Canons of the Council of Arles

Canons of the Council of Arles

§ 1

Cecilian and some of his friends, as well as some deputies of the party of the Donatists, were invited to this Council, and the officials of the empire were charged to defray the ex- penses of the voyage of these bishops. Constantine specially

1 Optat. Uc. p. 25 and p. vi. * See Optat. p. 181, ed. Dupin.

3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5; Mansi, l.c. ii. 468-468. The best modern work on the Council of Arles is the dissertation of Dr. Miinchen, in the Bonner Zeitschr. already mentioned, Heft 9, S. 78 ff. ; Heft 26, S. 49 ff; Heft 27, §. 42 ff invited several bishops, amongst others the Bishop of Syra- cuse According to some traditions, there were no fewer than 600 bishops assembled at Arles.” Baronius, relying on a false reading in S. Augustine, fixes the number at 200. Dupin thought there were only thirty-three bishops at Arles, because that is the number indicated by the title of the letter of the Synod addressed to Pope Silvester,’ and by the list of persons‘ which is found in several mss. Notwithstanding this comparatively small number, we may say that all the provinces of Constantine’s empire were represented at the Council. Besides these thirty-three bishops, the list of persons also mentions a considerable number of priests and deacons, of whom some accompanied their bishops, and others repre- sented their absent bishops as their proxies. Thus Pope Sil- vester was represented by two priests, Claudianus and Vitus, two deacons, Eugenius and Cyriacus.° Marinus of Arles, one of the three judges (judices ex Gallia), who had been appointed beforehand by the Emperor, appears to have presided over the assembly: at least his name is found first in the letter of the Synod. With Marinus the letter mentions Agreecius of Trier, Theodore of Aquileia, Proterius of Capua, Vocius of Lyons, Cecilian of Carthage, Reticius of Autun (one of the earlier Judices ex Gallia), Ambitausus (Imbetausius) of Reims, Merokles of Milan, Adelfius of London, Maternus of Coln, Liberius of Emerita in Spain, and others; the last named having already been present at the Synod of Elvira.

It is seen that a great part of Western Christendom was represented at Arles by some bishops; and the Emperor Con- stantine could truly say: “ I have assembled a great number

1 Easeb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5, p. 391, ed. Mogunt. ; Mansi, ii. 463 sq. ; Hard. i. 259 sq. ; and Optat. J.c. 181 sq. ed. Dupin.

2 Mansi, ii. 469, not. a, et p. 473, not. z sq.

3 In Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 261.

In Mansi, ii. 476; Hard. i. 266. It must not be forgotten that this list does not quite agree with the inscription of the letter td the Pope, and that among the thirty-three names of the synodical letter some are mentioned in the list of persons only as those of priests who were representatives of the bishops. Cf. on this list, which Quesnel has wrongly considered as a copy of the super- scription of the synodical letter, the Ballerini, in their edition of the works of Leo the Great, ii. 1018 sq., et ibid. 851.

§ Cf. the list of persons. 6 In Mansi, /.c. 469; Hard. i. 261.

of bishops from different and almost innumerable parts of the empire.” We may look on the assembly at Arles as a general council of the West (or of the Roman patriarchate).? It can- not, however, pass for an cecumenical council, for this reason, that the other patriarchs did not take any part in it, and indeed were not invited to it; and those of the East espe- cially, according to S. Augustine,’ ignored almost entirely the Donatist controversy. But has not S. Augustine himself declared this Council to be cecumenical? In order to answer this question in the affirmative, an appeal has been made to the second book of his treatise, De Baptismo contra Dona- tistas,* where he says: “ The question relating to re-baptism was decided against Cyprian, in a full council of the whole Church” (plenarium concilium, concilium universe Ecclesia). But it is doubtful whether S. Augustine meant by that the Council of Arles, or whether he did not rather refer to that of Nica, according to Pagi’s view of the case.® It cannot, how- ever be denied that S. Augustine, in his forty-third letter (vii. No. 19), in speaking of the Council of Arles, calls it plenarium Ecclesice universe concilium.’ Only it must not be forgotten that the expression concilium plenarium, or universale, is often employed in speaking of a national council ;*® and that in the passage quoted S. Augustine refers to the Western Church (Ecclesia wniversa occidentalis), and not to the universal Church (uwniversalis) in the fullest sense.

The deliberations of the Council of Arles were opened on the 1st of August 314. Cecilian and his accusers were pre- sent ; but these were no more able than before to prove their accusations. We unfortunately have not in full the acts of the Council ; but the synodical letter already quoted informs us that the accusers of Cecilian were aut damnati aut repulsi. From this information we infer that Cecilian was acquitted ; and this we know to have been the actual result of the Donatist

1 Euseb. Hist. Ecct. x. 5.

Cf. Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 21.

3 Contra Crescon. lib. iv. c. 25; Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 314, n. 17.

‘Cap. 9, n. 14. 5 Opera, viii. 185, ed. Migne.

6 Pagi, Crit. ad ann. a n. 18. T Opera, ii. 169, ed. Migne.

8 Cf. Pagi, l.c.n. 19; and Hefele, ‘‘ Das Concil von Sardika,” in the Tiibinger Quartalsch. 1852, 8. 406. Cf. also previously, pp. 3, 4.

controversy. The Council, in its letter to the Pope, says, “ that it would have greatly desired that the Pope (Silvester) had been able to assist in person at the sessions, and that the judgment given against Cecilian’s accusers would in that case certainly have been more severe.”’ The Council probably alluded to the favourable conditions that it had accorded to the Donatist bishops and priests, in case they should be recon- ciled to the Church.

The letter of the Council contains no other information relating to the affairs of the Donatists. Af the time of the religious conference granted to the Donatists in 411, a letter of the African bishops? was read, in which they said, that, “ dating from the commencement of the schism (ab ipsius separationis exordio), consent had been given that every Dona- tist bishop who should become reconciled to the Church should alternately exercise the episcopal jurisdiction with the Catholic bishop: that if either of the two died, the survivor should be his sole successor ; but in the case in which a church did not wish to have two bishops, both were to resign, and a new one was to be elected.” From these words, ab ipsius separationis exordio, Tillemont’ concluded that it is to the Synod of Arles that this decision should be referred ; for, as we have already seen,‘ other proposals of reconciliation were made at Rome. It is not known whether the Synod of Arles decided anything else in the matter of the Donatists. But it is evident that two, perhaps three, of its twenty-two canons (Nos. 13, 14, and 8), refer to the schism of the African Church, which we shall show in examining them one by one.

The Synod of Arles was not satisfied, as their synodal letter tells us, merely to examine and judge the business of the Donatists :. it wished to lend its assistance in other points relating to the necessities of the Church, especially to solve the paschal controversy, the question of the baptism of heretics,

? Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 262. * It is the 128th epistle among those of s, Augustine, ii. 489, ed. Migne. Cf. Brev. collat. diei i. c. 5, p. 615, t. ix. ed. Migne; et Optat. 250, ed.

In.

eae t. vi. in the Diss. sur les Donatistes, art. xxi. p. 21, ed. Brux.

1782. * Above, p. 179.

and to promulgate various rules for discipline. Convinced that it acted under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it used the formula, Placwit ergo, presente Spiritu sancto & angelis ejus ; and begced the Pope, who had the larger dioceses (ma- jores diceceses) under his control, to promulgate its decrees uni- versally.. The Synod also sent him the complete collection of its twenty-two canons, while in the letter previously quoted it had given only a short extract from them: consequently it may be maintained, with the brothers Ballerini,? that the Synod addressed two letters to the Pope, of which the first, com- mencing with the enumeration of the bishops present, dwelt chiefly on the affairs of the Donatists, and gave but a short sketch of the other decisions ; while the second included lhite- rally and exclusively all the decrees, and addressed itself to the Pope only in the words of introduction, and in the first canon. The Benedictines of S. Maur have published the best text of this second synodical letter, and of the canons of the Council of Arles, in the first volume of their Collectio concilio- rum Gallie of 1789, of which the sequel unfortunately has not appeared.’ We shall adopt this text :

Domino sanctissimo fratri Silvestro Marinus vel ccetus epis- coporum qui adunati fuerunt in oppido Arelatensi. Quid de- crevimus communi consilio caritati tuse significamus, ut omnes sciant quid in futurum observare debeant.

Can. 1. Ut uno die.et tempore Pascha celebretur.

Primo loco de observatione Pasche Domini, ut uno die et uno tempore per omnem orbem a nobis observetur et juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas.

By this canon the Council of Arles wished to make the Roman computation of time with regard to Easter the rule everywhere, and consequently to abolish that of Alexandria, and All others that might differ from it, taking for granted that .. the bishops of the Council knew the difference that existed

1 In Mansi, ii. 469 ; Hard. i. 261 sq.

? In their edition of the works of Leo the Great, ii. 1019.

* Reprinted in Bruns’ Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, vol. i. P. ii. p.107. The pas- sage, as given less accurately in the ancient collections of councils, is found in Mansi, ii. 471 sq., Hard. i. 263 sq.

between these and the Roman computation. We will not here give the details relating to the paschal controversy, but further on in the history of the Council of Nica, so as the better to grasp the whole meaning.’

Can. 2. Ut ubi quisque ordinatur thi permaneat.

De his qui in quibuscumque locis ee fuerint ministri, in ipsis locis perseverent.

The twenty-first canon contains the same decision, with this difference, that the former speaks only of the inferior ministers of the Church (ministrz), while the latter speaks of the priests and deacons; and both express the view of the ancient Church, in accordance with which an ecclesiastic at- tached to one church ought not to change to another. We find the same prohibition even in the apostolic canons (Nos. 13 and 14, or 14 and 15); and in the fifteenth canon of Nicza it is questioned whether this canon of Arles forbids only passing from one diocese to another, or if it forbade moving from one church to another in the same diocese. Dr. Miinchen understood the canon in the latter sense, founding his opinion on the seventy-seventh canon of the Synod of Elvira,? which shows that each church in a diocese had its own minister.® Of course the prohibition as to a change of churches in the same diocese, necessarily applies to moving from one diocese to another.

Can. 3. Ut qui in pace arma projiciunt excommunicentur.

De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstineri eos a communione,.

This canon has been interpreted in no less than four ways. Ivo of Chartres read, instead of in pace, in prelio; and an ancient manuscript, which was compared by Surius, read in bello. In this case the sense would be: “He who throws down his arms in war is excommunicated.” Sirmond tried a second explanation, taking the view that arma projwere is not

1Cf. the diss. of Hefele, Osterfeierstreit (Controversy on the subject of the Easter Feast), in the Freiburger Kirchenlexicon, Bd. vii. 8. 871 ff.

2 In his diss. already quoted, in the Bonner Zeitschrift, Heft 26, 8. 61 ff.

3 Cf. above, p. 170.

synonymous with arma alyicere, and signifies arma in alium conjicere.’ Thus, according to him, the canon forbids the use of arms except in case of war. Dr. Miinchen has developed this explanation, by applying the sentence arma projicere in pace to the fights of the gladiators, and he has considered this canon as a prohibition of these games. Constantine the Great, he says, forbade on the 1st October 325 the games of the gladiators in nearly the same terms: Cruenta spectacula in otio civilt et domestica quiete non placent ; quapropter omnino gladi- atores esse prohibemus. Besides these, adds Miinchen, the two following canons are directed against the spectacula which were so odious to the early Christians; and this connection also justifies the opinion that canon 3 refers to the spectacula, that is to say, to the fights of the gladiators.” Aubespine has tried a fourth explanation. Many Christians, says he, under the pagan emperors, had religious scruples with regard to military service, and positively refused to take arms, or else deserted. The Synod, in considering the changes introduced by Constantine, set forth the obligation that Christians have to serve in war, and that because the Church is at peace (in pace) under a prince friendly to Christians.* This explanation has been adopted, amongst others, by Rémi Ceillier,* by Herbst,5 in the Dictionnaire des conciles of Abbé Migne,® and in Abbé Guetté’s recently published Histoire de [église de France.’ We, however, prefer Dr. Miinchen’s view of the matter.

Can. 4. Ut auriga dum agitant excommunicentur.

De agitatoribus qui fideles sunt, placuit eos quamdiu agi- tant a communione separari. |

These agitators are the jockeys and grooms of the courses, identical with the aurigew of the sixty-second canon of the Council of Elvira. In the same way that the preceding canon interdicted the games of the gladiators, which were celebrated at the amphitheatre, so this prohibits the racing of horses and chariots, which took place in the circus.

- 1 Mansi, ii. 481 sq. * Miinchen, in the diss. quoted above. * See the notes of Aubespine, in Mansi, ii. 492.

* Histoire des auteurs sacrés, iii.. 705. 5 Tih. Quartalechrift, 1821, 8. 666. *T. i. p. 199. Paris 1847. 7T. i. p. 64. Paris 1847,

Can. 5. Ut theatrics quamdiu aguni excommunicentur.

De theatricis, et ipsos placuit quamdiu agunt a communione separari.

This canon excommunicates those who are employed in the theatres.’

Can. 6. Ut in infirmitate conversi manus impositionem

De his qui in infirmitate credere volunt, placuit iis debere manum imponi.

The thirty-ninth canon of Elvira expresses itself in the same manner; and in commenting? upon it, we have said that the words manum imponi were understood by one party as a simple ceremony of admission to the order of catechumens without baptism; by others, especially by Dr. Miinchen, as expressing the administration of confirmation.

Can. 7. De fidelibus qui presides fiunt vel rem publicam

agere volunt.

De presidibus qui fideles ad presidatum prosiliunt, placuit ut cum promoti fuerint literas accipiant ecclesiasticas com- municatorias, ita tamen ut in quibuscumque locis gesserint, ab episcopo ejusdem loci cura illis agatur, et cum cceperint contra disciplinam agere, tum demum a communione exclu- dantur. Suimiliter et de his qui rempublicam agere volunt.

Like the preceding one, this canon repeats a similar statute of the Synod of Elvira. The fifty-sixth canon of Elvira had decreed that a Christian invested with a public office should abstain from appearing in church during the term of these duties, because these necessarily brought him into contact . with paganism.® But since the Council of Elvira an essential change had taken place. Constantine had himself gone over to Christianity ; the Church had obtained full liberty; and if even before this time Christians had often been invested with public offices,* this would henceforth be much more frequently

1 On this hatred of the first Christians for the stage and gaming, cf. Tb. Quartalechrift, 1841, S. 396 ff.

* Above, p. 153 f. 3 See above, p. 161.

4 Euseb. Hist, Hecl. viii. 1.

the case. It was necessary that, under a Christian emperor and altered circumstances, the ancient rigour should be re- laxed, and it is for this reason that the canon of Arles modi- fied the decree of Elvira’ If a Christian, it says, becomes proses, that is to say, governor, he is not, as heretofore, obliged to absent himself from church; on the contrary, letters of recommendation will be given him to the bishop of the country which is entrusted to his care (the governors were sent out of their native country, that they might rule more - impartially). The bishop was bound to extend his care over him, that is to say, to watch over him, assist him with his advice, that he might commit no injustice in an office which included the jus gladui. If he did not listen to the warnings of the bishop, if he really violated Christian discipline, then only was he to be excluded from the Church. The same line of conduct was adhered to in regard of the municipal authori- ties as towards the imperial officers.’ Baronius has erroneously interpreted this canon, in making it exclude heretics and schismatics from holding public offices.”

Can. 8. De baptismo eorum qui ab heresi convertuntur.

De Afris quod propria lege sua utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de heresi venerit, interro- gent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non re- sponderit hanc Trinitatem, baptizetur.

We have already seen® that several African synods, held under Agrippinus and Cyprian, ordered that whoever had been baptized by a heretic, was to be re-baptized on re-entering the Church. The Council of Arles abolished this law (lex) of the Africans, and decreed that those who had received baptism from heretics in the name of the holy Trinity were not to be

1 Cf. Dr. Miinchen, lc. Heft 27, S. 42; Migne, Dict. des Coneil. i. 198.

* Baron. ad an. 314, n. 57. The opinion of Baronius (ibid. No. 53), that Constantine was present at the Council of Aries, is not defensible. He thinks thia conclusion can be drawn from a text of Eusebius ( Vita Const. i. 44); but this passage speaks only in general terms of the presence of the Emperor at the

Council, and evidently refers to the Council of Nicsea. 3 Pp. 86, 98 ff.

again baptized, but simply to receive the imposition of hands, ut accipiat Spiritum sanctum. Thus, as we have already said, the imposition of hands on those converted was ad penitentiam and ad confirmationem. The Council of Arles promulgated in this eighth canon the rule that has always been in force, and is still preserved in our time, with regard to baptism con- ferred by heretics: it was adopted and renewed by the nine- teenth canon of the CEcumenical Council of Nica?

In several Mss. Arianis is read instead of Afris;* but it is known that at the time of the first Synod of Arles the sect of - the Arians did not yet exist. Binius has thought, and perhaps with some reason, that this canon alluded to the Donatists, and was intended to refute their opinion on the ordination of Cecilian by Felix of Aptunga, by laying down this general principle: “That a sacrament is valid, even when it has been conferred by an unworthy minister.” There is, however, no trace of an allusion to the Donatists: it is the thirteenth canon which clearly settles the particular case of the Donatists, as to whether a Traditor, one who has delivered up the Holy Scriptures, can validly ordain.

Can. 9. Ut qui confessorum litteras afferuut, alias ac-

De his qui confessorum literas afferunt, placuit ut sublatis iis literis alias accipiant communicatorias.

This canon is a repetition of the twenty-fifth canon of th Synod of Elvira.* :

Can. 10. U¢ ws cujus uxor adulteraverit aliam illa vivente non accipiat.

De his qui conjuges suas in adulterio deprehendunt, et iidem sunt adolescentes fideles et prohibentur nubere, placuit ut in quantum possit consilium iis detur, ne viventibus uxori- bus suis licet adulteris alias accipiant.

In reference to the ninth canon of Elvira, the Synod of

Pp, 118.

2 Cf. also the pretended seventh canon of the second Gicumenizcal Council of Constantinople in 381,

3 Mansi, ii. 472. * Cf. above, p. 146.

Arles has in view simply the case of a man putting away his adulterous wife ; whilst, on the contrary, the Council of Elvira refers to the case of a woman leaving her adulterous husband. In both cases the two Councils alike depart from the existing civil law,' by refusing to the innocent party the right of marry- ing again. But there is the noteworthy difference, that the right of re-marrying is forbidden to the woman, under penalty of permanent excommunication (can. 9 of Elvira); while the man is only strongly advised (in quantum possit consilium its detur) not to marry again. Even in this case marriage is not allowed, as is shown by the expression e prohibentur nubere. This Synod will not allow that which has been forbidden, but only abstains from imposing ecclesiastical penance. Why is it more considerate to the man? Undoubtedly because the existing civil law gave greater liberty to the husband than to the wife, and did not regard the connection of a married man with an unmarried woman as adultery.”

It may be observed that Petavius,’ instead of et prohibentur mubere, prefers to read e¢ non prohibentur nubere, which would mean that, while they were not prohibited from marrying, they should be strongly recommended not to do so.

Can. 11. De puellis que gentilibus junguntur.

De puellis fidelibus que gentilibus junguntur placuit, ut aliquanto tempore a communione separentur.

This canon is evidently related to the fifteenth canon of Elvira, with, however, this difference, that the canon of Elvira chiefly relates to the parents, while that of Arles rather con- cerns daughters. This, too, enforces a penalty, which the other does not.

Can. 12. Ut clerict feneratores excommunicentur.

Dé ministris qui fcenerant, placuit eos juxta formam divini- tus datam a communione abstineri. | 1 Pr, q. D. de Diuort. (24. 2); Miinchen, le. S. 58.

2 Const. c. i. ad leg. Tul. (9. 9); Miinchen, U.c. S. 58. It was not until the year 449 that the position of man and wife was put on the same footing in this

respect. 3 In his ed. of Epiphanius, Heres. 59, c. 3, t. ii. app. p. 255. ‘Cf. Miinchen, dc. 8. 63.

This canon is almost literally identical with the first part of the twentieth canon of Elvira.

Can. 13. De ws qui Scripturas sacras, vasa dominica, vel

nomina fratrum tradidisse dicuntur.

De his qui Scripturas sanctas tradidisse dicuntur vel vasa dominica vel nomina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis ut qui- cumque eorum ex’ actis publicis fuerit detectus, non verbis nudis, ab ordine cleri amoveatur; nam si iidem aliquos ordi- nasse fuerint deprehensi, et hi quos ordinaverunt rationales — subsistunt, non illis obsit ordinatio. Et quoniam multi sunt qui contra ecclesiasticam regulam pugnare videntur et per testes redemptos putant se ad accusationem admitti debere, omnino non admittantur, nisi, ut supra diximus, actis publicis docuerint.

The Emperor Diocletian had ordered, by his first edict for persecution in 303, first, that all the churches were to be destroyed ; secondly, that all sacred books were to be burnt ; thirdly, that Christians were to be deprived of all rights and all honours; and that when they were slaves, they were to be declared incapable of acquiring liberty.? Consequently Chris- _ tiams were everywhere required to give up the holy books to be burnt, and the sacred vases to be confiscated by the trea- sury (ad jiscum). This canon mentions these two demands, and, besides these, the traditio nominum. It may be that, according to the first edict, some Christians, and especially the bishops, were required to remit the lists of the faithful be- longing to their dioceses, in order to subject them to the de- cree which deprived them of all rights and honour. However, Dr. Miinchen® thinks that the traditio nominum was first in- troduced in consequence of Diocletian’s second edict. This edict ordered that all ecclesiastics should be imprisoned, and compelled to sacrifice. Many tried to escape the danger by flight; but it also happened that many were betrayed, and their names (nomina fratrum) given up to the heathen. The thirteenth canon orders the deposition of these Z'’raditores, if

1 Cf. Miinchen, U.c. 8. 65. * Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 2; Lactant. de Mortibus pergec. c, 3. 9 l.c. 8. 70.

they are ecclesiastics. But this penalty was only to be in- flicted in case the offence of traditio was proved, not merely by private denunciations (verbis nudis), but by the public laws, by writings signed by officers of justice (ex actis publicis), which the Roman officers had to draw up in executing the Emperor's edict.

The Synod occupied itself with this question: “ What must be done if a traditor bishop has ordained clergy?” This was precisely the principal question in the contro- versy with the Donatists; and the Synod decided “that the ordination should be valid, that is, that whoever should be ordained by such a bishop should not suffer from it” (non allis obsit ordinatw). This part of the passage is very plain, and clearly indicates the solution given by the Council; but the preceding words, e hi, quos ordinaverunt, rationales sub- sistunt, are difficult to explain. They may very well mean, “If those who have been ordained by them are worthy, and fit to receive holy orders;” but we read in a certain number of Mss., ef de his, quos ordinaverint, ratio subsistit, that is to say, “If those are in question who have been ordained by them.”

This canon has another conclusion which touches the Dona- tist controversy ; namely: “ Accusers who, contrary to all the Church’s rules, procured paid witnesses to prove their accusa- . tions, as the adversaries of Felix of Aptunga have done, ought not at all to be heard if they cannot prove their complaints by the public ac

Can. 14. Ut qua falso accusant fratres suos usque ad exitum

excommunicentur.

De his qui falso accusant fratres suos, placuit eos usque ad exitum non communicare.

This canon is the sequel to the preceding: “ If it is proved that any one has made a positively false and unwarrantable accusation against another (as a ¢traditor), such a person will be excommunicated to the end of his life.” This canon is worded in so general a manner, that it not only embraces the false denunciations on the particular case of the tradztio, but all false denunciations in general, as the seventy-fifth canon of the Synod of Elvira had already done,

Can. 15. Ut diacones non offerant.

De diaconibus quos cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit minime fieri debere.

During the persecution of Diocletian, a certain number of deacons seem to have assumed to themselves the right of offer- ing the holy sacrifice, especially when there was no bishop or priest at hand. The Synod of Arles prohibited this. It will be seen that in this canon we translate offerre as “to offer the holy sacrifice,” in the same sense as this word is used in the nineteenth canon. Binterim’ gives another interpretation. By offerre he understands the administration of the Eucharist to the faithful; and he explains the canon in this sense: “The deacons ought not to administer the communion to the faith- ful in various places, but only in the churches which are assigned to them.” We must allow that offerre has sometimes this meaning ; for example, in S. Cyprian, de Lapsis: Solem- nibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre presentibus cepit ; but,

a. It is difficult to suppose that the Synod of Arles should have employed the expression offerre in two senses so essen- tially different—in the fifteenth canon, where it would mean to administer the Eucharist, and in the nineteenth canon, where it would mean ¢o offer the holy sacrifice—without having in either pointed out this difference more clearly.

b. The Synod evidently wished to put an end to a serious abuse, as it says, Minime jiert debere. Now it could not have been a very grave offence on the part of the deacons, if, in consequence of the want of clergy, they had administered the communion in several places: after all, they would only have done what they performed ex officio in their own churches.”

Can. 16. Ut ubi quisque fuit excommunicatus, tht commu-

mionem consequatur.

De his qui pro delicto suo a communione separantur, placuit ut in quibuscumque locis fuerint exclusi in iusdem communionem consequantur.

The fifty-third canon of the Synod of Elvira had already

1 Memorabilia, t. i. P. i. p. 360. * Cf. our observations on the eighteenth canon of Nices, and the explanation of Dr. Miinchen, Le. p. 76.

N given the same order. This canon should be compared with the fifth canon of the Synod of Nica, the second and sixth of Antioch (in 341), and with the sixteenth of Sardica.

Can. 17. Ut nullus episcopus alium conculcet episcopum.

Ut nullus episcopus alium episcopum inculcet.

A bishop could in many ways inconvenience, molest (in- culcare) a colleague ; especially — |

a. If he allowed himself to exercise various episcopal func- tions in any diocese other than his own; for. example, to ordain clergy, which the Synod of Antioch forbade, in 341, by its thirteenth canon.

b. If he stayed a long time in a strange town, if he preached there, and so threw into the shade the bishop of the place, who might be less able, less learned than himself, for the sake of obtaining the other's see; which the eleventh canon (fourteenth in Latin) of Sardica also forbids.

Can. 18. De diaconibus urbicis ut sine conscientia presbyte-

rorum nihil agant. |

De diaconibus urbicis ut non sibi tantum presumant, sed honorem presbyteris reservent, ut sine conscientia ipsorum nihil tale faciant.

The canon does not tell us in what these usurpations of the suburban? deacons consisted (in opposition to the deacons of the country churches, who, being farther from the bishop, had less influence). The words honorem presbyteris reservent seem to imply that the Council of Arles referred to the deacons who, according to the evidence of the Council of Nicea, forgot their inferiority to the priests, and took rank and place amongst them, which the Synod of Nicza? also for- bade. The Synod of Laodicea also found it necessary to order deacons to remain standing in the presence of priests, unless invited to sit down. The last words of our canon

1 The deacons of the city of Rome were the particular invaders, as Jerome testifies (Epist. 85, ad Evagrium). Cf. Van Espen, Commentarius in canones et decreta, etc. (Colon. 1755), p. 101, in the scholia on the eighteenth canon of Nicwra.

he.

indicate that here also the allusion is to the functions that deacons were generally authorized to exercise in virtue of their charge, such as baptizing and preaching, but which they were not to discharge unless with the consent of the priests who were set over them.

Can. 19. Ut peregrinis episcopis locus sacrificandi detur.

De episcopis peregrinis qui in urbem solent venire, placuit lis locum dare ut offerant.

The seventeenth canon having forbidden bishops to exercise episcopal functions in a strange diocese, the nineteenth canon declares that the celebration of the holy sacrifice is not com- prised in this prohibition, and consequently that a bishop should be allowed to offer the holy sacrifice in a strange diocese, or, as we should say, should be permitted to say Mass.

Can. 20. Ut sine tribus episcopis nullus episcopus ordinetur.

De his qui usurpant sibi quod soli debeant episcopos ordinare, placuit ut nullus hoc sibi presumat nisi assumptis secum aliis septem episcopis. Si tamen non potuerit septem, infra tres non audeat ordinare.

The Synod of Nicza, canon 4, made the same regulation, that all bishops should not singly ordain another bishop, and _ orders that there be at least three bishops for this purpose.

Can. 21. Ut presbytert aut diacones qui ad alia loca se

transferunt deponantur.

De presbyteris aut diaconibus qui solent dimittere loca sua in quibus ordinati sunt et ad alia loca se transferunt, placuit ut iis locis ministrent quibus preefixi sunt. Quod si relictis locis suis ad alium se locum transferre voluerint, de- ponantur.

Cf. the second canon, above, p. 185.

Can. 22. De apostatis qui in infirmitate communionem petunt. . De his qui apostatant et nunquam se ad ecclesiam repre- 1 See, further on, our remarks on the fourth canon of Nicea.

sentant, ne quidem pcenitentiam agere querunt, et postea in- firmitate accepti petunt communionem, placuit iis non dandam communionem nisi revaluerint et egerint dignos fructus pceni- tentiz.

The Council of Nicza, in its thirteenth canon, softened this order, and allowed the holy communion to be administered to all sinners at the point of death who should desire it.

Besides these twenty-two canons of the first Synod of Arles, which are certainly genuine, Mansi found six more in a MS. at Lucca. He thought, however, that these last must have been decreed by another Council of Arles. They are the following :—

Can. 1 (24), Placuit ut quantum potest inhibeatur viro, ne dimissa uxore vivente liceat ut aliam ducat super eam: quicumque autem fecerit alienus erit a catholica communione.

Can, 2 (25). Placuit ut mulierem corruptam clericus non ducat uxorem, vel is, qui laicus mulierem corruptam duxerit, non admittatur ad clerum.

Can. 3 (26). De aliena ecclesia clericum ordinare alibi nullus episcopus — usurpet ; quod si fecerit, sciat se esse Judicandum cum inter fratres de hoc fuerit appetitus.

Can. 4 (27). Abstentum clericum alterius ecclesiz alia non admittat ; sed pacem in ecclesia inter fratres simplicem tenere cognoscat.

Can. 5 (28). Venientem de Donatistis vel de Montensibus per manus impositionis suscipiantur, ex eo quod contra ecclesiasticum ordinem baptizare videntur.

1 This ms. of Lucca divides the twenty-two genuine canons of Arles into twenty-three, and consequently counts the first of the spurious canons as the tweuty-fourth.

Can. 6 (29).

Preterea, quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, sua- demus fratribus ut sacerdotes et levite cum uxoribus suis non coeant, quia ministerio quotidiano occupantur. Quicum- que contra hanc constitutionem fecerit, a clericatus honore deponatur.

If we consider, again, the occasion of this Synod—namely, the schism of the Donatists—we see that as soon as the Synod had pronounced its sentence upon them, they appealed anew to the Emperor, while the Catholic bishops asked per- mission of him to return to their homes. Constantine there- upon wrote a beautiful and touching letter to the bishops, thanking God for His goodness to him, and the bishops for the equitable and conciliatory judgment that they had pro- nounced. He complained of the perverseness, the pride, and obstinacy of the Donatists, who would not have peace, but ap- pealed to him from the judgment of the Church, when the sen- tence of the priests ought to be regarded as that of the Lord Himself (sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ac si ipse Domi- nus residens judicet). “ What audacity, what madness, what folly!” he exclaims; “they have appealed from it like heathens.” At the end of his letter he prays the bishops, after Christ’s example, to have yet a little patience, and to stay some time longer at Arles, so as to try and reclaim these mis- guided men. If this last attempt failed, they might return to their dioceses; and he prayed them to remember him, that the Saviour might have mercy upon him. He said that he had ordered the officers of the empire to send the refractory from Arles, and from Africa as well, to his court, where great severity ' awaited them.

These threats caused a great number of Donatists to return to the Church; others persevered in their obstinacy,’ and, according to Constantine’s order, were brought to the imperial court. From that time there was no longer any occasion for the Catholic bishops to remain at Arles, and in all probabi- lity they returned to their dioceses. Arrived at court, the Donatists again prayed the Emperor to judge their cause him-

' In Hard. i. 268 ; Mansi, ii. 477 ; et Optatus Milev. 184, ed. Dupin. SCE Angust. Fpist. 88, n. 8.

self. Constantine at first refused, but, for reasons with which we are not acquainted,’ ended by consenting to their demand. He summoned Cecilian, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, as well as his Donatist adversaries, to appear before him at Rome, where he was staying, in August 315. Ingentius, the false accuser of Felix of Aptunga, was to be there’ to prove to the Donatists that they had improperly called in question the consecration of Cecilian; but Cecilian, for some unknown reason, did not appear. S. Augustine himself did not know why ;° and the Donatists profited by this circumstance, and urged the Emperor to condemn Cecilian for disobedience. Constantine, however, contented himself with granting him a delay, at the end of which Cecilian was to appear at Milan, which so exasperated many of the Donatists, that they fled from the court to Africa. The Emperor for some time thought of going himself into Africa to judge the cause of the Donatists in their own country. He accordingly sent back some Donatist bishops into Africa, and warned the others by letter of his project, adding, that if they could prove but one of their numerous accusations against Cecilian, he would consider such proof as a demonstration of all the rest.*

The Emperor afterwards gave up this scheme, and returned to that which had been first proposed, and in November 316 caused the contending parties to appear before him at Milan. Cecilian presented himself before the Emperor, as well as his antagonists. The Emperor heard both sides, examined their depositions, and finally declared that Cecilian was innocent, that his adversaries were calumniators, and sent a copy of his decision to Eumalius, his vicar in Africa.® The Donatists were - thus condemned three times, by the two Synods of Rome and of Arles, and finally by the Emperor himself. In spite of this, to weaken the effect of the late sentence, they spread the rumour that the celebrated Hosius Bishop of Corduba, a friend of Cecilian, had prejudiced the Emperor against them.®

The subsequent history of the schism of the Donatists does

1 ** Coactus,” says 8. Augustine, Uc. Cf Hpist, 48, n. 20.

* See above, p. 176 ff. 3 Epist. 48, n. 20. . ‘Opt. Mil. pp. 185, 187, ed. Dup. 6 Dupin, Le. p. 187. © August. Contr. Parmen. lib. i. o. 5,

SYNOD OF ANCYRA. ) 199

not belong to this place; and we have now’ to consider two other synods which were held in the East about the same time as that of Arles, and’ which merit all our attention. They are those of Ancyra and Neocesarea.