From the Preface of William Beveridge

FROM THE PREFACE OF WILLIAM BEVERIDGE

The study of canon law flourished especially in the twelfth century in the East, during which time three most learned men, Theodore Balsamon, Joannes Zonaras, and Alexius Aristenus, were prominent, all of whom devoted remarkable work to this subject. We exhibit the scholia of each of these individuals in this book, and in such a method that the individual canons have the commentaries of these three interpreters annexed to them. In arranging them, however, we do not observe the chronological order in which each wrote, but we have placed Theodore Balsamon, who was the last in time, first in place, on account of his supreme authority in these studies, and his very great dignity in the Church; for he was a patriarch, as we shall soon show. Concerning each of these scholiasts, whom we edit in the order they occupy in the book, reason and custom alike demand that we preface a few things here.

Theodore Balsamon was born in Constantinople. For he calls himself a Constantinopolitan in his other interpretation of the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, saying: 'Eyὼ δὲ Κωνσταντινουπολίτης ὢν ἀκραιφνέστατος, καὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως μέρος γεγονώς. "I myself, being a Constantinopolitan citizen of the purest sort, and having become a part of the most holy throne of Constantinople." Whence it is simultaneously gathered that he was first ordained in that Church. Indeed, he was a deacon, *nomophylax* (guardian of the laws), and also *chartophylax* (archivist) of that Church, as is clear from the inscription of the ecclesiastical Constitutions which he himself collected, which, in the manuscript codex ^A of Nicolaus Peirescius, a senator of Aix-en-Provence, cited by Carolus Hannibal Fabrotus in the notes to the same Constitutions, reads thus: Θεοδώρου διακόνου τῆς ἁγιωτάτης τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίας νομοφύλακος, καὶ χαρτοφύλακος, καὶ πρώτου τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, τοῦ Βαλσαμώνος, τοῦ μετὰ χρόνους τινὰς γεγονότος πατριάρχου Θεουπόλεως μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας. "Of Theodore, deacon of the most holy Church of God, *nomophylax* and *chartophylax*, and first of the Blachernae, Balsamon, who after some years became patriarch of Theopolis, Great Antioch." Nearly identical words are also held in the inscription of this work which is soon to be cited. Furthermore, he is called *sophos nomophylax* by Patriarch Philotheus in the *Refutation of the Excommunications* written by Harmenopulus. He also testified that he was *chartophylax* in his scholia to the first canon of the first Nicene Synod, in these words: Καὶ ὅτε τὸ χαρτοφυλακικὸν ἐνήργουν ὀφφίκιον καὶ μετὰ τὸ πατριαρχεῦσαι. ^B From these latter words he confirms that he was also a patriarch; of Antioch, clearly, the patriarchal see which we learn he occupied in the days of Isaac Angelus, who began to rule in the year of the Lord 1185, from the Annals of Nicetas Choniates; who recorded how the said emperor, intending to promote Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to the Constantinopolitan seat in place of the expelled Leontius, and having been informed that this was against the canons, turned to Balsamon the Antiochene, as one highly practiced in canon law, to consult him about this matter: Εἰδὼς δὲ τοὺς κανόνας τοῦτο μὴ συγχωροῦντας, μέτεισιν ὑπούλως τὸν διέποντα τὸν θρόνον τοῦ Θεοῦ πόλεως μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας, Θεόδωρον τὸν Βαλσαμῶν, ἄνδρα ὑπὸ τοὺς τότε πάντας ὄντα νομομαθῆ. "Knowing that the canons did not permit this, he stealthily approached Theodore Balsamon, who was administering the throne of the great city of God, Antioch, a man who at that time was learned in the law beyond all others." ^C Because he knew the canons did not permit it, he approached Theodore Balsamon, who was administering the throne of the great city of God, Antioch, a man beyond all others learned in the law at that age, with guile. And after a few words intervening, he writes that the same emperor, in conversing with Balsamon, pretended that he wished to transfer him from Antioch to Constantinople. Καὶ τοιαῦθ' ἕτερα σχετλιαστικῶς προαναβαλόμενος, ἐπήγαγε πάλει μὲν βούλεσθαι μετενεγκεῖν αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Ἀντιοχέων Ἐκκλησίας εἰς τὴν οἰκουμενικὴν περιωπὴν ὡς λύχνον τῆς τῶν νόμων τηλαυγείας πάμφωτον. "And having uttered such other indignant complaints, he added that he had long desired to transfer him from the Church of the Antiochenes to the ecumenical prominence as a light, shining far and wide, of legal brilliance." And he prefaced these and other things of the same kind, not without complaint, that it had for some time been his intention to transfer him from the Antiochene Church to ecumenical dignity, as a brilliant lamp of legal purity. Nicet. Choniat. in Isaac. Angel. lib. II. From which it is clear at once of what great name and authority in canon law this Antiochene Theodore was in those days. ^D Who nevertheless could never access the throne committed to him, as the Latins held Antioch at that time, and he was therefore compelled to administer all ecclesiastical affairs that pertained to his patriarchate from Constantinople.

Furthermore, that this Theodore Balsamon was most learned in canon as well as civil law is established not so much by the testimony of others as by his own works. For he composed many things, all of which pertain to jurisprudence. For this author was the creator of that collection of ecclesiastical Constitutions, which was first published in Latin under the name of *Paratitla* by Joannes Leunclavius, and later in Greek by Carolus Hannibal Fabrotus, a jurisconsult, as the same Fabrotus proved in his notes. He also wrote many treatises, such as on the privileges of patriarchs; on those two offices of *chartophylax* and first defender; on the question, whether one

^A should be joined to two cousins; concerning the incense that is wont to be offered by the patriarch on the day that a catechism is held; and concerning the summons which is made to the holy monastery buildings by three signals; all of which constitute the seventh book of the *Jus Græco-Romanum* published by Joannes Leunclavius. He also wrote responses to LXIV canonical questions proposed to him by Marcus, Patriarch of Alexandria, which also exist in the fifth book of the said *Jus Græco-Romanum*. In the proemium of these, it is said that these questions were made while Isaac Angelus was emperor and Georgius held the patriarchate of Constantinople, in the month of February, in the thirteenth indiction, in the year after the incarnation of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ 1203, *μηνὶ Φεβρουαρίῳ, ἐπινεμήσεως ιγ´, καὶ ἐτῶν μετὰ τὴν σάρκωσιν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ,ασγ´*. But these things do not agree. For in the year 1204 Constantinople was occupied by the Venetians and the Franks. Truly, after Isaac, Alexius Angelus reigned for eight years, and another Alexius after him, by surname Ducas, reigned for some time before the capture of the city; indeed, even after this Georgius Xiphilinus, Joannes Camaterus administered the Constantinopolitan throne for five years and eight months before the city was taken by the Latins. And therefore, if these questions were asked under the empire of Isaac and the patriarchate of Georgius, it is necessary that they were made before the year 1203. Nor does the indiction agree; ^B for in that year, not the thirteenth but the sixth indiction was running; and so a mistake was made in both numbers, namely of the year and the indiction. Nor do I see how it could be corrected, unless for *αʹσγʹ* there were written *αʹρϙγʹ* and *ιαʹ* for *ιγʹ*. So that these questions were surely proposed to Balsamon in the year of our Lord 1193, indiction XI, which is the year in which Isaac Angelus was governing the empire and Georgius Xiphilinus the Constantinopolitan Church: but how easy and frequent a slip is in describing Greek numbers, no one is ignorant.

Among all the works, moreover, which this prince in both laws ^C elaborated, that one is deservedly held as the first, in which he interpreted the ancient canons of the councils and the Fathers, which is inscribed with these words: *Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ θείων κανόνων, τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν συνόδων, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ἤτοι μερικῶν καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων· πρὸς δὲ καὶ δήλωσις τῶν ἐνεργούντων νόμων, καὶ μὴ ἐνεργούντων, τῶν ἀναταττομένων ἐν τοῖς δέκα πρὸς τοῖς τέσσαρσι τίτλοις τοῖς κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν τῶν κανόνων κειμένοις· πονηθεῖσα κατὰ πρόσταξιν βασιλικὴν καὶ πατριαρχικὴν Θεοδώρῳ τῷ εὐτελεῖ διακόνῳ τῆς ἁγιωτάτης τοῦ Θεοῦ Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας νομοφύλακι, χαρτοφύλακι, καὶ πρώτῳ τῶν Βλαχερνῶν, τῷ Βαλσαμῶν τῷ μετὰ χρόνους τινὰς πατριάρχῃ Θεουπόλεως μεγάλης Ἀντιοχείας καὶ πάσης Ἀνατολῆς.* "Exposition of the sacred and divine canons, of the holy and all-praised apostles and sacred ecumenical councils, as well as of the local or particular and the rest of the holy Fathers: in addition to a declaration of the effective and ineffective laws placed in the fourteen titles set before the canons; elaborated by imperial and patriarchal command ^D by Theodorus Balsamon, deacon of the most holy Great Church of God, nomophylax, and chartophylax, prefect of the Blachernae, who also after some years was made patriarch of Theopolis, that is to say, of great Antioch and all the East." This is that excellent work which we provide in its entirety to the public in this book, except that it seemed best to omit that declaration of laws mentioned in the title, that is, of the Nomocanon of Photius distributed into fourteen titles; partly because it was edited not long ago in the *Bibliotheca of ancient canon law*, and partly because it deals with civil laws rather than ecclesiastical canons: whence also in this very interpretation of the canons, where he speaks of political laws, only there he cites that exposition of the Nomocanon, under the name *τοῦ παρόντος συντάγματος*. As in the second canon of the Council of Constantinople, he cites a novella *καταστρωθεῖσαν εἰς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ ς´ κεφ. τοῦ α´ τίτλου τοῦ παρόντος συντάγματος*: that is, located in the interpretation of the fifth chapter of the first title of the Nomocanon of Photius. Which he calls *παρὸν σύνταγμα* for the reason that this Nomocanon was wont to be set before the canons themselves and to form one volume with them; let it be sufficient that the reader has been forewarned of this here. But since in the title praised above, this work is said to be elaborated *κατὰ πρόσταξιν βασιλικὴν καὶ πατριαρχικήν*, he asserts this because he undertook it by order of the emperor Manuel Comnenus and the Constantinopolitan patriarch Michael Anchialus, as he himself testified at the beginning of his preface to the Nomocanon of Photius, which serves also for this interpretation of the canons, saying: *Τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρισθέντες παρὰ τοῦ θεοστεφοῦς ἁγίου ἡμῶν αὐτοκράτορος ἁγίου Μανουήλ Κομνηνοῦ καὶ τοῦ παναγιωτάτου ἡμῶν δεσπότου καὶ οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου τοῦ γεγονότος ὑπάτου τῶν φιλοσόφων, κυρίου Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Ἀγχιάλου, τοὺς ἱεροὺς κανόνας κατασκέψασθαι, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀσαφῆ καὶ τοῖς νόμοις τὸ δοκεῖν ἐναντιούμενα σαφηνίσαι καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι.* "For this we were instructed by our God-crowned holy emperor, the holy Manuel Comnenus, and by our most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, who was prince of the philosophers, the lord Michael Anchialus, to examine the sacred canons, and to clarify and interpret those things in them which were obscure and which seemed in some way to be contrary to the laws." Where also it is permitted to observe that this task was imposed upon him before he was created patriarch, and while he was still serving in some office in the Constantinopolitan Church: since he calls the Constantinopolitan patriarch his master. Therefore this work was begun with Michael Anchialus holding the Constantinopolitan throne; but it was not completed until Georgius Xiphilinus, raised to that see in the year of our Lord 1191, more or less. For to this patriarch Balsamon dedicated this famous work which he had elaborated: and to the same

^A he composed certain dedicatory verses, which Gentianus Hervetus translated from the Tilian codex into Latin in this manner:

The verses of Theodore, patriarch of Antioch, to the most holy patriarch, the lord George Xiphilinus.

The very pious traditions of the canons In the vast Atlantic sea I, trembling, Passed through, as the Ascræan guest crosses Charybdis, Or as the aged Israelite the Red Sea: By the grace of the favor of thy right hand I am made stable, Thou most pious adornment of the patriarchs. Whence, lifting from the reed of my mystical staff The inaccessible journey of those in twofold manner, I myself have delivered it, written in two books.

This work of the canonical disciplines is thine. I ask thee, who shinest with good actions, And illuminatest all with the light of doctrine, That thou mayest be the column of the journey of this book, Burning up indeed the customs of the Egyptians, But extending light upon the way of salvation. These things I, Theodore Balsamon, write to thee, Who am patriarch of religion-renowned Antioch, and even of the whole East.

^B This noble work was no sooner published by the patriarch of Antioch, than it was received with the highest applause by most, although it found some malevolent persons who studied to carp at it. For Constantine Cabasilas, Archbishop of Dyrrachium, put this question to John, Bishop of Citrum: "Are those responses made by the patriarch of Antioch of blessed memory, surnamed Balsamon, to the questions of Mark, the most holy patriarch of Alexandria, found to make certain digressions in canonical and civil ordinances? Must one adhere to them or not?" John replies: "That divine man, the patriarch of Antioch, was thoroughly versed in civil and canonical set laws, and was famous among all in these matters. Yet his writings, as many as were published concerning canonical and civil points, do not appear to maintain perfect accuracy throughout, the strange thing is; but proceed as if out of forgetfulness and oversight, and even at times divided against themselves. And would that one, attending to these things, might not wonder, finding that his own writings do not run in accordance with his own accuracy. For I, even while he was living, heard many jurists in Constantinople finding fault with certain of that man’s determinations, as not having been set forth with proportion, both in the interpretations of canons and of laws, and in other such compositions." This indeed says the wise *nomophylax* and seeker after studies similar to thine, Balsamon, most learned and wisest in laws and canons, who was even designated later as patriarch of the great Antioch; which I would say does not escape thee, being indeed wise and diligent in such things, if anyone is. ^C The aforementioned patriarch of Antioch, then, the wise Balsamon, while expounding the holy canons, says these things in the preface to the explanation of the canons of the synod of Gangra: "The present synod..." according to the wise Balsamon, which was also our aim to show. I have found this to be so also in Constantinople, in the book of Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch; for he says in his interpretation of the Nomocanon thus: "But do not thou, finding in some copies a scribal error concerning Celestinus (for it mentions Celestinus instead of Caelestius), pay heed to those things so written. For Celestinus was the Pope of Rome, orthodox, as has been said from above; but Caelestius was of the same mind as Nestorius, that is to say, he was a heretic." And ^D when I was in Constantinople, I verified this to be so in the book of Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch: for he says in his exposition of the canons: Thou

^A shouldst not give your mind to the words of the writings, if truly, finding in some codices an error of writing regarding the name of Celestine (for in place of Celestius, Celestine is inserted). For Pope Celestine was Roman and orthodox, as was said above: but Celestius held the same views as Nestorius, or was a heretic. These very words of Balsamon exist in his scholiast comments on the first canon of the Synod of Ephesus. Matthew Blastares also, in his own alphabetical syntagma, does not only cite these comments of Balsamon, but subsequently transcribes them. Moreover, Isidore Mercator, in order to embellish his own Latin version of the canons, used these commentaries. For he inserts these things into his own version of the twelfth canon of the Synod of Gangra, where Balsamon, the Bishop of Antioch, interpreting this passage, seems to call garments woven of silk *Beros*. And that Balsamon indeed interpreted the word *Beros* in this way is made clear from his comments on the said canon.

From the time when these most learned commentaries of Balsamon on the Nomocanon of Photius and on the canons of the councils and the Fathers were completed, they lay hidden among the Greeks for nearly four hundred years, unknown to most Latins: until Gentianus Hervetus, at Trent, when the council was being held there, chanced upon them and, having obtained an accurate copy of them from Joannes Tillus, Bishop of Saint-Brieuc, translated it into Latin. This version of his, without the Greek text, was committed to the presses by Guilielmus Morelius in Paris in the year of our Lord 1561. But after many years, the Parisian booksellers, having obtained a certain Greek manuscript copy, brought it out into the public light together with the aforementioned version of Hervetus, in Paris in the year of our Lord 1620. And this edition, and it alone, has been worn by the hands of scholars from that time to this. But in truth, although many things from the Vatican manuscripts and some things from the codex of the heirs of Achilles Harlæus, the first president in the supreme court of Paris, were collected to embellish the Parisian edition, yet very many things are still desired by the learned in it. For many gaps were left in the Greek text itself, which could not be supplied by any Greek copy; and the editors themselves candidly admit that they had not come across any perfect and complete Greek codex that would match the Latin version of Hervetus, which they nevertheless used. It came about that the Greek text ^B and the Latin version correspond very little in very many places, since the copy that Gentianus Hervetus used had at times more, and at times fewer [words] than that which they had appended to his version. And where the sentences are the same on both sides, the sense is often found to be different here and there.

Since, therefore, the Parisian edition of these commentaries of Balsamon on the canons was so mutilated and imperfect, it was of the greatest benefit to the cause of canon law that we possessed a very old and complete copy of them in our most bountiful Bodleian Library at Oxford, which, as we infer from the paper, characters, bindings, and other such indications of antiquity, was written by an elegant hand about four hundred years ago, and which we at length subjected to the press and have made into this public work. For it was not right that such a precious treasure of canon law should lie longer neglected in one library: so that not only have the gaps that were in the former edition been filled, but also many other things desired there are inserted here, and almost everything is amended to such a degree that the true commentaries of Balsamon of Antioch on the canons may be seen for the first time brought to light.

Yet for the greater adornment of the work, we have used two other manuscript codices of the same comments, the Eton ^C codex and the Amerbach codex; the former we owe to that most distinguished man Richard Allestry, Regius Professor of Sacred Theology in the Academy of Oxford and provost of Eton College: inasmuch as he deigned to take care that the variant readings from the manuscript codex stored in the library of that same college should be collected. The other manuscript codex, by which we were assisted, is that ancient and distinguished one which exists in the public library of the University of Basel, which the most famous man Basilius Amerbach (from whose name we call it the Amerbachian) gave by bequest in the year of our Lord 1593. In it, among other things, both the commentaries of Balsamon and those of Zonaras on the canons are contained, written in a clear and ancient character; but with Zonaras always placed before Balsamon. The most honorable leaders of that University allowed us the usufruct of this elegant codex for the purpose of adorning this edition, to be exhibited through the hand and industry of the most learned man, Mr. Joannes Rudolphus Wetstein, the son, who collated that manuscript codex with the Parisian editions of Balsamon and Zonaras with such fidelity and such diligence that we can by no means return him equal thanks, nor will it hold only ourselves, but also all students of canon law whatsoever, eternally bound to him by this singular service of his. For he most exquisitely collected all the variant readings; and, moreover, he transcribed from that codex many ancient comments on the canons which are not found in the commentaries of Balsamon or Zonaras, nor, as far as we know, in any other. It is indeed to be lamented that, I know not by what fate, these accurate collections, lingering on the journey for nearly two years, reached our hands too late for those comments to be inserted into the body of this work itself in their proper places. Lest, however, anyone might complain about those things being entirely missing here, we have inserted them, translated by us into Latin as well, in the annotations, related to the same canons to which they are ascribed in the Amerbachian codex. From the various readings, moreover, we know for certain that this Amerbachian codex agrees for the most part with our Bodleian one, even where the Parisian edition disagrees with both: so that among those countless various readings which that most distinguished man collected while collating the Amerbachian manuscript with the Parisian codices, there very rarely occurs any, at least worth noting, that differs from our codex printed here. The same must be said of the Eton codex. For among these three codices there is excellent agreement; just as it is allowed to observe many times in the annotations, where we often produce these three codices confirming one another. Among them, however,

^A in the Parisian edition much difference occurs everywhere, and therefore, although we endeavored to retain the Latin version of Gentian Hervet as far as it was possible for it to be done; we were nevertheless compelled to change it in very many places, so that we might adapt it to the Greek text edited by us. And where Gentian Hervet misunderstood the meaning of some passage, which often happens, or at least did not express it well, we have amended his version, and we have for the most part rendered the reason for such an amendment in the annotations.

So much for Balsamon and his learned commentaries on the canons. Next follows Zonaras, who flourished under Alexios Komnenos and held the highest honors in the Eastern Empire: for he was grand drungary of the Watch and protoasecretis, or first of the secretaries. But after some years, having been released from secular business, he withdrew to the monastic life, and while passing through it, he wrote many things by which he keeps posterity obligated to him. For first he compiled a universal history from the creation of the world up to the passing of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos, under whom he lived, that is, up to the year of our Lord 1118. He also composed an elegant oration, which is inscribed: *John Zonaras, who became grand drungary of the Watch and protoasecretis, his oration to those who consider the natural emission of seed to be an impurity.* It exists in the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, book V. ^B Furthermore, compelled by the command of his superiors and the persuasion of his friends, he devoted excellent effort to interpreting the canon law of the Greeks, which learned work written by him he inscribed thus: *An Exposition of the sacred and divine canons of the holy and venerable apostles, and of the sacred ecumenical synods, and furthermore also of the local or particular ones, and of the remaining holy Fathers, produced by John the monk Zonaras, who became grand drungary of the Watch, and protoasecretis.* To the work itself, however, he prefixed this preface, which, having been omitted in its proper place, it seemed good to append here: "The declaration of thy words will illuminate and give understanding to the young," says the prophet and divine ancestor David. And one might rightly consider the words of God to be the decrees of the divine apostles and Fathers, since they, being inspired by the divine Spirit, ordained these things. If, therefore, anyone were to make an elucidation of the sacred canons, and having unfolded them were to declare their meaning, he will enlighten those who, on account of the simplicity and guilelessness of their characters, are as infants ^C and not accustomed to reaching the depth of the sacred canons. For these reasons I must undertake the work, as perhaps it will be for the benefit of many, and as best I can for each decree of the sacred apostles and venerable Fathers; more so, however, as God may grant, I must produce a distinct and concise exposition. And let no one condemn me for presumption; for I do not undertake the work on my own, but being exhorted I submitted, and have given myself to the labor, so that I might not be judged for disobedience. "The declaration of thy words illuminates, and gives understanding to the young." These things the prophet and divine father David says to God. Indeed, one might rightly and probably say that the words of God are the precepts of the divine apostles and Fathers, because they themselves established this, inspired and taught by the divine Spirit. If, therefore, anyone has made an elucidation of the sacred canons, and revealing their meaning has declared it, he has certainly brought light to those who, through simplicity and the rudeness of their morals, are like infants, not yet sufficiently fit to penetrate the depth of the sacred canons. Therefore this work had to be taken into my hands, that it might be for the use of many, perhaps, so that also for my part each regulation of the sacred apostles and venerable Fathers might be known, especially indeed, as God himself shall grant, making a ^D peculiar and concise narration. But let no one condemn me for insolence or temerity. For I do not apply my hand to the labor of my own accord; but having been asked I complied, and gave myself to the business, lest I be accused on account of disobedience.

In composing these scholia on the canons, however, the purpose of Zonaras was different from that of Balsamon. For the latter, being very learned in civil as well as canon law, pursues the agreement of both, settles apparent discrepancies, and often solves canonistic questions raised by himself. But Zonaras, on the contrary, adheres strictly to interpreting the very words and meaning of the canons, rarely digressing at all to civil laws. Hence it happens that Balsamon sometimes transcribes the entire commentary of Zonaras in the same words; thinking it superfluous, indeed, to add other things to the sayings of Zonaras, when nothing occurs in such a canon regarding which a dispute should be instituted from political laws and imperial constitutions, that is, nothing which pertains to his purpose. Sometimes he even criticizes the interpretation of Zonaras while concealing his name; nor does he make mention of him anywhere, except in the commentaries to the canonical epistle of Saint Athanasius to Ammun, where he calls him *τὸν ὑπερφυέστατον ἐκεῖνον Ζωναρᾶν*, that most excellent Zonaras, and affirms that he interpreted the aforementioned epistle *σοφῶς καὶ ὑπερδεξίως, καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἄν τις κρειττόνως*, wisely, and most excellently, and in such a way that no one could do better. Because Matthew Blastares also cites the scholia of Zonaras from time to time, sometimes even prefixing his name to them, as in lib. E, cap. 11: *Εἰ μήπου τις εἴποι, ὁ ὑπερφυὴς δὲ τοῦτό φησι Ζωναρᾶς*, Ne forte dixerit quispiam, insignis autem hoc dicit Zonaras, that is, in syn. Chalced. cap. 28. Otherwise, we rarely find these commentaries of Zonaras praised by any ancient person; except that a certain anonymous author, cited by Leo Allatius (*De perpetua consensione Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis*, lib. II, cap. 10), has these things concerning them: "Last of all and the admirable monk Zonaras, John, [expounded] the divine and sacred canons of the holy and all-praised apostles, and of the seven holy ecumenical synods, and of all the"

holy Fathers ^A most clearly and reverently; and nowhere did he name the Pope as orthodox; nay rather, he even subjected those who disturb the boundaries of the Fathers, and those who effect the negation of the divine canons, to anathema. And from this one testimony it is abundantly clear how greatly this exposition of the canons, labored over by John Zonaras, was esteemed among his fellow Greeks.

As regards the earlier editions of these commentaries of Zonaras on the canons, first his scholia on the apostolic canons were translated into Latin and published in the year of our Lord 1558 by John Quintin, at that time a professor of canon law at the University of Paris. Later, Antonius Sarmatia published his commentaries on the canons of the councils, also translated into Latin, at Milan in the year of our Lord 1618. To which Latin version, a Parisian printer added the Greek text as well, taken from a manuscript codex in the library of the most Christian King, and published it at Paris in the year of our Lord 1618. But his commentaries on the canonical epistles of the holy Fathers were still desired, which were therefore printed in the same place together with those of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, called Thaumaturgus, Macarius of Egypt, and Basil in 1622. So that all of Zonaras's commentaries on the canons, before this our Oxford edition of them, had appeared ^B together nowhere. For the embellishing of this edition, we have used not only the variant readings collected in the supplement to the Parisian edition from the codex of the illustrious Henry II, and from that other one of Augustus Gallandus, a lawyer in the Parisian forum, but we have also consulted the ancient manuscript codex in our Bodleian library, in which are contained all the apostolic canons together with the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon attached to them. But the greatest ornament to this our edition was that Amerbachian codex mentioned before, from which the most illustrious man, the aforementioned Joh. Rod. Wetstein, deigned to share with us the variant readings throughout the commentaries of Zonaras and Balsamon. All of which codices having been collated with the greatest diligence and fidelity, we have at length produced the perfect and complete commentaries of John Zonaras on all the apostolic, conciliar, and Father canons, together with the earlier Latin versions, but corrected in numberless places, and far more accommodated to the Greek text.

After the commentaries of Balsamon and Zonaras, the epitome of each canon, and the scholia of Alexius Aristenus upon it, are exhibited in this work. As far as the epitome of the canons is concerned, it was published ^C partly in the *Bibliotheca Juris canonici veteris*, and that under the name of Alexius Aristenus himself, just as if he had been the author of that epitome. But there are many things which militate against that opinion. For the same epitome, although observing a different order of the councils, is also attributed to Symeon Logotheta in the same *Bibliotheca*. But it is truly altogether unlikely that both men, reducing the canons to an epitome, would happen upon the same words. Nor do I see, indeed, by what right this epitome is ascribed to either of them. Certainly, it cannot be ascribed to Alexius Aristenus, inasmuch as he sometimes refutes it, and asserts that its author, whoever he may have been, did not correctly understand the canon, as he says in his scholia on the epitome of the 75th apostolic canon: «Ὁ τὴν παρόντα συνοψίσας κανόνα οὐ καλῶς τοῦτον ἔνόησε», "He who made a synopsis of the present canon did not understand it well": and on the epitome of the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, he says, «Ὁ γοῦν συνοψίσας τὸν παρόντα κανόνα τὸν μὲν ἐν πλάτει κείμενον ἀφορισμὸν τῶν διγάμων, τῷ ἀθετοῦντι τὴν παρθενίαν παρέδραμε», "He who made a synopsis of this present canon passed over the exclusion of the digamists, which was set forth at length, in regard to him who made void the profession of virginity." So that it shines ^D more clearly than the midday sun that Alexius Aristenus was not the author of this epitome of the canons.

Who, therefore, was the author of this epitome or abbreviation of the canons, we have less surely ascertained. This at least seems certain, that it was composed long before Aristenus for the sake of aiding the memory, and so that it might sometimes take the place of an entire canon of any sort, and be cited in its stead. We have an illustrious example of this fact in the scholium of Nicolaus Hydruntinus (who flourished under Alexius Angelus) cited above from Leo Allatius, which begins thus: «Σχόλιον Νικολάου Ἰδροῦντος, περὶ Κελεστίνου καὶ Κελεστίου παπῶν Ῥώμης. Ὁ εὑρίσκων ἐν τῷ τέλει τοῦ τετάρτου κανόνος, τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἁγίας συνόδου, οἵτινες τῶν κληρικῶν Κελεστίνῳ ἢ Νεστορίῳ συμφρονήσωσιν καθαιρετέοι, μὴ ἀναγινωσκέτω Κελεστίνῳ μετὰ τοῦ ν, ἀλλὰ Κελεστίῳ χωρὶς τοῦ ν. Ὁ γὰρ Κελεστῖνος ἅγιος ἦν καὶ ὀρθόδοξος πάπας Ῥώμης, ὁ δὲ Κελεστίος ἦν αἱρετικός.» "Scholium of Nicolaus Hydruntinus concerning Celestinus and Celestius, Popes of Rome. He who finds at the end of the fourth canon of the holy Synod of Ephesus, 'those of the clergy who shall agree with Celestinus or Nestorius are to be deposed,' let him not read 'Celestino' with an 'n', but 'Celestio' without an 'n'. For Celestinus was a holy and orthodox Pope of Rome, but Celestius was a heretic." For those words, «οἵ τινες τῶν κληρικῶν Κελεστίνῳ ἢ Νεστορίῳ συμφρονήσωσιν, καθαιρετέοι», are not found in the fourth canon of the Synod of Ephesus itself; but in the epitome of that canon which we here exhibit, they are read in the very same words; except that for «οἵ τινες», in our codex, by a very slight change, «οἵ τινες» is written. Whence it is plain that the epitome itself is being cited here, and that under the name of the whole canon. So that this synopsis of the canons seems to have taken the place of the law for those who did not have the entire canons readily available. And hence, if I am not mistaken, it is that it now has the names of Alexius Aristenus, now of Symeon Logotheta, and sometimes perhaps others inscribed upon it, by whom it was copied for private use. Or perhaps because Symeon Logotheta, no less than Alexius Aristenus, edited scholia upon it, which now

^A perished. And we have prefixed the name of Aristenus to the epitome only for this reason, that he interpreted it. It is evident, moreover, that this ancient abbreviation of the canons was made long ago, from the fact that Alexius Aristenus spent so much effort and labor in interpreting it; for one should not think that he occupied himself for such a long time with a matter of no importance. Nor does this offer little additional argument for the ancient authority of this epitome, that Aristenus deemed it worthy to be illustrated with scholia, even after those learned commentaries of Joannes Zonaras upon the complete canons had been published; for Aristenus flourished later than Zonaras, but earlier than Balsamon, or at least in the same age. For Balsamon mentioned him in his interpretation of the sixth apostolic canon, where he says: "That the holy synod proclaimed regarding that *hypertimos* and great steward, Aristenus, after an interval of thirty consecutive days, that he should cease from his jurisdictional office." And indeed, the holy synod commanded that incomparable man and great steward, Aristenus, to cease from the office of dispensing justice by three public edicts of thirty days. Where you may also observe what office he held in the Church of Constantinople, since he was the great steward therein; and also with what praise Balsamon decorates him, calling him *hypertimos*. Balsamon makes the same honorable mention of him in his scholia on the 37th canon of the Trullan Synod, with these words: "For that *hypertimos*, Lord Alexius Aristenus, put forward such a canon against the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Lord Nicephorus." For that incomparable Lord Alexius Aristenus produced this canon against the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Nicephorus. Here, I would also note in passing how much weight the name of Alexius Aristenus carried in the interpretation of canon law at that time, when he was consulted and rendered an opinion in that law against a patriarch. From these words, moreover, one can gather the times in which he flourished. For that Nicephorus of Jerusalem, against whom Aristenus put forward this canon, attended the synod celebrated at Constantinople in the year of the world 6674, or of Christ 1166, as is evident from the subscriptions which Leo Allatius published in *De perpetua consensu Ecclesiæ Occidentalis et Orientalis*, lib. 11, cap. 12. That was the year 23 of Manuel Comnenus, by whose command Balsamon undertook his commentaries on the canons, as is evident from the things said above. It is therefore certain that Aristenus also flourished under the same emperor, even if Leo Allatius, in his treatise *De ætate et interstitiis*, in the collection of orders also to be observed among the Greeks, asserted that he published his Nomocanon by the command of Joannes Comnenus, who preceded Manuel in the empire.

Furthermore, these commentaries of Alexius Aristenus on the aforementioned synopsis of canons, in the manuscript codex which we are publishing, are inscribed thus: *Νομοκάνονον σὺν Θεῷ ἑρμηνευθὲν παρὰ τοῦ θεοφιλεστάτου νομοφύλακος κυρίου Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Ἀριστηνοῦ* — "Nomocanon, God assisting, interpreted by the most God-beloved nomophylax, Lord Alexius Aristenus." Where one may first observe that this very collection of canons contracted into an epitome is called a *Nomocanon*: by which name the collection of complete canons is also often termed. No one, I confess, would deny that the ancients called only those books *Nomocanons* in which laws, that is, civil laws, and canons, that is, ecclesiastical canons, were collected together; just as Joannes Antiochenus called that book of his, in which he arranged the canons alone into fifty titles, simply a *Collection of Canons* [συναγωγὴν τῶν κανόνων]; but that one, to which he added imperial and civil laws to the ecclesiastical canons, he called a *Nomocanon*. And for this same reason, the Nomocanon of Photius inherited this name, which Balsamon in his preface to the same also calls a *Nomocanon*. But in truth, any collection of complete canons is also sometimes called a *Nomocanon*: which I am surprised has ever been denied by anyone, since this word in that sense is often used by Balsamon himself; as in *Nomocan. Phot.*, tit. 1, cap. 9, he says: "He insisted, saying that it is not right that even a jot should be removed from those things written in the Nomocanon, which is considered by the Church as tablets written by God." He persisted in saying that it was not right for even a single apex to be abolished from those things which are written in the Nomocanon, which is esteemed by the Church like divine tablets. Where he clearly signifies that the *Nomocanon* is a corpus of ecclesiastical canons, just as he also says in the scholia of the same Balsamon on the 1st canon of the Trullan Synod: "The newly written Nomocanons, as not having the signatures of the kings and fathers who set forth the synods, I passed over; but I examined the anciently written Nomocanons." And thus elsewhere; so that nothing can be more certain than that the collections of canons themselves are called *Nomocanons*. This name, moreover, is also inscribed on the synopsis of canons interpreted by Alexius Aristenus, as is evident from the title cited above, which excellently confirms our previously stated opinion regarding this epitome of canons; since it is called by the same name as the collection of complete canons itself — that is, a *Nomocanon*: indeed, because he was convinced that the whole of canon law was exhibited in it, not otherwise than in the canons themselves. This Nomocanon, therefore, Alexius Aristenus interpreted, who is named the most God-beloved nomophylax in the inscription, and whom the words of Balsamon cited above make certain was also at one time the great steward.

I do not recall these scholia of Aristenus on the abbreviated Nomocanon being mentioned or praised by any earlier writer; unless perhaps the scholiast in the Amerbachian codex borrowed some things from them, and Balsamon seems to have cited them sometimes, as has been observed from time to time in the annotations. Among the more recent, Gilbert Genebrard, in his book *De Trinitate*, cites Alexius Aristenus and affirms that he was a deacon of the Church of Constantinople. Leo Allatius often cites these scholia, but from the biblio-

-theca Vaticana; for they had never been published before. To polish this edition of ours, we have used four manuscript codices, one of which was shared with us by that most eminent man, John Pearson, Margaret Professor of Sacred Theology at the University of Cambridge, who, having found that codex—neatly written—in the library of Trinity College, of which he himself is master in the same university, deigned to permit us to translate it into Latin, and thus provided the first occasion for publishing this work. Yet that codex had been copied from a far more ancient one in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, which on that account we have often needed to consult. Furthermore, another was provided by that most distinguished man, Thomas Brown, Professor of Sacred Theology and Prebendary of the Royal Chapel of Windsor.

When the work had been brought almost to its conclusion, another manuscript codex was found in the aforementioned Bodleian Library, written in an elegant and ancient script: from which some excerpts were taken that are missing in other codices, and which, therefore, are published in the second volume, following the canonical epistles to which they pertain. We owe the collection of these, as well as their translation, to that man to be honored on many counts, Dr. John Fell, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral in the University of Oxford, who, for the greater ornamentation of this work, arranged for it to be completed by a certain learned man in the same Academy. But also, may the canonical republic acknowledge as received from this same man, of outstanding learning and remarkable piety, the accurate edition of this entire work; for it is to his care and counsel alone, applied to everything, that it comes forth so accurately and elegantly.

At the end of the entire work, we have added annotations (a); in which we shall explain in a few words what we have done, or at least have attempted to do. For, in the first place, it was by no means our intention to publish commentaries on the individual canons and their scholia, as that seemed to us to be hardly worth the labor. And therefore, we have devoted our entire effort, such as it was, to elucidating, defending, and restoring to their genuine sense only those places of such a kind that seemed more obscure, were wrongly understood by others, or were of greater importance and more frequent use in discussing controversies in ecclesiastical matters. Hence, we have also noted here and there variant readings from manuscripts as well as printed codices; many other scholia, too, which, as they pertain neither to Balsamon, nor to Zonaras, nor to the *hermeneiai* of Aristenus, were intentionally omitted from the body of the work itself, we have placed among the annotations with their respective canons, taken from the Bodleian and Amerbachian manuscripts. Likewise, whatever the scholiasts wrote regarding the epitome of the canons of Constantine Harmenopulus, we have collected and placed each in its own proper location. So much so that nothing from any Greeks whatsoever, written into this corpus of their canonical law, has come to our notice which is not presented, collected in this one work.

(a) We have placed notes beneath the text, but with a selection made. — *Patav. Ed.*

THEODORE BALSAMON, ZONARAS, ARISTENUS: COMMENTARIES ON THE CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES, COUNCILS, AND EPISCOPAL LETTERS OF THE HOLY FATHERS

CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES.

CANON I. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops. ^A

BALSAMON. This apostolic canon discusses the ordination which is performed by a high priest in the church, just as the great Paul also says: "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins" (1 Tim. V, 22). It does not, however, treat of election, as some were saying—following those things which are spoken of without writing regarding the extension of hands—which occurred when the elections of bishops were made by the populace of the cities. For even if the synod of Laodicea ^B says in the fifth canon that the laying on of hands must not take place in the presence of those who are merely listeners, and for this reason some have assumed that this canon also speaks of the election; yet to me it seems that those who say this are not correct, because an ordination performed in the Church is completed through mystical prayers, even if it is done in the presence of many. Furthermore, since the fourth canon of the holy first Council of Nicaea ordains that the election of a bishop must be made by all the bishops of the province, or at least by three, with the others consenting in writing... ^C I doubt how some have said that this canon is interpreted as being about the election of a bishop, who

^A says is to be ordained by two or three bishops.

ZONAR. Nowadays, *chirotonia* (ordination) is the name given to the completion of the prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, when someone is initiated into the priesthood and receives consecration; it is so called because the prelate extends his hand in blessing over the one being ordained. But in former times, the vote itself was called *chirotonia*. For when it was permitted to the multitudes of the cities to elect their prelates, the multitudes would assemble; some chose this one, others that one. And because the vote of the majority would prevail, those making the choice were said to stretch out their hands, and by these [hands] it was counted who voted for whom, and the one chosen by the majority was preferred for the high priesthood. From this, the name of *chirotonia* was derived. The Fathers of the synods are also found to have used it in this way, calling the vote itself *chirotonia*. For the synod at Laodicea says in its fifth canon that *chirotoniae* (ordinations) must not take place in the presence of those who are merely auditors. But it called the votes *chirotoniae*. For in the solemn completion of the high priesthood, it was more customary for many to assemble; but in the balloting, because certain accusations against the men being voted upon were being introduced, it was forbidden for outsiders to be present and to hear these things. This canon, however, ordains that a bishop be initiated by two bishops. But the fourth canon of the First Synod defines a bishop as being created by all the bishops of the province, or by three, provided the rest consent in writing.

ARIST. Two or ^B three bishops ordain a bishop. Altogether three must ordain a bishop, and not fewer than these, since it is difficult for all the bishops of the province to come together in one place. And seek the fourth canon of the Synod of Nicaea, the thirteenth of that in Carthage, and the nineteenth in Antioch.

CANON II.

BALS. This canon also, consistently legislating on ordination, proves that the previous canon is to be understood as concerning the ordination of bishops, not their election. For we have not been taught that a presbyter, or deacon, or other cleric is first elected and then ordained in this way. ^C

ZONAR. The canon entrusts the election and the ordination of presbyters and deacons to the bishop, to whom those who are being ordained will be subject.

ARIST. One bishop ordains a presbyter and a deacon. Clear.

CANON III.

the order; let him be deposed, except for new ears of corn, or grapes at the proper season. But it shall not be lawful to bring anything else to the altar, or oil for the lamps, or incense, at the time of the holy offering. ^B

BALS. Having prohibited the sacrifices from the old law which were made in the temple through the shedding of blood and the slaughter of animals, the divine Apostles commanded the unbloody sacrifice handed down by the Lord to be performed, and ordained that the priest who does anything beyond this be deposed. "Strong drink" (sicera) is anything that causes drunkenness apart from wine. When you hear the canon saying, "except for new ears of corn," that is, legumes, do not think that sacrifice through these is permitted—for this is strictly forbidden—but say that these are offered to the priest as first-fruits of the annual harvest; and that, receiving them from the hands of the priest with a blessing, we might send up thanksgiving to God, who provides things necessary for our life and our healing. ^C For this reason, as it seems, grapes are offered to the patriarch at the altar of the divine temple of the Blachernae after the sacred rite at the feast of the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos. But I myself saw a certain superior of the venerable monastery of the Chora deposed and cast out of his governance, because he brought cheeses and meats into the altar at the counsel of a certain wicked man, who deceived him and said that in this way a healing of many illnesses would come about. But incense and oil are not offered for the sake of sacrifice, but for the illumination of the temple and for the rendering of thanksgiving to the true light, which is God. Read the 28th, 32nd, and 57th canons of the Sixth Council. ^D

ZONAR. The Lord, when delivering to his disciples the mystery which is performed in the unbloody sacrifice, handed it down to be performed with bread and wine. For this reason, the Apostles also forbade any other thing to be brought for sacrifice; and they forbade the use of any other kind of drink instead of wine, such as strong drink. Strong drink is everything that causes drunkenness apart from wine, such as things that men expertly prepare, as the so-called *choumēli*, [not as a sacrifice, but as a first-fruit of new produce].

^A

But they permitted mature grapes, and new sprouts—that is, those recently grown—and legumes that have already reached the state fit for food (for this is what is signified by the saying, “in the appropriate season”) to be brought; yet these are not to be offered as sacrifices, but as first-fruits of the seasonal crops. It is also permitted that oil be brought, so that by it a light may be kindled unto the True Light, and incense at the time of the holy oblation. Read the 31st, 32nd, and 38th canons of the Council in Trullo.

ARIST. Let a priest who brings milk, or honey, or strong drink, or animals, or legumes to the altar, apart from new sprouts, grapes, oil, and incense, be deposed. To bring to the altar the things enumerated—the one as a Hellenic custom, the other as a Judaic one—is forbidden; but it is permitted to offer first-fruits of new crops—that is, of legumes and grapes—at the time of the harvest, for the sake of giving thanks to God the Giver. ^B

CANON IV

Let all other fruit be sent to the house, as a first-fruit for the bishop and the presbyters, but not to the altar. It is clear, however, that the bishop and the presbyters distribute these to the deacons and the rest of the clergy.

BALS. Note also from this canon that only legumes and grapes are brought into the temple as first-fruits for the bishop; but fruits and other things are sent to the bishop so that, through him, it may be fittingly returned as a worthy thanksgiving to God. But as for how the things offered at the memorials of the saints and of the departed, and called *kaniskia* ^C (3), adorned with various kinds of fruit, are offered at the altar, you shall learn from the discourse of the great Athanasius, *On those who have fallen asleep*. But you should say that even by this present canon, bishops are compelled to console their own clergy from the revenues of the churches.

Guil. Beveregii notes

(3) *Kaniskia*. In the manuscripts printed heretofore, it is written thus, but Gentianus Hervetus reads *kainiskia*, for he translates it *Caniscia*. We have restored the true reading from the Bodleian manuscript. So too does John Meursius read in his Glossary, under the word... Nor, if I am not mistaken, does *koiniskia* ever occur. *Kaniskion* is, however, the same as *kanistron* (basket). Suidas, Hesychius, and others consider it to mean a basket, from which, as was said before, it is taken for a gift that is customarily brought in baskets. Gloss. Gr. Barb. ... *De administr. imp.* It is written also in Nicetas Choniates, in *Alexius Angelus*, book 3. But what these things were in this passage of Balsamon, we should know with more certainty if that discourse of St. Athanasius ^D were extant. They seem, however, to be of the same nature as those which are still called *kollyva* by the Greeks. Suidas explains *kollyva* as parched wheat. Indeed, the Greeks prepare a certain food from wheat lightly boiled and various fruits, such as peas, crushed hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Corinthian grapes, pomegranates, and other eatables, which they call *kollyva*: this they offer at the memorials of the saints and the departed, and at the beginning of the Great Fast, by placing it upon the graves of their relatives; afterwards, however, it falls to the use of the priest and the ministers. That this rite was introduced by the admonition of St. Theodore the Martyr is written by Nicephorus Callistus, book x, c. 12, and by Nectarius in the *Greek Synaxarium* for February 17. That this kind of offering is what is commemorated here by Balsamon is clear from the fact that these too, as the proximate words teach, are offered at the altar adorned with various kinds of fruit.

^A ZONAR. Autumnal fruits ought not to be brought to the altar. But whoever wishes to offer tithes or firstfruits from them to God in due thanksgiving should bring them to the bishop and the presbyters. And they, upon receiving them, should not keep them for their own private enjoyment, nor should they alone consume them, but distribute them to all the clergy. ARIST. Let the fruits be sent home, which the primary order shall distribute to those following. Except for grapes, it is not permitted to offer the firstfruits of other fruits at the altar, but they should be sent home to the bishop and presbyters so that they may be distributed to the deacons and other clergy. For grapes shall be brought into the church, as an exception to other fruits, as the wine made from them is also taken for the accomplishment of the unbloody sacrifice.

^B CANON V. Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon shall cast out his wife under the pretext of piety; but if he does cast her out, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.

BALS. Before the sixth synod, which was held in the Trullo of the palace, it was permitted to bishops to have wives even after their episcopal dignity, just as priests or deacons who are ordained after marriage also have them. ^C Since, therefore, before the one hundred seventeenth Novella of Justinian, which is situated in book XXVIII, title 7 of the Basilica, it was permitted to anyone for any cause to send a bill of divorce to his wife, the present canon says that a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon is not permitted, under the pretext of piety, to cast out his own wife. But the provisions of such a canon have fallen into desuetude as far as presbyters and deacons are concerned. For bishops, as has been said, cannot have wives after their episcopacy; and this is because marriage at present cannot be dissolved in any other way than for the causes contained in the said Novella, which are these: If one of the spouses has conspired against the emperor. If the wife has committed adultery. If one of the spouses has plotted against the life of the other. If the wife has eaten or bathed with outside men against the husband’s will. If the wife has stayed outside the house of the husband, unless perhaps with her own parents. If the wife goes to the chariot racing of the hippodrome against the will of the husband. If one of the spouses has… ^D

chosen the monastic life, or other reasons (7) inscribed in the aforementioned Novel, which you may also read. ^A

ZONAR. In ancient times, it was permitted for those living together and joined in matrimony to separate from one another even without cause, whenever they wished; but the Lord, as it is written in the Gospels, forbade this. Therefore, the Apostles, in accordance with the ordinance of the Lord, forbid this as well. And meanwhile, they are now speaking about the sacred ministers, saying that if a sacred minister repudiates his wife under the pretext of religion, he is to be excommunicated until he is persuaded to take her back. But if he persists in not taking her back, he shall also be deposed. For this seems to be done in calumny of marriage, as if the mingling of spouses effected impurity; but Scripture says that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled. The canon also makes mention of bishops having wives, because at that time it was still free for ^B bishops to have legitimate wedlock with women. For the synod in Trullo, called the sixth, prohibited this in its twelfth canon. And the civil law also forbade divorces of spouses without cause, for it defines certain causes on account of which divorces must legitimately take place.

ARIST. A priest who casts out his helper (8)—let him be cast out; but if he does not bring her back, let him be deposed. If any presbyter or deacon casts out his own helper under the pretext of piety without a reasonable cause, let him be excommunicated; but if, even after the excommunication, he remains uncorrected, let him be deposed. And look to the twelfth and thirteenth canons of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, which provide for the same things. ^C

CANON VI. Let no bishop, or presbyter, or deacon take upon himself worldly cares; otherwise, let him be deposed.

BALS. We have written sufficiently about consecrated men who exercise secular services in chapter xiii of title viii of the present compilation. But since this apostolic canon says that a cleric who behaves in such a way is to be deposed, while the ^D eighty-first apostolic canon and other canons say "either let him cease, or be deposed," someone might ask which [one] we ought to follow. I think [it should be] the more lenient one. For the holy synod ordered that famous and great oeconomos, Aristenus, to cease from the office of judge for a period of thirty days by public edicts.

[index: entries preserved]

^A ZONAR. It is forbidden to those already enumerated to involve themselves in secular affairs. For the canon wishes them to have leisure for divine service, and to keep themselves outside of confusion and popular tumult; and if they do not do this, it orders them to be deposed. Regarding this, various canons of the synods are enacted; and the civil laws also forbid those who are consecrated to God from involving themselves in business affairs. They permit them to withdraw from this only if they are called by law to the administration of orphan children. ARIST. A priest who undertakes secular cares is rendered unholy. It is not permitted for a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon to undertake secular cares for the sake of private base gain, unless he is called by the laws to the administration of the affairs of minors, or is in some other way required to undertake the administration of widows, orphans, and the infirm. But if, admonished to withdraw, he does not obey, but remains in the administration, he is deposed. ^B CANON VII. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon shall celebrate the holy day of Pascha before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed. BALS. The divine Apostles do not wish us to celebrate the feast with the Jews. They decree, therefore, that the Lord’s Pascha must be celebrated by us after they have celebrated the legal Pascha. And since they celebrate Pascha before the vernal equinox, we ought to celebrate it after the vernal equinox. The vernal equinox does not occur, as some say, on the 25th of the month of March, or the 20th, or any other fixed day, but whenever it happens. ^C For according to the cyclic calculation of the course of the sun and the moon, the vernal equinox is at one time or another. Since, therefore, Moses ordained for the Jews to celebrate Pascha, or the passing-over of evils, annually in memory of the liberation from the Egyptian servitude—and this in no other way than before the vernal equinox, while the moon is in the first month, or March—we also celebrate the Lord’s Pascha, or our liberation ^D [Notes of Guil. Beveridge] ...sees the equinoxes, no less than the new moons; that they should change their place in the Julian year every year is something that could not be depicted as more ridiculous or more childish. Wherefore he seems to look rather to the retrocession of the equinoxes in the Julian year. For since some asserted that the vernal equinox was fixed forever at March 23, others at March 20, he, having detected their error, affirms that it always falls neither on March 25, nor 20, nor any other fixed day; but this is as it requires in the Julian year. For in any years passing, the equinoxes go backward one day towards the beginnings of the months; so that the same equinox, which once fell on March 25, and afterwards on March... falls back in our days to March... in this canon it is said, lest Pascha be celebrated with the Jews, Balsamon conjectures... the institution, Pascha their own before the vernal equinox to have celebrated. But Anatolius, from the more ancient teachers of the Jews, the two Agathobuli and Aristobulus (who was one of the seventy elders who had translated the Bible into Greek), asserts in Eusebius, *Hist. Eccles.*, b. VII, c. 32, p. 287, l. B, edit. Vales., that it is required in the celebration of Pascha, namely, that when Pascha is accomplished, the sun should occupy the vernal equinoctial sign, and the moon the autumnal sign opposite to it, whether this is the beginning of Libra or that of Aries. The same is taught by Josephus, *Antiq. Jud.*, b. iii, c. 10, p. 93, l. A, edit. Ruvier, 1611; whence it is evident the Jewish year...

^A from the captivity of the devil, which Christ and our God has granted to us through His own passion. But we celebrate this not at the time when the Jewish Pascha is celebrated, but after it: namely, after the vernal equinox has passed, and after the 14th day of the first month, or the first moon of the month of March, yet in the same week, because the passion of the Lord and the resurrection happened in that way at that time. Look also for the eighth oration of our Father among the saints, John Chrysostom, which he composed *On Pascha*. Look also for the 73rd canon of the Synod of Carthage and what has been written by us in it concerning Pascha.

ZONAR. Some say the vernal equinox is the twenty-fifth of March; others say the twenty-fifth of April. But I think the canon means neither the one nor the other; for generally Pascha is accustomed to be celebrated before the twenty-fifth of April. And there are times when it is celebrated even before the twenty-fifth of March; so that it might happen (if the vernal equinox were understood in this way) that Pascha would be celebrated contrary to this canon. It seems, therefore, that the wise apostles designate something else as the vernal equinox. But the entire disposition of the canon is this: that Christians should not celebrate Pascha with the Jews (that is, on that same day). For it is necessary that their feast—which is not a feast—take place first, and thus we perform our Pascha; and he who, having been ordained, does not do this, shall be deposed. This was also ordained by the Synod of Antioch in its first canon, saying that there is a decree of the first Synod of Nicaea concerning the feast of Pascha; even if such a canon is not found in the canons of the Nicaean Synod.

ARIST. He who celebrates Pascha with the Jews shall be deposed. Clear.

Guil. Beveridge's notes. ...for each of the equinoxes occurs in the seventh month, according to which it is stated by the law that the greatest and most public festivals were to be celebrated: according to the vernal equinox, and according to the autumnal. ^B ZONAR. ... ^C This the Synod of Antioch also decreed in its first canon, asserting that in the first synod of Nicaea a decree was made concerning the feast of Pascha; although such a canon is not found in the canons of the Nicaean synod.

ARIST. He who celebrates Pascha with the Jews shall be deposed. Clear.

Guil. Beveridge's notes. ...that it was so ordered at that time, that it should be celebrated on the 24th of the month Nisan, when the sun entered Aries. Philo the Jew supports this: Phil. Jud., *De mundi opific.*, p. 27, l. B, edit. Paris, 1640. For from these words of Philo it is most clearly evident that Pascha is celebrated no less than the feast of Tabernacles. Therefore, even if the Jews sometimes kept their Pascha before the vernal equinox, this happened ^D not from the institution of the elders, nor of Moses, as Balsamon asserts; but rather from the decline and error of the periods which they used; as was noted before.

(11) But along with this, Josephus the Egyptian in his Arabic paraphrase of the canons interprets this in such a way that by it is forbidden not only the celebration of Pascha with the Jews, but also that it be performed afterwards, and indeed on a Sunday. For he explains it thus: If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or other minister of the Church, shall celebrate the Paschal feast before the equinox, wishing in that to imitate the Jews, or shall observe Pascha with them on any day other than the first day of the week which follows the Pascha of the Jews, or the Sunday which follows—not on any other day before or after it, but on that very Sunday which succeeds the Pascha of the Jews—he shall fall from his grade and be deposed from his order. In the canon itself, I admit, nothing is expressly transmitted concerning the Lord's Day; yet from the fact that celebrating Pascha with the Jews is here forbidden, it follows necessarily that the Christian Pascha must be celebrated on a different day than the Jewish one. But they who did not imitate the Jews in their paschal celebration always observed it on the Lord's Day, even before the Nicaean definition; so that the Nicaean synod, in discussing this very grave controversy, seems to have determined nothing new, but only to have confirmed this ancient Apostolic canon by its own authority at last. And so Josephus the Egyptian does not unaptly interpret this canon in such a way that it ordains that the paschal festival be celebrated not only after the equinox, but also on a Sunday.

(12) Look also for the oration. This oration is still extant among the fifth volume of the works of D. Chrysostom, among the panegyrics of doubtful authenticity, page 940, edit. Savil. It is true, I confess, that eight of his sermons on Pascha have not yet been found, but only seven; yet the last bears the title of the eighth, both in the ms. which D. Henry Savile used, and in the Bodleian: so that it is beyond doubt that it is the same oration of D. Chrysostom which Balsamon praises here under the title of the eighth; especially since the same argument is in it which is treated here by Balsamon.

CANON VIII

BALS. No one knows of a bishop or presbyter approaching the altar, and performing the sacrifice, and not communicating in the divine holy things. If any one of these should be found to have done such a thing, he shall not only be excommunicated, but also severely punished, unless he declares a most reasonable and manifest cause which prevents the divine communion. For no trivial scandal arises from this. But we see most of the deacons approaching the altar, and not communicating, and not even touching the holy things. If any one of them touches [them] and does not communicate, he shall be excommunicated according to the canon. And some have interpreted the canon in this way; others say that every consecrated person is excommunicated by the canon if he does not communicate, even if he stands outside the holy sanctuary, which is very severe.

Another interpretation

ZONAR. The canon desires that all should always be worthy and prepared for the communion of the holy things.

[alt-version omitted]

And indeed at that time the laity were required to communicate frequently. For there is a canon of the Synod of Sardica, and another of the Council in Trullo, and yet another of the Synod of Antioch, which states that if anyone present for three Sundays does not communicate, he shall be excommunicated. For this reason, the present canon also excommunicates those who do not remain, as they disrupt the order; and the second canon of the Synod of Antioch speaks to this very matter.

ARIST. ^A Excommunicate him who does not remain for the prayer and the communion.

CANON IX

All the faithful who enter, and hear the Scriptures, but do not remain for the prayer and the holy communion, as they bring disorder into the church, ought to be excommunicated.

BALS. The provision of the present canon is very severe. For it excommunicates those who attend church and do not wait until the end, nor communicate. Moreover, other canons likewise decree that all should be prepared and worthy of communion, and they excommunicate those who do not communicate for three Sundays ^B.

ZONAR. The present canon requires all, whilst the holy sacrifice is being celebrated, to persevere until the end in prayer and holy communion. For at that time the laity were required to communicate frequently. For there is a canon of the Synod of Sardica, and another of the Synod in Trullo, and a different one of the Synod of Antioch, providing that if anyone who is present for three Sundays does not communicate, he should be separated from the Church. Wherefore the present canon also excommunicates those who do not remain, as those who confound the order; and the second canon of the Council of Antioch speaks about this.

ARIST. You shall excommunicate him who does not remain for the prayer and the communion.

[Interpretation of Guil. Beveridge] ^C Whence it seemed to us that what pertains to the 8th canon, in the codex from which the Bodleian was transcribed, had been written twice: first after canon 8, and again after this one; and that it immediately occurs here, repeating the first words of this second interpretation, adding immediately regarding the interpretation of the preceding canon. And indeed, in the printed codices, and also in that which Gentianus Hervetus translated, no less than in the Bodleian ^D now edited, this is placed after the first interpretation of the eighth canon; however, with these notes in the margin—in his replies to Mark, patriarch of Alexandria, he observes that some, relying on this Canon, have asserted that all those who enter the church, even against their will, must be compelled to partake of the divine sacraments; he adds, however: Balsamon, to inquiry 16, book 5, in the *Jus Graeco-Romanum*, Daniel Chamier—not without reason—cites this canon against private Masses; see for yourself vol. 4, book 7, chapter 18, part 2. See also canon 2 of the Council of Antioch.

He who does not remain in the church until the end, but departs from the church while the sacred liturgy is still being celebrated, as one who causes disorder in the church, ought to be excommunicated. ^B

CANON X. If anyone prays together with an excommunicated person, even in a house, let him be excommunicated.

BALS. ^A *Acoinōnésias*, that is, of excommunication, is a term meaning the same as segregation. Whoever, therefore, has prayed in any way together with an excommunicated person shall be segregated, even if he be a bishop or a layman. And this is written for the sake of those who say that he who is segregated has been cast out from the church. If, therefore, anyone sings with him in a house or in a field, he shall not be blamed. For it is the same thing to pray together with an excommunicated person inside the church or outside of it. However, we are not forbidden to converse with the excommunicated person. Read also the 9th canon of the Council of Carthage.

ZONAR. Those who are separated are, of course, separated because of sins. It is therefore not fitting for anyone to communicate with them. For this tends towards the contempt of the one who separated them, or rather also towards slander, as if he had separated them wrongly. If, therefore, anyone prays together with an excommunicated person (that is to say, one who is segregated), even if not in the church, but in a house, ^B

Notes of William Beveridge

...sules, according to the precepts of the Lord and the apostles, exercised this ecclesiastical authority over those involved in crimes; as is evident from this canon of the fledgling Church, whereby it was enacted that no one should pray or hold assembly with an excommunicated person. And that it was observed in those very days in which it was constituted, Tertullian is a witness, saying: "Therein also are set exhortations, chastisements, and divine censure. For it is judged with great weight, as among those who are certain of the sight of God, and it is a supreme anticipation of future judgment, if anyone has behaved in such a way that he is relegated from the communication of prayer, and of the assembly, and of all holy commerce." Tertull. Apol., c. 39. Cyprian also makes very frequent mention of this censure; though he uses "to exclude from communion" and "not to communicate" for "to excommunicate" (Epist. 28, edit. Rigalt.), and sometimes "to cast out from the Church," "to eject," "to condemn," "to damn by the voice of the priests" (Epist. 55); and "to kill by the spiritual sword" (Epist. 62). So also he uses "to abstain" for "to excommunicate," and "abstentus" (the abstained) for "excommunicated": that he may know that he has been "abstained" by us (Epist. 38). And therefore you have acted wisely and with vigor, dearest brother, by abstaining the deacon who often stayed with a virgin (Epist. 62). And, indeed, I use "abstinence" with an accusative for usurpation: "Abstain from groanings, clearings of the throat, coughs, laughter" (Terent. Heautont., Act II, scene 2); and by Horace, "He abstained from his wife and son" (Horat. lib. 1, sat. 3); and by Cicero himself, "What benefit is it that you have abstained from nefariuous crime?" (Cicero, Phil. p. 11, n. 3). So much so that Cyprian is not the first who has used this verb as a transitive, nor indeed the last. For the Council of Toledo says: "If a cleric is 'abstained,' let him be avoided by the clergy; if anyone is caught conversing or dining with him, let him also be 'abstained'" (Concil. Tol. 1, c. 15, apud Bin. tom. 1, p. 562); likewise the Council of Elvira, c. 54, ibid. p. 242. Epaon, canon 3, same tom. 1, p. 312. Optatus of Milevis, concerning the deeds of the Macharius party, says that they should not have been mixed with the communion, but rather abstained from by the Catholic bishops. Optat. Milev. in Append. 1. v, pertaining to the third, Adv. Donat.

There were three species of excommunication in use among the Jews. The first and lightest is *Niddui*, by which anyone was segregated from the company of others for at least four days. The second, ^D *Herem*, which was inflicted with dire and horrendous curses. It was not permitted either to eat or drink with one who was thus excommunicated: to which the Apostle seems to refer, saying, 1 Cor. v, 11. The third is *Shammatta*, by which one punished was separated from the communion of the republic and the Church alike without hope of ever returning, as Elias notes in *Tishbi*. But since the Gentiles and the Jews exercised this authority, it is much less to be denied to the Christian Church: especially since the Founder and Head of the Church Himself gave in commands that he who refuses to hear the Church be as [E] *ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης* (the Gentile and the tax collector). Matt. xviii, 17, that is, let him be cast out from the Church, or excommunicated. Which D. Paul later expressed by "to deliver to Satan," 1 Cor. v, 5; 1 Tim. 1, 20. And it is no wonder that the Church possesses this authority...

^A to excommunicate, since it is she who possesses the power of binding and loosing. This is exactly what the ninth canon of the Synod of Carthage says. ARIST. He who prays together with one excommunicated is himself subject to the same judgment. He who prays together with heretics in the church or in a house, he himself is likewise excommunicated.

CANON XI. If any one, being a cleric, shall pray together with a deposed cleric, let him also be deposed.

BALS. Some have understood "to pray together" here as meaning "to celebrate sacred rites together." ^B But this does not seem so to me. For the canon was enacted concerning every cleric who has been deposed, and not concerning a priest alone. Others have said that he who is deposed is here also considered to be subjected to excommunication, and for that reason prayer with him is prohibited. But it is understood by me that the purpose of the canon here is to punish any cleric who has prayed together in any way with any cleric whatsoever who has been deposed, and who has performed any priestly act after his deposition. For this reason, deposition is also inflicted upon him. However, from the fact that one has prayed together with someone who is excommunicated, deposition is not inflicted, ^C but excommunication, as the tenth canon commands.

ZONAR. Some of those who are deposed are forbidden only from the celebration of sacred rites, but not from communion, or from assembling in the church. Others, however, are both excommunicated and segregated from others along with their deposition. Therefore, this canon will be understood either to refer to one who has been deposed and at the same time excommunicated, and the one who has prayed with him will be subject to deposition; or "to pray together" will be taken to mean "to celebrate liturgy together."

ARIST. He who prays together with one deposed is subject to the same judgment.

Guil. Beveregii note.

^A He who prays or performs liturgy together with one who has been deposed, let him also be deposed.

CANON XII and XIII

If any cleric or layman who has been excluded, or is not to be received, departing, shall be received in another city without commendatory letters, let both he who received him and he who has been received be excluded. But if he was excommunicated, let the excommunication be aggravated against him.

BALS. Other is the excluded person, and other is he who is not to be received, that is, he who is not admitted by the bishop to a certain thing. For the excluded person is barred from ecclesiastical assembly; but he who is not to be received is not admitted for many reasons. For the word [or] is used here for a disjunctive, as this is demonstrated by the subsequent canon saying: "But if he be excommunicated," etc. ^B Therefore, they who are present say...

[alt-version omitted]

^{C D} NOTES OF WILLIAM BEVERIDGE.

...three species of letters were formerly numbered; for some are commendatory, others pacifical, and others dimissory, of which mention is made here. D. Paul also mentions them in 2 Cor. III, 1. They are properly those which are given to clerics or laymen (formerly to the excommunicated) or even to those who are unknown, who are setting out to another city, commending them as now absolved and as faithful to the bishop of the place to which they are going, as Zonaras witnesses upon this canon, Balsamon in canon 2 of the Council of Chalcedon, and Matthew Blastares in the Syntagma. The Scholiast of Harmenopulus, Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 2, tit. 3, see also Gratian, distinct. 71, cap. 8.

Letters of this kind, commendatory, were given by Paulinus, bishop of Nola, to Amandus, saying: "Marius, the bearer of this letter, I have commended specifically to your unanimity, so that just as we requested of our holy bishop and father, so may he be ordained by you." Paul. episc. Nol., epist. 21, n. 203, edit. Front. Ducæ Antwerp. 1622, so also Wolfeon of Constance writes to Bernatus the Argentarian: "Therefore, receive him, commended to your care, and keep him separated from our own parts in the number of your sheep." Latin writers of more recent times have called these letters "Formatae"; just as usage of "formal" letters flourished among the Roman emperors, when he would dictate a formal letter in the name of his procurators, Sueton. in Domitian. cap. 13. Mention of "formatae" is frequent among the Latins. The Council of Milevum: "It has been determined that whoever cleric, on account of his own necessity, shall wish to go somewhere to the comitatus, shall receive a 'formata' from his own bishop, and if he shall wish to go without a 'formata', let him be removed from communion." conc. Milevit. 2, can. 20, p. 600, t. I. Bin. The second Council of Seville: "nor [daring] to send formal letters to anyone," cap. 7, p. 983, tom. II. Pope Vigilius: "Let no one without a 'formata' of your fraternity dare to set out for more distant places," Vigil. epist. 10 to Aurelius of Arles. Thus also "without pacificals" in the Council of Antioch, can. 7, apud Gratian, is translated as "without formata," dist. 71, cap. 9. In which sense perhaps St. Augustine said: "I was inquiring whether they could give communicatory letters, which we call Formatae, to whom they wished," Aug. epist. ad Eleusium, etc., tom. II oper. col. 759, l. c., edit. Froben. And they seem to be called "Formatae" for the reason that the form of the episcopal seal was impressed upon them. Which, if I am not mistaken, cannot be understood better than from the vocabulary of Papia...

...corrected by Car. Labbe, in which these most noteworthy things occur: "Formata" letters are said to have been established by the holy Fathers in the Nicene council, so that no cleric, in transferring himself, might forge any letters whatever, [unless] he had received permission for travel from his own bishop. It is fitting, therefore, that these letters in the epistles be expressed by their calculation; the first Greek letters of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which are II. Y. A., and subsequently let an Anathema be placed at the foot of the Epistle, and a monogram at the end of this kind: B. T. E., that is, "Bene valete." A sign, moreover, in the inception of the privilege, either a "chrismon," or the Lord's cross with a "chrismon," was present. A "chrismon" of this kind was represented in this appearance: [Image of Chrismon].

But so that it might be represented more fully in my own opinion in such an appearance: [Image of cross].

Furthermore, they were accustomed to mark the extreme margin of the privilege with certain insignias, containing the name of the prelate and a few words.

The words by which the Greeks express these commendatory or "formata" letters, you may see described at the very end of the Euchologium. They were also given to clerics going to the imperial court, offering testimony to the necessity of their presence there. Justinian, Justin. novel. 6, c. 3. Moreover, letters which are sent by a newly created patriarch of Constantinople, containing a confession of his faith, are called "systatikai" epistles; an exemplar of which Leunclavius published in "Juris Graeco-Romani" l. vi, p. 439, edit. Francof. 1596.

...these words are read in the printed copies: John of Antioch also reads it in coll. can. tit. 18, and Dionysius Exiguus translates it: "That he who has lied, and has seduced the Church of God." And Joseph of Egypt: "Because the liar seduced the Church of God"; also Aristenus, as is clear from his interpretation. Whether Balsamon and Zonaras read these, is uncertain; since neither of them makes mention of a clause of this kind: from which they rather seem not to have read it. Certainly, it is missing in the Bodleian manuscript, and in the codex which Gentianus Hervetus translated, and also in the *Epitome* of Harmenopulus, sect. 2, tit. 3.

^A *Canons 12 and 13: That he who knowingly receives into [the Church] someone who has been declared once and for all ineligible, without the recommendatory letters of his own bishop, shall be excommunicated; and he who was received shall also be excommunicated. If, however, such a person is not ineligible, but has been [formerly] excommunicated, again the one who received him shall be excommunicated, and the excommunication of the [already] excommunicated person shall be intensified. Look also at the 11th canon of the 4th Synod, and the 6th canon of the one in Antioch, and the 13th canon of the one in Chalcedon.*

ZONARAS. On Canon 12. The word "or" here is not an explanatory particle for "excommunication," but stands as a disjunctive. For he wishes to speak of two things: of the excommunicated person and of the ineligible person; and for a while, he discusses the ineligible person first ^B. For some who are placed in the clergy (readers, for instance, or singers) seek to be ordained deacons and presbyters. And those who are about to ordain them, examining their affairs, and perhaps finding some doubts, postpone the ordination until the doubts surrounding them are resolved. These, however, being annoyed, approach others, and are received by them. This, then, the present canon forbids, and as for the one deemed by this bishop to be ineligible for ordination, it commands that he not be received by another without recommendatory letters from the bishop by whom he was being examined. Recommendatory letters are those which are given to clerics or laymen who have been separated from the commerce of others, or to readers going away to another city, commending ^C them to the bishop of that place, as being absolved from penalties, or as being faithful; concerning which more has been said at length in the eleventh canon of the fourth synod. And if anyone receives such a person, the canon subjects both the receiver and the received to excommunication. Read the sixth canon of the synod in Antioch and the third of Chalcedon.

ARISTENUS. He who receives one who is ineligible elsewhere is himself the more ineligible. ^D Whoever is examined by a certain bishop as to whether he is to be received into the holy Church of God, and while these things are being examined concerning him, departures from there and goes away to another bishop and is received by him without recommendatory letters declaring him to be blameless in religion and life, he shall be excommunicated, both he himself and the one who received him.

ZONARAS. On canon 13. The aforementioned canon [deals with] the ineligible...

^A who has been proclaimed, and not yet ordained, nor excommunicated. But the present canon decrees concerning one who has been ordained and excommunicated, who, having become indignant after his excommunication, approached another prelate, and was received by him, while he was ignorant of the excommunication; for this reason, the canon orders that the excommunication of such a person be intensified.

ARIST. He who lies about his segregation is in no wise to be received. If anyone be segregated by his own bishop, and departing to another bishop, conceals the segregation, and is received by him, let the segregation be aggravated for him, as for one who has lied to and deceived the Church of God.

CANON XIV.

It is not permitted for a bishop, having left his own diocese, to leap into another, even if he be compelled by many, unless there be some reason consistent with sense ^B which compels him to do this, inasmuch as he himself can confer greater profit upon those who dwell there by the word of piety; and this, not of himself, but by the judgment of many bishops and [with] the greatest exhortation.

BALS. The present 14th canon decrees that it is not lawful for a bishop to leap from his own diocese into another, even if he does this for the sake of the utility of the people, and even if he be forced to this by the multitude of the foreign diocese, unless he shall do this by synodical permission. But the 16th canon of the Synod of Antioch says that he who has snatched up a vacant church without a synodical opinion is to be rejected ^C. But know that, even if the present apostolic canon does not punish him who teaches outside his own diocese, other diverse canons nevertheless subject to deposition those who perform any priestly [function] outside the diocese. However, to give the character [of ordination] outside the diocese is permitted by imperial command. Yet a certain metropolitan, who in several of his own bishoprics had taught against the will of the bishops, and was being accused, answered saying that it was not just that he should be injured by that, because the bishoprics were under his power, and because the present canon does not impose a penalty upon such a one, and because perhaps to teach or to give the character is not an episcopal duty; which points, indeed, did not please the great Synod. ^D Note, therefore, what is written in this 14th canon, and moreover what is elsewhere annotated in the commentary on the canon of the Synod in Trullo, concerning that bishop who has taught outside the limits of his own region, and reconcile both canons.

Another interpretation.

From this present 14th canon it is apprehended that the malicious leaping of a certain bishop from diocese to diocese is condemned. But a translation [achieved] by good grace for a just and great cause, and [directed] toward the stabilizing of piety

with the greatest urging of many bishops, is permitted. ^A Since some say that neither by this present canon is translation permitted, but that only the temporary summoning of a bishop for the sake of teaching appears from it, let them hear that since the canon says nothing of the sort, from where do they advance this? Furthermore, what utility was going to come to the people of the widowed church from the teaching of a bishop having taught there once or twice or for a limited time, while performing no other episcopal duty there, so that such a summoning should be made with the great urging of many bishops? If indeed the one summoned was not going to teach with episcopal right, ^B he would not have needed the urging of many bishops; for he could have preached piety even alone. Moreover, whoever says this accuses both the great Gregory the Theologian and the holy Proclus and many other most holy patriarchs who were translated from other thrones to that of Constantinople or even to others, as if they were performing holy functions unworthily after their translation, which is something unforgivable.

ZONAR. Various synodical canons forbid bishops to migrate from their own churches to others; for they command each one to remain in the church which has fallen to his lot, so that they may not stir up sedition against one another. ^C Therefore, the canons will not be thought to have ordained contrary things; but those [canons] indeed legislate against bishops swapping churches, and they forbid this. But the present canon speaks of a bishop who, when utility compels it, for the sake of teaching, sets out for another church; for perhaps the bishop of that church may not be altogether suitable for teaching, while the one who is summoned, being perhaps more learned and better instructed in the faculty of speaking, it may happen that it is necessary for him to betake himself to that city. And even then, the canon wishes him to depart not of his own accord, but [when] summoned, or rather, advised by the judgment of many bishops. ^D However, the canons of the synods entirely prevent a bishop from leaping from one diocese into another, and from snatching away the ecclesiastical administration of that place, even if that church be widowed of a bishop, according to the sixteenth canon of the Council of Antioch. But this present canon of the holy apostles, in view of the circumstances, wishes a bishop to pass into another diocese for the sake of teaching and discourse, for the utility of the people dwelling there. Yet it does not forbid him if he is called by others and deemed worthy, not by his own will alone.

ARIST. You shall not leap from throne to throne, unless you are more useful to those there, as being more skilled in the art of teaching.

^A And this must be done by the judgment and exhortation of many bishops. A bishop ought not to leave his own diocese and leap into another throne, unless perhaps he is tested and deemed more useful to the inhabitants there, as being better instructed in the art of teaching, and this by the judgment and exhortation of many bishops. But this canon is now abolished. For the sixteenth canon of the Synod of Antioch allows a vacant bishop to be appointed to a vacant church. But this is after the approval of a full synod, with the metropolitan bishop present. It does not, however, allow a bishop who is not vacant to move to another city in any way, neither does the twenty-first canon of the Synod of Antioch, ^B nor the fifteenth of the Synod of Nicaea, nor the first of the Synod of Sardica.

CANON XV

BALS. The sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon orders that clerks should not be ordained absolutely, but in a bishopric, or a church, or a monastery. And they cannot, without the consent of their superior, go to another province ^C or diocese and perform the duties of their clerical offices. The canon segregates such a one who does this, especially if, having been summoned and ordered to return to his former diocese, he has not obeyed; the canon does not, however, forbid him from living in another city as a layman. See also the sixteenth canon of the first synod and the fifth of the fourth. Therefore, note that a cleric who wishes to reside in another diocese and exercise his clerical functions needs not only commendatory letters, but also release letters from the bishop who ordained him. For unless he displays such letters, he is prohibited from his duties. See also the seventeenth canon of the Synod in Trullo. ^D ZONAR. The sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon determines that no one should be ordained absolutely, but only in a bishopric, or in some specific church, or in a monastery. Therefore, he who is thus ordained and has left the church for which he was selected as a cleric, and has departed for another, is prohibited by this canon from his ministry, especially if he does not return when summoned. Yet it is allowed for him to communicate as a layman. The sixteenth canon of the first synod, and the fifth of the fourth, say the same. ARIST. Every cleric who leaves his own diocese, and inhabits another, and is urged by the bishop, and does not return, is under interdict. Any cleric whatsoever who has left his own diocese

^A province, and going off to another, and not returning, and this even when summoned by his own bishop, he shall no longer minister. If, however, he persists in this disorder, he shall be deposed; yet he shall communicate there as a layman. And look for the third canon of the synod in Antioch.

CANON XVI. If the bishop with whom they happen to be, regarding as nothing the suspension decreed against them, receives them as clerics, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder. ^B

BALS. Note that the present canon excommunicates the bishop who has numbered among his own clergy a cleric of another diocese without dimissory letters from his own bishop. Only the bishop of Carthage is able to add to his own clergy clerics from other dioceses, even without the dimissory letters of those who ordained them. And you will find this in the canons of the synod of Carthage. But the Archbishop of Constantinople also has the authority to do the same. For the novel of the Emperor Justinian says so, namely chapter 2 of title 2 [(27)] of book 3 of the *Basilica*: "For if we forbid those in the most holy monasteries to pass from one monastery to another, much more do we not permit this to the most pious clerics, considering such desire to be a manifestation of profit and trade. If, however, at any time your beatitude or the imperial majesty at that time declares that such a transfer should be made, let this not be done otherwise until the matter is reduced to the number mentioned by us." ^C This novel was written to the patriarch of Constantinople who was of that time. Note, however, that it is also granted to the emperor to perform transfers of clerics.

ZONAR. The preceding canon restrains from ministry those who have abandoned the parish in which they were ordained. But the present canon excommunicates the bishop to whom they have betaken themselves, if he receives them as clerics knowing the penalty decreed against them, as the author of confusion and sedition.

ARIST. He who knowingly detains such a one is subject to the same judgment. The bishop who knows of the punishment decreed against such a cleric, and keeps him as a cleric, is excommunicated as a teacher of disorder. ^D

CANON XVII. He who has been involved in two marriages after baptism, or who has acquired a concubine, cannot be a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or, in general, of the priestly order.

BALS. The canon forbids a man who has been twice married after holy baptism, or who has committed fornication, to become a bishop.

[Note of Guil. Beveridge.] (27) The chapter of the title of the *Basilica* regarding clerics who depart from their church, and regarding those building houses of prayer, does not exist in the printed codices: however, the quoted title is [a matter] which involves the same subject; for which reason Balsamon mentions this title, and I suspect that some things are missing in the printed texts which were once inserted.

For it passes over all manners of sins committed before holy baptism, which is a very new thing, and the work of the grace of the Holy Spirit alone. Read also the 20th canon of Saint Basil. But how many readers who were digamists have been kept in their own stations, and promoted to higher ranks by episcopal ^A *pittacia* (28), I know not.

Another interpretation (29).

In the present interpretation of this 17th canon, we wrote that we did not know how it is that readers who had married twice are not deposed, but are promoted to higher grades by episcopal *pittacia*. But having now examined the laws and the canons more diligently, we have discovered that the present 17th canon, and the 18th as well, discuss bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but not readers. For the former are deposed whether they married twice before ordination or after ordination; but readers, ^B if they were bigamists before their calling, are deposed, but if they were so after their calling, they obtain pardon; yet they are forbidden to be promoted to any further higher grade. For the 137th Justinian Novella, or the 31st and 32nd chapters of the first title of the third book of the *Basilics*, states these things expressly: "If a priest, or deacon, or subdeacon marries a wife after ordination, let him be cast out of the clergy and delivered to the order of the city in which he was a cleric, along with his own property." But if a reader takes a second wife, or a first wife who is a widow, or one separated from a man, or one prohibited by the holy canons, he shall no longer proceed to any other ecclesiastical grade. And if he should happen to proceed in any way, let him be cast out of that and restored to his former state. If, however, you wish to understand the canon as including readers, say that a man who has married twice before his sealing cannot be, or become, a reader; for he is deposed after examination. But a reader who has married twice after his sealing is forgiven, even if he does not proceed to a higher grade.

^C

William Beveridge's Note.

(28) *Pittacium*. The word *pittacium* is also used by Laertius, L. 1. 6, in *Cratylus*. Isaac Casaubon observes that in that place it is the same as a *leukoma*. And indeed, Lampridius uses *Pittacium* for a "Praetor's Album," which the common people call a *matricula*; whence it also signifies a tablet on which anything is inscribed; and it is sometimes the same as that which is made from the bark of an Egyptian tree capable of receiving writing; sometimes it is made of melted pitch, or indeed of the skins of cattle; whence Moschopulus, in [notes] to the order usually kept, if the note is for the sacred table, *Euchologium* p. ... In the aforementioned order of the *Euchologium*, p. ... it is called paper, from *pittacium*. *Archieraticum*, that is, a *pittacium*... ^D *archidiaconum*, *laosynakten*, *domestichon*, *pittacium*; to obtain the distinction by *pittacium* alone and by mandate...

(29) *Another interpretation*. We are now editing for the first time from a Bodleian manuscript another interpretation of this canon, which is beyond doubt truly Balsamon's, since at its beginning mention is made of the prior interpretation which he had published. Whence also we may conjecture that the other [interpretations] inserted throughout the whole work should be attributed to him by right, unless something should occur in them which proves the contrary.

[GREEK COL]: ...as readers grow into ^A *domestikata* and *laosynaktata* offices and others via archiepiscopal edicts, we say that ecclesiastical offices and administrative dignities are abusively called "ranks." For in the proper sense, the ranks are those of the priests, the deacons, the subdeacons, and the readers. But the offices and administrative dignities are honors and occasions for gain. Therefore, one who has been a reader from childhood and has married a second time will, without hindrance, become an ecclesiastical cleric, both a *domestikos* and a *laosynaktes* by edict, but certainly not a deacon or subdeacon; for he who dares this shall be deposed. ^B ZONARAS. We believe that the divine bath of holy baptism washes away all filth attached to those baptized before baptism, and no sin committed by anyone before this hinders the baptized from being promoted to the priesthood. But if he fornicates after baptism, or has intercourse in a second marriage, he is judged unworthy of any priesthood whatsoever. ARISTENUS. Anyone who is a bigamist or keeps a concubine is rejected. Every bigamist is unacceptable for the priesthood; and by much more so he who maintains a concubine. CANON XVIII. He who has taken a widow, or a woman cast out, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or, in short, [anyone] of the sacerdotal register. ^C BALSAMON. Note the present canon. For it wishes not only the ordained to be temperate, but also his spouse. Because of this, it hindered the women contained herein from being joined to ordained men, as they are not believed to live temperately on account of the baseness of their life. If, therefore, anyone is joined to such a woman, he shall not be deemed worthy of the priesthood, and after the priesthood he shall be deposed, if his wife is being adulterous and he tolerates it.

[LATIN COL]: ...and other offices are promoted via archiepiscopal edicts; we say that ecclesiastical offices and administrative dignities are abusively called ranks. For strictly speaking, the ranks are those of the priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers; but offices and administrative dignities are honors and opportunities for acquiring sustenance: whence also he who has been a reader from an early age and has taken a second wife may without hindrance become an ecclesiastical cleric, both *domesticus* and gatherer of the people by edict, but not a deacon or subdeacon, and he who has dared this shall be deposed. ZONARAS. We believe the divine bath of holy baptism washes away all filth from those themselves baptized before baptism, and no sin that has been committed by anyone before baptism prevents the baptized [person] from being promoted to the priesthood. But if after baptism he has been unchaste, or has adhered to second nuptials, he is judged unworthy of any priesthood. ARISTENUS. Whoever is involved in second nuptials, or keeps a concubine, shall not be a priest. Any bigamist is not to be admitted to the priesthood, much less he who keeps a concubine. CANON XVIII. He who has taken a widow, or one cast out, or a harlot, or a servant, or a mime or actress, cannot be a bishop, or ^C presbyter, or deacon, or at all of the sacerdotal order. BALSAMON. Note the present canon. For it wishes not only him who is ordained to be modest and continent, but also his spouse: and therefore it prohibited the women who are included here from being joined in matrimony to ordained men, inasmuch as it is not believed that they live temperately, on account of their filth and depravity. If anyone therefore has been joined in matrimony to such a woman, he shall not be deemed worthy of the priesthood, and after the priesthood he shall be deposed. ^D [Guill. Beveridge’s note: ...which even Gregory of Tours calls *Domesticarius*... concerning whose office memory is made here... we learn best from the responses of John, Bishop of Citrus, to Constantine Cabasilas... it is evident that [the domesticus] was one of the readers, and a leader of the chanters... there was however some distinction between [them]... in the Euchologion... they are distinctly enumerated... and in this indeed the office of *Domesticus* differs, in that on more solemn vigils it was his duty to begin... some of them were also called... as is evident from the cited response of the Bishop of Citrus... This, therefore, is the office which at this place Balsamon calls *domestikata*... both readers are enumerated among the officials of the Great Church of Constantinople... whose office, here called *laosynaktata*, is sufficiently evident from the very designation of the name... by Michael, Patriarch of CP.: Michael, epistle concerning prohibited marriage...]

^A Read also chapter 29 of title 9 of the present work, and the tenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, and what is written therein for the sake of the interpretation of the present two canons.

ZONAR. It was forbidden even to the Jews by their ancient law that their priests should take as wives harlots, or women taken in war, or handmaids, and those who provided their livelihood from taverns, and those who sought their food in a house of ill-repute, and those separated from their husbands. Now if these things were legislated for them, how much more so for those who are about to celebrate the sacred rites according to the Gospel? For behold, He says, something greater than the Temple is here. Therefore, the present canon forbids sacred ministers to take a wife, nor to marry a widow, nor one cast out by her own husband, nor a harlot, nor a handmaid; nor indeed any of those who perform on the stage. For such women, living indiscriminately and conversing and speaking immodestly with whomever they encounter, are not believed to live chastely. ^B Consequently, the canon does not allow anyone who has taken any of those enumerated to be advanced to the priesthood.

ARIST. A priest who has taken a dismissed woman, or a widow, or a handmaid, or a madwoman as his wife, is deprived of his priesthood. Likewise, he who does not take a modest woman and a virgin as his wife, but one whom another has dismissed, or a widow, or a handmaid, or a madwoman, shall not be admitted to the priesthood.

CANON XIX.

BALS. *Adelphide* is the same as *anepsia* (cousin). Therefore, the canon does not permit one who has entered into marriage with two sisters, or with an aunt and a niece, to be enrolled in the clergy, since the marriage itself is completely dissolved. But you should know that not only he who has done such a thing, but also he who has contracted another marriage prohibited on account of consanguinity or affinity, shall not become a cleric, but rather will also be punished. ^C You will learn what the penalties are for those who have relations with their kin from the various canons of the Great Basil.

ZONAR. For unlawful marriage not only bars a man from the clergy, but also subjects him to penalties. Moreover, he who enters into illicit marriage is punished by the civil law, which also dissolves the unlawful marriage.

ARIST. He who has married two sisters or a cousin is not enrolled in the clergy. Such a person, in addition to being unable to become a cleric, is also subject to the most severe penalties, with the unlawful marriage being dissolved in addition.

CANON XX.

BALS. Some say that to give bond means for a cleric to… ^D if he does this for the sake of base gain and in the case of tax collectors, but if it is done out of necessity or in the case of other clerics, [it is permitted...] [alt-version omitted]

to provide a surety for another; some, however, provide a cleric as a surety for themselves. To say, therefore, that a cleric is to be deposed who is not admitted to a judgment or to a case of debt due to poverty, or for some other reasonable cause, and who for this reason provides sureties in order to be relieved of harassment, is most harsh and unworthy of apostolic humanity. But if a cleric provides surety for another, he will perhaps be punished at some time. For if a cleric has provided surety for someone for the sake of gain, he shall be deposed, on account of the baseness of the suretyship. But if he provides surety for some poor person out of mercy, or subjects himself for another for some pious reason, he shall not be deposed. Indeed, many bishops and clerics were found in the fourth ecumenical council who both gave and received sureties, and yet none of them was harmed thereby. Interpret the matter of suretyship in this way.

Read also the 123rd Justinian Novel, situated in book three of the *Basilica*, title one, or rather its thirteenth chapter, which says in part: "We permit presbyters and deacons and subdeacons, who are called to guardianship or care solely by the right of kinship, to undertake such a duty." And a little later it says: "But we do not allow a bishop, or an oikonomos, or another cleric of any rank, or a monk, whether in his own name, or that of the church, or of the monastery, to be a collector or receiver of public taxes, or a contractor of duties or of others' properties, or a curator of a house, or a manager of a lawsuit, or a surety for these causes, lest by this pretext a loss also be brought upon the holy houses, and divine ministries be hindered." Wherefore, from these words of the Novel also, which say that no consecrated person ought to become a surety for these causes—that is to say, those which have been enumerated—it is clearly evident that a cleric may provide surety for other pious causes, just as he may also subject himself. Seek also title nine of the present work, chapter thirty-four and twenty-seven and what is in them, and the thirtieth canon of the council of Chalcedon.

^C ZONARAS. Someone provides sureties, either for himself or for another. And he who gives a surety for another, provides it either for gain or for love, for which we are even commanded to lay down our souls for our brethren. Therefore, to subject oneself for another, that is, to make oneself liable, as for example for a tax collector, is forbidden; for tax-collecting is an ancient evil. Tax collectors are those who purchase the exactions of public taxes. Such persons, therefore, if they do not abound in manifest means, are required to provide sureties, and they bring forward some people who subject their own assets for them. This, therefore, and whatever is [related] to this, should be noted.

Guill. Beveregius's notes: Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 3, tit. 2. Egbert of York, "That it is not permitted to any of the priests to be a surety, nor, having abandoned their proper law, to approach secular courts," Egbert in excerpt. Dionysius Exiguus seems to suggest the same, who translates this canon thus: "Let a cleric who engages in suretyships be deposed." But Joseph the Egyptian interprets the canon differently: "Whoever among the priests shall have given a man as surety for himself, or shall have himself given himself as surety for another, or shall have taken a man as a pledge, as outsiders do, let him be expelled from the Church." So that he explains this canon concerning clerics who have given others as sponsors for themselves, just as he does those who have given themselves as sponsors for others.

^A It seems it is forbidden to clerics that they should involve themselves in crowds of affairs and legal summons, and in ^B secretarial vexations; for they are suspected of enduring these things for the sake of gain; and it is not fitting for clerics to be lovers of shameful gain; and for that reason deposition is inflicted upon them. But if perhaps a cleric who is summoned by someone is required to provide security for his appearance in court, he who gives such security shall not be harmed contrary to his own rank. Since it has been found that the divine Fathers who were gathered in the fourth ecumenical synod, and the senators who were present with them, demanded from the Egyptian bishops security for their appearance in court, or for those who were lacking such, they ordered an oath to be made, seeking time for a postponement. If a cleric, finding someone who has been dragged into court and for whom security for appearance or other such things are required, and who is being sent to prison, as he is unable to provide the security, out of pity for his distress takes upon himself the role of sponsor, I do not believe that he should be deposed, but rather that he should be approved by God and by sensible men, as one who has fulfilled an evangelical commandment. And indeed, the civil law orders clerics who are summoned to court to provide security. Note that segregation is also among the penalties by which they cast [people] out from the divine enclosures, and place them in the area of those doing penance.

ARIST. A cleric does not give security; if he does so, he is deposed.

It is not fitting for a cleric to involve himself in affairs and the annoyances of the courts for the sake of some shameful gain. For if, ^C for example, one is contracting with a public or private person, and credit is not given to him, but security is demanded, and a cleric goes surety for him and makes himself liable, such a one, as a contemner of his own status and honor resulting from some gain, shall be deposed. But if a cleric, finding a man oppressed and held in custody, and in no other way likely to come out from there unless he gives someone who will stand surety that he will not flee, takes in such a person out of sympathy and humanity, and goes surety that he will present him whenever he is sought, he shall not only not be subject to rejection, but shall be judged praiseworthy, as one who has laid down his own soul for a kinsman. ^D Moreover, for clerics who are summoned to court to be required to provide security for appearance does not render them liable to deposition; for in the fourth session of the proceedings at Chalcedon, the holy synod and the most glorious prefects sitting with it decreed that the Egyptian bishops should provide security for their appearance, and that those lacking such should be bound by an oath.

CANON XXI A eunuch, if he has been made so by the injury of men,

or if he was born so, and is worthy, let him be made a bishop.

BALS. These four canons, namely the present one and those which follow, grant pardon to those who, before they were enrolled in the clergy, were castrated due to sickness or the raid of enemies, and they admit them to the clergy if they are found entirely worthy. But as for those who mutilate themselves after their ordination, even if they were compelled by sickness, and likewise those who before ordination removed their own generative organs, they punish them; for they depose the former, and prohibit the latter from being enrolled among the clergy. But as for laymen who mutilate themselves without sickness or injury, they ^B separate them for three years. Hence, also, most of the more careful men, when they are about to castrate their children due to an illness, go to the most holy Church and make known the ailment and the excision of the testicles. The civil laws, however, punish severely those who castrate their children, or slaves, or others not suffering from an illness. Read also chapter 14 of the first title of this present code, and the 60th Novel of the emperor lord Leo the Wise. But since they are divided into three...

Guill. Beveregii note

^C were doing: as Epiphanius, Haer. 58, part 1, and Augustine, Haer. 37, testify. Origen was soon imbued with the same error and dared to mutilate his own body, as Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., bk. 6, ch. 8; Nicephorus, bk. 5, ch. 8; and Epiphanius, Haer. 64, part 3, teach. Demetrius, the bishop of the Church of Alexandria, first admired this deed of Origen's, but then, in letters to all bishops throughout the world, denounced it as most absurd, as Eusebius reports in the cited passage. From this, it seems not unlikely to us that some, if not all, of the bishops to whom Demetrius wrote had gathered together and deliberated on this matter, and either first established these four canons concerning eunuchs or renewed canons previously established; the latter opinion appeals to me more, because Demetrius accused the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem for having promoted Origen to the rank of presbyter, namely against the canon which decrees ^D that he who has mutilated himself shall not be a cleric. For unless a decree of this kind had been issued before, I do not see why Demetrius would charge them with this fault. I admit that Henri de Valois, in his annotations on said passage of Eusebius, writes that an injury was done to Demetrius because the mentioned bishops had ordained Origen, who was not of their jurisdiction but of the Alexandrian one, over which Demetrius presided. But Jerome reports that Origen, while traveling to Athens through Palestine, where he was ordained, brought an ecclesiastical letter of commendation with him; Hieronym. In catal, under the entry "Orig.", vol. III, fol. 96, 2. And Alexander of Jerusalem himself, who had ordained him, wrote a letter on behalf of Origen against Demetrius, for the reason that he had appointed him presbyter in accordance with the testimony of Demetrius, as the same Jerome writes in "Alexander", starting at fol. 98, 1. And for that reason, even the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria themselves, in a synodical letter against Origen's doctrine, recognize the ordination of him as presbyter, though not by the canonical and legitimate hand. But why go on with more? Since even Eusebius himself in the said passage admits that Demetrius had nothing else to object against Origen except for that deed which he had committed as a youth when he mutilated himself. But if Origen had been ordained against the will of his bishop, this would have been held as a fault against him no less than against those who ordained him. So that nothing could be clearer than that Demetrius objected to this only, that Origen was ordained when he had emasculated himself, and to the aforementioned bishops, that they had ordained one who had made himself a eunuch, contrary to the aforementioned canon. Our opinion also draws some light from this, that Origen was expelled from the priesthood, first by one synod of bishops in Alexandria, and finally by another later on, as Pamphilus reports in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 118. But how could this have happened, if no canon had yet been issued against those who make themselves eunuchs? And indeed, even if Demetrius does not explicitly mention a canon of this kind, he seems to indicate it not obscurely, since, once he was made aware of Origen's voluntary excision, he first bade him be of good mind, Euseb. Hist., bk. 6, ch. 8; for by these words he clearly enough hints that Origen had transgressed some ecclesiastical rule; but that he would defend him because of his quickness of wit and true faith, lest a canonical penalty be inflicted upon him; and it is manifest that Origen himself feared this penalty, because he tried with all his might to keep what he had done completely hidden from others; just as it is evident from the said passage of Eusebius. All these things being compared with one another, I am led to believe that the prelates of the primitive Church had issued these canons concerning eunuchs even before Origen (perhaps against the heretical opinion of the Valesians) and that by their authority Origen was first expelled from the priesthood, but later, because of his immense fame in interpreting the Scriptures and in all arts and sciences, he was received back: especially after he had repented of his thoughtless and rash act, committed in the fervor of youth; that he repented is evident from his own words, where he says: "We, who once understood Christ the Word of God according to the flesh and according to the letter, now knowing Him no longer, do not approve of those who, as if they had grasped it well, take upon themselves the third eunuchism under the pretext of the kingdom of heaven." Origen, In Matth. xix, 12.

^A those who are squeezed (thlibiai), that is, those who from infancy have lost their reproductive organs, as if crushed and made useless by their parents; spadones, who from birth do not have testicles; and further, those who are *kanstratoi* [eunuchs by castration] (35), who have been mutilated by iron. For *kanstron* [in the Greek text] is the Latin *ferrum* (iron). The *thlibiai* and the *spadones* shall be admitted to the priesthood without any prejudice, as they are not responsible for any evil done to themselves; however, the *kanstratoi*, according to the aforementioned ordinance, shall sometimes be admitted to the priesthood, and sometimes be prevented.

CANON XXII. He who has mutilated himself shall not be a cleric; for he is a murderer of himself, and an enemy of God's creation.

CANON XXIII. If any cleric has mutilated himself, let him be deposed; for he is a murderer of himself.

CANON XXIV. A layman who has mutilated himself shall be separated for three years; for he is a plotter against his own life.

BALS. The interpretation of these chapters (36) was written above; read also the discourse *On Virginity* by the great Saint Basil, and that of Saint Epiphanius, and the *Nomocanon* of the Abstainer *On those who have been made eunuchs*.

ZONARAS. To castrate anyone, unless done on account of a disease invading the genital organs, is forbidden even by civil laws; so much so that they order castrated slaves to be seized into freedom, and those who performed the castration to be subject to the same injury, to the confiscation of their goods, and to exile. But this is likewise forbidden by the sacred canons. However, one who has been mutilated is not repelled from the priesthood, if he did not surrender himself to the mutilation. For he who has been mutilated by others, as one who has suffered an injury, is rather worthy of pity, and is not to be pursued with hatred; therefore, if he is judged worthy of the priesthood from his life, he shall be promoted to it. Likewise, he who is mutilated in his genital parts by nature (whom the Lord in the Gospels called eunuchs who were so born) shall not be prevented from being enrolled in the clergy. But he who has sought castration for himself shall not be elected into the clergy; and even if he has already become a cleric, he shall be driven out from the order of the clergy. If he is a layman who has surrendered himself to castration, he shall be separated for three years from the communion of the faithful. For they are seen to be plotters against themselves.

^D *Guill. Beveridge’s notes.* (35) *Kanstratoi.* Balsamon provides the etymology of this word, viz., *Castrati* from *Castrum* (iron). But whence he derived this strange meaning of *Castrum*, I cannot guess; unless he took it for the Greek *Cestrum*, which signifies the instrument with which ivory is carved. Furthermore, not all castration is done by iron, but sometimes by other means, such as drying medicines; just as some have suspected Origen of making himself a eunuch, as Epiphanius reports (Epiphan. Haer. 64, par. 3). Origen himself teaches that the Athenian Hierophants were accustomed to smear hemlock on their genitals to curb the goad of lust, in *Contra Celsum*, book 7; and Pliny says about hemlock that it is certain that it extinguishes the milk of nursing mothers when applied to the breasts, and extinguishes desire when smeared on the testicles around the time of puberty (Plin. l. xxv, c. 13). Dioscorides also reports the same, l. iv, c. 77.

(36) The interpretation of these chapters. In the printed editions, these four canons, viz., 21, 22, 23, 24, are placed together. But in one of the Bodleian mss., where the scholia of Zonaras and Balsamon on these apostolic canons are collected, Balsamon’s interpretation follows the canon, and these with the following words—now published for the first time—are referred to canon 24; and therefore we have decided they should be printed here.

^A for it appears they are conspirators against themselves because of the danger of the matter, and they also oppose the creation of God. For since God fashioned them into the male nature, they transform themselves into another nature altogether strange to it, so that they are neither men—for they are not able to perform the functions of males, since they cannot beget a human being—nor are they women, for they do not have the nature to bear children. The first canon of the First Synod ordains the same things; seek also the third, thirty-second, and fifty-first canons of holy Basil.

CANON XXI ARIST. Whoever has been made a eunuch by the maltreatment of men or by nature, if he is worthy, may be consecrated; but if by castration, not so.

CANON XXII A layman who has castrated himself is excommunicated and does not become a cleric.

CANON XXIII He who has been co-opted into the clergy and has castrated himself is deposed.

CANON XXIV A layman who has mutilated himself shall be segregated for three years, as a conspirator against himself. ^B He who is castrated involuntarily is not subject to the canon; but if he is worthy to be consecrated, he is not prohibited from it on this account. But if anyone has voluntarily castrated himself, he shall in no way become a cleric; and even if he is a cleric, he is deposed as a conspirator against his own life and an enemy of God’s creation.

CANON XXV A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon (37) convicted of fornication, or perjury, or theft shall be deposed, and not segregated. For the Scripture says (38): "Thou shalt not avenge twice for the same matter." The same applies to the other clerics.

^C Guill. Beveregii notes.

(37) *Bishop or presbyter.* Basil the Great praises this under the name of the ancient canon in his canon to Amphilochius. Furthermore, King Chilperic cites the same against Prætextatus, Bishop of Rouen, in the code of canons which he was sending to the bishops of Gaul in the year 577, of which Gregory of Tours writes thus: "He himself went off to Metatum, sending a book of canons in which there was one quaternio attached, containing things which are called apostolic; namely: 'Let a bishop caught in homicide, adultery, and perjury be stripped of the priesthood.'" Greg. Turon. This attached quaternio is nothing other than this Codex of the canons of the primitive Church, which are called apostolic here; no other canon is cited than this 25th. But mention is made of theft in the canon itself, which is omitted here, and no mention of homicide, which is substituted here in the place of theft. Truly, this corruption of the canon appears to have been devised at that time so that Prætextatus, who in the hope of pardon confessed he was guilty of homicide, might be more clearly condemned for it. And from here, if I am not mistaken, it comes about that in the excerpts of Egbert mention is made equally of homicide and theft: for thus he reads this canon: "A bishop or presbyter, or deacon, who is caught in fornication, or perjury, or thefts, or homicide, shall be deposed." Egbert. excerpt. can. 33. Whence it is easy to conjecture that Egbert first possessed the Dionysian code, whose version he accurately recites, which runs thus: ^D "A bishop or presbyter, or deacon, who is caught in fornication, or perjury, or theft, shall be deposed." But since he later chanced upon a Gallican code, he added to the Dionysian version this new addition, "or homicide," from it. Otherwise, not the Dionysian alone, but all codes, both printed and manuscript, which we have happened to see, make mention of fornication, perjury, and theft, but not of homicide. So also the Arabic paraphrase: "Whichever bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or whoever is among them in the degrees of the priesthood, if he has been caught in fornication, or false swearing, or theft, let him fall from his priesthood and his rank." Furthermore, regarding those things which are contained in this canon, Leo refers them as accepted from apostolic tradition, saying: "It is alien to ecclesiastical custom that those who have been consecrated in presbyteral honor or diaconal rank should receive a remedy of repentance through the imposition of hands for any crime of theirs, which without doubt descends from apostolic tradition." Leo I, epist. ad rustic. c. 2., concil. tom. 1, p. 994, Bin. (38) *Thou shalt not avenge twice for the same matter.* The Hebrew words "He shall not rise twice in distress"; the LXX elders translate it "Thou shalt not avenge twice for the same matter," as if they had read "thou shalt not avenge" instead of "rise," or something similar from the root "to avenge." But in the code which the authors of these canons used, it appears to have been read as they themselves cite it.

^B BALS. That saying, "You shall not avenge twice for the same matter," do not say that it is to be understood as applying to every instance of deposition whatsoever; for those who attain to the priesthood through the intervention of the secular authorities or through money are both deposed and excommunicated, as the 29th and 30th apostolic canons say. But say rather that this is to be understood as applying only to those who are deposed for the sins contained in the present canon and others similar to them. Consult also the 3rd, 32nd, and 51st canons of Saint Basil. Note, therefore, that bishops and clerics who are deposed for this reason are not barred from the communion of the faithful. Read also the 32nd canon of Saint Basil.

ZONAR. Those who have fallen into the aforementioned crimes are deposed from their rank but are not excommunicated; for deposition is considered a sufficient punishment for them, and it is not right that they be punished twice. There are, however, other offenses for which those convicted are both removed from their order and separated from the fellowship of the faithful, such as those who obtain the episcopacy for themselves either through money or through the power of a ruler.

ARIST. A priest caught in fornication, or perjury, or theft is deposed, but he is not also excommunicated; for it says, "You shall not take vengeance twice for the same matter." The sentence of deposition is sufficient for a priest caught in fornication, or perjury, or theft, and it is not fitting that he also be excommunicated, lest he undergo a double penalty, which is completely inhumane.

CANON XXVI

BALS. Before ordination it is permitted to all to take a wife and thus be ordained subdeacons, deacons, and presbyters; but after ordination it is granted to readers and cantors alone to take a wife.

ZONAR. Presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons are asked before ordination if they wish to live in continence; and if they promise this, they are ordained. But if not, they are permitted to marry before ordination, and after marriage they are chosen for the ministry. However, if they take wives after ordination, they are removed from the ministry. But to readers and cantors alone, even after they have been chosen for the clergy, is it permitted to contract a marriage and to remain in their own proper station. However, the 14th canon of the fourth ecumenical council forbids them to be joined to a woman of another sect.

Guill. Beveridge’s note. which more exactly corresponds to the Hebrew word which, written without points, can signify "you shall avenge," just as it can "he shall rise." Moreover, concerning not being simultaneously separated from communion for deposition, consult the council of Aurelia 3, c. 7 and 26, Aurel. 5, c. 4. Peter of Alexandria, c. 10. That the canon was observed for a long time in the Church is clear from the council of Chalcedon, c. 14, which begins as follows: "In those provinces it has prevailed, from whose prefects it had been issued." From which it can be simultaneously proven that these canons were established by the provincial synods of the primitive Church: which we have already noted in the preface to these canons.

^A ARIST. He who is about to be promoted to sacred orders, if he so wishes, may marry; but once promoted, [he may be] a reader and cantor only. It is not permitted to anyone after ordination to enter into marriage and remain in that rank; to readers and cantors alone is this permitted. ^B CANON XXVII. We order that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who strikes faithful who sin, or infidels who have committed an injury, and desires by these means to strike fear [into them], be deposed. For the Lord has by no means taught us this; on the contrary, He Himself, being struck, did not strike back; being reviled, He did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten. ^C BALS. Those who are of the sacred tribunal must not be overcome by anger, and strike those who have sinned against them, to wit, the faithful or even the infidels, that they might thereby avenge themselves upon them and terrify the others. Those who do such a thing, contrary to the teaching of the Lord, which decrees that one should turn the left cheek to him who strikes the right, are deposed. Civil law, however, dictates the opposite, saying: It is permitted to repel force with force, and indeed with arms. And such laws must by all means be understood to apply to the laity, even though the command of the Lord, being general, was proclaimed to all. Nevertheless, to chastise their disciples moderately when they sin, and do not reform after being admonished, is permitted to priests. For even the Lord drove out with a scourge those who were trading in the Temple and sinning against God. Read also the ninth canon of the synod assembled in the church of the Holy Apostles, which is called the First and Second. ^D ZONAR. Our Lord and God, teaching His disciples His own commandments, said: "What I say to you, I say to all." Among His divine commandments are those which instruct one to turn the left cheek to him who strikes the right, and to him who takes away the cloak, to offer also the tunic. If these things are commanded to all, it is much more necessary that they be observed by the sacred ministers, so that they may be an example to others. For this reason, the present canon forbids bishops and the others from striking those who have offended them, whether they be faithful or infidels. Indeed, they ought to rebuke those who injure others and stand up for those who are being injured. For the great Paul also commands Timothy to rebuke those who sin, so that the others may have fear; but they are forbidden to avenge themselves. For one must be an imitator of the Lord, who, although He had the power to retaliate against those who insulted Him and held Him in derision, did not render evil for evil; nay, He even prayed for such as these. But He cast out with a scourge those who were trading in the temple, as ones sinning against the divine majesty, and rebuked them, in

^A saying: Do not make the house of my Father a house of merchandise. And the great Paul also, when he is laying down what sort of person a bishop ought to be, says among other things that he must not be a striker. The ninth canon of the so-called First and Second Council, which was held in the temple of the Holy Apostles, should also be read.

ARIST. A priest who strikes a believer or an unbeliever is deposed.

A priest who strikes a believer or an unbeliever who is sinning against him, and who does so by the fear of that moment to correct others also lest they offend against him in a similar way, is deposed, as acting contrary to the law which commands him, when smitten upon the cheek, to offer the other side, because he inflicts the blow out of arrogance and an unbridled spirit. But he who prudently chastises one who is sinning against sacred things, just as the Lord drove out the money-changers from the legal temple with a scourge made of rope, shall not be deposed; for this is why ecclesiastical guardians of the law and defenders are called such, as being appointed by the Fathers ^B from ancient times to punish such things.

CANON XXVIII.

If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, having been justly deposed for manifest crimes, should dare to touch the ministry once entrusted to him, let him be wholly cut off from the Church.

BALS. He who is legitimately deposed for a manifest crime, and therefore has no recourse even to appeal, if he has dared to touch his former ministry, is cut off from the Church as most shameless. For if he has the aid of an appeal, and the matter decided against him is still in dispute, he shall not be condemned if he performs his ministry. The civil law, however, says these things in the third book of the Basilika, title one, chapter six: A bishop deposed by a synod, who has caused a tumult in order to receive the episcopate again, shall reside one hundred miles away from the city from which he was cast out, and shall not approach the emperor. And if by chance he gets a rescript, let it be useless; and let him who defends him incur indignation. Consult also the fourth, twelfth, and fifteenth canons of the council in Antioch.

ZONAR. These men, sinning after a just deposition, and clinging ^D to their own honor (by which I mean the sacred ministry), are rightly expelled from the Church both because of their extreme shamelessness and because they cannot be punished canonically in any other way: for they are already deposed; so finally they are cut off from the Church entirely.

ARIST. He who is deposed most rightly, if he dares to touch the sacred mysteries again, is to be utterly cast out.

CANON XXIX

CANON XXX

^B BALS. The present two canons, the 29th and the 30th, not only depose but also cut off from communion—that is, they segregate—those who become bishops, or presbyters, or deacons through money, and those who are created bishops through the influence of rulers. For the grace of the All-Holy Spirit is not for sale, they say. And the letter of Saint Tarasius, who was patriarch of Constantinople, to Pope Adrian, says that the heretic Macedonius, who blasphemously said that the Holy Spirit serves, is more tolerable than the one who sells or buys the gift of the Holy Spirit for money; for he who sells, sells as a master, and he who buys, pays the money as though he were to become a master. ^C The encyclical letter of the most holy patriarch Gennadius, which is read everywhere, also subjects these to anathema, saying thus: "Let him therefore be, and he is, outcast, and a stranger to every priestly dignity and ministry, and subject to the curse of anathema, both he who gives and he who receives the gift of the Spirit as a commodity, whether he be cleric or layman."

And this is all well and good. But one might ask, since the 30th canon mentions only the bishop, and likewise the 29th canon does not mention subdeacons or readers, if any presbyter or deacon, or subdeacon or reader, is appointed through the influence of a ruler, or a subdeacon or reader through the giving of ^D money, what should be done?

Answer: These also shall be deposed and segregated, according to the end of the present 30th canon, which says that not only the primary authors of the evil are to be deposed and segregated, but also those who communicate with them. Moreover, the letter of Gennadius, as has been said, subjects to anathema not only the ordained, but also the laity who have committed such an evil. Read also the Caiphas who killed Christ...

second canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and the fourth chapter of the first title of the present work, and what is contained therein. ^A

ZONARAS. In the twenty-fifth canon it was said that it is not permitted to exact a judicial penalty twice for the same offense. Here, and in both of these canons, he imposes a double penalty on account of the enormity of the wickedness and the gravity of the sins. For there is nothing worse than one who procures divine grace for himself as if it were for sale—either by money or by princely power—and who sells it; for he sells the gift of the Holy Spirit as if it were a slave. And according to the synodical epistle written under the most holy patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius, to Hadrian, pope of the elder Rome, Macedonius and the rest of the Pneumatomachi are certainly more tolerable. For while those insult the Holy Spirit as a creature and a slave of God the Father, these, as it seems, make Him their own slave. ^B

ARISTENUS. CANON XXIX. Let the priest who is made such by money, along with the one who ordained him, be deposed and, after the manner of Simon, be eternally excommunicated. Behold, here there are two punishments: for such a person is deposed, and remains eternally excommunicated on account of the magnitude of the fault.

ARISTENUS. CANON XXX. Let the bishop who is made such through the influence of rulers be deposed and segregated. And this man, also, as one guilty of a great sin, is both deposed and segregated. For it is necessary that he who is to be ordained bishop be established by all the bishops in the province; or, if it is difficult for all to assemble together, ^C by three bishops at the very least, with the consent of those who are absent.

CANON XXXI. If any presbyter, having despised his own bishop, holds separate assemblies and sets up another altar, having condemned his bishop in no way regarding piety and justice, let him be deposed as a lover of power; for he is a tyrant. Likewise also the rest of the clergy, and as many as join with him. But let the laity be segregated. These things are to be done after the first, the second, and the third admonition of the bishop. ^D

Guill. Beveregii's notes. (43) "By me:" Antiquity read it so, as "Simon Magus by Peter." Whence Dionysius Exiguus translated it "as Simon Magus by Peter." And from him Egbert of York in his excerpts; but afterward, by I know not what interpolator of these canons, this new reading was introduced, as John of Antioch also reads in *Collect. can.*, tit. 2, as also the second Council of Nicaea, canon 5, and all the books of the Greeks, both printed and manuscript, which we have enjoyed until now; and Joseph the Egyptian, who interprets it thus: "Just as I, Peter, avoided the company of Simon the sorcerer, and by the command of the Holy Spirit expelled him from the Church of God." This corruption, however, seems to have been devised by someone who was persuaded that these canons were truly apostolic.

(44) "If any presbyter:" Cyprian: "If Novatian sent legates to us in Africa, desiring to be admitted to our communion, he brought back this judgment from a council of many priests who were present: that he was outside [the Church], and could not be admitted to communion by any of us; since, while bishop Cornelius was ordained in the catholic Church by the judgment of God and by the suffrage of the clergy and the people, he had attempted to erect a profane altar, to establish an adulterous chair, and to offer sacrilegious sacrifices against the true priest." Cyprian, *epist.* to Stephen, concerning Martianus of Arles, p. 69, l. 25, lib. III, epist., Manut. ed. v. *Council of Antioch*, c. 5.

^A BALS. Sacred persons and laymen of every city must be subject to the bishop of the diocese, and assemble with him, and be present in the Church, unless they have judged him to be impious or unjust. For then, if they withdraw from him, it shall not be reckoned against them. But he who does otherwise, and without cause has withdrawn from his own bishop, and assembles in private, if he be a cleric, he shall be deposed as one ambitious for power; but if he be a layman, he shall be excommunicated. Nevertheless, the canon ordains that this be done after a first, second, and third admonition. Read also the 4th canon of the Council of Gangra and the 10th of Carthage. Relying on this canon and others which ordain similar things, the provincial metropolitans and bishops murmur against those who seek to have patriarchal *stauropegia* ^B set up in their dioceses. And for this reason, some have often wearied the royal and patriarchal ears, seeking for the granting of patriarchal *stauropegia* to be abolished, inasmuch as they [the bishops] took no account of them when they sought these things and appealed to the ecumenical patriarch. But they were not heard; and when they demanded that the canons which permitted the concession of such *stauropegia* be produced, the most holy Great Church rejected their insistence through a long, unwritten ecclesiastical custom, which has been maintained in place of canons for such an length of time as cannot be remembered, and up to this very day. Note that the present ^C apostolic canon ordains that clerics may depart from their bishops with impunity if they judge them to be impious and unjust; and this is not a matter of injustice. Otherwise, even if the bishop or priest be the worst of all, one ought not to depart from them, but rather believe that he is being sanctified through them; for, he says, God does not ordain all, but He works through all. Read also the 13th canon of the council held in the church of the Holy Apostles, and the interpretation of the discourse from the second epistle to Timothy.

Another interpretation.

^D Having come to discuss, after the interpretation of the present canon, with certain metropolitans who were murmuring about the patriarchal *stauropegia* as having been sent into their dioceses somehow uncanonically, I perceived that these things are done rightly and canonically, and that the local bishops find fault with their implementation in vain. For by the divine canons, no diocese was granted to a metropolitan, nor to an archbishop, nor to a bishop; but all things were distributed to the patriarchs, even all the dioceses of the whole world, and therefore...

^A and therefore they have in these the reference of their names from all the bishops who are within them. And this is evident from the sixth and seventh canons of the first synod, and from the second and third canons of the second, which decree that the bishop of Alexandria has as his province the whole of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the bishop of Antioch, Coele-Syria, Mesopotamia, and Cilicia; and the other patriarchs, the other dioceses. Whence also, as having the rights of ordination into the dioceses assigned to them, according to the summary of the said canons, and examining the high priests who govern them, and canonically correcting them, they will justly also give stauropegia to cities and parishes, and will also ^B claim their clergy for themselves with impunity as often as they wish. Since these things are so, it shall be permitted for no patriarch to send stauropegia into the province of another patriarch, nor even to entice away his cleric, so that the rights of the churches may not be confounded.

ZONAR. Order contains both heavenly and earthly things. It is fitting, therefore, that good order be observed everywhere, especially among ecclesiastics, and that presbyters and other clerics be subject to the bishop. But if any presbyter, while in no way condemning his own high priest—neither as having erred concerning religion, nor as having done anything else contrary to duty and justice—but from a desire for authority should celebrate an illicit assembly, preaching privately, and building another altar at which he might sacrifice, the canon prescribes that he be deposed, and the clerics who assemble with him, but that the laity be excommunicated. Yet it does not wish bishops to be hasty in punishment. Wherefore it does not wish them to subject them to condemnation ^C immediately, but that the ringleaders of such conventicles be admonished a third time, so that they may desist from their disorderly endeavor, but if they are persistent, that they be condemned. The sixth canon of the synod held at Gangra subjects to anathema those who, outside the sentence of the bishop, preach privately outside the Catholic Church. And so too is the tenth canon of the Synod of Carthage.

ARIST. He who separates himself from an unblamed bishop and sets up another altar, shall fall from his order along with those who receive him. If any one condemns his own bishop without cause, as having offended neither against piety nor against justice, and makes a gathering of the people privately, and sets up another altar, let him be deposed, and he himself as ambitious, and the clerics who follow him. ^D But these things ought to be done if he does not repent, after the bishop has admonished him twice and thrice.

CANON XXXII. If any presbyter or deacon be separated by a bishop...

it is not lawful for another to receive him, except him who separated him, unless the bishop who separated him should happen to die by ^A chance.

BALS. Other things in the present canon have been set forth in other canons. But how he who is separated is released from the separation after the death of the bishop who separated him, learn now, and say that, the one who separated having departed this life, either the bishop who succeeds him looses the separation, or the first hierarch who supervises the deceased, namely the patriarch or the metropolitan, but after an examination. It is not permitted for the bishop of another diocese to loose the one separated after the death of him who separated.

ZONAR. It was also said above that those who have been separated by their own bishops ought not to be received or have their penalty loosed by others; and this canon orders the same thing again. But since it is perhaps probable that he who had excommunicated had died either suddenly or while traveling, and the excommunicated one remained under the imposed penalty, he adds: "Unless by chance the one who separated him should die." And this canon does indeed seem to permit that, if it so happens that he who separated has died, the person separated might be received by another. But that "by another" is to be understood in this way: namely, by him who has succeeded to the hierarchal authority of the deceased. For it is not granted to the bishop of another diocese to loose one condemned by another, unless perhaps a synodical examination takes place, and it appear that the bishop excommunicated him unjustly. For this is permitted to be done even while those who excommunicated are still alive.

ARIST. He who is separated by someone who is still living is not to be received by others. A presbyter or deacon separated by his own bishop should not be received by another while the bishop who separated him is alive.

CANON XXXIII. ^B Let no foreign bishop, or presbyter, or deacon be received without commendatory letters. And when they have been brought, let them be examined. And if they be heralds of piety, let them be received; but if not, provide them with what is necessary, but do not admit them to communion. For many things are done by stealth.

BALS. We have learned previously not to receive foreign bishops or presbyters or ^C deacons without commendatory letters. But now the canon further defines...

[Note by William Beveridge: ^D regarding this canon's interpretation by Zonaras, that it relates not to the bishop of another diocese, but to him who has succeeded to the hierarchal dignity of the one who separated after his death; and that even while the one who separated is alive, a separation is loosed synodically if it appears it was not made justly. See Harmenop. sect. 2, iii. 3. Which support the interpretation of Zonaras especially for this canon. And note 6: that foreign bishops and clergy ought to be content with the gift of hospitality offered, and it is permitted to none of them to perform any priestly office without the permission of the bishop in whose diocese he is known to be. Bede, Hist. Eccl. lib. 4, ch. 5. That this statute was taken from the present canon, it is amply evident that the code offered at that time by Theodore also had the Apostolic canons annexed.]

^A THEOD. BALSAMON: Even if they possess commendatory letters, it is determined that they ought to be examined concerning their piety; and if they rightly hold the faith, they are to be admitted to communion; but if otherwise, they are to be refused as suspect. However, it is determined that they should not be deprived of food. And this is what the present canon says. But from other canons you will learn that, even if some bring commendatory letters, and are not in doubt concerning their orthodoxy, they must nevertheless show the dimissory letters of their own bishops; otherwise, they shall not be permitted to perform sacred functions. For the fact that they have been ordained is proven by the commendatory letters, but the permission to perform sacred functions in a foreign land is not shown by these, but by the dimissory letters. For this reason, as it seems, the present canon mentions only communion, and not ministry, since those who have only commendatory letters are not prohibited from being in a foreign Church.

^B ZONARAS: The canon prohibits receiving into a different region ministers who have been ordained elsewhere, without commendatory letters. But if they should bring commendatory letters, it does not even then permit them to be admitted without examination; but it orders them to be questioned, whether they are orthodox—for perhaps he who gave the commendatory letter did not know that they were erring in the faith—and if they are such, to receive them and communicate with them. But if they appear doubtful regarding the true dogmas of the faith, it commands that association with such persons be avoided; nevertheless, it commands that what is necessary for their needs be provided to them, and that they be sent away in this manner. For it was judged by the Apostles to be inhuman to neglect those who are in need of the necessities of life and to dismiss them in such a way, and at the same time it reproves the avarice of those who did not receive them.

^C ARISTENUS: A foreign priest is not received without commendatory letters; and when he arrives he is examined, and if he is of the orthodox, he is admitted. If not, he is sent away having been provided with what is necessary for his needs.

One ought not to receive a foreign priest without commendatory letters; but if such letters are brought, it is necessary that he should even then be examined; and if he is found without doubt to be pious, let him be received; but if there is doubt, let that which is necessary for his support be provided to him, and let him be sent away.

CANON XXXIV

It is necessary for the bishops of every nation to know who among them is the first, and to esteem him as the head.

[alt-version omitted]

^A and to do nothing of moment without his consent. But each of them may do only what concerns his own diocese, and the countries that depend upon it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all. For so there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

BALS. Order contains all things, both heavenly and earthly. Whence the present canon also decrees that those who ordain should be honored by those who are ordained. For these are the first and their heads. Therefore it was determined by common consent that matters which are beyond the things that pertain to the administration of each individual, and which look toward ecclesiastical constitution, and are considered to be of great moment, should not be done without the consent of the first. And it was not granted ^B even to the first himself to do any such thing without the consent of his bishops. For thus, he says, the concord and love according to God will be preserved among them. And this is the interpretation of the canon. But for the sake of those matters of great moment, say, for instance, dogmatic inquiries, common faults, the appointment of bishops, and such things. ^C

Guill. Beveregii not. ... you are far from Macedonia; you have Philippi, you have the Thessalonians. If you can reach Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, from whence authority is also available to us. Tertull. *De praescript.*, c. 36. For in these words he not obscurely indicates that even in his own time Corinth was the metropolis of Achaia, Philippi and Thessalonica of Macedonia, Ephesus of Asia, and Rome of Italy. Thus also Cyprian shows that Carthage had previously provinces subject to it, but because, he says, our province is widely spread, it also has Numidia and the two Mauritanias bordering on it. Cyprian. *ep. 8 ad Cornel.* concerning Polycarp of Hadrumetum. l. 45, p. 103, lib. iv epist. edit. Manut. The Antiochene council, can. 9, renders the reason why metropolitans were first instituted. ^D ... in this and similar places of the ancient canons does not signify a mere vote, but authority joined with a vote, as Petr. de Marca also observes, *De concord.* l. v, c. 7. The Arabic Paraphrast: And he shall do nothing of his own will; but he shall acknowledge the right of the president who is over him by metropolitan or patriarchal authority; and he shall do nothing except by his will: viz., nothing of great moment, and that which does not pertain to the administration of his own province. For as the Scholiast Harmonopulus rightly observes on this canon (Harmen. epit. can. sect. 1, tit. 4. [But these things seem to be taken from the interpretation of Zonaras on this canon].) We have an illustrious example of this matter in the fourth act of the council of Chalcedon, where ten bishops of the Egyptian diocese, when their patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria had been condemned, being invited by the synod to subscribe to the letter of Leo the Roman pope, and to anathematize Eutyches, replied through Hieracas that it was not right for them to do any such thing until another patriarch was constituted in the place of Dioscorus at Alexandria, whose opinion they ought to await, that they might follow him. Their words are: Concil. Chalced. act. 4, p. 588, tom. VIII. Conc. edit. Par. 1644. Which he also adduces from ancient custom incumbent upon him, with a few things inserted, p. 591. But this ancient custom is without doubt founded on the present canon. It is to be noted besides, that the judges and the senate at the summoned synod immediately subjoined, that the Egyptian bishops had said: ibid. p. 593. For here the opinion of the Alexandrian archbishop is awaited by the bishops, even if they interpret the definition: which also in this canon seems to be the right notion of the word there, where it refers to the primate; even if the sentence of all the bishops is also said. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, observed this. For concerning the reconciling of the lapsed to penance, he says, "Which matter, since it concerns the counsel and sentence of us all, I do not dare to prejudge and claim the common matter for myself alone; and therefore let the matter wait until the letters which I had lately sent to you, a copy of which I have already sent to many colleagues, who have replied that it pleases them what we have determined, and that there should be no departure from it, until peace having been restored to us by the Lord we can come together and examine the causes of each one." Cyprian, epist. 19, ad clerum, concerning not giving peace to the lapsed before penance, lib. 11, epist. edit. Manut. Bodleianus, printed here, also reads these words to the end of the canon [according to] Joannes Antiochenus, except that he omits [them]. Joan. Ant. collect. can. tit. 2. But in the codices formerly edited and those which were translated by Gentianus Hervetus, they were read thus, Dionysius Exiguus. And God is glorified through Christ in the Holy Spirit. The last words therefore etc., are not read. But in the Arabic paraphrase, from the inclusive, to the end of the canon, everything is omitted.

^A

THEOD. BALSAMON: ...grace, because many cities are left without bishops due to the incursion of the gentiles, and are entrusted to other bishops out of economic necessity. If, therefore, the primate under whom these come does this entrustment without the counsel of his fellow-ministers, he shall be reprimanded. Such are the things that are of great moment, and the canon defines these matters. But do not say that "the primate cannot do anything without the counsel of his bishops" is to be understood as applying to everything which is to be done by him, but only to those things which are of great moment. For if you say this, the one who ordains will be subordinate to the one who is being ordained; since the latter is entirely prohibited from doing anything without the counsel of those under him, while the former would only need the presence of the others for those things which are of great moment, which is absurd.

^B ZONARAS: Just as bodies, when the head does not preserve its own healthy power, move poorly or are entirely useless; so too the body of the Church, if the one who presides over it, and who fulfills the duty of the head, is not preserved in his proper honor, will be moved in a disordered and erratic manner. For this reason, the present canon commands that the primates of each province, namely the metropolitan archbishops, be considered the head of the other bishops of the same province, and that he do nothing without them regarding that which concerns the common status of the Church: such as dogmatic questions, dispositions concerning common errors, the appointments of bishops, and things of that kind. But ^C he demands that they convene with him to consult on these matters, and to decide what seems best to all; while each one manages the administration of his own Church and the regions subject to it in his own particular way. But he does not even concede to the primate that he may abuse this honor by changing it into dominion, or arrogate to himself power [that exceeds his authority]; or that he may do any of the things mentioned, or similar things, without the common counsel of his fellow-priests. For he wishes the bishops to agree, and to be bound by the bond of charity; and to be an example of affection and concord to the clergy subject to them and to the people. So that God may thus be glorified according to the evangelical doctrine that says: "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" [Matth. v, 16]. God will indeed be glorified through the Lord, since He revealed His name to ^D men and mandated charity by law. But He will also be glorified in the Holy Spirit: for by Him the apostles were wisely taught, and they taught the gentiles.

ARISTENUS: Bishops do nothing without their primate, except for each one managing the things of his own diocese. But neither does the primate do anything without them, because of the required concord. Neither bishops nor metropolitans ought to do anything of great moment without the counsel of their primate, such as electing bishops, inquiring into new dogmas, or making any alienations of ecclesiastical...

property, except for those matters which pertain to the parish of each and the regions under it. But not even the primate can do anything of this kind without the counsel of them. Thus shall the boundary of concord be preserved. ^A

CANON XXXV

Let not a bishop dare to perform ordinations outside of his own boundaries in cities or regions not subject to him; but if he be convicted of having done this against the will of those who hold jurisdiction over those cities or regions, let him be deposed, and they also whom he has ordained.

BALS. It is forbidden to ordain outside one’s own diocese; and the canon deposes both him who does such a thing against the will of the local bishop, and the one who is ordained. This holds true even for primates who might celebrate in the diocese of their own bishops against their will. Read also canon 13 and 22 of the Council of Antioch and canon 2 of the Second Council. And these things are concerning ordinations and other sacred acts which take place within the sanctuary. But if anyone shall be noted for an act outside his diocese, or shall perform some other thing which is not of those that are within the sanctuary, some say that he is to be punished in another way as it seems best to the synod. Seek also the 16th canon of the holy apostles.

ZONAR. This canon also is set forth for the preservation of concord and good order; and it permits no one who goes to another's diocese to create sacred ministers without the counsel and permission of the high priest of that region. For it is not permitted even to the metropolitan of the province himself to enter into the diocese of any of the bishops under him and to perform any pontifical prerogative. For it commands that he who has thus ordained, and he who has been ordained, be deposed. The Council of Antioch also decreed this in the 13th and 22nd canons, and the Second Ecumenical Council in the second canon. ^{B C}

ARIST. One must not ordain in foreign territory; and he who performs this against the will of the local authorities, together with him who is ordained, is invalid.

NOTES OF GUILL. BEVERIDGE

^D...The syncodical annotation of the Patriarch Michael, who also functioned as master of the philosophers, sentences the bishop to a specified time, unless peradventure after a first and second admonition he is not willing to be persuaded. And [it sentences] the one ordained in that diocese to officiate where he has been ordained. It concedes, however, to the high priests the right to teach and catechize concerning the faith everywhere, and to baptize those who are from anywhere, and to impart the divine mysteries to them. A matter contrary to ecclesiastical institutions and the canons of the holy apostles [and Fathers] being innovated, and touching upon the liberty of all, the most God-beloved co-bishop Rheginus reported... the ecclesiastical institutions and the canons of the holy apostles.

No bishop ought to ordain any one outside his own boundaries: but he who does this without the consent of the bishop who presides over that place is deposed, both he and he who was ordained by him.

CANON XXXVI.

If any ordained bishop does not receive the ministry and care of the people committed to him, let him be segregated until he accepts it: and likewise a presbyter and a deacon. But if he has gone and was not received, not of his own will, but because of the wickedness of the people, let him remain a bishop, but let the clergy of that city be segregated, because they did not act as correctors of such an insolent people. ^B

BALSAMON. Some have taken "ordination" here to mean "election," and have said they are amazed that some who are elected to Churches in these times refuse them. But the most excellent Zonaras, in expounding the canon, accepted "ordination" as meaning both the imposition of hands and the election. But it seemed right to me to observe that in this place, the canon means by "ordination" the imposition of hands. For it mentions presbyters and deacons who, according to the custom that once prevailed, were sent into other regions to instruct the people. We have learned that deacons are ordained, that is, that they have received the character; but we have not heard that they are subject to voting in the way that bishops—and in ancient times, priests—are voted for, as the 13th canon of the council of Laodicea says. ^C The present canon therefore decrees: If any bishop or presbyter or deacon receives the imposition of hands for teaching and does not fulfill his ministry, let him be segregated until he decides to go where he was ordered. But if, when he has gone, he is not received because of the wickedness of the people of the region, the clergy—even though they were not the author of the evil—shall be segregated, as those who did not instruct the unruly people. The bishop, however, retains his own status intact. Note, therefore, how the clergy is punished for the insolence of the people. ^D And read the 18th canon of the council of Ancyra, the 17th and 18th of Antioch, the letter of saint Cyril to Domnus; the 16th canon of the first and second council held in the temple of the Holy Apostles, the 2nd canon of the seventh council, and the 29th canon of Chalcedon.

ZONARAS. "Obey those who are over you, and be subject to them," says the divine Apostle. The present canon also institutes this. For it commands that he who is called to the governance of a people should not resist, but should accept this divine ministry and the presidency of the people.

^A And if one should contradict and not go, he is to be excommunicated; the same applies also to presbyters and deacons. But if the bishop has gone to the city that was allotted to him, but the people of that parish did not receive him, not on account of any blameworthy cause of the bishop, but on account of the disobedience and impudence of the people themselves who did not wish to be subject: the bishop shall indeed remain in his own honor—that is to say, his dignity—but the clergy of that parish shall be excommunicated, because they did not instruct that insubordinate people. See therefore what kind of men the canon desires the clergy to be: not only learned, but also apt to teach, and able to instruct and correct others. Read the seventeenth and eighteenth canons of the Synod of Antioch, and the eighteenth of Ancyra.

ARIST. He who is newly appointed, if he is aggrieved ^B by the undertaking, is excommunicated until he accepts; but if he is not received by the people, the clergy is excommunicated, because it did not instruct the mob. And this is the bishop.

A newly ordained bishop, if he is not persuaded to take up the care of the people committed to him, let him be excommunicated until he accepts. But if he has gone and is not received by the people, not because of his own fault, but because of their wickedness, let him indeed remain bishop, but the clergy is excommunicated, as having failed to instruct the insubordinate people.

CANON XXXVII

Twice a year let there be a synod of bishops, and let them examine among themselves the dogmas of piety, and resolve the ecclesiastical controversies that happen to arise: once on the fourth week of Pentecost ^C, and the second time on the twelfth [day] of Hyperberetaios.

^A BALS. Because of ecclesiastical questions occurring throughout the regions, it was deemed necessary for the bishops of each province to assemble with their primate, so that doubtful matters might be resolved. Both the present canon, and the 21st canon of the council of Antioch, and the 5th of [the council] of Nicaea, order the synods of bishops to be held twice a year; but the Sixth Synod and the Second [Council] of Nicaea decreed that bishops should assemble once a year. Likewise, chapters 20 and 21 of the first title of the third book of the Basilika, which is a Novella of Justinian, say that synods ought to be held once a year; and Hyperberetaios is the month of October. See also title 8, chapter 8, of this current work.

^B ZONAR. Because of controversies arising concerning dogmas, and other ecclesiastical causes, and also for the sake of those who are subject to excommunication by bishops, if they accuse those who have excommunicated them, it was judged necessary by the holy apostles that the bishops of each province should assemble together twice a year, and communicate with each other regarding the controversies that arise, and resolve them. The present canon, and the canon of the council of Antioch, define the times of these two annual synods as the fourth week after Easter and the autumn season, that is, October; for this is Hyperberetaios. But the fifth canon of the First Council of Nicaea ordains one to be held before Lent, and the other around the autumn season. It would therefore have seemed that in the transcriptions of the canons, "Lent" was written through forgetfulness instead of "Pentecost." But the reason which the canon of the Council of Nicaea attaches does not allow anyone to think this, saying: "The one before Lent, so that, with all enmity being removed, the gift may be well offered to God." Thus they differ regarding the times. They decree two local assemblies to be held each year. But the Sixth Ecumenical Synod and the Second [Council] of Nicaea ordain that bishops assemble once a year, due to both the difficulties of the road and the expenses. But now, there is everywhere a great contempt for these synods.

^C Guill. Beveregii nota. It will not be out of place to describe in this table the series of Syrian and Macedonian months, as they were accustomed to be used after the adoption of the Julian year form, so that it may be seen at first glance how they correspond with the Julian months.

^D In this table of months, we have observed the sequence in the Julian year, with the result that in the Syrian [list] Canun posterior is placed first, because it corresponds to January. But the Syrians derive the beginning of the year from Tishrin prior, that is, from the Julian October. These Syrian names of the months, accommodated to the Julian year, are used not only by the Syrians themselves, but also by the Alexandrians and others, as is evident not only from the paraphrase already praised, but also from Eutychius, the founder of the Alexandrian annals, who uses them quite often. Furthermore, in this table it can be seen that the twelfth [day] of Hyperberetaios and Tishrin prior is the same as the twelfth [day] of October in the Julian year; for these months begin on the same day. Concerning these years and months, see our Institutionum Chronologia, book 1, chapter 12, 15; see also the notes on the council of Antioch, canon 12.

ARIST. Let the bishops meet twice a year for ^A affairs and dogmas: first, in the fourth week of Pentecost, and second, on the twelfth of Hyperberetaios. This canon is now contracted. For the eighth canon of the Sixth Synod and the sixth of the Second Nicaean Synod ordain that the synods of bishops in each province occur once a year, between Pascha and the month of October.

CANON XXXVIII

Let the bishop have the care of all ecclesiastical property, and administer it as though God were watching. It is not permitted for him to misappropriate any of it, or to bestow what belongs to God upon his own relatives. If they are poor, let him distribute to them as to the poor, but let him not sell what belongs to the Church under the pretext of supporting them.

BALS. It was deemed absurd that those to whom the administration of souls has been entrusted by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit should be ^B required to render an account of the affairs of the episcopate; rather, they should administer these things, he says, as though God is watching, in a manner that seems good to them. But since someone might say, "If this is granted, the bishop will sell what belongs to the Church and scatter it among his own relatives," the canon adds that it is not permitted for the bishop to give these things as a favor to his relatives, or to sell them. However, it is permitted for him to take what is useful and necessary for himself from the revenues of the Church, and to provide what is necessary for sustenance to his relatives if they are poor. The 120th Novella of Justinian, or the third theme of the 15th chapter of the 2nd title of the 5th book of the Basilika, speaks of these things precisely: "But to the oikonomoi, the administrators, and the chartularii ^C of the sacred houses wherever they may be, and to their parents, children, and others related to them by kin or by the law of marriage, we forbid, under the same penalties as those in the Imperial City, the taking of leases, emphyteuses, purchases, or mortgages on immovable property belonging to those same sacred houses, either by themselves or by an intermediary person." If you wish to know what the penalties are, look at the third theme of the same title and book, which discusses those same things, and adds explicitly: "Let them know that if any such thing happens, this too shall be void, and we order that all their property, and that of those who receive it, and of the oikonomoi, the chartularii, and the administrators with whom they are joined in the aforementioned manner, shall return to the sacred house from which they receive the property, after their death." Draw the conclusion, therefore, and say that by the canon and the Novella, it is not permitted for a bishop, an oikonomos, or any of those enumerated above, not only by way of favor but in any other manner, to transfer the immovable property of churches or sacred houses to their own relatives.

ZONAR. The canon determines that bishops should not be called to account for the administration of church property. For it is absurd not to entrust the dispensation of money to those to whom the care of souls ^D has been entrusted.

^A

THEODORE BALSAMON. Regarding the power given to them, he adds that they cannot make any of the Church’s property their own (for this is what “to misappropriate” signifies), nor abuse the property of the poor as if it were their own, nor bestow it upon relatives as a favor. But if they have poor relatives, they are permitted to provide necessary support to these as well, as to needy persons. However, they are forbidden to sell the property of churches for the sake of providing for the poor. For it is not fitting to alienate things that have been set apart for God; rather, they should make distributions from the revenues.

ARISTENUS. Let the bishop administer the affairs of the Church with authority, granting nothing of these to a relative except as to a poor man. The bishop should not be called to account regarding the administration of the affairs of the Church, for he is permitted to administer them with authority; yet he may impart the necessary things to his poor relatives.

CANON XXXIX. Presbyters and deacons shall perform nothing without the consent of the bishop, for he is the one to whom the people of the Lord have been entrusted, and from whom an account will be required for their souls. ^B

BALSAMON. That presbyters and deacons should perform nothing without the consent of the bishop: do not say that this is a universal [rule], but say that it is not permitted for them to do anything that pertains to the bishop without his consent, such as leasing the immovable property of the church, collecting its revenues, imposing penalties, and other things of this sort. For the administration of episcopal matters and the souls of the people, says the canon, have been entrusted to the bishop. Read the twelfth canon of the Synod of Nicaea. ^C

ZONARAS. It is not permitted for presbyters and deacons who serve under the bishops in the various regions to do anything on their own authority, such as to punish and excommunicate whom they wish, and whenever they want to lift an excommunication, or to lessen, or to intensify it. For these things belong to the episcopal [lit. pontifical] power. Unless, perhaps... ^D

[Beveridge note omitted]

to them. Concerning this, one should read the 43rd canon of the synod of Carthage. ^A

ARIST. A presbyter or deacon shall do nothing without the bishop; for to him has the people been entrusted. It is not permitted to a presbyter or deacon, without the judgment of his own bishop, either to excommunicate, or to increase, or to diminish penalties, or to do any such thing, because the people of God have been entrusted to the bishop, and from him an account for their souls will be required.

CANON XL

BALS. The divine Apostles, preferring nothing to justice, decreed that these things—those which pertain specifically to the bishop and those which belong to the Church—must be separate and not held in common; so that the bishop may have the power to manage his own goods according to his own will, both in life and in his final disposition; and that neither the Church should be harmed under the pretext of debts of the bishop that might emerge, nor should his will, either in life or in death, be lost. Therefore, it is established that unless the bishop makes clear his own goods before being ordained, and likewise those that lawfully came to him after his ordination and are not ecclesiastical, the bishop who succeeds him will seize all his property, and the entire portion of the Church, and will appropriate them to himself. And he will altogether be compelled to answer for his [the predecessor's] debts, unless they have published an inventory of his assets. ^C For then it will come to pass, as it seems to me, what the law says in book 35, title 14, chapter 17. Seek also the tenth title and the fifth and second chapters of the present work.

ZONAR. The canon orders those bishops who have private possessions to make them manifest, so that they may not be mixed up with ecclesiastical [goods], but that they may be as the ancient canons also forbade. ^D

^A Indeed, they may leave their own [possessions] to whom they wish, provided they be Orthodox Christians; but things which belong to the churches they must administer with the fear of God and give to the poor. For if the things that belong to the church and the things that belong to the bishop are intermingled, then after his death either the church or the heirs of the bishop will suffer trouble. For if it should happen that certain debts of the bishop appear, creditors will seize the goods of the church for the satisfaction thereof. And conversely, if debts of the church are discovered, the successors of those goods which were his will be drawn in to fulfill these; and if the goods of the bishop are perhaps not sufficient, they will be fined out of their own [assets], and thus the memory of the bishop will be defamed either by them or by the churchmen.

ARIST. Let the goods of the church and the goods of the bishop be manifest, that the bishop may also dispose [of his own] and the church remain unharmed.

A bishop, when he is chosen for the episcopate, must provide an inventory of his own goods and make these manifest, and likewise [that] of the goods of the church, so that he may dispose of his own [goods], both while alive and after death, as he pleases, and the church may retain that which is its own.

CANON XLI

We command that the bishop have authority over the things belonging to the church. For if the precious souls of men are to be entrusted to him, much more should we charge him regarding money, ^C so that he may have the power to administer everything and provide for those who are in need, through presbyters and deacons, with the fear of God and all reverence; he may also (if there is need) take for his own necessary use, and for that of the brothers who are received in hospitality, so that he himself is in no way destitute. For the law of God has ordained that those who minister at the altar should be fed from the altar; since not even a soldier ever goes out against his enemies at his own expense.

^D [Regarding the note of Guill. Beveridge:] ...The well-to-do and those who wish, each according to his own preference, gives what he wishes; and that which is collected is deposited with the president, and he himself provides aid to orphans and widows, and to those who are deficient due to illness or any other cause, and to those in chains, and to the strangers sojourning [with us], and in a word, he becomes a caregiver to all those who are in need.

^A

BALS. The present canon has been set forth through the interpretation of the 38th canon, which says the same things. Here, however, it adds that the bishop ought to be a lover of the poor, and that the distribution to the poor ought to occur through his presbyters and deacons, if he wishes to keep himself immune from all suspicion. Read the 24th canon of the Synod of Antioch and the letter of Saint Cyril to Domnus.

ZONAR. This canon also entrusts all power over ecclesiastical affairs to the bishop; however, it orders that the distribution to the needy be done through presbyters and deacons, so that the bishop may keep himself free from all suspicion. For it is necessary to provide what is good before God and men, as the inspired Paul says. ^B It permits the bishop himself, however, to take from the goods of the Church for necessary uses: not for anything superfluous that might pertain to luxury or the softness of life, but that he might have from those things the conveniences of life which, according to the great Apostle, are food and clothing, and to be content with these, so that in this way both he himself might be fed and the brethren received as guests by him might not be deprived of necessary things. See, therefore, that the bishop must also be hospitable, just as the Apostle ordained when writing to Timothy and Titus. The 24th canon of the Synod of Antioch ordains the same, as does the great Cyril in his letter to Domnus.

ARIST. Let the bishop have authority over ecclesiastical affairs, for he has it also over souls; and let him administer all things according to the divine will. It is clear.

CANON XLII

CANON XLIII

BALS. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons who are given to dice and drunkenness are punished in one way, ^C and subdeacons, cantors, lectors, and laymen in another. For the present two canons say that the former are to be deposed if they do not desist, but the latter are to be excommunicated. Seek also the 9th canon of the Synod in Trullo, and title 9 of the present work, chapters 21 and 35, and title 13, chapter 29.

ZONAR. Bishops, and all who are of the clergy, ought to be an incitement to virtue for all followers.

Since it is probable that some of these might slip away from what is honorable, and either play at dice or drink to excess, the canon orders that such persons either cease, or else, if they be bishops, priests, or deacons, be deposed; but if they be subdeacons, readers, or cantors, that they be excommunicated if they do not desist; and the same applies to laymen who occupy themselves with dice and drunkenness. For Scripture commands not to drink wine unto drunkenness; and again: "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess" (Eph. v, 18). Moreover, no clergyman is permitted to manage a tavern or public house, according to the ninth canon of the Council in Trullo.

ARIST. Can. XLII. A priest who is a gambler or a drunkard, if he does not desist, let him be deposed. If a priest or a deacon is deposed for gambling or drunkenness, much more *shall* those who happen to be of higher ecclesiastical rank be deposed if they gamble or are drunk.

Can. XLIII. A cleric or a layman doing such things, let him be excommunicated.

CANON XLIV. A bishop, or priest, or deacon, demanding usury from debtors, ^B must either desist or be deposed.

BALS. The ancient law says: "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother for usury of money" (Deut. xxiii, 19). Following this law, the present canon says that every bishop, priest, and deacon who lends for usury shall be deposed, unless he desists. But the fifth canon of the Synod of Carthage, and the seventeenth of the First Synod, and the tenth of the Synod in Trullo, say that every cleric shall be deposed unless he ceases to lend for usury. Seek also title 9 of the present work, chapter 27.

ZONAR. ^C This canon orders that bishops, priests, and deacons shall not demand usury. But the fifth canon of the Synod of Carthage forbids every cleric from taking usury. For if this was forbidden by the ancient law, which says: "Thou shalt not lend your money to your brother for usury," much more would it be forbidden to those who have promised to live according to the Gospel to take usury. Therefore, it orders that those who lend for usury be deposed, if they do not desist. And the seventeenth canon of the First Synod, and the tenth of the Synod in Trullo, forbid this.

ARIST. A priest ^D demanding usury on a loan, if he does not desist, is deposed. Being required to have mercy, if he takes away even that which belongs to others through usury, he is deposed if he does not stop doing this.

^A

CANON XLV.

BALS. Someone might ask why bishops, presbyters, and deacons who have prayed with heretics are not deposed, but only segregated, just as he who has prayed with one who is already under segregation, according to the tenth apostolic canon. The solution is: Do not say here that a bishop and the others are to pray together with heretics in a church; for such persons shall be deposed according to canon XLVI, as shall he who permits them to perform any work as clerics. But understand the "praying with them" as simply communicating and being disposed more gently toward the prayer of the heretic. For we ought to loathe such persons as loathsome, and not use them familiarly. Whence the punishment of segregation seemed sufficient.

ZONAR. Things pertaining to these have been said before in the preceding canons.

ARIST. He who prays with heretics is excommunicated; but he who deems them to be clerics is deposed. A presbyter or deacon who has only prayed with heretics is excommunicated. But he who permits them to perform any work, as though they were ordained and clerical, is deposed. ^B

CANON XLVI.

BALS. The present canon determines that bishops or priests who accept the baptisms and sacrifices of heretics are to be deposed. Indeed, the Great Synod of Constantinople most justly deposed certain ordained men who had only seen the writings of that heretic Eirenicius, and had not insulted them nor spat upon them. ^C

ZONAR. It is necessary that heretics and their rites be loathed by the orthodox; nay rather, that they ought to be refuted and admonished by bishops and presbyters, so that they might perhaps understand and change. But if any bishop or presbyter accepts one who has been baptized by them, or receives any offering brought by them for the sacrifice, he shall be deposed, ^D as one who gives suspicion of holding similar views to theirs, or at least of not striving for the correction of their perverse opinion.

approving of them, how could he possibly criticize them or counsel others to depart from them?

ARIST. A priest who accepts the baptism and sacrifice of [heretics] is unsanctified. A bishop or priest who does not condemn the baptism performed by heretics, but accepts it, or accepts what is offered by them for sacrifice, is deposed; because there is no concord of Christ with Belial, nor any portion for a believer with an unbeliever.

CANON XLVII

BALS. One is baptized in truth when, according to the Lord’s voice, he is baptized once in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, any bishop or priest should carelessly rebaptize one who has been so baptized as if from the beginning, he shall be deposed. Likewise, he shall also be deposed who does not rebaptize those who have been baptized by heretics. The question raised here is of this sort: Suppose someone was taken captive by the Persians and was forced to listen to those abominable teachings and to eat things sacrificed to idols. After his captivity, he confessed what had happened to him, but was not admitted to communion by the bishop or priest of that region unless he also received baptism. The canon therefore deposes the one who did this—who rebaptized ^C the man.

(69) Extremely significant are the words of St. Cyprian: "With us, however," he says, "it is no new or sudden matter to judge that those who come to the Church from heretics should be baptized, since it is now many years and a long age since, under Agrippinus, a man of blessed memory, very many bishops gathered together and determined this; and from that time to the present, so many thousands of heretics in our provinces, having been converted to the Church, have not disdained, nor hesitated, but rather have reasonably and gladly accepted that they might obtain the grace of the life-giving and saving baptism." Cyprian, *to Jubaianus*, p. 259, l. xxxix, Manutius edition. From these words, it abundantly appears that in the council under Agrippinus, held many years long before Cyprian, the sense of the present canon, if not the wording, had been established and was readily accepted by all the sons of the Carthaginian Church. That this also appears from Tertullian, who asserts that heretics converted to the Church were being baptized in his own days, *On Baptism*, ch. 15, and *On Modesty*, ch. 12, and in *On the Prescription of Heretics*, ch. 12, he renders the reason: "One cannot be built up by him from whom he is destroyed; no one is illuminated by him from whom he is darkened"—that this was the constant opinion of Cyprian is clearly evident from his own letters to Januarius, Quintus, Stephanus, Jubaianus, and others. But here we must observe what sort of people those were who, on behalf of heretics to be admitted into the Catholic Church through baptism, were held in ancient times: namely, to whom all things are foreign and hostile to our truth, as Tertullian speaks in *On the Prescription of Heretics*, ch. 12, and to whom the Lord is not the same, nor is there one Christ. Idem, *On Baptism*, ch. 15, for they have embraced neither the same rule of faith nor the prescribed form of baptism. Of this sort were the Hermogenians, Praxeans, Cataphrygians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Quintillians, and Apelletians, against whom Tertullian wrote; and also those who, according to the witness of Irenaeus, were baptized in the name of an unknown Father of all, into the truth of all, into him who descended into Jesus, into the union, redemption, and communication of the virtues; and also those who, during the baptism, pronounced unknown words, Irenaeus, Bk. 1, ch. 18. Since these and others of their kind do not rightly possess baptism, they undoubtedly do not possess it, as Tertullian rightly observes in *On Baptism*, ch. 15. Therefore, the most learned prelates of the primitive Church prudently determined in this canon that heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, inasmuch as they judged them—though washed in some way—to be in no manner baptized according to the precept of Christ, nor yet established within the Church. Furthermore, those who have been rightly baptized once are forbidden by this current canon to be baptized again. Since "again" is not permitted to anyone. Tertullian, *On Modesty*, ch. 16, p. 734, Rigaltius edition. "Therefore, we enter the bath once, sins are washed away, because it should not be repeated." Idem, *On Baptism*, ch. 15, by which also the baptism of saving water is signified, which is taken only once, nor is it repeated again. Cyprian, ep. 5, l. i, to Caecilius, p. 41, l. viii, Manutius edition.

^A and what is subsequently determined by the canon, “If anyone was baptized by an impious person”—for this is what it means to be polluted—and wishing to be baptized again and to commune with those called by Christ’s name, he was not admitted by the bishop or the presbyter, who said that he who has been baptized once ought not to be baptized again. Therefore, the canon says that the bishop or presbyter who does not immediately baptize such a person, but receives him with an impure baptism, ought to be deposed.

ZONARAS: One baptism is delivered to Christians. Therefore, to rebaptize from above—that is, from the beginning and completely, as if they were those not yet baptized—him who has baptism according to the command of the Lord and the tradition of the divine apostles and Fathers (for this is what “according to the truth” signifies) is impious. And also, not to rebaptize those baptized by heretics, whom the canon calls “polluted” due to the abomination of the heretical baptism, is also subject to great censure. ^B Therefore, it ordered such persons to be deposed: the one, as having made two baptisms contrary to the ecclesiastical tradition; the other, as having not cleansed the one polluted by an unlawful baptism with the divine laver, and for mocking the death of the Lord, which He endured through the cross. For those who are baptized into Christ, according to the great Apostle, are baptized into His death. But even the cross, according to Chrysostom, is called a baptism. For, “The baptism with which I am baptized, you shall be baptized,” says the Lord. And again, “I have a baptism with which to be baptized, that you know not.” But also, because they have no discernment between the pious priests and the false priests—those, namely, who are subject to heresies—they are judged worthy of deposition. Therefore, it is entirely forbidden to baptize again those who have already been baptized; but it is permitted to anoint with myrrh those who have been polluted, even if this also seems to be a part of the divine baptism.

ARISTENUS: He who rebaptizes one truly baptized, and does not rebaptize one polluted by the impious, is deposed from the priesthood. ^C It is not permitted for anyone to be baptized twice, and he who rebaptizes him from above, that is, from the beginning and in its entirety, is deposed. But some, in many ways, are sanctified with myrrh after having been piously baptized. And he who does not rebaptize one who has received the baptism of the impious, but receives him as a believer, is deposed.

CANON XLVIII

BALSAMON: He who casts out his own wife without reason cannot take another; rather, he shall be excommunicated. And he who takes not a free woman, but one who is put away (and she is "put away" who has not been separated from her own husband according to the laws), ^D even if he is condemned as an adulterer...

^A according to the word of the Lord, who says, "And he who marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery," let him be excommunicated. Thus, according to the canons, excommunication is the ecclesiastical punishment for an adulterer and a fornicator, as some say; but to me it does not seem so. And read the canons of Saint Basil, which introduce a distinction between a fornicator and an adulterer. But know that a man, while the marriage still stands, if he has relations with another free woman, commits fornication, not adultery: but it is not so if it is with a woman who is joined to a husband; for then he is punished as an adulterer. But a woman, if she cohabits with anyone else while the marriage stands, is punished as an adulteress. And these things are so. But the Justinian Novel, which is situated in the book of the *Basilics*, title 7, says that although formerly each of the spouses could send a bill of divorce whenever he or she wished—for the husband said, "Woman, take your property," and the woman, "Man, manage your own affairs"—henceforth divorce takes place for specific causes; and such causes were also written in the Novel. But even in antiquity, divorce did not take place freely, but with judicial cognizance. Therefore, he who married a woman who was not put away in this manner committed adultery.

^B ZONAR. But if anyone does not cast out his own wife, but while keeping her with him, corrupts another woman, according to a strict interpretation, he dares to commit adultery; just as also a woman, if living with a husband, she mixes with another; but according to the civil law, he is judged as one who commits fornication. And the great Basil, following this, says: "If a man, cohabiting with a wife, should be with another, we judge such a one a fornicator, and we increase his penalties further." However, we do not have a canon to subject him to the charge of adultery if the sin is with a woman who is not married. Therefore, the wife will receive back her husband returning from fornication. But the husband will cast out from his house the one who has been defiled. The logic of these matters is not easy. But custom has so prevailed. And he who brings into his house a woman who has been put away by her husband without cause is clearly an adulterer according to the sentence of the Lord, which says, "And he who marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

^C ARIST. A layman casting out his own wife, and taking another, or one who is divorced, is to be excommunicated. If without any of the causes sanctioned by the laws anyone casts out his own wife and takes another, he is excommunicated.

CANON XLIX

^A BALSAMON: The canon says that a bishop or presbyter who does not baptize according to the Lord's ordinance in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but into three Unoriginated ones, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, is to be deposed. For there were certain heretics who spoke such blasphemies and baptized in this way; but we, believing in one Godhead in three persons, are baptized in one baptism through the invocation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the canon mentions only bishops and presbyters because it is not permitted to anyone else to baptize.

ZONARAS: The Lord, when sending the disciples to preach, said: "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It is therefore necessary for every orthodox person to baptize according to such a command, and not into three who are without beginning, or three Sons, or three Paracletes. For this is contrary to ecclesiastical tradition and custom. ^B For the Church has received one who is without beginning, the Father, because He is without cause; and one Son, because of the ineffable generation; and one Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, because of the procession.

ARISTENUS: He who does not baptize into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but deviates, is unpriestly.

CANON L

If any bishop or presbyter shall perform not three immersions (71) of the one initiation, but one baptism,

[...the notes and commentary continue below...]

(71) That immersion was used of old in performing baptism, we have abundant witnesses. For Tertullian says: "We are dipped not once, but three times at each name into the individual persons," (Tertull. Adv. Prax. c. 26, in the final words). "Then we are dipped three times," (Id. De corona milit. c. 3). Athanasius (Quæst. 94, De parabolis Evang.), Cyril (Catech. mystag., c. 2). St. Basil refers to apostolic tradition (Lib. De Spiritu sancto, c. 27, shortly from the beginning; ibid., c. 15, circa medium). Sozomen writes that some had said... (Sozom. Hist. Eccles. l. vi, c. 26). ^C And indeed on account of this error, the Eunomians were received into the Church by the first Council of Constantinople, canon 7, like other heretics and heathens... Further, Severus, patriarch of Alexandria, in the rubric of the rites of baptism, has this: "And he lets him down into the baptistery, looking toward the east, and places his right hand upon the head of him who is being baptized, and with his left hand thrice lifts up the waters from the waters, from the front, from the back, and from the other side, and in this manner he says (then immediately occur the very words which are pronounced by him who baptizes): 'The servant of God N. is baptized in the name of the Father, amen, and of the Son, amen, and of the Holy Spirit, amen, unto life eternal.' " The same rite of baptizing is observed even now by the Greeks, among whom he who baptizes pronounces these words, (Eucholog. p. 355, edit. Jac. Goar). ^D And in the rubric, "So it is found in certain printed codices; in which, however, there are not wanting those among the Greeks who have wondered by what means 'Amen' could be inserted after the pronunciation of each person of the Trinity, and therefore it is omitted in very many." But perhaps it was translated into the Greek from the aforementioned ritual of Severus by the carelessness of some copyist, or rather, since the deacons standing by were accustomed to say 'Amen' after each of the persons of the Trinity had been pronounced, it eventually came about that it was inserted into the words pronounced by the priest himself.

^A

Concerning the fiftieth canon of the holy Apostles

If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one initiation, but one immersion—that which is given into the death of the Lord—let him be deposed. For the Lord did not say, "Baptize into My death," but, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." ^B

BALS. This canon also is of the same authority; for it decrees that the initiation of holy baptism must be accomplished by three immersions, that is to say, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and not to baptize only once, because of the unity of the Godhead and the trinity of persons; or [if one were to baptize only once] it would be because of the death of Christ upon the cross and his three-day resurrection. For the Apostle also says, "We were baptized into his death." Here, it seems to me, the word "baptisms" is to be understood as "immersions"; therefore, the canon says that one who baptizes with a single immersion into the death of the Lord is to be deposed, as one who acts contrary to the Lord's teaching ^C and is manifestly impious.

For the Lord did not say... Let the person being baptized be taught that the Father was not crucified, nor did He undergo human birth, nor did the Holy Spirit become man; nor did He undergo suffering. For the only-begotten Son, having become man, redeemed the world from the wrath that was impending. For He became man out of philanthropy, having fashioned for Himself a body from the Virgin; for Wisdom built a house for herself, as Creator; He willingly endured the cross, and He rescued the world from the impending wrath, having been baptized ^D into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But let those who do not baptize in this way, as being ignorant of the mystery of piety, be deposed. He who says that the Father suffered is more impious than the Jews; he crucifies the Father along with Christ. He who denies that the Son is the only-begotten [Word] who for our sake became flesh and underwent the cross is a fighter against God and an enemy of the saints. He who calls the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son is ignorant and foolish; for the Son is co-creator with the Father, and co-enthroned, and co-legislator, and judge, and the cause of the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit is consubstantial; for there are three consubstantial persons in the Godhead. For among us, Simon Magus gave vent to his madness, having drawn into himself the mute, deceitful, unstable, and wicked Spirit, and having babbled that God is one in three names; and at times even cutting away the passion and birth of Christ. You, therefore, most beloved, baptize into one Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as the third [baptism], according to the intention of the Lord and our own ordinance in the Spirit.

^A ZONARAS. Here the canon understands three baptisms as three immersions in one mystery, that is to say, in one baptism: so that he who baptizes should add one name of the Holy Trinity to each of the immersions. For it is impious once to submerge the one being baptized into the holy font, and to celebrate only one immersion into the death of the Lord. And whoever baptizes in this way shall be deposed. ARISTENUS. Whoever does not initiate with three immersions, but with one, into the death of the Lord (which the Lord did not say), is unholy. Since the Lord commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if any bishop or priest acts contrary to the Lord's command and baptizes with one immersion, because he declares the baptism of the Lord to be a death, he shall be deposed. ^B

CANON LI

^A many monks, who for a sufficiently long time on account of continence had tasted neither cheese, nor egg, nor wine, did sometimes taste them, and cut off every cause of offense that brought suspicion upon them. As that blessed hermit who is called Ferratus, and the monk Theodulus, who was called bishop of Elaea, tasted cheese and egg in the synod, in order to remove the cause of offense and the idle talk of certain wicked men.

ZONAR. To refrain from marriage, the eating of meat, and the drinking of wine for the sake of restraint is to be approved; but to loathe these things as harmful to the soul, and to shake them off, is not exempt from guilt. For nothing of those things which God has made is evil; it is the abuse of them that is harmful. Verily, if woman were the cause of evil, along with wine and the rest, they would never have been provided by God. Wherefore, he who condemns the works of God blasphemes his entire creation. ^B Such a one, therefore, is in need of correction; but if he is not corrected, he shall be dealt with according to his rank and expelled from the Church. For he is not only worthy of deposition, but, like a heretic, he must not be received into the Church.

ARIST. Every cleric who, not for the sake of discipline, abhors wine, meat, and marriage, if he does not reform, shall be cast out by the voice of the herald. This means that such a person is deposed and ejected from the Church. ^C

CANON LII

If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon does not receive him who turns away from sins, but casts him out, let him be deposed; because he gives offense to Christ, who said: "There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth."

BALS. There is no sin that surpasses the kindness of God; and therefore the Lord receives with open arms all who are led by repentance and turn from evil to good. For it was for the salvation of sinners that He descended from heaven, and said: "I came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance." Therefore, the bishop or presbyter who does not receive those who thus turn around, but like that Novatus abhors them, let him be deposed, as one who opposes the will of God, who says: ^D "There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth." Note, therefore, from the present canon, that it has been granted not only to bishops and priests to hear the confessions of men and to remit sins; but also to presbyters, with the episcopal per-

permission, receive accounts. Seek the 6th canon of the Council of Carthage and what is written therein.

ZONAR. Our Lord, for the sake of sinners, bowed the heavens and descended; for He Himself said: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Ps. XVII, 20). He, therefore, who does not receive one who repents from sin, does something contrary to Christ our God. But he who acts contrary to Him, and places himself in opposition, is not His disciple; and he who is not His disciple, is unworthy to perform sacred rites. For how can he who sets himself up as an Antichrist, opposing His will, be accepted by Him? ^B

ARIST. He who does not forgive those who repent is himself unworthy of forgiveness. And this man, if he be a cleric, is deposed, as one who opposes the Lord, who said that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.

CANON LIII

If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon does not partake of flesh and wine on feast days, out of abhorrence, and not for the sake of spiritual exercise, let him be deposed, as one who has his own conscience seared, and who becomes a cause of scandal to many.

BALS. We celebrate every feast day and every Lord’s day without fasting; and we break the fast also on all Saturdays, except for one, that is, the Great Saturday, lest we seem to observe the Sabbath after the manner of the Jews. Therefore, he who fasts on these days, if indeed he does so as one who abhors the things given by God to us for food, and thereby becomes a cause of scandal ^C to the people, he is deposed, if he be a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon. But if he abstains from these for the sake of spiritual exercise, he shall be forgiven. Read the exposition on the 51st canon, and the 14th canon of the Council of Ancyra. A layman, however, who fasts thus badly, and laments with the Marcionite heretics, is excommunicated, according to the end of the 51st canon.

ZONAR. It has been ordained by the canons that one should not fast on Saturdays (save for the Great one) and on Sundays and other feast days. Nevertheless, some of the holy Fathers would not eat for ten or perhaps twenty days, or even more; and some extended their fasting up to forty days. As, therefore, those who fasted on Saturdays were not judged as transgressors of the canons, so neither, if anyone wishes to practice abstinence for certain ^D days, and eat after the same, whether a Saturday or another feast day falls within those days, shall he be judged as a transgressor of the canons. If, however, on those very Saturdays...

^A he fasts, or abstains from them as if abominating the meat and wine, and does not partake of them even on feast days, he shall not be considered temperate, but will be judged worthy of deposition, as one who gives many people cause to think that the works of God are harmful, of which there is nothing evil or detestable. And the fourteenth canon of the synod in Ancyra ordains that those in the clergy who abstain from meats should touch them, that is, taste them, and then fast again; but if they do not do so, they are to be deposed.

ARIST. A priest who does not partake of wine and meat, unless it be for the sake of discipline, is deposed.

CANON LIV. If any clergyman is found eating in a tavern, let him be excommunicated, except when he has stopped at a public inn on the road due to necessity. ^B

BALS. The divine and holy apostles, wishing those who are in the clergy to lead a life alien to all reproach, and not to offend the public, but rather to incite them to good, decree that they should not only abstain from all shameful commerce, as has been said in another canon, but that they should not even enter a tavern for the sake of eating or drinking; for these are places for base men and are subject to great condemnation. For this reason, the canon orders that a clergyman who does such a thing be excommunicated; it does not, however, punish one who has stopped at an inn ^C on the road due to necessity, because of the circumstances. Those, therefore, who say that a clergyman can trade in wine, or rent bathhouses, or conduct other shameful business, speak wrongly. For if it is absolutely forbidden for a clergyman to enter a tavern, much more will he be prohibited from conducting such shameful business, either by himself or through an intermediary. Read also canon 24 of the synod of Laodicea and canon 40 of Carthage. Since the apostolic canon 42 says that a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who is given to dice or drunkenness is to be deposed if he does not cease, but that a subdeacon and every clergyman—to speak generally—who does any such thing, as well as laymen, are to be excommunicated if they do not amend after a warning, I think that here too, after a first and second admonition, the clergyman who enters a tavern ^D and does not abstain from the evil will be excommunicated. This is also proven by the fact that the canon says: "If any clergyman is found eating in a tavern," meaning, clearly, one who has used the evil many times.

ZONAR. Those who are called into the lot of God ought to be an example to the laity of a venerable life, and in every way blameless.

^A For to enter into a tavern demonstrates that those who do so lead an unseemly life; and it shows that their morals are corrupted not only regarding food and drink, but also regarding their entire manner of living. For since unseemly men and women gather together in taverns, he who associates with them will not be free from their wickedness. For "evil communications corrupt good manners." Therefore, the canon commands that such clerics be excommunicated. But if a cleric is traveling, and has no place where he may lodge—that is, where he may make a stay and rest—if he enters a tavern out of necessity, he would be blameless and unpunished. The twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Laodicea and the fortieth of the Council of Carthage say the same thing. ^B ARIST. A cleric who eats in a tavern without the necessity of a journey is to be excommunicated. A cleric traveling, if he turns into an inn out of necessity, is to be excused; but he who eats in a tavern without that circumstance is to be excommunicated.

CANON LV

CANON LVI

BALS. These two canons, the 55th and the 56th, punish injurious clerics; but the 55th says that a cleric who has treated a bishop with injury is to be deposed, whereas the 56th decrees that a cleric who has treated a presbyter or deacon with injury is to be excommunicated, ^C precisely because greater honor is owed to a bishop. The canons thus divide the punishment of insolent clerics. Civil law, however, determines that anyone who commits an injury is to be branded with infamy, in addition to a monetary penalty. I think, therefore, that deposition follows upon this infamy.

ZONAR. The high priests, being in the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and considered the head of the body of the Church, are worthy of greater honor. Therefore, he who acts with contumely toward them is deposed. But presbyters and deacons, bearing the image of the hands (through whom, as through hands, the bishop exercises ecclesiastical administrations), are indeed worthy to be honored, but not as the bishop is; ^D for the care of the head and of the hands should not be regarded as the same. Therefore, he who has been contumelious toward them is punished less, being only separated from the communion of others.

CANON LV

CANON LVI

^A CANON LVII THEOD. BALSAMON If any cleric shall mock the lame, or the deaf, or the blind, or one who has crippled feet, let him be excommunicated. Likewise also a layman.

BALS. The canon excommunicates both clerics and laymen who do not take pity on those who are in any way maimed in body, but instead make sport of them. For the majority find in such things an occasion for laughter, thereby opposing the judgments of God.

ZONAR. It is proper to take pity on those who are maimed in any of their limbs, and to support them as much as one can, and to lead them by the hand, but not to mock them. For this is what the word "to mock" signifies. But if the canon subjects laymen who do this to excommunication, what is one to think regarding clerics, who, as has often been said, ought to be set before the people as a pattern for all virtue and as a stimulus to probity?

ARIST. So also he who mocks the blind, the deaf, and the lame. One who mocks the blind, the deaf, or the lame, or one who is otherwise maimed in body, is excommunicated, as one who casts reproach upon Him who fashioned them.

CANON LVIII A bishop or presbyter who does not care for the clergy or the people, and does not instruct them in piety, let him be excommunicated: but if he persists in negligence and sloth, let him be deposed.

BALS. The episcopal dignity consists in teaching; and every bishop ought to teach the people the pious dogmas and the condition of the orthodox. For he is appointed a scout ^C for the purpose of looking after the people who are under him; and from this he is also called a bishop. Furthermore, presbyters also ought to be such, because they even sit near the bishops in the higher chairs. The bishop, therefore, and the priest who does not do this, but is negligently disposed, is excommunicated: but if he persists in sloth, he is even deposed; for presbyters also teach according to episcopal exhortation, and not of their own will.

ZONAR. It is an indispensable duty for every bishop to teach the people subject to them the pious dogmas, and to regulate them towards orthodoxy and an honest life. For God says through the prophet to those who preside over the peoples: If you do not give warning, nor have spoken, the wicked man shall die in his own iniquity; however, his blood ^D shall be required at your hand. Therefore, the bishop who turns his attention to teaching, and does not weary, but continuously instructs the people entrusted to him in the things pertaining to salvation, both by himself and by another who is able to fulfill such a ministry, so that he may not, by neglecting it, render himself liable under the strictness of the canon; for, he says, a bishop who neglects the clergy, [or] piety [or] reverence... with negligence and...

and his blood shall be required at your hand. ^A The bishop, therefore, who neglects instruction is excommunicated; and if he does not in this way cease from his negligence, he is also deposed. The presbyters likewise. For the canon demands that these also be apt to teach. Moreover, the great Paul also ordains that a bishop must be apt to teach and sober (namely, temperate and vigilant), but not sluggish and negligent; and the very name of "bishop" stirs him to sobriety. For he is called a *skopos* (that is, a watchman); but a watchman must be vigilant, not slothful. For this reason, a chair is established for bishops in the sanctuary on an elevated place ^B (82), the thing itself signifying what manner of person he ought to be, and that he must view the people under him from a height, and oversee them more accurately. And the presbyters were also ordered to stand there with the bishop and to sit together with him, so that they too, through the elevated chair, might be moved to oversee the people and to discipline them, as partners in labor given to the bishop. And the nineteenth canon of the synod in Trullo says: "It is necessary for presiding officers, every day, but especially on the Lord's days, to instruct all the clergy and the people."

ARIST. A bishop not teaching piety is excommunicated; but he is deposed if he persists in not teaching.

A bishop must teach piety to the clergy and to the people; and he who through slothfulness neglects this instruction is excommunicated; ^C but if even after the excommunication he is not roused to this, he is also deposed.

CANON LIX.

If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, when one of the clergy (83) is in need, does not provide the things that are necessary, let him be excommunicated; but if he persists, let him be deposed, as having killed his brother.

Guill. Beveregii notes

(82) A chair is established on an elevated place. In the ancient churches of the Latins and in the more recent ones of the Greeks, seats were accustomed to be constructed alongside the altar for the priests standing by the bishop, and celebrating together, in the middle of which a more eminent throne was erected for the bishop himself or the patriarch, if he were present, ^D which in the liturgy of Chrysostom is called "the upper chair," where, for example, it is said by the deacon, "Bless, Master, the upper chair," (p. 69, vol. II, Patr. Graec.). Of this more sublime throne, in which the bishop sat, as also of the other in which the priests sat together, Gregory Nazianzen makes mention in his dream concerning the church of Anastasia (oper. vol. II, p. 78) in these verses: "Where it was possible to see how he himself sat on a throne that was high, but the presbyters sat beneath him; the deacons, however, were called and stood here." Thrones of this kind are also commemorated in a panegyric oration on the building of churches, delivered to Paulinus, Bishop of the Tyrians (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. b. x, c. 4, p. 381 C, edit. Vales.). Concerning these thrones, Simeon of Thessalonica speaks thus: "The upper chair signifies the supercelestial throne of Jesus; but the steps underneath it signify the rank and ascent of each of the hierarchs and priests, where indeed it is not permitted for anyone else to sit, nor [even for] their deacons."

(83) One of the clergy. Joannes Antiochenus reads: "If any of those in church orders, that is, one of the clergy, is in need, and he does not provide..."

^A the necessary things, let him be excommunicated; but if he persists, let him be deposed, as one who has murdered his brother.

BALS. We have learned that the bishop ought, after his own necessary expenses and the customary administration of the church and the clergy, to give what remains from the revenues of the church to the poor; for they are called the goods of the poor. But now the canon decrees that bishops and presbyters should take care to provide the necessary things to needy clergy, and it excommunicates those who do not do so, but deposes those who persist, as having become the causes of the deaths of their brothers. And do not say, "For what reason does the canon punish presbyters who do not distribute their own goods to needy clergy?" For imagine a presbyter to be in possession of ecclesiastical property, as one who has perhaps been promoted chorepiscopus, ^B or protopapa (84), and who has thereby become wealthy and has need to provide for the destitute, and much more so for the needy clergy. For unless you say this, I do not see how a presbyter will be excommunicated or deposed who does not give from his own what is necessary to his needy fellow-cleric. And as for "murdering his brother," do not say that this must have proceeded to the act. For even if he has not died, as far as the intention of the bishop or presbyter is concerned, it has been done.

ZONAR. Scripture calls the goods of the churches "the things of the poor," and these must be distributed to the poor. And if the heads of the churches ought (as far as their means allow) to distribute these to other needy persons, how much more to the needy clergy who are set under them? And he who does not do this is deprived of the communion of others; but if he remains uncorrected, ^C he is removed from his rank, because, in as much as it lies with him, he has been his brother's murderer. For he who has no means of the things of which life consists will die; and he who is rich and does not provide for him is altogether a murderer. But what if that person did not die, because divine providence provided him elsewhere with sufficient things to sustain his life?

ARIST. A priest not doing good to a needy cleric is excommunicated; but he is deposed if he remains merciless (85). It is clear.

CANON LX

BALS. Consequent to the present apostolic canon, other canons determine that one must not read [those things] which are called...

the books of the impious, but [they are] to be handed over to the fire. Seek also Title 12 of the present Syntagma, Chapter 3, and what is contained therein. Since some have corrupted pious writings, or have placed the names of orthodox men upon [works] in a heterodox style—as that heretic Pamphilus did, calling heretical prattle "Golden Theological Works of Chrysomallus," and by this means deceiving the more simple-minded—the canon decrees that a clergyman doing such a thing is to be deposed, to the injury of the people. Seek also the final apostolic canon, and the heroic verses of Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Canon 63 of the Council in Trullo, and you shall learn which books are to be read by the orthodox: Saint Amphilochius, Saint Athanasius, and the Council of Carthage.

ZONAR. Many books have been corrupted by the impious to the harm of the more simple-minded, just as the Apostolic Constitutions written for the bishops by Saint Clement, which were on that account also synodically rejected. Some have been composed from scratch by them, possessing false inscriptions as if they were written by the holy Fathers; others are those called apocryphal. The canon therefore commands these to be rejected, and not set forth for reading. But if anyone brings these forward publicly and attempts to read them in church, it deems him, if he is a consecrated minister, worthy of deposition. The books of the Old and New Scripture, however, which ought to be read, have been exactly enumerated: first, indeed, in the last canon of these Apostolic Constitutions; then also by the great Athanasius, and by the great and most wise Father Gregory the Theologian, and by Saint Amphilochius—and by these last two in verse—and by the Council of Carthage. The so-called Sixth Council, that in Trullo, in its 63rd canon, says this also: "Let the martyrologies falsely fabricated by the enemies of the truth, so as to disgrace the martyrs of Christ ^B and lead those who hear them into incredulity, not be published, but rather be handed over to the fire. We anathematize those who accept them or give heed to them as if they were true."

ARIST. He who makes a book of the impious public in church is deposed. He who reads the books of the impious in church as holy is to be deposed.

Guill. Beveregii note.

(87) Saint Amphilochius... the end of the interpretation is missing in printed editions; however, they exist in the Bodleian manuscript, and indeed in the text itself, into which it seems they were transferred from the margin. For the rest, Saint Amphilochius in his iambics to Seleucus, Saint Athanasius in his Synopsis of Holy Scripture, and the Council of Carthage, can. ^C 27, taught which...

books are to be read in the Church as truly canonical. That the primitive Church strictly observed discipline, so that someone convicted of some graver crime might not be admitted into the clergy, we learn from Origen, who says that the leaders of the Church receive those who have been overcome by lust or some other similar evil as if they were raised from the dead, if they have performed sincere penance, but ^A that they ought not to preside over the Church of Christ, nor offer sacrifices to God. Especially since long ago with us, and with all the bishops established in the whole world, also our colleague Cornelius, a peaceful and just priest, and honored by the Lord with the dignity of martyrdom, decreed that such men can indeed be admitted to perform penance, but are prohibited from ordination to the clergy and from priestly honor. From which words it certainly appears that this very canon, or one very similar to it, was established, or at least confirmed, in the synod held under Cornelius, the Roman bishop; which pleases me all the more because it is abundantly clear from the previously cited words of Origen that it was observed beforehand.

CANON LXI

BALSAMON. Anyone who has been accused and convicted or condemned for fornication, or adultery, or any other prohibited action, does not become a cleric. And note this, for the sake of those who say that the ordination of those accused is hindered by the mere fact of their being accused. For behold, says the canon, those who are convicted shall not be ordained, not even those who have merely been accused.

ZONARAS. He who is caught in adultery, or fornication, or any other such absurdity, is not only prohibited from the priesthood, but is not promoted to any degree of the clergy at all. For the accusation of bishops and clerics, neither heretics, whoever they may be, shall be accepted, nor schismatics who celebrate conventicles apart from the Church; nor those who have been expelled from the Church or deprived of common fellowship on account of crimes, unless they have first wiped away the faults charged against them by purgation, whether they be clerics or laymen. But ^B neither are those who are under accusation to be received, before they appear innocent of the crimes, according to the sixth canon of the second ecumenical synod, which was in Constantinople.

ARISTENUS. A believer convicted of adultery, fornication, and other crimes is excluded from the clergy.

A believer accused of adultery, or fornication, or any other prohibited action, and convicted, is not received into the clergy. But if someone be an unbeliever, and has sinned in any of the enumerated ways, and is then baptized, and after baptism keeps his life blameless, he is promoted to the clergy without hindrance.

CANON LXII

BALSAMON. Although the civil law may grant pardon to those who have denied through force or fear, the law of the Church, ^C listing those who have already attained to no office or governance of the so-called Church of God, after they have come forward to the Word, ^D

^A but the law of the Church, which confesses the faith, wishes all who are orthodox to be such. Therefore, a cleric who, through fear of punishment, has denied the name of Christ, shall not only be deposed, but also, as a putrid limb, he shall be cut off from the beautiful body of the Church; if, however, he denies that he is a cleric, he shall be deposed; but if he performs penance purely in both cases, he shall be received as a layman. Note from this that those who have received the seal of the tonsure, and have subsequently been constituted in the order of lectors, if they cast off their sacred vestments and have lived like laymen, they cannot perform any priestly function as lectors; if they again return to the clerical habit, or even if they become monks, they shall lead the life of laymen. For if he who, through fear, has denied his clerical status is deposed, and is admitted only as a layman after repentance, much more shall he who has voluntarily committed such a denial, and has mocked the holy vestments, not be judged worthy of his former clerical status. ^B

ZONAR. This canon altogether rejects from the Church those who, through fear of punishment, have denied the name of Christ. But as for those who have denied the name of cleric, it commands that they be deposed, and upon repenting, be received as laymen. The synod in Ancyra, however, regarding those who truly feared (and not those who, by calculation and design, pretended to have feared the tortures), and who offered sacrifice, even if they were presbyters or deacons, decrees that they may partake of honor and of the seat, but does not allow them to perform any priestly act.

ARIST. He who denies Christ is cast out; but he who has renounced his clerical status, upon returning, is to be received as a layman. He who, through human fear, has denied Christ, is cast out. But he who has not denied Christ, but rather the name of cleric—being a cleric—is deposed; yet upon repenting, he is received as a layman.

Guill. Beveregii notes. ^C It is read in the collection, tit. 39. But the penalty intended by this phrase for delinquent clerics is nothing less than deposition, that is, the prohibition from performing the duties of the clergy, and reduction to the former order of laymen. This is clear from Apostolic Canon 45, by which a cleric residing in another parish against the judgment of his own bishop is prohibited from celebrating the sacraments thereafter; this being added, that he is no longer counted among the clerics, but shall communicate with the laity. Thus Joseph the Egyptian explains the words of the present canon, that he "be received with the faithful," namely, to communion. In the same sense, Cyprian said that laymen should communicate, and be content that they are admitted to peace—those who had been enemies of peace—and that they ought not, upon returning, to retain among us the arms of ordination and honor with which they had rebelled against us. (Cyprian, Epist. 1, lib. II, to Stephen, and elsewhere). ^D Yet Trophimus was admitted in such a way that he might communicate as a layman, and not, as the letters of the malicious have reported to you, as though he usurps the place of the priest. (Id., Epist. 2, to Antonian, lib. IV, Epist. p. 86, l. 44). Where we see "to communicate as a layman" and "to usurp the place of the priest" are set in opposition to one another. So also the first Council of Toledo, speaking of a subdeacon, says: "Let him abstain," it says, "for two years, afterward among the laymen, reconciled through penance, let him communicate." (Concil. Tolet. 1, can. 4). And Aimonius reports that Carloman, the son of Charles the Bald, a deacon of the Church of Sens, convicted of treason against his father, was according to the sacred rules deposed from every ecclesiastical rank, while his lay communion was preserved. (Aimon., De gest. Franc., lib. V, cap. 25). From which it is clearer than meridian light that this phrase, "to communicate as a layman," identifies perpetual deposition, inflicted without excommunication; and therefore that he who is subjected to this penalty is received as a layman—he is indeed deposed, but nonetheless he will be a participant of communion, just as a faithful layman. (See S. Basil, Epist. to Amphilochius, can. 3). And hence it is that we read this penalty inflicted on clerics alone, and not on laymen; nor for any other crimes than those for which deposition is branded by other canons, and such a deposition which is not accompanied by excommunication.

CANON LXIII. ^A If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone at all from the priestly register, eats meat in the blood of its soul, or [meat] taken by a wild beast, or carrion, let him be deposed; for the law has forbidden this; but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

BALSAMON: "You shall not eat flesh in the blood of its soul," was ordained in the book of Genesis. These are the suffocated [meats]. But it is not permitted to eat even that which is taken by a wild beast or carrion. He who acts contrary to these things, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. How those things taken by hunting birds or dogs or leopards and finished by suffocation are eaten by some, I do not know. Note, therefore, the canon on account of the Latins, who eat suffocated meat indiscriminately.

ZONARAS: This was also prohibited in the book of Genesis. For God, after having permitted to men after the flood to eat everything as if they were herbs, added: "But flesh in the blood of its soul you shall not eat"—such as the suffocated meat eaten by some. For in animals the blood is in the place of the soul. But it is not permitted to eat even that taken by a wild beast or carrion.

ARISTENUS: Whoever acts as the slaughterer of suffocated meat, or of that taken by a wild beast, or of carrion, is deposed; but a layman is excommunicated.

CANON LXIV. ^C If any cleric or layman enters into the synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deposed and excommunicated.

Guillaume Beveridge’s Notes: ^C ...As in the Old Law, so also by the apostles themselves, who consulted for the infirmity of the Jews of that time, in Acts xv, it is enjoined upon converted Gentiles that they abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from suffocated things, and from blood; which decree of the apostles seems to be renewed in this canon, with a certain penalty added for transgressors: deposition for clerics, and excommunication for laymen. And that the primitive Church, as much the Occidental as the Oriental, kept this inviolate for a long time, is clearly evident from the testimonies of the ancients. Tertullian says: "Let our error blush before the Christians, who do not even have the blood of animals in their meals, who for this reason also abstain from suffocated and carrion animals, lest we be in any way defiled by blood, even if it is buried within the viscera" (Tertull. Apol. c. 9). Origen, ^D [Origenes, Cont. Cels. Lib. V, near the middle]. Minucius Felix: "For us, it is not lawful even to see or hear of homicide, and we refrain from human blood, so that we do not even know the blood of cattle in our food" (Minut. Fel. Octav. p. 86). Clement of Alexandria (Clem. Alex. Paedag. Lib. III, c. 3, near the end). Likewise Biblas the martyr, in the time of Antoninus, said while enduring torments (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. V, c. 1, p. 159 A, Vales. edit.). To pass over other testimonies of the ancients, the Oriental Church (not even excluding the Ethiopians, as Jos. Scaliger testifies, De emend. temp. Lib. VII), as it is the most tenacious of these canons, observed what was constituted here perpetually, and observes it even now: so much so that in their public Euchologion, p. 670, there is a prayer to be recited by those who have eaten forbidden foods. Hence Balsamon, in his interpretation of this canon, rightly taxes the Latins, because they eat suffocated things indiscriminately. And indeed, it is not so long ago that the Occidental Church permitted eating the kinds [of food] prohibited here everywhere. For Gregory III, who occupied the Roman See in about the year 731, established among the penitential canons that if one had eaten carrion unwittingly, he should do penance for 20 days; if knowingly, for 40 (Greg. III, can. poenit. c. 50). Furthermore, Bede the presbyter, and the Italian in the Penitentiary, and as many as wrote on the same subject more than years ago, decree a certain time of penance for the transgressors of this canon. That St. Augustine and other Christians of the same age were of the contrary opinion, is plain from his own words: "And where the Church of the Gentiles has become such that no carnal Israelite appears in it, what Christian now observes this, so that he does not touch thrushes or smaller little birds, unless their blood has been poured out? Or does not eat a hare, if it has been struck by hand on the neck, and killed without any bloody wound? And those who perhaps still fear to touch these things are mocked by the rest" (Aug. Contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XX, c. 13).

^A BALSAMON. In the 64th apostolic canon, it has been interpreted by us how the expression "to pray together with heretics" is to be understood; here, however, the canon determines that he who has prayed in a synagogue of Jews or heretics, if he be a cleric, is to be deposed, but if a layman, he is to be excommunicated. For thus the punishment must be divided, seeing that it is not in the nature of things for a layman to be deposed and excommunicated; if you were to say that a cleric who does such things is to be deposed and excommunicated, you would not be failing in your duty. Read also the 11th canon of the Council in Trullo, which determines that all who bear the Christian name, namely the ordained and laymen, are to be far removed from the Jews, and not even for the sake of medicine or any other cause to commune with them; and clearly, that the former are to be deposed, and the latter excommunicated.

ZONARAS. The canon considers it a great sin for a Christian to enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics for the sake of prayer. For what agreement has Christ with Belial? Or "what part has a believer with an unbeliever?" according to the great apostle. For the synagogue ^B of the Jews is not sufficient even for those themselves for sacrifice. For it is forbidden to them to offer sacrifice outside Jerusalem. But if those who enter their synagogues are breaking the law, how much more is a Christian who prays together with the slayers of Christ to be judged a transgressor of the law! And the assembly of heretics, who preach things contrary to the orthodox, is not to be honored by the orthodox, but rather is even to be rejected. Some, therefore, say that the canon subjects those who enter such synagogues for prayer to a double punishment, as having sinned greatly, to deposition (that is) and excommunication; others, however, say that the canon divides the punishments between clerics and laymen; and that deposition is decreed against the ordained, but excommunication against laymen. And John of the golden tongue, in his discourses against the Jews, severely attacks the Antiochenes. ^C

Guill. Beveridge’s Note. ...and be deposed, and be excommunicated, and be deposed or be excommunicated; he who prays with Jews or heretics let him be deposed and excommunicated. And that the offering of the two goats, which were commanded to be offered during the fast, is nowhere permitted to happen in the same way, unless in Jerusalem, we know, for as you said, neither is it possible to sacrifice the Passover lamb elsewhere, nor to offer the goats commanded for the fast, nor simply all the other offerings. The temple in Jerusalem having been cast down, it is neither lawful nor ancestral for those who have fallen away from the metropolis to do this elsewhere. That one cannot sacrifice outside the city, but they transgress the law performing anything whatsoever on strange soil. From the discourses against the Jews, 2nd, ...and this is missing both in the printed copies of Balsamon of the past and in the collection of canons of John of Antioch, title 37; and not without reason. For according to this reading both punishments seem to be intended for both cleric and layman; but deposition cannot be inflicted upon a layman, as Balsamon rightly observes; who therefore divides the punishment, referring [it] to[wards] clerics and to[wards] laymen. Zonaras does not bring forward his own opinion, ^D but only that of others, whom, he says, some consider to be subjecting the transgressors of the canon to a double punishment, to deposition (to which, however, laymen cannot be subject) and to excommunication. Others divide the punishments between clerics and laymen; and thus indeed not only Balsamon later, but also Aristenus before Zonaras interpreted this canon: with whom concurs also Joseph the Egyptian, explaining this canon thus: Whichever of the priests or laymen enters the church of the Jews, or the church of heretics, to pray in it or to entreat, if he be a priest, let him be deposed from his rank, if a layman, let him be expelled from the holy Church. Moreover, Balsamon further notes that he who, according to the prescription of the canon, has said that a cleric is first to be deposed, and afterwards segregated, will not err; and thus indeed Harmenopulus in the title where he teaches what things are to be done by a priest, and what are not to be done, cites this canon as if it should be understood of clerics only, with these words, Harmenop. epist. can. sect. 2, tit. 3, where we see both punishments intended for the clerics, of whom alone it speaks here. (92) "Outside Jerusalem." Justin Martyr in *Trypho*, that the offering of the two goats, which were commanded to be offered during the fast, is nowhere permitted to happen in the same way, unless in Jerusalem, Justin, *Dial. cum Tryph.* p. 201, l. xviii, edit. Sylburg. and *Trypho* himself, id. p. 205, l. xvi. Hence when Julian exhorted the Jews that they should listen to Moses, and recalled to their memory the ancient rite of worshipping God, the answer was given by them, Sozom. *Hist. Eccles.* l. v, c. 21. At D. Chrysostom in his responses reports: "That one cannot sacrifice outside the city, but they transgress the law performing anything whatsoever on strange soil." Chrysost. tom. VI, p. 53, l. viii, edit. Savil.

Theodorus Balsamon reproves the Antiochenes because they celebrated feasts together with the Jews. The eleventh canon of the council in Trullo forbids all to eat the unleavened bread which is among the Jews, and to associate with them, or to summon them in illnesses and receive remedies from them, or to bathe with them. It ^A casts those who do not observe the canon, if they are consecrated ministers, from their rank, but rejects the laity from communion.

ARIST. He who prays with the Jews is excommunicated. He who enters a synagogue of the Jews or of heretics, and prays with them, if he is a cleric, he is deposed as one who thinks the things of the Jews; but if he is a layman, he is excommunicated. And he who prays only in a house with heretics, if he is a bishop or presbyter or deacon, is excommunicated according to the 45th canon.

CANON LXV

BALS. The ministers of the sacred mystery have been commanded to restrain their anger, as is cleared by the apostolic canon. Here, however, the canon decrees that a cleric who is conquered by anger and kills someone struck during a dispute be deposed. And just as if someone had said that he ought not to be deposed if the one who received the wound died from one blow, because perhaps the killing was not voluntary, the canon introduces that he who killed with one blow must also be deposed. Various canons of holy Basil depose a cleric who has killed in any way whatsoever. Read also book 6, title 38, chapter 1, decree 3 and chapter 5, decree 2, and chapter 26 of the title of the present work. For there the aforementioned laws ^B are placed. ^C Similarly read also the canons of holy Basil 8, 11, 43, 54, 55, 56, 57, and consider these more, according as they pertain to the soul. For the wounds of the soul are in greater need of ecclesiastical than of civil care.

ZONAR. Since the Lord commands everyone to offer the left cheek to one who strikes the right, and not to resist; a cleric who strikes someone in a fight, if the one struck dies, even if by one blow, as a rash person is removed from his order. But a layman doing this is excommunicated. You should understand "fight" as strife, but nothing more than that.

ARIST. A homicidal cleric is deposed; a layman is excommunicated. ^D

CANON LXVI

^A BALS. We do not fast on the Sabbath, ^B lest we appear to be Judaizing while celebrating the Lord’s Day. ^{C D}

Notes by Beveridge

(95) "Or the Sabbath." St. Ignatius has similar things in his *Epistle to the Philippians*: "If anyone fasts on the Lord’s Day or the Sabbath (except for the one Sabbath of Passover), he is a Christ-killer." Ignat. *epist.* p. 186, edit. Usser. And this is reckoned among the *Apostolic Constitutions*: "However, keep the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day as a feast." *Constit. apost.* I. VII, c. 24. Tertullian: "Although you also sometimes continue through the Sabbath, you never fast except at Easter, for a reason given elsewhere," Tertull. *De jejun. adv. Psych.* c. 14, and soon after: "We offer two weeks of dry food to God in the year, and not even those in their entirety, surely excepting the Sabbaths and the Lord's Days, abstaining from those things which we do not reject, but defer" (*ibid.* c. 15), where, as we see, the Sabbaths no less than the Sundays are excepted from fasts. This seems to have been instituted because of the heresies of the Marcionites and others that arose at that time, seeing that they had sanctioned fasting on the Sabbath for this reason: that they might not appear to be showing honor to the God worshipped by the Jews, who rested on that day, or to be using His rites, as Epiphanius observes (*hær.* 42, par. 11, p. 304 B, tom. I, edit. Petav.). Hence, the Oriental Church consistently abhorred the celebration of fasts on the Sabbath, unless it be the Great [Sabbath]. However, after the aforementioned heresy was extinguished, the Sabbath was also dedicated to fasts, especially by the Western Churches. For Socrates, in his own times, observed that "at Rome they fast every Sabbath" (*Hist. eccl.* l. v, cap. 21). And at the Council of Elvira, held in the year of the Lord 305, "It was resolved that the error be corrected, so that we might celebrate the setting of fasts on every Sabbath day" (*concil. Eliber.* can. 26, and *concil. Agath.* c. 12). But St. Augustine wisely warns that nothing regarding such matters is determined either by the authority of Scripture or by the tradition of the universal Church, and therefore, there is no discipline in these matters better for a serious and prudent Christian than to act in the way he sees the Church acting, whichever he might happen to arrive at (*Aug. epist.* 118 *ad Jan.* cap. 2, p. 556, tom. II *oper.*). And when the same Augustine had consulted St. Ambrose of Milan about this matter, he received this response, worthy of such a man—to which, would that all Christians everywhere in the world would listen, as is fitting: "When I come to Rome, I fast on the Sabbath; when I am here [in Milan], I do not fast. So you also, observe the custom of whatever Church you happen to arrive at, if you do not wish to be a scandal to anyone, and [do not wish] for anyone to be a scandal to you" (*ibid.* p. 557, and *epist.* 86 *ad Casulanum* p. 393 B).

(96) "Except for the one only." Balsamon and Aristenus call this excepted Sabbath the "Great Sabbath," and Joseph the Egyptian likewise calls it the "Great Sabbath." It was formerly called the Sabbath by the Jews because it immediately precedes the paschal celebration; as John Buxtorf observes and explains its reason (*Synag. Jud.*, c. 12). And also in the book *Shulchan Aruch* it is titled *Shabbat lifnei hapesach*, which they call the Great Sabbath. Hence Christians also attributed the same appellation to this Sabbath, just as those who, according to the decree of the Nicene Fathers, always celebrated the paschal day on a Sunday, named the day immediately preceding it the Great Sabbath; just as those who celebrated the Pascha with the Jews, on whatever day of the week it might fall, titled the immediately preceding Sabbath—even if some days were sometimes interposed—with the title "great." Thus, in the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, he, having been arrested and led into the city, is said to have been taken "while it was the Great Sabbath" (Euseb. *Hist. eccles.* l. iv, c. 15, p. 131 A, edit. Vales.). For the most learned James Ussher asserted with strong reason that this *mega sabbaton* was indeed that Sabbath which immediately preceded the paschal festival in that year (*De anno Maced.* cap. 3). But Henri de Valois, in his notes to the aforementioned passage of Eusebius, contends that some other day is signified there by the Great Sabbath; but as to who that day was, he did not determine, but rather confessed that it was obscure and unknown to him which "great" Sabbath it was, to which mention is made by the Smyrnaeans, both in the Epistle to the Philomelians concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp and in the Acts of Pionius. Truly, although it is not necessary, it seems to us more than likely that the Smyrnaeans, who were celebrating the Pascha with the Jews, also attributed the same title to the preceding Sabbath along with them. Moreover, it is sufficiently clear from this very canon in the commentaries that those who celebrated the Pascha otherwise than the Jews—that is, by the decree of the Nicene Fathers—also called the immediately preceding Sabbath the Great [Sabbath]. For Balsamon, as was said above, and Aristenus, call this Sabbath, on which the canon permits one to fast, the *mega sabbaton*; but that this is the same Sabbath that immediately precedes the paschal celebration, Balsamon himself will interpret in these words: "But solely on the Great Sabbath, on which the Lord’s body lay breathless in the tomb." And not he alone, but the Apostolic Constitutions themselves—of which these canons are considered appendages—confirm the same, saying: "Keep only one Sabbath to us, in the whole year, that of the Lord’s burial, on which it is proper to fast, but not to feast" (*Constit. apost.* l. v, c. 24), and elsewhere: "To fast on the Sabbath itself, not because it is necessary to fast on the Sabbath, as it is a cessation of creation, but because it is necessary to fast on that one alone, because the Creator was still under the earth on it" (*ibid.* l. v, c. 14). We conclude, therefore, that by the Sabbath which is excepted from the rest in this canon, and which is called the *mega sabbaton* by the scholiasts, is signified that Sabbath which immediately precedes the paschal feast, consecrated to fasts for the reason that our Savior remained under the earth in the sepulcher while it passed.

(97) "But if a layman, let him be excommunicated." These words are omitted in the collection of John of Antioch; however, they are read in all the others which one might collect to see, both in manuscripts and in printed canon law codices.

^A

To the universal joy and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and since the former is a commemoration of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection, or rather of the recreation, we have been commanded to fast only on the Great Sabbath, when the body of the Lord lay breathless in the tomb, according to the voice of the Lord saying, "When the bridegroom shall be taken from them, then shall they fast." He, therefore, who does contrary to these things, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. Exclude for me the divine Fathers who sometimes fast on these days for the sake of exercise; for these shall not be condemned. Seek also the fifty-first and fifty-third canons of the holy Apostles.

ZONAR. Fasting is indeed a good thing. But good things should be done well; and if anyone fasts by transgressing the apostolic or holy Fathers' ordinances, he will hear that the good is not good when it is not done well. Since, therefore, the canon decrees that one must not fast on the Sabbath or the Lord's Day, the cleric who fasts becomes liable to the penalty of deposition, and the layman to excommunication, unless perhaps someone is fasting for a fixed number of days, say ten or eight, for the sake of exercise (as has already been said) and the Sabbaths and Lord's Days happen to fall within those fixed days of fasting. This is something that many of the holy Fathers are found to have done, fasting even up to forty days.

ARIST. He who fasts on the Lord's Day or the Sabbath, except for one, is cast out. He is deposed who fasts on any Sabbath or Lord's Day other than the Great Sabbath; but if such a person is a layman, he is excommunicated. ^C

CANON LXVII

BALS. This present canon says that he who has violated a virgin not betrothed to another is to be excommunicated, and is forced to live with her, even if she be poor and unworthy of his family, and may not separate from her and take another. And these things have been ordained by this canon; for he who commits violence against one who is betrothed is punished as an adulterer. Seek also the ninety-third canon of the Sixth Synod. But as to the point that he who committed the violence must have the one whom he violated, even if she be poor, and may not be joined to another, it is a matter of inquiry. For why should it be granted to him who has sinned by violence both to have the violated woman and also not to fail to receive another? ^D

And this while the law says in Book LX, Tit. 37, Ch. 81: "He who offers violence to a girl and corrupts her, let him have his nose cut off, and let him give her also a third part of his property." It seems therefore, in accordance with the third chapter of the 37th title of the 60th book, which ordains that he who cohabits with a temperate woman is compelled [to take her] into the society of marriage, that the present canon should be understood in this way: that he who has committed this offence is indeed excommunicated on account of the violence, but for the salvation of the virgin he is legally compelled to be united to her. Read also the ninth title, chapter 30 of the present compilation and what is contained therein. And also Book LX of the *Basilika*, Title 58, Chapter 3, which says: "Let not a raped woman be married to him who raped her; but even if her parents consent to the marriage, they are exiled." And let this not seem contrary to you. For the one who has abducted a girl is punished in one way, and the one who has corrupted a virgin by violence in another. And abduction, on account of the shamelessness of the abductor, is not pardoned; but defloration which occurs by violence, if it is accepted [consented to] by her to whom the violence was offered, is pardoned. He, however, who has been joined to a virgin by her own will is punished in another way. For the law says in Book LX, Title 37, Chapter 80: "He who has intercourse with a virgin maiden by her will, but without the knowledge of her parents, when the matter is known, if he desires to have her as his wife and her parents consent, let the contract be made. But if one part of the parents, that is, of either person, does not wish it, if he who offered the defilement is wealthy, let him give to the violated maiden one pound of gold. But if he is more needy, [let him give] half of his property; but if he is in extreme poverty, let him be beaten and shorn and exiled." ^B ZONARAS. He who has corrupted a virgin by force, if she was already betrothed to someone, is punished like an adulterer; but if she was not betrothed, the canon decrees that he must have her, and cannot dismiss her, even if she should be very poor and perhaps unworthy of him. But he is punished differently by civil law. ARISTENUS. He who has offered violence to a girl shall be excommunicated and must have her, even if she is poor. He who has offered violence to a virgin not betrothed, and has corrupted her, shall be excommunicated, and it shall not be allowed for him to take another, but he must have her whom he chose, although she may be very poor. Moreover, the eighth constitution placed in chapter 78, Title 37 of Book LX of the *Basilika*, ordains that such a one should have his nose amputated, and that a third part of his substance should be given to the maiden who was violated and corrupted by him. ^C

CANON LXVIII

Guill. Beveregius' Note

^A has been consecrated in any way whatsoever to the same and one priestly office is deposed, and not only he himself, but also he who knowingly ordained him. For they appear either to condemn the former ordination, or to act as if they are performing a second one after a departure from the first—a thing which is impossible to be accomplished. For he who has once renounced the grace of ordination given to him can no longer exercise any priestly function. And because the ordination and baptism of heretics make neither clerics nor believers, it has been ordained that it is without danger ^B to ordain and baptize those who were ordained or baptized by heretics, since what was done by them is considered as if it had not been done.

ZONAR. One might understand a man being ordained twice in various ways. For either he seeks a second ordination as if despising him who ordained him before; or as if he thinks he will receive a greater grace of the Spirit and be more sanctified through him who ordained him the second time, as if placing his faith in him; or perhaps because he has abandoned the priesthood, he is ordained again as though from the beginning; or even perhaps for other reasons. However, in whatever way he may have done this, both he who has been ordained twice and whosoever ordained him are subject to the penalty of deposition, unless perhaps the prior ordination was performed ^C by heretics. For neither can the baptism of heretics make one a Christian, nor can their ordination make one a cleric. Therefore, it is without danger for those ordained by heretics to be ordained again.

ARIST. He who is ordained twice is deposed, together with the one who ordained him, unless the prior hand was heretical. A bishop or presbyter who has received a second ordination, as if appearing to loathe the first one, is deposed together with his ordainer, unless the first was performed by a heretic.

CANON LXIX

Guill. Beveregii note. … but is consecrated by him who is not known to have had the right of consecrating, he must be consecrated again, according to the Gloss on Gratian, distinct. 68, cap. 2. [It is omitted from the collection, tit. ...]. But that Balsamon read it, his own scholia clearly show. Joseph the Egyptian also reads it in his Arabic paraphrase, inasmuch as he translates this canon thus: "He who receives ordination twice, let him be deposed from his rank, unless it is manifest that he who first appointed him priest was a heretic." For he who receives priesthood or baptism from heretics is neither a priest nor a believer. For the priesthood of heretics is not reckoned by us as priesthood. Moreover, the succeeding words necessarily require this phrase, to which alone they can refer.

^A BALSAMON. Except the fourth day and the sixth which are before the Apocreos, or carnisprivium, on which the Armenians fast for the sake of the Ninevites; and those of the Tyrophagus for the sake of the Tetradites, and those of the Diacinesimus; for this whole week is reckoned as the great Sunday. The forty-day fast of Pascha was first delivered by the Lord, who fasted for as many days, and then by the present canon by the holy apostles. For it says: If any believer does not fast during the holy forty days of Pascha and on every fourth day and sixth day (for it has been ordained that we should eat dry food on these days also, in the same manner as in the holy Forty Days, except for those we have mentioned before the Apocreos, on which the Armenians fast, and those of the Tyrophagus and the Diacinesimus), if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated. Except for me those who are ill: for these, if they have not broken the fast by means of fish, will be forgiven. For no one shall break the fast by means of meat on any fourth day or sixth day ^B—

Giul. Beveridge's Notes

The next week, whose fourth and sixth days are here excepted from fasts, is that which is the same as our Quinquagesima; and consequently the preceding week, which is named from it, is to be understood here. For in this week, one does not fast on the fourth and sixth day. Nicephorus the Patriarch, who is also called a Confessor, ordained that monks alone, and not others, should fast on these days: and he permitted even the monks themselves, after the Premasanctified Liturgy, to eat cheese and eggs, he says. This canon of Nicephorus exists in the *Juris Graeco-Romani* book III, where for "and eggs" it is read—but Anastasius of Caesarea, citing this canon, reads [it has been written]. Which is, without doubt, the truer reading. Johannes Leunclavius, in the cited place, poorly translates "Septuagesima" instead of "Quinquagesima." For the Sunday of the Septuagesima is called by the Greeks the Sunday of the Prodigal. The last week, of which mention is made here, is the Diacinesimus, or as it is sometimes written. Thus the whole week is called "the Diacinesimus," which follows the feast of Pascha. But that the fourth and sixth days of this are excepted from the fasts, the Typicon also teaches, wherefore one should not fast during this week either? Balsamon replies in this place, because the whole of this week is reckoned as one great Paschal day. The Typicon agrees, and Balsamon himself again in his *Responses to Mark of Alexandria* (Bals. to Marc. interrog. 52). ^D

^A Likewise, deduct for me from the forty-day period the Saturdays and Sundays. For we break the fast on these days as well, according to the 66th Apostolic Canon. Note also from this present canon that, strictly speaking, there is one forty-day fast, that of Pascha; for if there were others, the canon would have made mention of them as well. However, we are not ashamed if we fast during other fasts—namely, those of the holy Apostles, the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos, and the Nativity of Christ. Read also what we have written regarding the third question of the synodal responses issued in the days of the patriarch lord Nicholas.

ZONAR. The canon demands in every way that the faithful observe the holy forty-day fast of Pascha, and the fourth day and Preparation day (Friday) of each of the other weeks, unless someone is unable to fast due to bodily weakness. For fasting was introduced for the humiliation of the flesh. But if the flesh is exhausted by disease or some other infirmity, that humiliation resulting from fasting is not necessary. The canon orders those in holy orders who do not observe this canon to be deposed, and the laity to be excommunicated. It is to be noted, therefore, that the canon places the holy forty-day fast of Pascha, and the fourth day, and the Preparation day in the same order.

ARIST. If a clergyman does not fast during the forty-day fast, the fourth day, or the Preparation day, you shall depose him; but you shall excommunicate the layman, unless he is hindered by infirmity. It is clear.

CANON LXX

If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone at all from the catalogue of the clergy, fasts with the Jews, or keeps the festival days with them, or receives from them the festival gifts (for instance, unleavened bread or anything of the sort), let him be deposed. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.

BALS. ^B Having previously commanded through other canons what ought to be done to those who pray with heretics or those who are excommunicated, they now give orders regarding those who fast with the Jews, or accept the unleavened bread of their festivals, or any other such gift—if they be clergymen, they are to be deposed; if laymen, they are to be excommunicated. Do not say that these people are judaizing, as if they were of the same mind as the Jews; for they certainly would not be subjected ^C to deposition or excommunication solely for that reason, but...

rather to complete excommunication, as the 29th canon of the Council of Laodicea also orders. But consider that these men hold the right faith and are orthodox, but they are scoffers at ecclesiastical traditions and live indiscriminately; and for that reason they are to be punished more mildly, as those who cause scandal. Therefore, we also, who feel and act in opposition to the Jews and other heretics, relax [our own fasting] without hesitation when they are fasting, perhaps because of the threat against Nineveh, or for other reasons which seem proper to them. Yet concerning the deposition and excommunication of those who receive from the Jews the gifts of their feasts, that is to say, the unleavened bread and other things, many say that those who perform the mystical sacrifice with unleavened bread are condemned by this. For if simply to eat unleavened bread ^B of a Jewish feast brings about deposition and segregation, what condemnation and punishment will not those incur who partake of them as if they were the Lord’s body, and similarly celebrate the Pascha with them? Note therefore this canon, and look for canon 60 of the Council of Carthage.

ZONARAS. If he who prays together with an excommunicated person, or one who has been deposed, is subject to a penalty according to the already written canons, how would he who celebrates a feast with the Jews, or fasts with them, or receives certain portions of their feast from them (men who are not [merely] separated and excommunicated, but are the murderers of Christ and far removed from the assembly of the faithful, or rather, are accursed) not be worthy of deposition, if he is a clergyman, or excommunication, if he is a layman? ^C For even if he does not think as they do, he nevertheless provides many with a cause for scandal, and creates suspicion against himself as if he holds Jewish rites in honor, and at the same time he is believed to be defiled by their company; to whom God, through the prophet, even before they had put Christ to death, is found to have said: "Your fasts, and your days off, and your feasts, my soul hates" (Amos 5:21; cf. Is. 1:14). Moreover, the 29th canon of the Council of Laodicea decrees that a Christian should not rest from his labors on the Sabbath. "But Judaizers," it says, "let them be anathema." And the 60th canon of the Council of Carthage forbids keeping feasts and holding revels with Gentiles.

CANON LXXI.

If any Christian should bring oil to a temple of the heathen, or to a synagogue of the Jews, in their feasts, or light lamps, let him be excommunicated.

BALSAMON. It has been said in various ways that there is no fellowship for a believer with an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:15); ^D whence also the present canon says that a Christian who celebrates feasts with any unbeliever, or lights oil or a lamp at his false ceremony, is to be excommunicated, because he is considered to be of the same mind as the unbelievers. And from this canon, such a person is punished more lightly, but by other canons he is heavily punished.

ZONARAS. For by offering oil and lighting a lamp, he acts as if he respects the things of the Jews or the Gentiles. But if he pays honor to their orgies, he will be considered to think the same things as they do.

^A ARIST. CAN. LXX. You shall excommunicate a layman who judaizes or thinks the thoughts of the Gentiles. CAN. LXXI. But the cleric you shall depose. He who thinks the thoughts of the Jews, and fasts or celebrates festivals with them, if he be a cleric, he is deposed; but if he be a layman, he is excommunicated.

CANON LXII. If any cleric or layman should take away wax or oil from the holy Church, let him be excommunicated. ^B

BALS. The canon says that every believer who takes away wax or oil from the church is to be excommunicated. But do not understand "to take away" as meaning theft; for he who takes away ecclesiastical wax or oil with such an intention will be punished as a sacrilegious person. But say that "to take away" simply means, in this place, to treat as common something that has been offered to God, even if he has the right of ownership over the temple or is its minister.

ARIST. He is excommunicated who plunders the wax or oil of the church; he is to lay this down together with the quintuple. The breadth [of the canons] does not wish a quintuple to be returned for the thing plundered, but the very thing that was plundered, and the fifth part of it.

CANON LXIII. Let no one henceforth convert to his own use a golden or silver vessel, or a consecrated veil: for this is done beyond what is right and against the laws. But if anyone should be caught, let him be punished with excommunication. ^C

Guill. Beveregii notes. (9) In those edited by Justellus, nothing is expressed regarding those who think the thoughts of the Gentiles, nor does anything else occur in place of the canon, except what is added in the collection of John of Antioch, tit. 40; which things are also found in the Greek codices of Balsamon previously edited. Aristenus also reads them, as is evident both from his epitome and his interpretation: as also Josephus the Egyptian in his Arabic paraphrase, who interprets this canon as follows: "Whosoever, priest or layman, shall secretly take oil or wax from the Church, let him be expelled from the Church; or in place of the thing that he took, let him restore the quintuple, and be punished in addition, according to what his superior shall have deemed, and receive him: but if he shall have contradicted, let him be punished with the same penalty, and be utterly excommunicated." But in the Bodleian codex which we are now editing, these words are not contained; just as they are not in the Harmenopulus epitome of canons, sect. 3, tit. 2, and are omitted in the Latin translation of Gentianus Hervetus: and what is more important, neither Balsamon in his interpretation, nor Zonaras in that of the next canon (which he also treats here), makes mention of these words; and therefore we do not unjustly suspect that they did not read these things in their codices.

(11) That "he does not wish a quintuple," [is added] at the end of the integral [text of the] present canon, as was observed before, in some codices; he who made the epitome of the canon interpreted it as "besides the quintuple," just as Josephus the Egyptian also interpreted it as "by the quintuple," for so it is also translated in the LXX in Arabic, Gen. xli, 54, just as Avicenna also says, in place of it (viz. opium) the triple of henbane seed is used. Avicen. p. 133. But Aristenus rightly notes here that even the canon does not wish... but that very thing which is taken away, and in addition. And what is to be understood by "the fifth," we can know beatifully from the definition of Macrobius (for the reason of both is the same), and he says it is, when of two numbers the greater has the whole of the smaller, and in addition its third part; as are four to three; for in four there are three, and the third part of three, which is one; and this number is called ^D and from this is born the symphony, which is called Macrobius in Somn. Scipion. l. II, c. 1. Therefore in the same manner, "the fifth" in this place, that is, contains once the price of the thing taken away and the fifth part of it in addition; so that the canon does not demand the quintuple in the broadest sense, as Aristenus rightly warns. Basil. l. 60, tit. 45, cap. 2, ibid. cap. 5. John of Antioch from the first constitution, tit. 29, 9th book of the Code, Joan. Antioch. Nomocan. tit. 46, Egbert Archbishop of York: "If any of the bishops, or presbyters, or ministers should take anything from the goods of the Church, which are given by the faithful in whatever places, and shall restore the badly taken things with confusion, he shall undergo the sentence of annual excommunication." Egbert. in excerpt. can. 71, see also the Novella of Alexius Comnenus in Juris Graeco-Rom. l. I, p. 424.

^B BALS. The present canon ordains the same things as the 72nd, for the sake of ensuring that those things which are brought to God and dedicated to temples—such as any vessels and furnishings—are not made common and profane. For by the name of "veil" (ὀθόνη), every textile is signified. And that Achar, having appropriated a golden tongue from the gold spoils promised to God, but not yet consecrated, was stoned to death, along with his whole family. Read also the 10th canon of the first and second synod held in the Temple of the Holy Apostles.

ZONAR. It is not right that things separated for God be made common. For they are sanctified, whether any vessel of such a kind, or a textile—for by "veil" he indicated every textile—or whether it be oil or wax. For the bringing of these things to the temple of God sanctifies them. Therefore, neither wax, nor oil, nor any vessel, nay, not even a textile offered to God, should be taken away from the church and taken into one’s own use. For this is subject to excommunication. But Achar did not even steal things brought and sanctified to God, but only those promised; and yet he paid the penalty by being stoned by the whole people.

ARIST. He who appropriates sacred vessels for his own use is excommunicated. He who turns to his own private use sacred things—vessel or linen—that have been sanctified, as one transgressing the law, shall be excommunicated.

CANON LXXIV

^D BALS. Regarding the matter of who can accuse bishops or clerics, and who can testify against them, read the 9th Title of the present collection, chapter 1, and what is therein, and chapter 2, and what is in it. The present canon ordains that an accused bishop, in order for the criminal charge to be brought against him, must be lawfully summoned by the bishops. For it seemed unjust that he should be condemned in his absence; and that he who is present, and has been convicted in court either by undeniable proofs or by his own confession, should be canonically punished. If, however, he does not appear, he is to be summoned again by two bishops; and indeed for a third time, so that if he does not appear even then, the synod may pronounce against him, even if only one side is present, such things as shall seem right to it: "so that," it says, "the contemner, or the contumacious one, may not profit from impudent delay." When the canon ordains these things, it has often been asked whether by the present canon

it is permitted to the synod to subject the disobedient and contumacious bishop to deposition. But some have said that it is greatly alien to mercy that a bishop should be deposed for disobedience or contumacy, but that he ought to be punished in another way. For if such, they say, were the opinion of the Apostles, that a bishop should be deposed, they would have remembered deposition in this canon. ^B Others, however, have said that, according to the venerable Novella recently issued by our God-crowned and holy Emperor, whosoever the person may be against whom an action is brought, if he be called to judgment and, after three communications by way of three written citations, be summoned, and does not come, he is condemned even with only one party present. If, then, a bishop also be accused with the giving of a libel and legitimate writings, and be called to law—first by communications, then also by three written edicts—and does not present himself for judgment, he will be condemned even with one party present. For to be "called" here is understood according to the laws, that is, by communications of thirty days, and not, as some have said, by written communications of a few days. This, however, was spoken of in different ways at the imperial tribunal, and more specifically in the case of the Bishop of Besaena; and it was judged that the bishop against whom an action is brought must be called by three legitimate edicts, and thus be condemned for contumacy. That a contumacious bishop must be condemned according to the Novella of our illustrious lord, the Emperor Manuel Comnenus, is beyond all controversy. For it has been judged so, as has been said, at the royal and divine tribunal. ^C But that his summons must be made by two prelates and in no other way, as some have said, is not according to the law nor the intention of the present canon. For when this was written, neither the judges nor the patriarchal notaries held authentic credibility by themselves, and therefore it was determined that the summons of prelates be made by two bishops. Today, however, since faith is held in the judges and patriarchal notaries by themselves, the edicts made by them cannot of necessity be rejected. Rightly, therefore, shall he be condemned who has been summoned by them and has not appeared in court, since the edicts are not invalidated by the fact that they were not issued by prelates.

ZONARAS. And in the sixty-first canon it was said by us that not just anyone can accuse a bishop, but blameless and orthodox men: this, therefore, this canon also signifies by saying "by men worthy of faith." If, then, a bishop be accused by such persons, it is not proper to pass sentence in his absence, but to summon him; and when he has come, to hear what is said against him. ^D When he has heard, he will either confess the charges brought against him, or, by denying them, he will be

^A convicted; and thus the vote will be pronounced. But if, having been summoned once, he does not appear, the canon ordains that a second convention be held with him by two bishops; and if he treats this with contempt, it commands him to be summoned a third time for the examination, likewise by two bishops. And if he does not appear even then, it orders that an opinion be rendered against him by the synod, and even from one side [alone], so that he may not derive benefit from his impudence in fleeing judgment, by delaying the inquiry and the opinion.

ARIST. Let the accused bishop, who is summoned and does not heed, be summoned a second and a third time; and if he persists, let the synod pronounce what seems right to it.

A synod ought not simply to condemn a bishop who has been accused of some offense by trustworthy men and [has been] summoned to the tribunal but does not obey; but he ought to be summoned twice and three times, two bishops being sent to him for each ^B summons. And if he persists in contempt and does not appear at the tribunal, the synod shall examine the matters of the accusation and, from one side [alone], shall decree against him what seems fitting to it.

CANON LXXV.

Let a heretic not be admitted to testimony against a bishop, but neither [may one] single believer. For in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

BALS. And, as I said before, if you wish to know how many and who may testify against bishops or clerics, read title 9, chapter 2, of the present compilation. From the present canon you learn that neither a heretic nor one believer is to be admitted to testify against a bishop. For, it says, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (Matt. xviii 16). However, do not understand this indiscriminately. But say, according to the rigor of the law, that if the suit is pecuniary and is up to one pound, two trustworthy and reputable witnesses giving testimony under oath against the bishop will suffice; if up to fifty pounds, three; if beyond these, five. But if the suit is not pecuniary, but criminal, the accusation against the bishop is proven through five trustworthy and reputable witnesses who are also themselves of good fame and are sworn; ^C and read about these matters in the first title of the 21st book of the *Basilika*, which teaches many such things.

ZONAR. A heretic is not to be admitted not only to an accusation, but not even to testimony. And ^D not even is the testimony of one person admissible in any suit whatsoever, even if he be a senator. A single witness is not to be credited, even if he be a person of rank.

^A For the great Paul, writing to Timothy, says thus: *Against an elder receive not an accusation, except before two or three witnesses.* But I am of the opinion that now, in the case of charges from which the deposition of a cleric from his own rank is brought about, two witnesses do not suffice, even if they be faithful and irreproachable.

ARIST. A heretic does not accuse a bishop, nor does one faithful person. He who summarized the present canon did not rightly understand it. For the statement that a heretic cannot accuse a bishop, or bear witness against him, is true; but the statement that a single faithful person cannot bring an accusation against a bishop is false. For the testimony of one against any person is not admitted, but an accusation is made both by one and by many. ^B

CANON LXXVI.

BALS. The present canon ordains that it is not lawful for a bishop to establish a kinsman in his own stead in the episcopate, nor to transmit the grace of the Spirit like some human inheritance. ^C It invalidates and declares of no effect an election of this kind, and also excommunicates the bishop. But do you say that even if the bishop has not transmitted the episcopate to his own kinsman, but to a stranger, the result will be the same. For it has been ordained that bishops are to be made by synods. And for this reason also, that former great metropolitan of the city of Philippi, now deceased, when renouncing his metropolis under this condition—that the holy synod ^D should constitute his steward as metropolitan of Philippi in his place—was not heard; but he was told that, as it is against the ecclesiastical law (for they do not permit one who is dying to ordain in his own stead, nor to ordain whomsoever he himself wishes),

how much more so is the episcopacy? Read the 32nd canon of the Synod of Carthage and the 23rd canon of the Synod of Antioch, which say that it is not permitted for a bishop, even if he is dying, to appoint another man as his own successor. ^A

ZONARAS. The episcopal authority, being a gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit, must be considered as such; how then can anyone transfer the grace of the Spirit to another, as if it were an inheritance, by bestowing it upon him as a favor? Therefore, it is not permitted to bishops to install into the churches subject to them, in their own stead, whomsoever they wish. For if they do not have the liberty to leave to whom they wish the property they acquired during their time as bishop (unless it be what has come to them by succession of kin, as the thirty-second canon of the Council of Carthage says), how then could they transfer the episcopacy itself to others, leaving them as heirs of the pastoral authority and of the administration of the property of the poor, and, moved by human passion (namely, friendship or the bond of kinship), bestowing freely upon those they desire what has been dedicated to God? Therefore, if such a thing is done by anyone, the canon says that what is done is void, and that he who has done this is to be excommunicated. For it is decreed that bishops are to be created by synods. And the twenty-third canon of the Synod of Antioch also says that it is not permitted for a bishop, even if he is dying, to appoint another man as his own successor. This was also forbidden to those who were of Israel. For it was brought as a charge against Moses that he had promoted Aaron and his sons to the priesthood; and had God not confirmed the priesthood for them by signs, they might perhaps have been deposed from it. ^B

ARISTENUS. A bishop, when departing from this life, does not appoint a bishop in his own place. It is decreed that he who is to be promoted to the episcopacy must be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But for a dying bishop to appoint another in his own place introduces the right of inheritance; however, no one ought to make the Church of God into an inheritance.

CANON LXXVII If anyone be blinded in an eye or crippled in a leg, but is worthy of the episcopate, let him become one; for the defect of the body does not defile him, but the defilement of the soul.

CANON LXXVIII But he who is deaf and blind, let him not be bishop; not because he is defiled, but lest the ecclesiastical business be hindered. ^C

BALSAMON. Under the ancient law, no one who was mutilated in any part of his body was promoted to the priesthood; rather, if after the priesthood he suffered some injury or mutilation from disease or any accident, he ceased from the priestly office. The divine apostles, however, do not admit those who are hindered from performing the duties of the priesthood, ^D

not admit it; they ordained that those who are able to act, even if they lack one eye or are lame, should be considered worthy. They wish for all to have a soul that is pure and unimpaired, though not necessarily a body. But if, after ordination 18, someone becomes deaf or blind, or is otherwise physically afflicted and cannot perform priestly functions, will he be removed from the priesthood according to the ancient law? Answer: By no means; for it is contrary to compassion and alien to the righteous apostolic judgment that one who is worthy of mercy rather, because of what has happened to him, should be judged unworthy. And many bishops, priests, and deacons have been blinded, or otherwise brought to extreme infirmity, and though they could no longer perform any priestly function until the end of their lives, they were not removed. The law also says in Book VIII, Title 1, Chapter 1, Theme 4: "A judge even if blinded can still judge and will not be removed from the senate. He does not take on a new office, but he continues to hold the one he had before the illness."

ZONARAS. The ordinance given through Moses to the Israelites required their consecrated ministers to be whole in body and to have no blemish; and no one mutilated in any part of the body was admitted to the priesthood. Moreover, even after ordination, if a mutilation of a member or any part had befallen any of the priests, he was removed from the priesthood. But for those among us who are to be ordained, bodily mutilation is not counted as an impediment. Indeed, one is required to have a soul that is pure, without vice or filth. If someone happens to be one-eyed, is squint-eyed, or has some other natural imperfection that does not hinder him from the episcopal function, and is otherwise judged worthy of the episcopacy, he will not be prohibited from being ordained. But if someone is blinded in both eyes, or is deaf in his ears, or has some other deformity by which he is prevented from fulfilling the episcopal functions, he will not be promoted to the episcopacy. For he who does not see, or does not hear, or perhaps has a withered right hand, how could he perform the priestly rites? The concern for the priesthood hinders [the exercise if] the infirmity of the disease [is such that] the sick man will cease his activity, but he will not be alienated from the dignity; rather, he will be pitied, and he will enjoy his former honor, and he will have what is sufficient for his livelihood, and the rest, according to former custom. Mutilated or one-eyed, shall he be judged worthy of an episcopal degree? Or, if one is afflicted after ordination, shall he or shall he not perform the sacred rites after the affliction? As many, therefore, as are prevented by the infirmity of certain diseases from exercising priestly degrees will not be judged worthy of ordination; but if, after ordination, they are so afflicted, they are not prevented by the disease from performing the sacred rites, and thus, even in such an infirm state, they shall perform the rites without hindrance; for it seemed good to the preachers of God that no one should be prohibited from the celebration of the sacred rites on account of bodily mutilation. If, however, the disease is an impediment to the duty of a priest, the sick man will cease to exercise it, but he will not be alienated from his dignity; for he will rather be pitied, and will enjoy his former honor, and will also have what is sufficient for his livelihood, and the rest according to the former custom. Balsamon, to the questions of Mark of Alexandria, 23.

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. (18) Similarly, Marcus Alexandrinus proposed this question to Theodore Balsamon, conceived in these words, that is: "Will one who is a mancus or a monoculus be held worthy of a priestly degree? Or, if one is mutilated after ordination, will he be permitted to perform the sacred rites after the defect, or not?" To solve this question, Balsamon cites these two canons and immediately adds these things (which, being conducive to a fuller solution of this question and the interpretation of these canons, are worthy to be appended as much in Greek as in Latin).

^A or should he perform any other priestly office?

ARIST. CAN. LXXVII. A lame man, or one who has lost an eye, if he be worthy, may become a bishop. For a defect of the body does not hinder one who leads a blameless life from being promoted to the dignity of the episcopate, unless perhaps the person about to be ordained is deaf or blind; for such a one is hindered, not as if he were polluted, but because he cannot perform the ecclesiastical duties without causing offense.

CAN. LXXVIII. But he shall not be blind or deaf.

CANON LXXIX. If any one has a demon, let him not be a cleric, nor even pray with the faithful. But when he is purified, let him be received; and if he be worthy, let him be ordained.

BALS. He who is possessed by a demon is deprived of reason and disposition, and therefore is prohibited by this canon either from being enrolled in the clergy or from praying with the faithful, lest perhaps, if he should do anything evil or indecent, or utter demoniacal cries, he might disturb the people of God and bring the divine service in the church into disrepute. But after his recovery, if he be found worthy, he shall also become a cleric. The third canon, however, of the patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy, says: If a faithful man is possessed by a demon, he ought to be a participant of the holy mysteries; and it does not contradict the present canon. For that one treats of him who is seized by madness at intervals, and knows at the time of his sobriety the mystery of the divine sacraments; but the present canon treats of him who is perpetually mad. But even if you should say that this canon speaks of him who is mad at intervals, not even so will there be any impediment for you. For it will not be granted to one who is seized by madness at intervals to be enrolled in the clergy, lest the priesthood be subjected to insult during the time of his madness, and the Divine be assailed by reproaches and blasphemies.

ZONAR. Whoever is unclean is judged as one vexed by a demon; and at the same time a suspicion is provided that, had the demon not found in this man a dwelling place worthy of itself ^D on account of the wickedness of his life, it would never have entered into him. How, therefore, could such a one be promoted to any ordination whatsoever? For if, according to the great Gregory in his theology, ointment is not entrusted to a rotten vessel, how will the grace of the Holy Spirit be entrusted to a receptacle of a demon? But the present canon also commands that such a one should not even pray with the faithful. And the third canon of the patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy, being a response to one who had asked: If a faithful man is possessed by a demon, ought he to be a participant of the holy mysteries? says: Unless he should reveal the mystery, or blaspheme in any other way, let him be a participant. It seems, therefore, to be in opposition to the present canon. I do not think so, however. For the apostolic canon is concerning the

^A entirely insane man, and the one who has no interval of relief. How, then, could such a person be admitted to prayer? The response of Timothy is concerning him who suffers with intervals. For such a one, when he is not suffering, shall be deemed worthy of the sacraments. But when he is freed from the demonic energy, if he is judged worthy, he shall be enrolled in the clergy.

ARIST. A demoniac is not enrolled and does not join in the common prayer; but after his purification, if he is worthy, he becomes so.

One who is possessed by a demon does not become a clergyman until he is freed from the demon; nor does he even join in the common prayer with the faithful. But when he is freed from the malady, he is admitted to the prayers, and if he is worthy, he is promoted to the clergy.

CANON LXXX

Eum qui ex vita gentili accesserit et baptizatus fuerit, vel ex improba vivendi ratione, non est æquum protinus episcopum fieri. Iniquum est enim, ut qui sui nondum experientiam ostenderit, ^B sit aliorum magister, nisi forte hoc divina gratia fiat.

BALS. You ought to learn from the 10th canon of the Synod of Sardica and from the notes of William Beveridge. The Syriac word *hanpho*, as also *hanphoio*, is a Gentile or pagan. From this it seems the Arabic word was formed; for that reason I have translated it as "ethnic." But I do not deny that another meaning may be admitted, provided we say that the Oriental Christians who live among the Muslims or Mohammedans have interpreted this canon (as is proper) equally concerning ethnic pagans, so that a Mohammedan also, just like a pagan converted to the Christian faith, cannot immediately become a bishop. Moreover, that no Christian layman may immediately become a bishop, unless he has first passed through the lower grades, was provided by the Council of Sardica, canon 10.

(19) *Concerning the one who comes from a Gentile life.* John of Antioch reads *from the nations* in the collection of canons, title 36. But the first Nicene synod, citing this canon, reads *from a Gentile life*. Indeed, the second canon of that same synod begins, "Since many things… occurred contrary to the ecclesiastical canon…" etc., from which words it also clearly shines forth that a canon existed before this synod, forbidding those who have recently been converted from a Gentile life to the Christian faith to become bishops immediately: which without doubt was no other than the present apostolic one, which, having been often neglected and violated, the Nicene synod restores by the said canon, and at last confirms by its own authority. Joseph the Egyptian in his Arabic collection of canons translates these words: "Whoever was a Gentile or an idolater..." It does not escape me that *hanifia* can sometimes signify a Muslim or a follower of the Mohammedan religion. For thus *haniph* often signifies [a follower of] Abu Hanifa, who was the author of one of the four sects of Islam concerning the branches of that religion, which Abul-Pharagius enumerates thus: the sect of Maleki Ebn Anasi, the sect of Mohammed Ebn Edris Al-Shafi'i, the sect of Ahmed Ebn Hanbal, and the sect of Hanifa Al-Nu'man Ebn Thabet. Abulph. Dynast. 9. ^C But for Abu Hanifa, more than the others, an oratory was built, called the Oratory of the Prelate Abu Hanifa, of which Abul-Pharagius mentions in Dynast. 9, p. [366] and Elmacinus in *History of the Saracens*, book 1, page 287. Concerning the same Abu Hanifa see more in the notes of our most learned Edward Pococke in his specimen of the *History of the Arabs*, page 297, and of Henry Hottinger in his *Oriental History*, book II, ch. 7. From this Abu Hanifa not only his own sect, but the whole of Islamism is called *Al-Hanifiah* and the Muslim, a *Hanifi*. And this is indeed the ordinary meaning of this word; which, however, does not seem to fit this place, since these canons were written long before the rise of the Muslim religion. Wherefore its true meaning should be sought elsewhere: namely, from the Syriac language, whose words in this particular collection of canons very often become Arabic, as we shall show elsewhere.

(20) *Unless perhaps by divine grace.* When the bishop of the Milanese Church had departed this life, a very grave controversy arose among the citizens concerning the electing of a future bishop; to such an extent that they began to riot. But it happened conveniently that a man distinguished by piety and doctrine, named Ambrose, was the prefect of the city at that time. He, fearing that some evil might arise from such a great ^D tumult, according to his place and office (to speak with Rufinus) went down to the church, intending to repress the sedition of the people. But when he had quelled the insane tumults of the multitude with a long and elegant discourse, all, conspiring immediately to one opinion, demanded with one voice that Ambrose himself be ordained their bishop. But he was still a catechumen, and therefore not yet baptized. The emperor Valentinian, having been made certain of the consent of the people, orders that Ambrose, even though reluctant, be baptized at once and immediately ordained bishop, or, as Theodoret says, an "estimable man" (Hist. eccles. book IV, ch. 6), and soon having obtained divine grace and been initiated into the sacred mysteries, he was made a priest; as Rufinus writes in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book XI, ch. 11. That argument of the tumultuous ordination of Ambrose, by which he was promoted from catechumen to bishop immediately, having been seriously weighed, let someone say that it was by no means canonical, nor admitted by the present apostolic canon; insofar as by it, he who has recently approached from a Gentile life and has been baptized, is forbidden to be made bishop immediately. But far be it that the ordination of so great a Father...

^A be suspected as irregular. For even if it seems to be condemned by the first part of this canon, yet it is clearly admitted by these final words, which are as necessarily as they are prudently added. Indeed, the sudden election of St. Ambrose, and consequently his ordination, must be ascribed to God rather than to men; to God, I say, who recalled the multitude that was split among itself into one consensus at the first sight of such a man. Whence the emperor himself also acknowledged that St. Ambrose was divinely elected, as the ancient writers of ecclesiastical history have handed down. Socrates: The emperor, having admired the consensus of the people and recognizing that what had happened was the work of God, wrote back to the bishops that they should obey God who had ordered him to be ordained. For he considered that his election was designated by the suffrage of God rather than of men. Theodoret: And he also supposed the suffrage to be divine, inferring this from the agreement of those who were of the opposite opinion. He contributed to the consensus ^B of the Church in Milan, awarding these things to God.

Notes by William Beveridge

to the episcopacy; just as it was revealed concerning Paul to Ananias, when the Lord said to him in a vision, "For he is a chosen vessel of mine, to bear my name before the nations, and kings, and the children of Israel." ^A

ARIST. A newly enlightened man does not become a bishop, nor one who has recently departed from an evil way of life. It is not fitting that one who has arrived and been baptized recently, or one who has been occupied with an evil way of life, perhaps having been an actor or a civil servant, should immediately be appointed bishop; but one must first take proof of him, and thus he must pass through all the sacred degrees blamelessly, and then be designated for the episcopacy. ^B

CANON LXXXI. We said that it is not fitting for a bishop or presbyter to commit himself to public administrations, but to be occupied with ecclesiastical business. Therefore, let him be persuaded not to do this, or let him be deposed. For no one can serve two masters, according to the Lord’s commandment.

BALS. The sixth apostolic canon orders those initiated into sacred things who take upon themselves worldly cares to be deposed without distinction. The present canon, however, treats them a little more mercifully. For it says: either they must cease, or they must be deposed. Therefore, draw the canons into one meaning, towards what is more humane, and say that the sixth canon also should be understood according to this one. Seek also the sixteenth canon of the synod in Carthage, and the fourth of the fourth. ^C

ZONAR. The sixth canon of this present book orders that consecrated ministers who take upon themselves worldly cares be deposed. But this canon is an expository one of that former. For it is fitting also to understand that one in this way: that if he does not obey, and withdraw from worldly affairs, then he shall be deposed. For if he refrains from these, so as no longer to undertake public administrations in which he was previously occupied, he shall be granted pardon. Therefore, this canon makes mention also of the preceding canon. One must also seek the sixteenth canon of the synod in Carthage, and the third of the fourth synod. ^D

^A ARIST. A bishop is deposed from his episcopate who conducts public business. He who gives himself over to public administrations, whether he be a presbyter, a deacon, or a bishop, let him either cease or, if he is not persuaded, let him be deposed.

CANON LXXXII

We do not permit servants to be promoted to the clergy without the permission of their masters, to the annoyance of those who own them, for such a thing causes the subversion of houses. But if at any time a servant also appears worthy for ordination to a rank—such as our Onesimus ^B appeared, and the masters concede, and set them free, and send them out of the house—let it be done.

BALS. With respect to servants who are co-opted into the clergy, read also chapter thirty-six of the first title of the present work. But this canon, not wishing any cause of offense to be brought upon our brethren by us, does not permit someone else’s servant to be promoted to the clergy, even if he be most prudent and worthy, unless his master has also consented to this matter and has first deemed him worthy of freedom. Moreover, that which was done in the case of Onesimus is written as an example. For it is written that the great Paul sent this Onesimus, who was a servant of Philemon, back to Philemon, even though he seemed most useful to him for ministry, saying that it was not just for him to serve in the preaching of the faith without the will of Philemon. Wherefore, neither freedom, ^C nor priesthood, nor any other thing alienates a master, who is unaware [of the status change], from the ownership of his servant. And the law which decrees that there is no restitution given against freedom is not understood regarding these, but regarding a servant freed according to the will of an imperfect master.

ZONAR. It behooves the faithful to flee things that generate scandals for some. For an alien servant to become a cleric against the opinion of the master is a cause of scandal and annoyance. For which reason, this canon prohibits this, as it overturns entire houses. For perhaps that servant might be the administrator of his master’s house, or the manager of a master’s shop, or one trusted with money for trade, ^D and for these reasons his ordination would be an annoyance to his master. But if a servant is judged worthy of a sacred rank, it behooves the bishop to communicate concerning him with the master, and if he also consents, he shall be ordained. For even the great Paul, [when dealing with] Onesimus, who was a servant of Philemon, whose min-

- ^A isterium he judged useful, did not decide to keep him without the will of the master, but sent him back to Philemon. Civil law, however, says that it is sufficient for the freedom of a slave if, with his master knowing and not contradicting, he is enrolled in the clergy.

ARIST. A servant does not become a clergyman unless [he does so] by the consent of the master; but he who is worthy, having been given his freedom, is promoted.

It is not fitting for a slave to be received into the clergy without the will of the master. But once he has been set free, if he appears worthy to be enrolled in the clergy, he is admitted.

CANON LXXXIII

Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who is occupied with military service ^B and wishes to hold both—that is, the Roman magistracy and the sacerdotal administration—be deposed. "For the things of Caesar to Caesar; and the things of God to God."

BALS. Various apostolic canons have forbidden those who are initiated into sacred orders from administering public business. But the present canon decrees that those who are occupied with military service, or who administer military supplies or handle matters of recruitment, should be deposed. For one must understand such military service [to be meant] here, and not that which is done with arms—for that is altogether forbidden. ^C And read also the 7th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which subjects such persons to anathema.

Note of William Beveridge

(26) "The civil law says: If a slave, with his master knowing and not contradicting, is enrolled in the clergy, by the very fact of his enrollment let him be free and noble; having been enrolled in the clergy, he is set free. A slave, with his master knowing and silent, being ordained a clergyman, is set free. But a slave is not enrolled in the clergy against the will of his master, unless he is first set free."

(27) "Having been set free, he is advanced." That a servant must be gifted with liberty before he is co-opted into the clergy, the fifth Council of Orleans also decreed, saying: "That no bishop should dare to ordain as a clergyman a servant who has not received liberty from his own masters, or who is even now a freedman, except by the will ^D of the one whose servant he is, and by whom he is known to have been absolved." Furthermore, Balsamon, in his *Collection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions* from the code, says: "Those occupied with military service here are not to be understood as those who carry arms, but those who in any manner whatsoever are administrators of military affairs." And similarly Harmenopoulos, who expresses the sense of the canon thus: "Let the priest who serves in the military be deposed." And he notes in the margin: "Do not suppose that any civil administration, magistracy, or rank is intended here; because it is explained by the following words," and it is opposed [to it]: "whence also in the epitome of the Logothete as well as that of Aristenus, nothing is substituted except... for the force of the canon is exhibited in these words only."

Indeed, the very reason of the canon, rendered in these last words, demands this same sense: that priests, who are completely consecrated to God, should in no way be occupied with political administrations. For priestly and civil administrations are distant from each other by so great an interval that the same person cannot serve both; or, as Nicephorus Gregoras says, Constantine Mesopotamites, who had for some time administered public affairs under Alexius Comnenus, when he had obtained from the emperor the right to be created a deacon, pretended that he would leave the palace and no longer serve the emperor, because the canons forbade this to him—or, as Nicetas Choniates reports his words, [he pretended] that one must not be entangled in secular affairs and served by priests. For both are strictly separated and by no means mix together, just as the service of God and Mammon are diametrically opposed. To these "amphibious" men, those who are annoyed by them show bitterness, saying: "the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God."

^A Someone might ask, whether the phrase "let him desist or be deposed" has a place here, just as we were taught in the 81st canon; or whether a clergyman who engages in military service is to be deposed immediately, even before the edict? Solution. I think that here too, after the edict, the one who has the care of the army, if he does not desist, will be deposed. For all public offices have the same source. Read also chapter 32 of the ninth title of the present work, and what is written therein.

ZONAR. I do not think the canon here calls "military service" the handling of arms or the command of soldiers, but the administration of military affairs, such as the distribution of military rations, or the receiving of provisions designated for soldiers, or enlistment, or other similar administrative tasks, which the civil laws are also found to name "military service." Therefore, the canon absolutely subjects to deposition those clergymen who are occupied with any such things, if they do not desist from them. For one must not mix what cannot be mixed; for it says, "the things of Caesar and the things of God." Moreover, the seventh canon of the Synod in Chalcedon decrees that such men, if they do not repent, are to be anathematized. ^B

ARIST. A priest acting as a magistrate is deposed: "For the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God." Whoever wishes to hold Roman military service alongside priestly administration, let him be deposed. For the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God.

CANON LXXXIV

BALS. The Mosaic Law says: "You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people." (Exod. xxii, 28). Consequently, the present canon likewise decrees that he who insults the emperor or a magistrate, if he is a clergyman, is to be deposed; if a layman, to be excommunicated; and this is as far as ecclesiastical tradition is concerned. But the civil laws of the emperors punish such injuries differently; read chapter 36 of the ninth title of the present work. Some, interpreting the phrase, "If any one insults the king or a magistrate contrary to justice," have said that often even a just reprimand is taken for an insult. I think, however, that this is explained by chapter 14 of the 6th title of the 60th book of the Basilika, which has been set down in chapter 36 of the ninth title of the present work. It is forbidden to insult the emperor, but not at all to rebuke him. ^D

^A For the canon does not permit one to cast insults contrary to justice, so that by the opposite distinction it may be understood that he who justly censures emperors and magnates is not worthy of punishment. Title 36 of the 60th book of the Basilika, in the 13th chapter, says these things: "If anyone speaks ill of the emperor, he is not subject to punishment, but the matters concerning him should be reported to the emperor. For if he spoke out of levity, he is to be despised; if out of madness, he is worthy of pity; and if as one who has been wronged, he is to be forgiven."

ARIST. He who dishonors a magistrate or the emperor contrary to right is, if a cleric, deposed; if a layman, excommunicated. ^B He who dishonors a king or magistrate who lives piously is, if he is a cleric, to be deposed; if he is a layman, to be excommunicated.

CANON LXXXV

Let there be to us all, clergy and laity, books venerable and holy: of the Old Testament, five of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one of Ruth; four of Kings; two of Chronicles, that is, the book of days; two of Ezra; one of Esther; three of Maccabees; one of Job; one of the Psalter; three of Solomon—Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; twelve of the Prophets—one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, one of Ezekiel, one of Daniel. But let it be known to you from outside that your young men ought to learn the wisdom of the most learned Sirach. ^C And ours, that is, of the New Testament: four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions for you bishops, edited by me, Clement, in eight books, which are not to be published to all because of the mystical things contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles.

These rules, O bishops, have been ordained by us. If you remain in them, you shall be saved and shall have peace; but if you are disobedient, you shall be punished, and you shall have eternal war with one another, paying the penalty that is appropriate for your disobedience. May God, who alone is unbegotten and the maker of all things, unite us all through peace in the Holy Spirit, may He perfect us for every good work, unchangeable, blameless, and irreproachable, ^D and may He deem us worthy of the intercession of His beloved Son

^A BALS. From the 60th canon we learned not to read books falsely inscribed with the names of impious men as if they were holy; but now we learn which books we ought to read from the Old and New Testaments. And you should understand that, even though it is written here that we should read the Constitutions of Clement, they are not to be published; for the second canon of the Sixth Synod forbade their reading, because an adulteration had been made in them. And read that same second canon, which decrees, along with some others, that we should read only the 85 canons of the holy apostles, and that we should not concern ourselves with any other, even if it is said to be a canon of the holy apostles. But those things which have been written by the holy Fathers and confessors we ought both to read and to embrace, as they lead us to the true and orthodox faith. ^B ZONAR. When the faithful apostles had prescribed how the faithful in Christ ought to live, they finally added also which books it is fitting for them to read, and enumerated them. And as was said somewhere above, the enumerations of books which the faithful ought to read are found made by various holy Fathers. This they have done, because...

[Guill. Beveregii note] ...of His own Jesus Christ, our God and Savior, with whom be glory to Him who is God over all, and to the Father, in the Holy Spirit the Comforter, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. ...with whom be glory, through the intercessions of the Virgin Theotokos who gave birth without seed, and of all the saints. Amen. But God alone, by way of paraphrase: "There were read the two volumes of the books of Clement of Rome, of which the one is entitled 'Apostolic Constitutions through Clement,' in which also those canons from the collection of synodical canons which are inscribed as the 'canons of the apostles' are contained." ^C Apostolic Constitutions... ^D ...our own opinion, set forth in the Preface regarding the apostolic canons, is supported by Photius, inasmuch as he asserts with us that they were from the synodical canons. And hence, if I am not mistaken, it happens that the canons of the apostles are also called such by the author of the *Imperfect Work on Matthew*, in his 53rd homily, saying, "How, however, certain priests are ordained from among men is manifestly stated in the eighth book of the canons of the apostles." For by these words the eighth book of the Constitutions is clearly indicated. Whether the collector of the canons and Constitutions himself, whoever he may have been, was the first to append them to these, let others judge. To us, indeed, it seems that some wicked person first appended these canons to the end of the Constitutions, and thus made this appendix, or epilog, common to both, for the sake of profit; and perhaps those corruptions, whatever they may be, that are found in them at the present day are not undeservedly ascribed to that same person.

^A For there were, and indeed still are, spurious writings and those falsely inscribed; and there are also those that have been corrupted, such as the Constitutions published through Clement. These, too, were corrupted and depraved by certain heretics. For this reason, the sixth oecumenical council, in the second chapter of the canons established by it, entirely forbade them to be read. Some of the other enumerations, however, allow for reading—in addition to those enumerated here—the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobias, and the Apocalypse of the Theologian.

These, then, are the eighty-five canons of the all-venerable apostles. Yet in some of the books that contain the canons, there are found other canons inscribed in the name of each of the all-renowned apostles. But the council of the 227 holy Fathers gathered in Trullo under the reign of the emperor Justinian Rhinotmetus, which is called the sixth, in making its enumeration of the sacred canons, says the following: "It has pleased this holy council that the canons accepted and confirmed by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and indeed handed down to us in the name of the holy and most glorious apostles, shall remain firm and secure." ^B Thereafter, when it had said that the Constitutions written by the holy Clement ought not to be read, and had rejected them on the grounds that certain spurious things—alien to piety—had been inserted into them by heretics to the detriment of the Church, it makes mention of the synodical canons, both those of oecumenical and local councils, and those of the divine Fathers made outside of synods. ^C And furthermore, it ordains that it is permitted to no one to alter the aforementioned canons, or to set them aside, or to accept others besides those set before us—canons which have been falsely inscribed by certain men who have attempted to traffic in the truth. Since the second canon of the sixth council so ordains, and makes no mention anywhere of other apostolic canons besides these eighty-five, it is not proper for any other so-called canons of the apostles to be approved; rather, they must be disapproved, branded with an obelus, and rejected as falsely inscribed, illegitimate, and ^D outside the number of those which the divine and holy Fathers have approved by their own judgment.

ARIST. The sixty-book canon alone is to be revered.

These books alone are to be judged by all clergy and laity as venerable and holy: that is to say, of the Old Testament, five [books] of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the son of Nun, one; of Judges and Ruth, one; of Kings, four; of the Remaining—the book of days—two; of Ezra, two; of Esther, one; of the Maccabees, three; of Job, one; of the Psalter, one; of Solomon, three: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; of the twelve Prophets, [one]; and besides these, the Wisdom of the most learned Sirach. Of the New Testament, four Gospels: of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John; of Paul, fourteen epistles…

fourteen; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement, and the Acts of the Apostles; and the Constitutions addressed to the bishops by the same Clement in eight books, which ought not be published to everyone because of certain mystical things ^A contained in them. Rather, the second canon of the sixth synod, which took place in Trullo, rejects these Constitutions entirely, because certain spurious things alien to piety have been added to them by schismatics.

CANONS OF THE FIRST HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD AT NICAEA (52)

BALS. This holy and ecumenical synod took place while the Emperor (in the tenth year of his reign) was ^B the Great.

[Note of William Beveridge: (52) The first Canons of Nicaea. The most celebrated synod of all after the apostolic ones was held at Nicaea, which is the metropolis of Bithynia (a detail which must be added so it may be distinguished from other cities of the same name), concerning which Pliny writes: "Then Nicaea, in the final recess of the Ascanius gulf, which was formerly Olbia." (Plin. Hist. nat. l. v, c. 52). But the scholiast on Leo the Philosopher, regarding the order of the Churches which are subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, asserts it was previously so called; and he adds that when it had been captured and razed by the Mysians, Lysimachus, after the death of Alexander, restored it and named it Nicaea after the daughter of Antipater (Jur. Graec. Rom. l. ii, p. 29). Strabo, however, writes that it was founded by Antigonus and first named Antigonia, and subsequently restored by Lysimachus, in these words (Strab. Geogr. l. xii). Suidas likewise observes that it was so called, adding directly... But Memnon discourses at far greater length concerning the origin and etymology of the name of this city: he affirms, in fact, that it took its name... The remainder of his words, being filled with very many fables, and therefore entirely unworthy of being recited, may be seen in Photius (Biblioth. tmem. 224, cap. 43). Nicetas Choniates calls this city the greatest city of the Bithynians (in Alex. Manuelis filio). And elsewhere he relates that its walls were built of fired brick so that they were never, or at least with difficulty, able to be captured (in Andronico l. i). ^C And it is for this reason that, after the capture of Byzantium by the Latins, this was the seat of the Roman or Greek empire, as Nicephorus Gregoras (Niceph. Greg. l. iv) and Laonicus Chalcocondyla relate (Chalco. De reb. Turc. l. i). But there is nothing that has more consecrated the memory of this city to immortality than that most famous assembly of all the most pious prelates of the Christian Church within it. Indeed, to settle those most grave controversies which were most miserably tearing the Church apart during the times of Constantine the truly Great, all the bishops established everywhere, by the command of the said emperor, gathered in this city, most famous for that reason (or at least were able to gather). Once gathered, they not only determined said controversies, but they also established certain sacred canons pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline, twenty in number; which antiquity has so greatly venerated that it deemed them not to be violated or infringed upon by any other synod, even one celebrated by a gathering of many more bishops: so that, with Leo, the Roman Pope, we may rightly and deservedly say, "Let no synodal councils flatter themselves with the multiplication of the gathering, nor let a more numerous crowd of priests, however large, dare to compare or prefer itself to those three hundred and eighteen, since the Nicaean synod is so divinely consecrated with such a privilege that, whether ecclesiastical judgments are celebrated by fewer or by more, whatever is different from their constitution is entirely devoid of all authority." Therefore, these things are altogether wicked and altogether perverse which are found to be contrary to the most sacred canons (Leo. epist., ad Anatol. ep. CP.; see also his letter to Marcian Augustus).]

CANONS OF THE NICENE COUNCIL

^A Under Constantine the Great, when three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers were gathered in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Church at Alexandria, who blasphemed against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, saying that He was not consubstantial with God and the Father, but a creature, and that there was when He was not; whom this holy synod deposed, and anathematized together with those who agreed with him; but it decreed that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and is true God and Master and Lord and Creator of all created things; and not a creature, nor yet a work. And this synod at Nicaea is called the first when numbered among the ecumenical ones. For before it there were various local synods. But since this is the first of the ecumenical ones, it is placed before the others which happened before it, namely the one in Antioch which was assembled against Paul of Samosata under the Emperor Aurelian, and those in Ancyra and Neocaesarea.

ZONAR. The holy and ecumenical first synod occurred when Constantine the Great was reigning, for three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers had gathered in Nicaea of Bithynia against Arius, who had been a presbyter of the Church at Alexandria, who blasphemed against the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, saying that He was not consubstantial with God and the Father, but a creature, and that there was when He was not; whom this holy synod deposed, and anathematized together with those who agreed with him; but it decreed that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and is true God and Master ^B and Lord and Creator of all created things; and (it decreed) that He is not a creature, nor yet a work. And this synod at Nicaea is called the first when numbered among the ecumenical ones. For although before it there were various local synods, yet since this is the first among the ecumenical ones, it is set before the others which were held before it, namely the one in Antioch concerning Paul of Samosata, which was convened under the Emperor Aurelian, and the one in Ancyra, in which there was an inquiry among those who in time of persecutions had denied the faith and were repenting, as to how it was necessary to receive them; and (the synod) in Neocaesarea, in which canons pertaining to ecclesiastical order were issued.

^C CANON I. If anyone has been operated on by physicians during an illness, or has been cut by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. But if anyone while ^D healthy has castrated himself, such a one if he is in the clergy must be examined... (Note of William Beveridge: ...for indeed Leontius, being accused of being with a certain young woman, named Eustolia, and being forbidden to live with her, castrated himself on her account, so that he might have freedom to spend time with her, as we learn from Athanasius himself, saying, [Greek text omitted]).

^A “And he did not wash away the suspicion; for this reason, being a priest, he was deposed.” And, “Whoever, when he was a priest, was deprived of his rank, because, spending days with a woman by the name of Eustolia, and seeking to hide the shameful suspicion concerning her, he castrated himself.” “At Antioch, after Stephen, Leontius received the presidency, having obtained it contrary to the terms written at Nicaea; for he was castrated, having been the perpetrator of his own audacity.”

On Canon I of the Council of Nicaea

If anyone, while in health, has castrated himself, it is fitting that such a one, even if he be recorded in the clergy, should cease [his ministry]; and that from this time forward no one such should be promoted. But just as this is manifest, that it has been spoken concerning those who devise the deed and dare to castrate themselves, so, if any have been castrated by barbarians or by masters, and yet are found otherwise worthy, the canon admits such as these into the clergy. ^B

BALS. The divine apostolic canons, 21, 22, 23, and 24, have sufficiently taught us what must be done concerning those who have castrated themselves. Consequently, then, this present canon also decrees that those who have surrendered themselves to be castrated, or have cut off their virile parts with their own hands, are not to be admitted into the clergy, nor promoted to the priesthood; but even if they were previously enrolled in the number of the clergy, they are to be cast-out; and yet those who have been castrated by others, and have been deprived of their generative parts, if they are judged worthy of the priesthood, are not to be prohibited on that account. Read also the eighth canon of the synod assembled in the temple of the Holy Apostles, which is called the First and Second. ^C Since, moreover, interpreting the apostolic canons, we have written that he who has castrated himself through passion after ordination is to be punished; but from this present canon saying, “If anyone has been operated on by physicians during a sickness, such a one shall remain in the clergy,” and again, “If anyone while in health has castrated himself, it is fitting that such a one, even if he be recorded in the clergy, should cease,” some have said that one is not punished who, on account of sickness, after he has been received into the clergy, has been mutilated. We say that this canon does not speak of those who have been mutilated after their priesthood, but of those who, before their priesthood, were subject to controversy afterward. But if someone insists even more, and wishes for him to be forgiven who has been mutilated after his priesthood on account of sickness, let him hear that the 142nd Novel of Justinian, which is situated in book 6, title 51, last chapter, which was also placed in chapter 14 of the first title of the present work, shuts his mouth. ^D We say these things are to be held as such, if anyone after the priesthood has been mutilated without the knowledge of the Church.

Guill. Beveregii notes. c. 24. It is clear that this canon decreed that whoever, being in good health, has castrated himself, is to be deposed; and accordingly, Leontius was justly deposed from the priesthood. And it was decreed, moreover, that such a one should not be promoted; yet Leontius was promoted, and thus the canon was violated.

...before the synod was assembled seems to us to have been perpetrated by us, and to have provided the occasion for the Fathers assembled in it to enact this canon anew: by whose institution Leontius was immediately deposed; as Athanasius attests, who immediately after the words previously praised appends these. Athan. ibid. Socrates, speaking of the same Leontius, says, Socrat. Hist. eccles. l. ii, c. 26. The same Leontius was afterward promoted to the Antiochene throne, but contrary to the decrees of this Council of Nicaea, as even Theodoret observes, saying, Theodor. hist. eccles. l. ii, c. 24. Indeed, it has been noted in this canon that the Nicene Fathers constituted nothing new, but only confirmed the apostolic canons by the authority of an ecumenical synod, as is manifest from these words. For it can be doubtful to no one that they had a regard for some more ancient canon, and cited it, saying, “No, but,” as if they had said, “The canon published heretofore and known to everyone admits such as these into the clergy.” However, no other canon existed at that time by which this was constituted, except the 21st apostolic, which we therefore rightly judge to be cited and praised here.

^A For if someone has been castrated by ecclesiastical permission, even after he has become a cleric, this will bring him no prejudice, as it seems to me for the time being—although I have not seen any person ordained who was allowed to be castrated on account of some disease, even though many sought this synodically, both when I was performing the duties of the Chartophylax ^B and even after I became patriarch.

ZONAR. Various canons of the holy apostles ordain the same things as the present canon, as do also the laws of the state. It seems, however, that the matter was disregarded even after the canons, and that some who had mutilated themselves were again being promoted to the clergy, while those who had been cut by others out of spite were not being promoted. For this reason, then, the Fathers of this synod set forth the present canon, ordaining the same things as the apostolic canons and the laws, so that neither those who surrendered themselves to emasculation, or who became their own executioners, should be enrolled in the clergy or raised to the priesthood—but even if they had already been appointed to the clergy, they should be cast out of it—nor should those who have been wronged by others and deprived of their procreative members, if they are judged worthy of the priesthood, be prevented for that reason from being promoted to the priesthood. A "self-mutilator" is said to be not only he who cuts off the member with his own hands, but also whoever willingly and without any excuse of necessity surrenders himself to be cut. But these matters are explained more fully in the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th apostolic canons.

ARIST. Eunuchs may be received into the clergy. But those who castrate themselves may not be received. It is stated in the apostolic canons—namely, the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th—that one worthy of the priesthood is not to be prevented from being promoted to the clergy if he was castrated involuntarily. But he who has voluntarily mutilated himself, as a self-murderer, is by no means to be admitted to the clergy; ^C and if he is a cleric, he is to be deposed. The present canon, therefore, has the same intent. ^D

CANON II

BALS. From the 80th canon of the holy apostles we have learned that neither he who has come to the Church from a pagan life, nor he who has come from an evil way of life, is to be made a bishop immediately; and read what is written therein. But the present canon adds that such a person is not to be made a presbyter immediately, nor is any non-believer to be baptized before he has been sufficiently instructed in the catechism; for this reason, he is in need of time for ^B examination; and it says that anyone who acts contrary to these things is to be deposed. Since, however, the canon punishes "animal" sins [ψυχικὰ ἁμαρτήματα] that manifest themselves after baptism, some have asked what these "animal" sins are, and why the canon mentions "animal" sins and not "corporeal" ones. And some have said that "animal" sins are those which are born from the passions of the soul, such as from pride, from disobedience, and other such things, and these, indeed, lead to deposition. ^C Guill. Beveregii note. From these words it is sufficiently proven that the ecclesiastical canon was established before this council, and is confirmed by it, and that the latter was the eightieth of the apostles, as has also been noted in the same place.

^D As to the argument that the ordination of St. Ambrose, who was advanced to the episcopal grade soon after his baptism, seems to go against this decree: I have already shown sufficiently clearly, I believe, in the annotations to the 80th apostolic canon, that his ordination, being extraordinary, violated neither this nor any other canon. And what I have brought forward there may also be referred to the approval of the ordination of Nectarius of Constantinople. For he was elected before he was baptized, and was ordained immediately after his baptism; so that, clad in the neophyte's garment, contrary to what is decreed by this canon, he was proclaimed Bishop of Constantinople by the common vote of the whole second universal council. Thus Sozomen writes. But the same Sozomen judges the ordination of this man, too, to have been divinely instituted, saying... and after a few words, he writes that others also believed it to be so. See more in the same place. Yet, in any case, his ordination was undoubtedly canonically sufficient, in that it was confirmed by an ecumenical synod.

^A

The heresy of the Novatians and their untimely abstinence from marriage and from the eating of meat, as the 5th Canon of the Holy Apostles and others suggest. But I say that every sin which brings ruin upon the soul is called "psychical" [mental/spiritual], whether it takes its beginning from a bodily appetite or from a psychical one. For this reason, the Church designates all sins as psychical lapses. Moreover, the canon mentions only psychical sins, as these also encompass the carnal ones. Regarding, however, the fact that a man who has been baptized and assumed into the clergy is not punished for fornication or murder which he committed before baptism, read the 20th canon of Saint Basil and what is contained therein, and the 17th canon of the Holy Apostles.

ZONARAS. The eightieth canon of the Holy Apostles also decrees that one who has come from a pagan life or from an evil manner of living should by no means be created a bishop straightway. And we are warned by the voice of the great Paul, writing to Timothy, concerning what sort of man he who is being advanced to the episcopacy ought to be, saying that he must not be a neophyte. For this reason, these Fathers also decree that neither should one approaching the faith be baptized immediately, unless he has been sufficiently instructed by catechesis, nor should one who has been baptized be enrolled in the clergy immediately, before a trial of himself has been given, both as to how he stands regarding the faith and how he stands regarding his life. But if, after the trial, he is found irreproachable, and yet as time passes he is convicted of having some psychical sin, they order him to be deposed. ^B It is asked, then, what a psychical sin might be, and why only psychical sins were mentioned, and not also carnal ones, which are more inclined to cause the deposition of those who have fallen into them, whereas psychical ones do so to a much lesser degree. Some, then, say that the holy Fathers who published this canon designated as "psychical" every sin by which the soul is harmed. Others say that "psychical" sins are those which arise from the passions of the soul, such as from arrogance, pride, and disobedience. For these also, if they are not removed by treatment, render a man liable to deposition; and this is easily apparent from the example of those who were called Novatians. For they were not led astray by any error of doctrine, but, calling themselves "Cathari" [Puritans] out of arrogance, they neither accepted those who had fallen during the persecutions even if they repented, nor did they communicate with digamists. For this reason they were expelled from the gathering of the faithful ^C because of their arrogance and their hatred of their brethren. If, therefore, they were expelled from the Church for these things, how should one who, because of arrogance, does not obey his bishop and remains uncorrected, not be deposed? The fifth canon of the Holy Apostles also orders that those who cast out their own wives under the pretext of piety be excommunicated, and if they persist, that they be deposed. And the thirty-sixth [canon] of the same commands that those who are called by the vote of the bishops to spiritual offices, but refuse to undertake the ministry, be excommunicated until they do undertake it. So if they never undertake it, they shall be held under excommunication for as long as they live. Those who are excommunicated for life are not unlike those who are deposed. And I think it is better to say that every sin could justly be called "psychical," as having its beginning from a perversion of the powers of the soul. For into three parts, regarding the soul... ^D

^A that are observed and divided, there are the rational, the appetitive, and the irascible faculties, and from each of these virtues and vices are naturally born: virtues, when we use them rightly and as they were placed in us by the Creator; but vices, when we use them perversely. Therefore, the virtue and achievement of the rational faculty is piety, the notions in our minds worthy of the divine Majesty, and the unerring discernment of the good and the inferior, and of what it is necessary to choose and what to turn away from. But the falling away from these is vice and sin. The virtue of the appetitive part is to desire what is truly desirable—I mean the divine nature—and the actions that are able to make us akin to it. But the turning aside from these and the inclination of the desire toward earthly things is sin. Likewise, the virtue of the irascible faculty is opposition and hatred toward vice, and to resist the cravings of the body, and even unto blood to stand against sin, and to fight for right reason and virtue, and to say with David: "I beheld the transgressors, and I was grieved" (Ps. cxviii, 158). But vice is anger toward one's neighbor, and hatred, and contentious dispositions, and malice. Thus, therefore, as has been said, since sins are composed from the powers of the soul, the divine Fathers have rightly called them "psychical" (or animal) sins, following the great Paul, who says: "There is a natural (psychical) body, and there is a spiritual body" (I Cor. xv, 44); calling "natural" that which is led and ruled by the soul, and serving its natural faculties, giving itself over to anger and appetite, and is glued to earthly things, and thinks of nothing beyond them. ^B

ARISTOTLE

The same thing which the eightieth canon of the holy apostles says, this canon also states: that one who has recently been baptized should not be immediately led to the episcopacy or the presbyterate, lest, being a neophyte, he be puffed up and fall into the snare of the devil and judgment. It is therefore necessary for such a one, according to the eleventh canon of the Council of Sardica, first to perform in each degree—namely, that of reader, subdeacon, and ^C the rest—at least for a length of time, and thus, if he be judged worthy of the divine priesthood, to enjoy the greatest dignity; just as again, also after the ordination, if he be shown to have sinned, he is to be removed from his rank. ^D

CANON III.

^A The great synod has forbidden entirely that it be permitted to a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or at all to any who are in the clergy, to have a "subintroducta" woman, except, of course, a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or those persons alone who have escaped all suspicion.

BALS. For what concerns "subintroducta" women, read chapter 14 of title 8 of the present work, and what is contained therein; and you will learn from the Justinian Novel summarized there that clerics who, after warnings, do not separate from "subintroducta" women—those who are other than the persons declared in the present canon—are to be deposed. Bishops, however, whenever and with whatever woman they are found cohabiting, are deposed on that account. And note this. Concerning "subintroducta" women, there has been much debate at different times. Some said that a "subintroducta" woman is one who has been introduced in place of a lawful wife and who cohabits with someone fornicatiously. Others, however, said that it is any woman who cohabits with someone to whom she is entirely alien, even if she is immune from any suspicion. And this seems to be the truer view. For this reason, also, the great Basil, as he says, warns the priest via his epistle to Gregory the presbyter, that he should separate from the "subintroducta" woman, and he does not decree that he be deposed on that account, even though he is sinning evidently and without any doubt.

ZONAR. The canon wills that men dedicated to sacred things should be devoid of blame and that no access to suspicion against them should be left to anyone. Therefore, it has forbidden all those who are in sacred orders to cohabit with women, except for the persons mentioned. And this is forbidden not only to those in sacred orders, but also to all those enrolled in the clergy. The great Basil, too, writing to Gregory the presbyter, mentions such a canon and orders him to be separated from the woman he was keeping at home: "If you dare," he says, "after having been corrected, to hold on to the priesthood, you shall be an anathema to all the people." The fifth canon of the ecumenical synod in Trullo also ordains the same things, adding these as well: "Let eunuchs also observe this same thing, providing for their own blamelessness; but those who transgress the canon, if they are clerics, let them be deposed; if they are laymen, let them be excommunicated." And the Novel situated in the third book of the Basilica ordains the same things as the sacred canons; and that of the seventh synod ^D...Because he castrated himself so that he might thereafter have authority to sleep with a certain Eustolia, a woman indeed because of him, but called a virgin. ... [index: entries preserved]

The nineteenth canon of the Council of Ancyra, toward the end, says: "But we have prevented virgins from associating with some men as sisters."

ARIST. Let no man have a subintroducta [a woman dwelling with him], except for a mother, and a sister, and those persons who flee all suspicion.

Beyond the persons who flee all suspicion of lasciviousness, such as a mother, sister, aunt, and the like, the present canon does not permit any of those who are ordained to live with a woman; neither does the fifth canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, nor the eighteenth and twenty-second of the Second Council of Nicaea, ^B nor does the great Basil, who writing to the presbyter Gregory [commands him] to be separated from a subintroducta woman, even if she were seventy years of age, and he did not consider it a passionate cohabitation for her to live with him.

CANON IV

It is fitting that a bishop be constituted ^C primarily by all those in the province; but if this be difficult, or because of urgent necessity, or on account of the length of the road, then let three by all means gather in the same place, with the absent also giving their vote and consenting by letter, and then let the ordination be performed; but the confirmation of what is done is to be granted in each province to the metropolitan. For it is necessary that he who is about to be promoted to a bishopric be voted upon by the bishops, as it has been ordained by the holy Fathers who were at Nicaea in the canon which says "It is fitting that a bishop..." ^D Generally, however, that is manifest, that if any should become a bishop without the opinion of the metropolitan, the great synod has ordained that such a one ought not to be a bishop, with the bishop of Alexandria also voting with him and sealing the act. This canon thus distinguishes, so that the one in each of the provinces—the one of the metropolis—should have the authority, and he himself constitutes all the bishops who are under the same [metropolitan], and this is the intent of the canon. And if that of Nicomedia, since it is an ancient metropolis, is obligated to ordain all the bishops who are under the province. The holy synod said: "We all desire these things." And it would be for my wishing to accept him as a partner in the parity of the priesthood. One thing, therefore, is still necessary, the authority of your sacred hand; for this, indeed, the Olbiatae must have; but for me, prayers.

^A BALS. To be established, or elected, as bishop is here ordained. For since the election of prelates was formerly made by the multitude of the citizens, this did not please the divine Fathers, lest the life of those dedicated to sacred things should be degraded by laymen; and they decreed that the bishop should be elected by the provincial bishops of each province. But if this is difficult for any good reason, or because of the length of the road, the election shall not be made otherwise than if three provincial bishops have come together, having also the votes of those who are absent by means of written statements. They granted the ordination of this man, that is, the consecration, to the first, that is, the metropolitan, and not only the ordination but also the confirmation of the election. And for this reason, ^B of the three who are elected, the one who is to perform the ordination declares whomever he himself wills; and it is not of necessity that the one who is placed first is declared, and then the others. And the canon consists in these things. But certain metropolitans, when the election of their bishops had been made, in the queen of cities, with three bishops, whether foreign or their own, no account being taken of the remaining provincial bishops, when they were asked how they did this, used in their defense the 13th canon of the Council of Carthage. And read what is written in that canon, and the 19th canon of the Council of Antioch. And these things apply when the metropolitan has many provincial bishops. But if, as many metropolitans have, they have only one or two provincial bishops, then of necessity the election will take place with those provincial bishops who are present and who can be found, and with foreign bishops.

^C ZONAR. Perhaps some one might suspect that the present canon is contrary to the first canon of the holy apostles. For there it is ordained that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops; but here it is by three, with the absent ones consenting and agreeing by letters. But they do not conflict with each other in any way. For that canon of the holy apostles signifies by the name of "creation" the consecration and the laying on of hands; but the canon of this synod understands by the word "constitution" and "creation" the election. And it decrees that the election of a prelate may not be made otherwise than if three come together, with whom the absent ones also agree by letters—that is, acknowledging that they will follow the vote arrived at by the three gathered together. But after the vote, it grants the confirmation, that is, the completion of the work, and the hand-laying and consecration, to the metropolitan of the province, so that the election may be confirmed by him. ^D And it is confirmed when he has consecrated, by the laying on of hands, one of those elected whom he himself approves, having used two or three bishops according to the prescription of the apostolic canon.

Guill. Beveridge’s note. Synes. Epist. 67. That Synesius referred to the present canon with these words, I do not doubt. For the aforementioned ordination of the bishop of Palaebisca was admitted contrary to both the former and the latter part of this canon, inasmuch as it was not done by three bishops

^A ARIST. A bishop is appointed by all the provincial bishops, or at least by three, with the rest giving their assent by letter. The final authority, however, rests with the metropolitan. ^B A bishop is ordained by two or three bishops, according to the first canon of the holy Apostles; but he is chosen by at least three, if perhaps all the bishops of the province cannot be present due to some urgent necessity or the length of the journey. Nevertheless, even those who are absent must send their votes by letter to the bishops who are present and performing the ordination; yet after the vote has been taken, the metropolitan has the power to select one of the three who have been elected, whichever he prefers.

CANON V

^D BALS. It is decreed that those excommunicated by some bishops and not absolved are not to be received by others. But since it is likely, as he says, that the one excommunicated may claim to have been unjustly excommunicated, or that the one who excommunicated him may have died, the canon commands, just as other canons have also decreed, that all the bishops should assemble twice a year before the first...

of them, to resolve doubts regarding the excommunicated, and other ecclesiastical questions. ^A Sharpness here is termed disturbance of mind. Moreover, the matters regarding annual synods contained in this canon have not been set forth more accurately by us in this place, as they are not in use; for it is established by the canon of the synod that was in Trullo, and likewise by the Novella of Justinian, or the 20th and 21st chapters of the first title of the third book of the Basilika, that bishops should meet only once. Read those chapters too. Seek also the 37th canon of the holy apostles, and the 14th canon of the synod at Sardica. Read also the 8th chapter of the 8th title of the present work.

ZONARAS. Many canons of the holy apostles also decree that those who have been segregated by their own bishops should not be admitted to communion by anyone. But since it sometimes happens that segregation is inflicted upon the undeserving, perhaps on account of the anger or pusillanimity of the one who segregated, or because of some passion—which [the canon] also called sharpness—therefore the holy Fathers issued the present canon, directing ^B that excommunications be examined, i.e., whenever the excommunicated complain against those who excommunicated them, [claiming] that they were excommunicated contrary to justice. And they wish the examination to be held by the bishops of the province, either by all or by the majority, if it happens that some, perhaps because of bodily infirmity, or necessary travel, or another compelling cause, were not present with the others. They decreed that synods should be held in each province twice a year, which was also canonized by the holy apostles. But while they decreed that one of the synods should be held in the fourth week of Pentecost, and the other in the month of Hyperberetaios, that is, October, ^C the holy Fathers of this synod changed the time, decreeing that the synod should be held before Lent instead of the fourth week of Pentecost. And they added the reason: "So that," they say, "all petty-mindedness may be removed." For he who thinks he has been excommunicated improperly will necessarily be angry at the one who excommunicated him; and the one who excommunicated, hearing that the excommunicated person does not accept the penalty with a good grace, but is grumbling against him, will not be disposed impassively toward him. But with their minds thus affected toward each other, how could the gift be offered purely to God? For this reason, it was arranged that one synod should be held before Lent, and the other during the autumn—and October is a month of autumn. ^D In these synods, they decreed that such questions should be examined, and [that those] who clearly and indisputably have caused offense—for it is likely that the one who has been penalized will deny the crime charged against him by the bishop—they, according to reason, that is, according to justice, shall be held as excommunicated by everyone, until it seems good to the bishops in common to pronounce something more humane regarding them. But one might say: Why was the vote regarding the excommunicated person not entrusted by the canon to the one who excommunicated, but to the collective of bishops? This, I think, is said so that when the one who excommunicated

^A proves himself more severe than is just, and does not absolve the man from the penalty after the passage of time, or perchance departs this life without having absolved the person under penalty, then, if the synod judges the duration of the penalty sufficient and the repentance of the penalized person proportionate to the sin, it is permitted for it to decide on his behalf and to absolve the man from the penalty, even if his bishop remains unyielding and implacable, or perchance has died. ^B Therefore, the thirty-seventh canon of the holy apostles, and the present one, decree that synods be held twice a year. However, the eighth canon of the sixth ecumenical synod, having modified this constitution, decrees that a synod be held once a year in each province, at a time between the solemnities of Easter and the end of October, in whatever place the metropolitan bishop shall designate. Furthermore, it commands that those bishops who, being in good health and residing in their own cities, and having no other reasonable and unavoidable business, neglect to assemble, are to be corrected fraternally, that is, to be punished with mild admonition. In our times, however, this whole system of synods is so neglected that they are nowhere celebrated. Regarding the penalties for those who have not appeared at synods, read the seventy-sixth canon of the Synod of Carthage.

ARIST. Let those excommunicated by some not be received by others, unless the excommunication was done out of pusillanimity, or contention, or something of that sort. ^C And for this reason it was deemed necessary that a synod be held twice a year in each province: one, indeed, before Lent, and another about the autumn. It is necessary, according to the proverb, for the one who inflicts the wound to provide the healing, and that one who has been excommunicated by his own bishop should not be received by others so unexamined and without discussion; but rather, that the cause of the excommunication be investigated, lest the excommunication was perhaps induced without cause, or out of pusillanimity, or contention, or some other bitterness of the bishop. Thus, that neither the excommunicated should be excommunicated as it happens, ^D nor those bishops who excommunicated them be despised, while other bishops admit them without examination, it seemed good to this holy synod that a synod be held twice a year in each province, so that by the common opinion of all the bishops of the same province, every ecclesiastical question and every controversy may be resolved; as the canon of the holy apostles also declares. But, as we wrote there, the eighth canon of the sixth synod in Trullo, and the sixth of the second of Nicaea, on account of the hardship, and because the gathered bishops are insufficient to undertake such a journey, decreed that a synod be held once a year in each province, in a place…

where the bishop of the metropolis may approve, between the time of the holy feast of Pascha and the month of October. ^A

CANON VI

BALS. The present canon and the seventh [canon] decree that the four patriarchs—namely, the Roman, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Jerusalemite (for the one of Constantinople will be discussed in other canons)—are to be honored according to ancient customs. The Bishop of Alexandria presides over the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Bishop of Antioch likewise over Syria, Coelesyria, Mesopotamia, and both Cilicias; and the Bishop of Jerusalem over the provinces in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia, since, he says, the Bishop of Rome also presides over the western provinces. Thus, the canons intend for patriarchs to preside over their metropolitans, and in turn for metropolitans to preside over their bishops, so that nothing of any significance or difficulty may be done by the bishops who are subject to them without the [consent] of these superiors. For this reason, they also command that one who has become a bishop without the decision of the first [the metropolitan] ^C is not even to be a bishop, adding that if, after a canonical election has taken place, some object, the vote of the majority ought to prevail according to the laws.

These matters having been thus defined, someone inquired: since the present canon determines that in all cases the vote of the majority wins, but the "Novella" constitution of our powerful and holy Emperor, Lord Manuel Comnenus—which was issued in the month of July, in the 14th indiction, of the year 6674—defines among other things in clear words, "But if the opinion of all should not be the same, but some dissent from the opinion of the majority, or the number of those who dissent is equal, the opinion of those with whom the one presiding over the trial agrees shall be preferred," to which must we pay heed? ^D And some have said that the Novella is not to be heard in ecclesiastical cases, and that therefore the old laws remain valid in these, and the canons that were enacted consistent with them. Others, however, have said in opposition that the Novella has application for the whole world and every case, and is a general law. But to me, the Novella does not seem to have a place in ecclesiastical elections, nor in ecclesiastical questions, because canonical tradition must not be overturned by it. Seek also the canon of the synod of Antioch. Truly, the Patriarch of Jerusalem...

^A was called Bishop of Aelia, because the city of Jerusalem was once called Solyma and Jebus; but after the most famous divine temple was built within it by King Solomon, and the sacred things were deposited therein, it was called Hierosolyma. But when its people had been led into captivity by the Babylonians, and the city overturned, after the Roman Emperor Aelius Hadrianus had restored it, it was named Aelia from his name; yet by a general name, both the city of Hierosolymorum itself, and the whole region subject to it, are called Palestine.

Notes of William Beveridge.

^B The etymology of this word *Hierosolyma*, which Balsamon, and also Josephus (from whom Balsamon seems to have drawn it) recorded of old, unless that he asserts it was so named by Melchisedech herein. "He was the first," he says, "the first founder of the city of Hierosolyma, was a dynast of the Canaanites, who in his native tongue was called a just king (Melchisedech), for such indeed he was. And for this reason, he was the first to offer priesthood to God; and when he had built the temple, he called the city Hierosolyma, which had previously been called Solyma." Joseph. *De bell. Jud.* lib. vii, c. 18. In these words, however, errors occur. For, firstly, he asserts that Melchisedech built the city of Hierosolyma, which Abraham Zachuth also recorded in the book *Juchasin*, or of genealogies, saying: "And our rabbis of blessed memory said that Sem was Melchisedech, who built Jerusalem." But it is evident from the Holy Scriptures themselves that the city of Salem, whose king Melchisedech was, is situated on the road leading from the Damascene valley to Sodom (Gen. xiv and xxxiii), concerning which Jerome in his book *De locis Hebraicis* says: "Salem, a city of the Shechemites, which is Sichem," and adds immediately, "but another village is shown even to this day near Aelia, opposite the western quarter, by this name." Whence it is evident that Salem, which was situated near Aelia or Hierosolyma, and from which this name seems sometimes to be transferred to Hierosolymam, is different from that in which Melchisedech reigned; even if the Hierosolymitan Targum, Jonathan ^C and Onkelos, in the cited passage of Gen. xiv, interpret Salem as Jerusalem. Next, he asserts that Melchisedech was the first to be a priest to God, although Abel had performed the duties of a priest two thousand years before him; furthermore, he claims that the same man built the temple to God, when it is plain from the Scriptures that no temple to God had been built before Solomon. Which finally pertains to our matter, he affirms that this city was previously called Solyma, but when the temple had been built in it, then at length it was called *Hierosolyma*. So that according to Josephus, this word *Hierosolyma* is composed of the Greek *hieros* and the Hebrew *Solyma*, which is absurd, especially since he himself admits that this city was built by the Canaanites, who imbibed the Hebrew language along with their mother's milk, to whom it is wholly incredible that they imposed a Greek name upon their own city, even in part. To this opinion, Balsamon draws as near as possible in this place, writing that the ancient city was named Solyma, and was called ^D *Hierosolyma* because the temple was built there by Solomon; just as if even the Hebrews and Israelites themselves had given a Greek name to their own metropolis: which was called Jerusalem many years before Solomon, as the Scriptures themselves teach. Of the same stamp is another Greek etymology of this word by Eupolemus, said to have been devised: "The first," he says, "of these sacred houses was called the temple of Solomon, but afterwards it was corruptly called by the name of the temple, the city itself *Hierousalem*; and by the Greeks it is called by a kindred name, *Hierosolyma*." Eupolem. apud Euseb. *De præp. Evang.* lib. ix, cap. 34. Likewise Lactantius writes that this city was built and named by Solomon: "Solomon," he says, "son of David, built the temple, and the city, which he called Hierosolyma from his own name." Lactant. *De ver. Sap.* lib. iv. But the most absurd of all is the fiction of Lysimachus the Alexandrian, who invented that the city *Hierosolyma* was called from *hierosylein* (plundering of temples), asserting that the Jews, having treated men injuriously and having plundered and burned the temples, came to the place now called Judea, and having built a city, dwelt there; and that this city *Hierosyla* was named from their disposition (namely, because they were temple-plunderers); but afterwards, having grown in strength, they changed the name so as to avoid the disgrace, and called the city *Hierosolyma*, and themselves *Hierosolymites*. Lysimach. apud Joseph. *cont. Apion.* lib. i, near the end. But Josephus rightly observes here concerning their calling it *Hierosolymon*, that is, that the plundering of sacred things is not expressed by the same word among the Greeks and the Hebrews. The same must be said of the meaning of the word *hierosylein*, which he himself, however, unmindful of his own (argument), used to complete his etymology. From these points it is evident how much the wits of the Greeks were tortured in investigating the true rationale of this name, and to how much ridicule they expose themselves while they strive to derive it from their own sources. Aristotle indeed acted more prudently when he pronounced this name to be tortuous and difficult for Greek ears: "the name of their city," he says, "is altogether tortuous, for they call it Hierusalem." Aristot. apud Euseb. *De præp. Evang.* lib. ix, c. 5. The same words of his occur in Josephus, *cont. Apion.* lib. i, except that there it is read even more tortuously, *Hierosolymon*. The true and genuine etymology of this word, therefore, must not be sought from the Greeks, but from the Hebrews, as from those by whom it was given to their own city. In the Old Testament it is used most frequently, but written in a different mode: for more frequently it is written [Hebrew text omitted], sometimes also more fully [Hebrew text omitted], which in this way is found five times according to the Masoretes, viz. Esth. ii, 6, Jer. xxvi, 18, 1 Par. iii, 5, 2 Par. vi, 21, and xxxiv, 9, in which last place, however, it is written defectively [Hebrew text omitted]; nevertheless, with the local [particle] it is read [Hebrew text omitted]. But from the

^A captives of Babylon (49) and of the city having been razed, since the king of the Romans, Aelius Hadrian, ^B raised up this [city] (50), it was called by the name of his own…

[Guill. Beveregii notes] Among these inhabitants, it is written also as Yerushalayim with a final mem, as R. Azaria testifies in his book called Meor Enayim, where, moreover, he produces a very ancient coin, on which the name of this city is inscribed. On this ancient shekel of the Israelites, on one side, which lies to the left, appear Samaritan or more ancient Hebrew letters, as they are portrayed today, that is, *Shekel Yisrael*; in the middle stands a vessel of manna, and above it the letters *sh* and *m*. On the other face, there are Samaritan letters for *Hierosolymah sancta*, together with the rod of Aaron, producing almonds. These things were also observed by R. Azaria, who, regarding this coin (similar ones to which our most learned Brian Walton brought forth in his Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta from Villalpando, Morinus, and others), asserts these things. However, since the Hebrews themselves are accustomed to call their metropolis by its own proper language among themselves, and they have also called it *Hierosolyma* in Greek, this afforded an occasion to the Greeks to invent those ridiculous etymologies of this word ^C which I mentioned before, by which, once it was so written, it was easy to recall it to their own language and to derive it either from *hieron* and *solyma* with Josephus and Balsamon in this place, or with Eupolemus from the words *hieron* and *Solomon*, or even with Lysimachus from *hiero-sylein*. But if it had always been written and called *Hierousalêm*, this name would have seemed to all other Greeks, just as to Aristotle, so tortuous, perplexed, and prodigious that it would have deterred them altogether from inquiring into its etymology, especially in their own language. Nor indeed is it so easy and straightforward to fish out the genuine etymology of this name from the Hebrew sources themselves. Some derive it from *yare* [to fear], and the same as *shalom*, as if it were named thus by the Jebusites, the first inhabitants of this city, as if it were *Tiere salem*, or even *Pas*; it was called so. If you should expect a Rabbinic etymology, you will find it in *Bereshith Rabba*, where at the words of Genesis ^D "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-Jireh," these things are feigned: "Abraham called the place *Jireh*. Shem called it *Shalem*. God said: If I call it *Jireh*, it will displease the righteous Abraham; if I call it *Shalem*, it will displease the righteous Shem: therefore I will impose upon it a name composed of both, *Jireh-Shalem*, i.e., God will see *Shalem*." (Ber. Rab. sect. on the occasion, if you remove the fiction, Valentinus Schindlert himself embraced the same etymology in the word *Yerushalaim*. From David, he says, it was called by a Chald. name composed of *Salem* and *yireh*, 'he will see, he will provide', by which name that place was called, and properly the mount Moriah by Abraham, Gen. xxii, 14, then he adds that...[missing terminal thought])

(49) "By the captives of Babylon." Balsamon here, whether from memory or at least by a slip of the pen, discourses as if the city of Jerusalem had lain razed to the ground from the Babylonian captivity until Aelius Hadrian, and had not been restored before him: which contradicts not only all other trustworthy historians, but the Holy Scripture itself most openly; and therefore there is no need for it to be refuted here.

Adriano built this ^A (50), it was called by his own name, Aelia. Yet by a general name, both it and the honor of its precedence, does it keep its proper dignity? And they heard Cæsarea...

Guill. Beveregius's Note

This they interpret as Hieronymus, Jebus, Salem, and Hierusalem. The first name is Calcala; the second is Paz; the third is Vision of Peace. Hieron., or Paul and Eustoch., letter to Marcella. Augustine: "As on the contrary, whenever ye hear the name Hierusalem, which is called the Vision of Peace." Aug., in Apocal. Hom. 16, and elsewhere. There Hierusalem was founded, the most famous city of God, serving as a sign of the free city, which is called the heavenly Hierusalem; which word is Hebrew, and is interpreted as Vision of Peace. Aug., De catech. rud., ch. 20. To omit others, this word is also explained in the Copt-Arabic nomenclature—in Arabic, "Revelation of Peace"; in Coptic, [Coptic text: see facsimile], Nomencl. Ægyptiaco-Arab. Kirch. Port. 9. For the Coptic language, as far as concerns most of its characters and the words themselves expressed by them, is nothing other than a corrupted and depraved Greek dialect.

^B Balsamon, drawing from the common opinion of the scholars of his time (to whom it was customary to call Aelia—founded by Aelius Hadrianus—Hierosolyma), brings this forth. But that Aelius Hadrianus did not restore the old Hierosolyma, which had been razed to the ground by Titus, but rather built a new one near it, which he called Aelia after his own name, is proven by very strong arguments. However, because this is called into doubt, we shall repeat the entire matter a little more deeply, so that it may be clearer. First, therefore, in the year of the Julian period 4783, of the Dionysian or vulgar era computed from the birth of Christ, 70, under Fl. Vespasianus for the second time and Titus as consuls, on the 31st day of the month of August, the city of Hierusalem, once the most celebrated metropolis of the Jews, was captured by the Romans; and the emperor ordered it to be dug up forthwith ^C and razed to the ground: as Josephus, an eyewitness, has handed down, saying: "Caesar orders them now to raze the whole city and the temple itself." Caesar orders them to overturn the entire city absolutely, and the temple itself foundation-deep, Joseph., On the War, book VI, ch. 1. But I confess the three towers, Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne, along with a part of the wall surrounding the city, he spared, and soon adds: "The rest of the entire perimeter of the city the demolishers so leveled, that those who came along could hardly believe it had ever been inhabited." The rest of the circuit of the city they so flattened in destroying it that those who approached it could never believe it had once been inhabited. Ibid. By the word *kataskaptein* used here on both counts, Josephus seems to indicate that a plow was drawn across it when it was leveled to the ground. For it cannot escape anyone that the ancient Romans were accustomed to use a plow in destroying as well as in founding cities, as Cato asserted in his *Origines*, and also Servius in the 5th *Aeneid*. ^D For therefore, he says, the plow was used for the deconsecrating or destroying of cities, so that they might be overturned by the same rite with which they were founded. Indeed, they were accustomed to draw a plow around cities or colonies that were being founded. Whence Cicero: "But you, puffed up with arrogance, all dignity of the auspices having been disregarded, led a colony to Casilinum, where it had been led only a few years before, so that you might see the standards and drive the plow around it; with whose plow-share you almost grazed the gate of Capua." Cicer., Philipp. 2, n. 40. Hence also that from Virgil, *Aeneid* book V: "Meanwhile Aeneas marks out the city with a plow." And that from Ovid, *Fastor.* book IV: "A fit day is chosen, on which he may mark the walls with a plow." And a little later: "Then pressing the plow-tail, he marks the walls with a furrow, The white heifer with a snow-white bullock bore the yoke."

However, they were also accustomed to bring or apply the plow to the destroying and demolishing of cities, as Coel. Rhodig. testifies, *Antiq.* book XXVI, ch. 5; hence Horace, *Carm.*: "With heavy destruction Thyestes' wrath overthrew causes, whereby at last They perished from the heights of cities, The hostile, insolent army plow Drove through the walls."

Hence also, the emperor Valens, offended by the Constantinopolitans, threatened that he would drive a plow over that city, "saying that he would make the city a desert, and apply a plow to it." Socrat., *Hist. eccl.* book IV, ch. 38, Vales. edit. Since, therefore, it was the custom among the Romans that, when rebellious cities were flattened, when they were captured, they would apply a plow to the ground, no one can doubt that they did the same at Hierosolyma: which is also expressly affirmed by St. Jerome: "On this," he says, "in the month of August, both by Nabuchodonosor, and many centuries later by Titus and Vespasianus, the temple at Hierosolyma was burned and destroyed; the city of Bethel was captured, to which many thousands of Jews had fled: the temple was plowed, in ignominy of the oppressed nation, by Titus Annius Rufus." Hieron., *In Zach.* ch. 8. The Jews themselves also acknowledge this as handed down by their ancestors in their Talmud. For in the Misnah it is said [Hebrew text: see facsimile] "On the ninth day of the month of Ab it was decreed against our Fathers that they should not enter the land, and the house was desolated for the first and second time, and Bitter was captured, and the city was plowed." *Taanith* ch. 4, fol. 25, 2, to which words of the Misnah, the Gemara, fol. 28, 1, observes these things: [Hebrew text: see facsimile] "When the wicked Turanus Rufus plowed the portico, a decree was made that R. Gamaliel should be killed." Who this Turanus Rufus was, who drove the plow at Hierosolyma, is not easy to gather by conjecture. I suspect, however, that he is the same one whom Josephus calls Terentius Rufus, and asserts was at that time the prefect of the military at Hierosolyma, and was left there by Titus: "Terentius Rufus came," he says, "for this man had been left there as commander of the army." Joseph., *On the War*, book VII, ch. 6, who also is called Titus Annius Rufus in the passage of St. Jerome cited above: Titus Annius instead of Terentius written erroneously, I think; but let others see to his name who drove the plow at Hierosolyma: this at least is gathered from the premises, that that city had a plow applied to it by the Romans, and therefore it ceased to be a city, as the Roman laws themselves declare, in these words: "If the usufruct is bequeathed to a city, and a plow is driven over it, it ceases to be a city, as Carthage experienced: and therefore as if by death it ceases to have usufruct." L. 21, *ff. Quibus modis ususfructus*. And from that time, therefore, Hierusalem ceased to be a city. Whence Eleazarus, immediately after the aforementioned destruction of the city, rightfully asked his comrades: "Where now is that great city, the metropolis of the whole Jewish race?" Joseph., *On the War*, book VII, ch. 35. Truly, it existed nowhere on earth even at that time, and for that reason Solinus also rightly says, "Hierosolyma was the capital of Judaea, but it is destroyed." Solin., *Polyh.* ch. 37. It was, therefore it is not. And Plinius, "The Oxinae, in which Hierosolyma was, by far the most famous of the cities of the Orient, not just of Judaea." Plin., *nat. Hist.* book V, ch. 14. So that we may say the same things about Hierosolyma that Ovid once sang about Troy: "Now there is a crop where Troy was." Ovid., *epist.* 1, and Virgil, "And fields where Troy was." Virgil, *Aeneid* book III. For thus...

it is, as the saying from the canon goes: "Let it have the sequence of honor, with the exception of the metropolitan right." ^A The city of Jerusalem and all things under it are called Palestine. But it was asked by some whether it is within the city which today is called Jerusalem. This same thing is gathered also from the itinerary of Benjamin, in which it is said: "And over against Jerusalem is Mount Sion, and there is no building on Mount Sion, except one sanctuary for the Christians." Therefore, not only outside the city, but also that there was no building in it—save for the sanctuary of the Christians—was certainly never constructed by Hadrian. This is also excellently confirmed by those things which we cited before from Eusebius. For he flourished after Hadrian; and yet he testified that even in his own times he saw Mount Sion plowed and sown. Furthermore, that other places which were situated outside Jerusalem are included within the walls of Aelia, or the city which is called Jerusalem today, is witnessed—to say nothing of others—by Jerome, or whoever the author was of the exposition of the places and cities which are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. "Jerusalem," he says, "formerly the metropolis of Judea, which is now named Aelia by Aelius Hadrianus Caesar, because he restored it on a wider site after it was destroyed by Titus: by whose work it came to pass that the holy places, that is, of the Lord's passion and resurrection, which once lay outside the city, are now surrounded by the northern wall of this same city." ^B Therefore, Aelia was not constructed on the very site of the old and true Jerusalem, but only near it, a fact which Abulpharagius also once observed in these words: "In this year (the fourth of Hadrian's reign) there appeared at Jerusalem a certain man named Ben Cocab (son of a star) who led the Jews astray, pretending that he had descended from heaven like a star, by which he would liberate them from the slavery of the Romans; many of their people followed him. The report of this matter having been brought to Hadrian, he sent forces that killed him and those who were with him. By reason of this, the Jews at Jerusalem were destroyed, and they utterly razed the city of Jerusalem, having built near it a city which they called Aelia of Hadrian, into which they placed foreigners." Abulph. *Dynast.* 7. Hadrian therefore did not restore Jerusalem strictly so called, but founded anew another city, which was a colony of Roman citizens, near that which had been utterly destroyed, and called it Aelia after his own name; by which it came to pass that, together with the city, the very name of Jerusalem was utterly erased, to such an extent that Firmilian himself, who was governor of Palestine about a hundred years after Hadrian's time, had never heard of the city of Jerusalem, nor did he know where in the world it had been situated. For when he had asked the martyr Pamphilus what his fatherland was, the latter replied that Jerusalem was his fatherland, meaning the supernal or heavenly Jerusalem, as Eusebius notes; but Firmilian was anxiously inquiring, "what city that was, and where on earth it was situated," as Eusebius relates in *De martyribus Palaestinae* c. 11. And after a few words, "He was asked again and repeatedly what that city was, and where it was situated, which he claimed to be his fatherland, and he replied that this was the fatherland only of those who were worshipers of the true God." *Ibid.* But when he replied nothing else, Firmilian thought that the Christians were going to build some city somewhere hostile to the Romans, "thinking that the Christians were by all means going to set up a city hostile and a foe to the Romans." *Ibid.* From which it is clear that neither the name of Jerusalem was known to the Romans in those days, much less the city of Jerusalem itself existing there. Hence most of the Fathers, who wrote after Hadrian, affirmed that even in their own times Jerusalem was leveled to the ground and was nothing.

^A That which is said by the canon is this: "Let it have the sequence of honor, with the metropolitan's own dignity being preserved," and they heard that Caesarea was the metropolis in Palestine, and that the Church of Jerusalem was once a bishopric of this one. The canon therefore wishes that the proper rights be preserved for the metropolis, even if Aelia was torn away from it, and its bishop was honored because of the saving passions of Christ. Seek also the proceeding of the acts of the 4th Synod, and you will learn that by the pleasure of Maximus, bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, it was decreed that the bishop of Antioch should have both Phoenicias and Arabia, and the bishop of Jerusalem the three Palestines. And then it was thus defined; but today, as it seems, a change of circumstances has altered these things as well. ^B ZONARAS. The canon wishes for ancient customs to prevail, as other later canons and civil laws also decree. It ordains, therefore, that the bishop of Alexandria should preside over those in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, and the bishop of Antioch over the provinces subject to him, that is to say, Syria, Coele-Syria, both Cilicias, and Mesopotamia, and that other bishops should exercise authority over the regions subject to them, just as the custom prevailed for the one presiding in the Roman Church to rule over the Western provinces. And it wishes for the bishops to preside so much within their own provinces that it gives a general rule that nothing at all should be done in ecclesiastical administration without them, of which the greater and more principal [part is the ordination of bishops]. He says, therefore: If without the consent of the metropolitan...

^C Athanasius: For it is a sign and a great proof of the presence of the Word of God that Jerusalem no longer stands, nor is a prophet raised up. ^D Their holy and former sacred place has now arrived at such a state that it in no way differs from the destruction of Sodom. These things were foretold in the time of the reign of Oxias [Uzziah]; it was fulfilled in part by the Babylonians, but by the siege of the Romans it was fulfilled completely, and it is seen to this day. And the very ground of Jerusalem is barely known... ^C The notes of William Beveridge: ...For, says he, the true Jerusalem is only in heaven, which is our mother; but that earthly Jerusalem, according to what the Lord predicted, was so thoroughly destroyed by the Roman emperor Aelius Hadrian that not a stone was left upon a stone in it, and it was constructed by the same Aelius Hadrian in another place: so that the site of the Lord's cross, once outside the gate, is now seen inside, and that city is called Helia by the aforementioned Aelius Hadrian. Nicholas, in his responses to the consultations of the Bulgarians. Which is also confirmed by the testimony of Gregory the Great, who says: "Also this which is added, 'they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another,' even the translation of the city itself testifies, because while it is now constructed in that place where the Lord had been crucified outside the gate, that former Jerusalem, as it is said, was utterly destroyed." Gregory, homily 36. Therefore, the former Jerusalem was constructed in a different place than the present Aelia, or it migrated to another place: and therefore it ceased to be the same city, utterly unworthy of its former name; or as Jerome rightly observed: "The name of that city is empty today, and it is called Aelia by Aelius Hadrian, and along with its pristine habitation, it lost its pristine name also, to shake off the pride of its inhabitants." Jerome in Jeremiah, chapter 20. Therefore, its pristine habitation or seat having been lost, its pristine name is deservedly lost. Nor is it credible that Aelius Hadrian ever had in mind to restore the old metropolis of the rebellious Jews who were hostile to the Romans: he intended nothing less than this. He indeed founded a city not far from the old Hierosolyma, but for Romans to inhabit, not Jews, whom he forbade even to enter it; and lest it should be considered the old Jerusalem, but a new city raised from scratch by him, he imposed a new name upon it, namely, Aelia; concerning which we shall say more in the next canon.

^A is the ordination of bishops. Therefore, it says: If a bishop is established without the consent of the metropolitan, let him not be a bishop. For even if in the past the multitudes in the cities used to cast votes for the bishop, even then, after the vote, the matter was referred to the metropolitan and was confirmed by him, and the one he approved was then deemed worthy of the laying on of hands. Then the canon adds that if, in an election that is canonical, the majority agree and are of the same mind, but two or three oppose it out of a spirit of contention—but not for any good reason—and stand against the others, the vote of the majority shall prevail, just as it is decreed in civil laws regarding monetary disputes. The nineteenth canon of the Synod of Antioch also ordains the same concerning the disagreement of bishops.

ARIST. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. The Roman [Bishop] has authority over those subject to Rome; likewise the Antiochene [Bishop] and the others over their own. But if anyone becomes bishop without the opinion of the metropolitan, let him not be bishop. In the case of an appointment to the episcopacy made by the vote of the many according to the canons, if three certain persons should object, they are of no consequence. Each of the patriarchs ought to be content with his own privileges, and none of them ought to usurp another province which was not under his power from the beginning and from of old; for this is the pride of secular power. And it is necessary that the bishops of each province acknowledge their own first [bishop], that is, the bishop presiding in the metropolis, and not elect a bishop without his opinion. But if ^B they do elect someone against his opinion, such a one is not a bishop. But if the bishops, having gathered together to make the vote upon the opinion of the metropolitan, do not all agree in one and the same opinion, but some object out of personal contention, the vote of the majority shall prevail. And look for the eighth canon of the Synod of Ephesus, the thirty-fourth canon of the Apostles, the second and third canons of the Synod of Antioch, and the third canon of the Synod of Sardica.

CANON VII

^A the sequence of honor, while the dignity proper to the metropolis is preserved.

BALS. The present canon was interpreted in the sixth canon, which is before it.

ZONAR. Just as in the canon before this one, the privileges in their provinces were assigned to the patriarch of Alexandria and the patriarch of Antioch, so the present canon… ^B [Notes of William Beveridge omitted.]

Theodoret in Isa. cap. VI, near the end. Cedrenus: He builds a new Jerusalem, which indeed he also called Aelia, and he placed the name upon the city, calling it Aelia, because he was called Aelius Hadrianus. Chron. Alex. ad Olymp. 224. I omit Zonaras in his Annals, Nicephorus CP, and others who think with Balsamon concerning the preceding canon. Sometimes it is corruptly called Helia. Jerome: And the temple celebrated throughout the whole world [is turned] into the dung-heap of the new city, which is called Helia by its founder. Hieron. in Isa. cap. LXIV. Nicholas I: And from the aforesaid Helius Hadrianus let that city be called Helia. Nicol. resp. ad consult. Bulgar. And indeed, as this city was first called Aelia by its founder, so also for a long time afterward it was called [Aelia] by others. Eusebius: There are even now transparent stelae in the suburbs ^C showing the current Aelia. Euseb. Hist. eccles. in the library at Aelia, Ibid. l. VI, c. 20. Thus he says Mazabanes was bishop in Aelia, and Valens in Aelia, deacon. Id. De martyr. Palæst. cap. 11. Thus it was also called in the age of Chrysostom, who has these things: "Because Aelius Hadrianus was in charge, he legislated that the city be called thus. From then until now it is called Aelia, from the namesake of him who conquered and destroyed it." Chrysost. Advers. Judæos, hom. III, and for a long time thereafter until the times of Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria, as he himself testifies, saying that Hadrian ordered the city to be called Aelia after the emperor's name. Wherefore from that time until this day it is called Aelia. Eutych. Annal. tom. I, p. 354. And what is to be observed especially is that by the universal Church it is so named in this canon. Whence it is also gathered that this was the common name of this city at that time and everywhere received; which from the very beginning of the city, until the times of this Nicene assembly, alone prevailed; for I do not recall that it was called otherwise by anyone before. But since the honor is here attributed to the bishop of this city in explicit terms, so that that most celebrated Martyrion might be built ^D there in the same times by Constantine in the place of the Lord's resurrection, it gradually came about that the bishops of this city began to raise themselves higher, and they called their see not Aelia, but Jerusalem, to which it was near, in order to procure for themselves greater reverence and honor. By which it came about that its original name, Aelia, gradually vanished, and the other, Jerusalem, came to be used by those of later times—more often, indeed, but more improperly.

…consent in their scholia on this canon that Caesarea was at that time the metropolis of Palestine or Judea. But Zonaras says: "Some say that the canon calls Caesarea the metropolis." And this is indeed beyond doubt, that in the times of this council, and long after, just as before, Caesarea was the metropolis of Palestine, especially the first, in which Jerusalem is situated. Gregory Nazianzen teaches that it was the metropolis even in his own days; for in speaking of Basil the Great, he says: "He hastens to the city of the Caesareans, of the schools there... I call this, the illustrious and our own; since it is also the leader of my discourses, and the teacher of the metropolis of words no less than of the cities over which it presides," Caesarea, so that he might be a participant in the schools of the city, he contends, this, I say, illustrious city, and our own (for it also existed as the guide and mistress of my studies) [was] no less a metropolis of letters and doctrine than... Note: the translation continues with the analysis of Josephus and Tacitus regarding the status of Caesarea and Jerusalem.

^A it was decided to grant honor to the bishop of Aelia within his own province, and it was decreed that the city of Jerusalem, which is called Aelia, should retain its own dignity, as one superior to the cities in Palestine, and Arabia, and Phoenicia. For of old, as now, the entire region was called Palestine. The city itself was most anciently called Solyma and Jebus, and was later named Jerusalem. But after it was captured by the Romans and razed, the Emperor of the Romans, Hadrian, having rebuilt the city, named it Aelia after his own name. For that Hadrian was called Aelius, and was known by this title. Some, however, affirm that the canon intended to call Caesarea the metropolis; that is, the Caesarea in Palestine, which in the past was called the Tower of Straton [(55)]. ARIST. Let the bishop of Aelia be honored, while the dignity of his metropolis is preserved. The 123rd Novella, placed in the first title of the first book, Guill. Beveregii note.

[(55)] That is, he was called Straton. That he first built this, or at least restored it to the form of a city, the witness is Justinian, Novel. 103. Hence it is not simply called Straton, as Zonaras asserts here; but it is named the Tower of Straton. This name, indeed, it retained only until the time of Herod; whence Strabo calls it by no other name, saying: Strab. Geogr. l. 16. Thus Josephus, right up to the age of Herod, constantly calls it the Tower of Straton. But when Herod had made it larger, and had fortified it against the violence of the sea, he named it Caesarea in honor of Caesar Augustus, as the ancient historians have unanimously handed down. Pliny: "Thence Apollonia, the Tower of Straton, the same as Caesarea, founded by King Herod." Plin. nat. hist. l. v, c. 15. Ammianus Marcellinus: "Caesarea, which Herod built in honor of the prince Octavian." Ammian. Marcel. l. 14. Eusebius: Euseb. Chron. ad an. 2004. Josephus: "Therefore, when Herod had noticed that the place upon the coast was most favorable for the founding of a city, which had formerly been called the Tower of Straton, he applied himself to its magnificent design, and by his constructions, he raised up the whole of it, not negligently, but out of white stone, and with palaces adorned with most costly decorations, and public dwellings." ^C And after some intermediate points: "And in the middle is a mound, on which is the temple of Caesar, visible from afar to those sailing toward it, and in it are statues, one of Rome, the other of Caesar, whence the city itself is called Caesarea." [original-script column: see facsimile] "And his place for slaughter was fated to be the Tower of Straton; and this is six hundred stadia from here." in Matth. c. xvi. The same [person], or someone else, who explained the Acts of the Apostles: "Caesarea" — there are two cities in the land of promise: one, the Caesarea of Palestine, is situated on the shore of the great sea; which was formerly called Pyrgos, that is, the Tower of Straton, but by Herod, King of Judea, it was rebuilt more nobly and beautifully, and rendered much more useful against the violence of the sea, and was named Caesarea in honor of Caesar Augustus. In it he also built a temple of white marble; in it his grandson Herod was struck by an angel; Cornelius the centurion was baptized; and Agabus the prophet was a messenger to Paul. Moreover, Pliny asserts that this city was also called Apollonia, and in his own age, the First Flavian Colony: "Now," he says, "it is the first Flavian colony, brought by the Emperor Vespasian." Plin. nat. Hist. l. v, c. 13. Benjamin hands down that it was formerly called Gad Philistim, and in his own age Schizeria, saying: "Thence six parasangs away is Schizeria, formerly called Gad Philistim, where there are about ten Jews and two hundred Cuthites. These are the Jewish Schomronites, who are commonly called Samaritans. The city itself is most beautiful and elegant, situated by the sea, a structure of Caesar the emperor and king, who called it Caesarea after his own name." Benjam. Itiner. p. 37. Balbeam also, and Beline, according to Thevet, as Ortelius observes in the Thesaurus Geographia, and Dionysius Gothofredus in the last book of the Pandects, and Gothofr. loc. cit. sect. 7. De Censibus. Postellus in his Syria, and Ortelius, affirm that Jerome also called it Accaron: but falsely. For nowhere did the Father assert this. But he says only, "Some say that Accaron was the Tower of Straton, later named Caesarea," Hieron. De loc. Hebraicis. Therefore he himself does not say this; but only asserts that others have said so. And thus, indeed, the Jews say, who interpret those words of Zeph. 2. 4, "Ekron shall be eradicated," as concerning Caesarea. Talm. Bab. Megil. fol. 6. It interprets Caesarea, Josh. 1. This city is 600 stadia distant from Jerusalem, Josephus, Joseph. De bell. Jud. l. 1, c. 3.

^A His hierarchy, they call the bishop of Jerusalem, which is also called Ælia, a patriarch. It is necessary, therefore, according to this present canon, that the bishop of Ælia be honored with the dignity of a patriarch. But since Caesarea is the first metropolis of Palestine, and the holy city, the patriarch must possess his honor, but the dignity proper to Caesarea as a metropolis—under which it first happened to fall—must also be preserved. And seek out the twelfth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon.

CANON VIII

Concerning those who at some time call themselves Cathari, but who approach the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has been decided by the holy synod that, after the imposition of hands, they should remain in the clergy. But above all, it is fitting that they confess in writing that they will adhere to and follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church; that is, that they will communicate both with those who have married twice, and with those who have lapsed in time of persecution, for whom a time has been set and a period determined, so that they follow in all things the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Where, therefore, all who are ordained are found to be by themselves, whether in villages or in cities, those who are found in the clergy shall remain in the same rank. But if any approach where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is clear that the bishop of the Church shall hold the dignity of the bishop; but he who is named bishop among those called Cathari shall have the honor of a presbyter, unless it should seem good to the bishop to share with him the honor of the name. If, however, this should not please him, he shall devise a place for him as either a chorepiscopus or a presbyter, so that he may be seen to be in the clergy in some capacity, lest there be two bishops in the city. ^{B C}

Notes of William Beveridge

(54) The scholiasts agree that the Novatians are indicated by these words: and rightly so. For of all heretics, or rather schismatics, these alone called themselves *Cathari*, that is, Pure; undoubtedly because they boasted that they were pure from all crimes of both body and soul. And that they thus named themselves, and consequently are to be understood in this canon, all ancient writers and Fathers agree. D. Ambrose: "As are the teachers of the Novatians, who call themselves the Pure," Ambros. *De Poenitentia* l. 1, c. 1. Jerome: "Not because they are keepers of His law, but because they say that they are such, in imitation of the schism of the Novatians, who themselves also... which is to say, they call themselves the Pure, when they are the most impure of all," Hieron. *in Hos. c. 15*. Eusebius, *De Novato* (from whom they are called Novatians), *Hic... propria cujusdam sectae eorum, qui tumore mentis elati se... (mundos) cognominarunt, auctor exstitit*, Euseb. *Hist. Eccles. l. vi, c. 43*. Augustine: "The Cathari, who call themselves by this name, as if for purity, most proudly and odiously: they do not admit second marriages, they deny penance: following the heretic Novatus, whence also they are called Novatians," August. *de Haeres*. To mention others, Epiphanius begins his dissertation against the Cathari thus: "Some have risen up near them, called Cathari, from a certain Novatus, as the report has spread," Epiph. *haer. 59*. They are indeed thus called, but by themselves, not by others, unless Balsamon observes ^D upon the canon: in which the Nicene Fathers themselves do not call them by that name, but only *Cathari* [the Greek term]. But Cyprian, in whose times they arose, and who inveighs against them frequently, neither calls them *Cathari* anywhere, nor writes that they were so called; but he says that they invented adulterated names, *Epist. ad Magnum*. And this perhaps should rightly be reckoned among such names, or perhaps not Novatus himself, but his followers later arrogated this name to themselves. And this certainly seems to us more true, because in the testimonies cited above, and others which could be brought forward, it is recorded that the Novatians indeed, but not Novatus, so named themselves: and because neither Dionysius of Alexandria, nor Cornelius of Rome, nor any others who flourished in the age of Novatus himself, even though they wrote against him, mention this name as claimed by him for himself.

^A

THEODORE BALSAMON

BALS. Novatus was a presbyter of the Roman Church, as Eusebius Pamphili writes. When persecution arose, and many had fallen away through fear of death, and were performing penance, he, being puffed up by a demon, would not admit them. Nor did he communicate with those who had married twice, as if he himself were continent. Those who adopted his views are called Novatians, and by irony, Cathari, which means "the pure." Now, since a synod was held in Rome under Pope Cornelius of the Roman Church, in the reign of Decius, Novatus and those who followed his heresy were struck with anathema, the canon says that if any of these, after sincere repentance, shall turn away from their former wickedness, and promise to observe the decrees of the Catholic Church, they shall be received. And if they are clergymen, they shall by all means retain their proper ranks, as they do not err concerning the faith, but are condemned as haters of their brothers. If they hold episcopal dignity, and other bishops are found in the region where they were appointed, they themselves shall perform no episcopal act; but the bishop shall provide for them, so that they may either have only the name of bishop, or be called by another title. But if there are no local bishops, they themselves shall manage the affairs of the episcopate. But the clause concerning those for whom a time has been fixed and an opportunity preordained refers to those who fell during the time of persecution and to those who have married twice; but even ^B clergymen, after they have been received, shall then be counted among the clergy in the order in which they were first ordained, provided that other clergymen have not already been ordained in their place. But if such are found, that which is written above concerning the bishops shall be done.

But I inquire: If any of them should wish to be advanced to a higher rank, will they be hindered by this canon, which says in the beginning, "It seemed good to the holy synod that, having received the laying on of hands, they should thus remain in the clergy," or will they be promoted without hindrance?

Solution: From the apostolic canon and the second canon of the present synod, it is decreed that even ^C those who are entirely unbelievers may be admitted by degrees to the priesthood. Why, then, should not the Novatians, and those who are called Cathari, be promoted, who, as has been said, do not err in the faith, but are condemned as merciless? The fact that it was decreed that they remain in the clergy seems to me to favor them more; for it was likely that some would say they ought indeed to be received, but only as simple lay believers, and not to exercise their former ranks; which the synod did not approve, but it was granted that they be restored to their own ranks. Moreover, by the term "restoration," the right of promotion is also signified. ^D

ZONAR. The Novatians are called Cathari (that is, pure). Novatus was a presbyter of the Roman Church, who would not receive those who had fallen in the persecution, even though they repented, nor did he communicate with those who had married twice. Therefore, although he was not in error regarding the faith, yet on account of his lack of sympathy and his hatred of his brothers, when a synod was held in Rome under Cornelius, the Pope of Rome, in the reign of Decius,

he was ^A cast out and anathematized, as Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, records. This canon therefore decrees that those from this heretical group who wish to return to grace with the Church are to be received, provided that they confess in writing that they will observe the dogmas of the catholic Church and will receive back those who out of necessity denied Christ and God once they have completed the times stipulated for the expiation of their sins (for that is what those words indicate, in which both the time is determined and the day is appointed), and that they will hold communion with digamists. And if those who come to the Church from among them have already been ordained as bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, and it happens that the churches to which they were assigned as ministers do not have others, they are to retain their order of dignity in the clergy. For since such men did not stumble regarding the faith, but sinned only in their lack of brotherly love and their denial of penance to those who had fallen and returned, the synod accepted their ordination and determined that they should remain in their own ranks, unless a bishop of the catholic party should be present in that city. But if there is a bishop or presbyter in the church [where they arrive], the bishop will possess the dignity and title of the episcopacy; but the one who was called a bishop among the Cathars will hold the honor of a presbyter, or temporarily that of a chorepiscopus, so that he may be counted among the clergy and not be deprived of this position; unless, perhaps, the bishop of the catholic Church, by way of concession, should wish for him to have the name and honor of a bishop. He shall not, however, perform the peculiar functions of a bishop, so that there may not be two bishops in the same city.

Aristenus.

From among those who approach the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God, some are baptized, others are anointed with myrrh, and others merely anathematize their own and every other heresy. Those, therefore, who were led astray by Novatus and were named Cathars by him, because they do not accept the repentance of those who have sinned and forbid second marriages, if they come to the Church and confess that they will receive digamists and will grant pardon to those who represent repentance for their sins, and will follow absolutely all the ecclesiastical dogmas, anathematizing their own and the other heresies, they shall be received, and shall only be anointed with the holy myrrh. And if any of them are bishops or chorepiscopi, they shall remain in the same dignity again, unless perhaps in the same city another bishop of the catholic Church is found ^D

^A existing prior to their arrival already ordained. For he who was originally the true bishop shall be preferred, and he alone shall retain the throne of the episcopate, as it is not fitting that two bishops should be in one city; but he who is called bishop by the Cathari shall be honored as a presbyter, or, if it pleases the bishop, he may share in the name of bishop; but he shall exercise no episcopal right. ^B

CANON IX. If any presbyters have been promoted without examination, or if, when examined, they have confessed their sins, and [yet] men taking action contrary to the canon have laid hands upon them, the canon does not admit them. For the Church defends that which is beyond reproach.

BALS. There are many things which prevent one from reaching the priesthood, among which is fornication. If, therefore, anyone has been condemned for having committed fornication, whether before being ordained or after, he is deposed. Hence the canon says that if anyone has been consecrated without examination, or if he has confessed his sin before ordination but was ordained contrary to the canons, he is not benefited by the ordination, but after investigation he is deposed. For some used to say ^C that, just as baptism makes the baptized person a new man, so too the priesthood wipes away sins committed before the priesthood; which was not considered to be in accord with the canons.

ZONAR. The canon wills that those who are promoted to the priesthood be blameless and free from stains of vices which exclude them from orders, and that their life and conduct be carefully examined. But if perhaps some, it says, are rashly and without any selection admitted to holy orders, or having themselves confessed their own defects, those who ordain them do so contrary to the canon, it decrees that they are not to be admitted, and that the illegitimate creation benefits them nothing; for they shall be deposed. ^D

ARIST. Those who are ordained without examination, if they are later convicted that they indeed sinned, let them be removed. For if someone has sinned secretly, and without examination has been promoted to the rank of bishop or presbyter, if after ordination he is convicted that he sinned, he shall be removed from the priesthood.

CANON X. Whosoever of those who have fallen have been ordained through ignorance, or even with the knowledge of those who promoted them, [this]

Guill. Beveregii nota. (...) of this age to have thought so, as Innocent I, the Roman Pope, has testified, who also observed very well how many evils would follow if that opinion were once admitted. But it is said, he says, that the true and just blessing of a legitimate priest takes away every vice which had been instilled by a vicious one. Therefore, if it is so, let sacrilegious men, adulterers, and those guilty of every crime be applied to ordination, because by the blessing of ordination crimes or vices are thought to be taken away. No place for penance is left, because ordination would be able to provide what long satisfaction is accustomed to provide. But the law of our Church is, for those coming from the heretics, who however have been baptized there, to grant communion only in a lay manner through the imposition of hands, and not to promote any of them to the honor of the clergy, even a minor one. Innocent. 22, to the bishop of Macedonia.

^D ecclesiastical canon. For those who are known are deposed.

BALS. Those who have denied God, if they sincerely repent, we receive; but we do not permit them to serve in holy orders, and even if they are clerics, we depose them, as the sixty-second apostolic canon says. If, therefore, any of these have been ordained, without the knowledge of those who ordained them, or even with their knowledge, after the fact is discovered, they shall be deposed, as those who are not helped by the ordination, even if it were performed with the knowledge of the ordainer. For someone might perhaps say that they are helped by the fact that they were ordained by men who knew their sin, and who in a way permitted it by the act of ordination. These things, however, are to be understood regarding priests and deacons and the rest, but not regarding bishops; regarding them, look to the twelfth canon of the synod at Ancyra and what is written therein.

ZONAR. Those who have once denied our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they repent, ought not to be promoted to holy orders. For how shall a man be a priest who is not judged worthy to partake of the holy mysteries throughout his life, except at the moment of his death? But if by chance, without the ordainer knowing, or even with his knowledge, someone should be deemed worthy of the priesthood, this canon commands that he be deposed if it is known afterward. For that which has been done contrary to the law does not prejudice the canon—that is, it does not impede it, nor does it harm it.

ARIST. Let those who have fallen, whether without knowledge or with the knowledge of those who ordained them, and have been promoted, be deposed. Even if those who ordained them were ignorant of the faults of those ordained, or if they were cognizant of them and overlooked them, this brings no prejudice to the ecclesiastical canon; but even after they are known, those who were ordained shall be deposed as having sinned.

CANON XI.

BALS. The 62nd Apostolic canon treats of clerics who have transgressed under compulsion; but the present canon is concerning those who have denied Christ without compulsion; and it says that they ought to be received, if they do penance genuinely, that is to say, truly; and that for three years they shall stand outside the temple and listen to the hymns of God, and for seven years they shall prostrate themselves—that is, stand inside the church but behind the ambo—and go out with the catechumens. After the seven-year period is finished, they shall pray together with the faithful for the whole duration, but they shall be deemed worthy of the holy things after two years.

ZONAR. Other canons declare concerning those who have denied the faith on account of great violence and necessity; but the present one treats of those who have transgressed without necessity, whom it says are also unworthy of mercy. Yet, because of his goodness, it receives even such as these, if they repent genuinely—that is, truly and not falsely or feignedly—and with great warmth and eagerness. It commands that they pass three years among the auditors, with whom, that is to say, they shall stand outside the temple in the porch and apply themselves to listening to the divine Scriptures; and for seven years they shall be in the state of prostration, that is to say, they shall enter the church but shall stand in the area behind the ambo and go out with the faithful, yet they shall not be deemed worthy of receiving the holy things until the two-year period is passed.

ARIST. As many as have transgressed without necessity, even if they were unworthy of pardon, yet being deemed worthy of some pardon, let them prostrate themselves for twelve years. Whoever has denied the faith without necessity, although they are unworthy of philanthropy, are nonetheless deemed worthy of some indulgence, so that those of them who have performed penance legitimately shall stand for three years among the auditors or at the doors of the basilica and listen to the divine Scriptures. And after that three-year period, let them be introduced into the ambit of the church and remain for seven years with those who are prostrate in the rear part of the ambo, going out at the dismissal of the catechumens. And after the seven-year period is completed, let them wait for two other years with the faithful, participating with them in prayers until the completion of the mystagogy, but not participating in divine communion even during these two years. But after this they shall be deemed worthy of participation in the mysteries.

CANON XII

so that some even spent money and by benefits ^B obtained military service—let these be prostrate for ten years after the three-year period of hearing. And in all these cases it is fitting to examine the intent and the kind of repentance. For those who with fear, and tears, and patience, and good works, manifest their conversion in deed and not in outward appearance, these, having completed the period of hearing prescribed, shall rightly be partakers in prayers, it being also permitted to the bishop to determine something more humane concerning them. But those who have borne it with indifference, and thought that the mere appearance of entering the church was sufficient for their conversion, let them complete the whole time.

BALS. "Benefit" is said, according to the Latins, of every gift and good deed. Since, therefore, some soldiers, in the time of persecution, moved by divine zeal, had put off the belts of their service and rushed toward martyrdom; but afterwards, driven by a demonic repentance, fell away from the martyrdom and followed the unbelieving persecutors, and by means of money or other gifts—for this is the "benefit," as has been said—recovered their former service, and returned to their own vomit: the canon says that if these also come to the Church with sincere compunction, they shall be received, being obliged ^C indeed to stand outside the church for three years and hear the divine Scriptures, and for ten years to be prostrate, that is, to stand behind the ambo, and to go out with the catechumens; and after this, to pray together with the faithful; but in any case they shall not be counted worthy of the sacraments unless two years have passed, just as we said above, because they also are among those who fall of their own accord. However, the canon allows the bishop to diminish the penance according to the conversion of the one who has been penalized.

ZONAR. The canon discourses concerning those serving in the military who had cast off their belts—that is, the insignia of military service—and, having shown a desire for martyrdom, were... ^D [NOTE: A portion of the Greek text here corresponds to the commentary on the verb "to gird" and "to be armed" which is developed below in Beveridge's note.]

Guill. Beveridge’s note. *When a king has died, they are girded with young men, and they prepare for the contests.* A person being enrolled in the militia and made a soldier, the belt or girdle with which he was girded was given to him: whence Julian, determining to admit no Christians into his army, ordered that the belt of service should not be given except to those sacrificing, as Rufinus reported, *Hist. Eccles.* I. 1, ch. 32; which also came into usage so that the same [phrase] means the same as "to put on arms," as Caelius Rhodiginus writes, l. XXI, ch. 19, just as it means the same as "to be armed," as Eustathius writes on Homer, where it is often used in that sense, as in the *Iliad*, Book A, at the beginning: *The Atrides shouted, and ordered the Greeks to be armed, and he himself put on the shining iron.* And in the *Odyssey*, Book Q: *When at some time the king having died...*

So also both Hesychius and Suidas explain *to gird* as *to be armed*. Indeed, in political laws "to be girded" means the same as to be entered into the ranks of the soldiers and to be armed, where it is said, "A son of a family, adorned with equestrian service and retained in the company of the princes, having been ordered to be girded forthwith, can make a testament concerning his camp-peculium," l. XLIII, *ff. De testamento militis*. As therefore a man is girded with a belt who is received into the military levy and undertakes to provide military service, so also he who withdraws from the militia is rightly said to put off the belt. Whence the old interpreter correctly translates "belt" in this place, and Dionysius Exiguus, "the belt of service."

^A Having shown [the strength] of their faith, whom even divine grace ^B is said to have called, as having been strengthened for the endurance of the confession of the faith, but then having become repentant and having returned again to their former militia, and having recovered this by means of money or *beneficia*. For by money is meant wealth, but by *beneficia* every kind of favor and kindness. For the word, being of the Latin language, denotes "benefaction" when translated into the Greek dialect. A person performs a benefaction either by providing money, or in another way fulfilling the desire of anyone. It is certainly clear that no one was able to return to such a militia unless he consented to the error. Therefore, the canon decrees that such persons, after the three-year instruction, must fall under-foot for ten years, and exit with the catechumens.

But the canon gives to the judgment of the bishop [the power] also to reduce the punishments if he finds the one repenting demonstrating fervor in his repentance, and rendering God propitious with tears, and being tutored by fear of Him, and enduring the affliction [imposed] from the punishments, and applying himself to good works—that is, the practice of virtues and distribution to those in need, if his hand has abundance—and, to speak shortly, truly and not in pretense demonstrating his repentance. But if [the bishop] sees the one punished disposed toward his punishment indifferently and loosely, and that he is satisfied with the fact that he is altogether permitted to enter into the church, and is not pained or grieved that he is not established among the faithful, but [thinks it enough] that he stands behind the ambo and exits with the catechumens (for this displays the appearance of entering, but he who enters in this way does not truly enter) and considers that to be sufficient for himself, the canon orders that he fulfill the whole time of the ten-year penalty of prostration.

ARIST. Those who suffered force, and seemed to have resisted, then conceded to the impiety and resumed the militia, let them be excommunicated for ten years. But in all cases the kind of repentance must be considered. And if he who receives the punishment has behaved more fervently in repenting, let the bishop deal with him more humanely; but more severely if he is colder.

^C Whoever, called by divine grace, having been forced by the first impulse to enter into the association of impiety, resisted, insomuch that they even put off the military belt; but afterwards yielding, they consented to think the things of the impious, insomuch that they returned to their former status, and took up the militia again: they shall be hearers for three years, and prostrators for ten years; and thus let them be deemed worthy of perfection. ^D But it shall be permitted to the bishops both to reduce and to increase the punishments, looking to the repentance of those who turn, whether it happens with fear, and patience, and tears, or contemptuously and indifferently.

CANON XIII

law shall also be observed now, so that if anyone is departing this life, he may not be deprived of the final and most necessary viaticum. But if, having been given up for dead and having received communion, he is again numbered among the living, let him be with those who participate in prayer only. And, in general, concerning anyone at all who is departing this life and asks to participate in the Eucharist, let the bishop, after examination, grant him a share of the oblation. ^A

BALS. This is a general canon. For it commands that everyone who has been under penalty and deprived of the sacraments should not be deprived of the excellent viaticum of holy communion in their final breaths, after the examination of the bishop. If there is no bishop, then [let there be] an examination by priests, so that a man may not be deprived of this good viaticum due to the absence of the bishop. He adds, moreover, that if such a person escapes death after the reception of the sacraments, he shall pray together with the faithful; but he shall not attain to the sacraments unless the established time of the penance has been entirely fulfilled. I think, however, that then, after his recovery, the one who was under penalty will be permitted to pray with the faithful at the time when he was praying with them even before his illness. For if he was standing in the place of the hearers, ^B he will hold the same place even after his recovery.

ZONAR. Since the holy Fathers had decreed regarding penalties, and how and for how long those who have fallen should be excommunicated, they define by the present canon that even if some be under the penalty of excommunication, yet as they are dying, the sacraments should be imparted to them so that they may have them as a viaticum, and not be deprived of the sanctification that comes from them. If anyone, however, who is in danger of his life should be deemed worthy—as one dying—of communion, and then escapes death, he shall pray with the faithful, but he shall not, however, receive the sacraments. And every person, furthermore, who is under penalty and is nearing his last end—"departing," the canon says—if he seeks to partake of the holy oblation, let him partake, with the inspection, or rather the judgment and examination, of the bishop. ^C

ARIST. Let those who are departing this life communicate; but if any of them should recover, let him be with those who are participants in prayer, and with them only. ^D

Guill. Beveregii note. In the collection of John of Antioch, this canon is not read; and after [the word "communion"] is added in the collection of John of Antioch, title 18: which words the ancient interpreter also reads, and translates: "and having received the oblation" (can. 12); likewise Dionysius Exiguus, who translated it: "and having become a sharer of the oblation." The word "that" [is] here at the end; in the collection of John of Antioch, title 18, it is placed at the beginning of these words, to which other things are also added, [which are] missing here, namely, "until the time defined by the great and universal council is fulfilled." These things, however, are read neither by the old interpreter, nor by Dionysius Exiguus, nor by Isidore Mercator: but Balsamon appears to have read them, since he asserts here that it is established that he who recovers after receiving communion does not indeed attain to the sacraments, and even if they were not read, they must necessarily be understood. For the sacraments received at that time cannot be an impediment to penitents, preventing them from being admitted to communion after the period of penance has elapsed.

^A Every faithful person who is in their final breaths shall partake of the good viaticum. But once restored to health, they shall be with those who share in the prayers; however, they shall not share in the divine sacraments. But having completed the time in which they must stand in prayer, afterward they shall be considered worthy of that grace.

CANON XIV

BALS. The holy Fathers determine that one who from unbelief has come to the true faith, and has been catechized, and after the catechesis has wandered away and sought out their former superstition, is not to be received simply back into the place of the catechumens upon their return; but rather, first, for a period of three years, they must stand outside the temple with the hearers; and when this has been fulfilled, they are to be restored to the former rank and station of the catechumens.

ZONAR. It has been decreed by the holy Fathers that if any, having embraced the pursuit of the faith and been enrolled among the catechumens, have subsequently fallen away, they are to be removed from the rank and station of the catechumens and must spend three years among the hearers; once that time has elapsed, they are to return to their former rank and station and pray with the catechumens.

ARIST. If any catechumen has fallen, let him be a hearer for three years and that alone, then let him pray with the catechumens. There are two types of catechumens: for some have only just come, while others have become more perfect, having been sufficiently initiated into the things of the faith. Therefore, a more perfect catechumen who has fallen and sinned is not left unpunished, even if holy baptism is sufficient to wash away every stain of the soul; rather, he is placed among the hearers, and after three years he prays again with the catechumens. See also canon 5 of the synod of Neocæsarea.

CANON XV

Note of William Beveridge

BALS. The fifteenth apostolic canon states: "Let no longer minister the cleric who, against the will of his own bishop, moves from city to city." The present canon, defining the same things regarding bishops as well, decrees that what may have been done contrary to this is void.

Another exposition.

For translation is a transfer from parish to parish, when perhaps a bishop instructed in various and manifold knowledge is called by a multitude of bishops to the aid of a greater church that is widowed and led into danger regarding the true religion. ^B Such as happened to the great Gregory the Theologian, who was translated from Sasima to Constantinople. And this is to be permitted, since it is introduced by the canon of the holy apostles.

Transition is when someone who is vacant—that is to say, not having a parish, such as one held by Gentiles—is compelled by many bishops to pass to a vacant church on account of his right judgment regarding the faith and other ecclesiastical usefulness: and this too is accepted by the divine canons of the holy Fathers who assembled at Antioch.

Invasion, however, is the unjust aggression, whether free or also with evil arts and wicked counsel, of one—whether he be vacant or even one who possesses a church—towards a widowed church. This the holy Fathers who assembled at Sardica so opposed that they decreed that he who commits it should be able to communicate with no Christian, and they judged him unworthy of lay communion even at the final breath.

But the 15th canon of the first synod, ^C making mention of nothing of this sort, does not contradict any of the canons set forth above. For it teaches neither about translation, nor about transition, nor about invasion; but it forbids a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon to move and cross from one city to another city that belongs to the same parish, just as once does the bishop of Derkos, that lord John, attempt to transfer the throne of Derkos…

to his own archpriestship at Philea, because it was more populous, and he was forbidden by the synod. For this reason, the bishop who attempts this is not even punished, but is led back to his former seat. And that this is true is declared even by the very words of the canon, which mention a city and not parishes. For it is possible for one and the same bishop to have many cities as his parish, but many parishes, by no means. But the truth is also clearly shown from the fact that this same canon mentions presbyters and deacons. For what translation or crossing or intrusion could ever be discussed in their case? None at all; but only a change from city to city, not an alien one, but one belonging to the parish into which they were ordained; and for this reason they are not even deposed as having performed sacred rites outside their parish, but are restored to the former church in which they were also ordained. ^B

ZONAR. That a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon should not migrate from one church to another has also been decreed by the holy apostles. But this holy synod by the present canon has renewed this constitution, which was being overlooked and despised, decreeing that if any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon should attempt to migrate from one city to another, or if he should migrate and put the attempt into action, his act shall be rendered void, and he shall be restored to the place in which he was named when ordained; for another canon decrees that no one is to be ordained absolutely, that is to say, without a title, but rather for this specific bishopric, or church, or monastery. ^C

ARIST. Neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon shall move from city to city. Otherwise they shall be returned again to the churches in which they were ordained. This canon not only completely abolishes the translations of bishops, but also those of presbyters and deacons, and restores those who attempt to do such a thing back again to the churches in which they were ordained. But the first and second canons of Sardica punish them more severely, subjecting them to the penalty of excommunication.

CANON XVI. ^D Whoever, rashly and inconsiderately, having neither the fear of God before their eyes nor knowing the ecclesiastical canon, shall depart from their church, being presbyters or deacons, or whoever at all is listed in the canon; these must in no way be received in another church, but they must entirely be compelled to return to their own parishes, or if they persist, it is proper that they be separated from communion. But if anyone should even dare to snatch away one who belongs to another, and ordain him in his own church, without the consent of the proper bishop from whom the one listed in the canon departed, the ordination shall be void.

^A

BALS. From the end of the fifteenth canon it is shown that all who are ordained, whether they are chosen or ordained for bishoprics, or for monasteries, or for divine temples; whence it follows that both the sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon and the tenth establish that clergy should be made in this way, and that any "laying on of hands" performed otherwise should be held as void. For this reason it has also been decreed that it is not in the power of a cleric to migrate from city to city, and to change his clergy without the dimissory letters of the one who ordained him. But as for the clergy who are called back by those who ordained them, and are not persuaded to return, they are to be separated from communion, that is to say, they are not to be permitted to concelebrate. For "not to communicate" is understood in that sense, and not in the sense of not entering the church or not participating in the sacraments; and this is done entirely in conformity with the apostolic canon, which determines that they should not minister. Furthermore, the sixteenth apostolic canon subjects to excommunication the bishop who receives a cleric from another diocese without the dimissory letters of the one who ordained him. Wherefore, the person who is for the time being the chartophylax of the Great Church does well in not permitting those priests who were ordained elsewhere to celebrate the liturgy, unless they bring commendatory and dimissory letters from those by whom they were ordained. Read also the thirty-fifth apostolic canon, and canon 8 of the Synod of Ephesus. ^B

ZONAR. Whoever, having left their own churches, have diverted themselves to others, are commanded by the previous canon to be restored to the church in which each was ordained. But this canon decrees that those who do not obey the call to return are to be deprived of communion. From this, therefore, someone might easily suspect that this constitution is contrary to the fifteenth canon of the holy apostles. For that canon also commands that any clergy who have left their own dioceses and have migrated entirely to another diocese against the will of their own bishop are no longer to minister, while permitting them to communicate there as laymen. Therefore, I think that "to be deprived of communion" in this present canon is to be understood in this way: that those in clerical rank are not to communicate with them, that is to say, they are to be prevented from concelebrating with such men. For the holy Fathers did not term "communion" in this place as the reception of the holy sacraments, but as the fellowship and cooperation in the sacred rites and the concelebrating with those to whom they have come. For if this present canon is understood in this way, it will appear to no one to be at variance with the apostolic canon. Then it adds that if any bishop shall ordain a cleric who has migrated from one city to another, perhaps promoting him to a higher degree without the consent of the bishop from whom he departed, the ordination shall be void. ^{C D}

ARIST. As many presbyters or deacons as shall withdraw from their church are not to be admitted to another church, but let them return to their own diocese. But if anyone [shall ordain] him who belongs to another, without the

^A consent of his own bishop, the ordination shall be void. And this canon determines the same things as the one before it, so that neither a presbyter nor a deacon who has departed from the church in which he was enrolled is to be received by another bishop, but he is to return again to his own diocese. And if any bishop shall receive a cleric who belongs to another, and shall ordain him, or promote him to a higher rank in his own church, without the consent of the original bishop, the ordination shall be void.

CANON XVII.

Since many who are examined under this canon, pursuing greed and base gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture which says, "He has not given his money on usury" (Ps. XIV, 5), and are exacting interest (63), the holy ^B and great council has decreed that if anyone...

(63) *Interest. Among the ancients, Greeks as well as Latins, an old custom prevailed that they who lent money for interest would exact from their debtors, every month, the centesimal part of the principal or sum, whatever it might be; to such an extent that after a hundred months the interest equaled the principal itself. And hence it is that St. Basil the Great says that he who has received money at interest fears the months as if they were the parents of usuries. Basil, In Psal. XIV. Aristophanes often makes mention of this monthly payment of interest, in whose *Clouds* (Act I, scene 1) Strepsiades, who had borrowed much money, deliberating with Socrates on the method by which, finally, he might circumvent his creditors, says that he has devised an excellent plan by which he could have the matter immediately accomplished, namely, by invoking a Thessalian witch to pull the moon down from the sky and lock it away in a round box; for if the moon did not rise, his creditors would not be able to know when the interest was to be exacted; for they speak thus in Aristophanes:

*Str.* If I bought a certain Thessalian witch And by night I could pull the moon down from heaven, And then lock it up in a round box, as if It were a mirror, and keep it under guard. *So.* Why indeed would that benefit you? *Str.* Because if the moon should no longer rise anywhere, I would not pay the interest. *So.* And why is that? *Str.* Because money is lent by the month.

The commentator observes on this passage that "interest was paid upon the completion of the moon; if, therefore, it did not rise, how could the creditors know that the month was completed and ask for the interest?" It is hence also evident that interest was not exacted on any day of the month, but on the last day, which is called the *enē kai nea* ("old and new"). And the same Strepsiades says elsewhere (Act IV, scene 1):

*Fifth, fourth, third, then after this the second,* *And the day of all days that I fear the most,* *I clearly shudder at and detest, the one* *That is soon upon us, the thirtieth day of the month, the old and new.* *For everyone to whom I happen to owe something* *Threatens me, saying they will forfeit my security in court,* *And they swear that they wish to destroy me utterly* *And ruin me of all my goods.*

Hence Pasias the money-lender addresses this same Strepsiades (ibid., scene 4). Elsewhere, also, Solon is said to have been the first to have established this law, that payments were to be made on the new moon, *enē kai nea* (ibid., scene 3). The creditor, therefore, was exacting usurious interest on the last day of the month, which is called the "old and new," because it participates in both the old and the new light, as the commentator says in the same place. However, the usury was to be deposited by the debtor on the next day, which the Latins call the Kalends. That this was in the custom for the Latins as well, that money-lenders would repeat the demand for interest from debtors on the Kalends of each month, is witnessed by Horace, Satyr. 1.1, sat. 3:

*You hate and avoid the money-lender, like Druso,* *Who, unless sad Kalends come to the wretch,* *Extricates his interest and capital from anywhere.*

^D And from this it is also the case that they were accustomed to put out money to interest on the Kalends, Horace, Epod. 2:

*When the lender Alphius had spoken these things,* *Now, now about to become a farmer,* *He called in all his money on the Ides;* *He seeks to put it out on the Kalends.*

Furthermore, the money-lender was accustomed to exact not just any indefinite amount, but the centesimal part of the lent money on the Kalends of each month; to such an extent that a principal of a hundred pounds would yield one pound every month, and consequently twelve pounds per year. Hence it is called by St. Chrysostom, in *Matt. Hom. 56*, p. 362, but more frequently simply by the Greeks and Latins, the centesima; as in Chrysostom in the place cited before, and elsewhere,

^A and the holy and great synod [judged], that if anyone should be found after this decree taking interest, by handling in this manner, or otherwise pursuing the matter, demanding sesquialteral [interest], or contriving for the sake of base gain any other thing, he shall be deposed from the clergy, and shall be a stranger to the canon.

BALS. The forty-fourth apostolic canon commands that presbyters or deacons who demand interest from a loan be deposed, unless they cease. But the present canon decrees that all clerics who practice usury, or demand sesquialteral interest, or contrive for themselves any other base gain, be deposed; this is what it decided, ruling that it is just in this way.

Seek what is written in the aforementioned apostolic canon, and in chapter 27, of title 9 of the present work, which says that in part interest is demanded also from those initiated into sacred orders, evidently from different [sources], and those from delay. But [regarding] the apostolic canon and others decreeing that clerics practicing usury be deposed, unless they cease, someone will ask: "Must we heed those, or the present canon which says they are to be deposed from that moment?" Solution: It seems to me that the cleric, if he does not desist from base gain after the admonition, shall be deposed, because the apostolic canon speaks more humanely. Note, therefore, the canon ^B regarding priests who act as wine-merchants, and lease baths, and do certain other things of this sort, and those who are not subject to the canon, [yet] plead poverty as their final anchor.

(Guill. Beveridge’s note. ^C Epist. 1. x, 62. And Zonaras is more explicit on this canon, namely annually. This, therefore, is that species of usury which is forbidden by name to clerics in the present canon: and not only by the present [canon], but also by Syn. Trull. can. 10. Furthermore, the civil law has moderated this centesimal usury even for laymen; for Justinian established this: "But concerning the quantity of interest, we have judged it necessary to make a general sanction, reducing their old, harsh, and most grievous burden to moderation. And therefore we command that for illustrious persons, or those exceeding them, it is by no means permitted to stipulate more than a third part of a centesima in the name of interest, in any contract, low or high. But those who preside over workshops, or carry on any lawful negotiation, [may] moderate their stipulation in the name of interest up to two-thirds of a centesima in any contract. In maritime contracts, however, or loans of goods, it is permitted to stipulate only up to a centesima, and not to exceed it; although this was conceded by the old laws. But all other men may stipulate only half a centesima in the name of interest, and that quantity of interest, even in all other cases, must in no way be extended, in which interest is wont to be exacted without stipulation, xxvi, par. 1, c. de usuris." Where I wish it to be noted in passing that the civil laws admit the same quantity of interest which even now prevails in this nation of ours. For half a centesima is 6 percent. See also Balsamon’s response ^D to the fourth question of Mark of Alexandria, in *Juris Græco-Romani* l. v, p. 364. Attaliata’s *Synopsis*, tit. 20, and the *Basilics* l. xxiii, tit. 5.)

^A And if anyone, in the present canon, is said to either pursue the matter otherwise or to demand interest at the rate of a half, the meaning is as follows: certain of those in holy orders, knowing of the canon and circumventing it, observe the words but disregard the intent. They give money to certain people and agree that they should receive a certain share of the profit, while the risk is acknowledged by those who receive the money; and though they are in truth lenders, they pretend to be called partners. Therefore, the canon deters this as well, and deposes those who do any such thing. By interest at the rate of a half, understand the lighter demands of usury. Although, it says, the cleric may not demand the most burdensome centesimal interest—that is, twelve ^B *hyperpyra* for each libra of *hyperpyra* (for the centesimal interests were called "centesimal" by the canons, because in the old days the libra did not consist of seventy-two *exagia* as is common today, but of one hundred)—yet he seeks half of the total interest, that is, six or even less than these; and thus he shall be deposed. Know that since the libra today has seventy-two *exagia*, and not one hundred as in the old days, he who agreed to take interest for a libra will not demand twelve, but the proportional amount.

ZONARAS. The ancient law also forbade lending at interest. ^C NOTE OF GUILL. BEVERIDGE. From these words it is made clear how grievously those err who interpret *Ignita* as Leunclavius does, or as "veils of fiery color" as others do. For from this passage it is most clearly established that it is not merely a type of coin, but that it is the centesimal part of a *litra* or *libra*. For here Balsamon teaches that receiving twelve *hyperpyra* for each *libra* of *hyperpyra* constitutes centesimal interest; which, as was shown before, was [a rate of] one in a hundred; and hence there were one hundred *hyperpyra* in every *libra*, and this is obvious; otherwise, to demand twelve for each *libra* could not be. But from the following words it is observed that the *libra* at one time also consisted of one hundred *exagia*. Whence it is evident that it was of the same value as— ^D The *denarius* of Attic silver is of such a weight, as Pliny writes in the same place, whence the Talmudists, *Mina* are one hundred *denarii*, *Bava Kama*, ch. 4, sect. 1, *hyperpyra* therefore were formerly of the same weight, as were the *drachmae* and *denarii*, namely, the centesimal part of a *libra*; wherefore it happened that just as one hundred *drachmae*, in the words of Galen cited before, so also one hundred *hyperpyra* are sometimes written for a *libra*. The scholiast of Harmenopulus, *Schol. Harmenop.* l. 1, tit. 15. So also in the *Chronicon Constantinopolitanum*, as cited and corrected by Meursius. In both places they designate one *libra*. And where William of Tyre says, "The amount of the dowry was one hundred thousand *hyperpyra* of just weight, besides ten thousand others of the same currency," *Willel. Tyr. de bell. sacro* l. xvii, c. 12, *hyperorum* is written erroneously for *hyperpyrorum*, of which one hundred thousand constitute one thousand *librae*—ten thousand [constituting] one hundred *librae*. According to these things, in the present passage of Balsamon, it must be noted that after the word *tola* this occurs, which is the mark of the *hyperpyra* themselves, and therefore in this place it is redundant, whereby the word *tola* itself is written. But after a few words it recurs, signifying, as later, that in both places this figure denotes [it], as is evident from the very sense of the words. Gentianus Hervetus translates this as *solidis*; which version we also accept, since usage has prevailed, that the *libra* is first distributed into *solidi*. But the *solidus* in this place does not signify the twentieth, but the centesimal part of the *libra*.

^A For it was forbidden to all. For He says, "You shall not lend your money at interest to your brother" (Deut. xxiii, 19). But if the less perfect Law decreed this, how much more so should the more perfect and more spiritual one? For behold, something more than the temple is here. Therefore, while lending at interest is averted for all, if it is averted for all, it would be all the more unbefitting for those who are ordained, who ought to be a model and a spur to virtue even for the laity. For this reason, the canon strictly forbids those examined in the canon—that is, those appointed to the clergy—to demand fractional returns, namely, centesimal interest. For while there are many types of interest, the centesimal is heavier than the others. For just as with people today the *librae* are numbered up to seventy-two, so for the ancients there were the hundreds, and the interest on the hundred coins was twelve coins; hence it was called "centesimal," as being demanded on the hundred. ^B The synod, therefore, having forbidden those in the clergy to take interest, imposes a penalty upon those who do not keep the canon, and says: "The holy synod has decreed"—that is, deemed it just—"that if anyone after the things now decreed should be found taking interest through handling," that is, treating lending like a certain kind of business or otherwise going about the matter. For some, avoiding being spoken of as taking interest, give money to those in need, and agree to share the profit with them; they call themselves not lenders but partners, and while they are not partners in the loss, they trade in common for the profit alone. The canon forbids these and all such things, and orders that those who contrive such things, or invent something else for the sake of base gain, or demand sesquialterae, be deposed. Having spoken above concerning centesimal interest, which is the heaviest of interests, as has been said, it passes on to mention the lighter one, the sesquialtera, which is the half of the whole, ^C that is, the half of the twelve coins, which are the fullest and complete interest of the centesimal. One might also speak of the sesquialterae according to the arithmeticians. For among them, some numbers are called *epitriti* (65), others *epitetartoi*, *epipemptoi*, and *ephektoi*; but the *hemiolioi* (sesquialterae), such as six and nine, are so called because they contain in themselves the whole numbers and their halves. For six has the four and the half of the four, which is...

NOTE OF GUILL. BEVEREGIUS

^A Clearly, it is the three. Therefore, by the term “sesquialteral,” as it should be understood, the canon means something close to this: that those in the clergy should not only refrain from taking the heavier usury, but not even any other that is more moderate. ARIST. If anyone takes usury or sesquialterals, he shall be alien, and deposed after this determination of the Church. ^B The centesimal usuries, which are known as the greatest of all usuries, are twelve coins; half of these are six. If, therefore, any of the consecrated ones, having given a loan to someone at usury, demands either heavier usuries, or centesimals, or sesquialterals, i.e., half of these, i.e., the six, as someone who has forgotten the divine Scripture which says, “He hath not given his money upon usury,” he shall be deposed from the clergy; even if the forty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles and the tenth of the sixth synod in Trullo do not depose him upon that fact, unless when admonished he does not cease doing this.

CANON XVIII.

^A of presbyters; indeed, let those who do not comply to do so cease from their diaconate. Since the canon decrees these things, it is not permitted for deacons to receive, or to give the Eucharist or the holy things before the bishops or to priests; nor for a deacon to sit in the holy sanctuary in the midst of the priests. We see it happening, however, that some of the ecclesiastical deacons sit before the priests in assemblies that are outside the sacred tribunal; and I think this happens because of the offices. For only those who have been deemed worthy of ecclesiastical offices by the patriarch sit before the priests. But this happens contrary to reason. Read canon 7 of the sixth synod. For the Chartophylax of the most holy Great Church for the time being sits in assemblies that take place outside the synod, not ^B only before the priests but also before the high priests, by the command of the illustrious emperor, lord Alexios Komnenos, which is as follows: "My Imperial Majesty, caring for ecclesiastical decorum, and seeking good order in every civil matter, but much more so when it is a question of divine things, wishes and judges, most holy lord, that the privileges granted from the beginning to each of the ecclesiastical ranks, and the status which has prevailed in these matters up to the present, should be immutable and remain in the future, as it has been accepted for so many years, and has been exercised for a long time, and has been vindicated and well confirmed by transmissions from one to another ^C without change up to now. But since my Imperial Majesty has learned that some high priests, incited by a certain contention and desire for glory, are trying to diminish the privilege of the Chartophylax, and by bringing forward canons contend that he ought not to sit before the high priests when, some need requiring it, they must gather and sit together before entering into your holiness, it has seemed unbearable to my Imperial Majesty that a matter which has been approved for so long a time, and by former patriarchs and other high priests, and even by those who now contend without just cause, and which has been accepted by the silence of the longest time, should now be abolished ^D in passing and be torn down as if it were something neglected. Therefore, it also decrees that this is a highly reasonable and just thing. For if the high priests were to choose again not to move things that are immovable, nor to oppose as if from inconsistency things that were pleasing to the Fathers who were before them, and likewise also to them themselves through the long silence and the patience shown up to now, it would be well, and thanks would be given to them because, having discarded the desire for fighting, they had preferred peace. But if even now some, usurping the words of the canon (for they are far from its meaning), wish..."

to establish their own will and untruly pervert the order towards disorder—yet my imperial serenity has permitted the interpretation and explanation of the canon’s context, which can be easily understood and clearly discerned by those who penetrate it exactly and reach its canonical sense. ^A This, however, is a reproach to the prelates themselves, in that, while they knew the canon and perfectly understood its words, they irrationaly trampled upon their own conscience; and while the canon was thrown into confusion, they tolerated it and embraced a session inferior to that of those formerly holding the rank of *chartophylax*. And therefore, as compensation for this contempt of the sacred canons, it (my majesty) assigns them the penalty of removal to the churches that fall to them, following in this respect also the footsteps of the ecclesiastical canon, and bringing forward the sacred canons themselves as an aid against the contemners of the canons. For those prelates who preside over the western churches, and for a long time now have cared nothing for the flocks entrusted to their faith, nor presided over them as was fitting, will not be able to say that the hostile rage which spread through the East reached them, and that in this way the inspection of the reasoning sheep was taken away from them. And this matter, having thus been disposed of by my majesty, leaves the result as a judgment upon them. ^B But since this also reached the ears of his majesty, that some of the leading men of the Church are passed over when elections take place, while others are preferred to them who are inferior both in age and in a more excellent condition of life, and who have not sustained great labors for the Church, this matter did not seem worthy of the holy synod of bishops. Wherefore, he mandates to all, religiously and equally, and with imperial authority, not to play with things that are not for play, nor to indulge in partiality in divine matters. For when the soul is in danger, what other thing is there to take more care of? Let them prefer to others and deem worthy of the honor of votes those whom an unblamable life adorns along with doctrine; or those in whom, if doctrine happens to falter, long experience and many labors exhausted for the Church supply what is lacking. ^C For thus they will rightly establish their votes, and will not be accused of having cast votes before God to the condemnation of their own souls.

ZONAR. It is most necessary that order be maintained everywhere, and especially among those who, having been initiated into the sacred orders, perform the administration of holy things. Therefore, the canon corrected the matter in which sin was committed through an error of order. For that deacons should administer the Eucharist to priests, and even forestall the bishop himself in its reception, was truly an irregularity; therefore, it orders that this should happen no more, but that each should know his own measure, and the deacons should know that they are servants of the bishops in holy things—being taught this by the very name—and that the dignity of priests is greater than that of deacons. By what right, then, shall the inferior impart to the superior the ^D

^A Eucharist? For, according to the great Apostle, *Without any contradiction, the less is blessed by the better* (Heb. VII, 7). The holy synod therefore defines that priests are to receive first, and then the deacons, with either the priests or the bishops administering the holy Body and Blood of the Lord to them; and it forbids a deacon to sit in the midst of the priests, as this is contrary to the canon and to the order of the Church. It ordains that those who do not obey this are to be removed from the ministry.

ARIST. Let deacons remain within their own bounds ^B and neither administer the Eucharist to the priests, nor touch it before them, nor sit in the midst of the priests; for if anything of the sort occurs, it is against the canon and against proper order.

This present canon, finding something perhaps indecorous and disorderly occurring in some cities, corrects it; and it decrees that no one of the deacons is to administer the divine communion to the priests, nor to touch it before them, but that they are to receive this Eucharist after the priests, from either a bishop or a priest; nor are they to sit in the midst of the priests, so that they may not be found sitting above them.

CANON XIX

Concerning the Paulianists who have since fled to the Catholic Church, it is decreed ^C that they must by all means be rebaptized. But if any in times past were reckoned among the clergy, if they appear blameless and above reproach, they are to be rebaptized and ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church. But if the examination finds them unfit, it is proper that they should be deposed. Likewise, the same form shall be observed concerning deaconesses, and in general concerning all who are reckoned among the clergy. We have mentioned the deaconesses who are examined in their habit, since they have no imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be reckoned among the laity.

BALS. Paulianists are called the Paulicians. A decree, or canon and rule, has therefore been set forth by the holy Fathers that they should be ^D rebaptized. He adds: Since it is probable that some of them were, through ignorance, ordained into the clergy, the bishop must rebaptize them, and then [proceed to inquire] concerning their manner of life.

after baptism, and if he finds them blameless, judge them also worthy of the priesthood; but if not, he must alienate them even from the ordination they received before baptism. The same things shall also apply to deaconesses. The matter regarding deaconesses is as follows: Virgins used to come to the Church and were kept under the exhortation of the bishop as those dedicated to God, yet while remaining in a lay status. For this is what it means to be examined while in a lay status. And when they reached forty years of age, they were deemed worthy of the ordination of deaconesses, provided they were found entirely worthy. If, therefore, any of these, he says, happened to be Paulianists, the same thing shall be done with them as was ordained from above concerning the males. Seek the 6th and 44th canons of the Council of Carthage. Since the canon has ordained these things, someone might ask: Since the ordination which took place before baptism is considered as if it had not happened (for this reason it was ordained that a Paulianist be ordained after baptism), how does the canon say that he is to be deposed after examination if he is found unworthy to be ordained? [B ] The solution: The term "deposition" here is used abusively for "expulsion." For ordination into the clergy before baptism does not confer clergy status. But if you do not wish to say this, assert that the words concerning deposition are not taken as applying to the ordination which was before baptism, but to that which was after baptism. For, the Fathers say, he who is unworthily ordained after illumination will also be deposed according to the universal canon which deposes those who sin after ordination. Regarding the Paulianists, a question has arisen: who are they? And others have said other things; but I have found in various books that the Manichaeans were renamed "Paulicians" from a certain Paul of Samosata, the son of a Manichaean woman named Callinice. He was called a Samosatene ^C as one who served as bishop of Samosata (63). This man preached that there is one God, who is called the same as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For, he says, one is God, and his Son is in him, just as reason is in man. And this Reason itself, having come upon the earth, dwelt in a man called Jesus, and having completed the economy, ascended to the Father. Now this Jesus, from the lower regions...

^D

Guillaume Beveridge's Notes

^A For this Jesus is Jesus Christ, as one who began from Mary. Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus and certain others deposed this man at Antioch. There is further a question as to whether those who from among the orthodox Christians have become Paulianists ought to be rebaptized. And some indeed say that the canon orders only those who were Paulicians from birth to be rebaptized, but not those who, being from the orthodox, have received the heresy of the Paulicians. For they claim it is necessary that these be sanctified only by chrism, and to confirm their argument they bring forward many who had voluntarily become Muslim, and were not rebaptized, but only anointed. But it seems to me ^B that the canon ordains these things rather concerning those who have fallen from the orthodox into the heresy of the Paulicians, and have received the baptism of that detestable superstition; and this is properly Paulianism, not merely being someone who was a Paulician from the beginning. Wherefore, according to the present canon, such persons ought to be rebaptized. But also the very word "rebaptism" contributes not a little to what is being said. Seek also the 47th Apostolic Canon, which says that the bishop and the presbyter who baptizes anyone twice, as well as he who does not baptize one who has been defiled by the impious, is to be deposed. Read also the interpretation of that same canon, and the 7th canon of the 2nd Synod.

ZONARAS. The canon commands that those who come from the heresy of the Paulicians to the Catholic Church should be rebaptized. For a "definition" (horos) is called a form and a canon. But if any of this number happen to have been assigned to the clergy—the ordainers perchance ignoring their heresy—it commands that such persons, after being rebaptized, are to be examined, and their life after baptism is to be explained; and if they should be found blameless and irreproachable, they are to be assigned to orders by the prelate of the church to which they have given their name. For the prior ordination, which took place while they were heretics, is not even considered an ordination. For how will it be believed that he who was baptized by a rite alien to the orthodox faith has received the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit ^C at his ordination? But if, upon being examined, they are found unsuitable for ordination, the synod decrees that they are to be deposed. But I think that the name of "deposition" is used here improperly. ^D For he is deposed who was properly ordained and was raised to the height of the priesthood. But he who was not truly ordained in the beginning, in what way, or from whence, or from what height of honor can he be removed? The synod therefore indicated that these men were to be thrust out of the clergy, with the term "deposition" being used less properly. The same is also [to be understood] concerning deaconesses and those who are simply enrolled in the clergy.

^A The canon thus established its regulation. But as for "We have remembered the deaconesses who were examined as to their habit," and the rest, it is of this sort: In ancient times, virgins were offered to God after having professed purity; these the bishops would consecrate according to the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage, and they would take care of their custody according to the 45th canon of the same council. From the number of these virgins, deaconesses were ordained at the appropriate time, that is to say, when they had completed their fortieth year. But these women also received a certain habit from the bishops in the twenty-fifth year of their age, according to the 140th canon of the aforementioned council. Therefore, this council calls "deaconesses" such virgins [who were] examined as to their habit, but who possessed no imposition of hands; and it orders them to be examined ^B among the laity, provided that they profess their [renunciation of] heresy and abstain from it.

ARIST. Paulianists are to be rebaptized; and if any clergy appear irreproachable, having been rebaptized, let them be ordained. But if they do not appear irreproachable, let them be deposed. And the deaconesses who have been led astray, since they do not share in ordination, let them be reckoned among the laity.

Those who come over from the heresy of the Paulianists are to be rebaptized; and if any of them have functioned as clergy among the Paulianists, if they lead an irreproachable life, they are to be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church; but those who are found unworthy are deposed. Their deaconesses, however, since they never had any imposition of hands, if they come to the Catholic ^C Church and are baptized, are to be placed among the laity. Now, the Paulianists are those who descend from Paul of Samosata, who thought lowly things concerning Christ and taught that He was a common man and took His origin from Mary.

CANON XX

BALS. The 66th Apostolic canon orders that he who fasts on any Lord's Day, or any Sabbath—except for one and only one Sabbath, namely the Great [Sabbath]—if he be a cleric, is to be deposed; if a layman, ^D he is to be excommunicated. But the present canon decrees that on every Lord's Day and on all the days of Pentecost, we are to hold a festival and all pray standing, as those who have risen with Christ and seek the heavenly dwelling. The question was asked, whether from the stated Apostolic canon, which determines that we should not fast on any Sabbath or any Lord's Day, and from the present canon, which determines that we ought not to bend the knee on the Lord's Day and throughout the whole of Pentecost, it appears that we should not fast, but should break the fast on all the days of the week, just as on the Lord's Day. And some indeed have said that the whole of Pentecost is to be considered as one day

to consider the entire Pentecost as one Lord's day, and that for this reason we ought to celebrate it as a feast, and neither fast nor bend the knee. But as for me, it pleases me that the canons should maintain their force in those matters regarding which they were issued.

ZONAR. That one should not bend the knee on Sunday, and on the days of Pentecost, is ordained by other holy Fathers, and also by the great Basil. He, too, is commanded to provide the arguments—the great Basil, who also adds the reasons why bending the knee is forbidden on the aforementioned days, and why it is permitted to pray while standing. These are: that we should remember that we are to rise again with Christ, and that we ought to seek the things that are above; and because Sunday is an image of the age which we await—that same day which is one and also the eighth, just as it was noted by Moses in the history of the creation, where it is called "one" and not "first." Thus, it sets forth that one and true eighth day, the day without sunset, that endless age which is to come. Therefore, the Church, shaping her own nurslings to remember that day, and to prepare themselves for it, ordered that we pray standing, so that, looking toward the inheritance above, we might contemplate it perpetually. This custom, therefore, of not bending the knees on the aforementioned days, not observed everywhere, this present canon ordains to be kept in all places.

ARIST. On Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, one ought not to bend the knee, but men should pray standing upright. One ought not to bend the knee on Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, but to offer prayers to God while standing.

CANONS OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AT CONSTANTINOPLE

BALS. and ZONAR. The holy and ecumenical second council took place under the Emperor Theodosius the Great, at Constantinople, where one hundred and fifty holy Fathers gathered against the enemies of the Holy Spirit, who also set forth the subjoined canons.

CANON I. The holy Fathers who gathered at Constantinople ordained that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen who gathered at Nicaea in Bithynia should not be abrogated, but should remain firm, and that every heresy should be anathematized; and especially that of the Eunomians or Eudoxians, and the Semiarrians,

^A or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

BALS. The present holy second synod was gathered against Macedonius and those who were of the same opinion as he, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and not God, nor consubstantial with the Son and the Father; these the present canon calls Semiarrians, as they partook by half in the heresy of the Arians. For the latter taught that both the Son and the Spirit were creatures and of a different substance from the Father. But the ^B adversaries of the Holy Spirit thought rightly concerning the Son, but blasphemed the Holy Spirit as created and foreign to the Godhead. They were also called Semiarrians, those who indeed said that the Son and the Spirit were creatures, but added that they did not think them to be created in the same manner as other creatures, but in another way; and this they said, so that it might not be thought that any change was attached to the Father through the generation, who did not teach that the Word and the Spirit were consubstantial with the Father, but of like substance. This second synod confirmed, through the present canon and the orthodox faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea, ^C and ordained that every heresy should be anathematized, and especially that of the Eunomians. For Eunomius was a Galatian, and was reckoned bishop of Cyzicus, thinking the same things as Arius, but indeed more things and worse. For he taught that the Son was mutable, and a servant, and in every way unlike the Father. He even rebaptized those who assented to his opinion, plunging them head downwards, and turning their feet upward, and he performed the baptism with one immersion only. And he prattled that the future punishment and the gehenna were not truly real, but that the threats were intended only for the sake of terror. These same people were also called Eudoxians from a certain Eudoxius, a fellow-heretic with Eunomius, who, having become bishop of Constantinople, ^D appointed Eunomius as high priest of Cyzicus; who were also named Anomoeans (that is, Dissimilars), because they said that the Son and the Spirit have no likeness to the Father in essence. And it ordains that those also be anathematized who were named after Sabellius the Libyan, who...

was bishop of Ptolemais, a city of the Pentapolis. For he, by decreeing a certain coalition and commingling, united and confounded the three hypostases of the one essence and divinity into one person. And professing that there is but one person in the Holy Trinity, though spoken of by three titles, he stated that the same was at one time manifested as Father, at another as Son, and at another as the Holy Spirit, being transformed and transfigured at one time in one way and at another in another. ^A Likewise, it also places under anathema the heresy of the Marcellians, which is named from Marcellus the heresiarch. He originated from Ancyra in Galatia and was bishop of that city; he held the same doctrines as Sabellius. It also subjects to anathema the heresy of the Photinians. They took their name from Photinus, who originated from Sirmium and acted as bishop there; he held the same views as Paul of Samosata, neither confessing the Holy Trinity, nor naming any other than the Spirit as God the creator of all, but considering the Word to be merely prolatitious—some divine command serving God for the production of the universe, like a mechanical instrument—and preaching Christ as a mere man who had received the Word of God, not as essential, but as prolatitious, and decreeing that He took the beginning of His existence from Mary. And Paul of Samosata, whom the Synod of Antioch deposed, bruited many other such inanities. ^B Together with the others, it condemns the heresy of Apollinarius by anathema. Now Apollinarius was bishop of Laodicea, which is in the East, and he blasphemed openly concerning the divine economy. For he said that the Son of God took from the holy Theotokos a body animated, but void of a rational mind, since the divinity sufficed in place of an intellect, and he thought that the irrational mind was as the soul of the Lord; and thus he said that He was not even a perfect man, and taught that there was one nature in the Savior. ^C

ZONARAS. The second synod was convened against Macedonius and those of like mind with him, who taught that the Holy Spirit was a created being and not God, nor consubstantial with the Father and the Son, whom the present canon calls Semi-Arians, as they were participants in half of the Arian heresy. For while the Arians taught that both the Son and the Spirit were of a different essence from the Father and were created beings, the Pneumatomachi held sound views concerning the Son but blasphemed the Holy Spirit, calling Him a created being and alien to the divinity. ^D They were also called Semi-Arians, as were those who, while they themselves said that the Son and the Spirit were created beings, yet added that we do not think they were made like the rest of created things, but in some other way; and we say this, they claimed, so that it might not be thought that any passion was attached to the Father through generation. They taught that the Word and the Spirit were not consubstantial with the Father, but of a similar substance. This second synod, through the present canon, also confirmed the orthodox faith preached by the holy Fathers at Nicaea, and whatever pertains to the orthodox faith.

and it decreed that every heresy should be anathematized, especially that of the Eunomians. ^A Now Eunomius, who was a Galatian, held the title of bishop of Cyzicus; he thought the same things as Arius, or rather, even more and worse things. For he taught that the Son was mutable, a servant, and in all respects unlike the Father, and those who joined his opinion he would rebaptize; immersing them headlong, with him holding their feet upward, he would perform the baptism with a single immersion. He also trifled that the future punishments and the torment of hell were not truly real, but were only threatened for the sake of frightening men. These same people were also called Eudoxians, from a certain Eudoxius who was of the same heresy as Eunomius, and who, having become bishop of Constantinople, appointed Eunomius as high priest of Cyzicus. They were also called Anomoeans, because they claimed that the Son and the Spirit have no similarity of essence with the Father.

It also decrees that the Sabellians be anathematized. These derive their name from a certain Sabellius, a Libyan, who became bishop of Ptolemais in the Pentapolis; he taught a conflation and confusion, merging and confounding the three hypostases of the one essence and divinity into one person, and preaching a three-named person in the Trinity, saying that the same person appeared at one time as the Father, at another as the Son, and at another as the Holy Spirit, transformed and changing his guise from time to time. ^B Likewise, it places under anathema the heresy of the Marcellians, which is named after its heresiarch Marcellus, who originated from Ancyra in Galatia and became its bishop; he held opinions similar to those of Sabellius.

It also subjects the heresy of the Photinians to anathema. Those who follow Photinus derive their name from him; he originated from Sirmium and acted as bishop there. He thought the same things as Paul of Samosata, neither acknowledging the holy Trinity, nor acknowledging God as the creator and parent of all things; rather, he believed that the Spirit was merely the name for God, and that the Word was something projected externally—namely, the commandment of the divine mind itself—serving God in the production of the universe like a mechanical tool. He preached that Christ was a mere man who received the Word of God, not as an essential being but as a projected one, and he dogmatized that he received the beginning of his existence from Mary. ^C Paul of Samosata blathered many other things as well, for which the synod in Antioch deposed him. Finally, the same penalty of anathema established against the others is also enacted against the Apollinarists. Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicea in Syria, a man who spoke manifest blasphemy concerning the sacred mystery of the Incarnation. For he maintained that the Son of God assumed a body for himself from the bowels of the holy Theotokos that was indeed endowed with a soul, but was devoid of mind—as if his divinity sufficed in place of the mind—and he imagined that the very soul of the Lord was irrational. And thus he did not say that he appeared as a perfect man, and he taught that there was but one nature in the Savior. ^D

^A ARIST. Let the Nicene faith prevail: and let heresies be anathema. Clear.

CANON II. Bishops are not to go beyond their diocese to churches outside their bounds, nor to confound the churches, but according to the canons, the bishop of Alexandria shall govern only the things in Egypt, and the bishops of the East shall govern only the East, while the privileges and preeminences which are in the canons of the Nicene Council for the Church of the Antiochians are preserved. And the bishops of the Asian diocese shall govern only the things in the Asian [diocese], and the bishops of Pontica shall govern only the things of Pontica, and the bishops of Thrace shall govern only the things of Thrace. ^B And bishops, if not invited, shall not pass beyond their diocese for ordinations or any other ecclesiastical administrations. While the aforementioned canon concerning the dioceses is preserved, it is clear that the synod of the province shall administer the things in each province according to what was defined at Nicaea. But the churches of God in the Barbarous nations must be administered according to the custom of the Fathers that has prevailed.

BALS. The 6th and 7th canons of the first synod defined which dioceses ought to be subject to the Pope of Rome, to the Alexandrian, to the Antiochene, and to the Hierosolymite. But the present canon defines that the bishops of Asia, of Pontica, of Thrace, and others, are to administer the things that are within their own borders, and that it is not permitted for any of them to extend the exercise of jurisdiction beyond the limits of their own region, and to confound the rights of the churches. If, however, it should be necessary for some bishop to migrate from his own diocese to another for ordination or another just cause, he must not do so in a disorderly way and, so to speak, invade it in the manner of a robber, but [must do so] with the permission of the bishop of that place. But since in the Barbarous nations there were then churches of the faithful, where perhaps not many bishops were ordained so as to suffice for a synod, or [because] it was also necessary that those who were perhaps illustrious in the word should go into such provinces of others, in order to confirm those who were coming to the faith, ^C the holy synod granted that such a custom continue to be observed, even if it is contrary to the canons, on account of the necessity of the matter. Note, therefore, from the present canon that in ancient times all the metropolitans of the provinces were themselves by themselves the heads of their own provinces and were ordained by their own synods. But that was changed by the 28th canon of the Chalcedonian synod, which directs that the metropolitans of the Pontic, and Asian, and Thracian dioceses, and some others also who are contained in that canon, be ordained by the patriarch of Constantinople and be subject to him. But if you also find other churches that are principal and are heads by themselves, as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iberia, do not wonder. For the

emperor Justinian honored the archbishop of Bulgaria. And read his 131st Novel, which is placed in the Basilica, lib. v, tit. 3, chap. 1, for the interpretation of the 5th chapter of the first title of the present work; the third synod honored the archbishop of Cyprus. And read the 8th canon of the same synod and the 39th canon of the 6th synod. But the bishop of Iberia was honored by the judgment of the synod of Antioch. For it is said that in the days of the most holy patriarch of the divine city of great Antioch, Lord Peter, there was a synodical arrangement, whereby it was decreed that the church of Iberia should be free and autocephalous, ^B although it was at that time subject to the patriarch of Antioch. Indeed, even Sicily, which for many years was subject to the throne of Constantinople, was torn away from it by tyrannical hands; and I pray that it, too, may return to its former rights by the help of our God-guided emperor, just as a daughter carried off into slavery returns to her free mother. That it is permitted, indeed by the principle of economy, to grant to other churches those churches which are occupied by Gentiles, is laid down, as it seems, by the present canon. For the synod in Constantinople gave the church of Ancyra to the metropolitan of Nazianzus, ^C and to other various prelates other such churches. And to some, it was even granted to sit upon the very throne of the church handed over to them in the sacred tribunal.

ZONAR. That there might be tranquility and concord in the churches was a matter of no small study and care, first by the apostles and later by the holy Fathers. For the apostles, in the fourteenth canon, ordained that it should not be permitted for a bishop to leap into another's diocese, having abandoned his own. The Fathers united in the first Nicene synod ^D decreed in the sixth and seventh canons that the ancient customs were to be observed in this regard, and that each throne should administer the provinces subject to it. The same thing is established here as well, and it is ordered that no bishop go beyond his diocese, that is, beyond the province subject to him, into churches in regions abroad—those which are, clearly, beyond the boundaries set for each—by the word "invading" indicating, as it were, a robbery and a turbulent incursion, and that he should not enter another's territory. For this is what is meant by a bishop going beyond his diocese not to exercise some holy function having been called, but having been urged, and persuaded to this by many bishops according to the said apostolic canon. And it is decided that the ecclesiastical affairs of each province, namely, elections, ordinations, and decisions of controversies concerning excommunications, fines, and other such things, are to be administered and determined by the authority of the provincial synod. But because there were at that time churches of the faithful among barbarian nations, where perhaps there were not many bishops, so as to be sufficient for convoking a synod, or if it were necessary, if someone was shining in discourse, to go there, and to the parishes of others, in order to strengthen those coming to the faith, and

^A to confirm in it the custom which had prevailed in such matters until that time, the holy synod has decreed, and that it should be administered hereafter as well.

ARIST. Let no foreigner throw the churches into confusion, neither by ordaining nor by enthroning. Nevertheless, in the churches that are among the gentiles, let the custom of the Fathers prevail.

It is said in many of the canons that a bishop ought not to encroach upon another’s bishopric, but that each one should remain within his own boundaries and not leap over into foreign territories, nor throw the churches into confusion. Nevertheless, in the churches that are among the gentiles, those in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, according to the sixth canon of the synod in Nicaea, let the ancient customs retain their force.

CANON III

BALS. This city of Byzantium did not have the honor of an archbishop, but a bishop was sometimes ordained in it by the metropolitan of Heraclea. For it is recorded that, although Byzantium was a city ruled by itself, it was besieged by Severus, the emperor of the Romans, and ^B subjected to the Perinthians. Perinthus is Heraclea. But when the Great Constantine had transferred the scepters of the Roman empire to it, it was renamed Constantinople and New Rome, and the queen of all cities. By the second synod, the throne of Constantinople was honored; read chapter 6 of title 6 of the present work and the contents thereof. Hence, the holy Fathers of the second synod determined that its bishop should have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Elder Rome, because it is New Rome.

These things having been thus determined, some have imagined that the preposition *after* does not signify a submission of honor, but ^C they interpreted it solely as *after in time*; and for the proof of their statement, they also bring forward the 28th canon of the fourth synod, which says that the throne of Constantinople has equal privileges to the most holy throne of Elder Rome, the throne existing second after it. But you should read the 130th Justinian Novel which is placed in book 5 of the Basilica, title 3, and is set down in the commentary on chapter 5 of title 1 of the present work, and the 36th canon of the synod in Trullo, which says that the throne of Constantinople is second. Search also chapter 1 of title 8 of the present work. For various laws concerning the privileges of Old Rome and New Rome were set down there by us, as well as the written decree of the holy Great Constantine, which was made to Pope Sylvester, then of Rome, regarding the privileges bestowed upon the Church of Old Rome. That the most holy patriarch of Constantinople for the time being is ^D today ordained by him who is the metropolitan of Heraclea for the time being—this comes from no other source than the fact that, as has been said above, the city of Byzantium was subject to the Perinthians, that is, Heracleans. And note whence the bishop of Heraclea patriarch

^A of Constantinople derives the right to ordain him; it is from no other source than the fact that, as has been said above, the city of Byzantium was subject to the Perinthians, that is, the Heracleans. And note whence the bishop of Heraclea is justified in ordaining the patriarch of Constantinople. It is found in the Chronicle of Scylitzes that the patriarch Syncellus, the brother of the emperor lord Leo the Wise, was ordained by the bishop of Caesarea, because the archbishop of Heraclea had died beforehand. And we ourselves saw, during the reign of Isaac Angelos, that a certain monk named Leontius, from the mountain of Saint Auxentius, was ordained patriarch of Constantinople by Demetrios of Caesarea for the same reason.

ZONARAS. Regarding the other patriarchal thrones, the aforementioned canon has established provisions, and it also makes mention of the throne of Constantinople, and it decreed that it should have the privileges of honor, that is, the ^B primacy, or the prerogative, as the New Rome and queen of cities, after the bishop of Rome. Some, therefore, have understood the preposition "after" (74) not to indicate an inferior grade of honor, but a sequence of time following this constitution. For Byzantium was an ancient city, governed by its own laws. But under the Roman emperor Severus, it was besieged by the Romans, and after enduring the war for three years, it was finally captured when necessities failed those within it; its walls were razed, its civil rights were taken away, and it was subjected to the Perinthians. Perinthus is the same as Heraclea; hence the ordination of the patriarch has been assigned to the bishop of Heraclea, as it is by him that the bishop of Byzantium is ordained. Later, however, this great city was rebuilt by Constantine the Great, called by his name, and renamed New Rome. For this reason, some have said that the ^C preposition "after" is indicative of time. And the city of Heraclea, or Perinthus, to which the first ranks of Europe were formerly given: the entire city was razed, and Byzantium, having been stripped of theaters and baths, and of all ornament and honor, was given over as a village to serve the Perinthians, just as Antioch was to the Laodiceans. For it is permitted to him (the metropolitan of Thracian Heraclea) according to ancient custom to ordain the bishop of Constantinople, whether because Constantine the Great, having established this Byzantium as a new and greatest Rome, did not wish to abolish the privileges of the ancient kings, but rather confirmed them, out of respect for the long passage of time and for the emperor who set the law, Severus, when with very great sweat and toil he had rendered it—while it was still Byzantium—and had captured it for defense, and had razed its walls, and in the end had granted it to these ^D Heracleans who are in Thrace, to be used even as a village. Whether, therefore, for this reason such a privilege is kept continuously, or I know not how it has been done, but at any rate, even in this our own time, as has been stated, the mentioned bishop of Heraclea promoted the aforementioned Gregory, who was from Cyprus, from a reader to a deacon and priest, and then ordained him patriarch. So the word "after" here is indicative not of honor, but of time.

*(Note 73: Regarding the metropolitan of Heraclea, which was also called Perinthus, which was once the foremost city of Europe, one of the provinces—and indeed the first—of Thrace. Procopius, *De aedificiis Justiniani*, I, 1. To this city, therefore, the emperor Severus, after Byzantium had been destroyed by him and reduced to the form of a village, adjudicated and subjected it. Herodian, I, 2. Hence it came about that when Constantine had built up this Byzantium and called it Constantinople after his own name, he did not wish to take away entirely the ancient privilege granted to Heraclea by Severus; but especially in ecclesiastical affairs, he reserved to it its dignity, and the privilege of ordaining the bishop of Constantinople; as Nicephorus Gregoras observes, *Hist. Rom.*, VI. From which words it is simultaneously gathered that the said privilege of ordaining the bishop of Constantinople was preserved for the bishop of Heraclea even up to the times of Gregoras himself, that is, until the fourteenth century from the Nativity of Christ.)*

*(Note 74: Some have understood the preposition "after." Zonaras also testifies that others have thought this. But among others, Aristenus himself was of this opinion, as is evident from his scholia on this canon, where he says, "The word 'after' [is not] indicative of rank, but of time." Whence, it is not very unlikely that both Zonaras and Balsamon saw the scholia of Aristenus that we have already published, and looked to him among others in this place.)*

^A of "old Rome" to be indicated, some have supposed. And they strive to confirm this opinion of theirs by the twenty-eighth canon of the synod of Chalcedon: for there, mention of this canon having been introduced, these things are subsequently added: "Concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome, we also decree the same. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome because that city was the imperial seat, and moved by the same reasoning, the hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops have accorded the same privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, rightly judging that the city which is honored by the empire and the senate, and enjoys the same privileges as the elder queen of cities, should also be magnified in ecclesiastical matters as she is, and be placed second after her." They say, therefore: since they deem it worthy of equal honors, how can the preposition "after" (*post*) be understood to signify subordination? But the one hundred and thirtieth Novel of Justinian, lying in book five, title three, of the Imperial Constitutions, gives the canons to be understood otherwise, in the way they were understood by that emperor. For he says: "We decree, according to the statutes of the holy synods, that the most holy pope of old Rome is the first of all priests, but the most blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome holds the second rank after the apostolic throne of old Rome, and is to be preferred above all others." From this, therefore, it is clearly shown that the preposition "after" signifies subordination and diminution. And otherwise, it would be impossible for the same equality of honor to be maintained in both thrones. For, in the formal recitations of the names of their presiding prelates, someone must necessarily take precedence and another be second, and when they come together in the cathedrae, and in signatures when there is need of these. Thus, the explanation of the preposition "after" which says that the preposition signifies a sequence of time, and not subordination, is forced and is not of a right or good understanding. But even the thirty-sixth canon of the synod in Trullo clearly shows that the preposition "after" signifies subordination, saying: "After the throne of ancient Rome, let the second place be assigned to the see of Constantinople; then let the throne of Alexandria be numbered after this, then that of Antioch, and after this, finally, that of Jerusalem."

ARIST. The bishop of Constantinople is to be honored as next after the Roman.

The bishop of Constantinople shall share in the same privileges and the same honor as the bishop of Rome; just as the twenty-eighth canon of the synod of Chalcedon understood this canon, because this city is New Rome and is honored by the empire and the senate. For here "after" is not indicative of honor, but of time; as if one should say that after many years the bishop of Constantinople came to share the same honor as the Roman.

CANON IV.

BALS. The things in this fourth canon are specific and require no interpretation. It is recorded, however, that this Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. Cynics were so called ^B on account of their arrogance, boldness, and shamelessness. When he approached the great Father Gregory the Theologian, he was instructed in the mysteries of the faith, baptized, enrolled in the clergy, and became familiar with him. But having desired the patriarchal see of Constantinople, he strove with great zeal to be elected, by means of money sent to the bishops of Alexandria. When those bishops arrived in Constantinople and undertook to act according to the will of Maximus, they were expelled from the church by the faithful; they went to the house of a certain Choraulus and ordained Maximus in a non-canonical manner. This holy synod therefore deposed him, decreeing that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained contrary to the laws, nor are those who were ordained by him, of whatever rank they may be, clerics. This Maximus, when it was later understood that he held the views of Apollinarius, was struck with anathema. This is found in the Life of the holy Gregory the Theologian, which his disciple Gregory wrote. The Theologian also mentions him in one of his orations that is not read in church.

ZONAR. This Maximus was an Egyptian, a Cynic philosopher. Cynics were so called on account of their arrogance, boldness, and shamelessness. When he approached the great Father Gregory the Theologian, he was instructed in the mysteries of the faith, baptized, and later enrolled in the clergy; he became so familiar with that holy Father as even to eat at the same table. ^C

Beveridge's note: Diogenes Laertius says that the Cynic philosophers derived this name from their manners, but others say they were called so ^D because of the places [they frequented], like the Academics and Stoics; and others from accidents, like the Peripatetics; and others from jests, like the Cynics, [who were so called] in the Cynosarges gymnasium. Aristogeiton the son of Cydimachus was called "the dog" because of his daring, as were the followers of Antisthenes. He listened to Socrates, from whom he took the capacity for endurance, and, having emulated their apathy, was the first to initiate Cynicism—Antisthenes the Athenian, a transition from an orator to a Socratic philosopher, who was called a Peripatetic at first, then became "cynical." Antisthenes. "It is not easy to find a leader to whom one should attribute the first place, even if some suppose this belongs to Antisthenes and Diogenes." This, at least, Oenomaus seems to say not without reason, that Cynicism is neither Antisthenism nor Diogenism. For the more noble of the dogs say that just as the great Heracles was to us the cause of other good things, so he also left behind this way of life as the greatest example to men.

^A having become of the archiepiscopal throne of Constantinople, he sends money to Alexandria, and from there he brings bishops to ordain him as bishop of Constantinople, having also a certain assistant of those most intimate with the Theologian. ^B Being already inside the church, before completing the rite, they were discovered and driven out by the faithful; and having been driven out, they did not rest, but sneaking into the house of a certain flute-player, they ordained Maximus there, even though he gained nothing from this wickedness; for he was not able to accomplish anything. He was therefore deposed by the present canon by the holy Fathers who had gathered at the second synod, who decreed that he neither was nor is a bishop, because he was ordained unlawfully, and that those ordained by him are not to be held as clerics. Later, when it was discovered that he held the views of Apollinarius, he was also anathematized. The Theologian also makes mention of this man in one of his discourses not read in church.

ARIST. Maximus the Cynic is alien to the bishops; and everyone who has been enrolled in the clergy by him is considered profane. Since he tore the Church apart and filled it with disturbance and tumult, having appeared as a wolf instead of a shepherd, and readily granting everything to those who offend, for the one reason that he was impious in his dogmas according to the great Theologian Gregory. Therefore this Maximus, too, shall be alien to the bishops, and those ordained by him, in whatever degree of the clergy, are profane.

CANON V

BALS. This canon also is special. For it is written in the histories that the emperor Constantius, the son of the Great Constantine, having become Arian, hurried to overturn the first synod. When his brother Constans, who ruled the Western parts, learned of this, he threatened his brother with war by letter, if he did not cease from shaking the right faith. It seemed good, therefore, to the emperors that the bishops should meet in Sardica, that is, in Triaditza, and deliberate regarding those things that had been dogmatized at Nicaea. ^D When they had gathered, the bishops who had assembled, these are they: Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, and the rest, 150 bishops. And the holy Creed of the Fathers at Nicaea was confirmed by the ecumenical synod held last year in Constantinople, in which we set forth the faith more broadly.

^A

The second synod calls this definition the "Tome of the Westerners," which was also accepted by those at Antioch. It called it a "Tome of the Westerners" because only the Western bishops set it forth. For those who were from the East, numbering seventy, said that unless St. Paul the Confessor and the great Athanasius were cast out of the council, they would not communicate with the synod. Since the Westerners would not consent to do this, the bishops of the East immediately withdrew from the synod. Therefore, only the Westerners confirmed the definition of Nicaea, and anathematized the "unlike," and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note, however, from the facts related herein, that the synod at Sardica took place before this second synod.

ZONARAS. The emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great, having become an Arian, strove with all his might to overthrow the first synod. The Pope of Old Rome reported this to Constans, the brother of Constantius. ^B He threatened war by letter against his brother if he did not cease from assaulting the right faith. It was agreed, therefore, between both emperors that a synod should be held, and that it should deliberate upon the things dogmatized at Nicaea. There were gathered, then, in Sardica three hundred and forty-one bishops, who also set forth a definition confirming the holy Creed of the Fathers at Nicaea, and excommunicating those who thought the opposite. The second synod, therefore, calls this definition the "Tome of the Westerners," which also those in Antioch accepted once they had received it. By "Westerners," he means the bishops who gathered at Sardica. Sardica, moreover, is what is now called Triaditza. He called it the "Tome of the Westerners" because only the Western bishops set it forth. For those who were from the East said that unless St. Paul the Confessor and the great Athanasius were cast out of the council, they would not communicate with the synod. Since the Westerners would not consent to do this, the bishops of the East immediately withdrew from the synod. ^C Therefore, only the Westerners confirmed the definition of Nicaea, and anathematized the "unlike," and condemned the Eastern bishops. Note, however, from the facts related herein, that the synod at Sardica took place before this second synod.

ARISTENUS. The Tome of the Westerners, asserting that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial, is easy to accept. It is clear.

CANON VI

Since many, wishing to confuse and subvert ecclesiastical order, ^D hostilely and calumniously contrive certain accusations against the orthodox bishops who administer the churches, aiming at nothing else than to stain the good reputation of the priests and to stir up tumults among the peaceful populations: for this reason, the holy synod of bishops who have gathered in Constantinople has decreed,

^A not to admit accusers without examination, nor to permit everyone to bring accusations against those who administer the churches, nor, however, to exclude everyone. But if anyone brings forward a personal complaint—that is, a private one—against a bishop, as one having been defrauded or having suffered some other injustice at his hands, in such accusations, the person of the accuser and his religion must not be examined. For it is necessary in every way that the conscience of the bishop should be clear, and that the person who says he has been wronged, whatever his religion may be, should attain his rights. But if the crime brought against the bishop is an ecclesiastical one, then it is necessary to examine the persons of the accusers, so that, first of all, it may not be permitted for heretics to bring accusations against orthodox bishops regarding ecclesiastical matters. ^B By heretics, we mean both those who have long been cast out of the Church and those who have been anathematized by us after this; and in addition to these, those who pretend to confess the sound faith but have separated and hold separate meetings against our canonical bishops. Furthermore, if any who have previously been condemned and cast out of the Church for certain causes, or have been excommunicated, whether they be from the clergy or from the order of the laity, it is not permitted for them to accuse a bishop until they have first cleared themselves of their own crime. ^C Similarly, those who are already under accusation must not be admitted to accuse a bishop or other clerics, until they have proven themselves innocent of the crimes brought against them. However, if some who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor previously condemned or accused of certain offenses, say that they have some ecclesiastical accusations against a bishop, the holy synod orders them first to bring these accusations before the bishops of the province and to prove before them the crimes objected to the bishop. But if it should happen that the provincials are unable to correct the crimes brought against the bishop, then they are to approach a greater synod of the bishops of that diocese who are gathered for this cause, and ^D they are not to bring forward the accusation before they submit themselves in writing to an equal peril, if it should happen that they are convicted of slandering the accused bishop in the examination of these matters. And if anyone, in contempt of the things that have been decreed as stated above, dares to trouble the ears of the Emperor, or to disturb the courts of secular princes, or an ecumenical synod, while neglecting all the bishops of the diocese, such a one must in no way be admitted to an accusation, as one who has done injury to the canons and overturned the ecclesiastical order.

Notes of William Beveridge

^A

if they have slandered the accused bishop in the order of proceedings, let them be refuted. But if anyone, disregarding what has been ordained as previously explained, should dare either to trouble the royal ears, or the tribunals of worldly rulers, or to disturb the ecumenical synod, having dishonored all the bishops of the province, such a one shall not be admitted to an accusation at all, as one who has insulted the canons and damaged ecclesiastical good order.

BALS. Note the present canon for the sake of those who initiate criminal trials against bishops and other members of the priestly order; read also canon 129 of the Council of Carthage and the laws alleged in its exposition; and learn from this canon and from those who is prohibited from exercising criminal charges against those initiated into sacred orders. Our adversary, Satan, has never ceased to pollute the reputations of good men, and especially those of bishops, through slander. And for this reason the Fathers decreed that every person, whether of good reputation or infamous, faithful or infidel, who has a private cause, that is to say, a financial one, against a bishop, is to be accepted and to litigate in the appropriate court. But for the sake of a criminal case, or of any ecclesiastical matter whatsoever which brings deposition or even a penalty upon a bishop, he is not to be dragged into court ^B otherwise than if the person of the accuser has first been examined. For it is not permitted in any way for heretics to accuse a bishop. Furthermore, those who are excommunicated, or who have been previously accused in any way whatsoever, cannot bring an accusation against a bishop or a cleric unless they first prove themselves innocent of the things of which they are accused. And even such an accuser being of such a character, the canon does not wish the cleric or the bishop to be dragged into court simply and as it happens, but with all legal caution, and through a written document, or through the deposition of the accuser, which subjects him to the same penalty if he should not prove the crime of which he accuses him. Moreover, the accusation of a bishop or cleric must happen first before the metropolitan; but if the regional synod cannot resolve the cause, then, he says, a greater synod will hear it. And he who does otherwise, and approaches the Emperor, or worldly rulers, or the universal synod, is not to be admitted to an ^C accusation, as one who does injury to the canons and ruins ecclesiastical good order. The canon called "private" the financial cases in distinction to criminal ones, which are called public as they are moved by anyone from the people, which is not the case for financial actions. For he alone moves these to whom it pertains. And when you hear...

^D

Guill. Beveregii notes. And from the Epistle of Pope Damasus to Stephen, the calumniator, if he should fail in his accusation, let him receive the talion; ibid. cap. 2, but the words of Damasus himself are referred to more fully thus: "For the inscription/indictment must always be [made] first, so that the calumniator may receive the [same] penalty, because before the inscription no one ought to be judged or condemned," since secular laws retain this same [principle]. Ibid. c. 4, q. 4, c. 2. These things are held in the fourth Epistle of Damasus to Stephen the archbishop, cap. 7. Read also the civil law: Honorius and Theodosius decreed thus, "Whoever intends a crime, let him know that he shall not have impunity or license for lying, since those who slander are demanding a similarity of punishment [in the face of] vindication," l. x, c. De calumniatoribus. Basilica, Basil. l. LX, tit. 26, c. 6. See also the notes of Dionysius Gothofredus on l. vii, f. De accusationibus et inscriptionibus.

^A Hearing this canon, which says that even those who pretend to confess the sound faith, yet separate themselves and form congregations against our canonical bishops, are heretics, do not think that you are contradicting the second canon of the great Basil, which does not call schismatics heretics. Rather, say that those schismatics are called heretics by the present canon—namely, those who hold alien views and are orthodox only in pretense, but are in truth heretics; whereas the canon of St. Basil teaches about other schismatics, who are indeed orthodox in truth, but who, by reason of some pretext of an ecclesiastical question, have separated themselves through arrogance from the integrity of the brethren. Read, therefore, the aforementioned canon of the holy Father. ^B However, from the final clause of the present canon, which says that he who acts contrary to the canon is not to be admitted to bring an accusation, as one who is an insulter of the canons, some have attempted to say that such a person is also subjected to infamy. But it seems to me that it does not follow from this that he who thus brings an action in such a disorderly manner is held by an action for insult, such that he is made infamous and consequently deposed, on account of the rule which says: "Things expressed are harmful; things not expressed are not harmful" (78). He shall be punished in some other way, as shall appear fit to the judge. ^C When a certain bishop was brought for a criminal matter before the holy synod in Constantinople, and requested that he be judged by his metropolitan and his own synod, as this present canon desires, some said that since the metropolitan who is present wishes his bishop to be judged by the great synod, he will rightly be judged by it. But others argued to the contrary, that his judgment does not rest in the power of the metropolitan, but in the synod which is with him. It is also of great interest to the bishop that he be judged in his own synod and not be dragged to another synod, and therefore that the metropolitan’s admission should have no place. Furthermore, some said that the canon speaks of an ecumenical synod, and that the great synod which was in Constantinople is not ecumenical, and therefore should have no place in this case. ^D To me, however, it seems that the synod held in Constantinople, even if it is not an ecumenical synod—inasmuch as the other patriarchs were not present—is nonetheless greater than all other synods, and its archbishop is called the ecumenical patriarch. And this difference concerns not the metropolitan, but the bishop or the cleric who is brought to trial. Therefore, none of them will be harmed by the metropolitan’s admission, on account of the law which says: "Acts done by some persons neither benefit nor harm others."

^B ZONAR. Here the divine Fathers decree which persons ought to be admitted as accusers of bishops or clergy, and which persons are to be held inadmissible. They say that if someone institutes a private suit against a bishop—for instance, complaining to him of an injustice, such as the alleged seizure of immovable or movable property, or of an insult, or anything of that sort—whoever the plaintiff may be, he shall be admitted, even if he is an unbeliever, that is to say, or a heretic, or excommunicated, or even one completely cast out of the catholic Church. For it is right that everyone, whatever their religion or status might be, should be allowed to come to judgment and obtain their rights if they claim to have suffered an injustice in any way. They called it a "private" controversy, distinguishing it from criminal ones. For those are called private which resolve disputes through mere pecuniary evaluation; but criminal ones are those which inflict damage upon the status of the accused. Therefore, they added: "But if the crime which is brought against a bishop be ecclesiastical," such as perhaps one that would punish him with deposition from his priestly office—for example, sacrilege, or the venal bestowal of ordination, or the administration of episcopal functions in another diocese without having first obtained permission from the bishop of that place, and whatever things are similar to these—then the accuser must be examined carefully, and if he is a heretic, he must not be admitted. He calls "heretics" all those who hold opinions contrary to the orthodox faith, whether they were cast out long ago or recently, and whether they adhere to ancient errors or new ones. And the canon decrees that not only those whose faith is unsound are to be sent away from making a criminal accusation against bishops, but also those who have separated from their own bishops and hold counter-gatherings against them, even if they appear to be orthodox. Now, according to the great Basil, "schismatics" are those who have differed among themselves because of certain ecclesiastical causes and disputes that are capable of being resolved. Likewise, those who have been cast out of the Church for any causes whatever, or who are "excommunicated"; by "cast out," those who are completely cut off from the body of the Church are to be understood; but by "excommunicated," the divine Fathers have indicated those segregated only for a certain time, whether such persons be clergy or laity. And these, they judge, are not to be admitted to the accusation of bishops or clergy until they have cleared away their own charge and established themselves as blameless. Moreover, the canon commands that those who are under an accusation which affects their status are not to be admitted as accusers of bishops or clergy, unless they first prove themselves innocent of the crimes brought against them. But if the accusers are not involved in any of the aforementioned causes, but are found to be altogether blameless, then, if the one being called to judgment is a bishop, the bishops of that province will assemble and hear the accusation, and will either resolve the matter or, if they cannot resolve it, they will proceed to a greater synod. And by "greater synod" he means the bishops of the whole administration. For by a "province" one should understand, for example, Adrianople or

the diocese, all the bishops of the diocese, and the bishops of the region. For when the bishops of the province are not sufficient for the correction of those who are accused, ^A then the canon decrees that the bishops of the diocese should assemble and resolve the things said against the bishop. But if the person accused be a cleric, he shall lodge his accusation before the bishop to whom he is subject. And if the matter is not settled by him, then the next steps shall follow, as has been said from above. But the holy Fathers, following the civil law, did not allow the accuser to institute an accusation of a crime unless the accuser shall secure in writing that he is liable to the same penalty if he fails to prove the accusation—such that he shall suffer [it] if the accused [bishop] was going to suffer [any penalty] upon the proof of the charge against him. Having decreed these things, the divine Fathers added that whoever does not keep this synodical canon, but goes to the emperor, or to secular rulers, or to an ecumenical synod, is not to be admitted at all to an accusation, as he has dishonored the bishops of the diocese, insulted the canons, and brought confusion upon the good order of the Church.

ARISTENUS:

One must examine the persons of the bishops or clerics who are accusing, lest this person perchance be a heretic, or condemned, and cast out, and excommunicate, or accused by others of crimes, and not yet appeared innocent regarding the charge. And if such be those who are accusing, they are not to be admitted to an accusation. But if he is orthodox, and blameless in life, and in communion, let the one bringing an ecclesiastical complaint against the bishop be admitted, and let the crime be set in motion before the provincial bishops. ^D But if they perhaps be unable to [succeed in the] correction of the crimes brought against the bishop, then let the accuser approach a greater synod, and let him first give a written statement that he will undergo the same penalty if he is proven a slanderer: and thus let him institute the accusation. But whoever acts contrary to this, and becomes a nuisance to the emperor, and accuses a bishop, or approaches the tribunals of secular rulers regarding this, is not to be admitted to an accusation. But a heretic, if wronged by a bishop, shall not be prevented from lodging a complaint against him.

CANON VII

^A Those who join the orthodox faith and the portion of those who are being saved from among the heretics, we receive according to the subjoined procedure and custom. We receive the Arians, and the Macedonians, and the Sabbatians, and the Novatians, who call themselves Cathari and Sinistri, and the Quartadecimans or Tetradites, and the Apollinarists, if they offer libelli and anathematize every heresy which does not think as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God thinks; and if they are sealed, that is, anointed first with the holy chrism upon the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, and the ears; and as we seal them we say: “The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” However, we receive the Eunomians, who are baptized by a single immersion, and the Montanists, who are called Phrygians here, and the Sabellians, who teach the doctrine of the Son-Father, and who perform certain other grievous things, and all the other heresies (since there are many here, especially those originating from the region of the Galatians)—we receive all those of them who wish to join the orthodox faith as Greeks, and on the first day we make them Christians, on the second catechumens, and then on the third we exorcise them, ^B breathing three times into their face and into their ears. And thus we instruct them in the foundations of the religion, and we take care that they spend time in the Church, and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them.

BALS. This canon divides the heretics coming to the Church into two classes; and for some it says that they are to be anointed with chrism, after first anathematizing every heresy and confessing that they believe as the holy Church of God believes. For the others, it decrees that they must be rightly baptized from the beginning. It stated that those who must be anointed only with chrism are the Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarists, and Novatians, who are also called Cathari, whose heresies we explained in the first canon of the present second synod. The Novatians were also called Sabbatians, from a certain presbyter, Sabbatius, ^C who kept the Sabbath according to the Jewish custom. They are also called Sinistri, for they abominate the left hand, and do not endure taking anything through it. They are called Quartadecimans or Tetradites, who do not celebrate the Pascha on the Lord's Day, but when the fourteenth moon occurs, on whatever day it happens to fall, which is most characteristic of the Jewish religion. The same are also called Tetradites because, when they celebrate the Pascha, they do not break their fast, but fast just as we do on the fourth days; but they do this according to the Jewish rite. For they,

^A after they have celebrated the Pascha, fast for seven whole days, eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread according to the ordinance of the old law. He says that the Eunomians, who baptize by a single immersion, ought to be rebaptized, as well as the Montanists, so called from a certain Montanus who called himself the Paraclete; and through two wicked women, Priscilla and Maximilla, he poured forth false prophecies as if inspired by the spirit of Phoebus. Moreover, he also [includes] the Sabellians, so named from a certain Sabellius, who, along with his other trifles, said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, so that there are three names in one hypostasis; just as in man there is body, soul, and spirit, or as in the sun there are three operations, namely the shape of the circumference, the illuminating power, and the warming power. The Montanists are called Phrygians, ^B either from a certain heresiarch Phryx, or because this heresy first appeared from Phrygia. In addition to these, they are also called Pepuzians from a certain region called Pepuza by them, which they consider Jerusalem. Such people dissolve marriages as defiling, they fast a strange fast, they pervert the Pascha, they draw the holy Trinity into one person and confuse it, and they offer bread mixed with the blood of a child that has been pricked. And these things are thus. But if any orthodox person becomes a Montanist or a Sabellian, and has received the baptism of heretics, will such a one be anointed with chrism, or will he be rebaptized like the other Montanists? Seek concerning this the 19th canon of the first synod and the 47th canon of the holy apostles. Note, however, from the present canon that all who are baptized by a single immersion are rebaptized. ^C

ZONARAS. The present canon teaches how those who come from heresies to the true faith should be received. It orders that some of them are not to be rebaptized, but that libelli are to be demanded of them, that is, written documents in which they anathematize their opinions, brand their error with infamy, and subject every heresy to anathema. These are the Arians, the Macedonians, and the Novatians, who call themselves Cathari, whose heresies we have previously indicated; and the Sabbatians, whom a certain Sabbatios, a presbyter of the heresy of Novatus, led—he also being of the same, but who had added something more to it, and had surpassed his master Novatus in wickedness, and wished the festive days to be kept with the Jews; ^D and the Quartadecimans, who celebrate the Pascha not on the Lord's day, but when the fourteenth moon occurs, on whatever day it happens that it becomes full; they celebrate it, fasting at that time and keeping vigil, and the Apollinarists. These, therefore, are not rebaptized, because in the discipline regarding holy baptism they differ from us in nothing, but are baptized in the same rite as the orthodox. Therefore, each one anathematizing their own heresy specifically, and every heresy in general, they are anointed with the holy chrism, and other things are performed according to the canon. But the Eunomians and Sabellians, whose heresies have already been declared by us, and the Mon

the Montanists, whose heresies we have previously explained; they were called Montanists from a certain Montanus, and were also nicknamed Phrygians, either because their heresiarch ^A was a Phrygian, or because that heresy first appeared in Phrygia and had ensnared many mortals in that region. That Montanus, therefore, boasted that he was the Paraclete; and the two women who were accustomed to follow him, Priscilla and Maximilla, he called prophetesses. And such people were also called Pepuziani, for they honored a certain village in Phrygia called Pepuza with divine honors, calling it their Jerusalem, and thus they obtained the surname of Pepuziani. By them, divorces were permitted, abstinence from certain kinds of food was commanded, the day of Easter was cast into a different time, and the holy Trinity was contracted and confounded into one person. They were also accustomed to prick young children with needles, to sprinkle the flour with the blood drawn, and to use the bread made therefrom for their sacred rites; then, under the guise of communion, each was accustomed to take a portion of it for himself. These, therefore, and all other heretics, the holy Fathers decreed must be baptized. For they had either received no baptism at all, or, if they had, they had not received it correctly or according to the form of the orthodox Church. And so they are considered as if they had not been baptized at all from the beginning. This is what is meant by our receiving them as Greeks. The canon continues by enumerating what is to be done with them, namely, that they are first to be instructed and afterwards baptized, and initiated into the divine mystery according to our rites.

ARIST. The Quartodecimans, or Tetraditæ, the Arian, the Novatian, the Macedonian, the Sabbatian, the Apollinarian are to be received with libelli, being anointed, ^B that is, on all their organs of sense.

These, upon giving libelli and anathematizing every heresy, are received, being anointed only with the holy chrism on their eyes, noses, ears, mouth, and forehead; and signing them, we say: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."

CANON VIII.

ARIST. The Eunomians, who are baptized by a single immersion, the Sabellians, and the Phrygians, are to be received as Gentiles.

But these are both baptized and anointed, because they are received as Greeks; and they are instructed in the holy mysteries for a suitable time before baptism, and they listen to the divine Scriptures.

CANONS OF THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL THIRD SYNOD

The third holy and ecumenical synod occurred under Emperor Theodosius the Younger, ^D there being assembled

at Ephesus two hundred Fathers against Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, who taught that Christ was merely a man, but that the Son of God had been united to Him according to the relation. And therefore he could not endure that the holy Virgin be called Theotokos, but Christotokos. Who was also ^A deposed and anathematized by the holy Fathers.

CANON I.

Since it is necessary that those who did not attend the holy synod, for some reason, whether ecclesiastical or bodily, should not be ignorant of the things settled in it, we make it known to your holiness and love that if any metropolitan of the province, deserting the holy and ecumenical synod, has attached himself to the assembly or conventicle of apostasy, or should thereafter attach himself, or has thought or shall think as Caelestius thinks, he can in no way do anything against the bishops of his province, inasmuch as he is already cast out from all ecclesiastical communion by ^B the synod and is incapacitated. But he shall also be subject to the bishops of the province themselves, and to the surrounding metropolitans who think according to orthodoxy, so as to be entirely cast out, and to be deposed from the degree of the episcopate.

BALS. Upon the deposition of Nestorius, John, patriarch of Antioch, rose up in Ephesus with Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa and others; and as if the deposition had been made in their absence, he blamed what had been done, and deposed the holy Cyril, pope of Alexandria, who was presiding over the synod and holding the place of Caelestine, pope of Rome; furthermore, he deposed Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, without cause. ^C Moreover, this Theodoret also wrote twelve other chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of the impiety of Nestorius, for the overthrowing and refutation of those; and Ibas likewise composed a letter. Which the fourth synod rejected as impious. And the Fathers of the third synod themselves, when they learned what had been done by the patriarch of Antioch, John, and the rest against the holy Cyril and those with him, restored those who had been deposed without cause; but John and the thirty bishops with him they rendered strangers to all ecclesiastical communion, as having embraced the impious dogmas of Nestorius and Caelestius. ^D Therefore the canon decrees as follows: Since it was necessary that some of the bishops, who were reasonably absent, should not be ignorant of what was done, all must know that if any bishop has attached himself, or shall attach himself, to the conventicle of apostasy, namely to the party of John of Antioch and Caelestius, he shall be deposed, and shall perform no sacerdotal act whatsoever; but all the surrounding metropolitans and bishops shall hold him as cast out, as one who is already alienated from the episcopal degree. And this is what the canon says. But I, finding in some copies of the writer an error concerning Caelestine (for instead of Caelestius, it says Caelestine...

^A do not pay attention to the things written in such a way. For Caelestine was the pope of Rome, orthodox, as has been said from above; but Caelestius was of the same mind as Nestorius, that is to say, a heretic.

ZONAR. When the holy Fathers had gathered in Ephesus, and a discussion had taken place concerning the dogmas of heresy introduced by Nestorius, with the most holy Cyril, pope of Alexandria, presiding over the orthodox Fathers—holding also the place of Caelestine, the pope of elder Rome—and with Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, assisting the holy Cyril, Nestorius, being the patriarch of this new Rome and queen of cities, was condemned and removed from office by the vote of the holy Fathers. But after three days, John, the patriarch of Antioch, having arrived with several bishops, among whom Theodoret of the city of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa took the lead, being aggrieved that those of the synod had not waited for their arrival, complained of the deposition of Nestorius and placed the holy Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus under ^B deposition. Theodoret, however, also published twelve other chapters against the twelve chapters which the great Cyril had set forth for the refutation of the heresy of Nestorius and the confirmation of the orthodox faith, in order to subvert and demolish them. And Ibas likewise composed a letter. And a great disagreement occurred between them, so that those high priests were subjected to deposition by those of the synod, as having followed those of Nestorius. For these reasons, therefore, the present canon was also set forth, instructing those bishops of the provinces who did not attend the synod concerning the synodical condemnation of Antioch and the others, and how it is not right that they, while using archiepiscopal privileges, should carry out anything against bishops or laymen, neither those who have favored the things of Nestorius, nor indeed those who will favor them.

ARIST. If a metropolitan who has left the synod adheres to Caelestius, or shall adhere, he is to be rejected.

CANON II. If any of the provincial bishops were absent from the holy synod ^C and attached themselves to the apostasy, or attempted to attach themselves, or even having subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius... ^D [If a metropolitan who has left the synod adheres to Caelestius, or shall adhere, he is to be rejected, and hereafter removed from administration. ... Caelestine ... Caelestius.]

[Guill. Beveregii nota.] [Thus indeed Alexius Aristenus, to whom Balsamon perhaps refers here, in the epitomy of this canon following, reads Caelestine instead of Caelestius. The same error also crept into Gennadius’ catalogue of illustrious men, where it is said that Caelestine, before he concurred with Pelagius, or rather while still an adolescent, wrote letters in the manner of booklets to his parents about a monastery. For it was not Caelestine, but Caelestius who concurred with Pelagius. Caelestine, however, was an orthodox bishop of Rome, a most fierce antagonist of the followers of Caelestius and Pelagius. See also the annotations to the fourth canon of this council.]

they have returned to the assembly of the apostasy: these are to be completely alienated from the priesthood, as seemed good to the holy synod, and to fall from their rank.

BALS. This second canon was interpreted in the first, as it treats of the same matters as that one. However, this one adds that those, too, are to be considered deposed who did indeed subscribe to the deposition of Nestorius, but later attached themselves to the party of John of Antioch. But since the present canon makes mention at the end of alienation from the priesthood and falling from a rank, say that this is to be taken so that the alienation from the priesthood is applied to the bishops, but the falling from rank is applied to those in whom ranks are properly considered; so that the clerks who joined the party of those who apostatized in any way at all are also to be deemed deposed. In the meantime, the first canon, speaking at the end of bishops, terms the episcopate a rank as well.

^B ZONAR. Since John of Antioch, and Theodoret, and Ibas, as has been said, opposed the decisions reached by the assembly of the Fathers, some of the other bishops were also led astray by them—some by absenting themselves from the synod, and others by being present and confirming the vote for the deposition of Nestorius with their own signatures. Regarding such men, therefore, the present canon treats, ordering them to be deprived of their priesthood—which is to be understood concerning bishops—but the clause "falling from a rank" is to be applied to the clergy, for they are contained under ranks. For the priests hold a higher rank or dignity, the deacons a lower one, and so on for the rest.

^C ARIST. And whoever is a bishop of one mind and same mind with Nestorius, is to be excommunicated.

CANON III

BALS. It was likely that some orthodox clergy would not share the views of Nestorius or of the bishops who agreed with him, and for this reason were excommunicated. Therefore, the canon restores them to their own ranks, adding further that not only should they retain their own honors, but that all the clergy of such bishops are not to be subject to them at all, as they have apostatized.

^D ZONAR. Since Nestorius was, as has been said, Patriarch of Constantinople, he excommunicated certain clergy who did not agree with him. And in other cities, the bishops who held his opinions did the same. Therefore, the holy synod, through this canon, decreed that those who were prevented from their priesthood because they did not consent to the evil doctrine of Nestorius and those of the same mind as him, should be restored...

^A to their own ranks, and it decreed that the orthodox clergy are in no way to be subject to bishops who are of the same mind as Nestorius, neither as clergy nor simply as men in orders, and that for this reason they are not obliged to be subject to those bishops, nor to perform canonical duties for them.

ARIST. He who has been hindered from his priesthood by Nestorius is most holy; but he who is accepted by him is profane.

CANON IV. But if any of the clergy should apostatize ^B and should dare, either privately or publicly, to hold the opinions of Nestorius or of Celestius, it has been judged by the holy synod that these also be deposed.

BALS. This canon also is similar to the preceding ones. For it says that those clergy are deposed who hold the same opinions as Nestorius or Celestius, whether they teach them or not. However, the word *de-dikaiōtai* ("it has been judged") was taken to mean "it seemed right/just."

ZONAR. And again, this canon deals with clergy who share the opinions of heretics; and it says that if they hold the forbidden doctrines either privately and by themselves, or if they teach and preach them publicly to the masses, such men are considered deposed by the holy synod *de-dikaiōtai*, that is, it was judged just, and it seemed right. And Celestius was also of the same mind as Nestorius. ^C

ARIST. If any of the clergy should agree with Celestius or Nestorius, they are to be deposed.

CANON V. But those who have been condemned for their unworthy deeds by the holy synod or by their own bishops, and [those who] in an uncanonical manner—as Nestorius, who does everything indiscriminately, and those who share his opinions, have attempted to restore these men to communion or to their rank—

Note of William Beveridge

Scholium of Nicolaus of Otranto concerning Celestinus and Celestius, [alleged] Popes of Rome

Scholium of Nicolaus of Otranto concerning Celestinus and Celestius, [alleged] Popes of Rome: "He who finds at the end of the fourth canon of the holy synod of Ephesus, 'those of the clergy who consent to Celestinus or Nestorius are to be deposed,' let him not read *Celestine* with an 'n', but *Celestio* without an 'n': for Celestinus was a holy and orthodox pope of Rome: but Celestius [was] a heretic, and thus indeed I found it in Constantinople, in the book of Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch. For he, in his exposition of the Nomocanon, says: 'But you, finding in some codices an error of writing concerning Celestinus (for he mentions Celestinus instead of Celestius), do not attend to those things which are written thus. For Celestinus, Pope of Rome, was orthodox, as it was said above; but Celestius [is] one who thinks the same as Nestorius, that is, [is] a heretic.' Here I would wish you to observe that the present epitome of the canon is praised here, and that [it is done] with almost no variation, even as it is read in our codices: *'If any of the clergy should agree with Celestinus or Nestorius, they are to be deposed.'* Here, with only a slight change, it reads: *'Those of the clergy who should agree with Celestinus or Nestorius, are to be deposed.'* And then [it shows] that this epitome was held by the Greeks to be the canon itself."

The words which he cites from the commentaries of Balsamon exist at the end of his commentaries on the first canon of this council. But where he calls Celestius equally with Celestinus "Pope of Rome," he is egregiously mistaken. For Celestinus was Pope of Rome, but Celestius was not. However, this seems to be attributable to some scribe rather than to Nicolaus himself.

^A or should attempt [by any means] to gain communion or rank, the Fathers judged it to be of no avail to them, and that they should remain deposed nonetheless.

BALS. You have learned that metropolitans and bishops are able to judge their own clergy, and sometimes even subject them to excommunication or deposition. Since, therefore, Nestorius and those who held his views received certain persons of this sort into communion uncanonically, or even restored them to their former ranks in order to draw them to their side in such a manner, the canon says that the clergy derive no benefit from this, but remain deposed or even excommunicated. ^B And "they judged" here is understood to mean "they deemed it just."

ZONAR. Certain clergymen, having been caught in certain faults which subject them to deposition and the loss of their own ranks, had been deposed or excommunicated. But Nestorius, as patriarch, had uncanonically received such persons indifferently—that is, without any distinction—and without distinguishing between what was forbidden and what was not, had restored to them communion or rank. Therefore, the Fathers decreed that such persons derive no benefit from this, as it was done against the canonical constitutions, and they judged—that is, they deemed it just—that they should remain deposed nonetheless, or decreed by way of punishment that they should be deposed. For "to judge" [δικαιοῦν] sometimes signifies "to punish," whence "instruments of punishment" [δικαιωτήρια] have their name. ^C

ARIST. He who has been condemned by a bishop, and is received by Nestorius, it is of no avail to him.

Some of the metropolitans who had assembled in the synod at Ephesus separated themselves, and held the dogmas of Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople—that man-worshipper, impious, and Jew-minded person—and of Celestinus, the bishop of Rome. Others also deserted, and were unwilling to vote for the condemnation of these profane and impious bishops, but rather clung to them and supported them. For this reason, therefore, the holy synod decreed that those who cling to Nestorius and Celestinus and hold their views be cast out and cut off from the Church; but that those who were hindered from the priesthood by Nestorius or Celestinus because they thought correctly should receive back their own rank; just as, conversely, those who were deposed by their own bishops, and then admitted and absolved by them [the aforementioned heretics], are to be profane and deposed once again. ^D

CANON VI.

Similarly, if any persons should wish in any way to subvert the things that were enacted in the holy synod at Ephesus concerning each person, the holy synod has decreed that if they are...

bishops or clerics, they shall fall entirely from their proper rank; but if they are laymen, they shall remain excommunicate. ^B BALS. The canon is clear: for it decrees that those who subvert the things that were done at Ephesus, if they be clerics, are to be deposed, but if they be laymen, they are to be excommunicate. But the seventh canon declares that laymen who think contrary to the dogma are to be anathematized. And let not this seem to you to be a contradiction. For there is a great difference between opposing and being in doubt regarding some matter. And for this reason, he who is in doubt regarding things already well established shall be excommunicated; but he who opposes these things, as one who thinks the contrary, shall be anathematized.

^B ZONAR. The previous canons were enacted specifically concerning those who consented with the apostates and those who opposed the synod, and those who championed the dogmas of the Nestorian heresy; but this present canon condemns generally and universally all who attempt to subvert any of the things decreed by the holy synod. And it orders those who are co-opted into the priesthood to be deposed, while it imposes excommunication upon laymen. Now, these things were done at Ephesus; but since the prelates were divided by factions against one another, and there was a schism among them, the emperor summoned everyone to the queen of cities, and reconciled them, and brought about peace, having calmed every agitation of their souls; and Theodoret cast aside the chapters that he had previously written out of a spirit of contention, and rejected them, and assented to all the things decreed by the synod, and approved the condemnation of Nestorius along with the others. But when a symbol full of impiety was composed by Nestorius, and presented to the synod, and simultaneously with it the symbol which the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers had promulgated in the first synod was also read, this following canon was published.

ARIST. A layman who resists the synod is excommunicated; a cleric, indeed, is also deposed. He who examines and subverts the things that were enacted in the Ephesian synod, if he be a bishop or a cleric, let him fall entirely from his own rank; if he be a layman, let him be excommunicate.

^C

CANON VII

These things having been read, the holy synod decreed that it is not permitted to anyone to bring forward, or to write, or to compose any other faith than that which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered at Nicaea with the holy Spirit. As for those who dare to compose another faith, or to bring forward, or offer it to those who wish to return to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from paganism, or from Judaism, or from any sect whatsoever; if they be bishops or clerics, they are to be aliens from the episcopate, the bishops from their episcopacy and the clerics from their clergy; but if they be laymen, they are to be anathematized. In the same way also, if any should be detected, whether bishops or clerics or laymen, either holding or teaching those things that are in the exposition brought by the presbyter Charisius concerning the assumption of human nature by the only-begotten Son of God, and ^D the wicked and perverse [original-script column: see facsimile] of Nestorius...

and which have been set forth. Let them be subject to the decree of this holy and ecumenical synod, so that, evidently, if it be a bishop, he shall be alien to the episcopate and deposed, and if it be a cleric, he shall likewise fall from the clergy; but if it be a layman, let him also be anathema, as has been said before.

BALS. When the edict, made for their sake, which had been decreed by the holy synod at Ephesus, had been read in the gathering—and likewise the holy symbol which was set forth at the first council—this canon was proclaimed, and it was decreed that no one should compose another faith. But if any shall dare to offer another faith to those from among the Greeks, or the Jews, or from other heretics who are coming to the knowledge of the truth—if they be bishops or clerics, let them be deposed; but if they be laymen, let them be ^B anathema. The same is to be done also to those who receive the things of Nestorius and teach these things. And since a certain presbyter named Charisius, adopting the abominable dogmata of Nestorius, brought forward an exposition of some of the things written by Nestorius, and this was condemned as impious, the canon decrees that those who hold or teach the things contained in such an exposition shall also be subject to the same penalties.

ZONAR. That impious Nestorius, not content with teaching his own godless dogmata and preaching them openly, further emboldened himself and set forth a symbol containing clearly all that he wickedly thought and blasphemed concerning the ^C assumption of human nature by the Son and Word of God. This symbol, having been brought to the synod by the presbyter Charisius and read, was condemned as full of impiety. And the divine Fathers decreed that the symbol composed at the first council should prevail, and all that was dogmatized in that place, and that no other faith should be either composed or written by any. But if any should dare to offer another faith to those from among the Greeks or Jews or from other heretics who are coming to the knowledge of the truth—to teach, that is, and to catechize them in things perverse and alien to the doctrine of the holy Fathers—of such, they say, if they be bishops or clerics, that ^D they shall fall from the episcopate or from the clergy by being deposed, evidently, and if they be laymen, let them be anathema.

Guill. Beveregii note. (84) *Of the edict made.* Balsamon here errs egregiously. For this canon was not issued after the reading of any edict and the Nicene symbol, as Balsamon here affirms; but after the petition of the libellus of Charisius and the Nestorian symbol, as is abundantly evident from those things which we collected just before from the Acts of the council themselves. From this, however, it is clear that Balsamon had not seen the Acts of this council, or at least had not consulted them sufficiently accurately when he was composing these comments. (85) *Adopting.* Here another error of Balsamon is to be noted. For Charisius was not only not infected by the depraved opinions of Nestorius, but he even exhibited his own libellus against the Nestorians to the synod; in which he even asserts that Nestorius himself was not orthodox, but heterodox; for he says, "Since, therefore, into these belongs Nestorius, reaping the fruits of his own heterodoxy, being most ill-disposed concerning the faith in Christ, and having taught many things which he ought not." Act. concil. Ephes. pag. 253, edit. Col. an. 1618.

^A Likewise, the holy Synod decreed that those who hold or receive the opinions of Nestorius, or those who teach the blasphemies contained in the creed composed by him—saying that the Son and Word of God did not take flesh from the holy Virgin, but that Christ was a mere man, and that the Son and Word of God was united to him by a certain relationship, dividing Christ and God into two sons and two hypostases, and calling the holy Virgin not Theotokos but Christotokos—shall be subject to the same penalties, whether they be bishops, clerics, or laymen; so that those in orders are to be deposed, and laymen are to be excommunicated.

ARIST. ^B A bishop who brings forward any other faith than that of Nicaea is alienated; a layman is cast out. Whoever presents any other impious creed, contrary to the faith composed by the holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea, for the subversion and destruction of those who are turning from Hellenism, Judaism, or any other heresy to the knowledge of the truth—if he be a layman, let him be anathematized; but if he be a bishop or cleric, let him be alienated from the episcopate and the clergy.

CANON VIII

^C A matter innovated contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the canons of the holy Fathers, and touching the freedom of all, was reported to us in the first place by the most God-beloved fellow-bishop Rhiginus, and the most pious bishops with him of the province of the Cypriots, Zeno and Evagrius. Wherefore, since common diseases require a greater remedy, as they bring greater harm, and especially if no ancient custom has followed such practice, so that the bishop of the city of the Antiochians should perform ordinations in Cyprus—as the most pious men, who have come to the holy synod, have instructed us through their petitions and their own voices—it shall not be to the fraud or reproach of those who preside over the ^D holy churches of Cyprus, nor shall any violence or impediment be brought upon them, if they act according to the canons of the holy Fathers and the ancient custom.

Guill. Beveregii note

(86) Photius does not acknowledge this canon. For in the preface to the Nomocanon he writes that only seven canons were established by the Ephesine synod, and in the first chapter of the first title he cites the preceding canon under the name of the seventh. But John of Antioch, although he himself also in the prooemium to his collection of canons delivered that there were only seven canons of this council, nevertheless in his first title praises this canon, where it is even called canon 8 of the Synod of Ephesus. But this happened through the injury of some scribe. For John himself in the first title explicitly calls this the seventh canon, saying as undoubtedly it ought also to have been written in the collection. From the fact, however, that he numbers only seven canons of this council, it follows that the preceding canon was excluded by him from the number; which he also therefore cites nowhere. But as regards the present canon or rather decree of this council, the bishop of Antioch, who gave occasion for the issuing of this one as well as the six prior ones, since he was at that time claiming for himself the right of ordination in the island of Cyprus, contrary to what he had previously possessed. Concerning which matter, when the bishops of the same island, commemorated in the canon, had presented a petition to the synod, the present decree was immediately issued, by which it was provided that nothing should be innovated in ecclesiastical administration, either in Cyprus or elsewhere; but that to all dioceses and provinces their ancient rights and privileges should be kept inviolate. This decree exists in the Acts of this council of the edition written above, page 306, where the occasion of the constitution is also more fully explained.

^A

The same shall also be observed in other dioceses and provinces everywhere: so that no most religious bishop may invade another province, which has not been under his own hand, or that of those who preceded him, from of old and from the beginning; but even if anyone has invaded one and has subjected it to himself by force, he must restore it, so that the canons of the Fathers may not be transgressed, nor the pride of worldly power creep in under the pretext of an ecclesiastical office, nor may we lose, little by little, the liberty which our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, has given us with his own blood. It has therefore seemed good to the holy and universal synod that the rights which each province has had from the beginning and for many years past, according to the custom which has long been observed, should be preserved for it pure and inviolate, each metropolitan having permission to take copies of the acts for his own security. But if anyone produces any constitution contrary to what has now been defined, it has seemed good to the whole holy and universal synod that it should also be invalid. ^B

BALS. Before the empire of the Romans was alienated from great Antioch, a duke was sent into it by the emperor, and he would send a prefect into Cyprus as if it were subject to Antioch. But the Cypriot bishops lived and were ordained by themselves. When, therefore, the one who was then bishop of Antioch attempted, as is likely, to perform ordinations in the churches of the Cypriots, on the pretext that a prefect was being sent into the island by the duke of Antioch, the matter was reported to the synod which was ^C at Ephesus by the Cypriot bishops; and this synod, having received their petition, or rather their approach, decreed that the Cypriot bishops should be ordained by themselves, according to the canons and the ancient custom. "In the same way," it says, "this shall be done also in the other dioceses and provinces, so that no bishop may be able to claim for himself another province which has not been subject to him from long ago: but rather, those who do such a thing, and by force and their own authority hold an alien region, must relinquish it, so that the canons may not be transgressed, and the pride of worldly power or vainglory may not arise among the overseers under the pretext of their sacred office." It also granted to each... ^D

Guill. Beveregii note. In the Greek codices, both of Balsamon and Zonaras, previously printed, instead of "the Fathers" one reads "apostolical," which reading Elias Ehinger of Augsburg retained in his edition of the Greek canons in the year 1614. But not only the Bodleian manuscript codex printed here so reads, but also Joannes Antiochenus in his *Collection of Canons*, title I, and the codex of the canons of the universal Church edited by Christopher Justellus, and the very Acts of this council in the place cited above, where this decree exists. Thus also Gentian Hervet reads, inasmuch as he rendered it by the word "Patrum" (Fathers). And this indeed seems the truer reading. For even though it cannot be denied that the Ephesine Fathers in this place may have had regard for the apostolical canons, saying that a thing is being innovated contrary to ecclesiastical institutions and the canons of the holy Fathers, yet ecclesiastical institutions are rather called such here, and they are the canons of Nicaea. Thus also in the memorial of the bishops of Cyprus, which gave occasion for this decree, the same thing is said to be against the apostolical canons and the definitions of the most holy Nicene synod.

^A It is permitted to each of the metropolitans to take copies of such a canon for his own security, and that no other written type—that is, imperial order—opposed to this canon, brought forward by anyone, shall prevail. And read the 2nd canon of the 2nd synod, the 28th of the 4th, and the 39th of the 6th, and what is written upon them; and you shall learn how the churches that were under Rome were subjected to the throne of Constantinople, with a few exceptions.

ZONAR. The prelate of the Church of the Antiochenes claimed for himself the ordinations of the bishops of Cyprus, perhaps because that island had in ancient times been under the jurisdiction of the Duke of Antioch: for a governor was sent there by the Duke of Antioch. On this account, some of the Cypriot ^B bishops approached this synod, stating this very fact, and reporting through writings that the bishop of Antioch had no ancient custom or right to ordain the bishops of Cyprus. The synod, therefore, having accepted the petition—that is, the arrival of the bishops—decreed that the bishops of Cyprus should remain unharmed and undisturbed, according to the canons of the holy Fathers and ancient custom. For the thirty-fifth canon of the holy apostles and the third of the synod in Antioch command that bishops should not dare to perform ordinations in provinces not subject to them; if they do so, what has been done by them is to be invalid, and they themselves are to be deposed. And the sixth and seventh canons of the first ^C ecumenical synod order that ancient customs be maintained even by the prelates. Following the footprints of these canons, the venerable Fathers here also decreed that the bishops of Cyprus should perform the ordinations of the bishops in that island by themselves, and that this should happen everywhere, and that no bishop should encroach upon a province that was not from ancient times—that is, from of old and from the beginning—under him and his predecessors. But if anyone, they say, has appropriated a province not belonging to him, let him restore it to those who were compelled and deprived of it; so that the authority of the canons may not be infringed, and the bishops, pretending that the zeal for performing their sacred duty is the cause, may not fall into an empty desire to expand ^D worldly power, and thus, oppressed by the rule of those who have no just cause to command, we may not suffer the loss of the liberty which the Lord bestowed upon us, having shed His own blood for the liberty of men. Wherefore the holy synod decreed that to each province its own rights should be preserved according to ancient custom, having also granted the metropolitans the power to transcribe what was decreed; and if a "type," it says—that is, any written document—be brought forward ordaining things contrary to what is now defined, it shall be invalid.

ARIST. Let the rights belonging to each province be kept pure and inviolate, and whoever introduces a form contrary to these is of no account.

Whoever of the bishops by force have subjected another province to their hand, which was not from old and from the beginning [under them]...

or have snatched away some privilege of another bishopric, shall gain nothing from this; but they shall be restored again to the bishops who had the right over them. For the rights of each province ought to be preserved pure and inviolate, and not to be made to undergo the pride of secular power under the pretext of a priestly office. If anyone shall introduce another constitution contrary to what is here decreed and conflicting with it, he shall gain no advantage from it.

Epistle of the same holy Synod of Ephesus to the holy Synod in Pamphylia, concerning Eustathius, who was their metropolitan.

^BSince the divinely inspired Scripture says, "Do everything with counsel," it is fitting for those above all who have attained the priestly rank to inquire into and examine with as much precision as possible all things that are to be done. For those who wish to conduct their life in this way, it happens that their hope is well placed in matters that pertain to them, and as if with a following wind, things succeed according to their desire; and this reasoning carries with it great probability. But sometimes a bitter and intolerable grief, having fallen upon the mind, confuses it greatly and leads it away from the pursuit of things that ought to be done, persuading it to look upon that which by its own nature is accustomed to do injury as something advantageous. ^C We have seen that something of this kind happened to the most holy and most pious Bishop Eustathius. For he was elected, as is attested, canonically; but having been disturbed, as he says, by certain persons, and having fallen into unexpected circumstances, and then, out of an excessive avoidance of the business at hand because of the anxieties impinging upon him, having lost heart, when he could have warded off the slanders being heaped upon him by those attacking him, he submitted a document of resignation, we know not how. For it was fitting for him, as one to whom the priestly care had once been entrusted, to persevere in it with spiritual strength, to submit to labors as if they were nothing, and to gladly accept the sweat for which a reward has been proposed. ^D Since, however, he once showed himself to be neglectful—and this happened to him out of an avoidance of business and labor rather than out of sloth and indolence—your piety necessarily ordained our most pious and most religious brother and co-bishop Theodore to look after the church. For it was not fitting that it should be a widow, and that the flocks of the Savior should be without a shepherd. But since he arrived weeping, not contending with the mentioned most pious Bishop Theodore—whom we have mentioned—for the city or the church, but asking for the honor and title of bishop in the interim, we all sympathized with the old man, and considering his tears to be common to us all, we hastened to learn whether the aforementioned had undergone a lawful deposition, or if he had been convicted by some who disparaged his reputation of some grave and unworthy crimes. Yet we have learned that nothing of the kind was done by him,

but that the resignation of the aforementioned man took place instead of an accusation; whence we have not blamed your holiness, which duly ordained the aforementioned Theodore as bishop in his place. ^B But since it is not consistent to contend too vehemently against the laziness of the man, and one ought rather to have mercy on an old man who has been for so long a time outside the city which bore him and [away from] his paternal dwellings and way of life, we have judged and decreed that he should possess, without any contradiction, the name, the honor, and the communion of the episcopate; yet in such a way that he does not ordain, nor does he take over a church to perform sacred acts by his own authority, but only if he is taken along, or it may be permitted him, by a brother and fellow-bishop, according to affection and the love which is in Christ. And if you should decide anything more kindly for him, whether now or in the future, this too will please the holy synod.

BALSAMON

^A be established as a rule, ^B or that those things not contained in the epistle should be codified; and since I consider this *oikonomia* (dispensation) not to have been made without careful thought—for the canons and the epistle of the holy Cyril to Domnus decree that no priest should submit a document of resignation (for he says, "If they are worthy to perform the sacred ministries, let them remain in that; but if they are unworthy, do not let them depart by way of resignation, but rather let them be condemned by the facts themselves")—how could anyone say that the Council of Ephesus, and especially the great Cyril who presided over it, acted contrary to himself and the other Fathers? But, as is likely, since the resignation of Eustathius was not firm but was wavering in certain respects, the holy council yielded in some matters by way of *oikonomia*. ^C That the resignation of Eustathius was of such a kind is also apparent from the epistle itself, which says: "We do not know how Eustathius submitted a document of resignation," and it is as if it is surprised at its acceptance. For if the resignation were not being shaken by someone, he would not have been called a bishop, nor would he have been permitted to perform the sacred liturgy. Therefore, what was provided for by way of *oikonomia* in this epistle is not a universal rule. This is also further declared by the fact that the Fathers wrote that if anything more benign should be done by the bishops of the region for the old man, it would please the synod. Further, say that since the Council of Chalcedon decrees that no one should be ordained absolutely, the bishop who retains only the priesthood, as some say—of ^D which priests will he be called the hierarch, or whom will he teach? And of whom will he be bishop? Of absolutely no one. Therefore, the priestly dignity will not be obtained by power alone. See also the tenth canon of the holy Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria.

ZONAR. Eustathius, of whom this epistle makes mention, was a bishop of Pamphylia. Pamphylia is the province of Attalia. And so, the aforementioned man, having fallen into difficult times and having given up on account of faint-heartedness and aversion to business, resigned the bishopric in writing. And another man was ordained in his place. Eustathius, however, later came to this holy council with many tears, not claiming the city or the church for himself, or refusing them to his successor, but asking only for the name and honor of a bishop—that is to say, wishing to be honored with the name of bishop and to hold an episcopal place in sessions and other such things that befit a bishop. The holy council therefore says: We sympathized with the old man and considered his tears our own, and we sought to learn if the man had been canonically deposed, perhaps because some had accused him of some improprieties. But when we learned that nothing of the sort had happened on his part, but that he had resigned the bishopric and had because of this fallen from it due to his aversion for business, we did not think it honest to reproach the man because he shrank from affairs or was less suitable for handling matters; rather, we judged it necessary to have mercy on the aged man, who for many years had been deprived of his homeland and his paternal dwellings.

^A We have also decreed, and we have considered it just, that he should retain the name of the episcopacy, and the honor, and the communion—that is to say, to enter within the sanctuary and to receive the sacraments—but that he should not perform sacred rites, nor should it be permissible for him to ordain anyone, unless a certain bishop should take him on as a partner in performing sacred duties or in ordaining, or he should be permitted to do any such thing by the bishop of that region. And these things, the synod says, we have granted him; but if you have decided to be more generous toward him, either now or in the future—that is, if you should grant him any further right or privilege—this too will seem acceptable to us.

From this synodal provision, some think it is granted to bishops to resign their churches while nonetheless retaining their episcopal dignity. But I think the contrary is rather to be gathered from this: that in former times, those who resigned their bishoprics were deprived of all that they had received, and they neither retained any episcopal right after their resignation nor were they called bishops. For if it were the custom that one who had resigned should still have episcopal rights, why did Eustathius come weeping to the holy synod ^B and contend to obtain for himself by his pleas the honor and name of a bishop? And why did this Ephesian synod decree that letters should be sent to the Pamphylian synod regarding this matter? It appears, therefore, rather that the shirking of the office of the episcopal ministry was neither without fault nor was it [a common] custom at that time, as this letter says: "Since, being vehemently abhorrent of these matters, he had succumbed in spirit due to cares, he presented a petition of resignation, we know not how." For it behooved him, as one for whom the priestly care had once been enjoined, to persist in it with spiritual strength, and to undergo labors as if sweating, and to undergo the sweat, for which a reward is proposed, willingly.

That resignations of churches were not of ancient custom at that time is sufficiently evident from the fact that the synod writes, "we know not how he presented a petition of resignation." For it was the manner of those who are surprised at the novelty of a deed and who are in doubt to say, "we know not how it was done then." But if the matter had been customary, it would not have been in doubt. But the things they add—^C "for to whom the episcopal care has once been entrusted, he ought to endure in it"—and what follows, sufficiently and openly demonstrate that there was no faculty for laying down such a priestly burden, and that it was rather strictly forbidden and criminal. For if those who are now being called for the first time to the solicitude of pastoral care are to be cut off if they do not obey those who decree them, according to the thirty-sixth canon of the holy apostles until they should accept, and according to the seventeenth canon of the council in Antioch; how shall those who are ordained and who have accepted the care of the people be easily accepted if they resign, and repudiate the ministry offered to them by divine grace, and not rather be afflicted with punishment, but instead receive a reward, namely the name and honor of bishop? ^D For that is bestowed in place of a reward to a man who, from the parish to which he had been destined, not by his own fault but by the unruly nature of the multitude

and their malice, as its eighteenth canon contains, was forced to withdraw. The text of the aforesaid letter also shows that the whole matter was a dispensation—on account of Eustathius’s faintheartedness and the intensity of his grief. For it says: "Since he came before us weeping, and requesting this and that, we all felt pain for the elder, and we considered his tear to be our own." And after a little: "But since it is not very consistent to contend against the inaction of this man, but rather one ought to pity an elder," and what follows. ^B From these things, therefore, it is apparent that the Fathers, moved by the tears and the deep old age of that man, and fearing lest something more serious should happen to him from excessive grief, arranged those things which they did arrange—but not as giving them as a rule, nor prescribing the same for the future. For they surely knew the canons, and they would not have decreed anything contrary to the apostolic canons and the regulations of the holy Fathers before them, nor did they wish to grant to those who desired it the ability to resign and yet enjoy archieratic privileges after the resignation. For how were they about to do this, convinced as they were that one who has once been entrusted with the pastoral care must hold it with spiritual strength, as they added in subsequent parts? That they did the whole thing being broken down by the tears of that elder is shown also from many other words of the letter and from the fact that they wrote: "But if you determine anything kinder regarding him, this too will be pleasing and acceptable to the holy synod." ^C For such pity did they have for the man, being softened by his tears and his misfortune, that they incited others also to show him mercy and urged them to sympathy. But if they accept this synodal letter as a canon, and not as a dispensation made in that case for Eustathius, why do they not also allow those who have resigned their own churches and the archieracy itself, if they subsequently draw near again and shed tears, to be given the name of bishop and the archieratic rights and honor? For he clearly resigned everything once and for all, and had fallen out of everything, as those words of the synod themselves indicate when they say: "We sought to learn whether Eustathius had undergone a lawful deposition, that is, whether he had been convicted of any shameful deed; and indeed we learned that nothing of the sort had happened, but rather that the resignation itself had been for him a charge." ^D As if, therefore, he had been caught in some disgraceful act, he had thus fallen from all the rights of the episcopacy by virtue of his resignation, and seemed to have been deposed by it. But nevertheless the synod, moved by his tears, decreed the things which are contained in the letter. To those, therefore, who accept it as a canon and rule, it will not seem a new thing if they also, who have resigned the administration of affairs and the archieracy itself—dividing these, according to them, once again—are allowed to decree for themselves the title, liturgy, and honor of a bishop. Not accurately, therefore,

^A do those who use this epistle as a canon conjecture the mind of those venerable Fathers, nor do they understand that from it they possess the thought that bishops may renounce their churches while retaining the dignity of the high priesthood. For those who acknowledge this are actually opposing another canon. For the synod of the six hundred and thirty holy Fathers at Chalcedon decreed in its sixth canon that no one—neither presbyter nor deacon, nor anyone at all in the ecclesiastical order—should be ordained absolutely, unless the one being ordained is appointed specifically to the church of a city, or a village, or to a martyry, or to a monastery; and it further decreed that those ordained absolutely have such ordination held as void, and that they possess no power to exercise the functions of their orders, to the insult of the one who conferred them. If, therefore, those of an inferior degree are not permitted to be ordained absolutely—but even if they are ordained, they remain functionless, and the matter is considered so detestable that the one who ordained them is even judged worthy of punishment or disgrace—how shall he who is of greater value, or rather of the highest of all, be a bishop absolutely and anonymously? And how shall he be called such, and be deemed worthy of the rights of the episcopacy? For every high priest when ordained is proclaimed for a certain city and is called the bishop of that city. If, then, he leaves the city for which he was proclaimed, and has renounced his being in it as a priest and his overseeing the flock in it of the Great Chief Shepherd, how shall he be called a bishop henceforth? Whom is he overseeing? For the name itself denotes action and operation; but he who has shaken off the operation has also fallen away from the calling. And if he is not fit to be called a bishop, by what right will he cling to the priesthood, and enjoy the privilege and honor of the episcopacy? ^B And how, moreover, shall he be named a hierarch who has no clergy subject to him, nor is endowed with any authority over those initiated in the sacred rites? But to whom the name of hierarch truly does not belong, neither does the action belong; for he who is excluded from the communion of the name must necessarily fall short of the matter itself by much more. Hence, therefore, no one who receives the office of the episcopacy laid upon him shall renounce it, unless he confesses himself unworthy of the priesthood. But if anyone grants that he who renounces it has received it in a completely uncanonical way, the one renouncing shall at once, with his renunciation, fall away from every priestly dignity and every right of the episcopacy. ^C That renouncements ought not to be accepted is also clearly shown from the third chapter of the letter of St. Cyril to Domnus, where he says: "And furthermore, it is a matter in no way pleasing to the institutions of the Church for some of the ministers of the altar to bring forward petitions of renunciation," and so forth. See also what we have written on the tenth canon of the holy martyr Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria. ^D ARIST. Eustathius, when he ought to have resisted bravely (for this every bishop ought), turning his back and giving way slightly,

profitably resigned. Theodorus was ordained in his place. ^A He, however, shedding tears and confused by shame, requests the honor. He who ordained another in his place is blameless, since he has his resignation instead of a charge. This Bishop Eustathius, being unconcerned with business and unable to sustain the affairs of the Church, nor to resist the troubles coming upon him nor to dispel them, resigned the administration of affairs; and another was ordained in his place. Afterwards he approached the Synod at Ephesus, again reclaiming the episcopate. And although he was not heard, since he had once resigned it and another had been ordained in his place, yet desiring to have the episcopal honor and communion, he was confirmed in it without any contradiction, so that he might be named bishop, and be a participant of the honor and the cathedra, and perform holy rites, not out of his own authority, but when, according to the affection and charity in Christ, he should be permitted by a brother and co-bishop. By a reason of sympathy, the Fathers of this synod proposed to the synod in Pamphylia, in which Eustathius celebrated holy rites, that they should determine something more benign ^B concerning him, either now or later; this, however, was that they should either appoint him to a vacant church, or otherwise guide him by the hand.

CANONS XXX OF THE HOLY FOURTH AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD AT CHALCEDON

ZONARAS AND BALSAMON. The holy fourth and œcumenical synod was held in the times of the reign of Marcian, with six hundred and thirty holy Fathers assembled at Chalcedon against Dioscorus, who was presiding over the illustrious city of Alexandria, and Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople; ^C who, although they confessed the Lord our Jesus Christ to be consubstantial with the Father, yet spoke nefariously concerning the mystery of the Incarnation; and, fleeing from the error of Nestorius, who dissected Christ and introduced two sons, they fell into another evil diametrically opposed to this. For they impiously taught that the two natures, of divinity and of humanity, were blended after the union, and were completed into one nature, so that they did not even fear to make the divinity subject to sufferings and perturbations. And they said that the Lord had not taken on flesh consubstantial with us, nor that it was formed from the virgin’s ^D blood, but they devised that he had been enfleshed in some ineffable way and more divinely; and other things.

of this sort they prattled, and therefore they were deposed by this holy synod and struck with anathema: this same synod defined that Christ the Lord is perfect God and perfect man in two undivided and unmingled natures. And in truth, it also issued the subjoined canons. ^A

CANON I

BALS. (i.e.) The Fathers judged it right, that is, just, that the canons which were set forth by the holy Fathers who preceded them, before the fourth synod, should be observed and retain their force. And do not say, How is it that the canon does not make mention of provincial and œcumenical synods? For from the fact that the canons which were composed by the holy Fathers in each synod up to that time are confirmed, the decrees of all synods are rendered firm and stable. ^B

ZONAR. Both the œcumenical synods and the provincial ones which were held before this holy synod set forth canons, some contributing to the precision of dogmas, and some concerning the ecclesiastical order and regulating the churches. All those, therefore, the holy Fathers assembled in this synod have confirmed by this present canon, and have decreed that they shall remain in force, judging and considering it to be just.

ARIST. Let the canons of the holy Fathers of each synod be observed.

CANON II

^A for the sake of base gain. Let him who has attempted this, being convicted, be in danger of losing his own rank; and let the one who is ordained gain nothing from the ordination or promotion made by way of trafficking; but let him be foreign to the dignity or the office which he obtained for money. And if anyone should be found also acting as a mediator in such base and unlawful takings, he also, 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.

BALSAMON

ZONARAS

NOTES OF WILLIAM BEVERIDGE

^A It is decreed that no one from among all these should be permitted to offer for sale the grace of the Holy Spirit—which is invaluable, and because of its transcendent and incomparable nature, not subject to being sold (for this is what it means to lead it into a sale)—under penalty of being deposed from their respective rank, rather than merely falling from it. These things, then, are decreed concerning those who ordain for money, or who promote anyone at all in accordance with the canon, that is, the ecclesiastical order. It is further decreed that those who are ordained or promoted through the giving of money shall derive no benefit from such mercenary ordination, that is, from a transaction of base gain. For if the sacred canons forbid those enrolled in the clergy from becoming lessees of another’s property and from engaging in secular business for the sake of base gain—in accordance with the following canon and the sixteenth canon of the Synod of Carthage, which states that it is not permitted for a bishop, presbyter, or deacon to become a receiver or proctor, nor to provide for his sustenance from any base or dishonorable business—and in accordance with the great Apostle who says, “No one serving as a soldier entangles himself in the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him,” and just as is openly gathered from the civil laws, how much more must we judge that it is forbidden for anyone to trade in such things and to acquire the grace of the Holy Spirit as if it were a commodity? ^B Therefore, they too must be removed from their dignity or rank. The present canon decrees the same concerning those who are promoted; furthermore, it orders that those who serve as intermediaries in such matters, or who lend their efforts to this buying and selling of ordinations or promotions, if they are clergy, shall be deposed, and if they are laity or monks, they shall be anathematized. The twenty-ninth canon of the Holy Apostles also orders that those who have bought ordinations be deposed and removed from communion, as happened to Simon Magus. By “communion” here, we must understand not only the reception of the holy mysteries, but also the association and assembly with the faithful. For Simon was completely cut off from the assembly of the faithful by Peter, when he offered money to him and asked that the grace of the Holy Spirit be given to him in exchange for it. ^C The canon punishes not only those who have ordained or were ordained for money, but also those who attempted such a thing, even if they were caught before the evil deed was brought to fulfillment.

ARISTENUS. He who buys and he who sells an ordination, up to the 89 *prosmonarios*, is in danger regarding his rank.

And let the intermediaries, if they are clergy, fall from their rank; but if they are laymen or monks, let them be anathema.

According to the great Basil, even worse than Macedonius, who fought against the Holy Spirit, is he who sells the un-vendible grace of God. Therefore, he who ordains and he who is ordained for money shall be alien to his own rank, even if he were ordained to the lowest rank of the clergy. But also the intermediaries in such ordinations, if they are clergy, let them fall from their own rank; if they are laymen or monks, let them be anathema.

CANON III

BALS. Various canons have forbidden monks and clerics to undertake the cares of worldly business and to become agents of other people's affairs and services. And as if the canons were perhaps not being observed, the holy Fathers decreed that those who do such a thing are to be held liable to ecclesiastical penalties. We have spoken of what sort this is more clearly in the 6th apostolic canon, and in the 81st and 163rd, and read those and what is written upon them, and the 13th chapter ^C of title 3 of the present constitution. Seek also the synod of Carthage and the 10th canon of the 7th synod.

Notes of William Beveridge

^A Seek also canon 16 of the Council of Carthage, and canon 10 of the seventh Council. But since the canon ordains that bishops, clerics, and monks may undertake the guardianships of minors, if they are called by the laws, and the cares of ecclesiastical matters, and the care of orphans, or widows, or otherwise destitute persons, and those standing in need of ecclesiastical assistance, provided they be permitted by the bishop—and the 123rd Justinian Novel, which is set down in the third book, title 1, chapter 12, says: "We grant that the most God-beloved bishops and monks may in no way become guardians or curators of any person; but we grant that presbyters and deacons, by the right and sole claim of kinship, if called to guardianships or curacies, may undertake such ministry"—someone might say that bishops and monks ought in no way to become guardians or curators, as being forbidden by the Novel. ^B To me, however, it seems that the Novel was published solely to prevent bishops and monks from becoming guardians or curators of their own motion, or when they are called to this by the laws. For if they undertake any administration by episcopal permission, according to the summary of the present canon and the one after it, they will not be prejudiced by the present canon and the Novel. Without episcopal permission, they become guardians and curators of orphans when they are called to this by the law. But know that guardians (91) are given to non-adult males from the first year up to the 14th, and that year itself—just as to females up to the 12th, and that year itself—but curators are given to minors up to the 25th year, and that year itself, whether they be male or female. ^C But it has seemed that all of these may administer ecclesiastical matters indistinctly, even though the present canon says this is to be done with episcopal permission. Say, therefore, summarizing, that whoever are contained in the canon, with episcopal permission, will exercise not only ecclesiastical business, but civil as well, without any prejudice: furthermore, indeed, even every guardianship and curacy. But if such permission does not intervene, bishops and monks will not hold guardianship or curacy, not even when they are called to it by law. But clerics, [they are deemed powerful]. ^D

Guill. Beveregii notes.

^A perform ^B any stewardship or curatorship. But when such a stewardship is not intervening, bishops and monks shall not be stewards, nor curators, nor even when they are called to this by law. Clerics, however, shall act as stewards and curators only when they are called by law. But all, generally, shall not be hindered from administering ecclesiastical affairs even without episcopal permission. ^C However, the 68th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher granted to monks and clerics alone to become guardians and administrators of last wills, and they shall execute these, even if they are secular affairs and without episcopal stewardship. Under the pretext of such a Novel, bishops also exercise guardianships in last wills; and being asked how they do this, since they can say nothing valid from this, they put forward the canons and laws which decree that bishops ought to intervene in all pious donations and those pertaining to souls. To me, however, this seems appropriate for the local bishops, but not for those written as guardians outside their diocese. Read therefore more carefully the aforementioned Justinianic Novel. Since also the 106th Novel of the same Emperor the Philosopher decrees that bishops and clerics who plead causes, or stand surety, or perform any civil business are to be separated, and if they do not amend, even deposition is to be brought upon them: do not say that it contradicts the superior apostolic canons, but say that it is equivalent to them, as they are to be understood, that they are not to be deposed otherwise than if after a warning they do not desist. But the things written about priests who plead causes and stand surety in chapter 13 of the 8th title of the present work, and in the 20th apostolic canon, are sufficient for the interpretation of the present Novel as well.

ZONAR. Both the canons of the holy apostles and those of ancient synods, as well as the laws of the state, forbid this; but it was and is still done. Wherefore this holy synod hastened to forbid what is done contrary to the canon, if it had not also the strength to successfully correct it. It says, therefore, that some of those who are set in the clergy become lessees of the property of others, and contract for worldly affairs. But to contract is a thing condemned also by the laws. And to contract means for some to meddle in the affairs or property of others for the sake of gain, enduring worldly cares and disturbances or even quarrels, and undertaking the administration of others' wealth out of greed. The holy synod therefore decreed that neither a bishop, nor a cleric, nor a monk should do such a thing, or rather that he should only become a guardian of under-age children, having mentioned guardianships for the youth (for to these, guardians are given), and by saying [curatorship] of minors, it mentioned curators; for the *impuberes* (under-age) are those under fourteen years, and the *aphilikes* (minors) are... ^D

^A those who have already passed that age, but are under twenty-five years, over whom curators are set; and then, being called by law to guardianship or curatorship, it commands them to undertake these tasks without excuse, but not to cast themselves into such administrative duties. And when the bishop of the city in which members of the clergy are enrolled, or in which monks reside (for the canon following this decrees that monks also are subject to the bishop of each city), entrusts to them the management of ecclesiastical affairs, or of orphans and widows who are unprovided for—for thus it is recorded in the Acts ^B by the divine Luke that the apostles, having selected the seven deacons, were led to do so in order that the widows might not be overlooked in the daily ministration—it allows them to take up the patronage of persons for the sake of the fear of the Lord (not for gain, nor for glory) who are in the greatest need of ecclesiastical assistance, such as those who flee to the holy Church, fearing the powerful by whom they are being treated unjustly, or perhaps having committed some offense and seeking the help of the Church, or those unjustly dragged into slavery, and others of this kind, for whose relief it is customary to appoint defenders.

But it decrees that those who violate these set rules are subject to penalties. Yet it has not added the specific forms of the penalties. ^C Why so? Because the apostolic canons concerning these venerable matters—the sixth and the eighty-first—order those who take upon themselves secular affairs or attempt to wield Roman authority together with priestly administration to be deposed; and the eightieth of the same canons decrees that clerics must not descend into public administration, and adds: "Either let them be persuaded not to do this, or let them be deposed." Therefore, since these penalties had already been defined by the holy apostles, this synod remained silent about them, just as the synod in Carthage also did. For that synod, too, having legislated on this matter in its sixteenth canon, did not impose a penalty for the very same reason.

But although these laws and the aforementioned canons were enacted, the evil remained incurable; wherefore the sixth ^D synod, in its eleventh canon, renewed the same things; and not even thus did a healing of this malady occur. For even until now the evil continues, and there is no one who cuts it off—not a patriarch, not an emperor, not a bishop. These canons, therefore, are disregarded, and patriarchs and bishops concelebrate and communicate with those thus deposed by the canons.

^A ARIST. Those who undertake the care of secular houses are to be rebuked, unless perhaps the law calls them to the administration of minors, or the bishop permits them the care of orphans and widows. Clerics may be received into the houses of seculars for the instruction of their children and servants, according to the tenth canon of the second Nicene synod; but they must not undertake the management of their business, unless they wish to be rebuked. However, they may be entrusted with the administration of orphans, widows, and other wretched persons; just as they may also exercise guardianship of their own minor relatives, if the law calls them to this by right of kinship. But bishops and monks are not permitted to become guardians or curators, even for their own relatives. All these acts as administrators of property left behind by some persons after their death for pious distributions. And such persons are also called tutors, according to the sixty-eighth Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher.

CANON IV

Those who truly and sincerely enter upon the monastic life are to be deemed worthy of fitting honor. But since some, using the monastic disguise, disturb both ecclesiastical and civil matters, wandering recklessly and without any discrimination through the cities, and even attempting to establish monasteries for themselves, it has been decided that no one shall anywhere build or construct a monastery or house of prayer ^C without the consent of the bishop of the city. And those who are leading a monastic life in every region and city must be subject to the bishop, embrace stillness, and occupy themselves only with fasting and prayer, remaining firmly in the places where they were assigned; they must not harass or participate in either ecclesiastical or secular matters, leaving their own monasteries, unless perhaps they should be permitted by the bishop of the city for some necessary requirement. No one is to be received into monasteries as a servant for the purpose of becoming a monk against the will of his own master. We decree that anyone who transgresses against this our definition shall be excommunicated. ^D

^A And the bishop of the city ^B ought to exercise the proper care over the monasteries.

BALS. Note that it is permitted to bishops to grant monks the administration of civil matters; and if this has been granted to bishops, it is much more permitted to emperors. The canon says that those who are monks purely—that is, truly and not in pretense—ought to be honored; but those who use the monastic habit as a pretext and deceive men are to be restrained and sent back to the place of their tonsure, as they disturb both churches and civil affairs. For by walking through the middle of the forum, and thrusting themselves into secular matters, and perhaps even teaching, they cause disturbance—that is, they divide and confuse divine and human things, and do not allow them ^C to be practiced according to their own nature, namely: secular matters by the laity, and monastic and ecclesiastical matters by those who are dedicated to God.

Since, he says, these same men, out of a desire for authority, also attempt to build monasteries from scratch so as not to be subject to the bishop, it has been defined that no one is permitted to build a monastery or oratory anywhere without the consent of the bishop; and that all monks are to be subject to the bishop of the region and to persevere steadfastly in the dwelling where they were tonsured. He adds that they are also to have no share in the communion and administration of ecclesiastical matters, nor of those pertaining to life, or civil matters, unless perhaps the bishop of the city permits this for necessary use. It has also been decreed that slaves are not to be tonsured against the will of their masters, or at least that he who transgresses this definition shall be excommunicated.

However, he says, the bishop of the city ought to exercise care over the monasteries. Note, therefore, that monks ought to persevere and remain where they renounced the world or were tonsured; and that by the permission of the bishop, monks can administer not only ecclesiastical matters, but also those that pertain to life, that is, civil matters. And if episcopal permission can do this, the imperial power, which even promotes bishops, will do so all the more. For this reason, as is fitting, that metropolitan of Side also administered the affairs of the empire without any impediment, in the person of the emperor, lord Michael Ducas. And that metropolitan of Neocaesarea also set down the maritime laws of the city, and many other prelates and monks likewise performed imperial and public services. Read also the first canon of the synod gathered in the temple of the Holy Apostles. Search also concerning slaves who become monks against the will of their master in chapter 36 of the first title of the present code.

ZONAR. Those who are truly and sincerely—that is, with a pure mind and not obscured by any stain of simulation or wickedness—monks [are worthy of honor]...and not subject to

^A a monastic life choose, the holy synod judged that honor is due to them. But those who use the monastic habit only as a pretext—that is, as a mere display to deceive—so that under this guise they may more easily lead people into fraud and hunt for honor for themselves in the holy garment, while meanwhile they frequent the churches and perhaps usurp for themselves either the office of teaching or some other part of ecclesiastical authority, and these same people thrust themselves into urban affairs and wish to administer them, and thus disturb both the churches and the civil state, the synod does not consider them to be truly monks.

It strictly forbade anyone anywhere to build a monastery or an oratory, whether in a city, or in a village, or in the deserts, or on mountains, or anywhere else at all, against the will of the bishop of that region; and it commanded that monks be subject to the bishop of each city and remain in silence in the places where they had initially retired, working at virtues and being free from both ecclesiastical and civil matters, nor to leave their own monasteries nor to participate in the administration of affairs, unless the bishop of the city permits some few for economic matters due to necessary need, judging them perhaps fit for such administration, and being in want of others for such a matter. ^B These things are also commanded by the synod held in the temple of the Holy Apostles in the first canon, and in the seventeenth canon of the seventh synod.

Next, this canon provides that slaves are not to be accepted in a monastery if they wish to become monks, except by the will of their masters, so that the name of Christ may not be blasphemed. For if a slave of someone is tonsured against the will of his master, his lord will think this a heavy matter, and will blaspheme against the holy habit and the monks; and the blasphemy against him will pass even to God Himself. But the name of God will be blasphemed by the unbelievers also when they see monks wandering about in cities and handling political affairs.

Having subjected the monks and monasteries to the local bishops, the canon adds: The bishop of the city, however, ought to take the necessary care of the monasteries, ^C accomplishing two things at once: first, that the monks, freed from the laborious cares and annoyances of affairs, may lead a tranquil and quiet life, meditating only on those things that contribute to spiritual benefit; and second, that from this the bishop himself may acquire spiritual gain, and that it may be for the glory of God. For, says the Lord, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. v, 16).

Since the goods of the churches are called the goods of the poor, and were designated to be spent upon the needy, it is not permitted even to the bishop to spend from these on himself, except for what is strictly necessary, when he has nothing ^D of his own, as the thirty-ninth canon of the holy apostles says, and the twenty-fourth of the synod in Antioch. And to the monks as the

^A needy, the canon requires the bishop to provide the necessities for life.

ARIST. A house of prayer or a monastery is not to be established without the opinion of the bishop. And every monk shall be subject to the bishop, and let him not depart from the monastery unless invited by him. And let a slave, unless his master consents, not enter monastic life.

Without the opinion of the local bishop, no monastery or church is to be founded. Furthermore, all monks are to be subject to him, and they are not to withdraw from the monastery in which they were assigned, unless they are permitted by the bishop for the benefit of others. And a slave is not to be admitted into a monastery to lead a monastic life against the will of his master. And whoever shall transgress these decrees shall be excommunicated. It is also fitting that the bishop provide the necessary care for the monasteries.

CANON V

Of bishops or clerics who move from city to city, it has pleased that the canons established regarding these matters by the holy Fathers shall hold force.

BALS. This canon has been explained in various ways, and one should not labor in vain over the same things.

ZONAR. There are various canons of the holy apostles regarding this subject, which have been explained, and likewise of various synods, which the present canon decrees are to be observed. Therefore, to repeat the same things again would be a superfluous or even foolish labor. Whoever wishes to know what is defined regarding this subject in those constitutions, let him approach the canons themselves, for from them one can easily understand the rationale of the whole decree, and from what places and in what manner it is permitted for a bishop to migrate from his own city to another.

ARIST. Those who move from city to city shall be subject to the canons regarding these matters. It is said also in the thirteenth canon of the synod of Antioch that a bishop is not to dare to move from his own province to another, or to ordain any persons ^D without the opinion of the local bishop, or to perform any other episcopal function, unless he wishes the things done by him to remain void, and to give account himself for his disorder. This, then, is what this canon also decrees here.

CANON VI

That no one is to be ordained absolutely, neither presbyter nor deacon, nor absolutely anyone of those who are in the ecclesiastical order, unless specifically in the church of a city or a village...

or a martyrium, or a monastery, the one being ordained be proclaimed. ^A And the holy synod has decreed that those ordained absolutely shall have such ordination held as invalid, and that they shall be able to exercise [the office] nowhere, to the insult of him who ordained them.

BALS. ^B Just as bishops are or dained to this or that church (97), so the canon says that clerics are also to be ordained specifically to this temple or this monastery, and not absolutely; and that the ordination which has not been done in this way is invalid, and that he who has operated elsewhere contrary to the will of him who ordained him, to his insult, can nowhere celebrate. Note, therefore, that those who are ordained as monks are also called clerics, and are subject to the bishop of the place, and ought not to perform sacred rites in another diocese without commendatory and dimissory letters from the bishop. Read also the 8th canon of the present synod. But since some say that the canon is to be understood only of presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, and not also of readers—because these are not ordained by the laying on of hands, and hence can move from city to city even without a bishop's commendatory and dimissory letters—we say that readers are also clerics, and have the laying on of hands of bishops, that is to say, the seal (99) by the hand of the bishop; and by all means the canon will prevail also for them.

[[Guill. Beveregii note.]] As besides Balsamon and Zonaras, Josephus Aegyptius also has interpreted this word, explaining the first part of this canon thus: "Let no one receive ordination unless the place and see in which he is to reside be declared to him: not a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor any other besides them, nor one inferior to them; but his place must be declared, and he must remain constant in it." And Egbert of York expresses the force of this word and the sense of the whole canon briefly thus: "That no one be ordained absolutely, and without the proclamation of the place to which he is to be ordained." (Egbert. excerpt. can. 51.) This belongs to later times: that no one be ordained without a title. The Council of Lateran, in the year of our Lord 1179: "If any bishop shall have ordained a deacon or presbyter without a certain title, from which he may receive the necessities of life, let the bishop provide him with such necessities, until he shall assign to him in some church suitable stipends of clerical service: unless by chance the one who is ordained be one who can have support for his life from his own or his father's inheritance." (Concil. Later. cap. 5.) This decree was confirmed by the Council of London, held under Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury in the year of our Lord 1200, enacting: "We command that that also be firmly observed according to the tenor of the Lateran Council, that if any bishop shall have ordained a deacon or presbyter without a certain title, let him provide for him so long, until he shall assign to him in some church suitable stipends of clerical service: unless by chance the one who is ordained be one who can have support for his life from his own or his father's inheritance. The same we decree in the ordination of a subdeacon, adding that if an archdeacon shall have presented any of the aforementioned to ordination without the special mandate of his bishop, and he shall have been ordained according to his presentation, he shall be subject to the aforesaid penalty." (Concil. London. can. 6. Concil. Bin. tom. III, part. 2, p. 666, 657, edit. Colon. 1618.)

(97) *To this or that church.* The Eton Codex reads *to this or that church*. But the other formula of speech is more common to Balsamon and Zonaras: as in the next line. And Zonaras, as in the ancient Greek writers, is often used for the sign of the cross, as also for *signing with the cross*, as by Gregory Nazianzen, who, speaking of Julian, says: "He took refuge in the cross as that old remedy, and with this he marks himself against the terrors, and makes the one whom he was persecuting his helper (and the things that follow are more terrible); the seal prevailed, the demons yield, fears are driven away." (Greg. Naz. orat. 3, adv. Julian.) Where it is plain that *seal* means the sign of the cross, by which he had been signed as has been said before. The same elsewhere: "It seemed to me that he, whom I held most dear (for no one else was preferred by us, not even in a dream), suddenly appeared at night with a basket and most white loaves, and having prayed over them and signed them with the sign of the cross, as was our custom, fed and strengthened me and gathered my strength." (Id. orat. 19.) In the Euchologion this word occurs everywhere in this sense; and what is to be observed most of all is in the rite of the ordination of a presbyter, where one edition reads...

^A ZONARAS. This holy council has decreed that priests and deacons, or indeed anyone at all who is enrolled in the clergy, should not be ordained "absolutely," so that they may go wherever they wish and perform sacred functions or exercise some priestly rank. But it requires that every person ordained should be appointed to this church of the city or of the village, or to this temple built in the name of some martyr, or to this monastery. And just as each of the archbishops declares that the one whom he ordains is promoted as bishop of this city, so in earlier times every person ordained was named simply as a priest, or deacon, or cleric, of this specific church (even if today this has been entirely disregarded). The holy council decreed that those ordained in this way should derive no benefit from the imposition of hands; for it denied them the exercise [of their office], so that they might perform no priestly right, and this out of injury to the one who ordained them. For to be deprived of the exercise attributed to him by the archbishop who ordained him, in the way that it was an injury to him, was to be considered as not having been ordained at all. ^B ARIST. In martyria or monasteries, but not without...

Guill. Beveridge’s Note. ...has other readings. ^C In the prayer for a woman after childbirth, it is said more fully; Saint Chrysostom teaches that such things were customary in ordinations of old, just as at baptism, where he says (Chrysost. in Matt. tom. II, p. 346, edit. Savil.): "Let us carry about the cross of Christ as a crown; for all things among us are perfected through it; if one must be regenerated, the cross is present; if one must be fed with that mystical food; if one must be ordained; if one must do anything else, everywhere this symbol of victory stands by us."... And indeed, in the ordinations of the lower clergy, the sealing or the sign of the Cross made upon the head of the ordinand seems to be the principal, if not the only thing, which is customary among the Greeks in particular; and from this very place of Balsamon, speaking of readers, we collect as much, where he clearly calls it a reading of their state. And elsewhere he says more clearly that readers, cantors, and other clerics of this kind possess the ministry committed to them by the seal (Bals. in Basil. can. 51). Hence the same author elsewhere, in his ordination of a reader (in the synod of Nicaea 2, can. 14), nevertheless says that readers receive an imposition of hands from the bishop; which things are inconsistent, if it were anything other than a seal; especially since in that same place it is also the same thing. Surely they are said to be clerics ordained by a seal; but that thing was done by a seal, or by a hand imposed on the head, and the sign of the cross made there; because of which it is called an imposition of hands, and it is equally a seal. But the Euchologion seems to oppose this opinion. For in the rite usually performed in the ordination of a reader and cantor, it is said of the ordaining bishop: "This bishop, to some, appears to sign him first and then impose his hand: but it must be observed that it is not said here as if of a past act, but as of a thing to be performed in both cases, namely, in the present tense." But another edition of this rite (which can also be seen in the Euchologion edited by Jacob Goar) removes this whole controversy, for here the place is read thus: "Where you may observe that they wish nothing to be inserted here between, nor even the particle *and*; so that the following words are only exegetical of the former, explaining how he imposes his hand upon his head, namely, by signing him." Where also it is to be noted besides, in the ordinations of presbyters and deacons, in which an imposition of hands is properly and perfectly held, the bishop is said not only to impose his hand, but also to hold it imposed upon the head, as is said in the ordination of a presbyter; in the ordination of a deacon, in the ordination of a reader and cantor, it is not said that the bishop holds the hand imposed, but only "imposes"; of which distinction no other reason occurs, than that the bishop in the ordinations of these does not impose his hand otherwise than by expressing three crosses there. ^D And accordingly their imposition of hands was nothing else than that very signing on the head, or seal, just as Balsamon asserts in this place. Where it is also permitted to observe that Gentian Hervet translated *kharakterizes* [the imparting of a character] as *character*, as he does more often elsewhere: which translation of his we have also admitted; but with this caution (which it is sufficient to note here only) that such a "character" should be understood as that by which the sign of the cross is represented.

^A Do not ordain absolutely. If not, the person who is supposedly ordained is not ordained.

He who is to be made a presbyter or deacon, or to be enrolled in any ecclesiastical rank at all, must not be admitted to ordination in any other way, unless he is found to have served previously in some ecclesiastical degree in the church of a city or village, or in a monastery, and to have ministered therein. But if anyone who is released—that is, a presbyter or deacon—be ordained while not being under any degree in the church, he shall gain nothing from this, but the imposition of hands upon him shall be void.

CANON VII

Those who have once been enrolled in the clergy, and likewise monks, we decree shall not betake themselves either to military expedition or to any secular dignity. Those who dare to do this, and do not repent so as to return to that which they previously chose for God's sake, shall be anathema.

^B BALS. Do not consider this to be contrary to the eighty-third canon of the holy apostles, which says that only those presbyters or deacons who occupy themselves with military service are to be deposed; but say this: there, the priest was occupied with military services while wearing priestly attire; here, however, he had cast off the sacred garment and engaged in military service out of a desire for secular dignity. And for this reason, there, he who does not return after a warning is deposed; but here, he who does not repent is anathematized. For he passed the sentence of deposition upon himself, who stripped himself of his sacred garment even before the condemnation, and became a layman. But since, in interpreting the eighty-third apostolic canon, we said that one who performs public duties is not deposed immediately, but after a warning, someone might ask: will this be the case also for one who has cast off the sacred garment and engaged in military service? Or is he, ^C even before a warning, ipso facto anathema?

Guill. Beveregius's Notes

Aristenus here errs about the true meaning of this canon, and is entirely mistaken. For he interprets the phrase “without condition” in the canon, and “absolutely” in the epitome, as if the canon provided that no one should be ordained to the order of presbyter, deacon, or any other ecclesiastical rank unless he had previously been in some ecclesiastical degree; as if no one could become a presbyter or deacon unless he had previously been a reader or cantor. Since the Fathers established nothing else by this canon than that no one is to be ordained without a certain title, unless he has, at the same time, an assigned place in which to exercise the duties entrusted to him, as was shown before.

(1) Those who have once been enrolled in the clergy, or monks, if they have come to military ^D service or secular dignity and do not repent, let them be anathema. Harmenopulus's Epitome of this canon is as follows: "The cleric or monk, if he goes to military service or secular dignity, and does not repent, let him be anathematized." Harmen., epist. can. sect. 3, tit. 2. Upon this Epitome, the scholiast notes these things: "Concerning this matter, see also the 123rd Novella of Justinian. For it says: 'Let no one who has been enrolled in the clergy become a layman, since he will be stripped of the dignity or military service he has gained, and he will be returned to the rank of his own city.' And the eighth Novella of the Lord Leo commands that clerics and monks who have changed their habit and become laymen be restored to their former state, even against their will." Regarding this, see also the 123rd Novella of Justinian. For he says: "Let no one, abandoning his clerical status, become a secular. For he shall also be stripped of the military dignity he has attained, and shall be delivered to the courts of his own municipality." Likewise, the 7th and 8th Novellae of the Lord Leo command that a cleric and monk who has changed his habit and become a layman be restored to his former habit, even against his will. The words of the Justinian Novella cited here are these: "If a monk leaves the monastery and migrates to a secular life, let him first be stripped by the bishop of the place and the judge of the province of his military service and honor, if he has any, and be sent back to the monastery." Justin. Novel. 123, cap. 42, and Basil. lib. iv, tit. 1, cap. 14. Leo, in his seventh Novella, decrees that whoever of the clerics has wickedly set out to change his habit for a profane one, he, as often as he is caught in such recklessness, shall, according to the ecclesiastical decree, be restored to the clerical habit, however much he may be unwilling. Leon. Nov. 7. In the eighth, however, he says: "But it does not seem to us fas, nor that one who has been received into the ranks of the divine militia should be placed in worldly militias. But, contrary to what seemed should be observed for the ecclesiastical order, if anyone has more often despised the monastic life and wandered, to him it is not granted to receive a profane habit, and this we also command by law." Leon. Nov. 8.

^A is he to be anathematized? I think, therefore, that he too shall be anathematized after a formal declaration, unless he repents. That I say this is confirmed by the words of the canon, which say that those who dare to commit such an evil are to be anathematized, and provided they do not repent so as to return to that which they had previously chosen for the sake of God. And the aforementioned 83rd Apostolic canon was thus interpreted, from the part which says that he who occupies himself with military service and wishes to hold both—Roman magistracy and priestly administration—shall be deposed. Beyond these things, know that the 7th and 8th Novels of the emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher decree that clerks and monks who have changed their attire and have become laymen are to be restored, even against their will, to their former habit. But since with this they are also necessarily anathematized, they shall not be reckoned even as clerks or monks, but shall be locked up for the duration of their lives in monasteries. I think, however, that those who have thus changed their attire and have performed military service shall be punished according to the present canon, but those who have not performed military service will be punished in some other milder way. Nevertheless, none of these shall perform any priestly function. Read also the 62nd canon of the Holy Apostles and its interpretation.

ZONARAS. The 83rd canon of the Holy Apostles is directed against those who remain in the clerical habit but busy themselves with military service and pursue secular magistracies, ^B and it commands them to be deposed, where it is also interpreted what it is to be occupied with military service; but the present canon discusses monks and clerks who, having cast off the sacred habit, have put on a military garment—as if to be counted in the profession of arms—or some other profane one, as if candidates for an office in the republic. These, unless they change their mind and adapt themselves to the manner of life previously intended, the canon orders to be struck with anathema. For those who had themselves abdicated from the dignity of the sacred order were not judged to be subject to deposition as a punishment; and for this reason, they are deemed worthy of a greater punishment.

ARISTENUS. He who becomes a clerk or a monk, if he arrogantly covets military service or a secular dignity, is accursed. If any monks, or those who have once been enrolled in ^C the clergy, desert the solitary and clerical life and, changing their habit, pass over to military service and pursue a secular dignity, and do not so repent as to return to that habit which they had previously chosen for the sake of God, let them be anathematized. Therefore, the 8th Novel of the emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher resonates with the present canon, not allowing monks to assume a lay habit. But the constitution in the sixty-second chapter of title one of the fourth book—

^D stitution, nor the chapter itself cited here by Aristenus, exists in the printed Basilics; in which only the chapters of the first title of the fourth book cited here are ascribed, whereas Aristenus cites the eleventh constitution of the chapter. And hence from this, as from nearly six hundred other places in this work, it abounds as a fact that the Basilics printed today are very mutilated and imperfect. But as for the passage cited here, I suspect this is the statute of Justinian transferred into the Basilics: "If, however, leaving the monastery he comes to some military service, or to another form of life," its substance even so remains in the monastery (according to what has been said by us previously).

which is placed in the second chapter of the first title of the fourth book of the ^A *Basilika*, and is contrary both to this present canon and to that Novel.

CANON VIII

BALS. As is likely, some once said that only the clerics of a bishopric or of a metropolis are subject to the bishop of the region; but that monks, or even clerics of divine temples that are in orphanages or geriatric hospitals, or even in the churches of the martyrs, are not subject to the bishop, even if they are in his diocese, but rather to those who built the monasteries and the rest. The divine Fathers, rejecting such unlawful reasoning of theirs, decreed that all these are under the authority of the bishop of the region, according to the tradition of the holy Fathers concerning this; and that those who dare to overturn this—that is, those who wish not to be subject to the bishop—if they are clerics, are to be punished by the bishop as he sees fit; but if they are ^C monks or laymen, they are to be excommunicated, that is, segregated. Poorhouses (*ptocheia*) are called everything that is set aside for the provision of the poor. Those monks or clerics, therefore, who today say that they are not subject to the patriarch or to the bishop of the region, as if they were of a free monastery or church, putting forward as a pretext even the ordinances of the founders’ *typika*, what will they answer to this? Absolutely nothing. For even if some founder of a monastery or church has decreed in his *typikon* or ordinance that their monks or clerics should not be subject to the bishop of the region, he shall not be heard, as one who has ordained things contrary to the divine and sacred canons, and who has written down things that cannot stand. ^D Concerning those things that are ordained by the emperors for the sake of the monasteries and churches built by them, seek the 6th and 17th canons of the present synod.

ZONAR. All clerics and monks who dwell in churches and cities, and in the regions belonging to cities, are commanded by the decree of the divine canons to be subject to the authority of the bishops. For this reason, this present canon also subjects the clerics of the poorhouses to the bishop. Poorhouses are houses which are destined for the sustaining and caring of the poor, such as those, evidently, in

[Guill. Beveridge’s note:] ...remain, he himself shall be appointed among the officials of the most illustrious judge of the province, and he shall have this result of his change, that he who has despised the sacred ministry shall observe the service of the tribunal. Justinian, Novel 5, ch. 6. For this constitution, by which a monk who deserts his monastery is appointed among the officials, is contrary both to the present canon and to the Novels of Leo, which Aristenus asserts concerning the constitution cited by himself from the *Basilika*.

^A Since some are infirm and are sheltered [in these places], because those who are bedridden in them might not be left devoid of prayers, being unable to go to the assemblies in the churches due to the heaviness of deep old age, or bodily mutilations, or diseases, the founders of the poor-houses took care both to erect houses of prayer within them, and to appoint clerics, so that the hymnody to the Divine might be performed by them, and those bedridden in them might hear it without hardship. Therefore, this present canon commands that such clerics, and those in the martyria—that is, the houses of prayer built in the name of the martyrs—must be subject to the bishop of the region; and furthermore, those in the monasteries as well.

By the name of clerics, it refers also to those in a monastery who are ordained, because the present synod, in its sixth canon, decreed that no one should be ordained ^B without a specific title. Since, therefore, even the monks who were ordained of such a monastery were called priests or deacons, and subsequently those of the lower orders, they were reasonably considered to be enrolled to the monastery in which they were named, and the divine Fathers of the synod called them clerics as well. It commands, therefore, that all of these be subject to the bishop, and not be restive, nor escape and kick against his authority—as a colt that has shaken off the bridle; for this is what "bridle" means. He subjected those transgressing the canon, if they were clerics, to canonical penalties, leaving the quality of the penalties to the power and discretion of the bishop; but he decreed that if they were monks or laymen, they should be excommunicated.

But why did the canon, while discussing clerics, mention laymen? I think, therefore, that the intention of the Fathers was this: they judged that clerics would never dare of their own accord to act impudently against the high priests and to kick against their authority, but perhaps that they were being emboldened to do so by certain more powerful persons ^C through their own dominion, or rather, [that they were being aided] by an audacity leading to arrogance; therefore, he subjects them also to excommunication, and subjects their audacity, carried even to the point of pride, to the same.

ARIST. Let the cleric who lives in a poor-house or a monastery submit to the authority of the bishop of the city; but let him who is restive and draws back from this know the penalty.

These also ought to be subject to the authority of the bishop of the city. But if, through their own arrogance, they are not persuaded to submit to him, they shall be subjected to the punishments of the canons.

CANON IX

If any cleric has a dispute with a cleric, let him not abandon his own bishop, and let him not run to secular courts, but let him first ^D conduct the case before his own bishop, or, by the will of the bishop, let the trial be conducted before those whom both parties have chosen for the settling of the lawsuit. If any one does otherwise than these things, let him be subject to canonical penalties. But if a cleric has a dispute with his own or even another bishop, let him be judged by the synod of the province. But if he has a conflict with the metropolitan of the same province—

^A either let him approach the exarch of the diocese, or the throne of the imperial city of Constantinople, and let him be judged before him.

BALS. After the holy Fathers decreed that all clerics should be subject to the bishop of the region (and under the name of clerics, monks are also included), they add in the present canon that it is not permitted for a cleric to bring an action against a cleric before a civil court, but before his own bishop; or, with the consent of the bishop, before those whom the parties may wish, provided that they are by all means suitable, that is to say, ecclesiastical. For it is probable that the bishop might not wish to hear the case for some reasonable cause. And the canon subjects to canonical penalties anyone who acts otherwise. ^B And these things apply when two clerics of the same parish have lawsuits against one another. But if a cleric has a suit against his own bishop or against another bishop, the matters of the case shall be examined before the suitable metropolitan of the province. But if a bishop or a cleric of a metropolitan has a suit against a metropolitan, the canon directs that the case be judged either by the exarch of the diocese or by the patriarch of Constantinople. We must therefore say that if any cleric intends to pursue a case against a cleric, or a bishop, or a metropolitan, let him follow the forum of the defendant according to the laws. For clerics and monks shall be drawn before the local bishop, the bishop before the metropolitan, and the metropolitan before the patriarch; and it shall not be permitted, for example, for a cleric of the bishopric of Athyra to bring an action against his own fellow cleric before the metropolitan of Heraclea, but, as has been said above, he shall be compelled to act in accordance with this. ^C But someone will ask: if a cleric does not wish to be judged together with his fellow cleric before his own bishop, but brings his action before the metropolitan, will his case be dismissed and will he lose his own suit, as would happen if he had drawn him into a secular court? Solution. The case will not be dismissed, as he did not bring the suit to a civil court; but he will be subject to penalties according to the present canon. And let not Chapter 6 of Title 1 of Book 3 of the Basilica, which says, "It is possible even to first bring a complaint before the patriarch, and to ask through his letters that some judge be given from the local bishops; if whose judgment is declined, the patriarch shall judge again," be an obstacle to you. But read with diligence the present canon, canon 15 of the Council of Carthage, canon 6 of the Second Council, and chapter 1 of Title 9 of the present work, and the things that are in it, which indeed resolve the apparent contradiction. But what is said here, namely, "by the consent of the bishop, before those whom both parties may wish," do not say should be taken as referring to the selection of a judge who has no jurisdiction; ^D for the will of the parties makes him a judge, as does the stipulation of a penalty, which indeed does not appear from the present canon: but it concerns...

a judge who possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction, ^A but is not suitable for the parties. Wherefore, he who chooses to litigate before an incompetent court, against the will of his own bishop, shall be punished according to the present canon, even if it be an ecclesiastical court. The exarch of the diocese, however, is, as it seems to me, not the metropolitan of each individual province, but the metropolitan of the entire diocese. And a diocese is that which has many provinces under it. This privilege of the exarchs, however, is not in use today. For although some metropolitans are called exarchs, they do not have the other metropolitans who are in the dioceses subject to them at all. It is therefore probable that there were others at that time who were exarchs of the dioceses, or that they exist even still, but the privileges which were given to them by the canons have ^B lapsed.

ZONAR. The canon wills that the affairs of clerics—that is, naturally, their lawsuits and disputes—if any should arise between them, be conducted before their own bishop, and not before secular judges; for this results in the contempt and insult of the bishop; or, in the interim, by the will of the bishop, or with his consent, that the cases be resolved before those whom both parties have chosen by mutual agreement. And whoever violates this constitution shall be punished with canonical penalties by their own bishops. And this is when clerics are litigating among themselves. But if clerics bring an action against their own bishop or another, the canon appoints the bishops of that province as judges ^C in such a case, who shall gather, hear the question, and render a decision. But if a bishop or a cleric has any matter or dispute and cause of action against the metropolitan of the province, the canon wills that the decision of the whole case be referred to the exarch of the diocese in which the litigants reside, or to the archbishop of the city of Constantinople. Now, some wish the patriarchs to be understood by the name of diocesan exarchs, while others wish the metropolitans to be understood. But we shall treat these matters more extensively in the seventeenth canon.

ARIST. Clerics who are litigating, if they leave their bishop and betake themselves to secular courts, shall be canonically punished. And a cleric who is in dispute with his bishop shall wait for the synod, and a bishop who is in dispute with his metropolitan ^D shall appeal to the Council of Constantinople.

It is not fitting for a cleric who has a grievance against another cleric to be judged by secular judges, but by his own bishop. But if he leaves his own bishop and resorts to secular courts, he shall be subjected to canonical penalties. Likewise, if a cleric has any grievance against a bishop, he ought to be judged by the provincial synod. But also, if a bishop or a cleric has any case against a metropolitan, he must litigate either before the exarch of the diocese—that is to say, the patriarch to whom the metropolitans of those provinces are subject—or before the patriarch of Constantinople; which privilege none of the other patriarchs

^A had been granted, neither by the canons nor by the laws, that a metropolitan subject to one patriarch should be judged by another, unless only by the bishop of Constantinople.

CANON X

That no cleric shall be enrolled in the churches of two cities at the same time, neither in that in which he was originally ordained, nor in that to which he has fled as if to a greater one, out of a desire for empty glory; but those who do this shall be restored to their own church in which they were first ordained, and there alone shall they minister. If, however, any person has already been transferred from one church to another, let him have no share in the affairs of the former church, or of the martyr-chapels, or almshouses, or hostels under its jurisdiction. And those who dare, after the decree of this great and universal synod, to do any of the things now forbidden, the holy synod ^B decrees that they shall be deposed from their own rank.

BALS. Certain clerics, driven by an insane love of glory, move from smaller cities to other, larger cities—for example, from Athyra to Heraclea. The canon therefore says that it is permitted to no one to do this, both because of the honor due to the one who ordained him, and because it is impossible for the same individual to be subject to two bishops. It says that he who has attempted to do this is to be restored to the church in which he was first ordained, that there alone he may minister. As for those who, before this canon, were appointed in the churches of two regions, it imposes the penalty that they may not recall the rights of the former church. Then it decrees that those who dare to perform any of the things forbidden herein are to be deposed. ^C Since things are thus, some have interpreted the prohibition against a cleric being in the churches of two cities as applying even to two churches of a single city. But this is not the meaning of the canon, as it seems to me. How a cleric may not depart from one region to another without a commendatory and dimissory letter from the one who ordained him, and how he who does this and he who receives him are punished, you have learned from the 15th and 16th Apostolic Canons. But if anyone should ask you why the present canon says at the beginning that he who has migrated from city to city is to be restored to his former church, but at the end commands that the transgressor of this be deposed? Say that it commands him who has migrated from city to city, but has not yet been enrolled in the clergy of the second church, ^D to be restored to the first; but he who has been enrolled and established in the second church is to be deposed from his rank. That such a person is not therefore deposed unless after a warning, read…

the 14th Apostolic Canon and the 17th Canon of the Council in Trullo. ^A

ZONAR. The present canon forbids any cleric to be enrolled in the churches of two cities. For perhaps he was ordained in a small city, but out of ambition desired to be transferred to the church of a larger city—to a metropolis, for instance, from an episcopal see, or to a patriarchate from a metropolis. The council therefore ordained that such persons be restored to the church in which they were first ordained. It commanded these things to be done after the canon was issued. But if, it says, anyone is already transferred from one church to another, let him remain where he has been transferred, but let him not meddle in any way in the affairs of the church from which he was transferred. For, having abandoned that one, he shall have no communion with it, nor shall there be anything common between him and it. And those who do not observe what has been decreed, and attempt to do any of the things forbidden by the canon, it is resolved shall be punished by the loss of their own rank, that is, by deposition. But the 16th Novel, situated in the third title of the third book of the *Basilica*, decreed that if a cleric dies in any church, another should not be immediately ordained there, but it commands that some be summoned from another church in which there are more clerics than the number originally appointed for each one from the beginning, and that they be brought in to replace those who have died, until the clerics of each church are recalled to the number prescribed at the beginning. ^B

ARIST. A cleric is not to be enrolled in the churches of two cities; but if he has been so enrolled, he shall be restored to the former. And if anyone has already been transferred, he shall not in any way communicate with the affairs of the former church. It is not permitted for the same man to serve under two bishops, and to be a cleric for both; but if, out of a desire for vain glory, he flee to a greater church, he shall be restored again to that in which he was first ordained; but if he was transferred with the consent of his own bishop to another church and co-opted into the clergy there, let him have no part at all in the affairs of the former church, unless he wishes to fall from his own rank by attempting such things out of insatiable greed. ^C

CANON XI.

^A commendatory letters, since commendatory letters ought to be provided only to those persons who are under suspicion.

BALS. ^B Commendatory letters are said to be those which are given to clerics by the bishops who ordained them, recommending them and declaring their ordination, as is apparent from the thirteenth canon of the present synod. But "commendatory" letters are distinct from those which are given to bishops, or to clerics, or even to laymen who have been excommunicated or who have otherwise fallen into ill repute, as is shown by the present canon.

"Dimissory" letters, which are also called "pacific" letters, are something else. They are called "dimissory" because they show that, by the will and with the dismissal of the (original) bishop, the cleric or bishop is to move elsewhere. They are called "pacific" because, when such a writing is produced by one who has been ordained, there shall be peace between the bishops. For neither will he who receives the foreign cleric grieve his fellow-bishop and suffer prejudice, nor will the cleric be harmed, as if he were insulting the one who ordained him. The canon therefore says that those who do not need commendatory letters—that is, those who are not ^C under suspicion—shall travel with pacific letters.

Pacific letters are those given by bishops to clerics who wish to cross over to another city for some need and be inscribed in the clergy there; or those given to bishops by archbishops when they are traveling to the emperor for some necessity. It is furthermore said that the symbols—the episcopal writings—are to be emulated, by which it is the custom that guests arriving from wherever they may go, and those with whom they arrive, are in every way to be lodged and deemed worthy of care, as being known and most dear through the testimony of the symbol. ^D There is also the matter of setting up lodgings and guesthouses, and the philanthropy toward those in need, and other such things as are contained in the epistolary symbols, by which we send from nation to nation those who are in need.

*Guill. Beveregii note.*

And also Matthew Blastares, lib. A, cap. 9, affirm, in support of which the scholiast of Harmenopulus (Harmenop. epit. sect. 5, tit. 2) agrees, that these are to be understood according to the canon of the Council of Antioch, since it treats not of laymen but of clerics. But the present canon speaks of the poor in general, including laymen, and decrees that whoever is in need of assistance shall not set out on a journey except with pacific letters. These are indeed well described by Sozomen, where he speaks of Julian: "But he was said especially to admire the symbols and 'tesserae' of episcopal letters, by which it is the custom for strangers arriving from anywhere to be received by one another as friends and acquaintances, and to be kindly cared for, because of the testimony of such a note." Sozom. Hist. eccl. lib. V, c. 16.

And Gregory Nazianzen, also having words about the same apostate, says: "Furthermore, he decided to build lodgings and guesthouses, and to join to this his philanthropy toward the poor—both that [charity] in general, and that which consists in epistolary symbols, by which we translate the needy from nation to nation." Greg. Naz. orat. 1, adv. Jul. From these it is evident that such pacific letters were once in frequent use, and it is inferred that they were used even in the times of Tertullian from his own words: "Communication of peace, and the appellation of brotherhood, and the exchange of hospitality," which rights no other reason governs than the one tradition of the same sacrament. Tertul. De praescript. adv. haeret. cap. 20. For those words, "the exchange of hospitality," indicate that some symbol was used among Christians at that time, by which, when it was shown, they were received into hospitality by each other. Now he calls the exchange of hospitality—from that hospital 'tessera' which the pagans themselves were accustomed to give to their guests, cut in half, so that those who brought it could be recognized immediately and received into hospitality as old friends and guests—the "contesseratio." Whence Plautus in the *Poenulus*, Act V:

Ag. If you seek the adopted son of Antidamas the demarch. I am he whom you seek. Poen. Hem! What do I hear? Ag. That I am the son of Antidamas. Poen. If it is so, If you wish to compare the hospitality tessera, here I have brought it. Ag. Come, show it hither. It is a perfect match, for I have mine at home. Poen. O my guest, greetings most hearty; for to me, my guest, Thy father, therefore, was a guest to Antidamas. I have this hospitality tessera with him. Ag. Therefore, here at my house, hospitality will be provided for you.

Hence "to break the tessera" is the same as violating the right of hospitality; whence the same Plautus in the *Cistellaria*, Act II:

Here among us, Alcesimarche, you have now broken the tessera.

But in the pacific letters which bishops were accustomed to give to poor travelers, so that the faithful might provide for them, two things are contained: that those who brought them really were poor, and that they were worthy of receiving alms. Indeed, the Egyptian Josephus interpreted this first part of this canon thus: "Concerning all the poor who beg for alms, we command now that letters be written for them when an inquiry has been made into their affairs, and [that it be noted] that they are worthy of alms, and that they lack the necessities of life. For whatever is necessary in letters of this kind is referred to these two headings."

^B For there is no discourse here concerning those who need commendatory letters, but we ought to furnish them with peace letters alone. This was defined concerning the poor and those needing assistance, not as if the others who are under the bishop ought not to be provided for in this way, but because those who are in poverty have greater need of ecclesiastical assistance. It was well added that these are to be given after an examination. For if the request of the one in need is unjust, even if he is poor, a letter will not be given to him. Seek the 12th, 15th, 16th, and 33rd Apostolic canons, the 17th canon of the synod in Trullo, and the 11th of the synod of Antioch, which deposes a bishop who has gone to the emperor without a peace letter from his metropolitan. That bishops are compelled to assist all those under them by letters, if they cannot appear in person, is shown by the 7th and 8th canons of the Synod of Sardica. Note therefore that those who wish to perform sacred services in other dioceses must produce not only commendatory letters, but also peace letters.

ZONARAS. Peace letters are those which are otherwise called dimissory [note 9], such as those given to bishops by the metropolitans to whom they are subject, and to metropolitans by the patriarchs by whom they are appointed, when they go to the emperor for some necessary cause; and such are those which are handed over to clerics by their own bishops, if they wish to migrate to another city and be enrolled in the clergy of the church there, as is contained in the 17th canon of the synod in the palace of Trullo. There are also others of the same kind. They are called "peace" letters, as if they procure peace. For if any cleric departs from one city to another without the consent of his own bishop, both the cleric himself and the one who admits him are subject to a penalty. For the cleric is suspended from ministry, and the bishop who received him is excommunicated according to the 15th and 16th Apostolic canons. Moreover, those bishops who go to the emperor without letters from their metropolitan and the bishops of the province, fall away not only from communion but also from their priestly dignity, according to the 11th canon of the Synod of Antioch. Commendatory letters are called those which are entrusted to clerics or laymen who have previously been excommunicated or to those who are altogether unknown ^D and are migrating to another city, commending the men to the bishop in that city as being released from censures or as being faithful, according to the 12th Apostolic canon.

Balsamon conflates dimissory letters with peace letters here. And they are often conflated by others. And indeed, if peace letters given to clerics are understood, they were almost the same as dimissory letters, and might deservedly be called by the same name; inasmuch as when these are shown, any cleric can be admitted into the clergy of a foreign diocese, concerning which you may see the notes on the 17th canon of the synod in Trullo. But peace letters properly so called, which are understood by this canon, were far different; as they were not given to clerics to join the clergy, but to the poor, so that they might be received into a hospice elsewhere. So that the distinction observed by us previously between peace letters granted to clerics and to laymen explains this passage excellently. For even if peace letters granted to laymen are not properly called dimissory, Balsamon rightly says here of those that are given to clerics that they are dimissory letters, which are also called peace letters.

^A and the 33rd canon; or when an accusation happens against someone, and the accused appears innocent, and a letter is given to him recommending him to the person to whom he was sent, and declaring that he was accused slanderously. Since these letters are such, the canon says that for the poor and those needing help, and for this reason approaching the Church, peace letters must be given from the Church, and not commendatory ones. For the bishops were under an obligation to take up the cause of the poor, or of orphans and widows, who sought refuge with the Church, as being perhaps oppressed, or treated unjustly, or deprived of what belonged to them; and this to such an extent, that whereas bishops were prohibited from going to the emperor for their own petitions and disturbing him, they were permitted to do this for those who sought refuge in the Church, or to send their own deacons for the assistance ^B of those in need, and for the reconciliation of those who had been condemned to be punished or exiled by reason of a fault, as the 7th and 8th canons of the Synod of Sardica describe. Therefore, to those who in any way stood in need of assistance, the bishops would hand over letters helping them in the matters for which they were in need, and those were called peace letters, as granting peace to those suffering an unjust judgment through the anger of rulers or powerful men. The canon, however, ordains that these be provided to them after examination. For one must not help everyone who approaches simply and unexamined, but rather the one who is being treated unjustly. For if someone approaches the Church who is doing injustice or committing crimes, one should not assist such persons. For, it says, "Do not show pity to a poor man in his cause" (Exod. xxiii, 6). For since poverty is easily susceptible to pity, the Scripture says, "Do not show pity to one who does injustice in a judgment, even if he is poor." If, therefore, a debtor takes refuge in the Church, the bishop must take care that he is not demanded for anything unjustly; but what he owes justly, he shall pay, the bishop in no way hindering this. And likewise regarding the rest.

ARIST. Let the poor who are in need of assistance travel with peace letters, but not commendatory ones; for commendatory letters are provided only to those who are above suspicion.

^D A peace letter is that which is handed to the person coming without any scandal; but a commendatory one is that which testifies to the blamelessness of life and religion of the person bringing it. Those, therefore, who are poor and in need of help must travel with peace letters from the bishops, so that those who are able to provide them with help may be moved to mercy toward them. But for commendatory letters...

these are provided to priests, deacons, and others in the clergy.

CANON XII

BALS. Imperial commands are called pragmatic types. Therefore, the canon says that since some bishops, because of a desire for authority, have striven by imperial command to be honored as metropolitans, and from this have divided one province into two metropolitans, they ought to be deposed—not only the one who acquired such an imperial mandate, but also the one who dared to attempt such a thing. However, as for those churches which, before the present canon, were favored with the honor of a metropolis from the dignity of a bishopric by imperial commands, it is ordained that they possess only the honor, inasmuch as the remaining rights pertaining to them ought to remain for the true metropolis without any innovation. ^B Since these things are determined by the canon, someone might say: And how have various emperors honored various bishoprics into metropolises? For immediately, the metropolis of Lacedaemon was a bishopric of the ancient Patras, Madytos that of Heraclea, and Abydos that of Cyzicus. And other bishoprics were also honored. It seems to me, therefore, from the 38th canon of the synod in Trullo and the 17th canon of the present synod, that such divisions are made by emperors according to the power given to them from above. For this reason, the first chapter of the first title of the 3rd book of the *Basilica* has also been rendered obsolete, which was placed into the 20th chapter of the first title of the present work. ^C But some desired to learn what rights ought to pertain to the first, that is, the metropolitan, in a church that has been promoted from a bishopric to the dignity of a metropolis; and it was told to them that except for the fact that the bishopric is called a metropolis, in all other respects it must be subject to the ancient metropolis. For its bishop shall be ordained by the ancient metropolitan, and shall be judged by him, and shall be simply subject to him. Read also the 2nd canon of the Second Synod, and the 6th and 7th canons of the First Synod. ^D But these things are transformed differently by imperial command, as was said above. Read also the 38th canon of the synod in Trullo, and especially the imperial constitution, which is partially contained in its exposition.

^A But since in the month of April of the eleventh indiction, in the year 6701, a golden bull of our most God-crowned, most powerful, and holy emperor, the lord Isaac Angelos, was issued, which, while commanding that the metropolitans be recalled to the bishoprics pertaining to them, and to the metropoleis or archbishoprics which had been honored, at the same time stops the mouths of those who would thereafter attempt to deprive the imperial prerogative of elevating bishoprics to metropoleis or archbishoprics according to the authority given them from above; it was asked by some: “What is the content of this canon, given that the honored metropoleis have only the honor, while other rights are preserved for the true metropolis?” We say that the doubt concerning this is resolved by the same imperial edict. For it was discussed, and after many legal arguments were brought forward to show that this matter was just, these things were explicitly stated for its sake: both that by universal reason and by a generally set-forth disposition, the churches which are raised to a higher throne by imperial command ought also to be considered worthy of honor, and that elections ought to proceed freely according to the canonical form which has been observed in the Great Church, with the metropolitans assembling and electing the archbishops and metropolitans, which my imperial majesty discerns, and which ^B the divine and holy synod will follow in this decree; in order that it may accurately preserve ecclesiastical rite and not fall away from canonical rectitude. Read, therefore, the said document at length, and say to those who argue that, unless it is added by imperial authority at the time a bishopric is raised to a metropolis or archbishopric that their elections are to be made according to patriarchal prompting, the true metropolitan shall perform their election, [say to them] that this [practice] is guarded even until now in the case of the ecumenical patriarch, who is ordained by the archbishop of Heraclea, because Constantinople, or Byzantium, was once a bishopric of Heraclea: [say to them] that from such a document all such legal argument is removed, and the [patriarch] of Constantinople is not necessarily ordained by the bishop of Heraclea. For it has been found that Stephen, brother of the emperor the lord Leo the Wise, was ordained patriarch of Constantinople by Theophanes, metropolitan of Caesarea; and a few years ago, Leontius [was ordained] by Demetrios, [metropolitan] of Caesarea.

^C ZONARAS. Certain bishops, on account of ambition and love of rule, used to approach the emperors through written commands—for these are what are called pragmatic types—and would petition that their own bishoprics be honored with the title of metropolis. As a result, it happened that one province was divided into two, and the same province had two metropolitans, and in this way the bishops of that province were torn apart by mutual differences and contentions. This is what once happened in the province of Cappadocia, when the city of Tyana was made a new metropolis, as Gregory the Theologian says in the ^D epitaph of the great Basil. For these reasons...

^A the Synod enacted this canon, forbidding such things from occurring, and forbidding bishops from seeking to have new metropolises named. It decrees that anyone attempting such an action shall be deposed, even just for the attempt. For it does not punish only the one who carries an attempt into action, but the one who merely attempts it, even if he does not attain his desire. But it decreed that these things apply after the canon; as for the cities honored as metropolises before the canon by imperial letters (for what he called "pragmatic" above, he here clarified and called "imperial letters"), he permitted them to enjoy the honor only, and for the bishops in them not to harass the old metropolis, but for the one that is truly the metropolis to be preserved, as one that had firmly acquired the title by length of time, and for all its rights to be preserved without anything being snatched away by the new metropolitan. And this canon is not observed, for some bishops even in our own time have been raised to the rank of metropolis by imperial mandates.

ARIST. One province is not to be divided into two provinces; and he who divides it is to be deposed. But those cities honored by imperial letter shall enjoy the honor alone, and the bishop there; but to the true metropolis its own rights shall be preserved. ^B The bishop who approaches the powers that be and strives to have his bishopric honored with the title of a metropolis, so that from this the one province is divided into two, shall fall from his own rank. As for those bishoprics that reached the point of being honored as metropolises by imperial letters, not through the striving of the bishops, but rather because of their virtue or the honor of the cities, they shall enjoy the honor, and that alone; but the rights of the true metropolis, under which they were formerly subject, shall be preserved for it. For the bishop of this city will sit above the one thereafter honored by the emperor, and all the bishoprics of the province will have him, and him alone, as metropolitan, and they shall not be divided in accordance with the division of the province; and whatever other episcopal right he had in the entire province, it shall be preserved ^C for him in its entirety, and nothing at all of his privileges shall be taken away, but shall be granted to the one who has been honored ^D.

CANON XVII

*Externos clericos et ignotos in alia civitate sine proprii episcopi commendatitiis litteris nusquam ullo modo ministrare.*

BALS. The holy Fathers again define that those who are enrolled in the clergy in one church are not to officiate in another city without commendatory letters from their own bishop. And some have said that "commendatory letters" here means "dimissory letters"; but others have said that the canon speaks of commendatory letters which are given to people who have been accused and, after an examination, have been found innocent. But to me it seems that the canon...

^A regulates matters concerning the commendatory letters which certify a cleric for ordination, and which dismiss him to exercise his ministry elsewhere. For those letters that certify the reputation of each person, which are called commendatory, are also given to laymen, of which there is no mention here. Read also the interpretation of Canon 11.

ZONAR. Even before this synod, the divine apostles defined ^B by the fifteenth apostolic canon that whoever, having left his own diocese, has moved to another without the consent of his own bishop, as long as he remains in that contumacy, is to be kept away from the sacred ministry and is to communicate only in the manner of laymen. And so, the present canon ordains the same things, and it orders him who goes away to another city without letters from his bishop to exercise his ministry neither there nor anywhere else. For this is what “nowhere and in no way” means. ^C Since, however, there is here a mention of commendatory letters, it is shown from this that the clerics who departed from their own diocese had previously been accused of some crime. For commendatory letters are given to those who have been accused when they have shown themselves to be innocent, as has already been made manifest, or because they had been excommunicated by their own bishop.

ARIST. A cleric without commendatory letters is not received into the communion of another city. This is posited in many of the canons, because those who are ordained in a foreign diocese, not bringing with them the commendatory letters of their own bishops, are not permitted to serve in another city.

CANON XIV

Since in some provinces it has been permitted to lectors and cantors to marry, the holy synod has decreed that it is not permitted for any of them to take a wife of a different religious opinion; and as for those who have already procreated children from such a marriage, if they have already baptized them among heretics, they are to bring them to the communion of the Catholic Church. If, however, they have not yet baptized them, they have no power to baptize them subsequently among heretics, nor indeed to unite them in marriage to a heretic, or a Jew (12), or a Gentile, unless the person who is to be united to the orthodox person promises to convert to the orthodox faith. But if anyone should transgress this decree of the holy synod, let him be subjected to canonical punishment.

BALS. As it seems, in some provinces lectors and cantors were permitted to enter into matrimonial contracts, in accordance with the twenty-sixth apostolic canon, while in others they were irrationally forbidden even from doing so. It has been defined, therefore, by the present canon that, even if it is permitted for them to take wives, yet they may not...

be joined to women of a diverse and erroneous opinion, and that those who have brought forth children from such a marriage must bring them to the Church of the ^A orthodox, so that if they have already been baptized by heretics, they may be anointed only with the holy chrism; but if not, they may be baptized by the Church. Similarly, it is defined that their children must not be joined to heretics, or to Jews, or to Greeks, unless the forbidden persons promise to depart from their own heresy or superstition. For then, if they come over to the orthodox faith, the marriage shall also follow. ^B The synod, however, subjects those who transgress these things to canonical penalties. Read the 10th and 31st canons of the synod of Laodicea, and the 21st canon of that of Carthage, and you will find that a marriage contracted with a heretic is to be annulled. I think, however, that along with the annulment, they should also be punished according to the present canon. For thus the canons will be brought into harmony. It was also rightly said that the children born before this ought to be brought to the communion of the Church. For you know that heretics are divided into two classes: into those who accept what is in our view the mystery and the divine condescension, but are mistaken in some things—whom we anoint only with chrism when they approach—and into those who do not accept this at all and are infidels, namely Jews and Greeks, whom we also baptize. Therefore, by the term "communion" both were indicated, so that they must either be anointed with chrism or baptized. Read the 7th canon of the Second Synod, chapter 1 of title 4 of book 28 of the *Basilica*, and the 95th ^C canon of the synod in Trullo. And note that, according to the present canon, it seems that a part of the Church compels us to reject the Latins who wish to take wives from Romania.

ZONARAS. This same thing was also ordained by the synod of Laodicea in the 10th and 31st canons, and ordained by that in Carthage in the 21st, and the ecumenical synod assembled in the palace in Trullo defined it more broadly. But the synod in Carthage speaks only of clerics, just as this canon does; but that in Laodicea, and that in Trullo, condemn the marriages of all orthodox persons whatsoever with heretics, and decree that they are voided, even if they were contracted by a nuptial bond. However, not in all places—as the very words of this canon sufficiently indicate—was it permitted to readers and cantors, once they had been co-opted into that order, to take ^D wives, even though the Apostolic canon 26 contains these things: "Of those who have entered into the clergy, we command that only readers and cantors who desire to marry may do so." Therefore, the synod utterly forbids orthodox clerics from being joined in the future in marriage with women who are alien to the true religion. But as for those who have already been joined and have also brought forth children, it commands that they must bring their own children to the catholic Church, even if they have already been baptized by heretics. For if they are brought, they shall either be anointed with the holy chrism alone, if they were baptized by heretics whose baptism is considered acceptable to the Church, or if they were initiated by a rite alien to ecclesiastical custom and condemned, they shall be purified by the saving waters in a repeated baptism.

^A Since those baptized by heretics are in no way to be rebaptized, and since no one ought to make any agreement regarding the marriage of their own children with a heretic, a Jew, or a Greek. Heretics are those who so receive the mysteries of our religion that they nevertheless hallucinate in certain matters and dissent from the orthodox. But the Jews, who have defiled themselves with the impious parricide of Christ, and by the appellation of Greeks, are meant those who are utterly alien to the faith and are worshippers of idols. But if any heretic or infidel promises that he wishes to embrace the faith, it is decreed that no pact of marriage may be made with him, nor is it permitted to celebrate such marriages until the one who has made the promise has fulfilled it. He who acts otherwise shall be subject to canonical penalties.

^B ARIST. A cantor or reader estranged from the true faith, if he has begotten children after taking a wife, brings them to communion if they have been baptized there. But if they are not yet baptized, they are not thereafter to be baptized by heretics. Both the tenth canon and the thirty-first of the Synod of Laodicea, and the second of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, as well as this present one, forbid an orthodox person from being joined in marriage to a heretic woman, or vice versa. If, however, any of the cantors or readers took a woman of another sect before these canons were issued, and had children by her, and baptized them while remaining among the heretics, let him bring these into the communion of the Catholic Church. But if he has them as yet unbaptized, and is no longer conducting his life among the heretics, let him have them baptized; but withdrawing from there, let him bring them to the Catholic Church and deem them worthy of divine baptism.

CANON XV.

^C BALS. The matters treated in the present canon have entirely fallen into disuse. For a deaconess is not ordained today, even if some of the ascetic women are abusively called deaconesses. For there is a canon which decrees that women must not enter into the holy sanctuary. What woman, then, who cannot approach the holy altar, will perform the duties of a deacon? Read the 14th canon of the Synod in Trullo, and the 15th, which say that a deaconess who has been ordained before completing her fortieth year is to be deposed. The present canon, however, says that a woman who gives herself to marriage after ordination is to be anathematized, as one who does injury to the grace of God. Regarding nuns, the following canon teaches. See also the 17th and 24th canons of Basil the Great.

^D ZONAR. Since women are either led by deceits or...

slip into worse things all too easily, it is for this reason forbidden by the sanction of this canon that a deaconess be chosen under forty years of age. The same was also established by the 14th and 15th canons of the ecumenical synod at the Trullo, and it commands that those who anticipate the times appointed for each order be deposed. ^A But this canon admits even this forty-year-old woman only after a strict examination, her manner of life having been first diligently explored and approved. If, however, after having been enrolled in the roster of deaconesses, she should, in the passage of time, reject the gift of the Holy Spirit and entangle herself in marriage, it decrees that both the woman and the man with whom she has been united are to be smitten with anathema. But the great apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, says: “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old” (1 Tim. V, 9). Why, then, with Paul having so commanded, did this synod determine that one who is to be ordained a deaconess must be forty years of age? They say, then, that the Apostle legislated concerning widows, while this synod legislated concerning virgins. For one who until the fortieth year has kept herself in chastity and has remained untried by the pleasure of carnal union, and who has received the gift of the diaconate, is not easily believed to fall away into marriage and be inflamed with the desire for that intercourse of which she has not yet had experience. But a widow, having once been led to a man’s bed and having been delighted by the allurements of pleasure, will be more prone to lust. Hence, also, the great Basil, in his eighteenth canon, although the sin is equal, nonetheless inflicts a heavier penalty upon a virgin ^B chosen from the canonical sanctions than upon a widow. And he compares the widow indeed to a slave who has committed fornication and filled her master’s house with filth; but he compares the virgin to a bride who has been defiled by adultery. Therefore, he orders the virgin to be subjected to the penalties for adulteresses, but the widow to be punished like a slave caught in a flagrant crime. Thus, the great Apostle judged that a widow, because she is far more prone to lust than a virgin, ought to be chosen at a more advanced age. ^C Hence also that wisest Basil, speaking in his twenty-fourth canon about a widow who, having been entered into the number of widows, had later married, adds: “If, however, we have enrolled her in the order of widows before she is sixty years old, it is our crime, not the woman’s.” ARIST. A deaconess is not to be ordained unless she is forty years old. But to her who has brought disgrace upon the sacred office through a marriage entered into, let there be anathema. It is not proper for a woman to be ordained a deaconess before the fortieth year. But if she is ordained when she has reached the fortieth year of her age, and after ordination engages in marriage, she is to be anathematized, as having done injury to the grace of God.

CANON XVI

[COMMUNION]. But if they are found doing this, let them be excommunicated. We have decreed, however, that the bishop of the place possesses the authority of philanthropy toward them. ^B

BALS. In old times, certain women used to approach God in lay dress and profess virginity. The Fathers therefore determine that those who have made this profession, whether they be men who are monks or whether they be women, must not depart from what they have vowed and professed, nor should they be joined in matrimony. Those who transgress these things must be excommunicated, that is, separated. They have, however, committed the power of separation, or its extension or reduction, to the bishop of the region. Today, however, in Constantinople there are neither virgins consecrated to God in lay dress, nor is there a house of virgins (which is called a *Parthenon*). Only that holy metropolitan of Thebes, Caloctenes, built a parthenon in Thebes and ordained lay virgins within it. And for this reason, his monument is eternal, and thanks ought to be given to him for this reason. But if you wish to call such ascetics virgins, you will find no obstacle, unless you also wish—because of their tonsure and the fact that their agreements or vows are made in Church—to equate them with monks. Read the 19th canon of the Council of Ancyra, which subjects them to the penalties of bigamists; and the 44th of the Trullan Council; and the 60th and 19th of Basil the Great. For some condemn those who break their vows as fornicators, others as adulterers. Do not, therefore, think there is any contradiction among them, but say that since the penalty has been granted to the power of the bishop, he himself will punish the sin according to what he deems right, after examination. Read also book 28, title 6, chapter 1, in which it is decreed not only that illicit marriages—such as those with a relative, or those done contrary to the precepts of the laws, or with a woman of whom he who leads her holds guardianship—are to be separated, but also nefariously or damnable ones, specifically that with a woman dedicated to God; but also that those who have contracted them are to be publicly exposed and segregated, and if they are of lowly standing, even beaten with scourges. Wherefore, not only will what the Novel commands be done, but penalties will also follow. ^C

ZONAR. The canon wishes those who have bound themselves to the laws of virginity as men or women, and have offered themselves to God as an offering, ^D to remain in the counsel they have undertaken and in no way to invalidate the faith of their promise. For if covenants between men are accustomed to be confirmed with God as a mediator or witness, according to the opinion of the theologians, what shall we think will be done to him who has not hesitated to deceive God himself, to whom he was bound by a voluntary agreement? Whoever, therefore, having made a profession of continence, then binds himself in marriage, the canon decrees that they be deprived of communion, that is, that they be subject to separation; yet in such a way that something of clemency be imparted to such persons, and that the whole penalty... [index: entries preserved]

^A be curtailed by the authority of the local bishop.

The nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra says: They who have bound themselves by a vow of virginity, if they break the faith of their promise, let them be judged by the laws concerning digamists.

The forty-fourth canon of the Sixth Synod held in the Trullo says: A monk who is caught in fornication, or who has taken a woman to be his wife, shall pay the penalties of fornicators.

But truly the sixtieth canon of the great Basil contains thus: Whatever woman has professed virginity and has fallen from her promise, she is ordered to expend the time of the penalty for adultery in the dispensation of her own life. And by the same law, it is resolved that monks also, if they sin, be held. And it is decreed by the eleventh canon of the same Basil that these also, if they have professed the monastic life but afterwards turn themselves to a soft and voluptuous life, be held by the penalties of fornicators.

ARIST. Let not monks or nuns contract marriage; but if they shall have done so, let them be excommunicated.

These, falling from their promise and violating their covenants, are subject to excommunication. And the sixtieth canon of the great Basil subjects them to the penalty of fornication.

CANON XVII.

Rural and village parishes in every province shall remain firm and unshakeable in the possession of the bishops who hold them: and especially if they have administered them for thirty years without violence, holding them in possession. But if within thirty years there has been or shall be any controversy concerning them, it shall be lawful for those who say that they have been wronged to bring a lawsuit concerning them before the synod of the province. And if anyone should be wronged by his own metropolitan, let him ^B appeal to the exarch of the diocese.

Guill. Beveregii notes.

In the Amerbachian codex, this scholium is annexed to the present canon concerning rural and vicinal parishes: ^D By rural parishes he calls those which are situated in the very extremities, which they also call monœcia; by vicinal, those which are placed in the midst of fields or villages. Nor does this conflict with the eighth canon of the Council of Ephesus, which cautions that no one shall leap into another’s parish, but if anything of the sort has been presumed, it shall be restored to its own master. For one thing is being discussed by those Fathers, and another in the present canon. For they speak of peoples already long since joined together, and of cities and villages formerly subject to one bishop, but afterwards possessed by those who are accustomed to usurp the property of others: but the present Fathers speak of fields, concerning which it is likely that the bishop who first occupied them did not have much regard, as for things useless and vile and neglected. ^C Another scholium in the Amerbachian codex is subjoined to the present canon, which deals most learnedly concerning exarchs, and it stands thus: He calls those exarchs under whom metropolitans operate; and these would be the patriarchs, by whom also the Council wishes that the cases which are judged against metropolitans should be judged, or by him of Constantinople, the synod having honored this throne with an exceptional privilege. That he calls the bishops of the first-seat, who are the patriarchs, exarchs, is also proven by the thirty-ninth canon of the one in Carthage, forbidding that they should be called by the title of exarch. But if one says that the sixth canon of the one in Sardica calls the metropolitan an exarch, he will speak the truth, but will say nothing of importance to the present question. For this very canon now proposed, of the one in Chalcedon, saying that he who is wronged by the metropolitan must be judged by the exarch, shows that the exarch is a different person from the metropolitan. But if any reasoning enters [one’s mind], whether perhaps the canon means the exarchs who are sent by the patriarchs for certain ecclesiastical administrations, for they are so named according to the usage now prevailing, this reasoning also finds no place. For first, why, when the other thrones have...

exarchs, will the throne of Constantinople not have them? Furthermore, the opposite of the conclusions ^A sought by those arguing against this will be established, if Constantinople is excepted here. For if the bishops and clergy under the other thrones, when in dispute with their metropolitans, were intending to make appeals to the exarchs sent by their respective patriarchs, or to the patriarch of Constantinople, then does the patriarch of Constantinople alone have the privilege of judging the bishops, clergy, and metropolitans of the other patriarchs and dissolving their disputes? And a third absurdity follows: that the other patriarchs are entirely barred from judging those subject to them. But the authority of these exarchs would be greater [if they were the ones to receive appeals] rather than the patriarch of Constantinople. Thus, the privilege is in every way preserved for the [throne of] Constantinople, excepted here, both by the present 17th canon and by the 9th.

Patriarchal rights: exarchs

^B An injunction given to the exarchs: "Exarchs of the dioceses," and "Exarch of the whole diocese, the metropolitan."

Guill. Beveridge’s Note.

^A This, however, is not true, as is shown by the end of the canon which says that the emperor can, in those cities which have been or will be innovated by him, determine whatever he wishes regarding episcopal rights. Read also canon 12 of the present synod and canon 38 of the synod in Trullo. ^B Now what this present canon says is as follows: Some wanted the canons that speak of regions or dioceses to be understood as referring to the regions of cities, and not to vile and rural ones. It was decreed, therefore, that bishops should hold without controversy the regions possessed by them for thirty years without force, whether they are rural or small ones, which are also called *monoikia* (this means having only one house), or whether they are *egchorioi*, that is, having many inhabitants. But if, within the thirty years, another bishop institutes an action for this reason, what is to be decided about it will be observed before the synod of the province. But if a metropolitan injures his own bishop, the dispute regarding the borders will be adjudicated before the exarch of the diocese or the patriarch. ^C Whatever is decreed by the emperors through public forms or imperial orders concerning cities innovated or to be innovated by them is to remain as decreed, since the Church ought to follow those things that are thus decreed. Since these things are so, do not say that those who possess regions for thirty years without force cannot be moved, but that those who are not like this—that is, those who possess by force—can be sued even after the thirtieth year. But read the last chapter of title 2, book 5 of the *Basilica*, or the chapter of the Novel, saying thus: "Every action pertaining to a venerable house, whether it is personal or hypothecary, does not exceed forty years, with the appropriate prescriptions fitting each such pious house, while observing their own proper times"; and read the ancient law that is outside it, which says thus: "The present Novel constitution applies the forty-year prescription to churches acting against private individuals. But canon 17 of the synod of Chalcedon, placed in chapter 5 of title 1 of the Nomocanon, gives a thirty-year space to churches acting against churches." Do not be surprised at this. ^D For from this same Novel, and from chapter 3 of title 3 of book 5, or rather Novel 134, churches have other privileges also. For this chapter says: "But instead of long-term prescriptions of ten, twenty, and thirty years, we command that only the prescription of forty years be opposed to holy churches and all other venerable places." This same thing is also observed in the case of legacies left for pious causes. Wherefore, churches, if they are not acting against pious houses, are excluded only by the space of forty years. But those who act against them are pushed out by the churches through legal exceptions. However, when churches act against one another, they shall not have the forty-year privilege, but will use the common law. Note, however, from this canon, that the emperor is permitted to take away ecclesiastical privileges. For if it is permitted to them to ordain what they wish regarding the borders of regions for the innovated cities...

much more, as it seems to me, will they honor a bishopric with the status of a metropolis, and prescribe certain things of this kind by their power. ^B

ZONAR. The usurpation of the rights of others, the harming of neighbors, and the seizing of things that do not belong to oneself are things forbidden to all in common; much more so, however, are they forbidden to bishops, who also ought to stand as an archetype for those under them for the imitation of every good thing. This canon therefore decrees that parœciae are to be unshakeable by those who possess them, whether they be rural or local, effectively the same thing as the decree of the third synod held at Ephesus commands; except that that synod legislated concerning provinces and larger regions in which bishops even used to be ordained, while this one legislates concerning parœciae, which might even be small and not populous regions, which it divides into rural and local. It says, then, that "rural" are those situated in remote places and cultivated by a small number of inhabitants, which are also called *monoikia* (that is, having one dwelling); while "local" are those near fields and villages, and containing a greater number of inhabitants. ^C It is therefore decreed by this canon that such parœciae, whatever they might be, may not be taken away from the bishops who possess them, and that they belong to them even more if they have held and administered them for thirty years without interruption—that is, without having forced anyone, but in good faith, or without any unjust cause. For the thirty-year period established their possession as secure. But if anyone within the thirty years stirs up trouble, saying that such a parœcia belongs to him, it is willed that the case be examined by the synod of the province. But if the bishop of the region blames his own metropolitan, they are to have the case judged by the Exarch of the diocese, or by the bishop of Constantinople. Some, indeed, say that the Exarchs of the dioceses are the patriarchs, and they use for the establishment of their own argument the 39th canon of the synod of Carthage, ^D which says: "The bishop of the first see shall not be called Exarch of the priests, or high priest, or anything of that sort, but only bishop of the first see." Others say that the metropolitans of the provinces are called Exarchs, adducing the sixth canon of the synod of Sardica in proof, which says: "He ought to be admonished by the letters of the Exarch of the province, I mean the bishop of the metropolis." It would be better for the metropolitans of the provinces to be called Exarchs, as the said canon of the synod of Sardica named them; so that the meaning of this canon is of this kind, dividing, that is, the courts, and when a bishop brings a charge against a fellow bishop, or a cleric against a bishop, then the metropolitan sits as judge, even if he also calls him the Exarch of the diocese; but when a bishop [acts] against the metropolitan

^A then the court of Constantinople permits the judgment. But the bishop of Constantinople is not necessarily established as judge for all metropolitans, but only for those subject to him. For he shall not drag the metropolitans of Syria, or those of Palestine and Phoenicia, or those of Egypt, against their will to his own tribunal, but those of Syria are subject to the tribute of the see of Antioch; those of Palestine to that of Jerusalem; and those of Egypt shall be judged before the see of Alexandria, by whom they are also ordained, and to whom they are subject. Others were also called Exarchs, that is, the bishops of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and of Ephesus, and of Thessalonica, and of Corinth, to whom it is said that for this reason the privilege was granted ^B to wear the *polystauria* (16) in their churches.

ARIST. If a local and rural parish has been possessed for thirty years, let it be possessed [legally]. But if [the controversy] arises within that time, let it be subject to litigation (17). If a city has been renovated (18) by imperial decree, let the order of ecclesiastical parishes also follow civil and public forms.

If churches have had lawsuits against private individuals regarding certain immovable properties, and have remained quiet for forty years, in no way bringing trouble to those who possess them, they can no longer powerfully move against them, being excluded by the demurrer. But if one church has [a claim] against another church, since they are of equal right and both are such, if for thirty years it has not spoken but has remained quiet, if it moves [a case] after this, it is thrust out through the prescription of time. The present canon therefore decrees that if any of the bishops have held rural ^C or local parishes of other bishoprics for thirty years, let them possess them unshakably; but if within the thirty years a dispute has arisen about them, the possessors shall not be cast out by the lapse of the thirty years, but they shall be judged concerning them before the synod of the province, with those who fancy themselves wronged. "Rural and local parishes" are to be understood here not as some cities or villages, but as fields—local [fields] being those lying in the midst of fields and villages, and rural [fields] being those situated at a distance from them and established in the outskirts, which they ^D now call *monoeikia*.

[Guill. Beveregii notes appended at bottom of page]

(16) *Polystauria*. These are called patriarchal vestments, from the many crosses with which they are sprinkled; which were so peculiar to patriarchs that it was not permitted for other bishops to put them on or wear them. Balsamon: "Just as, therefore, there should not be given to any bishop the favors granted to the patriarchs through vestments, namely the *sakkos* and the *polystaurion*." Balsamon's response to Marcus of Alexandria, interrogation 37. Since, therefore, the prelates in Caesarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus, Thessalonica, and Corinth were also called Exarchs, and for this reason could wear *polystauria* in their churches, as Zonaras asserts here, it is evident that they were honored with some part of patriarchal dignity, for which cause they were called Exarchs or patriarchs.

(17) ...let them be subject to litigation; so that the meaning may be, they should be subject to judgment. Truly, both in his text and in ours, after "within this," something seems to be missing; which from Aristenus's own scholia is perhaps to be supplied thus: "If, however, within this [time], a dispute has arisen about them, let them be subject to litigation," if therefore a controversy has arisen within this time concerning them, let them be subject to judgment.

(18) ...renovated. In Justellus's Bibliotheca this last part of this epitome is read thus: "But if a city has been renovated by imperial decree, let the order and the regulation follow the civil and public [forms], and [those] of the ecclesiastical parish." In the epitome of Symeon Logothetes, for "renovated" [it is] "canonized," for "decree," "summons," and for "ecclesiastical," "ecclesiastics" is poorly read. How much our reading is to be preferred to both of these, no one fails to see.

^A If, however, the emperor has built a new city, or should build one in the future, the neighboring bishop shall not contend over it, nor shall he endeavor to draw it under his own diocese; but he shall follow the civil and public precedents, so that the bishop of that province or diocese, to which it was previously assigned and subject, may have it under himself.

CANON XVIII

BALS. A conspiracy is the strengthening of some evil intent of one’s own by means of an oath mutually given and accepted between one another. A faction (which is called *phratria* in Greek) is for certain persons to come together and conspire for the purpose of committing such and such an evil. The canon calls the civil laws "external," because the majority of them were composed by those learned in external or profane literature, that is, the Greeks. He says, therefore, that since the civil law also punishes factionaries and conspirators, those clerics or monks who do any such thing ought to be deposed. And while the canon says that those who plot, or contrive, against bishops or fellow-clerics—according to the text, "their heart was coagulated" (that is, hardened)—are to be deposed, I believe that ^C priests who do any such thing against laymen are to be punished in the same way. Read also the 30th chapter of the ninth title of the present work and the 34th canon of the Sixth Synod.

ZONAR. It is evident that the crime of conspiracy was forbidden and punished even by the sanctions of the civil laws, which the canon called "external" because nearly all of them were composed by the Greeks, as can be found in book LX, title XXXVI, chapter IV. ^D

^{A B C D} And it is easily apparent from the fifty-first title, chapter one, third law. For a conspiracy is when, having entered into a plan against certain persons, several people bind themselves to one another by oath that they will not rest until they have carried out what they have thought of. In this way, some of the Jews, as holy Luke records in the Acts, having made a conspiracy, devoted their own heads to themselves on that condition, that if they tasted of any food or drink before Paul was killed, they would be bound and subject to every curse and execration. A sodality (in Greek, *phratria*) is a malicious agreement and a consensus of certain persons for the undertaking of evil deeds. It is fitting that priests and monks should be much more absent from such impropriety. But if any of them, says the canon, should be caught having entangled themselves in conspiracies or sodalities, planning something base—for this is what the word ^B *tyreuontes* signifies, as if plotting some flagitious or wicked thing, to which that saying is related, "their heart is coagulated," as if to say, "it is hardened"—it orders them to be moved from their rank.

ARIST. If clerics and monks are caught celebrating conventicles or conspiring against their bishop, let them lose their ranks.

If a conspiracy or a sodality is made for the subversion of anyone, whoever he may be (a senator), it holds from the laws a penalty greater than all other crimes. Therefore, this canon also establishes that those who make conspiracies or sodalities against bishops be deposed from their own ranks. ^C

CANON XIX

It has come to our ears that in the provinces the synods of bishops established by the canons are not held, and because of this many ecclesiastical matters that stand in need of correction are neglected. The holy synod has therefore decreed, according to the canons of the holy Fathers, that the bishops of each province should assemble in the same place twice a year, where it shall seem best to the bishop of the metropolis, and correct each of the matters that arise. And those bishops who do not assemble, but ^D stay at home in their own cities, if they are indeed healthy and free from every inexcusable and necessary business, are to be admonished fraternally.

BALS. Concerning the synods which ought to be held annually, consult the fifth canon of the first synod, and what has been written upon it.

ZONAR. Concerning the annual synods...

^A And it is explained in the canons of the holy apostles, and in the fifth canon of the first synod; and those things should be sought out. ARIST. Let a synod be held twice a year, where it seems good to the bishop of the metropolis; and let emergent matters be determined. As was said before, the holding of a synod twice a year was prohibited by the sixth canon of the second Nicene synod, and by the eighth canon of the sixth synod in Trullo, on account of the difficulty, and because the bishops who are required to assemble are not sufficiently provided for travel; and it was decreed that a synod be held once a year, from the holy feast of Easter until the end of the month of October.

CANON XX

Clerics who serve in churches, just as we have already prescribed, are not permitted to be enrolled in the church of another city, but are to be content with that in which they were first judged worthy to serve; except for those who, having lost their own native land from necessity, have migrated to another church. But if any bishop, after this decree, shall receive a cleric who belongs to another bishop, it is decided that both he who has been received and he who has received him shall be excommunicated, until the cleric who migrated returns to his own church.

^B BALS. On this matter, we have spoken sufficiently above. Do not let the twenty-third canon of the present synod seem contrary to you; it does not impose excommunication on clerics residing in a foreign territory, but prescribes that they be expelled. Read, however, what is written in that place. ZONAR. Regarding these matters, we have also published commentaries in various other canons, and those are sufficient. ARIST. A cleric of one city shall not be enrolled in another. But he who has lost his own country, if he has come to another church, is blameless. But a bishop receiving a foreign cleric will be subject to excommunication along with the one received. ^C This is stated in many canons, that the clerics of one city are not to be enrolled in another without the consent of their own bishop. Therefore, the bishop who has enrolled a foreign cleric in his own diocese, and the cleric himself who was enrolled, shall be excommunicated until the cleric returns to his own church. But he who has received a cleric who lost his own country out of some necessity is blameless.

CANON XXI

Clerics or laymen accusing bishops ^D [This page ends mid-sentence here; the next page will continue.]

^A should not be admitted to an accusation indiscriminately and without inquiry, unless their reputation has first been examined.

BALS. Seek the [(28)] sixth canon of the Second Synod, and you will learn the interpretation of the present canon.

ZONAR. The sixth canon of the Second Synod also ordains the same thing regarding these matters. What was written there is sufficient for the explanation of the present chapter as well.

ARIST. A cleric or layman who accuses a bishop rashly should not be admitted.

The reputations of those who accuse bishops or clerics must be examined, and they should not be admitted to [the act of] accusing them without proof, whether the accusers are clerics or laymen; lest they happen to be those who have been expelled, or are excommunicated, or are accused of some crimes and have not yet been shown to be innocent, or are otherwise of disreputable life, or are alien to the faith. For many such persons, wishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order, concoct slanderous accusations against blameless and orthodox bishops and clerics.

CANON XXII

That it is not permitted for clerics, after the death of their own bishop, to seize things that belong to him, just as this is forbidden to those who assume them [(29)]; or else those who do this shall be in danger of losing their own orders.

BALS. ^B The present canon says that clerics who, after the death of their own bishop, seize things belonging to him are to be deposed; and not only them, but also the others who are responsible for their keeping, namely the metropolitans and others in whose presence the bishop died, who are also called "those who receive" [assumentes]. ^C But the bishop is said to "have" things, and is able to dispose of them and make a testament, when, as the fortieth Apostolic Canon wills, he has registered his own property at the moment he was ordained.

William Beveridge’s Note

(28) Seek the canon. This interpretation of Balsamon does not exist in the manuscript. It exists, however, not only in the printed versions but also in our Bodleian and Etonian codices.

(29) These codices disagree in a surprising way. For the Bodleian manuscript reading is supported by the Etonian, the Basilean, the version used by Gentianus Hervetus, and the codices of Balsamon and Zonaras. Joannes Antiochenus reads the contrary, in *Collect. can.*, tit. 4, which the Latin interpreters support, as was observed in the annotations to the Apostolic canons. Josephus Aegyptius also seems to have read it this way; otherwise I do not know to what his words refer, which he inserted into his own paraphrase of this canon: *Nor shall they usurp his things, except those of which the Fathers spoke, and concerning which they issued a command.* Furthermore, even in the Greek Balsamon codex printed previously, the same reading is retained. However, that Balsamon himself, just like Zonaras, read it so, is evident from their own scholia, by which they argue that these are the metropolitans or others to whom the property of the deceased bishop has been entrusted, or in whose presence he dies. But how that word can bear this meaning, I am utterly at a loss. For it is not the metropolitans alone, or others in whose presence the bishop dies, who are prohibited here from assuming or seizing for themselves the property of the ^D deceased bishop, but rather all clerics whatsoever. Nor can I even guess what this word might signify in this place. Furthermore, the verb used in the past tense indicates that this had been forbidden beforehand. But that it had been forbidden, no one, I suppose, will attempt to demonstrate. But Balsamon and Zonaras read this place in this way, and therefore thought it necessary to attach some meaning to this word, especially since no one else understands it. Since, however, other codices, and those far more ancient, exhibit a different reading to us, which is both easy to understand and fitting for the place, it is without doubt to be preferred, by which words the Fathers indicate that some ancient canon on the same matter existed previously, such as the fortieth of the Apostles, to which, for that reason, it is more than likely they have looked in this place.

^A And the things of the bishopric. For if he does not do thus, all his things belong to the Church. But when an inventory has been made, as has been said, if the bishop dies intestate, I think that according to the laws he will be succeeded by his relatives who are called from intestacy. For even if some from the eighty-first canon of the Council of Carthage said that it is in the power of the succeeding bishop to administer the goods of him who died intestate as he might wish, yet it seems to me that from such a canon, which says that the succeeding bishop ought to make a disposition fitting for the estate of the intestate bishop, it is most strongly implied that the succession of the property of the deceased must take place according to the laws. For by doing this, he will make a disposition fitting to his own occupation. ^B Seek the twenty-fourth canon (30) of the Council of Antioch and the thirty-fifth canon of the Council in Trullo.

ZONARAS. The fortieth canon of the holy Apostles also decrees that the private property of the bishop and the ecclesiastical property be clearly distinguished, and it gives the bishop power to leave his own things to whomever he wishes. And the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Antioch ordains the same things. The present canon also forbids the property belonging to the bishop from being pillaged by the clergy after his death. But the phrase, "Just as is also forbidden to those taking [them] in charge," must be understood according to the thirty-fifth canon of the Council in Trullo, which forbids even the metropolitan, to whom the deceased bishop was subject, from appropriating anything either of the Church or of the bishop’s private effects. Instead, if there are any clerics in the bishopric, the property is ordered to be kept by them until another bishop is ordained; but if there are perhaps no clerics, it is entrusted to the metropolitan for safe-keeping, so that he may return these things intact to the bishop who is to be ordained. ^C He says "those taking in charge" therefore, referring to the clerics or the metropolitans, as those entrusted with the custody of the property. And he inflicts a penalty upon those who pillage or embezzle anything of the things of the bishopric or of the bishop, [namely] the loss of their own ranks. It is forbidden for a bishop to leave his property to heretics; rather, he who leaves it to such persons is also under anathema. But if the bishop has died intestate, the bishop who is next after him has been appointed to administer his property in a way pleasing to God, according to the twenty-second and eighty-first canons of the Council of Carthage.

ARISTENUS. He who plunders the things of a deceased bishop will be deprived of his rank. Seek also the thirty-fifth chapter in the Council in Trullo.

Guill. Beveregius' note. (30) "Seek the twenty-fourth canon." Regarding these words, up to the end of the interpretation, nothing else occurs in the prior Greek edition of Balsamon than what you see, and the thirty-fifth chapter of the Council in Trullo. But our reading is supported by the Basel manuscript and the one which Gentianus Hervetus translated. It is also evident to anyone considering the matter that the place in the previous edition is corrupt, from the words themselves.

CANON XXIII

Any clergy who plunder the possessions of a bishop after his death shall be in danger regarding their own rank. ^A

It has come to the ears of the holy synod that certain clergy and monks, having been entrusted with nothing by their own bishop, and being at times even excommunicated by him, betake themselves to the imperial city of Constantinople and remain there for a long time, causing disturbances, agitating the ecclesiastical order, and overthrowing the houses of certain persons. The holy synod therefore decrees that such persons be reminded first by the defender ^B of the most holy Church in Constantinople to depart from the imperial city; but if they should impudently persist in the same activities, that they be expelled from the imperial city by the same defender.

Notes by William Beveridge

We should not doubt the meaning of the word *exdikos*. For Dionysius Exiguus and that more ancient Latin interpreter rendered it "defender," and Balsamon himself gives his support to this, saying: "Know also that the giving of *exdikoi* and those who are called defensors..." ^C *Defensor*, *Exdikos*. "By the defender of the most holy Church in Constantinople..." Paul the *exdikos* of the Church, being tall... receiving a blow to the head instead of Euphemius... The canon says, when there was no office of *exdikoi*, but laymen were given each time to the churches for legal defense. And this is evident from canon 105 of the Council of Carthage, which explicitly speaks about defenders of the churches... That the God-beloved synkelloi be established to the number of two, and the cancellarii to twelve... There are also other offices which are especially suitable for the priests: the one in charge of the catechumens, the orphanotrophos, the four *exdikoi*... the *protekdikon*... because of the oppression of the poor, by whose burdens the Church is incessantly harassed... ^D

Regarding those who were not previously ordained in any ecclesiastical rank, one may infer from the second canon of the present council; for they are said not to have been "ordained," but "promoted"; nor are they joined with the clergy, but with the oikonomos and the paramonarios, just as Justinian also lists them—not among the clergy of any rank, but with the *xenodochai*, the *nosokomoi*, and other officials of this kind who were not established in any rank of the clergy. However, it is beyond question that some of them were clerics later on, since they were sometimes even promoted to the Constantinopolitan Throne; as Balsamon reported in his *Meditations* cited above. As to their number, Heraclius Augustus decreed in a Novel that there should be ten established in the greater Church of Constantinople. John, bishop of Citri, in his *Responses to Constantine Cabasilas*, numbers only four defenders. The *Euchologion* edited by Jacques Goar in Paris exhibits two catalogues of the officials of the Church of Constantinople; in the first it is stated that besides the twelve, there are only two in the second; and these were also merely assessors to the *protekdikos*, or the primary and properly so-called defender. Regarding his office, also, to mention a few things: it is to be observed first that he was granted the authority by this canon to expel from the city of Constantinople those clergy and monks who reside there without being sent by their own bishop. Since, however, the Chalcedonian Fathers enjoin this upon the defenders, they suppose them to have been established previously. And hence, this was not their primary and principal office, but a secondary one. They were first instituted by a certain Carthaginian council to defend the poor against the rich. (Syn. Carth. can. 78). Since they could not do this in any other way, the power was entrusted to them to hear the minor cases of the poor against the rich, or vice versa, especially those which it was formerly the custom for the bishop to determine. This is clear from the aforementioned canon of the Carthaginian synod, in which it is decreed that defenders are to be asked for from the emperors because of the vexation of the poor, by whose troubles the Church is incessantly fatigued. Defenders were therefore instituted so that the Church would not be fatigued any longer by the vexations of the poor; and therefore their institution would be entirely in vain unless they heard and determined those cases by which the Church has been accustomed to be fatigued previously. And indeed, [it is clear that the] *protekdikos* heard minor ecclesiastical cases from the order of officials.

^A If they persist in the same matters, behaving shamelessly, even against their will let them be expelled by the same *ekdikos* (defender) and return to their own places.

BALSAMON. The Fathers forbid clerics or monks, against the will of their own bishop—and many who are even excommunicated—from seizing upon Constantinople and remaining there for a long time, because perhaps they do not have ecclesiastical duties. For this, he says, overturns the ecclesiastical order and the houses of those who receive them. And here the canon decrees that these men are to be driven out, even against their will, if they do not wish to depart voluntarily when reminded by the *ekdikoi*. But the 20th canon of the present synod says that both the one who is received and the one who received them are to be excommunicated. And let it not seem contrary to you; but say that in that case ^B they had already arrived and been received, and for this reason they are condemned with excommunication together with the bishops who received them; but here they had not yet been received, and for this reason they are driven out and compelled to return to where they were ordained. Read also the 16th Apostolic canon.

ZONARAS. The canon wishes for clerics to remain in the churches to which they were assigned, even if perhaps they are not judged by the bishop as suitable for handling business or administration, and even if perhaps they were punished by him with the penalty of excommunication; and not to break away and go elsewhere and remain there, and create disturbances and tumults, and confuse the ecclesiastical order, becoming a bad example ^C to other clerics and overturning the houses of some, or of those clerics who imitate them, and not abiding by the order of the Church, or of those who receive them and perhaps use such persons for household affairs.

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. It is established concerning the Church of Constantinople; where it is said: "The *protekdikos* is judge with twelve *ekdikoi* for minor matters that enter into the Church; and he refers these to the *archiereus* (bishop)." A *defensor* of this kind, however, did not examine such cases in his own name, but as holding the place of the bishop; as we gather from another Catalogue of ecclesiastical officials, which says: ^D "The *protekdikos* is judge from the person of the *archiereus*; and he judges minor cases, together with the two *ekdikoi*, that enter into the bishopric." The supreme *defensor* is constituted as judge in the person of the pontiff (that is, in his absence) and, with two *defensores*, judges business of little moment brought to the bishopric. Furthermore, even in the Roman Church, *defensores* anciently assisted bishops, indeed in hearing cases; as a certain ancient Glossary, Papias, has testified, saying: "Defensores were constituted by the Roman pontiffs as assistants to the bishops, to whom we grant honors among the clerics, just as to the regionarii." *Pap. in Gloss.* These men, however, did not discuss cases and decide lawsuits in their own name, but in the name of the bishops whose place they supplied, which it is also permitted to gather from the book concerning the office of the first *defensor*; whose words Balsamon cites in his *Meditato* concerning the office of the *chartularius* and the first *defensor*: "You (the *protekdikoi*) ought, if any of the presbyters and deacons has a lawsuit with someone, to summon the defendant a third time according to the said method, and not obeying, to condemn him." Oportet vos (primos defensores) si quis presbyterorum et diaconorum cum aliquo litem habebit, eum, qui accusatur, tertium citare, secundum indicatum modum, et non obsequentem condemnare. From this it is established then, for presbyters and deacons, having a dispute (with any cleric or layman) with someone, that it was formerly permitted to initiate it before the *protekdikos*; which indeed would not be right, unless that *defensor* held the place of the bishop, before whom clerics are required to conduct their cases, according to the 9th canon of this council. We have pursued these things more fully on this account, because from these things rightly weighed it may shine forth clearer than the noonday sun that current chancellors of bishops, constituted in our Church, were not introduced just a few days ago, as some have ridiculously asserted, but were received by the institution of the ancients and confirmed by the decrees of the most ancient synods. For if anyone compares those things which we have commented on until now concerning the office of these *defensores* of the Church, with those things which are handled today by the bishops’ chancellors, he will immediately perceive that these are no other ecclesiastical officials than those who were formerly called *ekdikos*, *protekdikoi*, *ekklēsi-ekdikoi*, or *defensores* of the Church.

^A The canon wishes those who remain in the city to which they have immigrated, having been admonished by the *ekdikoi* (defenders), to depart; but if they do not obey, even if they persist in the same matters—that is, in insubordination and impudence, or in the administration of the matters entrusted to them—the canon commands that they be expelled by the *ekdikos* even against their will, and returns them to their own places. The same applies to monks.

ARIST. Clerics and monks who sojourn in the city of Constantinople without the bishop’s permission, and who stir up disturbances, let them be expelled from the city.

Clerics or monks who are found in Constantinople without the consent of their own bishop, and who disturb the ecclesiastical order there, let them be expelled from the city by the *ekdikos* of the Church of Constantinople. ^B

CANON XXIV.

BALS. The present canon, in decreeing that monasteries consecrated by the consent of the bishop shall not become secular inns nor communal, and that the matters pertaining to them shall be preserved, silently commands those things regarding the building of monasteries by saying, "by the consent of the bishop." You will learn more fully how monasteries ought to be established from the first canon of the synod held in the Church of the Holy Apostles, and from the first chapter of the first title of the fourth book of the *Basilika*, ^C which is chapter 52 of the Novel [of Justinian], which is summarized in chapter 1 of title 11 of the present work. But someone might ask with what kind of custody the canon commands the property of monasteries to be preserved, and what these are. And some indeed have said that all the property of monasteries, both movable and immovable, just as the monasteries themselves, ought to be preserved inalienably. But to me it seems that this canon speaks here of great custody, that is to say, of the utmost diligence. For as for the immovables belonging to them, and besides even some sacred vessels, alienation is sometimes permitted. Read the entire second title of the fifth book of the *Basilika*, ^D which instructs that for certain just causes, not only may the immovable property of churches and sacred vessels be given as a pledge, but they may even be alienated through any kind of alienation. But since it says that those who permit monasteries to become communal are subject to the penalties of the canons, someone might ask what these are. Know, therefore, that the 13th canon of the 7th Synod says that those who make sacred things common, and do not restore them to their ancient form, if they are priests, ought to be deposed:

but if they are laymen or monks, they should be excommunicated. Read also the 49th canon of the Synod in Trullo.

^A ZONARAS. The first canon of the Synod which was gathered in the Church of the Holy Apostles contains, among other things, this also: The holy Synod has determined that it is permitted to no one to build a monastery without the consent and counsel of the bishop, and the rest. And the civil law, which is placed in the fourth book of the Basilics, title one, decrees the same. Therefore, this canon commands that monasteries thus consecrated—that is to say, by the bishop’s consent and by his prayer dedicated to God—should not be made common, but should always remain monasteries, and not become common and secular lodgings, and that the property belonging to them should be preserved without fraud. For if a monastery is not established by the bishop’s consent, and his prayer has not preceded the building—as if a most firm foundation were laid—it shall not even be considered a monastery. For this reason, the canon added the words "by the bishop’s consent." And it decreed that those who transgress these things should be subject to canonical penalties.

ARISTENUS. A monastery built by the bishop’s consent shall remain unchangeable; and whatever belongs to it shall be inalienable. Whoever attempts to do otherwise is not innocent. Monasteries built without the bishop’s consent can neither stand nor be sacred. But a monastery built by the will of the bishop, since it is of divine law, ought to remain unchangeable and not become a secular lodging, and its immovable goods must be preserved, in no way alienated. And whoever transgresses these things shall be liable to canonical penalties.

^C CANON XXV. Since some metropolitans, as we have often heard, neglect the flocks committed to them and delay the ordinations of bishops, it has pleased the holy Synod that ordinations of bishops should take place within three months, unless some inexorable necessity should cause the time of delay to be extended. But if they do not do this, they shall be subject to ecclesiastical penalty. The revenues of the widowed church, however, are to be kept safe by the steward of the same church.

BALSAMON. The divine Fathers, curbing the base encroachments of many, ordained that it is not in the power of the metropolitans to delay the ordinations of bishops for a long time, but that they must perform them within a three-month period. And this is indeed concerning those metropolitans who do not appoint [bishops] to their own bishoprics; but concerning those who are elected, and those who delay... ^D

Guill. Beveregius's note. This canon, from the version of Dionysius Exiguus, is cited at the Council of Worms, held in the year 868, canon 71, just as canons 15, 18, and 27 are cited there from the same version. It is sufficient to have observed this here alone.

^A Regarding those who are being elected and who are postponing their acceptance or their resignation, it has been variously asked what is to be done; and what must be done has not been defined. Therefore I say that a space of three months ought to be extended to the elect person after the vote, for the sake of accepting or resigning, just as the same space is given by this present canon to the metropolitan for the sake of voting for the bishopric. And if, within these [months], the person elected does not accept or does not resign, another vote ought to be held, as he who has postponed cannot revoke his ordination after the three months; but rather he is even to be corrected ecclesiastically as one who is trifling in matters that are by no means trivial, and who is injuring the flock of God. Nor ought the one elected to be summoned by him who elected him, just as the metropolitan is not summoned by the patriarch to cast a vote. You may confirm this interpretation also from chap. 8 of title 1 of book 3 of the *Basilica*, which restricts the examination of a controversy arising regarding an elect person to a space of three months. This was also posited in the commentary on chap. 8 of title 1 of this present work. He ought to perform the ordinations within the three months, so that the affairs of the bishops may not be damaged thereby, and the instruction of the people not be neglected. But if, they say, on account of some unavoidable necessity, the promotion of the bishop is hindered (for it may happen that the city that is widowed of a bishop has been taken by the gentiles, and it is not easy for anyone to go there), the ordination shall by all means be postponed. However, the canon wills that the revenues of the bishopric be collected by its steward, which ought to be given—not to the metropolitan, but to the bishop who is to be ordained, even if the election is deferred for three months or even longer. It subjects to a penalty those metropolitans who act otherwise; but what that is, I do not know. I suppose, however, that it is that which shall be defined by the synod. Note, therefore, how that phrase "inexorable necessity" is to be understood. For if the bishopric is vexed by some forensic injury, or is agitated by some other like reason, this does not grant the metropolitan a just delay of the bishop's election. Read also the ninth chapter of the first title of this present work, and what is written upon it.

^C ZONARAS. This present canon decrees that metropolitans, in whom the right resides to create bishops, should not defer that matter for long. Therefore, it also defined a time beyond which it is by no means permitted to extend a creation of this kind, namely an interval of three months. For it is not proper that peoples committed to their care should lack their own bishop for long, and wander, uncertain of counsel, with no one to set their path straight. If, however, in the meantime, some necessary cause should sometimes hinder the appointment from being made within the three-month space, he says that the time shall be extended, and the ordination shall be deferred. For perhaps that city has been taken by Barbarians, and it is not easy for anyone to go there. But he orders that those who act otherwise be subject to ecclesiastical penalties. For as long as the ordination of the bishop is deferred, whether for three months or for longer due to pressing necessity,

the revenue should be preserved for the bishop who is to be ordained by the steward of the church, who shall make the necessary expenditures for the bishopric and perhaps preserve what remains. ^A

ARIST. Let the ordinations of bishops take place within three months; however, some unavoidable necessity may extend the time; otherwise, the one who ordains shall be liable to canonical penalty; but let the revenue remain with the steward. Some metropolitans, neglecting the flocks committed to them and delaying the ordinations of bishops, have been ordered to ordain another bishop within three months after the death of the bishop, unless the time is extended for some unavoidable necessity. And if the church should remain without a bishop for more than three months without an unavoidable necessity, the metropolitan shall be censured; but the revenue of the vacant church shall meanwhile be kept safe by the steward. ^B

CANON XXVI

Since in some churches, as we have heard, the bishops handle church property without stewards, it pleased the council that every church having a bishop should also have a steward from its own clergy, who shall administer the church property according to the judgment of its own bishop; so that the administration of the church may not be without witnesses, and thereby its property be squandered and reproach be brought upon the priesthood; and if he does not do this, he shall be subject to the divine canons. ^C

BALS. It is likely that before this present canon, many bishops were appointing laymen as stewards. The divine Fathers, therefore, correcting this, command that church property be administered by clerics according to the judgment of the bishop, so that the revenues of the church may be manifest and not squandered, and the bishop be kept free from reproach and blame. And they command that the prelate who does not do so be subjected to the canons. Do not, therefore, believe that this conflicts with the thirty-eighth or the fortieth canon of the holy apostles. For even if bishops have an authority that is not to be called to account, it is not permitted to them to use the property of the church as if it were their own, or as belonging to them by right of ownership; ^D so much so that, after necessary expenses, they are compelled to distribute what remains to the poor. For ecclesiastical property is called the goods of the poor. If, therefore, these are administered by a cleric, the bishop will be beyond reproach, and no one will murmur against him, as if he were not guiding the clergy who are under him or other needy persons. And if, perhaps, the penalty for those who transgress the present canon is not set here, read the eleventh canon of the Seventh Synod, and you will learn what happens to bishops who do not administer the property of their churches through clerics, and likewise to those who are in charge.

^A ZONARAS. The canons have entrusted to the bishops the power and authority of administering the property of their respective churches. They do not, however, wish them to administer these matters by themselves, with no one being aware; nor do they want the office of steward to be assigned by the bishop to any of his own household, perhaps a relative or one of his servants, but rather to a person chosen from the clergy of the bishopric. Since that person manages the property of the Church according to the mind of the bishop, it is clear that Church property would proceed and be spent [properly], and no suspicion could arise against the bishop that he was squandering the Church's resources—for this is what is indicated by the word "squandering"—or that he was pouring out sacred revenues recklessly and irreverently, and for that reason he would be railed against with insults and reproaches. For when the bishop's integrity is suspected by the multitude, offenses of the people are also excited, as if out of hatred for power badly exercised. ^B For such things suggest the words of the great Paul: "See to it that your liberty does not become a stumbling block to the weak," and a little further on: "In this way, sinning against the brethren and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." Those who do not appoint stewards chosen from the clergy to administer the goods of the churches are ordered to be punished by the canons. The same must be understood as well regarding the priors of monasteries, although at this time the authority of this decree is entirely contemned by most prelates and even by some superiors of monks.

ARISTENUS. A steward shall be appointed in all churches from among the clergy. A bishop who disregards this is not free from blame. Every bishop ought to appoint a steward from his own clergy to administer ecclesiastical business according to his own judgment. If any bishop is found administering the affairs of the Church without an appointed steward, he shall be canonically punished, as he brings reproach upon the priesthood through an unexamined and unwitnessed administration. ^C

CANON XXVII

[Footnote/Apparatus material omitted]

^A BALS. The present canon and the 32nd canon of the Council in Trullo correspond exactly, defining that those who abduct women, or who cooperate, or who assist those who abduct, if they are clerics, are to be deposed; but if they are laymen, they are to be anathematized. Read title 9 and chapter 50 of the present compilation, and what is there; likewise also the 67th apostolic canon. For there we taught more fully how the abductor is punished, and how he who has used force is punished. But perhaps someone will say, and how are the one who abducts, and the one who cooperates, and the one who assists, punished in the same way? Say, therefore, that the canon holds those who cooperate and those who assist to be no less guilty than the one who has abducted. For the one who abducts has illicit desire as his pretext, but the others are accused only of wickedness and an unjust intent, which overturns the propriety of the city. He is said to cooperate who, by his very act, joins with the one who abducts in planning and executing the abduction. He is said to assist who, through advice or some other aid, concurs with the one who committed the offense. Seek also the 55th Novella of the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, which punishes the one who has violated a girl by means of abduction, not only through the confiscation of property, but also through corporal punishment; likewise also those who consented to them; and which distinguishes that those who have carried out an armed abduction are to be punished in one way, and those who have not so behaved in a wicked manner in another; and that even the father is to be punished if he approves of what has happened. ^B ZONAR. And the civil laws impose very severe penalties on the abductors of women, and they do not allow the abducted woman to be joined in marriage to the abductor, even if her father approves and pardons the crime; and the canons also punish such persons. But this canon deals more severely than the others with those who commit abduction, deposing the clerics and denouncing anathema upon the laymen. And it subjects not only the authors of the abduction but also those who assist or consent to the same penalties. Nor is this unjust. For he who has acquired a wife for himself through abduction has a passion prompting him to commit that crime as an excuse, but he who assists or consents, since there is nothing that could urge him to that most wicked action except his own depravity, by which alone he agrees and concurs with the abductor, is more unworthy of pardon. And we understand "cooperators" to be those who have lent their labor to the abductor to accomplish the crime: but we say that those "consent" whose hands were indeed kept from the crime, but who nevertheless brought aid and assistance to the delinquents by their advice and effort. ^D ARIST. A cleric abducting a woman shall be expelled from the church: but a layman shall be anathema; as shall whoever assists them.

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. ...inclusive, in the Auerbach codex are missing. But the sense of the passage is very poorly confounded without them, or rather, there is none at all.

^A He who commits the abduction of a woman has indeed a great penalty from the laws; but he has no less of a penalty from the canons. For the cleric, as the present canon sets forth, is deposed; but the layman, and those who assist him in the abduction of the woman, are anathematized until such time as they restore the abducted woman—if she was betrothed, to her own betrothed; but if she was disengaged, to her parents—according to the twenty-second canon of Basil the Great.

CANON XXVIII

Everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon recently read of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops, we too determine and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, New Rome. For to the throne of Elder Rome, because that city was ruling, the Fathers reasonably granted the privileges. And moved by the same aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops assigned equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging reasonably that the city which is honored by the empire and the senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be extolled and made great in ecclesiastical matters, just as she is, ranking second after her. And so that the metropolitans of the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses only, and moreover the bishops of the said dioceses who are among the Barbarians, shall be ordained by the aforesaid throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; it being understood that each metropolitan of the said dioceses ordains the bishops of his province, as has been handed down by the divine canons; but that the metropolitans of the said dioceses are to be ordained, as has been said, by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have been conducted according to custom and reported to him. ^{B C}

Guill. Beveridge’s notes

(57) Everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers. This, with the two following canons, exists neither in the Collection of John of Antioch, nor in the Latin version of Dionysius Exiguus, nor in the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph the Egyptian. It is found, however, in all the codices of Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus; it is cited also by Photius in the Nomocanon, tit. 1, cap. 5 and 6. It is also translated into Latin by an ancient interpreter before Dionysius Exiguus, by whom, however, it is placed not among the canons of the present [council], but of the Constantinopolitan synod. It is also contained in the Acts of this council, in the sixteenth Action, to be sure; where, however, Paschasinus and Lucentius, legates of the Roman bishop, complained that this decree had been issued without them and clandestinely. ^D

(58) Most God-beloved bishops. The Ethonian codex adds: "of those gathered under the most pious memory of the great Theodosius who became emperor in the royal city of Constantinople, New Rome." Which words are also read in the Acts of the council, except that for "under the most pious memory," there is read "under the pious in memory."

(59) In the Barbarians. The ancient interpreter reads "in Barbarians." All locations not subject to the Roman empire were formerly called "barbarous" and "barbarian" by the Romans themselves; so that the whole Roman orbis was called Romania in one word. In this sense the word *barbarikon* is used in Syn. Carth. can. 56; likewise *Barbaria*, by St. Augustine, epist. 178, and *he Barbaros*, in Synesius, epist. 101. And all peoples dwelling beyond the limits of the Roman empire were called Barbarians. Evagrius says that all those under the emperor Zeno, as much in the East as in the West, were afflicted with heavy ills, "where the Scenite Barbarian robbers were pillaging everything," for these Barbarians, the Scenites, ravaged all places (Evagr. Eccl. Hist. lib. 3, cap. 2). Other examples occur everywhere.

(40) Of the said dioceses. The Chioniensis codex adds "along with the bishops of the province, ordaining." How this passage is also read in the Acts of the council "reported to him." In our Bodleian ms., after these last words of the canon,

^A BALS. We have already spoken regarding how the throne of Constantinople was honored in the 3rd canon of the Second Council; read that and also the first chapter of the 8th title of the present code. The present canon, after stating that the throne of Constantinople possesses the privileges of the Church of the Romans, and is second after it, adds that certain metropolitans are to be ordained by it, just as each of them in turn is obliged to ordain, along with their own synod, the bishops who are subject to them. However, the elections for the metropolises are to take place by the metropolitans according to custom, and what has been done is to be reported by them to the patriarch, so that one of the three who have been voted upon may be ordained by his examination. Note, therefore, that before this canon, the patriarchs did not ordain the metropolitans, but the bishops of each province did; and that the metropolitans possess episcopal rights to appoint bishops, and that the patriarchs or metropolitans ought not to intervene in the voting for metropolitans or bishops. Seek also the 4th canon of the First Council, the 2nd canon of the Second Council, the 8th of the Third, and the 39th of the Sixth. Know also that those metropolitans who lie along the Euxine Sea as far as Trebizond and further inward are called Pontic; the Asians are those around Ephesus, Lycia, Pamphylia, and the surrounding regions—not the Orientals, as some say. For Antioch has the ordination of the East. And the Thracian [metropolitans] are the Western ones. For some have narrowed Thrace as far as the borders of Macedonia and have said that the metropolitans of Macedonia, the Thessalians, the Helladics, and the Peloponnesians were at one time ordained by the Pope of Rome, attempting to prove this by the fact that it was not permitted for the patriarch of Constantinople to ordain them; but you must not place faith in these claims. ^C For the name of Thrace encompasses the metropolises as far as Dyrrachium itself. Some falsely say that the Pope at one time ordained the [metropolitan] of Thessalonica and other Western metropolitans. For he merely had them as legates. Say that the bishoprics among the Barbarians are Alania, Russia, and others. For the Alans belong to the Pontic diocese, and the Russians to the Thracian. Regarding the legates of the Pope of Rome, and who these are, and how it was granted to him to have legates for our metropolitans, this will be discussed after the prologue of the Council in Trullo.

Another interpretation

Note of William Beveridge

^A of the Pope of Rome, and to be honored in all ecclesiastical matters according to him, in conformity with the third canon of the Second Synod. Some, however, seeing that he is not glorified by any of the privileges of the Pope of Rome (for he neither covers his head with the imperial *lorum*, nor does he process with the imperial scepter, signs, and standards, nor does he exhibit imperial authority, nor is he truly clothed and does he ride according to that which is contained in the imperial decree made by the holy Great Constantine to the holy Pope of Rome Sylvester and his successors), say that the provisions of the canons have become ineffective. They concoct their own argument also from the fact that laws which define that the Archbishop of Constantinople should have the privileges of the Pope of Rome, and which were written and refined long afterwards, were not set down in the imperial records, as we have already explained concerning this in the first chapter of the eighth title of the present work. I, however, being a most genuine citizen of Constantinople and having become, by the grace of God, a most fitting part of the most holy throne of Constantinople, wish and pray that the Archbishop of Constantinople may have, without any offense, all the privileges which have been honorably granted to him by the divine canons.

^B ZONAR. There are those who contend that the throne of the city of Constantinople in no way yields in dignity to the throne of Elder Rome, but that it was honored with equal prerogatives to it. But this controversy has already been sufficiently explained in the third canon of the Second Synod, and it has been demonstrated that such men are hallucinating in this matter; whoever perceives that passage will easily understand that this royal city is to be established in the second order of honor and dignity. For it is said that it enjoys equal privileges on account of the empire and the senate; even though the former has degenerated into tyranny, and the latter has diminished and failed. The intention of those holy Fathers was that, since this city was adorned with an empire and a senate just as Rome once was, it ought also to be honored with all the same ecclesiastical prerogatives as that one, and to obtain the second place of dignity after it, while being preferred before all other churches. For we cannot understand it to be equal in all respects for the reasons we have stated there, unless perhaps someone might say that those divine Fathers, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, foresaw that the Church of the Romans would be segregated from the assembly of the orthodox and eliminated from all communion of the faithful on account of her heterodox dogmas, and therefore they bestowed the first place upon this one; and thus they deemed it worthy of the same rights in all things, as it was destined to hold the primacy just as that one once did. For the 36th canon of the Synod in Trullo does not permit the preposition "after" to be understood—according to those who interpret it as "after in time"—relative to the founding of the Queen of Cities, as it places the throne of Constantinople second after the throne of Elder Rome, and adds, “After him let the throne of Alexandria be numbered,” then

^A of Antioch, and after him the bishop of Jerusalem. For just as the preposition “after” in the case of the other thrones denotes a lowering of dignity, so also it stands in the case of the throne of Constantinople. And this is how it must be understood. Moreover, the blessed among patriarchs, the divine Nicephorus, in the twelfth chapter of the works he wrote against the iconoclasts, says this: that they (the iconoclasts, that is to say) are utterly cast out and expelled from the Catholic Church is sufficiently and more than enough attested by the letters sent by the most blessed bishop of Elder Rome—that is, the first and apostolic throne.

Regarding the order and the division of the throne of this great city, the holy synod discusses this, and also regarding the dioceses ^B that were to be subject to it, and says that these are the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian. And it assigns to the bishop of Constantinople the ordination of the metropolitans of these dioceses *only*. The word “only” is mentioned so that one of the bishops of Constantinople might not also usurp the ordinations of the bishops. For those were left to each of the metropolitans to whom they had belonged from the beginning. Therefore, the canon adds, namely, that each metropolitan is to ordain the bishops of his province with the bishops of the same province. However, it also assigns to the bishop of Constantinople the ordination of the bishops among the barbarian nations who dwell in the aforementioned dioceses, such as the Alans and the ^C Russians; for the former are joined to the Pontic diocese, and the Russians to the Thracian, and to the Constantinopolitan prelate it entrusts their ordination.

But lest those divine Fathers be thought to have assigned everything regarding the creation of metropolitans to the authority of Constantinople, so that he might act according to his own power as he pleases regarding ordinations, they added that the metropolitans are to be ordained by him when concordant votes have been cast and referred to him—saying, as it were, that the bishop of Constantinople will not ordain metropolitans whom he pleases, but the synod under him will cast the votes, and he will ordain from among those for whom the voters agree, once the votes have been referred to him. To some, therefore, the word “only” is understood in this way, as has been said; but ^D others say that it was placed for the sake of distinction from the other dioceses, with the Fathers distinguishing the other dioceses and assigning only the aforementioned ones to the throne of Constantinople. For the other dioceses—namely, that of Macedonia and Thessaly, and of Greece and the Peloponnese, and of the so-called Epirus and Illyricum—were at that time subject to the bishop of Old Rome.

ARIST. Let the bishop of New Rome enjoy the same honor as that of the Old, because of the translation of the empire; wherefore let the bishops of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace and the Barbarians be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.

The bishop of Constantinople has equal honor with the bishop of Rome, and shall enjoy equal privileges.

^A For the diocese of Macedonia, and of the Illyrians, and of Thessaly, and of Attica, and of the Peloponnesus, and of all Epirus, and of the nations belonging to it, was at that time subject to Rome.

CANON XXIX.

To reduce a bishop to the rank of a presbyter is sacrilege. But if some just cause removes them from the episcopal function, they ought not even to hold the place of a presbyter. But if they have been removed from their dignity without any crime, they shall return to their episcopal dignity. Anatolius the most religious archbishop of Constantinople said: Those who are said to have descended from episcopal dignity to the order of the presbyterate, if indeed they are condemned for some just causes, deservedly are not even worthy of the honor of the presbyter; but if they were depressed to an inferior rank without any probable cause, they are justly entitled, if indeed they are found to be amenable to no crime, to receive back the authority and priesthood of the episcopate. ^B

BALS. It is written at the end of the Acts of the 4th synod that it was reported by Photius, bishop of the metropolis of Tyre, to the king Marcian, that the bishop of the city of Berytus, having seized an opportunity, tore away various bishoprics from the Church of the Tyrians, Byblus, Botrys, Tripolis, Orthosias, Arcas, and Antaradus, and, having deposed the bishops who had been ordained by the same Photius, brought them down to the place of a presbyter. When the Fathers who had gathered at Chalcedon according to the imperial decree had observed this, they, with the civil magistrates, determined that it was equitable to restore to the Church of the Tyrians the bishoprics taken away, as it has been said, and that the deposed bishops should have their former honors. And the locum tenentes of the Church of Rome indeed declared, To reduce a bishop to the rank of a presbyter is sacrilege, and so forth. ^C But Anatolius and the magistrates and the rest of the synod followed. Read the first [canon] and the canon of the synod of Ancyra.

Note of Guill. Beveridge. ^D [This canon], with the following canon, is not even acknowledged by Photius himself, who in his preface to the Nomocanon sets down that this synod published only 28 canons. But it appears in all the codices of Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus. Verily, however, it is nothing other than the decree of this council, by which the case agitated between Photius, bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, was finished. Truly, Eustathius had seized for himself six cities pertaining to Photius, and had removed the bishops of them, ordained by Photius, and had thrust them into the order of presbyters. The judges in the synod, having been informed of this matter, committed it to the synod to be determined, to which it solely belonged. Which things when they had said, Paschasianus, Lucentius and Bonifacius, vicars of the Roman See, pronounced the first part of this canon, and Anatolius of Constantinople added what he is handed down to have said in the canon itself: to which the whole synod forthwith consented, acclaiming, The judgment of the Fathers is just. See this more fully explained toward the end of the fourth Action of this synod, where this decree itself also appears. Act. syn. Chalced. page 247, edit. Col. year 1618. These words, as far as "inclusive," are missing in the Amerbach ms.: but they are read in the Acts themselves cited above.

^A and the authorities, and the rest of the council followed. Read the 1st and 2nd canons of the Council of Ancyra, the 9th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, the 3rd and 26th canons of the 6th Council, and the 27th and 70th canons of St. Basil. Except for me those who have taken wives after their ordination. For these, after they have ceased from their ministry, do certain things. And read the 99th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, placed in the canon of the council; and the end of the inquiries made to the holy council at Constantinople, and the answers given to them in the time of that most holy patriarch, the Lord Nicholas.

ZONAR. It is not permitted for anyone to be brought down from the episcopal dignity to the rank of presbyter. For either one is cast out of the high priesthood on account of certain charges, and such a person is deemed unworthy even of the functions of the lower priesthood; or he is deprived of the episcopal dignity without cause, and therefore he ought not to be demoted to the order of presbyter, but rather restored to the dignity taken from him beyond merit, and returned to the place of honor from which he was unjustly cast out. For the canon calls the demotion of one from the episcopate to the rank of presbyter a sacrilege. For he is stripped by that injury of the dignity of the high priesthood, and he who takes it away is robbing not only a sacred thing, but something even greater and more excellent than the sacred thing. For through the invocation of the high priest and his prayers, temples are consecrated by the descent of the Holy Spirit, and other sacred things receive their sanctity; and it is absolutely necessary that he who effectuates holy things be greater than the things sanctified. ^B

ARIST. He who demotes a bishop to presbyter is a sacrilegist. For he who is guilty is unworthy even of the priesthood; but he who is demoted while innocent, let him be a bishop. To demote a bishop to the rank of presbyter is clearly sacrilege. For either he is guilty, and is deposed from the priesthood; or he is free from blame, and ought not to be removed from the dignity of the episcopate.

CANON XXX.

Since the most pious bishops of Egypt, not as opposing the Catholic faith, delayed subscribing to the epistle of the most holy Archbishop Leo for the present, but saying that it is the custom in the Egyptian diocese to do nothing of this kind without the will and mandate of the archbishop, and ask that indulgence be granted to them until the ordination of the future bishop of the great city of the Alexandrians; it seemed just and humane to us that to them, remaining in the same habit in the imperial city, a reprieve be granted until the archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians shall have been ordained. Wherefore, remaining in their own habit, they shall either provide sureties, if this is possible for them, or their faith shall be taken by their oath. ^{C D}

^B Exomosia is for one to swear by the head of the Emperor, or for one’s own safety. It is called exomosia because this oath is not referred by legal experts to the five established types of oaths, but is outside of them. Read the theme of chapter 20, title 6, book 7 of the Basilica, and what is written externally to it. And note from the present canon how the 20th Apostolic Canon—which says, "A cleric who provides security shall be deposed"—is interpreted, and read its interpretation.

ZONAR. In the fourth synod, which was held at ^C Chalcedon against Dioscorus and Eutyches and their adherents, some of the bishops from Egypt were present, who refused to subscribe to the things decreed by the holy synod, following the letter of the holy Pope Leo of Rome, which he sent to the most holy Archbishop of Constantinople, Flavian. They refused, not as though they were displeased with what the synod had decided, but because there was no Archbishop of Alexandria at that time; they said that it was the custom in Egypt for the bishops to perform no ecclesiastical matter without the judgment of the Archbishop of Alexandria, and they begged that ^D this be granted to them until an Archbishop of Alexandria should be created. The bishops of the synod, suspecting that the Egyptian bishops were heterodox, and that for this reason they did not wish to confirm what had been decreed synodically with their own signatures, adjudged the penalty of deposition upon them. Those of the princes who were present at the synod, together with the senate, judged that they ought to be granted an extension while remaining in their own dignity of episcopal status, to await the ordination of the Archbishop of Alexandria. The bishops of the synod, however, suspecting that this postponement was a pretext so that, having obtained freedom, they might depart, demanded that sureties be given for their staying in the city of Constantinople. And this request having been approved also by the princes and the senate, it was decreed for the Egyptians that they should either provide sureties, if they had any, or else certainly bind their faith by an oath.

An oath is the swearing by the head and salvation of the emperor, and for one's own salvation. ^A ARIST. It is the custom among the Egyptians not to subscribe, unless the archbishop permits it. Hence, those who do not subscribe to the epistle of the holy Leo are blameless until an archbishop is created for them. In the Egyptian diocese, the custom prevailed that bishops should not subscribe without the permission of their archbishop. And since this holy synod at Chalcedon assembled under the most religious emperor Marcian against the profane and heretical Dioscorus, then archbishop of Alexandria, who imagined that the Lord bore flesh only in appearance and that He existed in one nature only, and attributed passions to the Godhead, ^B and [the synod] deposed him from his throne, and no other patriarch had yet been appointed in the place of that impious man, for this reason they were not forced to subscribe to the most orthodox epistle of the holy Pope Leo, but a dispensation was granted to them until an Alexandrian bishop should be created. And thus, according to his command, they would subscribe. They were, however, asked to provide sureties, or to swear upon the head of the emperor that they would patiently remain there until the city of the Alexandrians should have a bishop.

CONCERNING THE FIFTH SYNOD

^A And this council did not set forth any canons.

CONCERNING THE SIXTH COUNCIL

BALS. The Sixth Council was held in this queen of cities while Constantine Pogonatus, the father of Justinian and grandson of Heraclius, was reigning. One hundred and seventy holy Fathers assembled against Theodore, who had held the episcopate in Phara; Honorius of Rome; Cyrus of Alexandria; and Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who had presided over the Church in Constantinople; against Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen; and against the delirious old man Polychronius, who had dared to dogmatize that our Lord Jesus Christ has one will and one operation after his incarnation. These, along with those who shared their opinion, this holy council cut off from the Church and anathematized, dogmatizing that our Lord ^B Jesus Christ has two natural wills and two similar operations after his incarnation. It confirmed this, not in a division of persons, but [to show] that no nature of the two natures which are in Christ was without a will or without an operation; lest, if these properties of each nature—I mean the operation and the will—were taken away, the two natures themselves, whose properties these are, would also appear to be taken away. However, even this council did not set forth any canons.

ZONAR. The Sixth Council was held in this queen of cities while Constantine Pogonatus, the grandson of Heraclius, was reigning. One hundred and seventy holy Fathers assembled ^C against Theodore, who had held the episcopate in Phara; Honorius of Rome; Cyrus of Alexandria; and Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who had presided over the Church of Constantinople; against Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen; and against the foolish old man Polychronius, who had dared to dogmatize that our Lord Jesus Christ has one will and one operation after his incarnation. These, along with those who shared their opinion, this holy council cut off from the Church and anathematized, dogmatizing that our Lord Jesus Christ has two natural wills and two similar operations after his incarnation. It confirmed this, not in a division of persons, but [to show] that no nature of the two natures in Christ was without a will or without an operation; ^D lest, if these properties of each nature—I mean the operation and the will—were taken away, the two natures themselves, whose properties these are, would appear to be taken away. However, even this council did not set forth any canons.

CONCERNING THE SO-CALLED SIXTH SYNOD.

^A BALS. When the second Justinian, that is to say the one called "Rhinotmetus" [the slit-nosed], was reigning, who was the son of Constantine Pogonatus, two hundred and twenty-seven bishops assembled by command of the said emperor, and they issued canons for ecclesiastical governance.

ZONAR. Therefore, when the second Justinian, that is to say the one called "Rhinotmetus" (that is, from his nose being cut off), who was the son of Constantine Pogonatus, held the empire, two hundred and twenty-seven bishops, commanded by the same emperor, assembled and issued canons, confirmed also by the authority of the same emperor, for the constitution of ecclesiastical affairs. And this synod also retained the appellation of the sixth, ^B both because nothing was sought in it concerning matters pertaining to the dogmas of the faith, through which it would have been considered a synod in its own proper name, and because it filled the gaps of the preceding sixth synod regarding the issuance of canons. And because it followed it immediately, it was reckoned with it.

CANONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED IN THE TRULLUS OF THE IMPERIAL PALACE AT CONSTANTINOPLE UNDER JUSTINIAN, OUR MOST PIOUS AND CHRIST-LOVING EMPEROR.

Dedicatory Address of the Holy Fathers who assembled in the Trullus of the imperial palace at Constantinople to Justinian, the most pious emperor. ^C

"To the most pious and Christ-loving emperor Justinian, the holy and universal synod..."

Guill. Beveregius’ Notes.

Regarding the term *Trullus*: In ancient buildings, especially sacred and more celebrated ones, they are often mentioned. Codinus: *Cod. in orig. Constant.* Zonaras: *Annal. in Justiniano.* Metrodorus: *Metrod. in Martyr. S. Dionysii.* Anastasius the Librarian: *Trullum vero ejusdem Ecclesiae fusis chariis plumbeis cooperuit, atque munivit.* Anast. *In Vita Sergii I.* "Trullum," or "trullus," properly was nothing other than a vault, or a certain place vaulted in a circle—more often called a *camera* by the Latins, as the aforementioned Anastasius did—"cameram basilicae Constantianae, et alteram cameram B. Petri ornavit." Anastasius in his *Life of Leo*. Zonaras, in the place cited above, also uses ^D the term for the same thing, saying "Hinc adjectivum..." *Chron. Constantinop.* Therefore the *Trullum* of the palace, where the present council was celebrated in Constantinople, and which is called "Trullan" from that, was a place of this kind vaulted in the said imperial palace, or perhaps some building within the precincts of the palace, constructed in that form; just as Matthew Blastares opined, saying— *Matth. Blast. praefat. ad Syntag.*

Address of the holy synod to the most pious emperor, to whom it submitted the canons enacted by them.

^A ...by the divine nod and decree of your most pious rule, gathered in this God-guarded and royal city.

When the ineffable and divine grace of our Redeemer and Savior Jesus Christ had encompassed the whole world, and the life-giving proclamation of the truth had been sown into the ears of all, the people who were sitting in the darkness of ignorance saw a great light of knowledge, and were freed from the bonds of error, having exchanged the ancient servitude for the kingdom of heaven; but he who was cast out from the beauty of the original splendor because of pride, that first dragon, that mind, that great Assyrian, is captured by those whom he formerly held captive, and becomes, by the power of the incarnate Word, bereft of all strength, as it is written: “The enemy’s swords have failed in the end.” For everywhere, rational worship is ^B established by law, and the whole burnt offering is offered; and God, being sacrificed and shared for the preservation of both bodies and souls, deifies those who are partakers of him; because of which also demons are put to flight, and the holy congregation of men that is gathered in the churches is mystically sanctified, and the paradise of delights is opened to all; and finally, all things become new. But since the man-killing devil, once having lifted up his neck against the almighty Lord and having brought forth the labor of rebellion, not bearing to see us raised up from the fall of transgression and flying towards heaven through our first-fruits, that is, Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for our sake, he did not cease hurling the weapons of wickedness and wounding the faithful with passions, so that they might be separated from the efficacy, honor, and grace given to them by the Spirit. Nor did our good Athlothetes ^C and leader of salvation, God, leave us devoid of aid, waking up in every generation those who, instructed in the arms of worship and religion in this stadium of life, stood against him in battle and engaged him; who, having drawn the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and having thus engaged the wicked one, dissolved the tyranny he exercised against us, having become leaders of the flocks, and smoothing and preparing the ways of the Lord for the peoples, so that they might not be pushed and slide down into the precipices of iniquity through ignorance of what is better. For it behooved him who granted us our being, and who at such a degree of humiliation and lowliness ^D claimed our race for himself,

^A and recalled and raised it up, and pointed out to us the path to well-being through the luminaries and teachers of the Church, who enlighten our steps according to God and urge us toward the Gospel—whose citizenship is also in the heavens, as the divine Apostle says—whence even now, as we lead our own lives more negligently and are asleep in our leisure from reasoning and reflection, the enemy who lies in wait along the path has cast himself upon us while we are unwary, and, having gradually stolen away virtue, has substituted vice in its place. Christ our God, who as the helmsman of this great ship of the present world guides it, raised you up for us as a wise governor and pious emperor, a protector indeed, ordering his words in judgment, keeping truth forever, doing judgment and justice in the midst of the earth, and walking in a blameless way. Him, whom wisdom conceived and brought forth, and having beautifully reared and adorned with virtues, and filled with the divine Spirit, she made the eye of the world; ^B you, who shine forth clearly to your subjects by the purity and brightness of your mind, to whom he committed his Church, and whom he taught to meditate on her law night and day for the perfection and edification of the peoples who are under your hands; who, with the fervor of your longing toward God, surpass the zeal of Phinehas, and having pierced sin with the power of piety and prudence, you have also willed to withdraw the flock from vice and destruction. For it behooved him who, after the divine impetus, had taken up the helm of the human race, not only to look to himself and how his own life might be directed, but also to save from the great billows and from the confusion of many matters all those whom he rules, who are being overwhelmed from every side by spirits of wickedness ^C and who are troubling the body of our humility. Since indeed the two holy and ecumenical synods, which were assembled in this royal and God-guarded city—the one in the times of Justinian of divine memory, the other under our emperor Constantine of pious memory, the father of your gentleness—in order to declare paternally the mystery of the faith, did not record any holy canons, as did the other four holy ecumenical synods, through which the peoples might indeed depart from a worse and more abject way of living and might cross over to a better and higher life; and from this the holy nation, the royal priesthood, for whom Christ died, ^D being torn apart and dragged under by many unseemly passions, and having little by little been broken off and severed from the divine fold, and having fallen away through ignorance and forgetfulness from good things and from deeds of virtue, and—to speak apostolically—having trampled underfoot the Son of God and regarded the blood of the covenant, in which it was sanctified, as common, has treated the grace of the Spirit with contumely. This, insofar as it is

^A a chosen people that you have wished to assemble, in imitation of Christ, who seeks the wandering sheep upon the mountain 65 and restores it to his own fold, and persuades it to keep both the commandments and the divine precepts, through which, withdrawing from dead works, we are brought to life, and having pondered every means of salvation, and having sought God according to the spoken saying, "Those who seek the Lord will find knowledge with justice; but those who seek him rightly will find peace," 66 you have decreed that this holy and God-elected ecumenical council be gathered, so that through the assembly and concord of the many in one place, that which is pursued with great zeal might be performed by you rightly and in order; but also that if any remnant of Hellenic or Judaic perversity has become mixed with the ripe wheat of truth, it might be rooted out as tares, and the crop of the Church be shown to be pure. "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them," 67 says the Lord. And again he has cried out to us through Jeremiah: "Seek me with all your heart, and I will appear to you." 68 For this reason, then, according to the command of your piety, we have gathered in this God-guarded and royal city and have written sacred canons. Wherefore we beseech your piety, bringing before you the voices ^B of those who were previously gathered in this God-guarded city under our emperor of happy memory, that just as you have honored the Church with the letters of convocation, so too you might seal the end of those things which have been decreed with your pious signature. May the Lord establish and confirm your empire in peace and justice, and transmit it to generations of generations, and add to your earthly power the enjoyment of the kingdom in heaven as well. ≫

BALSAMON. Exegesis of the Preceding Address

^A BALS. From this present address made to the Emperor Justinian, who is also called the "Rhinotmetus" (the Slit-Nosed), it is shown that since the two ecumenical councils—the fifth, namely, which took place while Justinian the Great was reigning, and the sixth, which took place while Constantine Pogonatus was reigning—did not make canons for the constitution of the Churches, this present council ^C was held as a supplement to those two. For this reason it is also not strictly called the sixth, but the Quinisext, that is, the fifth-and-sixth; for it supplied what was lacking in the fifth and sixth councils. It is, moreover, also ecumenical. For although the Western bishops, namely the Italians and Latins, being soundly struck by the canons of such a council, have persisted in saying that it is not ecumenical, and that the legates of the Pope of Rome were not present at it, because there is another sixth council which took place in the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, as we have said, and that this one occurred a long time later by the command of Justinian the ^D Rhinotmetus—I, however, not tolerating hearing them, and looking rather to the context of this address, and from then on...

^A canons saying: "This holy and ecumenical synod has defined this and that"—as for the newly written Nomocanons, since they did not have the signatures of the emperors and Fathers who set forth the synods, I passed them over. But I examined the anciently written Nomocanons and discovered from the signatures that even in that synod which was convened in the Trullo of the imperial palace, there were present a certain Basil, bishop of the metropolis of Gortyna on the island of Crete, and a certain bishop of Ravenna, ^B holding the place of the entire synod of the Church of Rome; and not only they, but also those who were then the legates of the Pope: the bishops of Thessalonica, Sardica, Heraclea in Thrace, and Corinth. Legates are those called "from the face" (i.e., personal representatives), who also possess a particular jurisdiction, as this is demonstrated from the second title of the sixth book of the *Basilica*.

That the Pope of Rome did not have the right of ordination in our provinces, as some mistakenly believe, saying that the bishop of Thessalonica and others were ordained by him, but rather that he had legates—that is, those "from the face" who were obliged to be present when there was need—is proved indeed by many other things, and because sometimes the Pope's legates were present as the bishops of Thessalonica, Athens, and Corinth; other times as those of Corinth, Crete, Patras, Ravenna, and others; and sometimes others still. As it is evident that those whom each of them chose were the Pope's legates, yet he did not have so many extra-metropolitan bishops under him, so as to ordain them. But that the Pope had legates from our provinces, this was devised on account of the length of the journey. If you wish, therefore, to hear about these things more fully, read the first chapter of the history written by the Caesar Constantine. ^C

ZONAR. This writing is a prooemium to the edition of the canons, and an address from the synod to the Emperor Justinian the Rhinotmetus, explaining how and for what reason the gathering of this synod took place by imperial command. Namely, because with the two ecumenical synods, the fifth and the sixth—the one having been held during the reign of Justinian the Great, and the other during the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, who was the father of the Emperor Justinian the Rhinotmetus to whom this discourse is addressed—many things concerning the dogmas of the faith had been investigated and decreed, yet they had not promulgated any canons for establishing ecclesiastical order and for the moral formation of the Christian people, similar to the preceding synods. Hence, it was the concern of the Emperor that the people, by ignorance of their duty, might not stray from the straight path of virtue, ^D and, having obtained a more licentious manner of living, might finally slip into the abyss of wickedness and vices. The synod, therefore, was ordered by him to be gathered, and from thence those Fathers were assembled and set forth canons, fulfilling what had been lacking in the aforementioned synods. And finally, this writing petitions the Emperor to confirm the canons through his own signature.

^A by the same synod, and to place this as a seal upon them; then, turning to a prayer for the emperor, it brings the discourse to a close.

CANON I

^A And furthermore, we seal with approval, as an unbreakable bulwark of piety, the teachings set forth by the two hundred God-bearing Fathers formerly gathered in the city of Ephesus under Theodosius, son of Arcadius, who was our emperor, preaching one Christ, the Son of God, even when incarnate, and glorifying her who brought Him forth without seed, the undefiled and ever-virgin, strictly and in truth as the Theotokos; and we drive away the foolish division of Nestorius as being alien to the divine portion, for he dogmatized that the one Christ was separately man and separately God, and was reviving the Jewish impiety.

Not only this, but we also orthodoxly confirm the faith inscribed by the six hundred and thirty God-chosen Fathers in the metropolis of the Chalcedonians under Marcian, who was also our emperor; which, with a great and lofty voice, delivered to the ends of the earth that the one Christ, the Son of God, is composed of two natures and is glorified in these same two natures, ^B and drove away from the sacred precincts of the Church, as some abomination and pollution, Eutyches the senseless, who declared that the great mystery of the economy was fulfilled only in appearance, and who considered it some portentous evil. And with him, Nestorius and Dioscorus, of whom the one was the defender and champion of division, and the other of confusion, who had indeed fallen from the diametrically opposite direction of impiety into one abyss of perdition and godlessness.

But furthermore, we recognize as uttered by the Spirit the voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing Fathers ^C who were gathered in this royal city under Justinian of pious memory, who was our emperor, and we teach them to our descendants. For they synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, as well as Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who brought back again the fables of the Greeks, and who restored to us the circulations and mutations—or rather, transmigrations—of certain bodies and souls, according to their own mental deliria and dreams, and who impiously and insultingly insulted the resurrection of the dead; ^D and also what was written by Theodoret against the right faith and the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, and the letter called that of Ibas.

Furthermore, we also profess that we keep inviolate the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which was lately gathered in this royal city under our emperor Constantine, of divine memory, which received even greater authority through the fact that our pious emperor secured its tomes with his seals for safety for all future ages; and again we confess that we hold to it, which openly taught that we must piously believe in the incarnate economy of our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, that there are two natural volitions, or wills, and two natural operations—[condemning] those who had adulterated the right decree of truth and who were teaching the peoples that there was one will and one operation in our one Lord God Jesus Christ.

^A By the decree of piety, we condemn—we mean Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, who presided in this God-guarded city, Macarius who was bishop of the Antiochians, Stephen his disciple, and the senseless Polychronius. By this means, the common body of Christ our God is kept untouched and unblemished. And to speak in sum, we decree that the faith of all those men who have shone forth in the Church of God, who have become lights in the world and who hold the word of life, shall remain firm and unshaken until the end of the age; and we reject and anathematize all their God-handed writings and dogmas, just as they rejected and anathematized those whom they considered enemies of the truth, who raged in vain against God, and who meditated injustice on high ^B. But if anyone does not hold and embrace the aforesaid decrees of piety, and so think and preach, but endeavors to go in opposition to them, let him be anathema, and according to the decree set forth by the aforementioned holy and blessed Fathers, let him be cast out and expelled from the Christian roll. For we maintain that we neither add anything at all to these previously defined matters, nor do we take anything away, nor are we able to do so in any manner whatever (51).

Notes of William Beveridge

^C Note from the present canon that there is another which is, strictly speaking, the sixth synod, and not the one currently gathered in the Trullo. For it is clear that in this canon the faith set forth by the sixth synod is confirmed. In the Amerbachian Codex, another scholium also occurs here, in these words: From this it is also permitted to discern how impudent is the malice of the Iconomachs [iconoclasts], who, attempting to calumniate the accurate system of these canons which are proposed here because they are opposed to their own barbarian heresy, say that those who set forth these canons were afflicted with the disease of the Monothelites, and subscribed even against the holy and ecumenical sixth synod. But these men, as it is permitted for all to see, by proclaiming in express words that those who were condemned by that synod, together with their most execrable opinion, are subject to the same punishments and curses. This race of Iconomachs, therefore, seems to imitate its progenitors, the Eutychianists and the Dioscori. For just as they shamelessly calumniated those Fathers who were gathered in the holy and ecumenical fourth synod, when they had cast their madness out of the Church, claiming that they held the same views as Nestorius, even though they had explicitly anathematized him: so too these men, as truly genuine disciples and descendants of those [heretics], were not ashamed to bluster that these holy and sacred men—who, it is manifest, conducted themselves strenuously ^D together with the holy and ecumenical synod against the impious Monothelites—were imbued with their opinions; thereby perpetrating something similar to the Jews, who were not ashamed to insult our Lord Jesus Christ, who cleansed the work of the demons, by declaring that He possessed a demon, and by babbling that He cast out the demons in the prince of demons—that is, by subverting the lordship of the demons.

^A ARIST. The faith of the Apostles is not to be innovated. The faith of the Nicene Fathers is perfect, which subverted the dogma of Arius, who introduced degrees of divinity, by [the doctrine of] consubstantiality. The Synod held under Theodosius the Great is to remain inviolate, which deposed Macedonius, who asserted that the Holy Spirit is a servant. Those two hundred who were gathered at Ephesus under the younger Theodosius are to be revered forever, who expelled Nestorius, who asserted that the Lord was a man separately and God separately. Those who gathered at Chalcedon under Marcian are to be celebrated with eternal memory, who deposed Eutyches—who dared to say that the great mystery was performed by imagination—and Nestorius and Dioscorus, who, though diametrically opposed, observed ^B things equal [in error]. One hundred and sixty-five were gathered in the Imperial City under Justinian, who anathematized Origen, who asserted the cycles of bodies and souls, and Theodoret, who dared to exalt himself against the twelve chapters of Cyril. A synod was assembled in Constantinople under Constantine, which rejected Honorius of Rome and Sergius of Constantinople, who preached one will and one operation.

This synod, assembled under Justinian Rhinotmetus, having decreed that the apostolic canons, and the six ecumenical synods that were held before it, and the seven provincial ones, should remain firm and be kept uninnovated and uncorrupted, set forth also the canons which follow for the healing of souls and the cure of passions; and first of all it immediately confirms the tradition of the apostolic canons; and next it seals the sacred canons of the ecumenical and provincial synods.

The first synod was held at Nicaea under the emperor among the saints, Constantine the Great, against the impious Arius, who held it more suitable to speak of ^C pagan heterotheism—or, to speak more aptly, the multitude of gods—as a dogma, and who did not blush to say that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, was a creature, and not consubstantial with God and the Father.

The second synod was held at Constantinople under the emperor Theodosius the Great against Macedonius the Spirit-fighter, who poured forth impious words against the Holy Spirit and said that It is not God; and furthermore against Apollinaris of Laodicea, and Sabellius of Libya, who alike opined and said that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ was without soul and mind. ^D

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. ...confirming by their authority. (52) *Ethnic heterotheism*. Let it escape no one. From the canon itself it should be supplemented in this way: *ethnic heterotheism*, or, to speak more aptly, *multiplicity of gods* as a dogma; so that the Latin version may be fully held thus: "who held ethnic diversity of gods, or, to speak more aptly, the multitude of gods, as a dogma."

The third [synod] was at Ephesus, under Theodosius the Younger, against Nestorius, that worshipper of man, who impiously divided and rent asunder Christ, and said that He was a mere man and not God incarnate; and who taught two sons and two persons in the one Christ our God. Whence, too, he did not call the most holy Virgin Mary, who bore Him, God our Lord Jesus Christ, the Theotokos, but Christotokos.

The fourth [synod] was at Chalcedon, under the most religious Emperor Marcian, the son-in-law of the sister of Theodosius the Younger, ^A against Dioscorus and Eutyches, who fabled that the incarnation of God and our Savior Jesus Christ took place only in imagination, and said that He existed in one nature, and attributed sufferings to His divinity.

The fifth [synod] was held under Justinian the Great in Constantinople, against the delirious Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, ^B who, refashioning Greek fables, foolishly said that these very bodies with which we are now clothed do not rise again; that Paradise is not perceptible to the senses, nor is it of God; that Adam was not formed in the flesh; that there will be an end to punishment; [that there will be] a restoration of demons to their pristine state; and [who] babbled ten thousand other blasphemies.

The sixth [synod] was held under Constantine Pogonatus in Constantinople, against Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Sergius and Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, ^C who presided over the Constantinopolitan Church, and others who renewed their heresy. For these enemies of God and most wicked men taught that the Lord our God Jesus Christ, even after the incarnation, had one will and one operation; and they were smitten with anathema by this synod. No canons were published either by the fifth synod, held under Justinian the Great, or by this sixth [synod], gathered under Constantine Pogonatus. But that synod under Constantine Pogonatus is called the sixth, and this present one, which was held under his son Rhinotmetus, is also called the sixth; because both were considered as one synod, ^D inasmuch as this one was held twenty-seven years later, and it is likely that all, or at least most, of the bishops who gathered here were the same as those who gathered there, and because they were convened for the same questions and the same dogmas.

CANON II

• It was also pleasing to this holy synod, in a most beautiful and earnest manner, that from this present time forward, for the healing of souls and the cure of passions, those [canons] which have been...

^A accepted and confirmed by the holy and blessed Fathers [(54)] who preceded us, and thus handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious apostles, the eighty-five canons, be observed. Since, however, in these canons it is commanded that we receive the Constitutions of the same holy apostles [written] through Clement, in which—to the detriment of the Church—certain foreign and alien things were long ago inserted by those who hold views contrary to the faith, which have obscured for us the elegant and seemly beauty of the divine dogmas; we have suitably rejected the [provisions] of such constitutions for the edification and security of the most Christian flock, in no way approving of the progeny of heretical falsehood, nor joining them to the genuine and wholesome doctrine of the apostles. ^B

We also set our seal upon all the remaining canons which have been set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers; that is to say, those of the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers who gathered in Nicaea, and those in Ancyra, and furthermore those in Neocaesarea; likewise those in Gangra; in addition to these, those in Antioch in Syria; and indeed also those in Laodicea in Phrygia; furthermore, those of the one hundred and fifty who gathered in this God-protected and royal city, and those of the two hundred who were formerly assembled in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and those [in Chalcedon] of the six hundred and thirty holy and blessed Fathers; likewise also those in Sardica, and furthermore those in Carthage; ^C and, moreover, those [canons] of the Fathers who gathered again in this God-protected and royal city under Nectarius, who presided over this royal city, and Theophilus, who was Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise also the canons of Dionysius, who was Archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, and of Peter, who was Archbishop of Alexandria and martyr, and of Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, who is called the Wonderworker, and of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, and of Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, [and of] Gregory the Theologian, and of Amphilochius of Iconium, and of Timothy, who was Archbishop of Alexandria, ^D and of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria, and of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and of Gennadius, who was Patriarch of this God-protected and royal city. Furthermore, [we also receive] the canon issued by Cyprian, who was Archbishop of the African region and martyr, and by the synod which was under him, which has been preserved in the places of the aforementioned prelates alone, according to the custom handed down to them. And it is permitted to no one to alter the previously declared canons.

or to rescind them, or to accept others besides those set before us, composed with a false inscription by certain persons who have attempted to traffic in the truth. If anyone is caught innovating or attempting to overturn any of the aforementioned canons, he shall be liable according to that canon, as it itself declares, receiving the penalty and through it finding healing for that in which he offends. ^A

BALS. Always keep this present canon in mind. For by it you will stop the mouths of those who say that the eighty-five canons were not issued by the holy apostles, nor any canon whatsoever by the holy and ecumenical synod, which decreed that the Church of the Constantinopolitans should have the privileges of ancient Rome. ^B Note also through this the confirmation that took place of the local holy synods and of the regulations established by certain holy Fathers. For many deem that these ought not to hold, as having been made neither by ecumenical synods nor confirmed by emperors. ^C

*Guill. Beveregii notae.* In the Bodleian and Eton manuscripts, after these final words of the canon and before Balsamon’s scholium, these things are had: “Note the present canon on account of the Latins, who say the eighty-five canons are not of the holy apostles.” These things are also read in the Amerbachian manuscript in this way; however, these seem to be excerpts from the scholia of Balsamon, where the same things are observed. Moreover, from the fact that these apostolic canons are confirmed by the present synod, Matthaeus Blastares concludes that no doubt can be raised about them in the future; for after the words of this canon, citing them, he adds, *Blast. in praef. ad Syntag.*

In the edition of Gulielmus Morellus, ^D after these words of Balsamon on this canon, these things are read: “In the canon of the holy apostles, and in the present canon, it is set forth which books of the Old and New Testament ought to be read. Since, however, I have seen a great man bringing forward a Nomocanon, which had the canons of the holy apostles composed by Clement, and various Novels of Emperor Justinian, which were not received into the purgation of laws, I warn all who are about to read a Nomocanon, not to apply their mind to the older books of Nomocanons: but let them read that which was elaborated by Patriarch Photius, and divided into titles. As for the Nomocanon which reduced laws and canons into fifty titles, and the rest which the Novellae of Justinian contain—which had fallen into disuse, as those which were not received in the Basilica, and certain other laws from the Digest and Code, and which are thought to be opulent and copious because they abound in very many words (for I have seen innumerable such books)—let them understand that many men who are in great esteem treat them as nothing, and allow them to perish.” Where one may observe by the way that that Nomocanon, of which he says that it reduced laws and canons into fifty titles, is undoubtedly none other than the Nomocanon of John of Antioch, since in it laws and canons are reduced into exactly that number of titles, namely fifty. These things, however, are also partially held in the Bodleian manuscript, but read far differently than they are translated here. For thus they are read there: “...in the canon of the holy apostles, and in the present canon it is distinguished which books of the Old and New Testament ought to be read. Since, however, I have seen some men most illustrious in dignity reading ancient Nomocanons, in which canons composed by Clement as if they were of the holy apostles, and the Novellae of Justinian rejected from the purgation of laws, are placed—I warn them, and all who wish to read canons and laws, not to apply their mind to the older Nomocanons; but [to] that of Photius which Zonaras also interpreted; and that of the patriarch of Antioch, as it is judged more fully.” These words, however, do not pertain to the scholia of Balsamon nor of Zonaras, as it is evident from the fact that they make mention of both, namely Zonaras explicitly, and Balsamon under the name of the patriarch of Antioch; and on that account they are rightly omitted by the Amerbachian manuscript.

^A ZONAR. From this point the canons begin, and it is decreed that those things which were ordained by the holy and all-praised apostles must be kept before all others, and likewise that the dogmas decreed by the preceding synods must not be passed over nor violated in any point whatsoever. Then it also enumerates the synods, and against whom each was assembled, and what things were impiously introduced by them, and what things were dogmatized and confirmed by each synod; and it pledges that the faith and dogmas of all the holy Fathers shall remain immovable and firm, and that we must cherish their writings, but cast away and anathematize the enemies of the truth. It also puts under censure and under anathema those who do not think and act, hold, and preach in this way. For it says that we have no power to add anything to what has been determined by the holy Fathers, nor to take anything away, but rather we follow them in all things. ^B ZONAR. The beginning of the canons is taken from this place, and it is ordained that what things were sanctioned by the holy and most reverend apostles must first of all be observed, and then the synodical decrees also edited to this time, so that it may not be lawful to violate them or to weaken them in any part. Then the synods themselves are commemorated, as well as those against whom each was held; and it is explained what either they impiously thought, or what was defined and confirmed in turn by the authority of each synod. Then they command that the faith and dogmas of the holy Fathers be held inviolate and entirely firm, that we acquiesce in their writings and authority, that we avoid the enemies of the truth, and that we devote them to all curses. If any, however, have thought or acted otherwise, or have held opinions or taught such things, they punish them and define them to be subject to anathema. For they say: we have not found anything that could be added to or taken away from the decrees of the holy Fathers; but we follow them in all things.

ARIST. ^C «Let those things which were furtively inserted by the heterodox into the Constitutions of the Apostles through Clement be rejected.» In the apostolic canons, it is commanded that, along with other books of the New and Old Testament, we hold the constitutions of the apostles—composed by Clement in eight books—to be venerable and holy. But the present canon orders them to be rejected, because certain spurious things, and things foreign to piety, have been added to them by the heterodox to the ruin of the Church, for the edification and security of the most Christian flock.

CANON III

subjected to canonical deposition. But as for those who have fallen into such a stain of bigamy, yet before our cognizance recognized what is beneficial, and cut off the evil from themselves, and have driven far away this alien and bastard commixture, or those whose wives by a second marriage have already died, or those who themselves have looked toward conversion, having learned temperance and quickly forgotten their former transgressions—whether they happen to be presbyters or deacons—it has been resolved that they cease from every priestly ministry, that is, [active] function, having already been punished for a certain definite time, but that they still partake in the honor of the cathedra and station, being content with the precedence, ^B and weeping before the Lord that the sin of their ignorance may be forgiven them. For it is not fitting that he who must tend his own wounds should bless another. But as for those who have been joined to one wife, if it was a widow who was taken; and likewise those who after ordination have committed themselves to one marriage, that is, presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, having been for a short time prohibited from sacred ministry and punished, they are to be restored again to their own ranks, but by no means be promoted to another rank, their unlawful cohabitation having been manifestly dissolved. These things we have decreed regarding those who were found, up to the 15th of the month of ^C January, as has been said, of the fourth indiction, in the aforementioned faults, and solely [concerning] those in priestly orders; defining from the present onward, and renewing the canon which declares, that he who has been implicated in two marriages after baptism, or who has possessed a concubine, cannot be a bishop or a presbyter or a deacon, or in any way of the priestly catalog. Likewise also that he who takes a widow, or one cast off, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress, cannot be a bishop or a presbyter or a deacon, ^D or in any way of the priestly catalog.

BALS. The present canon makes regulations regarding certain matters previously spoken of, and for this reason nothing was written by way of interpretation.

Notes of William Beveridge

...counting the years completed since the birth of Christ. Subtract, therefore, from 6109, and the remainder will be the year of Christ 601, in which, according to this reading, this synod in Trullo was gathered. But it was held, as all agree, under the Emperor Justinian II, son of Constantine Pogonatus, who did not obtain the empire before that year. It must therefore be read without doubt, as Elias Elimgerus, who edited this with other canons of the ancient councils from the canons of Saint Hilary of Poitiers and the Augsburg Library, reads this passage. So also it is clear that Gentian Hervet read it, because he translates it as the year 6199. Theophantes also confirms this reading, by whom this passage of the present canon is cited in these words, "We decree that those who have married twice, and before this day, which is counted the fifteenth of the month of January, of the fourth indiction, of the year 6199, have been in this fault..." In Baronius at the year 692. And this reading indeed squares exactly with the time of Justinian II. For if you subtract 6199 from it, you will have the remainder 691, in which current year of Christ, and with Justinian II reigning, the present council under him was carried out: in which also the fourth indiction fell.

^A But those things which have been canonized to remain in force henceforth regarding the end, are the 17th and 18th canons of the holy apostles, which, as it seems, the Fathers renewed because they were being transgressed. Seek therefore the interpretations of these in that place; and especially what was written regarding the 12th canon of the council in Ancyra.

ZONARAS. Those things which pertain to this third canon, inasmuch as they were accommodated only to the time in which the canon was issued, and because they were to have no further force thereafter, were passed over. But those things which the Fathers wished to remain in force also for those who came after, are contained in the 17th and 18th apostolic canons, which this synod decreed should be renewed as they were being neglected in many places. Both those canons, however, are explained, and he who seeks the explanation of them will find it among the canons of the holy apostles.

ARISTENUS. ^B «Priests who have contracted second nuptials and do not repent are deposed. But those who abstain from the evil shall cease for a fixed time; for he who is wounded does not bless. And those who have married unlawfully, and those who after ordination have entered into marriage after the fixed time, let them be known for their ranks, remaining without advancement, that is, being separated from the union. But if after the decree they are hindered [yet persist], let them remain deposed.»

The Fathers of this synod, in order at once to correct the evil which had already come to pass and to safeguard the future, set forth the present canon and decree that whoever among the priests and deacons took a second wife before this their convocation, and remained impenitent until their arrival, not breaking off these illicit marriages, shall be subjected to canonical deposition and shall fall back to the laity. ^C But those who, repenting before their convocation, recognized what was expedient and drove away this alien and bastard union, shall indeed cease from functioning in the priesthood, having also been punished for a fixed time, yet they shall be partakers only of that honor which rests in the chair and station, and they shall be content with precedence, beseeching the Lord with tears to forgive them the transgression committed through ignorance. For it is not fitting that one who is himself wounded should bless another. But also priests, and deacons, and subdeacons, who before ordination were joined to one wife, but one who was a widow; and similarly those who after ordination have applied themselves to one marriage, shall not indeed be entirely removed from the priesthood, ^D but they shall be punished for some fixed time and shall be prohibited from the sacred ministry, and shall finally be restored again to their own ranks, clearly dissolving the illicit cohabitation, and shall by no means be promoted to another greater rank, but remaining in the order in which they were found...

Guill. Beveregii note: In the Parisian edition it is read thus. In the Amerbachian manuscript it is entirely omitted, and rightly so; for the quoted twelfth canon of that Ancyran synod does not treat of the marriage of priests, but of those who sacrificed before baptism, and were later baptized.

^A And these things they decreed should be done, out of kindness and compassion, before their above-mentioned assembly. From that time forth, however, after this decree and canon, they permit nothing of the sort to come to pass; but they also decree, according to the seventeenth and eighteenth apostolic canons, that anyone who has been entangled in two marriages after baptism, or who has taken a concubine, or a widow, or a woman cast off by another, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or a subdeacon.

CANON IV

BALS. Before all else, note from this present canon that of old the order of cantors was not composed of eunuchs only, as is the case today, but also of those who were not of that sort. The order of readers was instituted not so that they might chant, but so that they might read the divine Scriptures from the ambo after the conclusion of the Matins; whence also they are called readers. For he says that cantors, just like the other clergy, are to be deposed if they have intercourse with women consecrated to God: and he not only punishes them, but also excommunicates laymen who do such a thing. Nor is it a new thing if a cleric is deposed for such a transgression. ^C For according to the 25th apostolic canon, any cleric who has had relations with any woman is deposed: much more, then, will one be deposed who defiles the bride of Christ and a vessel dedicated to God. Read also the 18th, 20th, and 60th canons of St. Basil. But when you learn how one who has relations with such women is punished, do not distinguish between a virgin and a widow, but say that the canon is spoken concerning every woman consecrated to God. Know, moreover, that a layman who has relations with such a woman is excommunicated by the present canon, but is punished corporally by chapter 1 of the first title of book 4 of the Basilics, that is, by Novel 123. Read also chapter 30 of title 9 of the present compilation.

ZONAR. Just as it is forbidden for anyone to appropriate or use a vessel of any kind or a garment dedicated to God, and consequently holy, or anyone who dares to do so is excommunicated according to the seventy-third canon of the holy apostles: ^D so also, much more, whoever violates a woman made sacred to God—whether she be a virgin, or one who has already had experience of a man—will not go unpunished; but if the one who has done this is ordained to the sacred orders or is entirely enrolled in the clergy, he shall be deposed as a sacrilegious person, or even for a graver fault, inasmuch as he has ravished a woman consecrated and betrothed to God; but if the daring person is a layman, he shall be punished with excommunication. And if someone who is initiated

if one of the clergy, but a layman, has sex with a woman of the lay order, he shall nevertheless not avoid the penalty of deposition.

ARIST. A cleric joined to the bride of God shall be deposed; but a layman shall be excommunicated. ^A This canon deposes him who is joined in the bond of matrimony to a virgin who has been consecrated and betrothed to God, if he is a cleric; but if he is a layman, it excommunicates him. But the eighteenth canon of the great Basil accounts such a one an adulterer, and does not admit him to communion otherwise than if he has first ceased from the sin.

CANON V.

Nullus eorum qui in sacerdotali catologo recen- • sentur, extra eas, quæ in canone inseruntur, a • suspicione alienas personas, degens, mulierem • possideat vel ancillam, se nulli reprehensioni • obnoxium ex hoc servans. Si quis autem quæ • a nobis definita sunt transilierit, deponatur. • Hoc ipsum autem etiam eunuchi servent, ut in- • culpati sint providentes. Qui autem transgre- • diuntur, si sint quidem clerici, deponantur : si • vero laici, segregentur. ^B

BALS. In the third canon of the first Council of Nicaea, we wrote more extensively concerning that which the present canon mentions; and seek what was written there. And note from all of this that even eunuchs are excommunicated if they dwell with strange women.

ZONAR. Since the same things are defined in this place as in the third canon of the first Council of Nicaea, see what we said there.

ARIST. ^C And let a eunuch priest not possess a handmaid or any other person, except those above suspicion.

The present canon, as well as the epistle of the great Basil to Gregory the presbyter, forbids the clergy from having introduced women, even if they are eunuchs or very aged, unless the women are persons beyond all suspicion, such as mothers, sisters, paternal or maternal aunts, and others of that kind. And they command that those who transgress what has been established shall be deposed. ^D Regarding eunuchs, however, the present canon adds more: that even if they are laymen, and dwell with women who are not among those kinswomen who are beyond all suspicion, they are excommunicated.

CANON VI.

Quoniam in apostolicis canonibus dictum est, • eorum qui non ducta uxore in clerum promo- • ventur, solos lectores et cantores uxorem posse • ducere : et nos hoc servantes, decernimus, ut • deinceps nulli penitus hypodiacono, vel dia- • cono, vel presbytero, post sui ordinationem, • conjugium contrahere liceat. Si autem fuerit • hoc ausus facere, deponatur. Si quis autem co-

- ^A -n-rum qui in clerum accedunt, velit lege matrimonii mulieri conjungi, antequam hypodiaconus vel diaconus vel presbyter ordinetur, hoc faciat.

BALS. The twenty-sixth apostolic canon decrees that only readers and cantors may contract lawful marriages. Concerning other clerics, it says nothing. And for this reason, the holy Fathers, extending their teaching consequently upon this, decide here that while readers and cantors may take wives, no one else besides them—that is, neither subdeacon, nor deacon, nor presbyter—may receive a lawful wife after ordination, or else they shall be deposed for the transgression of the canon. But how those who refuse ordination and take wives conduct themselves, you shall learn from the 59th Novel of the Lord Emperor Leo the Wise, which says in part explicitly: "We therefore, not accepting in this matter the ancient lawgiver, who wishes a presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, after his ordination has been joined to a wife, to recede entirely from such a habit and return to the lay life, do annul the decree; but we ordain that it is sufficient punishment for them to lack only the order in which they were recognized before the marriage: let them not be condemned to be entirely alienated from the clerical habit, and from other ministry in the churches, which is not illicit for them to touch." Now the law which was abrogated by this Novel is chapter 30 of title 11 of book 3 of the Basilics, which is chapter 23 of the Novel of Justinian.

ZONAR. In the twenty-sixth apostolic canon, whose authority the present Fathers followed in issuing this decree, you will find these same provisions. To no one, therefore, they say, once he has been co-opted into the clergy, except for those who have been initiated only into the orders of cantors or readers, shall it be permitted in any way to marry thereafter. For presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, it is in no way permitted. For the canon allows these to take wives before ordination, but commands them to abstain after ordination, or else to be deposed if they betake themselves to marriage.

ARIST. "He who is ordained, if he contracts marriage, is deposed; for if he wishes to do so, he ought to have been joined in marriage beforehand."

The tenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra indeed commands that he who is about to receive the rank of presbyter or deacon, and when he receives it, if he has testified beforehand that he cannot remain unmarried but wishes to take a wife, may enter into marriage even after ordination, and remain in his own ministry. But the present [canon] ^D commands that he who takes a wife after ordination be deposed. Upon which the scholiast notes on the word: "That is: let him be removed from the priesthood; but let him be a participant in the honor and the seat. But he who has committed fornication or adultery, let him be entirely expelled, and let him be led to penance." For so it is found in some of the commentators. Harmenop. Epit. can. sect. 2, tit. 3. Truly, these things are not found in the commentators printed here by us: whence it is clear that this scholiast, whoever he may have been, had seen others.

^A This canon overthrows such a rule, and altogether forbids the presbyter, the deacon, or the subdeacon from joining himself in marriage after ordination, following the twenty-sixth Apostolic canon; and it decrees that he who dares to do this after ordination shall be deposed, while granting everyone the liberty to be joined to a woman by the law of marriage before ordination.

CANON VII

^A Since we have learned that in some churches deacons hold ecclesiastical offices, and from this some of them, relying on arrogance and license, have taken to sitting before presbyters, we ordain that a deacon, even if he be in some dignity—that is, in any ecclesiastical office whatsoever—shall not sit before a presbyter, except when he is acting in the capacity of his own patriarch or metropolitan, having arrived in another city for some business. ^B For then, as filling his place, he shall be honored. But if anyone, led by tyrannical audacity, dares to go through with such a thing, such a person, having been degraded from his own rank, shall become the last of all the order in which he is enrolled in his own church, as our Lord exhorts us not to delight in the first seats, according to the teaching set forth in the holy evangelist Luke, as having proceeded from our Lord and God Himself. For He spoke this parable to those who were invited: ^C "When you are invited by someone to a wedding, do not sit down in the first place, lest a more honorable man than you be invited by him, and he who invited both him and you come and say to you, 'Give place to this man,' and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place." And since we understand that spiritual things are better than worldly dignities. It must be known that to the chartophylax of the Great Church alone is it granted, both by long custom and by the written command of the Emperor Lord Michael, and of the high priests, to sit before others in external synods. ^D We say that ecclesiastical offices and dignities are improperly called "ranks." For the ranks in the strict sense are those of the priests, the deacons, the subdeacons, and the readers; but the offices and dignities are honors and sources of revenue. What is the third among the official ecclesiastical dignities, and what is the order of these thereafter? From ancient tradition, the first is the Great Oeconomus; the second is the one over the great sakellē, that is, the Great Sakellarios; the third is the Great Skeuophylax; the fourth is the Chartophylax; the fifth is the one over the small sakellē, that is, the Sakellarios; the sixth is the Protekdikos; who are also called exōkatakoiloi. [60, 61, 62: note on variants omitted.]

^A invitatatus fueris, in ultimo loco accumbe, ut quando venerit qui te invitavit, dicat tibi, Amice, ascende altius; tunc erit tibi gloria coram iis qui tecum accumbunt. Nam quisquis se extollit, humiliabitur, et qui se humiliat, exaltabitur. Hoc ipsum autem etiam servabitur in reliquis sacris ordinibus: quandoquidem saecularibus seu mundanis dignitatibus spirituales praestantiores esse scimus.

BALS. The eighteenth canon of the first synod of Nicaea orders that deacons who sit in the midst of presbyters be deposed. But the present canon orders those who do so to be demoted from their proper rank. ^B For if he who behaved impudently and sat before the presbyters happened to be of higher rank than other deacons, he shall be brought down to the last place and shall be the lowest of all in rank, nor will that ecclesiastical office or dignity which he holds avail him. But if he has been sent by his own patriarch or metropolitan into some city to fill the place of the latter, then he shall be reckoned and honored as the one who sent him. How, then, does the canon of the Nicene synod say that a deacon who sits in the midst of presbyters is to be deposed, while this one punishes him more lightly, namely by demotion? Solution: That canon speaks of those who behaved impudently in the sacred tribunal at the time of the sacrifice, and sat before the priests; for it discusses such persons entirely, namely those deacons who offer communion to the priests and do other unworthy things of that kind. But the present canon speaks of deacons who, outside the sacred tribunal, sat on any chair before the presbyters, and for this reason it inflicts a milder punishment. ^C Ecclesiastical offices are called the archontikia. The canon wishes the same thing to be observed also in the other sacred orders, so that no one, relying on a dignity or office, should exalt himself against others, and be puffed up against those who are in a higher rank; for instance, a subdeacon against a deacon, or a reader against a subdeacon. For, it says, spiritual dignities are superior to secular ones. Note also that it is manifest from the present canon that ecclesiastical offices or dignities are ecclesiastical ranks, such as diaconal ones and the rest. I marvel, however, how, when the canon ordains that he who has been sent shall hold the place of the sender so far as honor is concerned, Basil, bishop of the Gortynians, who was present at this synod as the representative of the whole Roman Church, ^D is found to have subscribed after the four patriarchs and certain metropolitans. But, as is probable, he himself was also a legate of the Pope, and therefore subscribed after them.

just as the other legates did—that is, the ones from Thessalonica, Heraclea, and others. As for how the chartophylax of Constantinople, being a deacon, presides over bishops, it was stated in the 18th canon of the first synod. ^B Note also the canon which says that spiritual dignities are higher than worldly dignities. But do not draw from this—as some have said—that ecclesiastical dignities are to be preferred to imperial ones. Rather, interpret this against subdeacons who perhaps conduct themselves proudly and insolently toward deacons, or deacons toward presbyters; and say that if in worldly dignities it is not permitted for one who is of lesser dignity to preside over or be preferred to one who is honored with a greater dignity, then by much stronger reason it is not permitted to do this to those honored with ecclesiastical dignities—which he also called spiritual—who by their very profession ought to observe all good order. Note, therefore, that the canon, toward the end, calls ecclesiastical ranks "dignities." For often in court some have said that neither ecclesiastical rulers nor metropolitans are to be ranked in the category of holders of dignity, and for this reason, that the order of an ecclesiastical cubicularius, or rather of a bishop, is not possible, but is base. To me, however, this does not seem to be the case. And read the first chapter of the 8th title of the present code, and the written decree of the equal-to-the-apostles Saint Constantine the Great set forth there, and the commentary on the 36th chapter of the first title of the present code.

ZONARAS

^A Furthermore, the canon wishes the same to prevail for the other sacred orders, so that no one, relying on a worldly dignity or "office," may become insolent to others and act boldly against those of a higher rank—for instance, a subdeacon against a deacon, or a reader against a subdeacon. For he says, spiritual dignities are better than worldly ones, meaning nothing less than this: If in worldly dignities it is not permitted for one of lesser worth to sit before or be preferred to one who has been honored with a greater dignity, by how much more is it not permitted to do this to those who have been honored with ecclesiastical dignities—which he also called "spiritual," as they are owed not by human favor, but by divine grace through the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

ARIST. ^B «A deacon, even if he possesses an "office," unless he holds the place of a patriarch or bishop, if he sits before the presbyters, shall be considered the last of all.»

The divine Fathers, cutting away secular pride and the claiming of first seats from the Church, command that no deacon, whatever ecclesiastical "office" he may have, should take a seat above the presbyters, unless, perhaps, as a representative, he holds the person of his own patriarch or metropolitan, having been sent to another city for the sake of canonical and ecclesiastical questions; for then, as one fulfilling that person's place, he shall be honored. But if any deacon, led by tyrannical audacity, dares otherwise to sit above the presbyters, he shall be cast down from his own rank and will become the last of all the deacons.

^C CANON VIII.

«In all things, while wishing that the decrees of our holy Fathers should be held valid and firm, we also renew the canon which commands that synods of the bishops of each province should be held every year, wherever the bishop of the metropolis may judge best. But since, on account of certain incursions of Barbarians and other incidental causes, those who preside over the churches cannot hold synods twice a year, it seemed good that, by all means, once a year, on account of ecclesiastical questions which may likely arise, a synod of the aforementioned bishops should be held in each province, from the holy feast of Pascha until the conclusion of the month of October each year, in the place which, as was aforementioned, the metropolitan bishop shall judge to be more suitable. But those bishops who do not assemble, while they are residing in their own cities, ^D

^A and are in good health, and are free from all unavoidable and necessary business, should be brotherly rebuked.

BALS. How and when bishops ought to assemble unto their primates, so that synods may be held and ecclesiastical questions may be resolved, has been stated in various preceding canons. Read also chapter 8 of title 8 of the present collection, and what is written therein. The present canon says nothing more than the others, except that synods must be held once a year. Read also the nineteenth canon of the fourth synod, and the fifth canon of the first synod, and the thirty-seventh canon of the holy apostles. But someone might say that since bishops are compelled to assemble annually before the metropolitans, the metropolitans will not be compelled to assemble before the patriarch. For either these ^B assemble before the patriarch, and it happens that the synods of the provincial bishops become void, or they do not assemble, and the patriarchal synods will not take place. And perhaps someone might say these things; but you should read more attentively the twentieth chapter of the first title of the third book, which speaks in part as follows: "We command absolutely that one synod be held every year in each province, either in the month of June or September, and that those who are ordained by the most blessed patriarchs, but do not have the right to ordain other bishops, should assemble before them; ^C but those who are ordained by the most holy metropolitans [should assemble] before them." Note, therefore, from this Novella, why [the text says] synods of metropolitans are to be held before the patriarchs, and [synods] of bishops before the metropolitans.

[Note of William Beveridge: ... that which we are now publishing from the Bodleian manuscript for the first time in Greek; for I say Greek, because it has been edited previously in Latin in the edition of Guillaume Morel. Furthermore, it is read in the Amerbachian manuscript in the same way as in ours; except that in place of... ^D ... But even if this reading of this passage is constant, not only in all the manuscripts of Balsamon, but also in the very novella of Justinian, chapter 4, from whence it was cited by Balsamon in the *Basilica* (but today it does not exist there), I suspect nevertheless that an error has crept into it. For according to this reading, it is commanded by the emperor that the bishops of each diocese, who were ordained by them, and who do not have the right to ordain other bishops, should assemble annually before the patriarchs; but the bishops [should assemble] before their own metropolitans. Indeed, who can those bishops be who were ordained by the patriarchs, and yet do not have the right to ordain other bishops? And besides, who by law, as much canonical as civil, ought to assemble before the patriarchs, besides the metropolitans? But all metropolitans, for the very reason that they are metropolitans, have the power to ordain other bishops. It does not escape my notice that there were some archbishops and metropolitans who had no bishops subject to them; but in the times of Justinian, from whom this novella comes, the dignity of such archbishops and metropolitans, to whom no bishops were subordinate, had not yet been established, but was introduced by later emperors. The bishops of Dercus, Messene, Pail, and Apros, mentioned by Balsamon to support his opinion, were neither properly archbishops nor metropolitans, but bishops *autokephaloi*, as is evident from the very *Notitia Episcopatuum*; and therefore they were not ordained by any patriarch. I fear, therefore, that *mē* in this place is written erroneously for *kai*; so that the sense might be that those bishops ought to gather annually in synod before the patriarchs who were ordained by them, and have the right to ordain other bishops, that is to say, the metropolitans, who were both ordained by the patriarchs and have themselves ordained other bishops. Photius indeed seems to have read it this way, because he also produces this novella to prove that synods of metropolitans should be conducted before the patriarch, and [synods] of bishops before the metropolitans: Phot. Nomocan. tit. 8, cap. 8. But let us not conceal anything: this at least can be said for the other and common reading, that according to it the suffragan bishops, or [local] provincials of some patriarch—who are not under the name of patriarch but of metropolitan—ought to assemble before him: for they were indeed ordained by him as by a metropolitan, but they do not have the power to ordain other bishops, after the manner of metropolitans. And Justinian himself seems to favor this interpretation, where in another novella he commands every blessed archbishop and patriarch and metropolitan to convene the most holy bishops constituted under him in the same province once or twice every year to himself. Justin. Novel. 123, cap. 10. For here, as can be seen, not only archbishops and metropolitans, but also patriarchs have bishops constituted under them in the same province, whom they must summon to a synod. And thus indeed the Roman, Antiochene, and Alexandrian [patriarchs] had [them]; but not likewise the Constantinopolitan and Hierosolymitan. For those were metropolitans before they were patriarchs; but these...

^A provincial [bishops] of the patriarch of Constantinople—to wit, [the bishop] of Derkos, of Messene, of Parium, of Apri, and certain other archbishops and metropolitans who have no [suffragan] bishops—are called such. Note, therefore, from this novella the reason why these are called provincial [bishops] of the patriarch of Constantinople: for these, and they alone, are compelled to assemble before the patriarch once a year; but do not accept the other reasons mentioned by some. Read also the end of the said 20th chapter, which ordains that the governors who do not compel the bishops to hold such synods are to be subjected to the ultimate penalties.

ZONAR. The divine apostles and the preceding synods also set forth canons concerning these annual [meetings], and this synod [also] decreed that synods be held in the provinces once a year, renewing the canons established concerning this, so that by every means—instead of the [prescribed twice], absolutely and without excuse—a synod should occur once a year in each province for the sake of emerging ecclesiastical causes. And this [synod] is to take place [at any time] from Pascha until the whole month of October. This was written of more fully in the preceding canons.

ARIST. Since it is not possible [to hold them] twice, let a synod be celebrated at least once each year, between Pascha and the month of October. ^B Because of the difficulties befalling the bishops and the incursions of the barbarians, [the requirement] to hold a synod twice a year in the present canon is restricted, and it is decreed that a synod be held once in each year, between Pascha and the month of October.

CANON IX

Guill. Beveregii note. ...before their thrones were promoted to patriarchates, they were perpetually subject to other metropolitans: the Constantinopolitan [was subject] to the Heraclean, and the Hierosolymitan to the Caesarean; whereby it came about that, even though they were afterwards patriarchs, they nevertheless possessed no province in which they could exercise metropolitan power. I admit that Balsamon in this place asserts that the aforementioned bishops—Derkos, Messene, Parium, Apri, and others—were called provincial [bishops] of the patriarch of Constantinople; ^C but without doubt they were so called in a catachrestic sense; for the patriarch of Constantinople had no province, much less could he have [those bishops as] his own, who, as was said before, were autocephalous. Furthermore, Balsamon himself indicates that other reasons were given by others as to why the said bishops were called provincial of the patriarch of Constantinople; whence it is evident that the true reason was not established. For if they had been constituted in a province subject to him particularly as metropolitan, there could have been no doubt as to why they were named thus. But nothing is more certain than that they were situated in different provinces; and for that reason, all [of them] could not be [the] provincial bishops of any one [metropolitan]. So that whatever the reason may have been for why they were so called, this one at least, devised by Balsamon, is null; unless perhaps, like provincial ^D bishops, they were compelled to convene annually before the patriarch of Constantinople—which Balsamon indeed asserts, but the ancient episcopal lists, in which these sees are named, contradict it. Now, since the Roman, Alexandrian, and Antiochene patriarchs had suffragan or provincial bishops properly so called, ordained by themselves indeed, but not having the power to ordain other bishops, they could, according to this novella, summon them to a synod. But since the emperor Justinian had his imperial seat at Constantinople, he without doubt looked to him as much as to the other patriarchal sees in drafting this novella; which therefore must be understood as referring to metropolitans coming together to their patriarchs. But it cannot be so understood unless this common reading is changed, since all metropolitans at that time had the right to ordain other bishops. Constantine Harmenopulos’ epitome of this canon runs thus: "A cleric who has a tavern workshop, let him either desist or be deposed." In which the scholiast notes this:

^A *Si ei enim in cauponam ingredi non est permissum, quanto magis et aliis in ea ministrare, ea, quae non licet ipsi tractare? Si quid autem tale fecerit, vel cesset, vel deponatur.* [/A]

BALS. The fifty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles orders that clerics who eat in a tavern should be excommunicated. But the present canon decrees that a cleric should not have a tavern workshop, that is, that he should not practice tavern trade. For if he has a tavern workshop by right of ownership, and lets it out to others, it is not a novelty; for this is done even by monasteries and various churches. Wherefore, take "to have" here as equivalent to "to exercise." But since it is one thing to enter another man's tavern and eat, and another thing to practice the tavern trade: in the apostolic canon, it says that the cleric who eats in a tavern, and after warning is not corrected, is to be excommunicated, precisely because the sin is lighter. But the present canon says that the cleric who operates a tavern workshop, and is not corrected after warning, is to be deposed, precisely because the sin is heavier. Read what was written in the aforementioned fifty-fourth apostolic canon, and the twenty-fourth canon of the Synod of Laodicea, the fortieth canon of the Synod of Carthage, and the last chapter of the first title of the fourth book of the Basilics, which was placed outside the thirty-fifth chapter of the ninth title of the present compilation. ^B

ZONAR. That clerics are prohibited by this canon from having a tavern house is to be understood as meaning that they are not permitted to work in it themselves and serve in it. For it is not seemly, but rather altogether unbecoming, for a cleric to preside over a tavern, and to welcome those entering to it, and to set dishes before them, and to pour wine. For if, as can be seen in the fifty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles, it is not permitted at all to enter into a tavern, how will such a person be continually involved in one? The canon wishes that he who does this should either desist or be deposed. But if a cleric who has such a workshop should lease it to another, he will not be harmed regarding his own standing. ^C

ARIST. ^D *Si cauponam ingredi prohibetur clericus, et habere magis prohibebitur : vel itaque desistant, vel deponantur.* It is not permitted for a cleric to have a tavern workshop and to operate in it. For if he is prohibited from entering another's tavern, unless he does so out of necessity, much more is it not fitting for him to have a tavern and to serve others in it. He who dares to do this [note by Guil. Beveridge: The Patriarch Luke also forbade, by a note, that apothecaries' shops or bathhouses be managed by clerics, as they provide occasion for base gain and lying. He also forbids deacons to practice medicine; and subjects to excommunication clerics who handle worldly and public business. Likewise, the Patriarch Michael Anchialus commands by a note that clerics should not undertake secular offices, or the duties of tax-collectors, or those of stewards. Harmenop. Epit. can. sect. 5, tit. 2.]

^A and if he is not persuaded to cease, he shall be deposed.

CANON X. ‹A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who takes usury, or what are called centesimae, must either cease or be deposed.›

BALS. In the seventeenth canon of the First Synod, we have written sufficiently about all those in orders, or those initiated into sacred things, who take interest or devise some other shameful gain for themselves. Read what is written there, and you will find the solution to the apparent contradiction between that canon and the present one. The present canon—and the Apostolic one—say that someone who does such a thing must either cease or be deposed; but the seventeenth canon of the First Synod says he must be deposed. Read also the twenty-first chapter of the ninth title of the present compilation.

ZONAR. The seventeenth canon of the First Synod forbids not only bishops, presbyters, and deacons from exacting interest, but also all those listed in the canon. There, it is also explained what a "centesima" is, and the matters pertaining to the explanation of the canon are set out more fully. We therefore refer the reader to those passages. The same things are also provided by the fourth canon of the Synod of Laodicea.

ARIST. ‹A bishop, presbyter, and deacon who takes interest, unless he ceases, shall be deposed.› Clear.

^B CANON XI. ‹No one of those who are enumerated in the priestly order, nor a layman, shall eat the unleavened bread [azymes] of the Jews, nor enter into any intimacy with them, nor summon them in illnesses, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe at all with them in baths. If anyone should attempt to do this, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated.›

BALS. Desiring that we have no communion with the Jews, the holy Fathers determine that we must not celebrate feasts with them, nor receive and eat the unleavened bread which is made by them at that time, nor be treated by them, nor bathe with them. As for those who act in opposition to this, if they are clerics, they command that they be deposed; if laymen, that they be excommunicated. Seek the canons of the Synod of Laodicea, 31, 32, 37, and 38, and the 70th canon of the Holy Apostles, and its interpretation. And let no one say that it was those azymes given by heretics that were forbidden to be eaten, but not the making of sacrifice by azymes, or the eating of azymes absolutely; for we also eat at different times the azymes which are called *leipanabata*. For one will hear that eating azymes is not prohibited, but rather celebrating feasts by means of azymes in the Jewish manner. ^C But what greater feast is there than the unbloody sacrifice, which ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A our Lord Jesus Christ delivered to us at the time of His death and the Paschal feast? But that it did not even occur to the holy Fathers that we should celebrate with azymes, just as is done by the Jews, for whom it was decreed to celebrate the Paschal feast with a lamb, and azymes, and bitter herbs, is evident from the fact that they abolished every Jewish feast on account of the Latins (71) who celebrate feasts with azymes, and on account of those who are treated by Jews or other heretics; for all these are excommunicated. Note the present canon, which instructs regarding azymes; and that those who are treated by Jewish or other heretic physicians are punished.

ZONARAS. The seventieth canon of the holy Apostles also forbids celebrating feasts with the Jews, or accepting any guest-gifts ^B from their feasts. This canon, however, does not allow one to become familiar with them, instead of being friendly, nor to be treated by them when ill, nor to bathe with them at all. And the thirty-second canon of the Council of Laodicea forbids receiving blessings from heretics; and the thirty-eighth canon of the same council says that one ought not to receive gifts sent from Jews or heretics during their feasts, nor to feast with them, or receive azymes from them, and thereby communicate in their impiety. This canon inflicts punishment upon those who transgress these things: deposition for those in the clergy, and excommunication for the laity.

ARISTENUS. ^C "Jewish azymes are to be rejected; and whoever calls them as physicians, or bathes with them, is dismissed." There is no communion for Christians with Jews; therefore, whoever is found eating their azymes, or calling upon them for medical treatment, or bathing with them, or in any other way becoming familiar with them, if he is a cleric, he shall be deposed, and if a layman, he shall be excommunicated.

CANON XII

CANON XII

happen henceforth. ^A We say this not to abolish or overturn what was legislated by the Apostles, but out of concern for the salvation and for the better progress of the people, and so that no reproach might be brought upon the priestly institution. For the divine Apostle says: "Do all things to the glory of God, give no offense, both to the Jews and to the Greeks, and to the Church of God, even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (1 Cor. x, 31-33; iv, 16)." If anyone be caught doing such a thing, let him be deposed.

BALS. Advancing the pupils of the Church to a better life, the divine Fathers command in every way that the high priests, ^B after they have been ordained, should separate from their own wives. But that those who allow bishops to live with their wives after ordination might not seem to be acting against the fifth Apostolic Canon, they add that they are not decreeing these things in opposition to the divine Apostles, but as wishing to advance the ecclesiastical institution to greater order; virtually saying this, that the divine Apostles, while the faith was only beginning, were more condescending toward those who were coming to the faith; but now that the preaching of the Gospel has expanded, it is necessary, they say, for the high priests also to direct their life toward strict temperance. ^C And if bishops are not permitted to cohabit with their own wives, much less will they be permitted to use them as wives; nor will they be permitted even to cohabit with other women, for the removal of all scandal. Read also the third book of the *Basilika*, title 1, chapters 54, 55, and 56, which, being chapters of the 123rd Novel of Justinian, decree the deposition of bishops who cohabit with any woman whatsoever.

ZONAR. The fifth Apostolic Canon says: "Let not a bishop or presbyter or deacon cast out his own wife under the pretext of piety; but if he cast her out, let him be excommunicated; and if he remain in his practice, let him be deposed." But the present canon forbids the high priests after the ordination to cohabit with the wives joined to them by marriage. The Fathers of the holy synod ^D by the twelfth canon entirely keep the high priests after ordination away from the company of those women who had been joined with them by the law of marriage before ordination. The same author [Matthæus] a little before, in the chapter concerning clerics who cast out their wives under the pretext of religion, observes that this synod was the first to constitute this, for speaking of it he says: "For this synod was the first to decree that bishops should renounce their wives." For this was the first synod which decreed that bishops should renounce their wives. Therefore, before this synod, it was permitted to bishops even after receiving episcopal ordination to have wives and to cohabit with them.

^A and they who propounded this canon say that, in doing so, they are not overturning the things legislated by the Apostles nor legislating in opposition to them; they are not prohibiting the cohabitation of the bishops with their former spouses, but desiring the salvation of the peoples and their progress toward the better, and so that no reproach might thus be cast upon the priesthood. They say, as it were, this: that the divine Apostles, the faith being in its beginning and the divine preaching not yet having spread widely, were more indulgent toward those who were coming to the faith, and did not strictly require all the measures of perfection, but yielded to their weakness and to national and Jewish customs; for both the high priests of the Jews had permission by the law to cohabit with wives, and among the Greek high priests marriage was unhindered. But now that the preaching has spread and the state and order of the faithful have moved to a better condition, and the evangelical way of life is increasing, they say that bishops ought to direct their own lives toward precise sobriety, so that they may not only abstain from other men's wives, ^B but also from those with whom they previously slept, and not only abstain from the marriage bed, but neither dwell together with them, nor live with them in the same house. For perhaps they themselves will live soberly, but they will be a stumbling block and a scandal to others. The holy Fathers also bring forward the great Paul saying: "Be without offense both to Jews and Greeks and to the Church of God, even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." Afterward, upon those who do not keep this canon, they impose as a penalty deposition. ^C

ARIST. "Even if it has been said not to cast out wives, nevertheless, providing for progress toward the better, we command the bishop who has been ordained no longer to cohabit with a wife."

The fifth apostolic canon wishes that neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon cast out his own wife on the pretext of piety; but it also penalizes the one who does this, and if he remains uncorrected, it deposes him. This canon, however, does not permit the bishops, after the episcopal ordination that has come to them, to cohabit with their own wives, ^D not doing this in contempt or subversion of the things that were canonically established by the Apostles, but regarding the salvation and the progress toward the better of the people, and [regarding] not giving any occasion against the priestly state. "For all things," says the divine Apostle, "do to the glory of God."

Be without offense both to Jews and Greeks and to the Church of God, even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ." ^A And he orders that a bishop who does this—and who even after his ordination to the episcopate lives with his own wife—be deposed.

CANON XIII

^C Since we have learned that it has been handed down in the Church of the Romans in the form of a canon that those who are to be ordained deacons or presbyters must acknowledge that they will no longer be joined to their wives; we, following the ancient canon of apostolic strictness and order, wish that the lawful marriages of those in holy orders be henceforth firm and stable, ^B by no means dissolving their union with their wives, nor depriving them of their association with one another at the appropriate time. Wherefore, if any man be found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, let him by no means be prohibited from being advanced to such a rank while living with his lawful wife. Nor let it be required of him at the time of his ordination to acknowledge that he will abstain from lawful intimacy with his own wife, lest we be forced to offer insult to what was instituted by God and blessed at His ^C own presence, the voice of the Gospel crying out: "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," and the Apostle teaching: "Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled," and "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not a release." We know, however, just as those who gathered at Carthage did, having concern for the decorum and honesty of the ministers, that they said that subdeacons, who handle the holy mysteries, and deacons and presbyters, should, according to their own terms, abstain from their wives; so that what has been handed down by the apostles and maintained from ^D antiquity itself, we also may likewise observe, knowing that there is a time for everything, and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is right that those who attend upon the altar should be altogether continent at the time of the handling of the Holy Things, so that they may be able to obtain what they ask of God in simplicity. If, therefore, any man should dare, moving against the apostolic canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders—that is to say, presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons—of association and communion with their lawful wife, let him be deposed. Likewise, if any presbyter or deacon should cast out his own wife under the pretext of piety, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.

^A BALS. Since the holy Fathers forbade bishops to live with their own wives after ordination, they make a distinction concerning deacons and priests; and as if correcting what for this reason occurs in the Roman Church—namely, that they too are compelled after ordination to abstain from their wives previously joined to them—while also restraining those who might perhaps say that they, too, are prohibited from cohabiting with their own wives, just as the bishops are prohibited, they decree that those who are worthy of being ordained are not to be separated from their former lawful wives. But they add that these men are not to have marital relations with their spouses indiscriminately, but are to abstain from them during the time of their service, that is, at the times when they perform the holy rites. This is as was defined by the Council of Carthage in its 3rd, 25th, and 70th canons, and by the 3rd canon of Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria. They say that those who dare, after ordination, to deprive deacons and priests of the company of their former lawful wives are to be deposed. Furthermore, they determine that those being ordained themselves who cast out their wives under the pretext of piety are to be excommunicated; and if they persist in their wickedness—that is, if they do not take them back—they are to be deposed. Exclude from this for me the priests who are in the barbarian churches. Read also the 30th canon of this present synod which makes a provision concerning these as well. Do not think that you are contradicting the 3rd canon of the Council of Carthage by saying that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are forbidden from relations with their wives during the time of their service. For the 4th canon of the same synod, and the 25th, and this present one, add subdeacons as well. Note from this present canon that priests, and deacons, and subdeacons, as those who handle holy things, are under obligation to abstain from their own wives during the times of their service. Those, therefore, who minister continuously and almost every day, and who touch the holy things, what will they say in their defense? Read also the 3rd, 25th, and 70th canons of the Council of Carthage and what is written therein.

^D ZONAR. In the Church of the Romans, the divine Fathers say, a custom has prevailed and holds force as law, that whoever becomes a priest or deacon professes and pledges that henceforth he will have no further relations at all with the women to whom he had been joined before. But we, they say, demand nothing of the sort; rather, instructed by the apostolic canon, we wish the lawful marriage contract of those entering the priesthood to remain firm and inviolate, and we do not prohibit that spouses enjoy mutual relations and intimacy with one another, provided that the regard for the appointed times is nevertheless observed. If, therefore, anyone should seem worthy of the priesthood...

or diaconate, or subdiaconate ^A, it shall be permitted for him to be ordained, even though he is bound to a wife, nor shall there be any necessity imposed upon him by this to confess that he will abstain from his intimacy with his proper wife; lest otherwise the marriage, which the Lord Himself has honored by His presence and sanctified by miracles performed therein, might appear to be disparaged. And they further support the sanctity of marriage by other testimonies of the sacred Scriptures. Furthermore, regarding the rule of time which they who are initiated must observe in marital intercourse, as was mentioned before, they now make it clear by adducing the decree of the synod of Carthage; whereby those to whom the care of administering sacred matters is entrusted are commanded ^B to abstain from the company of their wives during their respective turns, and at the times when they are performing the sacred ministries, in accordance with the limits prescribed for them. The same thing is also decreed in the third canon of Dionysius, the archbishop of Alexandria. And upon these matters, the Fathers who established the canon threaten with complete deposition those who attempt to deprive presbyters, or deacons, or subdeacons of their association with their lawful wives. But neither is it permitted to those initiated into the sacred orders, whom we have mentioned, to repudiate their own wives under the pretext of religion; rather, they command that those who do so be at first sequestered, and unless they change their mind and take them back, they are to be deposed as well.

ARIST. ^C « Even if the Romans wish that him who has been ordained deacon or presbyter should dismiss his wife, we, however, desire that the marriages of deacons and presbyters remain valid and firm. »

And if it has obtained in the Roman Church, as a matter of canon, that he who is about to be promoted ^D to the presbyterate or diaconate should confess before ordination that he will no longer be joined to his wife, but will dissolve all association with her; nevertheless, as this is contrary to evangelical and apostolic strictness, it is not admitted by the present canon. And it is decreed that presbyters and deacons are in no way to dissolve the marriages lawfully contracted, but should maintain their association with their wives, while abstaining from intimacy with them at the appropriate time, that is to say, during the time of fasting and the handling of the holy things; so that they may be able to obtain that which they simply ask of God. But he who, under the pretext of piety, has attempted to cast away his own wife is to be excommunicated; and then, if he remains incorrigible, he is to be deposed according to the fifth apostolic canon.

CANON XIV

« Let the canon of our holy and God-bearing Fathers prevail in this matter also, so that a presbyter may not be ordained before thirty years of age, even if the man be very worthy, but let him be held back. For the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year, and began to teach. Likewise, let neither a deacon be ordained before twenty-five years, nor a deaconess before forty years. »

CANON XV

« Let a subdeacon not be ordained under twenty years of age. If...

^A • but if any of those who are in a priestly standing should be ordained aside from the appointed times, let him be deposed. »

BALS. Note that by these two canons those who are ordained aside from the times appointed by the canons are made subject to deposition. The present two canons, the 14th and 15th, outline the times for those serving in the sanctuary, that is, for priests, deacons, subdeacons, and deaconesses; and they decree that a priest is to be ordained who has reached thirty years of age, a deacon who is 25, a subdeacon who is 20, and a deaconess who is 40; and those who have not exceeded these times and have been ordained are to be deposed. And these are the things concerning the ordination of these four grades. But the 28th chapter of the first title of the 3rd book of the *Basilica*, teaching about the admission of a reader into the clergy, decrees that he must not be younger than 18 years. And read the 28th chapter of the 6th title of the present compilation, and the things in it; read also the 16th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which consequently to the present canon decrees that he who has completed twenty years ought finally to become a subdeacon.

ZONAR. Each of these canons describes the ages for those being initiated into sacred orders, and it commands that in creating a priest, the thirtieth year ^B be awaited; in a deacon, the twenty-fifth; and in a deaconess, the completion of the fortieth year; and that before these times they are not to be ordained, even if they should seem in every way worthy of ordination, but rather that they be set aside—that is to say, kept back, awaiting the perfection of time—and that a subdeacon be ordained at twenty years of age. If anyone should be ordained before the aforementioned times, he will pay the penalty of deposition for the violation of the canons. And the 15th canon of the Fourth Synod is similarly ordained concerning the time for deaconesses.

ARIST. CAN. XIV. • A presbyter, if lacking thirty years; and a deacon, twenty-five; and a deaconess, forty. »

ARIST. • And subdeacons are to be chosen at twenty years of age. » ^C

Even if some are found to be exceedingly worthy, yet no one within the times appointed for each rank shall attain to a grade; but whoever is a presbyter before thirty years, or a deacon before twenty-five, or a subdeacon before twenty, shall be deposed; just as a deaconess also, if she be ordained before forty years.

CANON XVI.

• Since the book of Acts hands down that seven deacons were appointed by the apostles; and the Synod at Neocaesarea thus clearly discoursed in the canons set forth by them, that there ought to be seven deacons according to the canon, even if the city be very great; being persuaded from the book of Acts: we, having applied the mind of the Fathers to the apostolic statement, have found that they were not speaking of men who minister ^D to the mysteries, but of mini-

ministry of tables as the book of Acts has it: ^A *In those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.* And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas ^B a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles. Interpreting these things, the teacher of the Church, John Chrysostom, continues thus: It is worth admiring how the multitude was not divided on the election of the men, and how the apostles were not rejected and reprobated by them. But it is necessary to know what authority these men had, and what ordination they received. Was it that of deacons? But this is not in the Churches. But is the administration that of priests? And yet no one was as yet a bishop, but the apostles alone; whence I think that the name of neither deacons nor priests is clear and manifest. On these grounds, therefore, we too proclaim that the aforesaid seven deacons are not to be taken as those who serve the mysteries, according to the doctrine previously expounded: but that they were those to whom the administration of the things that were then collected was entrusted and delivered. They have also been to us in this matter a pattern ^C of humanity and concern for those who are in need.

BALS. The present canon interprets, or rather corrects, the 15th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, which says: *There ought to be seven deacons according to the canon, even if the city be very great.* You will be persuaded of this from the book of Acts. For he says: The book of Acts does not treat of deacons who minister in the sacred sanctuary, but of ministers who dispense the food of those who preach the Gospel of Christ; since there were not yet ^D bishops, nor deacons, nor priests. Wherefore also, to confirm his statement, he adds the words:

^A using the appropriate passages from the Book of Acts, and indeed also the interpretation of the great Chrysostom, they determined that the aforementioned canon should not be followed. It is probable moreover that even before this time, the contents of the canon of the Council of Neocaesarea were understood in this way.

^B ZONARAS. The fifteenth canon of the council which assembled at Neocaesarea speaks thus: "There ought to be seven deacons according to the canon, even if the city is very large." You will be persuaded by the Book of Acts. The Fathers of this present council criticize this canon in this place, declaring that the name "deacons," which is cited from the Acts, has not been sufficiently understood. For they say that the concern at that time was not about men who were to serve in the divine liturgy, but about the service of the tables, and the stewardship of the food for the multitude of believers. And they bring forward the great John, he of the golden tongue, interpreting the passages in the Acts regarding these matters and saying that the name is indicative neither of deacons nor of priests. And those Fathers also say that the seven deacons in the Acts should not be understood as those serving in the mysteries, but as those managing how the people who were gathering to the apostles and believing were fed, whom they also say became for us a pattern for the sake of those in need of diligence and distribution. ^C And the canon ends with these things, without adding more, out of reverence, I think, for the authors of the council at Neocaesarea. But it is gathered that, since they used what is written in the Acts of the Apostles concerning the seven deacons as a sort of foundation for the purpose of defining that there should not be more than seven deacons in a city, even if the city were very large—but those elected by the apostles for ministry were not deacons of the liturgy, but administrators and stewards of food—they were wrong to have constrained the number of deacons to the number seven, even in large cities. Whence, even before this present canon, the canon of those at Neocaesarea was not observed. For Justinian allowed sixty priests, one hundred deacons, and forty deaconesses in the Great Church, as is set down in the book of the *Basilika*, book 3, title 2; and Heraclius increased the number both of priests and deacons and of the rest of the clergy in the Great Church. And both of these emperors lived before this sixth council. ^D And the other churches of Constantinople also had many clergy, and more than those appointed in them by their founders, as it is possible to find in the first title of the third book of the *Basilika*.

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. In the Latin version of Gentian Hervet, these things also occur, annexed to this scholion of Balsamon: "For since it is itself also more ancient than that first council, the Emperor Justinian is found to decree in his book that there should be one hundred deacons in the Great Church: which he would not have ordered if the canon in the Neocaesarean council had been understood otherwise." But these things are not contained in any Greek codices which it has been my lot to see.

^A ARIST. "Whoever affirms that there are seven deacons, according to what is said in the Acts, let him know that the discourse there is not about deacons who minister at the mysteries, but about those who serve the tables." The fourteenth canon of the synod of Neocaesarea, derived indeed from the book of Acts, decreed that seven deacons should be established in each city, however large it may be, to serve at the mysteries. But the present canon says that that synod did not rightly understand the statement in the book of Acts concerning the seven deacons. For it says that the concern of the apostles at that time was not for men who minister to the divine mysteries, but for those who serve at the tables, and to whom the dispensation of those things which were then collected for common use was entrusted. For this reason, then, the churches will not be required according to that canon to have seven deacons each for the ministry of the divine mysteries; but each will have, according to its revenues, its [own] number of presbyters and deacons and other clerics.

CANON XVII

written permission of his own bishop, as this brings contempt upon the one who ordained him. For to depart elsewhere without permission is truly a contempt and dishonor to that bishop. Therefore, the canon subjects to deposition both the one who went to another bishop and the one who received him.

ARIST. "He who receives a foreign cleric, and ordains him, shall be deposed along with the cleric who was improperly ordained."

No cleric is permitted to be stationed in another church without the consent of his own bishop. But if any bishop receives a cleric belonging to another without dismissory letters from his own bishop, and stations him in his own church, whether he keeps him in the same rank or ordains him to a higher rank, both shall be deposed.

CANON XVIII

"Those clerics who, under the pretext of a barbarian incursion or any ^B other circumstance, have migrated, we command that when that manner or circumstance ceases, or the barbarian incursions on account of which they withdrew, they must return again to their own churches and not leave them for a long time without cause. But if anyone does not obey the present canon, let him be excommunicated until he returns to his own church. And let the same be done regarding the bishop who retains him."

BALS. The Fathers are worthy of great praise. For being concerned for ecclesiastical good order and the honor of every bishop, they decreed that clerics who had migrated for some just and probable causes, without the dismissory letters of those who ordained them, should return to their own clergy when the circumstance on account of which they withdrew has passed; and that it is not lawful for them to be ^C enrolled in the catalogues of other churches. And if anyone cannot be persuaded to return, he, and also the bishop who retains him, shall be excommunicated. One might ask, if a bishop does such a thing, he will be excommunicated by the metropolitan; and likewise, if a metropolitan disregards the canon, he will be punished by the patriarch. But if an autocephalous archbishop or a patriarch, other than the one of Constantinople (for he has received the authority we have mentioned), is convicted of transgressing the canon, by whom will he be excommunicated? I think, therefore, by the greater high priest.

ZONAR. Some clerics, due to the incursions of barbarians, or the inhumanity of tax collectors, or perhaps a famine occurring in their region, or even for other causes, migrate and go off to other lands. The canon, therefore, wishes that such men, once the cause on account of which they became migrants from their own cities and churches has been dissolved, should return to them and not remain ^D

any longer in the foreign territory to which they have come, under the pretext of pilgrimage. He orders that those clerics who do not return, as people who are abandoning without cause the churches in which they were established and are instead idling in others, be suspended until they return to the church from which they withdrew. He also subjects the bishop who received and keeps them to suspension as long as he continues to keep them.

ARIST. ^A «One who has migrated because of a barbarian incursion, once the incursion has ceased, must return to the church in which he was enrolled. If not, he is suspended along with the one who took him in.»

A cleric who departs from the church in which he was enrolled without any necessary cause, and goes to another church, and is received by the bishop who is there, and is counted among his clerics, is deposed along with the one who received him, as the seventeenth canon written above orders. However, a cleric who has become a migrant from his own church due to an incursion of barbarians or some other circumstance, if—once the cause on account of which he withdrew has ceased—he is unwilling to return to his own church in which he was enrolled, is suspended along with the bishop who keeps him, until he returns to it. The reason why this man is suspended, while the other is deposed, is just. For this one did not, like the former, depart from the beginning without a just cause. Since he did not, as far as it lay in him, treat with injury and reproach the one who laid ordination upon him, but did this out of necessity.

CANON XIX

^C ‹That it is necessary for those who preside over churches, on all days, but especially on the Lord’s days, to teach all the clergy and the people the doctrines of piety, gathering from the divine Scripture the insights and judgments of truth, and not to overstep the already established boundaries or the tradition of the divinely inspired Fathers; and even if some controversy should arise concerning Scripture, they should not interpret it otherwise than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set it forth in their own writings; and they should obtain greater praise from these, than if they composed their own discourses, lest at some point, feeling uncertain about this, they fall away from what is fitting. ^D For through the teaching of the aforementioned Fathers, the people, coming to the knowledge of things that are good and desirable, and things that are useless and to be rejected, amend their life for the better, and are not convicted by the vice of ignorance, but by applying their mind to the teaching, they rouse themselves so that no evil may befall them, and…

by fear of the threatened punishments they secure their own salvation. ^A

BALS. Bishops are constituted as teachers of the churches; and for this reason the canon says that they are under every necessity to teach the people over whom they preside, and this even more so on the Lord’s days, on which nearly everyone is accustomed to attend the church, taking leave of their own handiwork and labors. It decrees that they should teach not things that involve excessive digression, and according to their own whim, but those very things which have been handed down by the holy Fathers. And the Fathers indeed [have provided] these things; but some neglect this sort of engagement of theirs, because, as it seems, no punishment is inflicted upon them. But to me it seems that they are greatly punished by the fifty-eighth canon of the holy Apostles. For it says: "If a bishop or presbyter, neglecting the clergy or the people, does not teach them the faith, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists in his negligence, let him be deposed." Note then from this present canon that teaching the people was given only to the bishops, and the teachers of the Great Church ^B teach by the right of the patriarch. And this is also supported by the Novella of the late emperor Lord Alexios Komnenos, which describes how and who should be chosen in the churches, and decrees for all teachers, both those who are outside the church and those who are inside, three pounds of *nomismata*, and fifty *modii* of grain; and this it clearly decides. Let there also be honor here bestowed upon the teachers so that, again, in their own [matters]...

Guill. Beveregii note

^C (81) *Secure their own salvation.* In our Bodleian manuscript after these words, and before Balsamon’s interpretation, the following are found: "Note the present canon, and wonder how it is neglected today. For that most holy patriarch Lord John, nicknamed the Chalcedonian, was accustomed to teach on each Lord’s Day; for which reason also his sermons are found in a separate book." That John, the Chalcedonian patriarch, was Constantinopolitan, in the time of the emperor Alexios Komnenos. For those things are said about him in the series of the bishops of Byzantium, in *Juris Gr. Rom.* I, IV, p. 502. But the stated words are found in no other codex, and seem to have been written by a hand other than Balsamon’s; for they do not at all cohere with the beginning of his interpretation of this canon.

(82) *Teachers of the Great Church.* The Constantinopolitan patriarch was accustomed to have set under him an official who, in his place, interpreted the Gospel to the people, called the *teacher* from the office of teaching. His duty in the catalogue of officials of the Constantinopolitan Church is described thus: "The teacher interprets the holy Gospel, if he is able, and likewise also the Psalter, while holding the commentaries of the episcopate; he is also a servant of the third *pentas*." But Balsamon indicates in this place that there were more of them, saying: "There were indeed four in number, and the chief of all..."

(83) *Three pounds of nomismata.* In our Bodleian manuscript it is written abbreviated, as also he who procured the Parisian edition of Balsamon seems to have read, since he wrote it similarly. The most learned Joan. Rodolphus Wetstenius, who collected all the variant readings with the utmost diligence from the same [text], testifies that this same abbreviation was used in the Amerbachian manuscript in this place; and of the same he noted this in addition: "Thus," he says, "in cant. 19, Trull. Bals. 381, A. 3, we read *ch'*, which Bonfidius, book I, *Jur. Or.* p. 48, [interprets as] *ch'* pounds, which even Hervetus acknowledges in his own copy. The same one, however, interprets it as legumes: I think wrongly. For what are three pounds of legumes compared to fifty *modii* of grain? Bonfidius translates it as *pounds of asperoi*: nearer to the matter, if I am not mistaken. Certainly *Asperi* is the name of certain silver coins used by modern Greeks, which later by synecdoche under that name denote any silver [coin]: as when they say of an opulent man, He has many *aspra*, that is, much money. Analogy aids this conjecture. For J. Meursius in his *Glossarium Graecobarbarum* interprets *Album*. Similarly, from *album* is formed *argentum*, for coins. *Albi* are known, small silver coins, to those traveling through Frankfurt and the cities and regions around. But, you ask, whence those [coins]? I confess, nor do I know myself. For it does not occur to me in... ^D

^A fifty measures of wheat, and this is explicitly defined in specific terms. Let this also be a mark of honor distributed to the teachers for whose sake they made their retirement, namely, that they should stand immediately after the rulers, attending upon the most holy patriarch, as representing his person. For we hear that he who performs the role of the high priest always holds the greatest honor, and no one will be able to gainsay this. And again: Let those who are of note in both word and deed be introduced into the ministry of teaching, and let them advance through the functions of teaching to the [higher] offices. For because of this, even when a patriarch of the time dies, they themselves are not able to teach. ^B ZONAR. And the fifty-eighth canon of the holy apostles punishes, and if he persists in his negligence, deposes, the bishop who neglects to care for the clergy or the people entrusted to him, and who does not instruct them in piety. And the great Paul, writing to Timothy and setting down what a bishop ought to be, commands that he also be apt to teach. And writing to Titus, he says that a bishop must hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. Those of this synod, following these [precepts], set forth the present canon, saying that bishops ought always to teach the people the words of piety, but especially on Sundays. ^C For on those days, having leisure from their labors, men gather into the churches and listen to the divine Scriptures. If, therefore, they teach on these days in particular, the benefit to the people will be greater. And they desire them to teach not from their own inventions, but from the divine Scripture, and to interpret this according to the exposition of the divine Fathers, rather than from their own thoughts and calculations. For if, they say, they use their own calculations, they will perhaps sometimes be at a loss and fall away from what is fitting; but from the teaching of the divine Fathers, the people will know what they must choose and what they must avoid, and they will direct their own life toward virtue, escaping the stumbling into sins that comes from ignorance of the divine commandments, and by fear of the future punishments being restrained from wickedness. ^D ARIST. Let the president of the Church teach the dogmas, especially on Sundays, and let him interpret [them], not

according to his own judgment, but as the divine Fathers have handed them down. ^A

The bishops must on all days teach the clergy and the people the dogmas of piety, and especially on Sundays. And if anyone should ask them for a scriptural account, let them not interpret this according to their own judgment; for it is a credit to them to know the traditions of the God-bearing Fathers and to resolve the questions asked according to these, and not to compose their own words; lest, perhaps, being unable to solve these by themselves, they should fall far short of the true interpretation. The one who neglects the clergy and the people, and does not teach them piety, is first excommunicated by the fifty-eighth canon of the holy apostles, and then, if he persists in his negligence, he is even deposed. ^B

CANON XX.

Let it not be permitted for a bishop to teach publicly in a city which does not belong to him. If anyone should be caught doing this, let him desist from his episcopacy; but let him perform the duty of a presbyter.

^C BALS. The canon is clear; for it decrees that a bishop must not teach publicly in a city which does not belong to him. For this, he says, is a dishonor to the local chief priest and a condemnation of his ignorance. And understand this to be when it happens against the will of the local bishop. For if anyone does such a thing by his will, no prejudice will be done to him; for even one may celebrate sacred rites in another’s diocese without prejudice, by the will of the one who holds it. And the great one in theology, Gregory, being bishop of Sasima, read many orations at Nazianzus, his father being the chief priest there, and this is shown from the oration which is as follows: "Why do you dissolve a praiseworthy order?" And that most wise metropolitan of Ephesus, the lord John, who poured forth the streams of philosophy like a river, and was called "Sinuosus" [the winding or meandering one], when coming into the region that had fallen to him, taught publicly with the authority of the local chief priests. ^D Read also the 14th canon of the holy apostles. But the word "publicly" is rightly added to the canon. For it is permitted for anyone and everywhere to answer those asking privately about some ecclesiastical problem, just as the 11th canon of the Synod of Sardica speaks openly about this matter. But if anyone should doubt how the 29th canon of the 4th Synod says that to reduce from bishop to the dignity of presbyter is sacrilege:

Guill. Beveregii note.

The present canon says: If anyone should be caught doing this, let him cease from the episcopate but perform the office of a presbyter. One will hear that in that place it speaks of a lawful or unlawful deposition; for if someone were cast out of the episcopate for some cause, he shall not even be a presbyter; or if without cause, not even then shall he be demoted to the rank of presbyter, but he shall again be bishop. But here, the bishop did not commit a sin such as would bar him from the priesthood, but he sinned only out of the desire for glory and love of praise. In order, therefore, that he may have ^A a punishment equivalent to his fault and be humbled, he ceases from the episcopal honor and is assigned to presbyteral honor. It has not seemed good to the Fathers that he should be deposed and become a simple priest. Read also the canon of the Synod of Ancyra. And understand "activity" as the activity of teaching, and not as liturgical celebration. For in ancient times, priests had of necessity the duty to teach.

ZONAR. Lest any cause for offense should arise among bishops, the divine Fathers decreed that a bishop should not publicly teach in a city that does not belong to him. For this is to the dishonor of the archpriest of that city. It is forbidden to teach publicly, so that it may be understood from the antithesis that if someone should come to him privately to ask him a question, he does not sin by answering the question and teaching on his own account. The eleventh canon of the Synod of Sardica also legislates more fully regarding this matter. But someone might doubt how the twenty-ninth canon of the Fourth Synod says that to demote from the rank of bishop to the rank of presbyter is sacrilege, while the present canon says: If anyone should be caught doing this, let him cease from the episcopate but perform the duties of a presbyter. One might say, therefore, that there it speaks of a lawful or unlawful deposition; for if he were expelled from the episcopate for some cause, and because of that sin he shall not even be a presbyter; or if he were expelled from the episcopate without cause, not even then shall he be demoted to the rank of presbyter, but he shall again be bishop; but here, the bishop did not commit a sin that would exclude him from the priesthood; rather, it was ambition and the love of praise in which he sinned. Therefore, so that he may have a punishment equivalent to his fault, and be humbled, he ceases from the episcopate, and is demoted to the place of a presbyter. ^B

ARIST.

A bishop must not teach publicly in another city. If he should be caught doing this, let him cease from the episcopate, while performing the duties of a presbyter.

The bishop who does this, because of arrogance and pride and contempt for the bishop who is in charge there, publicly teaches as one striving to put him to shame and to hold him cheaply and to secure a foreign see for himself, is justly deposed from the episcopate; for he who desires what belongs to others is deprived of his own. But he shall be brought down to the place of the presbyters, and shall minister among them. And note when a bishop is also brought down to the place of a presbyter. For the twenty-ninth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon calls it sacrilege outright to bring a bishop down to the grade of a presbyter, and you may consider this present canon as an exception to that universal canon. ^A

CANON XXI.

Those who are held accountable for canonical crimes, and on that account are subject to complete and perpetual deposition and are thrust into the place of laymen, if of their own free will they look towards conversion and put away the sin on account of which they have fallen from grace, and make themselves completely estranged from it, let them be tonsured in the habit of the clergy. But if they do not choose this of their own free will, let them grow their hair as laymen, as those who have preferred the worldly or secular life to the heavenly life. ^B

BALS. Note from this present canon that those who are deposed because of some crime are reckoned as laymen, and cannot, after deposition, perform anything that pertains to a cleric in any way. But the canon ordains that those alone who have withdrawn from the sin for which they were deposed—be it fornication or something else—are to have their heads shorn like clerics, that is, to have the clerical tonsure and to be clothed in the cleric’s habit. For the canon is more lenient and merciful towards these on account of their repentance. But those who persist in their sin continuously are commanded to grow their hair as laymen, that they may be affected by greater shame, and that they may not be allowed to share in the clerical order in any way at all, but be deprived even of the garment itself. And this is what the canon says. The 79th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise, however, which ordains that those who marry after ordination must be deposed, wills that they be neither alienated from the habit of the clergy nor from the communion of ministry in the Church. And the 7th Novel of the same Emperor orders those who have been transformed from clerics into laymen to return to that state even against their will. There seems, therefore, to be a contradiction in these things. I, however, consider that the canon provides for those who, having been condemned on account of some ^C reported crime, tenaciously persist in malice; as for instance on account of adultery, or on account of rapine, or on account of sacrilege: Note of William Beveridge. ^D

But regarding those who have married after ordination, even though this brings about deposition, they are pardoned on account of the marriage. And for this reason, such persons have been permitted by the Novella to perform those duties which are carried out outside of the sacred tribunal; but the rest who have been transferred, as I suppose, will be compelled by the sense of the Novella not to insult the holy habit. ^A

ZONAR. There are many kinds of crimes on account of which those who have been initiated are to be deposed and removed from the clergy, and registered among the laity. Let us propose, for example, fornication. If, therefore, anyone who is a presbyter or deacon is found guilty of fornication, he must be deposed and counted among the laity. But if, after he has been moved from his order, he voluntarily gives himself over to repentance, and removes himself as far as possible from the sin for which he was deprived of the priesthood, and abstains entirely from that offense, the canon permits the man to be tonsured in the manner of the clergy, so that, by the ornament which is peculiar to the clergy being granted to him, and while using the rest of the habit of the laity, the shame and ignominy of having been cast down to the place of the laity may be diminished. But if he takes no step of his own accord toward abandoning the disgrace and amending his life, they command that he nourish his hair according to the custom of the laity, and refrain entirely from shaving his hair: so that he may notice—not without blushing—that he who was formerly a priest or deacon is now relegated to the orders of the laity, and so that in this way, finally, he may collect himself and abstain from sin. ^B

ARIST. ‹He who is already deposed and thrust down to the laity, if led by repentance, let him be deposed and let him be tonsured only. If not, let him nourish his hair.›

A presbyter, indeed, or a deacon who has been moved from his dignity but remains a participant in the honor and the chair, ought to shave his head after the manner of the rest of the clergy. But one who has been made guilty of crimes, and is deposed, and is placed in the rank of the laity, if he voluntarily rejects the sin on account of which he was deprived of grace and honor, and looks toward conversion, let him shave the hair of his head according to the manner of the clergy. If, however, he does not abstain from the offense by his own will, but refuses to do so, let him nourish his hair according to the manner of the laity, preferring their worldly conversation to the heavenly life. ^C

CANON XXII

BALS. Concerning those who are ordained because of money or because of the mandate of magistrates, we have written in various canons those things which are suitable. But the present canon orders that both he who has been thus ordained and he who has ordained him be deposed. ^D

ZONAR. Innumerable canons have been published regarding this matter, but the evil still crept along like gangrene, and the chur-

Therefore the Fathers of this sixth synod also added this canon to the previous ones; and if any bishop or cleric whatsoever has bought the dignity or order, not having been approved after thorough examination of the gravity of his morals, and having been found not to have chosen a religious and blameless life, let such a one be deposed. And not only shall he who was ordained for money be deposed, but he who ordained him shall not go unpunished; but he too shall be subjected to the same sentence of deposition. Furthermore, we have discussed the matters concerning this in the explanation of other canons.

ARIST. ^B « Let him who is ordained for money be deposed along with the one who ordained him. » Perspicuous.

CANON XXIII

^B « That no one, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who provides the immaculate communion, should exact from him who communicates, for the sake of such participation, obols or any species whatsoever. For grace is not venal, nor do we impart the sanctification of the Spirit for money; but it is to be communicated to those who are worthy without any cunning. But if any of those who are listed in the clergy should be seen to exact any species from him to whom he imparts the immaculate communion, let him be deposed, as an emulator of the Simoniac error and of evil practice. »

BALS. When, a long time ago, I was staying at the time of the holy Lord's Day of the Passover of the resurrection of Christ in a certain place which is called Calotychas, ^C and is situated in the region of Chersonesus, I saw certain local women and some small men, after the morning divine psalmody, congregating at the temple of the catholic Church with chicken eggs mixed with leaven of bread, and with salted meats, and with certain other kinds of eatables, or even things fitted for something else; and I asked for what cause this was done; and I heard that each one honors the priest who imparts to the people the divine sacraments with gifts, as he is able. For it is not permitted for anyone to approach the priest and partake of the sacraments otherwise; and I indeed at that time blamed what was being done. But having recently come across the present canon, I thanked it for forbidding that obols or any other species be exacted from those who partake of the sacraments. ^D For it says, the sanctification is neither sold nor imparted for money; but holy gifts are distributed to those who are worthy as a gift. For this reason, as it seems, they are also called "holy things" [sancta] from the gift [donatio] among the common people. The canon decrees, however, that he who acts otherwise should be deposed, as one who is an emulator of the wickedness and error of Simon.

ZONAR. The canon forbids those to whom the care of imparting the divine and tremendous mysteries to the people is entrusted to exact from communicants obols or any other thing, whatever it may be. For grace, it says, is not sold, nor is holiness purchased for a price, but it is conferred upon worthy men by a free gift. Whoever, therefore, shall have dared to exact even the least thing from communicants, as though [he were] an emulator of the Simoniac

error and impropriety, it is resolved that he be deposed. For he sought that the grace of the Holy Spirit be given to him for money.

ARIST. He who imparts the immaculate communion, and demands an obol or any other kind, let him be deposed. Clear.

CANON XXIV

BALS. Consistently with the fifty-fourth canon of the Council of Laodicea, this present canon also forbids priests or monks to go up to the horse race, or to hear stage performances; adding that clerics invited to weddings (for it seemed foreign to reason for the Fathers to speak of monks, because it is too indecorous) should withdraw as soon as the performances have begun. But the canon of the Council of Laodicea does not punish those who disregard it; this one, however, admonishes those who do such a thing to desist, and decrees that if they do not desist, they are to be deposed. Since these two canons say these things, and monks and priests are almost entirely prohibited by the part of the Church from attending the races of horses, some have said that for a cleric or a monk not to go to the horse race, neither to look at the spectacle which effeminates [the mind], nor to hear the words that strike the ears, is praiseworthy and greatly to be commended, just as it is [praiseworthy] to be a virgin and [to do] the other things that sanctify a man. But if any one, not being able to be a virgin, has taken a wife, he will not be punished; and he who is not able to abstain from every pleasure, if he shall have entered the racecourse, will be granted forgiveness; and the more so if [he went] once, and not if he has dedicated himself to it by using it excessively. For this canon, they say, forbids the races that used to take place, but not those that take place today, with the permission and presence of the prince. For then, when the people used to exercise excessive liberty, or rather license, at those horse races, and celebrated the horse races when and how they wished, and at their own expenses, as they had houses and horses and stables—which are preserved to this very day—and revenues for the celebration of those races, and the emperor was invited, yet had no power over that matter, it happened that many turbulent and absurd things occurred during the time of those races; when some were attached to the party of the Veneti, and others to the party of the Prasini: and at times, civil wars were even stirred up between the opposing parties, and the people shouted out impudent words even in the presence of the emperor, as is shown by various chronicles; such as happened in the reign of Justinian, and in the time of Anastasius and the tyrant Phocas,

^A and other emperors. But the parties, not being prohibited, used also to evoke victory for themselves by means of dice and chance, which is completely forbidden by the divine canons. They also permitted wild beast hunts ^B and other indecorous and shameful things. For this reason, they say, the 51st canon of the present synod prohibits mimes, and theaters, and the spectacles of hunts, and dances on the stage; and it decrees that those who despise it, if they be clerics, should be deposed, but if laymen, they should be excommunicated. And the end of the 15th canon of the Council of Carthage says thus expressly: "And so, that the children of priests do not perform nor watch secular spectacles." This, moreover, has always been proclaimed to all Christians, that they should not approach where there are curses and blasphemy. But today, since horse races take place in the presence of the emperor without any such abominations, it is not suspected that any evil is happening there. Wherefore they said that while it is indeed laudable for anyone to taste no pleasure at all from a horse race or any other such popular entertainment, yet it is without penalty for clerics to attend such horse races. For if every horse race, both that which was held in the past and that which is held today, is prohibited, as many say, just as all spectacles and hunts are, then one would be forced to say that no such thing should ever be done by the emperor or anyone else; and that hare-hunting with small dogs should also have ceased and fallen into disuse, lest laymen, ^C by occupying themselves with horse races, spectacles, and hunts, fall under excommunication, which is absurd. Therefore, the things of the horse race, and of the spectacles, and of the hunts must be divided into two, as has been said: into those which are to be entirely turned away from and avoided, to which not only clerics but not even laymen are permitted to go, for fear of excommunication, and into those which are permitted, which are in use today, and to which not only laymen but also clerics may go without any prejudice. And that, they say, the canons did not prohibit all spectacles and horse races, but only those which are dangerous and shameful, is shown by the 61st canon of the Council of Carthage, which says these things expressly: "And that we also ask that the spectacles of theatrical plays be prohibited on Sundays and on the other feast days of the Christian faith; especially because on the octave of holy Pascha the crowds gather for the horse races rather than for the churches; and that the days appointed for them should be transferred when they fall [on those feast days]; and no Christian should be forced to these spectacles." For surely if every horse race ^D were entirely [excluded] by the canons...

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. (88) "And it is not intemperance..." In the Parisian edition, the negative particle is inserted here. For the passage is read there thus, and Gentian Hervet also seems to have read it this way in the Tiliano manuscript. For he translates, "But it is not intemperance for clerics to attend such horse races." But not only in our Bodleian manuscript, but also in the Amerbachian and Etonian manuscripts, that particle is rejected as superfluous; for the passage does not admit it, because it is said that while it is indeed laudable not to be delighted by such games, yet it will be without penalty for clerics if they attend them.

^A Had this been forbidden, the Fathers would not have requested that horse races and spectacles not take place on the Lord's days and other festive days, such as the Paschal days, but would have insistently demanded that these be abandoned entirely. Moreover, the great teacher of the Church, the golden-tongued John Chrysostom, attempts to deter men only from the horse races that occur on the Lord's days. They added, concerning the points they raise, that there is no other reason for there being popular lectors today than the fact that horse races appear to be held by ecclesiastical permission, and that the former indecency of the lay populace and all that was shameful and unseemly has ceased. For why, they said, was it permitted only for popular lectors at the horse races to intervene and take the lead of the people, while the doors of the hippodrome were closed to the rest of the lectors and to those in holy orders generally? To confirm their own opinion, they also used ^B chapter 8, title 10, of book 60 of the *Basilika*, which speaks as follows: "The constitution forbids the games, and with five exceptions, establishes certain penalties against those who play with dice, permitting the prefect of the city, the governors of the provinces, and the bishops to investigate and forbid them, and to reject all contracts made in them." It allows an action based on permitted games, and permits an action for those things that were given by loan for that purpose, and decrees a penalty of ten pounds against those who permit this constitution to be violated. And they said that the pentathlon, that is, five games, is permitted: wrestling, boxing, the race, leaping, and the discus. But they said that the wooden equestrian contest is forbidden by law, because this also provides a cause for gambling or betting, just as is explained in chapter 21, title 13, of the present work. And these things, indeed, some said regarding the horse races. But concerning mimes and theatrical games, they made no division at all, but submitted them to the decree of the canon. Most others, and especially those who are somewhat more devout, to whom I myself also assent, did not think these arguments sufficient for themselves, saying that the canons must be interpreted to that which is more useful for the soul, and not to that which is more dissolute and more indifferent.

^C ZONAR. All those who are initiated into sacred orders and monks are prohibited by this canon from attending horse races and theatrical games. But he says that even if a cleric should be invited to a wedding, when the players enter, he should depart from there. For so our Fathers have taught. By "Fathers" here, those of this synod understand the bishops who gathered in Laodicea and held a synod in that city. For the fiftieth canon of such a synod says that priests or clerics ought not to watch shows at a wedding or at banquets, ^D but rather, before the actors are brought out, they should rise and depart from there.

The Fathers of the Synod of Laodicea, for their part, did not inflict a penalty upon those who did not observe the canon; but the Fathers of this Sixth Synod, so that no one should dare to do anything of the kind in the future, and so that whoever has dared to do so and has not withdrawn from such a ^A deformity, may be punished even with deposition.

ARIST. “A cleric or monk who attends horse races, or who does not leave nuptials when the actors are about to enter, let him be deposed.”

A cleric is not immediately deposed when, having been invited to a wedding, he does not rise and depart as soon as the games intended for deception begin; but rather, when he does this, if he is not persuaded to cease. If he does not cease, he is deposed, just as in the case of one who goes to the horse races.

CANON XXV. “In addition to other things, we also renew the canon which declares that the rural or local parishes of each church are to remain secure for the bishops who possess them, and especially if, for a period of thirty years, they have ^B administered them while holding possession without force. But if within those thirty years there has been or shall be any dispute concerning them, it is permitted to those who claim to have been wronged to bring the matter before the provincial synod.”

BALS. This renewed canon is the 17th canon of the Fourth Synod; read its interpretation.

ZONAR. This renewed canon is the 17th of the Fourth Synod, which was explained in that place; one must consult what is written there.

ARIST. “Rural and local parishes, if held for thirty years, are to be retained. But within that time, a dispute concerning them may be brought forward.”

It speaks of rural parishes (as we also wrote in the 17th canon of the Synod of Chalcedon) as those which are strictly properties of the churches, and not shared with others, which exist entirely in certain villages or hamlets—which they now also call *monoikia*—while it calls "local" [regional] those farms situated in the midst of regions or villages. If, therefore, any of the bishops has held such a local or rural parish, belonging to ^C another bishop, for thirty years, and no complaint has been raised against him concerning it within the interval of thirty years, he shall possess it in an unshakable manner. But if a dispute has arisen concerning it between both bishops, before the thirty years have elapsed, it is permitted to the one who considers himself wronged to challenge the matter before the synod of his own province.

CANON XXVI. “A presbyter who has, through ignorance, become entangled in an unlawful marriage, is indeed to retain his seat, according to what has been decreed for us by the sacred canon, but he is to abstain from his other functions. For it is sufficient for such a one that he be granted pardon. But ^D that he who ought to be tending to his own wounds should bless another is incongruous. For a blessing is the impartation of sanctification...

^A and how shall he who does not have this, because of a transgression committed in ignorance, impart it to another? Let him not, therefore, bless either publicly or privately, nor distribute the body of the Lord to others, nor perform any other ministry, but being content with his seat, let him weep to the Lord that the lawless act committed in ignorance may be forgiven him. For it is manifest that such an unlawful marriage shall be dissolved, and the man shall in no way have communion in the matter for which he has been deprived of sacred operation. BALS. The canons of the Council of Neocaesarea were written before the present synod. For this reason, the present canon makes mention of their enactment, ^B saying, in accordance with the ninth canon of that synod, that he who has been lawfully joined to his kinswoman in ignorance, and later ordained, is not permitted to offer, nor to exercise any other priestly function; but he is to be considered worthy of the seat alone, because he did not sin knowingly, but in ignorance. And he shall be judged worthy of the seat only when he has separated from the unlawful cohabitation and has shown works of repentance, which would encourage a more compassionate treatment of him. For if he does not separate from the unlawful marriage, ignorance will be of no benefit to him, but by the authority of the magistrate, the unlawful marriage will also be dissolved. ^C These things, moreover, are revealed from the canon saying, "but being content with his seat, let him weep to the Lord," and from the fact that it says, "the marriage shall be dissolved." And the ninth canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, because of the other zeal of him who has been deposed, commands him to remain in the other things. Seek also the twenty-seventh canon of St. Basil, and the twenty-first of the present synod. But after an unlawful marriage has appeared from the event because of kin, he who persists in the sin after having become aware of it will not only be judged unworthy of the seat, but will also be punished as a defiler of kin according to the requirements for laymen. ^D For book LX, title 37, chapter 41, theme 6 says: "Unlawful marriages are not confirmed; and for this reason, if they are dissolved before accusation, the penalty is forgiven." And in theme 7: "In an unlawful marriage which has been contracted in ignorance, nature and age and the correction of the sin grant pardon, and especially if no one has yet accused him."

ZONAR. The ninth canon of the Council of Neocaesarea concerning one who has sinned in the body and been ordained, says that he should not offer, remaining in the other things, because of the other zeal. And the twenty-seventh canon of the great Basil concerning one who has been entangled in an unlawful marriage in ignorance, says that such a one should share in the honor of the seat, but [abstain] from the other functions.

The same is decreed here also, that he who has imprudently entangled himself in forbidden marriage, and has perchance taken a blood-relative to himself, through ignorance of the kinship, should be content with the honor of the seat alone, and should reach out to no priestly office whatsoever; and for that damage which has been pardoned on account of his ignorance, he should persuade himself that things have been dealt with well and happily for him. For with what reason, he says, would such a one dare to bless another, since he ought to be anxious rather about expiating his own sins? For a blessing is a certain communication of spiritual grace and sanctification. Whoever, therefore, has lost that which was within him of sanctification and grace, due to the offense of the crime committed by him, how could he be able to bestow it upon others? ^B Neither in public, therefore, nor in private shall he bless, nor shall he distribute the Body of the Lord to anyone; but he shall be content with the seat, performing penance, so that the sin may be remitted for him. Furthermore, the unlawful marriage shall be dissolved, and that man shall no longer enter unto that woman, and thus he shall possess the honor of the seat. For if the unlawful cohabitation should not be severed, he shall have neither the seat, but both those who mingle with each other unlawfully shall be thrust out of the Church, and the unlawful marriage shall be dissolved by the authority of the magistrates.

ARIST. ^C «A presbyter falling into an unlawful marriage, and being deposed, let him be a partaker of the seat, and only that, abstaining wholly from the defilement.»

If any presbyter before his ordination took a wife, or a widow, or a harlot, or one of those on the stage, or any other of those who are forbidden, in ignorance, he shall cease indeed from the priesthood, but he shall share in the seat of the presbyters. And such an illegitimate marriage shall also be dissolved, through which he is deprived of the sacred ministry.

CANON XXVII

^D «Let no one of those who are enrolled in the clergy put on a garment not suitable for himself, neither living in a city, nor while traveling; but let him use the vestments that have already been assigned to those who are enrolled in the clergy. But if anyone should do such a thing, let him be excommunicated for one week.»

BALS. Certain of the clergy, as it seems, dwelling outside the country that bore them, walked about with unsuitable garments; or even while living in a city, they used similar coverings. The Fathers, therefore, correcting this, ordered that no such thing should happen anymore; or at least that those who act contrary to these things should be excluded for one week. And the 16th canon of the 7th Council also says that it is not fitting for a priestly man to use sumptuous clothing; and a garment unsuitable for a clergyman is not...

Guill. Beveregii note. Harmenopoulos summarizes the sense of this canon briefly thus: If a presbyter has fallen into illicit marriage through ignorance, with the marriage dissolved, let him have the seat only, abstaining from all acts. Where the scholiast annotated to the word [illicit], namely if he has taken into his house [a woman] united to him perchance by the bond of blood, or a monastic woman who has rejected the sacred habit, or one who was a ward whose guardianship her father held. Harmenop. cit. can. tit. 2, tit. 3.

^A and in no way fitting, nor soldier’s garments: for if any cleric should ever clothe himself in these, he will be severely punished. But sumptuous, gold-woven wraps, commonly called *margellia* and *antipana*, and garments gleaming with purple dye; for clerics ought to be examples of virtue and decency, and not of foolish and shameful behavior.

ZONAR. Those who have dedicated themselves to God must in every respect preserve and maintain modesty, even in their very dress and external adornment. For the Scripture says, *Man looks at the appearance, but God looks at the heart* (1 Reg. xvi, 7). And while the movements of the heart are known to God, men judge the internal and invisible things by external appearance. If, therefore, ^B any one observes those who are numbered in the portion of God not remaining in the custom of their own order, but dressed in a habit far alien and different, and sees them wearing either splendid and variously-wrought clothing, or military attire, as if girded for a journey, he will condemn the faithful, and from that preposterous habit, he will assess the mind and morals of all who are enrolled in the clergy. But, says the great Paul, *Be without offense, both to the Jews and to the Greeks and to the Church of God* (1 Cor. x, 32). Therefore, this canon commands all who are enrolled in the clergy to use customary garments, both in the city and on the road; but if they do not do this, but depart from the custom, it decrees that they be excommunicated for one week. And indeed, it is established by the sixteenth canon of the Seventh Synod that a man of the priestly order may not use sumptuous clothing.

ARIST. A cleric shall not wear clothing that is unfitting, neither on the road nor at home; otherwise, he shall be excommunicated for one week. Clear.

^C

CANON XXVIII

• Since we have learned that in various churches grapes are brought to the altar, and according to some custom that has prevailed, the ministers, after they have united them with the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, distribute both at the same time to the people: we have therefore resolved that no priest shall do this any longer, but shall distribute only the oblation to the people for the quickening and remission of sins; but as for grapes, ^D regarding the bringing of these as first-fruits, the priests shall bless them separately and distribute them to those who ask, for giving thanks to the Giver of the fruits, through which our bodies, according to the divine arrangement, are increased and nourished: if any cleric acts contrary to these decrees, let him be deposed.

BALS. We have written sufficiently about the things declared in the present canon in the fourth apostolic canon. Read, therefore, what is written therein.

ZONAR. In some places, many customs have prevailed that are alien to the gravity of ecclesiastical discipline, and even if the...

^A offering of grapes as first-fruits is brought into the temple, [the custom existed] to join these to the divine and bloodless sacrifice and to distribute them to the people. This canon, therefore, forbids this, and orders that it be done no longer by any of the clergy; but it is permitted that the offering should be given to the people privately for the forgiveness of sins to those who partake of it unworthily, whereas the grapes brought as first-fruits are to be blessed by the priests and distributed to the people, so that they may give thanks to the Giver of fruits and the Provider of those things necessary for the sustenance of our flesh. If anyone, he says, acts contrary to what has been ordained, let him be deposed.

ARIST. ^B Grapes are joined by some to the bloodless sacrifice. It is decreed that this be dared no longer. The third canon of the holy apostles permits that grapes be offered at the proper time upon the altar, that they be blessed by the priests, and that they be distributed to those who ask for them. But to join these to the bloodless sacrifice and to distribute both together to the people, the present canon forbids, and commands that no one of the priests dare do this anymore; otherwise, let him who has done this be deposed.

CANON XXIX

^C The canon of the Council of Carthage says that the holy things of the altar should not be celebrated except by fasting men, with the exception of one day in the year on which the Supper of the Lord is celebrated; at that time, perhaps on account of certain occasions in those places useful to the Church, the Fathers used this dispensation. Since, therefore, nothing induces us to abandon accurate diligence, following the apostolic and paternal traditions, we determine that it is not right during Lent, in the final week on Thursday, to break the fast and injure the whole of Lent.

BALS. The holy Fathers assembled in Carthage, ^D knowing that our Lord Jesus Christ, after He had performed the legal Passover and had eaten it with His disciples, also performed the mystical Passover and delivered the bloodless sacrifice, commanded that those who handle the holy things—deacons and priests—should be fasting for the entire remaining time, but on Great Thursday, after they had eaten, they should celebrate the holy things. The Fathers of the Sixth Synod decreed that this should not be done, saying that on that occasion, perhaps because of some just and useful cause for the

^B Church at that time, those divine Fathers had made such an arrangement. ^C But now, with no necessity compelling us, it is not right to overlook the strictness and the apostolic and patristic traditions; nor ought we to break the fast on the Thursday of the final week of the Quadragesima, and thereby dishonor and render useless the whole of the Quadragesima.

By "apostolic and patristic traditions," these divine Fathers meant the sixty-ninth canon of the holy Apostles and the fiftieth canon of the Synod of Laodicea. For the former decree states that if those who are in holy orders do not fast the holy Quadragesima of Pascha, unless they are hindered by physical infirmity, they shall be deposed, and if they are laymen, they shall be excommunicated. As for the canon of the Laodiceans, it says, "It is not permitted in the Quadragesima to break the fast on the Thursday of the final week, and thereby dishonor the whole Quadragesima, but one ought to fast the whole Quadragesima while eating dry food."

ARIST. "Some of the Fathers used to offer the oblations after dining on the day of the Lord's Supper. It seemed good, therefore, to the Synod that this should not be done, nor should one break the fast on the Thursday of the final week of the Quadragesima and thereby dishonor the whole Quadragesima."

The Synod of Carthage indeed decreed in its forty-first canon that the holy mysteries be performed by those who have fasted, except for one day in the year, that on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated. But this canon, observing the rigor of the law, does not even exclude that day, but commands that even on that day, that is to say, on Great Thursday, priests should be fasting while they celebrate the bloodless sacrifice; lest, on account of [missing text] ^D [This portion relates to the notes of William Beveridge, where he explains that the text found in the Parisian edition of Zonaras regarding the Fathers of Carthage is an interpolation from other manuscripts. The passage notes that the Fathers of Carthage, being moved by the example of the disciples, decreed that the mysteries be performed on that day because the Lord is thought to have first celebrated the legal Pascha with His disciples and then delivered His own mystical supper, and the apostles did not approach it fasting, having already broken their fast with the legal supper. The note concludes that these sentiments do not cohere with the commentary of Zonaras and appear to have been transcribed from the margin into the text.]

^A to celebrate the bloodless sacrifice; so that we may not, through the transgression of one day, bring dishonor on the whole of the Great Lent.

CANON XXX

BALS. The holy Fathers learned that the priests of the barbarian regions were, under the pretext of piety, abstaining from their own wives by common consent. They said, therefore, that even though the apostolic canon forbids priests and deacons to send away their legitimate wives, and what is done by the said priests is not a transgression, it is contrary to the apostolic canon; nevertheless, since those things which are done by some for the sake of piety ought not to be destroyed, but rather established and built up, it will be allowed them by way of dispensation to do this, because of their barbarian customs and their pusillanimous ways, which are alien to the state of ecclesiastical discipline, and also because of their instability and infirmity in the faith. Then it is added that they are not only to be separated from their own wives, but are not even to cohabit with them in any way whatsoever. For thus, they say, they will give assurance that they have not promised continence to God in hypocrisy, but truly and for the sake of pure and sincere piety. Note, therefore, that this was issued as a special provision and ought to be understood only of those who are priests in barbarian regions, and not of others. But I, having asked various bishops who had come from Russia, and also the Metropolitan of Alania, learned that the present canon does not have force in such ^C regions, even though they be barbarian; but like our own priests, their priests also have their own wives even after ordination. But someone will ask, since the canon says that the separation occurs by common agreement and consent, if the woman does not wish for this to happen, will the canon not have force? Solution. I think it is not just that a woman should be forced to be separated from her own husband, on account of the apostolic canon.

^D [index: entries preserved]

^B and because of Justinian’s Novella, which does not allow marriages to be dissolved by consent.

ZONARAS. Since the fifth canon of the holy Apostles forbids presbyters and deacons from putting away their own wives—as though they wished to live temperately—certain priests enrolled in barbarian churches, thinking they ought to surpass the apostolic command and do something more than what was ordained by them, abstained from intercourse with their wives, supposedly by agreement of the women who dwelt with them. Since, therefore, the members of this synod accepted this by way of economy because of the barbarian and rough character of those priests—for this is what is meant by "alienated"—and because their faith was not yet steadfast or completely firm—which is indicated by "untrained"—they decreed that those who had decided by mutual consent to abstain from intercourse should not even dwell together. This was in order to provide proof of the fulfillment of what they promised, and so that they might be more strongly spurred toward temperance, living far from their former wives. For to dwell with them and to see them constantly might become an incitement to sexual union for them.

ARISTENUS. "And the priests who are in the barbarian Church, if they abstain from intercourse with their wives by mutual consent, they must no longer have intercourse with them in any way."

A presbyter or deacon who casts out his own wife under the pretext of religion is ordained by the fifth apostolic canon to be excommunicated or even deposed, if he is not persuaded to take her back again. But certain priests living in barbarian churches, thinking that they ought to do something more than what is constituted in the apostolic canon, did not indeed cast out their wives, but agreed with them to abstain from mutual relations. This canon, not disapproving this agreement of those barbarian priests, decrees that they should no longer dwell with them in any way, so that they may exhibit an absolute and perfect demonstration of their promise. This the synod granted on account of their external and not sufficiently firm character, and their pusillanimity of mind. ^D

CANON XXXI. "We decree that clerics who minister or baptize in oratories that are within houses perform this with the approval of the local bishop. Wherefore, if any cleric does not observe this as such, let him be deposed."

BALSAMON. The canon considers it a conventicle if anyone performs a sacred rite or baptizes in an oratory which is within a house, except

^A by the will of the local bishop. And here, the Fathers decree that priests who do such a thing are to be deposed; but in the fifty-ninth canon, they even excommunicate laymen who possess oratories. But you, read the fourth Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise, which reads as follows after the prologue: "We decree, therefore, that not only the priests of each catholic church, but also the priests of each house, have permission to perform rites and conduct mysteries in all houses, as those who are chosen by the master of each house might invite; and the fifteenth [Novel], which reads in part: We decree, therefore, that just as it is regarding sacrifices, so also concerning the saving baptism, it is permitted to perform it in every oratory of the pious for those who so desire." Nevertheless, even with these things as they are, if anyone should be forbidden by the local bishop to perform a rite or baptize in an oratory, whoever performs such a thing shall be deposed, gaining no benefit from the Novels. But one who has not been expressly forbidden appears to do this tacitly by the bishop's will. For this reason, as it seems, ^B *antimensia* were devised, and they are made by the local bishops: [c] *Note of William Beveridge.* ^D The Greek bishops, especially the more recent ones, were accustomed, when they consecrated a temple, to spread a cloth on the ground and wrap the holy table, just dedicated, in it, and later, having cut it into many pieces, to distribute them among the priests so they could clothe their holy tables wherever they might celebrate the sacred rites. Thus also the anonymous Bishop of Bella taught in his questions, saying: "We know that *antimensia* are made when the pontiff performs the dedication of a temple by himself, and [a cloth] from the cloth spread out and wrapping the sacred table, being cut into pieces and inscribed, is given to the priests." In *Jur. Gr. Rom.*, vol. III, p. 259. Hence Balsamon asserts in this place that they are made by the archbishop at the time he celebrates the enthronement of a church. John, Bishop of Citrus, also agrees with this, saying: "In no way is it accepted that *antimensia* be made otherwise than at the dedication of a new Temple." *Joan. Citr. epise., in Jur. Gr. Rom.*, vol. V, p. 334, where many other things most worthy of knowledge occur concerning *antimensia*. For Constantine Cabasilas, the Archbishop of Dyrrachium, proposed these questions concerning them to the aforementioned Bishop of Citrus: "Are *antimensia* freely used in other provinces, or only in that of the one who performed them, and not outside the province? And what does this signify in Greek, and how should it be written, with an *eta* or an *iota*?" To the first question John answers that they, being duly consecrated, even when made outside [the diocese's] boundaries, have their own use without reproach. But regarding this Greek name itself, he discourses thus: "The appellation itself is derived from *mensa*, which according to the Greeks signifies a basket, and according to the Italian language, food prepared by cooks. For this reason, cloths spread out on tables are called *mensalia*, placed for the ornament of the table and the *minse*, that is, the dishes. In common speech, however, they are called *antimensia*, as in vestments [they are called] *antipana*, and whatever things have obtained such an appellation by the force of flexion in these. Afterwards, however, he foolishly adds that the word should be written with an *iota*. Balsamon more correctly teaches in the Synod of Nicaea II, canon 7, that they are *antimensia*. Indeed, as he observes in that place, as well as in the present canon, [the ones] placed upon the tables of oratories for their consecration suffice, since they were previously consecrated together with the dedication of a new Temple. Whence the reason for the name clearly shines forth. For they are called *antimensia*, as if placed instead of tables (*pro mensis*), or in the place of tables (*mensarum loco*), a word fashioned partly from the Greek and partly from the Latin language. Hence also, where there are no consecrated holy tables, provided that they have been previously consecrated, it is permitted to priests to celebrate sacred rites. Nor is there need of *antimensia* where the table is consecrated, as is evident from the responses of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Manuel, to the aforementioned Bishop of Bella, where he says: 'It is not necessary that *antimensia* be placed on all holy tables, but on those about which it is uncertain whether they are consecrated or not. For *antimensia* hold the place of consecrated tables:* nor is there need of them where [a consecrated table exists].

^A perform the inthronization of a church, so that they may be placed upon the holy tables of oratories; and they suffice not only for those things which constitute a holy altar, and are deemed tables of the holy table, to wit, the inthronization, the openings, and the dedications, but also [as a sign] that the sacred liturgy is performed in the oratory by the permission of the bishop.

ZONAR. To hold private assemblies or to set up altars without the consent of the bishop under whose jurisdiction they are is forbidden to those initiated in sacred orders by the fifth canon of the Council of Antioch, with the penalty of deposition also proposed. Whoever therefore shall perform sacred rites in an oratory of a private house, or shall administer baptism against the will of the bishop of that city, holds a private assembly: by right, therefore, he is punished with deposition.

ARIST. ^B ‹ Unless with the consent of the bishop you shall not offer in an oratory that is within a house. › The fifty-eighth canon of the Council of Laodicea forbids the sacred ministry to be performed in an oratory that is within a house by a bishop or presbyter. But the present canon overturns this, and commands that, if the bishop of the place so wills, priests may perform sacred rites in oratories that are within a house; but it deposes him who does this against his will.

CANON XXXII

^C ‹ Since it has come to our knowledge that in the region of the Armenians they offer only wine upon the holy table, not mixing water with it, those who perform the unbloody sacrifice, adducing John Chrysostom, the doctor of the Church, saying these things in his interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew: ‹ Why did He not drink water when He rose, but wine? ‹ eradicating another wicked heresy by the root. For because some have used water in the mysteries, showing that both when He delivered the mysteries, and when having risen He set forth ‹ without mysteries, and a bare table, ‹ He used wine from the fruit of the vine, ‹ he says, and the vine produces wine, not water; from this they ^D think the doctor overturns the addition of water in the sacred sacrifice: so that not from this time forward in the future by ignorance. ›

^A they may be held, we declare in an orthodox manner the mind of the Father. For since the wicked and ancient heresy of the Hydroparastatae (5), who instead of wine use only water in their own sacrifice, existed, this divine man, refuting the wicked succession (6) of such a heresy of this kind, and showing how it goes against apostolic tradition, constructed the aforementioned argument. For he also delivered to the Church to which he was entrusted with the pastoral leadership, that water should be mixed with wine when the bloodless sacrifice was to be performed, showing the mingling of blood and water from the precious side of our Redeemer and Savior Christ God, which was poured out for the quickening of the whole world and the redemption of sins. And indeed, in every Church where the spiritual luminaries have shone forth, this God-given order prevails. For James (7), the brother of our God and Christ according to the flesh, who was first entrusted with the throne of the Church of Jerusalem, and Basil, the archbishop of the Church of the Caesareans, ^B whose glory has run throughout the whole inhabited world, having by writing delivered to us the mystical liturgy, have thus given forth the holy chalice to be completed in the divine liturgy from water and wine. And the holy Fathers who were gathered at Carthage also explicitly made mention of this, so that nothing more than the body and blood of the Lord should be offered in the holy things, as the Lord himself also delivered, that is, bread and wine mixed with water. If, therefore, any bishop or presbyter does not act according to the order delivered by the apostles, and mixing water with wine thus offers the immaculate sacrifice, let him be deposed as one who expounds the mystery imperfectly and introduces novelties into what has been handed down. ^C

*Guill. Beveregii note.* [The notes provide definitions for the Hydroparastatae and the Encratites, explaining their refusal of wine or animal products; and Balsamon addresses a question regarding whether the liturgies of James and Mark are to be received by the Church, answering that while the Council in Trullo mentions the liturgy of James, there is no canonical or scriptural evidence that the liturgy of Mark was transmitted by the apostle himself. ^D [index: entries preserved]]

^A BALS. The Armenians, along with other heresies associated with them, have used only wine in the holy mysteries, claiming to do so consistently with what was written by that great teacher of the Church and golden-mouthed John in his commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew, which treats the offering of the holy chalice not with water, but with wine; yet the saint does not teach that the oblation should be made with wine alone. The divine Fathers, therefore, overturning what is done in this way by the Armenians, decreed that the sacred chalice must be offered with wine and water, interpreting the words of Chrysostom not to be understood as the Armenians claimed, but as having been written for the overthrow of the heresy of the Hydroparastatae, who performed the oblation of the holy chalice with water alone. Having refuted and crushed those things which were decreed by them—both from many other testimonies and from the sacrifice handed down by the aforementioned holy Father and by the great Basil—they subjected to deposition those bishops and presbyters who do not perform the sacrifice of the holy chalice through the union of wine and water. They commanded these things, moved by divine inspiration. For in the divine passion of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, His side, pierced by the lance, poured forth not only blood but also water, in order to manifest the unconfused union of His two natures. Note, therefore, that two heresies are overthrown by the present canon: one, that of the ^B Hydroparastatae, who use only water in the sacrifice of the holy chalice; and another, that of the Armenians, who perform it with wine alone. Since, however, not only the Armenians but also the Latins criticize the introduction of boiling water into the sacred chalice, saying that it has not been handed down by any evangelical or canonical precept, and that therefore it is done wrongly and contrary to this divine tradition which prescribes that the oblation of the holy chalice should be made with water and wine: let them hear that the fervent liquid that is added, which is formed by the water and wine of the holy chalice, does not change the union, since it is nothing other than water. It is cast in to signify that the things which flowed from the holy side of our Lord Jesus Christ are vivifying—namely, the blood and the water—and not dead; for from this also the magnitude of the miracle is shown. For since it is not natural for boiling blood to flow from a dead body, from the Dominical body even after death blood and active water flowed out, as from a vivifying body come vivifying things. And if anyone should say, “And why, before the holy chalice is sanctified, is the boiling water not added to the union, but instead after the sanctification?” he will hear that if the boiling water were added at the time of the union, it would be cooled ^C before the participation of the saints, and the matter would return to its previous state. ^D Moreover, the Catholic Church of the most holy and ecumenical throne of Constantinople does not in any way recognize these liturgies. We therefore decree that they are not to be received.

^A Since it is not the case that the holy chalice is not poured with the boiling water at the time of the union, but rather after the sanctification? You shall hear that if the boiling water were poured at the time of the union, it would grow cold by the time of the communion of the holy things, and the matter would conclude as it was before. For this reason, then, the boiling water is poured into the holy chalice after the elevation, and the faithful partake of it as life-giving. The Iberian priests, however, do not pour boiling water into the holy chalice, although they are most orthodox; and being asked at one time in a synod how they do this, they said that no Iberian ever has used hot water for drinking wine because of a long-standing local custom, and for that reason neither do they use the boiling water for the holy things. But being instructed regarding the power of the mystery, they were permitted to pour boiling water into the holy chalice, by necessity, at the time of the holy communion. Note ^B from the present canon (9) that the first, Saint James the Brother of God, as the first to exercise the high-priesthood of the Church of Jerusalem, delivered the divine liturgy, which is unknown among us, but is performed among the Jerusalemites and Palestinians on the great feasts. The Alexandrians, however, say that it is also the work of Saint Mark, which they also use for the most part. I spoke of this synodically, or rather, even before our holy Emperor, when the Patriarch of Alexandria was visiting the Queen of Cities. For when he was about to celebrate with us and the ecumenical [patriarch] in the Great Church, he attempted to use the *kontakion* of the Liturgy of James, but he was prevented by us, and he promised to celebrate just as we do.

ZONARAS. The divine mysteries, I mean the bread and the chalice, represent to us the body and the blood of the Lord. For the bread...

NOTE BY WILLIAM BEVERIDGE

^A do they present to us the body and blood of the Lord. For the Lord, giving bread to his own disciples, said: "Take, eat; this is my body." And presenting the cup, he said: "Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood, which is shed for you and for many." Since, therefore, at his divine Passion, the Lord, pouring out his own blood, when his side was pierced by a spear, sent forth not only blood but also water, it has necessarily been considered altogether essential by the Church to mix water in the wine during the holy mysteries. But the Armenians used unmixed wine at the mystical table, citing in their support the explanation of the Gospel according to Matthew by the divine Father Chrysostom. Having therefore condemned this error, the Fathers of this synod explain the words of Chrysostom and clarify their meaning. They say that he instituted that discourse, not to teach that the drinking of wine alone should be used in the holy mysteries, but to overthrow the heresy of the Hydroparastatae, who thought that the sacred rite should be performed with water alone, and to show them to be acting and thinking contrary to the Fathers and the holy apostles. For he himself, in the church which he governed, handed down that wine diluted with water should be used in the mystical oblation; and the rest of the Fathers and luminaries of the Church have handed down the rite of celebrating the unbloody sacrifice with bread and wine mixed with a drink of water. And furthermore ^B the Fathers of this sixth synod prescribe what those who transgress this present canon will suffer for their transgression; and they say: "If any bishop or priest does not perform the order handed down by the holy apostles, and does not mix water with wine, but offers the immaculate sacrifice in this way, let him be deposed, as one who proclaims the mystery imperfectly." He proclaims the mystery imperfectly because, since blood and water flowed together from the Lord's side in his death, as we have said, by completing the sacrifice with the oblation of wine alone, he demonstrates by the very act that only blood was poured out from the Lord's body; and he contradicts the holy testimonies of the evangelists and alters the traditions, while not sacrificing according to ancient custom.

ARIST. ^C Chrysostom, overthrowing the heresy of the Hydroparastatae: "When," he says, "the Lord has suffered and risen, he used wine." The Armenians, seizing upon this, offer wine alone, not understanding that Chrysostom himself, and Basil, and James, used wine mixed with water, and handed down that we should offer it in this way. If anyone, therefore, uses either wine alone, or water alone, and not mixed, let him be deposed.

The Armenians, deceived by the interpretation of Chrysostom on the Gospel according to Matthew, in which he endeavored to remove the heresy of the Hydroparastatae, who used water alone in the unbloody oblation, offer wine alone; not understanding, the impious ones, that the whole discourse of the holy Father looks to this, that the Hydroparastatae ^D

^A might be abolished, and that they should be persuaded to use wine also in the mysteries. But thinking that he who confuted the mingling of water in them, opposed himself to their refutation, they offer wine alone, ignorant that Chrysostom himself, and Basil the Great, and James the brother of the Lord, were offering the sacrifice by mingling wine with water; and they have handed down to us to offer it in this way. If, therefore, any bishop or presbyter does not offer the immaculate sacrifice according to this tradition of the apostles and the God-bearing Fathers, let him be deposed, as one who does not accurately declare the mysteries, and holds the traditions in contempt.

CANON XXXIII

^B Since we have learned that in the region of the Armenians, only those who are of the priestly lineage are admitted into the rank of the clergy, those who undertake to do this, following Jewish customs, and some of them even appointing as sacred chanters and readers of the divine temple those who have not even been tonsured: we decree that henceforth it shall not be lawful for those who wish to bring someone into the clergy to look to the lineage of the one upon whom hands are being laid; but examining whether they be worthy, according to the boundaries set in the holy canons, to be enrolled in the register of the clergy, they are to promote them as ecclesiastics, whether they have descended from ^C their ancestors being priests or not; but also that it shall not be permitted for any of those who are admitted into the rank of the clergy to recite the divine Scriptures to the people on the ambo, unless he has used the priestly tonsure, and has canonically received the blessing from his own pastor. If anyone shall be found acting otherwise than what is pre-written, let him be deposed.

BALS. This present canon corrects two things: what was being done wrongly in the region of the Armenians, that there should be no other clerics made except those who descended from a priestly lineage; and that the divine scriptures were read on the ambo by those who did not have episcopal ^D tonsures. The former, as a Jewish practice (for it was legislated among the Jews that priests were to be made from the Levitical tribe and from it alone); but the latter, as done inconsiderately. The Fathers therefore say that those who are to be ordained into the clergy are those who are worthy, and who are preferred by episcopal election, even if they are not from such a lineage; likewise, that those who have been enrolled into the number of the clergy for this purpose, that is, those who have episcopal tonsures, alone ought to do the readings on the ambo. Since the holy canon orders these things and excommunicates those who do otherwise, it has often been said by various bishops who

^A have clerics by golden bull, namely those of Athens, of Mesembria, and others, that the descendants of the ancient clerics compel them not to ordain those who are worthy for the clergy, but often those who are actually laymen, and that the service of the Church is performed by others provided by them. And even in this queen of cities, in the church of the holy great martyrs the Forty, and in the church of the all-holy Theotokos of the Lord, and in other divine temples, laymen hold many clerical offices, and even monasteries. But the prelates have heard that the present canon stops the mouths of those who cause them trouble. As to what happens in the aforementioned catholic Churches and how it is permitted, I do not know. Note also that as soon as someone has received the character of the tonsure from the hand of a prelate, the canon holds him to be a cleric: for I have heard some saying that one who is not entered into the clergy of a temple, but has only the tonsure, is not a reader nor should be called a cleric. Therefore, they say it is permitted for him to change back into lay attire; which, however, does not seem right to me. But they also say that monks who do not have episcopal crowns, but have the monastic tonsure, can read the Apostle and the rest on the ambo just like clerics, as if the monastic tonsure were sufficient for the clerical tonsure. To me, however, it seems that a monk who has been appointed a reader by the priest presiding, according to the 14th canon of the Seventh Synod, may rightly read on the ambo; but that he who has only the tonsure cannot do this; and read what is written in the aforementioned canon of the Seventh Synod.

^C ZONAR. For the Jews, the tribe of Levi was set apart for the priesthood, from which alone those who were to celebrate sacred rites were chosen. Therefore, this custom, which is also usurped by the Armenians, this canon condemns; and it ordains that no account of lineage or family is to be held in entering the clergy, but that the life and conduct of each man is to be inspected. And if men are found worthy according to the norm prescribed by the sacred canons, from whatever lineage they may be, and even if they are born of ancestors who held no priestly office, it is decreed that they may be enrolled in the ecclesiastical order. But it says that not even to anyone else is it permitted to ascend the ambo and recite the divine Scriptures before the standing people, unless to him ^D whose hair has first been shorn according to the custom usual for sacred men, and to whom his own pastor has granted the blessing according to the prescription of the canons, that is, has marked him with the character in the customary way. And the canon orders that those who violate these decrees be punished by excommunication.

ARIST. ‘He who is worthy of ordination, whether he is born of a priestly lineage or another, let him be ordained. He who is not shorn and has not received the blessing, shall not read the sacred Scriptures from the ambo.’

Those in the region of the Armenians, following Jewish customs, admit only those of the priestly race into the clergy. But they also used to appoint as sacred cantors those who had not received the blessing of a bishop nor had used the priestly tonsure, and commanded them to read the sacred books to the people from the ambo. Therefore, this present canon, prohibiting both of these things, commands that one should not look at the lineage of someone wishing to be promoted to the clergy, but should only inquire whether he is worthy; nor to allow anyone to read or chant from the ambo unless he has received the canonical blessing from his own bishop and uses the priestly tonsure. And he who acts against what is here ordained is to be deposed. ^A

CANON XXXIV

BALS. We have written about conspiracy and faction also in the 18th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Read that canon and what is written upon it. It has sometimes been questioned whether those also ought to be punished who have made a conspiracy for the sake of some good, for instance, if they have agreed and sworn together, without the order of the Emperor or a magistrate, to die in defense of a city besieged by enemies, ^C or to remove some destroyer of their city, or to do some other good thing. And some have said that, since it rarely happens that people conspire for a good cause, and it is not expressly permitted by the canons or the laws, to conspire is altogether forbidden, lest under the pretext of good, the many and the more thoughtless fall into many evils, thinking they are doing some good. From this, however, the imperial and magisterial power should be excepted, which avenges evils and incites the people to noble things. They have also used the 3rd chapter, title 36, of book 6, which states in the middle: He is to be punished who wages war without the order of the Emperor; and the prescription that is in it, which says: ^D Even if he wins, he is punished. Others, however, using the present canon and the laws which were set forth by us in chapter 37 of title 9 of the present work, which teach in their entirety concerning a conspiracy formed against someone, have argued that only those conspiracies which are made for evil are forbidden and punished, and not those which are made for the sake of some good. But to me it seems that every conspiracy is punished by the law, both because of those things which were said above, and because it is uncertain.

^A the result of this, and especially because the gathering together, in any way whatsoever, without the authority of the emperor, is greatly punished by the law, even if the conspiracy is made for what seems to be a good purpose. I have found an imperial note ^B of Lord Alexios, son of the Emperor Lord Manuel Komnenos, laid away in the public archives, issued in the month of July, indict. 15, which dictates that the great and high nobles who conspired at that time are not to be held liable for high treason, because that which was done is not considered a conspiracy, but a lawful oath, because the oath was sworn for the sake of his ^C empire. Do not say that a conspiracy made for evil is punished, but one made for good is to be praised; rather, say that every conspiracy is to be punished for the reasons aforementioned. For those things contained in the said imperial note are of a private nature and worthy of imperial compassion, but they are not an interpretation of laws and canons.

ZONAR. This canon concerning conspiracy is the eighteenth of the Fourth Synod, and it is explained there.

ARIST. If any clerics or monks make conspiracies ^D or factions, or weave plots against a bishop or fellow cleric, let them fall from their rank. Clear.

CANON XXXV. Let it not be permitted to any metropolitan, when a bishop subject to his throne dies, to take his property or that of his church.

Note of William Beveridge:

^A of the belongings of his own church be neither taken away nor usurped; but let them be under the guardianship of the clergy of the church over which the one who has passed away presided, until the arrival of another bishop; except if there be no clerics left in said church. For then the metropolitan shall keep these things intact, restoring everything to the bishop who shall be ordained. »

BALS. It is written in the twenty-second canon of the Fourth Synod that clerics who seize the belongings of a deceased bishop are to be deposed. The present canon, however, ^B forbids the metropolitan from usurping these things for himself. But when you hear that these ought to be under guard—either with the clergy, or, when there are no clerics, with the metropolitan—to be given to the bishop about to be ordained, do not say that this must necessarily happen. For if the deceased bishop made an inventory, according to the fortieth Apostolic Canon, as soon as he is ordained, his belongings shall be given to his heirs-at-law. And read what is written about this in the aforementioned twenty-second canon.

Furthermore, keep in mind the decree of our powerful and holy emperor ^C issued in the month of September of the fourteenth indiction, concerning the fact that the property belonging to deceased bishops should not be seized by tax collectors, which contains these words verbatim: "A matter which is dared even in contempt of God and in violation of the laws of nature by those who, it is said, fear neither the voice of God nor the vengeance of men, as is likely, was deemed by my Imperial Majesty to be entirely intolerable when it came to its ears. Hence, as something altogether unworthy of the Christian profession, my Imperial Majesty corrects this. For it was reported to it that, at the departure from life of those who everywhere hold the episcopacy in the most holy churches of God, partly before their funeral is carried out and partly after it has been carried out, those who exercise the administration of the treasury in that region, under the pretext of their death, inhumanly invade their cells and the immovable property ^D of the churches that had been allotted to them, and they take away all the belongings found therein; and they make a universal exaction of such real estate, and in every other way destroy these things. And my Imperial Majesty, not even deeming such a management of the items left behind tolerable even to the hearing...

^A of their audacity, so that these persons might not become more harmful and more grievous to the churches placed under them than the injury and calamity coming ^B upon them at the deaths of the high priests, decrees by means of the present ordinance that no longer shall it be lawful for those who administer ducal offices in the provinces, or who carry out registrations or other public rights, to innovate in any such way against the most holy churches, or against the immovable property under them, or against the cells ^C of the high priests in their final moments; but if the high priests die having made a will, let everything be done according to their wishes and arrangements, insofar as concerns the items found in their cells. If, however, they depart intestate, let everything be concluded according to what is deemed acceptable by the sacred canons and the laws. However, as regards the immovable properties of widowed churches, let no one of the dukes in the provinces or any others, as has been said, set foot therein at all, nor let anyone take away any portion therefrom in any manner whatever; but let all things be managed by the representatives of such churches themselves, just as it has been lawfully and canonically decreed regarding this matter, until, that is, those who are proclaimed to the churches after the deceased high priests are present in the region and have taken up the administration thereof. ^D One who proceeds to the weakening of anything ordained by this present constitution of my Imperial Majesty must know that, even if God should be silent for the present regarding such an audacious undertaking of theirs, reserving for the future the punishment worthy of them, yet my Imperial Majesty will proceed against him more bitterly even in the present, subjecting him to corporal punishments, and to the mutilation of his own limbs, and to the confiscation of his goods, and to long exile. For not only will such a person restore to the church the simple amount of that which was taken away from it by him in such a manner, but also double that amount will be exacted from him by the treasury without any mercy, with the most accurate information regarding this being given by the high priest at that time to the *mystikos* of the day, who is both obliged and ought to manage both these things; and he shall have no excuse at all regarding his sin. For my Imperial Majesty has approached them evangelically and spoken to them through this present ordinance, which shall be recorded and deposited in the sacred *chartophylakion*, being sufficient for the most holy churches, even if only verified copies of it are produced by their representatives. For these shall have the force of the originals, and shall be for the eternal security of those who present them.

ZONAR. The twenty-second canon of the Fourth Synod also deals with this topic, where we have also made mention of the present canon; hence, what has been said there suffices.

ARIST. When a bishop has departed this life, the clergy shall guard the property; but if no cleric is left, the metropolitan shall safeguard these things until another is ordained.

It is not permitted either to the clergy after the death of their bishop, or to the metropolitan, to remove [property] from the vacant church [index: entries preserved]

but all things must be guarded by these same clergy until another bishop is ordained. ^A If, however, no cleric is left in such a church, the metropolitan shall keep these things unimpaired, intending to restore everything to the bishop who is to be ordained.

CANON XXXVI

^B Renovating those things which were decreed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who gathered in this God-protected and royal city, and by the six hundred and thirty who gathered in Chalcedon, we decree that the throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal privileges with the throne of elder Rome, and shall be magnified in ecclesiastical matters just as it is, being second after it; after which let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be counted, then that of Antioch, and after this, that of the city of Jerusalem.

BALS. They speak of the second and third canons of the second synod, and of the 28th canon of the fourth synod. And read what has been written by us concerning these.

ZONAR. Those things which were said by us in the explanation of the aforesaid canons, which the present canon mentions, concerning the throne of Constantinople are to be sought; and I think that he who reads these will not require more on this opinion.

ARIST. ^C The throne of Constantinople shall be next after the Roman [throne], enjoying equal privileges; after it, that of Alexandria, then that of Antioch; and then that of Jerusalem.

We interpreted the decree that the throne of Constantinople should enjoy equal privileges after that of Rome in the third canon of the synod in Constantinople, and in the twenty-eighth canon of the synod in Chalcedon, so that it is placed second after the Roman [throne] not in respect of honor, but of time. Thus, therefore, also here it must be understood that the preposition "after" indicates time, and not honor. For after many years this throne of Constantinople obtained privileges equal to the Roman Church, because this city was honored by the empire and the senate, and it enjoys privileges equal to those of elder Rome.

CANON XXXVII

^D Since at various times there have been barbarian incursions, and because of this many cities have been subjugated by the lawless, so that on that account the prelate of such a city cannot, after he has been ordained, occupy his own throne and be established in it in valid priestly status, and thus, according to the custom that has prevailed, perform and manage ordinations and all things that pertain to a bishop: we, preserving honor and reverence for the priesthood, and in no way wishing the barbarian injury to be able to act to the ruin of ecclesiastical rights, allow those who have been thus ordained, and who, on account of the aforesaid

^A cause, have not been established in their own thrones, to be preserved without any prejudice from that matter; and we have decreed that they should perform the ordinations of various clerics canonically, and use the authority of their presidency according to their own rule, and that whatever administration proceeds under them should be firm and legitimate. For the limit of dispensation is not to be defined by an exact observation of the law, restricted by the time of necessity.

BALS. Note this present canon ^B for the sake of those who say that the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, and others who have not arrived at their own churches beforehand and have not been enthroned, cannot judge regarding ecclesiastical matters which must be handled synodically, or ordain, or perform any other priestly act; for it closes the mouth of such men. For the incomparable lord Alexios Aristenos brought forward this canon against that most holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, lord Nicephorus. The thirty-sixth apostolic canon, and the seventeenth and eighteenth canons of the Council of Antioch, indeed subject those bishops who, after they have been ordained, do not go to the dioceses which fell to their lot, to excommunication; but they say that those who did not go, not through any fault of their own, but on account of some reasonable excuse, are not to be punished, and they decree that they should have their own honor, just as if they had gone to the region and had been enthroned. But the present canon decrees that bishops who, on account of a barbarian incursion, have not been able to go to the thrones which fell to their lot, should likewise be honored, and should perform all pontifical ^C acts without any prejudice, and should be considered in every way as if they had departed to the region and had been enthroned. Wherefore also the Metropolitan of Iconium and other Oriental metropolitans, not having churches, as they are held by barbarians, rightly ordain bishops and perform all pontifical acts, even if they have not come at all to the churches which were allotted to them, nor have been enthroned. For I have often seen this spoken of and brought into controversy. Read also the constitution of the illustrious Emperor lord Alexios Comnenus, issued in the month of November of the second indiction, which decrees that those who are elected for the Oriental churches should again [have the rights]... ^D concerning the aforesaid, and with this canon I instruct those who happen upon this writing, as it is also an ordinance of the illustrious Emperor lord Alexios Comnenus, issued in the month of November of the second indiction, and recorded in the public and ecclesiastical secretariats, and decreeing that not only should [bishops] be elected without hindrance to the Oriental churches, which are held by the nations, even if those proclaimed in them are not able to occupy these thrones that fell to their lot because of the ethnic malice, but also that after their ordination they should have the rights which they had before this in the great city, namely the headships over monasteries, brotherhoods, food allowances, and the rest.

The text verbatim is as follows: ^A “My imperial Majesty, most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, has learned that when elections proceed in the churches of God, some of those who are chosen, acting as heads in monasteries and managing houses or performing other duties—in short, being monks—and others in the Great Church of God and in other churches, who rightfully hold their livelihood from offices and other ministries, are reluctant to assume the yoke of the priesthood [(20)] and oversee the churches to which they have been summoned, fearing lest, as these churches are situated in the parts of the East, they may lack the necessary supplies, especially as the churches in which they have been appointed are entirely destitute and ^B inaccessible to them, and they are themselves deprived, for the sake of undertaking their care, of the headships, administrations, and other ministries they held, along with what are simply called brotherhoods or offices and other duties. My imperial Majesty therefore decides, arranging their affairs in a compensatory manner, that no one henceforth shall refuse to assume the yoke of the priesthood. For all these shall continue to enjoy their existing headships, administrations, and other ministries, duties, and offices, as well as the brotherhoods belonging to them, and while they undertake the responsibility of teaching and accept the perfecting order, they shall retain authority ^C over those revenues until they find relief and the present misfortune of the churches assigned to them has turned into prosperity—as has been stated, these churches being inaccessible to them because they are held by the most hostile enemies. However, these things decreed by my imperial Majesty shall not hold in the case of the offices and ranks of the priests and deacons and the rest of the clergy of the Great Church of God. Therefore, deposit the present decree in the codices of the chartophylacium of the Great Church of God.”

ZONAR. ^D Those who are called to the charge of a people and do not obey to go are excommunicated by the 17th canon of the Synod of Antioch. But as for those who have been ordained but have not gone, not for any fault of their own but because of a rejection by the people, or for some other cause not arising from themselves, the 18th canon of the same synod orders that they should partake of the honor and the ministry. This very thing is also decreed in a more expansive manner by the present canon, saying that if anyone, having been promoted to the episcopacy, cannot go to the city assigned to him—perhaps because it is held by Barbarians—such a one shall have every privilege of the priesthood.

Guill. Beveregii note. (20) *Of the priesthood.* The Amerbachian and Lioniensis manuscripts read *of the episcopacy*, which reading the sense truly requires; for it is not a matter of the priestly, but of the episcopal yoke here. And indeed, in this true reading, all the codices agree a little...

belonging to his episcopal office. For he will also ordain clerics, provided however it be done canonically, that is, as the canons ordain, and he will have the honor of the bishop and be deemed worthy of the cathedra. For this authority of the presidency exists according to its own mandate, that is, just as it has been defined and established for that city to be honored—being perhaps first, or second, or another in succession. For he shall not be deposed from it because he has not yet been able to be enthroned in the holy cathedra itself. But also, whatever he may administer and perform by archieratic right, all things shall be established, and shall be considered lawful. For it is not the case that because he could not depart to his church due to the necessity of the time and the trouble resulting from the Barbarians, the exactness of the law shall be set aside, and the term of the economy shall be restricted; instead of that, the exactness of the canons shall be preserved and shall not be diminished, giving to the bishops the authority of administration of all things in their bishoprics. ^B

ARIST. Episcopus who, on account of the incursion of the Barbarians, is not stationed in his throne, let him both enjoy his cathedra, and ordain, and perform all the duties of the priesthood most firmly.

If any bishop is ordained, and due to the incursions of the Barbarians he cannot depart to the city in which he was ordained, so as to be established in it and settled in the priestly order, let him not be hindered from performing what pertains to bishops, but let him do and manage all things, and let him partake of the honor that is in the cathedra, and let him make ordinations of various clerics canonically, and let everything done by him according to canonical exactness be firm. For the necessity of the time shall not be a prejudice to him, such that his episcopal dignity is in any way diminished.

CANON XXXVIII. The canon which was established by the Fathers we also preserve, which thus declares: If any city has been renewed by imperial power, or is hereafter to be renewed, let the order of ecclesiastical affairs follow the civil and public types. ^C

BALS. In the twelfth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon we wrote what indeed we wrote; since, however, the present canon also decrees that those cities which have been or are also to be raised up by imperial power should be honored by the churches, just as the imperial command shall have described—that is, that they should have either the dignity of a bishopric or of a metropolis (for it is necessary that the ecclesiastical order follow the civil and public types, that is to say, the imperial commands)—we say that by the present canon it is granted to the emperor to create new bishoprics, and to raise others to the rights of a metropolis, and to decree concerning their election and other administration as it may seem good to him. Meanwhile, however, he ought to know that in the month of May, in the tenth indiction, in the year 6595, an edict was issued by the illustrious emperor, lord Alexios Komnenos, ^D concerning all things pertaining to it.

^A This note from the renowned emperor, lord Alexios Komnenos, explains that when the metropolises of Basilei and Madytos were widowed and the election of their presiding bishops needed to take place, the metropolitans of Heraclea and Ancyra stood up and said that these churches, even though they were honored with the dignity of metropolises, should not receive the election of their bishops from the quarters of the Great Church, but from themselves; for the reason that the church of Madytos was an episcopal see under Heraclea, and the church of Basilei was an episcopal see under the metropolitan of Ancyra. ^B And when these metropolitans used the 12th canon of the Synod of Chalcedon, which decrees that the rights pertaining to the true metropolis should be preserved for the honored church, an imperial judgment was made in the presence of the synod that was then in session, which was in agreement and made a joint decree, that it is permitted for emperors to bestow a pontifical throne upon churches and to elevate bishoprics and archbishoprics to metropolises; and to prescribe matters concerning their votes and other arrangements according to their own will, not being hindered in this by the canon which decrees that the rights which belonged to it from the beginning in the honored bishopric must be preserved for the metropolis. Read this note, for it interprets how the statement that "the rights of the ancient metropolis must be preserved" and "one province must not be divided into two" should be understood. For we, because it is very long, have not transcribed it here in its entirety.

The same note, after the narrative containing the provision that honored churches must receive the election of their bishops by imperial order from the throne of Constantinople, and that the former metropolitans should have no share in them, explicitly contains these things as well: "Since, however, the bishops again also brought forward the canon of the Synod of Chalcedon, saying that those who were deemed worthy of a higher throne through petition were obtaining a more perfect honor against the canons, and they wished for a curb to be placed upon such unreasoning impulses, and they were bringing forward canonical authority; my sovereignty, ^C not allowing the privilege given to it by the divine canons to be neglected by its imperial power, and not wishing the petitions of bishops made because of an appeal for honor to receive the result of an 'appeal,' as they were neither canonical nor legitimate, has decreed that a bishopric may not be elevated to a higher throne—namely an archbishopric or metropolis—unless the emperor who is in power at the time, spurred by his own initiative, without any unseemly human favor intervening, should wish to provide it with that dignity which is superior and more eminent, either honoring it for the sake of the city, or for its faith toward the holy Church, or for the virtue of the one who presides over it, and moved from that point by his own will to bestow the honor. And for the one who, on account of human affection and non-laudable habits, bestows a higher rank, the fear of the divine canons is held up. And lest the emperor often stumble ^D upon these things, he permits the most holy patriarch who is in office at the time not to confirm in any other way any charter brought by anyone concerning the primacy of any church, nor to receive its presiding bishops among the archbishops or metropolitans, except after he has [inquired] about this matter

the matter to the imperial authority and set forth what is contained in the holy canons, and has learned that the emperor, upon a reasonable pretext, has granted that honor to the Church, in accordance with the permission he has by nature. For then he will accept this, and will enumerate the one who has obtained the greater honor from the emperor among the assembly of the prelates who are under him. Note, therefore, the import of the present imperial edict for the sake of those churches which have been promoted from bishoprics and archbishoprics to metropolises.

ZONAR. Emperors are accustomed to "renovate" cities—that is, to build them new—and to grant them civic privileges, or even to honor them with bishoprics and perhaps the dignity of a metropolitan title, by means of written edicts which they also call "public edicts" (or in other places, "pragmatic" [sanctions] and "imperial letters"). The canon therefore counsels that the arrangement of ecclesiastical order should correspond to these pragmatic or public edicts, so that whether the new city has received the title of a bishopric, or has been raised to the honor of a metropolis, it should be reckoned in the same order of ecclesiastical rights.

ARIST. ^B "If any city has been built by the emperor, or shall be built, the order of ecclesiastical affairs shall follow the political and public edicts."

A city built—or that shall be built—anew by the emperor shall be under the diocese of the bishop under whom it was inscribed and ordered to be subject. Even if it is closer to the parish of another bishop, the one who is nearer shall not for this reason claim it, but such a city shall follow the political and public edicts, as is determined in the seventeenth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon. ^C

CANON XXXIX. "Since our brother and fellow-minister, John, the prelate of the island of Cyprus, together with his own people, has migrated from the aforementioned island to the Hellespontine province, both because of barbarian incursions and that they might be freed from the servitude of the gentiles, and might be purely subjected to the scepters of the most Christian power; by the providence of the merciful God, and the labor of our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, we decree that the privileges granted to the throne of the aforementioned man, by the God-bearing Fathers who formerly gathered at Ephesus, should be preserved without any innovation; so that the new Justinianopolis may have the right of Constantinople, and that he who is established in it, being a most pious and religious bishop, may preside over all the provinces of the Hellespontines ^D and...

be ordained by his own bishops, according to ancient custom; ^A for our God-bearing fathers have determined that the customs existing in each Church should be preserved, with the bishop of the city of Cyzicus being subject to the presiding bishop of the aforementioned Justinianopolis, in imitation of all the rest of the bishops who are under the aforementioned most pious presiding bishop John, by whom, when need calls, the bishop of the same city of Cyzicus will also be ordained.

BALS. From the 8th canon of the Third Synod, it appears that, upon the petition of a certain bishop of the Cypriots, named Rheginus, it was decreed that the Church of Cyprus itself should be autocephalous and supreme, and the Bishop of Antioch was forbidden to make ordinations in it. The present canon, issued at the request of another Archbishop of Cyprus, John, confirms indeed what was done at Ephesus, also naming the Church of the Cypriots "New Justinianopolis." It decrees, however, that it also has the rights of Constantinople, and likewise the Churches of the provinces of the Hellespont, and the Church of Cyzicus; and that the ordinations of their bishops should be performed by the Bishop of Cyprus. But today, none of these Churches is subject to the Archbishopric of Cyprus, nor do they possess the rights of Constantinople. ^B

*Guill. Beveregii note.*

It is nowhere called, I think, the city of the Constantinopolitans. And let it not seem likely to anyone that the privileges of Constantinople itself were granted to New Justinianopolis. For even if, according to the prescription of this canon, its bishop is asserted to be autocephalous, yet he is not a patriarch, nor does he therefore enjoy the same privileges as the Constantinopolitan. ^C From the other reading, a clearer meaning may be easily elicited. For the Ephesian Synod had previously decreed that neither the Antiochene nor any other bishop should exercise any episcopal or metropolitan power on the island of Cyprus; but that all ecclesiastical matters arising there should be defined by the metropolitan of Constantia and the synod of the province. That metropolis of Cyprus, which was formerly called Constantia, was named New Justinianopolis by Emperor Justinian after his own name. Therefore, from the Amerbachian reading of this passage, the Fathers decreed in this canon that the presiding bishop of this New Justinianopolis should enjoy the same privileges that had been granted to him by the Ephesian Synod when the city of the Constantians, or Constantia, was so called. ^D Or if the other reading pleases anyone more, let the words be explained in this way: When the Saracens invaded the island of Cyprus, John, the presiding bishop of the metropolitan city of New Justinianopolis, or Constantia, was forced to migrate with most of the inhabitants of that island into the Hellespontine province. Since, therefore, John had his bishops and priests, as well as the laity, with him there at the time this synod was held, the Fathers, with the consent of the Emperor, determined in his favor that he should retain the privileges anciently granted to his throne even in the province of the Hellespontines, so that no one, for his part, might have power over his bishops and his peoples; and furthermore, that the Hellespontine province itself, and the bishop of Cyzicus, who is the metropolitan of that province, should be subject to the said John. Now the Hellespontine province was at that time subject to the Constantinopolitan throne. The Fathers therefore decree in this place that John, the presiding bishop of New Justinianopolis, should keep that Hellespontine province subject to himself from then on, so that it might be transferred into him entirely; and that whatever privilege the Constantinopolitan bishop had previously claimed there, the Constantian or Justinianopolitan might exercise later. But it seems the Fathers indulged this to the said John for this reason, that he had already lost his own province, as it had been occupied by Saracens or Barbarians. For it did not seem consistent with reason that he who had been a metropolitan, and indeed autocephalous, should later be subject to another metropolitan and be deprived of all ecclesiastical power on account of the incursions of the Barbarians. It was therefore provided by this canon that John should retain in the Hellespont the same rights that he had previously had in Cyprus. And one might henceforth suspect that this is the truer exposition of the canon, because this extraordinary privilege granted to John the Constantian was extinguished with his person, or at least with his restoration to the province of Cyprus; as it is manifest from the fact that it was granted for his own sake alone. Furthermore, this sense is openly suitable to either reading. For John, when he was in the Hellespont, could possess as much, whether in relation to the Cypriot bishops or in relation to the Hellespontine, [as] the right of the city of Constantinople, in so far as it was within the power of the city of Constantinople. And it must be sought how this came about. The Hellespont, however, is...

the eastern boundary extending from Abydos up to Thrace. ^A ZONARAS. By the third council, it was decreed by the holy Fathers of that same council that the Cypriot bishops should perform the ordinations of bishops by themselves. For the bishop of Antioch at that time was attempting to hold Cyprus under himself, and to have the bishops within it ordained by him; this canon therefore decrees that this privilege is to be kept uninnovated for the churches in Cyprus, and it adds to the new city, which was called Justinianopolis, the right of Constantinople. And just as the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian provinces are subject to the throne of Constantinople, so also to this [new city] it is granted to preside over the Hellespontine province, and that the bishop of Cyzicus should be subject to it and be ordained by it; for this city too—I speak of Cyzicus—is in the Hellespont. Now, whether the decree concerning Cyzicus ever came into effect, I do not know; but for the present, it is clear that this decree, as it pertains to the election of the bishop of Cyzicus, is neglected. But neither does the bishop of Cyprus have any power at this time over the other regions and cities of the Hellespont.

ARISTENUS. ^B "Let the new Justinianopolis have the right of Constantinople, and let its president preside over all the Hellespontines to whom he has moved, and let him be ordained by his own bishops: as the Ephesian Fathers decreed."

This president of the Cypriot island, John (for this is also the new Justinianopolis), because of the incursions of the Barbarians and in order to be delivered from the servitude of the infidels ^C and to be purely subjected to the sceptres of the most Christian empire, having become a migrant from Cyprus and having moved to the Hellespontine province, was permitted by the indulgence of the Fathers to have the right of Constantinople over the Hellespontine bishoprics, and to preside over all the bishops in that province, and to have a most particular authority, and to be ordained by his own bishops, just as the Ephesian synod also decreed. But after Cyprus was liberated from the hands of the Gentiles, the metropolises which were in the Hellespont returned to the throne of Constantinople.

CANON XL

"Since to cling to God through withdrawal from the clamours of life is very salutary, we ought not to admit those who choose the monastic life without ^D examination; but [we must carry out] the decree handed down to us by the Fathers and in them also..."

^A to preserve it, so that we may then admit the profession of a life according to God, as now firm and having been made from knowledge and judgment, after the completion of reason. Therefore, let the one who is about to take up the monastic yoke be not less than ten years old, ^B with the examination of this matter lying in the discretion of the presiding bishop, whether he deems that the time should be extended as more beneficial for the introduction and establishment in the monastic life. For although the great Basil, in his sacred canons, ordains that she who of her own accord offers herself to God and embraces virginity, if she has completed her seventeenth year, is to be numbered among the order of virgins; but yet, following the example regarding widows and deaconesses, we have proportionately reduced the time for those who have chosen the monastic life. For it is written in the divine Apostle that a widow of sixty years of age is to be chosen for the Church, but the sacred canons have decreed that a deaconess is to be ordained at forty years of age, having seen that the Church, by the grace of God, had become stronger and was advancing further, and that the faith of the believers was firm and secure regarding the observance of the divine commandments; ^C which we also, having understood most excellently, have now decreed to imprint upon the one who is about to undertake the struggles according to God the blessing of grace, like a seal, quickly, thereby inducing him not to delay and hesitate for long, or rather even inciting him toward the choice and establishment of the good.

BALS. The great Basil in his eighteenth canon admits those who after sixteen years profess to undertake virginity, as being able to distinguish the good from the bad and to choose. ^D But the present canon does not...

Guill. Beveregii notes. ...if the one is ten years old, he may become a monk, if to the bishop of the region he then seems worthy of it. In this epitome of the present canon the scholiast notes these things: The canon of the great Basil indeed says that she who offers herself to the Lord and renounces the world ought to be beyond sixteen or seventeen years. But this canon reduces that time, because he saw that the Church by the grace of God was better established and was advancing and progressing further. Harmenop. Epit. can. sec. 4, tit. 1.

^A It is sent. However, it determines that a man is not to be received into the monastic life otherwise than by the approval of the bishop. It adds that it is determining these things because the Church, by the grace of God, is advancing and the keeping of the divine commandments has become more fixed and stronger. He used, for the confirmation of these things, what was said concerning deaconesses in the Fourth Synod, saying: that since holy Paul decreed that widows who are sixty years of age could be enrolled in the order of deaconesses, the Fathers decreed that a virgin who is forty years of age should be ordained a deaconess; from which it is concluded that the Fathers decreed nothing absurd, by shortening the time for the tonsure of the imperfect from the eighteenth year to the tenth. Great thanks are due to them, because they did not permit everyone who is ten years of age to be tonsured without any diligent investigation, but left this to the judgment and discretion of the bishop. For perhaps his examination will admit one person who has exceeded the tenth year to the tonsure, but will reject another. And these are the things which are contained in the canon. But do you read the sixth Novel of the emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which contains that one who has completed his sixteenth or seventeenth year may be tonsured without any impediment, as the great Basil wishes, and may also make a will; but as for one who, in his tenth year of life, wishes to be a monk, he may indeed freely do this according to the judgment of this canon, but he may not make a will concerning the goods which he has, but must wait until he reaches his fifteenth year. In the meantime, however, if he dies, his slaves are to be manumitted, but the remaining assets are divided in two; the monastery will receive two parts, and the third part will be given to his kinsmen. But if the deceased has no kinsmen, the third part also will accrue to the monastery.

^C ZONAR. Basil the Great in his eighteenth canon orders that girls are not to be admitted to the profession of virginity unless they are sixteen or seventeen years old; if any promises have been made before that time, he deems them to be no more worthy of being heeded than the voices of children. But this canon determines that one who is now ten years old should be admitted to the exercises and duties of monastic discipline. Indeed, he mentions the canon issued by Basil, but says that he dispensed this because at the present time both the Church has gained more strength and the faith has gained more firmness, and the minds of the faithful are better prepared for taking up the mandates of the divine law. He also brings forward a similar example from the Fourth Synod concerning deaconesses, saying that when the divine Paul had decreed that a widow who is sixty years of age should be chosen, the Fathers followed the very same reasoning, because as the constancy of the faith increased, the more exalted divine [laws were better upheld].

^D

Guillaume Beveridge's note

^A Since the love of obedience had taken root in human hearts, they decreed it permissible to enroll a forty-year-old virgin in the list of deaconesses. In this matter, however, as far as age is concerned, the canon leaves the whole affair to the bishop’s discretion, so that he himself may judge, whenever anyone shows that they are gripped by a zeal for the monastic life, whether they ought to be admitted immediately after the tenth year has passed, or whether they should wait for some further advancement in age.

ARIST. A monk shall lead a monastic life at ten years of age. For even though the divine Basil deemed that one who is tonsured should pass seventeen years, yet because the Apostle hands down that a sixty-year-old widow ^B is to be betrothed to the Church, the Fathers said that a deaconess should be ordained at forty, as the Church had become stronger; and we also impose the seal upon the monk sooner.

The eighteenth canon of Basil the Great says that she who offers herself to the Lord and renounces marriage must be over sixteen or even seventeen years of age, so that her promises may be firm, and that she who violates them may suffer inexorable penalties. For, he says, it is not fitting to consider childish utterances valid in such matters. But the present canon admits him who is not less than ten years old and desires to live as a monk, committing the examination concerning the time to the judgment of the superior, to see whether he deems it more advantageous that the time be increased for his introduction and establishment in the monastic life. The canon reduces the time defined by Basil the Great because the Fathers had perceived that the Church, by divine grace, had become more powerful ^C and was advancing and progressing, and that the faithful appeared firmer and more stable in the observance of divine commandments. For the same reason—because the Church was advancing toward the better—the sacred canons also reduced the time for a deaconess, and have ordained that she be chosen at forty years of age, even though the Apostle himself commands that a widow who is to be enrolled in the Church be sixty years old.

CANON XLI

Those who in cities or villages wish to seclude themselves in enclosures and attend to themselves separately or in solitude must first enter a monastery ^D and practice the anachoretic way of life, and for the space of three years submit in the fear of God to the one who presides over the monastery, and fulfill obedience in all things as is fitting; and thus, after professing regarding the institution of life they have chosen, and that they embrace it of their own free will and with their whole heart, they shall be examined by the prelate of the place; then, in this manner, they shall conduct themselves valiantly for another year outside the enclosure, so that their objective may become more manifest. For then they will fully and perfectly signify that they are not seeking empty glory, but are pursuing this solitude for the sake of that which is truly beautiful and honorable. After the completion, however, of such a period of time, if

^A they remain firm in the same resolution, they are to be enclosed, and it is no longer permitted to them, whenever they wish, to depart from such a habitation, except for the sake of the common good, or another necessity urging them toward death, and thus only with the blessing of the bishop of that place. Whoever attempts to leave their dwellings without the aforementioned causes is, first of all, to be restrained in the said enclosure even against their will, and then to be treated with fasts and other afflictions, knowing, as it is written, that "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke IX, 62).

^B BALS. It is a great and very bold undertaking for one to rest in solitude and to enclose oneself in a tiny little house, as if dead for the whole time of one's own life. And for this reason it has been ordained by the Fathers that no one, anywhere, and in any way, should be enclosed without diligent investigation; but that he who wishes to do this should first submit himself for three years to him who is in charge of a monastery, and show himself compliant, and fully declare from the start what his manner of life will be in the future, with the probation and examination of the bishop of that region. Then, let him conduct himself bravely for one more year outside the enclosure. But if, even so, he who seeks to be enclosed does not appear to be doing this because of wicked customs, but because of the honorable and soul-saving desire itself, let him be enclosed by the bishop, so that he may no longer go out of the enclosure, ^C except for the common good or because of the danger of death; and furthermore, that he would not leave otherwise than with episcopal permission. But if he has left otherwise, and not for the stated reasons, let him first of all be enclosed, even against his will, where he was before: then also let the fault committed by him be corrected by punishment. For it is said that he is not to be received by God who, having professed that he would do something good and salutary, afterwards shows repentance for his own promises. Note, therefore, the four-year probation for him who is to be enclosed. For in external regions, he who wishes to be enclosed is enclosed immediately, without episcopal permission and customary chants. Note likewise that it is not permitted for one who is enclosed, without episcopal permission, to depart from his cell, even if there is a most just cause that persuades him that he must leave. ^D Those, however, who do not leave in this manner are to be enclosed again by the bishop, even against their will. And the canon determines these things. But the first chapter of the 133rd Novel, which is located in the fourth book of the Basilics, chapter 14, says this: We decree that no one at all is to have his own habitation, nor what is called a cell, unless someone should wish to live alone, and perhaps using one or two ministers, to spend his life in contemplation and quiet, but ...

... ^A tione et silentio transigere: but if there are many men, let there be one and the same gathering, both for those praying and for those doing the works of nature, provided they are blameless and irreproachable. Let them eat in common, as has been said, and sleep in common; and if the multitude be such that they can be contained in one house—even if they happen to be in two or three houses that receive them—let no one have anything at all of his own, but let them live in common by night and by day, so that the nights may have the same observance for them as the days. For not all sleep at all times, but it is clear that some are sleeping while others are watching; and there will always be some who keep watch over those who are sleeping. ^B If there are any dwellings in any monastery whatsoever that are under the universal patriarch of this great city, or under your holiness, or that are in the same neighborhood, whether they were built by us ourselves or by others, you shall demolish them all completely, and open them up to the sight of one another, so that they may see all that is done by each other. For why should they fear to do this, having once devoted themselves to God and renounced every popular way of living? And I wish for this to be maintained both now and for all future time, with no one, as has been said, having a private dwelling, but all being gathered together and seeing what is done by each other. For it is clear that they will hasten to make such things [as would cause them] to remain completely beyond reproach. And if anyone should be seen to be so impudent as to dare to attempt to transgress any of the things that have been decreed, the superior of the monastery shall examine these things. For we wish the observation to be more severe now. Some, therefore, say that the Novella is contrary to the canon. But to me it seems that the canon speaks about the seclusion of anchorites, while the Novella was issued on account of those who have cells within the coenobia of monasteries. And there is a great difference between the two laws; and therefore, for this reason, the things prescribed in them do not conflict. Today, however, those things that are provided for in the Novella have a place in women’s monasteries; but in men’s monasteries, they do not at all. ^C

ZONARAS

^A welfare of the region where they dwell, or perhaps to the danger of an impending death. And thus, with the approval and blessing of the bishop, they may go out. But those who go out without any such cause intervening, the Fathers command that they be first returned even against their will to their cells, and next that they be punished with penalties, so that, exercised by fasts and a more severe discipline, they may, as if by medicine, seek to free their mind from the diseases of levity and inconstancy.

208 ARIST. A man about to enter into seclusion shall first spend three years in a monastery, and before he is enclosed, shall spend another year, and thus he shall enter; and he shall not go out unless death or the common utility compels him. ^B

It is fitting for one who desires to enter into seclusion and to attend to himself alone, first to withdraw into a monastery and for the space of three years to be subject in the fear of God to the one who presides over that habitation; and thus his resolve is to be examined by the bishop of the region, whether he embraces such a life willingly and with his whole heart. And if he persists in confessing that he still desires it in the same way, he shall remain patiently outside the seclusion for another year, so that he may provide more ample proof that he does not pursue silence for the sake of vain glory, but for the sake of the good itself; and after the passage of that much time, if he is found remaining in the same opinion: then he shall be enclosed, and from thenceforth he shall not go out, unless perhaps some common utility is proposed, or another necessity threatening him with death: for then he shall go out with the blessing of the bishop who presides over that place. ^C But if he goes out without the aforementioned excuses, first he shall be enclosed even against his will, then he shall be subjected to fasts and other harsh treatments, and through them he shall find the cure for his pusillanimity, knowing, according to what is written, that "No man, who has put his hand to the plow, and looks back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven."

CANON XLII

Those who are called hermits, who, dressed in black garments and wearing their hair long, go about the cities, and consort with laymen and women, and do injury to their own profession: we decree that, if they choose to put off their long hair and assume the dress of other monks, they are to be settled ^D within a monastery and be numbered among the brethren.

^A But if they should not choose this, they are to be cast out of the cities entirely, and to dwell in the deserts, from which they have also forged for themselves their names.

BALS. Many deceivers of the people go about the cities wearing black garments and having long hair, pretending to fasting and squalor, and deceiving the more simple folk, and doing injury to the monastic profession. ^B And some of them, living together with laymen and women, and clamoring in the crossroads with demonic doctrines, pray supposedly on behalf of the people and preach repentance; others say that they came from the deserts into the cities by the command of God, to foretell certain future events; and they shamelessly promise certain good things to the more simple folk for the sake of gain and commerce. This synod, therefore, decrees that their hair should be shorn, and that they be introduced into monasteries, so that they may lead the monastic life therein. But if they do not wish this, they are to be driven out of the cities, that they may dwell in the deserts, in accordance with the way of life they had forged for themselves—not out of truth, but from deceit and a crooked manner. For they would not have dwelt in the desert for the salvation of their soul, had they truly and necessarily held to this, and not been allowed to frequent the cities.

ZONAR. ^C This is an ancient evil, which has always been sown in the hearts of men by the author and parent of all evils. For of old there were also some who donned black raiment and did not cut their hair, but allowed it to fall into curls upon their chests and shoulders, and thus they would roam through the cities and live alongside lay men and women, doing injury to the monastic profession and institution. Therefore, this synod orders that the hair of these men be shorn, and that they be introduced into monasteries, that they may live and practice asceticism together with the monks; but if they do not wish this, that they be entirely expelled from the cities, to dwell in the deserts from whence they had forged for themselves the name of "hermit." For they had not obtained the title from the reality of the matter itself, but falsely applied it to themselves, and their garb and their name were both a fiction.

ARIST. ^D A hermit who is black-clad and unshorn, unless he be shorn and included in a monastery, must be expelled from the city. Those who go about the cities as if they were hermits, and who grow the hair of their heads long, and wear black garments, let them either enter a monastery, having shorn their hair and taken up the garb of the other monks, or, if they do not choose this, let them be driven from the cities, so that they may not do injury to their own profession; and let them inhabit the deserts, from which they have also obtained their name.

Guill. Beveridge’s note. (28) "And to be numbered among the brethren." So all the codices read, except the Amerbachian, which reads "numbered"; so that the meaning is that they be included among the brethren, namely, in a monastery, of which the discourse is held.

CANON XLIII

^A It is permitted to a Christian to choose the ascetic life, and having cast off the tempest of the business of life, to enter a monastery and to be tonsured according to the monastic habit, even if he be found in any fault whatsoever. For our Saviour God said: "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Since, therefore, the monastic life is a life described for us in repentance, we consent to him who sincerely joins himself to it, and no way shall any one hinder him from the fulfillment of his proper aim.

BALS. As it seems, some who wished to be tonsured were hindered, either because of the baseness and indifference of their life, or because of some fault. The canon says, therefore, that no sin prevents a Christian from choosing the ascetic life and propitiating God through penance. For there is no sin that overcomes the philanthropy of God. And the Saviour himself also said: "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." And other canons say that it is a mark of the Novatians not to accept the repentance of those who come, but to permit those who have offended, if it be some great crime, to be covered by the abyss of despair. The Fathers, while confirming what has been decreed by them, say that just as a pillar expresses what is described upon it, so also the monastic profession describes the repentance of the monk. ^B But understand these things to mean when the tonsure is not hindered by immature age or some other reasonable cause. For then the episcopal examination will scrutinize what is to be done, as the 40th canon of the present synod wills. But if you wish to know how many causes there are which prevent the tonsure in these cases, read chapter 3 of title 1 of the 4th book of the Basilics, summarized by the patriarch toward the middle of the 11th chapter of the title of the present work, and placed in the commentary on the 32nd chapter of the 9th title of the present work.

ZONAR. The magnitude or multitude of sins should not cause those who look to the mercy of God to cast away the hope of propitiating the Godhead for themselves by penance. This ^C indeed this canon also asserts, and affirms that it is open to everyone, however wicked and impious, to choose the ascetic life, and to be tonsured in a monastery, and to embrace the monastic discipline, which describes for us a life in penance. For just as a pillar expresses for us what is described upon it, so also the monastic profession forms and expresses the image of repentance for us, so that it permits it never at all to slip or flow out of our minds.

ARIST. "Let everyone who flees the tempest ^D of life, and who wishes to enter a monastery, have permission to do so." Since our God and Saviour said, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out," it is permitted to every Christian to flee the turbulent tempest of life, and to betake himself to a monastery, and to be tonsured, even if he has committed every sin.

For God receives those who are truly penitent, and no manner of life shall prevent them from the attainment of their own goal. ^A

CANON XLIV.

BALSAMON. That the monk who has fornicated is to be subjected to the penalties of the fornicating is to be embraced and accepted as most compassionate. For perhaps someone might say that laymen and monks who have fornicated ought not to be punished equally. But that the monk who has entered into the communion of marriage should be punished only with the penalties of fornicators is not, I think, without distinction. For I saw, in the days of that most holy patriarch, Lord Luke, a certain monk named Leontius Muzaces, who, having stood before the synod dressed in military attire, and not being persuaded to separate from the woman with whom he had lived evilly in the communion of marriage, was for this reason, with severity, clothed in his monastic garments, delivered to prison, and otherwise severely punished. It seems to me, therefore, that the present canon says that the monk who has engaged in marriage is to be subjected to the penalties of the fornicators only if he has of his own will departed from the illicit marriage, ^B and has returned to his former monastic state and confessed. For he who does not of his own will depart from the illicit marriage is punished more severely because of his manifest impudence; as he says in the second topic of the eleventh chapter of the first title of the fourth book, which is a part of the 123rd Novella of Justinian. And read this, placed in the first commentary, chapter 9, title..., of the present work. Search also for the 16th canon of the Fourth Synod, and read the 19th canon of the Synod of Ancyra, and the 60th canon of the Great Basil, which say that monks who have professed virginity and have not kept it are to be punished more heavily. And say that the canons do not conflict with each other, for the reason that this one, that is, the present canon, legislates concerning monks who confess, while the others concern those who are condemned, and who for that reason are punished more bitterly. ^C

ZONARAS. The sixteenth canon of the Fourth Synod decrees that those who have promised to live in virginity and have not kept their promise are to be excommunicated; and it defers to the bishop the discretion to show philanthropy, and to shorten or, if the circumstances require it, to increase the period of punishment. The nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra commands that those who have professed virginity ^D

^A but have subsequently abandoned their resolve, shall fulfill the penance of one who has committed adultery. The great Basil also says, in his sixtieth canon: "A woman who has vowed virginity, and has fallen from her vow, shall fulfill the time of the penance for adultery." The same is decreed by him regarding monks. Now, this present canon subjects a monk who has been caught in fornication, or who has chosen a marriage union, to the penance prescribed for fornicators. I believe, therefore, that this canon ought to prevail, as it is posterior to the others.

ARIST. A monk who has joined himself in marriage or who has committed fornication shall undergo the penance of a fornicator.

A monk shall be punished equally, whether he has committed fornication or has joined himself in marriage to a woman. The penance for fornicators is seven years, according to the fifty-ninth canon of Basil the Great; for he undergoes two years of weeping, two of hearing, two of prostration, remains with the faithful for one year, and in the eighth is admitted to communion.

CANON XLV

^B Since we have learned that in certain women's monasteries, those who are to be deemed worthy ^C of that sacred habit are first adorned by those who bring them with silk garments of every kind, and furthermore with ornaments embellished with gold and gems (31), and thus approaching the altar, they are stripped of such an array of wealth, and immediately the blessing of the habit is performed upon them, and they are clad in the black garment; we decree that this shall no longer occur in the future. For it is not holy that she who has already of her own free will laid aside all the pleasures of life, and has embraced the manner of living according to God, and has confirmed this with firm and stable reasoning, and has thus approached the monastery, should by such corruptible and fleeting adornment be recalled to the memory of those things of which she had already made herself forgetful; and from this be rendered double-minded, and her soul be perturbed like overflowing waves ^D tossing hither and thither, so that she no longer even sheds a remaining tear, nor shows the compunction of heart through the body; but even if, as is natural, some small tear should escape, it arises not so much on account of the affection which they have for the ascetic struggle, but rather because of the world and worldly or secular...

^A things, it might be thought by those seeing this to have passed by.

BALS. What the divine Fathers learned was being done at that time in women’s monasteries, and which they piously and holily forbade, this same thing now happens especially in the cells of monasteries. For they deck out the one who is about to be tonsured like a bride in sumptuous and splendid clothing variegated with gold and gems, almost at the very time of the tonsure, and they lead her, thus adorned, into the temple: but when the time of the tonsure is at hand, they take off that superfluous and sumptuous bridal garment and clothe her in black vestments. The holy synod forbade this from happening, ^B as it is an incitement to worldly desire and is condemned by those who see it. And as it seems, this salutary decree is disregarded for no other reason than because no punishment is simultaneously introduced by it for those who despise it. It seems to me, however, that all who transgress the canons shall be punished according to the judgment of the local bishop, even if in some cases the type of punishment has not been set forth by the canons.

ZONAR. The canon forbids those who are about to be tonsured from being adorned beforehand in more brilliant garments, with gold and gems, and being led in that way to the altar, to take off that vanity there ^C and put on the monastic vestments, and for the blessing to take place upon them; and it decrees that this should no longer be done. For any woman, it says, who has voluntarily renounced the things of this life, and has embraced the life according to God, and has approached the monastery, she, when she sees herself adorned and bedecked with fleeting and perishable finery, is stirred and perturbed in soul by the memory of the filth of the world and of profane pleasure coming to life again, and as the recollection of worldly sweetness returns time and again, she is overwhelmed just as by successive waves; so much so that not even compunction, which ^D tears attest, is aroused in her. But even if she should weep, it says, that also is judged by those who see it to be doubtful, as most people think that shedding tears is due to the desire for the things of the world and the pleasures of which she perceives she is going to be deprived.

ARIST.

“Parents shall not clothe her who chooses the monastic life in silk, and thus invest her with the habit. For this is a recalling of the fleeting world to mind.”

Then, ^A divesting themselves of such material clothing, they immediately receive the blessing of the habit and are clothed in the black garment; [the canons] command that this be done no more from now on. For it is neither holy nor pious that she who has already, by her own resolve, cast aside all the pleasures of life, has embraced the way of living according to God, has confirmed this with unshakeable arguments, and has thus approached the monastery, should again come into the remembrance of those things—by means of such corruptible and fleeting adornment—of which she had already made herself forgetful, and that her soul, like waves rushing over it, should be disturbed and turned hither and thither, so that she does not even shed a tear that might show the contrition of her heart. ^B

CANON XLVI. Those who choose the ascetic life and are settled in monasteries must not go out at all. But if some inexorable necessity draws them to this, let them do so with the blessing and permission of the one who presides; and then, not alone by themselves, but with certain elderly women, and those who are chief in the monastery, with the command of the one who is in charge. It is, however, entirely forbidden for them to sleep outside. But men who pursue the monastic life, if an emergency occurs, let them also go out with the blessing of the one to whom the governance has been entrusted. Therefore, let those who transgress what is now decreed by us, whether they be men or women, be subjected to suitable penalties.

BALS. Other canons also determine that monks must not wander about where they wish. Consequently, the present canon also determines concerning the female monastics that they are not permitted to go out of the monastery. But if an inexorable necessity presses for them to go out, even so, it is not permitted to go out without the blessing and permission of the one who presides, ^C and unless certain pious and holy older monastics go out together with them. But it does not allow them at all to sleep out, that is, to spend the night outside the monastery. And this is concerning female monastics. But it commands monks to go out only for an inexorable necessity of the monastery with the blessing and counsel of the abbot. And let those monks and nuns who transgress these things be subjected to appropriate penalties by the one who presides. Read also theme 2 of chapter 11 of title 1 of the fourth book of the *Basilika*, which is a part of a Justinianic Novel, and summarized near the end of chapter 4 of title 11 of the present work. Note, therefore, that it is not granted to women at all to remain outside the monastery, that is, to pass a night ^D outside; but men have not been forbidden to spend the night thus. And that women are allowed to go out from the monastery with other pious monastics when a [pressing] need arises...

is strictly for the sake of the instability of the female mind. Monks, however, go out by themselves and alone, with the rector’s blessing, for urgent duties and for those alone. All these things, as it seems to me, we ought to say regarding those who are under suspicion because of their youth; not, however, regarding those who are alien to suspicion because of their old age and virtue.

ZONARAS. The Fathers wish monastics not to wander outside the monastery. But if at any time some unavoidable necessity arises for a monastic to go out of the monastery, even then they are ordered to go out with the permission of the superior, and not alone, but to have with them some of the older ones who are superior in both time and virtue; and not to spend the night outside the ^B monastery (for this is what "spending the night outside" means). And monks also, the canon says, when some need arises, let them go out with the blessing of the abbot. And those who do not do so, whether they are men or women, should be fitly rebuked; the superior should impose upon them a penalty according to the disposition of each, either milder or harsher. For to those who humble themselves and repent of their fault, he will relax the penalty and make it lighter; but to those who are hardened and shameless, he will impose a more intense and heavier punishment, and thus he will fitly punish each one.

ARISTENUS. ^C «A nun shall not go out of the monastery unless with the blessing of the superior, and not alone, but with another elder woman. Sleeping outside is by no means permitted. In the same way also a monk shall not go out of the monastery unless the superior permits it.» The canon entirely forbids a nun from ever remaining outside the monastery in any way whatsoever; but if some inexorable necessity arises, it does not forbid—but permits—her to go out of the residence with the will and blessing of the one who is in charge, and to return again and remain in it. But in this [case] it adds that she must not go out alone, but with certain elder women who are first in the monastery. Similarly, it also does not wish for a monk to go out of the monastery without the blessing of the one who is in charge of him. And those who transgress these established [rules] it subjects to fitting punishments.

CANON XLVII

whether he be a cleric or a layman, let him be excommunicated. ^B

BALS. The canon requires not only monks, but all the faithful, to be removed from every scandal, and [it requires] that they not provide occasions of scandal to themselves through others, nor to others through themselves; and this applies to monks much more. For a man to sleep in a women’s monastery, or contrariwise, will be a cause of scandal both to them and to others. For the fire of the passions is innate to the flesh, and it is with difficulty that we make it weaker, even when we place ourselves far from the fuel 59 that kindles it. But if we ourselves heap up incentives for it, it will be fierce, and it will easily consume us like hay. And what could be a sharper incentive for the fire of desire to men than a woman, or to women, in turn, than a man for the kindling of the flame? And so, the monastics will not only provide to one another an occasion of offense, but they will also provide scandal to others who see women passing the night in the lodgings of men, or men in the ascetic houses of women. For the majority are suspicious and seek out opportunities for scandal and slander. Wherefore, this has been forbidden by the Fathers. And those who act contrary to this, they punish with excommunication. This, then, is the canon.

But the 2nd chapter of the 123rd Novella of Justinian, or the 15th chapter of the 1st title of the 4th book of the *Basilica*, says: "A woman shall not in any way enter into a men’s monastery, nor a man into a women’s, whether under the pretext of memory and the monument of some dead person who is buried there, or for any other cause. And especially if someone says he has a brother or a sister ^C or someone from his kin in the monastery; for there is no kinship for monastics, who have emulated the life that is in heaven. For what indeed do they wish to achieve who enter in this way, if they do not wish to do something of those things which are prohibited? Since, therefore, men in men's monasteries can do what is appropriate for men, and women in women's monasteries can similarly do what is allotted to women, let no one be mixed with the other, not even if someone happens to be called a brother, or sister, or other relative. For we do not allow anyone to enter under this pretext. If we cut off the very beginnings, and if we restrain the deception that is infused into the souls through the sight itself, and the lapse that arises from this, it will be much easier and

^A a clearer rectifying of the better life for those who are sacred combatants. Let all, therefore, obey this law, and let neither men be deposited in the tombs of women's monasteries, nor women be buried in men's monasteries. For neither are women's quarters suitable for men, nor again are men's dwellings suitable for the registers of women. Nor do we wish for these unseemly gatherings to take place among the survivors on account of the deceased, so that there may not be given from this an opening to nature toward itself, so that in a way that is not permitted it might act delicately and play, and insult divine things, and under the pretext of piety, indeed, and under the guise of holiness, do those things which it is not even permitted to speak of or to conceive for those who pursue the life of a monastic. Since this is obvious, it is necessary ^B for those who serve at burials, and especially those who carry the bier and those who dig, to enter into the monasteries. And in monasteries for men, the matter is easy, but not so in those for women, on account of the aforementioned prohibition. We decree, therefore, if at any time such a thing is to happen, and a woman is to be buried in such a women's monastery (for we do not admit a man), that the most devout women remain in their own monastery; and that only the female doorkeeper or doorkeepers, and perhaps the directress herself if she wishes, be present at what is taking place; and that they, as soon as they have performed the rites and funeral ceremonies as quickly as possible, and have dug the grave and covered the body, immediately withdraw without having been seen by any of the most devout women, nor having been seen in turn by any of them. But let not men even devise another pretext by which they might approach women's monasteries, or women approach monasteries which are dedicated to men, on the pretext of those things which are done for funerals and requiems for the dead; as, for example, when they make commemorations, gathering together on the third and ninth days, or when ^C forty days have passed, or even a year; for it is permitted, if the monastery is a women's one, for the women to do everything, and if it is a men's one, for the men; and not under the pretext of such observances to smear any note of infamy upon the holy monasteries.

ZONAR. The canon requires that all scandals be avoided, not only by ascetics, but by all the faithful, and that they neither procure scandals for themselves through others, nor offer them to others through themselves; and for monks [this is required] much more. For men to sleep in a women's monastery, or the reverse, will be a cause of scandals both to them and to others. For the fire [that arises] from the passions is innate to the flesh, and it would become weaker with difficulty only if we, while a long way from the material that ignites it, keep ourselves at a distance. But if we ourselves apply the fuel to it, it will become a blaze, and it will burn us ^D as easily as grass. And what would be, for men, a more active fuel toward the fire of desire than a woman, or in turn for women against the flaring up of such a flame, [what is] more dangerous than a man? And thus indeed will the monks provide to one another handles for scandal, and they will scandalize others, seeing women in

^A men's lodgings spending the night, or men in ^B women's monasteries doing the same. For most are quick-tempered, and they seek out opportunities for scandal or even calumny. Therefore, this is forbidden by the Fathers as unseemly; and those who act against this, they punish with excommunication.

ARIST. Neither is it proper for a woman to sleep in a monastery of men, nor for a man [to sleep] in a monastery of women. Clear.

CANON XLVIII

^C The wife of him who is promoted to the episcopal dignity, having first been separated by common consent of her husband, after he has been ordained bishop, shall enter a monastery built far from the bishop's residence, and shall enjoy the bishop’s provision. But if she should appear worthy, she shall also be promoted to the dignity of the diaconate.

BALS. The holy apostles, in the fifth canon, defining that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon should not cast out his own wife under the pretext of piety, permitted bishops even after ordination to have their own wives. But the holy Fathers of the present synod, in the twelfth canon, defined those things which they did indeed decree; but now they command that he who has been elected to the episcopate be separated from the wife he has by common consent, and that after the ordination the woman should enter a monastery which is far from the episcopate. For seeing one another frequently is entirely bound to recall to their minds their former way of life and cohabitation, and to rekindle love. And since this is being done in this way, let the woman be considered worthy by the bishop of bodily provision, if she is poor: but if she is wealthy, nothing will be given to her by the bishop; for not even if he himself is wealthy can he spend anything upon himself from the revenues of the episcopate. But if the life of the wife is grave and worthy of the degree of the diaconate, she shall also be promoted to this. Since these things are decreed by the canon, someone might ask: Since the Justinianic Novel (40), which has been placed many times in the present book, forbids marriages to be dissolved by the consent of the spouses, how does the present canon decree that the wife ^D should be separated from her elected husband by consent?

Solution. By consent, marriage is not dissolved; but it is dissolved for a just cause. And just as when one of the spouses is tonsured, we say that the separation happens with good grace; so too, when a man is elected, the marriage will be dissolved after ordination. And it does not seem to be dissolved by consent.

^A but is unacceptable to the laws. But it is not dissolved before ordination, because it is likely that she might not proceed for certain reasonable causes that might arise. But what if the woman is not pleased to stand apart from the husband who has been elected; shall the ordination be hindered? Solution. It seems to me that the vote should be annulled if the woman recalls the marriage of the man. For this reason the canon says that the separation comes about by consent, even her own, as it could not come about if she refuses the divorce. But if someone says: "And yet, the tonsuring takes place securely even when the other of the married pair is unwilling," tell him that in the case of the tonsure ^B, the one who is left is able to come to another marriage and is not as greatly injured; but in the case of ordination, the wife of the one ordained who is tonsured cannot come to another marriage, and as she is greatly injured thereby, she will be heard if she is unwilling for the divorce. The matter concerning the fact that the wife of the one ordained 41 is not to be forced to be tonsured and to lead a monastic life was discussed before the holy emperor, lord Isaac Angelus, in the month of September of the fifth indiction, in the presence of three patriarchs—of Constantinople, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem—and about forty metropolitans, and it was judged that the wife of the one ordained must necessarily be tonsured. Seek, therefore, the said document, filed in the archives (*chartophylax*). Further, someone will ask why, when the canon says no one should be forced to take up the monastic life against their will, the wife of the one ordained, who has done no wrong, is shut up in a monastery? Solution. Some say that since ^C the canon does not expressly determine she must be tonsured, she will be shut up in the monastery 42, but she will not be forced to be tonsured, just as with adulterous women or those who have otherwise fallen into extreme error; and especially since it is also desired that she be able to be advanced to the dignity of the diaconate, which was once granted to lay women. But it seems to me that she must necessarily be tonsured by necessity. For it was allowed to her before the ordination, as has been said, not to be separated from her own husband, and thus to cause neither ordination nor tonsure to take place. ^D

Note of William Beveridge

^A Since he has chosen separation for the sake of ordination, he will be compelled to bring that divorce to finality through the tonsure, and not to play where one must not play. For her to be in a monastery in a lay habit is a work of punishment, not a benefit, which pertains to no small dishonor of the ordination. Therefore, the tonsure is not considered compulsory, but elective. And it is not true that only laywomen are deemed worthy of the dignity of a deaconess; for nuns also were deemed worthy of it. Otherwise, if it were allowed that the wife of one who has been ordained should enter a monastery wearing a lay habit, she would reasonably seek to spend her time outside it as well, and perhaps even to be joined to another man, or even to associate with the one who has become bishop; which is absurd and contrary to the will of the divine canons. ^B Note, therefore, all these things for the sake of those who hold that the wives of priests are permitted to marry a second time. For I believe that by the present canon they will not be permitted to marry a second time. And since a Novella of Justinian is found in many nomocanons (this Novella is also located in book 3 of the Basilika, title 1, chapter 7, which was placed by us in chapter 23 of the first title of the present work), ordaining that one who has a wife or children should not be elevated to the episcopal dignity, or that the one who is ordained contrary to this should be deposed—and the matters concerning this have been discussed often—we say that the provisions of that Novella have become obsolete because they were not placed in the Basilika, and that the provisions of the present canon are in force, as is the second Novella of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which you should read, which clearly ordains these things towards the end: "Our imperial majesty, which is from God, observing that it is far more fitting to follow the divine commands, brings forth a law consistent with them. And just as it seems right to them that one worthy of the high priesthood should be promoted, even if he has children born in lawful wedlock, so too it decrees that as for those who have dared to speak against the law, as a punishment for their audacity, eternal silence shall be exacted from them for the future."

ZONAR. The canon does not wish for the husband to be separated from his wife when she is called to the episcopate, contrary to her will, but rather that the divorce be made by mutual consent. And once this has happened, it ordains that the wife should not live under the same roof, nor in neighbouring houses, but rather in a monastery located far from the bishop’s residence. ^D For seeing one another continuously will surely remind them both of their former way of life and living together, and will kindle the flame of love in them both. Yet for the wife living far away, the bishop’s care and providence will provide. This must be understood as applying when she is not able to support herself from her own resources.

For if the bishop himself is not permitted to spend anything from the revenues of the bishopric upon himself beyond what is necessary—and this only when he does not have the wherewithal of his own—how much more will he be forbidden to grant from Ecclesias- ^A tical funds to the one who was formerly his wife, if she is able to procure the necessities of life elsewhere? Thus, for her as for someone in need, when she has nothing, he will provide from the episcopal revenue. And if she should also show herself worthy through the gravity of her morals for the honor of the diaconate, he decides that it is lawful for her to be raised to that rank as well.

ARIST. She who is separated from the one about to become bishop, after the ordination, let her enter a monastery situated far from the bishopric, and let her enjoy the care of the bishop.

Lest there be scandal and stumbling-block to the people, it is necessary that she who, by mutual consent, has been separated from her husband who is promoted to the dignity of the bishopric, should enter into a monastery after his ordination, one built far from the dwelling of the bishop; and the care ^B of her should be entirely provided by the bishop.

CANON XLIX

Renewing also this sacred canon, we decree that the monasteries which have once been consecrated by the will of the bishop should remain monasteries in perpetuity, and the properties belonging to them should be preserved for the monastery, and they can no longer be secular dwellings, nor handed over by anyone to secular men; but if even until now this has happened, we decree that it should not continue: and those who in the present or henceforth attempt to do this, must be subject to the penalties of the canons.

BALS. The twenty-fourth canon of the Fourth Synod, being neglected, as it seems, is here renewed. And read the interpretation that is there, and the interpretation of the 25th canon of the Seventh Synod, which is necessary.

ZONAR. This canon has been interpreted before, as it is the 24th of the Fourth Synod.

ARIST. Whatever monasteries have been established by the will of the bishop, they no longer become secular ^C dwellings, nor are they handed over to secular men.

This canon also says the same things as the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Chalcedon. But the fourth canon of the same Council of Chalcedon forbids the building [of a monastery without the consent of the bishop of that place].

^A

CANON L. • Let no one, whether lay or cleric, from this time forward play with dice. And if any one be found doing this, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. •

BALS. That those who play with dice should cease, or be deposed and excommunicated, is written in the 42nd and 43rd of the holy Apostles’ canons. But the present canon decrees that, from this time forward, priests who play with dice are to be deposed, and laymen are to be excommunicated. Read also chapters 27 and 39 of Title IX of the present work, and what is written therein. It is asked, however, given that the present canon does not decree, in accordance with the apostolic canons, that those who play with dice should be punished after admonition, which ones we ought to follow? To me, indeed, the apostolic canons seem to be the ones to follow, as being more humane; and also because the present synod, in its ninth canon concerning a cleric who manages a public house, does not punish him for that very fact, but says, "Either let him cease, or be deposed." ^B

ZONAR. You will find that this sort of game is also forbidden by the decree of the apostolic canon. ARIST. "Nor is it fitting for a layman to play with dice." Perspicuous.

CANON LI. • This holy and universal synod altogether forbids those who are called mimics and their spectacles, and furthermore also the public shows of hunting (47) and the dances upon the stage (48) from being performed. If any one should despise the present canon, and give himself to any of these forbidden things: if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated. •

BALS. In the 24th canon of the present synod we have written various things concerning horse races, hunting, and other spectacles; indeed, also concerning mimics and dances upon the stage, and read those. But someone will ask why that canon decides that those ordained and monks who busy themselves in horse races or theatrical games are to cease or be deposed; while the present canon says, without distinction, that those who give themselves to such things, if they are clerics, are to be deposed, and if they are laymen, to be excommunicated. ^C

Guil. Beveridge’s note. (47) AND THE PUBLIC SHOWS OF HUNTING. Harmenopulos abridges this canon with these words: "Similarly, he who gives himself to mimics and theatres, and the spectacles of hunting, and scenic dances," where the scholiast observes on these words: In the largest cities, beasts were kept, such as lions and bears, and at certain times they were brought into the theatre; and sometimes they fought with bulls, sometimes with men—captives perhaps or condemned criminals—and these things were for the pleasure of the spectators. This, therefore, this canon forbids, not hunting which is carried out with dogs or otherwise. Harmenop. Epit. can. sect. 5, tit. 5. These things, however, seem to be excerpted from Zonaras’ scholia. ^D Dachianus reads "sed" and not "mola", and all the other codices, and indeed all the scholiasts, read "scenae".

the laity be excommunicated? Solution. It is one thing to be more tolerable, specifically to come ^A to horse races or to be found at scenic games at times; and it is another thing, which is unpardonable, for someone to surrender themselves to such things and to have this as a continuous occupation. Whence those who sin once, with caution, are admonished to cease, unless they wish to be deposed; but those who misuse the evil, if they are clerics, are from that point deposed; if laymen, they are excommunicated. Know, however, that even if in that canon we wrote what is said by some, for the sake of not forbidding the horse races conducted today, nevertheless, all assert that on-stage dances and the spectacles of mimes in the theater are indiscriminately forbidden, and by both canons. By "spectacles of the hunt" the canon calls the beast-fights; these, then, are forbidden, but not hare-hunting. It seems that because of the penalties in such canons, the imperial games were devised: namely the pole-player, those of Maro, Achilles, the Octoechus, and the rest, so that they might not stir up dissolution and immoderate laughter in the ^B spectators.

ZONARAS. The precision of the evangelical life wills that the faithful should not live in a relaxed and dissipated manner, but as is fitting for saints. For this reason, then, this canon has forbidden all things that produce dissolution in the soul beyond what is necessary, and that loosen and enervate its tension, and incite it to boiling laughter and guffaws, such as are the arts of the mimes, who now mimicking Arabs, now Armenians, now slaves, and at times other things, by strikes upon the cheek and ^C clatter, stir up unsightly laughter, and, as it were, unhinge the simpler or more inattentive. But the spectacles of the hunts are not the hunting of animals by means of dogs or otherwise. For this is not a spectacle, but work. In the greatest cities, wild beasts—lions, certainly, and bears—were raised, and at certain times they were led out into the theaters, and at times they fought with bulls, at other times with men, captives perhaps or those condemned; and these things were for the pleasure of the viewers. These the canon forbids to take place, as they accuse the viewers of cruelty and of considering the misfortunes of others as their own rejoicings. And it also forbids dances on the stage. For "stage" ^D signifies simulation and acting, from which those who act are called "scenic," and who imitate themselves now as slaves, now as masters, now as generals and rulers. Just as, then, the canon forbade these things through the mimes, so also...

it deemed that scenic dances—whether performed by men who twist themselves indecently and behave shamelessly while dancing, or by women who incite onlookers to profligacy—should be abolished by this same canon. ^A Since the authority of this canon is neglected, it decrees that if anyone applies his mind to those things which are here forbidden, clerics are to be punished by deposition, but laymen by excommunication.

ARIST. "Neither to be a mime, nor to indulge in shows and hunts: for he is excommunicated. But the cleric is deposed."

Even lay Christians are admonished to lead a religious life. Therefore, the canon excommunicates those among them who play at dice, or perform dances on the stage, or have become mimes, and assemble people for a spectacle, or are occupied in hunting. But it deposes clerics if they do any ^B of the forbidden things.

CANON LII.

"In all the days of the fast of Holy Lent, except the Sabbath, the Lord's Day, and the holy day of the Annunciation, let the divine liturgy of the Presanctified be celebrated."

BALS. The days of the fast have been appointed as days of mourning and compunction, for the expiation of each person’s sins. But to offer sacrifice to God is to celebrate a feast. A feast day is nothing other than joy. How, then, can one at the same time mourn and be joyous? ^C For this reason the Fathers decreed that there should be no sacrifice throughout the whole of Lent, except on the Sabbath and on the day of the Annunciation. For on these days we are commanded to celebrate a feast, and not to mourn, or fast, or bend the knee. We do not call the ministry of the Presanctified an unbloody sacrifice, but an offering of the already offered and completed sacrifice and of the holy mystery. I think, moreover, that monasteries observing ^D the strict rule, because of the present canon, chant and read the canons and the martyria of the feasts and of the holy commemorations before the week of the Tyrophagus.

Guill. Beveregius's notes: ...as we have translated, it is quite clearly proven. For Balsamon asserts that the monasteries which follow the exact rule, led by the authority of this very canon, read the canons and the martyria of the feasts and of the holy commemorations—which occur during the whole of Lent—ahead of time. This is because, while Lent is running, it is not permitted to do these things, and therefore they celebrate them immediately before Lent; which clearly indicates that with the Greeks, Lent follows immediately. Furthermore, no reason can be assigned for why those things which occur in Lent itself should be done before Septuagesima. It is therefore evident from the fact that he affirms they are celebrated then, that it corresponds to our Quinquagesima. So that the things which Balsamon says here are done, appear to be done in the week before our Quinquagesima: inasmuch as the week of the Tyrophagus is here understood.

^A canons and the testimonies of the feasts and holy memorials which proceed throughout the entire Fortyeight-day period. Note then, also from the present canon, that strictly speaking there is one Fortyeight-day period (52). For if another were recognized, it would have been ordained that even in that one the holy rite should not be performed by a perfect sacrifice, but by presanctified ones, just as it was ordained that this be done also in the Fortyeight-day period of the great Pascha.

ZONARAS. The days of the fasts have been appointed as days of mourning, and of compunction for the purging of each person's faults. But to offer sacrifices to God is a festival; and to celebrate a festival belongs to joyfulness and gladness. And how can one at the same time mourn and be poured out in joy? For this reason, on the other days of the Fortyeight-day period the liturgy of the presanctified is performed—not the unbloody sacrifice being made at that time, but that which has already been brought and completed being offered again. But on the Sabbaths and the Lord's Days, since it is forbidden to fast on these days, it is granted both to offer sacrifice and to perform a perfect liturgy. Similarly also on the day of the Annunciation. For we honor it as the beginning and head of our salvation, and we celebrate a festival on it. Therefore it is not permitted to perform memorials of the saints on the days of the fasts, except on a Sabbath and Lord's Day, according to the 51st canon of the Council of Laodicea. For the memorials of the saints are also auspicious. But on the days of the fasts one ought to mourn, and not to rejoice.

ARISTENUS. • Throughout the whole Fortyeight-day period, except ^B for the Lord's Day and the Sabbath and the day of the Annunciation, the presanctified are brought forward. • The reason why bread is not offered through the whole Fortyeight-day period, except for the Sabbath and the Lord's Day and the day of the Annunciation, but presanctified ones are performed, was written as far as we were able in the forty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea.

CANON LIII. • Since spiritual affinity is greater ^C than the union of bodies.

Beveridge's note. The Amerbach Manuscript reads: "properly one is the Lenten fast; namely, that which is performed before the Paschal celebration." From this it collects from the present canon, of course, because in it mention is made of one only; and if there had been another, it would have been cautioned here that the presanctified be celebrated in it also. But I can by no means agree with those who conclude from these words of Balsamon that no other Lenten fast besides the Paschal was observed by the Greeks at that time; for the contrary is rather fashioned from these words. For from the fact that he says one only is properly Lenten, he openly indicates that there was another of those days, but one which to call by that name would be improper. And besides, if there had been no other, Balsamon’s observation would be superfluous. For to what end would he observe that one is properly so called, if no other had been so called? He therefore quite clearly implies another. Whether that fast of the Advent or the Lord’s Nativity was a “forty days” period, let others see.

(53) Since it is [greater], Demetrius Chomatianus, Archbishop of Bulgaria, proves from this canon that the same degrees, as far as marriage is concerned, are to be observed in this spiritual relationship as in natural consanguinity. For in the cited canon he says this: therefore the present canon calls the spiritual affinity greater than the fleshly, those who are joined through it have a necessity to maintain the reverence of this until so many degrees. ^D

^A And we have known in certain places that some, after receiving infants from the holy and saving baptism, subsequently contract marriage with their widowed mothers: we decree that nothing of the kind be done in the future. If any, after the present canon, are caught doing this, such persons must first withdraw from such an illicit marriage; and then they shall be subjected to the penalties of fornicators.

BALS. The present canon subjects to the penalties of fornicators those who take their godmothers—being widows—into the society of marriage, decreeing that these marriages ^B contracted against the laws must also be dissolved. I think, therefore, that he who immediately withdraws from that evil and confesses it will be subjected to the penalties of fornicators. But he who persists in the sin will perhaps even be punished more than those who have relations with their kinswomen. Read the final decree of the tenth chapter of the fifth title of the twenty-eighth book of the *Basilika*, placed in the second commentary of the fifteenth [thirteenth] title of the present work. Since these things are so, some have inquired up to what degree marriage is forbidden in such spiritual affinity. And some indeed have said that, since both by the canon and by the law the spiritual affinity is greater than the affinity according to the flesh, we ought to follow the things established concerning forbidden fleshly marriages. But this did not seem so to the majority; rather, they extended such affinity only to the persons contained in the law, and extended the prohibition to them.

The twenty-fourth ^C Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which forbids those who are adopted to be joined in marriage with the children of the one who adopted them, introduces these things toward the end: "But although formerly, when adoption was not performed in a proper manner, the marriage, even if it has something shameful and unbecoming, was not held to be against the laws. But now, since adoption is performed according to statute and in a proper and just manner, and through a holy mystery some are placed in the order and rank of parents, and others in that of children, there no longer remains any reason why adopted children should be joined in marriage with the natural children of the one who adopted them. We therefore decree that it is by no means permitted for those who have thus assumed the name of siblings to exchange the name ^D of brotherhood for the name of marriage." Note, therefore, from

Guill. Beveridge’s note. Demet. Chomat.

^A A novella, which states that just as certain persons who have received affinity with one another through holy baptism are forbidden to be joined in matrimony, so also are those forbidden who have received the affinity of brotherhood through adoption. Note besides that adoption is effected through sacred prayers. Keep this, therefore, in memory; for it is not found written elsewhere, and for that reason it is unknown to many. Since the law says, "Adoption imitates nature," and therefore forbids eunuchs from adopting a son and having him under their power, the novella of the same philosopher emperor permitted this to happen; read it. Likewise, the 27th novella of the same emperor decrees that not only women who have borne children may adopt, but also virgins, so that those who are adopted by them may have the right of inheritance from them, just as if they were in their power, and have no need of an imperial ^B command or judicial action to adopt someone who is under another's power or one who is his own master (54). And read that same novella. For I have often heard from many, even those well-versed in civil and ecclesiastical law, that adoption has no place; and recently, that not even a lawful adoption is effected by mere prayer and reception by the Church; which the aforesaid imperial novellae do not allow to be said. But know (53) that in the secreton of the sacred chartophylax a memorandum is stored, verbatim as follows: "In the month of May, the 17th day, the 2nd day of the week, in the 15th indiction, with our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch Nicholas (56) presiding, and with the senatorial magistrates, civil judges, this one and that one, and the most God-beloved metropolitans sitting in council, the most honorable and exalted Gregory Xerus brought a document today to the synod, which is as follows: 'Mary, having a natural son, Constantine, was the sponsor of Irene from the divine and holy baptism. Constantine begot Theodore, and Irene begot Theodora, and Theodora in turn begot Anna. Theodore, therefore, desiring to be joined in lawful marriage with Anna, asked to know if it is permitted to do this.' The 53rd canon of the holy and ecumenical synod in Trullo was therefore read in the synod, and also ^C A synodal memorandum concerning the most holy patriarch lord Nicholas was made in the month of May of the 15th indiction, upon the petition of that exalted Gregory Xerus, decreeing that they be bound by the same terms, and that the spiritual ^D affinity which arose through the trade-guild [or sponsorship] be extended. A synodal act was also performed during the tenure of the saintly patriarch of Constantinople, which gave opinion in accordance with the 53rd canon of the holy and ecumenical synod in Trullo and the 6th article of the 10th chapter of the 28th book of the Basilika, that spiritual affinity is also limited by the same degrees by which natural, that is, fleshly, [affinity] is limited.

^A And the 53rd canon of the holy and ecumenical council in Trullo, and the 6th article of the 10th chapter of the 5th title of the 28th book, read in part as follows: However, he who has received someone from holy baptism cannot later take her in marriage, as she has become his daughter, nor her mother, nor her daughter; nor indeed may his son do so. Since nothing else can so effectively introduce a fatherly affection and a just prohibition of marriage as this bond, by which, with God mediating, their souls are united. And it has been judged that the aforementioned union is prohibited, as not extending to the fifth degree, because, according to the summary of such a law, spiritual relationship is preferred to natural, that is, carnal, relationship. And it was ordained that this should hold also for adoption, because the relationship arising from this is also established by God and by the mystery of divine prayers, according to the novella of the illustrious emperor, Lord Leo the Wise. ^B ZONARAS. The canon commands that those who take for conjugal life the widows of their own godchildren must desist from such cohabitation, the unlawful marriage being dissolved, and that both parties must be subjected to the penalties of fornicators. ARISTENUS. "He who receives children from baptism shall not be permitted to be joined to the mothers of those children; but if anyone should be joined, after [the separation] he shall also undergo the penalty." The affinity according to the Spirit is greater than bodily relationship. Therefore, this canon renders the one who takes into communion of marriage the mother of the child received by him from holy baptism liable to the penalty of fornicators, first dissolving the unlawful cohabitation. ^C CANON LIV. "Since the divine Scripture teaches us openly, 'None of you shall approach any near of kin to his flesh, to uncover their nakedness' (Levit. xviii, 6): the divine Basil has enumerated certain prohibited marriages in his canons, passing over many in silence, and by both he has brought us profit. For by avoiding the multitude of shameful names, so as not to pollute his discourse with words, he has encompassed the impurities under general names, through which he has broadly demonstrated to us the marriages forbidden by the laws. But since, due to such silence, and because it was not possible to discern ^D the interpretation of the matter spoken of synodically regarding the question of whether it is right for the same one person to be joined to two sisters, the 2nd article of the 32nd chapter of the 5th title of the 28th book of the Basilika, and the 54th canon of the holy and ecumenical council assembled in the Trullos of the great palace, have narrowed the unions arising from affinity and from blood up to the sixth degree; but they have permitted those following this to be dissolved without fear.

^A Since the prohibition of unlawful marriages confounds nature itself, it has seemed good to us to set this forth more clearly, decreeing from this time forward that he who enters into a marriage union with his brother's daughter (or a father and son with a mother and daughter, or a father and son with two sisters, or a mother and daughter with two brothers, or two brothers with two sisters) shall fall under the seven-year canon, provided they openly separate from this wicked cohabitation. ^B

BALS. Some, using the 86th canon of the great Basil, which enumerates marriages forbidden on account of affinity, said that all others besides these were not prohibited. The divine Fathers, however, overthrowing this, said first of all that every conjunction with one's own kin is forbidden by the Mosaic Law, which says thus: "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness." Then, as if defending the aforementioned great Father, they added that even if this divine Father did not expressly comprehend in his canons all marriages prohibited on account of affinity, yet because he named them "unclean," as being prohibited on account of affinity, he comprehended them all by a common principle; and with few words he not only forbade those enumerated, but also all those which are derived from affinity. Nor is it right to say that those which were not expressed for the sake of decency are not prohibited. And therefore ^C they defined these and those to be illicit and nefarious marriages; with this addition, that those who openly desist from them, that is, with confession and without condemnation, are to be punished by the seven-year canon; so that it is manifest that they punish more severely those who do not readily desist, but are condemned. For this is apparent from the words of the canon, which say: "Those of them who openly desist from the wicked cohabitation." But since we have written more broadly concerning prohibited marriages in chapter 3 of Title II of the present work, read that, and the things written therein are most useful.

ZONAR. When it was asked of the great Basil whether a man, after the death of his own wife, could be joined in marriage to her sister, he denied that it was lawful. Then, writing against those who thought otherwise, he confirmed his own opinion ^D excellently, according to the excellence of his intellect in which he was remarkably strong. Then indeed, when he had mentioned certain kinds of marriages forbidden by the laws, he thereafter comprehended and indicated the rest by the single word "impurity." And these things indeed you will find thus constituted by the divine Father and explained in his eighty-sixth canon. As for that...

^A portion which was not enumerated within it, they were accustomed to judge those not forbidden as lawful, and they confused nature by mingling with close relatives. For these reasons, the Synod looked toward this canon and defends why the saint passed over the greater part in silence, saying: In order, he says, not to defile the discourse by counting out separately in words each of these lawless marriages, he indicated the lawless marriages comprehensively by the single name of "impurity." Then the Fathers of the Synod added also the lawless marriages, which they did enumerate, and they decreed that such marriages be utterly dissolved, and that those who had been defiled by them be punished by the seven-year canon.

ARIST. "You shall not permit the son of a brother to be joined in matrimony with the daughter of a brother; nor a son and a father with a daughter and mother; nor a mother and daughter with two brothers; nor brothers with two sisters. But if anything of this kind has occurred, along with the dissolution of the marriage, they shall be subjected to seven years’ penance."

And such marriages, as prohibited, shall be dissolved; and those who contract them, in accordance with the present canon and the seventy-eighth canon of Basil the Great, shall weep for one year, listen for two, prostrate themselves for three, and in the seventh shall stand with the faithful; and thus, if they repent with tears, they shall be deemed worthy of the divine sacraments.

CANON LV

"Since we have learned that those who are in the city of the Romans, in the holy fasts of Quadragesima, fast on its Sabbaths, contrary to the ecclesiastical order handed down: it has seemed good to the holy Synod that the canon should hold inviolably in the Church of the Romans also, which says: 'If any cleric be found fasting on the holy Lord’s day or the Sabbath, except for the one and only [Sabbath of Holy Week], let him be deposed; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated.'"

BALS. ^D Because of many other things, but also because of the present canon, those who dwell in ancient Rome say that this holy Synod is not ecumenical, just as we wrote in its prologue. For just as iron has pierced their heart, it stings them, as those who act contrary to the apostolic canon, which says: "If any cleric be found fasting on the holy Lord’s day or the Sabbath, except for the one and only [Holy Saturday], let him be deposed; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated." There is no need, then, for them to be deemed worthy of pardon, as they persist in their own private custom, and fast not only on the Sabbaths of Holy Quadragesima, but also on the others. I, however, saw some Latins who, when they were rebuked on this account, brought forward also a vain excuse, namely their journey to the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and [claimed] that for the sake of this matter, a fast had obtained through long custom. Others, however, I saw, who

did not come to Jerusalem, and yet fasted in like manner; and others who despised such a fast, and indiscriminately broke their fast on the Sabbaths, even though they had gone to the sepulcher of the Lord. I cannot, therefore, say how it is that these things are done by such persons. It seems, however, that they follow custom rather than the canons. ^A

ZONARAS. The synod attempted to correct this sin of the Latins, but the arrogant remained and still remain uncorrected in their obstinacy. They neither listen to the ancient canons, which willed that every fast on a Sabbath—save for one, namely the day of the Great Sabbath—be forbidden, nor are they moved by the authority of this [synod]. Indeed, those who are initiated into the sacred orders neglect the deposition, and the laity neglect the excommunication decreed against those who fast.

ARISTENUS. "The Romans fast on the Sabbaths of the Forty Days: the synod therefore reminds them that the apostolic canon is valid even in these [cases]." This holy synod, learning that those who are in the city of the Romans were transgressing the sixty-fourth canon of the holy apostles, which commands that one should not fast on any Sabbath or Sunday except for the Great Sabbath, decreed that this apostolic canon must be firmly and inviolably observed even in the Church of the Romans. ^B

CANON LVI. "Similarly, we have learned that in the region of the Armenians and in other places, some eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths and Sundays of the holy Forty Days. It has seemed good, therefore, that the Church of God, which is in the whole world, following one order, should fulfill the fast, and abstain, just as from all that is slaughtered, so also from eggs and cheese, which are indeed the fruits and produce of those things from which we abstain. But if they do not observe this, if they be clerics, let them be deposed; but if they be laity, let them be excommunicated." ^C

BALSAMON. In the preceding canon, it was legislated that one should not fast on the Sabbaths and Sundays of the holy Forty Days. The Armenians, therefore, and some of the Orthodox, as is likely, wandering from [the meaning of] such a canon, were breaking their fast on the said Sabbaths, and were eating eggs and cheese, as if they were free from blood and similar to autumn fruits. The synod, therefore, correcting this, defines that all the Churches of God must follow one order, and that all must abstain from every slaughter-meat, since even though eggs and cheese are reckoned as fruits, yet because we do not eat those things from which they proceed, we ought not to feed upon them nor break our fast with them. And the canon orders that those who do not observe these decrees, if they are clerics, shall be deposed, but if they are laity, they shall be excommunicated. ^D And those who break their fast by means of cheese and eggs on all Wednesdays and Fridays—that is, the Parasceve—are subject to the very same punishment; because it has been legislated that on these...

days ^A the faithful must fast, just as they do during the forty-day fast.

ZONAR. The Christians in those regions, having discovered, as it seems, the canon which says that one must not fast on the Sabbaths and Sundays of the forty-day fast, were gorging themselves on eggs and cheese during those days. The synod, therefore, desiring to correct this, forbids the eating of these things, saying that just as we abstain from every mactable creature—that is, from animals that are slaughtered or killed—so too it is necessary to abstain from those things which are produced from these same animals; and it commands that clergy who do not observe these ordained things be deposed, and that the laity be excommunicated.

ARIST. ‹ The Armenians eat eggs and cheese on the Sabbaths of the forty-day fast; it has been decided, therefore, that the whole world should abstain from these as well; but if not, let them be excommunicated. ›

CANON LVII.

BALS. We have written at length about this in the 3rd canon of the holy apostles, and it is not necessary to repeat those same things. Seek also the 28th canon of the present synod.

ZONAR. This is also forbidden by the third canon of the holy apostles, ^B in which other things of a similar nature are also enumerated along with honey and milk.

ARIST. ‹ At the altar, honey and milk ought not to be offered. › Clear.

CANON LVIII.

BALS. Other various canons have forbidden the holy mysteries to be handled by the laity, or distributed by them to others or to themselves, because such dignity was granted to bishops, priests, and deacons. The present canon, in commanding the same things as those, and subjecting the one who acts contrary to what has been ordained to the penalty of excommunication for one week, adds ^C that a layman will not dare to do these things when a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon is present, who is able to handle the holy things. Some, therefore, say, taking the distinction from the contrary, that when none of these is present, due to a necessity that has arisen for him, a person may rightly distribute the divine sacraments to himself; but it does not seem so to me: for such a thing is not to be permitted to be dared on the basis of interpretation and a distinction taken from the contrary. The Latins, however, constantly carrying unleavened bread in their pockets, even though they be laymen, not only distribute these to themselves as sacraments, but to others as well.

ZONAR. To handle the holy things, and to distribute them to others,

is given to those who are initiated into sacred orders. But he who, without necessity—that is, when no initiated person is present—dares to lay hand upon these things and distribute them to himself, seems to arrogate to himself the dignity of the priesthood. This testifies to the arrogance of his own opinion; wherefore he is punished with a one-week excommunication, that he may learn, as it says, not to think more highly than one ought, but once he has become humble, to know himself and to fear to undertake tasks beyond his own merits.

ARIST. “A layman may not distribute to himself; otherwise he is excommunicated for one week.” A layman must not distribute the divine mysteries to himself when a bishop, presbyter, or deacon is present. The synod has decreed that he who does this is to be excommunicated for one week, in order that he may be disciplined not to think more highly than he ought.

CANON LIX

BALS. Note what is written in the interpretation of the present canon, and pay attention rather to the Novellae of the Philosopher than to the present canon, for the sake of those baptisms performed in an oratory. ^B

Another interpretation.

ZONAR. This canon seems ^D altogether to forbid the performance of baptism in an oratory within a house;

but it deposes the cleric who has dared to do so, and excommunicates the laity. The twelfth canon of the First and Second Synod held in the temple of the Holy Apostles decrees that those who perform liturgy in an oratory within a house must be separated from the clergy—that is, they must be designated and set apart for that duty by the local bishop. ^A From both of these canons, therefore, it is understood that performing sacred rites and administering baptism in such an oratory is not altogether forbidden, nor is it permitted to everyone; but the Fathers intended that those who are to perform sacred rites in oratories should be chosen and well-known, and that no one else should be admitted to them besides those persons, and that this should not be left to the whim of any priest, but that permission must be obtained from the bishop of the region. It commands that those who set themselves to this work without being called be deposed, and those who join in communion with them be segregated. Also, the thirty-first canon of this same Sixth Synod forbids performing sacred mysteries and baptizing in such an oratory, except with the consent of the bishop.

ARIST. In oratory houses established within a home, they shall not celebrate baptism. He who does not observe this, if a cleric, is deposed; if a layman, ^B he is excommunicated.

The thirty-first canon of the present synod allows for performing liturgy in an oratory that is within a house, if the bishop of that region so wills; although the fifty-eighth canon of the Synod of Laodicea forbade this from being done by bishops or presbyters. But the present canon forbids baptism being celebrated in such oratory houses, and commands that those who are to be deemed worthy of divine illumination should approach the catholic churches and enjoy this gift in them. If not, the one who transgresses these decrees, if he be a cleric, is to be deposed; if he be a layman, he is to be excommunicated.

CANON LX

^C ♦ Cum clamet Apostolus, quod qui Domino adhæret, unus est spiritus *, clarum est, quod qui etiam cum contrario init familiaritatem ac consuetudinem, cum illo conjunctione unum fit. Eos ergo qui se dæmone correptos esse simulant, et morum improbitate eorum figuram et habitum simulate præ se ferunt, visum est omni modo puniri, et ejusmodi afflictionibus laboribusque subjici oportere, quibus ii qui vere a dæmone correpti sunt, ut a dæmonis operatione liberentur, jure subjiciuntur. ♦

BALS. The canon decrees that those who pretend to be possessed by a demon ^D for the sake of earning gain, and who with a wicked and Satanic conscience prophesy certain demoniacal things after the manner of the prophetesses of the Greeks, are to be punished—that is, to be chastised and subjected to such afflictions and labors as those are subjected to who are truly possessed

that they may be delivered from the demon. He says also that by their simulation, demons also become familiar with them. But I, seeing many such people wandering through the cities, and not being punished, but rather embraced by some as if they were holy, seek to know the cause, and request correction. Indeed, I had reckoned that Stauracius Oxybaphus, who was truly righteous, but who feigned that folly which is for God's sake on account of the seducers, among the hypocrites out of ignorance; perhaps others, too, have been affected by prejudice from me. It was necessary, therefore, for such things to be prohibited by the present canon, so that the good might not be punished on account of the wicked. For there are many ways of salvation for the soul, and one can be saved through them without any scandal. I do not say these things from my own mind, but from the narrative of good men who have described this manner of life, which is supposedly pleasing to God, but who have condemned it as destructive and as one that leads to the portion of Satan. And for this reason, many ^A most holy patriarchs have, with authority, detained many residing in chains in the church of the holy great-martyr Nicetas, and others wandering through the crossroads and feigning to be possessed by a demon, and have enclosed them in public custodies, consistently with the canon.

ZONAR. Certain people, when they feigned to be possessed by a demon, abused this simulation—which happens even now—for the sake of gain. This canon forbids this, and ordains that such impostors be punished. And not punished simply, but more severely, and to be subjected to such hardships ^B and labors as those are, who are truly possessed, in order that they may be delivered from the demon. For he says that through the wickedness of their ways, they make themselves familiar with the demon and enter into union with him; and he brings in the testimony of the great Paul, saying: 'He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.'

ARIST. ‹Whoever feigns to be possessed by a demon shall undergo the punishments of the possessed.› If he who is joined to the Lord, according to the Apostle, is one spirit, it is manifest that he who enters into familiarity with the devil becomes one with him in ^C union. On this account, he subjects him who feigns to be possessed by a demon, and makes a show of performing their works, to such hardships and labors as are used with those who are truly possessed, so that he may be delivered from the operation of the demon.

CANON LXI

‹Those who surrender themselves to soothsayers or to those who are called centurions, or to any such, so that they may learn from them what they desire to be revealed to them, in accordance with the decrees previously ^D enacted by the Fathers concerning them, shall be subject to the canon of six years. And it is necessary to subject to this same penalty those who carry bears or suchlike animals, for amusement and

^A the injury of the simpler folk, and who speak of fortune, and fate, and genealogy [(65)], and a crowd of such words, mouthing the triflings of error, and those who are called cloud-chasers, and enchanters, and providers of amulets, and diviners. Those, however, who persist in these things and do not turn away from and flee these destructive and Hellenic practices, we decree shall be utterly cast out of the Church, just as the holy canons declare. For what fellowship has light with darkness, as the Apostle says, or what agreement has the temple of God with idols, or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what concord has Christ with Belial?

^B BALS. In the 25th chapter of the 9th title of the present work, we have set forth various laws concerning mages, enchanters, and others of this kind; read these. The present canon ordains that no one should approach diviners, or jugglers, or those who are called *centuriones*, or those who lead around bears, or cloud-chasers, or enchanters, or those who provide amulets. If anyone does this, he shall be excommunicated for six years; and if he persists in the evil, he shall be cast out of the Church and shall no longer dwell with the orthodox. For what, it says, is the fellowship of light with darkness? and what follows. Since the canon decrees these things and turns away such demonic operations, as originating from Hellenic and ethnic unbelief, we must inquire into the individual things comprehended by the canon.

^C Diviners (*vates*) are called those who inspect palms, those who divine in a basin, and those who query their father Satan about some matter through sacrifices: and simply all, to speak once, who profess to know future things through certain signs by demonic suggestion, and who addict themselves to the demon. *Centuriones* are those whom we call *primicerii*; these were in ancient times old men, seemingly wiser, and pretending to care for the rest; who, indeed, when they seduced the simpler folk through such execrable operations, were worshipped as false gods. Those who lead around bears are called *arctotrophi*, that is, bear-keepers; these, hanging tinctures upon the head and the whole body of the animal, and shearing hair from it, give these along with the tinctures as remedies and amulets, as if they could contribute something in sicknesses and against fascinating eyes. ^D Others, indeed, carrying snakes in their bosom, who also...

^A are called Athingani, say that one was born on an evil day, another under a lucky star, and they announce future happinesses and misfortunes, and prattle other things not even worthy to be committed to writing.

Those who are called "cloud-chasers" (nephodioktai) are those who pretend to announce from the clouds things unknown to the multitude. For some, watching the clouds, and especially when they become more fiery at the setting of the sun, prattle that they learn the truth from them. For from one cloud that resembles a dove, they say a contingency will befall the inquirer; from another that resembles a man carrying a sword, they predict the imminence of war; from another that resembles a lion, they foretell the execution of royal commands, and they rave with other such A pollinian nonsense.

And how many enchanters might you see, who speak certain divine chants and commemorate the names of martyrs, or even of the holy Theotokos herself? But all the God-bearing Fathers and teachers of the Church decree that these are to be fled, and above all others the divine Chrysostom, saying these words in his homilies *On the Statues*: "You not only apply amulets, but also bring incantations to him, introducing drunken and delirious old women into your house, and you are not ashamed, nor do you blush, that after such humanity you return to these things, stunned and astonished; and what is even more grave in this deception, when you are admonished not to do these things, you think you are defending yourself, saying: 'The woman who chants these is a Christian, and speaks nothing other than the name of God.' For this reason, therefore, I hate and avert myself from her the more, because she has abused the name of God, in that while saying she is a Christian, she displays the things of the Greeks. For even the demons spoke the name of God, but they were demons; and thus they said to Christ: 'We know who you are, the Holy One of God,' and yet he stopped their mouths and cast them out (64).

And those who are called "amulet-providers" (phylakterioi) are those who, by demoniacal ^C deception, give to those deceived by them certain little bags woven of silk threads, and called *pouggia*, which have inside them sometimes scriptures, and sometimes other false things that come to hand; and they say that these must always hang from the necks of those who receive them as protection against every evil. If I had the time to relate how many such things I have seen punished synodically, I would have made a great narration regarding them; but a few words shall be said now. A certain prefect of Hosios, accused of a matter of this kind, was found in the act having an *egkolpion*...

^D ...on the holy Psalm 45 says concerning this, and holy Gregory of Nyssa in the second chapter of his canons speaks regarding those who go to fortune-tellers and sorcerers; and holy Cyril speaks regarding such things in his work on the worship of God in spirit and truth; and in the Mosaic civil law these things are forbidden, saying: "The soul that shall follow after those who speak from the belly or diviners, so as to play the harlot after them, I will set my face against that soul, and will destroy it from among its people."

^A ...in his bosom, carrying the garment of a newly born infant, saying that this had been given to him by a certain woman to turn away and stop the mouths of those who attempted to speak against him. Whence he also fell under sentence of condemnation. Another priest, accused of giving the holy bread of Great Thursday to various women and men, in order that the one who had stolen some object might be convicted if he could not easily swallow it, drank of the cup of deposition. And another priest, accused of performing inquiries concerning certain matters by means of Davidic psalms using a Gospel attached to a piece of wood and turned in a circle, and because he thereby caused great trouble to many innocent people, could not obtain pardon. Many monks, and even priors, were synodically punished because they had approached certain women who, by means of barley, revealed things unknown to others. These are the ones who are called *kritriai* (diviner-women), who sit before churches and holy icons, and who preach that they learn the future from these, and who announce unknown things as if they possessed the spirit of Python. Know, therefore, that while the present canon punishes those who approach them, as has been said, other canons and laws set down in chap. 25, tit. 9 of the present work punish not only them, but also the primary authors and perpetrators severely. ^B But when you hear that those who approach such people are punished with a six-year penance, understand that these are laymen. For those who are initiated into sacred rites shall be deposed. Note, however, from the present canon, that he who sins and converts is granted pardon and is punished leniently; but he who persists in evil and is reluctantly led to what is better is punished severely. For here too, he who approached and confessed his sin shall be punished by a six-year segregation, or even more mildly as shall seem fit to the bishop; but he who persists in evil shall be cast out of the Church. But since I have heard someone saying that they ought to be pardoned who perform such things for the sake of bodily healing or some other salutary purpose, I say that this also is an occult trickery of the devil. For to use such a thing in any way at all is most pernicious. ^C Read the laws set forth in the commentary on chap. 25, tit. 9 of the present work, and the Novel of the emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which defines these things expressly near the end: "If anyone shall be caught using this juggling art at all, whether under the pretext of bodily healing or for the turning away of harm from crops, let him pay the final penalty, suffering the punishment of apostates."

^D ZONARAS. It is not fitting for the faithful to use any of those things which heathens and unbelievers use, and which the Greeks once used—I mean divinations and incantations and other such things by whatever name they are called—nor even to seek to learn what they wish to know through such means. For the God-bearing Fathers and teachers of the Church, and above all others the divine Chrysostom, say that even if the name of the holy Trinity...

name is invoked upon such things, even if invocations of the saints are made, and even if the sign of the divine cross is applied, we must flee from such things and turn away from them. Therefore, the Fathers of this Council ordained that those who do such things be excommunicated for six years (this excommunication, however, should be understood as applying to the laity: for those in holy orders shall be punished by deposition. For in those same faults ^A in which the laity are excommunicated, for these the clergy are punished by deposition). And if they persist in these, they are to be cut off from the Church, that is, from the congregation of the believers. The canon forbids not only the things mentioned, but also subjects to the same penalty those who lead about bears or similar animals for the amusement and harm of the simpler folk. For they hang dyes from them and shear their hair as amulets for women to ward off diseases and evil eyes, or ^B as if these things could be of some use; and the women, taking these as necessary, pay a price to those (mountebanks) and offer their children to be placed on the back of the beast, as if this were a proven remedy for averting evils from their children; as well as those who speak of fortune, fate, and genealogy. These are Hellenic trifles. It is likewise ordered that they be rebuked: "For what communion," it says, "has light with darkness?" ^C and it seeks the remaining words of the Apostle joined to these.

ARIST. He who gives himself over to centurions or demons, so that he may learn something of secret things, let him fall under penalty for six years. In the same way, let him who carries about a bear, who joins himself to enchanters and cloud-chasers, and has faith in fortune and fate, be excommunicated from the Church.

Those who follow the customs of the heathen, and have surrendered themselves to diviners or enchanters so that they might learn from them certain secret things; and likewise those who lead about bears or any other animals for the amusement ^D and deception of the simpler folk, and those who speak of fortune, fate, and genealogies, and those who have faith in enchanters and those called cloud-chasers, the holy council has decreed that they suffer a penalty of six years; so that for four years they may stand among the penitents, and for two other years they may stand with the faithful, and thus be deemed worthy of the divine sacraments. But if they remain uncorrected even after the punishment, and do not turn from these Hellenic practices, they are to be cast out from the Church entirely.

CANON LXII

"We wish that the so-called Calends, and what are called Bota, and the so-called Brumalia, and the assembly which takes place on the first day of the month of March, be altogether removed from the life of the believers; but also the public dances of women, which bring much harm and ruin; nay, even those...

dances and initiations performed by men and women in the name of those falsely called gods among the Greeks, according to some ancient custom alien to the Christian life, we banish and expel. We decree that no man henceforth shall put on a woman’s garment, nor a woman [a garment] suitable for men; nor shall any put on comic, satyric, or tragic masks; nor, while pressing grapes in the winepresses, invoke the name of the execrable Bacchus, nor, when pouring wine into jars, bring on laughter, performing ^A in ignorance or vanity those things which proceed from the imposture of demons. Those, therefore, who from now on shall attempt to perform any of these things, once they have come to the knowledge of these [prohibitions], if they are clerics, we order to be deposed; if leity, to be excommunicated.

THEODORE BALSAMON

^B Note the present canon, and seek a correction for what is done by the clerics on the festival of the Birth of Christ and the festival of the Lights, in opposition to this [canon], and more especially in the most holy Great Church. For it is understood from the chronological history of Scylitzes that this evil was not handed down from the ancients, but is known for certain to have been by the permission of Theophylact, Patriarch of Constantinople, son of the emperor, the lord Romanos Lacapenus. This historian recounts this evil together with the other wicked and indifferent acts of the same patriarch. The first ten days of the month are called Calends, the second nine are Nones, and the third eight are Ides. They were so named from three Roman noblemen who saved the Romans from the evil of famine. It was therefore the custom among the Romans to celebrate a festival annually in their memory in a somewhat more pagan and Greek manner, and to do certain indecent things, which even now is done by some rustics in the first days of the month of January, not keeping the Roman custom of the Calends and the rest, but because the moon is renewed at that time of the year, ^C and its foundation is set from the beginning of this month, and [because they] think that they will pass the whole year happily and joyfully if they celebrate a festival at its beginning. Such a festival is alien, as are those things called the Rusalia, which by an evil custom are performed after the holy Pascha in the outer regions. Bota and Brumalia are Greek festivals; the former, which is done for the falsely named god Pan, who, as the Greeks used to babble, watches over the flocks, that is to say, birds and other animals, ^D and... [index: entries preserved]

the latter for the sake of ^A Dionysus, the savior—as those people used to blaspheme—of wine. For Bromius was an epithet of Dionysus. In the month of March, a great Greek festival used to be held on account of the mildness of the seasons and the air, at which time indecent dances were performed by certain women and men. Repudiating all these and similar things, the holy Fathers enjoined that no man should use women’s clothing for any reason, nor the reverse; nor should they put on comic, tragic, or satyrical masks; nor, indeed, should they mention the name of Dionysus in the wine presses, nor laugh and guffaw when wine is poured into the jars. Those who attempt to do any such thing after having received knowledge of the canonical decree are, if they are clerics, to be deposed, and if they are laymen, to be excommunicated. One must therefore inquire what are comic masks, ^B what are tragic, and what are satyrical. Comic are those that provoke laughter and are petulant and insulting, such as those written by Aristophanes; tragic are those that move the emotions and are lamentable, such as the iambics of Euripides; and satyrical are the orgies celebrated by Satyrs and Bacchants to the hymn and praise of Dionysus. After the Fathers established these things in a manner worthy of holiness, and the 64th chapter of Justinian’s Novellae—that is, the 13th chapter of the 1st title of the 4th book of the *Basilica*—expressly ordains these things: "We forbid absolutely all those who are occupied in worldly affairs, and especially those who work in the theater, both men and women, and those who are in charge of them, to wear the garb of a monk or an ascetic, or to imitate it in any way; let all know that those who dare to use such a ^C garb, or to imitate it, or to mock any ecclesiastical institution, will undergo corporal punishments and be exiled; and for this matter let not only the most holy bishops of the places and the clerics under them keep watch, but also civil and military magistrates, the ranks subject to them, and the defenders of the places." But stage players put on all kinds of personae and mock monks and clerics with impunity. And even certain clerics, on certain feast days, assume and mimic various personae. Sometimes they enter the middle of the church girded with swords and in military uniforms, sometimes they proceed as monks, or even as four-footed animals. Having asked, therefore, how it is permitted for these things to happen, I heard nothing else than that these things are done by long-standing custom. Of the same kind, as it seems to me, are those things done by certain of those in the clergy who act like household servants, who strike the air with their fingers like charioteers, apply rouge to their cheeks, and feign certain womanly tasks, and other indecent acts, in order to provoke laughter from the spectators. But for rustic people to laugh when wine is poured into the jars is something as it were necessarily consequent for those who enter the vat, the vintners; unless one were to say this Satanic operation has fallen out of use, that ^D

^A the peasants say more frequently, at almost every measure, "Lord, have mercy." However, the indecorous things that were sometimes done by the notaries and schoolmasters during the feast of the holy notaries, when they would traverse the forum with theatrical masks, were done away with some years ago by the decree of that most holy patriarch, the lord Luke.

ZONARAS. The Calends are the first days of each month, on which the Greeks were accustomed to perform certain rituals. The Vota and the Brumalia were also Greek holidays. For Bromius was an epithet for Dionysus. Therefore, the Fathers decreed that the faithful are not permitted to observe these or other such Greek holidays with any kind of veneration. They also forbid public dances of women, by which, as they are spectacle, men are incited to lust, and whatever else Greek men or women were accustomed to perform in honor of their falsely named gods; and they command that men should not use women's apparel, nor women men's, as those who were engaged in the Bacchic revels used to do; nor should they put on comic, tragic, or satyric masks. ^B For a comic mask is one that is assumed for mocking others with biting jests; a tragic one is that which excites disturbances of the soul and sorrows; and a satyric one was peculiar to those initiated into the rites of Bacchus. For the dancing of the satyrs, like that of the Bacchants, was said to be from the company of Bacchus and full of frenzied madness. Furthermore, they do not allow the name of Bacchus to be invoked in the wine presses, nor the wine to be accompanied by laughter and loud guffawing while it is being stored in the jars. Moreover, Bacchus was considered by the Greeks to be in the number of the gods, whom they acknowledged as the patron of drunkenness and the giver of wine. Yet these customs are still retained by the rustics today, through ignorance of what they are doing. But this canon commands that a cleric of the sacred order, if he should knowingly permit anything of this sort, be deposed; but a layman, that he be excommunicated.

ARISTENUS. "Let the Vota, and the Calends, and the Brumalia, and the dances ^C in honor of the gods, and the comic, and satyric, and tragic masks, and the invocation of Bacchus in the wine presses, and the laughter in the jars, be removed from the life of the faithful. And those who persist in these things after the canon shall be held liable."

The Fathers, removing all idolatry and vanity from the life of the faithful, do not permit those things which are expressly enumerated in the present canon to be performed by Christians; but if those who do these or similar things are clerics, the canon commands them to be deposed; if, however, they are laymen, to be excommunicated.

CANON LXIII

"Those things which have been falsely fabricated by the enemies of the truth ^D [are...] [notes of William Beveridge: alt-version omitted]

to dishonor the martyrs of Christ and lead the listeners into disbelief, we command not to be published in the churches, but to be committed to the fire. And those who accept these, or attend to them as if they were true, we anathematize."

BALS. It did not escape the holy Fathers that many of the faithless and those who hate Christ, not accepting the struggles of the holy martyrs and confessors, or even mocking the Christians who received these, fabricated certain false and strange things, worthy of their own malice, as if spoken or done by the martyrs, so that those who encountered these would be led into disbelief or laughter, and the saints would be held in contempt. Therefore, they ^B decreed that such writings should not be published at all, but rather be burned; and that those who accept them should be anathematized. For this reason, therefore, as it seems, the 85th Canon of the holy apostles also defined which books of the Old Testament and which of the New ought to be read, and it marked the others with an obelisk as spurious. Great thanks, therefore, are due to the blessed Metaphrastes, who purified and embellished the struggles of the martyrs for the sake of the truth with many labors and much sweat, for the praise of God and the everlasting glory of the holy martyrs. Moreover, that most holy patriarch, lord Nicholas Mouzalon, having found the life of the holy Parasceve, who is venerated in the village of Kallikrateia, written by a certain villager in an inept and unlearned manner, and unworthy of the holy one's angelic way of life, ordered it to be committed to the fire; and he instructed that deacon, Basilicos, to write down a life of her that is pleasing to God.

Note of William Beveridge

Gentianus Hervetus translates "martyr-struggles for the sake of truth" as "martyric trenches for the sake of truth." This version, indeed, did not please us in the least: for the word σκάμματα (scammata) in this place signifies rather "struggles," being a metaphor taken from leaping. For the boundary at which they first stand and from which they jump is called the terminus, and the boundary into which they fall or which they reach with a jump is called a scamma, just as the space between both is also so called. Thus Julius Pollux, etc. Nimirum where they fix the chalk after the jump, the ground is somewhat subdued and dug up with lime; whence this place is called a scamma. ^D Hence this word is also translated more broadly and very often for the place of any struggle, and then also for the struggle itself. Thus Clement of Rome, "We are in the same scamma," and the same struggle lies before us. Chrysostom, "The theater is not yet dissolved for you, but you stand inside the scamma, and you are able, even through a final struggle, to wrestle back all your defeats." And again: "For it was necessary to remain inside the scamma to struggle, not to lament and weep foolishly after the theater is dissolved." And again: "Therefore, the scammata have been added to us, as having partaken of greater help." In this sense, Balsamon in the present place calls those struggles which the martyrs underwent for the sake of the truth, scammata. Which words we have therefore more correctly translated: "The struggles of the martyrs for the sake of the truth." Which interpretation the place itself also requires. For Balsamon is speaking here of Simeon Metaphrastes, who wrote the lives of the holy martyrs, and consequently transmitted to us the struggles which they underwent for the sake of the truth; for which reason Balsamon asserts that thanks are due to him.

^A ZONAR. These were written by men who were aliens to the faith, as it seems, desiring to drag down the things of the Christians, as if they were things said and done by the holy martyrs, which were strange or even ridiculous, so that by this means our faith might be mocked, and the martyrs might also be insulted. Such things, therefore, the canon not only forbids to be read, but also requires that they be burned. And if any persons use these, believing them to be true, it commands that they be anathematized.

ARIST.

That martyrologies fabricated by the heathens should not be published in the church.

It is not right that martyrologies written by the heathens to the ignominy of the martyrs of Christ should be read in churches, but rather that they be committed to the fire. And if anyone be found receiving these as true, let him be anathematized.

CANON LXIV.

^B That a layman ought not to dispute or teach publicly, claiming for himself the authority of teaching, but should yield to the order handed down by the Lord, and open his ear to those who have received the grace of teaching, and be taught the divine things by them. For God has made diverse members in the one Church, as the voice of the Apostle is: which Gregory the Theologian, interpreting, openly commends the order that is in them, saying: "Let us revere this order, brethren, let us observe it. Let this one be an ear; that one indeed a tongue; this one, however, a hand; ^C that one indeed something else. Let this one indeed teach: but that one learn." And a little later: "And he who learns, in docility; and he who provides, in cheerfulness; and he who brings help and ministers, in alacrity. Let us not all be tongue, which is the most ready thing; let us not all be apostles; let us not all be prophets; let us not all interpret." And after some things: "Why do you make yourself a shepherd, when you are a sheep? Why do you become a head, when you happen to be a foot? Why do you attempt to play the general, when you have been enrolled in the number of the soldiers?" And elsewhere Wisdom commands: "Be not swift in words; do not, when you are a poor man, extend yourself ^D together with a rich man; nor seek to be wiser than the wise." But if anyone be caught violating the present canon, let him be segregated for forty days.

BALS. To teach the Lord's people, and to interpret the divine dogmas, was granted by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit only to the prelates and to those to whom it is permitted by them. As it seems, therefore, certain laymen, perhaps even learned in wisdom, were disputing publicly about certain ecclesiastical matters, and were making a show of a certain authority for teaching. The divine Fathers, therefore, forbidding this, decreed that nothing of such a kind should happen further, lest the order of the Church be confounded. But since, they say, God has established and raised up the Church from diverse members, and it is ordained that laymen should be taught, not teach, they ought rather to offer an ear to those who teach than to move the tongue, and to offend many, and for each one to remain

^A in the order in which he was called, as the holy Scripture says. And for the confirmation of what they said, they used various sayings of Scripture, that is to say, apostolic, theological, and prophetic. However, they decreed that those who transgress the present canon should be separated for forty days. But someone might ask, since the canon forbids laymen to teach or discuss ecclesiastical matters publicly, will clerics and monks be restricted in the same way as laymen, or not? Solution: Since teaching belongs only to the bishops and those appointed for this, if any of them transgress the canonical precept, he will, as it seems to me, be held by the canon. For this very reason, even in the examination of the evangelical saying which says, *My Father is greater than I*, many monks and clerics were punished because they had spoken or written contentiously regarding this. But the word "publicly" was rightly added. For if someone, being understood privately, is questioned about some matter of doctrine or about some other cause pertaining to the utility of the soul, he will not be prohibited from answering what seems right to him. For indeed, chapter 4 of title 1 of the first book of the Basilics says: Let no one, whether cleric, or soldier-monk, or anyone else whatsoever, assemble a multitude to discuss the faith publicly. For he seems to do injury to the synod in Chalcedon, which aptly defined all things, and which also gives our knowledge to be known to all heretics. Therefore, if indeed he who does these things is a cleric, he shall fall from the assembly of the clerics: if, however, a soldier, from his military service. But the others, according to the condition of each, shall be punished.

ZONAR. "Each one in the order in which he was called, in this let him remain," says the holy Scripture. This even this canon ordains, and it does not wish a layman to argue publicly about the faith, or to teach as a teacher, but to lend an ear to those who have been appointed to teach. For the Church is one body, but it is completed by various members, according to the divine Apostle. Then he adds the words of the Theologian, interpreting the apostolic sayings, and he further adds those of Wisdom saying: *Be not swift in words*, and what follows. ^C But he sentences those who transgress the canon to forty days of separation. Yet one will not be prohibited from answering privately if he is questioned, and from teaching him who asks.

ARIST. ^D "Let a layman not teach; for are all prophets? are all apostles?" Each one ought to know his own order, and not make himself a shepherd when he is a sheep, or make himself a head when he happens to be a foot; but to yield to the order handed down by the Lord, and to open the ear to those who have received the grace of the teaching word. For not all are prophets, nor are all apostles. Wherefore laymen

should neither teach nor set forth dogmatic discourses, assuming for themselves the authority to teach from this.

CANON LXV.

^A In the case of those bonfires which are lit by some in the new moons before their own workshops or houses, over which some are also accustomed to leap according to a certain ancient custom, we command that henceforth this must cease. Whoever, therefore, shall do such a thing, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. For it is written in the fourth book of Kings: And Manasses built an altar to all the host of heaven in the two courts of the ^B house of the Lord, and made his sons pass through fire, and used omens and auguries and auspices, and made ventriloquists and multiplied diviners, and proceeded to do evil before the Lord, that he might provoke him to anger.

^C

BALSAMON.

^A And all those who are inspired by Satan, and who foretell things that are supposedly unknown, are called ventriloquists and knowers—such as the *critriae*, the Athingani, the false prophets, the hermits, and others.

Since the canon settles these things, the feast of the new moon has ceased for time beyond memory; and in its place, by the grace of God, propitiatory prayers to God and sanctifications are performed in the Church by the faithful people at the beginning of every month, and we are anointed with the water of blessing, not of contradiction. The demonic mystery of the pyres ^B and the divinations were practiced until the time of the most holy patriarch, Lord Michael, who was the head of the philosophers in this queen of cities. He acted against them in this way: On the evening of the 23rd of the month of June, men and women would gather in the crags and in certain houses, and they would adorn a firstborn girl like a bride. After they had banqueted and danced in a Bacchic manner and led dances and shouted, they would pour sea water into a copper vessel with a narrow mouth, along with certain objects belonging to each of them. And as though that girl had received the power from Satan to announce the things asked about, they would shout out questions concerning some good thing, or else about avoiding and fleeing something. The girl would then bring out the object that had fallen into the vessel and display it; and her foolish master, taking it, would perhaps be assured about the prosperous or ^C adverse events that were to befall him. On the next day, they would go to the shores with drums and dances together with the girl, and, taking sea water in abundance, they would sprinkle their houses. And these things were done not only by the less sensible ones, but also, through the whole night, they would kindle pyres of grass, jump over them, and divine—that is, they would prophesy—about happiness and unhappiness and certain other things in a demonic fashion. And they would decorate with golden veils and silk fabrics the approaches here and there, and the room where the divination was performed, along with the adjacent open-air places. Moreover, they would wreathe them with the leaves of trees, in honor and ^D reception, as it seems, of Satan, who had made them his own familiars. All of these things the aforementioned most holy patriarch commanded to be done away with and utterly abolished with all care; and it has been done. And now, as it pleased God, these works hateful to God have completely vanished, because those who lived nearby, both judges and priests, were often rebuked and admonished to take care and see to it that nothing of the sort should happen. And would that the divinations from crows and rooks and the rest of the wild birds were also abolished, and likewise the trifles of the *critriae* and the other deceivers of the people. However, concerning the text "He made his children pass through the fire," the great Cyril, explaining the prophet Isaiah, interpreted it as "he offered in a holocaust," that is, he sacrificed to the demons.

^B And he used lots. A lot is when one seeks to know, through certain signs, the good or bad fortune of someone; a practice which is common even at this time among some who are eager to know their own fortune. And he used auguries. An augury is when the flight of birds (for birds are called *oionoí*), their cries, and other such things are observed—an observation called *oionoskopia* ("bird-watching") by the Greeks, and this whole system of augury was in the greatest honor among the Romans in ancient times. By "the host of heaven," you are to understand the stars.

ARIST. ^C "Let those fires which are built at workshops during the new moons, and those who jump over them, be abolished."

Some people, lighting fires in front of their workshops or houses, used to jump over them according to a certain ancient custom. The Fathers, abolishing this, decree that if a cleric is found doing any such thing, he shall be deposed; but if a layman, he shall be excommunicated. For even Manasses, by making his children pass through the fire and using auguries, provoked God to anger.

CANON LXVI

^D "From the holy day of the resurrection of Christ our God until the New Sunday, the faithful ought to spend the whole week in the holy churches, continuously participating in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, rejoicing in Christ and celebrating the feast, and applying their minds to the reading of the divine Scriptures, and joyfully and abundantly partaking of the holy mysteries. For thus shall we be resurrected and exalted together with Christ. Therefore, let no horse races or other public spectacle be performed in the aforementioned days."

[BALS.] The week that runs after the holy resurrection of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is considered, in all respects, as one Lord's Day, and this is also true regarding the non-bending of the knee, and indeed the entire Pentecost. But since horse races and other popular playful spectacles were deemed by some as a pretext for celebration and public assembly, the Fathers decreed that we should not celebrate in this way during this Paschal week, but rather we should celebrate in a God-fearing manner, and as far as possible, in a manner worthy of holy things; that is to say, we should devote ourselves to the churches and be sated by divine psalmodies. And as if we were already worthy to celebrate the Lord's resurrection, we should delight in the divine mysteries and be resurrected together with Him who rose again and who raised us up to the heavens, Christ our God. Note, therefore, that all the faithful ought to be in a state of readiness to partake of the holy mysteries every day, if possible, just as it has been stated in other canons as well. But since the canon decrees these things, someone might ask: do craftsmen work at their manual labor after the third day of this week? I consider, therefore, that they do this wrongly. For even if they are not punished by the present canon for thus resolving the feast, they shall be punished by the other canon which separates the laity—who are not farmers—who work on Lord's Days. Seek also the 54th Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise, which decrees that not even farmers ought to work on the Lord's Day. Therefore, it is forbidden for them as well to work during the entire Paschal week, since it is considered as one Lord's Day. ^C

[ZONAR.] We who are called by Christ ought to celebrate not by seeking out luxuries and brilliance and indulgence for ourselves, but by rejoicing spiritually. Now, spiritual joy consists in singing to the Lord and praising Him for the marvelous deeds He has done, having delivered us from the captivity of the devil. Therefore, the canon desires us to celebrate the feast of Pascha in this way: spending the entire week in the churches, singing to the Lord in psalms and hymns, and thus rejoicing in Christ and attending to the study of the divine Scriptures, and delighting in the divine mysteries. And in this way, he says, we shall be resurrected with Christ and exalted with Him; resurrected, indeed, from the fall into sin and from a groveling and earthly life; and exalted to a higher and truly spiritual manner of life. ^D Hence, it permits neither horse races to take place in the week of Pascha, nor other public spectacles in which, clearly, the people gather to watch what is happening.

[ARIST.] "Every faithful person shall attend church during the entire week after the resurrection." In the holy churches, the faithful ought to devote themselves to leisure and to rejoice in psalms and hymns during the entire week.

^A CANON LXVII. "The divine Scripture has commanded us to abstain from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication. Those, therefore, who, because of a gluttonous stomach, prepare the blood of any animal whatsoever as food by some artifice, and so eat it, we punish as is fitting. If, therefore, anyone from now on shall attempt to eat the blood of an animal in any way whatsoever, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated."

BALS. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that we should not eat any blood or throttled animal, and that we should refrain from fornication. And the Mosaic law also commands: "You shall not eat blood." Since, therefore, some did not indeed eat blood [directly], but made certain food-stuffs from other things and from blood, and said that they were observing the holy Scripture because they were not eating blood without any intermediary, the holy Fathers decreed that such a circumvention of the divine law ought to cease, and that he who has eaten the blood of any animal by any art or method, if he be a cleric, is to be deposed; if a layman, to be excommunicated. And this is the canon. But the Latins eat throttled animals indiscriminately. The Adrianopolitans also, as I hear, use the blood of animals with certain foods. Consult also the 58th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise, which decrees that those who eat any sort of bloody food are to be proscribed, physically punished, marked by having their hair shorn, and condemned to perpetual exile; but those magistrates who do not punish these things are to be corrected by a fine of ten pounds of gold. ^{B C}

ZONAR. It was decreed in the Acts of the Apostles that one must abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. For when some were asserting that it was necessary for the faithful to be circumcised, the apostles and James, the brother of the Lord, gathered together and deliberated about this, and commanded that the faithful should abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication, and that no further burden should be placed upon them. And in Genesis it is also ordained: "You shall not eat flesh in the blood of its life." Therefore, following the divine Scripture, since the holy Fathers learned that some, by certain methods, were making the blood of slaughtered animals into food and eating it, they prohibited by this canon that anything of the sort be done, penalizing those who do such things: if they are clerics, with deposition; if laymen, with excommunication. ^D

ARIST. A cleric eating blood is deposed; a layman is excommunicated. Perspicuous.

CANON LXVIII. "It is permitted to no one of all [the faithful to destroy] the books of the Old and New Testament, or of our holy and approved...

^A heralds and doctors, or to tear them, or to give them to the book-dealers, or to those called perfumers, or to any other person whatsoever for the purpose of destruction; unless perchance it has been rendered entirely useless, whether by moths, or by water, or in some other way. He who from this time forward is caught doing any such thing, let him be excommunicated for one year; and likewise he who buys such books, if he should not keep them for his own use, nor give them to another for his benefit, so that they may survive, but should set about destroying them, he shall be excommunicated."

BALS. Some, for the sake of base gain, used to buy books of the Divine Scriptures and erase them, or even tear them up, not considering the condemnation that would ensue from this before God. Therefore, the divine and holy Fathers, correcting things concerning this, decreed that it is permitted to no one ^B to destroy, or to tear up, or to sell to perfumers or book-dealers, for the purpose of erasure or tearing, any book whatsoever of the Divine Scripture, clearly both of the Old and of the New Testament, unless such a book has been rendered entirely useless by water, or by worms, or by some other means, that is to say, by fire. And anyone who does contrary to this is to be excommunicated for one year, and the same for him who buys such books and does not possess them for his own or another's utility. ^C But when you hear the canon saying, that the books of the Old or New Testament, or any other from the Divine Scripture, are not to be erased or destroyed in any way, understand the canon to be speaking of those books which it is permitted to be read. For as for those that are useless, if anyone erases or tears them, he will not be punished. Note these things, however, on account of the book-dealers, who erase the parchments of the Divine Scriptures; and do not admit them when they say that it is permitted to erase this or that book of the Divine Scripture, and to transcribe another in place of those erased. For ^D one absurdity having been granted, many other absurdities will follow; although, indeed, the booksellers are to be commended.

ZONAR. The canon commands that the books of the divinely-inspired Scripture, of both the Old and the New Testament, and those of the holy Fathers and doctors—those, that is to say, who have been approved and accepted after examination (for many wrote treatises on the faith and interpretations of Scripture, but they were rejected and condemned)—that the books of the Old and New Testament, and those of the approved Fathers, must be preserved, and not destroyed, nor torn, nor [given] to the book-dealers, or to those...

who sell ointments, for destruction. The canon does not speak of those who sell books, but of those who blot out or otherwise use books for the destruction of what is written in them. ^A If, however, any copies happen to be so eaten by worms that they are considered completely ruined, or [damaged] by water, or otherwise rendered useless so that they cannot serve for reading, if one blots them out, he shall not therefore fall under the penalty of the violated canon, which is to be excommunicated for one year for transgressing against the canon. But he who sells them for destruction, and he who buys them for that purpose, is guilty of violating the canon.

ARIST. ^B "Thou shalt not destroy a divine book, nor shalt thou give it to be destroyed, unless it is completely useless."

It is not permitted for anyone at all to destroy a book of the Old or New Testament, or [a book] of our approved and holy teachers, or to give it to book-dealers or to those who sell ointments for the purpose of destroying and ruining it, unless it has been rendered completely useless by moths, or water, or in some other way. He who transgresses this decree is excommunicated for one year.

CANON LXIX.

^C "It shall not be permitted for any of those who are among the laity to enter within the sacred altar, though, to be sure, the imperial power and authority is by no means prohibited from this, whenever it wishes to offer gifts to the Creator, according to a most ancient tradition."

BALS. The present canon prohibits laymen from entering within the divine altar, as this is reserved for the consecrated alone. But to the emperor, even though he is a layman, this is granted, he says, when he wishes to offer gifts to God, according to a certain ancient tradition. How it is, therefore, that anyone who wishes enters without any hindrance into the divine sanctuary of the glorious temple of our Lord Jesus Christ which is in the Chalce, I do not know. ^D As for the Latins, I hear that not only laymen, but even women enter into the holy sanctuary and sit, while those who act as priests often stand. Regarding the emperors, however, some have said, insisting on the words of the canon, that they will then not be forbidden to enter within the altar partition, when they are about to offer gifts to God.

[Guill. Beveregii note: ...]

In the Auerbach Codex it is written that they also incense and sign with the trikērion, just as the archpriests do. But they also teach the people catechetically, which only the local bishops do. I found, however, in the 19th book of the *Jewish Antiquities* of Flavius Josephus, an imperial subscription reading thus: "And Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanus, supreme pontiff, invested with the tribunician power, consul for the second time." These words exist in Josephus, *Jewish Antiquities*, Book 19, chapter 4. But these are found in no other codex. Nor do they seem to be Balsamon's; they were likely first written in the margin by some Greek who did not notice that our emperors, especially pagans such as this Tiberius Claudius was, differ heaven-wide from Christian bishops, even if they are called "supreme pontiffs." For the sake of these two words, these cited words seem to appear.

^A nor when they wish to enter it solely for the sake of adoration; but this does not seem so to me. For the Orthodox emperors, who promote patriarchs through the invocation of the Holy Trinity, and are the Lord’s anointed, enter the holy altar without hindrance whenever they wish, and they incense, and they sign with the trikērion, just as the archpriests do.

ZONAR. The altar is set apart for those who are ordained. Therefore the canon forbids the entrance of laymen to it; but it grants the emperor alone the entrance into the altar when he is about to offer gifts to God. As if those who granted this privilege of authority and power to the emperor were defending themselves, they made mention of the emperor's power and supreme authority, almost saying this: that not even he, inasmuch as he is a layman, should enter inside the altar; but that it was granted to him because of the power and authority [granted] by the older Fathers who originally handed this down.

ARIST. ^B "No layman, except the emperor, shall enter the altar." To the laity the altar is inaccessible. The emperor, however, is not prohibited from entering within its partition whenever he wishes, and from offering gifts to God.

CANON LXX. "Let it not be lawful for women in the time of divine liturgy to speak; but according to the commandment of the apostle Paul, let them be silent. For it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law says; but if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home." *I Cor. xiv, 35. *Gen. iii, 16.

BALS. Writing to the Corinthians, the great Paul commands women to be silent and to be subject to their own husbands, according to the Mosaic law, which says: ^C "To your husband, woman, shall be your turning, and he shall rule over you." Consistently with these things, therefore, the canon decrees that women are not to speak at the time of the divine liturgy, but are to learn at home from their own husbands whatever they wish to know. And this having been defined thus, do not say that they are indeed forbidden to speak at the time of the liturgy, but that in other ecclesiastical assemblies nothing forbids them to speak. For they must be silent then as well. As ^D is...

^A likely, some women at that time, pretending to read the Holy Scriptures, attempted to preside over the assembly, and to prepare themselves for questions and answers—a thing which the Fathers deemed unseemly for women; and hence it was forbidden. But for them to ask the more prudent in private about things conducive to the soul is nothing new. Read also Book VIII of the *Basilika*, Title 1, Theme 5, which forbids women from pleading cases publicly, stating thus explicitly: "A woman and a blind man plead cases only for themselves; for a woman does not perform a man's office." And Book XXI, Title 1, Chapter 11, which says: "A woman does not bear witness in a testament; but she gives testimony in other matters, in which men are not called upon." And the Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise that forbids women from bearing witness in agreements and contracts; however, in cases of labor, and in matters where only a woman's gaze suffices, and not the eyes of men, he allows them to provide testimony. Seek also the 188th Novel of Justinian, or Chapter 44 of Title 37 of the *Basilika* books, which forbids women ^B from becoming guardians, and says this precisely: "For we also forbid women from undertaking the duties of guardianship, unless she be the mother or grandmother. For only to these, according to the order of inheritance, do we permit the undertaking of guardianship, if they renounce other marriages and the aid of the Velleian Consultum in writing. For if they observe these things, they shall be preferred for the guardianship over all cognates in the collateral line, being preceded only by testamentary guardians. For we wish the will and choice of the deceased to be preferred." Read also the chapter 20 of the same book, Theme 3, which says: "A woman is not a curator."

ZONAR. Great Paul enjoins silence upon women, not only while the sacred mysteries are being performed, but wherever the faithful have assembled. This seemed appropriate even to those outside the Church; for one of the poets says, "Silence adds luster to women." However, the present canon commands women to be silent only ^C during the time of the sacred ministry. But if they wish to know anything, the canon says, let them ask their own husbands at home—and this is also according to the Apostle. By the name of "the Law," the canon here signifies the Apostolic Constitutions.

ARIST. "Women are not permitted to speak in the churches. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home."

CANON LXXI. "Those who are taught the civil laws must not use Greek customs, nor be taken into the theater, ^D or perform the so-called *cylistrae*, or dress themselves in garments contrary to common usage, nor at the time when they enter upon their studies, or..."

...arrive at the end of their lessons, or arrive at their conclusion, or, to speak generally, in the middle of such an education. If, however, anyone from this moment forward should dare to do this, let him be excommunicated ^A (79).

BALS. The great Theologian Gregory writes in his funeral oration for the great Basil that most of the most foolish of the young men who were at Athens, driven by a certain sophistic fury, and no differently than those who are possessed by a furious desire for the equestrian race, fight against their adversaries, seize the cities and the streets ahead of time, and [they] welcome and embrace newly arrived sophists, leading them with great and splendid pomp, and accompanying them with hospitality, and doing certain other mockeries familiar to sophists. As it is therefore credible, this custom had invaded the queen of cities, when the study of the laws was also flourishing, so that some would use these Hellenic ^B customs, and that those who were about to enter upon the study of the laws, or those who were progressing through the middle of their studies, or those who had already been perfected, would be led into the theater with a procession and with expensive, unusual clothing; and for this reason the Fathers decreed the things that are in the present canon. Now "cylistrae" [tumbling-places] were made, as it seems to me, between those who were teaching. For when one person laid claim to a student for himself, and another person on the other side resisted, the "cylistrae" were devised, and this [happened] by chance, just as today in the horse-races it is done for the sake of the starting-gates. All these things, therefore, the holy Fathers forbid, and by naming Hellenic works, they decree that nothing of the sort should by any means be done, because many ^C turbulent scandals arise among the faithful on account of them, and what is done in that way is a prize of gentile felicity or infelicity. And those who transgress the canon they ordered to be subjected to excommunication.

ZONAR. The divine Fathers do not permit the faithful to use Hellenic customs in any matter. Since, however, those who were studying the civil laws also used such customs, and would put on certain strange garments when beginning their studies, or when they reached the conclusion of them, they forbid all these things also, whatever they might be that were done by them, and they decree excommunication for those who have performed anything of this ^D sort.

ARIST. A student of the law who uses a gentile custom, and is led to the theaters, and conducts himself lewdly, or is dressed in a manner contrary to common custom, is excommunicated.

If anyone uses gentile customs, to those [learning] civil...

[...][learning] civil laws, or being led perhaps to theaters, or performing those things called *kylistrai*, or putting on garments contrary to common custom, shall be excommunicated.

CANON LXXII.

^A It is not allowed 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 anything of this kind appears to have been done by anyone, he is to consider the marriage void, and the unlawful cohabitation is to be dissolved. For it is not proper to mix things that are not to be mixed, nor to join the sheep with the wolf, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ; but if anyone shall have transgressed those things which have been decreed by us, let him be excommunicated. But if any persons who are still infidels, and have not yet been enrolled in the flock of the orthodox, have been joined to one another in lawful marriage; then, if one of them, having chosen what is good, has run toward the light of truth, while the other remains held by the bond of error, unwilling to look upon the divine rays with fixed eyes (if it pleases the infidel wife to dwell with the faithful husband, or vice versa, the infidel husband with the faithful wife), let them not be separated, according to the divine Apostle. For the infidel husband is sanctified by the woman, and the infidel woman is sanctified by the man. ^B

BALS. The civil law defines marriage as a partnership and a sharing of divine and human law. Consequently, therefore, the holy Fathers decree that an orthodox man ought not to be joined by the law of marriage to a heretical woman, or vice versa; but if ever anything of the sort happens, the cohabitation is to be torn apart as non-existent. For what association, they say, shall there be for a wolf and a lamb who are in conflict in all things and are hostile by reason of their different way of life? And not only is the cohabitation to be torn apart, but he who dares such a thing is also to be excommunicated. ^C If, however, one of the spouses chooses the orthodox faith, the marriage shall not be separated on that account. For the great apostle Paul determined in his Epistle to the Corinthians that they are not to be separated, since the infidel husband is sanctified by the faithful woman, and, conversely, the infidel woman is sanctified by the man who has believed. There is, moreover, a hope that the spouses will come to judge the same things if one of them chooses the orthodox faith. Note, therefore, the present canon; for under Patriarch Theodosius, a certain imperial trumpeter, having been baptized, was separated by patriarchal letter from his wife, who would not obey her husband although he ^D pleaded with her much to embrace piety; which is contrary to this canon, since the wife, having chosen [the faith], [should not have been separated].

^A Note, therefore, the present canon on account of the Iberians, who indiscriminately give their daughters in marriage to the Agarenes. Likewise, note the expression of the canon which says: "Is the unbelieving wife pleased to cohabit with the believing husband? or conversely, the unbelieving husband with the believing wife? let them not be separated." For if any one of these wishes to be separated, the marriage shall be dissolved from that time. This indeed occurred in the days of the most holy patriarch, Lord Theodotus. For Basilicus the Buccinator was separated from his unbelieving wife after he had been baptized, by a patriarchal decree, inasmuch as she could not be induced by her husband's pervasion to be baptized. Read also the tenth ^B chapter of the first title of the present work, and what is contained therein.

ZONAR. The holy and divine Fathers of this synod legislate concerning those recently joined into the communion of marriage; of whom they suppose one to be a believer and the other an unbeliever, or vice versa, and they forbid such unions, and order those that have been contracted to be dissolved. For they say it is not right to mix things which are unmixable. For if the disposition of the soul concerning the faith is contrary to those who live together, how will they be of one mind in other matters? Or how, being incompatible and having no communion in that which is greater—I mean the faith—could they be in harmony and have communion with one another in other things? Therefore, even after the dissolution of this unlawful marriage, they desire that those who violate the present ^C canon be excommunicated. These things, then, the Fathers say concerning those recently joined to one another in the communion of marriage, where one is orthodox and the other is not such. But if, when they came together to one another in marriage, both were alienated from the orthodox, and then one of the persons recognized the truth and approached the faith, while the other is still held in the darkness of error, these Fathers also resolve to follow the commandment of the great Paul. For he says, if the unbelieving wife is willing to cohabit with the believing husband, or vice versa, let them not be separated; for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and vice versa.

ARIST. ^D "The marriage contracted with heretics is void. But those who have contracted it before, if they wish, may remain." It shall not be permitted for an orthodox man to be joined to a heretical woman, or vice versa. But if any, being unbelievers, have been joined in lawful marriage, and then one has approached the faith, while the other is still held by error, and the believer is pleased to cohabit with the unbeliever, or vice versa, let them not be separated, according to the divine apostle Paul.

CANON LXXIII. "Since the life-giving cross has shown to us the salvation, it is necessary for us to expend every diligence so that we may render due honor to that by which we have been saved from the ancient fall. Wherefore...

^A we command that the figures of the cross which are made by some on the ground and floor be completely erased, so that the trophy of our victory may not be insulted by the trampling of those who walk upon it. Therefore, we decree that those who from now on construct the sign of the cross on the ground be excommunicated. »

BALS. Some were engraving signs of the cross on the floors of churches or other places in stone or some other material. The canon, therefore, forbidding this, says that the salvation of men was wrought through the life-giving cross. And it is fitting that we should render to it honor and adoration corresponding and proportional to it, in mind, in word, and in sense: in mind, namely, through silent thanksgiving; ^B in word, through the confession before all of the good that has been done for us; and in sense, when we see it in reality and greet it. Whence it also commands that all figures of the cross found anywhere upon the floor be erased and removed, so that our trophy against the devil may not be trampled by those walking over it; and it commands that those who undertake to construct a figure of the cross on the floor be subjected to excommunication.

But it also says in chapter 5 of Title I of the first book: "Let neither a monk nor any other person place a cross or relics of the saints in a public place or in a place where a spectacle is performed." And chapter 6: "Let no one engrave or paint a cross on the floor, or on a millstone, or on paving marble; but let him remove it, while the one who transgresses this shall undergo a most severe punishment." And chapter 58 of Title I of the 3rd book says in part: "But also the precious crosses with which they go out in supplications are not to be deposited anywhere except in holy places." ^C Since both the canon and the laws determine these things, no one dares to construct a cross on the floor out of any material. But holy icons and crosses are erected in public ways by those who wish. And as for us, because of our pure faith toward God and his saints, we adore and salute such holy objects wherever they are erected. But the laws, as is consistent, have written these things because of the wickedness of the infidels, and of those who live indiscriminately without any honest consideration. I think, therefore, that those who are subjected to excommunication are those who are simpler, and who, for the sake of piety, fabricate a precious cross on the floor. For those who do such a thing with an evil disposition of mind, so that the figure of the saving cross may be insulted by being trampled upon, shall be punished as impious.

ZONAR. Since our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ was affixed to the cross, we have obtained salvation ^D and have been liberated from the ancient tyranny of sin. The holy Fathers therefore affirm that the cross, which has provided the cause of our salvation, must be honored by us in mind, in word, and in sense. We honor it in mind when, reflecting and considering by ourselves how many great goods we have received through it, we are struck with wonder at the greatness of God's benevolence toward us; and in word, when, speaking these things to others...

^A we confess what we owe to our Savior; and in sense, when, keeping them in view, we venerate and kiss them. Since, however, some, perhaps out of a desire to bestow greater honor upon the cross, were depicting it everywhere, and among other places also upon the floors, the present canon forbids this, ordering that the cross not be depicted upon the floor, so that our trophy of victory might not be dishonored by being trampled underfoot. And it decrees that those who dare to do this are liable to excommunication. ARIST. "A cross on the floor is to be removed." We must apply all diligence to render the worthy honor to the life-giving cross, through which we have been saved from the ancient fall; and if the figure of the cross has been constructed by anyone on the floor, let it be erased, so that the trophy of our victory may not be insulted by the trampling of those who walk upon it.

CANON LXXIV

^A Thus there is a distinction between churches and vestibules and other Lord’s houses.

ZONARAS. It was an ancient custom that after the communion of the divine mysteries, banquets and feasts would take place, with the rich providing the food and inviting the poor as well. The great Paul also mentions this in his Epistle to the Corinthians, rebuking them because they were eating privately without waiting for others, and adding: “Each one takes his own supper in eating, and one is hungry, and another is drunk. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing?” ^B This custom of banquets, which the canon also called *agape* (because it occurred out of love, or as a constituent of love—for eating together brings those who eat together into love for one another), being later held in churches, this canon blames the eating of those who gather inside the divine temples or the precincts for the sake of consuming food, and it orders that these things are not to be done in churches, and that one should not eat inside the divine houses, but somewhere outside, and not even to spread out banquet couches (*accubita*). The word *accubita* is of Latin origin. For *accumbo* among the Romans means “I recline.” It denotes couches raised ^C to a height and soft, which are for luxury and sloth.

You will often find the name “Lord’s house” (*Kyriakon*) used in the canons for the church. But this canon alone perhaps establishes some distinction between the church and the Lord’s house. I think, however, that the “Or” (*’E*) here is not used disjunctively, but as an explicative, and meant instead of “that is” (*’Etol*). For we find even in Holy Scripture the word “And” (*Kai*) taken not as a copulative conjunction, but as a causal one, and understood instead of “For” (*Gar*); as when it says: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace.” The Scripture provides the cause of God being glorified, because there is peace on earth, with the “And” ^D placed instead of “For.” And David also says: “Give us help from trouble, for vain is the salvation of man.” Meaning: “Do you help; for human salvation is vain and useless.”

And in legal books, the disjunctive conjunction is also often found taken instead of the copulative. For instance, in book forty-four, title three: “If someone writes, ‘Let this person or that person be my heir,’ or ‘I manumit this person or that person,’” it was determined that the “Or” (*’E*) is to be taken copulatively instead of “And.” And title fifteen of the same book says: “If I bequeath to my wife adornments, or whatever I provided for her sake, all of it comes to her by law,” with the conjunction “Or” understood instead of “And.” And the second title of the second book, which is inscribed *On the Signification of Words*, in chapter fifty-three, says: “Copulative and disjunctive particles are sometimes taken instead of one another.” Thus it seems the fathers of the council also used the “Or” here instead of “That is.”

^A

ARIST. “Agapae are not to be held in churches, nor are couches to be spread; furthermore, those who do not cease are segregated.” It is not permitted to consider the house of God a common house, and to perform the so-called agapae in it, and to eat inside, or to spread couches. And he who dares to do this, if he does not cease, is to be segregated.

CANON LXXV

“Those who come to chant in the churches, we wish neither to use disorderly shouting, nor to force nature to scream, nor to introduce anything that is not fitting and suitable for the church; but with great attention and contrition to offer psalmody to God, who is the inspector of hidden things. For the sacred oracle taught that the children of Israel would be pious.”

BALS. The churches of God are called houses of prayer; whence also those who pray ought to pray to God with tears and humility, not with a disorderly and impudent manner. The Fathers, therefore, decreed that the sacred canticles and psalmodies should not be performed through disorderly and strained shouting that forces nature; nor again by certain modulated voices ^B or melodies inconsistent with ecclesiastical constitution and sequence, of the kind which are theatrical modes and superfluous variations of voice; but with much contrition and pious and holy custom ^C to offer prayers to God, who knows the hidden things of our hearts. And they commanded these things consistently with the evangelical saying, which determines that we should not pray like the Gentiles with babbling and shouting, as if we think we are to be heard because of our much speaking, but in secret to offer the hymn to God; and to make petitions likewise, so that our heavenly Father, who sees in secret, may reward us in the open. But since, they say, the Mosaic law also said in Leviticus: “Make the children of Israel pious,” we, who have received the fulfillment of this Law, ought to be even more pious, and to carry ourselves ^D as has been established. And since it has been declared [index: entries preserved] by various most holy patriarchs that these things be done by cantors not only on feast days, but also in vigils and at the monuments of the dead: there have been various synodal edicts subjecting to segregation those who do such things, and not by chants and simple triodia, minimalist and not elaborate, and

Guill. Beveregii nota. Balsamon's scholia, in our Bodleian codex, these are inserted: “Note the present canon, forbidding theatrical psalmody, and what are called [diplasmata]; and wonder how it is shamelessly held in neglect.” These, however, seem to have been transcribed into the text from the margin.

^A And fulfilling the all-night psalmody according to the foundation of the Church. Read also canon 108 of the Council of Carthage, and what is written therein. Read likewise the discourse of our Father among the saints, John Chrysostom, on the Seraphim and on the passage, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up." For he forbids theatrical psalmody, the gesticulations of the hands, and protracted and vibrated voices.

ZONAR. The psalmody performed in the churches is a certain supplication to God, by which we beseech the Divine, since we have provoked Him by the things we have committed, to be merciful toward us, and we implore peace and forgiveness with suppliant prayers. It is appropriate for those who are supplicating and beseeching to proceed with a humble and contrite demeanor. ^B Clamors and unruly vociferations are not evidence of a submissive mind, but of a bold and haughty one. Therefore, the canon requires those who chant in the churches to chant with attention and compunction, and not to cry out disorderly, nor to force the voice into a scream. For a "scream" is a strained voice exploding with violence. And it not only forbids this, but it also does not permit the inclusion of anything unsuitable or inappropriate for the Church, such as affected melodies and trills, and the superfluous complexity of melodies, which degenerate into theatrical songs and harlot-like chants—which are today especially practiced in psalmody. Having commanded these things, he adds also a scriptural witness, saying: "For the sacred oracle has taught that the sons of Israel will be pious." But that we are the sons of Israel, according to the holy Paul, who says: "For not all who are of Israel are Israel, nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children; but 'In Isaac shall your seed be called'"; ^C that is, the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

ARIST. "The disorderly screaming of the chanter is unacceptable, and he who includes things unsuitable for churches."

With much compunction and attention, one must offer the psalms to God, the inspector of hidden things, and not perform disorderly vociferations, nor urge nature toward screaming; for the sacred oracle taught that the sons of Israel would be pious: but neither is one to chant anything unsuitable and not fitting for the ecclesiastical order.

CANON LXXVI. "That it is not permitted within the holy precincts to keep a tavern [or to display goods for sale]." ^D Read also canon 108 of the Council of Carthage and what is written therein. Likewise, read the panegyrical discourse of our Father among the saints, John Chrysostom, which was written for the interpretation of the prophetic passage that says, "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up." For he forbids theatrical psalmody and the gesticulations of those who make signs with their hands, and prolonged vocalizations.

^A or to propose species of perfumes, or to engage in other sales, preserving the veneration due to the churches. For our Savior and God, while instructing us through his life in the flesh, commanded that we should not make the house of his Father a house of trade; for he also poured out the coin of the money-changers and drove out those who were making the sacred place common. If anyone, therefore, is caught in the aforesaid offense, let him be excommunicated (86). »

BALS. The divine Fathers, preserving the fitting honor of the holy churches and of the things pertaining to them, and not at all enduring that holy things should be made common by anyone, decreed that aromatic species should not be set out within the holy precincts, nor should a shop be made in them, nor should anything at all be sold inside them; but that they should be entirely inaccessible to merchants. For, they say, our Lord Jesus Christ and God also, while practically teaching us through his life in the flesh that he who makes the sacred common and renders the house of God a house of trade is to be greatly punished, drove the money-changers, that is, the bankers, out of the holy precincts—and a *collybus* signifies a small coin—and he poured out their monies, that is, what was ready to hand in currency. Those, therefore, who have dared to do such a thing, they subjected to excommunication. And whereas various most holy patriarchs ordered that the bankers, and the bread-sellers and fruit-sellers, and the rest of the merchants be driven out from the Augustaeon (87) and from the areas closer to the narthex of the most holy Great Church of God, some said that the canon calls the narthexes of each temple “ecclesiastical precincts,” but not the phialae and the other parts of the divine temples that are joined to them. But this did not please the majority. For they said that, since the canon did not make mention of the church (for that a shop or a meeting of market-officials should be in the middle of a temple or its narthex would not even come into the mind of any Christian, as it is most impious), but of the holy precincts of a temple, we ought to have every ^{B C D}

doubt removed. They have declared all those to be ^B holy precincts which are not permitted to be trodden upon by animals, even if in another way they are common. According to cap. 12, tit. 1, book 5, which says: "Let those who have fled to the interior baths, or gardens, or dwellings, or porticoes, or courtyards, have safety up to the boundaries of the public forum of the church," and let it be forbidden to sleep or eat within the temple; do not say that baths, gardens, and porticoes joined to the churches are holy precincts, so that from this it would be forbidden to expose goods for sale in them. For these are reckoned as parts of the church, but they shall not be called holy precincts. And as they are common, they shall not be held worthy of the honor of holy precincts; but because of the privilege of the church, he who snatches a refugee from them will be punished. Note, however, that it is forbidden for refugees who have fled to the temple to eat and drink only within the temple itself.

ZONARAS. "My house," the Lord said to the Jews, "shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves" [*]. Lest therefore the same be cast at the faithful, the Fathers prohibited the setting up of shops within the holy precincts, or the offering of foodstuffs for sale, or other such things. They did not say "within the church," but "within the holy precincts." Now, "holy precincts" are all the spaces surrounding the divine temples; so that the canon does not allow any such thing to happen even in the outer courts or the vestibules, although nowadays these things happen impiously. The Fathers confirm their opinion from the Gospel, saying that we are taught this by Christ, who commanded the Jews not to make the house of His Father a house of merchandise, and who drove the sacrilegious traders from the temple, and poured out the money of the money-changers. Now "money-changers" ^C are those who sell small coins, that is, *nummi*; for *kollybos* among the Greeks is a small coin, which is called *nummus* by the Romans. And *kerma* is also what a coin is called.

ARIST. "A shop must not be set up within a holy precinct, and it is improper to sell food in the same place; and he who does either is excommunicated." Our Savior and God commanded that the house of God should not be made a house of trade; therefore, one ought not to set up a shop within the holy precincts, nor to offer for sale items which consist of foodstuffs, or to engage in other sales. If, therefore, anyone is caught committing such ^D a sin, he shall be excommunicated.

CANON LXXVII. "That those initiated into sacred rites, or clerics, or ascetics, ought not to bathe with women; nor any Christian or layman. For this is the first condemnation among the Gentiles. If, however, anyone..."

^A be caught in the act, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

BALS. It is probable, before this holy synod, that some priests, monks, and laics were accustomed to bathe with women, not regarding the divine apostolic precept which says: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God" (1 Cor. x, 32). The holy Fathers, therefore, correcting this as most indecorous, and as producing scandal and offense, and exciting the mind to demonic lusts, and leading those who follow this base custom into great condemnation, decreed that whosoever shall henceforth bathe inconsiderately and indecorously with a woman, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. Note, however, that the canon makes a distinction between those initiated into sacred things, clerics, laics, and ascetics. Those initiated into sacred things are those who are of the sacred tribunal, who are also ordained; namely, bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons. Clerics are all those who serve in the temples outside the sacred tribunal, such as readers, doorkeepers, and others of that kind. Ascetics, on the other hand, are those monks who have not received the episcopal seal, but only the monastic tonsure. For monks who have received the episcopal tonsure are called clerics. But there is no difference between ascetics and monks. ^B Say, therefore, in summary, that those who are of the sacred tribunal must swear in writing; but those who are outside the tribunal, even if they are monks, shall swear like laics. Nevertheless, some laymen, being rebuked for bathing in baths together with their wives, say that this is not prohibited by the canon. For they are one flesh, and nothing base or indecorous seems to happen between them, as they are not separated from one another in their bodies; and they argue that those are punished who behave shamefully and indecorously with fornication, and who have no shame at all for the indecency of nature. But these things did not please those of a more pious disposition, who said that this is the first condemnation among the Gentiles, as the canon says; and from thence it is punished in any way it happens; and that even if spouses seem to be one body, yet it is not permitted to them to use their members evilly. For if that were the case, neither would those who have attempted to destroy themselves be punished [(89)]. ^C

ZONARAS. The divine apostle Paul, he says, "must provide things honest, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men" (2 Cor. viii, 21); and again, "Give non offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God." Note the present canon, which excommunicates those who bathe with women, and decrees that those who despise this be corrected, and especially the nobles of the day who bathe indifferently with their wives. Note the present interpretation, which teaches which of the clerics swear in writing, and which are required to take a corporal oath; for it is a matter of doubt. ^D

^A *and the Church of God.* Now that men should bathe with women can cause great scandal to those witnessing it. For if the appearance of women in a private house or on the street often stirs up a flood of disturbances in the minds of the men who encounter them, how would bathing with them not submerge the mind of those bathing with them, and stir it to desire? But even if one were to grant for the sake of argument that some are not harmed, even if they bathe with women, still, who could ever avoid the fact that those who see this are scandalized and condemn those among the faithful who do this? For these reasons, therefore, the canon forbids this to all Christians; and it decrees the punishment of deposition for those who do this if they are in holy orders—that is, those who are stationed around the sanctuary, or clerics assigned to the clergy in any other way—and it imposes excommunication upon ascetics and laity. Furthermore, this canon is the same as the thirtieth canon of the council convened in Laodicea, although it was pronounced there without any mention of punishments.

ARIST. A Christian does not bathe with women; for a cleric is deposed, but a layman is excommunicated. Clear.

CANON LXXVIII

BALS. We have learned from various canons how those who have been recently enlightened ought to be taught the orthodox faith. The present canon, however, adds that it should not be sufficient for us to have the assertions of those being enlightened, who claim that they have been taught the correct faith; but that they must learn the holy words during all of the first four days of the week, and on the fifth day report them to the bishop or to those permitted by him, that is, the catechists. For by doing this they will prove perfectly that they have come to the orthodox faith with their whole soul, and have been initiated into and sufficiently strengthened in its divine mysteries. And they shall do this not just once, but throughout almost their whole life. The present canon is absolutely identical with canon 43 of the synod of Laodicea.

ZONAR. This canon is the same as the forty-third of the synod of Laodicea, for it is recounted among the other canons of that synod in the very same words. It commands that those who are being enlightened—that is, those preparing for illumination and numbered among the catechumens—must learn the mysteries of the faith and, on the fifth day of every week, recite what they have learned throughout the week in the hearing of the bishop or the priests. This is to be done so that no one, ignorant of the mysteries of our religion, may be baptized, and consequently, being little established, be allowed to be led away and stolen from the straight path by the arts of heretics.

^A ARIST. *Let him who is illuminated declare his faith on the fifth day of the week.* He who approaches the divine illumination, as the forty-sixth canon of the Synod of Laodicea also provides, must learn the faith and, on the fifth day of the week on which he is to be illuminated, declare it to the bishop or to the presbyters.

CANON LXXIX

BALS. The holy Fathers, having learned that some, for the sake of the honor of our immaculate Lady and Theotokos, celebrate her puerperium one day after the birth of our God and Savior Jesus Christ with cooked fine flour and certain other things, decreed that this should no longer be done by Christians. For, they say, we confess that the birth of the Mother of God was not as it happens with other women, but without puerperium; for both the conception was above nature and occurred through the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, she did not know puerperium, how should we perform things belonging to women in childbed? ^C Whence this is not an honor to the holy Virgin, who beyond mind and speech gave birth to God the Word in the flesh without maternal pains. Hence, it is not fitting that things above nature be put on a level with things according to nature, and that these be treated as common and described from our own earthly standards. They therefore decree that anyone who does such a thing, if he be a cleric, be deposed, and if a layman, be excommunicated. Because of this, by the grace of Christ, nothing of the sort is dared by anyone in this Queen of Cities; but after the ineffable birth of Christ our God, the fullness of the faithful celebrates the feast of the most holy Theotokos with divine psalms and ecclesiastical hymnody. ^D

ZONAR. Some, thinking to do something in honor of the holy Virgin and Mother of God, used to do certain things on the day following the feast of the holy birth of Christ, such as are done for women in childbed. The present canon therefore forbids these things to be done, calling the birth of the holy

^A Virgin, in that it was without any childbed, a birth beyond nature. For childbed is the emission of the fetus, which the sense of pain and the flow of blood accompany: to which evils we believe the Mother of God was in no way subject. For these things indeed follow natural births; but her conception was above nature, for it was brought about by the Holy Spirit; and her birth was superior to natural properties. If she, therefore, did not know childbed, how shall we carry out for her that which belongs to women in childbed? For it is an insult and not an honor to the most holy Virgin for anything to happen at her ineffable birth, such as happens at the birth of other women. And it decrees that those who do such a thing—if they are clerics, they are to be deposed; if laity, they are to be excommunicated.

ARIST. ^B « He who, after the feast of the Mother of God, prepares fine flour or anything else, because of what is called childbed, is to be excommunicated. »

This is no honor to the Virgin, who beyond mind and reason gave birth in the flesh to the uncircumscribed Word, to define and describe her ineffable birth by using common things and those that pertain to us. If any one, therefore, is found, after the day of the holy birth of Christ our true God, cooking fine flour and offering it to others under the pretext of honoring the childbed of the immaculate Virgin Mother, if he is a cleric, he shall be deposed; but if he is a layman, he shall be excommunicated. For we confess the divine birth from the Virgin to be without childbed, just as it was constituted without seed.

CANON LXXX

« If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the clergy, or a layman, has no heavier necessity or difficult business so as to be absent from his own church for too long, but, residing in the city, does not assemble for three Lord's days within three weeks, if he is a cleric, he shall be deposed; but if a layman, he shall be excommunicated. »

BALS. Other various canons punish in a different way bishops and clerics who are absent from their own churches for a considerable time. But the present canon compels not only bishops and clerics, but also laymen who are staying in a foreign land away from their own regions, to communicate and pray together with the faithful; and it decrees that if any one of them, having no necessity set before him—such as illness, or most heavy servitude which does not grant him leave to be in church—does not assemble and pray with the faithful for three Lord's days, but is disposed negligently toward this saving ^D communion, if he is a cleric, he shall be deposed; but if a layman, he shall be moved from communion, that is, he shall be excommunicated. For from this, one of two things becomes apparent: either that such a person has no care for divine precepts and for prayer and psalmody to God, or that he is not a believer. For why did he not choose to assemble in church with Christians for twenty days, and to communicate together with the faithful people of God?

ZONARAS. The canon commands that those who absent themselves from their church for three weeks without any grave necessity or other difficulty, but who dwell in the city and yet do not assemble with the faithful in church, if they are bishops or clerics, are to be deposed; but if they are laymen, they are to be excommunicated. For this is what it means to be removed from communion.

ARISTENUS. "If anyone without constraining necessity leaves the church for three Sundays, let him be deprived of communion." Whosoever is absent from the church for three Sundays, without some most grave necessity or difficulty, if he is a cleric, shall be deposed; if he is a layman, he shall be excommunicated.

CANON LXXXI

^A "Since we have learned that in some places, in the most holy hymn, after 'Holy Immortal,' there is said by way of an addition: 'You who were crucified for us, have mercy on us'; and since this was long ago cast out of such a hymn by the holy Fathers as alien to piety, together with the lawless heretic who invented such a phrase: we also, confirming those things which were piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who, after this present decree, admit such a phrase in churches, or in any other way attach it to the Trisagion hymn. And if he who transgresses these things is of the priestly order, we command that he be stripped of his priesthood; but if he is a layman or a monk, that he be excommunicated."

^B That senseless and blasphemous Peter the Fuller made an addition to the most holy hymn, saying that after it is said, "Holy Immortal," there ought to be said, "You who were crucified for us, have mercy on us." This addition, however, the Church did not accept, as it introduces a fourth person, and sets apart the Son of God, the subsistent power of the Savior, and sets Christ who was crucified as another apart from the Strong One, and as if it glorified a Trinity subject to affections, co-crucifying the Father and the Holy Spirit along with the Son. But it piously decreed that the Trisagion hymn be said for the sake of the Trinity; which, through the triple holiness, the holy Seraphim show forth to us the three hypostases of the supersubstantial Godhead; ^C but through the one "Lordship," they signify the one essence and kingdom of the divine Trinity. It is found also in the ecclesiastical history (90) that when the people in Constantinople were supplicating, because of certain divinely threatened terrors which occurred during the time of Proclus the archbishop—

Guill. Beveridge’s Note. (90) This account concerning the Trisagion is indeed reported by Theophanes in these words: In the time of this Proclus, he who is among the saints, great earthquakes occurred in Constantinople for four months, so that the Byzantines, being fearful, fled outside the city to the place called the "Campus"; and they were persevering with the bishop in litanies, weeping before God. On one day, therefore, while the earth was heaving, and all the people were crying out, "Lord, have mercy," intensely, about the third hour, suddenly, while all were looking on, it happened by divine power that a certain young man was lifted up into the air, and heard a divine voice exhorting him to announce to the bishop and the people to offer the litany ^D as follows: "Holy God, holy Strong, holy Immortal, have mercy on us," with nothing else added. And Proclus, he who is among the saints, having received this decision, commanded the people to chant thus, and the earthquake immediately ceased.

And in the holy and ecumenical fourth council which was at Chalcedon, the Trisagion hymn was delivered to be chanted in ^A this way. But since the wickedness of many, and of those blasphemers, had not been brought to the orthodox decree even by these means, as it seems, the holy Fathers who assembled at this council, having confirmed what had been established by the holy Fathers who assembled at Chalcedon concerning this most holy hymn, subjected to anathema those who, after the present canon, append the addition of the Fuller to the Trisagion. And, they say, if he who transgresses is of the priestly order, let him be deposed; but if he is a layman or a monk, let him be expelled. But since the canon anathematizes those who accept this evil addition, and from the anathematization not only do those who are anathematized become infamous, but they also undergo complete destruction and are alienated from all human conversation in the world, I wonder how the canon mentions deposition and expulsion along with the anathema. But, as it is likely, this also was left to episcopal discretion and prudence, so that he who has adopted this blasphemous ^C addition but is easily converted may be deposed or expelled; but he who is not converted, but adheres to the blasphemous nonsense, shall be anathematized, and thus, not only shall he be stripped of his priesthood or ecclesiastical communion, but he shall also be isolated, so that he may not impart the heresy to others.

ZONAR. Those who think the Divinity is subject to affections added to the Trisagion this addition: "Who for our sake was crucified." This, even before this council, other holy Fathers had rejected as spurious and alien to the right faith; and although it was still, as is credible, used by some, the authors of this council remove it from the Trisagion, and condemn with anathema those who still accept it and append it in any way to the Trisagion. And they command that the violators of this decree, if they are of the priestly rank, be held by ^D the penalty of deposition; but monks or laymen by the penalty of expulsion.

Guill. Beveregii note. In the Chronicle. The same is also observed by Damascenus to have been handed down by ecclesiastical historians: Damasc. *De orthod. fide* l. iii, cap. 10. Furthermore, Godfrid of Viterbo, Cedrenus, Codinus, Marianus Scotus, Landulphus Sagax, and others have handed down this history. To these may also be added Aristenus on the present canon: who nevertheless says that the boy heard these words, that they were not to be added to the Trisagion, for the reason, of course, that those words were not inserted in the hymn which the boy is said to have heard.

ARIST. « Whoever adds to the Trisagion hymn the phrase "who was crucified," is considered a heretic. It is said that under the reign of Theodosius the Younger, a boy was caught up during an outdoor litany and remained suspended in the air for many hours, and he heard a divine voice [saying] not to add to the Trisagion the words, "who was crucified for us," as the madman Paul of Samosata had erroneously introduced it. If anyone, therefore, should add such a phrase to the Trisagion hymn, he shall be anathematized as a heretic. You will also find in the Damascene, chapter 54, a fuller treatment concerning the Trisagion and the reason why the child was lifted up on high. ^B

CANON LXXXII

^B « Among some of the depictions of the venerable images, a lamb is painted to which the Precursor points with his finger; this was taken as a figure of grace, foreshadowing for us through the law the true Lamb, Christ our God. Therefore, embracing the ancient figures and shadows as symbols and sketches of the truth, which have been delivered to the Church, we prefer grace and truth, welcoming it as the fulfillment of the law. In order therefore that what is perfect may be delineated before the eyes of all, at least in colors, we decree that, from now on, instead of the ancient lamb, the character of Christ our God, the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, should be set up in images, in human form, so that through it we may mentally grasp the humiliation of the Word of God ^C and be led to the memory of His life in the flesh, His passion, and His saving death, and the redemption that has thus been wrought for the world. »

BALS. When Moses spoke the threat against the firstborn of the Egyptians according to the command of God, he ordered the Hebrews to slaughter a lamb and to smear its blood on the doorposts, so that the destroyer of the firstborn might not be able to approach them. Such a lamb, therefore, prefigured the Lord. Whence also the great prophet and peer of angels, the Precursor, having seen our Lord and God Jesus Christ, said: "Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1, 29). Some, therefore, in depicting the holy Precursor in holy images, used to engrave a lamb opposite him, being pointed out by the finger of the Precursor. This, therefore, the holy synod, prohibiting, decreed that, since the lamb was received as a type of the truth, and the shadows and types and symbols have passed away, since the truth has been manifested, we embrace the types and shadows as signs of the truth; but [we embrace] the truth... ^D

^A before them. Wherefore they also decreed that the type should cease; and that in place of the lamb, our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, should be painted in the holy icons, according to the human character. If these things are so, I think those in the Church act wrongly who release doves for the coming of the Holy Spirit, and who light candles for that star which appeared in a new way and was wondrous; and who represent the ineffable and saving birth of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ in the cave by means of a child and a bed, and who depict with human devices what is above reason and thought.

^B ZONAR. The lamb which was commanded by Moses to be sacrificed to the Hebrews, by whose blood the doorposts of their houses, being smeared, were inaccessible to the destroyer of the firstborn, prefigured and foreshadowed our Lord Jesus Christ. Whence also the Baptist, showing Christ to the people, said: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." Therefore, a lamb was being written in icons, and the Forerunner showing him with his finger. But this synod decrees that this should not happen, saying that we honor the types and shadows as symbols of the truth and prefigurations, but we prefer grace and the truth (95); and we decree that he who takes away the sin of the world should no longer be painted in the form of a lamb, but should be set up in icons according to the human character; so that we may thus understand the condescension of God the Word, and the immeasurable [depth] of his humiliation, and may remember his conversation in the flesh, and his passion and saving death, and however many benefits we have obtained through him.

ARIST. "You shall not paint a lamb as a type of Christ, but him himself." The lamb was taken as a type of the true Christ our God. And it is not right to prefer the type to the truth, and to paint a lamb in the venerable icons, shown by the finger of the Forerunner; but [it is right] to paint Christ himself and our God, and to inscribe him in colors according to the human form.

^C CANON LXXXIII. "Let no one communicate the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead. For it is written: 'Take, eat'; but the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat."

BALS. Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, having supped with his own disciples, and distributing bread to them, said: "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins." As this is in the Gospel...

Gospels. Before this synod, it was the custom among some to impart the divine sacraments (which the Fathers have termed the Eucharist) to dead bodies. The Fathers, therefore, prohibiting this from taking place, decreed that such a thing should no longer be done. For, they say, it is written: "Take, eat"; but the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat. Read also the 18th canon of the synod at Carthage. However, as for the holy bread being given to the chief priests after death, to be buried with them, I think this is done to ward off demons, ^B and that through it, as a viaticum, he who has been deemed worthy of the great and apostolic profession might be conducted to heaven. ZONAR. It was an ancient custom for the body and blood of the Lord to be imparted to the dead bodies of those who had passed away. For this has been called the Eucharist, because we who receive these things, as having been deemed worthy of such gifts, must offer thanksgiving. This canon, therefore, forbids this to happen, and adds the reason, saying that the Lord, distributing the bread to his disciples, said, "Take, eat"; but dead bodies can neither take nor eat. And the eighteenth canon of the synod at Carthage, long before this synod, forbade the Eucharist to be given to the dead. ARIST. ^C "To a dead body the sacraments are not to be imparted." Since it is written: "Take, eat"; and dead bodies can neither take nor eat: no one shall administer the divine and immaculate sacraments to those who have finished their lives.

CANON LXXXIV

can prove they were fully and completely baptized, they should be baptized. Consequently, the Fathers in this present canon decreed the same things that those who gathered at Carthage had ordered: namely, that those about whom there was doubt whether they had been baptized should be baptized, if they themselves are unable to provide assurance of their baptism, because they do not know what was done for them in their infancy (for infancy is an imperfect age), nor do they bring forth witnesses to prove that they were baptized. For there is fear lest, on account of such doubt, infants should be deprived of the holy baptism and of the kingdom of heaven which is given through it, according to the voice of the Lord saying, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." ^B These things, however, have been ordained because some did not allow such children to be baptized because of this doubt, lest they might seem to be rebaptizing those who were already baptized. Regarding this matter, a controversy has often arisen in synods. For when infants were captured in war from a Christian region by the Scythians and Agarenes, and sold to the Romans, a doubt arose as to whether those who were sold ought to be baptized. For some said that, since they were captured from a Christian region, it is a presumption that they had been baptized in their infancy in their own land, and that they should not be rebaptized. But it was judged better that they ought to be baptized, because they themselves do not know whether they were baptized in infancy, nor are any found who can affirm their baptism. And concerning those who are captured from the region of the infidels, it was decreed without distinction that they must be baptized, unless witnesses testify that they were baptized after their captivity. ^C In the time of the most holy patriarch, master Luke, Agarenes appeared before a synod, and when it was required of them that they be baptized, they said that they had already been baptized in their own regions. And when asked how, they replied that it is the custom for all the infants of the Agarenes to be baptized by orthodox priests; however, they were not admitted. For it had been heard that the baptism which infidels seek from Christians is not sought with a good disposition and an orthodox purpose, but for the sake of bodily healing. For a belief is held among the Agarenes that their children will be vexed by demons and smell like dogs unless they obtain Christian baptism. Wherefore, they crave baptism not as a cleanser of all soul-stain and a provider ^D of divine light and sanctification, but as a potion or an incantation. Some of them also said that they had orthodox mothers and had been baptized by orthodox [priests] by their care; but neither were they heard, because they did not bring forth witnesses who could say this very thing by way of testimony; rather, they were condemned, because their intention regarding the [faith was not] good.

Therefore, it was permitted that all of these be baptized.

ZONAR. We have been taught by the divine symbol of faith to confess one baptism. But since the Lord said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven," for this reason it seemed good to the holy Fathers, following the decrees of more ancient Fathers, that if it is uncertain whether some have been baptized or not—since neither they themselves, on account of their infancy and tender age (for *cheira* is interpreted as age), know that they were initiated by baptism, nor can it be proved by the testimony of others that they were baptized—they should be baptized without offense, that is, without any delay or hesitation, since nothing certain is known about their baptism. This we decree, they say, so that they may not, on account of an uncertain and ambiguous controversy regarding the baptism they received, be deprived of such purity of sanctification and be prohibited from the entrance of the kingdom of God according to the Lord's assertion.

ARIST. "Let those who do not know, and cannot prove by witnesses that they have been baptized, be baptized."

Those who are ignorant of whether they were baptized in their infancy, and no trustworthy witnesses are found who can confirm beyond doubt that they were baptized, let them be baptized without any hindrance.

CANON LXXXV

^A "We have received from Scripture that every word shall be confirmed by two or three witnesses. We therefore decree that slaves who are manumitted by their own masters before three witnesses shall enjoy such honor; for they will be present to bring force and firmness to the freedom, and will ensure that faith is given to those things which were done by them."

BALS. The Lord said in the Gospels: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand." Therefore, the present canon also decrees that those who say they have been deemed worthy of freedom by their own masters should not be forced to bring many witnesses for the sake of proving this very thing; but rather, they should demonstrate the freedom which is said to be theirs through three witnesses. For there were some, as it seems, who said that freedom ought to be proven by more witnesses, perhaps five or six; which indeed did not please the holy synod. And these are the contents of this canon. ^B It has often been discussed whether, since the law states in book xxi, tit. 1, and in book xxiii, tit. 1, that in transactions which exceed one *hyperpyron* pound, three witnesses must be brought, but in cases of one *hyperpyron* pound and lower, two witnesses are sufficient, the one who claims his freedom is compelled by the present canon to bring three witnesses. And for the time being, it seems to me that two witnesses alone are sufficient to demonstrate freedom. ^{C D}

^A Since laws and canons show the greatest favor toward liberty; and since the price of no slave exceeds one libra of hyperpyra, and it has been established that for one libra of hyperpyra two witnesses suffice, it stands to reason that two witnesses are sufficient to demonstrate liberty, in accordance with the present canon issued for the sake of liberty, which says at the beginning: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." And because, due to the weakness of proofs, it is not the inestimable liberty that is given to the adversary, but the servitude, which is valued as has been said above, provided which is paid, he who lays claim to liberty shall be liberated.

Read also the Novel of the Emperor Lord Alexios Komnenos, ^B which was issued regarding the non-admission of witnesses who are brought in opposition when witnesses are produced by the one claiming liberty, and regarding the fact that slaves who have received a sacred blessing may not be made free, which proceeds in these words: "Two such matters have reached the ears of my imperial power, most holy lord, that certain ones who approach the holy and great temple of the Wisdom of the Word of God, proclaiming their liberty, and alleging their lineage in demonstration of freedom (for they say they were born of free parents—Bulgarians, perhaps, or some others whom our commonwealth has not received into servitude), are permitted to demonstrate the things they say. And after they have produced witnesses whom no exception can touch ^C and against whom no charge can be brought, their masters proceed to bring other witnesses against them. And thus, those who make the appeal, being unable to persist any longer in the courts, are again oppressed by the burden of servile status. And when the marital customs and unions of slaves take place in our commonwealth, they do not obtain a sacred blessing, as their masters are cautious that slaves should not be joined to one another with a sacred blessing, lest they make a claim to liberty on that basis. Both of these matters were judged to require suitable correction; and therefore, he issued this constitution with great care and oversight, by which it is established concerning slaves who lay claim to liberty, that those who are brought in opposition as ^D witnesses shall have no force or place in any civil or ecclesiastical court whatsoever; but that they alone who summon to justice shall bring forward legitimate proofs, and if indeed they possess an abundance of witnesses who are to be received by law and are not induced by calumny, the judgment shall be resolved by the oath of the witnesses; but that contrary proofs by means of opposing witnesses shall not be allowed to their masters, lest great inequality between adversaries become a cause of injury to the more lowly."

^A For just as in the case of those who pay the same tribute, the legislation of the blessed lord Basil did not allow the powerful to bring contrary proofs against the poor, so here too the force of contrary proof by witnesses shall be extinguished for masters against their slaves, and only the accusation against the witnesses themselves shall prevail among them; the contrary proof not being wholly excluded by witnesses, when those who drag men into slavery produce witnesses against those who are in possession of their freedom, when they are summoned to court. For the present constitution grants an advantage to the lower and weaker, but it is not issued for the sake of the greater and more powerful.

And he further adds that the sacred blessings [of marriage] should prevail not only among free persons, but also among slaves. ^B And that a marriage should neither be considered lawful nor worthy of the Christian order, unless a sacred blessing also unites those who are joined together. For it would be absurd, when one Christian faith prevails among all and one baptism is confessed, through which we have been led to the Lord, and the same salvation is hoped for by all of us who believe, for some to harbor an suspicion that slaves are less partakers of the good; and [for it to be] that the free indeed are joined to one another in matrimony, having been first bound together by prayer, while slaves should fail of such a good, and not take God unto the blessing of their union, or fear that if they were to take Him, their master would be injured in his lordship, being deprived of his dominion over them. For if this were to prevail, one must also fear the holy baptism, lest slaves should thereby claim lordship for themselves; and even the participation in the immaculate mysteries, lest through this they also be alienated from them. ^C From which it would come to pass that among slaves the great and venerable name of the divine faith would perish; and they would become not only slaves of men, but also men of the homicide, the devil. Furthermore, their masters themselves would run into danger, lest, while fearing to be deprived of the service of men, they should endure to alienate themselves from the glory of God. But neither does this hold any reasonable ground, and it is logical and worthy of the Christian order that the sacred blessing should also prevail among slaves.

Verily, however, fortune knows in men that lordship and slavery are different, ^D and what our state has accepted, these things must also prevail among them. Yet there is one Lord of all, one faith, one baptism; and in what pertains to the faith, we do not recognize the difference between lordship and slavery, since we are all equally slaves of Him who ransomed us from slavery by His own divine and life-giving blood. And since these things have been rightly and usefully ordained, it behooves your great holiness to set these things clearly in every place of the

holy churches, so that those who preside over them may thus examine matters pertaining to liberty, not allowing opposing testimonies of witnesses against slaves to be brought against their masters, and making it manifest to all in the dioceses under them that those who join slaves together without a holy blessing are not establishing a marriage pleasing to God among them, but are confirming a fornication-producing union. For all those whom God, moved through a sacred blessing, does not join together, come together unto sin. And if anywhere such a thing should be reported by anyone to have been done from this time forward, let them know that they shall not only be held liable to divine judgment, but shall also be alienated from said slaves, who shall be seized into liberty. For since it is permitted to them according to the laws to join slaves to one another in God, and to retain an unimpaired lordship over them, if they do not do this, they justly and entirely bring upon themselves the forfeiture of their lordship. ^B And the present decree ought not only to be proclaimed in the churches which are everywhere, but also to be deposited in the civil courts; and it should also be delivered to those who hold magistracies in the provinces, so that all may have knowledge of the things well ordained by our imperial authority. And since marriages have already occurred among persons having a servile condition, and the marriages have proceeded according to the irrational custom that has prevailed until now, it behooves even for these that the holy blessing be performed, so that through it, even if it happens late, they may have what is to be honored and venerated, while the aforementioned observations must also be valid in these marriages. ^C

ZONARAS. The civil laws teach that liberty is an invaluable thing, that is to say, something that cannot be valued or have a price set upon it. Therefore, as often as it was necessary for testimony to be brought regarding liberty—a matter of no light moment—those whose interest it was to produce proofs were compelled to exhibit five or even more witnesses (since the same number were accustomed to be given in other disputes as well). The canon, therefore, condemning this custom (in that it favors liberty), determines that the testimony of three is sufficient; and it brings forth that from the sacred Scriptures for the confirmation of the ordinance, saying: "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established"—that is, it shall be judged firm and valid. ^D

ARISTENUS. A slave manumitted by his master before two witnesses shall be free. Clear.

CANON LXXXVI. "Those who compel and nourish harlots for the downfall of souls, if they be clerics, we command to be deposed; but if they be laity, to be excommunicated."

BALSAMON. Just as the civil law punishes procurers who nourish harlots, so also the canon decrees that those who compel harlots, and many by this reason...

are driven to the destruction of their souls—not only those who gather them, but also those who support them, that is, those who provide them with the necessities (for under the name of food, clothing, and other things that draw the softer-minded into debauchery are included)—if they are clerics, are to be deposed; if they are laymen, they are to be excommunicated. ^B But it is not for this reason that those who only gather them and do not support them will go unpunished; rather, they shall be punished in equal measure. The canon said "who support," because necessity dictates that where there is gathering, there must also follow the remaining care of those gathered. For it is not only gathering that deserves punishment; since someone might often gather harlots for the sake of proposing to them what is conducive to salvation, or of deeming them worthy of bodily guidance, or of handing them over to the magistrate for the sake of correction. Seek the 60th book of the *Basilica*, title 38, chapter 1: "If a father nourishes a daughter or a master a maidservant for the sake of harlot-gain, let them lose the authority they have over them." The constitution further adds that aid should be brought to them through the bishop and the magistrate; and that if the father or master resists this, they are to be proscribed and exiled. And the second chapter punishes base procurers in the same manner, but says those who have military rank are to be proscribed. However, the 3rd chapter of the same book and title, which is a Justinianic Novel, severely punishes those who, by artifice, deceit, and necessity, draw some into such lewdness and trade in these things. Read, therefore, that chapter more attentively. For some say that it punishes those who seduce and by some method or necessity draw certain women into fornication; but not those who receive those who have chosen fornication by their own free will on account of natural necessity or even poverty. ^C And to establish their argument, they use some words from the same Novel, and the present canon, which punishes not only those who gather harlots, but also those who support them—that is, those who through deceit and flattery push them into evil. And the situation as it actually occurs today in the brothels seems to coincide with their statements. But to me it seems that the laws and the canons punish every procurer indiscriminately, and draw every harlot toward temperance. Read also the 91st Novel of the emperor lord Leo the Philosopher, which does not allow anyone to live with concubines according to the old law. ^D ZONAR. To act as a procurer is forbidden also by the civil laws. Procuring is to nourish a harlot for the sake of gain from the hire to the destruction of souls. But if this is forbidden by the institutions of the state, it should be much more strongly abominated by ecclesiastical and spiritual ones. Wherefore the canon punishes this most severely in the case of clerics. For it is ordered that they be deposed and at the same time excommunicated, which is something rarely found. For in place of every other punishment, it has been legislated that deposition is sufficient for the most part for those who have been enrolled in the clergy. Those

^A who are laymen, ^A however, it orders to be excommunicated if they do this.

ARIST. He who gathers harlots for the destruction of souls is excommunicated. Clear.

CANON LXXXVII

BALS. Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, when asked if it is lawful for a husband to dismiss his wife for any cause, forbade this, saying: Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the reason of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. And the illustrious Emperor Justinian removed the laws which formerly held sway and permitted spouses to dissolve marriages without a just cause, and for each one to say to the other, "Manage your own affairs," by Novella 117, which is situated in the 7th ^C title of the 28th book, ^C and enumerates the causes for which alone marriages ought to be dissolved. Hence, the Hebrew law was also abolished, which permitted men to send a bill of divorce to women and dissolve the marital bond. Consequently, therefore, the present canon also says that the woman who, having left her husband, has been defiled with another, is subject to the charge of adultery, just as the great Basil also said this in his 9th and 21st canon, gathering it from the prophecy of Jeremiah, which says: If a woman, having gone forth from the companionship of life with her husband, has been defiled with another, she cannot return to her husband, as one who has been adulterated. But also Solomon said in the Proverbs: He who has intercourse with an adulteress, that is, with one who has a husband, is foolish and impious. Therefore, she who has thus committed adultery will be punished by canonical penalties. But the husband, as one who has not offended, will be considered worthy of pardon, that is, he will not be punished. But he who leaves his own wife and takes another wife will be punished as an adulterer, according to the sentence of the Lord. ^D

^A The punishment for adulterers is in the canon of the same great Father: to weep for one year outside the vestibule of the temple, and the rest that is contained in that canon. And these things belong to the canon.

The civil law, however, punishes adulterers in a different way. Read book 60, title 37, chapter 73, situated in the interpretation of chapter 4 and chapter 5 of title 13 of the present work; and the 117th and 134th novels of the Emperor Justinian, situated in title 38 of Book 28 of the Basilica, and reduced in summary to the aforesaid chapters 4 and 5, and the 32nd novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which punishes the adulterer and the adulteress by mutilation of the nose, and decrees that the husband of the adulteress gains the dowry; but that she herself be confined in a monastery, yet not tonsured against her will: and the things she possesses beyond the dowry are to be managed as the same novel decrees. Note, therefore, that according to the present canon, she who has dismissed her husband is not punished as an adulteress unless she has been defiled with another; but according to the aforesaid novels, the marriage is dissolved for the sole reason that the woman has remained outside the house of the husband against his will, unless perhaps she is with her own parents.

Is she, then, considered to be divorced who has been cast out by her husband? Solution. By no means. For the aforementioned 117th Novel states these things in part: "If, however, it should happen that someone, without one of the aforementioned causes, drives his own wife from his own house, so that she, having no parents with whom she can stay, is forced to spend the night outside, we order that it by no means be permitted to the husband to send a bill of divorce to the woman for this cause, since he himself is the cause of this matter."

That which is written, "The adulterated wife shall not return to her husband," understand as referring to a husband who does not wish to receive her: for if the husband pardons the crime, he shall receive her back without any impediment within two years, as the novel wishes. Since, moreover, the canon says that she who has departed from her husband for no cause is to be punished as an adulteress, someone might say that she who has departed from her husband for a reasonable cause will not be punished. But this is not true; for neither for a reasonable nor for an unreasonable cause can a woman depart from her husband without judicial permission, just as the 9th canon of St. Basil states this, and various Justinianic novels situated in title 28 of Book 28, from which we also ought to interpret the canon more fully; or to say that the unjust departure of the woman is her withdrawal without judicial permission.

Someone will ask: since the canons of St. Basil, namely the 9th and 24th, say that a woman who is defiled with another commits adultery, but a man who fornicates with another is not condemned (for "we do not have," he says, "a canon by which we subject him to the charge of adultery"), how does the present canon say indistinctly that he who has taken another is held by the judgment of adultery? ^{B C D} Solution. The difference is between a man who has had relations with a free woman while his own wife is living, and him who...

has ^A entered into a second marriage by taking a wife. For the former does not commit adultery, but is punished as a fornicator; but the latter commits adultery, and is punished as an adulterer; hence the canons do not contradict one another. And how those who commit fornication are punished canonically, has already been stated. But chapter 83 of title IX of Book LX of the Basilica says in the second theme these things: "He who has a wife, and commits fornication, let him be punished with twelve lashes, alternatingly inflicted." However, he who has a wife and has relations with his own slave girl, once the act is recognized, let him be punished by being beaten; and let the magistrate of that place, having taken the slave girl, sell her outside the province, with the price of her being paid into the public treasury. But he who commits fornication with another man’s slave girl, if he be among the wealthy, let him pay for the offense to the master of the slave girl 36 nomismata; but if he be of low status, let him be beaten, and according to his means, let him pay in proportion to the 36 nomismata. That the law also equally with the canons punishes as an adulterer him who takes a second wife, the penultimate chapter of the same title says: "He who attempted to have two wives, not by law, but by an act of his own will, shall be rightly subjected to the charge of adultery." But she who married him afterwards, if she was ignorant that he had a legitimate wife, shall be granted pardon. Wherefore, ^B by the distinction taken by contradiction, she who knew commits adultery. ^C Note, however, that the Fathers everywhere require sincere repentance for the sins of the soul: and for this reason they have conceded to the bishops who are in that place, to increase or decrease the penances according to the contrition of him who is being punished.

ZONARAS

NOTES OF WILLIAM BEVERIDGE

^A And those who have taken one who has been dismissed commit adultery. The divine Fathers, following this reason, have also called an adulteress the woman who, without cause, has left her husband and married another; and she, even if she should wish to return to her own husband, will not be received against his will. For she has been defiled. Therefore, says the canon, the woman who has departed from her husband without cause is worthy of penalties, namely those established for adulteresses; but as for the husband, it is resolved that he shall be pardoned and deemed worthy of communion in the Church. From this it is given to be understood, by contrast, that if she did not depart from her husband without cause—perhaps being embittered by him beyond what is proper, or being mistreated, or having certain grievances brought against her by the husband—that woman will be blameless, and the husband shall be penalized as the one who has himself become the cause of the sin for the woman.

However, the man who leaves his own wife, says the canon, and takes another, is subject to the judgment of adultery according to the decision of the Lord; and it proceeds to explain how such a person shall be penalized and dealt with economically. But these Fathers seem even to contradict the great Basil; for he calls the woman an adulteress who, while the marriage is subsisting, is defiled with another, and the husband, he says, shall send her away from his house. But the woman shall receive back her husband returning from fornication. For we have no canon, he says, to subject him to the charge of adultery, if he sins with a woman free from wedlock. But the canons do not conflict with one another. For the great Basil speaks concerning one who has committed fornication while the marriage is subsisting and has been defiled with another woman who is free of a husband; but the present canon is concerning the man who has sent away his wife without cause and has taken another as if she were a lawful spouse, whom even the Lord called an adulterer in the Gospels.

ARIST. ^B The woman who goes from her husband to another is an adulteress; and he who goes from his wife to another is, according to the Lord, likewise an adulterer. Clear.

CANON LXXXVIII

BALS. As is likely, it happened some time in a most severe winter that certain people stayed in a temple situated in

^A a public road; and the threat of the snow forced them to enter into the temple with their horses, so as to escape the deadly affliction of the cold. But the reverence due to the temple did not permit them to do this. Thus, while they themselves entered into the temple and escaped the danger from the cold, their pack animals, which had stood outside the temple, were consumed by the cold; and from this it came about that the same thing happened to the men as to the beasts, either on account of the affliction, or because they were unable to proceed on foot due to the excessive freezing of the weather. The holy Fathers, therefore, correcting this, decreed that it is permitted to no one to bring any pack animal whatsoever into a temple unless a most urgent necessity compels it; for then, they say, the animal also shall be brought into the temple, so that the man not be handed over to death along with it. ^B They bring forward, also, in support of their argument, the teaching of the Lord, who broke the Sabbath and said to those who censured him that the salvation of a man is to be preferred to the observance of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath was created for man, and not man for the Sabbath. But so that this may not become an occasion for wickedness to those who live carelessly and without any discernment, and who, without any hindrance or proposed necessity, make the holy temple of the Lord common and profane, they decreed that whoever brings any pack animal into the temple without such a great necessity, if indeed he be a cleric, is to be deposed, but if he be a layman, he is to be excommunicated. What then? Should one, without any distinction, bring winged birds, such as partridges, pigeons, and sparrows, into a temple? Solution. By no means, as it seems to me, lest the holy place be profaned by their excrement. ^C ZONAR. We must hold the holy temples in honor and veneration. Therefore, it is not permitted to bring any pack animal into them; unless, perhaps, some great necessity of weather on a journey—such as a storm that has arisen or rain pouring down with an intolerable rush—should oppress a traveler. For then, even if he should drive his pack animal inside the sacred building, he will not on that account contract any guilt; for it is not right that the animal, left outside, should perish miserably, while the master himself, unable to continue the journey he has begun, and lacking the means of another animal, should be consumed by grief or even suffer danger to his own life. ^D The authors of this canon also bring forward testimonies from Holy Scripture. For the Scripture says: The Sabbath was made for man, and that your servant and your pack animal may rest. Wherefore the rest of the pack animal was ordained not for the sake of the pack animal itself, but for the sake of man, so that, having rested, he might use it more vigorously thereafter. The great Paul also asserts this, saying: Is it for oxen that God is concerned? But whoever, without any urgent necessity, brings a pack animal into a temple, if he be a cleric, he shall be deposed; if a layman, he shall be excommunicated.

CANON LXXXIX. ^A Those of the faithful who pass the days of the saving Passion in fasting, prayer, and contrition of heart, ought to break their fast about the middle of the night of the Great Sabbath, as the divine evangelists, Matthew and Luke, describe for us the lateness of the night, one by the phrase "in the evening of the Sabbaths," and the other by "at early dawn."

BALS. It is decreed in both the apostolic and synodal canons not to fast on the Sabbath or on the Lord's day, except for one Sabbath only, namely the Great Sabbath. For on that day we have been ordered to fast. Consequently, the present canon, also determining that we ought to fast and pray with contrition—that is, not with hypocrisy—during all the days of the saving Passion of Christ our God, among which the Great Sabbath is numbered, adds that the faithful are to break the fast on that very Sabbath after six hours of the night, because Christ our God rose again according to the divine evangelists, Matthew and Luke, about the middle of ^B the night; for the one says, "In the evening of the Sabbaths the Marys came to the tomb of the Lord and did not find his body," while the other describes the middle of the night by saying, "It was early dawn when the women came to the monument." And this is how these things are. But someone might say: since the ^C canon decrees that we are to fast during all the days of the saving Passion, but to break the fast on the Great Sabbath at the hour of midnight, it is necessary to say one of two things: either that we must fast completely during all the days of the Lord's Passion, which are strictly reckoned after the fourth day, and abstain from all food, and only on the Sabbath break the fast, as has been said; or that on this Sabbath we break the fast more than on the other ^D days of the saving Passion of Christ. For why would it have been ordained that we break the fast at the middle of this night, if we were meant to fast equally during all these days? To me, however, it seems that the fast of the Great Sabbath is exceptional and more excellent than the other days of Christ's Passion, because then his body, which had been seen, was lying in the tomb. Therefore, we must fast on the other days also with contrition because of the Passion of Christ and our God; but much more so on the Great Sabbath, when our redemption from the bonds of death was being prepared.

^A For this reason, even the more devout reside in the churches throughout the whole of the Sabbath, until the sixth hour of the night; and at the sixth hour, having partaken of the divine Mysteries, they taste bread and water, and perhaps also a modest amount of wine. At the seventh hour, hearing the morning hymnody, when also the "Christ is risen" is proclaimed, they return to their homes, awaiting the celebration of the great Dominical rites. That the Dominical day begins from the seventh hour of the night which precedes the Sunday is evident from the fact that the rising of the sun, or rather the illumination of the day, starts from the seventh hour of the night preceding it. It is clear also from what our great Father, the holy John Chrysostom, has interpreted. For after he silenced those who say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not rise on the third day, and said that, even if one were to grant that the Lord did not rise on the third day, one should rather give thanks for that reason—that Christ rose even before the set term of three days—rather than reproach Him. For one might as well reproach someone who has taken a loan and pays the debt ^B before the appointed term of payment, which is absurd. He adds that, since whatever happens at any hour of the day—which begins from the seventh hour of the previous night and ends at the sixth hour of the following night—is considered to have taken place on that very day, we rightly say that the Resurrection of Christ occurred on the third day, as He Himself truly promised. For He died on the Preparation [Friday], which is the first day; the second is the Sabbath. And since He reached even the seventh hour of the night preceding the Sunday, the Sunday is also reckoned as the third day. Yet the holy Gregory of Nyssa, teaching about the holy Pascha, says these things expressly: "It was evening when that sacred and holy Body was eaten; and night succeeded that evening before the Preparation. Then the day of the Preparation, ^C divided by the introduced night, is calculated as one night and two days. For in the three hours there was darkness over the whole earth." This is the night that was innovated in the middle of the day, marking out for itself the two sections of the days: the one from morning until the sixth hour, and the other from the ninth hour until the evening; so that up to this point there are two nights and two days. Then the day before the Sabbath has three nights and three days.

ZONAR. The canon demands that the faithful spend the days of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ in fasting and contrition. By "contrition of heart," that is, [it means] that the contrition ^D should not be feigned or only outwardly apparent, but also [rooted in] the heart itself. About the middle of the night of the Sabbath, as it begins to dawn...

that touches the very heart. But towards the middle of the night of the Sabbath, as the Lord’s day begins to dawn, he invites us to break the fast, that is, to take some food, as if Christ were already alive again from the dead. For the Evangelist, he says, Matthew—when he said, "In the end of the Sabbath"—and Luke, "Very early in the morning," describe for us the lateness of that night, which is to say, they signify and indicate it. And indeed, they say that even now those who live in Jerusalem neither on the day of Preparation nor on the Sabbath taste any food. And Dionysius of Alexandria also, when asked about this matter, answered the same things explained more fully.

ARIST. ^B "On the Great Sabbath one must persevere in fasting until middle of the night." Matthew says the Lord rose in the evening of the Sabbath, but Luke says very early in the morning. Therefore, on the Great Sabbath, it is necessary to fast until midnight, and then, he who wishes may partake of food, since from these words of the evangelists we discover the Lord to have risen around the middle hours of the night.

CANON XC

"That we should not bend the knee on the Lord’s days we have received canonically from our God-bearing Fathers, who honor the resurrection of Christ. ^C That we may not be ignorant of the plain reason for such an observance, we make it manifest to the faithful: that after the evening ingress of the clergy to the altar on the Sabbath, according to the prevailing custom, let no one bend the knee until the following evening on the Lord's day, upon which, after the ingress at lamp-lighting, we again bending our knees, thus offer prayers to the Lord. For taking the night that was after the Sabbath as a precursor of the resurrection of our Savior, we begin our hymns from that time spiritually, transferring the feast from darkness into light, so that through an entire and whole day and night we might celebrate the resurrection."

BALS. The 20th canon of the synod in Nicaea, the 15th canon of Saint Peter of Alexandria, ^D and the 27th point of the epistle of the Great Basil to Amphilochius (for the holy Fathers make mention of these and call them God-bearing Fathers) decreed that one should not bend the knee on the Lord's days or in the days of Pentecost. Consistently with them, therefore, the present canon decides that the holy resurrection of the Lord is to be honored. But since some were doubting from where and from what hour the Lord's day begins, and until what time it is completed, they have made this clear and manifest to the faithful, and said that it begins after the evening hymnody of the Sabbath, and ends until the completion of the lamp-lighting, that is, the vesper office of the Lord’s day. And then indeed, namely

after the evening of the Sabbath until the completion of the vesper of the Lord’s day, one must ^A not bend the knee on account of the resurrection of Christ; but after the lamp-lighting of the Lord’s day, one must again bend the knees and pray to the Lord. The canon adds for the establishing of this that the resurrection of Christ also took place at the evening of the Sabbath, that is, before the day of the Lord, so that the things of the feast might pass from darkness into light, and the celebration of the resurrection might take place through an entire day and night. Things being so, some might say that what is in the present canon contradicts the teaching of the preceding canon. For there it is said that the Lord’s day is reckoned from the seventh hour of the preceding night, and ends at the sixth hour of the night that follows it; but now it has been decreed that the Lord’s day is reckoned after the lamp-lighting of the Sabbath, and ends at the vesper of that same Lord’s day. But they are not contrary. For from the natural motion of the celestial bodies, and from the things which the great doctor of Damascus says, the day thus begins and ends, just as was said in the 89th canon. The present canon, similarly commanding us to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord through the whole space of the day and night, and not having the need then to teach about the daily interval, but rather about how and when we ought to prepare ourselves for the celebration of the feast and for penance, says that after the lamp-lighting of the Sabbath the things pertaining to the celebration of the ^B resurrection are to be prepared and readied: and likewise after the vesper of the Lord’s day, those things pertaining to penance. For if we do not do this, but delay the preparation for penance until the seventh hour after the evening of the Lord’s day, as if in it the Lord’s day were completed, the time after the Lord’s day will be unknown to the people celebrating the feast, because it is unknown to many, and indeed to most, when the seventh hour comes and when the sixth ends. Observe, therefore, the canons, where and how they were issued; and do not say that they contradict one another. For the Holy Spirit has spoken in all of them.

265 ZONAR. That one must not bend the knee on Lord’s days or on the days of Pentecost, many canons have decreed. The same was also the mind of Basil, who adds besides the reasons on account of which that custom was condemned. But this canon determines only concerning the Lord’s day, and clearly describing the time from beginning to end in which it is not at all permitted to bow the knees, it says: From the Sabbath, indeed, when first in the evening the choir of the initiated enters to the altar, let no one bend the knee, until the ^C vesper of the Lord’s day, when, namely, another entry of the initiated occurs; for then [by] bending the knees and thus praying we shall not sin. For the night which follows the Sabbath is considered the Lord’s day light, which also by hymns, says the canon, we pass from darkness to light, and thus in the whole

night and day we ought to celebrate the resurrection.

ARIST. Post vespertinum Sabbati ingressum, usque ad vespertinum Dominicæ ingressum, genua ne flectas.

We have received it canonically from the God-bearing Fathers not to bend the knee on Sundays, as honoring the Lord’s resurrection. ^B That this observance, therefore, may not be ignored as to how it ought to be done, the Fathers have made it manifest to the faithful through this canon: so that after the evening entrance of the priests to the altar on the Sabbath, we should not bend the knee until the following evening entrance on Sunday, so that for the whole space of the night and the day we may celebrate the resurrection.

CANON XCI

Eas quæ dant abortionem cientia medicamenta, et quæ fœtus necantia venena accipiunt, homicidæ pœnis subjicimus.

BALS. The canon punishes with the same penalty as a murderer those who give poisonous medicines for the sake of causing ^C the abortion of embryos, and those who receive them. And this canon indeed punishes them with such a penalty. But you will find the types of the penalties in the second canon of Saint Basil, and in the twenty-first canon of the Council of Ancyra. But the first chapter of the 39th title of the 60th book says these things expressly: By the law concerning murderers, he is held who kills a man, and he who with malice prepense kindles a fire, and he who, for the sake of theft or murder, walks about with weapons, and he who, being in charge of an office or public court, has schemed that someone be falsely accused and innocently condemned, and he who has prepared or given poison for the purpose of destruction. And chapter three of the law concerning murderers is likewise held: ^D and he who makes, or sells, or possesses medicine for the purpose of killing a man. Now there are medicines which bring health, and those which are called love-potions. But those who make love-potions should have their goods confiscated and be exiled. But if anyone, even without evil intent, gives a medicine to a woman to conceive, and she having taken it dies, he is sent into exile. And the third theme of the same chapter, saying in the beginning: By the law concerning murderers, he is held, whoever the apothecary is who rashly gives medicine, or a salamander, or aconite, or pine-caterpillar, or buprestis, or mandrake, or cantharides. And the theme against murderers is that the penalty is, for the noble indeed, exile and perfect confiscation of goods; for the more humble, however, to be submitted to the sword and to beasts. And these things indeed are from the ancient law and the ancient canons. But various novellae regarding involuntary and voluntary murderers were issued by both the Emperor Lord Constantine Porphyrogennetus and our most illustrious and holy Emperor Lord Manuel Comnenus, the powers of which were summarized in the canons of the great Basil concerning murderers. But someone might ask, whether from the mere fact of someone having given to a woman abortifacient medicines under

^A the penalty of murderers should fall, or is it necessary that the act and the result—that is, the homicide—should also occur?

Solution: The chapter set forth above from the 3rd chapter of the 39th title of the 60th book determines that not only is the one who gives a deadly poison to be punished as a murderer, but also the one who is in possession of such a thing. And the 2nd theme of the 1st chapter of the same title and book says: "He who has had in mind to kill, even if he has not killed but has only wounded, is a murderer; and he who did not intend to kill, even if he has killed, is not a murderer." The intent is revealed from the instrument with which one strikes. However, the canons of the great Basil punish as a murderer also one who kills involuntarily, in whatever way it might be, contrary to the summarizing of such a law and contrary to the 6th theme of the 3rd chapter of the 39th title of the 60th book, which says: ^B "The law concerning manslayers requires intent, and not great negligence." Wherefore, if someone, by throwing himself from a height, or by throwing a branch from a tree, kills someone, he is not subject to the present law. Indeed, the new novella of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher gives the husband the power to dissolve the marriage with a wife who knowingly casts out his seed by abortion.

ZONARAS: Women, after having conceived through an illicit union, in order not to be discovered, drink certain medicines by which they destroy the embryos, and thus cast them out dead. Therefore, those who provide such medicines to others, and those who receive them, the canon orders to be held to the penalties of murderers, and deservedly so; ^C for such women not only destroy the conceived offspring, but sometimes also the pregnant women themselves, which the great Basil also testifies to in his second canon. But the canon of the Council of Ancyra punishes such women with ten years of excommunication.

ARISTENUS: "Both the giver and the recipient of abortifacient medicines are murderers." Those women, indeed, who receive fetal-killing medicines, and those who provide them to them, are subject to the murderer's penalty.

CANON XCII

BALSAMON: The present canon is absolutely the same as canon 27 of the Council of Chalcedon. And seek what is written there, and in the 9th title of the present work, ^D chapter 30, and what is written therein, likewise also the 67th apostolic canon. But what if someone abducts a woman not in the name of marriage, but for the sake of fornication; will he not be punished along with those who aid him with their work and resources? Solution: Most certainly. For this is without controversy; yet that which was causing hesitation was the pretext of marriage. For some used to say that he who abducted a woman committed no evil, on account of being lawfully joined to her, even if she were perhaps unworthy of his lineage, and from that especially he was led by...

^A necessity to commit the evil, and thereby overturns the good order of the cities. Furthermore, if *any* one should ask, "If, after the abduction, the abducted woman wishes to live lawfully with her abductor, will she be heard?" Solution: By no means. For the Justinian Novella—or rather, chapter 3 of Title 18 of Book 6—says this expressly: "Let not the abducted woman be married to him who abducted her." And even if her parents should consent to such a marriage, they are sent into exile. Moreover, the 4th and 6th chapters of the same title and book say that the abducted woman gains the goods of the abductor if she does not wish to be lawfully joined to him. For if she should wish this, both her property and that of the abductor—and of those aiding in the evil, whether they be their parents or strangers—are confiscated. ^B Read also that same entire Title 18 throughout, and you will learn that any man who has abducted a woman of any status—whether she is his betrothed, or a slave, or a freedwoman—if [he did so] with arms, he himself suffers the penalty of the sword, while those assisting and aiding him are whipped, shorn, and mutilated in the nose; but if [he did so] without arms, the abductor has his hand cut off, while those who gave him aid are whipped, shorn, and sent into exile. And these things are so done, even if the woman herself should consent to the abduction. Read also the 55th Novella of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise.

ZONAR. This is the 27th canon of the Synod of Chalcedon; we have therefore already spoken about this in its place.

ARIST. "Those who abduct women, and those who assist and offer aid, if they are clergy, are deposed; if they are laity, they are anathematized." ^C The 27th canon of the Synod of Chalcedon provides the same things as the present canon. In it, however, it has been written by us that until those who have abducted her restore the abducted woman—to her own betrothed if she was betrothed, or to her parents if she was disengaged—they [the abductors], if they are laity, will not escape the anathema.

CANON XCIII. "The wife of a man who has departed and does not appear, before she is made certain of his death, if she lives with another, commits adultery; and likewise, the wives of soldiers who have married while their husbands do not appear, fall under the same judgment, just as those who, because of their husband's journeying abroad, do not wait for his return. Yet here the matter has some ^D ground for pardon."

[Guill. Beveregii note.] ...there are some who, departing from their own wives through hatred or any other cause, and living in a foreign land—and the wives of such men remain thus for five or even more years, their husbands being non-returning and it being unknown where they are living. Therefore, is it necessary for these to be joined to other men? Men who have departed from their own wives for any reason whatsoever and are living in a foreign land are worthy of excommunication if they behave without returning and do not choose to go back to their own wives. But if they are unknown, and a search for them has been conducted by an investigation on the part of their own wives, and five years have passed since the husbands became missing—having perhaps become prisoners of war, or having vanished in some other way—the wives of such men may without hindrance be joined to other men, according to the law allowing departure. But the others, whose husbands still survive, must go in search of their own husbands.

^A For the matter here is more inclined toward the suspicion of death. But as for the woman who, having been abandoned for a time by her husband, married another in ignorance, and was subsequently dismissed due to the return of the first, she has indeed committed fornication, but through ignorance; therefore she shall not be barred from marriage. It is better, however, if she remains as she is. But if the soldier should return at some time, whose wife, due to his long absence, was joined to another man, he may, if he chooses, take back his own wife, with pardon being granted to her on account of her ignorance, as well as to the man who brought her into a second marriage.

^B BALS. Some women, when their own husbands have withdrawn from their company or have traveled abroad for some military reason and become unknown, having not given information about themselves to these [women] or to anyone else, because they were in uncertainty about their death, were joined to others in marriage. The canon says, therefore, that these women are to be punished as adulteresses after the men have returned, because they did not wait to learn something certain about their death. For they do not have a reasonable pretext in the long absence of their husbands abroad and the uncertainty of their death. ^C But she who through ignorance perchance lawfully married one who had been separated for a time from his own spouse, and then withdrew after this, because his consort wished again to live with her own husband, did not commit adultery, but did commit fornication. She has, however, a reasonable excuse: ignorance. Wherefore she shall not be prohibited from lawfully marrying another. Seek also the 45th canon of St. Basil. The Fathers, in a spirit of counsel, propose to the woman that she should not be joined to another, but endure and atone for the sin through repentance. ^D And they have also granted to the returning soldier that he may, if he wishes, recall his wife who was joined to another, and that she should be deemed worthy of pardon, as one who had despaired of the return of her own husband; just as he who took her into a second marriage shall also be pardoned. Since these things are so, someone might ask: Why does the canon above say that the women—both of him who departed and of the soldier—commit adultery if they marry others before they are fully assured of the death of their husbands, yet at the end it decrees that the wife of the soldier and the one joined to her in a second marriage are to be pardoned? Solution. There is a great difference between the wife of the soldier and the other. For the former, as soon as the soldier has gone abroad, has some suspicion of his death, just as the present canon, after speaking about the soldier, says this expressly: "However, the matter here has some pardon," that is, the soldier's wife is pardoned because there is a greater suspicion of death, which the 31st and 36th canons of St. Basil also establish. But the other woman has no...

^A such excuse to offer. As soon as the husband left the house, she knew that his absence was uncertain; and for this reason she does not deserve pardon. In addition to this, one might say: since the marriage contracted with the woman left behind by her own husband, and with a free or single woman, cannot subsist, what argument is left for not joining her to another man, especially when she was ignorant of the first marriage of the man who was left behind?

Solution. Since some say that, even if adultery was not committed by the woman due to her ignorance, fornication was nonetheless performed, and since she has fornicated, she ought to be punished according to the canons regarding fornication, and for this reason she should not be joined to another man, as one who is outside the ecclesiastical folds; the Fathers, in solving this, said that while fornication was indeed committed, since the woman was not joined to the one who had been left behind in a fornicatory manner but legally, she shall not undergo the penalty of fornicators, but will be deemed worthy of ecclesiastical communion, nor will she be forbidden to be joined to another. But so that the Fathers might not seem to urge women toward what is less pious, they said it is better for them to remain quiet. For even if they sinned through ignorance, yet as far as they are concerned, that original marriage which cannot subsist is still reckoned so, and they ought not to marry a second time unless they wish to be subject to the penalties of those who marry a second time.

Furthermore, someone will ask: "Will he also who in ignorance takes a soldier's wife be pardoned?" Solution. Most certainly. For if ignorance benefits the woman, by much more will it preserve the man who took her from being open to prejudice, as he is one who could not even have known. What then if the soldier wishes to take back his own wife—will what is contained in the canon come to pass? But if he refuses—not at all; instead, will she live on with the other man? Solution. After the return of the soldier, from that point on the second marriage is dissolved; and if the soldier wishes to take her back, he is permitted to do so. But if not, neither shall she cohabit with the second man. ^B Indeed, if she persists in living with him, she will not be granted pardon, but will be punished as an adulteress. For the Fathers say that pardon is to be given to those women who readily withdraw from the second union and acknowledge the sin committed through ignorance, but not to those who resist and choose adultery.

And this is the canon. But the civil law, namely chapter 10 of title 6 of book 28, which is Justinian's Novel 117, says that the wives of those who are on campaign and enrolled in military orders and others must wait for the return of their husbands, however much time may have passed; and even if they have been made certain of his death by letters, they must wait another year as well, and after that, pardon is to be granted to her if she enters into marriage with another man, which ought not be dissolved. Moreover, the 22nd Novel of Justinian, or chapter 5 of title 7 of book 28, establishes that a woman or husband ^C must wait for five years.

when one of them is taken captive in war and their state of life is uncertain, and after the five years, to contract another marriage. Read, therefore, this Novel, and likewise the 133rd Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise, which decrees that a marriage is not to be dissolved on the pretext of captivity, nor is it permitted for the free party who remains to look toward another marriage; but even if they have joined themselves to another, the party who has returned from captivity has the liberty to recall their own member and to tear apart the second marriage. Since, ^B therefore, the canon decrees all these things that were said above, and the laws enjoin those things which have been written just now, someone might ask: "To which of these ought we to pay attention?" We say that we must pay attention to both those things in the canon and those in the laws, to each of them indeed respectively according to the time. From the canon, we would say that those women are adulteresses concerning whom the canon speaks, namely, those who married others before having received complete certainty about the death of their husbands who do not appear. For the Novels also command this. But we shall judge the wife of a soldier who has married in a way not contained by the Novel as not worthy of pardon, just as, on the other hand, we will not blame her who has acted according to it. However, say that the husbands of all adulterous wives have the liberty to receive them back even after their return, speaking generally and not only concerning the wife of a soldier as the said Novel contains, which has been compiled into chapter 3, title 7, of the present work.

But since the canon established nothing whatsoever concerning captives, while the cited Justinianic Novel decrees that the free party who has been left behind must wait for a five-year period and thus contract another marriage without any prejudice; and yet the Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise stands opposed to this definition, saying ^C without distinction that a captive who has returned may always recall their own member—say that the provisions of the Justinianic Novel have been rendered ineffectual, having been abolished by the referred-to 133rd Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise. Furthermore, lest the penultimate theme of chapter 36, title 50, of the book seem contradictory to you, saying: "If a woman hears that an absent husband has falsely perished for a long time, and, persuaded by rumor, has joined herself to another in marriage without deceit, she is not punished"—say that this is according to the law of the Digests, and that it has been removed by the said Novels.

ZONARAS. A woman, when her husband is traveling abroad and does not return even after a long interval of time, if she marries another man before it is fully evident that he has truly died, commits the crime of adultery. The wives of soldiers also, if they have married others when their husbands do not appear, are not free from the guilt of adultery. ^D However, for these [the soldiers' wives], because the suspicion of death more easily finds credence in the case of a soldier leading his life in the tumult of wars, the canon shows itself more ready to grant pardon. The great Basil also established the same things in his 31st and 36th canons concerning these, or rather, this synod transferred his canons into this place in the very same words. Furthermore, regarding the wives of soldiers, the civil law

^A makes every effort to ensure they do not join themselves to others if they learn that their husbands have been killed, unless they have observed the conditions which the 117th Novel contains, set forth in Book 28 of the *Basilika*, title 7, chapter 7. If any woman, says this canon, shall live with a man who was temporarily abandoned by his own wife, being ignorant of the situation, and then upon the return of his former wife she is sent away by him—she who perhaps has joined him in a second marriage—she shall be condemned as a fornicator, not as an adulteress, and if she wishes to be joined to another man lawfully, she will not be prevented. And this is also the 46th canon of the Great Basil. But if the wife of a soldier, believing her husband to be dead, should take another, and then the soldier returns, if he wishes, he shall take back his own wife, being pardoned for the sake of her ignorance, so that she shall not be censured, nor shall he who lawfully took her to wife be censured for the same reason.

ARIST. ^B « If a man has disappeared, the woman who takes another before she is certain [of his death] commits adultery; but if the husband returns, if he chooses, he shall take her back. »

The 117th Novel of Justinian, set forth in the 7th title of the 28th book of the *Basilika*, agrees with the present canon. For that [novel] commands that if a woman has a soldier for a husband, and he has departed to foreign parts on an expedition, and she learns that he has died, she shall not enter into other marriages unless she has precise information from the first-ranking officers of the number ^C in which her husband served—the holy Gospels being set forth—and by testimony of documents agreeing that her husband has truly departed this life; and [unless] she receives such documents, and after such information, waits for the space of one year. But if she enters into another marriage contrary to this observation, both she and the man who took her are to be punished as adulterers. But if, after this observation has been made, those who with an oath informed her [of his death] are found to have lied, [the law] commands that they be stripped of their military service and pay a penalty of ten pounds of gold to him whom they falsely said had died; but it does not prevent him, if he wishes, from taking back his own wife.

CANON XCIV

^D « The canon subjects those who swear by the sacraments of the Gentiles to penances; and we decree excommunication for them as well. »

BALS. The Great Basil in his 81st canon subjects to penances not only those who voluntarily touch the demonic sacrifices and swear Gentile oaths, but also those who were forced into this against their will. Consequently, in accordance with that canon, the present canon also excommunicates them. Gentile sacraments are those which are sworn by the Gentiles. For some, believing in falsely named gods, used to swear by their names; others believed in the elements, and others in certain other things. If anyone should ask, when

^A mentioning the present canon, which recalls the canon of St. Basil punishing those who voluntarily or involuntarily approached demons and swore Gentile oaths, whether someone who did not approach demons or become defiled, but, observing the Orthodox faith, swore Gentile oaths out of contempt, shall be punished or not? Solution. He shall be punished; but not equally to those who approached demons, but more mildly, and according to what seems good to the bishop of that place. For even the great Basil makes a distinction between those who approached demons and swore, and punishes more mildly him who, because of great necessity, tasted prohibited things and swore Gentile oaths. However, all will be subjected to excommunication indiscriminately, so that he who despises divine precepts may also learn not to play with things that are not to be played with. What, then, if someone should swear an oath not Gentile, but unconventional, perhaps by his children, or by something else that does not offend the faith, will he be punished? Solution. The fourth and fifth chapters of title twenty-two, book twenty, turn away [i.e., reject] those who swear by an unapproved religion. For the fourth chapter says: As the oath is deferred [proposed], so it ought to be sworn; for if, when I have deferred it by God, you swear by your head, or by your children, it is not firm or ratified. Wherefore, if I have deferred it to you by your head, and you have sworn so, the oath ought to be valid. And chapter five: I rightly defer to you that you should swear by your salvation: for every licit oath sworn by deferral is kept, and whoever has sworn by his own religion. And the last theme of the same chapter: An oath that is conceived by an unapproved religion is not kept. But an unapproved religion is that which is outside the Orthodox ^B faith. Therefore, an Orthodox person, swearing not after the manner of other Christians, but after the manner of those who think wrongly, not only will not be helped by that oath, but will also be punished according to the canons.

ZONARAS. The rites of Greeks and Gentiles ought to be completely shunned by the faithful. Therefore, it is not permitted for us to use the oaths of the Greeks. And the great Basil, in his eighty-first canon, prescribes how those who use Greek oaths are to be punished. But the civil law, situated in the twenty-second book of the *Basilika*, title five, chapter four, says: Every licit oath sworn from a deferral is kept: so that, by contrast, it may be understood that he who has bound himself by an illicit oath, such as one who has sworn by the sun or something else of that kind, in no way is to be compelled to keep it.

ARISTENUS. "He who uses Gentile oaths is to be punished: for he is excommunicated." It is clear.

CANON XCV

^C Eos, who approach the right sentiment concerning the faith, and [the] part [of those...]

Notes of William Beveridge

[Regarding] the annotations to the seventh [canon] of the second ecumenical synod celebrated at Constantinople, we have shown in many ways that this canon was falsely attributed to that synod. For the first and by far the largest part of this canon is repeated here verbatim; yet there is much inserted regarding the mention of that synod. Whence we conclude that this canon, as if established by the second ecumenical synod, was unknown to this present council. Furthermore, from the whole of its context, we have observed, ^D

^A that we receive those who are saved from among the heretics according to the established order and custom. We receive the Arians, the Macedonians, the Novatians—who call themselves Cathari—the Aristeri, the Quartadecimans (also called Tetradites), and the Apollinarians, provided they present written libelli and anathematize every heresy that does not hold to what the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God holds. We seal them—that is, we anoint them—first with the holy chrism on their forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and as we seal them, we say: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Regarding those who have followed the Paulianist sect and then flee to the catholic Church, a decree has been issued that they must by all means be rebaptized. However, we receive the Eunomians, who baptize with a single immersion, as well as the Montanists (who are here called Phrygians), the Sabellians, who hold that the Son is the same as the Father, and those who perform other grave errors—and all other heresies, since there are many here, especially those originating from the region of the Galatians—as we receive the Greeks, if all from among them wish to add themselves to orthodoxy. 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 their faces and ears. ^B Thus we catechize them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. We do the same for the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and those from similar heresies. As for the Nestorians, it is required that they provide libelli and anathematize their heresy, as well as Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the remaining leaders of such heresies, along with those who share their views and all the aforementioned heresies; and thus they become partakers of the holy communion. ^C

BALS. We have written sufficiently elsewhere concerning this seventh canon of the second ecumenical synod, and there is no need to repeat the same things. But since it was added by this council that the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and others of this kind of heretics ought to be baptized, just as the Eunomians and the Montanists, while the Nestorians ^D...

William Beveridge's Notes

...that this canon is a letter rather than a synodal decree; for it establishes nothing, but merely recites a certain ancient custom regarding the reception of heretics. We have formed a more probable conjecture from the fact that the same words used there and here are found in a certain letter written to Martyrius of Antioch from Constantinople, which was communicated to us, having been transcribed from the manuscripts of James Ussher. For the greater elucidation of this matter, it may be observed here, which was unknown to me at the time, that this very letter was edited by Johannes Leunclavius in the fourth book of his *Jus Graeco-Romanum* (pp. 290–291) from another manuscript, I know not which, such that we are made more certain of the authenticity of this letter. And indeed, what is contained in the present canon seems to be taken from that letter rather than from any decree of the Constantinopolitan synod.

(8) *As for the Manichaeans, etc.* Here begins what the present council establishes regarding the reception of heretics into the Catholic Church, beyond what is contained in the aforementioned letter.

^A to deliver libels [of faith] and to anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus, and those who think the same things as them, and their heresies, and thus to become partakers of communion: let us speak now of these and only these things in the present. Manichaeans, therefore, are those who hold the beliefs of Manes; which Manes called himself the Paraclete, and asserted that Christ appeared only in imagination. He introduced two principles, evil and good, namely God and matter; he blasphemed against the Old Testament; he permitted the moon and stars to be worshipped as gods; he denied the resurrection of the flesh; and he asserted that herbs, trees, and water were animate. The Valentinians are those who were found during the time of the Emperor Valens, [namely] the Bogomils, or Massalians, and Euchites and Enthusiasts. The Marcionites, however, are those who are descended from Marcion; which Marcion said there were three principles: first, the God above, [who is] invisible; second, the visible [one], creator and maker; and third, the devil. He baptized not only once, but even three times, and allowed women also to baptize. The Nestorians, moreover, are called those who, just like Nestorius, separate God the Word and the man who was assumed by him. Concerning which we wrote in the proemium of the third synod. Similarly, concerning the heresy of Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus, which was of equal weight, we treated in the proemium of the fourth synod. Consult these, therefore.

ZONAR. ^B This canon is the same as the seventh of the second ecumenical council. Therefore, what was said there is sufficient. For he who repeats the same things in the explanation of the same matter will be judged as having labored in vain, and he will not escape censure for his work.

ARIST. ^C "Those who turn from heretics we admit thus: Arians, Macedonians, Novatians who are also Cathari, Aristerians who are also Quartadecimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, anathematizing every heresy, we anoint with holy chrism upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears, and sealing them, we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Some of the heretics are baptized; others are anointed only with holy chrism; others, however, are admitted to communion after anathematizing every heresy and their own. But who are those who are baptized, and who are those who are anointed only with chrism, and who are those who execrate both their own and other heresies, and are satisfied with this alone and are received into communion, are indicated by the present canon, although many heresies are omitted. In the meantime, however, ^D [we treat] the Paulianists...

^A we require those seduced by Paul of Samosata and other heretics who approach the orthodox faith, whom we receive as Greeks and baptize, to anathematize all their heresies on the first day, and we make them Christians in this regard; on the second day we teach them the word of truth, and thereafter we do the rest; and thus, after they have remained for some time in the church and have heard the divine Scriptures, we deem them worthy of divine baptism. We rebaptize the Paulianists. We receive the Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, and all who come from them as Greeks; on the first day we make them Christians, on the second day catechumens, on the third day we exorcize them, breathing three times into their face and ears; and thus we initiate them, and cause them to spend a long time in the church and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. But as for the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites, Severians, and those from similar heresies, it is necessary that they, by presenting written petitions, anathematize every heresy, and thus be partakers of holy communion.

CANON XCVI

• Those who have put on Christ through baptism have professed to imitate His manner of life in the flesh. Those, therefore, who adorn and arrange the hair on their head with artfully devised braids to the detriment ^B of those who see them, placing that as a bait for unstable souls, we cure with suitable paternal correction, instructing them and teaching them to live temperately, so that, having abandoned the deceit and vanity which arise from worldly defilements, they may continually direct their mind to the deathless and blessed life, and in fear maintain a pure and holy conduct, and draw near to God, as far as is possible, through purity of life, and adorn the inner rather than the outer man with virtues and good and irreproachable habits, so that they may bear no remains of that perversity of the adversary. If anyone acts contrary to the present canon, let him be excommunicated.

BALS. Having set out from the principle of the great Paul, from the Epistle to the Galatians ^C which says in part: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," the holy Fathers decreed that those be corrected with the infliction of a penalty who, through vanity, multiply and beautify the hair of their head with arrangements and braids, for the sake of drawing through them, as if by some bait, the souls of the unstable. For everyone, they say, must look toward the heavenly and blessed life and conduct himself with the fear of God, so that, so far as it is possible, he may draw near to Him, and adorn the inner man—that is, the soul—with every virtue, and not the outer. If any person from now on lives contrary to the present canon, he shall be subjected to excommunication. The great Paul also says, "If a man has long hair, ^D it is a dishonor to him." And the Mosaic law also...

says in Deuteronomy: "Ye shall not make a rounding of the corners of your head." Note these things, therefore, for those who curl, or plait, or dye, or wet with water, or in any other way make their hair fuller and more elegant, or join alien hair to their own; likewise also for those who adorn the parts around their head after the manner of women. ^A

ZONARAS. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," says the great Paul. But those who have put on Christ through divine baptism ought to conduct themselves according to His norm of living, and fulfill all the requirements of purity, temperance, and innocence, and not cling to the vanity of earthly things, nor indulge in superfluous and overly affected and laborious bodily adornment. For what is more affected and superfluous a method of adorning the body than that of those who entangle the hair in various knots, organize it with great art, divide it neatly into parts, and thereby entice souls—which are weaker in the faith and thus easier to slip into intemperance—into fraud, as if by some bait? ^B Those divine Fathers, therefore, mentioned hair arranged and groomed with knots. For it appears that at that time there was no other sin committed regarding the styling of the hair—nothing like those things which, in our own times, men labor over in dyeing and fashioning their hair; men who indeed bestow all their zeal upon this: to grow their hair long and to let down the fringes of their ringlets to the belt, if possible, after the manner of women. In which they are not only concerned, ^C of course, with not cutting the hair, but also, besides avoiding all manner of iron implements on the head, they diligently and accurately seek out all other medicaments for nourishing or increasing the hair. They fashion their tresses with curling irons, twisting them so they become curly; and they dye them so they turn golden and take on the appearance of gold. Others expose them to the sun after wetting them with water, and allow them to be scorched by its rays so that the black color of the hair is changed. There are also those who put on false heads of hair, having shaved off their own natural and innate hair. ^D And these things, indeed, in this time, 274, are practiced by many for styling and adorning the hair. But, on the contrary, all things that concern the beard are accustomed to be done [differently]. For those on whom that youthful down first begins to grow, they immediately order it to be shaved, so that it may not grow into long hair, but that a smoothness may remain on their faces, and they may be, so to speak, womanish and effeminate; but those who are further advanced in age, on whom thicker hairs almost always grow on the chin, in order that they might not be seen with a hanging beard, they abstain indeed from the razor, but they apply a heated fragment of tile to the beard, burning away whatever sticks out higher from the chin, and they leave only so much as to make the appearance of pubescence seem like down; and already to...

the ^A evil has become universal, and like some infectious disease fallen upon the Christians, it almost feeds on everyone. And this, even though the divine and most ancient law in Deuteronomy says: "You shall not make locks from the hair of your head, neither shall you disfigure the appearance of your beard," and the great Paul says, "If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace unto him." The Fathers of this synod therefore, regarding those who do the things mentioned above, issue parental warnings and subject them to excommunication. But the Fathers of our present day not only leave unpunished those who do what has been listed regarding the head hair and the beard, and who even more unseemly comport themselves, and thus enter the Church, but they even bless them and—oh, the outrage!—admit them to the communion of the holy mysteries if they wish to partake. And there is no one to forbid these things: neither patriarch, nor other high priests, nor monks, whom those who so disgracefully conduct themselves profess to acknowledge as their spiritual ^B fathers.

ARIST. "Those who entwine their hair with artful braids, to the ruin of those who look upon them, are to be excommunicated." The synod decreed that those who adorn their heads and arrange their hair in braids, to the harm of simpler folk and those who live carelessly, should be excommunicated. For we must have a pure manner of life, and in fear, and draw near to God as much as we are able through purity of life, and adorn both the inner and the outer man with virtues.

CANON XCVII

BALS. Holy places are called those which have been set apart for God; that is, the divine temples, the narthexes, the catechumena, and the things around them. For do not call all things that belong to the churches holy places—such as houses and the remaining dwellings. Some, therefore, holding temples, used to dwell indiscriminately with their wives in the catechumena and dwellings around them, making no distinction at all between the holy and the profane, but using these things indiscriminately. For this reason, the holy Fathers decreed that those who thus contemptuously make the holy places common not only be expelled from the churches, even if they have legal rights over them, but also from the catechumena themselves. For this reason, they did not even bring into the legislation the

^A point that these should be expelled from the temples, as they knew this to be beyond all controversy. But because those who hold the churches also possess the catechumena, the Fathers said that they should not only be expelled from the churches, but also from the catechumena. They did well not to speak of "churches," but of "sacred places." For it is most impious to live with a woman in a church; and it did not even enter the Fathers' minds that such an impious crime would ever be dared by anyone. Yet sacred places are made common by the communication of shameful and improper songs, by the fact that people remain in them with women, and by the construction of cells, kitchens, or other such things. However, for those who transgress the canon, if they are clergy, they decree that they be deposed; if laity, that they be excommunicated. Read also chapter 12 of the first title of the fifth book, which was placed in the interpretation of canon 88, and do not let it seem contrary to you, for it teaches that the baths, gardens, and porticoes of the church are its boundaries, and that for this reason no one can drag away from these places those who have taken refuge there; for in this respect alone do these also seem to be parts of the church. Indeed, this same chapter decrees that it is permitted to sleep and eat in these places, things which are forbidden from taking place within the temple. However, chapter 21 of the same book and title decrees that murderers, adulterers, and rapists are to be dragged out, both from the church and from its boundaries. For against such men there is no place of asylum; for, it says, the laws bring aid not to those who do injury, but to those who suffer injury. Read also also Novella 80 of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which similarly punishes those who permit habitation in the catechumena. ^B

ZONARAS. By the name of "sacred places," he does not mean the divine temples here, but the habitations attached to them, such as those called catechumena. For no one would be so bold as to wish to live with his wife inside the precincts of a divine temple. But in the buildings attached to the temples, and in the catechumena, some used to live who perhaps did not lead a life sufficiently chaste and upright, and who despised the dignity of the sacred places, and comported themselves in them without discrimination—that is, without properly weighing what was sacred and what was profane. Therefore, the canon decrees that such men are to be expelled from the catechumena, and that those who do not obey it are to be deposed if they are clergy, and if laity, to be segregated. That the places attached ^C to the divine temples are also worthy of privileges is stated by the twelfth chapter of the first title of the fifth book, which holds as follows: "Let those who have taken refuge at the church enjoy security up to the boundaries of the public forum; whether they reside in the interior baths, or gardens, or houses, or porticoes, or courtyards, and let there be the ability to take food."

ARISTENUS. He who is bound to a wife, and who stays in the temple out of contempt, is to be expelled also from the catechumena, ^D and if he does not keep this, let him be deposed or excommunicated. Those who make common...

latur. If he does not observe this, let him be deposed or excommunicated. ^A Qui sacras ædes communes faciunt, et in eis sine respectu permanent, etiamsi cœlibes sint, extruduntur etiam e catechumeniis. Similiter et qui cum uxoribus suis cohabitant, et in eis commorantur. Et quicunque hoc non observaverit, sed indifferenter se gesserit erga ipsas divinas ædes, si quidem clericus est, deponitur: sin vero laicus, segregatur.

CANON XCVIII

^B Qui alteri desponsam mulierem, eo adhuc vivo cui desponsata est, in nuptiarum ducit societatem, adulterii crimini subjiciatur.

BALS. The legislators define betrothal as a mention and promise of future nuptials. Some, therefore, were saying that if anyone takes in marriage a woman betrothed to another according to the law of marriage, he is not an adulterer, nor even a fornicator. For he did not commit fornication, because he was lawfully joined with her; and he did not commit adultery, because she is not yet under a husband. The holy Fathers, not admitting this, decreed that he who takes to the society of marriage one who is betrothed to another should be condemned as an adulterer, both because a kiss transpired between the betrothed, and pledges were given for the security of the contracting parties. And the betrothed could not otherwise take another woman, unless [the first] according to the laws...

^C [The notes of William Beveridge regarding the aforementioned Amerbachian scholium:] For it is clear that the betrothal is constituted by law, and a bill of divorce has not been sent. For the law says, it is necessary that, as in the dissolution of marriage, so also in betrothals, a bill of divorce be sent for some reasonable cause; or that the marriage perhaps cannot subsist because it is illegitimate; or a new and unknown religion is worshipped; or because of the turpitude of morals, or a change of fortune, or a pregnancy discovered from the seed of others; or because of a delay of the marriage drawn out beyond four years without a just cause, perhaps on account of a long-standing illness, or capital crimes, or long journeys undertaken from necessity; furthermore if the girl be violently betrothed by a provincial magistrate, even without her parents’ consent; or because she is truly tonsured and turns to the monastic life, or because the woman is unable to procreate children, or the man is unable to do those things which are specific to men; or because he is a senator, or his substance is subjected to the treasury, or he is liable for another very grave public office. For he who, when none of the causes enumerated here exist, separates or dissolves the betrothal while it still stands, and takes into marriage a woman betrothed to another, while the betrothed is still alive, is deservedly subjected to the crime of adultery. For what is done is adultery, not marriage. ^D For if he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, according to the dictum of the Truth itself, where shall he be placed who takes one not legitimately released from her betrothed? Moreover, in the old law, he who violates one betrothed to another is punished similarly to an adulterer, because the symbols of betrothal have coupled them; wherefore it also calls her a wife. For, it says, he has humbled the wife of his neighbor. Thus also the holy Virgin was called the wife of Joseph; for it says, "Fear not to take Mary thy wife." This scholium is indeed most worthy of being observed. It exists also in the supplement to the Zonaras codex printed in Paris.

^A If someone has lawfully dissolved a first betrothal. These things are from the present canon; but today, much more, such a one will be condemned as an adulterer, since, according to the venerable Novella regarding betrothals by the renowned holy emperor Lord Alexios Komnenos, a betrothal is in all respects almost equivalent to a perfect marriage; and it is not dissolved in other ways than those by which a perfect marriage is also broken up. Do not be surprised that nothing was legislated by the Fathers concerning the woman. For if he who takes her is punished, even when he might perhaps be able to plead ignorance, so much more will the woman be punished, who is unable to say anything of the sort while her betrothed is alive. He, however, will be punished as an adulterer if he married one betrothed to another with knowledge; and the woman, in whatever state the matter may be, will be punished as an adulteress. But what, then? Is he who takes another man's betrothed into the communion of marriage punished as an adulterer, while he who has fornicated with her is not punished as an adulterer? Solution. Whether in a marriage or in a fornicating manner, if someone has relations with one who is betrothed to another, knowing the situation, he is punished as an adulterer. For only he who was ignorant of the betrothal is punished as a fornicator. ^B There is added to the canon the condition "into the communion of marriage," in order that someone might take as a wife the betrothed of another, because of the reason declared at the beginning of this interpretation. And these things have been said concerning a woman betrothed to another. For if a betrothal did not proceed, but only a contract secured by a stipulation of a penalty—such as are the "marriage bonds" made today—a person will not be punished for this as one transgressing the agreements and entering into marriage with another person. Know, however, that even from the Mosaic Law, a betrothal was reckoned as a marriage; and the betrothed was called a wife, and another man who took her was punished as an adulterer. For the law says in the Old Testament: "And he has humiliated the wife of his neighbor," meaning he has deflowered his betrothed. And the holy Virgin and Mother of God was likewise called the wife of Joseph. For the divine and sacred Gospel says: "Fear not to take Mary your wife." Read also the Novella of the emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, which determines that a betrothal is dissolved if, after this, the woman is found pregnant from the prior reception of the seed of another.

Another interpretation (11)

^A And some of the learned, in truth, artfully deliver him from such an obligation; for they say that if, before the marriage, the bridegroom and the bride come together and beget a child, this is a natural sin and a species of fornication, if one of the betrothed should die before the marriage. But we say that even before the Novella of the Emperor Lord Alexios Komnenos, which in all respects equated the betrothal to marriage, matrimonial rights were granted by the laws to those betrothed toward one another. For the bride, if the betrothal were dissolved before the marriage, would move an action regarding the dowry on account of the dowry given to the bridegroom, according to the second thema, chapter 17, title 7, book 9, which says: "A woman giving a dowry, if she has not been married, has the privilege of the dowry." And according to chapter 74, title 1, book 29, which says: "The bride who gave a dowry and did not marry, and who is under twelve years of age, has the privilege of claiming it back according to the likeness of a dowry." Now the privilege has place in personal actions. And the bridegroom, according to the present canon, and chapter 8, title 58, book 60, and theme 3, chapter 12, title 7, book 60, by the right of a husband, would move an action of adultery both against the bride corrupted by another before the marriage, and against him who committed adultery with her. If, therefore, before the Novella, those betrothed had such rights toward one another, much more so by the Novella, which established that betrothals are equivalent to marriages in all respects on account of the celebration of holy and divine prayers. Wherefore also the bridegroom shall be called the spouse of his own bride; and he who is begotten from them shall be their legitimate son and heir, and shall be under the paternal power, being in no way hindered by the fact that the marriage was not celebrated.

ZONARAS. Now the betrothal is equivalent to marriage by the Novella of the Emperor Lord Alexios Komnenos, and again, because the kiss was given by the man to the woman at the betrothal, and a pledge (arrhabon) was provided by the man, it was rightly the case even then that he who had taken the bride while the bridegroom was still living was held liable to the charge of adultery, even if it were then permitted to dissolve the betrothal by paying the penalty of the fine. But if, while the betrothal had not yet been dissolved, the woman was the bride of another, he who took her was also rightly judged an adulterer. But where neither a kiss nor the giving of a pledge followed, as now happens with what are called "bonds," even if another should take the woman, he will not be subject to the crime of adultery.

ARISTENOS. "An adulterer is he who takes the one betrothed to another." Clear.

CANON XCIX

to receive specific parts of the meat from those who bring the offerings, but they shall be content with whatever the one bringing the offering sees fit to bestow; and let such offering be made outside the Church. If anyone does not do this, let him be excommunicated. ^B

BALS. You know that when Moses commanded the Israelites, at the time of their departure from Egypt, to slaughter a lamb and to smear the doorposts of their houses with its blood, so that they might escape the danger threatening from the destroyer of the firstborn, it seemed good to the Jews to appease God on certain days through the sacrifice of a lamb and certain other animals. This sacrifice, however, took place in one location, while the meat was boiled and distributed in others. At any rate, they brought certain parts of the sacrificed animal to the priests for certain reasons, about which it is not the time to speak. But since the holy Fathers learned that in the region of the Armenians, whereas sacrifices of animals are not performed, parts of the meat are boiled inside the altar, and from these they offer certain portions — that is, specific members, perhaps the feet and the head, or something else of that sort — to the priests after the Jewish manner, they decreed that it is not permitted to cook members of meat inside the altar, nor to offer such specific members to the priests outside of it according to the custom formerly prevailing; but that such a way of offering should cease, and that the priests should receive their offering from the laity in whatever items and kinds they themselves wish. However, it is probable that, on account of the custom that had taken hold among the Armenians, ^C the holy Fathers permitted the laity to offer the priests what they themselves desired. For among us, no one is forced to do any such thing. But someone might say: how is it that, when the canon deals with two things that were happening in the region of the Armenians—namely, the cooking of members of meat at the altars and the offering of portions to the priests inside the Church—the Fathers only prohibited the offering of meat in the Church? Solution: To boil members of meat at the altars is absolutely prohibited among Christians, ever since the sacrifice through animals ceased; and for this reason, it did not seem good to the Fathers to speak of it, whence the legislation was made only concerning the portions offered to the priests, as this was the specific topic currently falling under inquiry. ^D

ZONAR. By the ordinance of the Hebrews, whoever had sacrificed would offer to the priests, from the sacrificed animal, the breast and other parts of the same animal, not without a reason of its own for each, and a hidden significance of mystery. Among the Armenians, however, no sacrifices of animals were practiced, since the custom of offering animals in sacrifice was abolished by the laws of Christians; but, having boiled the meat inside the altar, they would offer certain fixed and defined portions of it to the priests. This custom, inasmuch as it still smacks of the ways of the Jews, the synod condemns, and it forbids the cooking of meat in the Church, or the offering of those defined portions to the priests therein; but it permits the offering to them of whatever — and as much — as those bringing them wish, outside the Church; and this is entirely because it had taken

^A a custom among them, which the Synod allowed. It is called an "offering" (*aphairema*) because it is taken away from the whole victim.

ARIST. Nonnulli more Judaico carnes in templis coquunt. ^B Qui igitur hoc permiserit, vel quippiam ex illis acceperit, non est habendus sacerdos: si quis autem sua sponte offeret, ipse, quod offerenti placuerit, accipiat, oblatione extra ecclesiam facta.

Certain people in the region of the Armenians were boiling pieces of meat in the holy houses and offering them, distributing some of these parts to the priests in the Jewish manner. The Fathers, having learned that this was being done, forbid it to occur further, and command that it is not lawful for priests to demand set portions of meat, but to be satisfied with those which the offerer wishes; and that the offering of these must take place outside the Church; otherwise, he who acts differently is to be excommunicated.

CANON C.

^C “Let your eyes look straight, and guard your heart with all vigilance,” 4 commands Wisdom; for the senses of the body easily pour their own contents into the soul. Therefore, we command that pictures which dazzle the eyes, whether made on panels or in any other way, and which corrupt the mind and stir up the kindle-fires of shameful pleasures, shall in no way be depicted from now on; but if anyone should attempt to do this, let him be deposed.

BALS. The first of the senses is sight, and through it we ought to be led to everything that is good; yet we ought not, through it, to betray the commandments of God like our first father. For he also saw, it says, the tree that it was beautiful, and was deceived, and ate, and was made subject to the power of death. 5 Since, therefore, some, captured by insane love and leading a negligent life, were depicting on panels, or on walls, or on other things, some erotic images or even other execrable things, so that they might fulfill their carnal desires through the sight of these things, the holy Fathers, using also testimonies of Scripture, decreed that these must cease entirely, as they dazzle—or rather, deceive—the sight and pour—or rather, cast—into the soul every evil, and are causes of shameful and unseemly deeds, and corrupt that which is according to the image of God; and that those who have dared to do any such thing are to be held liable to excommunication. Note this: for in the houses of certain wealthy people, not only are such pictures—and those set with gold—depicted with every indecency, but also, through plaster constructions, human-like images are described.

ZONAR. “Pictures,” that is, images of an impudent— 4 Prov. iv, 25. 5 Gen. iii, 6.

^A nature, were inscribed on walls and tablets, which incited the onlookers toward pleasures and shameful deeds, and stirred up carnal desires. The canon therefore forbids these from being in any place, bringing forward witnesses from Holy Scripture, and saying how easily the senses, through things seen or heard, instill and introduce these things into the soul, rather than just suggesting them. Therefore, it punishes those who do such things with excommunication. ARIST. “Pictures which move the sight toward shameful things are not to be painted; and he who transgresses excommunicated.” “Let your eyes look straight, and guard your heart with all vigil,” Wisdom commands. ^B For this reason, then, the Fathers judged it necessary to forbid that paintings be made on tablets or walls which incite the sight toward shameful things and corrupt the mind; and they ordered that he who transgresses this be excommunicated.

CANON CI

“The divine Apostle proclaims with a loud voice that the human being, created to the image of God, is the body of Christ and a temple. Therefore, he who ^C surpasses all sensible creation, having obtained heavenly dignity through the saving passion, and eating and drinking Christ, is completely adapted for eternal life, sanctifying soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if anyone wishes to be a participant in the immaculate body at the time of the synaxis, and to come before it for participation, let him arrange his hands in the form of a cross, and thus let him approach and receive the communion of grace. For those who, instead of their hands, construct certain receptacles of gold or another material for the reception of the divine gift, and through these receive the immaculate communion, we do not admit at all, as they prefer inanimate and submissive matter to the image of God. But if anyone is caught giving the immaculate ^D communion to those who bring such receptacles, let him be excommunicated, and he who brings them as well.”

BALS. At those times, certain rich men, mocking the poorer ones as is likely, constructed vessels or receptacles for this purpose out of gold or silver or some other material, under the pretext of piety and fear of God, and used these as if they were hands, and received the all-holy body of the Lord... [alt-version omitted]

^A in them. And from the beginning, perhaps this was devised by some out of piety, thinking that the hand which touches certain shameful and unworthy things is, perhaps, not worthy to receive the Lord’s body. But as time went on, this piety turned into the ruin of the soul, in that those who did these things sought to be preferred to the poorer ones and, in other ways, boasted arrogantly and insolently. Since, therefore, this seemed to the Fathers to be the cause of many scandals and offenses, and indeed shameful to our own body, which was fashioned in the image of God, they said that since the great Apostle Paul calls man the body of Christ and the image of God and more precious than any creature, as also one deemed worthy of the participation in the divine sanctifications, and from this is sanctified in both soul and body, some ought not to prefer to him such inanimate and subservient forms made of gold and certain other materials; or indeed, that those who act otherwise should be excommunicated, that is, both those who use such material things for the reception of the body of Christ, and those who distribute it to them in this way. Be not amazed, nor ask the reason why in some churches the holy body of Christ is given to the laity and is not placed in their hands ^B according to the summary of the canon; for the right faith and fear of God and piety free from all suspicion have handed this down, not the unworthiness of the laity. I think, however, that those who allege positions of authority or rank or nobility of birth at the time of holy communion, seeking to be preferred, are reproved by this present canon.

ZONARAS

they are to be excommunicated, as are those who provide them to such persons at their request. ^A

ARIST. He who is about to receive the Eucharist composes his hands in the shape of a cross and receives it with his mouth; but he who prepares a golden receptacle, or one of another material, in place of his hands, is to be excommunicated.

Man, created in the image of God, is above every sensible creature, and is the body of Christ and a temple, according to the divine Apostle. If, therefore, anyone wishes to be a partaker of the divine communion, and does not receive it with his mouth, having shaped his hands in the form of a cross, but fashions a golden receptacle, or one of some other material, in place of his hands, so that he might receive the divine gift through it and be deemed worthy of this communion, he himself and the one who administers it to him shall be excommunicated, as those who prefer lifeless and subservient matter to the image of God. ^B

CANON CII.

^C It is fitting that those who have received from God the power to bind and to loose should consider the quality of the sin, and the readiness of the one who has sinned for repentance, and thus apply a medicine appropriate to the infirmity, so that by using immoderation in either direction, they might not fail in the salvation of the one who is suffering. For the disease of sin is not simple, but varied and multiform, and it germinates many offshoots of mischief, from which the evil spreads far and advances further, until it is restrained by the power of the healer. ^D Therefore, he who professes the science of medicine in the spirit must first observe the condition of the one who has sinned, and see whether he is tending toward health, or, on the contrary, by his own ways is provoking the disease within himself, and how he manages his life and reason in the interim; and if he does not struggle against the craftsman and augment the ulcer of the soul through the application of the medicines imposed, then let him likewise dispense mercy, as is worthy. For God, and he to whom the pastoral leadership has been entrusted, initiates every reasoning so as to lead back the erring sheep, and to heal the one wounded by the serpent, and neither to push him toward the precipices of despair, nor to loosen the reins toward the dissolution and contempt of life: but in every way, whether by sharper and astringent medicines, or by those that are softer and gentler, he must resist the affection and strive for the closing of the ulcer, examining the fruits of repentance, and wisely dispensing and governing the man who is called to the higher illumination. For we must know both things, both those that are of the supreme law, and those that are of custom, and in those who do not admit of extreme...

^A rigor, to follow the form handed down, just as the holy Basil teaches us.

BALSAMON. ^B In other councils also it has been determined that the local bishop, who has received from the grace of the Holy Spirit the power to bind and to loose, should not always observe the penalties established by the canons, but should govern these matters with regard to the persons upon whom they are inflicted—that is, according to their ages, their dispositions, and their ways of life, and indeed also according to the quality of the sin—and thus apply to each sickness a fit medicine. The present canon also determines this very thing, leaving the whole method of curing the sick by means of penalties to the discretion of the physician, that is, of the local bishop, and of the one commissioned by him. And the design of the canon is indeed this, most clear and easy to grasp. On account of this, no more has been written by us for the sake of interpretation. At the end, however, it is determined that we ought to know both the things of supreme law and the things of custom. ^C It is written also of the things of compassion, in accordance with the apostolic saying which says: *If anyone does not obey our word, denote him by this letter, and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame; yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.* These things belong to mercy and compassion, or rather to custom, that is, to the character proved and confirmed by time. Having summarized, therefore, say that it is necessary for us to know both the things of the canonical penalties of supreme law, and the things of the more compassionate custom; and that at one time we must treat sicknesses canonically, when the sick accept the penalties readily; and at another time, by means of customary and more compassionate remedies, when they are harder ^D to accept...

Notes of Guill. Beveridge

...This law is also full of humanity. For just as we discoursed concerning a dead animal—if it should fall into a vessel it is unclean, but if into a spring or pool, it is not so; thus the law separates the [leper] who has received a variegated color from others, as having hope of purification. But when one has become entirely white, it commands him to be mixed with others, so that he may not spend his whole life separated from others. However, this is a type of spiritual things. For the divine law commands us not even to eat with faithful who are sinning, while the divine Paul commands us to eat with unbelievers when they call us to a feast. For those are in part like lepers, whereas the unbelievers are like those who have lost all their natural color. And yet we both converse and associate with the latter, but with the former, not at all. But Paul teaches this again, saying, *I wrote to you not to associate with anyone if he is called a brother, if he is a fornicator, or a reviler, or a covetous man.* Now, he has called him 'clean' who has become entirely white, not because he has a healthy body, but because he no longer defiles those who approach him according to the law. This scholion is held in neither our Bodleian manuscript, nor the Etonian, nor in any other that it has chanced for me to see.

^A Indeed, one might not object to these customary penances. In like manner, the great Basil also commands these things in his third canon.

ZONARAS. The synod, having discoursed concerning many and various ^B kinds of penances, and having prescribed the appropriate punishment for each of the enumerated offenses, finally entrusted the whole matter by the present canon to the judgment of the bishops. And it says it is necessary to consider not only the quality of the sin—whether it happens to be great or moderate—but also the disposition of the sinner, and how he is disposed toward repentance; that is, whether he is ready to receive remedies that are astringent and bitter, or whether he is softer by nature and more sluggish toward treatment. In this way, he should apply the appropriate cure, so that—if there happen to be two men who have committed the same sin, and one is ready for repentance while the other is more sluggishly disposed—the one treating them, by looking only at the transgression and treating both of them uniformly, might not fail in the salvation of the sick man. ^C For the one who is ready for repentance will accept the penance, even if it is quite severe, and will submit himself to the will of the one who is guiding him; but the one who does not show fervor for repentance will behave peevishly toward the very astringent remedies, and not only will he not be healed, but having perhaps fallen into despair, he will succumb to worse offenses.

For the disease of sin, the Fathers say, is manifold and varied, and it brings forth many offshoots of harm from which the evil spreads—that is, it extends and creeps more widely—until it has progressed to such a point that it exceeds even the ^D power of the one attempting to heal. For these reasons, he says, the spiritual physician must first examine the disposition of the sinner: whether he repents fervently and longs for health, or whether he rather increases the disease against himself through the wickedness of his ways, and how he conducts his life and lives after the sin, and whether he struggles against the physician—which happens in the case of those suffering from madness. For those people resist those who are treating them, and do not allow them to apply the saving medicines. One should also consider this: lest, while healing and applying medicines, one increases the ulcer of the soul through the application of them, and thus measure out mercy according to desert. What he says means this: that the spiritual physician must attentively consider the disposition of the sick man, so that he neither urges someone who is narrow-minded and small-spirited with more vehement remedies, lest he increase the distress of the wound and cause him to despair of the treatment; nor, in the case of one whom he knows can bear more severe remedies, does he employ lighter ones, so that through the softness of the penances he falls into the same passion or perhaps a greater one; but that he should measure out mercy according to desert, that is, to show mercy to each person worthily according to his dis-

-^Aposition, and to lighten the censure for the faint-hearted, but to make it heavier for the magnanimous, and to do both out of mercy: so that he may purge the one of his filth, and for the other, he may not irritate the wound and render the ulcer worse.

^B For all the care and zeal, both of God and the shepherd of souls, consists in this: to lead back the wandering sheep, and to heal the one poisoned by the serpent, and neither to push him down the precipice of despair through severity, nor, through slackness and softer medicines, to give him the reins, like a horse, so as to prance and live a dissolute life, but to hasten to stand against the passion, whether through severity or through gentleness, according to the state of heart the one being healed has toward these. This shall be, if he tests and tries the fruits of their repentance, and manages the man called to the upper illumination, that is, to the kingdom of heaven. Both, therefore, it is permitted us to know, say the Fathers of the synod: both those of exactitude, and those of custom or sympathy. For both are written: that is, both as many things as exactitude desires, and as many as sympathy demands, being done opportunely and with discernment, or the things of custom, that is, those of the habit tested and confirmed by time, which both the divine canons and the laws of the state command to prevail as law. And the great Basil also taught, regarding those who do not accept the rigor of the delivered patterns, to follow custom. He said that the upper illumination is the kingdom of heaven, which the divine Fathers and teachers judged to be better than other things—the illumination which is from the divine nature, and the more perfect understanding.

ARIST. ‹The quality of the sin is to be considered in everything, and the conversion is to be observed; and thus mercy is measured out.›

The Fathers fixed the punishments for each sin. But they entrusted all the judgment to him who received the authority from God to bind and to loose: so that he himself might both observe the quality of the sin, and the conversion of him who has sinned, and thus measure out mercy, applying the treatment appropriate to the infirmity. For all the account before God ^C and to him who has been entrusted with the pastoral leadership consists in this: in leading back the wandering sheep, and not pushing it down the precipices of despair, and healing the one wounded by the serpent, whether through the more severe and astringent or through the milder and gentler medicines. ^D

CANONS OF THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD

^A BALS. The holy and ecumenical seventh synod was held in the year 6296, in the first indiction, under the reign of Constantine and Irene his mother (this Constantine was the son of Leo, the son of Copronymus), with three hundred and sixty-seven holy Fathers gathered together for the second time in Nicaea of Bithynia against the iconoclasts, that is to say, the accusers of the Christians; which synod decreed that the iconographic images were to be venerated and embraced relatively.

ZONAR. The seventh and ecumenical synod was celebrated while Constantine and Irene his mother were reigning. (This Constantine, moreover, was the son of Leo, born of Copronymus), with three hundred and sixty-seven holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea, which is in Bithynia, against the iconoclasts, that is, the accusers of the Christians; which synod decreed that the iconographic images were to be venerated and embraced relatively, in the same manner as the figure of the precious cross, and it handed down to the Church of the faithful that the images of the humanity assumed by the Lord, and of the Theotokos who gave birth to him without seed and in a wholly ineffable manner, and of all the saints, should be honored. Moreover, for the establishment of the Church and for the benefit of the faithful, it also promulgated the following canons:

CANON 1.

^C "For those who have obtained the priestly dignity, the testimonies and the institutes for right conduct are the descriptions of the canonical regulations; and receiving these gladly, we sing with [the] God-inspired David to the Lord God, saying: 'I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as in all riches' (Ps. cxviii, 14); and thou didst command righteousness, thy testimonies are to [the] end."

^A The prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God and to live in them, for it is clear that they remain unshaken and immovable. For the God-seer Moses also says thus: "Unto them it is not permitted to add, nor is it permitted to take away from them." And the divine Apostle Peter, glorying in them, cries out: "Into which things the angels desire to look." And Paul says: "Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Since these things are so, and are confirmed to us, we, rejoicing in them as if one had found rich spoils, gladly embrace the divine canons, and we uphold their entire constitution—which is unshaken—of those issued by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the most praiseworthy Apostles, and by the six holy ecumenical synods, and those which were assembled locally for the ^B issuance of such decrees, and by our holy Fathers. For all, illuminated by one and the same Spirit, decreed what was beneficial; and those whom they send away with anathema, we too anathematize; and those whom they subject to deposition, we also depose; and those whom they subject to segregation, we too segregate; and those whom they deliver to punishment, we likewise subject to the same. For let conduct be free from the love of money, being content with what is present, as Paul, the divine apostle, who ascended to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words, openly cries out.

BALS. Testimonies are said to be the precepts of the divine Scriptures, as they bear witness to and outline how the faithful ought to live. The holy Fathers of this synod therefore say that, embracing the canons previously issued by the holy Apostles, by the six ecumenical synods, and by the local ones, we anathematize those who have been anathematized by them, we depose those who have been deposed, we segregate those who have been segregated, and we punish those whom they have punished; for the conduct ^C is free from the love of money, that is to say, we add nothing to them out of desire for vainglory, not being insatiable as those who love money, but being content with what was decreed by them. And this indeed is the purpose of the canon. But as for the things contained in it pertaining to the context, since they are clear, they do not require interpretation. Know, however, that this canon makes mention only of the apostolic and synodal canons; but the second canon of the synod in Trullo orders the decrees of other holy men also to be observed as sacred canons. Do not be surprised, therefore, why nothing is written here about those as well. For the Fathers were content with those things which had then been very beautifully decreed concerning them. And let not the Justinian Novella 131, which was drafted as a commentary on the second chapter of the first...

^A title of the present code, and which remembers only the ecumenical and local synods. For by the means through which it confirmed the second canon (17) of the Synod in Trullo, it also strengthened the decrees of the other holy Fathers contained therein.

ZONARAS. In the divinely inspired Scripture, the name of "testimonies" is found in many places, some of which these holy Fathers have mentioned in the present canon. It is necessary, therefore, first to explain what we understand by the name of "testimony." The ordinances of the Lord are called testimonies, which bear witness and make manifest how we ought to live, and how transgressors of what has been ordained by God shall be punished. The Fathers of the synod say, therefore, that to those esteemed worthy of the priestly rank, the divine canons and what is modeled and defined by them are testimonies. For they bear witness as to how they ought to live and how to conduct themselves, and they threaten and ^B point out beforehand the punishment arising from their transgression. To those same people, the canons are also "achievements," in that they preserve and regulate their life. For in this way they achieve virtue and are pleasing to God, a higher achievement than which one could not find. These canonical ordinances, therefore, we receive gladly—or, as he says, with desire and zealously—and with David we sing: "I have delighted in the way of thy testimonies as in all riches," meaning this: that while we travel, that is to say, as we complete the journey of life, we delight and rejoice in accordance with thy testimonies, as if in all riches—as in every kind of varied wealth, or as if we possessed—if that were possible—all wealth gathered together into one. And again: "Thou hast commanded thy testimonies to be justice." ^C We decree, therefore, that the holy ecclesiastical canons issued or ratified by the seven holy synods hold the rank of titles. The third constitution of the second title of the Novellae wills that the canons of the seven synods and their dogmas are to be held as the divine Scriptures.

Guill. Beveridge’s Note. (17) Balsamon asserts here that the second canon of the Synod in Trullo was confirmed by the Emperor Justinian, namely by Novella 131; he does not observe that Justinian had departed this life and exchanged his earthly crown for a heavenly one more than one hundred and twenty years before the Synod in Trullo was celebrated. Indeed, that very Novella cited by Balsamon was promulgated even before the Fifth General Synod held at Constantinople, since by it only four ecumenical councils were confirmed. For it stands as follows: "We command, therefore, that the holy ecclesiastical rules ^D which have been set forth or ratified by the four holy councils hold the force of law; that is, those at Nicaea of the three hundred and eighteen; and at Constantinople of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers; and at the first Ephesine, in which Nestorius was condemned; and at the Chalcedonian, in which Eutyches, together with Nestorius, was anathematized. For we receive the dogmas of the aforesaid four synods as holy Scriptures, and we observe the rules as laws." Justinian, Novel. 131, cap. 1. But from where, then, did Balsamon draw the idea that the Synod in Trullo was also confirmed by Justinian? It was, of course, from the *Basilica*, into which the said Novella of Justinian was transferred, far differently than it was established by him. For in the *Basilica*, lib. v, tit. 3, cap. 2, that Novella reads thus: [here follows the list of seven synods]. Where, as can be seen, in place of four, seven synods are mendaciously substituted: which are also recorded and confirmed as follows: Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II. Whence it is patent that the *Basilica*, which misled Balsamon—to say nothing of other matters in the present place—are miserably interpolated and corrupted; since even the present council held at Nicaea is said therein to have been confirmed by Justinian, even though he had been dead more than two hundred years before this corruption, nor was Balsamon the first who was deceived by it. For long before him, Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, cited the same Novella of Justinian, corrupted in the same way (Phot. Nomocan. tit. 1, cap. 2). Whence it seems most probable to us that that Novella of Justinian, depraved by this corruption, was augmented by the three latest councils shortly after the times in which the last, or present, one was held; and this for the purpose that the decrees of this synod concerning the adoration of images might appear to have the force of law. But nothing more incautious or more imprudent could have been perpetrated; since it escapes no one that it is impossible for Justinian to have confirmed those councils which were celebrated many years after his death. Which I wonder was not observed by Balsamon, nor by Photius, nor by others before now.

^A

as if one were to enjoy all the wealth and variety of riches, or if it were given to enjoy all wealth collected into one place, if that were possible. And again: "Thou hast commanded thy testimonies to be righteous for ever; give me understanding, and I shall live" (Ps. CXVIII, 138). And by the prophetic voice we are commanded to keep the testimonies of God for ever, and to live in them, that is to say, as they remain firm and unshaken. For we live in the testimonies of God when they remain unshaken, not being transgressed by us nor set aside. And those things are called *akradanta* (unshaken) which are established and not easily moved. For *krade* is the name given to the branch of a fig tree, which is weak and easily broken. Whoever, therefore, is established and not easily moved is called *akradantous*. ^B Then he also brings forward Moses, saying that "in them," namely the divine ordinances, "it is not permitted to add, nor is it permitted to take away anything from them" (Deut. IV, 2). And then from the number of the apostles, he first brings forward Peter, who was ardent with an immense love of faith, and boastful in them, saying, "Which things the angels desire to look into" (1 Pet. I, 12), which are, as he says, those things which have now been announced to us through those who preached the gospel to us in the Holy Spirit; although others explain this apostolic passage differently. Then Paul, inflamed with great zeal, who thus protested: "But even if an angel should preach a gospel to you contrary to that which you received, let him be anathema" (Gal. I, 9). ^C And upon these matters, those who set forth this canon add that, these things being so and having been testified to us, we rejoice in them, as one who finds great spoil (and this is also Davidic). For "spoils" are called the things that are on those who fall in war, whether they are garments, or arms, or any ornament. By this, therefore, the Prophet demonstrated the exceeding greatness of the rejoicing. For those who despoil the fallen in war are understood to have brought home victory and to have been superior to their enemies, and they enjoy a double rejoicing: one on account of the victory, and the other on account of the wealth which they gathered from the spoils. ^D In this way also, the Fathers say, we rejoice and lay the divine canons to our hearts, that is, we accept and embrace them with a most willing mind. For whom we love, we salute by embracing them to our breasts, or we love them with the deep affection of our heart (for there is a place of the heart in the breast), and we keep their ordinances whole and unshaken in every respect, they say, and we hold them fast; in this sense, when those canons which were set forth by the holy apostles, and by the six ecumenical councils, and by those gathered in local councils, and by our holy Fathers who set forth canons outside of councils, are confirmed and established; for all, having their minds illuminated by the same Holy Spirit, decreed what was profitable, and we, they say, do everything according to them. For whom they anathematize, we also do; and whom they excommunicate, we also do; and whom they punish, we also do; for our manner of life is free from the love of money, being content with what is present. The apostolic saying is indeed used by the members of the council, signifying, I think, that we do not wish to add anything more to those things decreed by them, being consumed by ambition, as the lovers of money who are always seeking to add to what they have; but we are content.

ARIST. ^A We embrace with affection the divine canons, both those of the holy apostles, and those of the six ecumenical synods, and those of the local ones, and furthermore those of our holy Fathers, as being inspired by one and the same holy Spirit. Therefore, whom they have anathematized, we also anathematize; whom they have deposed, we depose; whom they have excommunicated, we excommunicate; and whom they have subjected to penalties, we likewise subject to penalties.

This seventh synod ^B was held for the second time at Nicaea, under Constantine, the grandson of the thrice-cursed and godless Copronymus, and his mother Irene, who was from Athens, assembled by the counsel and exhortation of Tarasius, Archbishop of Constantinople, with three hundred and sixty-seven God-bearing Fathers. Their assembly was directed against the iconoclasts, that is, the accusers of the Christians; and these they anathematized. They restored to the Church her ancient ornament and rightly defined that she should possess the representations of images and venerate them relatively; and in the same way, they defined that the figure of the venerable and life-giving cross should be adored. Embracing and confirming with the highest praise the preaching of the holy apostles, as well as the six holy general councils and also the provincial ones, they themselves also anathematized those who had been anathematized by them, and likewise condemned those who had been condemned by deposition for some offense, and excommunicated the excommunicated, and subjected to equal penalties those who had been subjected to penalties, adding nothing at all, nor subtracting anything from those things which had been set forth and decreed by the holy apostles ^C and the God-bearing Fathers.

CANON II.

Since in singing psalms we promise God, "I will meditate on thy statutes; I will not forget thy words" (Ps. cxviii, 16), it is indeed most salutary for all Christians to observe this, but especially for those who hold the priestly dignity. Wherefore ^D we decree that anyone who is to be promoted to the episcopal rank must absolutely know the Psalter, so that from it he may also instruct and warn his whole clergy. Furthermore, he must be thoroughly examined by the metropolitan as to whether he has a ready and prepared mind to read diligently and with scrutiny—not superficially or cursorily—the sacred canons, and the holy Gospel, and the book of the divine Apostle, and the whole of divine Scripture; and to conduct himself according to the divine commandments, and to teach the people committed to him. For the essence of our hierarchy is the divinely transmitted oracles, that is to say, the [end of page 884]

^A true knowledge of the divine Scriptures, as the great Dionysius declared. If, however, he should be doubtful of mind, and should not willingly desire to do and teach these things, let him not be ordained. For God aptly said prophetically: "You have rejected knowledge, and I shall reject you, so that you shall not be a priest to me."

BALS. Since the holy Fathers knew that, on account of the heresy of the image-breakers, many of the faithful became rustic, because they were fugitives and could not even dare to come into the sight of men, they said that while all Christians are compelled to read the divine Scripture with searching, much more so are the chief priests who are appointed to teach the people under them. Hence they also decreed that no one else is to be ordained unless he knows the Psalter, and is examined by him who is about to ordain him as to what desire he has regarding the learning of the divine Scripture, and declares himself ready to take pains in the reading of the sacred and divine canons and the rest, with searching, clearly, and not in a cursory manner; and that he should also conduct himself according to the divine commandments and teach the Lord's people, and simply be ready to teach and to answer fittingly concerning the divinely delivered oracles, which are the substance or constitution of the priesthood. But if someone should say: Why did the holy Fathers not say that those who know the sacred canons, the holy Gospel, and the rest ought to be ordained, but those who know only the Psalter, and promise to take pains for the learning of the rest? Solution. To know the Psalter, as being required of necessity, was demanded by the holy Fathers without concession from those who were to be ordained; but the comprehension of the other divine teachings was not sought, because it was not right that those who had not yet been deemed worthy of the teaching office should be required to occupy themselves with such readings—and especially at that time, when Christians were condemned to exile. Why then, they said, should not one who is called to ordination from other perhaps worldly labors, and is granted pardon for this reason and because of the straitness of the orthodox, be ordained—as one who does not have the exact comprehension of the divine Scripture? Therefore, they say, if he is prepared for this, and promises with earnest inclination to take pains for the reading of it, he shall be ordained; because after he has been delivered from the trouble of other things and has undertaken the teaching office, he will not of necessity bring disgrace upon his profession, but it is necessary that he occupy himself in this alone, and he will easily attain the knowledge of the divine Scripture.

ZONAR. It behooves all the faithful to meditate on the justifications of God and not to forget His words; but especially those who are clothed and invested with, and surrounded by, the priestly dignity. Therefore this canon requires that he who is being advanced to the episcopate...

must know the Psalter, so that in this way he may instruct his own people to be initiated, that is, to learn from it ^A, instead of just reading. It requires, moreover, that he be examined by the metropolitan who is to ordain him—whether he wishes to read the sacred canons, the Gospel, the book of the Apostle, and all of the divine Scripture. And he must read them searchingly, so as to know the mind of each, and be competent to teach the people under him, and ready to answer those who ask him, according to the divine Apostle, who commands the faithful to be always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks them for a reason for the hope that is in us ^B. He must not do this perfunctorily, that is, by doing other things and being occupied only with reciting the words, while not at all grasping the underlying meaning. And it is required of him not only to read the divine Scripture in this way, but also to behave and live according to its divine commandments; and not only this, but also to teach the people under him. For the substance of the hierarchy among us is the divinely transmitted oracles, that is, the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures, as the great Dionysius has declared. And divine Scripture is called the substance of the hierarchy, because its entire constitution depends upon it. But it has seemed to me inappropriate at this time to speak further about "substance" to those who are on the outside. For either those who have applied themselves to knowing the canons have been polished by liberal education and know its definition and all that is said about it in the categories, or they are ignorant of more refined literature—in which case it would be in vain to press upon them everything that could be said on this subject. If, therefore, a bishop promises that he will do this, and does not refuse to embrace this norm of life and to take up the labor of shaping the morals of others, the Fathers ordain that he be ordained; but if he is doubtful in mind, and does not accept it willingly—that is, does not love it and is not of a ready mind to act and teach in this way—he should not be ordained. To this the Fathers add the words of the prophet. ^C

ARIST.

Canon of Aristenus

He who is to be promoted to the rank of the episcopate must certainly know the Psalter and interpret it, so that he may also teach his clergy to learn in this way. Moreover, he must be carefully examined by the metropolitan as to whether he can diligently read the sacred canons, the holy Gospel, the book of the divine Apostle Paul, and all divine Scripture, and search out their mind, and understand what is written. For the true knowledge of the divine Scriptures is the constitution and very essence of the hierarchy, according to the great Dionysius; and being thus instructed in knowledge, he should be ordained: if not, he should not be ordained. ^D For, he said...

^A God through the prophet: "You have rejected knowledge, and I will reject you, so that you shall not act as my priest."

CANON III

• Every election of a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, which is made by magistrates, shall remain void, according to the canon which says: "If any bishop, having used secular magistrates, through them obtains a church, let him be deposed and segregated, and all who communicate with him." For it is necessary for him who is to be advanced to the episcopacy to be elected by bishops, as it has been 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, either because of urgent necessity or because of the length of the journey, [then] three at least gathering together in one place (with those who are absent also casting their vote and assenting through letters), then let the ordination be performed. But the confirmation of what is done in each province shall be given to the metropolitan." ^B

BALS. At the time of the present synod, some were elected, as it seems, through the power of certain potentates, contrary to what has been handed down by the apostolic canon. The holy Fathers, therefore, not enduring this, decreed such an election to be void, in accordance with the aforementioned apostolic canon, which determines that those who have been elected in such a manner are to be deposed and segregated, and those who communicate with them are to be segregated. However, the election ought to be made according to the 4th canon of the holy Fathers who were at Nicaea. Read, therefore, that canon, and the 4th canon of the holy Apostles, and their interpretations. But since the canons do not dictate that the ordinations of presbyters and deacons are to be made by election, ^C but only [those] of bishops, how does the canon say that the elections of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, which are made by magistrates, are void?

Solution. Some said that the three ordinations ought to be understood as being in one person, and that the election which is thus made of someone, for the purpose that he might become deacon, presbyter, and thus bishop, is of no moment. Others said that in ancient times elections were made by the people, and not only bishops were elected, but also presbyters ^D and deacons; and therefore the canon said that the elections of bishops or presbyters or deacons made under the power of magistrates be void. Others, however, said that in the case of a bishop, the election is spoken of properly, but in the case of a presbyter and deacon, it is spoken of improperly; for it has been taken as meaning ordination; a view which also pleases me, as I find other canons also which take "elections" to mean "ordination." But since magistrates cannot at all elect bishops, how [can they...]

canon decree that elections made by them are void?

*Solution.* The canon does not decree concerning elections which are made by magistrates, but concerning elections of bishops which proceed by the power of princes or magistrates: and concerning elections—that is, ordinations—of presbyters or deacons which proceed by a similar command. It says, therefore, that even if they take place in opinion and appearance by the hands of those prelates in whom the power of electing resides, yet because they proceed by power and force, they ought to be invalidated and annulled.

ZONAR. "It is an ancient evil." Truly, even in ancient times certain lawless things were admitted, and men of rank, relying on the power of the empire, used to elect bishops and command presbyters and deacons to be made. The ^B synod, therefore, prohibits these things, bringing forward the Apostolic Canon which deposes and also excommunicates any bishop who has gained a church through the agency of magistrates, holding him worthy of great punishment, as well as not only him, but also those who have held communion with him. It ordains that he who is about to be advanced to the episcopate be elected by bishops, and it mentions the fourth canon of the holy Fathers in the Synod of Nicaea, which is explained there.

ARIST. [An asterisk marks the text:] "Every election made by secular magistrates shall be void." In many canons it is said that he who is to be promoted to the episcopate ought to be elected by all the bishops of ^C each province (if indeed this be possible); but if not, then by at least three bishops, with the votes of those who are absent being sent by letter. But for any man to be employed by secular princes, and through them to become master of any church, is not only invalid, but also brings deposition and excommunication upon him who has obtained the priesthood in such a way.

CANON IV

^D The herald of truth, the great Paul, the divine Apostle, as if laying down a rule for the presbyters of the Ephesians, or rather for the whole priestly order, spoke thus freely: "I have coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel; I have shown you all things, that so laboring ye ought to support the weak, counting it more blessed to give than to receive." Wherefore we, having been taught by him, decree that no bishop, for the sake of base gain, should excogitate excuses for sins, and exact gold or silver or any other type of goods from the bishops, clerics, or monks who are under him. For the Apostle says: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God: and children ought not to lay up treasure for their parents, but the parents for the children." If any one, therefore, is found to be excluding from the ministry, through the exaction of gold or some other type of goods, or because of some personal bias, or

^A by closing a venerable temple so that the divine services of God are not performed in it, and by venting his own madness upon that which possesses no sense, he is truly without sense, and shall be subject to the law of retaliation; and his labor shall return upon his own head, as he is a transgressor of the commandment of God and of the apostolic constitutions. For Peter, the chief of the apostles, also gives orders: ^B "Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, according to God; not for shameful gain but eagerly; not as domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory."

BALS. In order that the passion of shameful gain may be rooted out from among those who bear the name of Christ, the Fathers decreed that it is not permitted for chief priests to demand gold or any other thing whatsoever from the bishops, clergy, or monks subject to them. Moreover, the chief priest who excludes any of those subject to him for such a cause, or who on this account does not allow the doxology of the divine temple to take place, and thus pours out his strange madness upon that which has no sense—that is, the temple—by bringing forward some empty and uncanonical excuses, is to be subject to the law of retaliation, as being one who in truth is devoid of sense. Now retaliation is for a person to suffer by right what he has done irrationally. ^C The Fathers, while ordaining these things, also made use of various passages from the Epistle of the holy apostle Paul to the Ephesians, which punish shameful gain and avarice, but exalt mercy and almsgiving. What then, if there is some canonical cause, will the chief priest who demands gold or silver from those he governs be pardoned? Solution. By no means; for if he does this, he shall be punished as a transgressor of the commandments of God, and as one who has sold the spiritual salvation of those he governs. For the one who presides ought to punish the bishop or clergyman or monk who has perhaps transgressed, according to the prescriptions of the canons, and not overstep the canonical correction for the sake of any shameful gain. The canon also commands the chief priests not to domineer over their clergy—that is, not to use them as slaves and servants—but to tend and correct them without passion or any constraint. Note, moreover, from the present canon that it is not only the chief priest who has excommunicated his clergyman for the sake of a pretext of shameful gain who is excommunicated according to the principle of retaliation, but also he who has done such a thing unjustly on account of passion or some other unreasonable cause. And the question concerning this is to be agitated before him who has higher authority.

Search also for ^A chapter 17 of the 1st title of the 3rd book of the Basilica, which is a Novel of Justinian, saying thus: "We forbid all bishops and presbyters from separating anyone from holy communion before a cause is shown, for which the canons of the church command this to be done. If, however, anyone in violation of this should separate someone from holy communion, he who was unjustly separated from holy communion shall, upon the dissolution of the separation by the greater priest, be judged worthy of holy communion. But he who has dared to separate someone unjustly from holy communion shall in all ways be separated from communion by the priest to whom he is subject, for as long a time as he shall deem sufficient, so that he may justly suffer what he did unjustly." Note the present canon, which punishes with the law of retaliation those bishops who, for the sake of filthy lucre or on account of private passions, separate some of their own people or close temples. Wherefore, he who has so separated shall be separated. But he who has closed a temple shall be punished more than by simple separation. Do not say, however, by way of an argument *a contrario*, that a bishop who does not close a temple or separate some on account of filthy lucre or private passion, but does so justly, is not punished; rather, take the argument *a contrario* to apply only to separations. For a bishop who closes a temple for any cause whatsoever, whether just or unjust, shall be punished, as it seems to me, as was said above.

Another interpretation.

stand by; but he restricted the number of public priests by means of a register, because of the collection of the revenues granted to them, so that it might not increase henceforth. As for the personal and other priests, he did not see fit that they be registered at all, because no collection ought to be made on their account. And after some time, when certain public priests were exceeding the quantity of the registers that had been made, as has been said, and were being dragged into the payment of the "nautica" and other public exactions, our mighty and holy emperor was reminded by the then most holy patriarch, lord Luke, and it was discussed at the imperial command whether such public priests were assisted by the aforementioned Golden Bull, so as to be excused for the time being from public exactions. It was decided synodically that such priests should have the exemption from exactions for the time being. For the holy synod said that both from the preamble, and also from the fact that all personal priests are excused even though they are not registered, it is clearly shown that the imperial benefit extends to all priests. But they said it was unjust, and foreign to the imperial beneficence, that those who contribute nothing to the public ^B should be excused on account of the honor of the priesthood, while those who serve the public are oppressed and do not have relief from the priesthood, but are harassed in judgment just as if they were laymen. And read the synodical note which was made for this reason in the month of July of the first indiction, year 6600.

ZONARAS. ^C This canon forbids the bishop in every way from demanding anything from those under him for his own gain, and it introduces great Paul saying: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel," giving himself as an example and model for all, so that all the faithful ought to be nourished in this way, and should support the weak by laboring; by "the weak" here, he signifies not those who are sick, but all who are in any way in need of mercy. And if these things are commanded to all, we shall judge that they are much more fitting for bishops. Therefore, he decrees that the bishop shall not, by fabricating pretexts for the sake of filthy lucre, demand from the bishops, clerics, or monks under him, gold, or silver, or any other kind of thing. For, he says, such an exaction is unjust; "and the unjust shall not inherit the kingdom of God." And children ought not to lay up treasures for their parents, but parents for their children, the Apostle says the same. If, therefore, any bishop, being ^D aggrieved that those subject to him did not obey him in any matter whatsoever that he demanded, or provoked by some other mental agitation, excommunicates them, or shuts a church so that the sacred services might not be performed therein—venting his anger upon an unfeeling thing, that is, the church—which he called madness on account of its being very vehement and irrational, he is himself unfeeling, he says, and shall be subject to the same passion, that is, he shall be excommunicated, and the bishop shall suffer that which he did, at the hands of his metropolitan,

or the metropolitan at the hands of the patriarch to whom they are subject, and his labor shall return upon his head, as one who has transgressed the commandment of God and ^A the apostolic constitutions. And next, he places the words of the prince of the apostles, Peter, which are written in his first Catholic Epistle.

ARIST. We decree that a bishop shall by no means think of demanding gold, or silver, or any other kind [of property] from the bishops, clergy, or monks subject to him. If, therefore, any [bishop] be found, by reason of a demand for gold or other kind [of property], or by his own personal passion, excluding any of his subject clergy from the celebration of the divine mysteries, or closing a venerable temple so that the sacred celebrations of God may not be held therein, he shall be subject to the law of retaliation; for Peter the Apostle says: "Feed the flock of God, not by constraint, but willingly, and according to God: not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind: neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

The power to discipline and excommunicate for this cause was granted ^B by the sacred canons to bishops, so that the transgressions of their clergy and others might be corrected both spiritually and paternally. If, however, any should abuse this power entirely, and for their own passion, or for the exaction of gold or any other thing, should excommunicate anyone, they shall be subject to punishments: that they may learn not to inflict penalties without cause.

CANON V

It is a sin unto death when some who sin remain uncorrected. But it is worse when, with stiff necks, they rise up against piety and religion, preferring mammon to obedience to God, and not bearing His canonical ^C constitutions. In them the Lord God does not dwell, unless perhaps, being humbled, they repent of their own offense. For they ought rather to supplicate God, and with a contrite heart seek the remission and forgiveness of this sin, and not boast of an unlawful donation. "For the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart."

Those, therefore, who boast that they have been established in the Church through a donation of gold, and have hope in this wicked custom, which is alien to God and to all priesthood, and who therefore with impudent countenance and open mouth [cast] reproachful and contumelious words at those who, because of a life led in virtue, have been chosen and established ^D by the Holy Spirit without the bestowing of gold, and despise them: we decree that those who do this shall first take the lowest grade of their own order, and if they persist, they shall be corrected by an inflicted penalty as well. But if anyone be found to have ever done this at an ordination, let it be as the apostolic canon wills, which says: If

any bishop should come to possess this rank through money, or a presbyter, or a deacon, let both him and the one who ordained him be deposed, and let him be cut off completely from communion, as Simon the Magician was by me, Peter. ^A Likewise, [the canon] also [cites] the second canon of our holy Fathers who met at Chalcedon, which says: If any bishop should perform an ordination for money, and bring down to sale the grace that is not for sale, and should ordain for money a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those numbered among the clergy, or should appoint for money an oikonomos, or an advocate, or a guardian, or anyone else on the roll, for the sake of his own sordid gain, let the person who has attempted this, upon being convicted, be in danger of losing his own rank; and let the one being ordained derive no benefit from the ordination or the appointment that was conducted like a commercial transaction for a price given; instead, let him be set aside from the dignity or the position which he obtained for money. If, however, anyone appears as a mediator or an intermediary in such shameful and illicit gains, this person also, if he be a cleric, let him fall from his own rank; if he be a layman or monk, let him be excommunicated.

BALS. ^B The holy Fathers, intending to punish those clerics who lead off by bringing money or other things into the churches willingly and with a God-fearing mind, but later boast of the donation and seek precedence and preferments, insulting their confreres who were brought into the clergy by God on account of their virtue or activity, used in their preamble a certain statement from the first Catholic Epistle of the apostle and evangelist John, saying: * *There is a sin unto death*, that is, a deadly or incorrigible and unrepentant sin; and worse than this is the impudence [accompanying] the sin. For what evil does it not surpass, if someone should prefer mammon—that is, money—to the commandment of God, and say that he ought to be preferred in honor over all the others on account of those things which he brought, [the others] who perhaps have [proven] actions or even virtue? Those, therefore, who think such things, and who mention the giving of money at all, and who hope on that account to be preferred over the many—from which greater condemnation follows—and who openly insult their brothers for their poverty regarding the very thing that raised them to high status, are to be demoted to the last place of their rank, so that they may be humbled. ^C But if they persist in the evil even so, let them be punished according as it seems best to the bishop. And this holds when someone brings certain things into the church of their own free will; which those who receive, receive without any prejudice, and those who give do not fall into penalty. But if someone, he says, did not bring the offering from the beginning with such a free-willed intention, but [did so] in order that he might be ordained, or co-opted into the clergy, or elected in the church in some other way: let such a one be punished, as he wills

according to the 29th Apostolic Canon and the 2nd Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. However, the phrase which says, "In these is not the Lord God," was taken by the holy Fathers from the third [book] of Kings, because of those who are arrogant and who prefer the things of mammon. But when you hear the canon designating such a voluntary giving of gold as "illicit," do not say that it is forbidden, and therefore also illicit in the way that [giving] which proceeds for the sake of ordination or clerical enrollment is. For of that, [the canon] speaks hereafter. But the Fathers termed this "illicit" because of the one who brings [the offering] and prides himself on this offering. Note these things on account of those who are tonsured in monasteries with an offering of money, and on account of those who voluntarily make offerings to God. However, I do not believe that those who acquire fraternal affiliation ^B in external monasteries through money are caught by the canons, because the acquisition of sustenance is not something to be reproached. But what of the one who, having voluntarily offered things, is punished in this way; yet the one who, in order to be a cleric or to be tonsured, gave various items—after he has been punished, will he effectively reclaim what he gave? The Solution: By no means. For the 11th chapter of the 2nd title of the 24th book of the Basilics says in this way: "That which is given for a shameful cause by both parties—both the one who gives and the one who receives—is not returned." And the ancient law brings forward an outside reason: that in an equal cause, the one who possesses is in the stronger position, choosing this from the 22nd book.

ZONARAS. Some, when they were about to be enrolled in the clergy, used to bring money to the Church, as if dedicating it to God; ^C then, relying on these [gifts] and boasting of that giving of gold, they would shamelessly reproach those who were enrolled in the clergy without the giving of gold, perhaps on account of virtue or even because of the ability to speak. The canon therefore wills that such men first be demoted from their proper rank and be placed in the last position of the order in which they are; and if they still continue to do the same things, it commands that they be punished, so that they may be corrected. Now, those who expounded the canon preface their remarks with the Apostle and Evangelist John. For those words of his are in the first Catholic Epistle: "There is a sin unto death;" and these [Fathers] interpret this scriptural passage regarding those who have sinned and have not repented. Then they say something even worse—as indeed it is—namely, the "lifting of the horns," or to be shameless, after the sin; calling as "sin" ^D the boasting over the offering of money, and the preferring of mammon—that is to say, money—to the obedience of God and to the canonical regulations. And by "shamelessness" they understood the reproaches and insults which they inflict upon those co-opted into the clergy without the provision of money. "In these," they say, "is not the Lord God;" and this too is scriptural, from the third [book] of Kings. Therefore, it is necessary for them, having been humbled, to fall down before God and ask for forgiveness of their sin, and not rather to be puffed up over the illicit gift. And it calls the gift "illicit" not in itself—for if it were illicit, why was it accepted?

And why is he who was ordained through it not entirely cast out of the clergy, and punishment ^A meted out to him who ordained him by this gift? Therefore, the gift is not termed "illicit" in itself, but because he who makes it considers it illicit, in that he prides himself and exalts himself over his peers, thence giving the impression that he did not offer himself according to God, but in order that he might have this as a pretext for boasting and arrogance. And this is clearly shown by what follows; for the canon says: "But if anyone is ever found to have done this at an ordination,"—that is, to have given money—"let it be done according to the canons," namely the twenty-ninth Apostolic canon and the second canon of the Synod of Chalcedon. Therefore, just as the gift being illicit in that case, both he who ordained and he who was ordained are punished, so would it have been in this case, had it been truly illicit. He who seeks the explanation of these canons will find it in their proper places.

ARIST. "It has been determined that those who boast of having been placed in the Church through the giving of gold, and who dishonor those who were chosen for their virtue and placed without giving, shall receive the lowest rank of their own order; but if they persist, they shall be censured. But those who have done this for the sake of ordination shall be cut off from communion, just as Simon Magus was by Peter."

One ought to prefer reason and virtue; and those who are found to be such, without the donation of gold, ought to be enrolled in the clergy of the Church, and not be reproached by those who are placed in the Church by any donation—but rather be praised, as having been chosen by the Holy Spirit for the virtue of their life. But if any, as they boast in such an illicit gift and this evil custom—which alienates one from God and all priesthood—reproach with an impudent face and an open mouth the clergy who were enrolled without gold, they shall receive the lowest rank in their own order. And if they persist in hurling such reproaches at them, they shall be corrected by penalty. And these things were said concerning those who are enrolled into the clergy. But whoever obtain any ordination through money shall be deposed, both they themselves and those who ordained them. ^{B D C}

CANON VI

"Since there is a canon which says that canonical questions ought to take place twice a year in every province through the gathering of bishops, because of the trouble and because those who were gathering were not sufficiently provided for the journey, the holy Fathers of the sixth synod determined that in every way and for whatever cause, it should take place once a year, and that shortcomings should be corrected. We, therefore, also renew this canon; and if any magistrate is found preventing this, let him be excommunicated; but if any metropolitan neglects to see this done,"

except by force or necessity or for some other reasonable cause, let him be subject to canonical penalties. ^A When a synod is held concerning canonical and evangelical matters, it is necessary for the assembled bishops to take great care and diligence that the divine and life-giving commandments of God be kept. For in keeping them there is a great reward; because the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light and the way of life, reproof and discipline; and the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes. And let it not be permitted for the metropolitan to demand from those things which a bishop brings with him, either a beast of burden or any other thing. For if he is convicted of having done this, he shall restore fourfold. ^B Seek chapter 8 of title 8 of the present collection, and the 8th canon of the synod in Trullo.

BALS. Since various canons determine when synods ought to be held, and some say that the provincial bishops ought to assemble once a year, while others say twice a year; the present canon, because of the fatigue of the journey for the bishops, has followed the eighth canon of the Sixth Synod, which decrees that they ought to assemble once in the year, and that it should be done in this way, unless some force, or necessity, or other reasonable cause should be an impediment so that they cannot assemble; and that the bishops who do not do so should be subject to canonical penalties; and also that the civil magistrates who prevent this from happening should be excommunicated. When, however, he says, a synod has been held, the bishops ought to take care that the evangelical and canonical traditions be kept, and the other commandments of God. ^C And canonical traditions are, for example, just and unjust excommunications, the ordinations of clerics, the administration of episcopal matters, and things of that sort; whereas evangelical traditions and commandments of God are: to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not bear false witness," and the like. And because the Fathers perceived that in the assemblies of the bishops some metropolitans use their power and authority over them too much, and demand horses or other such species, they decreed that this also should cease, and that such a metropolitan who has done such a thing should restore fourfold what was given. But the canon well said that it is not permitted for the metropolitan to demand any of those things which the bishop brings. For if a bishop of his own accord wishes to honor the metropolitan with some gift of this kind, he will not be hindered from doing so. ^D

ZONAR. Many canons exist concerning the holding of synods in every province every year. This one also determines the same, and makes mention of the canon issued in the Sixth Synod, by which, so that the annoyances and vexations of journeys might be reduced for the bishops, it was decreed that a synod be held in the individual provinces once in the year, and it restores the older constitution concerning the holding of synodical assemblies. But if any magistrate should obstruct the holding of a synod, he says, let him be excommunicated.

And as for the metropolitan who is negligent in this matter, let him be subjected to canonical penalties, unless some necessity or violence intervenes. When a synod is held regarding canonical and evangelical matters, the bishops must take care to see whether the divine commandments are being observed. Canonical matters, for instance, are such questions as: whether excommunications are justly imposed; whether the goods of the churches are being administered by the bishops through stewards chosen from their own clergy; and other such things which the canons ordain to be done. And evangelical matters are those which are commanded to us in the Gospel, such as: that baptism should be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and that no one should put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication; and other things of this kind. For the bishops, when they gathered, used to investigate whether all these things were taking place in their respective regions, and whether men were living according to the divine commandments. And the canon brings forward scriptural testimonies from the Book of Psalms and from Proverbs. Furthermore, it adds that when the bishops are gathered at a place designated by the metropolitan of the province in accordance with the canon, the metropolitan shall have no authority to demand anything from them, neither a beast—whether a horse or a mule—nor any other thing. And if he should be convicted of having demanded and taken anything, he shall restore it fourfold. ^A ARISTENUS. Since it is not possible, according to the decree formerly issued, for a synod to be held twice a year, let it be held once, as was judged by the Sixth Synod. And the magistrate who shall prevent this, let him be excommunicated; and the bishop who has caused it [to be prevented], let him be punished. But when the synod is held, if the metropolitan should take anything from any bishop, he shall restore it fourfold.

This synod also confirms that a synod is to be held once a year in each province; and if the magistrate of the region is found to be preventing the assembly of the bishops when it is being held for canonical and evangelical affairs, it excommunicates him; and as for the metropolitan who fails to ensure that this is done, without any [just] necessity or violence, it subjects him to canonical penalties. It also commands that the metropolitan shall have no authority to take away anything that the bishops bring with them, or a beast, or any other thing. And if he be convicted of having taken anything from them, it is required that this be restored fourfold.

CANON VII

^A The divine Apostle Paul says: "Some men's sins are manifest beforehand, while others follow after." ^B For when sins go before, other sins follow them. Therefore, other impious acts also followed the impious sect of the Christian-accusers. For just as they removed the sight of the venerable images from the Church, they also abandoned other customs, which ought to be renewed, and held fast according to the written and unwritten legislation. Those who...

^A have thus caused the venerable temples to be consecrated without the holy relics of martyrs, we decree that the deposition of relics shall take place therein with the accustomed prayers. But he who consecrates a temple without holy relics shall be deposed, as one who has transgressed ecclesiastical traditions.

BALS. It was an ecclesiastical custom to consecrate divine temples through the holy relics of martyrs. But the accusers of the Christians, that is to say the iconoclasts, who call those who worship the venerable and holy images idolaters, went beyond their heresy and madness against the Orthodox, and consecrated venerable temples without holy relics. Therefore, the Fathers say that other sins follow after human sins, as the great apostle Paul says. And since other evils followed the heresy of the iconoclasts (for necessary ecclesiastical customs were omitted), we decree that those temples which were consecrated without relics should be consecrated again through relics, and that henceforth it should be done in this way; and those who ^B consecrate temples without holy relics shall be deposed. And this is the canon. But someone said: And how are oratories consecrated today without the deposition of relics? And why are sacred rites not performed in them by bishops, but by priests alone? And the answer given to him was: Because the superaltars which are made by the prelates at the time when the consecration of a temple takes place, being distributed to oratories, suffice instead of consecration, or dedication and inthronization, and encænia, and openings. For they were called ^C antimensia for this reason, that is, as representatives and counterparts of many such tables which complete the holy Lord’s table. However, the prelates do not perform sacred rites in undedicated oratories, because the dignity of the praesulatus is lowered if there is no throne in which the bishop is apostolically seated, nor the other things that constitute the consecration and adornment of a temple. But when some asked, When does the consecration of churches take place? they received the answer that the laying of the foundation takes place by the prayer alone of the bishop of that region and the fixing of the cross: but the consecration takes place after the completion ^D of the temple, when the encænia and openings and inthronization are performed, and its entire perfection, anointed with holy chrism, and receiving the relics of martyrs. But when someone insisted that a prelate who had sacrificed in an undedicated church should be deposed, just as he who consecrates a temple without holy relics is deposed, that most holy patriarch, the lord Lucas, declared that such a prelate should be punished in another way, according to the judgment of the synod, but not by deposition.

For these faults are far and widely divergent. ^A

ZONARAS. The great Basil interpreted this apostolic saying otherwise; but these Fathers here accepted it somewhat more simply, understanding "consequences" to mean that other things are also wont to follow upon previous sins. And they say that this happened in the case of the iconoclasts. For they call them "accusers of Christians," inasmuch as they accused Christians of idolatry. For not only did they strip the churches of the world of the ornaments of sacred images, but they also abandoned ancient customs, which these [Fathers] now renew, so that both the written legislation and the unwritten custom might be preserved. Now the custom that had been omitted was that, at the consecration of divine temples, the deposition of the relics of saints did not take place. All churches, therefore, they say, which were consecrated without the deposition of the relics of saints, should now receive the holy relics being deposited within them. And let him who consecrates a temple without holy relics be deposed as a transgressor of ecclesiastical traditions. ^B

ARISTENUS. <Let the holy relics of the martyrs be deposited in temples which were consecrated without them, and this with the customary prayer. But let him who consecrates without these be deposed as one who has transgressed ecclesiastical traditions.> Whatever temples were founded before this synod without the customary prayers of bishops and the relics of the holy martyrs, it is decreed that holy relics be deposited in them and the customary prayer finished; but whoever shall be found, after this synod, consecrating a temple without relics, they are condemned to be deposed as transgressors of ecclesiastical traditions. ^C

CANON VIII.

BALSAMON. Certain Jews, when they were accused of certain crimes and wished to escape punishment, used to approach the Christian faith, and while they pretended to follow the Christian mind, in truth they...

^A held the sentiments of the Jews, observing the Sabbath in secret and disparaging our own practices. They would also baptize their own children and perform certain other pious acts, as if they might appear, perhaps, to be orthodox. The Fathers say, therefore, that such persons are not to be received into any communion, nor are they to be permitted to have their children baptized, nor to possess a Christian slave in any way, but they are to conduct themselves openly according to the Jewish religion. If, however, anyone from among them should turn to the orthodox faith from the Jewish religion with a sincere disposition, and without force or pretense, and renounces Jewish customs, and wholeheartedly triumphs over them, and confesses the things that were done by some under a pretext—things which look toward the mocking of the Christian faith—so that those others might also be convicted and corrected, then he and his children are to be received into communion and baptized, provided they have first given security that they will abstain from Jewish traditions and practices. Note, therefore, these things for the sake of those priests who baptize the children of the Saracens, and that a baptism sought by such people for the sake of bodily health is not to be accepted. Indeed, the 44th chapter of the 1st title of the 1st book of the Basilika says: “A Jew who pretends to wish to be a Christian, as one who expects an accusation or a lawsuit against himself, and flees to the church without having paid his debts or without having been absolved from a crime, let him not be admitted.” And seek the 47th chapter of the same book and title: “A Jew shall not have a Christian slave, nor shall he circumcise a catechumen, nor shall any other heretic have a Christian slave.” And the 54th chapter: “No Samaritan shall have a Christian slave, but as soon as he possesses him, let him immediately be set at liberty. If, however, the slave should be of the same perverse opinion as he, it shall be permitted for him, upon embracing the Christian ^B opinion, to immediately attain Roman liberty as well.”

ZONARAS. Certain Jews approached the faith in pretense, and pretended to become Christians, but they mocked Christ—that is, they ridiculed Him, privately renouncing Him, and secretly keeping the Sabbaths and performing other Jewish rites, such as circumcising their own children, and considering as unclean those who had touched a corpse, and those who were leprous, and those suffering from a gonorrhoea, and ^C other such things as were forbidden by the ancient law. Therefore, the synod decreed that such men should neither be admitted to communion nor be permitted to pray with us, nor even to enter the church at all, but that they must simply be Hebrews again openly, and that they may neither baptize their children nor have the power to purchase a slave. For the civil law also forbids a Jew from possessing a Christian slave. But those who had perhaps come to the faith and were Christians were not forbidden from purchasing slaves. Since, however, they were doing this feignedly, for that reason the synod says it is not permitted for them to purchase slaves, or to possess them in any other way, whether by gift granted, or by exchange, or by any other manner. But if they should do so with a sincere and ^D

^B pure faith—that is, with a pure mind and with all dissimulation removed—they should be converted and assent to the mysteries of the faith, and confess with their whole heart—that is, be in full agreement with us in all things, and triumph over their own morals and customs, that is to say, clearly profess and promise that they will never do any such thing again, so that others also who are associates in their error may be refuted by their example and return to their senses—then it is fitting that such a person be admitted, and that he and his sons be baptized, and that they be carefully observed so that they may depart from Hebrew practices; otherwise, it is decided that they should by no means be received. The great Basil also, in his fifth canon, says: "Those who repent of their error should be received, yet not without scrutiny, but one must diligently examine whether they repent truly and sincerely." Regarding the Jews likewise, the civil laws also decree that they should not be received unless they have been diligently examined and proven.

ARIST. It is not necessary to receive Hebrews unless it is clear that they have been converted with a sincere heart. Perspicuous.

CANON IX.

^C • Puerilia omnia ludibria furiosaque dicta ac scripta, • quæ adversus venerabiles imagines edita • sunt, episcopio Constantinopolitano tradi opor- • tet, ut cum reliquis hæreticis libris deponan- • tur. Si quis autem hæc celare inventus fuerit, • si quidem episcopus vel presbyter vel diaconus • sit, deponatur: sin vero laicus vel monachus, • segregetur.

BALS. Since the heresy of those who are enemies of the Christians, or rather, [enemies] of the holy images, had long prevailed, those who adhered to it used to commit to writing their blasphemies against the holy images. Therefore the Fathers say that these must be surrendered in order to be deposited in the episcopal palace of Constantinople, where the rest of the heretics' books are also stored. But those who hide these, if they are enrolled in the sacred orders, are to be deposed; if they are laity or monks, they are to be excommunicated. The Fathers rightly called such writings "puerilia ludibria," that is, childish toys, and "insana bacchica," that is, the nonsense ^D of raving Bacchantes; for they are easily dissolved and overturned with no effort, like children’s games, and are as ridiculous as the works of madmen and drunkards. For the Bacchantes were choirs of the insane following Bacchus, the master of drunkenness, who is falsely called a god. Now, indeed, the laws also decree that the books of heretics be burned. Seek out the third chapter of the twelfth title of the present compilation, and you will find therein various chapters set forth which command this very thing. But someone might say: For what reason does the canon decree that the books of the enemies of the Christians, or [those who] burned the images, be deposited in the episcopal palace, while the laws permit these to be burned? Solution. It is the same thing for the profane and impious writings of heretics to be burned as it is for them to be deposited in the episcopal palace of Constantinople. For they will not be read if they are burned, nor if they are in such a place

^A nor will they be available for anyone to see. Therefore, one who burns these and does not deposit them in the episcopal palace will not be held by the canon, as he has done nothing contrary to it. Now the episcopal palace of Constantinople is the patriarchate. And since the magnificence of the patriarchal throne possesses various offices (secreta) under itself, and the episcopal rights [(25)] were specifically assigned to the office of the [chartophylakeion] (registry), and the [chartophylax] [(26)] for the time being acts with the authority of the most holy patriarch, as if he were a bishop, in all matters pertaining to him—for he excommunicates, corrects offenses of the soul, permits deacons and priests to be ordained, issues the certificates for sacred ministrations, and other such things—the [chartophylakeion] is rightly called the episcopal palace.

ZONARAS. Those who have raged against the holy icons and called them idols, have also written books in which their opinion is contained; which this holy synod called childish trifles ^B (that is, playful amusements of boys) and frenzied Bacchic revelries. For the Bacchantes were a chorus of raving women who, gathered in a group, followed Dionysus. And Dionysus was considered by the Greeks to be a god, the overseer of drunkenness, being himself drunken and full of madness. Just as those Bacchantes, when the frenzy grew, had no sense of modesty or gravity, but were carried away only by the madness stimulating them, so also those who produced those writings are said by the Fathers of the Synod to have been moved toward writing by madness and fury, and not by any serious and calm reason. Those writings, therefore, it ordains should be hidden by no one, but should be handed over by those who possess them, so that they may one day be placed ^C with the other heretical books. And it decrees that bishops or others initiated into sacred orders who hide these shall be punished by deposition, but laymen and monks by excommunication.

ARISTENUS. If anyone is found hiding a book composed against the venerable icons; if he should be from the sacred roll, let him be deposed; but if he is a layman or a monk, let him be excommunicated. Clear. ^D

* *Guill. Beveridge’s notes.* In the Amberian codex it is read more correctly: [jura patriarchalia] (patriarchal rights). The [chartophylax] is properly called the one who kept the church archives and papers; this was indeed a great office of the highest dignity in the Church of Constantinople; to such an extent that he was even called "Great Chartophylax"; and this first by Andronicus the Younger, as Cantacuzenus has testified, saying: "To the chartophylax, because he was seeking to assume greater honors, he made the office more splendid and named him Great Chartophylax"; which epithet remains for the chartophylax to this day. Cantacuzenus, *Hist.*, bk. I, ch. 1. His office is described by Codinus thus: "But in the catalogue of the officials of the Church of Constantinople it is narrated more fully: 'The Great Chartophylax, when the high priest celebrates the liturgy, stands near the holy mysteries; the same archdeacon says, "Approach to the King and God." And he also has [a role] in all trials and decisions; and having also the right to give the decisions [as they come into the holy church] in the name of the high priest; and having also the sacred ceremonies of betrothals, performing these sacred rites and sending them to the priest of the church of such-and-such [person] to be blessed; he is also present at the ordinations of high priests to present the high priest being ordained. And he himself, holding a roll, records the decisions of the bishops and reports them to the high priest.'" See more in Balsamon’s *Meditatum* on the offices of the chartophylax and the primikerios, in *Jur. Gr.*, vol. I, book VII, p. 455.

CANON X.

^A "Since some of the clergy, disregarding the canonical order, leave their own parish and run to other parishes, mostly in this God-guarded and imperial city, and place themselves with dignitaries, and perform the liturgy in their oratories; it is not permitted for them to be received in any house or church without their own bishop and the Bishop of Constantinople. If anyone does this and persists, let him be deposed. And as for those who do this with the knowledge of the aforementioned priests, it is not permitted for them to undertake secular and worldly cares, as they are prohibited from doing so by the divine canons. If any of them should be discovered holding the care of those called 'majors,' let him either desist or be deposed; rather, let him apply himself to the instruction of the children and the servants, reading the divine Scriptures to them. For to this end also he was allotted the priesthood."

BALS. Various canons forbid clerics to leave the parishes in which they were ordained to the clergy, and to cross over to others. Consequently, therefore, the present canon also decrees that no cleric should be received anywhere or minister in any church or in the oratory of a magistrate without his own bishop—that is, without a letter of commendation and dismissal from him, or a decree from the Patriarch of Constantinople. ^C And he who acts contrary to this, and does not return to his own clergy after being warned, is to be deposed. For this is what "let him desist or be deposed" means. But if any of those who have been transferred by those who ordained them, through the letters we mentioned, or by the Patriarch of Constantinople, to celebrate holy things in other churches, undertake secular cares contrary to the summary of the canons, or become "majors," they are obliged, after having been forbidden, to desist or be deposed. And the other things contained in the canon have been explained in detail in various canons, namely in the 17th and 18th canons of the Council in Trullo, in the 13th and 23rd of the Council of Chalcedon, and in others. From the context of the present canon, note that it is permitted only to the Patriarch of Constantinople to receive ^D foreign clerics, even without the dismissal letters of the one who ordained them, if they bring letters of commendation by which they prove that they were ordained and are in the clergy. Wherefore, rightly, as it seems to me, will the most holy Patriarch of the time, and his chartophylax, grant [permission] to a foreign cleric... [in other churches]. This marginal note, however, was only a note, as is evident to anyone, carelessly transcribed into the text by a copyist; so too it should be understood as having been taken from the scholia of Balsamon.

[Notes on Bodleian and Amerbachian codices omitted.]

in this queen of cities, even without dimissorial letters from the one who ordained him. Those are called "majors" who become curators of rural suburban estates, as is shown by the 11th canon of the First and Second Synod which was convened in the Church of the Holy Apostles. The Fathers, therefore, turning those who have been initiated into holy orders away from this, advise them to teach letters and to provide themselves a living from that, since they were also selected and appointed for this. But for foreign clergy to sit among magistrates or offices, and to minister in their oratories, is a forbidden act: for even if they offer rites in lower oratories without the consent of their own bishops or of the bishop of Constantinople, they shall be punished in like manner.

^B ZONAR. Many canons, both apostolic and synodical, have been issued regarding this point, but they were not sufficient to cut out this evil. Therefore, this synod also promulgated this canon, prohibiting two things at once by one and the same action, both of which were repugnant to the constitutions of the laws: one, that foreign clergy should not travel from city to city, nor even into this queen of cities, and associate themselves with magistrates, and minister in the oratories of their houses without the consent of the bishop whom they left and of the bishop of Constantinople, into whose diocese they have come—if they do not, they are to be deposed; and the other, that even if they obtained permission from the aforementioned bishops to celebrate sacred rites in an oratory house, they should not involve themselves in profane and secular affairs, nor undertake the role of steward, or of accountant, or of other such cares. ^C But if any are found to be doing anything of this sort, the Fathers of the Synod say that they must either desist or be deposed. The concern of the aforementioned "majors," which this canon mentions, is—as can easily be conjectured from the 11th canon of the First and Second Synod convened in the Church of the Holy Apostles—that which is called the "curatorship" in rural aristocratic estates, where they were also named "majors."

ARIST. ^D • A cleric who leaves his own parish and arrives in another without [the permission of] his own bishop and [the bishop] of Constantinople, shall not be received either in a house or in a church. But he who does this and persists, let him be deposed. If, however, with the knowledge of those whom we have mentioned, they do this, let them not undertake secular cares; or if they have undertaken them, let them cease, otherwise let them be deposed.

A foreign cleric entering this queen of cities ought not to be received in any house or church without the will of his own bishop and the bishop of Constantinople. But if he is received by anyone without their knowledge, and remains, not returning to his own parish, he shall be deposed. But he who is received with their knowledge in any house among those which are in this city guarded by God, ought not to become a steward, or a major, or a curator, but rather to teach the boys and the servants. But if he has undertaken such cares, let him either cease or be deposed.

^A CANON XI. Since we are bound to keep all the divine canons, we must observe completely inviolate that one which commands there to be stewards in the churches. And if indeed every metropolitan constitutes a steward in his own church, it is well; but if not, it is permitted to the bishop of Constantinople, of his own authority, to appoint a steward in his church. Likewise also for the metropolitans, if the bishops who are under them are unwilling to establish stewards in their own churches. But this same thing must also be observed in monasteries.

BALS. The Council of Chalcedon decreed in its 26th canon that every church should be administered by clerics according to the will and judgment of the bishop, but it did not state how those who transgress these things ought to be punished. The holy Fathers of the present synod, therefore, having prefaced that it is inescapable for the canons to be kept—and more so by the hierarchs, who before ordination profess among other things that they will keep the canons, and are therefore as it were bound—decreed that the present canon should be preserved inviolate; and they added that if the metropolitans do not do this in their churches, the patriarch of Constantinople shall of his own authority appoint a steward in the metropolis, entirely from among its own clerics; ^B and likewise the metropolitan shall appoint a steward to a bishopric if the bishop neglects this. It is decreed that the same thing should be done in monasteries. And when a certain bishop was accused of administering the affairs of his bishopric through a layman, some said that because the present canon punishes the hierarchs who do not appoint stewards, and does not say that those who ought to become stewards must be clerics, laymen may also rightly administer the affairs of the churches; but it does not seem so to me; since the Fathers of the Chalcedonian synod decreed that the affairs of the churches must be administered by clerics; and because this canon, by saying that the same thing should be observed here ^C and in the monasteries, declared the same thing which the Chalcedonian synod constituted. For no one, even if he were demented, would say that the goods of monasteries should be administered by laymen. Note that the present canon determines what ought to be done to the priests and prelates who do not administer the goods of the churches and of the monasteries through clerics or monks.

Guill. Beveregius' notes. Alex. Patr. in Jur. Gr. Rom. lib. iv, pag. 251. ^D Alexius, Patriarch of Constantinople in a synodal decree concerning ecclesiastical causes pertaining to all metropolises and archbishoprics, cites and explains this canon among others; the words of which are therefore worthy of being observed. He says: "And since the damage comes stealthily to the metropolises, our holy synod, having deemed what is fitting, of necessity decreed the appointment of stewards, according to the canon of the seventh synod—manifestly—for that canon gives authority even to the most holy patriarch [index: entries preserved]

^A ZONAR. Prelates, whenever they are to be ordained, promise beforehand both their faith and certain other things, and among those things, they also pledge upon their oath that they will observe the sacred canons. Hence it is that the Fathers in this place declare themselves bound by the obedience of all the divine canons. Since, therefore, the twenty-sixth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon established that every church that has a bishop must also have a steward selected from its own clergy, to administer the ecclesiastical properties according to the will of its own bishop, the Fathers of this present synod ^B declare that we must also observe that canon which says there must be a steward in every church. And if each bishop appoints a steward for his own church, it shall be so; but if he does not do this, they grant the prerogative to the prelate of Constantinople to appoint a steward by his own authority—that is, with power—in the churches subject to him. Likewise, they grant the same faculty to metropolitans within the dioceses of the bishops ordained by them. They order the same to be observed also in monasteries. But it is enough that these things exist in books, so far as concerns some men. For not all are to be accused, nor can this indeed be done while preserving equity.

ARIST. ‹ If a metropolitan has not appointed a steward for the metropolis, let the patriarch appoint one; and if a bishop has not done this, let the metropolitan do so: according to what seemed good to the Fathers gathered at Chalcedon. The same shall also be observed in monasteries. ⟩

In every church there must be a steward from its own clergy, who ^C must administer the ecclesiastical affairs according to the will of the bishop; just as the twenty-sixth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon established. But if any of the bishops wish to administer these things themselves: in the metropolises, the patriarch shall appoint the steward, and in their own episcopal sees, the metropolitan. And the same shall be observed also concerning monasteries which do not have stewards.

CANON XII.

‹ If any bishop or superior of a monastery shall be found alienating the lands of the bishopric or monastery into the hands of a prince, or delivering them to any other person, let the transfer be void, as the canon of the holy apostles wills, which says: The bishop shall have the care of all ecclesiastical things, and shall administer them as one who sees God. ^D It is not permitted to him to appropriate any of these things, or to bestow upon his own kindred what belongs to God. And if they are poor, let him provide for them as poor, but not under this pretext sell the things of God. But if they complain that the land causes loss and brings in no profit, not even so shall he give the land to the local magistrates or princes, but to the clergy or farmers. But if they use some wicked trick, and the magistrate purchases the land from the farmer or clerk, thus also let the sale be void, and let it be restored to the bishopric or monastery. ⟩

And let the bishop or abbot who does this be driven out; the bishop from the bishopric, and the abbot from the monastery, as those who wickedly squander what they did not gather.

BALS. God said through Moses that the things offered to God are not to be exchanged; but must remain unalienable, even if they be worse than those given in exchange. But if you change it, He says, you shall change it, and both it and its exchange shall be holy. The canon therefore says that a farm of the bishopric or monastery is not to be alienated or handed over by the bishop or abbot to any person whatsoever, or that the alienation or the handing over is to be void according to the 38th Apostolic canon. He adds, however, that if the bishop or abbot makes a pretext that the farm is unproductive and brings loss to the churches, let the handing over of this take place, provided it is not to persons of rank, but to villagers or to clerics. But since it was likely that the canon would be circumvented by some, the Fathers decreed that if at any time by some wicked trick an ecclesiastical matter should reach a powerful person through the medium of a lowly person or cleric, who pretended to be receiving the fixed property, then even so the things previously done should be void and the fixed property restored to the Church; and that the bishop or abbot who did this should be driven out from the bishopric or abbey. And so much for the canon. ^C But since "self-working" [autourgia] (which we call fields in Latin) are those which provide fruit from the things themselves and as if of their own accord, such as salt mines, olive groves, vineyards, meadows, watermills, potteries, and other such things; someone might ask: Does the canon decree concerning such "self-working" things, or concerning every fixed property that has a good income, and the more so because it mentions in the end concerning harmful farms? Solution. It decrees concerning both, and says that those farms which have a good income are not to be alienated nor handed over; but a field which is in truth, and not only in appearance, of no income, is to be alienated. Therefore, if the "self-working" piece of land becomes entirely unproductive (for perhaps the meadow land was flooded by a river current) or even the outlying suburban property, if it becomes income-producing as if newly inhabited by tenant farmers, this outlying property will not be alienated because of the income. But that one, even if it were called "self-working," will be handed over because of its unproductiveness and uselessness. For they ought not to be alienated according to names, but according to their income, or lack thereof. ^D Know also that by the laws, alienation is strictly called the transfer of ownership, such as a gift, a sale, emphyteusis, an exchange, and the like; while "handing over" is the transmission to persons or for fixed times. But abusively, "handing over" is also called alienation, and alienation [is called] "handing over." That those which have an income are not alienated, but those without an income are alienated for the churches for an urgent necessity, is shown by the 29th canon of the Council of Carthage, which permits this with distinctions; which also...

read. But the great Cyril also, in the second chapter of his letter to Domnus, declares that precious vessels—that is, sacred ones—and immovable possessions of the churches are inalienable. However, interpret this also according to the sense of the canon of the Carthaginian synod. ^A Since a certain bishop had handed over an ecclesiastical possession to a powerful person, and the alienation was invalidated by this canon, some said that the bishop ought to be expelled from his episcopate, as is contained in the canon. But it does not seem so to me. For the canon does not command the bishop to be cast out of the episcopate when he has performed an alienation of a property that has not remained valid and firm; but when he has made an alienation of an immovable ecclesiastical property with deceit, and intends in truth for this to reach a powerful person, but by fraud and malicious craftiness has handed it over to a cleric or a farmer, pretending that it is unproductive, so that from him it may come to the powerful person. For it is not because of the alienation, but because of the fraudulent intent ^B that his expulsion from the episcopate was decreed. And this is shown by the 38th Apostolic Canon, which has been laid down for the present canon, and does not punish the bishop who uses ecclesiastical property improperly without deceit; likewise also by the 120th Justinian Novel, or rather the 23rd chapter of the 2nd title of the 5th book of the *Basilica*, which decrees that such contracts are invalid; but regarding the punishment of the bishop or the hegumen, it treats of nothing at all, but only punishes the notary with exile. But since the said Novel (or rather the whole second title of the fifth book) ordains that sometimes not only unproductive and income-less immovables of the churches and monasteries, and even of the Great Church itself and other holy houses, ^C may be sold and alienated, through distinctions which are declared therein, and furthermore permits certain things to be alienated as the time persuades: read this, which is great and multifaceted and highly variegated, and manage that the alienations and distributions of sacred things and of their immovables by the churches and monasteries be done or not done according to its summary, and you will be kept blameless. For the present canon will not seem to you to be contrary, since the Novel likewise also forbids the alienation or sale of immovable things of churches or monasteries that is done without a just and urgent cause, just as the present canon does. What then, when the alienation, as has been said, is invalidated, and the ecclesiastical property returns to the church or the monastery, will the church be forced in return to give back the money or things which it accepted for that reason? ^D Solution: By no means. For the said Novel says these things expressly: "If, however, contrary to what has been ordained by us in the present law, any contract should be made regarding the aforementioned things, both movable and immovable, for one of the holy houses, let the property, with respect to which such a thing has happened, be restored to the same most holy church, or to the holy house, after..."

the fruits of the intermediate time have been accounted for; but let the price or the compensation, or whatever was given for the exchange or for any other cause, remain with it. But if an emphyteutic contract should be made contrary to what we have prescribed, we order that the same property be restored to the most holy church or to the holy houses, and that the emphyteuta [lessee] pay what was agreed upon, as the force of emphyteutic contracts requires. But if ecclesiastical property or that of any holy house be donated, let it also be restored to the most holy church or to the other holy houses, together with the fruits of the intermediate time, and as much besides as the property itself is worth. But if, beyond these things, it has been given as a pledge, let the lender lose what is owed him and restore the same property to the holy place, while the notaries who dare to provide their services in such contracts, contrary to our law, shall be condemned to perpetual exile.

^B This, too, someone has asked: Since the canon says that a bishop is to be cast out of his bishopric, and a superior out of his monastery, as pestilential and treacherous persons, will deposition follow the expulsion, or not? And some indeed have said that, since the holy Fathers define nothing of the sort, only the expulsion will proceed. But to me it seems that, since the expulsion happens on account of deceit, deposition necessarily follows also. For no one who is condemned for a cause that injures his reputation is of good standing. ^C We must therefore give thanks to our powerful and holy emperor, who, as the apostolic canon and this present constitution desire, has preserved the immovables of the churches and of the monasteries in the city from the hand of the fisc or the public by three golden bulls of his holy majesty: of which one was issued in the month of July, in the 1st indiction, in the year 6654, and directs that the monasteries not be harmed by any possible [legal] slackening of the rights belonging to them; and the second was issued in the month of October, in the 7th indiction, in the year 6655, and commands that the monasteries possess their immovables inseparably and indivisibly, even if notices which are in favor of the rights of the fisc have been given to them by the census-takers, which are not set down here because not a permanent security and utility is provided to the monasteries from them, but a temporary one. ^D The other, however, was issued in the month of March, in the 6th indiction, in the year 6656, and, having been placed in all the offices [secreta], it expressly declares after the proemium:

"Some years ago, our majesty saw fit to issue and distribute a definition fortified by a golden bull to those most holy monasteries situated in this queen of cities, and to those on the western part of the strait, as much as is upon the shore and further off; likewise also to those in the Gulf of Nicomedia, and up to Nicomedia itself, and to those in the islands, Oxea, Prima, Chalce, Plate, and the holy Glyce-

-^Aria, at the Principos of Antigonus, at Brachynesios, at Terebinthos, at Saint Andrew, at Saint Tryphon, at Saint Eleutherios of Codona, and at Pelagos, the Theotokos, Mesones, the Physician [Iatros], and Saint Demetrios, and to those in the possessions of the ports and as far as the region of Atyra; and, simply put, to the monks, both men and women, who are practicing the ascetic life around the Queen of cities, having bestowed upon them many rights, and having granted them a firm and unshakeable possession regarding the holding and dominion of immovable properties that pertain to them by certain rights, just as the aforementioned gold-sealed chrysobull ^B document pursues these details more broadly. But since the tax-collectors could not remain quiet, but under the pretext of state business brought heavy affliction upon them, my Majesty, wishing both to appease and render propitious God, for those things by which I have offended Him as a human being, and at the same time wishing also to have the soldiers of the great King, namely Christ, who for His sake have chosen the monastic life and put on the armor of the Spirit, as allies and strong defenders against enemies, both visible and invisible, being minded to place a roof on that good foundation, suitable in its proportion, has issued the present chrysobull with the best of reasons; by which it decrees and determines that all immovable properties held today by the above-enumerated monasteries, or hermitages, and anchorite cells, and lauras, and, in a word, monastic dwellings, by whatever name they might be called, as well as the ^C laborers, the self-cultivated lands, the feasts, the taxes, the resources, the lakes, the rivers, the maritime rights, and, to speak collectively, whatever right is considered to be in immovable properties, and in whatever place it may be situated, and is now occupied by them; specifically, because those who were exacting the census in the individual provinces have not yet given them a notice demanding the portions due to the treasury from these, they are to have the said mansions in perpetual dominion, as a house and a magnificence of my Majesty, and to have dominion over them for all time hence, even if they have held some or perhaps all of them until now for a reasonable or unreasonable cause, or even without any title, or indeed from a title that is in poor standing, or perhaps falsely concocted. For all things that are held by them in any province whatsoever, in the West and in the East, whether they are from those ^D customarily provided daily for the imperial guest-house, or whether they are from fragments, or from acts of compassion, or from abandoned, lapsed, or low-value properties that pay daily rates, or from low-value properties vexed by calamity, or those that have been sold by powerful persons, or the contrary, or from the correction of wrongly executed sales, even if in some places they were ordered to be given, and in others were delivered; or were donated but not delivered; or were delivered but not donated; or in any other way are held wrongly by them, my Majesty wills that they be held unshakably and without any further questioning by all the aforementioned monasteries, as a gift of my Majesty, proceeding from my own liberality and munificence. For since my Majesty wills that what is currently found with them be held forever

mentioned monasteries, as a gift of my Majesty, and a pure mark of favor. For since the possession of the immovables currently found with them ought to be sufficient for them in place of every title, it is redundant to inquire curiously about others. ^A For in all that they possess today—excepting, however, those things for which they received diagnoses from the regional recorders justifying the public right, as has been said—this present gold-sealed writing of my Majesty must suffice, and [serve] in place of a donation, and in place of a sale, and in place of every other title, even if any *secretum* whatsoever should lay claim to it. Nor shall the monasteries be compelled to produce other ancient rights that they possess for the immovables which they hold; but using this present gold-sealed writing of my Majesty in place of every title, they shall be content with this one, which as was written above ought to suffice them, ^B and [serve] in place of a donation, and in place of a conveyance, and in place of every other title. If, however, the occasion perhaps calls for it and any monastery should wish to use the rights and titles it possesses, and presents these on its own behalf, it shall not be hindered by anyone at all from doing so. For it will not do this by compulsion; but if it should choose to do so by its own will, no one will be admitted to hinder it. And this present gold-sealed writing will contribute to the monasteries not only for the adjudication of the land, but also for the parishes currently held by them, and for the self-funded works, taxes, fairs, ferries, lakes, ^C rivers, maritime rights, and any other right whatsoever held by them, except for those regarding which they received diagnoses on behalf of the public, as has often been mentioned above. If, however, orders were given for certain taxes, or all of them, or military services, or public ones, or *libellica*, or anything else belonging to the public treasury to be reckoned or cut off, and the reckoning has not been done, or if the title possesses any other vulnerability, the monasteries will suffer no harm from this. ^D What need is there, then, to recount many things, and to enumerate them, and to transcribe them for the sake of example? Dismissing prolixity, my Majesty—so that no one cunning and wily in such matters might seize upon the words, and, because some of the causes that shake [the tenure of] immovables have been mentioned while others have been passed over in silence, might insist upon the letter after the manner of the Jews, and attempt to agitate and harass the monasteries regarding things not mentioned—by a general and bountiful declaration my Majesty wills and decrees that everything which might be thought to be a public claim upon things currently possessed by the monasteries, or upon the very seats of the monasteries themselves, whether by someone now or at any time whatsoever, shall be reckoned as having been given by my Majesty to the monastery. And as soon as someone shall think and say this, the monastery shall immediately lay hold of it, as having been donated today by my royal sublimity. For with regard to the immovables which they now possess, for which the monasteries have not received public documents, my Majesty wills that each one of them be considered public, and obtain perpetual firmness, and be disputed by no one regarding that matter. And whoever

the highest degree, without any trouble or business being caused to it by the public; so neither shall the sacred shrines, the cells of anchorites, nor the monasteries, nor any other place, be disturbed by any public curator through lawsuits, whether anyone brings forward a probable or an improbable cause, or whatever it may be that he says. ^A For whoever shall attempt to do such a thing will be seen to be saying things that are invalid and truly infirm, and without any mercy his assets will be consecrated to the fisc, and he will be entirely infamous forever: as one who opposes the Emperor, who piously and religiously removes all trouble and vexation from the monasteries with regard to what has been given to them, through the present Golden Bull, and through it offers some small gift to God, in return for the thousands of benefits which he has received from His munificent right hand.

It shall not be permitted, therefore, to the public census-taker, nor to anyone presiding over any secretariat, or to any exæquator, or to any other person exercising a public office, to register the immovables of the monasteries, or to count the hearths, or to inquire how great their land may be, or the number of the coloni, or to examine what more land is possessed or has been bought at an unjust price or is unjustly held. But since by my imperial order acts are to be made in the name of those things which are held by the monasteries today, both of immovables and coloni, only then will the monastery be troubled, and that which is unjustly held will be taken away ^B when the public census-taker ^C shows that the monastery occupies fields or coloni or other property beyond the original limit. For the monasteries shall not have a license to increase and amplify what are possessed by them today, whether they be coloni, or locations, or rural estates.

Nevertheless, on such a pretext, it shall not be allowed to any exactor or census-taker to collect any hearth-tax, or any other registration-tax or exaction-tax from the immovables subject to the aforementioned monasteries. For he who shall dare to act against this must know that he will not only have to restore what he has exacted many times over, but he will also be subjected to the confiscation of all his goods, along with infamy and incapacity for civil positions. For thus does my Majesty wish all the immovables of the aforementioned monasteries to be regarded by each of the exactors, as if they were not under his own authority and power. And just as the exactors have no legal right to act on, or in any way deal with, the themes that are not subject to them, so too the exactors of the themes—even though the mentioned immovables may be included under them—shall not be considered the exactors of the monasteries' immovables.

However, the acts and descriptions of boundaries that will be made by those whom my Majesty shall designate for the verification of what is today possessed by the monasteries, shall be registered in the appropriate secretariats for their information. But all the monasteries must know that if any ^D fraud, or collusion, or any deceitful transgression is detected in any of them regarding what they possess today, not only will they not obtain any benefit at all from this Golden Bull of my Majesty, but they will also fall under the law—

^A regarding the right previously preferred, conceded to all the mentioned monasteries by another Golden Bull of my Majesty.

Furthermore, this Golden Bull annulled every order contrary to it—that is to say, any that had been given or might be given—and it decreed that the monasteries should also use their ancient rights. But since, due to the suggestions of certain people who rejoice in the misfortunes of others, an imperial command was issued in the month of June of the ninth indiction of the year 6684, which almost completely subverted this most pious and most beneficial Golden Bull, and consequently all monastery immovables were being seized by the public census recorders; in the month of July of the fourth indiction of the year 6689, a venerable resolution was issued by our pious, most powerful, and holy emperors concerning the petition of the monasteries, which cuts off the praetorian and catepanic ^B service, and which determines that the previously issued Golden Bulls shall have valid force so that monastery immovables are not listed, and it states word for word thus:

"My Majesty, needing the assistance of your prayers and wishing in all things to tread in the footsteps of the sovereign and father, the emperor of blessed memory, has resolved to imitate his beneficence toward those of you who are dedicated to God. And for this, through this one act of beneficence toward you, thanks are given to God who made that emperor—that soul of the sovereign and father of my Majesty being blessed—and it places a pedestal and foundation for the progress toward good of our power; and inclining toward your petition, so that the three Golden Bulls issued by his holy Majesty regarding the benefits of your monasteries may have their force ^C and be stable, firm, and immovable, it decrees that they shall remain immovably in the same strength in which they were first published, and that the deeds of tradition which followed these things shall provide security, even if they were made after two years; and even if perhaps some of them had not been previously filed in the appropriate *secreta*, any and all orders whatsoever that were issued for the interpretation or subversion of the power of the Golden Bulls, whether partial or general, which are declared in our records, in whatever way they were issued, are through the present resolution considered useless and invalid, just as if they had not existed at all.

Moreover, there shall cease that demand for praetorian and catepanic tax and service, or for the purchase or exaction of tow and grease, which until now has intruded upon the immovables of the monasteries under your care, situated in the theme of Thrace and Macedonia, for by the present ^D resolution they are cut off and rooted out, and reduced to something non-existent and unnamable; and the praetors and collectors, both subordinate and supreme, and those who at stated times exercise the purchase or exaction of tow and grease, and those who serve them, must thus pass by such immovables, as things from which the fisc demands nothing, in all matters that have been decreed in this way, themselves, from the beginning

and for all subsequent and continuous times, accepting them without contradiction, and regarding them as not even entered into the public records. And even if they were not recorded in the registers, but were known in some other way, they are to be accepted as such; and if anyone should dare, beyond what has been defined by these Golden Bulls and by this present exemption of my Majesty, to take action against any of the immovable possessions of your monasteries, besides being held liable for high treason (as has been defined by these Golden Bulls), he shall be compelled to make restitution for any damage inflicted upon any of your possessions by the most eminent Mystic for the time being. It will also be the care of all the monasteries, both those within the Great City and those outside, provided they lie within the boundaries included in such Golden Bulls, to perform what has been enjoined in the memorandum of the lord and father of my Majesty, of blessed memory, among emperors, lest they wish to be deprived of such exemption for having once neglected these things.

The Golden Bull given to the Most Holy Great Church of God

And the Golden Bull of our powerful emperor was also granted to the most holy Great Church of God, which contains these things word for word:

To that ancient and celebrated temple of Solomon’s wisdom, all offered according to their ability; and to this sacred and very great temple, which is under the name of the Wisdom of God—who is derived from Solomon and David according to his humanity—magnificently and regally constructed, of which that temple of Solomon was a prefiguration, a new Zion, I say, the ark of sanctification, the Church of our Savior, which the Holy Spirit built upon the truly stable and immovable rock of the apostolic ordinances, many offered various gifts, which are seen as immovable possessions situated in the East and West, and on some islands. Some were also acquired by purchase. Many of these (not to say most) were judged by those who are everywhere the describers of public census and others experienced in such matters, for various reasons, to belong to the fisc. But since this has been frequently brought to the ears of my Majesty by the report of those who are the ^D oeconomi of this great and sacred temple, my Majesty, without delay, has immediately bestowed this present definition, fortified by a Golden Bull, upon this most holy temple, through which my piety purely gives and grants to it everything that in any way belongs to the fisc or to the public, from among those things which are possessed by them in the East and West and on all the islands, of all kinds of immovable possessions, as a gift of this [piety] and a sacred offering, whether they be tenants, or land—namely arable or meadow or planted with vines or garden land, or whatever kind of estate, or resident merchants or craftsmen, and if castles have been built on any of these, or anything else that

^A has been found to pertain to the public domain in these places. ^B My Majesty, however, by the present pious definition secured by Golden Bull, amends whatever is found to be defective in the rights and titles belonging to the aforementioned Great Church of God, in all such immovable properties, of whatever kind they may be, and everything appertaining to them in the East and West and in all the islands, as now granted and entrusted to it by my Majesty; our serenity orders and decrees that these things shall be accounted for by the present pious writing secured by the Golden Bull. For this reason, our Majesty commands that detailed descriptions of all immovable properties be drawn up, declaring the tenants and residents who are set over them, as well as every kind of rural estate found within them, by the local registrars, and that they be confirmed by their signatures and delivered to the part of the most holy Great Church for perpetual security, so that all things may be manifest and beyond controversy, and may never at any time be brought under inquiry by any registrars, inspectors, or equalizers of the time, or those who otherwise examine fiscal matters, as the declared descriptions must be registered in the appropriate state offices for future memory. For it shall not be permitted to any of these persons at any time to enter such immovable properties in any way whatsoever, or to bring them into any dispute or inquiry. Nor shall rights to these be sought, nor may smoke-tax, ground-rent, ^C or any other tax whatsoever devised for the profit of the registrars be collected, all of which are forbidden by the mere appearance of this present Golden Bull of my Majesty, and the aforementioned limitations, as has been set forth. Every ordinance that has been made—whether regarding things previously alienated, or regarding fragments, or regarding concessions, or regarding those from lowly ranks, or regarding those subject to levies, or regarding assigned military obligations, even if no compensation for these has been made, or regarding not abiding by donations made without proper amount—or whatever other chapter has been pronounced, and is in any way contrary to this present Golden Bull of my Majesty, in so far as it is contrary, it shall be held to be without force, even if it contains a clause stating that it shall not be overturned, unless it has been explicitly expressed. For my piety, being aware of all the ordinances that have been made, has deemed it superfluous to enumerate them one by one, and my Majesty has determined that they are to be considered as having been expressly enumerated and overturned, in so far as they pertain to this definition of the Golden Bull. But neither shall any other ordinance that may be made in the future prevail over this pious writing; on the contrary, that ordinance, in so far as it is contrary to this definition of my Majesty, shall become void and of no effect, even if, to prevent its being overturned, a clause has been added (unless it has been explicitly pronounced) ^D or any other distinction of any kind. Therefore, in order that it may be clear what immovable properties belong to the most holy Great Church of God, they are clearly written down in the present definition secured by the Golden Bull,

^A which are to this effect by name: In the theme of Thrace and Macedonia, such and such; and he continues to list all the immovable properties. And after the enumeration of these, he says: The Strobiliot Jews found everywhere, and the exemption for ships of thirty thousand capacity. By all these things, our Majesty decrees that the most holy Great Church and all its possessions have their rights absolute and inviolable, ^B and the defining of the boundaries must be carried out in detail by the local registrars, as has been frequently explained; yet, under this pretext, it shall not be permitted to the aforementioned registrars to exact any chimney tax or measurement fee, or provision of necessities, or any other exaction whatsoever from any of its immovable properties, but they shall carry out the aforementioned boundary descriptions without any contribution or demand. And if anyone should dare to violate any of those things which are defined by the discourse of our Majesty in the present Golden Bull, besides the imperial indignation, he shall be in danger ^C of incurring the penalty of thirty pounds of hyperpyra, which shall be exacted from him without any sympathy for private matters, secretly and by convention of the most holy Great Church, forasmuch as the present text of the Golden Bull is firm and fortified, having been made in the month of August, in the first indiction, of the year 6661, to which our piety-surpassing and God-appointed empire has subscribed. Furthermore, another Golden Bull of the same powerful and holy emperor of ours was issued in the month of February, in the eleventh indiction, of the year 6656, which is called the "Healer," inasmuch as it heals the rights of all the Churches everywhere that were perhaps limping—that is to say, of the bishoprics and metropolises, and of the Great Church itself—which also treats of these things word for word:

He who after Moses was the commander of that chosen people, Jesus, ^D hastening to tear down the fortifications of Jericho, commanded the priests to sound their trumpets in a circle, and thus he miraculously cast down the battlements of the walls; but to my Majesty, which is set over a new people chosen by God, it is necessary—after that king who was another Moses to that people, a savior and guide, I mean the celebrated lord of my empire and my sire—to tear down as if they were Jerichoan walls the fortifications of the common enemy of all Christians (I mean the Western dragon, who exercises tyranny in Sicily and from there secretly creeps against the Roman empire), and by certain spiritual trumpets, as it were, namely the prayers of the high priests who daily appease God for us and contribute to the overthrow of that enemy, I have need of this. But even the divine Moses himself, when he joined battle with Amalek, being supported on both sides, thus put him to flight and conquered him. Just as he, therefore, so also my Majesty, needing the sacred support of the high priests for the intended battle against this new Amalek, and as if a pillar of light preceding this new Israel

and desiring to have their prayers guiding its footsteps, has gifted this present Golden Bull to the mother of all churches, the new Zion, the dwelling-place of the Wisdom of God, and to the high priests in all the islands and in the east and the west, strengthening their prayers for my Majesty even more. ^A For my Majesty knows precisely that "a king is not saved by much power, and a giant shall not be saved by the multitude of his strength; a horse is a false thing for safety," as I may say with the divine Prophet and Psalmographer and ancestor of God. Therefore, in order that that which is in every way unshakable be preserved for the one who presides over all churches, and for all the mentioned high priests of the holy churches anywhere, and that the security of the rights belonging to them in the possession of their immovable properties be established more firmly; and further, correcting also if anything is limping in their titles, and failing in accuracy—and not only this, but also if any right that ought to follow for the secure lordship, possession, and ownership of such immovable properties perhaps had not yet arrived, my Majesty has delivered this present Golden Bull as a healer of this, which was lacking for them, showing as complete and whole the law concerning these things, and making them absolutely unassailable, by means of which my Majesty confirms and makes safer whatever right belongs to the most holy churches of God, and to the one who presides over them, regarding their immovable properties, of whatever kind they may be and wherever they may be situated, and makes that which is beautiful more beautiful by the decision and vote of my Majesty. And whatever in them, in whatever things one might say it is scrutinized, whether in a Golden Bull of various emperors, or in sigillia, or in simple commands, or in solutions—that is to say, in procedural records—is limping, and in any respect falls short of what is accurate and of the due consistency required by royal commands and laws, it corrects, and decrees that no prejudice should ever arise from this matter to all the declared most holy churches for all time, but that what is weak and feeble in them should be most firm and unassailable by any legal argument from anyone who wishes to say something on behalf of the treasury or the public, as it is confirmed and strongly reinforced by this present Golden Bull of my Majesty. ^D And so that my Majesty may mention a few things out of the many that one might call to mind: if by chance a donation of serfs to them, or of measures of land without a certain quantity, exists, or some rural estates have been renewed in such properties, perhaps which were not donated to them; or were indeed donated, but the commands concerning these were not revoked, or in those previously specified which were donated to them, the commands concerning those previously defined were not revoked, or some of the imperial commands which were granted to them were in no way registered; or were indeed registered in some office but not the appropriate one; or registered but were lost, yet trustworthy copies of them are found; or actions which ought to have proceeded did not proceed, or which did proceed were not registered; or things which should have been...

registered were not done; or if, for any other cause that one might mention—whether in part or in whole—the rights pertaining to the oft-mentioned holy churches of God and to the mother of all are infirm and, consequently, lack their firm validity, even if every cause that makes such instruments infirm is not here explicitly named; or if perhaps other instruments ought to have been granted to them regarding such immovables, when they have obtained at least some (for if they have not acquired any document at all concerning any of the immovables possessed by them, they will in no way be helped by the declaration of this present Golden Bull); in no wise shall all these things, and whatsoever else might ever come into the mind of anyone contending for the fisc, ever be able to harm the most holy churches of God, the temple of the Wisdom of God, and the remaining metropolises, archbishoprics, and bishoprics, regarding those immovables which, as has been said, pertain to them by any rights whatsoever. ^B For if they possess absolutely no right at all in any immovables they may happen to have, they will not be helped in any way by the definition strengthened by this present Golden Bull; just as neither will they be helped in those where the fisc has had possession until this day for any just cause: for in all these cases, the strict interpretation of the law shall be observed. If, therefore, anyone should wish, out of greed or for any other reason, to disregard what is established in the present definition strengthened by the Golden Bull of my majesty, first, may he not behold the light of the holy Trinity when we stand before the fearful judgment seat, and may he fall away from the portion of the Christians, as Judas did from the number of the Twelve; furthermore, may he also draw upon himself the curse of the holy, righteous, and God-bearing fathers who have fallen asleep from the ages.

ZONARAS

of himself, he is liable, how much more so should we consider him liable who dissipates possessions consecrated to God by others? And this canon indeed makes a determination concerning lands. Moreover, the twenty-ninth canon of the Synod of Carthage prohibits the alienation of other things, even if they are not productive of fruit, unless caution is taken; and those who do not obey the canon are punished by the deprivation of the dignity they hold. But the great Cyril, writing to Domnus, decrees that the precious vessels of the churches and their immovable possessions are in no way to be alienated. But some of the superiors of the monasteries consider these things mere trifles. ^B ARIST. According to what deemed right to the holy apostles, whatever is alienated from an episcopate or monastery by a bishop or superior of a monastery shall be invalid. And the bishop or superior who does this shall be expelled. It is not permitted for the goods of the churches, and especially landed estates, to be alienated. Whatever immovable goods are useless and bring damage to the Church shall not be handed over to the local magistrates, but shall be leased to clerics or farmers. He who transgresses what has been determined, if he is a bishop, shall be driven out from the bishopric; if he is a superior, from the monastery, as those who wickedly scatter what they did not gather.

CANON XIII.

Since, on account of the calamity which has occurred in the churches because of our sins, certain holy houses have been seized by certain men—both bishoprics and monasteries—and have become ^C common inns; if those who hold these are willing to restore them, that they may be restored to their ancient state, it is well and good; but if not, if they are of the priestly catalogue, we order them to be deposed; but if they are monks or laymen, to be excommunicated, as those who have been condemned by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and let them be assigned to where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched; because they oppose the voice of the Lord, which says: ^D “Make not the house of my Father a house of merchandise.”

BALS. Because of the madness of the iconoclasts, many orthodox people fled from their bishoprics and monasteries and occupied the mountains. So these holy houses and other sacred places for the meditation of divine things were seized by some and made into secular dwellings. For this reason, the Fathers decreed that they be restored to their ancient state; but those who do not obey this, but persist in evil, if they are initiated in holy orders, let them be deposed; if they are laymen or monks, let them be excommunicated. And these things were indeed spoken with regard to the state of affairs that existed at that time. But extend the canon also to those who today hold sacred houses that have been profaned by the incursion of the Gentiles and made common. For they are not even able

to say that they did not dare to commit this evil, and therefore ought not to make this restitution. Likewise, neither shall they put forward the lapse of many years, so that what cannot stand may be confirmed, and the holy may be made common. For these things indeed have a place in other matters, that is to say in human affairs, but not in holy and sacred ones. Note these things for the sake of the Eastern metropolitans, who are recalling their own bishoprics and monasteries from the laymen who hold them, and hear such things. But if these holy places are not made common, but are preserved as they were before, will those who hold them be compelled to make restitution of them? ^B Solution. It is necessary that bishoprics should be occupied by bishops, and at no time shall the elect be prohibited from returning to them; just as was done in the case of the bishopric of Megara, which for as many years as exceed the memory of man had been erased and extinguished, and by imperial command and synodal act was recently restored to the metropolitical see of Athens. But monasteries, as it seems to me, if they have been possessed by some for the space of forty years, do not easily revert to their former possessors, provided, of course, that they have known by whom they are possessed and, because of sloth, have not recalled them for so long a time. Since the present canon was issued consequently to the 24th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and the 49th canon of the Council in Trullo, decreeing the same things, adds that monasteries must not be handed over to secular men, it was said at one time that, consequently to that canon and the present one, the older patriarchal gifts of monasteries to laymen, and indeed also the assignments of monasteries attributed to other monasteries, ought to be overturned, and they should be reserved for the Great Church. The document of that patriarch, the Lord Sisinnius, decreeing the same things, was read, and perhaps this was destined to come into effect. But because another decision of that most holy patriarch, the Lord Sergius, was brought forward, which was made in the month of May, in the 14th indiction, in the year 6524, fortified by an imperial subscription, which interprets the 49th canon of the Council in Trullo and determines that 'assignment' is not to be understood in the case of donations that preserve the state of the monasteries, but in the case of those who receive monasteries so as to have them as secular inns, and near the end expressly detailing these things also: we therefore, by the authority granted to us by the Holy Spirit, ^D overturn that action which takes away donations and assignments, as being done not by any episcopal consent, but by one’s own free will, and not accepted by the Christ-loving emperor, since he himself is also seen to give away monasteries beyond his power; and which appears from the things themselves not to be for the benefit of the monasteries, but to their utter ruin.

Guillaume Beveridge’s Note

^A nor even to the Christ-loving emperor, as it appears, and himself bestowing monasteries beyond that power of his, and furthermore having appeared from the very things themselves as not for the benefit of the monasteries, but for their complete ruin and destruction. Confirming and validating, therefore, the ancient and new useful custom of our blessed and God-bearing Fathers, we decree that donations and endowments be made without hindrance for the establishment and improvement of the monasteries being endowed and bestowed. It seemed best, therefore, that the aforementioned canons should be interpreted according to the present tome, and that donations of monasteries made to seculars, and much more so endowments, necessarily possess the quality of being inviolable. Wherefore even until now such things are done without hindrance. The things written by us in the interpretation of the present canon ^B will suffice for anyone who wishes them, so that he may know not to give his mind to those things written by that patriarch of Antioch, Lord John, concerning not giving monasteries to persons, and who label this work an impiety. For in everything, that decision is to be preferred which was made by the most holy universal patriarch, Lord Sergius, which indeed interprets how the canons ought to be understood with synodical concurrence. For in any event, that tome written by the most holy universal patriarch, Lord Sergius, will prevail, interpreting how the canons ought to be understood with synodical cooperation.

ZONARAS. At the time of the heresy of the Iconoclasts ^C, many things were dared against the orthodox. But more than others, those initiated into sacred orders and the monks were persecuted, so that, having abandoned their churches and monasteries, the majority fled. Abandoned, therefore, the stations of churches and monasteries were occupied and annexed by some, who arrogated their possession to themselves as if it were their own, and placed domiciles there, converted into profane lodgings. Regarding these men, therefore, the canon says that if, indeed, those who have these things are willing to restore them, so that they may be established as they were before—that is, as bishoprics and monasteries—it would be well; meaning that they will act well. But if they persist in these, if they are members of the clergy, let them be deposed; if they are monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated, as being already condemned by the Holy Trinity for this crime.

ARISTENUS. ^D “Those who make bishoprics or monasteries common, unless they restore the property of the bishopric or of the monastery to the bishop or the superior, let it be void; and if they are members of the clergy, let them be deposed; but if laymen or monks, let them be excommunicated.”

If the goods of churches ought not to be alienated, how much more is it not fitting that the churches themselves and the monasteries be profaned and become common lodgings. Those, therefore, who hold these, if they are unwilling to restore them to their ancient status, if they are indeed of the sacerdotal catalog, [they shall be deposed; but if they are laymen or monks, they shall be separated].

Notes of William Beveridge

^A of the priestly order, they shall be deposed; but if they are laymen or monks, they shall be excommunicated, as making the house of God a house of merchandise.

CANON XIV

• That order should be observed in every priesthood is manifest to all: and to observe the promotions of the priesthood exactly is pleasing to God. Since, therefore, we see some from childhood receiving the tonsure of the clergy, while not yet having received the laying on of hands from the bishops, and reading in the congregation on the ambo, and doing this uncanonically; by the present canon we command that this not happen: and that the same be likewise observed among monks. But it is permitted that the laying on of hands for a Reader may be performed in his own monastery by each superior individually, if the laying on of hands for the presidency of the superior has been conferred upon the superior himself by a bishop, he being, of course, a presbyter. Likewise, also by ancient custom, it behooves chorepiscopi, by the permission of the bishop, to appoint Readers by the laying on of hands. »

BALS. Order contains all things heavenly and earthly: and much more so, if good order is maintained among priests, it propitiates God. Since, therefore, the holy Fathers say: We see some who from childhood were clothed in black garments, as though consecrated to God, and who received the tonsure not through the laying on of hands by the local bishop, but who dare, after reaching adulthood, to read the divine Scriptures on the ambo uncanonically; we decree that this not happen, as it is a cause of disorder, nor that anyone otherwise read the divine Scriptures on the ambo, unless he has received the seal of the clerical office through episcopal laying on of hands; and that the same be kept also in the case of monks. But because, as it seems, this was thought to be difficult for the monks who for the most part inhabit the deserts, and are unable to traverse the cities and to have easy access to the bishops, concession was made to those superiors who have received the character ^C from the bishops—being necessarily presbyters—to make monks Readers in their own monastery, so that they may read the divine Scriptures on the ambo without any impediment. Likewise, it was granted also to the chorepiscopi to appoint Readers by episcopal permission. And such is the canon. From this, however, a great instability is resolved on the part of those who say that they are not clerics who have only the tonsure through the laying on of hands of the prelate, and have not yet been enrolled in the order of clergy: and therefore that they are able to take up the habit and attire of laymen. For it is clearly shown that when anyone has received the laying on of hands for the tonsure from the prelate, he is immediately a cleric; even as it is permitted for him to read on the ambo. But it seems to me that one who has been clothed in black garments simply by a bishop, to the end that he might become a cleric, cannot change his attire, as one who has purposed to consecrate himself to God; and therefore he can neither rescind his vow to God, nor mock the holy habit like stage-players; which also, concerning monks, he often

^A said: but those who have been clothed in black garments with the Trisagion, I say simply that they cannot change their habit. But since the canon states that it is permitted to any prefect of a monastery, who has received the character from the prelate—that is, being a priest—to make monks readers within his own monastery and nowhere else, some have inquired whether he is permitted to do this immediately upon receiving the character, even without the express permission of the prelate? And some said indeed that the imposition of hands for a prefecture carries this also tacitly, inasmuch as the canon adds nothing further: using also the 24th canon of the council of Laodicea to confirm their position. Others, however, argued to the contrary, that ^B since a reader is also a cleric, he must necessarily receive the character with the imposition of hands of the bishop or his permission; whence the monastery prefect will then perform the reader’s ordination in his own monastery, when this also has been permitted him by his own prelate. For if we do not say this, we shall have to judge that it is just for him also, without episcopal permission, to hear the confessions of his monks and of others, which cannot be. For to prelates alone, and to the priests to whom it has been permitted by them, it has been granted from above to bind and to loose. But when the adversaries said that if the monastery prefect needs in addition the special permission of the local bishop, that which was granted to the prefect by the ^C canon comes to nothing: the others replied that even so, a great right is given to the prefect. For since no priest can ordain a reader, even if this has been permitted to him by a prelate, the aforementioned prefects will perform this by episcopal decree, which is indeed a special gift. I, however, understand this to have been granted by the canon to monastery prefects without distinction. Furthermore, when it was doubted whether those who are not initiated into sacred orders become monastery prefects; some said that because they receive the character upon the examination of the bishop, the bishop will altogether choose the one who is more approved for the healing of souls, even if he is not initiated into sacred orders; and not him ^D who is ordained, but is not well regarded. Just as he who is sick bodily would not choose for healing one who is unskilled in the medical arts, because he has been ordained head physician, while passing over one who is knowledgeable and skilled, as one who is not ordained: for it is not ordination, but perfect knowledge that provides the cure. Others, however, argued to the contrary, that when the canon decrees that those monastery prefects have this right who have received the character from bishops, that is to say priests, it appears that a prefect does not receive the character of his prefecture unless he is a priest: which does not seem so to me. For it was not because of the prefecture that it was added by the holy Fathers that those who preside over monasteries must be priests, but because of the reader's ordination, namely, since a reader cannot be ordained by a monastery prefect who is not a priest. I say, therefore, from both the present canon and from the 19th, that even unordained [men] are rightly appointed as prefects; for even women are monastery prefects. And just as they do not receive confessions,

^A nor do they make readers: so neither do monks and prefects, who are not priests, do this; for they are not even fit to receive permission for such a thing from the bishop. What then? Since Justinian's Novella says, as we have often said, that no one is to be made a reader unless he be eighteen years of age, if any infant or child has received the ordination of a reader from the prelate, will he be content with this, or after the eighteenth year will he have need of another episcopal seal? Solution. If it were granted that he should receive the character again, inasmuch as the first character could not endure, it would be permissible for him to be transformed into a layman before the second, which is absurd. And therefore, to him who received the character from childhood, it will suffice, as it seems to me, that the first character received from the prelate be considered just as if it had been made by him after the eighteenth year; and all the more so, because there is no canon to be found which says that he who has received the reader's ordination before that time is affected by any prejudice. Concerning the privileges of the chorepiscopus, however, read the 10th canon of the Council ^B of Antioch.

ZONAR. Some who were not created readers by any imposition of hands, that is, not elected to that office by any certain designation, used to read the holy books from the ambo in assemblies. This, therefore, the present canon forbids to be done, saying that it is most evident, that is, very manifest and plain, that order is to be maintained in all priesthood. But for one not having received the imposition of hands, nor having been inscribed in the register of readers—such as those who, from childhood, having been perhaps set apart for God, have only a tonsure on the crown and nothing more—to read the things of the divinely inspired Scripture to the people from the ambo is a certain perturbation of order. He therefore decrees that this must not be done in the future; and by the same constitution he commands that monks also be bound [by this]. And indeed, he says, the prefect of a monastery himself, if he has received the seal of the priesthood ^C from the bishop and is initiated into the priesthood, can create a reader by the imposition of hands, but only in his own monastery. And chorepiscopi also, with the permission of the bishop to whom they are subject, have the right to ordain readers, and even, by the decree of the tenth canon of the Council of Antioch, subdeacons and exorcists.

ARIST. "Without the imposition of a bishop’s hands, no one shall read from the ambo. This shall also be observed in the case of monks. But the prefect of a monastery, to whom the bishop has imposed hands, shall ordain a reader in his own monastery alone. A chorepiscopus also shall create a reader." Although one may have a priestly tonsure, if he has not also received the imposition of hands from the bishop, he shall not read ^D in the assembly from the ambo the sacred books of God. Likewise, neither shall a monk do this...

But to those who are heads of monasteries, if they are presbyters and have received from the bishop by his imposition of hands the care of the monastery, the power is given to lay hands upon a reader in his own monastery alone. But also the chorepiscopi shall ordain readers; and as the tenth canon of the synod of Antioch determines, they also appoint subdeacons and exorcists, even if Basil the Great does not concede this to them without his will, to admit any person to ecclesiastical ministry; because they act contemptuously and carelessly in the election of such persons. ^B

CANON XV

• A cleric from this time forward shall not be appointed in two churches; for this is characteristic of trade and sordid gain, and alien to ecclesiastical custom. For we have heard from the voice of the Lord himself that “no one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other.” ^C Each one, therefore, according to the apostolic word, in that in which he was called, in this ought to remain, and reside in one church. For things which are done for sordid gain in ecclesiastical matters are alien to God. For the use of this life there are various pursuits; therefore, from these, if anyone wishes, let him procure things necessary for the use of the body. For the Apostle said: “These hands have ministered to my needs, and to those who are with me.” ^D And these things, indeed, [are to be observed] in this God-preserved city; but in the places outside, let it be allowed on account of the scarcity of men.

BALS. The canon is clear. For it determines that no cleric may be appointed in two churches, because this is sordid gain and trade. But as if someone had said, "And whence shall the clergy have those things which are sufficient for sustenance without any want?" the Fathers said that there are many and diverse pursuits, free and not blameworthy, and through them let them acquire the things necessary for their sustenance. For the sake of this, they also produced testimonies from the Acts of the Apostles and from the Gospels. In the regions, however, which are outside the queen of cities, where there is a scarcity of men who know letters, it is permitted that a cleric be appointed in two churches. But today the opposite happens. For in the external regions, on account of the imperial exemption of the priests, the clergy are more numerous than the churches, and for this reason no one is appointed in two churches. But in the queen of cities, they are appointed not only in two, but even in three or more. As is likely, therefore, the present canon has been neglected because its contemners are not punished, or because of the multitude of the churches

^A and the narrowness of the more worthy matters. But those who say that the canon (56) deals with those who desire to be enrolled in the clergy of two cities speak wrongly; for other different canons have punished this with severity.

ZONAR. The canon forbids the same cleric from being assigned to two churches, calling this base greed and trafficking. For no one can serve two masters, and each one, he says, as the Apostle admonishes, should remain in the order in which he was called, and it commands him to attend upon the church in which he was originally enrolled. For whatever is done regarding ecclesiastical matters out of base greed alienates one from God. But the fact that one is assigned to two churches happens entirely so that he may receive allowances from both, in which there is the turpitude of base gain. But as if someone should object, "And how will those who are enrolled live, if they are not satisfied with what is given to them by one church?" those who prepared the canon counter that there are different trades for the needs of life, and that they should pursue one of these, so that from these they might provide what they need, and they bring forward the testimony of the Apostle, who said, "My hands have ministered to my needs, and to those who are with me," as it is written in the Acts. These things, they say, we command to be observed in this great and queen of cities ^B because of the multitude of men in it. But in the regions outside, where there is a scarcity of men, we decree that it is permitted for one cleric to be assigned to the ministry of two churches.

ARIST.

Cleric not to be appointed to two churches in Constantinople; but outside it permitted because of scarcity of men.

No one can serve two masters; for he will either hate the one, according to the Lord’s word, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Therefore, this council rejects those things which are done in ecclesiastical affairs for base gain, as alien to God, and does not permit one cleric in Constantinople, where there is a multitude of priests, to be appointed to two churches, but to attend upon one church. But if what is given to him is not sufficient for the necessity of life, it decrees that such a one should pursue some other trade, and from it provide what is necessary for his body. For the Apostle also did this, as he himself says: "These hands have ministered to my needs and to those who are with me."

CANON XVI. All luxury and bodily adornment is alien to the priestly order and state. Those who therefore adorn themselves with bishops' or priests' vestments, or who cover themselves with

^A bright and conspicuous garments, ought to correct themselves; but if they persist, they are to be delivered over to penance; likewise also those who perfume themselves with ointments. Since the root of bitterness sprouting upward has become a defilement to the Catholic Church—namely, the heresy of those who accuse Christians—and those who accepted it not only loathed the depictions of images, but also cast aside all piety and religion, hating those who live modestly and piously; and in them was fulfilled what is written: “Religion and true worship of God is an abomination to the sinner.” If, therefore, some are found mocking those who are clad in simple and modest attire, let them be corrected by penance. For from ancient times, every sacred man lived with moderate and modest clothing. For everything that is taken up, not for the sake of necessity, but for the sake of embellishment, carries with it the accusation of vanity, as the great Basil said. And no one used to wear clothing variegated with silken weaves, nor did they add garments of different colors at the edges of their cloaks. For they heard from the divine-sounding tongue that those who wear soft clothing are in the houses of kings. ^B

BALS. Because the Iconoclasts had changed every ecclesiastical order and piety into confusion and impiety, inasmuch as they permitted the clergy and bishops who came to them to conduct their lives impiously and rashly, so that they might yield to their wishes; and for this reason the priestly vestment was also changed into one that was more effeminate and worldly. The Fathers decreed that those who adorn themselves with bright clothing, and who do not correct themselves after having been instructed, are to be punished; likewise also those who perfume themselves with ointments are to be punished. But since these same heretics, in addition to this, mocked those who lived with modesty and piety and who used more cheap clothing for the sake of humility, the divine Fathers decreed that those who do such a thing are to be corrected by penance. For, they say, priests always previously conducted their lives with moderation and modest behavior (and the great Basil named any clothing that is more bright than the necessity of the body requires, vanity, that is to say, levity); nor did priestly men wear ^C silken clothing, that is to say, metaxata (for the *seres* are worms), nor did they add any garments of a different color at the edges of their cloaks, that is to say, borders; and thereafter they add the evangelical saying. Read also the 27th canon of the Sixth Synod. But when those clergy who were dressed in splendid clothes—wearing garments called *samitos*, which had not only panels or borders of a different color but were also interwoven with gold, and besides this, had luxurious golden letters—were accused, some said that the canon had been issued ^D because of the confusion of things that existed in the churches at that time,

and the great lack of reverence among the clergy, and the claim that the canon should no longer have force, since by the grace of God ecclesiastical discipline and piety are complete, and clergy live with more splendid garments for the honor of God: they heard that they were not speaking rightly. For the canon is universal, and what is written in it must be observed and must retain its force for ever and ever; those who live otherwise than it prescribes shall be rightly punished, if they do not amend. ^B

ZONARAS. The twenty-seventh canon of the Sixth Synod also makes provision concerning priestly attire; but since the Iconoclasts had disturbed ecclesiastical customs, for this reason this present Synod also thought fit to provide by decree concerning the same matter. If, therefore, any bishop or cleric has used a precious garment for the adornment and elegance of his body, or has been anointed with ointment, the Synod commands that the man first be admonished, then, if he persists, that he also be subjected to penalties. For since, it says, the heresy of those who accuse Christians—and those who held to that heresy—not only declared war on the holy images but also, having utterly forgotten all religious modesty, hated and opposed those in whom the gravity of morals and life resided: [the Synod] decides that if they are caught mocking men clad in humble and modest attire, they are to be punished for the sake of correction. For, says the Synod, from ancient times men consecrated to God have existed as moderate and grave in all their way of life and dress. Then it also brings forward the testimony of the great Basil, explaining what *perpereia* (ostentation) is; for he says that anything which is taken up not for use, but for adornment and elegance, carries the charge of ostentation. Nor did those who had been co-opted into the sacred order in ancient times, says the Synod, use garments figured with *metaxa* (silk)—for these are silken, as they are produced by *seres* (for the worms are called *seres*)—nor was it the custom to sew colored cloth additions onto the fringes of their garments. And these things are immediately concluded by an evangelical sentence.

ARISTENUS. Bishops or clerics who clothe themselves in splendid garments, or are anointed with ointments, are to be corrected. If they persist, they are to be punished. Clear. ^C

CANON XVII. Certain monks, having abandoned their own monasteries, as those who desire to command and refuse to obey, set about building oratories, even though they lack the things that pertain to completion. If any man, therefore, shall have attempted to do this, let him be restrained by the bishop of the place; but if he has what is sufficient for completion, let the matters he has deliberated be brought to an end. The same shall also be observed in the case of laymen and clerics.

BALSAMON. Again, the holy Fathers, not enduring at all that the passion for vainglory should circulate among them, ^D

^B decreed that monks who abandon their own monasteries for the sake of vainglory or disobedience, and who undertake to build oratories while not having sufficient means for their completion, should be restrained by the bishop of that region, as those who are insufficient to establish them. They decreed that this same thing should also be applied to laymen and clerics. If you wish to know more broadly how and by whom monasteries are built, consult cap. 1, tit. 1, lib. IV of the Basilica, which is part of the 127th Novel of Justinian, and the entirety of cap. 1, tit. 11, of the present work, and what is contained therein; likewise also the 1st canon of the holy and great first and second synod which was gathered in the temple of the Holy Apostles, and you will learn everything which pertains to the building of monasteries. However, take what was said by the holy Fathers in the proemium, "not heard in the case of laymen and clerics," to apply only to monks. But extend the prohibition against those building monasteries who do not have sufficient expense to all, namely, laity, clerics, bishops, monks, and others. But one might ask, "And what amount of expense will be required of him who wishes to build a monastery? Many talents of gold, or a few staters?" Solution. Neither. For no one is forced to offer to God an ostentatious offering of great price, nor will one who brings a few tiny gold coins, not sufficient for what he has proposed, be heard. But since a monastery is constituted by at least three monks, he who intends to build will be required to bring, if not more, then certainly what suffices for the completion of the temple, and for his own and the three monks' habitation and provision. For the Novel of the emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher, after the proemium, says these things: "We say, therefore, since it has been said by the divine mouth: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them' (Matt. XVIII, 20), it is necessary that three at least suffice for the work which bears the name of a monastery, and that there be no lack of means for other precious instruments which pertain to the ceremonies and the worship of God and the celebration of His name." Therefore, it will be necessary for him who wishes to undertake the consecration of a monastery without hindrance to spend at least that much on its consecration. ^C But since many who dedicate themselves to such an undertaking are sometimes subsequently frustrated in their intent by death intervening and removing their conversation from among men, this is decreed by us: that if a testament has preceded, the things which have been arranged in it shall be the Church's. But if, as the uncertainty of things often brings forward many such cases, someone is removed from the midst of things before a testament concerning his property has been made, if there are three children, the monastery shall claim for itself a fourth part of the property: but if the multitude of the offspring proceeds beyond the third number, the monastery shall be counted together with the children, and shall receive equal shares with each of these from the entire estate, which

is not encumbered by the debts of the deceased. But if he who has departed this life is childless, but has left parents, his property shall be divided into two parts; one part shall be given to the parents, and the ^A other part shall be delivered to the monastery. If, however, he is destitute of ascendant heirs, but the clergy have admitted those who are related to him through a collateral line, they themselves, whoever they may be, shall receive a third part, and two parts shall accrue to the Church. And these are the regulations concerning those who build monasteries.

Interrogation

Solution

ZONARAS

ARISTENUS

CANON XVIII

is caught keeping a maidservant or a free woman in the bishop's residence, or in a monastery, for the sake of performing any service, let him be rebuked; but if he persists, let him be deposed. If, however, it happens that there are women in the suburbs, and a bishop or hegumen wishes to make a journey to those places, while the bishop or hegumen is present, a woman must in no way perform any service at that time, but she should withdraw to another place and stay there quietly, until the bishop has departed, so that all occasion for reproach may be avoided. ^B

BALS. Having understood, as it seems, that women are staying in bishops' residences and monasteries, the holy Fathers said that, since the great Apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, ordained that we should be without offense, not only to those who are inside, but also to those who are outside—that is, not only to believers, but also to unbelievers—and because for bishops or hegumens to stay with women in a monastery or in a bishop's residence is a cause of every offense and a not insignificant disgrace to ecclesiastical order, those who do such a thing ought to be punished, and if they persist, to be deposed. ^C But as if someone had said that it is alien to right judgment to punish those who dwell with women in any manner whatsoever (for it happens that one of them, when passing through, puts up in a suburb where there are women, and the bishop cannot decline to stay with them), they ordained that if this happens, the women must in no way serve while the bishop or hegumen is looking on, but they must withdraw to another place and live in silence until they have departed; the men, however, must perform the service entirely by themselves. For thus the blamelessness, that is, the lack of scandal, will be preserved in their regard.

Does it follow by argument from the contrary, then, that if they do not stay with women in the bishop's residence or in a monastery, but in other dwellings, they will be forgiven? Solution. The canons, as we have often said, and caption 37 of title 1 of book 3 of the Basilika, forbid any of those who are in the priestly order from staying with a suspicious woman, except with a mother, sister, daughter, and other persons from whom no suspicion arises. ^D But caption 57 of the same, which is a portion of Justinian’s 137th Novel, says these things expressly: "We do not permit a bishop to have any woman at all or to live with her; but if this be proven, let him be cast out of the episcopacy." If, therefore, a bishop who merely cohabits with any woman is deposed, much more will one who has done such a thing in a bishop's residence be deposed, as it seems to me, because the Novel speaks without distinction. However, caption 15 of title 1 of book 4 prevents not only a woman from remaining in a men's monastery, or vice versa, but also from entering into it at all for any cause whatsoever. Note, therefore, the canon saying that neither a maidservant nor a free woman ought to reside with a bishop or hegumen in any...

suburban place, unless it is held that these suburban places belong to the bishopric or monastery by right of ownership; for if they should put up at public inns or even in others' suburban properties, it is difficult, as I think, for the things contained in the canon to be observed. ^B

ZONARAS. The third canon of the First Synod, and the fifth of the Sixth, make definitions concerning women who were kept at home. But this canon also forbids a woman to lodge in a bishop’s residence or in a men’s monastery; and it orders that any person who, under whatever pretext, has women in such places be rebuked, and if they do not cast them out, it orders that those who are ordained be deposed. Nor does it permit a bishop or the superior of a monastery to go to a suburban property where women are performing service, unless those women pass to another place until such time as the bishop or superior has departed. Read also the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra.

ARISTENUS. ^C Women ought not to reside in bishops’ residences or in monasteries. If, therefore, anyone should dare to do this, let him be rebuked; if he persists, let him be deposed. Moreover, even where a bishop or superior visits, no woman shall serve or appear; but let her stay apart until he has departed.

We must be blameless even to those who are outside, according to the divine Apostle; and for this reason women ought not to live in bishops’ residences or in men’s monasteries; but the Fathers order that he who has dared to keep a maidservant or a free woman for some ministry in a bishop’s residence or in a monastery be rebuked. Moreover, they decree that one who, even after rebuke, does not drive them away, but still allows them to remain in the bishop’s residence or in the monastic dwelling, is to be deposed. If, however, a bishop or superior of a monastery should go to the suburban properties of the bishopric or monastery, and it should happen that women are there, they shall not serve as long as they are there; but let them stay separately in another place until they have departed, so that an opportunity for reproach may be avoided.

CANON XIX.

The plague of cursed avarice ^D has so invaded the prelates of the churches that some of those who are called pious and religious men and women, forgetting the commandment of the Lord, are deceived and admit those who come to the priestly order and the monastic life for money. And that of which the beginning is reprobate, the whole is also to be rejected, as the great Basil says: for it is not permitted to serve God and mammon. If anyone, therefore, is found doing this—whether he be a bishop, or a superior, or anyone of the priestly order—let him either cease or be deposed, as the canon of the holy Synod of Chalcedon wishes; but if she be a mother superior, let her be expelled from the monastery and handed over to another monastery for submission. Likewise also a superior of a monastery,

who does not have the ordination of a presbyter. ^A Concerning those things which are given by parents to their children in the manner of a dowry, or property of their own that is offered, upon the profession of those who offer them that they are consecrated to God: we have determined that, whether they remain or whether they depart, they shall remain in the monastery according to the condition of their offering; unless the one who presides is at fault.

BALS. In the 5th canon of the present synod, various things were decreed by the holy Fathers concerning the giving of money by those who are established or ordained in any clergy. Consequently, therefore, the present canon also, rebuking bishops and superiors of monasteries who, on account of avarice, receive certain persons with an offering of money (for they are the leaders of the people and, as it were, guides on the way), decrees that no one shall be numbered in the fraternity of a monastery or in the clergy of a church through a largess of money. And as for those who receive them: if they are bishops and ordained superiors, they are either to cease after a warning or be deposed; but if they are nuns or superiors of monasteries not initiated into sacred orders, they are to be driven out of the monastery and handed over to another monastery to be subject in it. However, the things offered to God by some of their own free will, and those belonging to them from their parents, or from anywhere else, are to be inalienable from the monastery, whether the one who consecrated these things remains in the monastery or departs, unless the superior himself has become the cause of the departure. ^B Some have said, therefore, that these things will surely have place in cenobitic monasteries, but will not be effective in the cell-monasteries, because those in the latter buy their own provisions, but do not have the right of the tonsure or of the clergy. But they heard that this is to be understood in all things and concerning all monks, because there is no difference in the canons between monks and monasteries. Someone asked, since the 5th canon decrees that he who ordains in this way is to be deposed, how does the present canon decree that he who receives any cleric or monk through a giving of money is to either cease or be deposed? ^C Solution. Whenever an ordination is performed with a giving of money, as the 5th canon wishes, the one who ordained will be deposed on that very account; but when there is only the reception of a person, whether into the clergy or into the monastery, performed for money, he who did that evil will not be deposed otherwise than if, after a warning, he persists in the evil; since the canons also are different. For one teaches about illicit ordination, but the other about an unreasonable reception. And these things are concerning those who ordained or received certain persons contrary to the summary of the canons by means of a giving of money. ^D Note the present canon on account of those who give what are called *apotagai*, or those who sell or buy *adelphata* [annuities/brotherhood shares], and on account of those who are brought into the monasteries with an offering of coin. Regarding which it is good to say: If one observes iniquities, O Lord, who shall survive?

^A And how will those who have been ordained or received be punished? Solution: The one who has been ordained shall be deposed according to the aforementioned canon, and he shall lose the things given by him; but the one who has been unworthily received shall lose the things given by him alone, according to the law which says: "He who gives for a shameful reason does not recover." Since, however, as is apparent from the present canon, the superiors of monasteries are divided into two—those who are priests and those who are not initiated into holy orders—and the former are deposed, while the latter are driven out from the monastery, we say that it is right for some people to be promoted to monastic superiorships even if they have not received holy orders. Furthermore, someone might ask: since the canon decrees that things which have been voluntarily consecrated to God by someone cannot be taken away from the monastery, regardless of whether the one who offered them remained in the monastery or not, how is it written at the end that they are to be returned if the one who offered them left the monastery due to the fault of the superior, when the superior who is at fault ought rather to be punished? Solution: Here, the things offered to God were not offered directly in such a way that they could not be taken away from the monastery for any reason, nor for the sake of someone being tonsured, so that they might have remained the monastery’s in every case, according to the law which says: "Things given in an equal cause by both the giver and the recipient are not to be recovered." But a burden was placed upon the offering made to God, namely that of the practice of the one who offered them to the monastery. If, therefore, the one who gave them departs from the monastery voluntarily, nothing will be returned to him on account of the points stated above; but if he departs because of the fault of the superior, the things that were given will entirely be returned to him so that he himself may dwell in the monastery. But because a constitution regarding offerings and other ecclesiastical rights was issued by that illustrious emperor, the lord Alexios Komnenos, at the suggestion of certain deacons who had then taken up the care of patriarchal monasteries from the patriarchal magnificence—which document, as is commonly said, bore the month of December of the fifth indiction—one ought to know that it contains these words regarding the observation and correction of the falls of the soul: that the most holy patriarch of this time ^D undoubtedly has the right, both in free monasteries and in those that are transferred, and in those that are donated, and those that have been given for administration or stewardship. For he possesses the right to approach and examine the transgressions of the soul, and in secular and public monasteries, and, to say it once, in all things that are in his province, whether they be patriarchal, or imperial and those which hold a lord of their own, and private ones which former patriarchs did not lease out for increment; he shall enter without hindrance when he wishes, either by himself or through his persuasion, whoever he himself shall choose from among the ecclesiastics and judge to be worthy to investigate these things. But as for free and autonomous monasteries, when someone approaches and tells my most holy lord and patriarch of an error occurring in a monastery, or...

^A if he learns of it from the rumors of a few or even one person, then, as has been said, he shall enter and investigate the faults of the soul, even if the one who spoke does not wish to undergo the ordeal of proof. For a Christian person, when he hears that something has been done wrongly, has a duty to report this to the common spiritual Father and bishop. But perhaps he does not wish to undergo this ordeal; and for this reason, to leave the faults of the soul unobserved and uncorrected is entirely absurd, for there exists no imperial or patriarchal document of any kind prohibiting this. However, monasteries ought to be kept free from innovation during the investigations of those who are sent, with no expenses being provided from them. For then, with God’s help, the correction of the faults of the soul will easily take place.

But concerning those monasteries given over by way of concession, ^B or for supervision, or stewardship, or total freedom, he shall not only inquire into the other faults of the soul, but also whether they have been ruined, or are being ruined, in part or in whole by those who have received them; and if he finds that any diminutions are occurring in them, he shall compel those holding them to restore them as they were received and according to the resources of the monastery; though this is for those who are deficient in respect to the condition in which they were received. As for those that have been improved and increased and are in good condition, they shall not be diminished, but shall remain as they are. But those who hold such things as were given for temporal supervision and other administration, and have ruined them, if they do not wish to restore them ^C to the state in which they received them, they shall be removed, and they shall not be aided by the documents they possess, given that a suitable, fixed deadline shall be set for them. In the meantime, while the deadline is pending, they must be observed to see if they are actively concerned with restoring them to their original state, as has been indicated. For then the deadline shall be maintained. Renunciations, since they are given and received contrary to the canons, shall from now on cease entirely, and whoever is found giving or receiving one, if he is the head of the monastery, he shall be expelled from the headship; but if he is a *charistikarios*, he shall be expelled from the monastery. ^D Those offerings which are made voluntarily and according to the intention of those presenting them by those coming for tonsure shall be accepted and recorded in the monastery’s register, with knowledge of the things offered being given also to the most holy patriarch, even if those who hold the monasteries possess documents regarding the receiving of renunciations and offerings and the profiting from them; for this must cease from now on, and be done as was said above; but even the saved offerings must not be alienated under the pretext of documents. Furthermore, the care not only of the souls of the monks, but even of the laymen themselves, rests upon the most holy patriarch; and when he sees some layman thirsting for his own salvation, how is it fitting that he be prevented from being placed in a monastery for the salvation of the soul of the one approaching? For the most holy patriarch shall have, without any obstacle, the

^A power to assign [a place] as the charismatic ones do, even if they possess written evidence; unless, however, my most holy lord commands that one should take the needs [of a person] who is a layman, or a monk from another monastery belonging to him, so that he does not give a layman or an external monk a monastic portion, lest the monastery be burdened by the [support of the] brotherhood. For if it is burdened, the external portion will unfailingly fail, and instead of a reward, it becomes a judgment. But if, perhaps, there approaches one of the laity who is altogether destitute and poor, to my most holy lord, or even to the archbishops who have lost their thrones and are in need, and he wishes to arrange for him to obtain his necessities from one of the wealthier monasteries, he shall do this well, provided the number of those being ordered does not exceed the resources of the monastery. For the internal monks ought to be preferred ^B before all others for the receiving of their necessities.

ZONAR. And to be enrolled into the clergy, and for some to be received into monasteries through the presentation of money, by those under whose guidance the Churches are governed, namely by bishops and abbots (for these were appointed to lead the faithful to right faith and an honorable life and the attainment of virtue), is strictly forbidden.

Canon of the Council of Nicaea II

Guill. Beveregii notes: In the supplement to the Parisian edition of Zonaras, after these [words], matters to be inserted are described from other manuscripts. But on what reasoning could it be thought that, while the fourth canon of the Synod, of which these Fathers here make mention, decrees deposition equally for both him who conferred orders induced by a price, and him who ^D obtained them purchased with money, yet this canon decrees that whoever enrolls someone into the clergy through the intercession of a price must either desist or be deposed? It must be said, therefore, that this canon is to be understood not of those who confer orders, about whom that other [canon] speaks, but of those who receive those already initiated into orders and enroll them into the clergy. Then he says: From these latest words, "then he says," we gather that those things which are inserted in our edition are not read in the manuscripts from which this supplement was taken—namely, "But he wishes those abbots who do not have the ordination of a presbyter to be driven out"—which I have therefore translated here, because their Latin version was omitted in the work itself.

^A And if they remain in the monastery, or even if they leave it, unless the cause of their withdrawal from the monastery arises from the abbot, it is decreed that in no way may they be reclaimed.

ARIST. ^A "Whoever admits those approaching the priestly order or the monastic life for money, whether he be a bishop, or an abbot, or anyone at all who is in the clergy, let him either cease or be deposed. But let an abbess be expelled and given over to subjection. Likewise also an abbot who is not a priest. But whatever items are taken from those who are approaching, let them remain, whether they themselves remain or not, unless the person in charge is at fault." ^B Those who demand money from persons approaching the priestly office or the monastic life, whether they be bishops, or abbots, or anyone at all from the clerical list, let them either cease doing this, or be deposed; but if it is an abbess who does this and demands renunciation from those approaching the monastic life, she shall be expelled from the monastery and handed over to subjection in another monastery; and in the same way, an abbot who is not a priest shall be expelled and undergo subjection in another monastery. For to the one who is actually a priest, the punishment of deposition is sufficient. But as for whatever items some persons voluntarily, either for themselves or for their own children, bring to the monastery and dedicate to God, these ought to remain in the monastery according to their promise, whether the persons who brought them continue to stay there or whether they depart from the monastery, unless they departed due to a cause from the person in charge.

CANON XX

^C "From the present time we decree that a double monastery is not to be established, because this becomes a scandal and an offense to many. ^D If, however, some persons, together with their relatives, choose to renounce the world and follow the monastic life, it is necessary for the men to depart into a monastery for men, and for the women to enter into one for women; for God is well pleased with this. But those which until now have been double are to be preserved according to the rule of our holy Father Basil, and according to his constitution are they to be so ordered. Let not monks and nuns dwell in one monastery. For adultery gains an opportunity through living together. Let not a monk have freedom to speak to a nun, or a nun to converse privately with a monk. Nor let a monk sleep in a monastery of women, nor let a nun eat alone; and when the necessities of life are brought from the side of the men to those [in the women's monastery]...

^A they are to be received outside the gate by the superior of the women's monastery, along with an aged nun. But if it happens that a monk wishes to see a female relative, let him converse with her in the presence of the superior, using few and brief words, and let him quickly withdraw from her. »

BALS. In the first chapter of the 12th title of the present work, various laws ^B regarding monasteries were set forth; but the present canon decrees that double monasteries are not to be established, so that many may not be scandalized by this. But should someone say that this is honorable and acceptable, when some suspicion might arise due to persons who are not sufficiently firm and stable (for if they are above suspicion—perhaps relatives, or brothers, or others of this sort—they wish to lead a monastic life, why will they not be allowed to reside in a double monastery?), the Fathers say that not even then is it right for relatives to dwell together, lest some be caused to stumble thereby; rather, let the man go away to a monastery of men specifically, and the woman to one of women. For living separated in this way, they will serve God in a manner pleasing to Him. However, they commanded that those monasteries which had previously been double be organized according to the decree and constitution of the great Father Basil, namely that they should not associate—that is, that men and women should not dwell together in one monastery—because the suspicion of adultery arises from cohabitation. Furthermore, let a monk not have the authority to converse in private with a nun, or to eat ^C with her, or to spend the night in a women's monastery; just as [the rule] is not the reverse. Whatever is necessary for the nuns’ sustenance is to be received from the men, not within the monastery, but outside its gate, by the hand of the monastery's superior and an aged nun. If any monk wishes to see a female relative who is a nun, let him not be allowed to converse with her in private, but in the presence of the superior, and let him depart immediately. Now the name *diaita* (dwelling) is not taken to mean a banquet, as it is among the grammarians, but a residence: for among legal experts, *diaita* is a place of habitation. Some used to claim that double monasteries are those not which have men and women together, but those built near and adjacent to each other, and which are considered as one because of their great union. But it is apparent ^D from this canon that they are not called double for that reason; but because, as is likely, men and women once resided in one and the same monastery. For it decrees that relatives should depart to monasteries of men and women, as the dwelling of these [in one place] was forbidden. Likewise, it commands that they should not have a *diaita* together—that is, that men and women should not dwell together in one monastery. Read also the whole of the first title of the 4th book, which teaches and establishes many things of this kind, decreeing that neither a monk nor a layman shall enter a women's monastery for any reason whatsoever...

^A Zonaras. This canon forbids the existence of double monasteries. In those, women did not formerly dwell together with men in the same place, but in such proximity that both could hear and answer one another. Because such neighborhood, since it could easily give rise to soft and tender thoughts or even to libidinous passions, and often caused offense to many, as it presented the appearance of men and women living as if in the same dwelling, the synod decrees that it be permitted in no way. "But if some," it says, "desire to renounce the world together with their relatives, let the men retire to a monastery for men, and the women to one for women." For so it is pleasing to God, and thus they will serve God acceptably, living separately and divided from one another, so that they may present neither an incitement to passionate living to each other, nor cause offense to others. ^B But as for those double monasteries which have already been established, it says that they should remain and be administered according to the command and rule of the great Basil, and that monks and nuns should not live together in one monastery. "Live together" here does not mean merely eating at the same table, but living and associating with one another. Let not a monk and a nun have such freedom toward one another that they may meet whenever they wish and converse together, nor let a monk sleep in a women's monastery, nor eat alone with a nun. ^C But even if they intend to provide them with the necessities of life from the men's monastery, let the monks not enter within the women's monastery; but having come to the gate, let them wait outside, and let the superior, having come to the gate accompanied by aged nuns, receive what has been brought. If a monk also wishes to see a female relative, let him do so in the presence of the superior, and let him converse through few words, so that he may depart quickly. Aristenus. Double monasteries shall not exist, nor shall monks and nuns live in the same place, nor converse privately; and even if any man brings something to a nun, let him give it while remaining outside the doors, and let him see his relative in the presence of the superior. ^D The Fathers applied every caution so that no blemish might be brought upon the monastic life, and commanded that monks and nuns should not eat together in the same place, nor converse privately with one another; but even if a monk wishes to see a female relative, he must converse with her in the presence of the superior. And if a monk brings any of the necessities of life from the men's monastery to the nuns, he must hand it to the superior while standing outside the monastery. Canon XXI. No monk or nun ought to leave their own monastery and betake themselves to another; but if this should happen, it is necessary that he be received as a guest,

^A but it is not proper that he be received without the consent of his superior.

BALS. After a person has made vows and confessed to God that he will remain in the monastery where he was tonsured, how shall he be permitted to invalidate his profession and go off to a different monastery? The canon therefore decrees that neither monk nor nun shall depart in a disorderly manner from their own monastery, and go to another monastery for the purpose of being enrolled therein. But if this happens frequently due to faint-heartedness, he is not to be received by the superior without the knowledge of the hegumen who tonsured him—that is, without his letter of dismissal; but he is only to be received as a guest, so that he may not be forced to go out to worldly things and live with laymen. ^B However, the great Basil, in his Ascetic Chapters, ordains that a monk who is spiritually harmed may depart from the monastery in which he was tonsured; and this he should do after saying as much once or twice to the hegumen and the monks, if the evil is not corrected. But by the name of "hospitality," do not mean that a monk tonsured elsewhere should dwell for a long time in a strange monastery, for this would be a violation of the canon; rather, he should be received for a few days. Do not wonder why the transgressor of this is not punished by the canon. Read also the 80th canon of the Council of Carthage, and you will learn how those who were tonsured elsewhere are punished, and those who receive them as well.

ZONAR. It is proper for monks to remain in the place where they renounced the world and dedicated themselves to the monastic life, and not to depart from there. ^C But if someone does depart and go to another monastery, it is necessary that he be received as a guest, so that he may not be compelled to go off to worldly men and live indiscriminately with those who live without any discipline for honest living; but it is not permitted that he be enrolled and added to the number of the brethren, unless the superior of the monastery from which he departed gives his consent. This canon, then, ordains the prohibition of departure without any distinction; but the great Basil, in his Ascetic Chapters, makes a distinction regarding the departure of monks, and does not allow them to depart otherwise than if they are being harmed spiritually. And then he must explain the cause of the harm to the hegumen, and if the cause is removed, he wills that each should remain in his own monastery; but if the evil remains, he orders him to announce the whole matter ^D before the brotherhood.

ARIST. It is not permitted for a monk or a nun to abandon their own monastery and enter another; but if one should arrive, let him be received as a guest; yet let him not be accepted and received as a guest against the will of the hegumen. The present canon does not permit a monk or nun departing for another monastery to be received and housed, lest they be forced by necessity to go off to worldly men or remain there; but as for admitting and receiving

them, it does not permit this without the consent of the abbess. ^A

CANON XXII

To dedicate everything to God and not to be a slave to one’s own ^B will is a great thing. For the divine Apostle says, "Whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God." 10 And Christ our God in His Gospels has commanded us to cut away the origins of sins. For not only is adultery punished by Him, but the very movement of the mind toward the attempt at adultery is condemned, He Himself saying, "He who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." 11 Taught by this, we too ought to purify our thoughts. For even if all things are lawful, yet not all things are beneficial, 12 as we are taught by the apostolic voice. ^C It is therefore necessary for every man to eat in order to live. And for those whose life is that of marriage and children and the lay state, it is remote from all reproach for men and women to eat together, provided only that they give thanks to Him who provides the nourishment, and do not do so with any theatrical practices, that is to say, Satanic songs, citharas, and wanton gyrations, which the prophetic curse pursues with these words: "Woe to those who drink wine with cithara and psaltery, but who do not look upon the works of the Lord, and do not consider the works of His hands." 13 And if, perchance, there be such among Christians, let them be corrected; ^D but if not, let those things which were canonically established by our predecessors remain in force against them. But for those whose life is quiet and solitary, those who have undertaken to bear the monastic yoke to the Lord God, it is fitting to sit in solitude and silence.

But neither is it permitted at all for those who have chosen the priestly life to eat privately with women, unless it be with certain god-fearing and devout men and women, so that even the meal itself may lead to spiritual improvement. And let the same be done with relatives. But if, again, it should happen that a monk or a priest is on a journey and does not carry with him the things necessary for his needs, and because of this necessity wishes to lodge either in a public inn or in someone’s house, he has permission to do this, as the necessity is pressing.

BALS. The present canon forbids laymen from eating in the company of theatrical performances and dances, and urges those Christians who do such things to correct themselves; but if not, it decrees that those things previously established by the canons should hold force against them. It further commands monks and priests not to eat privately with women, even if they are truly their kinswomen; but [to do so] openly and with some good and religious people, so that they may neither be moved by contrary thoughts themselves nor provide scandal to others. In travel—

^A or in some other necessary duty, if anyone is away from home and does not have the things necessary for life, it is determined that they may, without any prejudice, lodge in a public inn or in another’s house, because of the pressing necessity of physical nourishment and rest. This, indeed, is the scope of this canon. Its preamble is taken from the First Epistle to the Corinthians of the great apostle Paul, which says so expressly: "Whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God." But the phrase, "We ought to cleanse our thoughts," is from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians; the phrase, "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient," is from the First Epistle to the Corinthians; and the phrase, "Woe to them that drink wine with harp and lyre," and what follows, is from the prophecy of Isaiah. And the Fathers name the canonical traditions: the one is the 43rd of the holy apostles, the one is of the synod in Carthage, and the 62nd is the one in Trullo. ^B

ZONARAS. The present canon forbids monks and those initiated into sacred orders from dining privately with women. It uses a prologue and demonstrates that all things must be referred to God, and it brings forward the usage from the Apostle, saying: "Whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God." Then it proceeds in its argument, stating that Christ commands the faithful to cut off the beginnings of sins. For in saying, "Everyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart," He chastises not only adultery, but the very beginning of the passion itself. For when someone looks curiously, having admitted the start of the passion—that is to say, desire—then the thought is stirred in him toward sin. Hence, he says, we ought to cleanse our thoughts (and this is also apostolic), that is, for this reason we are obliged to strike down our thoughts and not allow the faithful ^C to be puffed up and rise against us, or "to cleanse" (for it is also written in this way), instead of "not to allow the thought to be defiled by evil imaginings, but to send them away"; or else, having been defiled by the reception of suspicious reasonings, to cleanse it, to wash it away from defilement through repentance, and not to allow it to proceed further. "For even if all things are lawful for me, not all things are expedient." These are also the words of the great Paul. It is lawful, therefore, he says, to eat to live. And those who live according to the world, and live with wives and children, are not forbidden from dining with women, nor does this cause them any reproach, if it is done with thanks to God, and if they do not introduce on their tables theatrical pursuits, that is, satanic songs. And what are these? Harps and lewd ^D turnings. By the name of "turnings," he indicated either unrefined dances or the modulations of voices in songs. For upon them, he says, that prophetic curse falls: "Woe to them that drink wine with harp and lyre, and the rest." If, therefore, there are any such among Christians, let them be corrected; if not, let the ancient canons remain in force over them. And these things, indeed, the canon has ordained concerning laymen. But to those,

he says, whose life is quiet and solitary, and furthermore to those who are enrolled in the sacred order, it is not permitted to dine with women in private. And if at any time this must needs happen, they shall dine with women while honorable men and women are present together, so that the conviviality may also lead to spiritual correction; for he who eats with women in such an unsuspicious manner attains to the glorifying of God. For those who see them keeping themselves beyond every reproach glorify God, according to the evangelical word which says: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. And it is required of a monk or a man in orders not only when dining with foreign women in the presence of certain pious persons, but even when dining with female relatives. ^B In cases of travel, however, a man in orders or a monk, if he does not have a place where he can rest, shall be permitted to lodge in an inn and in the house of someone when urgent necessity demands it; but even there, the canon wishes them to conduct themselves with piety and modesty.

ARIST. ^C It is beyond all reproach for laymen to dine with women, but for those in solitary life it is not permitted to dine with women in private, unless perhaps in the presence of God-fearing and pious men and women. If, however, a monk or a man in orders is on a journey and is not carrying the necessities with him, they may lodge in an inn.

Dining with thanksgiving and fear of God—not with certain theatrical and satanic songs—is for laymen to dine with women, and it cannot be blamed. But for those who have chosen a quiet and solitary life, as those who have promised God to sit alone and be silent, it is not at all permitted to eat with women in private, unless perhaps they wish to dine with certain religious men and women, so that even this meal may tend toward spiritual correction. On a journey, however, if the necessities are not brought along, it is permitted to a monk or a man of the priesthood to lodge ^D in a public inn, or even in someone's house, because of urgent necessity.

CANONS ENACTED BY THE HOLY AND GREAT FIRST AND SECOND SYNOD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, CONVENED IN THE VENERABLE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY AND MOST GLORIOUS APOSTLES

^A BALSAMON. Some who read this inscription doubt how this synod, which is one, is called first and second. Solution. In the days of that most holy patriarch, Lord Photius, who compiled the Nomocanon, an ecumenical synod was convened against the most blessed patriarch Ignatius. But when dogmatic and other ecclesiastical matters were being discussed, there arose a dissension and division in the synod, as those who thought incorrectly, since they were defeated, were unwilling to agree with the orthodox. For this reason, it was necessary for the divine Fathers to summon a second assembly, and for the things previously spoken and confirmed to be put in writing. Hence, such a synod was named first and second, and the subjoined canons were enacted.

ZONARAS. The inscription of this synod is as follows: The holy and great first and second synod at Constantinople, convened in the venerable temple of the Holy and most glorious ^B Apostles. A doubt therefore arises among those who read this inscription: by what reason, being one, is this synod called first and second? It is said that a synod was celebrated in the aforementioned temple of the Holy Apostles, and that the orthodox debated with those of the opposing faction, and that the orthodox were held to be superior, and that the things spoken were about to be delivered in writing. But the heretics, in that they did not wish to be considered defeated and cast out from the gathering of the faithful, did not allow what had been decreed to be committed to writing; for this reason they stirred up a sedition, and the commotion proceeded to such a point that, with swords drawn, many were killed; and in this manner that ^C first assembly was dissolved with clearly no result. Then, after a lapse of time, a second assembly was held in the same temple, and the same matters were debated again, and then the things spoken concerning the dogmas were committed to writing. And for this reason they say that it, being one properly speaking, was named first and second, as the assembly of the Fathers had taken place twice; and in the second, with the things spoken and agreed upon being written down, the ordained canons were then proclaimed. The sub-

-^A

CANON I

Respected and honorable is the building of monasteries, a matter long ago most beautifully devised by our blessed and holy Fathers, yet today it is seen to be badly conducted. For some, bestowing the name of monastery upon their own resources and property, and professing to consecrate these to God, inscribe themselves as masters of what they have consecrated, and have determined to manage the dedicating of them to God by name alone. For, after the consecration, they do not blush to usurp the same power they were not forbidden to have before; and such haggling has been attached to the matter, that many of the consecrated things are seen to be sold by those very persons who consecrated them, providing amazement and disgust to those who see it. And so far are they from showing any repentance for attributing to themselves power over things that have been set apart for God once and for all, that they even hand this power on to others without fear. Therefore, for these reasons, the holy synod has decreed that it is permitted to no man to build a monastery without the judgment and counsel of the bishop. With his knowledge and permission, however, and while the required prayer is being performed—as has been piously and religiously provided for by the ancients—the monastery may be built; but all things that pertain to it are to be inscribed under that same ^B document in an inventory and deposited in the episcopal archives, with the one who consecrates having absolutely no authority, against the judgment of the bishop, to appoint himself or another in his stead as hegumen. For if, in the case of things that a man bestows upon a human being, he is no longer able to be their master, how will it be permitted for anyone to seize control of things which one consecrates and dedicates to God?

BALS. In the seventh canon of the eighth synod we have written quite a lot about how monasteries ought to be established; read those things. The present canon says that since some, by the name of monastery alone, offer service to God, but in deed and in truth wish to have power once again over what has been dedicated to Him, alienating these things as they wish, a monastery ought not to be raised up without the knowledge of the local bishop. For he, after performing the required prayer at the foundation (45), that is, the stauropegy, will indeed permit the building, and there will also be inscribed in the inventory those things which are to be given by the founder for the administration of the monastery and the sufficiency of the monks, and the monastery itself: as the inventory in

^A the bishopric is to be restored, and he who offers it is to be alienated from the lordship of the things consecrated to God. He adds, moreover, that the one who has offered them ought to be so far removed from the lordship of the things offered to God, that he may not even hold the prefecture in the monastery without the consent of the bishop, nor even appoint another prefect. For if, he says, those things which are given to men the giver cannot thereafter take back, how shall he snatch away things dedicated to God, and bring them again under his own control? Someone, therefore, may have asked: how is it that, contrary to what is contained in the canon, the founders of monasteries issue statutes, and appoint not only prefects but also ephors in them, and sometimes even, among other things which they do contrary to the canons, [arrange] that the bishop of that region may not even have access to it? And some have said that all statutes, however they may stand and whatever they may contain, are invalid, and that what has once been dedicated to God, without any further curious investigation, belongs to the episcopal right, as is contained in the present canon. Others, however, said that they ought to be observed when they have been written in accordance with the laws and canons. Others wished them to have effect only when, besides having been issued legitimately and canonically, they have also been confirmed by the imperial hand. To me, however, it seems that—since chapter 7 of title 1 of book 5 of the Basilica says: "Whoever has established a donation so that an oratory, or a xenodochium, or a nosocomium may be built, let both he and his heirs be required by the bishops and oikonomoi to provide what was promised"—if they are administered according to his will, it is in the power of their founders to issue statutes: but from the fact that the law says that holy and religious houses are to be administered according to the will of the possessor, it is not permitted to him to do anything contrary to the laws and canons. For chapter 39 of title 1 of book 3 of the Basilica says that those selected by the owners to be in the place of clerics, if they are found unworthy, are to be cast out and others [to be] ordained by the bishops. ^B And chapter [blank in original] of title [blank] of book 5, in ^C Guill. Beveridge’s notes. ^D (44) A xenos is the same as a xenodochium, a lodging place designed for the reception of strangers. It is used thus also in civil law: "We establish if anyone has left any inheritance, or legacy, or fideicommissum, or has given or sold anything under the title of donation, whether to sacrosanct churches or to venerable xenones." L. xxiii, c. De sacrosanct. eccles. Since these things were frequent among Christians, Julian even ordered them to be built. Theophanes. Theoph. in Chronogr. Of these things S. Basil also once made mention, saying: Basil. epist. ad Heliam. (45) The sum of donations made for pious causes is reviewed by Justinian: "If, however, anyone has made donations up to five hundred solidi in any matters whatsoever, either to a holy church, or to a xenodochium, or to a nosocomium, or to an orphanotrophium, or to a ptochotrophium, or to a gerontocomium, or to a brephotrophium, or to the poor themselves, or to any city whatsoever," l. xix, c. De sacrosanctis ecclesiis. Moreover, a nosocomium is a place dedicated to the caring for sick poor people. Jerome, on Fabiola: "Nay rather, she dilapidated and sold all the property she could have (it was very ample, and corresponding to her rank), and prepared the money gathered together for the uses of the poor, and established the first of all nosocomia, in which she might gather the sick from the streets, and warm the limbs of the miserable consumed by illnesses and starvation." Hieron. Epitaph. Fabiola. Of these things S. Basil says: Basil. epist. 371. Nicetas Choniates, Nicet. Chon. in Isaac. Angelo.

^A And the 6th chapter of the 3rd title of the 5th book determines regarding the end these things expressly: "Those bishops of the region are to oversee whether the administration proceeds well; and if they find the administrators not to be useful, they have the authority, without any harm, to appoint others fit in their place." So that even if those things which are contained in the typika illegally or uncanonically are supported, they will not hold. Furthermore, someone might ask whether, from the fact that the canon decides that the bishop has such rights in a monastery built by someone in his diocese, and that the charter of this is to be deposited in the archives of the episcopate, it is permitted to him to transfer it to whomever he wishes, and, to say it once, to have a right of lordship over it. I think, therefore, that from this canon it is not granted to the bishop to seize authority over the monastery, as if it belonged to his church by right of lordship; but he has in it only episcopal rights. These are: the examination of spiritual offenses, the oversight of those who manage it, the mention of his name, and the sealing of the hegumen. The monastery will therefore be preserved free and self-governed, inalienable and not to be donated. The archpriest of the region will have in it only the stated episcopal rights. And from the present canon and from other various laws and canons, it was granted to anyone wishing to build a monastery from scratch, according to the present legislation; but the Novel ^B of the emperor lord Nicephorus Phocas (46) decrees that new monasteries, or xenodochia, or gerocomia, or other pious houses are not to be constructed, but care is to be taken of those which exist; and it adds at the end these things expressly: "So that from now on, which is the beginning of the seventh indiction, let it not be permitted for anyone to transfer sites or fields to monasteries or xenodochia in any way, nor even to metropolises or episcopates; for this is not advantageous even to them. But if any of the aforementioned holy and pious houses, whether episcopates or monasteries, has happened upon such bad management and provision that they are destitute of sites, for these, by imperial judgment and examination, the acquisition of such things as suffice will not be forbidden. But we do not forbid those wishing to build cells, and what are called, ‘lauras’ in the deserts, provided they do not extend to possessions and other fields, ^C but are defined only by their own enclosure, to such an extent that we even hold this in great praise." This Novel, the Porphyrogennetus lord Basil the New revoked by his own Novel issued in the month of April of the first indiction of the year, which contains these things expressly: "Our Empire, which is from God, and having learned from monks, whose piety and virtue is testified, and from many others, the law concerning the churches of God and the pious houses, or rather against the churches and such houses... ^D

was the cause and root of the present evils, and of this universal subversion and confusion, inasmuch as it was done to the injury and insult not only of the churches and the pious houses, but of God Himself; and especially since he perceived this by experience itself (for from the time this law was observed, nothing good has appeared in our life to this day, but on the contrary, no kind of calamity has been entirely wanting): he has decreed by this present Golden Bull, annexed to this writing, that the aforementioned law shall cease from this present day, and shall remain henceforth null and void; and that the laws concerning the churches of God and the holy and religious houses which were enacted before this time shall have place and be in use. Furthermore, know that the most blessed Emperor, Lord Manuel Comnenus, by an order issued in the month of September of the seventh indiction, defined that it was not permitted for those who had received, or might receive, donations of immovable property from the Emperor, to transmit them to others in any way whatsoever, whether they be members of the senatorial order or of the military list; but if it should be done otherwise, that the immovable property should return to the public treasury. Similarly, in the month of February of the third indiction, a new constitution was issued by the same [emperor], which embraces almost the same things. Which statutes were indeed abolished by the later definition of the Golden Bull of his son, Lord Alexius, issued in the month of December of the first indiction ^A of the year 6614.

ZONARAS

^A of the *Basilica*, book 4, title 1, chapter 1—that is to say, the fifth Novel—and book 5, title 2, chapter 14, legislates regarding the building of monasteries.

ARIST. It is not permitted for anyone to build a monastery against the will of the bishop. But with his knowledge and his offering of prayers, let that which has been built, together with the things pertaining to it, be recorded in a brief and deposited with the bishopric; and it is not permitted for the founder, against the will of the bishop, to be the hegumen, or to appoint one.

CANON II. Since some feign that they are undergoing the monastic life, not that they may serve God purely, but that they may gain a reputation for piety through the dignity of the habit, and thus find abundant enjoyment of their own pleasures (for, having merely made a loss of their hair, they sit in their own houses, fulfilling none of the liturgy or order of monks), the holy synod has decreed ^B that no one at all is to be deemed worthy of the monastic habit without the presence of him who is to receive him into obedience, and who declares that he will assume authority over him and care for the salvation of his soul—being, of course, a man who is godly, who presides over a monastery, and who is capable of saving a soul newly brought to God. But if anyone is caught tonsuring someone without the presence of the hegumen who is to receive him into obedience, let him be subjected to ^C deposition, as one who is disobedient to the canons and who dissolves the, monastic good order; and let him who has been tonsured unreasonably and disorderly be handed over to subjection and to a monastery, wherever the bishop of that place may judge best. For rash and insecure tonsurings have both brought the monastic habit into dishonor and have caused the name of Christ to be blasphemed.

BALS. Piety in hypocrisy is greatly condemned, both by divine evangelical commands and by scriptural traditions. The Fathers say, therefore, that since some, feigning piety, enter upon the monastic life—not because of God’s command, but that they might enjoy their own pleasures, ^D and that they might boast of the holy habit alone (for they remain, even after they have been tonsured, in their own secular dwellings)—it is necessary that no one be tonsured by another except in the presence of the hegumen who is to receive him and is about to register him into the brotherhood of his monastery. He who performs an tonsuring contrary to this ordinance shall be deposed; and he who has been tonsured shall be handed over for the subjection of a monastery, according to the judgment of the bishop, so that from the infidels seeing such rash acts, neither the name of Christ be blasphemed, nor would the holy habit be brought into dishonor. And these [things apply] when someone has been tonsured through hypocrisy.

If, however, he should do this because of sickness or because of grief, will he be permitted to live among the seculars, or to put on his former habit? ^A Solution. By no means. The canon speaks universally and for all those who are tonsured in any way whatsoever. We have seen many who were tonsured when almost at their final breath and, because of their sickness, did not even know what was being done to them; and yet later, they sought earnestly to change their manner of life because of their ignorance and the weakness caused by their sickness, and wished to live among the seculars, but they were not permitted to do so, and were even subjected to penalties. Others, however, who rashly reassumed their former habit, were forced—even against their will—to return to their prior monastic state. What then of someone who is tonsured without reason, that is, without the presence of the superior who is to receive him, and who, at the bishop's discretion and examination, is now to be stationed in a monastery for the first time? Will he be compelled to make other pacts and vows, and to profess to remain therein, so that he might even be considered as having been tonsured while inside, or will his prior ones suffice? Solution. He is considered to have made his pacts in the monastery where he was first stationed; he is not compelled to make other pacts after his tonsure. For this reason, it is likely that all the questionings and covenants are pronounced at every tonsure. ^B

ZONAR. Some who were tonsured perhaps because of sickness or grief, or for the reason mentioned in the canon, continued to live in their own homes, fulfilling no part of the monastic institution. For this reason, therefore, this canon was proclaimed by the synod, forbidding anyone to be tonsured as a monk unless there be present one who does not refuse to have the man subject to him and who promises that the care of his spiritual salvation shall be his concern—a man, to be sure, who is the superior of a monastery, devoted to the exercises of virtue, and skilled in directing toward salvation a soul that has just approached God. If anyone, he says, is caught tonsuring someone without the superior present who is to receive that person into obedience, let him himself be deposed, as he is violating the canons and overturning monastic good order; but let the person who was tonsured rashly and not according to canonical order be handed over for obedience in a monastery that the bishop shall determine. ^C For thus, because of reckless and erroneous tonsures, the monastic habit is brought into dishonor, and the name of Christ happens to be blasphemed by the unbelievers who behold monks living indifferently and carelessly; just as the Lord is glorified by everyone when they see those who are dedicated to Him living virtuously, according to that which is written: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. ^D (Matt. V, 16.)

ARIST. ^A « If anyone should be caught tonsuring someone without the presence of the superior who is to receive him into subjection, that person shall be deposed; but the one who has been tonsured shall be placed by the bishop in subjection even in a monastery. »

CANON III

BALS. The twenty-first canon of the Seventh Synod does not permit monks or nuns to leave the monasteries in which they were tonsured and to go to another monastery without a letter of dismissal from their superiors; but it attaches no penalty to them. The present canon, however, subjects to excommunication those superiors who do not diligently seek out the monks under them, nor receive them wherever they are found, nor strive to recover their spiritual infirmities. And it requires the monks to remain in their own monasteries so strictly that it calls their departure from there a "flight"—a term usually applied to slaves and to those held in custody or in chains. ^C And indeed the canon of the Council of Carthage punishes the bishop who constitutes as a cleric or superior, in another region, a monk from another monastery subject to another jurisdiction. It punishes the monk himself, too; read that canon. But what will happen if the superior seeks his own monk, and he flees? Solution: he shall be compelled by episcopal penalties to return to the monastery in which he was tonsured, unless perhaps he offers some reasonable excuse. Note these things on account of the "elsewhere-tonsured" monks. Read also the following canon.

ZONAR. Various canons have decreed that monks are not to be able to leave the monasteries in which they were tonsured to go to other monasteries, or to wander around here and there. But this, says this canon, which is done badly and worse still is neglected, we correct. And unless the superiors of the monasteries from which the monks withdraw apply great diligence in seeking, finding, and receiving them, and strive to apply medicine to those affected by the disease, as the nature of the fall requires, and to sustain and support those who are slipping, by excommunication...

^A And he orders those who do not fulfill this to be excommunicated. He demands ^B so strongly that monks remain in their monasteries, that he has termed their departure from them "absconding," a term customarily used for slaves and those detained in prisons or in chains. For if a shepherd or herdsman of irrational animals who has neglected the care of the flock entrusted to him does not go unpunished, how much more shall those who have been chosen as pastors of the rational sheep of Christ, and who prove themselves negligent in caring for their salvation, be expected to pay the penalty?

ARIST. If any superior of a monastery does not seek out, receive, and heal monks who flee, let him be excommunicated.

CANON IV

^B The evil one has struggled in many ways to render the venerable monastic habit shameful, and has found great assistance for this purpose in the time of the heresy which preceded. For forced by the necessity of the heresy, monks leaving their own monasteries migrated, some to others, and others even to the dwellings of secular men. But the very thing which, being done by them at that time for the sake of piety, rendered them praiseworthy and blessed, having degenerated into an irrational custom, renders them worthy of ridicule. For since piety and religion are now peaceful, and free from the scandals and offenses of the Church, there are still some who depart from their own monasteries, and like some torrent that cannot be contained, ^C moving and flowing hither and thither, they fill the monasteries with much dishonor and deformity, bring much confusion and petulance with them, and pull down and destroy the dignity of obedience. But the holy synod, cutting off their unstable and intolerable desire, has decreed that if any monk flees from his own monastery and either betakes himself to another monastery or enters a secular dwelling, both he and the one who received him shall be excommunicated, until the one who fled returns to the monastery from which he wickedly departed. But if a bishop, bearing witness to the piety and probity of life of some monks, should desire to transfer them to another monastery for the establishment of the monastery, or deems it right to place them in a secular house for the salvation of those living there, or is pleased to appoint them to oversee something elsewhere... ^D

William Beveridge's Note

Balsamon in his responses to Mark of Alexandria cites this last part of the canon; for Mark had proposed this question to him. Balsamon replied: etc., and then, after citing the rest up to the end of the canon, he concludes: Therefore... Bals. resp. to Mar. interrog. 20, where it is further to be observed that the present synod was called [ecumenical], and is thus regarded by the Greeks.

^A This neither makes those who receive them, nor the monks themselves, liable to punishment.

BALS. The evils which, on account of the wickedness and attacks of the iconoclasts, befell the monks, made the venerable monastic habit shameful, as the canon says. For the monastics abandoned their own monasteries because of the threats of the heretics; and some took refuge in another monastery, while others went to live in secular dwellings. And at that time what was done was blameless and free from reproach; but it later became a mockery to many. For when the threat from the persecution of the Christians had ceased, because orthodoxy had spread, some of the monks shamelessly dared to do that which, due to necessity, had been done safely by some. Thus, they are not ashamed to withdraw from their own tonsure-places and to spend time in the cities with laypeople, using as an excuse that many such things were done by the monks who preceded them. And since this convicts the monks of disobedience and ruins the constitution of the monasteries, the synod decreed that both the monk who has fled from the monastery in which he was enrolled and has been received into another monastery, and also the superior who received him, are to be excommunicated until the runaway monk returns to his own monastery. And these things apply when something of this sort happens without episcopal knowledge. If, however, the bishop of the region perceives that this (for example) monastery does not have pious and religious monks capable by their own actions of leading others to salvation, and he judges it beneficial that this monk be transferred from the monastery in which he was tonsured to another, or to be placed in charge of ^B secular houses for the salvation of those living therein, or to oversee some other place, this shall be done without hindrance; and neither the monks nor those who receive them ought to be prejudiced in any way.

Since these things are so, some have said that these measures are contrary to those decreed by the canon ^C of the Council of Carthage, which provides that any bishop who does such a thing, both receiving a monk from a foreign monastery and making him a cleric or a superior, shall be separated from the communion of the other brothers and be content with the communion of his own people; and the monk shall be neither a cleric nor a superior. But they are not, as it seems to me, contrary. For that canon punishes the bishop who receives any monk whatsoever from a foreign diocese and makes him a cleric or appoints him as superior of a monastery belonging to him, without the knowledge of his former bishop; and it likewise punishes the monk. But the present canon permits the bishop to make transfers of monks from the two monasteries that belong only to him, as he sees fit. Know also that there was issued a synodal note during the tenure of the most holy patriarch lord Luke, regarding the superior ^D who is appointed without question to monasteries subject to

^A the patriarch’s diocese, which do not have ^B sufficient men within for their protection, from another monastery that is of the same diocese, even if their foundational statutes (typika) decree that a guest-superior (xenokouritēs) may not be appointed. However, do not let it seem novel to you that, by the decree of the canon, a virtuous monk, subject to the bishop, may be appointed by him to a secular lodging or elsewhere, for the sake of the spiritual salvation of those within it. For the sacred and divine canons concern themselves solely with the spiritual salvation of men, and with absolutely nothing else. Therefore, the one who lives his life according to God’s precepts will not be harmed by his location, but will even provide the greatest benefit to those with him. Why, then, should this not be done according to the canon? For it was for this very reason that the same most holy patriarch, lord Luke, permitted that monk and priest, lord Macarius of Jerusalem, to reside permanently with the most noble logothete of the dromos of blessed memory, lord Michael Agiotheodoritos, and to travel together with him, and to perform the duties of a secretary. Note, therefore, that through episcopal persuasion and approval—and much more so through royal command—monks and clerics shall perform without prejudice whatever tasks are permitted to them, whatever they may be.

ZONARAS. At the time when the heresy of the Iconoclasts reigned, all those who honored the holy images were sought out and punished—and the monks most of all. Therefore, abandoning their own monasteries, they either went off to other monasteries, hiding themselves there, or they slipped away into the homes and dwellings of private citizens. But this act, say the Fathers of the Synod, while it made those men blessed at that time—since it was done properly and in accordance with the circumstances—is now, having become an unreasoned custom, deservedly met with the ridicule of all. For now that the storm of heresy has calmed and piety has regained its freedom, they still withdraw from their monasteries; like a stream that cannot be contained or held back, they flow and spill over here and there, and fill the monasteries with much disorder. For it is the glory of monasteries that their inmates should live in silence and remain in them, and not be constantly wandering abroad. They add to themselves much disorder—that is, they bring in licentiousness. For in order to show that they are pleasantly disposed toward this disorder, he used the word *kōmazein* (to revel). For *kōmazein* is to drink wine accompanied by the sound of flutes and lyres and songs. Just as those who drink in this way rejoice, he says, so in the same way do these men take pleasure in their own disgrace, and they tear apart and destroy the dignity of obedience. For since the brotherhood is one body, of which the dignity and glory is obedience, those who break away from this tear apart that which grants it dignity, and become a ruin to ^C the whole body. For this reason, they say, the holy synod has decreed that those who run away from their own monasteries—even if they should transfer to other monasteries, or even to ^D

secular lodgings—they, and those who have received them, are to be excommunicated until those who have fled return to their own monastery. ^A But if the bishop of the region thinks it right to transfer some of the monks, who are testified to for their virtue, to another monastery for its establishment and the benefit of those in it, or to establish them in a secular house, or to place them elsewhere, neither the monks thus transferred nor those who receive them shall be liable to this excommunication.

ARIST. ^B «If any monk, abandoning his own monastery, either transfers to another monastery or betrays himself by entering a secular lodging, both he and the one who received him shall be excommunicated until he returns. But one who has been placed anywhere by a bishop is free from blame.»

CANON V

«We find that renunciations made rashly and without judgment or probation do great harm to the good order of monasticism. For some, throwing themselves too hastily into the monastic life and lacking the energy for the harsh and laborious discipline, miserably turn back again to a carnal and voluptuous ^C life. ^D Therefore, the holy synod has decreed that no one shall be judged worthy of the monastic habit before the period of three years, left to them for the experience of testing, proves them to be worthy of such a life. And it has commanded that this be observed in every way, unless some grave, intervening sickness should compel the time of probation to be shortened, or unless someone be a man who is already religious and has been living the monastic life while in a secular habit. For such a man, a period of six months shall suffice for full experience. If anyone acts contrary to these things, let the superior be deprived of his superiorate and find correction for his failure to maintain order through a life of obedience and subjection; and let the monk who has been acting this way be handed over to another monastery that observes monastic discipline accurately and perfectly.»

BALS. Often, the Fathers say, some, because of affliction or some other negligence, take up the monastic life rashly and, being unable to endure the labor of the discipline, repent and miserably turn back to their former secular way of life. They have decreed, therefore, that no one is to be considered worthy of the monastic habit before a probation and an examination of the life of the one who seeks it; but he is to be tested for three years, and thus receive the monastic habit. For if this is done in this way, he himself will not be touched by repentance due to negligence, but with his whole soul he [will...]

receive the monastic habit; and if it is displeasing to him, he shall depart from the monastery without prejudice, and return to worldly life. And the superior, having taken an accurate trial during such time of his conduct, shall choose between two things: either to tonsure him as one worthy, or to permit him to depart as one unsuitable. This they ordered to be observed for those in health. For if anyone, on account of a serious illness, shall wish to be tonsured, he shall not be hindered from doing so because of the time period, but henceforth shall be transformed accordingly. If, however, a pious person strictly wishes to become a monk, and from his manner of life in the world he is judged worthy of this, he ought not to be examined for a three-year period, but for a six-month period only. ^B And they decreed that the superior who acts otherwise should fall from the superiorship and be made a subordinate; and also that the one who has been tonsured should be surrendered to another, stricter monastery.

These things being decreed by the canon, a discussion arose at various times regarding how those who have chosen the monastic life ought to be tested. For upon some entering monasteries and being clothed in the *rasa*, perhaps even with the Trisagion in the temple, and having changed their names, and simply, to speak once, living as monks both within and outside the monastery; but before they were perfected by the monastic tonsure, they returned to their former habit and worldly manner of life, and sometimes were even lawfully joined in marriage. Some said that they did nothing absurd, but that it was in their power within the ^C canonical triennium—that is, before the tonsure—to depart from the monastery without any prejudice, and to put off the monastic garments and put on worldly ones; since the canon makes a decree concerning those tonsured before the triennium, but not concerning those who are being tested and are still *rasophori*. Others, however, said that the canon calls the tonsure the "monastic habit," but does not decree that the probation must take place with monastic garments, and that one may cast these off, put on worldly ones, and depart. Whence it also appears that he who is being examined ought to be examined in lay clothing. For whoever has once put on the monastic [garment] ^D and camelaucum, without adding anything else. Whence it is evident that the *rason* is also called a tunic. What the camelaucum was, we gather from the words placed after that; for the priest says, "our brother so-and-so puts on the camelaucum upon his head." It was, therefore, a skullcap or something similar placed upon the head; so the scholiast of Aristophanes. Hesychius says it seems to be constructed of camel hair. Suidas not obscurely implies that it is fashioned from hair. But let us return to our point, where first monks being admitted hear that they are "rasophora." Nicetas Choniates, in his *Life of Isaac Angelus*, describes one who was of the lineage of the Comneni, who having followed the same path as those mentioned, and having been immediately seized, was deprived of his sight.

^A If someone has put on the monastic habit, it will not be permitted that, having been yesterday in the forum after the manner of monks, he today displays himself after the manner of laymen, making a mockery of the holy habit like a stage actor. He shall therefore rather be compelled, even against his will, to be tonsured. Those who argued thus supported their claim from chapter 3 of the 11th title of the present compendium, which says at the beginning: The 13th ordinance of the first title of the Novels says that those who apply themselves to the monastic life, whether they be free or slaves, should first persevere for three years using the tonsure and clothing of laymen, learning the Scriptures, and confessing their condition ^B and the cause for which they wish to become monks, lest perhaps it be an evil one, and they may be admonished; and if they persevere for the three years and are deemed worthy to be monks, then let them be tonsured. And they wished that from this Novel, which is Justinian's, the trial should be made with lay garments. They added, moreover, that since the 13th chapter of the first title of the 4th book of the Basilics—which is chapter 64 of the 123rd Novel of Justinian—decrees that those who have dared to imitate the habit of a monk or an ascetic, and in any way whatsoever to make a mockery of it like stage actors, should be punished corporally and exiled, much more will he be punished who has professed the monastic life and entered a monastery and clothed himself in the monastic garb, if he afterwards ^Cshamelessly changes back into lay clothing. Others said that those who have put on the rasso with the Trisagion will not be permitted to revert to lay clothing; but those who have done so without it, without distinction, within the three years, will forgo the wear of monastic garments and will be clothed as laymen. For even women who mourn their deceased husbands wear black for a time, and again without danger put on secular clothing. And these are the things they say. But to the majority and the more pious, it does not seem to be in the power of one who has entered a monastery, and, however the matter stands, has donned black garments and lives in the monastic manner, to resume the lay habit. For, they say, it was permitted to him to be tried with lay garments during the space of the three years; but because he put on monastic garments, ^D he shall be compelled to complete his own resolution; if, however, he should bear this with difficulty, he will be punished, as the law says in the first title of the fourth book. But since I have heard some complaining about the superiors who do not tonsure those coming to them after the period of probation, and in this respect, as it were, transgress the present canon, I think that the 3rd chapter of the first title of the 4th book, which is the 4th chapter of the 123rd Novel of Justinian, resolves this doubt as well. For it says: "If anyone wishes to come to the monastic life, we command that, if it is known that he is subject to no condition, the superior of the monastery, when he knows this, may provide him the habit; but if it is not known whether he is subject to any condition, within three years he should not receive the monastic habit, but within the said time, he who is in charge of the monastery shall make trial of his conduct," and so forth. Wherefore the superior rightly tonsures the one coming to him when he has come to know him; and the probation is made only

^A for those who are doubtful, or perhaps servants, and others included in the same chapter.

ZONAR. The present canon does not wish anyone to be tonsured until he has given proof of himself. For some, he says, thoughtlessly casting themselves into the monastic life, that is, without having applied judgment, but plunging themselves into that way of life altogether inconsiderately. For just as a thing thrown down does not lie in an orderly fashion, but as it happens, so too these men are like castaways, and they pass their lives without any account of propriety or order. For failing in spirit and succumbing to the harshness and labors of monastic discipline, they return again to a life of softness and pleasure. Wherefore, in order that these things may not happen in the future, the synod decrees that those who have approached the monastic life are to be tested for a period of three years. And if, after being tested for such a long time, they appear worthy and show themselves deserving of being admitted to that way of life, then at length let the monastic habit be granted to them (unless perchance some severe illness, from which there is also a danger to life, has supervened in the interval; for then it shall be permitted to shorten the time of probation). But if some man is adorned with religion, and who among the turmoils of the world lives after the manner of monks, ^B and he himself is well-known, and his God-pleasing way of life is clearly observed, then the synod has judged that a six-month interval is sufficient for his trial and probation. But now, indeed, some of the superiors set their own wills before the authority of the canons; and some who have just arrived they immediately tonsure, and others after a few days have passed, and these are men who do not even know what the monastic profession is; and not even the penalty inflicted by the canon deters them from their irrational impulse, which is the loss of the superiors-ship, and a return to subjection for the correction of their disorderliness. And the canon orders that he who has monasticized without discernment and contrary to the appointed time be handed over to another monastic monastery that observes strictness.

ARIST. ^C «Let no one be considered worthy of the monastic habit, ^D unless, having been tested for three years, he appears worthy; unless perhaps a severe illness has shortened the time; but for a pious man, and one living after the manner of monks, a six-month period will suffice. But if anything should be done contrary to this, the superior shall indeed lose his superior-ship, and shall be relegated to subjection; but the monk shall be transferred to a strict monastery.»

CANON VI.

(51) He who wishes to monasticsize should dispose of his own affairs beforehand. For after he has monasticized, the monastery will be master of all his possessions. But if any monk is caught having kept back something of his own, he himself shall be fittingly rebuked; and that thing, being sold by the prior or the bishop, shall be distributed to the poor and needy.

^A It is clear that whatever regulations the holy synod has decreed concerning male monastics, it has deemed just that these also hold good and be observed for female monastics (52).

BALS. Other canons also define that monks must own no property. Therefore, the present canon says that the blessed apostle Luke, delineating the monastic life in the Acts of the Apostles, wrote that those who believed in Christ had nothing of their own; but all things were common to them. For this reason, monks also must do likewise, and bring to the monastery the things they possess, so that they may be common property. ^B And that this may not be an obstacle to those who wish to become monks (for it is probable that there are some who are wealthy and possess much, and who have the intent that their own property should go to their families), the Fathers granted that it is in the power of him who wishes to become a monk, before taking the tonsure, to make a lawful will and dispose of his property; because he is betaking himself to a life of mortification: he may transmit his own property to whatever parties he wishes, namely to kinsmen or others; provided, however, that they are able to receive legacies or inheritance by will. For there are some who are unable to receive anything by will, namely heretics and certain others. If, however, he does not do this before the tonsure, but is tonsured, ^C then the power of disposing of his property is taken away from him.

(Guill. Beveregii note.) He who wishes to become a monk must first make a testament regarding his goods. For after he has been made a monk, the ownership of all his property falls to the monastery. But if any monk is found to have retained any of his goods, he himself is fittingly punished; but that thing, being sold by the prior or the bishop, is to be distributed to the poor and needy. Regarding which the scholiast observes this, (perhaps one should read [the 123rd] novella, which is placed in the book of the Basilics, tit. 1, which also grants him the power of testating after he has been made a monk, and wishes that if he dies intestate, his property should lawfully be inherited by his children). Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 4, tit. 1.

(52) *For female monastics also.* The final words of this canon are regrettably missing in the Amerbachian codex. (55) *And monks must.* We owe this to our Bodleian codex. For they are missing in the Parisian edition of Balsamon; but they are also read in the Amerbachian codex.

not done so, but has been tonsured: the power of disposing is taken away from him, and his property belongs to the monastery. If, however, anyone, contrary to what is contained in the ^A canon, after having been made a monk, attempts to appropriate any of these things for his own private use, the superior or bishop shall receive it, and sell it in the presence of many people so as to be removed from all calumny and reproach, and distribute the price to the poor. But the monk who has stolen what belongs to God shall be punished with a penance, after the manner of that Ananias.

While the canon ordains these things, some have said that they are countered by chapter 7 of title 1 of book 4 of the *Basilika*, which is chapter 58 of the 123rd Justinian novella, which says: If a man or woman chooses the monastic life and enters a monastery when there are no children, we decree that his property belongs to the monastery into which he has entered. But if such a person has children, and has not made a disposition concerning his own property before entering the monastery, and has not set aside the legitimate portion for his children; even so, it shall be permitted to him, even after entering the monastery, to divide his property among his children; provided, however, that he does not diminish the legitimate portion of any of his children. For the portion not given to his children shall belong to the monastery. If, however, he should wish to divide all his property among his children, with his own person counted among the children, he shall in every way retain one portion for himself, which ought to belong to the right of the monastery. But if, while living in the monastery, he should die before having distributed his own property ^B among his children, the children shall receive the legitimate portion, and the remaining goods shall belong to the monastery.

To me, however, these things do not appear to be contrary to those things which were defined in the canon. For the canon mentioned only those who are not necessarily written heirs, namely, distant relatives and strangers. The novella, repeating those things which it accepted from the canon—namely, that it is in the power of him who wishes to become a monk to make a testament before his tonsure and to transmit his property to whom he wishes; but after the tonsure, it is not permitted for him to do such a thing, because he is like a dead man; and a dead man neither has property nor can say anything about it; but his property becomes the property of the monastery—added that these things ought to be observed when the one who has become a monk does not have children. But if he does have them, he shall make a testament, as the novella distinguishes; and if he has not done so, his children will be his ^C heirs, and the rest will be done that this novella contains.

Thus, therefore, with the apparent contradiction resolved, someone might ask, What ought to be done concerning the property of one who has been tonsured if he does not have children, but has parents? Resolution: Children and parents have the same right between themselves, as far as the account of the inheritance is concerned. If, therefore, anything is written to be done after the tonsure to the children, the same shall also be done to the parents. And if he has both children and parents, what ought to be done? Resolution: The 118th Justinian novella, which is situated at the end of title 3 of book ^D

^A 45, first ordains that children must be written as heirs by necessity; if there are no children, then the parents. We are not compelled to write anyone else as heir, even against our will. If anyone dies intestate, having parents and brothers, they will be heirs in equal shares. And read the aforementioned novella, for it is necessary. And these things shall be done regarding the possessions which he has before the tonsure who is about to become a monk; but as to those that devolved upon him after the tonsure, whether by testament or intestate, upon the death of his relatives, or from any other source, what shall be done? Resolution: Read the 5th novella of the most renowned Emperor, Lord Leo the Wise, which treats in summary the things mentioned above, and at the end provides that monks are not at all to be barred from the right of testament, who perhaps became wealthy after having become monks. But if they were seen to have given something beforehand to the monastery at the time when they joined it, they are to be masters of those things which were later acquired, to administer them as they wish. But if they gave nothing to the monastery, they themselves have the power to dispose and bequeath two parts according to the laws, and the monastery is to receive the other part, namely the third. ^B What if the monk does not wish to dispose of the things acquired after the tonsure? Will the monastery vindicate and seize all the things, or will rather those who are called intestate receive these things, especially if the deceased brought something to the monastery? Resolution: The novella of the Philosopher decreed nothing about this; but it seems to me that then those things should take place which the aforementioned novella decreed to happen regarding the possessions which the monk has before the tonsure, when he dies intestate. A controversy arose at one time in court concerning the intangible rights of a monk, which were not disposed of by him before his tonsure. For since a certain monk had dragged someone into court over a loan, it was asked whether a monk can bring a lawsuit, and he appeared to be inadmissible for this. But when the monastery had come to court and proposed the rights of the monk as belonging to it according to the canon, because he had not administered them before the tonsure, the defenders of the defendants said that neither the monastery nor the monk can bring a lawsuit. ^C For the monk, as one already dead and having no property, ought not to be admitted to initiate litigation; and the monastery, as it had not had the intangible right of action assigned to it, brings the suit without being entitled to it. They also remembered the law which says: "An intangible right, if it is not ceded by him, does not pass to another," and they wished for the defendant not to be dragged into court, because in that way the action was supposedly extinguished. However, claiming these things did not please [the court]. For it was decreed that since the goods of the monk who possesses an intangible right do not pass to the monastery by the monk's own intention, but by the authority of the law, it properly appropriates the action to itself even without a cession. ^D Furthermore, some said that this

all has an active operation for cenobitic monks, but not for cell-dwelling ^A monks; they have heard that it is not well spoken, since there is no difference between monasteries and monks by laws or canons.

^C ZONARAS. Those who have embraced the monastic life are considered as dead to the functions of life. As, therefore, those who have finished their life possess nothing, so the canon requires that those who lead the monastic life should possess nothing, and it brings forward as testimony from the Acts of the Apostles, where the divine Luke recounts that no one among the believers said that anything of what he possessed was his own, but all things were common. Wherefore, for those inclining toward the monastic way of life, the canon permits that before they become monks, they may dispose of their possessions and manage their own affairs as they wish; provided, however, that they do not leave them to forbidden persons—for example, to heretics or illegitimate children—more than a twelfth part of their estate, when they also have legitimate children. But if they become monks before they have disposed of them, the monastery shall be mistress of all his things, and it is no longer allowed to him to manage his own affairs. These things happen in this way when the person who has become a monk does not have necessary heirs, that is to say children or parents, to whom he is under a necessity to leave a lawful portion. For the one hundred and twenty-third Novel, placed in the fourth book of the Basilics, title one, says among other things that, if the person who has entered the monastery before managing his own affairs has children, it shall be permitted to him after he has been tonsured to divide his own estate among his children, and to assign to each his legitimate portion without anything being changed; but what is left over after the distribution to the children shall be appropriated ^D to the monastery. But if the one who has become a monk should wish to leave his entire estate to his children, the Novel orders that he himself should be numbered with his own children; so that if, for example, there were three children, the person who has become a monk should be added to them, and if the inheritance were of one hundred gold coins, the children should not receive a third part each of those hundred, but a fourth part each, so that an equal share may also be assigned to their father, and the monastery shall receive this. But if the one who has been tonsured should die in the monastery before the estate has been distributed to his children, then the children shall receive the portion established by the laws, and the remainder shall belong to the monastery. But if anyone should be found, says the canon, having some possession after being tonsured, the superior of the monastery or the bishop of the region must take the possession and sell it in the presence of many, so that it may be clear for how much it was sold; so that the superior or the bishop may not give rise to suspicion against himself, he must distribute it to the poor; and he must chastise the one who withheld the possession and as it were stole it, with the appropriate correction. The same things, he says, must also hold for nunneries, as far as has been established for monks.

ARIST. He who is about to embrace the monastic life is permitted to make a testament beforehand; but if they do not make a testament, the monastery shall possess their goods. If, however, anyone has reserved anything for himself, and that monastery has not received it, it shall be sold openly by the prefect or the bishop, and distributed among the poor; and he who stole it shall be punished. The same things will also hold for nunneries.

CANON VII

We see many bishoprics falling into ruin and being consigned to perpetual destruction, because those who preside over them confer all their care and solicitude upon building new monasteries, and by dividing and drawing away from them the revenues, and scheming so that they may pertain to themselves, they labor for the increase of those [monasteries]. Therefore, this holy synod has decreed that it is permitted to no bishop to build a private monastery from the ground up to the detriment of his own bishopric. But if anyone should be caught daring this, he himself shall be subjected to the appropriate penalty, and that which was built by him shall be assigned to the bishopric as private property, as that which from the beginning did not acquire the right of a monastery. For nothing that is established contrary to the laws and in a disorderly manner can do prejudice to those things that are canonically constituted.

BALS. Since certain bishops, as is likely, were building monasteries from the ground up and consuming the revenues of the bishoprics, which they ought, after the necessary expenses, to store up for those things which pertain to the bishopric, as the apostolic canon requires, and since for this cause their churches were falling into ruin and were being reduced almost to nothing: the Fathers decreed that a bishop should not build a private monastery from the ground up, because this would be an innovation to the detriment of the bishopric. But if any bishop acts contrary to these things, he himself shall be subjected to a penalty; but the newly-built monastery shall be under the dominion of the bishopric. And in these things the canon consists. But he rightly said that it is not permitted to a bishop to build a monastery from the ground up to the ruin of his own bishopric. For if someone renovates a monastery which was there before and had already fallen into ruin, and it does not do damage to the goods of his bishopric, he will not be prohibited from doing what he wills; just as he will not be prohibited, as it seems to me, even from building a monastery from the ground up, if the goods of the bishopric are not damaged, but he provides the expense from his own funds. For to say indiscriminately, and in such a way, that the bishop will be prohibited from building a monastery for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, when the bishopric is not harmed, is not admissible, nor is it worthy of the discernment and prudence of the Fathers. For indeed the first of the present synod himself, the most blessed Photius, raised the monastery of Manuel almost from its very foundations to the beauty and magnitude that is seen today. And that most holy patriarch, the lord

^A Alexius later raised the monastery which is called the monastery of the lord Alexius. And the most holy patriarch, the lord Theophylact, [raised] the renowned monastery of the Rufinianae; and other patriarchs, as well as metropolitans and bishops, built various monasteries anew, both within and outside this queen of cities; and none of them, in the manner contained by the canon, returned to episcopal rights; and this is entirely because the building of the monasteries by the prelates was not done to the ruin of their own bishoprics. But as if someone had asked: "Why is a monastery built by a bishop not kept under his own jurisdiction, or at least left free, but brought under episcopal dominion?" The Fathers said that because from the beginning, and from the very foundations, such a holy monastery was established contrary to the canons, it must be considered as if it had not been built by the bishop; and since the things offered to God by anyone are not of the property of the one who established them, but of God, and it was built from the revenues of the bishopric, it ought also to be assigned to the bishopric as its own property. ^B Someone might also ask: To which bishop ought a monastery revert? To the prelate who succeeded the builder, or to the bishop of the region? The solution: The expenses incurred for the raising of the monastery, as is apparent from the canon, were from the revenues of the bishopric; therefore, it ought to revert to this bishopric, and deservedly so, since it was built from its revenues. And if it was indeed built within his own diocese, there is no doubt; but if it was in another diocese, the monastery will still revert to the bishopric. But the bishop who is of the region will have in it only episcopal rights. Now, this is the interpretation of the canon. Keep in mind, however, that the holy Chrysostom says in his interpretation of the holy Gospel according to Matthew: "If someone asks you which is better, to offer a gift to the church or to give to the poor, say that the poor are to be preferred. For," he says, "that which belongs to the churches, time corrupts and tyrants take away; but what is given to the poor, not even the devil can take away." If, however, someone is set on giving to the church, he ought not be turned away from it because the poor are to be preferred. And [note] that the renovation of churches is to be preferred to the poor; but not so for an initial building. ^C ZONARAS. The canon forbids monasteries to be built by bishops, lest they claim the things belonging to their bishoprics as their own, and spend them on the building of monasteries, and in their concern only for the enlargement of monasteries, they tear apart the bishoprics; by which word, "tearing apart," he indicates a collapse and the destruction of the whole thing. For that which is torn into parts, whether it be animate or inanimate, must necessarily be destroyed. Therefore, to build some monastery of one's own, which is to say, the very constitution of the monastery [is forbidden… ^D

^A that is to be, he says, shall be censured by the one who ordains him; and that which has been [newly built] by him shall be annexed to the bishopric and shall be its private property, as if a monastery had never even been created. For things done contrary to the law shall not result in damage or subversion of things performed canonically.

ARIST. Let it be permitted to no bishop to build a private monastery from scratch ^B to the ruin of his own bishopric. But whoever dares this shall be censured, and that which is newly built, as being private property, shall be annexed to the bishopric.

CANON VIII

The divine and holy canon of the holy apostles judges those who castrate themselves to be their own murderers; and if they are priests, it deposes them; but if they are not, it prohibits them from being promoted to the priesthood. From this it openly establishes that if he who cuts himself is his own murderer, then he who cuts another is entirely a murderer. And justly, one might decide that such a person is also seen as insulting the handiwork of [God]. Wherefore the holy synod has decreed that if any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon is convicted of castrating someone, either with his own hand or by his order, he shall be subjected to deposition; but if he be a layman, he shall be excommunicated; except if some supervening ^C disease should compel the sick man to be cut. For just as the first canon of the synod in Nicaea does not punish those who have been operated on because of a disease, on account of the disease, so we also neither condemn the priests who order the sick to be castrated, nor do we accuse the laymen who use their own hands for castration. For we consider this to be a healing of the body, and not a trap set for the creature, or an insult brought upon the handiwork.

BALS. The Fathers say that the apostolic canon [meant] is the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth. For these determine how those ^D who cut off their own testicles ought to be punished. But the present canon decrees how those who castrate others with their own hands, and those who order this to be done, are to be punished. It says, therefore, that since he who cuts himself is his own murderer, then he who cuts another, or orders one to be cut, is absolutely a murderer. It also calls them defamers of God. For those whom God made, in a certain way, immortal through the procreation of children, and created as male and female, saying to them, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth," they, contrary to the command of God, have caused them to become something else through the removal of the testicles; so that the castrated are neither men, because they do not procreate, nor women, because they do not give birth. Therefore the Fathers decreed that those who dare

to castrate anyone, either with their own hands or by command, if they are clergy, shall be deposed, but if they are laymen, they shall be excommunicated; unless, indeed, they should perform such an act upon those who are ill, for they commanded that these should be blameless, because that which is done on account of illness is a healing of the ^A creature of God, not an insult. Read what is written in the aforementioned apostolic canons, and the first canon of the first synod, and the things contained in it, and the 142nd novella of Justinian, set forth outside the 14th chapter of the 1st title of the present work. Note also something new appearing from the summary of the canon. For above, the Fathers decree that clergy who castrate, whether with their own hands or by commandment, are to be deposed; but below, speaking of those who are mutilated on account of illness, they do not blame laymen who castrate themselves or command the mutilation or castration, but they do not condemn the clergy who only command it—though certainly those who have become the actual perpetrators of the mutilation are not spared. Note this, therefore, as it ought to contribute much to you, so that clergy who, on account of illness, surrender themselves for excision without ecclesiastical permission may not go unpunished. For if a priest who with his own hand excises another on account of illness is punished, much more will a priest be punished who mutilates himself on account of illness. ^B

ZONARAS

ARISTENUS

^A

CANON IX.

Since the apostolic and divine canon subjects to deposition priests who attempt to strike those of the faithful who have sinned, or those of the unbelievers who have committed an injury, those who seek to soothe their own anger and distort the apostolic constitutions have understood this to mean those who strike with their own hand, though the canon signifies nothing of the sort, nor does right reason permit it to be so understood. For it is truly absurd and highly unstable that he who with his own hand has struck a person three or even four times should be deposed, while, if given the authority, he who by his command is destined to inflict punishment inhumanly and even unto death is permitted to go unpunished. ^B Therefore, since the canon punishes striking in absolute terms, we also conclude accordingly. For it behooves a priest of God to instruct the one who acts disorderly with teachings and admonitions, and sometimes also with ecclesiastical penalties, but not to insult the bodies of men with scourges and blows. If, however, there are any who are entirely disobedient and do not yield to the correction of penalties, no one forbids them to be corrected by bringing charges before the magistrates of that place; for the fifth canon of the Synod of Antioch decreed that those who stir up tumults and introduce seditions into the Church should be corrected by the external hand. ^C

BALS. The twenty-seventh apostolic canon orders the deposition of priests who strike any believer or unbeliever who has committed a sin or an injury. The present canon says that certain priests, fearing the deposition brought on by the canon, do not strike with their own hands, but, satisfying their own anger, they strike through others, as if ^D the apostolic canon had not, perhaps, expressly forbidden this. And thus they limit the apostolic command. It is therefore unstable, or rather absurd, to speak of the apostles as though they punish him who has perhaps struck once or twice with his own hand, but would not punish the one by whose order many mortal blows are inflicted upon anyone. And therefore the Fathers, consistently with the things established by the holy apostles, have decreed that priests should strike no one, neither with their own hands nor with the hands of others; but they should correct those who sin by means of admonitions or even canonical penalties: and those who are not corrected by these means should be punished by citation before the magistrates. But just as if someone were to say that this also does not befit priests, the canon says that the Synod of Antioch, in its fifth canon, decreed that clerics who disturb the Church should be corrected by the external, that is, the civil hand. But someone might ask: How, with the canon decreeing these things, do the teachers of the liberal arts, namely grammarians and others of that sort, even if they are initiated into the sacred orders, strike without judgment?

^A Solution. To strike out of vengeance and anger is worthy of punishment; but that which is done for the sake of doctrine and education, through speech and moderate manual correction by the teachers, is not. For this reason the canon also says that they are punished if priests shall "insult" the bodies of men—by this word, "insult," signifying the irrational desire, like that of madmen, of those who strike with anger. For if such striking by teachers were forbidden, then neither would ecclesiastic clerics correct, through the rod, at the prompting of the *protodeiktes*, the sinning slaves and freemen coming to the *protodeiktes*. But, nonetheless, this is done without prejudice. Wherefore, if any priest shall strike someone with the *protodeiktes'* rod with anger and fury—as even happened once upon a time during the episcopate of the most holy patriarch, lord Luke—he shall not escape punishment. And again, if a teacher shall strike a student with anger, having made use of a staff by which murder could be caused, he shall not remain unpunished. ^B

ZONARAS. The twenty-seventh canon of the holy apostles decrees that it is not permitted for a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon to strike those who sin; for it orders that he who does this be deposed. Some, therefore, misinterpreting the canon, said that the canon forbade the men of the sacred orders from striking someone with their own hands; but that to command another, and to inflict blows through him, was in no way forbidden. This present canon, therefore, correcting this, says that it is absurd and dangerous to suppose that the holy apostles commanded that he who struck someone three or four times with his own hands should be deposed, but that he who ordered someone to be struck by another cruelly and most violently (for this is what "even unto death" signifies) should be allowed to go unpunished—and this is so even though the apostolic canon does not distinguish, but simply punishes the act of striking. For this reason the Fathers of the synod say, "And we likewise decree with the apostles, that it is not permitted for men in sacred orders to strike any sinner, neither with their own hands nor by commanding another." For it is necessary for the priests of God to train and discipline those who err through teachings and admonitions; and sometimes even through ecclesiastical penances—that is, when those who sin are not disciplined when taught and admonished. For it is not necessary to begin to teach and correct with penances, but first to teach them and admonish them, and thus to apply more effective and more laborious remedies. But to whip and to inflict blows upon the bodies of men, and to "insult" them in this manner, the canon completely forbids. For by the word "insult" it wished to hint at and indicate their frenzied and angry impulse. But if any, it says, are not corrected by teachings, nor by admonitions, nor in fact by canonical penances, such as these ought to be disciplined through the local magistrates, who are to be reminded by the priests to whom they were not obedient when they were admonishing and gently treating them. But to have the disorderly disciplined by the magistrates

^A for whom this is permitted, the priests must inform the magistrates regarding the whole matter, for the sake of those who do not obey their own admonitions. That such correction of unruly persons by the operation of the magistrates and their restoration to a sound mind was long ago defined by the fifth canon of the Synod of Antioch, this demonstrates.

ARIST. ^A Priests who beat either the faithful who have sinned or the infidels who have done injury, whether with their own hand or by command, let them be deposed. For it is necessary to instruct the unruly with doctrines, admonitions, and ecclesiastical penalties, and not with scourges and blows; but if they do not obey, to discipline them by means of an appeal to the magistrates. ^B

CANON X

Those who surrender themselves to the passions of the soul not only do not shudder at the punishment threatened by the sacred canons, but even dare to insult them. For they twist them and adulterate them according to their own passionate will, so that, because of the agitation of their own soul’s contention, as Gregory the Theologian says, their evil is not only made exempt from correction, but is even considered divine. ^C For they take the Apostolic canon, which says: "Let no one henceforth appropriate to his own use a golden or silver vessel that has been sanctified, or a linen veil; for it is contrary to law: but if anyone be caught, let him be punished with segregation"—they take this, I say, as a defense of their own transgressions, and say that those who transform the venerable covering of the holy table into a tunic for themselves, or into some other garment, ought not to be judged worthy of deposition; ^D and neither, they say, should those who for their own use consume or pollute the holy chalice—O, the impiety!—or the venerable paten, or things similar to these. For the canon, they say, did not deem those who fall into this to be subject to deposition, but to segregation. But who could endure the magnitude of such perversity and impiety? For when the canon subjects to segregation those who claim for themselves only the use of what is sanctified, but not its total plunder, they themselves exempt from deposition those who seize the Holy of Holies and take them away with sacrilegious hands; and they contend that those who, by their own judgment at least, defile the venerable patens or sacred chalices for the service of food are not to be deposed, although it is an open sin; and it is clear that those who do such things fall under the crime not only of deposition but of the utmost impiety. And therefore the holy synod has decreed that those who steal any one of the sacred and holy vessels or vestments in the sanctuary for their own gain, or who divert them to a profane use, shall be subjected to absolute deposition. For the one is to profane, but the other is to steal holy things. Those, however, who [take] those [vessels] outside the sanctuary

^A or garments, and provide them to themselves or to others for use, the canon segregates, and we also segregate; but those who steal them outright, we subject to the condemnation of sacrilegious persons.»

BALS. Some, seizing holy things and making them common—for instance, by converting the covering of the holy table into clothing for their own use, and consequently being subject to deposition—used to appeal to the 75th Apostolic Canon, which says: "Let no one hereafter convert any gold or silver vessel that has been sanctified, or a linen cloth, to their own use; but if they do, let them be segregated." And they desired to be punished only by segregation. Therefore, the present canon says that those who steal them for their own profit and make them common, or abuse any holy vessel from the holy sanctuary for common and profane use, are to be deposed. Indeed, as for those who make common by profane use the sacred vessels and furniture that are outside the sanctuary, or give them to others for a similar use, it decrees that they be segregated; but as for those who steal them, that they be condemned as sacrilegious.

These things being so, someone might ask: "Does this canon decree anything beyond the Apostolic Canon?" ^B Solution. The Apostolic canon decrees only concerning those who make things common, but not also concerning those who claim the sacred items as their own. The present canon, however, concerns those who claim them for themselves, or pollute them, or divert them to private use. And for this reason, that one punishes the sinner only by segregation, but this one by deposition, bringing a heavier punishment than the former. Since, therefore, the sins are different, they also have a different punishment. For that one, the canon says, merely profaned the holy thing, but did not also transform it; whereas this one both stole it and made it useless, and therefore he shall be subject to deposition.

Someone might further ask: "Why, at the end, when the canon speaks concerning sacred things outside the sanctuary, does it segregate those who make them common, but condemn those who steal them as sacrilegious? It ought to have said that these, too, are to be deposed." Solution. It is the same thing for one who steals to be deposed and to be condemned as a sacrilegious person. ^C For a sacrilegious person is also rendered infamous, and deposition follows infamy. Read chapter 2 of the second title of the present work, which teaches more broadly concerning sacred vessels and those things which are dedicated, and the things written by us therein. Read especially chapter 21 of title 2 of the fifth book of the *Basilika*, the force and effect of which was set out by Photius in the second chapter of the second title of the present work.

ZONAR. The 73rd canon of the holy Apostles says: "Let no one hereafter convert any gold or silver vessel that has been sanctified, or a linen cloth, to their own use; for it is unlawful; but if anyone is caught, let them be punished by segregation." Some, therefore, abusing this canon, used to say that he who adapts holy things, whatever they might be, to his own private use ought to be segregated, but not deposed, ^D twisting and distorting the meaning of the canon. Those, therefore,

who interpreted the canon in this way, their opinion being rejected, this canon establishes a distinction among those who abuse sacred things and between the consecrated things themselves. For some things, it says, are employed at the altar, such as the sacred disk, and the chalice, and the vestments of the most holy table, and everything of this kind; while other things are suspended in the outer decoration of the temple, such as lampstands, and curtains which hang around the temple, and others of this sort. Therefore, if anyone uses for his own purposes, or lends to another, those things which pertain to the ornaments of the temple, and for that reason makes them profane, it decrees that he is to be segregated. For it asserts that the definition of the apostolic canon must be accepted regarding these things as well, since they are sanctified precisely by the fact that they are dedicated to the temple. But if anyone has taken anything from the things of the altar and purloined it, or transferred it to common and profane use, it orders that he be deposed. For to claim these things as one’s own is to be a plunderer of sacred property, and he who has done this is condemned for sacrilege; and to use them as if they were common property is to profane holy things; and for both of these crimes the penalty of deposition is appointed. If, however, some have also purloined some vase or vestment, that is, a garment, from those things which are placed in the external decoration of the temple, in order to make a profit for themselves from them; these also are condemned by this canon as sacrilegious.

ARIST. ^B “Let those who purloin the holy chalice, or the disk, or the vestment, or the tongs, or the so-called aer, or in short any one of the sacred vessels or vestments, for their own profit or use them for a profane purpose, be deposed. For to use them is to profane, and to purloin them is to act sacrilegiously. Let those who provide the vessels or vestments which are outside the altar for their own or others’ profane use be segregated; but let those who purloin them entirely be condemned as sacrilegious.” ^C

CANON XI.

“The divine and sacred canons subject to deposition presbyters or deacons ^D who undertake secular magistracies or responsibilities, or what are called curatorship duties in the houses of the magistrates. Confirming this, therefore, we also decree concerning the others who are enrolled in the clergy; that if any one of them takes on secular offices, or undertakes what are called curatorship duties in the houses or suburbs of the magistrates, this person is to be expelled from his own clergy. For no one can, as is the voice of Christ our true God spoken by Him,

Guill. Beveregii note.

^A and the true and infallible voice of God our Lord, to serve two masters.

BALS. The present canon, confirming the previously proclaimed canons for the sake of ensuring that those in holy orders do not busy themselves with worldly occupations, adds that not only those within the sacred sanctuary, but also clerics outside it who do any such thing, are to be expelled from the clergy. Since, however, we have written sufficiently about this in the 6th Apostolic canon, and in the 81st, and in other canons, and furthermore in chapter 13 of title 3 of the present collection, read those things, and they will suffice for an interpretation.

ZONAR. Great effort was put forth by the venerable Apostles and the synodical Fathers so that those initiated into holy orders might abstain completely from profane magistracies and from any involvement in business dealings. Many canons have been published on this matter, which the Fathers in this place now confirm by the decree of this present canon, adding also something more beyond what had been defined by those earlier. For while those canons set forth the law regarding priests and deacons, forbidding them to undertake secular offices and cares, these Fathers designate that no cleric at all is to manage secular magistracies or the duties called curatorships in the houses of the powerful or on farms. And they order those who violate the canon to be cast out of the clergy. For no one, they say, can serve two masters, according to the word of the Lord himself spoken by him.

ARIST. If any of those enrolled in the clergy should manage secular offices, or the curatorship of houses or suburban estates, let him be expelled from the clergy; for he cannot serve God and mammon.

^{B C D}

CANON XII

Since the holy and universal sixth synod subjects to deposition those clerics who perform the liturgy or baptize in oratories that are within a house, against the will of the bishop, we also decree the same. For since the holy Church rightly divides, and defends the true reason, and teaches and preserves the venerable and honest form of good discipline, it is incongruous and absurd that those who live their lives in petulance and insolence and disobedience—stealing into houses—should disrupt its good order and fill it with much confusion and scandal. Therefore, this present holy and divinely assembled synod, in agreement with the universal sixth synod, has ordained that those who celebrate in oratories that are within houses are to be removed from the clergy—removal from the clergy, that is, being decreed for them by the bishop of the place. If, however, any beyond these, without the bishop consenting, should dare to burst into houses and attempt to perform the ministry of the liturgy, those persons are to be deposed; but those who are partakers of their communion are to be subjected to excommunication.

in the Apostolic canon 58; and read what is written in those. ^A ZONAR. The thirty-first canon of the Sixth Council, which this canon mentions, we have explained there. The Fathers issued this canon with the same intent, that those who are to perform sacred rites in private houses must be separated from the clergy—that is, chosen, admitted, and recorded through a separation, which is to say, a designation made by the local bishop. But if any others, besides those who have been designated, dare to perform sacred rites in oratories that are within houses without having obtained permission from the bishop, they ordain that those persons are to be deposed, but those who are partakers of their communion are to be subjected to excommunication. ^B ARIST. "Let no cleric celebrate or baptize in a temple that is inside a house against the will of the bishop; for he is deposed. Therefore, let those who are to perform the liturgy in oratories within houses be those appointed by the bishop. But those who dare to do this otherwise, let them be deposed; and let those who communicate with them be excommunicated."

CANON XIII. The wicked one, having cast the seeds of heretical tares into the Church of Christ, and seeing them being cut out by the roots with the sword of the Spirit, ^C came to another path of treachery, attempting to divide the body of Christ with the madness of schismatics. But the holy synod, checking even this stratagem of his, has completely decreed for the future that if any presbyter or deacon, as if claiming that his own bishop is under some charges, before a synodical judgment, examination, and his complete condemnation, shall dare to depart from his communion and shall not repeat his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgies as is handed down to the Church, he shall be subject to deposition and be deprived of all priestly honor. ^D For he who is placed in the priestly order and snatches away the judgment belonging to the metropolitans, and who condemns his own father and bishop before the trial—insofar as it depends on him—is not worthy of even the honor or name of a presbyter. But those who follow them, if they are any of those initiated into sacred things, let them also fall from their own honor; but if they be monks or laymen, let them be completely excommunicated from the Church; until

having rejected their connection with the schismatics, they might return to their own bishop. » ^B

BALS. When by the grace of God the division of heresies had ceased, the Fathers saw some of those initiated into sacred things—by certain satanic wiles—secretly creeping into the madness of the schismatics, as though withdrawing from the communion of their own bishops, who were neither impious nor unjust, as the 31st Apostolic canon states, but only because some criminal charge perhaps had been spoken against them. Therefore, correcting this, which divides the body of Christ—that is, the Church—they decreed that priests or deacons who had dared to withdraw so rashly and without reason from the communion of their own bishop before his perfect synodical condemnation, and not to mention his name in the divine celebrations of the sacred mysteries according to ecclesiastical tradition, should be deposed. For, they say, he is not worthy to have the name or honor of a presbyter who impudently arrogates to himself the judgment of the metropolitan, which perhaps he was about to bring against the bishop; and who, as far as his own conscience is concerned, condemns his own father, the bishop, by not communicating with him, as if he were truly already condemned. And they decree that not only they, but also those who follow them—if they be of the clergy—are to be deposed, but if they be laymen, they are to be ^C excommunicated and to remain under penance until they come to the knowledge of their evil and return to their own bishop. Read also chapter 1 of title 12 of the present work, and the first canon of Saint Basil.

But someone might ask, since the canon punishes only schismatic presbyters and deacons, if another cleric besides these should withdraw from the communion of his own bishop, will he be punished or not? Solution. Since the canon subsequently deposes not only the primary authors—the priests—but also those who follow them, of necessity all who are primary authors of schism, whatever clerics they may be, will be cast out from their own ranks. The canon rightly made mention only of presbyters and deacons, because schism properly comes through them, as they are the ones who perform the rites of the holy altar, and are able to mention or not to mention the name of the bishop. And do not say to me, "How does the canon, while continuing on, make mention of the presbyter, but not likewise of the deacon?" For you will hear that the relationship of bishops formerly pertained more to the priests than to the deacons, and for that reason it spoke more regarding them.

ZONAR. In many ways, says the canon, the adversary plots against the Church of Christ. For since he is not unaware that the tares of the heresies ^D have been cut away by the sword of the Spirit, he contrived another method by which he might rend the body of the Church and dissipate and tear apart the union of souls. And this is that madness of the schismatics, which, the Fathers of the Synod say, we, in order to repress, decree that no presbyter or deacon shall dare to withdraw from the authority of the bishop under whom he serves, and not

^A communicate with him, nor mention his name according to the custom, as if he had already condemned his bishop, before the charge brought against the bishop has been examined in a synod and a final vote has been passed condemning him; and he who does this shall be deposed. For he who is in the rank of presbyter and usurps the judgment of the metropolitans (for the metropolitans judge the bishops), and before judgment passes sentence on his own bishop, who is his father in the Spirit, is not worthy to be honored or called a presbyter. And those who follow the schismatic, and themselves divide, if they are in holy orders, let them be deposed; but if they are laymen or monks, let them be completely separated from the Church, instead of being cast out, so that they may not even enter into the Church. For there is a separation which is merely being excluded from the participation of the divine mysteries; but there is also that which is being outside the Church, which they have termed "complete," as being more severe. They define the time for this separation as the turning back of those people. For they will be, he says, separated until they approach their own bishop, having turned away from their association with the schismatics. ^B

ARIST. ‹ If any presbyter or deacon, as if indeed he had condemned his bishop for some crime, withdraws from his communion before a synodal inquiry, and does not mention his name, let him be deposed, and let him be deprived of all priestly honor. But those who follow him, if they are initiated in the holy rites, let them fall from their own rank; but if they are monks or laymen, let them be separated until they have returned. ›

CANON XIV. ‹ If any bishop, making a pretext of a crime against his own metropolitan, before a synodal inquiry, separates himself from communion with him, and does not mention his name as is the custom in the divine celebration, the holy synod has decreed that he be deposed, if only he be convicted of having withdrawn from his own metropolitan and caused a schism; for each one ought to know his own limits, and ^C neither should a presbyter disdain his own bishop, nor a bishop his own metropolitan. ›

BALS. The present canon also is in all respects similar to the one before it, even if they differ in the persons.

ZONAR. This canon also decrees the same things as the previous one regarding bishops who tear themselves away from the connection of their own metropolitans, and do not communicate with them, nor mention their names.

ARIST. ‹ And if any bishop shall dare to do this very thing against his own metropolitan, let him be deposed. For each one ought to know his own limits. › ^D

CANON XV. ^A

CANON XV.

BALS. This present canon also enjoins the same things in part as the 13th and 14th canons. For it says that the things previously defined apply much more to a patriarch, when someone rashly withdraws from his communion. But as if someone had asked, “If for a reasonable cause, such as perhaps on account of heresy, someone withdraws from the communion of his own high priest, why should he be punished?” the Fathers reply that all these things occur when, under the pretext of some criminal case, someone on his own judgment condemns his own shepherd, and on that account severs himself from him, and in such a manner tears asunder the unity of the Church. For if, not on account of a criminal accusation, but on account of heresy, someone separates himself from his own bishop, or metropolitan, or patriarch, because he teaches in the church without shame certain doctrines ^C alien to the true faith, such a person, even before a full investigation—and much more so after the investigation—if he “walls himself off,” that is, separates himself from the communion of his primate, not only shall he not be punished, but he shall even be honored as an orthodox person. For he did not separate himself from a bishop, but from a false bishop and a false teacher; and what has been done by him is worthy of praise, as it does not rend the Church, but rather joins it together and strives to deliver it from division. It has been said by the canon that the schismatic must be an alien from all priesthood, on account of those who say that such men ought to be for some time

^A suspended from their priesthood, and not deposed. Criminal causes are fornication, sacrilege, and the setting aside of the canons. Rightly, however, did the canon say that they are to be commended who separate themselves, even before a condemnation, from those who publicly teach heretical doctrines and are openly heretics. For if the matters of the heresy are whispered in secret and with hesitation by the primate, as if he were in doubt, no one ought to separate from him before a condemnation; for it is likely that he may be brought round to the orthodox view, and desist from the heresy, before a full sentence has been pronounced against him. Note these things, which perhaps will be of use against those who say that we did not rightly separate from the throne of ancient Rome before those who held it were condemned as having wrong opinions. And the present canon does not punish those who separate and withdraw for the sake of a dogma; ^B but the thirty-first Apostolic Canon keeps those free from all punishment who have judged their own bishops as openly doing injustice and have separated from them.

ZONARAS. What the Fathers of the Synod defined concerning metropolitans and bishops, they declare to be even more applicable to patriarchs. For if, they say, any metropolitan, bishop, or presbyter dares to withdraw from communion with his patriarch, and to cease from mentioning his name before he has reported to the synod the matters for which he accuses the patriarch, and before these have been examined, and he, perchance, condemned; such a one, as having made a schism, shall be entirely alien from all priesthood. The term "all" has been used instead of: the high priests from the high-priestly [priesthood], and the priests from the priestly ^C [priesthood]; and "entirely," because they shall not be prohibited from officiating for a certain time, and then be restored to their proper rank; but they shall be completely cast out of their dignity, and shall not even possess the rank belonging only to bishops and priests. Then they add that these things have been defined and sealed, that is, firmly established (for a seal is for the confirmation and custody of those things that are sealed), concerning those who, under the pretext of certain crimes, depart from their own prelates and rend the unity of the Church, when, for instance, they accuse them of fornication, sacrilege, or the sale of ordinations for money, or other such things. But if the patriarch, or metropolitan, or bishop ^D should happen to be a heretic, and such a one as publicly to preach the heresy, and with naked head—that is, openly and with boldness—teaches heretical dogmas, those who separate from him, whoever they may be, shall not only not be worthy of punishment on this account, but shall even be deemed worthy of honor, as orthodox, in that they separate themselves from the communion of the heretics. For this is what "separating" (ἀποτειχίζοντες—making a wall/fence) signifies. For the wall is the separation of those within it from those without. For they did not depart from a bishop, but from a false bishop and a false teacher. Nor did they make a schism in the Church, but rather, as far as lay in them, they delivered the Church from schisms.

^A

ARIST. Similarly, if any bishop or metropolitan dares to do such a thing against the patriarch, let him be alienated from all priesthood. But if any have separated from someone, not on the pretext of an accusation, but on account of a heresy condemned by a synod or by the holy Fathers, they are worthy of honor and praise, inasmuch as they are orthodox.

CANON XVI

Because of the contentions and tumults which occur in the Church of God, it is also necessary to define this: that a bishop must in no wise be appointed in a church whose prelate is still living and is still established in his own honor, unless he has voluntarily renounced his bishopric. For it is right that the cause of him who is to be expelled from the episcopate be canonically examined and brought to an end first; then, after his deposition, another should be promoted to his bishopric. ^B But if any bishop who is established in his own honor neither wishes to renounce it, nor desires to feed his own people; but, departing from his own bishopric, spends more than six months in another place, being neither detained by imperial command, nor serving in the ministry of his own patriarch, nor held by a grave illness causing complete inability to move: he, therefore, who is hindered by none of the aforesaid causes, and is absent from his own bishopric, and spends more than a semester in another place, shall be entirely alienated from the dignity and honor of a bishop. For the holy synod has decreed that he who neglects the flock committed to his faith, and spends more than a semester in another place, should be rendered entirely alien to the priesthood by which he was ordained to feed, and that another should be promoted to his bishopric in his stead. ^C

BALS. Often some bishops, because of the vexations of tax collectors, or because of the invasions of neighbors, or because of the disobedience of the people, renounce their own bishoprics in a timid and dejected spirit. The metropolitans, therefore, admitting such renunciations, were ordaining other bishops; and sometimes they were electing others even before the criminal charges which were being brought against them were examined. ^D The Fathers therefore say...

[Note of William Beveridge: ...Observe the present interpretation, and keep in mind what is written therein, for the sake of those bishops who travel abroad away from their churches.]

^A For this reason, the Fathers said: "Since this is the cause of sedition and ecclesiastical disturbances, we decree that a bishop shall not be elected while the ruler of the church is still alive, unless indeed it be established by examination that the resignation of the living bishop is to be admitted, or he has been condemned by a synodical verdict. For then, even while he is still alive, another shall be ordained." And as if someone had asked, "But what will become of the people of the bishopric if he who is over them does not make a canonical resignation, but lingers outside his own bishopric?" they brought in the following: that if any bishop shall be absent from his own church for more than six months, without an imperial or patriarchal order, or without a grave illness which does not permit him to move from place to place, he shall be alien to the priesthood, and another shall be ordained in his place.

^B But since it appears from these things that the resignations made by bishops in any manner whatsoever are to be admitted, while other canons, and the epistle of the holy Cyril to Domnus (or his response), ordain that the resignations of bishops are not to be admitted inconsiderately, you ought to reconcile the present canon with those. Read also chapter 11 of the 9th title of the present work and what is contained therein. Now, because chapter 2 of the 8th title of the present work—that is, the content of the 18th and 19th chapters of the 1st title of the 3rd book of the Basilics, which is a part of Justinian’s 123rd Novel—seems to be in conflict with the present canon, it is asked by some what we ought to follow. ^C They seem to be in opposition in these respects: The canon has granted to the bishop a period of six months for journeying and being absent from the bishopric, but the Novel has extended this to an interval of one year. Furthermore, the canon decided that those bishops who are absent from their own churches beyond six months are to be alienated from them without further inquiry; the Novel commands that expenses are not to be supplied to the bishops by the oikonomoi after the lapse of time, and [that they are] thus to be summoned by their own clergy; and if they are not persuaded even by this means, then others are to be ordained. The canon permits the bishops to be absent even beyond a year if they are detained by emperors or patriarchs, or prevented by grave illness; the Novel treats nothing of this sort.

Therefore, it seems that what is contained in a part of the Justinian Novel regarding the emperor alone, and placed by Photius in the mentioned 2nd chapter of the 8th title of the present work, ^D the revision neither received nor preserved, but excluded; it therefore seemed that the provisions of the canon ought rather to hold. But I for my part still hesitate. For insofar as it is an ecclesiastical question, I stand with those who say that the canon ought rather to be observed; but insofar as the Basilics were cleaned up after the composition of the Nomocanon and the publication of this canon, I assent to the other opinion.

Another interpretation

Note of William Beveridge

^A In this canon are contained matters concerning bishops who resign, besides those things which were established by Saint Cyril in his letter to Domnus—as those matters were discussed and examined by the holy and universal third synod through the letter that was sent at that time to the synod in Pamphylia. You, however, must know that all these things which were established by Saint Cyril are, I know not how, overlooked. For many wish that all resignations whatsoever made by bishops should be admitted, as this present canon seems to direct. But those who are more subtle say that only those resignations are to be admitted which contain the reason that these are being made because of the unworthiness of those who are resigning. For my part, I follow the things defined by Saint Cyril. If it were permitted to accept the resignations of bishops without a more careful examination, many bishops would cease to be bishops because of the instability of affairs, which indeed pertains to great injury of the ecclesiastical order; and I omit mentioning the affront to God. But if you wish to speak of bishops resigning by means of the tonsure, and because they have chosen a monastic life, just as the great Gregory the Theologian also did, and you say that this canon speaks of such resignations, I myself also agree. ^B However, the resignation of that servant of God, Macris, which was accepted synodically by that most holy patriarch, the lord Lucas, some time later fell into desuetude by the persuasion of the bishop, through a synodal sentence, when that most holy patriarch, the lord Michael of Anchialus, was holding the patriarchate. For when that patriarch saw that the resignation of the bishop did not contain that the bishop was resigning as "unworthy" [indignus], but as "not worthy" [non dignus], he said that such a resignation was not to be admitted. For he who is not worthy to perform the sacred rites is not yet also unworthy; just as the great Basil also says in one of the prayers of the holy liturgy, which is as follows: "No one of those who are bound by carnal desires and pleasures is worthy to approach and draw near, or to minister to Thee, King of glory." And having determined that he who calls himself "unworthy" is self-condemned, but he who calls himself "not worthy" is to be praised as humble, he judged it just that the bishop should perform the priestly office, as one who had not resigned canonically. ^C But those who say that a long-standing custom concerning resignations ought to hold force just as a canon, speak wrongly. For a long-standing unwritten custom does not prevail where it is opposed to a written law or canon. And seek what has been written by us concerning this matter in chapter 3 of the first title of the present work.

^D ZONARAS. In times past, as it is credible, either from the fact that someone had brought certain charges against bishops, or because they themselves had submitted letters of resignation, before the alleged crimes had been investigated or the causes of the resignations examined, they would appoint other bishops in the churches of those who had been accused or who had offered the letters of resignation; from which cause seditions and tumults were excited in the churches. For these reasons, therefore, the synod decreed that a bishop should not be ordained in a church in which the bishop is still living, and has not been moved from his

^A own honor, that is, from his episcopal dignity. For it is necessary, it says, that the charge brought against him be first canonically examined and brought to an end, that is, to a sentence, and when he has been canonically deposed, another should be ordained to the episcopacy. The fourth canon of the Synod of Sardica says the same thing. But if any bishop, while maintaining the right of the episcopacy, neither pastures his own people nor resigns—if he perhaps has some reasonable cause for resignation—but spends more than six months in another place, he shall be deprived of both the episcopacy and that dignity, unless he is detained somewhere by imperial command for some necessity, or is necessarily serving his own patriarch, or is held by some grievous and heavy illness, such as to be a cause of immobility for him. For then, he will have pardon for being away from his church. But if he is away for more than six months and spends time elsewhere without such reasons, he shall be alienated from the high priesthood, and another will be introduced into that episcopacy. ^B ARIST. • Let no one in any way invade an episcopacy whose prelate is still alive. For one must first examine the case of the one who is to be expelled, and after his deposition, promote another. But if anyone neglects his own flock, and not being detained by illness, or by imperial or patriarchal command, is absent for a period exceeding six months, he shall be alienated from the distinction and honor of a bishop. »

CANON XVII

• Being concerned for ecclesiastical good order in all things, we have also thought it necessary to define this: that henceforth no layman or monk should be suddenly raised to the height of the episcopacy, but having been first examined in the ecclesiastical grades, thus he should receive the ordination of the episcopacy. For even if until now some ^C have been raised, necessity demanding it, immediately... ^D

^A worthy of the episcopal dignity, having excelled in virtue and having exalted their own church; yet because we in no way establish as a law of the Church that which rarely happens, we decree that in the future this should no longer occur, unless he who is being ordained has proceeded according to reason through the priestly grades, fulfilling the accustomed time in each rank. »

BALS. ^B The Fathers call it ecclesiastical disorder for any monk or layman to become a high priest inconsiderately and without examination. Therefore, they say that no one of them is to be promoted to the height of the episcopacy unless he has first passed through all the ecclesiastical grades in the accustomed and sufficient time for each rank. They add, however, that even if such a thing happened before because of urgent necessity, and those who were chosen and ordained on the same day shone forth in virtue and adorned the churches over which they presided, yet that which happens rarely is not a law of the Church, such that we should follow it henceforth. But since there has often been doubt as to how much time is the accustomed one which is declared by the canon, some indeed have said that, since the great Gregory, who shone in theology, says in his discourses on the priesthood that a priest is perfected in seven days, we too ought to observe, if not more, then at least by necessity the same time for each grade. ^C Others said that the tenth canon of the council of Sardica ordains that no wealthy man or scholasticus from the forum is to be appointed bishop unless he has performed the service of reader, presbyter, and deacon, having passed through each rank in not a small amount of time. They also used the seventh chapter of the first title of the third book of the *Basilica*, which is the first chapter of the 137th Justinian Novel, which says precisely that an apparitor, or one otherwise addicted to public duties, is not to be ordained unless he has performed the monastic life without reproach in a monastery for no less than fifteen years; and they insisted that the accustomed time is fifteen years. But to me it seems that the Novel speaks of military tribunes or instructors of the army, and those who administer the republic; ^D while the canon of the Sardican synod treats of the wealthy from the forum and scholastics in speech, but not of all monks or laymen. And both are separate from each other. Read therefore the 122nd Justinian Novel at the beginning, which says thus: "We give power to those who make the elections, that without a curial or a praesidial apparitor, if they [choose] a secular [person] without secular..."

^A influence, and deem him worthy of the aforesaid election, [they elect] this person together with two other clerics or monks; provided, however, that a secular person, chosen in this way for the episcopate, be not immediately ordained bishop, but first be numbered among the clerics for not less than three months, and thus, having been instructed in the holy canons and the sacred ministry of the Church, be ordained bishop." And after some time he says again: "If, however, anyone be ordained bishop contrary to the aforementioned precaution, we command that he be in every way cast out of the episcopate; and that he who dared to ordain contrary to these [rules] be separated from the priestly ministry for one year, and that all his property, which at any time or in any manner came into his possession, be, because of the error he committed, forfeited to the ownership of the Church of which he is bishop." So if the fact that such a Novel has not been included in the *Basilica* does not pose an obstacle, the doubt concerning laymen is resolved through it. I think, however, that this offers no obstacle to the resolution of the doubt; and therefore I take refuge in what was written by our holy Father Gregory the Theologian concerning the perfection of priests, and I say that it is necessary for the ordination of each degree to take place over seven days, and this all the more since the unwritten ecclesiastical custom, having accepted this, carries out the ordinations of the degrees thus. Read also chapter 23 of the first title of the present work. And note from this canon that in ecclesiastical orders, monks who have indeed received the character of a bishop hold the place of a layman. ^B

ZONAR. The canon forbids that any layman or monk be ordained bishop unless he has first been tested, that is, placed and approved in the ecclesiastical degrees. For it wills that he who is to be promoted to the episcopate be prepared according to order in each of the priestly degrees, and complete the appointed time in each grade, and thus be raised to the height of the episcopate. For if, he says, some have reached the rank of bishop immediately from among the laity or monks, and have shone forth with virtue and adorned the churches over which they were placed; yet, because this rarely happens, we do not set it up as a law of the Church so that it should be followed. And the tenth canon of the Council of Sardica likewise decreed the same. ^C

ARIST. "He who is to be ordained bishop should not be raised suddenly from among the laity or monks; but let him fulfill the time appointed by the laws in each grade of the priestly degrees. For even if some, having been raised suddenly, have distinguished themselves, yet that which happens rarely is not the law of the Church." ^D

CANONS EDITED BY THE HOLY SYNOD, WHICH WAS HELD IN THE CELEBRATED TEMPLE WHICH DERIVES ITS NAME FROM THE TRUE WISDOM OF GOD, AND WHICH CONFIRMED THE SEVENTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD, AND EXPELLED EVERY SCHISMATIC AND HERETICAL ERROR.

^A CANON I. The holy and ecumenical synod has decreed that if any of the clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy, residing in Asia, or Europe, or Libya, have been placed under binding, or deposition, or anathema by the most holy Pope John, such persons shall also be under the same definition of penalty with the most holy Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople—that is to say, they are deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. And those whom the most holy Patriarch Photius, our father, shall subject to excommunication, or deposition, or anathema—whether they be clerics or laymen, or of the episcopal or priestly order, in whatever diocese—the most holy Pope John and the holy Church of God of the Romans, which is under him, shall also hold in the same judgment of penalty, with no innovation whatsoever being made now or in the future to the privileges that belong to the most holy see of the Roman Church and to its presiding bishop.

^{B C}

^B Since some have asked, seeing that the canon mentions only the two great high priests, what will become of the other patriarchs? We say that the canon was issued generally and for the sake of all. For other canons likewise decree that a bishop who receives those excommunicated by another bishop, or those otherwise penalized, is excommunicated, because all the churches of God are considered one body. The things in the present canon were written specifically because of the scandals that occurred at that time, due to the fact that Patriarch Photius was often cast down from the patriarchal throne and often restored, and from this many schisms occurred.

^C ZONAR. Wishing that there be no disagreement between the pope of the elder Rome and the patriarch of this new Constantinople, but that they be in harmony with one another—for they were still in agreement both in their opinion of doctrines and in the harmonious administration of ecclesiastical affairs—the Fathers of the synod decreed that whosoever among the clergy, or laity, or bishops from Italy were bound by the pope, that is, whosoever had been visited with segregation [excommunication], or deposition, or anathema, whether they should reside in Asia, that is, in the East, or in Europe, that is, in the West, or in Libya (for that region also was at that time subject to the laws of this empire), should be held to be under the same penalty of excommunication, or deposition, or anathema when in the presence of Photius, who was then presiding as patriarch in Constantinople. By the name of Italy, we understand the whole region around Rome and the diocese attached to it. Rome, furthermore, is called the city, having received its name from Romulus who founded it. And in turn, they say that whosoever, wherever they may be, among the clergy, or laity, or those of the episcopal order, shall be subjected to segregation, deposition, or anathema by Patriarch Photius, are to be deemed subject to the same penalty by the most holy pope and the Church of the Romans. Prerogatives, that is, ^D the first place of honor, and other privileges with which the Church of the Romans has been honored, are to be preserved without innovation. But these things [applied] in former times, when the Church of the Romans was not yet erring regarding the faith, and was not at variance with us; but now the things concerning it are incompatible with us.

ARIST. ^A He who has been put under bond, or deposition, or anathema, whether by Rome or by Constantinople, let him remain so.

CANON II.

^B Even if until now some of the prelates, who have descended to the monastic habit, have used force to remain at the height of the episcopate, and have been overlooked while doing this; yet this holy and ecumenical synod, correcting also this oversight and bringing this disorderly practice back to ecclesiastical laws, has decreed that if any bishop, or anyone else of the pontifical dignity, shall desire to descend to the monastic life and to fulfill the place of penance, he shall no longer lay claim to the dignity of a prelate. ^B For the professions of monks hold the rationale of subjection and discipleship, but not of teaching or presiding, nor do they profess to feed others, but rather to be fed themselves. And therefore, as it has been said before, we decree that no one of those who are under the episcopal pasture^C [should continue to hold his rank while acting as a monk].

Guill. Beveregii notes.

^A to the catalogue, and to the place of those who are fed and are doing penance, let him demote himself. But if anyone shall dare to do this after the pronouncement and resolution of the judgment now declared, he himself, having deprived himself of the episcopal rank, shall no longer return to the former dignity which he has despised by his deeds. ^B

BALS. There was no written canon regarding bishops who wish to exercise episcopal rights even after being tonsured. And for this reason, some bishops, after being tonsured, attempted to hold episcopal privileges, contrary to the unwritten ecclesiastical custom that had prevailed. The holy Fathers, therefore, correcting this, said that since the height of the episcopate is a teaching office, while the monastic profession is a work of discipline and submission, and it is impossible for one who exhibits himself as a submissive one to sit on a throne and teach, it is necessary that he who has departed from the height of the episcopate, and has condemned himself as it were, and delivered himself to penance, and through the monastic habit has promised submission, should not exercise any teaching office; and instead of being fed, he should not attempt to feed others. And he who attempts to do this should not be permitted to exercise any episcopal function, because he himself by the tonsure has alienated himself from it. The Fathers also spoke concerning the bishops, that they should not demote themselves to the place of those who are doing penance, and regarding that clause, "But if anyone shall dare to do this," they are not forbidding penance as an odious and to-be-avoided thing (for that is indeed worthy of much praise), but they are signifying that such should be the bishops, and they should so live, that they hardly have need of penance, but rather even reconcile God to others through their own intercessions. ^C It was asked whether a monk, after the episcopate, being deemed worthy of the great habit, can exercise any episcopal act. For some said that, since such a one was tonsured before being elected, he had no need of a second tonsure, and thence the provisions of the canon have no place in his case. But these arguments did not please, but they heard instead that the putting on of the great and angelic habit is properly a tonsure. For the lesser habit is said to be an earnest of that perfect habit. If, then, the lesser habit causes the priesthood itself to cease, much more will the perfect tonsure cause it to cease. And if anyone should also ask concerning the tonsured priests, how they sacrifice after the tonsure and do not cease, he shall hear that priests are not teachers, and for that reason the canon has no place in their case.

ZONAR. This canon does not allow any bishop, after being tonsured, to exercise again any episcopal right. And until this time, some bishops, when they had descended to the monastic habit, still strove to perform the functions of the episcopate (and the word "descended" was appropriately used; for he who is tonsured ^D descends from the episcopal eminence to that of the

lowliness of humility, and from the rank of father and teacher to the order of son and disciple.) But the synod has now decreed that those who attain to the episcopal dignity, and thereafter desire to descend to the monastic life, may no longer claim the episcopal honor; and it provides the reason, saying that he who is tonsured professes humility, and agrees to be a disciple, and to be shepherded, not to shepherd. How then can the same person be presiding by virtue of the episcopate, and humbled by virtue of the monastic habit? And how shall he be teaching and yet being taught? Therefore, it says, we decree that bishops shall no longer cast themselves down into the place of penitents (for the monastic life is a profession of repentance). And if anyone does this, he deprives himself of the episcopal dignity, and will never again return to his former episcopal rank. But these words—that they should not cast themselves down into the place of penitents, and the further clause, "if anyone dare to do this"—are not spoken to forbid repentance to bishops, but rather to show that bishops ought to be such men, and to live in such a way, that they scarcely have any need of repentance, but rather that they should reconcile the offended God to others through their own intercessions.

ARIST. ^A "If anyone should descend from episcopal eminence to the monastic life, and vice versa, let him no longer claim the episcopal dignity."

CANON III

BALS. The episcopal dignity exceeds almost every other honor. For it is equal to the apostolic dignity, on account of the profession of teaching. Since, therefore, certain arrogant men, contemptuous of divine commandments—that is to say, of both ecclesiastical and imperial [commands]—have performed certain absurd and insulting acts against some bishops, the holy Fathers have defined that if any layman, using authority—that is, having grasped archontic authority and power, perhaps having been appointed a judge or an official—should boldly strike any bishop, or shut him in prison, either without cause or with a fabricated and false cause, that is to say, without reason, such a person is anathema, that is, he is separated from God, and handed over to the devil, as a gift dedicated to him. But when you hear the canon saying that that layman is anathematized who, without cause, or with a fabricated cause—that is, without reason—and using only his archontic authority, has struck or imprisoned a bishop, do not say, by an argument taken from the contrary, that it is permitted for lay magistrates to strike or imprison bishops for a just and probable cause.

^A For you have learned from various canons and novel constitutions that lay magistrates have no jurisdiction over bishops. Whence the layman who strikes or imprisons any bishop at all, even if for a very just cause, and even if he holds a high magistracy, shall be punished, and the reasonableness of the cause shall not aid him. For he shall hear that it was granted to synods, and to them alone, to punish bishops, and he ought to have remitted the inquiry into the bishop to the appropriate synod, and to have kept himself untainted by the episcopal inquiry. But that phrase "without a just cause" and the rest were added to the canon on account of the anathema. For it was not just that a magistrate who had done such an insulting thing to a bishop under the pretext of a just cause should be anathematized, but rather that he should be punished in some other way. For anathema is a separation from God. Just as offerings that are brought to God are separated from common and human things, so also he who is made anathema is cut off and separated from the gathering of the faithful, who are consecrated and dedicated to God, and even from God Himself, and is assigned to Satan, according to the great Paul, who wrote to the Corinthians regarding the man who had committed fornication with his own stepmother, "Deliver him to Satan," and who also wrote to Timothy regarding Hymenaeus and Alexander, "Whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." If these things are so, much more is he who has come to be under anathema separated indeed from God, but united and assigned to Satan, and he constitutes himself a dedicated gift of his. And the canon rightly mentions the authority of the magistrate. For he who should dare such a thing not under such a pretext, but from his own wickedness, even if he should do this for a reasonable cause, will be punished more severely on account of his base impudence. ^D

ZONARAS

^A or that he should be included, or under color of any cause whatsoever he may have done this, this synod decrees that such a man is anathema, that is to say, separated from God. For as the things that are devoted—the *anathemata* offered to God—are separated from common and human things, so also he who has become anathema is cut off and divided from the gathering of the faithful, from those who have been added and dedicated to God, and from God Himself; and he is either handed over to the devil, or he devotes himself to him. For if he who is merely excommunicated is handed over to Satan, according to the great Paul writing to the Corinthians concerning the man who had had relations with his own stepmother, that they should "hand such a one over to Satan," and writing to Timothy concerning Hymenaeus and Alexander, "whom I have handed over to Satan, that they may be taught not to blaspheme," how much more, by the same ^B token, is he who has been made anathema severed from God, and joined and handed over to Satan, making himself an *anathema* of that one!

ARIST. If any layman should hold a bishop in custody, or strike him without cause, or upon a feigned cause, let him be anathema.

THE SYNOD HELD IN CARTHAGE,

CARTHAGINENSIS SYNODUS

BALS. This is the most ancient of all the synods: for it took place under the Emperor Decius.

^A The synod held under Cyprian, the most holy bishop of Carthage and martyr, ^B is the most ancient of all the synods. For it took place under the Emperor Decius, and after it that which ^C is the most ancient of all synods, as Balsamon and Zonaras rightly claim; provided that only those synods are understood which are contained in this work, as being received by the Greeks, or rather, as being included in their Nomocanon. For otherwise, it is evident from very many passages of Tertullian and Cyprian that many other synods of bishops were held before this one, besides the Apostolic one. The canon, however, which is ascribed to this synod is nothing other than the epistle of the holy Cyprian and the other bishops who assembled synodically with him, written in reply to Januarius (not Jovianus, as Balsamon and Zonaras supposed) ^D and other bishops of Numidia. This is letter 70 in some editions of the works of the holy Cyprian, and in others book 1, letter 12. By this canon, or rather epistle, it is decreed that baptism cannot be conferred outside the Catholic Church, and that therefore, whoever has been baptized by heretics must be rebaptized when they are converted to the Catholic Church. The same is decreed by Apostolic Canon 47, on which see our annotations. Here we further observe that the very Acts of the synod, in which all the testimonies of the bishops gathered there are set down, and which stand here after the scholia on the canon, are missing from all copies of Balsamon, and indeed according to his own opinion, as may be gathered from his scholia on the canon. But they are found in all copies of Zonaras, both manuscript and printed. They also exist in the works of the holy Cyprian and in the first volume of the councils. There is no need for us to add more about this synod; but nevertheless, before we move on to the next, it should be noted here meanwhile that in the common editions

^A it was in Antioch of Syria against Paul of Samosata under Emperor Aurelian. But eighty-four holy Fathers gathered at Carthage, and discussed whether it is necessary to baptize those returning from heresy who had sacrificed to idols, according to the inquiry made about this by Bishop Jovianus. And because at that time Navatus, being a presbyter of the Church of Rome, was deposed as one who did not admit to repentance those who had sacrificed to idols, and from this point he caused a schism with some foolish people, it was also investigated whether it is necessary to baptize schismatics as well, just as Jovianus had inquired about this too.

ZONARAS. This synod is the most ancient of all synods. For the synod which took place in Antioch of Syria against Paul of Samosata, which was gathered under Emperor Aurelian, is indeed earlier than others; but this one precedes even that one in antiquity. For the great Cyprian finished his course of martyrdom under Emperor Decius; but Aurelian was a long interval after Decius. For many emperors reigned after Decius, after whom Aurelian was judged worthy of the empire. Thus, therefore, it is older than all. Eighty-four bishops gathered in it, as an inquiry arose whether it is necessary to baptize those returning from heresy and schismatics who are approaching the Catholic Church. For a certain Bishop Jovianus sent a letter to the divine Cyprian about this, asking if such people ought to be baptized. For at that time Navatus also began the heresy of those called Cathari (that is, "the pure"), having been a presbyter of the Church of Rome, being a schismatic strictly speaking, but not a heretic. For he did not differ from the orthodox in any matter of dogma; but he denied repentance to those who had succumbed and sacrificed during the persecutions. But when Cornelius, who at that time presided over the Church of Rome, together with the bishops under him, having investigated the matter brought before them, decreed that even those who had sacrificed should be admitted to repentance, and Navatus did not desist from his own obstinacy, they cut him off from the body of the Church ^C and cast him out as a hater of the brethren. ^D And he, having gained other like-minded followers, conducted separate assemblies by himself, and a schism against the Church was brought about by him and those who communicated with him. Since, therefore, it was asked by Jovianus regarding schismatics and heretics, the great Cyprian and the synod with him, writing in reply to both him and his fellow bishops, drew up the following letter.

CANON I. "Being in common council, beloved brethren, we read the letters sent from you concerning those who..."

^A have been baptized by heretics or schismatics and come to the catholic Church, which is one, in which we are baptized and regenerated. Regarding these, we trust that you yourselves also, who perform these things, hold to the firmness of the catholic Church. Nevertheless, since you are our fellow communicants and have wished to inquire about this for the sake of our common love, we do not present some new opinion, nor one only now established, but we communicate to you that which long ago was most accurately and diligently examined by our predecessors and observed by us, and we unite with you, decreeing now also that which we have always firmly and sturdily held: that no one can be baptized outside of the catholic Church, since there is one baptism and it is celebrated only in the catholic Church. For it is written: 'They have abandoned me, the fountain of living water, and they have dug for themselves broken cisterns, which cannot hold water.' And again, holy Scripture, foreshadowing ^B this, says: 'Abstain from strange water, and do not drink from a foreign fountain.' But it is necessary that the water should first be purified and sanctified by the priest, so that he may be able, by his own baptism, to wash away the sins of the man who is being baptized. And through the prophet Ezekiel the Lord says: 'And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and I will cleanse you, and I will give you a new heart, and I will give you a new spirit.' But how can he who is himself unclean and destitute of the Holy Spirit purify and sanctify water? And when the Lord says in Numbers: 'And all things that the unclean person touches shall be unclean,' how can he who is [himself] baptizing give to another the remission of sins, he who cannot ^C remit his own sins outside of the Church? But even the interrogation itself, which takes place in baptism, is a witness to the truth. For when we say to him who is being examined: 'Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins?', we mean nothing else than that these things can be given in the catholic Church. But among heretics, where there is no Church, it is impossible to receive the remission of sins. And therefore, those who undertake the defense of heretics must either change the interrogation or defend the truth. It is also necessary that he who has been baptized be anointed, so that, having received the unction, he may become a participant of Christ's grace. But a heretic cannot sanctify oil, for he has neither altar nor Church. Moreover, there cannot be chrism at all among heretics. For it is clear to us that oil cannot in any way be sanctified among them for ^D the offering of thanks. For we ought to know and not be ignorant of what is written: 'Let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head.' Which indeed the holy Spirit also signified formerly in the Psalms, lest perhaps one should be led away

^A from the straight path and anointed by heretics, the adversaries of Christ. For how shall a sacrilegious person and a sinner pray for one who is being baptized, when the Scripture says: ‘God does not hear sinners, but if any man is god-fearing and does his will, him he hears’? By the holy Church we understand the remission of sins; but who can give that which he himself does not have? Or how can he who has cast away the holy Spirit perform spiritual works? For this reason also, he who comes to the Church must be renewed, so that he may be sanctified within ^B by the holy ones. For it is written: ‘You shall be holy, as I am holy, says the Lord’ (Levit. XI, 45). So that he who has been led astray in his error may also put this off in the true and ecclesiastical baptism, for he is a man who comes to God and seeks a priest, but having been found in error, he has fallen upon a sacrilegious one. For to approve the baptism of heretics is to concur with those who have been baptized by them. For it cannot hold good in part. If he was able to baptize, he was also able to give the holy Spirit; if he was not able, because being outside he has not the holy Spirit, he cannot baptize him who comes to him, since there is one baptism, and one holy Spirit, and one Church ^C founded by Christ our Lord from the beginning upon Peter the apostle, as he said, having established unity. And for this reason, all things done by them, being false and void, are rejected. For that which is done by them cannot be acceptable and pleasing to God, whom the Lord calls his enemies and adversaries in the Gospels: ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters’ (Matth. XII, 30). Furthermore, the blessed apostle John, keeping the precepts of the Lord, wrote in his Epistle: ‘You have heard that the antichrist is coming, and now also many antichrists have arisen, from which we know that it is the last hour’ (I Joan. II, 18). ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us’ (I Joan. II, 19). Whence we also ought to understand and perceive that if the enemies of the Lord, and those who are named ^D antichrists, cannot give the grace of the Lord, for that reason we, who are with the Lord and hold the unity of the Lord, and who, ministering according to his dignity, perform his priesthood in the Church, ought to reject, remove, and cast away whatever his adversaries, that is, his enemies and antichrists, do, and hold them as profane; and to those who come from error and distortion to the knowledge of the true and ecclesiastical faith, we ought by all means to give the mystery of divine power, of unity, and of faith and truth.

^A BALS. It is written in the preface for what reason the present letter was issued; and it indeed ordains that those who come to the catholic Church from heretics or schismatics should be baptized, even if they had been previously baptized by them. But the seventh canon of the second universal synod, establishing a distinction between those who ought to be baptized and those who ought not, prescribes other things. Read it, therefore, and pay attention to the subsequent matters contained in it. Read also the second canon of the council in Trullo, and you will learn that the things in the present letter were not accepted by all the Fathers. For it speaks thus in its own words: "Furthermore, the canon issued by Cyprian, who was bishop of the African territory and martyr, and by the synod that was held by him, which prevailed in the places of the aforementioned prelates, and in them alone, according to the custom handed down to them." From this, therefore, it is noted that this canon was not in use among everyone from the beginning. Note, however, that the Africans are called the Carthaginians. But because in some manuscripts are found the openly written opinions of the 84 bishops who were of the same mind as Saint Cyprian, we intended to write and interpret these as well; but because, as has been said, the seventh canon of the second synod established things other than those contained in this present letter concerning heretics and schismatics who come to the faith, their exposition was passed over.

ZONAR. This letter commands that whoever has been baptized by heretics or schismatics, if they betake themselves to the catholic Church, should be baptized again, and it confirms this opinion with various arguments, enthymemes, and testimonies of Scripture. But the second ecumenical synod, in its seventh canon, does not order all who migrate from heresy to be cleansed again by baptism; but it orders that some, if they give libel-petitions and anathematize their own heresy, and every error that does not think as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God thinks, should be admitted, marked with the sign, that is, anointed with the holy chrism; but all others, of whom it names some by name, it commands to be baptized and admitted as Greeks; which canon has indeed been explained in its own place. ^C Whence it is easily apparent that this arrangement was not received by the later holy Fathers. Since, therefore, two synods have brought forth contradictory decrees regarding the same matter, the constitution of the second synod is to be preferred, inasmuch as it was both later and ecumenical, in which, indeed, all those who hold the patriarchal seat, or the patriarchs themselves, or their legates, were present. Moreover, that this canon was by no means received by all the holy Fathers can be understood from the second canon of the synod held in Trullo, which is called the Sixth. For there the holy Fathers of that synod, having enumerated one by one the canons whose authority ought to remain valid, pronounce in these exact words concerning this canon: "Furthermore, the canon of Cyprian, ^D who was bishop of the African territory and martyr, and of the synod held by him, which prevailed in the places of the aforementioned prelates, and in them alone, according to the custom handed down to them."

From this place, therefore, it easily appears that even in the earliest times this canon by no means prevailed among all. This, therefore, is the text of the letter; but the opinions given in the common discussion by each of those who had gathered in the synod are as follows, in summary.

^A Cyprianus said: You have heard, most beloved fellow bishops, what Jovianus, our fellow bishop, wrote to me, wishing to receive counsel from my mediocrity concerning the unholy and unlawful baptism of heretics, and what I wrote back to him, judging, as we have decided once and again and often, that heretics coming to the Church must be baptized and sanctified. ^B And afterwards there were read to you other letters of Jovianus, by which, according to his pious counter-reply, he not only agreed with us, but also gave thanks that he had been instructed in the truth. It remains, therefore, that each of us should express what he thinks on this matter, judging no one, nor removing from the right of communion if anyone should think differently. For no one constitutes himself a bishop, nor by tyrannical arrogance does he force his fellow bishops into the necessity of obeying him, since every bishop has the power of freely doing what he thinks. For just as he cannot judge another, ^C so neither can he be judged by another. For we all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint a bishop in His Church, and of examining and judging the deeds of each one.

Caecilius Liberarius said: I know one baptism only in the Church, and nowhere outside the Church. For there is one baptism, where there is true hope and certain faith. For so it is written: One faith, one baptism (Ephes. IV, 5). For it is not so among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false; where all things are done by lying, where the one possessed by a demon exorcises, where the one whose mouth belches ^D pestilence and poison asks about a sacrament; where an unbeliever gives the faith, a criminal grants remission of sins, and an Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ, one who is dead promises life, one who is not at peace gives peace, a blasphemer calls upon God, and a profane person administers the priesthood. Let those who support them say that all these things are false concerning the heretics. Behold to what the Church is forced to consent, so that without baptism and the remission of sins she should communicate with such as these. Wherefore, brethren, we ought to flee and avoid and separate ourselves from such offenses, and hold the one baptism, which alone is granted to the Church of God.

^A Priamus of Mastripa said: I decree that every man coming from heresy must be baptized. For he thinks in vain that he has been baptized there, since there is but one baptism in the Church alone; because there is one God, one baptism, and one Church, in which baptism and sanctification and whatever other things look toward salvation and eternal life are performed. For those things which are done outside the Church attain to none of these.

Polycarpus of Adrumetum said: They who approve the baptism of heretics make our own void.

Novatus of Thannubasilio said: Although we know that all Scripture bears witness to the saving baptism, we must nevertheless declare our faith, so that when heretics and schismatics come to the Church, we may baptize them with the true baptism after their false one. And for this reason I have baptized all who have come from there, and I have placed those who seemed to have been ordained in their clergy among the laity. ^B

Nemesianus of Thubunis said: It is declared everywhere in the holy Scriptures that the baptism which a heretic and schismatic gives is not true; since their own leaders are false Christs and false prophets.

Januarius of Laba said: According to the authority of the holy Scriptures, I decree that all heretics must be baptized, and so be received into the holy Church.

Lucius of Castragalba said: The Lord said in the Gospel, "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has lost its flavor, with what shall it be seasoned?" Since it is therefore manifest that heretics—that is, the enemies of God—cannot vivify anyone by a spiritual confession, because they are flavorless and outside the Church, we must baptize those who come to us with the holy baptism. ^C

Crescens of Crete said: I also judge that heretics and schismatics who desire to come to the catholic Church should not be received before they are exorcised and baptized; except for those who had been baptized previously in the Church and had fallen away from it. For these must, after doing penance, be reconciled to the Church through the laying on of hands alone. ^D

Nicomedes of Sergomeis said: My decision is this: that heretics coming to the Church should be baptized, because they have obtained no remission of sins outside by being baptized by heretics.

Secundianus of Carindia said: Since our Lord Jesus Christ says, "He who is not with me is against me," and John the Apostle calls those who depart from the Church antichrists; it is impossible for them

to serve the saving baptism; and therefore I decree that those who take refuge in the Church should be baptized by us. ^A

Felix from Gameta said: As when a blind man leads a blind man both fall into a pit, so a heretic baptizing a heretic falls with him into death. Therefore, the heretic must be baptized by us, lest we, who are alive, should communicate with the dead.

Succentius from Abirgemaniciana said: Either nothing is allowed to heretics, or everything. If they can baptize, they can also give the Holy Spirit. But since they have Him not, neither can they baptize spiritually; therefore I decree that heretics must be baptized. ^B

Fortunatus from Thuchabor said: Those who are outside the Church and stand against Christ, as they scatter his sheep and flock, cannot baptize outside.

Thedatus from Thurbi said: One must strive with all one's power that no one, when leaving the error of heretics, should refuse to receive the single and true baptism of the Church, for whoever has not been baptized by it becomes an alien from the kingdom of heaven.

Probatianus from Sophelia said: If heresy is from God, the heretic will have divine indulgence. But if it is not from God, how can he himself have the grace of God and impart it to anyone? ^C

Monualus from Gerba said: Since the Lord says: "Baptize all nations into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," we know clearly that heretics have neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit. Those, therefore, who come to the Church must be baptized so that they may be reborn.

Politianus from Mileo said: It is just that he who comes from heresy should be baptized in the Church.

Theognis from Hippo Regius said: In accordance with the sacrament of God and the heavenly grace which we have received, we know that baptism is in the holy Church.

Diatius from Seada said: We, as far as it is in our power, do not communicate with heretics unless they have been baptized in the Church and have received the remission of sins. ^D

Probatus from Sophista said: He who approves the baptism of heretics, what else does he do but communicate with heretics?

Hortensianus from Laburna said: We claim for the Church the one baptism, which we know is nowhere else but in the Church.

Cassius from Comazi said: Since there cannot be two baptisms, he who grants baptism to heretics takes baptism away from himself. Therefore, I decree that heretics must be baptized when they come

to the Church, except for those who, having been separated from the Church of the faithful, gave themselves over to the darkness of heresy, whom it is necessary to receive back through the laying on of hands alone. ^A

Januarius from Ubico said: If error does not yield to the truth, much more so does the truth not yield to error. And therefore we stand by the Church, in which we preside, so that we may baptize those who have not been baptized in it.

Secundinus from Carpis said: If heretics are Christians, why are they not in the Church of God? But if they are not Christians, let them be made such. It is clear, therefore, that the Holy Spirit cannot descend upon the children of strangers and the offspring of the Antichrist through the laying on of hands alone. ^B

Victorinus from Thabaca said: If it is permitted for heretics to baptize, and to give the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins, why do we speak falsely against them by calling them heretics?

Another Felix from Thuina said: We ought to confirm that all heretics who come to the Church must be baptized, so that every corruption from without may be purified and reformed for the better through sanctification.

Quintus from Uruc said: If those who are baptized among heretics obtain the remission of sins and eternal life, why do they come to the Church? But if they come for penance, by which they are quickened through baptism, which is in the Catholic Church, they ought to be baptized and sanctified. ^C

Castus from Dica said: He who, having held the truth in contempt, presumes to follow custom, is either envious of his brothers to whom the truth has been revealed, or is ungrateful toward God who revealed it.

Encratius from Thenis said: It is right that heretics coming to the Church be baptized with the true and Catholic baptism, so that, having been washed of their sins, they may be sanctified.

Libosus from Urgasa said: The Lord said, "I am the truth." ^D Therefore, let custom yield to the truth; so that if, in times past, anyone in the Church did not baptize heretics, he may now begin to baptize them.

Lucinus from Thibisto said: Since heretics are blasphemous and wicked, corrupting the holy Scriptures with deceitful words, they ought to be smitten with anathema; and for this reason we ought to exorcise and baptize such people.

Eugenius from Amadara said: I also hold the same opinion: that heretics must be baptized.

^A Another Felix from Meccora said: Following the authority of the divine Scriptures, I also declare that heretics and schismatics must be baptized.

Januarius from Mucuza said: If heretics have baptism, we do not; if we have it, heretics cannot have it. But there is no doubt that the Catholic Church uses the baptism of Christ, which alone possesses the grace, charity, and truth of Christ.

Adelphidus from Thasuelta said: They attack the truth without cause by saying that we re-baptize. For the Church does not re-baptize heretics, but baptizes them.

Demetrius from Polemonium said: Those who say that heretics baptize truly and lawfully introduce not only two, but many baptisms. For since heresies are various and many, baptisms will be reckoned according to their number. ^B

Vincentius from Thibara said: We know that heretics are worse than schismatics. But if they wish, while doing penance, to come to the rule of truth, it is necessary first to exorcise them and then to baptize them. For only then can they obtain the promise of Christ.

Marcus from Matharis said: I judge that heretics, as having nothing, must be baptized.

Satius from Sacilibya said: If sins are forgiven to heretics in their baptism, they come to the Church in vain. For there is nothing they could fear in the judgment of Christ if they have obtained the remission of sins. ^C

Aurelius from Attica said: Since the Apostle says not to share in the sins of others, I judge that heretics must be baptized so that they may first receive the remission of sins, and thus we may communicate with them.

Iambus from Germanicia said: Those who approve the baptism of heretics disapprove of ours.

Lucianus from Rucuma said: If it is possible for light to agree with darkness, then it is possible for us to have something in common with heretics. Therefore, I judge that heretics must be baptized. ^D

Pelagius from Luperciana said: If heresy does not exist in the Church, how can the baptism of the Church exist among heretics?

Iader from Medeia said: One faith, one baptism; but it is permitted for the Catholic Church to baptize.

Another Felix from Mardiana said: The same.

Paulus from Saba said: If God is true, how can [truth] be among heretics?

^A Pomponius from Dionysiana said: Heretics cannot baptize, nor have they the power to grant the remission of sins, not possessing the authority to loose or bind anything on earth.

Vinatus from Thunisia said: He who administers the baptism of the Church to heretics betrays the Spouse of Christ to adulterers.

Lymmus from Asuaga said: We have received one baptism, and we hold to it and practice it. But he who says that it is permitted for heretics to baptize introduces two baptisms.

^B Saturninus from Victoriana said: If it is permitted for heretics to baptize, they are excused and defended in doing illicit things; nor will you find why Christ called them His adversaries or the Apostle called them Antichrists.

Another Saturninus from Syca said: Gentiles, even if they worship idols, nevertheless recognize and confess God the Father and Creator as Lord. Marcion blasphemes against Him, and how are those who approve the baptism of Marcion not ashamed?

Marcellus from Zama said: Since the remission of sins is granted nowhere except in the Church, he who does not baptize a heretic communicates with a sinner.

^C Irenæus from Ulis said: If for this reason the Church does not baptize a heretic, because he is said to be already baptized, then heresy is preferred and becomes greater.

Donatus from Cibalina said: If anyone says that there is the grace of baptism among heretics, let him first demonstrate that the Church exists there.

Zosimus from Tharasa said: Once the truth has been revealed, let error give way to the truth.

Julianus from Philippo said: It is written: "A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven." If heresy is from heaven, it can also give heavenly baptism.

^D Faustus from Themida said: Those who intercede with ecclesiastical baptism on behalf of heretics make them Christians and us heretics.

Geminus from Forma said: What we have once decreed, this we also hold: that we baptize those coming from heresies.

Rogatianus from Usa said: Christ founded the Church, the devil the heresy. How, therefore, can the synagogue of the devil possess the baptism of Christ?

^A Therapius from Bulismios said: He who concedes the baptism of the Church to heretics, what else does he become but a betrayer of the Bride of Christ?

Lucius from Memeresa said: It is written: God does not hear sinners. But if a heretic is a sinner, how can he be heard in baptism?

Another, Felix from Vaglacena said: In receiving heretics without the baptism of the Church, let no one prefer custom to reason and truth.

Another, Saturninus from Plutimna said: If the Antichrist can give the grace of Christ, then can also heretics baptize, who have been named antichrists.

Quintus from Ugba said: God is one, and the Church is one, and the baptism is one; how therefore can anyone be baptized there, where neither God nor Christ nor the Church is? ^B

Julianus from Marcelliana said: If a man can serve two masters, God and mammon, then the baptism can also serve two.

Tenax from Orii-Celliis said: The baptism is one, but of the Church, whose baptism is true.

Another, Victor from Asura said: Similarly.

Donatulus from Caspe said: And I have always held this, that heretics, who can receive nothing outside, when they come to the Church, should be baptized.

Verulus from Rusiccade said: A heretical man cannot give what he does not have; much more so a schismatic, who has lost what he once had.

Pudentianus from Quincola said: ^C If anyone comes from a heresy, it is rightly and justly decreed that he be baptized.

Petrus from Hippone Diarrhyto said: Since there is one baptism only in the Church, for this reason I judge that those who come from the heretics and schismatics, as having received nothing therefrom, should be baptized in the Church.

Another, Lucius from Ausafa said: Since there is one God and Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and one hope, and one Church, I say that what has been done among heretics ought to be rescinded, and those who come from them are to be baptized in the Church. ^D

Another, Felix from Turitis said: I judge that, in accordance with the precepts of the holy Scriptures, the wicked who have been baptized among heretics, if they take refuge in the Church, should be baptized with the baptism of the Church, where all power has been given by God.

Plutianus from Labana said: I believe that a saving baptism does not exist, except only

^A in the Catholic Church; and whenever it is done outside the Church, it is a mockery.

Solvianus from Zufala said: It is established that heretics have nothing, and therefore they come to us, so that they may receive what they do not have.

Honoratus from Luca said: Since Christ is the truth, we ought to follow truth rather than custom, so that we may sanctify with the baptism of the Church those heretics who come to us for this reason—that they were able to receive nothing outside.

Victor from Octyvo said: I also feel the same, that those who come from heresy should undoubtedly be baptized.

Clarius from Mascula said: The declaration of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, when He sent His apostles and granted authority to them alone, to whom we have succeeded, governing the Church of God with the same authority and baptizing those who believe. And therefore heretics, who have neither the authority nor the Church, cannot baptize with the baptism of the Church.

Secundianus from Tamba said: We must not deceive heretics by our contention, so that those who are not baptized in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ might, when the day ^B of judgment arrives, blame us because they were not baptized by us, nor did they obtain remission of sins. Wherefore, since there is one Church and one baptism, when they come to us, they ought to obtain with the Church the baptism also. ^C

Aurelius from Chollaba said: The apostle John said in his Epistle: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring the doctrine of Christ, do not receive him into the house, and do not say to him, 'Hail.'" For he who says "Hail" to him shares in his evil words and deeds. How then can they be admitted into the house of God, or how can we communicate with them without the baptism of the Church, without at the same time communicating in their evil deeds? ^D

Victor from Gemellis said: "If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." Since, therefore, it is clear that no heretic can enlighten anyone, because they themselves are blind, the baptism of such is of no effect.

Matolius from Oea said: As for me, present here—along with Pompeius of Sabrata and Diogas of Leptis Magna, who have entrusted their commission to me, being absent in body but present in spirit—we judge, as do many of our fellow bishops, that heretics cannot have communion with us unless they have been baptized by us.

Junius from Neapolis said: I do not recede from that which we have once decreed: that we should baptize heretics coming to the Church.

Cyprian from Carthage said: My opinion is most fully expressed by the letter which was written to our co-bishop Jovianus: that heretics, having been called by evangelical and apostolic testimony adversaries of Christ and antichrists, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one baptism of the Church, so that they may be able to become friends from adversaries, and Christians from antichrists. ^B

ZONARAS. These, therefore, are the opinions of the Fathers who had gathered in that council with the great Cyprian; but they did not prevail with regard to all heretics, nor with regard to schismatics. For the second ecumenical council, as has already been said, excepted some of the heretics and ordained that they be received without baptism, having been anointed only with the divine chrism and anathematizing their own heresy—and simply all heresies—each one for himself. And for this reason these opinions were not even expounded, as being not necessary, and because they are not in force, but were written down only in summary. ^C

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ANCYRA

BALSAMON. We said a little while ago that the council of Carthage is the first of all the councils, and the one at Antioch is the second; and after these, the one at Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, which was convened before the first ecumenical council held at Nicaea. ^D

^A Its leaders were Vitalis of Antioch in Syria, Agricolaus of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the martyr Basil, bishop of Amasea; and they discussed whether it was necessary to receive those who had sacrificed to idols and who were coming to the Church.

ZONAR. The first of all the synods is that which took place at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, during the reign of Aurelian in Rome. And this synod, too, which was held in Ancyra, the metropolis of Galatia, is older than the first ecumenical council at Nicaea. Holy Fathers were gathered therein, who were led by Vitalis of Antioch in Syria, Agricolaus of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the martyr Basil, bishop of Amasea. For ^B in the times of the persecution of Christians, many, not being able to endure to the end under the torments, but having yielded—and later, some repenting and approaching the Church to do penance—a question arose as to how one ought to receive those who had denied Christ. And concerning these, this synod set forth canons, which are these:

CANON I. «Presbyters who have sacrificed, and afterwards have struggled against this—not by any artifice, but in truth; and who have not previously plotted, nor done so deliberately and of their own intent, and persuaded others so that they might appear to be subjected to torments, ^C when it was only by such appearance and notion that they were brought to them: it is deemed that they may indeed participate in the honor of the chair; but it is not permitted for them to offer, or to preach, or in any way to perform any of the priestly functions.»

BALS. During the time of the persecution of the Christians, some priests were compelled to sacrifice to idols. And some of these, being punished even unto death, received the crown of martyrdom; but others, not being able to endure the torments to the end, were overcome and denied the faith, and sacrificed to idols; others still, even before they were tortured, gave in completely. But lest they should seem to have sacrificed of their own free will, they provided, through money or entreaties or in some other way, that threats of great torments might be brought against them. ^D The Fathers therefore decree that only those who were truly tortured, but who, because of the bitterness of the punishment, could not endure it until they received the crown of perfection, but sacrificed, and then afterwards struggled again—that is, having conquered Satan, who had cast them down in the struggle—and having done penance with a pure confession, are to be received into the honor of their chair alone; but it is not permitted for them to offer, nor to preach—that is, to teach—nor to make any dogmatic speeches to the people. For how could others be taught the best things, when they themselves have been turned away from the better?

Guill. Beveridge’s note. The short scholium, which is read in the Amerbachian codex between this canon and its interpretation, runs as follows: How can others be taught the best things, when they themselves have been turned away from the better? But this scholium is found in no other codex.

^A

To perform any other priestly act; so that, by way of contrast, any others besides these, who did not indeed in reality, but under a pretext simulated that they were enduring tortures, and denied God, shall not be deemed worthy even of honor or a chair. But what of those who, as Christians, simply do penance with tears and confess the sin; will they be received? To me, for the time being, it seems so. For there is no sin that surpasses the philanthropy of God.

ZONAR. | Of those who bowed before the tyrants during the persecutions and sacrificed: some were subjected to tortures, and being unable to endure their violence and severity to the end, were defeated and denied the faith. Others, even before experiencing the tortures, became softened and gave in; and that they might not appear to have sacrificed of their own free will, they persuaded the tormentors, perhaps with money or entreaties, to treat them more bitterly and to bring upon them, in appearance, punishments, so that by thus sacrificing they might seem to have denied Christ as having been overcome by violence, and not through being softened. Therefore, those who were truly tortured, and endured the bitterness of the tortures for a time, and thus were defeated by the unbearable punishments and offered sacrifice at the altar, then wrestled back—instead of the enemy throwing them into the error, they, through repentance, defeated and cast him down—and once again confessed the faith before the tyrants: if they were presbyters, it seemed good to the Council that they should retain the honor of the chairs, but neither to offer nor to speak, that is, to teach, nor to perform any ministry at all, that is, to perform any of the priestly rights.

CANON II

BALS. | And the present canon, deciding the same things concerning deacons, adds that if the regional bishops perceive that those who were truly tortured are worthy of mercy because of their tears and humility, or on the contrary [are worthy] of greater punishment because of their impudence, they shall act according to what seems right to them—that is, they shall either increase the punishment or rather grant consolation. For these things are placed in their power and judgment. If, however, anyone says, ^D the present canons...

have no place today by the grace of God, because a tyrant does not preside, he shall hear that many such things happen among the Agarenes and other infidels, and the canons shall rightly have effect even now. Note also from the present canon that every spiritual healing is suspended upon episcopal discernment and prudence. ^B ZONAR. What was determined in the preceding canon concerning priests is determined also in this one concerning deacons. For it decrees that they too—if they, having been overcome by torments through weakness, sacrificed, and afterwards, having renewed the struggle, fought bravely—must cease from all sacred ministry. But if the bishops perceive that these men are afterwards, as the canon adds, laboring more grievously in the repentance undertaken for their denial, or are tormented by the blame of the committed crime, and that they retain modesty in patiently and humbly enduring those who reproach them for their fall or insult them in other ways, and do not audaciously resist or bear it with bitterness—and therefore the bishops desire, because of the fervor of their repentance, to grant them something more than what was conceded by the synod, or conversely to take away something of what was decreed from those not truly repenting or humbling themselves—the canon commits these things to the power and discernment of the bishops. See also the eleventh canon of the first ecumenical synod. ARIST. ^C « In the first and second canons, presbyters and deacons, who though they had previously sacrificed later resisted, are to be partakers of their seat and honor alone, performing none of the holy rites. » Whosoever of the presbyters and deacons, having been forced during a time of persecution, sacrificed, but afterwards came forward withdrawing what they had done, ought to partake of their seat and honor; but it shall not be permitted to them to perform any priestly office, such as offering the bread or the cup, or to deliver discourses of instruction to the people, or in any way to perform any of the holy ministries. CANON III. ^D « Those who fled and were seized, or who were betrayed by their own households, or were otherwise deprived of their property, or endured torments, or were thrown into prison, and who kept shouting that they were Christians, and were torn apart or dragged away, or had something put into their hands by those who were offering violence, or received some food under necessity, yet were perpetually confessing that they were Christians, and were showing forth the grief of what had happened by all restraint and by their habit and by the humility of their life—that such as these are not to be barred from communion, as being free from sin. But if they have even been prohibited by someone, let them be admitted immediately for the sake of greater caution or because of the ignorance of some. This is likewise the case for both the clergy and other laymen. It was also examined whether laymen who have fallen into the same necessity can be admitted to the order

^A It was therefore decided that these, having sinned in nothing, if the preceding conduct of their lives also be found upright, should be promoted.

BALS. ^B Certain clerics and laymen, fleeing the hands of tyrants and being captured, or betrayed by some, and stripped of the things they possessed, and sometimes also tortured and imprisoned, confessed that they were Christians. But because incense, which is sacrificed to idols, was by force cast into their hands by the executioners, or some food sacrificed to idols was placed in their mouths, they were kept away from the communion of the faithful, for the reason that they had allegedly sacrificed to idols. The Fathers therefore say that what was done to them by force is no impediment to them, while they confess constantly that they are Christians, and weep with compunction over what was done to them by force by the tyrants. For they sinned in nothing, so as to be punished by us. But if by some, on account of greater caution or because of ignorance of what was proper, they were prohibited from communion, they decreed that they be received immediately. And as if someone had said that the canon has scope only for the laity (for clerics will be received according to the opinion of the aforementioned canons), they added that not only such laymen, but also clerics are to communicate with us. ^C This was said because there is a great difference between those who denied God of their own will, since they could not endure the punishments, and those who did not do such a thing by their own act, but unwillingly and by force received things sacrificed to idols or incense, and spat them out. For the former sinned, as having yielded; for they ought to have died for Christ. But those who received only the incense by force did no impious work. Since, therefore, they sinned in nothing, the laymen will also be reckoned as such, if they be found worthy; and of course the clerics also will, for the same reason, be promoted to greater grades. Since, however, some accused those who had fled martyrdom and had hesitated, the Fathers said that they were not harmed on that account. And they legislated this very excellently. For the great Theologian Gregory says that one should not proceed to the struggle of one's own will, so that both the persecutors and the weaker ones might be spared. And the Lord said in the Gospels: "When they persecute you in this city, flee into another." ^D And in these things the canon is explained. But when the lord Nicholas Muzalon, called Bishop of Amyclae, had been tonsured by force by a magistrate, and as a suppliant contended that what had been done to him by force should be removed, and that he should again discharge the episcopal office; that most holy patriarch, the lord Lucas, seeing him present at the synod wearing his episcopal vestments, did not receive him, saying that if the bishop had awaited the synodal judgment and correction, he would have found canonical support; but because he had irregularly put off the monastic vestments in which he had been clothed by force, and had pronounced judgment for himself, the support

^A he will not obtain. But after this most holy patriarch had migrated to the Lord, the most holy patriarch who succeeded him, Lord Michael, considering the tonsure produced by force as if it had not happened at all, justified the bishop ^B synodically, and even better, as one who was not forced in any way to appear in monastic garb. For if, he says, he had seen him present with the monastics, he would not have restored him, as one who had accepted the fact. And although some said that tonsures performed in danger should be accepted, he judged that a tonsure performed by force is not the same as that which is said to be performed in danger, but rather that which occurs due to illness. And thus, with written notes, he effected his restoration; but he subjected the bishop to a penance of temporary suspension from celebrating, as he had been negligent and had spoken for his own right. ^C Furthermore, many others who were circumcised by force by the Agarenes, and who had done or suffered many other impious things, were accepted by the Church after pure and appropriate repentance, and were healed by imposed penances. However, the synod in Constantinople did not permit the Comnena, Lady Theodora, who had been the wife of that Lord Andronicus of Lapardas, who had been tonsured by force by the tyrant Andronicus, to change her attire, nor to be joined to Cratas of Hungary, who was requesting this most vehemently; because after the death of her husband, she had proceeded with the tonsure, even if it had been done by force, and had lived in a coenobitic monastery. Yet, the same synod judged it fair for other noble women tonsured in this way to return to their former attire, either because their husbands survived, or because they had not accepted the tonsure at all after the death of the tyrant.

^D ZONAR. The law of martyrdom, says the great Theologian Gregory, is that we should neither offer ourselves to the struggle spontaneously, sparing those who are hostile to us and those who are weaker, and so forth. For this reason, therefore, some, being conscious of their own weakness, during the persecutions fled and hid themselves, in this also following the evangelical command, the Lord saying: "When they persecute you in this city, flee into the other." Those, therefore, who were caught in flight, or handed over by their own kin (and this, too, the Lord predicted, saying: "The father will betray the son, and the brother the brother" [*]), and those who were despoiled,

[*] Matt. x, 21.

^A or having endured torments, or having been shut up in prisons, while all the while confessing that they are Christians, and having had their tunics torn and being stripped, and even if by force, against their will, the persecutors cast into their hands something of those things used by idolaters for sacrifice (such as incense or some other thing), or if they received into their mouth some of the food offered to idols, with the persecutors by necessity casting it in—the Fathers declare that those who have suffered such a thing, crying out all the while that they are Christians, and for this reason mourning, and demonstrating their grief through their composure and their appearance (now *katastole* is the moderate and composed state of one's character, or else one's garments and clothing; and *schema*, the outward-appearing dejection, indicates the sorrow, which the canon also named "humility of life"): that such persons have sinned in nothing. For neither is it a sin to have received into the mouth some food offered to idols, nor to have had incense cast against one's hands, if they, even while these things were being done, called upon the name of Christ and confessed him to be God; and they ordained that, as having committed no sin, they should not be barred from communion. And if any, perhaps out of ignorance of what was proper, or wishing to keep to a strictness beyond what is necessary, have barred some from communion, they determined that these should be admitted immediately, whether they were ^B of the clergy or of the people. They say, moreover, that the things mentioned above shall not be reckoned as a sin to such a degree that, even if a layman is the one who has endured these things, he shall be prevented on account of them from being promoted to the priesthood, if his life before this was irreproachable and he had conducted himself rightly.

ARIST. ^C Those who were truly tortured and forced, and through tyrannical compulsion received food offered to idols, let them not be barred from communion. And laymen who have suffered this, as having transgressed nothing, if they wish to obtain ordination, let them obtain it, provided they are in other respects irreproachable.

Those who under torture were forced to receive food offered to idols, when those who were compelling them cast it into their mouths by force, and likewise those who in the same way received incense into their hands and were compelled by force to cast it upon the tripod—provided they confess all the while that they are Christians, and when this has occurred, they always demonstrate their grief with all modesty and in their appearance and in the humility of their life—these, as being outside of sin, let them not be barred from communion, but let them remain in their own honor. But if such ones are laymen, and desire to obtain ordination, let them obtain it, if their previous life is irreproachable; from this alone they shall not be prevented from attaining such honor.

CANON IV

displayed a cheerful appearance, and sat down in more splendid clothing, and partook without distinction of the prepared banquet, it seemed good that they should hear [the Scriptures] for one year, prostrate themselves for three years, communicate in prayer for two years, and then attain to that which is perfect.

BALS. Since the previously discussed third canon had granted forgiveness without distinction to those who had received idol-meats by force; and because some wished that even those who had eaten them by force, or had even sacrificed, should be forgiven, the Fathers determined through this canon, and the fifth, that as many as were led away to the idol banquet and showed a demeanor of those who were glad, and sat down in more splendid garments, and partook of the idol-meats, shall be punished, as having given in entirely to the impiety. Wherefore for one year they shall hear the divine Scriptures in the narthex, and after this they shall prostrate themselves for a triennium—that is, they shall ^B attend church standing behind the ambo, until the dismissal of the catechumens; for then they too shall depart. But when these three years also have been completed, they shall communicate for two years with the faithful, and from then on they shall come to that which is perfect—that is, they shall partake of the divine mysteries. But those who, having been led away, bewailed the force [used against them], and sat down and ate wearing mourning garments, after a triennium of being in the state of prostration, shall be received into ecclesiastical communion; they shall not, however, be deemed worthy of the divine mysteries. For this is what it means to be received without the offering. But if they sat down indeed, but did not eat, they shall prostrate themselves for two years, and in the third year they shall attend church with the ^C faithful without the offering; for after the passing of that time also, they shall be deemed worthy of divine communion. The Fathers left all these matters to the episcopal discretion, so that according to the conduct of the one who sinned and his sloth, the penalties might either be increased or diminished. The previous conduct of these persons is also examined, so that they may obtain either humanity or severity. But someone might ask: Why are those clerics or laymen indicated in the third canon, who received incense or idol-meats by force, not punished as though they had not sinned, but are even promoted to ecclesiastical ranks; whereas those contained in the end of the fifth canon, and who sat down by force, are punished as having sinned, and ^D this while shedding tears, and not even tasting the idol-meats? Solution. The difference lies between those who by force received profane gifts, and from their own act [of will] did nothing.

and those who by force were led to do something impious, such as reclining at the banquet. ^A Hence, the former, as having done nothing evil (for the idol-meat was cast into their mouths or hands by others), are not punished; but the latter, as having committed sin by their own act—that is, having fallen—are punished. And they defined these things in accordance with what is established by law. For it is said in Book 10 of the *Basilika*, Title 1, that what is taken from someone by force remains under their ownership, and is never possessed by anyone else under the law which says: "Stolen things and things possessed by force are never acquired by prescription, nor are they held in ownership." But what is given to someone through fear by someone else is acquired by prescription by a possessor in good faith, even if force is also present in the fear; for it was transferred through the specific act of the true owner. Rightly, therefore, he who does nothing impious is not punished, just as he is forgiven whose property is taken away by force, if he reclaims it within thirty years. But he who has done something impious, as one who has sat by force at a profane banquet, is punished, just as there is no forgiveness for one who has handed over his own property to someone through fear with his own hand. For after ten years he loses his ownership of it. ^B

ZONARAS. Whoever, says the Canon, being forced, have sacrificed, or even have dined in the idols' temples by partaking of the idol-meats, it is necessary to look at the disposition of these persons, and to determine the penalties for them according to that [disposition]. For if, while being led away to sacrifice or to dine, they showed a cheerful countenance, and adorned themselves with bright clothing, and partook of the idol-meats indifferently—that is, not feeling distressed and showing that they were tasting things polluted, but gorging themselves on these as if they were unpolluted—the canon orders these to be "hearers" for one year, standing in the narthex and listening to the Scriptures, and to be "prostrators" for three years—that is, to stand behind the ambo—and to depart with the catechumens; and for two years to communicate in prayer only, which is to stay until the end with the faithful, and with them to engage in prayer; and after these things to come to "the perfect," which is the participation of the holy mysteries. ^C

ARISTENUS. "Whoever, being led away with cheerfulness, went up and ate, let them submit for six years." Whoever were forced to sacrifice or even to dine in the idol-temple, if afterwards, yielding, they went up wearing a more cheerful appearance, and used more sumptuous clothing, and partook of the banquet, or even offered sacrifice: these shall be placed for one year among the hearers, and for three years they shall be prostrators, and for another two years they shall receive the station with the faithful, and they shall partake of prayers only; but after these six years they shall attain to the perfection, and to the participation of the divine holy things. ^D

CANON V

BALS. We have treated of the present canon in the interpretation of canon 4, and seek nothing further.

ZONAR. It has been said that one must observe the disposition of those who sacrificed under compulsion, and regulate the matter accordingly for each. Since, therefore, the canon has previously discoursed concerning those who sacrificed and did not mourn, but rather showed some signs of gladness, now it speaks concerning those who tasted indeed of things sacrificed to idols, but did so ^C not without keen feeling of heart and tears. These, it decrees, indeed, after the completion of the triennial period of prostration, are to be admitted to the fellowship without oblation, that is, to stand in the church with the faithful, but not to communicate. But if they did not eat, it says, having been prostrate for two years, and standing with the catechumens, and going out with them, when they arrive at the third year, let them communicate without oblation, that is, [let them have] the standing with the faithful. For here "communion" does not mean the reception of the holy things, but the standing with the faithful. Wherefore it added, "without oblation," so that they may attain the perfection in the triennial period, that is, so that when the ^D triennial period is completed, they may also partake of the good. These things, indeed, the Fathers of the council ordained. Since they knew that not all repent in the same way, but some are more diligent in repentance and others more sluggish, they entrusted the entire administration of the matter concerning them to the bishops, so that they might examine the manner of each one's conversion, and extend clemency, and shorten the time of the penances for those who repent more fervently, and add more time for those who are more sluggish, and observe also their preceding life, and that which follows, whether they lived and are living soberly and guardedly, or laxly and indifferently, and so mete out to them the clemency.

ARIST. ^A Whosoever shall have approached with mourning garment, and shall have eaten with tears, let them be prostrate for a triennial period; but if they did not eat, for a biennial period. The preceding and following life, however, as it is good or evil, shows the bishop to be more humane or more severe. ^B Those forced to approach the temple of idols, and to eat therein, if they approached with mourning garment, and shed tears while they were eating, these, as though by torments

^A forced, and not considering everything as having been done unwillingly—because they used their own members for the completion of the forbidden things demanded—let them fall under penance for three years only. Thereafter, let them be received without the participation of the divine sacraments, together with the faithful. But if they did not eat, but only approached, they shall be subject to penance for two years, and for one year they shall stand with the faithful. And after this three-year period, let them receive perfection. It shall, however, lie within the power of the bishop, according as he sees them being either diligent or negligent, thus also to arrange them, and to show humanity and shorten the time of repentance, or even to add to it. He shall also examine what their previous life was like; and from both states, that which is now present and the former, he shall either diminish or increase the penalties. ^B

CANON VI

BALS. ^D Since the holy Fathers said what ought to be done to those who sacrificed because of the unbearable nature of the torments, they now treat of those who sacrificed only because of the threat of punishment, or the removal of their possessions, or exile, and who had not repented up to the time of the synod. They decree, therefore, that since they now recently come to the Church, they ought to be punished: and first indeed to hear the Scriptures in the narthex until the great day, that is, Easter, and after this to fall under penance for three years, and thereafter to attend the church with the faithful for two years; and thus to partake of the sacraments, as if the six-year period had already been completed. But since, they say, some...

^A of those who have been accepted to repentance have thus come, it must be reckoned to them to be a six-year period from the time when they turned to repentance. However, those of them who are in danger of dying from disease or any other cause shall be deemed worthy of the holy sacraments. But if it should happen that they do not die, let them no longer communicate again, as if they were unpenalized, unless the prescribed six-year period passes. For this is what is meant by "on condition," that is, under a distinction, that they are received for the participation of the divine sacraments. Note, therefore, that those who have not been tortured and have sacrificed are punished more than those who have endured tortures and have sacrificed.

Zonaras

Aristenus

Those who were not subjected to torments, but were terrified by mere threats and sacrificed, and remained for a time in this error, but afterwards repented and were converted, shall be for one year among the hearers, for three years with the "substrati," for two years they shall be established with the faithful and shall participate in the prayers only; and after all the six years have passed, they shall come to the end and shall be participants of the divine communion.

Canon VII

^A ...and have eaten, it has seemed good that after being prostrate for two years they be received: but whether they should be received with the oblation, it is for the bishops to examine, and to inquire into the other life of each one.

BALS. Certain of the faithful, having been found in the territories of foreign nations at a certain time of a pagan feast, ate with them in a place appointed for this very thing. But because the foods were not from the gentiles, but their own, they wished to be kept blameless. The Fathers say, therefore, that although they were not defiled by unclean foods, yet because they reclined with unbelievers, and by a common table participated with them as they were celebrating a feast, they shall be punished by falling [to the lot of penitents] for two years; and after this they shall be received according to the examination of the bishop, either to communion alone, or also to holy participation. But what if they did not eat with unbelievers at the time of the festival, but on another day and in another place, will they be unpunished? Solution. Not at all. For in this way also they shall be punished. For if they ate with unbelievers out of necessity, as those who are perchance ambassadors or captives, they shall be healed by a moderate remedy; but if out of contempt or indifference, they shall be punished more; yet not like those who were seen to celebrate the feast with the unbelievers. Just as, again, those will be punished more than them who did not eat their own foods, but those of the pagan festival. But all these things have been suspended upon the judgment of the bishop. Note these things, which ought to be very useful to you against those who eat with the Saracens, or other gentiles. The Iberians, however, say that it makes no difference whether one eats with the orthodox or with heretics; and I do not know how this happens. ^{B C}

ZONAR. If, however, some have banqueted at a pagan festival with pagans, among unbelievers, in a place appointed for the pagans—in an idol temple, perhaps, or in another place left open for rites performed for them—even if the faithful brought and ate their own foods, because of this very thing, that they banqueted with the pagans and thus appeared to celebrate the feast with them, it has seemed good to the synod that they fall [to the lot of penitents] for two years, that is, to stand with the catechumens and to go out with them, and after the two years to be received. But as to how each of them should be received—whether to the partaking of the holy things, or only to the standing with the faithful—it belongs to the bishops, they say, to examine, and to inquire into the other life of each one. ^D

ARIST. If anyone, having his own foods, has banqueted with the gentiles at their feasts, let him fall for two years. If anyone has assembled at the feasts of the gentiles in some place appointed for them, and having his own foods, has eaten with them, let him fall for two years only; but as to whether he should from that time have communion with the faithful in the prayers alone, or also of the

receiving of the divine sacraments, it shall be in the judgment of the bishop, who is to examine the rest of the life of the penitent. ^A

CANON VIII.

BALS. Having spoken, the holy Fathers, concerning those who sacrificed once, they now speak also concerning those who sacrificed twice or thrice. For since some said that it is the same thing to sacrifice once and to sacrifice many times, the Fathers decreed that those who were forced to sacrifice twice or thrice should be more severely punished, so that, because of the magnitude of the evil, the punishment itself should be increased. And this will certainly progress in the same way henceforth.

ZONAR. What was said in the preceding canons concerning those who sacrificed once was ordained by the Fathers of this council: but now they also speak concerning those who have sacrificed twice or thrice under duress, whom they command to pass four years in prostration, and for another two years to communicate with the faithful—that is, to stand with them and pray together without the oblation, that is, without the participation of the Good—and in the seventh year to be received perfectly: that is, to be admitted also to the participation of the immaculate body and blood of the Lord.

ARIST. « He who has sacrificed a second and third time, but under compulsion, let him be subject to seven years of penance. » Whoever have not once, but twice or three times been forced to sacrifice, let these fall for four years, and for two years let them communicate with the faithful in prayers alone without the oblation; and in the seventh year let them receive perfection. ^B

CANON IX.

BALS. Some of the faithful, through fear of torments, became so cowardly and fell away from the orthodox, that they even proceeded against them; sometimes indeed compelling them to think the same thoughts as the tyrants, and sometimes even betraying those who were in hiding. These, therefore, the holy Fathers determined should be punished for a decade. But do not say that these said faithful had been so alienated from the Christian faith that they had become infidels and persecutors of Christians. For the Church receives such persons in a different manner, just as it does those who are infidels from birth—or rather, even with a more rigorous examination; but say that they indeed still held the orthodox views, but because of the torments quickly gave way, and under a pretext appeared to agree with those of evil belief; so that those heretics who saw them should not be offended, but

might believe that they also think like them. For this reason they are subjected to penances, and are not received as idolaters and infidels. ^A

ZONAR. If any, however, have not only departed from the faith toward the Lord, but have even risen up, that is, have opposed it, and have compelled their brothers to sacrifice, or have been the cause of their being compelled—such as by betraying them as they fled or were hiding, or by making those known to the persecutors who were not known to be Christians—the Fathers have ordained that such persons fulfill three years in the hearing, standing outside the temple in the porch, and that they pass six other years in the prostration, and another year praying with the faithful, and after this decade, take part in the perfect rite. ^B And during this time—that is to say, of their repentance—they say that one must also observe the rest of their life. For if they are found to be living carelessly or sinfully, the time of their penances will be extended.

ARIST. † He who has not only voluntarily sacrificed, but also compelled another, let him be subjected for a decade. He, as one who has destroyed both himself and has thrust others by force into perdition, if he returns, let him spend three years with the hearers, and six years with those undergoing prostration, and one final year with the consistent ones, and let him communicate with the faithful until the end of the divine mystagogy of prayers; and thus, the ten-year period having passed, let him partake of the completion, and let him be deemed worthy of the divine sacraments, ^C provided always that his other life, being scrutinized, does not debar him from such divine participation.

CANON X.

• Whosoever are ordained deacons, at the very time of their ordination, have protested and said that it is necessary for them to marry, as they cannot remain so; these, if they marry later, shall continue in their ministry, because this was conceded to them by the bishop. If, however, some, having passed this over in silence and having accepted the laying on of hands to remain so, have later come to marriage, let them cease from the diaconate.

BALS. Do not follow this canon, which implies that deacons can be joined in marriage after they have been ordained, because upon being ordained they protested—that is, they said to their bishops that it was necessary for them to enter into marriage—and it was as if they received permission. For whether they declared this beforehand, or whether those who were being ordained kept silent, they shall not be permitted to be joined to women after ordination; for the sixth canon of the Council in Trullo decrees that presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons who contract marriages after ordination are to be deposed. And what is done contrary to the canons, neither by episcopal permission nor merely by the fact that they kept silence, shall be allowed, as it is unsustainable. Read also the sixth Novel of the emperor

^A Leo the Wise, which says that, even if those who are ordained have an unwritten custom of having the power to take a lawful wife within the two-year period defined after their ordination, nevertheless, this ought not to be observed, as it is prohibited by the canons.

ZONARAS. This canon declares that as many as during their appointment to the diaconate—that is, at the time they were about to be ordained—protested, that is, openly declared, as if calling witnesses to testify, that it was necessary for them to enter into marriage, as they were unable to remain virgins, these, if they have legally taken a woman to themselves after receiving their order, are by no means to be barred from the ministry, that is, from the diaconate. For it seems that they were granted by the bishop the power to enter into marriage after the ordination had been received. If, however, any who were about to be ordained remained silent, and thereby by their silence accepted the obligation to remain unmarried—for in this case also, silence signifies consent—they are ordered to cease from the diaconate if they have married after their ordination. These are the contents of the present canon. But the twenty-sixth canon of the holy Apostles permits only lectors and cantors, after they have been enrolled in the clergy, to enter into matrimony. And the sixth canon of the Sixth Synod, following the apostolic ^B canon, forbids any presbyter, deacon, or subdeacon from entering into marriage after having received ordination; and it orders that those who do not observe the canon shall be deposed. Furthermore, it gives them the power to contract a marriage, if they wish, before they are initiated. Since, therefore, these canons are manifestly in opposition to one another, the canon of the Sixth Synod must prevail, as it is later and in agreement with the apostolic canon. For never will a priest or deacon who has married after receiving his orders be permitted to retain his dignity or his sacred ministry.

ARISTENUS. ^C “Let him who is to be ordained a deacon, if he has protested to the bishop that he cannot remain unmarried, be allowed to be a deacon after taking a wife; but if he remained silent and married later, let him be cast out.”

This canon dictates that he who, before ordination, has testified to the bishop that he cannot remain a virgin but wishes to enter into the communion of marriage is not forbidden to do so, nor forbidden from entering into marriage after ordination, and from remaining in the same ministry and dignity. But as for him who remained silent and in the ordination accepted the obligation to remain unmarried, it is decreed that he shall cease from the diaconate if, after this, he is joined by the law of marriage to a woman. However, the sixth canon of the Sixth Synod is opposed to this present canon, not allowing that he who has come as an unmarried man to the degree of subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter may establish a matrimonial ^D union for himself after his ordination, but commanding that he who has dared to do this shall be deposed. And that canon retains its force, while this one has fallen into disuse.

CANON XI. “Girls who have been betrothed to others, and have later been abducted by others, shall not retain their rank or their sacred ministries,”

[…it was] ^A decided that they be returned to those to whom they were betrothed, even if they had suffered violence. »

BALS. Concerning those who abduct any young women, the pertinent matters have been treated in chapter 30 of title 9 of the present work, and read that. Similarly, read also the 92nd canon of the Synod in Trullo, and the entire title 58 of book 60. But when you hear the canon saying that those who were abducted must be returned to those to whom they were betrothed, do not say that they are being forced to take them, but rather that the latter themselves wish to seek them out. For this was also said concerning adulterous women in book 27, title 7, chapter 1, which is indeed Justinian’s Novella 117. But if you wish to say that the betrothed are receiving them even against their will, interpret the canon in accordance with the epistle of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker; read it also at the beginning, as well as the things written for the interpretation of the same epistle, but interpret also the 22nd canon of Saint Basil in this way. ^B

ZONAR. Great Basil also, in his 22nd canon, does not allow one who has an abducted woman to be admitted to penance unless the abducted woman is taken away from him and given to the one who had betrothed her, if he still wishes to take her. In the same way, this canon must also be understood: that abducted women should be returned to those to whom they were previously betrothed, if, of course, they wish to take them. For they shall not be compelled against their will.

ARIST. « If a young woman has been betrothed, but abducted by another, she is restored to the first. »

This canon indeed commands that a girl who has been betrothed to someone and subsequently abducted by another be restored to the first suitor, even if the virgin was corrupted by the one who abducted her. But the 58th title of book 60 of the Basilics subjects to great penalties the one who has committed the abduction of a woman, as well as the one who assisted him in the abduction, and the others who contributed any effort whatsoever to it. And it does not permit—even if the abducted woman herself wishes it, and even if her parents wish it—that she be joined in marriage to the one who abducted her. ^C But even if the parents consent to such a union, they are exiled.

CANON XII.

« To those who have sacrificed before baptism, and were baptized afterwards, it seemed right that they be promoted to [ecclesiastical] rank, as they have been washed. »

BALS. Some infidels were receiving the preaching and believing in Christ, but were putting off being baptized. Since, therefore, these persons, like the rest of the infidels, had sacrificed, once they were baptized they wished to be initiated into the sacred mysteries, and they were not being allowed, because some were saying that they ought not... ^D

to be promoted to ecclesiastical ranks, according to the aforesaid canons which punish those who have sacrificed to idols. The Fathers determined that these men may be promoted to the priesthood, as those who have been washed by holy baptism and cleansed from every stain of sin. ^B But someone might ask, for what reason do we receive and baptize these men—who sacrificed of their own accord and not by force—and number them among the clergy, whereas we not only judge Christians who sacrificed by force to be unworthy of the priesthood, but also subject them to penances, as has been said before? Solution: Those others, being Christians, not enduring the violence of tortures but sacrificing, have become deniers of God, and as having committed most grievous sins, they are not admitted to the priesthood, but are even punished. But these men, being infidels from birth and having sacrificed before divine baptism, did not deny God. For how could they have denied one whom they had not yet received, because they had not yet been baptized? And for this reason they did not sin, acting in accordance with the rite of their own superstition; therefore, when they approach the Church, they are received as infidels. And since such persons, once baptized, are also considered worthy of the priesthood after episcopal examination, they themselves will not be prevented from being ordained, but everything determined by the holy Fathers for those baptized from among the infidels who wish to be ordained will also be carried out for them.

Another interpretation

Præsenti (78). That most holy patriarch, the lord Polyeuctus, ^C having employed the present canon, first expelled the emperor, the lord John Tzimiskes, from the sacred precincts of the most holy Great Church of God, as one who had murdered the emperor, the lord Nicephorus Phocas; but afterwards he received him. For he said, along with the holy synod, in the synodal act that took place at that time, which is kept in the record office (chartophylakion), that since the anointing of holy baptism wipes away all sins that existed before baptism, of whatever kind or magnitude they may be, by all means the anointing of the emperor also wiped away the murder committed by Tzimiskes before it. Consequently, following that action, those who are somewhat more compassionate, and who anticipate God’s mercy before judgment, say that by the anointing of the high priesthood, sins committed before it are wiped away, and they contend that bishops are not to be held accountable for the sins of the soul committed before the priesthood. For as emperors are called and are the Lord’s anointed, so too are bishops; and they are so named. They also establish their argument from the fact that ^D the prayers read when emperors are crowned are of the same power as those read when bishops are ordained. But instead of the anointing oil with which kings and bishops were anointed according to the ancient law, they say that for bishops, the yoke of the Gospel placed upon their necks suffices and its

^A character-endowing effect, with the invocation of the Holy Spirit. And for the irrefutable confirmation of all these things, they also use the discourse of the great Gregory the Theologian, which begins: "Again upon me is the anointing and the spirit." From this you may learn that he who is unworthily ordained, yet lives his life in purity after the ordination, is deemed no less worthy of the grace of the All-Holy Spirit than he who was worthily ordained and who left our life with the same purity. These things concern the archpriests; but for priests and other clerics, seek the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Nicaea, the ninth and eleventh canons of the Synod of Neocaesarea, the twenty-first canon of Basil, and the fourth, fifth, and eighth canons of Theophilus from his Memorandum. And note from these that the ordination of archpriests and the anointing of kings obliterate the sins committed before the ordination and the anointing, whatever they may be. For this reason, bishops have the authority to forgive sins, as they have heard, from the moment they are ordained: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ^B But the ordination of priests and others does away with small sins—I mean mental consent, falsehood, and such like, which do not bring about deposition—but not fornication. Whence priests cannot forgive sins. And read the ninth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea, which says the same regarding priests. However, let not the seventeenth canon of the Holy Apostles contradict you, which says: "He who is entangled in two marriages after baptism, or has acquired a concubine, cannot be a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, or in any way of the priestly order," nor the eighteenth, which ordains almost the same. But interpret "to be" as "to become," and say: no one who has fallen in such a way shall be deemed worthy of episcopal or priestly honor. But if one is deemed worthy contrary to what has been decreed, if he is a bishop, he will not be investigated for the aforementioned reasons, as archpriests, from the moment they are ordained, are deemed worthy of not only apostolic grace, but also prophetic grace. For thus also Saul was among the prophets, and Caiaphas prophesied ^C against his will; for he was, it says, the high priest of that year. But if he is a priest or another one ordained to the sacred office, he shall be deposed. Read also chapter twenty-five of the ninth title of this present work, and you will find in it various laws treating of priests and other ordained persons, but making no mention at all of bishops.

ZONAR. In ancient times, the majority received the message and believed in Christ, but they postponed being baptized. For this reason, Gregory the Theologian and the great Basil composed exhortatory discourses on holy baptism. There were, therefore, in the times of the persecutions, many such people who, though they were Christians, had not yet been baptized. The canon says regarding these, therefore, that if any had sacrificed while being apprehended as Christians, but were as yet unillumined—that is, had not been baptized—and were baptized after this, ^D nothing prevents them from having sacrificed at that time—

the canon so decrees. For it is believed that holy baptism washes away and cleanses all prior stains, whatever they may have been. ^A ARIST. He who sacrificed before baptism, let him be blameless after baptism. Since holy baptism washes away every psychic stain, he who sacrificed before baptism will deservedly be blameless after baptism, and will be promoted to the priestly degree, if his life after this is found to be irreproachable.

CANON XIII

BALS. If you wish to know who the chorepiscopi are, and what their privileges are, read the 13th canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea, the 10th canon of Antioch, and the letter of St. Basil to the chorepiscopi. The Fathers of the present synod also decree that a chorepiscopus may not ordain presbyters or deacons without a written letter from the local bishop, nor even [appoint] a presbyter of the city. We wished to write something regarding the present canon; but since the rank of chorepiscopus has completely fallen into disuse, we did not wish to undertake vain labor in vain.

ZONAR. The tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch also determines the same things regarding the chorepiscopi, forbidding them the creation of presbyters and deacons, leaving to them only the power to create subdeacons, readers, and exorcists. ^C But it absolutely forbids them to create priests and deacons without the authority of the bishops to whom they are subject, and likewise to appoint priests in any city. For if, in the regions of which they are bishops, they do not have the power to create the aforementioned, much more will they be forbidden from assuming this for themselves in cities. Moreover, the canon commands that such permission be made by letters, that is, in writing, so that no controversy may arise regarding this matter, with the chorepiscopus asserting that the power had been granted to him, while the bishop denies it—perhaps due to a lapse of memory or for any other reason. ^D

ARIST. A chorepiscopus does not ordain without the permission of the bishop. This canon prohibits chorepiscopi from ordaining without the permission of the bishop without distinction. But the tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch allows them to appoint only readers, subdeacons, and exorcists, but not to dare to ordain a presbyter or deacon without the will of the bishop of that city to which both he and the region are subject. However, great Basil, having found that the ministers of the Church were being made by the chorepiscopi without examination, and often introduced even by presbyters and deacons, against the permission of their own bishops, does not grant to the chorepiscopi

^A to admit anyone to ecclesiastical ministry without his consent; but [that] worthy persons should indeed be investigated by the chorepiscopi, and admitted, but not enumerated among the clergy until they have reported the matters concerning them to the bishop himself. Chorepiscopi are those who are now called protopapades in certain villages and regions.

CANON XIV

^B BALS. The things contained in the apostolic canon concerning those who abstain from marriage, wine, and meats were interpreted there. But since it was discussed in that canon that those who fast for the sake of exercise are not to be punished, but those who blasphemously speak against the economy of God are to be punished; and it is likely that some might say, "And from where shall it be known to us who fast for a good motive and who for a bad one?" the Fathers of the present synod easily resolved this also. For they said that if those who fast wish to remove all scandal, let them touch only the meats, and then fast if they choose. But if they will not do this, nor even eat the vegetables which are cooked with the meats, being compelled by all means by the bishop on the report of certain people, they are caught not abstaining from meats in a good manner, and let them be deposed as not submitting to the canon. Rightly, however, the canon there said either to cease or to be deposed; here, however, the Fathers have decreed that they cease from their order. For since the doubt had not yet been solved, it was necessary for the one who was accused to be commanded to remove the scandal by eating meat, and [only] thus be condemned. Here, however, because the suspicion is removed by the economy described by the Fathers, of necessity, he who does not act appropriately ^C to it is by that very fact deposed. But since the present canon mentions only presbyters and deacons, while the said apostolic canon mentions all men, you ought also to extend what is said there to everyone. As is likely, therefore, those who are accused of the Bogomil heresy are also, in accordance with the present canon, compelled to eat meats or cheese, and to remove the suspicion of Bogomil fasting; nay, even many of the more pious monks, not wishing to break their fast with fish on account of the reverence of the holy Quadragesima, in accordance with this canon, refrain from the meats themselves, but they do eat their juices and the vegetables which are cooked with them. And that this which is done to those who are accused of the Bogomil heresy is rightly done, one might say: just as also if one tastes meat or cheese in the weeks ^D during which Armenians or other heretics fast; especially when one is staying in a suspicious region. For thus he acts so as not to be thought to be fasting together with the heretics.

^A What is done by those who fast during the Holy Quadragesima and break their fast, as has been said, does not seem to me to be pardonable. For those who were fasting ought not to have broken their fast in such matters, and held the Quadragesima in contempt. But the canon spoke of eating such vegetables, not as exhorting them to abstain from meats while eating the vegetables that are in them, but as one who hates those who, because of their loathing and aversion for meats, refuse to eat even the vegetables that are cooked with the meats. So that everywhere the disposition of the person who breaks or does not break the fast is considered. ^B But the Latin monks, who abstain from meats, but eat the fat of them with vegetables indiscriminately, do not seem to me to act according to the present canon. For they do not break the fast with fat so as to avoid being accused of abstaining from meats; but that they may fill their belly and gratify their gullet.

ZONAR. In the fifty-third canon the holy apostles ordered that bishops or presbyters or deacons who do not partake of meat and wine, as if loathing them, and not for the sake of discipline, should be deposed. But since it was likely that some, while loathing meat and wine, would abstain from them, yet say that "we abstain from them for the sake of discipline," this synod decreed that those who are accustomed to abstain from meats should touch them—that is, taste them—at certain times of the assemblies, and thus again, if they wish, abstain. But if they wish to abstain from them so as not even to eat vegetables cooked with meats, they are to be removed from their order, that is, thrust out of the rank and honor in which they find themselves. ^C

ARIST. "A priest abstaining from meats, once he has tasted of them, let him thus abstain; but if he does not even taste of the vegetables which are with the meats, let him be deposed."

A presbyter or deacon who is abstaining from meats must taste of them. But if he is not persuaded even to taste the vegetables with the meat, let him be deposed, as one who disapproves of the creation of God and slanders it. And seek also the fifty-first canon of the holy apostles.

CANON XV.

^A when there was no bishop, priests sold it, to recall the Lord’s house. But it is for the judgment of the bishop whether it is proper to receive the price or not, because the income from the things sold often has returned to them more than the price.

BALS. In the twelfth canon of the Synod of Nicaea II, we have sufficiently discussed the alienation of immovable ecclesiastical property. Now the Fathers of the present synod, having learned that during a vacancy of the episcopate, immovable episcopal property, and those things called Lord’s houses (Dominica), as being dedicated to the Lord, had been alienated by priests—deeming the deed intolerable—decreed that these be recalled to the Lord’s house (that is, to the Lord’s people), seeing that the transaction was invalid; both for many other reasons, and not least because the Church lacked a bishop at the time of the sale. And as if someone had asked: "What then shall happen to the price given by the buyer?" the Fathers declared that these matters were committed to the judgment of the bishop, and he himself shall examine whether it is proper for the buyer to receive the price given by him, or not. For if he has been compensated from the income of that which was sold, the immovable property shall return to the episcopate without the money being returned; but if not, then by argument from the opposite, he shall receive the price from the bishop. And in these things the canon consists. ^B But someone might ask: Why does the canon mention only presbyters, and not also the rest of the clergy? Solution: By the name of the presbyters, it implies the entire clergy. For having made mention of them, as those who excel in rank, it seemed fitting to treat of the others as well. For if a sale made by presbyters is overturned, much more shall that which is made by other clergy be overturned. So do not think, by an argument from the opposite, that a sale made in this way by other clergy is valid. But since the sale is overturned as invalid, how do the Fathers say that it is in the bishop's judgment whether or not the price should be returned? The buyer absolutely ought not to seek the price, according to the general legal rule which says: "He who gives for an illegal contract has no claim to reclaim what is given." ^C Solution. Not...

[Guill. Beveridge’s notes] ...synod of Neocaesarea, in which it is cautioned that vicary priests ^D do not officiate if the bishop or the priests of the city be present. That these places dedicated to the worship of God and the celebration of the holy mysteries have been called from the greatest antiquity by the names "Dominica" or "Lord's houses," we gather from the divine Cyprian, who says: "And you believe that you celebrate the Lord’s house (Dominicum), you who gaze upon the box (corbonam) at all, who come into the Lord’s house (Dominicum) without sacrifice" (Cyprian, *De opere et eleemosynis*), where the word "Dominicum" in the first place clearly signifies the Lord's supper, and in the latter, the Lord's house. Which is also in the Old Testament everywhere called the house of the Lord. The Germans call a basilica or a cathedral church a *Dom*, and their canons *Domherren*. And indeed such a church seems properly to denote... others have borrowed the term from the Greeks to signify a church in general, as Walafridus Strabo teaches (*De reb. eccl.*, cap. 7). Thus also the ancient Saxons called any church *Cypic* or *Kyrik*. Whence in Scotland and the northern parts of England it is called *Kyik*, and by us commonly, but by a more corrupt name, *Church*, with a double aspiration. Since this was a common designation for any church or temple among our ancestors, it seems most probable to us that the initial seeds of the Christian religion were scattered here by the Greeks. For it is not to be thought that the Latins would impose a Greek name on their churches.

^A THEOD. BALSAMON: The Fathers did not necessarily ordain that the price must be returned, contrary to the aforementioned canon; rather, one who reads the canon more carefully will find that they have denied the necessity of returning the price. For since they left the matters concerning this to the bishop’s judgment, they spoke with a more compassionate reason, and as a true high priest he will look both to the non-diminishment of the Church and to the buyer, and he will do what seems to him good and blameless. And even if it be not precise, they seemed to declare that the buyer has no valid legal action, ^B and that for this reason he ought to entreat him and not sue. Read also chapter 4 of the epistle of St. Cyril to Domnus, canon 26 of the Synod of Carthage, and the twelfth canon of the Second Synod of Nicaea, and likewise the interpretations of them.

ZONAR. If at any time a church is destitute of its bishop, and the clergy, perhaps for some pressing necessity, have alienated any of its immovable goods (for by the name "presbyters" the canon understands the clergy, and mentions them especially because they are placed in a higher order), the Church, or rather the bishop, can reclaim these things by its own right. The canon is pleased to entrust to his judgment whether the price ought to be returned or not. For it can happen that a piece of land, perhaps very fertile, was sold to the buyer for a high price. But the twenty-sixth canon of the Synod of Carthage allows for ^C unproductive possessions to be alienated if necessity urges, yet this also should be done with some discrimination.

ARIST. If presbyters sell anything pertaining to the Church, let it be void, and let it remain subject to the judgment of the bishop. After the bishop has died, the goods of the Church must be kept undiminished by the clergy; or if there are no clergy, by the metropolitan, so that everything may be returned to the bishop who is to be ordained thereafter; and neither the metropolitan nor the clergy may convert any of these things to their own advantage or take them away. Nor is it fitting for a widowed church to remain long without a bishop, but within three months a bishop should be ordained, unless perhaps some inexorable necessity causes the time to be extended. ^D If, therefore, the clergy sell any of the Church’s goods during the intermediate time in which the church is vacant of a bishop, it shall be void, and it will lie within the power of the bishop either to overturn the sale and recover the property, or to be content with it and accept the price. Seek the thirty-fifth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon.

CANON XVI

^C They should be made subject for fifteen years and share in the prayers. Then, having passed five years in such communion, they may at last reach the oblation. But let their way of life during this period of subjection be examined, and in this manner let them receive humane treatment. But if any have grown hardened in these sins, they should have a long period of subjection. Whoever have passed this age, and have wives, and have fallen into this sin, let them be made subject for twenty-five years and share in the prayers; then, having completed five years in the communion of prayers, let them reach the oblation. But if any have wives and have passed their fiftieth year, let them reach the communion at the end of their life. ^B

BALS. The Fathers here make a wonderful and highly praiseworthy distinction. For they decree that those who have been corrupted together with irrational animals, or who are so corrupted—or rather, who are to be corrupted—if they are not yet twenty years of age, let them be made subject for fifteen years, and after this, let them be deemed worthy of the prayer with the faithful for five years; and this having been completed, let them partake of the divine hallowings, the bishop being obliged to deal with them more humanely if, perhaps, their God-pleasing conduct and repentance during the period of subjection advise it. They say, however, that these things should be done in the case of those who fall into sin sometimes out of natural necessity. For those who do so excessively—that is to say, beyond necessity and indiscriminately—having used this senseless sin, let them be subjected for a long time. But as for those who have exceeded the twentieth year and, having wives, have fallen into this sin… ^C

Guill. Beveregii note. The old interpreter, in the title of this canon, says "Of those who have had connection with animals." In the canon itself: "Who in an animal-like way commit such a thing with animals." And this is truly the genuine meaning of these words. For in this place those are spoken of who have commerce with brutes, such as mares or other beasts; or who, as Saint Basil describes them in canon 63, calls them "bestial." Elsewhere he also calls them... ^D ...the old interpreter renders these words thus: "But if they have persisted incessantly in sinning." And Dionysius Exiguus translates: "But if they have clung insatiably to these crimes." But Gentianus Hervetus seems to have read this in the Tilian codex; for he translates: "If any, however, have been wickedly and maliciously in these sins." Thus also the Eton manuscript, together with the Parisian editions of Balsamon and Zonaras, reads: but Joannes Antiochenus and the Amerbachian and Gallandi manuscripts more correctly read: "bearing repentance, let them be admitted into the communion of prayers," as Dionysius Exiguus translates.

^A They are ordained to lie prostrate for twenty-five years, and only thus to be deemed worthy of communion with the faithful for five years; and once these too are completed, to attain also the divine sacraments. But those who have passed the fiftieth year, if they have wives and have fallen into such a thing, shall never be deemed worthy of the divine communion, except at the very exit of life. Since the holy Fathers divided sinners into three groups, and commanded that those not yet having reached the twentieth year be punished in one way, those having reached their fiftieth year in another, and those who have passed the fiftieth year in yet another—for they forgive those of lesser age who sin because of the necessity of nature and the slipperiness of ^B judgment, whereas they punish more severely those of a riper age, who are on this account firmer and more stable in their reasoning, just as they punish more heavily those who have reached old age if they have committed such a sin, as being more sagacious and unable to put forward the necessity of nature as an excuse—someone will ask: Why do the Fathers punish those who have passed the twentieth and the fiftieth year, if they have wives and have committed a sin, while they punish those who have not yet completed their twentieth year, even if they have no wives? ^C Answer. Toward those who, because of their flourishing age, are more prone to evil and are more foolish, the Fathers were more humanely disposed, and they did not add the distinction regarding wives, considering it a matter of indifference whether these have wives or not; but toward the others, judging them more severely as not being entitled to leniency either on account of the impulses of youth or because of an unstable age, they added that they are to be punished more if they have wives. Know, however, that even those who do not have wives shall not escape the penances, but will be punished in the same way. Now, some have said that the "long time" ^D is a period of twenty years, proving this from the law which says that by a long time, that is, twenty years, an immovable thing of an absent person may be acquired by usage and ownership by a possessor in good faith. But those who said this were not approved, because a period of ten years is also called "long," during which a possessor in good faith acquires ownership of an immovable thing belonging to one who is present; rather, they heard that "long time" is that which is defined by the bishop. When you hear the canon saying that those who have thus sinned in old age are to be punished by one penance—namely, abstinence from the divine sacraments—do not say that other penances are not applied as things passed over in silence. For this fearful penance is necessarily followed by the others, and if not more, yet for thirty years they will be compelled to serve the penances. These years were not added by the Fathers, since very few men live for thirty years calculated after the fiftieth.

ZONAR. The canon decrees that those who have had intercourse with irrational beasts are not all to be managed in the same way, but that, according to the variation of their ages, there is to be a difference in their punishment. For it decrees regarding those who have not yet reached their twentieth year...

^A fifteen years of prostration, then for another five years to communicate with the faithful in prayers, instead of merely standing with them and praying together, and after the five years of standing, to partake also of the divine gifts. It is necessary, he says, that their conduct also be examined during the times of their penance, so that if they live carelessly during these times and do not show fervor in their repentance, they may not meet with leniency. But if some, he says, have sinned for a long time and have been filled with a surfeit of evil, such persons should have the long prostration, namely, the twenty-year period. For even in the civil laws, a long time is defined as a span of twenty years. And the canon states this concerning young men, and those who do not have wives; but as for those who have exceeded the age of youth ^B and have become men and are living with wives, and have fallen into this sin, the canon says that such persons are to be in prostration for twenty-five years, and thus for another five years to communicate with the faithful in prayers, and after the thirty years to obtain holy communion; but those who have wives and are already inclining toward old age, and are still held by this evil, it wills that they should never be judged worthy of holy communion, unless at the close of their life.

ARIST. ^C • He who has had intercourse with animals before the age of twenty, let him be in prostration for fifteen years; but if he has also exceeded this age, and having a wife, has fallen into this, let him be in prostration for twenty-five years. But he who has a wife, and has passed fifty years of age, let him be in prostration until the end of his life. •

The eighty-first chapter of the thirty-seventh title of the sixtieth book of the Basilika calls those who have intercourse with animals and beasts—whom it also orders to be castrated—those who are deviating from reason; and those who perform this indecency with males. And the canon determines that if they are less than twenty years of age, they should be in prostration for fifteen years, and for another five years stand with the faithful and ^D share only in the prayers; then touch the divine sanctified gifts. But those who have passed twenty years, and have wives, and have fallen into such a passion, after completing twenty-five years in prostration, and another five in the communion of prayers, after these things obtain participation in the divine sanctified gifts; but those who have passed the fifty-year period, and have wives, are to be in prostration for their whole life, and at the end, obtain the good viaticum.

CANON XVII

Guill. Beveregii note. The Scholiast of Harmenopulus on this canon has this: Leprosy, that is to say, unclean and polluted; for lepers were unclean under the Mosaic law; but by leprous, it means those who are afflicted, for it describes those who are demon-possessed, as some say.

^A

BALS. We have already spoken sufficiently about those who have committed the unnatural act with animals in the preceding canon. ^B The present canon, however, by naming these people "leprous"—that is to say, unclean and polluted according to the Mosaic law—ordains that they pray among the *hibernantes* (those who are weather-beaten/winter-suffering). Some, then, have said that the *hibernantes* are those who are possessed by a demon; but this is not true, as it seems to me. For those who are possessed by a demon are either perpetually insane and never pray, or they are possessed at intervals, and they are permitted to communicate; a thing which is not granted to those who have cohabited with beasts by this present canon. Therefore, the *hibernantes* are strictly called those who stand in the narthex and hear the divine Scriptures, occupying the place of those who are agitated by winter or storms, and are not permitted to enter into the ecclesiastical harbor of salvation. ^C That this is so is manifest also from the things stated in the previous canon. For since in that canon the Fathers commanded what was fitting regarding the other places—namely, that of prostration and communion—but treated nothing at all regarding the standing of the hearers, here they determined also about this place, so that it might be understood as applying there as well. For it was impossible that one so punished should not stand in the place of the hearers until the time of prostration.

ZONAR. Those who have had dealings with animals and are infected with leprosy—that is to say, those who are impure and polluted (this being according to the Mosaic law, which considered lepers to be polluted)—or those who have been infected with leprosy (that is, those by whom even the beasts themselves were polluted), are commanded by the decree of the synod to pray among the *hibernantes*, that is, together with the *hibernantes*. ^D Now some call the demon-possessed *hibernantes*; but I do not think that the Fathers of the synod mean these here. For those who are demon-possessed are either entirely insane and never pray, having an incessant madness, or they suffer at intervals; and in the intervals, when they are in their right mind, they are permitted even to communicate, according to the third canon of Timothy of Alexandria. If, therefore, those who have acted unreasonably were to pray alongside those who are possessed by demons at intervals without any distinction, the decisions and separations of the preceding canon would be rendered void by this canon. What, then, it is to pray among the *hibernantes*, I cannot easily say.

Guill. Beveridge’s note. Mosaic: That which says "led by leprosy" has as much force as if it were to say "polluted," namely, the beasts. Moreover, it calls those "hibernantes" who are tortured by a demon, as some relate. Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 5. tit. 3. Isidorus Mercator interprets this canon thus: "It pleased that those who have been made guilty of such a crime, not only lepers themselves, but also those who fill others with their own disease, should pray among those who are tossed by the storm, whom we call Energumens." Dionysius Exiguus: "The holy synod commands those who have lived irrationally and have polluted others with the crime of leprosy to pray among those who are endangered by an unclean spirit, where it should be observed that both these men are commented upon with the scholiast Harmenopulus in the annotations to the eleventh canon of the first ecumenical synod of Nicaea, which you should consult: here meanwhile we observe that Balsamon and Zonaras agree, [though] some have asserted that those same persons are in this place also demon-possessed. Since Alexius Aristenus has asserted this, it is at least likely that he is one of those whom they write have said so: and that consequently his scholia were read by them.

ARIST. ^A *The leper who has committed bestiality, or is even infected with leprosy, should pray with the winter-tossed.*

Since the leper was unclean under the Law of Moses, for this reason the canon calls him who has committed bestiality a leper, as one unclean. It wishes, therefore, that those who have committed shame with women against nature, or with males, or with animals, and have rendered themselves lepers, or have imparted their own uncleanness to others—as those who have indulged in the passion immoderately—should pray together with the winter-tossed. And the "winter-tossed," according to the great Dionysius, are those who are held by an evil spirit, who were not permitted to pray with the faithful, but had assigned places and prayed in them. Look into the 62nd and 63rd canons of Basil the Great; you will find lesser penalties for such licentiousness.

CANON XVIII

^B *If any bishops who have been appointed, and have not been received by that diocese to which they were nominated, wish to invade other dioceses and offer violence to those who are established there, and stir up seditions against them, they should be excommunicated. If, however, they wish to sit in the presbyterate where they were previously presbyters, they should not be deprived of their honor; but if they stir up seditions against the bishops established there, they should be deprived of the honor of the presbyterate as well, and be cast out.* ^C

BALS. The 14th canon of the Holy Apostles, and the 15th and the 36th, but also the 17th and 18th canons of the Council of Antioch, treat much about bishops who are ordained and are not accepted by their own dioceses; read them. But the present canon decrees that those bishops who have not been accepted into the dioceses for which they were nominated should not go off to others, nor offer violence to their presidents, nor incite their clergy and laity against them. And those who do such a thing are to be excommunicated. But in response to someone who might say, "And what will be the place of habitation for such men?" the Fathers added that if those who have been ordained wish to live in other dioceses—that is, in their previous places of habitation—and are willing to sit in the place of a presbyter, they will not be forbidden; and if they act in this way, they will be kept untroubled, holding such honor. But if they have seditions and disputes with the local bishop, ^D they will be stripped of the presbyter's honor as well, and will be cast out. Since the canon decrees these things, do not say that bishops who have not been accepted are sitting in the places of presbyters so that the honor of the episcopal dignity may be brought low, but because there is no place greater than the presbyterate. For if one of them should happen to be from Heraclea, and should return there, the presbyters, of whom he was once one and elected to be, will hold the places of the priests; he, however, promoted to the episcopal dignity...

^A will sit with the rest of the bishops of Heraclea; and if he leaps over the established bounds, that is, usurping the place of the metropolitan, he shall not be heard. For him to sit with the presbyters, when there is also a seat for other bishops, is an insult to the episcopacy. You must, therefore, determine here that the local bishop had no other bishops sitting with him, but only presbyters, even if they were sitting together. And do not understand the removal of the honor of the presbyterate from him who acts in this way, and his being rendered outcast, as applying to deposition, but only to the loss of this honor, that is to say, they shall not even be deemed worthy to sit with the presbyters.

ZONAR. If any bishops, having been appointed—that is, chosen—are not received by the diocese to which they were named, of which, clearly, they were declared bishops; but they come upon ^B another diocese, that is, another church and assembly of the faithful, and offer violence to those established there, who were ordained in that diocese, and stir up seditions against them, the canon orders that they be segregated, so that they may not be honored together with the bishops. But if they wish to sit together with the presbyters, it does not forbid them from obtaining this, that is, to have the honor of a presbyter. But if they stir up seditions against the bishops who are there, then they are to be deprived of even the honor of the presbyter, and be made outcasts, that is, fallen from the Church.

ARIST. ^C «If an appointed bishop is not received by the diocese to which he was called, but troubles other bishops, let him be excommunicated. But if he wishes to be numbered with the presbyters, let him be so numbered; but if he also creates a schism with the bishops there, let him be rejected from the honor of the presbyter as well.»

He who has become a bishop, and has not been received by the people whose care was entrusted to him, if he attempts to perform any episcopal office in another diocese, and to bring any disturbance upon the bishops who are there, he shall be segregated. But if he wishes to be numbered with the presbyters, and sit together with them, and enjoy equal honor, he shall be numbered among them. But if he also causes schism against the bishops established there, and usurps any episcopal rights, he shall be deprived of this honor of the presbyters as well, and shall be segregated. ^D

CANON XIX.

«Whosoever professes virginity, and renders their profession void, let them fulfill the rule of bigamists. We have, however, forbidden virgins from associating with some as if with brothers.»

^A BALS. The Fathers subject those who render void the promise made by them to God for the sake of living in virginity to the rule of bigamists, that is, to the penance. But since, as it seems, some who had professed virginity were scandalizing many by living together with certain men, who were said to be their brothers, the Fathers prohibited this as well. Do not, however, say that the breaking here of the promise for the sake of virginity is fornication, but lawful marriage. For this reason, they punish them only with the penance for bigamists. For if any of them had committed fornication, they would be punished by the penances that punish fornicators. But you ought to call them virgins here, men, of course, and women, not those who have renounced the world and chosen the monastic life, but certain others approaching God with a lay appearance, who also profess to live in virginity. For those who have chosen the monastic life, by rendering their profession to God void and engaging in marriage, will not be subjected to the penance of bigamists, but the marriage being dissolved as illegitimate, they will be severely punished and handed over to the monastery in which they were tonsured, as we have said in other diverse canons. But since the great Basil determines in his canon that she who has rendered her profession of virginity to God void is to be condemned as an adulteress, ^B read him, and canon 16 of the sixth synod.

ZONAR. Those who profess virginity, whether men or women, if they break the faith of their promise, let them be subjected to the penance of bigamists. For by the term "definition" he understands the canon and constitution, so that whatever has been ordained and decreed concerning bigamists, these things should hold also for them, so that they may be admitted only after a year has passed. The canon also prevents those who profess virginity from associating—that is, living together—with men while calling themselves sisters to those with whom they live, so that no unbecoming suspicion may arise against them. But the great Basil in his eighteenth canon declared that she who has professed to live in virginity, and has not kept her profession, is subject to the judgment of adultery.

^D (Guill. Beveregius's note: For Isidore Mercator, in translating the last part of this present canon, rendered it: "We prohibit virgins from wanting to dwell as sisters with some men." Dionysius Exiguus: "We prohibit virgins, who gather with some, from dwelling as sisters." The Old Translator, to whom he surely came, says: "We forbid virgins from joining with some as sisters." But the sense in each reading is the same. For it is the same thing for virgins to call men brothers, and for those men to call them sisters. For the custom, as it seems, held at that time that some virgins lived with men as with their own brothers, and for that reason they were called sisters by them, and sometimes "beloved," just as those men were called by them their "beloved." This is also prohibited by Justinian in the ordination of deaconesses, ordaining thus: "We wish that they also who are brought to ordination, deaconesses, whether from widowhood or from virginity, not be associated with anyone, or relatives of those whom they call 'beloved'—for those using such names fill their life with malicious suspicion—but that they dwell alone, or with parents alone, or children, or truly brothers." Justinian, Novel 6, c. 6, where the final words, "or truly brothers," indicate those accustomed to cohabit with some whom they call brothers, who however were not truly brothers. And such virgins were surely the same ones who were spoken of at the first Nicene Council; insofar as the present canon also calls them "subintroductae" [the women brought into the house], those gathering with some as brothers.)

^A ARIST. « Let him who has professed virginity, and makes his vow void, be segregated for four years; and let not virgins approach anyone as brothers. »

This canon, in its expanded form, requires him who has professed virginity and rejects it to fulfill the definition regarding digamists. Now, the penalty for a digamist, as the fourth canon of Basil the Great says, is this: to be segregated for one year; although other Fathers segregate him for two years. But the same Basil the Great, in his nineteenth canon, teaches that we do not know of professions of virginity for men, unless some have numbered themselves among the order of monks. But it seems reasonable, even regarding those men who have professed celibacy, ^B that they should be questioned, and their clear profession received, so that, after they have made their profession void and have turned back to a carnal and voluptuous life, they might become subject to the penalties of fornicators. Therefore, he who made the synopsis of this canon transferred the segregation of digamists, set forth in the expanded text, to him who makes the profession of celibacy void. And that which is brought forward by Basil the Great is applied to such a person, namely, the penalty of fornicators. Now, the penalty for such ones is seven years: two years for those weeping, two for those listening, two others for those prostrating, and one for those standing with the faithful, but admitted to the participation of the sacraments in the eighth [year], as the fiftieth canon of the same Basil the Great ordains.

But sometimes some are found who are liable to the penalty of fornication and are chastised for four years: for the first year, those weeping standing outside the enclosure of the church; for the second, admitted to hear; for the third, taking a place in repentance with those prostrating; for the fourth, they gather with the people, abstaining from the offering; and in the fifth, obtaining the communion of the good; as those who have women corrupted by them either secretly or by force, as the twenty-second canon of the same saint sets forth. According to that canon, it seems, he who made the synopsis of this present canon added the lesser penalty of fornicators, that is, the four-year [term]. This canon also forbids virgins to associate with men under any pretext whatsoever.

CANON XX

« If any man's wife commits adultery, or if anyone commits adultery with her, he must attain what is perfect in seven years, through the grades that lead to it. »

BALS. In the seventy-seventh and the ninety-eighth canon of the synod in Trullo, we have sufficiently treated of the adulteress and the adulterer. But the present canon decrees that they are to be held worthy of holy communion after seven years, divided into the grades of penance. Read also the twenty-first and twenty-second canon of the holy Basil. ^D

ZONARAS. The synod decrees that the adulteress and the adulterer should reach what is perfect, that is, the holy communion, in the space of seven years. It orders these seven years to be divided according to the various grades of penance. ARISTENUS. Let the adulteress and the adulterer be separated for seven years. ^A

The eighty-seventh canon of the sixth synod in Trullo imposes a seven-year penalty on the adulterer, just as the present canon also sets forth; so that for one year he should weep, for two years he should listen [among the hearers], for three years he should fall down [among the prostrators], and in the seventh he should stand with the faithful, and thus be deemed worthy of the oblation, if he performs his repentance with tears. But the fifty-eighth canon of the great Basil imposes a penalty of fifteen years upon the adulterer: so that for four years he should weep, for five he should listen, for four he should fall down, and for two he should stand with the faithful, and after this be deemed worthy of communion. ^B

CANON XXI.

BALSAMON. By an older ecclesiastical definition, those who had conceived stealthily, and so that it might not be known, had destroyed their embryos in whatever way, were deemed worthy only at their very last gasp to participate in the divine sacraments. But the Fathers of this synod, having exercised humanity, decreed that after ten years, divided into the four grades of penances—that is, into that of the weeper, that of the hearer, that of the suppliant who falls down, and that of the one standing—they could communicate in the sacraments. And "abortive" (phthórion) is any medicine that destroys what is being conceived. Read the second canon of the holy [Basil]... ^C

(88) And who destroy that which is conceived. Tertullian once asserted that it is forbidden to kill a fetus in the womb, saying: "For us, since homicide is once for all forbidden, it is not lawful even to dissolve what is conceived in the womb while the blood is still being fashioned into man. It is a hastening of homicide to prevent birth: nor does it matter whether one takes away a soul that is already born, or one that is being born; both he who is and he who is to be is a man, and every fruit is already in the seed." Tertull. Apol. c. 9. Concerning this atrocious crime, Lactantius is to be understood, when he says: "But men, that no crime might be found by which they might not pollute their hands, deny light to those not yet born, with rude and simple minds, which they themselves did not give." Lactant. l. vi, c. 20. But this is wont to be perpetrated by means of certain potions swallowed by extremely wicked women. Regarding whom Juvenal says, Satyr. 6: "So great are the arts of this, so great the medicines, Which make women sterile, and kill men in the belly." And Minutius Felix, in his *Octavius*, saying: "For I see you exposing the children you have brought forth to wild beasts and birds, or strangling them and killing them by a miserable kind of death: there are those who, by medicines swallowed into the very entrails, extinguish the origin of the future man, and commit parricide before they bring forth." Concerning this crime, the civil law thus decides: "Those who give abortion-inducing or love potions, even if they do not act with malice, because it is a matter of evil example, are relegated—those of lower status to the mines, those of higher status to an island, having lost part of their goods. But if the woman or the man dies therefrom, they are visited with the supreme penalty," l. xxxviii, sect. De poenis. Potions of this kind are indeed called "abor_tives" by the present canon; but by the synod in Trullo, can. 91, they are called "child-slayers" (amblōthridia). Which word is used also by Athenagoras, saying, Athenag. leg. pro Christian. In the scholia to the *Basilics*, lib. LX, tit. 39, it is written. Where we also read: "Which are taken from the ninety-first canon of the synod in Trullo." Suidas, moreover, says of the word that it is... ^D

^A the canon of Saint Basil and the ninety-first of the synod in Trullo, and the interpretation of them.

ZONARAS. Women who are secretly defiled and conceive, in order that they may not be known, destroy their embryos intentionally, either by applying heavy weights to their bellies and compressing them, or by drinking certain drugs, and the conceived fetuses are destroyed. These women, then, this canon says, because the former ordinance sentenced to excommunication until death, so that only at the point of death would they be adjudged worthy of the divine communion. But we, say the Fathers of the Synod, having found a more merciful remedy, have decreed a ten-year period, so that, after the ten years have been portioned out into the decreed degrees—that is, the places of the penitents, namely that of the weeper, that of the hearer, that of the substrator, that of the bystander—they may be adjudged worthy of the divine communion. And the great Basil also, in his second canon, punishes with a ten-year penalty those women who have ^B intentionally destroyed their embryos. He says, however, that one must define the healing not by the length of time, but by the manner of repentance.

ARISTENUS. "Harlots taking abortifacients shall be subject to the ten-year penalty."

Those who receive harmful drugs in order to destroy their fetuses in the womb shall be punished for ten years: for two years standing outside the enclosure of the church and weeping, for three years standing at the royal gates and listening to the divine Scriptures; for another three-year period falling down ^C in the rear of the ambo inside the church enclosure, and departing with the catechumens; and for one year standing with the faithful and participating in the prayers; and thus, after these degrees, they are deemed worthy of perfection.

CANON XXII.

BALSAMON. The great Basil in his eighth and in his fifty-seventh canon discusses more extensively voluntary and involuntary homicides. Read these, therefore, and you will learn more accurately which are the involuntary ^D homicides, and what are the penalties for them. Read also what we have written when we were explaining the interpretation of the canon of the synod in Trullo.

ZONARAS. This canon punishes voluntary homicide with the penalty of excommunication, and forbids the one who has voluntarily committed murder to participate in the hallowed things unless it be at the end of his life; but the great Basil in the fifty-sixth canon sets a twenty-year period for the expiation of this crime, and describes it thus: that the perpetrator of the deed should weep for four years, listen for five, be a substrator for seven, and stand in the assembly of the faithful for four years; after which time has been fulfilled, he may be admitted to the communion of the sacraments.

^A ARIST. « The involuntary homicide shall be a substrator for five years. » Concerning the involuntary homicide, this canon determines five years as a penance; but the 57th canon of Basil commands such a person to weep [prostrate/mourn] for two years, to continue among the hearers for three years, to be a substrator for four years, and in one year to stand with the faithful; so that after a decade he may attain to perfection, and be deemed worthy of communion.

CANON XXIII

ARIST. « The voluntary homicide shall attain perfection at the end. » He who voluntarily kills is deemed worthy of perfection at the end of his life, and partakes of the divine holy things, according to the present canon. But the 56th canon of the great Basil bars the voluntary homicide from communion for twenty years: ordering him to weep for four years, to hear for five years, to be a substrator for seven years, and to stand with the faithful for four years, and after these things to partake of the holy things.

CANON XXIV

[note: Guillaume Beveridge’s notes omitted index: entries preserved]

or who introduce some into their own houses for the discovery of witchcraft, or for purification, let them fall under the canon of five years, according to the degrees defined: three years of prostration, and two years of prayer, without oblation.”

BALS. The canons do not only punish the sorcerers and the diviners, but also those who make use of them. Since, therefore, some sick persons, and those who imagined themselves to be afflicted by witchcraft, or those who had lost something belonging to them, would summon enchanters into their houses, who promised that they would discover the magical arts by which the sick had supposedly been laid low, and would purge the abomination caused by these things, or would indicate where the lost object was; and others, applying their minds to Gentile customs, would make inquiries concerning fortunate and unfortunate events from astrologers and others who handle demonic works: the Fathers decreed that these should undergo punishments for a five-year period; namely, that they should be prostrate for three years, and afterwards should be deemed worthy to partake of the divine sacraments. Read also the 61st canon of the synod in Trullo, and what is written upon it; and the 83rd canon of Saint Basil, which punishes these for six years. But remember that those who put faith in female enchanters, those who judge by lots, and those who divine with barley, are also to be subjected to the same punishments. ^B

ZONAR. This canon forbids a Christian man to use divinations, and to follow ethnic or Greek customs, and to admit sorcerers—by those perhaps too curious in such matters at that time—for the discovery of some evil drug, that is, witchcraft, or to summon them for the cleansing of sorceries; and it imposes the punishment of five years upon those who use them, so that they might be prostrate for three years, and for two years stand in the assembly of the faithful, and participate in prayer alone; and when the five years are completed, it bids them be admitted to the communion of the Good. But Great Basil, in his 83rd canon, decrees that such persons be punished with a six-year penalty. ^C

ARIST. “He who uses divinations, and who introduces someone into his house for the purpose of seeking witchcraft, or for purification, let him be subject to a five-year period.” He who has surrendered himself to diviners, or to sorcerers, or to makers of amulets, or to other persons of that kind, in order to have revealed what he desires, or to cure an evil by means of a wicked witchcraft, shall be prostrate for three years, and will stand with the faithful for two years, and will share in the prayers alone; and thus, after the five years, he will partake of the oblation. But the 61st canon of the sixth synod in Trullo decrees that such a one be kept from communion for six years. ^D

CANON XXV. “A certain man, to whom a girl was betrothed, defiled her sister, so that she even conceived. Afterwards he took his betrothed as wife: but she who was defiled...”

^A committed suicide. Those who were aware of this were ordered to be received among the *consistentes* after ten years, according to the prescribed degrees.”

BALS. The Fathers were moved to issue the present canon by a certain fact. For it was reported to them that a certain man, to whom a girl was betrothed, defiled her sister, so that she also conceived by him in the womb (for this is what the word “to impose” [ἐπιφορῆσαι] signifies), and after this he was united in the bond of marriage to his own betrothed. But the sister of the latter, out of the crime of incest, took her own life. They decreed, therefore, that those who were aware of these evils should be admitted to prayer ^B together with the faithful after ten years, which they were required to spend passing through the customary degrees. But let not the 68th canon of Saint Basil be contrary to you regarding these things, which decrees that he who has been united in lawful marriage to two sisters is to be held worthy of the reception of the divine sacraments after seven years. For here many nefarious things were committed: fornication, illicit marriage, and murder; whereas there, only an illicit marriage. And for this reason, the penance designated here is heavier. Someone will ask: Why are those who are aware equally punished with the perpetrators? Solution. In illicit and nefarious marriages, those who are aware ought to be punished even more than those who act. For the former are often led to that which is illicit and nefarious by the impotence of lust, often even against their will; but to the latter, who without any necessity lent aid to the evil, no pardon should be given; and let them consider that it is well with them that they are ^C not punished more than those who committed the act. Now, those who are “aware” are those who gave assistance, not those who merely have knowledge and are unable to prevent it.

ZONAR. A man had entered into a betrothal with a certain girl; but before the marriage rites were performed for them, the betrothed man defiled the sister of the betrothed, with the result that she became pregnant by him. (For this is what the word “to impose” signifies.) Then the man married his betrothed; but she who had been defiled committed suicide. Against those who were aware of this unnatural act, therefore, a period of ten years was decreed, so that after it had passed they might be received among the *consistentes*. But the 78th canon of the Great Basil, regarding one who has taken two sisters to cohabitation at one time or another, orders him to spend one year in the state of *prosklaiontes* [weeping], two years in the state of *akroasthai* [listening], three years in *hypopiptesthai* [prostration before the door], and in the seventh year to be established among the faithful, and thus to be considered worthy of the oblation, if he repents with tears. One might ask, therefore: Why did the Fathers of the synod punish those who were aware more severely in this case? I think, therefore, that where the same man takes two sisters into marriage, ^D only illicit marriage is committed; but in the present case, many things were dared: the deflowering of a virgin, an illicit marriage (as he was mixed with the same man as two sisters), and a murder that resulted from this cause; and for this reason the penance was decreed to be more severe.

ARIST. “A certain person, having betrothed a girl, defiled her sister, and then took his betrothed [index: entries preserved]

... and they who became accomplices be subject to a ten-year penance. For those who were privy to what happened and were able to prevent the strangulation but did not prevent it are judged as authors of murder and are punished for ten years; and thus they are admitted to the gathering and pray with the faithful. ^A

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF NEOCAESAREA

BALS. AND ZONAR. The synod in Neocaesarea, ^B which is a city of Pontus, assembled, is indeed second in order after the Ancyran, but earlier than the rest, and even than the first ecumenical one at Nicaea. Therefore, the holy Fathers who assembled in this place, with whom also the holy martyr Basil, bishop of Amasea, was present, promulgated canons for the establishment of ecclesiastical order, which are as follows. ^C

CANON I. Presbyter, if he marries, let him be moved from his order: but if he commits fornication or adultery, let him be utterly cast out and brought to repentance. ^D

^A BALS. The Apostolic canon 26 orders those of the clergy who join themselves to wives according to the law of marriage after their ordination to be deposed. And the present canon ordains the same. It adds further that, if any one of them commits fornication or adultery, he shall not only be deposed, but also cast out from the communion of the faithful, and shall be compelled to pass through the four places of penance, and thus partake of the divine sacraments. But the things regarding these matters were abolished by canon 27 of the synod in Carthage, and by canon 32 of great Basil, who says: "Clerics who commit a sin that is unto death are removed from their rank; but they are not deprived of the communion of the laity. For you shall not punish twice for the same thing."

ZONAR. If a presbyter should happen to contract a lawful marriage for himself, he is moved from his order, that is, he is cast out of the priesthood; for he is deposed. But if he commits fornication or adultery, this canon orders him to be utterly cast out from the Church, and led into the place of penitents, so that he may weep, and listen, and satisfy the rest of the requirements. But great Basil in his 32nd canon says these things expressly: "Clerics who commit a sin that is unto death ^B are removed from their rank: but they are not deprived of the communion of the laity. For you shall not punish twice for the same thing." And the synod in Carthage ordains the same things as Great Basil in its 27th canon. One must therefore seek out what is said there. I think, however, that the canons of Great Basil and the synod of Carthage are to be preferred, since they are later, and agree with the Apostolic canon, which decrees that those who are caught in fornication, being sacred, are to be deposed, but not also separated.

ARIST. text of canon 1 snippet omitted here in translation context as it is a summary of the Greek text provided in the Latin col. ARIST section A presbyter who takes a wife is moved from his priesthood, but retains the honor and seat. But he who has committed fornication or adultery is perfectly cast out, and is led to repentance.

CANON II

^D BALS. The holy Fathers of the present synod cast out from the Church until death, that is, as long as life remains to her, the woman who has taken two brothers by lawful marriage, and has not desisted from the unlawful wedlock. As if someone had said: But if she arrives at death, not even then will she be deemed worthy of the divine sacraments?

^A They added that, if such a woman, while dying, makes a pledge that she will be separated from it after her recovery, then she will be permitted to partake; but after she is freed from the illness, and has desisted from the unlawful marriage, she will be admitted to repentance. And this will happen when there is a divorce during their lifetime. But if one of the persons dies in the unlawful marriage, repentance is difficult for the one who is left behind. For he who repents, desisting from sin, is believed to be led by repentance, but he who does not desist from it until death shows that if the part that died were still remaining, he would not have desisted from the sin. Since, therefore, the one who lives appears to be persevering in that evil as much as it lies with him, he will have difficulty reaching repentance. ^B Given these things as they are, do not say that the present canon is opposed by the canon of the great Basil, which says that he who has taken two sisters into matrimony is to be deemed worthy of the divine sacraments after seven years. For the present canon legislates concerning a woman who has contracted an unlawful marriage and has not been separated from it throughout her whole life, and for this reason is inadmissible to repentance; but the aforementioned [canon] posits that he who has contracted an unlawful marriage has desisted from the sin, and for this reason [the saint] admits him to repentance. Read also the 59th canon of St. Basil, which calls her an adulteress who is still cohabiting with an adulterer; note, therefore, that to one who sins and desists from the evil, penances are given, but not to one who perseveres; for this one is to be entirely cast out. ^C But someone will ask: If the said woman does not wish to declare that, after her recovery, she will be separated from such an unlawful marriage, will she not be a partaker of the holy communion if she is dying? Solution. The present canon says nothing regarding this. I, however, consider it to be too far removed from mercy, if she, being orthodox, is not deemed worthy of the good provision [viaticum] even in the final breath. Wherefore, even if she does not make such a declaration, she will nevertheless be a partaker of the holy communion; and if, after recovery, she dissolves the unlawful marriage, she will be admitted to repentance; but if not, she will be entirely expelled from the Church, as one who perseveres in evil.

ZONARAS. If any woman has contracted a marriage with two ^D brothers, and cannot be induced to dissolve them, she shall be, he says, thrown out of the Church as long as she lives. But if, while dying, she promises that if she recovers she will dissolve the marriage, she shall then attain to the holy communion; and when restored to health, she will have penance, that is, she will be admitted to repentance. But if one of these persons dies in the unlawful marriage, repentance is difficult for the survivor. For he who performs repentance, if he desists from the sin, is considered to be led by repentance. But if he still performs the evil, how will he be considered to be repentant, or how will he be accepted into repentance? And he who, until the woman's death, has not separated himself from the illegitimate nuptials shows that, if she were still present, he would not have desisted from the sin, so that, inasmuch as he remains in that evil, he will have difficulty toward repentance; and just as the

great Basil says in his 39th canon: "The adulteress who lives with an adulterer is an adulteress for all time; thus also he who enters into an unlawful marriage, until he dissolves the unlawful marriage, sins and shall be unacceptable for repentance." ^A ARIST. "Let the woman who has married two brothers be cast out for her whole life; but if at the approach of death she should promise to dissolve the marriage, if she survives, she will have repentance; but if she should die, repentance is difficult for the survivor." She who has married two brothers, and continues in that unlawful marriage, let her be cast out of the Church for her whole life. Seek also the 25th canon of the great Basil. But if upon coming to the point of death she promises to dissolve the marriage, if she survives, her repentance is received. But as to how, seek the 62nd and 63rd canons of the great Basil. And as if someone had asked: "If she reaches the point of death, will she not even then be deemed worthy of the divine sacraments," I replied: "But if in this unlawful marriage one of them should die, repentance is difficult for the survivor, because the transgression is not broken off by his own will and intent."

CANON III.

^C BALS. The canon says that those who have multiple wives are to be punished for a time defined or known beforehand by custom; but it is within the discretion of the bishop to shorten such a time for the sake of the good penitence of the sinner. But because it is not shown by this who those are that are polygamists, nor what the defined time is, and because this has been interpreted in various ways here and there, we have not been able to write anything here. Nevertheless, in the fourth canon of the great Basil, God-willing, we shall say what is suitable regarding trigamists and polygamists, and concerning the time of the penalties given to each of them.

^D ZONAR. In the fourth canon the great Basil says that trigamists are to be excommunicated for five years, and he asserts that this time was not established by a canon, but by custom and the tradition of those who preceded, and he extends trigamy to polygamy. But what defined time this present canon intends is unknown, if it does not accord with the interpretation of the great Basil, who, explaining this canon, says thus concerning trigamists and polygamists, and shows that the Fathers called trigamists polygamists, and not others.

^A This synod was by far much older than the great Basil; and if any fixed time of penance for trigamists had been ordained in it, it could by no means have escaped the notice of the all-wise Basil, unless perhaps this synod also calls "consuetudinary" that which is a fixed time. The time, therefore, says the canon, is fixed; but the manner of life and the faith towards God of those who are under penance for trigamy shorten the time. For if he who is set over their penance observes them showing zeal and fervor regarding their repentance, and not despairing, but believing that because of the great goodness of God their sin will be forgiven them, he will shorten the time and reduce it. ^B ARIST. "The time for polygamists is clear; but the zeal of repentance shortens it." The time of the penance of trigamists and polygamists is set forth in the fourth canon of the great Basil and in his eightieth canon. For he says that he who has taken three wives is to be separated for five years, but not to be entirely excluded from the Church; rather, for two or three years he should be deemed worthy to hear the divine Scriptures; and after this, until the five-year period is completed, he should stand with the faithful, but abstain from the communion of the Good; and thus, sincerely repenting, be admitted to communion. But polygamists, or those who have entered into more marriages, as sinning also something more than fornication, shall weep for one year, prostrate for three, and thus be received with the faithful. But it lies in the power of the bishop, as the present canon says, to shorten the time of penance, having regard to the behavior and faith of the one repenting. ^C

CANON IV

^B Item, the same for a presbyter. If anyone, however, shall be detected having sinned further, in whatever grade he may be, he shall be deposed. "But to be polluted in the lips" some interpret otherwise; and the matter will be discussed in the canon of St. Basil.

ZONAR. ^C The holy Fathers say that there are four degrees in sins: impression, wrestling, assent, and act. The first two are not subject to a penalty, but the two that follow fall under a penalty; for neither the impression nor the wrestling is judged, if the reason, receiving the impression and having wrestled with it, has repudiated the thought; but the assent is judged and accused, and the act is punished. If, therefore, a desire for a woman has been injected into someone, and he, being overcome, has assented to have relations with her, but did not come to the deed—that is, he did not fulfill the act—it is evident that the grace of God saved him. Nevertheless, he shall not be without penalty. For even consent falls under a penalty. And this is clear from the seventieth canon of St. Basil, which says: ^D "A deacon polluted in the lips, or who has reached the point of a kiss with a woman, and has confessed that he has sinned thus far, shall be interdicted from the ministry," that is, he shall be prohibited for a time; but he shall be deemed worthy of participating in the holy mysteries together with the deacons. Item, the same for a presbyter. If anyone, however, shall be detected having sinned further, in whatever grade he may be, he shall be deposed. From this it is clear that what is meant by "interdicted," as has been said, is simply that he shall be removed from the ministry for a time. Although this is not understood in this way by some, who interpret "to be polluted in the lips" differently—less correctly, however, I think.

ARIST. "He who has desired, but has not performed the deed, has been saved by God." ^A Whoever has desired to sleep with a woman up to the level of a mere proposal, but due to something occurring did not do it, nor did his thought come to the deed, it is apparent that he was saved by grace from above. For if he both desired and made an effort, and used certain means for the completion of his desire, but his attempt did not have an effect due to some external obstacles that occurred, he is subject to penalties, as the seventieth canon of St. Basil ordains concerning the deacon who is polluted in the lips. ^B

CANON V. "A catechumen, if in entering into the Lord's house he stands in the order of the catechumens, he..." ^C Guill. Beveregii note. To the present canon in the Amerbachian codex this scholium is appended. He calls those catechumens who are about to receive baptism. Of these there are two species. For some have just now approached; wherefore, as more imperfect, they depart immediately after the hearing of the Scriptures and the divine Gospels; others have already approached earlier, and have become more perfect than those who have just now approached; wherefore they even remain until the prayer made for the catechumens, in the performance of which they bend the knee. A similar scholium to this exists in the epitome of Harmenopulus on this canon, in these words: ^D

^A “If one sins; if indeed he is one who bends the knee, let him give ear, no longer sinning; but if, even while listening, he still sins, let him be cast out.” ^B BALS. There are two ranks of catechumens. For some have only just arrived, and, as they are less perfect, they leave immediately after the hearing of the Scriptures and the divine Gospels; others have already approached [long ago], and have become more perfect; and for this reason, awaiting the prayer which is made over the catechumens, they bend the knee during it. And when the command, “Catechumens, depart,” is voiced, then these too go out. The canon therefore says that if a catechumen sins, if he is one of the more perfect, [but] if he refrains from sinning, let him come to the place of the less perfect—that is, let him stand in the temple until the Gospel. But if he is of the less perfect, who are judged worthy only of hearing, and he does not refrain from sin, let him be cast out—that is, let him stand outside the church with the mourners. But what if the less perfect one refrains from sin? Will he not be punished as the more perfect one, but [instead] stand in his former place? Solution. There are two places for catechumens, as has been said: the one, which is until the reading of the divine Gospels; and the other, which is until the departure of the catechumens. Those, therefore, who are more perfect, if they sin but also refrain [from sin], shall stand in the place of the mourners. But if the less perfect sin and do not refrain, they shall be demoted a little to the place of the less perfect—no, if they do not refrain, they shall be led away to the place of the mourners; but if they do refrain, they have no place ^C where they shall be assigned. For if we say that they must stand with the mourners, we will overwhelm them with the weight of despair, and there will be no difference between those who refrain [from sin] and those who do not. For this reason, as those who have desisted from evil, they shall stand again with the hearers.

ZONAR. There were formerly ^D two ranks of catechumens. For some, being believers but delaying baptism, stood with the catechumens, and when the prayer over the catechumens was recited, they bent the knee; but when the command, “Catechumens, depart,” was voiced, then they went out. Others, who were newcomers and less perfect, listened to the holy Scriptures, and after the reading of the Gospel were dismissed. Whenever, therefore, anyone among the catechumens sins, if he is one of the more perfect—those, clearly, who are remaining and bending the knee—let him stand outside the church. For indeed, the hearers also stood outside the church until the reading of the holy Gospel.

[alt-version omitted]

^A

ARIST. « A catechumen who sins, if, while kneeling, he should sin further, let him be among the hearers; but if he sins while among the hearers, let him be expelled completely. »

There are two species of catechumens: for some arrive only recently, and therefore, as being more imperfect, they are sent out immediately after the hearing of the Scriptures and the holy Gospels. ^B Others, however, have arrived some time before, and have become more perfect; wherefore they wait for the prayer for the catechumens after the Gospel, and when that is said, "Catechumens, bow your heads to the Lord," they bend the knee. The more perfect ones, therefore, as those who have tasted the good words of God, if they have slipped, are moved from their station and are placed with the hearers; but if, even while they are among the hearers, they sin, they are completely expelled from the Church.

CANON VI

BALS. Some said that pregnant women coming to the Church from among the infidels ought not to be baptized, but should wait for the fetus’s coming into the light of birth; lest, while she is being baptized, it should seem that the fetus, which she carries in the womb, is also being baptized, as being entirely united to her; and hence, after it is born, it might either be left unbaptized, or if it is baptized, it might be judged to be re-baptized. The Fathers, however, not accepting this objection, decreed that pregnant women should be baptized without any prejudice whenever they wish, because there is no community between the woman who bears and the one being born, as far as the account of baptism is concerned. ^D Furthermore, they say, each person’s own confession is necessary in baptism; but the fetus, being destitute of such a state of mind, is unable to make the professions and vows required in baptism. The clause "whenever they wish" was added to the canon because of those who say that before the fetus is formed into a human being, a pregnant woman can be baptized without risk, but that she is not correctly baptized afterward; because that which is held in the womb is in a constitution like that of infants who have just been born, who cannot make promises; and therefore the Fathers said that it is in the pregnant woman’s power to be baptized when she wishes. For no one can investigate how fetuses are constituted or take responsibility for them; but infants are attested to by their godparents, and when actually baptized, they are judged worthy of divine illumination.

^A

ZONARAS. The canon says that women who are with child should be baptized whenever they wish. But because some asserted that the fetus is baptized together with the mother, and therefore that the infant need not be baptized after birth, to avoid the appearance of being baptized twice, the canon added the words: "For the woman who is giving birth has nothing in common in this matter with the one being born," which is to say, she alone is deemed worthy of the holy baptism, and not the infant through her mediation. For, it says, when confessing and being joined to Christ, everyone's own free choice is required, and by that choice it is shown whether they approach the holy baptism with eagerness. But since the fetus is deprived of the power of choice, it does not appear to be baptized, so that it will require baptism again when it is able to choose.

ARISTENUS. "A pregnant woman, whenever she wishes, is baptized; for the free choice of each person is judged."

The pregnant woman will not be hindered from being baptized on account of the one being born; for the fetus is not reckoned to be baptized together with the mother, so that if it is baptized after being born, it would be thought to be baptized a second time. For that child, not yet having come into the light, neither exists by itself nor has any free choice. ^B

CANON VII. "A presbyter must not feast at the nuptials of one entering into a second marriage. For since the one who has married twice requires penance, who is the presbyter who, by being accepted at the feast, gives his assent to the nuptials?"

BALSAMON. A layman afflicted with a second marriage is not permitted from then on to be a participant in the divine sacraments, but only after a year. The canon therefore says that, since this penalty is imposed by the priest upon the one who has married twice, he ought not to feast with him at the nuptials. For he seems, as it were, to consent by his presence, and it is not considered lawful for the presbyter who has performed the priestly consecration to dine with them, according to the seventh canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea. ^C

[Note by Guil. Beveridge] The canon establishes that no presbyter should feast at the nuptials of one who enters into a second marriage. Hence, when a certain bishop Constantine proposed this question to Nicetas, Metropolitan of Heraclea: "Is it permitted for those who enter into a second marriage to receive the prayer of the digamist from the local bishop?" he, being most expert in canon law, provided this answer. ^D Indeed, accurate discipline does not recognize the crowning of those who have married twice. But the custom of the Great Church does not observe such things; it imposes nuptial crowns even upon those married twice, and no one has ever been accused on account of this. Therefore, no one who has crowned such persons will fear being charged. They ought, however, to be kept from the communion of the holy mysteries for a year or two, nor is it proper for the one who performed the priestly consecration to feast with them.

(97) "A presbyter must not feast at the nuptials of one entering into a second marriage." The reason is the same as the canon, so that no presbyter might feast at the nuptials of one who enters into a second marriage. From this canon also seem to be derived the things which Ælfric reported in his canons to Wulfin the bishop, where he establishes: "Let it not be lawful for any priest to attend the nuptials where a second husband is joined to a wife, or a woman to a second husband; nor even to bless them, that he may thus admonish them." And a little later: "But the canons already prohibit the blessing and even impose penance on those marrying in this way." Ælfric, can. 9. From these words it is easy to gather what kind of digamists are to be understood here; namely, those who have two wives at the same time. For upon laymen who, after the death of one, take another wife, a penalty was never imposed by any canon, nor has public penance ever been exacted from them. But we shall treat this matter more fully elsewhere.

(98) "For since the one who has married twice requires penance." From these words it is easy to gather what kind of digamist is meant here; those, namely, who have two wives at the same time. For upon laymen who, after the death of one, take another wife, a penalty has never been imposed by any canon, nor has public penance ever been exacted from them by the public. But we shall speak more fully of this elsewhere.

^A and he will not be able to punish the one who has remarried. And they have rightly decreed that the priest should not dine with him during the time of the wedding. For after the wedding he will not be forbidden to recline with him, as he is not entirely excommunicated. And when someone once said that he who has remarried must, after the break of the bigamy, be received into penance and be punished (for while the marriage is still standing, these have no place, according to the general canon), he was told that the marriage is not illicit, so as to be dissolved. And for this reason it is indeed upheld, but it is punished moderately, as has been said.

Another interpretation.

ZONAR. The canon assigns its own penalty for bigamy. For they are forbidden from the holy communion for one year. And this penalty is enjoined by the priests upon bigamists who come seeking a remedy through penance. What priest, therefore—the canon says—will be present at second marriages, so that he might even seem by his very presence to approve of them? That is, how can he not be ashamed to exact a penalty from one who has remarried, he who clearly shows that the act of bigamy is not disapproved of by him, since he himself was present at the second nuptials? ^D But these things are found written in books. We, however, have also seen a patriarch and various metropolitans dining at the wedding of an emperor who was marrying for the second time.

Guill. Beveregii note. (99) We accept this interpretation of the canon from the Bodleian codex. For it does not exist in Greek; but its Latin version is found in the supplement to the Parisian edition of Balsamon, extracted from the Tiliani codex. It is missing in the Amerbachian codex.

ARIST. ^A A presbyter ought not to be present at the marriages of digamists. For if he, being in need of forgiveness, asks it, who will consider him worthy of forgiveness? A priest who has blessed a digamist ought to withdraw from the table and not feast with him. For if the digamist is subject to a penalty, what forgiveness will be granted to the presbyter who, by feasting, has shown his approval of such marriages?

CANON VIII

BALS. You have learned from various laws that it is permitted for a husband to receive back his adulterous wife without danger and to grant forgiveness for the sin. Look also to the book of the Basilika, book 28, tit. 7, cap. 1, which says that a husband may, within two years, without any danger, receive from a monastery his own wife who was condemned and locked away as an adulteress. For from that time she is tonsured. The canon says, therefore, that even though the husband can do this, namely, grant forgiveness for the sin of the adulterous wife, yet since the 18th Apostolic Canon does not permit one who has married a harlot, or a woman who has been put away, or an actress, to be numbered among the clergy, neither will this man be promoted to a sacred order. And this is the case if the ^C wife of a layman has been adulterized; but if it is the wife of one who is ordained, he himself, as having done nothing wrong, if he separates from her thenceforth, will remain in his own rank. But if he is unwilling to do so, but cohabits with the adulteress, he shall be deposed as one who is a participant of the defilement, because he has had relations with an adulteress. Someone might ask, Why, when the Fathers spoke about a woman’s adultery, were they not satisfied unless they also added that the adultery had been openly proved? Solution. Various laws command that a woman not be condemned as an adulteress otherwise than by open proofs, that is, by five witnesses swearing that they saw the adultery being performed in the very act. For this reason, not just anyone can bring a charge of adultery, but only five persons: the husband, the father, the brother, the father’s brother, and the mother’s brother. Even the woman herself is not condemned by confessing that she committed adultery, which is also a novelty. The Fathers added, therefore, that she be condemned as an adulteress who is [condemned] by open proofs—

as has been said; but not one who is suspected due to conversation, or familiarity, or any other cause. But what if a layman, after his wife has committed adultery, divorces her—will he be promoted to a rank, just as the ordained man is not deposed if he divorces his wife who has committed adultery? Answer. By the eighteenth Apostolic Canon, he who has taken a harlot as his wife is prohibited from being promoted to a rank; much more, therefore, shall he not be promoted who has had intercourse with an adulteress, even if in ignorance. For this reason, the Fathers made no distinction in the case of a layman regarding whether to divorce the adulteress or not, but they defined indiscriminately that her husband cannot enter into the ministry. But in the case of a priest, they introduced a distinction. Moreover, there is a difference between one who is not yet ordained and one who is ordained, and who for some fault is about to be deposed. For he who has not yet attained a greater rank will not be so vexed, but will rather be grateful that he has not transgressed the canon; but he who, on account of another's fault, has the dignity he already possesses taken away, will be greatly distressed. For it is painful to have that which one has already experienced taken away. ^B ZONAR. If the wife of a layman is convicted of adultery, the canon orders that her husband be kept from the ministry, that is, from the reception of sacred orders; provided, however, that the woman is convicted by manifest evidence, and not merely marked by suspicion or accused by those who do not have the authority to report her. For it is not permitted to just anyone who wishes to accuse [her] of adultery, but it is permitted to certain specific people. But if the wife of an ordained man commits adultery, he must divorce her, that is, he must separate from her. If he wishes to live with her, he is barred from the ministry entrusted to him, that is, from the rank in which he was placed. For she who has committed adultery is defiled; and he who has intercourse with her becomes one body, and therefore also shares in that defilement. And how shall the defiled one be received into any divine ministry? ^C ARIST. A layman whose wife has committed adultery does not become a cleric; and a cleric who keeps her after she has committed adultery is expelled. If he who is enrolled in the clergy is removed from his dignity for not divorcing his adulterous wife, how shall a layman whose wife has committed adultery be admitted into the clergy?

CANON IX

^D • If a presbyter, having sinned in his body before being ordained, shall confess that he sinned before his ordination, he shall not offer: remaining in his other duties because of his other zeal for a good life. For many say that remaining sins are taken away by the laying on of hands. But if he himself does not confess, and cannot be openly convicted, he shall be granted the authority to act on his own behalf. BALS. A priest who has committed fornication before his ordination,

and has voluntarily confessed his sin after the ordination, the Fathers say that such a one, as having confessed of his own free will, should desist from the celebration of the liturgy, but should possess the other privileges of priests, namely, the seat with the priests, the participation in the holy offerings at the altar, and others, and especially if he is zealous for virtue. But whereas someone said that other sins follow the passion of fornication—namely, consent, touching with the hands, kisses, and things of that sort—and that the one who has confessed is hindered by these, so as not to have the honor of a priest, the Fathers added that, since one is not prevented from being advanced to the priesthood by such sins (because these are dissolved by the ordination), he will not be hindered by them from having the other privileges. And these things hold when the priest has confessed his sin. But if he has neither confessed nor been openly convicted, he shall not be shaken in any way; but the authority to perform the liturgy or to desist will reside with him, according to what his own conscience dictates; whereas if he is convicted, he will be deposed from that point on, and will not be considered worthy of honor or any other privilege. ^C But the Fathers added the requirement of open conviction, because no one is to be deposed except through clear proofs—that is, through the testimony of five witnesses under oath. And the law says: "It is better that sins be left unpunished than that some be punished without cause." Read also the 27th canon of the holy Basil and the 89th Novel of the emperor lord Leo the Philosopher, and the interpretation of the response from the questions raised in the Constantinopolitan synod, which says that those who have been deposed are to be considered in the place of laymen; and say in a few words that there is a difference between him who sinned before ordination and confessed, and him who was condemned for a crime after ordination; and likewise between him who became a digamist after ordination and him from whom the priesthood has been taken away. For he who confessed a sin committed before ordination shall be deprived only of offering, but shall be deemed worthy of the priestly seat and of other such things, according to the 89th canon of the holy Basil. But he who has married a second time, and has thus removed himself from the priesthood, shall be deemed worthy of ministrations outside the sanctuary. ^D But he who has been condemned shall not perform even these, but shall be cast into the place of laymen. Read also the 81st canon of the Council in Trullo and what is in them. But the 89th Novel of the emperor lord Leo the Wise says word for word as follows: "It must be established that things once consecrated to God are inalienable, and this not only in the case of sacred vessels, but much more in the case of men, to whom dedication to God has come through the clergy, even if, as there are many human failings, the tyranny of sin should have pushed them out of the order in which they were chosen to conduct themselves honestly and nobly." We do not, therefore, accept the view of the ancient legislator, who wants a presbyter or deacon or subdeacon, who after the laying on of hands upon him has been joined with a woman,

to fall away entirely from his status and return to the lay life, and we ^A annul this judgment. We decree, however, only that the loss of the rank in which he was known before his marriage is sufficient penalty; but he should not be condemned to be entirely estranged from the clerical habit and from the other service in the churches, which it is not forbidden to touch.

ZONAR. If anyone before being ordained to the priesthood has sinned in body—that is, has proceeded as far as carnal union—and is then promoted, that is, ordained presbyter, and after ordination acknowledges the sin, he is not permitted to offer, that is, to perform the sacred rites; yet he shall remain in the other things, that is, he shall be kept in the honor of the priesthood, in the seat, ^B and shall partake of the holy gifts at the altar, and shall have other privileges as a zealous man on account of his other earnest endeavor. For the lesser sins, those accompanying the union, that is to say, such as consent, touching a woman with the hand, or proceeding as far as a kiss, the laying on of hands absolves, he says. And he did not even state this as something agreed upon, but qualifiedly, by saying "they said," instead of "as is said by some." If, therefore, he himself confesses the crime, the things mentioned will take place; but if he neither confesses nor is clearly convicted, then the authority to perform the sacred rites or to cease from them must be left to his own discretion, so that if his conscience is weighed down by the deed, he may of his own accord desist from the function of the sacred ministries; for it is better, the law somewhere says, that sins remain unpunished than that any should be punished without cause.

ARIST. ^C «If a presbyter has confessed that he has sinned, let him abstain from the oblation, and from that alone. For some sins remit the orders. But if he neither confesses nor is convicted, let him have power over himself.» All other sins, indeed, the laying on of hands absolves, but it is overcome by the bodily sin alone. If, therefore, anyone, having previously committed fornication, is received into the priesthood, and after ordination confesses his sins, he shall indeed share in the seat and honor of the presbyters, but he shall perform no priestly function. But if he neither confesses himself nor is openly convicted by another, it shall be left to his own authority whether he will cease from the priesthood or not.

CANON X

BALS. In the 9th canon, the matters concerning presbyters who have sinned were discussed; in the present one, those concerning deacons. For these also, if they confess, shall fall from the diaconal dignity and be demoted to the rank of a minister, that is, an unordained subdeacon or reader.

ZONAR. For he shall fall from the diaconate, and shall be demoted to the place of a minister. For ministers do not offer.

^A ARIST. And let the deacon, being entangled in the same sin, remain a minister. And a deacon, having fallen into the same sin, shall be prohibited from offering the bread or the cup, or from teaching the people, or from performing any priestly ministry at all. He shall be only a minister of the church.

CANON XI

CANON XII

^B he will not be seen to have been tonsured. Wherefore, if anything was left to him under such a condition—if he should be tonsured—and while he was yet in life he was not tonsured, but in his final breath he chose the monastic life and so died, his heir will not receive what was left to him, as if the condition were fulfilled; but it will be condemned, inasmuch as the deceased was not seen to have been tonsured, and therefore the condition has had no force. Read also the 5th chapter of the IV book of the 1st title, which has been summarized in the middle of the first chapter of the 11th title of the present work; and what is near the end of the first chapter of the second title of the present work, and according to the present interpretation, expound that chapter, and say that if someone, having received an encumbered property under the condition of having children, has been tonsured in health by a good grace, he shall rightly leave it for pious causes, and the restitution shall cease; but if at the time of his last breath he does not transmit it to pious causes, because the condition has failed, the requirements of restitution shall have place.

ZONARAS. Whoever, while in health, put off [the time of] being baptized, but having fallen ill and fearing for his life, was baptized, this man shall not be promoted to the priesthood. For he appears to have deferred his illumination on account of being a lover of pleasure and a lover of flesh, and a desire to live laxly, and to avoid being brought under the yoke of the Gospel; consequently, his faith is seen to have been acquired by a certain necessity, and not by the free will of the soul. But if, after baptism, he appears zealous in the keeping of the divine commandments, and steadfast in the faith, and there is a scarcity of men suitable for the priesthood, then he shall be made one.

ARISTENUS. ^C « He who is baptized on account of sickness shall not become a presbyter, unless on account of the struggle which he has endured afterward, or the scarcity of men. » He who sought baptism [when there was] no urgent necessity, because it is sufficient to wash away every psychic stain, shall be promoted to be both presbyter and bishop, as the eightieth canon of the holy apostles, the second of the synod at Nicaea, the third of that at Laodicea, and the tenth of that at Carthage declare. But he who was baptized on account of sickness, coming to illumination not by design but by necessity, shall not otherwise be admitted to the priesthood, unless both these things concur: the scarcity of worthy persons, and his own having struggled greatly after ^D baptism.

CANON XIII.

[GREEK COLUMN] ο πόλεως προσφέρειν οὐ δύνανται, παρόντος • ἐπισκόπου ή πρεσβυτέρων πόλεως, ούτε • μὴν ἄρτον διδόναι ἐν εὐχῇ, οὐδὲ ποτήριον. • Ἐὰν δὲ ἀπῶσι, καὶ εἰς εὐχήν κληθῇ μόνος, • δίδωσιν.

[LATIN COLUMN] THEOD. BALSAMON • fere non possunt, præsente episcopo, vel ^A urbis presbyteris: neque panem dare in • oratione, neque calicem. Sin autem absint, ‹ et solus ad precationem vocatus fuerit, ‹ dat. ›

BALS. The establishment of ecclesiastical peace was always of concern to the Fathers. Wherefore they say that, since other presbyters are ordained for churches outside the cities, and others in the dominicum of the city, that is to say, in the cathedral, regional presbyters ought not to behave arrogantly toward the priests of the city and the bishop, and celebrate the liturgy in the cathedral, especially when the bishop or the presbyters assigned to the cathedral are present. For this leads to disorder, and to contempt and insult toward the bishop and the presbyters, as though they were being condemned. If, however, the presbyters and the bishop are away, and a regional priest is called by the people, he shall celebrate the liturgy without hindrance. And these are the contents of the canon. ^B They were written in this way on account of those who say: "Since it has been ordained that each one should be ordained to a specific church, and not absolutely; but regional priests were ordained for churches outside the city; they ought not to celebrate the liturgy in a city church without the permission of the bishop, even if they are invited; just as neither do primates from another diocese." The Fathers, therefore, resolving such an ambiguity, say that when the bishops or the presbyters are present, a regional priest cannot celebrate the liturgy in a city; but when they are absent, he can, even without episcopal permission. But understand this as applying only to priests, because these also are from that diocese and are under the regional bishop. For a bishop of another diocese does not celebrate liturgy in a city not subject to him, unless the regional bishop permits it, even if he is called by the people of that place. I believe, moreover, that neither may a priest celebrate liturgy outside his diocese against the will of the regional bishop.

ZONAR. The sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon commands that no one be ordained absolutely. ^C How, therefore, can those who are assigned to the church of some village or town have the ability to offer in a city church, especially when the bishop of that city or the priests who were consecrated in it are present? These, then, are not able to offer, that is ^D regional presbyters.

*Guill. Beveridge’s notes:* ...insofar as they are distinguished from those who are established in cities; and such are indeed called presbyters and bishops. And it is forbidden for those to offer in the city’s Dominicum when the bishop or the city presbyters are present; but it is permitted to these. So that if no other argument were available, from this at least it is clearly enough demonstrated that chorepiscopi were not [the same], as they are most clearly distinguished from them here. Nor, in truth, can any reason be given why those should be called chorepiscopi, unless the former were truly bishops and the latter truly presbyters established in the countryside. These words are missing in the Auerbach manuscript. But all other Greek codices, together with Joannes Antiochenus, read [thus]. So that only our Bodleian codex reads [differently]. But that the ancient Latin interpreters also read it so is evident from their versions. For the ancient interpreter translates, *præsente episcopo vel presbyteris civitatis*. Dionysius Exiguus, *episcopo præsente, vel presbyteris urbis ipsius*. Thus also Hervetus from the Tilian codex, *præsente episcopo vel urbis presbyteris*. But Isidorus Mercator, *præsentibus episcopis vel presbyteris civitatis*, as if he had read [plural]. And that these words are necessary is evident from what follows, where it is said, *ἐὰν δὲ ἀπῶσι*.

ἀπῶσι*. ^ATo offer, that is to say, as those who perform sacred rites, or to offer anything else, nor to deliver the bread or the cup during the prayer—that is to say, it is not permitted for them to distribute the holy gifts to the people during the prayer, or at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist. For those who are not able to offer will not perform the other things that are appropriate for those who do offer. But if the bishop of the city and the priests therein are absent, and a priest of a village or town is summoned for the prayer, then he may also distribute the holy things.

CANON XIV

BALS. The bishops of each region have been appointed in the place of the disciples of the Lord—that is to say, of the twelve Apostles—who also received the grace of the Holy Spirit so that they might bind and loose. But since, at the time of the saving preaching, the twelve Apostles were not sufficient for the teaching of the Gospel and the other ministries to those who were coming to God, seventy men were also assumed, who were indeed called ministers and disciples of the Lord, but did not have the authority to remit sins, as they had not even received the grace of the Spirit. It seemed good to the Fathers that chorepiscopi should be ^Cpromoted by bishops in the image of those seventy disciples, so that through them the distribution and expenditure of the Lord’s money might be made to the poor, along with what are called the goods of the poor. Wherefore they cannot ordain presbyters or deacons, nor indeed remit sins, just as the seventy disciples could not. But since it was right that they should be honored for their labors, the Fathers ordained that they should do nothing else save to celebrate the sacred rites as fellow-ministers only. In the tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch, it is provided that chorepiscopi may make readers, subdeacons, and exorcists. Note, therefore, from this present canon, that even priests cannot receive the confessions of sins and remit sins, unless these things have been granted to them by the bishop; for not even the chorepiscopi can do this, ^Dthough they hold more privileges than priests. That the seventy disciples of the Lord did not have the authority to remit sins is clear from the book of the Acts of the Apostles, in which it is recorded that Philip, one of the seven deacons, went down to Samaria and baptized many; to whom the Apostles sent Peter and John, who, having gone there, laid hands on those who had been baptized, and they received the Holy Spirit. For it had not yet fallen upon any of them.

ZONAR. Bishops are indeed in the place of the twelve Apostles, to whom, having breathed upon them, the Lord said, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whosever sins you remit..."

they are remitted to them," and so forth; to whom also was granted the distribution of the grace of the Holy Spirit to others. But the chorepiscopi are in the likeness of the seventy apostles, to whom the distribution of the grace of the Holy Spirit was not given. And this is clear from the book of the Acts, in which it is recorded that Philip, one of the seven deacons, having gone down to Samaria and baptized many, to whom the apostles sent Peter and John, who, having come, laid hands on those who had been baptized, and they received the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had not fallen upon any of them. Since, therefore, the chorepiscopi are in the likeness of the seventy, for this reason they do not ordain presbyters or deacons, inasmuch as they are not able to bestow the grace of the Spirit; yet they are not prohibited from offering, being honored on account of the concern which they bestowed in helping the poor. For they were obliged to spend the revenues of the churches over which they presided upon the poor, and to provide for them, and by doing this they were held in honor. But if it was the duty of the chorepiscopi to bestow the Lord's money upon the poor, how much more shall this be required of bishops, as something owed and just? ^A

ARIST.

A rural presbyter shall not offer in the city church, unless the bishop and the whole college of presbyters are absent. If, however, they are absent, and he himself be called, he offers. The chorepiscopi, however, as fellow-ministers, offer, holding the place of the seventy.

Presbyters who are ordained in parishes by the bishops are not permitted to perform sacred rites in the city church while the bishop and the presbyters of the city are present. But if all are absent, and any one of the rural presbyters is called to prayer, he is not prohibited from offering and performing sacred rites. The chorepiscopi, however, as fellow-ministers of the bishops, and honored because they also hold the likeness of the seventy, even if the bishop of the city is present, and the presbyters, or even if they are not, shall minister in the city church without prohibition. ^B

CANON XV.

There ought to be seven deacons according to the canon, even if it be a great city. The book of the Acts will bear witness to this matter.

BALS. The present canon was expounded in the canon of the Sixth Synod, and it is not fitting to labor to no purpose about the same thing. ^C

ZONAR. The sixteenth canon of the Sixth Synod treats of this canon. For in that place we said that the name of deacons, which is had in the Acts, was not so fitly explained by the Fathers of this synod. Therefore, it is not necessary to say or write the same things here again. ^D

ARIST. "Seven deacons, according to the Acts, even in a great city, shall be set." As the sixteenth canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo explains, the present canon does not speak of men who serve in the mysteries, but of those to whom the administration of charity and diligence toward the needy has been entrusted. For the book of the Acts also treats of such men, those serving in the necessities of the tables. Therefore, there ought not to be more than seven such ministers, even if the city is large; but the deacons who serve in the mysteries, and the rest of the body of clergy, shall be regulated according to the revenues of the church.

CANONS OF THE SYNOD AT GANGRA

^BBALS. and ZONAR. The synod which was held in Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia, was convened after the first council at Nicaea, against a certain Eustathius.

^BGuill. Beveregius' note. The Bodleian inscription of this synod, to which the Amerbachian adds twenty, is: Canons of the holy Fathers gathered in Gangra, which were set forth after the council at Nicaea. In the Parisian edition of Balsamon there is a double inscription, one for the preface, and another prefixed to the canons, which is: Canons of the holy Fathers gathered in Gangra. Gangra is and was the metropolis in Paphlagonia, a region of Asia Minor; of which Pliny, Strabo, Stephanus, and others have made mention. It is said in the Notitiae Episcopatuum that three bishops are subject to its metropolitan, under the throne of Constantinople: that of Dadibra and that of Soron. ^CIt is also subsequently called Theodosia of the Gangrenes. That this synod was held after Nicaea, or the first general council, besides Balsamon and Zonaras in this place, others also have explicitly testified. For thus Dionysius Exiguus inscribes these canons: "The Gangrense rules begin, which were set forth after the council at Nicaea, xx." And before him an ancient Latin interpreter in the preface to these canons says: "These canons were set forth after the holy council of Nicaea at Gangra, under xx titles." But in some editions of these canons, such as those of Severinus Binius, Bartholomaeus Carranza, and others, this synod is said to have been held in the time of Pope Sylvester I, around the year of our Lord 324, that is, the year preceding Nicaea. And indeed Baronius, at the year 361, and Binius following him, contends that it was held in the times of Constantine the Great and Pope Sylvester, from the fact that Hosius, bishop of Corduba, is said to have been present at it: namely, in the inscription of the epistle written by this synod to the Armenians, which is believed to be thus: "To the honorable lords and fellow-priests constituted in Armenia, the co-bishops Eusebius, Huratius, Eulalius, Gregorius, Aelianus, Bithynicus, Olympius, Bassianus, Basilius, Philetus, Heraclius, Pappus, Eugenius, Osius of Corduba, Proaeresius, Bassus, who were gathered in the Gangrense council, greeting in the Lord." But in the Greek inscription itself, to which Binius added this as if it were a Latin version of it, there is no mention of Osius of Corduba at all. Yet it is found even in the Binian edition, the same which is prefixed to this epistle in this work. Furthermore, neither by the ancient Latin interpreter nor by any other editor of these canons is this Osius commemorated among the bishops gathered at this synod. So that this opinion of Baronius rests on no reason at all. And, to confess candidly, in what year after Nicaea this present synod was held, we do not yet have sufficiently ascertained; this at least is probable, that it was held before the Antiochene; ^Dwhich Sozomenus also seems to imply, where, speaking of Eustathius who was condemned by this synod, he says (Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. IV, c. 24), where, as can be seen, he commemorates that Eustathius was deposed by the Gangrense synod before he was convicted of perjury by the Antiochene. And thus, indeed, in all editions of the councils and canons, the Gangrense is placed first. But the Antiochene was held in the year of our Lord 341. Therefore, we not unjustly suspect that the present synod was also held shortly before that time.

^A and those who were of the same opinion as he: that is, those who, condemning lawful marriage, said that for none of those who are joined in matrimony is there any hope of salvation before God. Men and women, giving credence to these, would cast aside their own wives, and the women, abandoning their own husbands, wished to live in continence. Then, not bearing a life devoid of a spouse, they slipped into adultery. The Eustathians taught, moreover, other things contrary to ecclesiastical tradition and custom; they also laid claim to the fruits of the churches; and women among them dressed in men’s clothing and cut their hair. They also taught that one must fast on Sundays, and they despised the fasts ordained by the Church, and abominated meat. And in the houses of those who had married, they would endure neither to pray nor to communicate; they turned away from priests who had married, and despised as common the places where the relics of martyrs were laid. And they condemned those who possessed money and did not cast it away, as though there were no hope of salvation left for them; and they decreed and taught many other things. Against them, therefore, the holy Fathers, having gathered, set forth the subjoined canons, ^B and for this reason, they added an anathema to each canon for the subversion of the heresy, teaching that those who come to the Church from the followers of Eustathius must anathematize each of their own opinions.

BALS. And while the present synod, by reason of the evils which were being done by Eustathius, decrees that those who are of the same opinion as him are to be anathematized, in opposition to what has been rightly decreed by the universal Church, the holy synod at Chalcedon in its second and seventh canon decrees that those laymen are to be anathematized who intercede for someone to be ordained for money; likewise also monks and clerics who serve in the military and do not repent. But the golden-mouthed one, the teacher of the world...

[Guill. Beveregii Notes]

(12) *Against Eustathius some.* It is rightly added "some," nor do we have it for certain who this Eustathius was who, condemned by the present council, was struck with anathema. I do not indeed deny that Socrates and Sozomen agree that he was the same Eustathius who was bishop of Sebaste in Armenia; but Baronius, at the year 361, has gathered many things by which it is rendered at least probable that the Eustathius commemorated here is a different person from him who is called the bishop of Sebaste; to whom, therefore, Eustathius seems to be written mistakenly for Eutychus, of whom Epiphanius makes mention in his work on heresies. However, since in all the Greek and Latin codices of this synod, both manuscript and printed, "Eustathius" is consistently read, it is closer to the truth that he was so named, even if it is not sufficiently clear who he might have been, unless this very synod has abundantly testified that he was a heresiarch and a master of absurd dogmas.

(13) *Those who [condemn] lawful marriage.* The absurd opinions of Eustathius and his disciples are recounted not only in the synodical epistle placed immediately before the canons, but also by Socrates and Sozomen; as if by Eustathius of Sebaste.

(14) *Set forth the subjoined canons.* The scholiasts printed here, Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, attribute [these] canons to this synod, but all others number only twenty. For thus John of Antioch in his preface to the Collection of Canons, and Photius likewise in his proem to the Nomocanon, to whom the author of the Arabic Nomocanon in our Bodleian Library gives support, saying: "The seventh is the book of canons of the third council at Gangra, in which fifteen bishops in number were gathered; on account of those who disapproved of the eating of flesh and of marriage, concerning whom and other matters they issued twenty canons." And in truth, no more than twenty are acknowledged by the ancient and other Latin interpreters, such as Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore Mercator; among all of whom, the canon which is held last here is not referred to the census of the canons of this council, but is instead considered, not without merit, as an epilogue to all the canons.

^A commanding that a faithful man should not be anathematized, he says these things expressly: “What else is this that you call anathema, other than that this man be dedicated to the devil, and have no longer any place for salvation, and become alien to Christ? And who are you?” These are matters of authority and great power. For then the King will sit, and will set the sheep on the right, but the goats on the left. Why then have you snatched up such dignity? And a little after: “The Apostle indeed appears to have spoken this word out of necessity in only two places; but he did not bring it forward in a definitive or authoritative manner.” In the Epistle to the Corinthians he says: *If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema*; and, *If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema*. What then? Because none of those who have received the power have done this, except only He who received it, do you dare to do these things contrary to the Lord’s command, and ^B do you anticipate the judgment of the King? For anathema cuts one off entirely from Christ. “Teach in gentleness,” and so forth. For this reason, as it seems, the synodal decision made under the reign of the lord Constantine Porphyrogenitus and in the time of the patriarch lord Alexius, regarding the anathematizing of defectors and rebels, and those who excite arms against emperors and meditate tyranny, has fallen into disuse. But if what was written by our great Father and teacher Chrysostom ought to be superior to those things defined by the synod at Chalcedon and the one at Gangra, what will those who have the power to regulate and compose these things say at all? This decision, or rather the effect of it, is placed in the exposition of the third canon of the present synod. ^C

ZONAR. To the most honorable fellow-ministers in Armenia, Eusebius, Aelianus, Eugenius, Olympius Bithynicus, Gregorius, Philetus, Pappus, Eulalius, Hypatius, Proæresius, Basilius, Bassus, who joined together in the holy council at Gangra, greeting in the Lord.

Synod of Gangra: Preface

^A to anathematize before they are admitted. But if any one does not obey what has been said, let him be condemned as a heretic, and let him be excommunicated and separated from the Church; and it shall be necessary for the bishops to exercise this vigilance over all who are found among them.

CANON I.

^A ‹If any one should find fault with marriage, and should abhor or find fault with a woman who is sleeping with her husband, being faithful and pious, as though she were not able to enter the kingdom, let him be anathema.›

BALS. The great Apostle says: ^B *Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled.* And elsewhere again: *In 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 with thanksgiving*, and the rest. And again: *Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.* The present synod, following these, anathematizes those who consider marriage to be unclean and who abhor lawful intercourse. Read also the 51st canon of the holy apostles, and say, by way of inference from the contrary, that those who abhor and drive away their adulterous and unbelieving wives are not to be punished.

ZONAR. The great apostle Paul says: *Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled.* And elsewhere again: *In 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 with thanksgiving*, and the rest; and again: *Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.* ^C Following these, the synod of the Fathers decrees that those who consider marriages to be unclean and who turn away from lawful conjunction are subject to anathema.

ARIST. ‹He who rejects lawful marriage, let him be anathema.› ^D

›

CANON II.

BALS. It is written in the book of the Acts that, when a controversy had arisen as to whether those who believe ought to be circumcised and keep the Law, Peter, the prince of the apostles, spoke what the divine Luke recorded there; and James, the brother of God, said it was not necessary to trouble those from the Gentiles, but that they must abstain from idol-offerings, and fornication, and what is strangled, and blood. Consequently, therefore, the present canon also anathematizes those who condemn him who eats meat without the blood of a creature, or without idol-offering, or without what is strangled. Read also canon 63 of the holy apostles and canon 67 of the sixth synod.

ZONAR. It is written in the book of the Acts that, when it was debated whether the Law ought to be admitted and observed by the faithful regarding circumcision, Peter, the prince of the apostles, gave the speech that the divine Luke narrates there; and the brother of God, James, suggested that we must not trouble those from the Gentiles, but only enjoin them to abstain from idol-offerings, and fornication, and what is strangled, and blood. Keeping this apostolic ordinance, the Fathers of the present synod also decreed that whoever eats meat, and not blood cooked and congealed by design, nor idol-offering, nor what is strangled, is not to be abhorred, nor is he to be condemned; ^C and ^D they decreed that he who condemns such a man is to be held by the penalty of anathema.

ARIST. ‹And to him who condemns the one eating meat, except for what is strangled and sacrificed to idols, anathema.›

CANON III.

BALS. Great Paul (20), writing to Timothy, says: "As many as are under a yoke as slaves, let them count their own masters worthy of all honor. And let those who have faithful masters not despise them because they are brethren; but rather let them serve them, because they are faithful, who partake of the benefit of their work." And again, instructing Titus what he ought to teach, among other things he also says this: "To be subject to slaves to their own masters, and to be well-pleasing in all things, not gainsaying, not purloining."

but showing all good fidelity." Therefore, the canon anathematizes those who suggest the contrary to slaves, perhaps for the sake of spiritual exercise. ^A Now, Emperor Leo the Philosopher’s 66th novella commands that the slave-stealer should not suffer the capital punishment which the ancient law required, but rather, along with the restoration of the slave, he should pay as a penalty double the value of the things stolen by the slave and of everything pertaining to the master’s interest; and furthermore, the slave’s own value. And while the canon thus punishes those who suggest that slaves should not obey their masters, even if this is done under the pretext of piety, there is the novella issued in the month of July, in the 9th indiction of the year 6534, by the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, with the concurrence of the then most holy Patriarch Alexius and the synod, which takes the place of a decision, as it was signed by the Emperor and the synod, and which decrees that those who attempt to organize a revolt or tyranny against the Emperor, and thereby incite ^B subjects to rise up against their masters, be anathematized. Among other things, it expressly defines this toward the end: "For those who from this time forward shall plot treachery or excite a tumult, anathema. For those who assist them and are partners in the revolt, anathema. For those who advise or incite others to such things, anathema. For those who join in expeditions with them, anathema. For those who receive them in repentance, if they do not repent of the revolt and abandon it, anathema."

ZONARAS. The great Paul, writing to Timothy, says: "Let as many as are under the yoke of slavery count their own masters worthy of all honor. And let not those who have believing masters despise them, because they are brothers; but rather let them serve them, because they are believers who partake of their good work." ^C And to Titus he again gives commands regarding what one ought to teach, and says: "That slaves should be subject to their own masters, and to be well-pleasing in all things," and so forth. But Eustathius and his followers taught the exact opposite, and urged slaves to abandon their masters and to despise the services imposed by them, perhaps for the sake of spiritual exercise. The synod, following the apostolic teaching, decreed that these men, because of such doctrine, were bound by anathema.

ARISTENUS. "To him who persuades a slave to depart from his master under the pretext of piety, anathema." ^D

CANON IV

CANON V

CANON VI

without the presence of a presbyter and the consent of the bishop. For a presbyter is not permitted to perform sacred rites in an oratory that is within a house, unless the bishop of the city gives permission. Therefore, ^A they were also condemned with anathema. ARIST. He who holds assemblies privately, let him be anathema.

CANON VII

CANON VIII

CANON IX

the union of women and from nuptials, because he deems that there is in them some stain of sin, he undergoes the penalty of anathema by the decree of this canon. ^A

ARIST. Item, he who cultivates virginity not for the sake of virtue, but because he abominates marriage, let him be an anathema.

CANON X

BALS. Both the ninth and the present canon accept abstinence which is for the sake of virtue and virginity; nevertheless, they do not loathe legitimate marriage. Hence, they also subject to anathema those who, due to arrogance against those who have a spouse, insult them. ^B

ARIST. He who insults those who are joined in marriage, let him be an anathema.

CANON XI

BALS. By other canons it has been forbidden that agapae—that is, brotherhoods and banquets—should take place. But since, as it seems, some were also blaming those who performed agapae for a good purpose and for the honor of God, and who had pity on needy brethren, and they were unwilling to communicate with those who were performing such good works, holding in contempt what was done for the honor of God, the Fathers decreed that these should be anathematized. ^C Therefore, it is from the disposition [of the heart] that one is condemned, whether one holds these agapae or not. Hence, it follows that those who hold brotherhoods in the churches and partake of a little bread and fruits for the sake of refreshing the spirit shall not be censured.

ZONAR. It was an ancient custom among the faithful for them, having been refreshed by the participation in the sacred mysteries, to subsequently assemble to eat together, with the rich supplying the food and inviting the poor as well; where... ^D

this custom was transgressed, and the believers were not dining in common, but each was consuming his own supper, the great Paul mentions it in his epistle to the Corinthians. Reproving them because, having abolished the ancient custom, they no longer all feasted together, but each one consumed his own supper privately, he complains that one is hungry and another is drunk. ^A The faithful at that time, maintaining this custom, also arranged shared meals and banquets, which they even called *agapai* (love-feasts), as they were performed for the sake of love from faith. That the canon calls these banquets *agapai* is indicated by the forty-second canon of the Synod of Carthage, which contains instructions that banquets are in no way to be held in churches, and that it is forbidden for bishops and clerics to hold banquets in the church. Therefore, regarding those banquets that are held from faith and for the honor of the Lord, and to which the brethren are invited, whoever, out of arrogance of soul, despises the matter itself and refuses to attend when invited, and in so doing disparages what is being done, the canon subjects them to the penalty of anathema.

ARIST. He who rejects those who invite to the *agape*, and when invited does not communicate with them, let him be anathema.

CANON XII

• If any man, on account of an assumed exercise of piety, uses a mantle (29), and as if possessing righteousness from this would condemn those who with piety wear *beroi* (50) and use other common and customary clothing, let him be anathema. •

BALS. The Eustathians, among other things, taught that one should wear rags, as if those who were their disciples were to be sanctified by this. For they called a *peribolaion* (mantle) a covering put over other garments. Therefore, the canon subjects to anathema those who, due to arrogance and hypocrisy, wear rags and condemn those ^C who wear *beroi*—that is, garments woven from silk—on account of the honor of the profession, and not because of softness or arrogance.

ZONAR. The followers of Eustathius, among other things, taught that one should wear tattered and ragged clothing, as if their followers were to be sanctified by this. For they called a *peribolaion* a covering put over other garments, so that it might be visible, and from this they would hunt for the reputation of asceticism, and condemn those who wore *beroi*—that is, silk fabrics—and other customary clothing. A *beros* is a kind of fabric weave; whence even now there are what are called *holothera* (51).

^A (51). Such garments, therefore, if any wear them, provided they do not meanwhile forget modesty, nor insult their inferiors, nor use the splendid adornment of their clothes for soft indulgence and wanton loves, are immune from blame. Consequently, the canon orders that those who condemn such as are blameworthy, who use silk clothes while maintaining modesty, be condemned by anathema.

ARIST. ^B «He who holds in contempt those who wear *beroi* shall be anathema.»

CANON XIII

^B Guill. Beveregius’s notes. ...as Anastasius Bibliothecarius says in the *Life of Zachary*: "He also made four silk curtains of *alithina*, which he adorned with wheels and various ornaments woven in gold." And in the case of Leo III: "He made four *holoserica* curtains of *alithina* for the high altar, with borders and golden-flowered roses." In both cases, "Alithina" is the very word denoting "purple." *Holoverum* was nothing other than a silk garment, which was entirely dyed, or rather, dyed with purple color, so that the warp as well as the woof were stained with the same color; and for this reason, it is rightly called by the Latins not *Holoberum* but *holoverum*, as the aforementioned Anastasius says regarding Gregory IV: "He also made another garment of *holoverum*." Likewise, it is often found elsewhere, and one rarely finds it written otherwise, except in codex 1. iv, regarding *holoberis* garments. Nor should it seem surprising to anyone that this word is formed from both Greek and Latin; for many of the same type occur even among the most approved authors, such as *Artigraphus* from *arte*, and *grapho*; *dextrocherium* from *dextra* and *cheiros*; and *Epilogium* from *epi* and *loga*: to which may be added *Epirhedium*, *monolores*, and *pentelores* garments, *chrysoclavus*, and many other names, which there is no need to list here.

(52) "If any..." ^C Some women, led astray, adopted a man's attire for the sake of the female form, thinking themselves justified by this, as we learn from the synodical epistle in which we read: "And women thinking themselves justified..." The same is reported by Sozomen, who, speaking of the women led astray by him, says: "...customary to be dressed, contrary to what is customary for women, taking up men’s clothes, and from these..." The women who cut their hair under the guise of piety, and dressing otherwise than is becoming to a woman—but regarding men, and especially in battles, so that neither should a woman use male equipment, nor a man female attire. So great was the zeal and ambition of the Law regarding the training and molding of the soul toward manliness that it even decreed regarding clothes, what one ought to be wrapped in, forbidding a man to take up a woman's mantle, so that no trace or shadow of the female might adhere to the injury of the male species.

^D This Law was mentioned by Tertullian, Lib. *De spectaculis* cap. 23, and Cyprian, epist. ad Euchratium. Also Josephus in these words: "Guard yourselves..." Joseph. *Antiq. Jud.* lib. iv, cap. 8. I wonder where he derived those words... For no traces of them appear in the text, unless perhaps he considered the word *stole* to signify chiefly military equipment. Philo Judaeus contends that this was defined by the Law in order to rouse the minds of men to fortitude, so that neither shadow nor trace of effeminacy might appear in them. "So much," he says, *Phil. De fortitudine*. But let us hear the divine Ambrose arguing elegantly on this matter: "For it is thus written," he says, "There shall not be the belongings of a man upon a woman, nor shall a man be clothed in a woman’s robe; for everyone who does this is unclean before the Lord." And if you truly discuss it, it is incongruous, as nature itself abhors it. For why, O man, do you not wish to be seen as what you were born? Why do you assume a foreign appearance for yourself? Why do you lie about being a woman, or a man in a woman? Nature clothes each with the garments of their own sex. Finally, there is a different use, a different color, movement, gait, different powers, a different voice in man and woman. But even in the rest of the species of animals, there is one species of lion, another of the lioness; there is a different strength, a different sound: another of the bull, another of the heifer. In deer also, how much the sex differs, the species differs by so much, that one can distinguish them even from a distance. In birds, truly, there is a proper comparison for dress between them and humans. For in them, natural garments themselves distinguish the sex. Male peacocks are beautiful; females, not so, are painted with a different decorative plumage. In pheasants also, there is a different color, which distinguishes the discretion of sex. What of chicks? How melodious is the voice of the rooster with his nightly duties for awakening and singing? Do they change their species? Why do we desire to change ours? Ambrose, lib. v *epist. ad Irenæum*. Furthermore, it is worthy of the highest observation that even among the Romans themselves, while they were still pagans, a man could scarcely use women's garments without reproach; so that it seems to be of natural law: for thus we read in the Pandects or Digests: "Women's garments are those which are procured for the sake of the matron, which a man cannot easily use without reproach." l. 23. D. *De auro, argento, etc.*

^A BALS. The canon anathematizes those women who put on men's garments, perhaps for the sake of asceticism, and cast aside the garment appropriate to the female nature. But the Fathers rightly added the phrase "for the sake of the supposed asceticism"; for she who has done such a thing not out of hypocrisy and deceit, but in truth and for the sake of a true and pure mode of asceticism, will not only not be anathematized, but will even be judged worthy of praise. For many women have completed the ascetic course through masculine attire and have reached the highest summit of salvation, such as Saint Melane, Saint Eugenia, and others.

ZONAR. "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called," says the Apostle (1 Cor. vii, 20). The canon, therefore, does not wish women to change their form or to put on a man's garment, perhaps for the sake of asceticism, having cast aside that which is their own and appropriate to their nature. And to those who do this, it applies the anathema.

ARIST. "Whatever women use men's clothing, [let them be] anathema."

CANON XIV.

BALS. The great Paul says to those who are joined together: "Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be by consent" (1 Cor. vii, 5). And again: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife" (1 Cor. vii, 4). Therefore, she who leaves her husband as though abhorring lawful marriage is anathematized, as one who sets herself against the commandment of God which joined the marriage-partners into one flesh, and against other divine Scriptures. The same is true also in the case of men. And these things hold when one departs from his spouse for such a reason; for if he does this out of a desire for the monastic life, he will not be blamed.

ZONAR. A good thing is not good if it is not done in a good way. For indeed, temperance and abstaining from the sexual union in marriage is a good thing; but ^C it must be done according to the great Paul, who says: "Defraud ye not one the other, unless it be by consent"; and again: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife." If, however, the wife abandons her husband who does not wish for the separation from her, or the husband [abandons] the wife who does not wish for the divorce, and desires to dissolve the marriage—one of the cohabiting persons—shunning lawful intercourse as detestable, he becomes subject to anathema.

ARIST. "And as many as of the men separate themselves, abhorring marriage, [let them be] anathema."

CANON XV.

but under the pretext of asceticism neglects them, let him be an ^A anathema."

BALS. The great teacher of the Church, Paul, in giving instructions concerning widows, says: "If any widow has children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety toward their own household; for this is acceptable before God." And a little later: "But if any does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Then, in teaching what kind of widows ought to be enrolled in the Church, he says, among other things, "If they have brought up children." And elsewhere, again, when instructing concerning elder women, he wishes them to be teachers of good things, that they may train the young women to love their husbands and their children. And in another place: "Fathers, bring up your children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord." Since, however, the followers of Eustathius were introducing a law that those who had children should abandon them and go off to asceticism, the canon struck with anathema those who do this. And this, indeed, was determined on account of pious customs, and on account of those who, as has been said, teach piety in hypocrisy, and those who are occupied in the world. If, however, anyone who has been tonsured and is constrained to live in a monastery says that he has children, and that he cannot abstain from living in the world and nurturing them, and produces the present canon in his aid, he will not be heard; but he will hear that he is saying these things improperly: for God, who is the Father of orphans, will have a care for the upbringing of his children.

^C ZONAR. Wild beasts also nurture their own offspring and take care of them, and for the sake of protecting them they undergo dangers. If, therefore, wild beasts are thus disposed toward their young, how much more does it behoove those who have been endowed with the gift of reason to provide for and take care of [their] children? Wherefore also the great Paul, while prescribing rules of life for widows, says: "If any widow has children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety toward their own household; for this is acceptable before God." And a little later: "But if any does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Then, in teaching what kind of widows ought to be chosen by the Church, he commands it to be inquired, besides other things, also "if they have brought up children." And elsewhere, again, while instructing concerning elder women, he commands them to teach good things, that they may teach the young women to be lovers of their husbands and lovers of their children. And in another [place]: "Fathers, bring up your children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." But the followers of Eustathius, heeding none of these things, legislated that those who have children should abandon them and go off to asceticism. Wherefore also the synod proclaimed this canon, condemning with anathema those who abandon their own children and do not bring them up and instruct them in piety.

ARIST. "Item, those who abandon their children, and do not instruct them in piety, [let them be] anathema."

CANON XVI

- ^A out any pretext of piety, should depart [from them], and should not render the honor due to parents—piety being obviously preferred by them—let them be anathema."

BALS. Just as the canon compels parents to bring up and nourish their children, so too does it desire children to support in their old age and honor their parents. Therefore, it subjects to the penalty of anathema those children who do not do this, but under the pretext of piety withdraw from the world and abandon their needy parents without providing for them. It adds, however, that piety, that is to say orthodoxy, is to be preferred. For if parents are heterodox, one must flee from them and prefer piety to the honor of those [parents].

ZONAR. It is not only required that parents be concerned for their children and care for them, but children also, in turn, are obliged to honor their parents. And a form of honor is also to support them in their old age if they are in need or if through old age they are destitute. And they owe this honor not only to believing parents, but also to [those who are] unbelieving. For from the statement "especially believers," it is shown that the canon also speaks regarding unbelievers. Therefore, this canon anathematizes those who, under the pretext of piety, leave their own parents uncared for and do not render to them the honor that is due, a part of which is to feed them when they are in need; but it adds, [the condition of] piety being preferred. For if parents who are unbelievers or heterodox force their children into unbelief or into heresies, one must flee from them, and prefer piety to their honor.

ARIST. "And children, as many as depart from [their] believing parents, let them be anathema."

CANON XVII

"If any woman, on account of the piety that is supposed, cuts off her hair, which God gave as a remembrance of subjection, as though she were dissolving the precept of subjection, let her be anathema."

BALS. The great ^C Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, "The husband is the head of the woman" (1 Cor. XI, 3). This [canon] is a precept; and those who shear their heads are to be expelled from the churches, and the bishops who preside over this are to be deprived of their episcopacy. Many also cut off the nature of feminine hair on the pretext of piety. But others cut off the head on the pretext of piety. For a woman to be shorn or shaved [is condemned]. From this cause, I infer that the Emperor Theodosius also, being concerned for the glory and dignity of the churches, legislated that women, if they did not have children and were not over sixty years of age, [should not be admitted to the] diaconate of God.

^A said, because he is her author and cause, as one who was made from him. For Eve is from Adam. And after some things: "If a woman is not veiled, let her be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled." And after other things: "If a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, because hair is given to her as a covering." And these things indeed the great Paul. But Eustathius taught that women should be shorn, just as if the tonsure itself contributed to piety, and he was not ashamed to legislate even against nature. For nature knows that hair is so appropriate for women that baldness does not naturally occur in them. If, therefore, a woman is shorn, as one who thinks she is doing something acceptable to God, and removes the reminder of subjection (and this too has been taken by the Fathers of the synod from the Epistle to the Corinthians. For the Apostle says there that a woman ought to have authority on her head, that is to say, the symbol of subjection, which means having her head covered), let her be anathema, as one who looses and transgresses the commandment of subjection. Since these things are so, do not say that by the present canon a woman is forbidden if she chooses the monastic tonsure. For she, even if her husband is unwilling, having chosen a life apart from the marriage bed, will be heard, and she will be shorn. ^B

ZONAR. The great Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, "The husband is the head of the woman." And he said this because he is responsible for her, as one who was made from him. For indeed Eve is from Adam. And after some things: "If a woman is not covered, let her be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." And after other things: "If a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her." These things indeed the great Paul. But Eustathius taught that women should be shorn, as if indeed the being shorn contributed something towards piety, and he was not ashamed to legislate against nature. For nature knows that hair is so appropriate for women that baldness does not naturally occur in them. If, therefore, a woman is shorn, as one who thinks she is doing something acceptable to God, and removes the reminder of subjection (and this also ^C is taken by the Fathers of the synod from the Epistle to the Corinthians. For the Apostle says that a woman ought to have authority on her head, that is to say, the symbol of subjection, which means having her head covered, calling it the authority of the husband), let her be anathema, as one who looses and transgresses the commandment of subjection.

ARIST. Whatever women, feigning piety, shear their hair, let them be anathema. ^D

Guill. Beveregii note. It is the same as Zonaras. In which those words, "that hair is given to her as a covering," even if they do not exist in the Zonaras Scholia printed here, nevertheless exist in the Amerbachian manuscript of the Zonaras code. Balsamon here agrees with Zonaras that baldness does not naturally occur in women; which indeed Pliny himself also observed as being rare, saying: "The falling out of their hair is rare in a woman, not seen in eunuchs, and not in anyone before they have known the use of Venus." Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. [xxviii], cap. 37.

CANON XVIII. « If anyone, for the sake of an assumed asceticism, fasts on the Lord’s Day, let him be anathema. »

BALSAMON. It has been ordained in many canons that we should not fast or manifest sadness on the joyful day of the Lord’s Day because of the resurrection of the Lord, but rather that we should celebrate and give thanks to God, as those who have risen from the fall of sin. Therefore, the canon anathematizes those who follow Eustathius and teach that one should fast on the Lord’s Day, as it were, for the sake of ^A exercise. The sixty-fourth apostolic canon excommunicates laymen who fast in this way, just as it deposes the clergy. See also the fifty-fifth canon of the Council in Trullo.

ZONARAS. Eustathius also proclaimed a fast on the Lord’s Day, whereas because Christ rose again from the dead on that day, and raised human nature from the fall of sin, we ought to spend it in exultation, giving thanks to God. Fasting is a symbol of contrition and grief. Therefore, a penalty of anathema was established against those who fast on the Lord’s Day.

ARISTENUS. « Whoever spends the Lord’s Day or Saturday in fasting, let him be anathema. »

CANON XIX. « If any of those who practice asceticism behave insolently without bodily necessity, and dissolve the fasts that have been handed down and are commonly observed by the Church—under the pretext of a perfect understanding residing in them—let them be anathema. »

BALSAMON. The Bogomil heresy consists in fasting for some time on every day and never breaking the fast, saying that those who fast after such a long time reach perfection, and that they can break the fast and sin indiscriminately, and that every vice is burned away as if by fire through that perfection. It seems the Eustathians taught similar things, and therefore they were struck with anathema. For we believers ought to fast during the handed-down fasts—namely, Wednesday, Friday, the Great Lent, and other fasts—and, again, celebrate during the feast days, unless we are compelled by illness to break the fast. For the sixty-ninth apostolic canon also says that we should not break the fast on every Wednesday and Friday, and during the Lent ^B of Easter, unless for bodily illness.

ZONARAS. The sixty-fourth apostolic canon explicitly states this: « If any clergyman be found fasting on the Lord’s Day, or on Saturday, except one alone, let him be deposed; but if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. » And the sixty-ninth [apostolic canon] enjoins that one should fast during the Lent of Easter, and on Wednesday and Friday, unless prevented by illness. Since the followers of Eustathius were breaking the handed-down fasts, as if they had already attained the pinnacle of perfection and were no longer in need of fasting, the synod promulgated this canon, passing a sentence of anathema upon those who break the handed-down fasts, which are ^C under the ^D

^A authority of the Church, that is, the body of the faithful, unless someone is unable to fast due to bodily infirmity, in accordance with the apostolic canon. ARIST. « And he who overturns the ecclesiastical fasts, anathema. »

CANON XX.

CANON XXI.

^A We praise the life that is unburdened and laborious, but we reject those who are dissolute and effeminate in their dress. We honor the houses of God, and we embrace the gatherings that are held in them as holy and beneficial, not limiting piety to these houses, but honoring every place built in the name of God; and we accept as beneficial for the common good the gathering that takes place within the church itself. We commend the outstanding acts of charity of the brethren, which are performed through the Church for the poor according to tradition; and, to sum up, we desire that everything that is recommended by the divine Scriptures and the apostolic traditions should be done within the Church.

BALS. AND ZONAR. Since the Fathers of this synod forbade the faithful from performing certain works which are considered good and virtuous—such as preserving virginity, on the pretext that marriage is an impediment to the salvation of the soul; or not fasting on days when fasting is forbidden; or dissolving marriages for the sake of an apparent exercise in asceticism; or refusing to feed one's children or parents for the sake of the practice of virtue; and everything of that kind—they now respond for them, saying: We have not decreed these things as an impediment to those who wish to practice asceticism, but as a correction for those who become proud and insolent on account of them, and for those who introduce new ^B things beyond the divine Scriptures. For we both accept this and that, we admire both, and we hold them in the same order, and we wish for everything to be done according to the divine Scriptures and the apostolic traditions. Through the divine Scriptures, we declare everything that has been commanded to the faithful in writing, while through the traditions, we signify those things that are taught by unwritten customs. For the unwritten customs which have been tested and confirmed by time, as well as the civil laws, are decreed to be observed and to have force; and so too are the divine canons. The great Basil also speaks at length in many of his discourses regarding the observance of these things in all matters.

ARIST. On all the Canons. This present synod, having been convened for other ecclesiastical necessities, and having also made inquiry into the affairs of Eustathius, and having found that many things ^D were done unlawfully by those around this Eustathius, set forth these canons in order that we might not fall into their heresy, namely that of the Massalians and Euchites. For these people condemn lawful marriage, detest the eating of meat, hold the churches and the altars in contempt, as well as the gatherings held in them, and teach that one should hold church in private and pray in their own oratories. They perform private teachings and gatherings, and celebrate the mysteries of the Church outside the will of a bishop or priest; and, altogether transgressing every ecclesiastical canon, they possess their own private laws, or rather, each of them puts forth whatever he conceives in his mind for the slander of the Church and his own detriment. Therefore, this holy synod, having condemned their heresy by its vote, and having set forth these canons,

^A commanded that they be outside the Church.

If, therefore, anyone either rejects lawful marriage, or condemns one who eats meat—apart from that which is strangled or offered to idols—or teaches that slaves should depart from their masters under the pretext of piety and despise their service; or if one refuses to receive the divine mysteries from a presbyter who has a wife, or departs from the houses of God and from the Church, thinking that they deserve to be despised, and holds a private assembly, offering different instructions; or performs the mysteries of the Church apart from the opinion of the bishop or presbyter, as if despising them, because he thinks his own prayer is of great avail; or teaches that the offerings of fruits given of old to the Church, and intended for good works by the bishop and those appointed by him for their administration, should not be offered to the Church, but that they should be given to him and to those with him as to holy men; or prefers virginity not for the goodness of it [in itself], but because he loathes marriage and is puffed up against those who are married; or does not assemble with those who gather for love after the dismissal of the Church for the participation of bread and wine, but rejects these, and when invited to share with them, does not join them out of contempt and pride; or despises one who is wealthy with justice and beneficence; or holds in contempt ^B one who wears silk clothing, while he himself devises strange garments, as if he thought that he was made righteous by them; or if any women are found wearing men's clothing to the ruin of the common mode of women's dress, and think that they appear holy and just by these things; or are separated from their own husbands as if loathing marriage; or leave their own children and do not nourish them, nor, as far as it lies with them, excite them to the proper religion, but neglect them under the pretext of asceticism, and shear their women's hair as if feigning piety; or again, if the children of faithful parents run away, not rendering the honor due to their parents, as if they were preferring piety; or if anyone transgresses the fasts handed down to us and, profaning the days that are ordained to be observed by the Church, chooses to fast on the Lord's Day or on the Sabbath, ^C or speaks evil of and abhors the congregations of the martyrs and the mysteries that take place in them as a proud man: if, therefore, any one of the things enumerated above is found committing any [of these acts], as one puffing himself up against those who live more simply, and transgressing the ecclesiastical laws, and introducing innovations out of his own pride, let him be anathema. ^D For the Church admires virginity with a humble mind, and likewise admits the withdrawal from worldly affairs when done in such a manner, and honors continence with gravity and religion, and the venerable use of marriage; and she does not hold the rich person in low regard, provided it is with justice and beneficence, and knows how to approve simplicity and frugality of clothing, not because of pride, but because of the sole care of the body performed without ostentation; just as she does not admit even those who [are] dissolute and delicate

knows only to praise that which concerns itself solely with the care of the body and is free from vanity; just as it does not accept those who are dissolute and wear effeminate clothing. And simply stated, it accepts all things that are done in the name of God for the benefit of the community. But it strongly rejects and abhors those things which, through arrogance, contempt, and hatred of what has been handed down by the divine Fathers, are brought forth contrary to the law; and even more so if those who do these things pretend to piety. ^A

CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF ANTIOCH IN SYRIA

^B BALS. and ZONAR. There have been two synods in Antioch in Syria. One occurred under Aurelian, the emperor of the Romans, against Paul of Samosata, who became a heresiarch, saying that our Lord and God Jesus Christ was mere man, and that the Son of God was a "prolative" word. Many others were present at this synod, including Saint Gregory the Wonderworker. They gathered at Antioch, of which the Samosatene was bishop, whom, since they could not persuade him with admonitions and demonstrations from the Scriptures to desist from his blasphemies against the Lord, they deposed and anathematized by common vote. However, he did not withdraw from the throne of the Church of Antioch. Therefore, the Fathers of the synod reported the matters concerning him to the Emperor Aurelian. ^B And he ordered the bishop of the Church of the Romans and the chief priests under him to examine the matters regarding Paul, and if he had been justly deposed, to expel him from the Church of the Christians; and this was done, as Eusebius of Pamphilus recounts. Another synod was convened later again at Antioch under Constantius, the son of the great Constantine, five years after the death of his father; and it set forth canons, which are these:

Guill. Beveregius' notes. This is the Bodleian inscription of these canons, to which the Amerbachian codex adds, "twenty-five." In the Parisian edition of Balsamon the title is "The Synod in Antioch." In the Zonaras codices, "Canons of the holy and blessed Fathers who assembled at Antioch in Syria." It is correctly added "in Syria," as by others, so that it may be distinguished from other cities of the same name. This Antioch, where the present synod was celebrated, was the metropolis of Syria, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and whose bishop was later graced with the title of Patriarch. The occasion for declaring this synod was provided by the dedication or *encænia* of that most celebrated temple of Antioch, which was begun by Constantine the Great and completed by his son Constantius, on account of its excellence.

^A The holy and most peaceful synod, ^B assembled under God at Antioch from the provinces of Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Isauria, to the like-minded and holy fellow-ministers in each province, greeting in the Lord.

The grace and truth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, visiting the holy Church of the Antiochians, and uniting it in one concord and consensus and peaceful spirit, has accomplished many other things; but in all things it also accomplishes this, by the suggestion of the holy and peaceful Spirit. For those things which seemed to be rightly established, after much consideration and judgment by all of us bishops assembled together at Antioch from various provinces, we have brought to your notice, trusting in the grace of Christ and in the holy Spirit of peace, that you also will breathe with us, as if being present with us in power and working together by your prayers; or rather, being united, and standing with us and the holy Spirit, you will agree with the same things and determine them, and will seal and confirm the things that seemed right with the consensus of the holy Spirit. The ecclesiastical canons which have been defined are those written below.

CANON I.

^C All who dare to dissolve the decree of the holy and great synod which was assembled at Nicaea in the presence of the most pious and God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy feast of the salutary Pascha, we decree to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church, if they shall continue contentiously to oppose those things which were rightly decreed. And these things are said concerning the laity. But if any of those who preside over the Church, bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall dare after this decree, for the subversion of the people and the disturbance of the churches, to act separately and to celebrate the Pascha with the Jews, the holy synod ^D has judged such a one from this moment as an alien from the Church, as one who has become the cause not only of sin to himself, but also of destruction and subversion to many.

Notes of William Beveridge.

"When they were assembled for the dedication, there were ninety bishops, in the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the fourteenth indiction, with Constantius the most ungodly being present there." "Under the pretext of the so-called dedication." "For the dedication of the church, which the father of the Augusti began to construct, but after his death his son Constantius completed in the tenth year from its foundation." This synod is therefore assembled at Antioch in the presence of Constantius the king, in the consulship of Marcellus and Probinus. "And this was the fifth year from the death of the father of the Augusti, Constantine." Thus he asserts; but the holy Athanasius, Marcellinus and Probinus being consuls, says: "There were ninety bishops who had come together at the dedication." Athan. t. 1, p. 891. edit. Paris. 1627. From the consuls and the indiction mentioned here, it is clear that this year was 341 from the birth of Christ, in which this Antiochene council was celebrated. Athanasius in the cited place records that ninety bishops were present: but Hilary in his book *On Synods* writes that ninety-seven gathered there: to whom Sozomen also lends support, *Hist. Eccl.* lib. III, cap. 5. And a little after the same year, after the death of Constantine, he assigns to the holding of this synod, which Balsamon and Zonaras in the present place note. Where also, as can be seen, the letter of the synod exists in no copies of Balsamon, but in all those of Zonaras, except in the Amerbachian one, where it is entirely missing.

^A And not only does it remove such persons from the ministry, but also those who dare to communicate with them after their deposition. And it is decreed that those who are deposed are to be deprived even of the external honor of which the holy canon and the priesthood of God have been partakers. ^B

BALS. Concerning the feast of the holy Pascha, when it ought to be kept, this was sufficiently discussed in the seventh apostolic canon; you should read that, and what is written therein. The holy Fathers of the present synod say that the matters concerning this feast were defined by the first synod. Now, in the canons of the Fathers at Nicaea this is not to be found; but it is found in the acts of the first synod. They therefore decree that those who dare to break what has been thus defined concerning Pascha, and to celebrate the feast with the Jews—if they are laymen and are not readily brought back to the ecclesiastical tradition, but resist contentiously—are to be subjected completely to the penalty of excommunication; but those who are ordained are to be deposed. And not only these, but also those who communicate with them after their deposition. And they deprive both these and those, along with the prohibition from officiating, of the external canonical honor which belongs to them as members of the clergy. For they shall be deemed worthy of neither a seat, nor a call, nor any other priestly privilege. Note therefore from this, that if the crime for which someone is deposed is not great, but light (for instance, if he took a wife after ordination), he shall perform the functions outside the sanctuary, and shall also have the external honor. Read also the 9th canon of the synod at Neocaesarea, and the 21st and 26th canons of the Sixth Synod. ^C

ZONAR. They say that the holy Fathers of the first synod issued a decree concerning the feast of Pascha, which, however, is not found among the canons of that synod; and they demand that it be kept by all, or else those laymen who do not observe that decree are to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church. But if it be ordained persons who are opposed to that decree, and who teach that Pascha is to be celebrated with the Jews, they direct that they be deposed, and also those who dare to communicate with them after their deposition, and that they are not to share in the external priestly honor either; so that, even if they are prevented from officiating, they are not permitted to enjoy the seat and call of bishops or priests. And the seventh canon of the holy apostles also commands that those who celebrate Pascha with the Jews be deposed. Therefore, in the canons of the first synod nothing is found defined concerning Pascha; but whether something of this sort was established outside of the canons, I cannot easily say, not having the acts of that synod. ^D

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. (40) "And by much corruption and perversion being caused." All codices read [this way] except the Amerbachian, which reads, "And by much corruption and perversion being caused."

^A ARISTENUS: He who attempts to change the divinely-ordained tradition of Pascha, if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated; if a cleric, let him be cast out of the Church. It is stated even in the seventh apostolic canon that a presbyter who celebrates Pascha with the Jews is deposed. Therefore, this present canon also determines the same, that if any layman, transgressing the legitimate tradition of Pascha, celebrates it with the Jews or privately on his own at another time, he shall be excommunicated and cast out of the Church. But if it be a cleric who does this, he shall be deposed; and he shall also be deprived of the honor of his seat, as shall any of the clergy who communicate with him after his deposition. ^B

CANON II.

• All those who enter into the church and listen to the holy • Scriptures, but do not communicate in prayer with the people, or who turn away from the • holy participation of the Eucharist because of some insolence: these are to be cast out • of the church, until such time as they have confessed, and shown • fruits of repentance, and begged for pardon, so that they may be able to attain it. It is not permitted to communicate with • those who are excommunicated, nor to assemble in houses • with them to pray with those who do not communicate with the prayers of the Church, nor to be received in another church if they do not attend their own. ^C If any bishop or presbyter or deacon, or anyone among the clergy, is found communicating with those who are excommunicated by canon; let him also be excommunicated, as one who confuses the canon of the Church.

BALSAMON: In the eighth and ninth apostolic canons, it is set forth who those are who do not await the prayer and the participation, and how they are punished; likewise in the tenth canon, concerning those who communicate with the excommunicated. Therefore, this present canon logically decrees that those who enter into the church and do not await the prayer, or do not turn themselves to the holy participation because of insolence, should be separated; and let them be cast out until ^D they show worthy repentance with confession. Since it was likely that such persons would remain, [the canon] explains who those are who do not remain for the prayer and the holy participation, and how they are punished; likewise also in the tenth canon concerning those who communicate with the excommunicated. Accordingly, the present canon also decrees that those who enter the church, but do not remain for the prayer, nor turn themselves toward the holy participation because of some insolence, should be excommunicated; and these are to be cast out until [index: entries preserved] ... until the end of the divine celebration, and receive sanctification from the priestly hand. Since these things appear in almost the same words in the interpretation of Balsamon, they seem to have crept from the margin into the text. Where you should also observe that everything from these words onward until the end of this interpretation we now publish for the first time from the Bodleian manuscript: except that these very words are contained in the Parisian edition in the same way as they are read in the Eton manuscript. But neither these nor those that follow exist in the Amerbachian manuscript. In their place, in the Latin version of Hervetus, these things are contained: "Note, however, that what is written in the present canon and in the ninth of the holy apostles is about those who do not remain in the ecclesiastical prayer or dismissal; and say that these things are defined concerning the sacred celebration, not concerning the evening and morning praise. For the canon has no place in these."

^A Since it was likely that some might communicate with those thus excommunicated—that is, pray with them—not in the church from which they were cast out, but in a private house of prayer or in another church, and say that this punishment does not apply to them because they were ejected from one church, in which only the one who excommunicated them has jurisdiction, the canon says that there is one Church, containing all houses of prayer and temples wherever they may be. And no clerics ought to pray with one who is excommunicated, even if they are from another diocese; but those who act otherwise shall be subjected to the same penalty of excommunication. So much for the canon. You, however, read what was written in the aforementioned apostolic canons, and understand the present canon according to them, and say that those who loathe the holy communion, or, as some have said, those who avoid it out of piety and humility, shall not be judged as having rejected it (for the former shall not only be excommunicated but shall also be cast out as heretics; while the latter shall be deemed worthy of pardon because of their piety and worthy reverence for the sacraments): but rather those who, out of contempt and arrogance, depart from the church before the holy participation in a disorderly manner, and do not endure to witness the divine participation of the holy mysteries. When you hear the canon saying that bishops and other clergy who pray with the excommunicated are themselves excommunicated, ^B do not say, by argument from the contrary, that the laity who act contrary to the canon are subject to no penalty. For these too shall be excommunicated according to the tenth apostolic canon, which does not distinguish between clergy and laity. See also the ninth canon of the Synod of Carthage. Because of the threats, as it seems likely, of the eighth and ninth canons of the holy apostles, and also of the present one, the distribution of the antidoron was devised, as it seems, so that even those who are not able to be participants in the unbloody sacrifices might necessarily have to remain until the prayers and the dismissal, so that they might receive from the hands of the one who performed the sacred rites the blessing of the sanctified fragment. Understand that these stated canons have decreed these things only concerning the liturgy, and not concerning other ecclesiastical offices. But since some say: "And why does the ecumenical patriarch, on the holy Lord’s Day, coming forth from his throne, not remain until the dismissal of the liturgy, but withdraw after the Gospel?" we say to them that the divine liturgy is properly celebrated after the reading of the holy Gospel. ^C For since we sing all things in the holy churches to the glory of God, whether they be from the Old Testament or the New, for after the beginning psalms are immediately chanted in order until the reading of the Apostle, which are indeed from the Old Testament; but after the Gospel begins the ceremony of celebrating the unbloody sacrifice; therefore, the patriarch rightly withdraws after the holy Gospel and before this, and does not transgress the canons. So neither does anyone else transgress if they depart after the Gospel or before the Gospel, provided it be for a necessary and pious cause, and not for a blameworthy one.

^A

ZONAR. The Fathers of the present synod have decreed in accordance with the ninth apostolic canon. For that canon says that all the faithful who enter and hear the Scriptures, but do not remain for the holy communion, ought to be excommunicated as causing disorder in the Church. Consequently, these Fathers likewise decreed that those who enter into the church and do not remain for the prayer, nor partake, owing to some disorder—that is to say, not for a reasonable cause, but disorderly and unworthily—are to be cast out of the Church; that is to say, they are to be excluded and outside the assembly of the faithful. By "aversion" in this place, the Fathers did not signify a hatred toward divine communion, by which some might be impelled to abstain from it, but rather a shunning of it, perhaps out of reverence and as if from humility. ^B For if they turned away from the holy communion because they hated and loathed it, they would not have been condemned with excommunication, but with absolute casting out and anathema. Since, however, they made mention of excommunication, they added that it is not permitted for anyone to communicate with those who are excommunicated and cast out of the Church, nor to pray with them in a private house, nor indeed to receive them in another church; and those who receive such persons into the prayer or into the church, as disturbers of the ecclesiastical canon, are themselves to be deprived of communion. The same things had been established by the tenth and eleventh canons of the holy apostles, and the thirty-third canon of the Council of Laodicea forbids that heretics or schismatics be admitted to the society of prayer. ^C

ARIST. 159. "He who enters the church and listens attentively to the holy Scripture, then despises it, and goes out, and turns away from the communion, is to be cast out until he shows the fruit of repentance and attains forgiveness. And he who communicates with an excommunicate shall be excommunicate; and he who prays with those who do not pray with the Church is guilty; and he who receives him who does not gather with the church is not without fault."

That man also is cast out of the Church who does not communicate in prayer with the people, but goes out before the dismissal, as one who despises and turns away from divine communion, until, having repented, he shows the fruit of repentance; but when he has repented fervently, he shall be received. ^D But he who receives him who does not join himself to the Church, or pray with the faithful, and prays with him privately, or even in another church, shall be subject to the canonical penalties; just as he who communicates with an excommunicate shall be excommunicate.

CANON III.

^A If any presbyter or deacon, or any one at all of the sacerdotal order, leaving his own parish, shall go away into another; and then, having altogether migrated, shall attempt to reside in another parish for a long time, he shall no longer celebrate, especially if he does not obey his own bishop, who calls and urges him to return to his own parish. But if he persists in his disorder, he shall be altogether deposed from his ministry, so that he may no longer have a place of restoration. And if another bishop should receive him who has been deposed for this reason, he too shall be punished by a common synod, as one who violates the ecclesiastical laws.

BALS. Concerning those who leave their own parishes and go away into others, consult the fifteenth canon of the holy apostles, the sixteenth canon of the first synod, and the fifth canon of the fourth, and you will learn from what is written there also the things established by the present canon.

Another interpretation.

Since some presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, of their own free will, and not because of a penalty imposed upon them, have not celebrated the holy mysteries for a long time, and, wishing again to celebrate the holy mysteries, are prevented, it has been discussed what length of time shall be deemed to take away the celebration of the holy mysteries from one who has not performed them for the whole of his time. I say that a long time, according to the law, is three years. If, therefore, any person in orders shall not exercise his ministry for the entire three years, not being prevented by illness, nor by captivity, nor by any other such cause, he shall not be permitted to minister any longer. For if, as this present canon wills, he is deposed who resides in another parish for a long time, namely, three years, even if he perhaps celebrates there, much more shall he who has turned away from his own ministry for three years, or has even condemned himself of unworthiness, not be permitted to celebrate. ^C And I prove this also from the note made in the month of March of the third indiction, during the patriarchate of the lord Nicholas, which states these things expressly in part; but it has been determined generally by all for the priests and deacons serving in all the weeks, concerning those who are in the order, as it was also determined of old. But concerning the "supernumeraries," he who is about to depart from the great city for some necessary reason, making it known to the archdeacon and to those who take the lead in the week, that he is departing for six months; and he shall not indeed substitute another in his own place, but afterwards, even to the end of the triennium, shall subject another in his stead to the service, so that the ministry of the church may be fulfilled for him by a substitute. Then if he has not returned after the whole triennium, he shall be stationed far away, and shall be excluded utterly from the week, with the provision of a substitute or restitution not helping him at all.

If, however, there are some who inhabit the imperial city, who are not allowed to be vacant from the ministries of the week, nor to withdraw from their own office; and if they have not returned to the ministry up to six full months, they shall be cast out, having no one else to blame but themselves, for while present they spent six full months asleep, and were slothful, not paying attention to the Church.

^B ZONAR. Many canons have been issued regarding this subject. For the fifteenth canon of the holy apostles decreed the same things; the sixteenth canon of the first synod at Nicaea declared similar things; and the fifth canon of the fourth synod confirmed the canons already established. Therefore, what was written on those canons suffices for the explanation of the present canon as well.

ARIST. « If any cleric, having left his own diocese, should go to another, and then, having moved from there, should spend a long time in another, he shall no longer perform sacred rites; especially if, being called by his own bishop, he does not return. But if he persists in his disorder, he shall be deposed, having no further power of returning. And if any bishop receives one who has been thus deposed, he shall be punished by a common synod, as one who dissolves the ecclesiastical laws. »

This canon also commands the same things as the fifteenth apostolic canon: namely, that no one of the presbyters, or of the deacons, or of those in the priestly catalogue at all, ^C who has left his own diocese and gone to another, and spends a long time in it, should perform sacred rites; and especially if he is called by his own bishop and does not obey such as to return. But he who persists in such disorder is to be deposed, and to have no hope of restoration. Moreover, it commands that the bishop who receives such a one, as if he were a clergyman who has been thus deposed, is to be punished by the common synod, when the assembly of all the bishops of the province occurs on account of emergent ecclesiastical controversies and canonical questions, as a transgressor of the laws of the Church.

CANON IV

« If any bishop (45) deposed by a synod, or presbyter or… ^D

[Guill. Beveregii Notes.]

(45) If any bishop. This, with the following, or the fifth canon of this council, is cited verbatim by the Council of Chalcedon in the case of Carosus and Dorotheus, under the names of the eighty-third and eighty-fourth canon, not of this council, but of the code from which it was read. For the Synod said, "Let the divine canons of the Fathers be read, and let them be inserted into the minutes." And Aetius, the archdeacon and primicerius of the Great Church, taking the book, read. "Canon 83: If any bishop deposed by a synod, or presbyter, etc." Regarding those excommunicating themselves. "Canon 84: If any presbyter or deacon…" the same words with which the next canon is conceived. Concil. Chalced. Act. 4, p. 242, Edit. Colon., ann. 1618. Hence it is rendered clear and undoubted that these canons of the present council had been inserted into the code of canons read by Aetius at that time; which indeed was similar to the code of the canons of the universal Church which Christopher Justellus published, and which Dionysius Exiguus translated into Latin. For in both of them, starting from the Nicene council, the present is indeed numbered as the eighty-third, and the following as the eighty-fourth, just as in the Council of Chalcedon. Unless it be that Dionysius Exiguus combines the fourth and fifth canons of the Synod of Ancyra into one. Furthermore, in the eleventh Action of the same Council of Chalcedon, the sixteenth and seventeenth...

^A canons are mentioned... or a presbyter, or a deacon, deposed by his own bishop, should dare to perform any part of the ministry; or if a bishop, according to the former custom, or a presbyter, or a deacon, should do so, it shall no longer be permitted for him to have any hope of restoration in another synod, nor shall he have room for an apology. But also, all those who communicate with him shall be cast out of the Church, and especially if, having learned of the sentence pronounced against those aforementioned, they should dare to communicate with them. ^B

BALS. The twenty-eighth Apostolic canon excommunicates those who have been justly deposed and once again touch their former ministry; but the present canon says they shall have no hope of restoration, even by the judgment of another synod, and that those who knowingly communicate with them shall be cast out of the Church. The canons, therefore, seem not to be equal. But I think they agree in all respects. For they define that those who perform any priestly act after a perfect condemnation are to be punished in two ways. The Apostolic canon says that those who have been justly deposed—that is, having no help from an appeal—and who have performed some priestly act are to be excommunicated; and the present canon likewise, in the first place, decrees that those who have been deposed by a complete synod (for example, at Constantinople), against which there is no appeal, are not to be received by another synod. ^C Neither are those who have appealed twice and have been defeated, and who, after the help of appeal was denied them, perform any priestly act. Then, by what it says—that those who communicate with them are cast out of the Church—it seems to imply that such people should also be excommunicated. Interpret the canons in this way, and do not say that one who has been deposed by a synod and has the help of an appeal, if he performs a priestly act after his deposition, is to be excommunicated and lose the help of an appeal, as some have said. For you would contradict both canons and diverse laws, which decree that those who have been condemned shall have their state integrated and intact until the appeal has been heard: especially in the fourth canon of the Synod of Sardica, which you should also read. Seek also the 13th and 15th canons of the present synod, and the 4th canon of the Sardica synod which annuls these; and [check] book 3 of the *Basilics*, title 1, chapter 45, the beginning ^D of which is, "If any most holy bishops..." and you will learn how and by whom bishops and clergy are judged regarding criminal cases, and when and by whom the condemned may appeal.

ZONAR. Bishops, if they are accused of crimes, require a synod to judge and pronounce judgment; but presbyters, and deacons, and the remaining clergy [are judged] by their own bishop.

Notes of William Beveridge. The final canon of the present synod is read from the same codex under the name of the ninety-fifth and ninety-sixth canon; in which order they are still found in the aforementioned codices. As for the present canon, it is cited and renewed by the Council of Aachen, held in the year of our Lord 816, according to the Dionysian version.

^A If, however, those who have been condemned claim that they are being treated unjustly, the vote is set to be reviewed by the metropolitan and the synod of the province, in accordance with the sixth canon of this synod, and the third and fifth canons of the Council of Sardica. A decree concerning this is also set forth in the third book of the *Basilica*, title 1, chapter 22, the beginning of which is: "If, however, any most holy bishops of the same synod should have some dispute among themselves."

For these reasons, therefore, the present canon states: "If any bishop who has been deposed by a synod," and so forth, "should dare to perform any part of the liturgy" (the term "liturgy" here refers not only to the priestly service and the celebration of the unbloody sacrifice, but to all the functions of the high priesthood. Therefore, even if he abstains from celebrating the sacrifice, but administers baptism or performs any other act proper to a high priest according to the prevailing custom, that is, the ancient custom that has held sway), "or a presbyter or deacon," it is not permitted to him—even if he says he was not justly condemned—to approach another synod and seek a review of the vote cast against him, nor is a place for his defense to be granted; but even those who communicate with them, once they have learned of the decision against them, are to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church. And the 29th canon of the Council of Carthage says that such a person brings judgment upon himself. It is clear, therefore, from this canon and from those mentioned above that a bishop who is being judged, ^B if he assumes he is being treated unjustly, is allowed to seek to have the decision against him examined by others.

But the 15th canon of this same synod seems to contradict the present canon, saying, "If any bishop accused of certain crimes should be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all of them should unanimously cast a single vote against him, he is no longer to be judged by others, but the unanimous decision of the provincial bishops shall remain in force." These canons, as has been said, seem to be contrary to one another, but they are not. For the fourth canon speaks of one condemned by a "synod"—that is, some of the bishops of the province having gathered and declared their opinion—and for this reason, it grants the one who thinks he is being treated unjustly the right to seek a second examination. But the 15th speaks of a vote ^C brought forth by all the bishops of the province in unanimous agreement. Thus, when some of the provincial bishops declare their opinion against someone, the condemned person will be able to bring the case to a second investigation; but when all the provincial bishops have been of one mind and have rendered a unanimous decision against someone, the permission to contest that vote will no longer be granted to the condemned person. From this distinction, it is to be understood that even if all should gather, yet should not agree with one another regarding the vote, it will be permitted even then for the one being condemned to seek to have the decision against him reviewed; and regarding this, read also the 14th canon of this same synod. ^D

ARIST. ^A « A bishop deposed by a synod, if he dares to celebrate while being arrogant, let him have no hope of restoration. »

This canon, as well as the twelfth, indicates that a bishop deposed by a synod is able to appeal, and the vote against him, if it was rendered unjustly, can be corrected by another larger synod; unless perhaps the bishop who is deposed, through his own arrogance, dares to perform sacred rites before the correction of the decision against him. For in that case, even if he claims he was deposed unjustly, he shall not have restoration, nor a place for a second appeal. But the fifteenth canon of this same synod says that he who is deposed by all the bishops in the province can no longer appeal, but the decision against him remains firm. However, the fourth and fifth canons of the Council of Sardica ^B give permission to a bishop deposed by all the provincial bishops to appeal, and to take refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church; and another shall not be elected to his bishopric until the bishop of Rome has examined the matters of the decision and has made a complete judgment; and this opinion is more just and more humane, and it even prevails now.

CANON V.

« If any presbyter or deacon, having despised his own bishop, separates himself from the Church, and gathers a congregation privately, and sets up an altar, and, being summoned by the bishop, is disobedient and does not wish to obey him, nor listen to him when he calls for the first and second time, let him be deposed completely, and no longer have any hope of healing, nor be able to recover his own honor. But if he persists ^C in causing disturbances and sedition in the Church, let him be corrected as a seditious person through external power. »

BALS. This present canon decrees the same things as the 31st apostolic canon, and what is written there is sufficient. It adds, however, that those who incite disturbances and do not stand by the decision rendered against them, which is indeed final, are to be punished by the authority of civil magistrates. Therefore, note from the present canon, just as also from the 9th canon of the synod that was held in the Church of the Holy Apostles, that bishops ought to rebuke those who are at fault, but not to torture them. For if they do not obey, they shall deliver them to the magistrates. Seek the 10th canon of the Council of Carthage, the 31st canon of the Sixth Synod, and the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th ^D canons of the First and Second Synod. Consider, therefore, whether even from the present canon those who are deposed for the crime of forgery, or lese-majesty, or sacrilege, or for a cause pertaining to the decrees of religion, or for any other such cause, and who are not persuaded to speak purely and to confess about their accomplices, are subjected to punishments by the civil magistrates. For we know that this has happened in various ways.

^A

ZONAR. This canon decrees the same things as the 31st canon of the Holy Apostles, and the things we said in that place suffice for the explanation of this one as well. But this canon sets forth something beyond the apostolic canon, saying: "If, however, he persists in creating a tumult and agitating the Church, it is resolved that he be restrained by the external power as a seditious person." He says that if one who has been deposed for holding private assemblies does not remain quiet, but causes tumults and perturbations in the Church, agitating it—that is, inciting it to sedition—he shall be punished by the external power, that is to say, the civil one, as a seditious person, so that he may turn back to repentance. Moreover, the ninth canon of the council in Constantinople which gathered in the temple of the Holy Apostles, regarding those who do not obey the bishops, and who do not come to their senses even when a fine is imposed upon them, decides that they should be chastened by the magistrates of that region. From which it is to be noted also from this canon that it is entirely forbidden for bishops to inflict punishments upon anyone; but they may only chasten them with ecclesiastical penalties, and if they do not obey, they are to be handed over to the [civil] authority.

ARIST. ^B "Every presbyter or deacon who despises his bishop, and separates from him, and builds another altar, if, having been called three times by the bishop, he persists in his arrogance, let him be deposed, and without hope of restoration."

Such a person, not having convicted the bishop of impiety or injustice, as the thirty-first canon of the Holy Apostles stipulates, but being lifted up by pride and arrogance in accordance with the tenth canon of the Synod of Carthage, if he has separated himself from the Church, and erected another altar, and drawn the people to himself, conducting private conventicles, and after that, being called three times by the bishop, has not complied, but has remained in confusion, he is worthy of being entirely deposed, and of no longer hoping to ever obtain restoration and to resume his own honor.

CANON VI

"If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be received by others (unless he has been received by his own bishop) before he has approached a synod that has been held and defended himself, and, having persuaded the synod, obtained a different sentence. But let the same decree be observed against laymen, and presbyters, and deacons, and all those who are listed in the catalogue of the clergy." ^{C D}

BALS. Concerning those things which are contained in this canon, we have written sufficiently in various other canons, and in the twelfth and thirteenth apostolic canons.

ZONAR. Many canons have also been issued concerning this matter; and through what we have said regarding those, we consider the explanation of this one to be satisfied.

ARIST. "If a higher synod receives or condemns a cleric excommunicated by a bishop, let him acquiesce to the sentence."

He who binds is also able to loose. Therefore, the cleric who has been subjected to penalties by a bishop, and separated,

^A if the synod examines the one excommunicated and finds the excommunication to have been imposed unreasonably, is able to correct what was done wrongly, and to loose him, and the decision concerning this remains firm.

CANON VII.

BALS. In the thirty-third Apostolic canon and the sixteenth of the Council of Chalcedon, matters concerning letters of peace and commendatory letters were treated, and that "strangers" are those who come from other dioceses. Read, therefore, what is written in those places.

ZONAR. We have sufficiently explained in the eleventh canon of the fourth council what letters of peace are, and what commendatory letters are. Furthermore, it understands "strangers" in this passage ^B not as all those who might happen to be traveling from one region to another, but as clerics who are departing from one church to another; these the canon forbids to be received by those who preside over the churches to which they are journeying, unless they bring letters of peace from those presiding over the churches from which they departed. And the thirty-third Apostolic canon speaks more clearly concerning strangers, saying that it is not permitted to receive any stranger—bishop, presbyter, or deacon—without commendatory letters. For the canon permits them to be given hospitality and for the things necessary for the needs of life to be provided to them by those to whom they have come; but it absolutely forbids them to be received into communion.

ARIST. ‹ A stranger, not bringing letters of peace, is not to be received. › It is stated in many canons that those who are ordained elsewhere are not to be received without the letters of the bishop from whom they received ordination.

CANON VIII.

BALS. You have learned what letters of peace, or dimissory letters, are, and what commendatory letters are, which are also called "canonical." But because some argued that the presbyters who are in the regions, or the protopapas, could give letters of peace, even to neighboring bishops, on the grounds that they did not possess any right of ordination, but [did possess] that of piety and Christian communion, the Fathers decreed that these also are to be given only under the power of the bishop. ^D Chorepiscopi are those now called exarchs, whether they belong to a patriarch or to a metropolitan. But the fourteenth [canon] of the seventh [council] does not permit even a reader to be ordained, unless by the permission of the bishop.

^A to those who are blameless, that is, those who have not been under any accusation that might stain their reputation, it was granted to give "letters of peace," because other privileges were also bestowed upon them.

ZONARAS. By the term "canonical letters," [the canon] understands letters of commendation and letters of peace. Which are "letters of peace" and which are "letters of commendation," we have already stated. These are granted by those who preside over the churches, but not by presbyters, nor by those who are in the country regions where the bishop is not usually present. Chorepiscopi who are free from all suspicion—whose reputation, that is to say, has not been stained by any charge of crime—are permitted by the canon to bestow letters of peace (for other privileges are also granted to chorepiscopi), but only to neighboring bishops and to presbyters who are in the rural districts, not to those who are separated by longer distances.

ARISTENUS. "A presbyter living in the country shall not give canonical letters, or at most, only to a neighboring bishop."

To bishops alone and to blameless chorepiscopi is it permitted to give canonical letters to clergymen of their diocese who wish to travel abroad; but as for presbyters, even if they perhaps hold the first rank in a region, this privilege does not belong to them. It is granted to them, however, to write to a neighboring bishop concerning such clergymen, and to make known their ordination, their faith, and their reputation. ^{B C}

CANON IX.

"It is necessary for the bishops in each province to know the bishop who presides over the metropolis, and to take care of the whole province, because all who have business gather from every direction to the metropolis. Therefore, it has been decided that he should also take precedence in honor, and that the other bishops should do nothing of great importance without him, according to the ancient canon that has prevailed from our Fathers—except for those things only which pertain to each one's own parish and the regions that are under it. For each bishop is to have authority over his own parish, and to administer it according to the piety fitting for each, and to take care of the whole region that is subject to his city—and so also to ordain presbyters and deacons, and to examine each matter with judgment; but he must not attempt to do anything further without the metropolitan bishop, nor may the latter do anything without the consent of the others." ^D

BALSAMON. The matters contained in the present canon have been explained in the thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon; read that.

ZONARAS. Although this canon does not consist entirely of the same words as the thirty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles, if you look at the meaning, it agrees with it in all things. So that what is said in that one and the sense of this one present to the b...

^A one who wishes it. ARIST. It is necessary for bishops to depend on the opinion of the metropolitan, and to arrange nothing without his counsel, except only those matters which fall to their own parish, and to impose hands on men who are not subject to reproach. The same things which the thirty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles teaches are also taught by this canon, namely, that the bishops of each province must acknowledge their own primate, and without his opinion must neither elect bishops nor do any other thing of great importance, except those things which are mentioned here, namely, those things which pertain to the parish of each; and they may ordain a presbyter and a deacon, and whatever things are consistent with these. ^B

CANON X.

^A whatsoever. But one might ask: why was it added to the term "deposition" that he is also to be deposed "from honor"? The answer is that some contended that the chorepiscopus who has transgressed ought indeed to be deposed, yet should retain his chorepiscopal honor—that is, the cathedra and the rest—according to the 9th canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea, and the 21st and 26th canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. For this reason, then, the canon says that he loses both, as is stated at the end of the first canon of this present synod. Furthermore, the phrase "without the bishop of the city" is not to be understood as "without his mandate," but rather "without* his celebration of the sacred rites." For even if the chorepiscopus were given a mandate to ordain a presbyter, and he were to do so, the ordination would be void, because the power to ordain presbyters has not been given to him by the canons. Read also the 14th canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea. And note that the impositions of hands performed by metropolitans upon heads of monasteries ^B or others who are subject to different dioceses are rendered void; furthermore, any regulations made by certain persons that the heads of their monasteries are not to be consecrated or given character by the patriarch himself, but by those bishops [of the region], or are not to be ordained at all, are entirely void.

ZONARAS

ARISTENUS

Each person ought to know his own measure and remain within his own boundaries. Therefore, if a chorepiscopus dares to ordain a presbyter or deacon—excepting those who are committed to him, namely readers, singers, exorcists, and subdeacons—he shall be ^D deposed. Although it seemed otherwise to the great Basil regarding these grades themselves, as was written in the thirteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra.

CANON XI

subject to ecclesiastical rule, without the judgment and letters of the bishops of the province, and especially of the metropolitans, shall have set out to go to the emperor: he shall be excommunicated, and cast out not only from communion, but also from the dignity in which he happens to participate, as one daring to cause annoyance to the ears of our most religious emperor contrary to the ordinance of the Church. If however a necessary need should call for an expedition to the emperor, this is to be done with the deliberation and judgment of the bishop in the metropolis of the province and those in it, and he is to be provided with their letters. ^B

BALS. The present canon ordains that not only are bishops or clerics who go to the emperor without the letters of the local bishop, and especially of the metropolitan, to be separated, but also they are to be deposed, as causing annoyance to the imperial ears contrary to the things decreed by the Church; but if a necessary cause is proposed, it allows them to proceed to the emperor with letters of synodal permission. Read the canons 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Council of Sardica, and the 106th canon of Carthage. Since, however, some adhering to the words of the present canon (for they are far from its meaning) wish those prelates who reside in the queen of cities to go to salute the emperor with the knowledge and permission of the patriarch, and not otherwise, we say that the things contained in this canon, and the others mentioned herein, have place when a prelate has gone of his own accord from his own region to the emperor. For when he resides in the queen of cities, either by imperial right or by patriarchal permission, he will meet the emperor without any hindrance, and will remind him of the things ^C he wishes. But that prelates may go by the emperor's command wherever they have been ordered, even without synodal consent, has been declared in various interpretations of the canons; and these do not need to be repeated by us.

ZONAR. Unless there is every necessity, the canons do not wish bishops to approach the emperor and annoy him with petitions for their own private affairs. But even when one has some necessary matter to report to the emperor, they forbid him to set out without the judgment of the bishops of the province from which he is intending to depart, and especially that of the metropolitan of that province. And one who has set out without the judgment ^D and letters of the metropolitan to go to the emperor is to be deposed. And the 7th and 8th canons of the Council of Sardica, if it be for the help of widows and orphans and the poor, and for laymen who have fled to the church and are being wronged or oppressed or deprived of their own, allow a bishop to act as an advocate and to patronize the laity, who

desire to approach the emperor, provided that the ^A emperor grants the permission to do so. However, it is determined that a deacon should rather be sent with letters to the emperor, so that in this way he may assist those who are taking refuge in the Church.

ARIST. ^A A bishop or presbyter who approaches the emperor of his own accord, and not by the command of the metropolitan of the province, shall be stripped of both his communion and his rank.

The Fathers, in order to suppress disobedience in all things and to maintain established order, forbid bishops, presbyters, and others of the sacerdotal rank to approach the king without letters from their own primate, or to disturb his ears, or to report anything concerning anyone. And for this reason, they decree that he who approaches the emperor without the ^B consent of the bishop who is the metropolitan of the province shall be stripped of his rank and be barred from communion.

CANON XII

^{B C} If any presbyter or deacon, if deposed by his own bishop, or if a bishop is deposed by a synod, shall dare to disturb the ears of the emperor, when it is proper to turn to a greater synod of bishops and to refer the rights which he thinks he has to more bishops and to await their examination and judgment: if, therefore, he ignores these and is troublesome to the emperor, such a man is worthy of no pardon, nor shall he have a place for defense, nor may he expect any hope of future restitution.

BALS. The aid of appeal has been given to every condemned person who thinks himself to have been wronged. The canon, therefore, says that ^C although this has been given to bishops, and likewise to clerics, it has not been permitted that they should for this reason deafen the royal ears. If anyone, therefore, having abandoned the approach to a greater synod and having passed over the allegations of his own right before it, is troublesome to the emperor regarding this matter, he will not only not be helped, but as one worthy of no pardon, he will close every door of his own legal defense against himself, and he will not have even a hope of restitution.

But someone might say: Since the canon says that those who have been deposed must not approach the emperor, but a greater synod, is it the case that he who has been deposed by, say, the bishop of Ephesus or Thessalonica will be forced to approach the ecumenical patriarch rightly, while he who has been condemned by a patriarch, having nowhere to take refuge, will be punished if he approaches the emperor, or not?

Solution. Some have said that the provisions of the canon have a place also in their sentences, with the exception of the ecumenical [patriarch], because the sentence of the bishop of Jerusalem may be judged by the bishop of Antioch, and that of Antioch by the bishop of Alexandria, and so on in order according to ^D the greater rank of each of them; but to me it seems that the canon was pronounced because of the sentences of other bishops and metropolitans, and not also because of the patriarchs. For their sentences are not subject to appeal. And

^A a person who approaches the emperor in order to have their sentence reviewed by way of appeal, as this present canon wishes, shall be punished. For Justinian’s Novella 137, which is found in book III of the *Basilika*, title I, chapter 45, says so expressly: "If, however, any most holy bishops of this same synod should have any dispute with one another, whether regarding ecclesiastical law or regarding other matters, let their metropolitan first judge the matter with two other bishops from the same synod, and if both parties do not abide by what has been judged, let the most blessed patriarch of that diocese then hear them and define what is in accordance with ecclesiastical canons and laws, with no party being able to contradict his sentence." And because it has frequently been discussed whether the sentence of the [patriarch] of Constantinople ought to be subject to appeal, it seemed necessary to me to state what I think about this, and also what is said about this matter by others. Some say that since the laws explicitly state that the sentence of the praetorian prefect, and the sentence of one who has twice been urban prefect, are not subject to appeal, and since they did not explicitly deem the patriarchal sentence worthy of this privilege, it will, like the sentences of many and various judges, also be subject to appeal. ^B In confirmation of their argument, they also use Justinian's Novella 3, which is found in book III of the *Basilika*, title II, which decrees that the patriarch must render an account to the emperor if he ordains a cleric beyond the authorized number. Others, as if reverencing the eminence of the patriarchal greatness, say that an appeal from a patriarchal sentence is neither to be entirely excluded nor entirely granted. But if the parties contending in judgment are of the order of clerics or monks, the sentence pronounced against one of them shall not be re-examined: but if one or both of the parties are of the lay order, an appeal shall be made without any controversy. Yet others say that the nature of the case is the mother of the appeal. For an ecclesiastical case, they say, does not give birth to the offspring of an appeal; but a pecuniary case does give birth to an appeal, like a viperous abortion tearing the entrails of the parent who bore it. ^C Others, stopping the mouths of those who say these things, maintain that the patriarchal sentence is subject to appeal then and only then, when the patriarch presides as judge by imperial mandate, along with fellow-judges or with his own synod. But it seems to me that, since the laws were written before the ecclesiastical order was established, and most of them by Greeks, they correctly made no mention of patriarchs. If, however, anyone should say that a Novella was also made by orthodox emperors after the patriarchal sees were honored, he shall first hear that it never entered the mind of an orthodox emperor that anyone would ever dare to do such a thing, and to say that what has been judged by one endowed with such authority and so honored ought to be revoked again into judgment. ^D Secondly, that Justinian’s Novella, which is placed in the interpretation of the present canon, in which it is cautioned that no one should contradict a patriarchal sentence, is sufficient to stop the mouths of those who [oppose this].

Furthermore, the Novel of Justinian, which was set down for the interpretation of the present canon and which determines that no one should object to a patriarchal vote, is sufficient for the total silencing of these people; but the fact that one is held to account for extra-canonical ordinations performed by him does not introduce an inquiry into his judgments. For the act is personal, but the privilege belongs to the throne. Since, therefore, it is considered that no one should be wronged by another, he himself shall be judged before the master of knowledge of the Church, the emperor, as a sacrilegious person, perhaps, or a heretic, or one who has committed some other sin. For we have seen this happen in practice at different times. But his tribunal will be exempt from questioning because of the pre-eminence of the throne. And since some also whet a crooked and untamed tongue against such a Novel, and say that one cannot contradict the patriarch when the patriarch hears an episcopal sentence by way of appeal—because the Novel does not wish a case that has been agitated in two tribunals to be brought into a third—but [they claim we can] when he judges in the first instance, and especially concerning laymen: I say that I could have said many things toward this, and shown that they do not speak correctly. But because the 4th canon of the Council of Sardica decrees that it is permitted for one who is condemned to appeal twice, and for the final judgment to be made by the Pope of Rome, it does not allow one to put forward such things. I pass over the other points, but I say this: since the decree of Saint Constantine made to Pope Silvester, which was placed by us in the interpretation of the first chapter of the 8th title of the present ^B syntagma, establishes that the Pope has all imperial rights; and the second ecumenical council and the fourth gave the Patriarch of Constantinople the privileges of the Pope, and ordained that he should be honored in all things as he is; of necessity his sentence is not subject to appeal, just as the imperial sentence is not questioned. For this reason, it seems, synodal decrees are issued according to the privileges of royal decrees. Since this is the case, the rest of their arguments also cease. For whether the patriarch has judged clerics or laymen, whether a layman with a cleric, whether by imperial command, or by his own right, or with a co-judge, or alone, he will be superior to any examination and judgment; and whoever has dared to appeal to the emperor so that the patriarchal sentence might be judged again will be liable to the present canon. For if it is not permitted to annoy the emperor for the sake of having a metropolitan’s sentence recalled into judgment, much more will it not be permitted for a patriarchal decision to be brought before the emperor to be questioned. ^D ZONARAS. We have explained above how a bishop who has been deposed by a synod, or a cleric by his own bishop, may seek to have the vote against them re-examined if they think they are being wronged; but in this place the canon forbids those who have been punished with deposition from approaching the emperor, and annoying him, and seeking [to have] the [sentence] against

his own verdict examined; and it orders that no place for self-defense be granted to the one doing this, nor that he should hope that he will be restored.

ARIST. ^A « The deposed person, if he should annoy the emperor, let him seek a greater synod, and let him acquiesce in the opinion [rendered] from there; but if he should again show displeasure, let him not have restoration. »

The canon does not forbid one who has been deposed by a synod, and who thinks that he is suffering an injustice, from calling upon a greater synod, and presenting there what he believes to be just arguments for the overturning of the vote passed against him. Nay, it even permits him to do this. But the one who does not wish to approach the synod and set forth his own just arguments there, but instead tries to annoy the imperial ears in search of vengeance, he is deemed worthy of no pardon, nor does it grant him a place for an apology, nor [is he permitted] to expect any hope of future restoration.

CANON XIII

^B « Let no bishop dare to cross from one province to another, and ordain some in the churches for the advancement of ministry, nor if he bring others with him, unless he comes having been invited by letters of the metropolitan and of the bishops who are with him, into whose region he is entering. But if no one calling, he should go off disorderly for the laying on of hands upon some, and for the administration of ecclesiastical matters not pertaining to him, the things done by him shall be invalid; and he himself shall undergo the fitting penalty for his disorderliness and his unreasonable attempt, being henceforth deposed by the holy synod. »

BALS. We have sufficiently discussed the matters treated in the present canon in the 35th Apostolic Canon and elsewhere. And read those things which are written there. Seek also the 22nd canon of the present synod.

ZONAR. The cause of scandals and turmoil is a bishop going away into another province and performing ordinations without the consent of the bishop of that province. Therefore the canon forbids this, and condemns the one who does this to deposition. These things have been canonized also by the holy apostles in the 35th canon; and the 22nd canon of this present synod decrees the same things.

ARIST. ^C « If, with no one asking, a bishop should go off into another province, and ordain, and administer matters, let these things remain invalid, and let that person be deposed. »

You will find many canons forbidding this, namely, a bishop moving from his own province to an alien one, and ordaining in it, or performing any other episcopal function, unless perhaps someone is invited ^D and deemed worthy by the local bishop to do something of that kind. But those who come from home into another province of their own accord, and either perform the laying on of hands or [deal with] administrations of ecclesiastical matters not pertaining to them, [the canons] order that while the things done by them are to remain invalid, they are also to be deposed.

CANON XIV

^A If any bishop be tried for certain crimes, and it then happens that the bishops of the province disagree about him, some pronouncing the accused innocent, others guilty; for the sake of resolving all controversy, it has seemed good to the holy synod that the metropolitan bishop should summon from the neighboring province other judges, who shall resolve the controversy, and confirm with the provincial ones what shall be proven.

BALS. The synod has determined that a bishop who is judged by the provincial bishops, and is by some acquitted but by others condemned, shall not be condemned or acquitted otherwise than by the metropolitan of the synod summoning bishops from a neighboring province, who ought to judge the matter in question and confirm the vote. Do not say, therefore, that Canon 12 opposes this canon, which says that a doubtful sentence is to be re-examined by a greater synod, and not by him who first judged it together with the neighboring bishops. For there, the sentence had already been passed, and he who once pronounced it can no longer judge; and for this reason, his sentence, being doubtful, is subject to appeal: but here, no sentence has been passed. And the canon admonishes the metropolitan to summon neighboring bishops so that the dissension may be removed, and thus all suspicion and tergiversation on the part of the condemned man may be cut away; but if, even when this is done, the condemned man thinks that an injustice has been done to him, he may rightly appeal, as is contained in the twelfth canon and the fourth canon of the Synod of Sardica. Read also canons 3 and 5 of the same synod. But if he has litigated before the patriarch, the present canon and the following one will have force. ^{B C}

ZONAR. Whenever anyone is condemned by all the bishops of the province by unanimous consent, it is by no means permitted to call the condemnation into doubt, as is established by the canon of this present synod. But if the bishops do not agree, but some contend that the accused should be condemned and others the opposite, then it is necessary for the metropolitan of that province to summon other bishops from a neighboring province, so that by them the dissension of the bishops may be resolved, having been joined to the side of those who are opposed to each other. One should also read the third and fifth canons of the Synod of Sardica. ^D

ARIST. If, when a bishop is accused, the bishops of the province disagree among themselves, others from the neighboring provinces are to be summoned for the certain resolution of the controversy.

Each bishop, when accused of crimes, ought to be judged by his own synod; but if the bishops of the province disagree, some saying that the accused is innocent, others that he is guilty, the metropolitan can summon other bishops from a neighboring province so that they may resolve the doubt existing between the bishops.

^A CANON XV. • If any bishop, accused of certain crimes, should be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all of them should render one concurrent sentence against him: he shall no longer be judged by others, but the sentence of the provincial bishops shall remain firm. •

BALS. The present canon has been set aside by the fourth canon of the Synod of Sardica. But if you do not wish to say this, interpret the canon as has been stated above, and say that the condemnation is made here by a synod against which no appeal lies, such as to the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople.

ZONAR. The things said in the fourth canon are sufficient for the explanation of the present one.

ARIST. If, when a bishop is on trial, every provincial bishop is in agreement, there is no retrial. •

This canon does not allow him who has been deposed by all the bishops of the province to be judged by others in the manner of an appeal, but wishes the sentence unanimously brought against him by all the provincial bishops to remain firm. However, as we have said regarding the fourth canon of this present synod, the opinion of those who decreed that the person who thinks he has been injured should be allowed to appeal and obtain the aid of an appeal holds more sway, as it is more just and more humane. ^B

CANON XVI.

BALS. A certain vacant bishop, that is to say, one not having a church, because it was held by the heathen, seized on his own authority a vacant church—that is, one which did not have a bishop—and encroached upon its see, and exercised archiepiscopal rights. ^C

***

With the note of William Beveridge.

...the following canon was recited by Bishop Leontius in the Council of Chalcedon from the code of canons, in which it is indeed the ninety-fifth, and the one following the ninety-sixth, according to the order of the canons truly observed in that code. Council of Chalcedon, Act 11, page 301, Cologne edition, in the year of our Lord 1618. Where, also, by the force of these canons, Bassianus and Stephanus were driven from their bishoprics at Ephesus, though dignity only, or honor, communion, and what was necessary for sustaining life were granted to them. Furthermore, the epitome of the present canon by Harmenopulus is as follows: Even a vacant bishop, if without a full synod (and it is full when the metropolitan is present) he shall have leapt into a vacant church, even though the people of that city may have so wished, he is to be rejected. ^D In the synodical decree of Patriarch Michael, it permits translations of bishops to be made, by the judgment of him who is the first among them, when necessity so demands for the greater utility; likewise, that a second bishopric may be granted to a bishop, in addition, by the primate in his own territory, in which and in all its borders he shall exercise all pontifical rights, whatever a genuine bishop of their own performs, except that he shall not be enthroned in the holy *synthronon*. Harmenop. Epit. can. sect. 1, tit. 4.

^A How he dared this and whether he was justified, he defended himself in this way: that the operation or exercise was not forbidden in another region or diocese for any other reason than lest the president of this region or diocese be insulted or despised. But when there is no prelate in a vacant church, and when he himself does not possess the one that had fallen to him, since it is held by the nations, neither will the aforesaid insults have any place, nor will any prejudice be brought against him, as one who usurps what is foreign beyond what he possesses. The canon says, therefore, that he who so recklessly seizes a throne not given to him by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, even if both he and the church are vacant, is to be cast out. But as if someone had said that these things have place when one who is vacant has invaded a vacant church like a brigand, but not when its people have transferred to it the one who is vacant, even against his will, the canon adds that not even on that account is he to be excused, who has performed any episcopal act in a vacant diocese without the permission of the synod.

And since, as it seems, it had been permitted by a dispensation of the provincial bishops for someone "vacant" to perform priestly acts in a vacant church, and this act was condemned because the metropolitan had not joined in the vote—and some were saying that the assembly of the provincial bishops is called and is a synod, and hence that what is done by them without the metropolitan is firm, because the judgments of bishops, even without the metropolitan, cannot be contradicted—the Fathers said in this matter that that is a perfect synod which has the metropolitan also present. But the judgment [of the individual] is private/particular, and particulars are not drawn into a precedent. Therefore, note from the present canon that it is permitted, with a synodal decision, to permit a "vacant" bishop to perform ministry in a vacant church, and even to sit upon its very ^B throne. For I have heard often that for this, there is need also of an imperial command.

But someone may ask, how ought one to understand that he who has thus invaded a church is "to be cast out"? Some said that this is to be taken as meaning excommunication; but to me it seems it must be taken as deposition, according to the canons which say that those who ordain outside their own dioceses are to be deposed. For if he who has performed any episcopal act to the injury of one local prelate is deposed, much more will he be punished who has done such a thing to the injury of a perfect synod. ^C It has often been asked who is "vacant" and which is "the vacant church"? And concerning the vacant church, there was no doubt: for all recognized as a vacant church that which is widowed of a prelate. But concerning the "vacant" [bishop], it pleased all that he is "vacant" who is unable to go to the church to which he was proclaimed, because it is held by nations or heretics, and perhaps he has been cut off and the prelate is not allowed ^D

permitted to set foot in it—of which sort is today the Church of Jerusalem, the Antiochene, the Tarsian, and others. For Jerusalem has been polluted by the impious Hagarenes; the Antiochene throne is held by a Latin patriarch; and Tarsus by the Armenians. However, some churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople are not considered vacant, because the Latins and Hagarenes permit the prelates to administer their churches episcopally and to care for the Christians who are there. Hence, the prelates summoned from such churches ought to depart. ^B But the fact that vacant churches are given to certain prelates—not those who are vacant, but those who are laboring in poverty—is a matter of dispensation; and the canon which says that a vacant [church] must be given to a vacant [bishop] has no place here. And therefore, they who synodally permit anyone to be able to sit also upon the throne of that church which has been given to him by reason of dispensation do something contrary to the canon, for which no pardon is to be granted: for to those who are vacant must the throne be given; but not to those who already have an episcopal see. For this reason, also, the prelate who receives a vacant church is no longer called the bishop of that church to which he was first announced, but of that which was given to him as vacant—just as the great theologian Gregory was no longer called [bishop] of Nazianzus, ^C but of Constantinople; nor was he who was recently ordained to Amasea and translated to Cerasus, because he who had previously been deposed was restored, called bishop of Amasea, but of Cerasus. But as for him of Claudiopolis who received his own bishopric, Heraclea Pontica, as vacant, and was permitted to sit also upon the throne joined to it—how he is called Claudiopolitan, I do not know.

ZONAR. A vacant bishop is he who is either without a church, or has been placed over a church occupied by nations, or has been excluded by the people of the city to which he was given as bishop, through no fault of his own but through the mere stubbornness of the people; furthermore, a vacant church is one that does not have a bishop set over it. If, therefore, a vacant bishop, invading a vacant church, occupies its throne, even if the people of that city wish to have him as bishop, he shall be cast out unless a perfect synod adjudges that vacant church to him. ^D And that is considered a perfect synod at which the metropolitan of the province is also present; so that, if a perfect synod has so decreed, it is possible for a vacant church to be assigned to a vacant bishop, and nothing prevents this.

ARIST. ‹He who, without a perfect synod and the metropolitan himself, leaps upon a vacant church, even if he be vacant himself, is to be cast out.›

The present canon permits a vacant bishop to be established in a vacant church by a perfect synod, with the bishop of the metropolis also present, but not by his own authority, even if he should usurp the throne with the consent of the whole people.

Or unless he wishes to be cast out. But as for him who is not currently holding a see, neither does the twenty-first canon of the present synod, nor various others, as was written in the fourteenth apostolic canon, allow him to move to another church, but he must remain in the church to which he was appointed from the beginning by God. ^A

CANON XVII.

BALS. Read the thirty-sixth apostolic canon, and you will learn the decrees concerning those high priests who do not proceed to the churches for which they were ordained. Consistently, therefore, the present canon also ordains the same things, adding that he who does not proceed to the church which he has been allotted shall be separated, until such time as the synod that elected him shall determine something concerning him. For perhaps he will admit him if he brings forward some probable cause. But because I said there that the laying on of hands is not to be understood, as some say, as for election, because the canon certainly mentions reception, you ought to understand the present canon in this same way. ^B

ZONAR. He who is called to the presidency of a people, and does not consent to accept the ministry—that is to say, the service—shall be excommunicated, that is, separated, until he accepts it. But if he continues to refuse, he shall remain separated, unless perhaps a perfect synod shall determine something concerning him. For perhaps he might mention certain reasonable causes for which he wishes to be excused from the task of the presidency, and he may be accepted by the synod, and the penalty will be remitted. ^C

ARIST. • He who has received ordination, and draws back from it, is excommunicated until, led to repentance, he accepts the office. • He who is not persuaded to go to the church committed to him and to preside over the people shall be excommunicated until, changing his mind, he accepts the care of the souls entrusted to him. ^D

CANON XVIII.

Guill. Beveregii notes.

6642. to which he was ordained bishop, not through his own ^A fault, but either because of the refusal of the people, or for some other reason not originating from himself: let such a one be a participant in both honor and function, provided he brings no trouble to the affairs of the church in which he meets. Let him receive that which the perfect synod of the province, having judged what has been laid before it, shall decree.

BALS. In the seventeenth canon, the Fathers punish him who has been ordained and is not persuaded to depart to the church that fell to his lot. But in the present canon, they grant indulgence to him who has been ordained and wishes indeed to depart to the parish to which he was ordained, but is not permitted, either because of the impudence of the people therein, or because of the incursion of heathens. Therefore, they also allow that, in whatever diocese he might be found, he should be deemed worthy of honor—namely, of a throne and of calling and of the exercise of an archbishop's office, with the knowledge and permission of the local bishop. However, he is not to have any power at all in the affairs of that church where he resides—that is, not to teach, not to ordain, not to perform any other episcopal act without the permission of the local bishop, but to remain quiet until he learns what is to be done from the economy and judgment of a perfect synod.

ZONAR. Whoever has been ordained to the church of a city and has not been able to depart to it—perhaps because it is ruled by a heathen nation, or because the country through which he must pass is held by barbarians, or because the people of the city do not receive him due to a ^C disorder of their own—will possess the honor and liturgy befitting a bishop; for he himself is not the cause of his failure to depart to the church that fell to his lot. Yet, he is not permitted to interfere in the affairs of the church where he may happen to gather. For he will perhaps have his residence in some city, and would gather at the church of that city. Therefore, it will not be lawful for him to interfere in the affairs of that church; for he can neither teach there, nor ordain, nor perform holy rites (unless permission be granted), nor has he the power to misappropriate any of the revenues of that church. He ought to commit everything to the judgment and economy of the perfect synod, so that provision may be made for him by that body.

ARIST. ^D «Let the bishop who has been ordained, and who is not in the least accepted by the city, enjoy the honor and perform the liturgy only, awaiting whatever the synod of the province might pronounce.» He who is not accepted by the city in which he was ordained, not through any fault of his own but because of the wickedness of the people, both participates in the honor and is not prevented from performing the liturgy. He ought, however, to remain patiently and not use any military aid or other power,

Guill. Beveregii notæ.

notæ. until the complete synod of the province shall have decreed what seems good to it regarding this matter. ^A

CANON XIX.

BALS. How it behooves us to elect high priests, we learned from the fourth canon of the First Synod. And the present canon commands the same things. It adds, however, that an election which has occurred contrary to the things defined herein shall be void and invalid, and that when those who are electing are divided into different opinions, the vote of the majority wins. But when you hear the canon saying that an election is not to take place without the presence of the metropolitan, do not say that he ought to be present at the election (for this is prohibited, as has been said in other canons), but say that his presence here means his permission or recommendation, without which it is impossible for an election to take place. ^C

ZONAR. First of all, it must be noted that the canon refers to the vote by the name of "ordination" in this place, and not to the perfect institution of a bishop with the laying on of hands. For the first of the holy apostolic canons commands that a bishop be created by two or three bishops, and a priest and deacon by one; but this canon wishes all the bishops of the province, or at least the majority, to be present, or that they should signify their assent by letter to the opinion of the others. So that it is most clearly proven from this that he has referred to the vote as an ordination. We have spoken of this more fully in the explanation of the first apostolic canon, and the fourth of the First Synod. Whenever, therefore, an ordination, ^D that is, the balloting for a bishop, is to take place, the canon says that the metropolitan of the province must by all means be present, and then also the majority of the bishops summoned by letter from the metropolitan to the metropolitan city; and those who cannot attend for some necessary cause should by letter signify their agreement, and thus the appointment, that is, the vote that constitutes this person bishop of the city, should take place. But if it does not happen thus, the ordination is to be invalid. If, however, the vote having been taken canonically according to this regulation, some bishops perhaps contend out of contentiousness, they are not to obstruct the vote, but the opinion of the majority is to prevail. This, in the same way, is also ordained by the sixth canon of the Synod of Nicaea.

^A

We have said many times that neither the metropolitan nor the bishops should elect a bishop without the opinion of the brethren. But if all the bishops of the province cannot assemble to cast their vote due to some difficulty, at least the majority should gather, or they should attest their consent to those present by letters. And if the process is completed in this way, if some men, as if being contentious, should contradict, the vote of the majority is to prevail. ^B

CANON XX

For ecclesiastical needs and the resolution of controversies, it has seemed right that synods of bishops should be held twice a year in every province: once after the third week of the feast of Easter, so that the synod may be completed in the fourth week of Pentecost, the metropolitan reminding the provincial bishops; and the second synod is to be held on the Ides of October, which is the tenth day of Hyperberetaios, so that at these same synods presbyters and deacons, and all who think they have been wronged, may approach and obtain judgment from the synod. But it is not permitted for any to hold synods by themselves, without those to whom the metropolises are entrusted. ^C

BALS. What concerns the synods that ought to be held annually has been sufficiently set forth in the thirty-seventh Apostolic Canon and in the eighth canon of the Synod in Trullo. And read what is written in them. The present canon, however, adds that synods are not to be held without the presence of the metropolitan.

ZONAR. That synods twice a year should be held in each of the provinces was decreed by the holy Apostles, and the same was canonized in the fifth canon of the First Synod of Nicaea, and the present one has likewise determined these things regarding synods. But the eighth canon of the Sixth Synod ordained that one synod should be held annually. The present canon says that the synods are to be held for ecclesiastical needs, that is, for questions concerning certain perhaps ecclesiastical arrangements, and for the resolution of ^D controversial matters, namely those brought by some people against bishops, that they suppose themselves to have been unjustly excommunicated or deposed by them, and other such doubts. The time for each synod is also appointed: the first is the fourth week of Pentecost, and the second is the Ides of October. For the ancients used to divide the days of each month into three classes, and the

^A first they called the Kalends; those that followed them were the Ides, and the last were the Nones. The canon does not permit bishops alone to hold a synod if the metropolitan of the province is not present.

ARIST. For ecclesiastical needs, let a synod be celebrated twice every year in each province: on the fourth week of Pentecost and on the tenth day of Hyperberetaios.

It is also written in the thirty-seventh Apostolic canon that what is contracted is to have a synod twice a year in each province. And it was decreed by the eighth canon of the sixth synod in Trullo, and by the sixth canon of the second Nicaean synod, that the assembly of the bishops of each province should take place once a year, between Pascha and the month of October, and that canonical questions should be resolved by them.

CANON XXI.

BALS. Look for the fourteenth Apostolic canon, and the fifteenth canon of the first synod.

ZONAR. Many canons have also been promulgated concerning this matter. For the same thing was established also by the fourteenth Apostolic canon and the fifteenth of the first Nicaean synod. But this canon adds something more; and ^C even though one is pressured by the people of that city—that is, urged most vehemently (for the prepositions increase the meaning)—and even though one is pushed more sharply by some bishop, it decrees that the opportunity for any bishop to leave the city which he has been allotted and move to another is entirely forbidden.

ARIST. Even if a bishop is forced by the people and compelled by the bishops, let him not migrate to another parish. The translation of bishops is entirely prohibited, even if they are forced by the people or by the bishops to pass over to another parish.

CANON XXII.

BALS. Read also the fourteenth Apostolic canon and the fifteenth of the first Nicaean synod, and you will learn from them and from the two present

canons, and indeed from many others, how those who ordain and are ordained outside their own province without the invitation of the local bishop are punished. Read also the thirty-fifth Apostolic canon and the second canon of the second synod.

ZONAR. This is also forbidden by the sanctions of various canons: that a bishop should neither go into a city nor a region subject to another bishop to confer orders, unless permission has been obtained from the bishop of that place. It is decreed that if one should nevertheless go and confer orders, the ordination is invalid, and he who conferred it is to be punished with a fine. See also the second canon of the second ecumenical synod.

ARIST. ^B "Let no bishop go from city to city to ordain certain persons, except by the judgment of the bishop of that city; otherwise the ordination is invalid, and he himself is liable to judgment."

This canon says the same thing as the thirteenth canon: that each bishop should perform the duties of his own diocese and not go into another to ordain or perform any other episcopal duty without the judgment of the local bishop, unless he wishes to be liable to deposition, and for the things he has done to remain invalid.

CANON XXIII.

BALS. The seventy-sixth of the holy Apostolic canons says that it is not lawful for a bishop to ordain whom he wishes in his own place. Therefore, the present canon also decrees the same, adding that a bishop is not to be made otherwise than if, the bishop having died, the synod of the province chooses the worthy man.

ZONAR. The seventy-sixth of the holy Apostolic canons also says that it is not lawful for a bishop to ordain whom he wishes.

Guill. Beveridge’s Notes

^A And if he should ordain, he renders both his own ordination void, and he himself who ordained is to be excommunicated. These things, therefore, this present canon also decrees, and it is not permitted that a bishop should be made otherwise, unless, when the bishop has died, the synod of the province shall elect the worthy one and appoint him.

ARIST. ^B « Let not a bishop appoint another bishop at the time of his departure; but when he has fallen asleep, let a worthy one be proposed by the synod of those who have authority. »

It is not permitted for a dying bishop, when he is dying, to appoint another bishop in his place. But the provincial synod, after his death, according to the judgment of the metropolitan of that province, shall ordain the worthy one.

CANON XXIV

« It is right that those things which belong to the Church should be guarded with all care and good conscience, and faith in God, who is the overseer and judge of all; and they are also to be administered with the judgment and authority of the bishop, to whom all the people and the souls of those who are gathered in the Church are entrusted. But let those things which pertain to the Church be manifest, with the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons who are around him, so that they may know them, and may not be ignorant of what things are strictly of the Church, so that nothing may be hidden from them; ^C so that if it happens that the bishop should depart from this life, when those things which pertain to the Church are manifest, they may not fall away and perish, nor what is strictly the bishop's be vexed under the pretext of ecclesiastical goods. For it is just and acceptable both to God and men that the bishop should leave his own property to whomsoever he wishes; but those things which are the Church's should be preserved for it; so that neither may the Church sustain any damage, nor the bishop be proscribed under the pretext of the Church, nor may those who pertain to him fall into lawsuits, whereby even he himself, after death, may be burdened with a curse. »

CANON XXV

^D « Let the bishop have the power of the Church's goods, so that he may dispense them to all those who are in need, with much caution and the fear of God; but let him himself also be a partaker of those things which are necessary for him, if he has need, for his own necessary uses, and of those of the brothers who are received by him in hospitality, so that in no way may they be deprived, according to the divine Apostle, who says: « But having food and clothing, we shall be content with these. » But if however—

of the provinces. ^A If he is not content with these, but converts the things to his own personal uses, and does not administer the revenues of the Church or the fruits of the fields with the advice of the presbyters or deacons, but gives the authority to his own kinsmen or brothers or sons, in order that through such persons the interests of the Church suffer loss, let him render an account of his administration to the synod of the province. But if also some other bishop, or the presbyters who are with him, should be accused of diverting to themselves those things which pertain to the Church, whether from fields or from any other ecclesiastical reason, so that the poor are oppressed, and blame and defamation are brought upon the office and those who administer in this way, let these also meet with correction, with the holy synod examining what is fitting.

BALS. The two present canons decree the same things as the 40th and 41st apostolic canons; and inquire into what is written in them. Note also from the present canon that all things which belong to the Churches ought to be administered by ecclesiastical persons, and that those who act contrary to these canons are punished as the synod may see fit.

ZONAR. On canon 24. This canon agrees with the 41st canon of the holy apostles. For that one also decides that the power of administering the affairs of the Church resides with the bishop. ^C But the 40th canon of the same wants the private possessions of the bishop, if he has any, to be known; and likewise those which have been adjudicated to the Church. What, therefore, both the aforementioned canons ordained, these authors of this synod have included in this present canon. Therefore, to explain this one as well, the things which were said in the explanation of both apostolic canons are sufficient.

ARIST. On canon 24. Let the whole clergy [have the things of the Church...]

[Guill. Beveregii note.]

^D And so, curators are similarly given by the metropolitans, who, with all care applied to the Churches, may oversee them together with their bishops; and let them render accounts of the annual administration: and that which is superfluous from the revenues, if indeed anything remains, be partly returned to those who were the authors of the loss accepted by the metropolis, and that the rest be kept for the Church without any innovation being made. That these things, as defined by us in such a way, are consistent with the accurate mind of the canons, is evident from the sacred canons themselves. For the twenty-fifth canon of the Council of Antioch, granting power over ecclesiastical matters to bishops, forbids them to convert them to their own uses and to provide them to their kinsmen, so that in this way the accounts of the Churches may not suffer loss; and therefore, by making them liable to render accounts to the provincial synods, it enjoins upon them the care of examining what is proper. Jur. Græc. Rom. lib. iv. p. 251.

^B

THEODORUS BALSAMON

^B ZONARAS. Whatever is contained in this canon is a repetition of the apostolic canons we have already cited. For the authority to administer ecclesiastical property resides with the bishop; but it is such that he may in no way abuse it according to his own whim, but rather that the power exists for the administration of those in need, and for the bishop himself to partake of what is necessary—that is, the necessities, and these only if he is in need (for nothing superfluous is permitted for him to spend, since he obeys the Apostle, who says: "Having food and clothing, with these we shall be content")—all this is derived from the apostolic constitutions. But if he is not content with the necessary expenses, and converts ecclesiastical goods to his own private uses, and does not conduct the administration of the Church's revenues—that is, recording receipts and expenditures—according to the opinion of the more honorable members of the clergy, but permits such license to his relatives that, while they secretly pilfer the things belonging to the Church, ^C the "accounts" (for he calls the ledger-books "accounts," which the Greeks otherwise call *logopraxias*—for if those of the Church did not have knowledge of the true receipts and expenditures, how would they be able to demand an account from the administrators of such things?) are rendered false: when, therefore, a bishop manages the things of the Church in this way, the canon directs that he be corrected by the provincial synod. And if in any other way the bishop and his associates are accused of misappropriating and claiming for themselves ecclesiastical property, whether it comes from lands or from elsewhere, to the extent that the poor are deprived of necessary subsidies and suffer want, while those [administrators] themselves labor under infamy for their ill-conducted administration, and the accounts which they themselves present do not appear sufficiently ^D proven, it is decreed that they too are to be corrected by the synod, after matters have been diligently explored, examined, and even confirmed by it.

ARISTENUS, on Canon 25. « The bishop shall have authority over the ecclesiastical property; but if he is not content with what is sufficient for him, and transfers the property and revenues of the Church to alien uses without the counsel of the clergy, penalties shall be exacted from him before the synod. But if he has converted to his own uses what was owed to the poor, he shall thus also render accounts to the synod. » He who has had the precious souls of men entrusted to him should have by much greater reason authority over the things of the Church, so that he may distribute them to those in need through the presbyters and deacons, and [that he may have] allowed to him, if [he is in need], the necessary things.

and he may allow himself, if he is in need, ^A what is necessary; so that he may have [enough for] his own essential needs and [those] of the brothers being lodged by him, so that they might not suffer want. But if he is not content with what is necessary, but chooses to seek profit from the Church's revenues, and to appropriate them, and for that reason provides the administration of ecclesiastical matters to his own relatives and kinsmen, so that it might remain hidden where the revenues are being drained away, he shall be brought to examination by the synod, as it may deem fit.

CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA(55) IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA, CONGREGATED FROM VARIOUS PROVINCES OF ASIA

CANON I

Guill. Beveregii notes.

^A joined, and have not taken wives secretly, when a little time has passed, and they have occupied themselves with prayers and fasts, by indulgence to grant them communion.

BALS. Those who enter into second marriages, according to the present canon, doing penance and praying, after a little time are deemed worthy of the communion of the divine mysteries; but according to the fourth canon of Saint Basil, after a year. Those, however, are thus punished who have married a second time in a lawful union. For those who secretly married first, that is, who have fornicated, along with those to whom they were later lawfully joined, shall be punished as fornicators, gaining no help from the lawful union. And so much for this. But the laws consider those born from fornication as born from a lawful union, if the father later lawfully marries their mother. Seek in book 31 of the *Basilika*, the entire title 2, and title 14 of book 28 of the *Basilika*, that is, the 22nd novel of Justinian, which otherwise ordains the matters concerning men and women who enter into second marriages.

ZONAR. Even if second marriage is not prohibited, it is not left entirely without censure. For although the great Paul does not disapprove of a second marriage, yet he ordains that it be permitted only to younger widows; and there are those who say that this was conceded only to women because of the weakness and slipperiness of their nature. The Fathers, however, allowed this capacity to men as well; and if, they say, they have contracted the second marriage lawfully—not having previously sinned against one another in secret marriage—after a little time has passed, having occupied themselves with fasting and prayer, they shall be received into communion according to indulgence, that is, being pardoned on account of the natural necessity. Now this canon did not define anything certain regarding time; but the great Basil, in his fourth canon, says that the time of the penance should be one year, although he says others define a two-year penance for second marriages. But the year shall be the rule when there has not preceded a secret marriage among those who have entered into second marriages. But if they came together by secret intercourse before, then went into a lawful marriage, they shall be punished as having fornicated. And the 22nd Justinian... ^{B C} Guill. Beveregii note. "Asian," thus inscribed, "the Most Great Emperors, ever-venerable, conquerors, Augustus, Valentinian, and Valens, and Gratian, to the bishops of the Asian diocese, of Phrygia, Carophrygia, Pacatiana, greeting in the Lord." "The bishops of Illyricum to the churches of God and the bishops of the diocese of Asia, Phrygia, Carophrygia, Pacatiana, greeting in the Lord." The synod itself also sent a synodical epistle to the same bishops, inscribed in this way, *ibid.*, ch. 7 and 8. Since, therefore, these two epistles were written to the bishops of Asia, Phrygia, Carophrygia, and Pacatiana, it is probable that they had met for a synod in Laodicea, the metropolis of Phrygia, to discuss among themselves the matters comprised in those letters—namely, regarding the faith of the consubstantial, which was at that time called into controversy by many—and to confirm it, as was requested of them in those letters. I suspect, therefore, that these canons were established by a synod held at that time, that is, in the year of our Lord 365. For in that current year the aforementioned synod was celebrated in Illyricum. This conjecture gains some strength from the synodical epistle itself sent to the Asian bishops, inasmuch as that Illyrian synod admonished them to elect such bishops who were of tested faith and blameless in their morals. For this is also defined by this very synod, can. 12. Finally, what we have conjectured seems all the more probable from the fact that nothing occurs in ecclesiastical history offering an occasion for a synod to be congregated from the various provinces of the Asian diocese during those days, except for those letters sent there by the emperors and the Illyrian synod: and even if it is not certain, it is at least probable that this synod was held in those days, that is, in the year of our Lord 365, more or less, and for this reason its canons are deservedly placed after the Antiochene ones. ^D

^A A new law situated in book 28, title 14, of the *Basilica* regulates many things concerning those entering into second marriages, both men and women.

ARIST. The bigamist who has not married secretly, when he has undergone penance for a little while, is thereafter held blameless. The bigamist is separated for a year, occupying himself with prayer and fasting, and thus he is judged worthy of communion. But if he was not joined to the second marriage freely and legally, but had first married secretly, and subsequently came to the communion of marriage, he is subject to the penalty for fornication.

^B CANON II. « That for those who sin in various transgressions and persevere in the prayer of confession and repentance, and make a complete turning away from evil, according to the proportion of the transgression, for the time of penance granted to them, for the sake of the mercies and the goodness of God, communion is to be granted. »

BALS. We have learned that no sin overcomes the philanthropy of God. The present canon also determines that those who desist completely from evil with pure confession and repentance worthy of the transgression be judged worthy of the divine participation; not because of the zeal of these men, but because of the mercies of God and His ineffable goodness. These matters, however, shall be strictly determined by episcopal examination.

ZONAR. If someone has sinned in various transgressions, but confesses these and turns away completely from the evils he has committed, the canon stipulates that a time of repentance be given to him, commensurate with the sins he has committed, and thus, as he demonstrates repentance, he is to be received and brought to communion—not as if he, through his own zeal, were deserving of the reception of the divine mysteries, but because of the mercies of God and His ineffable goodness. ^C

ARIST. Those caught in various faults, if they acknowledge and confess them, and repent in proportion, are readily to be admitted.

All those who have sinned, whatever one might call their sins, if they repent and confess them, and make a complete turning away from evils, and fulfill the time granted to them for repentance according to the proportion of the transgression with prayers and tears, they shall be admitted to communion because of the mercies and goodness of God.

CANON III. « That it is not permitted for one who has recently been enlightened to be brought into the priestly order. »

BALS. Read the 80th canon of the holy apostles, and the 2nd canon of the Synod of Nicaea, which mandate the same things as the present canon regarding those who have been recently baptized and seek to be ordained. However, the great ^D

^A light Nectarius, having been recently separated from the flock of the catechumens, and having washed away the stains of his life in the divine laver, already pure, assumed the most pure dignity of the episcopacy, and at the same time became bishop of the royal city and Exarch of the holy and universal Second Synod.

ZONAR. This is in the same manner constituted by the second canon of the first Synod of Nicaea, and what we have said in the explanation of that will suffice here, too.

ARIST. "The newly enlightened is not fit for sacred orders." The one who is recently enlightened is not immediately promoted into the priestly order.

CANON IV.

BALS. The forty-fourth Apostolic canon and the seventeenth of the first Synod treat more broadly of those in holy orders who take usury; read those.

ZONAR. The same things have been established by the seventeenth canon of the first ecumenical Synod as well, and there is no need to say more here than what we brought forward there.

ARIST. "A priest shall not take usury or sesquialterae (interest)."

It is not fitting for those who are in the clergy to devise base profits, and to practice usury, whether at harsh or lighter rates; unless they do not wish to cease doing this, and if they do not stop, they are to be deposed.

CANON V.

BALS. This canon calls the voting by the term "elections," and says that since in elections many things are often said about those being elected that are unworthy, it is not permitted that these things occur within the general hearing of anyone who wishes to be present. Therefore, today as well, the prelates meet apart by themselves and cast their votes. However, in the first Apostolic canon, "election" is understood as the "laying on of hands."

ZONAR. The canon has indicated "election" here as covering the casting of votes. For since in the ^B making of the votes by the prelates, accusations are voiced against some, for which they might perhaps be excluded from the sacred order, the Fathers judged it not at all consistent with reason that some others should be present to hear what is said, seeing as these things would be a cause of shame ^C to those against whom they are spoken, and an incitement to wickedness to those who hear them, and to those who are not steady in the faith, they would provide a cause for blaspheming God. For just as God is glorified through virtuous acts, while those who see such good deeds glorify Him, so through the opposite [actions], the divine is blasphemed by the faithless ^D and unstable. Why, then, is the vote also called *cheirotonia* (ordination)

^A as was said in the first canon of the holy apostles?

ARIST. “Ordinations are not celebrated before those who only listen. The prayers of those being ordained are not expressed loudly, so that the people might overhear them.”

CANON VI

BALS. The canon is clear. For it does not allow heretics persisting in heresy to assemble together with the orthodox. Read also the 9th canon of the Archbishop of Alexandria, Timothy.

ZONAR. Those who have fallen into heresies and remain in them are banished ^B from the Church, as being alien to it. How, then, will they be permitted to enter the house of God? The Archbishop of Alexandria, Timothy, being asked about this, answered in his 9th canon that heretics ought not to be present at prayer, unless they promise to repent and flee from the heresy.

ARIST. “The holy place is inaccessible to heretics.” Heretics are not permitted to enter the house of God, even though Basil the Great, this canon not yet having been promulgated, admitted Valens to the completion of the faithful.

CANON VII

BALS. Read the 7th canon of the Second Synod, and the 95th canon of the Sixth, and you will learn about those things of which the present canon also treats.

Guill. Beveridge’s Note. ^D ...but it should have been observed what is defined in the following canon of the same council, namely, that the Bonosiacs coming from the same error (that is, of the Photinians), whom it is manifest should be baptized like Arianizers in the Trinity, when, having been questioned, they have professed our faith from their whole heart, it suffices to receive them in the Church with chrism and the imposition of hands. Ibid. can. There is established concerning the reception of those who are imbued with the same error as the Photinians. And indeed, at the time of the council, it seems all Photinians, no differently than the Arians, were baptized in the name of the Trinity. And since it is agreed among all that the baptism of the Arians has been perpetually received by the Catholic Church, it is not surprising that it is ordained by the present canon that Photinians are to be received without baptism being conferred anew.

ZONAR. Theities of the Second Ecumenical Council ^A contain these heresies and many others. We have, therefore, in the explanation of that canon, already set forth who these heretics are and in what manner those who are held by such errors are to be received when they come to the Church, and whoever reads that will require no other explanation of this canon.

ARIST. "Novatians, and Photinians, and Quartodecimans, unless they abjure their own and other heresies, are not to be received: but after an abjuration, let them be anointed and communicate."

These, by anathematizing others' and their own heresies, are received by the Church and are anointed with the holy myron alone; but the Novatians and the Quartodecimans, and the Photinians, are in need of the holy and saving baptism, since their leader, Photinus, renewed many heresies, namely that of Paul of Samosata, and of Sabellius the Libyan, and of Montanus, teaching that the Word of God is not without beginning, nor the maker of all the ages, nor existing before all creation, ^B but is new and recent, and took his beginning from his generation according to the flesh from the Virgin. The heresy of the Quartodecimans consists in celebrating the resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ on the fourteenth day of the moon, even if it should fall on a second, third, or fourth day of the week. Furthermore, they do not accept, according to the Novatians, the repentance of those who return. They also use spurious books, and hold to other such things.

CANON VIII

"That those who return from the heresy of those who are called Phrygians, even if they should be found in what is considered to be the clergy among them, or even if they are called 'greatest,' are with all diligence to be catechized, that is, initiated, and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the Church."

BALS. The things written in the seventh canon of the Second Council are sufficient for the interpretation of the present canon. But because the heretics from among the Phrygians called certain of their teachers 'greatest' clerks, because they surpassed the ^C other heretical clerks, and since there were some who asserted that they should not be baptized, as if they had been ordained, the canon adds that even these must be catechized, that is, initiated and baptized.

ZONAR. The canon of the Second Council, which we mentioned in the immediately preceding canon, discusses also the Phrygians, whom it calls Montanists. Therefore, when these approach the Church, both that canon and this one decree that they must be baptized, having been diligently catechized, even if they are known as clergy in an order among them—though it is not a true one—and even if they were called 'greatest.' For there were among them certain ones who took precedence over others, as if they held the rank of teachers, and these were called 'greatest.' Those

^A from among their number, however, who have resolved to change their mind and return to the Church, no matter who they may be, the canon commands that they be instructed in the faith and bathed in the saving laver of baptism.

ARIST. ^B "Phrygians who repent are to be re-baptized, even if they have been enrolled in the clergy among them."

And these, too, doing penance and turning from their heresy, and approaching the blameless faith, and anathematizing all heresies, including their own, are received, and with all diligence they are instructed and baptized, even if they had held a rank among those Phrygians deemed to be the clergy. Now these Phrygians received their heresy from Montanus and Priscilla. This Montanus called himself the Paraclete; he had two women in a lewd manner, Priscilla and Maximilla, whom he also called prophetesses; a certain small town of Phrygia, ^C Pezusa, he named Jerusalem; he permitted marriages to be dissolved, and to abstain from foods; he perverted the Passover; and he contracted the three hypostases of the consubstantial Deity into one confused person. He taught that blood should be mixed with flour, and that this should be given for communion; those who partook of this he taught to deny it because of the infamy.

CANON IX

"It must not be permitted that those who belong to the Church should go into the cemeteries or into what are called the martyria of any heretics ^D for the sake of prayer or healing; but such persons, if they are the faithful, shall be excommunicated for a time; if, however, they are led by repentance and confess that they have erred, they are to be received."

BALS. Just as in the sixth canon heretics were forbidden to enter into the house of God, so also here the faithful are forbidden to go into the cemeteries of heretics, or into what are called by them "martyria." And as if someone might say: "But if a faithful person should go to the assembly of heretics, for the purpose of cursing and spitting upon it, why shall he be punished?" The Fathers say that those are separated for a time—that is, excommunicated—who go to the martyria of heretics for the sake of prayer or healing: whom they decree ought to be received when they do penance and acknowledge their own error. Read the canons of the holy apostles 64 and 70, the canons of this present synod 29, 32, 34, 37, 38 and 39, the canon 60 of the synod of Carthage, and canon 11 of the sixth synod. Now the martyria are called...

^A cemeteries. For in the time of the persecution, certain heretics, calling themselves Christians, were punished even unto death; and therefore those who were of the same opinion as them called them martyrs.

ZONARAS. The canons forbid not only heretics from entering the church of the believers, but they also forbid believers from going into the cemeteries of the heretics, where perhaps the corpses of men of great name among them were kept, or into what are called martyria. For it is likely that even some of those subject to heresies stood firm unto death during the persecutions, whom their co-religionists called martyrs, and they called the houses in which their bodies had been buried, martyria. It is forbidden for believers to go to these places for the sake of prayer or for the sake of healing. By healing, the canon understands either honor or the cure of diseases. This, therefore, is what the canon wills: that no one go to the aforementioned places, neither as suppliants, nor to honor those who are honored by the heretics, nor to seek from them a cure for diseases or other temptations, but that those who do so from the Church be excommunicated, that is, that they be kept from communion for a certain time; and by those who are of the Church, he does not mean the clergy or those enrolled in the clerical order, but the believers, even if they be laymen; but he orders that those who repent and acknowledge their fault be received.

ARISTENUS. ^C « He who prays in the cemeteries and martyria of heretics is excommunicated. »

CANON X

BALSAMON. Read the 14th canon of the fourth synod, and what is written there will suffice for the interpretation of this present canon.

ZONARAS. Many canons have been issued to this effect, of which we made mention in our explanation of the 14th canon of the fourth ecumenical synod, and what was said there suffices also for the explanation of this present canon.

ARISTENUS. « Do not contract marriage with heretics. »

CANON XI

BALSAMON. Anciently, certain elderly women sitting in the catholic churches used to lead other women to the observance of good and honest order. But because from their practice, due to those ^D who did not make proper use of what is good—whether out of arrogance or for shameful gain—certain people were offended, the Fathers forbade there to be henceforth any such women at all in the churches, called elder-women or president-women. Do not say, however, "And how does this happen in female monasteries, and one woman, that is to say the abbess, presides over all?" For you will hear that the life according to God...

and the monastic tonsure make many to be considered ^A one body, and all their affairs look solely to the salvation of the soul. But for a woman to teach in the catholic church, where a multitude of men is gathered, and women of diverse opinions, is most unbecoming and destructive.

ZONAR. There were certain customs among the ancients that took place in the churches, some of which the passage of time changed, some it entirely abolished, and others the canons forbade. Such was also that custom where "presbyteress" elders, old women, were appointed in the churches, and were called ^B presidents, who would be in charge of the women entering the church, acting as a sort of teacher, and would order them toward good behavior, and teach them how and where they ought to stand. The canon therefore decrees that such women must not be appointed, nor be called by such names.

ARIST. "Let the so-called presidents in churches not be appointed." If they are prohibited from exercising political offices, how can they ever preside over the clergy in the church, and have these as their heads?

CANON XII

BALS. The present canon also forbids bishops from being elected by the mob, and decrees that they must be constituted by metropolitans and bishops. It further enjoins that they be proved in both doctrine and life.

ZONAR. In ancient times, the peoples of the cities elected the bishops; but since seditions arose from this, for this reason, the decrees concerning the constitution of bishops were entrusted to the bishops of each province. ^D The canon further adds what kind of men they ought to be who are being promoted to the episcopate, namely, having been long proved in the word of faith, that is to say, being sound and healthy in the faith, or otherwise, being exercised and proved in the word of faith. For the great Paul, writing to Timothy, says that one desiring the episcopate must be apt to teach; and writing to Titus, he embraces him who holds fast the faithful word according to the doctrine, so that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict. Thus, therefore, the canon ordains that he who is to be set over the episcopate must be in the word of faith; and in his daily life, that is to say the conduct of his life, he must be very upright, not crooked, not full of wickedness, but also there proved and known, in that his path...

is irreproachable. ^A

ARIST. He who is most approved in faith and conduct, and most learned, is suitable to be elected to the episcopate. For the bishop must be proved in faith and good life.

CANON XIII

BALS. From this present canon it is also shown that in ancient times, not only were bishops elected by the multitude of the people, but also priests; which practice was forbidden.

ZONAR. It was forbidden for the multitude to have the power of electing not only bishops, but also priests.

ARIST. He who is elected by seculars is not to be elected. Bishops are appointed by the judgment of the metropolitans and bishops. But if anyone has been promoted to the episcopate not in that manner, but is elected by the multitude, he is neither to be admitted nor elected.

CANON XIV

BALS. This is what is done today by the Latins at the feast of Easter; for they distribute the unleavened bread to the laypeople after it has been sanctified, just as if it were common. This also used to happen among our own people in ancient times, it seems, regarding the holy mysteries. The canon, therefore, forbids this, and decrees that the most holy things are not to be carried here and there, as if they were common and ordinary things.

ZONAR. This too was a custom of old. For at the time of Easter, the holy things—that is to say, portions of the holy body and blood of Christ—were sent from parish to parish for the sake of a blessing for those to whom they were sent, which this canon has forbidden to happen. ^C For the carrying around of the divine mysteries on long journeys, and the being borne about as if they were ordinary things, was justly and piously considered unbecoming and indecorous.

ARIST. It is unworthy that the holy things should be sent away to another parish. He who is about to partake of the divine sanctifications should go to the church and receive communion from the priest or minister, according to the great Basil. But the sending of the holy things to other parishes, by way of blessings, is unworthy.

CANON XV

And without the canonical singers, who sing from a scroll upon the ambo, let no one else sing in the church.

Guill. Beveregii notes. (58) He expresses the meaning of this canon in these words: Let no one sing in the church except those who are the canonical singers, and who sing from a scroll upon the ambo.

BALS. ^A It appears that in former times some of the laity were usurping the privileges of the clergy, and were commencing the divine chants in the churches, to the contempt of the clergy; and they sang some things that were anomalous and unaccustomed, of the sort that are sung today by the women who attend the standards. The Fathers, therefore, forbidding these things, say that no one else, except the clergy who read upon the ambo in the church, should commence the divine chants. For it is not forbidden for laymen also to sing along in the church; but they must not sing things other than those written in the ecclesiastical books composed of *diphtherai*, that is, membranes (parchments). That *diphthera* is a term for any skin is acknowledged. Note this for the sake of the monks who have not received the episcopal tonsure and read disorderly upon the ambo; and for the sake of the laymen who are the choir-leaders of the *kontakia* and who act as *domestikoi* in the churches and in the marketplaces. Note likewise that the trills of the cantors and ^B theatrical melodies are altogether forbidden.

ZONAR. The Fathers of the synod desire that good order be kept in the churches. Therefore, they said that it is not permitted for just anyone to sing in the churches, but for the canonical cantors, that is to say, those enrolled in the clergy, who have been ordained in each church and have been taught to sing from the parchment. They named them *diphtherai*, which the glorious Paul called membranes when writing to Timothy: "Bring," he says, "the books, but especially the membranes." (II Tim. iv, 13) For *diphtherai* are what the skins are called from which the membranes are made. The holy Fathers, therefore, are understood to call the ecclesiastical books *diphtherai*.

ARIST. "Unless with a ^C *diphthera*, no one ascends the ambo."

[Note: [alt-version omitted]]

Guill. Beveregii notes. ^D ... Dionysius Exiguus, whose words we shall presently produce. This epitome of the present canon is read in the *Bibliotheca* of Justellus under the name of Alexius Aristenus as well as Symeon the Logothete; thus, indeed, it is read in the canon itself. But that Aristenus read [it otherwise] is evident from his own scholion, in which he says [that] the word, read by him, led him into an error, so that he thought it was cautioned here that no one should ascend the ambo without a skin or a *phailonion* made of skins. So, indeed, it sometimes signifies. Suidas, *Diphthera*, a shepherd’s cloak made of skins. *Ambonizein* [to ascend the ambo]...

^A It is not permitted for just anyone to ascend the ambo to proclaim divine sermons to the people, if they do not possess the sacerdotal tonsure and have not canonically received the blessing from their own pastor. But furthermore, let them not chant from the ambo otherwise than in a skin or *penula*.

CANON XVI.

BALSAMON. Before the constitution of ecclesiastical chanting was completed, neither the Gospel nor any other Scripture was read in the church on the Sabbath day. But because of the canons which say that one must not fast or bend the knee on the Sabbath, the people for the most part were celebrating a festival at that time, and not even ecclesiastical assemblies were held. The Fathers, therefore, forbidding this, decreed that every ecclesiastical office should be performed on the Sabbath day as well.

ZONARAS. It appears that at the time when this synod was held, the constitution of churches was not yet advanced to the state it reached afterward; for when the faithful gathered, there were only prayers, and the unbloody sacrifice was offered by the priests. Consequently, the synod decreed, for the edification of the faithful, that on each Sabbath read the Gospel along with other things that were read from Scripture.

ARISTENUS. « Let the Gospel, the Apostle, and other Scriptures be read on the Sabbaths. »

CANON XVII.

BALSAMON. Because the psalms were read in a single sequence according to ancient tradition, and the gathered people became tired and consequently weary from the labor and would leave the church, the Fathers decreed that the psalms not be recited continuously in ecclesiastical assemblies, but that readings be inserted in between, so that the people might rest for a short time and then chant again. For this reason, the sacred Psalter was divided into different *kathismata*. Thanks, then, to the holy Fathers for this providence. ^C

ZONARAS. This also was a matter of ancient custom, which has indeed been abolished now that a different order of ecclesiastical affairs has been established.

ARISTENUS. « In assemblies, let readings be placed between the psalms. » When the people are gathered in the church in the morning, readings must take place between the psalms, and one must not join them together and chant continuously, lest those who are gathered, becoming exhausted, incline toward negligence.

CANON XVIII.

^A BALS. This canon also corrects an old, disorderly custom. For it seems that some, out of arrogance as it appears, used to compose prayers for the vesper hymns and read them; and when reproached, they said they were doing nothing absurd or alien, nor were they dissolving the prayers handed down by the Fathers. For they claimed those were ordered to be done at the ninth hour, whereas the ones composed by them were being uttered at the vesper hymns. The Fathers say, therefore, that the prayers handed down are sufficient both at the ninth hour and at vespers, and in all congregations, to sum it up; and that no one who wishes has the authority to compose prayers.

^B ZONAR. That only the prayers approved by the synod should be used by all in supplications, rejecting other new ones, is determined by the canon of the Council of Carthage. It seems this canon also decrees the same thing, namely, that it is not permitted for anyone to compose private prayer formulas at their own discretion and recite them in public assemblies; but it is decided that all should retain in every assembly the same prayers—that is, those established by long-standing custom.

^C ARIST. « Let the same prayers be performed at the ninth hour and at vespers. » Beyond the approved prayers and the canonically sanctioned books, one ought not to read or chant other prayers or private psalms; but one should always perform the same prayers both at the ninth hour and at vespers.

CANON XIX

^D BALS. Those preparing for baptism are called catechumens. Those "in penance" are the faithful who have been rebuked for certain sins, who are also considered worthy of the holy communion. It is gathered, therefore, that a different order prevailed at that time in the divine sacred celebration; and for this reason the Fathers determined what is set down here. Since, however, these things have changed to a different order in present times, they are not to be interpreted regarding those former practices. Peace occurs among the bishops through the salutation, for the salutation is a symbol of love. And being at peace is the consequence of love. Note, however, that from the present canon it is permitted only to the clergy to communicate within the sanctuary. And as to the fact that the laity should not enter the sanctuary...

^A to receive Communion, the canon confirms this.

ARIST. "After the prayers of the catechumens, it is necessary to offer those of the penitents, and after that, those of the faithful. And after the peace, or embrace, the oblation is to take place; with only the priests entering the sanctuary and communicating."

The present canon teaches the order of the prayers and how they must be performed. It says that first indeed the prayer of the catechumens must be performed, afterwards that of those who are doing penance, and after that the prayer of the faithful. Then the peace and the embrace are to occur, and so the divine oblation is performed, and only those in priestly orders are to communicate within the sanctuary.

CANON XX

"That it is not fitting for a deacon to sit before a presbyter, but to sit with the order of the presbyter. Similarly, it is fitting for the deacons to have honor from the ministers and all the clergy."

BALS. The things written in the 7th canon of the 6th Synod and in the 18th of the Council of Nicaea concerning the order of presbyters and deacons are sufficient for the interpretation of the present canon.

ZONAR. ^B Concerning priests, deacons, and other holy orders, and what proper place of honor each ought to have, it was established by the 7th canon of the 6th Synod; and whatever we have brought into that place can also be transferred conveniently to the explanation of this present canon.

ARIST. "Let not a deacon sit unless ordered." Let not a deacon sit before a presbyter, unless he has a mandate from him; but neither should the other ministers of the church and ^C the clergy [sit] before a deacon, unless they too have received orders from him.

^A

CANON XXI.

CANON XXII.

^A that is, the subdeacons, it is not permitted to wear an orarium. For this is the [official dress] of deacons. But that [instruction] not to leave the doors must be understood as follows: inasmuch as in ancient times, the subdeacons were accustomed to stand at the doors of the church and there, when it was necessary, to give attention to the catechumens and those who were enrolled in the order of penance, so that they might be sent away. For this reason, even now, they themselves pronounce the words, "You catechumens, depart." And if at this time they do not occupy themselves at the doors, it is not to be wondered at. For many other ancient customs of the Church have now been completely changed. Thus, reciting the divine Scriptures in the gathering of the people—which, as is shown by the very name of "reader," as well as by the following canon and the ninetieth canon of the Council of Carthage, was the proper office and duty of the readers—was their task; yet now, their [chief] task is to chant, and the reading is done by them very rarely. ^B ARIST. "It is not fitting for a minister to wear an orarium, nor to leave the doors." Everyone ought to preserve his own order and diligently fulfill his own ministry. Therefore, not even the ministers of the church ought to leave the doors, but [they ought] to remain there until the end of the divine mystagogy and fulfill the service proper to them. An orarium, however, it is not permitted for them, nor for the readers or singers, to wear; for this belongs to the deacons.

CANON XXIII.

CANON XXIV.

From presbyters down to the lowest rank of the sacerdotal order, all are forbidden from entering a tavern.

^A CANON XXV. « That a minister ought not to give bread, nor to bless the cup. » BALS. What was written regarding the twenty-first canon suffices for this canon as well. ZONAR. Since it is not permitted for subdeacons to touch the sacred vessels, nor to loiter in the diaconicon, nor to perform any task there, much less will it be permitted for them to give the bread—that is, to distribute the Body of the Lord to the faithful—or to bless the cup of the Blood of the Lord. ARIST. « A minister does not give the bread and the cup. » The work of presbyters and deacons is not permitted to be performed by the ministers of the church; for this reason, they do not give the bread or the cup to the people.

^B CANON XXVI. « That those who have not been promoted by the bishops ought not to exorcise, neither in the churches, nor in houses. » BALS. Certain individuals were attempting to exorcise, that is, to catechize the unfaithful, without having received this through the bishop’s laying on of hands; and when they were accused, they contended that they had not done this in a church, but in a certain house, and therefore they deemed it right that they be kept free from any punishment. The Fathers say, therefore, that exorcising is also an ecclesiastical ministry, and no one should undertake these things unless he has been appointed by a bishop. Exception: provide me with an exorcist who has been appointed by a chorepiscopus. For he too will catechize well, even if he has not been appointed by a bishop. For you have learned from the tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch that a chorepiscopus is able to make an exorcist. ^C ZONAR. And yet, along with other things, it is granted to chorepiscopi to make exorcists according to the tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch. Why, then, does it say here not to exorcise those who have not been promoted by the bishops? They respond, then, that chorepiscopi also hold the rank of bishops; wherefore the fourteenth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea says that they fulfill the model of the seventy apostles, and the eighth canon of the Synod of Antioch also permits them to give letters of peace, which is proper to bishops. ^D ARIST. « He who has not been promoted by a bishop does not exorcise. » Exorcists, just like the others of the order, receive their appointment from the bishop. Therefore, he who has not been promoted to such a rank by the bishop cannot exorcise, neither in houses nor in the church.

CANON XXVII. « That it is not right for the consecrated, either clerics or laypeople, who have been called to an agape, to take portions, because an insult is thereby branded upon the sacerdotal order. » BALS. Agapai are what those [meals] are called which are held by Christians

that is, holy commemorations. Since, therefore, some of those reclining at these feasts took portions from the dishes set before them and, through luxury, carried them home, and from this a condemnation of those who had assembled came about, and often too contention was stirred up among them, the Fathers decreed that this should no longer be done, to the insult of the sacerdotal order. ^B

ZONAR. To the feasts which were instituted under the name of agapai, the poor were wont to be invited, whether from the sacred order or from the laity. Therefore, the canon says that it is not permitted for those initiated into the sacred order and ascribed to the clergy, and indeed not even for the laity, to take portions—that is, to take parts of the dishes set out—and carry them home, as this is an insult to the ecclesiastical order, and a sign of gluttony and baseness on the part of those doing so. It is not fitting for the faithful to be such, and much less for those in the sacred order.

ARIST. « A cleric called to an agape does not take portions; for he insults the order. » Neither clerics nor laymen called to agapai should take portions; for this brings injury to the ecclesiastical order, but they should only eat and depart.

CANON XXVIII

« That it is not permitted to hold so-called agapai in the Lord’s houses or in churches, and to eat and spread couches in the house of God. »

BALS. Read the 74th canon of the Sixth Synod, which contains the same words as the present canon, and what is written there will suffice for you. Seek also the 76th canon of the same synod ^C and 42nd of the Council of Carthage.

ZONAR. The Sixth Synod set forth this canon in the very same words, and it is the seventy-fourth therein; we brought forward an explanation of it there. Therefore, what is written there should be read.

ARIST. « Couches are not spread in churches, and agapai are not held. » One ought not to consider the house of God a common house and spread couches in it, or hold the so-called agapai and eat inside the holy house.

CANON XXIX

« That it is not permitted for Christians to Judaize and to rest on the Sabbath, but they should work on that day; but by preferring the Lord’s Day, they should rest, if they can, as Christians. But if they are found to be Judaizing, let them be anathema from Christ. »

BALS. Read the canon of the holy apostles, which does not permit the faithful to fast or feast with the Jews. But because, as we said in the 16th canon of the present synod, some—^D

^A had held to a total cessation of handiwork, and even from the divine psalms themselves, which is a work of Jewish superstition, whereas in that canon the Fathers decreed only regarding the reading of the holy Gospel and the divine Scriptures; now they enjoin the faithful not to be idle after the manner of the Jews from their handiwork, but to work on the Sabbath, yet to honor the Lord’s Day because of the Lord's Resurrection, and to abstain from manual work, but to attend the churches. Furthermore, this, namely not to work on the day of the Lord, they did not enjoin as a necessity, but added: if the faithful are able. For if, out of poverty or some other necessity, someone works even on the Lord's Day, he will not be judged. And the present canon says these things. But the 54th Novella of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise decrees that even farmers themselves must be idle on the Lord's Day. Read also canon 65 of the Council in Trullo (the 6th synod).

ZONAR. The Jews honor the Sabbath, remaining idle from their works, as the old law commands this to them; but upon those who have received the more perfect evangelical law, it is forbidden to keep the things of the imperfect [law]. For this reason, for the faithful to be idle on the Sabbath is forbidden as being a Jewish practice, and ^B the canon pronounces anathema in Christ upon those who Judaize, that is, it decrees that they be separated and divided from Christ. But as for being idle on the Lord’s Day, it permits this by honoring the day on account of the Lord's resurrection. But the canon added "if they are able"; however, the civil law demands that idleness be absolute on the Lord's Day, except for farmers. For it allows them to work even on the Lord's Day, because perhaps, with works pressing upon them, they will not find another day so well suited for their tasks. And the 70th canon of the holy apostles allows the faithful neither to fast nor to feast with the Jews; but it decrees deposition for those initiated into the sacred orders, and separation for the laity, who may do so.

ARIST. "A Christian shall not be idle on the Sabbath, but on the Lord's Day." For a Christian who is idle on the Sabbath Judaizes. Therefore, one must work on that day and be idle on the Lord's Day.

CANON XXX

BALS. In the 77th canon of the 6th synod, which decrees the exact same things as the present canon, we have written what seemed good.

ZONAR. Men bathing with women is both harmful to the soul and, in other respects, utterly alien to decency and honesty. For if men and women see one another naked—

^A from men, and men likewise in turn from women, it kindles loves and ignites the burning of the flesh. Yet the movement from nature is sufficient for the flesh; why, then, does it need more fuel for the fire? It exceeds all indecency, such that even among the pagans those who do such things are condemned as profligate. The canon, therefore, forbids this for all Christians.

ARIST. ‹ To bathe with women is forbidden. › It provides the pagans with a great occasion for condemning us, since every Christian who bathes with women is doing so. On this account, therefore, it is forbidden as illicit.

CANON XXXI. ‹ That one must not contract a marriage with any heretic, nor give sons or daughters, but rather receive them, if they profess that they will become Christians. ›

CANON XXXII. ‹ That one must not receive the blessings of heretics, which are foolishness rather than blessings. ›

CANON XXXIII. ‹ That one must not pray together with a heretic or a schismatic. ›

BALS. The force and power of the present three canons are the same. For they command the faithful neither to eat with heretics, nor to pray together, nor to receive a blessing from them, nor to contract a marriage in their own name with them; nor even to give their own children to heretics: for they will teach them their own superstition and turn them away from the orthodox faith. But if heretics wish to give their children in marriage to the faithful, provided that the parties promise to become faithful, this canon permits it. Do not, however, say that the phrase "with any heretic one must not" is to be understood to mean that it is not permitted with all, but permitted with some; rather, say that this is altogether prohibited by the canons. For it is of such a kind as what is written: "Be not afraid when a man becomes rich, for when he dies ^C he shall take nothing" (Ps. XLVIII, 17); since, from the fact that David says "he shall take nothing," you should not conclude by way of contrast that he might take some of his riches. Read the canons of the holy apostles 10, 45, and 46, canon 2 of the Synod of Antioch, canon 14 of Chalcedon, canon 11 of Carthage, canon 72 of the sixth synod, and title 12, chapter 13, of the present work, and what is contained therein.

ZONAR. If it is not permitted for the faithful to eat with heretics, or to have them as partners in prayer, or to receive blessings from them, then much less will it be lawful for any of the faithful to be joined to them in matrimony, or to unite their children to them in marriage. For they will imbue them with their own evil opinions, and will turn them ^D from the orthodox faith into their own distorted doctrines. If, however, heretics wish to give their children in marriage to the faithful, promising that they will become faithful...

after laying aside their infidelity, and, having discarded their distorted opinions, will embrace the true faith, then indeed the canon permits the possibility of this. Do not understand the words "it is not permitted to contract marriage with every heretic" as though it were forbidden with all heretics but permitted with some from that group; for by those words, all marriage pacts entered into with any heretics whatsoever are universally condemned, just as if the canon asserted that it were not lawful to join in marriage with any heretic at all. But this manner of speaking ^B is more frequent in Holy Scripture, as when David says: "Do not fear when a man becomes rich, for he will take nothing when he dies." What, then, will he take anything for a while? But he will take absolutely nothing. And elsewhere: "For did you create all the sons of men in vain?" Did he create some in vain? No one will say this. Thus, therefore, the term "with all" must be understood here as well. Of such a kind is also this: "You shall not go to any near relative of your flesh." Heretics are called those who err regarding the faith, while schismatics are those who, although holding the faith and doctrines correctly, break away and form separate assemblies for certain reasons, cutting themselves off from the communion of the Church.

ARIST.

To take the children of heretics who profess that they will become Christians and to unite them in marriage communion with the children of Christians is permitted; but to give the children of Christians into union with heretics is forbidden by many canons.

ARIST.

One must not accept those things which are offered by heretics, for they are curses rather than benedictions.

ARIST.

He who prays with them is excommunicated. And the schismatics are the Audiani, who retain the faith just as the Catholic Church does, but most of them live in monasteries and do not ^C pray with everyone. They also criticize our bishops for being rich, and others for other things. And they celebrate Passover separately with the Jews. They also have a certain contentious characteristic, interpreting some parts of Holy Scripture in a most superficial way.

CANON XXXIV.

That no Christian should abandon the martyrs of Christ and go to false mar- ^D tyrs, that is to say, those who have become heretics. For these are alien to the God- [The text continues in the next page.]

9th canon of the present synod says that those who go to the cemeteries of heretics and to the places called martyr-shrines by them are to be excommunicated for a time; but the present canon anathematizes them. And there is a difference between the canons. For in that former one, those who went out did so because of deception and the beguilement of some, perhaps in order to be healed, and for this reason they are punished more mildly; but here they have dared the evil with their whole heart's intent, and have departed from God, and for this reason they are consigned to anathema. Why heretics are called false martyrs is stated in the 9th canon.

ZONAR. It has already been said above that some of the heretics during the times of the persecutions suffered, and endured even unto death through tortures, whom their fellow heretics honored as martyrs, whom the canon calls false martyrs and names alien to God. Some of the faithful, therefore, used to go to their tombs; the canon therefore condemns those who go to them to the penalty of anathema.

ARIST. ^C <Whoever honors a heretic as a martyr, let him be anathema.> Whoever honors those who are alien to God as martyrs, he himself will also be alien to God.

CANON XXXV. <That Christians ought not to abandon the Church of God, and go away, and name angels, or make assemblies, which are prohibited. If anyone, therefore, is found... ^D

[Guill. Beveregii notes.] ...there was an ancient heresy, of some who said that Christ ought not to be invoked to bring us help, or to lead us to God, but rather angels. This they claimed, perhaps out of a religious pretext of humility. Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 5, tit. 5. Moreover, in the Amerbachian codex there is a scholion which is written to the next canon, but it pertains to this one. Divine Epiphanius in his *Panarion* also mentions a heresy of those who were called Angelici: either because they claimed, he says, to possess an angelic order in their way of life; or because they foolishly believed the world was created by angels. But that which was declared by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians is more appropriate to this canon, where he says: "Let no man beguile you in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen." For there were some teaching that we ought not to be taught to be led to God the Father through Christ. For, they said, Christ is greater than such as we are; but [we should be led] through angels. This was a denial of the divine economy under the guise of humility. This is almost the same scholion that Aristenus wrote for the present canon. For the same things and in almost the same words usually occur in both. The things that are cited here from Epiphanius exist even now in his *Panarion*, heresy 60, which is that of the Angelici. Divine Augustine also mentions them, saying, "The Angelici were inclined to the worship of angels." Her. 39. And this seems to be the same heresy that was first introduced into the Christian Church by Simon Magus. Whence they were also called Simonians by Epiphanius. He also handed down that Simon Magus had invented certain names of angelic orders, such as principalities and powers, says Epiphanius (her. 21, num. 4). Tertullian says, "And the Simonian magic discipline, serving angels, was also argued by them to be among the idolatries, and was condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon himself." Tertull. *De praescript. adv. haeres.*, ch. 55. This, however, Simon Magus seems to have borrowed from the Essenes among the Jews.

^A If, therefore, anyone be found occupied with this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema: because he has abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has approached idolatry.

BALS. The evil one, for the most part, surreptitiously attacks us from the right. And on this account he once suggested to some that they should not call upon Christ for help, but upon the angels, ostensibly in a manner of piety and honor toward God; and therefore, based on a certain heresy, they directed their prayers not to God, but to the angels. The Fathers, punishing this as a very great evil, decree that those who abandon [Christ] and say that our salvation depends upon the intercession of the angels are to be subjected to anathema. And they called this idolatry, not because honor toward the angels is to be shunned, but because the evil one drives us toward idolatry by the fact that Christ, our God, is not called upon. There were also other heretics called Angelici, as the holy Epiphanius says, writing concerning heresies, either because they supposedly lived like angels, or because they thought they were initiated into divine mysteries by angels.

ZONAR. That was an ancient heresy of certain people who asserted that we ought not to call upon Christ for help or for access to God, but rather upon the angels, as though the calling upon Christ for the aforementioned things were a matter of greater dignity than befits our lowliness. They said this perhaps while assuming humility, as the evil one is for the most part accustomed to stealing us away from the right. The great Paul also makes mention of this heresy in his Epistle to the Colossians, saying: "Let no one beguile you, desiring in humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen." This is what the Apostle ^B refers to.

Guill. Beveregii notes. [...they are] accustomed to demand an oath from their proselytes, Joseph. *De bello Jud.*, lib. 2, c. 7. And it is from the fact that by this canon Simoniac heresy—which has invented I know not what names of angels—is forbidden, that it appears condemned; yet so that any religious worship rendered to them is simultaneously forbidden here; just as that most learned Father, who flourished immediately after this synod celebrated at Laodicea, Theodoret, has interpreted this very canon, inasmuch as, explaining the second chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, he has this: "Those who defended the Law, they also induced them to worship the angels, teaching that the Law had been given through them." This vice remained for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Consequently, the synod which convened at Laodicea in Phrygia forbade by law that they should pray to the angels; and to this day there are seen among them and their neighbors oratories of Saint Michael. Theod., *Coloss.* 2, 18.

^D In *Epist. ad Coloss.*, c. 2. And before this present synod, Origen also had taught that, even if in Holy Scripture angels are called gods and bring to us the gifts of God, nevertheless they are not to be adored, nor are our prayers to be directed to them. He says, soon after, where he should have taught that thanks and prayers were to be offered to Christ, he subjoins [them], Origen, *contra Celsum*, lib. v, p. 233, edit. Cantabrig., an. 1658. And before him Irenaeus: "For as it [the Church] has received freely from God, it ministers freely. Nor does it perform anything by means of angelic invocations, nor by incantations, nor by any wicked curiosity; but purely, and cleanly, and openly bringing its prayers to the Lord who made all things, and it has accomplished the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in virtue according to the benefit of men, but not to their seduction." Iren., *Adv. haer.*, I, 11, 57. [end page 1386]

^A regarding whom it is said: "Let no one defraud you of the prize of the faith and of an upright life." (For to defraud is not to deem the victor worthy of the prize, but to give it to another, the victor being wronged.) He wishes to lead you away from the true faith to the "worship of angels," that is, to the serving of angels in humility—out of humility, perhaps, as if the calling upon of the Lord were above you, and as if you were to use them as intercessors to His Father. The heresy was therefore ancient, as has been said, and some named, that is, invoked, angels, and held private assemblies, which the canon, being desirous of abolishing, says: "If anyone be found giving his time to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema." That which the Apostle called the "worship of angels," the canon has termed "idolatry"—not as though the honor paid to angels is itself idolatry, but because the evil one leads us away from calling upon Christ, so that by degrees and imperceptibly he may entrap us into idolatry. There were also other heretics called "Angels," as the holy Epiphanius says, writing about heresies: "They called themselves 'Angelics,' either as if living in an angelic manner, or as if they had been called by angels to the faith and to divine knowledge." ^B

ARIST. "He who holds an assembly apart from the Church and names angels is near to idolatry, and let him be anathema."

There is a certain heresy called that of the "Angelics," either because they pride themselves as having the rank and polity of angels, or because they babble that the world was created by angels. There were also some who taught, as the great Paul clearly showed in the Epistle to the Colossians, that we should not say that we are brought to God and the Father through Christ (for they said that Christ is too great for our measure), but through angels. But this was a denial of the divine economy under the guise of humility. Therefore, he who holds a separate assembly and says that the world was created by angels, or that we are brought to God and the Father through angels, let him be anathema as one who has abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and thinks like an idolater. ^C

CANON XXXVI

"That those who are in holy orders or clerks must not be magicians, or enchanters, or mathematicians, or astrologers, nor make what are called phylacteries, which are indeed the chains of their own souls; and we have ordered those who wear them to be cast out of the Church." ^D

BALS. The present canon forbids those who are in holy orders to be magicians, or enchanters, or mathematicians, or astrologers, and condemns with excommunication those who wear phylacteries. Magicians, therefore, are those who approach Satan for some reason. Enchanters are tricksters who speak charms or incantations, and by these means draw demons to their own desires.

^A Mathematicians are those who suppose that celestial bodies have dominion over the universe, and that our affairs are governed by their movement. Astrologers are those who divine through the stars by demonic cooperation, and believe in them. Since there are four branches of learning—arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy—do not say that the canon prohibits all four, but only astronomy. And read chapter 22 of title 39, book 60 of the *Basilica*, which says: “Geometry is indeed taught publicly, but mathematics is condemned as forbidden by the ancient external law.” Understand “mathematics” as astronomy. And regarding how magicians, enchanters, and the like are punished by the laws, read chapter 23 of the same title 39, book 60 of the same, and what follows until the end. Look also at chapter 3, title 12 of the present work.

ZONARAS. The canon forbids clerics from engaging in sorcery or incantations. ^B Now, incantations are tricks. For a song is a form of tragedy. Sorcerers, therefore, by saying certain songs, that is, incantations, attract demons or also restrain wild beasts and reptiles. For there are some who, when their beast of burden is left outside their fold, bind the wolves by incantations, so that they cannot harm the animal while it is moving with them, as if to fulfill the saying of the Scripture: "The wolf shall feed with the lamb." Others charm snakes and handle them with their hands, and remain unbitten by them. But the canon does not wish for those who are in holy orders to be mathematicians or astrologers either. There are four books called mathematical: arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. Therefore, the canon does not forbid reading these, I think, but rather using them with vain ^C curiosity. For if someone were to know that the unit is not a number, although it is the generator of every number (for a number is defined as a multitude of units, for which reason the binary is not considered a number, because it lacks a multitude of units), and that the binary, whether combined or multiplied, constitutes the number four, and nothing more (for by saying twice two you will bring together four, and by saying two and two again, you will not result in any number other than the same), and which of the numbers are odd, and which even, and which are odd-times odd, and which even-times even, and which odd-times even, and which even-times odd; and which of the numbers are perfect, and which imperfect; which are called plane, and which solid; which are square, and which are called cubes; and what ^D analogy is, and what the ten forms of it are—arithmetic, geometric, harmonic, and that contrary to it, and the others, and all the rest that are contained in this discipline; and then, in music, if someone were to know what a sound is, and what an interval of sounds is, and what a system is, and what harmony is, and the designations of the sounds, and what the *nete* is, and what the *hypate* and *parhypate* are—none of this is [contrary] to faith, nor to...

the loss of integrity. But if one, imbued with this knowledge, should also use instruments of the musical art and be entertained by lascivious ditties, that would indeed be alien to the gravity of a person consecrated to God. ^A In geometry also, if one, in the same way, were instructed as to what a point is, what a line, what a surface, and what a shape; then, of lines, which are straight, which curved, which sinuous, which oblique, which rounded; what angles, moreover, are rectilinear and which are otherwise; also that the starting point of every plane figure is the triangle, and into which species this is divided, and subdivided again; and that a circle is a plane figure, and the line which encloses it is the circumference; what, further, is the center, what the diameter, what the sector of a circle; what is to be understood by the name of gnomon; and lastly, that the circle is the beginning and cause of all figures, and other things—lest we enumerate each one—if one were instructed in these things, and in astronomy, if one were to know what a sphere is, what its center is, and that the center is as the earth compared to the heaven; what the diameter is, and when it is called an axis; how the zodiacal circle lies in relation to the sphere, being concentric with it; and whence the motion of the planets, as it appears, becomes unequal and retrograde; and other things that follow from these—none of this would damage the mystery of the faith. ^B But if anyone, having learned these things, uses the discipline too curiously, and believing that our affairs move in sympathy with the motions of the heavens, determines the centers, and observes the ascents and descents of the zodiacal circle, the presiding signs of the houses, and the places of the figures, and the limits of the stars, and thinks he can know and foretell from these what is to be, as if they must necessarily happen because of this or that motion of the stars—this is an execrable crime, and it has been rightly forbidden by the synod that anyone should occupy himself with such studies. ^C ARIST. «He who professes the priesthood shall not be a sorcerer, or an enchanter, or a mathematician, or an astrologer, or one of those who hang amulets about their necks.» If anyone should be caught pursuing such an evil art, he is cast out of the Church. ^D CANON XXXVII. «That it is not permitted to accept the festive gifts sent by Jews or heretics, nor to celebrate the feast with them.» CANON XXXVIII. «That it is not permitted to accept unleavened bread from the Jews, or to communicate in their impieties.» CANON XXXIX. «That it is not permitted to celebrate a feast with the Gentiles, and to communicate in their godlessness.» BALS. Read the 70th and 71st canons of the holy apostles, and the 60th canon of the council of Carthage. ZONAR. That one should not celebrate feast days with the Jews, as if, from that motion of the stars, future events must necessarily happen to them.

^A nor to receive the gifts of their festival, such as unleavened bread or anything of that sort from them, or to carry oil into the temples of the Gentiles or the synagogues of the Jews, and to light lamps; and it commands that those who do such things, if they are clerics, be deposed, and if they are laymen, they be excommunicated. By these canons, therefore, the authors of this synod, taking their impetus from them, promulgated the present canons. See also the 60th canon of the council of Carthage.

ARIST. You shall not celebrate festivals with the Hebrews or with heretics. Nor shall you receive their so-called festival gifts. ^B There is no communion of light with darkness. For this reason, then, a Christian shall not celebrate a festival with heretics or with Jews, nor shall he receive what is provided in their festivals, such as unleavened bread or anything of that kind.

CANON XL. That it is not fitting for bishops who are called to a synod to neglect it, but to go and to teach or to be taught, for the correction of the Church and of the rest. But if such a one should neglect it, he shall blame himself; unless he be absent by reason of inclement weather or sickness.

BALS. ^C Concerning the annual synods, as to how they ought to be held, read the 37th canon of the holy apostles, the 5th canon of the council of Nicaea, the 20th of the council of Antioch, the 19th of Chalcedon, the 17th, 73rd, 76th, and 95th of the council of Carthage, the 8th canon of the council in Trullo, and the 6th of the second council of Nicaea. The present canon also decrees that bishops who are summoned to a synod ought not to neglect it, but must by all means attend, so that the wise might teach, and the simpler ones might learn those things which confirm the Church, that is, the people of God, and might bring the rest, namely the infidels, to the belief in the true faith. Moreover, he says that those who have conducted themselves negligently regarding this ought not to murmur if they are punished as is provided by other canons; but let them blame themselves because they were negligent. By "inclement weather," one must understand not only bodily sickness but also a press of business. For if a bishop has been hindered by something necessary and reasonable, pardon will be granted to him. ^D Since the canon decrees that bishops summoned to a council ought not neglect it, say that they must also be summoned by all means. For without the summons of the metropolitan, they ought not to assemble, as the 20th canon of the council of Antioch and this present canon require. And "to teach or to be taught" is added on account of those who said that they were sufficient unto themselves for the resolution of every ecclesiastical question, and that they ought not to be present at the synod. For even if a bishop has no doubts in his own Church and is not in need of teaching, nevertheless, in order to resolve the questions of others and to further confirm the dogma, he must of necessity be present.

ZONAR. Although at this time the decree concerning annual synods

has been so far neglected that they have almost ceased to be held in all places, yet the holy Fathers, by whose authority the canons were issued, considered it a matter of no small concern that synods should be held annually in every province. Therefore, they enjoin that bishops who are called to synodical assemblies should not hold the command in low regard, but, they say, they are ordered to be present so that they may teach or be taught. For synods were established to be held on account of doubts arising concerning dogmas or penalties pertaining to sins, or concerning other canonical questions. Of those who gathered, therefore, the more learned used to teach concerning these matters, and the simpler and less refined were taught in turn toward the discourse; and what they taught and were taught was for the correction of the Church and of the others. By "correction" [the canon] means the right faith and conduct; and by "Church" it means the assembly of the faithful, while by "others" it means the heretics, so that even they ^C might be guided toward the right faith through the instruction and toward the evangelical life. Furthermore, the canon says that they should blame themselves if they are disciplined for not coming to the synods, unless they were kept away by a physical disorder. By "disorder" one should understand not only bodily [disorder], such as sickness, but also a practical [one]. For even if the bishop were not sick, if he had some other matter pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs compelling him to be busy, he shall be excused.

ARIST. He who is called to a synod and rejects it, unless by reason of disorder, is not without fault.

Because of the ecclesiastical controversies and canonical questions that arise, it was decreed that a synod of all the bishops of each province should be held annually, where the bishop of the metropolis shall appoint. If, therefore, when they meet in this way, some bishop who is called refuses to attend, he places himself under indictment and shall be disciplined by the synod; unless perhaps he was unable to attend not out of contempt, but by reason of sickness or some other life circumstance.

CANON XLI

BALS. Concerning clerics and monks who travel abroad against the will of their own bishops, read chapter two of the first title of the third book of the *Basilica*, which says: He who brings a false charge against a bishop shall pay thirty pounds of gold to the treasury. ^D

*Guill. Beveregii note.* Zonaras in the present canon is to be read in this place, according to the Amerbachian codex: the learned used to teach how one must believe, and how one must discipline, and how other things must be performed canonically; but the simpler [ones] were taught. As for "the others," we should understand the heretics, or even the unbelievers, so that even they might be guided toward the right faith through the instruction and toward the evangelical life; and afterwards the canon threatens those who do not go to the synods, and states that...

^A all ecclesiastical privileges should be confirmed by public authority; and let neither a cleric nor a monk who has joined the retinue without his own bishop be considered such at all. Read likewise the last response of the fifth chapter of the twenty-second title of the sixth book of the *Basilica*, which is a part of the sixth novel of Justinian, and it speaks thus: "We command that neither monk, nor cleric, nor bishop come hither without letters from their most holy patriarch; or let them know that they will render themselves unworthy of the habit."

CANON XLII

BALS. Other canons also ordain that clerics must not travel abroad without canonical letters, that is, commendatory and dimissory epistles: and the present canons also decree the same thing. Now, "ordained persons" are those who are about the sacred tribunal; "clerics," however, are the rest. Read the tenth canon of the fourth synod, the twelfth canon of the holy apostles, and the seventh, eighth, and eleventh canons of the synod in Antioch.

ZONAR. He calls "ordained persons" those who are occupied about the sanctuary, but "clerics" all the others. Therefore, if any of these are going to go somewhere, and to migrate from the church in which they were enrolled, the canon does not allow them to travel without the bishop's permission. We have already spoken of peaceful and commendatory letters in the eleventh canon of the fourth synod. These letters, therefore—I mean the peaceful and commendatory ones—the canon here termed "canonical letters," because they were to be delivered according to the decree of the canon.

ARIST. "A cleric without canonical letters, or without orders, shall not set out upon a journey."

The holy canons do not permit those who have been ordained in a foreign province to be admitted if they do not bring commendatory letters; and for this reason it is necessary that they travel with canonical letters, just as it is necessary for all clerics in each church to travel to another city and province with the will and mandate of their own bishop.

CANON XLIII

BALS. We have said in the twenty-second canon that "ministers" are subdeacons, and that it is absolutely necessary for them to stand at the doors of the holy churches ^D during the time of the celebration of the divine mysteries, for the purpose of bringing in and leading out the catechumens, those doing penance, and the rest. Since, therefore, some of these, having abandoned the ministry assigned to them, were touching the divine sacraments, the Fathers decreed that they should sit at the doors of the churches, and not handle the divine mysteries, nor pray for the people like priests. Read the twenty-first and twenty-second canons, and what is in them.

ZONAR. They say that "ministers" are subdeacons. And that the subdeacons are to stand at the doors of the holy churches

^A. To these, then, at the time of the liturgy, the canon says it is not permitted to leave the doors and devote themselves to prayer. For to pray at that time and to sanctify the divine gifts belongs to the priests. Just as, therefore, the ministers were forbidden to carry an orarion or to touch the vessels of the Master, according to the twenty-first and twenty-second canons, so too were they forbidden to devote themselves to prayer. And one should read what is written in the twenty-second canon.

ARIST. ^B "The minister must not leave the doors, even for a short time, to pray." In the holy liturgies, the minister must not leave the doors of the altar, even for a short time, to devote himself to prayer, so that he may not be found despising the ministry laid upon him, and preferring his own prayer to the ecclesiastical order.

CANON XLIV.

BALS. The present canon forbids women to enter into the altar; but the sixty-ninth canon of the synod in Trullo forbids the laity from entering inside the altar. In the regions of the Latins, however, women enter the altars without shame whenever they wish.

ZONAR. ^C If laymen also are forbidden to enter the altar enclosures by the sixty-ninth canon of the sixth synod, it is much more to be considered that women, to whom the nature of the menstrual flow occurs involuntarily, are forbidden access to the holy place.

ARIST. "The altar is inaccessible to women." It is not permitted for women, nor even for laymen, to enter into the altar, as the sixty-ninth canon of the synod in Trullo commands.

CANON XLV.

BALS. Holy baptism is a type of the burial and resurrection of the Lord. And therefore it has been ordained ^D that baptisms be performed on Holy Saturday, as it is a midpoint between the burial of the Lord and the resurrection. Those, therefore, who are to be baptized on Holy Saturday ought to be cleansed throughout the whole of Lent through fasting and divine meditation. If, however, anyone comes after the second week to be catechized and to be baptized at Pascha, he shall not be admitted, as one who has not fasted the whole of Lent. And at that time, indeed, he shall not be admitted for such a reason; but afterwards, as the canons [may command]...

[alt-version omitted]

(66) *Guill. Beveregii note.* The words of this canon in the Amerbachian codex are added: "For only those are to be received who fasted from the very beginning of Lent; as those whose exercise is perfect, and not done for a time." But these are the very words of Aristenus, namely, the final ones which he wrote down for this canon. Whence it is clearly evident that he, whoever he may have been, who wrote the Amerbachian codex, saw the scholia of Alexius Aristenus, or at least had them transferred into the text by someone else from notes in the margin.

^A prepared, he shall be baptized. For the words, "One must not admit," are not to be understood indiscriminately, but rather with reference to the Great Sabbath.

ZONARAS. The Church, by custom, has received the practice of performing baptisms on the Great Sabbath, because baptism is a symbol of the burial and resurrection of the Lord. And that Sabbath occupies the middle place between the burial and the resurrection of the Lord. Therefore, those who are preparing to receive illumination on the Great Sabbath ought to fast throughout the entire Quadragesima and be purified through ascetic exercise, and in this manner approach the illumination. If, however, anyone comes to be baptized after the second week has passed, he ought not to be admitted to baptism at the time of Pascha, as he has not fasted through the whole of the Quadragesima, but he shall be baptized after these days. For the words, "One must not admit," are not to be understood indiscriminately, but rather with reference to the Great Sabbath.

ARISTENUS. "One must not admit any to illumination after two weeks of the Quadragesima have passed; for they ought to have been fasting from the very beginning of it." ^B This canon can be understood in two ways: either that those who come to the faith after the two weeks of the Quadragesima have elapsed, and begin to fast, shall not be judged worthy of baptism on the Great Sabbath, as are those who have demonstrated their discipline from the very beginning of the Quadragesima and have fasted sufficiently; or that if some have come to the faith and started to fast before the Quadragesima, and then the Quadragesima arrives before they are judged worthy of baptism, they shall not wait for the Great Sabbath to be illuminated, just as those who began to fast from the very start of the Quadragesima do; but if they have fasted sufficiently for up to two weeks, they shall be judged worthy of baptism. If, however, they do not seem to have fasted sufficiently after two weeks of the Quadragesima have passed, they shall not be illuminated but shall likewise wait with those who are to be baptized on the Great Sabbath, since those alone are to be received who have fasted from the very start of the Quadragesima, inasmuch as their exercise is complete and not merely improvised.

CANON XLVI

Beveridge's note. Isidore Mercator interprets this canon thus: "Those who are to be baptized must also learn the symbol of the faith, and on the fifth day of the last week render it to the bishop or the presbyter." Where, as is evident, he translates "the symbol of the faith," and correctly so. For this was to be recited to the bishop or presbyter before one is baptized. Hence it is also decreed by the Council of Braga that catechumens who are to be baptized must be taught this. "It has pleased all the bishops, and it is agreed, that in every diocese the bishops, traveling through the churches, should first examine the clergy as to how they observe the order of baptism or the Masses, and in what manner they perform whatsoever offices in the church. And if they find them to be correct, let them give thanks to God; but if not, they must teach the ignorant and command this by all means, just as the ancient canons order that, twenty days before baptism, catechumens should come together for the purification of exorcism. In which twenty days all catechumens should be taught specifically the symbol, which is: 'I believe in God the Father Almighty.'" Council of Braga 2, c. 1. The same is also decreed by the Council of Agde: "It has also pleased that the Symbol be publicly preached in the church to the *competentes* by all churches on one day, that is, eight days before the Lord's Resurrection." Council of Agde, can. 13. ^D

BALS. This canon is entirely the same as the canon of the Sixth Synod, and it was explained there.

CANON XLVII

BALS. ^A Some unbelievers were baptized before being catechized, due to an urgent illness. Some said, therefore, that since they were not baptized after being catechized, as the canon requires, they ought to be catechized and baptized again. They also used the twelfth canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, which does not permit one who was baptized due to illness to be made a priest rashly. ^B The Fathers say, therefore, that he shall not be baptized a second time; but he shall be compelled, after his health is restored, to learn the faith and the mystery of baptism, and to know that he has been deemed worthy of a divine gift—that is, the knowledge of Him who is truly and properly God, and the remission of sins, which he received through holy baptism.

ZONAR. The canon wishes those who are to be baptized to be baptized with knowledge of our mystery; wherefore it orders the catechumens to declare on one day of the week what they have learned during the week to the bishop or the presbyters. If, however, anyone who is ill and in danger of life is baptized before learning the faith and declaring it, as has been said, and then recovers ^C from the illness, he must in that case learn the mystery, and know that he has been deemed worthy of a divine gift—that is, the knowledge of the true and supreme God, and the remission of sins through holy baptism. For we are not delivered from the snares of our transgressions through our own diligence, but through the gift and grace of God.

ARIST. ^D "Let him who is being baptized speak the faith to the bishop or presbyter on the fifth day of the week. Let the sick man also speak it shortly after." He who comes to the church to be baptized should learn the faith, and on the fifth day of the week should declare it to the bishop or presbyter. For it is not proper to baptize them rashly and before they have been initiated into the faith. He who suffers from illness and seeks to be baptized should be baptized. Then, once freed from the illness, he should learn the faith and recognize that he has been deemed worthy of divine grace.

Guill. Beveridge’s Note. "That those who receive baptism in illness, if they afterwards recover, ought to learn the Symbol so as to render it to the bishop and receive the laying on of hands from him." Council of Elvira: "Those who are traveling by sea, or if there is no church nearby, may baptize a catechumen who is in the necessity of illness (provided he has kept his baptism whole and is not a bigamist), so that if he survives, he may bring him to the bishop, that he may be perfected through the laying on of hands." Council of Elvira, can. 39. But it is also clear that a much older canon existed regarding this matter, from the fact that Cornelius, bishop of Rome, reproaches Novatian, because when he had been baptized in his bed by exorcists, he had not afterwards presented himself to the bishop, so that he might receive the remaining things prescribed in that case according to the ecclesiastical canon. At Eusebius, *Eccl. Hist.* VI, cap. 43.

CANON XLVIII. ^A *That those who are enlightened must, after baptism, be anointed with the supercelestial chrism, and be partakers of the kingdom of God.*

BALS. The canon calls the holy myron "chrism," and not simply chrism, but "supercelestial," as being sanctified through the holy prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and as sanctifying those who are anointed, and making them partakers of the kingdom of heaven. He says, therefore, that those who are being enlightened are anointed and sanctified by this. However, how the holy myron was handed down, and for what reason, is explained in the books that treat of catechesis. Some say that this happens according to the sequence of that perfume which was poured by the harlot upon the feet of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, who stated that the harlot had done nothing wrong in pouring the precious spikenard upon his feet before his burial. For since baptism, as1 has been said many times, is a type of the burial and resurrection of Christ and our God, it is well that at the time of baptism those who are being enlightened are anointed with the myron, so that they may be buried together and rise together with Christ.

ZONAR. The canon declares that those who have been baptized must be anointed with the holy myron, which it also called supercelestial chrism, because it has been sanctified both by sacred prayers and by the invocation of the Holy Spirit, ^B and because it makes those who are anointed with it holy and partakers of the kingdom with Christ, unless we ourselves, through the baseness of our deeds, alienate ourselves from the possession of this kingdom.

ARIST. *That those who are enlightened must be anointed after baptism. Clear.*

CANON XLIX. *That one must not offer bread during Lent, except on Saturday and Sunday only.*

Guill. Beveregii note. (69) ... [it] is seen as good by the divine Fathers. For this is a time of (Lenten) humiliation, and it brings with it the acknowledgment of each person's transgressions. In such a time, however, it is not fitting for those who are negligent of the things to which we are committed to turn aside to feasts, enjoying joy ^C indecently, and being filled with serene and spiritual exultation out of season. Since, indeed, it is not possible to fully observe the humility of fasting, [the Church] does not prohibit sacrificing, but permits the offering of the unbloody sacrifice on Saturday and the Lord's day, and to be sated with the joy therefrom. By sacrificing, therefore, the divine chorus of the Fathers forbids this, because, with the battle joined against us by those who oppose the good in us (and let this also be added), it is not fitting for those held fast by other work to celebrate the sacrifice of peace; but to be partakers of the bread and the cup is laudably permitted to those who do not partake like tavern-keepers, for support, as it seems to me, and for the strengthening of those who are laboring. ^D However, it is adjudged best that the sacrifice be put off in the meantime; since even a soldier in time of battle uses bread and meat—old, indeed, and not recent and new—because battle does not allow time to be spent in making bread and slaughtering animals. Where mention is made of *presanctified* [gifts], which during Lent are consecrated on Saturdays only or on Sundays, and distributed on other days, concerning which we have spoken elsewhere.

^A BALS. The present canon, as well as the fifty-first and fifty-second of the Sixth Synod, ordain the same things. Read what is written in those.

ZONAR. Exactly the same things are ordained by the fifty-second canon of the Sixth Synod. One should seek out what is said there, for it will suffice both for this canon and for the fifty-first and fifty-second.

ARIST. "In Lent, one must not offer [the Eucharist] except on Saturday and Sunday only."

This canon is not neglected, but is observed. For except for Saturday and Sunday, and the day of the holy Annunciation, bread is not offered in Lent, but the *presanctified* [liturgy] is performed. ^B But that on the feast of the Annunciation the liturgy of the *presanctified* should not be performed, but rather bread should be offered, the fifty-second canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo delivers, because the other days of Lent are a time of humiliation, and everyone ought to acknowledge his own transgressions, and not, neglecting the concern for them, incline his mind toward festivities, and thus simultaneously be afflicted with sorrow and filled with spiritual joy out of season.

CANON L

"That one must not break the fast on the Thursday of the final week of Lent, and dishonor the whole of Lent; but it is necessary to fast the whole of Lent, eating dry foods."

^C BALS. Note from the present canon that we ought to eat dry foods on every Wednesday and Friday. Those, therefore, who fast without being sick using oil and shellfish, act contrary to the law; and much more those who eat fish on Wednesdays and Fridays. But since it is necessary that even those who are not laboring under sickness should drink water, we say that the canons themselves define nothing of the sort. However, since the great Epiphanius of Cyprus says in his *Panarion* that the faithful ought, in the six days before Pascha, to be nourished by bread, salt, and water, it is good to drink water along with the dry-food diet. Read also the tenth question of the canonical answers of Timothy of Alexandria, which says: "A woman, if she has given birth, ought to fast during Pascha." Likewise [read] the tenth [question]. It is gathered, therefore, from these [texts] that the faithful ought to eat dry foods and also drink water. ^D

^A Another interpretation. Regarding the things treated in the present canon, it was said also in the 29th canon of the Sixth Synod. For since some, after having fasted through the entire Quadragesima, would break their fast on Great Thursday—because then the holy Quadragesima was supposedly completed and the Lord's Supper took place—the Fathers decreed that they must fast throughout the whole of Quadragesima up to the Lord's day of Pascha, so that by the breaking of the fast on one day, the whole of Quadragesima might not be dishonored. Except for me the Sabbaths and Sundays of Quadragesima. For on these days we are not forced to eat dry foods, as we are on the remaining days of the fast.

ZONARAS. The canon decrees that the whole time of Quadragesima is to be passed in fasting, with the exception, of course, of Sabbath and Sunday. And he defines the fast as the eating of dry food. But certain people, on the fifth [day] of the last week, in which Christ ate the Lord's Supper with his disciples, would break the fast and eat some rather more elaborate and luxurious foods, as if the Lord at that time had eaten the legal supper and passed on the same custom to the disciples. The present canon therefore decrees that this must not be done, so that by the breaking of the fast on this one day, the whole of Quadragesima might not be dishonored.

ARISTENUS. ^B "It is not right in the last week of Quadragesima to break the fast on Thursday, and bring dishonor upon the whole of Quadragesima, but to fast the whole of Quadragesima eating dry foods." It is necessary to perform all the days of the saving passion in fasting and prayer and contrition of heart; and not to break the fast on the Thursday of the last week of Quadragesima, but it is necessary even on that day to fast and use dry foods.

CANON LI. "That it is not right in Quadragesima to celebrate the birthdays of martyrs, but to make commemorations of the holy martyrs on the Sabbaths and Sundays."

BALSAMON. Read the 52nd canon of the Sixth Synod and the 49th of the present synod, which teach that the perfect sacrifice is to be celebrated only on the Sabbaths and the Lord's days during the time of the whole of Quadragesima; on the remaining days, however, the divine mystery is to be performed by means of the Presanctified. ^{C D}

[Beveridge's note.] Harmenopulus contracts this and the following canon into one summary in these words: "Recordations of martyrs are not to be celebrated in Quadragesima, except on the Sabbaths and the Lord's days; likewise neither weddings nor birthdays [are to be celebrated]." Where, at the word 'weddings', a double scholium is noted: first, that "Sacerdotes, or priests, who have performed nuptial blessings in Great Quadragesima are punished: modestly indeed, if out of simplicity, but more severely if out of perversity and clandestinely." The marriage, however, stands as having received a blessing. The second [scholium is]: "Before the feast of the Holy Apostles, the Nativity of Christ, the Transfiguration of Christ, and the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos, seven-day fasts necessarily precede. And if anyone, even beyond those seven days at the feasts of these, either of their own accord or compelled by municipal statute, should fast, they shall not be confounded." Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 2, tit. 6.

^A

But if someone were to say that the memorials of the holy martyrs ought not to be prohibited throughout the whole of Lent because they do not occasion gladness, but that only their birthdays should be prohibited as they occasion gladness and incite frequent gatherings of men: the Fathers have defined that neither on the commemorations of the martyrs, nor on their birthdays, throughout the whole of Lent, should the feast be celebrated through sacrifices, but that their feasts should be kept only on Saturdays and Sundays. Note, therefore, from the present canon that not even the memorials of the departed are held throughout the whole of Lent, except on Saturday alone. Because holy Lent is a mourning for our sins, the commemorations of the saints are not celebrated except on Saturday; if, therefore, the commemorations of the saints are not held, with much more reason will marriage be prohibited. ^B

ARIST. Nor to celebrate the commemorations of the martyrs, except on Sundays and Saturdays. In Lent, except for Saturday and Sunday, neither are the commemorations of the martyrs celebrated.

CANON LII.

That one ought not to celebrate marriages or birthdays in Lent.

BALS. For the same reasons which we mentioned above.

ARIST. In Lent, marriages are not celebrated, nor birthdays. It is clear.

CANON LIII.

That it does not become Christians who attend marriages to dance or caper: but to dine and eat modestly, as becomes Christians.

BALS. The canon is clear; furthermore, as it has entirely fallen into disuse, it needs no interpretation. To dance (ballizein) is to perform a dance with cymbals or other such things.

ZONAR. "Whether you eat," says the divine apostle Paul, "or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. x, 31); but those believers who live their lives petulantly have nothing less in view than the glory of God. That the faithful, therefore, when invited to marriages, may not behave less decorously, and jump and dance, but may eat of the food set before them with modesty, and admit nothing unworthy of a Christian man, this canon decrees. Furthermore, to dance is to accommodate one's movement to the sound when cymbals are clashing. ^C

ARIST. To dance at marriages or to caper is unworthy.

CANON LIV.

That it does not become ordained persons or clergy to witness spectacles at marriages or banquets: but before the stage-performers enter, they should rise and withdraw.

^A BALS. In the twenty-fourth and fifty-first canon of the Sixth Synod we also discussed the matters treated in the present canon. And read them, for they make mention of this too.

ZONAR. The twenty-fourth canon of the Sixth Synod ordains the same things. For that canon also prohibits those in holy orders and monks from going to hippodromes. But this one more generally commands them to witness no spectacles at all, neither at weddings nor at banquets. For banquets take place not only at weddings, but also at festivals, birthdays, and other similar occasions, which Scripture called "suppers." Whenever, therefore, he says, ordained men and clerics are invited to such banquets, and they see that the stage-performers are about to enter, they must rise and withdraw before those people begin their games and buffoonery.

ARIST. "An ordained person or cleric must leave even before the stage [performance]."

Christians going to a wedding are required to dine in them modestly, and not to dance or leap about, that is, to clap their hands and make noise with them; for this is unworthy of the Christian state. Ordained persons, however, must not witness any spectacles at weddings, but must withdraw from there before the stage-performers enter.

CANON LV. That ordained persons or clerics should not organize banquets by joint contribution, nor even laymen.

BALS. Feasting is the cause of drunkenness. And drunkenness is followed by petulance and insolence, and these by quarrels and contempt for God. Therefore the Fathers decree that neither those in holy orders, nor clerics, nor laymen, should hold banquets by joint contribution. For this is a *symbolē* (contribution), from the verb *symballō*, that is, to contribute together.

ZONAR. It is proper for those in holy orders, and indeed for all Christians, to live modestly. But the canon forbids organizing banquets by contribution—that is, where many give money so that by these means luxurious tables may be prepared—because it causes drunkenness, gluttony, and other indecencies.

ARIST. "Neither layman nor cleric shall arrange a banquet by contribution." Neither cleric nor layman shall make a contribution for the sake of a banquet.

CANON LVI. That presbyters should not enter and sit in the sanctuary before the entry of the bishop, but enter with the bishop, unless the bishop be detained by infirmity or is abroad.

BALS. It is good for order to be observed everywhere, but much more so among those in holy orders. And therefore the Fathers forbid presbyters to despise the bishop and enter into the sanctuary and sit before his entry; but they should enter...

with the bishop, unless someone is perchance unwell, that is, held by some sickness and cannot endure a longer delay in standing. And even if the high priest has gone abroad, it shall not be considered an insult offered to the high priest if some of the priests perhaps enter the sanctuary before others.

ARIST. ^A A presbyter shall not enter the tribunal, nor sit, before the bishop.

When the bishop is present and officiating, a presbyter shall not enter the tribunal before his entry, and sit. For this is a disturbance and confusion of order.

CANON LVII

^B That it is not permitted that bishops be constituted in villages and regions, but ^C circuitores [periodueutai]; but those who were previously constituted must do nothing without the consent of the bishop of the city. Likewise, also, presbyters must do nothing without the consent of the bishop.

BALS. Other canons indeed ordained that chorepiscopi and presbyters be constituted in villages and regions; but the present canon commands that circuitores be made, and not bishops, lest the episcopal dignity become cheap and despised, inasmuch as the region in which the bishop is ordained does not have a multitude of men for the honor of God and the episcopate. But if, he says, any bishops were constituted in such places before the canon, let them not be cast out; but let them exercise all things with the knowledge of the metropolitan who ordained them. But also ^D the presbyters, he says, must do nothing without the consent of the bishop. With the canon decreeing these things, someone might say, making a conjecture from its understanding, that since it tends to the dishonor of God and the episcopate if a bishop presides over a small population, and is therefore despised, it is much less to the honor of God if a high priest goes on foot on account of poverty and is deprived of necessities. Wherefore it is not safe that bishops be elected in Eastern churches where not very many Christians are found. Now, the circuitores who are today promoted by the bishops are the exarchs. For these go around and observe the faults of the soul and perfect the faithful. Read also the sixth canon of the Council of Sardica.

ZONAR. The dignity of the high priest is distinguished; but in a village or in a region where there is neither a city nor

^A a multitude of people, it is necessary that the dignity of the high priesthood become cheapened. Therefore, this canon forbids this, and the sixth canon of the Council of Sardica has decreed the same; but it commands that visitors (periodeutae) be appointed in villages and regions. They are called "visitors" because they go around ^B and set the faithful in order, having no fixed see. But if any, he says, were appointed bishops in such places before this canon, let them perform nothing without the counsel of the bishop of the city by whom they were ordained. And the presbyters, he says, let them perform nothing without the counsel of the bishop. ARIST. ‹A bishop is not to be appointed in a village or in a rural district, but a visitor; but if any has been appointed, let him administer nothing without the bishop of the city.› In a village or small city in which even one presbyter may suffice, it is not necessary for a bishop to be created, that the name of bishop be not brought into contempt, but that visitors, whom they also call exarchs today, be sent into them for the correction of spiritual faults. But if any were made such before, let them indeed be removed from [this] honor, ^C nor let them administer anything episcopal without the will of the bishop of the city to which these are subject.