Canons of the Eighth Local Council, of Carthage, 93–133

Canon 93

Instruction given to the delegates [sent] to the Donatists.

Instruction to the brethren Theasius and Evodius, as delegates appointed by the Council of Carthage to the most glorious and most pious emperors: “When, with God’s help, they come before the most pious emperors, let them then set before them how, at the time of last year’s council, the leaders of the Donatists were summoned by civic notices to assemble in full freedom, so that, if they had confidence to defend their teaching, they might choose from among themselves a few men skilled enough to dispute with us, and might show us, with Christian gentleness and without any hesitation, whether there is any truth on their side, so that in this way it might become plain, out of the ignorance and one-sidedness of the opponents, where now stands that catholic sincerity which shone even in ancient times. But since they, having no confidence in themselves, dared scarcely to answer anything at all. Accordingly, since the episcopal and peaceable manner of dealing with them had been fully tried, and they, having no power to answer anything against the truth, turned to unseemly violence, so that they brought into distress many bishops and many clergy—not to mention the laity—and moreover seized some churches, and likewise strove to seize others also—let their imperial benevolence take care that the catholic Church, which conceived them in her pious womb and nurtured them in the strength of the faith, be protected by their care, and that in their pious times it not be permitted to certain wicked men to overpower, by threats, the powerless people whom they could not lead into evil by persuasion. And it is known, and has often been made public even by the laws, how much mischief that foul rabble of apostates produces, and this has many times been condemned also by the decrees of the same most pious emperors mentioned above; against the madness of these men, then, let us now be able to obtain that high assistance which is nowise strange or extraordinary, but is according to holy scripture; since the apostle Paul too, as the genuine Acts of the Apostles show, overcame by military help a conspiracy of unruly men. We therefore now beseech that, as soon as possible, protection be extended to the catholic clergy—not only in all the cities, but also in all places of the several neighboring estates. And it must also be requested that the law be preserved which was issued by their father of blessed memory, Theodosius, concerning the exaction of ten pounds of gold from heretics who ordain and who are ordained, and likewise from the owners [of estates] on whose property their assemblies are found; and further, that they command this law to be confirmed in such a way that it be extended also to those whose deceits the guardians of the catholic Church have proven by witnesses, so that at least, fearing this, such men—who, though they see the ruin of their souls, nevertheless do not resolve to cleanse and amend themselves—might cease from creating schism and from heretical wickedness. It must also be asked that, by their piety, that law be renewed which still exists today, and which deprives heretics of the right, whether by inheritance or by testament, to receive or to bequeath anything, and, in a word, that all those who are bound by the delusion of their own prejudice and wish to remain in the Donatist error be deprived of the right, both to leave anything of their own to others and to receive anything from others. But as for those who, reflecting on unity and peace, desire to amend themselves, let it be free for them, without the withholding of that law, to receive an inheritance, even though that inheritance or some other gift was assigned to them while they were still in heretical error—excepting, of course, those who found this out only when they were summoned to judgment, [and only then turned] to be reconciled to the catholic Church; for of such men it must be thought that they desired catholic unity not from fear of the heavenly judgment, but from greed for earthly gain. And in respect of all this, the assistance of the authorities of each several province is needed. But if the delegates find that anything further may be contributed to the good of the Church, we grant them full authority to undertake and carry it out freely.” — “Besides this it was also decreed that letters be sent from this our council to the most glorious emperors and to the high authorities, that they be informed that we have sent these delegates to the high court with the common consent of us all; but since it is inconvenient that all of us subscribe to these letters, whereby the letters themselves would be overburdened with the signatures of us all, we ask you, brother Aurelius, that your charity be pleased to sign them in the name of us all.” — And they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage, [said]: I consent to this decree, and having read it I have signed it. Likewise several others signed also. — It must also be requested that letters be sent to the authorities, that, until the Lord be pleased to restore to us the aforesaid delegates, they extend protection to the catholic Church by means of orders to the governors of the cities and to the administrators of the lesser places. And concerning Ekitius [Equitius] it must further be added, that his insolence be restrained in all those regions over which he asserts his priestly right before the guardians of the church of Hippo. And letters must also be sent to the bishop of the church of Rome, commending the delegates to him, and likewise to others, wherever the emperor may be. — And they signed: Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage: I consent to this decree, and having read it I have signed it. And the rest signed likewise.[1][2]

18 Pr. 2; Carthage 403; Krmčaja (other), 93; Kunicki, Pravila, p. 103; not in the Cod[ex].

Canon 94

Extract from the chapters.

That delegations be sent freely to the council from all the provinces. It is ordained that delegates and letters be sent to Misonius, that he may freely send forth a delegation; and since union was achieved only at Carthage, that letters be sent to the authorities, that in the other provinces and cities as well those authorities order that union be pursued: and that the church of Carthage, in the name of all Africa, send to the court, together with the bishops’ letters, a declaration of thanks for the expulsion of the Donatists. — The letters of Pope Innocent were read concerning the matter that bishops may not, whenever it pleases them, cross over to the other side of the sea, for this has been so established by decree of the bishops;—and, for the declaration of thanks that the Donatists had been excluded, let two clerics of the church of Carthage be sent to the court.[3]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66–69, 91–93, 99, 117–119, 124).

— These four canons concern the Donatists, of whom mention was made in the interpretation of Carthage canon 47.

Canon 95

That a general and full council need not be convened, except when there is urgent need.

It is established that henceforth it is not necessary every year to trouble all the brethren, but only when a general need—that is, one concerning the whole of Africa—arises, and letters concerning it are sent from various parts to this see; then a great council will be convened in that province where the need and occasion appear; matters, however, which are not general are to be dealt with in the respective provinces.[4]

(Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 19; Trullo 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch 20; Laodicea 40; Carthage 18, 51, 73, 76).

— We have seen that canons 18, 51, and 73 of this council ordain that a general council of the whole African church must be assembled every year at an appointed time (August 21). This canon revokes those provisions and states that a general council is to be convened only when such a need arises as concerns the whole African church, and that otherwise ordinary provincial councils are to be held every year, at which all matters that are not general (αἱ αἰτίαι αἱ μὴ οὖσαι κοιναί) are to be examined. By general matters are understood dogmatic matters (δογματικά, as Balsamon says), while he calls all other matters ἰδικαί (speciales seu privatae), which are to be dealt with in each province (ἐν ἑκάστῃ ἐπαρχίᾳ). The practical reason for which the Carthaginian fathers issued this canon is that the bishops not be troubled, and that the people not be left without their pastors for no great necessity.

Canon 96

That it is not permitted to appeal to a higher court from judges chosen by agreement.

If it happens that a judicial matter is carried to a higher court, and the one who is dissatisfied with the first decision, as well as the one against whom he seeks a new judgment, choose judges for themselves, neither the one nor the other may afterward appeal again to another court.

On the delegations of the various provinces.

The delegations presented by the various provinces are gladly received, namely, those of Numidia, Byzacena, Mauretania Sitifensis, and likewise also of Caesariensis and of Tripolitania.

On the executors in the church.

It has furthermore been established that it be requested that five executors be chosen for all the needs of the church, who shall have to be distributed among the various provinces.[5][6]

— This canon divides into three parts, of which the first and third form two separate canons in the Kniga Pravil (107 and 108), and likewise in the Pidalion (105 and 106).

1. The first part of this canon appears as an addition to canon 95. That canon states that all matters which are not general are to be examined in the respective provinces; but since the case of appeal was not addressed there, this canon accordingly provides that judges may be chosen to review and adjudicate some matter that has been decided at a provincial council, and that from the judgment of judges chosen by agreement no further appeal may be made to any other, higher court. The force of such a judgment is recognized by canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and is likewise expressed by canons 15 and 122 of this council of Carthage.

2. In the second part of the canon, mention is made of the delegations which the respective regions of the African church sent, and which the council receives with satisfaction.

3. The third part of the canon speaks of the executors (ἐκβιβασταί, exbibastae seu executores), who are to take care of the needs of the church, and in particular of the collection of church revenues in cases where those concerned were unwilling to pay voluntarily; and the canon determines that the civil authority must be asked to appoint five such men, who would be distributed among the various provinces of the African church.

Canon 97

That petition be made to the emperors that advocates be appointed for important church business.

It is likewise established that the delegates Vincentius and Fortunatus, sent in the name of all the provinces, ask the most illustrious emperors to grant leave to appoint trained ecdici, who shall be obliged by office to defend the business of the church, and who, being clergy of the respective province, and at the same time such as have undertaken the defense of church affairs, may freely enter the courts of justice whenever necessary, in order to repel every attack and to present what is needed.

That the delegation be free in the exercise of its duty.

It is established that the chosen delegates who are sent to the court must have complete freedom of representation.

Declaration of the Mauretanian clergy concerning Primus.

It is known that the Mauro-Caesariensian bishops have attested by their letters that, through the civil authorities of Tigava, Primus was summoned to appear before the council in accordance with the imperial orders; and yet, notwithstanding, though this Primus was sought, he could nevertheless not be found, as the deacons reported concerning this; and now, since these same Mauretanians have asked that letters be sent by the whole council concerning this matter to the venerable brother, the elder Innocentius, it is established that such letters be directed to him, that he may know that Primus was sought by the council, but that he could not be found.[7]

(IV Ecum. 2, 23; Carthage 75, 98).

— This canon likewise divides into three parts, of which the first and second form two canons in the Kniga Pravil (109 and 110), as also in the Pidalion (107 and 108).

1. The decision of canon 79 of this council is repeated, that the civil authority be asked to appoint ecdici for the defense of the interests of the church, and likewise of the interests of the poor.

2. To the delegates chosen by the council to go to the imperial court (canon 93), the council grants complete freedom of action, so that they may not only seek and recommend what has been entrusted to them by the council, but also anything else which, by their own judgment, they find to be beneficial to the church.

3. In the third part of the canon mention is made of bishop Primus, as delegate of Mauretania Caesariensis, who was unwilling to appear before the council, and it is established that this be made known to the elder (γέρων, senex) Innocentius, who was the first bishop (primas) of Caesarean Mauretania—and not that it be made known to the Roman pope Innocent, as Zonara states in his interpretation of this canon, although Innocent (402–417) was indeed pope in Rome at that time.[8]

Canon 98

Concerning a people [congregation] which has never had its own separate bishop.[9]

It is also decreed that a people which has never had its own separate bishop cannot in any way have one, unless the full council of the relevant province, together with the first bishop [the primate], orders it, and unless he under whose authority that church previously stood also consents to it.[10]

Ap. 34; Sardica 6; Carthage 53, 56.

— See the commentary on canon 53 of Carthage.

Canon 99

On the people and regions that convert from the Donatists.

That, in the name of that same people who convert from the Donatists—even one which, without the corresponding consent of the council, already had its own bishop—it must in every case be granted that it keep him also henceforth; but a people which did have a bishop, and after his death no longer wished to have its own bishop but desired to join the territory of some other bishop, must not be hindered from this. It is further ordained that bishops who, before the imperial law on union was proclaimed, had converted to the Catholic church the people they governed, must retain their authority over that same people; but after the law on union, all churches, and all their respective territory belonging to them by right in general, must be handed over to the authority of the Catholic bishops found in those places which the heretics had held—whether these heretics were afterward converted to the Catholic church or not; and if certain of them, after the issuing of the imperial law, appropriated anything to themselves, it must all be restored.

(Ap. 38; Carthage 47, 57, 66–69, 91–94, 117–119, 124).

— This canon concerns the Donatists, of whom we have spoken in the interpretation of canon 47 of this council.

Canon 100

Regarding the report of bishop Maurentius.

When, following the report and the related petition of bishop Maurentius, the letter was read which bishop Placentius, deputy of the delegate of Numidia, had brought, and which, at the declaration of that same Placentius, was read before the bishops, and when it was in no way possible to find those who, according to the deacons’ declarations, ought to have been present at the doors, and who had been sought two or three times—that is, the elders from Nova Germania—then the holy council resolved that letters be sent to the elder Xantippus, from which he might learn that a bishop must not be subjected to insult for the sake of the people concerned. Bishop Maurentius said: Since the elders from Nova Germania have been sought two and three times, and have not been found, notwithstanding that they were informed by the first bishop that they must present themselves to the holy council, which was held these very days, and they all remained absent—let your holiness for this reason render judgment on this matter, so that I need not suffer innocently on account of their obstinate slander. The holy council ordered that, by hierarchical right, this council must pronounce its judgment against the obstinate; but since ecclesiastical moderation must be taken into account in every matter, letters were also promised for the elder Xantippus, that he might know of the judges chosen by the council, who would, without any delay, examine the matter in the city of Thubursicum and render the corresponding decision on it. Bishop Maurentius said: As judges I ask for the most holy elder Xantippus, the most holy Augustine, Florentinus, Theasius, Samsucius, Secundus, and Possidius, and I ask that this be ordained for my sake. The holy council agreed to the judges requested; and as for the remaining judges needed to complete the lawful number, let the elder Xantippus allow the elders of Nova Germania themselves to choose them.[11]

(Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Carthage 12, 15).

— Certain elders (γέροντες) from Nova Germania (a τῆς νέας Γερμανοῦ) in Numidia had accused their bishop Maurentius. As a result of this accusation Maurentius presented himself before the council, while meanwhile the accusers had gone into hiding. The council recognized that these accusers deserved to be condemned, but nevertheless did not wish to pronounce that condemnation, out of ecclesiastical moderation (μετριότητα ἐκκλησιαστικήν); and so that bishop Maurentius should not remain absent from his church for long, the council, at his request, ordered that the trial be held in the very region from which that bishop came, and over which the elder (ὁ γέρων, senex, otherwise primas) Xantippus held the first see, and permitted Maurentius himself to name the judges. Maurentius named Xantippus and six further bishops, to which the council agreed; and as for the choice of the remaining bishops still needed to complete the canonically established number of judges, the council left this to Xantippus to arrange. The canonical number of bishops to try a bishop was twelve, as canon 12 of this council provides, so five more bishops needed to be added to those Maurentius had named, to make up the full number. — What is important in this canon is the point that a bishop must not be subjected to insult for the sake of the people under him (ὅτι οὐ προαιρέσει τοῦ μνημονευθέντος λαοῦ ὑποστάς ὑποπέπτωκεν ὁ ἐπίσκοπος).

Canon 101

On the fact that the Roman and Alexandrian churches must be reconciled.

It is furthermore established that, regarding the discord between the Roman and the Alexandrian churches, a letter must be written to the most holy Pope Innocent, that both churches must keep that mutual peace which the Lord commanded.[12]

— According to Western commentators, this concerns the discord between the Roman and Alexandrian churches on account of John Chrysostom, whom Theophilus of Alexandria had exiled, and on account of which the Roman bishop Innocent had cut Theophilus off from ecclesiastical communion. And although the African fathers (Aurelius in particular) openly defended Chrysostom, nevertheless, for the sake of the mutual peace which, as this canon itself notes, the Lord commanded (John 14:27), they resolved to write to Innocent, that peace be restored between the two churches.[13][14][15]

Canon 102

On wives who leave their husbands, and husbands who leave their wives, that they must remain so.

It is established that, in accordance with the ordinance of the Gospel and the apostles, neither he whom his wife has left, nor she whom her husband has left, may join with another person; but let them either remain so, or be reconciled with one another; and if they disregard this, they must be compelled to repentance. And concerning this matter it is necessary to ask that an imperial law be issued.[16]

(Ap. 48; Trullo 87, 93, 98; Ancyra 20; Basil the Great 9, 21, 31, 35, 36, 46, 48, 77, 80).

— See the interpretation of Trullo canon 87.

Canon 103

On the prayers that may be recited in church.

It is likewise established that all must use the prayers which have been confirmed by the council, whether these be the prayers with which the service begins, or those read at the time of the offering, or at the laying on of hands, nor may any others, contrary to the faith, be used under any pretext, but only those which have been compiled by the most learned may be read.[17]

(Ap. 60; Ap. 63; Laodicea 59).

— It was already established by the council of Laodicea (canon 59) that only what has been canonically confirmed may be read in church. This is repeated in this canon of Carthage, and it ordains that only those prayers be read in church which have been handed down and proclaimed by councils for ecclesiastical use, and it forbids the reading of any other prayer, since this is contrary to the faith. The canon speaks of prayers in general, and in particular of the prayers with which the liturgy begins (προοίμια, praelationes), then of the prayers of the offering (παραθέσεις, commendationes), and lastly of the prayers which the bishop reads when he ordains someone (τῆς χειρὸς ἐπιθέσεις, manus impositiones). In the Kniga Pravil these last are further called ‘молитвы возложения рук’ [prayers of the laying on of hands].[18][19]

Canon 104

On those who ask the emperor that their case be examined before secular courts.

It is established that everyone be deprived of ecclesiastical rank who asks the emperor that some matter of his be examined before secular courts; but if he asks the emperor for an episcopal court, this must not be denied him.[20]

(Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 12; Carthage 15, 96)

— See the interpretation of canon 12 of the council of Antioch. This canon adds that the emperor may, when need arises, order that an episcopal council be convened to try some matter concerning persons in holy orders—except that such persons in holy orders will gain no particular benefit from this, since even without an imperial decree they could, by the canons, obtain judgment and justice in the church.

Canon 105

On those who are out of communion in Africa, but wish to slip away across the sea.

Whoever is out of communion in Africa, and secretly steals away to overseas lands so as to be received into communion there, shall be subjected to expulsion from the clergy.[21]

(Ap. 19, 13; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 11, 13; Trullo 17).

— See the interpretations of Apostolic canons 19 and 13, and of canon 23 of this council.

Canon 106

That those who go to the court must not fail to report their need to the bishop of Carthage and the bishop of Rome.

It is established that when someone wishes to go to the court, this must be stated in the letter of dismission which is directed to the church of Rome, and from there he must in turn obtain a second letter of dismission for the court. For this reason, if someone has obtained a letter of dismission only as far as Rome, but has concealed the need on account of which he must go on to the court, and nevertheless resolves to go to the court on his own, let such a one be deprived of communion. But should some sudden need arise for him to go to the court while he is still there in Rome, let him report that need of his to the bishop of Rome, and let him present something in writing from that bishop of Rome. And in the letters of dismission which the presiding bishops, or other bishops, issue to their own clergy, let the day of Pascha be indicated; and if the day of Pascha for that year happens not yet to be known, let the day of Pascha of the previous year be set down, in the manner customarily used in secular documents—that is, after such-and-such a consulship.

It is likewise established that the delegates sent from this venerable council seek from the most illustrious emperors whatever they find useful against the Donatists, against the pagans, and against their errors. It is further established, at the request of all the bishops, that on all the letters which are to be issued from this council, your holiness alone sign for all. — 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.[22]

(Ap. 12; Antioch 11; Sardica 7, 9; Carthage 97).

— In the Kniga Pravil this canon forms two canons (119 and 120), and rightly so, since it deals with two matters.

1. Without special necessity, the canons forbid bishops to go to the imperial court (Sardica 7, 9); should such necessity arise, they may then do so with the permission and the letter of the competent first bishop, or metropolitan (Antioch 11). This canon of Carthage confirms those canons with the corresponding clarification. It concerns bishops and clergy who go to the imperial court, which was in Rome. The canon ordains that whoever is to go to Rome be given a letter of dismission addressed to the bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome shall in turn give him his own letter for the court. Should some cleric go to the court without reporting to the bishop of Rome, the canon ordains that he be excommunicated (ἀλλοτρίου τῆς κοινωνίας).

2. In the second half of the canon, what was said in the second point of canon 97 is repeated, concerning the delegates who go to the court with a petition against the Donatists (canon 93) and against the pagans.

Canon 107

Council on episcopal judgment.

Under the most illustrious emperors Honorius, in his seventh year, and Theodosius, in his third, the said Augusti being consuls, on the seventeenth day before the July kalends, at Carthage, in the church of the second district of the city. At this council it was established that a bishop may not by himself decide a judicial matter that concerns himself. — The proceedings of this council were not recorded, because only local, not general, matters were examined.[23]

(Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Carthage 12, 15, 20, 96).

— The provision of this canon, that a bishop may not by himself decide a judicial matter that concerns himself, means, according to Zonara’s interpretation of this canon: when two bishops have some suit between them, or a cleric brings suit against a bishop, then a single bishop may not take it upon himself to render judgment on the matter, but this falls within the competence of the provincial council.[24]

Canon 108

Council against the Donatists.

After the consulship of the most illustrious emperors Honorius, in his eighth year, and Theodosius, in his fourth, on the eighteenth day before the August kalends, at Carthage, in the church of the second district of the city. At this council the delegation against the Donatists was received from the bishops: Florentius, Possidius, Praesidius, and Benenatus. At this time a law had been issued that everyone might freely embrace the profession of Christianity according to his own will.[25]

(Ap. 80; Neocaesarea 12; Carthage 99).

— This canon, by its text, contains no canonical ordinance at all. Let us explain it. In the year 409, Attila threatened to conquer the whole of Africa (the Proconsular province). The emperor Honorius, fearing that the Donatists, out of their hatred for the Orthodox, might stir up rebellion and thereby invite Attila to conquer Africa, issued a law by which the Donatists too were free to exist in the state, as were the Orthodox. The following year (410), when the danger from the enemy had passed, the African fathers assembled a council against the Donatists, and at this council it was recorded that Honorius had issued a law ‘that everyone might freely, of his own will, take upon himself the profession of Christianity’—which meant that whoever did not wish to be a Christian (Orthodox) was free to be a Donatist. Such is the text of the canon. Zonara, however, draws from this canon, quite soundly, a general principle of Christian teaching. Virtue, says Zonara, must be chosen by man himself, and not forced upon him; it ought not to be exercised by compulsion, but voluntarily. Accordingly, whoever wishes to embrace Christianity must do so freely and of his own good will, and not by force and necessity, for what is done by necessity and by force is neither firm nor lasting; and for this reason the council of Neocaesarea likewise says, in its canon 12, that one who was baptized while in sickness ought not to be received into the priesthood, because such a one’s faith comes not from conviction, but from necessity.[26][27]

Canon 109

Council against the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius.

Under the most glorious emperors, in the twelfth year of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius, consuls, on the Kalends of May, at Carthage, in the treasury of the church, Bishop Aurelius presiding over the whole council, in the presence of the deacons who stood by, it was acknowledged by all the bishops of the church of Carthage who had come to this holy council, and whose names and signatures are appended.

That Adam was not created mortal by God.

Whoever says that the first man, Adam, was created mortal, so that, whether he sinned or did not sin, he would have had to die in the body—that is, to depart from the body—not as a punishment for sin but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

From Carthage 410; Krmčaja canon 109; Pidalion canon 119; Kunicki, Pravila, canon 122; and Ath. Synt. II, 559.

Canon 110

That children are baptized for the remission of sin.

It is likewise established that whoever denies that newly-born infants have need of baptism, or says that they are baptized for the remission of sin, but that they have nothing at all from the ancestral sin of Adam that needs to be cleansed by the bath of regeneration (from which it would follow that the rite of baptism for the remission of sin ought to be regarded not as true but as false), let him be anathema; for otherwise what the apostle says cannot be understood—that through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death, and thus it passed to all men, because all sinned (Rom. 5:12)—except in the way that the Catholic church, spread everywhere and simple, has always understood it. And by this rule of faith, children too, who could not yet have committed any sins of their own, are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that through rebirth what they received from the old birth may be cleansed in them.

(III Ecum. 1, 4; Carthage 109, 111–116).

Canon 111

That the grace of God not only grants forgiveness of sin, but also affords help, that one may sin no more.

It is likewise established: whoever says that the grace of God, by which justification is obtained through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the forgiveness of sins already committed, and does not also afford help that other sins not be committed, let him be anathema.[28]

Canon 112

That the grace of God not only imparts knowledge of what must be done, but also pours into us love, that we may be able to fulfill what we know.

Likewise, whoever says that the grace of God, which comes through Jesus Christ our Lord, helps us only in this, that we not sin, in that through it knowledge of sin is revealed and made known to us, so that we may know what we must strive for and what we must avoid, but that it does not help us to be both willing and able to do what we have come to know we must do, let him be anathema; for if the apostle says that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Cor. 8:1), it would be quite impious to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that very puffing-up of knowledge, but do not have it for the building-up of love; whereas both are equally a gift of God—both that we know what we ought to do, and that we love the good which we ought to do—so that, with love which builds up, knowledge might not puff up; for as it is written of God: Who teaches man to know (Ps. 93:10), it is likewise written: Love is of God.

(III Ecum. 1, 4; Carthage 109–111, 113–116).

Canon 113

That without the grace of God we can do nothing good.

Likewise it is established: whoever says that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason, that what we are able to do by free will we might do more easily by means of grace, as though, even without receiving grace, we could, though with more difficulty, nevertheless still fulfill the divine commandments without it, let him be anathema. For when the Lord spoke of the fruits of the commandments, he did not say: Without me you will do it with difficulty; but he said: Without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).

(III Ecum. 1, 4; Carthage 109–112, 114–116).

Canon 114

That it is not merely a word of humility, but truly the voice of truth in the saints, when they say: ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.’

Likewise it is established, concerning what the holy apostle John says: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8)—whoever wishes to understand this otherwise, and says that ‘we have no sin’ need not be said simply out of humility, but because it is not the truth, let him be anathema; for the same apostle immediately continues, and adds the following: But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9); and here it is clearly shown that this is said not merely out of humility, but truly in fact. For the apostle could have said: ‘If we say we have no sin, we exalt ourselves, and there is no humility in us’; but since he said: ‘we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,’ he thereby already made it clear that whoever says of himself that he has no sin does not speak the truth, but lies.

(III Ecum. 1, 4; Carthage 109–113, 115, 116).

Canon 115

That in the Lord’s Prayer the saints say of themselves: ‘forgive us our debts.’

Likewise it is established: whoever says that, in the Lord’s Prayer, when the saints say: Forgive us our debts (Matt. 6:12), they were not saying this concerning themselves, since such forgiveness was already unnecessary for them, but concerning other sinners who were among their people, for which reason not one of the saints says individually: ‘forgive me my debts,’ but: ‘forgive us our debts,’ so that it might be understood that the righteous man asks this more on behalf of others than of himself—let him be anathema; for holy and righteous was the apostle James, when he said: In many things we all offend (James 3:2). For what other reason was that word ‘all’ added, if not so that this thought might agree with the psalm, where we read: Enter not into judgment with your servant, for in your sight no man living shall be justified (Ps. 143:2), and with the prayer of the most wise Solomon: There is no man who does not sin (3 Kings 8:46), and with the book of holy Job: He seals up the hand of every man, that every man may know his own weakness (Job 37:7). For this reason the holy and righteous prophet Daniel likewise spoke in the plural: we have sinned, we have done wickedly (Dan. 9:5), and the rest, which he there humbly and truthfully confesses; and lest it be supposed, as some hold, that he speaks not of his own sins but rather of the sins of his people, he goes on to say: while I was praying and confessing the sins of my people to the Lord my God (Dan. 9:20); he did not wish to say ‘our sins,’ but said: ‘the sins of my people, and my own,’ as though the prophet had foreseen that there would appear such as would wrongly understand this.

(III Ecum. 1, 4; Carthage 109–114, 116).

Canon 116

That the saints say truly: ‘Forgive us our debts.’

Likewise it is established: whoever holds that those words of the Lord’s Prayer, by which we say: Forgive us our debts (Matt. 6:12), are spoken by the saints thus only out of humility, and not in truth, let him be anathema. For who could bear one who prays, yet lies—not before men, but before God—who with his lips says that he desires forgiveness, while in his heart declares that he has no sin which he needs to have forgiven him.

(III Ecum. 1, 4; Carthage 109–115).

— These eight canons now set forth (109–116) contain the condemnation of individual points of the Pelagian teaching. Of this teaching, and of its principal teachers, we have spoken in the interpretation of canon 1 of the Third Ecumenical Council (I, 286–290). On this condemnation of Pelagianism at the council of Carthage (year 418) there exists the epistola Aurelii ep. ad omnes episcopos per Buzacenam et Arbutianam provinciam constitutos de damnatione Pelagii atque Coelesti, which is found in the canonical collection which Pope Adrian sent to Charlemagne in 774.

Canon 117

On the people who convert from the Donatists.

It is likewise established: since it was decided a few years ago, by a full council of this church, that those churches which are found in various regions, and which became Catholic before the issuing of the law concerning the Donatists, should remain under the authority of those sees whose bishops had persuaded them to turn to Catholic unity, while those which converted after those laws should remain under the authority of those sees to which they had belonged while they stood on the side of Donatus—yet since afterward disputes arose, and continue to arise even today, among bishops concerning territories, in respect of which it seems that the earlier provision was not entirely complete—it is now established at this holy council that, wherever there was a Catholic church and a church of the Donatist party, and they belonged to different sees, then, whatever time union followed, whether before the issuing of the law or after, they must remain under the authority of that see under whose authority the respective Catholic church had stood in former times.[29][30]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66–69, 91–94, 118, 119, 124).

Canon 118

On how the territories are to be divided between bishops, both Catholic and those who converted from Donatus.

Namely thus: if there are bishops who converted from the Donatists to Catholic unity, the territories in which both parties (peoples—namely, the party of Donatus and the Orthodox) are found are to be divided equally between them; that is, some places shall come under the authority of the one, and others under the authority of the other, in such a way that the senior in the episcopate divides, and the junior chooses; but if there is only a single place, let it fall to whichever see it is found to be nearer; and if it is at an equal distance from both sees, let it fall to whichever the people choose. Should it happen that those who have always been Catholics likewise wish to have their own bishop, as also those who converted from Donatus, let the voice of the majority prevail over the minority; and should the parties be equal in number, let the place in question remain with the senior bishop. But should there be many such places in which both parties are found, and they cannot be divided into equal halves because the number of such places is uneven, then (setting aside one place) the even numbers of places must first be divided, and as for the one that remains, let it be dealt with in the manner described above concerning a single place.[31]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66–69, 91–94, 117, 119, 124).

Canon 119

On the fact that no one can claim from a bishop a territory which he has freed from heresy and administered for three years.

It is likewise established that, if someone, after the issuing of those laws, converted a place to Catholic unity, and administered that place for three years, and no one asserted his own right to it, then no one may henceforth claim that place—still less if, during those three years, there was a bishop who could have asserted his right, and yet did not assert it; but if no such bishop existed, let it not stand in the way of the claim that this place was entered into the register; but when a vacant place obtains its bishop, it shall be free for him to claim that place within a period of three years, counting from that very day. In the same way, if a bishop from the party of Donatus is converted to the Catholic church, in reckoning the time, let it not stand in the way that it was entered into the register, but let the three years be reckoned from the day on which he converted, and let him then freely claim all the places which he holds to belong to his see.[32]

(Carthage 47, 57, 66–69, 91–94, 117, 118, 124).

— Once again three canons (117–119) concerning the Donatists, of which see the interpretation of canon 47 of this council.

Canon 120

On those who appropriate to themselves a people without the consent of those to whom that people is subject, while claiming that it belongs to them.

It is likewise established that those bishops who, holding that a certain people belongs to their see, do not seek it out in such a way that the matter be settled by the judgment of other bishops, but themselves extend their own authority over a people subject to another bishop—whether that people consents to it or not—such men shall be punished by the loss of their own case. And if some have acted thus, and the matter was not resolved by agreement between the bishops, but they continue to dispute over it, let him be deprived of the place he claims concerning whom it is proven that, having disregarded the church’s judges, he appropriated the place in question of his own will. Nor may anyone excuse himself on the ground that he received from the presiding bishop a document for the administration of some place; rather, whether he has such a document or not, he must come to an agreement with the bishop who administers that place, and must receive a document from him, so that it may be seen that he lawfully possesses the church over which he has asserted his right. But if the bishop who previously governed that place puts forward new grounds in his own favor, this too must be resolved by the judgment of bishops, whom either the first bishop shall appoint, or whom they shall themselves choose by agreement from among the neighboring bishops.[33]

— This canon seeks to block the path to disputes between bishops over the boundaries of their respective episcopal territories, and over the people who belonged to one or the other territory—disputes which, on account of the Donatist controversies, frequently arose. The canon ordains that no bishop may of his own authority appropriate to himself some people (πλήθη, plebes; in Aristenus: παροικία; in Balsamon: ἐνορία; in the Kniga Pravil: obshchestvo) who is de facto under the authority of another bishop, but that if he holds he has a right to that people, he must submit the question to the judgment of the bishops and await their decision from them; should he not do this, but act of his own authority in the matter, let him be punished with the loss of his own case (τοῦ ἰδίου πράγματος τὴν ζημίαν ὑπομείνωσι, sua causa multentur)—that is, let him lose every further right to be able to claim that people (παροικία, plebs) for himself. The chief aim of this canon, then, is that no one should be able, of his own authority or by stirring up the people, bypassing the lawful course, to appropriate some place which is under the authority of another; for civil law too—says Balsamon, in his interpretation of this canon—forbids anyone from appropriating another’s property to himself by his own authority. The canon adds that it is not enough to enter into possession of some place which is de facto under the authority of another merely by showing the metropolitan’s document, which grants him a right to that place, but that the document of the bishop who is in possession of the disputed place is also required, from which document it would be seen that he had lawfully (the canon says: peaceably, εἰρηνικῶς) taken possession of the church over which he asserted his right. But if the bishop who is in possession de facto puts forward new grounds in his own favor, the canon ordains that this too must be resolved by the judgment of the competent bishops.[34]

Canon 121

On those who neglect the people belonging to them.

It is likewise established that those who neglect to win over to catholic unity the places belonging to their see are to be admonished by the diligent neighboring bishops not to be remiss in doing so. Wherefore, if such a one does nothing for a period of six months, reckoned from the day the matter was taken up, those places shall thereafter be ceded to one who shall be capable of winning them over. However, if the one to whom those places belong finds it good, for other considerations, to deliberately let this go undone—since it may be that the heretics themselves are asking for this, so that he may win them over without an uproar—and meanwhile his wise conduct is hindered by another and, by hastening the matter, only further embitters the heretics—once the matter has been examined by the judgment of the bishops, those places must remain to his see. When the bishops who are to judge belong to different dioceses, the judges shall be designated by that first bishop in whose territory the disputed place is located. But if the judges are to be chosen by common agreement among the neighbors, let either one or three be chosen; and if three are chosen, the decision either of all of them, or of two, shall be followed.[35]

— This canon too has before it the situation created in the African Church by the Donatists, and it aims to rouse the diligence of bishops to strive to bring the Donatists to catholic unity (δὸς τὴν καθολικὴν ἑνότητα), and if the Orthodox bishops concerned do not do this, they are—says the canon—to be admonished by the diligent neighboring bishops; that is to say, such bishops must be admonished on this by bishops zealous for catholic unity, when these bishops gather at the annual councils. If, after that admonition, for six months the ones concerned do not amend themselves and do not begin to work for unity, then those places which belonged to their see, and which are still infected with Donatist teaching, must be ceded to another bishop who shall be capable of doing what the negligent bishop had neglected. The canon adds an exception to this ordinance, if it is proved that the bishop concerned acted thus deliberately and was not hastening in the conversion of the Donatists only so that he might afterward more easily and without an uproar convert them. And who is to judge of this is stated clearly enough in the canon itself.

Canon 122

That the decision of chosen judges may not be disregarded. And from the judges chosen by common agreement, it is not permitted to appeal to a higher court. And whoever is found, out of obstinacy, unwilling to submit to the judges—once the bishop of the first see learns of this, he shall issue letters that no bishop is to hold communion with him until he submits.

— This canon does not exist in the Pidalion as a separate canon, but forms the conclusion of canon 121 (in the Pidalion, canon 131); and this is indeed correct, for this (122nd) canon speaks of these very judges who were chosen to decide the matter dealt with by canon 121, and it confirms the ordinance already issued (canons 15, 96) that from the judgment of chosen judges one may no longer, under threat of penalty, appeal to a higher court. And that this canon is an integral part of canon 121 is shown also by the particle “a” (δέ, autem, “but” or “and”), with which this (122nd) canon begins.[36]

Canon 123

That a bishop who does not attend to his own territory is to be deprived of communion. If a bishop, whether with regard to the mother churches or with regard to the sees, is negligent concerning the heretics, let the diligent neighboring bishops admonish him and set before him his negligence, so that he cannot be excused; and if even after this, for six months from the day he was admonished, remaining in the same eparchy, he does not take care of those who must be brought to catholic unity—communion is no longer to be held with such a one until he carries this out. But if the one designated to carry this out did not manage to come into those places, this is not to be reckoned to the bishop as a fault.[37]

Canon 124

On bishops who falsely report on communion with the Donatists.

But if it is proved that some bishop falsely reported on their reconciliation, alleging that they had entered into communion, while meanwhile it is proved that he himself knows that they have not entered into communion, let such a one be deprived even of his episcopacy.[38]

Ap. 58; Trullo 19; Sardica 11; Carthage 47, 57, 71.

— These two canons (123 and 124) stand in connection with the two preceding (121 and 122) canons and speak in more detail, on the occasion of the reconciliation of the Donatists, of the same matter as canon 121 of this council.

Canon 125

On presbyters and clerics, that they may not appeal to any other higher courts than only to the African councils.

It is likewise established that presbyters, deacons, and other higher clerics who, in whatever business of their own, are not satisfied with the decision of their bishops, are to be heard by the neighboring bishops, and those bishops whom they choose, with the consent of their own bishops, shall settle their disputes. If they wish to appeal from these as well to a still higher court, let them appeal only to the African councils, or to those bishops who preside in their eparchies; and whoever should wish to transfer his business to a court across the sea, let no one in Africa receive him into communion.[39]

II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 4; Carthage 10, 11, 12.

— See the commentary on canon 28 of Carthage.

Canon 126

On young maidens, that they too may be veiled with the nun’s veil.

It is likewise established that if a bishop veils, or has already veiled, a maiden who has not yet completed twenty-five years, being moved thereto by the necessity of preserving her virginal chastity—which was threatened with danger, whether because some powerful suitor had been noticed, or [it was feared] that someone wished to abduct her, or because she herself, stricken by some mortal danger, together with her parents or guardians, besought the bishop that she should not die without the monastic habit—such a bishop cannot be subjected to any censure by the council’s ordinance concerning the aforesaid number of years.[40][41]

(IV Ecum. 16; Trullo 4, 40; Carthage 6, 16, 44; Basil the Great 18).

— The conciliar ordinance mentioned by this canon, that a maiden may not be received into the monastic order before twenty-five years of age, is none other than the ordinance of the Council of Hippo of 393, which is mentioned in the heading of canon 16 of this Carthaginian council. This canon allows an exception to the aforesaid ordinance when the chastity of a maiden of age is threatened by some danger, or when she is at the point of death and she herself, or her parents, or her guardians, beg that she be granted the favor and not die without the monastic habit (χωρὶς τοῦ σχήματος). In such a case, the canon permits the bishop, to whom belongs the right of receiving maidens into the order, and without whose permission no one at all may become a nun,[42] to receive the maiden and to veil her with the nun’s veil even before she reaches twenty-five years, and for this such a bishop is not subject to any censure. — For the rest, one should compare with this the 40th canon of the Council in Trullo and the 18th canon of Basil the Great, and follow the ordinance issued later, that is, the ordinance of the aforementioned Trullan canon. Apart from the six canons (1, 29–38) actually issued by this (419) council, this (126th) canon is the last among the canons of the earlier African councils that were reviewed at this (419) council and received for the whole African Church. All these canons were read and adopted at the first session of this council (25 May 419). And since it was difficult for all the fathers (217 in number) who had until then been at the council to remain longer in Carthage, while some further matters still had to be settled, it was decided that the remaining bishops should go to their own dioceses, and that fifteen of them should remain to complete the further business. This decision also constitutes—

Canon 127

That the bishops may not be detained too long at the council, three judges are to be chosen from each province.

It was likewise established by the whole council that three judges should be chosen from each province, so that all the bishops who had assembled for the council might not be detained for long. And there were chosen: from the church of Carthage—Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and Clarus; from the province of Numidia—Alypius, Augustine, and Restitutus; from the province of Byzacena—together with the most holy elder Donatian, the first bishop, Cresconius, Jucundus, and Aemilianus; from Mauretania Sitifensis—Severian, Asiaticus, and Donatus; from the province of Tripolitania, Sallustius alone, who, in accordance with established custom (that only one should come from there), was sent to represent it; and all these, together with the most holy elder Aurelius, are to judge every matter jointly, the whole council turning to him with the request that he himself sign all the acts of the council already prepared, and all the letters. — And we have signed. I, Aurelius, bishop of the church of Carthage, assent to this decree, and having read it, I have signed. Likewise the other bishops also signed.[43]

— According to this decision, three representatives were chosen from each province, except the Tripolitan, from which only one representative remained (see canon 14), and these representatives, under the presidency of Aurelius, were to complete the work of the council.

After this (127th) canon, the Book of Rules contains yet one more canon, in which it is said that many bishops declared it difficult for them to remain longer in Carthage, and that accordingly corresponding representatives were chosen in their place for the council—thus repeating, in the main, what had already been said in the preceding canon. This canon, in the Book of Rules, is composed from the concluding words of the preface to the following session of this council, which was held on 30 May 419.

Canon 128

That those excommunicated from the church community may not be received to bring accusations.

It is established by all: since by the earlier ordinances of the council it was established, with regard to persons, who may be received to bring accusations against clerics, but it was not clearly specified who may not be received—for this reason we determine that no one is to be lawfully received to bring an accusation who, having already been excommunicated, remains still under that excommunication, whether the one wishing to accuse be a cleric or a layman.[44]

Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 21; Carthage 8, 19.

Canon 129

That neither slaves, nor freedmen, nor any persons lacking standing, may bring accusations.

It is likewise established that accusations are not to be received either from slaves, or from freedmen, or from any of those whom the civil laws do not admit for criminal accusations, nor besides these from those upon whom lies the stain of disgrace, that is, from actors and from all persons who are notorious for disgraceful conduct, and likewise not from heretics or pagans or Jews. However, none of these, to whom such accusation is denied, is to be denied the freedom to bring suits in their own private affairs.

Ap. 14; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 21; Carthage 8.

— Of the ordinance of these canons (128 and 129) we have already spoken in the commentary on canon 6 of the II Ecumenical Council.[45]

Canon 130

That one who is not able to prove one transgression may not be permitted to bring forward another.

It is likewise established that when several transgressions are alleged by some accusers against a cleric, and among these transgressions not even that one can be proved concerning which the investigation was first begun, such accusers are not to be permitted to bring forward the other transgressions.

Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 21; Carthage 8.

— This canon stands in connection with canons 128 and 129 of this council. When someone brings forward several accusations at one and the same time against a clergyman, and the first accusation falls because it could not be proved, this canon then ordains that the accuser is not to be permitted to bring forward the other accusations. And this is because, by the old law, the accuser customarily gave a written pledge (ἐγγραφάς) that he would incur that very penalty which the accused would have incurred, had the accusation not been proved; so that, in the event the accusation is not proved, the accuser was reckoned as deprived of standing (ἀτιμωθείς, infamis), and hence incapable of bringing further accusations against anyone. But if the accuser had not given this written pledge, then, should the accusation not be proved, he was reckoned a slanderer (συκοφάντης, calumniator), and likewise ἀτιμωθείς, that is, without the right to accuse anyone.

Canon 131

Who may be permitted to testify.

For testimony one ought not to admit as a witness at all anyone of those in regard to whom it is established that they are not admitted even as accusers, and likewise not those whom the accuser puts forward from among his own household; and the testimony of one who has not reached his fourteenth year of life may not be admitted.[46]

Ap. 75; I Ecum. 2; Carthage 8, 19, 30, 59, 128.

— Of witnesses against clergymen we have spoken in general in the commentary on Apostolic canon 75. In this canon it is forbidden to admit as witnesses in suits (namely criminal ones, ἐγκληματικῶν ὑποθέσεων, i.e. causis criminalibus) against clergymen all those who cannot be admitted even as accusers. The canon adds further that those whom the accuser puts forward from among his own household (τοὺς οἰκειακούς) may not be admitted as witnesses, nor those who are minors (ἀνήβους), that is, as the canon says, who have not reached their 14th year of life.[47][48]

Canon 132

On a bishop who excommunicates one who had privately confessed some transgression of his own to him.

It is likewise established that when a bishop says that someone confessed some transgression to him privately, and that person will not admit it, such a bishop is not to consider it an injury done to him that he alone is not believed—nor even when he alleges that, on account of the disturbance of his conscience, he will not hold communion with the one who denies his transgression.[49]

Ap. 75; Carthage 131.

— Let not a single witness rise up against a man for any evil or for any sin whatsoever among all the sins that are committed, but let the matter rest on the word of two or three witnesses—so commands the Old Testament Scripture (Deut. 19:15). This same thing Christ commands in the New Testament (Matt. 18:16; John 8:17). This basic precept of Holy Scripture extends to all and to everyone without distinction, not excluding even bishops, and this precept found canonical expression in this canon of Carthage. It deprives of weight and significance the testimony of a single bishop, when he says that someone confessed to him some transgression of his own, and that person will not admit it; and let not the bishop take it as an injury—says the canon—that he alone is not believed, even though he insists that his conscience is troubled at holding communion with the transgressor who confessed his transgression to him alone. For such is the evangelical teaching, that the matter rests only on the word of two or three witnesses. Balsamon notes the ordinance of this canon for the case when the bishop concerned, or some confessor, discloses a sin which someone confessed to him privately in confession, that is, secretly told him, and he adduces the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke (1156-1169), by which he deprived of the priestly ministry the abbot of the Hyrtacene monastery for having disclosed a sin confessed to him by his spiritual son. This canon, and the decision of the said patriarch, are cited in canon 120 of the Nomocanon appended to the Great Trebnik, and there it is further said: “the spiritual father who discloses the sin of the one who confessed to him is to have a penance of three years, being barred only from communing, and to make one hundred prostrations a day; but the civil law says that such a one’s tongue is to be cut out.” The keeping of the secret which a priest learns in confession (sigillum confessionis) constitutes today as well, for priests, an unalterable law (Book of Priestly Duties, sec. 109).

Canon 130a

That one who is not able to prove one transgression may not be permitted to bring forward another.

Ap. 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 21; Carthage 8.

Canon 131a

Who may be permitted to testify.

Ap. 75; I Ecum. 2; Carthage 8, 19, 30, 59, 128.

Canon 132a

On a bishop who excommunicates one who had privately confessed some transgression of his own to him.

Ap. 75; Carthage 131.

— Let not a single witness rise up against a man for any evil whatsoever, nor for any sin among all the sins that are committed, but let the matter rest on the word of two or three witnesses—so commands the Old Testament Scripture (Deut. 19:15). This same thing Christ commands in the New Testament (Matt. 18:16; John 8:17). This basic precept of Holy Scripture extends to all and to everyone without distinction, not excluding even bishops, and this precept found canonical expression in this canon of Carthage. It deprives of weight and significance the testimony of a single bishop, when he says that someone confessed to him some transgression of his own, and that person will not admit it; and let not the bishop take it as an injury—says the canon—that he alone is not believed, even though he insists that his conscience is troubled at holding communion with the transgressor who confessed his transgression to him alone. For such is the evangelical teaching, that the matter rests only on the word of two or three witnesses. Balsamon notes the ordinance of this canon for the case when the bishop concerned, or some confessor, discloses a sin which someone confessed to him privately, that is, secretly told him, and he adduces the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople Luke (1156-1169), by which he deprived of the priestly ministry the abbot of the Hyrtacene monastery for having disclosed a sin confessed to him by his spiritual son. This canon, and the decision of the said patriarch, are cited in canon 120 of the Nomocanon appended to the Great Trebnik, and there it is further said: “the spiritual father who discloses the sin of the one who confessed to him is to have a penance of three years, being barred only from communing, and to make one hundred prostrations a day; but the civil law says that such a one’s tongue is to be cut out.” The keeping of the secret which a priest learns in confession (sigillum confessionis) constitutes today as well, for priests, an unalterable law (Book of Priestly Duties, sec. 109).

Canon 133

That a bishop ought not thoughtlessly deprive anyone of communion.

Until the excommunicated person’s own bishop receives him back into communion, the other bishops must not hold communion with that bishop [who excommunicated him]; for by this the bishop will take better care a second time not to allege against someone something which he is not able, before others, to confirm with proofs.[50]

Aurelius the bishop said: In accordance with what has been established by the decision of the whole council and by my own humility, the whole aforementioned and completed business must now be concluded, and the jointly confirmed ordinance of this day entered into the church records. But as regards this matter, on which nothing has yet been settled, we shall tomorrow, through our brothers Bishop Faustinus and the presbyters Philip and Asellus, direct a fitting reply to our most reverend brother and fellow bishop Boniface.

— This canon stands in logical connection with canon 132 and forms a supplement to this latter. From the closing words, and still better from the title, of canon 132, it is seen that the bishop in question had actually deprived of communion a man who had confessed to him alone some transgression. Such an act is in itself unlawful, and it is of this unlawfulness that this (133rd) canon speaks. It ordains, namely, that if a bishop has unlawfully excommunicated someone (in the concrete case, a man who had confessed to him alone some sin of his own), the other bishops are not to hold communion with such a bishop (ὁ συγκοινωνῶν σωσιν) for as long as he refuses to be in communion with the one he has unlawfully excommunicated. The canon also states why this is so ordained, namely, so that the bishop will take better care a second time before accusing or excommunicating someone whom he is not in a position to convict by evidence of what he has alleged against him. And if it is proved that a bishop has excommunicated someone out of his own passion, then that bishop, by canon 4 of the VII Ecumenical Council, is subject to an even heavier penalty. —[51]

With this the business of the Council of Carthage of the year 419 was concluded. After this, on the question for whose sake this great council of the African Church had assembled—that is, on the question of appeal to Rome against the decisions of the African councils—there was directed to Faustinus, bishop of Potentia, and to the presbyters Philip and Asellus (these three having been the legates of the Roman bishop at this council) the following

LETTER

To Boniface, bishop of the church of Rome, from the whole African council, through the representatives of the church of Rome: Bishop Faustinus and the presbyters Philip and Asellus.

To the most blessed lord and most reverend brother Boniface—Aurelius, Valentine bishop of the first see of the eparchy of Numidia, and the rest, two hundred and seventeen in number, present at the general African council.

Since it has pleased the Lord that, with regard to that which our most holy brothers, our fellow bishop Faustinus and our fellow presbyters Philip and Asellus, accomplished together with us, our humility should not make its reply to the bishop Zosimus of blessed memory, from whom they brought us the letters and messages, but rather to your reverence, which by God’s will has taken his place, we consider it our duty to report briefly what we have established by mutual agreement, without touching on all the rest that is found in the extensive records—records which we, out of a care to preserve due charity, but also with great diligence and effort, have prepared, taking care that only what pertains to the matter at hand should be entered into the records. And he (Zosimus), had he still been in the body, would have received this most gladly, for he would have seen that everything has been carried out in the most perfect peace, lord and brother! The presbyter Apiarius, whose ordination, and then excommunication, and then his appeal to the higher court, caused so much scandal not only in the church of Sicca but in the whole African Church, having begged pardon for all his errors, has been received anew into communion. And the first to correct openly all that needed correcting was our fellow bishop Urban of Sicca. But since it is necessary to take care of the peace and quiet of the Church not only for the present time but also for the future, and since there had already been much of this kind of conduct before, and in order that we may be safeguarded in future against the like, or against something still worse, we have determined that the presbyter Apiarius be removed from the church of Sicca, while his honor and rank are preserved, and that, once he receives from us the established letter, he may freely carry out the presbyteral office and celebrate the holy liturgy in whatever other place he wishes and is able; and this we have granted to this same Apiarius without any difficulty, since he himself had asked for it by his own letters. But even before this matter was thus completed, among other things, in settling certain other questions which required lengthy examination on our part, the very nature of the matter required that we should ask of our brothers, Bishop Faustinus and the presbyters Philip and Asellus, that they should also add to the church records, if anything had been entrusted to them concerning our joint work; and they told us something of this orally, but without anything in writing; and only when we began to require also the writings which they had brought with them did they present to us their instruction, which, when we had read it, we attached to the records which they will present to you along with this letter; and in that instruction were contained four points which they, together with us, were to examine: first, concerning the transferring by bishops of their affairs to the judgment of the chief bishop of the church of Rome; second, that bishops may not go to the imperial court whenever they please; third, that the affairs of presbyters and deacons, when these have been deprived of communion by their bishops without just cause, are to be examined by the neighboring bishops; and fourth, that Bishop Urban be deprived of communion, and that he be summoned to Rome, unless he amends himself in that in which he must amend. Of these points, as to the first and the third, that is, regarding the freedom of bishops to transfer their affairs to the court in Rome, and that the affairs of clerics are to be finally settled by the bishops of their own dioceses, we took care already last year to communicate to the bishop Zosimus, of pious memory, in our letters addressed to him, that we would, out of full regard for him, observe both of these for some time, until the original decrees of the Council of Nicaea are obtained. And now we ask your holiness as well to agree that among us should stand the decrees as set forth and established by the Nicene fathers, in the form in which we have them, while among you there let stand what is contained in the instruction, namely: ‘If a bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region, having been assembled, depose him from his rank, and the bishop concerned appeals to the most blessed bishop of the church of Rome, and the latter deems it fit to grant his request that the matter be examined anew, in such a case the bishop of Rome ought to see fit to write to the bishops neighboring that province, that they should diligently and carefully examine everything, and, having gained assurance of the truth, pronounce their own verdict on the matter. But if the one who asks that his case be examined anew persuades, by his request, the bishop of Rome to send presbyters on his behalf for the purpose of that trial, then it shall be in the power of that bishop, insofar as he finds it good and necessary, to send such presbyters, who shall judge together with the bishops by the authority of the one who sent them. But if the Roman bishop finds the earlier trial and the verdict of the bishops sufficient, let him act as seems best to his wise counsel.’ Likewise also concerning presbyters and deacons: ‘If some bishop should be found irritable (which ought not to happen in such a man), and should on some occasion become greatly angered against a presbyter or a deacon and wish to exclude him from the Church, care must be taken that such a presbyter or deacon not be immediately condemned and deprived of communion. And the one deposed shall have the right to turn to the neighboring bishops with a request that they hear his case and examine it most diligently, for one who makes such a request ought not to be refused; while the bishop—whether he excluded him justly or unjustly—must patiently bear that the matter concerned be subjected anew to examination, and that his verdict either be confirmed or amended.’ All this we have entered into the records only until the original copies of the Council of Nicaea are obtained; and if indeed these canons exist there in the form in which they are contained in the instruction that was brought to us, sent by the brothers from the apostolic see, and are thus kept among you in Italy, then we cannot in any way be compelled to accept that which we do not wish even to mention; and we trust that, by the mercy of the Lord our God, so long as your holiness presides over the church of Rome, we shall not have to submit to so grievous a demand; but, on the contrary, we shall with brotherly love and without any objection keep those canons which you yourself, by the wisdom and righteousness which the Most High has granted you, acknowledge must be kept—except should it perhaps be that something else is contained in the canons of the Council of Nicaea. For we, though we have gone through many books, have nevertheless not read, in any of the Roman books, those canons of the Council of Nicaea in the form in which they were sent to us from there in the aforesaid instruction; and since we could not find these anywhere in any Greek book, we have taken particular care that copies be sent to us from the Eastern churches, in which, it is said, these same ordinances can still today be found in their original form. For this reason we ask your reverence also to be so good as to write, on your part, to the chief bishops of those regions, namely of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and to others as well, if it please your holiness, so that from there there may be sent to us the canons established by the holy Nicene fathers; and by this you will, with God’s help, do a good service also to all the Western churches, for you are especially called to this. For who can doubt that the truest copies of the Council of Nicaea are not those which are held among the Greeks—those, namely, which, when brought from so many different places and from such renowned churches, and compared among themselves, are found to agree? Meanwhile, until this is done and the matter clarified, we are agreed to acknowledge all that is contained in the aforesaid instruction regarding the freedom of bishops to transfer their affairs to the judgment of the chief bishop of the church of Rome, and then regarding the affairs of clerics, which are to be finally settled by the bishops of their own dioceses—and we entrust to your blessedness that you will, by God’s will, lend us help in this. Of all else that has been done and established at our council, our aforesaid brothers, our fellow bishop Faustinus and the presbyters Philip and Asellus, will, if you please, inform your holiness, since they bring it with them. May our Lord preserve you for many years, most blessed brother.

— As we know, the presbyter Apiarius had been deposed for various transgressions by his bishop, Urban of Sicca, in Proconsular Africa. This presbyter appealed to Rome, seeking that Urban’s sentence, pronounced against him, be overturned. The then bishop of Rome, Zosimus (417-418), received Apiarius’s appeal, and in a letter of his own to the African fathers asserted his right to subject to his own judgment decisions rendered by bishops and by councils of the African Church as well, and this on the basis of the canons of the Council of Sardica, which Zosimus took to be canons of the Council of Nicaea (I Ecumenical Council); and at the same time he called upon the fathers to inform him in detail of everything so that he might pronounce his verdict. Zosimus sent his letter to the African fathers through his aforementioned legates. It was on account of this that this Council of Carthage of the year 419 assembled. What the council did upon receiving the letter we have already said in the commentary on canon 1 of this council. Meanwhile Zosimus died, and he was succeeded by Boniface (418-422), who took the same position toward the Africans as Zosimus had. To Boniface, then, the African fathers direct this letter in reply to Zosimus’s letter. In the letter they inform Boniface briefly of all that was done at the council. As to Apiarius, they say that they permitted him to enjoy again the presbyteral dignity, since he had confessed his errors and, repenting, asked for pardon, but on condition that he no longer remain in the church of Sicca, but go to some other place. On the question of appeals to Rome, which Zosimus had raised, the African fathers say that they will not now dispute, until the original canons of the First Ecumenical Council are obtained, to which Zosimus had appealed, and that then they will abide in this matter by what those canons prescribe; and meanwhile they ask Boniface that he too turn to the East and seek out the original canons of the said Ecumenical Council.[52][53]

A few months later there arrived in Carthage the original documents of the Council of Nicaea, with the same number of canons and the same text as had until then been preserved in Carthage, and which corresponds to our present-day number and text of these canons. These documents, which in the Kormchaia constitute canons 136 and 137, were sent to Boniface on 26 November of the year 419.

The restless presbyter Apiarius, who after his exclusion from Sicca had taken refuge among the Tabracenses, and there again fell into new transgressions, and was deposed a second time—this Apiarius went, toward the end of the year 423, again to Rome, complaining of this decision of the African fathers. The Roman bishop Celestine, who succeeded Boniface, received this presbyter, restored him to all his rights against the decision of the ecclesiastical authority properly competent over him, and sent him to Carthage together with the bishop Faustinus, ordering that the decision against this same presbyter be annulled. In Carthage this matter was at once taken up for examination, and when it was concluded, there was directed to Celestine the following

LETTER

Of the African council to Pope Celestine, bishop of the city of Rome.

To our dear lord and most reverend brother Celestine—Aurelius, Palatinus, Antoninus, Tutus, Servus Dei, Terentius, Fortunatus, Martin, Januarius, Optatus, Celtius, Donatus, Theasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and all the rest who were present at the general council of Carthage.[54]

We would wish that, just as your holiness declared, in a letter sent to your fellow presbyter Leo, that you rejoiced at Apiarius’s petition, so we too might now joyfully direct this letter concerning his acquittal, for without doubt our zeal, and yours as well, must be all the more cautious in this, that everything be examined, so that it may not appear that favor is being shown to someone as though he had already been heard, when in fact he still must be heard.—When, therefore, our most holy brother and fellow bishop Faustinus came to us, we convened a council, and we held that he (Apiarius) had been sent to us together with him so that, just as through his efforts Apiarius had been restored to the presbyterate, so too he might now, through his diligence, be able to clear himself of all those transgressions of which he stood accused by the Tabracenses; but meanwhile, in the course of our examination, our council found in him such and so many crimes that they surpassed all the effort of the said Faustinus, which was in fact more a defense than a judgment, and more the plea of an advocate than the impartiality of a judge examining the matter. For above all, he violently resisted, even with insults, the whole council, alleging as though he were defending the privileges of the Roman church, and demanding that we receive back into communion the man whom your holiness, having believed his unproven complaint, had received into communion. This, however, did not help him, as you will see for yourself best when you read the records. For after three days of the most arduous and most zealous trial, in which we, with grieving hearts, examined the various charges against Apiarius, God, the righteous judge, who is almighty and long-suffering, at last cut short both all the efforts of our fellow bishop Faustinus and all the evasions of this same Apiarius, by which he strove to conceal his monstrous iniquities, and his burdensome and shameful obstinacy and shameless denial, with which he had wished to bury the memory of so many of his lustful passions, was overcome. And when our God had constrained his conscience, and before all men uncovered what lay hidden in his heart, already condemned by the vileness of the very transgressions, the once-obstinate liar at last openly confessed all the transgressions charged against him, and finally accused himself, of his own will, of almost all the unspeakable vices, thereby turning to grief the very hope which we had placed in him, and your own wish that he might be able to cleanse himself of all those shameful stains; and this our great sorrow, dear brother, he alleviated only by that one consolation, that he freed us from the long burden of grieving, and that he himself, though against his will and struggling with his conscience, prepared by his confession at least some remedy for his own wounds. Now, therefore, since we have first discharged the debt of due respect, we ask you that in future you do not readily give ear to those who come here, and that you no longer permit yourself to receive into communion those who have been excommunicated by us, for your blessedness will easily find that this too is so established even at the Council of Nicaea; and if we find that this must be observed with regard to the lower clergy and to laymen, how much more must it be observed with regard to bishops! Accordingly, those who in their own diocese have been deprived of communion are not to be received into communion by your holiness deliberately and improperly. Likewise let your holiness forbid the shameless flight of presbyters and of the lower clergy who follow their example, as befits you; for by no ordinance of the fathers has this been taken away from the African Church, and indeed the ordinances of the Council of Nicaea most plainly restore, to the respective metropolitans, authority over both the lower clergy and the bishops. And this same Council of Nicaea reasonably and justly commanded that whatever matters arise must all be settled in their own respective places; for the fathers considered that no province should be denied the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which the priests of Christ discern justice wisely and firmly hold to it—especially since everyone is permitted, in case he is dissatisfied with the decision of the local judges, to appeal to the councils of his own province, or even to an ecumenical council; or does anyone suppose that our God could inspire justice in the judgment of one man, whoever he may be, and yet deny it to the many priests gathered in council? And indeed, can there even be any foundation for a trial held across the sea, to which the persons necessary for testimony cannot even come, whether from natural infirmity, or from the weakness of old age, or from countless other hindrances? As for your being able to send anyone as though from the side of your holiness, we find that no council of the fathers has established any such thing; and as to what you once wrote to us, through this same fellow bishop of ours, Faustinus, as though it had been established by the Council of Nicaea, we have found nothing of the kind in the accurate copies taken from the original of the Council of Nicaea, which we received from the most holy Cyril, our fellow bishop of the church of Alexandria, and from the most reverend Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, and which we ourselves, even before this, sent to Boniface, bishop of blessed memory, your predecessor, through the same men, the presbyter Innocent and the subdeacon Marcellus, who also brought them to you. Do not, therefore, in future, at the request of certain persons, send here your clerics to adjudicate our affairs, and do not permit this, lest it be said that we are bringing the vain pride of the world into the Church of Christ, which, to those who wish to see God, offers the light of simplicity and the day of humility. And since now the pitiable Apiarius, on account of his monstrous iniquities, has at last been excommunicated from the Church of Christ, both by our brother Faustinus and by us, we are confident that, with the knowledge and diligence of your holiness in preserving brotherly love, Africa will no longer, under any pretext, have to endure him. May our God preserve your holiness for very many years, dear brother, in prayers for us.

— This letter is clear in itself and so well founded that the bishops of Rome, right up to the ninth century, until Nicholas I, never again asserted such rights as Zosimus and Celestine had asserted. From Nicholas I begins in the West a new canon law, and of course from that time on everything there proceeds quite differently than it had been in the time of the undivided Church. Of the highest ecclesiastical instances, which had the right to pronounce a final verdict in judicial matters, we have spoken in the commentaries on canon 6 of the II Ecumenical Council, and on canons 9 and 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council; and of appeal to the bishop of Rome we have spoken in the commentary on canon 5 of the I Ecumenical Council, and in detail in the commentary on canon 9 of the IV Ecumenical Council—and what was said there serves also as a commentary on this letter of the African fathers to the Roman bishop Celestine.[55]

Footnotes