 15th May. The inscriptions on the acts also
give the following particulars: Constantii temporibus editum, eodem tempore quo et Nicaena synodus habita est. Some of the acts add : era 362.
Of course it refers to the Spanish era,
which began to be used in Spain in the fifth century : it counted from the thirty-eighth year before Christ, so that the year 362 of
the Spanish era corresponds to 324 of our reckoning. This date of 324 answers
to that of the Council of Nicaea (325), also mentioned in the inscription on
the synodical acts; but the tempore Constantii does not
agree with it, at least unless we should read Constantini. But there are very strong objections
against this chronological reading.
a. Most of
the ancient manuscripts of these synodical acts
do not bear any date : one would therefore be led to
conclude that this had been added at a later time.
b. Bishop Hosius of Corduba, named among the bishops present at the
Synod, was not in Spain in 324: he passed the whole of that year either at the Emperor s court (in Nicomedia) or at Alexandria. Constantine
the Great, with whom he was, after the defeat of Licinius,
consequently in the autumn of 323 or in the spring of 324, sent him to that
place in order to try to settle the Arian
strife. Hosius not being able to succeed
in his mission, returned to the Emperor as counselor
on ecclesiastical matters, and immediately after wards he took part in the
first (Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 325.
c. A long
time previous to 323 and 324 Hosius had
left Spain, and he generally resided with the Emperor.
It is known that after the close of the Council of Arles, in 314, the Donatists
appealed from the judgment of the Council to the Emperor Constantine the Great.
The sentence given by the Emperor in 316 having been
against them, they spread the report that it was Hosius of
Cordova who had influenced the Emperor in his judgment. Augustine, in relating
this fact, adds that Hosius had, on the
contrary, suggested to the Emperor more moderate
measures than the Donatists deserved. Hosius was
then at the imperial court, at the latest, in 316: a decree which Constantine
addressed to Cecilian Bishop
of Carthage in 313, and in which he mentions Hosius,
would even lead us to conclude that the Spanish bishop was with Constantine in
313.
d. We must
also notice, that the purport of several canons of
Elvira cannot agree with this date of 324.
(α) Several of these canons
appear, indeed, to have been compiled during or soon after a violent
persecution, in which several Christians had apostatized. We say during, or
soon after; but it is more likely that it was soon after : for during a persecution, bishops from the most distant provinces of Spain,
from the north and the south, could hardly assemble in the same place. Now the
last persecution of the Spanish Christians by the Emperors was that of
Diocletian and of Maximianus Herculeus, from 303 to 305.
(β) The decisions of Elvira
about the lapsi are
much more rigorous than those of Nicaea : thus the
first canon of Elvira forbids that the holy communion should be administered to
the lapsi, even in articulo mortis. This severity evidently indicates a date prior to that of
the Synod of Nicaea. Such severity during a persecution, or immediately after,
could be explained, but not so twenty years later.
2. It was indeed this severity of the canons of Elvira
with regard to the lapsi which
suggested to the oratorian Morinus the hypothesis
which he propounds in his book de Penitentia, viz. that the Synod of Elvira must
have assembled before the origin of the Novatian schism, about 250; otherwise the Fathers of Elvira, by their first canon, must
have taken the side of the Novatians. But the
severity of the Novatians is very
different from that of the Synod of Elvira. The Novatians pretended
that the Church had not the right to admit to the communion a Christian who had apostatized: the Fathers of Elvira acknowledged this
right; they wished only that in certain cases, for reasons of discipline, she
should suspend the exercise of this right, and delay the admission, non desperatione veniae, sed rigore disciplinae. We must add,
that about 250 Hosius and the other
bishops present at the Council of Elvira were not yet born, or at any rate they
were not among the clergy.
3. The hypothesis of the Magdeburg Centuriators, which places the
Synod of Elvira in the year 700, is still more unfortunate. To give such dates,
is to make Hosius and his colleagues of
Elvira into true Methuselahs of the new covenant.
4. Following the Fasti of Onuphrius, Hardouin has adopted the
date 313, giving especially as his reason, that the canons of the Council of
Arles in 314 have much in common with those of Elvira. But this is extremely
feeble reasoning; for they might easily profit by the canons of Elvira at
Arles, even if they were framed ten or twenty years previously. Besides, Hosius, as we have seen above, appears to have left his
native country, Spain, in 313.
5. Baluze has propounded another theory. At the
Council of Sardica (eleventh canon in Greek, fourteenth canon in Latin), Hosius proposed a law (on the
subject of the Sunday festival), which had been before proposed in a
former council (superiore concilia). This is an
allusion to the twenty-first canon of the Council of Elvira. Baluze remarks, that
since Hosius calls the Council of
Elvira superius concilium, this Council must
have taken place before the Council of Nicaea, which, with Hosius, when the Council of Sardica was held, was only
the concilium postremum. The reasoning
of Baluze can be
maintained up to this point; but afterwards, from some other indications, he
wishes to conclude that the Synod of Elvira took place after those of Ancyra
and of Neocaesarea;
consequently between 314 and 325. This latter part of his proof is very feeble;
and besides, he has entirely forgotten that Hosius was
not in Spain between 314 and 325.
6. Mansi thinks
that the Synod of Elvira took place in 309. It is said in the acts, he remarks,
that the Council was held in the Ides of May. Now in 309 these Ides fell on a
Sunday; and at this period they began to hold synods
on a Sunday, as the example of Nicaea shows. This last observation is not
exact. The Council of Nicaea requires, in the fifth canon, that two synods
should be celebrated annually, one during Lent, the other in the autumn; but
there is nowhere any mention of Sunday. The apostolic canons, No. 36 (38), give
the same meaning : “The first synod shall be held in
the fourth week after Pentecost; the second on the 12th of the month Hyperberataios”. Here also,
then, there is no mention of Sunday; the 12th of the month Hyperberataios might fall
upon any day of the week. In the statutes of the Synod of Antioch in 341,
Sunday is not prescribed more than any other day.
7. The calculation of Mendoza, of Natalis Alexander, of Tillemont, of d’Aguirre, of Remi Ceillier, etc., appears to us
more defensible: they all proceed upon the fact that Valerius Bishop
of Saragossa, who, we know from the acts, was present at the Synod, was
persecuted in 304, with his deacon Vincent, by the Roman praetor Dacian. The
deacon was put to death, and Valerius exiled;
afterwards he also was martyred, if we may believe an ancient tradition. They
concluded from this, that the Council of Elvira could not have taken place
before 304, that is to say, before the arrest of
Bishop Valerius; and they only disagreed upon
the point whether the Council took place at the commencement of the year 300 or
301: d’Aguirre even
mentions the commencement of 303. The difficulty is, that they place the
Council of Elvira before the outbreak of the persecution; whilst, as has been
said before, several of the canons were evidently written just after a persecution,
and consequently could not have been promulgated between 300 and 304.
8. The opinion, then, which appears to us
the most probable on this question, is the following: In May 305 Diocletian and Maximianus Herculeus had abdicated; and Constantius, celebrated
for his benevolence towards the Christians, became sovereign ruler of Spain.
The persecution, therefore, having ceased, the Spanish bishops could assemble
at Elvira to deliberate, first, respecting the treatment of the lapsi, which was the chief
subject of the canons which they formed, and also to
seek for means against the invasion of moral corruption. But it will be said,
Was not Valerius of Saragossa dead in 305?
I do not think so. To prove it, Remi Ceillier appeals to Prudentius; but the latter does not say a word of the
martyrdom of Valerius, either in his poem upon
all the martyrs of Saragossa in general, or in his poem upon Vincent in
particular. If Valerius had really been
martyred, he would certainly not have failed to say so. Then, if Valerius was living at the time of the abdication of
Diocletian and Maximian, he was undoubtedly recalled
from exile by Constantius; and he could thus take part in the Synod of Elvira,
which we therefore place in the autumn of 305, or in 306. Baronius, Binius in Mansi, and others, accept 305, but on other grounds than
ours, whilst Pagi leaves the question
undecided. The eighty-one canons of the Synod of Elvira are the following:
CAN. 1. “If an adult who has been baptized has entered an idol’s temple,
and has committed a capital crime, he cannot be received into communion, even
at the end of his life”.
CAN. 2. Flamens who
after the faith of baptism and regeneration shall have sacrificed, because they
will have doubled their guilt if murder be added, and have tripled their sin if sexual immorality be involved, shall not receive
communion even at death.
CAN. 3. In the case of Flamens who have not sacrificed but merely given the
games, inasmuch as they have abstained from the fatal
sacrifices, we decree that they may be received into communion at the last:
provided, however, that they first submit to a suitable penance; but if, after
their penance, they commit sexual offences they should not be given communion
lest they seem to be mocking Sunday communion.
CAN. 4. Flamens who
have been catechumens and have abstained from sacrifices, may be admitted to
baptism after three years.
The office of a flamen in
the provinces of the Roman Empire consisted either in offering sacrifices to
the gods, or in preparing the public games. It was hereditary in many families;
and as it entailed many expenses, he who was legally bound to fill it could not
give it up, even if he became a Christian, as is proved by the Code of
Justinian, and S. Jerome’s work De Vita Hilarionis. It followed from this, that the numbers
of these families of flamines kept
their office even when they were catechumens or had been baptized; but they
tried to give up the duties which it imposed, especially the sacrifices. They
consented still to continue to prepare the public games. In the time of a
persecution, the people generally wished to oblige them to offer sacrifices
also. This Synod decided on what must be done with these flamines in the different
cases which might arise.
a. If they had been baptized, and if they
had consented to fulfill all their duties, they had by that act alone (α)
sacrificed to idols ; (β) they had taken part in
murders, by preparing for the games (in the games of gladiators), and in acts
of immorality (in the obscene acts of certain plays). Their sin was therefore
double and triple. Then they must be refused the communion as
long as they lived.
b. If they had been baptized, but if,
without sacrificing, they had only given the games, they might be received into
communion at the close of their life, provided that they should have first submitted to a suitable penance. But if, after having
begun to do penance (that is the sense, and not after the accomplishment of the
penance), they should again be led into any act of immorality (that is to say,
if as flamines they
should allow themselves to organize obscene plays), they should never more
receive the communion.
c. If a flamen was
only a catechumen, and if, without sacrificing, he had fulfilled his duties
(perhaps also given the games), he might be baptized after three years of trial.
CAN. 5. If, in anger, a woman
should strike her servant, so that the latter should die at the end of three
days, the guilty woman shall undergo a seven years penance if she struck so
violently on purpose, and a five years penance if she did not do so on purpose
to kill : she shall not be received into communion
till after this delay. If she should fall ill during the time of her penance,
she may receive the communion.
CAN. 6. If someone kills another
by sorcery or magic, that person shall not receive communion, even at the time
of death, for this action is a form of idolatry.
CAN. 7. If a Christian completes
penance for a sexual offence and then again commits fornication, he or she may
not receive communion even when death approaches.
CAN. 8. Women who without
acceptable cause leave their husbands and join another man may not receive
communion even when death approaches.
CAN. 9. A baptized woman who
leaves an adulterous husband who has been baptized, for another man, may not
marry him. If she does, she may not receive communion until her former husband
dies, unless she is seriously ill.
CAN. 10. If an unbaptized woman
marries another man after being deserted by her husband who was a catechumen,
she may still be baptized. This is also true for female catechumens. If a
Christian woman marries a man in the knowledge that he deserted his former wife
without cause, she may receive communion only at the time of her death.
CAN. 11. If a female catechumen
marries a man in the knowledge that he deserted his former wife without cause,
she may not be baptized for five years unless she becomes seriously ill.
These two
canons are difficult to explain, because the section between the two does not
occupy its proper place. They treat of two quite different cases, and each of
these cases is subdivided into two others.
a. If a catechumen, without any cause,
should leave his wife, who has not yet been baptized, and if the latter should
marry another husband, she may be baptized.
b. In the same way, if a female catechumen
should, without reason, leave her husband, still unbaptized, and he should
marry again, he may be baptized.
Such is the first case. It supposes that
the party who is left without cause is not baptized. Here the tenth canon
should stop. What follows treats of another question, viz. if the party who has
unlawfully left the other can be married again. The canon does not mention
whether the party to be married is baptized, or only a catechumen, and it
establishes the following :
2. a. If a Christian woman marries a man
whom she know to have illegally divorced his wife, she
may communicate only on her deathbed. As a Christian, she ought to have known
that, according to S. Paul, a Christian (and the catechumen is here considered
as such) cannot put away his partner, though an unbeliever, if the latter
wishes to continue to live with him.
b. If a female catechumen marries a man
who has illegally divorced his wife, her baptism shall be put off five years
longer (a further period of trial), and she can be baptized before that time
only in case of a serious illness.
We think we have thus clearly and
accurately explained the sense of these two canons, which have given so much
trouble to commentators.
CAN. 12. Parents and other
Christians who give up their children to sexual abuse are selling others’
bodies, and if they do so or sell their own bodies, they shall not receive
communion even at death.
CAN. 13. Virgins who have been consecrated to God shall not
commune even as death approaches if they have broken the vow of virginity and
do not repent. If, however, they repent and do not engage in intercourse again,
they may commune when death approaches
CAN. 14. If a young girl who has
taken no vows has committed a carnal sin, and if she marries him with whom she
has been led away, she shall be reconciled at the end of one year, without
being condemned to penance; that is to say, she may receive the communion at
the end of one year, because she has violated only the marriage law, the rights
of which she usurped before they were conferred upon her.
The three following canons forbid to marry
pagans, Jews, or heretics, and require no explanation :
CAN. 15. Christian girls are not
to marry pagans, no matter how few eligible men there are, for such marriages
lead to adultery of the soul.
CAN. 16. Heretics shall not be
joined in marriage with Catholic girls unless they accept the Catholic faith.
Catholic girls may not marry Jews or heretics, because they cannot find a unity
when the faithful and the unfaithful are joined. Parents who allow this to
happen shall not commune for five years.
CAN. 17. If any should somehow
join their daughters in marriage to priests of idols, they shall not be given
communion–even at the end.
CAN. 18. Bishops, presbyters, and
deacons, once they have taken their place in the ministry, shall not be given
communion even at the time of death if they are guilty of sexual immorality.
Such scandal is a serious offence.
CAN. 19. Bishops, presbyters, and
deacons shall not leave the area where they work, or travel in the provinces, in order to engage in profitable ventures. If it is an economic
necessity, let them send a son, a freedman, an employee, a friend, or someone
else. They should engage only in business activities within their own area.
CAN. 20. If any clergy are found
engaged in usury, let them be censured and dismissed. If a layman is caught
practicing usury, he may be pardoned if he promises to stop the practice. If he
continues this evil practice, let him be expelled from the church.
CAN. 21. If anyone who lives in
the city does not attend church services for three Sundays, let that person be
expelled for a brief time in order to make the
reproach public.
CAN. 22. If people fall from the
Catholic church into heresy and then return, let them not be denied penance,
since they have acknowledged their sin. Let them be given communion after ten
years' penance. If children have been led into heresy, it is not their own fault,
and they should be received back immediately.
CAN. 23. In
order to help those who are weak, the rigorous fasting that requires no
eating for a whole day shall be dropped during the months of July and August.
CAN. 24. Individuals shall not be
admitted as clergy in a province other than the one where they were baptized. Otherwise their life would not be known by those who examine
them.
CAN. 25. Those who have letters of
recommendation referring to them as "confessors" should obtain new
letters affirming them as “communicants" instead. Simple people are
deceived by the honored title of "confessor."
CAN. 26. The rigorous form of
fasting is to be followed every Saturday. This will correct a mistake in our
present practice.
CAN.
27. A bishop or other cleric may have only a sister or a daughter who is a
virgin consecrated to God living with him. No other woman who is unrelated to
him may remain.
CAN. 28. A bishop may not receive
the offerings of those who are not allowed to receive communion.
CAN. 29. Persons who have an
erratic spirit shall not have their name added to the list of those making
offerings, nor shall they be allowed to exercise any form of ministry in the
congregation
CAN. 30. Those who sinned sexually
as youth may not be ordained as subdeacons.
This will guard against their being promoted to higher offices later on. If they have already been ordained, they shall be
removed from their office.
CAN. 31. Young men who have been
baptized and then are involved in sexual immorality may be admitted to
communion when they marry if they have fulfilled the required penance.
CAN. 31. Young men who have been
baptized and then are involved in sexual immorality may be admitted to
communion when they marry if they have fulfilled the required penance.
CAN. 32. Anyone who has fallen into mortal ruin because of sin
must seek penance from the bishop and not a presbyter. In extreme illness a
presbyter may offer communion or may direct a deacon to do so.
This canon
is quite in conformity with the ancient custom, according to which the bishop
only, and not a priest, could receive a penitent into the Church. It was only
in a case of extreme necessity that a priest, or, according to the orders of
priest, a deacon, could give a penitent the communion, that is, could
administer to him the Eucharistic bread in sign of reconciliation
: deacons often gave the communion in the ancient Church. The title of
the canon is evidently wrong, and ought to be thus worded: “Even in a case of
urgent necessity, the priest only ought to give the communion; but if he asks
it, the deacon may help him”.
CAN. 33. Bishops, presbyters,
deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely
from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children.
If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.
CAN. 34. Candles are not to be
burned in a cemetery during the day. This practice is related to paganism and
is harmful to Christians. Those who do this are to be denied the communion of
the church.
CAN. 35. Women are not to remain
in a cemetery during the night. Some engage in wickedness rather than prayer.
CAN. 36. Pictures are not to be
placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.
CAN. 37. Those who have suffered
from an evil spirit may be baptized as death approaches. If they have been
baptized, they may be given communion. Such people are not, however, to light
the church candles in public. If they do so, they are to be denied communion.
CAN. 38. During a sea voyage, or
in general, if no church is near, a layman who has not soiled his baptismal
robe (by apostasy), and is not a bigamist, may baptize a catechumen who is at
the point of death; the bishop ought afterwards to lay hands on the newly
baptized, to confirm him.
CAN. 39. Pagans, if in sickness
they wish to have the laying-on-of-hands, and if their life has been at least
partially decent, shall have the laying-on-of-hands and become Christians.
This canon
has been interpreted in two different ways. Binius, Katerkamp, and others, hold that the imposition of
hands spoken of in this canon does not mean confirmation, but a ceremony by
means of which any one was admitted into the lowest class of catechumens. These
interpreters appeal principally to the pretended seventh canon of the second
(Ecumenical Council. We there read: “We admit them only as pagans: the first
day we make them Christians (in the widest sense); the second, catechumens; the
third, we exorcise them”, etc. etc. According to that, our canon would say:
“When a heathen, having a good name, desires during an illness that hands
should be laid upon him, it ought to be done, that he may become a Christian”. That is to say, he must by the imposition of hands to be
admitted among those who wish to be Christians, consequently among the
Christians in the widest sense. The forty-fifth canon also takes the word catechumenus as
synonymous with Christian. Besides, we find Constantine the Great received the
imposition of hands at the baths of Helenopolis before his baptism: a ceremony of
this kind then preceded the reception of the first sacrament. Relying upon
these considerations, the commentators we mentioned say that the canon of
Elvira does not speak of baptism, because this could not be administered until
after much longer trial. The provost of the Cathedral at Koln, Dr. Munchen, gives another
explanation in his dissertation upon the first Synod of Arles. According to him:
a. As the thirty-seventh canon allows the
baptism of demoniacs, it is not probable that they would be more severe with
respect to ordinary sick persons in the thirty-ninth canon. On the contrary,
the Church has always been tender towards the sick : she has always hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to
salvation; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism.
b. In the thirty-eighth canon the Church
allows a layman to baptize one who should fall seriously ill during a sea
voyage, but not to confirm him. She certainly, then, would allow this sick
person to be confirmed if a bishop were present in the ship.
c. As for one who should fall ill upon
land, he could easily call a bishop to him; and therefore the case foreseen by the thirty-eighth canon does not apply to him: it would be
easy to confer baptism and confirmation on him.
d. The thirty-ninth canon, then, means:
“Whoso shall fall ill upon land, and who can summon a bishop to him, may receive
baptism and confirmation at the same time”.
e. Understood in this way, the canon is
more in unison with the two preceding, and with the practice of the ancient
Church towards the sick.
CAN. 40. It is forbidden that
landholders, when they receive their payments, shall account as received
anything offered to idols. If after this prohibition they do so anyway, they
shall be severed from communion for the space of five years.
CAN. 41. The Faithful are warned
to forbid, as far as they can, that idols be kept in their homes. If, however,
they fear violence from their slaves, they must at least keep themselves pure.
If they do not do this, they are considered to be outside the Church.
CAN. 42. He who has a good name,
and wishes to become a Christian, must be a catechumen for two years : then he may be baptized. If he should fall ill, and
desire the grace of baptism, it may be granted to him before the expiration of
two years.
CAN. 43. In accordance with the Scripture we shall celebrate Pentecost and not continue the
false practice [of celebrating the fortieth day after Easter rather than the
fiftieth]. If one does not accept this practice, it will be considered a new
heresy.
Some parts
of Spain had allowed the bad custom of celebrating the fortieth day after
Easter, not the fiftieth; consequently the Ascension
of Christ, and not Pentecost. Several ancient manuscripts, indeed, contain this
addition: non quadragesimam.
The same addition is found in an ancient abridgment of the canons of Elvira,
with which Mansi makes us acquainted: post Pascha quinquagesima teneatur, non quadragesima. We learn also
from Cassian, that in the primitive Church some
Christians wished to close the paschal season with the feast of the Ascension,
that is, at the fortieth day. They regarded all Easter-time only as a remembrance of Christ's sojourn among His disciples during the forty
days which followed His resurrection; and therefore they wished to close this
period with the feast of the Ascension. Herbst supposes
that a Montanist party in Spain wished to
suppress the feast of Pentecost altogether, because the Montanists believed that the Holy Spirit did not
descend until He came in Montanus,
who was regarded by his followers as the Comforter.
CAN. 44. If a pagan courtesan has
given up this abominable way of life, and is married, being still a pagan,
there is no particular obstacle to her admission into
the Church. She ought to be treated as other pagan women.
CAN. 45. A catechumen who has
stayed away from the church for a long time may be baptized if one of the clergy supports his or her claim to be a Christian, or if
some of the faithful attest to this, and it appears that the person has
reformed.
CAN. 46. If a Christian gives up
the faith and stays away from the church for a long time, provided he or she
has not become an idolater, he or she may be received back and commune after
ten years of penance.
CAN. 47. If a Christian who is
married, and has been often guilty of adultery, is near death, they must go to
see him (est conveniendus), and ask him
whether, if he should recover, he promises to amend his ways. If he promises,
the holy communion should be administered to him ; if
he should recover, and should again be guilty of adultery, the holy communion
must not be allowed to be thus despised, it must hence forth be refused to him,
even in articulo mortis.
CAN. 48. Those being baptized are
not to place money in the baptismal shell since it seems to indicate that the
priest is selling what is a free gift. The feet of the
newly baptized are not to be washed by the priests or clerics.
This canon
forbids at the same time two things relative to baptism:
1. It was the custom in Spain for the
neophytes, at the time of their baptism, to put an offering into the shell
which had been used at the baptism. This offering, afterwards called the
stole-rights, was to be suppressed.
2. The second part of the canon shows that
there was the same custom in certain parts of Spain as at Milan and in Gaul,
but which, from the testimony of St. Ambrose, did not exist at Rome, viz. that
the bishop and clergy should wash the feet of the newly baptized when they left
the baptismal font. Our Synod forbids this, and this canon has passed into
the Corp. jur.
Can.
CAN. 49. Landlords are not to
allow Jews to bless the crops they have received from God and for which they
have offered thanks. Such an action would make our blessing invalid and
meaningless. Anyone who continues this practice is to be expelled completely
from the church.
The Jews
were so numerous and so powerful in Spain during the first centuries of the
Christian era, that they might at one time have hoped to be able to Judaize the
whole country. According to the monuments which, however, are of doubtful
authority they established themselves in Spain in the time of King Solomon. It
is more likely that they crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only
about a hundred years before Christ. There they soon increased in number and importance, and could energetically carry on their work of
proselytizing. This is the reason that the Synod of Elvira had to forbid to the
priests and the laity all intimate intercourse with Jews (can. 50), and
especially marriage (can. 16); for there is no doubt that at this period many
Christians of high rank in Spain became Jews, as Jost shows in his work.
CAN. 50. If any of the clergy of
the Faithful eats with Jews, he shall be kept from communion in order that he
be corrected as he should.
CAN. 51. If a baptized person has
come from heresy, he must not become a cleric. One who has already been
ordained is to be removed from office immediately.
CAN. 52. Anyone who writes
scandalous graffiti in a church is to be condemned.
CAN. 53. One excommunicated by a
bishop can only be restored by the bishop who condemned him. Another bishop
receiving him into communion, unless the first bishop acts at the same time, or
approves of the reconciliation, must answer for it before his brethren, that is to say, before the provincial synod, and must run
the danger of being deprived of his office (status).
CAN. 54. If the parents of those
who are betrothed fail to keep the promises made at the betrothal, these
parents shall be excluded from the communion for three years, unless either of
the betrothed persons be convicted of a very serious fault. In this case, the
parents may break the engagement. If the betrothed have sinned together, the first arrangement continues; that is, the parents cannot
then separate them.
CAX. 55. Priests who continue to
wear the secular wreath [as former flamens] but
who do not perform sacrifices or make offerings to idols may receive communion
after two years.
CAN. 56. Magistrates are not to
enter the church during the year in which they serve as duumvir [the government
official who presides at public occasions and national feasts].
What the
consuls were at Rome, the duumviri were, on a small scale, in the Roman municipalities:
their office also lasted only a year. These duumviri were obliged, by virtue of
their office, to watch over pagan priests personally, and the temples of the
town; they had to preside at public solemnities, in processions, etc., which,
like all the other national feasts of the Romans, had always more or less a
semi-religious and pagan character. For this reason the Synod forbade the duumviri to enter the Church as long as they were in
office. In limiting itself to this prohibition, it gave proof of great
moderation and of wise consideration, which we ought to appreciate. An absolute
prohibition to hold this office would have given up the charge of the most
important towns to pagans. But the Council is much more severe in the following
canon.
CAN. 57. Women and men who
willingly allow their clothing to be used in secular spectacles and processions
shall be denied communion for three years.
CAN. 58. In all places, and
especially where the bishop resides, those who bring letters indicating their
right to commune shall be examined to affirm the testimony.
In Africa no
metropolitan rights were attached to particular towns : they always belonged to the oldest bishop of the province, whose bishopric was
then called prima sedes.
Carthage only was the metropolitan see. It appears to have been the same in
Spain before Constantine the Great divided that country into seven political
provinces, which entailed the division into ecclesiastical provinces. This may
explain why the Bishop of Acci presided
at the Synod of Elvira: he was probably the oldest of all the bishops present.
What is elsewhere called prima sedes in
our canon is prima cathedra; and the bishops of the prima cathedra were to
question Christian travellers about
their respective dioceses, the latter were to present their recommendatory
letters, and were to be asked if they could affirm that all was in a
satisfactory state.
CAN. 59. A Christian may not go to
the capitol and watch the pagans offer their sacrifices. If a Christian does,
he or she is guilty of the same sin and may not commune before completing ten
years of penance.
CAN. 60. If someone smashes an
idol and is then punished by death, he or she may not be placed in the list of
martyrs, since such action is not sanctioned by the Scriptures or by the
apostles.
It happened
sometimes that too zealous Christians would destroy the idols,
and have to pay for their boldness with their life. The Synod decrees
that they must not be considered as martyrs, for the gospel does not require
deeds of this kind, and the apostles did not act in this way; but they
considered it praiseworthy if a Christian, whom they might wish to oblige to
offer sacrifice to an idol, should overthrow the statue, and break it, as Prudentius Clemens relates with commendation of Eulalia, who suffered martyrdom in Spain in 304, and
therefore a short time previous to this Synod.
CAN. 61. A man who, after his
wife’s death, marries her baptized sister may not commune for five years unless
illness requires that reconciliation be offered sooner.
CAN. 62 Chariot racers or
pantomimes must first renounce their profession and promise not to resume it
before they may become Christians. If they fail to keep this promise, they
shall be expelled from the church.
The following series of canons treats of
carnal sins :
CAN. 63. If a woman conceives in
adultery and then has an abortion, she may not commune again, even as death
approaches, because she has sinned twice.
CAN. 64. A woman who remains in
adultery to the time of her death may not commune. If she breaks the
relationship, she must complete ten years’ penance before communing.
CAN. 65. If a cleric knows of his
wife's adultery and continues to live with her, he shall not receive communion
even before death in order not to let it appear that one who is to exemplify a
good life has condoned sin
The Shepherd
of Hermas had
before, like this canon, stringently commanded not only the clergy, but all
Christians, not to continue to live conjugally with an adulterous spouse, who
would not amend her ways, but would persevere in sin. Dr. Herbst says, that what made the sixty-fifth canon
necessary was probably the very frequent case of married men having taken
orders, and not being able to have conjugal intercourse with their wives, who
were therefore on that very account easily tempted to forget themselves.
The series of canons against carnal sins
is continued in the following, which forbids marriage with a daughter-in-law.
CAN. 66. A man who marries his
stepdaughter is guilty of incest and may not commune even before death.
CAN. 68. If a catechumen should
conceive by an adulterer, and should procure the death of the child, she can be
baptized only at the end of her life.
CAN. 69. A married person who
commits adultery once may be reconciled after five years' penance unless
illness necessitates an earlier reconciliation.
CAN. 70. If a woman should violate
conjugal fidelity with her husband’s consent, the latter must not be admitted
to communion, even at the end of his life. If he separated from his wife, after
having lived with her at all since the sin was committed, he was to be excluded
for ten years.
CAN. 71.
Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.
CAN. 72. If a widow has
intercourse and then marries the man, she may only commune after five years'
penance. If she marries another man instead, she is excluded from communion
even at the time of death. If the man she marries is a Christian, she may not
receive communion until completing ten years' penance, unless illness makes
earlier communion advisable.
The following canons treat of informers
and false witnesses.
CAN. 73. A Christian who denounces
someone who is then ostracized or put to death may not commune even as death
approaches. If the case was less severe, he or she may commune in less than
five years. If the informer was a catechumen, he or she may be baptized after
five years.
CAN.
74. A false witness must be excluded from the communion for a time
proportionate to the crime of which he has given false witness. Should the crime
be one not punishable with death, and if the guilty one can demonstrate that he
kept silence for a long time (diu),
that is, that he did not willingly bear witness, he shall be condemned to two
years of penance; if he cannot prove this, to five years.
CAN. 75. If someone falsely
accuses a bishop, presbyter, or deacon of a crime and cannot offer evidence, he
or she is excluded from communion even at the time of death..
CAN. 76. If anyone should succeed
in being ordained deacon, and it should be subsequently discovered that he had
before that committed a mortal sin : a. In case he was
the first to make known his fault, he must be received into communion (as a
layman) at the end of three years of penance. b. In case his sin was discovered
by another, at the end of five years.
In both
cases he was for ever suspended
from his office of deacon.
CAN. 77. If a deacon serving a
community without a bishop or presbyter baptizes, the bishop shall then give
his blessing to those baptized. If someone dies before receiving the blessing,
that person is to be regarded as justified by his or her faith.
CAN. 78. If a Christian confesses
adultery with a Jewish or pagan woman, he is denied communion for some time. If
his sin is exposed by someone else, he must complete five years' penance before
receiving the Sunday communion.
CAN. 79. Christians who play dice
for money are to be excluded from receiving communion. If they amend their ways
and cease, they may receive communion after one year.
CAN. 80. Slaves who have been
freed but whose former masters are yet alive may not be ordained as clergy.
CAN. 81. A woman may not write to
other lay Christians without her husband's consent. A woman may not receive
letters of friendship addressed to her only and not to her husband as well.
SEC. 14. Origin of the Schism of the
Donatists, and the first Synods held on this account in 312 and 313.
The schism of the Donatists occasioned several synods at the beginning of
the fourth century. Mensurius was
bishop of Carthage during Diocletian’s persecution. He was a worthy and serious
man, who on the one side encouraged the faithful to courage and energy during
the persecution, but on the other side strongly reproved any step which could
increase the irritation of the heathen. He especially blamed certain Christians
of Carthage, who had denounced themselves to the heathen authorities as
possessors of sacred books (even when this was not really the case), in order to obtain martyrdom by their refusal to give up the
Holy Scriptures. Nor would he grant the honors of martyrdom to those who, after
a licentious life, should court martyrdom without being morally improved. We
see, by a letter of Mensurius,
how he himself behaved during the persecution. He relates, that when they
required the sacred books from him, he hid them, leaving in the church only
heretical books, which were taken away by the persecutors. The proconsul had
soon discovered this cunning; but, however, did not wish to pursue Mensurius further. Many
enemies of the bishop, especially Donatus Bishop
of Casae-Nigrae in
Numidia, falsely interpreted what had passed : they
pretended that Mensurius had,
in fact, delivered up the Holy Scriptures; that, at any rate, he had told a
sinful falsehood; and they began to excite disturbance in the Church of
Carthage. However, these troubles did not take the form of a miserable schism
till after the death of Mensurius.
A deacon named Felix, being persecuted by the heathen, took refuge in the house
of Bishop Mensurius.
As the latter refused to give him up, he was taken to Rome, to answer in person
for his resistance before Maxentius, who since Diocletian’s abdication had
possessed himself of the imperial power in Italy and in Africa. Mensurius succeeded in
obtaining an acquittal; but he died on the way back to Carthage, and before
arriving there, in 311. Two celebrated priests of Carthage, Botrus and Celestius, aspired to the vacant
throne, and thought it their interest to invite to the election and ordination
of the future bishop only the neighboring prelates, and not those of Numidia.
It is doubtful whether this was quite according to order. Inasmuch as Numidia
formed a separate ecclesiastical province, distinct from the province of proconsular Africa, of which Carthage was the
metropolis, the bishops of Numidia had no right to take part in the election of
a Bishop of Carthage. But as the metropolitan (or, according to African
language, the primate) of Carthage was in some sort
the patriarch of the whole Latin Church of Africa; and as, on this account,
Numidia was under his jurisdiction, the bishops of Numidia might take part in
the appointment of a Bishop of Carthage. On the other side, the Donatists were
completely in the wrong, when subsequently they pretended that the primate of
Carthage ought to be consecrated by that metropolitan whose rank was the
nearest to his own (primas,
or primae sedis episcopus or senex);
consequently the new Bishop of Carthage ought to have been consecrated by Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, then metropolitan (Primas) of Numidia : and
it is with reason that S. Augustine replied to them in the name of the whole
African episcopate, during a conference held at Carthage in 411, that even the
Bishop of Rome was not consecrated by the primate nearest to him in rank, but
by the Bishop of Ostia. The two priests mentioned above found themselves
deceived at the time of the election, which took place at Carthage: for the
people, putting them on one side, elected Cecilian, who had been archdeacon under Mensurius; and Felix Bishop
of Aptunga, suffragan of Carthage, consecrated him immediately.
The consecration was hardly ended, when some priests and some of the laity of
Carthage resolved to unite their efforts to ruin the new bishop.
On his
departure for Rome, Mensurius had
confided the treasures of his church to the care of some Christians: at the
same time he had given the list of everything
entrusted to them into the hands of a pious woman, charging her, “in case he
should not return, to remit this list to his successor”. The woman fulfilled
her commission; and the new bishop, Cecilian, claimed the property of the church from
those with whom it had been left. This demand irritated them against him : they had hoped that no one would have known of this
deposit, and that they might divide it amongst themselves.
Besides these
laymen, the two priests mentioned above arrayed themselves against Cecilian. The soul of the
opposition was a very rich lady, who had a great reputation for piety,
named Lucilla, and who thought she was most
grievously wronged by Cecilian.
She had been in the habit, every time she communicated, of kissing the relics
of a martyr not accounted such by the Church. Cecilian, who was at that time a deacon, had
forbidden the worship of these relics not recognized by the Church, and the
pharisaical pride of the woman could not pardon the injury.
Things were
in this state when Secundus Bishop
of Tigisis, in his
office of episcopus primae sedis of Numidia, sent a commission to
Carthage to appoint a mediator (interventor)
nominally for the reconciliation of the parties. But the commission was very
partial from the beginning : they entered into no relation
with Cecilian or
his flock; but, on the contrary, took up their abode with Lucilla and consulted with her on the plan to follow
for the overthrow of Cecilian.
The malcontents, says Optatus,
then asked the Numidian bishops to come to
Carthage to decide about the election and the consecration of Cecilian, and in fact Secundus of Tigisis soon appeared with
his suffragans. They took up their abode with
the avowed opponents of Cecilian, and
refused to take part in the assembly or synod which he wished to call,
according to custom, to hear the Numidian bishops;
and, instead, they held a conciliabulum of
their own, at which seventy met, and in a private house in Carthage, before
which they summoned Cecilian to
appear (312). Cecilian did
not attend, but sent word “that if they had anything
against him, the accuser had only to appear openly and prove it”. No accusation
was made; and besides, they could bring forward nothing against Cecilian, except having
formerly, as archdeacon, forbidden the visiting of the martyrs in prison and
the taking of food to them. Evidently, says Dupin, Cecilian had
only followed the counsel of S. Cyprian, in forbidding the faithful to go in
crowds to the prisons of the martyrs, for fear of inciting the pagans to
renewed acts of violence.
Although Cecilian was perfectly
right in this respect, it is possible that in the application of the rule,
right in itself, he may have acted with some harshness. This is at least what
we must conclude if only the tenth part of the accusations raised against him
by an anonymous Donatist have any
foundation. He says, for instance, that Cecilian would not even allow parents to visit
their captive sons and daughters, that he had taken away the food from those
who wish ad to take it to the martyrs, and had given it to the dogs, and the
like. His adversaries laid still greater stress on the invalidity of Cecilian’s consecration,
because his consecrator, Felix of Aptunga,
had been a Traditor (i.e. had given up the sacred books) during the persecution of Diocletian. No council
had heretofore ordained that the sacraments were valid even when administered
by heinous sinners; therefore Cecilian answered, with a sort of
condescension towards his enemies, “that if they thought that Felix had not
rightfully ordained him, they had only themselves to proceed to his
ordination.” But the bishops of Numidia did doubly wrong in thus setting
themselves against Felix of Aptunga.
First, the accusation of his having given up the sacred books was absolutely false, as was proved by a judicial inquiry made
subsequently, in 314. The Roman officer who had been charged to collect the
sacred books at Aptunga attested
the innocence of Felix; whilst one Ingentius,
who, in his hatred against Felix, had produced a false document to ruin him,
confessed his guilt. But apart from this circumstance, Secundus and his friends, who had themselves
giver up the Holy Scriptures, as was proved in the Synod of Cirta, had hardly the right to
judge Felix for the same offence. Besides, they had at this same Synod of Cirta consecrated Silvanus
bishop of that place, who was also convicted of having been a Traditor. Without troubling themselves with all these
matters, or caring for the legality of their proceeding, the Numidians proclaimed, in their unlawful Council, the
deposition of Cecilian,
whose consecration they said was invalid, and elected a friend and partisan
of Lucilla’s, the reader Marorinus, to be Bishop of
Carthage. Lucilla had bribed the Numidian bishops, and
promised to each of them 400 pieces of gold.
This done,
the unlawful Numidian Council addressed a
circular letter to all the churches of Africa, in which they related what had
passed, and required that the churches should cease from all ecclesiastical
communion with Cecilian.
It followed from this that, Carthage being in some sort
the patriarchal throne of Africa, all the African provinces were implicated in
this controversy. In almost every town two parties were formed; in many cities
there were even two bishops a Cecilian and
a Majorinian. Thus
began this unhappy schism. As Majorinus had
been put forward by others, and besides as he died soon after his election,
the schismatics did not take his name, but
were called Donatists, from the name of Donatus Bishop
of Casse Nigrae, who had much more
influence than Majorinus,
and also afterwards on account of another Donatus, surnamed the Great, who became the successor
of Majorinus as schismatical Bishop of
Carthage.
Out of
Africa, Cecilian was
everywhere considered the rightful bishop, and it was to him only that letters of communion (epistolae communicatoriae) were
addressed. Constantine the Great, who meanwhile had conquered Maxentius in the
famous battle at the Milvian Bridge, also
recognized Cecilian,
wrote to him, sent him a large sum of money to distribute among his priests,
and added, “that he had heard that some unruly spirits fought to trouble the
Church; but that he had already charged the magistrates to restore order, and
that Cecilian had
only to apply to them for the punishment of the agitators”. In another letter,
addressed to the proconsul of Africa, Anulinus, he exempted the clergy of the Catholic
Church of Carthage, “whose president was Cecilian” from all public taxes.
Soon
afterwards, the opponents of Cecilian,
to whom many of the laity joined themselves, remitted two letters to the
proconsul of Africa, begging him to send them to the Emperor. Anulinus accordingly did
so. The title of the first letter, which S. Augustine has preserved to us,
viz. libellus Ecclesiae Catholicae (that is to
say, of the Donatist Church) criminum Caeciliani, suffices to show
its tenor; the second entreated the Emperor, on
account of the divisions among the African bishops, to send judges from Gaul to
decide between them and Cecilian.
This latter letter, preserved by Optatus,
is signed by Lucian, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius, et caeteris episcopis partis Donati. In his
note upon this passage, Dupin has
proved by quotations from this letter, as it is found in S. Augustine, that the
original was partis Majorini, which Optatus changed into Donati, according to the expression commonly used in his
time.
We see from the
preceding that the Donatists deserved the reproach
which was cast upon them, of being the first to call for the intervention of
the civil power in a purely ecclesiastical case; and the Emperor Constantine
himself, who was then in Gaul, openly expressed his displeasure on this
subject, in a letter which he addressed to Pope Melchiades (Miltiades). However, to restore
peace to Africa, he charged three bishops of Gaul: Maternus of Koln, Reticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles to make arrangements with the Pope
and fifteen other Italian bishops to assemble in a synod which was held at Rome
in 313.
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS.
Synod
at Rome (313).
Cecilian was invited to be present at this Synod, with
ten bishops of his obedience. His adversaries were to send an equal number; and
at their head stood Donatus of Casae Nigrae. The conferences began at the Lateran Palace,
belonging to the Empress Fausta, on October 2, 313,
and lasted three days. The first day Donatus and his friends were first of all
to prove their accusations against Cecilian; but they
could produce neither witnesses nor documents : those
whom Donatus himself had brought to witness against Cecilian,
declared that they knew nothing against the bishop, and therefore were not
brought forward by Donatus. On the contrary, it was proved that, when Cecilian was only a deacon, Donatus had excited divisions
in Carthage; that he had re-baptized Christians who had been baptized before;
and, contrary to the rules of the Church, had laid hands on fallen bishops to
reinstate them in their offices. The second day the Donatists produced a second
accusation against Cecilian; but they could no more
prove their assertions than on the previous day. The continuation of an inquiry
already begun concerning the unlawful Council of Carthage of 312, which had
deposed Cecilian, was interrupted. As Donatus was
totally unable on the third day, as the two preceding, to produce a single
witness, Cecilian was declared innocent, and Donatus
condemned on his own confession. No judgment was pronounced on the other
bishops of his party. The Synod, on the contrary, declared that if they would
return to the unity of the Church, they might retain their thrones; that in
every place where there was a Cecilian and a Donatist
bishop, the one who had been the longest ordained should remain at the head of
the Church, whilst the younger should be set over another diocese. This
decision of the Synod was proclaimed by its president the Bishop of Rome, and communicated to the Emperor.
After the
close of the Synod, Donatus and Cecilian were both
forbidden to return to Africa at once. Cecilian was detained at Brescia for a time.
Sometime afterwards, however; Donatus obtained
permission to go to Africa, but not to Carthage. But the Pope, or perhaps the
Synod before closing, sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, to proclaim that that was the
catholic party for which the nineteen bishops assembled at Rome had pronounced.
We see from this that the mission of the two bishops was to promulgate the
decisions of the Synod; we also think, with Dupin, that their journey, the date of which is
uncertain, took place immediately after the close of the Synod of Rome. The two
bishops entered into communion with Cecilian’s clergy at
Carthage; but the Donatists endeavored to prevent the bishops from
accomplishing their mission; and sometime after, as Donatus had
returned to Carthage, Cecilian also
returned to his flock.
New troubles
soon agitated Africa, and the Donatists again brought complaints of Cecilian before the
Emperor. Irritated with their obstinacy, Constantine at first simply referred
them to the decision of the Synod of Rome; and when they replied by protesting
that they had not been sufficiently listened to at Rome, Constantine decided, first,
that a minute inquiry should be made as to whether Felix of Aptunga had really given up
the Holy Scriptures (we have given above the result of this inquiry); next,
that the whole controversy should be definitely settled by a great assembly of
the bishops of Christendom; and consequently he called the bishops of his
empire together for the 1st of August 314, to the Council of Arles in Gaul.
SEC. 15. Synod of Arles in
Gaul (314).
Cecilian and some of his
friends, as well as some deputies of the party of the Donatists, were invited
to this Council and the officials of the empire were charged to defray the
expenses of the voyage of these bishops. Constantine specially invited several
bishops, amongst others the Bishop of Syracuse. According to some traditions,
there were no fewer than 600 bishops assembled at Arles. Baronius, relying on a
false reading in S. Augustine, fixes the number at 200. Dupin thought there were
only thirty-three bishops at Arles, because that is the number indicated by the
title of the letter of the Synod addressed to Pope Silvester, and by the list
of persons which is found in several MSS. Notwithstanding this comparatively
small number, we may say that all the provinces of Constantine’s empire were
represented at the Council. Besides these thirty-three bishops, the list of
persons also mentions a considerable number of priests and deacons, of whom
some accompanied their bishops, and others represented their absent bishops as
their proxies. Thus Pope Silvester was represented by
two priests, Claudianus and
Vitus, two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus.
Marinus of Arles, one of the three judges (judices ex Gallici), who had been appointed
beforehand by the Emperor, appears to have presided over the assembly
: at least his name is found first in the letter of the Synod. With
Marinus the letter mentions Agroecius of
Trier, Theodore of Aquileia, Proterius of
Capua, Vocius of
Lyons, Cecilian of
Carthage, Reticius of Autun (one of the earlier judices ex
Gallia], Ambitausus (Imbetausius) of Reims, Merokles of Milan, Adelfius of London, Maternus of Koln, Liberius of Emerita in
Spain, and others; the last named having already been present at the Synod of
Elvira. It is seen that a great part of Western Christendom was represented at
Arles by some bishops; and the Emperor Constantine could truly say : “I have assembled a great number of bishops from
different and almost innumerable parts of the empire”.
We may look
on the assembly at Arles as a general council of the West (or of the Roman
patriarchate). It cannot, however, pass for an ecumenical council, for this
reason, that the other patriarchs did not take any part in it, and indeed were
not invited to it; and those of the East especially, according to S. Augustine,
ignored almost entirely the Donatist controversy.
But has not S. Augustine himself declared this Council to be ecumenical? In
order to answer this question in the affirmative, an appeal has been made to
the second book of his treatise, De Baptismo contra Donatistas, where he says :
“The question relating to re-baptism was decided against Cyprian, in a full
council of the whole Church” (plenarium concilium, concilium universae Ecclesiae).
But it is doubtful whether S. Augustine meant by that the Council of Arles, or
whether he did not rather refer to that of Nicaea, according to Pagi’s view of the case. It cannot, however be denied that S. Augustine, in his forty-third
letter, in speaking of the Council of Arles, calls it plenarium Ecclesiaeuniversae concilium! Only it must not
be forgotten that the expression concilium plenarium universale, is often
employed in speaking of a national council; and that in the passage quoted S.
Augustine refers to the Western Church (Ecclesia universa occidentalis),
and not to the universal Church (universalis)
in the fullest sense.
The
deliberations of the Council of Arles were opened on the 1st of August
314. Cecilian and
his accusers were present; but these were no more able than before to prove
then accusations. We unfortunately have not in full the acts of the Council;
but the synodical letter already quoted
inform, us that the accusers of Cecilian were aut damnati aut repulse. From this information we infer
that Cecilian was
acquitted and this we know to have been the actual result of the Donatis controversy. The
Council, in its letter to the Pope, says, “that it would have greatly desired
that the Pope (Silvester) had been able to assist in person at the sessions,
and that the judgment given against Cecilian’s accusers would in that case
certainly have been more severe”. The Council probably alluded to the favorable
conditions that it had accorded to the Donatist bishops
and priests, in case they should be reconciled to the
Church. The letter of the Council contains no other information relating to the
affairs of the Donatists. At the time of the religious conference granted to
the Donatists in 411, a letter of the African bishops was read, in which they
said, that, “dating from the commencement of the schism, consent had been given
that every Donatist bishop who should
become reconciled to the Church should alternately exercise the episcopal
jurisdiction with the Catholic bishop : that if either of the two died, the
survivor should be his sole successor; but in the case in which a church did
not wish to have two bishops, both were to resign, and a new one was to be
elected”. From these words, ab ipsius separationis exordio, Tillemont concluded that it is to the Synod of
Arles that this decision should be referred; for, as we have already seen,
other proposals of reconciliation were made at Rome. It is not known whether
the Synod of Arles decided anything else in the matter of the Donatists. But it
is evident that two, perhaps three, of its twenty-two canons (Nos. 13, 14, and
8), refer to the schism of the African Church, which we shall show in examining
them one by one.
The Synod of
Arles was not satisfied, as their synodal letter
tells us, merely to examine and judge the business of the Donatists
: it wished to lend its assistance in other points relating to the
necessities of the Church, especially to solve the paschal controversy, the
question of the baptism of heretics, and to promulgate various rules for
discipline. Convinced that it acted under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it
used the formula, Placuit ergo, praesente Spiritu sancto et angelis ejus; and begged the Pope, who had the
government of the larger diocese (majoris dioeceseos gubernacula) under his
control, to promulgate its decrees universally. The Synod also sent him the
complete collection of its twenty-two canons, while in the letter previously
quoted it had given only a short extract from them : consequently it may be
maintained, with the brothers Ballerini,
that the Synod addressed two letters to the Pope, of which the first,
commencing with the enumeration of the bishops present, dwelt chiefly on the
affairs of the Donatists, and gave but a short sketch of the other decisions;
while the second included literally and exclusively all the decrees, and
addressed itself to the Pope only in the words of introduction, and in the
first canon. The Benedictines of S. Maur have published the best text of this
second synodical letter, and of the canons
of the Council of Arles, in the first volume of their Collectio conciliorum Galliae of 1789, of which the sequel un fortunately has not appeared.
We shall
adopt this text : That which we in by mutual agreement
have decreed, we hereby make known to your most esteemed person, so that
bishops may know what ought to be observed in the future.
CAN. 1. In the first place,
concerning the celebration of Easter Sunday: That it be observed by us on one
day and at one time in all the earth, and that you should send out letters to
all, as is the custom.
By this
canon the Council of Arles wished to make the Roman computation of time with regard to Easter the rule everywhere, and consequently
to abolish that of Alexandria, and all others that might differ from it, taking
for granted that the bishops of the Council knew the difference that existed
between these and the Roman computation. We will not here give the details
relating to the paschal controversy, but further on in the history of the
Council of Nicaea, so as the better to grasp the whole meaning.
CAN. 2. Concerning those who have
been ordained ministers in certain places: They are to continue to serve in
those same places.
CAN. 3. Concerning those who lay
down their weapons in peacetime, be it resolved that they be excluded from
fellowship.
CAN. 4. Concerning charioteers who
are among the faithful, be it resolved that as long as they continue to drive in chariot races they be excluded from fellowship.
CAN. 5. Concerning actors, be it
further resolved that as long as they continue to
carry on that occupation they be excluded from fellowship.
CAN. 6. Concerning those who in
time of sickness wish to confess the faith, be it resolved that they ought to
receive the laying on of hands.
CAN. 7. Concerning officials who
are among the faithful who serve in the government, be it is resolved thus,
that when they are transferred, they should receive letters of reference from
their churches, so that, therefore, in whatever places they serve, they can be
cared for by the bishop of that place, and when they begin to act against the
church’s discipline, that only then they be excluded from fellowship.
CAN. 8. Similarly
also concerning those who wish to pursue a public career.
CAN.
9. Concerning those who carry letters from the confessors, be it resolved that,
when they have handed over those letters, they receive other letters of
reference.
CAN. 10. Concerning those who
apprehend their wives in adultery, and the same persons are faithful youths and
are prevented from marrying (again), be it resolved that, as much as is able,
they be counseled not to take other wives while their own wives are still
living, even if the latter are adulterous.
CAN. 11. Concerning young women
among the faithful who are getting married to unbelievers, be it resolved that
they be excluded from fellowship for a considerable period of
time.
CAN. 12. Concerning clergy who
lend money at interest, be it resolved that, in accordance with the divinely
given model, they be excluded from fellowship.
CAN. 13. Concerning those who are
said to have handed over the Holy Scriptures or sacred vessels or the names of
their brothers, be it resolved by us that any of those who from the public
records, not from words alone, are discovered to have done so be removed from
the office of the clergy. But if that same person who was exposed has ordained
others, and the affairs of those ordained are all in order, let their
ordination not be revoked. And whereas there were many who seemed to fight
against the church and who thought they could disprove the accusations made
against them by the testimony of paid witnesses they should not be cast out
altogether, but only, as stated above, if their guilt is shown by public
records.
The Emperor
Diocletian had ordered, by his first edict for persecution in 303, first, that
all the churches were to be destroyed; secondly, that all sacred books were to
be burnt; thirdly, that Christians were to be deprived of all rights and all
honors; and that when they were slaves, they were to be declared incapable of
acquiring liberty. Consequently Christians were
everywhere required to give up the holy books to be burnt, and the sacred vases
to be confiscated by the treasury (ad fiscum). This canon mentions these two demands,
and, besides these, the traditio nominum. It may be that,
according to the first edict, some Christians, and especially the bishops, were
required to remit the lists of the faithful belonging to their dioceses, in order to subject them to the decree which deprived them
of all rights and honor. However, Dr. Munchen thinks that the traditio nominum was first
introduced in consequence of Diocletian’s second edict. This edict ordered that
all ecclesiastics should be imprisoned, and compelled
to sacrifice. Many tried to escape the danger by flight; but it also happened
that many were betrayed, and their names given up to the heathen. The
thirteenth canon orders the deposition of these Traditores, if they are ecclesiastics. But this penalty was only to be
inflicted in case the offence of traditio was
proved, not merely by private denunciations, but by the public laws, by
writings signed by officers of justice, which the Roman officers had to draw up
in executing the Emperor’s edict.
The Synod occupied itself with this
question: “What must be done if a traditor bishop
has ordained clergy?” This was precisely the principal question in the
controversy with the Donatists; and the Synod decided “that the ordination
should be valid, that is, that whoever should be ordained by such a bishop
should not suffer from it”. This part of the passage is very plain, and clearly
indicates the solution given by the Council; but the preceding words, et
hi, quos ordinaverunt,
rationales subsistunt, are
difficult to explain. They may very well mean, “If those who have been ordained
by them are worthy, and fit to receive holy orders”;
but we read in a certain number of MSS., et de his, quos ordinaverint, ratio subsistit, that is to say,
“If those are in question who have been ordained by them”. This canon has
another conclusion which touches the Donatist controversy;
namely : “Accusers who, contrary to all the Church’s
rules, procured paid witnesses to prove their accusations, as the adversaries
of Felix of Aptunga have
done, ought not at all to be heard if they cannot prove their complaints by the
public acts”.
CAN. 14. Concerning those who have
falsely accused their brothers, be it resolved that they not
be given fellowship as long as they live.
This canon
is the sequel to the preceding : “If it is proved that
any one has made a positively false and unwarrantable accusation against
another (as a traditor), such a person will be
excommunicated to the end of his life”. This canon is worded in so general a
manner, that it not only embraces the false denunciations on the particular case of the traditio, but all false denunciations in general,
as the seventy-fifth canon of the Synod of Elvira had already done.
CAN.
15. Concerning deacons who we have learned are conducting services in many
places, be it resolved that this ought to happen as little as possible.
During the
persecution of Diocletian, a certain number of deacons seem to have assumed to
themselves the right of offering the holy sacrifice, especially when there was
no bishop or priest at hand. The Synod of Arles prohibited this. It will be
seen that in this canon we translate offerre as “to offer the holy
sacrifice” in the same sense as this word is used in the nineteenth
canon. Binterim gives
another interpretation. By offerre he
understands the administration of the Eucharist to the faithful; and he
explains the canon in this sense : “The deacons ought
not to administer the communion to the faithful in various places, but only in
the churches which are assigned to them”. We must allow that offerre has
sometimes this meaning; but, a. It is difficult to
suppose that the Synod of Arles should have employed the expression offerre in two
senses so essentially different in the fifteenth canon, where it would mean to
administer the Eucharist, and in the nineteenth canon, where it would mean to
offer the holy sacrifice without having in either pointed out this difference
more clearly. b. The Synod evidently wished to put an end to a serious abuse.
Now it could not have been a very grave offence on the part of the deacons, if,
in consequence of the want of clergy, they had administered the communion in
several places : after all, they would only have done
what they performed ex officio in their own churches.
CAN. 16. Concerning those who have
been excluded from fellowship because of their own wrongdoing, be it resolved
thus, that in whatever place they have been excluded, they must be re-admitted
to fellowship in that same place, so that no bishop oversteps another bishop.
CAN. 17. Concerning bishops to
exercise episcopal functions in a strange diocese.
A bishop
could in many ways inconvenience, molest a colleague;
especially
a. If he allowed himself to exercise various episcopal functions in
any diocese other than his own; for example, to ordain clergy, which the Synod
of Antioch forbade, in 341, by its thirteenth canon.
b. If he stayed a long
time in a strange town, if he preached there, and so threw into the shade the
bishop of the place, who might be less able, less learned than himself, for the
sake of obtaining the other’s see; which the eleventh
canon (fourteenth in Latin) of Sardica also forbids.
CAN. 18. Concerning the deacons of
a city: That they not presume too much for themselves,
but reserve honor for the presbyters, so that they do nothing of importance
without the presbyter’s knowledge.
CAN. 19. Concerning foreign
bishops who are accustomed to come into a city, be it resolved that they be
given a place where they can conduct services.
CAN. 20. Concerning those who
assume that they have the right individually by themselves to ordain a bishop,
be it resolved that no one presume to do this by himself; but only if there are
an additional seven bishops with him; if, however, it is not possible to have
seven present, they dare not ordain someone with less
than three bishops
CAN. 21. Concerning presbyters and
deacons who were accustomed to leave the place where they were ordained and
have gone to different places, be it resolved that they serve in those places;
but if, they leave these places and wish to transfer themselves to yet another
locale, they should be deposed
CAN. 22. Concerning those who
apostatize and never present themselves again to the church, neither seeking to
do acts of repentance nor even afterwards; if then they are seized by sickness
and seek to be received into fellowship, be it resolved that they not be given fellowship, unless they recover their strength
and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.
If we consider, again, the
occasion of this Synod namely, the schism of the Donatists we see that as soon
as the Synod had pronounced its sentence upon them, they appealed anew to the Emperor, while the Catholic bishops asked permission of him
to return to their homes. Constantine thereupon wrote a beautiful and touching
letter to the bishops, thanking God for His goodness to him, and the bishops
for the equitable and conciliatory judgment that they had pronounced. He
complained of the perverseness, the pride, and obstinacy of the Donatists, who
would not have peace, but appealed to him from the judgment of the Church, when
the sentence of the priests ought to be regarded as that of the Lord Himself.
“What audacity, what madness, what folly!” he exclaims; “they have appealed from
it like heathens”. At the end of his letter he prays
the bishops, after Christ’s example, to have yet a little patience, and to stay
some time longer at Arles, so as to try and reclaim these misguided men. If
this last attempt failed, they might return to their dioceses; and he prayed
them to remember him, that he Saviour
might have mercy upon him. He said that he had ordered the officers of the
empire to send the refractory from Arles, and from Africa as well, to his
court, where great severity awaited them.
These threats
caused a great number of Donatists to return to the Church; others persevered
in their obstinacy, and, according to Constantine’s order, were brought to the
imperial court. From that time there was no longer any occasion for the Catholic
bishops to remain at Arles, and in all probability
they returned to their dioceses. Arrived at court, the Donatists again prayed
the Emperor to judge their cause himself. Constantine
at first refused, but, for reasons with which we are
not acquainted, ended by consenting to their demand. He summoned Cecilian, the Catholic Bishop of
Carthage, as well as his Donatist adversaries,
to appear before him at Rome, where he was staying, in August 315. Ingentius, the false accuser of
Felix of Aptunga, was
to be there to prove to the Donatists that they had improperly called in
question the consecration of Cecilian;
but Cecilian, for
some unknown reason, did not appear. S. Augustine himself did not know why; and
the Donatists profited by this circumstance, and urged the Emperor
to condemn Cecilian for
disobedience, Constantine, however, contented himself with granting him a
delay, at the end of which Cecilian was
to appear at Milan, which so exasperated many of the Donatists, that they fled
from the court to Africa. The Emperor for some time
thought of going himself into Africa to judge the cause of the Donatists in
their own country. He accordingly sent back some Donatist bishops
into Africa, and warned the others by letter of his project, adding, that if
they could prove but one of their numerous accusations against Cecilian, he would consider such
proof as a demonstration of all the rest. 4The Emperor afterwards gave up this
scheme, and returned to that which had been first proposed, and in November 316
caused the contending parties to appear before him at Milan. Cecilian presented himself
before the Emperor, as well as his antagonists. The Emperor heard both sides, examined their depositions, and
finally declared that Cecilian was
innocent, that his adversaries were calumniators, and sent a copy of his
decision to Eumalius,
his vicar in Africa. The Donatists were thus condemned three times, by the two
Synods of Rome and of Arles, and finally by the Emperor
himself. In spite of this, to weaken the effect of the late sentence, they
spread the rumour that
the celebrated Hosius Bishop of Corduba, a friend of Cecilian, had prejudiced the Emperor against them.
The
subsequent history of the schism of the Donatists does not belong to this place
a and we have now to consider two other synods which,
were held in the East about the same time as that of Arles, and which merit all
our attention. They are those of Ancyra and Neocaesarea.
SEC.
16. The Synod of Ancyra in 314
Maximilian having died during the summer of 313, the Church in the East
began to breathe freely, says Eusebius. He says nothing further about these
Synods; but one of the first, and certainly the most celebrated, of these
Councils, was that of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, which was held for the
purpose of healing the wounds inflicted on the Church by the last persecution,
and especially to see what could be done on the subject of
the lapsi.
The best
Greek MSS. of the canons of Ancyra contain a very ancient preface, which shows,
without further specification, that the Council of Ancyra was held before that
of Nicaea. The presence of Vitalis Bishop
of Antioch at the Council of Ancyra proves that it was held before the year
319, which is the year of the death of that bishop. It is, then, between 313
and 319 that it was held. Binius believes
he has discovered a still more exact date, in the fact of the presence of Basil
Bishop of Amasia at
our Synod. According to his opinion, this bishop suffered martyrdom in 316,
under the Emperor Licinius; but Tillemont has proved that
he was probably not martyred till 320.
It appears
from the sixth canon of Ancyra that the Council was held, conformably to the apostolic
canons, No. 38 (36), in the fourth week after Easter. Maximin having
died during the summer of 313, the first Pentecost after his death fell in 314;
and it is very probable that the Christians immediately availed themselves of
the liberty which his death gave them to come to the aid of the Church.
This is also
what the words of Eusebius clearly indicate. Baronius, Tillemont, Remi Ceillier, and others, were
therefore perfectly right in placing the Synod of Ancyra after the Easter which
followed the death of Maximin; consequently in
314.
We have three
lists of the bishops who were present at the Synod of Ancyra. They differ
considerably from one another. That which, in addition to the bishops and the
towns, names the provinces, is evidently, as the Ballerini have shown, of later origin : for (a) no Greek MS. contains this list; (b) it is
wanting in the most ancient Latin translations; (c) the lists of the provinces
are frequently at variance with the civil division of the province at this
time. For instance, the list speaks of a Galatia prima,
of a Cappadocia prima, of a Cilicia prima and secunda, of a Phrygia Pacatiana, all divisions which did not then exist.
Another list of the bishops who were present at Ancyra, but without showing the
provinces, is found in the Prisca and in
the Isidorian collection.
Dionysius the Less does not give a list of the persons :
one of this kind has not, until lately, been attached to his writings.
In this state
of things, it is evident that none of these lists are of great value, as they
vary so much from each other even as to the number of the bishops, which is
left undecided, being put down between twelve and eighteen. In the longest list
the following names are found: Vitalis of
Antioch, Agricolaus of
Caesarea in Palestine, Marcellus of Ancyra, who had become so famous in the
Arian controversy, Lupus of Tarsus, Basil of Amasia, Philadelphius of Juliopolis in Galatia, Eustolius of Nicomedia,
Heraclius of Tela in Great Armenia, Peter
of Iconium, Nunechius of Laodicea in Phrygia, Sergianus of Antioch
in Pisidia, Epidaurus of Perga in Pamphilia, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia,
Leontius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Longinus of Neocaesarea in Pontus, Amphion of Epiphania in Cilicia, Salamenus of Germanicia in Coelesyria, and Germanus
of Neapolis in Palestine. Several of these
were present, eleven years after, at the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
They belonged, as we see, to such different provinces of Asia Minor and Syria,
that the Synod of Ancyra may, in the same sense as that of Arles, be considered
a concilium plenarium, that is, a
general council of the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria. From the fact
that Vitalis of Antioch is mentioned first
(primo loco), and that Antioch was the most considerable seat of those who were
represented at Ancyra, it is generally concluded that Vitalis presided
over the Synod; and we admit this supposition, although the Libellus synodicus assigns the
presidency to Marcellus of Ancyra.
CAN. 1. Priests who sacrificed
(during the persecution), but after wards repenting, resumed the combat not
only in appearance, but in reality, shall continue to
enjoy the honors of their office, but they may neither sacrifice or preach, nor
fulfill any priestly office.
CAN. 2. “In the same manner, the
deacons who may have sacrificed, but have afterwards returned to the fight,
shall keep the dignities of their office, but shall no longer fulfill any holy
function, shall no longer offer the bread and wine (to the celebrant or to the
communicants), shall no longer preach. But if any bishops, out of regard to their
efforts (for their ardent penitence), and to their humiliation, wish to grant
them more privileges, or to withdraw more from them, they have power to do so”.
CAN. 3. “Those who fled before
persecution, but were caught, or were betrayed by those of their own houses, or
in any other way, who have borne with resignation the confiscation of their
property, tortures, and imprisonment, declaring themselves to be Christians,
but who have subsequently been vanquished, whether their oppressors have by
force put incense into their hands, or have compelled them to take in their
mouth the meat offered to idols, and who, in spite of this, have persevered in
avowing themselves Christians, and have evinced their sorrow for what had
befallen them by their dejection and humility, such, not having committed any
fault, are not to be deprived of the communion of the Church; and if they have
been so treated by the over-severity or ignorance of their bishop, they are
immediately to be reinstated. This applies equally to the clergy and to the
laity. In the same way it was to be inquired if the laity, to whom violence has
been used (that is to say, who have been physically obliged to sacrifice),
might be promoted to the ministry; and it was decreed that, not having
committed any fault (in the case of these sacrifices), they might be elected,
provided their former life was found to be consistent”.
CAN. 4. “As to those who have been
forced to sacrifice, and who have besides eaten the meats consecrated to the
gods (that is to say, who have been forced to take part in the feasts off the
sacrifices), the Council decrees, that those who, being forced to go to the
sacrifice, have gone cheerfully, dressed in their best, and shall there have
eaten of it indifferently (as if there was no difference between this and other
meals), shall remain one year amongst the audientes (second class of penitents),
three years among the substrati (third
class of penitents), shall take part in the prayers (fourth class) for two
years, and then finally be admitted to the complete privileges of the Church,
that is, to the communion”.
CAN. 5. “Nevertheless, those who
have appeared there (that is, at the feast of the sacrifices) in mourning
habits, who have been full of grief during the repast, and have wept during the
whole time of the feast, shall be three years amongst the substrati, and then be
admitted, without taking part in the offering; but if they have not eaten (and
have merely been present at the feast), they are to be substrati for two years, and the third
year they shall take part in the offering (in the degree of the consistentes, so as to
receive the complement (the holy communion) in the fourth year. The bishops
shall have the power, after having tried the conduct of each, to mitigate the
penalties, or to extend the time of penitence; but they must take care to
inquire what has passed before and after their fall, and their clemency must be
exercised accordingly”.
CAN. 6. “As to those who yielded
on the mere threat of punishment, or of the confiscation of their property, or
of exile, and who have sacrificed, and to this day have not repented or
returned, but who on the occasion of this Synod have repented, and shall
resolve to return, it is decreed, that until the great feast (Easter) they
shall be admitted to the degree of audientes;
that they shall after the great feast be substrati for three years; then that
they shall be admitted, but without taking part in the sacrifice for two years,
and that then only they shall be admitted to the full service (to the
communion), so that the whole time will be six years. For those who have been
admitted to a course of penitence previous to this
Synod, the six years will be allowed to date from the moment of its
commencement. If they were exposed to any danger, or threatened with death
following any illness, or if there was any other important reason, they should
be admitted, conformably to the present prescription”.
CAN. 7. “As
to those who, during a heathen festival, have seated themselves in the locality
appointed for that festival, and have brought and eaten, their food there, they
shall be two years substrati,
and then admitted. As to the question of their admission to the offering, each
bishop shall decide thereon, taking into consideration the whole life of each
person”.
CAN. 8. “Those who, being
compelled, have sacrificed two or three times, shall remain substrati for four
years; they shall take part in the worship, without presenting any offering,
for two years (as consistentes of
the fourth degree); the seventh they shall be admitted to the communion”.
CAN. 9. “Those who have not only
apostatized, but have become the enemies of their brethren, and have compelled
them (to apostasy), or have been the cause of the constraint put upon them,
shall remain for three years among the audientes (second degree), then six
years with the substrati;
they shall then take part in the worship, without offering (in quality of consistentes), for one
year; and not until the expiration of ten years shall they receive full
communion (the holy Eucharist). Their conduct during all this time shall also
be watched”.
CAN. 10. “If deacons, at the time
of their appointment (election), declare that they must marry, and that they
cannot lead a celibate life, and if accordingly they marry, they may continue
in their ministry, because the bishop (at the time of their institution) gave
them leave to marry; but if at the time of their election they have not spoken,
and have agreed in taking holy orders to lead a celibate life, and if later
they marry, they shall lose their diaconate”.
CAN. 11. “Damsels who are
betrothed, who are afterwards carried off by others, shall be given back to
those to whom they are betrothed, even when they have been treated with
violence”.
CAN. 12. “Those who have
sacrificed to the gods before their baptism, and who have afterwards been
baptized, may be promoted to holy orders, as (by baptism) they are purified
from all their former sins”.
CAN. 13. “It is not permitted to
the chorepiscopi to ordain priests and deacons; neither is this permitted to
the priests of the towns in other parishes (dioceses) without the written
authority of the bishop of the place”.
CAN. 14. “Those priests and clerks who
abstain from eating meat ought (during the love-feasts) to eat it (taste it);
but they may, if they will, abstain from it (that is to say, not eat it). If
they disdain it, so that they will not eat even vegetables cooked with meat,
and if they do not obey the present canon, they are to be excluded from the
ranks of the clergy”.
CAN. 15. “If the priests, during
the vacancy of an episcopal see, have sold anything belonging to the Church,
she (the Church) has the right to reclaim it; and it is for the bishop to
decide whether they (the buyers) are to receive the price given for the
purchase, seeing that often the temporary use of the article sold to them has
been worth more than the price paid for it”.
CAN. 16. “Those who have been or
are now guilty of lying with beasts, supposing they are not twenty years old
when they commit this sin, shall be substrati for fifteen years; they shall
then be allowed to join in the prayers for five years (and will consequently
live in the fourth degree of penitence); and after that time
they may assist at the holy sacrifice. An examination must also be made of
their conduct while they were substrati,
and also notice taken of the lives they led. As for
those who have sinned immoderately in this way (i.e.
who have for a long time committed this sin), they must undergo a long substratio (no
allowance will be made in their case). Those who are more than twenty, and have
been married, and have nevertheless fallen into this sin, shall be allowed to
share in the prayers only after a substratio of
twenty-five years; and after five years sharing in the prayers, they shall be
allowed to assist at the holy sacrifice. If married men more than fifty years
old fall into this sin, they shall receive the communion only at the end of
their lives”.
CAN. 17. It
is not easy to give the real meaning of this canon. It may perhaps mean : “Those who have committed acts of bestiality, and,
being lepers themselves, have now made others so, must pray among the
possessed”.
CAN. 18. “If bishops, when
elected, but not accepted by the parish for which they are nominated, introduce
themselves into other parishes, and stir up strife against the bishops who are
there instituted, they must be excommunicated. But if they (who are elected and
not accepted) wish to live as priests in those places where they had hitherto
served as priests, they need not lose that dignity. But if they stir up discord
against the bishop of the place, they shall be deprived of their presbyterate, and be shut out from the Church”.
As
long as the people collectively had a share in
the election of bishops, it often happened in the primitive Church that a
bishop, regularly elected, was either expelled or rejected by a rising of the people.
Even although, at the time of his election, the majority were in his favor, yet
the minority often put a stop to it; just as we saw in 1848 and 1849, how a
very small minority tyrannized over whole towns and countries, and even drove
out persons who displeased them. The thirty-fifth apostolical canon
(thirty-sixth or thirty-seventh according to other reckonings) and the
eighteenth of Antioch (A.D. 341) spoke also of such bishops driven from their
dioceses. When one of these bishops tried by violence or by treachery to drive
a colleague from his see, and to seize upon it, he was to incur the penalty of
deprivation of his episcopal dignity; but the ancient Church signified more
than that : it signified excommunication, at least the
minor excommunication, or exclusion from the communion of the Church. But the
canon adds, if a bishop not accepted by his Church does not make these criminal
attempts, but will live modestly among the priests of
his former congregation, he can do so, and “he shall not lose his dignity”.
CAN. 19. “All who have taken a vow
of virginity, and have broken that vow, are to be considered as bigamists
(literally, must submit to the decrees and prescriptions concerning bigamists).
We also forbid virgins to live as sisters with men”.
CAN. 20. “If anyone has violated a
married woman, or has broken the marriage bond, he must for seven years undergo
the different degrees of penance, at the end of which he will be admitted into
the communion of the Church”.
CAN. 21. “Women who prostitute
themselves, and who kill the children thus begotten, or who try to destroy them
when in their wombs, are by ancient law excommunicated to the end of their
lives. We, however, have softened their punishment, and condemned them to the
various appointed degrees of penance for ten years”.
CAN. 22. “As to willful murderers,
they must be substrati,
and allowed to receive the communion only at the end of their life”.
CAN. 23. “As to unpremeditated
murder, the earlier ordinance allowed communion (to the homicide) at the end of
a seven years penance; the second required only five
years
CAN.24. “Those who foretell the
future, and follow pagan customs, or admit into their houses people (magicians)
in order to discover magical remedies, or to perform expiations, must be
sentenced to a five years penance, to three years
of substratio,
and to two years of attendance at prayers without the sacrifice
(non-communicating attendance)”.
CAN. 25. “A certain person, who
had betrothed himself to a girl, had connection with her sister, so that she
became pregnant : he then married his betrothed, and
his sister-in-law hanged herself. It was determined that all his accomplices
should be ad mitted among the asistentes (i.e. to the fourth degree of penance), after passing through
the appointed degrees for ten years”. The Council here decides, as we see, a
particular case which was submitted to it; and it condemned not only the particular offender, but all the accomplices who had
assisted him to commit the crime, who had advised him to leave her he had
seduced, and to marry her sister, or the like. The punishment inflicted was
very severe, for it was only at the end of ten years (passed in the three first
degrees of penance) that the offenders were admitted to the fourth degree. It
is not stated how long they were to remain in that degree before admission to
the communion.
SEC. 17. Synod of Neocaesarea (314-325).
According
to the title which the ancient Greek MSS. give to the canons of the Synod
of Neocaesarea in
Cappadocia, this Synod was held a little later than that of Ancyra, but before
that of Nicaea. The names of the bishops who assisted at it seem to furnish a
second chronological support to this view. They are for the most part the same
as those who are named at the Council of Ancyra, Vitalis of
Antioch at their head (the Libellus Synodicus reckons
twenty-four of them); but neither the Greek MSS. nor Dionysius the Less have
these names. Tillemont and
other writers have for this reason raised doubts as to the historical value of
these lists, and the brothers Ballerini have
not hesitated to disallow their authenticity. It remains, however, an
incontestable fact, that the Synod of Neocaesarea took place at about the same time
as that of Ancyra, after the death of Maximin the
persecutor of the Christians (313), and before the Synod of Nicaea (325).
Ordinarily the same date is assigned to it as to that of Ancyra, 314 or 315;
but to me it seems more probable that it took place several years later,
because there is no longer any question about the lapsed. The Synod of Ancyra
had devoted no fewer than ten canons (1-9 and 12) to this subject, as a
persecution had then just ceased; the Synod of Neocaesarea did not touch on these matters,
probably because at the time when it assembled the lapsed had already received
their sentence, and there were no more measures necessary to be taken on that
subject. The Libellus Synodicus, it is true,
states that the Synod of (Neo) Caesarea occupied itself with those who had
sacrificed to the gods or abjured their religion, or had eaten of sacrifices
offered to idols, and during the persecution, but the canons of the Council say
not a word of them. It is probable that the late and very inaccurate Libellus Synodicus confounded,
on this point, the Synod of Neocaesarea with
that of Ancyra. It has, without any grounds, been alleged that the canons
of Neocaesarea which
spoke of the lapsi have
been destroyed.
CAN. 1. “If a priest marry, he shall be removed
from the ranks of the clergy; if he commit fornication or adultery, he shall be
excommunicated, and shall submit to penance”.
The
meaning is as follows : “If a priest marry after
ordination, he shall be deposed from his priestly order, and reduced to
the communio laicalis; if he is guilty of
fornication or adultery, he must be excommunicated, and must pass through all
the degrees of penance in order to regain communion with the Church”. We have
seen above, in canon 1 of Ancyra, that in one case deacons were allowed to
marry after ordination, namely, when they had announced their intention of
doing so at the time of their election. In the case of priests neither the
Council of Ancyra nor that of Neocaesarea made
any exception.
CAN. 2. “If a
woman has married two brothers, she shall be excommunicated till her death; if
she is in danger of death, and promises in case of
recovery to break off this illegitimate union, she may, as an act of mercy, be
admitted to penance. If the woman or husband die in this union, the penance for
the survivor will be very strict”.
This
is a question of marriage of the first degree of affinity, which is still
forbidden by the present law. The canon punishes such marriages with absolute
excommunication; so that he who had entered into such
should not obtain communion even in articulo mortis, unless he promised in
case of recovery to break this union. This promise being given, he can be
admitted to penance. Zonaras thus
correctly explains these words : “In this case he
shall receive the holy communion in articulo mortis, provided he promises
that, if he recovers, he will submit to penance”. Canon 6 of Ancyra was
explained in the same way.
CAN. 3. “As for
those who have been often married, the duration of their penance is well known;
but their good conduct and faith may shorten that period”.
As
the Greek commentators have remarked, this canon speaks of those who have been
married more than twice. It is not known what were the ancient ordinances of
penitence which the Synod here refers to. In later times, bigamists were
condemned to one year’s penance, and trigamists from two to five years. S. Basil
places the trigamists for
three years among the audientes,
then for some time among the consistentes.
CAN. 4. “If a man
who burns with love for a woman proposes to live with her, but does not perform
his intention, it is to be believed that he was restrained by grace”.
CAN. 5. “If a
catechumen, after being introduced into the Church, and admitted into the ranks
of the catechumens, acts as a sinner, he must, if he is genuflectens (i.e. to say, in the second degree of penance), become audiens (the lowest
degree), until he sins no more. If, after being audiens, he continues to sin, he shall be
entirely excluded from the Church”.
CAN. 6. “A woman
with child may be illuminated (i.e. baptized) whenever
she demands it; for she who bears has nothing on this account in common with
him who is borne, since each party must profess his own willingness (to be
baptized) by his confession of faith”.
Some
thought that when a woman with child is baptized, the grace of the sacrament is
given to the fruit of her womb, and so to baptize this child again after its
birth is in a manner to administer a second baptism; and they concluded that
they ought not to baptize a pregnant woman, but that they must wait till her
delivery.
CAN. 7. “No
priest shall eat at the marriage feast of those who are married for the second
time; for if such a bigamist should (afterwards) ask leave to do penance, how
stands the priest who, by his presence at the feast, had given his approval to
the marriage?”.
CAN. 8. “If the
wife of a layman has been unfaithful to her husband, and she is convicted of
the sin, her (innocent) husband cannot be admitted to the service of the
Church; but if she has violated the law of marriage after her husband’s
ordination, he must leave her. If, in spite of this,
he continues to live with her, he must resign the sacred functions which have
been entrusted to him”.
The
reason for this ordinance evidently consists in this, that through the close
connection between a man and his wife, a husband is dishonored by an adulterous
wife, and a dishonored man cannot become an ecclesiastic.
CAN. 9. “A priest
who has committed a carnal sin before being ordained, and who of his own accord
confesses that he has sinned before ordination, must not offer the holy
sacrifice; but he may continue his other functions if he is zealous, for many
think that other sins (except that of incontinence) were blotted out by his
ordination as priest. But if he does not confess it, and he cannot clearly be
convicted, it shall be in his own power to act (as he will, i.e. to offer the sacrifice, or to refrain from offering”).
CAN. 10. “In the
same way, the deacon who has committed the same sin must only have the office
of an inferior minister”.
CAN. 11. “No one
is to be ordained priest before he is thirty years old. Even although he be in
every respect worthy, he must wait; for our Lord Jesus Christ, when thirty
years old, was baptized, and began (at that age) to teach.”
CAN. 12. “If a
man is baptized when he is ill, he cannot be ordained priest; for it was not
spontaneously, but of necessity (through fear of death), that he made
profession of the faith unless, perhaps, he has displayed great zeal and faith,
or if the supply of candidates fails”.
CAN. 13. “Country
priests must not offer the holy sacrifice in the town church (the cathedral)
when the bishop or the town priests are present : nor
must they either distribute, with prayer, the bread and the chalice. But if the
bishop and his priests are absent, and if the country priest be invited to
celebrate, he may administer holy communion”.
CAN. 14. “The
chorepiscopi represent the seventy disciples of Christ; and, as fellow-workers,
on account of their zeal for the poor, they have the honor of offering the
sacrifice”.
A
function is here assigned to the chorepiscopi which is denied to country priests,
namely, the offering of the holy sacrifice in the cathedral, in the presence of
the bishop and the town priests.
CAN. 15. “In even the largest towns there must be, according to the
rule, no more than seven deacons. This may be proved from the Acts of the
Apostles”.
|
|
