Antioch - Canon 25

Let the bishop have power over the funds of the Church, so as to dispense them with all piety and in the fear of God to all who need.  And if there be occasion, let him take what he requires for his own necessary uses and those of his brethren sojourning with him, so that they may in no way lack, according to the divine Apostle, who says, “Having food and raiment, let us therewith be content.”  And if he shall not be content with these, but shall apply the funds to his own private uses, and not manage the revenues of the Church, or the rent of the farms, with the consent of the presbyters and deacons, but shall give the authority to his own domestics and kinsmen, or brothers, or sons, so that the accounts of the Church are secretly injured, he himself shall submit to an investigation by the synod of the province.  But if, on the other hand, the bishop or his presbyters shall be defamed as appropriating to themselves what belongs to the Church, (whether from lands or any other ecclesiastical resources), so that the poor are oppressed, and accusation and infamy are brought upon the account and on those who so administer it, let them also be subject to correction, the holy synod determining what is right.

The overseer had final authority over church funds but not without the elders auditing how the funds were used.  When appropriate, the overseer could take funds for personal necessities.  The synod determined corrective discipline in any case of impropriety.

This concludes the Canons of Antioch

Antioch - Canon 24

It is right that what belongs to the Church be preserved with all care to the Church, with a good conscience and faith in God, the inspector and judge of all.  And these things ought to be administered under the judgment and authority of the bishop, who is entrusted with the whole people and with the souls of the congregation.  But it should be manifest what is church property, with the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons about him; so that these may know assuredly what things belong to the Church, and that nothing be concealed from them, in order that, when the bishop may happen to depart this life, the property belonging to the Church being well known, may not be embezzled nor lost, and in order that the private property of the bishop may not be disturbed on a pretense that it is part of the ecclesiastical goods.  For it is just and well-pleasing to God and man that the private property of the bishop be bequeathed to whomsoever he will, but that for the Church be kept whatever belongs to the Church; so that neither the Church may suffer loss, nor the bishop be injured under pretext of the Church’s interest, nor those who belong to him fall into lawsuits, and himself, after his death, be brought under reproach. 

There was to be a clear accounting of what belonged to the overseer and what to the church body.  When the overseer went to meet his savior, the elders and deacons were charged to maintain the property until such time as a new overseer was recognized.  Since the overseer had ultimate responsibility, it behooved him to ensure these things were in order so no reproach should come upon his or the church's name because of mishandling on either side.

Antioch - Canon 23

It shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void.  But the ecclesiastical law must be observed, that a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with the judgment of the bishops, who have the authority to promote the man who is worthy, after the falling asleep of him who has ceased from his labors.

The early church sought to avoid nepotism of any kind.  Only by a synod could an overseer's successor be named and recognized: the idea being wisdom in a multitude of spiritual counselors.  There had been occasions where this was circumvented—Augustine being one of the most notable—where the synod accepted the agency of the preceding overseer by ratifying the appointment rather than void it as required.  Such was the application of both expediency and politics within the church.

One aspect of this canon which may be easily overlooked is that the office was lifetime.  A man placed in such a position of a particular church did not retire unless unable to fulfill his duties.  This would be a safeguard for the overseer since the congregation could not have him removed without scriptural reason.  This also allowed both short- and long-range planning for catechizing and ministry.  The lifetime appointment also gave the church some security as they knew someone would be available to meet their spiritual needs.

Antioch - Canon 22

Let not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself, nor into a district which does not belong to him, either to ordain any one, or to appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place.  And if any one shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void, and he himself shall be punished by the synod.

This canon was quite similar to Canon 13.  The difference put forth by Van Espen is that:

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.¹

The fine distinction helps to realize the interesting levels of allowable duties and authorities derived and set for each ecclesiastical office. Again, the intent was to stop the flow of movement from one church to another, whether prompted by personal desire or peer prodding.


¹ Quoted in NPNF², Vol 14, 119.

Antioch - Canon 21

A bishop may not be translated from one parish to another, either intruding himself of his own suggestion, or under compulsion by the people, or by constraint of the bishops; but he shall remain in the Church to which he was allotted by God from the beginning, and shall not be translated from it, according to the decree formerly passed on the subject.

This canon appears to be an attempt to practically apply Paul's instruction to remain in what the Lord had assigned (1 Cor 7:17-24).  Neither the will of the overseer, the people, nor the other overseers allowed for the transfer to another region.  As in Canon 15 of Nicaea, the idea was to inhibit the movement of overseers from one church to another.  Many of these were for personal gain or recognition and showed contempt for the ministry rather than a love for the flock.

Antioch - Canon 20

With a view to the good of the Church and the settlement of disputes, it is decreed to be well that synods of the bishops, (of which the metropolitan shall give notice to the provincials), should be held in every province twice a year, one after the third week of the feast of Easter, so that the synod may be ended in the fourth week of the Pentecost; and the second on the ides of October which is the tenth [or fifteenth] day of the month Hyperberetæus; so that presbyters and deacons, and all who think themselves unjustly dealt with, may resort to these synods and obtain the judgment of the synod.  But it shall be unlawful for any to hold synods by themselves without those who are entrusted with the Metropolitan Sees.

So that there were appropriately placed synods through the year, two per year were established—six months apart—guaranteeing that matters requiring a synod would be judged and not allowed to languish.  In many ways this provided a spiritual "city of refuge" system to ensure all matters were addressed.

Antioch - Canon 19

A bishop shall not be ordained without a synod and the presence of the metropolitan of the province.  And when he is present, it is by all means better that all his brethren in the ministry of the Province should assemble together with him; and these the metropolitan ought to invite by letter.  And it were better that all should meet; but if this be difficult, it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force.  And if the appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the majority shall prevail.

An overseer could not be ordained except by the assembly of a synod and the presence of the metropolitan.  This prevented the possibility of a man ingratiating himself on a church so that they might choose him to be their leader through a congregational election or other consensus-making measure.  A wolf might be prevented from ravaging the flock.  With other godly men gathered, the council could question and discern the acceptability of the potential overseer and with the metropolitan give their recognition and blessing.  The suggestion for written invitations helps to ensure the assembly was done in good order.  All members of the synod would receive the invitation, and no interloper would have access without the it.  There was always a possibility that the metropolitan might "stack the deck" for or against the one being examined, but the hope was that the group might forestall any wrongdoing.

The canon attempted to ensure a quorum be present in one locale.  If this is not possible, letters from the synod invitees were delivered instead with their decisions.  If the synod could not be convened as laid down in the canon, the whole affair was null and void.  No ordination and placement could be recognized and enforced.

Antioch - Canon 18

If any bishop ordained to a parish shall not proceed to the parish to which he has been ordained, not through any fault of his own, but either because of the rejection of the people, or for any other reason not arising from himself, let him enjoy his rank and ministry; only he shall not disturb the affairs of the Church which he joins; and he shall abide by whatever the full synod of the province shall determine, after judging the case.

If the ordained overseer is unable to accept appointment for reasons outside of his control, he may join in fellowship at a church wherever suited until a full synod might be convened to determine his situation and future.  Until then, he may maintain the privileges of his office but not interfere with the affairs of this temporary church home.

Today, there are a times when a church leader may not be in a position of authority in a local group for a variety of reasons.  A furlough will likely find him visiting and sitting under the teaching of another leader.  There may be a tendency in those cases for the furloughed leader to become enmeshed in affairs because of a desire to be productive again or because of the prodding from those established in the new church to get him involved.  In both cases the proper course of action is to stop and back away, recognizing that premature involvement is reckless and potentially damaging to both him and those he hopes to assist.  The leader is on furlough for a reason.  If the Lord so indicates through patient waiting and wise council that he should be fully involved with the new group, the first church should review what has happened and send him on with their blessing.

Antioch - Canon 17

If any one having received the ordination of a bishop, and having been appointed to preside over a people, shall not accept his ministry, and will not be persuaded to proceed to the Church entrusted to him, he shall be excommunicated until he, being constrained, accept it, or until a full synod of the bishops of the province shall have determined concerning him.

At first read someone might wonder why someone would show the desire and perform the necessary prerequisites in order to be an overseer, then turn away from his assignment.  Some possibilities come to mind:

1.	The assignment is in an unacceptable region, away from familiar surroundings. This seems to be the least likely reason since the overseer would have made a firm commitment to the Lord's leading early in the process.
2.	The overseer has sought the position from pride and is now exhibiting that trait.  Perhaps the assignment is beneath his perceived ability or aspirations.  This possible scenario can be questioned on the basis of demonstrated humility over an extended period of time.  How could someone working toward the position of overseer mask the pride, unless it might have entered later on.
3.	There is undiscovered or unrepentant sin which may, if brought to light, disqualify the newly ordained overseer. If this was the case, the penalty for evasive tactics would disqualify, making silence trivial except for conscience sake.
4.	Lastly, there is the possibility of a developed health concern making the assignment difficult or impossible to fulfill.

Whatever the reason, the overseer was to be cast out until such time as he should accept or a synod be convened to review and rule on the matter.

Antioch - Canon 16

If any bishop without a see shall throw himself upon a vacant church and seize its throne, without a full synod, he shall be cast out, even if all the people over whom he has usurped jurisdiction should choose him.  And that shall be a full synod, in which the metropolitan is present.

Right off I want to state that the word "throne" is disconcerting, but in relation to the early church, it was a literal seat reserved for the spiritual authority.  Should an overseer attempt to move into a vacant church, even for altruistic reasons, and begin exercise authority without a proper synod (at which a metropolitan was present) for installation, that overseer was deposed.  This canon prevented an opportunistic overseer from attempting to gain greater influence by moving into a vacant spot.  It also gave proper protocol for moving someone into that position in an orderly manner.

Antioch - Canon 15

If any bishop, lying under any accusation, shall be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict concerning him, he shall not be again judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of the bishops of the province shall stand firm.

Associated with the previous canon, this addressed the case where a unanimous verdict delivered by the local body of authority was binding with no appeal.  Noteworthy in both canons was the insistence of unanimity.  The practice of majority rule is relatively new in the church and most likely an outgrowth of the democratic process found in Western culture.  Most, if not all, church groups have a voting process with its ugly offspring politicking.  The majority rules rather than seeking a consensus.  Certainly, the latter can be more difficult, even strenuous, but the decisions are more binding and results more long-lasting.  Numerical advantage may change between divergent groups in a simple election, and political alliances are both tenuous and fleeting.  Better to work beyond a super-majority to the place where all in leadership can operate under the established decisions and guidelines.

Antioch - Canon 14

If a bishop shall be tried on any accusations, and it should then happen that the bishops of the province disagree concerning him, some pronouncing the accused innocent, and others guilty; for the settlement of all disputes, the holy Synod decrees that the metropolitan call on some others belonging to the neighboring province, who shall add their judgment and resolve the dispute, and thus, with those of the province, confirm what is determined.

This canon recognized that the local church should be administering its own affairs, but there may be times when the council of others is needed in order to proceed on an issue.  This is not a sign of failure but recognizing a shortcoming in experience.  Wisdom recognizes when help is needed and sought.  This in no way removes the place or responsibility of the local church leaders for they will be held responsible in the final decision.

Antioch - Canon 13

No bishop shall presume to pass from one province to another, and ordain persons to the dignity of the ministry in the Church, not even should he have others with him, unless he should go at the written invitation of the metropolitan and bishops into whose country he goes.  But if he should, without invitation, proceed irregularly to the ordination of any, or to the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs which do not concern him, the things done by him are null, and he himself shall suffer the due punishment of his irregularity and his unreasonable undertaking, by being forthwith deposed by the holy Synod.

This canon prevented one overseer to visit the area served by another overseer with the intent of ordaining someone to a position.  An entourage would have the semblance of authority, but the practice was still condemned.  Only with the express written invitation of the overseer or metropolitan could such an ordination be practiced.  Any outside attempts was considered seditious and carried whatever punishment was considered apropos.  The force of the canon allowed the spiritual authority in a region to conduct affairs without interference from wolves rising up to devour the flock.  The unhindered work allowed long-range planning and removed fear of an ecclesiastical interloper.

Because of fragmentation within the local (i.e., city) church today with varied denominations vying for the attention of the local church, sheep-stealing has become the norm.  A church perceives an unmet need or service area and exploits it so that those around are attentive to the "up and coming" work.  The notoriety draws unsatisfied believers into their midst where they are summarily fed the latest staple that neither fills nor satisfies the soul, and the cycle begins once again with a new ministry start-up.  Shame on us for not respecting the work of the local church already established in a city.  Lack of attention by the believers in a locale to a particular ministry area does not automatically give another group the right to move in and begin operations as the next big thing.  As per the canon, do not go to establish something new unless the local church gives its blessing.

Of course, what happens if the local church is not doing the work that Christ intended?  Or what if they have abandoned the cause of Christ (as is too often the case).  Here there is clear testimony of scripture that we are to obey God rather than men.  Do the work the Lord Jesus gave you to do.

Antioch - Canon 12

If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare to trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have an opportunity of defense, nor any hope of future restoration.

Whereas the previous canon was directed to the overseers, this addressed the elders and deacons who were considering or actively engaged in seeking the help of civil authority for church matters.  These together were intended to prevent any ordained person from operating independently, not recognizing the unity and cohesion of the church as it was intended to be—an organic, living thing whereby each part works in harmony with the whole.

Antioch - Canon 11

If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of the bishop of the province, and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church.  But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with letters from them.

This somewhat restrictive canon attempted to thwart church officers from appealing to civil authorities even as rulers were attempting to hold sway over the church.  The rightful role of church discipline and authority as established by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 5:3-5; 6:1-11) was being circumvented.  The modern church would do well to understand that civil authority has no jurisdiction in church matters.  To go before the legal system of the land is tantamount to saying that Christ is insufficient for all things concerning his very body on earth of which he is head.  How short we fall when the elect cannot, will not, or is not allowed to adjudicate a just, loving, and binding verdict.

Antioch - Canon 10

The Holy Synod decrees that persons in villages and districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though they may have received ordination to the Episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the care and administration of these; but they may ordain readers, sub-deacons and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these, but shall not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent of bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if he shall dare to transgress [these] decrees, he shall be deposed from the rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop of the city to which he is subject.

This extended some clarification to the previous canon by stating which offices can be appointed by the country overseer without the metropolitan.  Low-level assistants did not require a higher level approval while elders and deacons needed input presumably so that all things were done in good order.

Antioch - Canon 9

It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis.  Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them.  For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment.  But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

This canon specified the sphere of authority within the ecclesiastical hierarchy for a country overseer in relation to the metropolitan or in metropolitan overseers to one another.  At the top was not one above all as Rome purported but a college of oversight for the guidance of the church.

Antioch - Canon 8

Let not country presbyters give letters canonical, or let them send such letters only to the neighboring bishops.  But the chorepiscopi of good report may give letters pacifical.

As a safeguard of communicating canonical decisions, authoritative letters required a person of proper position.  At Nicaea the council proceedings were marked with Π. Υ. A. Π. (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit) attesting to their authenticity similar to a royal seal from a monarch.  Letters of commendation, however, did not require the same level of authority, but the sender needed to be in a position of responsibility.

Antioch - Canon 7

No stranger shall be received without letters pacifical.

This was another expression for the type of letter mentioned by Paul (2 Cor 3:1-3) as typical of the churches to introduce a brother or sister to a receiving church.  These letters were useful in that they acknowledged the carrier as an attested believer, and the receiving church felt they could trust the stranger.  This procedure retains its practical nature today though the method of transmission may vary.

Antioch - Canon 6

If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defense, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence.  And let this decree apply to the laity, and to presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy-list.

This canon accords with scripture: deal with the outcast with the idea of reconciliation and restoration.  The formal defense after excommunication seems peculiar, since the logical step in the United States would be to have the tribunal before dismissal.  This may be a case of cultural application since the American judicial system assumes innocence.  Within the church of this era, the approach may have been to deal with questionable doctrine or impiety until a synod could be formed to gain collective wisdom on the matter.  This would protect the church though the outcast would be in a hopeless position until the synod could be convened.