Synod of Elvira

There the nineteen bishops and twenty-four presbyters, mostly from Hispania Baetica and Carthago Nova,[a] assembled, probably at the instigation of Hosius of Córdoba, but under the presidency of Felix of Accitum (Guadix) in Baetica, probably by virtue of his being the oldest bishop present,[7] with a view to restoring order and discipline in the church.

The canons which were adopted reflect with considerable fullness the internal life and external relations of the Spanish Church of the 4th century.

Victor De Clercq[8] notes "that except for Hosius of Córdoba, we know practically nothing about these men, nor do we know with certainty when and why the council was held, and that the church of Spain is one of the least known in pre-constantinian [sic] times".

Maurice Meigne[9] considers that only the first twenty-one canons in the list that has been transmitted[10] were promulgated at Elvira; the remainder having been added to the collection.

The social environment of Christians in Hispania may be inferred from the canons prohibiting marriage and other intercourse with Jews, pagans and heretics, closing the offices of flamen and duumvir to Christians, forbidding all contact with idolatry[11] and likewise participation in pagan festivals and public games.

Sanctions include long delays before baptism, exclusion from the Eucharist for periods of months or years, or indefinitely, sometimes with an exception for the death-bed, though this is also specifically excluded in some cases.

[citation needed] Among the early canons (which are possibly the only original ones), Canon 1 forbade giving holy communion to lapsed Christians even in articulo mortis, an unusually severe application of Novatianist principles, which had divided the church since the recovery from mid 3rd-century persecutions: compare the severity of Cyprian of Carthage.

[14] This canon is believed to be condemning the practice of Syneisaktism, or spiritual marriage, which was growing more and more popular among ascetic men and women.

[citation needed] Canon 36 states, "It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.

"[15][16][b] It allegedly forbids pictures in churches (compare the Iconoclastic Controversy in the East); according to Philip Schaff this canon "has often been quoted by Protestants as an argument against image worship as idolatrous; while Roman Catholic writers explain it either as a prohibition of representations of the deity only, or as a prudential measure against heathen desecration of holy things".

Canon 60 says "If someone smashes an idol and is then punished by death, he or she may not be placed in the list of martyrs, since such action is not sanctioned by the Scriptures or by the apostles."

Karl Josef von Hefele and Robert William Dale follow early compilers of the canons Giovanni Domenico Mansi and Jean Hardouin in agreement upon 305 or 306, while Hennecke[1] concludes that "the whole attitude points to a time of peace, not to one immediately following a persecution; the complete absence of any provisions as to the case of the lapsed is enough to preclude the modern theory as to the date".