Graeco-Roman Canon Law

CANON LAW

making the fall more severe. For the weak and dissipated, and those who are more given to the pleasures of the world, and moreover those who can boast of the nobility of their lineage and their power, if ^A a censure is applied to their faults little by little, they can, if not perfectly, at least in part, be freed from the evils by which they are held. But if anyone uses excessive severity of discipline, he will deprive them even of that lesser discipline and correction. For after a soul has been forced to cast aside its sense of shame, it falls into desperation, and it neither yields any longer to gentle admonitions, nor is it deterred by threats, nor is it stirred by the exhortation of rewards; but it becomes much worse than that city, to which the prophet, rebuking it, said: *The face of a harlot has become yours: you have behaved disgracefully before all.* Wherefore the pastor has need of much prudence and of countless eyes, so that he may circumspectly observe the state of the soul from every side. For even as many are borne toward contumacy and fall into despair of their own salvation because they could not endure bitterer remedies, ^B so are there others who, because a penalty equal to their fault is not inflicted upon them, turn to contempt and become much worse, so that they sometimes sin more grievously. Therefore, nothing regarding these is to be left unexamined; but by investigating everything exactly, a fitting correction is to be applied to the one approaching, so that the labor of correction may not be expended in vain.

GENNADII

^C Circular letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and of the holy synod gathered with him, to all the most holy metropolitans, and to the Pope of Rome. — That the laying on of hands should not be done for money.

It exists among the works of Gennadius himself, Patrologiae, Vol. LXXXV, col. 1613.

TARASII

On the same subject, to Adrian, Pope of Old Rome, a letter of Tarasius, most holy Patriarch of Constantinople, New Rome. ^D

It exists in Patrologiae, Vol. XCVIII, col. 1441.

NICEPHORUS THE CONFESSOR

From the canons of Nicephorus the Confessor.

They exist in Patrologiae, Vol. C, col. 851.

SISINNII

Decision of Patriarch Sisinnius, that two brothers may not take two cousins as wives.

Sisinnius, by divine mercy Archbishop, of Constantino-

- ple, New Rome, and universal Patriarch.

And that physician is the more agreeable and worthy of many cities, who, when a pestilence is imminent, repels the evil before it spreads, and does not allow the danger of the disease to take hold; by prescribing a wholesome regimen of life, he procures health for bodies without danger, since if it were to leap inside once and consume the bodies like fire, it could with difficulty be restrained and driven off, the medical art of necessity giving way on all sides to the intensity of the affliction. And the physician of souls would easily adapt these things to himself, who struggled in every way before the disease could invade, mixing preventive medicinal remedies with his words, and not allowing this to dance wildly like a public plague against nature. But when the terrible evil has once crept in and for a long time has frequently consumed the souls of the many, the assistance is laborious and not easy, and the medicines for it are difficult to apply. But on the contrary, for those who again guard themselves against the vice, salvation is ready, and it is easy to avoid destruction. Those, however, who have already fallen into the terrible plight, have departed after having wiped off for themselves the harm from the disease, ^A which is difficult to shake off and total. Just as, therefore, for one who has fallen into some evil, it is better to escape than to be buried with it, and it is better to restrain a disease that is raging and surging against bodies in common, and feeding on every age and sex, than to allow it to proceed unimpeded, so too, when a vice has fallen upon souls for their destruction and decay, ^B it is praiseworthy and at once pleasing to God, and fitting and appropriate for us as rational shepherds, to cut short and stop the destruction arising from it. Since, therefore, He purchased the people of Christ with His own blood, the holy nation, having long ago fenced it in like a vine with the teaching of the divine and holy apostles, and of the holy Fathers who came after them, as if with divine laws, ^C already sacredly planted by God who brought all things into being, pruning away on all sides and purifying the infirmities that harm nature, and every dissolute impulse of pagan life enslaved to natural desires, just like a river’s flow rushing in insult to the archetypal image, He restrained and held it back; and besides the divine canons, civil laws also wave the sword daily against those who are not imbued with piety but are headlong and far from ^D what is right—this was required of the holy nation, to live with a pure conscience, and to introduce nothing of the forbidden things into it, and to cloud our life. For divine canons and civil laws, smoothing out the harshness of human nature, most firmly imprint spiritual life and good morals upon our minds, so that without stumbling in life, the republic may at all times [be worthy of the name].

^A And since they knew that marriage is the root and foundation of the race and the workshop of our nature, they fortified it by various arguments and admonitions so that it might have purity, even from its very root, and remain untroubled, and not be stained by any splashes of reproach (for it is a terrible thing for tares to be sown with the wheat); they held the illicit marriage far apart from the lawful, or rather, they set the honorable one apart. They are advisors to those who embrace the life of marriage according to the necessity of nature itself, and they introduce this to them, while persuading them to push the others away from their own union and to turn away from them entirely. For long ago, to Israel, having obtained the seal of God—circumcision—the laws of marriage were directed according to each individual tribe, the lawgiver excluding the mingling and communion of the Gentiles with them. But for one seeking an affinity of his own kind, that way of marriage was direct and unobstructed, extending even beyond prohibition. But as we have become the peculiar people of God, ^B by the grace of Him who took us and reconciled us to Himself—we, all the nations, and, according to the Prophet, we have clapped our hands with joy—and we have all become a new Israel; and He who makes peace has gathered all things into one, wishing to unite us to Himself and to one another in love. For that union, He closed the inner gates of marriage and the road leading to near kinship, but He opened the outward passages to all the inhabitants of the earth. And truly, the whole world lies open to those wishing to enter into these marriages, just as the way leading to kinship has been blocked and closed by divine laws. Therefore, those who have written the laws distinguished illicit marriages, some by specific names, while others they gathered generally under the name of uncleanness, and passed over them in silence, having complete concern for modesty ^C and not wishing to defile their tongue by detailing each species at great length. With whom the great Apostle Paul agrees, saying, "But fornication and all uncleanness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints" (Eph. 5:3), including under the name of uncleanness every illicit union and obscenity. Nor, for the lustful, did the silence in these matters become a license; for the law did not easily permit one to leap into even the lawful marriages. But what does it say? "In marriages, one must look not only to what is permitted, but also to what is honorable." Thus, the divine Fathers have established in the canons and the lawgivers in the laws concerning the chastity and innocence of nature. Against our war, however, the strenuous warrior and most powerful and mighty adversary in the treacherous sieges of souls, ^D while often rising up with others and publicly and privately subverting the modesty of marriage, has brought this forward more contentiously; and he introduces this hiddenly, so that many hold it as nothing, that although they are brothers, two...

cousins should be taken for them in marriage; and this they do openly and without hindrance with sacred rite: or again, for two brothers to be joined to two cousins as if in legitimate marriage, or for an uncle and a nephew to be joined to two sisters, or two brothers conversely to an aunt and her niece. Such an absurdity ^A, cloaked in the sanctity of marriage, insultingly escaped notice of nature.

Wherefore our moderation, grieving at these illicit unions, having consulted with the sacred synod of the most devout metropolitans and archbishops, and fearing the heavy judgment of the threat (which is proposed to those who do not announce to the people the approaching sword), ^B has judged and approved it useful to devise some remedy for this evil, so that those who have been convicted may have the condemnation as a medicine or a proven defense, and for others it may serve as a prophylactic medicine for the future. Hence we decree that from this time forward no one shall dare to commit such an atrocity in marriage, and such iniquity regarding those joined by blood, which is entirely repugnant to nature itself and creates such confusion, as will be made more manifest ^C and clearer hereafter. The holy and great Basil, who explores the depths of the Spirit, according to the theological saying, while discussing certain illicit marriages, gave a brief definition by which lawful marriages are easily distinguished from illicit ones: "In which," he says, "the names of kinship are confounded, in these the marriages are illicit." How then, in the case of the present marriage, can one apply the appellations? For the brothers will be called both brothers and brethren-in-law alike, just as those women who are joined to them in marriage will be both cousins and sisters-in-law; but by what name of kinship will the parents call the children born of these? ^D For from the brothers, the designation of the second degree will suit them, to be called cousins; but from the mothers, that of the third degree will be more appropriate. For it would be more just to call them second cousins. And the absurd confusion of the names demonstrates more clearly the lawlessness of the illicit marriage, according to the holy Father Basil.

But perhaps someone may arise to plead for his passion, asking, as it were, "Why has no written law forbidden this by name, saying that brothers are not to take for the communion of marriage those born of their brothers? And why do you set yourselves against that which is done according to custom by the spirit of so long a time?"

^A You counter-legislate against one who has taken custom prevailing for so long a time as an argument, by twisting the ears with turns of phrases and vehemence, and by playing the sophist with the matter, and by bringing under judgment that which is exempt from the laws? But not I, but the one full of the Spirit, Basil, declared this sin by law long ago, whose law is the tongue of the Church, and the sound of the words, the divinely-written tablets, inscribed by the finger of God. And if anyone looks for another legislator in these matters, I do not know if he will seem wise to the wise. Even if no mention of this matter has been made by any of the Fathers, not even so would we seem to those not judging according to the decision to wish to remove this malady of the Church unreasonably. For those who legislated concerning temperance, punishing the adultery of a wife and the abduction of a virgin, ^B do not add what punishment must be suffered if a father is caught violating the modesty of his daughter; as such things are not easily perpetrated. But if something of this kind is committed, it is manifest that the guilty party will undergo punishment, since even lesser crimes are punished. Or, because something is not prohibited by law, does one therefore easily admit it? Or if he has dared to do so, will he not suffer the law which will be written concerning it? No one who is wise would say so. Just as, therefore, when that is passed over in silence, silence does not allow nature to be shamelessly insulted; so, even if this is passed over (if indeed it has been passed over), one will not have the license to act without obstacles; and this is so, being as we are Christians, and knowing keenly that the form of this world is passing away, according to the apostle Paul: that those who have wives should be as though they had none. ^C Although it is not passed over, but to those to whom it was said, it is prohibited. For one ought not to look at what is permitted in marriages, but also at what is becoming. And the holy and great Basil again, as has been said, says: "In those cases where the names of kinship are confounded, in them the marriage is illicit." For just as the union of those joined through marriage knows no distinction, but both are known as one flesh (For they shall be, he says, the two into one flesh); so also those who are kin by lineage are consequently joined by the right of kinship, and come together into one sanguinary proximity and affinity: so that it is necessary for them to be cautious and to fear the slippery conjugal commixtion and copulation between them. For one must not enter upon ^D every relative of the flesh, on account of the disturbances and confusions of the lineage. Where, then, is it already passed over, since it is secured on all sides as illicit, both by canons and by laws, so that it might appear on that account to be exempt from accountability? As for the time which provides support to the vice, it is easy to say this: that for those who wish to lead a flagitious and wicked life, there will be no help at all from time. For neither adulterers, nor robbers, nor burglars, nor any other...

^A in any way delinquents, if they are caught in the very act, will it suffice for their salvation if they prove that they have been doing these things for a long time; unless it is that it shall bring a heavier condemnation, so that he may pay the penalties for his crimes—for both those which are recent and those which he is argued to have committed long ago. Furthermore, that which is honorable ought to take precedence over that which is base; and calamity is worse than good, and habit always precedes deprivation; and to conduct oneself temperately in marriage is firmer in time than to dare illicit things. What, then, will be the weight of help for an evil that has been rolled along for some long and uninterrupted time ^B to the destruction of souls? What other illicit marriages could one name, if one were to omit the present ones? For among those in the ascending and descending lines, ad infinitum, as the law says, marriages are prohibited; but concerning those on the side, brothers, cousins-german, and the children of these, and only these. Therefore, no degree that is completely implicated in a conjunction of blood will be mixed for the communion of marriage between two brothers or two sisters, before the series of their kinship that is woven from above has been resolved by enumeration. Besides these things, this must also be said: that in every work and business, that which is not worthy of commendation, if it results in an effect, is subject to punishment; and that which accords praise to those who do not do it, brings under liability those who dare to ^C do it. There is, therefore, no room for saying that such a marriage is free from liability. For it is not only not free from liability, but if someone examines it closely, the proof of sin in this is greater, and the evil is more pernicious than others. And let no one create a disturbance for me before he has heard. The greater [sins] are, in a way, the trailers of lesser offenses. And anger is a lesser evil than homicide; but if someone is prompted by this and is easily mastered by the passion, perhaps he might even strike; then, as time goes on, having been cast out of the steering [reason] by the carriage, he will be seized by the passion. Do you see how the lesser offenses always become the causes of the greater ones, and how the beginning of these is the door to more pernicious evils? And for this reason, such things are even more subject to the penalty of the others, and the Lord’s voice ^D exhorts us to beware of them more than of the greater vices. For it is said: "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you, do not even covet at all. And it is written: "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, not even at the beginning to be angry. Therefore, two brothers taking two cousins-german as wives, having once been caught by the hook, and having entered upon the path to destruction, will perhaps proceed to greater sins

for if the lesser sin is cut off, there will be a certain sparing in regard to the greater ones. The intent, therefore, of all things done ^A is worthy of bitter condemnation and scourges. Whoever examines this, and investigates it while it lies hidden, will not find that one leaps into such marriages through refractoriness, but rather that one is dragged into them as a prisoner, bound by the fetters of a painful passion. For the glory of lineage, and the weight of honors, or the wealth of a man, or the brightness of beauty, have rolled those who are entrusted with worldly things—and who cast no blame upon them—into marriages that are forbidden. ^B For this reason, He says, the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience; for this reason many are weak and sick, and many sleep; for this reason, terrible fears, earthquakes shaking the foundations of the earth and tearing down the buildings of cities, dreadful droughts, onsets of diseases upon bodies, incursions of enemies, and finally, famines and pestilences, carrying off every age, and receiving consolation from nowhere. Our moderation, together with the synod of the most God-beloved metropolitans and archbishops sitting with us, desiring to halt this inclination of men toward destruction, and liberating the peculiar people of Christ from a base, dishonest, and shameful union, has willed that there be no longer any place for such marriages among Christians, and that they never again be contracted by anyone. It admonishes all in common, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, it defines with paternal and lordly authority that from this time forward no one—whether he be puffed up with the power and riches of youth, ^C or with the multitude and the populace—is to approach such a marriage. And if anyone, regarding the things defined here as nothing, throws himself into such a union, or gives his children [in such a marriage], he shall be cast out from the Church for the whole time of his life. Nor shall he be admitted to repentance before he has severed the marriage, even if he has procreated children from it. But the priest who has granted prayers for such a marriage shall be subject to perpetual deposition. Wherefore both the things defined here, and those exposed and signed in the repository of the wisdom of the Word of God, have been stored up for the memory of those to come. On the 21st of February, in the 10th indiction, in the year 6505.

The things determined have been set forth here, and having been sealed in the repository of the wisdom of the Word of God, they have been managed for the recollection of those to come, on the 21st day of the month of February, of the 10th indiction, in the year 6505.

The metropolitans who consulted and decided these things with us are these: ^D John of Heraclea, John of Ancyra, Leo of Sardis, Stephen of Nicomedia, Daniel of Chalcedon, Theodore of Melitene, John of Tyana, Peter of Gangra, John of Caria, Basil of Iconium, Theophylact of Antioch, John of Sylaeum, Theodegius of Athens, Stylianus of Larissa, George of Trajanopolis.

Leo, of Catania; Euthymius, of Philippi; Arseber, of Hierapolis; Basil, of Saint Severina; Nicolaus, of Neopatras; Stephanus, of Cotyaeum; Leontius, of Serres; Basil, of Pompeiopolis; Philippus, of Parion; Leo, of Cypsela; Constantinus, of Kios; Joannes, of Derkos; Joannes, of Leucas; Theodorus, of Rhodes; and Constantinus, of Sudak.

Scholium of Zonaras

^B SERGIUS

Concerning the donations and collations of monasteries or convents

be expounded according to the present decision, ^A that whatever donations are made by worldly persons to monasteries, and much more so their traditions, cannot be shaken. Wherefore these have been observed up to this time without hindrance.

ALEXIUS.

The figure of the seventh degree of kinship. [Brothers] George. Nicholas. [First cousins] Theodote. Helena. [Second cousins] Demetrius. Basil. Theodote.

II. ^D Concerning someone who, for the sake of marriage, joined his own son to the daughter of another, without the consent of her father. Peter, surnamed Bombylas, coming from Greece, reported to our mediocrity concerning a marriage not accepted by the law. For when I was absent, he says, that Nicetas, surnamed Chalcutzes, [took] my wife Calas and the daughter...

Mitzam, led them into his house, performed ^A the sacred office over them, and joined my daughter Mitzam to Leo, the son of Anthimus 46-48. Proposing these things, he asked that such an unlawful union be dissolved. If, therefore, someone has led the daughter of another into marriage against the will of the one who brought the complaint, and it is found that he neither consented to the contract before nor after, but appears always to have disapproved of it, then [the court] should sever his authority from the one who was wrongly joined to him. For the laws hate and turn away from such unions, and do not even consider them to be marriages, as your sagacity well knows; and the sacred canons also drive them far away from civic administration. And so, the emperor, who is proficient in divine matters 49, says that these are no different from fornication. For he says that a marriage does not take place unless those who are joined together consent, and those who have authority over them do as well, and in many places it is clear that he considers marriages which have taken place against the will of those who have authority as being of no account. ^B The Great Basil says at one point: "Maidens who have married against the will of their fathers fornicate; yet if the parents are reconciled, the act seems to receive a remedy, but they are not immediately restored to communion, but shall be subjected to penance for three years." Elsewhere he says that marriages without the consent of those who have authority are fornications; but if the masters approve of the cohabitation, then the marriage receives its strength. And it would be well to remind your learning that there is a law which commands that if a father has been unknown [to be] or where he is staying for a period of three years, and whether he is still living, his children of either sex may legally marry. But if, before the three years, the children of the captive or the absent man have married, and it is clear that the situation does not displease the father, the marriage is valid. And perhaps this is the case with Peter’s daughter; perhaps he was absent and it was unknown where he was staying, or even if he were still alive. For if this is often the way things are, the investigation must be completed ^C according to the power of the law. You are not unaware, in your erudition, of that law which says: "If to any of the parents who wishes to give a husband to his own daughter or granddaughter, and to provide a dowry for her according to the capacity of his own property, she does not consent, but prefers to lead a shameful life, it is permitted for the father to disinherit her." But if the daughter has reached the age of twenty-five years, and her parents delay to join her to a husband, and perhaps from this it happens that she sins with her own body, this should not be reckoned against her as uselessness, since it is known that she committed this transgression not by her own fault, but by the fault of her parents. Therefore, one must consider whether perhaps ^D [the daughter of] Anthimus the protospatharios... Wherefore I write to your piety, to inquire diligently into the matters of the case, and if it was against his will... Basil: For the law says that a marriage does not take place... to ingratitude.

might have married against the will of her father. For then, if she did anything against the will of her father, she shall not be judged. But if nothing of the kind occurred, but the daughter of Peter, being under his power, married against his will in violation of every law, it is necessary not only that those joined together be separated by your excellency, but also that those who assisted in this matter be brought to account, and that the priest who dared to perform the holy office be sent to the bishop of the place to receive punishments worthy of his audacity. And if any goods (as the aforementioned Peter alleged) were transferred from his house to the house of the person to whom his daughter was married, these too are to be recovered and restored to him. The penalty for defilement must also be exacted in accordance with the tenor of the laws, and provided to the party of her who was corrupted. Given in the month of April, in the indiction..., in the year 6546.

MICHAEL

You have referred, most holy one, to our mediocrity, that since certain children of cousins were about to enter into marriage with one another, you have for the present prohibited these nuptials; and you inquired by letter whether it is not proper to prohibit such marriages, but rather to permit them to proceed. You know, most pious one, what kind of things the legislators have decreed regarding marriages. For they say: "Among those in the ascending and descending lines, marriage is prohibited to infinity, but among those on the side, there is a certain prohibition." The word "certain," placed in opposition to that which is "to infinity," introduces a particular prohibition. And this is manifest from those things which the laws state again: "Brothers, first cousins, and only those born of them are prohibited from being joined in the nuptial union." What could be sought that is clearer than this law? Nothing. And how could anyone attempt to make a prohibition or permission other than that which has been decreed? If, therefore, the legislator has fixed the limit of the prohibition of marriages from the same kinship up to first cousins, and has left those further than these as indefinite, there is no one who can transgress the legal limit. For he would be legislating against it. And listen also to the express permission for the marriage of children of cousins. "The heir," it says, "written under the condition, 'if she marries the great-grandson of an uncle, or the great-grandson of a great-uncle,' should fulfill the condition." For such marriages are not base. Why so? Because they are separated by eight degrees. For although the children of cousins participate in the same root and the same lineage; yet the interval of the degrees, and the words of the legislator, call them again to union and kinship, with the right of marriage granted. For the sixth—

^A degree, both among those related collaterally and among those related by affinity, entirely forbids marriage and dissolves one that has already been contracted. Again, the eighth degree allows union, whether those who are coming together are related by blood or by affinity. Regarding the seventh degree, however, the whole question arises, which is not to be resolved otherwise than by the most legal science and determined by an ungrudging mind. For whatever marriages of persons coming together from proximity or affinity fall within the seventh degree, these remain indissoluble, as being joined from blameless marriages. For two first cousins entering into marriage contracts with a great-aunt or a niece, having proceeded from another line and lineage, will not bring charges of crimes upon themselves. For cousins hold the fourth degree from one another, but the aunt or the great-aunt is separated by three degrees from the son of a brother or sister. And thus the seventh degree, gathered together from these ^B, escapes censure in the end, through subtle thoughts and fine reasonings, because of the commandment: in the other degrees before the seventh, tempering the connection of separate lineages, it unites, but does not impede marriage in the seventh. Marriages of blood relatives from the side included in the seventh degree, however, are absolutely forbidden and are considered to be avoided. For neither will a cousin ever be coupled with the daughter of a cousin, nor will the daughter of a cousin, having turned back to the cousin of her father, ever draw him into her own marriage. For this is a defilement and corruption of the lineage, and a confusion of kinship, and an intemperate mixture, and opposed to legal distinction. Since indeed, there is not even the same closeness of persons joined by affinity as there is of those born from the same kinship and blood, [in order that] the seventh degree might be equally either permitted or forbidden for both. For of collateral kinships, the root is one and the source is one, even though the offshoots are different and the streams are measurable. But those which have taken their constitution ^C from intermarriages, dragging along the connection of two foreign lineages, as if being regrafted and growing together from one lineage into another, hold marriage prohibited; not through the law of kinship, but from legal decrees, and the divine voice, joining from the beginning the female to the male into one. For it is not the case that, since the wife of my brother is one flesh with her husband and my brother, and in my subtle mind and thought the bride is reckoned as my sister, I shall therefore wipe out all her kinship into one person and reckon her sisters and blood relatives [as my own]. ^D For the law guides me, as to which of these female relatives I shall not marry, and with whom I may cohabit without reproach. For instance, I shall not write out dowry tablets with my wife's sister, or her cousin, or my aunt or great-aunt; nor even with the daughter of my brother or sister. Since the sixth degree and those below...

^A are included in the requirements, I shall consider a marriage with her second cousin, or her young niece, to be irreproachable. For the former is removed to the eighth degree, while the niece transcends the sixth and stands at the seventh. Thus also an uncle and a niece, or those who marry their first cousins, establish a lawful marriage. For they stand apart from one another by a legal gulf, in no way polluting the kinship from these sources. No one, therefore, can rightly say that one who is joined by affinity, and who is called a kinsman only abusively, is closer or equal to one who is of the same lineage and blood, so that for that reason he should be confined by the same limits of marriage ^B as were explained above. For the legislator, by forbidding the children of first cousins from entering into the union of marriage, and by permitting the union of the children of second cousins, and by decreeing nothing concerning those in between, has made his intention manifest from what is forbidden and what is permitted, so that one ought not to transgress the boundaries. For if a second cousin should look lustfully upon the daughter of his own second cousin, he will show arrogance, not having guarded the legal boundary purely; he has whinnied after his kin like a horse, and is judged from that point not a husband, but a defiler. But a third cousin, being outside the number of degrees placed in prohibition by the legislator, if he should indeed step back over the fence ^C and, abandoning his own third-cousinly rank, should leap in among the prohibited marriages and fall illicitly upon his father's second cousin, he will marry her treacherously, like a robber, and not lawfully. And therefore he shall be ignominiously separated from her, and he who offered her kisses, as if they were certain chosen bridal gifts, will find that he is instead bestowing upon her the gifts of forbidden marriages. And what are these? Eternal disgrace and an unpraiseworthy reputation. Therefore, on account of these stains, and the confusion and disorder of the lineage, and the commingling of the blood of kindred, most God-loving one, in those who are of the seventh degree from the side, a marriage is not reckoned, nor is it recognized by those who are of sound mind, being most piously excluded from the number of lawful unions ^D.

Thus the decrees of the jurisconsults wish it to be; thus also the most ancient of the wisest judges from the beginning and up to the present times have pronounced concerning these things, and have set such a boundary for marriages. Such are the unions of famous and great men that have been established, and will be established, and are still being established, having an irreproachable union, and in no way polluting the undefiled marriage bed with the gore of kinship. But the blessed among the patriarchs, Lord Sisinius, finding, as it seems, in his own time, those who...

^A shamelessly intermingled and lived without reproach as two brothers with two first cousins of a different lineage, or with an aunt or a mother’s sister, and supposing that such a marriage was not disgraceful—this, indeed, he blocked by a new decree; but he left all other matters outside of these undefined and unhindered. For when he said that an uncle or a nephew could not take two sisters, or two brothers an aunt and a niece—and what the patriarch deemed a greater sin—when he forbade two brothers from being joined in marriage to two first cousins, as such a thing would lead to a confusion of lineages and a mixing up of names; and having ^B circumscribed those unions that are prohibited up to that point, and having uttered nothing concerning those beyond them, he appeared most clearly to forbid marriages of the sixth degree and those below it, and did not grant them a place. But for those who exceed the sixth degree, he judged the union to be lawful, decreeing the same as the ancient legislators and establishing a most holy rule; indeed, he even constrained and tightened marriages by kinship more than they did. For while they ^C stopped at the fourth degree, or prohibited them for the sake of decency, saying: "I cannot take the daughter of my spouse from another, or her granddaughter, or great-granddaughter; nor the wife of my son, or of my grandson, or of my great-grandson; nor my mother-in-law, or my stepmother"—this patriarch, wise in divine things, not only not overlooking these or other legal prohibitions, but even extending them as far as the sixth degree, set against this point alone the limit of prohibition. And no one of the Christ-named people who transgresses this ^D shall ever return unpunished, but, covering his face with shame, shall lament greatly. For indeed, that man, raised from childhood in the courts and offices of justice, gray in years and wisdom, daily leafing through the legal volumes, and finally sitting in the holy synod, and having gathered the definitions of god-bearing men, and having collected from all sides what is chaste and honorable, did not hesitate to set forth the most exact order of matrimonial unions and to compose a new tome concerning these matters, and to leave it behind for those after him, as an inscription truly truthful and irreproachable, granting to the human race a pure existence, and keeping them, through the custom and union of blameless marriages, most pure before God. These few words, O most holy one, out of many, concerning the things written by you about marriage, we have collected and inscribed, and we send them to you in writing.

This is the exact copy of the patriarchal letter published synodically, extracted from the codices kept in the sacred privy chamber, authenticated by the autograph signature and seal of Nicetas, most holy protosyncellus and chartophylax of the most holy great Church of God, and corroborated by the signatures of the most learned deacons and patriarchal notaries; issued in the month and indiction written above. ^A

JOANNES XIPHILINUS (2)

I. Concerning Betrothals.

On the 26th day of April, a Wednesday, in the fourth indiction, in the year 6474 [1066], with our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, John, presiding in the right parts of the catechumens' quarters, with the most holy metropolitans sitting with him—namely, those of Caesarea, Ephesus, Heraclea, Ancyra, Cyzicus, Chalcedon, Sebasteia, Gangra, Philippi, Hierapolis, Cotyaeum, Mitylene, Chonae, Nacolia; and the archbishops, namely, those of Maroneia, Proconnesus, Garella, Lemnos, Bosporus, Gothia, Heraclea; and later those who arrived from Amaseia, Melitene, Claudiopolis, Iconium, and Hydruntum—^B although it is not clearly and expressly stated in the synodal tome published by the illustrious patriarch, lord Sisinnius, concerning prohibited and incestuous marriages, that anything regarding betrothal is also included; yet, since the civil law [(3)] altogether forbids the bride of a father or a son to be joined to the son or the father respectively, because the former holds the place of a stepmother and the latter that of a daughter-in-law, even if the marriage has not followed; and the same applies to the betrothed of an adopted son, even if the adoption has been dissolved, so that the adoptive father cannot take her as a wife, just as if she were a daughter-in-law and the consort ^C of his own son; and since it has prevailed even until this day that whoever has betrothed a virgin to himself, and has lost her—either by death, or by repudiation, or by mutual consent and the payment of legal penalties—and has then married another, cannot be ordained as a priest, or deacon, or subdeacon, being considered, in other words, a digamist: it has seemed good now also to our mediocrity and to the entire most holy synod present, that this should hold in all incestuous and prohibited marriages; namely, that not only if the marriage and the sacred prayers have taken place is such a contract prohibited and called illicit, but even if the betrothal has been accomplished according to the law—though the marriage was not completed, but was dissolved by death ^D or by some other means—it is not permitted for either of these persons to be joined to a person united to them by blood relation, by reason of which an impediment to marriage arises, or by any other way the illicit...

^A union is admitted, it is forbidden to be joined in a marriage that is lawful and recognized by the laws, or for the contract or cohabitation to be called or in any way established as such; since legitimate betrothals hold the place and condition of a marriage. For this reason, it is not permitted to dissolve such a bond without penalties; but in cases of what is illicit, the legal canon decrees that where the contract is inadmissible according to the laws, it is not permitted to exact a penalty. But in cases of what is valid and lawful, just as in marriages, the penalties are paid: if the divorce is sent for a reason clearly belonging to the woman, the man gains the profit; but if it is for a reason belonging to the man, the woman carries away the profit. Thus also in betrothals, since the dissolution involves a penalty, it is manifest that he who has contracted a betrothal and dissolved it in accordance with the laws, and then taken another wife, is a bigamist, and thus he shall be named and shall be such both now and in the future. The same will absolutely hold true ^B for females. Since the laws decree that the same things apply to either sex, both in marriages and in other contracts. We therefore expressly pronounce that as many and whatever persons are barred from the communion of marriage by the civil laws, or by the holy canons, or by the aforementioned synodal tome, or by another synodal and at the same time imperial decree concerning third marriages, these same persons have the most manifest prohibition also in betrothals, and there is no difference between marriage and betrothal in this respect, so that they may be contracted licitly and justly. ^C

Another synodal decision. Concerning betrothal.

On the 19th day of the month of March, in the 4th indiction, in the year 6575, presided over by John, our most holy master and universal patriarch, in the small secretum, there sitting with him some of the magistrates of the senatorial order, and in addition to these the most holy metropolitans of Caesarea, of Heraclea, of Nicaea, of Chalcedon, of Tyana, of Neocaesarea, of Amorium, of Cotyaeum, of Amastris, of Celesene, of Colonia, and the archbishops, namely the archbishop of Selymbria, of Rhousion, and of Gothia.

On the same day, when all the nobles of the senatorial order had departed, and the metropolitan of Patras and the syncellus Nicetas had arrived, the question regarding betrothal was proposed: whether one should in marriage contracts, where the law of kinship brings an obstacle, regard this as a marriage; and whether one should either permit the cohabitation that is to follow this, or forbid it as unlawful and contrary to the laws and infringing upon the holy canons. ^D And all the most holy hierarchs who were present were asked, and they said with a common opinion concerning the question

^A of the ambiguous case, that the contract where a betrothal has taken place, but a marriage has not followed, regarding a person restricted either by consanguinity or by clear affinity, and another contract is to be celebrated, is to be prohibited. This is partly because the ninety-eighth canon of the holy universal sixth synod states this word for word: "Let him who takes as a wife her who has been betrothed to another, while the husband is still alive, be held liable to the charge of adultery" (for if the divine fathers did not consider betrothal to be equivalent to marriage, but something else, how would they have subjected the one joining himself to her who is betrothed to another to the charge of adultery? For adultery is clearly committed against an espoused woman, and the canons do not put forward a different type and manner of penalties for adultery as opposed to for fornication). And this is also because the civil law in title v, book xxvii of the *Basilika* speaks to this effect: "I cannot take as a wife the betrothed of my father or of my brother, even if they have not become their wives. For the former takes the place of a stepmother, and the latter the place of a daughter-in-law." And after some chapters: "Even though my father had many, I take none of them. Nor the mother of my former betrothed; for she has become my mother-in-law." It is clear, therefore, that in this case too, the legislators regarded betrothal as equivalent to marriage, considered what follows to be unlawful, and decreed that it is impossible to be joined. And these are regarding affinity. For after enumerating the impediments of blood, they add: "There are also other marriages which do not proceed, not because of the right of consanguinity, but on account of affinity." And in the enumeration of such impediments, the aforementioned chapters are also placed. And the most holy archbishops who were present together concurred ^B with such a canonical and legal opinion, and confessed that they both think and speak in this way, and they unanimously pronounced that they think or do nothing contrary to this. Since indeed in the regulations for the priesthood, they said that it is done and hands are laid on in such a way that when someone has betrothed a woman, and has not been joined in marriage, if he leaves her in any way whatever, and then is joined in another lawful marriage, he neither receives priestly ordination, nor, if he were ordained by chance through ignorance, does he receive any fruit from it; but as a bigamist, he is alienated from the priesthood. For he who has taken another’s betrothed is also prohibited from ascending to the degree of the priesthood. Thus ^C they all together declared they judge, and thus speak; and they proclaimed that it must be done by everyone in this way.

III. Concerning clerics who act as advocates.

The note of the patriarch, Lord John, is as follows: In the month of February, on the 6th day, on the 3rd day of the week, in the 8th indiction. When ^D

Seeing many ecclesiastics and monks undertaking the cases of others ^A and contending on behalf of those who are litigating in civil and ecclesiastical courts; judging what is done to be foreign to ecclesiastical custom and to the gravity of the laws, we decree that henceforth neither a monk nor any ecclesiastic shall enter upon the suits of others or defend them in court. For this is plainly mercenary work; and none who does such a thing shall escape the punishment of our moderation, unless perhaps the case is an ecclesiastical one, and he is ordered by us to undertake the defense of one of the litigating parties. Only then will he be free of blame and immune to punishment. This present decree is ordered to be read to all civil judges as well, so that when they have knowledge of our ordinance, they may not admit such persons to plead the causes of any one at all. ^B

NICOLAS (7).

I. Concerning the marriage of a paternal or maternal uncle, and of the daughter of a brother or sister, with an aunt (paternal or maternal) and the son of a brother or sister by affinity.

In the month of May, on the 15th day, the 7th day of the week, in the 15th indiction, with our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch Nicolas presiding in the Thomaïtes, and with seven senatorial magistrates and civil judges sitting in council—John, grand drungary of the Vigla; George, protoproedros of the Mangana; John, protoproedros of the Solomon; and many of the most god-fearing metropolitans; with the imperial magistrates also present—the most god-fearing metropolitan of Philippopolis proposed a question at the sacred synod, asking whether a paternal or maternal uncle, and the daughter of a brother or sister, ought to unite with their paternal or maternal aunt ^C and the son of a brother or sister by affinity, as he wished to learn this and observe it hereafter in his own eparchy. To this inquiry of his, everyone replied that this contract had hitherto been to some extent doubtful. But after our powerful and holy lord and emperor had judged with us and the holy synod concerning the contract of the proedros Bardas Xeros, and had later interpreted the points that seemed doubtful in this judgment, it was examined and determined concerning it; no one contradicts this judgment, forasmuch as such contracts appeared to be in no way prohibited from any source. And this was the position of all the others. However, the bishop of Claudiopolis, and the bishop of Caria, and in addition to them the bishop of Euchaneia, said ^D that they could not answer immediately regarding this matter until the contents of such a venerable judgment had been read to them and examined, and the [rest] of the same...

[was sought]. And regarding the same, he said that he was urged toward this question, and continued to press the matter further, and to seek its interpretation.

Concerning the same (12)

III. Concerning not marrying two second cousins.

IV. Concerning seven-year betrothals.

In the month of July, on the 4th day, in the 15th indiction, while our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch Nicolaus was presiding in the Thomaita, with the most God-beloved metropolitans sitting with him, ^A the most God-beloved metropolitan of Cyzicus, Simeon, sitting with our moderation, said that a certain cleric of the metropolis under him, named John Diabatenus, had entered into betrothal with a certain Maria, daughter of Theophilus, who was seven years of age. Having learned, however, that the betrothal was unlawful on account of the spouse’s nonage, he then withdrew from her, but after eight years he had lawfully taken her in marriage. Having said this, he wished to learn what ought to be done regarding this cleric. He heard, therefore, from our moderation and the brotherhood sitting with us, that it is understood that engagements are given not only in the nuptial contract, but also in all other contracts; and indeed, not under compulsion, but voluntarily. Just as, then, in other contracts we do not say that what has been done is invalid if earnest money has not been given, so too in the nuptial contract, even if the earnest or betrothal has not proceeded, what has been done ^B will be firm and inseparable. Therefore, as has been said, the betrothal that proceeded between the cleric and Maria, being without substance, the cleric shall have his wife, joined to him by the nuptial blessing alone, as has been explained, and she shall be held inseparably. However, regarding the donation made on account of the marriage, for the sake of which betrothals are also accustomed to be made, it shall not be reckoned between the spouses or their parties; but just as if no betrothal had proceeded, nor any donation had occurred before the marriage, the marriage shall be firm and unbroken.

OF STUPA AND ARSENIUS

Concerning the marriage of two brothers with a bride and a groom’s sister.

OF NICOLAUS MUZALON

Concerning the betrothal of two first cousins with two sisters.

could it be that two first cousins might be joined to two sisters; it was synodically debated in the time of the most holy patriarch, lord Nicholas Muzalon, whether the contract of the great drungary is hindered by this; and it was determined that it is not hindered, for the reason that betrothal does not hold the place of a perfect marriage.

THEODOTUS. On divorce from an infidel spouse.

In the time of the most holy patriarch, lord Theodotus, Basilius, an imperial trumpeter, was separated from his infidel wife after he had been baptized, by patriarchal decree: inasmuch as she could not be induced by her husband’s persuasion to be baptized.

CONSTANTINE CHLIARENUS. On the killers of robbers.

In the time of that most holy patriarch, lord Constantine Chliarenus, when some soldiers had approached the most holy great church of God, and related that they had encountered armed robbers in the mountain pass of Saint Basil ^C and had killed them, and wished to know what was to be done: a synodical discussion took place as to whether all who kill robbers ought to be punished without distinction. And some said that if anyone was able to escape the robber's ambush and did not do so, but killed him with set purpose, he should not be punished according to the canon, but should be dealt with more severely as a murderer. For who knows (they say) whether the robber who was making an attack upon him, had he lived, might not through the providence of God have ceased from robbery and attached himself to God? They made use also of the ancient law mentioned above, which says: If one could not safely escape, no crime is imputed. But if the robber had brandished a murderous hand against the one who killed him, that which the canon decrees shall be done, ^D and also what the aforementioned law provides. But if the one who did the killing neither pursued the robber nor defended himself while pursued by him, and yet killed him, but instead acted and killed him out of an incitement for the public good, he shall be punished neither legally nor ecclesiastically. For such a man, they say, is even worthy of rewards, as one who has delivered the souls of many from death and has tamed the place which was stifled by the robber's ambushes as if with thorns and thistles. They confirmed this also from the law which is set in title 1, of the 8th book, and provides that he is not to be held infamous who, for a demonstration of valor, has fought with beasts, and who has received a wage for fighting a beast outside of a hunt with hounds, since that beast was greatly harming the province. It seemed well to the synod, for the time being, insofar as it pertains to the laws of the Church, that those who defend themselves and those who, because of the public...

those who perform killings for the common good ^A, having interposed a petition, are punished just as those who kill in war are punished; but he who has killed a robber, when he could have escaped his robbery, is to be punished more severely. According to the legitimate laws, however, the previously stated distinction shall not be rejected. And these things indeed concern laymen. For clerics, in whatever manner they kill, are deposed, there being no distinction made between enemies, or robbers, or any others.

LUCA (11)

^A 1. A synodal notation under the reign of the lord Manuel Comnenus, with Lucas being patriarch, concerning the prohibition of marriage within the seventh degree of consanguinity.

On the 11th of April, the 14th indiction, ^B the most holy and ecumenical patriarch Lucas presiding, in the Alexiac catechumens to the right, with the most sacred prelates of his great holiness sitting in council: the Archbishop of Caesarea, of Heraclea, of Cyzicus, of Nicomedia, of Nicaea, of Melitene, of Gangra, of Myra, of Caria, of Iconium, of Corinth, of Athens, of Mocissus, of Crete, of Larissa, of Mitylene, of Smyrna, of Neopatras, of Amastris, of Dristra, of Corcyra, of Paronaxia, of Miletus, of Arcadiopolis, of Parium, of Selymbria, of Proconnesus, of Brysis, of Nicaea, ^C and of Anchialus, and with the lord officials standing by. The most wise Solomon elegantly stated in the Proverbs that wisdom bears law and mercy upon its tongue. For its law is benign, and it is mixed with mercy, suggesting whatever is conducive to good and taking care of the salvation of men, and separating far away those things that are harmful, and prohibiting iniquity and curbing wickedness, and gathering all to God, and commanding them to be subject to the institutions of the good and the just. Divine wisdom, therefore, acting benignly even today toward those who do not transgress the divine institutions, and pouring out its mercy upon them, but subjecting those who act iniquitously to the divine law, sings synodically through us with David, “I said to the iniquitous, Do not act iniquitously; and to the sinners, Do not lift up the horn,” ^D those who circumvent the divine law. But that we may make the proposition of this discourse clear, let us elucidate it. The most sacred Metropolitan of Athens, Nicolaus Hagiotheodoritus, having care for his flock, and acting solicitously and thoughtfully, not only that those still surviving in the happy region of Attica and in Athens be presented pure to God, but also that those who are to be born by generation may have legitimate first-fruits of generation, and just primal agreements of marriage,

^A so that not only in the dealings of life, in so far as human frailty allows, they may be blameless, but that they may also attain this in matrimonial contracts, so as not to offend the divine law and God, requiring that marriages of the seventh degree of kinship, invalidly contracted, be prohibited. It has been synodically reported to our humility that some people deliberately pervert those things which were synodically established by the patriarch of blessed memory, the most holy lord Alexios, concerning those contracting matrimony in the seventh degree of kinship, while they do not look to their meaning but negligently cling to the words. For while he synodically prohibited the marriages of the seventh degree, if their pardon was sought: if not, he permitted them to remain unsevered, but subjected those who contracted them to penalties; and he defined this to be done entirely in this way, even if those who join together, ignorant of how many degrees they are distant from each other, have contracted such ^B marriages: (for in what way, if it were not devised in this way by that most holy patriarch, could things concerning one and the same matter be defined as if they were contrary? Or in what way did he determine that that which was done secretly with deceit should remain unsevered, he who does not permit it to be done if permission for it is sought?) Some, therefore, seeing this—as has been reported to our mediocrity—and knowing that they are of the seventh degree, and that if such a contract falls under questioning, it will by no means be permitted: they act maliciously on purpose, preferring the fulfillment of their own lusts to the fear of God and canon law, being overcome either by flourishing beauty, or led by flowing riches, or carried away by the sublimity of birth. ^C Our moderation, therefore, partly fighting for the divine law, and partly having paternal care for such crimes: for upon those who are like sons of disobedience, an intolerable wrath from God threatens, so that sometimes both those who commit such things may be cut down by the sword of death, or at least one may be completely separated from the other by death, because such marriages are not marriages, but dissolutions of marriage; and such a conjunction is rather a separation and destruction; and such a conversation is rather an overturning and undoing. The enjoyment of beauty is also the dissolution of this life; the exaltation of lineage is rather destruction, and a way leading to hell; and the satiety of riches stands rather as a deprivation of those things which are seen. For these reasons, therefore, our moderation, with the ^D most holy brotherhood, [has upheld] the synodal dispensation made by the most holy patriarch lord Alexios in marriages of the seventh degree.

^A of the most holy patriarch, Lord Alexios, [in regard to] the ecclesiastical economy, confirming and supporting that which is not explicitly forbidden by civil law regarding marriage within the seventh degree of kinship, nor strictly permitted, and, as it were, interpreting and clarifying it; at the same time cutting away the knavery and curiosity of the many, and uprooting them as it were from their very root, so that no further shoots of transgression may spring up, and blameworthy children be multiplied, and the number of those foreign to the divine laws increase: he not only forbids marriages of the seventh degree from proceeding upon request, but also orders those already contracted before such a request to be dissolved; decreeing a total voiding of such marriages from this day forward, ^B since those that have already occurred must by all means remain indissoluble. Whoever, therefore, shall dare from this moment onward to contract such a marriage, not only will they in no way enjoy their intended purpose, but, along with the dissolution of such a contract, they shall be subject to excommunication as those who confound the blood of kinship and as violators of this present synodal decree; and those who consent to those who contract in such a way shall experience canon-law severity, and those who dare to perform the holy blessing shall be subject to deposition.

These things, extracted from the synodal records and confirmed in the customary manner by the seal and signature of the most honorable archdeacon and chartophylax of the most holy great Church of God, were granted in the month and indiction written above, in the year 6674. The chartophylax of the most holy great Church and archdeacon, John Hagioflorites, signed it.

II. Concerning clerics who involve themselves in secular affairs.

The note of the most holy patriarch, Lord Luke, is as follows: ^C In the month of December, the 8th day, 1st day of the week, the 6th indiction.

If even that Ozan, who touched the divine ark as it was tipping, was not punished with a small penalty—even though his intention was to raise it up, not to destroy it—who is so bold, and carried away to the ultimate extent of shamelessness and arrogance, entirely led by an evil spirit, who not only does not choose to set aright divine and spiritual mandates, but even turning them in the opposite direction, shamelessly attempts to shake and destroy them, and to undo those things which have been firmly and immovably established, and to disturb those things which are unshakable, built (as it is said) ^D upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets? For this reason, our humbleness also, having judged it intolerable that a wicked custom should still prevail, which mingles divine and human things and brings stains upon the order of the Church, the blameless bride of Christ, which is…

^A thus also defiled by the base labors and interests of those who occupy their time with trivialities, and which furthermore besmirches its own dignity with base gain. It has seemed good, therefore, to root it out completely, that the root of bitterness may no longer spring up—according to the divine Apostle—by this our present spiritual and paternal discourse, which clearly declares the aim of the proposed subject regarding those who have obtained sacred authority and who entangle themselves in secular magistracies, dignities, cares, and transactions. The text itself says: If any, say the divine Fathers, have obtained the priestly dignity, they are testimonials and outstanding ^B examples of the information [provided by] the canonical constitutions; which we also joyfully accepting, sing to the Lord God with David, the herald of God: "In the way of thy testimonies I have delighted, as in all riches" [Ps. CXVIII, 14]. And again: "Thou hast commanded justice: thy testimonies are for ever: give me understanding, and I shall live" [Ps. CXVIII, 138-144]. But if the prophetic voice commands us to keep God's testimonies for ever, and to live in them, it is clear that they remain unshaken and in no way to be undermined. For the divine Moses also says thus: "Thou shalt not add to them, nor take away" [Deut. XII, 32].

Since these things are so, and bear witness to us, we rejoice in them, as if one had found great spoil; we lovingly embrace the divine canons, and with all our heart we choose that their constitution remain whole and unshaken. ^C But since we have become aware that some of those who are set in the clergy are entangling themselves against the canons in secular business—some taking upon themselves the management and administration of the houses or properties of masters; others, furthermore, the exactions of public taxes, or of other heads, or the inquisitions of goods carried by ships, or the duties of collecting money and rendering accounts, or any such office, not in ecclesiastical but in secular business, and that to some of them even civil magistracies and honors have been attributed—we command them henceforth to cease from all the aforesaid, and to be occupied in ecclesiastical business and duties, unless they wish to subject the rank which they have in the Church to the deposition ^D which has pleased the sacred and divine canons. For although they imagine that they are confirmed and established by long custom, because not a few before them undertook such things, and although they further say that imperial administrations and secular dignities, and offices, and similar duties and magistracies, have been committed to consecrated men, nevertheless they shall not be drawn into an example. For since it is beyond controversy that the sacred and divine canons concerning these matters have not been abrogated, nor have they ever [been called into doubt]

by the examination or knowledge of a letter sent by him who held the imperial scepter at that time, nor has there been any constitution of the most holy patriarchs and synods inciting them to this, such dispensations and the unapproved custom shall not in any way undermine them; but they shall rather be utterly broken by them, as a pot, according to Solomon, that strikes against a cauldron. ^B For the gates of hell, he says, shall not prevail against the holy Church, which is built by the Lord upon the herald of God, Peter, who, together with the other holy apostles, decreed thus in their canon: "Let no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon take upon himself worldly cares; if he does, let him be deposed." Likewise, in the eighty-first [canon] also, we said that a bishop must not lower himself to public administrations, but must occupy himself with ecclesiastical affairs and duties. Therefore, let him be persuaded to do this, or let him be deposed. "For no one can serve two masters," according to the command of the Lord. Furthermore, the eighty-third [canon] also says: "Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who ^C devotes himself to military service and wishes to hold both—a Roman magistracy and a priestly administration—be deposed. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s." But indeed, the sixteenth canon of the council of Carthage also speaks thus in part: "It has likewise pleased that bishops, and presbyters, and deacons should not be administrators or procurators." And a little later: "For no one who serves God entangles himself in worldly business." Along with these, the fifteenth [canon] of the council of Chalcedon: "We have decreed that those who have once been ordained in the clergy, or who are monks, shall not enter upon military service nor upon a worldly dignity. If they attempt this, and do not repent ^D so as to return to that which they chose for God’s sake, let them be anathema." And the eleventh canon of the first and second council of Constantinople sets these things out word for word: "The divine and holy canons subject to deposition those presbyters or deacons who assume worldly offices or cares, or those things called 'curatorships' in the houses of the powerful." Confirming this, therefore, we also decree concerning the rest who are numbered in the clergy: that if any one of them takes upon himself worldly offices, or takes on the things called curatorships in the houses of the powerful or in their country estates, he is to be expelled from his own rank. For no one can, according to the very word and most truthful utterance of Christ our true God, "serve two masters." These divine canons are therefore entirely clear and manifest; and for this reason they are not to be altered. If, however, for a cleric to become an agent for a lawsuit is forbidden, lest worldly cares, hindering him, prevent him from attending to his ecclesiastical duties... how much more is it forbidden for those of greater [rank] to be involved in worldly cares? We therefore conjure all the most pious clerics in the Holy Spirit to abstain from the things mentioned; or let them indeed know that they shall be subject to punishment.

subject to excommunication, and they shall not escape the greater canonical severity, if they entangle themselves in such worldly matters. For this reason, the present written excommunication of our mediocrity has been decreed to be delivered to the most holy archbishops, so that it may be clear to the clergy everywhere. ^A Know that a synodal decree was also made during the tenure of the most holy Patriarch Lord Luke, to the effect that, without prejudice, superiors may be appointed in monasteries subject to the patriarch’s region that do not have monks suitable to be in charge, from another monastery which is in the same region: even if their statutes forbid that one who was tonsured in an external monastery should become their superior. ^B

III. Concerning superiors tonsured in an external monastery.

IV. Concerning the feast of the notaries.

V. Concerning the deposition of a bishop.

VI. That the Church may not be harmed by an agreement of a bishop.

parish, held by the bishop; the synod declared that the archiepiscopate should not be harmed by any actions taken by its head against the will of his own clergy and the great synod. There have also been many other such synodal rulings. ^B

VII. Concerning those who testify against a spiritual son. The most holy patriarch Lord Lucas subjected the hegumen of the monastery of the Gerotropheion—who had been archbishop of Heraclea—to the penalty of suspension from liturgy, because he had borne such testimony against his own spiritual son. ^C

VIII. Concerning the bishop tonsured by force. When the master who had been bishop of Amyclae, lord Nicholas Muzalon, was tonsured by force by a magistrate, and as a suppliant contended that what had been done to him by force should be undone, and that he might again exercise the episcopal office; that most holy patriarch Lord Lucas, seeing him present with episcopal vestments in a synodal manner, did not admit him. He said that if the bishop had awaited synodal judgment and correction, he would have found canonical assistance; but because he had disorderly cast off the monastic vestments in which he had been clothed by force, and had taken the law into his own hands, he would not obtain assistance. But when this most holy patriarch had departed to the Lord, his successor, the most holy patriarch Lord Michael, regarding the tonsure that had been done by force as if it had not happened, annulled it; yet he subjected the bishop for a time to the penalty of suspension from liturgy, as one who had been negligent and had taken the law into his own hands. ^D

IX. That an irregular oath should not be kept. When a certain nobleman said on the third day of the week to our mighty and holy emperor that he ought not to eat meat, although it was the feast of the Nativity of Christ and our God, because he had sworn to abstain from meat on the third day of every week of the year in honor of the venerable Forerunner, our God-crowned emperor decreed that inquiry be made synodally whether it is canonical for this oath to be kept, and to leave the Dominical feast—which is Paschal—uncelebrated. And when the inquiry took place, that most holy patriarch, Lord Lucas, with the synod which was present, after saying that it is good to fast at any time, added that it is not right to prefer this oath to our Lord and God. For if the apostolic canons punish him who kneels or fasts on any given Saturday or Sunday, much more shall he be punished who fasts on the Paschal feast of Christ, lest he despise the oath he voluntarily took upon himself. And he gave the nobleman permission to eat meat. This same patriarch also [permitted] Tzitans the eunuch, who had sworn to go for the veneration of those in Jeru...

k upon himself. And he gave the nobleman permission to eat meat. This same patriarch also [permitted] Tzitans the eunuch, who had sworn to go for the veneration of those in Jerusalem’s holy places, and had not gone, to be absolved synodically from his perjury, correcting him by means of a moderate penance. ^B

X. Concerning voluntary homicide.

When a certain soldier had fallen into the crime of voluntary homicide and had been absolved in writing by a certain bishop after a very short time had elapsed, our powerful and holy emperor and lord, taking that deed ill, decreed in the time of that most holy patriarch, Lord Luke, that it should be considered synodically whether that absolution from penalties had been rightly granted to the soldier, [granted] with such zeal, and out of a certain [motive] not of mercy, but rather of personal affection. When that bishop brought forward the canon, as well as others, surely moderating that excessive lightness of punishment with which he was charged, the holy synod, bounding the canons within [their proper] limits according to that most divine inspiration which was in them from the Holy Spirit, again subjected the soldier to the shackles of canonical penalties; but it punished the bishop with a temporary suspension from his office and ministry, saying that while it is allowed for bishops to increase and decrease canonical penalties, it is not granted to bind with spider-webs [those things] which ought to be bound with triple ropes. Indeed, it is said that it was on account of that soldier's case that our powerful and holy emperor issued that Novella concerning voluntary murderers. ^C

XI. Concerning advocates.

A certain deacon, having been prohibited at one time by the patriarch of happy memory, Lord Luke—who was employing the canons and other legislative provisions—from acting as an advocate, said before the imperial tribunal, in the presence of the patriarch, that those canons and laws have no place among the advocates of today, but [only] among the advocates of that time, who held positions in civil courts, received imperial grain-tablets, were under primicerii, and were confirmed by worldly magistrates; at which time it was entirely right for clerics to be prohibited from performing the worldly duties of advocates. But since those who are advocates today exercise advocacy as a sort of liberal art, men of the sacred order ought not to be hindered from practicing law. And building up his argument, he contended that it was not the action, but the mode [of the action], that was being punished by the canons. ^D For not only, he said, do clerics, but even bishops who contend in law on behalf of friends, obtain pardon; and neither are those who provide advocacy in a controversy of an ecclesiastical matter censured: just as the law itself clearly teaches this. But for a cleric to act as an advocate in the manner of worldly officials, and to be confirmed by a layman, is odious.

received regal fees, and were under the primicerii, is clear from many sources. Read the final chapter of title 1, book VIII of the Basilica, and those things which are set out in the book of the Eparch concerning advocates. For they demonstrate that the advocates are a guild, and are to be confirmed by the Eparch of the time. Having said these things, and having been accepted, he was permitted by the patriarch to act as an advocate, as before.

XII. On the baptizing of captive infants, and on the Agarenes.

^B Some did not allow captive children to be baptized because of the doubt, lest they might appear to be rebaptizing those who had been baptized before. Regarding this matter, a synodical dispute has often arisen. For when infants from a Christian land had been taken captive by the Scythians and Agarenes, and sold to the Romans, a doubt arose as to whether those who had been sold should be baptized. For some said that since they were taken captive from a Christian land, it is a presumption that they were baptized in their homeland in infancy, and they ought not to be rebaptized. However, it was deemed better that they should be baptized, because it is not known whether they were baptized in infancy, nor are any found who can affirm the baptism. But concerning those taken from the land of the unbelievers, it was decreed that they be baptized without distinction, unless witnesses testify that they were baptized after their captivity.

^C During the days of the most holy patriarch, Lord Luke, Agarenes appeared synodically; and upon being requested to be baptized, they said that they had already been baptized in their own lands. And when questioned how, they answered that it is the custom for all the infants of the Agarenes to be baptized by orthodox priests; yet they were not admitted. For they had heard that the baptism which is sought by the infidels from the Christians is not sought with good affection and an orthodox intention, but for the sake of bodily healing. For it is believed among the Agarenes that their children are ^D vexed by demons and smell like dogs if they do not receive Christian baptism. Hence, they do not invoke baptism as a cleanser of all psychic filth and a provider of divine light and sanctification, but as a magic potion or incantation. Some among them said that they had orthodox mothers, and that through their care and zeal they had been baptized by the orthodox. But neither were these heard, because they did not bring forward witnesses who would testify to this very thing; rather, they were instead condemned for not presenting a good reputation for themselves as to approaching the faith correctly. Therefore it was permitted that these all also be baptized.

787 JUS CANONICUM 788 ^A XIII. That clerics should not be sordid gain-seekers, or physicians.

Since a certain canon establishes that those who are consecrated must not seek their livelihood from sordid and base things, it has often been asked what these are. And some have said that these are prostituting, managing an inn or tavern, and the like. But the most holy patriarch, Lord Luke, also declared that apothecaries' shops and public baths are forms of sordid gain, as they are also occasions for lying. Furthermore, he would not allow deacons or priests to be chief physicians, saying it was not to be tolerated that those who handle holy things with their infulæ and chasubles should be dressed in secular clothes and go about with laymen, namely, with physicians.

MICHAEL OF ANCHIALUS.

^B I. That not even readers should undertake worldly offices. The force of the edict of Lord Michael is this: In the month of January, on the 8th day, of the 10th indiction and thereafter, it was established that readers, just as deacons and priests, should not undertake secular offices, or the duties of tax collectors, or (medical) treatments, on account of the 11th canon of the [First and Second] Council of Constantinople.

II. That clerics should not be ordained from another diocese.

Keep in memory the synodal declaration of the most holy patriarch, Lord Michael, who was the chief of philosophers, which contains these words: In the month of November, on the 1st day, of the 5th indiction, ^C with our most holy lord and universal patriarch, Lord Michael, presiding in the Alexiac catechumenia, and with the most holy prelates sitting with his great holiness: Stephen of Caesarea, Nicholas of Ephesus, Michael of Heraclea, John of Cyzicus, Leo of Amaseia, Nicetas of Melitene, Basil of Neocaesarea, Luke of Mocissus, John of Crete, Leo of Adrianople, Constantine of Euchaita, George of Alania, Theodore of Methymna, John of Bizye, and Romanus of Aprus—the most religious imperial magistrates also being present.

Do not transgress the boundaries of the Fathers, which they beautifully and with proper examination set down from the beginning; but neither is it permitted to cross the trenches or the rampart ^D which divides external things from their own rights; this is an ecclesiastical decree and a divine law established many centuries ago. It was necessary, therefore, that those who preside over the Churches everywhere, and who profess that they will observe the synodal decrees and the constitutions of the laws, should not be ignorant of this; and that they ought to remain in them, and to hold on to their own rights, while abstaining from the rights of others. But I do not know for what reason some of the most holy prelates, who even now are the nearest to this

imperial city and have been allotted episcopal thrones, have been frequently caught performing ordinations of deacons and priests without any oversight, even when those men were not subject to the dioceses under them. For those who were reported in this matter to our most holy predecessor, the patriarch Lord Luke, and were warned to cease performing such uncanonical acts—we mean, namely, the ordaining of people from outside their own borders and the laying on of hands so fearlessly upon those arriving to them from other dioceses—did not cease to disregard what was enjoined upon them concerning this, even up to this very day.

Since, therefore, it has been reported to our mediocrity by our most pious chartophylax that many from our own diocese, contrary to his wishes, go off to the bishops and archbishops residing around this great city, are deemed worthy of the priestly office by them, and then return again to this diocese of ours, perhaps even with letters of recommendation, he sought to learn from our mediocrity what he ought to do in these cases. For he stated that he is in no small doubt, lest he should participate in the alien judgments of others by allowing those to be admitted to sacred functions who he has not himself examined. Regarding these, he has neither interrogated witnesses present, as is his custom, nor has he been made certain whether they have reached the established years, nor has he examined their manner of life, nor has any faith been placed in him through written testimony from those who brought these men forth in the Spirit, as to whether they are worthy of their profession—and this, even though their appearance often clearly contradicts such a claim regarding the fulfillment of the required years. For a man who ought to be thirty years old is, in his bodily constitution as observed, far from that age, his appearance clearly testifying to this, as does the thinness of his beard; in some of them the hair does not appear at all, while in others it is short and much less than what fittingly ought to be the hair of a thirty-year-old.

Saying this, and also showing that the doubt and bewilderment creeping over him are not unreasonable, he demonstrated it by the facts themselves. Presenting to our mediocrity, which is sitting in synod today, two or three who were of this appearance and constitution and who had been promoted to sacred orders—some by the God-beloved bishop of Derkos, others by the God-beloved bishops of Prænetus and Chalcis—and saying that others who have been ordained in this way by diverse [prelates] are here and living in the city and wishing to serve as priests, he presented this problem.

^B Consequently, our mediocrity, not wishing to leave this inquiry of our most God-beloved chartophylax unresolved, has allowed it to be considered in common by the divine and sacred brotherhood currently present. Therefore, desiring to discuss the matter, we first requested that it be discerned what are the common and what are the special functions of the high priests who are everywhere; that is, what bishops of a specific region are not prohibited from performing upon those who come to them from anywhere, and what they are prohibited from doing outside the limits of their own diocese. ^{C D}

^A Furthermore, since in investigating these matters we found that instructing the uninitiated in the doctrine of the faith and catechizing them, and then deeming them worthy of illumination, as well as sharing the communion of the divine and life-giving mysteries with the faithful from any region whatsoever, is a more common duty, we judged that this applies both to those who set out from one’s own diocese and to those who come from abroad. However, it is canonically established for every bishop that the imposition of hands and the conferring of holy orders should not be for those who come from anywhere, but only for those of his own diocese, so that confusion and sedition may not dwell among them, from whom order and the peace of the Church ought to be handed down as a sure rule to others as well. ^B Since, therefore, upon investigating these matters, we found that to condemn those who were previously involved, and to invalidate the priestly acts already performed by them, and either to subject those who ordained to excommunication or to strip those who were ordained of their priestly dignity, we have deemed to be altogether harsh and inhuman. But [we have judged] that it is no longer to be tolerated that they perform such things to our prejudice in a foreign territory, and that while we overlook what has been done previously out of humanity, we have decided that what is to come must be safeguarded by corrective measures, as this contributes to the common good and to our own. Therefore, we all unanimously declare that henceforth no bishop of the neighboring or more distant regions, whether from our own synod or from another, shall dare to lay a consecrating hand upon any person belonging to the diocese of this imperial and great city, ^C nor deem them worthy of any place or rank of holy orders; but let everyone know his own rights and be content with those alone, and not shamelessly or with total disdain infringe upon the priestly rights belonging to others. Those who dare to despise these things thus canonically ordained by us, as well as those who approach them and are deemed worthy of priesthood, ought to know that these latter, having been ordained contrary to the canons, will exercise no priestly ministry here, but will perform sacred rites safely in those regions where they received the anointing of the priesthood; ^D but those who ordained them, from whichever synod they may be, will henceforth be liable to the penalty of suspension from performing sacred rites, as those who, not even after the first or second admonition (and by the first we mean the written warning issued synodically concerning this matter by our most holy predecessor, Lord Lucas), have seen fit to desist from such an uncanonical action. Wherefore it has been ordained that this declaration be issued and given.

to give such notification. We also impose the penalty of excommunication upon whosoever shall first discover these things which we have defined against those who perform such irregular ordinations, if he does not also make known the decrees to his neighboring bishops. Indeed, these things shall be practiced in all regions that are under the most holy Churches everywhere, namely, metropolises, archieparchies, and eparchies, and they shall remain immutable. And no one of those who are to be ordained henceforth shall go to another bishop beyond his region, and be deemed worthy of the priestly grace by him. For from then on both will be liable—both the bishop who ordained and the priest who was ordained—to those things which we have already synodically decreed regarding these matters. Lest there be a pretext, however specious, for those who do not wish to be ordained here, approaching our most devout chartophylax, claiming that they might perhaps be undergoing a greater innovation than the custom which has long been in force—this matter also has been provided for today by our mediocrity. For it has been cautioned that the ancient custom in these matters should not be transgressed; but only those things are to be given to the bishops' ministers and to the most religious chartophylax of the present time which have long been accustomed to be paid by those who are being ordained.

III. Regarding a custom not confirmed by judicial sentence.

IV. Regarding marriage with a relative of one previously betrothed.

had received it was either dead or, led by repentance, had been joined to another man; except if death, in the manner of a pledge, had snatched her away while she was not yet six years old. For it seemed fitting to the council that desire for sexual union [*] does not fall upon a woman of six years. But this will not apply to laymen. For only ministers of the altar ought to be called men of one wife—and a virgin at that—and they themselves must be of the same condition.

V. *On the marriage of two brothers with the daughter of the brother or sister of the wife of John, and his daughter, sustained from another woman.*

The decree of Patriarch Michael permits the daughter (it may be) of John, and the niece of his wife, to be joined to two brothers, as one whom John had fathered, naturally, by another wife.

THEODOSIUS.

I. *On marriage with one previously betrothed to a cousin.*

Know that, in the time of the most holy and universal patriarch, Lord Theodosius, on the 30th of July, in the 12th indiction, a synodal notation was made, which verbatim is as follows:

The most holy metropolitan of Apro, brother and fellow-minister of our mediocrity, Romanus Artabasdus, having brought forward a synodal document, which contained these words: A certain maiden, who is called Irene, contracted betrothal with a certain John, being then ten years of age. But since those betrothals of hers were declared illicit, a judicial declaration was made, permitting those who had contracted betrothals that, as has been said, were contrary to law ^B to be separated. Therefore, Irene wishes today to be lawfully joined to Theodore, who is a second cousin [*] of John, and asks whether there is any impediment. He requested our mediocrity and the holy brotherhood to learn from it whether the contract, concerning which the document was made, has any impediment. From it, therefore, he heard, even with the assembly of the brothers present, that a contract of this kind is in no way prohibited. For since the betrothal that was performed with John was dissolved as invalid, because of Irene’s being underage, Irene will rightly be joined in the law of marriage to his second cousin. For Theodore does not consider Irene a cognate person, nor is he bound by the bonds and limits of kinship. ^C

II. *On betrothals not sufficient for a perfect marriage.*

The most holy patriarch, Lord Theodosius, granted to the Mesopotamian, Lord Michael, to whom a certain Mary had perchance been betrothed, and who, because [her] death ^D

as to this, namely one who had taken another wife before marriage, and being joined to a second without prejudice after her death, especially since he had children and had exceeded his thirtieth year; saying that this should not be reckoned as a third marriage, inasmuch as betrothals do not suffice for a perfect marriage.

OF GERMANUS.

^A I. Subnotation of the most holy patriarch, Lord Germanus, against the metropolitan of Naupactus, Lord John, concerning certain episcopal monasteries, and concerning a virgin who received the nuptial blessing before puberty.

The God-beloved bishop of Arta, John, having already obtained restoration and replenishment—or rather restitution—to his former status by means of a synodal subnotation, following the removal from that status into which, as he demonstrated, he had been induced by fraud; and having lately risen to seek the recovery of his episcopal rights, he is now present in the midst, synodically, before my presiding mediocrity. ^B And first, he accuses that metropolitan of Naupactus, John, of having laid a rapacious hand upon his own episcopal monasteries, and of having even affixed his own crosses to some of them under the pretext that the monastery of Saint Demetrius, situated in the diocese of Arta, is claimed to have been built by the local bishop under the cross (I know not how) of the person who was then metropolitan. And regarding that matter, he was making this complaint. However, he did not conceal the repentance which the other brought forth for the correction of the fault. For he increased the difficulty, ^C because he produced the confession of that same metropolitan, issued in the month of April, in the second indiction, which, having been read at a synodal hearing by the order of our mediocrity, reads word for word as follows:

"Most sacred brother in the Lord, bishop of Arta, your holiness has often been troublesome to me concerning the monastery of Calzura, which is at Arta, as having been established under my stauropegiac right, and concerning the other monastery of the venerable Forerunner, built by the most noble Comnenus, Lord Constantine, in the prefecture of Smocobon, in the territory of Baltitza, and others; and I thought that I was offending nothing in the canons by this. But since I have understood by probable reasoning ^D that those monasteries belong to you as the local bishop, I have released them from my hand from this time forward, so that it may be lawful for you hereafter to take hold of them and to exercise episcopal rights in them, and to rule and administer them according to the canonical disposition. Wherefore my jurisdiction over such monasteries ought to cease from this point, and their recognition to belong to your holiness from this time forward. In the month of April, in the second indiction." It was also signed by the hand of the aforementioned, and completed by a synodal follow-up, through the subscriptions of the bishops who were subordinate to him: John of Bonditza, Nicodemus of Aetus, Manuel of Bella, Thomas of Droui-

Drouinopoli, and Demetrius of Vathroto; each of whom signed, along with an addition, stating that they considered such synodal jurisdiction to be acceptable, as it was canonical. ^B Regarding the current metropolitan of Naupaktos, he complained more severely and in a more pointed manner. For (he says) he entered and celebrated the liturgy by force in the monastery of Calzura which is subject to me, and this even after the notification of the provincial synodal act, which had returned the monasteries of my diocese to me according to the canons and had sustained the episcopal report there. He even appointed a prior, ^C stating that that synodal action had taken place when the metropolitan was dying, and was therefore of no moment. He also occupied the monastery of the venerable Forerunner, and the monastery of Saint Demetrius, in which the church subject to me was adjudicated and restored by the provincial synodal action; using the defense, namely, that the repetition of this claim was excluded for me by the passage of time, and he sealed [the property] and appointed a prior over it. He also removed the ecclesiastical crosses from my monasteries, including that of the holy Resurrection. He has now created private stauropegia: he encouraged by his written orders those who wished to erect them in two oratories, and priests were ordained for the villages of my diocese—namely Nisista, Prinista, Dobrolista, and Planicobista—two in number for each; besides those of whom he has no knowledge. Moreover, some of my co-bishops also ordained from my diocese. But the most holy archbishop of Leucas also entered frequently, and celebrated the liturgy within my borders by his own authority. I would therefore wish to understand from your holiness what the opinion of the sacred canons and of the institutions of the Church is in each of the enumerated chapters. From our holy synod he received such responses immediately: namely, that even if by chance the restoration of the episcopal crosses of Arta—which the [metropolitan] had appropriated to himself—and of the monastery of Saint Demetrius itself had been performed by the metropolitan of that time while he was dying: yet since, as he himself confessed, he understood that he had committed an offense against the sacred canons and corrected the wrong (the action which was taken stands firm), these monasteries shall remain episcopal in perpetuity, the prescription of time ceasing in that which was innovated concerning the monastery of Saint Demetrius; because the privilege of [granting] the crosses which are throughout the diocese is left to the patriarchal amplitude alone, and to no metropolitan. Moreover, as to the fact that he celebrated the sacred liturgy in the monastery of Calzura after the notification of the synodal act, if it is the case that when you, ^D the bishop of Arta, were indulging in leisure, he was induced to do so by a subscription from the provincial bishops, he will be free from blame, according to the apostolic canon, which states that it is not permitted for a bishop who has left his own diocese to intrude into another, even if he is compelled by many, unless some just cause forces him: as

if he could bring some greater gain to the people there through piety, and this not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many bishops and by ^A great entreaty. But if he has been moved to this in some other way by self-will, let the 5th and 30th apostolic canons be set aside for the sake of forgiveness; but let the 20th and 2nd canons of Antioch be put forward, which decree that a bishop shall not enter a foreign city not subject to him, nor a region that does not belong to him, for the purpose of ordaining someone; nor shall he appoint a presbyter or deacon in places subject to another bishop, unless it be with the consent of the bishop of that region. And if anyone dares to do such a thing, let the ordination be invalid, and let him himself undergo the penalty from the synod; and let the penalty be mitigated to a one-year suspension from sacred functions out of clemency.

As for the abbots whom the metropolitan has appointed to monas^Bteries, it shall be permitted you to dismiss them and to seal others, unless those previously sealed seem satisfactory to you on account of their spiritual capability. As for the stauropegia that have been removed from the monasteries, they shall be restored in them again; but those that have been renewed by the diocese shall be exchanged. You shall also be concerned about those ordained parochially from the diocese under you, so that you may carefully examine them to see if they are of blameless life and are instructed in the holy scriptures. And those found to be such, you may punish with ^C suspension from sacred functions for as long as it seems good to you, but for those who are not as such, you shall condemn them to total defrocking. As for the bishops and the archbishop of Leucas, the same regulation shall prevail as was stated above concerning the most holy [archbishop] of Naupactus.

Still further, the bishop of Arta inquired that it be defined what should be done regarding a girl who, before puberty, has received the complete marriage blessing in his diocese and has suffered corruption, and also regarding the priest who performed the marriage service. And he heard that she who had her virgin girdle undone at an immature age shall be separated from her seducer, ^D and he who knowingly performed the marriage service for them shall be defrocked. These things, having been extracted from the daily synodal records and confirmed in the customary manner by the signature and seal of the most honorable Chartophylax of the most holy Great Church of God, were delivered in the month and indiction noted above, in the year 6743. The signature: The Chartophylax of the most holy Great Church of God, Constantine Aulenus. The usual leaden seal. And on the back, where the seal was attached: in the month of July, the eighth indiction.

II. Sigillum of the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, Lord Germanos, concerning the paralauria of patriarchal monasteries, to whom they ought to belong. Issued in the month of June of the 5th indiction, and registered in the secret of the holy chartophylakion.

^A The matters concerning the patriarchal stauropegia of the metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops of the provinces under our administration, which have been defined and arranged by the synodal acts of that most holy of patriarchs, Lord Germanos—the ones of which were performed, as our mediocrity knows, on the 27th of the month of November and on the 8th of January of the same indiction, and which we consider to be well and piously ordained—shall remain immutable and inviolable, each of the chapters contained in those same acts being preserved, elsewhere universally and especially in the province of Naupaktos itself.

So that the relationship of the patriarchal name may obtain and be clearly expressed only in those places in which the construction has been carried out via the patriarchal cross, whether they be monasteries, or catholic churches, or houses of prayer; and in such places, there shall be nothing in common for the bishop of the region, ^B neither for the celebration of the sacraments, nor for the designation of the superior, nor for the investigation of sins of the soul, nor anything else whatsoever, up to and including the exaction of canonical revenues. For those who happen to perform the sacred rites in these places shall both be and be named patriarchal, and shall be subject to the exarch of the patriarchal rights, and shall pay him the customary canonical dues.

The same exarch shall promote those who henceforth are to be initiated into the sacred orders, through the individual grades to that same office, with the legitimate testimonies of their life and age, and every other canonical observance. Furthermore, he shall preside over the permission or prohibition of nuptial contracts. And the spiritual fathers, the receivers of accounts who sit in the patriarchal rights department, ^C shall be approved by him, and from him shall receive their authorization.

Where, however, a patriarchal stauropegion has not been established, the bishop of the region shall have authority over that place: whether it be a suburban monastery or a paralaurion, or a house of prayer; and to him shall belong the reporting, the seal, the investigation, the revenue of the canonical dues, the ordinations, the permission and prohibition of contracts, and any other episcopal privilege.

And if perhaps time has interrupted and taken away [these rights], on the pretext of the original documents, and made subject to them [i.e., the patriarchal jurisdiction] places that from the beginning did not have a patriarchal stauropegion, ^D our mediocrity nevertheless concedes such cases to the local bishops. For although it zealously embraces all things that accord with patriarchal power, it does not crave what belongs to others, so as to claim for itself things that do not pertain to it. We subject to the local bishops even those who, before the construction of the divine temples which were built under the patriarchal crosses, or [those] which will be built later, inhabit the place, or

and those who subsequently inhabited, are found to derive their origin from the indigenous and local inhabitants, so that such persons are subject to the local bishop for all episcopal administration. Regarding, however, those who came from abroad, or who shall hereafter come before the establishment of the stauropegion, and who subsequently took up residence there, no one will gainsay that they belong entirely to the exarch of patriarchal rights, as they do not pertain to him. For such a person will be, without doubt, their exarch. Let this present decree of our mediocrity therefore be made known to the secretariat of the holy chartophylakion; and let a copy be written to him who requested it on behalf of the bishopric of Arta, and who obtained it, so that it may be displayed and brought to the attention of the most reverend Metropolitan of Naupactus. It bore the subscription: In the month of June, in the 5th indiction, by the patriarchal and divine hand. Hanging below was a leaden seal, having on one side the all-holy Theotokos bearing in her arms our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the other side these letters: Germanus, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.

Another by the same.

^B Things that have taken hold by force, neither does time make them run unshaken, and those who are themselves the authors of their attachment, eventually bring about their undoing, foreshadowing it. Something of this sort occurs among us, and our mediocrity quickly makes its correction. In the region of Paphlagonia, patriarchal monasteries are situated here and there; to the monasteries are subject suburbs, farms, and plots of land; a diverse population inhabits these properties. Regarding these, in the synod held under us, when a question was raised some time ago as to whom it belongs to claim their administration—whether the local bishop (because they happen to be part of his diocese) or the exarch sent by patriarchal authority (because they are subject to the monasteries which he has been appointed to govern)—it was somehow unclear how they had been attributed to the administration of the patriarchal exarch. ^C This assignment was followed by an act pronouncing and confirming these matters, even with an anathema, for the sake of the confirmation of what had been discussed. Today, however, the case having fallen under more exact investigation, our mediocrity was able to perceive the absurdity of the matter from this, and immediately assented to its amendment, recognizing that the patriarchal exarch has acquired patriarchal right in those things which have their foundation under patriarchal crosses, whether they be monasteries or oratories. But he also found an old synodal act, performed under the patriarchate of that blessed lord Germanus, which treats the same matter as of great importance and commands (if one must speak in a few words) that the exarchs of patriarchal monasteries which are everywhere have no license to claim for themselves the lands subject to them, or

...the power over those who serve as exarchs of patriarchal monasteries, [to appropriate] the villages subjected to these, or the people in them, or the oratories which have not been graced with patriarchal *stauropegia*. ^A Furthermore, they are not to receive those who are to be ordained from those places, nor to elevate them as their own to the dignity of the priesthood; rather, they must abstain from them entirely, so as to be administered by the bishop of the region. And this action was followed; and the church, along with the fraternity sitting in assembly with her, declared upon the matter, stating that it is not fitting for the bishop to be thrust out from his own people on the pretext that the villages or the suburbs where they are situated are subject to patriarchal monasteries; nor even concerning the oratories within them, unless they were established under patriarchal *stauropegia*, even if they happen to be *paralauria* of the monasteries, or *metochia*. ^B Therefore, having synodically annulled the aforementioned act from that time, she decreed that the things contained in it should cease in every way, and dissolved the bond of excommunication which she had declared. The bishops of Paphlagonia, therefore, shall govern these estates and suburbs without interruption, specifically those which were not constructed under patriarchal *stauropegia*. Indeed, some of this kind are found, and with them the oratories subject to these patriarchal monasteries, unless they be ones to which patriarchal crosses have provided the foundation. For even from these they must transfer what pertains to their own pastoral care, and grant passage to the patriarchal exarch to these places. Those who are proven to govern them in this way shall not be disturbed by those who preside over the patriarchal monasteries, nor by the *metochia* of the patriarchal power. ^C For they ought to acquiesce to what has been defined, and in no way attempt to be a nuisance to any part of the prelates because of the administration and care of the aforementioned estates, and of those who have taken up residence in them; moreover, [also] concerning the oratories, *metochia*, and *paralauria* which have not had their construction under patriarchal *stauropegia*.

MANUEL.

I. Solutions of certain questions.

The most sacred metropolitan of Dyrrachium, Romanus, a beloved brother in the Lord and fellow minister of our mediocrity, sitting today with our mediocrity presiding synodically with his most sacred brothers—Metrophanes of Caesarea, Cappadocia; Andronicus of Sardis; Phocas of Philadelphia; Nicephorus of Ponto-Heraclea; George of Smyrna; ^D Michael of Methymna—brought forward a document into the midst to be read, in which there were questions from the most pious bishop of Bella, seeking synodical solutions. The questions were as follows.

^A Some men, having departed from their own wives through hatred or some other reason, and living in foreign parts, do not return; and since it is uncertain where they are, their wives remain in this state for five years or more, their husbands being unreturned and it being unclear where they might be residing. Is it necessary, therefore, that these women be joined to other men?

Some of the clergy in the Great Lent, having hidden the pre-sanctified divine loaves in bread-baskets, then—by the operation of a demon—the loaves were stolen from the divine enclosure by mice, and a dog having forced open the door, or even while the priest was performing the liturgy and reading the prayers at the table, a mouse lurking there after the oblation snatched away the consecrated divine Body. What censure do the priests deserve for such things?

Certain priests who are excommunicated by their own bishops despise the excommunication; and though they are under penalty, they enter and perform the liturgy. How must these be punished?

Laymen who have contracted a second marriage and had children, having passed the age of forty years, are troubled and wish to enter into a third marriage, because of the upbringing of the children they already have, and lest they sin promiscuously—is it blameless for them to marry a third time?

We know that antimensia are made when the bishop himself performs the dedication, and from the cloth that has been laid under and wrapped around the altar, it is cut into small pieces and written upon and given to the priests; and without these they are unable to perform the liturgy. Where, therefore, there is a lack of these, what must be done, so that the priests do not remain without the celebration of the divine mysteries?

Some priests secretly performed wedding blessings during the Great Lent. What kind of marriage is this, and by what penalties are the priests who performed these religious blessings held accountable?

To these questions, therefore, our mediocrity has brought forth the following solutions:

Men who have departed from their own wives for any reason whatsoever and are living elsewhere deserve excommunication if they remain indifferent and do not choose to return to their own wives. But if it is uncertain where they are, and an investigation of them has proceeded at the behest of their wives, and five years have passed since their husbands disappeared—having perhaps been taken captive in war, or having been removed from the midst in some other way—the wives of such men are not prohibited by law from being joined to other men. But as for the others, whose husbands still survive, let them seek their own husbands.

Regarding the priests who have offended in such a way that the pre-sanctified loaves—because as they were made, dogs forced open the door of the temple and removed them from the midst—let them cease from the operation of the divine mysteries for a time, at the discretion of their own bishop, since they did not take sufficient precautions. But the others, who lost the loaves during the oblation due to mice, are blameless.

…let them remain (for many things of this kind often happen), and let them place another offering upon the holy table, and having made the offering, they shall complete the sacrifice. ^A Excommunicates who celebrate the liturgy are worthy of deposition, and this shall lie within the judgment of their own bishop.

Those who wish to be involved in a third marriage after the fortieth year of their age, seeking what is not becoming for Christians as polygamy, shall be dismissed without effect; but if they even use force, they shall also incur censure.

It is not necessary for antiminsia to be placed upon all holy tables, but only upon those about which it is uncertain whether they have been consecrated or not. For the antiminsia occupy the place of consecrated holy tables; and where it is established that the tables are consecrated, there is no need for antiminsia there. ^B

Priests who have performed nuptial blessings during the Great Lent, if they have done so out of simplicity, are worthy of moderate correction; but if they have committed this out of wickedness and secretly, they shall be subject to a greater penalty, which shall be imposed by the judgment of their own bishop. But the marriages performed by them shall remain valid and unshaken, as having been fortified by sacred prayer. This was held in the month of July, indict. 8, with the green wax seal.

II. Concerning the translation of bishops

In the month of July, on the tenth day, indiction 20, our most holy lord the ecumenical patriarch, Lord Manuel, presiding within the famous and most illustrious synod of the imperial ^C mansion, which is honored by the name of the immaculate Mother of God, the Gorgemepikoos, called of the Sandroi: sitting with his great holiness were the most sacred bishops: the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Metrophanes; the bishop of Sardis and exarch of all Lydia, Andronicus; the one holding the place of the bishop of Syracuse, Phocas; the legate of Ponto-Heraclea and Claudiopolis, Nicephorus; the bishop of Smyrna, George; the bishop of Dyrrachium, Romanus; and the bishop of Methymna, Michael; with the most pious imperial magistrates also present. ^D

What the soul is in bodies, that the times are in affairs: they move them, and at other times change them in other ways, yielding to probable causes. To what end, then, is this temporal transposition and change and transition of affairs? Let speech, as the time requires, transfer these and change them to what is clearer. John, having attained the pontificate of the most holy bishopric of Ezerus, which is under the metropolis of Larissa, and having endured a long journey, both arduous and difficult for horsemen, and being an old man, approaching the worldly Lucifer, the best and…

mission of the most fortunate lord and most beloved son of our mediocrity, and having immediately spoken with him, he arrived at our ecclesiastical firmament; and finding the pontiffs, brothers and fellow-ministers of our mediocrity, who shine clearly like the stars and are seated with him, he brought a paper into their midst, seeking a canonical defense. And the problem was as follows:

"I request that light of knowledge be given to me by my most holy lord and master, the ecumenical luminary, and by the divine and holy ^B assembly of hierarchs which is under him, regarding the report which, trusting in the divine word, I have dared to make to their highness. 'Ask (it says), thy father, and he will tell thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.' Is it permitted for metropolitans, with the opinion of the bishops whom they have under them, for a reasonable cause, which time and circumstances demand, to transfer a bishop from one bishopric to another, when both bishoprics are under the same metropolis, or not? For those skilled in the sacred records say that transfer has been granted, and that many ^C prelates, at various times, not only to equal but even to higher sees, have been transferred. But we desire to know from your greatness the certainty regarding this." These things were contained in the problem; and the Ezerensis requested a written answer regarding it.

"Our mediocrity, therefore, having deliberated on these matters in common council with his holy fraternity, pronounces these things synodically: That if the metropolitan of the synod, with the consent of the bishops under him, should wish to grant to someone, by reason of advancement, another bishopric situ ^D ated under his province, he shall do this without prejudice. For such things are done daily among us by way of brotherly love. And the bishop shall also perform in that bishopric and in all its diocese the administration of all pontifical rights, just as its genuine prelate, except that he shall not be seated upon the holy throne. But if, on the other hand, the metropolitan with his own synod, for a praiseworthy cause and a probable pretext (and this utility is for the salvation of souls and the administration of the ecclesiastical state), should approve that one of the bishops sub-posited to him should lay down the see and the name of bishop, and be transferred to another bishopric existing under the same metropolitan: he will do this without doubt and without hindrance, since our mediocrity and his holy fraternity seek with affection the salvation of men and ecclesiastical order. Wherefore the transfer shall be judged worthy of admission, for the aforesaid cause; and it shall remain valid and firm, as that to which nothing

^A contradictory stands. For canonical observance knows that there have been translations of archbishops, bishops, and metropolitans at various times, not only to sees of equal station, but also to higher and more excellent ones, for the sake of the refreshment of the rational sheep of the Church of Christ, and for the governance of ecclesiastical affairs. These things, having been issued from the daily synodal records and confirmed by the subscription and seal of our most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, Lord Manuel, were given in the month and indiction written below, in the year 6758. This was issued in the month of July, in the 8th indiction, by the patriarchal and divine hand, and with the customary leaden bull.

III. Concerning the right of patronage

^B It has been reported to our moderation by the most pious Bishop of Demetrias, Dominic, who is under the province of the metropolitan of Larissa, that those who lay claim to the right of foundation in the monastery—which from the beginning was under his episcopacy, namely, that of the great martyr among the saints, Demetrius, which is known in the local tongue as the Procovican—desiring to reduce such a monastery to their own power, and to use the things consecrated to it as their own, were reined in by the aforementioned bishop because they were acting with an unreasonable impulse; and, not being granted the authority to perpetrate such an absurdity, and being goaded to seek revenge against him, they are attempting to erect another temple under a patriarchal stauropegion, and to tear away from the episcopal monastery the possessions ^C which were given to it by their ancestors, or by certain Christ-loving kinsmen of theirs, to consecrate them to the temple they intend to raise under the patriarchal cross. Our moderation, therefore, wishing to eradicate root and branch such an unreasonable design of theirs, as it is forbidden in every way by the sacred canons, defines through this present letter of ours that whatever possessions or goods belong to the episcopal monastery of Saint Demetrius must remain forever inseparable from it, and that it must be administered and spiritually directed by Bishop Dominic. For it is not permitted to builders, nor to any other person, to tear away possessions from an episcopal monastery and to attribute them by right of ownership ^D to a patriarchal monastery or oratory. But if anyone wishes to erect a monastery or oratory under a patriarchal stauropegion, he shall not be hindered by anyone from doing so; let him take care, however, to first assign to it possessions from his own property. For the possessions that belong to an episcopal monastery, as has been said, can never at any time be torn away from it. And these things are concerning this matter.

^A Since the same bishop also reported to our modesty regarding another monastery, belonging from the beginning to the episcopate of Dominicus, being situated in Crompis, but honored in the name of the holy great martyrs Theodore, that that lord Manuel had submitted it as a metochion to the patriarchal monastery of the holy Theodores which is in the province of the Serbs; and since the monks of the said patriarchal monastery, rising up against the bishop and refusing his pastoral care, had utterly cast out his referential authority from the aforementioned episcopal monastery which had been granted to them as a metochion, as has been said, and had introduced the patriarchal authority instead; our modesty, altogether prohibiting such a matter as contrary to the canons, determines that if (as the bishop reported) the monastery of Cromporum was episcopal before it was subjected as a metochion to the patriarchal monastery, and was governed by the Dominicus who was bishop at that time, then the bishop shall again have his ^B own referential authority in it, as the legitimate prelate. For he who granted it to the monks as a metochion could only confer the pecuniary ownership, not the spiritual referential authority of the bishop and the examination of spiritual failings. Therefore, the stated monastery of the holy Theodores situated in Crompis shall be left under episcopal power and administration, unless the monks of the patriarchal house can demonstrate that such a monastery was built under a patriarchal stauropegion. It had a subscription, in the month of July, in the eighth indiction, by the patriarchal divine hand, and the green wax seal.

OF UNKNOWN PATRIARCHS

^C 1. Of the most holy patriarch, lord, concerning the order of seating of metropolitans and archbishops, as they are recorded in the chartophylax.

It would be fitting that the cities which are decorated with the dignity of being a see, and to which holy pastors are assigned by the patriarchal right hand, be described here, as if comprised in a sort of brief circle, and visible to anyone without effort. For it is consistent that those things which pertain to the unbloody principate be itemized in their own enclosure; thus, for all others, the power which is in them and their order would be manifest and easy to recognize. ^D With these, moreover, those [cities] which face the rising sun, and those which face the setting, are recorded. For from of old, up to the present day, we had not yet enumerated with the others those whose guardians, when the time of seating called, were cast out by the prelates of the same order, and they in turn, alas! cast them out with an equal measure of rebuke. But our most Christ-loving and most pious emperor sat with us in the venerable temple of Holy Irene, when we were making mention of the celebrated patriarchs; and with him also the most dear to God metropolitans...

with whom, having considered the reverence due to each throne, we assigned to all a suitable rank; just as the present order of our directive, written with circumspection, declares. For it seemed absurd that they should usurp the primacy of the see, and for the sake of an honor which is a dishonor—or rather, to say it better, a disgrace—that the dignity of the high priesthood should henceforth be insulted; whereas we ought to care only for that immortal glory which does not admit of decay, but always blooms, and adorns and makes illustrious its devotees with incorruptible glory. ^A

Metropolises

Archbishoprics

30 Cotradis. 31 Eroine. 32 Carpathus. 33 Mesembria. 34 Gotthia.

^B II. Regarding those who abandon their own infants. There was diverse discussion in a synodal assembly as to whether or not those who abandon their own infants at the entrances of divine temples should be punished; and it was resolved that they should be punished as murderesses, even if the infants are kept alive by some people.

^C III. Regarding women tonsured by force. The synod at Constantinople did not allow the Comnenian lady Theodora, who had been the wife of that lord Andronikos Lapardas, and who had been tonsured by force by the tyrant, to change her habit or to be joined to the King of Hungary, who was requesting this most vehemently; because, after the death of her husband, she had persisted in that state of tonsure—even if it had been done by force—and had lived in a cenobitic monastery. But the same synod judged it right that other noble women who had been tonsured in this way should return to their former habit, either because their husbands were still alive, or because they had not accepted the tonsure at all after the death of the tyrant.

OF SYNODAL SENTENCES AND PATRIARCHAL SANCTIONS, BOOK TWO

^C NECTARII

(18)

In the consulship of our most pious and religious emperors, Flavius Arcadius Augustus for the third time and Honorius for the second, on the three days before the Kalends of October, in the baptistery of the most holy Catholic Church of Constantinople, the most holy bishops having taken their seats: Nectarius of the same Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, Flavian of Antioch, Helladius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gelasius of Caesarea in Palestine, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius of Iconium, Paul of Heraclea, Arabianus of Ancyra, Ammon of Adrianopolis, Falerius of Tarsus,

^A Lucius of Hierapolis, Elpidius of Laodicea, Paul of Xeë, Dioscorus of Hermopolis, Probatius of Berenice, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Bizus of Seleucia, Epagathus of Marcianopolis, Gerontius of Claudiopolis, and various other bishops, and the entire assembly of the clergy; Gabadio and Agapius having entered, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, said:

Since this holy synod, by the grace of God, has again been gathered in this holy place, does it please the same council of holy brothers and fellow-ministers—seeing that I observe here our brothers Gabadio and Agapius, who disagree with each other regarding the bishopric of the Bostreni, standing by—that they should begin to discuss their legal rights?

And after certain acts had been performed by them pertaining to the same cause, and the deposition of the said Gabadio—enacted by only two bishops, who were already deceased at the time of this same council—had been presented, Arabianus, Bishop of Ancyra, said:

I ask this, not on account of the present dispute only, but solicitous for all future time, that the holy synod may decree upon this point. Is it lawful for a deposition to be made by two bishops, or not? And is it lawful for this to be done against one who is absent, or not? Let no prejudice be brought against the present case by this. But I fear lest some, seizing authority from these records, might attempt such things. I ask you to answer. ^B

Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, said: The most reverend Bishop Arabianus has admonished us praiseworthily. But since the dispute cannot be resolved by confession, without condemning the past, let us take care for the future.

Arabianus, Bishop of Ancyra, said: The synod of the blessed Fathers gathered at Nicaea condemns what has passed, for it commands that those who ordain should be no fewer than three, and that they should not act in the absence of the metropolitan. But I, solicitous for the future, proposed this inquiry. Wherefore I ask that we define it clearly, not vaguely nor ambiguously, that it is not lawful for a bishop to be ordained or deposed by two men, following the authority of the Nicene synod in this.

^C After other things, Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, said:

It is not possible for a sentence of indignation to be passed regarding the dead, since they were not present when the condemnation occurred. But if anyone considers future matters, surely those who are to depose, it seems to me that it is not only proper for three to be present, but, if possible, all the provincial bishops, so that by the vote of the many, the condemnation of a person worthy of deposition may be shown with greater accuracy, while the person being judged is also present.

Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, said: Since legitimate expositions and decrees

it is consistent that such things are not decreed on account of certain persons. Therefore, just as the most holy bishop Arabianus—wishing to provide for the future—has proposed, the consonant and kindly opinion of the most holy bishop Theophilus is that it ought not to be the case in the future that a person under accusation be examined and deposed by two, let alone three, but rather by the common vote of a more numerous council and the provincial bishops, just as the apostolic canons have defined. ^B Flavianus, bishop of Antioch, said: "What the bishops who follow the most holy and most pious bishop Theophilus have deposed is manifest. We all, the ecclesiastics, approve of these things."

OF NICHOLAS THE ELDER

It is indeed difficult to excise a carnal vice that has lasted a long time; ^C but it is more difficult to remove a custom confirmed by the creeping passage of time. For both of these transform into a certain habit and become something durable, which can hardly ever be corrected. But although these things appear to be so in reality, we have nevertheless easily removed the old custom, which held an evident vitiosity, from this religious place, checking the license for huckstering. For up to now, he to whom the custody of this place is entrusted (whom the Romans call an *ostiarius*, or doorkeeper), used to demand payment for the receipt of the patriarchal letters from those who sought them (a thing which should not have been done at all). This matter was indeed full of injury and mockery, and it not only provoked the offense of God, but also brought infamy upon this august place and diminished the venerable dignity of the priesthood itself. We, therefore, doing away with this arrangement of the doorkeeper, have ordered that an annual salary be given to him, but we have committed the evil custom to deep oblivion and perpetual exile, and we decree in the Holy Spirit that it shall in no way have a place hereafter; commanding both the archivists of all times and their notaries to keep this sanction inviolate and to take constant care of it, so that it may not be subverted in the slightest degree by any sloth and negligence (which is truly a fault to even contemplate, let alone act upon). But if any are found to be so neglectful of so great a good out of a great contempt for divine things, the religious mind will laudably restore the sanction itself to its own luster, but let them know plainly that they will pay the penalty to God, both now and at that time when not only greater sins, but even the lighter ones, will be examined and judged by fire. For just as divine deeds deserve their own worthy remuneration, so too are the contrary deeds accustomed to be repaid with a compensation corresponding to the actions themselves.

1.

Decree of the most holy Patriarch Alexius, concerning various ecclesiastical matters pertaining to all metropolises and archbishoprics.

Alexius, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.

^A Since the divine and holy canons grant to each of the most devout bishops authority over ecclesiastical matters, on the condition, however, that they provide for the needy with caution while also receiving what is necessary for themselves, certain bishops, indifferently—if I may say so—and with great license, have encroached upon these matters and claimed them for their own use. Not only have they brought the bishoprics themselves to utter ruin due to the pretext of difficult times, but they have also subjected the metropolises, to which they are subordinate, to intolerable losses and innovations, while the metropolises are forced to bear the burdens belonging to the bishoprics, gradually being driven to a similar destruction.

Wherefore, our mediocrity, having deliberated upon the matter with this venerable synod present in the city, and having judged it to be truly grievous and undoubtedly unjust that metropolises should suffer such great and numerous losses in the name of bishoprics from which no profit returns to them, has deemed it necessary to find a method not alien to the sacred constitutions, but rather very much in line and consonant with their purpose, by which their indemnification and the relief of their burdens may be secured as far as possible. ^B Hence, by the authority of the sacred canons, it is decreed that stewards, or administrators of affairs, be appointed by the most religious metropolitans for those bishoprics from which, through the fault of those who hold them, the metropolises suffer loss, until the damage incurred in each individual case has been made good to the metropolises, and a judicial determination has been reached regarding the source from which they have been reduced to such poverty and destitution.

And since the metropolitans declare that they fear lest other bishoprics undergo similar things due to the wickedness and malice of their presiding officers, and because some of them—who treat the neglect of the holy canons as a virtue—fearing the condemnation imminent from these actions, say that they will carry off both the fruits and the other revenues of the churches and transport them wherever they themselves wish; and, keeping a watchful eye for the arrival of tax collectors, seek to depart from their own churches and migrate elsewhere, ^C and from there consign the exaction of the debts belonging to them to the metropolises under the pretext of defense: it is necessary that in these cases also—before the thing they are plotting is brought to completion—for the sake of certainty and as a measure of correction and caution, the same procedure be observed; and that overseers similarly be given by the metropolitans, who are obliged to provide all care for the churches together with their bishops, and to demand accounts of the annual administration; and that the surplus from the revenues, if there be any

partly from what was taken from those who were the authors of the loss to the metropolis, should be restored to it; let the church keep the rest for itself, with no innovation having been made. ^A That what has been defined conforms to the canonical precision is shown by the divine canons themselves. For the twenty-fifth canon of the Synod of Antioch, while granting bishops authority over ecclesiastical matters, forbids them from turning these to their own uses and bestowing them upon their own kindred, so that in this way accounts of the churches might not tacitly suffer loss. Wherefore, by making them accountable to the provincial synods, it entrusts the duty of examining what is proper to them. And so here, since the damage comes to the metropolises in a hidden manner, our holy synod, having examined what is proper, has necessarily ordained the appointment of stewards, according, of course, to the eleventh canon of the Seventh Synod. For that canon gives permission both to the most holy patriarch and to the most reverend metropolitans to appoint stewards in those churches whose metropolitans and bishops do not endure to do this, or who administer the things of the churches badly. ^B That such a canon agrees with the purpose of the former, I assume no one among those who do not apply their mind carelessly to them is in doubt. Since, therefore, here—as has been clearly demonstrated—we have decreed the things mentioned above by following the divine canons, it is necessary for these things to be carried out without contradiction, both in the case of those bishops who have hitherto been the authors of loss sustained by the metropolises, ^C and in the case of those who are expected to be so hereafter, and who make bad use of the things of the churches, and alienate them, and scatter them ignobly—things which they did not themselves gather for them—and especially those who lease the property of others, or who unworthily undertake worldly cares, while neglecting the affairs of the church entrusted to them. Indeed, such men, if they are not changed, are condemned by the ministers of the Word, the Fathers, and the teachers of the mysteries themselves, along with those very ones, with no obstacle being brought forward by the bishops against the matters, until the losses to the metropolises have been made good by those from whom they were brought, and an investigation has been made to determine for the future whether the metropolises are sufficient for the burdens incumbent upon them or not. ^D But if, before these things come to pass, any of the bishops should dare to bring a pretext of hindrance against the stewards, or to harass the business, except to explain if they know of something that will serve for the benefit of the churches, he will be the author of a heavier condemnation for himself, as one who opposes what has been defined synodically and canonically. And furthermore, we define by synodical vote and judgment that bishops must not stay away from the provincial synod without some necessary and unavoidable cause. For just as the gathering must take place from every place for the benefit and edification of the many, and perhaps also for the correction of certain contrary things that happen from time to time, so he who is absent from this without just cause, or who is called and disobeys, unless he has a reasonable excuse

^A and can show the cause of his absence and the impediment, should know that a sentence shall be passed against him, as the seventy-sixth canon of the Synod of Carthage, among many others, also determines. Nor should they ambitiously invade the boundaries of others, and ordain beyond their own limits, and by this reason be authors of confusion, they who ought to be an example of good order to others and a prototype of virtue; nor should they receive clergy of another province in any manner whatsoever, without the judgment and commendatory letter of their own bishop, as the holy and divine canons require. And this will be observed still more strictly in this God-guarded city, inasmuch as clergy from everywhere in the world, both those subject to judgment and those not, and those ordained and those not ordained, flock to it and celebrate sacred rites without hindrance. Nor, moreover, should those bound by a second marriage, which we have heard is now happening in many places, or those guilty of forbidden crimes, or those still underage, or those destitute of the most accurate testimony, or those who previously betrothed themselves to some and were afterwards joined to others in marriage, be admitted to the priesthood at all. For bishops who do not observe these things, while they violate the canons, shall be set aside by the canons, and will unavoidably be subjected to the penalties threatened by them. ^B We pronounce that clerics who are disputing with clerics, or monks with monks, must seek justice before their own bishop, following the holy canons. But clerics with bishops, or bishops with bishops, shall conduct their case before the metropolitan of the province, with the synod intervening. But if any incident should arise that causes suspicion to either of the parties, the dispute shall be reserved to the most holy patriarch of the time, to be decided by the holy and great council. Yet an bishop may not enter the imperial city—nor set out on a journey elsewhere, even if some necessary matter should demand it—without the judgment and commendatory writing of the metropolitan. Otherwise, he shall render himself liable and guilty according to the canons. Furthermore, we command that a bishop who rashly disregards the penalty of his metropolitan be removed without a hearing. ^C We do not permit at all that a priestly person, or a monastic person, should approach worldly judges and seek that any suit whatever be judged by them; but for bishops, we decree the just loss of their bishopric; for clerics, of their clerical office; and for monks, of their monastery, by that very fact. And against the judges who receive these people, or even drag them to themselves by force, we shall invoke, in addition to the just wrath of the Divinity, the indignation of the imperial majesty as well, and the penalties of the laws. And the bond by which they will be bound by us shall be extended ^D unbroken to them until the end of their life, if indeed they do not change their mind and refrain from this impious purpose. For both the religious laws and our powerful and holy emperor, born in the Porphyra, together with his brother of blessed memory, in their published edicts

restrain judges from daring to conduct themselves in such a youthful manner towards ecclesiastical persons. ^A For we do not at all tolerate that ecclesiastical, sacred, and divine privileges be snatched away by provincial or civil judges. Moreover, even before us, God Himself, who is despised and mocked by them, will unleash avenging indignation upon them and will brandish the just sword of retribution. For it is a disgrace and a reproach for men of a more divine and excellent lot to litigate before worldly men, and to sharpen the contumelious tongues of men against the entire body of the Church. Which thing, in particular, the clergy and monks of the so-called imperial monasteries behave toward, in a profane and impious manner with the greatest audacity, since they prefer to be judged and condemned by secular men—whom they themselves were appointed to correct and bring into order—rather than permit the bishops of God to examine their various affairs, and to receive the causes and appropriate healing of these from them as from skilled physicians, and to be encouraged by them toward the meditation of virtue and the good. ^B But concerning the monks of such monasteries who dare such things, we decree synodically that neither the bishops of that province, nor those of another territory, shall deem them worthy of the imposition of hands, nor impart to them any other blessing or communion. For we do not enact this out of a desire for passage into these affairs, but because we seek, in every way, the dignity and honor of the monastic life. To such an extent, indeed, that unless they render the report and other honors to the bishops of their province, they shall not, in return, receive from them or from others even one degree of priestly dignity. We order that clergy who are contumacious toward their own metropolitans, who impose upon them some ecclesiastical mandate—not with the intent to injure, and which can be performed—be brought into order. ^C For we are not taught by the Lord's command to be contumacious and disobedient, but to have readiness in obeying and subjection. And whoever does not direct himself by this, falls away both from his calling and from the Church. We also decree that those to whom ecclesiastical ministries have been entrusted, and who do not sustain the burden of rendering an account of what has been committed to them, must, according to the canons, be summoned to law, and we order them to be compelled to render accounts even against their will, together with their heirs and the rest of their successors, in accordance with the sacred canons and civil laws. ^D Because our most holy brothers and fellow ministers have reported to us concerning monasteries that are granted by donation, that those who have received such donations, being ill-disposed toward them, have driven the monasteries themselves to ultimate destruction, carrying off their revenues for their own households and leaving them stripped of their own goods, and, further, completely changing some into worldly lodgings, and forcing the monks of these, through every kind of lack and straitness of things, to migrate and leave against their will, it shall be permitted to them to bring these persons to account with full liberty, for whatever innovation they may be found to have made in the monasteries.

^A And furthermore, so that after their wicked managers have been expelled from them with reproach, they may freely assert these rights to the metropolitan. But if by chance their managers have any valid objection to bring against this, let them not approach secular tribunals; for by doing so they will exclude themselves from all claim to justice. But let them apply to our holy synod, and they shall not lack the justice that is possible. We do not believe that any of the most sacred metropolitans and other pontiffs would, without cause and undeservedly, and from mere spite, expel persons from the residence of their benefices, unless someone wishes to behave unworthily and to embrace injustice. But if it was enjoined upon any monasteries by reason of some ancient sanction that they should provide some contribution to the metropolises—whether by furnishing it to individual persons, or by providing sustenance for judges and fiscal tax-collectors, or otherwise—and it happens that these burdens have subsequently been imposed upon others, we decree that this contribution be rendered to the metropolises without fraud and without any innovation being made. ^B Whatever things have some common connection with the metropolises, or have proximity and communion with them, and have not previously been granted to anyone by law of benefice, it is not our pleasure that these be donated to any persons. Indeed, even if they have been donated, we wish such donations to be null and of no force, and the monasteries themselves to be immediately restored to the metropolises or episcopal sees. That lands should be donated which are not far distant and which are marked by their own boundaries, it has pleased both the Fathers who were before us and ourselves; but in no way does our mediocrity permit that those things which are, as it were, the domiciles of metropolitans and bishops, and the support and foundation of the holy churches, should be donated.

By a contract of lease, moreover—for example, for twenty-nine years—for a monastery or, by certain compacts, for a metropolis and episcopate to be leased, as this is alien to the evangelical mandate and to apostolic and patristic traditions, we entirely prohibit; and equally, we judge those who dare to do this, as well as those who, if it is done, neglect it, to be unworthy of pontifical perfection and to be adversaries of the sacred canons; ^C nor will we cease from providing the most fitting retribution for these matters according to the canons, with singular providence. For we will not suffer that sacred grace be held venal, nor will we be partners of those who profane sacred things contrary to the canons, and that spiritual gifts be hawked like secular goods for the sake of gain. Regarding the sitting of bishops, we decree that bishops should sit according to the order of their metropolitans, and this in sacred assemblies, and in synods, and at banquets; nor should bishops of inferior metropolises strive for superior seats and primacies in ways unworthy of themselves, but they should direct their eyes toward their own metropolitans as toward canons and certain sanctions, according to which in assemblies and ^D everywhere they should fashion themselves. And since some of the powerful in the regions in the prayer-houses of their own homes

^A ubique. And since in some places certain powerful men strive to have authority in oratories and to gather assemblies, and to perform sacred prayers, baptisms, and other such things, relying on patriarchal cross-plantings or episcopal ones, while rejecting the catholic churches and despising the assemblies held in them, it is worthy to also decree concerning these matters, so that the bishops of the province may no longer permit such a thing to happen. Rather, those priests who are so bold as to perform any other sacred service in oratories, except [the one permitted] before the sacred ministry, and perhaps that only on a feast day and by permission of the bishop, [let them be subject] to deposition; and as for the powerful men who do not accept this, let them be subjected to anathema. For the words of the canon say: If anyone teaches that the house of God can be despised, and the assemblies in it; and if anyone gathers an assembly separately outside the catholic Church, without the whole presbytery being present, let him be anathema. These things, having been thus summarized and defined, and [affirmed] in the councils of the most God-beloved metropolitans, Cyriacus of Ephesus, Demetrius of Cyzicus, Constantine of Nicaea, Theodore of Chalcedon, Constantine of Side, John of Melitene, Constantine of Tyana, John of Claudiopolis, Theophylact of Neocaesarea, John of Iconium, George of Corinth, Michael of Athens, Theognostus of Mocissus, Constantine of Patras, Constantine of Trebizond, John of Philippi, Agapetus of Adrianopolis, Theodore of Camachus, Constantine of Chonae, ^B Stephen of Crete, Nicetas of Hydruntum, Sisinnius of Celzene; and of the archbishops, Nicetas of Bizye, Dionysius of Proconnesus, Nicephorus of Cius, Strategius of Aprus, Andrew of Cherson, Leo of Bryse, Nicholas of Lemnos, John of Bosporus, Arsenius of Sugdaea — inserted into the records, they were confirmed by the customary lead seal and given in the month of January, in the eleventh indiction, in the year 6536.

II. Copy of a record kept in the venerable archives of Constantinople, by the lord Patriarch Alexius, regarding those who obtain monasteries through donation, and regarding certain other necessary ecclesiastical matters which pertain to metropolises, archiepiscopates, and bishoprics.

As the passage of time is wont to change all other things, so too it has innovated patriarchal donations; and the acts of the most blessed patriarchs, tending toward the duration, prosperity, and expansion of the sacred monasteries, it has turned into illiberal commerce and transfers from one person to another, full of huckster-like levity and all manner of wickedness. And not without reason. For while those who walk without reproach are failing, the number of those who plow absurdities, as Job speaks, has increased, and iniquity has surpassed virtue in its fertility. Everyone gapes after silver, refusing no base way or unjust gain, but even from holy things and from...

religious and expiatory offerings he desires to grow rich. Whence it comes to pass that there is a danger that sacred things may be held in the same place as the impure, and that holy things may be profaned; and that there be almost no one left among the lives of men who makes a distinction between a sacred and a profane thing, or who cultivates virtue, and looks to it, and walks righteously. And see, I pray you, what this my exordium means. ^A Every sort of wickedness has now crept into the life of men, and dishonorable acts are committed with the utmost license and with impunity. Simulation and a mask are considered in the place of an honorable and praiseworthy thing: and nearly all mortals embrace with anxious zeal nothing else than how and from where one might gain, and find a source for avaricious profit, and prepare a way for themselves to add something to their present possessions, and devise such subtleties as undoubtedly lead captive souls away from God. We hold money in higher esteem than our own souls. Some have now even touched things that should not be touched, nor have they spared them; but they have extended the insatiable lust of their minds to things that should not have been attempted at all, and have cast upon things dedicated to God their avaricious greed and unbridled appetite; they have rendered holy houses useless, they have reduced sacred monasteries to solitude, they have despoiled divine temples of their sacred treasures; while they hold the chaste fear of God, and the vengeance for these crimes, far removed from their eyes.

^B Thus it has come to pass that they prove the holy words of God to be a lie, and mock His law. Furthermore, some, as if they did not think that the all-piercing eye of justice was noting what is done, have taken pains with hidden guile of soul and fraudulent tongue to insult the simplicity and holy modesty of the holy patriarchs and other priests, and have sought to obtain monasteries from them by grant, with the promise of declaring every kind of beneficence toward them, and of dissipating the misfortune brought upon them by the circumstances of the times and other mishaps, and of restoring them to a most beautiful form; but so far were they from fulfilling their words with deeds and keeping their promises when they had obtained them, that they even shamelessly designate ^C all the contrary things, and heap desolations upon their desolations; while they enjoy to satiety the goods which they take away, they do not repay even the least bit of what they themselves require, until they have brought them at last to their destruction and extreme desolation. And in this way they sell off the ruined monasteries just as if they were common and profane estates, or let them out to others for nothing, so that as the locust might devour the residue of the caterpillar, the total ruin may receive the final blow; and if anything has escaped those others, it might be consumed by these: in which they truly admit to a crime similar to a barbarian incursion, but one utterly unworthy of Christian honesty and modesty. Now, ^D what is even more dishonorable and foreign to decorum than these things themselves, women are in charge of men’s monasteries, and men

^A perform the care of women’s: the lambs, as they say, are pastured by wolves; or fire is set to the hay. For seeing that not even a casual or unconsidered approach by men to women’s monasteries is permitted by the sacred canons, nor conversely by women to men’s dwellings, it is, in truth, far from allowed that men should rule over venerable women who have decreed to live for God alone, or that women should preside over religious men, unless someone should perhaps wish to mix the unmixable and stubbornly mock the divine laws and commandment. Our mediocrity, however, having nothing more important than the preservation of the sacred canons and the observance of divine rights—and as if anticipating and checking such evils, and beating back those that might creep further—statutes that from this time forward, no transfer of any monastery whatsoever shall take place from the person who possesses it by donation to another person; and if it should happen to occur, it shall be void, unacceptable, and subject to the most appropriate accountability. Neither shall a woman, of whatsoever status she may be, have dominion over a men’s monastery, ^B nor conversely a man over a women’s; and especially if he be of suspicious age and provide an occasion of scandal to the faithful. And this is to be observed in metropolises, and in bishoprics, and everywhere. For evil suspicions must be removed by every means; far less must it be permitted that falls should arise from such things, and the venerable body of the Church be insulted. Therefore, so that in the future no transfer of a holy monastery from person to person may be improperly committed, nor any sale (which would be shameful even to contemplate, much less to speak of or record in writing), nor men preside over women’s schools of rectitude, nor women over men’s: this present memorial has been set forth. Besides what has been said, it also annuls and rescinds, without restitution of the price, every leasing of paralauria, holy monasteries, estates, and lands in general, and vineyards, which has not proceeded according to the judgment of the patriarch or the knowledge of those who preside over the secretariate of the venerable archive. Yet this is to be done in such a way that the venerable schools of rectitude suffer no loss from this, but rather that the granters and the lessees acknowledge this as their own: the former as being fraudulent, and for having wickedly alienated for private gain that which was not permitted by the most holy prelates; the ^C lessees, however, for having taken no care to ascertain from whom the leasing ought to be made, and for not having protected themselves—especially if it does not clearly and manifestly appear that the receipts were expended on the useful and necessary expenses of the monasteries. From now on, none of these things should occur. But if it should indeed be necessary for anything to be done, it must be referred to our mediocrity, or to the most God-beloved chartophylax, and to the most devout deacons and patriarchal notaries surrounding him; and ^D [these things] ...

one, it must be referred to our mediocrity, or to the most God-beloved chartophylax, and to the most devout deacons and patriarchal notaries surrounding him; and [these things] by written consent, we desire that the alienation proceed. Otherwise, no ^A lease will remain certain and inviolable, but the lessee shall forfeit the price paid, according to the constitution of the canons and laws, and the lessor shall likewise be penalized. This, moreover, shall hold valid for metropolises, archbishoprics, and bishoprics. And neither shall the donation of a monastery ever be transferred to a person who is not enrolled therein, nor shall men manage women's monasteries, nor women men's, nor shall a lease of a *paralaurion* or any other immovable property be made without the approval of the most holy patriarch, or the metropolitan and archbishop. If done, it shall exist only in writing, but in reality it shall have no more efficacy even than dreams, nor shall it be of any benefit to the lessees. Moreover, bishops, however many of them possess monasteries by virtue of the donations of metropolitans, if it should happen that the metropolises are constrained and become impoverished, while the bishoprics are blessed and wealthy, shall in justice return those donations and cede the monasteries to the metropolises, so that their narrow lot may receive some slight consolation therefrom. Likewise shall other persons do. For it is undoubtedly absurd and contrary to reason that metropolises should be burdened with every kind of exaction for the sake of bishoprics that are in want, while wealthy bishoprics do not extend a hand or bring aid to their needy metropolises, nor, if need demands, cede the ^B monasteries belonging to them. But just as that [former regulation], as a necessary and unavoidable matter, orders the payment of public revenues contrary to custom, so this present decree, proceeding from certain deliberation, disposes [of this matter] and directs that it be exercised and carried out in the future. These things having been read aloud in the hearing of the most religious metropolitans, Cyriacus of Ephesus, Constantine of Nicaea, Theodore of Chalcedon, Constantine of Side, John of Melitene, Constantine of Tyana, John of Claudiopolis, Theophanes of Neocaesarea, John of Iconium, Sergius of Corinth, Michael of Athens, Theognostus of Mokissos, Constantine of Trebizond, Agapetus of Adrianople, Stephen of Crete, Nicolaus of Hydruntum, and the archbishops, Dionysius of Prokonnesos, Strategius of Aphros, Leo of Brysis, Peter of Kypsela, Nicolaus of Lemnos, were fortified and corroborated with the leaden seal, and given in the month of November, of the eleventh indiction, in the year 6636.

III. Regarding two second cousins, of whom one contracted a marriage with the daughter of a certain man who was still underage—that is, five and a half years old—but the other was united to her mother after her death, on the grounds that the ^C former marriage was considered as nothing on account of the girl's age being entirely imperfect. Nuptial questions, when they pertain to sacred matters, are to be determined by divine law.

and by that which bestows the perpetuity of the race upon life; they ought to be handled with care, so that ^A negligence does not harm things that are good, nor should evil actions defile the most honorable of contracts. The matter, indeed, upon which our discourse has begun to treat, contains a consideration that is neither unrefined nor unpleasant, but one that enters the minds of the learned with great pleasure; it must be narrated first so that what we intend to say may be clearly understood.

Symeon, surnamed Semidalis, having dragged Euphemius to the tribunal, charged him with an illicit marriage. The narrative of the fact is this: Euphemius, he says, and Georgius, being born of cousins, are held to be second cousins. One of these, Georgius, took a certain woman named Theodote, using sacred prayers, though she was not only not of age for marriage, but not even for betrothal. And the young girl, having lived for another year and a half, died. Afterwards, Euphemius united himself in marriage with Maria, the mother of this girl. These things were set forth by the accuser.

The defendant, however, exculpated himself, asserting that Theodote was ^B five and a half years old when the sacred prayers were performed in the month of March of the third indiction; and that she died in the month of July of the fourth indiction, and therefore he had united with her mother in marriage. Since, therefore, the law must be applied to such disputes, and a sentence thus rendered, we judged it necessary first to establish through witnesses what year the girl was in at the time of the prayers, and whether a betrothal was formed first, and then this marriage, or if the matrimonial contract existed from the beginning without any prior betrothal.

Witnesses were therefore brought forward by the accused. For although it is fitting for accusers to bear the burden of proof, nevertheless, out of caution that nothing illicit might have been committed, and that nature might not be injured, the burden of proof was placed upon the defendant, who admitted to the kinship. ^C And of the witnesses who appeared, Gelasius, surnamed Thrax, and Procopius, surnamed Straboprocopius, being questioned separately, gave testimony that was consistent and tended to one end. Namely, that the girl was born around the month of August of the twelfth indiction, and having surpassed the fifth year and already entering the sixth, she was given in marriage to Georgius around the month of March of the third indiction; and she exchanged her life in the month of July of the fourth indiction.

Theoclistus, however, and Nicetas, the son of John the Protospatharios, and Theodorus Daemonius, together with John surnamed Clasmata, testified to the rest being similar to these, but said they did not know the month of the fourth indiction in which Theodote departed this life. In this way, these men also gave accounts consistent with the other two. For although ^D a certain diversity existed in the statements of the two and the four subsequent witnesses, yet this did not happen because there was any contradiction in the testimony, but because their discourse, adhering to the truth, did not wish to omit anything of what was said. For in regard to the matter itself which is in question, the month

^A regarding the dissolution—which signifies nothing in the matter. For that which has not been well begun is not said to be dissolved, but rather to have had no bond from the beginning. The accuser, however, declared that the witnesses were unimpeachable and superior to any calumny, and that they had truly related the time of the indiction when the marriage was contracted and the day on which the girl died; but that they had erred regarding the time of her birth. For he thought that she was six years and as many months old at the time of the wedding. But such an objection brought no aid to his arguments, as he admitted her age was not that of puberty, and also because he did not firmly insist upon what he had said, but rather offered the objection to his adversary with conjecture and hesitation. And Malacenus, who was said to have initiated the accusation, when brought into the court, clearly stated that he knew of nothing absurd in the contract, nor was it clear to him with any certainty regarding the time of the girl's birth, or of the sacred prayers, or of her death. Since the examination had progressed to this point, and the witnesses of the marriage and betrothal had not distinguished between the time and the occasion of the betrothal, but said that they had seen the sacred rites being completed, yet did not know whether a betrothal had preceded that same day, there was nothing that could serve as an impediment to passing judgment. For if the girl had already passed her seventh year when the sacred prayers were being solemnized, it was proper—since the marriage took place within the twelfth year—to inquire whether a legal betrothal had been constituted before this, after the seventh year, so that, if the marriage did not stand, it might at least be made clear ^B if the betrothal had possessed legal force. But since the time of the sacred rites, performed as if on a stage, is acknowledged—and even by the accuser himself—to be quite unsuited for betrothal, every doubt is removed, as everyone can see the manifest illegality. For the laws decree that the seventh year is appropriate for a betrothal, but the twelfth for a woman in marriage; if the contract is made according to the view of the laws, no stain is branded upon the act. But if some precipitation has accompanied it, the law speaks to this effect: "Whoever takes a girl under twelve years of age as his wife, if a betrothal preceded it, she is guarded, even if she has been brought into his house as a wife. But if no betrothal preceded it, nor had he that intention from the beginning, she is not held to have become his wife on that account." Since these are the words of the law, it is sufficiently understood that what occurred between George and Theodora was neither a contract of marriage nor of betrothal, inasmuch as he kept neither the law of marriage nor the law of betrothal. For the law is accustomed to imitate nature, and what nature recognizes, the law also admits; but what nature does not know, it disregards. If, therefore, she who is still reaching puberty is not yet fit for childbirth, and yet marriages are for the sake of procreation, then he who approaches the ^D marriage...

does not have yet reached her twelfth year, he is a defiler, not a husband. And for this reason, ^A marriage with her who is less than twelve years old is forbidden. And the priest who blesses them renders himself liable to the charge. We calculate the same also regarding betrothals. For she who is less than seven years old is destitute of full judgment. But he who lacks judgment cannot consent even by the use of reason. And without consent, pacts cannot stand. Since the words of the law are: A pact is the consent of two into the same agreement. Whence it is apparent that the lawgivers, following the traces of the reasons of nature, promulgated statutes concerning nuptials. Since, therefore, this contract of Theodote and Georgios is not recognized ^B either by the laws or by nature, Euphemios, the cousin of Georgios, joined to himself in marriage the mother of Theodote without any impediment. For what is considered as nothing, in what way can it be an obstacle to what is done rightly and legitimately? By no means. Michael, the most reverend metropolitan of Athens, examined these things with us in the queen of cities, and pronounced at one. For he, having the suit initiated before him, both approved the marriages themselves and sent from Athens to the most holy patriarch a writing very just and very accurate in this name, and he subscribed it.

Figure of the foregoing

MICHAEL

that prohibits them does not extend infinitely; but in the same lineage, ^A marriage of the seventh degree is also forbidden. For a cousin cannot marry the daughter of his cousin, even though the marriage of those born of cousins is not prohibited. But for those on the collateral side, the seventh degree is even permitted. However, in the marriage reported to us, the sixth degree is found. For Cale and Georgius, being cousins, stand in the fourth degree toward each other. And Michael is distant from Irena by two degrees, as he is her brother. And thus, since the sixth degree is reached, the marriage of Irena is prohibited. You, most learned man, must either forbid this—if not yet contracted—or dissolve it—if already contracted; since from the report of Leo, you understand that it falls within the sixth degree. And there is no reason for you to feel apprehension. For I have many things supporting you in this matter, both the civil laws, and the sacred canons, and the very novel volume of the perennially celebrated and religiously deceased lord, Sisinnius the patriarch.

Figure

^B II. From the Epistle of Michael, most holy and universal patriarch.

A priest who knows his wife to be defiled by adultery, if he puts her away, is not prevented from his office: but if he receives her back, he loses the priesthood. As for the dowry which the priest’s wife brought to her husband, but which became known through her adultery, two thirds shall be retained for the son born to them both; the remainder shall be conceded to her, to be given to the monastery in which she shall be tonsured.

^C III. Of the same.

A certain priest initiated with sacred prayers those who were entering into marriage against the will of their parents. Then, after they had divorced each other and were contracting other marriages, another priest blessed them. If he was ignorant of the parents' disapproval, he shall be ordered to abstain from sacred ministry for a certain specified time, and he shall afflict himself with fasts and prayers. The duration of this penance shall extend to forty days, or another forty. ^D But if he knew, he shall lose his priesthood. But if the children were of more advanced age, and because their parents were interposing delays, they were forced to contract the marriage against their will: since the laws also approve of this, both the one who performed the sacred prayers is blameless, and the second one, too, is excused, to whom the prior marriage was not known. But if it was known, he shall be subjected to milder penalties, because he crowned those who were liable to the charge of fornication as though they were pure. But if the first marriage was contracted with the consent of the parents, then an unexpected divorce intervened: the first priest is innocent, but the second loses his priesthood: whether the parents were present or not.

IV. From the Epistle of the same patriarch Michael. ^A Regarding those who are born of the same kin, even the seventh degree of marriage is prohibited. For a cousin-german cannot marry the daughter of a cousin-german, although the marriage of those who are first cousins once removed is not forbidden. But to those who are related laterally by affinity, even the seventh degree is permitted. Therefore, if first cousins have been joined with sisters born of another kin, the subsequent marriage is illicit, and if it has indeed been contracted, let it be dissolved; but if it has not yet been contracted, let it be forbidden. For first cousins are related in the fourth degree, and brothers in the second. Thus they are found to be of the sixth degree, which the civil law also forbids. ^B

CONSTANTINE LICHUDES

1. Writ notarized in synod; concerning a criminal slave.

Constantine, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch.

Among all the other rights and goods of the great Church of God, those matters which have been decided and ordained regarding slaves are not alien to equity and propriety. For as many of them as have been defiled by the guilt of murder, and have come within the sacred enclosures of the Church, are received with compassion. ^C And, indeed, the Church, with maternal piety, rescues them from death just as it does others; but, according to its ancient custom, it condemns them to perpetual slavery, extending through the whole of their life, with a certain divine rigor, selling them to sacred monasteries and religious houses; so that it may exclude from their minds any hope of a life free from the rule of a master, and that in the very name of servitude they may have a goad accusing their crime, and through penance may purge the baseness of the murder. And thus, this great Church of God, according to ancient custom, sold Demetrios, the slave of so-and-so, polluted by the stain of murder and having confessed it, as one who had committed the crime of murder, through the most religious defenders, to Demetrios, Bishop of Priene, for a price of twenty-four ^D gold coins, so that he might have all dominion and ownership of him, and that no other mortal might claim any right over him. By this present written document, it also exhorts the most God-beloved bishops of the same bishopric who may be in office from time to time, to take greater care for his salvation, and to command and teach what pertains to his advantage and to the remission of such a sin. They must not, however, attempt to free him from his servile condition, nor dare to sell him to any person by whom he might be snatched from perpetual slavery and ecclesiastical penance. For if it should ever be reported and indicated that Demetrios has attained freedom, he himself shall not escape the punishment justly ordained for him, but shall be delivered back—

will not escape, but will again be consigned to most grievous servitude and heavy labor by the most religious defenders; and the bishopric shall be fined, as having disregarded the written decrees; and the prelate who presides over it at the time shall be brought under canonical trial. Therefore, to avert this ^A from him who was once the master of the slave, and to exclude every action in cases of this kind, otherwise legitimate and equitable, so that this Demetrius may not in any way be subjected to corporal death, nor be ill-treated, or punished by any other person: these things have been thus ordained, and written down according to ecclesiastical custom, and sealed with a leaden bull, and given in the month of December, of the twelfth indiction, in the year 6567.

II. Concerning a priest guilty of murder who has been deposed.

The ancient regard of legislators for shrines of religion, as it is possible to perceive from many other things, is so even more especially from those which they, by enacting things humanely and kindly, wished to be proofs of piety toward the kind God. For to those who have lost all hope of life due to the magnitude of the crimes committed by them, they opened the sacred enclosures of the great Church, within which, if any should have taken refuge, they exempted them from all guilt and harassment, having determined that their flight to the sacred building did not happen without divine providence, and with their own salvation. ^B Likewise, if any priests happen to have fallen into the committing of the sin of murder, inasmuch as they are in a certain way the temple of God, and consecrated to Him: once deposed from the rank of the priesthood, they shall live among the throng of the laity, investigation intervening, as long as the span of this life extends; by which loss of dignity they obtain a sufficiently grave expiation for the murder. Therefore, this Sempronius also, from the order of priests, when he had taken refuge within the sacred enclosures of the Church, confessed that he had been the instigator for his own sons to proceed with the rest of the multitude of his estate, and to assist in perpetrating the murder of Chalceopulus Catacalon. This confession having been made, he fell from the sacred list, according to the divine canons, on account of the crime of murder he had committed. ^C But in order that he may remain free, and untouched, and exempt from harassment, we have seen to it that this present document of deposition be committed to writing and subscribed. Given in the month of July, of the twelfth indiction.

JOANNIS XIPHILINI.

Copy of a decree of the most holy and universal patriarch, the lord John, to a certain metropolitan, concerning prohibited marriages, issued by Nicetas the deacon and chartophylax.

As regards illicit or prohibited marriages, there are certain persons expressly designated by pious and imperial laws, who are prohibited from proceeding to the union of marriage in contracting ^D matrimony, for the reason that they would be committing an impiety; and likewise there are some who are coerced by no prohibition, but have free choice in contracting marriages,

^A a state of affairs which I do not think you, most religious man, are ignorant of. Yet in those cases where nothing is explicitly stated in the civil laws and holy canons, a synodical decree exists regarding them—written during the time of the blessed memory of Patriarch Lord Alexius, owing to continuous inquiries—which mandates what ought to hold sway in such matters, namely, where the seventh degree of kinship is involved. It signifies that if advice is sought concerning such a marriage before the act has been voluntarily carried out and completed, it should be forbidden; but if it has been done secretly as if through ignorance, and has been completed, it remains indissoluble, yet the united persons are subject to penalties according to what seems right to the bishop of the place.

^B Since, therefore, we were also consulted by someone from the diocese under you, stating that George and Maria, who were brother and sister, had children—the former, Irena; the latter, Basilius—and that Basilius sired Maria; and that Maria, having been joined to Epiphanius, wishes to be taken in marriage by the natural brother of Epiphanius, Maria [i.e., this Maria]; we have declared by letter that it is not lawful for him to be united with her, on account of the marriage already completed between Epiphanius and Irena, who is her aunt. And thus, at that time, the union of the aforementioned persons was impeded. However, both parties, exerting themselves so that the contract might actually be fulfilled, presented petitions to our powerful and holy Emperor, by which they requested that the most learned Nomophylax look into the matter and render judgment. But his adversary, in turn, having submitted petitions to the most divine sovereignty, obtained ^C a sacred rescript, which reads as follows: "What was judged by the most venerable Chartulary, since it tends rather toward the prohibition of the marriage, shall remain thus, as it was judged." Therefore, having received such a rescript, we signify to you, just as we signified when previously consulted in such a case, that it is not lawful for Michael to join Maria to himself in marriage, on account of the marriage already established by Epiphanius with Irena, since the designations of kinship become confused. And this is especially true according to the word and sanction of the God-bearing and great Father Basil. For it happens that the wives of brothers, who are aunts and nieces, and sisters-in-law, are addressed in the same way. As a forbidden contract, it must remain void, and no fine for transgression should be exacted. For so it was that when we were initially consulted, we gave our reply, the question at that time being for such a reason. And our written answer, produced regarding the aforesaid case, teaches this. ^D But if perhaps the husband's side has already received a dowry, or a promise or gift of a prenuptial donation has been made to the wife's side, the contract shall not be maintained on account of this. Since it is not dowries that make marriages—which can indeed exist without dowries when they are contracted lawfully. But what is promised in the case of nefarious or prohibited marriages

are neither gifts nor donations before nuptials; and those things which were given must be returned in the manner they were given, with no increase from interest being added.

^A Figure. Brothers: Georgius, Maria. Brothers: Epiphanius, Michael. Cousins: Irena, Basilius. Maria. Interdictum est Mariæ ne Michaeli nubat. (It is forbidden for Maria to marry Michael.)

EUSTRATII

Concerning two cousins, who had taken a mother and daughter; and the later marriage being dissolved, as having been unlawfully contracted.

Presiding, the most holy patriarch Eustratius, in the minor secretariat, with those sitting alongside him: Peter, the most illustrious protospatharios and president, and the most religious metropolitans of Neocaesarea, Severina, Chonae, and the archbishop of Zecchia; and the civil magistrates: Potho, protospatharios and great oikonomos; Theodosios, protospatharios and oikonomos of the holy houses; Ioannes, protospatharios and chartularios [of] the General [Logothete]; the master of petitions; Basilios, spatharo-candidatus and coadjutor; Romanos, a secretis and scribe; and Leon, a secretis and logothete of the praetor; there were introduced Malacenus, Bardas, and Theodorus, who were Helladnici and protospatharii, bearing with them letters of the metropolitan of Athens, the metropolitan of Thebes, and the bishop of Euripus. These having been read in the hearing of the holy synod and the civil judges sitting with it; since it was contained therein concerning an illicit marriage, contracted by Euthymios Capulen and Maria, ^C daughter of Bardas, the protospatharios and tribune of the soldiers—in that these two, being cousins, had taken a mother and daughter into the fellowship of marriage—it was decreed: that this marriage, being unlawful, should be annulled, and that a divorce should take place concerning it. However, this shall not have effect upon both parties [equally], but [shall fall] upon Euthymios and Maria, as being the latter, and having entered into marriage after those first nuptials had been concluded. Nevertheless, let these persons be kept immune from penalties, since this divorce is proceeding by synodal sentence. At the same time, let Maria be shorn and handed over to some monastery of that place.

NICOLAI

Concerning the payment of canonical dues.

In the month of November, on the 10th day, in the 10th indiction, presiding, Nicolaus, the most holy and universal patriarch, in the mi-

^Anor secretarium, there being seated with him the most religious metropolitans, of Ancyra, of Cyzicus, of Claudiopolis, of Christianopolis, of Russia; and the archbishops, of Leontopolis, of Sugdaea, and of Rosii; the imperial magistrates also being present.

Some of the most religious bishops throughout the provinces thought that they were suffering no small loss from the synodal precept which had long ago been published concerning the payment of canonical dues during the time of the blessed patriarch, the lord Alexios, on the grounds that it seemed to be in conflict with the divine and imperial holy decrees (chrysobulls) issued thereafter to the cities of the whole world. For the synodal decree, in the name of the canonical due, stipulates that one gold coin should be exacted from the priest alone, while the deacons and subdeacons pay nothing; and it ordains that he who ordains should receive for his sustenance, from each ^B of those being ordained, if it be a reader, one gold coin; if a deacon, three similar coins; if a priest, three other similar coins—since not even the Gospel, though it be given without price, is without expense. But the chrysobulls issued by the pious princes subsequently added a certain supplement to those things provided by the candidates for ordination, and, having assigned to the first-fruits from the laity the name of "canonical," they ordained that these were to be exacted from each of them according to the measure of their wealth, and provided to the most reverend priests.

But when they appeared in the synod and brought forward the imperial sanctions, and requested that the older synodal decrees also be read, it became apparent that no prejudice was thereby brought against them in the exaction of the canonical dues. For while the synodal decrees seem to prohibit the exaction of the canonical dues from the laity—in that they make no mention of them, as if they were things forbidden by the Sacred Scriptures—yet how will ^C those things that are not hindered by any prohibition, if they are done, provide any cause for opposition? Truly, however, the most holy princes, looking to the needs of the time, as it appears, and showing honor to the pontiffs, by offering of goods, provided an occasion, and also willed that the laity be held liable for this payment. And for that reason it seemed most equitable that the bishops should receive from both sides, as much from the priests as from the laity, the things established in the name of the canonical due; for, according to that divine Apostle, "no one wages war at his own expense," but also "the shepherd, tending the flock, is not forbidden to eat of the milk," and "he who plants a vineyard is not prevented from plucking of the fruit." Furthermore, the ancient law likewise commands that a portion ^D of the fruits be cast into the basket and brought into the house of God; and that the priest should receive these from the hands of him who offers, and place them before the altar, and bless them and pray, and so he who has offered shall be blessed, and his house, and

together with his house, and estate, and remaining faculties. But if these are of such a kind, how should they not obtain a greater blessing, since the divine ^A is yet more holy and perfect? In this manner, therefore, since the previously indicated synodal decree and the ensuing imperial sacred sanction do not differ from each other in any respect, it is ordained that nothing else be done beyond these: but whatever has been prescribed to be paid by the priests, that shall be paid; if there be money, in money; but if not, in a proportional quantity of the things expressly inserted into the imperial sanctions; and nothing more than this shall be expended for the sustenance of the ordaining bishop by the one being ordained. But whatever is required from the laity shall be paid in money, produce, and silver, as they are inserted in said sanctions. For thus, neither will matters ordained of old in synods seem to be violated, nor will those subsequently decreed by imperial order become subject to rejection; but both, reconciled to each other, shall be observed without any impediment in all places and cities. And these excerpts, fortified by custom as usual, were given in the month of May, in the tenth indiction.

Subscription. Peter, humble deacon and chartophylax of the most holy great Church of God. Nicetas, deacon and chartophylax of the most holy great Church of God, having compared the present copy with the original shown to me, and having found it in all things equivalent, I have subscribed and affixed my seal.

II. Synodical letter of the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, lord Nicholas, to the most pious emperor, lord Alexius Comnenus, proving from the sacred canons and laws that it is not lawful for bishoprics to be taken away from metropolises.

Considering the commands of your pious majesty to be divine law (for they are in truth both just and worthy of all zeal), my God-crowned and holy lord, and our mighty and sublime emperor, having received the divine resolution given to your power in the petition presented by the God-beloved metropolitan of Ancyra, Nicetas, suitably fortified by a seal of wax and by the crimson letters of his own hand, wherein these things were contained: “Let my most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, together with the holy synod resident there, and furthermore with the magistrates of the senatorial order whom thou hast requested, hear this cause and put an end to it, in a manner consonant with the laws and canons, being in no way impeded by the document ^C which was previously issued by my majesty: and when this cause has been investigated, let him write to my majesty, and from it whatever is necessary shall be managed. In the month of August, indiction VII.” I hastened, according to my ability, to fulfill this divine command. And so, having summoned the senatorial men who with me ^D

^A were appointed for the examination, the council was assembled with the synod which was in the city at that time. But just as the investigation was about to have its beginning, something unexpected and beyond all anticipation occurred; for the clergy of the holy and great Church of God, of their own accord, suddenly stirred up such a commotion that they would not even permit an investigation into the matter under consideration to be proposed at all, but the council labored in vain for many hours, the ecclesiastics neither accepting nor rejecting the discussion of the cause. The clamor was so mingled and confused, and struck the ears so violently, that it was utterly indiscriminate; and even when the sacred heralds sought to suppress the indistinct shouting and commanded silence, the voices could by no means be restrained. Having observed this, I, together with those who had been given to me as partners in the investigation, not wishing to waste time in vain, dismissed the assembly and ordered them to come on the following day prepared, bringing with them whatever aids they thought might lead them to victory; binding them—as I indeed thought—with dire and most horrible penances and execrations, should they dare on the next day to stir up a tumult, or to speak out from any custom, favor, or other passion, either publicly or privately, that might touch them, regarding the violation and contempt of the sacred canons, and the establishment of a lie.

The next day arrived, and again the ecclesiastics returned to press the matter, even while they were themselves the ones being examined. They did not wait to be questioned, but ^B immediately everything was filled with an indecorous appearance of things and with perturbation, and there was greater confusion in the second council than in the first. Wherefore I again dissolved the assembly, and suspended the inquiry, having ordered them to choose for the sake of the apology, from each of the ecclesiastical ranks, two or perhaps three, who were rounded and knowledgeable, and most approved in speaking and hearing; and I also commanded them to bring the divine canons, if they had any contrary to those brought forward by the opposing party, or any other aids of justice, while restraining the multitude and the confused mob, which tries the case not by the reason of what is just and good, but by force, and disturbs and vexes the auditorium itself.

A third council was prepared. And all who were appointed were present, having their ears ^C opened and pricked up for listening, thinking that they would hear something brilliant and noble. But there was nothing of the sort anywhere; only a crowd, and a roar, and an enthusiastic impulse, and the people again showing eyes raving like bacchanals, and, as had happened before, a vain consumption of many words. Finally, after many hours of the day, and toward late evening, as it seemed good to them, there was brought forth into the midst the venerable golden bull of your most divine Majesty, ^D granted to the great Church, concerning some other distinct chapters, but containing also regarding this matter which was sought, the following: “As many episcopates as have been raised of old to the height of metropolises, or also bishoprics to archiepiscopal

^A dignity or metropolitan status: they shall remain in the same dignity and rank, nor shall anyone force them down to a lower place; they ought to hold this right such that they cannot be altered, just as has been established and as they have held them; unless perhaps a benefit of this sort, as something temporary and restricted to persons, has been granted to them by some emperor.”

Beyond this holy golden bull, there was also presented the communication from your divinely-constituted majesty, expressing a judgment between the aforementioned God-beloved Metropolitan of Ancyra, and the most reverend chartulary, and certain others from the great Church of God, sent by order of the one who managed the affairs of the Church before us ^B concerning the proposed matter, upholding the great Church.

And as something of a weapon, they were putting forward as a shield both these things and the long passage of time; they argued that a practice which had prevailed for such a long time through a long and undisturbed custom ought not to be abolished. Since these arguments did not seem sufficient to us for the sake of setting aside the canons, and the metropolitans themselves bore very indignantly the contradictions of the ecclesiastics that were so alien to reason; and the ecclesiastics on the other hand were clamoring and appealing to the holy imperial tribunal, asserting that they would not plead their cause unless these things had been abolished: the question was suspended again ^C and reserved for the examination of your majesty. But in order that your holy majesty may also know that this task was not given to us without purpose, and was not treated in passing or negligently, it seemed right to our mediocrity to unfold every sacred book (if it were possible) and to inquire carefully into all the divine canons, and from them to grasp the understanding of the matter in question; and after this examination, to present in writing to your divinely-favored majesty what had been discovered. Which, indeed, as one examines from beginning to end... so that, having received knowledge of the arguments of each side in detail and specifically, your most equitable and incorrupt majesty might learn and receive assurance that the God-beloved metropolitans who are litigating about these matters ^D are not contending over unjust things. Hearken then, I beseech you, most serene emperor. Since many canons and sacred books were brought forward, it was found from them, as will be shown henceforth, that many holy and divine canons, and civil laws, and acts of the holy universal synods forbid that bishoprics be raised to the height of metropolises; since they establish an order and measure for each, and do not permit anyone to overstep the boundaries of things or to seek what is not fitting. And so that I may not, by producing everything, make my speech too long and trouble your holy ears, I will put forward those of greater importance into our midst, and omitting others, from which alone the truth can shine forth. For when a certain Patriarch of Antioch long ago held to the ordination of the Churches in Cyprus, and when an investigation concerning this took place at the holy and universal third synod, a decision

^A of the divine Fathers was issued, as the seventh canon of this same synod shows, of the following kind: “A matter being innovated contrary to the ecclesiastical regulations and the canons of the holy Fathers, and touching upon the liberty of all, was reported by the most religious bishop Reginus, and those with him, the most pious bishops of the province of the Cypriots, Zeno and Evagrius. Therefore, since common maladies require greater remedy, as they also bring greater damage, and especially if no ancient custom has followed, so that the bishop of the city of the Antiochians might perform ordinations in Cyprus, as the most pious men who made the petition to the holy synod have taught through their written memorials and their own voices, those who preside over the holy Churches in Cyprus ^B shall possess their rights, untouched and unrestrained, according to the canons of the holy Fathers and the ancient custom, performing the ordinations of the most pious bishops by themselves. And the same shall be observed in all other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that no one of the most pious bishops shall seize another province which was not previously and from the beginning under his own hand, or that of his predecessors. But if one has seized it and has made it subject to himself by force, he shall restore it, so that the canons of the Fathers be not violated, nor, under the pretext of sacred office, the pride of secular power creep in, nor may we gradually lose the liberty which our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, has given us by His own blood. Therefore, it pleased the holy and universal synod that to each province its rights, which it has had from the beginning and of old according to the ancient custom, be kept pure and inviolate, with each metropolitan having the license ^C to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. But if any one proceeds with a decree conflicting with these things now defined, it pleased this whole holy and universal synod that it be void.” And this was decreed by the holy third synod.

And when a petition was offered to this same synod by one Eunomius, presiding over the holy Church of the Nicomedians, against Anastasius, who was in charge of the Church at Nicaea, for having seized the bishopric of Basinopolis, because the aforementioned metropolis of Nicaea had not long ago been raised to the rank of a metropolis by the emperors Valentinian and Valens, who had recently been elevated to the imperial throne, and with Eunomius crying out that an injustice was being done to him, the holy synod inquired about this matter, with those senatorial magistrates who were presiding with the synod in the name of the Emperor Marcian also present. And since there was need of this being done, the imperial decree, by which the said city of Nicaea was raised to the height of a metropolis, was read aloud; and it was thus:

^A Emperors, Caesars, Valentinian and Valens, pious, fortunate, perpetual Augusti, victors, to the Nicaeans. Even if our zeal has been manifest and conspicuous to all from the time we received the summit of the empire and the rudders of the state by the will of the Divine, yet besides these things we also refer to the beginning of this happiness itself, that your city, filled with mortals and exulting in our prosperity, has provided a cause of joy and gladness for the whole populace. Wherefore, since it was called a metropolis of old, and ancient laws contain this, that the same things which the Nicomedians obtained by our decree should remain firm and settled, and further, that they should be increased for your city, there can be no doubt. Let this custom therefore endure forever, and let your city be a metropolis, with the custom that is observed in the procession of the Bithyniarch remaining in effect. For no one takes anything away from others. By the will of the Divine, may the dignity of your city be increased. Therefore, joyfully double your vows, and rejoice in those things which the honor itself has bestowed upon you, with all ambiguity ceasing henceforth, considering how eternal gentleness and providence have come to you from our sanctions.

And these indeed were those letters of the emperors, which were granted to the Nicaeans. But since the Nicomedians had taken them indignantly (as is apparent), another edict of the same emperors was issued on behalf of the Nicomedians, at the petition of the Bishop of Nicomedia: ^C which itself was also read in the synod, and when read, it was to this effect:

Valentinian, pious, fortunate, Augustus, to the Nicomedians, greeting. The ancient custom which has long held concerning the privileges of your city shall be preserved. For the increase of honor to the city of the Nicaeans cannot harm your right, since the dignity of the city of Nicomedia is increased by the very fact that it, existing in the second place, is called by the title of metropolis.

The most illustrious presiding officers, who were present at the council on behalf of the emperor Marcian, said: "Neither of these sacred letters speaks of a bishop, but both bestow honor upon the cities. And the sacred letters of Valentinian and Valens of divine memory, which at that time granted metropolitan right to the city of the Nicaeans, specifically command that nothing be taken away from other cities. And the canon of the holy apostles speaks of one metropolitan for each province. What then does the holy synod propose concerning this?" The holy synod shouted: "Let the canons prevail. Let the canons be satisfied." Atticus, the most reverend bishop of Nicopolis...

^A of ancient Epirus, said: "The canon speaks thus: That in each and every province the bishop of the metropolis should have authority, and he himself should appoint all the bishops who are under the same province. And this is the meaning of the canon. And to the bishop of Nicomedia, since this city is a metropolis from ancient times, this same thing is due, that he should ordain all the bishops who are in his province." The holy synod said: "We all desire these things. Let these things be established everywhere. These things please everyone." John and Constantine, the patricians, and the remaining most reverend bishops of the Pontic diocese, said: "The canons recognize one metropolitan, the one who is more ancient. And it is clear that the ordinations belong to the most reverend bishop of Nicomedia. Since the laws also, as your magnificence knows, have honored the city of Nicaea only with the name of metropolis, but he is preferred over the remaining bishops of the province in honor alone," the holy synod said: "They have spoken canonically. They have spoken rightly. We all say the same things. And again, let the canons prevail. Let satisfaction be given to the canons." With these things having been thus jointly approved, the officials brought forward a conclusion and a sentence of the following kind: "The most reverend bishop of Nicomedia ^B shall have the authority of the metropolitan in the churches in Bithynia; the bishop of Nicaea shall possess only the honor of the metropolitan, while remaining subject, in imitation of the other bishops of the province, to the bishop of Nicomedia. For this also has seemed good to the holy synod."

Following such a vote, the holy synod ^C declared the twelfth canon, forbidding one province from being cut into two, and two metropolitans from being in one province; and threatening with deposition therefrom any bishop who would rashly dare to obtain this through an imperial rescript; and decreeing that the bishop who has already obtained metropolitan standing by imperial authority should enjoy the honor alone, with the rights of the true metropolis being kept intact. And the canon is as follows: "It has come to our attention that some, bypassing the ecclesiastical ^D regulations, have run to those who hold power, and through pragmatic sanctions have divided one province into two. As a result of this, there are two metropolitans in the same province. The holy synod has therefore decreed that, henceforth, nothing of the sort shall be attempted by a bishop, since he who attempts such a thing shall fall from his own rank. But whatever cities have been honored with the name of metropolis by imperial letters, let them enjoy the honor alone, along with the bishop who governs the Church of that city, with the rights of the true metropolis remaining, of course, intact." To these things agreement was also given by the emperor Marcian, having dictated this divine ordinance: "Him who removes from any city, whether already existing, or recently founded, the right of its own episcopacy,

or any other privilege, let this ordinance brand him as disgraced, even if it be permitted by an imperial commission, and let it confiscate his goods, condemning the very attempt itself." ^A

It makes an exception, however, for the provinces situated in Scythia and for Leontopolis in Isauria. There exists also another law, the words of which are these: "Let all ecclesiastical privileges remain firm." And again another: "The laws will that the sacred canons shall have no less force than the laws themselves; and what the canons forbid, this the laws also forbid."

And these things suffice to prove that there are not two metropolitans in one province, but only the senior one; and that those who had already become such, should excel the other bishops only in honor, while remaining subject to the one who is in truth the metropolitan; and furthermore, that the very attempt to do otherwise is forbidden, and that the bishop who dared to do this should suffer deposition from his own rank; and that no privilege of those which previously attached to any bishopric, should be taken away by anyone.

That it is not lawful for matters which concern bishops to proceed according to a divine pragmatic sanction, but only according to the determinations of the Fathers, which they also call canons, this can be perceived from another act of this same holy universal fourth synod. ^B For when the city of Berytus had obtained metropolitan rights from that Emperor Theodosius—who, to distinguish him from the greater one, is called the lesser—Eustathius, the bishop of that city, puffed up by that concession of metropolitan right, rose up against Photius, the metropolitan of Tyre, which is the metropolis of the Phoenicians; and having deposed two bishops who were subject to him, as if he were their metropolitan, and having thrust them down to the rank of presbyters, he ordained others. Photius, bearing this not at all, betook himself to the holy synod. And the lawsuit having been set in motion, he obtained a judgment pronounced in his favor, since it availed Eustathius of Berytus nothing that he claimed to be fortified by imperial letters which gave him the power for this matter. ^C For the synod did not pay heed to those things which were being said by him; but in the examination of the case, when the presiding officials had first questioned the synod in these clear words: "It has pleased the most sacred lord of the world that the affairs of bishops should not proceed according to sacred rescripts or pragmatic sanctions, but according to the canons of the Fathers. Let the holy synod therefore say if it is lawful that, by a sacred pragmatic sanction, the rights of another Church should be snatched away by other bishops." The holy synod answered: "Against the canons, no pragmatic sanction shall have force. Let the canons of the Fathers be ratified." And when the presiding officials said again: "It is now time that we be instructed by the synod whether it is lawful that according to..." ^D

a divine pragmatic sanction ^A other bishops may take away the rights of another Church," the holy synod shouted out: "It is not lawful. This is done contrary to the canons." There is also a law which intends this, expressed in these words: "Pragmatic sanctions which are opposed to the canons are void." See, I beg you, most great emperor, how through all these things it has been demonstrated most clearly that the authority of a ruler should not prevail in matters of this kind, but that ecclesiastical affairs should be conducted according to the canons. There are, indeed, many other canons of the divinely crowned apostles and ministers of the Word, and of the subsequent holy synods, declaring these very things; it seemed foolish, and not far removed from useless ambition, to append them to this writing. ^B For since the things produced are sufficient for the demonstration of the matter, why is there need for further labor? And when the truth can shine forth and become known to all, there is no need for many words. For the truth is sufficient by itself for its own defense. These things, therefore, have been said in a common and general sense. But separately and in detail, each one is also fortified by other rights. For he himself who took up this whole struggle and stirred up this hive of arguments, I mean the God-beloved metropolitan of Ancyra, is fortified by an instrument of the blessed-memory emperor Ducas, which raised the bishopric of Basil to metropolitical right, determining that upon the death of the honored metropolitan, the aforementioned Church should be reduced to ^C a bishopric. The emperor was not ashamed, but very prudently, both to display his own lapse and ignorance openly and to correct it; but, according to the Thessalian youth, he who inflicted the wound also recognized the healing compassionately and humanely. And in addition to this, he is equipped with another golden bull of his son and emperor, which supports the former, and with a synodical monument of the metropolitans living at that time—though they were few—which confirms the established order with their own handwritten subscriptions, the majority of whom are still alive, all of whom followed the canonical decision. The other, the one of Heraclea, in addition to the common rights, brings forward that very synodical monument ^D to form an alliance in his own defense, and he is armored with a golden bull, whose author is the blessed-memory emperor Botaniates, which determines that upon the death of him who now holds the pontificate in Madytus, the metropolitical right over it shall expire and the aforementioned Church shall return under Heraclea, as it was before. In addition to these, the most God-beloved metropolitan of Patras is also fortified by many and various rights, that he may have the bishoprics granted to his Church by emperor Nicephorus (who became emperor from being a general) as united, and untorn, and inseparable, because in the destruction of the Avars by the chief of the apostles and first-called [alt-version omitted]

^A Andrew, a miracle happened, apparent to the eyes, when for two hundred and eighteen whole years they had held the Peloponnese and had cut it off from the Roman Empire, so that not even a Roman man could set foot in it at all; yet in one hour they were wiped out by the mere appearance of the first-called apostle, and the whole region was restored to the Roman scepters.

And first, the golden bull of the aforesaid emperor is put forward, who also raised this same most holy church of Patras from an archbishopric to the glory of a metropolis, on account of the announced prodigy of the chief apostle, as we have said, and bestowed three bishoprics upon it: Methone, Lacedaemon, and Sarcocorone; and another consonant with this, of the emperors Leo and Alexander; and a third of Romanus, Christopher, and Constantine, following in the footsteps of the others; and another besides these, of Nicephorus Phocas; and fifth upon these, that of the one who recently held the throne, Botaneiates, confirming all the aforementioned. The [bishop] of Neocaesarea likewise relies upon a memorial of the patriarch of blessed memory, lord Michael, and the golden bull of lord Michael Ducas.

There are also found acts which state that whatever bishoprics were to be promoted to the dignity of a metropolis could not attain this in any other way unless the reason of public utility persuaded it, and the synod consented, and the metropolitan of the church about to be honored, having received worthy recompenses from the emperor’s hand, agreed to what was being done. ^B Since, therefore, there are so many supports, both common to all and particular to individuals, it seems, most humane emperor, to me and those like me, that an action of this kind is both unjust and enormous, and contrary to the sacred canons, and opposed to spiritual decrees and laws, and that the arguments which are set against it by the opposing party do not hold sufficient strength. For neither will a divine pragmatic sanction, as has been declared above, prevail against the divine canons, nor can a condemnation which aims against the laws and canons be praiseworthy. ^C For although the document signed by your divinely-constituted majesty is artfully and oratorially produced, and seems to deserve belief from the common people, yet it is not able to overturn laws and canons, nor to shake the truth. For sophistry and syllogisms, taken from things that seem agreeable to human opinion but are not, are far from the truth and from knowledge. Nor will long-standing custom ever cause that which could not exist from the beginning to have a place. For then a long custom also obtains the force of law when, besides the fact that it does not fight against right reason, it does not overturn the law. ^D But when in this way the sacred canons are overturned, by what logic will a custom that has crept in this way be admitted? For hear the words of the law: “That which has not been introduced with reason, but has prevailed through error and custom, ought not to hold in similar cases.” We are not ignorant, moreover, of the bitter arguments offered by some, which strive to prove the royal gift—the...

elevation of churches to higher rank—is an imperial prerogative; and they argue that this ought not to be rescinded unless the condition of ingratitude intervenes. For they say that if an emperor grants something to a man, ^A he does not revoke his favor unless a case of ingratitude arises; how much more does this apply to the holy Churches, concerning which it is unreasonable even to speak of ingratitude? Indeed, the imperial gift concerns itself first with cities, not with churches. But if even so one were to insist that this is a donation, he would find it unjust, and prohibited by the laws. For these prohibit both unjust petitions and the granting of rash favors that are requested to the detriment of others. Furthermore, the honors of some ought not to be harmful to others.

^B Since the case has thus been diligently examined, it is altogether necessary, divine Emperor, to abolish this absurd and unjust custom at least for the future, with your sacred clemency proposing sanctions which decree that it shall henceforth have no place; and regarding those things which have happened before this, to dispose of them according to your singular and heroic prudence. As many churches as held episcopal rights and were raised to the eminence of metropolises, having passed the limit of the long prescription of thirty years without any interruption, let them remain in that same condition, and be subject to the holy and great Church of God. For this is also an episcopal privilege, and there are canons that allow a bishop to vindicate for himself the prerogative of another church by the passage of the said years. For the 17th canon of the Council of Chalcedon says that the rural or provincial parishes of individual churches should remain unshaken under the power of those bishops who possess them; and especially if, in the space of thirty years, no force intervening, they have possessed and administered them. But if within those thirty years any dispute arises or has arisen regarding them, it is permitted to those who say they have suffered injury to bring the matter before the synod of the province. ^C The holy synod held in the Trullo of the palace also followed this sacred canon through its own 25th canon. Those, however, whom this has befallen, if they have no support from the duration of time, must, without contradiction, return to the rights of their own metropolises. Nor let your powerful and holy majesty be disturbed by that absurdity which is pretended under the guise of an excuse, nor by the insult which appears to be inflicted upon the churches, seeing that they seem to be marked with a kind of infamy when metropolitan dignity is taken away from them.

For it is not a disgrace to lose something lawfully; on the contrary, the other situation is, which is committed in a new manner and contrary to the laws. For something of this kind was found to have been done by synodal judgment and confirmed by imperial decree. For when the bishopric of Rhozaeus, being under the bishop of Caesarea, had been made an archbishopric by Germanus the Confessor and Patriarch, and under the emperor who was reigning at that time, and ^D

two hundred years later, ^A under the celebrated patriarch Theophylact, at the command of the elder Roman emperor, and with the petition of a certain Nicephorus, primate of Neocaesarea, a mixed tribunal was convened, composed of both high priests and learned men of the senate, with the aforementioned patriarch himself presiding. And in that judgment, it was pronounced in favor of the metropolitan. This is clearly apparent from the annotation of those who heard the case, and from the record of the said patriarch, and from the golden bull of the emperors Romanus, Christopher, and Constantine, which seals the judgment. And rightly so, pious emperor. For that which has been done wrongly ought to be corrected well. This is my opinion. This is how I pronounce, following the teachings of the holy, God-bearing Fathers transmitted by our ancestors, ^B and adhering to the sacred and divine canons. For I do not consider it holy or just which has not been done justly and holily; nor do I fear the opinions of the many who want me to be mindful of the privileges of the Church granted to me by God, and neither to neglect them nor surrender them rashly. For it is not the role of high priests, as if it were a strict necessity, to think that the privileges of their own Church must be defended indiscriminately, whether just or unjust; but they ought to keep those which are just inviolable, and yield those which are unjust. For we have been ordered entirely to handle the word of truth correctly, according to the teachings of the word of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who is Truth itself, and we will not be entirely free from blame before God ^C if we pursue these profits due to our mental affections. And we, indeed, from whom it is necessarily required that we consider nothing more ancient than the divine precepts and the traditions of the Fathers, but instead preserve them inviolate to the best of our ability, do both think and decree these things. I would wish, however, that your pious and most serene majesty also considers the matter, and does what the deed requires; and in this way, may your majesty preserve that which will be entirely free from both reproach and scandal, both with respect to God himself and the sacred canons.

LUCAS (25)

On the tenth day of the month of March, on the first day of the week, with our most holy lord and universal patriarch, the lord Lucas, presiding in the right Alexiac catechumena, there being seated in the council with his great holiness the most sacred high priests of Caesarea, Heraclea, Amaseia, Melitene, Thessalonica, Neocaesarea, Myra, Mocissus, Crete, Trajanopolis, Hierapolis, Aenus, Dristra, Nazianzus, ^D Abydus, Miletus, Selybria, Bizye, Maroneia, Parium, Cius, Aprus, Nicaea, Gothia, Matracha,

Sugdophullorum, and Herculis: with the most religious imperial officers ^A and officials also present.

The most holy archbishop of the metropolis of Thessalonica, Constantine, complained indignantly that certain of the clergy subject to him had plundered various goods of his metropolis, as well as those belonging to the metropolitan who preceded him. He asked in the synod, while our mediocrity was presiding, what ought to be done regarding those who had so wickedly gone astray into such a crime. The answer given was that, since according to various canons and laws, of which mention shall be made below in this writing, those who ^B commit such things are subject to appropriate penalties; the clergy of the Church of Thessalonica should also, after a careful examination has first been conducted and the truth ascertained, if they are found liable for such outrages, be punished according to what is contained in these same laws and canons; and the following is the opinion of the canons and laws which penalize those who commit such acts:

Canon LXXII of the holy apostles: If any cleric or layman shall take away wax or oil from the holy church, let him be excommunicated; and let him add a fifth part beyond that which he took.

Canon VII of the synod of Gangra: If any one shall wish to receive or give ecclesiastical fruits outside the church, without the judgment of the bishop or of him to whom such things have been entrusted, ^C and does not wish to act with his consent: let him be anathema.

Canon II of the synod of Chalcedon: It is not permitted for a cleric, after the death of his own bishop, to plunder the goods belonging to him, just as it has been forbidden by ancient canons. Or those who do this, let them be in danger of losing their own station.

Canon XXXV of the synod of Constantinople celebrated in the Trullo of the palace: It shall not be permitted for any metropolitan, when a bishop subject to his throne dies, to take away or usurp his goods or those of his church; but they shall be under the guardianship of the clergy of the church of which the deceased presided, until another bishop is appointed; except if there remain no clergy in that church. For then the metropolitan shall ^D keep these things undiminished, and shall restore everything to the bishop who is to be ordained.

Book LX, title XLV, chapter I, theme II of the Basilics: The crime of peculation is charged against him who steals from temples, or sepulchers, or public funds, or converts them to his own uses.

And chapter IV, of the same title and book: He is held by the crime of peculation who takes sacred monies, or monies from a sepulcher, or anything dedicated to God.

δόσιν. Ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ παροικοῦντες ἐν προαστείοις, ὑπὸ ἐνορίαν τελοῦσιν ἀρχιερέως τῆς αὐτοῦ διοικήσεως, καὶ τὸ κανονικὸν αὐτῷ καταβάλλουσι. Ταῦτα δέ, ὡς ὑπὸ τῆς ἱερᾶς συνόδου ἐκφωνηθέντα, εἰς πρᾶξιν ἄγεται.

GEORGII XIPHILINI (26).

On territorial rights.

On the fourth day of the month of February, on the second day of the week, in the fifteenth indiction, ^A while our most holy master and universal patriarch, Lord George, presided in Thessaly, with most holy bishops sitting with him in his great council—Stephen of Amasea, John of Melitene, Michael of Tyana, Theodore of Gangra, Euphemian of Philippopolis, Theophanes of Madytus, Theodore of Abydos, Romanus of Aprus, Manuel of Philadelphia and Protosyncellus, Constantine of Pyrgi, John of Kios, George of Nicaea, Basil of Lemnos, John of Anchialus, and Gregory of Derkos, with the most reverend imperial magistrates standing by—

^B The religious bishop of Limnae, Michael, appeared today before our mediocrity, presiding synodically, and proposed the following question. Certain dwellings, he says, and oratories were founded from the beginning under patriarchal stauropegia. Certain immovable properties belong to them, situated in the territory of the diocese of our holiness. And the priests who reside in them neither mention my name when the sacred rites are performed and during other divine hymns of God, nor do they give me the canonical [dues] which are customarily paid to all bishops by tradition. He therefore besought that a response be given to him by us in this matter. And he heard from our mediocrity and the holy and sacred synod ^C that although those immovable properties may be under the dominion of other bishops, nevertheless those who reside in them are placed under the governance of the bishop of the province, as one having the right of a pastor. Therefore, it seemed in accordance with canonical exactness that the mention of the name of that bishop who presides over the province should be made by those who have their domicile in his territory, and that they should be governed by him as their pastor. Furthermore, the payment of the canonical [dues] which are customarily rendered to bishops should look to the provincial bishop. For this has been granted to the most holy patriarch of Constantinople, New Rome, for the time being, that the mention ^D of his most honorable name should be made in any territories whatsoever, both in dwellings and in sacred oratories which were founded from the beginning and from their very foundations under patriarchal stauropegia. But not only this: even holy and venerable houses, or any monasteries that have received the foundation of their construction from the beginning in any territory whatsoever, being under another bishop—if indeed they received their establishment from the beginning under a patriarchal stauropegion, the name of the most holy and universal patriarch for the time being shall be mentioned in such places. But if the construction of such places did not proceed in that manner, then the bishop who for the time being shall be in charge of the governance shall be mentioned in them, and the payment of the canonical [dues]...

as well as those living in the suburbs ^A under the parish of some prelate, which by right of ownership belong to certain sacred monasteries and oratories; unless by chance they were constructed from the beginning under patriarchal stauropegiacs. These things, having been extracted from the daily synodal records and confirmed by the signature and seal of the most venerable chartophylax and Hypertimos, lord John Camateros, were delivered in the month and indiction written above, in the year 6705. The signature. John, chartophylax of the most holy great church, and Hypertimos, Camateros.

OF JOHN CAMATEROS.

^B A synodal decree, which forbids one and the same man from taking two cousins as wives: which it is better to follow, even if the civil judges do not forbid this case in the decree following hereafter.

John, by the mercy of God archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and ecumenical patriarch, to my beloved brother and fellow-minister ^C in the Lord, the most holy and honorable metropolitan of Dyrrachium, and to the most God-beloved bishop of Deabolis.

Beloved brother and fellow-minister in the Lord, most holy metropolitan of Dyrrachium and Hypertimos, and you, most God-beloved bishop of Deabolis: Alexios Capandrites, having appeared before the holy council of our holy synod under our predecessor, the most holy patriarch, during the month of February of the past first indiction, related that he had been joined in lawful marriage to Eudokia, who came from the region of Dyrrachium, the full sister of that most venerable Sebastus, lord Constantine Boioannes, who had lost her former spouse, that Dyrrachite governor, Bardas Macromatos; and that on this account the customary matrimonial documents had been drawn up. Furthermore, that sacred prayers had intervened for both the betrothal and the wedding. But after seven months ^D of such life together, the aforementioned Sebastus Boioannes had invited to his house by simulation both Capandrites himself and his own full sister, who had become the wife of the former according to the laws, as if to be entertained at a feast after the custom of in-laws. When they had reached his house, he had bound Boioannes himself in iron chains and held him in custody, having separated him from that wife of his and having robbed him of the belongings that he had brought with him; and as for his wife, he had joined her against her will to another, using force. Having related these things, he also presented your document, most God-beloved bishop of Deabolis, which indicated, by the consenting confession of the magistrates of the Coloniatae—who were also expressed by name in that document—that such kinsman of theirs, the Capandrites, having lost through [their] causing his death [the woman] who from the first marriage…

had been joined to him, was wedded a second time to the woman above-mentioned without any violence; furthermore, that an imperial decree, which is to be worshiped, ordained this very thing, namely, that if the aforesaid Eudocia had been joined to him with holy prayers without any violence intervening, no one should dare to offer harassment to the said Capandrites. ^A According, therefore, to all these things, a synodal instrument was at that time produced, in which, in accordance with the petition of Capandrites, it was pronounced and decreed what was to be done in such a case. And to this synodal instrument, the papers produced by Capandrites (as has been said)—namely, that imperial decree which is to be worshiped, and the instrument proceeding from you, the most religious Bishop of Deabolis—were word-for-word inscribed. ^B But because now it has again been reported to our mediocrity on the part of this woman—the own sister, namely, of the most venerable Boiannis, since her husband who was previously lawfully joined to her, that primicerius Bardas Macromatus, had paid the debt of nature—she, fearing the quaestorian power, since such things are wont to happen frequently in matters of this kind, had for a time migrated into the territory of Colonia to the house of a certain kinsman of hers, carrying with her those of her belongings which were the most valuable and the easiest to transport, whatever she had been able to take away. Then this Capandrites, having gathered not a few armed men, had arrived in the manner of a robber and had committed the crime of abducting her, having carried off also those things which she had had with her; and thus he had transported her from place to place, and had dragged her as a captive wherever he wished, not even permitting her to see her own sisters, who, having learned of this deed, had come to seek her. ^C And thus he was violently and unlawfully wedded to her, while she did not consent, both because of the inherent absurdity of the action and because she knew accurately that the former wife of such a man, whom he had lost by death, was her cousin. And therefore, having seized an opportunity, she chose to flee and abandon cohabitation with him, that she might not draw upon herself a spiritual condemnation in her conscience from such sharing of life, because of her blood kinship with his former wife, who (as she says) was her—the second—cousin. And she put a question concerning these matters through one of her own people to our mediocrity, presiding in the council, as to what should be done regarding a marriage contracted in this way. ^D It was answered both by our mediocrity and by the sacred assembly of brothers: if the truth of the matter is indeed so ordered, the marriage thus contracted is by that very fact dissolved. And he indeed, who inflicted violence, altogether deserves to suffer those things which the sacred and pious laws decree, acknowledging also those penalties which are imposed by the sacred canons upon those who are knowingly and prudently joined with two cousins, since this degree of blood kinship is the sixth.

is discovered: but she who separates from him for reasons of this kind, shall suffer no prejudice. Wherefore we signify to you also, that you should summon both parties, and with both standing before you, you shall hold an accurate examination of their accounts, and according to the synodal sentence pronounced concerning it, you shall act toward that side in which you find the evident truth of those things which are said by them, and have been set forth in the synod. Farewell. In the month of February, in the second indiction.

DECREE OF THE CIVIL JUDGES.

For his part, the most illustrious lord Alexius Capandrites had first as a lawful wife, the daughter of that lord Theophanes Provatas. After her death, he lived together, with the intervention of a legal blessing, with her second cousin. He desires to learn from us whether the said marriage is strictly legal and firm by law. Therefore, we answered him that the law in the book of the Basilica, book 28, title 5, chapter 11, says: Forbidden marriages are recognized as follows: In the ascending and descending line to infinity, marriages are forbidden, even if the persons themselves are not born from lawful marriages. For no one can take his own daughter, or granddaughter, or mother, or grandmother; whether the daughters be natural, or adoptive. Likewise, among persons in the collateral line, there is a certain prohibition. For it is not lawful for me to take the daughter of my brother or my sister for marriage. Nor even their granddaughter. Similarly, neither the daughter of my paternal or maternal uncle, that is to say, my cousin. Nor, furthermore, may my son take their granddaughter, who are called second cousins. ^C And book 60, title 37, chapter 73, contains these words: Those who are joined in marriage, or who are otherwise carnally united as cousins, and their children born from such unions, and solely they—or father and son with mother and daughter, or two brothers with two sisters, or two brothers with mother and daughter, or a nephew with a woman married to a paternal uncle—or a paternal uncle with a woman married to his brother's or sister's son, besides divorce, shall also be punished with stripes. Moreover, in the part of the writing which is of the most holy patriarch Sisinnius, these are prohibited marriages, namely, when brothers take unrelated cousins, or two cousins marry two brothers; or when an uncle and his brother's son take two sisters, or an aunt and her brother's daughter take two brothers. Furthermore, according to the synodal acts and judgments of the most holy patriarch, lord Luke, and the imperial edicts, in those who are related in a collateral line, the seventh degree is prohibited; in those joined by affinity, sometimes the sixth is permitted, sometimes it is prohibited. For when on one side there are two ^D degrees, and on the other four; as when two brothers wish to be joined in marriage with two first cousins, the marriage is forbidden. But if an uncle and a nephew wish to be married to an aunt and a niece from another...

marriage wish to be joined with two cousins: the nuptials are prohibited. But if an uncle by the father's or mother's side, and the son of a brother or sister, wish to be joined with an aunt by the father's or mother's side, and the daughter of a brother or sister, born of a different line: the marriage is lawful. Indeed, since the proposal and question put forward by him are not counted or referred to among the prohibited nuptials which were recited above, but pertain to the seventh degree of affinity (for female cousins are joined to each other in the sixth degree, and the person who is joined to them constitutes another degree, and is removed to the seventh degree of affinity), we determine and declare that marriage of this kind is not forbidden; since the seventh degree of affinity is indistinct and is not prohibited at all. These things are in regard to the aforementioned. ^B

Subscriptions. Judge of the Velum, Gabriel Splenarius, assenting to the decrees, I have subscribed. Judge of the Velum, John Apotyras, assenting to the decrees, I have subscribed. Judge of the Velum, Nicetas, that first and supreme Nobilissimus, Hispanopolus, holding the same view, I have subscribed.

Item on the reverse. ^C John, judge of the Velum and prefect of the Circus, Dysypatos, assenting he also to the decrees set forth within, I have subscribed.

PHILOTHEI

Since you are skilled in matters of this kind, venerable Nomophylax and judge general Armenopoulos, why did you not also add to your writings that, on account of the golden and holy laws of that great light of the Church, John, called "of the golden tongue" (Chrysostom), by which Christians are prohibited from being subjected to anathema so long as they hold the correct opinion concerning God, those tomes which anathematize the creators of apostasies and those who rise up against the emperors have ceased to be in use? For this is what that learned Nomophylax informs us, and Balsamon, participant in studies similar to yours, who attained the greatest knowledge and doctrine both in laws and in canons, and who was later designated patriarch of that great Antioch—a fact which I would not say is unknown even to you, a learned man and one preeminently studious of such matters. Either, therefore, those things also ought to have been ascribed to those to whom these things were said by you, or these things ought not to have been introduced into your beautiful and accurate writings at all. But I now wish to supply what is missing from the friend’s writing, and I do not think I shall be considered burdensome, nor indeed superfluous; while I undertake the necessary and just measures, as the necessity itself demands. ^D

^A The aforementioned patriarch of Antioch, the learned Balsamon, while explaining the sacred canons, says these things in the preface to his exposition of the canons of the Council of Gangra: “This present synod, by reason of the evils brought about by Eustathius, defines that those who think as he does, being contrary to what has been rightly dogmatized by the Catholic Church, must be struck with anathema.”

And after some remarks:

“But that golden-tongued man, the teacher of the world, exhorting us that a believer should not be anathematized, says these things explicitly: ‘What then is this, that you call anathema? It is, of course, that this man should be devoted to the devil and no longer have any share in salvation. Let him become a stranger to Christ finally. And who, I ask, are you? These are matters of majesty and ^B great power. For then the King shall sit and place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left. Why then do you usurp such dignity for yourself?’ And a few words later, the same Chrysostom says: ‘Therefore, it appears that the Apostle spoke this expression of necessity in only two places. Yet he did not put it forward in a definitive manner, for in the epistle to the Corinthians he says: *If any man does not love our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema*; and, *If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you received, let him be anathema*. What then? What none of those who have received authority have done, except for the one who has received it, you dare to do these things, contrary to the Lord’s command, and do you anticipate the judgment of the King? This anathema cuts a man off ^C from Christ. Teach with gentleness.’ And the rest.”

And these are the words of the Father Chrysostom. Balsamon adds: “Therefore, as it seems, that synodical tome, which was made under the reign of the Porphyrogenitus lord Constantine and the patriarch lord Alexius, has ceased to be in use for the purpose of anathematizing apostates, rebels, and those who stir up weapons against the emperors and contrive tyranny. But whether the things written by our great Father and teacher Chrysostom should be preferred to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and those of Gangra, we leave entirely to those who have the authority to regulate such matters.”

And these are the words of the patriarch Balsamon. He shows, therefore, by the things said, first of all, that even from that time, or rather even before his own days, the aforementioned tome made under the Porphyrogenitus and the patriarch lord Alexius had ceased to be in force. For he says: “It has ceased to be in use.” But with that support or foundation having been undermined, ^D the other two tomes made afterwards, namely that in the time of the lord Manuel Comnenus and that in the time of Paleologus, necessarily collapse with it. Then, besides this, he also suggests that the anathemas of those synods themselves do not have security, even if for great and necessary reasons...

those matters of general concern, if indeed one must obey the common Father Chrysostom and the other holy teachers, who think and teach the same things as he, and who advocate rather for the supreme clemency of Christ. But concerning such matters, some perhaps will say these things, and others different things, attaching themselves to those synods. I, however, letting those things pass (for I do not wish at present to bicker), at least maintain this: that it has been clearly and ^A undoubtedly demonstrated thus far, and copiously indeed, that that first volume, as being out of harmony with the purpose of the Church, and especially with that common teacher, I mean Chrysostom, has remained idle and without effect, according to the wise Balsamon, which was also our intended purpose to show. And with its use expiring, those that follow it will of necessity likewise emit their own strength and expire, as we have already said.

OF UNCERTAIN PATRIARCHS

I.

A letter written from Constantinople to Martyrius, bishop of Antioch, explaining how heretics are to be received when they approach the holy universal Church.

The most religious presbyter Antonius also spoke with me regarding those who, departing from heretics, join themselves to the assembly of those who think rightly, and to the fellowship of those who are saved; and as to how we should receive them. Although I explained to him face to face everything that we follow here and have established in our custom, ^B yet I also deemed it necessary to signify this to your holiness, that is to the Father of Fathers, and to the successor of the holy John the Theologian, who was your archbishop: that we receive the Arians, and the Macedonians, and the Novatians, who call themselves the Pure and the Purifiers, and the Tessaresdecadites or Tetradites, and the Apollinarists, if they provide petitions and anathematize every heresy that does not think as our holy catholic Church thinks—of which you are the president and head, most blessed man. Yet beforehand their forehead is sealed, or anointed, with holy oil, as well as their nostrils, and ears, and breast, and all their senses; and as we seal them we say: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit." After these things, they are ordained as distinguished laymen to ^C that rank in which they were previously among their own: whether presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons, or psaltanagnostae. Conversely, the Eunomians, who are baptized by a single immersion, and the Montanists, who are called here Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that the Father and the Son are the same person and commit other grave errors, and all other heresies, since there are many here, especially those coming from the region of Galatia—all then who from these wish to approach the truth, we receive as pagans. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second catechumens. On the third, we apply exorcism to them, breathing three times into their face and ^D their ears; and so we demand from them

the face and the ears, and thus we catechize them, and we make them remain in the church, and listen to the Scriptures. And then we baptize them. These things, as your own, I have been diligent to signify.

^B II. A patriarchal brief, concerning a certain man who had taken the first cousin of his own mother as his wife, and concerning the penalties to be imposed upon him, laid forth by John Chartophylax, son of Ionopoulos.

This Lampudius, coming from your neighborhood of Chrysopolis, most religious man, has explained to us that he is bound by a marriage contract with Anna, the first cousin of his mother, having long ago been blessed with the prayers of the Church; and he asked whether such a marriage is permitted or not. He received the answer that he who is joined by the law of marriage to his mother's first cousin is not indeed separated from his own spouse, if such a marriage has already in truth reached the point of being contracted; but he is subjected to penalties, both he himself and the woman joined to him. Therefore, writing this, we admonish your Holiness to investigate whether the degree of kinship is as he stated, and whether the marriage has taken place. And if you find the truth to be exactly so, you shall leave the cohabitation in its state, but you shall subject both him and the woman joined to him to penalties, namely that they abstain from meat for two whole years, and on Wednesdays and Fridays they shall not even partake of wine. They may, however, be partakers of Communion on those days only that are sacred to the Lord. Know, however, that such a marriage, before it is contracted, is not permitted; but after it is contracted, it is not dissolved, but it is subjected to penalties. Moreover, testify to all the people subject to you, that when a marriage is about to be contracted that has any ambiguity at all, they should by no means do anything without your command, but refer the matters concerning the business to your God-beloved self. And in this way, either you will solve the question, or, if you are in doubt, you will refer it to us, and from there you will receive the resolution. One must know that when those who are joined by marriage, being related to one another in what is thought to be the seventh degree of affinity, are united, the same penalties that are stated in this decree must hold for them as well; but for one year only.

^C III. Synodical responses to the matters asked by the Bishop of Side.

After a certain decree, promulgated by divine and imperial order by the most illustrious Curopalates and Quaestor, Basil Pecules, regarding various questions proposed by the now most holy Metropolitan of Side, concerning some grants of immovable property, and leases and emphyteuses, and indeed also concerning the annual customary gifts made by his predecessor, that deceased Theodosius, the metropolitan, had been read today in the hearing of our mediocrity and the most holy metropolitans sitting in council with it, the aforementioned Metropolitan of Side, Nicetas, asked that...

another opinion was also held regarding those who had received that decree. Therefore, it was pronounced by us that instruments of donation for suburban areas or buildings, set forth by writing to some persons by him, be held as null for the reason that neither imperial laws nor sacred canons recognize them. But as for the assignments of annual donations, which are particular and do not excessively burden the metropolis, if they have been made to certain persons who are admittedly worthy of compassion, whether because they are entirely destitute, or because they are beneficial to the metropolis or to the metropolitan himself through the performance of services; and likewise the leases of ruins, which are temporary and not perpetual, and for places otherwise entirely useless to the metropolis—if these too have been set forth for an annual donation, as is contained in the sacred laws, we determine that they are by no means to be revoked.

IV. Regarding the translations of bishops.

^B That great Father and light of the world, Saint Gregory the Theologian, when he had been bishop of Sasima, also became the prelate of Nazianzus. Then, in the second synod of the 150 holy Fathers, in the reign of Theodosius the Great, and in the presence of the pontiffs—I mean Dalmatius, Pope of Rome, Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, and Cyril of Jerusalem—the bishopric of Constantinople was confirmed to this same great luminary; the bishops placed him upon the patriarchal throne by force, though he was unwilling, in which see he was prominent for twelve years. In the thirteenth year of the reign of Theodosius the Younger, son of Arcadius, the great Proclus, having been ordained bishop of Cyzicus under Patriarch Sisinius, lived in private, not having been received. But after the deposition of Nestorius, the bishopric of Constantinople was indeed decreed to him, but he was not seated on the throne on account of the envy of the pontiffs who at that time were abusing their power. But after this, when Maximian, who had been ordained there, had departed this life, while his body was not yet buried, he was summoned and seated on the throne of Constantinople, with the consent of Celestine, Pope of Rome, and with the joint-vote of the great Cyril and John of Antioch. In the second year of the reign of Artemius, who was also called Anastasius and Dicorus, the metropolitan of Cyzicus, the great Germanus, was translated to the throne of Constantinople. ^D Hermias Sozomen writes that Anthimus of Trapezus became patriarch of Constantinople under Constantius. Meletius, bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, was translated to Antioch. Alexander, bishop of one of the cities of Cappadocia, was translated to Jerusalem. Eustathius, bishop of that great Berrhoea, or Chaleb, was translated to Antioch in Syria. Perigenes, having been ordained bishop of Patrae by the authority of the Pope, and not being received, when he had remained at rest, was translated by the Pope to Corinth.

^A a vacant metropolis, and he presided over that Church as long as he lived. The bishop of Antioch translated Dositheus, bishop of Seleucia, to Tarsus in Cilicia. Bishop Rebenus, [a] who was ruling over Phoenicia, was translated to Tyre. John, bishop of Gordus in Lydia, was translated to Proconnesus. Palladius of Helenus was translated to Apponus. Alexander of Helenopolis was translated to Adranus. Theosebius, bishop of Apamea in Asia, was translated to Eudoxianopolis, which is called Calabria. Optimus, from Gdamaba in Phrygia, was translated to Antioch in Pisidia. Hierophylax, bishop of Trapezopolis in Phrygia, was translated to Plotinopolis in Thrace. During the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, when the Hagarenes had seized Cyprus, the metropolis of Cyzicus, along with its bishoprics, was given to the archbishop of Cyprus. ^B After the seventh synod, during the reign of Irene, and with the presence of the high priests—by Pope Hadrian of Rome through his legates—and of the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and many metropolitans, both Eastern and Western, for the ordination of the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius, who had previously served as Protosebastos, he was made patriarch by all, [namely] the metropolitan of Thessalonica, as Theophanes the Confessor, the great prefect of the fields [namely the Agri], narrates. Polycarpus of the Dexantapristae in Mysia was translated to Nicopolis in Thrace. During the reign of Basil the Macedonian, Basil, bishop of Crete, was translated to Thessalonica ^C by the patriarch Ignatius, as is written in the Life of the same Ignatius. John, bishop of Baima, was translated to Alexandria to be patriarch, during the reign of Leo the Philosopher and under the patriarch Photius. Gregory, bishop of Syracuse, was translated to Nicaea. And John of Larissa was translated to Synada. And Amphilochius of Cyzicus, to Nicaea. Theodore of Macra was translated to Laodicea. And Nikon, bishop of the same city, was translated to Hierapolis. And Daniel, bishop of Nicopolis in Greece, was translated to Ancyra of Galatia. And Simeon, bishop of Neopatras, was translated to Laodicea. During the reign of Romanus Lacapenus, Stephen the eunuch, metropolitan of Amasea, became patriarch of Constantinople. ^D And that illustrious emperor, Lord Nicephorus Phocas, having brought Bishop Eustathius from Phlamiada, made him patriarch of the great Antioch by common decree. During the reign of Basil Porphyrogenitus, the bishopric of Corinth was given to the metropolitan of Patrae, as Theodore of Sebaste writes, as was Leo of Synada. During the same reign, at the time of the rebellion of Scleros, as the same Theodore writes, Agapius of Seleucia of Pieria

^A became patriarch of Jerusalem; having arrived there, he concelebrated with the most blessed and most holy patriarch, Lord Nicholas, and the holy synod. The Roman Pope Celestine writes in three letters addressed to Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch, and Rufus of Thessalonica, that the translation of bishops from one city to another is in no way contrary to the canons, as Hermias, the son of Sozomen, says. For migration is forbidden, but not translation. Silvanus the wonderworker was translated from Philippopolis in Thrace to Troas. Eudoxius, translated from Germanicea to Antioch, also became patriarch of Constantinople. John Codonatus was translated from the patriarchate of the great city of Antioch to the metropolis of Tyros, and many others to various places. In the days of our holy Father Nicetas, patriarch of Constantinople, the monk Pentactenes, or Pentailas, was first translated from the Rosiani to the archbishopric of Lemnos; then Maronea was also given to him. ^B During the reign of Alexios Komnenos, Sabas, bishop of Caesarea Philippi, became patriarch of Jerusalem; and having come there, he concelebrated with the most holy patriarch Nicholas and the synod. Nicholas Muzalon, when he was archbishop of Cyprus, resigned the throne of Cyprus, and the monastery of Kosmidion was given to him, and he presided over it for years... then he also became patriarch of Constantinople. Under the most holy patriarch, Lord Michael, with the presence also of the bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem, and the imperial magistrates, in synod, a certain Michael, who had been proclaimed bishop of Amasea, then having received Ancyra as a vacant see, was translated to the place of Cerasus, the throne of which he possessed, having been demoted to lower sees. Nicephorus, metropolitan of Gangra, having become prior of Kosmidion, received as a vacant see also the metropolis of Amastris. The bishop of Leontopolis received Arcadia as a vacant see. The bishop of Athyra received Sergentza. To the bishop of Axiopolis, who was without a see, was first given Abydos; ^C and later, also Apros. To the bishop of Alania was given Soteriopolis. Peter Mongus, by the command of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, was translated from Euchaita to Alexandria as patriarch.

The patriarch of Jerusalem, Narcissus, from the bishopric of Fladiados, which is under the metropolis of Navarza, brought the holy man Alexander and ordained him patriarch of Jerusalem, during the reign of Alexander, son of Mammaea, as Eusebius Pamphili says in his Ecclesiastical Histories, and not in his book of Ecclesiastical Demonstration. From the same bishopric of Fladiados, Lord Nicephorus Phocas, by a common decree through a golden ^D

by his golden bull, he brought back Bishop Eustratius and had him ordained Patriarch of Great Antioch, the aforementioned see of Navarza having been torn away and united to the patriarchate of Antioch.

OFFICE AND DEFINITION OF THE PATRIARCH

A patriarch is a living and animate image of Christ, expressing the truth in himself through works and words.

The goal proposed to the patriarch is, first of all, to preserve those whom he has received from God in piety and honorable living. Then, to turn all heretics, as much as lies in his power, toward orthodoxy and the unity of the Church. Now those are called heretics in the laws and canons who do not hold communion with the Catholic Church. Furthermore, he should also make the infidels ^B wonder at his brilliant, most illustrious, and admirable deeds, and so make them imitators of the faith.

The end for the patriarch is the salvation of the souls entrusted to him, and to live for Christ while being crucified to the world.

The attributes of the patriarch are to possess the faculty of teaching, and to conduct himself toward all—great and humble alike—equally and without contraction of spirit. And to be mild toward all who approach him, even in teaching, but sharp in censoring the disobedient. And for the sake of the truth, and the preservation of justice and piety, to speak before the emperor and not be ashamed.

Since the state consists of parts and members, in analogy to the human body, the greatest and most necessary parts are the emperor and the patriarch. Therefore, the peace and happiness of the subjects, both in soul and body, is the consensus of the empire and the priesthood in all unanimity.

SERIES OF THE BISHOPS OF BYZANTIUM

That first great apostle, Andrew, when he had preached the (Christian) doctrine in Byzantium and had founded a house of prayer at Argyropolis on the other side of the city, ordained Stachys as bishop of that same city, whom the apostle mentions in his Epistle to the Romans. Accordingly, Stachys presided for 16 years. Onesimus, 14 years. Polycarpus, 18 years. Plutarch, 16 years. Sedecio, 9 years. Diogenes, 15 years. Eleutherius, 7 years. Felix, 5 years. Athenogenes, 4 years. He built another house ^D

NOTES (30) Who later became patriarchs under Constantine the Great, Augustus.

in the place called Elæa, and there he held his assemblies ^A.

Euzoius, 16 years. Laurentius, 11 years, 6 months. Alypius, 13 years, 6 months. Pertinax, a consular from the Roman senate, 19 years. He built another church in a maritime place which they call Sycæ, and he gave it the name of Peace. Olympianus, 11 years. Marcus, 13 years. Cyriacus, 16 years. Castinus, 7 years. He, within Byzantium itself, at the place called Petrium, built an oratory to Saint Euphemia, who had then become a martyr ^B. Tratus [Titus], 35 years, 6 months. Domitianus, brother of the Emperor Probus, 24 years, 6 months. Probus, son of the same Domitius, 12 years. Metrophanes, brother of the same Probus, son of Domitius, who, in the reign of Constantine the Great, was made Patriarch of Constantinople by the same emperor; he presided for 10 years. Alexander, in the reign of Constantine, 23 years. Paul, the confessor, 10 years. He was ejected, and died in confession. Eusebius the Arian, first of Berytus, then of Nicomedia, afterwards of Constantinople, 12 years. Macedonius, presbyter of the same Church, the fighter against the Holy Spirit, 12 years. Eudoxius the Arian, of Germanicea, from there of Antioch, afterwards of Constantinople, in the reign of Julian, and again under Jovian, 8 years ^C. Demophilus the Arian, of Beroea in Thrace, after that of Constantinople, 11 years, 5 months. Evagrius, orthodox, ordained by Eustathius of Antioch, was immediately sent into exile by Valens, having held the pontificate for 4 years. Gregory the Theologian, having previously been bishop of Sasima, was proclaimed [bishop] of Constantinople when Theodosius the Great held the empire; the throne was confirmed to him by the authority of the synod, as one who had sustained grave labors and had liberated that Church from the leprosy of heresies. But when the most blessed man learned that certain bishops from Egypt were envious of his position, he delivered an oration concerning the settlement of affairs, and voluntarily withdrew from the throne of the imperial city, having been pontiff for 12 years ^D. Nectarius, holding a magistracy, was both baptized and ordained by the 150 Fathers simultaneously; and he held the pontificate in the reign of Arcadius, 16 years, 6 months. John Chrysostom, 5 years, 6 months. Arsacius, presbyter, brother of Nectarius, 2 years. Atticus, presbyter of Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius the Younger, 20 years.

Sisinius, presbyter of the same Church, 1 year, 10 months. ^A Nestorius, the man-worshipper, presbyter of Antioch, later of Constantinople, 3 years, 2 months. This man, having been justly deposed, was exiled to the Oasis.

Maximianus, presbyter of Constantinople, 2 years, 5 months.

Proclus, having been ordained bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinius, and not being received, remained at leisure. But after the death of Maximianus, he became [bishop] of Constantinople, while his [Maximianus'] remains were still lying in the diaconicon, and he presided over the priesthood for 12 years. ^B

Flavianus, presbyter of Constantinople, 2 years, 6 months. This man was cast out by Dioscorus in the Robber Council of Ephesus.

Anatolius, presbyter, apocrisiary of Alexandria, in the time of Marcian and Leo the Great, presided over the priesthood 8 years, 8 months.

Gennadius, presbyter of Constantinople, 13 years, 2 months. In his time Studius built the church of Saint John the Forerunner and installed a monk from the community of the Sleepless Ones into it. Leo the Great was emperor at that time.

Flavitas, presbyter of the holy Church of Syceae, in the time of Zeno, 3 months, 7 days.

Acacius, presbyter, a heretic, in the time of Anastasius, 17 years, 9 months.

Euphemius, presbyter of Constantinople and ptochotrophus of Neapolis, was cast out by Anastasius, having presided as high priest for 16 years, 7 months. ^C Macedonius was also cast out.

Timotheus, presbyter of Constantinople and skeuophylax, in the time of Anastasius and Justin, 5 years, six months.

John the Cappadocian, presbyter and syncellus of the same Church, in the time of Justinian, 1 year, 10 months.

Epiphanius, presbyter of Constantinople and syncellus, 16 years, 3 months.

Anthimus, formerly bishop of Trapezus, then of Constantinople, 4 months. This man was deposed by the synod assembled against Severus. ^D

Menas, presbyter of Constantinople and, director of the Xenodochium of Sampson, 16 years, 6 months.

Eutychius, presbyter and monk of the monastery in Amasea, 12 years, 5 months. This man was cast out by Justinian in the 30th year of his reign.

John, presbyter of Antioch, formerly an advocate, 12 years, 6 months. This man presided in the time of Justin, son of Justinian, and Tiberius.

Eutychius, the former high priest, was restored again, in the time of the same Tiberius, and again presided as high priest for 4 years, 6 months.

John, deacon of the Great Church, surnamed the Faster, in the time of Maurice, 13 years, 5 months.

Cyriacus, presbyter of the same Great Church and

^A oeconomus, in the reign of the same Maurice, and in the time of Phocas the tyrant, 11 years.

Thomas, deacon and sacellarius of the Great Church, in the reign of the same Phocas, held the pontificate for 3 years, 2 months. Sergius, deacon of the same Church, in the reign of Heraclius Augustus, 28 years, 7 months. Pyrrhus, presbyter of the same Church, monk and ruler of the monasteries, and abbot of Chrysopolis, having been stirred by sedition, resigned; when he had been pontiff for 2 years, 9 months, 9 days. Paul, presbyter of the same Church and oeconomus, in the reign of the same Heraclius, 12 years. Pyrrhus restored again, 4 months. Petrus, deacon and oeconomus of the same Church, in the reign of Constantine, grandson of Heraclius, 12 years, 4 months. Thomas, deacon and chartularius of the same Church, 9 years, 7 months. John, presbyter and chartularius of the same Church, 5 years, 9 months. Constantine, deacon of the same Church, and guardian of the vessels, and oeconomus, in the reign of the same Constantine, when he had held the pontificate for 2 years, 3 months, was cast out. ^B Georgius, presbyter, syncellus, and guardian of the vessels, in the reign of the same Constans, and of Constantine the son of Constans, bearing the surname Pogonatus, 3 years, 3 months. Theodorus, presbyter of the same Church, syncellus, and guardian of the vessels, for 2 years, and was then driven out. The same Theodorus, in the reign of the same Pogonatus, was restored to his position and held the pontificate as a true patriarch for 1 year, 10 months. Paul, from the laity, primus a secretis, in the reign of the same Pogonatus, 6 years, 8 months. Callinicus, presbyter and guardian of the vessels at Blachernae, in the reign of Justinian, son of Pogonatus, the rhinotmetos, 12 years. Cyrus, presbyter and monk from the island of Amastris, ^C in the reign of the same Justinian, and in the time of Philippicus, 6 years, and was then cast out. John, deacon and chartularius of the oeconomia, in the reign of the same Philippicus, and of Artemius, primus a secretis, who by a change of name was called Anastasius, 3 years. Germanus the Great, previously bishop of Cyzicus, thereafter of Constantinople, in the reign of the same Anastasius, and of Theodosius Augustus, and of Leo, also called Conon, having held the pontificate for 15 years, was cast out by this same impious Emperor Leo. Anastasius, presbyter and syncellus, an impious man, in the reign of the same Leo, and of Constantine Caballinus, 24 years. Constantine, monk and bishop of Sylaion, ^D

who was beheaded, in the reign of Constantine Caballinus, 12 years. ^A Nicetas, a eunuch, born of the Slav race, presbyter of the Holy Apostles, and superior of the monasteries, in the reign of the same Constantine, and of his son Leo, who was born of a Chazar mother, 13 years, 4 months. Paulus Cyprius, deacon, and also nicknamed "the Merciful," in the reign of the same Leo, and of Constantine and his mother Irene, 5 years, 6 months. Tarasius, one of the imperial secretaries, president of the 7th Council, in the reign of the same sovereigns Constantine and Irene, and of Nicephorus, formerly a general, held the pontificate 21 years, 2 months. Nicephorus, who became a monk from being a secretary, under the empire of the same Nicephorus Augustus, and of Stauracius, and of Michael, and of Leo the Armenian, held the pontificate 9 years, and was expelled by that same impious Leo. ^B Theodotus Melissenus, nicknamed Cassiteras, an iconoclast, in the reign of the same Leo, 6 years. Antonius, bishop of Sylaion, nicknamed Casimatas, in the reign of the same Leo, and of Michael the Stammerer, and of Theophilus, 13 years. Joannes, who is also called Janes, an impious man and enemy of the icons, in the reign of Theophilus, and of Theodora and Michael; he was deposed after having held the pontificate 3 years. Methodius, monk and presbyter, who became bishop of Cyzicus, and then of Constantinople, in the reign of the same sovereigns, Theodora and Michael, 4 years, 2 months. Ignatius, a most holy man, in the reign of the same sovereigns, Theodora and Michael, 4 years, 2 months. ^C Photius, who became a monk from being a secretary, in the reign of Michael, and of Basil the Macedonian, 9 years, and was expelled by the Macedonian. Ignatius again, in the reign of the same Emperor the Macedonian, 11 years. Photius again, in the reign of Leo the Philosopher. Stephanus, brother of Leo, in the reign of the same Leo, 3 years. Antonius Cauleas, in the reign of the same Leo, 2 years. Nicolaus, formerly a *mysticus*, in the reign of the same Leo, 11 years, and was demoted. ^D Euthymius, a monk, formerly a *syncellus*, in the reign of Alexander, 5 years, 6 months. Nicolaus again, the former *mysticus*, in the reign of the same Alexander, and of Constantine, and of Romanus Lacapenus, 13 years. Stephanus, metropolitan of Amasea, in the reign of the same Emperor Romanus, 2 years, 11 months. Trypho, a monk, in the reign of Romanus, administered the pontificate for a fixed time, until Theophylactus, the son of the Emperor, should reach the measure of lawful age; he was in charge for 3 years.

XV. ^B Theophylactus, son of Lacapenus, under Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Lacapenus himself, for 23 years and 25 days.

Polyeuctus, under the same Constantine, and Nicephorus Phocas, and for 35 days from the designation of the Emperor John Tzimiskes. He was in charge in total for 14 years and 5 months.

Basilius Scamandrenus, under the same Tzimiskes, for 4 years.

Antonius the monk, the Studite, under the same Tzimiskes, and under Basilius Porphyrogenitus and his brother Constantine, for 6 years.

Nicolaus Chrysoberges, under the same Emperors, after the Church had been without a shepherd for 4 and a half years, held the office for 12 years and 8 months.

Sisinius the magister, under the same, for 3 years.

Sergius, abbot of the Manuelicorum, under the same, for 20 years.

Eustathius, first of the presbyters of the palace church, under the same Emperors, for 4 years.

Alexius the ecclesiarches of the Studite monastery, under the same Emperors, and under the reign of the same Constantine alone, and Romanus Argyropulus, and Michael the Paphlagonian, and Michael Calaphates, and Constantine Monomachus, for 19 years.

Michael Cerularius, under the same Constantine Monomachus, and under Theodora Porphyrogenita, and under Michael the elder, formerly Stratioticus, and under the Lord Isaacius Comnenus, for 15 years.

^C Constantinus Lichudes, under the same Lord Isaacius Comnenus and the Lord Constantine Ducas, for 4 and a half years.

Joannes Xiphilinus, under the same Constantine Ducas, and the Lady Eudocia, Romanus Diogenes, and Michael, son of Ducas, for 13 years and 6 months.

Cosmas Hierosolymitanus, under the same Michael, and Nicephorus Botaniates, and the Lord Alexius Comnenus, held the pontificate for 5 years and 6 months, then resigned.

Eustratius, surnamed Garidas, under the same Lord Alexius, for 3 years.

Nicolaus the monk, the grammarian, who lived at Lophadium, a shepherd ordained by God, under the same Lord Alexius, for 27 years and 3 months.

Joannes the Hieromnemon, surnamed the Chalcedonian, under the same Alexius Comnenus ^D and John Porphyrogenitus, for 23 years.

Leo Stypiota, while the same John Porphyrogenitus was reigning, for 8 years and 8 months.

Michael the monk, most ascetic, the Oxeites, the...

for 2 years and 8 months, by the name of Curcuas, under the sovereign Manuel Comnenus born in the purple.

Cosmas Atticus, who having administered the pontificate under the same prince for 10 months, was cast out; and the Church remained widowed for 10 months.

^B Nicolaus the monk, Muzalo, under the same emperor, having been made archbishop of Cyprus previously, and having resigned—as many said, the archpriesthood itself; but as others said, only the administration of affairs—and having remained in retirement for 37 years, was then raised to the throne of Constantinople; and having served for 3 years and 4 months, he resigned again ambiguously, compelled by the force of those who had separated from him, who were many, and some of whom he had himself ordained.

Theodotus the monk, and abbot of the monastery of the Holy Resurrection, under the same lord Manuel Comnenus, for... [years].

Neophytus, the recluse, from the monastery of the Evergetis, for... [years].

Constantinus Chliarenus, deacon, and prefect of the sacellum, for... [years].

Lucas Chrysoberges, for... [years].

Michael the deacon, and prefect of the sacella, the Anchialinus, and consul of the philosophers, for 8 years.

The monk Charito, of the monastery of the Manganon, for 11 months.

The monk Theodosius, hailing from Antioch, who had practiced monastic life for a long time on the hill of Saint Auxentius, for... [years]; then he resigned.

The chartophylax and Hypertimos, lord Basilius Camaterus. Upon his deposition, he was raised.

The great sacellarius, lord Nicetas Muntanes. Then he resigned.

After him, Leontius, who presided over the monks in the monastery of the Holy Apostles on the hill of Saint Auxentius, who also became a deacon of the Church. ^C And having served for 7 months, he resigned.

And after him, the patriarch of Jerusalem, the monk, lord Dositheus, was transferred to the patriarchate of Constantinople, by the dispensation of the emperor, lord Isaacius Angelus, with the consent of the synod also. And he served for ... years, and was deposed. And there became patriarch after him.

The great skeuephylax, Georgius Xiphilinus. And having lived for 6 years and 10 months, excellently and religiously, he departed to the Lord. And because the emperor, lord Alexius, the brother of lord Isaacius, was away abroad ^D on an expedition to the west, the throne lacked its patriarch for 2 months. Afterward there was made:

Joannes the deacon and chartularius, Camaterus, under the reign of the same lord Alexius, for 5 years, 8 months, and 7 days, up until the capture of the city. He lived and...

post captam urbem annis II, mensibus II, diebus XIV. And the capture took place during the 7th indiction, on the 13th day of April. After the capture of the great city, which occurred in the year 6712, since this patriarch had died in Didymoteicho, the throne remained vacant for one year and ten months. Then a patriarch was made.

Dominus Michael Saurianus, the Great Sakellarios, was appointed in the East by the emperor, the lord Theodore Laskaris. He had his seat at Nicaea, and after he had served as pontiff for... years... months... days... he passed away. And the throne remained vacant for ten and a half months, because the emperor had gone away to the Thracesian theme. And on the 20th of September, of the 2nd indiction, on the first day of the week, he was appointed. ^B Dominus Theodorus Irenicus, the Chartophylax and "Consul of the Philosophers," who was also called Kupas, after he had presided over the pontificate for one year, four months, and three days, passed away, while the emperor was staying in the Thracesian region. It was commanded to the magistrates of the patriarch and to the other pontiffs that they should set forth their opinions in writing. And by this imperial order, Maximus, the abbot of the monastery of the Sleepless, was appointed. And when the prince had also arrived, he was also confirmed by him on the 17th day of the... month. He served as pontiff for eight months, and was succeeded by Dominus Manuel Charitopulus, for... years. ^C Then the holy man, Arsenius Autorianus, upon whose expulsion, there was made Nicephorus, formerly pontiff of Ephesus. Upon whose death, the holy Arsenius was again raised up, and was again expelled. And there became patriarch Germanus, Bishop of Adrianople. Upon his expulsion, Joseph, abbot of Galesios, ascended the throne, a man of admirable life, and adorned with the crown of confession.

OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH

THE OFFICES OF THE GREAT CHURCH

Ordo 1

1. The Great Oikonomos. 2. The Great Sakellarios. 3. The Great Skeuophylax. 4. The Great Chartophylax. 5. The Sakellion. 6. The Primodephensor.

Ordo 2

7. The Protonotarios. 8. The Logothetes. 9. The Kanstresios. 10. The Referendarios. 11. The Hypomnematographos.

Ordo 3

12. The Hieromnemon.

13. The Suppletor. 14. The Doctor of the Gospel. 15. The Doctor of the Apostle. 16. The Doctor of the Psalter. Ordo 4. 17. The minister for those on their knees. 18. The Prefect of judgments. 19. The Prefect of petitions. 20. The Prefect of the sacred consistory. 21. The Prefect of the secrets. Ordo 5. 22. The Prefect of the monasteries. 23. The Prefect of the Churches. ^B 24. The Prefect of the Gospel. 25. The Prefect of the antemensia. 26. The Prefect of the lamps. Ordo 6. 27. The Orator. 28. The first ostiary. 29. The second ostiary. 30. The Nummorum dator (distributor of funds). 31. The Primicerius of the patriarchal notaries.

RESPONSES, EPISTLES, SENTENCES OF OTHER BISHOPS AND HOLY FATHERS.

^C Epistle sent from the Lord Pope Adrian of Rome to the most holy Archbishop of Thessalonica, Lord Basil of Achrida, concerning the union of the Eastern Church with the Western.

Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brother, the Archbishop of the Thessalonians, greeting and apostolic blessing.

Ever since, through the envy of the ancient enemy, the see of Constantinople separated itself from the most holy Roman and apostolic Church—a thing we can scarcely speak of without an inundation of tears—and the enemy of mankind poured out the poison of his own malice, and children have withdrawn from the obedience of the mother, and from the unity

^A of the Church, and from the place of unity, the Westerner has entered in. Our predecessors, the successors of the blessed Peter, bestowed much toil and zeal, so that the schism might be removed from the midst, and those who had separated themselves from the Church might be restored to her unity. Wherefore, we too, having received at this present time the care of the Apostolic see, although we have in nothing the equal of the virtues of the blessed Peter, yet we are compelled to discharge the ministry so as to be pleasing to God in all the Churches that are within the circuit of the earth. To this we have believed we must attend, lest we be numbered (which God forbid) with those whom the Lord rebukes through the prophet, saying, "That which was cast out you did not bring in; that which was infirm you did not heal; and that which perished you did not seek; and that which was broken you did not bind up." Therefore, let us hasten toward the bringing in of the children into the place of the Church, and the finding of the lost drachma; and, urged on by the apostolic precept, may we have the resolve to moderate those who reject the words of doctrine, and to offer ^B the warning of the faithful, in season and out of season. And instructed by the example of Him who was the Lord of glory, and who, having all things in His own power, nevertheless bowed the heavens and descended, and took the form of a servant and emptied Himself, that the lost sheep might be restored to its own flock. Whence, brother in Christ, we admonish thy love through these present letters, that thou shouldst diligently care for this matter. For there is one only Church, and one only ark of sanctification, in which it is necessary for every one of the faithful to be saved from the flood: and thou must labor in all ways for its unity: and let thy prudence consider ^C how the Church of God cannot subsist divided; every living soul, from the storms of the present flood, must be gathered inside the one ark of the Church, and committed to the blessed Peter, the governor of all the faithful. It has been handed down how the holy Fathers, illuminated by the divine Spirit, commanded that the sacrosanct Roman Church should absolutely hold the primacy of all Churches, and prescribed that the judgment of all matters should be referred to its decision. And to the end that the division may be taken from the midst, for the unity of the Church, for the joining of the divided wall, for the love of God, for the salvation of the soul, and for the enjoyment of the glory which doth not fade, ^D watchfully attend. First in thyself, and then in others, as far as divine grace grants, give effort that the flock may be united with the Church, and that those who confess themselves the Lord’s sheep may return to the flock of the blessed Peter, who by the Lord’s command undertook their care. We, indeed, in this do not look for temporary praise, not for that which passes away

grants grace, labor, so that the flock may be united to the Church; and those who acknowledge themselves to be the Master’s sheep may return to the pasture of the blessed Peter, who received the care of them by a command from the Master. We, for our part, do not seek in this the glory that passes away, nor do we pursue temporal fame, having received the office of shepherding. We confess ourselves to be servants of all the servants of God. But since we read that our Lord and Master, in order to raise one dead man, traveled in the body and wept at the tomb and said, "Lazarus, come forth," we judge it unworthy if we hold back the Master’s talent and neglect to raise up those we can in soul. As for the rest, our beloved sons Baldwin and Baldizionis, the bearers of the present letters, who were sent from the pious assembly ^B to our most beloved son Emmanuel, Emperor of Constantinople, we commend them diligently to your charity; asking that, for the love of God, and of the blessed Peter, and of the apostolic see, and for the sake of your own piety, you may look upon them with a gracious countenance and grant consolation in their needs. We desire to be informed of your health through your letters.

BASIL OF OCHRIDA.

We have read your letter, most holy Pope, and from it we have perceived the sublimity of your intellect, the depth of your humility, the breadth of your love and affection toward God, by which your apostolic heart is not constricted, but rather your affections are dilated for the reception and care of all the Christians of the churches. We have recognized your voice through these letters speaking to our ears and to our understanding. We have heard you speak as a father, as a shepherd, or rather as the arch-shepherd. For as a father, you gather under your paternal wings those sons who seem to be alienated from you, and you maintain a care for them; as a shepherd, you call back those who are like wandering sheep; and as the shepherd of shepherds, you teach us your pastoral and divinely-infused science, that we might not neglect our flocks but look after them with all our strength, and diligently heal that which is ailing. We have heard you calling us to yourself, and we have turned at your voice. ^D For if we had considered ourselves sons alien to your holiness, or had we chosen to be removed from your pastoral care, we would neither have recognized the voice as paternal, nor would we have turned to the shepherd who sounds the call to retreat. For according to the Lord’s word, no one will ever recognize the voice of strangers, but will rather flee from it. What, then, is the likeness of the wandering sheep to us, most holy

^A pope? What is the image of the lost drachma? For we do not say that we have fallen from your bosom, nor do we reject the title of children or your pastoral care, so that such a reproach should be cast upon us. We have stood safely and firmly, by the grace of God, in the confession of blessed Peter; and we confess and preach Him whom he confessed and preached; we innovate nothing from the synodical decrees of the holy Fathers, nor do we add to the evangelical and apostolic words, even to a single apex or one iota. For we have learned from the herald of the nations how grave a punishment hangs over those who dare such things. For even if I (he says) or an angel from heaven should preach to you anything other than what you have received, let him be anathema. Fearing this, we perform the life-giving and unbloody sacrifice just as he who received it from the Lord has handed it down to us; rising above Judaic humility and the shadow of the law, we ascend instead to the upper room of lofty grace with Jesus and his disciples: and we eat bread, not of affliction, as the law says, but of gladness, which truly strengthens the heart. But if we have been foolish like those shepherds (which God forbid, and may the evil one never have such power over us) regarding whom the prophet Jeremiah lamented, saying: The priests did not say, Where is the Lord? and those who held to the law did not know me, and the shepherds behaved impiously toward me. If we seemed such to you, most holy Father, how could you name us otherwise than as wandering sheep, ^B and a lost drachma, and a dead man lying in a tomb for many days? But do not conceive such an opinion of us. For we know no other foundation than that which has been laid. We preach and teach the same things as you—I and all those who belong to the great and apostolic see of Constantinople. And one is the word of faith that sounds in both Churches; and the same Lamb is sacrificed, Christ, who takes away the sin of the world, both among the Western prelates, who act under your chief authority, and among us, who from the rising sun have received the splendor of priesthood from the lofty see of Constantinople: although some small stumbling blocks have been thrown into the middle and have separated us, and have made many out of one and the same Spirit. To remove these entirely from the middle, and like stones to cast them out of the way, according to the prophetic saying, and to establish the unity of the Churches without stumbling, will be the work of your holiness: which, Christ-like, looking down as if from heaven, desires ^C and is able to gather what is distant into one. For we are few, and we preside over a small flock, possessing a mediocre―and, so to speak, a mere drop of―faculty for speaking, yet in no way lacking in virtue: even if your holiness, deceived by [contrary] persuasion, thinks some very great [things against us].

to gather those who are divided and to those who desire and are able to bring them into one. ^A For we are small, and preside over a small flock, possessing the word in a moderate way and as it were drop by drop, and partaking not at all of virtue, even if your holiness has imagined the greatest things concerning us, having been altogether persuaded by the love of certain persons who have traveled here and have conversed with us. But your perfection, bearing the image and likeness of the most perfect Christ both in throne, in knowledge, and in the splendor of life, will be altogether able both to remove the scandals that divide us and to restore unity and solidity to the Churches. For this purpose, your holiness has as a like-minded person and helper one who is the most powerful and greatest among kings, eminent in piety, who is both impregnable in strength and excellent in prudence, and most famous among all good men who have ever been admired; to whose command we also shall yield, and we, as servants, shall obey the Lord's will.

II. Response to questions concerning certain nuptials.

Petracas begat Archontissa and Cale, who were of the same mother: Archontissa begat Xanthe: Cale begat Symeon: Xanthe begat Sophia. Two other brothers from another lineage, consanguineous and uterine, were Julian and Joanna. ^B This Julian took as his wife Sophia, the daughter of Xanthe. Is it permitted for Symeon, the son of Cale, to take Joanna as his wife, or not? I ask, therefore, to learn this more clearly in writing from your amplitude.

To this question, the following response was dispatched: ^C Since your inquiry is clear, O most pious Great Sacellarius of Dyrrachium, as to whether it is permitted for two brothers to be united in lawful marriage with a first cousin and an uncle's daughter, it is permitted by law: it is neither forbidden nor illicit. For those things are said to be prohibited, nefarious, and unjust in which the rights of kinship are confounded. That is to say, if one is an uncle, because of the reason of marriage and cohabitation with the wife, it threatens that he would be called the son of his brother or sister. And again, if it is the wife's brother, it might happen that he is called a brother-in-law; and other things such as this arise from such confusion and indecency. ^D For according to the God-guarded great emperor, in marriages we do not seek only what is permitted, but also what is seemly. And elsewhere the same says: "In those cases where the things of the lineage are confounded, thence the marriage is illicit." Since, therefore, no indecency arises in this case, nor any confusion of lineage (for on one side it is the fifth degree, and on the other the second, and thus it is termed the seventh degree of affinity), such a marriage is lawful, and legal, and unhindered. Affinity, however, according to the lawgiver, is a nearness of persons joined to us through marriage, outside of kinship.

there will be no difference between agnates and cognates, ^A that is, those who descend through the male or female line, with the seventh degree of affinity intervening. Such a contract will therefore take place, and will not be prohibited, for the reasons which, leaning on the laws and canons, we have stated. In the month of September, indiction 9, Basil, the humble archbishop of Thessalonica.

NICETAS, METROPOLITAN OF HERACLEA

^B Question. Whether one who enters upon second nuptials may receive the prayer for a bigamist from the local high priest.

Response. Precise discipline indeed does not know how to crown bigamists; but the custom of the Great Church does not observe this, but even imposes bridal crowns upon bigamists; and no one has ever been accused for this reason. Therefore, no one will fear calumny if they crown such persons. Except that they ought to be barred from the communion of the holy mysteries for one or even two years; and he who has offered the prayer ought not to take food together with them.

Question. Whether a young woman ought to take another husband when her husband has departed for a foreign land, and there has acquired a concubine, while she herself has awaited the husband's return for three years.

Response. Such a person shall indeed depart from the concubine, nor shall he be separated from his wife; but she herself shall not hasten to other nuptials. For she is free, as says the Apostle, when the husband is dead, but not while he is alive.

Question. A certain young woman received a husband, and the prayer of betrothal and benediction took place, ^C though carnal intercourse had not intervened, and the husband fell into relations with his own mother-in-law and made her pregnant. What must be done?

Response. Concerning this case we have also answered previously; but now we answer what is presented to us: that the husband shall be permitted to have his own wife, but shall be removed far from his mother-in-law, because of the evil custom, so that he may not be further lured by her.

Question. If a woman, having given birth to a child, slanders a priest, as having conceived it by him, what must be done if there is a lack of proofs? Shall the woman offer an oath, and shall the priest risk his order? ^D

Response. Crimes are not dissolved by calumny or imprecation, but are demonstrated through the voice of witnesses of blameless life, confirmed by an oath. But no credence whatever is to be given to a harlot; rather, let the priest be left to the judgment of God, and He himself will perform the vengeance quickly.

Question. A certain widow, having a sister who has given birth...

who bore two male children, received Constantine, a soldier, from holy baptism. Maria, the sister of the widow, tries to take the daughter of Constantine for one of her own sons.

Resp. Maria is not prevented from joining the daughter of Constantine, whom her [Maria's] own sister took from holy baptism, to her son; and let such a contract take place.

Question. Whether he who is born from those twice married ought to become a priest.

Resp. He who is born from parents who are twice married, or thrice married, or polygamous, if he leads a virtuous life, is not forbidden to be ordained. For he is not prejudiced by [the status of] his parents.

OF DEMETRIUS CHOMATENUS, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA

I. On the degrees of kinship.

The argument which you have requested, most honorable master, and which is among true kinsmen ^A in the first place excellent and best, is not easy nor simple; but rather it requires much scientific [inquiry] from the careful scrutiny of the laws, and from experience and knowledge, for the clear elucidation and presentation of this matter, because of its varied and manifold character. For this reason I deferred the undertaking for the most part. But since once we proposed to be obedient to you, both on account of the inexcusable closeness of kinship and on account of the divine commandment, ^B which bids one to give anything to him who asks: for this very reason, trusting in the Word of God, who grants understanding and perfect wisdom to the unwise and the illiterate, and speech in the opening of the mouth, we do not hesitate regarding your request; knowing clearly that if anyone were to accuse us of ignorance and boldness on account of the inelegance of our style and the imperfection of our thought, he will conversely grant us pardon, since we were not moved to this attempt of our own accord, but we fulfill the duty of a close kinship and sincere affection. ^C But in these things is the introduction of our discourse. But we must begin our reply to your request in this way: You wished to learn from us how the persons of a lineage are arranged in grades, and which of these are forbidden from the communion of marriage, and which, on the other hand, are permitted to be joined together as not subject to censure. And indeed, according to the knowledge and experience we possess, with God providing the strength, gathering what must be said from the legal bases, we respond in this way: ^D The bond of kinship is connected in three orders, namely, those ascending, those descending, and those who are from the side. Those ascending are the parents and the grandparents and the great-grandparents; those descending are the children, and the descendants born from them, and the grandchildren,

^A and the descendants of these; but those who are of the collateral line, uncles, cousins, and the rest. The interconnection of the ascending and descending lines for the purpose of marriage is prohibited by the law to an infinite degree. For it is not permitted for a father, or a grandfather, or a great-grandfather, or whether for a mother, or a grandmother, or a great-grandmother to contract marriage with a son, or a grandson, or a great-grandson, or in any way whatever; nor, on the other hand, for a son, or a grandson, or a great-grandson [to contract] with a father, or a mother, or a grandfather, or a grandmother, or a great-grandfather, or a great-grandmother. But as for the collateral line, having the prohibition up to the seventh degree, ^B from that point it receives from the law the freedom and license for those wishing to be joined. The degrees, however, taking their beginning from the root of consanguinity, were named after the steps of a ladder. For just as steps, taking their beginning from a flat surface and proceeding to further points, complete an ascent or a descent, so too these degrees, being as it were branches sprouted from the root of the first progenitor, constitute the relationship. Therefore, each generation makes one degree. Thus a father is in no way assigned a degree in relation to his son, because he is his root and beginning. One degree, however, is calculated for the son in relation to the father. Indeed, two brothers, because they proceed from two generations, also form two degrees. For each generation (as has been said) makes one degree. The first cousins, however, are found to be of the fourth degree; ^C likewise, the second cousins are calculated as being of the sixth degree by the same analogy; but third cousins, in such a manner, of the eighth. Such kinship is therefore called that by blood. Hence the limit of the prohibition was ordained up to the seventh degree, as the studious person can learn both from the legal definition and from the synodal decree. For the law in the fifth title of the twenty-eighth book says: "There is some prohibition among persons who are on the side. For it is not permitted to take to wife the daughter of my brother or of my sister, nor their granddaughter; similarly, neither the daughter of an uncle or of an aunt, that is to say, my female cousin; nor indeed [may] my son [take] their granddaughter, who are called second cousins." And thus, this Novella has set the limit of prohibited marriages for the children of cousins, namely the second cousins, who are of the sixth degree. The seventh degree, because it had been passed over in silence, had found a place, and was not forbidden for the fellowship of marriage. ^D But the synodal judgment, enacted in the time of that most holy patriarch, the lord Luke, judged this seventh degree to be shameful and base, on account of the closeness of the persons, and [adjudged it] among the prohibited and illicit [unions], and cut it off from the commonwealth of the Christians. A Novella constitution of the illustrious emperor and Porphyrogenitus, the lord Manuel, followed this synodal action, and it confirmed what had been decreed in a holy manner.

^A From that time until now, those prohibited on account of degrees of blood relationship cease at the seventh degree. For it is not permitted for a cousin to take the daughter of his own cousin, she being his second cousin. ^B What is by nature just, decent, and honorable, the law has imposed upon marriage as a kind of bridle, so that those who contract it, being held back by this, might not, like a horse or mule which lacks understanding, neigh after their own kin. Individuals beyond this seventh degree shall proceed without prohibition to the bond of marriage. For in the case of blood relationship, as has been set forth above, the seventh degree has proved to be the prohibiting boundary for the communion of marriage. So much, then, for the matter of blood relationship.

Since affinity also, according to the precision of the law, produces for us a closeness of persons joined through marriage without blood relationship, neither has the exact discipline of the law left this without definition. For it says in chapter 3 of the aforementioned 5th title of the 28th book: "A mother-in-law is the mother, and the grandmother, and the great-grandmother of my wife; and I take none of them. And a daughter-in-law is called the wife of a son, and of a grandson, and of a great-grandson; and a stepdaughter is called a daughter born of another, and a granddaughter, and a great-granddaughter of my wife; and I take none of them as a wife." Such persons, therefore, being included in the fourth degree, do not have a marriage permitted according to the Novella.

But just as in the degrees of blood the seventh degree (as was said above) was eventually prohibited for the sake of decorum and honor, so also in the degrees of affinity, the fifth and the sixth were subsequently censured by the holy patriarch Sisinnios; and matters concerning these are clearly revealed in the tome provided by him. And thus, those prohibited from marriage on account of affinity are included up to the sixth degree. ^C For it is impossible for two brothers to take two first cousins, or conversely for two first cousins to take two sisters in marriage. For first cousins are of the fourth degree, and brothers are of the second; and on account of the closeness of the persons, they are in no way permitted to come into the communion of marriage. For from two and four, the sixth degree is concluded, and conversely; and for this cause it is prohibited. In the same way, an uncle or maternal uncle, and the son of a brother or sister are prohibited from entering into a marriage contract with two sisters of another family. For a fifth degree is gathered from these persons. For the uncle holds the third degree in relation to the nephew, and the two sisters hold the second in relation to each other. Thus, therefore, even in the relationship of affinity, the prohibiting boundary has stood up to the fifth and sixth degree. There is also another sixth degree of affinity gathered in a different way, which is entirely permitted, as is made known to all not only by the silence of the said law, but also by imperial constitutions and synodal actions. For an uncle or maternal uncle, and the son of a brother or sister, existing in the third degree, are in no way [penalized] when joined in marriage with an aunt or maternal aunt, and the daughter of a brother or sister.

For such a contract is not judged illicit, as it is ^A carried out to the sixth degree. Nor is the proximity of brothers the same as that of a paternal or maternal uncle with the child of a brother or sister, or that of cousins and other kinsmen; but they proceed from one source of the first progenitor, though they gradually move away from each other, like streams branching into different channels.

There is also another species of relationship from affinity, which is not contained within the degrees because it has a complex of three kinds. But the law, making mention explicitly only of the prohibited persons, has left subsequent ones outside of prohibition and accusation. For it says in chapter 4 of the fifth title of the 28th book, word for word: “Neither do I take the wife of my stepson, nor does a stepmother take the man who was formerly the husband of her stepdaughter.” And thus we have ^B [what needs to be said] concerning relationship by blood and affinity: and, as I think, following an exact discipline of the law, although many canonical and civil sanctions, because they are spread out in the writings of many verses, are omitted. But concerning the greater relationship arising from spiritual consequence which exists among us the pious, we must treat of it summarily.

Canon 56 of the 6th Synod concerning such relationship

that which comes through holy baptism. For we have received that these are to be observed, as has been set forth above, from the sacred canons and from godly laws. But the brotherhood that comes through appointment [by adoption], being unsubstantial and uncertain, and inconsistent with nature, and rejected by law, does not in any way pose an obstacle to matrimonial cohabitation. For chapter 35 of the 13th title of the 5th book ^A expressly states the following: "Neither let a brotherhood by adoption be established among strangers living outside of Rome. And if anyone, having been taken as a brother, be written as an heir, let him be excluded from the inheritance." Whence, since the brotherhood of adoption is thus rejected by the laws, it has no prohibition whatsoever against matrimonial unions, as it falls outside that which is covered by the sacred canons and godly laws; but rather, it allows these to proceed, as they in no way drag in any prohibition or reprimand. For appointment [adoption] imitates nature. But nature acknowledges a son through birth, yet a brother never. If nature is not capable of producing a brother, then neither is appointment, as it is an imitator of nature, able to create a brotherhood. ^B Those unions, therefore, that are outside of those mentioned above—from blood, from affinity, and from both kinds of affiliation, both that which is through holy baptism and that which is through adoption—are lawful and blameless and in every respect faultless. And they will not be overturned by kinship [frater adoptio], nor by any other cause at all, since they are clearly understood to have effect through the silence of the law. This is the fulfillment of your request from us, most precious and thrice-beloved head to me. If it attains its intended goal, let there be thanks to God, who lavishly bestows His own power upon human weakness; but if it should fall far short of the required duty, even so, thanks to Him ^C who gives to each for the common good the manifestation of the Spirit. For not all are apostles, or teachers, or prophets, according to the great Apostle. But for us, there shall surely be pardon from those who order their own words with judgment, or discernment, according to him who sings the Psalms, as we have purposed to render the debt not out of boldness or ostentation, but out of obedience and spiritual love and fleshly kinship. May your reverence also walk forever in the light of the commandments of the Lord, and may we, through your propitiatory prayers, obtain the rank and place at His right hand, together with those who have been pleasing to Him from eternity. To whom belongs glory, honor, and eternal power, now and unto the ^D unending age of ages. Amen.

II. Responses of the Most Blessed and Holy Archbishop of Bulgaria, Lord Demetrios Chomatenos, to Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of the Metropolis of Dyrrhachium

^A Obedience and sluggishness, or rather timidity, suddenly took hold of me, my divine and sacred head, after I received the request of your perfection regarding certain questions sent to me not long ago. Because it was not permitted for me to refuse this, as I knew well that questions necessarily require responses consistent with them—whether they were put forth as was fitting, or perhaps otherwise. And so, each of these two wrestled vehemently within me to prevail, so that I became a borderland ^B between them, being effectively neither one thing nor heard as the other. For obedience, being a marvelous offspring of humility, urged me toward the kindness and reception of your dignity; but my hesitation persuaded me to look at the magnitude and difficulty of the undertaking, and thus to tremble and lose heart; indeed, regarding even the most impudent critic, how he is accustomed to handle even those things which should not be touched. Hence, I have manifested a new mixture of both these extremes, just as the "bold-timid" man is composed in Aristotle from the timid and the bold. And thus, I have risked not preserving either of them in its entirety within myself, as I was flagging toward obedience ^C and rousing my sluggishness through that very obedience. But since offspring are accustomed to resemble their own fathers, look, this our fetus, the fulfillment of your petition, as it is, proceeds forth: having obtained its substance or basis from obedience, but its form from hesitation. For it has been colored by the latter toward paleness, so as to be wary, like those who fear, and to turn back from the face of those who have attained the greatest strength in discourse and in both types of wisdom. But if by chance some praise should unexpectedly transform this deformity of pallor into a flush, so that it might appear beautiful-faced, graceful, and a participant in the appropriate confidence, we might approve of it. For what father (to use the word of the wise Solomon) does not take delight in a son ^D who is most beautiful and wise? But if it remains (alas, the unchangeable deformity!) it will be absolutely necessary for it to be turned toward this paternal bosom, so that, being removed from the middle and no longer seen, it might at least hide the reproach of its ugliness.

Question. Whether one who has been elected, and has accepted the dignity, and has embraced it, ought to be transferred to another see?

Response. This is strictly not canonical, nor is it...

of written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition. ^A It happens often, however, when the emperor orders it, by reason of some dispensation that is publicly advantageous. And this occurred in the days of the renowned emperor, our lord Manuel Komnenos Porphyrogenitos. For when that most wise Eustathius, who was, according to Florus, deacon of the Great Church and Master of the Rhetoricians, had been elected to the Church of the Lycian Myrians, and had accepted, and had embraced it, and was already prepared for his ordination, an order from that blessed emperor came to the synod, commanding that Eustathius be released from that appointment and be brought instead to the illustrious metropolis of the Thessalonians, as it was at that time vacant. ^B Such things, therefore, as we have said, only an imperial command has the power to change and innovate. For the emperor, being and being named the common supervisor of the Churches, presides over synodal opinions and grants them strength. He regulates ecclesiastical orders, and gives laws for the life and conduct of those who serve the altar; furthermore, he presides over the judgments of bishops and clergy, and the elections of vacant Churches. He also promotes men from a lesser to a greater honor, that is to say, from a bishopric to a metropolis, honoring either the virtue of the man or the city. It is easy for the studious person to learn all these things from the compilation of the sacred and divine canons, and from the Justinian novel legislation, which is placed in the entire third book of the Basilika; for it discusses at length those matters concerning bishops and clergy, and their privileges, and their state of life, and criminal and financial cases. And, to say it in one word, except for the ministry of sacrificing, the emperor represents the remaining pontifical privileges when he acts lawfully and canonically. ^C And it is found in the nineteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus an imperial subscription having it thus: "Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, Germanicus, pontifex maximus, of tribunitian power, created consul for the second time." That the emperor for the time being is also the Christ of the Lord on account of the anointing of the empire, and that Christ, our God, among other things, both was made and is proclaimed our High Priest, is why he himself, with good reason, is adorned with pontifical graces.

Interrogatio. Is it proper to place on the purple pontifical vestments, just as on the white ones, flumina (rivers) on the sticharion and crosses on the phelonion? And is a purple sakkos to be made?

Responsio. The custom of the Church wishes the purple pontifical divine vestments to be plain, and without the addition of the aforementioned flumina and crosses. But the sakkos...

knows nothing of purple, since it offers its use only on three illustrious Dominical feasts of the year, namely, on the great Lord's Day of Pascha, at Pentecost, and at the Nativity of Christ. This, therefore, provides a sufficiently full corroboration that there is no necessity for the sakkos to be purple; ^A especially since such purple vestments are a sign of mourning—being used only on fast days and at memorials for the departed.

Question. By what authority are the unleavened breads consecrated by the Latins judged, as profane or holy? Likewise the vessels serving their ministry, and the priestly vestments, and anything of that sort; and whether it is reasonable for them to be worn by those who wear rings.

Response. The canon of the holy apostles, and the 37th and 38th of the synod of Laodicea, and the 60th of Carthage, make mention of the Jewish and festive unleavened breads, which are sent to the faithful by heretics; and they discourage the faithful both from receiving these and from celebrating the feast with them. ^B But concerning the Latin unleavened breads, no canon makes mention anywhere, since it is probable that this custom later insinuated itself luxuriously into the Roman Church. As soon as such a custom emerged, many of our own, led by an extraordinary zeal, in their own writings rejected this as foreign. And not only this, but also that which is handed down by the Latins regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, they refuted in every way as discordant and unseemly; and many other of their customs, as not befitting the Catholic Church, they deemed abominable and rejected. Some, however, receiving the matter more kindly, ^C as regards other things, descended into the same opinion as them, acknowledging the harshness and pride of the nation, and the frequent contagion of barbaric customs. But on the single article regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, they by no means assented or agreed. One of these is also the most wise blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, who in the discourse sent by him to the deacon Nicholas and to Castrensis, who was later bishop of Melesoba, after he rebuked those who indiscriminately cling to them, and those who altogether reject their sacred rites ^D; and after the enumeration of their apparent defects, he continues in this manner: "I, however, judge that some of these things stand in need of no attention, while others stand in need of a moderate one, that which, if someone were to accomplish, might be a small favor to the Church; but if not, it does not bring damage, remaining imperfect. But that which most seems to me to render the society of the Latins execrable to those who think rightly, and which, being unamended, brings great damage to the inheritance of the Son, which He received among the nations: this I will show and demonstrate to you, as much as lies within me." And a little later: "Therefore, that greatest"

^A error—and one that, to use the words of Solomon, makes one run into the snare of hell—is the innovation in the symbol of faith which they have made, by proclaiming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. And after much: Since there is also great zeal among many—hotter than fire, as they say—concerning the offering of unleavened bread, and they would sooner lose their lives than abandon their opinion concerning these things, and some are indeed flattered by their own inclination, which seems to Paul to be a snare of the devil; what needs to be said to these people we shall say later, chastising the excess of their zeal in some, and in others pointing out as unhumble that which is not unhumble. ^B And again after much: Therefore, if anything is amiss among the Westerners regarding dogma, which shakes the faith of the Fathers—such as that which is added to the symbol concerning the Holy Spirit, where the danger is greatest—he who does not concede that this is worthy of correction is unworthy of pardon, even if they speak these words from the throne which the exalted ones propose as exalted; and even if they put forward the confession of Peter, and spread around his beatification, and brandish the keys of the kingdom at us with threats. And again after much: We shall not, therefore, harden ourselves against the unyielding stubbornness of the nation, neither concerning the unleavened bread nor the fasts. For this is like gluing potsherd to potsherd, if one does not interpose something of a more flexible nature that might perhaps have a glue-like power; ^C nor, in general, concerning the rest of the enumerated items, which they themselves confess they keep, except for the eating of things strangled (for even the name of this is not tolerable to temperate Latins, any more than it is to us, nor is the name of fornication, and of the fast, even if ferocious and bestial men practice it; they seem to many to be committing sins that do not deserve pardon). Not to agree with these words is the mark, as I suppose, of a man who has been exercised in and has learned the ecclesiastical histories; of one who has learned that not every custom has the power to split the Church, but only that which leads to a difference of dogma. And these faults among the aforementioned admirable judges are absolutely customs; some from religious devotion, as ^D the offering of kisses to the sacred floors (for let us by no means accept that satanic calumny that the veneration of icons is not to be accepted by the Latins), and others from [economy (dispensation)], which governs infirmity—perhaps indeed of the soul, but certainly of the body; such as monks eating meat during illnesses, and this with restraint, and in truth spiritually. But if any should abuse this by indifference, this is another argument for those people, not for those who first provided for this in a reasonable manner, and for those other things which, for some other reasons, became fixed in the Western Churches. Nothing of which can tear us away. By no means: if indeed it has judges who render a verdict consistent with the laws of the Fathers. And if my oration were not to be long, and to the history...

^A close, I would have shown you countless customs yielded to the ancient Fathers for the sake of the acquisition of the souls of our brethren. For they knew not to please themselves, but each his neighbor for the good, for edification. But now—(alas, for our dropsical pride!)—and who is my neighbor? we say, and we cast down ten thousand who are standing, [d] in order that we might establish our own will. And he then vehemently attacks those who indiscriminately and shamelessly find fault with Latin customs and attribute them to the greatest and most damnable errors. It is therefore possible, from the intent present in this most wise writing, to understand that one should pay the least attention in every nation that has accepted the preaching according to Christ to the defects of their customs; but as for those things that are degenerate in dogmas and discordant, they must be very much looked askance upon and fled from as gangrenes, of which the divine Paul makes mention, and as other kinds of evil, inveterate diseases. Since customs do not have such power to tear us away as do perverse dogmas. ^B Hence, we shall not consider common the unleavened bread consecrated by the Latins, nor the vessels that receive these and serve for their sacrifice, and consequently neither their sacred stoles, nor anything of the sort, as unclean and polluted. For how could they be? When the invocation of the Lord’s name imprints a sign upon them, and the sacred canticles of the divine James, brother of the Lord, as we have learned, consecrate the host for them? But if anyone should say, “If indeed the Latin unleavened breads are not profane, there will be no prejudice to us if we consume them,” he shall hear that, as was said above, along with other things, this custom regarding unleavened bread has been firmly established in the Western Churches, just as the offering and consecrating of leavened bread is in our own, and the transgression ^C of one’s own customs will be impossible for either side: unless one side prefers to pass over to the other by embracing its communion. Except for this, that just as they consider what is consecrated by us, so we likewise consider what is by them, to be holy. And we are not deceived. For indeed, the ordinations of heretics are also accepted by the orthodox, according to the tradition of the Fathers, if those who are ordained by them are or become orthodox. As for wearing a ring, to those who walk according to the Spirit, it is understood spiritually. For because Christ is named the bridegroom of the Church and of pure and virginal souls, in the same way the prelates of the holy Churches everywhere are also called bridegrooms, having received the ring as the seal of the Spirit ^D, which also the Savior said that He cast out demons by the finger, that is, by the Holy Spirit, to the unbelieving Jews who pursued Him with abuse, as if He had Beelzebub. And He adorned the prodigal son who had returned with a golden ring, making this whole matter evidently spiritual instead of carnal. But to the Latins, not spiritually,

^A but carnally, not supramundanely, but mundanely, as those who accept the designation of a ring, it becomes an object of great zeal to wear a ring, inasmuch as they are spouses of the Churches. Therefore, not even this brings a stigma upon them.

Question.

Answer.

of forms and customs. And that (they say) these have not been decreed synodically, nor have they themselves been publicly rejected as heretics; but they even eat and pray with us. And one can, he says, ^A properly deduce this reasoning from the fifteenth canon of the holy synod at Constantinople, which is called the First and Second. And the fact that Latins approach us and ask to receive from us the holy leavened oblation makes it manifest that, unless they disdained the unleavened bread, and set little store by being content with it, they would not approach the sacrifice of the divine mysteries as it is performed by us. These people also confirm their own reasoning from the Gospel, through what is said by the divine John to the Lord, observing: "We saw," he says, "someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us." And Jesus said to him: "Do not forbid. For he who is not against us is for us." ^B But the passage they appended, "He who is not with me is against me," is directed openly and simply against the devil, as that very clause of the Gospel indicates. For just as Satan is an enemy from the beginning, and cannot be moved from malice, and is utterly bereft of repentance, in this respect, since he is not with the Lord, he both is and is named being against Him: for He loves and gathers His own creature, while that one hates and scatters it. But that which says, "He who is not against us is for us," is said of a man who does not indeed follow Jesus, but emulates those who follow Him, and in His name casts out demons; and thus, someone who walks at a distance can easily be changed to follow. For the remedy ^C for human weakness alone is conversion, repentance, and the change from worse to better. They also brought forward on this matter the opinion of Theophylact, the most wise archbishop of Bulgaria, the summary of which we have provided above in another of our responses, setting forth wonderful and praiseworthy things regarding condescension and economy. Hence, those who contradicted were judged to have insisted rightly and with reason, as they were preferring economy over obstinacy, in order not to lose, but to gain gradually and little by little, the brethren for whom our common Savior and Lord poured out His own blood.

JOANNIS EPISCOPI CITRI. Responses to Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrhachium.

^D Responses to Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrhachium.

Question. It is the custom here for unleavened-bread-using priests to be ordained by our own bishops for the foreign region. Is this to be accepted or not?

Resp. The unwritten custom of the Church, as law

^A to prevail, the great luminary of the world, Basil, decrees. When, therefore, the law of the Church does not recognize such ordinations, we for this reason also cannot determine that the custom in this regard is to be held as valid. For even if it is perhaps long-standing, we do not know with certainty whether it was ever confirmed by having been conducted in a synodal court. For the laws command that long-standing custom be considered valid, provided that it has been tested and ratified in a court. But that which is not of this kind, they reject entirely. It is necessary, therefore, to investigate whether the said custom of the ordination of priests was ever synodically examined and ratified. And if this has happened, let it hold for the future as well; if not, it is necessary for the matter to be referred to the holy and great synod, so that what seems good to it may be done. For things examined and determined synodically are better and firmer than those decided by a single person.

^B Interrog. Do orthodox Romans get buried in Latin churches, being chanted over by both Romans and Latins together? And do Latins who are dying also have services chanted over them by Romans and Latins indistinguishably? Is this subject to ecclesiastical censure or not?

Resp. There are two manifest and great things that create a difference between us and the Latins. The first and greater is the doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit; the second, and not of the same weight, is the oblation of unleavened bread. But the reading of Scripture, both Old and New, and the prayers, and the melodies, and the divine temples, and the veneration of the precious Cross and of the holy icons, are common to them and to us. It is not, therefore, discordant, nor does it offend piety in any way, for Latins to be buried in Roman temples, and for the dead of both Romans and Latins to be celebrated by Roman and Latin officiating priests with one accord. For the place does not make those who have departed ^C rejected by God; and the psalmody of the Latins for them is not pagan, but is from the divine Scriptures, according to our own confession. But if anyone perhaps thinks what is done in this way is absurd, he will immediately find this reasoning of his to be hollow. For many bodies of the saints, those who formerly held the power of the empire in times of impiety, commingled with the carcasses of beasts and cast into places full of mire; but the grace given to the saints remained from that unscathed. And theirs is the Jerusalem above, the metropolis of the first-born, the land of the meek, the beloved tabernacles. But the tombs of impious kings are also found in our own holy temples, as that of the apostate Julian, in the temple of the holy and all-praised apostles, near Constantinople; and indeed of others of perverse faith in other temples, to whom being buried there is of no profit. For their impiety remains, ^D and theirs is the eternal fire of Gehenna. It remains, therefore, that the burial of Christians in Latin

churches, since there too there is an erection and veneration of the precious cross and of divine images. Moreover, it is not unfitting to add to this answer that which is written in the Gospel: “Let the dead bury their own dead” (Matt. VIII, 22), the discourse, I think, signifying that their burial is a corruption. So that, as a result, it is not even necessary for those living above the world to deem it worthy to attend to the dead with exquisite obsequies, nor even to seek out chosen places for this sake.

Interrogation. If a priest, or deacon, or reader having a wife is tonsured, but his spouse remains in the world, may he who is tonsured be promoted to the priesthood or the high priesthood, even if his wife does not accept the tonsure?

^B Resp. The divine and pious laws, in enumerating the causes for which separations of marriages occur, include among them that which happens on account of the tonsure, which they designate as a blameless and irreproachable occasion. They wisely judged it to be like unto death, as if he who destines himself for the solitary life were choosing another path for a different life. If, therefore, such a divorce is legitimate and blameless on account of the tonsure, and the wife of the one tonsured can, if she wishes, enter into a contract with another man without crime, then her husband, who has been shorn—as one having become once dead to the world—can, if he is found worthy, ^C be raised to the dignity of a priest or of a high priest. That this is not forbidden may be learned from the text of the eighth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea, which explicitly decrees these things: “If any man’s wife, when he was a layman, is convicted of having committed adultery, he cannot come to the ministry; but if she commits adultery after his ordination, he ought to dismiss her. If, however, he cohabits with her, he cannot exercise the ministry entrusted to him.” If, therefore, he who has dismissed his wife, according to the conception of the canon, as having been an adulteress after his ordination, retains the priestly ministry given to him without impediment, ^D then certainly much more will he who is separated from his own wife through a blameless occasion, without hindrance, receive both the priestly and the high-priestly dignity.

Interrogation. Who are preferred in the creation of bishops? The protopapa and the priests who are after him, or the deacons who hold principal ecclesiastical offices?

Resp. The votes for vacant churches proceed according to an exact reckoning, appropriately to the places and the persons. For if the place is famous and has need of a pastor who is learned and eloquent, and whose life corresponds to his speech, while the person, perhaps by time or by high-priestly will, has been advanced to a distinguished ecclesiastical degree, but is wanting in sufficient expe-

experience, eloquence, and knowledge, he should be announced for the distinguished position propter gradus praerogativam (because of the prerogative of his rank) at a famous place. For this reason, and so that the pontifical dignity may not become worthless due to his simplicity, and that the city may not remain deprived of a suitable shepherd and caretaker, persons must be chosen who are appropriate and agreeable to the places, lest the order of religion and the ecclesiastical state become useless and confounded. For the thrones belong to the more worthy, not to those who are higher and more powerful in rank. ^A And the 123rd Justinianic Novel, which is located in chapter 8 of title 1 of book III of the Basilika, treats this matter piously and wisely at length. According to this reasoning, therefore, each of the aforementioned persons shall refer the superior judgment to the bishopric appropriate to his capacity and virtue. The votes do not, however, look any further toward ecclesiastical magistrates, as if they were promoted to the dignities of office through selection and examination, just as ecclesiastical and civil law desires.

Interrogation. Someone received a child of another from the holy bath. He now wishes to join his own son to the daughter of the brother of the father of the one received. Is it permitted for this to happen, or is it not?

Response. Since the pious laws and sacred canons have openly judged spiritual kinship to be superior to carnal relationship, therefore the present contract is not permitted to proceed; for from this arises the proximity of cousins. For the carnal female cousin of the one received, due to the spiritual kinship, is also considered the cousin of the son of the receiver, as if he had become a brother through baptism, he having been received by his father. For the brother of a wife and the brother of a husband are named for one another, the one ^B being called "wife's brother" to the husband, and the other "husband's brother" to the wife, because of their proximity. ^C Furthermore, a synodical act was made in the time of the holy... Patriarch of Constantinople, decreeing in accordance with the 53rd canon of the holy and ecumenical council in Trullo, and the 6th theme of the 10th chapter of the 5th title of the 28th book of the Basilika, that spiritual kinship is to be circumscribed by the same degrees as the natural or carnal kinship is limited. For this reason, then, this questioned contract will not be permitted to take place, as it reaches to the fourth degree on the collateral side.

Interrogation. ^D Besides this, can he also take the daughter of his compater, being the sister of the one received, as a bride for his son, or for his brother's son, or for his cousin?

Response. The same reasoning will suffice for the solution of the present doubt.

Interrogation. Is it not to be accepted that someone should remain perpetually inside a divine temple, and eat food therein, especially if he is not a verger?

^A Resp. Dwelling in a divine temple is permitted to vergers alone, both because of the necessity of their office and because of the ambushes of thieves, or burglars, or other criminals. But to any other person upon whom such a duty is not incumbent, this is in no way granted. Indeed, to take food inside a temple, not only daily but not even at intervals, is not permitted to anyone, nor actually even to the verger himself. Both ecclesiastical and civil law declare this clearly. Ecclesiastical law relates to this in various canons, but primarily in the canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which declares: One ought not to celebrate agapai, that is to say, charity feasts, in the Lord’s houses or in churches, nor to eat inside the house, nor to spread out couches. ^B Whosoever presumes to do this, let them either desist or be excluded. Now "accubitum" is said of every preparation of a bed raised in height and soft; for I recline ("accumbo") among the Latins, that is, I lie down. Similarly, in the 79th canon: We command that those who dwell with a wife, or who otherwise indiscriminately treat sacred places as common, and hold them in contempt, and thus remain in them even in those areas which are in the venerable temples, the mansions of the catechumens, be driven out. If any man does not observe these things, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be excluded. ^C Civil law, in chapter eleven, title one, book five of the Basilika, says this: Let those who take refuge have security up to the boundaries of the church which are in front of the public square, using the interior baths, or gardens, or dwellings, or stables, or porticoes. But they are to be prohibited from taking food or sleeping inside the temple. But also, the 73rd Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise similarly punishes those who grant dwelling space even in the catechumeneia. From the summary, therefore, of constitutions of this kind, it is altogether forbidden both to eat and to Dwell inside a divine temple.

Interrogation. Among the dignities of ecclesiastical offices, who is the first, and who second, and who third, and what is the order of them in sequence?

Res. According to ancient tradition, the first is the Great Oikonomos. The second is he who presides over the Great Sakella, that is, the Great Sakellarios. The third is the Great Skeuophylax. The fourth is the Chartophylax. The fifth is he who presides over the lesser sakella, that is, the Sakellarios. The sixth is the Primarios Actor, who are also called the Exokatekela. ^D Although the office of the Primarios Actor was previously among the lower ranks, it was afterwards placed in the order of the others by the patriarch of Constantinople of blessed memory, George Xiphilinos. And this action was followed by the excellent opinion of the saintly metropolitan of Thessalonica, Eustathios, praising and extolling the event as having been done justly and irreproachably, when certain persons, who did not accept the action, were then contradicting it.

After the *exocatacoeli*, the first is the protonotary; second, the referendary; third, the logothete; fourth, the castrensis; fifth, the hieromnemon; sixth, the referendarius; seventh, the *a genibus*; eighth, the official in charge of holy ordinances; ninth, the *hypomimneskon* (memorandum-writer); tenth, the official in charge of the secretariate; eleventh, the official in charge of trials; twelfth, the secundarius of the deacons. After them are the three door-keepers, the magistrates of the churches.

The appointment of the secundarius of the deacons is not done simply, but by selection. For such an office requires a capable and suitable man, who may fulfill the appropriate ministrations blamelessly. For his task is the blessing of the sovereigns and the archpriests after the entry, to carry the Gospel in the litanies and to perform the *synaptai* and petitions therein; to give the times to the deacons who serve at the ambo in the absence of the archdeacon, and to fulfill other duties of his. On this account, then, he is called secundarius, not that he is second in the order of deacons. Such, therefore, was the order and station of the archontic ranks according to the ancient tradition. ^B But because their seals depend upon the will of the archpriests, and the archpriests differ in their opinions and desires, for this reason the old order was confounded. Thence neither did the condition of the offices remain in its firmness, but was shaken according to the pleasure of the prelates, and the confusion itself finally obtained the force of law among many of them.

But since some are found among these who are in some way participants in ecclesiastical experience, they allow the offices of the higher order to remain in their own state or foundation; but if they do change those of the second, they are nevertheless discovered to be doing this not without reasonable cause, honoring either virtue, or learning, or another praiseworthy faculty. But those who are entirely rude and unskilled in experience are found to be turning things upside down; and the proverb is appropriate to them, which says that the fountains of rivers flow upwards, and the "second-first" sabbaths among the Jews, and the *prothystera* (prepostero-us) among the grave sophists. ^C It seems to me, therefore, that one ought to follow the common customs without contradiction; but if there is a necessity to innovate anything in these matters, it must be done for just reasons, and not from private whims.

There are also other offices which are most appropriate for priests: the catechist, the orphanotrophos, the four defenders, the luminarius, the nummidator, and the circitor. The offices of the lectors are these: the domesticus of the right choir, the domesticus of the left, the *populi coactor*—similarly—the domesticus of the chanters, called by some the protopsaltes; the primicerius of the lectors, the prefect of the *kontakia*, the protocanonarchos, and the chartularii of the great sacristy and the armarium of the vessels. ^D The *theori*, or observers, and the *deputati* and *camisati*, are not offices, but ministries enjoined upon them at the holy altar. For the *theori*...

are entrusted with the custody and guardianship of the sacred vessels and their covers, especially if these are found to be adorned with stones and pearls. The *deputati*, wearing mantles, go before with candles, both of the holy Gospel, when it is carried to the ambo for reading, and of the holy gifts, both at the entry into the holy table and at the return of them to the prothesis; the rest, namely the *camisati*, are occupied in carrying coals of fire to the altar, and in the heating of the divine vessels, so that from there boiling water may customarily be poured in due time into the holy chalices, and in other similar services. There are also those who are called patriarchal domestics. This office also belongs to the readers. The ministry of this is, at the entries of the patriarch, to say: "For many years, master!" ^A

*Interrogation:* Of what order and of what degree is the archidiaconal office? And does he preside over all the deacons, as if the archdeacon himself were among the ecclesiastical offices? And is he preferred before all in the reception of the divine mysteries? And is it permitted to the prelate to place some over those who have entered earlier but have had no office, who themselves also have no office, but have received the prerogative through a scroll and command alone? And what is the power of the *hieromnemon*, and must this person be a deacon or a priest? ^B

*Response:* The archidiaconal office is not a magisterial rank, nor is it from pontifical liberality, as are magisterial ranks; it is the culmination of the cycle of many years. Therefore, as a gift for time and personal labor, the archdeacon holds the prerogative among all deacons, whether they are adorned with any offices or not, both in the church, and at the holy altar, and in the reception of the divine mysteries. But to place some over those who entered in a prior place by means of scrolls, even if they have offices, is in every way inadmissible, as it is also manifest injustice. For the rank and station of the entry of the deacons is regulated by time, and is established, and is immutable. ^C It suffices for those honored in this way above others that, when the bishop is celebrating, they are preferred to those who entered earlier only then, at the entry and at the reception, and for no other reason than that they are adorned with offices. Without the bishop, however, they shall never on any occasion enjoy this preference; for if they do not even have the rights of an office, the injustice is greater. For why should a simple deacon be preferred to another simple deacon who entered earlier? Unless he loves the

injustice, the prelate does not hesitate to act in this ^A inconsiderate manner. But there is no account taken of this, any more than the voice of those charming the ears of an asp, according to that Psalm.

The office of the *sacrimemor* [the *hieromnemon*] necessarily belongs to a deacon, for he serves together with the *castrensis* to vest the pontiff in the sacred stole when he is about to perform the sacred rites. If the *hieromnemon* is a priest, he performs the *hieromnemoneia* [the remembrance of sacred things] in name only, so to speak. For it is not permitted to him to maintain the rank of deacon in the services involving the pontifical vestments. Some prelates, out of ignorance, entrust to the *hieromnemon* the written depositions of witnesses regarding those who wish to be ordained, and they do not perceive that they are openly committing an injustice against the *chartophylax*. For the power of such a ministry is attached to his office, and it is in no way to be shaken from him, just as is the case for the sacred prayers.

^B **Question.** Is it permitted for a prelate, while the *chartophylax* is present, to entrust to any other person the authority to affix the seal, whether permanently or on a single occasion? And what is the origin of the term *domesticus*, and over which ecclesiastical orders does he have authority?

**Answer.** The affixing of the seal to matters that arise is inviolably engraved upon the dignity of the *chartophylax*; hence, while he is present, the prelate is in no way permitted to entrust any such subsignation to another, unless a long journey and a case arising in a specific location make it necessary for it to be done. For in that event, the prelate shall send whomsoever he chooses, who shall observe the case ^C and confirm it with a seal. If, however, the *chartophylax* is ill or absent, the promulgation and reading of the registers of the *chartophylacicon secretum* is permitted to the actuary.

The appellation *domesticus*, according to the Latins, signifies a leader, a provost, [or] a prefect. Just as in the imperial military ranks he is called *domesticus* in the regions of the East and West, and likewise of the *scholae*, for the same reason he is called *domesticus* in ecclesiastical orders, namely, the precentor and prefect of chants and chanters, regulating both the men and the chants into number and order. He possesses this very power, and also the power of beginning the universal vigils, by saying to the prelate or the priest who is present, "Bless, master." Such vigils are indeed held at other times, but especially during the five days ^D of the first week of the fasts, after the dismissal of the sacrifice of the Pre-sanctified.

**Question.** Are the antimensia held freely in other provinces, or only in the province of the one who performs [the consecration]?

And what does this signify in Greek, and how should it be written, with an *eta* or with an *iota*? If there is a scarcity of ointment, is it permitted to increase what is found by mixing it with oil? ^A **Answer.** The antimensia, having participated in the sanctifying power which the seven-day sequence of the consecration of newly built temples brings to the altar placed therein through the sacrifice, allow for their distribution without impediment where their use is appropriate; nor are they restricted to this or that province, whose jurisdiction might [by chance] fall to them. For even when made outside [their] borders, just like the holy ointment and other holy things, they have their use beyond reproach, provided only that they are consecrated according to the tradition established by the Fathers regarding these matters. ^B The very name itself is derived from *mensa*, which in Greek signifies a tray, and in the Italian language the food sold by cooks. For this reason, the cloths spread over tables are called *mensalia*, placed there for the adornment of the table and the trays. In common speech, however, they are called antimensia, as in vestments they are called *antipana*, and whatever things have obtained such a name from their effect. These are placed upon those holy tables which consecration has not sanctified. For from the antimensia, both the table consecrated to us and the sacrificed oblation receive their sanctification. For that which has been sanctified draws from itself the power to sanctify the gifts, since [the gifts] are not holy by themselves. And this the Lord’s voice in the Gospels testifies, saying that the altar and the temple are greater than the gifts and the gold, as the one sanctifies the gifts, and the other the gold. If, therefore, the temple is not dedicated, the sanctifying ^C power of the antimension fills what is lacking to it. And therefore, in an unconsecrated temple, it is never permitted to perform the sacrifice without an antimension. For in what way will the altar sanctify the gift, if it has not participated in holiness? And for the priest who has dared this, the penalty shall be deposition. It is written with an *iota* because of its foreign origin; for foreign words, according to the grammatical rule, have neither derivations nor rules. However, grammarians are accustomed to write foreign terms with an *iota*, an *omicron*, and an *epsilon*. But in no way is it accepted that antimensia should be made otherwise than at the dedication of a new temple. Nor do those who innovate in the making of them in another way notice that they are transgressing ecclesiastical traditions ^D and offering gifts that are not gifts, nor beneficial (as he says). Nor should it be considered whether the temple has been built newly and recently, so that its dedication may take place. For even if a building is found to have been built long ago, and it has not received consecration, it shall merit this sanctification, inasmuch as it can receive it without reproach. But if there is a scarcity of ointment in the holy baptismal [rites], or

in the consecration of churches, or in any other use of it, it is permitted that oil be mixed in with the small amount of ointment that is found, so that by being increased in this way, it may suffice to fulfill the sanctification for those who have need of it. ^A

Question. Is it permitted for Armenians, in the cities in which they dwell, to build churches with full freedom, and whether they ought to be hindered, or allowed to do as they wish?

Answer. In Christian lands and cities, it was granted from the beginning that those of different tongue and religion—namely Jews, Armenians, Ishmaelites, Hagarenes, and others of this kind—might dwell, provided, however, not commingled with the Christians, but separately. ^B Whence also, places are set apart for each of these tribes, whether inside the cities or outside, so that they may be encompassed by them, and their dwellings may not extend further. This was devised by the ancient emperors, as I believe, for three reasons. First, that by the narrowness and restriction of their dwelling, they might gain the sense that they are judged as outcasts because of their heresy. Second, that little by little, through frequent association with Christians, they might be moved toward change—if not all, at least some, whom salvation has loved. And the third, that those who have need of it for their own living might gather the fruits of their industry. Therefore, if the Armenians build temples in the place where they are restricted, and perform those things which pertain to their heresy, they remain free from accusation. For the same is permitted to Jews and Ishmaelites who dwell in Christian cities. But if they go beyond the boundaries of the dwelling place assigned to them, not only will they themselves be hindered, but their buildings also, of whatever kind they may be, shall be destroyed. For as for having freedom and boldness in such matters, they lost that long ago. ^C

Question. What does it mean not to "proclaim free" a slave—which the notaries are accustomed to write into the deeds of purchase of slaves?

Answer. The servitude of those who are enslaved so clings to their possessors, that slaves are not only unable, in the very moments of their servitude, to raise a voice becoming to free-born and liberi against their masters, but not even when they have been granted freedom can they ever take up such a voice. And therefore, the freedmen have received the penalty of this "free voice," inasmuch as they are recalled into servitude. ^D The ancient laws and the very novels of the most wise among rulers bear witness to this, which decree that those who were slaves and became clerics without the knowledge of their masters, and clothed themselves in the venerable dignity of the priesthood, or have embraced the monastic life, or (what is greater) have been promoted to the episcopal rank,

^A they are ordained to be restored again to the former state of servitude; for it is understood that they are in no way helped by such ordinations, or by the monastic habit, in avoiding servitude. It is further commanded that even those who are free, but are joined to servile persons, are to be enslaved, since a person endowed with liberty cannot guarantee the payment of a price by which the part subject to servitude might be released into liberty by that person. Likewise, that part which has been gifted with liberty by the master (when both were clearly slaves), but which uses that opportunity to attempt, by soliciting the remaining part, to overturn its own state of life, is also to be enslaved. ^B And not only does this boldness accomplish nothing, nor does it have the power to grant liberty to another, but the person himself falls from the honor he received and is again submitted to the yoke of servitude; as one who with an evil mind has insulted the good and beneficent will of his own master, and mindlessly abused in his judgment the grace of him to whom he owed reverence and observance. The tenor of these sanctions is therefore sufficient to clearly elucidate the meaning of the word [liberoboa] to those who are ignorant of it. But to speak in summary, both the slave and the freedman are deprived in every way of the power to claim their freedom.

Question. What signifies that saying of the Gospel: "But you say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"?

Answer.

^A For those of the children whom the Pharisees found abounding in wealth, either from their own labors, or from the bounty of fortune, or from elsewhere, they taught them, under the pretext of piety, to dedicate to God either all their wealth or the greater part of it. And if their parents were in need and had need of the provision from their children, they taught them to say to their parents, as a reasonable and unanswerable thing, and one capable of deterring them, that "Corban"—that is to say, a gift dedicated to God—is that which you seek to be profited by me, or rather, to gain; so that, from this, the parents, knowing that God must be preferred, would be constrained and restrained; while the Pharisees might thenceforth devour with impunity the things supposedly dedicated—inasmuch as they were deceiving the children and persuading them to dedicate what they had to God, and thus to despise their impoverished parents, while drawing the resources of the simpler folk to themselves by means of the word "Corban." ^B

Question. The responses of the blessed patriarch of Antioch, Theodore, surnamed Balsamon, to the questions of Mark, the most holy patriarch of Alexandria, are found to contain certain contradictions in canonical and civil ordinances. Must we therefore hold to them, or not?

Answer. This holy man, the patriarch of Antioch, was indeed highly experienced in civil and canonical statutes, and was celebrated by all in these matters; yet his writings, which were published on canonical and legal questions, ^C do not appear to possess in all respects that accuracy—which is a strange thing—but seem instead to have proceeded rather from forgetfulness and lack of consideration, and in some places to be even divided against themselves. Nor would anyone doubt this who has carefully considered it, finding his writings not corresponding to their own diligence. I myself, even while he was still alive, heard many in Constantinople who were skilled in the law finding fault with certain of the man's opinions, on the grounds that they were not correctly set forth in his interpretations of the canons and laws and other such volumes. It remains, therefore, for us to say with reasonable probability that the aforementioned writings ought to be read by one who knows exactly the complexity of the law, and who is learnedly exercised in the manifold windings of the canonical texts. ^D Such a man will accurately know what appears to be beyond reproach and what does not appear to be written in that same manner. Indeed, one who does not boast of such experience ought by no means to engage with them, lest, after the manner of unskilled traders—who, with that which has the appearance of gold and silver, also have that which is copper-plated, and tin-washed—

^A they should sustain a loss even in the capital sum itself.

*Interrogatory.* Someone betrothed a girl to himself without the customary sacred prayers, but solely by mutual consent and the drawing up of documents. Is he permitted to join himself in marriage to the sister of this girl, were she to die beforehand, or not? Another man, furthermore, in the same manner having betrothed a wife, took another to wife after that one had died: shall this man be considered a bigamist or not?

*Response.* Two novel constitutions of pious emperors—the former, that of Leo the Philosopher, and the later, that of Alexios Komnenos—wisely and piously declared, for the adornment of the Christian commonwealth, what concerns betrothals and marriages, thereby filling the gap left by the ^B ancient laws concerning these matters. For they did not issue their own constitutions in order to reject and abolish those of old entirely. Those former [laws] granted validity to betrothals even at the age of seven by mere consent and the writing of documents, and they concerned themselves with nothing further regarding these cases; but the written novels, by extending the time of age for both the betrothed groom and the betrothed bride much further, have ordained that the male must complete his fourteenth year, and the female her thirteenth. They have also decreed that betrothal is to be confirmed not in any other way, but by sacred rite, so that from that point it might boast of an indissoluble firmness, according to the privilege of marriage. And any betrothals which have not proceeded in such a manner are to be considered void, ^C as if they had never taken place. Yet, they did not decree that the aforementioned ancient legislation regarding the age of seven should cease entirely, but that it should retain its effect in part; not so that these might be equated with perfect betrothals, but only to confirm the agreements made in betrothals, just as human contracts are simply secured by stipulations. Further, they prohibited the parties from entering into the forbidden degrees of consanguinity in regard to a divorced betrothed woman, whether the rationale for the betrothal and its dissolution stood at the seventh year or the thirteenth year.

Therefore, regarding the betrothed men ^D of whom you inquire: the first of them, if the girl was seven years old or older when the betrothal took place between them by mere consent, will be prohibited by law from taking her sister as his wife, once that girl has died, of course. But if she was younger than seven (for at such an age a betrothal is not recognized as existing at all solely by consent), he shall be united with her without blame or accusation. For we cannot alter or overstep the limits of the laws. As for the second, since the consent of the betrothal...

A solemn celebration of the sacraments, as recited, is not accepted; we do not count it as bigamy. Nuptials are not constituted by words, nor by open or even clandestine physical unions (for that is fornication), but by the songs of the sacred prayers, which are their consequence. How, then, would bigamy be judged or said to exist in one who does not enjoy the prerogative of nuptials? ^A In general, it might be said even of conventions and the resolution of betrothals and nuptials (to speak in summary), they have no force according to the new constitutions cited above, even if they had acquired strength from older laws.

ANSWERS TO DIOGNETUS THE MONK CONCERNING VARIOUS QUESTIONS OF HIS

^B The weakness and confusion of my mind, spiritual brother, held back my tongue regarding the questions you have proposed by way of inquiry; and it rendered my hand numb toward this, in no way moved to write. But He who gives grace to the humble and obedient, who illuminates, and who, in the opening of the mouth, fills one from His own Spirit, strengthened my weakness, loosened the bonds of my tongue, ^C and showed my previously numb hand to be eager for writing. Wherefore, obeying God who speaks in you through me, I become submissive to your commands; and, confident in your prayers, I open my mouth, shaking off the fear that was present in this, and I will speak to the things proposed by you—not as words born of my own mind, but as those of Him who illuminates the blind and gives understanding to the simple.

Since, before the questioned items, you sought an interpretation of the seventieth canon regarding the great Basil, which excommunicates from the divine liturgy the deacon who has been defiled in his lips, and who confesses to having sinned up to this point, but permits him to partake of the holy things along with the deacons, we will consequently also resolve the ambiguity of the canon and provide the solution to the problem. ^D As for what some have said, while attempting to interpret this canon, that it is secretly indicated by "defilement in the lips," I have decided to pass over these now in silence, as they are capable of destroying, not building up, the hearers. But what is safe for me to say, and can harmonize the ambiguity of the canon with itself, this I attempt to say. The saying of the Lord in the Gospels will assist me in this. What is this? "He who has looked," He says, "at a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his"

^B heart. If, therefore, the Lord pronounced that he who has merely looked upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery in his heart, as having perfected that sin with incorporeal touches and embraces, then much more will such a defilement condemn as an adulterer him who has, so to speak, embodied the sin, not merely through phantasms, but through physical touch—I mean through the osculation of the lips, and through the defilement which arises from this. Consequently, therefore, the great Basil, following the Teacher Christ, removes from the sacred ministry the deacon who is defiled by these things, yet permits him to participate in the hallowed gifts along with the deacons, because he still lacks the fulfillment of the sin and the more physical and gross carnal union. Once the deacon has been vanquished by this, he will no longer enjoy communion with the deacons, but, having been expelled to the place of the laity, as the same great Basil says elsewhere, he is kindly permitted to partake of it there. Now, however, I shall attempt to speak also concerning those matters that require a solution.

You have asked whether it is appropriate to bestow the divine hallowed gifts upon those who have failed in their strength and are still breathing, though but faintly, yet who are entirely devoid of sense, and are able to neither drink nor eat, and are already on the point of expiring. We say that since the canon of the God-bearing Fathers who assembled at Constantinople, in the reign of the emperor Justinian, explicitly proclaims: "Let no one bestow the Eucharist upon the bodies of those who are dying," for it is written, "Take, eat," and the bodies of the dead can neither eat nor receive; we can say nothing beyond this, for it is not permissible for us to imagine any addition or subtraction regarding the sacred canons. But since those about whom you asked, through the negligence of their attendants, as you said, have been reduced by sickness at the final hour to such a state that they are still breathing, yet are devoid of sense and cannot intake or eat, and even spit out what is offered due to their lack of sensation, or in some other way—it is necessary for the priest who happens to be present at such times not to be thoughtless, but to follow a plan by which both reverence for the holy gifts may be preserved, and security may be procured for the sufferer, that he might not be entirely devoid of such provision as he departs from here. ^C This will be achieved if the lips and tongue of the person who is still breathing subtly, and who is not yet completely dead, are sealed ^D through the touch and anointing of the all-holy hallowed gifts; or rather, to speak more precisely, if the administration of these is proportioned to his infirmity. For thus, as has been said, both will be preserved for both: the reverence for the holy things will be maintained, and the sick person—so long as he does not reject them out of what has been mentioned—will not be left without the security of this provision. For in this way, there will be stability for the canon, which...

does not forbid participation to those who are still breathing a little, but to dead bodies. For dead bodies (he says) can neither receive nor eat. And they are dead, from whom the soul has already flown.

Concerning him who cohabits with an extraneous woman until his death.

^B The second inquiry is of this kind: whether it is necessary to impart the divine sanctifications to one who has spent his life in shameful cohabitation with an extraneous woman—a term that even includes his last breath—or not, since he is caught by the harvester, death, in his own sin. Such then is the question. But what is our discourse on this? If one who has been brought to the very last breath, coming to a consciousness of the unerring reckoning and the future judgment, has triumphed over sin and promised, if he should regain life, no longer to return to sin; and with contrition of heart has more fervently implored to be deemed worthy of the communion of the Lord’s body and blood: let him be deemed worthy, through faith in the philanthropy of God. For I believe that the thirteenth canon ^C of the Fathers who gathered at Nicaea signifies this at its conclusion, when it says: “In general, also, concerning everyone who is departing [from this life] and asking to partake of the Eucharist, let the bishop, after examination, impart the oblation.” But if he has shown nothing of the sort, not even at such a time (which God forbid), let the priest who has been called to this task keep his distance, mindful of the Lord Christ saying in the Gospels: “Do not cast what is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine” (Matt. VII, 6); and furthermore, of the great Apostle forbidding one to share in the sins of others. But he who is condemned by such a sentence should blame himself. For it has been said by God through one of the prophets: “In that which I find you, in that I will also judge you.” And he has been found in his own sin. And let no one bring against me the canon of the great Gregory, famous for his miracles, ^D who kindly permits those condemned to excommunication for the whole time of their own lives to partake of communion at the time of their departure; for he does not speak of those who do not repent of their sin, but of those who have already desisted from sin but were condemned to appease God through this long penance.

Concerning whether one who cohabits with an extraneous woman, after the death of his own wife, ought to be received into the rank of those married twice or three times.

You have asked, furthermore, how one should name him who, after the death of the one joined to him in the first marriage, cohabits with an extraneous woman and is defiled with her. And the same [applies] also after the death of the second...

to the one who has inclined toward a cohabitant. And [as to whether] he is a bigamist or a trigamist, or simply a fornicator—I am amazed at your understanding, that you were led to ask about things that have such a clear difference as if they were indifferent; for there is a great difference between bigamists and fornicators, and again between these and those. This is evident to all, and especially to those who are not listening perfunctorily to the great Apostle, who is found to have allowed bigamy for reasons of economy, but fornication by no means. In agreement with this, the great Basil says thus in his sacred canons: "She who has power over herself in widowhood, to marry, is without blame, as the Apostle says: 'But if the husband be dead, she is free to marry whom she will, only in the Lord.'" ^B He added this, forbidding fornicating affections and congresses, such as those with extraneous women. And bigamy is indeed consecrated by prayer; but fornication by no means, for otherwise it would not be fornication. And while fornication (as the great Basil says) is neither marriage nor the beginning of marriage, bigamy is marriage, as is manifest from the name itself. And bigamists, having abstained from communion for two years, after the completion of these are deemed worthy of it; but fornicators, having ceased from fornication, are condemned to non-communion for seven full years, after which they are admitted to communion. But if they do not cease to fornicate, they bring the sentence of excommunication upon themselves. And these things are concerning the difference of marriages and fornicators, with whom are also placed those who live with extraneous women.

Concerning whether fornicators are punished with greater penalties than trigamists.

^C Furthermore, trigamy also differs from fornication, and trigamists from fornicators. And it is manifest from these things: for the former, with the cleansing of sins and even with canonical rigor, at least merit prayer; but the latter, fornicators, that is to say, do so in no way. And the former, having undergone a five-year excommunication—not from a canon, as the great Basil says, but from the tradition of predecessors—and then having exhibited the fruit of repentance, are restored to the place of communion. But fornicators, if they have ceased from fornication, merit it in the eighth year; if they have not ceased, by no means. Reason out, therefore, these differences, and you will not doubt whether he is a fornicator or a trigamist who, after second marriage, leads a base life with some woman without prayer. ^D Again, how the laws of trigamists are governed, you will learn most clearly having come across the Tome of Union. For we have no leisure to dwell on its distinctions.

Concerning him who perceives his own son fornicating.

As for that which pertains to whether it is fitting that priests [should...]*

*Note: The text ends mid-sentence at "should," corresponding to the partial Greek fragment at the bottom of the column.*

pertains to whether it is fitting that priests ^A should receive the offerings of those fathers whose sons—subject to their authority—are known by them to be fornicating, or not (for this is your fourth question). I say that if the offerings of those who fornicate and do not desist from fornication must not be admitted, then certainly those of the fathers by whose encouragement the sons fornicate must also be rejected. For to know and not to forbid, but to be silent, is straightforwardly to encourage. And if that is not the case, how could this be? But surely, the offerings of fornicators ought not to be received. Therefore, neither should those of such as participate with them. That the father is a participant is manifest. For that is what the saying points to: "If you saw a thief, you ran with him, and you placed your portion with the adulterer." And concerning this, in the 21st canon of the great Basil, it declares in these very words: "Whoever is aware of any of the delinquents, and has not confessed, but has been convicted, shall be under penance for as much time as the one who is the author of the evil is corrected." Although, here, in the case of a son who fornicates with the knowledge of his father, something more is observed than in the cases of which he has spoken. For the sons are so much subject to the fathers that they are not even able to be joined to a lawful wife without their consent. For marriages ^B contracted without those who are in authority (as that same great one says again in his 42nd canon) are fornications. Therefore, neither while the father—or the master—is alive are those who join together without guilt. For the agreements of those who are under authority have no firmness. If then these things are so, who shall exempt the father from the punishment of the fornicators? Therefore, he too, like the son, shall be excommunicated; because, whereas he could have forbidden it, or otherwise given him away in lawful marriage, he did none of these things. And how will he not provoke God all the more, he who does not cut off the cause of the sin, yet thinks that God is appeased by offerings and prayers? For it is much the same as doing a favor to those who have committed iniquity and possess things gained unjustly, while asking the judge, by means of gifts, to remit the penalty against the wrongdoers. ^C For such people, by praying for such things, will certainly render the judge all the more severe—unless he falsely assumes his name—and they will [thus] provoke God, who is not moved toward those who repent in any way other than through repentance. Let them hear, therefore, that the wage of a harlot is not divided by one who is pure. For, the prayers of the righteous placed on behalf of those who sin are indeed powerful, but only when they are operative—that is, when those for whom they are offered repent and turn back from sin. And I see none of this happening here, where the one who fornicates continues to fornicate, and the father, being silent and not restraining him, encourages it.

Concerning Godparents

The godparents (for the fifth question is yours regarding them)—if they precisely knew the things defined by the great Dionysius, and to what extent concern and vigilance is required of them regarding the one who is regenerated through the spiritual laver and received by them: they would certainly proceed more slowly

^A if they knew; yet, since they do not know, we see even daily women, without distinction, taking upon themselves the burden of sponsors. What prevents, according to the custom that has prevailed here, that when a man is traveling abroad—he who was the sponsor for the first-born child of these parents—his wife might be invited to be the sponsor for the one born to them after him?

The sixth question, which concerns the infant, is, to speak briefly, of this sort: An infant, you ask, seized by disease and already near to death, was brought to a certain priest to be reborn through the holy divine generation. He, when he saw that the infant was drawing a faint breath, and fearing that it might be snatched away before it had attained the regeneration of baptism, if the customary prayers and adjurations were chanted over it, ^B omitted the prayers and adjurations that are usually chanted before the completion, and initiated him through the triple immersion and the invocation of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which also consists of the same number. What is to be done after this? The infant recovers, the disease having departed. The priest comes again, intending to complete the adjurations and prayers which he had bypassed. You have asked to learn what remains, whether it is lawful to do this or not. I believe that those things which precede baptism ought not to be chanted after baptism for one who has already been initiated into baptism through the triple immersion and the invocation of the three Persons, in which baptism consists. For nowhere by any of the sacred canons do we find such a thing defined. And the 47th canon ^C of the divinely inspired Fathers who gathered at Laodicea, speaking of those who are baptized in necessity during illness, mentions none of these things—neither that prayers should be said, nor that adjurations should be performed after baptism; but only that the faith ought to be learned even after baptism by him who was prevented by illness from learning it beforehand. For it says that those who have been baptized in illness, that is, when they have recovered, must learn the faith and acknowledge that they have been deemed worthy of a divine gift.

You have proposed a seventh and final question of this kind. A certain girl, in her fifth year, at an impubescent age, is betrothed to a certain man, who, on account of her impubescent age, rightly repudiates her. ^D She, however, again in the seventh year of her age, is betrothed to another man, who, having again the same reason as the former, breaks off with her. What then? Being in her thirteenth year, she wishes to be lawfully joined to another man and to be initiated with a sacred blessing. Having explained these things by way of narrative, you requested to learn if it is forbidden, or not forbidden. And we say that she is not forbidden, both because she was betrothed prematurely and such betrothals are in no way counted among the betrothals recognized by the new legislation, and furthermore, because the aforementioned betrothed (if indeed they ought to be called betrothed, since they have attained a divine gift).

the aforesaid suitors (if indeed those who have falsified the title ^A by reason of their lawless act ought to be called suitors) have justly already separated from her. And yet, even if any of those men were to lay claim to the betrothal, a sufficient remedy for the young girl to ward him off is the fact that she is not deemed to have given her consent, on account of her tender age.

NICEPHORUS THE CHARTOPHYLAX

NICETAS, METROPOLITAN OF THESSALONICA

^A I would further learn from thy holiness what I ought to do concerning those who possess but one servant. For there is one who has only a single servant, and because he cannot afford to purchase an ancilla, the servant commits fornication with a stranger in vagrant lust. There is another who possesses an ancilla, who, because the master cannot afford to purchase a servant, commits fornication in like manner. I beg thee to teach me thy instruction, and what the remedy for such cases is; and whether it is lawful for masters, who do not mend their ways after the judgment of the Church, to offer a gift to God; and whether it is permissible for a priest to accept the offerings of such men, especially since the fornicating women will have leavened the offerings.

The Response of the Bishop of Thessalonica, the Lord Nicetas of Mitylene.

^B Who thou art, my friend, who askest these things from a long distance, I know not; for I have neither seen thee, nor have I conversed with thee. But the errors which thy admonition [b] covers must necessarily be corrected, and I accept thy questioning concerning them. The sins of those who serve masters, whether they be slaves or free, and more especially slaves, or those altogether placed under authority, are imputed to the masters [c], if they take no care whatsoever for their correction. And if indeed the sins are hidden, he who committed them shall render an account to God; but if they are manifest, the master of the household himself: who is also bound to make these things known to the Church of the place, so that the bishop, and the priests and monks who are there, may contend for their correction. For then the master of the household, if indeed he should neglect it when reminded, and not do everything in his power toward their correction, is to be rebuked according to the quality of his station, and to be expelled [i]. When, therefore, the slaves and ancillæ of any person commit fornication, and their master, having received knowledge [d] of it, does not correct such a sin in any way, nor allow them to receive the blessing, he is worthy of excommunication, according to the sacred and divine canons, just as thou hast exquisitely considered. That, however, is a vain fear of the masters, lest if it be granted to servants that they be blessed with sacred prayers with their legitimate wives, or an ancilla with men, they might lose their own servants: as if the recitation of sacred prayers could seize them into freedom. For this fear the illustrious emperor, the lord Alexius, removed by a novella, which the Churches also accepted. And for the rest, so that they may not commit fornication [k], it is admitted that servile persons may be initiated through sacred prayer, and remain again under servitude. And the masters have no cause why they should not legitimately join their own servants to servant-women, and ancillæ to servants, with sacred prayer. But if they do not do this, they are liable to canonical penalties, namely, expulsions [l] and excommunications. Moreover, their offerings are not to be accepted until they are corrected.

^A And those who are appointed to oversee such matters and to correct them, if they do not do so, they themselves also become liable to the sacred canons. But if anyone has the means for one male or female slave, but lacks the means to acquire another in order to join them together, and for this reason allows the one he has under his own authority [to remain in such a state], let him know that this does not exempt them from ecclesiastical and canonical censure. Rather, he himself is entirely bound to teach his own servant to live in continence, or to prevent the fornication by every means, by joining the fornicating person in marriage in some way; and thus let him be blameless ^B.

Subscriptio: Nicetas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica.

Divers Interrogations and Responses, made by various prelates to the lord Nicetas the chartophylax, who became Archbishop of the metropolis of Thessalonica.

Interrogation I. A diaconal official, having been accused of having betrayed an immovable asset of the Church, was censured by the metropolitan. The metropolitan died; another came, and allowed him to remain under censure. I ask if it is possible for him to be released from the penalty by us.

Interrogation II. A cleric, taking a wife and having betrothed her, and having received the prayers of betrothal, had relations with her. ^C Later he was ordained a priest, hoping that the prayers of betrothal were sufficient for a marriage, and the bishop also being unaware that a perfect marriage had not been contracted. After this he also received the prayers of marriage. I ask if he ought to perform sacred rites, or desist from the performance of sacred rites, or be coerced with temporary penalties.

Interrogation III. Whether a deputy who has contracted a second marriage ought, at the time of the introit, to enter simultaneously with the prelate.

Response I. He who has been accused, whether simply or according to laws regarding the betrayal of Church property, but has not been convicted, even if he was left under censure—the one who had imposed such penalties for the accusation having died, and he having been under the two prelates who followed him, ^D and still being under censure until now—nevertheless, if no one convicts him even now, nor does he himself confess to the betrayal, he can be released by his present prelate and be in his own ministry and perform the duties of his office.

Response II. But a cleric who has had relations with his own betrothed before the prayer of marriage, although he is not considered to have contracted a clandestine marriage, because he thought that the union of betrothal was sufficient for the union of the betrothed—yet because he was entirely ignorant of those things which

^A he should not have been ignorant of, for this reason he suffers prejudice, even though after his ordination he received the blessing of the nuptials. For he was ignorant of two things: that the prayer of betrothal alone does not suffice for the union, and that after ordination no one receives the nuptial blessing with a woman. I will also say a third: that no one who has had intercourse with a betrothed woman before marriage is considered worthy of ordination.

Resp. 3. However, the *deputatus* who has contracted a second marriage, having observed, I suppose, the prior penalty for a bigamist—which is canonically imposed upon him (namely, being excommunicated for one year or two, as you yourself may have judged)—shall afterwards be kindly restored to the ministry of the *deputatus*.

Interr. Since a monastery was gifted to someone by one of the metropolitans before me, there was also a granting to the monastery of a piece of property belonging to the metropolis under me. Can this then be done, and are the properties of metropolises to be granted to monasteries, being designated such by name only, and not in reality?

Resp. The granting of property belonging to the metropolis to a monastery—even if the monastery submissively belongs to the metropolis, or is as it were the house ^B of the metropolitan, or even if it could in no way be gifted, or if the income comes to the metropolis (as usually happens)—is by right reasoning neither recognized nor to be received; and much more so if none of these things is the case. For the alienation appears manifest, or the property is seen to be moved from the metropolis to the monastery in vain and ill-advisedly. That which is in vain is contrary neither to reason nor to law. For each monastery has its own peculiar administration, looking to its own constitution; and so too does the metropolis have its own, unless by synodical dispensation something of this sort has been given for the benefit of the Church. But indeed, alienation without synodical examination is not permitted.

Interr. If any priest, or even a layman, is caught having acted against his own bishop, or against a magistrate, or simply against a private person and an ordinary man, by drawing crosses on paper with his own hand, or by plotting against them, or by planning popular assemblies, to what penalty is he ^C subject?

Resp. Those who perpetrate such a thing, as you yourself know, most dear to God, are punished even by the laws of those outside, as being guilty of the crime of conspiracy and faction; but they are subject to correction by the Church much more so, according to the eighteenth canon of the holy synod of Chalcedon. And if they are clerics, they fall from their own rank, according to the thirty-fourth canon of the Council in Trullo; but if they are laymen, they are excommunicated. For in those matters for which clerics are deposed, laymen are excommunicated. ^D

^A Question. If some consecrated person, or even a layman, is discovered to be an incantator, or a sorcerer, or even a roaming trickster of the crossroads, to what penalty shall he be subjected?

Answer. Such things belong to the pagan habit, not to the Christian commonwealth, nor yet to the Orthodox Church. Therefore, whoever is caught in these pursuits and evil arts, if he is a cleric, is deposed and cast out of the Church, according to the thirty-sixth canon of the Council of Laodicea; and in the same way, the layman is also completely cast out of the Church. Those who repent are provided for through a space of six or five years: for three years they are prostrate, and for the remaining years they are allowed only to pray with the others, without the offering, according to the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Ancyra. And having repented in this way with sincerity, or as the hierarch may discern regarding their repentance (for he has the authority also to shorten the time), they are deemed worthy of Divine Communion.

^B Question. If some consecrated person seeks to hold power in league with the governor of the province, and thereupon denounces someone to them, and rouses the governor against them, what shall such a person suffer according to the canons?

Answer. The consecrated person ought to attend to the temple and be occupied with ecclesiastical ministries, and not hold power in league with worldly authorities and magistrates. Yet he is not harmed by a lawful denunciation, if he should ever do this, unless the denunciation is false and slanderous against the Church. For then, once proven, he is judged either as impious or as a slanderer. The canonical penalties for such people are well-known.

^C Question. If some consecrated person is clothed in a garment unbecoming to his station, and is caught dressed in worldly attire, and carrying a weapon or roaming about by night, how shall he be canonically restrained?

Answer. To be clothed in a manner unsuitable to one's own habit, and to carry a weapon, and to roam by night—as much as concerns the outward appearance—is not commendable. For it is not permitted to think anything good of one who acts in this way. For he who does this after a warning shall be entirely deposed: unless it be out of some necessity, or misfortune, or poverty, or some other justifiable cause, or even because of the ferocity of the place, and its instability, and barbarity—for his own benefit or that of another, and not for the harm of the soul. For then he shall be granted pardon, as one who does not deny his profession, nor treat his habit with contempt, nor plot against any others.

^D Question. If some consecrated person stirs up the indiscriminate rabble against his own bishop, or against anyone else whatsoever, and makes crowds, and plots against him, what ought he to suffer by canon?

Resp. The response which was made to the first question will suffice for this one also, and there is no need for many words.

Interr. If one who is ordained is taught how he ought to perform everything according to the canons, but [is taught] to turn away from whatever is contrary to ecclesiastical order and tradition; yet he either not at all or only for a time obeys, and again at some point returns to his own depraved habits, and acts contrary to the canons and ecclesiastical tradition, by strange customs and such things as seem fit to him; to what penalty will he be subject according to the canons? ^B Resp. Whatever is done contrary to the divine canons and ecclesiastical tradition must either be corrected or utterly condemned; and the penalty for the transgressor is defined by the appropriate canon.

Interr. If any priest does not bestow the gift of the sacraments upon those who partake without charge, by what censure shall he be amended?

Resp. If such a person is not corrected after one or two admonitions, he shall be excommunicated in a benign manner. But if, after being released from excommunication, he persists in selling the unsellable heavenly gift, he shall be deposed. For the gift of God is a gift, not a commodity. But if anyone out of his own free will offers him ^C something for the consolation, perhaps, of his poverty, or for the sake of honor, or by way of generosity, it is not forbidden for him to accept it and to make prayers for the one who offered it.

Interr. If any priest is found blessing salt, or offering prayers for sheep and oxen, and receiving their breast-meat and hides, or even sacrificing doves at the tombs and memorials of the dead, to what penalty is he subject? And is it permissible for him to carouse at memorials, and on feast days, and at weddings, with the laity who are having banquets? Concerning these things, I shall acquiesce in the response given in the meantime. ^D

Resp. To offer animals and sheep in churches so that they may be slaughtered by the priests, who receive as if it were their portion, after the ancient custom, the breast-meat and the hides, or likewise to sacrifice doves at the tombs of the dead, is entirely Judaic and Hellenic, and is deserving of censure and correction. But to deem it fitting to bless salt, and sheep and oxen, for the benefit of those who partake and for the health of them and of the animals, has nothing absurd in it, but is rather a matter of faith. And that animals should be offered to priests by others, whether alive or slaughtered, in honor of someone and for [the sake of] expiation, is not without reason, but is also full of piety; provided it is not at the altar, nor within the church. Therefore, the priest [must] entirely [eschew] the breast-meat and hides brought...

^A but shall receive them without suspicion. For he who offers the whole is not prohibited from offering a part to the priest, and indeed the richest part. And do not say to me that this is of the Mosaic law. For the law has not been entirely abolished, but has been transformed for the better and into something more sublime. For the sacrifices of animals have ceased, having been permitted for that time; but the offerings made to the priests are not prohibited. And what is done in a Christian manner, according to some local custom, or even out of rustic generosity, shall not be counted as being done in a Jewish manner. But if, at the memorials of the dead, doves are offered to the priests in place of larger animals by those who are poorer, for his sustenance, not by way of sacrifice, nor so that they may be slaughtered at the graves; this nobody should prohibit. ^B For the priest must be nourished by his priesthood, and be honored by the laity, and in other ways entirely, as each may be able, and with offerings made according to [one's] means. If he cannot offer a whole ox, let him offer a part, or the breast, or something else, or perhaps only the hide. If not this, a dove or some other bird: not indeed in a Jewish or Greek [a] manner, but piously and religiously. Moreover, priests are not prohibited from dining together and eating and feasting with the laity at festivals and at weddings, modestly and with becoming gravity, giving thanks to God. Unless the banquets are by subscription, or the marriages are those of persons being married a second time, or if some plays ^C are introduced into them; for banquets by subscription are prohibited by the 55th canon of [the council at] Laodicea. And at a second marriage, the priest is not permitted to feast; but he may feast at first marriages and be glad, [but only] until the stage-players and plays are about to be introduced (according to the 54th canon of the Laodicean synod). He who acts contrary to these things is excommunicated and subjected to canonical censure.

You have asked, most pious one, concerning a certain Tryphon, so called, [asking whether] he had betrothed to himself a girl who was of imperfect age; and before a priestly blessing or union had occurred, the girl died; and Tryphon took another wife, and she bore a daughter. [You asked whether] this daughter of Tryphon may be joined to the cousin of that girl ^D who had previously been betrothed to Tryphon and had died at an imperfect age. And you sought to learn if such a contract is forbidden. And we write back to you: if that betrothed [girl] was not fit for a man, and not yet capable of marriage, the betrothal was unjust and shall be considered as null; and there is no longer any impediment to such a contract, and the daughter of Tryphon may lawfully marry that woman's cousin.

[index: entries preserved]

Of the former great Drungarios of the Vigla and First Secretary, A Discourse to those who consider the natural emission of semen to be an impurity.

^ANoli justus esse multum, neque regula ipsa rectior. These are maxims of a higher and our own wisdom. But if one must annex to these something from those outside (for not everything belonging to them is to be rejected): “Nequid nimis.” Why I make this prelude to myself, will be said immediately. Many of those who seem to follow a more exact monastic discipline, and incline as it were to the more spiritual, think of the natural emission of semen as a kind of impurity: not only when it occurs with some imagination, but even when it occurs without imagination. And they deem the one who has suffered this to be so polluted, that they not only keep him from the participation of the sanctifications, ^B but some already even forbid him to touch a divine image. Thus, to them, the natural excretion of semen is judged as impurity. But one must dispute with such people, and demonstrate that this condition is neither always blameless, nor is the one who has suffered it to be punished indiscriminately. For the former is an incitement to libido; but the latter is a preparation of the road to despair. For if he who, not of his own will, is subject to the necessity of nature and has sustained an excretion of residue without a perturbed affection, is judged impure and is driven away from sanctification according to the opinion of those who seem to be severe teachers, how would he who has fallen into a similar vice through the impetus of libido, or has ^C voluntarily collapsed into the act of emission, not despair of his own salvation? If, therefore, good men, these things have been ordained and decreed by you out of an ignorance of the canons, it does not befit you to act as guides, to receive accounts, and to impose penalties upon sinners; just as it does not befit him who is unskilled in the art of medicine to act as a physician. But if, while knowing where the canons punish the genital discharge and where they do not punish it, you nevertheless let them be neglected like Platonic laws, and impose penalties yourselves upon those who are subject to you, and decree things contrary to the legislators, and act in opposition to the divine and sacred Fathers: not only shall the deprivation of the care of souls be inflicted upon you, but you shall also be decreed liable to canonical penalties, in accordance with the sacred constitutions regarding these matters. ^D For it is not permitted to add anything to them, according to divine Scripture, and it is not permitted to take anything away from them. And the great Paul condemns with anathema him who brings a gospel other than that which we have received, even if he were an angel. But you, although you may seem to have arrived at the summit of virtue, are far distant from the angelic dignity. If the divine Apostle subjected to anathema even angels who introduce something else beyond what has been delivered, I myself will say nothing ill-omened; but you, I know, understand, even if I myself spare you. That you are acting in opposition to the canons, [by] indiscriminately [judging] those who have experienced dreams...

away from the sanctifications (for I pass over mentioning the touching of divine images), you shall, once the sacred canons themselves are added—and you who know them, to use the proverb, will place an ox upon your tongue and remain silent; but you who do not know them, you will learn—be silenced. ^A For the canons are those of the chosen Fathers, and those which the synods have confirmed, and which pious emperors have decreed to hold the place of law. For the Sixth ecumenical synod, having been convened in the Trullo of the palace, made an enumeration of the canons that ought to prevail, and of the divine and sacred Fathers who set them forth; and among others it also enumerates those God-inspired men who, having been asked concerning the present question, gave an answer: namely, the great and divinely wise Athanasius, and Dionysius, and Timothy, who presided over the Church of Alexandria. And the Second ecumenical synod gathered at Nicaea, ^B saying that it gladly embraces the divine canons—those composed by the divine trumpets of the Holy Spirit, the wise apostles, I mean, and those from the holy and ecumenical synods, and besides these also [those of] the local ones—adding also [those of] our holy Fathers (for all having been illuminated by one and the same Spirit, they decreed, it says, what is expedient), it subjoins: And those whom they transmit to anathema, we too do anathematize; those whom to deposition, we too do depose; and those whom to segregation, we too do likewise segregate; and those whom they hand over to penance, we too do similarly subject.

Since, therefore, these God-inspired men have been approved by ^C the holy synods along with the rest, the renowned Dionysius in his letter to Basilides establishes these things: Those who have been in an involuntary nocturnal flux, let them follow their own conscience, and let them examine themselves whether they are in doubt or not. As the one who [eats] of food, if he doubts, it says, he is condemned. And in these let every one who approaches God be possessed of a good conscience and free from ambiguity, according to his own judgment. But the God-bearing Timothy, to him who had asked whether one who has dreamed ought to communicate or not, has given such an answer: If he is subject to the desire of a woman, ^D he ought not; but if Satan tempts him, that by this pretext he might be alienated from the divine mysteries, he ought to communicate, since the calumniator will not cease to lay snares for him at that time when he ought to communicate.

But the great and holy Athanasius, writing to the monk Amun concerning this matter, composed a long letter; of which we, having commemorated those things which pertain to the matter, shall omit the rest. He speaks thus: All things indeed are pure to the pure, but for the impure, even their conscience is defiled in every respect. I marvel at the imposture of the devil, that although he is corruption and ruin, he nevertheless suggests thoughts, so that he may see...

^A that which, in appearance, is purity. But what is happening is more a snare than a test. For, in order to distract the ascetics from their customary and saving practice, and that he may appear to prevail, he stirs up such trifles as these. For tell me, my friend, what has a natural discharge of its own that is sinful or unclean? As if someone were to want to make a crime of mucus sent forth through the nostrils, or spittle from the mouth, and, furthermore, the excrements of the belly. But if we believe that man is the work of God’s hands, according to the divine Scriptures, how could any defiled work have been produced by a clean power? And if we are the offspring of God, according to the divine Acts of the Apostles, we have nothing unclean within ourselves. For we are defiled only then, when we commit the most impious sin. But when a natural discharge occurs involuntarily, then by the necessities of nature we endure this along with other things. And after some other things: Someone ^B might say with probability: No natural discharge subjects us to punishment. And perhaps the sons of physicians will state the cause for these, that certain necessary outlets have been given to the living creature, through which the superfluities of the members that develop within each of us are sent away; for instance, the excrements of the head, hair, and the watery substances sent from the head, and the evacuations of the belly. Therefore, so too is that superfluity of the seminal ducts. What sin, then, is there against God, when the Lord himself fashioned the creature and made these members to have such outlets?

But these are the decrees of the aforementioned Fathers. But what of you, ^C who are strict keepers, as you think, of consummate purity, who punish even a discharge lacking a lustful imagination, and who deem the natural excretion of sperm an impurity, and who repel those who suffer this—without any preceding motion of the mind—from the sanctifications? And in the meantime, do you not blush to stand in opposition to the great Athanasius (for I pass over others for the present), and to act contrary to what he wrote? Whose discourses even the great Fathers—those who have attained to the pinnacle of both secular, and divine, and our [tradition’s] wisdom, the luminaries and teachers of the world, by whom our faith has been established—have accepted as definitions and oracles. O [what] folly ^D of yours, or madness, and, to speak more appropriately, ignorance! Do you not understand that, in this opinion at least, you are Judaizing and renewing the institutions of the Old Testament, which our Savior, having become man, has rendered void? For it is the law of that [Testament] that those with a discharge be considered unclean. But you, I suspect, will judge the man who has slept with his own wife, once he has risen from the bed, to be unclean; and you will not admit him to prayer, but will even obstruct the doors of the temple to him. Nor do you reflect...

^A that marriage is called honorable, and the bed undefiled; but because there is an emission of seed there, and even more so with pleasure, you condemn the innocent. You will not hesitate to consider anyone who has touched a corpse as defiled, and you will drive from the city anyone on whose body leprosy has blossomed. But come, you who do not consider the man who emits genital seed during sleep to be clean—what is your opinion and ruling concerning those who experience this emission while awake? For many suffer from this complaint, either with the seed following urine, or flowing alone and spontaneously. If you exclude these from the clean, you are clearly imitating the Jews. For those whom Moses named "seed-flowered" he ordained should be considered unclean. But if you admit these, and do not think them defiled by the excretion, by what reasoning do you debar from the communion of sanctification those who have suffered a seminal emission in sleep without a lustful apparition, yet allow the waking, who are affected by the same affliction, to be free from punishment? ^B For both excretions are natural, and both happen against the will.

But if someone were to say these things about those who have fallen into a seminal emission naturally through an apparitionless sleep, what would you say about those who have dreamt and imagined the touch of a woman, or something else that arouses the inflammation of the flesh, and have even reached the emission of seed? Surely these will be judged by you to be defiled? If, O adversary, the one who suffered this had a preexisting passion, or nurtured a desire for a woman in his thoughts, and revolved this in his mind, and thus the fantasy followed in his sleep, I myself would not judge such a one to be innocent. For he himself is the primary author of the evil for himself, and he is defiled not in his body, on account of the seminal excretion (for such an excrement is not an uncleanness), but in his reason, on account of his consent to the carnal desire. But if nothing of the sort existed beforehand in the one who emitted seed, nor did he have his reason occupied with such a passion, ^C but the fantasy came of its own accord—or even, according to the divine Fathers, was brought on by satanic interference, the enemy lying in wait for the athletes—I will not imitate your irreligious religion in these matters. For the flesh is not defiled by the excretion of seed. For every creature of God is good, and we are a sweet savor to Christ among those who are being saved, according to the great Apostle. And if the thought of the dreamer was also devoid of passion, then he too is undefiled. Why, then, would you debar a man from access to holy things, if neither his reason is stained by lustful desire, nor is his flesh defiled by the excreted semen? It seems to me that if the one who suffered the flux ^D was in his imagination with the wife of a man joined to a husband, then he would also be adjudged of adultery.

^A And to censure the man as an adulterer, and to judge the one who in his sleep seemed to have killed someone as guilty of homicide, and to subject him to the punishments for homicide, or even to hand him over to the magistrate for punishment. And again, by a contrary opinion, to count among the martyrs him who in his dreams struggled for piety; and to crown as continent him who in his dreams avoided an unchaste encounter. But if these do not deserve honor, then neither do those deserve dishonor. For either one side would be wronged if both the one appearing as best and the one as worst were not considered as a dream and despised as a phantom; or similarly if one were honored as good and the other punished as bad, even though in both cases it was a dream.

^B It is not inappropriate, however, to bring forward a piece of history to give some weight to the discourse. The history is this: A certain man was lovesick for a lustful woman. The woman’s name was Thonis, who did not easily admit her lover. He, however, promised that he would give her a large payment, but she despised the offer. Then he, inflamed by love, increased the gift; she, on the other hand, disparaging the payment, still rejected him. While time was being worn away in these things, the lover seemed to himself in a dream to be with the beloved, and from that the flame of his love was extinguished. When she learned of this, she demanded the promised payment. And when the other would not give it, she approached the magistrate; he was named Bocchoris, who presided over that nation. The man who previously had been lovesick argued that he did not owe the payment, because the beloved had refused an encounter at that time. "But," said she, "having seemed to me in a dream to be with me, you have ceased from your love; and that which would have happened from an actual encounter has come about; therefore you are a debtor of the payment." The judge of the suit demanded that the quantity of gold promised to the woman in the name of the payment be brought into the middle. And when it was brought, he ordered the purse in which it was contained to be moved here and there in the sight of a solar beam, and he wisely decreed that the woman should grasp the shadow; since the lover had perceived nothing more than a shadow through the imagination of his dreams. For a shadow is without doubt a phantom of the truth. ^C And so, if a man is seen to have done something good in this way, he will not be praised; nor, if something evil, will he be condemned. Do you not know that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh? as the great Apostle says, writing to the Galatians. By "spirit," [he means] the spiritual calculation, which imagines spiritual things and is occupied with divine matters; but by "flesh," [he means] the carnal and material [calculation], and the one conversant in these things, which indeed are set in opposition to each other. For carnal calculations, the flesh having within it an innate inflammation, bring in absurd desires; but the spiritual [calculation] ^D...

given to us by God as an empress, cuts off the impulses of the flesh which are being stirred up in it through contrary thoughts, and, as if tightening the jaws of the flesh with a bridle and bit, it suppresses its foolish frenzies. If, therefore, while the flesh is inflamed yet restrained by reason, and not permitted to rage against the soul—the reins not being slackened, but the impulses of the flesh being checked and restrained with all the strength of the hands, as an unmanageable and stubborn horse—if, while the flesh is thus constrained and titillated, or even through the wicked one laying a snare, he who undergoes the battle of the flesh should imagine something in his sleep, such as a lustful thought might suggest, which the spiritual and saving calculation has rejected, yet with that imagination a seminal discharge occurs: what condemnation will he bring upon himself from a man holding judgment? Unless one were to blame the very incursion of thoughts itself. But the divine Fathers do not even put the struggle under accusation. For since there are four things which are said to happen in sin—I mean, incursion, struggle, ^B assent, and action—the first two are placed by the God-bearing Fathers beyond blame; but assent is under accusation, as it brings in the sin of the mind; and action is, moreover, subject to punishment. But he who has escaped both of these by the victory of the salutary calculation, why should he be subject to condemnation? For if, when an impression is made by a thought and it impels one toward obscene lusts, the one who experienced this has gladly received what was present to his mind, and has kept his intellect lingering upon it, and as it were delighting in it and meditating upon the things pertaining to it; and while the man is thus affected, a phantasy invades him by night: he is not free from guilt, even if he happens to have escaped the excretion of seed. For the thought is not without passion, but was wounded by the dart of the incursion, and, having become flaccid through negligence, it fell into a sin of the mind. But if a thought should make an incursion, but be immediately repelled with shame, or if—while both thoughts are falling into a struggle and being weighed as if in a balance—the better one becomes the heavier: ^C then, through the necessity of the flesh and the insult of our enemy, a nocturnal phantasy stirs the flesh and causes a emission of seed: he who has experienced this is not defiled. For how could he be, he who kept the calculation immune from assent? The prophet and god-father David will agree with me on this and will concur, saying: "The thought of man will confess to you, and the remainder of the thought will keep festival for you." For if (he says) an evil thought comes upon a man, and settles in his mind, and he dwells upon it, taking pleasure in the lingering over it, and commits the sin in his mind, such a one has need of repentance and confession, ^D so that through these he may purge the thought from...

that has attached itself ^A to him. But if the suggestion attacking him is abandoned—rejected, that is to say—and remains ineffective, not defiling the mind, its abandonment will be reckoned as a feast before God, and the casting off of the evil thought by the mind; for nothing delights the Lord so much as purity, and nothing is dearer to the pure than purity. For it is more pleasing to God than a young calf, and than every sacrifice, and the offering of fragrant incense, and precious ointments. The great and most philosophic Father Maximus, allegorizing that text, *The Lord will not recompense unto the third and fourth generation*, ^B and interpreting it more anagogically, says that the incursion and the struggle are without punishment, but that consent and the action merit retribution. For with this divine and most holy Father, the quaternion of these represents the quaternion of the generations. But if you think one who has overcome a wicked conception of the mind by reason, but has imagined it in a lustful dream and has discharged genital seed, is unworthy to participate in the bloodless sacrifice, it is for you an occasion also for one who is fasting, as if about to partake of the sanctifications, if while the flesh is demanding nourishment, a dream occurs to him, bringing with it the appearance of food and drink, to exclude him also from participation as though he were not fasting. For it frequently happens ^C that one who is thirsty seems in his sleep to stand by waters, and to draw from them, and to fill his belly. Let Isaiah confirm the word for you, saying: *As when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking, and having awakened is still thirsty, and his soul has hoped in vain; so shall be the wealth of all the nations.* But I once chanced upon one of the holy Fathers, and I found him equating with martyrs those who wrestle with their thoughts and do not succumb to their force. For he likened the passionate thoughts to tyrants; and just as those tyrants compelled those captured by them to offer libations to idols, so too do the thoughts compel them to submit to illicit ^D actions. And as the tyrants inflicted every kind of evil upon the martyrs who did not obey them, thus also does the invisible tyrant inflict every kind of affliction upon the spiritual athletes who do not yield to the impulse, through the titillations and inflammation of the flesh. And as those who did not submit themselves were numbered with the martyrs, even if they did not undergo death by sword or fire or tortures (as many have indeed become martyrs), in the very same way, for those who, in the incursion of thoughts stirred by lust, did not relax the intensity of their resistance, the martyrdom of conscience has been accomplished. But if (he says) one should somewhere be overcome by the violence of the inflammation and yield, and by consent of mind commit the sin, then, having become master of himself and knowing whither he is cast, he abstains from the action, and

^A does not say that such a one is deprived of the testimony of conscience. For neither shall he who, yielding to the pain of torments, promised to sacrifice, then, having been led to the altar, abstained from sacrificing, be deprived of the rewards of the martyrs.

But some say that those who institute and teach these things declare that even the great Basil, being questioned about this, forbade such persons from the participation of the sanctifications. But it seems to me that those who use the answer of this holy Father for the establishment of their own contention either willingly close their eyes to the truth, or do not understand the mind of the answer. It is necessary also to mention the very words of the questioning, and of the answer given to it by that wise and divine Father. The ^B questioning indeed runs as follows: “If accustomed and natural things happen to anyone, is it necessary to dare to admit him to the communion of the holy things?” The answer is in this manner: “The Apostle has shown that he who has been buried with Christ in baptism is better than nature and custom; now indeed saying that our old man was crucified together with Him, so that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we might no longer serve sin; at other times commanding: ‘Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry, for which the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.’ At another time fixing a boundary, in saying: ^C ‘Those who are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and desires.’ But I know that these things have also been corrected, by the grace of God, both in men and in women, by sincere faith in the Lord.”

But that one who is in uncleanness approaching the holy things, we are taught by the Old Testament, is a terrible judgment. And if it is more [terrible] here than in the sacred [Law], it is evidently more terrible. The Apostle will teach us, saying: “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself.” Therefore, it is shown from the words of the answer that this great Father has not spoken concerning a flux occurring without imagination, nor concerning one who indeed had ^D imagination but lacked the perturbation of soul, and desire did not precede it; or even if perhaps it did precede, yet it was cast out, the good thought having conquered, so that the sin was not even consummated in the mind. For the words of the Apostle that he brings forward in testimony of the discourse make mention of sin, and uncleanness, and evil desire. Then he subjoins his own opinion, saying: “Now, for one who is in uncleanness to approach the holy things, and what follows.” But let no one say that the great Basil calls the seminal discharge, when it has occurred without passion, uncleanness. For this is a calumny against the flesh. But he…

^A he set forth many fine arguments, proving that the great Basil did not call the seminal discharge uncleanness, but rather wicked desire, the leading of which brings about the sin of the mind through consent. And thus, in dreams, an image occurs, and the emission of seed follows. For in this way he will neither appear to contradict himself, by saying that the body is evil and unclean, nor will he be judged as commanding things contrary to the great Athanasius. ^B And furthermore, from the fact that he says, “But I know that these things have been corrected, by the grace of God, both by men and women,” this appears, or rather is clearly demonstrated, that he is speaking of the excretion of seed occurring with an image, which was preceded by the motion of the soul and by the intellect’s sin. For this is what has been corrected in those in whom it has been corrected—not the failure to desire, which is failing to actuate the thought (for this is natural), but the failure to yield to desire, and not to consent to the thought, and for the sin of the mind not to be completed. Nor was it that the emission of seed should not occur that was corrected (for it is the work of nature to expel this, as excrement), but that the excretion should not occur with a libidinal affect, from an image which wicked desire fashions, from which the intellect is defiled. ^C O you, thought is defiled by consent, but the discharge of spermatic excrement is not unclean. For God is the fabricator of the body; and of the things fabricated by God, nothing is unclean. Those to whom the genital flux is deemed uncleanness, will lay themselves open to the suspicion of the Manichaean sect or of partaking in the heresy of the Bogomils. ^D For since they too introduce two principles, and say the body is a creation of the evil one, they manifestly Manichaeize. Therefore, those must be checked who consider the discharge of the seed to be a defilement, and say that it is from this that the master-artisan God arranged for our flesh to be formed, lest they appear to be infected by this profane sect. For if the seed is unclean, the flesh formed from it will also necessarily be unclean, and as from a turbid and muddy source, no stream...

flows pure, but rather filthy and turbid: in the same way, if the seed is polluted, the flesh which receives its substance from it is also polluted and unclean. And conversely, if the seed is uncleanness, then the seed from which it is evacuated is also unclean. And thus our own body will be deemed a creature of the evil one. For nothing of what has been brought into being by God is evil. But that which is polluted is evil. And if it is evil, it is not a creature of God. It follows, therefore, if we grant these things, that the flesh is the work of the evil one. This, as has been said, is the heresy of the Manichaeans, in which the Bogomils also participate; by whom even something further and more impious has been introduced. In nocturnal fantasies they chatter that demons exercise lust upon human bodies, either acting upon those who undergo the fantasy, or suffering from them. Therefore, those who think that the emission of seed is a defilement, if any should think of participating in this loathsome opinion, would not be deemed to be far from the right judgment. ^B

But someone will perhaps say that, while you have vehemently attacked those who believe that the flow of seed is a defilement, and have drawn out a long discourse concerning these things, you have not added what must be done for them, or how those who fall into such actions are to be corrected. To find fault is the prerogative of anyone; but to set right the one who is erring is the best course. ^C In order, therefore, that we may not give room for anyone to say these things, we state that this is contained in what has already been said, that of nocturnal fantasies some are without blame, while others are worthy of censure; but it will be expressed again even more clearly. For those, therefore, for whom the discharge of seed is without fantasy, as nature thrusts out the superfluity, and for those to whom this happens even with a fantasy, while the mind remains undisturbed and has not been previously defiled by consent, the affection is without guilt and without censure; and these will neither be debarred from participation in the unbloody sacrifice, according to the divine Fathers, nor will they be considered to have sustained defilement. For if their mind is not defiled, or if no evil thought has even assailed it, or if it has assailed ^D but was not admitted; or if it was admitted but did not remain, but was abandoned—according to the Melodist—having been, that is to say, discarded and sent away; and the body is not defiled by the seminal emission (for neither is the flesh evil, as a creature of God, nor indeed are the things that flow from it and constitute it); on what ground would a reprimand, or the prohibition of participation in the sacraments, be reasonable? But for those in whom a thought stirred by passion was previously present, and an evil conception of the mind making its assault was both admitted and remained, and by the mind

remained and was willingly entertained by the soul: and thus the thought was delighted, so that already the sin was formed in the mind; and after this followed the nocturnal imagination, and there resulted an emission of semen. These also shall be liable to accusation and censure, not because of the seminal discharge, but because of the sin of the mind and the pollution of the thought. For even if neither the nocturnal imagination came upon them, nor a flow of genital semen; none the less they are polluted in their thought, and shall not escape censure. ^B There is, however, one who, without a preceding thought stirred by passion, and without the sin of the mind being completed, has dreamed in his sleep and discharged seminal matter; he is not without fault. But who is this? He who, from intemperance regarding food and drink, has burdened his stomach and confused his mind, and, sleeping the sleep that is the brother of death, has fallen into imagination and discharged seed. For he is even himself the author of the phantom, by reason of his gluttony. And let him who governs him inflict the censure, according as he knows it to be expedient for the man.

THE RESPONSES OF THEODORE BALSAMON

^B Canonical questions of the most holy patriarch of Alexandria, our lord Mark: and responses to them by the most holy patriarch of Antioch, our lord Theodore Balsamon.

The seer of God and prophet Moses says: "Ask thy father, and he will tell thee: thy elders, and they will declare it to thee." ^C But the most holy patriarch of Alexandria, a beloved brother and fellow-minister of our mediocrity, the lord Mark, being a Father of Fathers by the grace of God, and a presbyter of presbyters, and therefore having this prophetic and elegant saying not directed to himself in the many ecclesiastical questions with which he was struggling, took up another prophecy from the same lyre of the Spirit, saying: "Behold, what is good or what is pleasant, but for brothers to dwell together in unity?" Wherefore, just as a psaltery, an instrument needing musical care, he, having drawn up a written question, handed it to our mediocrity; and he asked that the canonical problems and questions contained in it be brought forward for common and brotherly response, and that this codex be elegantly inscribed with the response. The writing therefore composed by his holiness expresses these things ^D clearly.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Queries which the Christians who dwell in the land of the Saracens, and under their dominion, desire to have answered; asked by Mark, the least among the patriarchs of Alexandria, in the days of the reign of our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, the lord Isaac Angelos, and in the time of the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, the lord George, of whom

may God increase the years unto the length of days. In the month of February, of the 13th indiction, and of the years after the incarnation of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, [one thousand] 1203. ^A

Question 1. Should the liturgies which are read in the regions of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and which are said to have been written by the holy apostles, James brother of the Lord, and Mark, be accepted by the holy and catholic Church, or not?

Answer. The great apostle Paul, the orator and teacher of the holy Churches of God, writing to the Corinthians, says: "Now I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." We say, therefore, that we have been instructed neither by Holy Scripture nor by any canon issued synodically that the sacred ministry was handed down by the holy apostle Mark. Only the 32nd canon of the holy and ecumenical council assembled in the Trullo of the great palace says that the mystical sacrifice was composed by St. James, the brother of God. ^B However, the 85th canon of the holy and all-praised Apostles, and the 59th canon of the council of Laodicea, while enumerating the books of the Old and New Testaments and the apostolic books themselves which ought to be in use among us, make no mention at all of the sacrifice of St. James or St. Mark. Nor does the catholic Church of the most holy and ecumenical throne of Constantinople in any way acknowledge these liturgies. We therefore pronounce that these are not to be received. Even if they had been created, they have been adjudged to utter disuse, as have many other things. And this is evident from the 85th canon of the holy and all-praised Apostles, and from the 2nd canon of the holy and ecumenical council assembled in the Trullo of the great palace: for the former, that is to say the apostolic [canon], decrees that the two epistles of Clement and his regulations in eight books may indeed be read, but not made public, because of the mysteries ^C hidden within them; the latter, however, wills that they not even be read, because many spurious things alien to piety have been interpolated into them by heretics. For this reason, all the Churches of God should follow the custom of New Rome, that is to say, Constantinople, and perform the sacred rites according to the traditions of the great teachers and luminaries of piety, St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil. For the 41st chapter of the 1st title of the 2nd book of the *Basilika* says: "Concerning matters where no written law exists, the custom which Rome uses must be observed." ^D

Question 2. Various books are found in the eastern and southern regions; some are called the *Teachings of the Holy Apostles*, and others, the *Visions of St. Paul*. I ask, therefore, are we to read them?

^A Res. Since the Lord and God and Savior of us, Jesus Christ, says in the Gospels, "See that you be not led astray: for many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he,' and the time is at hand," we also declare that the Church of God knows and confesses the books indicated in the 85th Apostolic Canon, and believes them to be the voices of those who proclaimed God. Beyond these, it recognizes no other apostolic writing. We must, therefore, be on our guard to reject the fictions fabricated by heretics. For they are more bitter than wormwood, even if they present a honeyed cake through the inscription of the names of the holy Apostles.

Inter. 3. The sixty chapters of the *Basilika* have not reached our regions; therefore, as far as they are concerned, we are in the dark. We ask, therefore, whether we are to be condemned on this account?

Res. "Whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law," according to the great Apostle. Those, therefore, who pride themselves on an orthodox life, whether they are from the East, or from the region of the Alexandrians, or from elsewhere, are called Romans, and are compelled to live according to the laws; yet they are not bound by the law which says, "A Roman man must not be ignorant of the laws." For only those who inhabit Rome—the capital city, clearly, which is fortified with such ramparts and abounds in many jurists—are held by their iron shackles. And so, if these persons allege that they are ignorant of the law, they do not obtain pardon, whether they be manual laborers, or some who are itinerant, or unskilled in letters, as they can learn the substance of the laws from their fellow citizens. But those who live outside of Rome—the rustics, clearly, and the rest, and much more so the Alexandrians—who are ignorant of the civil law, are deserving of pardon. It is good, therefore, for these also to inquire and learn the legal precepts; but if it is difficult, they will be deemed worthy of pardon.

Inter. 4. Is it free from danger for the ordained, and indeed for the laity, to lend money at interest, or is it rather destructive?

Res. The Mosaic law indeed says, "You shall not lend your money at interest to your brother"; but the civil law recognizes interest at the rate of a centesima and a triens. For it defines that senators may receive interest at a triens, which is to say, four coins per pound. But ordinary merchants and others [may receive] half of a centesima, ^D which is to say, six coins per pound. And those who contract maritime loans, [may receive] twelve coins for each pound. But as for how the rates called "centesimae" are calculated, when the quantity of the pound does not reach one hundred *solidi* but seventy-two, this is not the time to say, lest the work become something aside from the work. And these things are concerning the laity. But for the ordained, usury is entirely forbidden. For it says

^A exactly in the 44th canon of the holy apostles: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, demanding usury from those to whom he has lent, must either cease or be deposed." And the 17th canon of the holy and ecumenical First Synod details these things: "Since many who are numbered in the canon, pursuing the desire for more and shameful gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture which says, 'He hath not given his money to usury,' and in lending demand percentages, the holy and great synod has deemed it just that if anyone be found after this statute taking usury by way of manipulation, or otherwise perverting the matter, or demanding one-and-a-half times the amount, or devising any other thing for the sake of shameful gain, he shall be deposed from the clergy and be alien to the canon." The 4th canon of the Synod of Laodicea says the same, as do others. ^B

Interrogation 5. Is it safe for orthodox Syrians, and those from the Armenians, and indeed some faithful from other regions, to celebrate sacred rites in their own language without danger, or are they entirely compelled to perform the priesthood with Greek script?

Response. The great apostle Paul, writing to the Romans, says: "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." Those, therefore, who hold the true faith in all things, even if they be entirely without a share in the Greek tongue, shall perform the holy service in their own dialect, having copies of the customary holy prayers that are invariable, as they have been transcribed from *kontakia* elegantly written out in Greek letters.

Interrogation 6. Someone betrothed a woman, and he died before being joined with her through benediction ^C as is customary, and before having union with her; is it safe for his brother to take her, or not?

Response. What is good is not good unless it is done well. If, therefore, the betrothal, that is, the earnest money, was perfected according to the disposition of the novella legislation of the renowned emperor, the lord Alexios Komnenos, with the rite of the customary holy prayers—the woman being twelve years old, and the man having completed his fourteenth year—his brother shall not take her in marriage. For an earnest thus fulfilled is in all things assimilated to a lawful marriage. But if it was done according to the prevailing custom, as we have learned obtains in almost all parts of the South and the East, in a manner otherwise [than the novella], that the deceased betrothed ^D the survivor, his own brother may lawfully be joined to her.

Interrogation 7. Shall one who, because his betrothed died, took another spouse, be considered worthy of the diaconal or priestly rank without prejudice, or shall he be barred as a bigamist?

Response. If indeed he had betrothed the deceased fiancée according to the provision of the aforementioned novella, he shall not be deemed worthy of any rank of the altar, if he is joined to another woman after her death. For he is considered a bigamist. But if [it was done] outside the grasp of that [law]

^A he shall be ordained without hindrance, as he is not considered a bigamist.

Question 8. If a priest is tonsured, is he permitted to perform the priestly office after the tonsure, or not?

Response. Since the second canon of the holy and ecumenical synod gathered on the most holy throne of Constantinople states these things word for word: "Even if until now some of the bishops, having descended to the habit of monks, used force in order to remain in the height of the episcopacy, ^B and while they did so, they were overlooked; nevertheless, this holy and ecumenical synod, correcting this negligence as well and bringing this disorderly action back to ecclesiastical customs, has decreed that if any bishop or anyone else of pontifical dignity should wish to descend to the monastic life, and to fulfill the place of penitence, let him no longer usurp the dignity of a bishop. For the professions of monks have the rationale of subjection and desire for learning, but not of teaching and presidency, nor do they profess to shepherd others, but to be ^C shepherded. Therefore, as has been said before, we decree that no one of those who are listed in the episcopal and pastoral catalogue should cast himself down into the place of those who are shepherded and perform penance. But if anyone should dare to do this after the proclamation and diagnosis of the verdict now issued, he having deprived himself of the episcopal grade, shall no longer return to the previous dignity which he despised by his deeds." ^D Moreover, it is understood that even before this promulgation, not only those who serve the altar, namely subdeacons, deacons, and priests, but even the bishops themselves [could] perform the priestly office after the tonsure. Since, therefore, bishops have been alienated from the priesthood with canonical gravity, for the reason that after the tonsure they came into the place of disciples and penitents, and thence became alienated from the teaching dignity, priests altogether, and those who simply serve the altar, will perform the rights that pertain to their grades even after the tonsure without impediment. For even before the tonsure, just as after it, they were and are disciples and subject.

Question 9. If a layman has a nocturnal emission, does he deserve to participate in the divine sanctifications on that day, or not? And if a priest suffers the same, shall he perform the sacred rites on that day of the emission, or not?

Response. "The high priest" (says Holy Scripture) "taken from among men, offers gifts and sacrifices; and just as he offers for the people, so also for himself. For the burden of carnal infirmity presses upon him as well." But also through Moses the Lord said, "Let the clean approach [that which is] clean. But he who has a stain upon his soul shall not enter under my veil, nor shall he approach my altar." Whence also three most holy patriarchs of the throne of Alexandria, namely St. Dionysius writing back to Basilides the bishop, and the great Athanasius prescribing a rule for a certain monk named Amoun, and St. Timothy, responding regarding such matters to certain who asked them

^A they resolved the matters concerning the laity in accordance with these divine Scriptures. For the response of St. Dionysius says: "If he is subjected to the desire for a woman, he ought not; but if Satan tempts him, so that by this pretext he might alienate him from the communion of the sacraments, he ought to partake of the communion. For the tempter will not cease at that time from laying snares for him." Therefore, we also, defining the same for the laity, do not grant that the same rule obtains for bishops, deacons, and priests who have experienced an imagination through merely satanic assault; rather, we decree that the performance of the sacred ministry should be withheld from them only on the day of the nocturnal pollution, because of the reverence of the priesthood, unless perhaps the delay is dangerous, or because of the celebration of the day, or the utility of the matter. For at night the snare of the tempter may be broken, but the power of the sacred ministry may be exalted. ^B

Question 10. Whoever has been carnally joined with his lawful wife, is he to be considered worthy of participation in the holy things on that same day, or not?

Answer. Paul, the herald of God, the great teacher of the Church, says: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup" (I Cor. XI, 28). And again: "Do not deprive," he says, "one another, except by consent, when you are to approach the prayer of holy communion" (I Cor. VII, 5). And David also, and those with him, seeking to eat of the loaves of the proposition, the high priest prudently asked them first if they were clean from the bed of a woman (I Kings XXI, 4). But also in the Mosaic book of Exodus these things are laid down explicitly: "And the Lord said to Moses, Go down, testify to this people, and purify them today and tomorrow. And let them wash their garments, and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will descend onto Mount Sinai, in the sight of all the people." And again, "Moses descended from the mountain to the people, and sanctified them; and ^C they washed their garments. And he said to the people, Be ye ready for the third day, and do not approach a woman" (Exod. XIX, 10–15).

The most holy patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy, being asked about this, said: "Conjuges who have been joined carnally ought not to be deemed worthy of the participation of the divine sanctifications on that very day of their carnal union." Therefore, we, following those thus defined, say that the participation of the holy things is not to be permitted to the spouses on the day upon which they have been carnally joined. We also add that, since the same great Timothy, when asked on what day of the week the spouses ought to abstain, answered: "On the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, because on them the spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord even more," it is necessary ^D that spouses must be separated from mutual communion on the day they receive the divine sanctifications, not only before the ministration itself, but also after it. We desire to have corrected what...

is wrongly done, contrary to divine ordinances and teachings, according to the nuptial conduct toward the sponsors. For after they have been sacramentally united and deemed worthy of the divine sanctifications, those who have indulged in the pleasures of marriage press on toward carnal union, not considering the power of the holy rite nor the contempt shown to the holy things. Therefore, the married couple, on the day they intend to partake of the divine sanctifications, must practice continence not only before the reception of these, but also after the reception. If they do not do this, they shall be subjected to more austere penances. ^A

Inter. 11. If a priest bathes, can he perform the holy acts on the same day? And for a layman, after he has gone to the bath, is it permitted to partake of the sacraments on the same day? And conversely, may a priest, having performed the sacrifice, or a layman having been deemed worthy of the divine sanctifications, bathe or undergo bloodletting, or not?

Res. Galen, the most learned among physicians, says: The bath, the sun, and the gymnasium stir into motion the excrements that were hitherto at rest. Therefore, none of those things about which you asked shall be done. For bloodlettings also reveal the impurities and properties of these things, according to the Hippocratic precepts; sometimes producing dissipation, and sometimes rather constriction. Why, therefore, should we perhaps join an expected evil to the saving participation in the holy things, and obscure the light of our salvation by sloth? ^B Since, indeed, right reason compels those performing the sacrifice, both before the sacrifice and after the sacrifice, to kneel before God with all contrition and reverence, and to give thanks for the reception of the Lord’s body and blood, and not to indulge in soft pleasures and the splashing of warm waters. But if a fatal disease urges the cutting of a vein, it shall be performed for the sake of the health of the sick person.

Inter. 12. If anyone vomits after the holy reception, by what tradition shall he be corrected?

Res. He says: one who guards the holy things in a holy manner shall be purified and sanctified; but one who betrays the grace shall be defiled. If, therefore, he who has partaken of the divine sanctifications has slipped into vomiting out of gluttony, he shall be corrected by more severe penances. ^C But if it happens through the attack of a chance illness, he shall be punished more moderately at the bishop’s discretion. For this is a work of desertion.

Inter. 13. May one sacrifice without danger, or perform divine baptisms, on a ship or in a house not consecrated?

Res. Truly, God said through Moses to Israel: In Jerusalem, and in no other place, shall you celebrate a feast... ^D

unto the Lord your God. From this he clearly hints at the total cessation of the Jewish Pascha, due to the complete solitude of the place. ^A However, the 59th canon of the holy and ecumenical synod gathered in the Trullo of the Great Palace, and the 84th canon of the synod of Carthage, subject to deposition him who performs divine baptism in an oratory. For they decree that baptisms must take place in catholic churches. But also the 31st canon of the synod in Trullo, and the 12th canon of the synod gathered in the church of the Holy Apostles, ordain that baptisms may also be performed in oratories with the permission of the bishop. Nevertheless, the renowned emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, seeing the orthodox faith abounding as a vine, and growing as the offshoots of olives around the table of his churches, decreed in his 4th and 15th Novella that sacred ministries and baptisms may be performed indiscriminately not only in catholic churches, ^B but also in oratories. Therefore, according to the tenor of these, whoever has performed the liturgy with an antimension, or has baptized in an oratory, not consecrated by initiatory dedications and the solemn inauguration of the throne, nay, even through the interment of holy relics (for these are the treasures and exaltations of the catholic churches), but in a domestic house of prayer for the faithful, or in the cabin of some vessel set apart for God and adorned with holy icons, shall not suffer prejudice, as if he were a transgressor of the canons and indifferent. For thus also the clergy who are in the retinue of the emperors are deemed to perform sacred rites correctly in desert plains, under a silk tent which is intended as a church. ^C

Question 14.

Res. Do not give what is holy to the dogs (the Lord and our God has said), nor throw your pearls before swine. For this reason also, the 64th canon of the preachers of God, the holy apostles, says: If any cleric or layman shall enter into the synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deposed and excommunicated. And the 33rd canon of the synod of Laodicea, as well as the 6th and 34th, say these things regarding the permission to be given to heretics persisting in their heresy to enter the house of God: that it is not fitting to pray together with a heretic or schismatic; that it is not fitting for any Christian to abandon the martyrs of Christ and go to false martyrs—that is, to heretics, or to those who were previously heretics. ^D For these are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go to them be anathema. On account of this, also we,

^A decree that not only should the laity and clergy be subject to excommunication and deposition if they pray together in the church of the orthodox or of heretics, or wherever they may be praying with them in a priestly manner, or even eating together, but that they should be punished even more severely, according to the summary of the aforementioned divine canons. For the narrowness of places and the multitude of heretics do not change the integrity of the orthodox faith.

Question 15. Latin captives and others come to our catholic churches, and ask to partake of the divine sanctifications: I wish to know if this should be granted to them.

Answer. "He who is not with me," says the divine Gospel, "is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters." Since, therefore, many years ago the famous assembly of the Western Church (I mean Rome) was divided from the spiritual communion of the other four holy patriarchs, and turned aside to customs and institutions alien to the catholic Church and the orthodox: for which reason the Pope is not deemed worthy of the common mention of the patriarchal names in the divine sacrifices, the Latin race ought not to be sanctified by a priestly hand through the divine and immaculate mysteries, unless they first put aside the intention to abstain from Latin institutions and customs, and have been instructed according to the canons, and made equal to the orthodox. ^B

Question 16. Is the participation in the divine sanctifications arbitrary for all monks, clergy, and laity who are not prohibited, so that they can be sanctified by it almost every day? Or is this gift weighed as if on a scale? And furthermore, for those who come to the congregation, is the participation in the good a necessity, or is it arbitrary and spontaneous?

Answer. Just as it is decreed by law that dignities be given to the worthy, so "holy things to the holy." Whoever, therefore, by the integrity of their life have smoothed the way for themselves to divine participation, shall be admitted without hindrance. For they will not approach it at all like any other thing, if they consider the height of grace and the magnitude of the sacrament. ^C

But it has not been pleasing that anyone be compelled to receive the divine sanctifications. For even if some, making use of the Apostolic Canon 9 (which says: "All the faithful who enter and hear the Scriptures, but do not remain for prayer and holy communion, as those who bring disorder into the Church, ought to be excommunicated"), wish to compel those who gather in the church to receive the divine sanctifications even against their will, we, however, do not interpret the canon in this way. For the faithful indeed ^D

^A of the divine ritual, and of the final prayer of the celebrant, and of the antidoron of communion, we judge; and upon those who do not do so, we brandish the indignation of the canon. But we do not compel them to partake, because of the torment of conscience. It must be noted, therefore, according to the summary of the aforementioned canon, that those who gather in the church should not depart from the ritual in a disorderly manner; but since this [sacrifice] is magnified with identical status from both the Old and New Testaments, and up to the proclamation of the holy Gospels, the strains of the Davidic harp celebrate the power of the mystery; after this, however, the vestibules of the bloodless sacrifice are opened, permitting even the chief priests to lay aside the humeral omophorion, which is elegantly fashioned in the form of the Lamb, and to handle the mystery of the true and life-giving Lamb. If those who have gathered for church service depart of their own accord immediately after the holy Gospels, they shall not be blamed; but if [they depart] after the beginning of the bloodless and mystical sacrifice, they shall justly be ^B excommunicated as disorderly and sources of scandal.

Question 17. Ought deacons who serve with the bishop or with the priest to receive communion without excuse, or not? Answer. The 8th canon of the holy apostles says thus: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the priestly catalog, when an oblation is made, does not partake, let him state the cause. And if it be reasonable, let him obtain pardon. But if he does not state it, let him be excommunicated, as one who has caused damage to the people and has aroused suspicion against the one who offered, as though he had not offered worthily. It should be noted, ^C therefore, that the subdeacons and deacons, and more especially those who have touched the sacred things, should partake of the divine sanctifications, or at least state the reason for which they have abstained from this good. For if they do not do this, they shall be excommunicated according to the summary of the aforementioned canon.

Question 18. Is it without danger for the distribution and reception of the divine sanctifications to take place with cold wine and water? Or is it indispensable that boiling water also be poured into the holy things at the time of communion? Answer. Because the 32nd canon of the holy and ecumenical council which met in the Trullo of the Great Palace subjects to deposition those who do not celebrate the divine and holy cup with wine and water, certain heretics do not endure the pouring of "zeon" (boiling water) into the holy and divine cup, because, they say, ^D matters concerning this were not contained in the canon. But they should hear that the "zeon" added to the holy blood does not alter the union of the water and wine of the holy cup, for it is nothing else than water. It is poured out, however, for the assurance that the things which flowed from the holy side of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ at the time of His saving passion—the blood, that is to say, and the water—were life-giving, which flowed out boiling as if from a life-giving and deified body. Those who do not do this, therefore,

and who do not magnify the magnitude of the miracle from this source, but perform the participation in the divine mysteries with cold water and wine, do not believe that even after the saving death of the Lord, the divinity continued to be in His holy body, but rather that it departed from it and that it is like our own bodies. Which is the nonsense of a great heresy. For the great among the saints, John of Damascus, says: “In the tomb bodily; but in Hades with the soul, as God; and in Paradise with the thief; and on the throne Thou wast, O Christ, with the Father and the Spirit; filling all things, Thou who art uncircumscribed.” Those, therefore, who do not perfect the divine cup with boiling water, as heretics, shall be cast out from the lot of the orthodox. ^A

Inter. 19. May a secular priest rightly hear the confessions of certain people with the permission of the bishop, or not?

Res. The divine canons, which entrust the confession of reconciliation to priests with episcopal permission, are much older than Saint Pachomius, who was deemed worthy to see in an angelic vision the habit of monks. Wherefore they nowhere mention monks, but simply presbyters. Therefore, by episcopal judgment, the right of confession and by it the reconciliation of penitents, shall be granted to secular priests. ^B

Inter. 20. Do monks, without prejudice, move from the monasteries in which they were tonsured to others, or not?

Res. If he who has deposited his own confession with a man is compelled to fulfill it, how shall he who has deposited it with God be compelled to invalidate his own deposition? For this reason also, according to the fourth canon of the holy and ecumenical synod gathered in the temple of the holy apostles, called the First and Second [Council], which expressly proclaims these things: “If any monk, fleeing from his own monastery, shall move to another, or shall petulantly enter a worldly dwelling, both he and the one who has received him shall be excommunicated, until he who has fled shall return to the monastery from which he has wrongly departed.” If, however, a bishop wishes to transfer certain monks, who have a testimony of piety and honesty of life, to another monastery for the sake of its arrangement, or to establish them in a worldly dwelling for the salvation of those living there, or if it pleases him to have them preside elsewhere, he makes neither those who receive them nor the monks guilty of blame. ^C Those, therefore, who move without episcopal permission to other monasteries from those in which they were tonsured, and much more those who spend their time in worldly houses, and those who receive them, shall be cast out and excommunicated, until they have returned to the monasteries in which they made their covenants. ^D

^A

Interrogatio 21. Can a person be ordained as a cleric in different churches, or not?

Res. The Lord said in the Gospels: "No one can serve two masters. For he will cling to the one, and despise the other." Whence the 15th canon of the holy and ecumenical Seventh Synod expresses this word for word: "From this time forth, let no cleric be assigned to two churches; for this is characteristic of commercialism and filthy greed, and alien to ecclesiastical custom." We have heard from the very voice of the Lord that no one can serve two masters: "For he will either hate the one and love the other, or he will cling to the one and despise the other." Every man, therefore, according to the apostolic voice, must abide in that calling in which he was called, and dwell in one Church. For those things which are done in ecclesiastical affairs for the sake of base gain are alien to God. For the uses of this life, however, there are various occupations. From these, therefore, if anyone wishes, let him acquire what is necessary for the use of the body. For the Apostle said: "These hands have ministered to my needs, and to those who were with me." It must be observed, therefore, that this canon is kept inviolate, for there has been great contempt for it. ^B

Interrogatio 22. An ancient custom has prevailed in the region of the Alexandrians, that deceased priests and pontiffs are anointed with holy oil and thus buried. We desire to learn whether this is without prejudice.

Res. It is an evangelical precept that those who have believed be baptized once in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, the 47th canon of the holy Apostles says these things: "If a bishop or presbyter should baptize again one who truly has been baptized, or should not baptize one who has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, as one who mocks the death and the cross of the Lord, and does not distinguish priests from false priests." And the 18th canon of the Synod of Carthage expresses these things: "If any cleric is ordained, he must be cautioned to keep the decrees, and that the Eucharist and baptism are not to be given to the bodies of the dead." Therefore, those who anoint deceased priests and pontiffs, or any others, with oil and bury them in this way, are worthy of great punishment, either as those who despise the orthodox who baptized them, or as those who do not possess full assurance that these individuals were participants with the orthodox, and as those who judge before the judgment. ^C

Interrogatio 23. Is a maimed or one-eyed person worthy of the priestly rank? Or one who, after his priesthood, has become mutilated—is he permitted to sacrifice after the blemish, or not?

Res. We have said elsewhere that such persons are not to be promoted to the priesthood by the Mosaic Law. The canon, however, of the holy and most blessed Apostles says this: "If anyone is deprived of an eye or of a limb, let him be [eligible] for a bishopric." ^D

For it is not the bodily deformity that defiles him, but the defilement of the soul. And canon 78 of the same holy Apostles explains it thus: that a deaf and blind man should not become a bishop, not because he is defiled, but so that ecclesiastical affairs may not be hindered. ^A Therefore, those who are hindered by the vice of any afflictions from executing the rights of priestly degrees shall not be deemed worthy of ordination. But those who become so afflicted after ordination are not prevented by their illness from performing sacred rites, and, though having such fragile health, they will perform them without hindrance. For it pleased the heralds of God that no one should be prohibited from sacrificing on account of bodily mutilation. If, however, the burden of the illness proves an impediment to the required duty of the priesthood, let him cease from his work, but let him not be alienated from his dignity; rather, he shall be an object of pity, and he shall enjoy his former honor, and he shall also have what is sufficient for his sustenance, and the rest, according to former custom.

Query 24. Whether a priest or deacon may, without danger, be a money-changer, or a merchant, or a physician, or an astrologer, or not?

Res. The canon of the holy and all-laudable Apostles says this: ^B "Let not a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon take upon himself worldly cares; otherwise, let him be deposed." For no one can serve two masters. And the 81st canon says: "We have said that a bishop or presbyter ought not to lower himself into public administrations, but to be occupied in ecclesiastical business." For no one can serve two masters, according to the word of the Lord. Therefore, let him be persuaded either to cease doing this or be deposed. And the 4th canon of the Council of Carthage decrees that those who are in holy orders ought not to procure their living from an infamous or shameful business. And the 10th canon of the same council defines that clerics ought to be prepared for the instruction of children ^C and the reading of the Scriptures, and not be occupied in worldly and secular cares.

There is also an edict of the renowned Emperor, Lord Manuel Komnenos, issued in the month of November, in the 15th indiction, at the suggestion of certain money-changing clerics, and inscribed in the secretariat of the domestics, in the month of November, in the 15th indiction, and expressly commanding these things: "To whomever there may have come, by purchase, such shops of money-changing tables, my imperial authority grants the power of transferring them to an honorable and Roman person who may happen along. For you, since you are consecrated, are not permitted to practice such an art, because you cannot be coerced by suitable correction ^D if you do anything contrary to the prefectural decree, since you are consecrated. Whosoever, therefore, of you has acquired these by purchase, as has been said, let them bring worthy persons to the prefect, so that he may admit them, and so that he may [appoint] money-changers in their place, freely and without the payment of any customary fee."

^A to the prefect, and that he may receive and seal them, instead of them, for free, and without any custom or payment of any kind. However, the 36th canon of the Synod of Laodicea says this: that priests or clerics must not be magicians, or enchanters, or mathematicians, or astrologers, or make what are called amulets, which are truly chains for their own souls. And those who wear them, we have ordered to be cast out of the Church. And chapter 22 of title 39 of the 60th book of the Basilics sets these things forth: Geometry is taught publicly, but mathematical art is condemned. And the Ancient [law] says: He called astronomy mathematics. Therefore, clerics, and much more those who serve at the altar, if they dare to undertake the functions of public services, to trade in the office and administration of guilds, perhaps becoming money-changers, or sellers of food, or wine-sellers, and they themselves also astronomers, they shall give a pledge that they will refrain from these illicit arts. But if they do not obey, they shall be subject to deposition. ^B The art of medicine, although it is defined by the philosophers as a promoter of health, yet it does not necessarily result in this. For human counsels are fallacious, and the judgments of many are perverse, according to the ancient proverb. Why then should a cleric, and much more a priest or deacon, depart from the irreprehensible and firm ministry assigned to him, and cast himself into that which is slippery and ambiguous, and often even dangerous?

^C Interrogation 25. A Monothelite having a priestly calling, through repentance returned to our orthodox faith, and was received and sanctified. But after a little while, having returned to his own vomit, he became a heretic (as before): but again, as he says, when he was in his right mind and understood his sin, he fled to the orthodox faith and was received, in the manner of the prodigal who returns opportunely; but since he also aspires to the priesthood, we seek to learn what is to be done.

Res. No one putting his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven, says the holy Gospel. Wherefore, according to the 14th canon of the holy and ecumenical Synod of Nicaea (encompassing these things word for word: Regarding catechumens ^D and those who have lapsed, it seemed good to the holy and great synod that for three years they should only be hearers, after which they may pray with the catechumens), it is sufficient for one so perversely lapsed, and tossed hither and thither, if he is received according to the tenor of the canon; for he shall not merit the priesthood.

Interrogation 26. Whether bishops, monks, and clerics may without danger become administrators of public offices and services, and curators of matters pertaining to magistrates, or not?

Res. The six hundred and thirty holy Fathers who gathered at Chalcedon, and the holy fourth synod

^A in their 7th canon have written elegantly and expressly concerning these men as follows: "We have decreed that those who have once been enrolled in the clergy and the monastics shall not enter into military service nor into secular rank; and those who dare to do so, if they do not repent and return to that which they had previously chosen for God's sake, are to be anathematized." And the 83rd canon of the holy Apostles expounds these things: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who busies himself with military service, and wishes to retain both, the Roman magistracy and the priestly administration, let him be deposed. For the things of Caesar are for Caesar, and the things of God are for God." Therefore, concerning those monks and others who conduct themselves well, those things defined in canons of this kind shall be carried out.

Inter. 27. Spouses, perhaps by common consent and for the sake of the soul's benefit ^B and pleasure, have chosen the monastic life. But since they yet live again in the same house, using the same diet and the same table, I wish to learn what must be done in these matters.

Res. The divine canons of the holy and ecumenical synod which was assembled in the temple of the holy Apostles, termed the 1st and 2nd, define that tonsures should be performed in monasteries so that they cannot be renounced, and that the agreements of those who are tonsured should be accepted by guarantors. Therefore, those who do not live in the monasteries where they changed their habit and were tonsured, but in worldly inns, shall be compelled by the bishop of the diocese, with excommunication and the most severe penalties, to return well to the place from which they departed badly ^C.

Inter. 28. Do the pontiffs who ordain deacons or priests, and likewise those who sanctify the children of orthodox believers or certain heretics through the divine bath, and those who similarly minister divine sanctifications to some people—do they do well or not if they demand from them certain monetary sums as a reward for their labor?

Res. "Soldiers," he says, "are not nourished at their own expense." And God said through Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox that treadeth out the corn." If, therefore, through a moderate gift, and by the choice of the one being ordained or otherwise being sanctified, the priests and pontiffs who ordain or baptize seek to receive some compensation, they do nothing wrong. For it is considered custom for those who ordain to receive compensation. But if they do not seek such customary gifts, but rather greater gifts ^D that straiten the means of the one being ordained, they will not only not be heard, but they will also be subjected to deposition. For the 2nd canon of the holy and ecumenical synod says: "If any bishop performs an ordination for money, and brings down to sale the grace which is not for sale, and ordains for money a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other of those who are numbered in the clergy, or promotes for money an economist, or a defender, or a paramonarius, or

^A in any other way acting against the canon for the sake of filthy lucre, let him who attempts this, upon conviction, be put in jeopardy of his own rank. And let him who is ordained receive no benefit from the ordination or promotion which is sold like merchandise, but let him be foreign to the dignity or office which he obtained for money. And if anyone acts as a mediator for such shameful and illicit gains, he too, if he be a cleric, let him fall from his own rank; but if he be a layman or a monk, let him be anathematized. ^B And the 23rd canon of the holy and ecumenical council which met in the Trullo of the Great Palace sets forth these things: That no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, in bestowing the immaculate communion, shall demand from him who partakes, for the sake of such participation, any obols or any kind of payment whatsoever. For grace is not for sale, nor do we impart the sanctification of the Spirit for money; but it must be imparted without craftiness to those who are worthy of the gift. And if any of those enrolled in the clergy appears demanding any kind of payment from him to whom he imparts the immaculate communion, let him be deposed as an emulator of the error and wickedness of Simon.

Question 29. Those who come to the orthodox faith through true knowledge, namely Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, and other heretics, ought they to be initiated by the holy chrism alone, or also by the divine bath of baptism?

Answer. The 95th canon of the council in Trullo, ^C following the 7th canon of the holy and ecumenical second council, handles these things word for word: Those who are added to orthodoxy and to the portion of the saved from among heretics, we receive according to the underlying order and custom; that is, Arians, and Macedonians, and Novatians, who call themselves pure, and those called Tessares-kaidekatitai (or Tetraditai), and the Apollinarists, we receive upon their giving libelli and anathematizing every heresy which does not think as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God thinks; sealing them, that is, chrismating them first with the holy chrism on the forehead, and the eyes, and the nostrils, and the mouth, and the ears. And sealing them, we say: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit." ^D Regarding those, however, who have held the views of Paul of Samosata and then fled to the catholic Church, a decree has been set forth that they are to be entirely rebaptized. Nevertheless, Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, who are called Phrygians here, and Sabellians, who hold that the Son is the same as the Father, and who commit other grave errors; and all other heresies—since there are many here, especially those coming from the region of the Galatians—all of those from among them who wish to join the orthodox faith, we receive as Greeks. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second catechumens, then on the third, we adjure them, at the same time breathing three times into the face and ears; and thus we initiate them, and [cause them] to spend time in the church

and we make them hear the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. Furthermore, we must deal with the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and similar heretics. As for the Nestorians, they must draw up written statements, anathematize their heresy, and also anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the rest of the leaders of such heresies, as well as those who think as they do, and all the heresies that have sprouted from them; and only then may they partake of the holy communion. Thus, according to the tenor of this canon, some heretics are sanctified by the laver, while others are perfected by the holy chrism alone.

^B Inter. 30. If a heretical priest or deacon is deemed worthy of the divine and holy baptism, or is sanctified by the holy chrism, will it be permitted for him to perform sacred rites with his former ordination, or, if he wishes to minister sacred rites, must his ordination be repeated?

Res. The canon of the holy apostles determines that those who come from a pagan life to the orthodox faith and are baptized may even attain to the dignity of the episcopate. Therefore, since the former priesthood is held to be sacrilegious and treated as if it never occurred, if he who has thus been made orthodox is judged according to canonical discipline, and if, having formerly been a profane priest, he appears blameless in his subsequent life, he may be deemed worthy not only of priestly dignity but also of episcopal, having been raised through the customary steps to the height of the teaching office.

Inter. 31. If the wife and children of a heretic who has come to the faith of the orthodox, or even other relatives and domestics of his, do not become orthodox but persist in their former heresy, will he who (as we have said) has been initiated by baptism be prohibited from ascending to the priestly or episcopal degree, or will he himself be deprived of such a good on account of their wickedness?

Res. The 37th canon of the council of Carthage says that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are not to be ordained until they have made all those who are in their households orthodox Christians. ^C But the 2nd canon of the holy and ecumenical council in Trullo determines these things expressly in this regard: "If some, who are still infidels and not yet enrolled in the flock of the orthodox, have been joined to one another in lawful marriage; then if one of them, choosing what is good, has hastened to the light of the truth, while the other is held fast by the bond of error, not wishing to gaze with fixed eyes upon the divine rays, and the infidel is content to cohabit with the faithful—or the reverse—do not let them separate, according to the divine Apostle. For the infidel husband is sanctified in the wife, and the infidel wife is sanctified in the husband." The apparent contradiction between these two canons is canonically solved...

^A by saying that, if a man who was orthodox from birth has been joined to a heretical woman, he is not considered worthy to be enrolled in the clergy unless he also makes all those in his house orthodox Christians; for he is separated from ecclesiastical communion, as one who has entangled a sinful lot with the portion of Christ. But if a man has been a heretic from the cradle, if he should choose the orthodox faith, he could justly, unless some other cause prevents it, be deemed worthy of priestly ordination. For what do you know, says the great Apostle, whether the faithful husband will lead his infidel wife to the faith? Rightly, therefore, one who comes to the orthodox faith from the superstition of heretics may be deemed worthy of priestly dignity according to the canons, even if his wife and children do not become orthodox.

Interr. 32. Is it without prejudice that the reception of children is performed by Latins, Armenians, Monothelites, Nestorians, and others of this kind, or is it rather a thing to be hated and detested? ^B

Resp. Theme 2, chapter 10, title 1, book 1 of the Basilics says: "A heretic is one who deviates even a little from the orthodox faith, and he is subject to the laws concerning heretics." Since, therefore, all those enumerated in the present question are utterly exiled from the Church of the orthodox—not by a small, but by a long and difficult-to-surmount distance—they will not share with us the grace of the reception of spiritual children, which is mediated through holy prayers and many sanctifications, lest we also be condemned as excommunicated according to the canon which says, "He who communicates with an excommunicated person is himself excommunicated."

Interr. 33. Orthodox women are perhaps joined by marriage with Saracens or heretics, ^C and they wish, as if they were orthodox, to partake of the divine sanctifications as they regularly intended. We ask to know what must be done.

Resp. Canon 72 of the synod in Trullo says these things: "It is not permitted for an orthodox man to be joined to a heretical woman, nor for an orthodox woman to be coupled with a heretical man. But if it should appear that anything of the sort has been done by any person whatsoever, the marriage is to be considered invalid, and the lawless union is to be dissolved. For it is not proper to mix things that should not be mixed, nor to join the wolf with the sheep, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ. But if anyone transgresses what ^D has been decreed by us, let him be excommunicated." How, then, could she who has been cast out and excommunicated because of this lawless communion with a heretic be considered worthy of the divine sanctifications? Certainly in no way, unless she turns away from the evil and is corrected by canonical penances.

Interr. 34. Certain ladies presiding over women's monasteries seek episcopal permission in order to receive the confessions of the nuns subject to them. We ask, therefore, whether it is possible for this to happen.

Resp. We have said elsewhere that it is permitted only to priests, with episcopal permission, to receive confessions. ^A If, therefore, an unconsecrated superior cannot receive confessions even with episcopal permission, much less will this be allowed to a female superior, even if her virtue were to outshine the sun.

Interr. 35. The divine canons make mention of deaconesses. We ask, therefore, to learn what their office is.

Resp. Once upon a time, the orders of deaconesses were recognized by the canons, and they even had a rank at the altar; but the impurity of menstruation expelled this ministry from the divine and holy altar. In the most holy Church of the throne of the Constantinopolitans, however, deaconesses are appointed; they do not have the one communion at the altar, but in many things they have an assembly, and they direct the women’s choir ecclesiastically. ^B

Interr. 36. May a subdeacon and deacon lawfully be joined to a woman, or not?

Resp. Both canons and various laws forbid ordained men to be joined to women after ordination. When this canonical prohibition was (as it seems) being flouted, the most renowned and wisest among emperors, lord Leo, corrected the vice by a Novel constitution. For his third Novel states in this part expressly: "We command that ordinations proceed according to the ancient, divinely handed-down ordinance of the Church. For it is not fitting that those who have been lifted up by a spiritual ascent above the baseness of the body should fall back again into the filth of the flesh; ^C but on the contrary, it would be more fitting that the divine ministry should ascend from the filth of the body as if to a higher rank." Wherefore, let no one of those who serve the altar be boldly joined to a woman by the law of marriage after ordination. And if he does this, he shall be deposed. For it was permitted to him before ordination to do what was so wickedly dared after ordination.

Interr. 37. Is it lawful for priests who are superiors, or protopapades*, and bishops, to be adorned with epimanikia (cuffs) and epigonation (vestments covering the knee), or is it forbidden?

Resp. The most holy clothing of epimanikia and epigonation has been granted only to bishops, ^D as they hold the figure of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ; and thence they even remit the sins of men, and perform other greater things in imitation of Christ, which were not given to priests. Therefore they shall not merit the garb of the epimanikia or of the epigonation. For the epimanikia are a figure of the fetters that were bound upon the hands of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ when he hastened to his voluntary passion.

* who are abbots, or protopapades.

VARIA LECTIONES.

^A The *epigonation* is in the form of the towel which the Lord girded upon himself when he washed the feet of his disciples. As, therefore, the gifts of grace bestowed upon the patriarchs through their vestments—namely, the *sakkos* and the *polystaurion*—are not given to any other bishop (for it has been decreed that these should provide honor to them, as they are referred to the ends of the inhabited world), so also the privileges granted to bishops will not be given to priests, lest there result a confusion of ecclesiastical privileges, and the creature should say to the Creator, "I am equal to you."

^B Question 38. By an ancient local custom, the remains of the orthodox are buried in the churches of our region. I seek, therefore, to learn whether this is done without detriment.

Answer. There is a great difference between churches consecrated through initiation, dedication, the inauguration of a throne, the anointing with holy chrism, and the deposition of the relics of holy martyrs, and those which are not sanctified in this way and which hold the place of an oratory. Therefore, in those churches where the relics of martyrs have clearly been stored and the anointing with holy chrism has played a part, no human corpse of any kind shall be buried (according to chapter 2 of title 1 of book 5 of the *Basilica*, which says: "Let no one bury a dead body in a church." And according to the old rule lying outside it, which says: "It is not permitted to bury anyone in a church where, as is evident, the body of a martyr is laid"). But in those not thus consecrated, called holy oratories, the remains may be buried without risk. ^C

Question 39. The inhabitants of certain parishes, rejecting the ordinations of their own bishops, approach bishops of other dioceses and ordainers, as each one pleases. I seek to learn if they do this safely.

Answer. The canons subject to the penalty of excommunication not only those readers who have rejected the ordinations of their own bishops and have attained a higher rank in other dioceses through episcopal laying on of hands, but also those who ordained them, as is set forth regarding this matter in canon 54 of the Synod of Carthage, which states this word for word: "Clerics serving in a church, as we have already defined, are not permitted to be ordained in the church of another city, but must be content with that in which they were first ^D deemed worthy to serve; except for those who, having lost their own homelands, have moved to another church out of necessity. But if any bishop, after this definition, accepts a cleric belonging to another bishop, it has been decreed that both the one accepted and the one who accepted him shall be excommunicated until the cleric who has moved returns to his own church." Concerning laymen, it was once discussed at this holy synod of the Church of Constantinople, while the most holy among patriarchs and most wise Lord Michael Anchialus was patriarch, and in the month of November, in the indiction

^A IV, a synodal note was composed, consisting of a collection of various canons; it also decrees that he who ordains a layman from another parish without the consent of his bishop, and the one ordained himself, shall be punished equally.

Interr. 40. May deacons attain priestly grace against the will of their archdeacons, or not? Resp. The providence for this matter has been granted to the bishops by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, deacons shall be ordained with their consent, with the archdeacon merely present as a fellow brother. ^B

Interr. 41. May laymen who have contracted a second marriage, or others—that is, a third—legitimately contract these marriages, or not? Resp. The old law indeed recognized a third marriage as legitimate, and held those born of it to be heirs and under the power of the parent. But the canons of the divine and holy Fathers not only do not recognize a third marriage, but they even subject second marriages to a moderate penalty. But because, during the reign of the illustrious emperor, the Lord Leo the Wise, there was a great schism among all the churches of the world, because the emperor not only entered into a third marriage but even a fourth, a synodal gathering was held ^C of almost all of the bishops in all the dioceses, in the year 6423 of the indiction. And it was disputed which nuptial contracts are to be avoided and which are to be permitted as legitimate, while the illustrious emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his father-inlaw, the Lord Romanus, were reigning. After many altercations and an exact investigation, a synodal tome was elegantly written, confirmed also by the customary signature of the emperor: that a fourth marriage must be rejected and not permitted; but that a third marriage should be permitted in some cases, and in others not. For it defines that those who have not yet reached their fortieth year, who have been twice married and are without children, may contract a third marriage ^D as a remedy for childlessness; provided, however, that they are punished for a full five-year period, so as not to partake of the divine sanctifications. After the five-year period is finished, they shall partake three times in the year. But also to those of thirty years of age, even if they have children, the power of a third marriage was granted on account of the infirmity of age: so that these also should not for four years be participants in the divine sanctifications; after which period they are to be participants in the divine sacraments three times in the year. But to those who have exceeded the fortieth year, the divine Fathers have pronounced by oracle that a third marriage is in no way to be granted. And this decision of the union defines these things. Moreover, our Church has at last not permitted the contract of a third marriage in our own times.

Interr. 42. Is the participation in the divine sanctifications to be granted to those living in concubinage, or not? ^A

Resp. The great one among the hierarchs, Basil, in his various canons does not grant those who commit fornication the license to partake of the divine sanctifications. And in his 80th canon, he rules that the fornicatrix, having departed from the fornication, does not become a participant of the divine sanctifications from then on, but after a three-year period.

Interr. 43. Up to what degree is the spiritual relationship of co-parents-in-law prohibited? ^B

Resp. The 53rd canon of the holy and ecumenical council which assembled in the Trullo of the Great Palace forbids the godparents from being joined in marriage to the mothers of the children received from the holy baptism. And after a departure from the evil, it subjects them to the penalty for fornicators. The latest decree of the 5th chapter of the 28th title of the 28th Book of the *Basilica* extends the punishment further. But since both the declared canon and the aforementioned law say that spiritual kinship is greater than bodily connection, a synodical note was made in the time of that most holy patriarch, Lord Nicholas, in the month of May of the 15th indiction, upon the inquiry of that most honorable Lord Gregory Xeros, ruling that the spiritual kinship formed through godparenthood is to be bound and unfolded by the same terms by which bodily kinships are restricted. ^C

Interr. 44. The region of the Alexandrians is populous and expanded by many myriads of generations, but is straitened concerning Orthodox Christians... We seek therefore to learn if it is permitted to contract a marriage even within the sixth degree, due to the necessity of the circumstances.

Resp. The divine and holy canons and laws, being of one mind in all things regarding marital contracts, and having restricted marital contracts within God-pleasing limits and teachings, did not allow them to depart from these in any way whatsoever; but as for those who are in the ascending and descending lines, they ruled that the marital connection is entirely forbidden. Those who are to the side, however, they rightfully restricted the kinship up to the seventh degree. And the kinship originating from affinity, or co-parentage, they released after the sixth degree. The Alexandrians, therefore, ought to contract marriages in this manner and not put forward the scarcity of Orthodox Christians as a justification for sin. For a union established contrary to these things will be broken, and those who have contracted it illicitly will be subjected to the penalties for fornicators. ^D Since, moreover, by the tome of that most holy patriarch, Lord Sisinnios, two first cousins are not to take two sisters [to wife], and this happens as the contract is brought to the sixth degree of affinity, learn also what is contained in this: so that through forgetfulness you may not be found acting in a way detrimental to your soul against the custom of the Church.

^A Q. 46. If someone has had illicit intercourse with a captive Christian woman, who is also orthodox, may he sell her as a slave without penalty?

Resp. The master has the power to sell the slave he has himself defiled and to profit from her price. For it is then that the slave who has been defiled by her master becomes worthy of freedom, when until his very last breath he has shown no intention of selling her. For the 2nd chapter of the 19th title of the 48th book states this expressly: "If someone who does not have a wife has a slave in his concubinage, and remains with her until death, whether he has children by her or not, and has said nothing about her in his will, she becomes free."

^B Q. 47. If an orthodox person has had illicit intercourse with a Jewess or a Saracen woman, will he be corrected by censure, or will he be rebaptized?

Resp. The 47th canon of the holy and all-praised apostles states this: "If a bishop or presbyter baptizes again one who truly has been baptized, or does not baptize one who has been defiled by the impious, let him be deposed, as one who mocks the cross and death of the Lord and does not distinguish true priests from false ones." Perhaps, therefore, someone might say that an orthodox person who has had illicit intercourse with an impious one is defiled and ought to be rebaptized. But this is not true. For that man is defiled by the impious who willingly washes off the divine and holy baptism and puts on the baptism of the impious. Therefore, he shall be corrected by a more severe penalty according to the bishop’s judgment, both as a fornicator and as one who has become a partaker of satanic communion with an impious person; but he shall not be baptized.

^C Q. 48. At what age should a man or woman be admitted to confession?

Resp. The laws state that the sins of the underage are to be pardoned. Those who are underage are males who have completed their fourteenth year, and females who have completed their twelfth. Perhaps, therefore, someone might say that after their twelfth and fourteenth year of age they ought to declare their sins, inasmuch as they are subject to the judgment of transgressions and have become capable of fornication and other such sins. ^D We, however, from experience itself, and also from what has been said synodically at various times regarding such matters, advise that after the sixth year both males and females ought to be corrected and sanctified through confession. For indeed, a certain cleric who, by written contract, had betrothed a seven-year-old girl as his wife, and after her death was joined to another woman, did not obtain by synodical decision the attainment of canonical ordination, as he was a bigamist. For the holy council in Constantinople stated that a seven-year-old girl is capable of love.

VARIÆ LECTIONES. * stupri consuetudinem habuerit, d stupri consuetudinem habet.

^A And from this she suffers corruption, and is caught by the reasonings of fornication. But if these things have been rightly philosophized concerning a woman, they will be voted [as applicable] much more to a man.

Interrogatory 49. In the evening of the Lord’s day, if spouses indulge in carnal relations, will they be censured as transgressors of the law, or not?

Response. It has been said even above, that on the Sabbath and on the Lord’s day spouses ought to abstain from carnal intercourse, ^B because in them the spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord; just as the great among the saints, Timotheus, Patriarch of Alexandria, answered those who inquired of him regarding this. Therefore, those who do not live in continence on these days, how—as the great Apostle has said—will they then have leisure by common consent for prayer and supplication to God? Certainly, they will not. Wherefore, those who have sinned in such a way shall be corrected by moderate penances.

Interrogatory 50. If during the forty-day fast spouses do not live in continence, will they be deemed worthy of the communion of the divine sanctifications on the saving feast of the great Pascha, or not?

Response. If we are not even taught to eat fish, nor simply to break the fast throughout the whole of the holy Forty Days, and on every Wednesday and Friday, they will be compelled to abstain from carnal union all the more. Spouses, therefore, who have transgressed in this way, and have transformed into satanic incontinence the saving repentance which comes from fasting and the liberation from carnal desires (as if the cycle of the whole year did not suffice them for the fulfillment of their fleshly lusts), shall not be deemed worthy of the divine and holy communion on the feast of the holy and great Pascha, but will also be corrected by penances.

Interrogatory 51. Is it without danger on the Lord’s day ^C to go to a bath-house and wash in hot baths, or not?

Response. On the Lord’s day the faithful ought to abstain from every work, as the divine Fathers have taught, and as the 54th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher has justly decreed; for he says in part:

We also decree what pleased the Holy Spirit and the apostles instituted by Him, so that all may have leisure from work on the holy day on which our integrity was renewed, and that neither a farmer nor any other may touch ^D any prohibited work on this day. For if the ancients, while honoring shadows and types, held the Sabbath day in such honor as to provide it with total inactivity, how is it reasonable for those whom grace and truth have as their ministers not to honor the day which the Lord has enriched with honor, and which has liberated us from the destruction and corruption—

or how is it not utterly senseless, when there are seven days, one of which is set aside for the Lord’s honor, that we are not content with the six assigned to work, and to keep that one inviolate for the Lord, but rather to make it common and consider it a time for our own labors? Therefore we say also, that with all work stopped—as has been said—as even the laborers themselves cease from business, and with all being required to occupy themselves in the churches, and rather to glorify God on this day named for the Lord, ^A because on it we the faithful have seen the Sun of righteousness shine forth; so then, neither will those who manage the heating plants of the baths, and the baths themselves, and the other auxiliary services, be ministers to these, nor would any faithful person deserve pardon who abstains from prayer and withdraws from the much-celebrated glorifications and teachings of the Lord’s day, and is occupied and busy with warm waters; but he shall be corrected by punishments according to the episcopal judgment.

Interrogation 52.

Response.

During the week of the renewal, ^A we shall eat meat without danger on its Wednesday and Friday. For this seven-day interval is reckoned as one day, the Lord's day.

Interr. 53. Are the fasts of the feast of the holy Apostles, and of the Nativity of Christ, and of the Dormition of the holy Theotokos, and of the Savior, inexcusable, or are they permissible and indifferent?

Resp. The holy synod in Constantinople, in the days of that most holy patriarch…, being asked whether it was necessary to perform the fast in August, replied that this fast had been moved so that it would not coincide with the pagan fasts that occur at that time. Many people, however, still observe this fast. But we, having examined the matters concerning this, maintain that fasts must necessarily precede these four feasts: namely, the feast of the holy Apostles, the Nativity of Christ, the Transfiguration of our Christ and God, and the Dormition of the holy Theotokos; but only for seven days. For there is but one forty-day fast, that of the holy and great Pascha. If, however, anyone fasts for more than seven days around ^B the feast of the holy Apostles and the feast of the Nativity of Christ, either voluntarily or compelled by a foundational rule, he will not be blamed. Moreover, how and why we must fast for seven days before each of these four feasts has been declared in the synodal tome composed by us for this purpose. Those, therefore, who do not fast before each of these four feasts, as is absolutely required, shall be corrected by great penances.

Interr. 54. Those who practice continence during these fasts, and who also eat dry food on Wednesdays and Fridays, will they be permitted to satisfy the body's need through a second meal, or not?

Resp. Properly, continence is fasting; because it is called a killer of the passions, not a killer of men. If, therefore, those who live in continence require a second meal for the sustenance of the body, they will suffer no prejudice. For they will not themselves dishonor their all-day continence ^C through intemperance in the evening. If, however, they do this, they will be punished.

Interr. 55. On the eve of the resurrection from the dead of the righteous Lazarus, and on the feast of the Holy Forty [Martyrs], may one celebrate the perfect sacrifice without danger, or not? Likewise, is it permitted during the whole holy Quadragesima to baptize, or to perform the blessings of marriages and betrothals, or not?

Resp. The fifty-second canon of the holy and ^D ecumenical synod held in the Palace [in Trullo] says these things: In all the

days of the holy Quadragesima of the fasts, except for the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, and the holy day of the Annunciation, let the sacred ministry of the Presanctified take place. And the 49th canon of the synod in Laodicea sets forth these things: that one ought not to offer bread in the Quadragesima, unless only on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. And the 51st canon of the same synod says that one ought not to celebrate the birthdays of martyrs in the Quadragesima, but to make commemorations of the holy martyrs on the Sabbaths and the Lord’s Days. And the 52nd says that one ought not to celebrate marriages or birthdays in the Quadragesima. The 45th of the same synod contains that one ought not to be admitted to illumination after two weeks of the Quadragesima. Those, therefore, who perform baptisms, ^B or marriage blessings, contrary to the tenor of these throughout the whole of the holy Great Quadragesima, or who offer perfect sacrifices, except only for the Sabbath, and the Lord’s Day, and the Annunciation, act unjustly and shall be corrected with heavy penalties, as they have committed inexcusable faults. Indeed, it is canonized that baptisms are to take place on Great Sabbath. But if the end of life presses for the initiation of divine baptism, the washing will be provided even on another day of the Quadragesima. For even to those who are constrained by an extreme end, and who have been condemned to perpetual excommunication, the mystery of death assists toward the participation of the holy mysteries. ^C Interr. 56. Are ordinations of subdeacons, deacons, priests, and bishops performed without danger in the holy and Great Quadragesima, or not? Resp. It is established by the canons (as we said above) that the perfect sacrifice may not take place during the entire forty-day fast, except only on the Sabbaths, and the Lord’s Days, and the feast of the Annunciation. Therefore, on these days, when the mystical finished sacrifice is celebrated, ordinations will take place without any censure; but on the other fasting days, when a perfect sacrifice does not take place, nor will an ordination of any of those who minister at the altar, and much less an episcopal one, be performed. For an ordination is a time of public assembly, and of the glorification of God, bestowing spiritual dignities upon the worthy. ^D Interr. 57. By whom shall the things, whatsoever they may be, that are offered by some in the holy Churches of God, or even edibles, be received and controlled? And what and what kind are the canonical things that are given to the priests and bishops annually? Resp. The gold and silver vessels and furnishings that are offered to God are ownerless, even if they are offered to God through the bishops; but the eatables and drinkables [that are offered], which according to custom, in the commemorations of the saints and for [the repose of] the

deceased are brought into the temple, and whatever is offered by certain persons to the churches for spiritual distributions, it has been ordained ^A that these be given to the bishops, and be distributed by them to the clergy, to pilgrims being entertained, and to other needy brethren, according to their judgment. For the third canon of the holy apostles states this explicitly: "If any bishop or presbyter, beyond the ordinance of the Lord concerning the sacrifice, brings other things to the altar—either honey, or milk, or strong drink instead of wine, or prepared foods, or birds, or living creatures, or legumes, beyond the ordinance—let him be deposed; except for new legumes at the appropriate time." It is not permitted, however, to bring anything else to the altar except oil for the lamp and incense at the time of the holy oblation. But all other produce should be sent home, to be firstfruits for the bishop and the presbyters, but not brought to the altar. It is clear, however, that the bishop and the presbyters shall distribute [these] to the deacons and the rest of the clergy. And the 7th and 8th canons of the synod in Gangra likewise command this: "If any one wishes to receive the fruits offered to the church, or to give them outside the church, contrary to the judgment of the bishop, or of him to whom such things have been entrusted, and does not wish to act with his consent, let him be ^B anathema." Also the 72nd apostolic canon says this: "If any cleric or layman takes wax or oil from the holy church, let him be excommunicated." And the 73rd canon says: "Let no one appropriate to his own use a gold or silver vessel that has been sanctified, or a linen cloth; for it is unlawful. And if any one be caught doing so, let him be punished with excommunication." And the 10th canon of the holy oecumenical synod which met in the temple of the Holy Apostles subjects those who profane the sacred things of the sanctuary to deposition; it excommunicates those who convert the sacred vessels existing outside the altar to profane use; and it condemns those who steal them as sacrilegious. Moreover, the great Cyril, in the epistle written to Domnus, says this: "Each of us will render an account of our own times to the Judge of all. For it is right that treasures and immovable possessions be preserved inalienable for the churches, but that those who for the time being perform the divine priesthood be entrusted with the administration of expenses with discretion." See also book 54, title 3, chapter 2. Concerning the amount ^C which is to be given as a canonical due by the common laity, the canons determine nothing at all, but the decree of that most renowned emperor, the lord Isaac Comnenus, prescribes many things to be given to the bishops by the laity settled in their dioceses. But since the irregularity of affairs and necessity have concealed this prescription (for scarcely the thousandth part of them is given to the bishop), we are content with custom and the liberality of the givers. ^D

^A Q. 58. A certain Orthodox person was captured by the Agarenes, and being forced to abjure the Orthodox faith and be circumcised, he almost ceaselessly laments his impurity, and secretly associates with the Orthodox, and calls upon salvation. But because he wishes to become a participant in the sacraments, we ask what must be done. A. The crowns belong to those who struggle, and our Lord and God Jesus Christ says: "Whoever confesses me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven." Therefore, how can an unclean vessel be received for the acceptance of the ointment, which he would receive in a state of mental alienation? Therefore, while1 he who thus repents and wishes to be changed by a good transformation will deserve episcopal consolation and other spiritual discourse, he will not be deemed worthy of the holy sacraments. For he must first wash away the defilement of his impiety, and thus be received; and after the customary time he shall become a participant in holy communion.

Q. 59. Crowds of villagers bring to me someone who seems to them worthy of the episcopal or priestly dignity; and they ask that, without refusal, a bishop, or priest, or deacon be proclaimed and ordained. I therefore seek to learn whether we are compelled to follow the shouts of the crowds. A. Once upon a time, the ordinations of bishops and other clergymen occurred through the election of the multitude and those who held power at the time; but the 13th canon of the Council of Laodicea, and the 3rd canon of the holy and ecumenical 7th Council, ^B have excluded such ordinations from the ecclesiastical status. For the former says that it is not to be permitted to the crowds to make the election of those who are to be established in the priesthood; and the latter details these things: "Every election which is made by civil magistrates—whether of a bishop, or of a priest, or of a deacon—shall remain void," according to the canon which says: "If any bishop, having used secular magistrates, obtains a church through them, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him." For it is necessary that he who is to be promoted to the episcopate be elected by bishops, just as it was decreed by the holy Fathers at Nicaea, in the canon which says: "It is fitting that a bishop be appointed primarily by all who are in the province; but if this be difficult, or because of urgent necessity, or on account of the length of the journey, at least three must convene in the same place, with those who are absent also ^C casting their vote together and agreeing by letter, and then the ordination is to be performed. But the confirmation of the things done is to be given by the metropolitan of each province."

Q. 60. Will children born from second marriages, and those born from slave women and concubines, be judged worthy of the priesthood, or not? A. Children of a second marriage, for no reason ^D

^A are forbidden from being initiated into sacred orders. For the synodical decision made in the time of the emperor lord Constantine Porphyrogenitus equated the second marriage with the first in every respect. Therefore, they are the legitimate heirs of their father. But also those born of slave women and granted freedom, and in the same manner those born of concubines, are not forbidden to be ordained. For their mothers fell under the penalties for those who commit fornication, but they themselves committed no sin, and for this reason they are not subject to penalties. Therefore, just like other men who have committed no sin, they too shall be judged worthy of priestly honor according to the canons.

Interr. 61. A Lector, having received authority from a superior to manage monastic property, wishes to precede the priests and other clerics who are there, and, in the holy sacrifices, to be commemorated after the abbot or superior. I ask, therefore, to learn if he contends rightly regarding this.

Resp. Order governs things heavenly and earthly. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, curbing the vanity of empty glory, said: "When you are called to a wedding by someone, do not recline in the place of highest honor, but recline in the lowest place, so that you may hear from him who invited you: 'Friend, come up higher.' And so there will be much glory for you." The reader, therefore, seeking to sit before the priests ^B and to be commemorated after the abbot, is opposed to the Lord’s commandments. But if, as you narrate, the reader is traveling in a region and fulfilling the position of the superior, he contends without danger, or rather meritoriously, to sit before the priests and to be commemorated, as one holding the place of him who entrusted him with the duty. And this is demonstrated from the seventh canon of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod, gathered in the Trullo of the great palace, which pursues these points in part: "We have learned that in some of the churches some deacons, emboldened by arrogance and license, dare to sit before the presbyters; we determine that a deacon, even if he be in a position of dignity, that is, in any ecclesiastical office, shall not sit before a presbyter; except if he is acting in place of his own patriarch or ^C metropolitan, and is present in another city concerning some matter. For then, as filling the place of that one, he shall be honored."

Interr. 62. If a more rustic priest performs the holy blessing of a third marriage, knowing it to be a third marriage, shall he be punished, or, as a rustic, will he be deemed worthy of pardon?

Resp. He who is ignorant of the action, whatever he may be, is excused by the laws; but he who is ignorant of the law does not obtain pardon. And since, by the Novel constitution ^D of the illustrious emperor, lord Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the third marriage is in part worthy of pardon and in part not (for those who have children from a first or second marriage, and those who have reached the fortieth

year of their age, cannot contract a third marriage): we say that the priest who has performed the blessing of such a forbidden third marriage is to be deposed; for he was ignorant of the plain sense of the law. Countrymen, however, if they are ignorant of the subtle points of the law, are sometimes excused, though not if the laws are manifest to all. ^A

Interr. 63. A certain woman, being compelled by her own father to be lawfully joined to a man, and seeing the marriage secured by the father through binding legal documents, indicated what was correctly done to one who was affected toward her with amorous designs. He, however, as a desperate lover, hesitating at nothing, with some of his household who were ignorant of the matter, broke into the woman’s domicile one night, and seized her, though she was willing, and abducted her to his own home, situated within the bounds of another territory. I ask, therefore, to learn if those who have contrived such an abduction can be canonically joined through a holy blessing: especially since the parents of the girl now wish this to be done.

Resp. The third chapter of the 58th title of the 60th book of the *Basilica* says this verbatim: "Let not the woman who is abducted marry her abductor; and even if her parents consent to such a marriage, they shall be punished by exile." And the 27th canon of the holy and ecumenical fourth council says this: "The holy council has ordained that those who abduct women under the name of marriage, or who assist or co-operate with those who abduct, if they are clerics, shall fall from their rank; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized." ^B Therefore, we also, following these things as they have been lawfully and canonically ordained, say that if the matter stands as your inquiry has proposed, no marriage will take place between the abducted woman and the abductor, even if her father approves the affair; nor will those who were privy to the abduction escape punishment, but they will be visited with the ultimate penalty. ^C

Interr. 64. A certain woman, laboring under a grave illness, during the night, seeking as she supposed to ward off the affliction of the evil, cast herself into death, and drank a cup of death. Her husband, who was then a reader, and is so today, asks whether he is prevented by that matter from attaining sacerdotal dignity.

Resp. If, as you narrate, the matter stands thus, the reader shall be ordained without obstacle. For as the sloth of the negligent does not harm the diligent, according to the opinion of the divine canons, so the error of his wife will not prejudice the reader. ^D For everyone is bound by his own chains (as the saying goes).

THE OFFICE AND DEFINITION OF A BISHOP.

the souls belonging to the Church, those who are in his province; having power to initiate a presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, reader, cantor, and monk. ^A It is the duty of a bishop to lower himself to the humble, and to despise the proud; and by deeds and words to depress the spirit of the haughty toward humility; and likewise to run risks for his flock, and to consider their distress as his own pain.

SECOND BOOK OF RESPONSES

INTERROGATIONS

Interrogation. Within what time must an infant be baptized? Resp. If he is ill, there is no deadline, but he is baptized immediately. If he is healthy, within forty days. — Interr. Is it lawful to perform the liturgy with one oblation? Resp. If there is no commemoration of a saint, and no memorial of a deceased person, there is no impediment. — Interr. If wine is not found, must the union be made with vinegar? Resp. No, for this is pagan. — Interr. Is it lawful for a monk to bless a marriage? Resp. Neither a monk, nor in a monastery. — Interr. If a man has an unblessed woman in his home, is it lawful to receive his oblation? Resp. From his house it is not right to receive an oblation, nor wax, nor oil, nor incense. — Interr. ^C Is it lawful for a monk to receive children from baptism, or to make fraternities by adoption, or to hold wreaths? Resp. These are against the canon, and are prohibited. — Interr. If a woman who has given birth has passed the forty days, and has not received the prayer, is it right for an oblation to be made by her? Resp. Not indeed by her, but by some other person. — Interr. If a priest has had an imagination of carnal lust, should he perform the liturgy on that day, or if a layman, should he partake of the mysteries? Resp. If they are hindered from good by demonic temptation, they shall confess first, and thus the priest shall perform the sacred ministry, and the layman shall participate. ^D

ries? Resp. If they are hindered from good by demonic temptation, they shall confess first, and thus the priest shall perform the sacred ministry, and the layman shall participate. ^A If, however, it arises from luxury and excessive drinking, neither the one nor the other. — *Interr.* May he who is captured by the Gentiles, and embraces the pagan religion, and is defiled in a bed, but has not yet become a Muslim, be a participant in the unction? Or he who accepts the vows of a "cursed eating," does he also communicate? *Resp.* He who has become a participant in a "cursed eating" denies Christ; and he cannot be admitted immediately, but after some time, having performed works worthy of repentance, so that he may receive the unction, and after that, so that he may communicate. — *Interr.* If the church does not have a specific place to pour out the baptismal water, where ought it to pour it? *Resp.* Where the place is clean and is not trodden on by feet. — *Interr.* Are the offerings of harlots to be accepted, or not? *Resp.* By no means. For they are under censure, and neither offering nor incense will be accepted from them. — *Interr.* If a priest has had his hair shorn, is it right for him to perform sacred rites? *Resp.* If he was worthy beforehand, he is not prohibited by the tonsure. — *Interr.* Is it right to make the lights for the holy Theophany, and other feasts, in any vessel one pleases? *Resp.* The vessels for sacred lights must be dedicated solely to these lights. — *Interr.* Regarding male and female slaves joined by their masters without a blessing, shall we make them participants in the holy communion, or shall we accept their sacrifice? *Resp.* Since coitus without sacred prayers is fornication, whether the one who is without the blessing is a slave or free, he is not to be admitted to the offering of a gift, nor to prayer in the house of the Lord. Indeed, the divine Apostle commands not even to eat with such, nor to associate with them. Furthermore, the masters themselves, since they are authors of the destruction of their slaves, while they invite them to that coitus which they could have prevented, forfeit their dominion over their slaves, according to the recent decree of our glorious emperor, Lord Alexius. ^B — *Interr.* Is it right to stand as godparent to the children of one's own children? *Resp.* There is no law or emperor forbidding these things. — *Interr.* Is it right for a priest to baptize his own child? *Resp.* This is by no means prohibited. — *Interr.* If there are two brothers, or three, or more, and one receives an infant from baptism, shall all be called fellow-godparents? *Resp.* No, but only he who received the child. — *Interr.* If a woman is prepared for the nuptial blessing, and her customary period occurs, ought she to participate? *Resp.* She shall await purification, and thus the performance of the sacred rites, as well as the participation in the sacraments, shall follow. — *Interr.* If, however, both are unworthy to participate, ought they to participate on account of the blessing, and then be subjected to censure? *Resp.* According to the kind and difference of the sin, the dispensation shall also follow. — *Interr.* If a woman has given birth, and certain people have entered into her house, for how long ought they to be barred from participation through censure? *Resp.* Once washed, ^C on the next day they shall not be prohibited. — *Interr.* If the infant also is baptized, it ought

from the sacraments. — *Interr.* If an infant is baptized, ought it to be nursed by its mother, while she is still unclean? *Resp.* By all means she shall nurse the infant, lest it perish. — *Interr.* Is it good for us to confess our sins to spiritual men? *Resp.* It is good and very useful, but not to those who are inexperienced and unskilled in such matters; lest, through their unreasonable compassion and dispensation, or through an untimely and unskilled imposition of penances, someone should become scornful, slothful, or lax. Therefore, if you find a man who is spiritual and experienced, who can apply the medicine without shame, and with faith, confess to him as to the Lord himself, and not to a man. — *Interr.* But if I do not find a man who can satisfy me in confession, what shall I do? *Resp.* Confess to God privately, condemning yourself, and saying after the example of the publican: "Our God, Thou knowest that I am a sinner, and unworthy of all forgiveness. Yet save me, for the sake of Thy mercy." — *Interr.* But when I confess to God, shall I make mention and enumeration of every sin that I have committed? *Resp.* By no means; especially if you have sinned in the body and by fornication. For while you wish to make mention of this or that sin, your soul is defiled. Therefore it is good, after the example of the publican, to say: "God, be merciful to me a sinner."

THE DECLAMATION OF DEMETRIUS SYNCELLUS, METROPOLITAN OF CYZICUS.

It has often come to our mind to marvel at those men, and what on earth they are thinking, and to what divine or human laws they are satisfying, when they reduce to such long and continuous questions matters worthy of no prohibition in marriage, and perhaps not even doubtful at all. We know not whence such zeal and fervor has been fixed in them: that they attempt to separate those who are simply the children of two parents who touch one another by no kinship, who have been joined by intervening sacred prayers, and who have already themselves brought forth children; and they attempt to dissolve their cohabitation, which was contracted even with the permission and consent of two metropolitans—who perhaps should even be deposed from their dignity for their judgment, in that they permitted so illicit a thing. ^D But that what we are saying may be clear, the very names of those who are said to be kin must also be set before us. Demetrius, they say, and John are brothers. Again, another family, Mary and Nicholas, are brother and sister. John is joined by the law of marriage to Mary. These being joined, the brother of Mary, Nicholas, according to the subtlety of the law, will by no means call Demetrius a "consocer" [co-father-in-law]; since the law acknowledges as *consoceri* only those who are the parents of those joined, and their ascendants: unless someone, perchance following the custom of the crowd, should wish to abuse the name of *consoceri* even in these cases. And in this way, since the appellations of kinship fail with these, who then will anyone call...

they are born (for Demetrius begets Mary, and Nicolas begets Plotinus), how could one designate them? As first cousins? Or rather as second cousins? And yet, their parents are neither brothers nor first cousins. Or shall one call the one paternal uncle, and the other nephew? But one would not be able to fashion or apply any appellation of kinship to them, not even if he were more monstrous than those who invent scindapsi or tragelaphi. ^B And if nature is utterly ignorant of the name of relationship for them, such that it has not even bestowed a bare name upon them from this, to attempt to separate them after children have been born, and to dissolve their union as if it were forbidden, we deem not merely an abolition of laws and canons, but also an act of great violence and tyranny. A more fervent person might even say that it is akin to the heresy of the Manichaeans, who unlawfully break apart lawful marriages because they abhor them. For both are of the same absurdity: to permit prohibited marriages, and to dissolve those that are not prohibited. Which indeed almost happened just now, and was carried through to completion by those who busy themselves with doing and saying whatever they please, had not the exceeding caution and sagacity of our most perspicacious Father and common master—whom the divine decree has plainly set over the Churches of the world for the restoration of the sacred laws and canons—referred the matter to synodical deliberation.

But the adversary says, "Here an uncle is found to marry an aunt, and a nephew a niece." For by these words they think they will deceive the auditors or the judges: whether they are skilled in dialectical methods and sophisms, or simply in definitions and propositions, and the conclusions derived from them, we cannot say; but in the present matter, at least, they are striving mightily to deceive by sophistry. For, they say, an uncle has taken an aunt—that is, John has taken Mary, who is properly the aunt of Plotinus as the son of his brother. This, indeed, is excusable even among us. But also, a nephew has taken a niece—Plotinus, the son of Mary's brother, clearly. But the daughter of whose brother? If indeed of the same Mary, this would be extremely absurd, ^C and forbidden by sacred canons. For to marry one's own first cousin seems to us much more execrable and worthy of rejection, and deserving of every punishment. But if he married her who is the daughter of the brother of John, who is Mary's husband, where is the canon, or law, or synodical tome that forbids this? But here, then, remains for them their sophism, and the error of their incoherent syllogisms; and the great Basil is brought into the middle, and cited everywhere, and corrupted by an unskilled interpretation—since they strive to drag those things which were spoken by him quite fittingly about other matters to the persons indicated. Furthermore, by that saying, "They shall be two into one flesh," they dare to boast that John is necessarily the uncle of Plotinus, ^D he who, having been affiliated laterally by way of affinity to the family of Plotinus, no law whatsoever has ever called his uncle.

^A For if it were permitted to one wishing to act maliciously to extend this argument even to more remote degrees of kinship, and to close off to all alike the possibility of marital union with one another by means of this endless chain or ladder that is extended, what could be more unjust? And yet, at the end of the same Father, he opens a wide path to lawful marriages and clearly urges them toward this. For he adds: “The summary of what has been said is this: if a matter is not prohibited by law for marriage, the whole world is opened to it.” ^B What is more lawful than that which neither civil law nor sacred canon appears to forbid, unless they also expressly permitted it again? Since those who legislate concerning these matters do not know how to include what is permitted, but only to enumerate what is prohibited, and those whose transgression, they know, brings forth the greatest harm to those who fall into it. Just as if a physician, while forbidding the patient from harmful things, is not strictly under obligation to list in detail all things that in their nature do no harm. ^C But come now, O you who interpret the divine texts, interpret these words of the letter of the great orator yourself, first fixing your mind on the understanding and the intention of those things being said, and perhaps you will blame yourself for your rashness. Since also a legal canon, as you know, is such that the dictates of the laws have force only over those cases for which they were pronounced. According to which logic, any legal canon is said, among other things, to be fragile. Whence, certainly, even if anything whatsoever occurs, it will govern for certain in those cases and [will cover] those things pronounced by this one inspired by God, for which it was then brought forth. And it is clear that one and the same man may not be joined in marriage to two sisters; just as, on the other hand, the things taken up from the tome of this man have force in those cases in which his conclusion stood: that neither two brothers take two cousins, nor an uncle and his nephew take two sisters, and the reverse of these, even if he weaves it through many intervening transgressions. ^D But that which we were eager to say: this great man, therefore, forbidding the union of one man with two sisters, and slandering the condemned nature of the act, as something entirely feral and not even to be endured by pious ears, by drawing from Scripture to deter [such acts], desiring to show that that statement is all-encompassing even of this kind of kinship, and how the marital union of one man with two sisters is already forbidden by the divine Scripture, introduces these arguments. For what does he who has seen the image see in it but a likeness of the prototype? It is entirely necessary that he who worships the image also worships in it the form of the prototype. Since the likeness is one, the worship of both must also be one. But if the image of Christ, which represents Him, partakes of the worship of Christ, how can He Himself say, “I will not give My glory to another”? It is therefore not partaking; but if it is not partaking, it is given to be worshipped idolatrously, as a second worship is mingled therein. The answer to this: The image of Christ is nothing other than Christ, saving of course the difference of essence, as has been demonstrated in many ways. Whence the worship of this is the worship of Christ; for the material of the image is not worshipped, but only the Christ who was depicted therein. Of those whose likeness is one, the worship of them is obviously one. Therefore, is Christ giving His glory to another in His own image? Rather,

^A they were, and excluded from the Church, even if they had shone like luminaries. We will add one thing further, and in few words. If those words concerning confusion, unthinkingly inserted into their writing, should be proven to be placed even without defect in the epistle of the great Basil, let it be granted, to be sure, that according to their own opinion, the union of the persons indicated is frequently illicit. For thus says that holy and great Basil, who, as Gregory the Theologian says, searches out the depths of the Spirit. Basil therefore, speaking concerning certain illicit nuptials, offers a compendious mark, by which illicit nuptials may easily be separated from lawful ones. In those, he says, in which the appellations of kinship are confused, in these the nuptials are nefarious. Such are the words in that uncertain volume. But since the epistle discourses concerning those who are born of one man and two sisters, it is impossible to find anything else set down than these very words: "From what kinship, he says, will they call those thus born? Will they call them brothers to one another, or cousins? Both surely will suit them, because of the confusion." Wherefore, since the words of the volume differ so greatly from the words of Basil, the interpreter of divine things, both in respect of the words themselves and of the sense; and since they are so far removed from each other, that everyone must consider those things included in the volume merely as a vain figment; whoever, as if by a general rule, rashly wishes to use these, and from thence to bring so many confusions into marriages, imprudently deceives himself, while he strives, as is said, to prove his own opinions from false principles. It remains that we respond by discussing a few things regarding their "honestum," the pretext and fulcrum of the honest. For these men, without any distinction, bringing forward one thing for another, and wickedly stealing what was pronounced concerning other matters, and, while soothing the ears of simpletons, corrupt them, bring forward the saying: ^C "In nuptials, we seek not only what is permitted, but also what is honest," up and down. Indeed, anyone who has inspected the laws even a little, can by no means be ignorant, just as in the chapter preceding this a little, and also in the nineteenth, the law discourses concerning natural children and adoptees, and those who descend from slaves, and concerning servile affinity, and concerning certain others: so this well-known chapter of the "honest" is promulgated by the authority of the law, as a rule of a kind concerning the children of those established in dignity, and concerning patrons: so that these may not be joined in matrimony to freedmen, nor those to theatrical persons. And indeed, that this chapter was exposed peculiarly for prohibiting the conjunction of those who are of the senatorial order ^D with freedmen, or with those who perform in theatrical roles, the text of the law itself, if read, will show. "In the conjunctions of nuptials," it says, "not only must the precision be considered, but also whether that which is being done is honest." And explaining the obscurity of such a rule, and teaching to which cases it corresponds, Stephanus said: "He said this," he says, "in the sixteenth chapter, the beginning of which is 'A senator's daughter':" as if he were saying that it is expounded more clearly therein. Then he also appends the very words,

^A nor yet to speak against the time or place, nor to introduce one’s own judgment into the decisions, I do not know what has come over them, that they attempt to describe [the law] from outside; although, they neither conceived the relationship from the beginning for the sake of the prohibition of marriage between collateral relatives, but for other reasons. For, he says, the civil laws, wishing to extend the genuineness of the citizens, or rather the subjects, and that kinship should not be constricted, have forbidden marriages between collateral relatives, so that, by being constrained to unite with those outside of their own kinship, they might possess both genuineness and goodwill toward them. In agreement with these, the one who is golden-tongued in his explanatory discourses on Genesis expounds. ^B

And now the discourse finally also approaches the account of the division of secular laws regarding kinship, and to show from thence also the vanity and contentiousness of those who have time for nothing, or for speaking and hearing anything more novel and untoward. For he says: The name of kinship is divided into three: into those who ascend, into those who descend, and those who are collateral. Each order of these has different degrees. But in the case of those ascending and descending, marriage is forbidden into infinity, for it is not holy for the cause of birth to be debased toward that which is born, which even many of the irrational animals reject. But in the case of collateral [relatives], the matters of prohibition ^C are not counted beyond the sixth degree. And it is consistent to add also the persons out of affinity who are prohibited by the law from the communion of marriage, from whom the law does not even accept that there is kinship. For affinity, he says, is an intimacy of persons joined to us out of marriages, outside of kinship. But here, too, setting much providence for what is venerable, he says regarding this: I cannot take my stepdaughter or daughter-in-law, neither my mother-in-law, nor my stepmother, nor the daughter of my divorced wife, born after the separation by another man. The betrothed of my father or of my brother, I cannot take. Not only of the father, ^D but also of the grandfather, a stepmother is so-called; and I am forbidden to take them. Even if the father had many, I take none of them. Nor the mother of my one-time betrothed, nor the wife of my ancestor at any time. Nor does a stepmother take the man born of her stepdaughter. The stepdaughter of my brother I cannot take, nor do I take the daughter of my stepdaughter. Regarding each of which anyone who reflects, and scrutinizes accurately, [will find] much in these of the legislators.

[alt-version omitted]

^A Furthermore, the most pious among kings, having purged those laws of ours which are currently in use in the commonwealth, deemed it entirely worthwhile to reconcile them with the sacred sanctions and canons, and to show that they are in agreement with them, so that there should be nothing discordant with them, nothing degenerate, nothing fighting against them, and nothing alien to the Christian state. For which reason he also subjected the force of these to the divine canons by a common decree. And therefore those who, up to this point, have accurately kept the purity of their lineage, would never have skirted in silence the matter concerning the persons mentioned, if they had thought there was anything improper or unseemly in these matters. ^B Those, therefore, who have made a list of the legislators forbidden by affinity, and have determined the limits of the prohibition only up to these, the one who introduces other marriages by affinity, of which the legislators did not even make mention, fulfills his own opinion from his own authority; he does not follow the laws—whether he agrees with some or opposes others—or even his own desires and interests, while pretending under a mask of rectitude, in a depraved pretext of the honorable and the seemly. Wherefore he also perversely alleges as something unassailable that saying, torn from the right opinion of the laws, the words of which are: "Affines take the place of both those ascending and descending among themselves, and therefore are nefariously united." Being puffed up, he rashly says he will bind an elephant with a thin thread. That is indeed an axiom of law. But the text of the law itself refutes the attempt of the man who brings these things forward, expounding this opinion more clearly, and defining the prohibition only to the persons enumerated, lest even in these cases marriage be prohibited to infinity. For what, I ask, is it possible to see as kinship or blood relation between me and the wife of my brother, so that even a daughter born to me from her should be forbidden from being joined to him? ^C But rather a confusion and a mingling is brought forward here by those who seek them, and an exchange of kinship names. You might justly call them "confusion-makers," who so manifestly introduce such a confusion not only of things, but also of names, and compel us to call those who are married to brothers "sisters" and "daughters-in-law" because of this admirable mutual bond and embrace—and conversely, to call the brothers of the woman (Oh, the transformation and the confusion!) the brothers-in-law of her husband. But if we must also oppose these confusions of theirs, how much more rightfully, according to them, would the union of two male first cousins with two first cousins from another family be constrained? ^D Which, until this very day, neither law nor canon has prevented, but is practiced daily without hindrance and without fear. And from this comes a confusion and an exchange of [names of] kinship

that is great and manifest, since those who were previously called cousins, after their union with one another, are again brought together and called brothers-in-law. ^A Likewise, among women, one may see them called both cousins and sisters-in-law at the same time. One might see this same confusion of names also among brothers who are joined to second cousins from another lineage.

What, moreover, is one to say regarding third cousins? To whom the law not only left marital betrothal unhindered, but even explicitly permitted it, in those places where it says: "The heir written under the condition of the mother, if she should be married to a third cousin, let her fulfill the condition in every way. For the marriage is not shameful." Unless, indeed, that person should be an impediment. These people, then, being joined together, will not only call one another spouses instead of third cousins, but also call each other’s fathers both uncles and fathers-in-law; and the parents, in turn, will call them nephews and sons-in-law. ^B And what is even more wonderful is that they also inherit from one another, being in the seventh degree, with the six closer degrees having failed, just as the law regarding inheritance indicates: "Compassionate kinship includes six degrees of relationship, and from the seventh degree [it includes] two persons, those born from the second cousin [male] and the second cousin [female]."

What, again, is more confusing than this? But the lawgiver did not consider it a confusion to call the same person father-in-law and uncle, and to be shown to be his own heir by result. Why? Because he saw nothing at all unlawful in the matter. ^C And insofar as no sacred canon or new law has yet closed off the marriages of such persons with one another, these people proceed through all [degrees] and spread out, caring little for the confusions. But indeed, just as in the case of those on the side [collateral], the law having defined the prohibitions up to second cousins, allowed those beyond these to be joined without fear; just so, having listed the persons forbidden by affinity, and having set the enumeration for them like certain walls and boundaries, it permitted marital intimacy to the others. ^D Those who set themselves against the law, and who openly wrong their lineages, have surely escaped notice that they are, by a much greater degree, bringing under liability those holy Fathers and patriarchs who have overlooked such things until now. They, indeed, will certainly be in danger of being—as far as they are concerned—accursed and excommunicated from the Church, even if they have shone forth like luminaries.

We will say one thing briefly regarding these matters. If the words themselves, scattered carelessly in the volume regarding confusion, and those left in the letter of the great Basil without omission, show it, let it be granted according to them that the union of the often-mentioned persons is among the unlawful things. For so does the holy...

^A and great Basil, who, according to the voice of the Theologian, searches out the depths of the Spirit,

of the Tome.

Therefore, he, discussing a certain unlawful marriage, gives a concise marker by which the illicit marriages will be easily distinguished from the lawful ones: "In those cases," he says, "where the names of the kinship are confused, in these cases the marriage is unlawful." And this much for the Tome. But the letter itself, since the matter concerns those born of one man and two sisters, contains nothing further that can be found than these words so stated. "Of what kinship," he says, "will they call those born? Will they call them brothers to each other, or cousins? For both will fit them by reason of the confusion." Since, therefore, there is such a disagreement between the words of the law and the words of the God-manifesting one, both in phrase and in meaning, and they are so alienated from each other that even those who are nothing but a fabrication at the hands of all suppose these things of the Tome to be so, he who uses these as if they were some universal canon without question, and introduces such great confusions into marriages from them, has surely deceived himself, vainly attempting to construct what seems true from nonexistent origins, as the saying goes.

It remains, then, regarding their "decency"—the pretext and prop of their decency—to discuss a few things. For these men, without any discrimination, bringing forward one thing for another and wickedly stealing what was pronounced for other matters, and corrupting the ears of the simpler sort, cite up and down this saying: "In marriages," they say, "we seek not only what is permitted, but also what is decent." This, even he who has looked into the laws a little ^B will in no way be ignorant of, that just as in the little chapter before this, and furthermore in the nineteenth, regarding natural children and the adopted, and those descending from slaves, and those from servile affinity, and certain other things, it is distributed by the law, so also this celebrated chapter of "decency," regarding those born of those holding rank and of patrons, is regulated by the law so that the former may not be joined in marriage to those who are freedmen, nor the latter to stage performers. And that this chapter is set forth specifically for the sake of prohibiting the union of those who are of the senatorial order with freedmen or those who perform as stage players, the text of the law itself, if read, will show. "In the connections of marriages," it says, "it is necessary to consider not only the subtlety, but also whether that which is being done is decent." And Stephen, explaining the obscurity of this rule and teaching to which cases it is appropriate, says: "He said this," he says, "in chapter sixteen, the beginning of which is 'Senator's daughter'," as if to say it is explained more clearly there. Then he also appends the very words, ^{C D}

of the Tome.

of the Tome.

^A For it says there—and then those very words are set forth [noting whence and why they were taken], which are as follows: "Neither the daughter, nor the granddaughter, nor the great-granddaughter of a senator may marry a freedman, or one who has exhibited a theatrical performance, or one whose father and mother have exhibited a theatrical performance." And this, indeed, concerning these matters, is the language of the laws—Stephen. But to take that which has been pronounced regarding certain people, and which ought to maintain its force in those very cases, and transfer it to others, and to distort what has a plain interpretation contrary to the law—this is the very thing that truly creates confusion, and which perhaps will even entangle the unwary in the charge of forgery.

As, therefore, it is not the same thing for one man to dishonor two sisters (a thing which was rightly forbidden by the great Basil) as it is for the children of two kinsmen to be joined to one another, so neither will anyone in any way prevent the children born of Demetrios and Nikolaos from being joined. And therefore, according to the judgment of the divine and great Basil, when they proceed toward marriage by the prescription of the law, the approach to such permitted marriages is open to them. And they are permitted because they are not forbidden; and they are not forbidden because neither the ancient canon nor the Tome itself is shown anywhere to abolish them, since it gathers and establishes the conclusion collectively in these cases, and keeps only two brothers from marrying two first cousins, and an uncle and his brother's son from marrying two sisters, and conversely; and it inquires into and pronounces nothing further. ^B Following which reasoning, also the blessed patriarch Sergius, seasoned by much experience in these matters, permitted the contract of Romanos, son of Genesios the patrician, with the daughter of the steward of the religious houses, as permitted, even if that case was much more precarious than the one that has now occurred, as it was in reality related; ^C because there are present two full brothers, and two other first cousins—I mean Agatha and Romanos—of whom one was joined to Agatha, and from the others, the daughter was joined to Romanos, the first cousin of Agatha; than which nothing—as you yourself might say—is more unseemly, as it approaches in every way that which is forbidden by the Tome, and is almost the same as if two brothers were to marry two first cousins, if indeed a father and son are more "one flesh" than a brother and sister, according to your interpretations. But nevertheless, because certain laws and canons do not contribute to their separation in the Church, and not even the Tome itself explicitly does so, such a marriage proceeded and was established, and remained undisturbed, proclaimed and manifest throughout the whole state. And one might find countless contracts of this kind being practiced in this well-ordered great city. ^D

Wherefore, for your part, remain within the Tome, and you shall have it as a limit, and you shall not overstep it, nor shall you be more inquisitive and demanding than it is, nor more legalistic than the legal...

laws, nor more upright than the canons, nor more expert in the healing and purification of souls than the Fathers themselves who are their authors, whoever you may be. ^A But when you have assembled new synods, and composed other tomes, and added imperial decrees, then perhaps we too shall follow you in those things that may happen hereafter: but yet in such a way that we shall by no means separate those who have already been joined by the authority of the law and have begotten children; lest, in healing one evil with another, we make them bigamists, and make the children born of them disinherited, beggars, and outcasts, and finally, reproaches to nature itself. As long, however, as no new Tome has been produced, and the same laws and canons hold their force, and it cannot be that they should be abolished: know that it is much less possible for marriages contracted in this way to be dissolved. ^B But indeed, most excellent and serious man, you who are the author of new laws (be careful not to flare up while the truth speaks quite freely with you at an opportune time), restrain your tongue, restrain it a little if you can, and finally, at some point, show reverence for the ancient as well as the recent decrees of the Fathers, whose boundaries you must not move. Wait for the place and time for speaking and contradicting, which will soon come to you. You have but a little time remaining, and in the seat of the elders you shall praise the Lord. Why before the thrones do you seize the duties of the thrones? Why do you heap up burdens difficult to carry, which cannot be moved even by a finger? A little more time will pass, and the throne of doctors shall receive you. Cast your eyes about you, and see how this metropolis from one side, and that from another, expecting you with open hands, receive you; how one envies the other, while they contend which of them shall have you as their leader and teacher. Then, indeed, you will instruct more conveniently on those things that seem right to you; and you will legislate more boldly, and you will enact still newer laws, and you will shout down the others. ^C You will even lift your eyebrows, and look at them fiercely and titan-like; and you will turn your entire nose up at them; and perhaps you will not allow even the more moderate ones to murmur, even though they may excel in the dignity of gray hair and age; since you are already exalting yourself against your elders, and treating them as common (as they say) soldiers, you are piling up condemnation for yourself, which you must expect on that day of recompense. But these things are in vain. Do you yourself add what remains.

RESPONSE

To him who said that marriage between persons from three different families is prohibited.

The president of the Kanikleion indeed obstinately, and even—to speak mildly—inconsiderately, insists, saying that a marriage between persons of three different families is nefarious. But he is proved to be speaking rashly. For he brings forward nothing from the law that has any place here. But I, your servant, cannot by any means accept as explicit that which is not explicitly forbidden by the law, as if it were a matter of conjecture. For the law, concerning persons of three different families who are forbidden to marry, discusses the matter explicitly in these words: Not even the wife of my grandfather do I take. ^D Nor does the stepmother take

marry him who was the husband of her own stepdaughter. These are almost the first degrees, ^A if anyone should try to introduce degrees into these as well. Regarding others from three different families, as they are unprohibited, the law has included nothing at all. Hence, no judge has ever overturned such a marriage. Just as, indeed, in the tome of Sisinius, that which was explicitly prohibited, as being found to be of the sixth degree, remained inviolable; but that which was omitted, as being evidently unprohibited, was never afterward forbidden by anyone. This is what possesses a certain equality on both sides: as when an uncle and a brother’s son marry an aunt and a brother’s daughter. For seventeen years I served the blessed Mysticus when he was quaestor, ^B and many such cases were stirred up both in the imperial city and abroad. And the judges used to write to him regarding these. And many such causes were moved in the Quaestorium. But that degree was never prohibited. For in natural kinship we do not exceed the seventh degree. Nor indeed does nature permit the life of mortals to extend beyond this degree. But in those affairs which are of affinity and the conjunction of three families, whatever the law has explicitly established must be observed. And one must not investigate curiously the reason why, nor must the causes be sought out. For even the law itself says: It is not necessary to seek a reason for everything that has been handed down by the laws. For there are found many that are without attributed cause. And such a provision is old, taken from the Digest, and existing before the monarchy. But those things which are not explicitly prohibited by the laws, extending beyond the number of those that are forbidden, are performed with impunity. ^C

The adversary, again, as if putting forward something grand, says that in marriages we must seek not only what is permitted, but also what is proper, and relying on this saying, he strives to attain victory. But the law straightway brings the solution and blunts every defense. For it interprets that saying thus, referring it to those who, from natural lust, progress to nefarious junctions, when it says: The natural father does not take his harlot-born daughter as wife. For that which is naturally just and proper is what is looked for in marriages. ^D The same things must also be observed concerning servile kinship. And with reason. For even if kinship is not contemplated in these because they are not considered as having a legal head, yet they are preserved for the sake of decency. And the words, in the context in which they were pronounced, have their force therein. But to distort them, or to answer by contradiction, is the act of a man who is wandering from their meaning. And those who contradict, not following the written laws, but introducing other things of their own, are trying to take upon themselves not the role of judges, but of lawgivers. For from the beginning the union between people was indiscriminate. But after the lawgivers explicitly prohibited what seemed base, the rest proceeded as not prohibited. Therefore one should not

[1119]

CANON LAW

OF BASIL, BISHOP OF THESSALONICA

^B Since your question emerges, most religious Great Sacellarius of Dyrrhachium, as to whether two brothers are admitted to legitimate marriage with the aunt of a cousin-german, and the niece from another cousin-german, we respond that this is permitted to be done. For it is neither illicit nor prohibited. For those things are called prohibited, and illicit, and nefarious in which families are confounded: that is, if there be a danger that he who is an uncle, because of cohabitation with a wife, might be said to be the son of his brother by reason of sexual union with the woman; and again, if one happens to be called a brother-in-law to the wife. And other things of this sort. Such is this confusion, and this indecency. For according to that godlike Basil, in nuptials we seek not only what is permitted, but also what is becoming. And the same [author says] elsewhere: "In those things in which the designations of ^C lineage are confounded, in these marriages are nefarious."

Thus, therefore, neither does any indecency arise here, nor any confusion of lineage. For of one side, it is the fifth degree; of the other, the second. And thus the seventh degree, which they call from affinity, is completed. Which marriage is truly both licit and legitimate, and devoid of prohibition. Affinity, moreover, according to the jurisconsult, is the relationship of persons conjoined to us through nuptials, apart from consanguinity. Nor will there be any distinction of agnates and cognates, proceeding clearly from the male and female sex, when the seventh degree ^D from affinity intervenes. Therefore, a contract of this kind will have a place and will in no way be forbidden, just as we have shown, supported by the laws and canons.

Subscription: Basil, the humble Metropolitan of Thessalonica.

VARIOUS READINGS

Suggestion to the Prelate of Thessalonica, Nicetas of Mitylene, concerning slaves, that they be joined by the intervention of a blessing.

^A Holy Master, while I possess a dwelling in the world and examine the accounts of those who come to me, I have found among them certain ones who have male and female slaves, and have joined these slaves together in fornication, without the celebration of holy prayers. Having read the second ordinance of the great Paul, which says: "If a servant be a pagan, let him be instructed to please his master, that the Word may not be blasphemed. And if he has a wife, or the woman a husband, let them be taught to be content with them; but if they are unmarried, let them learn not to commit fornication, but to marry according to the law. But if his master be an unbeliever, and knowing that he commits fornication does not give him a wife, or the woman a husband, let him be separated;" having read this, as it is stated, I advised the masters to give a blessing to their domestic servants. ^B And I also showed them the directive itself. They, however, accepted the directive of the Apostle as holy and speaking things pleasing to God, but they offered the excuse: "We are afraid that if we are persuaded by the directive to bless the slaves, they might be emancipated by the blessing, and we might be deprived of their service." When they said these things, I was again anxious regarding the matter at hand. And yet, having made great effort, I found a novella of the thrice-blessed emperor, Lord Alexius, which commands that slaves be blessed, and that they remain slaves even after the blessing. I therefore showed this to them. ^C But they, in turn, offered the excuse that this was not a piece of legislation from the blessed emperor. Having nothing else that I can do, I beseech your Holiness that, if that novella is truly from that emperor, you would ratify it with an inscription of your own hand, and a signature, by your holy hand, for the establishment and conviction of those who do not believe it, and for the benefit of many. Furthermore, I desire to learn from your Holiness what I ought to do in the case of those who have but one servant. For the master of one male slave, if he does not have the means to purchase a female slave, the slave commits fornication freely outside; ^D and likewise the master of a female slave, if he does not have the means to purchase a male slave, she likewise commits fornication. I desire to know your counsel regarding these, and what remedy should be applied to them. And furthermore, is it lawful for their masters, who after the judgment of the Church have instituted no amendment, to offer a gift to God? And is it permissible for the priest to accept their gifts, especially when the offerings are leavened by those who pollute themselves with fornication?

VARIOUS READINGS 1122. Rectius: faithful.

NOTE (49) As a spiritual father, of whom [I speak] below at the end of this book.

Solution of Nicetas of Mitylene, Metropolitan of Thessalonica

^A Who you are, my good man, who ask about these things from such a great distance, I truly do not know, since I have neither seen you nor spoken with you. The errors, however, which your inquiry contains, invite correction, and I approve of your questioning regarding these matters; for the sins of those who serve masters, whether they be slaves or free—or rather, if they are slaves or in any way under the power of a head of household—are attributed to the masters themselves if one does not take every care to correct them. If they are secret, the one who commits them will give an account to God; but if they are manifest, the head of the household [will give an account]. He also is obliged to make these things known to the local Church, so that the bishop and the priests and monks there may strive for their correction. For then the head of the household, if he remains negligent after being warned, and does not do everything in his power for their correction, is to be rebuked according to his station and excommunicated. ^B Thus, when the slaves or slave-women of a certain man commit fornication, and their master, receiving knowledge of it, does not by every means correct such a sin, and [yet] permits him [to receive] the sacred blessing, he deserves the penalty of segregation according to the holy and divine canons, just as you also have accurately set forth in your discourse.

But masters fear in vain that if permission is granted for slaves to be joined by a sacred ceremony to legitimate wives, or for slave-women to men, they will lose their own servants, as if that sacred ceremony would snatch them into freedom. For this suspicion was removed by the renowned emperor Lord Alexios ^C through a novella which the Churches also accepted. Therefore, so that slaves may not commit fornication, it has been accepted that servile persons may be joined by a sacred blessing and nevertheless remain subject to slavery. And masters have no excuse for not lawfully joining their own male slaves to their female slaves, and female slaves to male servants, with a sacred blessing. And if they do not do this, they are subject to canonical penalties, that is to say, excommunications and exclusion from the sacred communion. The offerings of such persons are also not to be received until they are corrected. Furthermore, those who are charged with observing and inspecting such things, if they do not perform their duty, themselves become subject to the penalties of the holy canons. ^D But if someone possesses one male slave or one female slave and, on account of poverty, cannot procure another, and on this account permits the one he or she has under his own authority to commit fornication, let him know that he is not thereby freed from ecclesiastical and canonical penalty; but it is entirely required of him to instruct his own servant in chastity, or by every means to prevent the fornication, by binding the person who corrupts himself with this to the law of marriage. For thus will he be free of blame. Given in the month of September, the eleventh indiction.

Subscription: Nicetas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica.

A Writing of the Most Blessed Archbishop of All Bulgaria, Lord Demetrios Chomatianos, Concerning Such a Question

^A Most glorious and most beloved brother, Lord Stephen, you inquired of us by your letter whether it is lawful for one who has had relations with a woman to enter into marriage with her sobrina [first cousin]. To this question we provide this answer: namely, that this sort of contract, during the reign of the Emperor Manuel, born in the Porphyra, and thereafter as well, ^B fell into great controversy, while some forbade it as illicit, and others did not prevent it, as being in accordance with the laws. Those who forbade it maintained their own position from other arguments, and from the determination that the husband and wife were in one and the same degree. And thus they concluded that the sixth degree of first cousins [sobrinorum] remained intact, and that it was in no way violated by the intervention of the husband, so as to ascend to the seventh degree, which is recognized by the divine laws as being permitted. Indeed, they even supported this with the authority of the divine word of Scripture, whose commandment is: "Thou shalt not approach any near of kin to thee, to uncover their nakedness." ^C They called the sobrina of the woman with whom (as has been said) he had had relations, "near of kin" to the man by reason of the flesh. With this word the great luminary of the world, Basil, also made use, forbidding this wicked contract. But those who numbered this marriage among those that are permitted, deduced that it was of the seventh degree of affinity: since six degrees are found to belong to one line, and from the other line, one more degree. And in this way, the arguments proposed by those who forbade it were dismissed as discordant and absurd. For if, they said, it is absolutely necessary that two different ^D lines come together to create affinity, and if the degrees are gathered from both of these lines, and in this way either forbidden or permitted contracts appear, how could anyone skilled in the law, when reasoning, conclude that a husband and wife are of one degree? For hence the laws will be found to be in disagreement with themselves and to decree absurdities; as if they were to forbid as illicit the marriages of the second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and even those contracted from four and two, of the sixth degree; but were to permit those that are of one degree: what indeed could be more absurd than this? Otherwise, too, since degrees are accustomed to be born from the line of the race, with each generation creating [1126(no marker)] one degree according to the laws, it will necessarily be considered that the husband and wife are as father and daughter, so that they may be reduced under one degree; and consequently, either as brother and sister, or as uncle and daughter of a brother, or as first cousin [consobrinus] and first cousin [consobrina], and whatever follows thereafter. Whence persons of this sort freely, as if from a starting point, would proceed to the contracts of wicked marriages. And indeed, kinship not intervening in the husband and the wife, it has no sense at all to say that the husband and wife are of one degree or two. For the relations—

^A—those persons, as has been said, beget and constitute the degrees. Since these things are held by the confession of all to be so, it follows that there is no place for the claim that the wife’s maternal cousin is to be considered a necessary relation by blood for the husband. But that statement from the divine Scriptures, having been set forth acutely and briefly by the great and divinely-inspired Father Basil, the blessed Fathers of that holy and universal Sixth Synod, clearly explaining and clarifying it, composed Canon LIV, which in the middle part decrees word-for-word as follows: ^B "But since from such silence, and from the poorly explained prohibition of illicit marriages, a certain confusion of nature has followed, we have decided to set forth these matters more openly, decreeing from now on that he who joins himself in the communion of marriage with his own cousin, or a father and son with a mother and daughter, or a father and son with two sister maidens, or a mother and daughter with two brothers, or two brothers with two sisters, shall fall under a seven-year penance, provided they clearly withdraw from the unlawful cohabitation." Since these are the words of the sacred canon, no mention is found at all within it of persons who are related to each other in such a way, or who contract marriage in the indicated manner; nor was any of these things brought under blame, or subjected to the penalty of divorce. ^C And when the holy Synod of Constantinople was moved by reasons and acts of this kind, held in the time of Theodosius, the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople of pious memory, it issued a document on the thirtieth day of the month of July, in the tenth indiction, which has these very words in the original text:

The most holy Metropolitan Aprous, brother and fellow-minister of our mediocrity, Romanus Artabasdus, brought forth a document in the synod, which contained these words verbatim: A certain girl, Irena by name, through the intervention of sacred prayers, contracted betrothal with a certain John, when she was ten years of age. Since this betrothal had been pronounced unlawful, a synodal decree was issued, permitting the divorce between these betrothed persons, because the betrothal itself was unlawful, as has been said. Now therefore Irena wishes to be legitimately joined with Theodorus, who is the maternal cousin of John. ^D I ask, therefore, if there is any impediment in contracting this marriage. He sought therefore from our mediocrity and the sacred council of the brethren to understand whether that contract, which is contained in writing, has any obstacle. The response given by us, in the presence of the assembly of the brethren, is that such a contract is entirely immune from any prohibition. For since the betrothal concluded with John, being invalid, is dissolved on account of Irena’s being under age, rightly shall Irena be joined to his cousin according to the law of marriage. For indeed, Theodorus is not held to be a kinsman to the person of Irena, nor by affinity—

nor is he bound by the bonds and limits of affinity, because he has gone beyond the degree of affinity. ^A Such then is the decision of the synod pronounced concerning the contract mentioned above, nor shall he who has been carnally joined to a woman be prevented from taking her second cousin as his wife according to the law of marriage; both because the great Basil decrees that fornication is not marriage, nor the beginning of marriage, but a sin subject to ecclesiastical penances; and because such a contract falls into the seventh degree of affinity, and that which is formed from four and three, namely, of first cousins from one lineage, and of an aunt and niece from another; and from five and two, that is, of a first cousin and the son of a first cousin, and of two siblings, and in like manner, from six and one, namely, of second cousins, and of one who is joined to these from another lineage, is such as is permitted to exist; and furthermore, because it is not even ranked among those things prohibited as illicit, according to the summary of the fifty-fourth canon of the sixth ecumenical council, which has been cited above. For the sake of the fornication, however, the man of whom we are speaking ought to purify himself by deeds of the kind that are able to propitiate the Lord, who receives those who repent and who is humane toward the iniquities of men, and who [himself] inspires another mind to those who suffer the afflictions of mortality. ^B

LIBELLUS ABDICATIONIS, Or the Renunciation of the most holy Metropolitan of Heraclea, Lord Theodorus Critopulus.

Most holy master, lord, and ecumenical patriarch, and you, my holy masters, brothers, and fellow-ministers: how I submitted myself to Him who called me, and bowed my neck to the yoke of the Gospel, whether I suffered this from inexperience or from some human desire, I cannot say; at the very least, I confess that a matter full of danger happened to me. But after I began to consider myself little by little, and observed my own lowliness and the dignity of the office, being as far distant from each other as heaven and earth, I condemned myself for my folly, and I said, "What communion is there for me, the base one, with the godlike priesthood?" And when I also had upon my lips the definition of the great Paul, which specifically portrays as it were the form of the high priest, and I was calling to mind its colors—holiness, harmlessness, undefilement—and was pondering them within myself, I was humbled in my aspect, and like Manoah, I myself cried out: "I have perished," not because I had seen God, but because this image was beyond my strength. For what, in the end, does his definition have in common with me, if not the mere society of the title and the appearance down to the talaric garment? And if, while reading the sacred Scriptures also, I were to run through with my tongue those threats and the accounts to be rendered for every soul, which the prophets, the Law, Christ, the Gospel, the apostles struck into me, the Scriptures no longer seemed to me to be mere words, but nails driven home, ^C and not just beating the air, but piercing my own heart. Therefore, all these things... ^D

long for the apostles; but then the sacred writings no longer seemed to me to be merely words, but nails—not striking the air, but my very heart. Having long considered all these things, then, I was giving birth to a saving spirit, so that I might put on the habit of repentance and enter upon the solitary life. And now, the fruit having been brought to life by the inspection of Christ, I have brought forth that which I was bearing. Therefore, I set forth this writing of abdication, not under compulsion, but voluntarily; not unthinkingly, but with leisure and prayer instituted to God. Let the dignity of the pontificate, I say, remain for others, not taken away, who have performed the priesthood according to the order of Christ, the eternal high priest; may the enthronements of others be immutable, in whom the illumination of the Spirit has fixed its seat. For me, let obedience be sought, and a garment of hair, and the tear of repentance, by which my crimes are washed away. I renounce the throne, and the authority, and the priesthood. And I exhort with these words both him who once exhorted me, and him whom the Spirit, the Comforter, shall set apart for his apostolate. Hail, then, O shepherd of shepherds, and Father of fathers, and sustain me with your prayers, and support me with your pastoral or paternal staff. For I am no longer a shepherd, performing the shepherd’s office unskillfully, but now a little sheep and a son. And may it be granted me to say, having been increased by your divine blessings, and in old age advancing in the vigor and perfection of virtue. And hail also to you, those who stand by the mystical table, and until this day have been my companions and fellow-partakers. For henceforth I shall not drink with you from this intelligible vine. Remember me in your prayers, so that although I am now torn away from your company and from that pleasant and spiritual conversation, I may nevertheless enjoy this with you in the kingdom of the heavens in a more recent draught. And before all, and above all, hail also to you, most faithful king, sent by God, whose sublime arm ^C and peaceful empire—may the peaceful Church of God be under it, in the spirit and virtue of Christ, who is the prince of peace. May you put on royal white from year to year. ^D

MANDATA GIVEN TO METROPOLITANS, ARCHBISHOPS, AND OTHERS, WHEN THEY ARE ORDAINED. Patriarchal Epistle.

To the holiest bishops, most religious presbyters, most beloved of God deacons, and the entire sacred clergy; to the most glorious and most illustrious citizens and inhabitants of the divinely guarded city of N.

The law and rule of the spiritual order, which is directed according to evangelical and apostolic graces, desires those destined to adorn the sacred dignity to be preserved in a decent and blameless state: so that the body of both the Church and the commonwealth, through religious governance, may be ruled in quiet and peaceful serenity according to the will of God, and all foreign

^A speculation and tumult of dogmas be repelled, and the dark gloom of the storms rising from hostile heresy be dissipated. For such must he be who is set over the people and who maintains the faithful word according to the teaching, being both eye, and ear, and hand, and foot to the flock, for the guidance and protection of the better sort, and for the warding off and overthrow of those who are otherwise minded. Since, therefore, we have learned that your most excellent flock was remaining in the orphanage of a shepherd, because he who formerly shepherded it had already departed to the lot that is there, and had entered into the mansions there, we did not think that your Church, having been despoiled of its spouse and bereft of its ruler, should be left to struggle for long with the inconveniences of widowhood. Therefore, having chosen the most God-fearing presbyter N., and with the invocation of the Father who is before all beginning, and with the assent of the Son who is without beginning, and with the cooperation of the consubstantial and princely Spirit, we, as the least and unworthy, laid our hands upon him, and having duly performed what pertained to him, we appointed him ^B pontiff of your God-guarded city. Receive him, therefore, gladly and joyfully, and with all your soul and mind, and revere him as a father, and acknowledge him with one mind as a shepherd, and follow him as a leader urging you toward salvation, and cherish him as your own prize, and submit to him as bearing the rank of children toward him; knowing that, according to the great teacher Paul, he will watch with sleepless eyes and will diligently provide for the salvation of your souls. For through him we have a firm hope that you will obtain from God the most excellent things and those that pertain to salvation. For if you incline your ear to him, and attend to the things spoken by him, you will attain the hoped-for good things, and will share with him in the rewards there. But before these things, and in all things, do not cease to offer fervent prayers and ^C constant intercessions for the saving power of our great emperors, who shine forth by the grace of God; that the Lord God, who has crowned them, and who fights for them, and who crowns their serene heads with victorious prosperity as if with a garland, may exalt them more and more in their advances against their enemies, guarding and preserving their crown in an uninterrupted rule, for the salvation and welfare of the whole world; remembering also, as is fitting, our own mediocrity. And for the restoration of your appointed archpriest to the flock, and his installation upon the holy throne, we have sent the most reverend N., so that he, having performed such a work in a manner befitting the priesthood, may timely return to us. May the Almighty and only God of ours, who is worshipped in the Trinity of persons and ^D in the unity of essence, who gathers together things that are divided, and makes things that are far off to draw near, and who has made whole the lack of our own flock, bless us with blessing, and multiply us with multiplication, and increase us beyond

your houses, and your offspring, and the things that pertain to you; kindly feeding you with your pastor, and with him nourishing you by the life-giving pastures and the water of rest for your souls. Amen.

Mandate which is wont to be given to a metropolitan and archbishop, when he is ordained.

I. The providence of our benevolent God concerning our human race, while it supplies it with many other opportunities for attaining salvation, and invites it through various benefits, has especially, through the distinguished blessings of rightly enacted laws and canonical sanctions, ^A providently awakened devotion toward Himself in the hearts of those who observe them. For through these we recognize Him as the Prince, Author of the laws, and Lord; and while we are as if guided by the hand by His divine precepts, we traverse the way of His will without offense; through these the tokens of our pure and blameless faith are preserved, and the native beauty of this very Orthodoxy shines forth and glitters; through these, plunderings, circumventings, and the violent impulses of those who abuse their power against their neighbors, are checked; by these, contentions and quarrels are curbed and inhibited, and the good of peace and concord increases. ^B Indeed, just as through these other goods are accomplished, both life and speech are regulated, the wealth of virtues increases in the multitude of men, justice protects the peaceful face of things, and its administration preserves unity, free from all discord: so when we are not led by these, injustice and avarice, the offspring of insatiable malignity, are born in the life of mortals; an implacable war is stirred up among us; all hope of our salvation is cast into peril and difficulty. ^C Therefore, if the discipline of divine laws procures for us deliverance from such great evils, and the privation thereof has the contrary effect, your God-beloved self must receive with outstretched palms the divine and apostolic ordinances, together with the saving and paternal teachings and decrees, and both hold them in value and keep them as if they were divinely inscribed tablets; and likewise you must love and revere the teaching of civil laws, and in every action follow them constantly; and whatever occurs, direct and accommodate it to them; since you know for certain that the Lord, who presides over the universe, ^D is present at our right hand, clearly perceives whatever is done, and distributes rewards corresponding to our deeds.

2. Your God-beloved self, having been called by divine grace and having received that evangelical yoke upon your neck, must rule the flock committed and entrusted to you by the Creator of all, the Spirit, according to the precept of the Gospel: lay down your own life for those very sheep: lead those who walk in the darkness of sin to the light: for them

^A to be a light-bringer, to jeopardize oneself for the injured, to offer solace to the afflicted, to bring what comfort one can to the needy, like an apostle to suffer with the weak, to commiserate with those who are scandalized, and to be recognized by all as a pattern of virtue and good order through a life of practical deeds, so that your light may shine before men, and your Father who is in heaven may be glorified.

3. ^B Your God-loving self must occupy itself with fasts and with supplications to the Divine, stretching out holy hands to the Lord by night and by day; and you must keep watch over the souls entrusted to us, and from above seek salvation for them, as one who must render an account for them, which the great Apostle teaches us before we do, in these words: "Obey those who rule over you, and submit; for they keep watch over your souls as those who must render an account." For if he who is in charge of irrational cattle, when one of them is lost, does not go unpunished, how much more is he not irresponsible who neglects a soul, the most precious of all worldly possessions.

4. You must not grow weary of teaching, but must ^C continuously instruct the people committed to you in matters pertaining to salvation, both through yourself and through another who is capable of performing such a ministry, so that by not being negligent you do not render yourself liable to the severity of the canons. For it says: "If a bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the people, and does not teach them piety, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists in his sloth, let him be deposed."

5. You must not, being puffed up by the dignity of your prelacy, rise up against those committed to your care, so that you do not fall away from the blessedness of humility and become subject to the charge of those who are puffed up; but rather, you must set yourself as a pattern of humility to those who see you, and urge them to fulfill the Lord's commandments by your own deeds. "Learn, He says, from me, for I am meek and humble of heart." And, "Whoever wants to be first among you, let him be the last of all."

6. Your God-loving self, taking up praise-worthy ^D humility, must commit nothing unworthy of the pontifical reputation among your subjects; but whenever any one of them comes for the purpose of seeing you, you must not out of haughtiness and vanity defer the viewing and speaking to him; but rather you must admit him immediately, and come forward to receive him according to custom (just as the affection of our own mediocrity is accustomed to be toward your God-loving self), knowing accurately that even if in the prelacy it is the greater, yet in the equality of nature, or even in the comparison of the power of the Holy Spirit, such a person is in no respect inferior to us.

7. Your piety, if it wishes to avoid evil suspicions, should entrust the administration of affairs and other ecclesiastical functions to those who are enrolled in the clergy. For this is also what the sacred canon commands, and it provides you with what is irreproachable, so that the administration of the Church’s affairs may not lack witnesses, and so that no stain of reproach may be cast upon the priesthood from this source, or indeed from any other.

8. Your piety, if ever the end of life has come to any of the bishops, must in no way take anything away from his possessions, nor must it cloak the prohibited act of rapine and tyranny under the honorable name of custom. Rather, you must notify everyone that all things will be preserved intact, and that each of the things left behind is to be administered according to his own arrangement; especially as regards those things which he possessed at the time when he was appointed to the episcopate, or which fell to him later from his kinsmen. But if the end of life should come to him suddenly, even then his property must not be pillaged or taken away; but if any of his kinsmen survive, his own goods are to be attributed to them. If, however, there are no such persons, then if the church over which he presided is poor and in need of such things, it shall receive his assets; but if it is wealthy and opulent, you must at least take care that his goods are distributed to the poor, rather than invading them under some guise of sovereign authority and power, and taking away any of his possessions. Indeed, if anything of the sort is attempted by you, ^C then that which was taken shall be restored to double its amount, and you yourself shall be subjected to the penalty of excommunication for no small time.

9. If any of the bishops subject to you has departed to the other life, your piety, keeping itself far removed from all human cupidity, or rather showing itself free from the vice of simony, and by every means and with all its might keeping the divine grace of the Spirit not for sale, and looking only to God, the overseer of our hearts, must raise to the episcopal rank that man who has testimonies of an honest life, of doctrine, of order and of spiritual zeal, and who has been elected duly according to the canons; so that that great dignity of the pontificate may be preserved immune from huckstering, and that you yourself may not be condemned by the canonical sanctions, and that he himself, having been approved in this way by his own virtue to be advanced to the episcopate, may be free from all offense; neither striking against spiritual laws, nor provoking against himself the inevitable judgment of God.

10. In every action and transaction you must abstain entirely from gifts, and know certainly that while any other sin undergoes a simple punishment, this heresy of Simon brings a double condemnation upon one who is caught in it. Wherefore this must be entirely cut away, and there should not be any entry or...

window left open for it. ^A For these customs, which are so-called, as they have crept in with the disease of avarice, drag the pontiffs who are found to be participants in them to condemnation no less—if not even more so—than the aforementioned evil, seeing that the heresy of Simon is practiced under an honest mask. For even if an infamous deed is veiled by an honest name, it must be evaded and shunned in every way; and even more so than that which openly bears the appearance of wickedness itself. For hidden ulcers are naturally more difficult to heal, and absurd crimes, in which there is a certain deceitful malice, more easily insinuate themselves into the common people than those which are manifest. Therefore, we decree, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that you receive nothing—neither under the plea of a civil or criminal suit, nor for the appointment of an abbot, or archimandrite, or legate, ^B or even for the institution of an oikonomos or a major; and, what is more horrible, it is in no way fitting to receive anything at all, neither before nor after the ordination, for the ordination of a deacon, or a presbyter, or a bishop. For this, as I believe, is manifest even to those who are unskilled in the holy canons. Wherefore, keeping your hands pure in all the indicated matters, and before your hands, your very thoughts, you must undergo the law of the pontifical office, knowing and being convinced that he who values these precepts and mandates as naught, does not merely make our admonitions of no account, but is a despiser of the divine and sacred canons, and he shall not escape the condemnation to be imposed by them. For this reason, we decree that the so-called inthronismus be given, not to the one who ordains the bishop (God forbid!), but to the needy ^C among the clergy or those who perform other ecclesiastical service, with account taken of the ecclesiastical resources. For if the bishopric is wealthy, we do not at all forbid that some small gifts be conferred, as if by way of beneficence, upon those who serve in ecclesiastical ministries and lead a life of poverty, and we do not restrain them from that.

11. Your piety must, before all things and above all things, keep itself pure and immune from the passion of avarice and greed, being content with its own resources; neither in any way invading and claiming for itself the things of others, nor afflicting those subject to you with servile commands, nor taking vengeance upon those who do not comply with the heaviest penalties; ^D so that by your actions the dignity of the priesthood may be adorned, and you yourself may in no way be subject to divine and human condemnation.

12. In all matters concerning the canons, you must apply the utmost accuracy; and where some bring accusations and point out a transgression of them, you must exercise care...

^A and make correction of the things done amiss, weighing the arguments of both parties with equal benevolence, while following the standard of the canonical observations, and directing and concluding each matter by these.

13. Your piety ought ^B to apply the greatest care and foresight, so that these things may be preserved unharmed for the ornament of the Church, or if possible, even receive increase; and likewise to keep unalienated the other immovable properties which contribute to the need of the Church; and to manage those granted to some by emphyteutic right with our consensus; and to expend whatever is collected therefrom for the stability of the Church. For the sacred canon of the apostles also says thus: "The bishops of every nation must know who is the first among them, and do nothing superfluous without his opinion." The holy synod held at Venthale ^B also affirmed and decreed the same: "That no metropolitan or bishop should do anything without him who governs the apostolic throne." Furthermore, the words of another sacred canon are these: "Likewise it pleased, that presbyters, without the opinion of their own bishops, should in no way distract the property of the church to whose priesthood they are ordained." In which way it is also not permitted for bishops to distract the properties of the church while the synod is unaware.

14. Your piety ought, if it happens that one of those superiors ^C under you departs from human affairs, first to keep in every way without any innovation the things belonging to him—those which served for his office, or even if others exist—and not to lay unjust hands upon them under the nefarious pretext of custom. Then, proceed to promote to the grade of this prefecture him to whom the monks bear witness of piety and prudence; with no gifts intervening, of course, which cannot be accepted without danger to the pontiff; and for him who is caught having given such, they apply without compassion the penalty decreed by the canon.

15. Those to whom the prefecture of monks is entrusted ought to ^D grant the angelic habit to those who enter upon the solitary life—the customary time and due examination having intervened—and to tonsure them fully; so that through long exercise their character may be perceived, and having obtained the habit, they may remain constant in good.

16. You ought to regulate other matters fitting for the solitary life according to the Patristic sanctions: you must seek out elderly and chaste eunuchs who may receive the sacred instruction to understand the mysteries for women in religious houses; and you must strive both to remove from there the mixing and crowding of worldly men, and to separate the so-called double monasteries

^A Thus for these matters. And if any other issue should be brought forward by time or necessity, provided you fulfill it with praiseworthy, fitting, and God-loved diligence, you will be exempt from every reproach and condemnation. You will be seen as an ornament to the Church and a minister to the glory of Christ, the true God of ours, who shed His own blood for her—which we hope for and pray for—and with great hope you will be sent on to the blessedness stored up for the saints, where may the longed-for rest be granted to all in Christ Jesus our Lord. For He is the giver and accomplisher of good things, and to Him belongs honor and glory, now and unto the ages. Amen.

Mandate given to legates

1. Your reverence, who has received from our mediocrity the governance and care of the patriarchal monasteries, must take up much diligence and zeal with a praiseworthy conscience, since you are bound to render an account of these things not only to us, but also before us to God, the inspector of all. You must carry out this ministry without looking to favor, enmity, gifts, entreaties, or anything else of a human nature; but you must act in all things according to the canonical laws and our mandate, and perform the visitation duty when need calls without burden or hardship to others, lest for the sake of the multitude of your retinue, and greater expenses, and even for an ill-timed arrival, they see themselves receiving present and urgent damage instead of the future benefit. For if they perceive some bodily harm from your presence, they will not have faith in you even when you promise the salvation of their souls.

Furthermore, you shall keep yourself perpetually pure and undefiled from every grasping of gifts, and you shall not be contaminated in any way by what are called customs, nor be an occasion of stumbling to others. For the honesty of a title does not excuse the impiety of an act; rather, the wickedness of the deed diminishes even the goodness of the name itself. ^B Truly, he who commands others to act justly ought himself to be pure from any suspicion of injustice. ^C But indeed, if anything different should be done contrary to the things commanded to you in writing (which God forbid, and may the Lord not permit it), and an attempted violation of any of these mandates be committed—especially if it be found that you demand the so-called customs yourself, or that any other of your companions does so, or if any other harm is brought upon those who receive your reverence for the purpose of being freed from the harm of soul and body—whoever, therefore, is caught in such a vice, let him know, because of this very wicked act, first indeed that he is [cut off] from the sacred mysteries... ^D

and expelled from the ecclesiastical assembly; and not long after, he shall also be required to pay the civil penalty. For he who contemns ecclesiastical sanctions and laws, and does not deem their punishment formidable, subjects himself to civil liabilities. These things having been set down by us in the preamble, let our discourse proceed to the mandate of the ministry itself.

2. Your Reverence ought to render those who have been allotted the duty of overseeing sacred monasteries, but who treat the rest of the monastics with a certain proud contempt and arrogance, modest and humble by way of exhortation and admonition; and to instruct them to recognize the monks as their own members; and not only to embrace their souls with care to the best of their ability, but their bodies as well: and they must do all things that are of any moment with their counsel: ^B to have a common life with them, and a common manner of living; to keep all immovable properties unalienated, and to make the fruits reaped from them manifest to all, and to administer these fittingly, so that from these, their flocks may be preserved in a good state, and the monks themselves may have no cause for complaint against their masters and teachers.

3. Your Reverence ought to make obedient and compliant those who practice the monastic life but who are unwilling to submit to their own shepherd, instead walking a path contrary to the monastic order and becoming a stumbling block to the rest of the multitude; and by prayer and spiritual instructions teach them the obedience of the Lord and so form them that they may conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their profession, neither following their own wills nor bestowing care upon private possessions or so-called peculia: that by deeds confirming their renunciation of the earthly life, they may find deliverance from the sins they have committed, and become partakers of the goods which endure for all eternity. ^C

4. Your Reverence ought to investigate and resolve whatever disputes fall between monks and abbots, and conversely between abbots and monks, and by using the aid of justice, to settle them rightly: to take every offense out of the way, and in turn to restore a peaceful state: and finally to plant in them a manner of living which befits religious men.

5. Your Reverence ought to subject to the appropriate penalties those monks who turn aside from the straight path and suffer from disobedience toward their superiors and commit sin unto death, as that divine John speaks, for whom prayer and intercession have great power; these, then, as not obeying the instructive word, ought to be subjected to the necessary censures, so that, being chastened by them, they may learn things that make for salvation, and others, by their chastisement, may be found more sober in their spiritual labor. ^D

[alt-version omitted]

^A 5. Your Reverence must give orders that all who are admitted into the monastic habit learn the holy Psalter by heart, and that they do not become like wretched slaves, spending all their time on earthly labor on account of the lack of discernment of those in charge, or the disobedience and sloth of those who are under authority.

6. Your Reverence must give orders to seek out those monks who desert their order, and to bring them back to their own subordination; and those who refuse to do this, provided they have a reasonable cause, you must hand over to other monasteries, to those abbots who are religious and capable of teaching the fear of God. For the fear of God is truly a thing that can be taught, as the Prophet says: "Come, children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord."

7. Your Reverence must see to it that those who are to perform holy services in nunneries be aged and eunuchs, so that the reputation of the virgins might not be torn apart by those who take pleasure in slandering their neighbors.

8. Your Reverence must command the abbots not to receive those who have made agreements and confessions in other monasteries without the consent of the one who tonsured them, but to use all diligence and zeal to persuade them to return to their own monastery. But you shall punish and excommunicate those who dare to receive such persons without cause, as those committing a crime equal to that of enslavers.

9. Your Reverence must command the abbots to prevent those under their authority from going out into the cities, and to cut off completely every inclination toward relatives and friends, as well as the so-called associations, and furthermore, their meetings and mingling with women. For these are not the signs of the monastic order.

^B 10. Your Reverence must exhort everyone to occupy themselves with fasts and prayers according to the patristic and spiritual patterns, and not follow the ways of common life—not only for their own sake, but also for the common good of others—and to provide the needy, as much as they are able, with the necessities, according to the evangelical commandment, for the greater profit and acquisition of their souls.

11. Your Reverence must solemnly charge all who have been appointed to look after holy monasteries not to tonsure monks or nuns before a three-year trial period; and that having passed, they shall tonsure males from the age of fifteen, and females from the age of seventeen. For this is established by the patristic laws. For whatever is done contrary to this is known to be the cause of much confusion and disorder.

12. Your Reverence must admonish all to whom this is taught. ^C

^D [alt-version omitted]

^A that the intention to build new sacred monasteries should not be carried out in unbecoming places, or too close to villages, nor yet where there is not sufficient wealth to provide what is necessary for them. For the former is known to provide an easy occasion for the corruption of the soul, and the latter makes their destruction manifest even before they are settled.

14. Your Reverence must, if a superior of a patriarchal monastery should die (as is natural), send to us the one who is elected by all, and not another whom the monks themselves do not request, but whom all have chosen; so that, having received the laying on of hands, he may thus shepherd the flock entrusted to him.

15. Your Reverence must, if necessity should compel it, register all the monasteries that belong to patriarchal jurisdictions, along with the properties, affairs, and sacred vessels belonging to them, and send this description to us.

16. Your Reverence must, with all your might, restrain those who visit the monasteries and introduce innovations, or bring other untimely vexations and injuries ^B or damages upon them; and you must devise a way for those who are trained there to be kept safe from harm and undisturbed, according to the pious word.

17. Your Reverence, in every monastery that you are bound to visit, must read aloud from beginning to end this written document of precepts given to you, which has the force of a command from God Almighty; so that they may recognize our ordinances concerning them and receive you as a father and corrector of those things which have been neglected, and not as a corrupter and destroyer; and thus become ^C more eager and diligent through your admonitions.

We have thought it necessary to arm you with these things both in the preamble and in this place, fearing divine condemnation. For if you are a guardian of our ordinance, God from above will reward you, according to the worth of your labors, now and in the final judgment of the lives of men. But if you are found to be a violator of our commandment, and one who has corrupted or innovated in certain matters, before any human punishment you will experience God Himself as an avenger, who demands accountability both now and when He renders to each according to their own works.

Mandate for someone to become a spiritual father

Our predecessor, that most holy patriarch N., previously permitted by a letter containing a mandate ^D to the most reverend monk and abbot of the venerable monastery of the Ammoniacal successors, Dositheus, to hear the confessions of those who approached him as a spiritual father; and not only of them, but also of the monks established under him, and to examine their affairs more accurately. Since, however, our humble self has also found this man to be a seeker of all piety, and a partaker of the state that truly befits a monk, and...

^A suitably qualified for this service—if any other is—it entrusts to the aforementioned abbot this ministry through this its present mandate. By this, it also grants him the power to examine those who come to him, and to search the thoughts in the depths of these persons, and to investigate their actions, so that he may strive to check and completely cut off the beginnings and causes [of sin] insofar as it is possible, while canonically correcting their ends and impulses. Nevertheless, he ought to accommodate himself to the habits, dispositions, strengths, and qualities of those who approach [him], and to become all things to all men, at one time holding back, at another time relaxing. Now employing more austere remedies, now blending in something sweet; at one time refuting and rebuking, at another time again entreating and admonishing; and in every way managing the things pertaining to the salvation of the souls committed to his care. For this reason, he shall bind among those subject to him what ought to be bound, and he shall again loose what deserves to be loosed; and those who ^B depart from this life he shall send on to the heavenly tribunal with the remission of their transgressions. We also concede to him the right to administer the tonsure to those who request it, whether in their own lifetime or even in their final breaths, provided, however, that the observances of the monastic profession are not neglected—namely, the pure confession, the act of renunciation, the liturgical prayers, and the deposit of the one being shorn to the sponsor. And so, the aforementioned abbot Dositheus shall use this present mandate ^C of our humble self for the sake of greater certainty.

Mandate given to abbots and priors

The teacher of the Churches, who ascended even to the third heaven and heard ineffable words, and having drawn from thence and poured forth into all the nations the divine doctrine of the holy Gospel, writing to the holy Titus, spoke thus: "Appoint elders and leaders in every church, as I myself commanded you." Following this teaching, therefore, our humble self appoints your reverence to the aforementioned holy monastery; and you shall take possession of it, together with all the ^D rights of previous times, exercising care for everything, including the administration of the same monastery, in such a way that, first, you send up the customary doxology and praise to the Lord our God together with the monks subject to you, at morning, at the lighting of the lamp, and at the appropriate hours. Then, in like manner, [you shall oversee] the sufficient lighting of the lamps, and if the holy house has need of anything for the repair of buildings and other matters. For we now entrust every concern to you, as one who ought to provide for all things diligently.

^A It is your duty to exercise the greatest care to ensure that those who are tonsured are not occupied in any other monastic function—even if they might be suited for one—until they have properly learned the psalter and the entire remaining sequence of those things which every monk is required to know without exception or excuse, and to be ignorant of which is no small danger to the monastic order.

Furthermore, you must make known in writing to the chosen monks under you all the revenues and expenses of the monastery, and thus keep all the monastics subject to you steadfast in their duties, so that they may possess no private property; and the Lord God, who wills that all men be saved, will give you strength to perform works of piety and things pleasing to Him, together with all the brethren who are with you. Remember also our poor brethren, and with the entire fraternity in Christ, offer prayers for us.

Commendatory Letters, which are accustomed to be sent by the Patriarch of Constantinople, newly ordained.

^B Since an ecclesiastical decree has prevailed, that those who have been recently elevated with patriarchal dignity to the throne of Constantinople and have taken up the reins of sacred administration for the people of the Lord entrusted to them, are first to signify by letter to the patriarchs already adorned with the pastoral dignity concerning the correct dogmas—as if to examiners and judges of their own approved faith; so that from this, the society of the same religion may shine more illustriously and effect a tighter conjunction in God; we, obeying the custom of the fathers, write these commendatory letters, which contain a sort of compendium both of the life we have led and of our opinion concerning our doctrine.

Our ancestors were pious, parents of the same opinion as they; our inheritance, received as if by hand, is the orthodox faith. For no love of transitory things has existed within us. Our pursuit was a tranquil life, a commerce of doctrine, and the imitation of the virtue of those who have preceded us. Following these things was a transformation of character and the study of the solitary life; so much is sufficient to express, as it were, the form of our life.

Concerning the doctrine of the faith: We believe in one God, and the rest. We acknowledge one deity, ^C glorified in three persons, undivided in nature, but distinct in properties. I embrace the seven holy universal synods, and I receive and accept all things decreed by them: the first, indeed, as one that cast down Arius, who was named after his madness, since he made the Son alien to the nature of the Father; the second, as one that condemned the insane Macedonius, who uttered blasphemies concerning ^D the Holy Spirit; and the third, as one that cast off the impious Nestorius, who...

in his delirium taught that Christ was a mere man, and denied the all-praised Theotokos; the fourth, as one that struck down the most unfortunate Eutyches and the accursed Dioscorus, who babbled that the two natures in Christ were turned into one, and taught their confusion; the fifth, as one that anathematized the wicked dogmas of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, those who were pagan-minded, who fabricated degrees of divinity, as well as the pre-existence of souls, their transmigrations, the end of punishment, and the restitution of demons; the sixth, as one that rejected those about Honorius, Sergius, and Macarius, those insane and portentous men, who ascribed one will and one operation to Christ, who consists in two natures; and the seventh, as one that trampled upon the iconoclastic frenzy. This is my confession of faith. We have sent this to you inscribed on a tablet in written characters, so that the sincerity of our piety, which has already become known to you, may bind ^B us further toward union, and make those who are participants in the faith participants also in love, removing from the midst every occasion of scandal and stone of stumbling. May He who joins what is separated be both shepherding and co-shepherding us, and leading us to the fold of the Spirit. Greet the holy synod which is with you. The synod which is with us greets you in the Lord.

The security of the creed, which is customarily provided by the most God-beloved metropolitans and archbishops at the time of their ordination

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead, ^C of whose kingdom there will be no end; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets; in one holy, universal, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen. In addition to these things, I receive the seven holy and universal synods, which [were held] for the preservation of the holy dogmas

professing to embrace and keep the canons defined by them, and the holy regulations, as many as were ordained by our holy Fathers at various times and seasons; all of which they receive, I also receive, and whoever they reject, I also reject. ^A Furthermore, I promise to preserve ecclesiastical peace, and never in all the time of my life will I harbor in my mind anything contrary to it; but in all things I shall obey and consent to the most holy and universal Patriarch Nicolaos. I promise also, in fear of God and with a religious mind, to govern the flock committed to my faith, keeping myself pure from every evil suspicion, as far as it lies within my power. These things were written by the own hand of N., presbyter and designated bishop of the city of N., which is preserved by God, in the month of . . . and the indiction . . . .

Prayer which is accustomed to be read before the emperor by a newly ordained metropolitan

That holy God, who from His own chosen inheritance, from the very maternal womb, chose you as emperor of the entire Christian body and assembly, and placed upon your divine and holy head a crown adorned with precious gems, ^B and anointed it with His own holy oil; may He alone, who is good, and rich in mercy and in the abyss of kindness, O divinely-crowned and divinely-guarded holy emperor, who from His own peculiar people also picks out pontiffs and priests, so that for the mercy, life, victory, ^C endurance, peace, health, and salvation of your Christ-loving majesty, and for the ignorances of the people, they might offer to Him bloodless sacrifices; may He hear also my prayer, humble as I am, in this hour of the present prayer, and plant your imperial and divine feet in a spacious place, subjecting to them all foreign and barbarian nations; and may He scatter them like dust before the face of the wind, and destroy your enemies with slaughter, so that in profound peace the lot of your inheritance, which is subject to you—that holy nation, the royal priesthood—you may govern with royal dignity and magnificently, and send up voices of thanksgiving to God, ^D that he may add day upon day to your omnipotent and holy majesty, and preserve your years unto generation and generation, and may will that you reign until the ends of the present age, and preserve your seed in perpetual peace and succession. So be it, so be it, almighty God, and together with this earthly kingdom, make them also partakers of your heavenly kingdom. For every perfect gift is from you alone, O God, who also brings our prayers to completion: to whom belongs all glory, honor, adoration, and eternal empire, unto ages of ages. Amen.

THEODORE BALSAMON PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH STUDIES OR RESPONSES

^A The study, or response, of the most holy Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore, concerning the privileges of the patriarchs.

Your request, most holy man, has come before me, and it has been accepted, received, and become familiar to me. For it was not clothed in unseemly rags, nor in garments unworthy of your liberal wisdom, but rather in honest and decent ones, such as priestly lips are accustomed to weave, which set forth justice and seek truth. Therefore, accept the talent of the friendly response you sought to receive from us through it. You asked me to set forth in writing whence and how the number of the most holy patriarchs was established as five, what privileges they have been granted, and whether there is any distinction among them, as some maintain.

We write, therefore, to your holiness, that before all the patriarchs, Euodius, from among the people of Antioch, ^B was ordained by the holy apostle Peter as the prelate of that great city of Antioch; and shortly after, by the same herald of God, the holy Mark was appointed bishop over the Church of the Alexandrians; the holy James over the people of Jerusalem; and the holy Andrew over Thrace. But after about three hundred years, the great man among the Fathers, the holy Sylvester, was named Pope of the throne of ancient Rome by the holy and equal-to-the-apostles, the great Constantine, who had just recently embraced the true doctrine, as religious history and other ecclesiastical histories recount.

The great throne of Constantinople, however, this famous place and name, ^C was subject to the Perinthians (for Perinthus is the western Heraclea) and was ruled by a bishop. For the great city was not yet called Constantinople, but was a small town, Byzantium. But when the sceptres of the empire were transferred from ancient Rome to it, by divine and ineffable Providence, as if from a wild olive tree into an olive tree, he who then presided with pontifical authority over the throne of this church, the holy Metrophanes, had his title changed from bishop to archbishop. For it is for this reason that the first holy universal synod, in mentioning the throne of Constantinople...

granted it the honorary rights of old Rome, because it was (as it says) a new Rome, ^A just as the things concerning this are made clear from the second and third canon of the same synod. But in order that the most excellent treasure of good order might be preserved also in the heads of the Churches, just as it is in the celestial orders, the divine and universal holy synod, convened in the Trullo of the great palace, which is also called the Quinisext, decreed these things explicitly:

Synodal Decree

Renewing the things decreed by the 150 holy Fathers who assembled in the God-guarded and imperial city, and by the 630 who assembled in Chalcedon, we decree that the throne of Constantinople shall enjoy the same honorary ^B rights as the throne of elder Rome, and shall be magnified in ecclesiastical matters just as that one is, existing as the second after it; after which, let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be counted, then that of the Antiochenes, and after this, that of the city of Jerusalem. Wherefore, in accordance with the summary of this canon, from that time until now we venerate in this way the great high priests of these five most holy thrones throughout the entire world. For the removal of the pope of elder Rome from the Churches by no means abolished the canonical order. Furthermore, ^C the first does not exalt himself against the second, nor the second against the third; but as they are held among the Christian people like the five senses of one head (which are said to be that many in number, yet are not divided into parts), they are nonetheless equal in dignity in all things; and since they are justly called heads of the holy Churches of God throughout the world, a distinction established by men cannot have a place among them. Nor, based on the opinion of some who bring forward matters of no great weight, is the Roman pope thereby injured because he himself, because of the letter R, if we consider the collation of letters, is third in order, ^D and for the same reason the Constantinopolitan is honored by the letter C and attains the prior place. Nor has an open window for offense been created between the Alexandrian and the Antiochene because of the letter A, as if each of them were claiming the prior place for himself; but just as that quinary of the senses corresponds to the formation of the Architect and Creator God, and sight, for instance, does not aggressively attack smell, nor hearing attack touch or taste, because their names happen to be pronounced by us in such a sequence; so neither does any one of the most holy patriarchs, to whom a prior place has been assigned by the divine canons, arrogantly exalt himself against the second and the one next to this.

But since some say that it is not permitted for the Alexandrian or the Antiochene, for example, to make their journeys to the imperial city or into another diocese with a patriarchal lamp or torch, except for those provinces which [were] assigned to them by the canons...

But it is not permitted for a bishop to teach outside his own province, according to the 20th canon of the holy and ecumenical Sixth Synod in Trullo. And, as if to provide proof for their claim, they also misuse the evangelical words, and say: "Let your light shine before men" (Matt. V, 16). Let them hear how kings and patriarchs are indeed magnified with teaching honors through the power of the holy chrism; for from this, the faithful masters and autocrats speak in a catechetical manner to the Christ-named people, or cense as priests, and seal with the *dikirion*. It is for this reason alone that they are encircled by lights, ^B and are not glorified by silver and gilded (so to speak) crowns, but rather because, according to the heavenly giant, they illuminate the center of Orthodoxy with the rays of their brilliance: "And their going forth shines from the end of heaven, and their course reaches to the end of heaven, and there is no one who is hidden from their heat" (Ps. XVIII, 6-7). For if such titles of these lamps were invented only for the office of teaching, then *she*—who, during the times as an autocrat, holds this privilege—would justly have been left unlit. For it is ordained that women should be silent and not teach. But we see these, too, thus glorified just like the kings. And all the local bishops would similarly ^C be wearing their pontifical and other processions; one might even see the bishop of Athyra, and one much less impressive than this one, walking on foot through the processions of his own diocese, yet being honored with a patriarchal lamp, because they, too, are clothed in a teaching dignity. What could one say is more strange, or rather, more unpleasant? If no one has ever seen this happening to any of the metropolitans or archbishops—and much less the bishops, except for the autocephalous archbishops, I mean [those] of Bulgaria and of Cyprus, and a few metropolitans who have obtained this right through royal ^D favor—the fact is that this right was granted to kings and patriarchs alone, by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit and by anciently ordained custom and good order, for the reasons stated.

That the assistance of the autocrats extends to the enlightenment and support of both soul and body, while the grandeur of the patriarchs is confined to the soul's utility alone (for they have little concern for bodily luxury); likewise, the care and concern of the empress for her subjects is spread only toward bodily well-being (for women are deprived of all spiritual help), [while] the lamps of the kings are...

[alt-version omitted]

On the Sunday of Meat-fare (Excarnation). Respecting the great and illustrious day of our Lord Jesus Christ. On the terminal days of Meat-fare. Brothers and Fathers: it is a universal law that on this day, worldly people cease from eating meat, and you may see a great struggle of gluttony and drunkenness enacted, together with foul spectacles of games, which it is shameful even to recount. And those whom it would be fitting to be temperate, and to give thanks to God for the present, and to prepare themselves for the coming banquet as is worthy, do instead, through the devil's deceits, all other things, showing themselves to be destined for something else. But why are these things said to me? So that we, being destitute monks, might not abandon our minds to the same things, nor be led by the desire for them, which is in no way worthy of desire, but of lamentation. Rather, with our eyes fixed on the Gospel, which should be heard today, and for which the Canon has been sung, let us contemplate the great and illustrious day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, when the judge will place the sheep on the right and the goats on the left. The former He will address with that happy and most desired voice: "Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. XXV, 34); to the latter, He will speak that dire and most sorrowful sentence: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. XXV, 41). These things are, by heaven, full of horror, and of dread, and of dismay; which we, just as they, must ponder, and weep, and make God propitious before we come to the experience of things which [must be] heard. And as they undergo these things, I exhort us to hear the evangelical proclamations quickly, striving to serve God timidly and trembling, with all wickedness removed from the soul; and having introduced into one another knowledge of a sublime function, sincere mercy, kindness, submission, meekness, gentleness, or whatever else is excellent and praised, so that by a life worthy of Christ's Gospel we may gain the heavenly kingdom through Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is glory and empire, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and into all eternity. Amen.

What then? Afterwards, namely, [to be] again attacked, again to be crowned; and by how much greater the tribulations are, by that much greater is the consolation of the Holy Spirit. For these are the Apostle's words: "For just as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so also our consolation abounds through Christ. But whether we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation (15), which works in the endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer, our hope for you is firm; or whether we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation, knowing that just as you are partners of the sufferings, so will you be also of the consolation" (II Cor. I, 5-7). In these words he shows that we are partners by turns in consolations and in tribulations, as one body and one mind, so that we are also called and invited into one hope. Therefore, let us not fail in the future, brothers, nor grieve, but let us all rise up at once as excellent soldiers of Christ, bearing weapons not carnal, but of God—power which may overthrow fortresses, that is, prudence, fortitude, temperance, justice—having carried out here also Christ's judgment, "When they persecute you in this city, flee to the other" (Matt. X, 23). So that, being exiled, we may not worry about what we shall eat, or drink, or wear; for He Himself said: "I will not leave you, nor forsake you" (Heb. XIII, 5), so that even from there He might open a window, and be an aid to us in all things. And why should we not rejoice, being possessed of these promises? Why should we not exult, being disciples of the Lord? Thus they persecuted also the holy apostles, whom the Lord addresses in these words: "Blessed are you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: rejoice in that day, and exult" (Matt. V, 11-12). Therefore, present are the [reasons for] joy and exultation, which will bring about unspeakable gladness, eternal life, and an endless kingdom: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles," He says, "and into the cities of the Samaritans enter not" (Matt. X, 5). This should be taken [to apply] to heretics. Therefore, let us go into neither their churches nor their houses; rather, wherever there is a son of peace [and] a seed of piety, there let us divert and dwell, as also in near times. Let us beware of those who feign the truth, who call themselves leaders but are not, but rather those who err and drive into error, and deceive and are deceived, whose condemnation is just. Let us protect the consolidated faith, and also the integral life, not harming one another, but being whole and perfect on both sides. What is the proposed confession? It is derived from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as he who denies that He is represented in a painting, denies also that He was seen in the flesh: for it is the same thing to have been seen in the flesh as to be represented in a painting. He who does not adore His sacred image does not adore the Lord. In the image is contained, of course, the principal exemplar, and in the principal exemplar the image of each one represented shines forth and is adored. If the Iconoclasts say they adore [Him], they lie: for "They confess," he says, "that they know God, but by their deeds..."

^A they are girded with golden crowns; those of the patriarchs and of the empress are encircled by one single enclosure. But someone will say: Be it so. Let it be granted that the patriarchal lamps are kindled by the fire of so many traditions that have the appearance of truth. But whence does it proceed that a certain strength of silver is added to them? It would have sufficed for something of majesty to be added to the heads of the churches through the lamps, and for those who wander in exile and are poor meanwhile not to be vexed on that account. We answer that the most pious emperors and the quinary of most holy patriarchs are like laborers standing in the wheat-giving threshing floor, and with the fan of anointing they exterminate vice like chaff and gather virtue like grain; ^B or they are like the rules of a circle that balance the surface straightly and illuminate the center with rays of justice: or like the masts and sails of a maritime ship, which, while the imperial counsels and spiritual precepts guard the skiff of this world unharmed. Whence it happens that, comparing great things with small, the most religious emperors and the most excellent among the holy Fathers have necessarily decreed that the great high priests must be accompanied in this manner, and that the affluent should be esteemed in the same way as the poor: so that those who are followers of the true doctrine, while they see that great and august pomp being exhibited only to emperors and patriarchs, may offer to the Lord a proper act of thanksgiving like a pleasing incense, ^C who glorifies His defenders within the center of worldly beauty; and that with a bent knee they may entreat the Lord, so that the whole world under the sun may be illuminated by imperial trophies, and earthly things may be irradiated by patriarchal prayers: but may those of a diverse opinion, who rely on their own power and boast of their own wealth (for the idols of the nations are gold and silver), be blinded to what is seen, and deem the works of metal-casters to be vain and useless, and gifts of worldly opinion. And this indeed concerning the patriarchal lamps. But since the staff, and the saccos, and the many-crossed vestment, and the tunic full of figures representing the letter gamma, ennoble the patriarchal holiness alone, and some wish that certain of the patriarchs are sometimes not adorned with some of these: come, let us also discuss these briefly. ^D Incline your ear, most holy one, and listen to me. For I will not open my mouth in parables, but I will bring forth questions from the beginning, which the grace of the divine Fathers has taught me. We acknowledge the five most holy patriarchs (for even still, as ivy to an oak, I myself cling firmly to the concord of the Pope of Rome, and I am torn in spirit because of his separation, and I await each day his excellent conversion) as the sole head of the body of all the Churches of God, just as from of old

^A it has been said. And believing that these are perfected by the unction of holiness, we name them Christ's Anointed and most holy, and by enrolling them among the number of the holy and divinely inspired Fathers of ours, and by embracing them with love, we are assured that through them the doors of the kingdom of heaven are both closed and opened to us, and that through their lips God utters the things that are to come. For it is not flesh and blood, but that heavenly Father and God of ours—who said: "In those days I will pour out of my Spirit, and my servants shall prophesy"—who reveals to them both things that are and things that shall be. For it was in this way that Saul was among the prophets, and Caiaphas, albeit unwillingly, delivered this oracle, saying: "It is expedient that one should perish for the people and for the whole nation." For the former was inflamed by the royal unction, the latter by the grace of the high priesthood. For he was, he says, the high priest of that year. Therefore, as they occupy the place of Christ and God our Saviour, they rightly and with gravity represent His voluntary sufferings, and the insults brought upon Him for our salvation by the ungrateful Jews before the cross and the resurrection. But what these are, let your holiness hear. For although it is a labor before me "until I go into the sanctuary of God, and understand regarding what is in it and about it," nevertheless the grace of the all-holy Spirit, which was prefigured in the patriarchs, announced beforehand in the prophets, founded in the apostles, perfected in the martyrs, and adorned in ^B the high priests, will provide the word in the opening of my mouth.

The epimanikia of the holy patriarchs glorify the manacles of the Lord, which He willingly endured for our salvation when He was led as a captive to Caiaphas. The collars represent that thong which drew Life to death. The sticharia, having river-like patterns, represent the streams of blood and water which distilled from the divine side. The coverings of the knees represent the testimony of the linen cloth with which the Lord wiped the feet of the apostles. The sakkos represents that cloak of insult and reproach. The omophoria represent the passage of the first-created man from Hades to heaven. The phelonia with many crosses represent the universal glory and power of the precious cross. The triangles therein represent the cornerstone, Christ our God, who joined together things that were separated. The staves represent that reed, which beautifully described the salvation of the human race. And he is a faithful witness in heaven. Since, therefore, they are so gloriously honored and established as an image of the true Christ and God of ours, what manner of ^C rash and bold man would take away any priestly right whatsoever? Truly, no one. For he shall hear from the forefather of Christ, David: "But you have rejected and despised your anointed, and have profaned his holy one." Just as, therefore, it is not permitted for anyone to say regarding the one Christ and God of ours that He is present and magnified in one way in this region of the world, and glorified in another way in that—lest he make himself guilty of the furthest extreme and deviate into impiety—so also let no one [violate] the patriarchal sacred

divine majesty ought to be divided, and that it lapses into greater or lesser privileges. For this reason, it has been ordained that in every church of God, whether by the Euphrates, or the Tigris, or reaching even to the Ocean itself, their names are to be mentioned together. For they have received, as we read in the scriptures, the ^A regions of the nations; and their thrones are like the full moon, and they are before me as the sun.

But someone will say: Since the divine and sacred canons have, as by a measuring line, distributed the four parts of the world to the patriarchs, how does it happen that you, violating the once-established decrees, wish to consider these as one province, and to confuse evilly what was well divided? To this objection we answer that, ^B even as these things have been ordained by the holy Fathers, it is possible for them to retain their force, and yet for the identity of the union not to be confused. God, the Maker of this universe, having fashioned man according to His own image and having appointed him king of earthly things, to be governed from heaven, is glorified not only on account of the rest of the marvelous structure of this creature, and how He arranged that vessel made of both immortal and mortal mixture—which, while it is circumscribed by place, ^C on account of the density of the flesh, nonetheless contemplates in its mind things that exist even as far as Cadiz—but He is also glorified no less because He willed that the life of men should be conducted through five senses, which assert their own individuality, and yet do not deny their communion. For even if the sight, for example, performs its divinely enjoined function only in its own proper way, as if discharging a certain debt, in which it is not at all hindered by the kindred senses, yet it is by no means separated ^D from their society, but wishes them to be partakers of its dignities and to confer mutual aid like faithful handmaids, for the care of the body to which these senses have been given. Furthermore, it merits admiration that He has doubled each one of these, so that even if it should happen that one perishes, the one remaining may fill the place of the other, and the still-intact senses do not act insolently toward it, but rather sympathize with it, lest the master of their house be held in derision. Indeed, if it should happen that one ear is rendered useless, the man is no longer called the fairest of creatures, perfect and whole, just as God created him; but he is regarded as an abortion, having no help from the remaining four senses, even though they be intact. As, therefore, with each sense fulfilling its own function, we do not deny the use of the others, nor do we condemn them as foul and useless because they are not effective in a double manner, just as they were created, but rather we favor them (since if one of them, as has been said, should fail entirely, the whole body is rendered useless, and is regarded by men no differently than if it did not exist), so also the quinary of the patriarchs will conduct itself rightly and in order. For each of them will perform the administration assigned to him in a uniform way, so that the privileges of the holy Churches may not be confused; but of the honors of God and the rights given from of old to the...

^A patriarchal divine majesty, let no one be deprived. For if such a thing were to happen, and someone were to deprive the Alexandrian, who happens to be residing in the imperial city, of his patriarchal privileges because he is not present in his own province, he would render the head itself useless, as one that is deaf or blind and governed by only four or three senses. For this reason, as it seems, it was provided ^B by design that even those patriarchs who, due to the hostile incursions of the pagans, do not possess the holy thrones allotted to them—I speak of the Antiochian and the Jerusalemite—should nevertheless be instituted by election. For even if they have been thrust from the glory of their thrones, yet the spiritual grace, according to David, shall not grow old. Rather, "our God shall come manifestly, and will not be silent; [Ps. XLIX, 3] that He may gather to Himself His saints, who have set His covenant before Him." Therefore, those patriarchs who have been displaced from their most holy churches and sit as exiles in the diocese of another patriarch are to be received with love, and not to be treated with dishonor. For it has been canonized that they should be comforted and deemed worthy of every care and hospitality, and not be insulted because of the inconsistency of human affairs, which is worthy of tears rather than being a cause of arrogance. Furthermore, since the holy and divine Scriptures and the Patristic traditions call the bishop of Rome Pope, and likewise the bishop of Alexandria; and indeed also the bishop of Constantinople, and of Jerusalem, archbishops; but the bishop of Antioch alone, patriarch: how is the Church of the Antiochians not insulted, ^C knowing that the others are also proclaimed patriarchs? It is surely because of the identity of their honor, and because these five patriarchs hold the place of the one head of the universal body, that is to say, of the holy Churches of God.

But since some say that there is nothing to prevent the local high priests from being honored and magnified in the same way, for they too have been deemed worthy of the teaching office, and like Moses and Aaron they stand in the holy of holies and offer the unbloody sacrifice; we answer that, according to the divine and sacred canons, the regions of the world have been granted only to the patriarchs. ^D Hence, no one else has a province by his own right, nor any other priestly right; but he exercises his priestly duties only in that part of the diocese which has been granted to him by the patriarchal divine majesty. Whence, as those sent by the patriarchs, and fulfilling the place of the divine and holy apostles, they are indeed deemed worthy of apostolic privileges (for they bind and loose like them, and perform ordinations, and offer the unbloody sacrifice), but they have not been deemed worthy of patriarchal rights. For they do not wear the *saccos*, nor the *polystauria* (garments adorned with many crosses), nor the *sticharia* with letters (gamma-shaped) and triangles. These things are done in this way, because the divine assembly of the holy apostles also [did not...]

^B ran the course of martyrdom, was subjected to shackles and the scourge, and wiped the feet of the disciples with a basin-cloth, and wore, according to the example of Aaron, the humeral, and the full-length tunic, and the ephod, which signified the ancient covering of the Adamic clay. But blood and water did not flow from their side, the place of which is filled by the gamma-shaped marks on the *sticharia*. Nor did they put on the mantle of mockery. Nor is any one of them called the Cornerstone, as is our Lord and God. Nor was the talent of faith extended by any one of them to the entire inhabited world; but one brought the springs of teaching to Rome, another to the Indians or Britons, and another to the Gauls. But Christ alone, our God, was present everywhere, and filled all things with joy. Whence it happens that the most holy patriarchs, who fulfill the place of the Head of the holy Churches of God, wear *sacci*, and *sticharia* with rivers and triangles, and *phelonia* with many crosses; and they are likewise commemorated by name in all the Churches. They make themselves conspicuous with the staff, just as Christ our God did with the reed of mockery. The rest of the chief priests and *hegumens* appear like that rod of Aaron which blossomed for the sake of signifying a great mystery, or like that great apostle Peter, who heard from God, "Feed my sheep." ^C And since it is natural for one to ask what the meaning of "Pope" is, and what that of "Patriarch" is, and what that of "Archbishop," and why the authority and privileges of these five heads are the same, as has been set forth, while their names are different, we have thought it necessary to touch upon the point of these matters as well.

Among the Latins, "Pope" is called Father. And among the Jews, a patriarch is called a prince or Father of the patriarchates. Similarly, an archbishop is, likewise, the Father of bishops. Although, therefore, the meanings of "Pope," "Patriarch," and "Archbishop" are different by reason of language, in power they do not differ in any way. For this reason, all are also called by the common name of Patriarch. That holy Silvester, who first obtained the pontificate in Rome, and Evodus, who was the first pontiff in Antioch, were rightly called Fathers. For there were not yet patriarchs, who are instituted by the Fathers. Similarly, the [bishop] of Alexandria was called Pope, because the holy Cyril, at the third synod, received the privileges of the Pope of Rome—I mean of Celestine. But when religion had already spread to the ends of the inhabited world, and almost every city had obtained a bishop, the very reason of piety demanded that honor should also be paid to Jerusalem, on account of the most holy sufferings and the sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ. For that great city, Constantinople, had already previously obtained honor, as was said above, because the sceptres of the Roman empire had been transferred to it. It was renamed ^D

and its pontiffs were called archbishops, as if they were the leaders and heads of many bishops. This is the same as saying Fathers and patriarchs. Hence there exists no distinction between them. For a father of this or that nation is father both of the priestly and the laic tribe, just as Jacob was of the twelve tribes of Israel. And he who is a leader of bishops is of necessity a father both of bishops and of laity. The prelate of Gothia is not called an archbishop because he is a leader and ordainer of bishops, but as a beginning of the bishops. For it was defined by the holy Fathers that those dioceses which have many cities under the government of bishops should be administered by metropolitans, whom the canons also call the first; but those which do not have cities under them governed by bishops ^B should be presided over by archbishops, so that they might be inferior to the metropolises, but superior to the bishops.

In this way, with such an ambiguity also resolved, I wished to say why the Roman pope is called universal Pope, and likewise the archbishop of Constantinople, universal patriarch; while the other patriarchs, though they are of the same order, calling, and honor, are not wont to be proclaimed in this way. But since that evil genius of ambition tore the Roman pope from the assembly of the rest of the most holy patriarchs and narrowed him to the West alone; while in the meantime they see that the Constantinopolitan [bishop] does not adorn himself with any of the pope's privileges (for he is neither crowned with the diadem of the empire according to what is believed to be the decree of the holy Constantine, nor is he displayed in the theater with scarlet sandals as was established there, nor does he invoke any other privilege ^C of ancient Rome; and for this reason his feet stand in uprightness, and his head, as David says, has grown white in all manner of wisdom; nor does he make his own subscriptions magnificent as if he were a universal father, though he is so called and celebrated by us—indeed, I refrain from instituting a disquisition on this, as it is fruitless), I cannot, however, refrain from answering those who boldly proclaim that he of Antioch and of Jerusalem must be removed from patriarchal dignity. For, they say, it has been established by the canons that those are not even to be counted among the high priests who do not with risk to their lives go away to their own thrones occupied by Barbarians, nor snatch the crown of martyrdom.

But if they are laymen who have labored with such things, like some foolish miscarriage against the holy and sacred heads, they shall be counted worthy of pardon by our ^D singular moderation. For it is written: A Roman man must not be ignorant of the laws (the same is to be said of the canons). For even if one is a manual laborer, or of the lowest dregs of the populace, he is not permitted to not know the laws or the canons by himself, but [rather] those who explore these like industrious silver-refiners do.

"As many as are the leaves and flowers that come in the time of spring:

which are ready at hand for any person, like some liberal feast costing nothing at all; nor is there any doubt that the wormwood of their ignorance can be sweetened by the honeyed wine of such teachings. But if they are counted in the sacred catalogue of the high priests, alas! how could anyone express and recount the condemnation brought upon them? For what pardon will he be worthy to receive, who, while professing to teach the canons, does not see the density of the canons, which almost exceeds Mount Athos itself? Surely none at all. Nay, rather, he shall hear from the omnipotent God: "You have rejected justice, and I shall reject you, that you may not be a priest to me." Therefore, leaving aside all contention regarding this, I shall insert into this present writing, to remove every scandal, the 37th canon of the holy and ecumenical council assembled in the Trullo of the great palace, which is accustomed to be called the Fifth and Sixth, ^B which indeed reads word for word as follows: "Since at various times there have been barbaric incursions, and many cities have thereby come into the power of the impious, so that from that time onward the prelate of such a city, after his ordination, has not been able to take up his own throne and be established therein in priestly order, and so, according to the received custom, to perform and exercise the ordinations and all things that belong to the bishop: we, guarding the dignity and veneration of the priesthood, and in no way wishing that the injury of the pagans should be a detriment to ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that those thus ordained, and who for the aforementioned cause are not established on their own ^C thrones, shall have their rights preserved without prejudice, so that they may also canonically perform the ordinations of various clerics and enjoy the authority of their presidency according to their own rule, and that every administration proceeding from them may be firm and valid. For the law of dispensation shall not be narrowed by the precision of the time of necessity, nor shall the term of economy be limited."

Along with such a canon, I instruct those who read this present writing that there is also an edict of the memorable emperor, Lord Alexios Komnenos, published in the month of November of the second indiction and recorded in the fiscal and ecclesiastical secretariats, which decrees (60) that not only ^D ought high priests to be elected without any impediment for the eastern Churches possessed by the pagans — even if they who are appointed to them are unable to take up the thrones which they have been allotted on account of the malice of the pagans — but also that after their ordination they should retain whatever rights they had before it at the great city (Constantinople): namely, abbacies, the annual pensions of brotherhoods (61), and the rest. And we, indeed, having been asked, have written these things as they were. But the God of peace, who said through the prophet David: "If my people keep my commandments, I will visit their enemies with a rod, and their iniquities with scourges;"

but my mercy I will not take away from them that love me, nor will I profane my covenant." ^A He should therefore scatter the infidelity of the pagans as dust from the summer threshing floor, and gather his saints, and give them the regions and tribes of the pagans. And let all the people say: "Blessed be the Lord forever. Amen, amen."

OF THE SAME

A Meditation regarding the two offices, namely, that of the chartulary and the first defender.

Seeing that the great teacher of the Church, the divine herald Paul, says that no one takes the honor upon himself, ^B but is called by God, the first defender ought indeed to be content with what is granted to him and follow in the footsteps of his predecessors. Most of these, like him, were by the grace of God adorned with every kind of learning, held the highest dignities of the holy great Church of God, and some of them, like genuine eaglets, assumed wings and attained to that great throne of Constantinople. He should by no means exert himself to the end that customs confirmed for times almost beyond human memory be changed in a single day, after the manner of cuttlefish; ^C and thus to offend and be offended in such a dangerous manner; but rather should desire peace for the people of God and for his saints. But because, I know not how, by inciting scandals concerning past matters—and likewise concerning those things which are canonically established against those who inconsiderately violate any longstanding ecclesiastical custom (for it has been decreed that such custom must be held as valid as the sacred canons)—and by finally overstepping his horizon, he wishes to shake the privileges of the chartulary and to join them to the defender's functions, after the manner of certain men who, by inserting bodies of a different nature, ^D couple them together: and since, for the sake of proving his own institution, he uses the canons of the holy and universal fourth synod, and moreover certain words from a book which is kept in the secret archive of the sacred office of the defender; I myself shall also bring forward in this present writing, as I have been requested, things which are not irrelevant for the purpose of checking him—in my judgment, at least—and which will truly secure reverence for whomsoever is the chartulary at the time. Therefore, from the twenty-third canon of the holy Fathers who assembled at Chalcedon, the defender has sought a fig-tree defense for himself, as if he himself were to judge those things which pertain to the office of monks and clerics, and as if he were to inquire into their peregrinations, and condemn them as if they were runaway slaves. For shortly more or less than one hundred years before that most illustrious emperor Justinian, who laudably built this church as if it were a heavenly work, that canon was published; at which time there was no talk of defenders from the sacred order, but laymen were always given to the churches for the sake of defense. And [index: entries preserved]

^A this is manifest from the 75th canon of the Council of Carthage, whose words are these: "Of the defenders of the churches, who ought to be requested from the emperor, it seemed good to all that they be requested from the emperors, on account of the affliction of the poor, by whose burdens the Church is incessantly molested, that defenders may be elected for them, with the intervention of the oversight of the bishops, against the tyranny of the wealthy."

It is likewise clear from the 15th novella of the Emperor Justinian, which exists in Book VI of the Basilika, title XVIII, to this effect: "Defenders are to be elected in turn from the inhabitants of any city, even if some be illustrious and most distinguished; and they are to sustain the office of defense for only two years." Wherefore, since defenders are both elected, as has been said, and their office is defined by a certain space of time, those who claim that what is asserted by the *proteddikos* is established by the indicated canon are certainly talking nonsense. But the words of the book concerning the office of the *proteddikos*, which are nearly to this effect: "It behooves you, if any of the presbyters and deacons shall have a lawsuit with someone, to cite the one who is accused for the third time, according to the indicated mode, and if he does not comply, to condemn him": these words, I say, neither ^B at the root, nor in respect to the branches or the bark, overturn the jurisdiction of the *chartophylax* over all those initiated into sacred things, nor transfer it to the defenders.

For they are not to be understood, according to the opinion of the *proteddikos*, as if he could compel those who are summoned by certain deacons and presbyters—perhaps even laymen—to plead their cause before him regarding that for which they are accused. For this is rash, and is not granted even to the patriarchal divine greatness, as being contrary to the laws ^C which wish for the plaintiffs to follow the forum of the defendants. And if someone, approving the mind of the *proteddikos* (for even those who act maliciously, as they say, are sometimes blessed with vain pride), shall contend that the indicated words speak of the two parties which are not distinguished by different pursuits, but are joined by the common profession of priesthood, he will hear that in this way he is rashly bringing about a vacation and cessation of justice, not only for the jurisdiction of the *chartophylax*, but also for the most sacred patriarchal tribunal itself. For if this were granted, the ^D *proteddikos* would judge boldly, nay, with supreme power, against pontiffs, deacons, and the rest of the clergy, who are sometimes distinguished by great dignities which transcend the jurisdiction of the *proteddikos* himself diametrically. Indeed, he will also attempt to claim the *episcopiani* for himself, as one who has been assigned the account of the bishop, which is indeed so absurd that it does not even deserve to be spoken. Furthermore, as to what some man says, that those who are dragged by priests before the defenders for any cause whatsoever, whether civil or criminal, are to be summoned by three citations, and condemned if they do not appear (for that it is altogether necessary for this to happen, if it were granted, through the aforementioned words of the *proteddikos*—

^A how is this not unworthy of the wisdom of the *proteddikos*? For, oh, how many most divine laws are abolished if this is granted! How many sanctions of orthodox emperors! How many decrees and doctrines of the holy Fathers, which in every way gather those who are accused, [and]—calling them back by Thirty-Day notices—suspend their condemnation with two appeals! Surely these are many, and exceed almost every number. It is gathered, therefore, without passion, that the ambiguity arising from these words ought to be harmonized well with the rest of the writing in the book regarding liberties; and that those who are dragged by presbyters or deacons before the most devout *ekdikoi* for the sake of those who are crying out for liberty or being led into slavery, and who do not obey the summons to appear after three notifications, should be condemned unilaterally, because of the holy divine sanctions and laws which cherish liberty above almost all else, and which lay down from the outset that the investigation of this matter should take place, and that those who have thus drafted the condemnation against themselves should not profit from the fact that their advocates belong to the rank of liberty.

Since these things are so, the *proteddikos* will justly be permitted ^B both, for the sake of those seeking ecclesiastical aid for liberty, to provide assistance through his jurisdiction, and to defend the cause of other refugees, just as and where it has been ordained; and to stand by them all the more, and to defend them from those who are doing them injury, just as indeed his title suggests. For doing so, and having religiously guarded holy things, he will be duly hallowed. And these things, indeed, have been sufficiently written to turn aside the arguments put forth by the *proteddikos* which tear away the rights that are blamelessly possessed by the *chartophylax*.

We must also speak of those matters that support the *chartophylax*. Let the mouth of truth rather speak these things, and the sun of justice. For we shall not bring forth a fable as if from ourselves, like those whose ears itch for discourse on what is expedient for them, and who, after the manner of those who test uncertain matters at the waters of contradiction, ^C but we shall simply set forth without any pretense those things which long usage, the exercise of a long time, and the reading of the divine Scriptures have taught us. We must begin, therefore, from where it is better to begin, and proceed from power again to power.

On the Head of the Holy Church and the Division of Ecclesiastical Rights

The Head of the most holy Great Church of God is, after that first, beginningless, eternal, and infinitely powerful Head, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, her spiritual bridegroom, the most holy universal patriarch of every time. ^D Now, since ecclesiastical rights are divided in two—that is, into those which in various ways pertain to the Church herself, and into those which, by the canons, are specifically attributed to the patriarch—it was altogether necessary for our orthodox emperors, who gave a sure law to the affairs of the Church, to distribute these matters into five holy *sekreta*...

and to entrust their administration to certain ministers. ^A For it was by no means fitting that the patriarch himself, who so pre-eminently bears the likeness of the Bridegroom in all things, should be occupied with the mattock or with the satisfying of slaves. Since that time, therefore, down to the present day, these matters have been administered by five presidents, whom we call *exokatakoiloi* magistrates, just as if by five senses: namely, the Great Oikonomos, the Great Sakellarios, the Great Skeuophylax, the Chartophylax, and the official of the Sakellion. The Great Oikonomos has the care of ecclesiastical estates; the Great Sakellarios has the concern for monasteries, both those in the city and those lying beyond it (for the thirteenth region of the queen of cities is its outlying region); the Great Skeuophylax is solicitous for the sacred treasures; and the official of the Sakellion [has the administration] of the catholic churches, and in addition, of the emphyteutic holdings.

^B The Chartophylax, for his part, directs alone those matters which pertain to the patriarch by right of his high priesthood. How it has been decreed that the appointments or elections of the other four presidents should be made, and how many chartularii each of these has as partners in his labor, and how many secretarial ministers, is not the time to say. For we do not intend to speak of these things now. But it must be inquired whence and how the Chartophylax is glorified with such great honor and is called the mouth and hand of the patriarch. And since some wish to derive the name of the Chartophylax from the fact that he guards *chartai* (parchments) or codices, the scandal that could arise from this must be removed before all else. ^C The Chartophylax is not, as some say, a guard of the *sekreton* and a doorkeeper (for that is the ancient profession of the *ostiarioi*), but is an able curator of episcopal rights. For this is how we also speak of the *nomophylax* and the *skeuophylax* of the imperial camp. But if those who strongly deny this ask how it is that the presidents of the other *sekreta* are not called guards, even though they are administrators of affairs; and why one is called the Great Oikonomos, another the Great Sakellarios, and another the official of the Sakellion—let them hear that it is one and the same to say Oikonomos, guard (phylax), Sakellarios, and official of the Sakellion. For among the Romans, *sakellon* is so called from administering and guarding. ^D And even the patriarchal *sakelle*, where the wicked are guarded, is named from this and from nowhere else, just as is the *sakoulion*. The Sakellarios, then, is called the administrator of the monasteries; and the official of the Sakellion, in the diminutive, is the curator of the catholic churches. But lest this pentad of presiding officers should have one name only, it was resolved that they should be amplified by the appellations of different offices. Whence it comes about that, while being the same in the scope of their actions, they are distinguished by the vocabulary of their offices. In this way, with the doubt that might tacitly arise regarding the Chartophylax rightfully removed, the remaining matters must also be set forth. The function of the Chartophylax is varied and multiplex. Therefore the most holy patriarch for the time being, choosing him as a second Aaron, says with Moses to the Lord: "Let Him look...

^A "Let the Lord God of the spirits and of all flesh appoint a man over this congregation, who shall go out before my face, and who shall go in before them, and who shall lead them out, and who shall bring them in." And thus he lays his hands upon him, and gives to him his own glory, so that the children of Israel may hearken unto him. He also entrusts to him a golden ring, as one might say, just as the Lord said to Moses: "And you shall put the breastplate upon the breast of Aaron, and you shall make a golden ring and shall fasten it to the lips of the breastplate, by which the names of the children of Israel may be written down through him." And who is this? The patriarchal seal, suspended by custom at the breast of the Chartophylax, a receptacle of every kind of doctrinal study (for, as they say, dignities are to be granted to the worthy), by which he protects those who are cut off with a seal and with grace, converts sinners with pen and ink, defends those who are weighed down by afflictions with a staff and a pipe, and deems the worthy to be deserving of the spiritual gifts of the priesthood; making those who are outside the rank clergy, and perfecting those who are within. Through this, he also records patriarchal ^B stauropegia throughout nearly the entire world, and transfers the ecclesiastical heads of many cities to the domain of the first see. Through this, also, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to the Chartophylax, just as they were given by the Lord to the friend and disciple Peter. For the great high priest says to him as it were: "Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." And what is most novel of all is that not only has he been enriched with the gift of such great power, but also those who receive this grace from him. For he grants to monastic priests the power to receive the confessions of men and to tear up the handwriting of sins; a thing which, by the Holy Spirit, is granted only to bishops. And if you see him in a synod bringing forth without premeditation those things which Moses, if he were to speak, would bring forward, and pouring out like a fountain those things which the summit of the head provides like clouds and water, you will not desire to see Aaron reciting the words of the divinely written tablets, nor Baruch ^C describing with his right hand the captivity of Judea; but you will be content with those things which the Chartophylax does, and which complete the Deuteronomy. Furthermore, you should marvel at how, when the sacred canons have permitted the authority to teach the people only to the high priests in the cities, the Chartophylax alone has nonetheless obtained the power to teach the people catechetically in the church; how he writes out the patriarchal decisions in beautiful script, and confirms them with his own signatures and seals; and how he presides over the great tribunal and acts as judge over every man, of whatever fortune or status he may be, regarding ecclesiastical questions, and ^D regarding the correction of sins of the soul. Moreover, he judges both priests and monks in any criminal or civil case. For the jurisdiction of the Chartophylax extends even as far as the Pillars of Hercules, if anyone should grant that even there...

anyone lives who is subject to the throne of Constantinople.

^B Now, as to the fact that he presides over the twelve patriarchal notaries who hold the same degree of credibility as that held by the twelve notaries of the Velum and of the Hippodrome judges (for it is better to speak of a double twelve, since the kindness and condescension of the patriarchs do not permit themselves to be drawn into the overturning of things that have been in use since antiquity); and in like manner, that he presides before metropolitans in the elections of bishops for vacant churches, and in those public assemblies which take place outside the patriarchal tribunal—nay, even in public ceremonies of festivals and in gatherings, not only within the parts of the church but in any place whatsoever—a thing which is granted to no other deacon, because it is expressly forbidden by the 18th canon of the holy and universal First Synod: where would you place this, most prudent auditor? You would surely admit that power over all these things is granted to him because he is considered to be the mouth, the lips, and the hands, in a certain sense, of the patriarch. A ready impulse of the mind carries me away to say and to declare carefully for what reason the Chartophylax alone, above other presiding officials, is magnified by two ecclesiastical orders, namely, those of the episcopal and the secretarial. But since there is a certain noble foundation for the institution of these, and the matter itself demands that this very thing be examined for the sake of revealing the truth, let us defer for a little while that discourse in which we shall inquire into the aforementioned orders, and let us say why, beyond that which is contained in the sacred canons, the Chartophylax, who stands in the number of the deacons, sits before the pontiffs. This well-known question has aroused many scandals at various times and has been variously debated between the Chartophylax and the pontiffs of the throne of Constantinople. ^C And since the patriarchal judgment, favoring the pontiffs, smiled upon them in passing, on account of the opinion of the canon cited above, an edict was brought forth of the most illustrious prince, Lord Alexius Comnenus, which contains these words:

“My Majesty, caring for ecclesiastical decorum, and, while seeking good order in every civil state, being even more studious that this should be observed in sacred matters, desires and deems it fair, most holy Lord, that the privileges granted long ago to each of the ecclesiastical ranks, and the status which has prevailed in them until now, should also henceforth subsist and remain immutable, just as they have been accepted for so many years, observed for a long space of time, and confirmed and established ^D brilliantly through perpetual successions from one time to another up to the present without change.”

well-examined and confirmed. But since my Majesty has now learned that some of the prelates, driven by a certain ambition, wish to lower the dignity of the chartophylax, and by bringing forward canons into the midst, contend that a seat above the prelates does not belong to him whenever they must assemble for some business and sit in council together before the approach to your Holiness, it has appeared intolerable to my Majesty that a matter tested by so long a time, and accepted by previous patriarchs and other prelates, and indeed by these very individuals themselves who now quarrel without just cause, and accepted through long-standing silence, should be abolished for no urgent reason, and torn down as something neglected.

Wherefore ^B she has established what is very reasonable and equitable. For if the prelates were willing not again to move what is immovable, nor to pull back into contention what was resolved by the Fathers of old, and what had been approved even by them through their long silence and forbearance until this day, it would be well, and thanks would be due to them for having set aside the spirit of combat and preferred to embrace peace. But if some, still falsely using the words of the canon (for they are far removed from its meaning), try to establish their own will and perversely turn order into disordered confusion, my Majesty sends forth to interpret and clarify the text of the canon—which is very easy to grasp and understand for those who are imbued with subtlety and who reach the mind of the canon. But she reproves this in the prelates, that while they knew the canon and understood its words very accurately, they trampled upon their own conscience without reason, ^C and suffered the canon to be cast aside, and embraced an inferior position beneath the chartophylakes of previous memory. And therefore, in accordance with the content of the sacred canons, she assigns them this reward: that they should be driven away to their own Churches; so that in this part as well, sticking to the path of the ecclesiastical canon, and producing the sacred canons themselves as an aid against the contemners of the canons.

And since, after this promulgation, those things which had grown strong through long custom became even more stable through the edict of the prince himself, ^D the chartophylax sits to this day before any prelate whatsoever, even if he happens to hold a rank granted by the prince, such as that of *hypertimos* or *protosyncellus*. And at that time, this ambiguity was solved in such a way. I, however, just as I assent to the imperial sanction as it is accepted by the laws, so I do not in the least approve the opinion asserting the first seat for the chartophylax merely through an unwritten custom of the longest time, which is considered in place of law (as we have written before). For I know that long custom is valid as law only when it has been examined judicially, provided that laws and canons are not overturned by it. I am speaking of the privilege of the chartophylax to have the precedence...

in accordance with the summary of the divine canons, which the imperial divine circumspection ^A voluntarily passed over in silence at that time. For although the aforementioned canon of the first Council of Nicaea decrees that a deacon must not partake nor sit before the priests, the seventh canon of the holy and ecumenical Sixth Council commands that he who holds the person of a patriarch, or simply an bishop, shall sit before the priests. Therefore, the great and holy Cyril also, the Pope of Alexandria, had a golden band wrapped around his head when he presided over the holy and ecumenical Third Council. For he ^B held the place of Celestine, who then governed the Church of Rome, as this is made manifest from the acts of the same Third Council. And just as he was glorified, according to the decree of the apostle-equal, holy and great Constantine, made toward the holy Sylvester, when the scepters of the empire were transferred by God's providence from old Rome to this queen of cities; by which it is ordained that the head of the holy Sylvester himself, and of his successors, the Roman pontiffs, should be adorned with a golden band: so also Cyril was adorned. Whence also those who after him held the Alexandrian pontificate, for his eternal ^C memory, because it was then so decreed, are in the same manner to this day honored with this title. And whereas all others perform sacred rites with heads uncovered, alone the Patriarch of Alexandria performs the divine service with his head wrapped in the said band. Furthermore, we see the twelve Cardinals of the Pope similarly adorned with golden coverings, as representing the Pope, and supporting his rights. For 'cardines' among the Romans are the door-posts. Therefore, it is consistent that those undoubtedly speak the truth who maintain that the chartophylax of any time, some years ago, also wore such a golden tiara in certain public assemblies, which were held not only according to custom in the churches, but also in ^D processions and public fora. And indeed I know for certain that, to this day, such a covering interwoven with gold is stored in the chest of the chartophylax: nor does a long and remote interval of time separate us from it, but the memory of the thing is recent. Nor did ignoble envy, or indeed ignorant religion, abolish the great privilege of this office. For I adjure you by the truth itself, by fraternal charity, by the love toward God, tell me, what could have been more worth the effort than at times to see the chartophylax proceeding through the forum with a gold-interwoven tiara, and riding upon a mule, adorned in patriarchal fashion with a white cloth, even as this too has been decreed by the aforementioned edict, and escorted by the excubitores? If someone...

wishes to say that more honor is to be deferred to the head than to the hand or another member of the body, this comparison is introduced as foolish. But we must return to where the discourse strayed, and inquire why the heads of other secretariats use only secretarial servants, whereas the chartophylax is magnified by two orders of ministers. We say, therefore, that the rights of the chartophylax are as cleansers of soul-stains, and antidotes for bodily ailments. For this reason it has been ordained that these should be directed by ministers of two ranks. Whether, therefore, he presides as a judge of law, and, sifting judicial understandings, composes laws with legal sanctions and reconciles canons with canons; or whether, conducting cases, he calls propositions and objections to the anvil, and indeed chips away at some by the Lydian stone of discernment, while admitting others; ^B or finally, whether he weighs the judgments of patriarchal notaries, he gains great authority through the decrees of the secretarial ministers, especially when he exercises judgment in these matters alone. But if he presides in such a way as to apply a remedy to the sicknesses of the soul, and inspects the foulness of festering wounds, sometimes searing the hidden evil of the vice with iron, and sometimes sprinkling mild medicines, he is served by the order of the episcopal ministers. But if it happens at times, by the decree and will of the patriarch, that some of these privileges are moved from their place, I for my part cannot know, and I shall deserve pardon, for I am teaching the ancient custom. These matters having thus been well clarified, as I think, it seemed necessary to me to put forward a just petition to the chartophylax of any given time. My lord chartophylax, may the talent of faith entrusted to you by God the Almighty not be buried through your sloth, lest you be called a wicked and thankless servant; ^C nor let the coin of his great privileges be betrayed through your excessive leniency, but let it be distributed to the money-changers, and it shall be doubled. God has established you as a second mark through the episcopal hand. Whence it comes to pass that at your mouth all enter into the house of God Almighty, and at your mouth they go out. Do not therefore say: What might be given to me, and what might be added to my perpetual care? Nor keep silent, nor be smoothed over, nor speak as one wishing to please men, as the great apostle Paul said, after the manner of that wicked hireling who whispered to himself: Let that which is failing fail, let that which is scattered not be gathered, and let that which is broken not be restored. For the affliction of the day is sufficient for itself. But rather, in apostolic fashion, preach the truth in the sight of God. Preach in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, be long-suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. ^D And perhaps, having thus youthfully finished the good fight according to that which has been required of you, and having kept your ministry without snares and in no way diminished, you will in no wise humble your adversaries, and you will say: I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which shall also be given to you by God

in this world and in the future; and in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

BY THE SAME

^AJudgment regarding the question discussed in the synod, whether one and the same man may be joined to two cousins.

The natives and the strangers of the Athenians, says the great Paul, had leisure for nothing else than to tell or to hear something new. But the Church of God, or rather the holy royal palace of the most holy great Church of God, while it strengthens those things which have been decreed by the holy Fathers, uproots every superfluity that has the appearance of novelty, and wishes the crop of truth to grow and bring forth a hundredfold. For it prospers by the grace of God in every prayer and business acceptable to God. For this reason, that which was asked in the synod not long ago, whether one and the same person may be joined to two cousins, it did not wish to ^B fall, as something novel, into some dark corner unheeded, but as a matter of great moment and most useful, it set it out for public examination. And since its most holy bridegroom, the most vigilant observer of canonical traditions, wished us also to be partakers of this good, we say that some have spread a broad and unobstructed path (as they say) for a certain Demetrius, who had been the husband of a certain Maria, to marry her cousin, named Theodora. And being asked whence and how they suggest this, they say that the performance of this contract reaches the seventh degree, ^C because Demetrius and Maria, his deceased wife, constitute two persons, and consequently two degrees, even if they were considered as one flesh on account of their consent and mutual love. For Maria, they say, had the sixth degree with Theodora, but not so Demetrius, as he is referred to the seventh person and degree of the same number. But according to theme (63) of chapter XXXII of title V of book XXVIII of the Basilics, and Canon LIV of the holy and ecumenical synod assembled in the Palace of Trullo, they restricted marriages contracted both by affinity and by consanguinity up to the sixth degree. Those that ^D follow after this, they permitted to be freely concluded. And even though a recent synodal tome was published, confirmed also by imperial edict, by which it is commanded that those joined by consanguinity in the seventh degree may not contract marriages, nevertheless it did not restrict those who bind themselves by affinity in the same degree. For there is a great difference between the bond of blood and simple affinity by relationship; and a great reason is established between these, joining some and separating others. They also…

^A support their arguments with syllogistic reasoning and by reduction to the impossible. For they say that if it were granted that Maria and Demetrios could become of one degree after union, many absurdities would follow; for example, that Demetrios, who is considered the husband of Maria, would also be named the son-in-law of her father, as well as being his son and Maria’s brother, due to the identity of the degree. In this way, the marriage would be dissolved, as it would tend toward the incest of a brother with a sister. To this absurdity they add that these persons would claim successions by intestacy, both among themselves and from their parents, and even from their relatives. Similarly, they add that persons related by affinity on only one side cannot be joined to each other, just as the laws of affinity direct; but they argue that the same must be done as in marriages between blood relatives.

But they say that in Roman custom and in the ecclesiastical state, the contrary is practiced today. For an uncle and a nephew, along with an aunt and a niece, are joined without impediment—though they obtain the sixth degree of affinity—since the tome of the most holy Patriarch Sisinnios prohibited first cousins from being joined to two sisters. Moreover, they insist that nothing dishonest, nor anything that confuses names, creeps in from the fact that the same man is joined to two cousins. For then, they say, the precise account of names is maintained, and their confusion is avoided, when servile status mediates the kinship; not when, from a union permitted by the laws of spouses, as if from a certain root, ^B convenient branches are generated. For if it were granted that in these cases the propriety of names and the avoidance of confusion must be observed, then the permissible union of second cousins and those following would also be tightened, so that those born from them would not be called brothers and fourth cousins, which is thought to be unacceptable. And these things are what they say. But we shall consider first whether the laws and the canons judge those joined in marriage to be held as two degrees, and therefore whether the contract in question should be permitted. Let us therefore discuss, and let us, as it were, start again from the very beginning, considering what must be said.

Some say that the voice of the Lord, which says, "And the spouses shall be one flesh," should not be understood as referring to identity, but to love and concord. For if the Lord’s oracle were not understood in this way, those joined in marriage would have to be called brothers and sisters, not spouses; and thereafter infinite inconveniences would follow, ^D magnifying the absurdity of the question. Let them hear, therefore, that false propositions do not conclude the truth through syllogisms, nor, if they are led to the impossible, do they alter the nature of the subject; but from admitted and error-free things, the sun of truth arises. For if someone should say,

^A that the union of persons causes a confusion, and that marriage is transmuted into a brotherhood, and thus concludes—perhaps to the absurd—he has forged a fetter for his tongue, not collected the truth. Since this is so, and since after the conjunction of the sexes each remains complete, let no one be so bold as to call the spouses themselves brother and sister, to the reproach of the divine utterance, the words of which are: *And the spouses themselves shall no longer be two, but one.* For just as a wild olive is not for that reason called an olive, because its branch has been grafted into an olive tree, so neither shall we call the father of a maiden the father-in-law of the maiden. Since this has been established by a certain and irrefutable demonstration, which, as we think, cannot be gainsaid, in our opinion it will not be permitted for one of them to be called to the succession of the deceased, or of any of those related to him by blood—for how could that be? since those to whom they are legally bequeathed receive the possessions—nor will it be blameworthy or abominable if one should say that marriages by affinity and those by consanguinity are circumscribed by the same boundaries. For so it has been decreed by the canons.

That a paternal uncle and the son of a brother, or an aunt and the daughter of a brother, are coupled together, is not, as some allege, introduced by unwritten custom or brought in without tradition through the ecclesiastical estate; but the holy edict of the most illustrious prince, lord Alexius Comnenus, ^B brought forth at the suggestion of a certain Bardas who was called Xerus, and received into both the civil and ecclesiastical archives and codices, made such marriages free, by that power which is given to emperors from heaven. Therefore, the exact order of the Church is not to be slandered. For it always restricted marriages by affinity as far as the sixth degree, and still restricts them, just as it does marriages by consanguinity: in which it follows the statutes of both laws and canons, and the Tome of that most holy patriarch, lord Sisinnius. For that which was promulgated by the imperial holy majesty for its overthrow, the just judge did not incline to bring into effect, as those who are initiated know, and they are not wandering in error.

^C But, the adversary objects, not even the fact that a confusion and impropriety of names is introduced, on account of the necessity of the degrees, will prevent Demetrius from taking the second cousin of his former wife. For this also happens to those related by blood, when those who touch each other even at the eighth degree are coupled, while we shamelessly call those spouses whom nature recognizes as the children of cousins, and we treat their children as brothers, though by nature they are the children of those born of cousins. Why, therefore, should it be new or insolent for this same thing to be said and done in the present question? But let those who put these things together hear, that just as things within the Gadirean limits are strictly defined and recorded, ^D

^A while those situated beyond Gades cannot be penetrated; so too marriages that are contracted within the sixth degree are condemned by the very reason of natural equity and propriety, while those outside these degrees are suspended, and are neither dissolved nor relieved, except only for the seventh degree of blood connection.

For the imperial sanction and the synodal tome have placed this on an equal footing with marriages of the sixth degree. Since, therefore, we have sufficiently discussed those points which some persons allege in this question—whether couples are to be referred to one degree or not—let us also bring forward what occurs to our mind regarding the question proposed to us. The jurisconsults, who teach regarding prohibited marriages in Book XXVIII, Title V [of the Basilics], divide kinsfolk into two categories: ascendants and descendants, namely children and parents, and those who are on the side, I mean brothers and other relatives by blood. ^B And as for the ascendants and descendants, whether they be legitimate, natural, or adopted, they prohibit marriages to infinity. But for those related by blood, they prohibit them up to the sixth degree. After, however, they have subtly expounded these matters, and have set before our eyes the profound and difficult-to-penetrate obscurity of the degrees (for they say that the discovery of the degrees on the side is very difficult and not easily grasped by the understanding), they add these words expressly: "There are also other marriages, not proceeding because of the law of consanguinity, but because of affinity." Now, affinity is a certain close relationship of persons joined to us by marriage, apart from consanguinity. Therefore, while they do not clearly teach what degree spouses may claim for themselves after a marriage has been entered into, they nevertheless add that a man cannot take as his wife his own daughter-in-law or stepdaughter. ^C Nor likewise his stepmother or mother-in-law, since they occupy the place of mothers. Therefore, the matter of the degrees must be considered before all else. For thus the precipitous unevenness of the question might be leveled out.

The degrees of consanguinity were named after the steps [gradus] of a ladder. For just as those, beginning from a flat surface and extending upwards, serve us for descending or ascending, so too these degrees, as branches of the same nature proceeding from a root—namely the first progenitor—constitute ^D consanguinity. Let us see, therefore, what root and beginning mediates between a husband and a wife, so that one must revert to it, and from it, as if by a step, come to them. There exists absolutely none. For no one can say: "Peter begot Demetrius; the same man also procreated Mary," so that these two are joined by a relationship of two degrees. For that is a most manifest falsehood. Still less could one say that two persons are of one degree. For two generations produced them.

^A And those who, balancing them through degrees, measure or count them like items that consist of weight, measure, or number, are like those who are asked: "How many pearls cover this floor?" and answer, "Two." For a stone of leek-green color encircles it, and cedar wood clothes it. It is therefore appropriate for us to say that spouses are neither brought to the intimacy of two degrees—for how could they be, since they do not share the same root and generation, and for this reason are not even naturally divided?—nor that they become one degree, on account of the carnal union and a mixing like that of honey and wine. For how could that be? Since the hypostases remain intact! But because of the divine and salutary voice of the Lord, and God, and our Savior Jesus Christ, who said to the disciples asking him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, and who explicitly added these words: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female? And for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall be in one flesh; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh": we must believe and confess that they are held as one person, almost one single-minded human being, seen in two persons by reason of marriage. But we must allow the stream of discourse to flow opportunely to another point.

^C The incomprehensible condescension of the only-begotten Son of God toward us, and the pledge of the salvation of the human race, is magnified by many other mysteries, but it is no less glorified by the nuptial blessing. For since the connection prone to sin had been given over to the whole mass of mankind after the envy of the dragon and the transgression of the divine commandment, and that evil had progressed to other greater evils, the benign God cared for our regeneration and restoration. Therefore, when the only-begotten Son of God had become man like us, for our sake, and had fulfilled the entire other administration so that we might recover our pristine happiness, he also blessed the marriage celebrated in Cana of Galilee, and changed the water of despair into the wine of true knowledge of God; ^D thereby assuring mankind that women shall no longer bring forth children in pains, nor shall those who are born from marital union say in the former manner: "In sins my mother conceived me"; but by keeping the commandments of God, just as that first parent of ours kept them before the transgression, they shall be counted worthy of the same honor and glory as the first parents were adorned with before the disobedience.

For "marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled," offering salvation. Since these things are so, and since the divinely written tablets say: "You shall not go to any kinswoman of your flesh to reveal her nakedness"; and our first parent answered elsewhere: "This is now more my wife, bone from"

my bones and flesh from my flesh." I do not dare to say that spouses are of one flesh and another, even though I see them in two persons, lest I be justly condemned after the manner of those who reject the written and unwritten traditions, which are the pledge of the holy Churches and of our salvation. Rather, I resolve to consider them one flesh, and to bind the husband by the same legal and canonical precepts insofar as concerns the matrimonial union, in which his spouse is also included, and the same applies vice versa. And for this reason, Demetrius cannot take Theodora as his wife, who is considered his second cousin, because of his matrimonial union with Mary. ^B I also agree with those who prohibit such a matrimonial contract of Demetrius by reason of the laws which say: "In marriages, not only what is permitted must be considered, but also what is becoming"; observing that it is most unbecoming that he who until now was called a relative by his second cousin should subsequently be called her spouse. ^C And because some, using the words of the synodal record published on the thirtieth day of the month of July, in the twelfth indiction, when that most holy lord Theodosius was patriarch and we were discharging the office of chartophylax, in which record toward the end these words are read: "Since the betrothal celebrated with John is dissolved as having no substance, because of the underage status of Irene, rightly will Irene be joined in a legal marriage to a second cousin of her own. For neither is Theodore considered a relative of Irene, nor is he bound by the bonds and limits of affinity, because he exceeds the sixth degree of affinity." ^D They wish us to be silent, as we are now judging the contrary; first we ourselves answer that the chartophylax of each period, who is considered to be the mouth of the patriarch, both speaks and writes those things which the vertex of the head itself provides like a cloud and water. Therefore, no one shall think us to be blamed or praised, whether we have treated the present case correctly or, on the contrary, badly in our writings. For we have acted in the manner of Baruch, discharging the office of a scribe, writing down whatever Jeremiah lamented in his lamentation; and we have spoken in the manner of Aaron, whatever Moses spoke when he spoke. And what was then a remedy for the weakness of our understanding in this question was written by us in the second chapter of the thirteenth title of the Nomocanon. For we said, while interpreting that chapter, that the marriage in question was prohibited even by imperial edict, even if it had not been recorded in the acts, and the Church does not sustain its promulgation. Then we add, that when ancient notes are brought forward, and similar ecclesiastical writings, that most wicked gnat of this question...

he will indeed condemn, and that too, even when they have not been expressly abolished by the present synodal record; but the things contained in it, he will equate to canonical and legal teachings. Looking therefore to the Author and Finisher of our faith, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, I say again: since that great Paul says, "The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife." ^B And the divine and holy canons and tomes, deeming him who has been married to a widow to be a digamist, do not approve of him coming to any ecclesiastical rank; nor do they permit the wife of a deceased priest to pass to second nuptials, and this entirely on account of the identity of their bodies, as is manifestly clear from the thirty-first and thirty-second chapters of the first title of the third book of the Basilics, and the forty-fourth canon of Saint Basil, in the end of which it is said: "We therefore do not permit the body of a deaconess, as having been consecrated, to be any longer in carnal use." I indeed judge it to be canonical and legitimate that it be forbidden by ecclesiastical authority for one and the same man to be joined to two first cousins, and vice versa: and if anything of this sort has been done secretly, let it be intentionally dissolved and corrected by the intervention of a penalty.

BY THE SAME

Epistle concerning the incenses which are accustomed to be given by the patriarch on the day the catechesis is held.

^C You indeed, dearest son, most glorious judge and prefect of the courts, singing along with the God-inspired psalmist: "Ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee," have rightly desired to learn from us for what reason the most holy patriarchs of each time are accustomed to give incense to the people after the catechesis has been held. I, however, drinking the dregs of foreign affliction, was hesitating until now in responding. But since I have learned that one ought to give to every one who asks, and always, both with tongue and with hand, I respond to your interrogation extemporaneously.

^D The most exalted circumspection of the holy emperors and the amplitude of the patriarchs were rendered more august in former times, among other things, by annual stipends and the largesse of palms. For the patriarchs and emperors of each time used to sit annually, and through these things, they invited their subjects to benevolence. The most ample order of the senate knows this, and perhaps some who live in this age of ours. For these things were not brought forth before the times of Euclid, neither are they fables of dreaming old women; but even until the reign of the lord Constantine Ducas, that august custom endured in the palace of God himself as well as of the emperors, and this good thing was propagated even to us, from our ancestors to our grandsons, from generation to

^A generation. But if—though I do not believe it—the whirlpool of oblivion has swallowed this up, and that graceful water of Castalia does not proclaim the providence of the princes of former memory, at least the membranes of historical books and the records of imperial ordinances will shout these things after the manner of Stentor. You too, who are a most acute interpreter of any learned writing, will in this question—which is of no small moment—be superior to many, and will assist me in my old age in this discourse.

Furthermore, the most sacred edicts of the Emperor, Lord Constantine Monomachos, by which the offices of the Prefect of Judgments and of the Nomophylax were regulated, and which fix that they ought to receive ^B every year, besides other things, by way of *roga* (stipend), such and such a quantity of gold, along with the customary *baia* (palms)—these are not in heaven, nor beyond the sea, such that one might say, "Who shall bring these to me?" But they are in your hand, and in your heart, and in your mouth. And you will certainly gather the truth of the matter from these by the sharpness of your mind.

However, since the emperors ^C and patriarchs demonstrate their magnificence, as has been said, through the *baia* and the *rogai*, it was certainly fitting that the patriarchs, who still preserve the ancient custom to this day and distribute gold coins to the clergy, should also give *baia* as had been typified before. But since I do not know how it appears that this is no longer done, but that on the days of the catecheses, in place of *rogai* and *baia*, they give only incense to the people: one must consider, before all else, what the meaning of the word *baia* is, and investigate the reason why incense is given on the day of the catechesis, and on Great Wednesday candles and incense; and finally, candles with crosses on that Sunday ^D on which the *baia* are carried.

As for what those *baia* were that were once given by emperors and patriarchs, I for one do not know. For neither has my hand ever received any *baium* along with a *roga* from an imperial or patriarchal hand, even though I am otherwise daily enriched by them, nor have I learned their quality from others. I do see, however, men holding branches of palms and myrtles, when they celebrate the day on which *baia* are carried.

And of what language the word *baium* is, and what meaning it holds according to the Romans and the Greeks, shall be indicated. *Baium* in the Roman language does not signify a branch cut from a tree, nor a rose gathered from a rose-garden, nor a lily; but it is the translation of the human mind from one opinion to another, whether good, clearly, or bad. Hence it comes about that we call the masters of boys *baiuli* (tutors), as those who translate the infant minds of children toward virility. And we call them *praevaricatores* (prevaricators)—those who are variegated like the rainbow—those who are collaborators and betray the clients. Therefore, when Judea and Jerusalem had become subject to the empire of the Romans, after Julius Caesar had attained the rule of affairs, (thus we...

say it came about that Pilate judged the Lord, and Caesar Augustus registered Judea, and Paul, when he was being condemned, said: "I must stand before Caesar,"), the paternal language of the Jews was exchanged for that of the Romans. For they were mingled with the Gentiles, and learned their customs. ^A When, therefore, the elders of the Jewish people and the assembly of the scribes saw the Lord and our God, who sits upon the cherubic chariots, being carried in humility upon an ass's colt, yet nevertheless being attended in royal fashion by those going before and those following, and enhancing the dignity of Jerusalem (for He loved the city of Sion more than all the tabernacles of Jacob), they saw also the crowds spreading their garments upon the ground and making the ways softer, and the children bearing branches and saying, "Hosanna to the son of David! Blessed is He who comes!" They did not say along with the prophets: "Praise, O children, the Lord"; nor, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, proclaim the glory of God, O Jerusalem, for behold your King comes to you, meek and saving, and riding upon an ass's colt, the son of a beast of burden." For as it is said, "having a mouth they will not speak; having eyes and they will not see; having ears and they will not hear," because upon their hearts lies a veil of the law and of ignorance.

Truly as sinners they were inflamed, and were kindled with anger, and gnashed their teeth, and were distraught, as they said: "Go forth, O nations, go forth, O peoples, and see how the whole world is going after Him." ^B And therefore, not understanding the carrying of the branches, they cried out in the manner of madmen: "Papai! all have been led astray, all have become useless and have turned aside." Alas! the Mosaic laws and precepts have become, beyond expectation, a *baion*—that is, according to their madness, a leading to destruction. ^C Since, therefore, the term "baia" has been, in my opinion, well clarified, it must be said how and why, after the catechesis, incense is given by the most holy patriarchs, on the day of the carrying of the *baia*, along with crosses and candles; and again, on Great Wednesday, candles and incense; and on the holy Pascha, salutations and the triple-headed candles.

We say, therefore, that since the race of the Jews was blinded toward the light, and called salvation destruction, as has been set forth (for it is wont to happen, that to those suffering from jaundice even honey is bitter), we, feeling and doing the opposite of these things (for we behold the sun with eyes not closed), celebrate with the carrying of branches, and we exhibit their madness as though in a triumph (for they have become a spectacle to mortals); we confess, and we in no way deny, that we have become a *baion* of faith; but from shadow to truth, but from mortality to immortality: nor are we ashamed to call those branches *baia*. ^D Existing in the same opinion, the most faithful princes used to mingle *baia* with their annual grants, adorned with silver, for instance, or gold. For they congratulated those who attained these things, as being orthodox toward God and benevolent toward them. But since the grants of the princes and the flowers of the *baia* that grow up with them,

^A ceased many years ago for the cause we have indicated; and since the grants of the patriarchs are still in public use, and the grant which is customarily given on the day of the casting off of meat has been changed, so that it falls on the anniversary of the ecclesiastical grant on Great Tuesday, just as the ancient *Rogalia* speak: therefore, after the catechesis, the patriarchs give incense to the people in place of the *baia*; as if admonishing those who receive them to abandon a depraved way of life, just as they have been instructed, and to gain for themselves that eternal kingdom through the conversion of a few days. But by these incense offerings of little value, they do not diminish the majesty of the Spirit in the manner of parsimonious and miserly men—for how could they do that, who ensnare ^B the entire world with all kinds of philanthropies, and plow every untilled field, and reap the rich ears of beneficence?—but they wish to indicate the hidden power of that day, and as it were to teach through these things those who receive them what the state of soul of one who is fasting ought to be, and what the holocaust of repentance and the incense of prayer should be. And then, indeed, they steer the course of the fast in this way. But on that joyful day of the Lord, the carrying of the *baia*, sitting in the manner of those distributing prizes—for "He sat," it says, "who judges righteousness"—they receive those who have conquered in the greater contest ^C of the fast with the blessings of precious and holy crosses, and with the gifts of light-bearing candles. For the faithful do not wish to shadow-box like those childish men, but as those who already behold the Sun of righteousness, the One who illuminates the new Zion with light, they are encouraged through these things, having already fasted the forty-day fast of the Lord, and having driven away the clouds of the passions, to rise up together with the Giant. They hold *baia* in their hands because they have been transferred from a base and perhaps newer way of life to a higher and passionless one; and they hold candles and crosses because, with the light of the truth, they have prostrated the arch-evil ^D Satan, their adversary. And what other gift could be given to those who have conquered in the great contest of the fast through temperance, more precious than the much-longed-for holy cross, which broke in pieces the jaws of all-devouring Hades and opened the gates of life to the race of men? Absolutely none, unless one should wish to say Jesus Christ, our God, who through the cross acquired salvation for us. And since it is not permitted to receive a king surrounded by many dominions directly, or in a state of filth, "Now," says the great high priest, "rank yourselves among the foot soldiers, take your stand in the order of the slingers, march with the archers, and kneel with the trophy-bearers. But after a small interval of time the royal palace will be opened to you, and you will see the King of heaven and earth, the uncircumscribed Lord and our God, being circumscribed carnally by the hands of the righteous, and bestowing upon you an unending life instead of *baia*." And indeed, on that joyful, lordly day of the venerable festival of the *baia*, the peoples, taking candles and crosses, betroth the victory over death to themselves, and like stars...

^A they illuminate the starless sphere of despair; or like faithful servants bearing torches, moving about through the crossroads, they make the coming of the Bridegroom more radiant, and they triumph over the leprosy of the heretics sitting in darkness. But after the third day, that curator of human souls, I mean the Patriarch, as if reasoning with himself, lest anyone should handle the passionless rewards of the saving Passion unworthily (for honey itself is often wont to turn its sweetness into bile if it be taken otherwise than is expedient), rising earlier like a vigilant guard, gives incense to the faithful, wishing by these things to indicate and to admonish them not to undertake the cycle of the coming days in a festive manner, but in the manner of pugilists. For although, he says, you have crossed the great sea of the fast without danger, being lifted up by the sail of the Cross, and have arrived at the divine port of the holy Sufferings of Christ our God, yet you have not acquired that priceless pearl, like that prudent merchant. For even now plunderers and thieves are busily lying in wait for the Lord through the darkness, and having woven a net of homicide, they seek an opportunity to capture Him. Therefore let us also keep watch from now on, and let us keep vigil with the Jews who are keeping watch. For they indeed will be sailing the sea in darkness, casting their nets in vain: but let us walk in the day, and we shall obtain the works of light. They will be hooking thorns, but we shall gain the catch. ^B They will cover the pearl in stone, but we shall store it up in earthen vessels. After the incense had been given in this manner, and the people had again directed their hands toward the sea of the fast on a prosperous course, and had illuminated the night of the holy Sufferings of Christ with lit torches (for it is in no way possible for those who walk in the day to make nocturnal journeys in the manner of those who walk in darkness: but then the Bridegroom of the Church, rising again like, as one might say, the morning or evening Arcturus, on the auspicious day of the holy Pascha of the Lord, like another divine Moses, receives the people of Christ into His bosom, and as if congratulating those who have shaken off every Egyptian wickedness and have drowned Pharaoh the pursuer in the sea, ^C He says: Come, behold, you merchants of orthodox doctrine, you who have crossed the sea of the fast without danger, where the great wave of envy has cast the treasure of life; where the tempest of the storm has hidden that sleepless pearl in the sepulchre, as if in an oyster. And when you have seen the corruption moved by the power of the divine lightning, and the Pearl appearing by His own power, and exposed to buyers without any price; take Him and make Him your own, and acquire the treasure of eternal life for yourselves. Perhaps also, in the manner of a loving father who now for the first time sees his blameless children returning safely from a long and dangerous journey, ^D he embraces them with a holy kiss—

and having opened the storehouses of his blessing, he welcomes them with coins, small indeed in appearance, but great in their meaning, which is understood. For, looking to the author and perfecter of our faith, Jesus Christ, our true God, he pledges to them through these things also the visitation of the Holy Spirit. ^A

We, as more advanced architects, have written these things to you, most learned sir, and have shown you the foundation of a defense, as if with a finger. And you, like another Bezalel, shall build upon the truth. For, as he says, no one can lay another foundation besides that which is laid, Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power for ever. Amen.

BY THE SAME

A Meditation on the calling which takes place to the holy houses of monasteries by means of three signals.

Since I see certain ignorant men, unfit for any useful work, and who care for nothing other than to speak and hear something new, calling the calling of monks to the holy houses, which takes place by three signals for the sake of hearing the divine doxologies, vain and a cause of scandal—(for they say, "It would suffice to be gathered by one signal alone, and not to provide a cause for the impious who surround us to mock and laugh at the holy Churches of God, and thus become a byword among the nations, nor for the monastic state to be exhibited as if in a triumph for all to see, as though it does not compose itself properly for a single warning"),—I indeed prove by this present ^B writing that it was not devised because of those trifles of the impious nor because of the peevishness of monks, so that divine glorifications are announced by three signals, but for a reason of great moment, handed down by the hands of men from ancient centuries.

For since the celebrations of God, which take place by day and by night in the Church, according to the oracle of the prophet ^C David, whose words are: *At evening, and morning, and at noon I will tell and declare, and the Lord will hear my voice*, are performed, therefore, out of the two Testaments, the New to wit and the Old, according to the tradition of the holy and divinely inspired Fathers, it is ordained that before all else God be glorified through the holy lyre of the God-father (*For I will open*, he says, *my problem upon the psaltery*), and after his exposition, that the divine beehive of the Church should exert itself: through the honeycomb of evangelical doctrines, illuminating the darkness with its sting; through the honey of the apostolic writings, which offers sweetness to the ends of the world; and finally through the narratives about the martyrs, which magnify the incarnation of Christ our God. And therefore, for the sake of those six psalms of the God-father, and the rest that are sung assiduously at the morning glorification before the hagiopolite, and for the sake of those that are sung according to custom when the divine office is performed, and at the evening prayers, before ^D

the apostolic and evangelical readings—and indeed also the stichera—the monks are summoned by a small signal, and one that is, as it were, more humble and obscure. ^A For the things shadowed forth in the Old Testament were a type of things to come, and images. But for the sake of the proclamation of the divinely-sounding Gospels, and the reading of the other festive sacred books, and simply for the whole hagiopolite order, the great signal was devised. For to the whole earth and to the ends of the inhabited world the benefit proceeding from these has penetrated. And because these things are performed in a manner pleasing to God and piously, it was necessary for the Lord's people to be reminded also of the future judgment, for which we bend our knees and pray. ^B It has been shaped, therefore, by a bronze signal, so that those who bear the name of Christ might be reminded of that last day. For it is written, "God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." The angels of God shall sound the trumpet, and the dead shall rise, and to each one shall be rendered according to his works. But the fact that in the catholic churches of the cities the masses are not summoned by three signals, but by one great one, is not an overturning of ecclesiastical order. For the people are summoned who are devoted to manual crafts, and who are occupied with the mattock and the plow. ^C It is therefore desirable to gather this person even for the psalmody of the New Testament. And for us, who by the grace of God keep every ecclesiastical tradition unchanged, it has been decided to live according to this order. But for the Latins, who have been evil-mindedly divided from us, and whose heart has been hardened by Satan, although in their words they may be smoother than oil, another custom has been handed down regarding the summoning of the people to the holy houses. For they use but one signal, I mean the campana, which is named from the *campus*. For just as a *campus* (they say) lies open to those desiring to travel without impediment, so also the high-pitched voice of the bronze bell is spread out, accessible to all. And the Latins and Italians certainly have no need of many signals, because they do not use the hagiopolite chants, but only the lyre of the forefather David.

MATTHEW THE MONK: QUESTIONS AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

On the degrees of marriage.

^A No one, I think, who possesses sound judgment, would accuse us of dealing with a matter foreign to our purpose, if at this point we expound upon what are called the degrees of marriage and the propinquity and distance of the same kindred, from which those who have some impediment are clearly distinguished and discerned from those who are permitted. For some say that the degrees are so named by metaphor from the steps of a ladder. ^A For just as ascent and descent occur by those steps, so too by the degrees of kindred are both those ascending and descending discovered. Those who are not related in this way are known by lateral connection. Further, it is their nature to proceed according to the order of generations; for it is accepted that each generation constitutes one degree. Of these, some extend in width, others in depth ^B. And those in width preserve the same standing among themselves; for all who are children fulfill the first degree, but brothers are joined to one another in the second, even if they be more than ten in number. For since those who are connected in marriage from the same blood must not be more than two, it is for this reason that, considering these alone among brothers, we say they are of the second degree, by reason of their double generation. Likewise, the nephews possess the third degree, and first cousins the fourth, and the children of first cousins ^C the sixth, and the rest in order proportionately. Those who extend downwards do not all have the same degree, but some, namely children, are in the first, grandchildren in the second, and great-grandchildren in the third, and so on likewise. Wherefore it is better that the degrees be named not according to the generations, as seemed good to the ancients, but according to their relationship, and the propinquity of the family, and the distance again from the primary origin of the family. For between father and son there is a small interval; between grandfather and grandchild, a greater one; and between great-grandfather and great-grandchild, one still greater. The same relation holds for those also who are from the side.

Division of Kinship

^A Since "kinship" is a general term, it is bifurcated in its primary division into that of nature and that of imposition. By nature, a kinsman is, for example, a father, son, mother, daughter, brother, cousin, second cousin, the son of a second cousin, and others of that kind. By imposition, there is a father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, and adopted son. Kinship by nature is in turn divided into two: that which is from lawful marriage, and that which is born of fornication. Kinship by imposition is also itself divided into affinity and adoption. Affinity is the relationship that arises from matrimonial union. Adoption is the choosing of someone as a son, apart from carnal union. Brotherhood, however, created by adoption is repugnant to the laws. For, being destitute of children, we invented adoption for the sake of transmitting goods. But no reasonable cause introduces brotherhood created by adoption. ^B Indeed, those things that have a reasonable basis, the law also accepts; that which does not have such, it rejects.

Again, by subdivision, affinity consists either of two families—as when an uncle and a nephew are joined with an aunt and a niece—or of two first cousins with two first cousins; and this is properly called affinity. Or, another person intervenes between these two families, and this is called affinity of three families. And these things are partly prohibited and partly permitted, as will be shown in what follows.

Adoption is performed either by co-optation into the status of a son, for the sake of succession, or by receiving someone from the holy baptism, confirmation, and instruction, and also for the sake of testimony. But adoption extends toward taking up an inheritance. For it was created for this end. Receiving someone from baptism is viewed solely in the degrees of marriage. And this is indeed the more general division of kinship. Subsequently, we shall also speak of the particulars.

^C

Of the Relationship by Blood

Gentility or consanguinity is divided into ascendants, descendants, and those who are from the transverse. Ascendants are those who have begotten us, for example, father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, and those who are above them. Descendants are those who have been procreated from us, for example, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, great-grandson, great-granddaughter, and those who follow them in order. Those from the transverse are those who neither have begotten us nor have been procreated from us, but are referred back to the same origin and lineage as us, for example, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, the son and daughter of a brother, ^D cousin, female cousin, and those who follow them in order; namely, the kin by the oblique.

Of Ascendants and Descendants

Indeed, ascendants in relation to descendants, even if they

are not born of legitimate marriages, are prevented in the infinite. ^A For it is not possible that the grandfather be joined in marriage to his own granddaughter. We say "the infinite," according to what is possible, not the infinite by nature. For families are not immortal.

Of the seventh degree of consanguinity.

The eighth degree of the indirect line permits marriage, while the seventh completely forbids it. For no one can take the daughter of a cousin (sobrinus); rather, before, the seventh degree of blood if asked about was indeed forbidden, but if it proceeded in any way, it was not forbidden, but it was censured, because the law was silent, forbidding only up to the sixth. For it says: "To take the daughter of my brother or of my sister in marriage is not permitted, nor the granddaughter of these, being of the fourth degree. ^B Neither the daughter of an uncle, that is, a cousin (consobrina), nor may my son take their granddaughter, who are called second cousins (sobrini)." But since some, because of the severity of the penalties, secretly celebrated such marriages, the matter was reported to the synod, at the time when that divine Luke occupied the patriarchal throne, and from that point the holy synod defined and established that such a marriage should by no means proceed or stand; but if one should consult about them, they ought to be forbidden; and if they proceed, they must be broken up, and those who have contracted them excommunicated, and the priest who has performed the sacred rites, unless perhaps he was taken by surprise through ignorance, ought to be deposed. And this synodal act ^C and mandate was confirmed also by the constitution of the illustrious among emperors, Manuel, the Porphyrogenitus. For this reason, it is not permitted to anyone to take the daughter of his cousin, being his niece. For that which is just and seemly and honorable by nature, placed as it were a bridle upon marriages.

Of the eighth degree of consanguinity.

Marriage proceeding to the eighth degree of blood is permitted. For to take a third cousin or the granddaughter of a cousin, one has not the slightest hindrance.

Of those born of fornication.

That which is of fornication does not have one single name, but this also is subdivided. For if a child is born openly to a woman living with someone ^D and for a short time, this one is called natural. And he holds a second rank, as compared to the one legitimate by nature, and he is preferred in inheritance even of ascendants, not to mention those in the oblique. But if it is manifest, yet not from a woman who is in cohabitation with the man, he is called *nothus* or spurious. But if he is entirely unknown and obscure, he is called *skotios* (dark/shadowy), as Homer says:

".....and her mother bore a dark one."

^A And of this, indeed, we have no argument. For neither concerning matrimonial contracts, nor concerning succession, is there any doubt in such matters. The law also says: "No one takes to wife a sister born of fornication." And, "He who has committed fornication with a woman, if the fornication is manifest, is forbidden to take her stepmother, but he may take her cousin."

On affinity

And this, truly, is the case for those by blood. But the means for discovering the degrees of affinity are more varied. For regarding these, it seemed to the ancients that the quantity of degrees should not be sought at all, but having expressly forbidden marriages that would introduce confusion in the naming of the lineage, or which would be dishonorable, they left the rest unrebuked. The more recent ones, however, devised degrees for these as well, and allowed those exceeding the sixth degree to have a place. Yet we expressly find the sixth degree permitted and the seventh prohibited: the former as being free from confusion, the latter as being liable to confusion. Wherefore it is not necessary to introduce degrees into these; but what the law has expressly forbidden is to be avoided, and what it has not forbidden is to be admitted. The ancient law ^B forbade those that are nearer and closer. For its words are these: "A mother-in-law is the mother of my wife, and her grandmother, and great-grandmother. I take none of these. A daughter-in-law is also called the wife of my son, and of my grandson, and of my great-grandson. And a stepdaughter is likewise called the daughter born of another husband to the wife of my wife, as well as her granddaughter and great-granddaughter. I take none of these. Nor, likewise, my own stepmother, even if my father has had many, since they hold the place of mothers. Nor does a stepmother marry him who was the husband of my stepdaughter. Nor do I take the daughter of the woman I divorced, born of another husband after the divorce." The Tome of Sisinnius ^C, however, forbids two brothers from taking an aunt and the daughter of that same brother as wives, and vice versa. Furthermore, it forbade two brothers from taking two cousins. In the former of these the fifth degree is observed, in the latter the sixth. Therefore, marriages are prohibited on account of affinity up to the fifth degree, if indeed degrees are to be counted in these cases. Those that are of the sixth degree, if no confusion arises regarding the naming of the lineage, are not prohibited. But if any confusion is seen to emerge, they are banned. All others forbid those marriages which are contracted from one and five degrees. But that prelate of Thessalonica, Michael Chumnus, by his own opinion declares them ^D not forbidden. For example, if a father and son, who are in the first degree, are joined to a little aunt and to the daughter of her brother, who approach one another in the fifth degree. But if the sixth degree of affinity, which is under inquiry, consists of two and four;

^B if it is free of confusion, it is permitted. For it is impossible that two brothers of the same parents should be joined to two cousins, or vice versa; for they become in the place of brothers, kinsmen or co-affines, and in this manner the names of the kinship are confused. And the holy and great Basil says: "In those cases where the names of the lineage are confused, in these marriages are illicit." If, however, there is no confusion, the sixth degree is not forbidden; for it is not prevented that a grandfather and grandson be joined with a great-aunt and a niece of the same brother, for this also is of the sixth degree, yet is devoid of confusion. For again, after the marriages, they preserve the positions of grandfather and grandson. Indeed, most people are accustomed to call the great-aunt and the great-uncle—that is, the sister and brother of the grandfather—grandmother and grandfather. For this reason, the present question is neither forbidden by the law, nor is it prohibited by the tome of Sisinnius, as if it were unprohibited, while that other case is forbidden as being liable to confusion.

But if it consists of three and three, if it is free of confusion, it is not forbidden. For example, when a paternal uncle and his brother's son marry an aunt and a niece, no confusion occurs, for again they preserve the position of uncle and nephew. For this reason, it is entirely unprohibited, as the silence of the aforementioned law, and furthermore the imperial decrees and synodal acts, have signified to all. But when the uncle has already entered into marriage with the niece, and the nephew wishes to live with the aunt, the union that follows is forbidden because of the confusion. For they become, according to the laws, the uncle a nephew, and the nephew an uncle; and this is a manifest confusion of the names of the lineage.

But even a marriage which is considered up to the seventh degree of affinity is forbidden if it consists of one and six. For it is not possible for a father and son to be joined to two female cousins, for they become, instead of father and son, fellow-brothers-in-law. But if it consists of two and five, by no means; for whether a grandfather and grandson, or two brothers, should be joined to a minor aunt and a niece, the second marriage is not objectionable. ^C And if it is of three and four, again, if it is free of confusion, it is permitted; for a paternal uncle and a nephew may marry two female first cousins without prohibition. But if it is seen to carry confusion, by no means; for a grandfather and a great-grandson are prevented from marrying two first cousins, lest they also be considered fellow-brothers-in-law. But the one who made the contract first remains undisturbed, while the one who follows is prevented or, if he has advanced, he is separated.

Those beyond the seventh degree of affinity are not to be scrutinized and are unprohibited, just as those beyond the eighth degree in cases of blood kinship. And it is not correctly stated by some that marriages of the sixth degree of affinity are not forbidden when the degrees are equal on both sides—as when there are three degrees from each side—but are forbidden when they are unequal. For it has been shown from the matters stated above that it is not equality or inequality, but the confused and the unconfused that either permit or prevent the contract. ^D

^A

That the same man must not take two second cousins.

The Church has forbidden one and the same man to take two second cousins as wives. For it is not the seventh degree of affinity that is reckoned, as many suppose, but the sixth; because the husband and wife are considered to be contained in one degree. For when this came under consultation in the days of Patriarch Nicholas, it was forbidden by the Church; and a decree of the celebrated prince Manuel was also brought forward, commanding that such a thing should never happen. But for what reason does it happen that marriages involving affinity, or two different lineages, are free at the seventh degree? Whatever is "one" is so either by nature or by legal fiction. It is one by nature, for example, as one human being. It is one by legal fiction, as a husband and his legitimate wife, whom affection and carnal union have united, as we read it written: "And the two shall become one flesh." Therefore, when a relationship exists by blood, and it is natural relationship and unity from the same lineage, the relationship and the "one" are by nature. But when it is from affinity and two lineages, the "one" and the relationship between them are by legal fiction, according to the closeness by blood. Therefore, in the lower degree, and before the eighth, such a relationship and union is dissolved. For those things which have a stricter union require a greater interval for it to expire; just as those things which are less united require a smaller one. ^B

Concerning marriages from three different lineages.

Matrimonial questions arising from three lineages also pertain to the categories of affinity, but through the intervention of a third lineage, they are more easily freed than those connected from two. Indeed, just as these are two degrees lower than those contracted from consanguinity (which are free at the eighth degree, while those from affinity involving two lineages are sometimes allowed freely at the sixth), so in turn those constituted from three lineages, being also two degrees lower than those consisting of two lineages, obtain the beginning of permission directly at the fourth degree; although in these matters the calculation of degrees is much more to be avoided, and one should rather seek whether they have been forbidden by the law in explicit terms. Most especially, the fourth degree follows, void of prohibition. A case of this kind, which arose under Patriarch Stupa, was called into question and declared by judgment. ^C

For a certain Constantine took as his wife Anna, the own sister of a certain Theodore. When she had died, he took in a second marriage Irene, the sister of Theodore's wife. It thus happened that Constantine was both an affine and a co-affine of Theodore. There are, however, four degrees in this case. For Theodore and Anna are connected by the second degree. Likewise, the wife of Theodore and Irene are in the second degree, which together make four degrees. For the law has forbidden only two marriages from three lineages, which are of one degree only and not more: namely, that I cannot take her who was once the wife of my stepson, nor ^D

^A can the stepmother marry the man who was the husband of her stepdaughter. For in these cases, too, there is a conjunction of three lineages. But because a stepson and a stepdaughter are in the place of a son or daughter toward a stepfather or stepmother, and their wife or husband hold the place of a daughter-in-law or son-in-law, such unions are illicit. For the two extreme lineages, the husband and the wife, have no degree, either between themselves or toward the intermediate lineage. For we do not assign the conjunction of a man with a woman to a degree, but we regard this as one thing when it is considered in itself (for my brother’s wife, on account of her supreme union with him, is of the second degree from me, being joined by subtle reasoning with respect to the divine commandment); but when the degree is sought toward another person related to her, the matter does not stand so. For the sister of a wife ^B is of the second degree toward her, but of the fourth toward me. And her aunt is of the third degree toward her, but of the fifth toward me. And it is the same with others. For it is not possible, just as with the husband, so to consider his brother as one flesh with the wife, and by an exercise of thought to join another connection beyond the power of the law. For those who are on the side do not have the first degree, but begin from the second. The law, therefore, as we have said, has forbidden only such marriages of the three lineages as are of the first degree. But the prevailing custom regards as not forbidden whatever is beyond these and exceeds the first degree; for example, one has had a wife. ^C When she is dead, after some time he has taken as a second wife the wife of his uncle. Another has taken the stepdaughter of his wife’s brother. In these cases, indeed, three degrees appear, but they are nevertheless permitted according to custom. However, the exactness, as we have said, requires the fourth degree in these. For the kinship of affinity must be extended a little bit sideways, and then the marriage will be lawful. For example, the wife of my wife’s brother is closely related to the intermediate lineage, just as I am to her. My brother can, after the death of my wife’s brother, marry her without blame, or I can marry her sister; but it is not lawful for her to marry me. Again, I have acquired a brother-in-law ^D through my sister; I myself take his wife’s sister, who was formerly married to his brother, as my wife, without prohibition. For she is found to be of the fourth degree, and is removed somewhat further from the kinship of the intermediate lineage. For the person who is closely joined to it is my sister; but I am from the side, and a little further from the intermediate person. Again, I have acquired a son-in-law, the husband of my daughter: it is not lawful for me to take his former wife, who was married to his brother, as my wife, as she is closely joined to the intermediate lineage; but to take her sister is not forbidden; yet both a son-in-law and a brother-in-law, when they have become widowers, by no means take an aunt and a niece.

^A If the wife of one has died, it is permitted to him to take as a wife the sister of his brother-in-law. But also the daughter of the first cousin of his former wife, that is, the first cousin of his mother-in-law. It is forbidden, however, to take the daughter of the first cousin of his former wife. It is lawful for the brother-in-law of two sisters and the sister-in-law of two brothers to be united. The decree of the Patriarch Leo Stylipes allows a son-in-law and a brother-in-law to take two sisters, since it constitutes the fifth degree. The same decree, and also that of the Patriarch Arsenius, judge that it is not forbidden for two brothers to take a daughter-in-law and the sister of her husband. An uncle and the husband of his brother's daughter are not forbidden to take two sisters, even if it becomes the sixth degree. And also a son-in-law and a brother-in-law are not forbidden to take two first cousins, even if the seventh degree emerges. ^B But the decree of the Patriarch Michael permits a daughter—that of John, perhaps—and the niece of his wife to be united to two brothers. However, some have decreed certain of the aforementioned marriages to be illicit: namely, that a son-in-law should subsequently take the sister of him who was his son-in-law; and furthermore, that a brother-in-law should take her who has the brother of his son-in-law in marriage; just as also that which we said the Bishop of Thessalonica, Chumnus, had dissolved by his own decree; namely, that a father and son should take a younger aunt and her brother's daughter. For the law says: ^C "In marriages, we consider not only what is permitted, but also what is honorable."

Concerning adoption.

And such is indeed the reckoning of marriages from three different families. But we have been taught by the sacred canons and pious laws to observe the same standard for adoption, which is done for the sake of succession, as for consanguinity; both with respect to matrimonial degrees and the inheritance of parents. For the law says (76): "I cannot take an aunt, either on the father’s or mother’s side, as a wife, even if they are connected to me through adoption, since they hold the place of mothers; she who perhaps was adopted by a grandfather, and held the place of a sister to the father, and an aunt to me." Neither may the adoptive father take the daughter or granddaughter of his adoptive son, nor may the adoptive son take the wife ^D of the adoptive father, or his mother, or his mother's sister, or his granddaughter through a son (78). But if a guardian, or he who is called a curator, wishes to adopt the husband of her over whom he holds guardianship or curatorship, or her father, the arrangement is void, though the marriage is not dissolved. It is dissolved, however, when someone has adopted his own son-in-law. The 24th Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise forbids a son-in-law.

^A marrying the children of the one who adopted him. He adds: "While previously this was not done according to reason, now, since adoption is performed according to a fitting and righteous law and by a sacred rite, with some being established in the position of parents and others in that of children, there further remains no reason for the adopted children to be joined in marriage with the natural children of the one who adopted them, nor for the name of brother to be transmuted into the name of marriage, such that they would be called sons-in-law instead of brothers."

That eunuchs also adopt.

That virgins also adopt.

Concerning sponsorship from holy baptism.

^A However, this did not seem right to the majority, but rather that the prohibition concerned only those persons contained in the stated law. Moreover, the degrees of both forms of adoption are counted differently from those of consanguinity. In the latter, the father is indeed in the first degree toward all brothers without exception; but in the former, this spiritual father is in the first degree toward the child whom he has adopted, but in the second toward the child's fleshly father, for he is considered his brother. Toward the siblings of his spiritual child, however, he is counted in the third degree, for he did not have them as children as well. The son, meanwhile, is in the second degree toward his own brothers by blood, and in the first toward his fleshly father, just as he is toward his spiritual father. Therefore, it is permitted for anyone who wishes to do so to take the sister of his child as his wife. But he who receives his own son from the holy baptism is separated from his wife. ^B

Concerning marriages which are prohibited even without kinship.

Sometimes, even without any relationship of the five aforementioned kinds of kinship, a marriage is prohibited. For example, he who is accused of adultery, even if he has not been clearly convicted, cannot take that woman as his wife. Nor may a freedman take the wife of his patron after his death, for it provides a suspicion that he committed adultery with her even while the patron was still alive. Nor may a guardian take his ward as a wife, nor may his son do so, before the guardianship or trusteeship is dissolved. But the guardianship is dissolved at the thirtieth year. For there are twenty-five years of adulthood, and four of full restoration, and at the beginning of the thirtieth year the obligation of the guardian is immediately dissolved, and from that time he has the power to join himself in marriage to the one under his guardianship; but before this, by no means. ^C The mother of the ward, however, can marry the guardian of her daughter even before this time. And since those who are simply domestics and under authority, even if they are not slaves nor have ever been, hold the rank of freedmen, not even these, after the death of their own masters, can take their wives, so as not to give rise to a suspicion of adultery that may have preceded it. Nor may a stage-actor—that is, a public entertainer—or his son, take the daughter of a senator. For the words of the law are: ^D “In marriages, one must consider not only what is permitted, but also what is becoming.” For in consanguinity, and in reception from holy baptism, and in adoption, one must look at the degrees, and those exceeding the seventh degree are prohibited. But in cases of affinity and trigamy, those things which are explicitly prohibited or which involve confusion are prohibited.

^A In other cases, which lie outside the degrees of consanguinity, one must have regard for decorum and decency. Moreover, she who has contracted an unlawful marriage can dissolve the bond and subsequently marry another. But children born from prohibited unions do not obtain the status of bastards, nor do they succeed to their father in any goods. He who enters into relations with a free woman who has not made gain of her body is considered to have a wife, not a concubine. A curator can join his own daughter in marriage to the person for whom he is curator; but he cannot join his son to the woman whose affairs he manages without an order from the prince, for he is marked with infamy. Neither the father of a guardian nor his brother, while still under [paternal] power, can marry the ward. ^B The wives of those who are being mourned are forbidden from marrying during the time of mourning, unless by the order of the emperor. But the spouses of those who are not entitled to be mourned—that is, those who have been condemned for high treason—are not prohibited. A woman who is pregnant at the time of mourning is still prohibited from entering into marriage. But she who gives birth during the time of mourning is not prohibited. For the time of mourning was instituted for two reasons: that there might be no confusion of lineage, and out of respect and honor owed to the husband. Therefore, the wives of those who are not worthy of being mourned, because they have fallen into, perhaps, public crimes, are not prohibited from marrying even within the time of mourning after the birth. A woman who remarries before the time of mourning is over is marked with infamy, receives no profit from the first marriage, and is unable to give more than a third part of her own property to the second husband, that is, when she has no children. If, after the death of the husband, the woman gives birth around the eleventh month, the act is considered sheer fornication, and she is subject to the same penalties as the woman who remarries during the time of mourning—forfeiting, of course, both her dowry and all other goods of the husband. ^C

Concerning those who abominate legitimate marriage, wine, meats, and other things

The 51st canon of the holy apostles: A bishop, it says, or presbyter, or any other member of the clergy, who abstains from marriage, meats, and wine, not for the sake of asceticism or continence, but out of abomination, forgetting that God made male and female and that all things are very good, and by blaspheming slanders the creation of God, let him either be corrected or let him be deposed and removed as far as possible from the Church, as one who opposes its rightful decrees. But if a layman is of this same opinion, let him be ^D

^A excommunicated from the Church. For nothing that has been made by God is evil; rather, it is the abuse of things that is harmful. If these things were the cause of evil, they would not have been created by God. Therefore, whoever disparages the works of God extends his blasphemy to the Creator Himself. The first canon of the Council of Gangra subjects to anathema him who thinks that a lawful marriage is impure, and who abhors a modest and chaste woman who is joined to her husband—because of her intimacy with her spouse—as if she could not for that reason attain the kingdom of heaven. For the Apostle says: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." And again: "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received."

The fourth canon also imposes the same penalty upon one who, in his judgment, hesitates and cannot bear to receive communion from a married presbyter who has performed the sacred ministry, as if he abhorred honorable marriage. The twelfth canon also commands that the woman who departs from her own husband, as if she considers the marriage to be an abominable thing, be subjected to the same anathema; for the Apostle says: "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time." And again: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband." But if she chooses to withdraw out of a desire for the solitary life, she is not to be blamed. ^B To this same penalty the ninth canon delivers him who pursues virginity and who has withdrawn from the companionship of life, as one who abhors marriage, and not for the sake of the good and venerable nature of virginity itself. The fifty-third canon of the holy Apostles says: "It is not fitting, on feast days—such as Saturday and Sunday, or any other—to abstain from wine and meat as if they were defiled." And if anyone thinks and acts in this way, as one whose conscience has been seared, and who becomes a cause of scandal to many, if he is of the clergy, let him be deposed; if of the laity, let him be excommunicated. Unless, perhaps, someone who is exercising himself within a set period of days continues his abstinence on the Sabbath and Sunday just as on other days. The fourteenth canon of the Council of Ancyra commands those who abstain from meats for the sake of asceticism, at least to taste them in public assemblies. And thus, if they do not wish to admit the eating of them, at least let them not refuse the partaking of vegetables cooked with them, so that by this method they may remove every occasion of scandal from those who think they are abstaining from meat because of some abomination. And indeed, it is especially fitting for them to eat meat on those days on which some heretics are accustomed to abstain from them by fasting, so that it may not appear that they are in agreement with their way of thinking. And this applies especially if they happen to be dwelling in a city ^C where the greater part is suffering from this malady; but if they do not obey the canon, and they are clerics, it deprives them of their priesthood. ^D

On marriages of the clergy allowed and forbidden.

The twenty-sixth canon of the holy apostles, and the sixth of the sixth synod, and the sixteenth of the council of Carthage, lawfully permit those who are numbered among the clergy—and who are still serving as readers and cantors—to contract marriages. But after they have been advanced to the rank of subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, they may do so no longer. For those who are in holy orders, if they turn aside toward marriage, are deposed immediately. Even the first canon of the council of Neocaesarea strips of his priesthood a presbyter who has been lawfully joined to a wife. But the divine Fathers of the sixth synod, abolishing the custom which had prevailed in the Church of the Latins—namely, that priests and deacons who are ordained must first give assurances that they will entirely abstain after their ordination from the wives who were lawfully joined to them before their ordination—declared: “We desire that the marriages of those who have worthily attained the priesthood remain valid even after ordination, lest we secretly bring contempt upon the marriage blessed by the presence of the Lord, who furthermore proclaimed: ‘What God has joined together, let no man put asunder’ (Matt. XIX, 6). And furthermore, the Apostle says that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled (Heb. XIII, 4). And again: ‘Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a release’ (1 Cor. VII, 27). Therefore, whoever deprives a deacon, or subdeacon, or presbyter of his intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. Except, however, for a certain defined time, when they are to handle holy things: so that, being pure, they approaching the Pure One, they may not miss their requests.”

But even to some of those who assembled at the first council of Nicaea, it seemed that they should introduce a blameworthy rule, that bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and subdeacons should not sleep at all with the wives whom they had lawfully taken before they were ordained. However, Paphnutius, who was a bishop of one of the cities in the Thebaid, a man who had been reared in an ascetic cell from boyhood and had perfected every virtue, and was especially renowned for his temperance, and was also adorned with the crown of confession (for one of his eyes had been gouged out for his piety), spoke against those who held this opinion, calling marriage honorable and the intercourse with one’s own spouse temperance. He advised the synod not to lay down such a law, declaring that it would be a difficult thing for those living in the world to bear. For perhaps it would become a cause of intemperate living for them and for their own wives. According to the ancient tradition of the Church, those who had joined the priestly order while unmarried were not to marry again; but those who had been advanced to the priesthood after marriage were not to be separated from the wives whom they possessed. These things Paphnutius said, even though he was himself a stranger to marriage. The synod commended the suggestion of this divine man and legislated nothing concerning this, but committed the matter to the judgment of each, and did not decree that [it] must be [done] by necessity.

To such a degree was this Paphnutius godly, that even wondrous signs were performed through him. And Emperor Constantine held the man in great esteem, and frequently sent for him to the palace and would kiss his blinded eye. ^B

Moreover, one should not pay heed to the twelfth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, which says that a deacon can take a wife even after ordination, with the permission of his own bishop. For the Novel of Leo the Wise says (1) that, although by unwritten custom it was permitted to those in holy orders within a ten-year period after their ordination to take wives lawfully, yet this, as being prohibited by the canons, ought not to hold valid. He who ordains one who is without a wife should ask him if he is able to live chastely without a lawful wife. If he testifies that he will do this, let him ordain the man. He who permits a deacon to take a wife after ordination shall be expelled from the episcopacy. A presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon who contracts marriage after ordination is cast out of the clergy. It is permitted to clerics to have lawful wives. Cantors and readers may marry lawfully. But subdeacons, and deacons, and presbyters are completely prohibited from doing so. Whence, as many of them as become participants in matrimony fall from the priesthood. ^C

Definition of Matrimony

Matrimony (3) is the union of a man and a woman, and a partnership in all of life, a sharing of divine and human law: whether it be contracted through a blessing, or through a crowning, or through a contract. Those things which are done beyond these methods are considered as not having occurred. Romans constitute lawful marriages among themselves when they observe those things which are prescribed by the laws concerning marriages. It is necessary that the males be pubescent, and the females be capable of receiving a man; that is, the former must have exceeded the fourteenth year, and the latter must be older than twelve years. We say these things whether those who come together for marriage are under their own power or are under the power of others (subordinate). Marriage does not occur unless those who are being united and those who have them in their power consent. ^D Not the cohabitation of the man and woman with each other makes the marriage, but their matrimonial consent. A son who is emancipated (7), acting at full age, marries even without the consent of his father. Grief of ascendants does not hinder the marriages of the persons who are mourning. He who lives in chastity (8) should not be forced by his own father to contract marriage, even if he is under his power. No one should secretly...

be crowned, but in the presence of many. ^A And he who has dared to do so, let him be disciplined by a penalty: clearly, that the priest who has involved himself in such unbecoming matters should also have the worthy penalties extracted from him, in accordance with the arrangement of the ecclesiastical canons. The deaf, the mute, and the blind are able to contract marriage, and they are held accountable in the name of a dowry.

Concerning those contracting second, third, or further marriages, both men and women.

The seventeenth canon of the holy apostles says: He who entered into double marriage after baptism, or has fallen into fornication, cannot be a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor, in general, of the sacred roll. ^B For the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, through the mystery of divine baptism—which can neither be expressed in words nor apprehended by the mind—having washed away every stain from him who is baptized, and having made him capable of light, no longer prevents him from being gladdened by the pure light of the priesthood. But after that divine bath, there remains no further sacrifice for sins, such as could bestow the priesthood. The great Basil also makes mention of this canon in his twelfth canon, saying: "The canon has entirely excluded those who have contracted second marriages from the ministry of the calling," alluding to this very canon.

The nineteenth apostolic canon says: Nor can he who has taken a widow, or one cast out by her husband, or a harlot, or a servant, or one of those on the stage—who, through living indecorously, are not believed to be chaste—be a bishop, ^C or a presbyter, or in general of the clergy. The third canon of the Sixth Synod also agrees with these two apostolic canons, the words of which are these: "Let no one who has contracted a second marriage be ordained a presbyter, or deacon, nor indeed if he lives with a woman who has left her own husband, nor if he has a concubine; but [only] he who is the husband of one chaste woman and has led her as a virgin." If anyone should take a wife or a concubine, either openly or secretly, let him immediately fall from his sacred order and be a layman.

However, the eighty-ninth Novella of the Emperor Leo the Wise ordains that clerics who contract second marriages should not be deprived of their habit, nor of their service from the altar. ^D For he says: "We do not accept the intention of the old legislator, who wishes that a presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, who after his ordination has been united with a woman, should depart entirely from such a habit and return to the life of a layman. But we abrogate this decree; and we decree that it should suffice for them, as a penalty, only that they be withdrawn from the rank which was recognized before the marriage, but that they should not be forbidden to touch the clerical habit and the other ministries in the churches." [alt-version omitted]

On Laymen Entering into Second Marriages

^A Verily, that divine Apostle permitted younger widows, if they so wished, to pass on to other marriages, understanding the lubricity of their nature. But the holy Fathers did not think that men who chose second marriages should be forbidden either, since they were not ignorant of the uprising of carnal lust. Yet they did not permit this to be done with impunity. For the words of the first canon of the Synod of Laodicea are these: "Those who have lawfully entered into second marriages, when a small space of time has passed and they have spent it in prayers and fastings, let them enjoy communion by indulgence. But if before they had fulfilled the requirements of a lawful marriage they came together in clandestine cohabitation, let them be punished as if for fornication." But the great Basil, in his fourth canon: "Some, he says, exclude from holy communion for one year, others for two, those who contract a second marriage." The same, in canon XLI: "A widow, he says, if she lacks close parents, is not forbidden to enter into second marriages at her own discretion." For the words of the Apostle are: "If the husband is dead, she is free to marry whom she wishes." But parents who live, in whose power she happens to be, if they do not consent, can break off the marriage union. For the law says: "A woman under twenty-five years of age, intending to enter into second marriages, let her marry according to the opinion of her father." ^B A widowed woman is forced to wait through the time of mourning because of the confusion of seed, which does not have a place in a man. But she who marries before the year after the husband’s death is completed is branded with infamy, nor can she give to her second husband, or leave behind in a testament, more than a third of her property, provided of course that she has no children; nor will she herself have anything from an inheritance, or a legacy, or a donation ^C mortis causa—that is, a deathbed gift—but these are received by the heirs of him who left them. And if the first husband left anything to her, ten persons take it according to degree—that is, ascendants and descendants, and those on the side up to the second degree. But from an intestate (estate), the heirs of the relatives themselves only up to the third degree. She is also deprived of every dignity and of those things which came to her from the first husband by reason of betrothal or according to the will of the deceased. But by the command of the prince, a woman can bring in another groom for herself within the time of mourning. And she who gives birth within the time of mourning can immediately ^D marry. No one under the Roman state can have two wives at the same time. He who has two wives at the same time...

[alt-version omitted]

[1257] let him be cast out, as the adventitious wife is driven away together with the children born of her. ^A The great Basil says in his fourth canon: "We have accepted the custom concerning those entering into third marriages, that they be separated for five years, yet so that the marriage itself is not dissolved." They no longer call this a marriage, but a plurality of marriages. Or rather, a restricted fornication—that is to say, one not broadly spread, but contained and circumscribed within one woman. This is why the Lord also said to that Samaritan woman who had had five husbands, one after another: "The one you have now is not your husband." For it is not proper that those who have fallen beyond the moderation of a second marriage be called by the title of husband or wife. Yet, he says, we must not altogether keep them away from the Church, but they should only be measured with the punishment in the places of the *hearers* and the *co-standers*, not indeed those of the *weepers*. And again, in the fiftieth, he says: "There is no law, that is to say an ecclesiastical one, for third marriages." ^B However, we view such things as the filth of the Church. But we do not subject them to public penalties, as they are preferable to unbridled fornication. For we do not condemn the act so as to dissolve it, but according to the *Tome of Union* which we are about to set forth, and its distinction and decision, we accept these unions. The great Gregory, known as Theologian, says: "The first marriage is law, the second is permission, the third is transgression. What is beyond this is a swinish life, and has not many examples of such vice." The third canon of the Council of Neocaesarea says: "Concerning those who have fallen into many marriages, so as to have proceeded even beyond third marriages, the fixed time is clear, or rather indefinite, as it has been indicated by none of the ancients. ^C But the faith and the conduct of those doing penance, he says, knows how to shorten the time."

Concerning the Tome of Union.

Now, in the ancient laws, three marriages were recognized. But the Emperor Leo the Wise, having reached a fourth marriage, was subjected to excommunication by the Patriarch Nicholas. ^D The emperor implored him to be released from this bond. As he was utterly inexorable, he cast him out of the Church and appointed Euthymius the Syncellus, a holy man, as patriarch. Since he wished the emperor to decree that marriages might extend even to a fourth marriage for those who so desired, he prohibited this with all eagerness, asserting with many pontiffs, that even

^A third marriages, not to mention fourth, are illicit. Wherefore a schism arose in the Church, and this sedition lasted until the reign of his son Constantine [born] in the Porphyry chamber, and Romanus, his father-in-law. At which time a tome was published, which is called the [Tome] of Union, which hands down when, and to whom, third marriages should be permitted, imposing an excellent bridle upon the unchecked lusts of those yearning for them. This tome is read every year in the month of July from the ambo, and at the end it contains these words: "Those who have reached their fortieth year, and throw themselves into a third marriage, as though they were pollutions of the Church, we decree shall be deprived of communion for five years; and when that time has expired, they may approach communion once a year, on the venerable day of the saving Pascha, purifying themselves as much as possible by the fast that precedes that day. Moreover, the priest who, beyond what has been ordained by us, dares to admit them to any holy precept, will risk his rank." These things we say when they have no children from previous marriages. But if they do, a third marriage will not be permitted to them. But if any man, being thirty years of age, and having heirs from previous marriages, nevertheless—on account of the intemperance of carnal lust—has been joined to a third wife, he shall be deprived of communion for three years. And so, henceforth, he may partake three times in the year, namely on the Paschal day of the resurrection, and at the Dormition of the immaculate Mother of God, and at the feast of the Lord’s Nativity: since the fasts ^B preceding these days are believed to wipe away the greater part of the stain extinguished in him. If, however, he lacks children, he obtains pardon, because he desired a third marriage for the sake of begetting children; and as a remedy, the customary penalty will be applied to him, that he be barred from communion for three years. Furthermore, that man, learned in all things, Basil, in his eightieth canon, says: "The Fathers, he says, shrouded the plurality of marriages in the darkness of silence, as being beastly and alien to human custom." But it occurs to our mind, that is, it seems and pleases our judgment, that this should be punished more [severely] than fornication itself. For the plurality of marriages consists not in having intercourse with many promiscuously, but in the same man taking several wives, even if not at one and the same time. For marriage is not merely intercourse with a woman, as the common herd of men is wont to say, but a conjunction of male and female, and a ^C partnership of all of life, a sharing of divine and human law, just as the laws record. For they are not recognized only from the conjunction, but also from the affection of those who have contracted it. He says, moreover, that the plurality of marriages was passed over in silence by the Fathers, because the law recognizes third marriages; but these [same] ^D

^A pluralities are prohibited by both laws and canons. For every matrimonial contract that passes beyond the limits of a third marriage is, without doubt, called a plurality of marriages. He has not without reason pronounced it worse than fornication. For he who commits fornication brings this sin upon himself alone, while he willingly casts himself into the chasm of intemperance; but he who has contracted a fourth or fifth marriage, so to speak, tramples upon the divine canons that forbid this, and he does injury to his legitimate children by sowing bastards among them. Therefore, even after the cessation of this illegality and a sincere confession, he demands that they be punished more severely than those who commit fornication. For he extends the time for the former to seven years, but for these to eight years, if you fix your mind accurately upon the things the holy man has decreed. For if, having mentioned only two places of penance, he determined that four years must pass in them, surely in the other two also, which he omitted for the sake of brevity as being manifest, another four years ^B must be spent before the participation in the sacraments. The law, moreover, says: "Let this, therefore, be manifest to all, that if any person shall dare to proceed to a fourth marriage, which is no marriage, not only will this so-called marriage be considered as nothing, but the children born of it will not be considered legitimate, and such persons will be subjected to the penalties of those defiled by fornication, having first been separated from one another."

Concerning a woman who wishes to enter into a second marriage, while her husband has disappeared in foreign parts or on military service

^C The thirty-first canon of the Great Basil. He says that a woman whose husband has gone abroad and does not yet appear, if she does not wait for his return, nor has learned exactly from those who know the facts about them whether he has truly died, and marries another, she is held under the charge of adultery. And Canon XXXVI states that the wives of soldiers who have been absent for a long time fall under the same accusation of adultery. They have, however, some indulgence, because soldiers are always suspected of being in danger of death, as they are constantly involved in wars, dangers, and slaughters. The Sixth Synod, agreeing with these two canons of the Great [Basil], made its ninety-third canon, ^D using his very words and adding: "If a soldier returns from a long absence, if he wishes, he shall take back his own wife; but indulgence is given to both her and the man legitimately joined to her. For they are not punished on account of ignorance. But the wife of him who is not a soldier, if she does not wait for his return, does not obtain indulgence. But if the woman does not choose to live with the soldier who has returned, she will not be permitted to live with the second husband, even if she wishes to do so. For if she should wish, after the return of that man, even if he does not receive her, to continue to live with the second husband, she will be punished as an adulteress, and the marriage will be immediately dissolved." For those...

who are ^A ready to withdraw from a second union and do not consent to the sin born of ignorance—but not those who resist and choose adultery—the Fathers say they are worthy of pardon.

If a soldier is passing his time in an expedition, that is, in a public service, however many years it may be, let his wife wait for him, even if she has received no letters from him. And even if she hears that he has died, she must not immediately remarry. If, however, she marries contrary to this statute, both she and the man who took her are punished as adulterers. If it is proven that those who testified to a death lied, they are discharged. And the soldier who has returned has the liberty, if he wishes, to receive his own wife back.

Regarding captives, the Novel of Leo, surnamed the Wise (18), decrees that a marriage is not dissolved by reason of captivity: nor is it permitted for the party who has remained free to look to another marriage. But if she has joined herself to another, the party who has returned from captivity has the liberty to reclaim his own member and to dissolve the second ^B marriage.

*That a priest, who has blessed a marriage, ought not to banquet with the one contracting the second marriage.*

The seventh canon of the Council of Neocaesarea thinks that a priest ought not to be present at the nuptial banquet of one contracting a second marriage. For him whom he is about to reprove and to exclude from the reception of the sacraments for the space of a year, how can he at that time be his table-companion, and by this appear to judge himself a participant in what is being done? After the nuptials, however, he will not be forbidden to eat with him.

*That Christians who go to weddings ought not to be intent upon ribaldry.*

The fifty-third canon of the Synod of Laodicea commands that Christians who go to weddings preserve the gravity becoming to them, and not give their mind to those ^C dancing or performing ribald acts. But this canon's precept now lies neglected.

*Concerning virgins marrying against the will of their parents.*

Canon XXXVIII of Basil the Great punishes as harlots those girls, daughters of families, who, against the will of their own fathers, have surrendered themselves to lovers in a consortium of marriage. ^D If, however, he says, the parents have been reconciled with them, and have approved the commerce of their daughters with their lover and defiler, that which was done contrary to the laws from the beginning seems subsequently to be corrected and healed by the consent of the parents. Nevertheless, even in this way, on account of the crime committed before, they will obtain communion only after three years, with prayers intervening. For in those times, marriages were formed by consent alone. But in our time, it would not be valid without a blessing.

^A Furthermore, canon 40 and 41 decree that a maid who marries without the will of her master has nothing that does not fit the definition of a harlot. For the pacts of those who are under the power of others have no validity. Thus, marriages formed against the will of those in authority are considered fornication. But if subsequently the affairs of such a marriage become manifest—either because her master consents to the marriage itself or because he grants her freedom—the marriage is blameless, though the previous sin, being fornication, will rightly be rebuked. A maid who has been joined in marriage to a free man, with her master knowing and not objecting, will not be considered a harlot. For his silence necessarily grants her both freedom and removes the sin from her. One who is under authority, or a dependent, cannot marry legally without the consent of the one in whose power they are, unless the father has put off joining his daughter to a husband after she has reached the age of 25. For then it is not prohibited ^B for her to be joined to a free man alone.

Of illicit and unlawful marriages of kindred.

Of clerics contracting incestuous marriages.

^A. But if he is not able to be a participant in these things on account of his transgression, even if it happened through ignorance, how could he be able to impart them to another? And if this is so, he would with difficulty distribute the body of the Lord. For it is sufficient forgiveness for him, on account of his ignorance, that he should not be punished, but rather that he should continue to hold his seat. The holy Fathers of the Sixth Council, thinking this canon to have been well stated, made it their own twenty-sixth canon, using its very words, with this alone added: that a marriage of this kind, being incestuous, must undoubtedly be dissolved, nor should it be permitted that the man should in any way enjoy her on account of whom he was deprived of his sacred office. For if the incestuous marriage is not dissolved, he shall neither keep his seat, and he shall be cast out of the Church along with her with whom he has nefariously cohabited, and by the authority of the magistrates the marriage shall be dissolved. For he who persists in sin after being made aware shall be punished squarely as a man defiling his own blood.

Concerning laymen contracting incestuous marriages.

The letter of Basil the Great to Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus, is filled with all wisdom and is adorned with the persuasive art of orators. ^B It treats matters which, by the grace of God, do not enter the mind of any Christian man today. For Diodorus, having been asked by someone whether, after the death of his wife, he could take her sister in marriage, had replied in writing that this was in no way prohibited. But when that great Father, Basil, condemned such marriages, this written opinion of Diodorus was brought to him. And when the holy man had shown that he took this very grievously and with great distress, he composed this letter, filled with great utility, by which he overthrows not only this, but all illicit marriages. For by using the general term of "impurity," he has briefly embraced all marriages of this kind. ^C Furthermore, in canon [23], he says: "Regarding those who marry two sisters, what our judgment is, you will rightly understand from the very brief letter dictated by us, a copy of which we have sent to your reverence." By these words he signifies this letter to Diodorus, which he also sent to the holy Amphilochius. "And indeed," he says, "to him who has married his own brother's wife, a place of repentance shall not be given until he has separated from her." Canon 54 of the Sixth Council also makes mention of this letter, when it says: "Although the holy man enumerated a few of the prohibited marriages, and passed over the majority of them in silence, so as not to defile his discourse with profane words, having indicated all nefarious marriages by the general term of 'impurity' alone: we, however, define that he who contracts a marriage with his own cousin, or a father and son with a mother and daughter, or a father and son with two sisters, or two brothers with two sisters, shall fall under the canon of seven years, separating from..." ^D

their illegal cohabitation. ^A Canon XLVII of Basil the Great rejects from communion for twenty years, as if a murderer, a man who has had relations with his sister. Likewise, Canon LXVI: "If it is detected," he says, "that a marriage is contracted from prohibited kinship, the penalties for adulterers shall be imposed." These are: exclusion from communion for fifteen years, after the marriage has first been dissolved. ^B Canon LXXV says: "He who defiles himself with his own sister, born of the same father or mother, let him be expelled even from the house of prayer," he says, "until he abstains from the incestuous and illegal intercourse." But when he has abstained and has performed penance worthily, after twelve years have passed, let him be deemed worthy of holy communion. Canon LXXVIII: "Those who take two sisters in marriage, even at different times, after the incestuous marriages have been dissolved, are held to the judgment for adultery." Canon LXXVI: "The same rule," he says, "is to be applied also in the case of those who take their daughters-in-law as wives." Canon LXXIX: "Also those who defile themselves with their stepmothers are held to the same canon as those who defile themselves with their own sisters." ^C But the second canon of the Council of Neocaesarea orders that a woman who has married two brothers be expelled from the Church until death, if, that is, she does not obey by dissolving the marriage. But if she should fall into a sickness that threatens death, and she promises that, once she has recovered, she will dissolve the marriage, she is to be admitted to repentance. But if it should happen that the woman—or indeed the man—dies while they are still implicated in such a sin, repentance for the surviving person remains difficult; for it is argued that the survivor would not have departed from the sin if the deceased person were still alive. ^D Canon XXV of the Council of Ancyra is pronounced specifically about a certain man who had betrothed a girl, but having had relations with her sister, had made her pregnant. After this, he married the betrothed, and the girl who had been corrupted, moved by grief, took her own life by hanging. The Fathers therefore decreed that those who were privy to it should not partake of communion for ten years; and those who are privy are those who were participants, not those who merely had knowledge and were unable to prevent it; for in the case of illegal acts, those who assist are punished no less than the perpetrators themselves. Canon XI of Timothy of Alexandria commands that clerics, when they are invited, should by no means attend weddings if they know them to be illegal, for the sake of prayer and offering. Far from being bound to join those who have chosen to marry in such a way, with sacred prayers intervening, lest they become participants in the sins of others, they ought to refrain. An illegal marriage is not confirmed. Therefore, if it is dissolved before an accusation is brought, the penalty is remitted. In the case of an illegal marriage contracted in ignorance, the Church grants forgiveness and the correction of the sin. And this is especially true if no accusation has yet been brought against them. Let those who commit incest, whether parents with children, or children with parents, or brothers with sisters, be punished by the sword. As for those who corrupt one another according to other kinship, that is to say, a father with a..."

daughter-in-law, or a son with the wife of his father—that is, a stepmother—or a stepfather with a stepdaughter, or a brother with the wife of his brother, or an uncle with a niece, or a nephew with the daughter of his own sister, and these are known to be corrupted, they shall be beaten and have their noses cut off, both they themselves and those with whom they were corrupted. Those who unite for marriage or in any other fleshly way corrupt one another [as] first cousins, or the children born of them, and only that, or a father and son with a mother and daughter, or two brothers with two sisters, or two brothers with a mother and daughter—besides separation, they shall also be whipped. ^B Whosoever has illicit relations with his own godmother, whether in the name of marriage or otherwise secretly, together with her shall have his nose cut off. And if she be a married woman, let them be whipped in addition to this.

Concerning those who unite in marriage with those consecrated to God.

The sixteenth canon of the fourth synod says that a virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, and likewise a monk, does not have license to contract a marriage. But if they violate their promises, they are to be excluded from the holy communion. The time of their penance, however, the local bishop shall determine according to the disposition of each. For Gregory the Theologian also says: "If God, being invoked as a witness, confirms the pledges made toward men, how great will the peril be if we are found to be violators of the covenants ^C that we have made with God himself?" The fourth canon of the sixth synod, moreover, deposes from office the man who has intercourse with a woman consecrated to God—whether she be a virgin, that is to say, or a widow—if he is a cleric; but if he is a layman, it excommunicates him. The law, however, inflicts a different penalty. But as for the canons to be mentioned in what follows, while the change of circumstances has so condemned them that they are no longer in use, they are nevertheless to be set forth. The fifteenth canon of the fourth synod: "Let no woman," it says, "be ordained a deaconess before she has reached the age of forty." But she who, after her ordination, has treated the divine grace with contumely and given herself over to marriage, let her be struck with anathema, and he who had the habit of whoredom with her as well. Basil ^D the Great in his twenty-fourth canon: "Although," he says, "there is no law incumbent upon a man who has become a widower that forbids him second marriages, except only the penalty for bigamists; nevertheless, the Apostle ruled that the woman who has been enrolled in the order of widows and subsequently marries should be disregarded and not supported by the Church."

A woman of sixty years, however, if to a second...

until she abstains from this vice, having abhorred the contamination and impurity of it. But if we ourselves have counted her among the widows before the age of sixty, the fault is ours, not the woman's. As for those who commit acts of defilement against women leading a life of spiritual devotion, or against deaconesses, or those practicing asceticism—since this is to insult the Church of God, which is the bride of Christ—they themselves, as well as those with whom they have committed such defilement, shall be mutilated in the nose. Deaconesses who are ordained, if they dare to bring shame upon their ordination by engaging in marriage or any other course of life, shall be held guilty of death, and their property shall be forfeit to the monasteries or churches to which they belong; and those who have dared to marry them or to defile them shall be subject to the sword, and the public treasury shall confiscate their property.

That marriages should not be contracted with heretics.

The fourteenth canon of the fourth synod ^B forbids Orthodox clergy from being joined in any way in marriage to heretical women. Regarding the children of those who have already cohabited, it commands that they be brought into the Catholic Church. And if they happen to have been baptized by heretics—whose baptism is to be rejected by those who hold the correct faith—they are to be baptized anew; if not, they are to be anointed only with the divine chrism. But if they have not yet been marked by the seal of baptism, they are not to be baptized by heretics thereafter. Furthermore, they are not to be joined in marriage to heretics, nor to Jews, nor to Greeks. By "heretics" I mean those who accept our mystery but deviate in certain points from the Orthodox; by "Jews," the Christ-killers; and by "Greeks," those who are openly unbelievers and infected with the madness of idolatry. But if, perhaps, the heretic or the unbeliever professes that they will subscribe to the Orthodox faith, the engagement, it says, may proceed, but the conjugal union ^C must be deferred until the promises have been confirmed by deeds. The Latins are also required to do these same things if any of them wish to take Orthodox wives. Those who do not comply with these rules are subject to canonical penalties; for besides the dissolution of the marriage, the transgressors are also punished. The tenth canon of the Synod of Laodicea says: "It is not fitting for those of the Church to give their children indiscriminately in marriage to heretics." The twenty-first canon of the Synod of Carthage forbids the children of the clergy from being joined in the law of marriage to pagans, that is, to infidels, or to heretics. The second canon of the Sixth Synod decrees verbatim as follows: "It shall not be permitted for an Orthodox man to contract marriage with a heretical woman, nor for an Orthodox woman to be married to a heretical man. But if it appears that anything of this sort has been done by anyone, the marriage is to be considered invalid, ^D and the illicit union is to be dissolved. For the unmixable ought not to be mixed, nor should the wolf be joined to the sheep, nor the part of sinners with that of Christ." If any shall transgress those things which we have defined, let them be excommunicated. For if any...

according to the civil law (24), marriage is defined as a society and partnership of divine and human right, how can those agree among themselves who disagree regarding the most important matters of soul and disposition, and who hold opposing views concerning the faith? Wherefore he wills that after the dissolution of an illicit marriage, the transgressors be afflicted with the penalty of excommunication. And this, indeed, concerns those who are already united in marriage, with one party addicted to heretical decrees and the other fostering the right faith. But if both parties, he says, when they came together at the beginning, were alien to the assembly of the orthodox, and then one recognized the truth while the other still served the darkness of impiety, this union shall not be dissolved on that account, as the great Paul determines in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "For if the faithful wife desires to dwell with an unbelieving husband, or conversely, the faithful husband with an unbelieving wife, let them not be separated." For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and vice versa. See, however, how the divine Apostle uses a kind of condescension: "If the faithful party desires," he says, "to dwell with the unbelieving." Whereby it comes about that if they do not desire to dwell together, the marriage is undoubtedly to be dissolved. But I am persuaded that these things belonged to the beginning and to the ^B first fruits of the preaching. But regarding the current state of affairs, how is it possible for a Jew, or an Agarene who has been baptized, to continue to dwell with an unbaptized wife, or for a woman who has been baptized to live with one who has not embraced our faith? A certain event like this occurred in the time of the patriarch Theodotus. For a certain imperial trumpeter who had been baptized was separated by patriarchal decree from his wife, because she would not obey her husband, who was begging her much to embrace the profession of piety. Now the thirty-first canon of the Council of Laodicea says: "It is not fitting to contract a marriage with any heretic, nor to give sons or daughters in marriage, fearing lest we learn their perverse opinion; but rather we shall manage the matter if they promise to become Christians." That which is said here, "It is not fitting with any heretic," is the same as if you said, "With no heretic." For this is a peculiar mode of speaking in Sacred Scripture, as in this: "Fear not when a man becomes rich." Because when he dies, he will not take everything. ^C For it is impossible that he should take anything. Likewise elsewhere: "For not in vain have you created all the sons of men." For there are not even some who have been created in vain; for it would be impious to think this. Let none take a Jew as a wife if he be a Christian, nor a Christian if she be a Jewess, nor let any heretic and alien to the faith be united to Christians in marriage under any pretext (25). From what causes is marriage dissolved. Regarding the dissolution of marriages in many places. ^D

VARIAE LECTIONES.

NOTES.

Much law will pass over this. But a Justinianic Novel is more perfect; it explicitly sets forth the causes for which either the husband or the wife may send a repudiation, that is, a separation, to their spouse, and may gain the dowry, while the ownership of it is preserved for the children from the same marriage, or, if there are no children, the innocent person may also enjoy the ownership. For although in olden times it was permitted to men, by the ancient laws and by long custom, to dissolve marriages with impunity, so that a husband might say to his spouse: "Woman, manage your own affairs," and she in turn to him: "Man, manage your own affairs"—just as it had been legislated for the Hebrew men of old to send a bill of divorce to the wife—yet this is now abolished among Christians. But the causes ^B for which alone it is permitted to dissolve a marriage are enumerated by name by the pious emperors, and to break it without one of these causes is impious.

1. And the husband indeed sends a repudiation to the wife, and gains her dowry, as has been said, for these causes: 2. If the wife is aware of some persons plotting against the state and has not disclosed it to her own husband. 3. If an accusation of adultery has been brought against the wife, and according to the laws she has been convicted of having committed adultery. 4. If in any way she plots against the life of her husband, or is aware of others doing this and does not disclose it to him. 5. If she parties or bathes with strange men against the will of her husband. 6. If she stays outside the house against the will of her husband, unless perhaps it is with her own parents; or if he himself expels her without the said causes, and since she has no parents, she spends the night outside. 7. If she attends chariot races, or theaters, or hunting spectacles to watch them, when her husband is unaware or forbidding it.

However, understand the scriptural saying which declares that she who has been defiled by adultery should not return to her husband as referring to a husband who does not wish to take her back. For if the husband pardons the crime, he takes her back without prohibition within two years, according to the Novel of Justinian and of Leo the Wise.

The wife also sends a repudiation to the husband for these causes, being able to recover both her own dowry and the gift of the husband on account of the marriage, with the ownership ^D of the gift being preserved similarly for the children, or if there are no children, having the ownership of it herself.

1. If he himself plots anything against the state, or is aware of others plotting this and does not disclose it to the state or to his own...

VARIAE LECTIONES.

NOTÆ.

^A or if, knowing that these things are being plotted by some, he does not disclose it to the prince, either by himself or by any other person whatsoever. ^B 2. If in any way whatsoever he plots against the life of his wife. 3. If, plotting against his wife's chastity, he attempts to hand her over to others to be debauched. 4. If the husband, having accused her of adultery, does not prove it. 5. If he cohabits with another woman in the same house or in the same city, and, having been warned by his wife, or her parents, or by anyone else, he is unwilling to abstain.

In these cases the husband does not only forfeit the gift made before the marriage as a penalty, but also a third part of his remaining property; besides the fact that he also undergoes the same penalties which the woman herself would have sustained had she been condemned. Yet neither can the woman depart from her husband of her own authority, nor can he from her, without the judgment and verdict of the judges; as various Novels of Justinian decree this. On this account, he who marries a woman not thus divorced commits adultery.

The dissolution of marriage without penalty, and concerning that marriage which is dissolved for the sake of pious exercise.

Marriage is dissolved without penalty when, after three years have elapsed, the husband is unable to cohabit with his wife, even if he himself does not desire a divorce; the gift made before marriage remaining with the husband, and he forfeiting none of his own property by way of penalty. Marriage is also dissolved when one of the parties gives himself or herself to religious exercise, passing to a better way of life and choosing to spend life in purity. For then we command that it be permitted—both for the husband and the wife, as one of them moves toward better things—to dissolve the union, with a small consolation left behind for the one abandoned. ^C For whatever the contracting parties may have agreed upon to accrue as a gain from the death of the other, this the one who is abandoned ought to have from the other, whether it be the husband or the wife: because such a person, as far as the one dwelling with him is concerned, is considered dead, as he has chosen a path of life in place of another. For the tonsure is rightly performed even against the will of one of the spouses. We also say that the divorce occurs by mutual consent. The person abandoned can also enter into another marriage. But to the wife of a man ordained as bishop, this is not granted. And therefore, the ordination must be performed with her consent, and thus her renunciation must inevitably follow. Marriage is also dissolved when the husband or the wife has been taken captive; when it is uncertain for five years whether that person exists. ^D If indeed, he says, they dare to [do these things] for causes beyond those established by us,

we command that, if they have descendants, whether from this or another marriage, their property be given to them, and they themselves be thrown into a monastery... be given from their property. But if they have no descendants, but [do have] ascendants, [we command] that these take the third part of their property, if they did not consent to the dissolution of the marriage. But if there be neither ascendants nor descendants, we command that the whole property be given to the monasteries into which they were cast. But we also command that those who draw up such unlawful contracts be subjected to corporal punishments, and be sent into exile. And if those who have attempted to dissolve the marriage wish to come together again, before they are cast into monasteries, permission is given to them by us, and we remit the aforementioned punishments to them, and they may thus retain their own properties. But if one person wishes to call back the marriage, if the other person does not also consent, let the punishments hold against ^B the one who refuses. We command that these things be done also under the supervision of the most God-beloved bishops. But if the marriage is dissolved by the consent of both parties, or for the love of chastity, we command that both parties immediately proceed to the monastic life, being kept, of course, free from penalties. But if any of them should approach marriage, or fall into poverty, their children shall take all their property; but if they have no children, the public treasury will succeed [to it]. The 69th canon of the great Basil: If a reader, he says, has had intercourse with a woman betrothed to him before the celebration of the nuptials, even with her consent, let him be separated for a space of one year, and let him return to the office of reader, but let him not be promoted to a higher ^C grade. But if he has dealings with a woman without betrothal, even if he perchance signified with words that he would take her as wife, he falls from the ministry of reader. But if a minister or deacon should commit the second fault, he is cast out of his ministry entirely. The ninth canon of the Sixth Synod subjects him who takes into a marriage union one betrothed to another, while he who contracted the betrothal is still alive, to the accusation of adultery. But if someone has had relations with such a one not lawfully, but by fornication, he too is punished as an adulterer, and the woman as an adulteress. But he who was ignorant of the betrothal, [is punished] as a fornicator ^D.

On Betrothals.

For the lawgivers define betrothal as the mention and promise of future marriages. And the Mosaic law used to consider betrothal as marriage. And he who defiled one betrothed to another was punished as an adulterer. And since the symbols of betrothal were joined to them, she also names the betrothed one [as] wife. For "He humbled," he says, "the wife of his neighbor": that is, the betrothed.

^A Thus also the holy Virgin was accounted the wife of Joseph. "For do not fear," he says, "to take Mary your wife." Among us, in former times, betrothal proceeded by the kiss of those being joined, and by an earnest. And it was permitted to dissolve this, provided the penalty of a fine was paid. But while the betrothal was not yet dissolved, one who took the woman was deservedly judged an adulterer, as the aforementioned canon prescribes. But where neither betrothal had gone forward, nor a kiss, nor the giving of an earnest had followed, but there were only those [bonds] called "bonds of mere words," even if another takes the woman, he is not subject to the charge of adultery. ^B But from the Novel later issued by the pious Emperor Alexios Komnenos in the year 6603, betrothal is almost of equal weight to a full marriage, since it too is performed with the intervention of holy prayer, and is not dissolved in other ways than those by which a completed marriage is also broken. For these are his words:

Novel of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos Regarding Betrothal

"True betrothals ^C are decreed by us to be those which are recognized as having been celebrated with holy blessing and at the time ordained by us. A suitable time for betrothal and marriage would be when the female has passed her twelfth year, and the male has exceeded his fourteenth. After the holy hymn of prayers, and the observance of the customary earnest and the kiss, a short or even moderately long space of time having elapsed, as might seem best to the contracting parties, we command that the legal marriage follow without refusal, and that they not occur together on one day and hour. But if, before the time ordained by us has arrived, and without the aforementioned observances having been applied, betrothals and contracts shall have been made, we command that these should neither be, nor be named, true betrothals, even if the penalty of a fine is attached. For those which are properly betrothals ^D will not be dissolved by the payment of fines—which will not even be written into the contracts in the future—because betrothals are not strengthened by them, but through the invocation of God; which indeed remain entirely indissoluble, to be dissolved only for the causes for which marriages also are dissolved. And because, according to the ancient custom of the laws, betrothals did not rightly proceed after the seventh year of the girl (for each man, going freely to the betrothed, by constant gazing and freedom of conversation, would further inflame the burning of love), we also decree this: that those things which are made as instruments in the form of betrothal in the seventh year of the contracting parties up to the fourteenth or twelfth year of their age, [shall not have] the rank

^A of a lawful betrothal, and one that is secure; but they ought to be judged and operate only as secured stipulations in accordance with the custom of other contracts. Yet the old law, which was proclaimed regarding betrothal, ought to operate in the case of those persons who are forbidden to enter into marriage with a betrothed woman who has been separated [from her partner], on account of the superabundant status that prevails among Christians. For even if what is done is not, strictly speaking, a complete betrothal, yet because it seems to have the aim of a betrothal, and the foundation of marriage is laid from it, it would be well for those persons forbidden by the law to continue to be restricted, and that no man take as his wife her whom the old law, once she had become someone's betrothed, did not allow to be united with another in marriage upon the dissolution of the betrothal.

On the Betrothal of Clerics

Of course, it is not permitted to anyone of the clergy, having been separated from his own betrothed before marriage by reason of death or any other cause, to be joined to another woman. ^B For whoever is detected having done this is deposed, as one bound by a second marriage. And a Reader who incurs any such thing does not advance to another grade. But if the betrothal cannot be sustained, yet the person who was betrothed to one wishing to be ordained has passed the sixth year, the one who betrothed her shall not be permitted to be joined to another woman, and thus be ordained. For he is considered a bigamist by reason of his desire, since at that age the woman is capable of love. But if the person betrothed to him was less than six years old at the time the breaking of the agreements took place, such a person can, even after being joined to another woman, come to the priesthood without hindrance. ^C But this does not hold for laymen. For only those of the clergy must be men of one woman, and that woman a virgin. As they themselves, moreover, generally pride themselves on chastity before this. But if the betrothal is complete, and even if the man is separated from the woman by her death before he has lived with his betrothed, even a layman cannot take her cousin or another person prohibited by law. For it is not the union, but the consecration brought about by the intervention of prayers, that makes the betrothal be considered as a marriage. If, however, before the complete celebration of the rites, and while only the betrothal is in effect, it happens that the groom has illicit relations with his mother-in-law ^D or with another relative of his betrothed, the marriage will be prohibited. For it is not lawful for those who have committed incest... For the law says: "Those things which are valid from the beginning are not invalidated by subsequent events." (39)

Causes for Which Betrothal is Dissolved

Betrothal is dissolved just as marriages are, for these honorable causes:

^A 1. If the betrothal is baseless and illicit, because of the nonage of the children. 2. If the woman is discovered to be pregnant by foreign seed. 3. It is dissolved also for a very new, unknown religion, and a difference of dogmas. 4. Or because of baseness of character. 5. Or for a change of status. 6. Or because the delay of the nuptials beyond four years, if it was not done for a reasonable cause, such as a long-term illness, or the death of parents, or capital crimes, or a long journey undertaken out of necessity. 7. Furthermore, for violence of the governor of the province applied to the betrothal, with neither the girl nor her parents consenting. ^B 8. Or by a true vow and transfer to the solitary life. 9. Or that someone becomes a decurion. 10. Or because his property is assigned to the state, or he is found bound to some other public office.

If, therefore, the union is not dissolved by any of the aforementioned things, he who takes as wife one betrothed to another, while he who betrothed her is still living, pollutes himself with adultery.

Betrothal is a mention and promise of future nuptials. ^C Betrothal is formed both in writing and without writing. And it consists of bare consent, even between those who are absent (41). A tutor does not constitute a betrothal against the will of a ward, nor does he dissolve one already made. Madness hinders betrothal (42). But if it supervenes afterward, it does not dissolve one already constituted. Those who offer consent in nuptials, their consent is required also in betrothals (43). Now the contracting parties themselves and their parents ought to consent. And those who evidently or clearly do not contradict are seen to consent. But at that time only, children or daughters of the family can contradict (44), when parents choose for them spouses unworthy and base in their conduct. But if they are not such, those who are betrothed to them, even if the children wish to be disinherited, only so that they do not satisfy the will of their parents, but their own, we decree their plan to be entirely invalid. For the laws themselves establish that the impulses of the young, ^D tending toward their own destruction and ruin, must be restrained by every means (45). In the disagreement of parents, however, concerning the choice, it is clear that the judgment of the father prevails. If a son of the family disagrees, a betrothal is not made in his name (46). A father can dissolve the betrothal of a daughter of the family, but not that of one emancipated (47). She who is seen to understand what is being done is well betrothed; that is to say

not less than seven years old. If, however, after the betrothal has taken place—before the thirteenth year—some should dare to impose upon those betrothed either the so-called benediction or the ^A crowning, as having become transgressors of the divine laws, immediately the preceding betrothal, along with the presumed union, shall be dissolved, and the penalties contributed by each party in the betrothal shall be surrendered to the public treasury, with those who dared [to do so] bearing the loss of the penalty for the crime committed. Nor shall the priest who dared to be present at such an act stand unaccountable, but he shall be subjected to the severity of the sacred laws.

He who betroths a young girl who is a minor, and has not agreed upon a time for the betrothal, must, if she lives in the same province, marry within two years; but if she is away, within three years. If he delays ^B without a reasonable cause, the girl is free to be united with another. Governors should not enter into betrothals in the province which they govern. If they do so, it is permitted for the girl and her parents, or guardians, or curators, to decline the marriage and keep the dowry. The same rule holds for his children, and grandchildren, and relatives, and domestics, and assessors, and for all who are in the service of his household, if they became betrothed in the haste of the governor. If, however, even after his term of office has ended, the girl wishes to be united with him, the marriage is valid. Note, therefore, that the law prohibits the contract at such time as the governor is still exercising his official functions and can be fearful to the girl’s parents, so that if indeed ^C he was a governor, but was not competent to terrify the girl’s parents, the betrothal is not prohibited.

Concerning clerics who cast out their own wives under the pretext of piety.

The fifth canon of the holy apostles excommunicates a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who casts out his own wife under the pretext of piety, until such time as he takes her back; but if he persists, he is deposed. For the Lord also decreed in the Gospels that it is not permitted for anyone who observes the ancient law, when he wishes, to cast out his own wife ^D without a cause prohibited by law. For he appears to defame marriage, as if lawful sexual union were some kind of impurity. But Scripture declares that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled. The thirteenth canon of the Sixth Synod also makes mention of this in the very same words, without, however, the addition of the word "bishop." For this synod was the first that decreed that bishops should renounce their wives.

Concerning laymen who cast out their own wives.

The forty-eighth apostolic canon [decrees that] a layman who casts out his own wife without reason and takes another, and he who receives one…

^A cast off, not according to the laws, he submits to excommunication. However, concerning what the Holy Spirit prophesied regarding this through the great Father Basil, in his ninth canon, it would be unjust not to set it forth in detail. It was consistent, he says, that according to the sentiment of the Lord, marriage should be dissolved for the cause of fornication equally for men and for women. But the custom of the Church is shown not to be so constituted. For as regards women, we find great exactitude, with the Apostle saying: "He who is joined to a harlot is one body with her" (1 Cor. VI, 16); and Jeremiah: "If she shall have become another man's, she shall not return to her husband, but being polluted, she shall be polluted" (Jer. III, 1), unless, that is to say, the husband wishes to receive her. And Solomon in the Proverbs: "He who has an adulteress is foolish and impious" (Prov. XVIII, 22), that is, he who has relations with a married woman, and who is shown to be an adulteress. But [the Church] suggests that men who commit adultery or fornication should be retained by their own wives. For whether someone shows himself bitter toward his wife and inflicts blows upon her, she ought to bear it; or if he causes a loss of money and she sees her dowry being spent, or even if she is jealous because the husband has the habit of fornication with others, it is not permitted to her to separate from her husband on account of these things. For if, in the case of one of the spouses being an infidel, it is not permitted for the other to make a divorce from him, according to the sentiment of the blessed Paul, because it is obscure what may happen (for "what do you know, woman," he says, "whether you shall save your husband?" [1 Cor. VII, 16]), how shall she be blameless who dissolves the union for another cause? ^B Therefore, she who has left her husband without cause, if she lives with another, is considered an adulteress. But she who is joined lawfully to a man who was abandoned, is condemned neither as an adulteress nor as a harlot. If, however, the husband has departed from his wife and has come to another, he is both an adulterer, as one who causes her to be polluted through adultery, and the one living with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn away to herself another's husband. These are the words of Basil. But from the Justinian Novella published later, which the above-placed chapter regarding the dissolution of marriage contains, this also is enumerated among the other causes for which it is permitted to wives to dissolve their marriages (51): If, that is to say, the husband has the habit of fornication with another woman in the same house or city, and when the relatives of his wife rebuke him and warn him to abstain from her habit, he does not obey. Then, indeed, it permits the woman to dissolve the marriage on account of jealousy. Moreover, in the thirty-fifth [canon], Basil says: In those who dissolve ^C marriage, one must look at the cause, he says. And if the woman has departed from the husband without cause, she is judged worthy of penance, but he is worthy of forgiveness. [It pertains] to communicating with the Church, however, and not to the other [matter] clearly. But also the 106th [canon] of the Council of Carthage, those who have been separated from the...

separate from the matrimonial union should either reconcile with one another or remain celibate, according to this sentence pronounced by the Lord: "Those whom God has joined, let no man put asunder," and that of the Apostle: "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a divorce."

That bishops must separate from their own wives.

The divine Fathers of the Sixth Synod, in their twelfth canon, entirely forbid bishops after their ordination from the cohabitation of those women who had been joined to them by the law of marriage before their ordination, and they say: "We do not ordain this to set aside what the holy apostles established in the fifth canon, but that we may procure an increase for the Church toward a better state. For those divine apostles, when the Church was still recent, ^B conceded that they might use some of their ancestral customs on account of the obtuseness of the Jews and the superstition of the Gentiles. For the high priests of both the Jews and the Gentiles were not separated from their bed-companions. But as things stand today, they deem it necessary that bishops, directing their life toward accurate chastity, should abstain from the company not only of alien women but also of their own wives. For this leaves no handle for scandal at all among those subject to them, and the bishops themselves secure that apostolic praise: 'Be without offense to Jews, and to Greeks, and to the Church of God,' and so forth." Then, for those who do not reverence the things of this canon, ^C they impose the penalty of deposition.

That the wife separated from the bishop must also be tonsured.

Now in the forty-eighth canon, the same Fathers do not allow the woman who has been separated by common agreement from him who is to sit at the helm of the episcopate to cohabit with him at all, but they command her to enter a monastery that is not situated in the vicinity of the place where the bishop resides. For it is not possible that they should see one another frequently without love being kindled in them by the memory of their former way of life. Yet they desire that she should receive the fruit of the bishop’s provision in that place, if she should be in need. For if it is not permitted to ^D the bishop himself to spend more than what is necessary on his own person from the goods of the episcopate, much less will anything be given to her from the goods of the Church, if she has the necessities of life from her own resources. But if her life is honorable and grave, she is even promoted to the rank of deaconess. They command her to enter a monastery, for the reason that it is indispensable that she be tonsured. For it was within her power before the ordination of her husband not to be separated. And from that, both the ordination could have been prevented, and the separation.

: ordination could be hindered, and even the tonsure could be denied. But ^A once she herself has consented to the ordination, it is necessary that the divorce be confirmed by the tonsure. This matter was discussed during the reign of the Emperor Isaac Angelus, with three patriarchs present at the council, namely the Universal [Patriarch], the Antiochene, and the Hierosolymitan, along with nearly forty metropolitans: who decreed that the wife of an ordained bishop must be tonsured without refusal, confirming this in synodal letters. From this it is proven that it is not lawful for the wives of priests to contract second marriages.

That priests must abstain from their wives when they are to handle sacred things.

The third canon of the Synod of Carthage says that those who have been allotted the priestly office must cultivate continence, chastity, and every other virtue, always and in all things; so that, approaching the Pure One in purity, they may become masters of their vows, being established as mediators between God and men, so that while they perform the office of intermediaries before God, they may render Him as propitious as possible to mortals and implore peace for the world. But especially when the nature of the time invites them to the handling and reception of the sacred mysteries, while they must genuinely practice chastity, they should also abstain from the company of their wives. ^B The third canon of the holy martyr Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, appoints the priests to be sufficient judges for themselves, that when they are about to approach the awesome mysteries, they should abstain from their own wives, yet [only] by mutual consent, according to this word of the great Paul: "The husband does not have power over his own body," and what follows.

Concerning bishops or clerics having strange women in their household.

The third canon of the first council judges that a bishop or anyone of the clergy should not have a strange woman in his household. Unless, perhaps, it be a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or only those persons who are ^C free from all suspicion. He calls "foreign" or "introduced" those who choose to live with priests who are without marriage, while they provide them their services in matters which pertain to necessary needs. But the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra forbids women [consecrated as] virgins from going to certain men as to brothers. In addition to these, the great trumpet of truth, the great Basil, having sent a letter to a certain presbyter Gregory, touches upon him who has given himself to this vice with greater vehemence of reproach. "Neither," he says, "are we the first, nor are we alone in decreeing that women ought not to be in the company of men: but read the canon promulgated by our holy Fathers ^D in the Council of Nicaea, which manifestly forbade that there be introduced or foreign women." And that the dignity and veneration of celibacy consists in this, that one be separated from female companionship. As if someone were to profess it in name, but in deed do the things of those who live with women, he is manifest, [showing that] the sanctity of virginity in the

name alone is pursued, but he does not abstain from the foulness of pleasure. For I would not believe that a man seventy years old would live wantonly with a woman, nor have we established this for the sake of any absurd crime committed, but because we have been taught by the Apostle that no stumbling-block should be placed before a brother ^B that could be an occasion of scandal to him. And we know that what is done rightly by some will provide an occasion for sinning to others. For this reason, we command, following the way of life of the holy Fathers, that you be separated from the woman. Therefore, cast her out of your house. Place her in a monastery. Let her be with virgins, and you use the ministry of men, so that the name of God may not be blasphemed because of us. As long as you do these things, the myriads of which you make mention in your letters will profit you nothing; but you will die as an idle man, and you will render an account to God for your own idleness. If, however, you dare, without correcting yourself, to cling to the priesthood, you shall be anathema to all the people, and those who receive you shall be excommunicated throughout the whole Church. Let no bishop live with any woman, nor let a woman who performs the office of deacon live with a man.

OF MICHAEL CHUMNOS, NOMOPHYLAX WHO LATER BECAME METROPOLITAN OF THESSALONICA ON THE DEGREES OF KINSHIP

^C Kinship is a common and general name. It is divided into three orders: into ascendants, descendants, and those who are on the side. And the ascendants are those who have begotten us; the descendants are those who have been born of us; and those on the side are those who have neither begotten us nor been born of us, but who share with us the same seed and root. For the sake of example, let the person of Jacob be posited. This

^A one has his own progenitors, whom we call parents and ancestors: namely, his father Isaac and his mother Rebecca; his grandfather Abraham, his grandmother Sarah, and those even further back. Therefore all these, as kinsmen of Jacob, are called ascendants, as being the causes of his procreation. Descendants, on the other hand, are the children derived from him, such as—for example—Judas, Levi, Simeon, the daughter who had the name Dina, and those still further down than these: such as a grandson or granddaughter, who are called descendants, as being derived from Jacob. Kinsten collateral to him are those who neither begat Jacob nor were born of him, but who participate with him in the same lineage and the same root. For example, Ishmael. For Ishmael is an uncle to Jacob on his father’s side. And it is true that Isaac, as father, and Abraham, as grandfather, are ascendants to him, as we have said, because Jacob came from their loins. But Ishmael could not be considered an ascending kinsman to Jacob, because he is not a cause of his procreation; nor indeed a descendant, because he was not begotten by Jacob. But he is a collateral kinsman, as he too was begotten from the loins of Abraham and has Abraham as a progenitor, from whom Jacob also descends, and hence he shares with Jacob the same lineage and root. For, in any case, those who occupy neither the higher position—I mean the order of ascendants—nor fulfill the lower degree, will be collateral, because local distances are divided fourfold: into that which is above and below, and that which is on the right and left. ^B Consequently, the right and the left are collateral. As the discourse proceeds, it will explain just how these parts, on the right and on the left, fulfill the orders of kinsmen. A collateral kinsman to Jacob is also Bethuel, the brother of Abraham. If, therefore, someone asks whether Bethuel, the brother of Abraham, and Ishmael, the brother of Isaac, are kinsmen to Jacob, we shall reply that they are indeed kinsmen, but not ascendants, because he does not exist from their loins. Neither are Bethuel or Ishmael descendants. It remains, therefore, that these are collateral kinsmen to Jacob; and that Ishmael is a father’s brother, that is, a paternal uncle; but Bethuel is an uncle with respect to a grandfather, whom the law also calls a great-uncle. The same holds true for female persons. For in the place of ascendants to Jacob are his mother Rebecca and his grandmother Sarah. The place of descendants is filled by his daughter Dina and a granddaughter born of her. But if Rebecca has brothers, they also are considered collateral kinsmen to Jacob. Thus Laban, the brother of Rebecca, is a kinsman to Jacob. ^D For he is an uncle on his mother’s side.

INDEX OF MATTERS AND SENTIMENTS WHICH ARE DEEMED WORTHY OF NOTE IN THE COMMENTARIES OF ŒCUMENIUS

In which the Roman numeral designates the volume, and the Arabic numeral designates the chapters inserted into the text. But the reader should remember that, in our edition, Volume I of the Morell edition extends as far as column 1168 of our own subsequent volume, where Volume II of the Morell edition begins.

^A Aaronitic priesthood, earthly and perishable, but that of Christ heavenly and everlasting, II, 368. Abraham’s father departed from the land of the Chaldeans, although the oracle had been made to Abraham, I, 61. The promise made to Abraham was in many ways beyond expectation, I, 251. How Abraham received his son as a parable, II, 409. He bore the image of the twofold faith at various times, II, 438. The Book of Acts contains mostly the deeds of Paul, I, 1. The Book of Acts contains the actions of the Holy Spirit, just as the Gospel contains the actions of Christ, I, 3. The Book of Acts shows the completion of those things which Christ had promised, ibid. The necessity of the Book of Acts, I, 5. The Book of Acts is, most of all, a demonstration of the resurrection of Christ, I, 7. Adam was not seduced, II, 223. To admire persons, II, 632. Why the advent of the Lord is likened to a thief and the night, II, 353. Egypt is a certain seducer, I, 158. Peter, when healing Aeneas, did not inquire whether he believed, I, 90. Those established at various ages are spiritual, II, 569. Ethiopians say that the sun is the father of their kings, but they always call the mother Candace, I, 81. Afflictions are sustained in this world neither by all the just nor by all sinners, II, 485. Afflictions are sent for various reasons, I, 510. That Agabus was a prophet does not contradict the statement of Christ, who says that the law and the prophets ceased in John, I, 103. ᾿Αγάπαι (Loves), II, 650. ᾿Αγαπητὸς (Beloved) if loved, II, 497. ᾿Αγαπητὸς if loving, II, 590. Agorai, a class of judges and orators, I, 148. 'Αλαζών (Boastful), II, 472. Walk in truth, II, 616. Why Ananias and Sapphira were killed, I, 45. Anathema is twofold, I, 168. Andreas, where and by whom he was crucified, I, 1. Why angels are called men, I, 7. How we shall judge angels, that is, demons, I, 473. What are called the languages of angels, I, 548. Soul is taken for life, II, 634. Demons obstruct souls stripped of their bodies so they may not fly to heaven, II, 634. What the four animals in the Apocalypse signify, II, 690, 697. Who is called the animal man, I, 435; II, 632. Animal is derived from soul, just as natural (ψυχικός) from soul (ψυχή), II, 632. At Antioch, they were first called Christians, I, 103. Antichrist is proved to be Mahomet, II, 658. Apollos, or Apelles, bishop of the Corinthians, I, 142. Why it is said to the apostles: "Receive the Holy Spirit," before it descends upon them, I, 4. The names of the apostles with their interpretations, I, 8. The apostles, speaking in various languages, uttered learned and brief sentences, I, 15. The apostles, speaking in various languages, knew what they were saying, but not in what languages, ibid. It was improbable that the apostles were filled with new wine, for a twofold reason, I, 16. The apostles were joined by such confidence among themselves that they confirmed their preaching by their mutual condemnation, I, 919. Joyful and sad things befell the apostles in turn, I, 45. Although the apostles referred signs to God, they were nevertheless greatly praised for their lives as well, I, 46. Traditions of the apostles through the laying on of hands, II, 152, 190, 191. The order of the apostles is first in the Church, then of the prophets, etc., I, 346. How varied was the odor of life and death to the apostles, I, 613. Apostles and prophets did not foresee all things, I, 165. The apostles punished some by their own authority; others they handed over to be punished by Satan, I, 217. How the apostles were not engaged in craftiness, nor did they handle the word with guile, I, 624. How the apostles were not broken by various adversities, I, 628. How one receiving the apostles is said to have the Son and the Father, II, 611. The apostles are signified by the individual precious stones of the gates of the new Jerusalem, II, 626. Appii Forum and the Three Taverns, I, 184. The Ark of the Covenant contained things that would argue against the Jews, II, 581. Why an altar was inscribed at Athens to the unknown God, I, 156. The testimony of the poet Aratus concerning God, I, 58. Spiritual armor, II, 58. Arrogance differs from pride, II, 469. We must have readiness to hear, II, 448.

^B Baptized for the dead, I, 587. Barnabas is called a good man, not good simply, I, 102. Bartholomew, where he preached and died, I, 2. A threefold war threatens the Christian, II, 475.

^C A sandal signifies mortification, I, 69. The affection of the flesh cannot be subject to the law of God, but a man having it may be good, I, 302. What strange flesh is called, I, 627. The sign of Castor in a ship, I, 184. Καταβραβεύω (to cheat of the prize), II, 135. The hundred and twenty of whom it is spoken in the election of Matthias, were not all who then believed in Christ, I, 10. Perfect charity which casts out fear, II, 592. The excellent praises of charity, I, 649. The beginning of Christ's assumption could be seen, not the end, but the resurrection, conversely, I, 7. The apostles gradually introduced the divinity of Christ, I, 6. Christ rising did not commune with the disciples as before his passion, and why he did not appear to all, I, 5. Why Christ commanded that the disciples should not immediately depart from Jerusalem, I, 4. Why Christ was assumed while the disciples were looking on, I, 7. Christ is said to have sent the Holy Spirit, and Joel speaks of Christ himself, I, 21. In what Christ is similar to Moses, I, 52. How the life of Christ is said to be raised from the earth, I, 85. Christ's body was not incorruptible before the resurrection, nor after it was it corruptible, I, 144. How Christ is the first from the resurrection, I, 176, 562. Why the Romans did not receive Christ, I, 202. Christ's obedience was more effective for us than Adam's disobedience, I, 268. Christ assumed our body with its natural affections without sin, I, 301. How Christ intercedes for us, I, 347. How Christ is said to have first appeared to Peter after the resurrection, and how he appeared to the twelve, I, 548. How Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father, I, 563. How Christ is said to reign, I, 565. Christ is to be glorified for many reasons, I, 626. How Christ is the image of God, ibid. How Christ manifested God, ibid. How Christ is said to be sin, I, 640. Christ’s great humility and why he did not fear to humble himself, II, 79. Those who did not receive Christ, and yet will receive Antichrist, will have no excuse, II, 197. Christ suffered even for the heavenly powers, II, 329. Christ

^C is able to succor those who are tempted, since he was tempted or afflicted, II, 332. Christ sympathizes with us for a twofold reason, II, 348. How Christ learned from the things he suffered, how he was heard, and for what reverence he was heard, II, 349. Christ is far greater than the legal priests, by the figure of Melchizedek and other means, II, 365, 366, 367. How Christ bore our sins, and how he is to be seen again without sin, II, 389. Christ received testimony three times and in a triple way, II, 598. He who rejects Christ's first advent rejects also the second, II, 609. He who denies Christ's advent cannot be saved, II, 610. Circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of past justification, and so that he might be the father of all, I, 250. A circumcised person can, by human care, have a foreskin rendered, I, 482. Why the lame man laid hold of Peter and John, I, 27. Those things are called heavenly which belong to the New Testament, I, 388. How the Lord’s Supper was conducted among the Corinthians, I, 534. To know in the Holy Scriptures signifies two things, II, 366. To confess sins, I, 147. The most powerful consolation is from the reading of the Scriptures, I, 275. Conversation with the wicked is harmful, II, 617. A small, unbelieving heart is manifold, II, 357. Why Cornelius and the Ethiopian are mentioned as converted to the faith, I, 93. Our body is led wherever we have said, I, 279. The body is to be tamed, I, 513. Why the same body must rise again, I, 563. How the body is said to be corrupted according to fleshly desires, II, 41. There are various modes of worship of God, I, 205. The keeper of the prison, of whom it is spoken in Acts xvi, was probably Stephanus, I, 132.

^D *Deisidaimon* (superstitious), what it signifies, I, 136. Whether Demas returned to Paul, whom he had left, II, 309. The Holy Scriptures liken God to fire, but man to grass, I, 67. God is said to be in every place and time, I, 138. How God can be known from creatures, I, 243. God’s great tolerance toward sinners, I, 243. The vehemence of God’s love toward men, I, 258. If God is for us, who is against us, I, 316. How God’s election and its various judgments are true, nor are these to be gainsaid, nor is their reason to be scrutinized, I, 319. We designate God through private things, I, 428. How God is said to blind the reprobate, I, 625. How Paul calls God by various names according to the subject matter, II, 46. God’s wisdom is both known as simple and as vehemently varied, II, 26. Many think that God gave commandments merely for the sake of threatening, II, 218. God wills all to be saved, yet not all are saved, and there is a need for mutual prayers, II, 218. How God is said to be justified, II, 228. How God alone has immortality, II, 249. God swore by the Word, that is, by himself as mediator between God and men, II, 361. Who are called the possession of God, II, 497. How God exercised justice upon the apostate angels, and upon those who were in the time of the flood, and upon the Sodomites; but showed mercy upon Noah and Lot, II, 539, 541. God is said to be held in two ways, II, 611. God is the same who gave the Old and the New Testament, II, 626. Deacons are created in Acts 6, not according to the rank that is in the Church, but as ministers, I, 54. The conditions of deacons, I, 226. *Diaparatribai* (contentions), II, 246. How days are said to be evil, II, 50, 271. The love of God is proven by the love of one's neighbor, I, 567, 594; and conversely, II, 626. *Diotrephes*, of Diana, I, 148. It is useful to have tasted external disciplines, I, 66. The study of riches brings many sorrows like thorns, II, 247. The consumption of riches only upon the needy does not perish, II, 247. How to teach and to command differ in Paul, II, 233. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, I, 318. The Lord’s servants also serve servants, II, 56. *Donec* (until) and *quousque* (how long), what they signify, I, 565; II, 525. *Doxai* (glories/opinions), II, 544, 628. Dorcas is said to have been watchful from her name, I, 91.

[E] 1304 The Church is called by Paul the heavenly Jerusalem, I, 566. The traditions of the Church and the apostles are to be observed even apart from Scripture, II, 199. *Ekstasis* (trance), what it is, I, 94. *Ekdikesis* (judgment), a genus, I, 148. Elation differs from arrogance, II, 469. Almsgiving is called the daily ministry, I, 51. The degrees of almsgiving, I, 153. Why the elements of the world are called weak and needy, I, 813. The elements of the oracles of God, and what are called the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, II, 352, 354. The elements of water and fire were the beginnings of other things, II, 530. *Hellenistai* (Grecians), who are they, I, 85. *Enypniazomenoi* (dreamers), II, 628. Ephesus, the temple-keeper of Diana, I, 147. Who the Epicureans were, I, 133. Bishops are called presbyters and vice versa, I, 150, 152; II, 63. The office and virtues of bishops, II, 224, 290. A bishop must be the husband of one wife, II, 124. A bishop ought to know the sins and character of those to be ordained, II, 239. What a white horse signifies, II, 701; red, 703; black, 703; pale, 705. The various species of horses seen in the Revelation, II, 732. *Eritheia* (factiousness), II, 465. The sect of the Essenes among the Jews, I, 159. *Euarestoumai* (I am well-pleased), II, 434. Eunomius, in the person of all heretics, catches the benevolence of his auditors, but Basil answers him, II, 840. Where the eunuch preached and died, I, 12; I, 83. *Eōs* and *achri*, what they signify in the Scriptures, I, 566; II, 335.

[F] Old wives' fables, what are they called, II, 232. By communicating with false brothers we fall into many evils, II, 586. What kind faith should be solely before God, I, 584. The gift of faith is something other than faith, I, 548. Faith, hope, and charity, how they will remain even in the future, I, 553. The definition and praise of faith, II, 403. How faith alone suffices, and how it requires works, II, 456. Faith has two significations, II, 457. Faith before and after baptism, II, 438. How and of whom were the figures in the Old Testament, I, 599. "You are my son," etc., is said on account of the incarnation, I, 114. Son of God, how he is said to be subject to the Father, I, 667. Who are the sons of God and sons of the devil, and how they differ, II, 381. Fornication alone is a sin against one's own body, I, 468, 469, 470. Breaking of bread designates austerity of living, I, 24. Persecutions are to be fled, I, 117.

[G] *Gangrene*, II, 267. Galileans, why they were slain under Pilate, I, 57, 58. Gamaliel’s wise counsel, ibid. How the commandment concerning the love of one's neighbor was given to the Gentiles, II, 568. *Ginōskein* (to know), II, 568. *Gongystēs* (murmurer), II, 632. To spurn grace, what it is, II, 856.

[H] Various heresies concerning Christ and the divine Trinity, II, 72. When a heretic is to be fled, and when to be instructed with meekness, II, 270, 299. The epistle written to the Hebrews is shown to be Paul’s, II, 312. The afflictions and tolerance of the faithful Hebrews, II, 401. Herod the Tetrarch was also called Agrippa, I, 9, 104. The miserable death of Herod Agrippa, I, 108. Paul pursued the Spaniards with great love, I, 407. Today or this present day is called the present life, I, 336, 359.

Our old man, why the life spent in sins is so called, I, 276. The old and the new man, II, 139. Why the human body is called animal, II, 575. The last hour of the world, II, 572. He who is truly great does not fear to be humbled, II, 802. ^A Vanity, II, 469.

I Ictar, the first martyr in Lycia, was translated by Alexander to Alexandria, I, 4. This world is to perish by fire just as the former perished by water, II, 530. The image of the earthly and heavenly man, what it is, I, 575. That the use of images has always been in temples, II, 847, 848. Impiety fights against itself, both in the brothers of Joseph and in Pharaoh, I, 63. An impious man and a sinner differ, II, 522, 632. We ought not to be subjected to the tribunal of the infidels, I, 461, 463. Three modes of infirmity or weakness, I, 705. "In these days," is placed at the beginning of the narrative, I, 60. Who are said to be tossed by dreams according to blessed Jude, II, 627. Envy does not arise from us, but is produced against us, I, 471. Invisible things are known through those things which are perceived by sense, I, 432; II, 590. All anger is to be taken away, II, 44. The title of Israel suggests two things to the Jews, I, 27.

J Where James of Zebedee preached and died, I, 1, 105. James of Alphaeus, surnamed the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem, son of Joseph, by whom he was killed, and where he was buried, I, 2, 122. This James departs from the common mode of speaking, II, 450. Why James praises observers of the law, II, 452. Fasts handed down by the apostles, II, 841, 853, 861. Fasts are profitable for the remission of sins, II, 815. How we are to put on Jesus Christ, I, 382. John the Evangelist wrote the Gospel on the island of Patmos and is buried alive [i.e., remains alive in his tomb], I, 1; II, 842. John, who was surnamed Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, is Mark the Evangelist, I, 107, 111. This Mark left the apostles, but later repented of this matter, I, 111, 126. Judas of James, who is also Thaddaeus and Lebbaeus, where he preached and died, I, 2. How Judas obtained the field which the chief priests bought, I, 10. The desertion of the field was the same estate, ibid. Judas died by a precipice, I, 10. According to another opinion, he was crushed by a carriage, I, 11. Judas was vehemently swollen in his whole heart, and suffered other torments before death, ibid. Jewish exorcists, I, 145. Letters of the Jews sent through all lands so that the preaching concerning Christ might not be accepted, I, 186, 191. But a Jew is held to believe in Christ like others, I, 208. If judgment begins from the house of God, who are the end of the incredulous? II, 521. Not even the old law led by itself to what is worthy of praise for swearing, II, 476.

L What milk and solid food are said to be, II, 353. A vow or hymn is more holy than song, II, 158. A man has four laws, I, 297. Or rather three which follow exactly there. How the law is spiritual, I, 292. How the law kills, while the spirit gives life, I, 617. How the law is called the ministry of death, I, 699. How the old things of the law have passed away, I, 638. Nature itself taught the necessary things of the law, II, 28. How the law was not against the promises, II, 33. How the law was a pedagogue to Christ, ibid. The observances of the law were subjected to elements, ibid. He who keeps the law in one is held to keep it in all, II, 30. How Paul says the law is rejected, II, 94. For whom the law was placed, II, 212. Why the law prohibited certain foods, ibid. The law was a shadow of the New Testament and imperfect, II, 316. Why the Evangelical law is called [the law] of liberty, II, 451. How the old law commends oaths and sacrifices, II, 476. What the book written within and without and closed signifies, II, 694. Magical books are not to be sold, but burned, I, 147. Who were called Libertines, and from where, I, 57. One ought to direct the tongue carefully, II, 460. The evils of the tongue, ibid. The tongue can be restrained, ibid.; II, 162.

1306 Luke the Evangelist, the physician, what he wrote and did, and where he died and was buried, I, 1; I, 2, 849. Why Luke did not write of the death of Paul, or his second imprisonment by Nero, I, 8. Luke, saying that he wrote concerning all the actions of Christ, does not contradict John, I, 2. The moon turned into the blood of slaughter designates magnitude, I, 18.

M Christ loosened the double partition of the wall, II, 13. If anyone, having been deceived by magicians, draws near, he should immediately flee, II, 78. Mahomet is proved to be Antichrist, II, 637. When the praises of our ancestors are praiseworthy for us, II, 257. One must believe the ancients rather than modern heretics, II, 832. It is not enough not to do evil, unless you also do good, II, 44. Malice seeks nothing else than to disturb the good in any way, I, 14. No one is to be cursed, II, 628. Why one ought not to mix with the wicked, II, 617. The dogma of the Manichaeans concerning the death of Christ, I, 661. Whom the Manichaeans call the god of this world, I, 623. "Hand" is taken for counsel, I, 40. Mark the Evangelist is buried at Alexandria, where he also preached the Gospel, I, 12. Mark the Evangelist is John, the nephew of Barnabas, I, 107, 111. This Mark left the apostles, but later repented of this thing, I, 111, 126. A sea around the throne, II, 690. How the sea is said to be abolished, II, 819. What the Martian district was, I, 436. Where the apostle Matthias preached and died, I, 10. Peter permits the election of Matthias to the multitude, I, 12. The apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, and where he died, I, 10. A mediator cannot be of one only, I, 743. A mediator ought to be a participant of both sides, II, 210. Melchizedek was a type of Christ in name, in city, in life, and in priesthood, II, 363. Melchizedek is not said to lack father and mother, beginning and life, in the same way as Christ, II, 363. His superiority over the priests of the old law, II, 363, 366. Mempsimoiros, II, 632. The mind cannot be in idleness, II, 202. How future reward will exceed present labor, I, 629. A stadium [miliare], that is, the space of two thousand cubits, was a Sabbath day's journey, I, 8. The four quaternions of soldiers were disposed so that in each watch four would guard Peter, I, 103. The enumeration of the miracles which the apostles are read to have done in Acts, I, 10. What mercy toward the needy accomplishes, II, 459. The monastic life, by which one follows Christ with all things cast aside, is praiseworthy, I, 715. A monk has the office not of a teacher, but of one who mourns, I, 716. It is useful that the day of death be unknown, II, 176. How Paul says he behaved regarding the response of death, I, 395. The dead are twofold in a spiritual sense, II, 514. The zeal of Moses against the Egyptian is explained concerning Christ against Satan, I, 66. The precious and curious adornment of a woman is reproved, II, 221. Paul does not prohibit a woman from teaching, but only in the Church, II, 222. The conditions of women ministering in the Church, II, 227. The appearance of women is to be avoided, I, 715. The woman clothed with the sun appearing in heaven, etc., who she is, II, 751. Let women be silent in the assembly, II, 594. World, II, 462, 463, 570. Whether the world will tend toward corruption, and how, and why, II, 550. Only the superfluous things of the world will perish, that is, its purification and renovation will be made, ibid. How the former world is said to have perished, II, 552. Myōpazein, II, 532.

^A Neapolis of Macedonia, now called Christopolis, I, 130. "Judge not," etc., how it is to be understood, I, 550. Neophytos, II, 225. The blasphemy of Nestorius is demolished, II, 35, 563. The heresy of the Novatians is confounded, I, 724. The latest is called the worst, II, 373. Concerning the cloud, why Christ used it while ascending into heaven, and Elias by a chariot of fire, I, 7.

O Supplication differs from entreaty and intercession, II, 218. One must obey one who lives wickedly, but not one who believes wickedly, II, 434. Continuous obtestation performs three things, II, 276. A stumbling block is not to be placed before a brother, I, 550. Oisēs, II, 469. How all are concluded under sin, I, 186. Onesimus, where and when he suffered martyrdom, II, 301. Optasia, what it is, I, 175. Paul, in ordering prayer in every place, does not contradict Christ, who ordered prayer in a closed room, II, 221. When a person praying will receive what they ask for, and when not, and that James does not teach anything contrary to Christ in this, II, 467. When just prayer made for another is effective, II, 478. One must pray for the dead, II, 191. Orgē and thymos differ, I, 138.

P We always seek peace, II, 530. Parakypsai, II, 600. Parepidēmos, parergon, parodos, II, 483. Patience differs from tolerance or long-suffering, II, 119. Why Paul called the Father wise, but the Son eternal, I, 601. Paul’s conversion, preaching, and martyrdom, I, 12, 13. How Paul is said in the Acts to have approached Jerusalem, while he himself seems to say the opposite in the Epistle to the Galatians, I, 89. Called Paul from Saul, I, 110. Why Paul and Barnabas tore their garments, I, 118. The disagreement of Paul and Barnabas because of Mark, I, 126. Paul is sometimes taught by the Spirit, but at other times by a vision, I, 129; why he fled from persecutors, I, 134. How Paul was both a Tarsian and a Roman, I, 161, 162. Whether Paul knew the high priest who had ordered him to be struck, I, 163. Why they wanted to worship for God, I, 118, 183. Paul denotes human nature by his own person, I, 288. Paul’s vehement love toward God, I, 317, 319. How Paul desires to be anathema from God for his brothers, I, 330. Paul, a virgin, extols virginity and continence, I, 476. Why Paul calls himself an untimely birth, I, 560. Paul was not allowed to preach where he wished, I, 128, 307, 547. Whether Paul determined anything according to the flesh, and what according to the spirit, I, 602. Paul did not foresee everything, I, 603. Paul laments the sins of others, I, 705. Adversaries said Paul was not a disciple of Christ, but of the disciples, and that he preached different things in different places, II, 716. The Father called Paul to the faith of the Son in the same place, II, 723. Paul’s modesty, II, 696, 700, 729. Paul wanted it to appear that he was undertaking a war against Peter and the others, II, 128. Paul condemns Peter, and Peter praises Paul, I, 780. Why Paul rebuked Peter publicly, not privately, I, 785. Paul shows those who feared they would become transgressors if they did not obey the law, that they become transgressors if they do obey it, I, 783. And those who feared execration if they did not keep the law, he shows them that they are to be execrated if they do keep it, I, 783. That it was in his own hand to live or die, I, 726. ^B Paul, in a few words to the Philippians, destroys many heresies, II, 107. Paul, writing "I entreat thee also, true yokefellow," does not speak of his wife, II, 106. Paul, in ordering rejoicing, is not contrary to Christ, II, 105. Paul’s vehement love toward his disciples, II, 175. Why Paul did not heal Timothy’s stomach, II, 70. Paul’s good fight, his oblations, and the four columns following. Why sin is said to dwell more in us than virtue, I, 295. Sins which are called preceding judgment, and which ones are subsequent, II, 243. Sin is called darkness, II, 562. Sin unto death, II, 601. The sinner sleeps, nay, is even dead, II, 49. The sinner, insofar as he is such, is a child of the devil, II, 581. Sinners who are not to be tolerated, II, 601. A person sinning receives the devil into himself by the first consent, II, 379. Pilgrimages were always in laudable use, II, 283. The discourses of the perfect, which is also solid food, II, 353. Peter is crucified head-downward under Nero, I, 11. Why Peter had a word in the election of Matthias, and not James, I, 9. The unanimity and friendship of Peter and John, I, 25. How Peter disposed his sermon after the lame man was healed, I, 93. Peter speaks to the Jews about Christ as of a man, I, 83. Peter is freed from prison by an angel, I, 192. Why Peter was rebuked, and by whom, I, 731. How Peter feared the converted Jews, I, 758. Peter admonishing that we be ready to give an account of the faith does not contradict the doctrine of Christ, II, 309. Philip, who preached in Samaria, was not an Apostle, I, 77. Whether Philip the deacon could not or would not give the Holy Spirit, I, 78, 79. How much utility the epistle written to Philemon has, II, 301. What the golden bowls in the Apocalypse signify, II, 698. Pistos, I, 719. Why religious men made a lamentation over Stephen, I, 76. How seducers are assimilated to planets and are dissimilar, II, 631. Pleonexia, II, 631. Penance is established against the Novatians, II, 43; I, 719; II, 422, 424. The precept of not possessing silver, sandals, two tunics, etc., was given for a time, I, 106. Difficult bodily precepts are not to be imposed on everyone, I, 122. All precepts are abolished except the Gospel, I, 621. It is for the preceptor to teach not what the disciples grasp, but what is useful for them, I, 6. The afflictions of preachers were a confirmation of the Gospel, II, 268. The use of prepositions that concern divine persons is indifferent in the divine Paul, I, 337. The preposition *dia*, that is, *through*, is applied both to the Father and to the Son, I, 710. The same precepts are given to presbyters as to bishops, II, 226. One must obey princes and magistrates, I, 373. Proconsuls as a type of judge, I, 148. How the promise of sending the Spirit is called the promise of the Father, I, 4. ^C The prophecy about rebuilding the tabernacle does not speak of that which was done under Zerubbabel, I, 133. How prophecy is more useful than the gift of tongues, II, 561. The prophets did not foreknow everything, II, 165. How a prophet differs from a false prophet or a seer, I, 561, 535, 546. *Prosōpon* and *prōton* and *empōron*, how they differ, II, 445. How he who loves his neighbor fulfills the law, I, 378. What the Apostle calls fighting with beasts, I, 568. What the shaking off of dust signifies, I, 116. What is called a Pythia, I, 130.

Q How the four hundred and thirty years from the promise made to Abraham until the law was given are calculated, II, 190. Questions about God, both good and bad, II, 211.

R To shave the head was a Jewish custom, I, 141.

^A Agreement and tyranny, how they differ, I, 278. Realms, or empires, of various nations, II, 189. The kingdom of heaven, how it is promised to be given freely, while the way that leads to life is said to be narrow, I, 821. Religion, how it differs from faith, II, 451. Who are called "religious" in the Acts, I, 53. Who the Greek term for "religious" refers to, I, 134. The just shall rise first, before the sinners, I, 563. Resurrected bodies, how they shall possess a spiritual nature, I, 574. The eating and drinking of Christ was a great sign of the resurrection, I, 99. The Athenians thought the resurrection was some kind of god, I, 135. Not believing in the resurrection arises from the sins of which one is conscious, I, 360. The Apostle resolves two difficulties concerning the resurrection, I, 570. The manner and order of the future resurrection, II, 174. Heretics who formerly called resurrection the procreation of children, II, 267. The mode of resurrection in the same body, *poindòn* [in what manner], II, 554.

S Priesthood, in the time of divine Jerome, those who assumed it even in the Eastern Church, if they were married, ceased to be husbands, II, 170. The priesthood of Christ is more excellent than the Aaronic priesthood, II, 369, 388. The same precepts are given to priests as to bishops, II, 220. Sacrifices, why the old law commanded them and what God now wishes to be offered to Him, II, 476. The Sadducees were contrary to the Pharisees, I, 165. The Holy of Holies, how it is said that the high priest enters only once a year, II, 179. Holy dead [saints] are able to intercede for us, I, 713. "Holy" is properly said of God, II, 179. "Your blood be upon your own heads," what this means, I, 401. *Sargánē* [basket], I, 603. Satan, to whom some were delivered as if to a lictor, to be disciplined, I, 217. Knowledge is necessary for pastors, II, 500. A fornicator, how he sins against his own body, I, 470. Holy Scripture compares the affections which naturally belong to man to brute animals, II, 344. Seducers are compared to various things, II, 375. The seventy apostles were Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Barsabas, Linus, Cleophas, I, 10. The word implanted in us, II, 449. Word and knowledge are understood in many ways, I, 683. Obscene speech is fuel for [evil] works, II, 47. The various modes of servitude, I, 202. Servitude is no obstacle to piety, I, 482. Who becomes a servant of men, I, 483. Servants should be subject to their masters with all honor, II, 150, etc. Who are called Sicarii, I, 158. Simon the Zealot, bishop of Jerusalem, was crucified, I, 15. Why Peter did not kill Simon Magus, I, 78. Why Simon coveted the power of giving the Holy Spirit, I, 79. Mount Sinai is called Hagar among the Arabs, I, 725. How "the only" is said of one of the three persons, I, 377. Lots are not to be condemned, especially when the matter is committed to prayer, I, 13. Why the Jews struck Sosthenes, I, 141. "Spermologos" [babbler] is a certain kind of bird, I, 135. Hope is a firm and safe anchor, II, 362. Thorns and thistles are sins, II, 338. Why the Holy Spirit did not come immediately after the assumption of Christ, I, 4, 6. Why the Holy Spirit descended about Pentecost, and with a sound, and from heaven, and in tongues of fire, I, 11. The sitting of the Holy Spirit upon some signifies permanence, ibid. Why the Spirit did not permit Paul to preach in Asia and Bithynia, I, 129. The Holy Spirit is shown to be God, I, 187, 333, 539. That it is necessary to compare spiritual things with spiritual, what this means, I, 435. Paul prays to the Spirit as God, II, 168. Gifts of the Spirit were given according to the proportion of faith and purification, I, 556. Whose spirits are from God and whose not, II, 587. ^B Stephen bore the accusation of one multitude, but the schemes and false testimonies of another, I, 376. Stephen’s address, how prudently it was disposed, I, 60, 61. Stephen’s prayer, whether it obtained pardon for his persecutors, I, 75. Who the Stoics were, I, 435. A white stole, what it signifies, II, 207. Let every man be satisfied in his own mind concerning what should be accepted, I, 579, 580. Sudaria and Semicinctia, what they are called, I, 145. *Synalizōn* [eating together], I, 3. *Sōphrosynē* [temperance], II, 293.

T Our tabernacle is different from our earthly dwelling, I, 631. How Tabitha was resurrected, I, 91. We must be slow to speak and to anger, ibid. The layout of the Temple of Venus, II, 579. Temptations, which are to be sought and which are to be fled, II, 442, 445. Fertile ground, and that which produces thorns and thistles, II, 558. Why testimonies from the wicked and strangers are brought forward, II, 292. The Old Testament is called the ministry of death and condemnation, but the new, the spirit and righteousness, II, 616. *Tetrakhilismena* [divided into four], II, 343. *Theasthai* [to behold], II, 560. *Thrēskeia* [religion], I, 451. Where Thomas preached and died, I, 12. Paul circumcised Timothy, not Titus, and why, I, 726. Canons established by Paul for Timothy, II, 205. Where Titus, bishop of Crete, preached and died, I, 12. Angels are called the trumpets of God, II, 174.

U The anointing that now takes place corresponds to the anointing of the Old Testament, I, 606. We have no time for urbanity now, II, 46.

V What vapor is, and how our life is likened to it, II, 472. What the vessel or linen sheet shown to Peter signified, I, 82. Whose god is their belly, II, 586. The Word of God is compared to a two-edged sword, II, 341. Truth is manifold, II, 101. How the old things have passed away, I, 638. Faith in Christ was called "the Way" for various reasons, I, 90. The errors of Vigilantius are confuted, I, 703. Virginity was kept with great zeal in the primitive Church, I, 154. Virginity is highly commended, I, 485. He who gives a virgin consecrated to God into marriage acts very wickedly, I, 488. The present life is called night, but the future day, I, 700. The life of the righteous refutes the life of the wicked, II, 49. An evil life is called darkness, but a righteous one, light, ibid. Our life is called a wheel and a crown, II, 462. Vapor [referring to James 4:14], II, 172; and grass, II, 491, 492. What it means to live or be according to the flesh, I, 657.

Z Zeal or emulation, II, 46. Right and wrong zeal, I, 743. The zeal of God sometimes inflames even the most gentle to punish, I, 43. Things done with the zeal of God are good, even if they appear to be evil, I, 66.

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

^A OECUMENIUS, BISHOP OF TRIKKA COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. (Continuation). Argument to the Epistle to the Colossians. 9 EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. — Proem. 14 Chapter I. — Thanksgiving for the Colossians, who, because of hope, have been made intimate with God. 14 Chap. II. — Prayer for them, that they may be received into active wisdom, into the virtue of endurance with thanksgiving, and into the intimacy which comes from purification. 15 Chap. III. — On creation through Christ and reconciliation through the conjunction of God. 18 Chap. IV. — On the bringing in of the Gentiles, which was accomplished in the body and passion of Christ through faith. 22 Chap. V. — On His doctrine, handed down through labors of reconciliation, for exhibition before God. 23 Chap. VI. — That it is not fitting for those who have wisdom in Christ to walk in fallacious human wisdom. 27 Chap. VII. — That conjunction with God also spiritually contains those things which belong to the law, for living together in Christ. 34 Chap. VIII. — That the types of the carnal law are held in esteem by the carnal, not by the spiritual who live through the virtue of Christ. 38 Chap. IX. — Exhortation to purgation, sanctification, kindness, piety, love of learning, singing of psalms, conduct praiseworthy according to God, and thanksgiving. 42 Chap. X. — Things pertaining to concord among relatives. 46 Argument to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 58 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 59 Chapter I. — Praise of the Thessalonians in struggles that were worthy of the apostles. 59 Chap. II. — That he longed for them, rejoiced in them, and was solicitous that they be perfected. 75 Chap. III. — Prayer to God concerning His coming, and the increase and confirmation of the Thessalonians until the coming of Christ. 82 Chap. IV. — Exhortation to temperance, justice, brotherly love in judgment, and labor in one’s own work. 83 Chap. V. — Doctrine on the resolution of death and the manifestation of Christ regarding the dead and the living. 90 Chap. VI. — That Christ will come suddenly: therefore one must be studiously prepared with faith, hope, charity, honor, peace, long-suffering, and love of learning. 95 Chap. VII. — Prayer for the sanctification of spirit and soul and body. 103 Argument to the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 106 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. — Proem. 110 Chapter I. — Thanksgiving for the faith of the Thessalonians and their charity and patience for their own honor and the vengeance of those who afflict them: and prayer for their glorious perfection unto the glory of Christ. 110 Chap. II. — On the end which will be after the Antichrist is sent for the refutation of the Jews who did not believe in Christ. 115 Chap. III. — Thanksgiving for the calling. 126 Chap. IV. — That they should pray for him and for the work of the Gospel. 127 Chap. V. — Exhortation to labor and the avoidance of those who are idle and live curiously. 130 Chap. VI. — Prayer for the peace which is from God. 131

^B Argument to the First Epistle to Timothy. 134 FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. — Proem. 135 Chapter I. — On the guidance toward the love of God, which is entirely devoid of legal necessity. 138 Chap. II. — On his own election to be an evangelist, though he had been a persecutor, according to the grace of God. 142 Chap. III. — Precept regarding faith and the mystery of a good conscience, without which peril looms. 146 Chap. IV. — On prayer, that it be made for all, that everywhere it may be pure, without any disturbance, and religious. 147 Chap. V. — On teachers, that they ought to be men, and not women, because of the nature and effect which arises from error. 155 Chap. VI. — On the virtue of bishops. 158 Chap. VII. — On the divine incarnation. 163 Chap. VIII. — On the struggle for piety because of hope. 170 Chap. IX. — Exhortation that he have care for himself and the Church. 171 Chap. X. — That he accommodate himself fitly to everyone. 174 Chap. XI. — On the age of widows and the manner of governing them. 175 Chap. XII. — On the honor of presbyters. 179 Chap. XIII. — On careful election. 183 Chap. XIV. — That no work should be hidden. 183 Chap. XV. — On the obedience of servants. 186 Chap. XVI. — Against the covetous and false teachers. 187 Chap. XVII. — A precept full of horror regarding pure obedience to the end. 191 Chap. XVIII. — The leading of the rich to true life. 194 Argument to the Second Epistle to Timothy. 195 SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. — Proem. 199 Chapter I. — Commendation of the faith of Timothy, and exhortation to tolerance, according to what becomes grace, in which he also says he himself endures by tolerating. 199 Chap. II. — On the suitable tradition of divine dogmas. 207 Chap. III. — On conversation in the present life without anxiety regarding foods which come without labor. 210 Chap. IV. — On faith in Christ, and tolerance because of the hope of life. 214 Chap. V. — On divine doctrine and a life pure and peaceful even toward adversaries. 219 Chap. VI. — A prophecy concerning the abundance of human malice through blameworthy deceit. 222 Chap. VII. — Exhortation that he imitate him, opposing himself to the perverse in tolerance for the sake of God. 226 Chap. VIII. — Concerning those who were attempting new things, whom he opposes to Timothy. 231 Chap. IX. — On his own future resolution unto eternal glory. 231 Argument to the Epistle to Titus. 242 EPISTLE TO TITUS. — Proem. 243 Chapter I. — On teachers suitable for the ministry and the refutation of those not submitting. 246 Chap. II. — Against those who preached carnal purifications and on spiritual virtue. 247 Chap. III. — Admonitions which ought to be delivered according to the age of each. 251 Chap. IV. — On servants, that they themselves also decently serve the grace of Christ. 254 Chap. V. — On obedience to princes, to be shown just as becomes the meekness of Christ. 258 Chap. VI. — Admonitions on declining questions which stir up sedition. 259 Argument to the Epistle to Philemon. 262 EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. — Proem. 263

WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

1313

Chap. I. — Praise of Philemon and thanksgiving for him. 266 Chap. II. — Commendation of Onesimus the fugitive slave, and admonition for him who had been saved through faith. 267 Argument to the Epistle to the Hebrews. 271 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 279 Chap. I. — Divine doctrine concerning Christ, to whom is given the glory of the Father and the power over all things, with the purification of all things which are on earth, from which He ascended to supercelestial glory. 279 Chap. II. — That the glory of Christ is not ministerial, but divine and efficacious; wherefore He does not inhabit the present age, in which there are ministers, but the future. 286 Chap. III. — That He assumed flesh according to the dispensation and sympathy and familiarity which He had toward us, in order that He might liberate man from death through familiarity with Himself. 291 Chap. IV. — That Christ is to be believed just as they believed Moses, and by so much the better as God is more worthy than man. 303 Chap. V. — Exhortation that they set themselves to enter into the rest which has been promised. 311 Chap. VI. — The terror of judgment according to the discourse which has been spread abroad through all, and the utility of the priestly grace, with Him who was affected in human fashion with a natural sympathy along with us. 315 Chap. VII. — Rebuke against those to whom there is need of the first instruction in the elements. 327 Chap. VIII. — That the promise of God is firm, and that with an oath. 342 Chap. IX. — Concerning Melchizedek, who was a figure of Christ, regarding His name, and city, and life, and priesthood. 345 Chap. X. — That the earthly Aaronic priesthood ought to cease, but valid is the heavenly priesthood of Christ of another kind, not according to the flesh, nor through a carnal law. 351 Chap. XI. — The excellence of the New Testament over the Old, because of the propitiation and sanctification. 363 Chap. XII. — Concerning the blood of Christ in which the New Testament was established, which brings about true purification, not the frequency of sacrifices which were performed through the blood of animals. 375 Chap. XIII. — Testimony concerning purification alone and access to God. 387 Chap. XIV. — Exhortation to virtue out of fear of future judgment. 395 Chap. XV. — That a good beginning leads to a good end. 399 Chap. XVI. — Concerning the faith which also glorified the ancients. 402 Chap. XVII. — Concerning patience by the imitation of Christ. 423 Chap. XVIII. — Concerning temperance, while an occasion of correction is given, lest we lack it after the manner of Esau, who afterward found no place of repentance. 430 Chap. XIX. — That future punishments are more to be feared than those which were inflicted under Moses, and that it is fitting that greater zeal be applied regarding the present. 434 Chap. XX. — Concerning brotherly love and hospitality. 439 Chap. XXI. — Concerning not living carnally according to the law, but spiritually according to Christ in virtue. 443 Chap. XXII. — Prayer to God that they may be instructed unto virtue and duly governed. 450 Argument to the Catholic Epistle of James. 451 CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF JAMES. 455 Chap. I. — Concerning patience and faith wavering at nothing or judging, and concerning the modesty of the mind toward the wealthy: wherein he also treats of the concupiscence which is in us and the effects following it, and that it is not a cause from God; for if there is anything of good in us, he says it is from Him. 455 Chap. II. — Concerning meekness and innocence and good action which leads to blessedness, and concerning knowledge and the moderation of speech. 466 Chap. III. — Concerning charity toward everyone without respect of persons according to the law. 471 Chap. IV. — That man is justified not out of faith alone, but also out of works, and not out of one apart, but simultaneously out of both. 478 Chap. V. — That a headlong and uncompounded tongue kills him who possesses it; which it is necessary to overcome for the praise and glory of God: wherein he also treats of conversation and living without strife one against another, out of a desire for glory on account of human wisdom; and of divine wisdom: and that out of sloth and the love of pleasures arise strifes and seditions and enmities against God; and of repentance unto salvation, and of not judging one's neighbor. 483 1314 Chap. VI. — That the steps of a man are directed not by man, but by God: wherein it is also treated concerning the avarice of the wealthy and their luxuries in this world and concerning the just judgment of God. 499 Chap. VII. — Concerning patience and the tolerance of afflictions, and concerning truth: wherein are set forth special exhortations suitable to each with faith, and that one must serve the salvation of one's neighbor. 503 Argument to the first Catholic Epistle of Peter. 510 FIRST CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF PETER. 511 Chap. I. — Concerning regeneration in Christ, and concerning patience in temptations and afflictions, and concerning the salutary faith which was foretold by the prophets. 511 Chap. II. — Concerning hope and sanctification and the firm conversion which is necessary beyond adoption. 522 Chap. III. — That one ought to live worthily according to adoption through Christ, for the utility also of those who are strangers, to the glory of God. 530 Chap. IV. — Concerning subjection toward superiors, and brotherly love and divine worship: wherein he treats of the subjection of servants and patient endurance on account of Christ. Of the obedience of women and concord toward men, and the salvation which is in the Spirit, in the figure of Sarah, concerning the comparison of men toward women. Concerning meek clemency toward all, whose type was the kindness of God in Noah, but in us the sympathy of Christ through baptism. 538 Chap. V. — Concerning the rejection of depraved actions, and the repetition of fruits in the Spirit according to the diversity of gifts. 559 Chap. VI. — That from fellowship with Christ it is necessary to overcome natural adversities, and out of hope in Him to bear the losses condemned by others. 567 Chap. VII. — Admonition of presbyters concerning the care and visitation of the flock; wherein he also treats of the common modesty of all toward each, and victory against the devil. 570 Chap. VIII. — Prayer for the perfection of the believers. 575 Argument to the second Catholic Epistle of Peter. 578 SECOND CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF PETER. 579 Chap. I. — Concerning vocation confirmed through faith by works which are in virtue and the hope of future goods. 579 Chap. II. — Exhortation to the admonition of doctrine, by recalling it to memory: and in what manner on Mount Tabor he heard the voice of God concerning Christ. 586 Chap. III. — A prophecy concerning the fraudulent insurrection of heretics and their impiety and future punishment. 591 Chap. IV. — A repetition concerning the malice of heretical men: wherein it is also treated in what manner Christ is suddenly to come in the consummation of this age, and therefore he says one ought to be adorned with every virtue. 606 Argument to the first Catholic Epistle of John. 618 FIRST CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF JOHN. 622 Chap. I. — Evangelical theology concerning Christ; wherein he also treats of confession and observance away from sin, that the keeping of God's commandments may confirm the knowledge of Him. 622 Chap. II. — Concerning love without which impiety remains; wherein he also treats of grace according to each person's age and of the aversion from the love of the world. 634 Chap. III. — Concerning false brethren who deny God, and that piety toward Christ is the confession of the Father: for the glorification of the Father is the theology of the Son. Wherein he also treats of the divine and spiritual gift regarding sanctification on account of

^A the coming to the knowledge of God, [that] everyone who is in Christ is outside of sin: for he who sins is of the devil. 639 Cap. IV. — Regarding charity towards one's neighbor, and affection for the giving of alms: in which he also treats of a good conscience which is through the faith of Jesus Christ, and concerning the discerning of spirits through the confession of the incarnation of the Lord. 651 Cap. V. — Regarding fraternal charity towards divine worship. 663 Cap. VI. The theology concerning the Son who is in the glory of the Father, and concerning victory against the evil one through faith in Jesus Christ unto life. 674 Cap. VII. — Regarding assisting a sinning brother through prayer, and that one ought not to sin: in which he also treats of abstinence from the worship of demons. 682 Argument of the second Catholic Epistle of John. 683 EPISTLE II OF JOHN THE CATHOLIC. Prooemium. 686 Caput primum. — In which, after the prooemium, he treats of a righteous life in the charity of God, through a faith of immutable piety; and that it is not fitting to welcome a heretic into one's house or to greet him on account of [his] sin. 690 Cap. II. — A promise concerning his advent for the sake of the hope of future utility. 695 Argument of the third Catholic Epistle of John. 698 EPISTLE III OF JOHN THE CATHOLIC. Prooemium. 699 Caput primum. — Prayer for perfection, and thanksgiving on account of the attestation of the reception of the brothers traveling for the sake of Christ; in which he also treats of the depravity and inhumanity of Diotrephes. 699 Cap. II. — Regarding Demetrius, to whom he gives an excellent testimony. 702 Argument of the Catholic Epistle of Jude the Apostle. 703 EPISTLE OF JUDE THE APOSTLE THE CATHOLIC. 706 Caput primum. — Regarding the diligent observation of the faith in Christ, on account of the insurrection of wicked and lascivious men; in which he also treats of their future punishment, after the similitude of the evil ones who sinned of old. 707 Cap. II. — A lamentation over the wicked on account of error and impiety, and lasciviousness and blasphemy, and feigned simulation through bribery, in which they deceive more easily. 715 Cap. III. — Regarding firmness in the faith of those to whom he writes; and that one ought to show compassion and pardon to one's neighbor for the sake of the salvation which is in sanctification; and concerning pure confidence along with the glorification of Christ. 719 Synopsis of an Anonymous author from Ecumenius on the Apocalypse. 722 GRECO-ROMAN CANON LAW. 726 Synodal sentences and pontifical sanctions of the archbishops and patriarchs of Constantinople. 726 JOHN CHRYSOSTOM. On the amendment of delinquents. 726 GENNADIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the holy synod gathered with him, an encyclical epistle to all the most holy metropolitans and to the Pope of the city of Rome. — That the laying on of hands be not on account of money. 727 TARASIUS. On the same, an epistle of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the New Rome, to Adrian, Pope of the Old Rome. 727 NICEPHORUS the Confessor. From the Canons of Nicephorus. 727 SISINNIUS. Decision of Sisinnius the Patriarch, that two brothers should not take two cousins. 727 SERGIUS. On donations and the collation of monasteries or convents. 742 ALEXIUS. I. On marriages of the seventh degree of consanguinity. 743 II. Concerning a certain man, who joined his son in marriage to the daughter of another family, without the consent of his father. 743 MICHAEL. Example of a synodal sentence issued under Patriarch Michael, by Nicetas, the protosyncellus and chartophylax of the Great Church. — That marriages not be made in the seventh degree. 747 JOHN XIPHILINUS. On betrothals. 755 II. Another synodal sentence. On betrothals. 758 III. Of clerics acting in legal causes. 759 NICOLAS I. On the marriages of a paternal or maternal uncle, and of the daughter of a brother or sister, with the paternal or maternal aunt and the son of a brother or sister by affinity. 762 II. On the same. 763 III. That two cousins are not to be married. 763 IV. On betrothals of seven-year-olds. 763 STUPA and ARSENIUS. On the marriages of two brothers with a bride and her mother. 766 NICOLAS MUZALON. On the betrothals of two first cousins or paternal cousins with two sisters. 766 THEODOTUS. On divorce from an unbelieving spouse. 767 CONSTANTINE CHLIARENUS. On the homicides of robbers. 767 LUKE. I. Synodal subnotation under the reign of Lord Manuel Comnenus, while Luke held the patriarchate, that marriages of the seventh degree of consanguinity be made. 770 II. Concerning clerics who involve themselves in secular business. 774 III. Regarding those tonsured in a foreign monastery. 779 IV. On the feast of notaries. 779 V. On the deposition of a bishop. 779 VI. That churches are not to be given [away] by the transaction of a bishop. 779 VII. Regarding those who testify against a spiritual son. 782 VIII. Regarding a bishop tonsured by force. 782 IX. That an irregular oath not be kept. 782 X. On voluntary homicide. 783 XI. Regarding advocates. 783 XII. Regarding captive infants to be baptized, and those of the Hagarenes. 786 XIII. That clerics not become base-gainers, nor physicians. 787 MICHAEL ANCHIALUS. I. That lectors not take on worldly duties. 787 II. That clerics be not created from a strange diocese. 787 III. Regarding a custom not confirmed by judicial sentence. 794 IV. On marriages with a kinswoman previously betrothed. 794 V. On the marriages of two brothers with the daughter of the brother or sister of John's wife, and her daughter, born of another. 795 THEODOSIUS. I. On marriage with a previously betrothed cousin. 795 II. On betrothals not sufficient for a perfect marriage. 795 GERMANUS. I. Subnotation of Patriarch Germanus against the Metropolitan of Naupactus, Lord John, concerning certain episcopal monasteries, and concerning a virgin who received the nuptial blessing before the age of puberty. 798 III. Seal of the same Germanus concerning those paralauria of the patriarchal monasteries to which they ought to pertain. Done in the month of June, Indiction V, and insinuated to the secretum of the sacred chartophylacium. 803 Another on the same. 806 MANUEL. I. Solutions to certain questions. 807 II. On the translation of bishops. 814 III. On the right of patronage. 815 OF UNCERTAIN PATRIARCHS. I. Regarding the order of seating of metropolitans and archbishops, as they are described in the chartophylacium. 818 II. Regarding those who expose their own infants. 822 III. Regarding women who are tonsured by force. 822 BOOK SECOND OF SYNODAL SENTENCES AND PATRIARCHAL SANCTIONS. 822 NECTARIUS. On Agapius and Ghabadius, of whom each laid claim to the bishopric of Bestrenum, from the records of the acts at Constantinople. 822 NICOLAS THE ANCIENT (PRISCUS). That patriarchal letters be granted freely to those requesting them, as it is written in the scrinium. 826 ALEXIUS. I. Monument of Patriarch Alexius, concerning diverse ecclesiastical causes pertaining to all metropolises and archiepiscopacies. 827 II. Example of a monument, stored in the venerable Constantinopolitan scrinium, which is of Lord Patriarch Alexius concerning those who obtain monasteries through donation.

1317 ^A CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME. or, and other necessary ecclesiastical matters which pertain to metropolises, archiepiscopates, and bishoprics. 838 III. Concerning two cousins, one of whom contracted a marriage with the daughter of a certain person while she was still a minor; the other, however, was joined to her mother after her death, because the prior marriage was held to be null on account of the girl’s age being absolutely imperfect. 843 MICHAEL. I. Letter of the patriarch, Lord Michael Cerularius, concerning prohibited marriage. 850 II. From the letter of the same patriarch. 851 III. Of the same. 851 CONSTANTINE LICHUDES. I. A document noted in synod; concerning a criminal servant. 854 II. Concerning a priest guilty of murder and deposed. 855 JOHN XIPHILINUS. Example of a decree to a certain metropolitan, concerning prohibited marriages, sent by letter to Nicetas, deacon and chartophylax. 855 EUSTRATIUS. Concerning two cousins, who had married a mother and daughter; and concerning the annulment of the latter marriage, as having been illicitly contracted. 859 NICHOLAS. I. Concerning the payment of canonical fees. 859 II. Synodical letter of Patriarch Nicholas to Alexius Comnenus, proving from the sacred canons and laws, that it is not right for bishoprics to be taken away from metropolises. 863 LUKE. That clerics should not carry off those things which pertain to dying churches or bishops. 883 GEORGE XIPHILINUS. Concerning territorial rights. 887 JOHN CAMATERUS. A synodical decree which prohibits one and the same man from taking two cousins as wives: which is to be followed the more, although civil judges do not prohibit this case in the decree immediately following. 890 DECREE OF THE CIVIL JUDGES. Concerning kinship, when a certain man had joined two cousins into the society of marriage. And this was indeed permitted by them, but forbidden by the synod. 891 PHILOTHEUS. Refutation of the curses written in Harmenopulus. 895 OF UNCERTAIN PATRIARCHS. I. A letter written at Constantinople to Martyrius, bishop of Antioch, explaining in what manner heretics are to be received who approach the holy universal Church. 899 II. A brief patriarchal note concerning a certain man, who had married his mother's cousin, and concerning the penalties to be inflicted upon him, which John the Chartophylax, son of Jonopulus, explained. 902 III. Synodical responses to the interrogations of the bishop of Side. 902 IV. Concerning the translations of bishops. 903 The office and definition of the patriarch. 910 Series of bishops of Byzantium. 910 The offices of the Great Church. 923 RESPONSES, LETTERS, SENTENCES OF OTHER BISHOPS AND HOLY FATHERS. 926 Letter from Lord Hadrian, Pope of Rome, sent to the Archbishop of Thessalonica, Lord Basil Achridenus, concerning the union of the Oriental Church with the Occidental. 926 BASIL ACHRIDENUS. I. Rescript of Basil Achridenus to Pope Hadrian. 930 II. Response to interrogations concerning certain marriages. 934 NICETAS, METROPOLITAN OF HERACLEA. Responses to Bishop Constantine. 935 DEMETRIUS CHOMATIANUS, ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA. I. Concerning the degrees of kinship. 938 II. Responses to Constantine Cabasilas, archbishop of the metropolis of Dyrrhachium. 947 JOHN, BISHOP OF CITRUM. Responses to Constantine Cabasilas, archbishop of Dyrrhachium. 959 ELIAS, METROPOLITAN OF CRETE. Responses to Dionysius the monk, concerning his diverse interrogations. 986 Concerning him who lives with a strange woman until death after the death of his wife. 990 Whether one who lives with a strange woman after the death of his wife ought to be permitted to the level of a bigamist or trigamist. 990 Concerning whether fornicators are punished with greater penalties than trigamists. 991 Concerning him who notices his own son fornicating. 991 Concerning godparents. 994 NICEPHORUS THE CHARTOPHYLAX. Letter to a certain monk, Theodosius, an anchorite of Corinth, containing the solution of certain questions. 998 NICETAS, METROPOLITAN OF THESSALONICA. Suggestion of a certain monk of Cappadocia, having the name Basil, to the bishop of Thessalonica, Lord Nicetas Mitylenaeus, concerning servants, that sacred prayers might be applied to their marriages. 998 1318 Response of the bishop of Thessalonica, the Lord Nicetas Mitylenaeus. 999 Diverse interrogations and responses ^B made by various prelates to Nicetas the chartophylax, who was archbishop of the metropolis of Thessalonica. 1002 JOHN ZONARAS. Once the great drungarius and first of the secretis, an oration to those who believed the natural flux of semen to be an impurity. 1011 THEODORE BALSAMON. Canonical interrogations of Mark, patriarch of Alexandria, and the responses to them of Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch. 1031 DEMETRIUS SYNCELLUS. Declamation of Demetrius Syncellus, metropolitan of Cyzicus. 1098 Response to him who said that marriages between persons from three different families were prohibited. 1115 OF BASIL, PRELATE OF THESSALONICA. Whether two brothers may be admitted to lawful marriage with the first cousin's aunt and a cousin born from another first cousin. 1119 Suggestion to the prelate of Thessalonica, Nicetas Mitylenaeus, concerning servants, that they be joined by the intervention of a blessing. 1122 Writing of DEMETRIUS CHOMATIANUS, archbishop of all Bulgaria, concerning a question of this kind. 1126 Libel of abdication, or renunciation, of Theodore Critopulus, metropolitan of Heraclea. 1130 MANDATES, WHICH ARE GIVEN TO METROPOLITANS, ARCHBISHOPS AND OTHERS, WHEN THEY ARE ORDAINED. 1131 Letter of the patriarch. 1131 Mandate which is accustomed to be given to a metropolitan and archbishop, when he is ordained. 1135 Mandate which is accustomed to be given to legates. 1146 Mandate for one who is about to become a spiritual father. 1151 Mandate which is given to abbots who are priors. 1154 Letters of commendation, which are accustomed to be sent by the Constantinopolitan patriarch for one recently ordained. 1155 Symbolic caution, which is accustomed by custom to be rendered by most religious metropolitans and archbishops, at the time of ordination. 1158 Prayer, which is accustomed to be read before the emperor by a metropolitan recently ordained. 1159 MEDITATIONS OR RESPONSES OF THEODORE BALSAMON, PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH. 1162 Meditation or response concerning the patriarch’s privileges. 1162 The meditation of the same concerning those two offices, namely the chartophylax and the primary defender. 1182 The cognition of the same concerning a question disputed in the synod, whether one and the same man ought to be joined to two cousins. 1199 The letter of the same concerning the incenses which are accustomed to be given by the patriarch on the day when the catechesis is held. 1211 The meditation of the same concerning the convocation which takes place to the holy houses of the monasteries, by three signals. 1222 QUESTIONS AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES OF MATTHEW THE MONK. 1226 Concerning degrees in marriage. 1226 Division of kinship. 1227 Concerning the relationship through blood. 1227 Concerning ascendants and descendants. 1227 Concerning the seventh degree of consanguinity. 1230

ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

Concerning the eighth degree of consanguinity. 1230 Concerning those born out of wedlock. 1230 Concerning affinity. 1231 Concerning those who marry women consecrated to God. 1235 Concerning marriages from three distinct types. 1235 Concerning adoption. 1239 Concerning sponsorship from holy baptism. 1242 Concerning marriages that are prohibited even without blood relationship. 1243 Concerning those who abhor legitimate marriage, wine, meats, and other things. 1246 Concerning the marriage of clerics, permitted and prohibited. 1250 Definition of marriage. 1251 Concerning those contracting second, third, or further marriages, both men and women. 1251 Concerning laymen passing to second marriages. 1255 Concerning the Tome of Union. 1258 Concerning a woman wishing to enter a second marriage whose husband has died while on a pilgrimage or on an expedition. 1262 In what way a priest who has blessed the marriage of one contracting a second marriage should not feast with him. 1263 That Christians who go to weddings should not be intent upon base plays. 1263 Concerning wicked and illicit marriages of blood relatives. 1266 Concerning clerics contracting incestuous marriages. 1266 Concerning laymen contracting incestuous marriages. 1267 That the same man should not marry two cousins. 1271 That marriages with heretics are not to be contracted. 1274 For what causes a marriage may be dissolved. 1275 Dissolution of marriage without penalty, and concerning marriage which is dissolved for the sake of pious exercise. 1279 Concerning betrothals. 1282 Novel of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus concerning betrothals. 1283 Concerning the betrothals of clerics. 1286 Causes for which betrothals are dissolved. 1286 Concerning clerics casting off their wives under the pretext of religion. 1290 Concerning laymen who cast off their wives. 1290 That bishops should be separated from their wives. 1291 That a woman separated from a bishop should also be shorn. 1294 Concerning virgins marrying without the consent of their parents. 1291 That priests ought to abstain from their wives when they are to handle sacred things. 1295 Concerning bishops or clerics having unrelated women in their household. 1295 MICHAEL CHUMNOS, NOMOPHYLAX. Concerning degrees of kinship. 1298 Index of subjects and sentiments in the Commentaries of Oecumenius. 1301

THE END OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEENTH VOLUME.

Paris. — From the Press of J.-P. MIGNE.