THE CANONS OF THE SYNODS OF SARDICA, CARTHAGE, CONSTANTINOPLE, AND CARTHAGE
UNDER ST. CYPRIAN
THE CANONS OF THE SYNODS OF SARDICA, CARTHAGE, CONSTANTINOPLE, AND CARTHAGE
UNDER ST. CYPRIAN, WHICH CANONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL IN TRULLO AND
RATIFIED BY II. NICE.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
I have placed the canons of Sardica and those of Carthage and those of the
Council held at Constantinople under Nectarius and Theophilus, and that of the
Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, immediately after the Council in
Trullo, because in file second canon of that synod they are for the first time
mentioned by name as being accepted by the Universal Church.
THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA.
A.D. 343 OR 344.
Emperors.--CONSTANTIUS AND CONTANS.
Pope.--Julius I.
Elenchus.
Introduction on the date of the synod.
Note on the text of the canons.
The Canons with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Other Acts of the Synod.
Excursus as to this synod's claim to ecumenical character.
INTRODUCTION ON THE DATE OF THE COUNCIL.
(Hefele, Hist. Councils, Vol. II., pp. 86 et seqq.)
Our inquiries concerning the Synod of Sardica must begin with a
chronological examination of the date of this assembly. Socrates and Sozomen place it
expressly in the year 347 A.D., with the more precise statement that it was held
under the Consuls Rufinus and Eusebius in the eleventh year after the death of
Constantine the Great, therefore after the 22d of May, 347, according to our way
of reckoning.
This was the most general view until, rather more than a hundred years
ago, the learned Scipio Maffei discovered at Verona, the fragment of a Latin
translation of an old Alexandrian chronicle (the Historia Acephala), and edited it
in the third volume of the Osservazioni Litterarii in 1738. This fragment
contains the information that on the 24th Phaophi (October 21), under the Consuls
Constantius IV. and Constans II., in the year 346, Athanasius had returned to
Alexandria from his second exile. As it is universally allowed, however, as we
shall presently show more clearly, that this return certainly only took place about
two years after the Synod of Sardica, Mansi hence saw the necessity of dating
this synod as early as the year 344. In this he is confirmed by St. Jerome, in
the continuation of the Eusebian chronicle, who, in accordance with the
Historia Acephala, has assigned the return of St. Athanasius to the tenth year of the
reign of the Emperor Constantius, in 346.
Many learned men now followed Mansi, the greater number blindly; others,
again, sought to contradict him, at first the learned Dominican, Mamachi; then
Dr. Wetzer (Professor at Freiburg); and latterly, we ourselves in a treatise,
"Controversen aber die Synode von Sardika," in the Tubinger Theol.
Quartalschrift, 1852. Soon after there was a fresh discovery. Some of the Paschal Letters of
St. Athanasius, which until then were supposed to be lost, were discovered in
an Egyptian monastery, with a very ancient preface translated into Syriac, and
were published in that language by Cureton in London, and in the year 1852 in
German by Professor Larsow, at the Grey Friars Convent, in Berlin.
Among these Festal Letters, the nineteenth, intended for Easter 347, and
therefore composed in the beginning of that year, had been rewritten in
Alexandria, as the introduction expressly states. This confirms the statement of the
Historia Acephala, that Athanasius was already returned to Alexandria in October,
346, and confirms the chief points of Mansi's hypothesis; while, on the other
hand, it unanswerably refutes, by Athanasius' own testimony, the statements of
Socrates and Sozomen (which, from their dependence on each other, only count as
one), with reference to the date 347.
As we said, Mansi placed this Synod in the year 344; but the old preface
to the Festal Letters of St. Athanasius dates it in the year 343, and in fact we
can now only hesitate between the dates 343 and 344. If the preface were as
ancient and as powerfully convincing as the Festal Letters themselves, then the
question concerning the date of the Council of Sardica would be most accurately
decided. As, however, this preface contains mistakes in several places,
especially chronological errors--for instance, regarding the death of Constantine the
Great--we cannot unconditionally accept its statement as to the date 344, but
can only do so when it corresponds with other dates concerning that time.
Let us, at all events, assume that Athanasius came to Rome about Easter,
340. As is known, he was there for three whole years, and in the beginning of
the fourth year was summoned to the Emperor Constans at Milan. This points to the
summer of 343. From thence he went through Gaul to Sardica, and thus it is
quite possible that that Synod might have begun in the autumn of 343. It probably
lasted, however, until the spring; for when the two envoys, Euphrates of
Cologne, and Vincent of Capua, who were sent by the Synod to the Emperor Constans,
arrived in Antioch, it was already Easter 344. Stephen, the bishop of the latter
city, treated them in a truly diabolical manner; but his wickedness soon became
notorious, and a synod was established, which deposed him after Easter 344.
Its members were Eusebians, who therefore appointed Leontius Castratus as
Stephen's successor, and it is indeed no other than this assembly which Athanasius has
in mind, when he says it took place three years after the Synod in Encoeniis,
and drew up a very explicit Eusebian confession of faith, the
<greek>makrostikos</greek>.
The disgraceful behaviour of Bishop Stephen of Antioch for some time
inclined the Emperor to place less confidence in the Arian party, and to allow
Athanasius's exiled clergy to return home in the summer of 344. Ten months later,
the pseudo-bishop, Gregory of Alexandria, died (in June, 345), and Constantius
did not permit any fresh appointment to the see of Alexandria, but recalled St.
Athanasius by three letters, and waited for him more than a year. Thus the see
of Alexandria remained unoccupied for more than a year, until the last six
months of 346. At length, in October, 346, Athanasius returned to his bishopric.
We see then that by accepting the distinct statements of the Paschal
Letters of St. Athanasius and the preface, we obtain a satisfactory chronological
system in which the separate details cohere well together, and which thus
recommends itself. One great objection which we formerly raised ourselves against the
date 344 can now be solved. It is certainly true that in 353 or 354 Pope
Librius wrote thus: "Eight years ago the Eusebian deputies, Eudoxius and Martyrius
(who came to the West with the formula <greek>makrostikos</greek>), refused to
anathematize the Arian doctrine at Milan." But the Synod of Milan here alluded
to, and placed about the year 345, was not, as we before erroneously supposed,
held before the Synod of Sardica, but after it. We are somewhat less fortunate as
regards another difficulty. The Eusebians assembled at Philippopolis (the
pseudo-synod of Sardica) say, in their synodal letter: "Bishop Asclepas of Gaza was
deposed from his bishopric seventeen years ago." This deposition occurred at
an Antiochian synod. If we identified this synod with the well-known one of 330,
by which Eustathius of Antioch also was overthrown, we should, reckoning the
seventeen years, have the year 346 or 347, in which to place the writing of the
Synodal Letter of Philippopolis, and therefore the Synod of Sardica. There are,
however, two ways of avoiding this conclusion, either we must suppose that
Asclepas has been already deposed a year or so before the Antiochian Synod of 330;
or that the statement as to the number seventeen in the Latin translation of
the Synodal Letter of Philippopolis (for we no longer possess the original text)
is an error or slip of the pen. But in no case can this Synodal Letter alter
the fact that Athanasius was again in Alexandria when he composed his Paschal
Letter for the year 347, and that the Synod of Sardica must therefore have been
held several years before.
NOTE ON THE TEXT OF THE CANONS.
The Canons of Sardica have come down to us both in Greek and Latin, and
some writers such as Richer (Histoire Conc. Generale, Tom. i., p. 98), have been
of opinion that the Latin text alone was the original, while others, such as
Walch (Gesch. der Kirchenvers., p. 179), have arrived at a directly opposite
conclusion. Now, however, chiefly owing to the investigations of the Ballerini and
of Spittler, the unanimous opinion of scholars--so says Hefele--is that the
canons were originally drawn up in both languages, intended as they were for both
Latins and Greeks. I may perhaps remind the reader that in many Western
collections of canons the canons of Sardica immediately follow those of Nice without
any break, or note that they were not enacted at that council. It will also be
well to bear in mind that they were received by the Greeks as of Ecumenical
authority by the Council in Trullo, and as such are contained in the body of the
Greek Canon Law.
I have provided the reader with a very accurate translation of each text.
THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF SARDICA.
The holy synod assembled in Sardica from various provinces decreed as
follows.
(Found in Greek in John of Constantinople's collection of the sixth century
and several other MSS. Found also in the works of the Greek scholiasts.Found in
Latin in the Prisca, in Dionysius Exiguus, and in Isidore, genuine and false.)
CANON I.
(Greek.)
HOSIUS, bishop of the city of Corduba, said: A prevalent evil, or rather
most mischievous corruption must be done away with from its very foundations.
Let no bishop be allowed to remove from a small city to a different one: as there
is an obvious reason for this fault, accounting for such attempts; since no
bishop could ever yet be found who endeavoured to be translated from a larger
city to a smaller one. It is therefore evident that such persons are inflamed with
excessive covetousness and are only serving ambition in order to have the
repute of possessing greater authority. Is it then the pleasure of all that so
grave an abuse be punished with great severity? For I think that men of this sort
should not be admitted even to lay communion.All the bishops said: It is the
pleasure of all.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: A prevalent evil and mischievous corruption must be
done away with from its foundation. Let no bishop be allowed to remove from his
own city to another. For the reason of such attempts is manifest, since in this
matter no bishop has been found who would remove from a larger city to a
smaller one. It is therefore evident that these men are inflamed with excess of
covetousness, and are serving ambition and aiming at the possession of power. If it
be the pleasure of all, let so great an evil be punished right harshly and
sternly, so that he who is such shall not even be admitted to lay communion. All
with one accord answered: Such is our pleasure.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.
NO bishop is to be found passing from a smaller to a greater city. If
anyone should move from an humble to a more important see, he shall be
excommunicated through his whole life as proud and grasping.
VAN ESPEN.
(Dissert. in Synod. Sard., II.(1))
What Peter de Marca says (De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imp., Lib. V., cap.
iv.), "Hosius presided over" this council as legate of the Roman bishop, rests
upon no solid foundation, and no trace of any such legation is found in
Athanasius or in any of the other writers who treated of this synod. Moreover such a
thing is contrary to the form of subscription used. For of those who signed the
first is Hosius, and Athanasius designates him simply as "from Spain," without
any addition; and then next he mentions "Julius of Rome, by Archidamus and
Philoxenus, his presbyters," etc. What is clearer than that, by the testimony of
Athanasius, Julius was present by these two presbyters only, and that they only
were his legates or vicars, who in his room were present at this synod?
The first part of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici;
Raymund's Decretales, De Clericis non residentibus, Cap. ii.
CANON II.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: But if any such person should be found so mad or
audacious as to think to advance by way of excuse an affirmation that he had brought
letters from the people [laity], it is plain that some few persons, corrupted
by bribes and rewards, could have got up an uproar in the church, demanding,
forsooth, the said man for bishop. I think then that practices and devices of
such sort absolutely must be punished, so that a man of this kind be deemed
unworthy even of lay communion in extremis. Do ye therefore make answer whether this
sentence is approved by you.They [the bishops] answered: What has been said is
approved of.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Even if any such person should show himself so rash as
perhaps to allege as an excuse and affirm that he has received letters from
the people, inasmuch as it is evident that a few persons could have been
corrupted by rewards and bribes--[namely] persons who do not hold the pure faith--to
raise an uproar in the church, and seem to ask for the said man as bishop; I
judge that these frauds must be condemned, so that such an one should not receive
even lay communion at the last. If ye all approve, do ye decree it. The synod
answered: We approve.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON Il.
If anyone shall pass from one city to another, and shall raise up
seditions, tickling the people and be assisted by them in raising a disturbance, he
shall not be allowed communion even when dying.
VAN ESPEN.
To understand this canon aright it must be remembered that in the first
ages of the Church the people were accustomed to have a share in the election of
their bishop; and he whom the people demanded was usually ordained their bishop.
ARISTENUS.
This [penalty] is something unheard of and horrible, that he should not be
deemed worthy of communion even at the hour of death; for it is a provision found
nowhere else imposed by any canon, nor inflicted upon any sin.
VAN ESPEN.
The Greek author Aristenus [in the above remarks] probably has not erred
from the truth when he asserts that to no crime was this penalty attached, if he
refers to the Eastern Churches; for Morinus himself (in the xixth chapter of
the ixth book, De Penitentia), confesses that this penalty was never attached to
any crime among the Easterns: nevertheless in some Churches in the first ages
the three crimes of idolatry, murder, and adultery were thus punished: that is,
that to those who admitted any one of these, reconciliation was denied even at
his death, "and this," says Morinus, "I think no one can deny, who is at all
versed in the testimony of the ancients on this point."
HEFELE.
The addition in the Latin text, qui sinceram fidem non habent, is found
both in Dionysius Exiguus and in Isidore and the Prisca, and its meaning is as
follows: "In a town, some few, especially those who have not the true faith, can
be easily bribed to demand this or that person as bishop." The Fathers of
Sardica plainly had here in view the Arians and their adherents, who, through such
like machinations, when they had gained over, if only a small party in a town,
sought to press into the bishoprics. The Synod of Antioch moreover, in 341,
although the Eusebians, properly speaking, were dominant there, had laid down in
the twenty-first canon a similar, only less severe, rule.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Raymond's Decretales,
cap. if, De electione, but with the noteworthy addition "unless he shall have
repented." These words do not occur in the other Latin versions, and Hefele thinks
them to have been added by Raymond of Pennaforte.
CANON III.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also it is necessary to add,--that no bishop pass
from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless
indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of
charity.
And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a
bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two
should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.
But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he
supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be
reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter
the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of
Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the
neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his
case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not
be annulled, but stand good as before.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also it is necessary to add,--that bishops shall
not pass from their own province to another province in which there are
bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to
close the door of charity.
But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his
brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another
province.
But if judgment, have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think
that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it
be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those
who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge
that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but
if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need
not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure
of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON
No bishop, unless called thereto, shall pass to another city. Moreover a
bishop of the province who is engaged in any litigation shall not appeal to
outside bishops. But if Rome hears the cause, even outsiders may be present.
VAN ESPEN.
According to the reading of Dionysius and Isidore, as well as of the
Greeks, Balsamon, Zonaras and Aristenus, as also of Hervetus the provision is that
bishops of one province shall not pass to another in which there are NOT bishops.
ZONARAS.
Not only are bishops prohibited from changing their cities, and passing
from a smaller to a larger one, but also from passing from one province to
another in which there are bishops, for the sake of doing any ecclesiastical work
there unless they are called by the bishops of that province.
On the phrase "if it pleases you" the following from St. Athanasius is
much to the point (cit. by Pusey, Councils, p. 143). "They [i.e., the Council of
Nice] wrote concerning Easter, 't seemed good' as follows: for it did then seem
good, that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote
not 'It seemed good,' but 'Thus believes the Catholic Church'; and thereupon
they confessed how the faith lay, in order to shew that their sentiments were
not novel, but apostolic."
TILLEMONT.
This form is very strong to shew that it was a right which the Pope had
not had hitherto.
VAN ESPEN.
Peter de Marca (De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, Lib. VII., Cap. iij.,
8) says that Ho-sins here proposed to the fathers to honour the memory of St.
Peter that he might the more easily lead them to consent to this new privilege;
for, as De Marca has proved, the right here bestowed upon the Roman Pontiff
was clearly unknown before.
It has been urged that the mention of the pope by name, intimates clearly
that the provision of these canons of an appeal to Rome was of a purely
temporary character; and some famous authors such as Edmund Richer, of the Sorbonne,
have written in defence of this view, but Hefele quotes with great force the
words of the learned Protestant, Spittler (Critical Examination of the Sardican
Decisions. Spittler, Sammtlichen Werken, P. viii., p. 129 sq.).
SPITTLER.
It is said that these Sardican decisions were simply provisional, and
intended for the present necessity; because Athanasius, so hardly pressed by the
Arians, could only be rescued by authorizing an appeal to the Bishop of Rome for
a final judgment. Richer, in his History of the General Councils, has
elaborately defended this opinion, and Horix also has declared in its favour. But would
not all secure use of the canons of the councils be done away with if this
distinction between provisional and permanent synodal decisions were admitted? Is
there any sure criterion for distinguishing those canons which were only to be
provisional, from the others which were made for all future centuries? The
Fathers of the Synod of Sardica express themselves quite generally; is it not
therefore most arbitrary on our part to insert limitations? It is beyond question
that these decisions were occasioned by the very critical state of the affairs of
Athanasius; but is everything only provisional that is occasioned by the
circumstances of individuals? In this way the most important of the ancient canons
might be set aside.
HEFELE.
According to the Greek text, and that of Dionysius, those who had
pronounced the first judgment were to write to Rome; and Fuchs rightly adds, that they
were to do this at the desire of the condemned. But, according to Isidore and
the Prisca, the right or the duty of bringing the affair before Rome, also
belonged to the neighbouring bishops. I believe that the last interpretation has
only arisen through a mistake, from a comment belonging to the next sentence being
inserted in the wrong place. It only remains to be remarked here, that Isidore
and the Prisca have not the name Julio, ... But Hardouin's conjecture, that
instead of Julio, perhaps illi may be read, is entirely gratuitous, contrary to
the Greek text, and plainly only a stratagem against the Gallicans.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris (Canonici, Gratian's Decretum,
Pars II., Causa VI., Quaest. iv., Canon j. 7, in Isidore's version. Dionysius's
version is quite wrong as given by Justellus and in the Munich edition, changing
the negative into the affirmative in the phrase ne unus de duobus.
CANON IV.
(Greek.)
BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to
this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that(1) if
any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert
that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see,
unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.
(Latin.)
BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to
this sentence full of sanctity which thou hast pronounced, that--when any bishop
has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in
neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be
examined in the city of Rome--that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained
to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case
shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
If a bishop has been deposed and affirms that he has an excuse to urge,
unless Rome has judged the case, no bishop shall be appointed in his room. For he
might treat the decree with scorn either through his nuncios or by his letters.
There are two distinct understandings of this canon. The one view is that
the "neighbours" of this canon are the same as the "neighbours" of the
preceding canon (number iij.) and that the meaning of this canon therefore is--If the
court of second instance, correlating of the bishops of the neighbouring
province, has pronounced the accused guilty, he still has one more appeal to a third
court, viz., Rome. This is the view taken by the Greeks, Zonaras and Balsamon,
by the Ballerini, Van Espen, Palrod, Walter, Natalis Alexander and many others.
In direct opposition to this is the view that there is no third but only a
second appeal mentioned by the canon. The supporters of this interpretation
are Peter de Marca, Tillemont, Dupin, Fleury, Remi Ceillier, Neander, Stolberg,
Echhorn, Kober, and with these Hefele sides and states his reasons for doing so.
HEFELE.
There must be added to the reasons of the connexion of this canon with the
preceding, the course of events, etc.:
1. That it certainly would be very curious if in the third canon mention
was made of the appeal to Rome as following the judgment of the court of first
instance; in the fourth, after that of the court of second instance; and again
in the fifth, after the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. That if the Synod had really intended to institute a court of third
instance, it would have done so in clearer and more express terms, and not only
have, as it were, smuggled in the whole point with the secondary question, as to
"what was to be done with the bishop's see."
3. Farther, that it is quite devoid of proof that the expression
"neighbouring bishops" is identical with "Bishops in the neighbourhood of the said
Province," that, indeed this identification is throughout unwarrantable and wrong,
and it is far more natural to understand by the neighbouring bishops, the
comprovincials, therefore the court of first instance.
4. That by this interpretation we obtain clearness, consistency, and
harmony in all three canons.
5. That the word <greek>palin</greek> in the fourth canon presents no
difficulty; for even one who has only been heard in the court of first instance may
say he desires again to defend himself, because he has already made his first
defence in the court of first instance.
CANON V.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the
bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing,
so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church,
and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the
examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are
nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy
and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And
if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem
good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the
power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be
right--that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his
authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that
the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let
him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.
The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the
bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has
been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church
and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or
examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who
are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire
into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who
asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome
to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what
he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent,
who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority
by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe
that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall
termine upon in his most wise judgment.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
[Lacking.]
This Canon is vii. of Isidore's collection.
VAN ESPEN.
Mere there is properly speaking no provision for "appeal," which entirely
suspends [i.e. by the canon law] the execution and effect of the first
sentence; but rather for a revision of judgment ... .; those who were sent by the Roman
bishop from his side (a latere) or the bishops wire were appointed, ought,
together with the bishops of the province who had given the former sentence, to
give a fresh judgment and declare their sentence. And this Hinemar of Rheinus was
the first to notice in his letters in the name of Charles the Bald sent to
John VIII.
This view is supported with his accustomed learning and acumen by Du Pin,
De Antiqua Eccl. Disciplina, Diss. II., Cap. I., Sec. 3.
CANON VI.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: If it happen that in a province in which there are
very many bishops one bishop should stay away and by some negligence should not
come to the council and assent to the appointment made by the bishops, but the
people assemble and pray that the ordination of the bishop desired by them take
place--it is necessary that the bishop who stayed away should first be reminded
by letters from the exarch of the province (I mean, of course, the bishop of
the metropolis), that the people demand a pastor to be given them. I think that
it is well to await his [the absent bishop's] arrival also. But if after summons
by letter he does not come, nor even write in reply, the wish of the people
ought to be complied with.
The bishops from the neighbouring provinces also should be invited to the
ordination of the bishop of the metropolis.
It is positively not permitted to ordain a bishop in a village or petty
town, for which even one single presbyter is sufficient (for there is no
necessity to ordain a bishop there) lest the name and authority of bishop should be
made of small account, but the bishops of the province ought, as before said, to
ordain bishops in those cities in which there were bishops previously; and if a
city should be found with a population so large as to be thought worthy of an
episcopal see, let it receive one.
Is this the pleasure of all? All answered: It is our pleasure.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: If it shall have happened, that in a province in which
there have been very many bishops, one [i.e., but one] bishop remains, but
that he by negligence has not chosen [to ordain] a bishop, and the people have
made application, the bishops of the neighbouring province ought first to address
[by letter] the bishop who resides in that province, and show that the people
seek a ruler [i.e., pastor] for themselves and that this is right, so that they
also may come and with him ordain a bishop. But if he refuses to acknowledge
their written communication, and leaves it unnoticed, and writes no reply, the
people's request should be satisfied, so that bishops should come from the
neighbouring province and ordain a bishop.
But permission is not to be given to ordain a bishop either in any
village, or in an unimportant city, for which one presbyter suffices, lest the name
and authority of bishop grow cheap. Those [bishops] who are invited from another
province ought not to ordain a bishop unless in the cities which have
[previously] had bishops, or in a city which is so important or so populous as to be
entitled to have a bishop.
Is this the pleasure of all? The synod replied: It is our pleasure.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.
If the bishops were present when the people were seeking for a bishop, and
one was away, let that one be called. Butt if he is willing to answer the call
neither by letter nor in person, let him be ordained whom they desire.
When a Metropolitan is appointed the neighbouring bishops are to be sent
for.
In a little city and town, for which one presbyter suffices, a bishop is
not to be appointed. But if the city be very populous, it is not unfitting to do
so.
The second portion of this canon is entirely lacking in the Latin. The
Greek scholiasts, Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus, understand this to mean "that
'at the appointment of a metropolitan the bishops of the neighbouring provinces
shall also be invited,' probably to give greater solemnity to the act," so
says Hefele. And to this agree Van Espen, Tillemont, and Herbst.
The first part in the Greek and Latin have different meanings; the Greek
text contemplating the case of one bishop stopping away from a meeting of
bishops for an election to fill a vacancy; the Latin text the case of there being
only one bishop left in a province (after war, pestilence, or the like). This
second meaning is accepted by Van Espen, Christian Lupus and others. Moreover, it
would seem from Flodoard's History of the Church of Rheims (Geschichte der
Rheimser Kirche, Lib. III., c. 20 [a book I have never seen]) that the Gallican
Church acted upon this understanding of this canon. It is that also of Gratian.
Between the Latin and the Greek text stands the interpretation of Zonaras,
which is that if a province once having many bishops has by any contingency
only one left besides the Metropolitan, and he neglects to be present at the
consecration of the new bishops, he is to be summoned by letter of the
Metropolitan, and if he does not then come, the consecrations are to go on without him.
With this explanation Harmenopulus also agrees, adding further that the
Metropolitan might alone consecrate the bishops, resting his argument on the words
<greek>to</greek> <greek>ikaun</greek>
<greek>k</greek>.<greek>t</greek>.<greek>l</greek>.
Some scholars have supposed that neither the present Greek nor the present
Latin text represent the original, but that the Greek text is nearest to it,
but must be corrected by an ancient Latin version found by Maffei in a codex at
Verona. The Ballerini have devoted careful attention to this point in their
notes to the Works of St. Leo the Great (Tom. iii., p. xxxij. 4). It would seem
that this might be the canon quoted by the fathers of Constantinople in 382, and
if so, it would seem that they had a Greek text like that from which the Verona
version was made.
VAN ESPEN.
The fathers of Sardica [in the second part of this canon, which is Canon
VII. by the Latin computation] decreed two things: first, that where the people
justly asked for a Pastor to be ordained for them, their demand should be
complied with; but where the people insisted upon having a bishop ordained for a
village or little city, for which one presbyter was all that was needed, no
attention should be paid to their demands, lest the name and authority of a bishop
should become despicable.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, P.
I., Distinc. lxv., c. ix.
CANON VII.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Our importunity and great pertinacity and unjust
petitions have brought it about that we do not have as much favour and confidence as
we ought to enjoy. For many of the bishops do not intermit resorting to the
imperial Court, especially the Africans, who, as we have learned from our beloved
brother and fellow-bishop, Gratus, do not accept salutary counsels, but so
despise them that one man carries to the Court petitions many and diverse and of
no possible benefit to the Church, and does not (as ought to be done and as is
fitting) assist and help the poor and the laity or the widows, but is intriguing
to obtain worldly dignities and offices for certain persons. This evil then
causes enfeeblement [better, murmuring (read <greek>tonqrusmon</greek> or
<greek>tonqrusmon</greek>)], not without some scandal and blame to us. But I account
it quite proper for a bishop to give assistance to one oppressed by some one, or
to a widow suffering injustice, or, again, an orphan robbed of his estate,
always provided that these persons have a just cause of petition.
If, then, beloved brethren, this seems good to all, do ye decree that no
bishop shall go to the imperial Court except those whom our most pious emperor
may summon by his own letters. Yet since it often happens that persons condemned
for their offences to deportation or banishment to an island, or who have
received some sentence or other, beg for mercy and seek refuge with the Church
[i.e., take sanctuary], such persons are not to be refused assistance, but pardon
should be asked for them without delay and without hesitation. If this, then, is
also your pleasure, do ye all vote assent.
All gave answer: Be this also decreed.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Importunities and excessive pertinacity and unjust
petitions have caused us to have too little favour or confidence, while certain
bishops cease not to go to the Court, especially the Africans, who (as we have
learned) spurn and contemn the salutary counsels of our most holy brother and
fellow-bishop, Gratus, so that they not only bring to the Court many and diverse
petitions (not for the good of the Church nor, as is usual and right, to succour
the poor or widows or orphans), but even seek to obtain worldly dignities and
offices for certain persons. This evil therefore stirs up at times not only
murmurings, but even scandals. But it is proper that bishops should intercede for
persons suffering from violence and oppression, afflicted widows and defrauded
orphans, provided, nevertheless, that these persons have a just cause or
petition.
If, then, brethren dearly beloved, such be your pleasure, do we decree
that no bishops go to the Court except those who may have been invited or summoned
by letters of the God-fearing emperor. But since it often happens that those
who are suffering from injustice or who are condemned for their offences to
deportation or banishment to an island, or, in short, have received some sentence
or other, seek refuge with the mercy of the Church, such persons should be
succoured and pardon be begged for them without hesitation. Decree this, therefore,
if it be your pleasure.
All said: It is our pleasure and be it decreed.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.
When an orphan, widow, and other desolate persons are oppressed by force
let the bishop give them succour and approach the Emperor; but through a pretext
of this kind let him not be a hanger on of the camp, but rather let him send a
deacon.
VAN ESPEN.
The "salutary counsels" (salutaria consilia) here seem to be synodical
admonitions, as Zonaras notes; and these might well be ascribed to Gratus, the
bishop of Carthage, because many of the African synods were held under his
presidency and direction.
* * * * * * *
Nothing is more noteworthy than how from the first princes summoned
bishops in counsel with regard to affairs touching either the estate of the Church or
of the Realm; and called them to their presence in urgent and momentous cases,
and kept them with them.
Justinian, the emperor, in his Novels (Chapter II.) defines that no one of
the God-beloved bishops shall dare to be absent any more from his diocese for
a whole year, and adds this exception, "unless he does so on account of an
imperial jussio; in this case alone he shall be held to be without blame."
On this whole matter of bishops interceding for culprits, and especially
for those condemned to death, see St. Augustine (Epist. 153 ad Macedonium).
With this canon may be compared Canon VII. of the Council of Rheims in
A.D. 630.
This canon is found in part in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decreturn, P. II., Causa xxiij., Quaest. viij., c. xxviij.
CANON VIII.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also let your sagacity determine,
that(1)--inasmuch as this was decreed in order that a bishop might not fall under censure by
going to the Court--that if any have such petitions as we mentioned above, they
should send these by one of their deacons. For the person of a subordinate does
not excite jealousy, and what shall be granted [by the Emperor] can thus be
reported more quickly.
All answered: Be this also decreed.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also your forethought should provide
for--inasmuch as ye have made this decree in order that the audacity of bishops might not
labour [or, be observed] to go to Court. Whosoever therefore shall have or
receive petitions such as we have mentioned above, let them send these [each] by a
deacon of his, because the person of a minister is not an object of jealousy,
and he will be able to report more quickly what he has obtained.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.
[Lacking.]
VAN ESPEN.
This decree is threefold. First, that the bishop in going to Court should
not fall under suspicion either at Court or of his own people that he was
approaching the Prince to obtain some cause of his own. Second, according to the
interpretation of Zonaras, "that no one should be angry with the Minister or
Deacon who tarried in camp, as the bishop had departed thence." And third, that the
Minister could carry away what he had asked for, that is (according to
Zonaras), the letters of the Emperor pardoning the fault, or such like other matters.
CANON IX.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also, I think, follows, that,(2) if in any
province whatever, bishops send petitions to one of their brothers and
fellow-bishops, he that is in the largest city, that is, the metropolis, should himself send
his deacon and the petitions, providing him also with letters commendatory,
writing also of course in succession to our brethren and fellow-bishops, if any of
them should be staying at that time in the places or cities in which the most
pious Emperor is administering public affairs.
But if any of the bishops should have friends at the Court and should wish
to make requests of them as to some proper object, let him not be forbidden to
make such requests through his deacon and move these [friends] to give their
kind assistance as his desire.
But those who come to Rome ought, as I said before, to deliver to our
beloved brother and fellow-bishop, Julius, the petitions which they have to give,
in order that he may first examine them, lest some of them should be improper,
and so, giving them his own advocacy and care, shall send them to the Court.
All the Bishops made answer that such was their pleasure and that the
regulation was most proper.
(Latin.)
THIS also seems to follow, that from whatever province bishops shall send
petitions to that brother and fellow-bishop of ours who has his see in the
metropolis, he [the metropolitan] should dispatch his deacon with the petitions,
providing him with commendatory letters of like tenour to our brethren and
fellow-bishops at that time resident in those regions and cities in which the
fortunate and blessed Emperor is ruling the State.
If however a bishop who seeks to obtain some petition (a worthy one, that
is) has friends in the palace, he is not forbidden to make his request through
his deacon and to advise those who, he knows, can kindly intercede for him in
his absence.
X. But let those who come to Rome, deliver, as before said, to our most
holy brother and follow-bishop, the bishop of the Roman church, the petitions
which they bear, that he also may examine whether they are worthy and just, and
let him give diligence and care that they be forwarded to the Court.
All said that such was their pleasure and that the regulation was proper.
Bishop Alypius said: If they have incurred the discomforts of travel for
the sake of orphans and widows or any in distress and having cases that are not
unjust, they will have some good reason [for their journey]; but now since they
chiefly make requests which cannot be granted without envy and reproach, it is
not necessary for them to go to Court.
NOTE.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX
If one brother sends to another, let the Metropolitan fortify the nuncio
with letters; and let him write to the bishops, who have the matter in hand, to
protect the nuncio.
Here the Latin is not only a translation but an interpretation of the
Greek text, for it distinctly says that every bishop shall send the petition he
intends to present at court first to his Metropolitan, who shah send it in. This
is not clearly in the Greek, and yet the Greek Commentators find it there.
CHRISTIAN LUPUS.
The authority of the bishop alone is not sufficient to send a deacon to
Court, there must be added the judgment of the Metropolitan who shah examine the
petition, prove, sign, and commend it, not only to the Prince, but also to the
bishop in whose diocese he may happen to be.
HEFELE.
Zonaras, Balsamon, and Aristenus explained this canon somewhat
differently, thus: "If a bishop desires to send his petitions addressed to the Emperor to
the bishop of the town where the Emperor is staying, he shall first send them
to the Metropolitan of that province (according to Aristenus, his own
Metropolitan) and the latter shall send his own deacon with letters of recommendation to
the bishop or bishops who may be at court." This difference rests upon the
various meanings of "to the brother and fellow-bishop" in the beginning of the
canon. We understand by this his own Metropolitan, and treat the words:
<greek>o</greek> <greek>en</greek> <greek>th</greek> <greek>meizoni</greek>
<greek>k</greek>. <greek>t</greek>. <greek>l</greek>., as a more exact definition of
"fellow-bishop," and the participle <greek>tugkanwn</greek> as equivalent to
<greek>tugkanei</greek>, and make the principal clause begin at <greek>autos</greek>
<greek>kai</greek> <greek>ton</greek> <greek>diakonon</greek>. Beveridge translated
the canon in the same way. Zonaras and others, on the contrary, understood by
"fellow-bishop," the bishop of the Emperor's residence for the time being, and
regarded the words <greek>o</greek> <greek>en</greek> <greek>th</greek>
<greek>meizoh</greek> <greek>k</greek>. <greek>t</greek>. <greek>l</greek>. not as a
clearer definition of what had gone before, but as the principal clause, in the
sense of "then the Metropolitan shall," etc. According to this interpretation,
the words conveying the idea that the bishop must have recourse to the
Metropolitan are entirely wanting in the canon.
The first part of this Canon is the last part of Canon IX. of the Latin.
The last part is Canon X. of the Latin, but the personal part about Alypius is
omitted from the Greek.
CANON X.
(Greeks.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also I think necessary.(1) Ye should consider
with all thoroughness and care, that if some rich man or professional advocate be
desired for bishop, he be not ordained until he have fulfilled the ministry of
reader, deacon, and presbyter, in order that, passing by promotion through the
several grades, he may advance (if, that is, he be found worthy) to the height
of the episcopate. And he shall remain in each order assuredly for no brief
time, that so Iris faith, his reputable life, his steadfastness of character and
considerateness of demeanour may be well-known, and that he, being deemed worthy
of the divine sacerdotal office [sacerdotium, i.e., the episcopate] may enjoy
the highest honour. For it is not fitting, nor does discipline or good
conversation allow to proceed to this act rashly or lightly, so as to ordain a bishop
or presbyter or deacon hastily; as thus he would rightly be accounted a novice,
especially since also the most blessed Apostle, he who was the teacher of the
Gentiles, is seen to have forbidden hasty ordinations; for the test of [even]
the longest period will not unreasonably be required to exemplify the
conversation and character of each [candidate].
All said that this was their pleasure and that it must be absolutely
irreversible.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also I think it necessary for you to consider
most carefully, that if perchance some rich man or professional advocate or
ex-official be desired for bishop, he be not ordained until he have fulfilled the
ministry of a reader and the office of deacon and presbyter, and so ascend, if he
have shown himself worthy, through the several grades to the height of the
episcopate. For by these promotions which in any case take a considerable length of
time can be tested his faith, his discretion, his gravity and modesty. And if
he be found worthy, let him be honoured with the divine sacerdotal office [i.e.
the episcopate]. For it is not fitting, nor does order or discipline allow,
that one be rashly or lightly ordained bishop, presbyter or deacon, who is a
novice, especially since also the blessed Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, is
seen to have expressly forbidden it. But those [should be ordained] whose life
has been tested and their merit approved by length of time.
All said that this was their pleasure.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X.
No lawyer, teacher, or gentleman (<greek>plousios</greek>) shall be made a
bishop without passing through the holy orders. Nor shall the space of time
between the orders be made too brief, that there may be a better proof of his
faith and good conversation. For otherwise he is a neophyte.
This is Canon XIII. of Dionysius, Isidore, and the Prisca.
VAN ESPEN.
By Scholasticus de foro ["professional advocate"] must be understood an
eloquent pleader of difficult causes, who being bound up in forensic disputes and
strifes, may be presumed to be little fitted for the priesthood, and therefore
to need a more strict examination.
The Synodal approbation is lacking in Dionysius as given by Justellus, as
well as in that of the Roman Code, but is found in Labbe's reprint of Dionysius
and Isidore.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, P.
I., Dist. lxj., c. x.
CANON XI.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also we ought to decree, that(1) when a bishop
comes from one city to another city, or from one province to another province, to
indulge boastfulness, ministering to his own praises rather than serving
religious devotion, and wishes to prolong his stay [in a city], and the bishop of
that city is not skilled in teaching, let him [the visiting bishop] not do
despite to the bishop of the place and attempt by frequent discourses to disparage
him and lessen his repute (for this device is wont to cause tumults), and strive
by such arts to solicit and wrest to himself another's throne, not scrupling to
abandon the church committed to him and to procure translation to another. A
definite limit of time should therefore be set in such a case, especially since
not to receive a bishop is accounted the part of rude and discourteous persons.
Ye remember that in former times our fathers decreed that if a layman were
staying in a city and should not come to divine worship for three [successive]
Sundays [that is], for three [full] weeks, he should be repelled from communion.
If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is neither needful, nor
fitting, nor yet even expedient that a bishop, unless he has some grave
necessity or difficult business, should be very long absent from his own church and
distress the people committed to him.
All the bishops said: We decide that this decree also is most proper.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also ye ought to determine. If a bishop comes
from one city to another city, or from his own province to another province, and
serving ambition rather than devotion, wishes to remain resident for a long time
in a strange city, and then (as it perchance happens that the bishop of the
place is not so practised or so learned as himself) he, the stranger, should
begin to do him despite and deliver frequent discourses to disparage him and lessen
his repute, not hesitating by this device to leave the church assigned him and
remove to that which is another's--do ye then [in such a case] set a limit of
time [for his stay in the city], because on the one hand to refuse to receive a
bishop is discourteous, and on the other his too long stay is mischievous.
Provision must be made against this. I remember that in a former council our
brethren decreed that if any layman did not attend divine service in a city in which
he was staying three Sundays, that is, for three weeks, he should be deprived
of communion. If then this has been decreed in the case of laymen, it is far
less lawful and fitting that a bishop, if there be no grave necessity detaining
him, should be absent from his church longer than the time above written.
All said that such was their pleasure.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XI..
A bishop when called in by another bishop, if he that called him is
unskilled, must not be too assiduous in preaching, for this would be indecorous to
the unlearned bishop, and an attack upon his bishopric. And both improper,
Without grave necessity it is undesirable for a bishop to be absent from his church.
This is Canon XIV. of the Latin.
VAN ESPEN.
To understand this canon it must be again remembered that in the first
ages of the Church bishops were wont to be appointed at the demand of the people;
wherefore whoever were going around after the episcopate, were accustomed to
solicit the hearts of the people, and to make it their study to win their
affections.
CANON XII.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Since no case should be left unprovided for, let this
also be decreed.(1) Some of our brethren and fellow-bishops are known to
possess very little private property in the cities in which they are placed as
bishops, but have great possessions in other places, with which they are, moreover,
able to help the poor. I think then permission should be given them, if they are
to visit their estates and attend to the gathering of the harvest, to pass
three Sundays, that is, to stay for three weeks, on their estates, and to assist
at divine worship and celebrate the liturgy in the nearest church in which, a
presbyter holds service, in order that they may not be seen to be absent from
worship, and in order that they may not come too frequently to the city in which
there is a bishop. In this way their private affairs will suffer no loss from
their absence and they will be seen to be clear from the charge of ambition and
arrogance.
All the bishops said: This decree also is approved by us.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Since no case should be left unprovided for [let this
also be decreed]. There are some of our brother-bishops, who do not reside in
the city in which they are appointed bishops, either because they have but
little property there, while they are known to have considerable estates elsewhere,
or, it may be, through affection for kith and kin and in complaisance to these.
Let this much be permitted them, to go to their estates to superintend and
dispose of their harvest, and [for this purpose] to remain over three Sundays,
that is, for three weeks, if it be necessary, on their estates; or else, if there
is a neighbouring city in which there is a presbyter, in order that they may
not be seen to pass Sunday without church, let them go thither, so that fin this
way] neither will their private affairs suffer loss from their absence, nor
will they, by frequent going to the city in which a bishop is resident, incur the
suspicion of ambition and place-seeking. All said that this was approved by
them.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XII.
If a bishop has possessions outside his diocese, and visits them, let him
be careful not to remain there more than three Lord's days. For thus his own
flock will be enriched by him, and he himself will avoid the charge of arrogance.
This is Canon XV. of the Latin.
VAN ESPEN.
As Balsamon notes, this canon is an appendix to that which goes before,
and the context of the canon indicates this clearly enough; for while the last
canon decrees that no bishop is to be absent from his diocese for more than three
Lord's days, without grave necessity, in this canon a certain modification is
introduced with regard to certain bishops.
HEFELE.
According to the Latin text of Dionysius, it is: "Some bishops do not
reside in their Cathedral town, etc." Isidore and the Prisca, however, are nearer
the Greek text, as instead of resident they more rightly read possident.
CANON XIII.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Be this also the pleasure of all. 'If any deacon or
presbyter or any of the clergy be excommunicated and take refuge with another
bishop who knows him and who is aware final he has been removed from communion by
his own bishop, [that other bishop] must not offend against his brother bishop
by admitting him to communion.(1) And if any dare to do this, let him know that
he must present himself before an assembly of bishops and give account.
All the bishops said: This decision will assure peace at all times and
preserve the concord of all.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: Be this also the pleasure of all. If a deacon or
presbyter or any of the clergy be refused communion by his own bishop and go to
another bishop, and he with whom he has taken refuge shall know that he has been
repelled by his own bishop, then must he not grant him communion. But if he shall
do so, let him know that he must give account before an assembly of bishops.
All said: This decision will preserve peace and maintain concord.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII.
Whose knowingly admits to communion one excommunicated by his own bishop
is not without blame.
This is Canon XVI. of the Latin.
VAN ESPEN.
The present canon agrees with Canon V. of Nice and with Canon IV. of
Antioch, on which canons see the notes. The Synod's approbation of this canon is
found in Dionysius, Isidore, and in the Roman Codex apud Hervetus; but it is
lacking from Balsamon and Zonaras.
CANON XIV.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: I must not fail to speak of a matter which constantly
urgeth me.(1) If a bishop be found quick to anger (which ought not to sway such
a man), and he, suddenly moved against a presbyter or deacon, be minded to
cast him out of the Church, provision must be made that such a one be not
condemned too hastily [or read <greek>aqwon</greek>, if innocent] and deprived of
communion.
All said: Let him that is cast out be authorized to take refuge with the
bishop of the metropolis of the same province. And if the bishop of the
metropolis is absent, let him hasten to the bishop that is nearest, and ask to have his
case carefully examined. For a hearing ought not to be denied those who ask it.
And that bishop who cast out such a one, justly or unjustly, ought not to
take it ill that examination of the case be made, and his decision confirmed or
revised. But, until all the particulars have been examined with care and
fidelity, he who is excluded from communion ought not to demand communion in advance
of the decision of his case. And if any of the clergy who have met [to hear
the case] clearly discern arrogance and pretentiousness in him, inasmuch as it is
not fitting to suffer insolence or unjust censure, they ought to correct such
an one with somewhat harsh and grievous language, that men may submit to and
obey commands that are proper and right. For as the bishop ought to manifest
sincere love and regard to his subordinates, so those who are subject to him ought
in like manner to perform the duties of their ministry in sincerity towards
their bishops.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: I must not fail to speak of a matter which further
moveth me. If some bishop is perchance quick to anger (which ought not to be the
case) and, moved hastily and violently against one of his presbyters or deacons,
be minded to cast him out of the Church, provision must be made that an
innocent man be not condemned or deprived of communion.
Therefore let him that is cast out be authorized to appeal to the
neighbouring bishops and let his case be heard and examined into more diligently. For a
hearing ought not to be denied one who asks it.
And let that bishop who cast him out, justly or unjustly, take it
patiently that the matter is discussed, so that his sentence may either be approved by
a number judges] or else revised. Nevertheless, until all the particulars shall
be examined with care and fidelity, no one else ought to presume to admit to
communion him who was excluded therefrom in advance of the decision of his case.
If, however, those who meet to hear it observe arrogance and pride in [such]
clergy, inasmuch as it surely is not fitting for a bishop to suffer wrong or
insult, let them correct them with some severity of language, that they may obey a
bishop whose commands are proper and right. For as he [the bishop] ought to
manifest sincere love and charity to his clergy, so his ministers ought for their
part to render unfeigned obedience to their bishop.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV.
One condemned out of anger, if he asks for assistance, should be heard.
But until [he shall have asked for(1)] the assistance let him remain
excommunicated.
This is Canon XVII. of the Latin version.
VAN ESPEN
This canon is intended especially to aid presbyters, deacons, and other
clerics, who have been excommunicated precipitately and without just cause, or
suspended by their own bishop in his anger and fury. ... The canon, moreover,
admonishes that the bishop with regard to whose sentence the dispute has arisen
shah patiently consent to the discussion of the matter de novo, whether his
decision be sustained by the majority or emended.
And let bishops and other prelates who have spiritual jurisdiction over
the clergy note this, who cannot bear with equanimity that a word should be said
against their decisions, but exact a kind of blind obedience, even frequently
with great conscientious suffering to their very best ecclesiastics; and in such
cases as do not promptly and blindly obey them, the clergy are traduced as
rebels and even a patient hearing is refused to them.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, P.
II., Causa XI., Q. iij., c. iv.
[AFTER CANON XIV.]
CANON XVIII. (Of the Latin.)
BISHOP JANUARIUS said: Let your holiness also decree this, that no bishop
be allowed to try to gain for himself a minister in the church of a bishop of
another city and ordain him to one of his own parishes.
All said: Such is our pleasure, inasmuch as discord is apt to spring from
contentions in this matter, and therefore the sentence of us all forbids anyone
to presume to do.
NOTE.
VAN ESPEN.
It is manifest that these two canons [xviii. of the Latin and xv. of the
Greek], contain the resolution of the same case, and therefore it is that the
Greeks keep only the former which contains the decree of the synod, made on
Hosius's motion, the suggestion having been made by Januarius the bishop: which
suggestion makes the first of these canons. [I.e. Latin canon xviij.]
CANON XV.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: And let us all decree this also, that(2) if any bishop
should ordain to any order the minister of another from another diocese
without the consent of his own bishop, such an ordination should be accounted invalid
and not confirmed. And if any take upon themselves to do this they ought to be
admonished and corrected by our brethren and fellow-bishops.
All said: Let this decree also stand unalterable.
(Latin.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This also we all decree, that if any [bishop] should
ordain the minister of another from another diocese without the consent and will
of his own bishop, his ordination be not ratified. And whoever shall have
taken upon himself to do this ought to be admonished and corrected by our brethren
and fellow-bishops.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV.
If one places a foreign minister without the knowledge of his own bishop
in any grade <greek>embaqmon</greek>, in aliquo gradu), he has indeed made the
appointment, but it is without force.
This is Canon XIX. in the Latin.
HEFELE.
Fuchs, in his Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen (Pt. II., p. 123, note
125), thinks he has discovered a difference between this canon and the
exclusively Latin one preceding it, in that the latter supposes the case of a bishop
ordaining a foreign cleric, over whom he has no jurisdiction, to a higher grade,
with the view of retaining him for his own diocese; while the other--fifteenth
or nineteenth canon--treats of a case where such an ordination takes place
without the ordaining bishop intending to keep the person ordained for his own
diocese. Van Espen is of another opinion, and maintains that both canons obviously
refer to one and the same case, for which reason the Greek text has only
inserted one of them. It is certain that the text of both canons, as we have it, does
not clearly indicate the difference conjectured by Fuchs, but that it may
easily be found there.
VAN ESPEN.
If the reading of all the Latins and Greeks is decisive, this canon only
treats of the ordination of those already ministers or clerics, and so the Greek
commentators Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus understood it, as is evident
from their annotations. But Gratus, Bishop of Carthage, and Primate of Africa, in
the First Synod of Carthage testified that in this canon it was decreed, that
without the licence of his own bishop, a layman of another diocese was not to be
ordained, and this interpretation or rather extension of the Canon, was
received everywhere, as is demonstrated by the fifty-sixth of the African Code.
This together with Canon XIX. of the Latin text are found as one in the
Corpus Juris Canonici (Gratian's Decretum, P. I., Dist. lxxj.), c. j.
CANON XVI.
(Greek.)
BISHOP AETIUS said: Ye are not ignorant how important and how large is the
metropolitan city of Thessalonica. Accordingly presbyters and deacons often
come to it from other provinces and, not content with staying a short time,
remain and make it their permanent place of residence, or are compelled with
difficulty and after a very long delay to return to their own churches. A decree
should be made bearing on this matter.
Bishop HOSIUS said: Let those decrees which have been made in the case of
bishops, be observed as to these persons also.
(Latin.)
BISHOP AETIUS said: Ye are not ignorant how large and important is the
city of Thessalonica. Presbyters and deacons often come to it from other regions,
and are not content to remain a short time, but either make their residence
there or at least are with difficulty compelled to return after a long interval to
their own place.
All said: Those limits of time which have been decreed in the case of
bishops ought to be observed as to these persons also.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI.
What things have been decreed for bishops with regard to the length of
their absence, applies also to presbyters and deacons.
VAN ESPEN.
This canon needs no explanation.
CANON XVII.
(Greek.)
AT the suggestion moreover of our brother Olympius,(1) we are pleased to
decree this also: That if a bishop suffer violence and is unjustly cast out
either on account of his discipline or for his confession of [the faith of] the
Catholic Church or for his defence of the truth, and, fleeing from danger,
although innocent and devout [or, innocent and being under charge of high treason],
comes to another city, let him not be forbidden to stay there until he is
restored or until deliverance can be found from the violence and injustice that have
been done him. For it would be harsh indeed and most oppressive that one who has
suffered unjust expulsion should not be harboured by us; as such a man ought
to be received with the greatest consideration and cordiality.*
All said: This also is our pleasure.
(Latin.)
AT the suggestion of our brother Olympius, we are pleased to decree this
also: That if any suffer violence and is unjustly cast out on account of his
discipline and his Catholic confession or for his defence of the truth, and,
fleeing from dangers, although innocent and devout, comes to another city, let him
not be forbidden to stay there until he can return or his wrong has been
redressed. For it is harsh and unfeeling that he who is suffering persecution should
not be received; indeed, great cordiality and abundant consideration should be
shown him.
All the synod said: All that has been decreed the Catholic Church spread
abroad throughout all the world will preserve and maintain.
And all the bishops of the various provinces who had assembled subscribed
thus: I, N., bishop of the city of N. and the province of N., so believe as
above is written.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII.
If a bishop goes into another province after he has been unjustly expelled
from his own, he should be received, until he has been delivered from his
injury.
This is Canon XXI. of the Latin and the last.
VAN ESPEN.
St. Gregory seems to have had this canon in mind when he wrote to the
bishops of Illyria (Lib. III., Epist. xliij.), who had been cast out by the
hostility of the barbarians.
CANON XVIII.
(Greek.)
BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: Thou knowest, brother Aetius, that since thou wast
made bishop, peace hath continued to rule [in thy diocese]. In order that no
remnants of discord concerning ecclesiastics remain, it seems good that those
who were ordained by Musaeus and by Eutychianus, provided no fault be found in
them, should all be received.
(This canon is wanting in the Latin.)
CANON XIX.
(Greek.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: This is the sentence of my mediocrity [i.e.,
unworthiness]--that, since we ought to be gentle and patient and to be constant in
compassion towards all, those who were once advanced to clerical office in the
Church by certain of our brethren, if they are not willing to return to the churches
to which they were nominated [or, espoused], should for the future not be
received, and that neither Eutychianus should continue to vindicate to himself the
name of bishop, nor yet that Musaeus be accounted a bishop; but that if they
should seek for lay communion, it should not be denied them.
All said: Such is our pleasure.
(This canon is wanting in the Latin.)
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANONS XVIII. AND XIX.
A clergyman who does not live in the Church among whose clergy he is
enrolled should not be received. Eutychian and Musoeus shall not have the name of
bishops. But let them be admitted to communion with the laity, if they wish.
Both of these canons are lacking in the Latin.
HEFELE.
It is clear that the reason why these two canons do not exist in the Latin
text is that they did not apply to the Latin Church and only contained a
special rule for Thessalonica.
CANON XX.
(Greek.)
BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: These things wholesomely, duly, and filly decreed,
in the estimation of us the bishops [<greek>twn</greek> <greek>ierewn</greek>]
such as are pleasing both to God and to man will not be able to obtain due
force and validity, unless fear [of a penalty] be added to the decrees proclaimed.
For we ourselves know that through the shamelessness of a few, the divine and
right reverend title of bishop [of the <greek>ths</greek>
<greek>ierwsunhs</greek>] hath often come into condemnation. If therefore any one, moved by
arrogance and ambition rather than seeking to please God, should have the hardihood to
pursue a different course of action, contrary to the decree of all, let him
know beforehand that he must give account and defend himself on this charge, and
lose the honour and dignity of the episcopate.
All answered: This sentence is proper and right, and such is our
pleasure.(1)
And this decree will be most widely known and best carried into effect, if
each of those bishops among us who have sees on the thoroughfares or highway,
on seeing a bishop [pass by] shall inquire into the cause of his passage and
his place of destination. And if at his departure he shall find that he is going
to the Court, he will direct his inquiries with reference to the objects [of a
resort to the Court] above mentioned. And if he come by invitation let no
obstacle be put in the way of his departure. But if he is trying to go to the Court
out of ostentation, as hath afore been said by your charity, or to urge the
petitions of certain persons, let neither his letters be signed nor let such an
one be received to communion.
All said: Be this also decreed
(Latin.)
BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: These things which you have wholesomely and
suitably provided [in your decrees] pleasing in [or, to] the estimation of all both
[or, and] to God and to men, can obtain force and validity only in case fear [of
a penalty] be added to this your action. For we ourselves know that through
the shamelessness of a few the sacred and venerable sacerdotal [--episcopal] name
hath been many times and oft brought to blame. If therefore anyone attempts to
oppose the judgment of all and seeks to serve ambition rather than please God,
he must be given to know that he will have to render an account and lose
office and rank.
This can be carried into effect only provided each of us whose see is on
the highway shall, if he sees a bishop pass, inquire into the cause of his
journey, ascertain his destination, and if he finds that he is on his way to the
Court, satisfy himself as to what is contained above [i.e., as to his objects at
Court], lest perhaps he has come by invitation, that permission may be given him
to proceed. If, however, as your holiness mentioned above, he is going to
Court to urge petitions and applications for office, let neither his letters be
signed nor let him be received to communion.
All said that this was proper and right and that this regulation was
approved by them.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX.
[the last part of which in Beveridge, Synod., is numbered xxj.]
If any bishop tries out of pride to do away with what has been decreed
admirably, and in a manner pleasing to God, he shall lose his episcopate. A bishop
who shall see a bishop on his way to the camp, if he shall know that he goes
therefor any of the before-mentioned causes, let him not trouble him, but if
otherwise let him pronounce excommunication against him.
This is Canon XI. of the Latin.
VAN ESPEN.
After the words ["honour and dignity"] according to Balsamon and Zonaras,
as also Gentian Hervetus, there follows the approbation of the synod in these
words: "All answered, This opinion is becoming and well-pleasing to us," which
indicate this to be the end of the canon; and therefore the Greeks make of this
two distinct canons.
Dionysius and Isidore make but one canon, ... and this appears to be more
congruous on account of the subject-matter of the first part, and will be
manifest by connecting the two parts together.
Van Espen follows Zonaras and Balsamon in understanding "Bishops in
Canali," as such as were set on the public roads and public highways, or rather "in
cities which are on the public highways, or 'Canals,' by which they that pass go
without labour, as in a canal or aqueduct the water flows, for aqueduct and
canal are the same thing in the Roman tongue."
[AFTER CANON XX.]
CANON XII. (Of the Latin Texts.)
BISHOP HOSIUS said: But some discretion is here requisite, brethren dearly
beloved, in case some should come to those cities which are on the highway
still ignorant of what has been decreed in the council. The bishop of such a city
ought therefore to admonish him [a bishop so arriving], and instruct him to
send his deacon from that place. Upon this admonition he must, however, himself
return to his diocese.
NOTES.
VAN ESPEN.
This proposition of Hosius in the Roman Codex is joined as an appendix to
the preceding canon. The Greeks omit it altogether, very likely either because
it seemed to be a proposition of Hosius's rather than a synodal canon, for no
adoption by the synod is recorded: or else because, even if it were a decree, it
was only of temporary character, that is to say, until the canons had been
sufficiently promulgated, and therefore some on the ground of ignorance might be
exempt from the threatened penalties.
EXCURSUS ON THE OTHER ACTS OF THE COUNCIL.
As only the Canons have any real connexion with the Ecumenical Synods,
they alone have properly a place in this volume, and yet it may not be amiss to
give a brief account of the other acts of the council, so far as we know them.
(a) The Rule for Keeping Easter.--The Anglican Scholar, the Rev. William
Cureton, of the British Museum, first edited the then recently discovered
Preface to the Paschal Letters of St. Athanasius, together with the Letters
themselves. The MS. which he then published was in Syriac and was discovered in Egypt.
In the preface just referred to, it is expressly stated that "a plan was agreed
upon at Sardica with regard to the feast of Easter." But this new plan, which
was only expected to hold good for fifty years, failed, and although in A.D. 346
Easter should have fallen on March 23d, yet the Council (so says St.
Athanasius) agreed to observe it on March 30th. Another divergence fell in A.D. 349.
Easter, by the Alexandrian calculation, would have been April 23d. But by Roman
count, the origin of which was attributed to St. Peter, Easter was never to be
later than April 21st, and for the sake of peace the Alexandrians yielded to the
Romans and kept Easter on March 26th; but in 350, 360, and 368 the Alexandrian
and Roman methods again disagreed, and even the fifty years which Sardica had
thought to ensure uniformity were marked by diverse usages.
(b) The Encyclical Letter.--The Council addressed a long Encyclical letter
to all the bishops of the world; it is found in St. Athanasius(1) in Greek, in
St. Hilary of Poictiers(2) in Latin, and in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical
History.(3) In this last there occurs at the end the so-called "Creed of Sardica,"
which is now considered by scholars to be undoubtedly spurious.
(c) A Letter to the Diocese of Alexandria.--St. Athanasius(4) gives us the
Greek text of a letter sent by the council to the diocese of Alexandria to the
bishops of Egypt and Libya.
(d) A Letter to Pope Julius.--Among the Fragments of St. Hilary(5) is
found a letter from the synod to Pope Julius. Hefele says that the text is
"considerably injured." One clause of this letter above all others has given occasion
to much controversy. The passage runs as follows: "It was best and fittest that
the priests [i.e., bishops] from all the provinces should make their reports to
the head, that is, the chair of St. Peter." Blondell declares the passage to
be an interpolation, resting his opinion upon the barbarous Latin of the
expression valde congruentissimum. And even Remi Ceillier, while explaining this by
the supposition, which is wholly gratuitous, that the original was Greek, yet is
forced to confess that the sentence interrupts the flow of thought and looks
like an insertion. Bower,(6) in his History of the Popes, and Fuchs(7) have urged
still more strongly the spurious character of the phrase, the latter using the
convenient "marginal comment" explanation.
Besides these there are three documents which Scipio Maffei discovered in
MS. at Verona, which by some are supposed to belong to the Council of Sardica.
(a) A Letter to the Christians of Mareotis.
(b) A Letter of St. Athanasius to the same Mareotic Churches. This letter
is signed not only by Athanasius, but also by a great number of the bishops
composing the synod.
(c) A Letter from St. Athanasius to the Church of Alexandria.
On the authority to be attributed to these three documents I can do no
better than quote the closing words of Hefele,(8) whom I have followed in this
whole excursus.
"These extracts shew, I think, quite sufficiently the spuriousness of
these documents. Is it possible that the Eusebians would have said of themselves:
'We are enemies of Christ?' But apart from this, the whole contents of these
three letters are lame and feeble. The constant repetition of the same words is
intolerable, and the whole style pointless and trivial. To this it must be added
that the whole of Christian antiquity knew nothing of these three documents,
which only exist in the codex at Verona, so that we cannot acknowledge them as
genuine."
EXCURSUS AS TO WHETHER THE SARDICAN COUNCIL WAS ECUMENICAL.
Some theologians and canonists have been of opinion that the Council of
Sardica was Ecumenical and would reckon it as the Second. But besides the fact
that such a numbering is absolutely in contrariety to all history it also labours
under the difficulty, as we shall see presently, that the Westerns by
insisting that St. Athanasius should have a seat caused a division of the synod at the
very outset, so that the Easterns met at Philippopolis and confirmed the
deposition of the Saint. It is also interesting to remember that when Alexander
Natalis in his history expressly called this synod ecumenical, the passage was
marked with disapproval by the Roman censors.
(Hefele. Hist. Councils. Vol. II., pp. 172 et seqq.)
The ecumenical character of this Synod certainly cannot be proved.(1) It
is indeed true that it was the design of Pope Julius, as well as of the two
Emperors, Constantius and Constans, to summon a General Council at Sardica; but we
do not find that any such actually took place: and the history of the Church
points to many like cases, where a synod was probably intended to be ecumenical,
and yet did not attain that character. In the present case, the Eastern and
Western bishops were indeed summoned, but by far the greater number of the Eastern
bishops were Eusebians, and therefore Semi-Arians, and instead of acting in a
better mind in union with the orthodox, they separated themselves and formed a
cabal of their own at Philippopolis.
We cannot indeed agree with those who maintain that the departure of the
Eusebians in itself rendered it impossible for the synod to be ecumenical, or it
would be in the power of heretics to make an Ecumenical Council possible or
not. We cannot, however, overlook the fact that, in consequence of this
withdrawal, the great Eastern Church was far more poorly represented at Sardica, and
that the entire number of bishops present did not even amount to a hundred! So
small a number of bishops can only form a General Council if the great body of
their absent colleagues subsequently give their express consent to what has been
decided. This was not, however, the case at the Synod of Sardica. The decrees
were no doubt at once sent for acceptance and signature to the whole of
Christendom, but not more than about two hundred of those bishops who had been absent
signed, and of these, ninety-four, or nearly half, were Egyptians. Out of the
whole of Asia only a few bishops from the provinces of Cyprus and Palestine
signed, not one from the other Eastern provinces; and even from the Latin Church in
Africa, which at that time numbered at least three hundred bishops, we meet with
very few names. We cannot give much weight to the fact that the Emperor
Constantius refused to acknowledge the decrees of Sardica: it is of much greater
importance that no single later authority declared it to be a General Council.
Natalis Alexander(2) is indeed of opinion that because Pope Zosimus, in the year
417 or 418, cited the fifth canon of Sardica as Nicene, and a synod held at
Constantinople in 382 cited the sixth as Nicene, the synod must evidently have been
considered as an appendix to that of Nicea, and therefore its equal, that is,
must have been honoured as ecumenical. But we have already shown how Zosimus and
the bishops of Constantinople had been led into this confusion from the
defects of their manuscript collections of the canons. Athanasius, Sulpicius Severus,
Socrates, and the Emperor Justinian were cited in later times for the
ecumenical character of this synod. Athanasius calls it a <greek>megalh</greek>
<greek>sunodos</greek>; Sulpicius Severus says it was ex toto orbe convocata; and
Socrates relates that "Athanasius and other bishops had demanded an Ecumenical
Synod, and that of Sardica had been then summoned.(3) It is clear at the first
glance that the two last authorities only prove that the Synod had been intended to
be a general one, and the expression "Great Synod," used by Athanasius, cannot
be taken as simply identical with ecumenical. While, however, the Emperor
Justinian, in his edict of 346, on the Three Chapters, calls the Synod of Sardica
ecumenical, he yet, in the same edict, as well as in other places, does not
reckon it among the General Councils, of which he counts four. To this must be
added, first, that the Emperor is not the authority entitled to decide as to the
character of an Ecumenical Synod; and secondly, that the expression Universale
Concilium was employed in a wider sense in speaking of those synods which,
without being general, represented a whole patriarchate.
The Trullan Synod and Pope Nicholas I. are further appealed to. The former
in its second canon approved of the Sardican canons, and Pope Nicholas said of
them: "omnis Ecclesia recepit eos." But this in no way contains a declaration
that the Synod of Sardica was ecumenical, for the canons of many other councils
also--for instance, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, and others--were generally received
without those synods themselves being therefore esteemed ecumenical. Nay, the
Trullan Synod itself speaks for us; for had it held the Synod of Sardica to be
the second General Council, it would have placed its canons immediately after
those of Nice, whereas they are placed after the four ancient General Councils,
and from this we see that the Trullan Synod did not reckon the Sardican among
those councils, but after them. To this it must be added that the highest Church
authorities speak most decidedly against the synod being ecumenical. We may
appeal first to Augustine, who only knew of the Eusebian assembly at Sardica, and
nothing at all of an orthodox synod in that place; which would have been clearly
impossible, if it had at that time been counted among the ecumenical synods.
Pope Gregory the Great(1) and St. Isidore of Seville(2) speak still more
plainly. They only know of four ancient General Councils--those of Nice,
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. The objection of the Ballerini that Gregory and
Isidore did not intend to enumerate the most ancient general synods as such, but
only those which issued important dogmatic decrees, is plainly quite arbitrary,
and therefore wittiest force. Under such circumstances it is natural that among
the later scholars by far the great majority should have answered the question,
whether the Synod of Sardica is ecumenical, in the negative, as have Cardinal
Bellarmin, Peter de Marca, Edmund Richer, Fleury, Orsi, Sacharelli, Tillemont,
Du Pin, Berti, Ruttenstock, Rohrbacher, Remi Ceillier, Stolberg, Neander, and
others. On the other hand, Baronius, Natalis Alexander, the brothers Ballerini,
Mansi, and Palma(3) have sought to maintain the ecumenical character of the
synod, but as early as the seventeenth century the Roman censors condemned the
direct assertions of Natalis Alexander on the subject.