Canons of the Eighth Local Council, of Carthage, 1–46

Canon 1

That the ordinances of the council of Nicaea must be strictly kept. Aurelius the bishop said: These ordinances, which we have in the documents that our fathers brought with them from the council of Nicaea, as well as those which have since been issued in conformity with that council, and those which we ourselves have established—once they are confirmed, let them be strictly kept.[1]

IV Ecum. 1; Trullo 2; VII Ecum. 1.

— This council was held, as we have seen (I, 23), at Carthage in the year 419, on the question of whether the bishop of Rome may receive appeals against the decisions of councils of the African church. The bishop of Rome based this claim of his on a canon of the council of Sardica (canon 5), which he took to be the 88th canon of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council. The fathers of this council had in their possession the acts of the council of Nicaea, in which there was no such canon as the bishop of Rome cited; but to demonstrate more forcefully the groundlessness of the Roman bishop’s claim and his mistaking one conciliar canon for another, they wrote to Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, asking the bishops there to send them the original acts of the council of Nicaea preserved with them. While awaiting an answer to this request, the council in the meantime, on the proposal of its distinguished president Aurelius, resolved to keep the ordinances of Nicaea unaltered, as these were contained in the documents which the fathers of the council had with them and which the African bishops who had been present at Nicaea had at the time brought back with them. The council resolved likewise that all the other canonical ordinances issued after the council of Nicaea should be kept, as well as those which they themselves would issue, in so far as all these agreed with the ordinances of Nicaea. And this is what canon 1 of this council contains. How the fathers of this council answered the bishop of Rome regarding his claimed right to receive appeals from other church provinces is told us by the letter which Aurelius, in the name of the council, sent to the bishop of Rome, Boniface, on 31 May 419.[2] Five years later, that is in 424, when Celestine of Rome again pressed that claim to receive appeals, the African fathers, headed by Aurelius, sent a new letter to Rome, by which—at least for the time—they compelled the bishop of Rome to press his claims no further.[3]

Canon 2

On the proclamation of the Holy Trinity. The whole council said: As God wills, before all else the faith of the church, which we confess in this glorious assembly, must be confessed with one accord; and thereafter, with the agreement of each one and of all together, ecclesiastical order must be kept. And that our brothers and fellow-bishops who have just now been ordained may be confirmed in their thinking, it is necessary to add that which we received from the fathers as an unshakable ordinance: namely, that in our minds we sacredly keep the unity of the Trinity, that is, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which recognizes in itself no division; and as we have been taught, so shall we teach the people of God. All those bishops who had just been ordained likewise said aloud: Thus we receive, thus we keep, thus we teach, following in everything the evangelical faith and, at the same time, your will.

II Ecum. 1; III Ecum. 7; Trullo 1.

— This canon reminds us how firmly and unshakably the confession of faith set forth by the holy fathers at the beginning must be kept, and at the same time this canon shows that the chief business for which councils gather must be the solemn confession of the holy faith, and that according to that faith canons should then be issued establishing the ecclesiastical order which all must strictly keep.[4]

Canon 3

On abstinence. Aurelius the bishop said: When at the previous council it was deliberated concerning the manner of abstinence and purity of life, it was established that these three ranks—I mean bishops, presbyters, and deacons—who are already bound by the bond of purity of life through their very consecration, must be abstinent in everything, as befits holy bishops and priests of God and the levites who serve at the divine services, so that they may be able to obtain what they ask of God in simplicity; accordingly we too must likewise keep what has been handed down from the apostles and what has held good from the deepest antiquity.[5]

(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 4, 25, 35, 70; Basil the Great 12, 27, 88)

Canon 4

On the different degrees in which one must abstain from women. Faustinus, bishop of the Picene region of Potentia, deputy of the Roman church, said: Let it be established that the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon, and all who touch the sacred things, must abstain from women and keep bodily purity. The bishops said: Let it be established that all who guard the altar or serve at it must observe bodily purity.[6]

(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, 25, 35, 70; Basil the Great 12, 27, 88; Timothy of Alex. 5, 13)

— These two canons speak of the abstinence of persons in holy orders. The first (3rd) canon ordains that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, since they are appointed to serve when the unbloody sacrifice is offered, must keep abstinence in everything—that is, they must not be abstinent in one respect while living indifferently in another, but must watch over themselves in every respect and be distinguished by every virtue, so that they may be able, as the canon says, to obtain from God what they ask; for they are, as Zonaras says in his commentary on this canon, mediators between God and men, propitiating the Godhead toward men and asking salvation for the faithful and peace for the whole world. The second (4th) canon ordains for these same persons (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) that they must abstain from their own wives, and this, as canon 25 of this council says, at appointed times, namely when they approach the sanctuary. For the rest, see the commentary on canons 12 and 13 of the council in Trullo.[7]

Canon 5

On avarice. Aurelius the bishop said: The passion of avarice must be suppressed, which no one doubts to be the mother of all evils; therefore let no one seize what belongs to another, and let no one, for the sake of gain, cross the boundaries of the fathers, and in no case let it be permitted to any cleric to take interest on anything whatsoever. We allow that questions newly arising, if they are unclear and altogether obscure, require our examination and determination; but concerning that which divine scripture has established quite clearly, there is no need for decisions to be issued—one must simply follow it. It follows, then, that what deserves reproach among laymen must be condemned all the more among clerics. The whole council said: No one has acted against the prophets, no one against the gospel, and gone unpunished, …

(Ap. 44; I Ecum. 17; Trullo 10; VII Ecum. 19; Laodicea 4; Carthage 16; Basil the Great 2, 14; Gregory of Neocaesarea 3; Gregory of Nyssa 6)

— This canon speaks first against bishops who, for the sake of gain, cross the boundaries of their own territories and seize what belongs to others, and second, against clerics in general who engage in usury. For the interpretation of this (5th) canon, the commentaries on the 44th Apostolic canon, canon 17 of the First Ecumenical Council, and other parallel canons serve.

Canon 6

That presbyters may not prepare the holy chrism. Fortunatus the bishop said: We recall that at previous councils it was established that neither the holy chrism, nor the reconciliation of penitents, nor the consecration of virgins, nor of places, nor of churches, may be performed by presbyters. And if any one is found doing this, what ought to be established regarding him? Aurelius the bishop said: Our dignity has heard the proposal of our brother and fellow-minister Fortunatus; what do you say concerning this? All the bishops said that neither the preparation of the holy chrism nor the consecration of virgins may be carried out by presbyters; nor may a presbyter be permitted to reconcile anyone at the public liturgy; and this is pleasing to all.[8][9]

(Ap. 52; I Ecum. 12, 13, 19; III Ecum. 7; IV Ecum. 16; Trullo 4, 31, 95, 102; VII Ecum. 7; Laodicea 48; Carthage 7, 43, 44)

— This canon forbids presbyters four things: 1) the preparation of the holy chrism (χρίσματος ποίησιν), 2) the consecration of virgins (κορῶν καθιέρωσιν), 3) the consecration of churches (καθιέρωσιν τῶν ναῶν), and 4) the reconciliation of penitents (καταλλαγὴν μετανοούντων)—reserving all of this to the episcopal power alone.

The preparation of the holy chrism means, as Zonaras and Balsamon say in their commentary on this canon, the act of consecrating the holy chrism (τοῦ ἁγίου μύρου τελετή), which is used in the sacrament of chrismation. At the very beginning of the church, the sacrament of chrismation was replaced by the laying on of hands upon those who had been baptized. This laying on of hands was performed by the apostles themselves, and thereby those concerned received the Holy Spirit: ‘Then they [the apostles] laid their hands on them [who had been baptized], and they received the Holy Spirit’—we read in the Acts of the Apostles (8:17); and the apostles did this by a special power which they had received from the Savior. But already in that same apostolic age we find, at root, the basis of our present form of this sacrament, namely that the baptized were anointed with holy chrism. There is no explicit testimony of this in Holy Scripture, but it is found in the writings of the fathers and teachers of the church closest to the apostolic age. In the Apostolic Constitutions not only is anointing mentioned very often—now as τὸ μύρον, βεβαίωσις τῆς ὁμολογίας (III, 17), now as τὸ μύρον, σφραγὶς τῶν συνθηκῶν (VII, 22)—but there is even a complete prayer there (εὐχαριστία περὶ τοῦ μυστικοῦ μύρου) which is to follow baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem gives a detailed instruction περὶ χρίσματος, and among other things compares the holy chrism at chrismation to the consecrated bread in the eucharist, saying that the use of holy chrism has its source in apostolic tradition. And just as the apostles’ right to lay hands on the baptized passed to their successors, the bishops, so too the right of preparing or consecrating the holy chrism for chrismation (and for the consecration of churches, of antimensia, etc.) passed to the bishops. This right of the bishop rests on his position in the church hierarchy as high priest, and the more so because the episcopal degree contains within itself the fullness of the priesthood and all the rights of priestly ministration, from which all the other degrees of the sacred hierarchy proceed. Presbyters have in the church a power conditioned by episcopal power, so that even in the performance of sacred services, presbyteral power operates only through those means consecrated by the high-priestly episcopal power, such that presbyters can perform every act in the church except that which constitutes the very foundation of those acts. Among other things, the presbyter has the right to impart spiritual gifts to people through the sacraments, but to prepare the means by which a person becomes capable of receiving those gifts—namely the holy chrism for the sacrament of chrismation—only the high priest, the bishop, has that power. This basic principle of Orthodox church law served as the basis for the ordinance of this Carthaginian canon that only the bishop may consecrate the holy chrism, and that a presbyter may not do so. This right of the bishop to consecrate the holy chrism passed, in the course of time, to the patriarchs and to the bishops of only certain privileged churches. In the Russian church, for example, the holy chrism is consecrated for the whole of Russia only in Moscow and in the Kiev Caves Lavra, whence it is sent out to all the dioceses.[10][11][12][13][14]

The second thing this canon forbids to presbyters is that they may not consecrate virgins, for this too is the right of the bishop. Here one should not understand deaconesses, says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, but rather there existed a custom whereby certain virgins would come to the church, vowing to spend their whole life in virginity, and such virgins, as consecrated to God, the bishops consecrated with a special prayer and cared for once they had been separated from their parents.

Further, the canon forbids presbyters to consecrate churches, for this too is an exclusively episcopal right. The basis of this episcopal right proceeds from the same principle mentioned above concerning the right to consecrate chrism. It is also worth comparing here what is said in the commentaries on canon 31 of the council in Trullo and canon 7 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.[15]

Finally, this canon forbids presbyters to receive penitents and publicly grant them forgiveness of sins at the holy liturgy. Just as in the ancient church it belonged to the bishops’ right to impose penances, to receive persons for penance, and to determine the duration and manner of penance, so it likewise belonged exclusively to the bishop’s right to receive publicly and solemnly into the church, and to admit to holy communion, those who had been excluded from communion, after they had completed their penance. This was later much altered, when secret confession of sins and absolution were introduced, which presbyters, in ordinary circumstances, could grant at such confession.

Canon 7

On the reconciliation of those who are in danger of death. Aurelius the bishop said: If someone is found in danger of death, and asks to be reconciled at the holy altar, and the bishop is absent, the presbyter must, according to the established order, inquire of the bishop, and then, by his permission, admit to reconciliation the one who is in danger; and this matter we must confirm by a salutary decision. The bishops said: It is pleasing to us that your holiness has been pleased to help us in that which was needed.[16]

Ap. 52; I Ecum. 11, 13; Ancyra 6, 22; Neocaesarea 2; Carthage 43; Basil the Great 73; Gregory of Nyssa 2, 5.

— One who is at the point of death must be deemed worthy of holy communion—this is ordained by canon 13 of the First Ecumenical Council. In the preceding (6th) canon it was ordained that a presbyter may not, at the solemn liturgy—that is, publicly—grant forgiveness of certain sins to those excluded from holy communion; and this canon says that this should not be understood to apply also to the case when someone is at the point of death, but that in such a case even a presbyter may grant that person forgiveness and admit him to holy communion, if the bishop concerned is absent. The canon adds that the presbyter must nevertheless, even in such a case, first inquire of the bishop, and only after the bishop’s consent may he grant forgiveness, or, as the canon says, admit to reconciliation the one whom death threatens. As can be seen, this concerns those penitents who have not yet completed the whole time of penance but who, on account of the danger of death, wish to be deemed worthy of holy communion. But it may happen that the bishop is far from the place where this occurs, and that the presbyter cannot quickly obtain the bishop’s consent—should the penitent, then, be allowed to die without holy communion? In such a case the presbyter himself may grant forgiveness without awaiting the bishop’s consent, as canon 48 of this council prescribes.

Canon 8

On those who bring accusations against their elders, and that no slanderer may accuse a bishop. Numidius, bishop of Maxula, said: There are many of ill conduct who are glad, on every occasion, to bring accusations against elders and against bishops; ought such persons to be received, or not? Aurelius the bishop said: Is it then pleasing to your charity that those entangled in various transgressions should not raise their voice in accusation against a bishop? All the bishops said: Whoever is a slanderer, let him not be received.

(Ap. 34, 37, 74, 75; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trullo 8; Antioch 14, 15, 20; Laodicea 40; Sardica 4; Carthage 128, 129, 130; Protodeutera 13; Theophilus of Alexandria 9)

— For this canon see the commentary on canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council; and on the same subject, canons 128, 129, and 130 of this council (Carthage) speak in more detail.

Canon 9

On those who, on account of their transgressions, are excluded from ecclesiastical communion. Augustine the bishop, representative of the Numidian region, said: Deign to establish this, that if any bishop or presbyter receives into communion those who have been deservedly excluded from the church for their transgressions, he too must fall under that same condemnation as those who flee from the canonical judgment of their own bishop. The bishops said: This is pleasing to all.[17][18]

(Ap. 11, 12, 13, 32, 33; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 11, 13; Trullo 17; Antioch 6, 7, 8, 11; Laodicea 41, 42; Sardica 13; Carthage 23, 106)

— See the commentaries on the 11th and 12th Apostolic canons, canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council, and other parallel canons.

Canon 10

On presbyters who are condemned by their bishops. Alypius the bishop, representative of the Numidian region, said: This too ought not to be omitted, that if any presbyter, having been condemned by his bishop, then, moved by some conceit and pride, imagines that he may offer gifts to God separately, or takes it into his mind to set up another altar contrary to the faith and order of the church, such a one should not go unpunished. Valentine, bishop of the first see of the Numidian region, said: What our brother Alypius has said is undoubtedly in accord with the faith and order of the church. As for the rest, tell us what your charity thinks of this.

(Ap. 31; II Ecum. 6; III Ecum. 3; IV Ecum. 18; Trullo 31, 34; Gangra 6; Sardica 14; Antioch 5; Carthage 11; Protodeutera 13, 14, 15; Basil the Great 1)

Canon 11

Let a presbyter who rises up against his own bishop and brings about a schism be anathema. All the bishops said: If any presbyter has been condemned on account of his conduct, he must report this to the neighboring bishops, so that they may examine the matter and that, through their agency, he may be reconciled with his bishop. But if he does not do this, but instead (may this never happen) is carried away by pride, and separates himself from communion with his bishop, and together with certain others brings about a schism, and offers the holy sacrifice to God—let such a one be anathema and be deprived of his place, provided, however, that it be first ascertained that his complaint against the bishop is not in fact justified.[19][20]

— For both these canons, see the commentaries on the 31st Apostolic canon, canon 6 of the council of Gangra, and canon 4 of the council of Antioch. Regarding what is said in canon 11 of this council, that a presbyter condemned by his bishop must report this to the neighboring bishops so that, through their agency, he might if possible be freed from the condemnation, Archimandrite John rightly observes that in ancient times the general rule was that such matters, before an official trial, were usually submitted for judgment to a mediating court composed of persons chosen by agreement, and this court would endeavor, and often succeed, in reconciling the parties; only when this mediating court did not succeed was the matter transferred to the regular court of competent jurisdiction.

Canon 12

A bishop who is accused at a time when there is no council must be tried by twelve bishops. Felix the bishop said: I propose, in accordance with the ordinances of previous councils, that if any bishop (may this never happen) falls under some accusation, and it is not possible, on account of many hindrances, for many to assemble, so that he should not remain long under accusation, let him be judged by twelve bishops; a presbyter, however, by six bishops and his own, and a deacon by three.[21][22]

(Ap. 74; I Ecum. 5; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 4, 6, 14, 15, 20; Sardica 13, 14; Constantinople 1; Carthage 14, 15, 20, 96, 107)

— The canons prescribe that, for the resolution of disputed matters in each diocese, and in general for the purposes of judgment, councils are to be regularly held at set times under the presidency of the appropriate metropolitan (Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5; IV Ecum. 19; Trullo 8; VII Ecum. 6; Antioch 20; Laodicea 40; Carthage 18). This canon provides for the case in which, on account of some great difficulty, the regular council of all the bishops of the diocese concerned cannot be convened, while it is urgent that some accusation raised against a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be resolved. For such a case the canon ordains that an extraordinary court be constituted: for a bishop, of 12 bishops; for a presbyter, of 6 bishops; and for a deacon, of 3 bishops.

We have seen the ordinance of the canon of the seventh local council (of Constantinople, 394) that a bishop may be deposed only by the decision of a larger council and of all the bishops of the province concerned (πλείονος συνόδου ψήφῳ καὶ τῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας). This held then and must always hold in the church; as to the number of bishops needed to be able to pronounce the deposition of a bishop, this is in general determined by the number that make up the bishops of a given church province (see, e.g., canon 14 of this same council of Carthage). But that in large church provinces, which have many bishops, it was considered strictly necessary that exactly 12 bishops be gathered together to depose a bishop, is shown to us by an example cited by Balsamon in his commentary on this canon. John, bishop of Amathus (on the island of Cyprus), was deposed by 11 bishops under the presidency of the archbishop. This bishop complained to the patriarch of Constantinople, Luke (1156–1169), of this sentence as unlawful. The patriarchal synod annulled that sentence on the grounds, first, that the full episcopal council of the Cypriot church had not been convened, or at least a larger number of bishops, as would have been possible, and second, that there had not been 12 bishops without the archbishop, but only 11 bishops together with the archbishop—that is, only 11 bishops.

The second ordinance of this canon, that 6 bishops are needed to depose a presbyter and 3 bishops to depose a deacon, should not be understood literally, but in connection with the other canons which speak of the deposition of a presbyter or deacon. Those canons (Antioch 4 and other parallel canons) state and ordain that the bishop having jurisdiction has the power to depose a presbyter or deacon, and this is the general basic norm. When this canon of Carthage mentions 6 or 3 bishops, this should be understood for the case in which the presbyter or deacon concerned believes he has been wronged and wishes to appeal to a higher court, as a second instance; in that case this higher court must be composed of the stated number of bishops together with the bishop under whose jurisdiction the presbyter or deacon stands—always understood, of course, to apply when it is not possible for the regular diocesan council to assemble.[23][24]

Canon 13

That a bishop can be appointed only by many; but if there is urgent need, let three appoint a bishop. Aurelius the bishop said: What does your holiness say about this? All the bishops said: What was established before us we must keep, and the presiding officers of each diocese must not presume rashly to disregard it. Let many bishops, then, having assembled together, appoint a bishop; but if there is urgent need, let three bishops, wherever they may be, appoint a bishop at the direction of the one who is first. And whoever acts in any way contrary to the consent or subscription he has once given, such a one deprives himself of honor.[25]

(Ap. 1; I Ecum. 4; VII Ecum. 3; Antioch 19, 23; Laodicea 12; Sardica 6; Constantinople 1; Carthage 49, 50)

— This canon repeats in full the ordinance of canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council on the election of a bishop, and the commentary on that canon serves also as the commentary on this one. In that Nicene canon it is stated that bishops who are prevented from coming in person to the council when a bishop is to be elected may give their vote by letter (διὰ γραμμάτων). Here, in this canon of Carthage, it is added that if one of these bishops, who could not come in person but gave his consent for the candidate in question either orally (ἐὰν ὡμολόγησεν) or by signing the act of election (ἢ ὑπέγραψεν ἐν τῷ περὶ ἐκείνου ψηφίσματι), should withdraw the vote he had given, and thereby contradict himself—for such a case this canon ordains that such a bishop thereby deprives himself of honor (αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀποστερήσει τῆς τιμῆς), that is, he is deposed, says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, unless he otherwise justifies his conduct and proves clearly and plainly that the one for whom he had previously given his vote is not worthy of the episcopate.[26]

Canon 14

That from Tripolis, for representation at the council, one bishop should come—and that a presbyter there be judged by five bishops. It is likewise established that from Tripolis, on account of the scarcity [of bishops] in that region, one bishop should come to the council for the purpose of representation, and that a presbyter there be judged by five bishops, and a deacon by three, as was said above, under the presidency, naturally, of his own bishop.

(Ap. 74; I Ecum. 5; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 4, 6, 14, 15, 20; Sardica 13, 14; Carthage 12, 15, 20, 96, 107)

— This canon ordains two things: first, that councils must be held every year, to which each church province must send its representatives, and that from Tripolis, on account of the small number of bishops, it is enough for only one representative to come; and second, that for the same reason, in Tripolis, when a presbyter or deacon complains against the sentence of his bishop, then in the second instance the presbyter shall be judged by the bishop having jurisdiction together with five other bishops, and the deacon again by the bishop having jurisdiction together with three other bishops. This canon is an exception to canon 12 of this council (of the year 419), and the commentary on that canon serves also as the commentary on this one.

Canon 15

On the various offices which are in the service of the church, and that anyone who, having fallen under some criminal or civil suit, neglects the ecclesiastical court subjects himself to danger—and that the children of clergy must not attend public spectacles.[27]

It is likewise established that whoever he may be—bishop, presbyter, deacon, or cleric—if, in any criminal or civil matter that has arisen in the church, he neglects the ecclesiastical court and seeks to obtain justice before secular courts, he is deprived of his place nonetheless, even if the decision was given in his favor; and this holds for a criminal matter; but if it was a civil matter, he loses all that he gained, if he wishes to keep his place.

It is further established that if a judicial matter has been referred from any ecclesiastical courts whatsoever to other ecclesiastical courts having higher authority, this brings no harm to those whose judgment is overturned, unless it can be shown that they judged either out of malice, or partially, or through bribery.

If judges were chosen by the agreement of both parties, even if their number is less than that established, one need not have recourse to others.

It is also established that the children of clergy must not take part in public spectacles, nor watch them, for it has always been urged upon all Christians that they should abstain from this, and not go to places where blasphemy occurs.

(Ap. 74; I Ecum. 5; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 17; Trullo 24, 51, 62, 66; Antioch 5, 12, 14, 15; Laodicea 54; Sardica 3, 5, 14; Carthage 12, 28, 61, 97, 104, 122; Protodeutera 9)

— 1) (Book of Rules 15, Pedalion 14). For all persons in holy orders the competent court is that of the bishop on whom those persons depend, and for bishops, the court of the metropolitan concerned. This is the general norm of the canon law of the Orthodox church. According to this norm, this canon ordains that no bishop, nor any other person in holy orders, may neglect his own competent spiritual court and turn to secular courts (δημοσίοις δικαστηρίοις) to seek justice there (compare II Ecum. 6 and parallel canons). And this is forbidden to them whether the matter falls within the sphere of criminal law (ἐγκληματικοῦ πράγματος, criminali controversia) or of civil law (πολιτικοῦ, civili); rather, the canon ordains that every such matter must be conducted only and exclusively before the ecclesiastical court (ἐκκλησιαστικὸν δικαστήριον, forum ecclesiasticum). If anyone neglects the ecclesiastical court and seeks justice at a secular court, this canon ordains that such a one is to be deprived of his place—that is, deprived of holy orders and deposed—even if that secular court should render a decision in his favor; and if the matter was one falling within the sphere of civil law, that is, a pecuniary matter (χρηματικόν), as Zonaras says, then such a one, besides the ecclesiastical penalty, also loses whatever he happened to gain at that court. This does not mean, however, that the church wishes always and in everything to free her ministers from the secular court, or does not recognize that persons in holy orders may also be subject to that court; for there are matters which by their very nature fall under the secular court, as for instance, when it concerns grave crimes against the state, in respect of which the church has never claimed for herself the right of judgment—indeed, the church herself has handed over to the secular court persons in holy orders accused of grave crimes of this kind (Antioch 5; Protodeutera 9). The church forbids her ministers only to turn to secular courts in those matters which by their nature fall under the decision of ecclesiastical authority; for by turning to those courts they would violate the rights of that authority and would violate the canonical prescriptions of the church, whereby, if such a person succeeded in being acquitted before the secular court, he would thereby have insulted the ecclesiastical authority and become unworthy of holy orders, while if he were condemned by that court, he would likewise have to undergo the corresponding punishment, like any other layman, which would already be a debasement of priestly standing and rank. And this applies to disputed matters that arise among persons in holy orders; while in similar matters between persons in holy orders on the one hand and laymen on the other, the general prescriptions of ecclesiastical-civil legislation applied. In disputed matters of private law with laymen, persons in holy orders could be subject also to the secular court, just as laymen could be subject to the spiritual court; and this generally held under the Greco-Roman laws, which were also received into the nomocanons. But for criminal matters and grave crimes against the state, the guilt of the persons in holy orders concerned had to be acknowledged in court by both authorities, ecclesiastical and secular, and in such cases the guilty, having been deprived of holy orders—that is, deposed from rank by the ecclesiastical authority—were handed over to the secular authority, which then subjected them to the prescribed penalties.[28][29]

2) (Book of Rules 16, Pedalion 15). The canons in several places recognize the right of everyone, if dissatisfied with the sentence of a lower court, to appeal to a higher court (I Ecum. 5 and parallel canons). This canon recognizes the same, and says that there is no offense whatsoever to the judges of the first instance if their decision is altered by the higher court, that is, in the second instance, except in the case where it is proved that these judges judged unjustly, either out of malice toward the accused, or partially out of friendship toward the one they acquitted, or indeed through bribery. This last is denoted in the canon by the words ἢ τινι χάριτι ὑποφθαρῆναι (vel gratia aliqua corruptos esse), which Zonaras renders by the word δωροδοκία (largitio, δωροδοκηθέντες, mercede emptos), so that we too have rightly rendered it as ‘bribery’—that is, they may have pronounced the sentence perhaps because they had been bribed, had accepted a bribe. And if it is proved that the ecclesiastical judges of the first instance pronounced an unlawful sentence in this way, then, as Zonaras observes, they must be deprived of their dignity, and, by canon 6 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, must undergo the very penalty to which they wrongly subjected the innocent.[30][30][31][32]

3) (Book of Rules 17, Pedalion 16). Although this canon, like other canons on the subject, permits appeal from a lower to a higher court, at the same time it forbids appeal against the verdict pronounced by judges chosen by agreement. The legitimacy of a court composed of judges chosen by agreement was solemnly recognized by the Fourth Ecumenical Council (canon 9). Such a court was from the very beginning of the church accorded great importance, and it was enough that three respected persons in holy orders, chosen by agreement of both parties (that is, the accuser and the accused), should pronounce some verdict, for that verdict to be considered unalterable. Bearing this in mind, this canon departs from that numerical norm of judges established for the formal court by canon 12 of this council, and allows that in such cases the number may even be smaller, but there can be no appeal against the verdict of judges thus chosen.

4) (Book of Rules 18, Pedalion 17). Regarding the last ordinance of this canon, see the commentaries on canons 24 and 51 of the council in Trullo. This canon forbids the children of clergy to attend theaters, for there only blasphemy occurs, and because clergy are obliged to raise their children in goodness and in the fear of God, according to the words of the Apostle Paul, who, in his epistle to Titus, notes that a presbyter should be appointed only if he has ‘faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination’ (Titus 1:6, cf. also 1 Timothy 3:4); and one who attends theaters and similar places may easily fall under suspicion of an inclination to licentiousness, and it can no longer be said of such a one that he is distinguished by Christian modesty. And if the canons in general recommend to all the faithful that they should not go to those places where blasphemy occurs (Trullo 51), then this ought all the more to be forbidden to the children of those persons whose foremost duty is to be preachers of piety and Christian modesty.

Canon 16

That no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, may take anything on lease—and concerning readers marrying—and that clerics must abstain from usury, and from what income clerics may be ordained, or virgins—and that readers must not bow before the people.[33]

It is likewise established that neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor deacons may be lessees or agents in worldly affairs, nor earn their living by any shameful or dishonorable occupation; for they must keep before their eyes what is written: no one serving as a soldier of God entangles himself in the affairs of this world (2 Timothy 2:4).

Readers, upon reaching mature age, should be urged either to marry or to take a vow of continence.

It is likewise established that a cleric who lends money on interest should receive back only as much money, and if he lent goods, should receive back only as much as he lent.

No one should be ordained deacon before twenty-five years of age.

Let readers not bow before the people.

Ancyra 10; Laodicea 4; Carthage 5, 25, 126; Protodeutera 11; Basil the Great 14, 69; Gregory of Nyssa 6.

— 1) (Book of Rules 19, Pedalion 18). For the first ordinance of this canon, that persons in holy orders may not engage in worldly business, see the commentary on canon 3 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and other parallel canons. This canon further adds that no person in holy orders may earn his living by any shameful or dishonorable occupation (αἰσχροῦ ἢ ἀτίμου πράγματος, turpi vel vili negotio); among such occupations Zonaras mentions keeping a tavern (τὸ προΐστασθαι καπηλείου).[34]

2) (Book of Rules 20, Pedalion 19). By the 26th Apostolic canon, readers are free to marry whenever they wish, and accordingly the ordinance of this canon—that readers, upon reaching maturity, must either marry or take a permanent vow of virginity—held only for the African church.[35]

3) (Book of Rules 21, Pedalion 20). For the third ordinance of this canon, that no person in holy orders may take interest on lent money, see the commentaries on the 44th Apostolic canon and canon 17 of the First Ecumenical Council.

4) (Book of Rules 22, Pedalion 21). Likewise see the commentary on canons 14 and 15, that no one may be ordained deacon before the age of 25.

5) (Book of Rules 23, Pedalion 22). Concerning the last ordinance of this canon, that readers must not bow (μὴ προσκυνῶσι) to the people, Zonaras says that readers, during the service, are obliged to bow only to bishops and priests, and not to the people present in the church, for they (the readers) have been consecrated, while the people, by their rank, stand far from the priesthood (οἱ ἀναγνῶσται γὰρ ἱερῶνται, οἱ δὲ τοῦ δήμου πόρρω τῆς ἱερωσύνης εἰσί)—so that honor must be shown to the readers themselves, especially during the service.[36]

Canon 17

That every diocese which is very distant must have its own presiding bishop. It is established that Mauretania Sitifensis, as it had requested (from the bishop presiding in the Numidian region, from which it had been separated by the council), shall henceforth have its own presiding bishop. With the agreement, then, of all the presiding bishops of the African dioceses and of all the other bishops, on account of its distance it is permitted to have its own first bishop.[37]

I Ecum. 6; Carthage 86, 96, 127.

— The former political division of Africa in the strict sense (a freto Gaditano ad Cirenaicam regionem) underwent change in the second half of the fourth century, and six separate provinces were formed: Africa proconsularis (with its capital at Carthage), Numidia, Byzacium, Tripolis, Mauritania Sitifensis, and Mauritania Caesariensis. In keeping with the political division of the land, the church provinces also had to be divided. This was done at some council, which this canon mentions, and in particular Mauretania Sitifensis was separated from Numidia, with which it had previously formed a single church province. The ordinance of that council was not readily accepted by the primate of Numidia, and for this reason the matter was raised at the council of Hippo of the year 393, and by a special canon (this canon 17) it was established that all dispute should cease, and that henceforth Mauretania Sitifensis must have its own primate. This is indeed what afterward took place, for we find, at the council of Carthage of the year 407, among others, a representative also of Mauretania Sitifensis (canon 96 of Carthage), and likewise at the council of Carthage of the year 418 (canon 127).

Canon 18

When a cleric is being ordained, he must be reminded to keep the ordinances. And that the eucharist must not be given to the bodies of the dead, nor baptism. And that every year metropolitans from all the dioceses must come to a council.

It is likewise established that, when a bishop or a cleric is being ordained, the fathers who ordain must remind them of the conciliar ordinances, so that they might not afterward have cause to repent, should they act contrary to the ordinances of the council.

It is likewise established that the eucharist must not be given to the bodies of the dead; for it is written: take, eat (Matthew 26:26), but the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat. Nor should the ignorance of priests cause those who have already died to be baptized.

And for this reason it must be confirmed at this holy council that, in accordance with the Nicene ordinances, a council must be convened every year, on account of ecclesiastical matters which are very often postponed to the harm of the people, to which all the bishops who hold the first sees in the dioceses must send, from their own councils, two bishops chosen as representatives, so that in the assembly thus gathered the full plenitude of authority might be shown.[38]

(Ap. 37; I Ecum. 5, 9, 13; IV Ecum. 9, 19; Trullo 8, 83; VII Ecum. 2, 6; Antioch 20; Carthage 76, 77, 95)

— 1) (Book of Rules 25, Pedalion 24). That a candidate for the episcopate must be well instructed, knowing Holy Scripture and canon law, and must attest this knowledge by examination, we saw in the commentary on canon 2 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council; and we saw the same regarding presbyters in the commentary on canon 9 of the First Ecumenical Council. This canon says the same of all who enter the clergy, that is, of all who are preparing to receive ordination (τοῖς χειροτονουμένοις), and it adds further that all must always remember well what they showed they knew at the relevant examination, and take care not later, in their priestly life, to act contrary to it and so have cause to repent—that is, as Zonaras says, so as not to fall under penalty.

2) (Book of Rules 26, Pedalion 25). In the first place, this second part of this (18th) canon says that the eucharist must not be given to the dead, appealing to the relevant words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew (26:26). In the text of the canon it is said: τῶν τελευτώντων (morientium), so that the exact translation would be that the eucharist must not be given to the bodies of those who are at the point of death, who are dying. But that the canon does not speak of such persons, but precisely of the bodies of the dead (θανόντων, mortuorum), is shown, as Zonaras rightly observes, by the words that complete the quotation from Scripture: ‘the bodies of the dead (τὰ τῶν νεκρῶν σώματα, mortuorum corpora) can neither take nor eat’; whereas everyone still alive, even if there is no longer hope for his life, even if he will give up his spirit within the hour, must be deemed worthy of holy communion (I Ecum. 18). This custom of placing the holy communion in the mouths of dead persons arose from the pious feeling of providing the body of the deceased with the holy gift, so that the body might thereby become holy. That this custom had taken deep root everywhere is shown by the fact that in the seventh century the council in Trullo had to repeat this ordinance of the fathers of Carthage (or rather of Hippo) (canon 83).[39][40]

Further, this second part of this (18th) canon ordains that a dead person must not even be baptized. This custom too was introduced out of a pious feeling and belief that baptism regenerates the human body. This custom passed to Christians from the Montanists, who also baptized the dead,[41] and the same custom was widespread, apart from the African church, in other regions as well.[42]

3) (Book of Rules 27, Pedalion 26). The third part of this canon ordains that councils must be held every year, in which all the bishops who hold the first sees in the dioceses must take part (πάντες οἱ τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τὰς πρώτας καθέδρας ἐπέχοντες), that is, the metropolitans; or, if the metropolitans themselves cannot, for some justified reason, come to the council in person, the canon ordains that two bishops chosen from each diocese (metropolitan province) must be sent as representatives (τοποτηρηταί) of their dioceses, so that in such a general council the full plenitude of ecclesiastical authority might be shown. As can be seen, this does not concern the ordinary diocesan episcopal councils (Ap. 37; IV Ecum. 19, and others), but the councils of the larger church provinces, or the diocesan councils (ἡ σύνοδος τῆς διοικήσεως, IV Ecum. 9); and the fathers of Carthage (or Hippo) could issue an ordinance about such a council for their own province, because proconsular Africa had an independent administration and was composed of those six provinces mentioned in canon 17 of this council, with its capital at Carthage, whose metropolitan was Primas universae Africae. — As for the rest, this ordinance concerning the holding of a general council every year was later altered by canon 95 of this council, which ordained that such a council be convened only in case of urgent necessity, and that otherwise the regular diocesan councils be held.

Canon 19

That, when a bishop is accused, the matter must be brought before the bishop presiding in the diocese. Aurelius the bishop said: If any bishop is accused, the accuser must bring the matter before the bishops presiding in the region of the accused; the accused, meanwhile, is not to be deprived of communion, except in the case that, having been summoned by letter to answer before those chosen to judge him, he does not appear on the appointed day, that is, within a month from the day on which it is known he received the letter—unless he shows true and weighty causes that hindered him from making his answer to what has been brought against him, in which case he is to have another month’s right to defend himself; but when this second month too has passed, let him no longer have communion, until he has fully cleared himself. And if he does not seek even to appear before the general annual council, so that his case might at least be settled there, in such a case he shall be regarded as having pronounced sentence against himself. And for the whole time that he remains outside communion, let him have that communion neither in his own church nor in any parish church. As for his accuser, if he has not withdrawn anywhere during the time the matter was being examined, he is by no means to be deprived of communion; but if he withdraws somewhere and hides himself, the bishop is to be restored to communion, and the accuser himself is to be excluded from communion—yet in such a way that his right to press the accusation is not taken from him, if only he can show that on the appointed day he failed to appear not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable. It goes without saying, moreover, that while the inquiry before the bishops’ court continues, if it becomes known that the accuser’s own person is under accusation, his accusation shall not be received from him, unless he demands that the inquiry concern his own personal matter and not the ecclesiastical case.[43]

(Ap. 34, 37, 74; II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9, 17, 19, 21; Trullo 8; Antioch 14, 15, 20; Laodicea 40; Sardica 4; Carthage 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 59, 104, 107, 128, 129, 130, 132; Protodeutera 13; Theophilus of Alexandria 9)

— This canon, by its content, is divided into three parts, and mainly sets forth the judicial procedure when some bishop is accused—a procedure similar to the one we saw in the commentary on the 74th Apostolic canon.

An accuser who wishes to accuse a bishop must submit his accusation to the competent court of that bishop, namely to the metropolitan of the diocese to which that bishop belongs. On account of being accused, the bishop concerned does not yet lose his episcopal rights, but continues to enjoy all those rights until a final decision is pronounced, except in the case that, having been summoned to court, he did not appear within a month, counting from the day the written summons was delivered to him, for then he already becomes subject to the corresponding penalty for disobedience to the court. If, meanwhile, it is shown that he did not appear at court and did not justify this, having been hindered by weighty and justified, not invented, reasons, then he is given another month’s time in which he may defend himself before the court; but if this second month too passes and he still has not appeared, in such a case the canon ordains that he be deprived of communion (μὴ κοινωνήσῃ, non communicabit) until it is proved that he is entirely innocent and that the accusation was groundless.

This court of the diocesan council still does not pronounce its sentence against the accused bishop, despite all this, because that bishop refuses to appear before the court, but waits to see whether that same bishop will perhaps turn to the great general council (σύμπασαν σύνοδον, synodo universali) with a request to be vindicated there. If the bishop does not do even this, then, says the canon, he has condemned himself, and, while he remains outside communion (ἐν τῷ καιρῷ, ᾧ οὐ κοινωνεῖ), he may not perform the divine service either in his own church or in any other place, for instance in some parish subject to him.

As for the accuser, the canon ordains that he must remain in full ecclesiastical communion, provided he complies in everything with the summonses and orders of the judges. But if this accuser withdraws from the judges and hides himself so that he cannot be found, and the judges may conclude on this basis that he wished, by his accusation, only to slander the bishop, in such a case the accused bishop, who had fallen under excommunication for not appearing before the court, is restored to communion, while the accuser himself is then excluded from communion and punished as a slanderer. If, however, it is shown that this accuser did not withdraw from the judges intentionally and did not appear on the appointed day at court because he was in fact hindered by a justified cause, in such a case he is not subject to any penalty, and he is free at another time to press his accusation against the bishop before the court. For the rest of what the canon says concerning the qualifications of the accuser, see canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and canon 21 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and the commentaries on those canons.

Canon 20

On presbyters and clerics who are accused. If any presbyters or deacons are accused, then, once the lawful number of bishops chosen from the neighboring places whom the accused desire has been gathered—that is, six for an accusation against a presbyter, and three against a deacon—the bishop concerned, under whose jurisdiction the accused fall, together with the others, shall examine the accusations against them, preserving the established order as to days and postponements, as to the examination, and as to the persons who accuse and who are accused; but accusations against other clerics the local bishop alone shall examine and decide.[44]

Ap. 14; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 4; Carthage 12, 15.

— Just as canon 19 gives an ordinance concerning bishops when they are accused, so this (20th) canon gives the same ordinance concerning presbyters, deacons, and the other clergy. To understand this canon’s ordinance, that a presbyter is judged by 6 bishops and a deacon by 3, one should see what is said in the commentary on canons 12 and 14 of this council.

Canon 21

That the children of clerics must not enter into marriage with heretics. It is likewise established that the children of clerics must not enter into marriage with pagans or heretics.[45]

— If it is forbidden even to every layman to enter into marriage with persons of another faith, this had to be forbidden all the more to the children of clergy, and this canon issues the corresponding ordinance on the matter. For the rest, see the commentary on canon 7 of the council in Trullo.[46]

Canon 22

That bishops and clerics may not transfer anything into the ownership of non-Orthodox Christians, even if these are their relatives. Bishops, or clerics, as has been said, may not transfer any possession of their own into the ownership of such persons.[47]

Ap. 38, 40; IV Ecum. 22; Trullo 35; Antioch 24; Carthage 81.

— For the ordinance of this canon, see the commentary on canon 81 of this council.

Canon 23

That bishops must not go overseas. Likewise let bishops not go overseas except with the permission of the first-see bishop of their diocese, that is, until they first obtain from the presiding bishop a confirmatory letter, called the letter of leave, or approval.[48]

Ap. 38; IV Ecum. 13; Antioch 11; Carthage 28, 89, 105.

— Given Africa’s position, the canon’s words ‘overseas’ (πέραν θαλάσσης, trans mare) denote Italy, and Rome in particular. Bishops from Africa readily went there, either when they needed to present themselves at the emperor’s court, or to bring some complaint of theirs against the decisions of African councils before the bishop of Rome, who gladly heard such complaints, as is shown among other things by the very occasion for which this council of Carthage (419) was convened. This canon does not forbid African bishops in general from going to Rome when they genuinely need to, but it ordains that they may do so only with the permission (μετὰ ψηφίσματος) of the competent metropolitan, or, as the canon puts it, τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας τοῦ ἰδίου ἑκάστης χώρας ἐπισκόπου. The metropolitan, once the bishop concerned informs him of his intention, will examine the reason for which that bishop wishes to go overseas, and, if he finds the stated reason justified, will issue him a written permission for the journey, or a letter of leave (ἀπολυτικὴν ἐπιστολήν). This letter is also called in the canon a confirmatory letter (τετυπωμένη, formata), because it bore the metropolitan’s seal and signature; it is also called an approval (παράθεσις, commendatio), because it presents that bishop to those to whom he is going, and confirms and approves everything concerning that bishop. The canon further states that the bishop concerned must obtain this letter of leave principally (κατ᾽ ἐξαίρετον, praecipue) from the metropolitan; and this is said because, by canon 11 of the council of Antioch, a bishop who wished to leave his diocese had to have written permission from all the diocesan bishops, as well as from the metropolitan, and accordingly the sense of this canon is that a bishop would have to have written permission from all the diocesan bishops, but principally (κατ᾽ ἐξαίρετον) from the metropolitan.[49][50]

Canon 24

That, apart from the canonical books, nothing else is to be read in church. It is likewise established that, apart from the canonical books, nothing is to be read in church under the name of the divine books. And the canonical books are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kingdoms, the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalter, the five[51] books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra; of the New Testament: the four Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen epistles of Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, three of the Apostle John, one of the Apostle James, one of the Apostle Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let our brother and fellow-minister Boniface, and the other bishops in those regions, be informed of this, so that the canon here set forth may remain firm, for we have received from the fathers that these are the books to be read in the church.[52][53][54]

Ap. 60, 85; Laodicea 60; Athanasius the Great, On the Festal Letters; Gregory the Theologian, On the Books of Holy Scripture; Amphilochius, On the Same Books.

— This is canon 36 of the council of Hippo of the year 393, and as it was set forth at that council—that is, which books of Holy Scripture it lists as canonical—this canon of Hippo corresponds entirely to the canon of the sacred books of the Latin church, later adopted at the council of Trent. In the canon of this council of Carthage (419), as in our text, that is, in the text of the Athenian Syntagma, the books of the Maccabees are not mentioned, as they are in the canon of the council of Hippo, but instead the following books are mentioned: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Tobit (Thobias), and Judith—thus four books which the Orthodox church does not count among the canonical books of the Old Testament. Such a list, or canon, of Old Testament sacred books was a peculiarity of the Carthaginian church, and when this canon of Carthage calls all these books canonical (κανονικαὶ γραφαί, canonicae scripturae), this must be understood in the broadest sense of the word, namely that these are books which the canon (rule) permits to be read in church, as good and instructive books. In the Slavonic Kormchaia this is expressed quite exactly in the translation of this Carthaginian canon, where the said books are called: ‘books named in the rules, books named by the rules.’ And in the commentary on the 85th Apostolic canon we saw that both the strictly canonical and the non-canonical books of Holy Scripture were held to be revered and holy (σεβάσμια καὶ ἅγια), and hence useful for reading by pious people, provided only that they were permitted for use. For the rest, see the commentary on canon 2, or the epistle of Athanasius the Great on the festal letters, and the canon of Amphilochius in this edition.[55][56]

Canon 25

With regard to bishops and the ranks following after them who perform the holy mysteries, it is established that they must abstain from their wives.

Bishop Aurelius said: Since the matter concerns abstinence from wives on the part of certain of the clergy, apart from readers, I remind your reverences, brethren, of what has been established at various councils, namely, that subdeacons who touch the holy mysteries, likewise deacons, and presbyters, and after them bishops, must abstain, at the times appointed for them, from their wives, as though they had them not; and if they do not do so, let them be deposed from ecclesiastical office. As for the remaining clergy, however, let them not be compelled to this, except when they are advanced in years. The whole council said: We confirm what your holiness has prudently set forth, for it is holy and pleasing to God.

(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, 35, 70; Basil the Great 12, 27, 88; Timothy of Alex. 5, 13)

— This canon directs that subdeacons, too, must abstain from their wives when they approach the holy mysteries. See the commentaries on canon 4 of this council and on canons 12 and 13 of the Council of Trullo.

Canon 26

That no one may squander the goods of the Church.

It is likewise established that no one may sell the property of the Church. But if that property yields no income, and some great necessity should appear, this must be reported to the metropolitan bishop of the district, and, together with the established number of bishops, it shall be decided what must be done. But if so urgent a necessity for the Church should appear that it is impossible to take counsel before the sale, the bishop concerned shall at least call the neighboring bishops as witnesses, and afterward shall take care to report to the council all the circumstances that occurred in his church; should he fail to do this, the seller shall be held guilty both before God and before the council, and shall lose his rank.[57]

(Ap. 38, 39, 40, 41, 73; IV Ecum. 24, 26; Trullo 35; Carthage 33; Cyril of Alexandria 2; Theophilus of Alexandria 10).

That the goods of the Church must always remain the property of the Church and be preserved untouched (ἀχινήτους καὶ ἀνεκποίητα, salvas et incolumes), is spoken of by many canons, among others canon 12 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, whose commentary should be compared here. In this Carthaginian canon it is categorically stated: let no one sell the property of the Church (πρᾶγμα ἐκκλησιαστικὸν μηδείς πιπράσκῃ, rem ecclesiasticam nemo vendat). Should some great need appear (πολλὴ τις ἀνάγκη) in the church, and there be some church property yielding no income, and by selling it that need could be met, the canon permits departure from the general rule and permits the sale, and for such a case prescribes how one must proceed. It ordains that the bishop in charge report the whole matter to the metropolitan, who, in agreement with the bishops subject to him, will decide what is to be done. But if the matter is very urgent, so that the bishop has no time to inform the metropolitan of everything and take counsel with the bishops concerned, that bishop must at least call his neighboring bishops as witnesses that the need is truly urgent and that the property yields no income and must therefore be sold to meet it—and only then may he carry out the sale. But even in such a case that bishop is obliged, as soon as the diocesan council convenes, to lay the whole matter before the council and justify it there. Should he not do so, he is guilty before God (Ap. 38), and the council will deprive him of the honor he enjoyed, that is, strip him of the episcopate.

Canon 27

Presbyters and deacons who are found guilty of a grave sin may not be honored even with the laying on of hands as is done for laymen.

It is likewise confirmed that when certain presbyters or deacons are found guilty of some grave sin which irrevocably deprives them of sacred ministry, hands are not to be laid upon them either as upon penitents or as upon the faithful laity; nor are they to be permitted, as though newly baptized, to be advanced to any degree of the clergy.[58]

Certain presbyters and deacons, having been deposed from their rank for some transgression and reduced to the rank of laymen, sought to re-enter the clergy and take some place of service in the church outside the sanctuary (ἔξω τοῦ βήματος—that is, as readers or the like), a position obtained by cheirothesia. They argued that, having repented and taken their place among the faithful laity, they could, like the laity, receive some office in the church. This canon rejects such reasoning and ordains that the bishop may not lay hands (ἐπιτεθῆναι αὐτοῖς χεῖρας) on such deposed persons for advancement to any degree of the clergy, even though they have repented and been received into the church as laymen, but that they must remain forever outside the clergy, from which they were excluded on account of their transgressions. From this ordinance follows the important canonical rule that whoever has once been lawfully deposed from his hierarchical degree can never again perform any clerical ministry—he cannot, as Balsamon says, “read from the ambo, nor read any prayers for anyone, nor give a blessing.”

The Greek commentators understand the closing clause of this canon to mean that deposed clerics cannot be received into the clergy even upon a second repentance, since baptism is received only once. Taking into account what the canon says—ὥστε [μὴ] βαπτιζομένους (ut non rebaptizati)—it seems more correct to understand here not those who actually wished to be baptized a second time (that is, not baptism in the strict sense), but rather those who had cleansed themselves of sin through repentance, likened to baptism, and who thus claimed to be now clean of sin and, as it were, newly baptized, and that as such they might be received into the clergy.

Canon 28

Presbyters, deacons, and other clerics who transfer some case of theirs to a court beyond the sea shall by no means be received back into communion.

It is likewise established that when presbyters, deacons, and other lower clerics have, in their own affairs, to make complaint against the judgment of their bishops, they shall, with the consent of the bishop concerned, be heard by the neighboring bishops, and these, once agreed, shall settle the matter. But if it is found that they appeal again from these bishops to a higher court, let them not turn to courts beyond the sea, but rather to the primates of their own provinces, as has already been established several times also for bishops who wish to appeal to higher courts. And whoever, notwithstanding this, appeals to courts across the sea shall be received into communion by no one in Africa.[59]

(II Ecum. 6; IV Ecum. 9; Antioch 4; Carthage 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 23, 105, 125)

That for every presbyter, deacon, and the other lower clergy the court of the bishop in whose jurisdiction they reside is competent in all matters has been stated countless times in the canons, just as many canons also state that these same persons may appeal to the diocesan council if they consider themselves unjustly judged. In the canons of this council mention is made several times of another court, in place of the ordinary diocesan council, as a court of second instance made up of several neighboring bishops, whenever, on account of some hindrance, the ordinary diocesan council cannot be convened (canons 11, 12, 14, 20, 125). Among these, canons 12, 14, and 20 fix the number of neighboring bishops who make up such a court—six or five for a presbyter, three together with the bishop concerned for a deacon; canons 11, 125, and this one (28) name no fixed number, but only say that several neighbors should be called, at the wish of those bringing the complaint, and always with the consent of the bishop in charge (μετὰ συναινέσεως τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου; κατὰ συναινέσιν τῶν ἰδίων αὐτῶν ἐπισκόπων, canon 125). The decision of such a court ought, as this canon states, finally to settle the matter. But if the parties are still not satisfied even with the decision of these judges and wish to seek further justice, they must turn to the competent metropolitan, who will, at the regular diocesan council together with his bishops, pronounce a final judgment. By this the canon confirms the general norm of the Church, that every judicial matter must be examined and resolved within the bounds of the province concerned and by the authority of its first hierarchs. Turning then to the fact that some presbyters and other clerics of the African church disregarded the judgment of their own church and appealed across the sea (πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης), that is, to Rome, seeking by petitions to have the decision of the African ecclesiastical authority reopened (as happened with the presbyter Apiarius, on whose account this council convened in 419), the canon notes how strictly forbidden it is even for bishops to appeal to Rome for judgment, and how much more strictly, therefore, it must be forbidden to presbyters and other clerics. To this prohibition, and in general to the impropriety of the hierarchs of one local church intruding into the judicial affairs of another and passing judgment on its decisions, the fathers of this council gave solemn expression in their epistle to Pope Celestine, of which we have already spoken (I, 187), and which we reproduce further in full. And whoever transgresses this ordinance and seeks a new trial in Rome from the African church shall be excommunicated (ἔστωσαν ἀφωρισμένοι), and received by no one into ecclesiastical communion in Africa. And if Rome—Balsamon remarks—has no right to judge appeals from the African church, which is nearest to Rome geographically, then still less can it have such a right over other regions. They understood very well in Rome, moreover, the significance of this canonical ordinance, strictly in the spirit of both divine and canonical right of the Christian Church, and in their official canonical collection (Corpus Iuris Canonici) they cited this Carthaginian canon in their own way, adding to its text several words by which its meaning was completely altered. The words πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης δικαστήρια (transmarina judicia) were taken as referring to ordinary ecclesiastical courts in Italy, and not to the court of the Roman see; and to express this the following was added at the end of the canon: nisi forte Romanam sedem appellaverint.[60][61][62][63]

Canon 29

He who is outside communion, and presumes to enter into communion before he has been justified, pronounces sentence against himself.

Likewise the whole council decrees that whoever, on account of his own negligence in service, has been deprived of communion—whether he be a bishop or any other cleric—and presumes, while still outside communion and before he has been justified, to enter into communion, let such a one be considered to have pronounced sentence against himself.[64][65]

— See the commentary on canon 4 of the Council of Antioch and canon 14 of the Council of Sardica.

Canon 30

Concerning the accuser and the accused.

It is likewise established that the accused, as well as the accuser, if he fears some violence from the populace in the place where the person accused resides, may choose for himself some nearby place where he will have no difficulty bringing witnesses before the court where the matter is to be settled.

One priest accuses another, and either the one or the other fears violence from the populace in the place where the trial would ordinarily be held; for such a case the canon permits another nearby place to be chosen, where the court could work freely and pronounce its decision without outside influence.

In the Breviatio canonum of Fulgentius Ferrandus, where this canon is cited under no. 198, only the accusator is mentioned, not the accused, so that it would seem only the accuser is given the right to choose another place for the trial. This might in fact better correspond to the intent of the Carthaginian fathers, for from the text of the canon it appears that the accuser is chiefly kept in view, and that the aim is chiefly to make it easier for him to prove his accusation.

Canon 31

If any clerics, having been appointed by their bishops to higher positions, refuse to accept them, they shall not remain even in those which they were unwilling to leave.

It is likewise established that if any clerics or deacons refuse to obey their bishops, who wish, for the important needs of their churches, to advance them to higher rank, such persons shall no longer have the right to serve even in the degree which they were unwilling to leave.

Of the canonical obedience owed by all sacred persons, from the presbyter downward, to their bishop, we have already seen in several canons. Zonaras adduces as the basis of this obedience a passage of Holy Scripture commanding that one obey one’s teachers and submit to them (Heb. 13:17).[66] This canon concerns all who belong to the clergy and are subject to the bishop in charge; deacons are mentioned here not in the sense of the hierarchical degree and ministry at the altar (ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ βήματι), but in the general sense of ministers of the church, that is, those who perform some appointed service (διακονίαν τινὰ ἤγουν ὑπηρεσίαν), as appears from the word διακονεῖν (to serve) used in the text.[67] The canon ordains that such ministers of the church must obey their bishop when he wishes, for the important needs of his church, to advance them, that is, to raise them from one degree of service to a higher one. Should some church ministers oppose this and refuse to obey—perhaps because it is convenient for them to serve in the degree in which they find themselves, having good income from it, or because they do not wish to take on greater labor—in such a case the canon ordains that they be deprived even of the service they performed in the degree (ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ βαθμῷ) which they were unwilling to leave. The canon speaks of church ministers being punished thus when they refuse to obey their bishop wishing to advance them for the important needs of their churches (διά τινας ἀναγκαστικὰς αἰτίας τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν αὐτῶν). But what if there is no such important need? Even then the bishop, on the basis of the established ecclesiastical order (κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν τάξιν, secundum ordinem ecclesiasticum), has full right to advance his clerics to higher degrees even against their will.[68]

Canon 32

If any among the poorer clergy, after being advanced to some rank, acquires something, it falls under the authority of the bishop.

It is likewise established that bishops, presbyters, deacons, and all clerics in general who possess nothing, but who, after being advanced—whether during their episcopate or their clericate—purchase in their own name either lands or any property whatsoever, shall be considered to have appropriated to themselves goods that belong to the Lord, except in the case that they heed the admonition and cede everything to the church. But if something comes into their possession, whether through someone’s donation or by inheritance from relatives, let them dispose of it as seems best to them. But if they once promise this to the church and afterward withdraw the promise, let them be considered unworthy of ecclesiastical honor, as worthless persons.

It was already ordained by Apostolic canon 40 that it must be clearly determined for bishops what constitutes their private property and what is church property, and that they may dispose of their private property as seems best to them, but must guard the church’s property, always mindful that God oversees them (Ap. 40, 38; compare Antioch 24). But even within a bishop’s private property, a distinction was made between what he acquired in the course of his episcopal service and what he acquired independently of it. Of the latter—property acquired by inheritance or other lawful private means—the bishop could dispose according to his own judgment; but what he acquired from the income of his church service he could not dispose of at will, but had to hand over to the church, whether in his lifetime or after his death. What had been ordained for bishops in this respect was, by this Carthaginian canon, extended to all clergy in the service of the church. In the early days of the Church, sacred persons performed the services entrusted to them without claiming a reward for each. Even as late as the sixth century, any sacred person who sought money or anything else for performing the holy mysteries was punished with deposition (Trullo 23). The clergy received their sustenance from the general revenues of the church—from the voluntary offerings of the faithful and from church properties—and it was the bishop, together with his assistants, who took care of this, distributing to each what was needed (Ap. 4). Given this state of affairs, the clergy could not have so much money as to purchase lands or other property for themselves, still less if a bishop or other sacred person entered the clergy possessing nothing of his own, as this canon states. But if someone from the clergy is found who was poor and grew rich while serving in the clergy, whether as bishop or otherwise, and purchased some immovable property in his own name, then a suspicion arose that he had done this with church money, and he must, the canon says, be considered to have appropriated to himself what belongs to the Lord (δεσποτικὰ πράγματα, res dominicae), remaining liable to punishment until he heeds the admonition of the competent authority and cedes to the church everything he had purchased. The canon mentions only immovable goods, but movable property must be understood as well, says Balsamon, for as regards purchase there is no difference between movable and immovable property. What the Carthaginian fathers say here has great significance for sacred persons who, in their ministry, think of almost nothing but acquiring more land, building more houses, and growing ever richer. Of such persons blessed Jerome says that one ought to shun them as the plague.[69][70]

As for the private property that members of the clergy receive by inheritance or gift, the canon in the main renews the ordinance of Apostolic canon 40. But if some of them promise a portion, or the whole, of this private property to the church and afterward repent and withdraw the promise, let them be deprived of ecclesiastical honor (τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς τιμῆς), that is, excluded from the clergy, as worthless persons (ὡς ἀχρεῖος).

Canon 33

That presbyters are not to sell the goods of the church for which they were ordained, and that no bishop is to dispose, at his own will, of property that has been entered into the church’s inventory.

Likewise it is decreed that presbyters may not, without the consent of their bishops, sell the goods of the church for which they were ordained, in the same way that bishops too are not permitted to sell church property without the knowledge of the council or of their presbyters. Accordingly, apart from urgent necessity, not even a bishop shall be able to dispose, at his own will, of property that has been entered into the church’s inventory.[71]

(Ap. 38, 39, 40; IV Ecum. 25, 26; Trullo 35; VII Ecum. 11, 12; Ancyra 15; Gangra 7, 8; Antioch 24, 25; Carthage 26; Protodeutera 7; Theophilus of Alexandria 10; Cyril of Alexandria 2)

— See the commentary on Apostolic canons 38 and 30, and canon 26 of this council.

Canon 34

That nothing is to be amended in what was established at the Council of Hippo.

Bishop Epigonius said: In this brief summary, drawn up from what was established at the Council of Hippo, we judge that nothing needs to be corrected or added, except only this: that the day of holy Pascha should be announced during the council.[72]

(Ap. 7, 64, 70, 71; II Ecum. 7; Trullo 11; Laodicea 7, 37, 38; Carthage 51, 73, 106)

According to the ordinance of the First Ecumenical Council, the bishop of Alexandria was to notify all the churches every year, at the appointed time, of the day on which the feast of the Resurrection of Christ was to be celebrated that year. For the African church it had been established in 393, at the Council of Hippo, that all the provincial churches must take care to receive every year from the church of Carthage a notice of the day of Pascha. This was confirmed at the Council of Carthage of 397, and again at this council (419). The general council of the African church was regularly held at Carthage in the latter half of August (canon 73), so there was ample time beforehand to know when Pascha would fall the following year.[73]

Canon 35

Concerning bishops and clerics not hastily releasing their children from beneath their authority.

Bishops and clerics shall not release their children from beneath their authority, nor allow them to become independent, until they have full confidence in their conduct and their years; for afterward their sins will fall upon themselves.[74]

(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, 15; Carthage 3, 4, 25, 70; Basil the Great 12, 27, 88; Timothy of Alex. 5, 13)

This is an important canon, showing how unfounded is the claim of the Latin church that the Council of Carthage, by its canons 3, 4, 25, and 70, established the celibacy of the clergy. If the Council of Carthage had established celibacy, the question arises: whence do bishops and other members of the clergy have children?

The release of children from beneath parental authority (emancipatio), so that they might become independent (sui iuris), belonged to the sphere of civil law and was carried out before the competent court by a legal instrument. This emancipation could take place once a son had reached a greater or lesser degree of maturity, but it often happened, as it does today, that the one emancipated did not know how to make prudent use of his independent position, so that emancipation was often to his harm. This provision of civil law the Carthaginian fathers bring to the attention of bishops and other clergy, recommending that they not emancipate their children until they have full confidence that the children will know how to conduct themselves as befits their position. The responsibility this canon places on parents for the sins of their children must be referred to the judgment of God and to spiritual concern, for, as Balsamon says, parents cannot be blamed or punished for the sins of their children, whether those children are under paternal authority or outside it, since, according to the words of the law, sins follow the person (τὰ ἁμαρτήματα τῇ κεφαλῇ ἕπονται, peccata caput sequuntur). This canon is important also in showing that the concern of church authority extends not only to sacred persons but to their children, and likewise to their whole household (compare Carthage 36 and others).[75]

Canon 36

Concerning the fact that bishops and other clerics should not be ordained until all their household has been brought to Christianity.

Bishops, presbyters, and deacons ought not be ordained until all their household has been converted to the Orthodox Christian faith.

(Ap. 58, 80; Trullo 19; Sardica 11; Carthage 121, 123.)

The meaning of this canon is clear in itself. If a sacred person must be a teacher of the faith above all, and must take care not only to confirm everyone in the Orthodox faith but also to spread it wherever he can, what confidence can there be that this holy duty will be fulfilled by one who wishes to enter sacred orders while a member of his own household professes a non-Orthodox faith, and he is unable to convert that person? For this reason the canon forbids receiving into orders anyone who has among his relatives someone who does not profess the Orthodox faith.[76]

Canon 37

Concerning the fact that nothing is to be offered at the altar except bread and wine mixed with water.

At the altar nothing shall be offered save the body and blood of the Lord, as the Lord himself handed it down, that is, only bread and wine mixed with water. Grapes, however, or honey, or milk, may be offered according to custom on one appointed day, as a mystical sign of the newly baptized [infants]; and although this too is offered at the altar, it must receive a special blessing, so that it be distinguished from the mystery of the body and blood of the Lord. Nothing else, however, may be offered as first-fruits, save of grapes and wheat.[77]

(Ap. 3, 4; Trullo 28, 32, 57, 99).

Of the ordinance of this canon we have spoken in the main in the commentary on Apostolic canon 3; and the ordinance that in the holy mystery of the Eucharist nothing else may be offered than bread and wine mixed with water was renewed at the Council of Trullo.

The canon mentions honey and milk, offered by custom at the altar (ἐν θυσιαστηρίῳ προσφέρεται) on one appointed day, as a mystical sign of the newly baptized (εἰς τὸ τῶν νηπίων μυστήριον). To understand this, one must recall the ancient custom in the Church of giving milk and honey to those newly baptized, as newborn children reborn in Christ. This custom rested, among other things, on the words of Scripture: “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Peter 2:2). Tertullian and Jerome bear witness to the same custom. This milk and honey were brought to the church on the day of the Resurrection of Christ, when the baptism of catechumens was chiefly performed, and placed on the altar together with the holy mystery of the body and blood of Christ, consecrated together with the bread and wine, and afterward given to the newly baptized in place of holy communion. This custom the Carthaginian fathers abolish by this canon, permitting honey and milk to be offered at the altar only if not mixed with the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, but blessed separately. The Council of Trullo, by its canon 57, forever forbade the offering of honey and milk at the altar.[78]

Canon 38

That clerics or ascetics may not go to visit young women or widows.[79]

Clerics, or ascetics, shall not go to widows or young women, except with the permission and consent of their bishop, or of the presbyter; but let them not even then go alone, but together with their fellow clerics, or with those with whom the bishop or presbyters themselves have access to such women, or else when other clerics or reputable Christians are present.[80]

(IV Ecum. 3, 16; Trullo 4, 46, 47; VII Ecum. 18, 20, 29).

By clerics (κληρικοί) mentioned in this canon one must understand, according to the rest of the text, persons from the rank of deacon downward who are unmarried; and by ascetics (ἐγκρατευόμενοι) are meant monks (Basil the Great 19). To these the canon forbids going alone to visit widows or young women. By young women (παρθένους), says Zonaras, one must understand consecrated virgins (καθιερωμένας), of whom we have spoken in the commentaries on canon 16 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and canon 4 of Trullo.[81] The widows mentioned by this canon were those women who stood under the special oversight of the church and for whose maintenance the church took care (IV Ecum. 3), and who also performed certain appointed services in the church.[82] To forestall every suspicion and occasion of scandal (1 Cor. 10:32), the canon ordains that, in case of need, clerics and ascetics may go to these women only with the permission and consent (κατ᾽ ἐπιτροπὴν καὶ συναίνεσιν) of the bishop in charge, or, if he is absent, with the consent of the presbyters (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων) who assist him and form his council. And even having received permission, such clerics and ascetics may go to these women not alone, but in the company of other clerics, or of those persons with whom the bishop and presbyters themselves go to the same women, and may be with them not alone, but again in the presence of other clerics or reputable Christians.[83]

Canon 39

Concerning the rule that the first bishop is not to be called exarch of the priests.

The bishop of the first see is not to be called exarch of the priests, or high priest, or anything of the kind, but only bishop of the first see.[84]

Ap. 34; IV Ecum. 9; Sardica 6.

In the African Church, as we saw in the commentary on canon 17 of this council, there were several primary sees (or metropolitan churches). The bishops of these primary sees were called in Africa by various great titles.[85] On account of these titles, disputes often arose among the said bishops, especially because, after the bishop of Carthage—who was called primas totius Africae—it was held that the first bishop, the primate, was whoever was senior by ordination. To put a stop to this, and also to remove every occasion for vanity and pride,[86] this canon forbids the bishop of the first see to be called ἔξαρχος τῶν ἱερέων (sacerdotum princeps, “chief of the priests”), or ἄκρος ἱερεύς (summus sacerdos, “high priest”), but only ἐπίσκοπος τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας (primae sedis episcopus, “bishop of the first see”), primate.[87]

Canon 40

Concerning the fact that clerics should not frequent taverns, except when on a journey.

Clerics shall not enter taverns for eating or drinking, except when on a journey and compelled by necessity to stop there.[88]

See the commentary on Apostolic canon 54.

Canon 41

Concerning the fact that sacrifices are offered to God by persons who are fasting.

The holy service of the altar is not to be performed except by persons who are fasting, with the exception of one day only in the year, and that is when the Lord’s Supper is commemorated. But if a commemoration must be held for certain bishops or others who have died in the evening hour, and those who are to perform it happen already to have dined, then let the commemoration on that occasion be performed with prayers only.[89]

(Ap. 69; Trullo 29; Laodicea 50; Antioch 1; Carthage 47; Timothy Alex. 16).

— That Jesus Christ instituted the mystery of the Eucharist after supper, that is, after eating (after supper, μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι), and not before supper, is attested by Holy Scripture (Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25), and is attested also by many fathers and teachers of the Church.[90] But these same fathers and teachers of the Church likewise attest that the mystery of the Eucharist was, from the very beginning of the Church, celebrated only by persons who were fasting (ἀπὸ νηστικῶν ἀνθρώπων, a jejunis hominibus).[91] Meanwhile, it seems that in the African Church there were some who did not hold to this, and for that reason this canon was issued, so that the holy service of the altar may be performed only by persons who are fasting.

This canon is distinguished in that it permits the eucharistic mystery to be celebrated after a meal once in the year, namely when the institution of this mystery is commemorated, that is, on Great [Holy] Thursday. In all likelihood this stands in connection with the custom of the churches of Asia Minor, who broke their fast on the 14th day of the first month (Nisan), when the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper was kept, and for which they prepared a special supper, similar to the one Christ held with His disciples, after which they received communion (comm. on canon 1 of Antioch); and the words of Augustine, in his letter ad Januarium, can confirm what we are saying: ‘Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit, ut uno certo die per annum, quo ipsam coenam Dominus dedit, tanquam ad insigniorem commemorationem post cibos offerri et accipi liceat corpus et sanguinem Domini…’[92]. This custom, it seems, continued to be observed in the Church down to the 7th century, so that the Council of Trullo had to expressly forbid this same custom by its canon 29.

Continuing the ordinance that the Eucharist must always (except on Great Thursday) be celebrated on a fasting stomach, this canon mentions the case when, after a meal, a commemoration (παράθεσις, commendatio) must be held for certain of the departed; and since it was customary on that occasion also to celebrate the liturgy[93], this canon directs that at such a commemoration the liturgy be celebrated if the person in question has not dined, but if he has dined, then let that commemoration be performed with prayers alone, without the liturgy.

Canon 42

Concerning the fact that no banquets are to be held in church.

Bishops or clerics shall not hold banquets in church, except should it happen that they are on a journey and must by necessity rest there. Likewise, the people too shall, as far as possible, be forbidden such banquets.[94]

(Ap. 73; Trullo 14, 76, 97; Gangra 11; Laodicea 27, 28).

This is canon 29 of the Council of Hippo of 393, issued at that council on the proposal of blessed Augustine, who wrote extensively against the evil custom that had crept into the Church whereby some, especially on feast days, arranged banquets (συμπόσια, convivia, properly epulae) in churches—banquets which, though arranged otherwise with pious intent and for the aid of the poorer brethren, for the most part ended in drunkenness and shameful behavior.[95] Something similar occurred with the agapes of which the Council of Laodicea speaks (canon 28); and just as that council forbade agapes in churches, so too this Council of Carthage, confirming the ordinance of Hippo, forbade these συμπόσια. And from the fact that this canon permits such banquets in church when those concerned are on a journey, one can see how deeply rooted was the opinion that one could eat and drink even in the house of God. A definitive prohibition of this, not only in church but even within its precincts, was issued by the Council of Trullo in its canon 76.

Canon 43

Concerning penitents.

For those who repent, according to the difference of their sins, the time of penance shall be determined by the judgment of the bishop; and a presbyter shall not receive a penitent without the bishop’s knowledge, except in pressing necessity when the bishop is absent; and upon every penitent, if his transgression was public and widely known so that it troubled the whole church, hands shall be laid before the apse of the church.

(Ap. 52; I Ecum. 11, 13; Trullo 102; Ancyra 6, 22; Neocaesarea 2; Carthage 6, 7; Basil the Great 73; Gregory of Nyssa 2, 5).

This canon mentions three things. First, that it is within the bishop’s authority to determine for penitents the time of penance according to the nature of the sin; of this canon 102 of Trullo also speaks. Second, that a presbyter may absolve a penitent only in pressing necessity and when the bishop is absent, to whom this right belongs (Carthage 7). Third, that great sinners whose transgressions were public and caused general scandal, having completed their appointed penance, are to be received back and given absolution publicly before the doors of the church, and only then, having publicly satisfied the justice of God, are they admitted into the church among the faithful.

Canon 44

Concerning virgins.

For consecrated virgins, when they are separated from the parents who had watched over them, let the bishop, or, in his absence, the presbyter, see to it that they are entrusted to virtuous women; or, if they live together, that one watch over another, so that by their wandering about in every quarter the good name of the church not be exposed to danger.[96][97][98]

IV Ecum. 16; Trullo 4; Carthage 6, 126; Basil the Great 18.

— See the commentary on canon 4 of the Trullan council.

Canon 45

Concerning the sick who cannot answer for themselves.

The sick, who cannot answer for themselves, may then be baptized, when, at their own wish, others give testimony on their behalf, but under their own responsibility.[99]

Concerning actors who repent and turn to God.

Actors, mimes, and similar persons, as well as apostates, when they repent and turn to God, are not to be deprived of grace and reconciliation.[100]

(Ap. 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 61, 75, 80; I Ecum. 2, 9, 11, 12; Trullo 24, 51, 95, 102; VII Ecum. 8; Laodicea 2, 3, 12, 17, 47, 75; Neocaesarea 12; Carthage 63; Protodeutera 17; Basil the Great 1, 5, 89; Cyril of Alex. 4, 5; Gregory of Nyssa 1, 4)

1. That the baptism of adults (for it is of such that this canon speaks) must be an act of personal conviction and sincere faith (VII Ecum. 8), and accordingly persons in so grave a sickness that they cannot answer for themselves cannot be baptized—this thought is decisively expressed by this canon. It permits such persons to be baptized only if others can be found whom the church can trust to testify that the sick person, while still conscious, wished to be baptized and communicated that wish to them; and in such a case the canon permits the sick person to be granted baptism, but again under the personal responsibility of those who testified to his wish—namely, that he will, should he recover, be a sincere son of the Orthodox church. For the rest concerning baptism of the sick, see the commentaries on canon 12 of Neocaesarea and canon 47 of Laodicea.

2. Actors (σκηνικοί) and mimes (μῖμοι) are equated in this canon with apostates from the Christian faith (τοῖς ἀποστάταις), understanding, of course, those actors and mimes who perform the things spoken of in the commentaries on canons 24 and 51 of Trullo. For all these sinners the canon ordains that, if they repent and turn to God—that is, if they complete the prescribed time of penance (I Ecum. 11)—they are not to be deprived of the grace of God and reconciliation with the church.

Canon 46

Concerning the sufferings of the martyrs.

It is permitted also henceforth to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when the days of their annual commemorations are celebrated.

(Ap. 60; Trullo 63; Carthage 103; Athanasius the Great, On the Feasts).

In the commentary on canon 24 of this council we said that it was composed from canon 36 of the Council of Hippo of 393. There the books of Holy Scripture that may “canonically” be read in church were listed, and in conclusion it was stated that, at appointed times, writings concerning the sufferings of martyrs might also be read in churches. From that concluding clause this canon (46) of Carthage was composed. Canon 24 ordains which books of Scripture may regularly be read in church, and that besides those books no others may be read. This canon (46) further permits that, on the days when the annual commemoration of a holy martyr’s death is kept, the accounts of their sufferings (τὰ ὑπομνήματα τῶν μαρτύρων, passiones martyrum) may be read in church.