Canon vel Constitutio 'Qualiter Ecclesiastici Gradus Custodiantur'

CANON OR CONSTITUTION OF SILVESTER, BISHOP OF THE CITY OF ROME, AND OF THE LORD CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS, CONCERNING HOW ECCLESIASTICAL GRADES ARE TO BE MAINTAINED, OR RELIGION. (Conc. t. I, col. 1544.) Titles of the Canons. I. Concerning the assembly of bishops, or deacons.—II. Concerning the condemnation of Callistus, Victorinus, Hippolytus.—III. Through each grade, that no one may bring a charge of crime.—IV. That four parts be made of the revenues of the Church.—V. That no presbyter may confect chrism.—VI. Concerning deacons of parishes, and cardinal deacons of the city of Rome.—VII. That from subdeacon up to lector, all be subject to the cardinal deacon of the city of Rome.—VIII. That no subdeacon may pass to marriage.—IX. No lector, no acolyte may touch sacred vessels.—X. No bishop may bless a consecrated virgin for marital union.—XI. That no one from a lay person be elevated from the honor of acolyte up to the episcopate, except through each grade.—XII. No one may give penance unless forty years of age.—XIII. Concerning a certain mystery.—XIV. No one may accept the testimony of a cleric against a layman.—XV. No one may examine a cleric in public.—XVI. That no cleric or deacon or presbyter, on account of his own case, may enter a court.—XVII. That no one may strike a sinning cleric with a blow.—XVIII. That no deacon may bring a charge of crime against a presbyter.—XIX. That no presbyter may take a wife from the day of his presbyterate.—XX. That no one may judge the first see of justice.

FIRST ACTION. First Edition. Chapter 1. The constitution of the canons, how the grade or religion is to be maintained, by Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, and the lord Constantinus. At that time, when many nobles rejoiced that Constantinus had been baptized by Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, and had been cleansed of leprosy, on account of the benefit which he received from our Lord Jesus Christ through Silvester the bishop, he began wholly to preach the Lord Jesus Christ and to confess his benefits. Therefore Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, gathering together his fellow presbyters and fellow bishops or his deacons, Roman citizens, and because mother Church had given birth to a most dear son, Constantinus. Wholly, therefore, does Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, desire to order his own, and frequently to nourish his sons, and to lay down the grades of his order and custom. Moreover, he assembled a universal synod of bishops with the counsel of the Augustus or his mother, and caused it to be prepared in the city of Rome in the Baths of Domitian, which are now called the Baths of Trajan. Moreover, he gathered into the bosom of his see bishops, for whom the Augustus Constantinus ordered vehicles and provisions to be provided in every place, and other bishops of the father of Rhinocorura, whose handwritten document is declared in their council, and the presbyters of the city of Rome, and deacons and acolytes made by his counsel, 22 exorcists, 90 lectors of the city of Rome, whose present opinions were heard.

Notaries of the Church, 14, who, receiving the acts of various martyrs, would recount them in order. All these, while a single examination of sanctity gathered them in the aforementioned baths, in such a way, indeed, that no layman might appear to preside. The bishops from the city of Rome, or not far from it, follow.

Castus, Cyprus, Petrus, Abundius, Severinus, Lucianus, Capax, Herculanus, Joannes, Himilus, Andreas, Petrus, Renovatus, Cresconius, Ambrosius, Lucas, Hermogenianus, Augustus, Felix, Barbarus, Secundinus, Citonatus, Reparatus, Gaudentius, Sebastianus, Graeces (alias Cresces), Renatus, Hirenaeus, Laurentius, Valerianus, Botudorus, Leo, Abundantius, Almachius, Honestosus, Victor, Plenus, Delphinus, Amabilis, Paulus, Constantius, Sixtus, Concordius, Nepotianus, Bedandulus, Deutherius, Amabilis, Syrus, Quadratus, Mirabilis, Audacius, Turcilianus, Joannes, Marcus, Fidelis, Symmachus, Probianus, Asellus, Crispinus, Rusticus, Faustus, Turdus, Mojorianus, Jobianus, Exonosus, Sanctulus, Coricosus, Nepus, Tiburtius, Petrus, Sylvestrianus, Turturanus, Leontius, Anastasius, Agapitus, Verustimilus, Asellus, Jacobus, Felicissimus, Quadratus, Alexander, Philippus, Exuperantius, Hypolitus (Hippolytus), Jordianus, Archidamus, Lollius, Martia- Caritosus, Concordius, Januarius, Felicianus, Redus, Auxibus, Timotheus, Bonifacius, Tranquillinus, Calbulus, Sixtus, Catellus, Epiphanes, Victor, Habet Deum, Contentus, Apronianus, Probus, Repostibus, Paulus, Fidelissimus, Homobonus, Luminosus, Vitalis, Carpilio, Volusianus, Petrus, Probinus, Honestosus, Ariston, Bacanda, Petrus, Marinus, Priscillianus, Carito, Gattus, Januarius, Caecilius, Epiphanius, Laurentius, Humanianus, Urbanus, Micinus, Caecilius,

Priscus, Tiburtius, Nonnonus, Anthimus, Agapitus, Vindemius. But from Greece these are: Petrus, Anastasius, Hermes, Nicostratus, Quod vult Deus, Vitalis, Renatus, Vinulus, Andriphorus, Hirenaeus, Olympius, Demeter, Theodolus, Anastasius, Thespias, Firminus, Cleopatris, Honorius, Simplex, Exitiosus, Joannes, Timotheus, Hermes, Paulus, Metronius, Stephanus, Alexander, Constantinus, Andreas, Exuperantius, Firmus, Quirillianus, Anastasius, Hermogenius, Severus, Aconcius, Thomas, Joannes, Caecilianus, Theodolus, Theophilus, Prispilius, Festus, Almacus, Andecius, Concordius, Deutherinnus, Thomas, Quadratus, Timotheus, Potestas, Andreas, Philippus, Thomas, Victorinus, Severianus, Domanicus, Eulogius, Demeter, Nepotianus, Albinus, Petrus, Joannes, Exuperius, Theodolus, Joannes, Exuperantius, Sebastianus, Theodorus, Claudius, Demetrianus, Rufinus, Spes in Deo, Reparatus, Petrus, Asellus, Archanus, Eufemius, Crisolatus, Lazarus, Leo, Anthimus, Andreas, Catharon, Vultibus, Anastasius, Hermes, Sempervivus, Titus, Orifensis, Epiphanius, Anastasius, Leo, Ultius, Fortunatus, Caecilianus, Nicostratus, Audax, Joannes, Rufinus, Honorius, Felix, Petronius, Andreas.

Requisitus, Bacauda, Terfilius, Zenon, Caritosus, Majoranus, Leo, Hermes, Demeter, Andreas, Spes in Deo, Timotheus, Jacobus, Zenon, Quadratus, Fusilis, Marcus, Paulinus, Oyfensis, Concordius, Priscus, Herculanus, Leoninus, Androtilus, Eufimius, Squiro, Martinus, Anastasius. When all these had come into the synod, and others whose signature had run and whose reputation for holiness, they sat in the same aspect of the aforementioned baths. But all the Roman presbyters, and deacons, and the clergy or the following ranks stood behind the bishops. For no one sat in that same place except only the bishops, and Silvester the bishop, pontiff of the city of Rome. For there was also there Calphurnius, who was first a pagan, and afterwards a Christian, prefect of the city. But Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, gives this reasoning: Hear me, brothers and co-bishops, and the whole order of the Roman Church, because it is good that the Church have fixed curtains, that the royal churches not prophesy, but be firm, and close the door against the persecutor, and have a strong wall, from which to repel adversaries.

CHAPTER II. I speak knowingly and approve the condemnation of Calistus and Victorinus, who by their own judgment created a creature, and of Jobinianus, who in his arrogance said that not the month, but the tenth day before the Kalends of May should be observed. For I, as the law records, entrust the matter to your judgment, so that these three may first be introduced, and the examination by which Calistus is condemned be confirmed. For Calistus taught Sabellianism in such a way that, by his own judgment, he considered one person to be the Trinity. For the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not equal, as Victorinus, especially a bishop of religion, in his ferocity affirmed whatever he wished to men, and proclaimed false paschal cycles, so that what he established—to be observed on the tenth day before the Kalends of May—should, by your word, as the truth holds, cease, and be condemned by your judgment, and the authority of our sons the Augusti should precede the condemnation of Bishop Victorinus. Moreover, he condemned Hippolytus the deacon, a Valentinianist, and Calistus, who in his arrogance separated the Trinity, and Bishop Victorinus, who, ignorant of the reckoning of the moon, by the tenacity of his own judgment broke the truth, and in the presence of the aforementioned bishops and presbyters, he will condemn Hippolytus, Victorinus, and Calixtus, and gave them the anathema, and condemned them outside their cities.

CHAPTER III. Afterwards, however, he established grades within the bosom of the synod, so that a presbyter may not bring any accusation against a bishop, nor a deacon against a presbyter, nor a subdeacon against a deacon, nor an exorcist against an acolyte, nor a lector against an exorcist, nor a doorkeeper against a lector; and a bishop shall not be condemned except by seventy-two; nor shall a supreme bishop be judged by anyone, because it is written: The disciple is not over the master. A presbyter, however, shall not be condemned except by forty-four witnesses. A deacon, bound by the cardinal office of the city of Rome, shall not be condemned except by thirty-six. A subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, or lector shall not be condemned except (as it is written) by seven witnesses having children and a wife, all proclaiming Christ as the mystical truth is given. CHAPTER IV. I also admonish your associates concerning the memorial of the church's revenues: that four parts be made, and that the first part be claimed by the church, one part for the pontiff with the brothers to be relieved, half for the church, half for the presbyters and deacons with the entire clergy, or for pilgrims. He established this order: that if anyone from the clergy or presbyters of the entire place, which is common, should depart from this world, and if he had no associate from his own lineage, whatever his poverty possessed should be conferred to the church, and from that four parts should be made, as has been said.

CHAPTER V. Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, also established with a clear voice that no presbyter should make chrism, saying that Christ is named from chrism. CHAPTER VI. That there should not be more or additional deacons through the examination of a parish than two, and the cardinal deacons of the city of Rome seven: yet so that they should use dalmatics and linen pallia covering their left side. CHAPTER VII. Thus Silvester said with a clear voice to the co-bishops, that from subdeacon up to lector all should be subject to the cardinal deacon of the city of Rome, representing honor only in the Church; but to the pontiff, presbyters, subdeacons, deacons, acolytes, exorcist, and lector should represent obedience in every place, whether in public or in the bosom of the Church, only to the pontiff. CHAPTER VIII. We command that none of the subdeacons should pass to marriages, lest he presume by any prevarication.

CHAPTER IX. No lector or doorkeeper should touch the sacred vessels; no acolyte should hand a consecrated thing already given by a presbyter to another, but should only carry what the priest places upon him, blessed by his own mouth. CHAPTER X. No bishop should bless a consecrated virgin for a marital union unless he has proven that she has reached the age of seventy-two years, where judgment will be proven; but as for chastity, that for seventy-two years, seeking the true Christ, with chastity preserved, anointed on the crown, she be led to the wedding of Christ, bearing a veil of the head, not of the heart. And the aforementioned bishops subscribed to this, with Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, preaching. And Calpurnus, prefect of the city, also subscribed last. And the Augustus Constantine subscribed, with his mother Helena Augusta. Then he gave a speech, sitting in the same place, and they departed. Second edition. CHAPTER I.

At the same time, when many nobles rejoiced that Constantine had been baptized by Silvester of the city of Rome and had been cleansed of leprosy through this benefit which he received from the Lord Jesus Christ through Silvester the bishop, he began to preach the Lord Jesus Christ wholeheartedly and to confess his benefits. Therefore Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, gathered together his brother priests, fellow bishops, and his deacons, Roman citizens. And since Mother Church had given birth to a most dear son, Constantine, therefore Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, desired with his own to order her, and frequently to nurse her sons, and to establish the grades of her order and customs. Moreover, he assembled a universal synod of bishops with the counsel of the Augustus and his mother, and had it prepared in the city of Rome within the Baths of Domitian, which are now called the Baths of Trajan. Moreover, he gathered in the bosom of his see two hundred and eighty-four bishops, for whom the Augustus Constantine ordered vehicles and provisions to be provided, and other bishops of the region of Rhinocorura, whose signature is declared in their council, one hundred and forty-two presbyters of the city of Rome, and 6 deacons, 6 subdeacons, 45 acolytes made at his council, 22 exorcists, ninety lectors of the city of Rome, whose present parents were listening. Fourteen notaries of the Church, who, receiving the acts of various martyrs, would arrange and narrate them.

All these, even as one examination of sanctity gathered them together in the aforementioned baths, indeed in such a way that no layman appeared to be present. When all these had come into the synod, and the written testimony of some and the reputation of sanctity had spread, they sat in the same sight of the aforementioned baths. But all the Roman presbyters, deacons, the clergy, and the following orders stood behind the bishops. For no one sat in that same place except only the bishops, and Silvester the bishop, pontiff of the city of Rome. For Calphurnius was also there, who was first a pagan and later a Christian, and prefect of the city. Then Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, spoke this reasoning: "Hear me, brothers and co-bishops, and the entire order of the Roman Church, because it is good that the Church have fixed curtains, that the royal Church not waver, but be firm, and close the door against the persecutor, and have a strong wall with which to repel adversaries.

CHAPTER II. I speak knowingly, and I condemn Calistus and Victorinus, who by their own judgment created a creature, and Jovianus, who in his arrogance said that Easter does not come on its own day or month, but that it should be observed on the Kalends of May. For I, as the law recalls, commend the discourse to your judgment, so that these three may be brought in, and first Calistus, by his own judgment, may be condemned and his examination confirmed—he who taught Sabellianism in such a way that, by his own judgment, he took one person to be the Trinity: for he did not make the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit coequal. And Victorinus, especially the chief bishop of the region, who in his ferocity did whatever he wished to men, and proclaimed deceitful paschal cycles, so that this which he established to be observed on the Kalends of May may be annulled by your discourse, as the truth holds, and condemned by your judgment, and the authority of our sons shall precede the condemnation of Bishop Victorinus. And all entered, so that they might be condemned in judgment by their own discourse. Moreover, he condemned Hippolytus, a deacon of the Valentinianists, and Calistus, who in his arrogance separated the Trinity, and Bishop Victorinus, who, ignorant of the reckoning of the moon, by the tenacity of his own judgment disrupted the truth. And in the presence of the aforementioned bishops and presbyters and other ranks, he condemned Hippolytus, Victorinus, and Calistus. And he gave them anathema, and condemned them outside their cities.

CHAPTER III. Afterwards, however, he established grades in the midst of the synod, so that a presbyter may not bring any accusation against a bishop, nor a deacon against a presbyter, nor a subdeacon against a deacon, nor an acolyte against a subdeacon, nor an exorcist against an acolyte, nor a lector against an exorcist, nor a doorkeeper against a lector, nor a layman. And a prelate shall not be condemned except by seventy-two witnesses, nor shall a supreme prelate be judged by anyone, because it is written: The disciple is not above the master. But a presbyter shall not be condemned except by forty-four witnesses. A deacon, however, constructed for the hinge of the city, shall not be condemned except by thirty-six. A subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, shall not be condemned except (as it is written) by seven witnesses, having children and wives, and altogether preaching Christ. Thus is the mystical truth given. CHAPTER IV. I admonish you, fellow guardians, and concerning the revenues of the church, that four parts be made, and that a fourth part be exacted from the church: one part for the pontiffs, half for the brothers for relieving the churches, half for presbyters and deacons with all the clergy, and for strangers. He established this order, that if anyone from the clergy or presbyters of the whole place, which is common, should pass from this world, if he had no one of his own lineage as a partner, whatever his poverty possessed, he would confer to the church, and from that four parts would be made, as was said above.

CHAPTER V. For Silvester established with a clear voice that the bishops of the city of Rome should ensure that no presbyter should make or speak chrism, since Christ is named from chrism. CHAPTER VI. And that there should be no more nor additional deacons throughout the examination of the parishes, except two, and seven cardinal deacons of the city of Rome. CHAPTER VII. Thus, however, Silvester said with a clear voice to his fellow bishops, that the subdeacon down to the lector should all be subject to the cardinal deacon of the city of Rome, representing only in the Church. But to the pontiff, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, and lectors should render service in every place, whether in public or in the bosom of the Church, representing only to the pontiff. CHAPTER VIII. Moreover, we command that none of the subdeacons should pass over to marriage, lest he incur any transgression. CHAPTER IX. No lector or doorkeeper should touch the sacred vessels; no acolyte should hand over a consecrated thing already from a presbyter to another, but only support what the priest has placed, blessed by his own mouth.

CHAPTER X. No bishop shall seek to bless a consecrated virgin for marital union unless he has verified that she has reached the age of seventy-two. There, before the judge, she shall be proven in true chastity, or, having sought Christ as her husband for seventy years and preserved her chastity, she shall be led, anointed on the crown of the head, to the wedding of Christ, bearing the veil of the head, not of the heart. And the aforementioned bishops subscribed to this, with Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, preaching. And lastly, Calphurnius, prefect of the city, also subscribed. The Augustus Constantine subscribed, together with his mother Helena Augusta. Then he gave a prayer, sitting in the same place, and they departed. SECOND ACTION. On the following day, all the presbyters of the city of Rome and all the deacons, two hundred and eighty-four in number, came to the Baths of Domitian, now called the Baths of Trajan, and he sat in his seat in the same place. There he created seven regions and divided them among the deacons. The deacons were these: Fabianus, Marcus, Liverius, Archidamus, Julius. He ordained two others, Priscus and Theodorus, the whole body—presbyters, deacons, and clergy—having requested of Silvester the bishop that he ordain them. There, in the baths, he subordinated these two, Priscus and Theodorus, but he did not ordain or consecrate them except in the bosom of the basilica, and he established them apart from the synod.

CHAPTER XI. That no one from the lay state should be raised to the honor of acolyte up to the episcopate, unless he has first been a lector for thirty years. Then for one day an exorcist, and afterwards he would take up the burden of acolyte, and serve in the same order of acolyte for ten years, so that he might take up the burden of subdeacon, and be in the subdiaconate for five years, then attain the fixed honor of deacon, with thirty presbyters requesting an examination, so that he might be a cardinal deacon, because it had been established from the first see that he should serve for seven years. For this, if anyone desired the order of the presbyterate, it would be required that for seven years the entire Roman clergy be deprived of teaching, birth, nobility, and counsel, not seeking plunder from anyone of clear and firm reputation, all presbyters would declare and confirm, and thus they would proceed to the order of presbyter, and serve in that same order for three years. And if the order, or arrangement, or care of piety, or holiness demands it, to proceed to the burden of the episcopate, so that the entire clergy would request ordination by a single perpetual vow. That this was done, and nothing opposed the words of Bishop Silvester, but rather they confirmed them by prayer. Moreover, Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, said this: Hear, holy ones and fellow bishops. Let no one conceal what seems to him to reproach justice.

All the bishops answered together, and they said, crying out, to all the priests and clerics: In you is justice, and piety shall not depart from you, since nothing will be judged by us according to the opinion of your words, because there is no wisdom unless it has been built upon patience. But Bishop Silvester said: Since there is no wisdom unless it is in patience, whatever I fix by word shall be confirmed by your chirograph. CHAPTER XII. For no one shall give penance unless to a petitioner for baptism of forty years of age: for preach to all, Matthew, last chapter. CHAPTER XIII. For no one, unless he has received the heavenly veil, shall first approach the honor of the clerical state through the hand of a priest from marriage. For it is feigned. CHAPTER XIV. No one shall accept the testimony of a cleric against a layman. CHAPTER XV. For no one shall examine any cleric in public, unless in a church. CHAPTER XVI. For no cleric, whether deacon or presbyter, shall enter a court for any cause of his own, since every court is named from bloodshed and is an offering to idols. But if any cleric has entered a court, let him receive anathema, never returning to mother church. However, he shall not be deprived of communion on account of troubled times.

CHAPTER XVII. For no one shall strike a cleric who is sinning, neither a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a bishop shall bring a cleric or a servant of the church to a beating. But if the case of a cleric so requires, he shall be deprived of his honor for three days, so that the penitents may return to Mother Church. CHAPTER XVIII. For no deacon shall bring a charge of turpitude against presbyters. CHAPTER XIX. For no presbyter, from the day he takes up the burden of the presbyterate, shall enter into marriage; so that if anyone, having disregarded this, goes forth, we declare that he shall be deprived of his honor for twelve years. But if anyone acts against this present chirograph and publicly carries out what has been said, he shall be condemned in perpetuity. CHAPTER XX. For no one shall judge the first see, desiring that its justice be tempered; neither by the Augustus, nor by the entire clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people shall a judge be judged. And two hundred eighty-four bishops, and forty-five presbyters, and five deacons, and the two following, and the Augustus Constantine, and his mother Helena subscribed. And Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, fixed this canon and sprinkled it upon all the bishops. Done in the Baths of Trajan, on the kalends of June, in the third consulship of the Augustus Constantine and the consulship of Priscus.

SECOND ACTION. On the next day, all the presbyters of the city of Rome came, and the deacons and all two hundred and eighty-four bishops, within the Baths of Domitian, which are now called the Baths of Trajan, and he sat in his seat in that same place. There, moreover, he made seven regions, and divided them among the deacons. Now these were the deacons: Fabianus, Marcus, Liberius, Archidamus, Julius. He also ordained two others, Priscus and Theodorus. The entire body of presbyters, deacons, and clerics requested this of Bishop Silvester, that he ordain them. There, in the baths, he subordinated these two, Priscus and Theodorus; he did not ordain and consecrate them except in the bosom of the basilica, and he established them apart from the synod. CHAPTER XI. That no one from the lay state should be raised to the honor from acolyte up to the episcopate, unless he had first been a lector for thirty years, then an exorcist for one day, and afterwards take up the burden of acolyte, and serve in that same order of acolyte for ten years, so that he might take up the burden of subdeacon, and be in the subdiaconate for five years. Then he might attain to the honor of the diaconate, fixed by the examination of thirty presbyters who petitioned, so that he would be a cardinal subdeacon, because it had been established from the first see that he should serve for seven years.

For if anyone should desire the order of presbyter, it would be required that over seven years he be tested by the entire Roman clergy in doctrine, birth, nobility, and counsel, not seeking gain from anyone; with clear reputation, all presbyters would declare and confirm, and thus he would proceed to the order of presbyterate, and serve in that same order for three years. And if the order or arrangement, or the care of piety or sanctity, should demand it, he would proceed to the burden of the episcopate, so that the entire clergy would request, to ordain by a single perpetual vote, which was so done that the synod opposed nothing in the words of Bishop Silvester, but rather confirmed them with prayer. And Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, also said this: "Hear, holy ones and fellow bishops. Let no one conceal what might seem to him to reprove justice." All the bishops answered, and said, crying out together with all the presbyters and clerics: "Justice will prevail, and piety shall not depart from you. For nothing will be judged by us in the opinion of your words, since wisdom is not, unless it has been built upon patience." Bishop Silvester said: "Since wisdom is not, unless in patience, whatever I fix in speech, let it be confirmed by your chirograph.

CHAPTER XII. Let no one give penance unless he is forty years of age, to one who seeks it. For baptism, give it to all. CHAPTER XIII. Let no one who has not first received the heavenly veil of marriage through the hand of a priest approach the honor of the clergy. The testimony of a cleric against a layman is not admitted. For it is feigned. CHAPTER XIV. Let no one receive the testimony of a cleric against a layman. CHAPTER XV. Let no one examine any cleric in public, unless in a church. CHAPTER XVI. Let no cleric, whether deacon or presbyter, enter a court for any cause of his own, since every court is named from bloodshed and is an offering to idols. For if any cleric enters a court, let him receive anathema, never returning to mother church. But let him not be deprived of communion on account of the turbulent time. CHAPTER XVII. Let no one strike a cleric who is sinning with a blow, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor bishop, bring a cleric or a servant of the church to a beating. But if the case of a cleric so requires, let both be deprived of honor, as penitents to mother church.

CHAPTER XVIII. Let no deacon bring a charge of moral turpitude against a presbyter. CHAPTER XIX. Let no presbyter take a wife from the day he assumes the burden of the presbyterate; and if he acts in disregard of this, we declare that he be deprived of his office for ten years. But if anyone acts against this present and publicly issued chirograph, let him be condemned in perpetuity. CHAPTER XX. Let no one judge the first see, since all sees desire that justice be tempered by the first see. Neither by the Augustus, nor by the entire clergy, nor by kings, nor by the people shall a judge be judged. And two hundred and eighty-four bishops, and forty-five presbyters, and five deacons, and two acolytes, and the Augustus Constantine, and his mother Helena subscribed. And Bishop Silvester established this canon in the city of Rome, and disseminated it to all bishops. Done in the Baths of Trajan, on the Kalends of June, in the third consulship of the Augustus Constantine and the consulship of Priscus.

CENSURE OF THE PRECEDING CONSTITUTION. (Constant. App., p. 37). I. This Constitution exists in an ancient codex of the Colbertine library, written in large Lombardic letters, and in another no less ancient exemplar of the same library, as well as in a collection which Baronius, at the year 324, no. 124, calls the Cresconian. Benedict III and Nicholas I, in epistle 8 to the Emperor Michael, cite it. Peter Crabbe, having obtained a very ancient twofold exemplar of this, presented a triple edition placed in three columns opposite one another. Namely, on account of the intolerable and excessive difference and corruption of the exemplars, he says, so that sometimes what is intended cannot be understood, therefore the text of both exemplars was set down syllable by syllable, with no change made. But between the two, a third edition was placed in the middle, emended by conjectures and reduced to the rules of grammar as far as could be done. Later editors, however, suppressed this third edition, as having no authority, content to retain the twofold one; but all agree that in many places, due to the corruption of the exemplars, both can scarcely or not at all be understood. And according to Baronius, no. 123, it is difficult to find a verse into which some fault has not crept. Yet the venerable name of Silvester has so imposed upon all that, moved by the honor of antiquity, they have considered it almost a matter of religious scruple to change any character, even in the more obscure passages.

However, this fault of barbarous and alien-to-common-understanding speech, which is common to this Constitution and to the two subsequent little letters, seems rightly to be attributed not so much to the corruption of the exemplars as to the inexperience of the one who composed these writings. Although we will not deny that the scribes, while striving to cleanse the errors due to that unusual barbarism of speech, may perhaps have admitted new ones, or certainly have repeatedly departed from the fidelity of the archetype. Hence arose those diversities of the exemplars, for the display of which a double edition first seemed necessary. Yet we have considered it sufficient to note those variations in the margin in their proper places. But that very inelegance of speech alone discredits the writing, to which not only so many bishops and other illustrious men, but also the Emperor himself, both learned and most refined, are feigned to have subscribed. II. Later, however, Labbeus, judging that one should by no means subscribe to this little work, with Bignon, Baronius, and others admitting it, noted opposite the title of this Constitution: "These twenty chapters, which Isidore wove into his collection, seem to be spurious to Hincmar and to many learned men." By which words Labbeus undoubtedly indicates that work of Hincmar, opusc. 48, n. 21, tom. II, p. 793. For it is written in a certain sermon, without the name of the excerptor, concerning the deeds of St.

With the exception of Silvester, whom Isidorus, bishop of Hispalis (more accurately, Isidorus Mercator) collected together with the letters of the Roman pontiffs from Saint Clement up to Blessed Gregory, the same Saint Silvester is said to have decreed: that no cleric should dare to bring a charge against a layman, and that a presbyter should not act against a bishop, nor a deacon against a presbyter, etc., as below, chapter 3, up to those having wives and children and altogether preaching Christ; and in addition, this was added immediately afterward: let no one accept the testimony of a cleric against a layman. When Hincmarus expounded this, he reveals what he thinks about that excerpted sermon, in number 22, with these words: "These sayings, how contrary they are to themselves, and how different from the holy canons and sacred laws, there is no one who doubts." And he adds, number: "Therefore it is not to be believed that the same holy man established such things as (or of the kind that) are contained written in the aforementioned sermon." Nor indeed is there any other place in which Hincmarus rejects the twenty chapters appended below.

III. Moreover, it is not unclear that Hincmarus is recalling not the Constitutum that follows, but another little work, which is entitled among Isidore’s Excerpts from the Synodal Acts of St. Silvester, pope, in Labbe, vol. I of the Councils, p. 1542, “A Brief Epilogue of the Following Roman Council.” For Hincmarus does not recall the acts of St. Silvester themselves, but a discourse on the acts of St. Silvester excerpted or extracted. He also notes that that excerpted discourse existed without the name of the excerptor or extractor: just as also among Isidore the excerpts from the synodal acts of St. Silvester bear no author’s name. Although, since they are ascribed to no one else, Isidore himself is rightly judged to have excerpted them. But also the passage recalled by Hincmarus is found in these excerpts in the same words and the same order of words entire; whereas, on the contrary, in the Constitutum that follows, the last words of that passage, namely, “Let no one accept the testimony of a cleric against a layman,” are separated by twelve chapters from the preceding words which Hincmarus joins directly to them: and you would seek the earlier words, “that no cleric dare bring a charge against a layman,” in vain throughout the entire Constitutum.

IV. It is also permissible to doubt whether Isidore wove those twenty chapters, which the following Constitutum comprises, into his collection. Indeed, they are inserted in the old codex of the College of Navarre; but in the codex of Noviodunum, in the Colbertine codices, or in other codices older than that of Navarre, they appear nowhere. And truly, it would have been entirely superfluous for Mercator to compile excerpts from those twenty chapters, if he had inserted the chapters themselves into his collection. V. But although Hincmarus saw and noted only those excerpts, nevertheless what he judges concerning their conflict with ecclesiastical rules applies equally to the Constitutum itself. Certainly, it conflicts with them that the chapter narrates that presbyters in the Roman council stood behind the seated bishops, and that no one in that council sat except bishops. For, as Baronius observed, in the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 34, it is established that a bishop, when sitting in any place, should not suffer a presbyter to stand. Nor is there any doubt that this law also prevailed at Rome. For, as Jerome testifies in his letter to Evagrius, in the church of Rome (even in the presence of bishops, as is clear from the following words) presbyters sit, and deacons stand. Thus also in the Council of Elvira we read that bishops sat together, with twenty-six presbyters also sitting and deacons standing. The same was always done in Roman councils. Again, it conflicts with ecclesiastical rules what the chapter prescribes concerning the number of witnesses.

For indeed, as Hincmarus very well observed, the canons concerning the judging of bishops or clerics who fall into some crime are pointless if this decree holds force. VI. But to what end are so many canons enacted, that sacred virgins not be violated, and penalties decreed for those who violate them, if, as the chapter ordains, a virgin is permitted to be consecrated only at the age of seventy?

This canon would certainly have removed that great number of sacred virgins by which the Church has always been adorned; and if any had survived, the merit of consecrated chastity would thereafter have been slight. But that another custom prevailed in the Church is proved by the opinion of Syagrius, so vehemently disapproved by Ambrose in Epistle 5, whereby he ordered that a sacred virgin named Indiciam, when accused of violated chastity, be examined by midwives; it is proved by the treatise of the same Ambrose, or of another writer not later than him, to a fallen virgin, and by the letter of Basil on the same subject; it is proved again by the books of Ambrose on virgins, written to his sister Marcellina thirteen years after the death of her consecrator Liberius; it is proved also by the command of King Huneric, who ordered sacred virgins to be gathered and sent midwives to examine their chastity, and by the impious cry of those same virgins shouting: "Say that the bishops sleep with you, and your clergy"; it is proved finally by countless other things, which would have had no place if no virgin were to be consecrated except at an advanced age. But earthenware vessels oppose this canon, more genuine ones already mentioned elsewhere, some of which forbid virgins to be consecrated before their twenty-fifth year of age, others before their fortieth.

VII. Moreover, the same Constitution contradicts itself when it condemns Callistus as a Sabellian for holding that the Trinity is one person, and at the same time condemns him as one who separates the Trinity; for he who separates the Trinity follows a heresy opposite to that of Sabellius. For Sabellius’s error lay in confusing the Trinity, not in separating it. VIII. Furthermore, it is surprising that in so celebrated an assembly, with Constantine present, in the very year when the same Emperor was devoting all his efforts to extinguishing the fires of the Arian heresy, and when for that reason he had sent the great Hosius with letters to Alexandria, not a word is said about Arius, and only Callistus, Jovian, the deacon Hippolytus, and Victorinus are condemned—names unknown in ecclesiastical records; unless this Victorinus is different from Victorius, the compiler of the Paschal cycles, which we shall examine shortly. Nor does the conjecture of Binius or Baronius, who think that the case of Arius was then reserved for the ecumenical Council of Nicaea, sufficiently meet this objection. For it is more probable that Sylvester and Constantine, in the month of May of that year, had not yet thought of convening the Nicene Council. But even if they had already decreed it in their minds, what prevented the matters to be treated and defined at the ecumenical council from being prepared in the Roman assembly? Certainly, it later became the custom of the Roman pontiffs to hold synods in Rome in anticipation of general councils, and to pre-condemn in those synods the heresies that were to be condemned in the councils.

Moreover, it is not easily guessed how the fifty-seven bishops of the party and of Rhinocorura are to be counted; and it is even more difficult to understand why so many Egyptian prelates would have come together to Silvester at that time, unless it were to protest the perverse doctrine of Arius and the crimes of the Arians, or for what reason they would have allowed themselves to remain silent on so grave and so necessary a matter. IX. Nor should it seem unsuspicious that in the catalogue of Greek bishops there are so many names that are Latin in form, for example, Quodvultdeus, Spesindeo, Exsuperantius, Exitiosus, Fortunatus, Potestas, Sempervivus, etc. For although Latins sometimes borrow names from the Greeks, still, the Greeks do not commonly do so in this manner. X. The discourse would run on too long if we were to pursue individually every mark of falsehood that occurs in the work we are examining. The fictitious story of Constantine’s leprosy and its cure sufficiently proves its spuriousness from the very beginning, and the false consular date at the end confirms it as if with a certain seal.

XI. From the aforementioned mention of Constantine’s leprosy and his baptism conferred by Silvester, it is inferred that the following Constitutum is more recent than the false Gesta Silvestri. At least it cannot be denied that the author of this Constitutum was acquainted with those false Acts of Silvester, since from them he drew the aforesaid tale about Constantine’s leprosy and baptism. On the other hand, from what Hincmar long ago observed (Hincm. opusc. 48, n. 23, p. 792)—namely, that nothing similar to what we find in the Constitutum, or in the excerpts agreeing with that same Constitutum, is read in the Acts of Silvester, but that such things are mentioned only in the Liber Pontificalis—we rightly conclude that the Constitutum and the pseudo-Roman council lay hidden from the parent of those Acts. For who would persuade himself that he would have passed over in silence, in those Acts, so celebrated a matter? XII. When we also consider who that Victorinus is, whose condemnation is sought in the chapter for the reason that he affirmed whatever he wished to men and pronounced the paschal cycles to be false, another argument will be supplied to us from this, whereby we confirm that this Constitutum is much more recent than the times of Silvester. And first we observe in passing that the same Victorinus is similarly blamed in the subsequent epistle, because by his own judgment he affirmed whatever he wished and pronounced the paschal cycles to be false: so that anyone may note in advance from what source this little stream has flowed.

But for one who examines who that Victorinus is who is blamed in both writings on account of the new Paschal cycles, no other occurs than Victorinus of Aquitaine, called Victorius by many and Victor by some, who in the year of Christ 457, at the request of Hilarius, then archdeacon and later pope, composed Paschal cycles. For although Pope Leo approved these cycles, and the Fourth Synod of Orléans, held in the year [541], admitted them in canon 1, nevertheless many subsequently rejected them and sharply criticized them. Specifically, Victor, bishop of Capua, in the year 550, wrote a book against Victorius himself, in the course of which, as Bede testifies (Bede, On the Reckoning of Time, ch. 40), he spoke thus: "Now, I say, the order demands that I lay open the errors of the cycles which Victorius published, since he does not know how to determine the lawful Paschal day." How no better did Columbanus think of these same cycles at the end of the sixth century, he himself testifies in a letter written to Pope Gregory I (Gregory, Book III, letter not edited) with these words: "For know that our masters and the ancient Irish philosophers and the most learned computists did not receive Victorius, but rather considered him worthy of laughter or indulgence, rather than authority." And after some intervening remarks he adds: "Therefore either excuse or condemn your Victorius." And the rest of the letter bears witness to how much the Irish abhorred Victorius's calculation. Nor were the Western Britons more favorably disposed toward him.

Indeed, as Althelmus writes in St. Boniface, epistle 44, they decreed that the course of Victorius’ Paschal table was not to be followed by posterity. XIII. Nor should anyone be moved by this, that although many have written about Victorius, who adorned the Paschal cycles in the time of Pope Leo—such as Gennadius of Massilia, Isidore of Hispalis, Gregory of Tours, Fredegarius, Althelmus, Honorius of Augustodunum, etc.—not one of them calls him a bishop; and on the other hand, Victorinus, mentioned in the Constitutum Silvestri, is repeatedly called a bishop. For it is certain from the words of Columbanus to Gregory, “Therefore either excuse or condemn your Victorius,” that Columbanus is censuring the Victorius whose cycles Rome had received and was then still following, and thus the very Victorius who had composed the cycles in the time of Leo. Moreover, that this Victorius was a bishop is shown by Columbanus himself in the same epistle, where he says: “The opinion of those bishops, who say only, ‘We must not celebrate Easter with the Jews,’ does not satisfy me, after so many authors I have read. Bishop Victor once said this, but none of the Easterners accepted his invention.” For one who examines what precedes and what follows will not doubt that it is not Victor, bishop of Capua, who is mentioned here, but Victorius himself, who is vehemently criticized throughout the epistle. And indeed, as we have said, the one whom many call Victorius is the same whom Isidore, in book VI of the Origines, chapter...

17. Victorinus, and by Fredegar, c. 108, is called Victor. Concerning Victorius, therefore, whose cycles Rome received, let each think concerning his episcopate as pleases him. Certainly it is no more repugnant to the truth that he could have been believed a bishop by the architect of this Constitution, than that he was rejected, not without disgust, by Columbanus and others for the same cycle. If this is so, no one can place this Constitution later than the middle of the sixth century in its fabrication. Others we have already proved by reason in the general preface § to agree with the times of Pope Symmachus. MENTION OF ANOTHER ROMAN COUNCIL WHICH WAS ALSO HELD AT ROME BEFORE THE TWO PRECEDING ONES UNDER POPE SYLVESTER. (Council, vol. I, col. 1490, ed. Lab.). This council was held at Rome in the presence of the Emperor Constantine, that most celebrated disputation between the Jews and Sylvester, at the insistence of the emperor and his mother Helena, where the most learned men of both sides assembled for the purpose that, by scriptures and miracles alike, the defenders of each religion might prove and manifest the truth of their own religion. Concerning its outcome, the Acts of Sylvester, which are cited by Hadrian, Roman pontiff, writing to Charlemagne·3 epistle, are found quoted in these words.

In the very beginnings of the Christians, when the emperor Constantine was being converted to the faith, his mother Helena Augusta came to him in the city of Rome with twelve scribes, and Pharisees, and teachers, and leaders of the Jews, and she together with her son Constantine Augustus decided to hold a council of Jews with Christians. In this council, the holy pope Sylvester presided with very many most holy bishops, and, expanding the Christian faith into a fuller state, both through sacred scripture and through miracles, with the Lord protecting (by the judgment of Craton the philosopher and Zenophilus, vir clarissimus, whom they had chosen for this purpose), they emerged victorious. These matters are treated at greater length in the Acts of Sylvester, which before Gelasius had such great authority that they were read both at Rome and in many other churches; indeed, even after Gelasius, they were cited as authentic by Pope Hadrian in his letter to Charlemagne. As, however, these same Acts exist today, they teem with many falsehoods that have crept in from elsewhere. For what they report—that Constantine was a Christian before Helena; that Constantius and Constans, Caesars and Augusti, were living in the East at this time; that Isaac administered the high priesthood among the Jews; that Helena was originally from Bithynia; that the Sabbath fast was abolished by Sylvester; that the Lord's day was instituted by him; and that Sylvester himself was ordained pope by Melchiades—and many other things are entirely foreign to the truth, besides the fact that Baronius shows this clearly.

In the year 315, number 12, and the following, even the canons of the apostles themselves, and the notes which we have written there, clearly demonstrate. When Constantine and Licinius were holding the consulship for the fourth time, namely in the year of Christ 315, which is the second of Silvester and the tenth of Constantine, that this council was celebrated is attested by the Acts of Silvester and by the law I concerning the Jews in the Theodosian Code, signed by these consuls. For when, confused by this disputation, they not only inflicted insults and grave injuries upon Christians, but even stirred up sedition against the emperor himself, in order to repel injury from the heads of the Christians, he established, by the law promulgated against them, that if they should trouble a deserter of their own sect who had become a Christian with stones or any other cruel punishment, they should immediately be consigned to the flames. But to suppress their rebellion and sedition, he led the seditious ones about through all places, with their ears cut off and a mark impressed upon their bodies, like fugitive slaves and scoundrels. Chrysostom, Oration against the Jews, Homily 2; Baronius, in the aforementioned year, number and 10.

A censure of the following letter. (Const. App., p. 35). I. A forged letter under the name of Cornelius, found in the library of Fleury, is followed by another of no greater authority. Indeed, it consists of the same words as the first letter of Pope Zosimus, with the names of the Viennensis and Paschasius substituted for those of Arelatensis and Patroclus, and with additions containing the numbers in place of those which Zosimus explains in the chapter. Therefore, either this letter of Silvester or that of Zosimus must be declared false. But the truth of the first letter of Zosimus is proven not only by two other letters of the same pontiff, namely the seventh and the tenth, by which the same right of granting formatae is asserted for Patroclus, bishop of Arles, but also by many successors of Zosimus confirming it to the successors of Patroclus. Indeed, we still have letters of Pope Symmachus and Pope Vigilius, in which they testify that they granted this right to Caesarius, Auxanius, and Aurelianus, bishops of Arles, following the custom of their predecessors. The author of the other letter of Zosimus to Simplicius, bishop of Vienne, to be placed below in its proper place, whom we suspect to be none other than the forger of this very letter, freely admits the truth of the letters written by Zosimus in favor of the bishop of Arles. Indeed, he posits this letter of Silvester as unknown to this pope, yet Zosimus could not have copied it unless he had it before his eyes.

And indeed, when we compare these words of Zosimus's first letter, "But this privilege of formatae we have granted to our brother and fellow bishop Patroclus, out of special consideration for his merits," with those of Silvester's letter, "But this privilege of formatae we have granted to our brother and fellow bishop Paschasius AND HIS POSTERITY, out of special consideration for his merits," we detect there not Zosimus copying Silvester's words, but a pseudo-Silvester foully interpolating Zosimus's sentence. For what does that phrase "and his posterity" mean? Is it said of Paschasius's children and grandchildren? Silvester would surely have said "and his successors." But he himself ought not to have said "out of special consideration for his merits" if he had intended the same privilege to pertain to Paschasius's successors. We pass over the fact that none of his successors is recorded to have used it; that in the controversy which blazed between the church of Arles and the church of Vienne over the privileges of their sees, with such great zeal on both sides, it never occurred to any Roman or Viennese bishop to mention this letter of Silvester; that Zosimus, when granting the privilege of formatae to Patroclus, speaks as if he knew for certain that none had been granted before in Gaul; and finally, that the same privilege is known to have been granted to other successors of Patroclus.

II. Moreover, in a codex of canons written many years ago, which the famous monastery of Murbach in the diocese of Basel preserves, we read inserted a privilege or part of a privilege with this title: Here begins a constitution of the apostolic see. Silvester, bishop, to all bishops throughout the Gauls and the seven provinces. Then is subjoined the whole first chapter of the first letter of Pope Zosimus, except that in this codex the metropolitan of Autun is substituted for the metropolitan of Arles, and Retitius for Patroclus. But we never read that the name of metropolitan was granted to the bishop of Autun, least of all in the age of Retitius. For Gregory, after granting Syagrius the use of the pallium, wished this to be considered by him as a very great favor, that, as he says, we have also provided for this to be granted, that, with the place and honor of his metropolitan preserved in all respects, the church of the city of Autun... should hold the place after the church of Lyons, and claim this place and order for itself by the indulgence of our authority. Hence it appears to have happened more than once that those who sought to persuade others of the antiquity of some church's privileges would set before themselves the privilege granted by Zosimus to Patroclus as a model to be imitated.

Furthermore, the integrity of this is proven by the Murbach codex itself, since after its first chapter, which we have said was adapted to Pope Silvester and Retitius of Autun, it places the remaining two chapters of Zosimus's letters, inscribed not to Retitius but to Zosimus himself, or, as it is corruptly written there, to Ozimus. LETTER ON RECEIVING FORMATAE FROM THE BISHOP OF VIENNE. WHAT ARE THE SEVEN PROVINCES PERTAINING TO THE CHURCH OF VIENNE. (From the same source). Pope Silvester to all bishops throughout the Gauls and the seven provinces. It has pleased the apostolic see that if anyone from any part of Gaul, under any ecclesiastical grade, strives to come to us, or intends to go to other lands, he should not set out unless he has received formatas from the metropolitan of Vienne, by which his priesthood or the ecclesiastical place he holds is made clear through the attestation of his writings. We decree this for the reason that many, pretending to be bishops, presbyters, or ecclesiastics, because no document of formatas exists by which they can be refuted, creep into the name of veneration and obtain undue veneration. Therefore, dearest brothers, whoever, having omitted the aforementioned formata, whether he be a bishop, a presbyter, a deacon, or one established in a lower grade, comes to us hereafter, let him know that he cannot be received at all.

That this authority was not sent everywhere is manifest, so that it may be known in both regions that what we have decreed is to be observed in every way. But if anyone should presume of his own accord to violate these salutary statutes, let him know that he is cut off from our communion. Moreover, we have granted this privilege of formatae to our brother and fellow bishop Paschasius and his successors, out of special consideration for his merits. Now the seven provinces belonging to the church of Vienne, as the Roman catalogue testifies, are these: Viennensis first; Narbonensis first, which is second; Narbonensis second, which is Aix, third; Aquitanica first, which is Bourges, fourth; Aquitanica second, which is Bordeaux (add. fifth); Novempopulana, which is Auch, sixth; and the Maritime Alps, which is Embrun, seventh. Farewell.