| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? News & Reviews: Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
BOOK 8PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP The Time Between The Second And Third General Councils. SECTION. 101. SYNODS AT AQUILEIA AND MILAN IN 381. IN the same year as the second General Council a Synod was also held at Aquileia. Two Illyrian bishops, Palladius and Secundianus, whose Sees are unknown, would not acknowledge themselves to be Arians; they had, however, been accused by the other Western bishops of heresy, and had therefore already in 378, or the beginning of 379, when Gratian was sole regent of the whole empire, requested him to assemble a great General Council of Eastern and Western bishops to inquire into the matter. In so doing, they of course set their hopes on the many Arianizing bishops of the East. Gratian wished at first to comply with their desire, but was persuaded by S. Ambrose of Milan only to command the neighboring bishops to assemble at a Synod at Aquileia, while all the rest, especially the Eastern bishops, were left free to appear or not. In the summer of 381, therefore, thirty-two bishops were collected from different countries of the West, from Italy, Pannonia, Gaul, and Africa, many of whom acted singly as plenipotentiaries for whole provinces. Spain and Rome alone were not represented, the latter probably because Ursinus was just then disputing possession of the Apostolic See with Pope Damasus, as we have already seen. The most celebrated of the assembled bishops were S. Valerian of Aquileia, the president of the Synod, and S. Ambrose, who was the most active member, and the soul of the whole affair. Abundantius of Trent, Theodorus of Octodurum, the apostle of Wallis, and the well-known Philastrius of Breseia, had also appeared. After they had for a considerable time, in August 381, held several preliminary confidential discussions with Palladius and Secundianus, — at which, as nothing was committed to paper, they gave tolerably free expression to their errors, — the formal proceedings began, or the actual Synod was opened, on the third of September 381. At the desire of Ambrose, who was the chief speaker of the orthodox, the letter of Arius to his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, was read aloud, and Palladius was asked whether or not he agreed to these blasphemies against the Son. He gave no direct answer, but rather complained that Ambrose had hindered a General Council from taking place, and insisted upon the presence of his brethren the Eastern bishops. Besides this, he tried all sorts of evasions, and did not join in the anathema which the other bishops pronounced upon all the leading points of the Arian doctrine. Such were also the tactics of Secundianus and the priest Attalus, who belonged to the same party, and they demanded the adjournment of the Synod until a greater number of the laity should also have arrived. But on the proposal of Ambrose, the Synod on the same day, the 3d September, at one o’clock in the afternoon, pronounced the anathema and sentence of deposition upon Palladius, Secundianus, and Attalus, and sent immediate tidings of this in a circular to all the bishops of the West. The Synod sent a circumstantial account of what had taken place to the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II., and Theodosius, and prayed them to lend the aid of the secular arm for the actual deposition of the condemned, and the appointment of orthodox bishops in their stead. It should also be made an impossibility for the teacher of Attalus, Julianus Valens (perhaps Bishop Valens of Mursa), any further to disturb the peace of the Church, or to travel about from one town to another; and lastly, the Photinians should no longer be allowed to hold assemblies at Sirtatum. In a third letter the Synod prayed the Emperors, especially the Emperor Gratian, to whose jurisdiction Rome belonged, to lend no ear to the anti-Pope Ursinus and his calumnies against Damasus. Lastly, in a fourth letter, also addressed to the Emperors, the Synod interceded for Paul of Antioch and Timothy of Alexandria (against whom an opposition party had likewise arisen), and demanded that the Emperors should assemble a great Council at Alexandria to decide the disputes existing among the orthodox themselves. Palladius and his friends were, of course, very dissatisfied with the result of this Synod. They complained that all had not been written down as they had spoken it; they brought accusations especially against Ambrose; protested afresh against being confounded with the Arians; and demanded that a new Council should be held at Rome. We still possess two letters of an Italian Synod to the Emperor Theodosius, about which it is doubtful whether they emanate from the Council at Aquileia just mentioned, or from one held somewhat later at Milan. The fact that S. Ambrose presided points to Milan. In the first of these letters the Latins justify their desire expressed at Aquileia for a great Synod, by which the schisms, especially that of the Meletians, should be extinguished, the erroneous doctrine of Apollinaris inquired into, and the Apollinarians themselves heard. And in the second letter to the same Emperor, the Synod complains that after the death of Meletius a new bishop had been chosen for Antioch, and that Paulinus was not universally acknowledged. This, it is added, was done by the advice of Nectarius of Constantinople, who was himself not a rightful bishop, as the episcopal chair of that city belonged to (the Cynic) Maximus; also that Gregory of Nazianzus had been unlawfully made Bishop of Constantinople, and that all this had been done by those who had hindered a General Council from taking place. By this they mean the Eastern bishops at the second General Council, whom they accused of having held a local Synod consisting of Greeks only, notwithstanding the invitation to a General Council. In conclusion, they demand the restoration of Maximus to the See-of Constantinople, and that a General Council of the Easterns and Westerns should be held at Rome. SECTION. 102. THE SYNODS AT CONSTANTINOPLE AND ROME IN 382. In accordance with the desire of the Synod of Aquileia, the Emperor Theodosius, soon after the close of the second General Council, summoned the bishops of his empire to a fresh Synod, — not, however, as the Latins had wished, at Alexandria, but at Constantinople. He also twice invited S. Gregory of Nazianzus, but he excused himself on account of weak health, and said that in his experience such assemblies promised very little good. There were assembled here, in the beginning of the summer of 382, very nearly the same bishops who had been present at the second General Council. On their arrival at Constantinople, they received a letter from the Synod of Milan above mentioned, inviting them to a great General Council at Rome. They did not, however, go there, because, as they say in the Synodal Letter, they had only made arrangements for a shorter journey, and were, moreover, only authorized by their colleagues to act at Constantinople, and it was no longer possible in the short interval allowed them to obtain fresh authority, and prepare for so distant a journey. They remained, therefore, at Constantinople, and sent as an assurance of their friendship and unity of faith three bishops of their number, Syriacus, Eusebius, and Priscian, with a Synodal Letter to Pope Damasus, Archbishop Ambrose, and the other bishops assembled in Council at Rome. In this letter they first describe the numberless persecutions to which they and their Churches had been lately exposed under the Emperor Valens. They had now entered upon a better time, and their return to their Sees had become possible, yet even now the flock were still incessantly threatened by the wolves (the Arians). They proceed to excuse themselves for not being able to come to the Roman Synod, and affirm their adherence to the Nicene faith as being the oldest, and immediately connected with holy baptism (presbuta>thn ou+san kai< ajko>louqon tw~|. bapti>smati ), saying: “By it we are taught to believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and consequently in one and the same Godhead, power, and essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and in the same dignity, and the same eternal dominion in three absolutely perfect hypostases, or three perfect Persons, so that neither can the heresy of Sabellius, which confounds the hypostases, — that is, does away with their separate personality, — find any room, nor the blasphemy of the Eunomians, Arians, and Pneumatomachians be admitted, which divides the Being, or the Nature, or the Godhead, and joins on to the uncreated Trinity, equal in being and eternity, a later born, created, or strange (eJterousi>on ) nature.” In view of the importance of this confession of faith, which was often erroneously ascribed to the Synod of Constantinople of about a year earlier — i.e. the second General Council — and which so far has an oecumenical character that, although only drawn up by the Eastern Church, it yet confirms the consensus fudei omnium orbis Ecclesiarum , it may be well to add the original text: dida>skousan hJma~v pisteu>ein eijv to< o]noma tou~ patro The continued efforts of the Arians and Pneumatomachians to spread their doctrines, in spite of the ecclesiastical and imperial prohibitions, led the Emperor Theodosius in 383 to summon the bishops of the different parties to a great assembly, in the hope, perhaps, thereby of also securing their dogmatic union. This Synod took place in June 383, under the consuls Merobaudes II. and Saturninus; and before the actual proceedings began, the Emperor communicated to the Bishop Nectarius of Constantinople his intention that those assembled should discuss the differences of faith. Nectarius, disturbed at this, consulted the Novarian Bishop Agelius, who agreed with him in doctrine, and was held in high esteem on account of his personal piety. Agelius did not feel himself quite qualified for such a disputation, but he had a very clever reader Sisinnius, who possessed great eloquence, and was in the highest degree skilled in theology and philosophy, and to him he desired to entrust the disputation with the Arians. Sisinnius was, however, of opinion that peace was not to be obtained thus, but that, on the contrary, it might only increase the divisions; and this he stated also before Nectarins, adding that, instead of disputing, it would be better to produce the testimonies of the old Fathers of the Church on the doctrine of the Son, and first of all to ask the heads of the several parties whether they accepted these patristic testimonies, or whether they desired to anathematize the Fathers from whom they emanated. A presumption of this sort would be followed by their own rejection on the part of the people; but if they declared themselves ready to accept these testimonies, it would then be the duty of the orthodox to produce their proofs from the Fathers. Nectarius imparted this to the Emperor, and he gladly agreed to the plan.
When, therefore, the bishops of the different parties appeared, he put this question to them: Did they respect the teachers who had lived before the Arian division? They answered in the affirmative; and he then put the second question: Did they also acknowledge them to be sound and trustworthy witnesses of the true Christian doctrine? Concerning the answer to this, however, divisions arose, not only between the different parties, but even among members of the same party, and it was evident that the sectaries were only determined upon having a disputation. This displeased the Emperor in the highest degree, and he now ordered that each party should draw up a written confession of its faith. When the best qualified man of each party had done this, the bishops were summoned on a certain day to the Imperial palace, Nectarius and Agelius as the heads of the orthodox, Demophilus (formerly Bishop of Constantinople) as representative of the Arians, Eleusius of Cyzicus on the side of the Pneumatomachians, and Eunomius as spokesman of the Anomoeans. The Emperor received them with kindness, took from them their written confessions, and retired with these into an apartment, where he prayed God for enlightenment, and rejected and destroyed all of them except the orthodox one, because they introduced a division in the Holy Trinity. Of these creeds, only that of Eunomius has come down to us, which is found in several old manuscripts of the works of Gregory of Nyssa against Eunomius, and was first given to the press by Valesius, and afterwards by Mansi. Here Eunomius very openly and emphatically stated his doctrine, called only the Father God, and placed the Son among the creatures as the First-born of all creation, denying His participation in the Divine Being and the Divine Glory. The Holy Ghost he placed still lower, as created (geno>menon ) through the Son, and subject to the Son in everything, but higher than all (other) creatures, the greatest, best, and most beautiful creation of the Only-begotten. In conclusion, Eunomius threatened his opponents with the judgment of God.
When the sectaries saw the resolute conduct of the Emperor, they sorrowfully returned home, and endeavored by letters to their adherents to comfort them, chiefly as to the fact that so many now went over to the Nicene faith, and deserted their party. For, they observed, there were many called, but few chosen. Socrates adds that, when the majority of the people, from fear of authority (under Constantius and Valens), were still on their side, they had used very different language. The Emperor now, however, forbade all sectaries, excepting the Novatians , — who, on account of their conduct at the Synod, were allowed to retain possession of their churches, — to hold divine service anywhere for the future, or to publish their doctrines, or to ordain clergy, etc., and threatened them also with severe civil punishment; not, as Sozomen affirms, with the intention of really carrying out these threats, but to frighten them, and thus make them more desirous of unity.
Lastly, at this Synod the Antiochian schism also came again under discussion, and unfortunately on this subject no agreement could be attained among the orthodox themselves, as the bishops of Egypt, Arabia, and Cyprus recognized Paulinus as the rightful bishop, and demanded the banishment of Flavian, while those of Palestine, Phoenicia, and Syria were in favor of the latter. SECTION. 104. SYNODS AT BORDEAUX ( BURDIGALENSIS) IN 384, AND AT TREVES IN 385.
Notwithstanding the censure pronounced by the Synod of Saragossa in. 380 on Priscillianism, the adherents of that heresy by the use of bribery still secured the powerful protection of several high officers of State, and through them of the Emperor Gratian himself, so that their chief opponents and accusers, the two Spanish bishops Idacius and Ithacius, were persecuted in various ways, and even driven away. But, on the 25th August 383, Gratian was murdered at Lyons, and Maximus, who had before been general, made himself Emperor of the West. When, in the beginning of the year 384, he came to Treves, Ithacius laid before him a complaint against Priscillian and his adherents, upon which he commanded the sectaries to be brought before a Synod at Bordeaux. This was done, and Instantins, the second leader of the Priscillianists, was the first to speak in their defense, but with so little success that the Synod declared him to be unworthy of his office. Fearing the same usage for himself, Priscillian refused to acknowledge the competence of the Synod, and appealed to the Emperor, whereupon both accusers and accused were brought to the Imperial Court at Treves.
S. Martin of Tours, who was there just then, blamed the passionate conduct of Ithacius, and begged the Emperor to shed no blood, not even that of the guilty, but to rest satisfied with the judgment of the bishops pronouncing them heretics; the more so, as it was something quite new and unheard of for a secular judge to take cognizance of an ecclesiastical matter. The Emperor paid regard to these representations, but Ithacius was so furious that he wished to bring S. Martin under suspicion of heresy, as he also in his fanaticism charged many who fasted and prayed much with Priseillianism. When S. Martin had again left Treves, the Emperor allowed himself to be induced by Ithacius and two other bishops, Magnus and Rufus, after an investigation conducted by Evodius, the prefect of the Gauls, to have Priseillian and his clergy, Felicissimus and Armenius, beheaded, as well as his friend the learned Euchrocia, widow of the rhetor Delphidius of Bordeaux, and some others, while Instantius and other Priscillianists were banished, some to Gaul, and some to the island Sylina, on the coast of Britain. The Synod at Treves in 385 sanctioned the conduct of Ithacius, which was blamed by many, and induced the Emperor Maximus to take still further steps against the Priscillianists, so that he resolved upon sending special commissioners to Spain, and punishing all these sectaries with confiscation of property and death. At this time, S. Martin of Tours came again to Treves for the purpose of interceding for some former servants of the late Emperor (Gratian), who had been condemned to death. At the same time, he besought the Emperor not to send the commissioners into Spain, and held aloof entirely from the Ithacian Synod which he had just assembled. When, however, the Emperor threatened to have all those for whom Martin had interceded put to death, if he did not immediately take part in the Synod, the saint yielded, and appeared at the assembly just when it was in the act of appointing Felix, who according to Sulpicius Severus was a very worthy man, Bishop of Treves. On this, the Emperor promised not to send the officers to Spain; but S. Martin returned the next day to Tours, grieved to have been obliged to hold communion with the Ithacians, even though only for one day, and from that time he was never again present at any Synod. SECTION. 105. SYNODS AT ROME IN 386, AND AT TELEPTE OR ZELLE ABOUT 418.
We learn from a Synodal Letter of Pope Siricius to the bishops of Africa, that, in January 386, a Synod at Rome consisting of eighty bishops reenacted various older laws of the Church; for instance: — (1.) No consecration (of a bishop) shall take place without the consent of the Apostolic See, i .e . the primate. (2.) As has already been ordered in the fourth canon of Nicaea, no single bishop shall take upon himself to consecrate another. (3.) He who after baptism has served in war, may not become a cleric. (4.) A cleric (of the lower orders) may not marry a widow. (5.) He who, as a layman, has married a widow, may not be received among the clergy. (6.) No one may ordain one belonging to another Church. (7.) A deposed cleric may not be admitted into another Church. (8.) Those who come over from the Novatians or Montenses shall be received back by imposition of hands only, because they rebaptize.
The Council of Nicaea, in its eighth canon, lays down a similar rule, according to which the present one must be understood thus: “If Novatian clergy” — for it is of clergy and not of laymen that the preceding canon treats — “wish to enter the Church, they must not be actually re-ordained, but they must nevertheless receive a fresh imposition of hands, after the manner of laymen who have been baptized by heretics.” Ex eo quod rebaptizant, is given as a reason for this. The Ballerini conjecture the right reading to be proeter eos , quos rebaptizant , taking as their authority for this Pope Innocent I., who re-enacted this rule nearly word for word, and thus understood the short sentence in question: proeter eos si qui forte a nobis ad illos transeuntes rebaptizati sunt . (9.) Finally, we advise (suademus ) that the priests and Levites should not live with their wives.
The Synodal Letter of Pope Siricius, which contains these nine canons, has only been preserved to us by an African Synod (at Tele) of the beginning of the fifth century (probably of the year 418), where it was read. Many doubts were, however, raised about its genuineness, especially by P. Quesnel and Bower, while it is maintained by Coustant, Remi Ceillier, and above all by the Ballerini. (a) It is true that the African Synod, where this instruction of Siricius was re-enacted, could not, as the greater number of codices state, have taken place at Tele, for Tele is in proconsular Africa, and the bishops present at the Synod belonged to the Byzacene province. But some very good codices read Concilium Teleptense , which agrees very well, as Telepte was the metropolis of the Byzacene province. Remi Ceillier therefore decided in favor of this reading. But the Ballerini, on the other hand, endeavored to show, by appealing to critical authorities, that Zellense should be read, and that Zelle was a city of the Byzacene province. It is true that the letters T and Z were often confounded by the Africans; but whether the Ballerini or Remi Ceillier are right, Quesnel has in any case been too hasty in inferring the spuriousness and falsehood of the whole matter from the word Tellense . (b) It is true that in the letter of Pope Innocent I. to Bishop Victricius of Rouen, part of the same text is found as in the Synodal Letter of Siricius. But it does not follow from this that the latter is spurious, for, as Hincmar of Rheims rightly observed, Hic est enim mos Apostolicoe Sedis pontificibus , ut verba decessorum suorum quasi propria in suis ponant epistolis . (c) It has been again objected that, in the ninth canon of the letter of Siricius, the celibacy of the priests is only advised, while at the time of Siricius it had already become a law, and was strictly enforced by him in other places as such. But the suademus of the Latin text not only means, “We advise that to be done which is not commanded,” but may also mean, “We entreat and exhort you to follow that which is commanded,” just as the preacher often exhorts and advises men to observe the laws of God. (d) Lastly, the contents of the first canon in this document, which ascribes the confirmation of all elections of bishops to the Pope, forms no ground for assuming its spuriousness.
Several codices declare that the Synodal Letter of Siricius was an encyclical, and by no means addressed only to the Africans. It was natural that the original copy, which was intended primarily for the Italian bishops, should contain the rule that “no bishop should be appointed without the consent of the Apostolic See;” for this was the established rule of the Church. But, for other countries, the text had to be accommodated to the laws there prevailing. Thus, e .g ., Pope Innocent I. in his letter to Victricius of Rouen changed the rule of Siricius to this, Ut extra conscientiam metropolitani episcopi nullus audeat ordinare . In Africa, however, the title of metropolitan did not exist, but there were instead primates or bishops primoe sedis; and for this reason probably, in the copy of the epistle of Siricius belonging to the Africans, the expression primatis was first inserted either by Siricius himself or by them. SECTION. 106. SYNODS AT ANTIOCH, SIDA, AND CARTHAGE.
Formerly, the Synod of Nimes was generally placed in this same year, 386, or in 389; recently, however, it has been shown to belong to the year 394, and therefore we shall have to speak of it later.
Sozomen speaks further of an Antiochian Provincial Synod of 388 or 389, which forbade the sons of S. Marcellus to revenge their father’s death upon the heathen. Marcellus, Bishop of Apamea in Syria, by the desire of the Emperor Theodosius, had several heathen temples destroyed, and upon one of these occasions he was thrown into the fire by the enraged heathen at Aulon, on this account. At about the same time (according to others, in 390), it is said that another small Antiochian Synod under Flavian, and a somewhat larger Synod of twenty-five bishops at Sida in Pamphilia, under Amphilochius of Iconium, condemned the heresy of the Massalians, and excommunicated them. The existence of these two Synods is, however, doubtful. Two Synods at Carthage of 386 or 389, and 387 or 390, the first of which was only an introduction to the second, were of no great importance. From the latter only have any acts come down to us, and thence alone do we obtain any information about the Synod held in the previous year. The second Synod, under Bishop Genethlius of Carthage, has left thirteen canons: — Can. 1 (in reality the introduction to the whole rather than an actual canon)declares the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.
Can. 2 binds bishops, priests, and Levites to abstain from their wives.
Can. 3. Priests may not undertake the consecration of the chrism, the benediction of virgins (nuns), or the reconciliation of penitents.
Can. 4. Only when the bishop is hindered, may a priest with his permission undertake the reconciliation of a penitent.
Can. 5. If a district has hitherto had no bishop, neither shall it have one in the future. But where a bishop has hitherto been, there also shall one be in the future.
Can. 6. Persons of evil repute shall not be allowed to appear as accusers of bishops and priests.
Can. 7. Whoever receives into his Church one excommunicated elsewhere shall himself be excommunicated.
Can. 8. If a priest has been excommunicated or punished by his superior, he can complain to the neighboring bishops (apud vicinos episcopos conqueri ), that they may hear his ‘affair (appeal), and reconcile him again to his bishop. If he does not do this, but from pride separates himself from the communion of his bishop, occasions a schism, and offers the sacrifice, he shall lose his post and incur anathema. He must also be far removed from the place where he has hitherto lived, that he may not mislead the simple.
Can. 9. If a priest officiates anywhere without the permission of the bishop (agenda voluerit celebrate ), he shall be deprived of his dignity.
Can. 10. A bishop can only be judged by twelve bishops, a priest by six, a deacon by three bishops (besides his own). Can. 11. No bishop may interfere in another diocese.
Can. 12. No new bishop may be appointed without the consent of the primate.
Can. 13. If a bishop violates these rules, which he himself has subscribed, he shall be shut out (deposed). SECTION. 107. THE SYNODS AT NOME AND MILAN IN 390.
These Synods were occasioned by Jovinian and his heresy. Jovinian was a monk, whether at Milan or elsewhere is uncertain, and had for a considerable time practiced great ascetic severity. But about 388 he approached nearly the same views concerning good works as Luther, and taught (1) that virginity, widowhood, and married life were equally meritorious; (2) also that fasting was not more meritorious than eating, provided the latter was done with thanksgiving; (3) that all who with full faith were born again in baptism, could not be overcome by the devil; (4) that all who are saved by the grace of baptism may expect an equal reward in heaven (a consequence of the former views, i .e . that there are no different degrees of moral virtue); lastly, (5) that Mary indeed conceived Christ as a virgin, but did not bear Him as a virgin, for through child-bearing her virginity ceased; for otherwise we must say, with the Manicheans, that the body of Christ was not real, but only appeared so. He, in fact, accused the orthodox of the Manichean and Docetic errors.
In conformity with this doctrine, Jovinian changed his former ascetic life for one of easy luxury, and endeavored to spread his errors partly by books and partly by other methods of proselytism. For this purpose he repaired under Pope Siricius to Rome, and persuaded several consecrated virgins and ascetics to marry, asking them: “Are you better than Sarah, Susanna, Anna, and many other holy women and men of the Bible?” He could not, however, draw any priests to his side; nay, several illustrious laymen, especially Pammachius, well known through the Letters of S.
Jerome, came forward against him, and demanded of Pope Siricius the condemnation of the heretic. Upon this Siricius, in 390, assembled his clergy at a Synod, and declared the doctrine of Jovinian to be contrary to the Christian law, and therefore that the leading teachers of the error — Jovinian, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Plotinus, Martianus, Januarius, and Ingeniosus — were by divine sentence and the judgment of the Synod condemned and expelled from the Church. At the same time, the Pope sent three priests, Crescens, Leopard, and Alexander, with this decision to Milan to inform S. Ambrose, who had already come forward as very zealous opponent of Jovinian, of what had taken place, and to invite his consent. Ambrose now, without delay, held a Provincial Synod at Milan, which in its Synodal Letter (without doubt the work of Ambrose, and still extant) highly praised the Pope for his care of the Church, gave a short explanation of the errors of Jovinian and the orthodox doctrine opposed to them, and also itself anathematized those persons who had been condemned at Rome. The same Milanese Synod also very probably, in accordance with Siricius, declared against the Ithacians and rejected Bishop Felix of Treves, who had been appointed by them, though he was personally a very worthy man. We do not, indeed, possess any original documents concerning this; but the Synod held only a few years later, at Turin, speaks in its sixth canon of letters issued by Ambrose and the Pope against Felix. SECTION. 108. SYNOD AT CAPUA IN 391.
In 391, according to Tillemont’s reckoning, the not unimportant Synod of Capua was held, which is called by the ancients plenaria . Its chief object was to be the termination of the Meletian schism.
Paulinus, one of the two orthodox Bishops of Antioch, had died in 388; but in order that the schism should not die out, he had first appointed as bishop for his small community the priest Evagrius, although it had long been forbidden by the canons that a bishop should himself nominate his successor. Besides this, Evagrius, in violation of another ancient; rule of the Church, was no; consecrated by three bishops. Opposed to him on the other side was Bishop Flavian, the successor of Meletius, whose appointment also, as we have seen, was not quite regular. These circumstances prompted the Emperor Theodosius, upon his return to Constantinople from the West (in 391), to consider some means for the removal of the schism, and he therefore proposed to Bishop Flavian, who stood in high favor with and whom he had sent for to Constantinople, to appear in person at the Synod at Capua, where the whole matter should be impartially investigated. Flavian excused himself on account of the winter, which was already setting in, and thus satisfied the Emperor; the Synod of Capua would not, however, decide definitely in the absence of both parties, but entrusted the jus cognitionis to Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria and his suffragans, because they had remained neutral, and had not sided with either party. Thus relates S. Ambrose in his letter to Theophilus, from which we also learn that this attempt at a pacification did not produce the desired result. The second matter which occupied the Synod of Capua was the erroneous doctrine of Bishop Bonosus of Sardica, who had denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, and maintained that she had borne several sons besides Jesus. The Synod came to a similar decision as with regard to the Meletian schism, and entrusted the fuller examination and decision of the affair of Bonosus to his neighbors, the bishops of Macedonia, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Thessalonica. Further details are not known, for the only authority on this is a short letter from an unknown person which is appended to another letter, probably written by Ambrose. Finally, the Synod of Capua also published several rules of discipline, of which the Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Afticanoe mentions the following: “No one may be a second time baptized, or a second time ordained, and bishops shall not be translated from one See to another.” SECTION. 109. SYNOD AT HIPPO IN 393. FC437 Of considerably greater importance was the great African Synod which took place in 393 at Hippo Regius, the first of those numerous and renowned assemblies of the Church at which Aurelius, Archbishop of Carthage since the year 391, presided. Besides him, very many other bishops of different provinces in Africa were present, so that Possidius, in his Life of S. Augustine, called this Synod a plenarium totius Africoe Concilum . He adds, that at the desire of the bishops, S. Augustine, then still a priest at Hippo, delivered before the Synod his discourse De Fide et Symbolo , which is preserved to us in his work bearing the same tide. The Byzacene metropolitan, Musonius, however, who was probably himself present at this Synod, explained its object by saying that “it had effected a salutary amendment of discipline.” The complete acts of the Synod have been lost, but we still possess its heading, which runs thus: “Gloriosissimo Imperatore Theodosio Augusto III . et Abundantio viris clarissimis consulibus , 8, Idus Octobris , Hippone Regio in secretario Basilicoe Pacis .” We see hence that the Synod was held on October 8, 398, in the Secretatrium of the Basilica of Peace at Hippo Regius. These words are found in the Codex Canonum Ecclesioe Africanoe , as a later African Synod had all the canons of the Council held under Aurelius read again. But unfortunately Dionysius Exiguus, who collected these African canons, inserted only the heading of the acts of Hippo, and not the canons. For further particulars concerning the Synod of Hippo we are, however, indebted to the third Carthaginian Synod in 397. To this Synod the bishops of the Byzacene province were also invited; they, however, contented themselves with sending their declaration in writing to the primate, Aurelius of Carthage, adding to this letter an abridgment (breviatio or breviarium ) of the canons of Hippo, and expressing a desire for their renewal. The third Synod of Carthage granted this wish, and had this abridgment of the canons read out. Through it, we learn the chief contents of the canons of Hippo; but the real text of this breviatio was itself very doubtful, until the Ballerinl, by the use of extremely ancient and excellent codices, succeeded in restoring its original form. This abridgment contains in the first line a Latin version of the Nicene Creed (without the additions of Constantinople), which was published anew and approved by the Synod at Hippo. Then follow first four, and then thirty-nine abridged canons of Hippo, so arranged that they form two distinct collections. The second series has even a heading of its own, Incipit brevis statutorum , but these words are a later addition, and both alike belong to the stone Synod of Hippo. The four first canons run thus: — 1. All African provinces shall be guided by the Church of Carthage with regard to the feast of Easter, concerning which an error has arisen. 2. The Bishop Cresconius of Villa Regis shall be content with his Church, and shall not lay claim to the See of Tubunae; and, in general, no one shah assume rights over another diocese. 3. Mauretania Sitifensis may have a primate of its own. 4. As the bishops of the first Sees (primoe sedes ) agree, the primates of the other provinces also shall, if disputes arise, be appointed in accordance with the advice of the Bishop of Carthage.
The second series contains the following: — 1. The readers may not pronounce the form of salutation to the people. No one may be ordained, nor any virgin consecrated, under twentyfive; only persons well instructed in the Holy Scriptures shall be promoted to the clerical office. 2. The Synodal laws shall be enjoined upon the bishops and clergy. 3. During the holy days of Easter the catechumens shall have nothing consecrated (sacramentum) given them except the customary salt, quia si fideles per illos dies sacramentum non mutant, nec catechumenos oportet mutare (i.e., as in the days of Easter the faithful only bring for consecration the customary wine and bread, not honey, milk, etc., so also there shall be no change with regard to the catechumens). 4. The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them. 5. Every year a Council shall take place, to which all ecclesiastical provinces shall send their deputies. But from Tripolis one only need come, on account of the poverty of its bishops. 6. A bishop must be accused before the primate of the province, and he may not be suspended without further proceedings, unless, having been summoned by the primate, he has not appeared within a month. 7. But if the accused will not appear at the annual Concilium Universale (the African General Council), he is excommunicated, and may not communicate even in his own diocese. The same punishment is incurred by the accuser if, when summoned to prove his charge, he does not appear. 8. If a priest is accused, the bishop, with five neighboring colleagues, shall investigate the matter; but if it concerns a deacon, with two colleagues. Accusations against others the bishop alone investigates and decides. 9. If a bishop or any cleric despises the ecclesiastical court, and brings his cause before a secular court, he shall, if it is a criminal case, be deposed; but if a civil case, he must yield the advantage gained, if he would retain his office. 10. If an appeal is made from an ecclesiastical court to a higher ecclesiastical tribunal, this shall not injure the judges of the court of first instance, unless it can be proved that they have been purposely unjust. But if, with the consent of both parties, arbiters have been appointed, no appeal takes place. 11. The sons of the bishops and clergy may not join secular plays, or witness them. 12. The sons of the bishops and clergy shall not marry heathens, heretics, or schismatics. 13. Bishops and clergy shall not make their sons independent too early, before their morals are firmly established. 14. Bishops and clergy shall not make any one their heir who is not a Catholic Christian, not even if he is a relation. 15. Bishops, priests, and deacons shall not be agents (procuratores) for others, nor shall they undertake any office which might oblige them to travel, and keep them from their ecclesiastical duties. 16. Strange women may not live with clerics. 17. No one may be ordained bishop, priest, or deacon, who has not first made all his household Catholic Christians. 18. When the readers have attained the age of puberty, they must either marry or make a vow of continence. 19. No one may keep or promote a strange cleric or reader in his church without the consent of the bishop. 20. No one may be ordained who has not been approved, either by examination or by the testimony of the people. 21. In prayer, no one shall address the Son instead of the Father, or the Father instead of the Son, except at the altar, when prayer shall always be addressed to the Father. No one shall make use of strange forms of prayer, without having first consulted well-instructed brethren (nisi prius eas cum instructioribus fratribus contulerit). 22. No cleric shall receive back more than he has lent. 23. At the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing shall be offered but bread and wine mixed with water. 24. The unmarried clergy (of inferior orders) may not visit virgins or widows without the permission of the bishops or priests, and even then not alone. Neither may bishops and priests visit such persons alone, but only in the company of clerics or worthy laymen. 25. The bishop of a primo sedes. Fd4 shall not be called princeps sacerdotum or summus sacerdos, but simply primoe sedis episcopus. 26. Clerics may not enter inns to eat or drink, except when travelling. 27. Bishops may not travel across the sea (to Europe) without the consent of the bishop of the prima sedes, from whom they must also have the litterae formatoe. 28. The sacrament of the altar shall always be celebrated fasting, except on the anniversary of its institution, Coena Domini (Maundy Thursday). 29. Bishops and clergy shall have no meals in the church, unless when necessary for the refreshment of guests, and then none of the people shall be admitted. 30. The time of penance shall be appointed by the bishop in proportion to the greatness of the sin. Priests may not absolve (reconcile) any penitents, without the consent of the Bishop, unless the bishop is absent, and it is a case of necessity. If an offence is publicly known, the penitent shall receive the imposition of hands before the apsis (therefore in public). 31. If virgins dedicated to God have no parents, they shall be entrusted by the bishop or priest to respectable women, with whom they must live, in order not to injure their reputation. 32. Sick persons, no longer able to speak, but whose relations testify that they had desired baptism, shall be baptized. 33. Actors and apostates who return to the faith shall not be refused reconciliation. 34. A priest may not consecrate virgins without the consent of the bishop, and he must never consecrate the chrism. 35. Clerics shall not stay in a strange town, unless the bishops or priests of the place have recognised the sufficiency of their reasons for so doing. 36. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church, under the title of “divine writings.” The canonical books are : — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are : — the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S.
Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read. 37. The old rule of the Councils, that no Donatist ecclesiastic shall be received into the Church otherwise than among the laity, remains in force, except as regards those who have never rebaptized, or those who desire to join the Church with their congregations (that is, such shall retain their clerical office). But the transmarine Church shall be consulted on this point, as also on the question whether the children of Donatists, who have received Donatist baptism, not of their own free will but at the desire of their parents, are to be excluded from being accepted for the service of the altar, on account of the error of their parents. Fd6 Further information about this Synod is supplied by an African Council held in 525, under Boniface of Carthage, at which several of its decisions were read out and renewed. Fd7 According to this, two Mauretanian bishops, Caecilian and Theodorus, proposed at the Synod of Hippo, that in future the Bishop of Carthage should annually announce by letter to the bishops of the higher Sees the day appointed for the feast of Easter; and when Bishop Aurelius, as president of the Synod, had made inquiry all round as to whether the proposition was approved, it was unanimously accepted. As we have already seen, the Epitome of the canons of Hippo also contains this decision. Fd8 The same Bishop Caecilian, in union with his colleague Honoratus, also a Mauretanian, made a second proposition, that the Bishop of Sitifi should be appointed episcopus primoe sedis for Mauretania. He was to be chosen by the Provincial Synod, but his election was to be signified to the Bishop of Carthage, from whom he would receive instructions. Aurelius of Carthage brought this question also under discussion. The Bishops Epigonius of Bulla Regia, and Megalius of Calama in Numidia, took part in it, and it was at last unanimously resolved that each province might have its episcopus primoe sedis on condition that none should be appointed without the knowledge of the Bishop of Carthage, so that the authority of his See should remain intact. These bishops were also always to give account of their acts to the Bishop of Carthage. Fd9 We further learn from the African Codex that., at a later African Synod, perhaps the third of Carthage, the Bishop Epigonius remarked that “nothing should be added to the Breviarium” of the Synod of Hippo, except that the day appointed for Easter should always be given notice of during the annual General Council, and not afterwards by letter. Fd10 From the fifty-third, seventy-third, and ninety-fourth canons of the same Codex, we learn that this Synod also ordered that an African General Council should be held annually on the 23d August, and that each province should then be visited. Fd11 Lastly, the Carthaginian deacon Ferrandus, a well-known collector of canons of the sixth century, cites a few more canons supposed to be of the Synod of Hippo. Fd12 SECTION 110. SYNOD AT NIMES IN 394.
The Gallican National Synod at Nimes, of which Sulpicius Severus speaks in his second Dialogue, Fd13 and after him Venantius Fortunatus, in his Life of S. Martin, belongs to the year 394. Sulpicius Severus relates that S. Martin refused to be present at a synod apud Nemausum (since he joined with the Ithacians in making Felix bishop of Treves, he would never again take part in any synod), Fd14 but that he was informed by an angel of all that took place there. This happened when Martin was at sea with Sulpicius Severus; and it appeared on further inquiry that the Synod of Nimes was held on that very day, and that what was told him by the angel had actually been resolved upon. — No more was known of this Synod till, in 1743, Ignatius Roderique brought its acts to light in his Correspondance des Servants, printed at Cologne. They were also printed three years later, in a work published at Leipzig. Fd15 This publication remained almost entirely unnoticed, so that it was believed that Dr. Knust had first discovered the Acts of the Synod of Nimes in a manuscript of the sixth century, formerly belonging to the library at Cologne, but now to that of Darmstadt; and this was my own view when my first edition of this history appeared. They were originally communicated by Dr. Knust to the Bulletin of the Societe de l’Histoire de France of 1803, and from thence found their way into the Freiburg Theological Magazine in 1844. Fd16 As these Acts are not found in any collection of Councils, they were inserted, with the notes of Knust and the notice of them in the Bulletin, in the second volume of the first edition of this work, and this led Professor Abbe Leveque of Nimes to publish a little monograph on that Council. Fd17 Many of the remarks and suggestions for the amendment of the text made use of here have also been brought forward by Dr. Nolte in his criticism of the little work of Leveque. Fd18 According to Knust, the Acts run thus: — “Incipit sancta Synodus quae convenit in civitatem Nemausensem, Kal. Octobris, dominis Archadio et Honorio Augustis consulibus. “Episcopis per Gallias et septem provincias Fd19 salutem. Cum ad Nemausensem Ecclesiam, ad tollenda Ecclesiarum scandala discessionemque sanandam (in Roderique, dissensionem sedandam) pacis studio venissemus, Fd20 multa utilitati congrua, secundum regulam disciplinae, placuit provideri. “I. In primis quid multi, de ultimis Orientis partibus venientes (the Manicheans) presbyteros et diaconos se esse confingunt, ignota cum suscriptione apostholia Fd21 ignorantibus ingerentes, quidam (perhaps quidum ) spem infidelium (instead of ‘spem infidelium,’ read specie fidelium) sumptum stepemque captantur (read captant), sanctorum communione speciae (read speciem) simulatae religionis (add sibi ) inpraemunt (inprimunt): placuit nobis, (add ut ) si qui fuerint ejusmodi, si tamen communis Ecclesiae causa non fuerit, ad ministerium altarii (altaris) non admittantur. “II. Illud aetiam a quibusdam suggestum est, ut contra apostolicam disciplinam, incognito usque in hoc tempus in ministerium feminae nescio quo loco levviticum videantur adsumptae; quod quidem, quia indecens est, non admittit ecclesiastica disciplina; et contra rationem facta talis ordinatio distruatur (read destruatur) : providendum, ne quis sibi hoc ultra praesumat.”
This canon is directed against the Priscillianists. “III. Illud etiam repetere secundum canonem placuit, ut nullus episcopus sive clericum sive laicum, a suo episcopo judicatum, in communionem admittat inlicitam. “IV. Neque sibi alter episcopus de clerico alterius, inconsulto episcopo cujus minister est, judicium vindicet. “V. Additum aetiam est, ut, quia multi, sub specie peregrinationis, de ecclesiarum conlatione luxoriant, victura (victuaria) non omnibus detur (dentur); unusquisque voluntarium, non indictum, habeat de hac praestatione judicium. “VI. Ministrorum autem quicunque peregrina quibuscunque necessitatibus petunt, ab episcopis tantum apostolia suscribantur. “VII. Addi etiam placuit, ut, quia frequenter Ecclesiis de libertorum tuitione inferuntur injuriae, sive qui a viventibus manumittuntur, sive quibus libertas ultima testatione conscribitur: placuit Synodo, ut si fidelis persona contra fidem et contra defunctorum voluntatem venire temptaverit, communicantes, qui contra Ecclesiam veniunt, extra Ecclesiam fiant; catechumenis vero nisi inreligiositate pietatem mutaverint, gratia considerata secundum Deum per inspectionem tradatur” (important for the history of the abolition of slavery). “Ego Aprunculus Fd22 subscripsi. “Ego Ursus Fd23 subscripsi. “Ego Genialis Fd24 pro me, et pro fratre Syagrio, Fd25 subscripsi. “Ego Alitius Fd26 pro me, et pro fratre Apro, Fd27 subscripsi. “Ego Foelix Fd28 subscripsi. “Ego Solinus subscripsi. “Ego Adelfus Fd29 subscripsi. “Ego Remigius Fd30 subscripsi. “Ego Epetemius Fd31 subscripsi. “Ego Modestus Fd32 subscripsi. “Ego Eusebius Fd33 subscripsi. “Ego Octavius Fd34 subscripsi. “Ego Nicesius Fd35 subscripsi. “Ego Evantius Fd36 subscripsi. “Ego Ingenuus Fd37 subscripsi. “Ego Aratus subscripsi. “Ego Urbanus Fd38 subscripsi. “Ego Melanius Fd39 subscripsi. “Ego Treferius Fd40 subscripsi. “Explicit. Episcopi numero xxi.”
From the heading of this Synod it appears that it was held under the Consuls Arcadius and Honorius. These two Emperors were, however, three times consuls together, in 394, 396, and 402. This last date will not suit; for, according to what has just been said, S. Martin was still living at the time of the Synod of Nimes, and he died in the year 400. Thus there remain only the dates 394 and 396, and of these the former is the more probable, because in the heading of the Acts iterum does not follow consulibus.
SECTION 111. THE FOUR FIRST CARTHAGINIAN SYNODS UNDER AURELIUS, AND THE SYNODS OF ADRUMENTUM AND CONSTANTINOPLE.
As we have seen, Archbishop Aurelius of Carthage opened his series of Synods with that of Hippo in 393. These were followed, during his time of office, by twenty more, almost all held at Carthage itself, which had already in ancient times come to be separately numbered. The first of them belongs to the year 394; we, however, know no more of it than that several bishops from Proconsular Africa were chosen to go as envoys to the Synod of Adrumetum. Fd41 It is thence inferred that this Synod of Carthage was only a provincial one, while that of Adrumetum was an African General Synod. More than this is not known. Fd42 In the same year, 394, a Synod also took place at Constantinople under the presidency of the Archbishop Nectarius, to decide between the claims of two bishops, Gebadius and Agapius, to the See of Bostra in Arabia; a matter which really belonged to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch. Fd43 On this occasion it was decided that in future a bishop could only he deposed by a greater synod, and by the sentence of the bishops of the province, and not simply by three other bishops. Fd44 If we turn again to Carthage, we shall find that two Synods, often not properly distinguished from each other, were held there in 397. One of these (the Second of Carthage) was held under Aurelius on the 26th of June, the other (the Third of Carthage) on the 28th of August. Of the first we have only one piece of information in the African Codex, between the numbers 56 and 57, which says that it was held on the sixth of the Kalends of July, under the Consuls Caesarius and Atticus, and that it prescribed that no bishop should make a sea voyage without litteroe formatoe from the primate. Fd45 But from the third Carthaginian Synod, of the 28th August 397, Acts have come down to us. In accordance with the rule of Hippo, Fd46 this Synod was announced for the 23rd August; but as the deputies of several African provinces did not immediately appear, the opening was postponed for some days. Fd47 The deputies of Mauretania Sitifensis, however, declared that on account of the distance they could not wait so long Like them, the bishops of the Byzacene province, with Musonius or Mizonius at their head, had arrived considerably earlier, and had already, on the Ides of August, held an assembly with Archbishop Aurelius of Carthage — a preliminary Synod — in which they rejected the abridgment of the decisions of Hippo, already well known to us, and gave him a letter, still extant, which they and Aurelius together addressed to the approaching African General Synod. Fd48 When they were assembled on the 28th of August, the Synod had these documents read aloud, gave its consent to the Breviarium, renewed the decisions it contained (as well as the Nicene formula), and added some fresh rules without distinguishing them from those of the Breviarium by special numbers. There are, however, but few of these additions, Fd49 In the first the Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus, as envoys of the Mauretanian Province of Sitifi, again complain of Bishop Creseonius of Villa Regis, who, in spite of the decision of Hippo (canon 2), still retained possession of the See of Tubunae, and beg for permission to invoke the aid of the civil governor of the province against him (an appeal to the secular arm).
The Synod granted their request. Fd50 In the second the same bishops propose that it should be directed that a bishop may only be consecrated by twelve others. On the motion of Aurelius, however, this was not agreed to; but the Nicene rule was renewed, according to which at least three bishops were necessary to consecrate another.
The third treats of a case in which the fitness of a newly-elected bishop is questioned, and orders that the matter shall be investigated, and the consecration shall not take place till the inquiry is over.
The fourth renews the decisions of Hippo as to the feast of Easter, and the annual visitation of each province to take place at the time of the General Council. Fd51 In the fifth, Bishop Epigonius said that nothing should be added to that which was inserted in the Breviarium by the Synod of Hippo, except that the time appointed for Easter should always be announced at the Council.
The rest refers to the appointment of new bishops, and forbids the confirmation of those priests, who from pride seek to separate their parishes from the diocese to which they have hitherto belonged, in order themselves to become bishops. But those bishops who separate themselves from their colleagues, and entirely refuse to appear at the Synods, shall not only not be allowed to retain their dioceses undivided, but they must with the help of the public authority (brachium seculare) be banished from their Sees.
The sixth (in Mansi wrongly given as the seventh) is no more than the application of the nineteenth canon of Hippo to a special case. Fd52 Lastly, the seventh confirms the prerogative of the Bishop of Carthage with regard to the appointment and consecration of other bishops, and acknowledges his right to transfer the clergy from one diocese to another for the good of the Church.
At the end, forty-three bishops in all subscribed the decrees, among whom was S. Augustine. The Acts of this Synod were first accurately reproduced by the Ballerini, Fd53 after whom Mansi adopted them in an amended form in his Collection of Councils. Fd54 One hundred and four canons (Baluze thinks 105) are ascribed to a fourth Carthaginian Synod in 398 (Honorio IV. et Eutychiano consulibus), according to the heading of which 214 bishops were present; and these canons are found in the old Spanish, as well as in the pseudo- Isidorian collection, and in Hardouin. Fd55 Christopher Justellus, however, and other ancient scholars have raised objections to the real existence of this Synod; and the Ballerini have shown that many old codices did not ascribe this collection of 104 canons to a Council of Carthage, but gave them the general title of Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, or a similar one. Fd56 These codices also give the canons in a different, indeed the original order, as the Ballerini again show; Fd57 while the Spanish collection has arranged the separate canons more in accordance with their contents. The conclusion obtained from the researches of the Ballerini is, that these 104 canons are certainly very old, but that the heading which ascribes them to the Carthaginian Synod of 398 is spurious. A synod of 214 bishops would have been the greatest and most remarkable among the African Synods, and yet nothing is known of such an one in 398. It is not mentioned either by Dionysius Exiguus, or by Ferrandus, or by the Carthaginian Synod of 525, which renewed so many canons of more ancient African Synods. Besides this argumentum ex silentio, there is also positive evidence against the Synod in question. For instance, the first canon (according to another arrangement the prooemium) plainly refers to Pelagianism, and even to Nestorianism and Monophysitism; besides which, the same canon speaks of metropolitans, which expression was not used in Africa. As we have already seen, primoe sedis episcopus, senex, and primas were used instead. Fd58 To this must be added that Donatian of Telepte (Talabricensis), who in the signatures to the 104th canon appears as episcopus primoe sedis, did not in 398 possess this dignity. Fd59 Moreover, the 104 canons do not proceed from one and the same Synod, nor even from several Carthaginian Synods, but the whole is the compilation of a private individual, who collected that number of ancient canons, partly from African and partly from other Synods, of which many were Eastern ones, for which reason in the Italian manuscripts his work obtained the title of Statuta Orientis.
Fd60 Probably this collection originated after the commencement of the Pelagian and Monophysite controversies, but still before the end of the sixth century, when was adopted into other collections. Fd61 The often quoted canons of this supposed fourth Synod of Carthage run thus: — 1. He who is to be ordained bishop must first be examined whether he is prudent, teachable, of gentle manners, etc.; above all, whether he openly acknowledges the chief points of the faith, i.e. that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, that Christ has two natures, and yet is only one Person; Fd62 whether he believes that the Old and New Testaments have only one Author and God; that the devil is not wicked by nature, but of his own free will; whether he believes in the resurrection of this flesh, and in the judgment; whether he does not disapprove marriage, or condemn second marriages, or the eating of flesh; whether he has communion with reconciled penitents, and believes that in baptism all sins, original sin as well as wilful sins, are remitted, and that extra Ecclesiam Catholicam nullus salvatur. Fd63 If he passes the examination he shall be consecrated bishop, with the consent of the clergy and laity, in the presence of all the bishops of the province, and especially with the authority of the metropolitan. He must also be of the prescribed age. 2. When a bishop is consecrated, two bishops must hold the book of the gospels over his head and his neck, and while one pronounces the blessing over him, all the other bishops lay their hands on his head. 3 When a presbyter is ordained, and the bishop in blessing him lays his hand upon his head, all the priests present also lay their hands on his head. 4. When a deacon is ordained, only the bishop who blesses him lays his hand upon his head. 5. When a sub-deacon is ordained, he receives no imposition of hands, but the bishop delivers to him the paten and chalice empty, and the archdeacon gives him the little can with water, the mantile and manutergium (perhaps we should read urceolum cum aquamanile [ = little plate], et manutergium). 6. When an acolyte is ordained, the bishop instructs him how he is to behave himself in his office. The archdeacon gives him the candlestick with the tapers, etc. 7. When an exorcist is ordained, the bishop gives him the book in which the exorcisms are written, with the words: Accipe et commenda memorioe, etc. (just as now in conferring the power of exorcism). 8. When a reader is ordained, the bishop makes a discourse to the people upon him, his faith and his life, and then delivers to him the codex from which he is to read, saying, Accipe, etc. (as is still the practice). 9. When a doorkeeper (ostiarius) is ordained, the bishop delivers to him the keys of the church, saying, Sic age, etc. (as is still the practice). 10. A psalmist may receive his office by the command of the presbyter only, without the previous knowledge of the bishop. The presbyter thus addresses him, Vide ut quod ore cantas, corde credas, et quod corde credis, operibus comprobes. (This form is still used in ordaining a lector.) 11. If a virgin is to be presented to the bishop for consecration, it must be in the same clothes which, in accordance with her sacred calling, she will henceforth wear. 12. Widows or virgins consecrated to God, who are to be employed at the baptism of women, must be competent to instruct rude and ignorant women how to answer at their baptism and how to live afterwards. 13. A bride and bridegroom shall be presented to the priest by their parents, or those representing them, for benediction. Out of respect to the blessing received, they shall remain the following night in virginity. 14. The bishop shall live close to the church. 15. A bishop shall have but little household furniture, and a frugal table. 16. A bishop shall read no heathen books, and heretical books only when necessary. 17. The affairs of widows, orphans, and strangers shall not be transacted personally by the bishop, but through the arch-presbyter or archdeacon. 18. A bishop shall not take upon himself to act as executor. 19. A bishop shall not go to law in secular matters, even if he is provoked. 20. He shall not occupy himself with household cares, but with reading, prayer, and preaching. 21. Without urgent necessity a bishop shall not allow himself to be kept away from synods; he may, however, send his legates instead, ready salva fidei veritate to accept all that the synod may decide. 22. He shall not ordain any one without the advice of his clergy, and is bound civium conniventiam et testimonium quoerere. 23. A bishop shall undertake no judicial action except in the presence of his clergy, otherwise his sentence is invalid. 24. Whoever leaves the church during the sermon of the priest shall be excommunicated. 25. Bishops who are at strife with one another shall be reconciled by the synod. 26. The bishops shall exhort clergymen or laymen, who are at strife, to peace rather than to law proceedings. 27. Neither a bishop nor any other ecclesiastic shall go from a smaller to a more important place. But if the good of the Church demands it, the translation (of a bishop) must take place at the synod, upon the written request of clergy and people. Other clerics only need (for their translation) the permission of their bishops. 28. An unjust sentence of a bishop (probably pronounced upon one of his clergy) is invalid, and must be reversed by the synod. 29. If a bishop accuses a clergyman or layman of a crime, he shall prove it before the synod. 30. Ecclesiastical judges may pass no sentence in the absence of the accused. 31. The bishop must regard Church property as his trust only, — not as his possession. 32. If a |
