Canon XII.
IT is decreed that they who have offered sacrifice before their baptism, and were afterwards baptized, may be promoted to orders, inasmuch as they have been cleansed.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XII.
Whoso has sacrificed before his baptism, after it shall be guiltless.
Hefele.
This canon does not speak generally of all those who sacrificed before baptism; for if a heathen sacrificed before having embraced Christianity, he certainly could not be reproached for it after his admission. It was quite a different case with a catechumen, who had already declared for Christianity, but who, during the persecution had lost courage, and sacrificed. In this case it might be asked whether he could still be admitted to the priesthood. The Council decided that a baptized catechumen could afterwards be promoted to holy orders.
Canon XIII.
IT is not lawful for Chorepiscopi to ordain presbyters or deacons., and most assuredly not presbyters of a city, without the commission of the bishop given in writing, in another parish.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIII.
A chorepiscopus is not to ordain without the consent of the bishop.
Hefele.
If the first part of the thirteenth canon is easy to understand, the second, on the contrary, presents a great difficulty; for a priest of a town could not in any case have the power of consecrating priests and deacons, least of all in a strange diocese. Many of the most learned men have, for this reason, supposed that the Greek text of the second half of the canon, as we have read it, is incorrect or defective. It wants, say they, poiei=n ti , or aliquid agere, i.e., to complete a religious function. To confirm this supposition, they have appealed to several ancient versions, especially to that of Isidore: sed nec presbyteris civitatis sine episcopi proecepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine auctoritate literature ejus in unaquaque (some read e0n e0ka/sth| instead of e0n e9te/ra| ) parochia aliquid agere. The ancient Roman ms. of the canons, Codex Canonum, has the same reading, only that it has provincia instead of parochia. Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, who long ago made a collection of canons, translates in the same way in his Breviatio Canonum: Ut presbyteri civitatis sine jussu episcopi nihil jubeant, nec in unaquaque parochia aliquid agant. Van Espen has explained this canon in the same way.
Routh has given another interpretation. He maintained that there was not a word missing in this canon, but that at the commencement one ought to read, according to several mss. xwrepisko/poij in the dative, and further down a0lla\ mh/n mhde ; instead of a0lla mhde ; then presbute/rouj (in the accusative) po/lewj and finally e0ka/sth| instead of e9te/re| , and that we must therefore translate, "Chorepiscopi are not permitted to consecrate priests and deacons (for the country) still less ( a0lla\ mh\n mhde ;) can they consecrate priests for the town without the consent of the bishop of the place." The Greek text, thus modified according to some mss., especially those in the Bodleian Library, certainly gives a good meaning. Still a0lla\ mh\n mhde ; does not mean, but still less: it means, but certainly not, which makes a considerable difference.
Besides this, it can very seldom have happened that the chorepiscopi ordained presbyters or deacons for a town; and if so, they were already forbidden, at least implicitly, in the first part of the canon.
Canon XIV.
IT is decreed that among the clergy, presbyters and deacons who abstain from flesh shall taste of it, and afterwards, if they shall so please, may abstain. But if they disdain it, and will not even eat herbs served with flesh, but disobey the canon, let them be removed from their order.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon XIV.
A priest who is an abstainer from flesh, let him merely taste it and so let him abstain. But if he will not taste even the vegetables cooked with the meat let him be deposed ( pepa/usqw ).
There is a serious dispute about the reading of the Greek text. I have followed Routh, who, relying on three mss. the Collectio of John of Antioch and the Latin versions, reads ei0 de\ bdelu/ssointo instead of the ei0 de\ bou/lointo of the ordinary text, which as Bp. Beveridge had pointed out before has no meaning unless a mh ; be introduced.
Zonaras points out that the canon chiefly refers to the Love feasts.
I cannot agree with Hefele in his translation of the last clause. He makes the reference to "this present canon," I think it is clearly to the 53 52 of the so-called Canons of the Apostles, tw=| kano/ni "the well-known Canon."
Canon XV.