So-called First-and-Second Council

Interpretation.

This Canon too decrees about Donatists, by saying that letters ought to be sent to the bishops in Italy, and especially to Bishop Anastasius of Rome, which bishops had refused to accept the ordinations celebrated by Donatists, apologetically affirming that they ought to accept them in Africa. 1st) On account of the great need and want which this country has had of clerics (see c. LXVI of the same C.), in which connection would be of great service. 2nd) Because of the fact that in all the regions where such heretics appeared in time of old they were admitted with their honors and sacerdocies. 3rd) In order that they may thereby be inclined to revert, and hence that the unity may be enhanced and multiplied (i.e., extended) as well as the system of the catholic Church. And 4th) In view of the fact that on account of all these “economical” reasons they accept their ordinations, and not as being opposed to the Council held in Italy, or as contravening its decision. See also c. LV of the same C.

78. It has pleased the Council besides to decree that when these things have been transacted legates be sent on the part of our number to the Bishops of the same Donatists, if they have any, or to their laymen, to proclaim peace and unity, without which the salvation, of Christians cannot be accomplished. Through these legates all persons, who²¹⁴ have no reasonable ground to be against the catholic Church, indeed, may be made aware of the evidence afforded by town transactions to all, in verification of the proof thereof, that the very same things which they did as regarding their own schismatics called Maximianists, where it can be proved to them from God, if they care to pay attention, to have split them away from the ecclesiastical union at that time every bit as unjustly as they are contending that the Maximianists split off from them unjustly. Later they even readmitted in the same honors many of those whom they had condemned with the express authority of their own will. They even accepted the baptism which those among them had given who had been condemned and expelled, as though intent upon showing that it is with a stupid heart that they are setting themselves against the peace of the Church which has been diffused in every part of the world. They are doing these things, however, in defense of the party of Donatus, and are not asserting themselves to be polluted by communion with their members in this fashion, owing to their involuntary acceptance of peace, whereas they are quarreling with us, that is, with the catholic Church. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that through tainted com-triunion with these men it has been established in the farthermost parts of the earth, even whom they had formerly been blaming and bringing charges against, all of them have been unable to substantiate their charges.
Interpretation.

Likewise the present Canon also has reference to the Donatists, decreeing that Orthodox legates must be sent to their bishops and laymen for the purpose of inviting them to make peace and unite with the catholic Church, and for the purpose of pointing out and proving to them by civil documents that notwithstanding the fact that they accepted the baptism and ordinations performed by Maximianists, who had unjustly split off from the Donatists (as the Donatists had split away from the catholic Church), and were condemned by them on this account, they do not consider that they are polluted by communion with them, they are nevertheless quarreling with the catholic Church without having any just reason for complaint against her, and are likewise shunning her communion.

79.²¹⁵ It has pleased the Council to decree that no Bishop who has left his own seat of authority shall be permitted to appropriate some other church in the diocese, with a view to enriching himself, or to busy himself therein longer than necessary as though in some affair of his own, to the neglect of the care and assiduity which he ought to bestow upon his own throne.

(Ap. c. LVIII; c. XXV of the 4th; c. XIX of the 6th; c. XVI of the lst-&-2nd; c. XI of Sardica; ce. CXXXI, CXXXII, CXXXIII of Carthage; c. X of Peter; c. VI of Nyssa.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that no bishop is to be permitted to leave his own seat of authority, or, in other words, his original throne (even though it be poor and sparsely peopled), and to go and seat himself in another parish subject thereto (even though this one may be richer and have a larger population than the one in the city where his throne is),²¹⁶ or even to spend more than the proper and fixed length of time therein, neglecting the care and providence due to the city in which his throne is. Read also Ap. c. LVIII.

80. It has pleased the Council to decree as regarding infants that whenever reliable witnesses cannot be found to declare that they have been baptized beyond a doubt, nor, on account of their age, are the infants themselves able to vouch for any ceremony administered to them, these persons ought to be baptized without any hindrance, lest any such hesitation deprive them of such of the purification due to sanctification.
Interpretation.

This Canon was borrowed from the Sixth EC. C., being its c. LXXXIV where it is set forth verbatim, and see its Interpretation there.

81. It has pleased the Council to decree that the day of Easter to be celebrated shall be brought to public notice by means of a formal declaration under signature to be observed on the same day as that announced by the Synod (or Council), which was fixed by the Council held in Hippo-, that is, the day coinciding with ten calends of September last year. For it must be specified in writing to the primates of all the provinces, in order that when invited to a Synod or Council held among themselves they may keep this particular day.

(Ap. cc. VII, XXXVII; cc. LX, CXVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The day of Easter which occurs every year, decrees the present Canon, is to be disclosed to all persons by being written underneath the decrees which the Synod or Council held annually shall issue. The day on which this annual Synod or Council is to be held is to be the twenty-first day of August (for the first ten days of a month are called calends; see the Footnote to c. LXII of the 6th), as was defined, i.e., determined, by the Council held in Hippo,²¹⁷ and which is the day always to be kept whenever a Synod or Council is held. See also Ap. cc. VII and XXXVII, and the Footnote to c. LX of the present C.

82. It has likewise been determined that no mediator shall be allowed to hold a see, even though it has been given to a mediator by reason of any demands or dissensions of the laities or populaces; but, on the contrary, they must endeavor within a year to provide a Bishop. If they neglect to do so, at the end of the year another mediator shall be selected by vote.

(Ap. c. LVIII; c. XXV of the 4th; c. XIX of the 6th; c. XVI of the lst-&-2nd; c. XI of Sardica; cc. LXXIX, LXXXVI, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXXXIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

In olden times it used to be a custom whenever the bishop of any province died, or the latter was left vacant in any other manner, and there were disturbances among its laity, some bishop would be sent to it, who would be called a “mediator” (perhaps on the ground that he was mediating between the deceased bishop and the one to be ordained in the future), in order to quell the laity in it, who were in a state of mutiny and agitated, or for other reasons. So the present Canon decrees that that mediator must be provided for the space of a year only, and must then be succeeded by another diocesan and genuine bishop in that province. But if he nevertheless should neglect to take care of this, another mediator who is more diligent must be appointed at the end of the year. This mediator bishop appears to have acted like a genuine prelate in carrying out all the pre-latical rights in this episcopate and in all its bishopric, with the exception of being installed and established in the sacred synthronus, according to the conciliar warrant of Manuel Charitopoulos of Constantinople the Patriarch (page 241 of Juris Graeco-Romani). See also c. XIII of Antioch.²¹⁸ See also Ap. c. LVIII.

83. To all of us it seemed advisable to request the Emperors to relieve the harsh treatment of the indigent, with the hardships of whom the Church is ceaselessly being annoyed, so that advocates (called in Greek ecdici) for them may be chosen with the provident attention of the Bishops to protect them against the tyranny of the rich.

(Ap. c. XXVII; c. IX of the lst-&-2nd; c. V of Antioch; cc. LVII, LXII, LXXVI, XCIX, C, CVI, CVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Since bishops had an obligation not only to teach their laity, but also as far as possible to defend it whenever it was being treated unjustly, whereas those who were wronging it on account of their possession of executive powers were not disposed to listen to bishops or to take them into account, therefore in the present Canon the Council is asking the Emperors to have ecdici²¹⁹ or “advocates,” appointed — i.e., certain officials having imperial power — for the purpose of preventing together with the bishops the tyrannies of the rich persons who were wont to treat others unjustly, in order that the Church might not be daily annoyed by the grave injustices which the poor received from them, seeing that the poor would apply to her and ask for aid and vengeance. See also Ap. c. XXVII.

84. It has pleased the Council to decree that as often a Council has to be assembled, the Bishops who are neither by age nor by illness nor by any sterner necessity prevented from doing so shall meet together in a suitable and convenient manner. And notice shall be presented to the primates of each one of their own provinces concerning all the Bishops, no matter if two or three conventions are held, and from each gathering in turn, as many shall be chosen as are needed to meet together on the day of the Council promptly and punctiliously. If they be unable to meet together, because as likely as not a throng of exigencies have arisen, unless they impute the reason for their own inability to attend the meeting to their own primate, such bishops ought to content themselves with communion of their own church.

(Ap. c. XXXVII; c. V of the 1st; c. XIX of the 4th; e. VIII of the 6th; c. VI of the 7th; c. XX of Antioch; cc. XXVI, LX, LXXXI, LXXXV, CIV of Carthage; c. XL of Laodicea.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon indispensably requires the bishops of each and every province to convene whenever a Council or Synod is being held, unless they are prevented from doing so, either on account of old age, or on account of illness; or on account of some other unavoidable circumstance. And after they have convened, they are to notify their Metropolitan. And if two or three conventions are held (for perhaps either they may be hard put to for habitation, or as a result of other obstacles they could not all assemble in one and the same city, but only in two or three cities not far from the Metropolis), from each gathering some are to be chosen, and turn and turn about at different times different ones are to appear “promptly and punctiliously,” or, in a word, forthwith (or even making speeches demonstratively) at the Council. If they are unable to assemble, owing to unavoidable circumstances, perhaps, that have been in their way, they must disclose this obstacle or impediment or hitch to the Metropolitan. If they fail to do so, they are to be excluded from communion by all the others, and may participate in communion only in their own church. See Ap. c. XXXVII.

85. As regarding Cresconius of Villa Regentis it has seemed to all of us advisable that it should be brought to the attention of the primate of Numidia that he ought to know enough to urge the said Cresconius in his own letters to attend the convention, so that he may not fail to be present at the forthcoming Pan-African Council. But if he should scorn to come, let him be appraised that there is a legislative decision against him.

(Ap. c. XXXVII; c. V of the 1st; c. XIX of the 4th; c. VIII of the 6th; c. VI of the 7th; c. XX of Antioch; ce. XXVI, LX, XCI, CIV of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon through this single bishop makes it incumbent upon all the bishops to assemble without fail at the annual Synods or Councils. As for those who show contempt for it and refuse to attend it, the Canon threatens ecclesiastical condemnation. See also Ap. c. XXXVII.

86. It has pleased the Council, since the abandonment of the Church of the commissaries in Hippo ought not to be neglected too long; and since the churches there are occupied by those who have insisted upon the absurd communion of Equities, from the present Council we delegate the Bishops named Reginus, Alvpius, Augustine, Maternus, Theasius, Evodius, Placianus, Urban, Valerius, Amivius, Fortunatus, Quodvultdeus, Honoratus, Januarius, Aptus, Honoratus, Ampelius, Victorian, Evangelus, and Rogation, and when they have assembled and those who with culpable pertinacity considered the flight of the same Equitius with the hope of having him return, with the prayer of all let a Bishop be ordained for them. But if they are unwilling to comprehend peace, let them not obstruct the election of a president for the purpose of ordain-ing one to serve the needs of a church abandoned for such a long time.

(Ap. c. LVIII; c. XXV of the 4th; c. XIX of the 6th; c. VI of the lst-&-2nd; c. XI of Sardica; cc. LXXIX, LXXXII, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXXXIII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

This Equitius, being the bishop of one of the two cities called Hippo and situated in Numidia in Africa (see the Footnote to c. LXXXI of the present C.), and having been justly deposed from office for a crime he committed (according to c. LXXIV of the present C.), fled to parts of Italy: Some persons, on the other hand, seeking²²⁰ the absurd, or, in other words, illegal and uncanonical participation of Equitius in communion, stubbornly and presumptuously waited expectantly for him to come, contemning as they did the Council’s deposition of him from office. For this reason the Council in the present Canon decrees that such and such bishops be sent with a view to pacifying those adversaries, and in addition to ordain another bishop in Hippo, which on account of such scandals had been abandoned for so long a time and was without a bishop. See also Ap. c. LVIII.

87. It has been determined that whenever Clerics are exposed and charged with any crimes, whether it be on account of the reproach resulting to the Church, or on account of a sense of shame, for the sake of which they are spared, or on account of the conceited crowing of heretics and heathen, if as is likely enough they wish to defend themselves in the case and to make an effort to prove their innocence, they may do this within a year’s exclusion from communion. But if they scorn to clear themselves of the charge within a year, let no assertion of theirs whatever be henceforth admissible at all.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 2nd; c. IX of the 4th.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that if any clerics charged with crimes and about to be condemned shall ask for time in which to vindicate themselves and to prove themselves not responsible for the crimes, they are to be treated with compassion and mercy out of respect for holy orders and in order to prevent heathens and heretics from waxing proud, reproaching the Church, and flouting the holy orders of the Orthodox; and they are to be allowed a year’s time in which to do so, during which they must stand excluded from communion. But if they fail to prove themselves innocent with a year from the commission of the crimes, thereafter they are not to be permitted to set up any defense at all. See also Ap. c. LXXIV, c. VI of the 2nd, and c. IX of the 4th.

88. It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone admits or offers a reception to anyone from a strange Monastery, and should wish to induct him into the clergy, or should appoint anyone an abbot (or, in Greek, one called a hegumen) of his own Monastery, let the Bishop who does so and thereby separates himself from communion with the rest, content himself with only communion of the laity. And let that person be no longer either a Cleric or a Hegumen (Abbot).

(c. IV of the 4th; cc. XIX, XXI of the 7th; cc. Ill, IV of the lst-&-2nd.).

Interpretation.

If any bishop admits a monk who has departed from his monastery situated in a strange province, according to Balsam on, or makes him a cleric or appoints him an abbot (called in Greek hegumenos) in his own monastery, without a letter dimissory both of the bishop to whom he is subject and of the hegumen by whom he was tonsured, the present Canon decrees that the bishop who did this is to be excluded from communion by his fellow bishops, and is to participate in communion only in his own church. As for that fugitive monk, he is not to be considered a monk, nor to be considered a cleric, nor a hegumen. Read also c. XXI of the 7th.

89. It has been determined that if any Bishop names as his heirs any relatives or any persons unrelated to him who are heretics or Grecians, in preference to the Church, let an anathema be pronounced upon such a person even after his death. And let his name be mentioned on no account among the Priests of God. Neither shall he have any chance to offer an apology in his own defense in case he dies intestate. Since after becoming a Bishop, he ought of course be good enough to dispose of his goods in a manner befitting his profession or occupation.

(Ap. c. XL; c. XXII of the 4th; c. XXXV of the 6th; c. XXIV of Antioch; cc. XXX, XL, CII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

If any bishop makes any persons heirs to his property who are heretics or Grecians, whether they be relatives of his or strangers, preferring them to the Church, the present Canon commands that any such person shall be anathematized again and again even after his death, and no commemorative services are to be held for him by the priests (moreover, his will and testament shall be invalidated and annulled on the ground that it is illegal, and the goods which he left to heretics are to be received by the Church).²²¹ And he himself, if, say, he should be alive after his will has been annulled, shall not be able to find any excuse or justification on the plea that his will and testament was annulled, and that he was about to die intestate, or that he is not permitted to distribute his property to whomsoever he pleases, since, being an Orthodox bishop, he ought, in accordance with his profession and occupation, to order his goods to be distributed to Orthodox persons, and not to Grecians and heretics. See also Ap. c. XL, and c. XXX of the present C.

90. It has pleased the Council to decree that a request be made of the Emperor respecting liberations made in the Church.

(Ap. c. LXXXII; c. IV of the 4th; c. LXXXV of the 6th; c. Ill of Gangra; c. LXXIII of Carthage; cc. XL, XLII of Basil.).

Interpretation.

Having already spoken of emancipations of slaves proclaimed in church, in the course of its c. LXXIII, the Council is now in the present Canon seeking to remind the Emperor concerning them with a view to preventing their former masters from re-enslaving them. Read also Ap. c. LXXXII.

91. It has pleased the Council to decree that everywhere, over field and vine-yard, that sacrificial altars have been erected as though in memory of Martyrs, in which not even the body or corpse of a Martyr can be shown to be enshrined, they shall be destroyed, if possible, by the local Bishops. If this be inexpedient owing to public uproar, let the multitudes be nevertheless admonished not to mob those localities, and let steps be taken to prevent the right-minded from being seized with any superstitious awe of such places, and to see that no commemoration whatever of Martyrs by the same token be celebrated, unless there be somewhere a body or some remains, or an account of them has been handed down by tradition from antiquity. For as regards all sacrificial altars that have been erected anywhere on the strength of dreams or vain revelations offered by any human beings, let all such stories be by all means discredited

(c. IX of the 7th.).

Interpretation.

Some persons, on account of a show of reverence or because of certain visions and vain revelations they had in their sleep, used to build prayer-houses, or oratories, to the names of Martyrs in the fields and vineyards. For this reason the present Canon decrees that if within these prayer-houses and sacrificial altars there is neither the entire body or any parts of the body or remains of a Martyr to be found treasured there, nor is there any ancient tradition of there ever having been any,²²² which is the same as saying that if they have neither been consecrated by remains of a Martyr nor have been built by the usual prayer of a bishop or priest — if, I say, such be the case, they are to be wrecked if possible. But if the multitudes prevent this, they must be admonished by the bishops not to gather there reverently, nor to entertain any superstitious awe or delusion under the impression that they were built as a result of divine revelations (for, though he is darkness, the devil often transforms himself into an angel of light — II Cor. 11:14 — according to St. Paul, in order to delude the souls of men by means of the semblance and name of reverence), and, moreover, neither shall any commemoration of Martyrs be celebrated in them. On the contrary, let them be discouraged in every way, and be shorn of all claim to reverence. See also c. VII of the 7th.

92. It has pleased the Council to decree that a request be presented to the most glorious Emperors in order to have the remains of idolatry, not only as regards those embodied in images of idols, but also those in any kind of places, whether groves or trees, by all means wiped out.

(c. LXVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

The present Canon, like c. LXVII, decrees that the Emperors be requested to wipe out completely by an edict of theirs all remaining traces of idolatry, as regards both the statues and the altars of idols to be found in forests and woods and any other places.²²³

93. It was declared by all the Bishops here that if it pleased the Council to have any letters written by dictation in the Council, the adorable Bishop presiding on this throne be asked to deign to dictate and sign them in the name of all.
Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that whenever there is need of letters to be written by the Council to the Emperor or to any other persons, the Archbishop and Pope of Carthage is to dictate and sign them in the name of all. For it is burdensome and difficult for all the bishops to sign all Con-ciliar letters.

94. Inasmuch as there is but one body of the most holy Church, and the head of all its members is but one, it has happened, God willing, and strengthening our weakness, that we persons have come to join this Church with the incentive of love and brotherhood. Wherefore I beg your love, since it is so to be believed, that our convention amongst ourselves is neither superfluous, nor so very gratifying as it might have been to all, in order that the consent of all of us be made manifest, to be of the same mind with those who resolved upon the decisions arrived at by vote long ago in times of old, whether it be those affirmed at the Council held in Hippo, or those thereafter prescribed by the superior Council held in Carthage, likewise even now being read to us in due order, for then shall the likemindedness of your brotherhood be displayed brighter than the light (of day), if you expressly concur in the judgments (or decisions) made by us legitimately in the above Councils, not only in the present transactions, with your assent, but also still further with your signatures.