Opening
eighty-one canons of the Synod of Elvira are the follow- ing —
Can. 1. De his qui post baptismum idolis immolave- . Tun, |
Placuit inter eos: Qui post fidem baptismi salutaris adulta etate ad templum idoli idolaturus accesserit, et fecerit quod est crimen capitale, quia est summi sceleris, placuit nec in finem eum communionem accipere.
“ If an adult who has been baptized has sacrificed to idols, and has thus committed a capital crime, he cannot be received into communion, even at the end of his life.”
‘Several interpreters of this canon, among others Dr. Herbst, who has explained the canons of Elvira in the Tabinger Quar- talschrift, have erroneously thought that we must understand here by communio, not eucharistic communion, but only com- munion with the Church, or sacramental absolution. This is a mistake: the word communio does not mean only communion with the Church, but sacramental communion as well. If any one is excluded from the Church, and if they cannot receive sacramental absolution, neither can they receive the holy Eucharist.
Can. 2. De sacerdotibus gentilium qut post baptismum immo-
laverunt.
Flamines, qui post fidem lavacri et regenerationis sacrifica- verunt, eo quod geminaverint scelera accedente homicidio, vel triplicaverint facinus coheerente mcechia, placuit eos nec in finem accipere communionem.
Can. 3. De ersdem si idolis munus tantum dederunt.
Item flamines qui non immolaverint, sed munus tantum dederint, eo quod se a funestis abstinuerint sacrificiis, placuit in finem eis prestare communionem, acta tamen legitima penitentia. Item ipsi si post pcenitentiam fuerint mcechati,
1 See Mendoza, and the Bishop of Orleans, Gabriel de l’Aubespine. This fragment is found in Mansi, ii. 35-55, 110-396. Herbst’s explanations have been analysed and criticised in the dissertation by Binterim upon the Synod of Elvira, in the Katholik of 1821, ii. 417-444.
placuit ulterius his non ‘esse dandam communionem, ne ua sisse de dominica communione videantur.
Can. 4. De eisdem si catechument adhuc immolant quando
baptizentur.
Item flamines si fuerint catechumeni et se a sacrificiis abstinuerint, post triennii tempora placuit ad baptismum ad- mitti debere.
The office of a flamen in the provinces of the Roman Empire consisted either in offering sacrifices to the gods, or in pre- paring the public games. It was hereditary in many families ; and as it entailed many expenses, he who was legally bound to fill it could not give it up, even if he became a Chris- tian, as is proved by the Code of Justinian, and S. Jerome's work De Vita Hilarionis. It followed from this, that the - members of these families of flamines kept their office even when they were catechumens or had been baptized; but they tried to give up the duties which it imposed, especially the sacrifices. They consented still to continue to prepare the public games. In the time of a persecution, the people gene- rally wished to oblige them to offer sacrifices also. This Synod decided on what must be done with these flamines in the different cases which might arise.
a. If they had been baptized, and if they had consented to fulfil all their duties, they had by that act alone (a) sacri- ficed to idols; (8) they had taken part in murders, by pre- paring for the games (in the games of gladiators), and in acts of immorality (in the obscene acts of certain plays)? Their sin was therefore double and triple. Then they must be- refused the communion as long as they lived.
b. If they had been baptized, but if, without sacrificing, they had only given the games,-they might be received into communion at the close of their life, provided that ~— should
2Cf Aubespine’s notes in Mansi, U.c. p. 36.
*The 80th, 8lst, and 72d canons prove, that with the Fathers of Elvira mechia signified immorality in general, rather than adultery properly so called. Also adulterare in the title of the 18th canon is not adultery in specie, but debauchery in general, with this difference, that the sin of a virgin consecrated
to God might be called adultery towards God, to whom she had been conse- crated, and to whom she had been wanting in fidelity.
have first submitted to a suitable penance. But if, after hav- ing begun to do penance (that is the sense, and not after the accomplishment of the penance), they should again be led into any act of immorality (that is to say, if as flamines they should allow themselves to organize obscene plays), they should never moré receive the communion.
c. If a flamen was only a catechumen, and if, without sacri- ficing, he had fulfilled his duties (perhaps also given the games), he might be baptized after three years of trial?
Can. 5. Si domina per zelum ancillam occiderit.
Si qua foemina furore zeli accensa flagris verberaverit ancil- lam suam, ita ut intra tertium diem animam cum cruciatu effundat, eo quod incertum sit voluntate an casu occiderit; si ‘ voluntate, post septem annos, si casu, post quinquennii tem- pora, acta legitima pcenitentia, ad communionem placuit ad- mitti; quod si intra tempora constituta fuerint infirmata, accipiat communionem.
“ If, in anger, a woman should strike her servant, so that the latter should die at the end of three days, the guilty woman shall undergo a seven years’ penance if she struck so violently on purpose, and a five years’ penance if she did not do so on purpose to kill: she shall not be received into com- munion till after this delay. If she should fall ill during the time of her penance, she may receive the communion.”
This canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can?
Can. 6. Si quicunque per maleficium hominem interfecerit.
Si quis vero maleficio interficiat alterum, eo quod sine idolo- latria perficere scelus non potuit, nec in finem impertiendam illi esse communionem.
By maleficio is here to be understood the deceits of magic or sorcery, which they considered necessarily connected with idolatry.
The following canon needs no explanation.
Can. 7. De penitentibus machie si rursus mechaverint. Si quis forte fidelis post lapsum mcechiz, post tempora con- 1 Cf. canon 55. 3C. 48, dist. 1.
stituta, acta pcenitentia, denuo fuerit fornicatus, placuit nec in finem habere eum communionem.
Can. 8. De faeminis que relictis viris suis aliis nubunt.
Item foemine, que nulla precedente causa reliquerint viros suos et alteris se copulaverint, nec in finem accipiant com- munionem.
Some interpreters have thought that the question here was that only of a Christian woman leaving her husband, still a pagan, without any reason ; for under no pretext could she leave a Christian husband to marry another. But the follow- ing canon proves conclusively that the eighth canon speaks of a Christian couple. If it adds without reason, that does not mean that there exist any cases in which a woman could leave her husband to marry another: the canon decrees only a more severe punishment if she should abandon her husband without reason ; whilst the following canon prescribes what punish- ment to inflict in case she should leave her husband not entirely without a cause (if, for example, the husband is an adulterer).
The ninth canon, which has also been inserted in the Corpus juris canon,’ is thus worded :—
Can. 9. De feminis que adulteros maritos relinguunt et aliis
nubunt,
Item foemina fidelis, que adulterum maritum reliquerit fidelem et alterum ducit, prohibeatur ne ducat; si duxerit, non prius accipiat communionem, nisi quem reliquit de sculo exierit, nisi forsitan necessitas infirmitatis dare compulerit.
The following canons are much more difficult to explain.
Can. 10. De relicta catechumeni si alterum duzxerit.
Si ea quam catechumenus relinquit duxerit maritum, potest ad fontem lavacri admitti: hoc et circa foeminas catechumenas erit observandum. Quodsi fuerit fidelis que ducitur ab eo
1 Binterim thinks (/.c. p. 425) that sine causa means, ‘‘ without the previous Judgment of the bishop.” 2.C. 8, causa xxxii. q. 7.
qui uxorem inculpatam relinquit, et quum scierit illum habere uxorem, quam sine causa reliquit, placuit in finem hujusmodi dari communionem.
Can. 11. De catechumena si graviter egrotaverit.
Intra quinquennii autem tempora catechumena si graviter fuerit infirmata, dandum ei baptismum placuit non denegari. |
These two canons are difficult to explain, because the section between the two does not occupy its proper place. They treat of two quite different cases, and each of these cases is sub- divided into two others.
1. a. If a catechumen, without any cause, should leave his wife, who has not yet been baptized, and if the latter should marry another husband, she may be baptized.
b. In the same way, if a female catechumen should, with- out reason, leave her husband, still unbaptized, and that he should marry again, he may be baptized.
Such is the first case. It supposes that the party who is left without cause is not baptized. Here the tenth canon should stop. What follows treats of another question, viz. if the party who has unlawfully left the other can be married again. The canon does not mention whether the party to be married is baptized, or only a catechumen, and it establishes the following :—
2. a. If a Christian woman marries a man whom she knows to have illegally divorced his wife, she may eommunicate only on her deathbed. As a Christian, she ought to have known that, according to S. Paul,’ a Christian (and the cate- chumen is here considered as such) cannot put away his partner, though an unbeliever, if the latter wishes to continue to live with him.
6. If a female catechumen marries a man who has illegally divorced his wife, her baptism shall be put off five years longer (a further period of trial), and she can be baptized before that time only in case of a serious illness.
We think we have thus clearly and accurately explained the. sense of these two canons, which have given so much trouble to commentators.
11 Cor. vii. 12,
Can. 12. De multeribus que lenocinium fecerint.
Mater vel parens vel quelibet fidelis, si lenocinium exer- cuerit, eo quod alienum vendiderit corpus vel potius suum, placuit eam nec in finem accipere communionem.
We might have remarked on the two preceding canons, that their titles are not quite adapted to their contents. It is the same with this one. It threatens with perpetual excommuni- cation those fathers and mothers who should give up their children to prostitution, as well as all those who follow this shameful trade. The words vel potius suum corpus, etc., how- ever, evidently apply only to the parents of the young prosti- tute: in fact, they sell their own flesh and blood in selling their daughter.
Can. 13. De virginibus Deo sacratis si adulteraverint.
Virgines que se Deo dicaverunt, si pactum perdiderint vir- ginitatis atque eidem libidini servierint, non intelligentes quid admiserint, placuit nec in finem eis dandam esse communionem. Quod si semel persuasz aut infirmi corporis lapsu vitiate omni tempore vite suze hujusmodi foemine egerint pcenitentiam, ut abstineant se a coitu, eo quod laps potius videantur, placuit eas in finem communionem accipere debere.
When virgins consecrated to God (whether nuns properly so called, or young girls who have consecrated their youth to God, still remaining in their families) have committed a carnal sin without acknowledging their offence, and so continuing obstinately in their blindness (for it is thus that we must understand non intelligentes quid admiserint), they must remain permanently excommunicated ; but if they should acknowledge their sin, and do perpetual penance, without falling again, they may receive the communion at the end of their life. This canon was inserted in the Corpus juris can."
Can. 14. De virginibus seecularibus st mechaverint.
Virgines que virginitatem suam non custodierint, si eosdem qui eas violaverint duxerint et tenuerint maritos, eo quod solas nuptias violaverint, post annum sine pcenitentia reconciliari debebunt ; vel si alios cognoverint viros, eo quod meechate
1C. 25, causa xxvii. gq. 1. Cf. c. 19 of the Synod of Ancyra.
sunt, placuit per quinquennii tempora, acta legitima pcenitentia, — admitti eas ad communionem oportere.
If a young girl who has made no vows has committed a carnal sin, and if she marries him with whom she has been led away, she shall be reconciled at the end of one year, with- out being condemned to penance; that is to say, that she may .Tecelve the communion at the end of one year, because she has violated only the marriage law, the rights of which she usurped before they were conferred upon her.
Some manuscripts read, post penitentiam unius anni recon- cilientur ; that is to say, that one year’s penance should be imposed upon her. The difference between this reading and ours is not important, for our reading also imposes on the guilty one minor excommunication for a year; that is to say, privation of the communion, which we know was also a degree of penance, namely, the fourth. The canon only exempts her from the most severe degrees of excommunication, to which were attached positive works of penance. The other reading says nothing more. If this woman should marry any one except him with whom she had fallen, she would commit a sort of adultery, and ought to submit to five years of penance.
The three following canons forbid to marry pagans, Jews, or heretics, and require no explanation :—
Can. 15. De conjugio eorum qui ex gentilitate veniunt.
Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in matnri- monium dandez sunt virgines Christiane, ne etas in flore tumens in adulterium anime resolvatur.
Can. 16. De puellis fidelibus ne infidelibus conjungantur.
Heeretici si se transferre noluerint ad Ecclesiam catholicam, nec ipsis catholicas dandas esse puellas; sed neque Judzis neque hereticis dare placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societas fideli cum infideli: si contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstineri per quinquennium placet.
Can. 17. De his qui filias suas sacerdotibus gentilium con- jungunt. Si qui forte sacerdotibus idolorum filias suas junxerint, placuit nec in finem iis dandam esse communionem.
Can. 18. De sacerdotibus et ministris st mechaverint.
Episcopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones si in ministerio positi detecti fuerint quod sint mechati, placuit propter scandalum et propter profanum crimen nec in finem eos communionem accipere debere.
We must here, as in other places; understand by mechare, not only adultery in specie, but all fornication in general.
Can. 19. De clericts negotia e mundinas sectantibus.
Episcopi, presbyteres (!) et diacones de locis suis negotiandi causa non discedant, nec circumeuntes provincias questuosas nundinas sectentur: sane ad victum sibi conquirendum aut filium aut libertum aut mercenarium aut amicum aut quem- libet mittant, et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam nego- tientur.
S. Cyprian,’ in his work de Zapsis, also complains that many bishops left their churches and went into foreign provinces for the sake of merchandise, and to give themselves up to trade.
Can. 20. De clericis et laicis usurariis.
Si quis clericorum detectus fuerit usuras accipere, placuit eum degradari et abstineri. Si quis etiam laicus accepisse probatur usuras, et promiserit correptus jam se cassaturum nec ulterius exacturum, placuit ei veniam tribui: si vero in ea iniquitate duraverit, ab ecclesia esse projiciendum.’
When we consider the seventeenth Nicene canon, which also forbids lending money at interest, we shall speak of the judgment of the ancient Church on this matter. The first part of our canon has been inserted by Gratian in the Corpus juris canon.
Can. 21. De his qui tardius ad ecclesiam accedunt.
Si quis in civitate positus tres dominicas ad ecclesiam non accesserit, pauco tempore abstineatur, ut correptus esse videatur.
As we have said before,” Hosius proposed and had passed at the Council of Sardica a like statute against those who neglected
1 Cf. can. 2. 2 P. 183, ed. Bened. 7 Cf. the art. by the author in the Téibinger Quartalschrift, 1841, S. 405 f£ 4C. 5, dist. 47. 5 Pp. 135.
K to go to church. It is the eleventh canon of the Greek and the fourteenth of the Latin text of the decrees of Sardica.
Can. 22. De catholicis in heresim transeuntibus, st rever-
tantur.
Si quis de catholica Ecclesia ad heresim transitum fecerit rursusque recurrerit, placuit huic poenitentiam non esse dene- gandam, eo quod cognoverit peccatum suum; qui etiam decem annis agat pcenitentiam, cul post decem annos prestari com- munio debet ; si vero infantes fuerint transducti, quod non suo vitio peccaverint incunctanter recipi debent.
" Can. 23. De temporibus jejuniorwm.
Jejunii superpositiones per singulos menses placuit celebrari, exceptis diebus duorum mensium Julii et Augusti propter ‘ quorumdam infirmitatem. ;
The superponere (v7reprifecOat), or the superpositio (vmép- Oeots), was a degree of austerity which was added to the ordinary fast. It consisted in eating absolutely nothing for a whole day.
Can. 24. De his qui in peregre baptizantur, ut ad clerum non
veniant.
Omnes qui in peregre fuerint baptizati, eo quod eorum minime sit cognita vita, placuit ad clerum non esse promo- vendos in alienis provinciis.
None could be admitted into the ranks of the clergy out of the province in which he had been baptized. This canon passed into the Corpus jur. can.
Can. 25. De epistolis communicatorits confessorum.
Omnis qui attulerit literas confessorias, sublato nomine con- fessoris, eo quod omnes sub hac nominis gloria passim con- cutiant simplices, communicatorie ei dands sunt litters.
_ This canon has been interpreted in three ways. Mendoza, Baronius, and others, when commenting upon it, thought of the
1 Binterim, Denkwitrdigkeiten, Bd. v. Th. ii, 8. 98; Bohmer, Christliche
Alterthumswissenschaft, Bd. ii. 8. 98. 9C. 4, dist. 98, letters of peace (libelli pacis) which the martyrs and confessors gave to the lapsi, to procure for them a speedy reception into the Church. These libellc pacis, indeed, induced many a bishop to admit a lapsus too promptly ; but our canon does not speak of this abuse: it does not complain that these letters deceived the bishops: it says, concutiant simplices. If the canon had been intended to warn the bishops against these lzbellt pacvs, it would certainly not have said that they should give to the lapsis communicatorias literas ; for this was what was wrong, that they were admitted too soon to communion. Aubespine’ and Herbst? were of the opinion that the canon had reference to some Christians who, before going a journey, did not ask for letters of communion from their bishop, but preferred letters of recommendation given by their confessor, regarding these as more important, and that this practice was forbidden by one synod. This, again, is a mistake. The meaning of the canon is this: “If a Christian, wishing to take a journey, submits to his bishop the draught of a letter of recommenda- tion, in which it is said that the bearer is a confessor, the bishop must erase the word confessor, sublato nomine confessoris, because many simple people are deceived by this title, and the bishop shall give common letters communicatorias.” *
Can. 26. Ut omni sabbato jejunctur.
Errorem placuit corrigi, ut omni sabbati die superpositiones celebremus.
The meaning of this canon also is equivocal. The title seems to imply that it orders a severe fast every Saturday, and the suppression of the contrary practice followed up to that time. It is thus explained by Garsias in Binius* and Mendoza. However, as the sixty-fifth apostolic canon pre- scribes that, except Holy Saturday, no Saturday should be a fast-day, our canon may also mean, “The ancient error of fasting strictly every Saturday must be abolished:” that is to
1 In Mansi, ii. 42. * Quartalsch. 1821, S. 30.
Cf. Rémi Ceillier, l.c. p. 665; Migne, Dic. des Conciles, i. 820; and Dr. Miinchen, ‘‘ Abhandlung iiber das erste Concil von Arles” (dissertation upon the first Council of Arles), in the Bonner Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie u. Theoloyie,
Heft 27, S. 51 ff. * Mansi, ii. 31. _ § Jdid. p. 227.
say, the superpositio is ordered only for Holy Saturday; and fo other Saturdays, as for Fridays, the statio only, that is to say, the half-fast is ordered. But in comparing this canon with the forty-third, where the same expressions are again found, we see that the ut determines what was to be henceforth observed, and not in what the error consisted. According to that, our decree would mean that the superpositio must be observed every Saturday, and we must adopt the explanation of Garsias. 7
Can. 27. De clericis ut extraneas faeminas in domo non habeant.
Episcopus vel quilibet alius clericus aut sororem aut filiam virginem dicatam Deo tantum secum habeat; extraneam. nequaquam habere placuit.
This canon is more severe than the third similar canon of the Council of Nicsea. It allows the clergy to have with them in their house (a) only their sisters, or their own daughters ; (b) and also that these must be virgins, and consecrated to God, that is, having vowed their virginity to God.'
Can. 28. De oblationibus eorum qui non communicant.
Episcopum placuit ab eo, qui non communicat, munus acci- ‘pere non debere.
In the same way as in the first canon, we must here under- stand by those guz non communicant, Christians who, like peni- tents or catechumens, are not in the communio (community), and who therefore do not receive the holy Eucharist. The meaning of the canon is: “The bishop cannot accept at the altar the offerings (oblata) of those who do not communicate.”
Can. 29. De energumenis qualiter habeantur in ecclesia.
Energumenus qui ab erratico spiritu exagitur, hujus nomen neque ad altare cum oblatione esse recitandum, nec permitten- dum ut sua manu in ecclesia ministret.
This canon, like the seventy-eighth apostolic canon, excludes demoniacs possessed by the evil spirit from active participation in divine service: they cannot present any offerings; their
1 Cf. the nineteenth canon of Ancyra.
names cannot be read among those who are inscribed in the diptychs as offering the sacrifice (diptychis offerentium); and they must not be permitted to hold any office in the Church.’
Can. 30. De his qui post lavacrum mechati sunt, ne subdia-
cones fiant.
Subdiaconos eos ordinari non debere qui in adolescentia sua fuerint moechati, eo quod postmodum per subreptionem ad altiorem gradum promoveantur: vel si qui sunt in preteritum ordinati, amoveantur.
Can. 31. De adolescentibus qui post lavacrum mechati sunt.
Adolescentes qui post fidem lavacri salutaris fuerint meechati, cum duxerint uxores, acta legitima pcenitentia placuit ad com- munionem eos admitti.
These two canons need no explanation.
Can. 32. De excommunicatis presbyteris ut in necessitate
communionem dent.
Apud presbyterum, si quis gravi lapsu in ruinam mortis inciderit, placuit agere poenitentiam non debere, sed potius apud episcopum: cogente tamen infirmitate necesse est pres- byterem(!) communionem prastare debere, et diaconem si ei jusserit sacerdos.
This canon is quite in conformity with the ancient custom, according to which the bishop only, and not a priest, could receive a penitent into the Church. It was only in a case of extreme necessity that a priest, or, according to the orders of a priest, a deacon, could give a penitent the communion, that is, could administer to him the eucharistic bread in sign of reconciliation: deacons often gave the communion in the ancient Church.” The title of the canon is evidently wrong, and ought to be thus worded: De presbyteris ut excommunt- catis in necessitate, etc. It is thus, indeed, that Mansi read it in several manuscripts.
1 Cf. below, the thirty-seventh canon.
3 Binterim (Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 482 f.) thus understands this canon : *¢ Even in a case of urgent necessity, the priest only ought to give the com- munion ; but if he asks it, the deacon may help him.”
Can. 33. De episcopis et ministris ut ab uxoribus abstineant.
Placuit in totum prohibere episcopis, presbyteris et diaconi- bus vel omnibus clericis positis in ministerio abstinere se a conjugibus suis et non generare filios: qyicunque vero fecerit, ab honore clericatus exterminetur.
This celebrated canon contains the most ancient command of celibacy. The bishops, priests, and deacons, and in general all the clergy, gut in ministerio positi sunt, that is, who are specially employed in the service of the altar,’ ought no longer to have any conjugal intercourse with their wives, under pain of deposition, if they were married when they took orders. The history of the Council of Nica will give us the oppor- tunity of considering the question of celibacy in the primitive Church. We will only add here, that the wording of our canon is defective: prohibere abstinere et non generare. The canon seems to order what, on the contrary, it would prohibit, viz. : “It is forbidden that the clergy should -abstain from their wives.” A similarly inexact expression is found in the eightieth canon. °
Can. 34. Ne ceret in cemeteriis incendantur.
Cereos per diem placuit in ccemeterio non incendi, inquie- tandi enim sanctorum spiritus non sunt. Qui hc non obser- vaverint arceantur ab Ecclesise communione.
It is forbidden to light wax candles during the day in ceme- teries, for fear of troubling the spirits of the saints. Garsias thus explains this canon: “ for fear of troubling and distract- ing the faithful, who pray in the cemeteries.” He thus makes sancti the synonym of faithful. Binterim has taken it in the same sense :? sanctorum with him is synonymous with sancta, agentium ; and he translates it, “so that the priests, who fulfil their holy offices, may not be distracted.” Baronius, on the contrary, says: “ Many neophytes brought the custom from paganism, of lighting many wax candles upon tombs.
1 That this is the true meaning, is seen from the parallel passage of the Council of Carthage of 390, c. ii., where it is said that bishops, priests, and Levites, vel qui sacramentis divinis inserviunt, are pledged to celibacy. Hard.
« i. 951. ? Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 485.
The Synod forbids this, because metaphorically it troubles the souls of the dead; that is to say, this superstition wounds them.” Aubespine gives a fourth explanation. He begins with the supposition that the bishops of Elvira partook of the opinion, then very general, that the souls of the dead hovered over their tombs for some time. The Synod consequently forbade that wax candles should be lighted by day, perhaps to abolish a remnant of paganism, but also to prevent the repose of the souls of the dead from being troubled."
Can. 35. Ne famine in cemeteriis pervigilent. Placuit prohiberi ne foemine in ccemeterio pervigilent, eo quod szpe sub obtentu orationis latenter scelera committunt.
Can. 36. Ne picture in ecclesia fiant.
Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.
These canons are easy to understand: we have elsewhere explained why the ancient Church did not tolerate images? Binterim and Aubespine do not believe in a complete ex- clusion: they think that the Church in general, and the Synod of Elvira in particular, wished to proscribe only a certain kind of images. Binterim’ believes that this Synod forbade only one thing,—namely, that any one might hang images in the Church according. to his fancy, and often therefore inad- missible ones. Aubespine thinks that our canon forbids only images representing God (because it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also says colitur, and the prohibition is conceived in very general terms.‘
Can. 37. De energumenis non baptizatis. Eos qui ab immundis spiritibus vexantur, si in fine mortis fuerint constituti, baptizari placet: si fideles fuerint, dandam
1Cf. Nat. Alex. Eccles. Hist. sec. iii. l.c. iv. 148.
2 Cf. the art. Christusbilder, by Dr. Hefele, in the Kirchenlezicon of Wetzer et Welte, Bd. ii. 8. 519 f.
® Katholik, 1821, Bd. ii. S. 436.
*Cf Nat. Alex. "Eccles. Hist. see. iii, lc. iv. 141 sq., 145, nota, esse communionem. Prohibendum etiam ne lucernas hi pub- lice accendant ; si facere contra interdictum voluerint, absti- neatur a communione.
This canon, like the 29th, speaks of demoniacs. If they are catechumens, they may be baptized when at the point of death (in articulo mortis), but not before that. If they are baptized, the communion may be administered to them when at the point of death, but not before. However, as the 29th canon had before forbidden any ministry in the Church to demoniacs, ours particularly adds that they could not fulfil the least service in the Church, not even light the lamps. Perhaps it may have been the custom to have the lamps of the Church lighted by those who were to be baptized, or by those who were to communicate, on the day when they were to receive this sacrament; and the Synod forbids that demo- niacs should do so, even if, in spite of their illness, they were able to receive a sacrament. The inscription of the canon does not correspond to its whole tenor.
Can. 38. Ut in necessitate et fideles baptizent.
Loco peregre navigantes aut si ecclesia proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet nec sit bigamus, baptizare in necessitate infirmitatis positum, cate- chumenum, ita ut si supervixerit ad episcopum eum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici possit.
During a sea voyage, or in general, if no church is near, a layman who has not soiled his baptismal robe (by apostasy), and’ is not a bigamist, may baptize a catechumen who is at the point of death ; the bishop ought afterwards to lay ‘hands on the newly baptized, to confirm him.’
Can. 39. De gentilibus si in discrimine baptizari expetunt. Gentiles si in infirmitate desideraverint sibi manum im- poni, si fuerit eorum ex aliqua parte honesta vita, placuit eis manum imponi et fieri Christianos. This canon has been interpreted in two different ways. Binius,? Katerkamp,? and others, hold that the imposition of
1 Cf. what is said above on the baptism of heretics, p. 112. 2 In Mansi, ii. p. 40. 3 Kirchengeschichte, ii. S. 21.
hands spoken of in this canon does not mean confirmation, but a ceremony by means of which any one was admitted into the lowest class of catechumens. These interpreters appeal principally to the pretended seventh canon of the second (Ecumenical Council’ We there read: “We admit them only as pagans: the first day we make them Christians (in the widest sense); the second, catechumens; the third, we exorcise them,” etc. etc. According to that, our canon would say: “ When a heathen, having a good name, desires during an illness that hands should be laid upon him, it ought to be done, that he may become a Christian.” That is to say, he ought by the imposition of hands to be admitted among those who wish to be Christians, consequently among the Christians in the widest sense. The forty-fifth canon also takes the word catechumenus as synonymous with Chris- tian. Besides, we find Constantine the Great received the imposition of hands at the baths of Helenopolis before his bap- tism : a ceremony of this kind then preceded the reception of the first sacrament.” Relying upon these considerations, the commentators we mentioned say that the canon of Elvira does not speak of baptism, because this could not be admi- nistered until after much longer trial. The provost of the Cathedral at Koln, Dr. Miinchen,-gives another explanation in his dissertation upon the first Synod of Arles? According to him, —
a. As the thirty-seventh canon allows the baptism of demoniacs, it is not probable that they would be more severe with respect to ordinary sick persons in the thirty-ninth canon. On the contrary, the Church has always been tender towards the sick: she has always hastened to confer baptism upon them, because it is necessary to salvation; and for that reason she introduced clinical baptism.
b. In the thirty-eighth canon the Church allows a layman to baptize one who should fall seriously ill during a sea voyage, but not to confirm him. She certainly, then, would
1 We shall prove, when the time comes, that this canon does not belong to the second (Ecumenical Council, but is a little more recent.
3 Cf. below, sec. 52.
* Bonner Zeitschrift fiir Philos. u. Kathol. Theologie, Heft 26, S. 80 f.
allow this sick person to be confirmed if a bishop were pre- sent in the ship.
c. As for one who should fall ill upon land, he could easily call a bishop to him; and therefore the case foreseen by the thirty-eighth canon does not apply to him: it would be easy to confer baptism and confirmation on him.
d. The thirty-ninth canon, then, means: “ Whoso shall fall ill upon land, and who can summon a bishop to him, may receive baptism and confirmation at the same time.”
e. Understood in this way, the canon is more in unison with the two preceding, and with the practice of the ancient Church towards the sick.
Can. 40. Ne id quod idolothytum est fideles accipiant.
Prohibere placuit, ut quum rationes suas accipiunt posses- séres, quidquid ad idolum datum fuerit, accepto non ferant; si post interdictum fecerint, per quinquennil spatia temporum @ communione esse arcendos. .
That is to say: When the proprietors of lands and houses receive their rents (rationes)—for example, fruits from their farmers, who perhaps are still pagans,—they ought not to admit anything which had been sacrificed to the gods, under pain of five years’ excommunication.
Can. 41. Ut prohibeant domini rdola colere servis suis.
Admoneri placuit fideles, ut in quantum possunt prohibeant ne idola in domibus suis habeant; si vero vim metuunt ser- vorem, vel se ipsos puros conservent; si non fecerint, alieni ab ecclesia habeantur.
The preceding canon had shown that many Christians had farmers who were pagans; the present canon supposes the case of a Christian having heathen slaves, and it enacts:
a, That he ought not, even in this case, to tolerate idols in his house.
b. That if he cannot conform to this rule, and must fear the slaves on account of their number, he may leave them their idols ; but he must so much the more keep at a dis- tance from them, and watch against every approach to idolatry.
Can. 42. De his qui ad fidem veniunt quando baptizentur. —
Eos qui ad primam fidem credulitatis accedunt, si bonze fuerint conversationis, intra biennium temporum placuit ad baptismi gratiam admitti debere, nisi infirmitate compellente coegerit ratio velocius subvenire periclitanti vel gratiam pos- tulanti.
He who has a good name, and wishes to become a Chris- tian, must be a catechumen for two years: then he may be baptized. If he should fall ill, and desire the grace of bap- tism, it may be granted to him before the expiration of two years.
Can. 43. De celebratione Pentecostes.
Pravam institutionem emendari placuit juxta auctoritatem Scripturarum, ut cuncti diem Pentecostes celebremus, ne si quis non fecerit, novam heresim induxisse notetur.
Some parts of Spain had allowed the bad custom of cele- brating the fortieth day after Easter, not the fiftieth; conse- quently the Ascension of Christ, and not Pentecost. ‘Several ancient manuscripts, indeed, contain this addition: non qua- dragesimam.’ The same addition is found in an ancient abridg- ‘ment of the canons of Elvira, with which Mansi makes us acquainted :? post Pascha quinquagesima teneatur, non quadra- gesima. We learn also from Cassian, that in the primitive Church some Christians wished to close the paschal season with the feast of the Ascension, that is, at the fortieth day. They regarded all Easter-time only as a remembrance of Christ’s sojourn among His disciples during the forty days which followed His resurrection; and therefore they wished to close this period with the feast of the Ascension.2 Herbst supposes that a Montanist party in Spain wished to suppress the feast of Pentecost altogether, because the Montanists be- lieved that the Holy Spirit did not descend until He came in Montanus,* who was regarded by his followers as the Com- forter.
1 Mansi, lc. p. 18; Bruns, lc. p. 7, not. 16 ; Mendoza in Mansi, l.c. p. 295. 21¢. p. 21 sq.
3 Cassian, Collat. xxi. c. 20; Mendoza i in Mansi, lc. p. 297.
4 Tiibinger Quarialschrift, 1821, S. 39 f.
Can. 44. De meretricibus paganis si convertantur.
Meretrix qué aliquando fuerit et postea habuerit maritum, si postmodum ad credulitatem venerit; incunctanter placuit esse recipiendam. ‘
If a pagan courtezan has given up this abominable way of life, and is married, being still a pagan, there is no particular obstacle to her admission into the Church. She ought to be treated as other pagan women.
Can. 45. De catechumenis qui ecclesiam non frequentant.
Qui aliquando fuerit catechumenus et per infinita tempora nunquam ad ecclesiam accesserit, si eum de clero quisque cognoverit esse Christianum, aut testes aliqui extiterint fideles, placuit ei baptismum non negari, eo quod veterem hominem dereliquisse videatur.
The case is here imagined of a catechumen who has not been to church for a long time, probably because he did not wish to be known as a Christian during a time of persecution ; but afterwards his conscience awakes, and he asks to be bap- tized. The canon ordains that if he is known to the clergy of the Church to which he belongs, and they know him to be a Christian, or if some of the faithful can attest this, he shall be admitted to baptism, because he appears to have put off the lukewarmness of the old man.
Aubespine’ gives another interpretation which appears forced, and shows that he most probably had not the text be- fore him. According to him, the meaning of the canon would be: “When a catechumen has fallen away for a long time, and still after all desires baptism and to become a Chris- tian, if he should suddenly lose speech, for example, from illness (the canon says not a word of all that), he may be baptized, provided a clergyman or several of the laity attest that he has desired baptism, and has become a real Christian.” The Abbé Migne has placed this explanation in his Dictionary of the Councils.” :
Can. 46. De jfidelibus st apostaverint quamdiu peniteant. Si quis fidelis apostata per infinita tempora ad ecclesiam 1 In Mansi, ii. 50. 9 Le. p. 824, non accesserit, si tamen aliquando fuerit reversus nec fuerit idolator, post decem annos placuit communionem accipere.
.~ The sin of a Christian who should absent himself from church for a long time was naturally much greater than that of acatechumen. For this reason, the baptized Christian who has in fact apostatized is only received to the communion after a ten years’ penance, and even then if he has not sacri- ficed to the gods. It appears to us that this canon alludes to the time of Diocletian’s persecution; for during that terrible time more than one cowardly Christian did not go to church, gave no sign of Christian life, and thus apostatized in fact, without positively offering sacrifice to the idols.
Can. 47. De co qui uxorem habens sepius mechatur.
Si quis fidelis habens uxorem non semel sed sepe fuerit meechatus in fine mortis est conveniendus: quod si se pro- miserit cessaturum, detur el communio: si resuscitatus rursus fuerit mechatus, placuit ulterius non ludere eum de com- munione pacis.
If a Christian who is married, and has been often guilty of adultery, is near death, they must go to see him (est con- ventendus), and ask him whether, if he should recover, he promises to amend his ways. If he promises, the holy com- munion should be administered to him’; if he should recover, and should again be guilty of adultery, the holy communion must not be allowed to be thus despised, it must hence- forth be refused to him, even in articulo mortis. The sixty- ninth and seventy-eighth canons complete the meaning of this one.
Can. 48. De baptizatis ut nihil accipiat clerus.
Emendari placuit ut hi qui baptizantur, ut fieri solebat, numos in concha non mittant, ne sacerdos quod gratis accepit pretio distrahere videatur. Neque pedes eorum lavandi sunt a sacerdotibus vel clericis.
This canon forbids at the same time two things relative to baptism :
1. It was the custom in Spain for the neophytes, at the time of their baptism, to put an offering into the shell which had been used at the baptism. This offering, afterwards called the stole-rights,’ was to be suppressed.
2. The second part of the canon shows that there was the same custom in certain parts of Spain as at Milan” and in Gaul,? but which, from the testimony of St. Ambrose, did not exist at Rome, viz. that the bishop and clergy should wash the feet of the newly baptized when they left the baptismal font. Our Synod forbids this, and this canon has passed into the Corp. jur. can.
Can. 49. De frugibus fidelium ne a Judars benedicantur.
Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructus suos, quos a Deo percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a Judzis bene- dici, ne nostram irritam et infirmam faciant benedictionem : si quis post interdictum facere usurpaverit, penitus ab ecclesia abjiciatur.
The Jews were so numerous and so powerful in Spain. during the first centuries of the Christian era, that they might at one time have hoped to be able to Judaize the whole country. According to the monuments—which, however, are of doubtful authority—they established themselves in Spain in the tinie of King Solomon.’ It is more likely that they crossed from Africa to the Spanish peninsula only about a hundred years before ‘Christ. There they soon increased in number and importance, and could energetically carry on their work of proselytizing.® This is the reason that the Synod of Elvira had to forbid to the priests and the laity all intimate intercourse with Jews (can. 50), and especially marriage (can. 16); for there is no doubt that at this period many Chnis- tians of high rank in Spain became Jews, as Jost shows in his work.’
1 Something like surplice-fees.—Ep.
2 Cf. Ambros. lib. iii. de Sacramentia, c. i. p. 362, vol. ii. ed. Bened.
8 Mabillon in Missalibus Gothico et Gallicano veteri. Cf. Ceillier, .c. iii. 670, and Herbst in Tibinger Quartalsch. 1821, S. 40.
*C. 104, causa i. q. 1.
5 Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabder bis auf unsere Tage, Berlin 1825, Thl. v. 8. 13.
6 Jost, lc. S. 17.
Thc. S. 32-34. See Hefele on Cardinal Ximenes, 2d ed. S. 256 ff.
Can. 50. De Christianis qui cum Judeis vescuntur. Si vero quis clericus vel fidelis cum Judeis cibum sump-
serit, placuit eum a communione abstineri, ut debeat emen- dari.
Can. 51. De hereticis ut ad clerum non promoveantur.
Ex omni heresi fidelis si venerit, minime est ad clerum promovendus: vel si qui sunt in preteritum ordinati, sine dubio deponantur.
These canons are easy to understand.
Can. 52, De his qui in ecclesia libellos famosos ponunt.
Hi qui inventi fuerint libellos famosos in ecclesia ponere anathematizentur.
This canon forbids the affixing of satires (libellos famosos') in churches, or the reading of them. It has been inserted in the Corp. jur. can.’
Can. 53. De episcopis qui excommunicato alicno communi- cant. Placuit cunctis ut ab eo episcopo quis recipiat communio- - nem a quo abstentus in crimine aliquo quis fuerit; quod si alius episcopus presumpserit eum admitti, illo adhuc minime faciente vel consentiente a quo fuerit. communione privatus, sciat se hujusmodi causas inter fratres esse cum status sul periculo prestaturum. . One excommunicated by a bishop can only be restored by the bishop who condemned him.. Another bishop receiving him into communion, unless the first bishop acts at the same time, or approves of the reconciliation, must answer for it be- fore his brethren, that is to say, before the provincial synod, and must run the danger of being deprived of his office (status).
Can. 54. De parentibus qui fidem sponsaliorum frangunt.
Si qui parentes fidem fregerint sponsaliorum, triennii tem- pore abstineantur ; si tamen idem sponsus vel sponsa in gravi crimine fuerint deprehensi, erunt excusati parentes; si in
1Cf. Suetonius, Vita Octavii Aug. c. 55. 2 C. 3, causa v. q. 1.
iisdem fuerit vitium et polluerint se, superior sententia ser- vetur.
If the parents of those who are betrothed fail to keep the promises made at the betrothal, these parents shall be ex- cluded from the communion for three years, unless either of the betrothed persons be convicted of a very serious fault. In this case, the parents may break the engagement. If the betrothed have sinned together, the first arrangement con- tinues ; that is, the parents cannot then separate them. This canon is found in the Corp. juris can.)
Can. 55. De sacerdotibus gentilium qui jam non sacrificant.
Sacerdotes qui tantum coronas portant, nec sacrificant nec de suis sumptibus aliquid ad idola prestant, placuit post bien- nium accipere communionem.
It may be asked whether the word sacerdotes is to be under- stood as referring to pagan priests who wished to be admitted as Christians, or to Christians who, as we have seen above (can. 2), still bore the office of flamines. Aubespine is of the latter opinion, and according to him the canon would have this meaning: “The Christian who bears the office of flamen, and wears the distinctive sign—that is, the crown—without having sacrificed himself, or having contributed money to pagan sacrifices, must be excluded from eucharistic com- munion for two years.” Aubespine gives the two following reasons in support of his explanation: (a.) When a pagan priest wished to become a Christian, he was not kept longer or more strictly than others as.a catechumen, even when he had himself offered sacrifice. (0.) If it had referred to a pagan priest wishing to become a Christian, the Synod would have said, placuit post bienniwm accepere lavacrum (baptism), and not accipere communionem. This latter expression is used only for those who have been excluded for some time from the Church, and are admitted afresh into her bosom.
For our part, we think that this fifty-fifth canon is nothing but a complement of the second and third canons, and that it forms with them the following gradation :—
Can. 2. Christians who, as flaminces, have sacrificed to idols,
1C. 1, causa xxxi. q. 3 and given public pagan games, cannot receive the communion, even when at the point of death.
Can. 3. If they have not offered sacrifices, but have had the games celebrated, they may communicate at the close of their life, after a previous penance.
Can. 55. If they have not offered sacrifice, nor contributed by their fortune to pagan sacrifices (and to such public games), they may receive the communion after two years of penance.
This gradation is continued in the two following canons, the fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh: they refer to Christians who have not been flamines, but who have borne other offices in a heathen state, and so have been brought into relation with paganism.
The fifty-fifth canon evidently alludes to a former and not far distant time of persecution, during which Christians feared to refuse the office of flamines which fell to their lot, and by a half compliance wore the distinctive mark of their office, the crown, in order to pass uninjured through the time of perse- cution.
Can. 56. De magistratibus & duwmviris.
Magistratus vero uno anno quo agit duumviratum, prohi- bendum placet ut se ab ecclesia cohibeat.
What the consuls were at Rome, the duwmviri were, on a small scale, in the Roman municipalities: their office also lasted only a year. These duwmviri were obliged, by virtue of their office, to watch over pagan priests personally, and the temples of the town ; they had to preside at public solemni- ties, in processions, etc., which, like all the other national feasts of the Romans, had always more or less a semi-religious and pagan character. For this reason the Synod forbade the duumvirt to enter the Church as long as they were in office. In limiting itself to this prohibition, it gave proof of great moderation and of wise consideration, which we ought to ap- preciate. An absolute prohibition to hold this office would have given up the charge of the most important towns to pegans. But the Council is much more severe in the fol- lowing canon.
Can. 57. De his qui vestimenta ad ornandam pompam dede-
runt.
Matronze vel earum mariti vestimenta sua ad ornandam seculariter pompam non dent; et si fecerint, triennio absti- neantur.
This canon is directed against Christians who should lend their garments for worldly shows, 2.¢. for public, half-heathen- ish religious processions. They are punished with three years of excommunication. But why are they treated so much more severely than the duuwmvirt? Because these men and women were not obliged to lend their attire, whilst the duumvirt were fulfilling their public duty as citizens. Per- haps also some gave their garments, that they might not be suspected during the persecutions.
Can. 58. De his qui communicatorias litteras portant, ut de Jide interrogentur.
Placuit ubique et maxime in eo loco, in quo prima cathedra constituta est episcopatus, ut interrogentur hi qui communica- torias litteras tradunt an omnia recte habeant suo testimonio comprobata.
In Africa no metropolitan rights were attached to particu- lar towns: they always belonged to the oldest bishop of the province, whose bishopric was then called prima sedes' Carthage only was the metropolitan see. It appears to have been the same in Spain before Constantine the Great divided that country into seven political provinces, which entailed the division into ecclesiastical provinces. This may explain why the Bishop of Acci presided at the Synod of Elvira: he was probably the oldest of all the bishops present. What is elsewhere called prima sedes in our canon is prima cathe- dra ; and the bishops of the prima cathedra were to question Christian travellers about their respective dioceses, the latter . were to present their recommendatory letters, and were to be asked if they could affirm that all was in a satisfactory state. ,
1Cf. De Marca, de Primatibus, p. 10, in the Appendix to the book de Concor- dia sacerdotii et imperii, and Van Espen. Commentar. in canones et decreta, p. 315.
Can. 59. De fidelibus ne ad Capea causa sacrificandi ascendant. Prohibendum ne quis Christianus ut gentilis ad idolum
Capitolii causa sacrificandi ascendat et videat ; quod si fecerit,
pari crimine teneatur: si fuerit fidelis, post decem annos acta peenitentia recipiatur.
Like Rome, many municipalities had a capitol, in the court of which sacrifices were offered to the gods, and many Chris- tians were present at the ceremonies of the pagan worship. Was it from curiosity ? was it in order to shelter themselves from inquiry, not to be known during the persecution, and to pass for heathen? This is what we are unable todecide. At any rate, the Synod declared that—
a. Any Christian, either baptized or a catechumen, who should be present at the sacrifices, should be considered as having offered sacrifice himself.
b. Consequently any Christian who has been present at these sacrifices shall be excommunicated and a penitent for ten years. The Synod says nothing about the punishment of guilty catechumens: in every case they were in general punished less severely than the faithful, and perhaps the fourth canon was applied to them by analogy.
Can. 60. De his qui destruentes idola occiduntur.
Si quis idola fregerit et ibidem fuerit occisus, quatenus in Evangelio scriptum non est neque invenietur sub apostolis unquam factum, placuit in numero eum non recipi martyrum.
It happened sometimes that too zealous Christians would destroy the idols, and have to pay for their boldness with their life. The Synod decrees that they must not be considered as martyrs, for the gospel does not require deeds of this kind, and the apostles did not act in this way; but they considered it praiseworthy if a Christian, whom they might wish to oblige to offer sacrifice to an idol, should overthrow the statue, and break it, as Prudentius Clemens relates with commendation of Eulalia, who suffered martyrdom in Spain in 304, and there- fore a short time previous to this Synod?
1 Prudentius Clemens, Peristeph. iii. in hon. Eulalia, p. 211, ed. Obba. Cf. Rainart, Aca Martyr. ed. Galura, iii. 69 sqq.
ad
Can. 61. De his qui duabus sororibus copulantur.
Si quis post obitum uxoris suse sororem ejus duxerit et ipsa fuerit fidelis, quinquennium a communione placuit ab- stineri, nisi forte velocius dari pacem necessitas coegerit in- firmitatis.
When S. Basil the Great ascended the archiepiscopal throne of Czesarea, he forbade that a husband, after the death of his wife, should marry her sister; and when some one, of the name of Diodorus, reproached him upon this subject, Basil defended himself in a letter, which has been: preserved, and proved that such marriages had always been prohibited at Ceesarea.! The Spanish Fathers of Elvira shared S. Basil’s Opinions, as also did the Svnod of Neocesarea of 314, can. 2, as we shall see hereafter. It is well known that, according to canon law, these marriages are both forbidden and declared to be invalid.”
Can. 62. De aurigis et pantomimis st convertantur.
Si auriga aut pantomimus credere voluerint, placuit ut prius artibus suis renuntient, et tunc demum suscipiantur, ita ut ulterius ad ea non revertantur, qui si facere contra interdictum tentaverint, projiciantur ab ecclesia.
The “ Apostolical Constitutions” * contain the same decree. On the subject of the repugnance of the ancient Church for all these pantomimic scenes, cf. Hefele, “ Rigorismus in dem Leben und den Ansichten der alten Christen” (Severity in the Lives and Opinions of the early Christians), an essay published in the Tubinger Theol. Quartalschrift, 1841 (S. 396 ff).
The following series of canons treats of carnal sins :—
Can. 63. De uxoribus que filtos ex adulterio necant.
Si qua per adulterim absente marito suo conceperit, idque post facinus occiderit, placuit nec in finem dandam esse com- munionem, eo quod geminaverit scelus.
1S, Basilii Epist. 160, Opp. iii. 249, ed. Bened.
2C. 1 and 8, x., de Consanguinitate et affnitate (iv. 14). Cf£ Coneid. Trid. sessio 24, cap. 4, de ref. matrim.
4 Lib. viii. c. 32.
Can. 64. De faminis que usque ad mortem cum alienis viris
adulterant.
Si qua usque in finem mortis sue cum alieno viro fuerit meechata, placuit, nec in finem dandam ei esse communionem. Si vero eum reliquerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem acta legitima pcenitentia.
Can. 65. De adulteris uxoribus clericorum.
Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit mcechata et scierit eam maritus suus mcechari et non eam statim projecerit, nec in finem accipiat communionem, ne ab his qui exemplum bone con- versationis esse debent, ab eis videantur scelerum magisteria procedere.
The Shepherd of Hermas! had before, like this canon, strin- gently commanded not only the clergy, but all Christians, not to continue to live conjugally with an adulterous spouse, who would not amend his ways, but would persevere in sin.” Dr. Herbst says, that what made the sixty-fifth canon necessary was probably the very frequent case of married men having taken orders, and not being able to have conjugal intercourse with their wives, who were therefore on that very account easily tempted to forget themselves.
The series of canons against carnal sins is continued in the following, which forbids marriage with a daughter-in-law :—
Can. 66. De his qui privignas suas ducunt. Si quis privignam suam duxerit uxorem, eo quod sit incestus, placuit nec in finem dandam esse communionem.
Can. 67. De conjugio catechumene femine.
Prohibendum ne qua fidelis vel catechumena aut comatos aut viros cinerarios habeant : queecumque hoc fecerint, a com- munione arceantur.
If we attach any importance to the title of this canon, it must be thought to indicate that Christian women, whether catechumens or baptized, were forbidden to marry those desig-
1 Lib. ii, mandat. iv. lib. viii. c. 32. 2 See Hefele’s ed. Opp. Patrum apostolicorum, p. 353, ed. 3. 3 Quartalschrift, 1821, S. 43.
nated by the name of cinerarios and comatos. In other manu- scripts we read comicos and centcos. If the latter reading is the true one, the meaning of the canon is very clear—‘A Christian woman must not marry an actor;” and this prohibi- tion would explain the aversion of the ancient Church to the theatre, which has heen before mentioned. But it is probable that, not having been able to find out the meaning of the words comati and cinerarit, later copyists have altered them, and changed them into comici and scenict. Imagining that here was @ prohibition of marriage, they could not understand why a Christian woman was not to marry a man having long hair, or even a hairdresser. We believe that Aubespine is right ‘when he reminds us that many pagan women had foreign slaves, and especially hairdressers, in their service, who mi- nistered not only to the needs of luxury, but to the secret satisfaction of their passions. Perhaps these effeminate slaves — these spadones— encouraging the licentiousness of their mistresses, wore long hair, or, coming from foreign countries— for instance, from Gallia comata—where long hair was always worn, they introduced this name of comati. Tertullian speaks of the cinerari ( peregrine proceritatis), and describes them as foreigners, with slight figures, and forming part of the suite of a woman of the world.’ He mentions them in connection with the spadones, who were ad licentiam sectr, or, as S. Jerome says, ain securam libidinem exsecti.?
Juvenal* has not forgotten to signalize these relations of Roman women with eunuchs: “Sunt, quas eunuchi imbelles et mollia semper Oscula delectent.”
Martial * denounces them, if possible, still more energetically. Perhaps these eunuchs wore long hair like women in order that they might be called comati. Let us finally remark, that in
the Glossary cinerarius is translated by SotA0s éraipas.® ' If this second explanation of the sixty-seventh canon is accepted, it can be easily imagined why it should be placed in a series of canons treating of carnal sins.
1Tertull. Ad Uzxor. lib. 2, c. 8.
2 Hieron. Adv. Jovinian. lib. i. § 47, p. 277, vol. ii. ed. Migne.
3 Sat. vi. v. 366 sq. * Kpigram. lib. vi. n. 67. 5 Cf. Index Latinitatis Tertull. in the ed. of Tertull. by Migne, ii. 1271.
Can. 68. De catechumena adultera que filium necat.
Catechumena, si per adulterium conceperit et preefocaverit, placuit eam in fine baptizari.
If a catechumen should conceive by an adulterer, and should procure the death of the child, she can be baptized only at the end of her life.
Can. 69. De viris conjugatis postea in adulterium lapsis.
Si quis forte habens uxorem semel fuerit lapsus, placuit eum quinquennium agere debere pcenitentiam et sic reconciliari, nisi necessitas infirmitatis coegerit ante tempus dari commu- nionem : hoc et circa feeminas observandum.
Adultery committed once was punishable with five years of penance."
Can. 70. De faeminis que consciis maritis adulterant.
Si cum conscientia mariti uxor fuerit mechata, placuit nec in finem dandam ei communionem ; si vero eam reliquerit, post decem annos accipiat communionem, si eam cum sciret adulteram aliquo tempore in domo sua retinuit.
If a woman should violate conjugal fidelity with her hus- band’s consent, the latter must not be admitted to communion, even at the end of his life. If he separated from his wife, after having lived with her at all since the sin was committed, he was excluded for ten years.
Can. 71. De stupratoribus puerorum.
Stupratoribus puerorum nec in finem dandam esse com- munionem.
Sodomites could not.be admitted to communion, even on their deathbeds.
Can. 72. De viduis machis si ewmdem postea maritum
duxerint. ° :
Si qua vidua fuerit mechata et eumdem postea habuerit maritum, post quinquennli tempus acta legitima pcenitentia, placuit eam communioni reconciliari: si alium duxerit relicto illo, nec in finem dandam esse communionem ; vel si fuerit
1 Cf. can. 47, 78.
ille fidelis quem accepit, communionem non accipiet, nisi post decem annos acta legitima pceenitentia, vel si infirmitas coegerit velocius dari communionem.
When a widow had sinned, and had married her accomplice, she was condemned to five years of penance; if she should marry another man, she could never be admitted to com- munion, even on her deathbed ; and if her husband were bap- tized, he was subject to a penance for ten years, for having married a woman who, properly speaking, was no longer free. This canon was inserted in the Corp. jur. can."
The following canons treat of informers and false witnesses.
Can. 78. De delatoribus.
Delator si quis extiterit fidelis, et per delationem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus vel interfectus, placuit eum nec in finem accipere communionem; si levior causa fuerit, intra quin- quennium accipere poterit communionem ; si catechumenus fuerit, post quinquennii tempora admittetur ad baptismum.
This canon has been inserted in the Corp. jur. can?
Can. 74. De falsis testibus.
Falsus testis prout est crimen abstinebitur ; si tamen non fuerit mortale quod objecit, et probaverit quod non (other manuscripts have diw) tacuerit, biennii tempore abstinebitur: si autem non probaverit convento clero, placuit per quinquen- nium abstineri. .
A false witness must be excluded from the communion for a time proportionate to the crime of which he has given false witness. Should the crime be one not punishable with death, and if the guilty one can demonstrate that he kept silence for a long time (diw), that is, that he did not willingly bear witness, he shall be condemned to two years of penance; if he cannot prove this, to five years. The canon is thus ex- plained by Mendoza, Rémi Ceillier in Migne’s Dictionary, etc., all preferring the reading diw. Burchard® had previously read and quoted the canon with this variation, in his Col- lectio canonum. But Aubespine divides it into three quite
1C. 7, causa xxxi. q. 1. 3C. 6, causa v. q. 6. * He died in 1025. * Lib. xvi. c. 18. Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 381.
distinct parts. The first, he says, treats of false witnesses ; the second, of those who are too slow in denouncing a crime. They must be punished, but only by two years of penance, if they can prove that they have not (non) kept silence to the end. The third condemns those to five years of penance, who, without having borne false witness, still cannot prove what they affirm.’
We confess that none of these explanations is quite satis- factory : the first would be the most easily admissible ; but it is hardly possible to reconcile it with the reading non tacuerit, which, however, is that of the best manuscripts.
Can. 75. De his qui sacerdotes vel ministros accusant nec probant. Si quis autem episcopum vel presbyterum vel diaconum falsis criminibus appetierit et probare non potuerit, nec in finem dandam ei esse communionem.
Can. 76. De diaconibus si ante honorem peccasse probantur.
Si quis diaconum se permiserit ordinari et postea fuerit detectus in crimine mortis quod aliquando commiserit, si sponte fuerit confessus, placuit eum acta legitima pcenitentia post triennium accipere communionem; quod si alius eum de- texerit, post quinquennium acta pcenitentia accipere commu- nionem laicam debere.
If any one should succeed in being ordained deacon, and it should be subsequently discovered that he had before that committed a mortal sin :
a. In case he was the first to make known his fault, he must be received into communion (as a layman) at the end of three years of penance.
6. In case his sin was discovered by another, at the end of five years. In both cases he was for ever suspended from his office of deacon.’
Can. 77. De baptizatis qui nondum confirmati moriuntur. Si quis diaconus regens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere 1 In Mansi, ii. 538. * Cf canons 9, 10, and c. 2 of the Nicene Council.
debebit : quod si ante de sculo recesserint, sub fide qua quis credidit poterit esse justus.
When Christianity spread from the large towns, where it had been at first established, into the country, the rural churches at first formed only one parish with the cathedral church of the town. : Either priests, or Chorepiscopi, or simple deacons, were sent to these rural assemblies, to exercise, within certain limits, the ministerial power. The solemnity of con- secrating the Eucharist, and all that had reference to penance, was reserved for the bishop of the town.
The 77th canon refers to such deacons, and it ordains :
a. That baptism administered by the deacon ought to be completed, finished by the bishop’s benediction (that is to say, by xetporovia, or confirmation).
b, That if one who had been baptized by a deacon should die before having received this benediction from the bishop, he may notwithstanding be saved, by virtue of the faith which he professed on receiving baptism.
Can. 78. De fidelibus conjugatis si cum Judeea vel gentili
mechatee (1) fuerint.
Si quis fidelis habens uxorem cum Judea vel gentili fuerit moechatus, a communione arceatur: quod si alius eum de- texerit, post quinquennium acta legitima pcenitentia poterit dominice sociari communioni.
The 47th and 69th canons have already treated of adultery between Christians: the present canon speaks of a particular case of adultery committed with a Jewish or pagan woman, and decrees a penance of five years if the guilty one has not confessed himself. If he has made a spontaneous confession, the canon only gives this vague and general command, Arcea- tur, that is, that he should be excommunicated, but it does not say for how long a time: it might be supposed for three years, according to the analogy with the 76th canon! How- ever, it would be strange that adultery with a Jewish or pagan woman should be punished only by three years of penance, while the 69th canon decrees, in a general way, five years’ punishment to every adulterer. It is still more difficult to
1 This is the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 388.
explain why real adultery should be less severely punished in the 78th canon than the evidently less criminal offence of a widow with a man whom she afterwards marries.)
Can. 79. De his qui tabulam ludunt.
Si quis fidelis aleam, id est tabulam, luserit numis, pla- cuit eum abstineri; et si emendatus cessaverit, post annum poterit communioni reconciliari.
The thimbles of the ancients had not any points or figures upon their sides (tabula), like ours, but drawings, pictures of idols; and whoever threw the picture of Venus, gained all, as Augustus says in Suetonius:? quos tollebat wniversos, qut Venerem jecerat. It is on this account that the ancient Chris- tians considered the game of thimbles to be not only immoral as a game of chance, but as having an essentially pagan character.’
Can. 80. De libertis,
Prohibendum ut liberti, quorum patroni in seculo fuerint, ad clerum non promoveantur.
He who should give a slave his freedom remained his patron; he had certain rights and a certain influence over him. The freedman continued to be dependent upon his former master; for this reason freedmen whose patrons were heathens could not take orders. This canon was placed in the Corp. fur. can.*
Can. 81. De feminarum emstolis.
Ne foemine suo potius absque maritorum nominibus laicis scribere audeant, que (qui) fideles sunt vel literas alicujus pacificas ad suum solum nomen scriptas accipiant.
If we should read gui instead of gue, as Mendoza makes it, on the authority of several manuscripts, our canon is easy to understand. It then divides itself into two parts:
a. Women must not write in their own name to lay Chris-
1 Cf. 72d canon. * In Augusto, c. 71.
Cf the document de Aleatoribus, wrongly attributed to S. Cyprian, ed. of the works of this Father by the Ben. of S. Maur, Supplement, p. xviii. sq.
*C. 24, dist. liv.
tians, laicis qui fideles sunt ; they may do so only in the name of their husbands.
b. They must not receive letters of friendship (pacificas) from any one, addressed only to themselves. Mendoza thinks that the canon means only private letters, and that it 1s for- bidden in the interests of conjugal fidelity.
Aubespine gives quite another sense to the word litteras: he supposes that the Council wishes only to forbid the wives of bishops giving literas communicatorias to Christian travellers in their own name, and that it also forbids them to receive such addressed to them instead of to their husbands.!
If we read gue, we must attach the words que fideles sunt to feming, and the meaning continues on the whole the same.
Besides these eighty-one authentic canons, some others are attributed to the Council of Elvira: for instance, in the Corp. jur. can. (c. 17, causa xxii. gq. 4; also c. 21, dist. ii de conse- crat., and c. 15, causa xxii q. 5), there is evidently a mistake about some of these canons, which, as Mendoza and Cardinal d’ Aguirre have remarked,’ belong to a Synodus Helibernensis or Hibernensis.® We will remark finally, that whilst Baronius thinks little of the Synod of Elvira, which he wrongfully sus- pects of Novatian opinions,‘ Mendoza and Natalis Alexander defend it eloquently.’ -
SEc. 14. Origin of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first Synods held on this account in 312 and 313.
The schism of the Donatists occasioned several synods at the beginning of the fourth century. Mensurius was bishop of Carthage during Diocletian’s persecution. He was a worthy and serious man, who on the one side encouraged the faithful to courage and energy during the persecution, but on the other side strongly reproved any step which could increase the
1 Cf. Mendoza in Mansi, ii. 391 ; Aubespine, ébid. p. 55.
21.c. p. 85. _ 8 These additional canons are found in Mansi, ii. 19, 20. Cf. also the two notes.
* See above, p. 184.
5 Mendoza in Mansi, l.c. ii. 76 sq., and in many places where he is explain- ing particular canons. Natal. Alex. Hist. Eccl. sec. 3, vol. iv. dissert. xxi. art. 2, p. 189 sqq.
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 173
irritation of the heathen. He especially blamed certain Chris- tians of Carthage, who had denounced themselves to the heathen authorities as possessors of sacred books (even when this was not really the case), in order to obtain martyrdom by their refusal to give up the Holy Scriptures. Nor would he grant the honours of martyrdom to those who, after a licentious life, should court martyrdom without being morally improved.’ We see, by a letter of Mensurius, how he himself behaved during the persecution. He relates, that when they required the sacred books from him, he hid them, leaving in the church only heretical books, which were taken away by the persecutors. The proconsul had soon discovered this cunning ; but, however, did not wish to pursue Mensurius further.’ Many enemies of the bishop, especially Donatus Bishop of Casze-Nigre in Numidia, falsely interpreted what had pasged : they pretended that Mensurius had, in fact, delivered up the Holy Scriptures ;* that, at any rate, he had told a sinful false- hood ; and they began to excite disturbance in the Church of Carthage* However, these troubles did not take the form of a miserable schism till after the death of Mensurius. A deacon named Felix, being persecuted by the heathen, took refuge in the house of Bishop Mensurius. As the latter refused to give him up, he was taken to Rome, to answer in person for his resistance before Maxentius, who since Diocle- tian’s abdication had possessed himself of the imperial power in Italy and in Africa. Mensurius succeeded in obtaining an acquittal; but he died on the way back to Carthage, and before arriving there, in 311.° Two celebrated priests of Carthage, Botrus and Celestius, aspired to the vacant throne, and thought it their interest to invite to the election and ordination of the future bishop only the neighbouring prelates, and not those of Numidia. It is doubtful whether this was quite according to order. Inasmuch as Numidia formed a separate ecclesiastical
1 August. Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, diei iii. cap. 18, n. 25. Opp. | vol. ix. p. 638, ed. Migne. Dupin in his ed. of Optat. of Milevius, de Schismate Donatist., Antwerp 1702, p. 174.
2 August. l.c.
* Cf. the article de Lapsis, by Hefele, in the Freiburger Kirchenlezicon of Wetzer and Welte, Bd. i. S. 39.
* August. J.c. c. 12 and 13. 5 Optat. de Schism. Don. i. 17.
province, distinct from the province of proconsular Africa, of which Carthage was the metropolis, the bishops of Numidia had no right to take part in the election of a Bishop of Carthage. But as the metropolitan (or, according to African language, the primate) of Carthage was in some sort the patriarch of the whole Latin Church of Africa; and as, on this account, Numidia was under his jurisdiction,’ the bishops of Numidia might take part in the appointment of a Bishop of Carthage. On the other side, the Donatists were completely in the wrong, when subsequently they pretended that the primate of Car- thage ought to be consecrated by that metropolitan whose rank was the nearest to his own (primas, or prime sedis episcopus or senex) ; consequently the new Bishop of Carthage ought to have been consecrated by Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, then metyopolitan (Primas) of Numidia :* and it is with reason that S. Augustine replied to them in the name of the whole African episcopate, during a conference held at Carthage in 411, that even the Bishop of Rome was not consecrated by the primate nearest to him in rank, but by the Bishop of Ostia The two priests mentioned above found themselves deceived at the time of the election, which took place at Carthage: for the people, putting them on one side, elected Cecilian, who had been archdeacon under Mensurius; and Felix Bishop of Aptunga, suffragan of Carthage, consecrated him immediately.* | The consecration was hardly ended, when some priests and some of the laity of Carthage resolved to’ unite their efforts to ruin the new bishop. On his departure for Rome, Mensurius had confided the treasures of his church to the care of some Christians: at the same time he had given the list of every- thing entrusted to them into the hands of a pious woman, charging her, “in case he should not return, to remit this list to his successor.” The woman fulfilled her commission; and the new bishop, Cecilian, claimed the property of the church from those with whom it had been left. This demand irritated (Cf. below, can. 1 and 4 of the Council of Hippo in 398, and c. 7 of the Council of Carthage of August 28, 397, with our observations ; besides, Wiltsch, Kirchl. Geographie und Statistik, Bd. i. 8. 130.
* Cf. the observations upon the fifty-eighth canon of the Council of Elvira, p.
162. * August. lc. c. 16, n. 29. * Optatus, Uc. p. 17 aq,
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 175
them against him: they had hoped that no one would have known of this deposit, and that they might divide it amongst themselves. |
Besides these laymen, the two priests mentioned above arrayed themselves against Cecilian. The soul of the opposi- tion was a very rich lady, who had a great reputation for piety, named Lucilla, and who thought she was most grievously wronged by Cecilian. She had been in the habit, every time she communicated, of kissing the relics of a martyr not ac- counted such by the Church. Cecilian, who was at that time a deacon, had forbidden the worship of these relics not recog- nised by the Church, and the pharisaical pride of the woman could not pardon the injury.’
Things were in this state when Secundus Bishop of Tigisis, in his office of episcopus prime sedis of Numidia, sent a com- mission to Carthage to appoint a mediator (interventor) nomi- nally for the reconciliation of the parties.? But the commission was very partial from the beginning: they entered into no relation with Cecilian or his flock; but, on the contrary, took up their abode with Lucilla,? and consulted with her on the plan to follow for the overthrow of Cecilian. The malcon- tents, says Optatus, then asked the Numidian bishops to come to Carthage to decide about the election and the consecration of Cecilian, and in fact Secundus of Tigisis soon appeared with his suffragans. They took up their abode with the avowed opponents of Cecilian, and refused to take part in the assem- bly or synod which he wished to call, according to custom, to hear the Numidian bishops ; and, instead, they held a conci- liabulum of their own, at which seventy met, and in a private house in Carthage, before which they summoned Cecilian to appear (312). Cecilian did not attend, but sent word “ that if they had anything against him, the accuser had only to appear openly and prove it.” No accusation was made ;* and besides, they could bring forward nothing against Cecilian, except having formerly, as archdeacon, forbidden the visiting
1 Optatus, Uc. pp. 16-18.
3 Augustin. Sermo 46, c. 15, n. 39, v. 293, ed. Migne, * Optatus, lc. p. 18.
of the martyrs in prison and the taking of food to them. Evidently, says Dupin,? Cecilian had only followed the counsel of S. Cyprian, in forbidding the faithful to go in crowds to the prisons of the martyrs, for fear of inciting the pagans to renewed acts of violence. Although Cecilian was perfectly right in this respect, it is possible that in the appli- cation of the rule, right in itself, he may have acted with some harshness. This is at least what we must conclude if only the tenth part of the accusations raised against him by an anonymous Donatist have any foundation.® He says, for instance, that Cecilian would not even allow parents to visit their captive sons and daughters, that he had taken away the food from those who wished to take it to the martyrs, and had given it to the dogs, and the like. His adversaries laid still greater stress on the invalidity of Cecilian’s consecration, because his consecrator, Felix of Aptunga, had been a Z'radttor (z.e. had given up the sacred books) during the persecution of Diocletian. No council had heretofore ordained that the sacraments were valid, even when administered by heinous sinners ; therefore Cecilian answered, with a sort of condescen- sion towards his enemies, “that if they thought that Felix had not rightfully ordained him, they had only themselves to proceed to his ordination.”* But the bishops of Numidia did doubly wrong in thus setting themselves against Felix of Aptunga. First, the accusation of his having given up the sacred books was absolutely false, as was proved by a judicial inquiry made subsequently, in 314. The Roman officer who had been charged to collect the sacred books at Aptunga attested the innocence of Felix; whilst one Ingentius, who, in his hatred against Felix, had produced a false document to ruin him, confessed his guilt.° But apart from this circum- stance, Secundus and his friends, who had themselves given up the Holy Scriptures, as was proved in the Synod of Cirta®
1 August. Brevic. collat. diei iii. c. 14, n. 26. Optat. Le. p. 176, in Dupin's edition. —-8he p. 2. 3 Optat. Zc. p. 156, Dupin’s ed.
* Optat. Zc. p. 18. August. Brevic. collat. diei iii. c. 16, n. 29.
* Gesta purgationis Felicis, ep. Apt. in Dupin’s ed. of the works of Optat. dc. p. 162 sqq.
© See above, p. 129.
e
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 177
had hardly tge right to judge Felix for the same offence. Besides, they had at this same Synod of Cirta consecrated Silvanus bishop of that place, who was also convicted of having been a Traditor.' Without troubling themselves with all these matters, or caring for the legality of their proceeding, the Numidians proclaimed, in their unlawful Council, the deposition of Cecilian, whose consecration they said was invalid, and elected a friend and partisan of Lucilla’s, the reader Mayjorinus, to be Bishop of Carthage. Lucilla had bribed the Numidian bishops, and promised to each of them 400 pieces of gold.? |
This done, the unlawful Numidian Council addressed a cir- cular letter to all the churches of Africa, in which they related what had passed, and required that they should cease from all ecclesiastical communion with Cecilian. It followed from this, that Carthage, being in some sort the patriarchal throne of Africa, all the African provinces were implicated in this controversy. In almost every town two parties were formed ; in many cities there were even two bishops—a Ceci- lian and a Majorinian. Thus began this unhappy schism. As Majorinus had been put forward by others, and besides as he died soon after his election, the schismatics did not take his name, but were called Donatists, from the name of Donatus Bishop of Case Nigre, who had much more influence than Majorinus, and also afterwards on account of another Donatus, surnamed the Great, who became the successor of Majorinus as schismatical Bishop of Carthage. Out of Africa, Cecilian was everywhere considered the rightful bishop, and it was to him only that letters of communion (eyistole communicatorie) were addressed.® Constantine the Great, who meanwhile had conquered Maxentius in the famous battle at the Milvian Bridge, also recognised Cecilian, wrote to him, sent him a large sum of money to distribute among his priests, and added, “ that he had heard that some unruly spirits sought to trouble the Church; but that he had already charged the magistrates to restore order, and that Cecilian had only to apply to them for the punishment of the agitators.”* In 1 Optat. ed. Dupin, lc. iii. 14, 15,175. 2 Optat. 2c. p. 19, n. 39, and p. 173. 3 Optat. ic. p. 20 and p. iv. ‘In Euseb. Hist, Eccl, x. 6.
M another letter, addressed to the proconsul of Afsica, Anulinus, he exempted the clergy of the ‘Catholic Church of Carthage, “ whose president was Cecilian,” from all public taxes.”
Soon afterwards, the opponents of Cecilian, to whom many of the laity joined themselves, remitted two letters to the pro- consul of Africa, begging saa to send them to the Emperor. Anulinus accordingly did so. The title of the first letter, which §. Augustine has preserved to us, viz. libellus Ecclesie “Catholice (that is to say, of the Donatist Church) criminum Caciliani, suffices to show its tenor; the second entreated the _Emperor, on account of the diac among the African bishops, to send judges from Gaul to decide between them and Cecilian* This latter letter, preserved by Optatus,’ is signed by Lucian, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius, e ceteris episcopis partis Donati. In his note upon this passage, Dupin has proved by quotations from this letter, as it is found in S. Augustine, that the original was partis Majorint, which Optatus ‘changed into Donati, according to the expres- sion commonly used in his time.
We see from the preceding that the Donatists deserved the reproach which was cast upon them, of being the first to call for the intervention of the civil power in a purely ecclesiastical case; and the Emperor Constantine himself, who was then in Gaul, openly expressed his displeasure on this subject, in a letter which he addressed to Pope Melchiades (Miltiades).® However, to restore peace to Africa, he charged three bishops of Gaul—Maternus of Coln, Reticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles—to make arrangements with the Pope and fifteen other Italian bishops to assemble in a synod which was held at Rome in 313.
1 Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 7; Optat. p. 177 sq.
* The letter that Anulinus sent to the Emperor on this occasion is to be found in Mansi, /.c. ii. 438, and more fully in August. Zp. 88. -
3 Epist. 88.
* Upon this demand, see Miinchen, prov. of the Cathed. of Coln, Das erste Concil von Arles, in the Bonner Zeitschrift fiir Philos. u. Kath. Theol. Heft 9, 8. 88 f.
Sl.c. p. 22.
* This letter is found in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. x. 5. Dr. Miinchen (Lc. pp. 90, 39) proves by this letter, and by all Constantine’s conduct, that this prince had no intention of mixing in the inner aflairs of the Church.
SYNODS CONCERNING THE DONATISTS. 179
Synod at Rome (313).
Cecilian was invited to be present at this Synod, with ten bishops of his obedience. His adversaries were to send an equal number; and at their head stood Donatus of Case Nigre. The conferences began at the Lateran Palace, belong- ing to the Empress Fausta, on October 2, 313, and lasted three days. The first day Donatus and his friends were first of all to prove their accusations against Cecilian ; but they could produce neither witnesses nor documents: those whom Donatus himself had brought to witness against Cecilian, declared that they knew nothing against the bishop, and therefore were not brought forward by Donatus. On the contrary, it was proved that, when Cecilian was only a deacon, Donatus had excited divisions in Carthage; that he had re-baptized Christians who had been baptized before; and, contrary to the rules of the Church, had laid hands on fallen bishops to reinstate them in their offices. The second day the Donatists produced a second accusation against Cecilian; but they could no more prove their assertions than dn the previous day. The continuation of an inquiry already begun concerning the unlawful Council of Carthage of 312, which had deposed Cecilian, was inter- rupted. As Donatus was totally unable on the third day, as on the two preceding, to produce a single witness, Cecilian was declared innocent, and Donatus condemned on his own con- fession. No judgment was pronounced on the other bishops of his party. The Synod, on the contrary, declared that if they would return to the unity of the Church, they might retain their thrones ; that in every place where there was a Cecilian and a Donatist bishop, the one who had been the longest ordained should remain at the head of the Church, whilst the younger should be set over another diocese. This decision of the Synod was proclaimed by its president the Bishop of Rome, and communicated to the Emperor.’
After the close of the Synod, Donatus and Cecilian were both forbidden to return to Africa at once. Cecilian was de-
? See Constantine’s letter quoted above. * Optat. d.c. pp. 22-24; August. Ep. 43; and Breviculus collat. Carthag. diei iii. c. 12 sq. ; and Libell, Synod. in Mansi, ii. 486, in Hard. v. 1499.
tained at Brescia for a time. Some time afterwards, however, Donatus obtained permission to go to Africa, but not to Carthage. But the Pope, or perhaps the Synod before closing, sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, to pro- claim that that was the catholic party for which the nineteen bishops assembled at Rome had pronounced. We see from this that the mission of the two bishops was to promulgate the decisions of the Synod; we also think, with Dupin, that their journey, the date of which is uncertain, took place im- mediately after the close of the Synod of Rome. The two bishops entered into communion with Cecilian’s clergy at Carthage ; but the Donatists endeavoured .to prevent the bishops from accomplishing their mission ; and some time after, as Donatus had returned to Carthage, Cecilian also returned to his flock.’ |
New troubles soon agitated Africa, and the Donatists again brought complaints of Cecilian before the Emperor. Irritated with their obstinacy, Constantine at first simply referred them to the decision of the Synod of Rome;? and when they re- plied by protesting that they had not been sufficiently listened to at Rome, Constantine decided, first, that a minute in- quiry should be made as to whether Felix of Aptunga had really given up the Holy Scriptures (we have given above the result of this inquiry); next, that the whole controversy should be definitely settled by a great assembly of the bishops of Christendom ; and consequently he called the bishops of his empire together for the 1st of August 314, to the Council of Arles in Gaul.