So-called First-and-Second Council

123. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should say, with reference to the same grace of God given through our Lord Jesus Christ, that it helps us only to keep from sinning in this respect that the knowledge and cognoscence of sins is revealed to us through it, and enables us to know what to seek after and what to shun, though it does not afford us further help whereby to discern what we ought to do, nor does it further cause us to love and to have the strength to do it, let him be anathema. For in view of the fact that the Apostle says “knowledge puffeth up, whereas love edifieth” (I Cor. 8:1), it is utterly impious to believe that we have the grace of Christ for the purpose of puffing ourselves up, but have it not for the purpose of edifying ourselves, when, as a matter of fact, both are free gifts of God, that of knowing what we must do and that of loving what we must do, in order’that thanks to the edifying power of love knowledge be unable to puff us up, precisely as has been written out of God: “He that teacheth man knowledge” (Ps. 94:10). Thus too it is further written: “Love is of God” (I John 4:7).

(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

In the present Canon too the Council anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians, who used to assert that the grace of God helps us only in this respect to keep from sinning in that it enables us to know what we ought to seek and do, or, in other words, what things are good and right, and what things we ought to shun, or, in other words what things are bad and evil; and not that it graciously bestows upon us also the inclination to love and the strength to do those things which are good and right, as we well know that they are. For both gifts are equally and alike gifts of God, both the knowledge and the love. For as concerning the knowledge David says: “He that teacheth man knowledge” (I.e.), while as concerning love the beloved disciple says: “Love is of God” (I.e.). But in another way too it is impious for us to believe that the grace of God bestows upon us knowledge, which by itself, as St. Paul says, puffeth up, or, in other words, causes presumptuousness; but does not also bestow upon us love, which edifieth and strengtheneth us so as to enable us to do what is good. In sum, just as knowing what we ought to do is a free gift bestowed by divine grace, so and likewise is loving what we ought to do. The knowledge, though, is indeed attributed to the mind, while the love is attributed to the will, the two chief and main faculties, or powers, of the soul.

124. It has further pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should say that the reason why the grace of righteousness has been bestowed upon us is in order that we might through self-mastery be able the more easily and readily to fulfill it through grace, as though indicating that even if the grace had not been given we should still have been able, howbeit not easily and readily, to fulfill the divine commandments without its aid, let him be anathema. For when the Lord was speaking about the fruits of the commandments, He did not say, “Without me ye will have difficulty in doing anything” (cf. John 15:5).

(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

This Canon too anathematizes the Pelagians and Celestians for saying that simply because God made us masters of ourselves in respect of being free to do as we please²³⁸ we can execute the commandments even without the aid of divine grace, though not easily, but with difficulty, whereas through the aid afforded by divine grace we are enabled to carry these out more easily, since even the Lord, in speaking about the divine commandments, did not say, “Without me ye can do these only with difficulty,” but, instead, He simply said, “Without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5)²³⁹ Neither with ease nor with difficulty, that is to say, so that everything depends upon divine grace, and without the latter we can accomplish nothing.²⁴⁰

125. It has pleased the Council to decree, what St. John the Apostle said: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:8), that whosoever shall deem that this thought is to be interpretated as meaning that we ought out of humility to refrain from saying that we have no sin, not that it is truly so, shall be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to say in anticipation of such a misinterpretation: “But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (ibid., 1:9). Where it is made quite plain that this was said not only out of humility, but furthermore truthfully. For the Apostle might have said, “if we say that we have no sin, we are exalting ourselves, and there is no humility in us;” but by saying “We are deceiving ourselves, and there is no truth in us,” he quite evidently pointed out that anyone asserting that he himself has no sin is not telling the truth, but, on the contrary, is lying.

(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXVI, CXXVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Inasmuch as the dogmas of the Pelagians agreed in a way with those of the Massalians,²⁴¹ in that both the former and the latter placed the beginning of salvation, not primarily in divine grace, but in human power; consequently, since the Massalians too believed wrongly that when the Holy Spirit comes to a human being sensibly and visibly, it frees him from the passions and he no longer needs to engage in fastings or other struggles dear to God, the Pelagians perhaps, entertaining such views as these, were wont to say that what St. John asserted, viz., that if perchance we say that we have no sin, we are deluding ourselves, and are not telling the truth, could not truthfully be said saints (in that the latter, that is to say, having been freed from the passions by the Holy Spirit, thereafter had no sins, nor could commit any), but could be said only out of humility, or on account of humble-mindedness. Hence the present Canon anathematizes those who affirm this heretical view of the passage in question, on the ground that they are misinterpreting it. For the same Apostle John says subsequently that if we confess our sins, the Lord is faithful and just, and will pardon our sins, and will cleanse us from every unrighteousness. From which words it becomes manifest that it was not on account of humility, but as a matter of truthfulness that the saint made the above assertion, since the Apostle could have said, “if we say that we have no sin, we are proud, and there is no humility in us.” Hence, by not saying this, he is pointing out that anyone who says that he has no sin, is not telling the truth, but, on the contrary, is lying.²⁴²

126. It has pleased the Council to decree that whosoever should declare that in the Lord’s prayer the reason why saints say “forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12) is not that they are saying this in their own behalf, since this petition is no longer necessary to them, but in behalf of others, of those sinners who are among their people; and that each one of them does not say personally, “forgive me my debts,” but, instead, says (vicariously), “forgive us our debts” (Luke 11:4), on the ground that he is to be understood as petitioning the Righteous One in behalf of others, rather than in behalf of himself, let him be anathema, for James the Apostle was a saint and a righteous and just man when he said: “For in many things we all sin” (James 3:2, as translated in this Canon). Since, why is it that the word “all” is added? unless it be, in order that the meaning be in keeping with that²⁴³ of the psalm where it is written: “And enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps. 143:2). And in the prayer of most wise Solomon: “There is no human being that has not sinned” (I Kings 8:46). And in the book of St. Job the words: “He stampeth in the hand of every man; in order that every man may know his own weakness” (Job 37:3). (Note of Translator. — The Canon here substitutes for the Greek word in the Septuagint translated in the Authorized Version as “sealeth up” the Greek word semaino, which means “to stamp” “to mark,” etc. and which appears to be the true meaning, and not “ sealeih up”) Hence, furthermore, the saint and righteous man Daniel the Prophet, speaking in the plural number, says the following words: “We have sinned; we have committed iniquity” (Dan. 9:5), and the rest of what he there humbly and truthfully confesses, in order not to have it thought, as some persons understand it, that he was speaking not about his own sins, but rather about those of his people. After this passage he said: “I was praying, and was confessing my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God” (ibid., 9:20) He did not want to say, “our sins,” but, on the contrary, expressly said that they were sins of his own and of his people, since it would seem that the Prophet could foresee that they were going to understand it wrongly.

(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVII of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

This Canon too discusses insanities of the Pelagians like the ones above. For it anathematizes them for saying that when saints recite the Lord’s prayer, they themselves do not say the words “Forgive us our sins,” since they do not need to make any such request, as being passionless and sinless, but they say them for the sins of others. For even St. James the Brother of God says: “All of us commit many offenses.” And David says: “Enter not, Ο Lord, into judgment with me thy servant, because no man living can appear righteous in thine eyes.” Solomon, too, in the prayer which he made to God after building the Temple said,: “There is no man in the world who has not sinned.” And Job: “He stampeth a seal in the hands of every human being in order that every human being may know his own weakness.”²⁴⁴ Moreover, the prophet Daniel in praying said first in the plural number, “We have sinned; we have committed iniquities;” and afterwards he adds in the singular number: “I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people.” And he said this thus clearly in order to prevent anyone from thinking that he was referring to the sins of his people, and not to his own sins, prophetically stopping the mouths of men who would wrongly insist that that was what he meant.

127. It has pleased the Council to decree that any persons whatsoever that would have it that the words in the Lord’s prayer “Forgive us our debts,” which we are wont to say, are said by saints because of their humility, and not truthfully, let them be anathema. For who could bear to hear anyone praying, not to men, but to the Lord Himself, lyinglyt one asking only with his lips to be forgiven sins which he is not conscious of having committed?

(cc. CXX, CXXI, CXXII, CXXIIT, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

This Canon too anathematizes the Pelagians for saying that the saints do not say in accordance with the truth, “Forgive us our debts,” since they have no sins and debts, but only out of humility and modesty. For who, it says, can bear to hear persons supposed to be saints saying this lyingly not to men, but to God, and with their lips asking forgiveness for their sins, but with their heart considering that they have no sins? For this would be deemed to be trifling with God, and not praying, which in regard to saints it would be absurd even to think of.²⁴⁵

128. It has pleased the Council, since some years ago it was laid down as a rule in this Church filled with the Council that any churches established in a diocese before the laws concerning Donatists were promulgated should become catholic and belong to those thrones at the suggestion of whose Bishops they were prevailed upon to join the catholic unity. But after those laws were made any churches that joined it should belong to those thrones to which they belonged even when they were on the side of Donatus. And many altercations arose later between the Bishops and continue to arise as regarding the dioceses, for which it seems that inadequate provision was made at that time. Now in this holy Council it has pleased us to decree that wherever a catholic church was established on the part of Donatus, and there were churches belonging to different thrones, if at any time a union occurred there, or shall occur in the future, whether before the laws or after the laws, they shall belong to that throne to which the catholic church belonged²⁴⁶ which existed there of old, so that thus, that is to say, if any Bishops returned from the Donatists to the catholic unity, they shall divide equally between them the dioceses thus situated where both parties were, that is, in order that some regions may belong to one part, and som,e to another in such a way as to let the older one in the Episcopate apportion, and the newer one select them. If, however, it should chance that there is but one region, let him take that which is situated in closer proximity. If it be equally close to both thrones, let it be ceded to that one which the multitude may choose. If it should chance that the ancient catholics want the same region, and those who have reverted from the party of Donatus want the same one, let the opinion of the majority be preferred to that of the minority. But if the parties are equal, let the older Bishop have it. If thus, however, there be found a great many regions in which both parties are to be found, so that they cannot be divided equally, the number of such regions being unequal, let the equal numbers be divided first, and to the one that is left let this be reserved which has been stated above when the question was one of a single region.

(cc. LV, LXVI, LXXV, LXXVI, LXXVII, LXXVIII, CI, CII, CXXIX of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

Because of the fact that many doubts arose among the bishops as to which of them should take the ones reverting from the Donatists, the present Canon decrees that before the Imperial laws concerning unity were enacted it was decreed (Canon CX) that they should be subject to that bishop from, whom they returned, but after the laws they should be subject to the catholic bishops in the districts nearest to the Donatists. Now again for complete solution of the doubts arising the Council decrees that the regions of the ones reverting from the Donatists should be subject to that bishop to whom the Orthodox church used to belong which had been situated of old in the region of the Donatists. That is to say in such a way that if the regions were situated between two bishops reverting from the Donatists, both bishops were to divide them between themselves, and the earlier one was to do the dividing, and the later one was to do the choosing. But if there was only one region about which they were fighting, it was to be subject to the one nearest to it, in adjacency. Or if it bordered equally close to both their thrones, it was to belong to that bishop whom the multitude wanted. But if both bishops demanded the same region in its whole and undivided entirety, the opinion of the majority was to prevail over that of the minority. If, on the other hand, both parties were equal, the older one was to have jurisdiction of the region. Or if there were many regions, both bishops were to divide them as equally as they could between themselves, share and share alike; and if there remained a single odd region, it was to be subject either to that one who was the nearest neighbor to it, or to that one whom the multitude wanted; if the parties were equal, then it was to be subject to both. Read also c. LV of the present C.

129. It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone after the (enactment] of the laws causes any region to revert to the catholic unity and holds possession thereof for a space of three years without anyone seeking to take it away from him, henceforth it shall not be taken away from him. If, however, within the said space of three years there was a Bishop who was entitled to it and he went to rest; but if there was not, let him not be prejudice in the Matrix, but when the vacant region gets a Bishop, let it be permissible for him to take possession of it from that with a space of three years. Likewise, on the other hand, if a Bishop reverts from the Donatus parties to the catholic Church, let his position in the Matrix not be prejudiced as respects the length of time intervening, but, on the contrary, from the day that he returned, let him have the right to retrieve the places belonging to his see at any time within the space of three years.

(c XVII of the 4th; cc. LV, LXVI, LXXV, LXXVI, LXXVII, CI, CII, CX, CXXVIII, CXXXI of Carthage.).

Interpretation.

This last Canon too, concerning the places of the Donatists and in general that have reverted from heretics, prescribes that if any catholic bishop, after the adoption of the laws respecting unity (see c. CX), persuades a region of heretics to return to Orthodoxy, and holds it for three years without its being claimed by anybody else, after the expiration of the three years no one shall be allowed to take it away from him. But if that episcopate to which the place in question belonged had no bishop, and within a space of three years a bishop is ordained to it, he shall be allowed to claim the place as his own, and he shall not be detrimentally affected in the Matrix, or, at any rate, he shall not suffer any injury and lose that place by reason of the fact that the place in question was listed in the original Matrix and register of the foreign church assigned to him; but, on the contrary, he shall get it back, provided he claims it within three years.²⁴⁷ Likewise if even a Donatist bishop reverts to Orthodoxy, he too from the day that he reverted may claim the place which belongs to him but which had been occupied during or within three years by another catholic bishop. See also c. LV of the present C., and c. XVII of the 4th.

130. It has pleased the Council to decree that if any Bishops whatsoever claiming the multitudes whom they think to belong to their throne (or see) do so not by having other Bishops decide their claim, but by resorting to a different means of imposing their will upon the laities, whether the latter want them or not, they shall suffer the loss of them because of their own action. And if any Bishops whatsoever have done this, without consulting the convention of the Bishops in the meantime, but are still quarreling about the same matter, that one shall be removed thence who is shown to have taken possession without having recourse to the ecclesiastical judges. And let no one flatter himself if he has received letters from the primate granting him possession; but, instead, whether he has such letters or not, he should contact the one in possession and receive letters from him to show that he has taken possession of the church belonging to him in a peaceful manner. If, however, that Bishop too opposes him with a counterclaim, let this matter too be adjudicated by Bishops sitting as judges in regard thereto, whether they be assigned by the Primate or be chosen by common consent from among neighboring bishops.
Interpretation.

The present Canon forbids bishops to employ civil authority; instead, must claim the laities they think they are entitled to by obtaining a judgment or judicial decision from their bishops in approval of their claim. But if they try to take them over by resorting to force wielded by the civil authorities, whether the laities in question want them as bishops or not, they shall lose such laities even though they were entitled to them because of their resorting to the forces of the civil authorities. Again, even if two bishops fighting over these laities come to trial before the bishops, but before the trial has been finished they are found to be still quarreling about the matter, and one of them ignores the judgment of the bishops and resorts to force by taking possession or seeking to take possession by means of aid obtained from the civil authorities, he too shall lose those laities, even though he was entitled to receive them. Let no one flatter, or, more plainly speaking, delude, himself and resort to such civil force on the pretext that he has received letters from their Metropolitan to take that laity. For, whether he has such a letter or not, he must also obtain a letter stating that he has received the church belonging to him from the bishop previously occupying it, by peaceful means (if he fail to do this, he is to forfeit his right).²⁴⁸ But if the bishop sued likewise sues the suer, this dispute is to be decided by bishops, whether they be those whom the Metropolitan may appoint, or those whom they themselves may choose from among neighboring bishops and bishops in nearby territories. Read also c. XVII of the 4th.

131. It has pleased the Council to decree that if any Bishops whatsoever neglect the regions belonging to their see, and fail to exert themselves with a view to inducing them to unite with the catholic Church, and are indicted by the diligent Bishops neighboring them, they must not delay doing so. For. unless within a space of six months from the day a convention was held in regard thereto they accomplish something in this direction, the regions in question shall be turned over to whomsoever is able to convert them. Provided, however, that if the Bishop to whom such regions are shown to belong intentionally displayed negligence on account of some desired economy, this having been chosen by the heretics, with a view to coaxing them back to the catholic Church quietly; yet, his diligence has been anticipated by another, though by abusing it he has succeeded in making the same heretics resentful of him, when the case is tried before a court of Bishops, the regions shall be restored to him by their decision. Or if the Bishops acting as judges be from different provinces, that Primate shall appoint the judges in whose district the region is which is in dispute. But if by common consent judges are chosen who are neighbors, whether one is chosen or three are chosen. And if three are chosen, and they decide alike, either to follow the decision of the majority or that of two,²⁴⁹ it shall not be permissible for on appeal to be token from the decision of the judges chosen by common consent. Whosoever is proved to be unwilling, owing to his waywardness, to obey the judges, when this is brought to the attention of the Bishop of the chief sec, he shall give letters prohibiting any of the Bishops from communing with him until he does obey.

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

Interpretation.

Bishops ought not to neglect the heretics residing in their province, because they shall have to render an account of them and be held responsible for them; but, on the contrary, they ought to make every effort to win them and to convert them to catholic unity,²⁵⁰ or, more plainly speaking, to the Church. But if they postpone the time, they are to be charged with this procrastination by the bishops of nearby districts. And if, after having had such an accusation laid against them, they again display neglectful-ness, and have failed to make any converts within a space of six months, these heretics together with their regions are to be turned over to another bishop able to convert them. Nevertheless, if the bishop to whom the heretics in question are subject employs seeming negligence on purpose for some economy or other, which the heretics have asked for, in order that they may return peacefully and without the exercise of coercion (seeing that if he were to employ greater diligence and make more strenuous endeavors, they would be hardened on this account), yet another bishop, not aware of this economy, has been in time to convert them — if, I say, this fact comes to light in the course of an investigation and trial conducted by the bishops, all those regions and laities of converted heretics are to be given to the bishop to whom they are subject; as for the bishops who are going to try the case, they are either to be appointed by that Metropolitan in whose province the disputed region and laity of the heretics happen to be, or else they are to be chosen by agreement by these two quarreling bishops. Accordingly, if the latter choose but one bishop to try their case, they shall abide by his decision, on the ground that he was their chosen judge; if, on the other hand, they have chosen themselves three, and these three are in agreement, they shall follow their decision; if one of them, however, fails to agree, they shall follow the decision of the two who do agree, and they shall not appeal their decision to another tribunal. If either one of the two of them obstinately refuses to obey these chosen judges, no bishop shall have any communion with him until he obeys, and letters to this effect shall be issued by the Metropolitan. See also Ap. c. LVIII, and c. XVI of the present C.