THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN ENCAENIIS, SYNODICAL LETTER & CANONS
THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN ENCAENIIS.
A.D. 341.
Elenchus.
The Synodal Letter. The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
THE SYNODAL LETTER.
(Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. II., col. 559. It really is no
part the canons, but I have placed it here, because, as Labbe notes, "it is
usually prefixed to the canons in the Greek.")
The holy and most peaceful Synod which has been gathered together in
Antioch from the provinces of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia,
Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Isauria;(1) to our like-minded and holy fellow Ministers in
every Province, health in the Lord.
The grace and truth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath regarded the
holy Church of the Antiochians, and, by joining it together with unity of mind
and concord and the Spirit of Peace, hath likewise bettered many other things;
and in them all this betterment is wrought by the assistance of the holy and
peace-giving Spirit. Wherefore, that which after much examination and
investigation, was unanimously agreed upon by us bishops, who coming out of various
Provinces have met together in Antioch, we have now brought to your knowledge;
trusting in the grace of Christ and in the Holy Spirit of Peace, that ye also will
agree with us and stand by us as far as in you lies, striving with us in
prayers, and being even more united with us, following the Holy Spirit, uniting in our
definitions, and decreeing the same things as we; ye, in the concord which
proceedeth of the Holy Spirit, sealing and confirming what has been determined.
Now the Canons of the Church which have been settled are hereto appended.
THE CANONS OF THE BLESSED AND HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED AT ANTIOCH IN SYRIA.(1)
CANON I.
WHOSOEVER, shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great
Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor
Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they
shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them
be excommunicated and cast out of the Church; this is said concerning the laity.
But if any one of those who preside in the Church, whether he be bishop,
presbyter, or deacon, shall presume, after this decree, to exercise his own private
judgment to the subversion of the people and to the disturbance of the
churches, by observing Easter [at the same time] with the Jews, the holy Synod decrees
that he shall thenceforth be an alien from the Church, as one who not only
heaps sins upon himself, but who is also the cause of destruction and subversion to
many; and it deposes not only such persons themselves from their ministry, but
those also who after their deposition shall presume to communicate with them.
And the deposed shall be deprived even of that external honour, of which the
holy Canon and God's priesthood partake.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON I.
Whoso endeavours to change the lawful tradition of Easter, if he be a
layman let him be excommunicated, but if a cleric let him be cast out of the Church.
The connexion between these canons of Antioch and the Apostolical Canons
is so evident and so intimate that I shall note it, in each case, for the
convenience of the student.
Zonaras and Balsamon both point out that from this first canon it is
evident that the Council of Nice did take action upon the Paschal question, and in a
form well known to the Church.
VAN ESPEN.
From this canon it appears that the fathers did not deem laymen deserving
of excommunication who merely broke the decrees, but only those who
"obstinately persist in opposing the decrees sanctioned and received by the Church; for by
their refusal to obey they are attempting to overturn." And this being the
case, why should such not be repelled or cast forth from the Church as rebels?
Finally this Canon proves that not only bishops and presbyters, but also
deacons were reckoned among them who, "preside in the Church." An argument in
favour of the opinion that the deacons of that time were entrusted with
hierarchical functions.
It is curious that as a matter of fact the entire clergy and people of the
West fell under the anathema of this canon in 1825, when they observed Easter
on the same day as the Jews. This was owing to the adoption of the Gregorian
calendar, and this misfortune while that calendar is followed it is almost
impossible to prevent.(2)
Compare Apostolic Canons; Canon VII.
CANON II.
ALL who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not
communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some
disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the
Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the
fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained
forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to
assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to
receive in one Church those who do not assemble with another Church. And, if any
one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be
found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated,
as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON II.
Whoso comes to church, and attentively hears the holy Scriptures, and then
despises, goes forth from, and turns his back upon the Communion, let him be
cast out, until after having brought forth fruits of penance, he shall be
indulged. And who-so communicates with one excommunicated, shall be excommunicated,
and whoso prays with him who prays not with the Church is guilty, and even whoso
receives him who does not attend the services of the Church is not without
guilt.
BALSAMON.
In the Eighth and Ninth canons of the Apostles it is set forth how those
are to be punished who will not wait for the prayers, and the holy Communion:
So, too, in the Tenth canon provision is made with respect to those who
communicate with the excommunicated. In pursuance of this the present canon provides
that they are to be cut off who come to church and do not wait for the prayer, and
through disorder [?<greek>ataxian</greek>(1) will not receive the holy
Communion; for such are to be cast out until with confession they shew forth worthy
penance.
ZONARAS.
In this canon the Fathers refer to such as go to church but will not tarry
to the prayer nor receive holy Communion, held back by some perversity or
license, that is to say without any just cause, but petulantly, and by reason of
some disorder <greek>ataxian</greek>; these are forbidden to be expelled from the
Church, that is to say cut off from the congregation of the faithful. But the
Fathers call it a turning away from, not a hatred of the divine Communion,
which holds them back from communion; a certain kind of flight from it, brought
about perchance by reverence and lowliness of mind. Those who object to
communicate by reason of hatred or disgust, such must be punished not with mere
separation, but by an altogether absolute excommunication, and be cursed with anathema.
It need hardly be remarked that this canon has no reference to such of the
faithful as tarry to the end of the service and yet do not partake of the holy
sacrament, being held back by some good reason, recognized by the Church as
such. It will be remembered that the highest grade of Penitents did this
habitually, and that it was looked upon as a great privilege to be allowed to be
present when the Divine Mysteries were performed, even though those assisting as
spectators might not be partakers of them. What this canon condemns is leaving the
Church before the service of the Holy Eucharist is done; this much is clear,
the difficulty is to understand just why these particular people, against whom
the canon is directed, did so. This canon should be compared with the Apostolic
canons viii., ix., x., xj. xij. and xiij.
CANON III.
IF any presbyter or deacon, or any one whatever belonging to the
priesthood, shall forsake his own parish, and shall depart, and, having wholly changed
his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time in another parish,
let him no longer officiate; especially if his own bishop shall summon and urge
him to return to his own parish and he shah disobey. And if he persist in his
disorder, let him be wholly deposed from his ministry, so that no further room be
left for his restoration. And if another bishop shall receive a man deposed
for this cause, let him be punished by the Common Synod as one who nullifies the
ecclesiastical laws.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON III.
If any cleric leaves his own parish and goes off to another, travelling
here and there, and stays for a long time in that other, let him not offer the
sacrifice (<greek>leitourgeitw</greek>), especially if he do not return when
called by his own bishop. But if he perseveres in his insolence let him be deposed,
neither afterwards let him have any flower to return. And if any bishop shall
receive him thus deposed, he shall be punished by the Common Synod for breach
of the ecclesiastical laws.
Compare with Canons of the Apostles xv. and xvi.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa VII., Quaest. I., Can. xxiv.(1)
CANON IV.
IF any bishop who has been deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon
who has been deposed by his bishop shall presume to execute any part of the
ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former custom, or a presbyter,
or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of restoration in another
Synod; nor any opportunity of making his defence; but they who communicate with him
shall all be cast out of the Church, and particularly if they have presumed to
communicate with the persons aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced
against them.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.
If a bishop deposed by a synod shall dare to celebrate the liturgy, let
him have no chance of return.
This canon derives its chief interest from the fact that it is usually
considered to have been adopted at the instigation of the party opposed to St.
Athanasius and that afterwards it was used against St. Chrysostom. But while such
may have been the secret reason why some voted for it and others prized it, it
must be remembered that its provision is identical with that of the Apostolic
Canons, and that it was read at the Council of Chalcedon as Canon eighty-three.
Remi Ceillier (Histoire GenHistoire Gnoeral des Autheurs, p. 659) tries to
prove that this is not the canon which St. Chrysostom and his friends rejected, but
Hefele thinks his position "altogether untenable" (Hist. of the Councils, Vol.
II., p. (62, n. 1), and refers to Tillemont (Memories, p. 329, Sur les Arians,
and Fuchs' Bib. der Kirchenversammlungen, P. II., p. 59.(2))
Compare Apostolic Canon xxviij.
This canon is found twice in the Juris Corpus Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars II., Causa XI., Quaest. III., Can. vj., and Can. vij. in the version of
Martin Bracarensis. This version is very interesting as expanding the phrase
"to execute any part of the ministry" into "to make the oblation, or to perform
the morning or evening sacrifice as though he were in office just as before,
etc."
CANON V.
IF any presbyter or deacon, despising this own bishop, has separated
himself from the Church, and gathered a private assembly, and set up an altar; and
if, when summoned by Iris bishop, he shall refuse to be persuaded and will not
obey, even though he summon him a first and a second time, let such an one be
wholly deposed and have no further remedy, neither be capable of regaining his
rank. And if he persist in troubling and disturbing the Church, let him be
corrected, as a seditious person, by the civil power.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON V.
Any presbyter or deacon who spurns his bishop, and withdraws from him, and
sets up another altar, if after being thrice called by the bishop, he shall
persist in his arrogancy, let him be deposed and be deprived of all hope of
restoration.
It will be noted that the Ancient Epitome mentions three warnings, and the
canon only two. The epitome in this evidently follows the Apostolical Canon,
number thirty-one. It is somewhat curious that Aristenus in commenting on this
canon does not note the discrepancy.
VAN ESPEN.
This canon, together with the preceding was read from the Code of Canons
at the Council of Chalcedon, at the Fourth Session in connexion with the ease of
Carosus and Dorothoeus, and of other monks who adhered to them. And a sentence
in accordance with them was conceived in these words against those who would
not obey the Council in the condemnation of Eutyches, "Let them know that they
together with the monks who are with them, are deprived of grade, and of all
dignity, and of communion, as well as he, so that they cease to preside over their
monasteries: and if they attempt to escape, this holy and universal great
council decrees the same punishment shall attach to them, that is to say the
external authority, according to the divine and holy laws of the Fathers, shall carry
out the sentence passed against the contumacious."
This canon shews that monks and clerics who were rebellious were sometimes
coerced by the Secular Power, when the ecclesiastical power was not sufficient
to coerce them, and hence it was that the secular arm was called in.
Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXI.
The last clause of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Gratian's Decretum, Pars II. Causa XI., Quaest VIII. Can. vii. (The Latin however
for "by the civil power" is, as is pointed out by the Roman Correctors, per
forasticam potestatem or per forasticam potestatem.
CANON VI.
IF any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be
received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until,
when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defence, and, having
convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence. And let this
decree apply to the laity, and to presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled
in the clergy-list.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.
Compare Apostolic Canons numbers XII. and XXXII.
The sentence of the greater synod upon a clerk excommunicated by his
bishop, whether of acquittal or condemnation, shall stand.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa XI., Quaest. III, Can. ij.
CANON VII.
No stranger shall be received without letters pacifical.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.
A traveller having no letter pacific with him is...
Compare the Apostolic Canon number XXXIII For a discussion of the Letters
styled pacifici, see notes on next canon.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. lxxi., c. ix. in Isidore's version. The Roman Corectors the
Apostolic note that Dionysius must have had a different reading from the Greek we know.
CANON VIII.
LET not country presbyters give letters canonical, or let them send such
letters only to the neighbouring bishops. But the chorepiscopi of good report
may give letters pacifical.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VIII.
A country presbyter is not to give canonical letters, or[at most> only to
a neighbouring bishop.
These "letters canonical" were called in the West letters "formatoe," and
no greater proof of the great influence they had in the early days of the
Church in binding the faithful together can be found than the fact that Julian the
Apostate made an attempt to introduce something similar among the pagans of his
empire.
"Commendatory letters" (<greek>epistolai</greek>
<greek>sustatikai</greek>) are spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 1, and the reader will find some
interesting remarks on this and cognate subjects in J. J. Blunt's, The Christian
Church during the first three Centuries (Chapter II).
By means of these letters even the lay people found hospitality and care
in every part of the world, and it was thrown up against the Donatists as a mark
of their being schismatics that their canonical letters were good only among
themselves.
Pseudo-Isidore informs us that it was stated at the Council of Chalcedon
by Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, that it was agreed at the Council of Nice
that all such letters should be marked II. Y. A. II. (i.e. Father, Son, Holy
Spirit), and it is asserted (Herzog, Real-Encyk., s. v. Literae Format,
Real-Encyk., s. v. Literae Formatae) that this form is found in German documents of the
sixth century.
As will be seen among the Canons of Chalcedon, the old name, Letters
Commendatory, is continued, but in this canon and in the 41st of Laodicea the
expression "Canonical Letters" is used. In the West, at least, these letters received
the episcopal seal of the diocese to avoid all possibility of imposture. Dean
Plumptre (whom I am following very closely in this note) believes the earliest
evidence of this use of the diocesan seal is in Augustine (Epist. lix. al.
ccxvij.)He also refers to Ducange, s. v. Formatae.
As these letters admitted their bearers to communion they were sometimes
called "Communion letters" (<greek>koinwnikai</greek>), and are so described by
St. Cyril of Alexandria; and by the Council of Elvira (canon xxv.), and by St.
Augustine (Epist. xliii. al. clxii).
The "Letters Pacifical" appear to have been of an eleemosynary character,
so that the bearers of them obtained bodily help. Chalcedon in its eleventh
canon ordains these "Letters pacifical" shall be given to the poor, whether they
be clerics or laics. The same expression is used in the preceding canon of the
synod.
A later form of ecclesiastical letter is that with which we are so
familiar, the "letter dimissory." This expression first occurs in Carom XVII. of the
Council in Trullo. On this expression Suicer (Thesaurus, s. v.
<greek>apolutikh</greek>) draws from the context the conclusion that "letters dimissory" were
given only for permanent change of ecclesiastical residence, while, "letters
commendatory" were given to those whose absence from their diocese was. only
temporary.
CANON IX.
IT behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who
presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province;
because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis.
Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other
bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which
prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to
their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop
has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is
incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is
dependent on his city; to ordain prebysters and deacons; and to settle everything
with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the
metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IX.
Bishops should be bound to opinion of the metropolitan, and nothing
should they do without his knowledge except only such things as have reference to
the diocese of each, and let them ordain men free from blame.
VAN ESPEN.
From this canon we see that causes of more importance and greater moment
are to be considered in the Provincial Synod which consisted of the metropolitan
and the other bishops of the province.
By the "ancient canon" of which mention is here made, there can scarcely
be a doubt is intended the xxxiv. of the Canons of the Apostles, since in it are
read the same provisions (and almost in the same words) as here are set forth
somewhat more at length; nor is there any other canon in which these,
provisions are found earlier in date than this synod, wherefore from this is deduced a
strong argument for the integrity of the Canons of the Apostles.
The wording of this canon should be compared with the famous sentence so
often quoted of St. Irenseus. "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam [i.e. of Rome] propter
potentiorem principalitatem necesse eat omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, cos
qui aunt undique fideles, in qua sempter ab his, qui aunt undique, conservata eat
eaque est ab Apestolis traditio."
Is it not likely that in the lost Greek original the words translated
convenire ad were (<greek>suntrekein</greek> <greek>en</greek>? Vide on the meaning
of cone venire ad, F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, pp.
32 et seqq.
Compare Apostolic Canon XXXIV.
CANON X.
THE Holy Synod decrees that persons in villages and districts, or those
who are called chorepiscopi, even though they may have received ordination to the
Episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to
them, and be content with the care and administration of these; but they may
ordain readers, sub-deacons and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting
these, but shall not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the
consent of bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if
he shall dare to transgress [these] decrees, he shall be deposed from tile
rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop of the
city to which he is subject.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON X
A chorepiscopus makes Exorcists, Lectors, Sub-deacons and Singers, but not
a presbyter or a deacon without the bishop of the city. Who dares to
transgress this law let him be deposed.The bishop of the city makes the chorpiscopus.
For the Minor Orders in the Early Church see the Excursus on the subject
appended to Canon XXIV. of Laodicea.
"Ordination to the episcopate." In translating thus I have followed both
Dionysius and Isidore. the former of whom translates "although they had received
the imposition of tim hand of the bishop and had been consecreted bishops;"
and the latter "although they had received from bishops the imposition of the
hand, and had been consecrated bishops.":
VAN ESPEN.
There can be no doubt that the Chorepiscopi, the authority of whom is
limited by tiffs canon, are supposed to be endowed with the episcopal character.
Among the learned there is a controversy as to whether Chorepiscopi were true
bishops by virtue of the ordination to that office, and endowed with the episcopal
character or were only bishops when accidentally so. But whatever may be the
merits of this controversy, there can be no doubt from the context of this canon
that the Fathers of Antioch took it for granted that the chorepiscopi were
time bishops by virtue of their ordination, but it is also evident that they were
subject to the bishop of the greater city. It must also be noted that these
chorepiscopi were not instituted by the canons of the Councils of Ancyra.
Neocaesarea, or even of Nice, for these speak of them and make their decrees as
concerning something already existing.
And from the very limitations of this canon it is by no means obscure that
the fathers of Antioch supposed these chorepiscopi to be real bishops, for
otherwise even with the license of the bishop of the city they could not ordain
presbyters or deacons.
CANON XI.
IF any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall
presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the
bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one
shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from
the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of
our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if
necessary business shall. require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the
advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and
let him undertake his journey with letters from them.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON
A bishop or presbyter who (of his own motion and not at the bidding of the
Metropolitan of the province goes to the Emperor shall be deprived both of
communion and dignity.
This canon is one of those magnificent efforts which the early church made
to check the already growing inclination to what we have in later times
learned to call Erastianism. Not only did the State, as soon as it became Christian,
interfere in spiritual matters at its own motion, but there were found bishops
and others of the clergy who not being able to attain their ends otherwise,
appealed to the civil power, usually to the Emperor himself, and thus the whole
discipline of the Church was threatened, and the authority of spiritual synods
set aside. How unsuccessful the Church often was in this struggle is only too
evident from the remarks of the Greek commentator Balsamon on this
HEFELE.
Kellner (Das Buss, und Strafversahren, p. 61) remarks with reference to
this, that deposition is here treated as a heavier punishment than exclusion from
communion, and therefore the latter cannot mean actual excommunication but
only suspension.
CANON XlI.
IF any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop
deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his
duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more
bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and
decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be
entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defence, nor any
hope of future restoration.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XII.
One deposed, if he shall have troubled the Emperor, shall seek the greater
synod, and submit to its decree. But if he again misbehave himself, he shall
not have any chance of restoration.
It is usually supposed that this canon, as well as the fourth, and the
fourteenth and fifteenth, was directed against St. Athanasius, and it was used
against St. Chrysostom by his enemies. Vide Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book
II., Chapter viii., and Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, Book III., chapter
v.; also ibid. Book VII., chapter xx.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa XXI., Quest. V., Can. ij., in Isidore's Version.
CANON XIII.
No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain
persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have
others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the
metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes. But if he should, without invitation,
proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of
ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and
he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his
unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIII.
If without invitation a bishop shall go into another province, and shall
ordain, and administer affairs, what he does shall be void and he himself The
Roman Correctors are not satisfied with shall be deposed.
Compare with this Apostolic Canon xxxv.; also canon xxii. of this same
synod.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa ix., Quaest. II., Can. vj. in the Versio Prisca. The Roman
Correctors are not satisfied with it, however, nor with any version and give the Greek
text, to which they add an accurate translation.
CANON XIV.
IF a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen
that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the
accused innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of all disputes, the
holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the
neighbouring province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and
thus, with those of the province, confirm what is determined.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIV.
If the bishops of the province disagree among themselves as to an accused
bishop, that the controversy may be certainly settled, let other neighbouring
bishops be called in.
ZONARAS.
When any bishop shall have been condemned with unanimous consent by all
the bishops of the province, the condemnation cannot be called into doubt, as
this synod has set forth in its fourth canon. But if all the bishops are not of
the same mind, but some contend that he should be condemned and others the
contrary, then other bishops may by called in by the metropolitan from the
neighbouring provinces, and when their votes are added to one or other of the parties
among the bishops, then controversy should be brought to a close. This also is the
law of the Synod of Sardica, canons iii. and v.
ARISTENUS.
Every bishop accused of crimes should be judged by his own synod, but if
the bishops of the province differ, some saying that he is innocent and some
that he is guilty, the metropolitan can call other bishops from a neighbouring
province that they may solve the controversy agitated by the bishops.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa vi., Quaest. iv., can. j. The Roman Correctors note that the Latin
translation implies that the neighbouring metropolitan is to be invited and
say, "But, in truth, it hardly seems fitting that one metropolitan should come at
the call of another, and that there should be two metropolitans in one synod."
CANON XV.
IF any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the
bishops in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict
concerning him, he shah not be again judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of
the bishops of the province shall stand firm.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XV.
If all the bishops of a province agree with regard to a bishop already
sentenced, a new trial shall not be granted him.
VAN ESPEN.
By the phrase "by others "must be understood bishops called from a
neighbouring province, of which mention is made in the previous canon, where in the
case of an agreement among the bishops, the synod did not wish to be called in,
even if it were demanded by the condemned bishop. This canon, therefore, is a
supplement as it were to the preceding. And for this reason in the Breviarium and
in Cresconius's Collection of Canons they are placed under a common title,
cap. 144, "Concerning the difference of opinion which happens in the judgment of
bishops, or when a bishop is cut off by all the bishops of his province."
From these canons it is manifest that at first the causes of bishops were
agitated and decided in provincial synods, and this discipline continued for
many centuries, and was little by little departed from in the VIIIth and IXth
centuries.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa VI., Quaest. IV., Can. v. Gratian adds a note which Van Espen
remarks smacks of his own date rather than of that of the Synod of Antioch.
CANON XVI.
IF any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and
seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the
people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him. And that shall be
[accounted] a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVI.
Whoever without the full synod and without the
Metropolitan Council, shall go over to a vacant church, even if he has no
position, he shall be ejected.
BEVERIDGE.
This, together with the following canon, was recited by Bishop Leontius in
the Council of Chalcedon, from the book of the canons,in which this is called
the 95th and the following the 96th, according to the order observed in that
book of the canons.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. XCII., Can. viii. in Isidore's version, and the Roman Correctors
note its departure from the original.
CANON XVII.
IF any one having received the ordination of a bishop, and having been
appointed to preside over a people, shall not accept his ministry, and will not be
persuaded to proceed to the Church entrusted to him, he shall be
excommunicated until he, being constrained, accept it, or until a full synod of the bishops
of the province shall have determined concerning. him.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVII.
Whoso has received orders and abandoned them let him be excommunicated,
until he shall have repented and been received.
ZONARAS.
If any one called to the rule of the people refuse to undertake that
office and ministry, let him be removed from communion, that is separated, until he
accept the position. But should he persist in his refusal, he can by no means
be absolved from his separation, unless perchance the full synod shall take some
action in his case. For it is possible that he may assign reasonable causes
why he should be excused from accepting the prelature offered him, reasons which
would meet with the approbation of the synod.
Balsamon explains the canon in the same sense and adds that by
"ordination" here is intended ordination proper, not merely election, as some have held.
Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXVI.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. XCII., C. vii. The Roman Correctors note that Dionysius's version is
nearer the Greek.
CANON XVIII.
IF any bishop ordained to a parish shall not proceed to the parish to
which he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because of
the rejection of the people, or for any other reason not arising from himself,
let him enjoy his rank and ministry; only he shall not disturb the affairs of
the Church which he joins; and he shall abide by whatever the full synod of the
province shall determine, after judging the ease.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XVIII.
Let a bishop ordained but not received by his city have his part of the
honour, and offer the liturgy only, waiting for the synod of the province to give
judgment.
BALSAMON.
In canon xvij. the fathers punished him who when ordained could not be
persuaded to go to the church to which he was assigned. In the present canon they
grant pardon to him who is willing to take the charge of the diocese, for which
he was consecrated, but is prevented from doing so by the impudence of the
people or else by the incursions of the infidel; and therefore they allow him to
enjoy, in whatever province he may happen to be, the honour due his rank, viz.,
his throne, his title, and the exercise of the episcopal office, with the
knowledge and consent of the bishop of the diocese. He must not, however, meddle
will, the affairs of the church of which he is a guest, that is to say he must not
teach, nor ordain, nor perform any episcopal act without the consent of the
bishop of the diocese; but he must observe quiet, until he learns what he ought
to do by the determination of the full Synod.
Aristenus explains that by keeping quiet is intended that he should not
"use any military help or other power."
This canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's
Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xcii., c. iv. and v.; in the versions of Martin Bracarensis
and of Dionysius.
CANON XIX.
A BISHOP shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the
metropolitan of the province. And when he is present, it is by all means better
that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together
with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter. And it were
better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a
majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and
that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of
the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the
ordination shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the
prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction,
the decision of the majority shall prevail.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XIX.
If there be no synod and metropolitan, let there be no bishop. If on
account of some difficulty all do not meet together, at least let the greater
number, or let them give their assent by letter. But if after the affair is all
settled a few are contentious, let the vote of the majority stand firm.
ZONARAS.
In the first place it must be noted that by "ordination" in this place is
meant election, and the laying on of the bishop's hand.
BALSAMON.
The method of choosing a bishop is laid down in the canons of Nice, number
iv., but the present canon adds the provision that an election which takes
place in violation of the provisions of this decree is null and invalid: and that
when those who are electing are divided in opinion as to whom to choose, the
votes of the majority shall prevail. But when you hear this canon saying that
there should be no election without the presence of the Metropolitan, you must not
say that he ought to be present at an election (for this was prohibited, as is
found written in other canons) but rather say that his presence here is a
permission or persuasion, without which no election could take place.
Compare Apostolic Canon number j.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. LXV., can. iij. Gratian has chosen Isidore's version, and the Roman
Correctors point out that Dionysius' is preferable.
CANON XX.
WITH a view to the good of the Church and the settlement of disputes, it
is decreed to be well that synods of the bishops, (of which the metropolitan
shall give notice to the provincials), should be held in every province twice a
year, one after the third week of the feast of Easter, so that the synod may be
ended in the fourth week of the Pentecost; and the second on the ides of October
which is the tenth [or fifteenth] day of the month Hyperberetaeus; so that
presbyters and deacons, and all who think themselves unjustly dealt with, may
resort to these synods and obtain the judgment of the synod. But it shall be
unlawful for any to hold synods by themselves without those who are entrusted with
the Metropolitan Sees.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XX.
On account of ecclesiastical necessities the synod in every province shall
meet twice a year, in the fourth week of Pentecost and on the tenth day of
Hyperbereoeus.
SCHELESTRATIUS (cit. Van Espen).
The time fixed by the Council of Nice before Lent for the meeting of the
synod was not received in the East, and the bishops kept on in the old custom of
celebrating the council in the fourth week after Easter, for the time before
Lent often presented the greatest difficulties for those in the far separated
cities to come to the provincial metropolis.
VAN ESPEN.
In this canon the decree of Nice in canon v. is renewed, but with this
difference that the Nicene synod orders one synod to be held before Lent, but this
synod that it should be held the fourth week after Easter.
It will be remembered that the whole period of the great fifty days from
Easter to Whitsunday was known as "Pentecost."
Compare with this Apostolic Canon number XXXVII.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
I., Dist. XVIII., c. xv., attributed to a council held by Pope Martin. The
Roman Correctors point out that this "Pope Martin" was a bishop of Braga
(Bracarensis) from whose collection of the decrees of the Greek synods Gratian often
quotes; the Correctors also note, "For bishops in old times were usually called
Popes" (Antiquitus enim episcopi Papoe dicebantur).
CANON XXI.
A BISHOP may not be translated from one parish to another, either
intruding himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the people, or by
constraint of the bishops; but he shall remain in the Church to which he was
allotted by God from the beginning, and shall not be translated from it, according to
the decree formerly passed on the subject.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXI.
A bishop even if compelled by the people, and compelled by the bishops,
must not be translated to another diocese.
See the treatment of the translation of bishops in the Excursus to canon
xv. of Nice. Compare this canon with Apostolical Canon number xiv.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa VII., Quaest. I., can. xxv., from Isidore's version.
CANON XXII.
LET not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself,
nor into a district which does not belong to him, either to ordain any one, or to
appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another
bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place. And if any one
shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void, and he
himself shall be punished by the synod.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXII.
A bishop shall not go from city to city ordaining people, except by the
will of the bishop of the city: otherwise the ordination shall be without force,
and he himself exposed to censure.
If we do not draw a rash conclusion, we should say that the interference
of bishops in dioceses not their own, must have been very frequent in early
days. This one synod enacted two canons (number XIII. and this present canon) on
the subject. The same prohibition is found in canons XIV. and XXXV. of the
Apostolic canons, in canon XV. of Nice, canon ij. of I. Constantinople and in many
others. On account of the similarity of this canon to canon xiii. some have
supposed it to be spurious, the enactment of some other synod, and this was the
opinion of Godefrides Hermantius (Vita S. Athanasii, Lib. IV., cap. xij.) as well
as of Alexander Natalis (Hist. Sec., IV., Dissert. xxv.). Van Espen, however, is
of opinion that the two canons do not cover exactly the same ground, for he
says Canon XIII. requires letters both from the Metropolitan and from the other
bishops of the province, while this canon XXII. requires only the consent of the
diocesan. He concludes that Canon XIII. refers to a diocese sede vacante, when
the Metropolitan with the other bishops took care of the widowed church, but
that Canon XXII. refers to a diocese with its own bishop, whose will is all that
is needed for the performance of episcopal acts by another bishop. And this
distinction Schelestratius makes still more evident by his discussion of the
matter in his scholion on Canon XIII.
Compare with this canon of the Apostolic Canons number XXXV. also number
XIV.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa IX., Quaest. II., can. vij., but in a form differing far from the
Greek original, as the Roman Correctors point out; and even Gratian's present
text is not as he wrote it, but amended.
CANON XXIII.
IT shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint
another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the
appointment shall be void. But the ecclesiastical law must be observed, that a
bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with tile judgment of
the bishops, who have the authority to promote tile man who is worthy, after the
falling asleep of him who has ceased from his labours.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIII.
A dying bishop shall not appoint another bishop. But when he is dead a
worthy successor shall be provided by a synod of those who have this power.
Nothing could be more important than the provision of this canon. It is
evidently intended to prevent nepotism in every form, and to leave the
appointment to the vacant see absolutely to the free choice of the Metropolitan and his
synod. The history of the Church, and its present practice, is a curious
commentary upon the ancient legislation, and the appointment of coadjutor bishops cure
jure successionis, so common in later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious
way of escaping the force of the canon. Van Espen, however, reminds his readers
of the most interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself
narrates in his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop of
Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ignorant of the fact that it was
prohibited by the canons. And how when in his old age the people wished him to have
one chosen bishop to help him till his death and to succeed him afterwards, he
declined saying: "What was worthy of blame in my own case, shall not be a blot
likewise upon my son." He did not hesitate to say who he thought most worthy
to succeed him, but he added, "he shall be a presbyter, as he is, and when God
so wills he shall be a bishop." Van Espen adds; "All this should be read
carefully that thence may be learned how St. Augustine set an example to bishops and
pastors of taking all the pains possible that after their deaths true pastors,
and not thieves and wolves, should enter into their flocks, who in a short time
would destroy all they had accomplished by so much labour in so long a time."
(Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xj. and car. xxxij.)
Compare Apostolic Canon number LXXVI.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa VIII., Quaest. I., can. III., in Dionysius's version, and again
Canon IV. in that of Martin Bracarensis.
CANON XXIV.
IT is right that what belongs to the Church be preserved with all care to
the Church, with a good conscience and faith in God, the inspector and judge of
all. And these things ought to be administered under the judgment and
authority of the bishop, who is entrusted with the whole people and with the souls of
the congregation. But it should be manifest what is church property, with the
knowledge of the presbyters and deacons about him; so that these may know
assuredly what things belong to the Church, and that nothing be concealed from them,
in order that, when the bishop may happen to depart this life, the property
belonging to the Church being well known, may not be embezzled nor lost, and in
order that the private property of the bishop may not be disturbed on a pretence
that it is part of the ecclesiastical goods. For it is just and well-pleasing to
God and man that the private property of the bishop be bequeathed to
whomsoever he will, but that for the Church be kept whatever belongs to the Church; so
that neither the Church may suffer loss, nor the bishop be injured under pretext
of the Church's interest, nor those who belong to him fall into lawsuits, and
himself, after his death, be brought under reproach.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXIV.
All the clergy should be cognizant of ecclesiastical matters; so that when
the bishop dies the Church may preserve her own goods; but what belongs to the
bishop shall be disposed of according to his directions.
VAN ESPEN.
This canon shews the early discipline according to which the presbyters
and deacons of the episcopal city, who were said to be "about him" or to pertain
to his chair, represented the senate of the church, who together with the
bishop administered the church affairs, and, when the see was vacant, had the charge
of it. All this Martin of Braga sets forth more clearly in his version, and I
have treated of the matter at large in my work on Ecclesiastical Law, Pars I.,
Tit. viii., cap. i., where I have shewn that the Cathedral chapter succeeded to
this senate of presbyters and deacons.
Compare with this canon Apostolical Canon XL.
This canon in a somewhat changed form is found in the Corpus Juris
Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XII., Quaest. I., can. xx., and
attributed to "Pope Martin's Council"; also compare with this the ensuing canon, number
XXI.
CANON XXV.
LET the bishop have power over the funds of the Church, so as to dispense
them with all piety and in the fear of God to all who need. And if there be
occasion, let him take what he requires for his own necessary uses and those of
his brethren sojourning with him, so that they may in no way lack, according to
the divine Apostle, who says, "Having food and raiment, let us therewith be
content." And if he shall not be content with these, but shall apply the funds to
his own private uses, and not manage the revenues of the Church, or the rent of
the farms, with the consent of the presbyters and deacons, but shall give the
authority to his own domestics and kinsmen, or brothers, or sons, so that the
accounts of the Church are secretly injured, he himself shall submit to an
investigation by the synod of the province. But if, on the other hand, the bishop or
his presbyters shall be defamed as appropriating to themselves what belongs to
the Church, (whether from lands or any other ecclesiastical resources), so that
the poor are oppressed, and accusation and infamy are brought upon the account
and on those who so administer it, let them also be subject to correction, the
holy synod determining what is right.
NOTES.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXV.
The bishop shall have power over ecclesiastical goods. But should he not
be content with those things which are sufficient for him but shall alienate the
goods and revenues of the church, without the advice of the clergy, penalties
shall be I exacted from him in the presence of the synod. But if he has
converted to his own uses what was given for the poor, of this also let him give an
explanation to the synod.
Compare with this canon Apostolic Canon number XLI.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars
II., Causa XII., Quaest I., can. XXIII. and with this should be compared canon
XXII. immediately preceding.
At the end of this canon in Labbe's version of Dionysius we find these
words added. "And thirty bishops signed who were gathered together at this Synod."
Isidore Mercator has a still fuller text, viz.: "I, Eusebius, being present
subscribe to all things constituted by this holy Synod. Theodore, Nicetas,
Macedonius, Anatolius, Tarcodimantus, AEthe-reus, Narcissus, Eustachius, Hesychius,
Mauricius, Paulus, and the rest, thirty bishops agreed and signed." Van Espen
after noting that this addition is not found in the Greek, nor in Martin
Bracarensis, adds "there is little probability that this clause is of the same
antiquity as the canons."