HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH

THE ANTE-NICENE COUNCILS.

COUNCILS OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.

THE first Christian Council, the type and model of all the others, was held at Jerusalem by the apostles between the years 50 and 52 A.D., in order to solve the question of the universal obligation of the ancient law. No other councils were probably held in the first century of the Christian era; or if they were, no trace of them remains in history. On the other hand, we have information of several councils in the second century. The authenticity of this information is not, it is true, equally established for all; and we can acknowledge as having really taken place only those of which Eusebius Pamphili, the father of Christian Church history, speaks, or other early and trustworthy historians. To these belong, first of all :—

Sec. 1. Synods relative to Montanism. MONTANISM AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. A STUDY IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE SECOND CENTURY.

2. Synods concerning the Feast of Easter.

The second series of councils in the second century was caused by the controversy regarding the time of celebrating Easter. It is not quite correct to regard the meeting of S. Polycarp of Smyrna, and Anicetus Bishop of Rome, towards the middle of the second century, as a synod properly so called; but it is certain that towards the close of the same century several synods were occasioned by the Easter controversy. Eusebius, in the passage referred to, only shows in a general way that these synods were held in the second half of the second century; but S. Jerome gives a more exact date, he says in his Chronicle, under the year 196:

“Pope Victor wrote to the most eminent bishops of all countries, recommending them to call synods in their provinces, and to celebrate in them the feast of Easter on the day chosen by the Church of the West.”

Eusebius here agrees with S. Jerome; for he has preserved to us a fragment of a letter written by Polycarp from Ephesus, in which this bishop says that Victor had required him to assemble the bishops who were subordinate to him; that he had done so, but that he and all the bishops present at this synod had pronounced for the practice of the Quartodecimans or of S. John; that these bishops, the number of whom was considerable, had approved of the synodical letter which he had drawn up, and that he had no fear (on account of the threats of Victor), because we must obey God rather than man. We see from this fragment, that at the moment when the synods convoked at the request of Victor in Palestine pronounced in favor of the Western practice in Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, and Osrhoene, a great synod of bishops from Asia Minor, held at Ephesus, the see of Polycarp, had formally declared against this practice; and it is precisely from the synodical& letter of this council that we have the fragment given above.

Bishop Victor then wished to exclude the bishops of Asia Minor from the communion of the Church; but other bishops turned him from his purpose. S. Irenaeus, in particular, addressed a letter to him on this occasion, in the name of the bishops of Gaul, over whom he presided; a letter in which, it is true, he defended the Western custom of celebrating Easter, but in which also he prayed Victor not to excommunicate “a great number of churches, who were only guilty of observing an ancient custom”, etc. This fragment has also been preserved to us by Eusebius; and we may consider it as a part of the synodical letter of the bishops of Gaul, since, as Eusebius makes him remark, Irenaeus expressly declared “that he wrote in the name of his brethren of Gaul, over whom he presided”. It may be asked if the synod here spoken of is the same as that mentioned by Eusebius in another place, and which we mentioned above. If it be the same, it must be admitted that, at the request of Victor, there was at first a synod of the Quartodecimans in Asia Minor, and that it was only later on, when the result was known, that other councils were also assembled, and especially in Gaul. It may be also that S. Irenaeus presided over two successive councils in Gaul, and that in the first he declared himself for the Western practice regarding Easter, in the second against the threatening schism. This is the opinion of the latest biographer of S. Irenaeus, the Abbé J. M. Prat. The Synodicon (Libellus Synodicus) only speaks of one synod in Gaul, presided over by Irenaeus, on the subject of the Easter controversy; and he adds that this synod was composed of Irenaeus and of thirteen other bishops.

The Libellus Synodicus also gives information about the other councils of which Eusebius speaks, concerning the question of Easter. Thus :

a. From the writing of the priests of Rome of which we have spoken, and which was signed by Pope Victor, the Libellus Synodicus concludes, as also does Valesius in his translation of the Eccles. Hist. of Eusebius, that there must have been a Roman synod at which, besides Victor, fourteen other bishops were present This is opposed by Dom Constant in his excellent edition of the Epistolae Pontif. p. 94, and after him by Mosheim in his book De Rebus Christianorum ante Constant. M. p. 267, who remarks that Eusebius speaks of a letter from the Roman priests and Pope Victor, and not of a synod. But it has often happened, especially in the following centuries, that the decrees of the synods, and in particular of the Roman synods, have only been signed by the president, and have been promulgated by him under the form of an edict emanating from him alone. This is what is expressly said by a Roman synod held by Pope Felix II. in 485.

b. According to the Synodicon, two synods were held in Palestine, on the subject of the Easter controversy : the one at Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and composed of fourteen bishops; and the other at Caesarea, comprising twelve bishops, and presided over by Theophilus.

c. Fourteen bishops were present at the Asiatic Synod of Pontus, under the presidency of Bishop Palmas, whom the Synodicon calls Plasmas.

d. Eighteen bishops were present at that of Osrhoene; the Libellus Synodicus does not mention who presided.

e. It speaks also of a synod held in Mesopotamia, on the subject of Easter, which also counted eighteen bishops (it is probably the same synod as that of Osrhoene).

f. And, lastly, of a synod at Corinth, presided over by Bishop Bacchyllus; whilst Eusebius says expressly that Bacchyllus of Corinth did not publish any synodical letter on the subject of the celebration of Easter, but simply a private letter.

3. Doubtful Synods of the Second Century.

The anonymous author of the Praedestinatus speaks of three other synods of the second century. According to him,

a. In A.D. 125 a synod was held of all the bishops of Sicily presided over by Eustathius of Libybaeum and Theodoras of Palermo. This synod considered the cause of the Gnostic Heraclionites, and sent its acts to Pope Alexander, that he might decide further in the matter.

b. In 152 the heresy of the Colarbasians, another Gnostic sect, was anathematized by Theodotus Bishop of Pergamum in Mysia, and by seven other bishops assembled in synod.

c. In 160 an Eastern synod rejected the heresy of the Gnostic Cerdo.

The Libellus Synodicus ;mentions, besides :

a. A synod held at Rome, under Pope Telesphorus (127 139), against the currier Theodotus, the anti-Trinitarian.

b. A second synod at Rome, held under Pope Anicetus, upon the Easter question, at the time when Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna visited the Pope.

c. A third Roman synod under Victor, and which condemned Theodotus, Ebion, and Artemon.

d. A fourth Roman synod, also held under Victor, and which anathematized Sabellius and Noetus

e. Finally, a synod of the confessors of Gaul, who declared against Montanus and Maximilla in a letter addressed to the Asiatics.

These eight synods mentioned by the author of Praedestinatus and by th Libellus Synodicus are apparently imaginary : for, on one side, there is not a single ancient and original document which speaks of them; and on the other, the statements of these two unknown authors are either unlikely or contrary to chronology. We will instance, for example, the pretended Roman synod, presided over by Victor, which anathematized Sabellius. In admitting that the usual date, according to which Sabellius would have lived a full half-century later (about 250), may be inexact, as the Philosophoumena recently discovered have proved, yet it is clear from this document that Sabellius had not yet been excluded from the Church under Pope Zephyrinus(202-218), the successor of Victor, and that he was not excommunicated until the time of Pope Calixtus.

It is also impossible that Theodotus the currier should have been condemned by a Roman synod held under Telesphorus, since Theodotus lived towards the close of the second century. It is the same with the pretended Sicilian Council in 125. According to the information afforded to us by the ancients, especially S. Irenaeus and Tertullian, Heracleon changed the system of Valentine. He could not then have flourished till after 125. As to Pope Alexander, to whom this synod is said to have rendered an account of its acts in 125, he died a martyr in 119.

It is also by mistake that we have been told of a synod in which Pope Anicetus and Polycarp both took part. The interview of these two bishops has been confounded with a synod : it is the same with the pretended Synod of Gaul, held against Montanus.

The author of the Libellus Synodicus has evidently misunderstood Eusebius, who says on this subject : “The news of what had taken place in Asia on the subject of Montanus (the synod) was known to the Christians of Gaul. The latter were at that time cruelly persecuted by Marcus Aurelius; many of them were in prison. They, however, gave their opinion from their prison on the matter of Montanus, and addressed letters to their brethren of Asia, and to Eleutherus Bishop of Rome”. It will be seen that the question here is not of a synod, but of letters written by confessors (the Libellus Synodicus also mentions confessors).

Finally, a ninth council, which is said to have conveyed to the Bishop of Seleucia a patriarchal right over the whole of Assyria, Media, and Persia, is evidently an invention; and the mention of a Patriarchate on this occasion is a patent anachronism, as has been proved by Assemani in his Bibliothèque Orientale.

SEC. 4.

First Half of the Third Century.

The series of synods of the third century opens with that of Carthage, to which Agrippinus bishop of that city had called the bishops of Numidia and of proconsular Africa. S. Cyprian speaks of this Synod in his seventy-first and seventy-third letters, saying that all the bishops present declared baptism administered by heretics to be void; and he supports his own view on this subject by what had passed in this ancient Synod of Carthage. This Synod was probably the most ancient of Latin Africa; for Tertullian, who recalls the Greek synods as a glory, tells not of one single council being held in his country. According to Uhlhorn it was about 205, according to Hesselburg about 212, that the work of Tertullian, De Jejuniis, was composed; therefore the Synod in question must have been held either after 205 or after 212. It has not been possible up to this time to verify this date more exactly, But the newly-discovered Philosophoumen, falsely attributed to Origen, and which were probably written by Hippolytus, have given more exact dates; and Dollinger, relying upon this document, has placed the date of this Synod of Carthage between 218 and 222. The Philosophoumena relate, indeed, that the custom of re-baptizing that is to say, of repeating the baptism of those who had been baptized by heretics : was introduced under the Bishop of Rome, Callistus (in some churches in communion with him). One can scarcely doubt but that this passage referred to Bishop Agrippinus and his Synod at Carthage; for S. Augustine and S. Vincent of Lerins say expressly that Agrippinus was the first who introduced the custom of re-baptism. The Synod of Carthage, then, took place in the time of Pope Callistus I, that is to say, between 218 and 222. This date agrees with the well-known fact that Tertullian was the first of all Christian writers who declared the baptism of heretics invalid; and it may be presumed that his boo De Baptismo exerted a certain influence upon the conclusions of the Council of Carthage. It is not contradicted by the forty-sixth (forty-seventh) apostolic canon, which orders bishops, under pain of deposition, to re-baptize those who had been baptized by a heretic; for it is known that these so-called apostolic canons were composed some centuries later.

S. Cyprian speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of a synod held long before in Africa, and which had decided that a clergyman could not be chosen by a dying person as a guardian; but nothing shows that he understood by that, the synod presided over by Agrippinus, or a second African council.

The great Origen gave occasion for two synods at Alexandria. About the year 228, being called into Achaia on account of the religious troubles reigning there, Origen passed through Palestine, and was ordained priest at Caesarea by his friends Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, although there were two reasons for his non-admission to holy orders : first, that he belonged to another diocese; and secondly, that he had castrated himself. It is not known what decided him or the bishops of Palestine to take this uncanonical step. Demetrius of Alexandria, diocesan bishop of Origen, was very angry with what had been done; and if we regard it from the ecclesiastical point of view, he was right. When Origen returned to Alexandria, Demetrius told him of his displeasure, and reproached him with, his voluntary mutilation. But the principal grievance, without doubt, had reference to several false doctrines held by Origen: for he had then already written his book De Principiis and his Stromata, which contain those errors; and it is not necessary to attribute to the Bishop of Alexandria personal feelings of hatred and jealousy in order to understand that he should have ordered an inquiry into Origen’s opinions under the circumstances. Origen hastened to leave Alexandria of his own accord, according to Eusebius; whilst Epiphanius says, erroneously, that Origen fled because, shortly before, he had shown much weakness during a persecution. His bitterest enemies have never cast a reproach of this nature at him. Demetrius, however, assembled a synod of Egyptian bishops and priests of Alexandria in 231, who declared Origen unworthy to teach, and excluded him from the Church of Alexandria. Demetrius again presided over a second synod at Alexandria, without this time calling his priests, and Origen was declared to be deprived of the sacerdotal dignity. An encyclical letter published by Demetrius made these resolutions known in all the provinces.

According to S. Jerome and Rufinus, a Roman assembly, probably called under Pope Pontian, shortly after deliberated upon this judgment; and Origen after that sent to Pope Fabian (236-250) a profession of faith, to explain and retract his errors. Several writers have thought that the word senatus must not be understood in the sense of a synod, and that we are to consider it only as an assembly of the Roman clergy. Dollinger, on the contrary, presumes that Origen had taken part in the discussions of the priest Hippolytus with Pope Callistus and his successors (Origen had learned to know Hippolytus at Rome, and he partly agreed with his opinions), and that for this reason Pontian had held a synod against Origen.

A little before this period, and before the accession of Pope Fabian, a synod was certainly held at Iconium in Asia Minor, which must have been of great authority in the controversy which was soon to begin on the subject of the baptism of heretics. Like the Synod of Carthage, presided over by Agrippinus, that of Iconium declared every baptism conferred by a heretic to be invalid. The best information upon this Council has been furnished us by the letter which Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who showed himself so active in this controversy, addressed to S. Cyprian. It says : “Some having raised doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, we decided long ago, in the Council held at Iconium in Phrygia, with the Bishops of Galatia, Cilicia, and the other neighboring provinces, that the ancient practice against heretics should be maintained and held firm (not to regard baptism conferred by them)”. Towards the end of the letter we read: “Among us, as more than one Church has never been recognized, so also have we never recognized as holy any but the baptism of that Church. Some having had doubts upon the validity of baptism conferred by those who receive new prophets (the Montanists), but who, however, appear to adore the same Father and the same Son as ourselves, we have assembled in great number at Iconium : we have very carefully examined the question, and we have decided that all baptism administered outside the Church must be rejected”. This letter then speaks of the Council of Iconium as of a fact already old; and it says also, that it was occasioned by the question of the validity of baptism administered by Montanists. Now, as Firmilian wrote this letter about the middle of the third century, it follows that the Council of Iconium, of which he often speaks as of an ancient assembly held long before (jampridem), took place about twenty years before the writing of his letter. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third-century, also says : “It is not the Africans (Cyprian) who have introduced the custom of re-baptizing heretics : this measure had been taken long before Cyprian by other bishops at the Synod of Iconium and of Synnada.”

In these two passages of his letter to S. Cyprian, Firmilian gives us a fresh means of fixing the date of the Synod of Iconium, saying formally several times : "We assembled ourselves at Iconium; we have examined the question; we have decreed" etc. It results from this, that he was himself present at this Synod. On the other side, the jampridem and other similar expressions justify us in placing this Synod in the first years of Firmilians’ episcopate. Now we know from Eusebius that Firmilian flourished so early as in the time of the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) as Bishop of Caesarea; so that we can, with Valesius and Pagi, place the celebration of the Synod of Iconium in the years 230-235. Baronius, by a very evident error, assigns it to the year 258.

According to all probability, we must refer to the Synod of Iconium a short passage of S. Augustine, in the third chapter of his third book against Cresconius, in which he speaks of a synod composed of fifty Eastern bishops.

Dionysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, speaks, we have seen, not only of the Synod of Iconium, but also of a Synod of Synnada, a town also situated in Phrygia. In this Synod, he says, the baptism by heretics was also rejected. We may conclude from his words that the two assemblies took place about the same time. We have no other information on this subject.

We know very little about the concilium Lambesitanum, which, says S. Cyprian, in his fifty-fifth letter to Pope Cornelius, had been held long before in the Lambesitana Colonia (in Numidia) by ninety bishops, and condemned a heretic named Privatus (probably Bishop of Lambese) as guilty of several grave offences. The Roman priests also mention this Privatus in their letter to S. Cyprian; but they do not give any further information concerning him.

A better known council was that which was held about the year 244, at Bostra in Arabia Petraea (now Bosrah and Bosserat), on account of the errors of Beryllus, bishop of this town. It is known that Beryllus belonged to the party of the Monarchians, generally called Patripassianists. This bishop held other erroneous opinions, which were peculiar to himself, and which it is now very difficult to distinguish.

The attempt made by the Arabian bishops to bring back Beryllus from his errors having failed, they called in Origen to their aid, who then lived at Caesarea in Palestine. Origen came and conversed with Beryllus, first in private, then in presence of the bishops. The document containing the discussion was known to Eusebius and S. Jerome; but it was afterwards lost. Beryllus returned to the orthodox doctrine, and later expressed, it is said, his gratitude to Origen in a private letter.

Another controversy was raised in Arabia about the soul, as to whether it passed away (fell asleep) with the body, to rise (awake) at the resurrection of the body. At the request of one of the great Arabian synods, as Eusebius remarks, Origen had to argue against these Hypnopsychites, and he was as successful as in the affair of Beryllus. The Libellus Synodicus adds that fourteen bishops were present at the Synod, but it does not mention, any more than Eusebius, the place where it was held.

About the same period must also have been held two Asiatic synods, on the subject of the anti-Trinitarian (Patripassian) Noetus; S. Epiphanius is the only one to mention them, and he does so without giving any detail, and without saying where they took place. The assertion of the author of Praedestinatus that about this time a synod was held in Achaia against the Valesians, who taught voluntary mutilation, is still more doubtful, and very probably false. The very existence of this sect is doubtful.

We are on more solid historical ground when we approach the tolerably numerous synods which were celebrated, chiefly in Africa, about the middle of the third century. The letters of S. Cyprian especially acquaint us with them. He first speaks, in his sixty-sixth letter, of an assembly of his colleagues (the bishops of Africa), and of his fellow-priests (the presbyters of Carthage), and so of a Carthaginian Synod, which had to decide upon a particular case of ecclesiastical discipline. A Christian named Geminius Victor, of Furni in Africa, had on the approach of death appointed a priest named Geminius Faustinus as guardian to his children. We have seen above, that an ancient synod of Africa, perhaps that held under Agrippinus, had forbidden that a priest should be a guardian, because a clergyman ought not to occupy himself with such temporal business. The Synod of Carthage, held under S. Cyprian, renewed this prohibition, and ordained, in the spirit of that ancient council, that no prayers should be said or sacrifices (oblationes) offered for the deceased Victor, as he had no claim to the prayers of priests who had endeavored to take a priest from the holy altar. In the letter of which we speak, S. Cyprian gave an account of this decision to the Christians of Furni. The Benedictines of Saint Maur presume that this letter was written before the outbreak of the persecution of Decius, which would place this Synod in the year 249.

5. First Synods at Carthage and Rome on account of Novatianism and the Lapsi (251) .

The schism of Felicissimus and the Novatian controversy soon afterwards occasioned several synods. When, in 248, S. Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, there was a small party of malcontents there, composed of five priests, of whom he speaks himself in his fortieth letter. Soon after the commencement of the persecution of Decius (at the beginning of the year 250) the opposition to Cyprian became more violent, because in the interest of the discipline of the Church he would not always regard the letters of peace which some martyrs without sufficient consideration gave to the lapsi. He was accused of exaggerated severity against the fallen, and his own absence (from February 250 until the month of April or May 251) served to strengthen the party which was formed against him. An accident caused the schism to break out. Cyprian had from his retreat sent two bishops and two priests to Carthage, to distribute help to the faithful poor (many had been ruined by the persecution). The deacon Felicissimus opposed the envoys of Cyprian, perhaps because he considered the care of the poor as an exclusive right of the deacons, and because he would not tolerate special commissioners from the bishop on such a business. This took place at the end of 250, or at the beginning of 251. Felicissimus had been ordained deacon by the priest Novatus unknown to Cyprian, and without his permission, probably during his retreat. Now, besides the fact that such an ordination was contrary to all the canons of the Church, Felicissimus was personally unworthy of any ecclesiastical office, on account of his deceitfulness and his corrupt manners.

Cyprian, being warned by his commissioners, excommunicated Felicissimus and some of his partisans on account of their disobedience; but the signal for revolt was given, and Felicissimus soon had with him those five priests who had been the old adversaries of Cyprian, as well as all those who accused the bishop of being too severe with regard to the lapsi, and of despising the letters of the martyrs. These contributed to give to the opposition quite another character. Till then it had only been composed of some disobedient priests; henceforth the party took for a war-cry the severity of the bishop with regard to the lapsi. Thus not only the lapsi, but also some confessors (confessores) who had been hurt by the little regard that Cyprian showed for the libelli pacis, swelled the ranks of the revolt.

It is not known whether Novatus was in the number of the five priests who were the first movers of the party. By some it is asserted, by others denied. After having in vain recalled the rebels to obedience Cyprian returned to Carthage, a year after the festival of Easter in 251; and he wrote his book De Lapsis as a preparation for the Synod which he assembled soon afterwards, probably during the month of May 251. The Council was composed of a great number of bishops, and of some priests and deacons : he excommunicated Felicissimus and the five priests after having heard them, and at the same time set forth the principles to be followed with regard to the lapsi, after having carefully examined the passages of Scripture treating of this question. All the separate decrees upon this subject were collected into one book, which may be considered as the first penitential book which had appeared in the Church; but unfortunately it is lost. Cyprian makes us acquainted with the principal rules in his fifty-second letter : namely, that all hope must not be taken away from the lapsed, that, in excluding them from the Church, they may not be driven to abandon the faith, and to fall back again into a life of heathenism; that, notwithstanding, a long penance must be imposed upon them, and that they must be punished proportionally to their fault. It is evident, continues Cyprian, that one must act differently with those who have gone, so to speak, to meet apostasy, spontaneously taking part in the impious sacrifices, and those who have been, as it were, forced to this odious sacrilege after long struggles and cruel sufferings : so also with those who have carried with them in their crime their wife, their children, their servants, their friends, making them also share their fall, and those who have only been the victims, who have sacrificed to the gods in order to serve their families and their houses; that there should no less be a difference between the sacrificati and the libellatici, that is to say, between those who had really sacrificed to the gods, and those who, without making a formal act of apostasy, had profited by the weakness of the Roman functionaries, had seduced them, and had made them give them false attestations; that the libellatici must be reconciled immediately, but that the sacrificati must submit to a long penance, and only be reconciled as the moment of their death approached; finally, that as for the bishops and priests, they must also be admitted to penance, but not again permitted to discharge any episcopal or sacerdotal function.

Jovinus and Maximus, two bishops of the party of Felicissimus, who had been reproved before by nine bishops for having sacrificed to the gods, and for having committed abominable sacrilege, appeared before the Synod of Carthage. The Synod renewed the sentence originally given against them; but in spite of this decree, they dared again to present themselves, with several of their partisans, at the Synod of Carthage, held the following year. Cyprian and the bishops assembled around him decided to send their synodical decisions of 251 to Rome, to Pope Cornelius, to obtain his consent with regard to the measures taken against the lapsi. It was the more necessary to understand, each other on the subject of these measures, as the Roman Church had also been troubled by the Novatian schism.

Pope Cornelius assembled at Rome in the autumn, probably in the month of October 251, a synod composed of sixty bishops, without counting the priests and deacons. The Synod confirmed the decrees of that of Carthage, and excommunicated Novatian and his partisans. The two authors who have preserved these facts for us are Cyprian and Eusebius. It must be remarked that several editors of the acts of the councils, and several historians, misunderstanding the original documents, have turned the two Synods of Carthage and Rome (251) into four councils.

The Libellus Synodicus also speaks of another council which must have been held the same year at Antioch, again on the subject of the Novatians; but one can hardly rely on the Libellus Synodicus when it is alone in relating a fact. The Novatian schism could not be extirpated by these synods. The partisans of Felicissimus and of Novatian made great efforts to recover their position. The Novatians of Carthage even succeeded in putting at their head a bishop of their party named Maximus, and they sent many complaints to Rome on the subject of Cyprian's pretended severity, as, on the other side, the persecution which was threatening made fresh measures necessary with regard to the lapsi.

Cyprian assembled a fresh council at Carthage on the Ides of May 252, which sixty-six bishops attended. It was probably at this council that two points were discussed which were brought forward by the African Bishop Fidus. Fidus complained at first that Therapius Bishop of Bulla (near Hippo) had received the priest Victor too soon into the communion of the Church, and without having first imposed upon him the penance he deserved. The Synod declared that it was evidently contrary to the former decisions of the councils, but that they would content themselves for this time with blaming Bishop Therapius, without declaring invalid the reconciliation of the priest Victor, which he had effected.

In the second place, Fidus enunciated the opinion that infants should be baptized, not in the first days after their birth, but eight days after; to observe, with regard to baptism, the delay formerly prescribed for circumcision. The Synod unanimously condemned this opinion, declaring that they could not thus delay to confer grace on the new-born.

The next principal business of the Synod was that concerning the lapsi; and the fifty-fourth letter of S. Cyprian gives us an account of what passed on this subject. The Synod, he says, on this subject decided that, considering the imminent persecution, they might immediately reconcile all those who showed signs of repentance, in order to prepare them for the battle by means of the holy sacraments. In addressing its synodical letter to Pope Cornelius (it is the fifty-fourth of S. Cyprian’s letters), the Council says formally : Placuit nobis, sancto Spiritu suggerente. The heretic Privatus, of the colonia Lambesitana, probably bishop of that town, who, we have seen, had been condemned, again appeared at the council; but he was not admitted. Neither would they admit bishops Jovinus and Maximus, partisans of Felicissimus, and condemned as he was; nor the false Bishop Felix, consecrated by Privatus after he became a heretic, who came with him. They then united themselves with the fallen bishop Repostus Saturnicensis, who had sacrificed during the persecution, and they gave the priest Fortunatus as bishop to the lax party at Carthage. He had been one of S. Cyprian’s five original adversaries.

A short time after, a new synod assembled at Carthage on the subject of the Spanish bishops Martial and Basilides. Both had been deposed for serious faults, especially for having denied the faith. Basilides had judged himself to be unworthy of the episcopal dignity, and declared himself satisfied if, after undergoing his penance, he might be received into lay communion. Martial had also confessed his fault; but after some time they both appealed to Rome, and by means of false accounts they succeeded in gaining over Pope Stephen, who demanded that Basilides should be replaced in his bishopric, although Sabinus had been already elected to succeed him. Several Spanish bishops seem to have supported the pretensions of Basilides and Martial, and placed themselves, it appears, on their side; but the Churches of Leon, of Asturia, and of Emerita, wrote on this subject to the African bishops, and sent two deputies to them Bishops Sabinus and Felix, probably the elected successors of Basilides and Martial. Felix Bishop of Saragossa supported them with a private letter. S. Cyprian then assembled a council composed of thirty-seven bishops; and we possess the synodical letter of the assembly, in his sixty-eighth epistle, in which the deposition of Martial and Basilides is confirmed, the election of their successors is declared to be legitimate and regular, the bishops who had spoken in favor of the deposed bishops are censured, and the people are instructed to enter into ecclesiastical communion with their successors.

6. Synods relative to the Baptism of Heretics (255-256).

To these synods concerning the lapsi, succeeded three African councils on the subject of baptism by heretics. We have seen that three former councils, that of Carthage, presided over by Agrippinus; two of Asia Minor, that of Iconium, presided over by Firmilian, and that of Synnada, held at the same period, had declared that baptism conferred by heretics was invalid. This principle, and the consequent practice in Asia Minor, would appear to have occasioned, toward the end of the year 253, a conflict between Pope Stephen an the bishops of Asia Minor, Helenus of Tarsus and Firmilian of Caesarea, sustained by all the bishops of Cilicia, of Cappadocia, and the neighboring provinces; so that Stephen, according to Dionysius the Great, threatened these bishops with excommunication because they repeated the baptism conferred by heretics. Dionysius the Great mediated with the Pope in favor of the bishops of Asia Minor; and the letter which he wrote prevented their being excluded from the Church. The first sentence of this letter would even allow it to be supposed that peace was completely re-established, and that the bishops of Asia Minor had conformed to the demand of the Pope. However, later on, Firmilian is again found in opposition to Rome.

The Easterners then stirred up the controversy on the baptism of heretics before S. Cyprian; Cyprian was the most important, and in this sense the first, of those who demanded the re-baptism of heretics.

Let us now turn our attention to Africa, and particularly to S. Cyprian. Some African bishops being of the opinion that those who abandoned heretical sects to enter the Church must not be re-baptized, eighteen bishops of Numidia, who held a different opinion, and rejected baptism by heretics, asked of the Synod of Carthage of 255 if it were necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics, when they entered the Church. At this synod, presided over by S. Cyprian, there were twenty-one Bishops present : the seventieth epistle of Cyprian is nothing but the answer of the Synod to the eighteen Numidian bishops. It declares “that their opinion about the baptism of heretics is perfectly right; for no one can be baptized out of the Church, seeing there is only one baptism which is in the Church”, etc.

Shortly afterwards, Cyprian being again consulted on the same question by Quintus, bishop in Mauritania, who sent him the priest Lucian, sent in answer the synodical letter of the Council which had just separated; and besides, in a private letter joined to this official document, he stated his personal opinion on the validity of the baptism of heretics, and answered some objections.

All the bishops of Africa were probably not satisfied with these decisions; and sometime after, about 256, Cyprian saw himself obliged to assemble a second and larger council at Carthage, at which no fewer than seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian relates that they treated of a multitude of questions, but the chief point was the baptism of heretics. The synodical letter of this great assembly, addressed to Pope Stephen, forms S. Cyprian’s seventieth letter. The Council also sent to the Pope the letter of the preceding Synod to the eighteen Numidian bishops, as well as the letter of S. Cyprian to Quintus, and reiterated the assertion “that whoso abandoned a sect ought to be re-baptized”; adding, “that it was not sufficient (parum est) to lay hands on such converts ad accipiendum Spiritum sanctum, if they did not also receive the baptism of the Church”. The same Synod decided that those priests and deacons who had abandoned the catholic Church for any of the sects, as well as those who had been ordained by the sectarian false bishops, on re-entering the Church, could only be admitted into lay communion (communio laicalis). At the end of their letter, the Synod express the hope that these decisions would obtain Stephen’s approval : they knew, besides, they said, that many do not like to renounce an opinion which has once been adopted; and more than one bishop, without breaking with his colleagues, will doubtless be tempted to persevere in the custom which he had embraced. Besides this, it is not the intention of the Synod to do violence to any one, or to prescribe a universal law, seeing that each bishop can cause his will to be paramount in the administration of his Church, and will have to render an account of it to God. “These words”, Mattes has remarked, “betray either the desire which the bishops of Africa had to see Stephen produce that agreement by his authority, which did not yet exist, and which was not easy to establish; or else their apprehensions, because they knew that there was a practice at Rome which did not accord with the opinion of Cyprian”. This last was, in fact, the case; for Pope Stephen was so little pleased with the decisions of the Council of Carthage, that he did not allow the deputies of the African bishops to appear before him, refused to communicate with them, forbade all the faithful to receive them into their houses, and did not hesitate to call S. Cyprian a false Christian, a false apostle, a deceitful workman (dolosus operarius). This is at least what Firmilian relates. Pope Stephen then pronounced very explicitly, in opposition to the Africans, for the validity of the baptism of heretics, and against the custom of repeating the baptism of those who had already received it from heretics. The letter which he wrote on this occasion to Cyprian has unfortunately been lost, and therefore his complete argument is unknown to us; but Cyprian and Firmilian have preserved some passages of the letter of Stephen in their writings, and it is these short fragments, with the comments of Cyprian and Firmilian, which must serve to make known to us with some certainty the view of Stephen on the baptism of heretics.

It is commonly admitted that S. Cyprian answered this violence of Stephen by assembling the third Council of Carthage; but it is also possible that this assembly took place before the arrival of the letter from Rome. It was composed of eighty-seven bishops (two were represented by one proxy, Natalis Bishop of Oea) from proconsular Africa, from Numidia, and from Mauritania, and of a great number of priests and of deacons. A multitude of the laity were also present at the Synod. The acts of this Synod, which still exist, inform us that it opened on the 1st September, but the year is not indicated. It is probable that it was in 256.

First was read the letter of the African Bishop Jubaianus to Cyprian on the baptism of heretics, and the answer of Cyprian; then a second letter from Jubaianus, in which he declared himself now brought to Cyprian’s opinion. The Bishop of Carthage then asked each bishop present freely to express his opinion on the baptism of heretics: he declared that no one would be judged or excommunicated for differences of opinion; for, added he, no one in the assembly wished to consider himself as episcopus episcoporum, or thought to oblige his colleagues to yield to him, by inspiring them with a tyrannical fear (perhaps this was an allusion to Pope Stephen). Thereupon the bishops gave their votes in order, Cyprian the last, all declaring that baptism given by heretics was invalid, and that, in order to admit them into the Church, it was necessary to re-baptize those who had been baptized by heretics.

About the same time Cyprian sent the deacon Rogatian with a letter to Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea, to tell him how the question about the baptism of heretics had been decided in Africa. He communicated to him at the same time, it appears, the acts and documents which treated of this business. Firmilian hastened to express, in a letter still extant, his full assent to Cyprian’s principles. This letter of Firmilian’s forms No. 75 of the collection of the letters of S. Cyprian : its contents are only, in general, an echo of what S. Cyprian had set forth in defence of his own opinion, and in opposition to Stephen; only in Firmilian is seen a much greater violence and passion against Stephen, so much so, that Molkenbuhr, [Roman Catholic] Professor at Paderborn, has thought that a letter so disrespectful towards the Pope could not be genuine.

We are entirely ignorant of what then passed between Cyprian and Stephen, but it is certain that church communion was not interrupted between them. The persecution which soon afterwards broke out against the Christians under the Emperor Valerian, in 257, probably appeased the controversy. Pope Stephen died as a martyr during this persecution, in the month of August 257. His successor Xystus received from Dionysius the Great, who had already acted as mediator in this controversy on the baptism of heretics, three letters in which the author earnestly endeavored to effect a reconciliation; the Roman priest Philemon also received one from Dionysius. These attempts were crowned with success; for Pontius, Cyprian’s deacon and biographer, calls Pope Xystus bonus et pacificus sacerdos, and the name of this Pope was written in the diptychs of Africa.

The eighty-second letter of Cyprian also proves that the union between Rome and Carthage was not interrupted, since Cyprian sent a deputation to Rome during the persecution, to obtain information respecting the welfare of the Roman Church, that of Pope Xystus, and in general about the progress of the persecution. Soon after, on the 14th September 258, Cyprian himself fell, in his turn, a victim to the persecution of Valerian.

It remains for us now, in order fully to understand the controversy on the baptism of heretics, to express with greater precision the opinions and assertions of Cyprian and Stephen.

1. We must ask, first of all, which of the two had Christian antiquity on his side.

a. Cyprian says, in his seventy-third letter: “the custom of baptizing heretics who enter the Church is no innovation amongst us: for it is now many years since, under the episcopate of Agrippinus of holy memory, a great number of bishops settled this question in a synod; and since then, up to our days, thousands of heretics have received baptism without difficulty”. Cyprian, then, wishing to demonstrate the antiquity of his custom, could not place it earlier than Agrippinus, that is to say, than the commencement of the third century (about 220 years after Christ); and his own words, especially the “since then” (exinde), show that it was Agrippinus who introduced this custom into Africa.

b. In another passage of the same letter, Cyprian adds : “Those who forbid the baptism of heretics, having been conquered by our reasons (ratione), urge against us the custom of antiquity”. If Cyprian had been able to deny that the practice of his adversaries was the most ancient, he would have said: “They are wrong if they appeal to antiquity (consuetudo); it is evidently for us”. But Cyprian says nothing of the kind: he acknowledges that his adversaries have antiquity on their side, and he only tries to take its force from this fact, by asking, “Is antiquity, then, more precious than truth?”, and by adding, “In spiritual things we must observe what the Holy Spirit has (afterwards) more fully revealed”. He acknowledges, therefore, in his practice a progress brought about by the successive revelations of the Holy Spirit.

c. In a third passage of this letter, S. Cyprian acknowledges, if possible more plainly, that it was not the ancient custom to rebaptize those who had been baptized by heretics. “This objection”, he says, “may be made to me : What has become of those who in past times entered the Church from heresy, without having been baptized?”. He acknowledges, then, that in the past, in praeteritum, converts from heresy were not re-baptized. Cyprian makes answer to this question: “Divine mercy may well come to their aid; but because one has erred once, it is no reason for continuing to err”. That is to say, formerly converts were not re-baptized; but it was a mistake, and for the future the Holy Spirit has revealed what is best to be done.

d. When Pope Stephen appealed to tradition, Cyprian did not answer by denying the fact : he acknowledges it; but he seeks to diminish the value of it, by calling this tradition a human tradition, and not legitimate (humana traditio, non legitima).

e. Firmilian also maintained that the tradition to which Stephen appealed was purely human, and he added that the Roman Church had also in other points swerved from the practice of the primitive Church for example, in the celebration of Easter. This example, however, was not well chosen, since the Easter practice of the Roman Church dates back to the prince of the apostles.

f. Firmilian says, in another passage of this same letter, that it was anciently the custom also in the African Churches not to re-baptize the converts : “You Africans”, he says, “can answer Stephen, that having found the truth, you have renounced the error of your (previous) custom”. Nevertheless, Firmilian thought that it was otherwise in Asia Minor, and that the custom of re-baptizing converts was traced back to a very far-off period; but when he wishes to give the proof of it, he only finds this one: “We do not remember (!) when this practice began amongst us”. He appeals, in the last place, to the Synod of Iconium, which we know was not held until about the year 230.

g. It is worthy of remark, that even in Africa all the bishops did not pronounce in favor of the necessity of a fresh baptism, which would certainly have been the case if the practice of Agrippinus and Cyprian had always prevailed in Africa.

h. A very important testimony in favor of Stephen, and one which proves that the ancient custom was not to re-baptize, is given by the anonymous author of the book De Rebaptismate, a contemporary and probably a colleague of Cyprian. This author says that the practice maintained by Stephen, that of simply laying hands on the converts without re-baptizing them, is consecrated by antiquity and by ecclesiastical tradition, consecrated as an ancient, memorable, and solemn observance by all the saints, and all the faithful, which has in its favor the authority of all the churches, but from which unhappily some have departed, from the mania for innovations.

i. S. Vincent of Lerins agrees with the author we have just quoted, when he says that Agrippinus of Carthage was the first who introduced the custom of re-baptizing, contra divinum canonem, contra universalis Ecclesiae regulam, contra morem atque instituta majorum; but that Pope Stephen condemned the innovation and re-established the tradition, retenta est antiquitas, explosa novitas.

k. S. Augustine also believes that the custom of not re-baptizing heretics is an apostolical tradition, and that it was Agrippinus who was the first to abolish this wholesome custom, without succeeding in replacing it by a better custom, as Cyprian thought.

l. But the gravest testimony in this question is that of the Philosophoumena, in which Hippolytus, who wrote about 230, affirms that the custom of re-baptizing was only admitted under Pope Callistus, consequently between 218 and 222.

m. Before arriving at the conclusion to be deduced from all these proofs, it remains for us to examine some considerations which appear to point in an opposite direction.

(A.) In his book De Baptismo, which he wrote when he was still a Catholic, and still earlier in a work written in Greek, Tertullian shows that he did not believe in the validity of baptism conferred by heretics. But, on considering it attentively, we find that he was not speaking of all baptism by heretics, but only of the baptism of those who had another God and another Christ. Besides, we know that Tertullian is always inclined to rigorism, and he certainly is so on this point; and then, living at Carthage at the commencement of the third century, being consequently a contemporary of Agrippinus, perhaps even being one of his clergy, he naturally inclined to resolve this question as Agrippinus resolved it, and his book De Baptismo perhaps exerted an influence upon the resolutions of the Synod of Carthage. Besides, Tertullian does not pretend that it was the primitive custom of the Church to re-baptize : his words rather indicate that he thought the contrary. He says, “It would be useful if someone would study afresh (or examine more attentively) what ought to be done about heretics, that is to say, in relation to their baptism”.

(B.) Dionysius the Great says, in a passage which Eusebius has preserved : “The Africans were not the first to introduce this practice (that of re-baptizing converts): it is more ancient; it was authorized by bishops who lived much earlier, and in populous Churches”. However, as he only mentions the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada before the Africans, his expression much earlier can only refer to these assemblies, and he adduces no earlier testimony for the practice of Cyprian.

(C.) Clement of Alexandria certainly speaks very disdainfully of baptism by heretics, and calls it foreign water; he does not, however, say that they were in the habit of renewing this baptism.

(D.) The Apostolical Canons 45 and 46 (or 46 and 47, according to another order) speak of the non-validity of baptism by heretics; but the question is to know what is the date of these two canons : perhaps they are contemporary with the Synods of Iconium and of Synnada, perhaps even more recent. We are hardly able to doubt, then, that in the ancient Church, those who returned to the orthodox faith, after having been baptized by heretics, were not re-baptized, if they had received baptism in the name of the Trinity, or of JESUS.

2. Let us see now whether Pope Stephen considered as valid baptism conferred by all heretics, without any exception or condition. “We know that the Synod of Arles in 314, as well as the Council of Trent, teaches that the baptism of heretics is valid only when it is administered in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Were the opinions and assertions of Stephen agreeable to this doctrine of the Church?”

At first sight Stephen appears to have gone too far, and to have admitted all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner it was conferred. His chief proposition was, then, to declare valid all baptism by heretics, in whatever manner it might have been administered, with or without the formula of the Trinity. Cyprian argues, in a measure, as if he under stood Stephen's proposition in this sense. However,

A. From several passages in the letters of S. Cyprian, we see that Pope Stephen did not thus understand it.

(1.) Thus (Epist. 73, p. 130) Cyprian says: “Those who forbid the baptism of heretics lay great stress upon this, that even those who had been baptized by Marcion were not re-baptized, because they had already been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ”. Thus Cyprian acknowledges that Stephen, and those who think with him, attribute no value to the baptism of heretics, except it be administered in the name of Jesus Christ.

(2) Cyprian acknowledges in the same letter (p. 133), that heretics baptize in nomine Christi.

(3.) Again, in this letter, he twice repeats that his adversaries considered as sufficient baptism administered out of the Church, but administered in nomine Christi.

(4.) Cyprian, in answering this particular question if baptism by the Marcionites is valid acknowledges that they baptize in the name of the Trinity; but he remarks that, under the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they understand something different from what the Church understands. This argument leads us to conclude that the adversaries of S. Cyprian considered baptism by the Marcionites to be valid, because they conferred it in the name of the Trinity.

B. Firmilian also gives testimony on the side of Stephen. He relates, indeed, that about twenty-two years before he had baptized a woman in his own country who professed to be a prophetess, but who, in fact, was possessed by an evil spirit. Now, he asks, would Stephen and his partisans approve even of the baptism which she had received, because it had been administered with the formula of the Trinity?

C. If, then, Cyprian and Firmilian affirm that Pope Stephen held baptism to be valid only when conferred in the name of Christ, we have no need to have recourse to the testimony either of S. Jerome, or of S. Augustine, or of S. Vincent of Lerins, who also affirm it.

D. The anonymous author of the book De Rebaptismate, who was a contemporary even of S. Cyprian, begins his work with these words : “There has been a dispute as to the manner in which it is right to act towards those who have been baptized by heretics, but still in the name of Jesus Christ”.

E. It may again be asked if Stephen expressly required that the three divine Persons should be named in the administration of baptism, and if he required it as a condition sine qua non, or if he considered baptism as valid when given only in the name of Jesus Christ. S. Cyprian seems to imply that the latter was the sentiment of Pope Stephen, but he does not positively say so anywhere; and if he had said it, nothing could have been legitimately concluded against Pope Stephen, for Cyprian likes to take the words of his adversaries in their worst sense. What we have gathered tends to prove that Pope Stephen regarded the formula of the Trinity as necessary. Holy Scripture had introduced the custom of calling by the short phrase, baptism in the name of Christ, all baptism which was conferred in virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, and conformably to His precepts, consequently in the name of the Holy Trinity, as is seen in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistle to the Romans. It is not, then, astonishing that Pope Stephen should have used an expression which was perfectly intelligible at that period.

F. In this discussion Pope Stephen seems to believe that all the heretics of his time used the true formula of baptism, consequently the same formula among themselves, and the same as the Church, and it was on this account, added the Pope, that the heretics did not re-baptize those who passed from one sect to another. To speak thus, was certainly to affirm that all the sects agreed in administering baptism with the formula prescribed by our Lord.

S. Cyprian also attributes to Pope Stephen words which can be explained very well if we study them with reference to those quoted by Firmilian. According to S. Cyprian, Stephen had said : "We must not re-baptize those who have been baptized by heretics; that is to say, the different sects have not a special baptism of their own : and it is for this reason that heretics do not re-baptize those who pass from one sect to another. Now if the different sects have not special baptism, if they baptize in the same way as Firmilian makes Pope Stephen affirm, they hold necessarily the universal and primitive mode of Christian baptism; consequently they use the formula of the Trinity. It is difficult to say whether, in admitting this hypothesis, Stephen falls into an historical error : for, on one side, S. Irenaeus accuses the Gnostics of having falsified the baptismal formula, and of having used different erroneous formulas; and consequently he contradicts Stephen; and, on the other side, S. Augustine appears to agree with him.

G. We may be inclined to make an objection against Stephen on the subject of the Montanists. There is no doubt, in fact, that Stephen considered the baptism of these heretics to be valid, while the Church afterwards declared it to be of no value. But Stephen's opinion is not in this contrary to the doctrine of the Church; neither did the Council of Nicaea (can. 19) mention the Montanists among those whose baptism it rejected. It could not do so any more than Stephen; for it was not until long after the time of Stephen and of the Council of Nicaea that a degenerate sect of Montanists fell away into formal anti-Trinitarianism.

3. It remains for us to understand what, according to Stephen’s opinion, was to be done with the converts after their reception into the Church. These are Stephen’s words on this subject “No innovation shall be made; only what is conformable to tradition shall be observed; hands shall be laid on the convert in sign of penitence”. But this interpretation is contrary to grammatical rules. If Stephen had wished to speak in this sense, he would have said : “Nothing shall be changed (as regards the convert) but what it is according to tradition to change; that is to say, that hands shall be laid upon him”, etc. Stephen adds, in poenitentiam, that is, that “it is necessary that a penance should be imposed on the convert”. According to the practice of the Church, a heretic who enters into the Church ought first to receive the sacrament of penance, then that of confirmation. One may ask, if Stephen required these two sacraments, or if he only required that of penance? Each of these sacraments comprehended the imposition of hands, as some words of Pope Vigilius clearly indicate; and consequently by the expression, manus illi imponatur, Stephen may understand the administration of the two sacraments. To say that there is only in poenitentiam in the text, is not a very strong objection; for this text is only a fragment, and Cyprian has transmitted to us elsewhere other texts of Stephen's thus abridged. The manner in which the adversaries of Pope Stephen analyzed his opinions shows that this Pope really required, besides penance, the confirmation of the converts. Thus, in his seventy-third letter, Cyprian accuses his adversaries of self-contradiction, saying : “If baptism out of the Church is valid, it is no longer necessary even to lay hands on the converts”, that is to say : “You contradict yourselves if you attribute a real value to baptism by heretics; you must also equally admit the validity of confirmation by heretics. Now you require that those who have been confirmed by heretics should be so again. S. Cyprian here forgets the great difference which exists between the value of baptism and of confirmation, but his words prove that Stephen wished that not only penance but also confirmation should be bestowed upon converts”.

The same conclusion is to be drawn from certain votes of the bishops assembled at the third Council of Carthage (256). Thus Secundinus Bishop of Carpi said: “The imposition of hands (without the repetition of baptism, as Stephen required) cannot bring down the Holy Spirit upon the converts, because they have not yet even been baptized”. Nemesianus Bishop of Thubuni speaks still more clearly : “They (the adversaries) believe that by imposition of hands the Holy Spirit is imparted, whilst regeneration is possible only when one receives the two sacraments (baptism and confirmation ) in the Church”. These two testimonies prove that Stephen regarded confirmation as well as penance to be necessary for converts.

4. What precedes shows that we must consider as incorrect and unhistorical the widespread opinion, that Stephen as well as Cyprian carried things to an extreme, and that the proper mean was adopted by the Church only as the result of their differences.

5. It is the part of Dogmatic Theology, rather than of a History of the Councils, to show why Cyprian was wrong, and why those who had been baptized by heretics should not be re-baptized. Some short explanation on this point will, however, not be out of place here.

S. Cyprian repeated essentially Tertullian’s argument, yet without naming it, and thus summed it up: “As there is only one Christ, so there is only one Church: she only is the way of salvation; she only can administer the sacraments; out of her pale no sacrament can be validly administered”. He adds : “Baptism forgives sins : now Christ left only to the apostles the power of forgiving sins; then heretics cannot be possessed of it, and consequently it is impossible for them to baptize”. Finally, he concludes : “Baptism is a new birth; by it children are born to God in Christ : now the Church only is the bride of Christ; she only can, therefore, be the means of this new birth”.

In his controversy against the Donatists (who revived Cyprian's doctrine on this point), S. Augustine demonstrated with great completeness, and his accustomed spiritual power, two hundred and fifty years afterwards, that this line of argument was unsound, and that the strongest grounds existed for the Church’s practice defended by Stephen. The demonstration of S. Augustine is as simple as powerful. He brought out these three considerations :

a. Sinners are separated spiritually from the Church, as heretics are corporally. The former are as really out of the Church as the latter: if heretics could not legally baptize, sinners could not either; and thus the validity of the sacrament would absolutely depend upon the inward state of the minister.

b. We must distinguish between the grace of baptism and the act of baptism: the minister acts, but it is God who gives the grace; and He can give it even by means of an unworthy minister.

c. The heretic is, without any doubt, out of the Church but the baptism which he confers is not an alien baptism for it is not his, it is Christ’s baptism, the baptism which He confers, and consequently a true baptism, even when conferred out of the Church. In leaving the Church, the heretics have taken many things away with them, especially faith in Jesus Christ and baptism. These fragments of Church truth are the elements, still pure (and not what they have as heretics), which enable them by baptism to give birth to children of God.

After S. Augustine, S. Thomas Aquinas, S. Bonaventura, the editors of the Roman Catechism, and others, have discussed the question anew; and the principal propositions upon which the whole subject turns are the following :

(a.) He who baptizes is a simple instrument, and Christ can use any instrument whatever, provided that he does what Christ (the Church) wills that he should do. This instrument only performs the act of baptism; the grace of baptism comes from God. Thus any man, even a heathen, can administer baptism, provided that he will do as the Church does; and this latitude with respect to the administrant of baptism is not without reason : it is founded upon this, that baptism is really necessary as a means of salvation.

(b.) Baptism, then, by a heretic will be valid, if it is administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and with the intention of doing as the Church does.

(c.) Should he who has thus been baptized, after remaining a long time in heresy, acknowledge his error and his separation from the Church, he ought, in order to be admitted into the Church, to submit to a penance; but it is not necessary to re-baptize him.

(d.) The sacraments are often compared to channels through which divine grace comes to us. Then, when any one is baptized in a heretical sect, but is baptized according to the rules, the channel of grace is truly applied to him, and there flows to him through this channel not only the remission of sins (remissio peccatorum), but also sanctification and the renewal of the inner man (sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis); that is to say, he receives the grace of baptism.

(e.) It is otherwise with confirmation. From the time of the apostles, they only, and never the deacons, their fellow-workers, had the power of giving confirmation. Now, too, it is only the legitimate successors of the apostles, the bishops, who can administer this sacrament in the Church. If, therefore, any one has been confirmed whilst he was in heresy, he can have been so only by a schismatical or heretical bishop or priest; so that his confirmation must be invalid, and it is necessary that the imposition of hands should be repeated.

Doctor Mattes has brought out, with much depth, in the dissertation which we have already frequently quoted, the different reasons for believing that baptism and marriage may be administered by those who are not Christians.

7. Synod of Narbonne (255-260).

The councils of Christian Africa have chiefly occupied our attention so far : we are now to direct attention to those of the other countries of the Roman Empire, and first to those of Gaul. It is known that, about the middle of the third century, seven missionary bishops were sent into Gaul by Pope Fabian, and that one of them was S. Paul, first bishop of Narbonne. The acts of his life which have reached us speak of a synod held at Narbonne on his account between 255 and 260. Two deacons, whom the holy bishop had often blamed for their incontinence, wished to revenge themselves on him in a diabolical manner. They secretly put a pair of women’s slippers under his bed, and then showed them in proof of the bishop’s impurity. Paul found himself obliged to assemble his colleagues in a synod, that they might judge of his innocence or culpability. While the bishops continued the inquiry for three days, an eagle came and placed itself upon the roof of the house where they were assembled. Nothing could drive it away, and during those three days a raven brought it food. On the third day Paul ordered public prayer that God would make known the truth. The deacons were then seized by an evil spirit, and so tormented, that they ended by confessing their perfidy and calumny. They could only be delivered through prayer, and they renewed their confession. Instead of judging Paul, the bishops threw themselves at his feet, and with all the people entreated his intercession with God. The eagle then took flight towards the East.

Such is the account given in the Acts. They are ancient, but full of fables, and, as Remi Ceillier and others have already shown, cannot be regarded as a serious historical document.

8. Synods at Arsinoe and Rome (255-260).

We have, unlike the case last considered, the most thoroughly historical records of the assembly over which Dionysius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, presided at Arsinoe, and of which he speaks himself in Eusebius. Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, also a very venerable man, and author of some Christian canticles, had fallen into the error of the Millenarians, and had endeavored to spread it. Dying sometime after, he could not be judged; and his primate, Dionysius the Great, had to content himself with refuting the opinions which he had propagated. He did so in two books. Besides this, about 255, Dionysius being near to Arsinoe, where the errors of Nepos had made great progress, assembled the priests (of Nepos) and the teachers of the place, and prevailed upon them to submit their doctrine to a discussion which should take place before all their brethren, who would be present at it. In the debate they relied upon a work by Nepos, which the Millenarians much venerated. Dionysius disputed with them for three days; and both parties, says Dionysius himself, showed much moderation, calmness, and love of truth. The result was, that Coration, chief of the party of Nepos, promised to renounce his error, and the discussion terminated to the satisfaction of all.

Some years later, about 260, the same Dionysius the Great, from his manner of combating Sabellius, gave occasion for the holding of a Roman synod, of which we shall speak more at length in giving the history of the origin of Arianism.

9. Three Synods at Antioch on account of Paul of Samosata (264-269).

Three synods at Antioch in Syria occupied themselves with the accusation and deposition of the bishop of that town, the well-known anti-Trinitarian, Paul of Samosata. Sabellius had wished to strengthen the idea of unity in the doctrine of the Trinity, by suppressing the difference between the persons, and only admitting, instead of the persons, three different modes of action in the one person of God; consequently denying the personal difference between the Father and the Son, and identifying them both.

In his doctrinal explanation of the mystery of the Trinity, Paul of Samosata took an opposite course : he separated the one from the other, the Father and the Son, far too much. He set off, as Sabellius did, from a confusion of the divine persons, and regarded the Logos as an impersonal virtue of God in no way distinct from the Father. In JESUS he saw only a man penetrated by the Logos, who, although miraculously born of a virgin, was yet only a man, and not the God-man. The Logos had dwelt in the man Jesus, not in person, but in quality, as virtue or power. Moreover, by an abiding penetration, He sanctified him, and rendered him worthy of a divine name.

Paul of Samosata further taught, that as the Logos is not a person, so also the Holy Spirit is only a divine virtue, impersonal, belonging to the Father, and distinct from Him only in thought. Thus, while Paul on one side approached Sabellianism, on the other side he inclined towards the Subordinatians of Alexandria. We will not discuss whether Jewish errors, of which Philastrius accuses him, were mixed with this monarchianism, as this is merely an accessory question. Theodoret says more accurately, that Paul sought, by his anti-Trinitarian doctrines, to please his protectress and sovereign Zenobia, who was a Jewess, and consequently held anti-Trinitarian opinions. The new error was so much the more dangerous, as the ecclesiastical and political position of its author was of great importance. He filled the highest see in the East. We know also, that in 264 or 265 a great number of bishops assembled at Antioch; particularly Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother Athenodorus, the Archbishop Helenus of Tarsus in Cilicia, Nicomas of Iconium, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine (the friend of Origen), Maximus of Bostra, and many other bishops, priests, and deacons. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria had also been invited to the Synod; but his age and infirmities prevented him from going in person, and he died a short time after. He had wished at least to be able in writing to defend the doctrine of the Church against Paul of Samosata, as he had before defended it against Sabellius. According to Eusebius, he addressed a letter to the church at Antioch, in which he would not even salute the bishop. Without entirely confirming this statement furnished by Eusebius, Theodoret relates that in that letter Dionysius exhorted Paul to do what was right, whilst he encouraged the assembled bishops to redoubled zeal for orthodoxy. From these testimonies we may conclude that Dionysius wrote three letters one to Paul, another to the bishops in Synod, a third to the church at Antioch; but it is also true that one single letter might easily contain all that Eusebius and Theodoret attribute to Dionysius.

In a great number of sessions and discussions they sought to demonstrate the errors of Paul, and entreated him to return to orthodoxy; but the latter, cleverly dissembling his doctrine, protested that he had never professed such errors, and that he had always followed the apostolic dogmas. After these declarations, the bishops being satisfied, thanked God for this harmony, and separated.

But they found that they were soon obliged to assemble again, at Antioch. Firmilian appears to have presided over this fresh assembly, as he had over the first: its exact date is not certainly known. The Synod explicitly condemned the new doctrine introduced by Paul. As, however, Paul promised to renounce and retract his errors (as he had absolutely rejected them as his in the first Synod), Firmilian and the bishops allowed themselves to be deceived a second time.

Paul did not keep his promise, and soon, says Theodoret, the report was spread that he professed his former errors as before. However, the bishops would not cut him off immediately from communion with the Church : they tried again to bring him back to the right way by a letter which they addressed to him; and it was only when this last attempt had failed that they assembled for the third time at Antioch, towards the close of the year 269. Bishop Firmilian died at Tarsus in going to this Synod. According to Athanasius, the number of assembled bishops reached seventy, and eighty according to Hilarius. The deacon Basil, who wrote in the fifth century, raises it even to a hundred and eighty. Firmilian being dead, Helenus presided over the assembly, as we are expressly assured by the Libellus Synodicus.

Besides Helenus, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine, Maximus of Bostra, Nicomas of Iconium, and others, were present. Among the priests who were present at the Synod, Malchion was especially remarkable, who, after having taught rhetoric with much success at Antioch, had been ordained priest there on account of the purity of his manners and the ardour of his faith. He was chosen by the bishops assembled at Antioch as the opponent in discussion of Paul of Samosata, on account of his vast knowledge and his skill in logic. The notaries kept an account of all that was said. These documents still existed in the time of Eusebius and of Jerome; but we have only some short fragments preserved by two writers of the sixth century Leontius of Byzantium and Peter the deacon.

In these disputations Paul of Samosata was convicted of error. The Council deposed him, excommunicated him, and chose in his place Domnus, son of his predecessor Demetrian Bishop of Antioch. Before dissolving itself, the Council sent to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, to Maximus of Alexandria, and to the bishops of all the provinces, an encyclical letter, which we still possess in greater part, in which was an account of the errors and manners of Paul of Samosata, as well as of the deliberations of the Council respecting him. It is there said, "that Paul, who was very poor at first, had acquired great riches by illegal proceedings, by extortions and frauds, professedly promising his protection in lawsuits, and then deceiving those who had paid him. Besides, he was extremely proud and arrogant : he had accepted worldly employments, and preferred to be called ducenarius rather than bishop; he always went out surrounded by a train of servants. He was reproached with having, out of vanity, read and dictated letters while walking; with having, by his pride, caused much evil to be said of Christians; with having had a raised throne made for him in the church; with acting in a theatrical manner striking his thigh, spurning things with his foot, persecuting and scorning those who during his sermons did not join with the clappers of hands bribed to applaud him; with having spoken disparagingly of the greatest doctors of the Church, and with applause of himself; with having suppressed the Psalms in honor of Christ, under the pretext that they were of recent origin, to substitute for them at the feast of Easter hymns sung by women in his honor; with having caused himself to be praised in the sermons of his partisans, priests and chorepiscopi. The letter further declared that he had denied that the Son of God descended from heaven, but that he personally had allowed himself to be called an angel come from on high; that, besides, he had lived with the subintroductae, and had allowed the same to his clergy. If he could not be reproached with positive immorality, he had at least caused much scandal. Finally, he had fallen into the heresy of Artemon; and the Synod had thought it sufficient to proceed only on this last point. They had therefore excommunicated Paul, and elected Domnus in his place. The Synod prayed all the bishops to exchange the litteras communicatorias with Domnus, whilst Paul, if he wished, could write to Artemon.

It is with this ironical observation that the great fragment of the synodical letter preserved by Eusebius terminates. It is thought that in Leontius of Byzantium are to be found some more fragments of this letter treating of Paul’s doctrine. Much more important is an ancient tradition, that the Synod of Antioch must have rejected the expression omousios. This is, at least, what semi-Arians have maintained; whilst S. Athanasius says “that he had not the synodical letter of the Council of Antioch before his eyes, but that the semi-Arians had maintained, in their Synod of Ancyra of 358, that this letter denied that the Son was God fom God”. What the semi-Arians affirmed is also reported by Basil the Great and Hilary of Poitiers. Thus it is impossible to maintain the hypothesis of many learned men, viz. that the semi-Arians had falsified the fact, and that there was nothing true about the rejection of the expression omousios by the Synod of Antioch. The original documents do not, however, show us why this Synod of Antioch rejected the word omousios; and we are thrown upon conjectures for this point.

Athanasius says that Paul argued in this way : If Christ, from being a man, did not become God that is to say, if He were not a man deified then He is omousios with the Father; but then three substances must be admitted, one first substance (the Father), and two more recent (the Son and the Spirit); that is to say, that the divine substance is separated into three parts.

In this case Paul must have used the word omousios in that false sense which afterwards many Arians attributed to the orthodox : in his mind omousios must have signified the possessor of a part of the divine substance, which is not the natural sense of the word. Then, as Paul abused this expression, it may be that for this reason the Synod of Antioch should absolutely forbid the use of the word omousios. Perhaps Paul also maintained that the omousios answered much better to his doctrine than to that of the orthodox : for he could easily name as omousios with the Father, the divine virtue which came down upon the man Jesus, since according to him this virtue was in no way distinct from the Father; and in this case, again, the Synod would have sufficient ground for rejecting this expression.

These explanations would be without any use if the two creeds which were formerly attributed to this Council of Antioch really proceeded from it. In these creeds the word omousios is not only adopted, but great stress is laid upon it. The two creeds also have expressions evidently imitated from the Nicene Creed, a fact which shows that they could not have proceeded from the Synod of Antioch. If in 269 such a profession of faith in the mystery of the Holy Trinity had been written at Antioch, the Fathers of Nicaea would have had much easier work to do, or rather Arianism would not have been possible.

We have already said that the synodical letter of the Council of Antioch was addressed to Dionysius Bishop of Rome. The Synod did not know that this Pope died in the month of December 269 : thus the letter was given to his successor, Felix I, who wrote immediately to Bishop Maximus and the clergy of Alexandria to define the orthodox faith of the Church with greater clearness against the errors of Paul of Samosata.

Paul continued to live in the episcopal palace, notwithstanding his deposition, being probably supported by Zenobia; and he thus obliged the orthodox to appeal to the Emperor Aurelian after this prince had conquered Zenobia and taken Antioch in 272. The Emperor decided that “he should occupy the episcopal house at Antioch who was in connection with the bishops of Italy and the see of Rome”. Paul was then obliged to leave his palace with disgrace, as Eusebius relates.

We have up to this time spoken of three Synods of Antioch, all of them held with reference to Paul of Samosata; but a certain number of historians will admit only two, as we think, wrongly. The synodical letter of the last Council of Antioch says distinctly that Firmilian went twice on this account to Antioch, and that on his third journey to be present at a new synod, consequently at a third, he died. As the synodical letter is the most trustworthy source which can be quoted in this case, we ought to prefer its testimony to Theodoret’s account, who mentions only two Synods of Antioch.

As for Eusebius, whose authority has been quoted, it is true that he first mentions only one synod, then in the following chapter another Synod of Antioch; but this other he does not call the second he calls it the last. What he says in the twenty-seventh chapter shows that he united into one only the first and second Synods. "The bishops", he says, “assembled often, and at different periods”. But even if Eusebius had spoken of only two synods, his testimony would evidently be of less value than the synodical letter.

It is with these Synods of Antioch that the councils of the third century terminate. The Libellus Synodicus certainly mentions another synod held in Mesopotamia; but it was only a religious conference between Archelaus Bishop of Carchara (or, more correctly, Caschara) in Mesopotamia, and the heretic Manes. As for the pretended Eastern Synod in the year 300, in which the patriarchs of Rome, of Constantinople (an evident anachronism), of Antioch, and of Alexandria, are said to have granted to the Bishop of Seleucia the dignity of patriarch of the whole of Persia, it is a pure invention.

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 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 :

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, Sinagini 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(perhaps Salaria in Hispania Tarraconensis), Vincent of Ossonoba, 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 afterwards 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 Hosiusand 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.

By maleficio is here to be understood the deceits of magic or sorcery, which they considered necessarily connected with 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It may be asked whether the word sacerdotes is to be under stood as referring to pagan priests who wished to be admitted as Christians, or to Christians who, as we have seen above (can. 2), still bore the office of flamines. Aubespine is of the latter opinion, and according to him the canon would have this meaning : “The Christian who bears the office of flamen, and wears the distinctive sign that is, the crown without having sacrificed himself, or having contributed money to pagan sacrifices, must be excluded from Eucharistic communion for two years”. Aubespine gives the two following, reasons in support of his explanation :

(a.) When a pagan priest wished to become a Christian, he was not kept longer or more strictly than others as a catechumen, even when he had himself offered sacrifice.

(b) If it had referred to a pagan priest wishing to become a Christian, the Synod would have said, placuit post biennium accipere lavacrum (baptism), and not accipere communionem. This latter expression is used only for those who have been excluded for some time from the Church, and are admitted afresh into her bosom.

For our part, we think that this fifty-fifth canon is nothing but a complement of the second and third canons, and that it forms with them the following gradation :

Can. 2. Christians who, as flamines, have sacrificed to idols, and given public pagan games, cannot receive the communion, even when at the point of death.

Can. 3. If they have not offered sacrifices, but have had the games celebrated, they may communicate at the close of their life, after a previous penance.

Can. 55. If they have not offered sacrifice, nor contributed by their fortune to pagan sacrifices (and to such public games), they may receive the communion after two years of penance.

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.

a. Any Christian, either baptized or a catechumen, who should be present at the sacrifices, should be considered as having offered sacrifice himself.

b. Consequently any Christian who has been present at these sacrifices should be excommunicated and a penitent for ten years.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

When Christianity spread from the large towns, where it had been at first established, into the country, the rural churches at first formed only one parish with the cathedral church of the town. Either priests, or Chorepiscopi, or simple deacons, were sent to these rural assemblies, to exercise, within certain limits, the ministerial power. The solemnity of consecrating the Eucharist, and all that had reference to penance, was reserved for the bishop of the town. The 77th canon refers to such deacons, and it ordains :

a. That baptism administered by the deacon ought to be completed, finished by the bishop’s benediction (that is to say, confirmation).

b. That if one who had been baptized by a deacon should die before having received this benediction from the bishop, he may notwithstanding be saved, by virtue of the faith which he professed on receiving baptism.

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.

Besides these eighty-one authentic canons, some others are attributed to the Council of Elvira : for instance, in the Corp. jur. can., there is evidently a mistake about some of these canons, which, as Mendoza and Cardinal d’Aguirre have remarked, belong to a Synodus Helibernensis or Hibernensis. We will remark finally, that whilst Baronius thinks little of the Synod of Elvira, which he wrongfully suspects of Novatian opinions, Mendoza and Natalia Alexander defend it eloquently.

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 Ecclesiae universae concilium! Only it must not be forgotten that the expression concilium plenarium, or 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.

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. “The deacons ought not to administer the communion to the faithful in various places, but only in the churches which are assigned to them”.

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.

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 31

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 afterwards 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”.

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”.

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”.

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”.

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”.

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”.

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”.