Edited with Notes Gathered from the Writings of the Greatest Scholars
by Henry R. Percival, M.A., D.D.
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
The Synod of Antioch in Encæniis.a.d. 341.
The Synodal Letter.
The Canons, with the Ancient Epitome and Notes.
Historical Introduction.Of the Synod of Antioch which adopted the canons subsequently received into the code of the universal church we know the exact date. This is fixed by the fact that the synod was held at the time of the dedication of the great church in Antioch, known as the "Golden," which had been begun by his father, Constantine the Great, and was finished in the days of Constantius. The synod has for this reason always been known as the Synod of Antioch in Encæniis, i.e., at the dedication (in Dedicatione), and was holden in the summer of the year 341. Ninety-seven bishops assembled together and a large number of them were hostile to St. Athanasius, being professed Eusebians, all of them were Orientals and most of them belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch. Not a single Western or Latin bishop was present and the pope, Julius, was in no way represented. This fact gave Socrates the historian the opportunity of making the statement (around which such polemics have raged), that "an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches should not make decrees against the opinion of the bishop of Rome." 
|BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects|
Various attempts have been made to escape from these difficulties.
It has been suggested that there really were two Synods at Antioch, the one orthodox, which adopted the canons, the other heretical.
Father Emanuel Schelstraten, S. J.  improved on this theory. He supposed that the Eusebians stopped behind in Antioch after the orthodox bishops left and then passed the decrees against Athanasius, giving out that the synod was still in session. This has been adopted by Pagi, Remi Ceillier, Walch, and to a certain extent by Schröckh and others. But Tillemont demurs to this view, urging that according to Socrates  the deposition of Athanasius came first and the adoption of the canons afterwards. But Tillemont would seem to have misunderstood Socrates on this point and this objection falls to the ground. But another objection remains, viz., that both Socrates and Sozomen say that the creeds were drawn up after the deposition of Athanasius, "and yet" (as Hefele remarks, Vol. II., p. 63), "St. Hilary says that these creeds proceeded from a `Synod of Saints.'"
Schelstraten's hypothesis not being satisfactory, the learned Ballerini, in their appendix to the Opera S. Leonis M., have set forth another theory with which Mansi agrees in his "Notes on Alexander Natalis's Church History." These maintain that the canons did not come from the Council in Encæniis at all, but from another synod held before, in 332; but Hefele rejects this hypothesis altogether, on the following grounds. First and chiefest because it has no external evidence to support it; and secondly because the internal evidence is most unsatisfactory. But even if the 25 canons were adopted by a synod at Antioch in 332, the real difficulty would not be obviated, for Socrates says  of that synod that there too the "opposers of the Nicene faith" were able to elect their candidate to fill the place of the banished bishop Eustathius!
Hefele seems to give the true solution of the whole difficulty when he says: "Certainly Athanasius identified the Eusebians with the Arians and we regard them as at least Semi-arians; but at that time, after they had made the orthodox confession of faith, and repeatedly declared their disapproval of the heresies condemned at Nice, they were considered, by the greater number, as lawful bishops, and thoroughly orthodox and saintly men might without hesitation unite with them at a synod." 
Pope Julius styles the very Eusebian synod that deposed Athanasius "dear brethren" while blaming their action, and invited them to a common synod to enquire into the charges made against the Saint. In view of all this we may well believe that both orthodox and Eusebians met together at the consecration of the Emperor's new church, and that the whole church afterwards awarded the canons then adopted a rank in accordance with their intrinsic worth, and without any regard to the motives or shades of theological opinion that swayed those who drafted and voted for them.
The holy and most peaceful Synod which has been gathered together in Antioch from the provinces of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Isauria;  to our like-minded and holy fellow Ministers in every Province, health in the Lord.
The grace and truth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath regarded the holy Church of the Antiochians, and, by joining it together with unity of mind and concord and the Spirit of Peace, hath likewise bettered many other things; and in them all this betterment is wrought by the assistance of the holy and peace-giving Spirit. Wherefore, that which after much examination and investigation, was unanimously agreed upon by us bishops, who coming out of various Provinces have met together in Antioch, we have now brought to your knowledge; trusting in the grace of Christ and in the Holy Spirit of Peace, that ye also will agree with us and stand by us as far as in you lies, striving with us in prayers, and being even more united with us, following the Holy Spirit, uniting in our definitions, and decreeing the same things as we; ye, in the concord which proceedeth of the Holy Spirit, sealing and confirming what has been determined.
Now the Canons of the Church which have been settled are hereto appended.
The connexion between these canons of Antioch and the Apostolical Canons is so evident and so intimate that I shall note it, in each case, for the convenience of the student.
Zonaras and Balsamon both point out that from this first canon it is evident that the Council of Nice did take action upon the Paschal question, and in a form well known to the Church.
From this canon it appears that the fathers did not deem laymen deserving of excommunication who merely broke the decrees, but only those who "obstinately persist in opposing the decrees sanctioned and received by the Church; for by their refusal to obey they are attempting to overturn." And this being the case, why should such not be repelled or cast forth from the Church as rebels?
Finally this Canon proves that not only bishops and presbyters, but also deacons were reckoned among them who, "preside in the Church." An argument in favour of the opinion that the deacons of that time were entrusted with hierarchical functions.
It is curious that as a matter of fact the entire clergy and people of the West fell under the anathema of this canon in 1825, when they observed Easter on the same day as the Jews. This was owing to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and this misfortune while that calendar is followed it is almost impossible to prevent. 
Compare Apostolic Canons; Canon VII.
In the Eighth and Ninth canons of the Apostles it is set forth how those are to be punished who will not wait for the prayers, and the holy Communion: So, too, in the Tenth canon provision is made with respect to those who communicate with the excommunicated. In pursuance of this the present canon provides that they are to be cut off who come to church and do not wait for the prayer, and through disorder [? ataxian]  will not receive the holy Communion; for such are to be cast out until with confession they shew forth worthy penance.
In this canon the Fathers refer to such as go to church but will not tarry to the prayer nor receive holy Communion, held back by some perversity or license, that is to say without any just cause, but petulantly, and by reason of some disorder [ataxian]; these are forbidden to be expelled from the Church, that is to say cut off from the congregation of the faithful. But the Fathers call it a turning away from, not a hatred of the divine Communion, which holds them back from communion; a certain kind of flight from it, brought about perchance by reverence and lowliness of mind. Those who object to communicate by reason of hatred or disgust, such must be punished not with mere separation, but by an altogether absolute excommunication, and be cursed with anathema.
It need hardly be remarked that this canon has no reference to such of the faithful as tarry to the end of the service and yet do not partake of the holy sacrament, being held back by some good reason, recognized by the Church as such. It will be remembered that the highest grade of Penitents did this habitually, and that it was looked upon as a great privilege to be allowed to be present when the Divine Mysteries were performed, even though those assisting as spectators might not be partakers of them. What this canon condemns is leaving the Church before the service of the Holy Eucharist is done; this much is clear, the difficulty is to understand just why these particular people, against whom the canon is directed, did so.
This canon should be compared with the Apostolic canons viii., ix., x., xi. xii. and xiii.
Compare with Canons of the Apostles xv. and xvi.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa VII., Quæst. I., Can. xxiv. 
This canon derives its chief interest from the fact that it is usually considered to have been adopted at the instigation of the party opposed to St. Athanasius and that afterwards it was used against St. Chrysostom. But while such may have been the secret reason why some voted for it and others prized it, it must be remembered that its provision is identical with that of the Apostolic Canons, and that it was read at the Council of Chalcedon as Canon eighty-three. Remi Ceillier (Histoire Genéral des Autheurs, p. 659) tries to prove that this is not the canon which St. Chrysostom and his friends rejected, but Hefele thinks his position "altogether untenable" (Hist. of the Councils, Vol. II., p. 62, n. 1), and refers to Tillemont (Mémoires, p. 329, Sur les Arians, and Fuchs' Bib. der Kirchenversammlungen, P. II., p. 59.  )
Compare Apostolic Canon xxviii.
This canon is found twice in the Juris Corpus Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XI., Quæst. III., Can. vi., and Can. vii. in the version of Martin Bracarensis. This version is very interesting as expanding the phrase "to execute any part of the ministry" into "to make the oblation, or to perform the morning or evening sacrifice as though he were in office just as before, etc."
It will be noted that the Ancient Epitome mentions three warnings, and the canon only two. The epitome in this evidently follows the Apostolical Canon, number thirty-one. It is somewhat curious that Aristenus in commenting on this canon does not note the discrepancy.
This canon, together with the preceding was read from the Code of Canons at the Council of Chalcedon, at the Fourth Session in connexion with the case of Carosus and Dorothoeus, and of other monks who adhered to them. And a sentence in accordance with them was conceived in these words against those who would not obey the Council in the condemnation of Eutyches, "Let them know that they together with the monks who are with them, are deprived of grade, and of all dignity, and of communion, as well as he, so that they cease to preside over their monasteries: and if they attempt to escape, this holy and universal great council decrees the same punishment shall attach to them, that is to say the external authority, according to the divine and holy laws of the Fathers, shall carry out the sentence passed against the contumacious."
This canon shews that monks and clerics who were rebellious were sometimes coerced by the Secular Power, when the ecclesiastical power was not sufficient to coerce them, and hence it was that the secular arm was called in.
Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXI.
The last clause of this canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II. Causa XI., Quæst VIII. Can. vii. (The Latin however for "by the civil power" is, as is pointed out by the Roman Correctors, per forinsecam potestatem or per forasticam potestatem.
Compare Apostolic Canons numbers XII. and XXXII.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XI., Quæst. III, Can. ii.
Compare the Apostolic Canon number XXXIII.
For a discussion of the Letters styled pacifici, see notes on next canon.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. lxxi., c. ix. in Isidore's version. The Roman Correctors note that Dionysius must have had a different reading from the Greek we know.
These "letters canonical" were called in the West letters "formatæ," and no greater proof of the great influence they had in the early days of the Church in binding the faithful together can be found than the fact that Julian the Apostate made an attempt to introduce something similar among the pagans of his empire.
"Commendatory letters" (epistolai sustatikai) are spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Cor. iii. 1, and the reader will find some interesting remarks on this and cognate subjects in J. J. Blunt's, The Christian Church during the first three Centuries (Chapter II).
By means of these letters even the lay people found hospitality and care in every part of the world, and it was thrown up against the Donatists as a mark of their being schismatics that their canonical letters were good only among themselves.
Pseudo-Isidore informs us that it was stated at the Council of Chalcedon by Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, that it was agreed at the Council of Nice that all such letters should be marked P. U. A. P. (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and it is asserted (Herzog, Real-Encyk., s.v. Literæ Formatæ) that this form is found in German documents of the sixth century.
As will be seen among the Canons of Chalcedon, the old name, Letters Commendatory, is continued, but in this canon and in the 41st of Laodicea the expression "Canonical Letters" is used. In the West, at least, these letters received the episcopal seal of the diocese to avoid all possibility of imposture. Dean Plumptre (whom I am following very closely in this note) believes the earliest evidence of this use of the diocesan seal is in Augustine (Epist. lix. al. ccxvii.) He also refers to Ducange, s.v. Formatæ.
As these letters admitted their bearers to communion they were sometimes called "Communion letters" (koinonikai ), and are so described by St. Cyril of Alexandria; and by the Council of Elvira (canon xxv.), and by St. Augustine (Epist. xliii. al. clxii).
The "Letters Pacifical" appear to have been of an eleemosynary character, so that the bearers of them obtained bodily help. Chalcedon in its eleventh canon ordains these "Letters pacifical" shall be given to the poor, whether they be clerics or laics. The same expression is used in the preceding canon of the synod.
A later form of ecclesiastical letter is that with which we are so familiar, the "letter dimissory." This expression first occurs in Canon XVII. of the Council in Trullo. On this expression Suicer (Thesaurus, s.v. apolutike) draws from the context the conclusion that "letters dimissory" were given only for permanent change of ecclesiastical residence, while, "letters commendatory" were given to those whose absence from their diocese was only temporary.
From this canon we see that causes of more importance and greater moment are to be considered in the Provincial Synod which consisted of the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province.
By the "ancient canon" of which mention is here made, there can scarcely be a doubt is intended the xxxiv. of the Canons of the Apostles, since in it are read the same provisions (and almost in the same words) as here are set forth somewhat more at length; nor is there any other canon in which these provisions are found earlier in date than this synod, wherefore from this is deduced a strong argument for the integrity of the Canons of the Apostles.
The wording of this canon should be compared with the famous sentence so often quoted of St. Irenæus. "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam [i.e. of Rome] propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in quâ semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est eaque est ab Apostolis traditio."
Is it not likely that in the lost Greek original the words translated convenire ad were suntrechein en? Vide on the meaning of convenire ad, F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, pp. 32 et seqq.
Compare Apostolic Canon XXXIV.
For the Minor Orders in the Early Church see the Excursus on the subject appended to Canon XXIV. of Laodicea.
"Ordination to the episcopate." In translating thus I have followed both Dionysius and Isidore, the former of whom translates "although they had received the imposition of the hand of the bishop and had been consecrated bishops;" and the latter "although they had received from bishops the imposition of the hand, and had been consecrated bishops."
There can be no doubt that the Chorepiscopi, the authority of whom is limited by this canon, are supposed to be endowed with the episcopal character. Among the learned there is a controversy as to whether Chorepiscopi were true bishops by virtue of the ordination to that office, and endowed with the episcopal character or were only bishops when accidentally so. But whatever may be the merits of this controversy, there can be no doubt from the context of this canon that the Fathers of Antioch took it for granted that the chorepiscopi were true bishops by virtue of their ordination, but it is also evident that they were subject to the bishop of the greater city. It must also be noted that these chorepiscopi were not instituted by the canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Neocæsarea, or even of Nice, for these speak of them and make their decrees as concerning something already existing.
And from the very limitations of this canon it is by no means obscure that the fathers of Antioch supposed these chorepiscopi to be real bishops, for otherwise even with the license of the bishop of the city they could not ordain presbyters or deacons.
This canon is one of those magnificent efforts which the early church made to check the already growing inclination to what we have in later times learned to call Erastianism. Not only did the State, as soon as it became Christian, interfere in spiritual matters at its own motion, but there were found bishops and others of the clergy who not being able to attain their ends otherwise, appealed to the civil power, usually to the Emperor himself, and thus the whole discipline of the Church was threatened, and the authority of spiritual synods set aside. How unsuccessful the Church often was in this struggle is only too evident from the remarks of the Greek commentator Balsamon on this very canon.
Kellner (Das Buss. und Strafversahren, p. 61) remarks with reference to this, that deposition is here treated as a heavier punishment than exclusion from communion, and therefore the latter cannot mean actual excommunication but only suspension.
It is usually supposed that this canon, as well as the fourth, and the fourteenth and fifteenth, was directed against St. Athanasius, and it was used against St. Chrysostom by his enemies. Vide Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book II., Chapter viii., and Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, Book III., chapter v.; also ibid. Book VII., chapter xx.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXI., Quæst. V., Can. ii., in Isidore's Version.
Compare with this Apostolic Canon xxxv.; also canon xxii. of this same synod.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa ix., Quæst. II., Can. vi. in the Versio Prisca. The Roman Correctors are not satisfied with it, however, nor with any version and give the Greek text, to which they add an accurate translation.
When any bishop shall have been condemned with unanimous consent by all the bishops of the province, the condemnation cannot be called into doubt, as this synod has set forth in its fourth canon. But if all the bishops are not of the same mind, but some contend that he should be condemned and others the contrary, then other bishops may be called in by the metropolitan from the neighbouring provinces, and when their votes are added to one or other of the parties among the bishops, then controversy should be brought to a close. This also is the law of the Synod of Sardica, canons iii. and v.
Every bishop accused of crimes should be judged by his own synod, but if the bishops of the province differ, some saying that he is innocent and some that he is guilty, the metropolitan can call other bishops from a neighbouring province that they may solve the controversy agitated by the bishops.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa vi., Quæst. iv., can. j. The Roman Correctors note that the Latin translation implies that the neighbouring metropolitan is to be invited and say, "But, in truth, it hardly seems fitting that one metropolitan should come at the call of another, and that there should be two metropolitans in one synod."
By the phrase "by others" must be understood bishops called from a neighbouring province, of which mention is made in the previous canon, where in the case of an agreement among the bishops, the synod did not wish to be called in, even if it were demanded by the condemned bishop. This canon, therefore, is a supplement as it were to the preceding. And for this reason in the Breviarium and in Cresconius's Collection of Canons they are placed under a common title, cap. 144, "Concerning the difference of opinion which happens in the judgment of bishops, or when a bishop is cut off by all the bishops of his province."
From these canons it is manifest that at first the causes of bishops were agitated and decided in provincial synods, and this discipline continued for many centuries, and was little by little departed from in the VIIIth and IXth centuries.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa VI., Quæst. IV., Can. v. Gratian adds a note which Van Espen remarks smacks of his own date rather than of that of the Synod of Antioch.
This, together with the following canon, was recited by Bishop Leontius in the Council of Chalcedon, from the book of the canons, in which this is called the 95th and the following the 96th, according to the order observed in that book of the canons.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XCII., Can. viii. in Isidore's version, and the Roman Correctors note its departure from the original.
If any one called to the rule of the people refuse to undertake that office and ministry, let him be removed from communion, that is separated, until he accept the position. But should he persist in his refusal, he can by no means be absolved from his separation, unless perchance the full synod shall take some action in his case. For it is possible that he may assign reasonable causes why he should be excused from accepting the prelature offered him, reasons which would meet with the approbation of the synod.
Balsamon explains the canon in the same sense and adds that by "ordination" here is intended ordination proper, not merely election, as some have held.
Compare with this Apostolic Canon XXXVI.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XCII., C. vii. The Roman Correctors note that Dionysius's version is nearer the Greek.
In canon xvii. the fathers punished him who when ordained could not be persuaded to go to the church to which he was assigned. In the present canon they grant pardon to him who is willing to take the charge of the diocese, for which he was consecrated, but is prevented from doing so by the impudence of the people or else by the incursions of the infidel; and therefore they allow him to enjoy, in whatever province he may happen to be, the honour due his rank, viz., his throne, his title, and the exercise of the episcopal office, with the knowledge and consent of the bishop of the diocese. He must not, however, meddle with the affairs of the church of which he is a guest, that is to say he must not teach, nor ordain, nor perform any episcopal act without the consent of the bishop of the diocese; but he must observe quiet, until he learns what he ought to do by the determination of the full Synod.
Aristenus explains that by keeping quiet is intended that he should not "use any military help or other power."
This canon is found twice in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xcii., c. iv. and v.; in the versions of Martin Bracarensis and of Dionysius.
In the first place it must be noted that by "ordination" in this place is meant election, and the laying on of the bishop's hand.
The method of choosing a bishop is laid down in the canons of Nice, number iv., but the present canon adds the provision that an election which takes place in violation of the provisions of this decree is null and invalid: and that when those who are electing are divided in opinion as to whom to choose, the votes of the majority shall prevail. But when you hear this canon saying that there should be no election without the presence of the Metropolitan, you must not say that he ought to be present at an election (for this was prohibited, as is found written in other canons) but rather say that his presence here is a permission or persuasion, without which no election could take place.
Compare Apostolic Canon number j.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. LXV., can. iii. Gratian has chosen Isidore's version, and the Roman Correctors point out that Dionysius' is preferable.
Schelestratius (cit. Van Espen).
The time fixed by the Council of Nice before Lent for the meeting of the synod was not received in the East, and the bishops kept on in the old custom of celebrating the council in the fourth week after Easter, for the time before Lent often presented the greatest difficulties for those in the far separated cities to come to the provincial metropolis.
In this canon the decree of Nice in canon v. is renewed, but with this difference that the Nicene synod orders one synod to be held before Lent, but this synod that it should be held the fourth week after Easter.
It will be remembered that the whole period of the great fifty days from Easter to Whitsunday was known as "Pentecost."
Compare with this Apostolic Canon number XXXVII.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars I., Dist. XVIII., c. xv., attributed to a council held by Pope Martin. The Roman Correctors point out that this "Pope Martin" was a bishop of Braga (Bracarensis) from whose collection of the decrees of the Greek synods Gratian often quotes; the Correctors also note, "For bishops in old times were usually called Popes" (Antiquitus enim episcopi Papæ dicebantur).
See the treatment of the translation of bishops in the Excursus to canon xv. of Nice.
Compare this canon with Apostolical Canon number xiv.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa VII., Quæst. I., can. xxv., from Isidore's version.
If we do not draw a rash conclusion, we should say that the interference of bishops in dioceses not their own, must have been very frequent in early days. This one synod enacted two canons (number XIII. and this present canon) on the subject. The same prohibition is found in canons XIV. and XXXV. of the Apostolic canons, in canon XV. of Nice, canon ii. of I. Constantinople and in many others. On account of the similarity of this canon to canon xiii. some have supposed it to be spurious, the enactment of some other synod, and this was the opinion of Godefrides Hermantius (Vita S. Athanasii, Lib. IV., cap. xii.) as well as of Alexander Natalis (Hist. Soec., IV., Dissert. xxv.). Van Espen, however, is of opinion that the two canons do not cover exactly the same ground, for he says Canon XIII. requires letters both from the Metropolitan and from the other bishops of the province, while this canon XXII. requires only the consent of the diocesan. He concludes that Canon XIII. refers to a diocese sede vacante, when the Metropolitan with the other bishops took care of the widowed church, but that Canon XXII. refers to a diocese with its own bishop, whose will is all that is needed for the performance of episcopal acts by another bishop. And this distinction Schelestratius makes still more evident by his discussion of the matter in his scholion on Canon XIII.
Compare with this canon of the Apostolic Canons number XXXV. also number XIV.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa IX., Quæst. II., can. vii., but in a form differing far from the Greek original, as the Roman Correctors point out; and even Gratian's present text is not as he wrote it, but amended.
Nothing could be more important than the provision of this canon. It is evidently intended to prevent nepotism in every form, and to leave the appointment to the vacant see absolutely to the free choice of the Metropolitan and his synod. The history of the Church, and its present practice, is a curious commentary upon the ancient legislation, and the appointment of coadjutor bishops cum jure successionis, so common in later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious way of escaping the force of the canon. Van Espen, however, reminds his readers of the most interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself narrates in his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop of Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ignorant of the fact that it was prohibited by the canons. And how when in his old age the people wished him to have one chosen bishop to help him till his death and to succeed him afterwards, he declined saying: "What was worthy of blame in my own case, shall not be a blot likewise upon my son." He did not hesitate to say who he thought most worthy to succeed him, but he added, "he shall be a presbyter, as he is, and when God so wills he shall be a bishop." Van Espen adds; "All this should be read carefully that thence may be learned how St. Augustine set an example to bishops and pastors of taking all the pains possible that after their deaths true pastors, and not thieves and wolves, should enter into their flocks, who in a short time would destroy all they had accomplished by so much labour in so long a time." (Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xi. and cap. xxxii.)
Compare Apostolic Canon number LXXVI.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa VIII., Quæst. I., can. III., in Dionysius's version, and again Canon IV. in that of Martin Bracarensis.
This canon shews the early discipline according to which the presbyters and deacons of the episcopal city, who were said to be "about him" or to pertain to his chair, represented the senate of the church, who together with the bishop administered the church affairs, and, when the see was vacant, had the charge of it. All this Martin of Braga sets forth more clearly in his version, and I have treated of the matter at large in my work on Ecclesiastical Law, Pars I., Tit. viii., cap. i., where I have shewn that the Cathedral chapter succeeded to this senate of presbyters and deacons.
Compare with this canon Apostolical Canon XL.
This canon in a somewhat changed form is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XII., Quæst. I., can. xx., and attributed to "Pope Martin's Council"; also compare with this the ensuing canon, number XXI.
Compare with this canon Apostolic Canon number XLI.
This Canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XII., Quæst I., can. XXIII. and with this should be compared canon XXII. immediately preceding.
At the end of this canon in Labbe's version of Dionysius we find these words added. "And thirty bishops signed who were gathered together at this Synod." Isidore Mercator has a still fuller text, viz.: "I, Eusebius, being present subscribe to all things constituted by this holy Synod. Theodore, Nicetas, Macedonius, Anatolius, Tarcodimantus, Ęthereus, Narcissus, Eustachius, Hesychius, Mauricius, Paulus, and the rest, thirty bishops agreed and signed." Van Espen after noting that this addition is not found in the Greek, nor in Martin Bracarensis, adds "there is little probability that this clause is of the same antiquity as the canons."
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at: BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html