Canons of the Eighth Local Council, of Carthage, 47–92

Canon 47

Concerning the Donatists, and concerning children baptized by the Donatists.

It is established that we should consult our brothers and fellow-priests Siricius and Simplicianus concerning children who were only baptized by the Donatists, that what they did not do of their own will, but which happened through the error of their parents, should not prevent them from being admitted to the service of the holy altar, once they have turned to the church of God with a saving disposition.

When this matter had been brought up, Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops from the province of Sitifian Mauretania, said: For a long time now, ever since we were sent to your holiness, we have delayed presenting our letters, for this reason, that we were waiting for our brothers, the representatives of Numidia, to arrive; but since no small number of days has already passed since then, and those who are awaited still do not come at all, we can no longer leave unattended what has been entrusted to us by our fellow bishops. And therefore, brethren, receive our declaration in good spirit: as regards the faith, we have heard the exposition of Nicaea; and as regards the sacred services which take place after a meal—that they must be celebrated, as is right, only by persons who are fasting—this too was then established.[1]

(Trullo 29; Ancyra 3; Carthage 1, 41, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124; Basil the Great 1)

The first part of this canon speaks of the Donatists, the second of holy communion.

1. The question of the Donatists occupied several councils, beginning from the second decade of the fourth century. The Donatists were perhaps the most stubborn schismatics ever to appear in the Church. This schism arose in proconsular Africa immediately after Diocletian’s persecution. Certain bishops, at the head of whom was Secundus, primate of Numidia, condemned certain sacred persons for allegedly not having gone resolutely enough to martyrdom, and for having sought ways, while always preserving their faith, to escape their persecutors—even though this fully accorded with the law concerning martyrdom (Ancyra 3). This opinion the aforesaid bishops maintained with such determination that it turned into the fiercest fanaticism, going so far as to break off church communion with those who did not share it, calling them traitors to the faith. Among other things, they accused of betraying the faith the pious and highly meritorious bishop of Carthage, Mensurius, on the grounds that, during the persecution, in order to save himself from martyrdom, he had handed over to the persecutors certain heretical writings instead of the Bible. They sought that a commission be appointed to examine the matter and condemn Mensurius. Meanwhile Mensurius died, and the government of the church of Carthage was assumed, as his first assistant, by the learned and pious Caecilian. The commission sought by the fanatics assembled at Carthage in 312, under the presidency of Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae, as delegate of the aforesaid Numidian primate Secundus, patron of these fanatics. Naturally the commission condemned Mensurius, though he was already dead. This provoked the Orthodox to the highest degree, and they broke off all relations with those fanatics. The fanatics, meanwhile, who by then had gathered many followers in Africa, for their part also broke off every tie with the Orthodox, especially once Caecilian had been elected bishop of Carthage. In the autumn of that same year they gathered at Carthage a fairly numerous council of their own adherents, and there declared Caecilian unworthy of the episcopate, electing and consecrating to the see of Carthage their own like-minded Majorinus, and establishing at that same council of theirs that only those who professed their teaching should be recognized as true, genuine Christians, that all who did not were heretics, that the holy mysteries were violated everywhere and were truly celebrated only by their own sacred persons, and accordingly that everyone joining their communion must be rebaptized, that every sacred person wishing to be priest or bishop in their communion must be reordained, and in general that all mysteries received outside their communion must be repeated. With this the schism was already complete. Majorinus lived only a short time, and in his place was elected a certain Donatus (afterward surnamed “the Great”). After this Donatus—as also after the aforesaid Donatus of Casae Nigrae—these schismatics were called Donatists. They were united at first, and put up rather strong resistance both to the Orthodox in Africa and to the civil power, which could not tolerate their fanaticism. But they soon began to split among themselves, and in time we find them divided into several sects: the Circumcelliones, the Primianists, the Maximianists, and others—sects which nevertheless remained in agreement among themselves in their opposition to the Orthodox. From this Donatist schism, naturally, nothing good could come for the church, and it could only harm the whole church. In view of this, and since the Donatists did not err in the fundamentals of the faith, the Orthodox bishops resolved from the very beginning—and especially once the bishop of Hippo, blessed Augustine, took up the defense of the Orthodox church—to deal with the schismatics in the gentlest manner, employing every mildest means only to bring them back into unity and restore peace in the church (Carthage 66 and others). Little success was had in this, and the Orthodox were often compelled to appeal to the civil authority for aid (brachium saeculare). Among the canons of this council we shall see many that deal with the Donatists in this same sense.[2][3]

This canon (47) speaks of the baptism of the Donatists. Proceeding from the position that these deluded schismatics ought to be treated with indulgence, this canon recognizes their baptism and permits that those baptized as children by the Donatists may be received even into the Orthodox clergy, for, according to the words of the canon, children are not guilty of the error of their parents, and that error (πλάνη) did not touch the foundation of the Christian faith. The canon adds that this may be done if those concerned turn with a saving disposition (σωτηριώδει προθέσει) to the church of God, that is, if they acknowledge and, naturally, condemn the error of their parents.

2. In the second part of this canon the fathers say they have heard from the exposition of Nicaea (τοῦ ἐν Νικαίᾳ ἐκτεθέντος) that the holy liturgy may be celebrated only by persons who are fasting, and this they now confirm in this canon of theirs. Among the canons of the Council of Nicaea (I Ecumenical) there is no such ordinance, but it is possible that this, like the question of the date of Pascha (Antioch 1) and the question of clerical marriage, was discussed at Nicaea and a corresponding resolution passed, preserved in documents the African fathers had brought back from the council (Carthage 1). But that by this canon the Carthaginian fathers wished to revoke the ordinance of canon 41, permitting the liturgy to be celebrated on Holy Thursday even after a meal, as Archimandrite Ioann claims in his commentary on this canon, we do not believe, for this canon (47) was issued at the very same session of the council (25 May 419) as that canon (41), and it would be hard to understand why the fathers, on the same day, should adopt one canon in one sense and immediately revoke it. We think, rather, that by this canon (47) the Carthaginian fathers wished only to confirm, by reference to the First Ecumenical Council, that the holy liturgy must in general be celebrated by the fasting, while the exception for Holy Thursday remained further in force—so that the Council of Trullo, by its canon 29, dealt with precisely this exception and abolished it.

Canon 48

Concerning the repetition of baptisms, the repetition of ordinations, and concerning the transfer of bishops.

In view of the instruction given to us, we bring forward also this: that it was established at the Council of Capua that it must in no way be permitted for baptism or ordination to be repeated, nor likewise for a bishop to transfer from one see to another. Meanwhile Crescontius, bishop of Villa Regia, having abandoned his own flock, has occupied the church of Tubunae, and to this day, although he has repeatedly been duly admonished according to the canons, he has nevertheless refused to leave the church he has seized. Concerning this matter, which has now been reported to you, we have received it as certain truth, and, following the instruction given to us, we ask that you deign to grant us permission, so that, since such is the necessity, we may, in accordance with the ordinances of the glorious emperors, proceed against him before the civil governor, so that, since he was unwilling to submit to the mild admonition of your holiness and to correct his error, he may at once be restrained by the civil authority. Bishop Aurelius said: Since everything that the relevant order requires has already been carried out, and Crescontius, disregarding the many entreaties of your charity that he withdraw, has nevertheless remained obstinate, he must be considered as already outside the jurisdiction of the council, for by his own contemptuous conduct and his own obstinacy he has placed himself under the civil authority. Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: Is this, then, agreeable to all? The bishops answered: This is right and agreeable.[4][5]

(Ap. 14, 47, 68; Antioch 5; Protodeutera 9).

In the first place this canon confirms the ordinance of Apostolic canon 47, that baptism may not be repeated; then the ordinance of Apostolic canon 68, that a validly performed ordination may not be repeated; and lastly the ordinance of Apostolic canon 14, that a bishop may not abandon his own see and seize another of his own will. All these ordinances had been confirmed at the Council of Capua in 391, then at the Council of Carthage of 397, and now again at this council (419). On the last question the canon mentions the case of Crescontius, bishop of Villa Regia (Villa-Rhegensis), who abandoned his see and occupied the vacant episcopal see at Tubunae (Tubunia—in the Athenian Syntagma: τῆς Τουβουνησίας; in Beveridge: τῆς Βεζένσης; in Dionysius: Tubuniensem ecclesiam; in Justellus: Tublensem ecclesiam; in Van Espen: Tribuniensem ecclesiam; in the Kniga Pravil: Vekensk[uiu] tserkov’; in the Kormchaia: Roben’skii, vekenskaia tserkva)—and since he refused to obey the council’s order to return to his own see, this canon establishes that he be handed over to the civil authority, to proceed against him according to its own laws. One must not, however, understand this to mean that this bishop is handed over as such to the civil authority to be punished by it as a bishop. The canon states, in Aurelius’s words, that “since everything that the relevant order requires has been carried out” (φυλαχθέντος τοῦ τύπου τῆς καταστάσεως) and he has not submitted to this, he must “be considered as outside the jurisdiction of the council” (ἔξω τῆς συνόδου ὑπάρχων). This means that, if everything prescribed for such cases has been duly observed—that is, if the bishop concerned (here, Crescontius) was duly summoned to trial and the ill consequences of his obstinacy were put before him, and he nevertheless did not submit to the judgment of the church—then he is outside the jurisdiction of the council, that is, he is no longer to be regarded as a bishop, but as one already struck from the sacred roster, and hence as deposed; for a sacred person may not be handed over to the civil power for punishment unless he has first been deprived of his rank. It is then that this civil authority punishes him, as one already deprived of his sacred office, for his obstinacy and disobedience to the church authority to which he was subject—in a manner similar to that prescribed by canon 5 of Antioch and canon 9 of Protodeutera.[6]

Canon 49

How many bishops are required to appoint a bishop.

Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: It has also been reported to us that two neighboring bishops, from Numidia, took it upon themselves to appoint a hierarch by themselves; establish, therefore, that bishops may not be appointed except by twelve others. Bishop Aurelius said: Let the old rule be kept, that fewer than three bishops, as has been established, cannot be considered sufficient for the appointment of a bishop; for in Tripolis, for example, and in Arzugis, the barbarian peoples are very close by, and besides, as you know, there are in all only five bishops in Tripolis, and it may well be that two of them are often occupied with some necessary business. Moreover, it is difficult, however great their number, that they should all be able to gather, and this need not at all hinder the progress of the church. Even here, in this very church into which your holiness has deigned to gather, we have almost every week persons who are being appointed. Am I, then, able every time to gather twelve, or ten, or even a much smaller number of bishops? But two who are my neighbors it is very easy for my humble self to gather. From all this, then, let your charity see together with me that this—namely, that twelve bishops are needed to appoint a bishop—can in no way be maintained.[7]

(Sardica 6; Carthage 13, 15).

See the commentary on canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council. The word χειροτονία, used in this canon, must be understood in the sense of election, just as it is used in the sense of election also in the Antioch canon on this subject, in the commentary on which Zonaras says: “πρῶτον μὲν σημειωτέον, ὅτι χειροτονίαν ὁ κανὼν τὴν ψῆφον λέγει” [first it must be noted that the canon here calls the vote “cheirotonia”].[8]

Canon 50

How many bishops must be added to the number of those appointing a bishop, if a dispute arises concerning the bishop who is to be appointed.

It must also be established that when we come in general to the election of a bishop, if some dispute should arise (for such things have already happened among us), it would be too rash for only three to assemble for the justification of the one to be ordained; rather, to the aforementioned number one or two more should be added, and before the people for whom the person in question is to be appointed, inquiry shall first be made concerning the persons who raise objection; then their arguments shall be examined, and when the person concerned is found entirely clean before the face of the people, only then shall he be ordained. If your holiness agrees with this, let it be confirmed by the unanimous response of your dignity. All the bishops declared: This is most agreeable.[9]

This is a very important canon, for it confirms what we said in the commentary on canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council, namely the right which the people had to participate in the most decisive way when a bishop was to be appointed for them. The right of the people to choose the person whom they wish to have as their bishop, and to propose that person to the episcopal council for canonical examination and then confirmation and ordination (Carthage 50), this right the canon regards as a matter that cannot be otherwise, and singles out only the case where a dispute arises among the people concerning the bishop to be appointed (ἐὰν περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος χειροτονεῖσθαι ἐπισκόπου ἀντιλογία γένηται, si de ordinando episcopo fuerit contentio), determining how the competent bishops are to proceed in such a case. When the situation is normal, the Carthaginian fathers, in the sense of canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council, determined by their canon 49 that three bishops suffice to confirm the election of a new bishop and ordain him. But when the situation is not normal—when the people are not agreed on the candidate for the vacant see—this canon (50) ordains that to the aforesaid three bishops one or two more be added, since it would be too rash (τολμηρόν, nimis audax) for only three to decide so important a question; these bishops (five, or at least four) must then examine the cause of the objection raised against the candidate, and this before the people for whom he is to be appointed bishop. In the first place the canon ordains that it be examined what sort of persons those are who raise the objection—namely, whether they have the right to a voice in the election of a bishop, and whether they possess all the qualities required by law to come forward in general as an accuser in ecclesiastical matters and against sacred persons (II Ecum. 6; Carthage 128, 129, 130). When it is proven that they possess all the prescribed qualities, the canon ordains that all their arguments against the candidate be examined, and if these are found unfounded, and the candidate entirely clean before the face of the people (ὅτε καθαρὸς φανῇ ἐπὶ δημοσίας προσόψεως, quando in aspectu populi purus et innocens apparuerit), let him be ordained; but if the objections of the opponents are found well founded, then naturally a new election must proceed. Further details on all this are found in chapter 8, title 1, of the Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles, where ordinances on this matter are cited from Novels 123 (chapter 2) and 137 (chapter 3) of the Emperor Justinian, which subsequently became authoritative for the church authority as well, since they were received into the Nomocanon.

Canon 51

That the Church of Carthage must give notice of the day of Pascha.

Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: Since we must mention everything that falls within our charge, we report also this: that it has been enjoined upon us concerning the day of Pascha, namely, that it must always, according to custom, be announced by the Church of Carthage, and that a good while before the day itself. Bishop Aurelius said: Since we remember that we have long since adopted the practice of gathering every year for consultation, then, if it please your holiness, when we are gathered together, let the day of holy Pascha then be proclaimed by means of the respective representatives who are present at the council. Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: We now ask of this assembly that you be pleased to inform our dioceses of this by letter. Bishop Aurelius said: This must necessarily be done.

(Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; II Ecum. 7; Trullo 11; Laodicea 7, 37, 38; Carthage 34, 73, 106)

— By canon 16 of this council it was established that every diocese (metropolitan district) of Africa must send two bishops as representatives to the general annual council of the African Church, and this canon adds that, through these representatives, notice will be given to all as to the day on which the feast of Christ’s Resurrection is to be kept that year. — For the rest, see the commentary on canon 34 of this council.[10]

Canon 52

That dioceses must be visited.

Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: Since it was established at the council of Hippo that every diocese must be visited once a year, and since you have postponed this—now for two years running with regard to Mauretania—we have been told by word of mouth to ask that you be pleased to visit it. Bishop Aurelius said: as to the region of Mauretania we resolved nothing then, because it lies at the edge of Africa and near the barbarians. But may God help us to accomplish this, having promised it, in due course, and to come into your region. You must, moreover, consider, brethren, that if this were strictly insisted upon, the brethren of Tripolitania and Arzugi could likewise demand the same for themselves.

(Ap. 58; Trullo 19; Sardica 11; Laodicea 19; Carthage 71, 121, 123)

— Visitation, oversight (Latin: visitatio) of every place and every church has been established, from the beginning of the Church, as one of the first duties of every bishop, and this canon lays this visitation also as a duty upon the metropolitan, ordaining that each year, at the time of the council, he or his deputy must go about the episcopal churches of his metropolitan province, so that at these visits every disagreement may be set right.[11][12][13][14]

Canon 53

That another bishop may not be received into a certain region without the consent of the bishop concerned.

Bishop Epigonius said: It has been established at many councils by the sacred assembly, that the people who depend, in their several parishes, upon their bishops, and who have never had a bishop of their own, cannot otherwise obtain special governors, that is, bishops, than only with the consent of the bishop upon whom that people has depended from the very beginning. Meanwhile certain bishops, having appropriated to themselves authority over certain places, withdraw even from communion with the brethren when these justly condemn them for it, and moreover assert their own rights, basing them on some supposed ancient authority of long standing. Moreover many among the presbyters too, puffed up and as though mad, lift up their heads against their own bishops, and by feasts and improper counsels stir up the people, that by unlawful favor they may set them up as their own governors; and we are especially obliged to your wisdom, most faithful brother Aurelius, in that you have always condemned and hindered such attempts. In view then of the evil designs of such men, and their wicked counsels and conspiracies, I propose this: that the people who, constituting a certain parish, have long been subject to one bishop, and have never had a bishop of their own, cannot obtain a special head; and accordingly, if this proposal of mine is agreeable to the whole holy council, let it be confirmed. Bishop Aurelius said: To what our brother and fellow-bishop has proposed, I do not object; rather I declare that I have done this and will continue to do it, naturally among those who think alike, not only with the Church of Carthage but also with the whole sacred community. And there are very many such, who make secret compacts with their own townsfolk, and thereby deceive them, as has been said, telling them the most pleasing things and drawing to their side, by flattery, especially those men whose life is most disreputable; and further, being puffed up, having separated themselves from our community and relying on their own townsfolk, they refuse, despite frequent summons, to present themselves to the council, fearing of course that their misdeeds will be exposed. If then it is agreeable, I say that we must in every way rise up against such men, so that not only those regions which they have seized by force remain in their power, but also those churches over which they formerly presided to ill effect; and that by the exercise of authority they be publicly expelled, and that the primal see excommunicate them. For order requires that those who are attached to the rest of the brethren and to the whole council should rightly retain for themselves not only their own see, but also, in addition, the disputed regions mentioned; whereas, on the contrary, those who rely on the protection of these their townsfolk and despise brotherly love must lose not only those regions, but moreover, as I have said, the civil authority, as against rebels, will have to take from them also their former places. Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: The great prudence of your holiness has deeply penetrated the minds of us all, and we judge that the proposal must be confirmed by the unanimous answer of all. All the bishops said: Agreed, agreed.[15]

(Ap. 31, 34; I Ecum. 8; II Ecum. 6; III Ecum. 3, 8; IV Ecum. 17, 18; Trullo 25, 31, 34, 38; Ancyra 13; Neocaesarea 14; Gangra 6; Antioch 5, 8, 10; Laodicea 57; Sardica 6, 14; Carthage 10, 11, 56; Protodeutera 13, 14, 15)

— Many canons speak of not appointing bishops in small places, for which one presbyter suffices (Laodicea 57, Sardica 6, etc.). If the circumstances of time or place require that a new episcopal see be founded (IV Ecum. 17; Trullo 38), this may be done with the consent of the bishop to whom that place or region had until then been subject. The Carthaginian fathers found themselves moved to insist upon this basic ecclesiastical law on the occasion of its violation by certain power-seeking bishops and presbyters in the African Church. Forgetting this law, some bishops forcibly appropriated to themselves certain places subject to other bishops, and to justify this alleged that these places belonged to them by some right of long possession invented by themselves; and when the bishops whose lawful rights they were violating reproached them for this, these usurpers proudly rejected such reproaches, and even broke off, as the canon says, communion with the brethren (τὴν τῶν ἀδελφῶν κοινονέαν ἀποστρέφονται). Besides bishops, this ecclesiastical law was also violated by certain presbyters, only in a manner worse than that of the bishops. At that time the people had the right to declare whom they wished for their bishop (Carth. 50). Certain presbyters, striving after power, rose up, puffed up and as though mad (φυσιούμενοι καὶ μωροί) against their lawful bishops, and endeavored to stir up the people of the place against their bishop, and by bribery and all manner of speeches to induce that same people to choose them as bishops, in which they sometimes succeeded. Against such occurrences, which fundamentally destroyed all order in the Church, the Carthaginian fathers rise up decisively, and ordain that such persons be deprived, by force, by means of the civil power, of authority and rights not only over those places which they unlawfully seized for themselves, but also over those which they had formerly held to ill effect (κακώς) as bishops or presbyters; and that the bishop of the first see excommunicate them from the sacred ministry forever, and that the civil power punish them as rebels and disturbers of peace and order.

Canon 54

That other bishops may in no way receive clergy belonging to another bishop.

Bishop Epigonius said: It has been established at many councils, and now, most blessed brethren, confirmed again by your wisdom, that no bishop may receive to himself a clergyman belonging to another, without the consent of his proper bishop. Meanwhile I may mention Julian, who has responded ungratefully to all those divine benefits which were granted him through my humble care, and who has acted especially thoughtlessly and harshly toward me, namely in this: that one whom I, while he was still a child, brought up, and who was recommended to me by this same Julian on account of great poverty, and whom I fed and raised for several years, and who, as I have said, was baptized in my church by the hand of my own humble self, and was publicly ordained a reader in the parish of Mapalia and has served there for two years already—this man, with unconscionable contempt for my humble self, this same Julian has appropriated, considering him a citizen of the Bazaritan place which belongs to him, and disposes of him without any consent of mine, moreover has even ordained him deacon. If this is permitted, let such a right then be acknowledged by you, most blessed brethren; but if not, let such presumption be forbidden, and let the aforesaid Julian not meddle in others’ affairs. Bishop Numidius said: If it is seen that Julian did this without asking, and without agreement with your dignity, we all acknowledge that this was done unjustly and unworthily. And for this reason, if this same Julian does not correct his fault, and, with due satisfaction, does not restore to your people that clergyman whom he presumed to ordain, having thereby acted against the decrees of the councils—we excommunicate him, and let him submit to condemnation for his obstinacy. Bishop Epigonius said: Our father in years, and by seniority of ordination the eldest, our brother and fellow-minister Victor wishes that this decision be general and extend to all.[16]

(Ap. 15, 35; I Ecum. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18; Antioch 3; Sardica 15, 16; Carthage 50, 90)

— See the commentary on canon 16 of the First Ecumenical Council.

Canon 55

That it is free to the bishop of Carthage to appoint a clergyman wherever he wishes.

Bishop Aurelius declared: Hear, brethren, my word. It has happened many times that the clergy of another diocese has sought from me a deacon, or a presbyter, or a bishop; and I, remembering what has been established, comply with them, and then turn to the bishop of that clergyman whom they seek, and show him that his clergyman is sought by this or that church. And until now no one has objected to this; but lest this happen in the future—that is, that I meet with opposition in this from those from whom I seek clergy—and you know that I must take care of all the churches and appointments—when I turn, with two or three witnesses from your community, to one or another of the holy men, and the one in question is found to be without reproach, it is just that your charity decide what must then be done; for I, as you know, brethren, by God’s will, take care of many churches. Bishop Numidius said: This see has always had this authority, and appoints, at the wish of any church, whomever it will as bishop, whatever the name from which the request comes. Bishop Epigonius said: Your good will moderates your authority, for you, brother, allow yourself less than you could, and thereby you become, in the eyes of all, good and humane; for this too depends on your judgment, that you show regard for the person of each individual bishop; but likewise, if you find it good, in a first, simple agreement with them, you must guard the authority of this see, all the more since you are bound to help all the churches in general. In view of this, we do not grant you authority, but we confirm to you, with the seal of your own will, that you may always have whomever you wish, and may, from wherever it pleases you, appoint the necessary persons as heads of churches and for other purposes. Bishop Posthumianus said: But if someone has only one presbyter, must that one too be taken from him? Bishop Aurelius said: By God’s mercy one bishop can ordain many presbyters, but a presbyter fit for the episcopate is harder to find; therefore, if such a one is found, having only a single presbyter who is fit for the episcopate, let him give up even that one, that he be appointed. Bishop Posthumianus said: But if another bishop has many clergy, then, out of that abundance, he must by necessity help me. Bishop Aurelius said: It is only right that, just as you have helped another church, so likewise he who has more clergy will yield up, from among them, some individuals, to serve you.

(Ap. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 5, 10, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18; Antioch 3; Sardica 15, 16; Carthage 54, 90).

— This canon confirms the privilege of the bishop of Carthage to appoint and consecrate other bishops, and, for the benefit of the Church, to transfer individual clergy from one episcopal region to another. This privilege is recognized by the council in the bishop of Carthage because he was primas totius Africae, just as this privilege was recognized in the heads of every autocephalous church. And it is evident from the text of the canon that the bishop of Carthage exercised this privileged right of his while preserving all the canonical prescriptions regarding the transfer of clergy, and especially the prescriptions on the canonical subordination of clergy to their proper bishop.[17][18]

Canon 56

That bishops appointed over certain dioceses may not seek any other territory.

Bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said: We have heard the decree by which parishes cannot be granted separate bishops unless there is consent from the one to whom they are subject; meanwhile in our parts certain bishops, who have been appointed over certain parishes with the consent of the bishop who from of old had authority over them, seek for themselves yet other territories. This must, by a decision of your charity, be prevented and abolished for the future. Bishop Epigonius said: Let the right of every bishop be preserved as it should be, that no place may be separated from a given system of parishes with the intent of setting up a special bishop, except in the case that the one who has authority over that place consents to it; but once he permits that region to obtain its own bishop, let the one appointed not thereafter extend his authority over other regions, for it is that one alone which, having been separated, was made worthy, from among the rest of the system, to enjoy the honor of a special episcopate. Bishop Aurelius said: I do not doubt that the charity of you all will approve that a bishop, who by the consent of the former bishop has been appointed over a certain region, shall extend his authority only over that people for whom he was appointed. And since now, as I judge, everything has been examined, if all this is in agreement with your judgment, then confirm it by your approval. All the bishops said: This is agreeable to us all, and we now confirm it with our signature; and they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, I agree with this decree, and having read it, I signed. And likewise the other bishops signed.

(Ap. 31, 34; I Ecum. 8; II Ecum. 6; III Ecum. 3, 8; IV Ecum. 17, 18; Trullo 25, 31, 34, 38; Ancyra 13; Neocaesarea 14; Gangra 6; Antioch 5, 8, 10; Laodicea 57; Sardica 6, 14; Carthage 10, 11, 53, 98; Protodeutera 13, 14, 15)

— See the commentary on canon 53 of Carthage.[19]

Canon 57

That those who were baptized in childhood by the Donatists may be received into the clergy of the catholic Church.

Since your unanimity together with me recalls that it was established at the previous council, that those who were baptized in childhood by the Donatists, and who were not yet capable of recognizing all the evil of their error, but who, upon reaching an age capable of reflection, abhorring their wickedness, recognized the truth, are to be received, by the ancient rite, with the laying on of hands, into the catholic Church of God which is spread throughout the whole world—that the charge of their former error should not serve as an impediment to their being received also into the order of the clergy, for, having come to the faith, they acknowledged this Church as the true one, and in it, having confessed their faith in Christ, received the mysteries of the Holy Trinity, which are all, beyond doubt, true, holy, and divine, and on which the whole hope of our soul rests. And although the old insolence of heretics especially strives, under the name of truth, to spread contrary notions, nevertheless this remains altogether clear, as the holy apostle teaches, saying: one God, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), and that which is to be given but once ought not to be received a second time; but when they have anathematized the very error, after the laying on of hands upon them, let them be received into the one Church, which, as has been said, is the dove (Song 2:10) and the only mother of Christians, and in which are received, unto salvation, all the eternal and life-giving mysteries; which mysteries, moreover, bring the greater condemnation and punishment upon those who remain obstinate in heresy, so that the more brightly that which, while they were in the truth, led them toward eternal life once shone for them, the more darkly and more condemningly it now becomes for them, once they are in error; and from this some have preserved themselves, and having recognized the right way of the catholic mother Church, out of love for the truth, believed in all these holy mysteries, and received them. That such persons, when assurance is obtained of their good manner of life, may without any hesitation be rightly appointed also into the clergy, to serve the holy mysteries, especially in these present difficult circumstances—there is no one who would not allow this. But if any clergy, followers of that new teaching, desire, while retaining their ranks, to come over to us together with their people, and it is known that they, out of love for the good, offer counsel to the people for their life and guide it toward salvation, I judge that this must be left to the further deliberation of the aforementioned elder brethren, until they declare their judgment, and until, having examined in their wise counsel the subject of this our proposal, they see fit to confirm us in that which we must establish on this question. But meanwhile we limit ourselves now only to the case of those who were baptized in childhood, that they agree, if it please them, with our conclusion, that these may be appointed to the clergy. All this, then, which we have now examined among the holy bishops, let your honorable fraternity, together with me, establish must be carried out.[20]

(Ap. 46, 47, 68; I Ecum. 8; II Ecum. 7; Trullo 95; Carthage 47, 66, 67, 68, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 99, 117, 118, 119, 124)

— In the commentary on the first part of canon 47, the substance of this canon’s subject has already been discussed. Here, on the occasion of the mystery of baptism only, a fine reflection is added on the fact that the mysteries have their full meaning and force only when they are performed within the Orthodox Church. — The question whether Donatist clergy, on being received into the Orthodox clergy, are to retain their hierarchical ranks—of which canon 68 of this council also speaks—Aurelius, who proposed this canon, says must be left to the further deliberation of the aforementioned brethren (τῶν προλεχθέντων ἀδελφῶν), until they declare their judgment. Those brethren were Anastasius, bishop of Rome, and Venerius, bishop of Milan, who judged the Donatists more strictly than the African bishops did, and denied that the hierarchical ranks of Donatists ought to be recognized when they turn to the Orthodox Church. Anastasius of Rome expressed his judgment on this matter, at the council’s invitation, in a special letter, which was read at the council of 13 September 401, as we learn from the preface to that same council. The content of the letter is not known, but from the words of that preface it appears that Anastasius did not approve of the leniency of the African fathers, and warned them to beware of the cunning and shamelessness of the heretical and schismatic Donatists (τῆς τῶν αἱρετικῶν καὶ σχισματικῶν Δονατιστῶν ἐπιβουλῆς καὶ ἀναισχυντίας), who had done so much harm to the African Church. The African fathers expressed their gratitude (χάριτας ὁμολογοῦμεν) to Anastasius for this; but since their circumstances were such that they had to act quite differently with the Donatists, namely leniently (πράως) (canon 66), it was accordingly resolved that Donatist clergy should be received into the clergy of the Orthodox Church (canon 68).

Canon 58

That the remnants of idols and their temples must be destroyed.

The most pious emperors must be asked to command that the remnants of idols, which still exist in many parts of Africa, be entirely rooted out, since in many coastal places and other individual estates this unlawful error still prevails; and let them issue an order that the idols be destroyed, and let them command that the temples of idols, which without any propriety still stand in villages or in other hidden places, be demolished in every way.[21]

(Carthage 84).

— This is really not a canon at all, but one article of an instruction, a memorandum (commonitorium), for the legates whom the council sent to the emperors (Arcadius and Honorius) concerning matters which they were to request of the emperors. The remaining articles of the same instruction make up the following six canons (59–64). The request contained in this canon, that the remnants of idols in Africa be rooted out, was heeded, and corresponding laws were issued to that effect. From this appeal of the Carthaginian council to the civil power for help there appears, in general, that fundamental principle of the relations between Church and state which, under normal conditions, must exist for the common good; and in particular it appears from this that the Church, for the preservation of faith and morals among the people, has need of the help of the civil power and expects that help from it, especially in those circumstances where the direct moral action of the Church alone is not sufficient. The civil power, out of its own interest, always responded to the request of the Church and gave it such help as it had at its disposal, having armed force in hand and being able to compel, by force, the observance of the decrees of the church authority which tended toward the strengthening of the faith and the maintenance of good order; whereas for the execution of its own decrees the Church, by its very nature, could dispose only of moral means. From this relation between Church and state was established that important right, or rather duty, of the civil power to defend the rights and laws of the Church, to protect the faith, and to watch over the preservation of good order in church life.[22]

Canon 59

That clergy, upon the fresh examination of some particular case of their own, cannot be compelled to bear public testimony.

It must also be requested concerning this, that they be pleased to establish, that if anyone wishes to pursue further some judicial matter in the Church on the basis of the apostolic right belonging to the churches, and one of the parties cannot be satisfied with the decision of the clerical court, it should not be permitted that the clergyman who previously examined that same matter, or who was present at its examination, be summoned before a court to bear witness; and likewise that no one be summoned to a court to testify who is connected with an ecclesiastical person.[23]

(Ap. 74, 75; IV Ecum. 5; Carthage 131).

— To understand this canon—really this request to the emperors—one must recall that the emperor Constantine the Great had permitted every Christian to bring questions of private law before the ecclesiastical court, and the decision of that court had full force, just as that of a civil court. This privilege of the ecclesiastical court was afterward curtailed by the emperor Honorius, who decreed by law (in the year 399) that in matters concerning religion bishops are properly to be heard, but that other cases, which pertain to the ordinary judges or to public law, are to be heard according to the laws (Latin: ‘quotes de religione adhuc, episcopos convenit audire, sed alias vero causas, quae ad ordinarios cognitores vel ad usum publici juris pertinent, legibus oportet audiri’). As a result of this imperial decree, ecclesiastical courts were in general deprived of the power to decide the contentious matters of private law among Christians. The Carthaginian fathers, in their commonitorium to their legates, note that they are to ask the emperors that the right to decide such matters be restored to the ecclesiastical courts, and that the decision of those courts be regarded as final, so that it should already be forbidden to have recourse to other courts again for the same matter; and as the basis for this request the fathers appeal to the apostolic right (ἀποστολικὸν δίκαιον), namely to the precept of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:1–5), that Christians must settle every contentious matter of their own before the ecclesiastical court. Having established this, the Carthaginian fathers touch further on the fact that some, having had recourse to the ecclesiastical court, and then being dissatisfied with its decision, had recourse again, for the same matter, to the secular courts, and for the sake of testimony before these courts required the presentation of the very same clergy who had previously taken part in the ecclesiastical court, and likewise persons who were related by kinship to the clergy concerned. To prevent this, as an irregular thing, the fathers note in their instruction that their legates must also obtain this from the emperors.[24][25]

Canon 60

That pagan feasts must be forbidden.

This too must be requested of the Christian emperors: since, contrary to the divine commandments, in many places feasts derived from pagan error are held, so that some Christians secretly join the pagans at these feasts, let it be commanded that these feasts be forbidden both in the cities and in the villages; and especially because in some cities people do not shrink from committing such sins even on the very days commemorating the blessed martyrs, and even in the sacred places themselves; and on those days—it is truly shameful even to say it—they perform in the fields and in the streets disgraceful dances, and with shameless words insult the honor of matrons and the modesty of many other pious women who gather on that holy day, so that one must almost flee even from the shelter of the holy faith itself.[26]

— See the commentary on canons 24 and 62 of Trullo.[27][28]

Canon 61

On theatrical performances, that they must in no way be held on the Lord’s Day, nor on other feasts of the saints.

This too must be requested, that theatrical performances be forbidden as much on Sundays as on other festal days of the Christian faith, and especially because during the eight days of holy Pascha the people flock rather to horse-races than to church. It must further be requested that other days be appointed for these performances, days which do not coincide with the feast-days, and that no Christian be compelled to attend these performances.[29]

— See the commentary on canon 66 of Trullo.

Canon 62

Concerning clergy who are condemned.

It must likewise be requested concerning this, that they be pleased to establish, that a clergyman, of whatever rank he may be, who has been condemned for some transgression by the episcopal court, may not be protected from the penalty either by the church in which he served, or by any other person whatsoever; and let them decree that in the contrary case such persons be punished either by a fine or by deprivation of rank, and that in this no regard be had either to age or to sex.[30][31]

(Ap. 28; I Ecum. 5; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 12, 14, 15; Carthage 29, 65)

— This canon confirms the general ecclesiastical norm, that a clergyman, whatever hierarchical rank he holds, is subject to the judgment of his proper bishop. If this clergyman felt that an unjust decision had been rendered against him, he could appeal to a higher ecclesiastical court and there seek justice. Once pronounced, the sentence of the ecclesiastical court had to remain unaltered, nor did anyone else any longer have the right to take up the defense of the condemned man and try to free him from the penalty. It happened, however, that such persons were taken under protection by the clergy of the church in which the condemned man had previously served, or by other such persons. For this reason the Carthaginian fathers resolve, by this canon, to ask the emperors to issue a law against such unauthorized defenders, who thereby only weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical courts and hinder the execution of the decisions of those same courts, and that these persons be made subject, for this, to a corresponding penalty, namely a fine and loss of rank, that is, deprivation of dignity of office, and that they not be excused from this on the grounds that they were, for example, very young or very old, and hence not responsible for their action, nor should sex excuse them either, if it was, for example, a woman who did this.

Canon 63

Concerning actors who become Christians.

It must further be requested concerning this, that if anyone has left the actor’s profession, and wishes to come to the grace of Christianity and to keep himself pure from the stains of the acting profession, in such a case no one may permit himself to urge or compel him anew into those exercises.[32]

(Ap. 52; Trullo 24, 51; Carthage 45).

— For actors who were already Christians, we have seen the decree of canon 45 of this council, that they must be reconciled with the Church and admitted to holy communion if they abandon the actor’s profession and repent. In this canon, the subject is actors who were not Christians but wish to receive baptism. The actor’s profession was a kind of fixed service, which one who had once enrolled among the actors was obliged to perform, and, according to the secular laws of that time, anyone who failed to appear at the appointed time to perform this service was punished. By this canon the Carthaginian fathers instruct their legates to ask the emperors to issue a law so that those who have converted to Christianity and received baptism, and who wish to keep themselves pure from the stains of acting (ἐλεύθερος ἀπὸ τῶν σπίλων τῶν μίμων, purus a maculis mimorum), should no longer be compelled to the actor’s service.

Canon 64

That permission must be sought from the emperor for the manumission of slaves in church.

As to the proclamation in church of the manumission of slaves—if it is learned that our fellow-ministers in Italy do this, it is natural that we too should be moved to follow their manner of proceeding; and since we shall give our envoy, our representative, full authority to carry out whatever accords with the faith and tends to the good of church order and the salvation of souls, we too shall then accept this, giving praise before the face of the Lord. — If all this is pleasing to your holiness, declare it, that I may see how firm my proposal is, and that your simplicity may joyfully accept what has been established by common consent. The bishops said: All this that has been proposed, and which your holiness has wisely proposed, is pleasing to us all, and must be carried out.[33]

(Ap. 82; IV Ecum. 4; Trullo 85; Gangra 3; Carthage 82).

— The subject of this canon, namely the proclamation in church of the manumission of slaves (περὶ ἐλευθεριῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ κηρυκτέων, de manumissionibus in ecclesia proclamandis), belongs to the time when slavery still existed among Christians.[34]

Canon 65

Concerning the condemned bishop Equitius.

Bishop Aurelius said: I do not think that our representative should leave unattended the case of Equitius, who has long since, according to his deserts, been condemned by decision of the bishops; rather, should he happen to find him in those places, let this our brother take care, for the protection of church order, to proceed against him as is right and wherever possible. All the bishops said: This proposal too is very pleasing to us, all the more since this Equitius has already long been condemned, and since, on account of his shameless disturbance of the peace, and for the sake of order and the dignity of the Church, he must be pursued everywhere all the more. — And they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, I agree with this decree, and having read it, I signed. Likewise the other bishops signed as well.

(Ap. 28; I Ecum. 5; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 12, 14, 15; Carthage 29, 62, 78, 93)

— A certain bishop Equitius, according to the words of Aristenus, τῆς ἐν Ἱππῶνι καθέδρας ἐπίσκοπος (bishop of the see of Hippo), had been condemned and deposed by the competent council, but refused to submit to the judgment, and instead went from Africa to Italy, and there stirred up the people and caused disturbances. The Carthaginian fathers, having prepared for their legates to the imperial court the instruction which we have seen set out in the preceding canons (59–64), in this canon further instruct these same legates that, should they happen to find the aforementioned Equitius in the places through which they pass, they proceed against him, and that, for the sake of order and the dignity of the Church, they endeavor by every means to pursue him, so that he might at last cease to disturb the peace of the Church.[35]

Canon 66

That one must deal gently with the Donatists.

Since we have examined and considered all that seemed to us capable of contributing to the benefit of the Church, by the favor and inspiration of the Spirit of God, we have resolved that it is good to deal with the aforementioned people gently and mildly, even though they, by their restless secession, remove themselves so greatly from the unity of the Lord’s body, in the hope that, by such conduct of ours toward them, it may become entirely clear to all those who, in the various African dioceses, have been ensnared into their communion and fellowship, by what a lamentable error they have been led astray. It may be that, when we gather with gentleness those who think otherwise, God, as the Apostle says, will grant them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and that they will be freed from the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will (2 Tim. 2:25–26).[36]

(Carthage 47, 57, 61-69, 91-94, 99, 117-119, 124).

Canon 67

Concerning the letters to be sent to the secular authorities, requesting that what occurs between the Donatists and the Maximianists be made public.[37]

It is accordingly resolved, that letters be sent from our council to the secular authorities throughout Africa, and that these same authorities be requested to lend their aid to the common mother, the Catholic Church, in those cases where the authority of bishops is despised in the cities; that is, that they, by their governing authority and power, and by their Christian devotion to the faith, investigate all that occurs in every place where the Maximianists have seized possession of churches, and likewise concerning those who have been led astray by them into schism, and that, for the sake of sure and general knowledge, they order that this be duly entered into the public records.[38]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66, 68, 69, 91-94, 99, 117-119, 124).

Canon 68

That Donatist clergy are to be received into the clergy of the catholic Church.

It is finally resolved, that letters be sent to the brethren and fellow-bishops, and especially to the apostolic see, over which presides the aforementioned most honorable brother and fellow-minister of ours, Anastasius, who knows what great need Africa suffers—that, for the sake of the peace and benefit of the Church (if this should prove advantageous for the peace of Christians, and provided the Catholic bishop who governs that local church has examined and consented to it), the clergy of the Donatists themselves should be received with their same ranks, when, having amended their way of thinking, they express the wish to come over to catholic unity; and it is known that in past times too the same course was followed with regard to this schism, as is attested by the examples of many, indeed almost all, of the African churches in which this error has appeared; and this, not in order to do injury to the council which was held on this matter in the overseas regions, but in order to bring benefit to those who wish, by this means, to come over to the catholic Church, and so that no obstacle be placed in the way of their union. As for those, however, concerning whom it is known that, in the places where they dwell, they by every means endeavor and help toward catholic unity, for the manifest benefit of the souls of their brethren—for such, that which was established against their ranks at the overseas council must in no way serve as an impediment, for no person is excluded from salvation; in other words, that those who were ordained by the Donatists, if they amend themselves and wish to come over to the catholic faith, ought not, in accordance with that overseas council, to be refused acceptance and recognition of their ranks; but rather, let all those be received who themselves contribute to catholic unity.[39]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66, 67, 69, 91-94, 99, 117-119, 124).

Canon 69

That an embassy is to be sent to the Donatists, that peace be concluded.

It is further resolved that, when this is finished, envoys be sent forth, for the purpose of proposing peace and union, without which the salvation of Christians cannot be secured, from among us to the Donatists—whether to their bishops, if they have any, or to the laity—so that, through these envoys, everyone may come to know that they have nothing just to say against the Catholic Church; and especially, for better assurance of this, let everyone see from the very civil records how they themselves dealt with their own schismatics, the Maximianists, for it has been shown to them by God himself, if they wish to see it, that they separated themselves from the unity of the Church just as unjustly as they now complain that the Maximianists separated themselves unjustly from them. And yet, among those same persons whom they publicly condemned by the authority of their own assembly, some, having had their ranks recognized, were afterward received back again, and the baptism performed by those very persons who had themselves been condemned and deposed by them was acknowledged as valid—by which it is clearly proved that it is only the wickedness of their own heart which impels them to oppose the peace of that Church which is spread throughout the whole world, since they act in this way in favor of the party of Donatus, and do not consider themselves defiled by communion with those whom they received back to themselves only out of necessity for peace; while meanwhile they dispute with us, that is, with the Catholic Church, which extends even to the farthest bounds of the earth, and will not understand that they contradict themselves, remaining in defiled communion with those whom they themselves had previously condemned.[40]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66-68, 91-94, 99, 117-119, 124).

— The text itself of these four canons (66–69) is fairly clear in itself; meanwhile it may further be compared with what has been said in the commentaries on canons 47 and 57 of Carthage.

Canon 70

Concerning which clergy must abstain from their wives.

Since, besides this, rumors are also circulating about the incontinence of certain clergy with regard to their wives, it is resolved, that bishops, presbyters, and deacons must abstain from their wives at the appointed times, and if they do not do this, let them be removed from ecclesiastical service. Let other clergy not be compelled to this, but let them in this follow the custom of each church.[41]

(Ap. 5, 17, 26, 51; I Ecum. 3; IV Ecum. 14; Trullo 5, 6, 12, 13, 30; VII Ecum. 18; Ancyra 19; Neocaesarea 1, 8; Gangra 4; Carthage 3, 4, 25, 38; Dionysius of Alex. 3; Basil the Great 12, 27, 88)

— We have already spoken of the precept of this canon in the commentaries on several canons, and particularly in the commentaries on canons 12 and 13 of Trullo. That husband and wife must abstain from one another at an appointed time, for the sake of prayer, was already declared, in the third century, by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in his letter to Basilides (cf. canon 3), and this Carthaginian canon applies that precept to bishops, presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, confirming thereby its own previously issued decree (canon 25). This canon further adds that this precept of continence for the clergy of the aforementioned hierarchical ranks does not extend to the lower clergy, since they do not touch the holy things (ὡς μὴ ψηλαφῶντας τὰ ἅγια), but that they are to follow in this the custom of their own church.[42]

Canon 71

Concerning those who neglect their own people.

It is further resolved, that no bishop may leave his principal see and remove to another church which is within his own territory, nor busy himself more than is proper with his own affairs, neglecting the care and oversight of his own see.[43]

(Ap. 58; IV Ecum. 25; Trullo 19; Sardica 11, 12; Laodicea 19; Carthage 121, 123; Protodeutera 16)

— The purpose of this canon is to fix the residence of every bishop at the cathedral, the episcopal church in the strict sense, in the given episcopal territory, that is, in that city which by its rank was made worthy of the episcopal see. The canon accordingly forbids every bishop to leave arbitrarily that place which from the beginning was appointed as the place of his regular residence, and to transfer his residence to some other place in his territory. Some bishops did this for their own personal interests, which it was more convenient for them to look after by residing in some other place than in their proper residence, and for this the canon reproaches such bishops with busying themselves more than is proper with their own affairs, to the neglect of their see.

Canon 72

That children must be baptized every time there is doubt as to whether they have been baptized.

It is likewise resolved concerning children: every time reliable witnesses cannot be found who can prove that they have indeed been baptized, and the children themselves, on account of their age, are not able to answer with certainty whether the mystery was conferred upon them, they must, without any hesitation, be baptized, lest such uncertainty deprive them of the cleansing of so great a mystery. And this our brethren, the representatives from Mauretania, have advised for this reason: because many such (of whom it is not known whether they have been baptized or not) are purchased by them from barbarians.[44]

(Ap. 49, 50; II Ecum. 7; Trullo 84; VII Ecum. 8; Carthage 45, 48, 110; Basil the Great 1, 91).

— As appears from this canon, paedobaptism was at that time (401 AD) regarded as the general law of the African Church, and this canon ordains that every child of whom it is not known whether it has been baptized must be baptized, namely when the child itself, on account of its age, cannot say with certainty that it has indeed received baptism, nor can anyone be found to attest this; and the Carthaginian fathers give as the motive for this decree that, on account of such uncertainty, the child should not be deprived of the cleansing of so great a mystery as baptism. The occasion for the issuing of this canon was that many Christians purchased slaves from non-Christian peoples, and among these slaves there were also children, and in order that these children might become true members of the Church, this decree, as now stated, was ordained. The precept of this canon today applies chiefly to foundlings.[45][46][47]

Canon 73

Concerning the fact that the day of Pascha must be announced at the time of the council.

It is likewise established that the day of holy Pascha must be announced to all, this being recorded among the decisions of the council. As for the day of the council, let that day be kept which was established at the Council of Hippo, that is, the tenth day before the Kalends of September; and concerning this it must be written to all who preside in the provinces, that they observe this day precisely when they convene a council among themselves.[48]

(Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 18; Trullo 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch 20; Carthage 34, 51, 95, 106).

— According to the ordinance of canon 51 of this council, it was to be announced every year to all the churches of proconsular Africa, from the general council convened at Carthage, on what day of that year the Resurrection of Christ was to be celebrated. This had already been established at the Council of Hippo in 393, and was repeated by canons 34 and 51, and now again by this canon (73) of this council (of the year 419). At that same Council of Hippo it was also established when the general episcopal council for the African Church was to be convened each year. This is confirmed also by this council, which names as the day for the council ἡ πρὸ δέκα καλανδῶν Σεπτεμβρίων (ante decimam calendas Septembris), that is, the 21st of August. In this canon the fathers of Carthage direct that the primates (metropolitans) in their provinces observe this day precisely, that is, that they convene their ordinary provincial councils at such a time that they may finish all business by the appointed day on which the general council is to assemble.[49][50][51]

Canon 74

That a bishop who is appointed temporary administrator of a widowed church may not occupy the see of that church.

It is likewise resolved, that no bishop be permitted to occupy that see over which he has been placed as temporary administrator, under the pretext either of care for the people or of some dispute that has arisen, but he must see to it that, within a year, a proper bishop be appointed for it; and if he acts contrary to this, once the year has elapsed, let another administrator be chosen.

(Ap. 36; IV Ecum. 25; Trullo 35).

— A widowed church was in general governed by the clergy of that church, until a new bishop should be appointed (Ap. 36; IV Ecum. 25; Trullo 35). But if it appeared that, in some widowed church, the clergy were not capable of maintaining good order, or if parties arose among the people over the candidate for the episcopal see, and disturbances consequently prevailed, then the metropolitan would send some neighboring bishop into that widowed church, to undertake the temporary administration of that church and to maintain order and peace in it until a permanent bishop should be appointed. Such a bishop, to whom the temporary administration of some widowed church was entrusted, this canon calls, in the Latin, an interventor. Now it happened that these bishops, who were meant to preserve charity among the people and hasten the election of a new bishop, sometimes, for their own personal interests, themselves fostered disorder and quarrels, simply so that the church might remain longer without its own permanent bishop, and that they themselves might for a longer time exercise the office of administrator. To put a stop to such an abuse, the Carthaginian fathers forbid a bishop to remain administrator of some widowed church for more than a year, and if, within that time, he has not managed to see to it that a new bishop is appointed, the canon orders that this bishop be removed from the administration and a new administrator chosen.[52][53]

Canon 75

Rule 75.

Canon 75a

That civil advocates (ekdikoi) for the churches must be sought from the emperor.

We resolve, that it must be requested from the emperors that, on account of the ill-treatment of the poor, who ceaselessly turn to the Church with their complaints, defenders be chosen for them, who, under the oversight of the bishops, will protect them from the violence of the rich.[54]

(IV Ecum. 2, 23; Carthage 97).

— It is the duty of a bishop, says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, not only to teach the people entrusted to him, but also to intercede for them when they suffer injustice, and to defend them as far as he is able. But since the Carthaginian fathers saw that certain rich men persecuted and mistreated the poor, and that the bishops themselves lacked the power to defend them from such violence, they resolve, by this canon, that the emperors be asked to appoint special defenders (ἐκδίκους, defensores, advocates), who, together with the bishops, would protect the poor from the violence of the rich, so that the Church would not have to keep hearing the ceaseless complaints addressed to it by those mistreated by the rich. This same request was repeated in canon 97 of this council. The petition of the fathers was then granted by the emperors Theodosius and Honorius, who decreed that at every episcopal see there must be a special ekdikos, to be jointly chosen by the bishop, the clergy, and the more prominent citizens.[55][56]

Canon 76

Concerning bishops who do not come to councils.

It is likewise resolved, that, every time a council must be convened, the bishops, unless prevented by old age, illness, or some great necessity, must come in good time; and those who preside, each in his own province, must be informed concerning all the bishops, and as to whether there have been assemblies of theirs in two or three places, and from each such assembly the representatives, chosen in turn, must come without excuse by the day of the council; but if they are unable to come on account of some great difficulties that have unexpectedly arisen, and meanwhile do not present to their presiding bishop the reason for which they were prevented, such must content themselves with communion in their own church alone.

(Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 19; Trullo 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch 20; Laodicea 40; Carthage 18, 73, 77, 95)

— Here the reference is to the same kind of council of which we spoke in the commentary on canon 18 of this council, that is, the general council of the whole African Church. In the African Church there was a great multitude of bishops, and naturally not all of them could come to this general council (κοινὴν σύνοδον, generalem synodum), but from each province came representatives chosen for this purpose (canon 18); and it is evident from this canon that the presiding bishops, each in his own province, divided all the subordinate bishops into two or three assemblies, and from each of these assemblies representatives were sent, chosen in turn, to the general council. These chosen representatives were certainly obliged to come to the council, except in the case that they were prevented by some strictly justified cause; if they reported this cause in good time to their presiding bishop, they could then only be excused; otherwise the canon ordains that they must content themselves with communion in their own church alone (τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίας ἀρκεῖσθαι, sola sua ecclesiae communione contenti), which means that they are not deprived of the right to celebrate the sacred services, but only excluded for some time from communion with the other bishops. According to the decree of canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, a bishop who fails to come to a council is subjected to brotherly censure.[57]

Canon 77

Concerning Crescontius.

Concerning Crescontius of Villaregia, we all resolve, that it must immediately be brought to the knowledge of the bishop who presides in Numidia, that he must, by his letters, induce the aforementioned Crescontius to come, and no longer delay presenting himself at the general African council; and if he stays away and does not come, let him know that sentence will be pronounced against him.[58]

(Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 19; Trullo 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch 20; Laodicea 40; Carthage 18, 48, 73, 76, 95)

— Of this Crescontius, of whom this canon speaks, mention has already been made in canon 48 of this council; and since this bishop continued obstinately to persist in remaining on the see which he had unlawfully seized, the Carthaginian fathers ordain by this canon that he must present himself to the general council, for otherwise sentence will be pronounced against him even in his absence.[59]

Canon 78

Concerning the administrators of the Church of Hippo.

It is likewise resolved that, since the Church of Hippo cannot for long be left without an administrator, and since its churches are in the hands of those who have renounced unlawful communion with Equitius, bishops must be sent there from this council: Reginus, Alypius, Augustine, Maternus, Terasius, Evodius, Palladian, Urban, Valerius, Amonius, Fortunatus, Quodvultdeus, Honoratus, Januarius, Actus, Honoratus, Ampelius, Victorianus, Evangelus, and Rogatianus, that they gather together and set upon the right path those who, out of unjustified obstinacy, hold that they must wait for the return of the fugitive Equitius, and then, by common prayer, appoint them a bishop. But if these people themselves do not wish to work for peace, let them place no obstacle to the choice of a leader, which must be made without delay for the benefit of that church, which has for so long been neglected.[60][61]

(Ap. 58; IV Ecum. 25; Trullo 19; Sardica 11; Carthage 65, 71, 74, 93, 121, 123)

— The reference in this canon is to that same condemned bishop Equitius, of whom canon 65 of this council also speaks. This canon orders that several bishops be sent to Hippo, who are to restore there the order which Equitius had disturbed, and to appoint a new bishop. Among these bishops is mentioned also St. Augustine, who was bishop of Hippo, and to understand this one must know that there were in Africa two cities of this name: Hippo Regius in Numidia, where Augustine was bishop, and Hippo Diarrhytus in proconsular Africa, where Equitius was. In the title of this canon in the collection of Dionysius, this church, which this Equitius so greatly disturbed, is called Ecclesia Hipponensium Diarrhytorum, and likewise in the conclusion of the instruction to the legates to the Donatists (Carth. 93).

Canon 79

Concerning clergy who do not take care to settle their legal cases within the course of a year.

It is likewise ordained, that every time some accusation is brought against one of the clergy, or he is charged with some transgression, then, as much for the preservation of the Church’s good name as out of regard for the clergyman, to whom on this account some indulgence is shown, and likewise so as to bar the proud delight of heretics and pagans—if these clergy, as indeed they should, wish to defend their case and to prove their innocence, they must do so within the course of the year in which they are to be out of communion; and if they let that year pass without clarifying their case, no plea of justification shall thereafter be accepted from them at all.[62]

(Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9).

— There are two things, says the blessed Augustine, which every clergyman must always keep before his eyes, namely: conscience and good name (conscientia et fama); for ourselves our conscience suffices, but for the sake of others we need a good name: conscience for yourself, and a good name for the sake of your neighbor (conscientia tibi, fama proximo tuo). It was on account of the fact that a clergyman must enjoy a good name in the world that this canon too was issued, which ordains that clergy against whom some public accusation has been raised concerning certain transgressions (ἐάν τινα ἐγκλήματα ἔχῃ τις), or concerning whom a public rumor circulates that they have committed some transgression, must, for the sake of their own good name and the reputation of the Church, take care, within the course of a year, to clear themselves before the ecclesiastical court and thereby demonstrate their innocence to public opinion. If they fail to do this within that time, they lose the right to justification and are condemned. And as for the canon’s provision that such clergy must be out of communion for a year, this is not—as Zonaras says in his commentary on this canon—because the accusation brought against them has been proven (for in such a case they would have been deposed), but only because they have allowed the world room to suspect that they may have committed some transgression.[63]

Canon 80

That those who have been received from another monastery must not be appointed either as abbots or as clergy of a monastery.

It is likewise ordained, that if anyone has received someone from another monastery, and wishes to promote him into the clergy, or to appoint him abbot of one of his own monasteries—the bishop who does this shall be excluded from communion with the rest, and shall content himself with communion with his own people alone; and the person concerned ceases to be a clergyman, or an abbot.[64]

(Ap. 14, 15, 16; I Ecum. 15, 16; IV Ecum. 4, 5, 10, 20, 23; Trullo 17, 18, 20; VII Ecum. 19, 21; Antioch 3, 21; Sardica 1, 2, 13, 15, 16; Carthage 54, 90; Protodeutera 2, 3, 4)

— This canon subjects to the same penalty as canon 76 of this council every bishop who receives, without a letter of dismissal (ἐπισκοπικῆς ἀπολυτικὸν γράμμα) from the proper bishop, some monk from another region, and receives him into his own clergy or appoints him abbot of one of his monasteries; but if such a one brings such a letter, then he may freely become both a clergyman and an abbot. On this, see further the commentary on canon 16 of the First Ecumenical Council.[65][66][67]

Canon 81

Concerning bishops who appoint heretics or pagans as their heirs.

It is likewise ordained, that if any bishop makes heretics or pagans his heirs, whether they be his relatives or not, and appoints them as his successors, against such a bishop, after his death, let anathema be pronounced, and let his name no longer be commemorated by the priests of God; nor should it serve as an excuse for him that he perhaps died without a will, for, once appointed bishop, he ought immediately to have disposed of his property according to law and as befits his office.[68]

(Ap. 38, 40; IV Ecum. 22; Trullo 35; Antioch 24; Carthage 22, 32).

— By canon 22 of this council it was forbidden to bishops, and to clergy in general, to leave their property to non-Orthodox Christians (μὴ ὀρθοδόξοις χριστιανοῖς), even if these were their relatives; and canon 32 of the same council recommends that they should rather leave to the Church everything that has come into their private possession by inheritance or otherwise. In this canon too the subject is private property, and it sets out in more detail the decree of canon 22 concerning bishops who appoint as their heirs non-Orthodox Christians, namely heretics or pagans (αἱρετικοὺς ἢ ἕλληνας), whether or not these are related to them. That bishops had the right to bequeath their private property according to their own judgment, we have seen in the decree of Apostolic canon 40 (cf. canon 24 of Antioch), which for this purpose ordains that this property must be exactly ascertained and listed, and entirely separated from church property, as this Carthaginian canon too mentions in its conclusion. But should any bishop permit himself to bequeath, after his death, his property to some heretic or pagan, whether a relative or not, the canon prescribes a fearful penalty, namely, that anathema be pronounced against such a bishop, and that his name no longer even be mentioned in the church diptychs. What anathema signifies we have already seen (I, 245–247). In this canon it is pronounced against a bishop already dead (μετὰ θάνατον ἀνάθεμα τῷ τοιούτῳ λεχθείη). We have quite a few similar examples in the history of the Church, of anathema being pronounced even after death against certain persons.[69][70] However, anathema pronounced against the dead is not the same as that excommunication or exclusion from the Church which is, as the gravest church penalty, ordinarily imposed on the living transgressors in question. The imposition of anathema, like that of every other church penalty, can be exercised by the church authority only upon those who are under its jurisdiction, that is, only upon the living members of the Church, and not upon the dead, who have ceased to be members of the Church militant, and thus are no longer subject to its jurisdiction, but to a higher judgment. The imposition of church penalties in general has as its chief aim the correction and improvement of the members of the Church who have strayed from the right path, and this aim can in no way be achieved with the dead. The pronouncement of anathema against the dead, which we find in this Carthaginian canon and in various other canonical decisions of the church authority, is done for the sake of the living members of the Church, in order to show them that the deceased in question was unworthy of church communion on account of a transgression which became known only after his death, and that therefore they must break off all spiritual fellowship with him, must not pray for him or offer sacrifice for him, and that his name must be struck from the church diptychs, and, if possible, he must even be deprived of church burial. The purpose of the Church in pronouncing anathema against some of the dead is that the living members of the Church may come to know the grave transgression which the deceased committed in his lifetime, and thereby take heed lest they themselves fall into the same transgression, and especially that the living members of the Church not be led astray by the evil example which the deceased displayed, when they see that the Church has not branded and condemned[71] that evil example. — The words of the canon, that his name should not be commemorated by the priests of God (τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ [μηδαμῶς] παρὰ τοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἱερεῦσιν ἀναφέρεσθαι), remind us of the church diptychs which are still used today in the Orthodox Church.[72] The diptych (δίπτυχος) comes from δίς—twice, and πτύσσειν—to fold, and means: folded twice, doubled. This adjective was used for everything that was folded or doubled, and especially for double tablets (Latin: tabella, tabellae), or two leaves joined together by a hinge, on which were inscribed the names of those who were to be remembered and commemorated at set times. There existed in the Church: δίπτυχα ἐπισκόπων (tabulae episcoporum), δίπτυχα ζώντων (viventium), and δίπτυχα νεκρῶν or κεκοιμημένων (mortuorum). In the first were recorded the names of all the deceased bishops who had held office in that church and who had held the Orthodox faith; in the second, the names of all the living members of that church, and especially of the church’s benefactors; in the third were recorded the names of those who had fallen asleep in Christ (τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ κεκοιμημένων), chiefly the names of those who by their faith and good works had earned merit for one or another church. The use of church diptychs is already mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 12), and we have testimonies to them from the fathers and teachers of the earliest ages. They were used during the holy liturgy, the names recorded in them being commemorated at the appropriate points of the service, just as is still done today in our Orthodox Church.[73] This Carthaginian canon has in mind, by the words quoted above, the δίπτυχον ἐπισκόπων, and it ordains that the name of a bishop who commits the transgression spoken of in this canon be struck from the diptych, so that the priests no longer commemorate that bishop during the services. A similar decision was issued also by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which ordered that the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia be struck from the church diptychs.[74] — In its second half the canon states that a bishop cannot be freed from anathema even if he died without a will (ἀδιάθετος, intestatus), so that by the general law his estate then passed to his relatives, who were either heretics or pagans; for, says the canon, he ought to have taken care of this in good time, according to the law and as was his duty (Ap. 40; Antioch 24; Carthage 22, 32).

Canon 82

On the manumission of slaves.

It is likewise established that in the matter of the manumission of slaves that takes place in the church, one must apply by petition

(Ap. 72; IV Ecum. 4; Trullo 85; Gangra 3; Carthage 64).

— Carthage canon 64 is here renewed, that it be sought from the civil authority to confirm the church’s right in the matter of the manumission of slaves.

Canon 83

On false memorials of martyrs.

It is likewise established that all altars which have been set up, whether in fields or in vineyards, as though in memory of a martyr, if it is not found that in them has been laid either the body or the relics of some martyr, must, if it is in any way possible, be destroyed by the local bishops; and if this cannot be done because of disturbance on the part of the laity, then in such a case the people should at least be instructed not to assemble at those places. And those who think rightly must not be drawn by any superstition to such places, nor may the memory of a martyr be kept under any pretext there where there is neither body nor relics, nor where it has not been attested by reliable ancient tradition that there was a place of dwelling, or of possession, or of the suffering of some martyr. And whatever altars, wherever they be, have been set up on the ground that certain persons dreamed something, or on the basis of idle revelations of certain people, all such altars must be destroyed by every means.[75][76]

(Ap. 31; IV Ecum. 4; Trullo 31; VII Ecum. 7; Antioch 5).

— Several canons (Trullo 81 and parallel canons) ordain that no church may be built without the permission of the competent bishop, and unless the bishop has consecrated it, mediately or immediately, by laying holy martyrs’ relics in the foundation of the altar. And since some, as appears from this canon, set up altars in fields or vineyards without the permission of the competent bishop (θϑνυσικστηοια), on the ground that they had supposedly seen something miraculous in a dream, or that certain persons had supposedly revealed it to them by a prophetic spirit, and thereby led the simpler people astray, to the harm of the Orthodox faith—this canon therefore ordains that, by order of the local bishop, every altar must be destroyed that was set up under the pretext of honoring holy martyrs, but under which there was neither the body nor the relics of a martyr, nor could anyone remember or attest that some holy martyr had dwelt or suffered there. And if the people oppose this order of the bishop and begin to riot, the canon says, the people must be instructed how sinful it is to gather at such a place, and that the Orthodox must not be carried away by superstition and thereby only offend the memory of the true martyrs of Christ.

Canon 84

On the fact that the remains of idols must be destroyed.

It is likewise established that the most pious emperors be entreated to have destroyed all remains (Carthage 58.) of idolatry—not only in statues, but in whatever places, groves, or trees.[77]

— Carthage canon 58 is here renewed, that the civil authority must be entreated to destroy the remains of the idols that still existed in Africa.

Canon 85

That the bishop of Carthage, in the name of all the bishops, shall write and sign letters whenever there is need.

All the bishops said: whenever there is need to draw up any letter from the council, let the venerable bishop who presides over this see draw it up in the name of all and sign it. It was further established that the bishops’ delegates, who are to be sent to the African provinces on account of the Donatists, be given letters in which the scope of their assistance shall be indicated, and that they must not exceed that scope. — And they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage, I agree with this decree, and having read it, I have signed it. Likewise the other bishops signed also.[78]

(Carthage 55).

— Blessed Augustine, in one of his writings, mentions the equal standing of the church of Carthage with that of Rome, and calls them both eminentissimae ecclesiae. And in canon 55 of this council we heard Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, say of himself that he must take care for all the churches of Africa, and accordingly this bishop was recognized by everyone as primas totius Africae. By virtue of that standing of his, the bishop of Carthage acquired also many privileges, one of which this canon likewise mentions, namely, that in the name of all he dictates and signs (ὑπαγορεύειν καὶ ὑπογράφειν) every document that is to be sent out from the council.[79]

Canon 86

On the order among bishops, that those consecrated later must not take precedence over those consecrated earlier.

Bishop Valentine said: If your goodwill permit, I will set out in order what was done in the past in the church of Carthage, and solemnly confirmed by the signatures of our brethren; and I shall point out how we too must keep it. We know, then, that the rule of the church has always been strictly kept, by which no one among the brethren may take a place ahead of those who are senior, but on the contrary, out of love, precedence has always been yielded to the senior ranks, which their successors afterward gratefully received in turn. And this order your holiness should confirm, that it be established still more firmly by a solemn vote. Bishop Aurelius said: It would truly not have been necessary for us to return to such questions, had certain incomprehensible opinions not by chance arisen which drew our attention to the relevant regulations; but since this matter, which our brother and fellow-minister has now raised, concerns us all in general, so that each of us in particular may know the position which God has assigned him, and that those who are consecrated later must yield place to those consecrated earlier, and must undertake nothing without the latter’s knowledge—for this reason I propose, as it now appears to me, that the whole council must in a fitting manner restrain everyone who shows contempt for, or acts insolently toward, those consecrated before him. Xanthippus, bishop of the first see of Numidia, said: Having heard the proposal of our brother and fellow-minister Aurelius, what do the brethren present here answer to it? Bishop Diotimus said: What is proposed for your approval is what has been established by the voice of the ancients, that in our name it be solemnly confirmed by voice, and that what is set out in the records of the former councils of the church of Carthage be kept by all. All the bishops said: This order has been kept by the fathers and by the ancients, and we too, by God’s mercy, shall follow it, while in every case preserving the rights of those bishops who hold precedence in Numidia and Mauretania.[80]

On the archive and register in Numidia.

Furthermore, all the bishops who signed the decisions of this council established that the register (that is, the list of sees in order) and the foundational document of Numidia must be kept both at the first see and at the metropolis of Constantina.

(Ap. 34; I Ecum. 4, 6, 7, 18; II Ecum. 2, 3; III Ecum. 8, 9; IV Ecum. 9, 17, 28; Trullo 7, 36, 39; Antioch 9; Laodicea 20, 56; Sardica 3, 4, 5; Carthage 17, 39, 89).

— It was the old practice of the African church that among bishops seniority belonged to whoever had been consecrated earlier. Aurelius, too, emphasizes this explicitly in the rationale for this canon. Some bishops nevertheless did not wish to keep to this, insisting on the privileges and standing of their sees, and sought, at general episcopal assemblies, to take precedence over bishops of lesser sees, even though the latter were senior to them by consecration. On account of this, the present canon was issued, and by the voice of the general council the canonical force of the existing practice was confirmed for the African church. And so that in future no disputes over seniority might arise, this same council, by its own canon 89, ordains that every bishop, when he is consecrated, must receive from those who consecrate him an official document with their own signatures, and that in that document the day of consecration must be precisely stated.

The canon does allow an exception for particular primary sees in the African church—and this is the meaning of those closing words of this canon concerning Mauretania and Numidia.

Canon 87

On bishop Quodvultdeus.

Concerning Quodvultdeus of Centuria, since his adversary had demanded that he appear before this council, and he, when asked whether he wished to conduct the suit against him before the bishops, at first agreed to this, but on the following day declared again that he did not wish it, and withdrew—all the bishops establish that no one is to hold communion with this Quodvultdeus until his case is concluded. But to deprive him of his episcopate entirely, before the resolution of his case, could not seem just to any Christian.[81]

(Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trullo 8; Antioch 14, 15; Laodicea 40; Sardica 4; Carthage 8, 12, 15, 19, 96, 121, 128, 129, 130; Protodeutera 13, 16).

— Bishop Quodvultdeus had been accused by someone, and, when asked whether he wished to come before the council to confront his accuser, declared that he did, but afterward withdrew his declaration and absented himself. On this account the council decided that communion with this bishop Quodvultdeus must be suspended until he submits to judgment; meanwhile the council does not deprive him of his episcopate, reserving that only for the case in which his guilt is proven before the court, as is likewise established by the general canons of the church.[82]

Canon 88

On bishop Maximian.

Concerning Maximian of Vaga it is established that letters be sent by the council both to him and to the people, that he may freely withdraw from the episcopate, and that they (that is, the people) may choose another for themselves.[83]

(III Ecum. 9; Protodeutera 16; Peter of Alex. 10; Cyril of Alexandria 2, 3).

— Bishop Maximian of Vaga (Maximianus Vagiensis) had been a Donatist and had converted to the church from the schism, but the people of Vaga no longer wished to accept him as bishop. For the sake of the church’s peace, Maximian voluntarily tendered his resignation from the see and announced this to the council. The council, for the sake of the general peace, approved Maximian’s action and accepted his resignation, and ordered that another be chosen.

Canon 89

On the letters of dismission (apolytikai), that is, that bishops, when they are consecrated, must receive from those who consecrate them a special document in which the day of their consecration and the consul are indicated.

It is furthermore established that whoever shall henceforth be consecrated in the provinces of Africa must receive documents with the personal signatures of those who consecrated them, and that on these the consul and the day must be indicated, so that afterward no dispute may arise as to who is junior and who is senior.[84]

(Carthage 86).

— This canon stands in connection with Carthage canon 86, whose interpretation should be compared with it.[85]

Canon 90

That those who have read in church only once cannot be ordained by others.

It is likewise established that, if someone has read even a single time in a particular church, he cannot be received into the clergy by another church. — And they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage, I agree with this decree, and having read it, I have signed it. Likewise the other bishops signed also.

(Trullo 33; VII Ecum. 14; Laodicea 15).

— See the interpretations of canon 14 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and of canon 15 of the council of Laodicea.

Canon 91

On the fact that negotiations must be entered into with the Donatists.

Bishop Aurelius said: What has been submitted to your holiness’s consideration must, I judge, be confirmed also by ecclesiastical acts; for you have all proposed by your own promise that each of us, in his own city, either enter personally into negotiation with the leaders of the Donatists, or associate to himself another neighboring bishop, and thus enter into negotiation with them in every city and place, through the mediation of the respective authorities or the chief men of those places; and therefore, if this is agreeable to all, let it be so declared. All the bishops said: It is agreeable to all, and we have all confirmed this with our signatures. We ask further that your holiness sign, in the name of all, the letters which are to be sent by the council to the civil authorities. Bishop Aurelius said: if it please your charity, let the form of this agreement with them be read, so that we may all hold to one and the same course in our proceeding, if it please us. All the bishops declared: Let it be read. The notary Letus read it aloud.[86]

Canon 92

The form of the agreement with the Donatists.

The bishop of the Catholic church (Aurelius) said: What has been granted to us by the authority of that great see, we ask that it be read by your reverence and put into effect. And when the order had been read and joined to the acts, the bishop of the Catholic church said: Be pleased to hear the letter which is to be sent by your reverence to the Donatists, to enter it into the acts of the council, and to send it to them; and thereafter to communicate their answer to us by means of your own acts: “Sent with full authority by our Catholic council, we enter into negotiation with you and desire to rejoice in your conversion. For we know the love of the Lord, who said: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God (Matt. 5:9), and through the prophet he has instructed us that even to those who do not wish to be called our brethren, we should say: you are our brethren (Isa. 66:5). You therefore must not disregard this our exhortation, which proceeds from love of peace with you, and if you hold that there is any truth on your side, you must not refuse to declare it—that is, convene your council and choose from among yourselves such men as you will entrust to prove your case, and we for our part shall do the same, that is, we shall choose from our own council such men as, together with those you have chosen, shall peaceably examine, at an appointed place and time, every point of contention that divides you from our communion, so that in this way the old error may at last, with the Lord God’s help, be brought to an end, and the weak souls and the untutored people, led astray by men, may not perish in a sacrilegious schism. For if you receive this in a brotherly spirit, the truth will easily prevail; but if you will not do this, your bad faith will at once be made known.” And when this form had been read, all the bishops said: It is fully agreeable to us; so let it be. — And they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage, I agree with this decree, and having read it, I have signed it. Likewise the other bishops signed also.[87]