Commentaries on the Canons (Continuation)

CANONS OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED AT CARTHAGE

The synod at Carthage was held during the reigns of Honorius in old Rome and Theodosius the Younger in Constantinople, with two hundred and seventeen divine Fathers ^A from Africa and the regions subject to it gathered at Carthage. Carthage is a part of Carchedon, and Carchedon is a province of Africa; Africa is divided into many parts, one of which is Carchedon. Furthermore, legates sent from the Pope of Rome also assembled with the Fathers at this synod. For they called the Roman throne an Apostolic see, because Peter, the prince of the apostles, flourished there and established Linus as the first high priest in it. ^B This synod was presided over by Aurelius, bishop of the Church at Carthage—whom they also called pope—and by Valentinus, of the first see of the Numidian region; and by other bishops from the two Numidias, from Byzacena, Mauritania Caesariensis, and Tripolis of the Proconsular province; for these too are parts of Africa. The legates of the Roman Church were Faustinus, bishop of Picenum in the province of Italy, and Philip and Asellus, presbyters of the Church of Potentia. Moreover, other legates from the said provinces of Africa.

were present, filling the places of those who could not come to the synod. Hence, the name of "legates" ^A (that is, "keepers of the place") was derived, from the verb *tenere*, which is to watch over, or to fill the places of those who send them. ^B

Aurelius the bishop said:

Guill. Beveregius's notes:

^A and that those things also which have been brought forward here from those who have preceded us, who have confirmed the same synod, and according to the same rule concerning all the ranks of the clergy even to the lowest, ordained for salvation, be brought into the midst. By the whole synod it was said: Let them be brought forward.

Daniel the notary read: "The profession of faith of the synod of Nicaea, or the things defined, are as follows." And while he was speaking, Faustinus, bishop of Picenum, of the Potentine people, of the province of Italy, legate of the Roman Church, said: "Some things have been committed to us by the apostolic see to be treated of in writing, as we have mentioned in the acts above, that is to say, concerning the canons made at Nicaea, that both their decree and custom should be kept: ^B since some things are observed by ordinance and canon; but other things have been shaped by custom. Concerning these, therefore, let us inquire first, if it pleases your beatitude; and afterwards let the rest, which have been acted upon or begun, be confirmed and ordained: so that you may be able to show as much to the apostolic see by your written replies, and declare to the same venerable pope that we have diligently taken note of them; although the chapters of the actions have already been inserted into the deeds. Concerning these things, therefore, as I have said before, what it pleases your love and beatitude that we should do, we ought. Let the ^C commonitorium therefore come into the midst, that you may be able to know what is contained in it, so that a response may be given to each point."

Aurelius said: "Let the commonitorium be brought forward, which our brothers and fellow-ministers recently showed in the acts, and the rest consequently, both what has been done and what is to be done."

BALS. Bishop Aurelius, indeed, beginning his discourse, said that thanks must be given to the Lord God for the meeting of the Fathers, that those things which were examined and decreed by the Fathers who met at Nicaea, which we have from the Fathers before us, and which the Fathers who preceded us confirmed—that is, held to be valid—and whatever they ordained concerning all those who ^D are enrolled in the clergy, be brought into the midst.

Guill. Beveregii notes.

^A Faustinus said: “We have been commissioned by the Pope to deal with certain matters for investigation, that is, for scrutiny and examination—for the Latins call a proposal and counsel a *tractatum*—and that the decree and custom of the Nicene canons be kept.” Having spoken of the decree and custom of the canons, he added that some things are held by rule and canon, others have been established by custom, and that even those things which have been tested and confirmed by time ought to prevail. Then we asked for the *commonitorium* to be brought forward, that is, the written memorandum of what was done and said (for it was the custom to write down in assemblies what was said, determined, and done). *Commonitorium* means the mandate of the Pope, by which he had commanded in writing what needed to be sought, so that they might know these things and nothing might escape them, which is the more likely meaning. For it is added: “Daniel the notary read the *commonitorium*, and what follows, to our brother Faustinus and to his sons Philip and Asellus, the presbyters.” ^B “The matters entrusted to you do not escape you; therefore, act in such a way, as if our presence were there—or rather, since our presence is in you—that you accomplish all things; especially since you possess this mandate of ours and the words…”

6 [Commentary by Beveridge]: The words, “The matters entrusted to you,” precede this in the Eton and Parisian codices of Balsamon's edition. But the word “Zosimus” is at least superfluous there. For what is mentioned here contains the *commonitorium* of Pope Zosimus of Rome to his legates, Faustinus, Philip, and Asellus, residing in the present synod; and therefore they pertain to the superscription of that *commonitorium*, which in full had it thus. The *commonitorium* itself, therefore, begins from these words. But between these words and the others, in the Amerbachian codex, are inserted things which it is necessary to record here. They are as follows: “He proposed a question concerning the bishops who are condemned by the synod of their own province, and he introduced a canon saying: ‘It is our pleasure that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of his own province have gathered together and judged him and deposed him from his rank,’ and what this canon subsequently constitutes concerning appeals; which canon he who cited it asserted to be of the first Nicene synod. Others, however, rightly asserted that it was not found among the canons gathered by the Fathers at Nicaea, saying that this is not a canon of the Nicene synod, but the fifth ^C of the synod of Sardica. A controversy having been stirred up, they demanded that it should be written to the patriarchs, namely, of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, so that they might send to them the transcripts of the things enacted and decreed in the Nicene synod, confirmed by their own signature. Afterwards a question arose concerning appeals made by clerics who appeal from the sentence of their own bishops. And Bishop Osius said: ‘What still troubles me, I ought not to omit. If any bishop, being perhaps prone to anger—which he ought not to be—should quickly or violently be moved against his own presbyter or deacon, and should desire to exclude him from his church,’ and what follows in that canon, which is set forth there as the fourteenth canon of the synod of Sardica. Furthermore, when the said canon had been read, Bishop Augustine said: ‘We profess that we will observe this also, saving a more diligent examination of the Nicene synod.’ And the whole synod said: ‘All things which have been decreed by the Nicene synod are pleasing to us all.’” Concerning these things, however, the most illustrious man, Joannes Rudolphus Wetstenius, who transcribed them from the Amerbachian manuscript, rightly observed that they do not differ in substance from what follows, except that perhaps the person who compiled both commentaries gave one of them here as condensed by Zonaras. After these, in the same codex, there follows this scholium of Zonaras, which begins—when this is finished, it is repeated—Bishop Zosimus said: “The matters entrusted to you.” ^D

have the warrants and the steps of the canons, which we have inserted into the present commonitory for greater confirmation. For this is what the brethren who were at the Nicene synod said when they voted concerning the appeal of bishops: It pleased that if a bishop be accused, and the bishops of his own province have gathered and judged, and have deposed him from his rank, and he appears to make an appeal and to flee for refuge to the ^B most blessed bishop of Rome, and he himself wishes to hear him, and considers the justice of the matter to be such that a re-examination should be made, he will deign to write to the bishops who are in the neighboring province, that they themselves may diligently inquire into all things and conclude the matter according to the truth. Therefore, if anyone asks for his case to be heard again, and by his own petition moves the bishop of Rome to send a presbyter from his own side, it shall be in his power—the bishop of Rome’s—to do what he wishes and what he deems appropriate. And if he decides that some should be sent, so that they may judge in the presence of the bishops, having the authority of him who sent them, it shall be at his judgment. But if he thinks the bishops are sufficient to put an end to the matter, he shall do what seems best to his most wise counsel.”

ARIST.

This canon also gives, as does the fourth canon of the synod of Sardica, ^C power to the bishop of Rome, when a deposed bishop approaches him, either to send his own presbyters, and to maintain with the bishops, in accordance with the appeal, the deposition brought by them against the bishop who made the appeal; or to write to the bishops neighboring the province, and through them to have the affairs of the Church maintained.

And these things having been read, Alypius, bishop of the Church of Tagaste, legate of the Numidian province, said: “Regarding this, we have already written back in the previous letters of our synod, and we profess that we will observe what was decreed by the synod of Nicaea; yet it still moves me that, while we consult the old ^D copies of this Nicene synod, we some-how do not find these things therein at all. Whence we ask your reverence, most holy Pope Aurelius, since the authentic copies of the synod of Nicaea are said to be in Constantinople, that you deign to send some persons with letters from your holiness; and not only to that most holy brother of ours, the bishop of Constantinople, but also to the venerable priests of Alexandria and Antioch, who may send us the same synod with the sealing of their own letters, so that all doubt thereafter may be removed; since indeed we have not found these things, as our brother Faustinus has brought them. We, however, as I said before, profess that we will observe them for the time being, until complete and perfect copies arrive.”

^A We ought also to request our most revered brother, the bishop of the Church of Rome, Boniface, that he also, in like manner, may deign to send to the aforementioned Churches some persons to bring the same copies, according to those things written by him. Now, however, we shall append to these acts the copies of the aforementioned Synod of Nicaea, which we possess.

Faustinus, legate of the Roman Church, said: “Your Holiness does no prejudice to the Church of Rome, whether concerning this heading or others, since our brother and fellow-minister Alypius has judged these canons to be doubtful. But deign to write these things to our most holy and blessed Pope, that he, inquiring into the integral canons with your Holiness, may treat of all these decrees. For it is sufficient that, just as your Holiness treats of them among yourselves, so he also may inquire into them by himself, lest any contention arise between the Churches; but rather that you may consult with fraternal affection, as he writes back what ought better to be observed.” ^B

Aurelius the bishop said: “Besides those things which we have proposed in the acts, it is necessary that we also fully signify in letters from our lowliness to our most holy brother and fellow-minister Boniface all that we are treating. Let us therefore learn from the mouths of all whether our course of action is pleasing to all.”

The whole synod said: “It pleases us.”

Novatus the bishop, legate of Mauretania Sitifensis, said: “We indeed remember that this *commonitorium* contains matters regarding presbyters, and furthermore regarding deacons, as to how they ought to be heard by their own bishops or by those who are neighboring; which we have by no means read in the Nicene Synod. Therefore your Holiness will command that it be read.” ^C

Aurelius the bishop said: “Let this also which is sought be read in our presence.”

Daniel the notary read: “Regarding the appeals of clerics, that is, of a lesser place, the response of the synod is certain; concerning which we think what you wish to do ought to be inserted, since it is said thus.”

Osius the bishop said: “That which still moves me I ought not to keep silent. If by chance any bishop who is irascible (which he ought not to be), moved quickly or even harshly against his own presbyter or deacon, wishes to separate him from his own church, care must be taken that he be not condemned without cause, or lose his communion; therefore let him who is cast out have the power of approaching neighboring [bishops], so that his case may be heard and more diligently examined. For to him who requests it, ^D a hearing is not to be denied; and that bishop who cast him out, whether justly or unjustly, must allow the matter to be discussed.

so that his verdict may be either confirmed or corrected, and so forth.

ARIST. A presbyter and deacon who has been suspended has the freedom to appeal to neighboring bishops. Furthermore, he who suspended him ought to bear with equanimity that which shall be confirmed.

This canon provides an occasion for confusion and scandals. For it is just and canonical for a cleric deposed by his own bishop to flee and appeal to the metropolitan of that province; but for a cleric who has been suspended to approach neighboring bishops when the metropolitan is absent, and to appoint them as examiners of a bishop who is not subject to them, is unreasonable and a cause of turmoil. For this reason, then, this canon is not to be held as universal or valid in other dioceses, but as local, for Carthage and Africa.

^A And these things having been read, Augustine, bishop of the Church of Hippo of the province of Numidia, said: "We profess that we shall observe this, also, with the reservation of a more diligent investigation of the Nicene synod."

Aurelius the bishop said: "If this also pleases you, confirm it by the response of the affection of you all."

The whole synod answered: "All things that have been established by the Nicene synod are pleasing to us all."

Jucundus, bishop of the Church of Offetula, representative of the province of Byzacena, said: "What has been established by the Nicene synod can by no means be subverted by anyone."

Faustinus, bishop and representative of the Church of Rome, said: "Even now, based on the profession of your sanctity, partly that of the holy Alypius and partly that of our brother Jucundus, I believe that some things are invalidated, while others are confirmed; which ought not to be in doubt if the canons themselves are possessed. ^B Therefore, as is pleasing to us and to you, may your sanctity deign to refer the matter to the most holy and most venerable bishop of the Church of Rome, so that he himself may also be able to consider both matters, as the most holy Augustine has deigned to determine. For this also must be granted and kept silent: namely, concerning appeals of a lower rank. But if there is still doubt concerning this point, it is right for the bishop of the blessed see to decide if it can be admitted to be found in the canons."

BALS. When Faustinus, the representative of ancient Rome, had requested that certain ecclesiastical questions be discussed according to the mandate given to him by the Pope, Bishop Aurelius ^C permitted this to be done. And when Daniel the notary had begun to read the memorandum, the bishop said: “The bishop of the blessed [see] has the right to determine if this can be found in the canons.”

^A Zosimus to the legates of Rome, saying that they are not unaware—that is, they are not ignorant—of what has been commanded to you by the apostolic throne, and that these things ought to be examined just as if the synod were taking place in Rome; for, through the presence of you, the legates, the business of the synod appears to be transacted there.

And immediately the fifth canon of the Synod of Sardica was brought forward, as if it were perhaps one of the Fathers of Nicaea. And when a doubt arose concerning whether this canon belonged to the Council of Nicaea, Bishop Alypius said that while it was necessary to observe it, yet because it is not found in the Greek books which contain what was done at the Council of Nicaea, “I entreat you, Aurelius, that a letter be written to the bishop of Constantinople, and to those of Alexandria and Antioch, so that the original records of the first synod which are there may be examined, by which this same canon might be confirmed and the doubt resolved. However, the things declared in it should be observed until the doubt is resolved.” The Pope of Rome also desired this same thing to be done. When these things had been said, Faustinus, legate of Rome, said that Alypius had said nothing absurd, for the Pope also desired the contention of the Churches to be resolved and cut off. ^B It therefore pleased Bishop Aurelius, as well as the whole synod, that this be done.

After these things were completed, it was asked by Navatus, bishop and legate of Mauritania, how and by whom clerics ought to be judged, and who might appeal from those judged by their own bishop. And a certain bishop named Osius responded: “I ought not to be silent about what still moves me,” and the rest of the fourteenth canon of the Synod of Sardica, which was also set forth there.

When these matters had thus been discussed, Augustine said that this canon ought to be observed, provided that meanwhile, by a more diligent inquiry or examination of the Synod of Nicaea, it should be established that it belongs to that synod. The remaining Fathers also said that what was decreed in the Council of Nicaea was pleasing to them all, and that it ought to be kept inviolate in the future. See also what has been written by us in the fifth canon of the Synod of Sardica. ^C

ARIST.

The legates sent by the Pope of Rome to this synod, putting forward the canon issued by the Synod of Sardica concerning the fact that one who is deposed should go to the Bishop of Rome, as if it had been decreed by the Council of Nicaea, and demanding that the Fathers assembled in this synod confirm it as a canon of the Council of Nicaea; since these [Fathers], not holding in memory whether it was issued by the Council of Nicaea, and not having the acts done at Nicaea with them as signed and confirmed, said they were ignorant [of it], they judged it worthy that the Bishop of Rome write.

to the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Alexandria, and receive from them the canons enacted at Nicaea, ^A confirmed, and show them to them. Meanwhile, they wished to maintain such a canon until they should receive most true and certain copies of the Council of Nicaea; and it was placed by them in the first place here. After this, they were sent to them by the holy Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, and Atticus, Archbishop of Constantinople, and they did not find in them a canon enacted allowing the sending of clerics of Rome, and through them to examine, on appeal, the depositions of bishops; they wrote to Celestine, the then-Pope of the city of Rome, not to wish to do so henceforth, and not to allow his clerics to be sent to examine the decisions and depositions of bishops, lest the smoky ^B pride of the world be brought into the Church of Christ.

Aurelius the Bishop said: "The copies of what was defined in the Council of Nicaea, which were long ago shown to your love by us, you now accept; but also that which was salutarily ordained by our fathers according to the form of the same council, and what has additionally been ordained by us, now [you permit] to be read and inserted into the acts."

The whole Synod said: "The copies of the faith and the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, which were long ago brought to us by Caecilianus, the predecessor of your holiness; furthermore, also those things which were subsequently enacted here, and now by common ^C consent have been decreed by us, let them remain inserted into these ecclesiastical acts; provided that your beatitude, as has been said before, deigns to write to the venerable bishops of the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, that they may send most true copies of the Council of Nicaea with the signature of their letters: so that, the truth being manifested, these articles, which our brother and co-bishop Faustinus and the fellow-presbyters Philippus and Asellus brought with them in the *commonitorium*, may be confirmed if found there or, if they are not found, we may, having convened another synod, inquire again about them."

ZONARAS. The aforementioned canon was put forward as belonging to the ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Therefore, ^D Bishop Augustine proposed that the canon be observed, provided that a more diligent search or examination of the Council of Nicaea was not meanwhile omitted, so that it might be observed if it truly belongs to that council; and the rest of the Fathers of the synod said that what had been defined in the Council of the Nicaeans was acceptable to all. Then the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea was read. Daniel, a notary of the Council of Nicaea, read the confession of faith and its decrees in the African synod.

^A The confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit." The catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes those who say: "There was once when he was not," and "Before he was begotten he was not," and "He was made out of nothing," or who say that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or that he is changeable or mutable. ^B Similarly, the decrees of the Council of Nicaea in twenty chapters were read; then those things which were decreed in the synods of Africa are inscribed and recognized in the acts of those present.

CANON I. "Wherefore, the things that were established in the Council of Nicaea shall be observed in all respects."

Aurelius the bishop said: "These copies of the statutes, which our Fathers then brought back with them from the Council of Nicaea, are held by us in such a way that, keeping their pattern, the things which follow and are established by us may be observed and confirmed."

BALS. With the holy symbol having been read, just as it was composed in the first synod, and likewise the twenty canons of the same synod; and furthermore, those things which had been established in Africa; and with it being decided that the things which were acted upon and pronounced synodically must be kept inviolate, Aurelius said that the copies of those things which were established at Nicaea, brought hither by the African Fathers, are as they were read; and according to the sequence of these, it must be acted upon and decreed concerning those things that follow which ought to be spoken and confirmed, so that they may be kept for the future.

^D ZUNAR. What Aurelius says is of this kind: "Among us," he says, "are the copies of those things which have now been read, which our Fathers—that is, the bishops who were before us—brought back at the time when the synod was gathered at Nicaea. For there were in that same synod, as is probable, African bishops as well. If they exist as they were read—for they were still in doubt about them, and therefore requested the patriarchs, as has been said, to send them copies confirmed by them—if those things also which have been established by us keep that pattern and agree with them, they shall be held as valid."

ARIST. ^A Exemplars of those things which were seen by the Nicene Fathers, and which our Fathers brought back with them from this synod, let them be observed. What was first handed down and sanctioned by the holy Fathers gathered in Nicaea, this present synod also confirms and orders to be observed.

CANON II

BALS. The Fathers say that in this assembly, "First, we confess the ecclesiastical faith," that is, the one received by the Church of the faithful, which has been handed down through us, namely the bishops; "next, we resolve to preserve the ecclesiastical order," everyone of us consenting to this matter, and all together. ^C But to confirm the mind of our brethren and co-bishops recently ordained, it is necessary to add what we have received from our Fathers—that is, from the ancient bishops—by a firm disposition, or as a firm and secure canon. And they immediately add what they have received, namely concerning the Holy Trinity: that the Holy Trinity has no difference—that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not differ from one another in anything, setting aside, of course, the properties of each—but a unity is known in them; that is, the three persons are one in essence, and glory, and power. And thus, they say, "the faith consecrated in our minds"—that is, impressed and defined—"we acknowledge, ^D and thus we shall teach the peoples, just as we have been taught, following the evangelical doctrine."

ARIST. No difference is known or taught in the Holy Trinity according to the confirmation of those in Nicaea. Thus we have received, thus we think, to know or teach no difference in the Holy Trinity; but to recognize it as of the same essence, and of the same power, and of the same honor.

CANON III.

BALS. This canon desires that those who handle the holy mysteries, that is to say, bishops, priests, and deacons, should exercise every virtue, and be continent not only through temperance, but in every deed and work. For thus, he says, they will be heard by God when praying for the people, and will truly show themselves to be keeping those things which were handed down by the holy apostles and by ancient, unwritten ecclesiastical custom. ^B

ZONAR. This canon discourses on the temperance and continence of those who have been initiated into the sacred rites, saying that three orders, which have bound themselves by their own profession to chastity—namely, bishops, presbyters, and Levites, that is to say, deacons, who minister to the divine consecrated things, or the bloodless sacrifice which is religiously offered to the Deity—ought to observe continence in all things. Nor should they be immoderate in one sole matter, and conversely employ no discernment in the rest of their lifestyle, but pursue temperance in all, that is, fulfill all the parts ^C of virtue, so that they may obtain the things which they ask of God, that is, simply, and without any trepidation or hesitation. For they are mediators between God and men, reconciling the Deity to other men and seeking salvation for the faithful and peace for the world. If, therefore, he says, they practice every kind of virtue, and thus speak boldly to God, they would obtain the very things they requested; but if they themselves are destitute of the power of speaking freely, how could they perform the office of an intercessor for others? Therefore, for this reason, we shall observe both what has been handed down by the apostles and what has been used up to now by the custom ^D of ancient time, that is, both those things which are established by written laws and those which have prevailed without writing through long and ancient custom.

ARIST. “Let a bishop, and a presbyter, and a deacon be chaste and continent.”

CANON IV.

^A all who handle holy things, be keepers of continence, and abstain from women.” ^B BALS. and ZONAR. The preceding canon discussed the continence of bishops, presbyters, and deacons; but this one concerns itself more specifically with chastity and abstinence from women. From these canons, and especially from the present one, the Romans and all who share their views hold that presbyters and deacons cannot legitimately be joined with their wives, but ought to remain devoid of marriage. But they are mistaken in this as they are in other matters. For the fifth canon of the holy Apostles says: “Let not a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon cast off his own wife under the pretext of piety.” And perhaps someone might say that even among us bishops do not have wives; but this was decreed by the Fathers of the so-called sixth synod, who say in canon 12: “We do not say this to oppose what was established by the Apostles, but out of care for salvation and the better progress of the people, and that no occasion for reproach be given to the priestly order.” The same synod ^C interprets this present canon in canon 13, saying: “It is required that presbyters, deacons, or subdeacons abstain from their own wives during the times when they are handling the holy mysteries,” and it adds: “If anyone dares to deprive presbyters or deacons or subdeacons of the union and society of a legitimate wife, let him be deposed.” The seventieth canon of this present synod also convicts those who think wrongly on this matter. For it says: “It pleased that bishops and presbyters and deacons, according to their own terms, also abstain from their own wives.” From whence it is shown that bishops, presbyters, and deacons lived with their wives. And the synod did not forbid them the conversation with them, except according to their own terms, that is, on the appointed days of each one’s turn of service.

Another interpretation.

^A saying: But let each man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. And again: Let not spouses deprive themselves, unless perhaps by consent, when they are about to approach the prayer of holy communion. Furthermore, the priest Abiathar, when David and those with him asked to eat the loaves of proposition, first inquired whether they were clean from a woman. And what is proclaimed in the divine mystagogy, “Holy things for the holy,” has the same meaning. For those who are defiled by intercourse with a woman or otherwise are not holy; therefore, they ought not to communicate. From all this it is gathered that not even the spouses themselves, who have come together bodily, shall be held worthy of holy communion on that very day. That most holy patriarch, Lord Lucas, being questioned on this, pronounced synodically that those who are to be partakers of the divine sanctified things must abstain from bodily intercourse for three days ^B beforehand. Moreover, he also subjected to penalties those who, being newlyweds, come together on that same day after the holy communion. And read the memorandum made in the month of September of the second indiction. Read also from the canonical questions and answers of Timothy of Alexandria, the fifth and the twelfth, which teach that the faithful ought to abstain from intercourse with each other on the Saturday and the Sunday. He says also in the Mosaic book in Exodus these things: And the Lord said to Moses: Descend and testify to this people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, let them wash their garments, and let them be prepared for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will descend upon Mount Sinai before all the people. And again: And Moses descended from the mountain to the people, and sanctified them, and they washed their garments; and he said to the people: Be prepared for three days, and do not approach a woman.

ARIST. ^C And let them abstain from a wife, so that they may obtain what they seek.

This canon, and the twenty-fifth, when compared with the seventieth canon of the present synod, do not appear to require the bishop, presbyter, and deacon to dissolve their marriage and to abstain from their wives completely; but to refrain from them at the proper times—that is, when they are at leisure for prayer and fasting, and are performing the handling of the holy things. But the twelfth canon of the sixth synod in Trullo does not permit bishops to dwell with their own wives after the ordination to the episcopacy bestowed upon them has taken place, but to dissolve their union with them. This, however, does not introduce a contempt for marriage ^D or a subversion of what was apostolically ordained, but is for the sake of the salvation and the improvement of the people toward the better, and so that no occasion for criticizing the priestly constitution might be given. But the thirteenth canon of the same sixth synod accuses

the rule in the Roman Church as it is handed down, ^A namely that those who are to be ordained deacons or presbyters must profess that they will no longer be joined to their wives; and it commands that the legitimate marriages of holy men should not be dissolved, but remain firm, and that they should not depart one from the other; but only that they contain themselves from their wives at their own proper times, just as the Apostle handed down, and again come together.

CANON V

^B ‹ The desire for greed, which no one doubts is the mother of all evils, must be restrained; so that no one may abuse the boundaries of others, nor that anyone for the sake of gain may overstep the boundaries of the Fathers; nor that it be permitted to any cleric whatsoever to accept interest from any source. And those matters recently brought forward, being obscure and totally hidden, when considered by us shall take their form. But concerning those matters about which divine Scripture most clearly established laws, it is not our duty to decree, but rather to follow them. For consequently, that which is blameworthy in laymen ought to be condemned much more in clerics. The whole synod said: ‹ No one has acted against the prophets, no one against the Gospels without danger. ›

BALS. The forty-fourth canon of the holy Apostles and the fourth of the synod of Laodicea forbid clerics from taking interest; but the seventeenth canon of the first synod subjects them to deposition. Therefore, the Fathers, calling these canons boundaries, and calling greed and the shameful gain of the acceptance of interest ^C by that name, decreed that the boundaries of the Fathers, that is, the canons, are not to be overstepped, and that interest is not to be accepted by a cleric from any matter whatsoever; namely, neither from money given as a loan, nor from grain lent, nor from any other thing. But they added that those things which are recently put forth, that is, decreed, are obscure and faint, being unknown. But concerning those things about which divine Scripture ^D established or legislated, it is not necessary to decree, but rather to follow what has been legislated. They called divine Scripture both the sacred canons and the sayings of Scripture, such as: "You shall not lend your money to your brother at interest"; and, "He has not put out his money at interest," and things of this kind. Then they establish how it is absurd and shameful for those who have been initiated into holy things to lend at interest; and they say that what is blameworthy in laymen, that is, to be censured and blamed, must consequently be condemned much more in clerics. To this the synod said: "No one has acted against the prophets, no one against the Gospel without danger"; that is, since lending at interest is prohibited in both the Old Testament (for they signified this by the prophets) and the New (which they showed through the Gospel), no one who does the things prohibited in them will escape danger.

He will be in danger regarding his own status, that is, he will be deposed. ^A

ZONARAS. Since this canon is intended to enact that clergy should not engage in usurious gain, it discourses first on avarice, and calls it the mother of all evils; it also defines that it should be restrained, that is, checked and amputated, so that one does not invade what belongs to others and abuse it. He termed "abuse" the illicit use of some thing. For even a use that is not illicit becomes so, if one pretends some honest cause while taking away the things of others. For those who lend at interest, as if those who are borrowing are supposedly being helped, affirm that they also share in the gain from the loan. And in another way, he says, one must check greed, so that no one, for the sake of gain, may overstep the boundaries of the Fathers, calling the sacred canons the boundaries of the Fathers. For the forty-fourth canon of the Apostles forbids those in sacred orders from lending at interest, and the seventeenth canon of the first ^B ecumenical synod punishes with deposition and condemns those examined under the canon who lend at interest. And the fourth canon of the synod of Laodicea dissuades those in holy orders from lending at interest. These canons, therefore, he called the boundaries of the Fathers. Let greed be cut off, he says, and so that it may not be permitted for any clergyman to receive interest from any thing whatsoever. For not only is money lent at interest, but also grain, wine, oil, and countless other types of things. And just as with coins interest is agreed to be paid, so also with these other goods. For if someone lends, for example, one hundred modii of grain, he agrees to receive back after a set time a number of modii beyond that, and so likewise with others. So that the canon might not be circumvented, with those in sacred orders not lending money at interest but doing this with goods, the Fathers added, "of any thing whatsoever." And those things that were newly brought up, that is, mentioned, they say, being obscure, that is to say, unclear, dark, and unknown, shall be settled—that is, defined by us as being considered—which even Divine Scripture has ordained, or rather legislated and appointed; concerning those things one must not deliberate—that is, judge—but rather follow and adhere to what has been ^C decreed. By the name "Divine Scripture" he meant both the sacred canons and the scriptural passages, such as that, "Thou shalt not lend thy money to thy brother at interest," and that, "He has not given his money at interest," and whatever else is found of this kind. Then they also construct the argument of how it is absurd and shameful for those in holy orders to lend at interest, and they say that what is reproachable among laymen—that is, blameworthy and subject to accusation—should consequently be condemned much more in the case of the clergy. To this the synod said: "No one has performed any deed against the prophets, nor against the Gospel, without danger." This is what I said: that since lending at interest is rejected both by the more ancient Scripture (for this was hinted at through the prophets) and by the new one (which He manifested through the Gospel), no one doing things prohibited in them will escape danger. He will be in danger regarding his own status; that is, he will be deposed. ^D

IN CAN. VI CONC. CARTHAG. 42

nobody against the prophets, nobody against the Gospels, has done so without danger, he announced. And this must indeed be accepted. For they say that it is forbidden to lend at interest, both by the Old Testament—which they demonstrated through the prophets—and by the New—which they wish to be understood by the Gospel; and that no one who has committed anything against these things is immune from danger: but it is resolved that they come into danger regarding their dignity, that is, that they be punished with deposition.

ARIST. ^A “What is reprehended in laymen, such as taking interest, is much more condemned in clerics.”

And the forty-second apostolic canon, and the seventeenth of the council of Nicaea, and the tenth of the sixth council in Trullo, render the presbyter or deacon who demands interest, and does not cease, liable to deposition. For if this, when done by laymen, is blameworthy, and brings upon them the reproach of shameful gain and avarice, and they are not even admitted to the priesthood unless they spend the unjust gain on the poor and promise no longer to fall into such a disease of love of money, according to the fourteenth canon of the great Basil: ^B much more will it be under condemnation in clerics.

CANON VI.

^B “We remember that it was established in prior synods that chrism, or the reconciliation of penitents, or the consecration of virgins and of temples, should not be done by presbyters. But if anyone is found doing this, what ought to be determined concerning him?” Aurelius the bishop said: “Your dignity has heard what was brought forward by our brother and fellow-minister, Fortunatus: what do you say to these things?” It was said by all the bishops: ^C “The preparation of chrism, and the consecration of virgins, should not be done by presbyters: nor is it permitted for a presbyter to reconcile anyone to a public mystery of the sacred thing; this pleases all.”

BALS. The preparation of chrism is that of the holy ointment. This perhaps is the reason for the Roman observance: for it holds among them. But the consecration of virgins is also overlooked, even if not by all. But perhaps he does not call the preparation of chrism the anointing of those recently illuminated, ^D but the ritual act itself of the holy ointment. This has everywhere prevailed, as not able or dared to be performed by any presbyter. Observe also that it is not permitted for a presbyter to grant pardon to a penitent, nor to absolve one who is subject to penance, without the opinion of the local bishop. May a secular priest, with episcopal permission, rightly receive the confessions of certain men, or not? The divine canons, which entrust the confession of reconciliation to priests with episcopal exhortation, are much older than Saint Pachomius, who was deemed worthy to see the habit of the monks through an angelic vision. For this reason he does not even mention monks anywhere, but simply presbyters: therefore, by episcopal judgment, the right of confession will be effectively granted to secular priests, and through this, the reconciliation of the penitents.

^A For the spiritual physician reconciles them with God through repentance and the conversion to what is better. The consecration of maidens is not the [alt-version omitted] ordination of deaconesses by the laying on of hands; rather, it was the custom for maidens professing virginity to be brought to the church, and the bishops would consecrate them by prayers, as having been dedicated to God, and they would concern themselves with their protection, as is declared by the 44th canon of the present synod. The synod has forbidden this to be done by presbyters, just as it also forbade the consecration of temples, and has given the power for these to the bishops. But to reconcile ^B through a public sacred ministry is of this nature: those who have been penalized and are barred from the church are not permitted to stand with the faithful, but they are not forbidden to praise God by themselves. When, however, they are released from the penalty, then they stand with the faithful, and publicly, that is to say openly, they praise God together with the congregation. Read also the 43rd canon of the present synod; and do not let the 52nd apostolic canon be contrary to you, which says that bishops and presbyters ought to receive those who repent. But say that these presbyters receive the penitents at the urging of the bishops. Wherefore note that ordained monks who receive the confessions of men without episcopal authorization act wrongly; acting much more wrongly are those who are not ordained. For the latter cannot perform such a thing even with episcopal urging. For this reason, a synodal note ^C was issued upon the petition of the venerable monastery of Evergetis, to the effect that, since the Rule of the monastery decrees that he who is its superior at any given time is to receive the confessions of the monks, and it is not permitted for one who is not ordained to receive confessions, it necessarily follows that the superior must be a priest. But superiors, as we have often said, are sometimes laymen. For even women are placed in charge of monasteries, but they do not hear the confessions of men. With things standing thus, some say that, since the consecration of maidens is performed by bishops, it shall not be permitted for a superior of a monastery who is ordained, or for a monk who is simply a priest, to shear any monk without episcopal authorization. For the consecration of maidens and the tonsure of monks are the same thing. ^D To me, however, it seems that priest-superiors may perform the tonsure without any hindrance, even without episcopal authorization. For if the fourteenth canon of the Seventh Synod permits the superior to confer even the office of reader in his own monastery, much more has it permitted him to perform the tonsure. And read what is written in that same fourteenth canon. But those monks who are simply priests are obliged to perform tonsures with the knowledge of the bishop because of the present canon; unless, perhaps, someone...

should wish this to be done by the sole will of the monk-priest, by long-standing custom which has prevailed up to the present day in place of law and canon. ^A

ZONARAS. The preparation of chrism is the consecration of holy oil by a mystical rite of ceremonies. The reconciliation of penitents occurs when someone who has confessed a crime, after having acted among the penitents and paid the penalty, is absolved from the penalty for the future. For as if this person has perhaps already suffered sufficient punishment, or has fulfilled the appointed time, and has demonstrated a repentance proportional to the crime, he is released from the penalty and is permitted to stand with the faithful, or even to partake of the holy mysteries. For the high priest, as it were, reconciles him to God through repentance, and thus establishes him with the faithful in the Church, and deems him worthy of the holy mysteries; or even, if the time of repentance is still being indulged, he is reconciled, as when, for instance, his life is in danger, as the following canon says concerning this. ^B The consecration of virgins is not the same as the laying on of hands for deaconesses; but it was the custom for young women who confessed virginity and promised purity to be presented in the churches, and the bishops would consecrate them by prayers, as having been dedicated to God, and they would see to their conduct and upbringing after they had been separated from their parents, as the 44th canon of the present synod indicates. The synod, therefore, forbade these things to be done by presbyters. For it is by high priests that the holy chrism is prepared and sanctified, and the reconciliation of penitents is performed. For to those to whom it is given to bind, to them also has been given the power to loose. And there is need of accurate discernment to know if one who has sinned has repented from the soul and sufficiently, for which the presbyter might perhaps not be competent. And the consecration of virgins is ordained to be performed by high priests, so that having knowledge that they have been consecrated, each of the bishops may take care of their conduct and protection. ^C But to reconcile for "public ministry" means the following: Those who are under penalty and are barred from the church are not permitted to stand in the assemblies with the faithful; but they are not prevented from praising God and praying to Him by themselves; but when they are loosed from the penalty, then they stand with the faithful and minister publicly, that is, with the assembly of the faithful, with the multitude, meaning that they openly praise the divine and worship God. For "to minister" is taken here as meaning worship and praise. ^D

ARISTENUS. "And the preparation of chrism, that is, the preparation of ointment, the consecration of virgins, and the reconciliation of someone for public ministry, should not be done by presbyters." The preparation and perfection of the holy chrism, and the consecration of virgins, and the perfect reconciliation of those who are doing penance, so that they may publicly stand with the faithful and of the divine

^A participation of the sacraments, it is not permitted for a presbyter to perform; but these things must be done by the bishop.

CANON VII.

BALS. That it is not permitted for priests to hear the confessions of men and to remit sins without episcopal authorization is also clearly demonstrated from the present canon. For it says: If anyone is in danger of death and has asked to be reconciled—that is, that it be permitted to him that after confession he may be a participant in the divine sacraments—(but the bishop is absent), the priest cannot reconcile him, but must ask the bishop, who holds the place of the apostle and has received from God the power to bind and to loose, and perform the reconciliation at his urging, if it be expeditious for the inquiry to be made. For if the bishop is far away and death is imminent, reconciliation will be given by the priest even without the questioning of the bishop, according to the canon of the present synod. If, therefore, ^B the priest does not even grant a final reconciliation without episcopal authorization, as one who does not have the power to bind and to loose, much more will he not receive the confession of one who is healthy. Since these things are so, and since the 6th canon does not declare what ought to be done to a priest who, without the permission of the bishop, has heard confessions, according to the inquiry of Fortunatus, and since the present canon also decrees nothing concerning this, some have said that the punishment of the one who has transgressed the canon is left to the judgment of the bishop. But that most holy patriarch Lord Michael, who was supreme among philosophers, said that such a priest ought to be deposed, according to the canons which decree that those who exercise anything priestly beyond their province, and the transgressors of the canons, are to be deposed.

^C ZONAR. Here too the canon declares the faculty of judging to reside with the bishops. For if, he says, anyone is in danger of life from illness or from another cause, having been subjected to penances, and is kept far from the holy altar, and he asks to be reconciled to the holy altars—that is, to be admitted to divine communion in the absence of the bishop—the presbyter, the canon says, must consult the bishop and reconcile the one who is in danger according to his command. Rightly, however, was the power of releasing from penalties adjudged to the bishops, as much for the reason already explained as because that statement of the words properly befits the high priests, in whose possession is the authority of binding and loosing. Moreover, even the monks who at this time receive confessions, ^D if they are not authorized by a high priest to receive confessions, neither

have they the authority to bind or to loose. For Christ gave this authority to the holy apostles. And the high priests fill the place of the apostles.

ARIST. ^A <A priest desiring to reconcile someone in danger to the holy altars, let him consult the bishop, and let him do according to what has been said.>

The aforementioned canon commanded that the reconciliation be performed by a bishop; but the present one orders that, with the consent of the bishop, it may be performed even by priests.

CANON VIII

<Concerning those who accuse the Fathers, and that it may not be permitted to anyone whose life suffers under infamy to accuse a bishop.>

Numidius, bishop of Mazula, ^B said: <There are many of not good life, who think that the elders and bishops should be dragged into court at random; is it necessary to admit such persons, or not?> Aurelius, the bishop, said: <Does it please your charity, therefore, that those who are ensnared in certain crimes should bring a charge against the Fathers?> It was said by all the bishops: <If anyone should labor under an infamy, let him not be admitted.>

BALS. The sixth ^C canon of the second ecumenical synod determines that not all are to be admitted to the accusations of bishops and clerics, but only those who are free from reproach. Read, therefore, that canon, which is older; and the canons of the present synod 128, 129, and 131.

ZONAR. And the 128th canon of the present synod, and the 129th and the 130th, discourse upon this same matter, and explain more fully to whom it is not permitted to bring charges against bishops. And the second ecumenical synod also, being older than this synod, determined this same subject in its sixth canon, defining who may be admitted as accusers of bishops and clerics. That canon, therefore, and its explanation should be read. But the phrase "of not good life" is said for "of not good conduct," or "not of noble life."

ARIST. ^D <It has seemed good that those who are ensnared in crimes should not bring accusations; but let them be held ineligible to make an accusation.>

It is also said in the sixth canon of the holy Fathers in Constantinople.

^A

CANON IX.

Concerning those who for the merits of their own sins are cast out from the ecclesiastical assembly.

BALS. Read the canons of the holy Apostles 11, 12, 32, the sixth canon of the Council of Antioch, and the 13th canon of the Council of Sardica, which teach what ought to be done in the case of those who receive deposed or segregated clerics; likewise in the case of those who receive segregated laymen. The present canon decrees that if another bishop or presbyter receives into communion ^C those who have been cast out of the Church because of the just penalties for the crimes they have committed, he too shall be punished just as the one who is received. Therefore, having gathered what was constituted by the other canons and by the present canon, say that if another bishop receives a deposed cleric into priestly communion, he shall be deposed; but if he prays together with one who is segregated, he shall be segregated. For this reason the present canon also says that the bishop who received him is to be punished in the same manner as the one who was cast out of the Church. Note, however, that ^D the present canon also wishes for clerics to be deposed or segregated not without examination, but only after a condemnation appropriate to the sin.

ZONAR. The eleventh, twelfth, and thirty-second of the holy Apostles also ordained this same thing. Therefore, what was written there is sufficient here as well. Furthermore, the sixth canon of the Council of Antioch speaks about this same matter, as does the 13th of the Council of Sardica.

ARIST. ‹He who communicates with one who is excommunicated is himself excommunicated.› He who receives one who has been excommunicated by his own bishop, and ministers sacred rites with him, knowing of the excommunication, let him also be excommunicated. Likewise, he who communicates with heretics, and prays with them, shall not communicate with the faithful, but shall be thrust out of the Church.

CANON X.

Concerning presbyters who are condemned by their own bishops...

^A Alypius, bishop of the region of Numidia and legate, said: Neither must this be omitted: if any presbyter, having been condemned by his own bishop, should become puffed up with a certain swelling of pride and arrogance, and should think that he ought to offer holy things to God separately, or should contemplate erecting another altar against the ecclesiastical faith and constitution, he must not escape unpunished. Valentinus, bishop of the first see of the region of Numidia, said: The things brought forward by our brother Alypius necessarily accord with the ecclesiastical faith and order. Whatever remains, speak your minds, your love. The Synod said: If any presbyter, puffed up against his own bishop, shall cause a schism, let him be anathema. ^B

BALS. The thirty-first apostolic canon subjects to deposition those who withdraw from the congregation if they are clerics, and decrees that laymen be excommunicated; but this is after a first, second, and third admonition. The present canon, however, and the sixth of Gangra, anathematize these persons. It must therefore be sought what we ought to do. I think, then, that both will happen in accordance with the canons. For, first, according to the apostolic canon, the schismatics will be warned to refrain from the evil; and if they do not obey, they will be deposed or excommunicated. But if they persist even then in their swelling—that is, in vainglory and disobedience—they shall be subjected to anathema, as putrid limbs ^C cut off from the healthy body of the Church. For to be anathematized from that point on, when they have not offended on account of a dogmatic cause, but have acted disorderly against the ecclesiastical constitution out of arrogance and levity of mind, is most severe, as it seems to me. Read also the first canon of the great Basil, which teaches the difference between heretics, schismatics, and those who withdraw from the congregation. But here "schism" and "withdrawal from the congregation" are taken abusively for those who, out of arrogance, have become puffed up against their own bishop and have cut themselves off from him. ^D

ZONAR. If any priest, having perhaps been punished with excommunication, becomes puffed up with swelling—that is, with vainglory and pride—and offers to God privately, performing sacred rites by himself, or himself sets up a new altar against the ecclesiastical faith and constitution; he truly overturns the ecclesiastical order, for whereas presbyters ought to be subject to the bishop, he struggles against and resists him and also acts against the faith; for the unbelievers, seeing that the ordained are living in a disorderly manner, will mock the faith. Therefore, they say, such men should not go unpunished, and for that reason, the Synod condemned them with anathema. And the sixth canon of the Synod of Gangra also placed those who set up private congregations under anathema. And the thirty-first canon of the holy Apostles decrees the penalty of deposition for such persons.

^A

ARIST. "He who is condemned by a bishop, if afterwards he separates himself, and sets up an altar, or offers, is to be punished." He who is excommunicated by his own bishop, and does not approach the synod to which his bishop is subject, in order that it might examine the matters of the excommunication and correct what was done unreasonably, but is lifted up by pride and disdain, and holds him in contempt, and separates himself from the Church, and sets up another altar, and offers holy things to God; such a person, as doing these things against the ecclesiastical faith and constitution, shall not go unpunished, but shall be anathematized.

CANON XI. "If any presbyter in the conduct of his life shall have been condemned, he ought to report to the neighboring bishops, that they may hear the matter, and through them he may be reconciled to his own bishop; but if he does not do this, ^B but—which God forbid!—being puffed up with pride, separates himself from the communion of his own bishop, and together with some others forming a schism, offers the holy things to God, such a one shall be accounted anathema, and shall lose his own place; this being considered, namely, whether he has a just cause of complaint against the bishop."

BALS. This canon also says the same as the preceding one; for it ordains that not only are presbyters to be deposed, but also anathematized, who, having been condemned by their bishops, do not wish to settle the matter peaceably through an examination by the neighboring bishops, but isolate themselves—that is, separate themselves from their own bishop—and celebrate the sacred rites privately, contrary to his judgment. Read also the 6th canon of the Council of Antioch, and the 14th of that of Sardica. ^C But it behoves one, he says, to consider and examine whether the cleric justly accuses his own bishop, and rightly declines communion with him. Read also the 29th canon of this synod, and the 4th canon of Antioch. But do not interpret the complaint against the bishop as being on account of sin, or any other criminal accusation, but on account of a dogmatic cause or the unjust ordering of his life. For a cleric ought not to separate himself from his own bishop before a condemnation, unless he sees him manifestly doing an injustice or opposing the true dogma. When that metropolitan of Philippopolis, Italicus, had excommunicated his own cleric, Campsorymes, ^D the matter was debated before that most holy patriarch, Muzalon, that he was not worthy of mercy, as one who, according to this canon, had not approached the neighboring bishops and the synod that was in that region, in order to be reconciled to the metropolitan through them, but had first offered trouble to the patriarchal see,

^A see, and had brought his own bishop into litigation. But when Capsorymes said that he had sought the compassion of his own metropolitan through many metropolitans, and was not heard, and for this reason had come to the great synod, it was judged that he had done nothing against the canons.

ZONARAS. This canon also establishes the same things as the one before it, and says that if a presbyter is condemned by the bishop in his own manner of life, that is, as one who has lived not well, he ought to report, that is, to make known to the neighboring bishops how he was condemned by the bishop, so that through them, having heard the matters of fact, he may be reconciled to the bishop. But if he does not do this, but—which God forbid—puffed up by vainglory, separates himself from the bishop, and performs sacred functions ^B privately with some few people, such a one, he says, shall not only lose his own rank, but shall also be anathema. It must be noted, moreover, he says, and examined whether he justly blames his own bishop, having knowledge of a fault in him, and reasonably declines communion with him. One must also read the twenty-ninth canon of this synod, and the fourth canon of Antioch, and the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth canons of the synod assembled in the Church of the Holy Apostles.

ARISTENUS. A presbyter condemned by a bishop is permitted to appeal to the neighboring bishops; but if he does not appeal, but making a schism and puffed up with pride, offers the holy sacrifice to God, let him be ^C anathema. This canon is also of the same meaning as the one before it.

CANON XII

BALSAMON. Since the fourth canon of the synod of Antioch declared that the depositions of presbyters and deacons are to be made by one bishop, but that the depositions of bishops ^D are to be made by a synod, if it is difficult for the whole synod to come together, let twelve bishops examine the cause of a bishop, six of a presbyter, and three of a deacon. From this, the patriarch Luke deemed the deposition of John, bishop of Amathus, which the archbishop of Cyprus performed, to be straw, because, being with only eleven bishops, he did not exceed the number of twelve.

[Guill. Beveregii note.] Constantine Harmenopulus gave the present canon contracted in these words. "When a bishop is accused, if it is difficult for the universal synod to assemble, let twelve bishops at least examine the cause; if a presbyter, six; if a deacon, three." Where the scholiast observes these things: Hence Luke the patriarch, moved by this, deemed invalid the deposition of John, bishop of Amathus, made by the archbishop of Cyprus; because when only that many bishops were present with him, he did not exceed the number of twelve. Harmenop. sect. 1, tit. 5.

(14) A presbyter by six. That this is established by the Council of Carthage, held under Gratus in the year of the Lord 348, was previously constituted: the words of which we recited above, in the annotations to the eighth canon of this council.

^A The depositions of bishops by a synod appear to be contradicted by the present canon, which decrees that a bishop should be judged in a criminal case by at least twelve bishops, a presbyter by six, and a deacon by three. But the canons do not conflict; rather, the one of the synod at Antioch, to be sure, determined that such judgments should be resolved in another way, while the present canon, being much later, commanded that such judgments be conducted more securely. And more secure legislation is not a contradiction. That these things were legislated for the sake of greater security is shown also by the Fathers saying that these things are to be done then, when it is not easy for a greater number of bishops to come together. For at that time it is necessary for more bishops to hear the criminal cases. Furthermore, the provision "lest the bishop remain in the charge" must be interpreted thus: so that the bishop, while he is in doubt, may not be despised by his own people as one who is under accusation. And so much for the canon.

But someone might ask: since the canon mentions only criminal cases, is it permitted to a metropolitan or to a single bishop to judge a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon in a civil case arising from a contract which entails infamy, namely, regarding a deposit or a loan? And likewise in a case originating from a crime, namely, insult, theft, violence, and the like? ^B Solution. The fifty-fifth apostolic canon and the eighty-fourth command that those who insult kings, bishops, and magistrates be deposed. And some indeed restrict deposition only to such insults. To me, however, it seems that because of every action which entails infamy—that is, both pecuniary and criminal—infamy is incurred by those who are ordained, according to the universal and indistinct constitution of the laws. For I have seen many among the ordained deposed synodically on account of theft.

If, however, someone asks what ought to be done regarding lectors, he will hear that the twentieth canon of the present synod decrees that the remaining clerics, besides the presbyter, that is, and the deacon, are to be judged by one bishop. Furthermore, someone might ask: since the canon contains that the depositions of bishops are to be made by twelve bishops and only then when it is absolutely impossible for many to come together, if a bishop has been deposed by twelve bishops, and it was actually easy for many to come together, will the deposition be dissolved or not? ^C Solution. Some indeed say that the sentence is not invalidated by this mode. But when that John, bishop of Amathus, had been deposed by the archbishop of Cyprus, Lord John, and the edict of deposition had been read in the imperial tribunal—since it was found that eleven bishops and the archbishop had performed the deposition—that most holy patriarch, Lord Lucas, with the synod then present, and indeed the assisting senate, judged that the deposition was invalid and of no moment, for the reason that the entire synod of the churches of Cyprus, or at least the greater part of it, had not been summoned, although there was great facility for gathering it; and because the archbishop had not [gathered] more than twelve bishops, but was numbered together with them. Moreover, ^D

they employed for this purpose also the 20th canon of the present synod, and the 14th. And if some said at that time that this was pronounced only concerning presbyters and deacons, they were not heard. ^B

ZONARAS. It is decreed that bishops who are accused must be judged by their own synods. But if, upon the naming of any bishop as an accused party, it is very difficult for the whole synod or at least the majority to assemble, twelve bishops, he says, should meet and examine the matter, so that the bishop accused of a crime might not remain in that state, that is, so that while his innocence is in doubt, he may not be despised by the people over whom he presides as if he were liable to the accusation. But for a presbyter who has been called to judgment, six bishops will satisfy the requirement. Furthermore, for a deacon pleading his case, the examination of three bishops shall be sufficient. And this canon seems to be in opposition to the 4th canon of the Synod of Antioch, which asserts that bishops should be deposed by synods, but that presbyters and deacons should be deposed by their own bishops. One might, however, reconcile these two canons in this way: let him maintain that the Antiochene canon intended that the inquiries into the crimes charged against presbyters and deacons should pertain in the first instance to the bishop, and that the power to decide concerning them should rest with him; but by the provision of this present canon, if anyone complains that he has been unjustly condemned by his own bishop, it is provided that six bishops shall be the judges of the case for a presbyter, and three for a deacon. ^C

ARISTENUS. ‹If a bishop is accused, if there is not a perfect synod, at least twelve bishops must observe [the proceedings]; and for a presbyter, six and his own [bishop]; and for a deacon, three.› A bishop who is accused ought to be judged by the whole synod; but if it is not possible for all to assemble, then by at least twelve bishops; but a presbyter by six, and a deacon by three, with the proviso that the own bishop of the accused persons must also be present there, and examine together the charges brought against them.

CANON XIII

BALSAMON. Understand by "election" here not the laying on of hands, but the vote. Because this "election" signifies...

this is shown by the end of the canon, which provides that a bishop who acts against his own subscription and confession shall be deposed; which subscription is not made for ordination or consecration, but for election. And because, since the first Apostolic canon decrees that a bishop is to be ordained by two bishops, if we were to take "ordination" in this place [to mean] laying on of hands, we would be seen to be saying things contrary to the aforementioned canon. Now, since the fourth canon of the first Council of Nicaea orders the votes to be determined by all the provincial ^A bishops, but if this is difficult, for three by themselves to gather together, with the rest also giving their vote by letter—as it seems, certain metropolitans (for the present canon calls these the primates of the province) were not keeping the prescriptions of the canon. Whence it was also defined by the Fathers that elections should be performed by many bishops; but if this is not easy to do, then necessarily by three, who must gather together in whatever place with the knowledge and permission of the first, that is, the metropolitan. But if any of those who gave their votes in the election acts against their own subscription, they shall be deposed. And this is the substance of the canon. When, however, a certain metropolitan was once accused of having elected a bishop not with his own provincial bishops, but with metropolitans who were staying in the Queen of Cities [Constantinople], certain men used the present canon ^B in his defense, and said that, even if, according to the fourth canon of the first Council of Nicaea, an election must necessarily be made by at least three provincial bishops, yet by the present canon—which is much later—it was granted to the metropolitan to summon whichever three bishops he wished, and through them to perform the election in whatever place he wished; and they wanted the metropolitan to be kept exempt from any reproach by this canon. But they heard that, since the present canon decrees nothing new, but ordains that what was previously defined by the Fathers should also be kept hereafter, the things said about the summoned bishops must altogether be understood according to that [earlier] canon, and elections must necessarily be made by provincial bishops. And that it proceeds "in any place whatsoever" does not cause prejudice to the election, only ^C that it be done with at least three bishops, according to this canon and the custom that follows it. But when the canon decrees that elections be made by three bishops, if it is difficult for many to come together—someone will ask: if it is easy for many to come together, will the election be invalidated, or not? Solution: The things written above concerning the deposition of a bishop performed by twelve bishops, when it was easy for more to come together, are sufficient for the solution of the present question. But that it is written "in any place whatsoever" was for the sake of those who say that the elections of the churches must be performed by the metropolitan in his own metropolis, which indeed ^D was not accepted. For the place does not constitute the bishop, but the vote and the election of the archbishops. Note also from the present canon that the primate, that is...

the metropolitan, ought not to be present at the casting of votes, but only the bishops. What then, if one of those who have voted should gainsay his own subscription, shall he be deposed immediately, or after an examination, when he cannot prove the things he alleges? Solution: If the words of the canon are taken to mean that one who has voted might indeed acknowledge his own subscription, but then claim to have learned something that prevents the person elected from advancing to the episcopal dignity, he shall not be deposed otherwise than if he fails in his proofs. But if the contradiction of the subscription is taken as a direct denial, and the fact is proven by a comparison of handwriting or in some other way, he shall be deposed immediately. Note, then, that the present canon speaks of the denial of a subscription, as it seems to me. Read also chapter 75 of the first title of the 22nd book of the *Basilica*, and chapter 1 of the 3rd title of the same book, and the whole 4th title of the same book; and the 60th chapter of the 1st title of the 23rd book, and you will learn how one who denies his own subscription is convinced, sometimes by a comparison of documents, sometimes by witnesses under oath; and that after conviction, the person condemned is compelled to satisfy his adversary not only for the amount contained in the document, but also to pay another equal amount. ^B The 72nd Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Philosopher decrees that any document in which the figure of the venerable and life-giving cross is written by the hand of the one who composed it, shall remain firm and immutable, even if it is not secured by a penalty. Read also that same Novel. And finally conclude that the deposition of prelates who deny their subscriptions in elections is a special case, and must be valid in this matter alone. For if a bishop or cleric denies some other document of his, it seems to me he will not be deposed, as some say, but will be punished according to the laws set forth above.

ZONARAS. The fourth canon of the first synod at Nicaea decrees that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But if there is any difficulty, if some greater cause prevents it, then it is decided that three should gather together, and the others assenting by letter, a bishop is created by their authority. ^D Therefore, the Fathers of this synod affirm that the things prescribed by that canon, having been established by their predecessors, ought to be observed. Moreover, by the name of "creation" here, one should understand not the imposition of hands and consecration, but the election, lest this canon be thought to be contrary to the first canon of the holy apostles, which decrees that a bishop should be created by two bishops. But how it is not contrary, we have demonstrated in the explanation of the 4th canon of the first synod at Nicaea; see it yourself. The primates of the provinces here, he calls metropolitans, and decrees that by their mandate—that is, their command—a bishop is to be created, that is, elected, by the bishops. But if any, he says, of those who have voted...

^A and after the vote sets himself against his own confession or subscription—that is, if he confessed that a person is worthy to become bishop, or signed the decree regarding him, and after this says that he is not worthy, and contradicts himself—he shall deprive himself of the high-priestly honor, that is, he shall be deposed, unless he proves the charge against the one he is accusing.

ARIST. ^A *By the command of the primate, even three bishops constitute a bishop; and he who contradicts his own confession or subscription shall through his own judgment be deprived of honor.*

It is necessary that all the bishops of the province be present, if possible, when a vote for a bishop is to be taken for vacant sees, just as it seems good to the fourth canon of the Synod of Nicaea and the nineteenth of Antioch. If, however, this should be difficult, either because of the length of the journey or any other necessity, at least three shall perform the election by the mandate and judgment of their metropolitan, with those who are absent also providing their consent by letters. But if any bishop has confessed and affirmed that someone is worthy of the rank of the episcopacy, and then, because of some passion, proceeds in a way contrary to his confession or subscription and calls the man elected by him unworthy—when he was not ignorant before of what sort he was—he shall be deprived of his own honor. For even the law subjects those who have testified falsely or in a manner contrary to themselves to penalties through the magistrates who have jurisdiction, as the fourteenth chapter of the first title of the twenty-first book commands. ^C

CANON XIV.

*That one bishop from Tripoli should come as a legate: and that a presbyter should be heard there by five bishops. Similarly, it pleased that from Tripoli, because of the scarcity of the region, one bishop should come as a legate, and that a presbyter should be heard there by five bishops, and a deacon by three, as was said above, with his own bishop, of course, presiding.*

BALS. There is also a Tripoli in Africa; and since there were few bishops in it, the synod decreed ^D that one legate should be sent from there to the annual synods; but that criminal cases of priests should be examined by five bishops—on account of the scarcity of high priests—and [cases] of deacons by three, in addition to those bishops under whom the litigants are placed, who are to preside. Therefore, note from this canon also that the bishops to whom the litigants are subject must be in addition to the twelve, six, and three co-judges. And [note] that if there is not a scarcity of bishops, more than these bishops ought to hear the cases of those who are ordained.

ZONAR. He understands the Tripoli that is in Africa. For there was

^A Tripoli there, where there were few bishops. Therefore, it pleased the synod that one legate should be sent from there; and for the same reason, it decreed that five bishops suffice to judge a priest, with the bishop to whom the accused priest is subject presiding, so that there may be six judges again.

ARIST. Because of the dearth of bishops in Tripoli, even one bishop is sufficient for a legation. Other heads of provinces were instructed to choose two or more bishops as legates, and to send them to the synod held annually in Carthage; but from Tripoli, one bishop was enough for the legation because of the scarcity of bishops.

CANON XV

BALS. Both by the laws and by the canons it is given that it is not permitted for each person to bring a suit at whatever court he wishes, without prejudice. But to laymen, civil courts have been assigned, and to those who are consecrated and to monks, ecclesiastical ones. If anyone, therefore, who is consecrated, says the canon, having scorned this constitution, should bring a case before a civil... [index: entries preserved]

court against a clergyman or a monk concerning a criminal matter, or if any of them, having been dragged before the appropriate ecclesiastical court, should decline it and choose a public, that is, a civil court (for this is what it means to wish to be cleared, or to be acquitted of the charge through a public court), even if he should win in that civil court, whether as plaintiff or as defendant, he shall nevertheless lose his own place, that is, his rank and his priestly honor; he is deposed for this reason alone, because he declined the ecclesiastical court and chose the civil one. And when the trial is criminal, this will be the case. But when the matter being move is civil, or pecuniary, even if the clergyman is vindicated, he shall thus also fall from his own rank, unless he disdains the matter concerning which he was vindicated and yields it to his adversary who was defeated by him.

Furthermore, the Fathers decreed that if anyone should appeal against the ^B sentence of bishops or other ecclesiastical judges, and the appeal should revert to a higher judge—that is, an ecclesiastical one—according to the universal rule of law, which decrees that the judges to whom one appeals must be superior to those who first delivered judgment, and it should happen that the first sentence is overturned by the judges of appeal, those who delivered the first sentence are in no way to be harmed, whether the case be criminal or pecuniary; unless they are convicted of having delivered the sentence out of hatred for the one who was condemned, or out of affection for the one who was acquitted, or because they were corrupted by gifts; for this is what it means to be corrupted by favor—that is, one is either bribed by receiving money, or by some other favor being fulfilled for him by ^C the one who corrupted him.

Note, therefore, the present canon, which heavily punishes consecrated men who litigate in any way in civil courts. And let not chapter 90 of title 4 of book XI of the *Basilika*, and chapter 9 of title 5 of book III, which says that consecrated men can renounce the immunity of their priesthood, seem contrary to you. For as far as the adversary is concerned, this agreement is valid. But there is another reason that he who is initiated into sacred things is deemed to be harmed according to the present canon. Read also the one hundred and fourth canon of the present synod and the ninth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon.

Since the canon ^D above established that bishops should be judged by twelve bishops, priests by six, and deacons by three, the Fathers added that what has been said regarding appeals and the rest holds true when the ecclesiastical trials take place before such appropriate judges, but not when, by the will of the accuser and the accused, some have litigated before certain chosen judges, or judges accepted by selection, who are often fewer than what is established by the canons. For in that case not even an appeal holds against their sentence, as the law says in book VII, title 2, chapter 27, section 3, which reads here: "Whether the sentence of a chosen judge is just or unjust, one must abide by it." And the third chapter of the same book and title: "The sentence of a chosen judge does not require an appeal," as

having the matter which he won, just as the one who was brought to trial, and sought the civil [court], and won. For if, even when possessing his own disciplinary penalty, the law says in Book 7, Title 2, Chapter 27, Topic 3, which reads thus: "Whether the vote of the chosen judge be just or unjust, one must abide by it." And the 3rd chapter of the same book and title: "Let not the decision of the chosen judge require an appeal." Upon these things, the canon says concerning the children of priests that they should neither perform spectacles, nor be present and watch those of others: because it has been proclaimed to all Christians not to approach where there are blasphemies and curses. Spectacles are called not only horse races, but every kind of watching, namely, the contests of wild beasts, the games of actors, dances, and other such diabolical works. Since the canon ordains these things, say that the phrase, "even if the vote be pronounced in his favor," was added on account of those who say that only the ordained person who has thus judged a criminal case and been defeated ought to be deposed, but not the one who won, as having a just case. For both shall be deposed, as abusers of the Church and contemners of the canon. However, an ordained person who has dragged an ecclesiastic into a secular court for the sake of a pecuniary claim, and has won, is deposed if he abides by the sentence rendered in his favor and wishes to keep the thing which he won; ^A just as the defendant, if he refused the ecclesiastical judgment and sought a civil one, and won. For if he cedes the matter for which he litigated, he retains his own rank of honor.

And these things the canon indeed determines. But today these things are overlooked, for what reason I do not know.

bishops may be conducted and appear before civil authorities, this, in my opinion, does not accord with canonical teaching. For we ought to say that a bishop is drawn in at that time regarding a matter that personally concerns him, but not regarding an ecclesiastical question; for when a matter of that kind is proposed, civil judges ought to have no jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is also a great difference between one who of his own volition refuses an ecclesiastical tribunal and seeks a secular one by imperial mandate, and one who has been dragged against his will by imperial order to a secular tribunal. Read also chapter 1 of the ninth title of the present code, and what we have written therein. To seek a secular co-judge by imperial command, however, as it seems to me, is not forbidden, and more so when the case is a pecuniary one, or one that is about to be discussed synodically.

Someone might ask: since the law says that he who brings his own adversary to an incompetent tribunal falls from his own suit, was he who dragged a clergyman to a civil tribunal not meant to lose his right even before this canon?

Solution. The plea of **^B** an incompetent judge is proposed only at the beginning of the trial, and not afterward. Imagine, then, that this was not proposed by the defendant from the beginning, or if proposed, was not admitted by the judge. And for this reason the Fathers decreed that even if the plaintiff wins, because he had failed to make the plea regarding the incompetent judge effective in any way, even so, for the honor of the Church, the victory will profit him nothing; but he shall be deposed if he persists in it.

Furthermore, someone might ask: what penalty will ecclesiastical judges suffer if they are convicted of having rendered a sentence out of hatred or partiality or for favor, since the canon commands nothing on this?

Solution. The nature of the penalty, even if it does not appear **^C** from the canon, is declared from the laws. For regarding a judge corrupted by bribes, chapter 5 of title 25 of the sixtieth book says: "A magistrate who accepts money to pronounce judgment, or to decree, or to do more or less than his own office requires, and the assessors of the magistrates, are held by the law." And the third theme of chapter 8 [says]: "The penalty of the law is extraordinary, and for the most part condemns to exile, sometimes even more severely. And the second theme of chapter 9 [says]: "He who is condemned by this law can neither give public testimony, nor be a judge, nor plead cases." Read also the second theme of chapter 6 of the fourth title of the sixtieth book, which is part of the 124th Justinian novella, saying thus: "But if any of the litigants says he has given something or promised it, and names the person, and proves this, he himself, at the conclusion of the trial, is to be considered worthy of forgiveness; but he who is convicted of having accepted the gift or promise, if it is a pecuniary case, let him pay back triple what was given, and double what was promised, to be exacted by the Count of our Private Matters, and let him lose the dignity or magistracy he holds in both cases.

^A If the accusation is criminal, let him undergo confiscation of his own property and be sent into exile, as one who has endeavored to transfer to himself a crime belonging to another through the taking of a bribe. But if the litigant cannot demonstrate the gift or the promise, let the person who is said to have received the gift or promise swear that he has neither by himself, nor through another person, received anything or had a promise. And upon this oath being provided, he himself shall be acquitted; but the litigant who was unable to demonstrate it, in pecuniary cases, let him have the appraisal of the suit exacted from him by the Count of our Private Matters, the case clearly awaiting its own outcome; but in criminal cases, let him undergo the confiscation of his own property, and let the matter be concluded before the appropriate judges according to the order of the laws. If the person revealed by the litigant refuses the aforementioned oath, let him be subject to the aforementioned penalties in both criminal and pecuniary cases alike. But if any of those who are litigating swears that he has given nothing or promised nothing, but within four months, to be counted after the reaching of the sentence, it is shown that something was given or promised, the aforementioned penalties shall have place both against those who give and against those who receive. ^B And these things, if the sentence is passed on account of corruption, that is, through the taking of money or through favoritism or hatred; for these three are of the same force. But if a bishop passes a sentence against someone not for any such cause, but through inexperience, what shall happen? Solution. The magistrates, or those who preside over the judges, are not compelled to know the laws exactly, as they are occupied with many other great tasks, and because of this, if they pass a sentence out of inexperience, they are forgiven. But their councilors (assessors), if they pass a sentence contrary to the laws, are punished. For the law says in book VII, title 3, chapter 24: "We seek for the deceit of the magistrate." For if judgment has been passed otherwise through the inexperience of an assessor, the president or magistrate does not commit an injury, but he who brings him aid. And the reasoning is indeed probable. For magistrates, for the reason mentioned, are not accused; but the judges, whose proper duty it is to judge, if they have acted contrary to the laws, are held as if they had acted with deceit, ^C according to the law which says: "Inexperience is equated to negligence"; and again: "A person acts with deceit who does not perfectly know what he professes to know."

And this, indeed, was pronounced concerning civil judges. But as to ecclesiastical judges, a different consequence will hold, as it seems to me; and this, indeed, according to the present constitution. For if a bishop has brought forth a sentence contrary to the canons, he shall be punished, that is, he shall be deposed, as one who cannot allege ignorance or inexperience. For he shall not be worthy of pardon if he says that he does not know the canons, which he is compelled to have on his tongue almost always. ^D But if he pronounces something that is not admitted by the laws, or [by a] judicial

sequence outside [the canon], he will be pardoned due to his ignorance, as one who is not even bound to know the laws precisely. ^A These things, however, shall hold when a bishop tries a criminal case, or other ecclesiastical question that brings about deposition. For if he pronounces a sentence regarding a pecuniary matter contrary to the laws out of ignorance, it will not prejudice him. Furthermore, someone will ask, since the canon permits those initiated in sacred matters to choose arbitrators/judges [electitios], will it be permitted for them to choose civil ones? Solution. Since the canon determines that the vote of the chosen judges shall hold, and not be subject to appeal, even if they are fewer than twelve, than six, and than three, it clearly appears that the election of civil judges is not admitted ^B by the canons. Whence, as it seems to me, those consecrated persons who have chosen to be judged by civil judges will be punished according to this present canon. It seems, however, from the words of the canon, which say that those consecrated persons are to be deposed who have litigated in a civil court for a pecuniary cause, and have won, unless they desist from their sentence, that the judgment made by an incompetent judge, [yet] from the wish of him who is consecrated, is to be held and not overturned. But he who has refused the ecclesiastical judgment and has not made use of the plea of the forum [fori praescriptione], the consecrated person shall be punished, as was said above. But do not call the chosen judges here of the kind which ^C tit. [?] of book [?] says, who, to be sure, judge with a stipulation of penalty, but rather the ordinary ecclesiastical ones. For those [others] cannot judge a criminal case; but these, as is shown by the present canon, judge every case. Concerning spectacles, however, and chariot races, and hunts, and theatrical dances, we have spoken sufficiently in canon 24 of the synod in Trullo, and in canon 51, where we also made mention of the present canon; and read them. Seek also the 74th canon of the holy apostles, the 14th and 15th canons of the synod of Antioch, the 10th and 17th canons of the synod of Chalcedon, the 3rd, 5th, and 14th canons of the synod of Sardica, and the 28th and 121st canons of this same; that they [the canons] may renounce the plea of the forum, seek also [canon] 121. Concerning the ability of consecrated persons [to do so], seek book 3, title 3, chapter 9 of the Basilika.

^D ZONARAS. To all those initiated in sacred matters, but indeed also to monks, the courts of the bishops to whom they are subject are the proper ones. Whether therefore anyone of these is accused, or accuses a fellow-cleric, before his own bishop he ought both to be accused and to accuse, even if the case should be criminal, or civil, or pecuniary. But if any of such [persons] should refuse the ecclesiastical court, and wishes to be cleared by public courts, that is, by civic magistrates, that is to say [by] civil [ones], instead of appearing clear of the charge, even if he wins in that court, and the judgment is made in his favor, pronouncing him innocent of the crime for which he was accused, he will nevertheless lose his own place, namely his rank, and his priestly dignity, being deposed for this very reason, because he refused the

^A judgment on the matter for which he was condemned, and the sentence that gave him justice. If, however, an appeal is made, either from bishops who have judged or from other judges, to other ecclesiastical judges, namely to metropolitans or patriarchs, and if, upon the matter being examined, the sentence is dissolved (that is, overturned) in the appeal, let those who previously rendered the judgment suffer no harm, he says, unless peradventure they be convicted of having judged out of enmity, as being hostilely disposed toward the one condemned, or out of bias, as being friendly toward the one who was cleared, or of having been bribed; for this is what it means to be corrupted by favor. For someone is bribed by receiving money or by having some other favor granted to him by the one corrupting him. For if it should appear that they did not vote rightly out of enmity, or bias, or bribery, they shall be punished regarding their own dignity. But if those who have the affair in hand, both the accuser and the accused, choose judges, even if they be ^B fewer, he says, than those prescribed (that is, twelve for bishops, six for presbyters, and three for deacons), the person condemned by them will not be able to seek an appeal. This is also decreed by civil laws; see book 3 of the *Basilika*, title 1, chapter 44, and book 9.

Concerning the children of priests

Upon these matters, the canon says concerning the children of priests that they should neither perform spectacles themselves, nor be present and watch when others are performing them. And to perform spectacles is as follows: In the greatest cities there were theaters, and horses were raised for races, and wild beasts for beast-hunts, and the breeding of horses, and the care of the beasts, and the concern for the spectacles to be performed in the theaters were entrusted to some of the citizens; and those persons used to have concern for both the horse racing and the beast-hunts and all the other things that were accustomed to happen in the theaters. The canon therefore forbade these things from being done by the children of priests. For priests must lead their own children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, according to the great Paul, who ^C also, when writing to Titus concerning what kind of men ought to be appointed presbyters, among other things wrote this: "If any is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, not in accusation of profligacy or unruly" (Tit. 1, 6). And writing to Timothy, concerning what kind of man he who aspires to the episcopate must be, he added this to the rest: "having children in submission with all gravity." But those who occupy themselves with the spectacles of mimes and horse racing, and other such things, will neither escape the suspicion of profligacy, nor will gravity be testified of them. And it is no wonder if the children of priests are required to have such conduct, since it has been proclaimed to all Christians not to approach where there are blasphemies. And he called things done indecently blasphemies, as he ^D blasphemes...

because the faithful, as if they were despisers of temperance and integrity, are blasphemed by the unbelievers. ^A

ARIST. « If a bishop or cleric, having a criminal charge brought against him, abandons the Church and runs to the public courts, he shall lose his own rank, even if he has been wronged. And if he prevails in political matters, if he follows this course, he shall lose his own rank. However, an appeal does not set aside ecclesiastical judges, unless they are convicted of having judged previously out of favoritism or prejudice. But if the parties themselves choose the judges, let them not depart from them. » ^B

It is not fitting for a bishop or cleric to refuse an ecclesiastical trial. Therefore, if anyone among them, being accused of a crime, refuses an ecclesiastical trial and goes to civil judges, and lays bare before them the matters pertaining to his accusation, even if he appears innocent and a sentence is passed in his favor, he shall lose his own rank. But if the accusation against them is not criminal, but pecuniary, and it happens that they escape through this, refusing the trial appropriate for them and resorting to secular judges, and being judged by them: if indeed they wish to acquiesce to the sentences passed by them and to demand that for which they were contending, they shall lose their own rank. But if they treat the postponement of their cause with contempt, and would rather lose that for which they were contending, they shall retain their own place. If, however, anyone having been judged and condemned by bishops appeals to higher ecclesiastical judges, and has the power to overturn their sentence, this shall bring no harm to those ecclesiastical judges whose sentence is overturned, ^C unless perhaps they are convicted of having passed judgment passionately on account of hatred, or prejudice, or some favor. Whosoever, moreover, among the accused bishops or clerics chooses ecclesiastical judges, and wishes to be judged by them, even if they are fewer—in the case of accused bishops, fewer than twelve bishops, and in the case of presbyters and deacons, fewer than seven or four, just as we wrote in the twelfth canon of the present synod—when condemned, they ought not to appeal against their judgment: for an appeal corrects the ignorance or injustice of a judge. How, therefore, shall one who has chosen ecclesiastical judges, whom he judged to be blameless in both speech and life, be admitted to say that he was judged by them unwisely and unjustly, and to bring, as it were, a certain reproach upon the priestly men judged by him? ^D

CANON XVI.

• Similarly it pleased that bishops, presbyters, and deacons should not become agents or stewards; nor should they seek their livelihood from any shameful or base business; for they ought to return to that which is written.

^A “No man that warreth for God entangleth himself with the affairs of this life.” ^B And it also pleased the council that readers, when they reach the age of puberty, should be compelled either to take wives or to profess continence. Likewise, it pleased that if a cleric should give money as a loan, he should receive only the money back; but if he gives grain or another commodity, he should receive only as much as he gave; and that deacons should not be ordained before twenty-five years of age; and that readers should not greet the people.

BALS. We have already written regarding those clerics who entangle themselves in secular affairs in the thirteenth chapter of the eighth title of the present work, and in our commentary on the eighty-sixth Apostolic canon, and the third canon of the fourth synod; read these. And there shall be added to the present interpretation the synodal declaration which was made on the eighth day of the month of December in the sixth indiction, in the time of that most holy patriarch Lord Lucas, which also holds the place of a decision. ^C Likewise, the promulgation of that most holy patriarch Lord John, which was made for the purpose that those who are initiated into sacred orders should not act as legal advocates. And the force of the edict of the most holy patriarch Lord Michael, high among the philosophers, which was issued so that, equally with the deacon and the priest, the reader should also be prohibited from exercising secular offices. ^D Since, however, the present canon ordains that those who are consecrated should not seek their livelihood from shameful and base business, it was often asked what these might be. And some indeed said they were keeping a brothel, being in charge of a tavern, and the like. But the most holy patriarch Lord Lucas said that perfume shops and baths were also shameful gains, as they were also causes of lying. But he did not even allow deacons or priests to become chief physicians, saying that it is not to be endured that those who handle holy things wearing chasubles and sticharia should dress in secular clothes and walk about with laymen, that is, with the doctors. Moreover, it was decreed by the holy Fathers that readers at the time of puberty, after the fourteenth year, should be compelled either to marry or to profess celibacy. Whether this, however, was observed among the Africans, I do not know; but among other churches it is not observed. But I believe that it was never observed in any region, as it is contrary to the sixth Apostolic canon, which decrees that readers and singers, even after they have been advanced into the clergy, may marry, and neither sets a time for them to marry nor requires them to profess continence. Giving money on loan for interest is prohibited to clerics by many canons. And the present canon prohibits not only those who belong to the sanctuary but all clerics from usury. But because, when interest was given on money given as a loan, it was likely that some would say that this was indeed prohibited, but that giving grain or some other commodity, and receiving more than was given, was not prohibited, the Fathers expressly prohibited this as well.

^A Likewise, it has been ordained in various canons that a deacon not be ordained before the completion of twenty-five years. It is also forbidden for readers, upon completing their ministry, to turn to the people and greet them, as they ought at that time to salute only the priests and the high priests, and not the laypeople who are gathered in the Church. For the former are consecrated, while the people are far removed from the priesthood and consecration. And the people ought rather to salute the readers on account of their ministry. Read the canons of the holy apostles 17, 18, 19, 25, 26; the canon 10 of the Synod of Ancyra; canons 14 and 15 of Chalcedon; canons 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 48, 58 of the Sixth [Ecumenical] Council; and canons 3, 6, 49, 70 of Saint Basil.

The decree of the most holy patriarch, Lord Luke, runs as follows: In the month of December, on the 8th day, indiction 6. But if that Uzzah was so severely punished for touching the divine ark when it was falling (even though his intention was to support it, not to destroy it), who is so bold, and carried away to such extreme impudence and arrogance, entirely led by an evil spirit, that he not only does not wish to keep the divine and spiritual commands whole, but even, twisting them into the contrary, impudently strives to weaken and destroy them, and to dissolve those things which are firmly and stably established, and to move those things which cannot be shaken, being built, as they say, upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets? ^B Therefore, our moderation also, deeming it intolerable that an evil custom, which confounds the divine and human and imprints no minor stains upon the constitution of the Church (the spouse of God, alien to all reproach), should still be observed—a custom which, with pride and vain trafficking, and with zeal and labor in those things which are abject and abhorrent to her, and furthermore with base gains, pollutes her honesty and splendor—has deemed it necessary to root it out, that a root of bitterness may no longer spring up, according to the divine apostle, through this our present spiritual and paternal admonition. This admonition openly declares the purpose of the proposed matter concerning those who have obtained sacred authority and involve themselves in secular magistracies, dignities, cares, and businesses. And as for the text, it runs thus: "The testimonies and notable deeds, say the Fathers, for those who have obtained the priestly dignity, are the configurations of the canonical ordinances," which we also gladly accepting, sing ^C to the Lord God with David, the herald of God: "I have had delight in the way of thy testimonies, as in all riches" (Ps. CXVIII, 14); and again: "Thou hast commanded righteousness; thy testimonies are for ever; teach me, and I shall live" (Ps. CXVIII, 138-140). And if the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God for ever and to live in them, it is manifest that they remain unshaken and in no way subject to

^A change. For the divine Moses likewise says: "It is not permitted either to add to them or to take away from them." Since these things are so, and bear witness to us, rejoicing in them as one who has found great spoil, we gladly embrace the divine canons, and with our whole soul we choose that their constitution remain entire and unshaken. But since we have known some of those who are set among the clergy to involve themselves in worldly affairs contrary to the canons—some taking upon themselves the management and administration of the houses of magistrates or estates; others even the exaction of public taxes, or the collection of other revenues, or demands for payments on cargoes carried by ships, or the duties of collecting money and rendering accounts, or any office of this kind, not in ecclesiastical but in worldly affairs; and to some of them are even attributed civil magistracies and dignities—we command such persons to cease henceforth from all the things mentioned, and to occupy themselves in ecclesiastical needs and duties; unless they wish to submit themselves to the deposition from the ecclesiastical rank which they possess, which has been ordained by the holy and divine canons. For even if some believe that because of long custom, and because not a few before them have undertaken these things, it [this practice] is confirmed and established—and furthermore, they say that imperial administrations, which commit worldly dignities and offices, or similar tasks or magistracies to consecrated men, have proceeded [by authority]—yet this shall not be drawn into a precedent. For it is beyond controversy that the holy and divine canons concerning these things have not been abrogated, nor has any written judgment or examination gone forth from him who at that time held the scepter of the empire, nor from the most holy patriarchs and synods, overturning them. Such "dispensations" and unapproved customs will by no means weaken the written canons, but rather these shall be completely crushed by them, just as the pot, as Solomon says, that has struck against the cauldron. For the gates of Hades, he says, shall not prevail against the Church, ^B which was built by the Lord upon the herald of God, Peter, who with the rest of the holy apostles decreed in their Sixth Canon thus: "Let not a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon take upon himself worldly cares; but if not, let him be deposed." Likewise, also, in the eighty-first [canon] of the same, we said that a bishop or presbyter ought not to descend to public administrations, but to occupy himself in ecclesiastical needs and duties; let him be persuaded, therefore, not to do this, or let him be deposed. For no one can serve two masters, according to the command of the Lord. Furthermore, the eighty-third [canon] also says: "Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who occupies himself in military service, and wishes to retain both, the Roman magistracy and the sacerdotal administration, be deposed." For render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. But indeed, the sixteenth [canon] of the council in Carthage also speaks thus on this point: "Likewise it pleased that bishops and presbyters and deacons be not ^C bailiffs or procurators." And a little later: "For no one..." ^D

^A change. For as the Apostle says, "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life." Along with these, the 77th canon of the Council of Chalcedon also decrees that those who are once enrolled in the clergy or are monks shall not reach for either military service or secular dignity; or if they dare to do so and do not repent, so as to return to that which they chose for God’s sake, they shall be anathematized. And the 11th canon of the First and Second Council of Constantinople follows this verbatim: "Presbyters or deacons who undertake secular magistracies or responsibilities, or what are called curateships in the houses of the magistrates, the divine and holy canons subject to deposition." Confirming this, therefore, we also decree concerning the rest who are enrolled in the clergy, that if any of them should engage in secular business, or undertake what are known as curateships in the houses ^B of the magistrates or in suburban estates, such a person shall be driven from his own clergy. For no one can, according to the literal and most truthful voice of Christ our true God, serve two masters. And these divine canons are absolutely manifest and clear; and for this reason they are not to be altered or interpreted otherwise. But if even acting as a procurator in causes which do not pertain to the church of which a man is a cleric is forbidden to a cleric, lest, as it says, the divine ministries be hindered, how much more is it forbidden for him to be involved in greater secular cares, which hinder him from being able to attend to ecclesiastical needs? To all the most reverend clerics, therefore, we enjoin in the Holy Spirit that they abstain from the things mentioned; or let them know that they will be subject to the penalty of excommunication, ^C and will not escape even greater canonical severity, if they involve themselves in such secular concerns. For the present written decree of our mediocrity has been ordered to be delivered in writing to the most holy bishops, so that it may be manifest to clerics everywhere.

The Edict of the Patriarch, Lord John

^A the fourth indiction, and thereafter, it determines that readers, as well as deacons and priests, should not undertake secular offices, or the duties of tax collectors, or administrations, on account of the eleventh canon of the First and Second Synod of Constantinople. Regarding sacred men acting as advocates, we have written sufficiently in chapter 13, title 8, of the present work; read those things. These, then, are the canons and synodal edicts on these matters. However, some say that these have standing only when a sacred person exercises a secular ministry without the command of the emperor; for if someone assumes such a ministry by imperial dispensation, he will not be hindered by the aforementioned canons, nor will he be harmed. ^B And they add that the emperor is subject neither to canons nor to laws; therefore, he has the authority to elevate bishoprics into metropolises, to alienate them from their own metropolises, and likewise to divide the territories of high priests, to constitute bishops and metropolitans anew, and to order bishops to perform the liturgy in foreign dioceses without any prejudice, contrary to the opinion of the local bishops of that region, and to exercise other such episcopal rights. They use also the twelfth and sixteenth canons of the Synod of Chalcedon and the thirty-seventh canon of the Synod in Trullo, which command the same things. It seems to me, however, that it was especially through the fourth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon that the power was conceded to the emperor to assign the performance of secular duties to those who are sacred and to monks, according to the reason of the dispensation which seems proper to him. For if a local bishop ^C can do this, much more so the emperor, who is not compelled to follow the canons that decree that the elections of bishops must be made by provincial bishops and not by magistrates; for he consequently promotes patriarchs and bishops without an election having taken place. And read what is written in that same fourth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon.

ZONAR. That it is not permitted for anyone of the sacred order to become a lessee of another's property—that is, a hireling—nor a procurator, that is to say, an administrator or publican, is explained more fully in the third canon of the Fourth Synod. Indeed, the eighty-first canon of the holy apostles commands that anyone who involves himself in public administrations should be deposed; this canon also forbids them from ^D procuring their sustenance from any shameful or disgraceful business. For it would be a shameful thing, for example, if someone were to practice pimping, that is, to keep harlots in order to profit himself from their wages, and other things of this kind. It is disgraceful, however, to keep a tavern, and the like. Therefore, men initiated into sacred things are prohibited by this canon from seeking their sustenance by such arts; and it did not say "gain," but "sustenance." For even if they should be reduced to such poverty that they lack even food, not even then should they obtain the means of life from a shameful or disgraceful kind of craft. For it is incumbent upon them, he says, to be mindful of the apostolic precept which says: "No one serving as a soldier entangles himself in the affairs of this life, that he may please him who has enlisted him." But if for secular men

^A military service, it is far more applicable to those who serve God through the priesthood.

But as to the requirement that readers at the time of puberty—that is, having completed their fourteenth year—be compelled either to marry or to promise celibacy, I do not know if such a custom truly prevailed among those in Africa. It certainly does not prevail in other churches; and I believe it never did, for it is contrary to the twenty-sixth Apostolic Canon, which decrees that readers and chanters, after being enrolled in the clergy, may marry, and does not set any specific time for them to marry, nor does it decree that they must be bound by any profession of continence.

Regarding the prohibition against clerics practicing usury, many canons exist, and this canon likewise orders the same; it states that if a cleric allows money or coin to be used by anyone—that is, if he lends the money—he shall recover exactly as much as he gave and no more. If he gives a thing in kind, such as grain or wine or something similar, he shall receive back exactly the same amount that he gave and no more. Regarding the prohibition against deacons being elected under twenty-five years of age, many canons also decree this. Furthermore, it is forbidden for readers, once their ministry is concluded, to turn toward the people to greet them. For at that time, it is only proper that they greet the bishops and priests, and not the multitude gathered in the church. For the former are ordained, while the latter are far removed from the priesthood; and the former, especially while engaged in the functions of their ministry, ought to be honored by the people, not the other way around. ^B

ARIST. A bishop, priest, or deacon may not become a contractor or a steward. If a reader has reached puberty, let him either take a wife or profess continence.

This canon, as well as several others, prohibits bishops, priests, and deacons from becoming usurers, lessees of property, or estate managers. By contrast, a reader who has passed the age of puberty and has reached nearly twenty years of age, and wishes to become a subdeacon (for no one younger than twenty years is ordained a subdeacon, as the fifteenth canon of the sixth Synod in Trullo decrees), must either take a wife before ordination or promise to remain celibate. For after ordination, neither a priest, nor a deacon, nor a subdeacon has the liberty to take upon himself the yoke of marriage; but this is permitted only to readers and chanters, as the sixth canon of the sixth Synod in Trullo ^C indicates.

CANON XVII

^A requesting the primate of the Numidian region, from which it has been separated by the synod, to have its own primate. By the consent of all the primates of the African provinces and all the bishops, on account of the great distance, it was permitted to have one.

BALS. This canon is local. ZONAR. This canon also is local, and it comprises only that region regarding which it was proclaimed; it is not heard of elsewhere. ARIST. "A cleric who has lent shall receive what he lent, or as much. A deacon who becomes one before twenty-five years of age is no deacon. And let not readers salute the people. Mauritania Sitifensis is permitted to have its own primate on account of the great distance." More than a cleric has lent to anyone for use, he ought not to receive; but only that which was given, or if that is not left, some other thing of the same value, quality, and quantity. But neither is a deacon ordained before the age of twenty-five. Nor are readers permitted to be marshalled with the people and to be subject to their authority.

^B Since it pleased [the council] throughout all the provinces, both the African, and the Numidian, and the Mauritanian, it was requested that Mauritania Sitifensis, as it had asked, might have its own primate—since it has been separated by the synod from the primate of the Numidian region—and might have its own primate.

^C

Notes by William Beveridge

^A authority, fulfilling what is commanded, and honoring the way of life with him. Mauritania Sitifensis shall not be under the primate of the Numidian region, because it lies far from it. But it is permitted for this province to have its own primate as bishop. ^B

CANON XVIII

• If any cleric is ordained, he must be admonished to keep the decrees; and that the eucharist should not be given to the bodies of the dead, nor baptism. And that once every year, in all provinces, the metropolitans should convene for a synod. •

BALS. and ZONAR. When a bishop or cleric is ordained (and by cleric here, one must understand priest and deacon, for these are properly ordained, and these alone communicate the eucharist), it is said, he must be admonished to keep the decrees. ^C By "decrees" one must understand either the articles of faith, which were defined by the holy apostles and the Fathers, or the canons, or rather both. And that the eucharist, that is, the holy gifts, should not be given to the bodies of the dead, for this was happening; and the 83rd canon of the one which is called the sixth synod, in Trullo, forbade it. Nor should those who have died be baptized. For this too was happening, with some baptizing their own dead, and others even baptizing others on behalf of the dead. Those who did these things brought forward the words of the great Paul, from the Epistle to the Corinthians, which say: "Otherwise, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor. xv, 29). But those who brought these things forward, and baptized the dead, did not rightly grasp the meaning of the apostolic words. For the Apostle does not say that the dead are to be baptized, nor others on their behalf; but because those who are baptized, learning the power of our mystery, along with other things are taught to hope for the resurrection of the dead, and that the immersion in the ^D font signifies death, and that through the re-emergence the resurrection is shown again; the Apostle says to those who [question concerning the resurrection...]*

Beveridge's Notes

...the death [of the dead], and the resurrection [again] shown through the emergence; he says... those who, through myrrh, anoint the priests and archpriests who have died, or others, and thus bury them, are worthy of great punishment, either as condemning the orthodox who baptize them, or as not having assurance that it is right for the orthodox to be in communion with these, and condemning them before judgment.

*(Note: The Greek text breaks here as the page reaches its bottom edge; the concluding segment relates to the commentary on the baptism of the dead, transitioning into the technical legal notes by Beveridge.)*

^A to signify death, and the resurrection is again signified through the rising up from the water. The Apostle says to those who were doubting about the resurrection, "If there is no resurrection, what will they do who are baptized with the hope that the dead will rise? And why are they baptized as if expecting the resurrection of the dead?" Consequently, those who are baptized labor in vain if they doubt concerning the resurrection, since by being baptized and immersed into the water of the font, and emerging, they proclaim death and the resurrection, while through the things they say they show they do not believe in it. Thus, these things were said by the Apostle. But those who did not understand the force of the words either baptized the dead, or others in place of the dead; this the canon decrees must not be done. And it commands that bishops hold a synod annually; this was also decreed by other synods both before this synod and after it. Read the 8th canon of the 6th synod, the 37th of the holy Apostles, the 5th of the Nicene synod, the 20th of the Antiochene, the 19th of the Chalcedonian, and the 6th of the second Nicene. ^B

CANON XIX.

BALS. This canon also similarly decrees that those being ordained should be taught what has been decreed by the holy Fathers, and it adds that those who do not act thus will repent. But of what kind this repentance is, and what the correction resulting from it might be, does not appear from the canon itself. However, I think that if these men do not have an accurate grasp of dogmatic decrees and canonical preceptive rules, and if, when teaching or pronouncing judgment, they deviate from the straight and royal path toward impious and uncanonical decisions, they will be canonically deposed, and repentance will be of no use to them. Read also what has been written by us in the 15th canon ^C concerning uncanonical decisions.

Another interpretation

ZONAR. Those who are ordained bishop or cleri^D

Guill. Beveregii note.

^A The canon says that one must speak to those being ordained about the things which were decided by the councils concerning the faith and about how one ought to live, and how to build up the Church, so that knowing the ordinances of the Fathers, they may act according to them, and not repent for acting contrary to them. And they will repent, being punished either in this present life, or at least inevitably in the one that is to come.

ARIST. “The things decreed by the councils shall be proclaimed to the ears of the one about to be ordained.” The bishop or cleric being ordained is required to receive from the one ordaining him the things decreed by the councils, brought to his ears, and to be reminded to keep them.

CANON XX. “Likewise, it was resolved that the Eucharist shall not be given to the bodies of the departed. For it is written: ‘Take, eat’; but the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat. And [we must provide] that the ignorance of the presbyters shall not cause those who are already dead to be baptized.”

BALS. Again, this canon commands that the dead be neither baptized nor deemed worthy of the communion of the sacraments. But it calls “the dying” those who are already dead, not those who are breathing their last. For these latter ought rather to be provided with the viaticum through the participation of the holy mysteries, and to receive holy baptism, if they are not baptized.

ZONAR. Again, this council treats of not communicating the dead with the divine mysteries. For although the expression “the dying,” if you look at its proper signification, does not mean those who have finished this life, but those who are already in the process of dying; yet the things that follow indicate quite clearly that the discourse is about those who are already dead, in that it says that the bodies of the dead can neither take nor eat. Those, however, who dwell among the living, even if their salvation is despaired of, and even if they are about to breathe their last in a short while, are not to be deprived of the communion of the holy mysteries. Furthermore, this canon forbids that baptism be conferred upon the dead out of the lack of knowledge of the priests. Where also the word “dying” must be understood in the same way we have stated. For as long as one is breathing, he ought to be deemed worthy of divine baptism.

ARIST. “Eucharist is not given to the body of the deceased: for it neither eats nor drinks. And the ignorance of a presbyter shall not baptize the deceased.” Since the Lord said, “Take, eat,” how could anyone distribute the divine body to one who is dead? For the dead can neither take nor eat. But neither shall anyone baptize one who has finished this life. For the ignorance of the presbyters will be of no help to the dead, so that they might be reckoned as baptized.

CANON XXI. “And therefore it must be confirmed in this holy council, that according to the decrees of the Nicean council, on account of ecclesiastical matters, which often grow old to the destruction of the people, ^D a council shall be held every year,

‹ ad quam omnes, qui provinciarum primas cathedras obtinent, ex propriis synodis duos, vel quotcunque elegerint, episcopos legatos mittant, ut in congregato conventu plena possit esse auctoritas. ›

BALS. On the annual synods, it has been treated more fully in the fifth canon of the first synod of Nicaea and in other places. The present canon says that synods ought to be held annually, so that what has been ordained by the holy Fathers may not be extinguished by time, but that ecclesiastical questions which emerge may be resolved by their deliberation. But ^B since some, as is likely, were murmuring because of such an annual gathering—as if it were difficult on account of the length of the journey—the Fathers ordained that legates be sent by the primates of the provinces, that is to say, by the metropolitans, when it is necessary, namely when they themselves have been summoned; and these are to be two bishops by necessity, or even more, as many as they may choose, so that through them they themselves also may appear to be present, and the things ordained may be perfect, as though seeming to be done by all. These are called ^C *topotērētai* (that is, maintainers of a place), in that they maintain the place, that is, they hold and fulfill the role of those who sent them. Since the canon ordains these things, for it is likely that some would say that if the metropolitans—who are said to be the first of the provinces—are forced to gather annually at the patriarchates, and the bishops again at the metropolitans, it happens that one of these things cannot be done—as it might be impossible for the metropolitan of Dyrrachium to gather with the patriarch, and at the same time to hold the synod in his own province yourself, ^D I say that it is easy for both to be done. For the provincials will be gathered before their own primate; he himself, however, will gather before the patriarch through proxies, that is, *topotērētai*, just as the present canon ordains, bringing a remedy to the difficulty of the presence of the metropolitans at two synods. But I do not think it is necessary that only bishops be sent as legati. For priests, and indeed even deacons, shall be sent as legati. For in most of the universal synods, bishops also were present as legati, and priests, and deacons, both from other provinces and indeed from Rome itself.

ZONAR. Regarding the annual synod, the Fathers decree here too that it must be celebrated again without any procrastination at all. It is necessary, therefore, they say, to confirm that a synod be held annually according to what was ordained at Nicaea because of ecclesiastical causes. For after the holy apostles, the synod at Nicaea ordained in the fifth canon that synods be held annually. Ecclesiastical causes are those matters which arise daily in ecclesiastical administration, which causes, if they are not resolved, grow old—that is, they grow strong with the passage of time to the ruin of the people. To this synod, those who hold the first thrones of the provinces shall send whomsoever they may choose, two bishops or *topotērētai*

so that the authority, that is, the power in the assembly, may be perfect; meaning that the matters being determined and established in the synod may be decreed with perfect authority, as the archbishops who hold the first positions in the provinces also become of one mind through the *topotērētai* sent by them. *Topotērētai* (locum tenentes) are so called because they guard the *topos*, that is, they take the place of, or act as proxies for, those who sent them.

ARIST. « According to the decrees of the Nicene Fathers, let a synod be convoked annually; and let two, or as many as they may choose, *topotērētai* be sent by the primates in each province. »

These Fathers, following the synod held at Nicaea, command a synod to be celebrated annually at Carthage, and that two, or as many as the metropolitans of the provinces shall choose, be sent from each province as *topotērētai*.

CANON XXII.

« If any bishop should be accused, let the accuser bring the matter before the primates of his own region; and let not the accused be kept from communion, unless, having been summoned by letters to offer his defense in the court of those chosen to judge, he should on the appointed day in no way appear—that is, within the space of a month from the day it appeared he had received the letters. But if he shows some true and necessary causes which were an impediment, preventing him from appearing to respond to the charges brought against him, let him have full opportunity within another month: but after the second month, he shall not communicate until he has been shown to be innocent. If, however, he should be unwilling to appear at the universal annual synod so that his case might be settled even there, he shall be judged to have pronounced the sentence of condemnation upon himself. During the time that he does not communicate, he shall communicate neither in his own church ^C nor in his parish. As for his accuser, if he be never absent on the days when the business is being transacted, let him in no way be kept from communion; but if at any time he should be absent, withdrawing himself, once the bishop is restored to communion, the accuser himself shall be cast out from communion, yet in such a way that the opportunity to bring the accusation is not taken away from him, if he can show that on the appointed day he was not unwilling, but was unable to appear; it being manifest that if, while the matter is being moved in the court of the bishops ^D the person of the accuser is defamed, he shall not be admitted to the accusation unless he wishes to plead concerning his own private business, and not an ecclesiastical one. »

BALS. Since the judgment of the metropolitan is the proper one for bishops, the canon says that if a bishop is accused by someone, he must be judged by his primate or metropolitan.

Before his condemnation, however, let the accused retain his own honor unshaken, and let him perform the sacred rites, unless, having been summoned, he fails to appear at court within a month, for he is then obliged to be judged from the time he received the letters summoning him to court; for then, as a penalty for disobedience, he becomes excommunicated, that is, he is segregated. But if, on account of certain just causes that have arisen, it appears that he was under an absolute necessity not to appear at the court and make his defense, another month is granted to him as a deadline, for the sake of his coming to the court; and if he does not appear even then, he is segregated until the matters of the accusation are resolved. If he does not appear either before the primate of the province or before the synod held annually, he is to be considered, they say, condemned. During the time of excommunication, it is not permitted to him to perform the sacred rites in any way. As for the accuser, if he is present, he shall be in communion; but if he is absent without a pretext, he himself shall be segregated, and the bishop shall be released from segregation. Yet, even after the segregation, the accuser shall not be prohibited from stating his case, and from showing that he was not absent out of officiousness. Regarding these matters, the canon desires, consistently with the fourth canon of the Second Council, that the accuser be above reproach. For if his reputation were evil or doubtful, he would not be admitted, unless he brings forward his own case against the bishop, such as a pecuniary one, yet not an ecclesiastical one that would subject [the bishop] to deposition. And the canon consists of these points. You, however, know that today the deadlines contained in this [canon] are not in force; rather, through three edicts of thirty days each, all plaintiffs and defendants are summoned, whatever their status may be and whatever the cause may be, according to the novella of our powerful and holy emperor, issued in the month of July, in the fourteenth indiction of the year 6074. But this is observed when a pecuniary or criminal case has been ^B brought against a bishop by means of a libel and the remainder of judicial procedure. But if some ecclesiastical question is denounced against a bishop or cleric by [the customary] order, when there is no need for a libel or any other judicial procedure, and the one being accused or denounced is not present, he shall be punished according to the apostolic canon, as is also punished, that is to say, condemned, by the laws, the shameless and disobedient person. Further, note that the one who is segregated is not hindered by the segregation from pursuing the accusation he proposed; and that those who are of evil or doubtful reputation, and much more so those who are infamous, do not construct a criminal accusation, but rather plead their own pecuniary cases.

ZONAR. If a bishop is accused, the accuser ought to institute the accusation before the primates of the regions. But the accused bishop does not, at the very moment the accusation is brought, cease from his own rights, but he holds his own dignity and status until a decision; unless, perhaps, having been summoned to court, he does not appear within the month in which he is obliged to be judged ^C from… ^D [the rest of the column translates:] the time he received the letters, through which he is called to judgment; for then, as a penalty for disobedience, he is excommunicated, that is, he is segregated. But if it appears that he necessarily did not stand in judgment and did not reply due to some just causes that occurred, another month of delay is given to him, that he might come to judgment; and if he still does not stand, he is segregated, until a decision is reached concerning the accusation. If, however, he neither comes to the primate of the province nor to the synod which is held yearly, he is, he says, condemned. In the time of excommunication, moreover, it is not permitted to him to perform the sacred rite in any way. The accuser, however, if he is indeed present, will be able to be in communion; but if he is absent under a pretext, he himself will be segregated; but the bishop will be freed from the segregation. The accuser, however, after the segregation, shall not be prohibited from speaking on the cause, and [from showing] that he was not absent except for a necessary cause. After these things, the canon wishes, consistently with the canon of the Second Council, that the accuser be free from all reproach and infamy. For if his estimation were evil or doubtful, he shall not be admitted, unless he proposes his own cause against the bishop, namely a pecuniary one, but not an ecclesiastical one, which subjects to deposition. And in these [does] the canon consist. You, however, know that today, the deadline which is set here, has no place: and all plaintiffs and defendants are summoned through three edicts of thirty days, whatever their status may be, and of whatever kind the cause may be, according to the novella of the powerful and holy emperor issued in the month of July, in the fourteenth indiction in the year 6074. But this indeed is kept, when the pecuniary or criminal cause is brought against the bishop by a libel and the remaining judicial sequence. But if some ecclesiastical question is made known through the order against a bishop or cleric, when there is no need for a libel, or any other judicial sequence, and the one who is accused, or is denounced, is not present, he shall be punished according to the apostolic canon, just as also the contumacious and disobedient is punished or condemned by the laws. Furthermore, note that the segregated person is not hindered by the segregation, whereby he may not prosecute the accusation which he proposed: and that those who are of bad or doubtful estimation, and much more the infamous, do not construct a criminal accusation, but maintain their own pecuniary causes.

ZONAR. If a bishop is accused, before the primate of the region the accuser ought to institute the action. Nor indeed, with the name being reported, does the bishop who is accused immediately lose his rights and dignity; but he will retain his dignity and place until it is pronounced concerning him, unless perhaps he did not appear within the interval of one month to the judgment to which he was cited, which...

^A letters, called him to the tribunal. For then, as a penalty for his disobedience, he becomes excommunicated, that is to say, he is separated. But if it appears that he was prevented from appearing at the tribunal and offering a defense by certain accidental causes—which are not feigned, but which by necessity hindered him—another month is granted to him as an extension of time to approach the tribunal. If the second month also passes in vain, he having not appeared, the canon ordains that from that time forth he is to be excommunicated until it is determined that he is innocent of the charge brought against him. If, moreover, he does not appear before either the primate of the province or the synod of bishops which is held annually, so that the matters against him may be examined there and come to an end, he has voted against himself, that is, he has condemned himself. During the time of the penalty of excommunication, it is not permitted for him to receive communion either in his own church or anywhere else, such as in a diocese subject to him. But the accuser, if he is present at the tribunal, shall not be hindered from communicating; but if he absents himself by ^B shrinking back, that is, voluntarily, not compelled by any necessity, hiding and concealing himself so that he is not found, the accused bishop shall be released from the penalty and restored to communion, but the accuser shall be punished. However, it will still be permitted for the plaintiff to pursue the accusation and to test it by judgment, if he can show that he did not disregard the matter by his own will, but that it happened because he was unable to appear by the appointed time due to a reasonable and unavoidable cause. But, he says, let it be clear that the accuser of the bishop will be accepted at that time only if he is not under reproach. For if he is under reproach, or his estimation is doubtful, he will be unacceptable, unless he brings forward a private matter of his own against the bishop, namely a pecuniary one; he shall not, however, touch upon an ecclesiastical matter, that is to say, one that would judge the accused ^C to the loss of his episcopacy. The sixth canon of the second ecumenical synod also ordains concerning this matter, and those things written there should be investigated. The seventy-fourth canon of the holy apostles commands that a bishop who has been accused be cited three times, and if he does not appear, then the bishops are to vote against him.

ARISTENUS

A bishop, being accused by someone, shall be called by the synod to which he is subject, by letters, to come for his defense; but if, after he receives the letters, he does not appear at the tribunal for the duration of a full month, having been hindered by certain necessary causes, he shall have as an extension another month of ^D

^A grace. If, however, the second month also passes in vain and he does not appear at the court, let him be excommunicated until he appears innocent. If, on the contrary, the accused bishop is present and seeks that the examination of the accusation brought against him should take place, but the accuser does not appear anywhere, but rather flees, that accuser himself shall be subjected to excommunication. Therefore, accusers must be examined both as to their piety and their reputation; and if they have been rejected, they are not admitted to the accusation of an ecclesiastical matter.

CANON XXIII

• If presbyters or deacons have been accused, ^B • with the addition of the lawful number of bishops from the neighboring region, whom those who are accused shall request, • that is, for the presbyter six, and • for the deacon three; together with these, the own proper bishop of those who are accused shall examine the causes, the same form being observed regarding the days and the delays and the examinations and the persons between those who accuse and the accused. The causes of the rest of the clergy, however, ^C the local bishop alone shall discern and finish. »

BALS. This canon also, similarly to the one before it—that is, according to the same distinctions—ordains that both presbyters and deacons are to be judged. Since the eleventh canon defined by how many bishops bishops, presbyters, and deacons ought to be judged, the Fathers now command that beyond the twelve, the six, and the three, the local bishop also be a competent judge; but those who are besides these—namely, lectors and the rest—are to be judged by one alone, the competent bishop. And those bishops are called "electitii" [chosen ones], not those contained in the second title of the seventh book of the *Basilica*, who judge with the provision of a fine, but those whom he who is accused shall choose from the neighboring region's bishops.

ZONAR. The above canon dealt with bishops who are accused; but this canon determines concerning presbyters and deacons, and says: "If a presbyter ^D or deacon is called into judgment by his own bishop," with other bishops from the same province called as counsel—six in the judgment of a priest, three in that of a deacon—the accusation shall be examined. The bishops, moreover, shall be chosen by the will of the one who is accused; for it is for this reason that the canon calls them "electitios," that is, the "chosen ones." The other matters, I mean the time-limits and the penalties and whatever was decreed in the investigation concerning a bishop, shall be observed just as it was ordained there. But the allegations of the remaining clergy shall be examined and finished by their own bishop alone.

ARIST. • When a presbyter is accused, six of the nearer bishops, together with the local bishop, shall judge the matter;

likewise for a deacon, three. But the affairs of the remaining clergy shall be examined by the bishop alone. ^A This is also stated in the twelfth canon, to the effect that when a presbyter is accused, six bishops shall judge him, and in addition to these, his own bishop shall also be a co-assessor; and for a deacon, three, and his own bishop. But all the rest of the clergy, who are beneath the deacons, shall be judged by their own bishop alone, for whatever crimes they are accused.

CANON XXIV

CANON XXV

you hear the canon saying that bishops or clerics are not at liberty to write heretics or infidels as their heirs, say that what is contained in the fortieth apostolic ^A canon, and what is declared in the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Antioch, must be performed by the bishops. For thus it will be in their power to transmit their property to orthodox persons, by way of inheritance, legacy, and donation; otherwise, they will not be able to transmit them even to the orthodox.

ZONAR. That orthodox Christians must not leave anything of their own property to heretics or infidels by way of inheritance or legacy, or in any other manner, is also cautioned by civil laws. This present canon, therefore, also commands this, saying that no bishop or cleric shall introduce any heretic or infidel into an inheritance or legacy along with a Christian, even if those heretics and infidels were perhaps related by blood to the person making the will or to the heir; furthermore, that they must not bestow anything upon them from their own property. This is explained more broadly in the first and eightieth canon of this synod. In the thirty-fifth book of the Basilics, title eight, chapter thirty-eight, you will find that not even heretical children can inherit from their own parents, nor can heretical parents, in turn, leave others as heirs except for their own children who are Christians; and if they have other children who are heretics, those shall be disinherited ^B even if they were perhaps written as heirs by their parents. If they do not have orthodox children, their wealth shall pass to their orthodox relatives. But if there are neither orthodox children nor such relatives, and those who have died were in the clerical state, the clerics of the church of the city in which they resided shall claim those assets within a year, to be reckoned from after their death. And in the first book of the Basilics it is written that Samaritans or heretics in general cannot inherit, nor receive gifts, and further things follow in the third chapter of the said book concerning both others and Samaritan farmers. The eleventh chapter of the third title of the fifth book says that it is not permitted to receive any immovable property from any church or other sacred house by renting, ^C emphyteusis, or purchase, or by any other method, by a heretic. And the third section of the same book, title, and chapter says: "If an orthodox person having a property, in which there is a holy church, transmits it by any means to an infidel or simply to a heretic, the church of the same village shall reclaim its ownership."

ARIST. "Bishops and clerics shall not give anything of their own goods to heretics, nor confer it upon them, even if they should be relatives, nor shall they include them."

CANON XXVI

"Likewise, let bishops not travel beyond the sea, unless by decree of the primary see of his own one-

-^A-seated bishop; that is, unless he receives from the primate himself that which is called a 'dimissory' [epistle], or 'formed' [letter], or a 'commendation.'"

BALS. How bishops ought to travel abroad from the churches which have fallen to them is stated in the 14th, 15th, and 33rd Apostolic canons; in the 7th, 8th, and 11th of the [synod] at Antioch; in the 41st and 42nd of that at Laodicea; and in the 13th of that at Chalcedon; [and] in the 5th, 16th, and 17th of that at Sardica; and what is written in those is sufficient. But when you hear the canon saying that a bishop must travel abroad with the decree, or rather the cognisance, of the first—that is, the metropolitan—do not say that his cognisance alone is sufficient, but that the sentence of his entire synod is also still necessary, as the 11th canon of the synod at Antioch desires. For this reason, there is added to the canon that it is necessary, indeed, to have the vote of the remaining bishops as well, but especially that of the primate. A "formed" [or "dimissory"] epistle is so called either because it expresses the necessary cause of the bishop's travel, or because it ought to have the seal and subscription of the primate of the synod. The same is called a "commendation," as it commends the travelling bishop to those ^B towards whom he is going, that is, making known his circumstances and introducing him.

ZONAR. Bishops and all those who, by reason, are set over a rational flock, are required simply, both by justice itself and by the canons which follow justice, to maintain a perpetual station in their churches, and to devote themselves to feeding and instructing the peoples entrusted to them. For this reason, this canon forbids a bishop from travelling "beyond the sea," that is, taking a long journey. But if ever necessity urges that this be done, it decrees that he must not depart otherwise than with the decree of the bishop of the first see of that province. It mentions the "decree" in order to show that, if the patriarch or metropolitan of that region does not examine the cause for which the bishop intends to travel, and judge it to be necessary, and give him the so-called "dimissory" epistle, he cannot canonically travel abroad. "Decree" ^C here means examination and decision. "But especially of the primate," it says, since it is stated in another canon that he who travels must also carry letters from the bishops of that province. For this reason, therefore, he used the expression "especially" with regard to the primate of the province, meaning: it is indeed good to have letters from all the bishops of the region, but especially—that is, primarily or properly—it is necessary to have a dimissory, formed, or commendatory [epistle] from the primate, which clearly expresses the necessary cause of his departure; or "formed," that is, sealed and signed. And the term "commendation" refers to that which commends him to those to whom he is going, that is, making him known, interceding for him, ^D presenting him, and showing him to them.

^A ARIST. "A bishop shall not travel beyond the sea, unless he has received a letter of commendation from the primate of the region." Neither a bishop nor a cleric ought to travel abroad without the opinion and letters of the primate in his region, just as it seemed best at the Council of Sardica and at Laodicea.

CANON XXVII.

"Item, it has pleased that nothing should be read in the church under the name of divine Scriptures, except the canonical Scriptures." The canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, ^B Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra; of the New Testament, four Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Epistles of Paul, two of the apostle Peter, three of the apostle John, one of the apostle James, one of the apostle Jude, one book of the Revelation of John. Let this matter be made known to our brother and fellow-minister Boniface, and to the other bishops of those regions, for the confirmation of the proposed canon, because we have received from the Fathers that these things are to be read in the church.

BALS. As to which books ought to be read in church, consult the canons of the holy Apostles, 85, the 60th canon of the Council of Laodicea, those things which holy Gregory the Theologian wrote in verse, and the canonicals of holy Athanasius and holy Amphilochius.

ZONAR. The last of the apostolic canons also deals with which books ought to be read in church, as does the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, and the great Athanasius enumerates all the books that ought to be read, and the great Gregory the Theologian, and holy Amphilochius.

ARIST. "Nothing outside the canonical Scriptures shall be read in church." Beyond the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, ^C no other books falsely written by impious ones shall be read in church as holy; but the cleric who does this shall be deposed, just as the sixtieth canon of the holy Apostles decrees, and many others.

CANON XXVIII.

^D Aurelius the bishop said: "I add, most venerable brethren, further to this, while regarding the continence of certain clerics, except for readers..."

^A regarding the matter which has been confirmed in various synods: that subdeacons, who touch the sacred mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters, but also bishops, according to their own terms, must abstain from their wives, so that they may be as though they had none; and if they should not do this, they shall be removed from their ecclesiastical office. But the rest of the clerics are not to be compelled to this, unless they are of advanced age." By the whole synod it was said: "What your holiness has justly composed, since these things are holy and pleasing to God, we confirm." ^B

BALS. The things written in the fourth canon of the present synod, which decrees that presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons must abstain from their own wives entirely at the time of their service, that is, at the times when they handle the holy things, are sufficient for the interpretation of the present canon. However, the Fathers have allowed readers not to abstain from their wives entirely at the time of their service, unless, they say, they are of advanced age; for "kera" is used here for age. Observe, therefore, that subdeacons also handle the holy things. And do not say that the present canon is repugnant to the twenty-first canon of the Council of Laodicea, which orders that subdeacons should not have a place in the diaconicon, nor touch the sacred things; ^C but say that it is one thing to "handle" (contrectare) and another to "touch" (tangere). For to handle, that is, to move from place to place, is a matter of ministration; and not even the subdeacon will be prevented from doing this. But to touch is granted only to the priests and to those who serve in the sacrifice, that is, the deacons. However, according to the present canon, not only those who touch the sacred things, but also those who handle them, must observe continence at the time of their service. That those clerics who are outside the sanctuary should abstain from their own wives in old age is indeed honorable; but that these men, being compelled by nature, should be punished is not, I think, the judgment of the holy Fathers. And for that reason, as it seems, the canon does not decree that they should be punished. Read canon 3 of the present synod, and canon 12 and 13 of the Sixth. ^D

ZONAR. This canon also mandates that those who handle the holy things should be bound by the laws of continence, and therefore commands that subdeacons, deacons, and priests, who presumably handle the divine mysteries, should abstain from their own spouses; and he brings forward the words of the Apostle to that effect, saying, "that those who have wives should be as though they had none," that is, at the time when the holy things are administered by their hands. If they do not do so, he says, they shall be removed from their ecclesiastical order; for by the name of "office" here he understands order and dignity. But the other clerics, unless they are of very advanced age (for "keira" signifies age), that is, unless they have already moved far into old age, are not to be forced to this. For men of extreme old age

^A it is altogether fitting to be temperate. But rather, as it appeared to the great Basil, there will be no reason to call him temperate who refrains from the company of a woman because he is effete. For temperance, says he, in old age, is not temperance but a certain lust destitute of its own strength. But he who is not temperate even in old age is indeed most defiled by the filth of wickedness. And such a man it does not behoove to be a cleric. If, therefore, this canon is understood in such a way that those in the priesthood refrain from their own wives during the time of the administration of the holy mysteries, we also admit it; but if it enjoins a perpetual divorce from one's wife, we shall rather cast it out from the number of the sacred canons, since it is opposed to the apostolic and synodical constitutions. Moreover, it is contrary to another canon from a different chapter. For the canon of the synod of Laodicea orders subdeacons to have no place in the diaconate, nor to touch the holy things; but this one says that subdeacons are also among those who handle the sacred things. One might say, therefore, that perhaps in those regions, in Africa, namely, and in Carthage, such a custom existed, so that even subdeacons might handle the holy mysteries. ^B

ARIST. ‹Those who handle sacred things should refrain from their own wives at fixed times.› It behooves those who attend the altar to refrain from their own wives in the time that they handle the sacred things, so that they may be able to obtain altogether what they ask from God.

CANON XXIX

BALS. The twelfth canon of the universal seventh synod treats of the alienation of rural estates, of a bishopric, or of a monastery, and also of leasing and the law which has been written upon it by us. But the present canon decrees that an ecclesiastical thing, which has a revenue and is, clearly, immovable, is not to be alienated. But if, he says, great necessity presses the church, and for that reason it behooves to alienate an ecclesiastical thing, ^D

specifically one that is altogether without revenue (for that which brings in revenue is by no means to be alienated)—he ought to report this to the primate of the province, that is, to the metropolitan, and together with the fixed number of bishops, namely the twelve high priests whom it was decreed should assemble to hear accusations against a bishop (as has often been said), he should deliberate upon what must be done. But if a great necessity compels the church to alienation, and the bishop is not able to report these prior matters to the metropolitan and the convenient bishops, he ought to call the neighboring bishops to bear witness to the urgency of the necessity and the pressing need for the alienation of the property. If he does not do this, he will be held accountable to God and will be deposed. And the provisions of the canon consist in these things. But you, read the whole of the second title of the fifth book of the *Basilica*, which is Justinian's Novel 120, and which teaches concerning emphyteusis, sale, and, to speak once for all, concerning every alienation of things—not only episcopal or ecclesiastical [things], but also monastic [things] and those belonging to holy houses—and likewise concerning the alienation of sacred vessels. And according to this Novel, which is much more recent than the present canon, and indeed also according to the constitution of the Nomocanon, which is admitted into the *Basilica* and placed therein, say that sometimes alienations of ecclesiastical or even monastic movable and immovable goods are not prohibited, but sometimes they are. Read also the second chapter of the letter of Saint Cyril to Domnus. Note, furthermore, from the present canon that those things which are done synodically regarding certain ecclesiastical matters, and which take the place of a decree, must necessarily be done by the primate of the province and twelve high priests; and things that are done in any other way will not obtain their force, as it seems to me, inasmuch as they cannot stand. Furthermore, note that the bishop is deposed who alienates an ecclesiastical, sacred, or immovable thing not in accordance with the aforesaid Justinian Novel, even if this is not added in the said Novel. For an alienation that is not according to the Novel is manifestly sacrilege.

ZONAR. It is not at all permitted to alienate ecclesiastical possessions. But if some grave necessity regarding this matter arises, and the possession to be alienated is sterile and unfruitful—at that time, indeed, it is necessary to point out that the thing is without revenue and that the grave necessity for alienating it is pressing; [it must be reported] to the primate of the province, that is, to the metropolitan, and it is necessary to deliberate upon what must be done together with the fixed number of bishops. By the fixed number, I believe he means the twelve whom it was decreed should assemble to hear accusations against bishops. But if there is some overwhelming necessity such that it is not possible for the bishop to approach the metropolitan and the bishops in order to deliberate...

^A regarding the unproductive property which he intends to sell, let him at least call the neighbors as witnesses, so that they may recognize the circumstances that have befallen his church, on account of which he is selling such real estate, and may subsequently present these things to the synod. But if he will not observe these instructions, but makes the sale of his own accord, he shall be accountable to God and the synod, and shall be removed from his honor. And the great Cyril says in his epistle to Domnus: It is necessary that precious vessels and real estate be preserved safe and intact for the churches. Read also the twelfth canon of the seventh ecumenical council.

ARIST. ^B ‹Ecclesiastical property is not for sale. But if it has no income, it is sold with the opinion of the bishops. If, however, necessity does not permit deliberation, he who is selling shall call the neighbors. If he does not act in this way, he is held accountable to God and the synod.›

Bishops ought not to alienate the property of the churches; for these are of divine right, and for this reason they are not for sale. But if anyone has a piece of property that yields no income, and his church is burdened with debts or oppressed by other circumstances, and he wishes to sell it so as to apply the price thereof to the discharge of debts or to other pressing necessities; let this not be sold without the opinion of the metropolitan of that same province and of his fellow bishops. If, however, he has no time ^C because of the necessity weighing upon him to deliberate with them concerning the unproductive real estate, as to how he is to sell it; let him at least summon the neighbors for testimony, so that they may have knowledge of the circumstances that have befallen his church—for which he is selling the immovable property—and may later present these things to the synod. But if he will not observe these matters, but shall make the transaction of his own will, he shall be accountable to both God and the synod, and shall be removed from his honor.

CANON XXX.

‹Similarly it has been confirmed that, if at any time a presbyter or deacon be convicted of some more serious crime, which necessarily removes him from the sacred ministry, hands are not to be laid upon them as for those doing penance or as for faithful laity; ^D nor is it permitted for them, as though rebaptized, to advance to the rank of clergy.›

BALS. Certain of those who had a place in the sanctuary, having been deposed on account of criminal charges, wished, as it seems, to be appointed as readers or into other ranks that are outside the sanctuary; and they said, "Since we are doing penance and have been reduced to the place of the laity, we ought at least to be advanced to those ranks to which the laity are advanced." Therefore, the Fathers, not accepting this, decreed that for those who have been deposed, hands are not to be laid upon them for any kind of reception into the clergy, even if they do penance and are received as faithful laity. But because some were saying that baptism washes away all filth, and were seeking to be baptized a second time, in order that they might perhaps be washed clean of the criminal stain on account of which they were deposed, and thus into the clergy

^A again be admitted; the Fathers decreed that not even this should be done, because it is handed down to us that one baptism is to be performed. So note also from this that those who, after their deposition, read in the pulpit, or offer prayers and give a blessing, do wrong. ^B

ZONARAS. Those who are deposed for certain sins and fall from their own ranks are not segregated, except for certain specific sins. For deposition is enough for them to serve in place of any other punishment. For the great Basil says in his 32nd canon: "Clerics who commit a sin that is unto death are cast down from their rank, but they are not kept away from the communion of the laity. For you shall not punish twice for the same thing." Therefore, the present canon also asserts this: If ever, he says, a presbyter or deacon is convicted of a more serious sin, one that necessarily results in deposition, one must not segregate him, nor impose hands upon him as though he were undergoing penance. For the bishops, or the priests with their consent, used to impose hands upon those who came to the church and confessed their sins, and after offering prayers, they would segregate them and delegate each one to a place of penance ^C in proportion to his offense. Therefore, he says, this should not occur in the case of presbyters and deacons who have fallen from the ministry, nor should they be placed in the stations of the faithful laity who have been segregated, nor should they be permitted to be baptized—as we believe that the divine baptism cleanses every stain—so that, after being baptized, they might, as though cleansed of the stain of sin, again advance into the rank of the clergy. For we believe that the divine bath truly washes away every stain of transgression, but we have received from our ancestors that it is permitted for each person to be initiated by one baptism only.

ARISTENUS. *A presbyter who is convicted and repents is not baptized again as if to advance, ^D nor is he ordained again as a layman.*

A presbyter or deacon, once deposed for some crime and having done penance for it, shall not afterwards be ordained again as a layman; nor shall he be rebaptized in order to wash away his sins and obtain the rank of priest or deacon again. For we confess and acknowledge one baptism.

CANON XXXI.

*Similarly it pleased that if presbyters and deacons, and the remaining lower clerics, are dissatisfied with the judgments of their own bishops regarding the causes they have, neighboring bishops shall hear them, and with the consent of their own bishops, the bishops who are called by them shall settle the controversies arising between them. Furthermore, if they should think that they must also appeal from them, they shall not appeal to transmarine judgments, but to the primates of their own provinces, just as has often been defined also concerning bishops. But those who*

act contrary to this shall be excommunicated. ^B

**BALS.** In the fifteenth canon of the present synod we have written sufficiently regarding ecclesiastical judgments; read what was written therein. The present canon says that, since it is likely that some clerics will be dissatisfied with the judgments of their own bishops, it is necessary that, with their consent, they should call upon neighboring bishops—who are entirely sufficient—and request that the sentence pronounced against them be resolved by them. But if, he says, they are dissatisfied even with the sentence of these neighboring bishops, they must not appeal to transmarine judgments, that is, to the metropolitans of other provinces, but to the primate of the competent province. For this was already defined in the judgments of bishops. And those who act otherwise shall be excommunicated. Note, therefore, that bishops should not be angry if their clerics do not acquiesce to their sentences; rather, they should admit them and consent that their sentence be examined by neighboring bishops. Some, however, hearing the canon say that neighboring bishops shall hear them, and that those called upon by them shall settle their controversies with the consent of the original bishop, say that it is in the power of the bishop who first judged to be present at the judgment of the neighboring bishops. But to me, this does not seem right. For he who has once pronounced the sentence ceases to be the judge. The phrase "with consent" was used so that clerics would not, through impudence and without the bishop's knowledge, rush to an appeal, but rather with his decision. And since the present canons were set forth in Carthage, that is, in Africa, those of Rome shall, by all means, be called transmarine judgments. And note from this that those who belong to the Church of Rome boast in vain when they say that they ought to decide on the questions of all Churches by way of appeal. For if it is not permitted to it to examine the appeals of those who are in Africa, it will possess this right even less regarding other regions. ^C

**ZONAR.** The canons willed that clerics having some controversy be judged by their own bishops. Therefore, if any clerics do not acquiesce to a sentence pronounced by their own bishop, it is resolved that neighboring bishops be called in and that they hear the case, with the approbation of the bishop who judged. But if they demand that an appeal be granted to them from the judgment of the bishops who have been called in, they ought to go to the metropolitan of the province, which is what was defined also concerning bishops. But if those who seek the appeal cross the sea—that is, if they go to other provinces lying far away in order to exercise judgment there—they shall, he says, be excommunicated and not received into communion in Africa. Hence, that windy pride of the Roman Church, boasting that it has been granted to it to receive all appeals from all other Churches, must necessarily subside. ^D

For since it is not granted by the African churches (and indeed Rome is situated across the sea, if compared to Africa), much less will it possess such a right in other regions.

^A ARIST. "Clerics who have been condemned, if they accuse the judge, let them not appeal across the sea; but rather to neighboring bishops and to their own: otherwise, let them be excommunicated in Africa."

The Fathers observe what is decorous in all things; and so that bishops, as sometimes happens, might not be troubled, this synod in Africa decreed that clerics who, because of certain faults, are condemned by their own bishops, and who think themselves treated unjustly, should not appeal across the sea to the Bishop of Rome, perhaps, or to others, but to neighboring bishops, and with the judgment of their own bishop, let the matters between them be examined and resolved; otherwise, they are not to be admitted to communion anywhere in Africa.

CANON XXXII

"Likewise it pleased the whole synod, that whoever has been removed from communion because of his own negligence, whether he be a bishop or any cleric whatsoever, if in the time of his excommunication, before he has been heard, he should dare to force himself into communion, let him be judged as having passed the sentence of condemnation against himself." ^B

BALS. From the fourteenth canon of the synod of Sardica, and from the present canon, some say that all who in any way whatsoever are separated by bishops ought to receive the separation obediently, and observe it until it has been decreed whether it was rightly or wrongly inflicted. For this canon says that a cleric who has been deposed because of negligence or sins, cannot claim justice for himself and despise the separation before an examination; but if he should do this, let him be subjected to condemnation. And many indeed interpret these canons in this way. But others, finding the eleventh chapter of the ninth title of the present work, which explained from what causes a bishop or cleric or layman is separated; and the fifteenth chapter of the same title, which says from what causes one is simultaneously deposed and separated; and the ^C chapter of the same title which says from what causes a cleric or layman is anathematized, say that, if a cleric or layman has been separated by a bishop for the causes indeed declared in the stated chapters, he ought to observe the separation, however it may have been pronounced, and not despise it until his case has been examined. But if a bishop has inconsiderately separated a layman or cleric for some other cause, perhaps because he does not incite seditions against his own tax-collector, or because he does not assent to his unjust and reckless will, ^D [note: the Greek text continues here: "It is to be noted that a second appeal is also granted to the clergy," which is then addressed in the editorial note below.]

Notes of Guill. Beveridge

(23) [On this canon, words are added in the manuscript of the Augustan edition of the J. C. code; it is to be noted, however, that a second appeal is also granted to the clergy. But this seems to be only a marginal note, which for that reason is more correctly omitted in the Amerbach code.]

and that he does not consent to this unjust or bold intent, he will safely ignore the excommunication, and the one who excommunicated him will be punished all the more. For if the bishop is given the liberty to excommunicate both laity and clergy at will, and those excommunicated are compelled by necessity to observe the excommunication, the bishops will venture upon tyranny and will lord it over every matter, and there will be no one to oppose them because of the fear of excommunication; perhaps they will even insult piety itself, and the divine canons will be the causes of many evils, which is absurd. For look at the present canon, which says that the excommunication ought to be observed at such time when it has been inflicted because of sloth, or because of a sin that is thoroughly condemned by the canons. And these are their words; but I do not know whom of them I ought to follow. For although I am drawn by devotion, yet I am also drawn away by what is uncanonical. I seek, therefore, to learn what must be done, as I wish to be a boy and a disciple throughout my life. Note that the present canon decrees that those who perform any priestly office after excommunication are to be deposed. Read also what we have written here. ^B

ZONAR. Those upon whom some penalty, namely excommunication, has been laid must remain under the penalty—even if they claim that they were punished unjustly—until they have been heard by the one who has the authority to judge in such matters. But if anyone who has been rendered ineligible for communion by a penalty should dare to come to communion before it has been examined whether he was justly or unjustly rendered ineligible for communion, he, it says, has condemned himself. And the 14th canon of the Council of Sardica treats of this same matter. ^C

ARIST. He who is ineligible for communion, if he communicates before being shown mercy, is self-condemned. He who is excommunicated, and who performs sacred offices before being released from the excommunication, has himself passed a sentence of condemnation against himself.

CANON XXXIII. Similiter placuit, ut qui accusatur, vel qui accusat, si in loco, in quo est is qui accusatur, temerariae multitudinis vim aliquam timeat, locum sibi proximum eligat, in quo nulla erit testes producendi difficultas, ubi negotium terminatur. ^D

BALS. Because it was likely that one of those who were litigating had greater power in the place in which the trial was taking place, the Fathers decreed that if any of them—that is to say, either the plaintiff or the defendant—suspects that in their own forum, or in the place where they reside, they will suffer violence from an unruly and numerous multitude of the disorderly populace due to fear of their opponent, or for the same reason finds it difficult to produce witnesses, it is in their power to choose another neighboring place, so that the trial may proceed there without any fear, and the production of witnesses may easily take place, and thus the case may be easily settled. And the canon rightly said that a neighboring place should be chosen.

^A If it is situated far away, neither the judge nor the adversary will be compelled to follow this choice. But I think that these things have no place in patriarchal tribunals, because no one can allege fear where the power of patriarchal majesty surpasses every lordship; but these provisions of the canon are to be understood as applying to minor episcopal tribunals, where the transfer of both the judge and the litigants from one place to another is easy.

ZONAR. If any controversy, he says, exists between two clerics, and one of them fears violence in the place where the tribunal is being set up—as if, perhaps, the people, being ill-disposed toward his adversary, might make an attack upon him, or will not allow him to bring forward witnesses—he should be granted the freedom to choose another place where the tribunal may be held. ^B It must be a nearby place, not situated at a great distance, so that it may not be difficult for his adversary or for the judges to travel to that place, and that there the witnesses may be easily present and the case may be concluded. For if the place where the tribunal is to be held is situated far away, the production of witnesses will also be difficult. For witnesses will not be persuaded to travel outside their district. For the law says that one's own office ought not to be a detriment to anyone. The word "office" (*officium*) is Latin, signifying administration and trustworthiness.

ARIST. "He who accuses, or is accused, fearing violence, may choose a safe place for himself." If someone accuses another, and suspects that he will suffer violence from the side of the accused, or conversely, if the accused [fears it] from the accuser, let them choose any place they wish for their own safety, ^C where they may easily confer with the witnesses they might have and appear at the tribunal without danger; so that on account of such fear the accuser might not desist from the accusation, or the accused might not withdraw secretly from the tribunal and be condemned in his absence.

CANON XXXIV

BALS. Some clerics, as is likely, when called by their bishops to higher degrees for the utility of the churches, were not persuaded to do this, because they were content with the degrees which they already held, ^D perhaps moved by profit or bodily rest. The Fathers therefore decreed that if any clerics, performing any priestly ministry whatsoever (for deacons are not taken here as those who minister in the holy sanctuary, but as those who...

^A perform some ecclesiastical ministry), do not obey their bishops when they wish to promote them to higher ranks on account of some urgent necessity of the churches, but cling to the ranks or positions they hold, they should not even be in that rank and minister from which they did not wish to depart. As this canon is decreed, some say that by this, permission is given to patriarchs and to the remaining bishops to remove the magistrates and other members of the holy orders under them from their offices, and especially to depose those who are chosen for certain churches and do not accept the vote. But it seems to me that by this canon the magistrates of the churches or other clerics are not ^B compelled to accept, even against their will, the churches given to them through episcopal election; rather, the canon is to be understood as applying to those who perform any ecclesiastical ministries and are called to some higher honors or ranks, and do not obey the episcopal summons—and especially when this is done for the utility of the church. For if anyone does not accept the ordination of episcopal dignity against his will, he is worthy of pardon, perhaps piously avoiding ordination for some commendable reason and custom; but for clerics or magistrates not to obey bishops calling them to higher offices is not only not to be pardoned, ^C but is worthy of punishment. For if anyone, being perhaps in the diaconate, does not behave in such a way as to accept the rank (character) of referendary or teacher, on account of the labor, and so that he may serve the church, he shall be punished; and if anyone who is a chief defender (protekdikos) does not wish to be promoted to hieromnemones because of the unprofitability of the office, he shall be cast out even from the office of chief defender; and if anyone who is a reader does not wish to be promoted to a higher office, he shall be deposed as a worthless person. And this is clear from the fact that a cleric is not chosen for episcopal dignity by just any bishop, but only by those who hold bishoprics; for ^D metropolitans who do not have [vacant] bishoprics, and likewise bishops who are under metropolitans, can neither choose their own clerics nor punish them according to the canons if they do not obey them. It has therefore pleased [the Council] that the canon be understood as concerning those who are not persuaded to be promoted to ecclesiastical offices, and that this applies to all bishops and clerics. But when you hear the canon saying that clerics are to be moved from their own ranks who do not obey bishops when they call them to higher honors on account of some urgent causes of their churches, do not say that unless a necessary cause is present, bishops do not have the permission to promote their clerics. For even if no such cause presents itself, a bishop may rightly promote his clerics from this rank to a higher place, even against their will, according to ecclesiastical order. And note that it is given to bishops to promote their clerics to higher ranks, but not to demote them to lower ones; just as [it is not given] to treat them with injury and ignominy by confounding the orders of the sacred ranks, and by placing him who was perhaps yesterday a magistrate above all the elder magistrates, or him who was not even

a magistrate at all, by promoting him into a greater position. Likewise, note that ecclesiastical offices, or administrative positions, are not under the authority of the bishops, as some say, but of the authority and honor of the canons, just as are the rights of the other orders, namely, of the deacons, the priests, and the rest. ^B For if this were not so, clerics would not fall from their own ranks with discernment—that is, on account of disobedience—but the bishops would have this happen whenever they wished, whether rightly or wrongly. However, this did not seem right to the holy Fathers. Furthermore, note that there is no difference between a clerical rank and an administrative one. For it is from the same cause that an administrator is removed from his administration as that for which a priest or deacon is removed. Furthermore, note that, since monks are also encompassed under the name of clerics, the canon will rightly be understood to apply also to the ministers of monasteries.

ZONAR. *Obey those who are set over you, and submit yourselves*, says the divine Apostle (Heb. xiii, 17). If, therefore, any cleric or minister whatsoever—and the canon understands by the name of “deacon” here, not him who is endowed with the order of the diaconate, but any cleric who performs some ministry in the church; and this is clear from the words, *not even in that rank shall they minister*, for by the name of those in the ministry, he also signifies lectors and others thereafter—if, therefore, any cleric does not obey his bishop who wishes to promote him to a higher rank of dignity, ^C as for instance from the diaconate to the priesthood, or from the office of subdeacon to the diaconate, and so on, it is decreed that he shall be removed even from the rank which he held and which he did not wish to leave.

ARIST. *He who refuses greater honor, also loses what he has.*

He who is judged by his own bishop to be worthy of greater honor, and is promoted to it for a necessary cause of the church, and does not comply—not on account of piety, but out of contempt—shall be moved even from the rank in which he ministers, and shall forfeit it. For perhaps he was a subdeacon and was judged worthy to become a deacon; and it was necessary for this to be done by the bishop, because he did not have sufficient deacons, nor could he find any others comparable to him in living an irreproachable life and ^D approved in speech.

Guill. Beveridge’s notes. In our Bodleian codex, and in that alone, these final words are appended to these words of Balsamon: “Note the interpretation of the present canon, teaching many necessary things about ecclesiastical administrative offices. Nor should it seem surprising that we have called ecclesiastical administrative offices ‘ranks.’ For in the 17th and 18th canons of the holy apostles, we wrote that these are loosely called ‘ranks.’ For properly, ‘clerical’ statuses are called ranks—namely, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and lectors. Read also what is written more fully about ranks in the stated canons.”

CANON XXXV.

^A If any poor cleric, having been promoted to some rank, shall acquire anything, he shall be subject to the authority of the bishops. Likewise, it has pleased that bishops, priests, deacons, or any clerics whatever, who have nothing, if, having been promoted during their episcopacy or clerical office, they purchase fields or any lands whatsoever in their own name, they shall be held as those who have made an encroachment upon the Lord’s property, unless, indeed, when admonished, they deliver these over to the Church. But if something should fall to them directly by the bounty of some person or by succession of kinship, they shall do with it what their intention conforms to. But if, even after they have proposed [to give it to the Church], they turn back, they shall be judged unworthy of ecclesiastical honor as reprobates. ^B

BALS. The fortieth apostolic canon prescribes that a bishop, at the time of his ordination, shall register his own property; likewise, the twenty-fourth canon of the Synod of Antioch [ordains] that these things, and also the revenues of the Church, should be manifest. The present canon, however, decrees that if bishops, or priests, or deacons, or any clerics whatsoever, who were poor before their ecclesiastical ministry and honor, are subsequently promoted and, during the time of their episcopacy or clerical office, purchase any immovable property in their own name, they are to be considered as ravagers of the Lord’s possessions—that is, of those things which are dedicated to God. This, in fact, is what the canon signified when it said: "‘Unless, being admonished concerning this’—that is, ordered to desist from this audacious undertaking—‘they shall assign these to the ownership of the Church.’" ^C But if anything should fall to them by inheritance, or bequest, or gift, they ought to assign to the ownership of the Church a portion of these—whatever seems good to them—but they should have sure and undoubted ownership of the remainder. But if, after having proposed to consecrate some of these things to the Church, one should feel regret, he shall fall from the priestly honor as unworthy and a reprobate. Since the canon decrees these things, some say that the things in it are to be understood as applying to everything that has been purchased ^D or even acquired by bishops or clerics from anywhere whatever after their adoption into the episcopacy or clerical office, except those things which have fallen to them by gift, or by bequest, or by inheritance. To me, however, it seems that this will hold true in the case of bishops, because there is no other mode for them by which they might acquire things, except from episcopal rights and from external sources.

Guill. Beveridge’s note.

^A And the items—that is, the episcopal ones—shall be assigned to the bishopric; but the rest shall remain in his own power, just as this canon also addresses. As for clerics, if after their ordination they purchase property by other means, and not from the things of the church, they shall not be compelled to assign these to the church. For if a cleric happens to be a schoolteacher, or a scribe, or a secretary to some great man, and from this becomes wealthy, why should he be compelled to assign to the church what was acquired for him by such means? This present interpretation follows the words of the canon, which determines that those things which have come through largesse or inheritance, they have in their power—excepting that a certain portion must be given to the church. But since the canon treats of immovables, someone might ask whether the same should be observed regarding movables. And I believe that the same should happen in these cases, because there is no difference between movables and immovables as far as acquisition is concerned. He said "properly" instead of "if it were left to him directly," since many things are left to certain people so that they may render and restore them to others in whatever way. From such things, therefore, it is not required that he consecrate anything to the church; but [it is required] from those things which were left to him properly, or privately, and of which he is the master. Note, therefore, the canon which says that bishops and clerics must necessarily leave to their own churches some portion, which seems good to them, from those things which properly belong to them; and this above all in their final ^B breaths: and in this, whatever kind it is and however much it may be, it shall not be rejected.

ZONARAS. If any men were suffering from poverty in their personal estate and were raised to the episcopacy or enrolled in the clergy, and afterwards they abound in wealth and, while they are bishops or clerics, purchase fields or lands in their own name, they are considered to have acquired these from the property of the church, and they are guilty just as if they had plundered Lordly—that is, ecclesiastical—property (for this is what he suggested by saying as having made an incursion), unless they consecrate these to the church. Wherefore also the laws of the state require bishops, when they are about to be ordained, to make public what they possess, so that they may have the liberty to leave these things legally to whomever they wish. And the fortieth canon of the holy apostles also says, Let the ^C private property of the bishop be manifest, if he indeed has private property, and let the Lordly [property] be manifest likewise, and the rest. And the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Antioch legislates concerning this. But if some gift should come to a bishop or cleric properly, such as a legacy, or a donation, or a family inheritance, he says that he must also consecrate a portion of this to the church according to his own free will. He said "properly," meaning "if it were left to him directly," since many things are left to certain people so that they may deliver them to others, or for the redemption of captives, or for the building of ^D sacred houses, and for other similar causes. From such things, therefore, it is not required to dedicate something to the church

but only from those things which were left to him strictly and specifically, and of which he is the master. But if they offered and promised to dedicate a portion to the church, and then turned back—that is, changed their minds—they shall be judged unworthy of the priestly honor.

ARIST. ^A «He who, after his promotion, buys a field—having nothing—let him know that he must offer it to the church, unless it came to him by succession of kinship or by pure liberality.» Those who before the episcopate have no property of their own, or even clerics who before they were enrolled in the clergy were very poor, if after they are promoted they buy some immovable items, they shall bring these to the church, as having acquired them from its revenues; unless, perhaps, by inheritance or by some donation which truly came to them in truth. These things appear to devolve to them.

CANON XXXVI

BALS. As is likely, certain priests were selling ecclesiastical property against the will of their own bishops. But indeed, bishops also were alienating the lands of their own churches against the will of their synod, or even of their own presbyters. ^C Therefore, the canon says that this is not to happen anymore; but when a necessity to do some such thing presses the bishop, let him do it with the consent of his synod and of his own presbyters. But it is not permitted to him in any other way to misuse property which is written in the ecclesiastical lists, or in the register, that is, in the inventory of the ecclesiastical title, or book. For "title" is sometimes called an inscription, sometimes a cause, and sometimes also a book. But when you hear the canon saying that neither the bishop, without the consent of the synod and of his own presbyters, shall sell the lands of the church, nor the presbyters, without the consent of their own bishops, shall sell ecclesiastical property, do not say that, in this regard, presbyters are equal to bishops; but say that presbyters, indeed, cannot sell any movable or immovable thing, or even that which can easily perish—wine or grain, for example—without the consent of their bishops; but the bishop, as for those things which can easily perish—movables, and those which are movable by themselves—he can alienate even without the consent of his own clergy. ^D

^A For this reason, the canon also commands the presbyters not to sell ecclesiastical property without the bishops; but it forbids the bishops to sell immovables without necessity and the synodal consent of the presbyters. That the bishop has the power, even against the will of his own presbyters and the synod subject to him, to sell ecclesiastical immovables and perishable movables is evident from the 38th and 41st apostolic canons—which you should read—but also from the present canon, which forbids the indiscriminate alienation of ecclesiastical lands and monasteries. Do not let the canons that forbid the sale of sacred ecclesiastical things by bishops contradict this interpretation to you. For even if these things are movable, they occupy the place of immovables, as is found in many places in the laws. And when an ecclesiastical immovable is about to be sold because of an urgent necessity, the bishop must not sell property that yields an income, but rather such as the 26th canon of the present synod dictates, and according to the distinctions expressed therein. The canon mentions "abuse" so that you might not say that only the sale of immovables is forbidden, but not other alienations as well. ^B For a bishop cannot alienate ecclesiastical property through emphyteusis, nor by donation, nor by exchange, unless necessity dictates.

ZONARAS. The canons of the holy apostles, the 38th and the 41st, entrust the authority and care of ecclesiastical affairs to the bishops. Consequently, this canon decrees that it is not permissible for the presbyters to sell any property of the church to which they are assigned without the faculty of the bishop. And so that the bishops, abusing the authority granted to them by the apostolic canons, might not claim a sort of lordship over them and thereby squander ecclesiastical possessions, it dictates that neither is it permitted to the bishop himself, unless the matter is communicated with his own synod and the presbyters subject to him, to have the faculty of selling ecclesiastical estates. For it is not proper that the administration of ecclesiastical affairs be unknown to them, lest, if the matter be done without witnesses, offenses arise against the bishop. ^C Therefore, when no necessity compels it, it ^D is not permitted for the bishop to abuse property described in the ecclesiastical register or inventory. By the name of "title," the inscription and the cause—and indeed also the book—are signified, as you may find written somewhere in the laws. And when the bishop intends to alienate an immovable, it must be of such a kind as the 26th canon of this synod describes, and the cautions indicated therein must be observed when alienating it.

ARISTENUS. ‹A presbyter does not sell any ecclesiastical property without the bishop; nor does a bishop sell an estate without the synod’s approval.› The goods of the church ought to remain unalienated. But if necessity requires that some immovable be alienated, the bishop shall not sell it without the synod’s consent.

^A If he does not wish to do so, he makes himself liable to God and the synod, according to the twenty-sixth canon of the present synod, and forfeits his honor. Furthermore, no presbyter, to whom some administrative duty of the bishopric is entrusted, shall sell any ecclesiastical property, whether immovable or movable, without his own bishop's knowledge.

• Furthermore, various councils of the whole region of Africa were read in this synod, celebrated in times past by Aurelius, bishop of Carthage.

• From the synod which was held at Hippo Regius, under the most glorious Emperor Theodosius Augustus for the third time, and under Abundantius the most illustrious consul for the eighth, on the Ides of October, in Hippo Regius, in the sacristy of the Church of Peace. And the rest of the acts of this synod were therefore not written down, because those things which were determined in it are shown to be contained in the preceding ones. ^B

BALS. The events that took place in this synod were not done in one meeting, but in various ones. For when the council had dissolved, they met again at another time, and examined the questions set before them, and defined what seemed good to them, and joined these to those that preceded.

Second Action.

• From the synod of Carthage, in which the bishops of the proconsular province were sent as legates to the synod of Adrumetum, under the most glorious emperors Arcadius for the third time and Honorius for the second, as Augusti and consuls, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of July, at Carthage. In this synod, the proconsular bishops were chosen as legates for the Adrumetine synod. ^C

• From the synod of Carthage, where many things were decreed, under Caesarius and Atticus, the most illustrious consuls, on the fifth day before the Kalends of September, at Carthage, in the sacristy of the Church of Restituta, while Aurelius the bishop presided, with the bishops assisting and the deacons also present, and furthermore Victor the elder of Pupiana, Titus of Migripa, and Evangelus of Assura, Bishop Aurelius of Carthage addressed the bishops, and he said as follows: ^D

• After the appointed day of the synod, while we were sitting, as we remember, most blessed brothers, and expecting that the legates from all the provinces of Africa would arrive for the day of your deliberation, which, as I said, had been appointed; but also after the letter of our fellow-ministers from Byzacium had been read, and that letter had also been read to your charity, concerning whatever they discussed with me, who anticipated the time and day of the synod. Furthermore, indeed, there was also read the legation sent by the brothers Honoratus and Urbanus, who are with us today as participants in the synod, from the region of Sitifis. Again, however, Reginus of Vegetse...

^A has presented letters to my mediocrity from Crescentianus and Aurelius, our fellow bishops of the primatial see of the two Numidias, in which letters your charity remembers together with me that they declared they would deign either to come themselves to this synod or to send legates according to custom. Since, however, this has by no means come to pass, the legates who have come from so remote a region of Mauritania Sitifensis testify that they cannot delay any longer. Therefore, brothers, if it seems good to your charity, let the letters of our brothers from Byzacium, and the breviary which they attached to the letter, be read in this convened congregation, so that if by chance any of those things should displease your charity, whatever can be corrected with care and diligence might be transformed for the better. For this, our brother and fellow bishop Mizonius, a man most illustrious of the primatial see, requested in writing to my humility, in accordance with the dignity of his authority and prudence. If, therefore, it pleases you, let what has been prepared be read, and let each point be considered by your charity. ^B

BALS. and ZONAR. A day was preordained for the gathering of the Fathers of this synod, who were hoping that legates would come to the synod from the provinces of all Africa; some of whom indeed came, while others did not appear, and for others letters were brought. Therefore, as those who arrived from abroad said that they could not persevere to stay any longer, Bishop Aurelius said to the synod that, since the legates who came to us cannot wait any longer, let the letters of our brothers from Byzacium be read, and the breviary sent with the letters. Now Byzacium and Sitifis and the two Numidias and the Sellitana are parts of the African region. Let them be read, he says, so that if any of them are repugnant to your charity—that is, if any of these things are contrary to you and offend you as not having been rightly ordained—they may be corrected with diligence and transformed for the better. For he says that Mizonius also requested this, that those things which require correction be corrected. He calls the congregation a "summoning" ^C either as gathered from their mutual convocation, or as exhorting to correction through those things which have been defined by it, for those who do not live rightly or do not think rightly concerning the faith. ^D

CANON XXXVII.

^A BALS. Hippo is a city of the Carthaginian jurisdiction, in which a synod was gathered and many things were decreed, from which some few fragments (for "breve" among the Latins signifies a short writing) were selected and brought forward, and they appeared to be correct. The Fathers, however, stated that this alone was necessary: that the day of holy Pascha should be made manifest.

ZONAR. After the letters and the *breve* had been read, according to the proposal of Aurelius, Epigonius said: "Nothing in the *breve* which was extracted from the Synod of Hippo appears to us to be worthy of correction." Hippo is a city of the Carthaginian jurisdiction, in which a synod was gathered and many things were decreed, from which some few fragments were brought forward to this synod. For *breve* in Latin is called that which is small and slight. He says that this alone is necessary, that the day of holy Pascha be signified at the time of the synod—that is, it should be announced at the time when the synod is held.

ARIST. ≪There is nothing to be corrected or added in the Synod of Hippo, save that the day of Pascha be signified at the time of the synod≫, so that no one perhaps may be mistaken about it. Various synods were held in the whole region of the Africans in past times, and they were read in this synod, and the synod that was held in the region of Hippo seemed to be in good order; and the Fathers decreed that that synod should receive neither correction nor addition, but only that the day of Pascha should be signified in the time of the synod being held at Carthage, so that no one perhaps might be mistaken concerning it.

CANON XXXVIII

BALS. Emancipation among the Romans is called the freedom which is given by fathers to children who are under their power. The canon says, therefore, that the sons of bishops and clerics ought not to become of their own right through their fathers, unless they have given certain knowledge, by their age and good character, that they can manage their own affairs prudently and as is fitting. Unless this is done, the Fathers say that they will have to render an account for the sins of their children. And this is what the canon decides concerning the sons of bishops and clerics. The laws, however, order that emancipation should be done through a legitimate act, or with a legitimate examination; they do not distinguish whether they are the sons of clerics or of laymen. And therefore, neither clerics nor bishops, as it seems to me, shall make their sons of their own right without a judicial decree. For the examination of their life and age, according to the canon, ought to be done by a judge, and not by the father alone. And the third chapter of the thirty-first title of the books says: "A bare consent of the father does not free a son from paternal power."

but a legal act; nor is the cause sought, but the accuracy of the act." Perhaps someone might say that the present canon corrects the fifth chapter of the second title of the thirty-first book, which says: "He who has for a long time allowed a son to do things that are done by those who are of their own right, and to be under guardians, suffers prejudice regarding the power over the son." For since this law says that he is freed from the power of the father who, by the permission of the father, manages his own affairs for a long time, namely for two years, the canon says that this ought not to happen even in the case of the sons of bishops or clerics, so that bishops or clerics may not be injured by the fact that their sons live profligately and luxuriously because of their indulgence. Except for me the sons of bishops and clerics who are honored with offices of the Great Church. For these become "of their own right" by the authority of the laws: nor do the fathers render an account of those things in which they might perhaps have sinned. Read also the eighteenth canon of the first synod and its interpretation, and the sixtieth canon of the synod in Trullo and its interpretation, and the commentary on the thirty-sixth chapter of the first title of the present work. For in these it has been treated more fully that the magistrates or officials of the Great Church, as they are endowed with dignity and authority, are ^B thereby exempted from paternal power. But as for the fathers rendering an account for the sins of their children who are not "of their own right" according to the canon, understand it as regarding God and the condemnation of the soul. For fathers are in no way held liable or punished for the sins of their children, whether they are under power or not. For sins, says the law, follow their own head.

ZONAR. The canon says that bishops and clerics should not make their own children "of their own right" through emancipation. And this is a Latin word. Emancipation signifies the freedom granted to him who has someone as a subject by the one who holds that power. Therefore, they are prohibited from emancipating their children before they have entirely perceived their habits, and understand that they are able through their age to judge for themselves. For if they make their children "of their own right" before such a time, they will be judged as participants in the sins which they might commit.

ARIST. "Bishops and clerics should not emancipate their own children before the stability of their character." Bishops and clerics ought not to dismiss their own children from their own care and make them "of their own right" before they are perfect in age and stable in their actions and manners.

CANON XXXIX.

BALS. The present canon prohibits anyone from being ordained

before the unbelievers and heretics who live with him become orthodox Christians. Other canons also punish this very thing; namely, if an orthodox person consorts with unbelievers or heretics. If, therefore, it is not permitted for a layman to consort with an unbeliever or a heretic, much less will this be allowed to a bishop or a cleric. Wherefore, not only shall an orthodox person who lives with an unbeliever or heretic not be admitted into the clergy, but he shall also be cast out of communion. For he who communicates with one who is excommunicated is himself excommunicated. And these things apply to those who are descended from an orthodox line. As for those who are converted from unbelief to our holy and true faith, read chapter 10, title 1 of the present work, and what is contained therein, and canon 78 of the synod in Trullo. ^B

ZONAR. It is the duty of bishops to instruct and lead unbelievers to the faith, and to show the true path of orthodox doctrine to those Christians who have strayed in their dogmas; and priests and deacons ought to do the same. If, therefore, anyone is indeed a Christian himself, but neglects to instruct those in his house—such as his wife, his children, and those he has in his service—if they are unbelievers or heretics, the canon decrees that he shall not be made a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon. For whoever cannot or will not instruct those in his own house and turn them from error to orthodoxy, how will he be sufficient to instruct others? Moreover, he himself would not be free from suspicion of a doubtful faith. And indeed, the great Paul also, writing to Timothy, says: "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?" ^C

ARIST.

CANON XL

BALS. The thirty-second canon of the synod in Trullo abundantly establishes that the bloodless sacrifice is to be celebrated with bread and wine mixed with water; inasmuch as the bread bears the type of the Lord’s body, and the wine the type of his blood. But because not only blood flowed from the side of the Lord, but also water, for this reason water is also mixed with the wine [cont. on next page]

^A. Read also the third canon of the holy apostles. The present canon commands the same things, adding that if it is customary to offer honey or milk on one customary day in the altar, as first fruits, for the mystery of the infants, that is, on behalf of the infants, nevertheless they ought not to be placed together with the divine sacraments, but be placed separately, and be blessed more by them; and that as first fruits, nothing else should be offered save new grain and grapes. But the things regarding milk and honey were forbidden in the fifty-sixth canon of the seventh synod.

ZONARAS. The third and fourth canon of the holy apostles also makes provision regarding this matter. But since some, even after this, disregarded those canons, like the Armenians, who offered only wine in the holy things, and did not mix any part of water, as was decreed in the thirty-second canon of the sixth synod in Trullo, this synod also came to make a decree regarding this matter, and it says that nothing beyond bread and wine mixed with water should be offered in the holy things: the bread, for a type of the Lord’s body, and the wine, for the blood. But since not only blood flowed from the side of the Lord, but also water, for this reason it is necessary that water also be mixed with the wine offered in the divine mysteries. ^B And that saying, that it is customary to offer honey or milk as first fruits on one customary day for the mystery of the infants, and that it is offered in the altar, it is not permitted that they be mixed with the divine bread and wine, but that they have their own blessing, being blessed separately from those. And regarding the "mystery of the infants," some say it is that these things were distributed to the infants instead of the mysteries, which I do not think; but others, that the milk used to be brought as first fruits on account of the infants, because they are sustained by milk alone. But the sixth synod completely forbade this in the fifty-sixth canon. As first fruits, it says, let nothing more be offered than new grain and newly ripened grapes.

ARISTENUS.

Let bread and wine mixed with water be offered, and nothing else.

^C

CANON XLI.

That clerics, or those who are continent, should not enter to virgins or widows.

BALSAMON. Those who are continent are called monks; as this is ^D

demonstrated by the 19th canon of the great Basil. The present canon therefore says that clerics or monks are not to have dealings with widows or virgins who are entirely consecrated, unless they are permitted to do so by the bishops, or by the presbyters, that is to say, when the bishops are not present. And even then, they must not enter alone, but with fellow-clerics, or with those with whom the bishop and the presbyters also enter to them; or they may have dealings with them there where there are clerics or some Christians of good name. The phrase "by permission or consent" is used because either there is some matter useful to the bishop and the Church being discussed with them, and the bishops permit this encounter; or it is for their own usefulness and request, and the bishops ought to consent. Read the 11th title, chapter 5, of the present work; the 47th canon of the Sixth Synod; and the 133rd Novel of Justinian, chapter 2, or chapter 15 of the 4th book of the Basilics, which was placed in the 47th canon of the Sixth Synod. ^B ZONARAS. We believers have been commanded to flee from suspicions, even if they be false, and it has been said by the inspired Paul: "Be without offense, both to the Jews and to the Greeks, and to the Church of God." Observing these commands, then, and indeed others, these Fathers also say that clerics or those who are continent are by no means permitted to enter to widows or to virgins, those, that is, who are consecrated. By the name of those who are continent, they designated monks, in accordance with the great Basil who, when laying down the law concerning the profession of virginity in his 19th canon, says: "We know of no profession for men, unless there be those who have attached themselves to the order of monks, who indeed seem by their silence to accept celibacy." Therefore, they command that clerics and those who are continent ^C are not to enter to the aforementioned women, unless they have obtained permission from the bishop or from the presbyters, that is to say, in the absence of the bishop; and even then, let them not enter alone, but with fellow-clerics or with those with whom the bishop and the presbyters are accustomed to enter to them; or let them have dealings with them there, where there are clerics or where there are some Christians of good standing, so that every suspicion may be removed. "By the permission," says the canon, "or consent of his own bishop." For either he permits it, having been moved by the cleric himself on account of some necessity, or the bishop consents when one of the aforementioned who needs to meet with the said women requests it for a just cause. ^D ARISTENUS. "Clerics and those who are continent are not to approach widows or virgins, except by the command of a bishop and presbyter: and even then, not alone, but with those with whom the presbyters and deacons enter to such persons." Every care must be taken regarding virgins and widows constituted in the Church, and by it maintained.

CANON XLII.

BALS. The ninth canon of the Synod of Chalcedon, and the sixth and seventh of that of Sardica, call the bishops of the metropolises exarchs of the provinces. But attend closely in your mind to the canons of the Synod of Chalcedon, which is later. These names, however, were forbidden for the sake of removing arrogance; and for this reason many of the patriarchs and chief priests call themselves vile and humble in their own subscriptions.

ZONAR. Other canons, and these indeed of the ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon, call them exarchs of the provinces—namely the ninth and seventeenth of that ^B synod. The sixth canon of the Synod of Sardica also calls metropolitan bishops exarchs of the provinces. But this canon, along with other names, rejects this name as well, for no other reason, I suppose, than to suppress arrogance and puffing up, and to entirely remove and destroy haughtiness from the common life. And since the Synod of Chalcedon, which is both ecumenical and later than this one, is found to have, as we said, named them exarchs of the provinces, it easily appears that it was little pleased by this canon, but rather preferred that of Sardica.

ARIST. « The first bishop shall not be called prince of the priests, nor supreme priest, but bishop of the first see. » The dignity of the priesthood is one and the same in all; and this one shall not be called supreme priest, ^C and that one an imperfect priest, but all are equally priests, all are bishops, as having equally received the grace of the most holy Spirit. The bishop of the metropolis, therefore, as holding the first chair, shall be called with the addition, bishop of the metropolis.

CANON XLIII.

BALS. Read the fifty-fourth canon of the holy apostles, and the ninth canon of the sixth synod, which teach more at length about these matters.

ZONAR. This is also forbidden by the fifty-fourth canon of the holy apostles; and of the Synod in Trullo ^D

of the so-called Sixth [Ecumenical Council], the ninth canon, speaks of this. One must therefore examine what is written there. ^A ARIST. "A cleric, if travelling, may enter an inn, but otherwise he shall not." If a cleric, while on a journey abroad, having no pious place in which to stay and find the necessities of life for himself, enters an inn to eat and drink, he shall be free from blame.

CANON XLIV.

BALS. The twenty-ninth canon of the council in Trullo makes mention of this canon. And it overturns the rule that on the day on which the Lord’s Supper is performed, those who perform the holy things may not be fasting. One must therefore read what is written there. As for the parts of the present canon which follow, regarding those who die in the evening, they seem to pertain to those who are deceased and to their commemorations—that is, when they were laid out so that the funeral chants might be ^C performed over them, as is customary, and so that the sacrifice of the oblation might be made. Therefore, if someone dies at the evening hour, says the canon, and those who are performing these rites are not fasting, let them be performed with prayers only. But this is not observed today.

ZONAR. The twenty-ninth canon of the council in Trullo makes mention of this canon, and it overturns the rule that on the day on which the Lord’s Supper is performed, those who perform the holy things may not be fasting. One must therefore read what is written there. As for the parts of the present canon which follow, regarding those who die in the evening, they seem to pertain to those who are deceased and to their commemorations—that is, when they were laid out so that the funeral chants might be performed over them, as is customary, and so that the ^D oblation...

Many have contrived things against me, and they say that I gave communion to some after they had eaten. And if I indeed did this, may my name be erased from the book of bishops and not be written in the book of the orthodox faith; for look, if I have done such a thing, may Christ cast me out of His kingdom. But if they say this to me once and contend about it, let them depose Paul, who, after finishing supper, baptized the whole household. Let them depose Christ Himself, who, after supper, gave the communion to the apostles. Note that it says something unusual: "on the day on which the Lord’s Supper is performed; and if anyone dies in the evening." The constitution [of the service] through prayers to God and the, as it were, commendation of the deceased—or, as they said, the carrying out—that is, the funeral procession.

^A nor was there any priestly ministration. If, therefore, it is toward evening, the canon says, that someone dies, and those performing these rites are not fasting, let them be performed by prayers alone. Some, however, say that the “setting forth” [parathesis] made through prayers to God is the constitution and reconciliation of the deceased.

ARIST. “The Holy Things may not be offered except by those who are fasting.” For although the Lord taught the disciples the Passover after supper, nevertheless, according to the voice of the theologians, it is not for us to treat the examples that are above us as models to be followed; but rather, we must follow the custom of the Church, and perform the offering of the Holy Things at the altar while the priests are fasting, and let those who partake of them be likewise fasting.

CANON XLV.

BALS. Regarding those things contained in the present canon, there is a fuller treatment in canon 74 of the Sixth Synod; read what is written in that one.

ZONAR. One must read the 74th canon ^B of the Synod in Trullo, which forbids agapæ to be held in churches, and all that we have written upon it. Thus, this canon also forbids banquets to be held in the church, or rather, it forbids anyone from taking food inside the church at all—unless, it says, someone is in a foreign land and, having nowhere to lodge, enters the church out of necessity.

ARIST. “A cleric may not banquet in a church, unless perhaps he lodges there due to the necessity of hospitality. And let the laity also be prevented from this.” One must not profane sacred houses, nor hold them in contempt, nor eat or spread couches in them, as was also written in the twenty-eighth canon of the Synod of Laodicea; unless perhaps someone, while traveling, might do this out of necessity, having nowhere else to lodge.

CANON XLVI.

BALS. The final canon of the Sixth Synod gives bishops the authority to increase or decrease penances, consequently to the present canon, which is older. It adds, however, that presbyters ought not to hear the confessions of men and remit sins contrary to the judgment of the bishops, unless perhaps someone is dying

^A in the absence of the bishop. For at that time, a presbyter shall reconcile the one who is in penance, or rather, shall remit the penalty, because of the necessity of the case, so that the dying man may not depart this life burdened by a penalty. And he says that these things are done for those who confess of their own free will; but as for those who do not come to the church of their own accord, but on account of a public crime—that is, one that is bruited about, or manifest, and capable of disturbing the church by reason of the enormity of the offense—we ought to receive them outside the apse, that is, outside the church, and there give them the hand of penance; and not in accordance with episcopal judgment, lest we scandalize many, by neglecting the canonical precept in such manifest crimes and imposing milder penalties. Note, therefore, what is contained in the present canon concerning murderers who come to the Great Church and seek that their canonical penalties be mitigated. Read also the seventh canon of the present synod. ^B

ZONARAS. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to his apostles; and the high priests fulfill the type of the holy apostles. Therefore, this canon also assigned to the judgment of the bishops the right to decide, that is, to define, to determine, and to pronounce sentences concerning penances according to the diversity of sins—at the time, that is, for as long a duration as the sinner is required to spend in the bond of penance, and when it is necessary to release him. Concerning this, one should also read the last canon of the sixth synod, and what is written there. But it is not permitted for a presbyter to reconcile [anyone] against the mind of the bishop. For to whom is given the power of binding, to him also is permitted the power of reconciling. To reconcile is to absolve the one under penalty, either entirely or for a time, due to some danger—unless, he says, the bishop is away and the one in penance is in danger of death. One must also read the seventh canon of this synod and what is written there. Those who confess their own secret transgressions are properly considered to be doing penance. But those who come ^C to the Church on account of sins known to the public (for "public" [literally "common"] is said of what is made known and is manifest; for the word being a Latinism denotes "publicly known") and bruited about—that is, talked of, rumored—do not even seem to be confessing. Wherefore the canon orders that hands be laid upon such persons even outside the church, and that they be made to do penance, just as they are to stand outside the sacred walls and mourn. For "before the apse" means "before the porch." And the phrase "moving the whole Church" signifies the enormity of the transgression and its manifest nature. For he says the sin is such that it has moved the whole Church, either by inciting it to zeal for correcting the wickedness, or by the frequent mention of it. ^D

ARISTENUS. The bishop shall determine the time of penance for those doing penance according to their sins; a presbyter

^A without his consent, unless driven by necessity, shall not reconcile one doing penance.

Those who have received from God the power to bind and to loose shall decree the punishments according to the quality of the sins and the conversion of the transgressor. A presbyter, however, without the consent of the bishop, can neither increase nor diminish them, nor receive those doing penance into grace and deem them worthy of the divine sacraments, even if the bishop has traveled abroad.

CANON XLVII

Concerning virgins

BALS. The one hundred and twenty-third Novella of Justinian, or chapter 4 of the first title of the fourth book, says these things clearly: "In all monasteries, which are called cenobia, we command that, according to the monastic canons, all live in one house and be fed in common, in the same manner, and that all sleep separately in one house, so that they may bear witness to one another of a temperate and modest way of life; these things are to be observed also in the monasteries and asceteria of women." ^C But the present canon decrees that virgins dedicated to God, being separated from their own parents, should not live by themselves; but since they were guarded by their parents, and after their dedication in the Church that custody and observation by the parents ceased, the bishops, or in their absence the presbyters, ought to entrust them to venerable women, so that they may be guarded by them through a common life together. Or if not this, that all these sacred virgins should dwell together, so that by living together they may guard one another, and not by wandering - that is, by spending their time here and there - pollute the ecclesiastical decorum by giving bad reports against themselves. And these are the laws and the canons. But today, of these things, little or almost nothing is done. For neither do the monks of the monasteries of men live together, nor do the ascetriae; only in the monasteries that are women's cenobia is this common mode of living and dwelling maintained. Among the Latins, however, down to the present day, this mode of life is preserved. For all the monks eat and sleep together. Read also the sixth canon of ^D the present synod, and what is in it (for it is treated there more broadly how virgins are consecrated, even without the monastic habit), and the eighteenth canon of St. Basil.

ZONAR. In the sixth canon of the present synod, the matter of the consecration of maidens was dealt with. Those, therefore, whom it called consecrated maidens there, it has named sacred virgins in this place. For it is customary to use the name of "maidens" for virgins.

^A Since they dedicate themselves to God and profess continence, the bishop used to receive them. The canon says, therefore, that the bishop must provide for them, or if he is absent, the presbyters; and because they are separated from their parents, by whose eyes they were guarded, the canon orders that they be commended and entrusted to honorable women, so that by living with them they may be trained in virtue, or that all these sacred virgins might live together, so that by living together they might see one another and protect one another, and not by wandering, that is, by going here and there and straying about, they might harm the reputation of the Church, or put it another way, they might not provide occasion for some to form evil opinions regarding the Church. The Church is the assembly of the faithful.

ARIST. ^B "She who on account of virginity has withdrawn from her father is commended to the most venerable women." The bishop must take thought for the sacred virgins; and if they are separated from their own fathers, by whom they were guarded, let them be entrusted to the most venerable women for supervision, so that they may live together.

CANON XLVIII. "Concerning those who are infirm and cannot answer for themselves. That those who are infirm, who cannot answer for themselves, should then be baptized, when by their own will they have testified concerning themselves at their own peril."

BALS. ^C Some sought that certain infidels be baptized at their last breath; and they were not heard, because infirm persons cannot by themselves profess the covenants of holy baptism. The Fathers say, therefore, that if those who are infirm show a disposition to wish to be baptized, and say that they seek baptism at their own peril, they shall be baptized without impediment, making the promises of the covenants through others. And this indeed is the case when, perhaps, at the moment of death, such intent of theirs becomes manifest. But if at that time they cannot say anything of the sort, due to the necessity of the illness, but some testify that before the delirium, perhaps, or some other dangerous illness, they were from their whole heart willing to be baptized, I ask, will they be baptized or not? ^D Solution. It seems to me that they will be baptized without impediment, on account of their good intention in health. Since these things are thus, do not say that because the present canon establishes that those who show good intent before the illness, or during the illness itself, are to be baptized, that those also will necessarily obtain the tonsure who, before the time of death and their last breath, show a will to be tonsured. For these will indiscriminately obtain the final viaticum of the angelic habit, if they have some awareness of what is being done. For with the Orthodox, since they hope for the coming judgment of God, repentance dwells, and every Christian by his purpose desires that his sins be remitted to him through the tonsure. But for infidels, the [gift] of baptism does not necessarily follow...

rather, we say they have [only] a preconception of [obtaining] forgiveness by dying in their own religion, and also a mockery of holy baptism. If, therefore, it is not shown that they desired to be baptized while in health, or even while they were ailing, they shall not be deemed worthy of baptism when they are at the point of death.

ZONAR. Those who are so badly affected by sickness or some other crisis that they cannot converse, nor answer when asked whether they wish to be baptized, or are perhaps so impaired in their mind that they do not even understand what they are asked, are then to be baptized, when they show a purpose as to whether they wish to be baptized; and let them declare that they seek baptism at their own peril, so that if they do not guard the faith, they themselves are in peril. But if it is witnessed that the person sought baptism even before his illness, but it was postponed for certain reasons, then, even though he cannot answer, it is decided that he should be baptized.

ARIST. ^B « Let him who cannot answer for himself on account of infirmity be baptized when he has given testimony by his own intent. » He who is baptized must perceive the grace, understand the questions mystically put to him, and answer them. If, however, someone desires a person who cannot answer, being infirm, to be baptized, then let him be baptized when he who desires this has witnessed at his own peril that he knows exactly the will of the infirm person, that he has baptism in his desires, and remains desiring it.

CANON XLIX

BALS. Stage-players and mimes are not the *thymelici* (those who sing epithalamic songs with musical instruments), for these are of unblemished reputation; but [they are] the comedians and buffoons who imitate servants, soldiers, women, and various other persons, and are slapped in the face. As this is shown from the first and fourth chapters, title 2, book XXI of the *Basilica*. The Fathers therefore say that all those who sin in such a way, and live their lives recklessly and without distinction—and indeed, even apostates, that is, those who have abjured ^C Christianity—when they turn to God, that is, perform penance, are not to be sent away; but grace, that is, the remission of sins, and reconciliation, that is, the release from penances, is to be given to them.

ZONAR. "Scene" is called an imitation. Those, therefore, who sometimes imitate leaders, sometimes servants, and sometimes other types of persons, are called stage-players. Of this number, those who practiced their art before emperors, the civil laws held in honor; but those who practiced stage-playing in public assemblies and before the common people,

^A by imitating laughter at the spectators, and by beating one another with blows and tumultuous noises, they branded with infamy. This canon, however, affirms that all such persons without distinction are in need of penance, since they live their own lives negligently and provide others with a cause for living a dissolute and unrestrained life. To these, therefore, and to the rest of the like kind, such as jugglers and dancers, and indeed also to apostates—that is, those who have renounced the Christian religion—if they perform penance, it declares that grace and reconciliation should by no means be denied. By "grace" he means the remission of sins, as given to us by God through grace, just as the blessed Paul also says, "By grace you have been saved"; and by "reconciliation" he means the release from penalties. For the offender is released from the bond when he who bound him perceives that, now that God has been reconciled to him through the penalties undergone, ^B he is, in a way, appeased.

ARIST. ‹ And a stage-player, if he converts to penance, is to be received. › Everyone who sins and repents is to be received into penance, even if he is a stage-player, even if he is a mime, even if he has pursued any other manner of life.

CANON L. ‹ Concerning the passions of the martyrs. Let it also be permitted to read the passions of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. ›

BALS. Although in the 24th canon of the present synod the Fathers defined the books which ought to be read; yet ^C they now add that the commemorations of the passions of the martyrs are also to be read on their annual memorials.

ZONAR. In the 24th canon this synod enumerated which books of the Old and New Testament are to be read in the church, and forbade the use of all others from being read; but now it adds to those that are to be read the accounts of the martyrs' sufferings, which ought to be read on the days on which their memorial is celebrated during the course of the year.

ARIST. ‹ Let the passions of the martyrs be read at their commemorations. › Clear.

CANON LI. ‹ Concerning the Donatists and the children who are baptized by the Donatists. It pleased that we should interrogate our brethren and fellow-ministers, Siricius and Simplicianus, ^D regarding only the infants who are baptized by the Donatists, lest this, which they did not do by their own will, the error of their parents should hinder them, so that they might not be promoted to the ministry of the holy altar, when they have returned to the Church of God with a salutary purpose. These things having been begun, Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops of Mauritania Sitifensis, said: Long ago, when to your holiness

^A we were sent, we deferred the things written, with this consideration: that we were expecting our brothers, delegated representatives from Numidia, to arrive. But since not a few days have passed since those who were expected have by no means arrived, it is not fitting further to overlook the things commanded to us by our fellow bishops; and for this reason, brothers, receive our report with a ready mind. For we have heard regarding the faith in the Nicene tract: It is true concerning the holy things that take place after the midday meal, that they should be offered by those who are fasting, as is proper, and then it is confirmed.

BALS. Those who come over to the orthodox faith from heresy are in some cases baptized, and in others anointed only with the holy chrism, after they have anathematized their heresies. It is, therefore, likely that certain persons who had been baptized in infancy by the Donatists, by the will of their parents, who were themselves Donatists, were wishing to be promoted to sacred orders after they had been received. Because, however, they were not easily admitted to this, an interrogation was made as to what ought to be done regarding them. And this canon indeed answers nothing regarding that which was asked. For it says nothing about whether they ought to be anointed with chrism or baptized, nor does it define that they are not prevented from being advanced to an ecclesiastical grade, just as it does not say the opposite. But you, read the 7th canon of the 2nd synod, ^C and what is in it, and you will learn what must be done regarding these matters. When these things were thus spoken, the bishops of Mauritania said that, although until now they had deferred asking what they had been ordered to ask, because they hoped that delegates from Numidia would come, yet because much time has passed and those who were expected have not arrived, it is not right to delay the inquiry any longer. Wherefore they said that it is not right for the holy things to be offered by priests after they have tasted food, but by those who are fasting; because, they say, this was also confirmed by the Fathers at Nicaea in the tractate concerning the faith, or in the investigation of the faith (for "tractatus" among the Latins is an "inquisitio"). But in the canons of the first synod of Nicaea, nothing of such a matter is found. ^D

ZONAR. Those who come to the orthodox faith, having abjured heresy, are in part required to submit "libelli," that is, documents published publicly, condemning their heresies (for "libellus" in Latin is an "editio"), and when they have detested them, they are anointed with the holy unguent; others are washed in the font of holy baptism, just as the 7th canon of the second ecumenical synod decrees regarding these matters. The Fathers of this synod, therefore, hesitating, as it seems, regarding the children of the Donatists approaching the Church of God, whether it is right for them to be baptized or only anointed with holy chrism, decided to ask the opinion of their fellow bishops, so that, they say, what was done not by their own will, but

^A from the error of their parents—that is, their being baptized by Donatists—may not be an impediment to them when they return to the orthodox faith, in regard to advancing to the service of the altar, that is, to being promoted to priestly orders. From Numidia, the Fathers of this synod had hoped that the vicars of the bishops would come, and for this reason they had postponed the questions for the sake of which they had assembled. But when, after a long interval of time, none appeared from there, the aforementioned bishops declared that enough had already been expected; and they set forth the matter concerning the holy gifts not being offered after a meal—that is, that the oblation should not be performed by priests who had eaten food, but by those who were fasting. They recall that they heard that this was confirmed also in the Nicene synod, in the tractate concerning the faith. The term *tractatus* is a Latin word, and when translated into Greek it signifies a scope or counsel. Yet in the canons of the first Nicene synod, nothing is found regarding this subject. ^B

ARIST. For those who in childhood have been baptized by Donatists, when they repent, this shall be no impediment; and the holy things, as is fitting, shall be offered only by those who are fasting.

The Donatists are those who took their origin from a certain Donatus in Africa. For he had handed down to them that they should hold some bone in their hand when they were about to participate in the sacraments, and first kiss it, and then be participants in them. Those, therefore, who were baptized by them in childhood, and who return, and who anathematize their heresy, shall not be hindered by the error of their parents from advancing to the priestly ministry. Moreover, that the holy gifts are not to be offered after a meal, but are to be celebrated by fasting priests, was also written in the forty-first canon. ^C

CANON LII.

Regarding rebaptisms and reordinations or the transfer of bishops. We also refer to that which was ordered to us, which was also decreed in the synod at Capua, that it is not permitted for rebaptisms or reordinations of bishops to occur. Cresconius, therefore, bishop of the region of Recensa, having neglected his own people, has invaded the church of Becene; and even to this day, though often admonished to leave that church which he has invaded in accordance with what was determined, he has not wished to do so. Regarding this matter, we have heard what was previously reported, and we request, in accordance with what was ordered to us, that you deign to give us permission, so that it may be lawful—because necessity so urges—to approach the president of the region against him, in accordance with the constitutions of the most glorious emperors, so that he who has not wished to obey the benign admonition of your holiness, and to correct what is not to be allowed, may be immediately prohibited by the authority of the secular magistrate. Aurelius the bishop said: Provided the form of the constitution is preserved, let it not be judged to be [by authority of] the synod, if, having been earnestly asked by your love to depart, he refused; since from his own consent ^D

and perversity he has been reduced to the power of the secular magistrate. Honoratus and Urbanus the bishops said: "Does this therefore please everyone?" It was said by all the bishops: "It is just, it pleases."

BALS. The Fathers say that a synod was held at Capua, and that it was decreed therein that those who had been baptized by the orthodox should not be rebaptized, nor those ordained by orthodox bishops be reordained. And consequently, in accordance with the things constituted in that synod, which is indeed unknown to me (for it is not numbered with the local synods), the same legates of Mauritania Sitifensis said that, because these things are prohibited, those transitions which occur from one church to another by bishops ^B must also be corrected, for the reason that this is considered to be like rebaptism or reordination. And they immediately proposed the fact that Cresconius the bishop despised his own people and invaded another church. And on that account, having been frequently admonished that he should abandon the foreign church which he had invaded contrary to the canons, and that he should retain his own, he was not persuaded to do this. Because, therefore, this is firm and true, they requested, according to the mandate given to them, that the power be granted to their synod of approaching the regional president, and by him Cresconius might be forced to depart from the church which does not pertain to him; because also the constitutions or laws of the emperors decree this. Aurelius, however, said to these things: "If the form of the ecclesiastical constitution is preserved, let Cresconius not be judged to be [by authority of] the synod, but let him be handed over as a layman to the secular power: nor is there any reason for him to complain that this is being done to him. For he himself, through his own perversity and contempt of the synodal precepts, has handed himself over to the secular power." And in these things indeed the canon consists. ^C But the form of constitution which Aurelius said must be preserved is that he who has uncanonically seized a foreign church should be admonished according to the canons, and after the denunciations or edicts, either by one party or both being present, he should be deposed on account of disobedience. For it is not lawful for consecrated men to be handed over to the secular magistrate to be punished, unless they have first been deposed. But that those who are consecrated are handed over to secular magistrates after deposition happens not only when the synod cannot easily execute its own sentence, but also when the sin is great. And it is fitting that along with the ecclesiastical punishment, the animadversion of the secular magistrate should also follow. For perhaps some consecrated person might be found to have plotted against the emperor and has been deposed: such a one, after deposition, shall be handed over to the secular power, so that after an interrogation has been held, he may name his accomplices. These things are done thus, according to canon 36 and 37, title 1, book 3 of the *Basilika*, which are part of the 123rd ^D Justinian Novel, and treat of presbyters and deacons who, in a criminal case, give false testimony, not only being deposed but also being subjected to legitimate penalties; and clerics who are condemned for a criminal cause may be removed from their rank by the bishop; but by the secular magistrate they may be legally...

punished. Understand this to hold where it has been explained. For he who extends this law even to bishops who are perhaps condemned for a criminal cause, and wishes them also to be handed over to the magistrate after deposition, would be foolish and blasphemous. Therefore, that which is decreed by the canon concerning the bishop you ought to understand as meaning that the bishop is compelled to follow those things alone which are enjoined upon him by a synodical decision. Regarding rebaptism and reordination, read the 47th and 68th Apostolic canons. ^B ZONAR. That no one is to be rebaptized, unless he has been previously baptized by the impious, is ordained in the 47th canon of the holy Apostles; and in canon 68, it is decreed that no one is to receive a second ordination to the same ranks. Following these canons, therefore, these Fathers commanded the same things, namely, that no one who was rightly baptized from the beginning should be rebaptized. But if anyone was baptized by heretics with an absurd and strange kind of baptism, he ought to be baptized. For this is not a rebaptism, because that which was not even a baptism is reckoned as a pollution, not a baptism. Furthermore, there are to be no reordinations, nor translations of bishops, so that one might abandon his own bishopric and pass over to another. And immediately they also put forward this case, saying that such a one despised his own people and occupied other churches, and was often reminded about this, but could not be persuaded to depart from the church he had occupied against the canons. And so, they say, because of that man's obstinacy, it is necessary to approach the magistrate of the region, so that he who could not be persuaded by mild admonition might be driven out by magisterial authority from the see he had occupied. To this Aurelius said: ^C Provided the form of the statute is kept, let him be judged as having been removed by the synod. For it is not permitted for those ordained to the sacred mysteries to be handed over to a magistrate for punishment, unless they have first been deposed. For if anyone who is sacred is worthy of punishment on account of a nefarious crime committed, he is first stripped of his sacred dignity, and then the magistrate takes punishment from him. Therefore, what he says, "the form of the statute having been kept," is to be understood thus: namely, if the formula of the statute has been followed, if, that is, he has been admonished according to the prescription of the canons and has not obeyed, so that he is no longer considered to belong to the synod—that is, so that he is no longer held in the number of bishops, but as one cast out and erased from the catalogue of the sacred order—he may be handed over to the power of the secular magistrate. ^D This delivery to the magistrate comes to him from his own stubbornness, that is, from his self-will and disobedience, on account of which he despised the leniency of the bishops. ARIST. Rebaptisms, and reordinations, and translations of bishops do not occur. Cresconius, therefore, who abandoned his own people and invaded the church of Ceneae, since he [index: entries preserved]

^A was ecclesiastically admonished [and] did not change his mind, let him be prohibited by judicial authority.

He who is baptized or ordained by the orthodox does not receive a second baptism or a second ordination. Furthermore, the present canon, as well as many others from various synods, prohibits a bishop from being transferred from one city to another. Thus, this Bishop Cresconius, having abandoned his own church or parish and having invaded the church of Ceneae, and having been frequently admonished in a brotherly manner by his fellow bishops and colleagues to abandon that church, and not being persuaded, caused them—even against their will—to approach the civil magistrate of the region, and by him he was expelled by judicial authority.

CANON LIII.

^B “How many bishops must ordain a bishop. Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops, said: This also has been commanded to us. Since two of our brother bishops from Numidia dared to ordain a priest, do you decide that ordination should not take place except by twelve? Aurelius the bishop said: The ancient form shall be kept, so that no fewer than three bishops, as established, shall suffice for the ordination of a bishop; this is because in Tripoli, perhaps, and in Arzuë, there happen to be barbarian nations nearby. In Tripoli, however, there are five, and they are the only bishops, as you know; and it is possible that often from that number two may be detained by some necessity. For it is difficult that from any number all can be present; and this ought not to be an impediment to the utility of the Church. For even in this church, to which your holiness has deigned to come, we have those who are ordained quite frequently, and almost every Lord’s day. Can I, therefore, frequently summon twelve or ten, or not many fewer bishops? But to join two neighbors is easy for my insignificance. Wherefore your charity sees with me that this cannot be kept.”

BALS. Two bishops ordained a bishop in Numidia. For here we must understand "priest" as "bishop." Since a priest is ordained by even one single bishop, as the 2nd Canon of the Holy Apostles wills. Honoratus and Urbanus the bishops, therefore, asked, just as they had been commanded, that a bishop no longer be ordained by two bishops, but by twelve; and Aurelius replied that the ancient form or canon ought to be kept, and that three bishops suffice for the ordination of a bishop, because it is often difficult for many to assemble; and in order that this might not be an impediment to the utility of the Church, that is, to the ordination of bishops, ^D a bishop ought to be ordained by three bishops only, namely, by a metropolitan and two others. For thus the ordination of bishops will be easy. Note, therefore, from the present canon, that a bishop is not necessarily ordained by three provincial bishops; but by

^A a metropolitan and two others, even if they are not provincial bishops themselves. But that metropolitan of Ephesus, the Lord Christophorus, who ordained Iscalon bishop in this queen of cities, without the presence of any of his provincial bishops, was accused unreasonably, as it seems to me. For some said that it behoved the metropolitan, together with at least two provincial bishops, to perform the ordinations of bishops, just as also the elections.

ZONAR. They say that two bishops created a priest; but by the name of "priest" here he means a bishop; for one bishop also creates a presbyter, according to the second canon of the Holy Apostles. And they demand that it be decreed that a bishop be ordained by twelve. But Aurelius replied that the ancient form must be observed—meaning by "form" the canon—and declared that three bishops suffice for the ordination of a bishop. ^B He added also reasons, saying of Arzuah, that barbarian nations lie adjacent, so that for this reason it is difficult for the bishops to assemble; and in Tripoli there are only five bishops (he means Tripoli which is in Africa), and it happens that some of the five are hindered by some necessity from assembling. This, therefore, he says, ought not to be an obstacle to the utility of the Church—that is, to the ordination of bishops. For the ordination of bishops is useful to the Church, that is, to the faithful; that is to say, it is a necessary requirement. This, therefore, regarding many [bishops] being required for the ordination of a bishop, you yourselves, he says, easily see cannot be observed.

ARIST. ^C « Let not fewer than three bishops suffice for the ordination of a bishop. » All the bishops of the province, if possible, ought to assemble with the judgment of the metropolitan and vote for the bishops; but if it is not possible for all to assemble on account of some necessity, at least three must be present, with those who are absent also giving their consent through letters.

CANON LIV

^A BALS. And again Aurelius said: If we should gather for the election of bishops, and perhaps someone should arise saying that he who has been voted for ought not to be ordained because of certain charges (for this has often been discussed or has occurred), it is a bold undertaking for three bishops—those, that is, who elected him according to the canons—to examine what is said and to pronounce him who is to be ordained pure from the charges, or on the contrary to condemn him. But it is necessary to summon one or two other bishops, and in the presence of the people among whom the one voted for is to be ordained, to examine first the persons of those who object, whether they are able to accuse (for not all are admitted to accusation, but those whom the sixth canon of the second synod comprises, and the 128th, the 129th, and the 130th canon of the present synod). And when it seems that they are to be admitted to accuse, then let the charges proposed also be joined—that is, brought into the examination—and when he is seen to be pure in the sight of the people, that is, in a public examination, then he ought to be ordained. Those others said: These things please ^B us greatly. And the canon stands in these terms; but you, say that the objection here takes place against the one voted for, not being a priest, but a deacon or layman. For five bishops do not judge a priest, but seven. And if you say this, you will not contradict the twelfth canon of the present synod. Read the first chapter of title 9 of the present work, and the eighth chapter of title 1, as well as the eighth chapter of title 1, book three of the Basilics, which is the 137th Novel of Justinian, and say rather that the examinations of those who object to the ordination of bishops, presbyters, deacons, clerics, and hegumens should take place according to this. But what if someone does not oppose one who is to be ordained, but brings charges against someone who perhaps was unjustly deposed and seeks ^C restoration, will the same thing happen? Solution. When Nicolaus Musalon, who was called the bishop of Amyclae, had resigned his archbishopric through the force of a magistrate, and was seeking restoration from the great synod, some were present who said that he ought not to be restored, also bringing forward criminal charges against him, which it was said were committed by him both before and after the resignation, and which prevented him from being a prelate. Therefore, there was much debate about this. For some asserted that the restoration ought not to take place before the charges brought forward had been examined, using this present canon, and furthermore the 8th chapter of title 1, book three of the Basilics, and comparing the restoration to the archiepiscopate with an ordination occurring now for the first time. ^D But others contended that these things do not have place in a restoration, and they wanted the restoration to happen first, and then for the charges to be inquired into; for they said that this also happens in civil controversies; for the restitution of things which have been taken away is in no way or manner hindered, just as this also pleases the laws. But others asserted that indeed those things which are said to have happened after the resignation impede...

the restoration, but those before the resignation do not. ^A It pleased the synod, however, that all the crimes which were objected should first be examined, and thus, if it were necessary, that the restoration should take place. For it said that there is a great difference between civil and criminal matters. For those things, that is, civil cases, being often transferred from one to another, do not create a prejudice, nor do they harm things that pertain to God. But if he who seeks restoration is restored unworthily, before obviously the crimes brought against him have been examined, a great prejudice will arise for those who have conceded it after the examination of the truth, as having carelessly admitted an unworthy man to the celebration of the holy rites, when they could have found the truth before the restoration and done nothing of the kind. ^B And for the confirmation of this they used the fourth canon of the Council of Antioch, and indeed also the ninth, tenth, and eleventh acts of the fourth council. For in these, while Ibas, who was bishop of Edessa, was seeking restoration, as one who had been deposed by only one party; and indeed also Bassianus, who was bishop of Ephesus and had been expelled by force by his clerics, and was seeking restoration in the same way; it was found that those who had given libels of criminal charges against them were admitted, which charges were said to have occurred before they were moved, and after these things; and they who asked to be restored first and so to contend in judgment were not heard, but the criminations were examined first, and afterwards those things which pertained to the restoration.

^C ZONARAS. It had already been forbidden for the urban multitudes to choose for themselves whatever bishops they wished. But again, in the course of time, that multitude, flocking to those with whom the power of choosing lay, would demand certain men by name, as is easy to understand from the fifty-first canon of this present synod. These men indeed, once their manner of life had been examined, if they were judged worthy, were proclaimed bishops. Furthermore, there exist decrees of very many canons concerning the election of a bishop by three bishops. If, therefore, says Aurelius, we have come together for the election of a bishop, and if some perhaps oppose—not indeed those bishops [who have gathered for the election], but others—bringing some accusation against him, it would be a bold act for those three bishops, namely those who have been gathered for the election, to examine according to the canons the things said against the man being elected, and to “purify” the accused—that is, to declare him clear of the crimes brought against him. ^D Nay, one or two other bishops must be called in, and in the presence of the people over whom he is to be placed, they must first examine the persons of the accusers, whether it is permitted for them to accuse. For not all who wish to report the names of priests are heard, but only those who are contained in the sixth canon of the second synod, and in the 128th, 129th, and 130th canons of this present synod. And when they appear to be acceptable for accusation, then let the crimes proposed be joined to the case, that is, let all be subjected to investigation at the same time; and when he appears clear in public view, that is, in an open examination, then let him be ordained. The bishops said: It pleases us greatly.

^A ARIST. If a bishop be elected by three bishops, and a controversy should arise concerning him, let two others be added; and thus let the matters pertaining to him be examined by them; and if he is found clear, let him be ordained.

CANON LV.

That the day of Pascha be announced by the Church of Carthage.

Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops, said: Since it is necessary to join all things that are in our commonitorium, we add furthermore what has been commanded to us concerning the day of Pascha, that, as is the custom, we may always be prepared by the Church of Carthage, and not within a narrow interval of time. Bishop Aurelius said: If it pleases your holiness, since we remember that we have long since promised to assemble every year for the purpose of inquiry; when we shall have come together in one, then the day of the holy Pascha shall be announced through the legates who shall be found in the synod. Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops, said: Now, by the present assembly, we ask that you deign to inform our provinces by letter. Bishop Aurelius said: It is necessary that this be done.

BALS. When Honoratus and Urbanus had asked that the day of Pascha be made known to them from the Church of Carthage, so that, information having been given a long time before, they might be prepared for it; Aurelius replied that because it has been established that a synod be held every year, this also shall be done. ^C Likewise, when the same persons had asked that their provinces also be informed, it was decreed that this too should be done.

ZONAR. They had many things in their mandates about which they had been ordered to speak in the synod. Since, therefore, they say, all things must be conjoined, that is, annexed to the preceding matters which have been written down and delivered to us in the Commonitorium, we add this also to our record concerning the day of Pascha, namely, that it be declared to us by the Church of Carthage, so that we may be prepared to celebrate it long beforehand, and that it may not be indicated to us only when we have been led into the straits of time. To which Aurelius replied: Since, he said, it has been established that a synod be held every year, the day of Pascha shall be announced at the time of the synod. But what the said bishops were requesting was that at that time the day of Pascha should be determined in the assembly of their own province. But whether that was done or not, this canon does not explain.

^D ARIST. In the anniversary synod, the day of the Paschal celebration is to be announced by the Church of Carthage.

That the day of Pascha is to be signified in the synod held annually in the Church of Carthage was also decreed in this canon.

CANON LV.

CANON LVI. Of the visitation of the provinces.

BALS. The same bishops requested that Mauretania also be visited, as this had not been done for two years prior. To this Aurelius replied that this had not been done because Mauretania is situated on the borders of Africa near the barbarians; but if God grants it, this will happen out of abundance, or even more than is promised. For if this could be done, the Tripolitani and Arzuiani would necessarily have requested it as well.

ZONAR. Other things were committed to writing for these bishops who made the request; but this was done without writing, namely, that the state of each province should be inspected by individual years at the time of the synod—that is, that they should go and, upon controversies arising in each, discuss them and settle these matters; and that for two years they had not visited Mauretania. To this Aurelius ^C replied: "That Mauretania is situated on the borders of Africa and is adjacent to the barbarian lands, for which reason nothing was determined concerning it. But may God grant, out of abundance—that is, out of what is greater—that we may be able to do this (he calls 'more' the doing of even those things which no one has promised, and coming to your region). Consider, he says, that if anyone thought this possible, that there is the opportunity to move freely into Mauretania, which lies near the barbarians, then the Tripolitan and Arzuian ^D brethren could also demand this of us."

ARIST. "As also the Synod of Hippo decreed, that each province be visited in the annually celebrated synod." In the synod to be held annually at Carthage, the Fathers, following the things determined in the Synod of Hippo, decreed that they should both observe and visit those things which have been done in the churches of each province; and if anything has been done not rightly, to correct it, and to resolve and bring to clarity those proposed canonical questions which are not being solved, but perhaps are being passed over because of their difficulty, or remain in doubt.

CANON LVII.

that it is fitting that your consistent following should be confirmed by the reply of all. All the bishops said: It pleases us, it pleases us. ^B

BALS. and ZONAR. The sixth canon of the Council of Sardica also decrees that a bishop should not be appointed in a small city or in a village. This canon also says that in parishes which are held by bishops, a bishop should not be appointed unless it be by the will of the bishop to whom the parish belonged from the beginning. He calls the bishops "directors" (ithyntas), as those who direct the people and lead them toward the straight path of the faith and of virtue. They say this because some, having obtained a tyranny, that is, a certain power, turn away from the communion of the brethren—that is to say, of the bishops—and when they have become base and abject, or have been reprobated, and their wickedness has become manifest, then they lay claim to dominion for themselves as if they had some right from ancient custom. He called the power "tyranny" on account of its violence. Many presbyters also, incited by empty glory and puffed up by folly, are incited and rise up against their own bishops, stirring up—or rather, instigating—the masses with banquets and wicked counsels, in order to constitute these men as directors, that is, as bishops for themselves, as if they were doing this out of a benevolence toward them, which is an inordinate benevolence. For it is done neither in an orderly nor a canonical manner. ^C And this, he says, we maintain "insigniter," that is, we hold it in our mind in a clear and manifest way as something to be wished for, or worthy of opinion, that it should be done in this way. Of what sort is this? That you have often forbidden such petitions, not admitting them. But on account of the wickedness and evil counsels and agreements of some, let it be confirmed that those who are in a parish subject to an ancient bishop, and which has never had its own bishop, must not accept an individual director, that is, a bishop. When Epigonius had said the things previously mentioned, Aurelius replied: This, that is to say, what has been introduced, I have both done and profess that I do. For there are many who agree with their own peoples, by whom, of course, they are incited; but their consent is a fraud. Tickling their ears and flattering ^D them, that is, soothing and delighting their ears with deceptive words (this, moreover, is taken by a metaphor from animals; for animals are delighted and grow tame and become tractable when rubbed and tickled by the hands of men), drawing to themselves, through flattery, men of condemned life, or rather, being puffed up, and separating themselves from this fellowship of the clergy or of the bishops—men who, trusting in their own people and relying upon and confirmed by that within which they were constituted bishops, refuse to come to the synod, although often called. And why do they refuse to come? Because they fear

^A lest their transgressions be exposed. We ought therefore, it says, if it seems good to all, to strive in every way not only not to keep what has been so poorly administered, but also to endeavor that it should no longer happen in the future, and further, that those churches which have fallen under their control in such a wicked manner be taken away from them, and that they be openly cast out with authority, and driven away through the see of the primates—that is to say, of the patriarchs and metropolitans. By the "see of the primates" he signifies episcopal power. For it is right, he says, that those who adhere to their brothers—who, that is to say, consent to the entire synod—should not only hold their own sees but also possess such dioceses; but those who neglect concord and brotherly love, as if they think it enough to be content with their own crowds, by whom they were chosen for the episcopate, should not only lose the dioceses in which they have been bishops, but should even be deprived of their own places, if they have any of their own there, being driven out by secular power as rebels, or as those who raise their hands against and oppose ^B both the canons and the bishops. To this, some said that "providence" had settled in everyone’s minds, meaning that it "pleased" or was "acquiesced in"; for to sit produces quiet. The synod, however, said: "It pleases."

ARIST.

Whoever turns away from a summons made by the synod, and trusting in his own multitude, despises brotherly friendship: he shall be deprived even of his own [see] through imperial authority.

Whoever craves what belongs to others shall be subjected to the loss of those things that pertain to himself. If, therefore, any of the bishops or presbyters draw to themselves the people of some diocese, and by deceit and adulation persuade them that they are their teachers and directors—that is, bishops—and to secede from the bishop to whom that diocese was formerly subject; and if, when called to the synod to render an account of those matters for which they are accused on this account, they refuse to appear, as those who despise brotherly friendship and trust in the multitude, they shall be deprived even of their own churches through imperial ^C authority.

CANON LVIII. That alien clergy are by no means to be received by other bishops.

Epigonius the bishop said: This has been established in many synods, and now it has been further confirmed by your wisdom, most blessed brothers, that no bishop shall claim for himself an alien cleric against the judgment of his former bishop. I report, however, that Julian acted ungratefully regarding the many benefits of God heaped upon him through my insignificance, and behaved so rashly and confidently that he—who was baptized by me from a tender age, commended to me by his own kin on account of great poverty, and nourished and raised by me for many years, who, as I said, was baptized ^D by the hand of my mediocrity in my church, and in the diocese of the Mapalitani

^A and shown to have been made a reader, and for two years read there; this man, I know not by what contempt of my mediocrity, Julian himself has snatched away, and says he is a citizen of the place called Bazaritanum, pertaining to him, and for this reason he has used him contrary to my judgment. For he has even ordained him a deacon. If this is allowed, let such a power be decreed by you, most blessed brothers. But if not, let that which is so shameless be forbidden, so that the said Julian may not share in the affairs of others. ^B Numidius the bishop said: If it appears that Julian did this without your dignity being consulted or asked, we all judge it to have been done unjustly and unworthily. Therefore, unless the same Julian corrects his own error, and with satisfaction restores to your people the same cleric whom he presumed to ordain, not doing what has been established by the synod, and being separated from us, he shall bear the mark of his own perversity. Epigonius the bishop said: He who is a father in that way, and by that very progress most ancient, the praiseworthy man, our brother and fellow-minister in sacred things, Victor, wishes this petition to be made general in all cases.

BALSAMON. Commentaries.

which decree that bishops should not receive the clerics of other dioceses, are to be understood also as applying to laymen; and whether, for example, the bishop of Athyra is prohibited from ordaining a layman who is from the diocese of the bishop of Selymbria, and is subject to his canon and penalties, and is considered one of his flock. For some said that it is shown from the present canon—which mentions that Epigoniu^Bs said he received the layman at the commission of Julian, being his citizen, and ordained him as a cleric in his own diocese, and that Julian used this as a pretext, arguing that he had been legitimately ordained deacon by him because he had departed from his own region of the Bazaritani—that a bishop cannot even ordain the layman of another region without the consent of the bishop who holds jurisdiction over him. For as if the ordination performed by Epigonius of him who had been brought up by him had been prohibited, because he was of another region, Epigonius added that he had received him with the consent of Julian, concerning whom the matter was being discussed, and that for this reason he should not be considered to be of that other diocese. And they argued correctly that such a deacon had been rightfully ordained by Julian, as he was from his own diocese and was considered his citizen, and he would not have turned to Epigonius unless he had first been alienated by Julian from his own diocese, made an outsider, and sent to Epigonius. And these men, as it seems to me also, spoke correctly. But you, keep in mind the synodal declaration of the most holy patriarch, the lord Michael, the chief of philosophers, which contains these words: In the month of November, on the first day, in the fourth indiction, while our most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, the lord Michael, was presiding in the Alexian catechumena, with the most holy archbishops sitting together with his great holiness—Stephen of Caesarea, Nicholas of Ephesus, Michael of Heraclea, John of Cyzicus, Leo of Amasea, Nicetas of Melitene, Basil of Neocaesarea, Luke of Mocesus, John of Crete, Leo of Adrianople, Constantine of Euchaita, George of Alania, Theodore of Methymna, John of Bizye, and Romanus of Aprus—the God-beloved imperial magistrates also being present, it was decreed: Do not transgress the boundaries of the Fathers, which they established from the beginning beautifully and with the necessary examination; nor cross over the ditches or the rampart, which divides external from one’s own rights, as is ecclesiastically decreed and as is the divine law established many centuries ago. Therefore, it was fitting that those who preside over the churches that are situated everywhere—and who profess that they will observe the synodal decrees and the constitutions of the laws—should not be ignorant of this, and they ought to remain in them, retaining their own rights, while abstaining from those of others. But I know not by what reason some of the most holy archbishops, who have also recently obtained episcopal sees ^C near this imperial city, have been caught performing the ordinations of deacons and priests not subject to their own dioceses without any observance: who, even after being admonished concerning this by our predecessor, the most holy patriarch lord Luke, and having it in their mandates to cease acting against the canons—outside, I say, of their own region ^D

^A and to those who come to them from another region, so freely to lay on hands—they have not ceased, even to this present day, to forget the declarations made to them before. Since, therefore, it was reported to our mediocrity by our most God-beloved chartophylax that many from our region, against his will, go away to the bishops and archbishops who are in the vicinity of this great city, and are deemed worthy of the priestly office by them, and then return again to this our region, perhaps with letters of recommendation, he sought to learn from our mediocrity what he should do in these cases. For he said that he was in no small doubt, lest he himself perhaps participate in the judgments of others, by permitting those to be admitted to the sacred rites whom he himself has not examined, ^B about whom he has neither questioned witnesses standing by, as is the custom, nor has he been assured whether they have completed the appointed years, nor has he examined their life, nor has he been given proof by the written testimony of those who brought them forth in the Spirit that they are worthy of their profession; and this is especially when in some cases the appearance is manifestly contrary, so far as the completion of the years is concerned: he who ought to be thirty years old is clearly far from that age, as is shown openly by his imperfect bodily constitution and by the very sparseness of his beard; for in some, hairs do not appear at all, while in others they are short and much less than what ^C thirty-year-olds ought to have. Relating these things, and showing the doubt and perplexity that was creeping upon him to be not unreasonable based on the facts themselves, he presented to our mediocrity, which is presiding synodically today, two or three who were of this appearance and constitution and who had been promoted to the priestly degree; one, in fact, by the most God-beloved bishop of Derkos, and others by the God-beloved bishops of Prainetos and Chalcis; and he said that others also had been ordained in such a manner by various people, and that they reside here and wish to perform the sacred rites as priests. This question, therefore, worthy of inquiry by our ^D most religious chartophylax, our mediocrity, not wishing to leave unsolved, permitted to be considered in common by the divine and sacred fraternity that is here at work. Therefore, wishing also to discuss the proposal, we first asked that it be distinguished what are the duties common to bishops everywhere, and what are those that are special—that is, which things bishops of the same region are not forbidden to perform for those who come to them from anywhere, and which things they are forbidden to perform outside the limits of their own diocese. And since, desiring to give judgment on this matter, we find that to teach the reason of the faith to those not initiated into the mysteries and to catechize them, and then even to deem them worthy of illumination, and furthermore to impart the divine and vivifying mysteries to the faithful, from whatever region they may finally come, is a common duty; we judged this to be common both to those who come from their own region, and to those who come from another region: but to lay on hands and to confer sacred orders,

it is ordained for each individual bishop ^A only for those who belong to his own diocese, so that disorder and sedition might not be introduced among them, from which the orderly arrangement and the good of peace ought to be regulated for others as well. Since, therefore, we have searched and found these things to be so, we have judged that to condemn those who have acted in the past, and to invalidate the priestly functions already performed by them, and to subject either those who ordained to excommunication, or to strip those who were ordained of their priestly rank, is a harsh and altogether unfeeling thing; but that we can no longer tolerate those who, to our prejudice, have acted so completely against reason, and that while we ought to overlook with humanity what has been done previously, we have decided to make secure by correction that which is to come, so that it might be beneficial both to us and to them. Therefore, we all, being of one mind, pronounce that no one from this time forward, whether among the neighboring bishops ^B or those further away—whether they are from our own synod or from another—may dare to lay a consecrating hand upon any person belonging to the diocese of this imperial and great city, or deem them worthy of any place or rank among the sacred orders, but let each one know his own rights and be content with these alone. They ought not to intrude shamelessly and in total contempt upon those episcopal rights which belong to others; and those who have dared to undermine and neglect these things, which have been canonically established by us, and those who approach them and have been deemed worthy of the priesthood, ought to know that those indeed who have been ordained contrary to the canons shall exercise no priestly office here, but will celebrate the sacred rites securely in those regions in which they received the unction of the priesthood; ^C but those who ordained them, from whichever synod they may be, shall from henceforth be liable to the penalty of suspension from celebrating the sacred rites, if they have not wished to desist from such an uncanonical act even after a first or second admonition (we call the first the written denunciation which was previously issued synodically regarding this matter by our most holy predecessor, Lord Luke). For this reason, it has been ordained that such a notification be issued and delivered. We further add the penalty of excommunication to the bishop, whoever he may be, who is the first to learn these things defined by us regarding those who perform such uncanonical ordinations; unless he also transmits these things to the most holy bishops near him, and makes known ^D what has been decreed to those who are unaware of it. These things will indeed have their force and remain immutable in all regions which are under the most holy churches everywhere, or metropolitan sees, archbishoprics, and bishoprics. And no one of those who are to be consecrated henceforth shall approach another bishop beyond his region and be judged worthy of priestly unction by him. For from this time forward both parties will be liable, both the priest who is ordained and the bishop who ordained him, to what we have previously decreed synodically regarding these matters. And so that there may be no pretext—and that a sufficiently elegant one—for those who do not wish to be ordained here, approaching our religious chartophylax, claiming that they undergo perhaps a greater innovation...

than the accustomed usage that has long been granted, and that this matter has today been organized by our mediocrity synodically. For we have decreed that the ancient custom in these matters should not be transgressed, but that only those things should be given to the episcopal officials and to the chartophylax who is pious for the time being, which have been accustomed to be given by those being ordained from of old.

ZONAR. Many synods, he says, have decreed this: that no bishop may receive a foreign cleric against the will of the bishop who enrolled him in the clergy, but that this may be confirmed by us now as well, brothers. But Julian, having despised these things, and having appeared ungrateful toward me who benefited him, rashly—that is to say, impudently—seized ^B the one baptized by me, whom someone entrusted to me because of great poverty, that is to say, either as being in need of necessities, or as having a shortage of clerics, whom I myself had also made a reader, and he ordained him a deacon. If, therefore, it is permitted for these things to happen, let it be known to you; but if it is not permitted, let such an impudent act be prevented, so that the aforementioned Julian may not communicate with what is foreign. Now this is understood in two ways: either so that he may not claim and usurp foreign clerics, or so that he may not be admitted ^C to communion by any other bishops. To these matters, Numidius said: If Julian did this without your permission, he is unjust; and if he does not correct his error and restore the cleric, since he is acting against what was decided by the synod—that is, as one overturning the synodically decreed things—he shall be separated from us—that is, he shall be punished by segregation or deposition, and will pay the penalties for his own pervicacity, that is, for his impudence and obstinacy. Epigonius, however, opined: This man, he says, by his age and the progression of his years, he being of the highest antiquity, ^D shows that he wishes this request, which the one who brought forward the matter has asked, to be considered general—in other words, not to be pronounced only against Julian, but commonly against all who usurp foreign clerics.

ARIST. «When Julian has ordained the reader of Epigonius a deacon, unless he produces the authorization received from him, he shall suffer the punishments of his own contumacy.» In almost all synods, this has been decreed: that no bishop is to receive a foreign cleric, besides the opinion of his own bishop, and claim him for himself and make him his own. Therefore, and for this reason, this bishop Julian, having received the cleric of bishop Epigonius, who was a reader, and having ordained him a deacon, it was decreed again that he should restore him: [the text continues]

church in which he was originally enrolled, unless he wishes to be excommunicated, as one acting contrary to the canons of the Synod of Chalcedon and persisting in his own will. The seventeenth canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, moreover, orders that he who receives another person's cleric and ordains him shall be deposed, together with the one who was ordained.

CANON LIX

That it is permitted to the bishop of Carthage to ordain a cleric from wherever he wishes.

Aurelius the bishop said: Hear my speech, brothers. It often happens that ecclesiastical persons who are in need ask me for deacons or presbyters or bishops; yet I, mindful of those things which have been established, follow them, so that I may meet with the bishop of the cleric who is requested, and make it known to him that the people of any church whatsoever are asking for his cleric. Behold, therefore, in the present instance they do not contradict; but so that it may not happen hereafter—that is, so that those clerics who are requested of me in this matter may not turn against me (for you know that I bear the care of many ^B churches and ordinations)—whenever I may meet with any of my fellow priests, with two or three witnesses of our clergy, if he should be found not to be impious or indevout, it is right for your love to judge what ought to be done. For I, as you know, brothers, by the permission of God, bear the care of many churches. Numidius the bishop said: This authority has always belonged to this throne, that from wherever it wished, and for any name whatsoever that had been brought to its attention, it could appropriately ordain a bishop according to the desire of each church. Epigonius the bishop said: Your good will moderates your power; for you dare less than you are able, brother, in that you show yourself to all to be good and humane. For you also have this in your judgment, to correct the person ^C of each individual bishop; and this in the first and only meeting, if you understand that it is in the power of this throne to punish; since you yourself must necessarily support all the churches. Whence we do not give you the faculty, but we set our seal to it by your own will, so that it may always be permitted to obtain what you wish, and to promote those who are over the churches, and the rest who are sought for, from wherever you deemed it better. Postumetianus the bishop said: Further, if someone has one and only one presbyter, ought even that one be taken away from him? Aurelius the bishop said: By the permission ^D of God, one bishop is able to ordain many presbyters; however, a presbyter who is suitable for the episcopate is found with difficulty. Therefore, if anyone be found having only one presbyter, and him suitable for the episcopate, he ought to give even that one for ordination. Postumetianus the bishop said: Therefore, if another bishop has a multitude of clerics, to me also another multitude ought to come. Aurelius

the bishop said: Certainly, in the way you have assisted another Church, so too shall he who has many clerics be compelled to provide from them for your ordination.

^B BALS. Because it was decreed by the holy Fathers, both in the canon just written and in others, that it is not permitted for a bishop to take a cleric from another diocese without the will of that bishop himself, Aurelius said to the brotherhood of the synod that "Often when ecclesiastical persons, who are from another region subject to me, have sought from me deacons or presbyters or bishops from a foreign region, because there was a great lack of suitable men among them, I wished to do this; but mindful of the canonical constitutions, which decree that clerics are not to be taken away against the will of the bishops and handed over to another region, I followed the things which have been thus constituted, and I communicated with the bishop of the cleric who was sought regarding this matter. And now indeed I have found no one contradicting; but I fear lest hereafter some bishop might resist me and make use of the canon. I do this, however, not as one opposing the canonical decrees, but because, as you also know, the care of many Churches is incumbent upon me. If, therefore, being placed in a lack of suitable men, I shall seek a cleric from another region and shall not be heard, and then I shall be compelled to approach the bishop who has such a cleric, with two or three witnesses from our own council or co-bishops, so that the cleric I seek may be received, if he is found to be blameless, that is, worthy and above any accusation: and yet he is not persuaded to give me his cleric even so, it is decreed what I must do." Numidius therefore answered that the see of the Carthaginians has for many centuries past the power of receiving a cleric from whatever church it wishes, and of ordaining him according to the desire of the people who seek him into the rank, that is, into the name which was offered to him. But Epigonius said to Aurelius: "Even if you can do this by your own discretion, yet your good will compels you in some measure to use your power with moderation. For you judge it to be free from scandal to oblige your brethren with benefits, and to receive their clerics not by your own authority, but with their will. If, therefore, through the first and only meeting, or testimony, the conscience of the bishop of whom the cleric is sought shall be subject, that is, if he shall give the cleric, it is well; if not, defend your throne by the power which has belonged to it for many centuries, namely, take the cleric, even if his bishop is unwilling. For you have the necessity of establishing all the Churches canonically." And so that none might be scandalized by this, as if granting this anew, he added: "This right is not now given to you by us, but it was indeed yours from before, but by us it is sealed, that is, confirmed." To those who were thus set apart and distinguished, Postumetianus said: If

any bishop has one cleric, will even he be taken from him? ^A Aurelius replied to this, that the ordination of presbyters is easy. For many will be found suitable for this and will be ordained by the permission of God, that is, by His good pleasure. But the promotion of bishops is difficult and necessary. For a bishop must be capable of teaching and quick-witted, which is found with difficulty. Wherefore, if any such priest is found with some bishop, even if he is the only one with him, he too shall be taken away and raised to the dignity of the episcopacy, since it is entirely possible and easy for other priests to be ordained by him, and in his stead to be and to perform sacred rites. Then another bishop added that, furthermore, if any other has many clerics, let him give to the one who has none. And the same Aurelius said to him: Just as you, having a cleric, are compelled to give him for the ordination of a bishop, so also he who has more will be urged, that is, even against his will he will be compelled, to give you one of them. ^B Since the canon determines this, someone will inquire: Since it has also been granted to the bishop of Constantinople by the 3rd Justinian Novel, that is to say from the 2nd title of the 3rd book of the *Basilika*—which we also set down outside the 26th chapter of the 1st title of the present work—to receive strange clerics without prejudice; and likewise, the rights of ancient Rome and the Church of Carthage were granted to the archbishop of First Justiniana, or Bulgaria, by the 133rd Justinian Novel, which sits in the 1st chapter of the *Basilika* and which we set down in the 4th chapter of the 1st title of the present work; furthermore, the privileges of the Church of the Constantinopolitans were given to the archbishop of New Justinianopolis, that is, of Cyprus, by the 39th canon of the Council in Trullo—will these too be compelled, with the knowledge of the bishops who have the clerics, to receive them, just as it was provided for the bishop of Carthage to do, or not? ^C Solution. Some have said that since these were permitted without distinction to receive strange clerics, they will not be compelled first to give notice, as it was established by the present canon that the bishop of Carthage must do. But it seems to me that these foremost sees ought, as is contained in the present canon, to take away strange clerics similarly to the bishop of Carthage; both because this is free from all offense and is brotherly, and also because the aforementioned 132nd Justinian Novel, making mention also of the Justinian Church of Carthage, which is in Africa, equates them as far as the episcopal right is concerned. ^D But since the present canon decrees that he who has a multitude of clerics is compelled to give to him who has none, will the bishop of Constantinople, for example, also be compelled to give, even against his will, after giving notice, to the bishop of Heraclea, for example, his own cleric, so that he may ordain him as a priest, or deacon, or bishop? Solution. I do not think so. For if this were granted, there would be an equalization of all bishops as regards this chapter; and the privilege given to the bishop of Carthage and the others would come to nothing. We ought therefore to say that those bishops who have privileges, not only concerning bishops, but

also concerning ^A presbyters and deacons, may ordain foreign clergy, as is contained in the present canon; but the remaining bishops shall not ask of them, nor receive clergy, unless it be necessary to ordain such a person as a bishop. For this is also evidenced by the present canon, which says that the ordination of priests and deacons is not as necessary as that of bishops; and therefore, the one may be taken away and raised to the episcopate. But if a cleric called to the episcopal dignity, for example from the Church of the Constantinopolitans, does not accept the vote, will he be compelled by the patriarch, according to the present canon, to accept? Solution. By no means. For no one is compelled to become a prelate against his will. The canon, therefore, is to be understood as applying to one who has been chosen and who accepts the episcopate, but is not permitted to depart.

^C ZONARAS. Since the preceding canon decreed that it is not permitted for any bishop to claim for himself the cleric of another bishop, and to ordain him, Aurelius brought forward an argument: "That I have undertaken the care of many Churches. And some of them have need of me, requiring a bishop or a presbyter or a deacon, asking for this one or that one. But knowing the rules, I do these things according to them, and I ask the bishop of the required cleric, manifesting to him—that is, informing him and declaring to him—that the people of such-and-such a Church are asking for his cleric. And now indeed," he says, "they do not gainsay, ^D but they give their clergy. But so that hereafter perhaps some may not oppose, by not giving those who are sought for advancement to the episcopate or for the clergy, decide what I should do if I meet with one of the bishops, together with two or three from our own assembly—that is, from our portion of bishops—and he is found to be ‘athosiotus’—that is, disobedient, unyielding—what ought to be done?" And these things are not entirely appropriate to the literal meaning of the words; but the sense of the context of the speech requires such a meaning.

Numidius, having borne witness to the throne of Aurelius that an ancient privilege had existed to ordain whom he wished from each Church, granted to him the right to take clergy from wherever he pleased and to ordain them. But Epigonius argued against this, saying that "Goodwill tempers the power. For you dare less than you are able to, while showing yourself to all as good and humane." And what he says is of this sort: "You indeed have the power to take and ordain foreign clergy; but the *kalothelos*—the good will—requires that the power be used in such a way that you do not take them by authority, but with the consent of their bishops. For to show oneself good in all things by deliberation is better than to dare the removal with power." For you have this...

at your discretion, to act as a physician for the person of each bishop; that is to say, you also bear this purpose, to soothe all bishops with kindness. But in the first and only meeting, if you perceive that the right to claim must be ensured for this see—that is to say, once you have met with the bishop of the cleric whom you intend to take away and ordain, and have communicated with him regarding his cleric, if you do not find him immediately compliant—then the right to this authority must be claimed for this see, from which place he wishes to take a cleric and ordain him. Then, that they might not be scandalized at him, as if he were permitting the taking of their clerics and ordaining them without the opinion of the bishops, he added that: "It is not we who grant you this power, but we confirm it," leaving it, of course, to your discretion that you should by no means claim and take away the clerics of another by imperial command and power, but only after the matter has first been communicated with their own bishops.

When it had been established that it was lawful for Aurelius to take foreign clerics and confer orders upon them, someone asked: "What if a bishop has only one priest, will he be deprived even of him?" To this posed question Aurelius replied thus: That "by the gift of God, many priests can be created by one bishop." By this he meant: Although the dignity of the priesthood is great, and the power to create priests surpasses all human nobility and power, nevertheless, with God permitting it, many priests can be constituted by one bishop; but ^B to find a man suitable for performing the episcopal office is very difficult. For a bishop must, according to the great Paul, besides other things, also hold fast to the faithful word as it is taught, so that he may be able to exhort with sound doctrine and to convict those who contradict; and he must be of such a nature that he knows how to preside over the Church—that is, he must be suitable for both undertaking and managing the care of the faithful, and for administering the affairs of the Church prudently and according to the will of God. But not all these things are required equally of a priest. Therefore, if any priest is found suitable for undertaking the episcopal office, or if his bishop has no one else, it is necessary that he nevertheless be elected and consecrated, even if the bishop has only one such person. Then another added that: "If anyone else subsequently has many clerics, let him give to the one who has none." And Aurelius said to this: "Just as you are constrained, while having a cleric, to give him for the ordination of a bishop, so too he who has more will be compelled—that is, he will be compelled, whether he wants to or not—to give you one of them, who is with you, for the episcopal office, if necessary."

^C ARIST. Let it be permitted to the president of Carthage to choose whom he wishes to be set over the Churches: even if someone should consider only one presbyter worthy of presidency. For one bishop can ordain many presbyters. But he who is suitable for the episcopacy is found with difficulty. This synod, being provincial, not ecumenical,

^A decides that which must prevail in Carthage. For Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, following the canons, and not wishing to take away a cleric from his bishop without his consent, and to enrol him in another city, or to make him a bishop—yet fearing, on the other hand, that some of the bishops subject to him might not be persuaded to give up some of their own clerics to be enrolled in another city that is in need of presbyters or deacons, or to be promoted to the degree of the episcopacy, if they are judged worthy of this—communicated the matter regarding this to the synod; and it voted that it is permitted for the president of Carthage, because the entire care of the churches that are there is laid upon him, to select such of the clerics subject to the bishops as he shall find worthy for the presidency of the churches. And even if one has not many presbyters, but one only, and judges him suitable for the episcopacy, he may without hesitation appoint him; because it is difficult to find a person suitable for the episcopacy, and it is possible for one bishop to ordain many presbyters.

CANON LX.

That bishops who are ordained in the ^B *parœciæ* (dioceses) must not claim any jurisdiction for themselves.

Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops, said: We have heard it defined that *parœciæ* should not be deemed worthy to receive bishops, except with the consent of him by whom they were established. But in our region, by the permission of the bishop who from the beginning holds the *diœceses*, some who have been ordained bishops in these very *parœciæ* are now claiming others for themselves as well. This, by the charity of your judgment, ought to be prohibited ^C and henceforth overturned. Epigonius, bishop, said: What is fitting has been kept for each bishop, so that nothing should be torn away from the possession of each of the *parœciæ* to possess its own bishop, unless by the consent of him who has the authority. But if he himself yields, so that the *diœcesis* in question is permitted to possess its own bishop, he who has been promoted must not extend his hand to the other *diœceses*; because this one, having been taken from the body of many, was alone deemed worthy to receive ^D the honor of its own episcopacy. Aurelius, bishop, said: I do not doubt that it pleases the love of you all, that a bishop who has been promoted by the permission of the prior bishop in that *diœcesis* should [have only] that people...

^A to whom he was ordained. Since, therefore, I think that everything has been treated, if everything should accord with your judgment, confirm these things by your own pronouncement. All the bishops said: These things have pleased us all, and by our subscription we confirm this. And they subscribed: I, Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, have consented to the present decree, and having read it, I have subscribed: similarly also the other bishops subscribed.

Balsamon. Commentary on the preceding content.

^B BALS. It seems that into certain *parœciæ* which did not have bishops, bishops were elected with the consent of the bishops who held them, as they had perhaps become populous and stood in need of their own bishop. But because those who were ordained for these were not content with those which had fallen to them, but also claimed for themselves the rights of others, the bishops Honoratus and Urbanus said that, because it is enjoined that bishops are not to be elected into *parœciæ* otherwise than by the will of those who have had them from the beginning, this was also done in their region in such a manner. But because those who have been ordained also claim other *parœciæ* of their own accord, those things which have been evilly claimed ought to be corrected; and those which are about to be claimed uncanonically should be prevented. Epigonius therefore said to this, that by divine canons the regions and limits of *parœciæ* have been assigned to each bishop, and from the possession of the *parœciæ* themselves, nothing can be taken away or severed by anyone. ^C Furthermore, neither can the inhabitants of the *parœcia* itself of their own accord constitute a bishop for themselves, except by the will of the bishop who has authority in that *parœcia*. And if even he should permit this, the one who has been ordained ought not, because of the right of this *parœcia*, to extend himself to the administration of other *parœciæ* as well. For only that *parœcia* which has been honored [by this promotion] shall be under him who has been ordained; the others, however, shall be under the head from whom the subtraction was made. Aurelius therefore said after this that the opinion of their fraternity was to be admitted. And he himself also established the same, and for that reason requested that the things which had been determined should be subscribed to, which was also done. ^D And these things are thus: but you must know that the regions of bishops remaining immovable is preserved as canonical; but the creation of bishoprics anew in *parœciæ* which are subject to other bishops is not permitted without a royal command, even if the bishop who holds it were to consent a thousand times. For it has been decreed synodically that not even the great synod itself, without a royal order, can constitute a new bishopric. And about this, it has been written in other canons.

ZONAR. It is defined, they say, that in *parœciæ*, that is to say, in small dioceses subject to a bishop, no one should be established as bishop unless with the consent of the bishop who presides over them. And if at any time this should happen, that is to say by the favor of the [presiding] bishops, he should be content with those *parœciæ* and the people in them, and should not claim or appropriate others, or—as if with regard to himself—

[The English translation begins, continuing from the preceding page:]

^A to be sought, as having belonged to them. For Arzua, having been considered worthy of the honor of the episcopate after the concession of the bishop, she alone ought to hold it, and no other should be taken away, nor separated, nor rent asunder, so as to possess its own bishop, unless by the consent of the bishop who has authority over it. To these things Aurelius, preparing the minds of those who were present at the synod to give their consent, added: I do not doubt that these things are pleasing to all, and since I think that all things have been sufficiently treated—that is, meditated upon, examined, and approved—do you also confirm them with your judgment. Then the rest, To us also these things are pleasing, and we shall confirm them by the subscription of us all.

ARIST. ‹If a diocese, by the judgment of him who has authority, is permitted to have its own bishop, let not such a person invade the remaining dioceses.›

It is decreed that, unless by the judgment of the primate in each province, no one shall be made a bishop. But neither in any village or small city, in which even one presbyter is sufficient, shall a bishop be constituted, unless perhaps those places are judged by their abundance of people to be worthy of being called bishoprics. If, therefore, in some parish, in which previously there was no bishop, it be permitted by the judgment of the bishop who has the authority over it that a bishop be made, he ought to retain only the people for whom he was ordained, but not to claim another parish.

^B In this synod it was decreed that a bishop shall not travel by sea without ^C letters of dismission. Under Caesarius and Atticus, the most illustrious consuls, on the sixth day before the kalends of July at Carthage, it was resolved that no bishop shall travel by sea without the primate’s letters of dismission. Whoever seeks the acts will find them in the authentic copies.

ZONAR. By the name of "dismissory" he means a letter of peace; by the appellation of "primate," he understands the patriarch or the metropolitan of the diocese. To travel by sea is to go abroad to other regions by a maritime journey.

From this synod, legates, bishops who have subscribed, are sent to the emperors. After the consulship of the most glorious emperors, Honorius Augustus for the fourth time, and Eutychianus, most distinguished man, on the fifth day before the kalends of May, at Carthage, in the secretarium of the Basilica of Restituta. ^D

Actio tertia.

In this synod, Epigonius and Vincentianus, bishops, undertook a legation so that the most glorious emperors might deign to issue a law concerning those who have fled to the church, and who are held involved in whatever crimes, so that no one may be able to drag them away. In this synod an embassy is sent to the bishops of Rome and Milan concerning infants who have been baptized by heretics; and also to the emperor that the remains of the idols might be removed, and concerning very many other matters.

^A After the consulship of the most illustrious Flavius Stilicho, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of July, at Carthage, in the secretarium of the Restituta church, Bishop Aurelius, presiding together with his fellow bishops and with the deacons attending, said: "Your love, most holy brothers, knows as well as I the needs of the Churches of God which are situated throughout all the region of the Africans; and because the Lord has granted that your holy assembly has gathered together, at least in part, it seems appropriate to me to bring these same needs, as has been said, into the midst, which I have been able to investigate with my own care; and when your sincerity confirms these, it will be logical that we designate one of the priests from our number who, by the help of God and because of your prayers, ought to take up these same needs and, by acting with fortitude, carry them to the transmarine parts of Italy; who might be able to show this necessity, labor, and indigence to our most holy brothers and fellow ministers; ^B part of this to the venerable and holy bishop of the apostolic see, Anastasius; and part also to the most holy brother Venerius, priest of the church of Milan. For it had been forbidden by these sees, that which must be greatly provided for in a common danger, since there is such a lack of clerics, and many churches are so deserted that no deacon, not even an unlearned one, can be found. Regarding the remaining superior orders and ranks, I think it best to be silent. For since, as I have said, the ministry of a deacon is not easily found, it is much more obvious concerning the higher honors. And we can no longer endure the daily lamentations of various peoples who are almost dying, to whom, if we do not wish to bring aid, ^C a most grave and inexcusable sin regarding the lost souls awaits us before God."

BALS. By the present writing, Aurelius wishes to inform the Pope and the bishop of Milan that the regions of the Africans are reduced to great straits, not only regarding priests and bishops, but also the deacons themselves; and that they should see to a dispensation or provision being made for the aid of the Christians. ^D

ZONAR. What is contained in the above short speech is this: "You know, brothers," says Aurelius, "by what harshness of evils all the African churches are afflicted. And since, if not all together, at least many of us have come to the synod, the difficulties which I have carefully investigated—that is, I have inquired into them with great care and diligence—I have decided to bring forward at this time. It will remain, then, for you to delegate someone from our number who will carry these things to the regions across the sea of Italy, that is, who will report to the Pope and

to the Bishop of Milan our difficulties, our labor, and our destitution. For the scarcity of clerics among us is so great that many churches do not have even a single deacon, not even an unlettered one. And if, he says, there is such great labor in finding deacons, one must consider what will become of the superior orders, namely, priests and bishops. Nor, indeed, can we any longer endure the daily lamentations of the people, who are almost perishing from grief because they are destitute of the ministries of bishops and priests. Unless we strive to assist these, he says, we must believe that the most bitter punishments await us before God for the loss of perishing souls. ^A

CANON LXI. That children who are baptized by the Donatists may be ordained as clerics in the Catholic Church.

Forasmuch as your concord is mindful that it was decreed in a former synod, together with me, that children who are baptized by the Donatists, not being able to recognize the ruin of their own error, once they have reached the age capable of reason, and having recognized the truth, abhorring the wickedness of those people, should be received into the universal Church of God, which is spread throughout the whole world, by the ancient order of the laying on of hands; such persons ought not to be hindered from the order of the clergy by reason of that error, since, approaching the faith, they have deemed the true Church to be their own, and in it, believing in Christ, they have received the sacraments of the Trinity. ^B It is clear that all these things are true and holy and divine, and that in them is placed the entire hope of the soul. And even if the preceding audacity of heretics is prompt to transmit certain contrary things under the name of truth, since these—as the holy Apostle teaches, saying, “One God, one faith, one baptism” (Ephes. IV, 5)—are simple, and what ought to be given once—it is not lawful to receive again—once the name of the error has been anathematized, they should be received by the laying on of hands into that one Church, which, as it has been said, is the dove and the only mother of Christians, in which all sacraments ^C are received for salvation, eternal and life-giving, which indeed provide for those who remain in heresy a great punishment of condemnation, so that what was to be followed by them in the truth toward eternal life more clearly, this becomes for them in error more dark and more condemned. Which indeed some have avoided, and, having recognized the truth of the Catholic mother Church, have believed and received all those holy mysteries drawn by the truth. When the proof of a good life has followed for these, they shall without doubt be confirmed and fully admitted to the ministry of the sacraments; and especially in such great necessity of circumstances, there is no one who would not grant this. But if any clerics of this persuasion, with the multitude

^A that is with them, and with the same honors or grades, desire to come over to the true faith; who indeed, out of love for their honor, argue for life and hold on for salvation, but this I judge must be understood ^B with greater discernment to be decided by the aforementioned brethren, so that by their wiser counsel they may discern the reason for my report, and may deign to confirm us in what ought to be decreed by us regarding this matter. We are satisfied only regarding those who were baptized in infancy, that, if it pleases them, they should consent to our judgment concerning their ordination. Therefore, all that we have gathered above among the most holy bishops, your venerable fraternity, together with me, deems ought to be done. ^C

BALS. and ZONAR. A certain man named Donatus was the author of a heresy, who taught that one could not otherwise be a participant in the divine mysteries unless one first kissed the bone held in the hand, and so communicated. Therefore, those who followed his heresy were called Donatists. Regarding them, then, as is stated in the canon of this synod, it seemed good to the Fathers to inquire whether their infants, who had been baptized by their parents—who were themselves Donatists—and were then received by the Catholic Church, ought to be admitted to ordination in the clergy or not? ^D This, then, the synod introduces again and gives its opinion, that those baptized by the Donatists in infancy, as they could not then recognize the ruin of the error, when they reach the age of reason—that is, the capacity for discernment—so that they are able to understand the truth and to hate their wickedness: if they come to the Church, they should be received through the laying on of hands according to a certain order and ancient form, and they should not be prevented from being admitted into the clergy, believing purely in Christ and receiving the sacraments or divine gifts of the Holy Trinity, which are the body and blood of the one of the Holy Trinity, and are true and holy, having been delivered to us by the Savior, who was also sent by the Father for our salvation, and are sanctified by the advent of the Holy Spirit. For thus are the sacraments of the Trinity considered. When, therefore, they are saying, they have believed and have received the sacraments, if their life also has been examined and found good, they shall even become clerics. Because of this case of the infants, then, they asked both the Pope and the bishop of Milan whether this seemed right to them. If any, they say, of the clerics of the Donatists, with the people that is among them and with the same honors or grades, wish to come over to the orthodox faith; which clerics, wishing to remain in their honor even among the orthodox, advise the people who are under them of those things which pertain to life and salvation: what is to be done with them? But this, they say, from the aforesaid

^A brethren will be resolved, so that we too may be confirmed as to what we ought to do in this matter.

ARIST. ‹ Those who, on account of necessity, were baptized as infants by the Donatists, if they repent, and subject their heresy to anathema, and are otherwise worthy, let them be ordained. ›

Other infants baptized by the Donatists, and sinning nothing by their own will, if they anathematize their heresy and approach the Catholic Church, and lead a blameless life, shall be promoted to priestly ranks, because Africa is in need of clergy.

CANON LXII

BALS. Through the present canon the Fathers desire that the emperors destroy the idols which remained after the proclamation of the Gospel.

ZONAR. Even when the evangelical message had been spread into all parts, the wicked dragon still wagged its tail, even though its head had been crushed. For in some places idols still remained, and their temples stood. The synod, therefore, resolves that a petition be made to those who held power at that time, so that they might order all idols to be removed from the midst, and their temples, already despoiled of decorations, to be utterly ^C destroyed. And it said this, not as if establishing some distinction, as though it wished those that lack decoration to be destroyed but the rest to be saved; but as declaring that the beginning of their ruin had already been made, and that, having been stripped of all decorations, they had already become as it were half-destroyed.

Guill. Beveregius’ note. Bachian on the present canon has this further remark: What then? Are [the temples] with decorations not to be taken away? They are to be utterly eradicated, for beauty contributes nothing to their being spared. Nor are these the only ones to be destroyed; for this is obvious; but those also which are set up in the fields, and because of their ugliness are thought to lie hidden, these too must be torn down. For we do not level the ^D Greek [structures] out of envy for their beauty, but we simply destroy the monuments of error and destruction. Nor do ecclesiastical laws only, but civil ones also, command all temples of the heathens to be destroyed. If there are any temples in the fields, let them be destroyed without a crowd and tumult. For when these are cast down and removed, the entire matter of superstition will be consumed. l. xv, c. Th. de Paganis. So also holy Augustine: Furthermore, in the following year, when Honorius had received as his colleague in the consulship Martius Theodorus, at which time according to that oracle of demons or figment of men, there should have been no Christian religion, it was not necessary to inquire what was done in other parts of the world. Meanwhile, what we know is that in the most well-known and most eminent city, Carthage in Africa, Gaudentius and Jovius, counts of the emperor Honorius, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of April, destroyed the temples of the false gods and broke their images. Aug. De civitate Dei, l. XVIII, c. 54.

^A ARIST. « Let the remnants of the idols be utterly destroyed. » As piety prevails, the shrines of the idols must be rooted out from their very foundations, and no remnant of their error must be preserved.

CANON LXII. « That clerics should not be compelled to give public testimony concerning their own judgment. Furthermore, it must be requested that they be pleased to decree that if any persons wish to conduct any case in the Church by apostolic right, which is established in the churches, and if the decision of the clerics should perhaps be displeasing to one party, it shall not be permitted to summon to court as a witness the cleric who previously examined the matter itself or who was present at the examination: so that no one belonging to an ecclesiastical person ^B may be called to court to bear testimony. »

BALS. Certain clerics, when they had handled an ecclesiastical case by apostolic right—that is, in consequence of the apostolic saying which says: *Dare any of you, having a matter, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?*—or even when they had happened to be involved in an ecclesiastical judgment, were being dragged by the dissatisfied party from among those who had judged into the appellate court for the sake of testimony. It seemed good, therefore, to the Fathers to report to the emperors regarding this, so that they might decree that nothing of this sort should ever happen; and furthermore that no one related by kinship or in any other way to an ecclesiastical person should be dragged in to bear testimony. And the canon consists of these things. We intended to write something about those who litigated, and about those who are joined by kinship to clerics, when they ought to be dragged in and when not. But because this canon is not a decree, but a petition in order that the emperors might be reminded concerning these things, and no final definition was issued, we have omitted many points. We have noted only this much from the present canon: that the present synod also acknowledged the judicial offices of ecclesiastical magistrates, in that it calls clerics judges of a case.

ZONAR. Furthermore, they determine to make a report to the emperors, so that if any who are in the Church—that is, enrolled in the clergy—should wish to pursue any cause or litigation, any matter, by apostolic right imposed upon the Churches—that is, defined and prescribed, namely concerning the judicial trials to be exercised before the Church (for the divine apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: *Dare any of you, having a matter, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?* Therefore they assert that this is due to the churches by apostolic right, as though it were so ordained by the decree of the Apostle). If, therefore, clerics, they say, dispute before the Church, and the decision of the cause—that is, the sentence by which the controversy is decided—should be in the least unproved to one of the parties, so that it may not be permitted to the other party to drag him, by whom ^D

^A the case was previously examined, or who was present at the trial, to the forum of appeal for the purpose of giving testimony; nor, furthermore, should anyone who is related—that is, who is joined to an ecclesiastical man by propinquity or by any other reason—be compelled to give testimony. For certain persons are enumerated even by the decree of the civil laws who are not permitted to be compelled to give testimony against their will, as may be found in Book XXI, Title I, in the various chapters.

ARIST. A cleric who has judged a case, if it is displeasing, let him not be called to the tribunal to give testimony concerning it; and let an ecclesiastical person by no means be compelled to give testimony.

If any have chosen to be judged by some one of the clerics, and have declared their case, but afterwards do not acquiesce in his judgment ^B and proceed to the tribunal suited to them, they shall not call into witness that cleric who judged, both as one who is excused by the law and not compelled to give testimony unwillingly (for those who are vacant for holy ministry do not testify unwillingly); and as one who is forbidden to give testimony in the business in which he had been accepted as judge by the parties.

CANON LXIII

That the feasts of the Greeks be taken away.

Furthermore, this must be sought from the Christian emperors: because, in violation of the divine commandments, feasts are celebrated in many places in such a way, introduced from Gentile error, that even Christians secretly ^C approach the pagans in their celebration; that they order these to be driven away both from the cities and from the estates; especially because, even on the very birthdays of the blessed martyrs, in certain cities, even in the very sacred places, they do not fear to commit such sins; upon which days—it is shameful even to say it—they perform execrable dances in the fields and in the squares, so that they assail with wanton insults the honor of matrons and the modesty of other innumerable pious women who are present on a holy day: ^D so that they even almost flee the approach to the holy faith itself.

BALS. Just as today in the anniversary celebrations of the saints, not only in the cities but also in the villages and countrysides, gatherings of men occur and dance-choruses are conducted, and certain other games: so, as it is likely, they were also performed of old; but these were execrable. And therefore the Fathers say that, since in many places feasts are performed which have had their beginning from the Greek error, so that even Christians might convene in them and perform these things with the Greeks, the emperors must be admonished that they prohibit them; and all the more so, because they offend even in sacred places. For it happens that not even more religious women convene in the church, on account of the things which are done shamefully and indecorously: namely, when those who dare these things, im-

^Apudently and lasciviously assault such women. And this is the scope of the canon. But you should know that, even if an imperial decree did not forbid these things, nevertheless the synod which was held in Trullo took vehement action against those who dare such things.

ZONAR. The Fathers of the synod affirm that in many places banquets are still celebrated, following a custom derived from the errors of the Greeks, such that Christians also gather at them and celebrate these same things along with the pagans. Moreover, they say, on the anniversaries of the holy martyrs certain things occur which cannot even be mentioned without shame: namely, abominable dances and other things of that sort, so that when religious women go to the shrines of the holy martyrs, those artificers of crime lasciviously assault them. As a consequence, they are necessarily compelled to flee from the approach to the faith—that is, they are forced to stay away even from the church, on account of the deeds of intemperate wickedness. Therefore, they decree that these things must be abolished by imperial authority, and that the Emperor himself must be petitioned to that effect.

ARIST. ‘Let Greek-style banquets cease on account of their intrinsic indecency, and because they seduce many Christians, and because they occur on the days when the commemorations of the martyrs are celebrated.’ For the canon does not permit abominable dances and other indecent things, which are of the Greek error, to take place either in sacred places where the commemorations of the martyrs are held, ^B nor elsewhere; rather, it commands that such banquets cease entirely, as they seduce many Christians and lead them to perdition.

CANON LXIV

BALS. On the Lord's days and other festival days, and in the great week of Pascha, horse races and other spectacles used to be held. It was provided, therefore, that the Emperors be persuaded to prohibit these, and that those which were held on these days should be transferred to other days. Read also the 66th canon of the synod in Trullo.

ZONAR. The synod also requested this: that spectacles, namely on the Lord's days or festival days, and horse races in the week of Pascha, should not be presented, but rather should be transferred to another time, ^C lest Christian people, being occupied with these games, stop frequenting the churches; and also that no one of the faithful should be forced to be present in a theatrical assembly. Also the 65th of the

^A council in Trullo requires the faithful to spend the entire week of Easter in the churches, passing the time in the chanting of psalms and hymns, and forbids horse races. ARIST. ‹ Theaters are not to be gathered on Sundays and feast days. › For on these bright days it is fitting that Christians should assemble in the church; and it is not right that horse races should be held on them.

CANON LXV.

BALS. Certain clerics condemned on criminal charges, and having no assistance of appeal (for so the canon is to be understood), were endeavoring to be restored. It pleased the Fathers, therefore, that the emperors be reminded to decree that those who defend and liberate them—whether they be ecclesiastics or others, of whatever age or nature they may be—be subject to a monetary fine and loss of honor.

ZONAR. Furthermore, the Fathers wished it to be decreed that no cleric condemned by his own bishop for any crime, whether by the church of which he was a cleric or by any other man, perhaps a dynast, be allowed to be absolved; and if anyone does absolve a man, that he be mulcted both in money and in dignity; so that whoever has attempted this be both fined in money and, despoiled of honor, lose his status. Nor indeed should any excuse of age be admitted: for instance, ^C that he who did this was very young, or of advanced age, and that he ought therefore to be pardoned because of his age (for *keira* signifies age, as we have often said), or of sex, for example that the act was committed by a woman. But the word "to defend" in this place is not taken for him who undertakes the patronage of someone who complains that he has been unjustly condemned and asks that an appeal be granted to him; for he who says this will be opposed to many canons, by which, if clerics do not acquiesce in the sentence of the bishops, appeals are granted to them; but it means that for a cleric justly condemned, no one should by force and arms prevent the execution of the bishop's sentence.

ARIST. ‹ A cleric condemned by the judgment of a bishop shall not be defended by anyone. › A cleric condemned on a criminal charge by a bishop, if he thinks he has been treated unjustly, let him appeal; but let him not be defended by anyone with actual authority and power. ^D

CANON LXVI

BALS. In ancient times, spectacles were performed with the support of the populace; for this reason they often had certain stage actors and mimes, and for the most part, Greeks. The Fathers therefore request that the emperors decree that if any one of these, being a Greek, is baptized, he shall not be compelled by the crowd to perform the same games.

ZONAR. The ancient Fathers used to consider stage actors and mimes, who perform such games, as abominable. If, therefore, any one of these, being a Greek, should approach the Christian faith and, having abandoned those stains—that is, those sordid works—should become free, they request that no one be able to compel him to return again to those games and be occupied with them. For in the great cities there were theaters, and at certain times the populace was gathered in them, and games were performed; and the stage actors had the performance of these as a kind of liturgical duty and ^B an inescapable obligation, and they were dragged off to those tasks even against their will.

ARIST. ‹He who has turned from a theatrical profession to an honorable life must not be drawn back to it. ›

He who leaves behind the theatrical life and adopts another way of living fitting for Christians shall not be compelled to perform the theatrical profession again. For there were some enrolled in these theatrical professions, and they felt the burden of pursuing them.

CANON LXVII

For when, because of the excessive severity of the laws—whereby it was extremely difficult to obtain citizenship—the greater freedom, which they call Roman citizenship, was granted, [Constantine] enacted three laws, decreeing that whoever were granted freedom in the church under the witness of the priests should obtain Roman citizenship. Sozom. *Hist. Eccles.* l. I, c. 9. One of these laws enacted by Constantine is cited by Regino, Abbot of Prüm, with these words: "Emperor Constantine Augustus to Osius, Bishop of Corduba. Whoever chooses to grant manumission in the most holy church, it is enough that he wishes to absolve his ^D slaves in the presence of the priests, and let him know that upon receiving their freedom, they are Roman citizens. For if clerics wish to grant freedom to their own slaves, even if they do so out of the sight of the priests, or if they have been absolved by words alone without a written document, there shall remain, just as for Roman citizens, an intact and full freedom." Regin. *De discip. Eccles.* l. I, c. 406. It also exists in the interpretation of l. I, C. Th. *de manumissionibus in ecclesia*. Furthermore, according to ecclesiastical law, every manumission ought to take place in the church. They must be instructed

^A by the legates, once their authority is openly given, that whatever is worthy of belief for the sake of the ecclesiastical state and the salvation of souls they may be able to accomplish, we too shall praise and accept all these things before the Lord. If it pleases your charity, say so, that I may show you that my report is firm, and that your sincerity may gladly accept the consent of us all. ^B It was said by all the bishops: All that has been proposed pleases us, and what has been wisely set forth by your holiness ought to be brought to completion.

ON CANON LXVII OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

BALS. As it seems, some were doubting whether slaves ought to be set free in the church, or others who have taken refuge there, as being liable for certain offenses and seeking ecclesiastical assistance. ^C For the beginning of this action deals with these very matters, and so does the wording of the present canon. And for this reason the Fathers said: "Let the priests of Italy be consulted through legates; and if they too do this," that is, proclaim and perform manumissions, "let them also follow with confidence those things that are done in this way," looking toward the salvation of the soul and the preservation of ecclesiastical rights. Now that this has been examined in such detail, the report to the emperors will also become firm, and what has been related by common consent will be accepted by their sincerity. And what concerns those who take refuge in the churches, the present canon refers to the imperial hearing. ^D You, however, read the thirteenth chapter of the first title of the fifth book, which says: "We decree that it is not permitted for anyone to [those who have taken refuge]..."

Guill. Beveridge’s notes: Moreover, laymen, as they know that they can in no way manumit their own slaves in another place which they have decided to aggregate to the master's military service, except in the most holy church. Reg. ibid., c. 405. Burchard. l. II, c. 29. Ivo Par. 6, c. 129. And that not only those who are to be promoted to the rank of the clergy are to be manumitted in the church, but also any others whomsoever, the aforementioned Regino proves from the compact of the Franks, from which he cites these things: "We also wish this, that any Ripuarian Frank who may wish to make his own servant free for the remedy of his soul according to the Roman law, that in church before the presbyters, deacons, or the entire clergy and people, he may deliver his servant into the hand of the bishop by documents; and let the bishop order the archdeacon to have documents written for him according to the Roman law, by which churches live, and that both he himself and all his offspring may remain free, and they shall remain under the protection of the church, and pay all the revenue of their status to the church, and nowhere else except to the church; where they have been released, there they shall hold the *mallum*, and if they have died without children, they shall leave no one else as heir except the church." Ibid. c. 405. A formula of this kind of manumission, which was accustomed to be promulgated in the church, exists among the ancient formulas published not long ago by the most learned Bignonius, with these words: "I, the lowliest servant of the servants of God, Archbishop of Sens, supported by such authority of the most serene Augustus Louis, which is preserved in the church of Sens for the archbishops, by this document of manumission [I make] you our brother, whom servile condition has thus far held bound, as one who, by the testimony of the brethren among whom you were nourished, are proclaimed worthy of receiving the priestly honor, I judge and decree that before the horn of the sacred altar, in the presence of the priests and clergy and the kneeling people, from this day forth you are absolved from every yoke of human servitude and are to be called a Roman citizen." Regino also mentioned another formula to the above effect: "He who relaxes the bond and fitting servitude owed to him does not doubt that a reward will come to him in the future before the Lord. Wherefore, I, in the name of God, for the remedy of my soul or for eternal retribution, in the church of Saint Peter or of that saint, in the presence of the bishop or of the priests constituted there and of noble laymen, before the horn of the altar of that church, I absolve this slave of mine by this charter of absolution and of freedom from every bond of servitude, so that from this day and henceforth he may be free and remain free, just as if he had been born or procreated from free parents, and let him go to whatever part he may have chosen, or whatever the canonical authority permits him, and let him lead a free life just as other Roman citizens, etc." Reg. l. I, c. 402, where another example of freedom is given in the preceding chapter. Furthermore, the most learned man Stephanus Baluzius in his appendix of ancient authors has published two formulas of manumission, one in Constantine, cap. 11, the other in Nicolaus de Mirisiaco, cap. 33.

^A ...of the first title of the fifth book, chapter 13, which says: "We decree that it shall not be lawful for anyone to thrust out those who take refuge, of whatever condition they may be, from the holy Church of the orthodox faith, outside of this imperial city. And if any should dare to contrive or do such a thing, let them be subjected to the charge of sacrilege. But neither let them be so held in the venerable churches or constrained, so that they may be prevented from food, clothing, rest, or sleep." And the eleventh chapter, which says: "Let those who have taken refuge have safety as far as the boundaries of the church before the public forum, using the interior baths, or gardens, or houses, or courtyards, or porticoes, and let them be forbidden to sleep or eat within the temple. But let them not protect themselves with weapons, but let them deposit these with the bishop, either being persuaded first, or afterward being ejected by the command of the bishop and the judges." And chapter 12: "Let a slave taking refuge with arms be immediately ejected: but if he resists, let him be compelled by greater force; and if he should die while fighting, the master who kills him shall not be held liable." Read also the ruling of the 13th chapter of the same title, which says: "It is fitting that those who take refuge should litigate before competent judges, and that their adversaries should not be summoned to the Church." And the final ruling of the same chapter, which says: "Meanwhile, it behooves the most pious stewards or the defenders of the Church to take care and diligence, so that they may inquire without delay into the names and causes of each of those who take refuge within the church. Furthermore, let the magistrates, or those to whom the matters and persons pertain, knowing these things, adjust with the required rectitude what is suitably theirs. Wherefore note ^B that those who are not registered are not of the number of those who take refuge."

ZONARAS. The Fathers of the synod were in doubt as to whether manumissions ought to be proclaimed or performed in the church. It was therefore proposed that legates be sent to Italy; and if the bishops who dwell in that place approve the matter, we also, they say, will embrace that custom, the authority to perform this matter having been openly given. But that which says, "Our confidence follows the order of these," is of this kind: that we also, they say, shall feel confident that the matter is rightly done, and not outside of ecclesiastical order, and we shall follow them, and we shall receive these things as done laudably. ^C

William Beveridge's notes. The words of Balsamon on this canon in the Bodleian manuscript are added here, written in red characters: "Note the things written in the interpretation of the present canon, and keep in memory the laws placed therein for the sake of those who take refuge at the church. Read also the volume written by us concerning the offices of the chartophylax and the first defender. For there we have written many necessary things, indicating where and how ecclesiastical fugitives ought to be judged. ^D There exists, however, a declaration that unless fugitives are registered in the codex of the first defender, they shall not enjoy ecclesiastical aid." Though these things are written in red characters, it is certain from the fact that he who wrote these things asserts that the volume "Concerning the offices of the chartophylax and the first defender" was written by himself, that they are truly Balsamon's; such as it was written by Balsamon, it is edited in the *Jus Graeco-Romanum*, lib. IV, pag. 435.

^A ARIST. ‹ It must be requested of the emperor concerning the manumissions which take place in the churches. › Since a law was in force at that time that manumitted slaves should not receive their freedom anywhere except on the imperial registers, this synod urged the legates sent by it to beseech the emperor that the manumissions performed in the churches might not be overturned by this law, but that license to do this might be openly granted to them.

CANON LXVIII

BALS. Equitius was deposed and did not keep quiet. Aurelius therefore says that if the legates find him, they should take care, as far as they are able, to do something for the honor of the ecclesiastical state by making him desist. And all said that this pleased them. For the great impudence and trouble caused by Equitius is against him, that is, it makes them feel no pity for him.

ZONAR. Equitius was condemned by the bishops and stripped of his own rank, that is, he was deposed; yet he did not keep quiet, but caused trouble. They say, therefore, that he was condemned long ago according to his own merit, that is, as he deserved, and that the matter concerning him—that is, the action and case regarding him—ought not to be neglected; but that it should be enjoined upon him who is to go there as legate that, if he finds the man in those regions, he should with all zeal and effort fight against him for the sake of ecclesiastical tranquility, so that no disturbance may arise from him in the Church. For his restless impudence, they say—that is, because he does not wish to remain quiet because of his impudence—is such that we must the more ^D fight against him, that is, we must oppose him and resist his efforts.

ARIST. ‹ Equitius, having been condemned long ago by the judgment of the bishops, and acting impudently against the ecclesiastical constitution, is to be opposed. ›

Fourth Act.

^B In this assembly, the letter of Anastasius, Pope of Rome, written to the synod regarding the Donatists, was read, to the effect that they should be received and treated with clemency, and the Fathers gave thanks to God and to the Pope. In this council are read the letters of Anastasius, Pope of Rome, admonishing the Catholic bishops concerning the Donatists.

In the consulship of the most illustrious Vincentius and Flavius, on the Ides of September, at Carthage, in the secretarium of the Restituta Church, the bishops from all the provinces in Africa, having gathered for a synod and presided, that is, Aurelius, bishop of the same see, with his colleagues, as indicated by his signature, said: Having read the letters of our most blessed brother and fellow-priest Anastasius, bishop of the Roman Church, through which, with brotherly—or rather, fatherly—care and sincerity of affection, he has exhorted us not to dissimulate in any way concerning the snares and impudence of the heretical and schismatic Donatists, who are grievously laying waste the Catholic Church throughout the whole region of the Africans, we give thanks to God our Lord, that He has deigned to inspire such pious concern in His most excellent and holy priest for the members of Christ; which, ^C although they be in different parts of the earth, are nevertheless established in the one structure and harmony of the body.

CANON LXIX.

Afterward, having treated and considered all things which appear to contribute to ecclesiastical utility, the divine Spirit inspiring and prompting us, we have judged it better to deal with the aforementioned men gently and peacefully, even if they have most vehemently separated themselves from the union of the Dominical body through restless dissension; so that, as far as it lies within us, it may be known to all, in all the provinces of Africa, who are ensnared in their communion and familiarity, in what a miserable error they are caught: perchance, as the Apostle says, God will grant them repentance to acknowledge the truth upon our gathering together in meekness those who think differently, and that those who have been caught in the snares of the devil may be delivered by Him [for His own will]. ^D

^A BALS. The present canon says nothing other than that the Fathers ought to act gently and peacefully toward the Donatists, even if they sever themselves from the union of the Lord’s body. Now, one must understand the “Lord’s body” as the Church, of which Christ is the head; or [as] the divine mysteries, since they differ from the faithful regarding these, as has been said before.

ZONAR. As has been said above, this synod made a report to the bishop of Rome, and having received his instructions, it resolved to act gently and peacefully toward the Donatists, even though, they say, they sever themselves as much as possible from the union of the Lord’s body. Now, one must understand the “Lord’s body” as either the Church, that is, the gathering of the Orthodox, of which Christ is considered the head, or the sacred mysteries of the Lord’s body, because they disagreed with the faithful in these matters most of all, and participated in them in a way far different from that which the Church prescribes, as has already been said before; so that, ^B as much as in us lies—that is, as much as is within our power—it may become clear to all those who share their heresy how miserably they have been bound in error, and that, having perceived the truth, they may perhaps return to health. And these things they have explained both with apostolic sentiments and words.

ARIST. “It has seemed [good] that we should deal gently and peacefully with the Donatists, even though they separate themselves from the Church; if, perchance, by respecting our great gentleness, they may be delivered from [their] captivity.” ^C It behooves the disciples of the meek and peaceful Christ to take care of those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church and to strive in every way to gather them together with meekness and gentleness, and to lead them back to the Church; not, however, that they should seek only their own [interests] and neglect the salvation of others. Therefore, the synod decreed to approach the Donatists, who have severed themselves from the Lord’s body and have been bound by error, with meekness, and to exhort them to abandon their error and acknowledge the truth, so that, perhaps, respecting the charity and meekness of those who exhort them, they might be delivered from captivity.

CANON LXX

“Concerning the letters which ought to be sent to the magistrates of Africa, that what has passed between the Donatists and the Maximianists may be made clear. It has therefore pleased the synod that letters from our assembly be ^D given to the magistrates of Africa, from whom it seemed appropriate to request that they provide aid to the common mother, the Catholic Church, in those places where the authority of the bishops is scorned; that is, that through their magisterial power and diligence and Christian faith they may inquire into what has taken place in all the places where the Maximianists have seized churches; and furthermore, that those who have severed themselves from them may, in all things, necessarily cause a firm and stable knowledge of these matters to be entered into the public records.”

^A BALS. Here it is decreed that synodal letters be given to the magistrates who are in Africa, so that they may lend aid to the Church, where the authority of the bishops is held in contempt; and that through their power the audacity of the heretics' undertakings may be corrected, either by acts written publicly or by manifest punishment.

ZONAR. It was the duty of bishops to instruct the people. But if there were any who were unruly and seditious, causing tumults and disturbances in the Church, they called upon the magisterial power to coerce them. Therefore, the same is decreed here, and letters are decreed to those magistrates, that they may take up the protection of the Catholic Church, the common parent of all. Now the Church is called the common parent of the faithful, because in her we have derived the beginning of life through the divine gift of baptism, and indeed of that life which, freed from the chains of disturbances, we lead in divine light and liberty, and by whose benefit we arrive at the happiness of heavenly life. They especially desire them to provide protection in those matters where the authority of the bishops is held in contempt; so that, aided by the resources of the magistrates, they may investigate the things that are being perpetrated by the Maximianists. Note that the Maximianists were certain [persons] from the heresy of the Donatists, who, having made a secession from their own heretical fellowships, had seized the churches of the orthodox. On these matters, therefore, the Fathers of the synod request the magistrates to make an inquiry, and they demand that the knowledge concerning these things—which is necessary for everyone, that is to say useful, from which evidently utility is destined to reach everyone—be inscribed and entered into public acts, or in commentaries written publicly.

^C ARIST. “By synodal letters the magistrates must be asked to lend aid to the common mother, the Catholic Church, among those by whom the authority of the bishops is held in contempt.” Those who are not persuaded by reason and canonical decrees need the hand of the magistrate for correction. Therefore, this synod also deemed it fitting to write to the magistrates of Africa, and to ask them to lend aid to the common mother, the Catholic Church, in cases where the bishops cannot use their priestly power; being held in contempt perhaps by heretics, or even by unruly believers.

^D

CANON LXXI.

in that place, while he governs the Church, if this appears to contribute to the peace of the Christians, let them be received in their own honors, as in times past it is manifest that this has been done concerning the same dissent; which indeed the examples of many and nearly all the churches in Africa, in which this error arose, attest. ^A Not that the synod which was held concerning this matter in transmarine parts should be dissolved, but that it should remain for those who thus wish to pass over to the Catholic Church, so that it may not cause any tearing of the union. But by those through whom it shall appear that the Catholic union is in all ways effected and aided, by the manifest gain of fraternal souls in the places where they dwell, let them not be hindered by that which was determined against their honors ^B in the transmarine synod, since salvation is denied to no person. This is that those who were ordained by the party of the Donatists, if, being corrected, they should wish to pass over to the Catholic faith, should not be received in their own honors against the transmarine synod, but that they rather should be received, through whom provision is made for Catholic unity.

BALS. This canon also is special. For it pleased the Fathers that those who come from the Donatists to the orthodox faith should be received in such a way that they obtain their own sacred ^C ranks, even if it seemed otherwise regarding this in the transmarine synod, that is to say, the one in Italy.

ZONAR. Concerning the Donatists this canon also decrees. And indeed, how it is opposed to the synod held in the parts of Italy, which had forbidden that the Donatists, if they should return to the orthodox faith, should continue in the ranks of sacred orders, he explains at length and weaves an excuse. But then he decrees that the clergy who received orders from the Donatists, if they betake themselves to the Catholic Church, should remain in their own orders, and enjoy their prerogatives according to the reason of each order; nor indeed should they be despoiled of them, as had been decided in the transmarine synod. He names the transmarine synod the one which, as we have said, was convened in Italy. For when, he says, we receive the Donatists, each in his own order, we look out for ^D Catholic unity at the same time. For from this it happens that more people embrace the orthodox faith, and consequently the unity of believers coalesces more and more every day.

ARIST. "Those who are ordained by the Donatists, even if they have been excluded by the transmarine synod, repentant, yet since it is good that all be saved, if they correct themselves, let them be received."

These Donatists, moved by repentance and anathematizing their own heresy, are to remain in their own honor.

^A

CANON LXXII. That an embassy be sent to the Donatists for the establishing of peace. It was resolved, furthermore, that after these things were done, delegates should be sent from our number to preach peace and unity—without which the salvation of Christians cannot exist—to the Donatists themselves, whether to those whom they have as bishops or to the laity. Through these delegates, it should be made known to all that they have nothing just or reasonable to say against the catholic Church. It should be made especially manifest to all, through the municipal acts, to serve as proof and demonstration, just as they themselves acted regarding the Maximianists, their own schismatics. There, it is shown to them by divine providence, if they would care to consider it, that they were then just as unjustly severed from the ecclesiastical union as they themselves cry out that the Maximianists were unjustly separated from them. And from the number of those whom they condemned by the manifest authority of their own counsel, they afterwards received them back into their own honors. Furthermore, the baptism which those who were condemned and ^B expelled among them had given, they accepted, so that it may be shown how foolishly their hearts oppose the peace of the Church, which is spread throughout the whole world. By doing these things for the party of Donatus, while saying that they themselves are not defiled by the communion of those whom they accepted out of necessity for the sake of peace, yet contending against us—that is, the catholic Church, which exists even to the furthest parts of the earth—they could not refute the fact that they remained in the defiled communion of those whom they previously accused. ^C

BALS. This present canon also speaks of the Donatists. For it was deemed necessary that some delegates be sent to them for the sake of peace and unity, and to show that they do not rightly oppose the catholic Church; and that they even receive some from the Maximianists—who they say departed from them unjustly—and communicate with them. And those whom they condemned by their own judgment, they later received back into their own honors; and those whom those who were condemned and expelled by them from their priesthood had baptized, they accepted; and that, while doing these things, they say they are not defiled.

ZONAR. These things also concern the Donatists. For it pleased the synodal assembly that delegates be sent to them to exhort them to make peace and unite with the catholic Church. Let them teach them, moreover, that they act in no wise rightly in opposing the quiet of the ecclesiastical constitution, nor ^D do they justly contend against the catholic Church through their divided communion.

They also demonstrate that they sin not insignificantly in this matter on the grounds that they receive certain of the Maximianists who, as they themselves assert, departed from them undeservedly, and that they communicate with them, and that those whom they had previously condemned by their own judgment, they later accepted while their honors were preserved; and also that they do not reject others baptized by them, whom they themselves condemned, and whom they removed from the sacred order which exists among them, nor do they consider that they contract any stain by doing these things. ^A

ARIST.

That delegates be sent to preach peace and unity to the Donatists, for those who are converted to the orthodox faith.

These Fathers judged that not only should Donatists who approach the catholic Church be received, but also that delegates should be sent to them to preach the peace of the Churches and unity, if they are converted to the orthodox faith. ^B

CANON LXXIII.

Which of the clergy ought to abstain from their wives.

BALS. How bishops, presbyters, and deacons ought to practice continence from their own wives during the time of their duty has been stated in the 13th canon of the synod in Trullo. The current canon also says that they are to be deposed if they do not practice continence at that time. However, it does not demand these things from the rest of the clergy, who do not handle the holy things, but commands them to observe the custom of the church of each region. Read also the 3rd canon of the archbishop of Alexandria, Dionysius. Note, therefore, that at the time of the present synod, bishops had their own wives without prejudice. Thus, therefore, these things have been sanctioned by the canon. But how shall those who perhaps do not practice continence be deposed, since the matter is not manifest? For who will confess against himself? Or who will set about to convict him? Wherefore, my opinion is that those initiated into the sacred mysteries should not celebrate the sacred mysteries perpetually. It is for this reason that ^D the Fathers in the tenth canon of the synod in Trullo made mention of "turns." And it is for this reason that in the great and catholic churches, the duties of the ordained have been divided. For they who celebrate the sacred mysteries daily are liable to the canon by presumption, because they cohabit with their wives, and openly they offend the people. For this reason, as it seems to me, it was forbidden that any man become a cleric in many churches, and also that the celebration of the sacred mysteries and baptisms take place in oratories which are in houses. And this has fallen into disuse for another reason from the Novella of the lord Leo the Philosopher, which even in divers-

commentaries on the canons, you may read as laid down. ^B ZONAR. Here also the Fathers decree regarding the continence of those who are initiated into sacred orders from the commerce of their own wives. Therefore, they enjoin bishops, presbyters, and deacons to abstain from them; and if any should act contrary to this, they are to be punished with deposition. But from other clerics they by no means require this; rather, they order the custom of each one’s own church to be observed in this matter. Observe, then, here also how custom carries the force of law. And the ^C thirteenth canon of the Sixth Synod discusses more broadly the continence of their own wives, so that those who handle holy things should abstain from them at the seasonable time; but also the third canon of Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria.

ARIST. ‹Let bishops, presbyters, and deacons abstain from their own wives, or be removed from ecclesiastical order. But the remaining clerics shall not be compelled to this; rather, let the custom be preserved.›

This canon legislates concerning all without distinction—bishops, presbyters, and deacons—that they should abstain from their own wives according to their own set times. But the twelfth canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo does not permit bishops, after they have been ordained to the episcopacy, to dwell together with their own wives, lest they become a cause of offense ^D and scandal to the people from this. But the thirteenth canon of the same synod commands that presbyters and deacons, when they are deemed worthy of ordination, ought not to promise to separate from their own wives, just as this had prevailed in the Church of the Romans in the manner of a canon; but [it commands them] to dwell with them, and not to be deprived of intercourse with one another at the seasonable time. Therefore, those canons prevail, and the Church is governed according to them today.

CANON LXXIV.

BALS. Certain bishops, leaving their own primitive [E] cathedras, went off and sat in certain other churches of the parishes belonging to them, which were perhaps more populous or of greater revenue; therefore, the Fathers decreed that it is permitted to no bishop to do this, nor even for the sake of his own private business to depart from that which has fallen to his lot for a long time, and thus not to bear the care of continually teaching the people. And in these indeed

^A the canon has its place. But someone will ask: do these things which are said in the canon also have a place in the case of those bishops who have lost their original sees, because they have been occupied by the Gentiles; and can they without prejudice migrate to the churches of their dioceses [parœciæ]?

*Solution.* Some have said that the bishop can do this of his own volition. Others said that he also requires synodal judgment. Others still said that this can be done by imperial mandate. To me, however, it seems that if such a metropolitan wishes to migrate to a see within his bishopric, because his original church has been occupied by the Gentiles, he must be established in it with an imperial mandate and synodal judgment; just as this was done for the metropolitan of Neocaesarea, who received as a seat his own bishopric of Oeneum; and for the metropolitan of Pisidian Antioch, who received Sozopolis as a seat; and for many others. But if the diocese [parœcia] was not honored with an episcopal throne, that he may be established in it, it must be by synodal judgment alone, and not of his own volition, as some say; lest he be opposed to the Apostolic canon and the rest, which determine that the bishop can innovate nothing contrary to synodal opinion.

Furthermore, someone will ask: if the canon defines these things, can a bishop, through imperial mandate and synodal judgment, migrate from his original see, even if it is not occupied by the Gentiles, to a different episcopal chair or to a church of his diocese? ^B *Solution.* With the emperor’s mandate and synodal judgment both shall be granted to the bishop; but otherwise, in no way. For this reason also the archbishop of Derkos, having often requested permission to migrate from Derkos to the emporium which is called Phileas, because it was more populous, was not heard. Moreover, other various bishops, having poor churches but wealthy and populous dioceses, when they requested this, were not heard on account of the present canon. Note these things, and keep them in memory because of the transfers which are sought by bishops, and which occur in some cases. Search the 12th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon, which say that ecclesiastics ought to follow those things which are decreed by the imperial power. And since the present canon determines that a bishop must not travel further than is fitting from that which has fallen to his lot (for this is uncertain), read the 16th canon of the council which was held in the Church of the Holy Apostles, and interpret the present canon according to the laws which are set forth in it. ^C

ZONARAS. Both the nature of the thing itself and the decrees of the canons, issued often on this matter, demand that bishops remain perpetually in their proper episcopal station, and labor in instructing the people and directing them to the straight path of virtue; and not that they leave their primary seats and betake themselves to another church. For many bishops have churches in other places of their diocese, which are also called dioceses [parœciæ] by the canons, ^D

^A in which no bishops are accustomed to be appointed. Therefore, the canon orders that a bishop should not go off to such a church and linger, neglecting his own people; but rather that he should appoint a chorepiscopus there, or entrust the administration of the affairs of that place to a presbyter; and that bishops should steadfastly remain in their own churches and not be absent longer than is fitting, even for the sake of attending to their own private business, nor should they abandon the solicitous care of remaining in their episcopal station and instructing the people. And that phrase "longer than is fitting" is defined here with no limitation; however, in the sixteenth canon of the synod held in the Church of the Holy Apostles, which is called the First and Second, the divine Fathers decreed that it is not permitted for a bishop to be absent from his own see for more than six months, under penalty of deposition. The eleventh canon of the Synod of Sardica, however, seems to have set a shorter term for a bishop's absence, unless some necessary cause intervenes, as may be gathered from the example that is brought forward there. Concerning the departure of bishops from their own churches, various Novels also make provision, which are found in the third book of the Basilica, title 1, in various chapters.

ARIST. ^B It has been determined that no bishop, having abandoned his principal see, should transport himself to another, or, being solicitous about his own private affairs, should neglect his throne.

Not only is a bishop forbidden by various canons from migrating from city to city, but this canon also does not permit him to abandon that church which was properly his own from the beginning, and to pass over to another church that is within the same diocese, or to transfer his honor to it. Nor is it permitted for him to be more solicitous than is fitting about his own private affairs, and to neglect the care and instruction of the people. ^C

CANON LXXV

^C Concerning infants who ought to be baptized, whenever there is doubt as to whether they have been baptized. It has likewise been decreed concerning infants, whenever trustworthy witnesses who can attest without controversy that they have been baptized are not found; and since they themselves, because of their age, are not able to respond appropriately concerning the mystery that has been delivered to them; that they may be baptized without any offense. Nor will this doubt ever deprive them of such a lustration of sanctification. For the legates of the Moors, our brothers, have so consulted, because they buy many such [infants] from the Barbarians. ^D

BALS. Read the canon of the synod in Trullo, and you will find there the interpretation of the present canon without any change, just as you will find the words of the canon itself.

ZONAR. This canon, with a few small...

exceptions of wording, is exactly the same as that of the synod in Trullo, which is called the Sixth, and it was explained there. ^A

ARIST. Regarding those about whom there is doubt whether they have been baptized or not, it was resolved that they be baptized, lest they be deprived of divine purification on account of the uncertainty.

The canons indeed forbid different persons to be baptized a second time, unless they were baptized by impious persons. But if anyone is in doubt as to whether he was baptized, inasmuch as he himself does not know this on account of his infantile age, and neither do others confirm and testify that he was undoubtedly baptized, he ought to be baptized without any doubt, lest he be deprived of divine purification on account of the uncertainty.

CANON LXXVI.

It was likewise resolved that the day of the venerable Pascha be made known to all through the subscription of letters of communion; moreover, that the day of the synod be kept the same that was established at the synod of Hippo, that is, before the tenth of the Kalends of September. For it must also be written to the primates of all the provinces, so that when they convoke a council among themselves, they abstain from that day.

BALS. Other various canons have also established when a synod ought to be held by the provincials for the purpose of resolving ecclesiastical questions. The present canon also says that at the time of the synod (that is, before the Kalends of September, namely of the month of August; for the Kalends are the first day of the month) the day of Pascha should be declared, so that it may be known to all who are in Africa. And the canon consists of these things. ^C But because the institution of the day of Pascha is not known either from the present canon or from any other (for even the seventh canon of the holy apostles only decrees that we should celebrate Pascha after the vernal equinox, and nothing more), we thought it necessary for us to teach those who desire it, by means of the interpretation of the present canon, how the day of the legal or Jewish, and of the Christian, Pascha is found, and indeed also the time of Carnisprivium (the beginning of the fast). For it is likely that some orthodox person might arrive in places where such things are not investigated or known, and out of ignorance might abstain from meats or celebrate Pascha at a time other than the proper one, which is unpardonable. ^D One must therefore know, before all else, that if someone does not know the day of the legal Pascha, he cannot know when the Christian Pascha ought to take place. Further, it is to be known that the legal Pascha occurs from the twenty-first of the month of March up to the eighteenth of the month of April, but the Christian Pascha from the twenty-third of the month of March up to the twenty-fifth of the month of April. These things having been thus considered beforehand, if you wish to ascertain exactly the day of the Jewish Pascha and likewise that of the Christian, first seek and find the cycle of the moon, which is found as follows: Count the years from the creation of the world, and divide them by nineteen, and those that remain declare the cycle of the moon.

Then find the cycle of the sun as follows: Count the years from the creation of the world, and divide them by twenty-eight, and those that remain declare the cycle of the sun. The cycles of the moon, which are nineteen, begin from the month of January; but the cycles of the sun, which are twenty-eight in number, begin from the month of October. ^A Since the cycles of the moon and the sun are thus found, multiply the cycle of the moon running at that time by eleven; then add, up to the sixteenth cycle, six days on account of the past centuries, which are called epacts; and after the sixteenth cycle up to the nineteenth, add likewise seven days. And after you have gathered all these days into one sum, divide them by thirty, and when you have arrived at a number less than thirty days, take it, and add to it from the month of March or even April as many days as suffice to complete fifty. And immediately say at the end of the fifty that the legal Pascha must occur.

But in order that what is said may be clearer by an example, seek the Paschal days of the current year, and say as follows: The cycle of the moon in this year is seventeen, which, when multiplied by eleven, yields one hundred and eighty-seven days. For eleven times seventeen is one hundred and eighty-seven. ^B When there are added to these, on account of the centuries as has been said, seven days, a sum of one hundred and ninety-four days is completed. From which quantity, when divided by thirty, fourteen days remain. For six times thirty is one hundred and eighty. Therefore, in order that the number of fifty days may be completed, so that the day of the legal Pascha may be found, add to the aforementioned fourteen days the thirty-one days of the month of March and five days from April; and having thus summed up fifty days, say that the legal Pascha must occur on the fifth day of the month of April.

But since the day of the month is found in this way, whereas the day of the week is hidden, it is necessary that you also be taught this. And since in this year ^C the cycle of the sun is twenty-two, take this cyclic number and add to it one day for each four-year period on account of the bissextile (leap) day—that is, for the twenty-two cycles, five days, which are also called epacts. Likewise, add to these—if the legal Pascha is found in the month of March—eleven days on account of the preceding months which are reckoned from the month of October; that is, three days for October (because this month has thirty-one days), two days for November (because it has thirty days), and six days for December and January ^D (because each of them has thirty-one days). For the month of February you will add nothing, because it lacks them. But if the legal Pascha is found in the month of April, as happens at the present time, add also three other days for the month of March, so that there are fourteen days for the months. Therefore, having found the legal day of Pascha, as we have said, on the fifth of the month of April, add to these the days of the solar cycle, and the five from the bissextile (which are also called epacts), and the months; and gather the sum of all these days, and resolve it again into six weeks, saying thus, six times seven

equals forty-two, and you will find four days remaining, which means that the legal Passover results on the fifth of the month of April, which is the fourth day of the week. Therefore, since there is an ecclesiastical tradition that the Christian Passover should take place after the legal Passover in one and the same week on the first day, you must say that the Christian Passover must necessarily be on the ninth of the month of April. With these things being so, if you subtract fifty-six days from the Paschal day, you will find *Apokreon* (Shrovetide). If you do not wish this, that is, to know *Apokreon* by subtracting fifty-six days, but wish to do it with greater ease, since this year is bissextile, add four days and say, nine and four make thirteen; so that *Apokreon* is February 13. This happens because of the bissextile. For if it were not bissextile, four days would not be added, but three. But since we have mentioned the bissextile in various places, you must know that every year has three hundred and sixty-five days and six hours. Therefore, those who reduced the years and months to a quantity decided that the surplus hours beyond three hundred and sixty-five should be added to the month of February. And therefore, the month of February, after every four-year period counted by the first solar cycle, has twenty-nine days. ^C

ZONAR. It was determined that the day of Passover should be made known to the regions of Africa through the annual synod that is to take place; and they fixed the time for the synod to be held as ten days before the Calends of September, which is the twenty-first of August. For "Calends," as has been said somewhere above, are called the first days of the month. If, therefore, you remove the ten days before these, there remain in August, which is completed in thirty-one days, twenty-one.

ARIST. "It has pleased us that the day of the annual synod, that is, the tenth day before the Calends of September, be proclaimed as the day of the holy Passover." The synod also decreed this in various ways, so that the day of Passover might be made known at the synod held annually in Africa. ^D

CANON LXXVII. "Concerning the fact that a bishop who is a guest should not sit in the chair where he is being entertained. Likewise, it was determined that it is not permitted for any intercessor to hold the chair to which an intercessor has been given, because of any zeal or discord of the people; but that they should strive to provide a bishop for them within a year. And if he displays negligence regarding this, after the completion of the year, another intercessor shall be chosen."

BALS. In ancient times, when a bishopric became vacant, someone was sent for the sake of pacifying the people, whom they also na—

named a mediator. The canon therefore says that he ought not claim the bishopric for himself; but if he does not rather exert himself to become (the) bishop, he should be removed from the mediation, and another should be designated. Since the matters concerning such a mediator are not in use today, and yet it is absolutely necessary that, if possible, the churches should choose their own, we have not written anything further on this. This mediator, however, was a bishop, as is apparent from the title of the canon.

ZONAR. It was an ancient custom that if a church were ever deprived of a bishop, someone should be sent to it—whom they called a mediator—to quiet the people, who were perhaps in a state of sedition, or for other reasons. If, therefore, within a year such a mediator did not take care that a bishop be given to his own people, that is, to the people for whom he was mediator, he was removed from the mediation, and another mediator was given to that people.

ARIST. "It has seemed good that to a bishop given for mediation, on account of any zeal or dissension of the people, it is not permitted to hold the seat of which he is mediator; but within the year he must provide a bishop, or after the year another mediator shall be designated." If a multitude of people, having disserted among themselves and been divided, and being kindled to dissensions and fights, has a bishop sent to it for mediation to reconcile them, he must not occupy the chair of that city for which he was given as mediator. Rather, he must strive within the year to suppress the sedition and pacify them, and persuade them to accept a bishop. If he is able to achieve nothing at all within the year for the benefit of the people, after the year has elapsed, another mediator shall be designated.

CANON LXXVIII. Regarding the defenders of the churches who ought to be requested from the Emperor.

"It has seemed good to all to petition the emperors on account of the vexation of the poor, by whose troubles the Church is assiduously fatigued: that defenders be chosen for them with the foresight of the bishops against the tyranny of the rich."

BALS. There is an absolute necessity laid upon bishops to defend those who are afflicted by injury. But, as it seems, because certain bishops, when they spoke on behalf of the poor and oppressed, were not heard, the Fathers ordained that the emperors should be admonished so that defenders might be granted by them, with the choice of the bishops, for the sake of checking the tyrannies of the rich, and so that the constant disturbance brought upon the churches by those who approach them because they are being wronged by the powerful might cease. And this canon consists in these matters. You, however, should know that the appointment of defenders, who are called *ekdikoi* in Greek—whether it took its beginning from the present canon or was also known before—was made through the choice of the inhabitants of each city. There is also Justinian’s Novella 15, which describes their election and promotion, and decrees that in each city by the bishops and clerics and citizens a little

^A of better standing, defenders are to be selected according to the size of the city's population, sufficient to judge up to the amount of three hundred [numismata], and lighter criminal cases, and not to permit the powerful to overrun the weaker and the poor, and to restrain the collectors of public taxes who exact more than is proper. And the same Novella, in its generosity to them, adds other privileges, decreeing that after two years those who have fulfilled this office for such a time should cease, and others be proposed in their stead. But such a Novella was not recorded here, because it is not even in force; for no such defenders are selected in any city. ^B Only in Constantinople are defenders and a [protekdikos] (first defender) sealed, and by the other high priests a [protekdikos] is appointed; and these have no privilege from the things contained in the Novella. For only the [protekdikos] of the most holy Great Church and the defenders under him judge only cases concerning status as a freedman. I believe, however, that from the aforementioned Novella the [protekdikos] is entitled to judge all who come to him regarding financial matters and lighter criminal cases, whatever the status or condition of the plaintiffs and defendants may be; and especially when the amount of the case does not exceed thirty [numismata]. Likewise, it is permitted to him to restrain the injustices of those who exercise power, according to ecclesiastical laws; he shall also draw into his ^C court all those who are said to wrong the refugees of the Church, and they will not be compelled to send them to the civil court, as is done today. But also the [protekdikikon biblion] grants him many privileges; however, I do not know how it is that most of them are disregarded.

ZONAR. Bishops ought not only to teach the people committed to them, but also to undertake their patronage if they are unjustly harmed, and to defend them as much as they are able. But since some, powerful in wealth, despised even the authority of the bishops, the Fathers of this synod requested of the emperor that certain defenders be appointed, to restrain the tyranny of the powerful together with the bishops, so that they might not, by the burdens placed upon the poor—that is, the heavy ^D pressures brought upon them—compel them to go to the civil court, just as you, if any of the presbyters or deacons have a dispute with someone, must summon the one being accused three times, according to the stated manner, and if he does not obey, condemn him.

Guill. Beveregii note. The words which Balsamon here considers concerning the defenders are as follows: "And let the defenders judge in all financial cases up to three hundred gold coins; not allowing those subject to us to draw those obligated to themselves before the most illustrious provincial judges, if the case concerns an amount up to the aforementioned three hundred [solidi]." (Justinian, Novel. 15, ch. 3, sect. 2). Correct, therefore, the Latin version of Balsamon in this place, where "thirty" is erroneously printed for "three hundred." Correct also the Greek text of Balsamon, where, a little later, it is written "triginta" (30), which is also how the Amerbachian codex reads. Balsamon also mentions the [protekdikikon biblion] in his meditation on those two offices, namely the [chartophylax] and the first defender. The actual words of the book on the office of the first defender, which he quotes, are of this kind: "It behooves you, if any of the presbyters and deacons has a lawsuit with someone, to summon the one who is accused a third time, according to the indicated manner, and if he does not obey, to condemn him." From these words it is concluded that the defender's office was established in this book, which does not exist today, and this seems to have been done by some emperor. The same Balsamon also asserts in the present place that many privileges are granted to the defenders in that book.

great injuries which are inflicted upon them, the Church is assiduously troubled; that is, on account of the poor flying to it and imploring aid from it, it is involved in constant perturbations. ARIST. That the bishop may not be troubled, ^A let defenders be appointed. Since the poor are affected by vexations from the more powerful, and the bishops are troubled by them on account of these vexations, it has seemed good to the synod to ask the emperor that, with the providence of the bishops, defenders be chosen so that they may resist the tyranny of the wealthy, and the bishops, as far as concerns these matters, may remain untroubled.

CANON LXXIX. Concerning bishops who do not present themselves at synods. Likewise it has pleased that, as often as it shall be necessary for a synod to gather, the bishops who are hindered neither by old age nor by infirmity nor by any most serious necessity, should, as is fitting, present themselves; and it should be signified to the primates ^B of each province of theirs concerning all the bishops, whether two or three congregations be made; and from each number, in turn, whoever have been chosen should most instantly present themselves on the day of the synod. But if they cannot present themselves, since many necessities (as is credible) arise at the same time: unless they have rendered to their primate an account of their impediment, they ought to be content with the communion of their own church.

BALS. The canon commands the bishops of each province—who are not hindered by age, that is, by advanced senility and deep old age, or by infirmity or another necessity—to come together to the appointed synods; and when they have been gathered, to give information to the metropolitan of the province in which each one is, and from each number, whether two or three congregations be made. (For perhaps, so that they might not be brought into straits regarding either ^C lodging or necessary things, they did not all come together into one city, but into two or three near the metropolis.) To present themselves "instantly," that is, without any delay, in turn, that is, by turns. For synods are not dissolved in one day, but in more. But if they cannot present themselves because they are hindered by a sudden necessity, let them explain the reasons for the impediment to the primate; if they do not do this, let them be content with the communion of their church alone, with others not communicating with them. And the canon consists of these things. But you, note here a new kind of excommunication. For other canons understand excommunication, as far as it pertains to bishops, to mean that they should perform ^D nothing priestly; but the present canon does not hinder them from the sacred ministry, but separates them from the communion of the rest of the brothers.

ZONAR. The canon demands without exception that the bishops of each province be gathered as often as there is need for a synod to be held, unless they are hindered by age, that is, advanced age and deep old age, or

other serious situations, they shall give notice to the metropolitan ^A of the province to which each belongs, and as to each gathering—whether there be two or three gatherings (for perhaps, so that they might not be straitened regarding lodging nor regarding the necessities of life, all did not gather in one city, but in two or three near the metropolis)—they shall attend promptly, that is, without excuse, without delay, on the day of the synod, by turns, that is, in rotation. For the synods were not broken up in one day, but in many, and this is plain from this synod. For it indicates that various acts took place on different days. ^B And "by turns," that is, that they should attend at different times, as many as are selected. If they cannot attend, as they suddenly arise, that is, unexpectedly and unforeseen, for necessary reasons, it demands that those who do not attend give an account to their own metropolitan, or if they do not give one, that they be content only with the communion of their own church, and that others do not communicate with them. ^C ARIST. <Those who do not attend the annual synod, unless they are hindered against their will, shall be content with the communion of their own church.>

Whoever of the bishops in the synod of each of their provinces do not attend, being hindered neither by old age, nor by infirmity, nor by some very grave necessity, but doing this out of sloth or even contempt; it has been determined that they should be chided in a brotherly way. But the present canon also adds the form of the chiding, commanding their fellow bishops and brethren not to communicate with them nor to celebrate the holy mysteries with them, but that they be content in their own ^D churches only, and serve in them.

CANON LXXX

BALS. Through Cresconius, the canon imposes a necessity on the bishops to gather at synods inexcusably, and threatens condemnation to those who neglect to gather. But it does not express the form of this. However, the 6th canon of the Seventh Synod decrees that administrators who prevent the annual synods from happening be excommunicated, and that metropolitans who neglect these things without a just cause be subjected to canonical penalties. As to what these penalties are and which they are, it is not explicitly written. It is therefore likely that they are those which are contained in the previous canon. Read also the aforementioned 6th canon of the Seventh Synod, and the 6th canon of the [Council] in Trullo, and what is written therein.

^A

ZONAR. This canon also, although issued regarding one bishop, imposes a necessity upon all other bishops to come together to the synod without any evasion whatever, and threatens those who neglect to attend.

ARIST. ‹If Cresconius, being summoned by letter to the synod, should not appear, let him know that a sentence will be issued against him.› It is clear.

CANON LXXXI

‹Regarding the curators of the Church of Hippo. It has again seemed good, since the lack of curators for the Church of Hippo must not be longer neglected; and because the churches that are there are detained by those ^B who have refused the communion of the prodigious Æcitius: that bishops be sent from the present synod, Rhiginus, Alypius, Augustine, Maternus, Theasius, Evodius, Placianus, Urbanus, Valerius, Amæbius, Fortunatus, Quodvultdeus, Honoratus, Januarius, Aptus, Honoratus, Ampelius, Victorianus, Evangelus, and Rogatianus; and that those who, with blameworthy pertinacity, thought that the flight of this same Æcitius was to be awaited, having been gathered and corrected, a bishop be elected for them with the votes of all. But if they are unwilling to think of peace, let them not place an impediment to the election of a prelate, that he may be ordained for the utility of the church which has been so long destitute.›

BALS. There are two cities in Africa which are called Hippos. In one of them was Equitius the bishop. And because some rose up against him and refused communion with him—which is called "informal," that is, un-notarized and unjust—it seemed good that they should be restrained by certain bishops; but if they do not wish for peace, that another bishop should be elected. ^C

ZONAR. Hippo is a city of Numidia; and Numidia is a region of Africa. But since there were two cities in Africa by the name of Hippo, in the other of these Equitius held the bishopric. Him some, supported also by popular factions, vehemently attacked, and rejected his communion, which the synod called "informal," because it was not defined or established by a synod. Therefore, to suppress such a sedition, it was deemed right that certain bishops should be sent from this place in order that, if possible, the sedition might be set right and the dissenters reconciled; but if they should not achieve this, that they should, in consideration of the utility of the Church of Hippo—which is long deserted, that is, lacking its own prelate—appoint someone as ^D bishop in it for the time being.

ARIST. ‹It has seemed good, that after the condemnation of Equitius, a bishop be set over Hippo by the votes of all; and that those [dissenters] by no means impede the ordination of a prelate in the Church.›

It pleased all that a bishop should be ordained into the Church of Hippo, the bishop thereof, Equitius, having been deposed, and that none of those who were opposed to him should hinder...

^A the ordination of a bishop for the benefit of the Church, which has been left for so long a time without a bishop.

CANON LXXXII

BALS. The present canon decrees that clerics who are accused on account of crimes, or against whom testimony has been given based on presumption, should take care that their cases be concluded within a year; if not, let them be excluded. However, these things are not in use today, because by various Novels every criminal case is extended into perpetuity.

ZONAR. If clerics are accused of crimes for which they are to be removed from the clergy, from which some stain of ignominy is cast upon the Church, as if the life of the clerics were flagitious, the canon requires of them that within the space of a year they strive to free themselves from the guilt which is brought against them; and this either for the sake of reverence or to preserve the dignity of the sacred order, by which name they are spared in the meantime, so that no note of infamy might cling to the sacred order, or so that heretics might not be puffed up with insolent vanity, and from this take an opportunity ^C to despise the priesthood: and for that year it orders them to abstain also from communion. For on that account the canon at the beginning called them "convicted," not because they were held to be manifestly liable for the crimes—for if they had been convicted, the penalty of deposition would have followed immediately—but because there existed evidences of the crime, on account of which they were deservedly punished with the privation of communion. Therefore, if within the interval of one year they show themselves to be implicated in no guilt, they shall also be set free from the penalty; but if they do not, once that time has passed, they shall not be admitted to conduct their case, even if they desire it very much.

ARIST. ‹ A cleric convicted of a crime, if he says that he is going to defend his case, let him defend it within a year; but after that let him not be admitted. › A cleric accused of crimes and already condemned, if he still says that he can bring forward his rights and prove himself innocent, he must litigate within a year; but after a year no defense of his cause will be admitted, but he will be considered condemned as far as the litigation itself is concerned. And if he should wish to appeal after that, let him do so.

CANON LXXXIII

nor laymen may be received without letters of commendation, and they must remain in the monastery where they are assigned. ^A Likewise it pleased, that if anyone should receive someone from another monastery, and should wish to promote him to the clergy, or appoint him superior of his own monastery, the bishop who does this, being separated from the communion of the rest, shall be content with the communion of his own people only; and that man shall remain neither clerk nor superior.› ^B BALS. The present canon punishes the bishop who receives a monk from another monastery and promotes him to the rank of clerk or to the superiorship of his own monastery; and it expels such a monk, who has been admitted to the clergy or even created superior of a monastery, from the clergy and from the superiorship. And let not the fourth canon of the synod which was held in the church of the Holy Apostles ^C seem to you to be contrary to these things, which determines that it is in the power of the bishops not only to transfer monks from this monastery to another, but also to set them over secular houses. But say that here it is forbidden for a bishop to receive a monk from another diocese, and even to appoint him superior or clerk, whereas there it was granted to the bishop to transfer monks of his own diocese from this monastery to another, and to set them over secular administration; which cannot happen against the will of the local bishops. But the provisions of the present canon will then have force when the monk from another diocese does not bring letters of dismission from his own bishop. For then, without any impediment, he may become a superior or a clerk in another diocese. ^D However, what is done today by those in charge of monasteries, who send away with a letter those tonsured by them so that they might be monks in another monastery, is not, as it seems to me, firm and accurate. For there is more need of a bishop’s letter of dismission for one who wishes to migrate, and not of a monastery superior’s, because monks are subject to the bishops more than to the superiors of monasteries. These things, moreover, will hold for other bishops, but not for the Patriarch of Constantinople. For to him, as has been frequently said, it was granted to receive without impediment monks and clerks from other dioceses, even those not entirely subject to his see. But this does not hold for the throne of Antioch, or of Jerusalem, or another. ZONAR. It is forbidden for a monk who has departed from his own monastery to be received by any other. If, therefore, a bishop, he says, receives such a monk, and appoints him either superior of a monastery or a clerk, the bishop indeed will be excluded from the fellowship of others, and will be content with the communion of his own people only; but the monk will be cast out both from the clergy and from the rank of the superiorship. ARIST. ‹ Whoever receives someone from another monastery, if he promotes him to the clergy or sets him over his own monastery, shall be deprived of the communion of others. › Monks ought to be subject to the bishop of the region and to persevere in the monasteries in which they are placed,

and not to abandon them, unless perhaps they are permitted by the bishop of the city for some necessary business: just as the fourth canon of the Council of Chalcedon establishes. But if a bishop receives any monk from another monastery, and makes him a cleric, or the prefect of his own monastery, as regards his other confreres and fellow-bishops, he shall be excommunicated, and will be content with the communion of his own people alone. ^A

CANON LXXXIV.

Concerning bishops who leave heretics or Greeks as heirs.

BALS. Every bishop, after he has been elected, ought to register his own property; and if he does this according to the apostolic canon, he has the liberty to dispose of them according to the laws. The present canon says, therefore, that if a bishop, who has registered his own property, makes a will when dying, and writes down heretics as his heirs, whether they be his kinsfolk or aliens, and passes over the Church, he will be subject to anathema even after his death, and his name will be erased from the memory of the priests. And he himself will indeed be punished in this way; but his will, as being unlawful and against the laws, will be set aside, and the heretical heirs will receive nothing, as though the bishop were seen to have died intestate, and what follows: this is, if his will is set aside, as has been said, he will not be able to find a defense, so that his affairs are not administered according to his will. That is to say, if he were among the living, he would not chide the invalidation of his will. For when he became a bishop, he ought, according to the laws and in a manner worthy of his profession, to have made a disposition; not, however, ^C in a way contrary to the laws and the dignity of a bishop. For what communion is there between an orthodox person and a heretic? This is the interpretation of the canon, as it seems to me. And read the 24th canon of the Council of Antioch, and the eighth chapter of the 10th title of the present work; and chapter 10, title 3, book 5 of the *Basilica*, which is novella 131, which teaches that if bishops and clerics die intestate, the inheritance belongs to the churches. And let not the novella of the emperor lord Constantine Porphyrogenitus seem to thee to conflict, which treats of those who die intestate without children, that they are not to be succeeded by collateral kinsfolk, but that a third part of the goods of those who die in this way goes to pious and soul-saving distributions; when the prices collected from the slaves of him who is dead are also added to these, ^D

^A for those who are liberated from there. For this novella was proclaimed regarding laypeople, and it ought to hold for them, just as the said Justinianic novella will be effective for bishops and clerics who die intestate.

ZONAR. The fortieth canon of the holy apostles ^B says: "Let the private property of the bishop be manifest, and the Church's property be manifest; that the dying bishop might have the power to leave his own property to whom he wishes." The twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Antioch prescribes similar things. Thus, the bishop is permitted by these to leave his own property to whomever he wishes—provided they are faithful and orthodox, and not to infidels or heretics, even if they are joined to him by blood-kinship. But if, at his death, he should write any such person as his heir, that man is anathematized even after death, and his name is erased from the registers and memory of the priests. These things maintain their force if a bishop, in disposing of his estate, leaves heretics as heirs. But the remainder of the canon is obscure and therefore difficult to understand. I suppose it means that if a bishop dies intestate, the bishop who succeeds him will be held accountable, devoid of any excuse, if he does not properly manage the deceased’s property; for he is obligated and carries the duty to make the distribution—that is, the administration—of the goods of the deceased bishop in a manner that is appropriate, that is, worthy of his calling. For whoever is made bishop professes to keep the canons; and the canons require him to be a lover of the poor, a lover of hospitality, and a despiser of money. Moreover, the one-hundred-and-thirty-first novella, in Book V, Title 3, Chapter 10 of the *Basilica*, prescribes that if any bishops or clerics die having made no testament, and have no legal successors, the inheritance shall belong to the churches which they previously held.

ARIST. "A bishop who writes heretics or pagans as heirs, let him be anathema." ^C These are also prevented by the laws from disposing, and from receiving an inheritance or legacy by testament. Therefore, those left as heirs by a bishop will receive no profit for themselves; but the public treasury will take what is left to them. And those who write them as heirs will inherit the anathema.

CANON LXXXV. "Concerning manumissions. Similarly, it pleased that for manumissions which occur in the church, a petition be made to the emperor."

BALS. Slaves who, for certain reasons, came to the churches, were manumitted by episcopal judgment. But because their masters attempted to reduce them back into slavery, it seemed right that the emperor should be admonished concerning these matters, so that the power of the masters might be restrained. And the canon consists of these things. But you should know that from the book stored in the secretariat of the *protecdikos*, which contains the things decreed by the illustrious restorer of the most holy Great Church, the Emperor Justinian, ^D many privileges are held by those who

^A are manumitted on behalf of the Church. Read also the twenty-sixth title of the forty-eighth book, which teaches concerning those who are manumitted, and the novel of the glorious Emperor Lord Alexios Komnenos, which decrees that the laws concerning the opposing production of witnesses have no place when someone contends for his liberty; but that the production of witnesses should be made only by him who is being led into servitude, or who claims his own liberty.

ZONAR. Slaves fleeing to the churches for certain reasons were manumitted, if the bishop judged it equitable, whom their masters endeavored to draw back into servitude. It seemed good, therefore, that the Emperor be reminded about these things.

ARIST. ^B «A petition should be presented to the Emperor concerning those manumissions which take place in churches.»

This canon determines the same things as the sixty-fourth; and it is interpreted there.

CANON LXXXVI.

BALS. It is ordained by the canon ^C that an oratory must not be erected anywhere otherwise than by episcopal permission, or even presence, in which place the prayer for the foundation has been concluded, and the fixing of a cross has been placed, and the temple has been consecrated through the deposition of holy martyrs’ relics. Because, however, some, as is likely, were raising up altars in fields and vineyards through dreams and fabricated revelations contrary to the opinion of the bishops, and through wicked assemblies of men and false dreams were deceiving the simpler folk and subverting the orthodox faith, it has pleased that such altars—those established in the memory, perhaps, of martyrs, and having no bodies or relics of martyrs, nor having been erected from the beginning because saints or ^D martyrs had dwelt in them, or because they were their small possessions, or because they were crowned there by martyrdom, and, as has been said, not having been consecrated by the regional bishops—should be overthrown. If, however, the peoples, they say, tumultuously resist, they should be admonished not to hold assemblies in those places, that is, that they should not gather crowds there, nor should the orthodox be bound by their superstition, nor celebrate the memories of martyrs in them. Note

^A the present canon, for it is very useful for rural churches. For many such things are done by petty local men, women raving under diabolic instruction and perhaps divining future events, and men pretending to be possessed by a demonic spirit, and they do in such churches things which it is not even fitting to mention, while others join in.

ZONAR. Some, thinking they were acting piously, used to erect houses of prayer in fields and vineyards in the names of martyrs, as if admonished by dreams and visions. The canon therefore orders that such places, if neither the bodies of martyrs are stored there, nor any relics of the martyrs are preserved, should be destroyed by the authority of the bishops who preside over those places. But if the common people, he says, seditiously resist and do not allow them to be torn down, he orders at least that the crowds be admonished not to stir up tumult in those places, that is, not to gather crowds there, nor for the orthodox to be bound by their superstition, nor to perform the memories of the martyrs in them, if neither ^B the body of a martyr nor relics lie there, nor if that altar was built from ancient times. For those which were established, he says, by some people having built them due to dreams and revelations, all are to be rejected.

ARIST. ‹An altar built in fields or vineyards, where no relic of a martyr is stored, unless a public tumult is stirred up, is to be destroyed: and all altars that are set up through dreams and vain revelations.›

Whatever oratory houses are not established through the prayers of bishops, and no relics of the martyrs are stored in them, are unhallowed. For this reason, then, let the altars also which are in fields or vineyards without the prayers of a bishop and the deposition of martyrs' relics, if possible, be subverted; but if a popular tumult prevents this, at least let them be admonished not to perform ^C popular stirrings in them. Let the altars erected through dreams and vain revelations also be subverted. For since the devil is darkness, he feigns light: and under the pretense, forsooth, of piety, he ensnares the souls of men.

CANON LXXXVII.

BALS. The Fathers beseech the emperors that the images of idols still remaining, and wherever they may be, should be destroyed.

ZONAR. Although the evangelical proclamation had spread far and wide, still some relics, that is, remnants, of idolatry remained; and both images and altars were preserved in various places and groves. ^D Concerning the absolute abolition of these, so that nothing more of them should remain, it pleased the Fathers to make a reminder.

^A

ARIST. Idolatrous relics, whether in statues, or in any places whatsoever, or in groves or trees, shall be abolished.

Not only must the images of idols be crushed and erased, and their altars destroyed, but if any relic of idolatry has been left behind, whether in places, or in groves, or in trees (for what if the Greeks honored some of these, and prophesied in them, and after the error was expelled, either the tripod or the oracle remained?), this too shall be obliterated, so that not even a memory of it might remain.

CANON LXXXVIII

^B Ut scribantur et subscribantur, quoties opus fuerit, ab episcopo Carthaginensi, nomine omnium episcoporum, epistolæ. Ab omnibus episcopis dictum est, ut, si placuerit, debere synodo dictari epistolas, venerandus episcopus in hoc throno præsidens dignetur sub nomine omnium dictare et subscribere quæ placuerint: præterea episcopis legatis, qui mitti debent in provincias Africæ, propter Donatistas, dari litteras, quæ mandatum contineant: quam potestatem ne transgrediantur, et subscripserunt: Aurelius episcopus Carthaginensium Ecclesiæ, præsenti decreto consensi, et lecto subscripsi. Similiter et reliqui episcopi subscripserunt. ^C

ZONAR. It pleased all who were in the synod that, if there should be need for letters to be written to anyone from the synod, the one who presides on the throne of the Church of Carthage, whom they also called "Pope" at the beginning of the synod, shall dictate these in the name of all the bishops. It also pleased them that letters having the force of a mandate, and prescribing what ought to be done, should be given to those who are about to depart into the province of Africa for the sake of the Donatists, so that they might not exceed what was enjoined upon them.

ARIST. It was decided that letters which are to be sent by the synod be written and subscribed by the bishop of Carthage in the name of all.

For as the primate of all the bishops in Africa, he will write and subscribe the letters which ought to be sent by the synod to the magistrates of Africa for the sake of the Donatists, or to others. This was arranged because it is difficult, and a general burden, for all who are in the synod to subscribe to letters sent by them to the emperors or to the magistrates. ^D

Fifth Action

In this synod, the preceding decrees are confirmed under the most glorious emperors Arcadius and Honorius, Augusti, being consuls, on the sixth day before the Calends of September, in the city of Milevis, in the secretarium of the church. Aurelius the bishop of the Church of Carthage...

presiding over the whole synod, with the deacons standing by, said: Since the body of the most holy Church is one, and there is one head of all its members, it has come to pass, by the will of God and by the strengthening of our own weakness, that we should come to this church, persuaded by the grace of love and brotherhood. Therefore, I exhort your love (since it must be believed that our coming to you is neither superfluous nor unwelcome to anyone) that the consensus of us all may be manifested to be in harmony with the decrees of the ancient ones, which were either confirmed in the synod at Hippo or subsequently defined in the better-ordered synod at Carthage, and likewise are now being read to us in order. ^B For then the unanimity of your brotherhood will appear clearer than the light, if those things which were lawfully defined by us in the previous synods are manifested not only by your consents in the present acts, but also by your signatures. Xanthippus, bishop of the first see of Numidia, said: I believe that it has pleased the whole brotherhood; we also confirm by our own signature that it pleases us. And they confirmed with their own hand the things that had been decreed. Nicetius, bishop of the first see of Mauritania Sitifensis, said: The recited statutes, since they do not lack reason, and have been confirmed by all, are also pleasing to my own insignificance, which I shall confirm with my own signature. BALS. Since Aurelius the bishop of Carthage had judged it right that all the bishops should consent to what had been decreed, or show that they did consent; they all said that they received what had been established in various synods, and for this reason they confirmed them with their own signatures.

ZONAR. In this place, the president of the synod, Aurelius, demands of the bishops that they give their assent to those things which had been previously ordained in the synods held either in the city of Hippo or in Carthage, and show that they are of one mind by assenting to them, and confirming the decrees by their signatures; which they did indeed confirm by signing.

CANON LXXXIX. On the order of bishops. That those who were ordained later...

Notes of William Beveridge.

And the thirteenth canon of the Council of Milevis, ordaining that the order of time be observed in showing honor to bishops. The same was also established by the First Council of Braga. Likewise, it pleased that, while the primacy of the metropolitan bishop is preserved, the other bishops should yield the place of seating one to another according to the time of their own ordination. Conc. Brac. 1, c. 24. This canon is cited by Gratian as the sixth canon of the Council of Chalon, in these words: "It pleased that, while the primacy of the metropolitan is preserved, the other bishops should yield the place of seating one to another according to the time of their own ordination." Grat. distinct. 13, c. 1. So also the Fourth Council of Toledo, instituting the order of celebrating a council, says: "And all the bishops coming together shall enter according to their rank, and sit according to the time of their ordination." Council of Toledo IV, c. 3. Pope Gregory of Rome, in his letter to Syagrius, bishop of Autun, whom he honored with the use of the pallium, says: "Lest we might seem to have bestowed in some manner a mere gift of clothing, we have also provided that this be granted in like manner, that with the metropolitan's place and honor kept intact in all respects, the Church of the city of Autun, over which Almighty God has willed you to preside, shall be after the Church of Lyons, and this place and order of our authority is his..."

^Athose ordained earlier do not dare to prefer themselves before those who are before them. Valentinus, bishop, said: If the goodness of your patience permits, I shall relate in order what was done in the Church of the Carthaginians in the preceding time, and which was openly confirmed by the subscriptions of the brothers, and [I promise that] we shall continue to observe it even now. We know, therefore, that the ecclesiastical order is always kept inviolate in such a way that no one of the brothers dare to prefer himself at any time before those who were before him; but also, those things which have always been granted to those who are before them in the orders of charity, those who follow have gladly accepted. This order, therefore, let your holiness command to be confirmed with greater authority by our discussions. Aurelius, bishop, said: It was not necessary for us to repeat these things, were it not perhaps that unintelligible thoughts have arisen in some, which sharpen our senses toward these boundaries. But since this is a common cause, which our brother and concelebrant has now set forth, so that each of us may recognize the order decreed to him by God, and that those who are later may defer to those who are before them, and not dare to do anything ever against the judgment of these, for this reason I say, as it comes to my mind, that those who despise those who are before them, and dare to attempt things temerariously, are to be corrected fittingly by the entire synod. ^B Xantippus, bishop of the first see of Numidia, said: The presence of all the brothers has heard the prosecution of our brother and concelebrant Aurelius; what is answered to these things? Diatimus, bishop, said: Those things which were defined by the suffrage of the ancients shall be delivered to your consent: that the things which are contained in the acts of the former synods in the Church of Carthage may be kept fully firm among all by your consent. All the bishops said: This order has been kept by the Fathers and by the ancients, and by us, by the permission of God, it shall be kept, the right of the primates of Numidia and Mauretania being preserved, from the register and matricula of Numidia. Then it pleased all the bishops who subscribed in this synod that the matricula and the archetype of Numidia should be also in the first see and in the metropolis of Constantina. ^{C D} BALS. It appears that the thrones of the churches had not yet been settled or determined at that time; and for this reason the Fathers decreed that those who were ordained earlier should be preferred.

^A However, this has no place today; but according to the declaration made by the most wise emperor, lord Leo, which is deposited in the chartophylax of the most holy Great Church of God, the thrones of the churches are honored. But the right of priority, declared in the present canon, has a place in the orders of the clergy. For each person is honored according to the seniority of the time of his own ordination. But I marvel regarding the rank of ecclesiastical officials, how this is not observed, but rather status is sought after according to the will of the prelates who ordain them, and the later [ordinand] is preferred to the earlier.

ZONARAS. ^B At that time, rank and order had not yet been established for all churches, but for the principal ones only, as can be gathered from the end of the present canon; but as for the bishops of the other churches, they were preferred according to the times of their ordinations. The Fathers of the synod therefore order this to be observed, so that those bishops ordained earlier are preferred to those ordained later; and they wish the right of the primatial churches of Numidia and Mauretania to be preserved according to the archives and the register of Numidia. For there existed, as it seems, a record in Numidia (for this is what we understand by "register"), containing something regarding the order and rank of the aforementioned churches. And they decreed that the archetypal register be kept in the first see, and in the metropolis of Constantina.

ARISTENUS. ^C «You shall not prefer yourself to one who preceded you, but you shall follow. And he who despises those who came before is himself to be despised.» In Africa at that time, as indeed elsewhere, bishoprics had no difference in honor of throne, but all were of equal honor. But the bishop who was ordained first was preferred to the one ordained after him, both in the seat and in other canonical matters; and thus the rest followed in order according to the times of their ordinations. Therefore, the synod decreed that any bishop who does not act according to this form in the region of the Africans, but behaves arrogantly and holds in contempt those who are before him, is to be held in contempt even by the whole synod. ^D

CANON XC. «Concerning Quodvultdeus of Centuria: because, when his adversary had requested that he be brought into our synod, he was asked if he wished to go to trial before the bishops with him; at first indeed he promised, but on another day he answered that this did not please him, and he withdrew. It pleased all the bishops that no one should hold communion with the same Quodvultdeus until his business should have reached an end. For that his bishopric should be taken away from him, before the conclusion of his business, cannot seem right to any Christian.»

BALSAMON AND ZONARAS. Someone accused the aforementioned

bishop, and the accused was asked if he wished to litigate with his adversary before the synod. He, although promising, soon after refused and withdrew; and the synod decreed ^A that no one should communicate with him until he was judged, but that the bishopric should not be taken away from the accused. It is shown, therefore, from this as well, that even if someone is under accusation or even under excommunication, until the lawsuit against him is resolved, he is a bishop and is not ousted from his ^B bishopric.

ARISTENUS. «Since Quodvultdeus, when his adversary had requested that he be brought before our synod, first agreed to come, but afterwards, saying that it displeased him, withdrew; let him be excommunicated until the matter is concluded; for it is not just that he should be deposed before sentence is passed.»

One must not easily depose those in holy orders, nor for any casual reason. For even if this bishop Quodvultdeus agreed to be judged by this synod, when his adversary requested that of him, then withdrew—as though it displeased him that he should be judged by that very synod—he shall indeed be excommunicated until he is judged and the matters concerning him are brought to an end, ^C but his bishopric shall not be taken away from him, but he shall retain it, because it is not just that anyone should be deposed before condemnation.

CANON XCI

BALSAMON. This canon is personal and does not need interpretation. ZONARAS. This canon is personal. ARISTENUS. «Maximianus of Bagai is to be expelled from the Church, and another substituted in his place.» Clear.

CANON XCII

BALSAMON. This canon also is useless, because previous creation does not help bishops; but it is useful for other ecclesiastical ranks. For, as is comprehended in this canon, *pittacia* (official documents) are made for those being ordained, with a calculation of the months and days, for the declaration of their previous creation.

ZONARAS. That bishops should be ranked according to the times at which they were ordained—that is, that the older ones should be preferred in dignity—was established a little earlier. Therefore, lest any controversies should arise concerning the time at which each was appointed, the synod ordained that each of the

^A bishops should receive letters signed by those by whom they were created, in which both the name of the consul and the day should be inscribed. For by the consuls the times were indicated, since the names of the individual consuls, signed and attested by public records, were extant.

ARIST. He who is ordained in Africa, let him produce letters written in the hand of him who laid on his hand, containing the day and the consul.

In order that no controversy may arise concerning the bishops ordained earlier or later in Africa, it is necessary that those who ordain them should give them letters written in their own hand, indicating the day on which they were ordained, and the magistrate who presided there at that time.

CANON XCIII

BALS. Some say concerning this canon that it wishes a cleric who has been appointed to any church not to be admitted or ordained by another bishop, if he has read even once in the church in which he was appointed. For to defend their own case they alleged that a person is not considered a cleric of a church who has read in it only once. Others, however, say that this argument is not sufficiently firm. For from the fact ^C that one has been ordained and has received the character, a person becomes a cleric, even if he has not read in the church. And they interpret the canon as referring to those who have received only the tonsure from the prelate, and according to custom, as if for the form of the reading, have recited the apostolic Epistle to Timothy, namely, "My child Timothy, be sober in all things." And they say that on account of the present canon they cannot, from the hand of him who ordained them, by reason of the bishop's tonsure alone, pass without his will and cross over to another church. For although they are not ordained into the clergy, they have nevertheless received the episcopal tonsure, and are considered to be a part of the church of him who laid hands upon them. And these seem to me to interpret the ^D canon more accurately.

ZONAR. Innumerable are the canons which prohibit clerics from leaving their own churches and betaking themselves to others. This present canon, therefore, also determines this with some addition. But that addition is that if anyone has read even once in any church, as if enrolled in its clergy, let him not be admitted in another. For it seems that some were alleging

as an excuse that they were interpreting the canons regarding those who had spent a long time in the clergy; but that if anyone had read even once in a church, nothing prevented him from departing thence, as he had spent no time at all there. The synod, therefore, overturning this, said that even if he read but once in a church, he shall be unacceptable to another church. ^A

ARIST. He who has even once read in a church, let him not be admitted by another into the clergy. All synods forbid a foreign cleric to be admitted by another bishop; and thus, even if someone once enrolled as a cleric in a church has read the sacred books to the people therein, he is not permitted to be received into the clergy by another. ^B

In this synod are reported the acts of the bishops who were sent as legates beyond the sea, under the most illustrious Emperor Theodosius Augustus and Rumoridus the most illustrious consul, on the eighth day before the Kalends of September, at Carthage in the church of Secundus.

Aurelius the bishop, presiding over the whole synod, with the deacons standing by, said: “Reason demanding it, your fraternity has been brought to this synod by my mediocrity. For some time ago, as your holiness remembers, a synod having been held, we sent our brethren as legates beyond the sea, whom it behooved to report in the gathering of your holiness the progress of the mission performed; and although yesterday, sitting on this same business, ^C we diligently examined from the ecclesiastical acts those things which they did, nevertheless it is necessary today to confirm the discussion of yesterday with ecclesiastical acts, on account of the bishops of the provinces of Africa who were not present at the present synod. The order of business, therefore, requires that first, from our brethren and fellow priests who have come to this synod, whether from Byzacium or from Mauritania, we inquire how they decide to contribute to the present synod.” And when Philologius, Geta, Venustianus, and Felicianus, bishops of the Byzacene province, had presented the letters of the legation, which were also read; and furthermore, when Lucianus and Sylvanus, legates of the region of Mauritania Sitifensis, had presented the letters of the legation, and those had been read: Aurelius ^D the bishop said: “Let the context of these writings be joined to the acts.” Concerning the bishops of Byzacium, Numidius the bishop said: “We observe that our brethren and fellow bishops of the Byzacene province and of Mauritania Sitifensis have sent legates to the synod: now let us inquire whether the legates of Numidia have arrived, or indeed of the Tripolitan region, or also of Mauritania Caesariensis.” Regarding the bishops of Mauritania Sitifensis, Lucianus and Sylvanus, bishops of the region of Mauritania Sitifensis, the legates, said: “Too late did the synodical letter reach our brethren of Caesarea, after they were to have come; nevertheless they will by all means come: and we trust in their minds, that whatever is ever done in this synod, they themselves also will doubtless assent.”

Alipius, bishop of the Church of Numidia, said: “We indeed have come from Numidia, I myself and the most holy brethren Augustine and Posidius; but the delegates from the same Numidia could not be sent, because the bishops are still occupied and hindered by their own necessities in their cities on account of the great tumults of the Tyrones. For when I brought the synodal letter of your holiness to the most holy elder Xantippus, he decided to indict a synod for the present question, so that a full delegation might be sent to this synod: but when I had reminded him twice by letters, he replied by his own letters concerning the impediment of the Tyrones, as I have said.” Aurelius the bishop said: “There is no doubt that the aforementioned brethren and our fellow bishops from Numidia, when they receive the acts of the synod, will immediately give their own consent, and will endeavor to bring to an end whatever has been decided. It is therefore necessary that by the care of this see, provision be made that this be made manifest to the aforementioned. Concerning our brethren from Tripoli, I have been able to learn that they sent our brother Dulcitius as a delegate. But because he was unable to present himself, some of our sons who came from the aforementioned region have confirmed that the aforementioned Dulcitius boarded a ship; and it must be believed that some delay came to him from the storm, which compels him to come more slowly: however, concerning him also, if it pleases your charity, let the same form be observed, that whatever has seemed good to the synod be sent to them.” It was said by all the bishops: “What has been defined by your holiness pleases everyone.”

BALS. This text treats at length of those who did not send delegates to the synod. But since some interceded for them, it was decided that they should be pardoned, provided they also accept what is pleasing to the synod.

ZONAR. The preceding text treats at length of those who did not send delegates to this synod. But since some undertook their defense, it was decided that they should be excused in this way, provided that they themselves also admit all the decrees of the synod.

CANON XCIV: On meeting with the Donatists

Aurelius the bishop said: “I think that what has come for the deliberation of your charity ought to be confirmed by ecclesiastical acts. For the promise of all of you has proposed this, that each one of us ought to meet in his own city by himself with the leaders of the Donatists, or join to himself another neighbor, in order to do likewise…

in each city and place through the magistrates or those who occupy the first positions in those same places. If this pleases all, let it be decreed. It was said by all the bishops: It pleases all, and we have all confirmed this with our signature. We further request that your holiness may sign, on behalf of us all, the letters which are to be sent from the synod to the magistrates. Aurelius the bishop said: If it seems good to your charity, let the form of the meeting with them be read, so that we may all, if it pleases, keep to this order of procedure. It was said by all the bishops: Let it be read. Laetus the notary read it. »

BALS. The form of the meeting with the Donatists, and the things said in the present synod, concern the Donatists specifically.

ZONAR. It also pleased the synod that every one of the bishops in his own city should meet with those who call themselves the leaders of the Donatists, either by taking another bishop along if it seems good, and should speak to them and reason with them, or by the authority of the magistrates and those who preside in the regions, should see to it that they are summoned—that is, if they do not come of their own accord.

ARIST. « Each of the bishops in his own city shall meet the leaders of the Donatists, or let him take a neighbor along as well, so that they may meet them. »

The divine Fathers, striving to unite to the Catholic Church the Donatists ^C who had wickedly separated themselves from it, did not cease to exhort them to depart from their ancient error and embrace the truth. For this reason, therefore, it seemed to them still necessary that each of the bishops should go personally in his own city to the leaders of the Donatists, or should join another neighbor and with him meet them, and say to them what is clearly written in the following canon; and if they should not be persuaded though thus exhorted, that they be driven out by the royal power from the churches which they have invaded.

CANON XCV.

Aurelius the bishop said: We request of your veneration that what has been permitted to us by the authority of that ^D most high see be read, and that you order it to be carried into effect. And the mandate being read and joined to the acts, the bishop of the universal Church said: That which ought to be delivered to the Donatists by your veneration, as a mandate, we beg that you will be pleased to hear and to insert into the acts and to have it carried to them, and again to show us their response through your acts. We come to you as those sent authentically by our authentic synod, desiring to rejoice in your correction. For we know the love of the Lord, who said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." We also, through the prophet, are admonished

so that even as regards those who do not wish to be called our brothers, we might say to them, "You are our brothers." You ought not, therefore, to despise this admonition of ours, which comes from peaceful love, so that if you think we possess any truth, you might not hesitate to assert it. That is to say, that when your council has been gathered, you should select from among yourselves those to whom the business of proving such a cause should be committed. So that we too may be able to do this same thing, and from our council there may be selected those who, together with those who have been ^B elected from among you, at a set place and time, may pacifically examine whatever it is in the controversy that separates our communion from yours. And at length, by the help of our Lord God, may the ancient error receive an end, lest indeed, because of the persuasion of men, weak souls and ignorant peoples perish by any sacrilegious separation. For if you accept this fraternally, the truth will easily appear; but if you are unwilling to do this, your infidelity will immediately be made known. And when this formula had been read, it was said by all the bishops: This pleases us greatly; it shall be done. And they subscribed: Aurelius, bishop of the Church of Carthage, I have agreed to the present decree, and having read it, I have subscribed. Similarly, the other bishops also subscribed. ^C

This council sent legates against the Donatists to the emperors, to the most illustrious Emperor Honorius Augustus, in his sixth consulship, on the sixth day before the Kalends of July, at Carthage, in the church of the Basilica Secunda. In this council Theasius and Evodius undertook the legation against the Donatists, in which council the *commonitorium* (instruction) was composed.

BALS. Neither these things which are in the present conversation, nor the interpretation, are in need of explanation. For they are specifically about the Donatists.

ZONAR. It was requested that the things which were to be announced by the legates to the Donatists should be read in the council; which, indeed, as they were proposed by the legates, were of this sort: We go to you authentically, ^D that is, by authority received from the council, desiring to meet with you, that we may rejoice in your correction. For we know the Lord calling the peacemakers blessed, and although you refuse to be called our brothers, but rather separate yourselves from us, we nonetheless call you brothers. Wherefore, do not despise this our admonition of love—that is to say, that we bring to your memory your errors—but if you think that you hold the truth, take hold of it, that is, contend for the truth...

^A nor doubt that it will be manifested. Moreover, designate some from your number who may confer with those chosen from our synod concerning those who separate you from our communion; so that, although late, the ancient error may at last find an end; lest, because of some who too foolishly and stubbornly hold to their own opinion, weak souls and the innumerable common people (whether one takes "innumerable" to mean a multitude, or on account of their simplicity and ignorance of what is good) be ruinously lost, separated from the fellowship of the Catholic Church by a sacrilegious schism. For they have called the loss of human souls—which are a holy and divine thing—resulting from separation from the Catholic Church a sacrilege, as if these holy souls were being plundered by those who deceive them; or because, by not approaching these holy things according to the tradition of the Church, but by handling and managing them as they see fit, they plunder them, not using them according to the will of the Lord. For whoever handles the property of another against his will is judged to be a thief by the laws of the state. ^B

ARIST. These things are to be said to the Donatists: "We desire to rejoice in your correction; for we have been commanded even to those who do not bear to be called our brothers, to say: 'You are our brothers.' We therefore come to you, and we remind you, that if you think you have any defense for your cause, select some men to whom this may be entrusted, who ought to appear at a set place and time; otherwise, your faithlessness will be manifest from this." Clear.

CANON XCVI

The Commonitory which the legates against the Donatists received. Commonitory to the brothers Theasius and Evodius, being legates sent from the synod of Carthage to the most glorious and most religious emperors: When, by the help of God, they shall have approached the most religious emperors, let them set forth to them how, in full liberty, in the synod of the previous year, the primates of the Donatists were admonished, by civil acts, that if they trusted they could defend their own dogma, they should, with some suitable persons chosen from their own number, contend with us peacefully, and prove to us with Christian gentleness, without any doubt, if they held any truth: so that from this, the Catholic sincerity, which shone forth in times past in previous ages, might now also be recognized through the ignorance and obstinacy of those who contradict it. But because they did not trust, they dared to answer almost nothing. Wherefore, since the episcopal and pacific duty has been fulfilled toward them, and they, not being able to reply to the truth, have turned to execrable acts of violence, to such a degree that they have assailed with ambushes many bishops and many clerics, to say nothing of the laity, ^D and have furthermore invaded some churches, and have attempted to invade others: it is henceforth the duty of benevolence to provide that the Catholic Church...

which brought them forth in the womb of piety in Christ, and nourished them with the confirmation of the faith, should also be fortified by their care, lest ^A rash men, in these their pious times, should through some terror obtain dominion over good people; since they cannot corrupt them by persuasion. For it is known, and often proclaimed by the laws, what an execrable multitude those make who have a separate congregation, which things have also often been condemned by the decrees of the aforementioned most religious emperors. Therefore, we can obtain divine aid against their insanities, not something unaccustomed or alien, but from the holy Scriptures: when the apostle Paul, as has been declared in the true Acts of the Apostles, dispersed the conspiracy of the insolent and factious men with military aid. We therefore ask this, that for the universal orders of the Churches, in every city and in diverse places, there be provided custody and protection without delay for each of the neighboring properties. ^B At the same time, this also must be requested: that they keep the law laid down by their pious-memory Father Theodosius, concerning the ten pounds of gold against the heretics who ordain and are ordained; furthermore also against the possessors among whom their congregation may be found: and then that they order such a law to be confirmed so that it may be valid against those on whose account, because of their treacheries, they who took care of the Catholic Church have been cast out by testimony; so that at least by this terror they may cease from making schisms and from the impropriety of the heretics, who defer being purged ^C and corrected by contemplation of eternal punishment. Furthermore, that must be requested that, through their piety, the law which has endured until now be renewed, which takes away from heretics—who are blinded in the insanity of their own persuasion and desire to remain in the error of the Donatists—the power of receiving or leaving anything, whether by donations or by testaments, and to speak simply, the power to leave or receive their own property. But to those who wish to correct themselves by contemplation of unity and peace, let the meaning of the aforementioned law be opened, so that they may receive an inheritance; if ^D anything from a donation or inheritance happens to come to them while they are still established in the error of the heretics: excepted, of course, are those who, after they have been summoned into court, have deemed it right to cross over to the Catholic Church. For regarding such as these, it must be believed that they desired Catholic unity not from fear of the heavenly judgment, but from an insatiable greed for earthly gain. Moreover, for all these things, there is need of the aid of the magistrates of each province. Furthermore, if they observe anything else that contributes to the ecclesiastical utility, we decree [to them] free embassy to perform and accomplish this. It has also pleased us regarding these things, that letters from our assembly to the most illustrious

to be desired. ^A In addition to all this, the support of the authorities of every province is necessary. And furthermore, if they deem anything whatever to be useful for the ecclesiastical interest, we decree that they may act and carry out a legation by their own authority. It was also agreed regarding these matters that letters from our assembly should be sent to the most glorious emperors and the superior powers, by which they may be informed that, by the consent of us all, the legates from us have been sent to the most fortunate comitatus. But because it is very slow for all of us to sign the same letters, so that the same letters may not be burdened by the signatures of each one of us, we ask, brother Aurelius, that your charity may deign to sign in the name of us all in these matters. And they signed: “I, Aurelius, Bishop of the Church of Carthage, have consented to the present decree, and having read it, I have signed; likewise the others signed.” Furthermore, letters must be sent to the magistrates so that, until the Lord wills the legates to return to us, they may distribute guards throughout the ranks of the cities and the possessors of the estates of the universal Church. Furthermore, it is necessary to add also concerning Equitius, that his impudence and wickedness be driven out from the dioceses which he claims for himself by priestly right from the trustees of the Church of Hippo. Moreover, letters are also to be sent to the Bishop of the Roman Church regarding the commendation of the legates, and to others where the emperor is. And they signed likewise: “I, Aurelius, Bishop of the Church of Carthage, have consented to the present decree, and having read it, I have signed; likewise the others signed.” ^C

BALS. In the present discourse also, the things which were decreed by the Fathers against the Donatists are special, and do not extend to the constitution of churches. And therefore they do not even require interpretation.

ZONAR. Since the Donatists had rejected the legation sent to them by the synod, the Fathers, having assembled again, decided that a second legation should be sent against them to the Emperor Honorius (for Honorius was ruling Rome and the West at that time); and so that they might the more easily remember those things which were to be transacted before the emperor, they handed over to the legates everything consigned to writing, and they called this type of document a *commonitorium*. The instructions were of this kind: “We,” they say, “with great confidence of soul summoned the primates of the Donatists to a meeting, and invited them to a defense of their own dogma, if only they had any hope, so that at this time too the most liquid purity of the catholic truth might be the more known and illustrated by both the ignorance and the pertinacity of the adversaries. For when it would have been easily perceived that they were clinging pertinaciously to their own opinions out of mere ignorance of the truth and stupidity, had they not refused the meeting: truly, because they did not have enough confidence in their own cause, they gave almost no answer. Since, therefore, we have done peacefully everything that we, as bishops, were bound to do; ^D

^A they, however, have turned to violent and treacherous acts. We believe it is the duty of the Emperor’s benevolence to provide that the Catholic Church, which begot them and nurtured them in the confirmation of the faith—that is, by handing down to them a steadfast faith—should be fortified and defended, lest wicked men, whom they could not persuade by reason to abandon their own perverse and fully wicked designs, oppress them with terror and threats of danger. For the laws themselves are not unaware of what crimes these conventicle-leaders commit. Therefore, they ask for help that is neither unfamiliar nor foreign to the Scriptures, but rather such as the Holy Scriptures themselves mention; and they bring forth the book of the Acts, concerning the holy Paul, saying that even he warded off the conspiracy of the disorderly by military assistance. By the "conspiracy of the disorderly," or those who were gathered in the temple when he was purified, they mean when the Jews from Asia incited the people against him, and the tribune, running down with soldiers, snatched him from the hands ^B of those who were seeking to kill him; or they mean the conspiracy of the forty Jews, who cursed themselves that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul—for when the tribune learned of this, he also sent him, surrounded by a guard of soldiers, to the governor Felix; or perhaps they mean both of these cases. Therefore, these men likewise seek that protection be provided to the churches in the cities and in various other places. They also ask that the law enacted by the great Theodosius—that whoever ordains heretics, and those who are ordained, and those who receive them into their own properties, should be fined ten pounds of gold—be preserved and also be made valid against the Donatists, so that even through the fear of this financial penalty, the heretics, who are not held back by the fear of eternal punishment, might be deterred from creating schisms. They also request that the law declaring that heretics are not permitted to inherit or receive bequests ^C be renewed, and that it also maintain its force against the Donatists. If, however, any of them repent, they should not be subject to the penalties of that law. But if some of the Donatists, having been called to court regarding an inheritance, and having been deprived of that inheritance or legacy or other benefit belonging to them on account of their heresy, should then, after the matter is concluded, return to the Catholic Church, they say that these men are not to be trusted, as if they were approaching out of conviction for their heresy, but rather out of a desire not to lose money; therefore, they will gain nothing by such an approach. They say there is also need for help from the "dynasts" of each province, that is, for the governors of each province to assist the churches. For these are the dynasts of the provinces. Furthermore, they say, we give ^D those who are sent the full authority of representatives, so that if they perceive any other things necessary for the churches, they may request them. It pleased the synod that letters should be written to the Emperor and to the nobles of the realm, that they might know that the deputies were sent with the consent of the Fathers of the synod, to the palace. And they seek to have the most religious…

^A emperors—that is, those most faithful and Christian, who take it upon themselves to defend the Christian religion—called upon. They decreed that letters should be sent to the prefects of those provinces to restrain the fury and disorder of the Donatists, so that the churches, and those who possess lands, if they are certainly reckoned among the Catholics, might be protected by them; and concerning Equitius, that he be driven out and that he should not in any way meddle in any priestly office. It was also determined to write to the Bishop of Rome, so that he might assist—that is, recommend and conciliate—the imperial deputies; and that they should write to the bishops of those regions in which the emperor might at that time be residing. ^B

ARIST. ‹ Those emperors who are born in the true religion and brought up in the faith owe an assisting hand to the churches: since even Paul, when he was in need of military aid, dissolved the conspiracy of the insolent. ›

The churches are always in need of the alliance and aid of pious emperors; and they ought to provide this for them, as they are the champions of the faith, so that they may not be held in contempt by heretics or the disorderly. For indeed, Paul himself also broke up the conspiracy of insolent men with military aid. ^C

Sixth Act. ‹ What was defined in this synod is declared by a brief addition. Under Stilicho again and Anthemius, most illustrious consuls, on the tenth day before the Kalends of September, at Carthage, in the church of the second climate. The proceedings of the present synod were not written down in full because matters necessary for the time were decided rather than any general ones; wherefore a brief composition of those things which were diligently done in this synod has been set forth. ›

CANON XCVII. Breviculum of the chapters. That a free delegation ‹ from all the provinces be sent to the synod in Mizonium. The deputies were also ordered to send ‹ letters, because they ought to dispatch a free delegation: so that, because a union was made only ‹ in Carthage, letters might be sent to the magistrates, so that in other provinces and cities also the magistrates themselves might order ‹ zeal to be applied to the union; so that letters of thanksgiving ‹ from the Church of Carthage for the whole of Africa concerning the ‹ expulsion of the Donatists, together with the letters of the bishops, might be sent ^D into the comitatus. The letters of ‹ Pope Innocent were read, so that bishops should not easily ‹ be able to cross the seas, which is confirmed by the opinions ‹ of the bishops themselves: so that, on account of the ‹ thanksgiving for the exclusion of the Donatists, ‹ two clerics of the Church of Carthage might be sent to the comitatus, so that the Donatists might be driven out; two clerics of the

Church of Carthage might be sent to the comitatus, that the Donatists might be driven out. ^A In this synod, some of the things decreed above are corrected, under the most glorious emperors Honorius for the seventh time and Theodosius for the second time, Augusti and consuls, again on the Ides of July in Carthage, in the church of the second climate, with Aurelius the bishop presiding together with his co-bishops, and with the deacons in attendance: "Since it was formerly decreed at the synod of Hippo that a full synod of Africa should be gathered every year, not only here in Carthage, but also in the various provinces according to their own order, and this has been observed; so that we indeed sometimes appoint it in Numidia, and sometimes in Byzacium, and this has seemed laborious to all the brethren." ^B

BALS. and ZONAR. "Breve" or "breviculum" is called a succinct writing. For "brevio" to the Latins means the same as "I cut," and "brevitas" the same as "compendium." The things, however, that follow in the canon, as being not useful, did not even seem worthy of interpretation.

CANON XCVIII

BALS. Since various canons ordain that synods ought to be held every year, the present canon determines that it is not necessary for those who are under the synod of Africa to meet in Carthage annually; but only when common need shall require it, with the bishops summoned by letter, so that the brethren may not be worn out. And as if someone had asked: "By whom, then, will the ecclesiastical questions that arise be resolved?" it says that if these indeed are common—that is, dogmatic—the bishops shall be summoned by letters, and once the synod is held, the ambiguity will be resolved. But if they are not of such a kind, but special or private—such as those which perhaps have arisen between clerics and bishops—they will be investigated in each province. Wherefore, note that provincial bishops must needs assemble before their primate as often as they are summoned. Read also the eighth canon of the synod in Trullo and what is in it.

ZONAR. It was decided that a synod of bishops should not be held at Carthage every year, lest the brethren, they say, be worn out; but when common utility shall have demanded it, then at length the bishops are to be summoned by letters; but those causes which are not common are to be examined separately in each province.

ARIST. It seemed best that letters be sent to the magistrates, that they might provide diligence so that the Donatists might be driven out.

^A Common necessity calling for it, let letters be sent to the principal see, and let a synod be celebrated in a convenient place. But let ordinary causes be judged in their own provinces. ^B This synod also commands that a synod of its bishops be celebrated every year in each province, and that church controversies arising within them be canonically inquired into as well as resolved. But it does not permit the bishops of all the provinces of Africa to convene in one place and make a common synod, unless there are common causes for which they must assemble; otherwise it is not permitted. But whenever some common cause requires a common synod to be celebrated, letters must be sent by the bishops to the bishop who holds the primary chair, and wherever he shall deem it suitable to meet, there they shall be gathered.

CANON XCIX. ^C That it be not lawful to appeal from chosen judges. But if an appeal has been issued, and he who appealed has chosen judges, and he also against whom he appealed has [chosen] with him, it shall not be lawful for anyone thereafter to appeal from them. Of the legations of various provinces. The legations of various provinces were willingly admitted when presented together; that is, of the Numidians, the Byzacenes, the Mauri Sitifenses; and likewise also of the Caesariani, and also of those from Tripolis. Of the exactors of the Church. It further pleased that, for all things which are necessary for the Church, five exactors be requested to be chosen, who shall be divided among various provinces. ^D

BALS. The other parts of the present canon are useless; but what it says concerning "chosen" (electitii) judges is of this sort. Chosen judges are those who are also called "elected," who judge by the will of the litigants. The canon therefore says that if anyone has been judged, and upon appealing has chosen, alongside such-and-such a bishop, that the matters of the appeal be exercised, and neither has the adversary opposed this, from that point on it shall not be lawful for either of them to appeal against the sentence of the judge whom both adversaries chose. And the canon consists in these things consistently with the civil laws which are placed in title 2 of the 7th book of the Basilics, and which decree that an appeal is not to be given against the sentence of chosen judges. But do not say that these chosen judges are constituted with the giving of a penalty, like arbitrators. But if anyone should say that unless a stipulation of penalty has intervened, the condemned person will not obey the sentence without any prejudice, he shall hear that if anyone has chosen a person who does not have jurisdiction, and has not promised a penalty, if he does not stand by his sentence, he may without any prejudice hold his sentence as of no account; but he who has chosen the judge cannot appeal from his sentence, just as this is shown by the present canon. These things, however, as it seems to me,

will hold good also in ecclesiastical matters, according to the present canon. For the civil law allows him who has sought a judge, or has chosen one in some other way, provided he has jurisdiction, to appeal against his verdict. ^B

ZONAR. From arbitrators, by the decree of the civil laws as well, no appeal is granted. The same thing, therefore, this canon also establishes. For if anyone, it says, condemned by one judge has appealed to another, and has chosen that judge—his adversary, against whom he appealed, consenting—it will no longer be permitted to either of them to appeal against the verdict of the judge whom both litigants chose. On that passage, "concerning the legates of the different provinces." The legates, whom they had expected to attend the synod, now all arriving together, the Fathers of the synod received with a great indication of joy. [On that passage, "concerning the exactors of the Church."] [These things also pertain in no way to the common utility.]

ARIST. "If one of the litigants appeals, if both choose an elective judge, let them no longer appeal."

The civil law indeed holds such an opinion concerning elective judges, that an elective tribunal is not otherwise established unless first each of the litigants proposes a stipulation of a penalty, that whoever among them does not acquiesce in the sentence of the judge chosen by them shall pay that penalty to the other who accepts the judgment. For they are not forced to accept his sentence; but that is set before them. Therefore, neither does an appeal have any place against his sentence, because even without an appeal he to whom it is displeasing can withdraw from it by merely paying the penalty. The law also says this, that a judge who has jurisdiction over the parties and can judge them by his own authority, does not become an elective judge. But the canons do not establish such things concerning elective judges; but they command that if the contending bishops or clerics choose some of the bishops as elective judges, and desire to be judged by them, the condemned party will no longer be admitted to appeal against their sentence, but shall acquiesce in it even against his will. The reason, as it seems to us, for which it is not permitted to appeal against their judgment, is written by us in the fifteenth canon of the present synod. ^D

CANON C.

request from the rulers the authority to appoint scholastic advocates—that is, those who are obliged to be at leisure and who have as a profession, or task, and ministry, or service, the pleading of cases. And whatever they themselves are able to plead, resisting those who cause obstacles, they shall protect; the rest they are to report, or rather bring to the attention of, the secret chambers of the courts. Now "secretum" is the name used by the Latins for tribunals. For among them, "secernere" means to judge.

ARIST. Let the assistance of advocates be requested from the Emperor for ecclesiastical matters; ^B who will have the profession of pleading cases, and who, as priests, will easily be able to report on matters that arise.

And again it seemed good to the synod, as it also pleased in the seventy-fifth canon, to request from the Emperor that permission be given to appoint advocates for the Church, having this very same ministry and profession, that is, to plead for the Church, and as priests to resist those things that arise, as often as necessity demands, and to be able easily to report on them to the Emperor, and from him receive authorization.

CANON CI.

ZONAR. That the legates should have "free" authority is to be understood, of course, as meaning not only that they may speak and do what they were commissioned to do, but also whatever other things they may know to be for the benefit of the Church, in word and deed, it is permitted them to carry out.

^D Protestation of the Mauritanian priests concerning Primosus. In addition to these things, it is manifest that the Mauritanians and Caesareans have testified by their own letters that Primosus was summoned through the leading men of the city of Thigava to appear in person, in accordance with the imperial constitutions; and, as was fitting, the same Primosus having been sought for was not found, as the deacons reported. But because the said Moors requested that letters should be sent from the whole synod to our venerable brother and aged father Innocent, it pleased that they be sent, so that he may know that Primosus was sought for at the synod and was not found at all.

BALS. The contents of the present canon are useless, as they are specific to a case, and for that reason have not been interpreted.

ZONAR. It appears that this Primosus was accused by the Mauritanians, and was summoned by them through the prefects of the city of Thigava to appear at the synod; and that he was sought for at the synod and was not found: therefore the Moors wished to signify to Pope Innocent by letters of the synod that Primosus, having been sought for at the synod, was not found.

CANON CII

BALS. This is decreed also in other canons of various synods, namely that a bishop should not be appointed in a parish where it was not accustomed of old to be done, unless the metropolitan wills it (for he is the primate of the province), and the bishop consents, to whom perhaps the parish pertains as being in his diocese, and the synod of the province shall decree concerning it.

ZONAR. This is decreed also in other canons of various synods, that a bishop should not be appointed in parishes where it was not accustomed of old to be done, unless the metropolitan wills it (for he is the primate of the province, in which the parishes are subject) and the bishop consents, to whom perhaps the parish pertains as being under his administration, and the synod of the province shall decree concerning it.

ARIST. "Those who have never heretofore had their own bishop shall not have one, unless the whole synod of the province and its primate shall have subscribed according to the judgment of him to whom the province in which the church is, is subject; otherwise they shall not have one." ^B If any parish has been subject to a bishop, and the multitude therein has wished to have its own bishop, as often happens, they shall not be easily heard; but this shall happen with the approval of the whole synod of the province, and its metropolitan, and also with the consent of the bishop to whom that parish is subject.

CANON CIII

^A BALS. The canon decrees that those who are converted from the heresy of the Donatists be under their own bishops, if they also are converted. It also says other things which look to the salvation of the Donatists and of their churches after their correction.

ZONAR. The Fathers of the synod decree that those peoples who convert from the heresy of the Donatists to the truth of the faith should be subject to the same bishops as before—provided that those bishops have also embraced the correct faith—and that if these same peoples, after the death of their bishops, have not obtained another bishop, but have attached themselves to the bishop of another diocese, bordering on the one who deceased, they should in no wise be hindered from having him. Furthermore, that those bishops of the Donatists who have reconciled their peoples to the Church should obtain authority as bishops over those same peoples, by the same right as before. However, after the law concerning concord was passed (for a law was promulgated at that time by the emperor for the concord of the churches of Africa), they decree that all churches and dioceses, that is to say, administrations or regions, as well as the rights pertaining to those churches, must be asserted and claimed by the catholic bishops. By "catholic bishops" he means either those who from the beginning stood in the ranks of the catholic Church, or the primates, that is to say, the metropolitans, whether the heretics have returned to soundness or not. But if the heretics have abused any of the rights of the churches after the law [was promulgated], that is to say, if they have alienated them, these must also be restored. And they have made fitting use of the word "abused" in this place; for to abuse is to use something in a way other than as it befits, which is what they undoubtedly do, by whom an ecclesiastical asset is alienated in any way whatever: for they do not use them as is proper. Let those who licentiously strip away the goods of the Church, and who do not hesitate to profess themselves participators in and praisers of that design, hear these things.

^B ARIST. Those who have converted from the Donatists shall hold their own bishops, even if they have had them contrary to the judgment of the synod; and when the bishop dies, if they do not wish another to be appointed in his place, but to join themselves to another, let it be permitted; and the bishops who were converted before the union shall have the peoples whom they had. But after the imperial mandate concerning the union, every Church shall defend its own rights.

Those Donatists who separated themselves from the Church and had their own bishops are decreed to have those bishops again without controversy, if they themselves and their own bishops convert to the catholic Church, even if they were made bishops contrary to the judgment of the synod. But if, when those bishops have died, they do not wish to have other ^C specific bishops in their place, but wish to be under the authority and administration of certain other bishops, so that they might not be thought to be schismatics again and wishing to be for themselves alone, but rather to be ordered under the catholic Church, it shall be permitted for them to do so. But also the bishops of the Donatists, who before the la-

royal law returned, wishing that the churches and dioceses which the Donatists held should be united to the churches of the catholic bishops, shall again possess the peoples whom they held, and they shall be bishops in them; but after such royal mandate, whether they return to the catholic Church or not, each church shall defend its own rights.

CANON CIV.

BALS. What is contained in the present canon is special, and therefore it has not been interpreted.

ZONAR. Certain people had accused Bishop Maurentius, and both they and the bishop himself had been sent to the synod. But when the cited accusers did not appear, the synod seemed ready to pass judgment against them; yet, using clemency and lenity, it decided that letters ought to be sent to Xanthippus. For it seems that he…

^A decreed it. For they had the care of informing the accusers that the bishop who was being accused had satisfied them, and that he had been subjected to such affront, although this had been done in no way by the will of the people. Furthermore, by the term "affront" they understand the accusation. When the accusers of Bishop Maurentius were sought and were nowhere to be found, the synod granted Maurentius permission to depart, because his accusers, who had been informed to convene at the synod which was to be held on the Ides of May, had by no means arrived. Now, the Ides are the final days of the month, as we explained previously in another synod. Furthermore, Maurentius was permitted to request judges from the region in which he lived, to whom the investigation of his case might be delegated. When he had requested Xanthippus and six others to examine his accusation, the synod assented and ordered the controversy to be examined by those whose names he had provided, declaring that the remaining necessary judges, so as to complete the number, should be chosen by Xanthippus. Moreover, it understands as "necessary judges" the twelve bishops who, according to canon 12 of the present synod, ought to be present at the judgment of a bishop. Since, therefore, seven judges had been elected by Maurentius, by the prescription of that canon, in order to complete the number, it was necessary for five others to be added. ^B

ARIST. Concerning the subdeacons who are said to be present from New Germania: having been sought three times and not found, a sentence ought to be passed. But because of ecclesiastical clemency, let some be sent who may investigate the matter. These subdeacons, who accused Bishop Maurentius and were mandated to be present at this synod and to produce whatever complaints they had introduced against the bishop, having then been sought a second and a third time and not found, were to be condemned as slanderers; but because of ecclesiastical clemency, it was decreed by the synod that some judges be sent, and that they investigate the crimes in that very place, even in the presence of the accusers themselves, and provide a judgment appropriate to the case.

CANON CIV.

ZONAR. A controversy, as it seems, had arisen between those in Rome and those in Alexandria, concerning which it pleased this synod to write to Innocent, who was at that time presiding over the Church of the Romans, so that they might resolve the dissension and be at peace with one another according to the command of the Lord, saying: "Peace ^D I give"

you; my peace I leave with you," and again: "Have peace among yourselves and with all."

ARIST. ^A It was resolved that letters be sent to Innocent, so that the Roman and Alexandrian Churches might enjoy peace with one another.

On account of the dissensions that occurred between the Church of the Romans and the Alexandrians, it seemed good that letters should be sent from the synod to Pope Innocent, so that both Churches might maintain peace with one another.

CANON CV

BALS. The present synod, decreeing that she who has departed from her spouse is not to be joined to another, and conversely, that the husband is not to cohabit with another, but rather that they are to remain without a spouse or be reconciled, asks that all be compelled to do so by imperial command. You should know, however, that the 117th Novel of Justinian, which is placed in the seventh title of the 28th book, decreed otherwise regarding the dissolution of marriages; and read the 87th canon of the Council in Trullo and what is in it, ^C and you will find many things on this subject. For the things contained in this canon, because they are much older, have become obsolete.

ZONAR. Emperor Justinian, in the Novel which is placed in Lib. XXVIII, Tit. 7 of the Basilica, enumerates certain causes for dissolving a marriage; in the absence of any of these, he decreed that divorce is in no way permitted. But this synod, which was much older than Justinian, observing that, out of old custom, divorces were being made everywhere whenever it was pleasing to either spouse, decreed that those who were thus separated should either be reconciled ^D and for the marriage to remain, or to remain thus—that is, unmarried after the separation. But if they neglect this, they should be compelled to penance—that is, they will necessarily be in need of penance through expiation, since they have bound themselves in adultery; just as is easily shown from those words of the Lord, who says: "He who dismisses his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and he who marries a woman who has been dismissed, commits adultery." And the synod decided to also request an imperial law regarding divorces not being made without cause. By evangelical and apostolic discipline, they understand the precept of Christ the Lord and the teaching of the great Paul. For the former says: "What God has joined, let no man put asunder"; and the blessed Paul [... ]

^A says: "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."

ARIST. Let marriages which are severed, if they are not reconciled, ^B remain so; otherwise, let them be compelled to repentance.

It pleased this synod, according to the evangelical and apostolic teaching, that no one should lightly dismiss his own wife and withdraw from her. If it should happen that a marriage is severed by the husband or the wife, and they are not reconciled, and they wish to come together again, they must remain thus single and not contract another marriage; because he who marries a woman who has been dismissed commits adultery. But if the man should be joined to another woman, or the woman to another man, they shall be brought to repentance and shall be subject to the penalties for adultery. And seek the eighty-seventh canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo, and the ninth, thirty-fifth, forty-eighth, and seventy-seventh canons of the great Basil.

CANON CVI.

BALS. As it seems, certain bishops were attempting to say unusual prayers, either in the prefaces of the divine doxologies—that is, at the beginnings—or in the commendations—that is, in the middle—or at the time of ordinations. The Fathers, therefore, forbidding this, say that only those prayers which were before established, or which are customary, ought to be said. This is the content of the present canon. But in the synod of this queen of cities [Constantinople], various decrees were issued, signifying that those prelates ^D who celebrate divine service at the memorials of the deceased noblemen and magnates, and who say eulogistic prayers in iambics or even in prose, are liable to suspension from celebrating the sacred rites. For many were caught doing such things. Likewise, it was decreed by a synodical statement that readers also are excommunicated who at the same memorials recite musical and instrumental ditties, and perform a wedding song instead of a funeral oration. And these were justly excommunicated; but those who sing with piety, not forcing nature, but following art

and the foundation, are wrongly excommunicated. ^A For we celebrate the memorials of those who have departed not with mourning, but festively and panegyrically, giving thanks to God, who has deigned that the deceased should depart in the orthodox faith, and that we should bury those who depart from us openly and with all liberty, and not secretly, as heretofore, when we cast them out like corpses. Which Gregory the Theologian mentions in his invective orations against Julian: a practice which even now occurs among Christians living among the Muslims. Therefore, we also accompany the deceased splendidly with lamps and ointments, as one who was sanctified through holy baptism. Hence, we also sing the *Immaculate* for the most part.

ZONAR. ^B Various prayers are used by priests during the daily offices of divine praise. Some are recited at the beginning, which they therefore called "prefaces"; others at the end, that is, when the hymnody is completed; these they called "hypotheses," as being placed under the hymns and recited after them; others they named "paratheses" [commendations], as being those that place the people before the Lord. The synod therefore ordains that those prayers confirmed in the synod be recited, whatever they may be, and by whatever name they might be called, and that no others be offered, but that those collected by the more discerning be recited. By the "imposition of hands," it makes mention of the prayers used in ordination. For in the collation of orders, the high priest, having laid his hands upon the head of the one being ordained, thus recites the prayers. ^C Therefore, in all these places, it commands that only those prayers already confirmed by the synod be used, and that new ones, which are introduced by some against the faith, be entirely rejected. For what has not been approved by the judgment of the Fathers is dubious; and therefore, one must fear lest they contain something alien to piety and the faith. For this reason, the synod abrogates new ones.

ARIST. ^D "It pleased that the prayers confirmed in the synod be performed by all, whether prefaces, or commendations, or impositions of hands; and that others against the faith never be brought forward." Everyone ought to celebrate the Scriptures confirmed by the synods, and the prayers which the Church has received as handed down by the elders: namely, the hymnodies up to the Gospel and the readings of the holy Scriptures, or the commendations—that is, the prayers made for the catechumens, through which we commend them to the Lord—or the impositions of hands, or the blessings made by the bishop's hand upon the people.

CANON CVII. "Concerning those who seek the cognition of public or secular judgments from the emperor. It pleased that whoever shall seek the cognition of public or secular judgments from the emperor, be deprived of his own rank; but if he shall seek an episcopal judgment from the emperor, nothing shall hinder him."

BALS. This canon is clear. For it enacts,

^A that those who renounce the ecclesiastical court and ask the emperor to have their cases judged by public judges, that is, civil ones, are to be deposed; but as for those who secure imperial commands in order to be judged by bishops, it does not will that they should suffer harm. Read also the fifteenth canon of this present synod, and its interpretation, for it speaks of these same matters at greater length. And note that not even with an imperial mandate can a person in holy orders renounce ecclesiastical law; but if he does this, he is deposed. What then, if a layman, through an imperial command, drags a person in holy orders into a civil court; will he be prejudiced? Resolution. Some say that he is neither prejudiced, nor does the limitation of the forum have any place here. But to me it seems that the layman who has thus brought an action, that is, through a mandate, will indeed not be prejudiced as one who has dragged the person in holy orders to an incompetent court; yet he will be compelled, if the case is ecclesiastical, to appear in the ecclesiastical court. For imperial commands are also understood and interpreted in accordance with laws and canons. Thus understand also the 16th chapter of the first title of the third book, which says, "But we do not allow that even for any pecuniary or criminal cause, an unwilling bishop, civil ^B or military magistrate, be produced or caused to stand trial without the emperor’s command."

ZONAR. It has been decreed by the authority of many canons that bishops should be judged by the synods of the provinces, and clerics by their own bishops. But if anyone, says this canon, being in holy orders, should approach the emperor seeking the cognizance of public, that is, political and magisterial, courts, he shall be deprived of his own rank, that is, deposed; but if, approaching the emperor, he should ask for an episcopal judgment, that is, for a meeting of bishops to be held by imperial command and to judge the case, he will suffer no harm concerning his dignity. Read the ninth canon of the fourth synod.

ARIST. "He who asks for a public judgment from the emperor is not a bishop." A bishop or cleric, being accused of crimes, and refusing the ecclesiastical court, and seeking worldly judges from the emperor, shall be deprived of his own rank.

CANON CVIII

BALS. The canon orders that those who have secretly departed from the churches in Africa and who perform sacred offices in transmarine churches, that is, in Rome, are to be deposed. Therefore, note that those who perform sacred offices in a foreign region without commendatory and dimissory letters will be excommunicated, that is, they will be prohibited from performing the liturgy. ^D

ZONARAS. If anyone, he says, having departed from the communion of his own bishop in Africa, secretly withdraws from there and travels to regions beyond the sea, in order to avoid being required to communicate, he shall be punished regarding his clerical status—that is, he shall fall from the clergy and lose every honor of clerical dignity.

ARISTENUS. "He who is deprived of communion in Africa, and slips away to lands beyond the sea that he might communicate there, falls from the clergy."

A bishop or cleric in Africa who has been excommunicated, if he goes beyond the sea—that is, if he departs—and surreptitiously influences the bishops there, and they admit him to communion, he shall be punished by the loss of his rank.

CANON CIX

BALSAMON. The present canon ordains that bishops should set out for the comitatus—that is, where the comes or the emperor is—only with dimissory letters from the primate or the metropolitan. It also decrees certain other things specifically, which are not useful in common; and for this reason they have not even been interpreted.

ZONARAS. There are also many other various canons [ordaining] that it is not permitted for bishops, without dimissory letters from their primates and from the provincial synod...

the diocese to depart to the emperor, this ^A synod also ordains something further, namely, that those dimissory letters must also be presented to the Pope of Rome. This appears to have been enjoined upon those in Africa so that, by presenting the dimissory letters to the Pope, they might receive from him a second dimissory letter for the *comitatum* [imperial court]. If, therefore, anyone, having received a dimissory letter from his own synod, proceeds to Rome but does not declare there the reason why he is going to the emperor, but departs in silence, he shall be punished with excommunication. If, however, anyone while staying in Rome has a sudden emergency arise that requires him to travel to the ^B *comitatum*, he must communicate the matter to the Roman pontiff and receive a dimissory letter from him. Further, he says that those dimissory letters which are granted to bishops by their primate, or to clerics by their bishop, shall have the date of Easter inscribed upon them; but if the date of Easter for that year is still uncertain, the date of the previous year's Easter should be written. This, I think, was established so that the date of Easter for that year might be made known (for this same synod had already decided in previous canons ^C that the date of Easter should be announced annually in the synodical assembly), or also so that the time of the absence of the one departing to the emperor might be noted; a practice, he says, that is usually followed in public records as well. For in book 22, title 1 of the *Basilica* it is enacted that protocols should be added to records of court contracts, in which the names of the reigning emperors and consuls of that year are written, along with other things required in that place. This, in our own times, is generally neglected, but it is still observed in emphyteutic leases. Finally, to the legates sent to the emperor, the authority was given to obtain from him whatever they understood might be useful to the faithful against the Donatists or the Greeks; and it was decreed that any letters sent in the name of the synod should be fortified with the signature of Bishop Aurelius.

ARIST. ^D « Anyone who for some necessity is going to depart for the *comitatum* shall make this known to the priest of Carthage and to the Pope of Rome, and shall receive a dimissory letter, otherwise he shall be excommunicated. Anything that the legates deem useful against the Donatists, the Greeks, and their superstitions shall be requested from the emperor. »

Anyone from Africa who is about to depart for the *comitatum*—that is, the place where the emperor is—due to some necessity, whether he is a cleric or a bishop, must make the reason known to the bishop of Carthage, and after receiving letters from him, must proceed to Rome and present himself to the bishop of Rome; he must state the reason why he is going to the emperor, and upon the bishop of Rome assessing this and judging it to be reasonable, he shall also receive letters from him, providing his advocacy or recommendation to the emperor. Whoever among the bishops or clerics departs for the *comitatum* otherwise shall be excommunicated. And seek the eleventh canon of the Council of Antioch, and the canon

of the Council of Sardica. Bishops sent as legates from the council to the emperor received permission to request from the emperor whatever they perceived would be to the advantage of the Catholic Church against the religion of the Greeks and the Donatists, even if they did not have a specific mandate for it.

CANON CX.

^A • A council against the Greeks and heretics. Under Bassus and Philippus, most illustrious consuls, on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of July, in Carthage, in the secretarium of the Restituta Church. In this council, the bishops Restitutus and Florentius accepted a legation against the Greeks and heretics, at the time when Severus and Macarius were deposed; and on account of their cause, the bishops Evodius, Theasius, and Victor were slain.

• A council concerning the cognizance of bishops. Under the most glorious emperors, Honorius for the seventh time and Theodosius for the third time, Augusti, consuls, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of July, in Carthage, in the Secunda Church. In this council it was resolved that one bishop should not claim the cognizance of a case for himself. The acts of the present council were not written down, because they were conducted locally, and not in common.

BALS. What is written in the present canon, as being specially pronounced, does not need explanation. But what is said, that one bishop should not claim cognizance for himself, is to be understood in accordance with the eleventh canon of the present council.

ZONAR. That cases of clergy should be judged by their own respective bishop is established by the ninth canon of the fourth council; but if a cleric has a dispute with his own bishop, or two bishops have any controversy between themselves, the judgment of that matter rests with the synod. This same thing seems to be sanctioned by this canon: so that if two bishops, for instance, are litigating among themselves, or if a cleric brings an action against a bishop, no single bishop should take upon himself the cognizance of that case, but it should be referred to the assembly of the provincial synod.

ARIST. ^D • Let one bishop not claim for himself the cognizance of a case. • Not only is the judgment of one bishop not sufficient, but neither are two sufficient for the deposition of a presbyter or deacon. But if a bishop is the one accused, if many bishops cannot assemble, he shall be judged by a minimum of twelve bishops; if a presbyter, by six bishops and his own bishop; but if a deacon, by three and his own bishop: as the twelfth and twentieth canons of this council stipulate. Therefore, a bishop shall not constitute himself a sole judge in the crimes of a presbyter or deacon, and defend his own judgment, and carry that work into effect, unless those accused be of the number of clerics who are below deacons. Concerning those

indeed, even a single local bishop ^A suffices to decide, as is determined at the end of the twentieth canon of the present synod.

CANON CXI

BALS. The twelfth canon of the synod of Neocaesarea says that he who has been in danger and has been baptized in that state should not be promoted to the priesthood. These Fathers likewise decree that heretics should come to the faith by spontaneous and free choice, and not by force or necessity. He said "the exercise of Christianity," indicating that the Christian who has not exercised every virtue is called a Christian by name only, and not in reality.

ZONAR. Virtue ought to be embraced freely and from the soul, not by force or necessity, but voluntarily. Therefore, they decreed that whoever was to be initiated into the Christian religion should not be received unless they approached the faith of their own accord and will, not having been coerced by force or necessity. For things done by force and constraint are neither stable nor lasting. Wherefore the synod of Neocaesarea also, in the twelfth canon, forbids him who has been baptized while in extreme danger to be promoted to sacred orders. Furthermore, the canon said "the exercise of the Christian religion," as if to say that a Christian man ought to be occupied in the exercise of all virtues—of continence, temperance, truth, modesty, and especially ^C of showing love toward all; so that he who has neglected these may be considered a Christian in name only, and not in deed.

ARIST. "Let each one undertake the exercise of piety by free choice." A person ought to perform that which is good voluntarily, and not by compulsion. For this reason, no one will be required to embrace either the exercise of piety or Christianity by force, but rather by his own spontaneous judgment and free will.

CANON CXII

Beveridge's note: To this canon is appended an Amerbachian scholium, in these words: "It seems that these wretched men among the Donatists, and they the same as no others, are the Massalians or Euchites; since Massalia is also situated opposite to Africa, in the parts of Rome on the Tiber." How, however, this scholium accords with this canon, and what it means, let others see.

Theodosius the eighth as consuls, on the Kalends of May, at Carthage, in the Secretarium of the Basilica of Faustus, Bishop Aurelius presiding over the whole synod, with the deacons standing by: it pleased all the bishops of the Church of Carthage, gathered in this holy synod, whose names and subscriptions have been inserted, that ^A Adam was not made mortal by God: so that if anyone should say that the first-created man, Adam, was made mortal in such a way that, whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in the body—that is, would have departed from the body—not on account of the merit of sin, but by necessity of nature, let him be anathema.

BALS. and ZONAR. God did not create Adam mortal, nor indeed immortal, but as something between greatness and humility; and having made him master of his own power and free will, He left him to himself, so that whichever way he might incline—whether toward virtue or toward vice—he might obtain for himself either immortality or mortality. For even if man had flesh at that time, it was not such as it is now. And this the Theologian Gregory says, when he remarks: "He also put on garments of skins," perhaps signifying thicker, mortal, and resistant flesh. ^C Therefore, before the transgression, the flesh of Adam was neither thick nor by nature mortal. But there were some who said that he was created mortal from the beginning and that he would have died even if he had not transgressed the commandment, and that death did not enter in because of sin, but because of his nature, which was such from the beginning. Therefore, the Fathers of this synod cast anathema upon those who hold these opinions.

ARIST. He who asserts that the first-created man would have died even without sin, by necessity of nature, let him be anathema.

CANON CXII. That infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Likewise, it pleased that whoever denies that small and newly-born infants are to be baptized from their mothers' wombs, or says that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing ^D of hereditary sin from the first parent, Adam, which must be purged by the laver of regeneration (from which it follows that in them the form of baptism "for the remission of sins" is understood as not true, but false), let him be anathema: for it is not possible for that which was said by the Apostle to be understood otherwise: "Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus it passed into all men, in whom all have sinned"; unless... [transla​tion continues]

Guill. Beveregii note. Harmenopulus also records that the Massalians were called Euchites, and he gives the reason in these words, Harmenop. de sect. c. 18.

^A ...passed, in whom all have sinned, unless in the way that the Catholic Church, which is spread and extended everywhere, has always understood it. For because of this rule of faith, even infants, who are not yet able to commit any sin by themselves, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that what they have contracted from ancient origin may be cleansed in them through regeneration.

BALS. and ZONAR. Some said that newly born infants are not baptized for the remission of sins; for they have no sin, since they are not capable of sinning, as they do not yet have the discretion of good and evil. The Synod therefore forbids this, and places under anathema those who think in this way and who say that those who have descended from him [Adam] derive nothing from the ancestral sin of the first parent, Adam, so that infants would have need of purification by the holy bath of baptism, saying that it follows from this that [one must] understand that the formula of baptism for the remission of sins is not true, but fictitious, namely in these infants. Then it also confirms its own reasoning, bringing forward a statement from the great Paul. ^B For how, it says, is it to be understood otherwise, that "by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so it passed unto all men, in whom all have sinned," unless in the way the Catholic Church has understood this—the Church which is spread and extended everywhere, that is, the multitude of the faithful scattered throughout the whole world?

ARIST. He who says that newly born infants being baptized derive nothing from the sin of Adam, which ought to be cleansed by baptism, is accursed; for through the one, both death and sin have invaded the whole world.

CANON CXIII

it is very impious to believe that we possess the grace of God for that which puffs us up, but do not possess it for that which edifies, when both are a gift of God: both the knowing what one ought to do, and the loving the good which one ought to do; so that, with charity edifying, knowledge may not be able to puff up. For just as it is written concerning God, "He that teacheth man knowledge," so also it is written, "Charity is of God." ^A

BALSAMON and ZONARAS. We believe that the grace supplied to us in holy baptism through our Lord Jesus Christ not only gives us the remission of sins already committed, but also the power not to sin again, unless we ourselves, through sloth, should surrender ourselves to sins. The Fathers condemned with anathema those who do not think in this way, and who say that the divine laver gives only the remission of sins, but not also help for the future. And this also some used to say, that the grace of God brings us help to not sin (for through it we receive knowledge of what we ought to do and what we ought to flee) but not also for generating in us a love of what is honorable and of virtue, so that we might also love the good which we have recognized and be able to do it. The synod, therefore, anathematizes those who hold such things, saying that both are gifts of God, both knowledge and charity, as it is written, "He that teacheth man knowledge." And again, "Charity is of God." And otherwise, it is impious to say that divine grace indeed gives us the knowing of the good, but does not implant in us a love for it, nor strengthens us to perform the good in love for it. And it brings forward the apostolic testimonies for the confirmation of its argument, which say: "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." How, therefore, is it not impious to say that divine grace cooperates with us for that which puffs up—that is, for causing conceit—but gives no help for edifying? ^{B C}

ARISTENUS. On Canon 112. "He who thinks that the grace of God provides only the remission of sins that we have already committed, but not also help against future ones, is twice-accursed." ^D

ARISTENUS. On Canon 113. "He who says that the grace of God helps us to this extent only: that we might know what we ought to do and what to avoid, but not also that we might love what we have recognized and be able to perform it: let him be anathema."

CANON CXIV. That without the grace of God we are able to accomplish nothing good. It also pleased, that whoever shall have said that the grace of justification was given to us for this reason, that that which we are able to do by free will, we might more easily perform through grace; as if, even if grace were not given, we could with difficulty,

but still fulfill the divine commandments: let him be anathema. For concerning the fruits of the commandments, the Lord did not say: "Without me you can do them with difficulty," but said: "Without me you can do nothing." ^A

BALS. Innumerable were the perverse opinions, one of which was that which said that God made us possessed of free will, so that we might be able to fulfill the commandments even without divine grace; but that divine grace provides us with assistance for them to be performed more easily. For we could, even if divine grace were not cooperating, fulfill them, but with more difficulty. To those, therefore, who say these things, the synod brings anathema.

ZONAR. Innumerable were the perverse opinions, one of which was that which said that God made us possessed of free will, so that we might be able to fulfill the commandments even without divine grace. And divine grace cooperates to the end that they might be performed by us more easily. For we could, even if divine grace were not cooperating, fulfill them, but with more difficulty. To those, therefore, who say these things, the synod brings anathema, ^B declaring that it is all of divine grace, and that without it, nothing can be rightly accomplished by us. And it brings forward the testimony of the Lord, saying: "Without me you can do nothing"; and it did not say, it remarks, "You cannot do it easily," but: "You can do nothing."

ARIST. "He who preaches that, even without grace, we fulfill the commandments, though with more difficulty, is thrice-cursed; for the Lord says: 'Without me you can do nothing.'" ^C

Regarding Pelagius, and Celestius, and Nestorius the empty-minded, who were of one mind—but also those who think and teach the dogmas of the impious Manichaeans, and those things which the synod anathematizes—whoever has thought these things will not be ranked among Christians, but will be banished from the Church as an alien, and will be allotted a separation from her and from God. Some say, indeed, that these impious men, namely Celestius and Pelagius, were neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor in any way of the priestly order; but that they were, as it were, monks going about through the cities and conspiring against the truth, ^D and rising up against the Church in the time of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and Innocent of Rome, and after many struggles were condemned in writing by these very bishops. Whoever, therefore, teaches that Adam was made mortal by God from the beginning, and that he would have died by the necessity of nature, whether he had sinned or had not; or says that infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as drawing nothing from the original sin of Adam—even though the Apostle cries out that through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; or even thinks that baptism indeed grants remission of sins, but does *not* provide assistance so that one might not sin further, but that it is amended by our own effort alone,

or even admits this, and thinks that God's grace assists us ^A in fulfilling His commandments; but teaches that we can perform them even without grace, though with difficulty: let him be anathema. For the Lord did not say, "Without me you can do them with difficulty," but, "Without me you can do nothing."

CANON CXV

BALS. and ZONAR. Certain people understood the apostolic saying, which says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," as meaning that one ought to say this out of humility, and not according to the truth. Therefore, the Fathers condemn with anathema those who thus interpret the words spoken by the Apostle, saying that from the words of the Epistle which immediately follow, the apostle's meaning is clearly shown, for he subjoins: "But if we confess our sins," and what follows thereafter. Furthermore, David also says: "In sins did my mother conceive me." For if the law did not ^D bring aid to marriage, intercourse would be considered a sin, having lust and fleshly appetite inciting it, even if it were done for the sake of children. And therefore, "In sins," said David, "my mother conceived me." For if the generation of bodies has the desire of the flesh as its cause, such things, entirely, are those which are generated from them.

ARIST. He who, when the Theologian says: • "If we say that there is no sin in us, we deceive ourselves"; interprets it as meaning that he said this not truly, but humbly: let him be anathema. Since we are all in sins, and no one is pure from defilement, even if his life were but one day long: he who says that it is spoken by the apostle humbly and not truly is subject to anathema, as is he who says that

^A if he said this through humility, he would not have said "we deceive ourselves," but "we exalt ourselves." For he deceives himself who hallucinates and lies, not he who speaks the truth.

^B CANON CXVI. That in the Lord's Prayer the saints say for themselves: "Forgive us our debts." Likewise, it has pleased that whoever says that the saints should say in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our debts," not because they say this for themselves (since for them such a petition is henceforth unnecessary), but because they say it for other sinners who are in his people, and that he should not say, "Each one of the saints should say 'Forgive me my debts,' but 'Forgive us our debts' as though for others, and not for himself, should the righteous ask that this be understood"; let him be anathema. For the apostle James was holy and righteous when he said: "For in many things we all stumble." For why was "all" added, unless so that this thought might also harmonize with the psalm, where it is read: "Do not enter into judgment with thy servant, for no living man shall be justified before thee"; and in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: "There is no man who has not sinned"; and in the book of the holy Job, that saying "in the hand of every man," signifies that every man should know his own weakness. Whence, moreover, the holy Daniel, when in his prayer he said in the plural, "We have sinned, we have acted wickedly," and the rest, which he there humbly and truly confesses; so that it might not be thought, as some believe, that he is saying this not of his own sins but rather of the sins of the people, he afterwards said: "I prayed and confessed my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God." He did not wish to say "our sins," but he said those of the people himself and his own; since the prophet foresaw those who would in the future misunderstand this.

BALS. It is arrogance to say that when the saints pray, "Forgive us our debts," they do not say this for themselves, but for the people. And therefore the Fathers smite with anathema those who think this, saying that the righteous do not ask for the remission of sins only for others, but also for themselves; and they bring forward testimonies of Holy Scripture, one from the Epistle of James, the brother of the Lord, the others from the Old Testament.

ZONAR. And this is also of the same arrogance, to say that when the saints pray, "Forgive us our debts," they do not say this for themselves, but for the people. And therefore the Fathers of this synod smite with anathema those who think these things, saying that the righteous do not ask for the remission of sins for others only, but also for them-

themselves. And they produce scriptural testimonies, one from the Epistle of James, the brother of the Lord, and the others from the Old Testament. ^A

ARIST. “He who expounds the words, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ as belonging to the many, rather than being the individual and proper words of each person, let him be anathema: especially when he sees Daniel saying with the many, ‘I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people.’” He who interprets falsely that which the saints say, “Forgive us our debts,” claiming that they do not say this in prayer for themselves, as if they had no sins and therefore were in no need of this petition, but that they offer this intercession to God for sinners, let him be anathema; for the holy and righteous apostle James was, when he said, “For in many things we all stumble,” and Daniel, in his prayer, saying in the plural, “We have sinned, we have done iniquity,” and the rest; then also adding specifically, “I was confessing my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God.” ^B

CANON CXVII. “That the words, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ are truly said by the saints. Likewise it pleased [the synod] that whosoever desires these words of the Lord’s Prayer, where we say, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ to be said by the saints in such a way that they be understood as spoken humbly and not truly, let them be anathema. For who could endure one praying and lying, not to men, but to God himself; who says with his lips that he wishes to be forgiven, but says in his heart that he has no sins which should be forgiven him?”

BALS. The present canon is also of the same meaning, saying, “For who will put up with one who by words indeed asks for the remission of faults, but in his heart thinks he has no sins, and lies not to men, but to God?” ^C

ZONAR. The present canon is also of the same meaning, and subjects to anathema him who thinks such things, saying, “For who would endure,” that is, who would tolerate and suffer one who by words indeed asks for the remission of faults, but in his heart thinks he has no sins, and lies not to men, but to God?

CANON CXVIII. ^D “Concerning the peoples who are converted from the Donatists. Likewise it pleased [the synod] that, since some years ago it was defined in this church in a full synod, that whatsoever churches, situated in a diocese, before the laws concerning the Donatists were enacted, had become catholic, should belong to those sees through whose bishops they were persuaded and communicated with the catholic unity; but after the laws, whatsoever [churches] were communicated, should belong to those [sees] to which...

they formerly belonged when they were Catholic. ^B

CANON CXIX.

BALS. To explain these two canons is not necessary, as they do not concern the common economy, but only those bishops in Africa who came over from the Donatists to the Catholic Church.

ZONAR. Since the heretical followers of Donatus became numerous, and having banded together in large numbers, they seized churches in various dioceses, and indeed parishes too, and held and appropriated them. When, however, they returned to the orthodox faith, controversies arose concerning the parishes formerly held by them, as the bishops were in disagreement with one another, and each side was trying to draw these to themselves. Therefore, for this case, both these canons were issued, establishing how the places which the Donatists had held ought to be divided among the bishops. To explain the canons in detail is not necessary; since they have no obscurity, and because they do not concern the common economy, but only the matters of those,

who at that time resided in Africa, they are peculiar to them.

ARIST. in can. 118. ^A *Whenever conversions and unions of Donatists occur, let them pertain to that throne to which the Catholic Church, which was once there, also pertained.*

Since many controversies have arisen regarding the converted Donatists, as to which throne they should be adjudged: for before the imperial laws commanding the union of the churches, they were subject to that bishop through whom they were converted from error and communicated with the Catholic Church; but after the laws, they pertained to those bishops who were near the places held by the Donatists themselves; ^B the synod resolved, settling the controversies arising between the bishops, that they pertain to that throne to which the Catholic Church, which had existed there from of old, also belongs.

ARIST. in can. 119. *Those who have been converted from Donatus should divide the dioceses; and the elder should distribute, but the younger should choose.*

If the bishops of the Donatists return to the Catholic Church, and between them or other Catholic bishops there are certain parishes in which both have episcopal rights, let a division of the parishes or dioceses thus shared be made equally between them; but in such a way that the elder bishop may make the division, ^C and he who was made bishop after him may have the election. But if perhaps there is a place in which both Donatists and orthodox were living, if it is closer to the bishop converted from the Donatists, let it be granted to him in its entirety; but if it is closer to the Catholic bishop, and the ancient orthodox who are in it wish to have their own bishop, while those who have converted from Donatus also wish to have theirs, let the vote of the majority prevail. But if the parties are equal, let the whole place be adjudged to the elder bishop.

CANON CXX. ^D *That if a bishop has delivered some diocese from heresy, and has held it for three years, no one shall claim it.*

It likewise pleased that if anyone after the laws converts any place to Catholic unity, and has held it for three years, with no one claiming it, thereafter it may not be claimed from him; provided indeed that within that same triennium there was a bishop who ought to have claimed it, and was silent. But if there was not one in the register, let no prejudice be brought against him; but when the vacant place has received a bishop, may it be permitted to him from that day to claim it within three years. Likewise also if a bishop has been converted from the parts of Donatus to the Catholic Church, let him not be affected by any prejudice in the register regarding the time defined; but from the day on which he was converted, let him have the power within three years of claiming the places which pertain to his see.

^A BALS. As is probable, laws concerning the boundaries of regions had been enacted before: but because after they were published, controversies arose, the Fathers decreed that if any bishop should convert a place or parish, which has heretics, to the orthodox faith, and shall have held it for three years, and that while the bishop who has legal right to it is alive and silent, he should be troubled no further regarding it. But if in the bishopric to which the place is said to belong, there was no bishop, the lapse of the three years will not prevent him who was later elected from reclaiming his parish. The same thing is observed also in the case of the Donatists who are converted. And the canon consists in these things. But you should know that ecclesiastical rights, which are of course concerning the boundaries of regions and other things, if they are brought against the Church, are excluded after thirty years; but if against persons, after forty years. And read the third chapter, title 3, of the fifth book of the Basilica and the last chapter of the title of the same book, which says: ^B "Every action which pertains to venerable houses, whether it be personal or hypothecary, does not exceed forty years, with the temporal prescriptions appropriate to each such holy house respectively preserving their own times." Wherefore those things which are contained in the present canon, because of these chapters which are from the Novels of Justinian, have become obsolete.

ZONAR. From the reports of the Fathers of this synod, laws were established, I think, by the Emperor Honorius; for he was ruling the West at that time. Therefore, the canon says that if, after the laws, any bishop joins a certain place, that is to say a region or a parish, or the people in it, to the Catholic Church, and has held that region for a space of three years with no one opposing, from that time it shall be his; that is, it shall be permitted to no one to undergo a trial to claim that place for himself. But if of his bishopric, to which that place is said to belong, no bishop existed at that time to claim it, but the Church remained widowed of a prelate, it shall not be prejudiced in the matricula; ^C that is, although that place may have been entered into the records of the Church which possessed it for three years, yet that matter shall not harm the bishop who shall have been created afterwards; but he shall be able to claim and recover it by his own right, reckoning the space of three years from the day on which he was made bishop. And it is decreed that this indeed is also to be observed in those matters which pertain to the Donatists; so that if any bishop from that number should again aggregate himself to the unity of the Catholic Church, whose region another bishop was holding, he shall have the faculty of reclaiming the places pertaining to his Church within the interval of three years from the time he returned into grace with the Church.

^D ARIST. ‹ He who converts a region to the orthodox faith, and holds the converted region for three years, let him be exempt from blame: and the bishop converted from Donatus

if within the three years from his conversion he seeks recovery, let him proceed in law. ›

Before the imperial laws, just as it was written in the one hundred and seventeenth canon, if any bishop converted some parish from any heresy to the orthodox faith, he possessed it from that time, and none of the bishops to whom that diocese belonged could recall it. But after the laws concerning this were passed, it pleased the synod that he who converted any region to the orthodox faith, and possessed it for a three-year period, should remain unmolested and without blame from anyone seeking to recover it, and that it should no ^B longer be sought from him, provided that within the three years there existed a bishop who might have sought it, and who remained quiet. For if the church which has the right over that region converted from heresy was vacant of a bishop, the passage of the three-year period will not harm him, after a bishop comes to be in it. But also if some parish of a Donatist bishop is converted to the Catholic Church, and has been long held by him who converted it to the orthodox faith; if later the Donatist bishop himself comes to the union of the Catholic faith, it shall be permitted to him within three years from the time he returned to recall the parish that belongs to his own throne.

CANON CXXI

‹ Of those who invade peoples whom they think belong to them, against the will of those who possess them. Likewise it pleased, that whoever bishops think that the peoples, which they believe belong to their see, do not seek them in such a way as to have this done by other bishops judging, but rather invade the peoples who are held by others, whether they wish it or not, let them be punished by the loss of their case: and whoever indeed have done this, if ^C the business is not finished by consensus among the bishops, but they still contend over it; let him depart from it, against whom it shall have been shown that he made an incursion, having neglected the ecclesiastical judges. Nor let anyone flatter himself if he has received letters from a primate concerning possessing it. But whether he has the letters or not, let him come to an agreement with him who possesses it, and receive letters from him; that it may appear that he peaceably possesses the Church which belongs to him: but if the other brings forward a contrary question; let it also be finished among the judging bishops, whether those whom the primate shall have given him, or those whom they themselves shall have chosen by consensus from the neighbors. ›

BALS. The civil law also establishes that whoever has taken away his own property without the authority of the magistrate, let him lose it. The present canon also decrees that those bishops who think they have a right to a multitude, that is, to a parish, should not lay hold of it by their own authority, even if the peoples wish it or even if they do not wish it; but those regions which are held by other bishops, ^D with episcopal judgment

^A they should yield; but if they should declare the right for themselves, let them sustain the loss of their own property, that is to say, let them fall from their own right. This also will happen to those who, after the judgment has been rendered, do not wait for the episcopal sentence, but by their own authority have seized the region. And let no one, he says, flatter himself—that is, deceive himself—that he has received letters from the primate or metropolitan granting him possession of the place. For whether he has letters or has not, unless he receives letters from him who detains the people about whom the controversy exists, through which it would appear that by his opinion he has peacefully obtained the region which pertains to him, he shall fall from his own right. But if the defendant brings a contrary question, that is, makes a counter-charge against the plaintiff, so that this case also may be settled by the judgment of the bishops. And those who are to judge shall be appointed either by the primate or shall be chosen by the consent of the litigants.

But someone will ask: since various canons decree that those who exercise any episcopal function in the dioceses of others against the will of those who hold them are to be deposed, how does the present canon condemn him who has committed an invasion only by [depriving him of] the right he perchance possesses? ^B Solution. Suppose here a bishop who has declared the right for himself to have the right of the diocese, and therefore he is not subject to deposition, but he falls from his own right. For if it is truly shown that such a diocese is indeed alien, because of the vexation of the bishop who suffered the invasion, he who has behaved insolently and proudly will be deposed.

Furthermore, someone will ask: since this bishop who invaded [the territory] has thus fallen from his episcopal right, will the one who detains it properly exercise the episcopate as in his own diocese, or will he be punished as one who, knowing and aware, detains an alien diocese and celebrates sacred rites in it? ^C Solution. The law is that which says, "By the order of the magistrate we possess justly." And because the bishop who suffered the violence has received the right from the canon, inasmuch as he who behaved insolently and intemperately is deemed never to have had any right in the diocese, he will exercise the episcopal rights without any prejudice in the province which he detains, even if at some time it was alien.

What then? Will the force and insolence of the condemned bishop affect the rights of the Church with detriment? And will the bishop who is to be ordained after him be excluded, so that he cannot reclaim the rights of his Church, or not? ^D Solution. To me it seems that the Church is not injured by the fact that the bishop sins; and therefore the successor of him who committed the invasion will rightly reclaim the region, even if much time has passed. Something of this kind was also said in the time of the most holy patriarch, Lord Luke. For when a certain bishop of Great Brysis was litigating with the archbishop of Little Brysis, and he had produced a written transaction of the previously deceased archbishop concerning not reclaiming from him the region which was detained by the bishop, the synod pronounced that the archbishopric was not injured by the fact that its prelate acted against the opinion of his own clergy and the great synod. There were also many other such synodal judgments.

^A

ZONARAS. This canon forbids a bishop who claims to have a right over a certain people from using force and invading them; rather, it wills that he should bring the matter into the judgment of bishops, and thus overcome, if he believes that it belongs to his church. But if anyone invades a people who are held by another bishop, whether those people want him as their bishop or not, he shall forfeit his own right, being punished for that which was taken by force, so that even if he had a right to that people, he shall lose it. But if some, he says, have done this—what is this? To have the matter regarding the sought-after people judged by bishops, but did not remain with the court until the end of the case, but while the matter was still being disputed and tried, one of the two parties retreated from the ecclesiastical court and made an incursion against the people he was claiming, he too shall lose his own right. And let no one, he says, flatter himself—that is, deceive himself. For flattery is a deception; the flatterer says nothing healthy, but speaks everything for the sake of favor and to please the person being flattered. Let no one, therefore, he says, deceive himself by thinking that because he received letters from the primate, or the metropolitan of the province, permitting him to take possession of the place, he is secure. For whether he really has such letters or not, unless he also receives letters from the bishop who is in possession, however uncertain that possession might be, and demonstrates through them that he has peaceably obtained the church belonging to him with the other's approval, he shall lose his case entirely. If, however, the one who is accused brings a counter-suit against the plaintiff, that case too shall be settled by the judgment of the bishops. Moreover, the judges shall be given either by the metropolitan or chosen by the common consent of both opposing parties.

ARISTENUS. ^B "Let no one claim for himself what is thought to belong to him; but let bishops judge, or those whom the primate shall appoint, or the neighbors by common consent. But he who has received letters from the primate regarding taking possession is flattering himself."

If any bishop thinks he has a right to some parish that is held by another bishop, he ought to approach the bishops who have jurisdiction over him and bring the suit against him; he must not be his own avenger and attempt with authority to possess what he thinks belongs to him. And if he has received letters to possess the people who are held by another bishop, he is deceiving himself. For he will obtain no benefit from them, unless the one who holds them is willing to relinquish them peaceably, rather than be removed judicially. ^C

CANON CXXII. "Concerning those who neglect the peoples that pertain to them. "In like manner, it has pleased that whoever neglects the places that pertain to their own see, as far as bringing them into the catholic unity is concerned, shall be summoned by the diligent bishops neighboring them, so that they may not delay doing this. Therefore, if within a term of six months from the day of this summons ^D

if no result is achieved from the day of the meeting held concerning this matter, let them be assigned to one who is able to win them over; provided, however, that if he to whom such persons are shown to belong has appeared to neglect them intentionally on account of some ^A economy—the heretics having themselves chosen this, so that they might be received without any clamor—and in the meantime his care has been undertaken by another, if he has abused this, he would the more have corrupted the heretics themselves; [provided that] this being investigated meanwhile by the judging bishops, the places be restored to his see. But since the judging bishops are from different provinces, that primate shall provide the judges in whose region is the place about which there is dispute. But if by common consent they choose neighboring judges, let either one be chosen, or three: and if they choose three, they shall follow either the opinion of all, or of two. ^B

BALS. Some have interpreted the canon as referring to bishops who behave negligently regarding the vindication of places which by right of ownership appertain to their churches. I, however, interpreting it according to the title of the canon, say that it pleased the Fathers that, if any bishops neglect to teach those who are in their dioceses, so as to win their souls, they ought to be cited to the catholic unity, that is, to the annual synod, or be warned by the neighboring diligent bishops not to be slothful, but to teach the people under them. But if, after the warning has been given, those who have been admonished do not correct themselves and watch over teaching within six months, then such places ought to be assigned to another neighboring bishop who is able to win them over, or render them familiar to himself through teaching. If, however, the bishop who previously held the same diocese says that he neglected to teach the people in it on account of some economy or design; ^C as, for instance, that the heretics who happen to be therein wish to be converted without any reprimand, and deem it fair to accept the truth of the account silently; and for that reason he neglects to teach, lest by doing so he provoke the heretics more to wickedness, as they bear being reprimanded with difficulty, and this very thing be found true by the bishops: the diocese shall return to the same bishop. But since it was likely that some would ask, “Who ought to judge such a matter?” the Fathers decreed that those bishops be given as judges by the primate of the province, or the metropolitan, whom it shall seem good to him, as the place is situated in his province. But if those who contend over the diocese choose judges from the neighboring bishops, let them not choose many, but one or three. And if one is indeed chosen, they shall follow his sentence, for since he is an elected judge, an appeal does not fall upon him; but if there are three, ^D they will either be in agreement, and their sentence will necessarily be valid, or they will dissent, and the sentence of the majority will prevail. And thus this canon punishes those who do not teach the peoples subject to them. Quinquagesimus octavus

canon of the holy apostles speaks thus expressly: "A bishop or presbyter who neglects the clergy or the people, and does not teach them piety, let him be excommunicated; but if he persists in his sloth, let him be deposed." And it seems to me that the apostolic canon ought rather to prevail. For it is unjust, on account of a bishop's negligence, that a diocese should be deprived of the territory belonging to it. But that which is said in the apostolic canon shall be done after the bishop has been formally notified, as this present ^A canon desires. Take that which is contained in the present canon for the sake of dispensation, and for other just and reasonable causes. For a bishop shall not be deemed negligent who is ill, or who is occupied with weightier ecclesiastical matters. Read also the one hundred and third canon of this present synod, which punishes such ^B a negligent bishop with deprivation of communion, in accordance with the aforementioned apostolic canon.

ZONARAS

ARISTENUS

^B might perhaps be stirred to greater impudence, but hoped that by patience and long-suffering he might rather win them, and so remained silent; and in the meantime some other bishops undertook their care and those places of the heretics were adjudicated to them, and this is proved by the judgment of bishops, whether those given by the primate or chosen by both bishops, that it was on account of such an economy of instruction that they supposedly neglected them, such places shall be restored again to their see.

CANON CXXIII

BALS. The canon is clear. It decrees that no one ought to appeal against the sentence of the bishops who judge by the election of the parties, and that he who does this should be condemned with excommunication by the primate, that is to say, the metropolitan. While these things are decreed by the canon, some have said that this happens consistently with chapter 19 of title 2 of book 7, which says: “The elected judge determines what seems good to him, and the praetor takes no notice of his sentence.” But it seems to me that the canon does not speak of such elected judges—for the imposition of a penalty makes them judges, although they are private individuals—but of bishops who have jurisdiction. And this is peculiar ^D to ecclesiastical causes and them alone, just as many other things are. For the civil laws allow an appeal from every judge, even if someone has been appointed by the election of the parties.

ZONAR. If those who are litigating have chosen judges by common consent, they are not [permitted to appeal] from their sentence to other judges.

Guil. Beveregii note. In the Amerbachian codex, under the name of a scholion, these things are read: "Concerning those who do not obey their own bishops, and concerning bishops who do not receive those ejected or excommunicated." However, it is not worthy of the name of a scholion, nor does it fit this canon.

^A And the civil law decrees the same in book VI, title II, chapter XIX, saying: "The chosen judge decides what seems right to him, and the praetor does not curiously inquire into the verdict." Then the canon adds: "Whoever, through stubbornness—that is, obstinacy or shamelessness—does not obey the judges, the bishop of the primary see shall instruct the other bishops by letter, so that they may abstain from communion with him until he obeys." ARIST. [Judex ab ambabus partibus electus recusari non potest.] Neither bishops nor clerics, having chosen bishops as judges by common consent and having been judged by them, can appeal against their sentence; and this was decreed not only here, but also in other canons of the present synod. ^B

CANON CXXIV.

the interval of six months, if he continues to abide in those places and has not undertaken the task, it decrees that he be barred from the communion of all. But if he himself, he says, is present, yet the executor or prefect of the region, who should lead the work to its conclusion and by whom the heretics might be compelled to plead their case even against their will, or another commissioned by the Emperor by the decree of the canon may be lacking: let not the delay, which happens due to the absence of the magistrate or the defender, be ascribed to the negligence of the bishop if it should befall that a delay is caused to them at that time. ^A

ARIST.

Canon CXXV.

The aforementioned hundred and twenty-first canon condemns a bishop who acts negligently regarding the correction of heretics and who, even after the admonition, does not care for their conversion for six months, in order that their territories may be assigned to another bishop who is able to convert them to the Catholic faith. But the present canon inflicts excommunication upon him and orders him to be segregated until he fulfills the work that pertains to him. And it seems ^B that this canon is, in a way, contrary to the hundred and twenty-first canon, imposing a different punishment on the bishop who neglects the conversion of heretics, but it is not contradictory; rather, when another bishop is found who takes upon himself their care, the bishop who despised their salvation will be deprived of whatever episcopal right he had over them, and it will be assigned to that other. But when neither another undertakes their care, nor does he himself have a concern for their conversion, then he will be subjected to the penalty of excommunication; and if, after the excommunication, he persists in such sloth, he shall also be deposed, according to the fifty-eighth canon of the holy Apostles. ^C

Canon CXXV.

BALS. Since the Fathers had defined how those who neglect to convert through instruction the heretics who are in their diocese are to be punished, and had added that those are to be forgiven who were hindered from this by a just cause, they now add that if any of them say that they communicated with the heretics who are in their region for the sake of teaching, and it is shown that they are lying, they shall be subjected not only to segregation, but also to deposition, on account of their extreme negligence and deceit. ^D

ZONAR. If, however, the accused, while claiming that he did not seize what was being held by the heretics, says that he communicated

^A with them for the sake of the Catholic Church, and for this reason neglected his own vindication, but is convicted of lying—either because the heretics did not communicate, or because they did communicate but perhaps without his knowledge (instead of him not knowing and not exerting himself)—he shall even be deprived of his episcopacy, that is, he shall be deposed.

ARIST. He who says that he has communicated [with someone] whom he knows to have been excommunicate, is deprived of his episcopacy.

Whoever, being a bishop, knows that the Donatists have not returned to the Catholic Church, if he communicates with them, saying that they have been converted to the orthodox faith, such a person, because he lies regarding their communion and has deceived the Church of God, shall be deposed.

CANON CXXVI

BALS. The Fathers say that if any cleric has been condemned by his own bishop ^C and is aggrieved, he must not appeal to the synod of another province that is further away; but he must implore the hearing of neighboring bishops, and [do so] even with the consent of him who condemned him, that is, his own bishop. If, however, he is displeased with the sentence of those to whom he appealed regarding such complaints, he must not appeal to synods beyond the sea—that is to say, those at Rome—but to those that are nearer, namely, to the synods of Africa, or to the metropolitans of the provinces of the bishops who first judged. And if anyone shall act contrary to these things, he shall be condemned by a sentence of separation from communion.

Note, therefore, from this present canon, that consistently with the civil law, the Fathers also granted ^D that those who are condemned might appeal. Note also that at the time of the present synod, metropolitans did not have such power over their bishops and the clerics subject to them as they have today. For clerics condemned by bishops could appeal to the hearing of neighboring bishops; which now will not be admitted, because of the economy established for the metropolises of the provinces according to the Fourth Synod. And whereas the law says that they are harmed who have appealed to an incompetent judge, the present canon extends that injury to excommunication.

^A ZONAR. That clerics who have ecclesiastical disputes among themselves should be judged by the bishops to whom they are subject, has been established by the decree of many canons. But in this canon, it is stipulated regarding appeals that, if the clerics who have engaged in litigation are not satisfied with the judgment of their own bishops, they shall be heard by neighboring bishops, and the fairness of the sentence shall be examined by them. Moreover, these judges of the appeal shall be chosen by the litigants, though not without the approval of their bishop. But if the decision of the appellate bishops is also unsatisfactory, the case shall be referred to the synods held in Africa, and to the primates of the provinces, who are indeed set with authority over the others. But if anyone, he says, should wish to appeal across the sea—that is, to the bishops of Italy and the synod there—let him be excluded, he says, from communion by the synod of Africa. ^B ARIST. • A presbyter and a deacon who complain about their own bishop shall appeal to neighboring bishops: but let them not cross the sea. For they shall be excommunicated in Africa. • This also was defined in the twenty-eighth canon of the present synod: that no presbyter or deacon, condemned by his own bishop, and criticizing the judgment, and wishing to appeal against it, should cross the African sea and for this purpose approach Rome; but he shall appeal to neighboring bishops and explain the cause of his appeal to them; otherwise, he shall be excommunicated in Africa. This was forbidden, as I think, both because of the dangers of the sea, and so that the regions might not suffer vexations and innovations through a long journey to a foreign land. ^C

CANON CXXVII

or she may have been seized by a deadly disease and it was feared that she might pass from this life; and so that she might not remain unperfected, an exhortation was made by her parents or others who were managing her affairs that she not be deprived of this holy habit—and on account of such reasonable causes he vested her even before the appointed time), may he not be prejudiced in any way before the synod, which ought to look into such causes, as though he had perhaps vested the maiden before the twenty-five years were completed and were considered a transgressor of the canons. And the canon consists in these things. But read for yourself the 40th canon of the Council in Trullo; and according to that, say that those who approach God are to be transformed and to change their habit, whether they be men or women, namely after the tenth year [of age]. For that synod is subsequent both to the present synod and to the canons of Saint Basil. But if you wish for the present canon to hold, so that bishops who for a reasonable cause vest some persons even before the tenth year are not prejudiced, there is no one who forbids it. Note, however, that even from this present canon, it is not permitted to anyone to vest persons in the monastic habit without episcopal permission. ^B

ZONARAS. That virgins are not to be consecrated by presbyters is decreed by the sixth canon of this synod; and in the 44th, it is ordered that sacred maidens, when they depart from their fathers by whom they were being guarded, be entrusted to the care of the bishop, or if he is absent, to that of the presbyter, so that they may be committed to honorable women. For it was the custom for maidens to be presented to the churches and to be consecrated—that is, to vow their virginity to God—and afterwards at an opportune time to be enrolled in the order of deaconesses. If, therefore, some powerful man has been seized by love for such a virgin dedicated to God, or if there is a suspicion that she is about to be abducted by some scoundrel, from which a danger threatens her chastity, or if she were in danger of dying, and both she and her relatives entreated that she not be perfected without the habit, permission was given to the bishops to veil the virgin—that is, to clothe her in the habit—even before the twenty-fifth year, so that she might either escape the scoundrels, as one already consecrated, or that she might not depart from this life uninitiated, and that the bishops might not be harmed by not having observed the time which the synod had defined concerning such virgins. ^C

ARISTENUS. "Whoever has veiled or shall veil a virgin before the age of 25—that is, has put or shall put the habit [upon her] through necessity, such as a powerful lover, or a kidnapper, or a deadly disease, while those who have the care of her are urging it—will suffer no harm from the synod for [disregarding] that year."

The eighteenth canon of the great Basil discusses the woman who offers herself to the Lord and renounces marriage and prefers a life lived in holiness, and commands that she not be admitted unless she is more than sixteen or even seventeen ^D years of age. For childish voices

^A regarding such matters the canon does not permit us to consider as definitive. But the present canon decrees and decides concerning her who has already approached, and has renounced marriage, and has professed virginity, that the bishop shall incur no blame if he invests the one who thus offers herself to God with the habit, even before twenty-five years of age, and clothes her with that priestly ornament, due to the necessity of preserving her virginal purity. For perhaps some powerful man has burned with love for her and has intended to contract a marriage with her; or some other person, a ravisher, has intended to carry her off; and so that they might not use as a pretext for the fulfillment of their own desire that she still remains without the habit, and that it is uncertain to say whether she has been dedicated to God, the bishop has hastened to cover her with the priestly garment, so that no one may have anything to resort to for an excuse, and to deny that she has become a bride of Christ. Or often she was even dying, and her relatives have besought the bishop that it might be fulfilled even before twenty-five years of age, so that she might not depart from this life without the habit.

CANON CXXVIII

^B ‹ That bishops may not be detained for long in synod, three judges shall be chosen from each province. ‹ Likewise it pleased the whole synod, that the bishops gathered for the synod may not all be detained, that three judges should be chosen from each province. And there were chosen, from the Church in Carthage, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and Clarus; from the province of Numidia, Alypius, Augustinus, and Restitutus; from the province of Byzacena, with the holy elder Donatian the primate, Cresconius, Jucundus, and Aemilianus; from Mauritania Sitifensis, Severianus, Asiaticus, and Donatus; from the province of Tripolitana, Plautius, who was sent in accordance with custom as a representative; all of whom, together with the most holy elder Aurelius, ^C shall consider all matters; from whom the whole synod requested that he himself should append his signature to all things, whether to the acts which had already been completed, or to the letters. And Aurelius, bishop of the Church in Carthage, signed: "I have consented to this present decree, and having read it, I have signed." Likewise also all the bishops signed. ›

ZONAR. Since the bishops who had gathered spent much time in celebrating this council, and since some other questions remained to be examined, in order that they might not be detained and delayed for longer, it was deemed best that three should be chosen from each province to remain, while the others should depart; and that those chosen should, with Aurelius, examine all remaining matters and settle them.

ARIST. ‹ Since the bishops who have come to the synod cannot remain for very long, let three be chosen from each province. › Many canonical questions having been proposed, and

not yet all resolved, it pleased the synod that all the bishops gathered therein should not continue to remain, since a sufficient amount of time had already passed; but that three from each province should be chosen, and together with Aurelius, the bishop ^A of the Church in Carthage, they should determine the remaining matters.

Again, in this synod, the delegation of the Roman Church was present. After the consulship of the most glorious emperors Honorius for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the eighth time, Augusti, on the third day before the Kalends of June, in Carthage, in the secretarium of the Basilica of Restituta, when Aurelius the bishop presided together with Faustinus of the Church of Potentia in the province of Italy, legate of the Roman Church, with Vincentius Culusitanus, Fortunatianus of Neapolis, Marianus of Uziponta, Adeodatus of Simidicca, Pentadius ^B of Carpis, Rufianus of Muzuë, Prætextatus of Siciliba, Quodvultdeus of Ucres, Candidus of Abbir, Gallonius of Utica, legates of the Proconsular region; Alypius of Thagaste, Augustinus of Hippo Regius, Posidius of Calama, legates of the province of Numidia; Maximianus of Acyrogensis, Jucundus of Sufetula, Maximianus from the same, and Hilarianus of Creocelis, legates of the province of Byzacena; Novatus of Sitifis and Leo of Opti, legates of the province of Mauretania Sitifensis; Ninellus of Rusurrum, Laurentius of Icosium and Numerianus of Rusuguniae, ^C legates of the province of Mauretania Cæsariensis, chosen by the entire synod as judges, with the deacons attending; and after some matters had been finished, many bishops bore it with difficulty that the business was being drawn out and could not endure it, because they were hastening to their own churches: it pleased the whole synod that from all [of them] persons should be chosen from each province, who ought to remain for the sake of finishing the rest; and it was done, such that those were present whose subscriptions ^D testify they were there.

CANON CXXIX.

BALS. The sixth canon of the second ecumenical synod treats more broadly of who are to be admitted to the accusation of a bishop. For the present canon speaks of those who are under...

^A excommunication, speaking of those instituting an accusation against someone. Read, therefore, the said canon.

ZONAR. It is not granted to everyone to accuse bishops or clerics, but only to those who are orthodox and blameless, and neither subject to excommunication nor bound by the snares of a criminal accusation, as may easily be understood from the sixth canon of the second ecumenical synod, in which such accusations are discussed. But this present canon makes a ruling only concerning those who are segregated, so that unless they are first absolved from their segregation, they lack the power to accuse others, whether those who are accusing are clerics or laymen. But if it is not ^B permitted for those who are segregated to undertake an accusation, much less can those who are completely cast out of the Church, namely heretics and schismatics. One should also look at what we previously wrote upon the aforementioned sixth canon of the second synod.

ARIST. "An excommunicated person does not give testimony." A witness must be blameless; therefore, neither a cleric nor a layman who is excommunicated shall be admitted to an accusation or to testimony against a bishop or a cleric.

CANON CXXX

BALS. This canon also is clarified by those things that were written in the sixth canon of the second synod. For it treats that slaves, and infamous persons, and heretics, and everyone at all whom the laws prohibit, cannot institute criminal trials and accuse the ordained; but all these, he says, if they have something that concerns them privately, shall not be prohibited from moving a criminal trial against bishops and clerics. Wherefore ^D crimes that do not pertain to them, that is to say, public ones, which can be moved by anyone, such persons are forbidden to conduct; and note this. Since the canon also mentions freedmen, know that freedmen can indeed institute a criminal trial against others, but they cannot institute one against those who set them free, namely their patrons. And read chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11, title 1 of book 60, and you will understand who those are who are prohibited from moving a criminal trial; and how freedmen do not bring charges regarding such matters against their own patrons. For they say: Except for those prohibited, others can move public [trials]. But some are prohibited on account of their nature or age, such as a woman and an impubescent person, and others, such as those who serve in arms; others, such as magistrates; others, such as the infamous,

^A the greedy, and those who accept payment to accuse or not to accuse, and those who have registered two accusations against others; others on account of their status, such as freedmen against their patrons; others on account of the suspicion of calumny, such as those who have given false testimony; others on account of poverty, such as those who do not possess property worth fifty gold coins. Yet all of these are ^B permitted to prosecute their own injuries and the murder of their kin. But sons and freedmen who have been violently ejected from possession by their father or patron cannot initiate a suit for violence, but they do act to recover possession. For a son may even bring an action against his mother concerning a supposititious birth, because he has no co-heir, but he does not accuse her of forgery. By "mimes" he designates those who assume masks—for instance, of slaves or women—and not all those of the theater. For those who play musical instruments are of good standing. But those who are subject to baseness according to the canon are pimps, those who oversee prostitutes, and others of that kind. Also infamous, along with others, are the animal-fighters who receive a wage for fighting with beasts and who throw away their own lives for profit; but not those who fight with beasts for the sake of demonstrating their virtue. For it is not the act, but the intent of the mind that is punished here, since even kings fight with beasts.

^B ZONARAS. Slaves are not permitted by the laws to accuse, to testify, or to perform certain other acts; freedmen, however, can indeed summon others to court on account of capital matters, yet they cannot summon those by whom they were manumitted, nor their children, nor their heirs who possess the rights of patronage over them. "Patronage" is a Latin term, also used by the Greeks, which signifies a certain right of authority and protection over another. Therefore, the canon does not admit for the accusation of bishops and clerics either slaves, or the freedmen of the accused, or any others whom the civil laws restrain from criminal accusation, nor the infamous, such as mimes, those who fight with beasts, or gladiators. By "mimes" he understands all theatrical actors; of their number, those who perform their arts in the presence of the emperor are considered honorable by the laws, but those who exhibit plays in public before an unskilled multitude ^D are considered infamous. Similarly, those who fight with beasts, who are also called hunters, as well as gladiators—if indeed they act as beast-fighters or gladiators out of a desire for glory and for the sake of demonstrating their fortitude, they suffer no loss of honor from this; but if they are hired for pay, they are marked with ignominy. For whoever does not spare his own life, but puts it up for sale for a price, and counts death cheap for the sake of profit, how can he be expected to spare his own reputation and honor? But furthermore, it is not given to heretics or unbelievers to accuse. Yet all such persons, if they have some private controversy and wish to have a judgment given to them regarding it, will be heard even against bishops and clerics. The sixth canon of the Second Synod lays down the same. See what has been written upon it.

ARIST. « Both the slave, and the freedman, and he who was previously accused of one of those crimes for which he is not admitted to a public trial, and the mime, and the Greek, and the heretic, and the Jew. »

It is not right to accept accusations or testimonies against bishops or clerics without examination; but one must examine the accusers or witnesses, as to what kind of men they are, in accordance with the sixth canon of the Council of Constantinople. And if indeed they have an irreproachable life and are orthodox in religion, let them be admitted; but if they are slaves (for these, by political laws, are able to bring an accusation or give testimony against no one at all, either in criminal or pecuniary cases), or freedmen of the very person accused (for these too are prohibited by the laws from testifying against those who manumitted them in criminal cases, because it is required that they honor and esteem their patrons and liberators as holy ^B beings), or if they were previously accused and not seen to be innocent, or condemned in a public court and not yet restored to their proper status by imperial bounty, or if they lead a shameful life, like mimes and stage-players, or are alien to our religion, like Jews, heretics, and Greeks: they shall not be admitted to the accusation or testimony of bishops or clerics; because they have no other intention or endeavor in mind than to afflict the reputations of the priests with infamy and stain, and to bring perturbations upon the Church.

CANON CXXXI.

« That he who cannot prove one crime should not be admitted to another. Likewise it has pleased, that as often as many crimes are brought against clerics by accusers, and one of them, concerning which the action was first taken, could not be proven, they shall not be admitted to the rest thereafter. »

BALS. Someone intends various crimes against a certain ordained person, and took it upon himself to handle one out of the many: but since he could not prove this, he wanted to attack the rest as well. The canon says, therefore, that such a person is not to be admitted while he wishes another of the things proposed to be inquired into, and this was justly defined by the Fathers. For he who has not proven the first crime he proposed, and from that very fact is condemned, or has already given a written deposition, and is punished by the law of retaliation, namely, he becomes infamous and suffers the remaining things that the one who was accused was about to suffer: but if he is condemned, he cannot for this reason move a criminal trial, as he is infamous; or if he did not yet give a written deposition, he again becomes infamous as a slanderer. ^D However, this present canon also has its place, as I think, when the judge has pronounced that the crime which was first mentioned was maliciously brought against the accused. For if it is determined that it was not proven, because the accused does not become infamous, justly he may also pursue another crime from those which he proposed. And read chapter ten of the first title of the sixtieth book, which says, "Slander happens in three ways, and retribution is taken in three ways," for either someone slanders so that...

he acts as an accuser falsely, or one who betrays his own case by concealing the true charges, or one who deserts the trial entirely by withdrawing from the accusation ^A. But he is not altogether a slanderer who does not prove what he intends; rather, it is in the power of the judge, once he has acquitted the accused, to inquire concerning this. And if he says, "You did not prove it," he has spared him; but if he says, "You have slandered," he has condemned him, even if he says nothing about the penalty. It follows, for the investigation of the case, not the execution of the law, is permitted to the judge. But if he says, "You acted rashly or lightly," that is, "you did not prove it," he does not make him a slanderer, nor does he undergo a penalty.

ZONAR. If anyone shall bring forward several crimes against a cleric or bishop, and if one of them is brought into action—that is, into inquiry and examination—and it is not proven, but remains unproven, the canon determines that the accuser is not to be accepted for the rest.

ARIST. "And he who has accused many things and proven nothing." By good reason, this man also is not to be accepted for accusation or for testimony ^B, inasmuch as he appears to be a slanderer, and for this reason is also infamous, in that he brings forth many accusations against anyone, but proves nothing.

CANON CXXXII.

BALS. After the synodal Fathers have spoken concerning accusers, now they also make statutes concerning witnesses; and they say that those who wish to bear witness against holy persons in criminal cases ought to be such as the canons also admit for accusation. And those who are not admitted to accusation are not to be admitted to testimony either. ^D Besides these, the canon also rejects domestic witnesses. Similarly also those who are immature—those, clearly, who are under fourteen years old. And the canon indeed says that these, and these alone, are not to be admitted to testimony. But the first title of the twenty-first book of the Basilika also rejects many others from the testimony of a criminal trial. And read that title. Domestic witnesses of an accuser are called all those who live with him, and those whom he himself can command. For the first chapter of the first title of the twenty-first book says: "A witness is not worthy of belief whom I can command in accusing"; and chapter twenty-four: "An accuser cannot produce domestic witnesses." And chapter twenty-seven: "Domestic testimonies are rejected." And the theme of chapter fourteen of the fifty-first title of the sixtieth book, which says: "Domestic thefts, if they are trivial, are not to be referred to public examination." But domestic witnesses are those which slaves commit against their masters, and freedmen against their patrons, and servants against those who hired them, among them

^A living. But since the present canon says that those who are less than fourteen years old do not give testimony, but those who are beyond that age; and the twentieth chapter of the first title of the twenty-first book says expressly: "The accuser cannot call to testimony one who is publicly accused, nor one who is under twenty years of age": someone might ask, to which one ought we to pay attention? And it seems to me that the law is to be followed more. For in testimony of a criminal matter, he who is less than twenty years of age, even if he is older than fourteen years, will not be admissible, as one who does not yet have firm judgment nor steady prudence. And the law is much later than the canon, because it was received into the purification of the Basilika a long time after this synod. Read the seventy-fifth canon of the holy apostles. ^B

ZONARAS. Having spoken about accusers, the Fathers of the synod now also set regulations concerning witnesses, and they say that those who are prohibited from accusing are also to be kept from giving testimony. Furthermore, they reject those who have not yet reached the age of puberty, that is, those who have not passed their fourteenth year of life; for since they lack constancy of mind, the rationale for giving testimony will not stand for them. But neither is the power given to the accuser to produce domestic witnesses. Now, domestic witnesses are those who come forth from the house of the accuser himself; yet the laws do not prohibit all such persons from bearing witness, but only some, namely, those who are subject to the power of the one producing them or are inferior servants, and who can be commanded, and who are punished if they do not obey. But if they are notable persons who are subject to him, such as priests, or deacons, or grammarians, and all who are of this class, they will not be inadmissible for testimony. ^C

ARISTENUS. "And he who has not yet passed fourteen years." And this person is inadmissible for testimony because of the imperfection of his age; for a witness must be not only of good reputation and orthodox, but must also have constancy; but one who has not yet reached puberty is slippery in his judgment. And the second subject of the seventeenth chapter of the first title of the twenty-first book does not admit one under twenty years of age to give testimony against someone in a criminal case.

"An accuser does not produce witnesses from his own house." Domestic testimonies are to be rejected also by the laws; for the twenty-first chapter of the first title of the twenty-first book says expressly thus: "The accuser cannot produce his own domestic witnesses"; and the twenty-fifth chapter of the same title and book states that domestic testimonies are disapproved. For you should understand as domestic witnesses those who serve under the authority of someone and can be commanded by him; for such persons, neither for him, nor against another, while he is accusing, will be received in testimony, whether in a criminal or a pecuniary charge. But if someone else ^D is accusing, and another wishes to use a domestic witness, he is not prohibited. For from one house both a father and a son…

under power, and two brothers also under power, are able to testify for or against someone; just as the fifteenth chapter of the same first title of the twenty-first book determines.

CANON CXXXII

BALS. As it seems, a layman or a cleric had confessed to his own bishop concerning some sin committed by himself. And when the matter had been brought up in public, the one who had made the confession denied the crime; but the bishop was convicting him. And therefore he wanted the one who had confessed to be punished as one having done him an injury, because he did not assent to the things said by him. The canon says, therefore, that the bishop is not injured if faith is not placed in him alone, when he says that the one who is accused had deposed the crime to him: even if the bishop says, "I do not wish to admit him to communion, with my conscience offended by him, because he confessed the sin." Someone might ask, since the canon judges the testimony of a bishop to be inadmissible, as that of one man, according to the law which says: "The testimony of one is not to be admitted, even if he be a senator," will the bishop be heard as one who is rightly not communicating with the one who is accused because of the confession, or not? The solution: It seems to me that, even if in truth the accused did confess, the bishop will not be able to separate him from communion on that basis alone, as he is not yet condemned; but if he does this, as one who has without reason separated a man from spiritual communion, he himself will be separated by the greater high priest, and the one who confessed will be absolved. Note this present canon for the sake of bishops and monks who hear the confessions of men’s sins, and bear witness against those who are said to have made confession of a crime to them. And that the testimony of one is not to be admitted, read also the ^C canon of the holy Apostles. The most holy patriarch, lord Lucas, indeed subjected the prefect of the monastery of the Gerotropheion to the penalty of suspension from liturgy, who had been archbishop of Heraclea, because he had borne such testimony against his own spiritual son.

ZONAR. Even if a bishop says that someone has confessed to him a sin which requires him to be removed from communion, and that person denies it, saying that he did not tell him such a sin, the bishop alone will not be believed. And this, say the Fathers, let it not be considered by the bishop as an injury—that he is not believed alone, and further ^D obliges him to communicate with that person, even if the bishop says that "I do not wish to receive him."

is compelled to hold communion with him, even if the bishop says: "I do not wish to admit him to communion, for my conscience is being scandalized on his account." For by "scandal" one must understand either the stumbling-block itself or the turmoil of a conscience that is troubled and disturbed by the confession of the sin. ^A

ARIST. <If a bishop says: "The neighbor confessed this crime to me alone," if the neighbor denies it, credence is not easily to be given.>

Faith is not to be placed in a bishop who says: "A certain cleric confessed a crime to me alone, and for this reason I exclude him from his rank or from communion." For if the one whom he says made the confession denies it, he ought not to condemn him, nor consider that he is being insulted because he alone is not believed.

CANON CXXXIV

BALS. What the previous canon had passed over in silence, this one has brought into the open. And it was this: If a bishop is unwilling to communicate with one who has been excluded by him, on the grounds that he confessed some crime to him, what will be done in the case of such a bishop who has excluded a man unjustly and before any conviction? He says, therefore, that if he has excluded someone unjustly, for as long as he does not communicate with the excluded one, neither shall the other bishops communicate with him—that is, with the one who excluded him. He also adds the reason: that they may not be hasty and inconsiderate in accusation and in the imposition of exclusion, and that they may not say things against others which they are not able to prove. And by the present canon, the bishop who has excluded unjustly is punished in this way. I, however, am of the opinion that such a bishop will not only be punished in this way, but also, if this unjust exclusion is brought before a higher prelate, the one who was excluded will be released from the exclusion, while the one who excluded him will be punished according to the Justinianic Novel, or rather according to the twenty-fourth chapter of the first title of the third book, which is also laid down in various canons, and according to the fourth canon of the Seventh Synod. And read such a canon and the Novel laid down in its interpretation, and the fourteenth canon of the Council of Sardica. ^C

ZONAR. What the previous canon had passed over in silence, this one has brought into the open. And it was of this kind: If a bishop is unwilling to communicate with one whom he excluded as if he had confessed crimes to him, what shall be done regarding this very bishop? He answers, therefore, that if he has excluded someone unjustly, for as long as he himself does not communicate with the excluded person, the other bishops shall not communicate with him—the one who excluded him, that is; and he adds the reason besides: that they may not be hasty and inconsiderate in accusation and exclusion, and that they may not speak ^D

regarding any persons things which they cannot prove.

ARIST. ^A The bishop who deprives of communion one who has not been convicted shall himself likewise be deprived of the communion of others. ^B If any bishop shall segregate his own clergyman, not having convicted him of any fault, but having condemned him solely by his own judgment, he shall himself be segregated and deprived of the communion of the other bishops; that this may be observed: that one should not easily say against anyone what he is not able to prove.

CANON CXXXV

^B Aurelius the bishop said: According to those things which have been determined by the judgment of the whole assembled synod and of my own mediocrity, it pleases all that we should first make a conclusion regarding the matters of the aforementioned title, and that the ecclesiastical acts should receive the treatment of the present day’s constitution: but whatever has not yet been fully treated, we shall write back about it on the following day through our brothers, Faustinus the bishop, and Philip and Asellus the presbyters, to our venerable brother and co-bishop Boniface. ^C And they subscribed: Aurelius the bishop: I have subscribed to these acts of the decrees, having been received by us.

Valentinus, bishop of the first see of the Numidian region: I have subscribed to these acts.

Faustinus, bishop of the Church of Potentia, of the province of Picenum, legate of the Roman Church: I have subscribed to these acts.

Alypius, bishop of Thagaste, legate of the province of Numidia: I have subscribed to these acts.

Augustine, bishop of Hippo, legate of the province of Numidia: I have subscribed to these acts.

Possidius, bishop of Calama, legate of the province of Numidia: I have subscribed to these acts. ^D

Fortunatianus of Neapolis: I have subscribed to these acts.

Rufianus of Muzuenna: I have subscribed to these acts.

Praetextatus of Siciliba: I have subscribed to these acts.

Quodvultdeus of Veri: I have subscribed to these acts.

Candidus of Germania: I have subscribed to these acts.

Colonius of Utica: I have subscribed to these acts.

Maximianus of Acyrogensis: I have subscribed to these acts.

Jucundus of Suffetula, legate of the province of Byzacena, have subscribed to these acts. ^A

Maximianus, legate of the province of Byzacena, have subscribed to these acts.

Hilarianus of Horaiocellia, legate of the province of Byzacena, have subscribed to these acts.

Ninellus the Rusurrianite, legate of the province of Caesariensis, have subscribed to these acts.

Laurentius the Icositanite, legate of the province of Caesariensis, have subscribed to these acts.

Numerianus the Rusugurite, legate of the province of Caesariensis, have subscribed to these acts. ^B

Leo of Mopti, legate of the province of Caesariensis, have subscribed to these acts.

Another Leo, legate of the province of Sitifensis, have subscribed to these acts.

And the remaining two hundred and seventeen bishops have subscribed in like manner.

Philippus the presbyter, legate of the Roman Church, have subscribed to these acts read before us.

Asellus the presbyter, legate of the Roman Church, have subscribed to these acts sent through us. ^C

The letter sent by the universal African synod to Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, through Faustinus the bishop and Philippus and Asellus the presbyters, legates of the Roman Church.

To the most blessed and most honorable lord and brother Boniface, Aurelius and Valentinus of the first see of the province of Numidia, and the two hundred and seventeen others who were present, from the entire African synod. Since it pleased the Lord that our humility should write, regarding those things which were transacted with us by our most holy brothers, Faustinus the bishop and our fellow-presbyters Philippus and Asellus, not to Zosimus of blessed memory, from whom they brought letters and mandates to us, but to your honorable self, who have been divinely appointed in his place: we ought to declare in few words those things which have been concluded by the concord of us both, yet not those things which are contained in the lengthy scrolls of the acts ^D—matters which, while preserving charity, we yet brought to a conclusion not without some labor of doubt—doing this so that those things which contribute to the matter might be inserted into the acts. For he, if he were still in this body, would the more gladly receive what he saw more readily brought to a conclusion, lord brother. Apiarius the presbyter, regarding whose ordination and excommunication and appeal there arose no small scandal not only at Sicca but in the entire African Church, having begged forgiveness for all the things in which he erred, in commu-

^Anion he was restored. For our fellow-bishop, Urban of Sicca, corrected without hesitation whatever needed correction by him. And since provision must be made for ecclesiastical peace and quiet, not only for the present but also for the future—because many things of this kind have occurred, so that we may guard against similar or even more serious things hereafter—it pleased us that the presbyter Apiarius be removed from the Church of Sicca, with the honor of his rank, however, being reserved for him; and receiving a letter according to the canons, he may perform the office of a presbyter and celebrate the sacred rites wherever else he may wish and be able. This indeed, when Apiarius himself had requested it by his own letters, we granted without any difficulty. But before this cause was thus brought to an end, among other things which we were handling with persistent deliberations, since the very situation required that we ask of our brothers, our fellow-bishop Faustinus and the presbyters Asellus and Philippus, that they bring forward the ecclesiastical acts, if anything had been committed to them which was to be handled together with us; they set forth some things ^B indeed without written words. But when we had asked for the *commonitorium* which was being brought forward by them in writing, they produced it; which, having been read by us, was moreover inserted into the acts, which are also being carried to you through them at present. In which four things were inserted to be handled by us with them: the first, concerning appeals of bishops to the priest of the Roman Church; the second, that bishops should not rashly sail to the imperial court; the third, that the causes of presbyters and deacons should be examined by neighboring bishops if they have been rashly removed from communion by their own; the fourth, concerning excommunicating Bishop Urban, or summoning him to Rome, unless he corrects what ought to be corrected. From all of which, regarding the first and the third—that is, that it is permitted for bishops to appeal to Rome, and that the causes of clerics are to be finished by the bishops of their own provinces—we had already striven to show in the preceding year with our letters sent to the same bishop of venerable memory, Zosimus, that we might observe these things for a while without any injury to him, until a search was made of the decrees of the Nicene Council. And now we ask of your holiness that, just as these things were done by the Fathers at Nicaea, ^C so you may cause them to be observed by us, and those things which are placed in that same *commonitorium* to be practiced there among you: that is, that if a bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of the same province have judged him and deposed him from his rank, when it has seemed best to appeal and he has fled to the most blessed bishop of the Roman Church; if he [the bishop of Rome] has deemed that he should be heard, and has thought it just that the judgment be renewed, he may deign to write to the neighboring bishops, and those established in a nearby province, that they themselves may diligently inquire into all things and finish them according to the faith of the truth. But if he, who

^B asks for his case to be heard from the beginning, moves the Roman bishop by his own petition, so that he may send a presbyter from his own side; it shall be in the power of the bishop to decide what he wishes and what he judges. And if he concludes who should judge together with the bishops, having the authority of him by whom they were sent, it shall be left to his judgment: but if he believes that the bishops are sufficient to finish the business, let him do what seems best to his most wise counsel. Similarly concerning presbyters and deacons: if any bishop is irascible—which he ought not to be—and moves quickly or harshly against his own presbyter or deacon, and wishes to remove him from his own Church, it must be provided that he is not condemned without a cause, or lose communion. And he who has been ejected shall have the power of approaching those in the neighborhood, and his case shall be heard, and it shall be investigated more diligently, because aid ought not to be denied to him who asks for it. That bishop, moreover, who — whether justly or unjustly — ejected him, shall patiently allow the matter to be examined, so that his sentence may either be confirmed or corrected. These things, of course, were inserted into the acts until the arrival of the most authentic copies of the Nicene synod: which things, if they are observed there, as is contained in that very commonitorium which was shown to us by the brothers sent from the apostolic see, and are observed by you in the same order in Italy, we by no means wish to make mention of them, nor do we contend that they are not to be endured; but we believe that, with the help of the mercy of our Lord God, with your holiness presiding over the Roman Church, we shall henceforth not feel this fear. But those things which ought to be observed towards us by fraternal love, even if we are silent, will be kept: which things, according to the wisdom and justice which the Most High has given to you, you yourself also feel ^C ought to be kept, if by chance the canons of the Nicene synod are otherwise. For we, who have come upon many books, have never read in the Roman books, against the Nicene synod, as they were sent from there in the aforementioned commonitorium: yet because we have not been able to find these things here in any Greek book, we have greatly desired that they be brought to us from the Eastern Churches, where the authentic decrees themselves are said to be still able to be found. Therefore we also ask your veneration that you yourself may further deign to write to the prelates of those parts, that is, of the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Constantinopolitan Churches, and to others, if it seems good to your holiness, so that from there the canons ^D established by the holy Fathers at Nicaea may be sent to us; you especially bestowing this favor upon all the Western Churches of God with the help of His grace. For who doubts that the most true copies of the synod gathered at Nicaea are those in Greek, which from such diverse and illustrious Greek Churches have been brought and collected

and compared, ^A agree? Until this happens, we profess that we will observe what was brought to us in the aforementioned monitorium, concerning the appeals of bishops to the priest of the Roman Church and the causes of clerics which ought to be finished by the bishops of their own provinces, until such proof; and we trust that your beatitude, God willing, will bring us help in this. As for the rest of those things which were enacted and confirmed in our synod, because our aforementioned brethren, Faustinus our co-bishop, and Philip and Asellus the presbyters, are carrying them with them, they will, if it seems good to you, make them known to your holiness. And they subscribed: May our Lord preserve you to us for many years, most blessed brother. Alypius, Augustine, Possidius, Marinus, and the rest of the bishops also subscribed. ^B

BALSAMON.

ZONARAS.

^A appeared to have been said against the ecclesiastical orders; and those things that were pardoned for one who acknowledged his fault and asked for forgiveness, so that he might retain his dignity, were conceded: yet not so that he should hold the church in which he was before, but that he might depart to any other he wished. And the synod wrote to the pope concerning this; and likewise concerning those things which the legates sent from Rome had in their mandates, which they also enumerate individually, and promise that they will observe, namely that appeals should be made to him until the canons of the first Nicene synod are brought to them, so that, if those Fathers had decided that these things should be so, they might acquiesce to this custom. They also requested ^B by letters to be sent to the bishop of Antioch, and of Alexandria, and of Constantinople, to send to them the canons of the synod at Nicaea, so that they might be informed if it has been decreed by those Fathers that appeals of bishops should be made to the bishop of Rome. "For we," they say, "having read very many Latin books, have by no means found this canon; and we have no Greek exemplar, that is, one written in the Greek idiom."

ARIST. Urbanus, bishop of Sicca, unless he shall have corrected what ought to be corrected, is either to be excommunicated, or to be cited to Rome.

Before this Carthaginian synod had received the firm exemplars of the Nicene ^C synod from holy Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, they admitted the canon of the synod of Sardica, concerning the appeals of bishops to the bishop of the Roman Church, as if it were a canon of the synod of Nicaea. And for this reason, they also decreed concerning Urban, the bishop of Sicca, that if he did not amend what ought to be amended by him, he was either to be segregated; or, if he doubted about the segregation, he was to be summoned to Rome, and his affairs were to be examined by the pope.

^D ‹The rescripts of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, to the African synod begin: in which he sent the authentic canons of the Nicene synod, translated from the Greek by Innocent, presbyter; which letters, indeed, with the Nicene synod, were sent by the aforementioned Innocent, presbyter, and Marcellus, subdeacon of the Church of Carthage, to the most holy Boniface, bishop of the Roman Church, on the sixth day before the kalends of December.›

‹Cyril to the most venerable and most holy lords, brothers and fellow-bishops, Aurelius, Valentinus, and to the entire most holy synod gathered at Carthage. We greet your love in the Lord. What was written by your reverence, containing much piety, I have received with all joy through our son Innocent, the presbyter. For although these things had been hoped for by us, we [have sent] from the archives of our Church the most truthful transcripts of the authentic synod, which was held at Nicaea.›

^A Since it is necessary to send to your charity those things defined and confirmed by the holy Fathers, under the profession of our faith, I have thought it necessary, my lords, brothers most venerable, salutation preceding, through our same son Innocent the priest, to send to your charity the most faithful transcripts of the authentic synod of Nicaea, which is a city of Bithynia; which you will also find if you search in the Ecclesiastical History. Concerning Easter, however, as you wrote, we announce to you that you will celebrate it on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of May in the following indiction. Subscript: May God and our Lord guard your holy synod. This is what we pray, brothers most venerable.

^B *Here begins the epistle of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, to the same.*

To the lords most venerable and most blessed brothers and fellow-bishops, Aurelius, Valentinus, and the rest who have gathered in the African synod, Atticus the bishop. Through our son Marcellinus, your subdeacon, I received the letters of your love with all joy, giving thanks to God that I was deemed worthy to enjoy the blessing of such brothers. My lords, most blessed brothers, you wrote that I should send the most truthful canons, which were constituted by the Fathers at Nicaea, which is a metropolis of Bithynia, after the exposition of the faith. And who is there ^C who would deny the common faith and the decrees constituted by the Fathers to his own brothers? Whence, through the same son of ours, Marcellinus, your subdeacon, who is in great haste, I have sent the canons, just as they were defined by the Fathers at Nicaea, in their entirety, as you commanded; requesting that your holy synod deign to pray much for me. Subscript: May our Lord guard your holiness; this is what we pray, most holy brothers.

*Here begin the transcripts of the Nicene synod, sent on the sixth day before the Kalends of December, after the consulship of the most illustrious emperors, Honorius for the twelfth time and Theodosius for the ninth time, Augusti, to Boniface, bishop of Rome. We believe in one God the Father; and then follows the holy symbol as it was written in the first synod.*

ZONAR. To this symbol of faith, the transcripts of the definitions of the Nicene council by the aforementioned priests were also joined, as they are contained above in all things; which we have not thought necessary to write again here.

*Rescripts of Cyril of Alexandria.*

ARIST. As you wrote to us, we [have sent] the most faithful transcripts of the authentic synod of Nicaea. ^D

^A We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us and for our salvation came down, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, rose again, and ascended into the heavens, and is coming again to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. And those who say, "There was a time when he was not," and "He was made out of nothing," or from another hypostasis or substance, or that the Son of God is mutable or ^B changeable, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Behold also the copies of the synod of Nicaea, having been compared with the archetypes or original copies deposited in the Church of the Alexandrians and of Constantinople, and confirmed by their bishops, Cyril and Atticus, were sent to this synod.

The letter of the African synod to Celestine, the Pope of Rome, begins.

^C To the beloved lord and most esteemed brother Celestine, Aurelius, Palatinus, Antoninus, Tutus, Servus-Dei, Terentius, and the rest who attended the universal synod of Carthage.

We would have wished that, just as your holiness declared that you were gladdened by the presence of Apiarius in the letters sent through our fellow-presbyter Leo, so we too might have sent these present letters with joy regarding his acquittal. For our promptness and yours would certainly have been safer, and it would not have seemed a matter of inquiry ^D concerning one who is still to be heard, as if it had preceded what was already heard. When, therefore, our most holy brother and fellow-bishop Faustinus had come to us, we assembled a synod and believed that he had been sent with him for this purpose: that, just as through his zeal he was previously restored to the presbytery, so now, through his labors, he might be cleared of so many crimes imputed to him in the Thabraccans. The multitude of our synod, reviewing his many and so very great atrocities, found that his patronage of the aforementioned, rather than (its) judgment, and the zeal of a defender, rather than the justice of an examiner, prevailed. For first of all he stood out strongly against the whole synod, heaping up various insults, as one who would defend the privileges of the Roman Church and wished that he be admitted into communion by us;

trusting that your Holiness might challenge [the case]—which, however, you were unable to prove—and restore him to communion. Yet, this turned out less favorably for him, as you might know better from the reading of the acts. For when a laborious judgment was engaged over three days, in which we, most afflicted, were searching out the various things objected against him, God, the just judge, strong and long-suffering, cut short with great speed the delays of our brother-bishop Faustinus and the frustrating tergiversations in speaking of Apiarius himself, by which he was endeavoring to veil his nefarious shameful deeds; for that grievous and long-foul obstinacy was suppressed, as was the impudence of the denial by which he wished to submerge the mire of so many pleasures. For when our God had driven his conscience into straits, and had ^B made public to all men the secrets that were in his heart, already condemned as if in a mire of crimes, suddenly the fraudulent denier burst forth into a confession of all the crimes objected to him, and with difficulty he finally and of his own accord convicted himself of all those incredible disgraces. And he likewise turned our hope—into which we had committed him and in which we prayed that he might be purged from such shameful stains—into mourning; except that he mitigated this our sadness with one sole consolation, that he liberated us also from the perpetual labor of grief, and, even if unwillingly and with his own conscience resisting, he provided a remedy for his own wounds, just as he confessed, brother lord. In the first place, therefore, having fulfilled the duty of due veneration, ^C we beg as suppliants that you do not henceforth readily admit to your ears those who come from here; nor do you wish to receive into communion hereafter those who have been excommunicated by us. For your Beatitude will easily find this also defined in the Nicene synod. For if this appears to be observed there even concerning lower clerics and laymen, much more does it desire this to be observed concerning bishops. Therefore, let not those who have been suspended from communion in their own province appear to be restored to communion by your Holiness industriously and, as is not fitting, with set purpose. Let your Holiness also pursue, as is worthy of you, the shameless flights ^D of the presbyters and of those clerics who follow them. For this is prohibited to the African Church by no decree of the Fathers, and the statutes of the Nicene synod have most clearly committed both clerics of lower rank and bishops themselves to their own Metropolitans. For they wisely and justly perceived that whatever business might arise, it ought to be terminated in its own places. For they did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit was wanting to any province, through which justice is both prudently seen and firmly held by the priests of Christ, especially since it is conceded to each one, if it seems right to him, regarding the judgment of the judges

to appeal to the synods of his own province, or indeed even to a universal synod. Unless, of course, there is someone who believes that our God can inspire the justice of judgment in any single person, whoever he may be, but deny it to the countless priests gathered together ^B in council. How, therefore, will this transmarine judgment be valid, regarding which the necessary persons as witnesses cannot be brought, whether on account of the frailty of their nature or the infirmity of age, or on account of many other impediments? For regarding the sending of certain individuals, as it were from the side of your holiness, we have found this established by no synod of the Fathers. For what was once sent hither through this same fellow-bishop of ours, Faustinus, as if from the part of the Nicene synod, we have been unable to find any such thing in the truer records of the Nicene synod, which we received, sent from the authentic copies, by the most holy Cyril, co-bishop of ours of the Church of Alexandria, and from the venerable Atticus, bishop of Constantinople; copies which, even before this, had been sent by us to your predecessor of venerable memory, Bishop Boniface, through the presbyter Innocent and the subdeacon Marcellus, through whom those things had been sent to us from them. Therefore, do not be willing to send your executors to those who request them, nor permit it, so that we may not seem to introduce the smoky arrogance of the world ^C into the Church of Christ, which brings the light of simplicity and the day of humility to those who desire to see God. For we are not anxious about the deplorable Apiarius, who has already been removed from the Church of Christ by our brother Faustinus on account of his own nefarious depravities; for Africa will by no means any longer tolerate him, with the approval and correction of your holiness, in the preservation of fraternal charity. Subscription. May our God preserve your holiness for a very long time, praying for us, lord brother. ^D

BALS. Apiarius having been separated from the synod in Africa, and having approached Pope Celestine and the separation having been annulled, Bishop Faustinus was sent with him to Carthage to examine the matters regarding him; but the case having been decided, the synod sent this letter to Celestine. And first, indeed, it accused Faustinus, because he defended Apiarius contrary to reason. Then it subjoined that the case was decided by the confession of Apiarius; and it prayed that Celestine might not easily admit those who speak against the synod and have been separated by it. They added, moreover, that neither did the Fathers of the Nicene synod decree that men should be sent by the pope into Africa to examine the case at the same time,

^A neither is this found in the documents sent by the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Constantinople.

ZONARAS. When Apiarius had been excommunicated by the African synod and had fled to Pope Celestine, and had been freed by him from the bond of excommunication, Bishop Faustinus was sent with him to Carthage to examine his case together with the local synod. When the proceedings had taken place, the synod sent this letter to Celestine, in which it accuses Faustinus, as he had favored Apiarius and had acted as his patron and defender, not as a judge, and had openly shown the zeal of an advocate rather than the fairness of a judge; and also because he had professed himself an adversary to the synod, and did not refrain from insults, even while showing himself a vindicator of the privileges of the Roman Church (moreover, "patronage" and "privileges" are Roman or Latin terms); and because he had hastened with excessive speed to have him admitted to communion by the synod. It did not proceed, however, but God suddenly dissolved Faustinus's hesitation, his delays, that is to say, his pretexts, and the frustrating tergiversations of Apiarius—that is, his procrastinations and the delay in conducting business—by putting a mind into him such that he confessed the crimes laid against him of his own accord. ^B These things, as they occurred, being explained in the letter, they then add: "We entreat you (the speech is directed to Celestine), having rightly honored you in the beginning of our discourse—that is, in the place of a prologue—not to be too easily compliant in admitting those who have been separated by us, nor to hasten too readily to restore those who have been deprived of communion in their own province to communion again." But they also demand that presbyters and others of the clergy, who through impudence have cast themselves out without any just cause, should be expelled and returned to their own bishops; nay, they demand that all clerics should be judged by their own bishop. They also make mention of the canons which were issued in the Nicene synod on this matter: and they affirm that no decree exists that men should be sent from the pope's side—that is, those who are nearest to him in dignity and are held in higher standing and are joined to him by familiarity above others—as examiners and executors. For, they say, we did not find anything similar in those things which were sent to us by Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople. ^C Do not, therefore, wish to act in that way, nor allow the arrogance of vain glory, vanishing like smoke, to be brought into the Church of God. For simplicity, they say, and humility of mind, like light, bring forth the day to those who desire to behold God: that is, just as diffused light creates the day and allows one to see those things which are perceived by the senses, in the same way simplicity and humility cast light into the mind, by which, being illuminated, it can see God—that is, to the extent that it is permitted for a man to know Him. ^D ARISTENUS. Do not be willing henceforth to admit to communion those who are excommunicated by us; which also was decreed in the Nicene synod. Lo, for

^A and Appiarius, admitted by you, resisted the synod, brought injury, and finally was converted and repented of himself, ending in sighs.

These Fathers, receiving the undoubted and most true exemplars of the Nicene synod, and not finding in its canons a decree that the pope’s ministers should be sent, and that the appeals of bishops or clerics should be exercised before them, wrote to Celestine, the pope of Rome, that he should no longer easily—and as is not fitting—restore to communion those who had been excommunicated by them, nor receive the appeal of those bishops or clerics condemned by them to deposition, nor send his own presbyters and commit to them the examination of the appeal; but that each of those condemned should be allowed, if he wishes, to appeal to the synods of his own province, or even to an ecumenical synod, lest ^B any worldly pride seem to be introduced into the Church of Christ.

They also brought forward the fact that, as a result of such actions, the Church was being subjected to contumely. For they set forth that the presbyter Apiarius, having been removed from the Church in Sicca for just causes, then approaching Celestine himself, the bishop of Rome, and being accepted by him, and sent to Africa with Faustinus the bishop so that he might be restored again to the presbytery, and the crimes brought against him by those same Tharabraceni might be examined—this most impudent man he directed to be received into communion posthaste and in a manner not fitting, even while he was casting insults upon the synod, such as not accepting it because his accusers stood ^C in his presence and were convicting him; who, after many contradictions and impudent denials, being driven into straits by the arguments and by his own conscience, did publicly confess the crimes set before him, and was converted into sighs and tears.

From the records of the acts at Constantinople concerning Agapius and Bagadius, each one claiming the bishopric of Bostra.

^D In the consulship of our most religious and God-lovable emperors, Flavius Arcadius Augustus for the third time, and Honorius for the second, on the third day before the Kalends of October, in the baptistery of the most holy Church at Constantinople, there being seated the most holy bishops Nectarius of Constantinople, Theophilus of Alexandria, Flavianus of Antioch, Palladius of Caesarea of Cappadocia, Gelasius of Caesarea of Palestine, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius of Iconium, Paul of Heraclea, Arabianus of Ancyra, Ammonius of Adrianopolis, Phalerius of Tarsus, Lucius of Hierapolis, Elpidius of Laodicea, Paul of Alexandria, Dioscoros of Hermopolis, Probatius of Berenice, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bizus of Seleucia, Epagathus of Marcianopolis, Gerontius of Clau

^Adiopolis, and other various bishops, and all the clergy, Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, said: Since this holy synod, by the grace of God, has again been gathered in this holy place, if this same synod of holy brothers and fellow-ministers agrees, seeing that our brothers Bagadius and Agapius, who are at variance with one another concerning the bishopric of the Bostreni, are standing by, let them begin to present their rights to each other. And after some things had been done by them regarding this same matter, and it had been shown that the deposition of the said Bagadius had been made by only two bishops, who had also already died at the time of this synod; Arabianus, bishop of Ancyra, said: Not on account of this present suit, but fearing this for my whole life hereafter, I ask the holy synod to declare: is it permitted for a deposition to be made by two bishops, or not? And is it permitted when the metropolitan is absent, or not? There is no prejudice to the present case. But I fear that some, taking authority from these acts, might dare such things. I therefore ask you to answer. Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, said: The most religious bishop Arabianus has proposed well: indeed, since a like case may occur, let us provide for what is to happen in the future, without condemning what is past. Arabianus, bishop of Ancyra, said: The synod of the blessed Fathers who convened at Nicaea condemns that which is past, ordaining that there be no fewer than three who ordain, and not without the metropolitan. It was because I was fearful for the future that I asked the question. I therefore ask you to declare clearly, and neither hesitantly nor doubtfully, that it is not permitted for a bishop to be either ordained or deposed by two men, in accordance with the Council of Nicaea. And after other matters, Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, said: Against those who have departed, it is not possible for a sentence of indignation to be brought; since they were not judged while present. But if anyone is considering those who are to depose in the future, it seems to me that it is proper that not only three should attend, but, if possible, all the provincials, so that by the vote of the many the condemnation of the one worthy of deposition may be rendered more accurate, being present and judged. Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, said: When it concerns legitimate institutions and decrees, it follows that such things should not be decreed on account of the cases of some specific persons. Wherefore, just as the most holy bishop Arabianus has exhorted, wishing to establish things for the future; consequently and humanely, the opinion of the most holy bishop Theophilus has decreed that it is not permitted in the future for one who is being examined as a guilty party to be deposed by three, much less by two: but by the opinion of a larger synod and of the bishops of the province, just as the apostolic canons have defined. Flavianus, bishop of Antioch, said: What the most holy bishop Nectarius and the most holy and wisest bishop Theophilus have set forth is clear. We all, the clergy, acquiesce in this.

^A

BALS. When Bagadius, bishop of Bostra, had been deposed by only two bishops and unilaterally, a discussion arose in the synod at Constantinople concerning whether such a deposition was rightly done, with Agapius, who had been chosen, defending the judgment. It was pronounced that the deposition had not been canonical, since not two, but many ought to judge those charges brought against bishops. But you must know that this judgment does not have effect today. For by the twelfth canon of the synod in Carthage, which is much later, criminal trials against bishops are conducted by twelve bishops. Read that canon. And know that this synod happened under the emperor Arcadius, but the one in Carthage happened when Theodosius the Younger was reigning.

^B ZONAR. A controversy was being investigated concerning the bishopric of Bostra, with two men claiming it for themselves, Agapius and Bagadius. For Bagadius had previously been the bishop of that city, but because of certain causes he had been deposed by two bishops, and that in his absence, and Agapius had been ordained to the aforementioned bishopric. Bagadius complained about the deposition. When, therefore, the controversy was proposed in the midst of the council, Arabianus of Ancyra said that he was not asking for the sake of the present controversy, but because he was concerned about future matters, so that in every such case what had been done might not prevail as a canon; and he asked the council to declare if it is permissible for a deposition to take place by two bishops, and for such a vote to be given against an absent person. For I fear, he said, lest some, finding such records in this case, might act audaciously. ^C To this question, therefore, Theophilus of Alexandria replied that, since the two bishops who had deposed Bagadius had already died, it is not fitting to pass judgment against them, on the grounds that they had not acted rightly, lest we ourselves be accused of condemning those who were not present. But, he said, in order to provide for the future, so that such things may no longer happen, it seems to me that it is not only necessary for three bishops to be present for the deposition of a bishop, but, if possible, even all the provincials, or rather the bishops of that province in which the bishopric of the one being deposed is situated, so that with many being judges and deciding, with the accused himself being present, the vote condemning the one being deposed might be more precise. ^D With this opinion, therefore, Nectarius and Flavianus and the rest of the council were pleased. And these things were done by those Fathers. But the twelfth canon of the synod at Carthage, which is later in time than this one gathered under Nectarius (for this, indeed, was established under Arcadius, but the one in Carthage under the reign of Theodosius the Younger), says that if a bishop is accused of a crime, twelve bishops shall judge him, unless it is possible, due to great

necessity, a larger number cannot be gathered. The aforementioned canon, together with those things written for its explanation, must therefore be read.

ARIST. "In the future, a person accused must not be deposed by two or three [bishops], but by the judgment of a larger synod and of the provincials, just as the apostolic canons have decreed."

Since this synod found that Bagadius, Bishop of Bostra, had been deposed by two bishops and that Agapius had been ordained in his place, it was struck with fear lest this should happen in the future; therefore it ensured the future, and commanded that a bishop accused of crimes and driven to deposition should not be judged by two or three bishops, but ^B by all the bishops of the province if possible, or at least by the majority, so that they are not fewer than twelve, just as the twelfth canon of the Synod of Sardica provides.

EXPLICIT EDITIONIS BEVEREGII TOMUS PRIOR (END OF THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE BEVERIDGE EDITION).

OF THE BLESSED DIONYSIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE TO BASILIDES THE BISHOP

CANON I.

You have sent to me, most faithful and most wise son, asking at what hour of the day one should break the fast of Pascha.

^A For some of the brethren say that this should be done at the singing of the cock; others, that it should be done in the evening. For the brethren who are in Rome, they say, wait for the cock; but as for those who are here, you said that they do it sooner. You seek to fix a precise hour, and an hour very strictly measured, which is both difficult and precarious. For that the fast and festivity ought to begin after the time of our Lord's resurrection—the souls having been humbled by fasts until that time—will be acknowledged by all alike. But you have argued very soundly by what you have written to me, and from the divine Gospels, perceiving that nothing is clearly recorded in them concerning the hour at which He rose. ^B For the evangelists have recorded those who came to the tomb at different times, and all said they found that the Lord had already risen. And in the evening of the Sabbath, as Matthew said; and while it was yet dark, as John writes; and at deep dawn, as Luke says; and very early when the sun had risen, as Mark says. And as to *when* He actually rose, no one has clearly declared. That, however, in the evening of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first of the Sabbath, those who came to the tomb no longer found Him lying therein, this is admitted. And let us not suppose that the evangelists disagree or oppose one another; but even if there seems to be some hair-splitting about the matter, if all agree that in that night the Light of the world, our Lord, arose, they differ about the hour; but let us be good-natured and strive to reconcile what has been said faithfully. That which was said by Matthew is thus: "Now late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold there was a great earthquake: for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it" ^C ...

Commentaries on the Epistle of blessed Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria, to Basilides the Bishop

It should be known that this blessed Dionysius was a hearer of Origen in the fourth year of the reign of Philip, who reigned after Gordian. Heraclas, the thirteenth bishop of the Alexandrian Church, having departed this life, he assumed the prefecture of the same; and after seventeen years—namely, the remaining three of Philip, and one of Decius, and one of Gallus, and of Volusianus the son of Decius, and the twelve of Valerian and Gallus his son—he migrated to the Lord. Basilides, however, was bishop of the parishes in Pentapolis of Libya, as Eusebius recorded in the sixth and seventh books of his *Ecclesiastical History*. "Breaking the fast": extending [the fast] to the Sabbath until the cock's crow, [then] breaking the fast at the dawning of the first of the Sabbath. And let this fast be observed before the Paschal fast; beginning on Monday and finished on Friday, after which they break their fast. "To break the fast" [ἀπονηστίσασθαι] means to come from the fast to the first [day]. At what hour one ought to break the fast of the day of Pascha. You wrote to me... concerning the *releasing* of the Pascha. The day of Pascha. The *release* [περίλυσις] of the Pascha, the releases from fasting, to release, to absolve, to dissolve, to break.

^A ...and his appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow. And for fear of him the keepers were shaken, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said to the women: Fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified; he is not here: for he is risen, as he said.

Now as to that phrase “in the end of the Sabbath,” some, by the common usage of the word, will suppose it to signify the evening of the Sabbath; but the wiser, hearing this, will say that it is not this, but signifies the deep of night, the word “evening” [ὀψὲ] implying lateness and a long passage of time. And that he speaks of night and not evening, he subjoins: “As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week”; and they arrived, not, as the others say, bringing spices, but to see the sepulcher, and they found that the earthquake had happened and the angel sitting upon the stone, and they heard from him: “He is not here: he is risen.”

Similarly John: “On the first day of the week,” he says, “Mary Magdalene came early, while it was yet dark, to the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher”; but according to that account, since it was still dark, she had gone out early. And Luke says: “The Sabbath indeed they rested according to the commandment; but on the first day of the week, at very early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared; and they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.” The “deep dawn” perhaps indicates that ^B early light which first appears of the first day of the week, because, when the Sabbath had now passed completely with its whole following night, and another day was beginning, they came bringing the aromatics and the ointments; for when it was manifest that he had risen long before.

Mark follows this too, saying: “They bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning of the first day of the week, they come to the sepulcher when the sun was risen.” For he said “very early,” which is the same as “deep dawn,” and he added, “the sun being risen.” Their setting out and their journey began at the deep dawn and very early; but on the way and around the monument, they tarried until the rising of the sun; and then the young man in white raiment says to them too: “He is risen, he is not here.”

Since these things are so, we declare to those who consider more accurately and precisely at what hour, or even what half-hour or fourth part of an hour, it is proper to begin the joy over the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. We rebuke those who hasten too much and rise before midnight, as disdainful and intemperate, as those who have cut short the course almost before it is time, as the wise man says: “It is no small thing in life, that which is a little lacking.” ^C But those who defer, and endure much, and hold out sturdily until the fourth watch—in which also our Savior appeared to those navigating while walking on the sea—we receive as noble and tolerant of labors. As for those who in the meantime are at rest as they are moved or as they are able, let us not be very troublesome, seeing that neither the six days of fasting equally, nor similarly all...

^A continue in them; but some indeed pass through all of them remaining fasting, others two, others three, others four, and others none at all. And to those who truly labored in the passing over of days, then grew weary and almost failed, indulgence is to be granted for tasting food sooner. But if there are any who not only did not pass over, but did not even fast, or even lived in luxury during the preceding four days, then having come to the last two remaining days, the Preparation and the Sabbath, they think they are doing something great and brilliant if they remain without food until dawn, I do not think they have undergone the same struggle as those who disciplined themselves for more days. These things, as I think, I have written in advising concerning these matters.

BALSAMON. When a certain bishop asked this great high priest at what hour Christ rose, so that he might break his fast at the hour immediately preceding this, the high priest proposed that the feast of Pascha begins after the Lord has risen, and until that time we ought to fast: but at that time, and not before the resurrection, one is to break the fast. Since he could not state the hour at which Christ rose, he replied ^B based on various testimonies of the evangelists, that: Even if it is not possible from these to know the hour at which we ought to break the fast, yet we blame those who break the fast before midnight as contemptuous and intemperate; but those who hold out until the fourth watch, or until dawn, we welcome; ^C and those who have rested in the meantime, we do not blame; for not everyone passes the six days of the passion week of the Lord in the same way. For some fast all of them, others two, others three, others more, and others none at all. Therefore, to those who have fasted for more days and have labored, if they taste food sooner, indulgence must be granted; but to those who did not fast for four days, but lived delicately and in luxury, and yet fasted on the Preparation and the Sabbath, it should not be considered that they do something great if they remain ^D without food until the morning of the day of resurrection; for they do not enter upon a similar struggle. And this is the reply of the Father. But you, read the 89th canon of the Council in Trullo, establishing that the fast is to be broken around midnight of Great Sabbath; but on the other days of the saving passion, one ought to dwell in fasting and prayer and contrition. Since, however, the hour of Christ’s resurrection has been clarified outside of that same canon from various Scriptures, as far as was possible (for only God, who rose, knows the truth), we must say that we ought to fast until the sixth hour and the night of the Sabbath itself. But from the seventh hour, since the Lord’s day begins, upon which Christ also rose (for it is likely that the resurrection occurred at either the seventh or the eighth hour), we ought not according to these...

canons which determine that we ought not to fast on the Lord’s days. For even if the Lord’s day is reckoned as the third day, yet solely because the three-day resurrection touches upon it, it is called the third; for it is the first. And consistently with the 89th canon of the council in Trullo, say that we ought to break our fast before the seventh hour of the nocturnal Saturday, at whatever hour any person may wish out of the first six hours, and this entirely according to one’s own ability and choice.

^B ZONAR. To this inquiry the one who has been questioned replies: You have requested that a precise limit be imposed, that is, that a rule and form be prescribed, and that the hour of the Lord’s resurrection be precisely clarified, which is both difficult and perilous. For it is agreed that while the feast of the resurrection must begin after the Lord has risen, fasting until this time, we thus humble our souls. For the humbling of the body through fasting is practiced for the sake of the humbling of the soul; so that if the soul of the one fasting should be puffed up, the fast is judged by all to be in vain. He adds then: whoever went to the tomb found the Lord already ^C raised from the dead; and let us not think, he says, that the evangelists differ and contradict each other because, while they hand down by common consent that the Lord rose in that night, they do not indicate clearly at what hour He rose. Then he sets forth the very words, or rather the passages of Scripture, which each of the evangelists speaks regarding the Lord’s resurrection and reconciles their apparent discrepancy. And regarding these, he says that we blame those who break the fast before midnight as being negligent and intemperate, since they dissolve the course of the fast for a small duration of time; but we approve of those who persevere until the fourth watch, that is, the early morning time. But if any after midnight have rested, that is, have ceased the hardship arising from the fast as they were able, to these, he says, let us not be troublesome (that is to say, let us not blame them because they did not hold out until the morning), because not all fulfill the six ^D days of the week of the Lord’s passion in the same way. For some fast all of them, others two or three, others more, and others none at all. To those, therefore, who have fasted for more days and have labored more, if they taste food sooner, we grant pardon. But if some have not only not fasted for certain days, but have even lived luxuriously the other four days of the week, and have only refrained from food on Good Friday and Saturday, and think they are doing something great if they endure without food until the morning of the day that is holy for the resurrection, they perform an unequal struggle; that is, they have not labored equally with those who exercised themselves with fasting for more days. And the 89th canon of the sixth synod says that one should break the fast around the middle of Great Saturday, having spent the other days of the week of the passion in fasting and prayer and contrition.

CANON II

^A Regarding women who are in their period of seclusion, whether it is appropriate for them to enter the house of God in this state, I think it superfluous to ask. For I do not believe that they, being pious and devout, would dare, while in such a condition, either to approach the holy table or to touch the body and blood of Christ. For not even the woman who had the issue of blood for twelve years touched Him for her healing, but only the hem of His garment. For it is not blameworthy for one to pray, however one may be, and in whatever state one may be, to remember the Lord, and to ask to receive help. But the one who is not entirely pure in soul and body shall be prevented from approaching the Holy of Holies.

^B BALS. When the flow of menses occurs in Hebrew women, they sit in a solitary place and remain quiet until seven days have passed and the menstrual flow has been purged. Whence has been taken the expression "in seclusion," that is, that they were separated from the seat of the others, as unclean. Being asked, therefore, regarding pious women, whether it is appropriate for them, when they are troubled by their menses, to enter into the church, the saint answered that this ought not to be done; and he brought forward the woman in the Gospel afflicted with an issue of blood as an example, who did not dare to touch the Lord, but only the hem of His garment. For, he says, they will not be forbidden from praying and remembering the Lord even in such a time; but to enter the temple or to be partakers of the holy things is not fitting.

Since the [great] high priest has defined this, we see today in the women’s quarters, and especially in monasteries, such women standing without fear in the vestibules ^C of the temples, which are adorned with holy images of every kind and are assigned to the praise of God; and when we ask how this happens, we hear that they are not "in the church," which to me, however, does not seem to be so. For the vestibules are not common like the forecourts of churches, but are a part of them assigned to those women who are not prohibited from attending church. And this vestibule is the place of the second repentance, which is called that of the "hearers." And not even men are permitted to stand in it, those who have been punished by being forbidden from attending church, but rather they are to weep outside of it. It was proper, therefore, that such vestibules, in which such unclean women were to stand, should not fill the place of the churches directly, so that priests with the divine sacraments might pass through during the Cherubic hymn, and cense the graves and holy things that may perhaps be there, and perform the final holy prayers; or even that those who are in seclusion should be kept away from both divine temples and sacred mysteries.

^D "Those who are in seclusion," that is, those who have their menses; because they dwelt separately among the Jews.

^A With episcopal permission, such places may be defined so that impure women may stand in them without prejudice. I myself even saw such a woman standing in the vestibule, and receiving a prayer of betrothal from the high priest, which, indeed, I marveled at. But as it seems, in olden times women used to enter the sanctuary and partake from the holy table. For this reason, the canon even makes mention of the altar. Read the 44th canon of the Council of Laodicea, and the 69th of the Sixth Council. Likewise, read also the 17th novella of the lord King Leo the Wise, which treats of these matters in part: "We decree concerning women who have given birth, and concerning those who are overtaken by natural purgation, provided that their life is not disturbed by any other morbid condition, that those who are not initiated should not be partakers of illumination; but those who are initiated in divine ministries shall not partake of the immaculate mysteries until the term of forty days. But if a disease should invade and threaten to cut off their life, let them by all means be partakers of the sacrament." And after some things, the same novella again commands concerning infants, that if the disease is not pressing, they should be baptized after the eighth day; but if death is imminent, they should be baptized even before the eighth day. ^B But because I heard someone saying that segregated laypeople ought not to hear divine psalmodies while standing outside the vestibule, nor yet sing them, I answer him that: The things written in the present canon stop your mouth, O man, who say such things. For just as women who are not allowed to be in the church are not forbidden to pray, so neither will those who are segregated be prevented from praying by themselves; but they may also stand outside the vestibule of the church and hear the divine psalmodies; and this is done for their greater discipline.

ZONAR. Hebrew women, when the flow of their menses comes upon them, sitting in a solitary place, converse with no one until seven days have passed; whence that word "in seclusion" is taken, indicating that they were segregated from the company of others as if unclean. And this Father, being asked concerning faithful women, whether it behooves them, ^C when they are harassed by the flow of menses, to enter the church, answered that it is not fitting; and he brought forward as an example that woman in the Gospel who suffered from a flow of blood, who did not dare to touch the Lord Himself, but only the hem of His garment. To pray, however, and to remember the Lord, he says, they are by no means prohibited at that time; but it is not allowed for them to enter the temple of God, or to partake of the holy mysteries.

CANON III.

Furthermore, those who are sufficiently instructed to this end and have agreed, ought to be their own judges. For it is fitting that they abstain from one another by consent, that they may for a time...

^A be occupied with prayer, and again be together, they have heard Paul writing.

BALSAMON.

ZONARAS.

party brings perhaps a detriment to the other. For if desire presses, and it is not permitted to them, they will fall into unlawful intercourse. ^B Then, the Apostle also defines the time, which he says is for prayer and fasting. Someone will say, therefore, since the Apostle teaches that we must pray unceasingly, it is also necessary for those living together to abstain from one another perpetually, if abstaining from one another is required when they pray. But the Apostle does not speak here of every prayer, but of that more earnest prayer which must be performed ^C with tears and afflictions. For it is not necessary that they should always pray in this way; rather, he calls fasting that which is performed at appointed times, or when someone is about to participate in the sacred mysteries. And to the Jews, also, when they were about to hear the divine voices on the mountain, it was commanded to abstain from their wives. And Joel, after the words, "Sanctify a fast," added, "Let the bridegroom depart from his bedchamber, and the bride from her bridal chamber." For it is necessary that those who fast abstain from every pleasure; because the enjoyments of pleasures are by nature wont to weaken the soul and disturb the reason. ^D

CANON IV

But as for those who have experienced an involuntary nocturnal discharge, let them also follow their own conscience, and examine themselves whether they are in doubt about it or not. As the Apostle says concerning foods: "He who discerns, if he eats, is condemned"; so in these matters also, let everyone who approaches God have a good conscience and speak freely according to his own judgment. You indeed, honoring us (for you are not ignorant, beloved), have proposed these questions to us; [you have done so], preparing us to be of the same opinion, as indeed we are, and of the same mind. I, however, not as a teacher, but as it is fitting for us to discuss with one another with all simplicity, have set forth my opinion for the common good; which, when you have examined it, my most wise son, you will write back what appears to you to be just and better, or if you deem it to be so. I pray that you be well, my beloved son, serving the Lord in peace.

BALS. Being asked whether those who have experienced an involuntary flow of seed ought to be partakers of the sacraments, the Father said that those who have suffered this [are to be treated as] those who have polluted the nature of the seed,

[Footnote text omitted as per instructions]

let them have their own conscience as a judge; so that if this has happened to them without any preceding perturbation of soul, with nature of its own accord casting out the discharge as waste matter, they shall not be hindered from partaking of the sacraments. But if to some there has pre-existed a desire ^A from a perturbed reasoning, and a discharge has followed this, or if it has happened from intemperance of food and drink, such men are not pure; not on account of the discharge of the seed (for this is not unclean, just as the flesh is not, of which it is a waste product), but on account of the evil thought which defiled the mind. Such a one, therefore, is not of clear conscience, and hence does not have the boldness to approach God. And he brings in also the usage from the great Paul, who wrote concerning things sacrificed to idols, that he who doubts, if he eats, is condemned. And concerning the discharge of seed, inquire also for the epistle of the great Athanasius to the monk Ammon.

COMMENTARY ON THE CANONICAL EPISTLE OF SAINT PETER, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA AND MARTYR

ZONARAS. Here too the Father responds to the proposed interrogation. For being asked whether it is permitted for those upon whom a discharge of seed has come involuntarily to communicate in the holy mysteries, he replied: Let those who suffer this follow their own conscience; that is, let them set their conscience as the judge of the deed, namely their own mind and spirit. So that, if indeed it happened ^B automatically without any passion preceding it, with nature casting it out as waste matter, and neither wine-bibbing nor gluttony provided a cause for it, he who has suffered this shall by no means be forbidden to approach the holy altar. But if some softer thought preceded it, and it dwelt longer in the mind and brought about a nocturnal fancy, and a discharge of seed followed this, and it happened from intemperance of food and drink, such a person is not pure, not because of the discharge of the seed (for this is not unclean, since neither is the flesh of which it is a waste, ^C but because of the evil thought which defiled the mind). Such a one, therefore, is not of clear conscience, and hence has no boldness, because of his own thought. How, then, shall he approach God while doubting? And he adds also the usage from the great Paul, who wrote concerning things sacrificed to idols, that he who doubts, if he eats, is condemned. Furthermore, regarding the discharge of seed, the great Athanasius also wrote at length to the monk Ammon ^D

THEODORUS BALSAMON: CANONS OF SAINT PETER, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA AND MARTYR, WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN HIS SERMON ON PENITENCE

^A CANON I.

Since the fourth Pascha has now overtaken the persecution, it is enough for those who were indeed accused and cast into custody, and who endured unbearable torments, and intolerable floggings, and many other grievous hardships, but were afterwards betrayed by the weakness of the flesh, even if they were not received from the beginning because of the grave fall that followed: yet because they struggled much and resisted for a long time—for they did not come to these things of their own will, but were betrayed by the weakness of the flesh—for indeed they display the marks of Jesus in their bodies, and some have been lamenting for the third year already: let forty other days be enjoined upon them from the time of their recall to remembrance, during which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also fasted, after He was baptized and tempted by the devil. In these they themselves, having been greatly exercised and having fasted more constantly, will henceforth watch in prayers, meditating on what was said by the Lord to him who tempts Him to adore him: "Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." ^B

BALSAMON. The present canons treat of those who in times of persecution denied their own faith and have performed penance. And the first canon indeed ordains that for those who sacrificed after many torments, as they were unable to persevere through weakness, and have passed three years in penance, another forty days should be enjoined, and thus they should be received. Note that the present canons ordain...

certain other necessary things for those who have abjured their faith and seek penance, and concerning those who volunteered for martyrdom and fell away, and again confessed the faith, and concerning other such matters. Seek also, not without profit, the many canons of the Synod of Ancyra.

^B ZONARAS. This holy Father makes distinctions among those who, in turbulent times, abjured their own faith. He says that for those who were brought before tyrants and cast into prison, and who endured intolerable torments and unavoidable scourges—which could be healed by no care or medicine (for *achos* signifies a cure, and *anēkeston* means immedicable/incurable)—and other hardships, and who afterward succumbed and sacrificed, as if betrayed by the weakness of the flesh, being unable to endure to the end in such suffering, the time that has already passed is sufficient as a penalty. For he says that the fourth Pascha has already passed since they fell into this most grievous fall. And even if, from the beginning, when they approached in repentance, they were not received, nevertheless, because they did not act by their own internal choice in going to sacrifice, and resisted for a long time, and bear the stigmata of Jesus—that is, the welts of the wounds which they suffered for Christ—and because three years have now passed since they began to mourn their fall, he decreed that they should be additionally penalized, that is, that for the sake of an additional penalty, another forty days beyond the time they approached asking to be received should be enjoined. In these days, showing greater exercise of penance, and fasting more intensely—that is, with more careful attention to themselves—they shall be vigilant in prayers, meditating—that is, keeping it continuously in their minds—and uttering what the Lord said to the tempter: "Get behind me, Satan; for it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve."

CANON II

^C ♦ To those, however, who after being committed to custody and remaining in prison, as if under siege, have suffered afflictions and stench, and afterward, without the war of torments, were made captives, and being crushed by the extreme poverty of their strength and by a certain blindness, [the penalty of] an additional year shall suffice for the other; for they too gave themselves over entirely to be afflicted for the name of Christ, even if they obtained much consolation from the brethren in the prison. ^D Which indeed they shall repay many times over, desiring to be freed from the most bitter captivity of the devil, remembering especially Him who says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me: He has sent me to preach the gospel to the poor, to announce release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to send away the broken in remission, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution."

^A BALS. This canon decrees that those who have only suffered ill treatment in custody, and have fallen away without [the application of] tortures, are to be punished after the three-year term for one additional year. For if, he says, they did indeed receive consolation, such as supplies for life provided to them by some of the faithful, these too ought to be deemed worthy of pardon, as having suffered grievous things for the faith.

ZONAR. He places in the second rank those who were merely cast into chains and treated ill in prison, and who fell away without being tortured by torments; for these it is determined that a penalty of one year be added beyond the elapsed time, that is, the three years mentioned above. For they too, he says, were afflicted for Christ’s name, even if perhaps they obtained some solace in prison from the brethren. For it is likely that the faithful who were not held in custody provided necessities of life to those who were bound, and thus afforded them some relief. They will repay this many times over, in that, being in custody, they will lead a life of penitence, afflict themselves, and mortify themselves in many ways; if they wish to be delivered from the captivity of the devil, having become his captives and slaves through the denial of Christ. He then subjoins prophetic words, which are taken from Isaiah, affirming that they ought to remember them.

CANON III

• To those, however, who have suffered nothing of the sort, nor have shown the fruit of faith, but have willingly deserted to wickedness, betrayed by fear and cowardice; but who are now coming to repentance, it is necessary and fitting to propose the parable of the unfruitful fig tree, as the Lord says: ^B "A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard: and he came seeking fruit therein, and found none. And he said to the keeper of the vineyard: Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit in this fig tree, and find none; cut it down: why doth it occupy the soil in vain? But he answering saith to him: Lord, let it alone this year also, until I shall dig about it, and dung it; if indeed it may bear fruit; but if not, in the future thou shalt cut it down": taking which before their eyes, and showing fruit worthy of repentance, they will be the more benefited in the interval of such time. ^C

BALS. The canon punishes for three years those who deserted solely on account of fear and cowardice, but then turned their attention to repentance, according to the parable of the fig tree which is in the Gospels. For the Lord says: "For three years I come to it seeking fruit, and I find none." And the keeper says, "Let it alone, Lord, even this year."

ZONAR. Whoever, he says, having suffered nothing grievous, deserted solely because of fear and cowardice, meaning that they themselves of their own will approached wickedness, yet afterward looked toward repentance, for such persons ^D the [parable of] the fig tree

Gospel ^A will fit; which, having before their eyes, if they offer labor worthy of repentance for so long a time, they will be helped, that is, up to the fourth year. For the Lord says, "Three years I come to it, seeking fruit, and I do not find it." But the vinedresser said, "Leave it, Lord, and this year also."

CANON IV

To those indeed who are utterly desperate and ^B impenitent, and who possess the unchangeable skin of an Ethiopian and the spots of a leopard, shall be said that which was said to the other fig tree: "May there be no fruit from you forever," and therefore it immediately withers. For in them is fulfilled that which was said by Ecclesiastes: "That which is perverse cannot be adorned, and lack cannot be numbered." For unless that which is perverse be first set right, it is impossible for it to be adorned; and unless the lack be first filled, it is impossible for it to be numbered. Whence also in the end will happen to them that which is said by the prophet Isaiah: "And they shall see," he says, "the corpses of the men who have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished, and they shall be an object of sight to all flesh." Since also, as it has been foretold by him: "But the unjust shall be as a surging sea, and thus they shall be tossed, and there is no joy for the ungodly, says God."

BALS. What was said before concerning the lapsed is also said ^C concerning those who repent. But against those who are led by no repentance, he brings in the curse of the other fig tree, to which the Lord says, because of its barrenness: "May there no longer be fruit from you."

ZONAR. What was said before concerning the lapsed is also said concerning those who repent. But against those who, because of despair or depraved opinion, do not perform repentance, and who bear the blackness of sin perpetually clinging to them and indelible, as the Ethiopians the dusky [color] of the skin, and the leopard its spots, he brings in the curse of the other fig tree; to which the Lord said, because of its barrenness: "May there no longer be fruit from you." And he says that there is fulfilled in them that which is of Ecclesiastes, saying: "That which is perverse cannot be adorned, and lack cannot be numbered." Then, having explained those words, he also adds those of Isaiah.

CANON V

But ^D to those who have feigned, as did David, who pretended to be an epileptic [1 Reg. xxi, 13] that he might not die, although he was not in reality an epileptic; and who have not nakedly inscribed the denial, but in many straits, as children endowed with counsel and prudence among foolish children, have mocked the traps of the enemies, or as...

^A those who have offered the altars, or as those who have given a written document, or as those who have put forward pagans in their own stead, even if some of those who have confessed—as I have heard—have granted pardon to some of them, because they avoided with the greatest caution doing the fire and the fumigation of the unclean demons with their own hands. But since, through ignorance of the actor, this nevertheless escaped their attention, a penalty of six months of penitential conversion shall be imposed upon them. For thus they themselves will be more benefited, meditating on the prophetic word and saying: "A child is born to us, a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name is called the Angel of the great counsel." ^B Who, as you know, in the sixth month of the conception of the other child, who preached repentance for the remission of sins before the face of his approach, was himself also conceived to preach repentance. For we hear both of them preaching in the first place not only about repentance, but also about the kingdom of heaven, which, as we have learned, is within us, because the word which we believe is near us, in our mouth and in our heart, that Jesus is Christ; believing in our heart that God raised him from the dead: so that those who hear may understand that "with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

BALS. If, however, some feigned that they were approaching the altars, or writing that they denied the faith, but did not do this nakedly and openly, but by some method mocked those who were applying force, ^C just as David, when he was fleeing from Saul and came to the foreigners, feigned that he was seized by epilepsy, and thus escaped death; so they mocked the plots of the enemies, just as children endowed with counsel and prudence mock foolish children. For they deceived the impious, because they appeared to sacrifice, but did not in fact sacrifice: for perchance they put forward pagans or infidels in their own stead, and by them they thought that they had sacrificed. To such as these, he says, a semester of time is sufficient for repentance. For even if they did not sacrifice, because they consented to sacrifice or put forward others, they were judged to need repentance, even if some of those who bore witness for the faith granted pardon to some of them. He compares them to children because they did not resist the idolaters ^D manfully, but to prudent ones because they cleverly avoided the sacrifice.

ZONAR. If, however, some feigned that they were approaching the altars, or writing that they denied the faith, but

^A they did not write these things nakedly—that is, not manifestly, not openly—but by a certain artifice they mocked those who were offering them violence, as David did when he feigned to be epileptic while fleeing from Saul and arriving among the foreigners, and in this way escaped death. They mocked, he says, the snares of their enemies, like prudent children, endowed with counsel and prudence, and who, having cleverly formed a plan, mock foolish children. He compares to "prudent ones" those who deceived the impious and who, while they did not sacrifice, nevertheless appeared to sacrifice; prudent, indeed, as those who avoided the sacrifice to that point; but "boys," because they did not manifest a perfect and manly sense, nor did they generously stand up to the idolaters; yet they agreed to sacrifice, even if some of them submitted heathens—that is, unbelievers—in their place, and with those people sacrificing, they themselves were thought to have sacrificed. For such men, he says, a six-month period will suffice for repentance. For even if they did not sacrifice, yet because they agreed to sacrifice, or because they submitted others and they themselves were seen to have sacrificed, they were judged to be in need of repentance, even if some of the confessors ^B granted pardon to some of them. For some of those who had borne witness and suffered for the faith granted pardon to those who, through artifices, as has been said, did not sacrifice, and admitted them with the faithful, because they had in many ways escaped sacrificing to demons. And on account of this six-month term, he made mention of the message through Gabriel, in the sixth month of the conception of the Forerunner, in which the Lord was conceived. He then subjoins the apostolic words:

CANON VI

BALS. This Father punishes for a year the servants who sacrificed at the command and threat of their masters; for as masters who obeyed, he shows indulgence and does not inflict a heavy punishment; but as they are rather servants of Christ, and ought to fear Him more, he imposes a moderate penance. For each one, he says, according to the great Paul, whatever good he has done, he shall receive from the Lord, whether servant or free.

ZONAR. Some submitted their own Christian servants, in their own place and against their will [or: even though they were unwilling], to sacrifice. Those who

^A have sacrificed even by the command of their masters, having been compelled, but not by their own will, this Father decrees that they should spend a year in penitence, and learn that, being believers, they are servants of Christ, and ought to fear Him more; and that each one, according to the great Apostle, shall receive back whatever he has done, whether he be servant or free.

CANON VII

The free, however, shall be examined for three years in penitence, both because they pretended, and because they caused their fellow-servants to sacrifice, as those who did not obey the Apostle, who desires masters to do the same things as servants, putting aside threats. Knowing, he says, that both our Lord and theirs is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him. But if we all have one Lord, with Whom there is no respect of persons; since Christ is all and in all, among Barbarians and Scythians, servants and free; they ought to consider what they have done, wishing to save their own souls; they who dragged our fellow-servants into idolatry, who could also themselves have escaped, if they had provided them with justice and equality, as again the Apostle says.

BALS. He imposes a three-year penalty upon the free, that is, the masters of the servants who were compelled to sacrifice; because they pretended to sacrifice and altogether seemed to consent, and because they compelled their fellow-servants to sacrifice, and because they disobeyed the Apostle who ordered them to remit threats to their servants, inasmuch as even they themselves are servants of God and fellow-servants of their own servants. And they themselves indeed hastened to save their own soul, but they urged their fellow-servants toward idolatry, who could have escaped.

ZONAR. He imposes a three-year penalty upon the free, that is, the masters of the servants who were forced to sacrifice: both because they pretended to sacrifice and seemed altogether to give in, and because they compelled their fellow-servants to sacrifice, and because they disobeyed the Apostle who commanded them to remit threats to their servants, as the masters themselves are also servants of the Lord, and fellow-servants to their own domestics. And they themselves indeed hastened to save their own soul, but they urged their fellow-servants toward idolatry, who could have escaped.

CANON VIII

As for those who have been betrayed and have fallen, who have themselves come forward to the contest, confessing themselves to be Christians, and have been cast into prison with torments: it is just that we should with exultation of heart join in giving them strength, and communicate with them in all things, both in prayers and in the participation of the body and blood of Christ, and in the exhortation of the word; so that—

they may compete more vigorously for the contest and be accounted worthy of the kingdom of heaven. ^A And for the reason that seven times, he says, the just man shall fall—which means, frequently—and shall rise again; which, if all those who had fallen away had done, they would have shown a most perfect and wholehearted repentance.

^B BALS. Some were denounced and delivered to tyrants, or even gave themselves up to them voluntarily; but, overcome by torments, they fell away from their testimony. Afterwards, having been moved by repentance and having recognized what is good, they confessed themselves to be Christians, so that they were even thrown into prisons and underwent tortures. Such as these, therefore, the saint deems it reasonable to receive with gladness and to strengthen in the orthodox faith, and to communicate with them in prayers and in the participation of the sacraments, and to exhort them by word, ^C that they may become more vigorous for the contest and be accounted worthy of the kingdom of heaven. But lest they be thought by some to be unreceivable because they have fallen, he brings forward also a testimony from Scripture, namely, "Seven times," that is to say, often, "the just man shall fall, and shall rise again." This, he says, if all those who had fallen away from the confession had done—that is, to wrestle against their fall and to confess themselves Christians before the tyrants—they would have shown themselves to have performed a most complete repentance. There is, therefore, a difference between those things contained in the present canon and those contained in the first canon: the difference being that there, those who had fallen away on account of tortures had not turned before the tyrants to the confession of the faith, whereas here, those who had fallen away on account of tortures, out of good repentance, confessed the Lord before the tyrants, and for this reason they are not even judged to have fallen.

ZONAR. If any, he says, were denounced and delivered to the tyrants, or delivered themselves up, and fell away from their testimony, being overcome by torments and not bearing the hardships and tortures in the prisons, they then wrestled against their fall and confessed themselves to be Christians, so that they were cast into prisons and underwent tortures; such men, the saint judges it reasonable ^D to receive with joy; then to brace them up—that is, to strengthen, empower, and encourage them toward the confession; and to communicate with them in all things, both in prayers and in the participation of the sacraments; and to exhort them by word, that is, to arouse them to the testimony, so that they may become more vigorous for the contest and be accounted worthy of the heavenly kingdom. But lest, because they fell by sacrificing, they be thought by some to be unreceivable, he brings forward also the testimony from the Scriptures: "Seven times," that is, often, "the just man shall fall, and shall rise again." This, he says, if all others who had fallen away from the confession had done—that is, to repeat the contest after the fall and to profess themselves Christians before the tyrants—they would have indicated an absolute repentance.

^A Likewise, for those who, as if from sleep, rush forward themselves into the contest that is travail and about to draw them in, and for themselves draw down a temptation of sea-battle and much surging, or rather who even kindle the coal of sins for their brethren, they must also be communicated with, inasmuch as they come to this in the name of Christ, even if they do not heed his words, teaching them to pray not to enter into temptation, and again in prayer to say to the Father: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." Perhaps they are also ignorant of the ^B often-occurring withdrawals of our master and teacher from those who wished to plot against him, and that there were times when he did not even walk openly because of them, and that even when the time of his passion drew near, he did not surrender himself, but waited until they came to him with swords and clubs. He says, therefore, to them: "As against a robber you have come out with swords and clubs to take me." And they delivered him, he says, to Pilate. According to his likeness, therefore, those who walk according to his goal have also suffered, remembering his divine words, by which, confirming us regarding persecutions, he says: "Take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you into councils, and in their synagogues they will scourge you." But they will deliver ^C you, he said, but you shall not deliver yourselves; and to governors and kings you shall be brought for my sake, but you shall not bring yourselves; for he wishes us also to cross from place to place while there are those who persecute us for his name. Just as again we hear him saying: "And when they persecute you from this city, flee into the other." For he does not wish us to flee to the retainers and satellites of the devil, lest we become the cause of manifold death for them, as though forcing them to become more harsh and to perform deadly works; but to wait and to take heed to ourselves, and to watch and pray, that we may not enter into ^D temptation. Thus Stephen, the first, following in his footsteps, having undergone martyrdom, having been seized in Jerusalem by the lawless, and led into the council, was glorified in the name of Christ, being stoned, entreating and saying: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." Thus James, the second, having been seized by Herod, was beheaded with a sword. Thus Peter, the first of the apostles, having been often seized and imprisoned and ignominiously treated, was finally crucified at Rome. Similarly also the illustrious Paul, often delivered, and brought into danger even unto death, having suffered many evils and in many persecutions

and afflictions, was himself beheaded by the sword in the same city; he who in these very things in which he boasted, ended his life. ^A And he who in Damascus was lowered in a basket by night through the wall, and escaped the hands of him who sought to seize him. For the proposal set before them was, first of all, to preach the Gospel and to teach the word of God, as they confirmed the brethren to remain in the faith; and they said this, that through many ^B afflictions we must enter into the kingdom of God. For they sought not their own advantage, but that of the many, that they might be saved; and there was much to say to them on these matters, in accordance with the word, if, as the Apostle says, the time did not fail us as we recounted them.

COMMENTARY OF BALSAMON

^B Those who are just arising from sleep, especially if they should be heavy with sleep, do not have a composed mind, but one that is perturbed and unsettled. To such, this holy martyr compares those who leap into the struggle—that is, those who do not go into the struggle in an orderly way, but rashly and inconsiderately—bringing them into travail and delay; for the term "bringing into travail," instead of "not yet having erupted into the open," means that which is being pondered and is impending, or [suggests] delaying the drawing of the struggling ones; [people] who draw temptation upon themselves, that is, they pull it upon themselves. ^C But rather, they also kindle the coals of sinners for other faithful, namely, the punishments from tyrants. But even if he censures those who act in this way, he nevertheless orders the faithful to communicate with them for the time being, because they entered the struggle for the sake of Christ, even if they were ignorant of His teaching, which instructs one to ask not to be tempted, and that He did not even surrender Himself, but was surrendered; and that one must not flee to the tormentors, lest they become the cause of more murders by contaminating themselves, as if inciting them to inflict punishments upon the pious. ^D The canon also introduces various examples from Holy Scripture.

ZONARAS

Those who have recently arisen from sleep, especially if they have been oppressed by a heavier sleep, do not use a mind that is entirely settled, but one that is perturbed and inconstant. This holy martyr asserts that those who leap into the struggles are similar to such men—that is, those who do not enter the struggle in an orderly way, but with an audacious and rash impulse. "Bringing into travail," and delaying to draw, for the reason that it has not yet erupted into the open, but is being meditated upon, and he delays or hesitates to draw the struggling ones; who indeed summon temptation, that is, they pull temptation upon themselves, or rather, they also kindle the coals of sin for other faithful...

[index: entries preserved]

^A to the torments, that is, which are inflicted by the tyrants. But even if he censures those who act in this manner, he nevertheless decrees that the faithful should share communion with them, because they go forth into this in the name of Christ, trusting indeed in Christ, or choosing the struggle for the name of Christ, even if perhaps they do not act according to his teaching, when he teaches us to ask not to be subjected to temptation, and they are ignorant that the Lord would withdraw from those who plotted against him, and there were times when he did not walk openly, and that he did not even deliver himself up to suffer, but was delivered; and when his disciples were being persecuted, he commanded them to flee from city to city, and not to surrender themselves voluntarily to the tormentors, lest they might become the cause of more murders by them, as if provoking them to inflict punishments upon the pious. And he brings forward the example of the apostles, of Stephen, of James, and of the foremost of their order, Peter and Paul. ^B

CANON X

• Whence it is not fair that clergy who have • fled of their own accord, and who have fallen and struggled, • should remain any longer in the sacred ministry, as those who have • abandoned the Lord's flock and have brought reproach upon • themselves: which no one of the apostles did. For when • the blessed apostle Paul had endured many persecutions, and had shown many • rewards of his struggles, knowing that it is far better to be dissolved and to be with • Christ, he makes a point and says: "But to remain in the flesh is more necessary • for you." For considering not his own advantage, • but that of the many, that they might be saved, he deemed it more necessary • than his own rest to remain among the brothers and to take care of them. He who also wants the one who teaches to be an example • to the faithful in his teaching. Whence those who are in prison and have been legally deprived • of their ministry, and have struggled, are utterly devoid of understanding. How then • do they seek what they have abandoned, when they could have been useful to their brothers in such a time? As long, therefore, as they remained firm and stable, they were granted pardon for that which they had done beyond reason. • When, however, they have fallen, as those who have behaved wrongly and have brought reproach upon themselves, they cannot ^C • any longer perform sacred ministries. And therefore let them rather take • care how they may spend their lives in humility, ceasing from vainglory. For it is sufficient for them that communion, which is performed diligently and accurately for two • reasons, partly so that they may not appear to be affected by annoyance, hence seizing a dissolution by force, and partly so that any who have fallen ^D • may not cause it to be said that they were released on account of the occasion of punishment: Who indeed more than all others, disgrace

and ignominy shall have: as one who laid a foundation, and was not able to finish it: "For all," he says, "who pass by will begin to mock him, saying: This man laid a foundation, and was not able to finish it."

^B BALSAMON. Having discoursed concerning those who of their own accord hasten to the contest of martyrdom, the Father now speaks also about clerics who are of this same sort: and he says that if a cleric has fled of his own accord to the contest, and then, not being able to endure the torments, has fallen, and having afterward returned to himself, has redeemed his own fall, and has confessed himself a Christian before the tyrants, such a one shall no longer be in the ministry, because he has abandoned the flock of the Lord; and because, by fleeing of his own accord and failing to endure the torments, he has brought shame upon himself. And yet, neither did the apostles ever despise the instruction of the people and prefer their own benefit. For the great Paul, after enduring many torments, perceiving that it was much better to leave this life, preferred instead to live and be tormented for the sake of the salvation and instruction of the people. Therefore, those who seek the ministry from which they have fallen of their own accord are utterly devoid of sense. For how do they seek what they abandoned, when they could be useful to their brethren in such a time, that is to say, of persecution? If, therefore, they had not fallen, he says, they might have been granted pardon for their irrational act, that is, for the voluntary flight, or for the slothfulness in teaching and confirming the brethren. But if they have fallen through ostentation, or arrogance—for such is what it is to rashly throw oneself into torments and not persevere, and for this reason they have been triumphed over—they can no longer serve in the ministry. Wherefore let them rather be concerned how they may complete their confession in humility, ceasing from the vainglorious desire to seek the ministry; for the communion with the faithful ^C, which is brought about for two reasons, with careful oversight and good counsel, is sufficient for them. For if we should say that we do not count them as communicants, we shall both grieve them, as if we were pronouncing a judgment accompanied by force, that is, that they are condemned, and thereby cause them to be destroyed, that is, to die; and we shall also make the others who have fallen, and who perhaps wish to return to what is good, listless and negligent in this regard, using the pretext that they are not to be communicants with the faithful even if they confess the faith after their fall; those who, if they do not turn back, shall receive more reproach and ignominy than all others, just as he who has laid a foundation but has not completed the house. For to this man are those similar who fled to the torments for the sake of Christ and, as it were, laid a good foundation, but were unable to complete the good work because of their fall. Mark well, therefore, that not even a confession made for Christ’s sake restores him who has once been alienated from the clergy on account of his fall. ^D

^A Zonaras: The Father having discoursed regarding those who of their own accord threw themselves into the struggle of martyrdom, now directs his speech toward clerics of the same kind; and he says that if a cleric has surrendered himself, then, not enduring the punishments, has fallen, and having subsequently come to himself has struggled again, recovering from his own fall, and has confessed himself a Christian before the tyrants, such a one shall no longer be in the ministry. And he adds the reason: for it is that he abandoned the flock of the Lord, and because he surrendered himself and did not endure the tortures, he brought a blemish upon himself. But the ^B apostles themselves did not despise the instruction of the people and prefer their own advantage to all others. For the great Paul, after having endured many tortures, and having rightly observed that it was better to be left in life so as to concern himself with the salvation and instruction of the people, deemed life and tortures preferable. Hence he also demonstrates those who demand for themselves the ministry from which they of their own will have fallen to be utterly senseless. For how, he says, do they ask for what they abandoned, when they were able to be useful to the brothers at such a time, namely, during the persecution? As long, therefore, as they were without fault, they would have had forgiveness for their unreasonable action, namely, their self-surrender, or for their slothfulness regarding the instruction of the brothers; but when they have fallen, as though having acted with vainglory, they can no longer minister. If, therefore, they had not fallen, he says, they would have had forgiveness for their unreasonable action—calling an unreasonable action not only the fact that they surrendered themselves to their enemies, but rather that ^C they abandoned the flock of the Lord and did not remain with it and strengthen the brothers who were being shaken in the time of the persecution. But if they have fallen because of vainglory—for he calls here "vainglory" the audacity and the arrogance, because out of arrogance they trusted in themselves, and relaxed their struggle and blemished themselves, that is, for the fall they brought a blemish upon themselves—they can no longer minister. Therefore let them take thought, he says, rather to accomplish their confession in humility, by ceasing, that is, from vainglory. For to seek the ministry, he says, happens through vainglory. For they have sufficient in communion, that is to say, for the faithful to communicate with them, or to pray together, or even the participation in the divine mysteries. And let these things be done with care and precision, and so that they do not appear to be afflicted, by ^D seizing upon the dissolution of life from this, so that they may not, he says, being afflicted, depart from here—being released, that is to say, from the body—by the force of the tortures and the hardship in the prisons; and so that some may not have an excuse for having been relaxed and become faint-hearted toward the struggle of the confession, and for that reason having fallen, the rebuke. For they shall rather be put to shame, according to that which is said in the Gospels: "Who was not able to complete the foundation."

Digression which is entirely directed against Muzalon.

^A Let those who claim that bishops are able to resign their churches while retaining the priesthood, now apply their minds to what has been said here by this great Father and holy martyr. For if, in the case of clergy who have rushed toward the struggle of confession, and, having been punished and failing to persevere, but rather yielding, are subsequently with difficulty deemed worthy of forgiveness upon returning to the struggle, to defer the ministry; and according to this divine Father, nothing else is held against them than that they abandoned their brethren at a time when they could have been useful in confirming them in the faith during adverse and tumultuous times, and this even though they had been deemed worthy of bearing testimony for the faith, and carried the stigmata of Christ in their flesh: how then shall a high priest and shepherd, who ought to lay down his soul for the sheep, upon abandoning the flock entrusted to him, having repudiated its care and concern, and, as far as lies within his power, delivered it to the wolves, be judged worthy to retain the dignity of the sacred ministry, and not rather be judged worthy of the gravest penalties for the abandonment of the people committed to him? ^B Or shall he even demand a reward for this, or rather provide it to himself? He refuses that which brings him labor, I mean the task of teaching and the correction of those who stumble, but he holds fast to, claims, and tenaciously retains that which brings glory and honor, and does not yield it in the slightest. For if, in the case of the clergy, it was called an irrational act to abandon the people and retreat from the struggle for the sake of piety, how much more irrational should it be judged in the case of a bishop who abandons his own people, and not to proceed to a struggle, but for the sake of ease and rest, and the laying aside and avoidance of concerns for the salvation of souls? And the 16th canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod accuses of great folly those who decree that bishops are able to resign their bishoprics while holding onto their priesthood. For if, according to the stated canon, a bishop who has been absent from his own bishopric for more than six months—unless one of the causes enumerated therein has intervened—falls from both the bishopric and the high-priesthood, and is deprived of both, ^C how could one who has resigned his bishopric, and has declared that he will no longer shepherd the flock entrusted to him, and has despised its care for the rest of his life, still be considered in the number of bishops? For if he who sins less—by leaving the people under him unpastored and neglected for a period longer than six months—falls from both the bishopric and the high-priesthood and is removed, then he who commits a greater and many times more heavy sin—by completely abandoning the multitudes whom the grace of the Holy Spirit entrusted to him to oversee and care for—would surely be more justly punished more severely, and will undergo a greater penalty for the destruction, as far as it depends on him, of the flock of which he was appointed shepherd by that first and ^D great High Priest and Chief Shepherd. But those who vote both a reward and recompense to him for his resignation, namely the priesthood—

^A I think, render both themselves and him liable to the judgment of God.

CANON XI.

For those who first ^B rushed forward in the fervor of persecution, surrounding the judgment seat, and observing the holy martyrs hastening toward the prize of the heavenly calling, being moved by a noble zeal, gave themselves over to this with great boldness. Seeing especially those who were being dragged away and falling, for whom they were inwardly stirred and, as if by a sound, impelled to do battle against the one who is exalted and opposes, they hastened to this, so that he might not seem in his own estimation to be prudent in matters in which he appeared inferior to the enemy’s craftiness, even if, without him knowing it, he was being overcome by those who endured the tortures of lashes and whips, and the sharpness of the sword, and the burnings of fire, and the drownings of water. And it is right to agree ^C that prayers and supplications should be made in accordance with the faith for those who are being punished in custody and have been betrayed by hunger and thirst, or for those outside the prison who have been tormented at the judgment seat by lashes and whips, but were afterwards overcome by the weakness of the flesh. For it harms no one at all to sympathize and grieve with those who lament and groan for those who have been overcome in the struggle by the great force of the wicked devil, whether it be for parents or brothers or children. For we know that some have obtained the goodness of God through the faith of others, both for the forgiveness of sins and for bodily health and the resurrection of the dead. Being mindful, therefore, of their many labors and miseries, which they endured in the name of Christ, and their torments—and indeed, also, that they have repented and wept for what was done by them through betrayal in the weakness and deadness of the body, and further that they testify that they had lived alien lives—let us pray together and intercede for their reconciliation, as is fitting, through Him who is our advocate with the Father, showing Himself propitiatory for our sins. ^D For if anyone, he says, sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins.

BALS. Having said earlier, the Holy man, that those who have surrendered themselves of their own will and have fallen, but have not repented nor revoked their fall, will undergo more shame, as those who have not built a roof upon the foundation...

^A but now he brings in the confirmation of this and the rest, saying: “For those who in the heat”—that is, in the height of the persecution—“were standing, and seeing the martyrdoms of the saints, and how they hastened to receive the crowns from heaven according to divine zeal, they gave themselves over to martyrdom with great boldness, and especially because they saw some being dragged away”—that is, stolen and deceived by the devil—“and falling away,” that is, denying piety. “On account of which, being warmed within”—that is, having their heart set on fire—“in order that, as they heard, they might overcome”—that is, conquer— “through this the arrogant and opposing devil, they hastened to undergo martyrdom, so that the devil might not boast and appear wise to himself, as having won by his cunning those who had defected; even if it escaped him that he was rather being defeated by the athletes who endured the torments.” It is therefore worthy for the faithful, who pray on behalf of those who were punished and defeated, to nod in agreement—that is, to concur—with what has been decided, and in some way it does not harm to suffer and grieve together with their parents or those otherwise related to them, on behalf of those who bore witness and underwent martyrdom, but who fell away through the malice and snares of the devil. For we know that many have enjoyed the mercy and goodness of God through the prayer of others. Therefore, we shall ask for them to be granted ^B by God the remission of sins, and we shall share communion with others who have fallen away, and after these things have recalled their error and confessed piety, remembering the struggles they bore for God before their fall, and further, the good repentance they had after this, and that they testified that they themselves were strangers to the city on account of their sin; and we shall not only share communion with them, but we shall also join in prayer for their propitiation, together with the other things that are proper—that is, together with the good works which must be done by them: namely, fasting, almsgiving, and repentance, through which He who is the Advocate for us renders the Father propitious and benevolent toward us. Then he also uses a Scriptural sentence. And that is from the first catholic epistle of the holy apostle and evangelist John.

ZONARAS

^A They made haste, then, the text says, to act thus, having been overcome by tortures through the weakness of the flesh, some suffering ill-treatment in prisons, others punished in the courts, and not bearing the penalties. It is worthwhile, therefore, to sympathize with those who mourn for them. They mourn, it says—some for parents, others for brothers, others for children who have fallen. To share in the mourning with those who mourn for the fallen, then, harms no one, nor does praying and suffering together with those who intercede for them, along with other things that are consistent with reason—namely, that those who have fallen should also perform other things that befit repentance. These are fasts and tears, other afflictions, and the keeping of penances; and if they have the means, the giving of money to the poor, through which He who became a mediator for us will render the Father propitious to us. He then also uses a scriptural testimony, which is from the first Epistle of the holy apostle and evangelist John.

CANON XII

^B For as to those who have given money so that they might be entirely untroubled from every malice, it is not possible to bring a charge. For they endured loss and expenditure of money, that they might not suffer harm to their own souls or even lose them, which others, for the sake of shameful gain, have not done; even though the Lord says: "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, yet suffers harm to his soul, or loses it?" and again, "You cannot serve God and mammon." For those appeared [to be] serving God, having hated, trampled upon, and despised money; and in this they fulfilled what is written: "The ransom for a man’s soul is his own wealth." For we also read in the Acts of the Apostles that those who were dragged in Thessalonica ^C on account of Paul and Silas before the politarchs were released with much money. For after they had greatly burdened them on account of the Name, and had stirred up the multitude and the magistrates, taking, he says, the security from Jason and the rest, they released them. And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea.

BALS. After the Saint had finished treating of those who of their own accord take refuge in martyrdom, he says that those who, by the handing over of money, kept themselves untroubled from the misery of tortures are not to be blamed. For they chose to suffer the loss of their money rather than of their own souls. ^D Then, confirming this very thing, he adduces various

Scripturæ exempla ex Actibus apostolorum de beato Paulo apostolo et aliis. ^A

ZONAR. Those who, he says, have given money and escaped, and have maintained piety for themselves, shall not be accused, nor will anyone bring a charge against them on that account. For they chose to lose money rather than their own souls, and they showed that they wished to serve God, and not mammon—that is, riches. He further brings forward words of Scripture, and an example from the Acts regarding the blessed apostle Paul and others. The statement that they were undisturbed by all wickedness, or that they were not troubled into an abjuration of piety—which surpasses all wickedness—the text calls the distresses of torments. ^B

CANON XIII

^B ∙ Whence neither can those who have left everything for the salvation of their soul and have withdrawn be blamed, as if others had been detained on their account. For even in Ephesus, they seized Gaius and Aristarchus in the theater instead of Paul, travelers with Paul, who wished to enter before the people: since the riot had occurred on account of him who had persuaded and transferred a great multitude to the worship of God. "The disciples," he says, "did not allow him." Nay, actually, some ^C of the Asiarchs, who were his friends, sent to him and begged him not to give himself up to the theater. But if any persist in contending with those who sincerely heed the one who says [b]: "Diligently save your soul, and do not look behind you," let them also be reminded of Peter, the prince of the apostles, who had already been cast into prison and delivered to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him [c]; who, having fled by night and been rescued from the hand of the Jews by the command of the angel ^D of the Lord, as he says, when day had come, there was no small stir among the soldiers as to what had become of Peter. Herod, having sought him and not found him, in examining the guards, ordered them to be put to death [d], regarding whom no blame is laid upon Peter: for it was permitted to them, having seen what had been done, to escape; just as all the infants who were in Bethlehem and in all its borders, if their parents had known what was to happen, would have done: who were taken away by the cruel murderer Herod, so that the one infant who was being sought by him might perish, who himself also, by the command of the angel of God, had fled, who had already begun quickly to take the spoils and to pasture keenly, according to [e]

the calling of his name, as it is written: "Call his name, quickly despoil, quickly plunder; because before the child knows to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria before the king of the Assyrians." The Magi, therefore, as already despoiled and plundered, ^A submissively and reverently worship the child, opening their treasures and offering to him most opportune and most fitting gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to a King and God and man; whence they were not permitted to return to the king of the Assyrians, being assisted by Providence. For, being warned, he says, in a dream not to return to Herod, they returned to their own region by another way. Whence the bloodthirsty Herod, seeing that he had been mocked by the Magi, was very angry. And having sent, he says, he slew all the children who were in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had accurately learned from the Magi. With whom ^B also, having sought to kill the other child born before him, and not finding him, he slew his father Zacharias between the temple and the altar, the child having escaped with his mother Elizabeth; for which they have no blame.

BALS. If, however, some, he says, left their possessions and departed, so that they might not be detained and fall into danger, as those who perhaps cannot persist to the end in the confession because of the cruelty of the torturers, they shall not be blamed, even if others were detained on their account. And he brings forward for this reason as an example Gaius and Aristarchus, who were detained in place of Paul: the soldiers who were guarding Peter: the infants who were slain by Herod ^C for the sake of Christ: and the father of the venerable and holy Forerunner, Zacharias.

ZONAR. If, however, some, he says, left their possessions and departed, so that they might not be detained and fall into danger, because perhaps they cannot persist to the end in the confession because of the cruelty of the torturers, they are by no means to be accused, nor even if others were detained and punished on their account. And again he brings forward an example from the apostolic Acts, saying that even at Ephesus Gaius and Aristarchus were seized in place of Paul; but Paul was not blamed for this. Nor was Peter, when ^D led out from the prison by an angel, when he indeed escaped the danger, but the soldiers who were guarding him were punished on his account. And he uses as an example from the Gospel those children who were slain by Herod; for, he says, they were not

blamed ^A by the Lord. And when Elisabeth had fled with John, and had kept him safe, his father Zacharias was killed, being demanded to give up the boy, but John for this reason was not blamed.

CANON XIV.

« If any, however, have suffered great violence and necessity, ^B and having received iron and bonds in their mouth, and having remained steadfast in the disposition of the faith, and having had their own hands brought to be burned [(16)] by the profane sacrifice against their will; as those thrice-blessed martyrs from the prison wrote to me concerning those in Libya, and other fellow-ministers also; such as these, with the other brethren also bearing witness to them, can continue in the ministry [and be] reckoned among the confessors, as also those who have been exhausted in many torments, and were no longer able to speak or to utter a sound or to be moved to resist those who were applying force in vain; for they did not assent to their abomination, just as I heard again from fellow-ministers [(17)]. And everyone, whoever he may be, who lives according to Timothy shall also be reckoned among the confessors, obeying Him who says: Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness; fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life, to which you were called, having confessed the good confession before many witnesses. » [1 Tim. vi, 11, 12]

BALS. ^C The canon decrees that those who, by tyrannical force, have appeared to eat meat sacrificed to idols or to drink wine from Greek libations (for perhaps the tyrants, having placed them on the ground and having cast gags, that is, irons, into their mouths so that they would always remain open, were pouring wine into their throats and throwing meat, or even having placed coals with incense on their hands, were compelling them, supposedly, to sacrifice), if they are clerics, shall [remain] again in their own rank, as being reckoned with the confessors; but as for laymen, they are to be accounted as martyrs, because they did not do these things out of their own choice, nor did they assent at all to the action. Just as those who were paralyzed by the necessity of the torments ^D and were not able to resist those who were pouring wine from the libations into their mouths, will also be counted with the confessors. Next, he speaks regarding those who complete the martyrdom of their conscience, and he numbers them also with the confessors.

ZONAR. Those who were tormenting the holy martyrs, after many torments [inflicted] on some, by force [applying] to their mouths [index: entries preserved]

wine from the libations, or even putting into their mouths something from the meats sacrificed to idols, and placing incense in their hands, were dragging them to the altar, and holding their hands by force, they poured the incense onto the altar, or even placed coals with incense upon their palms, so that they, not enduring the agony from the burning, would pour the incense together with the coals onto the altar; for they were held by [the tormentors]. [Balsamon] says that such persons are able to be in the ministry, or rather, to be ranked among the confessors; for not by their own will did they taste of the libations, or cast the incense upon the altar, but by force, their minds not consenting to the act. Just as those who, by the necessity of the tortures, have had the strength of their body paralyzed, so that they can neither move nor speak, and cannot resist those who by force pour the wine of the libations into their mouths—these also shall be ranked among the confessors. And next he speaks of those who perform the martyrdom of conscience, and he counts them also among the number of the confessors. ^B

CANON XV

« Let no one reproach us for observing the fourth and sixth day [of the week], on which it has been reasonably commanded us by tradition to fast. The fourth day, indeed, because of the counsel held by the Jews ^C for the betrayal of the Lord: the sixth day, however, because He suffered for our sake. But we keep the Lord's day as a day of joy, because of the One who rose on it, on which we have received not even to bend the knees. »

BALS. Consistent with the sixty-fourth Apostolic canon, which decrees that we should not fast on Saturdays, except for one Saturday, namely the Great [Saturday]; and with the sixty-ninth canon, which severely punishes those who do not fast during the holy Quadragesima, and on every fourth and sixth day, the present canon also decrees.

ZONAR. It says that one should always fast on the fourth and sixth days of every week; and no one shall reproach us for fasting; and it adds the reasons. But it is not right to fast on the Lord's day, since it is [a day] of joy on account of the Lord's resurrection; nor, it says, have we received that we should bend the knee on it. Therefore, one must note the word "we have received," and the phrase "it has been commanded to us by tradition," because it is evident from this, too, that long-standing custom has been accepted as law. Furthermore, the great Basil adds the reasons ^D for which it is forbidden to bend the knee on the Lord's day, and from Pascha until Pentecost. Read also the sixty-fourth Apostolic canon, and the sixty-ninth.

VARIAE LECTIONES

(18) Canon 15. In the manuscript 2058, this title is prefixed to this canon: *Of the same, from the discourse on Pascha...* that he suffered for our sake. The same from the discourse on Pascha. The fourth day, indeed, because of the counsel held by the Jews for the betrayal of the Lord; the sixth day, because He suffered for our sake; for we keep the Lord’s day as a day of joy, because of the One who rose on it, on which we have received not even to bend the knees. (19) *Regarding the fourth day...* Cotelier in *Const. Apost.*, lib. 3, cap. 59, completes and restores this canon from the royal MSS as follows: ... And thus in like manner from the cited royal codex and others Harduin has supplied the passage.

CANONICAL EPISTLE OF SAINT GREGORY, ARCHBISHOP OF NEOCAESAREA, WHO IS CALLED THE THAUMATURGE

Concerning those who in the incursion of the barbarians ate food offered to idols or committed other transgressions.

CANON I.

^A Food does not burden us, most holy Pope, if the captives ate things that those who hold dominion over them set before them; especially since there is one report among all, that the barbarians who made incursions into our regions did not offer sacrifice to idols. The Apostle says: "Food is for the belly, and the belly for food; but God will destroy both it and them" (1 Cor. vi, 13). And the Savior, too, purifying all foods, says: "Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what comes out" (Matth. xv, 11). And also regarding the captive women who were corrupted by the barbarians acting insolently toward their bodies: if the life of any had been condemned even before, by walking after the eyes of fornicators, as it is written, then naturally the pornographic habit is suspected even in the time of captivity. And one should not easily ^B communicate in prayers with such kinds. But if indeed some who

have lived in extreme temperance, and have shown their life to be pure and far from any suspicion, have now fallen into shame or disgrace by force and necessity; we have an example which is in Deuteronomy, concerning the young girl whom a man found in the field and lay with her by force: "To the young girl," he says, "you shall do nothing; there is no sin of death in the girl: for as if any man should rise up against his neighbor, and kill his soul, so is this matter; for the young girl cried out, and there was none to help her." ^A These things, to be sure, are thus.

BALS. The Saint, being asked what ought to be done to those Christians who have been taken captive by the barbarians, and who have eaten the idolothyta placed before them by them, answered: These foods do not weigh upon them, that is, they do not bring grave damage; and especially because there is one consensus among all, or rather because all say that the barbarians who made incursions against us did not sacrifice to idols. ^B He also produces testimonies from the Apostle and from the Gospel; from the Apostle indeed: "Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods; but God will destroy both it and them." This apostolic passage speaks about repletion and gluttony; and by "foods" he names things that are superfluous and delicacies; and by "belly" he meant voracity, not the stomach. By these things, however, the Apostle says that overeating and luxury belong to gluttony, but do not lead to God; and the vice of gluttony is familiar to luxury, and one serves the other. But God will render these idle and ineffective, so that no one may be harmed by them. ^C From the Gospel, he used the words of the Gospel which say: "What enters into the mouth does not defile a man." Then also concerning captive women whom the barbarians forced: and he says that if indeed their former life was suspect, the licentious habit makes them suspect even in the time of captivity. And for this reason one ought not easily to pray with them, but after having submitted, that is, to the imposed penances. A habit is a long custom, even strengthened by time, which even resembles nature; so that those who are not such, having been violated, have not sinned. And he used as an example the law which is had in Deuteronomy, ^D of the virgin to whom shame was offered by force in the wilderness. And the things which pertain to the canon consist in these. But the Saint seems, from that which he said, that grave damage is not brought to those who ate the idolothyta placed before them by the barbarians, and from that which he says, that all fully know that the barbarians did not sacrifice to idols, and from that which he uses, the apostolic words which discourse about luxury and gluttony, and likewise the evangelical ones which treat the same, not to have made a simple answer, but one which is divided into those who ate idolothyta of their own will for the sake of luxury; into those who ate by force, compelled by the barbarians; into those who [did so] on account of nature

^A for food, and those who were forced to this by the barbarians, [though the latter] had not sacrificed to idols. From which, it also seems to me that not one of these will be blameless. For those who ate these things out of luxury will be subjected to greater penalties; those [who did so] out of necessity and for the nourishment of the body, as having no other way to be fed, will be punished less severely. And the rest, because of the defiled eating, will be punished more moderately, because even the holy man says that it is not a grave [sin] to eat idolothyta placed before [one] by those who did not sacrifice to idols: yet, it is not altogether beyond all reproach. But someone might ask: since the 14th canon of the blessed Peter, archbishop of Alexandria and martyr, holds that those who ate idolothyta by tyrannical force, and in such a manner sacrificed, are not to be punished, but rather are to remain in the clergy, if they are clerics, how does this present letter determine that those who ate idolothyta were not severely harmed, so that it appears from this that they were only moderately harmed?

Solution. The holy martyr Peter, in his 14th canon, maintains that even in the very act of eating the sacrificed things, the athletes were martyrs and bore witness. For he says that even an iron instrument was thrust into their mouths and their hands were burned, and, to say it once, they did not consent at all to eat idolothyta or to sacrifice to idols. But this present canonical letter treats at the beginning [of the case where] captives ate the idolothyta placed before them by force, but were not ^B also, at the very time they were eating, compelled by tyrannical violence; and for this reason, he wishes them, as those who altogether yielded to the will of the tyrant, to be punished moderately.

And I, for my part, think that just as it is not entirely blameless to eat idolothyta by the force of barbarians who had not sacrificed, so too is it not [entirely blameless] to endure barbarian defilement by force; for this too will be punished moderately. For even the civil law says in book LX, title 38, chapter 12, theme 6: "And she who has been defiled by enemies and has returned is accused by her husband—though not rightly by the husband—if she did not suffer this by force, and in such a way he pardons her who was forced, and does not dissolve the marriage." But the ecclesiastical law will not allow her who has been altogether defiled by a barbarian to be pure without a penance. Read also the 113th novella of the emperor ^C lord Leo the Wise, which says at the end of these things: "In no way, therefore, do we decree that he who has remained untried by captivity should come to the union of another," and the rest. And such a novella abolishes the 117th novella of Justinian, which is situated in book 25, title 7, and says, "There is a time when such a marriage may be dissolved"; yet such a novella has place when the captive woman has not been defiled by the barbarians. But if something of this sort has happened, those [rules] which are in the said chapter of the 60th book have place.

ZONAR. When barbarians attacked the Roman regions and plundered them, those who were taken captive by them tasted of idolothyta, or even other forbidden foods. Therefore, [the] man was asked about these ^D

^A things, and he says that if the captives ate things placed before them by those who had taken them captive, this is not grievous—meaning, it does not cause grievous harm—and all the more because there is one consensus among all, namely, that all say the same thing: that the barbarians who raided our regions did not sacrifice to idols, so that the captives did not eat idolothyta either. He produces declarations both from the Apostle and from the Gospel: from the Apostle, [the passage] "Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods," and what follows. But this passage speaks of gluttony and voracity. By "foods" he names superfluous things and luxury; by "belly" he means gluttonous desire, not the stomach itself. Through these things, the Apostle says that overeating and luxury belong to gluttonous desire, but do not lead toward God, ^B and the passion of gluttonous desire is accustomed to luxury, and one serves the other; but God will render these things of no effect and vain, so that no one is harmed by them. This holy man seems to use the apostolic words in this place, showing that things done out of luxury and overeating are condemned and are deserving of penance, but not those committed out of necessity and physical compulsion; so that even if the captives ate some of the forbidden foods, being slaves and [doing so] because of the lack of other food, with nature itself compelling them to be fed, this is not to be considered grievous, as if it were a sin. And from the Gospel, he used those words of the Lord which say, "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man"—and these also tend toward the aforementioned meaning. Then he also speaks concerning the women captives who were defiled by the barbarians. And he gives an opinion: ^C if, on the one hand, their former life had been condemned, their fornicating habit makes them suspect, even in the time of captivity; and for this reason, one ought not to communicate with them in prayer readily, but certainly after they have served the times of penance. For "habit" is a long-standing custom, and one solidified by time, which resembles nature, so that such women as these are not to be thought to have sinned because they were forced. But if their former life was sober and blameless, and having been enslaved and having endured the insult of the barbarians through the violence of captivity, they are irreproachable. And he uses as an example the legislation in Deuteronomy concerning the virgin who has been violated, whom someone ruined in the wilderness, which says: "There shall be to the young woman no sin of death."

CANON II

to be excommunicated—that is to say, clearly cast out of the Church and separated from the fullness of the faithful—so that through them the wrath of God might not come upon everyone, and above all upon those who preside, who do not seek out and examine such persons. Then he adds scriptural testimonies as well, and toward the end he brings forward: "If any, however, having been punished on account of the avarice that occurred on their part during the time of peace, have again sinned in the same way during the incursion of the barbarians, such persons," he says, "do not only draw down the wrath of God upon themselves, but also upon the whole ^B people."

BALS. During the time of the barbarian incursion, certain of the orthodox snatched the goods of those who had been taken captive, which had escaped plunder. Being asked regarding these, the saint says that every avaricious man is excommunicated from the Church—that is, cast out and alienated. For those are called excommunicated sons who, on account of certain charges, are alienated from their paternal inheritance. Moreover, for someone to dare such an evil act in a time of such calamity, and to consider the misfortune of the brethren an occasion for gain, is the work of men who are impious and hateful to God, and who surpass all impropriety. Whence it was judged [best] to excommunicate such people—meaning, to expel them openly from the Church and to separate them from the community of the faithful—lest on their account the wrath of God come upon all, and especially those who preside, who do not seek out and question such people. Then he ^C brings in also testimonies of Scripture, and near the end he infers: "If, however, those who, on account of their avarice which occurred in the time of peace, were punished, have in the repeat incursion of the barbarians committed the same sins, such ones," he says, "not only attract the wrath of God upon themselves, but also against all the people." Since these things are so, note from this present epistle that it is permitted to bishops to restrain the power of those greedy for gain by means of penances; and those who snatch the goods of the orthodox that were left behind after the captivity, to punish with great ecclesiastical corrections; but those who are not such plunderers, to punish more moderately; so that bishops, from such cases, may also judge laymen with authority in such matters. For how shall they punish them if the truth has not appeared first? ^D As for the fact that on account of avarice one is excommunicated from the communion of the faithful, it is a grave matter, and woe to the avaricious! The civil law, however, [punishes] him who plunders from a fire or from the collapse of houses...

within a year, by a fourfold penalty, and after a year by a simple one. Read the first chapter, title 20, of book 60. Similarly, those who plunder from a house under military attack are punished with a pecuniary penalty. For the second theme of the third chapter of the same title and book says this explicitly: If anything is plundered from a house or village that is being attacked, it is a matter of law.

ZONARAS. In the time when the populace was being plundered during the persecution of the martyrs, some of those who had escaped broke into the houses of those who had been taken captive, and they plundered the things that had been left behind by the barbarians. ^B Being asked about these men, this great Father says that all avarice is forbidden by the divine Scriptures, and it is impossible to encompass in one letter all that the Scripture discusses regarding avarice; but he says briefly that every avaricious man is cast out from the Church, that is, ejected and estranged. For children are said to be disinherited when, because of some crime, they are cast out from their paternal inheritance and are deprived of all rights of kinship. But that “in a time of disaster,” when men were lamenting—some having been taken captive, others because their loved ones were led away into slavery, others due to the loss of their property—some dared to consider such a time as an opportunity for gain, this is the mark of impious men, hated by God, or rather abominated by God, and beyond all wickedness. ^C It was therefore decided to cast out such men, that is, to expel them openly from the Church and to separate them from the multitude of the faithful, so that the wrath of God might not come upon all because of them, and especially upon those who preside and who neither inquire about nor punish such men. He brings forward Scriptural testimonies and then adds: if some, on account of avarice practiced previously, and even before the incursion of the barbarians having paid the penalty, not only did not repent (now this admits a double sense: for he understands "paying the penalty" either as the punishment inflicted by God, who, to avenge an injury of the previous time, sent the barbarians, or as "paying the penalty" in the sense of being punished by the bishops' fines for previous avarice, yet not repenting), but—what is more—in the time of the wrath of God, for which the barbarians came, they turned themselves to avarice, ^D gaining profit from the blood and destruction of men whose lives were ruined, or of captives who were slaughtered. And in order to explain that phrase, "gaining profit from blood," he added the following: "For," says he, "whether they plunder the property of men who are being led into captivity, which is a destruction, or of men who have been killed; what else is to be expected, but that on account of avarice, they heap up wrath for themselves and for all the people, that is, to draw the anger of God upon themselves and upon the people?" And he produces an example from ancient history, that because one man sinned, many were punished.

CANON III.

CANON III

related to the anathema, and did not the wrath come upon the whole congregation of Israel? And though this man alone sinned, he did not die alone in his sin. ^A To us, whatever is not our own, but belongs to another, should be deemed in this time of gain as an anathema. For Achar indeed took from the spoils, and these men now take from the spoils; and he indeed took the things of the enemies, but these now take the things of their brethren, gaining pernicious profit.

BALS. Having said that the holy man decrees that those who seize what belongs to the captives, and what was left behind from barbarian plunder, should be cast out from the faithful, and that because of those who so often sin and are not corrected, the wrath of God is heaped upon the people, he introduces for the confirmation of these points the history written in the Book of Joshua, son of Nun, concerning Achar. For it is recorded that when Joshua had proclaimed that all things to be taken as spoil from Jericho were to be dedicated to God, Achar, after the capture of the city of Jericho, having stolen a wedge of gold and a certain garment, hid them in his tent. And because God was angered on account of this, the Israelites were defeated in battle. And because the cause of the wrath of God was unclear, a lot was cast, and it fell upon Achar. And he, being examined, confessed the theft and produced the stolen items; and he himself was stoned, and all those with him, and his animals, and all his goods. And he says: "Behold, one sinned, and took away from what was dedicated to God, and because of his sin many of the congregation of Israel perished in battle"; and again, the vengeance came not only upon him, but upon all his family. And against one who might perhaps say that there is a difference between things dedicated to God and things belonging to private individuals, the holy man takes a stand, and argues that the present rapine is worse than that avarice, both because the things left behind by the brethren in the time of the plunder by the barbarians are considered as things dedicated to God, and because, even if the things stolen by Achar and the things stolen by these men have an equality, in that both were acquired from spoils or captivity, yet the culpability of the latter is greater. For Achar took from the enemies; but those who now have the desire for gain have seized the property of their brethren, regarding the calamity of the latter as a pernicious profit. Note the present canon for the sake of those who seize the property of churches and monasteries, and, to speak once for all, for the sake of those who appropriate all things dedicated to God.

ZUNAR. It is written in the Book of Joshua, son of Nun, that when Joshua was besieging Jericho, he proclaimed that all things therein were anathema to God. And when the city was captured, Achar, having stolen gold and a certain garment, hid them in his tent. And because God was angered by this, the Israelites were thereafter defeated in battle, and many fell. And when the cause of the wrath of God was sought, the lot fell upon Achar; and he, being examined, confessed the theft, and the stolen items were brought forward; and he was stoned, he and all his family, and his animals, and all his goods. And he says: "Behold, one sinned, and took from the anathema to God, and because of his sin many of the congregation of Israel perished in the battle; and in return, the vengeance happened not only to him, but also to all his family." Against one who might perhaps say that there is a difference between things dedicated to God and those belonging to private individuals, the holy man resists, and makes out that the present rapine is worse than that, because the things belonging to the brethren left over at the time of the plunder of the barbarians are considered as dedicated to God; and that even if the things stolen by Achar ^B and the things stolen by these men have an equality, since both were acquired from spoils, that is, from captivity, yet the cause of the latter is greater. For Achar stole from the enemies, but those who are now covetous have stolen the things of their brethren, having considered the misfortune of the latter as a pernicious profit. Note the present points for those who steal the property of the churches and of the monasteries, and, to put it simply, for those who appropriate all things dedicated to God. ^C

ZUNAR. It is written in the Book of Joshua, son of Nun, that when Joshua was besieging Jericho, he proclaimed that all things in it were to be dedicated to God. But after the city was taken, Achar, having taken away gold and some garment, buried them in his tent. For which cause, God being angry, the Israelites were defeated in battle after these things, and many fell. Moreover, when the cause of the divine wrath was being sought, by the casting of lots Achar was designated; and ^D

he, being examined, confessed the theft, and brought forth the stolen goods; and he and his wife and his children and his tent and his animals were stoned. ^A Behold then, he says, one sinned, and many Israelites perished in the war, indeed all those others. Furthermore, this great Father magnifies the avarice of that time, and, comparing the two, demonstrates that this crime is graver than that committed by Achar. For Achar, he says, took from the spoil what he stole, and these men likewise from the spoil; but he took the goods of enemies, while they took the goods of their brethren, which makes the evil greater. Then he adds, regarding those who say, "We found these things cast away by chance, with no one claiming them, and we did not know whose they were," and he sets against them the things which are held in Deuteronomy and Exodus, and he says to those who were speaking of such things, the Father says:

CANON IV

BALS. It is likely that some had said that they had not seized the things of their captive brothers, ^C but that they had found them cast aside, and did not know whose they were, and therefore no blame falls upon us. Therefore, against them the holy man sets in opposition Deuteronomy and Exodus, and says that even if someone finds things cast aside and neglected at such a time, and does not know their master, not even then is he permitted to profit from them. For he ought to guard them until their master learns of them and seeks them. Then he adds that if, according to the Mosaic law, it is not permitted for anyone to claim as his own things belonging to others—even if these be friends, or enemies, and even if they be neglected in a time of peace—but one is compelled to restore them to their masters, even though they live luxuriously and delicately, and ^D do not even look after their own...

^A affairs, how much more is he who finds the goods of a brother who is suffering misfortune, who has been taken captive, or is fleeing the barbarians, and who, in such great necessity, has left behind his own property neglected, bound to restore them to the man who is faring so ill! The saint ^B has decreed these things; and he teaches thereafter how those who have plundered such goods ought to be punished, as well as those who have not plundered them, but have merely found them; and, furthermore, those who, after finding them, do not restore them.

The civil law states explicitly in topic 5, chapter 43, title 12, book 60: "He who takes another’s property that has been thrown away with the intent of profiting from it, even if he does not know to whom it belongs, is liable to an action for theft; unless, perhaps, the master has abandoned it so that he has no care for it at all. For then, even if he took it as if stealing it, since it has ceased to be his, he is not held for theft. For theft does not occur unless there is someone from whom the theft is committed." But if he thought that something which was not abandoned was abandoned, he is not a thief; and if it was not abandoned, and he did not think it was, but he took it with the intent of giving it to the master when he was found, he is not liable to an action for theft, even if he receives a finder's fee.

Likewise, chapter 61 of title 3 of book 50 provides: "If anyone had detained property left vacant by one who is absent, he was not formerly held liable by the interdict concerning force, or by the interdict *Quod vi aut clam*, unless by an action to vindicate ownership, in so far as the master was absent." We, however, wish that such a person, as one who is a possessor, be held liable by the general interdict concerning force; for it is ridiculous to say that people thought that which belongs to another was their own, just as we said concerning the action for double damages for theft, that he who handles something against the mind and will of the master commits theft. ^C We say this, however, provided that the thirty-year period has not passed since he took possession of it.

Note the things written here concerning the goods of captives. Read also book 34, title 1, chapter 17, which says: "The masters who formerly owned the fields recover them when they are taken back from the enemy; for they are not in the category of booty, nor do they become public property. For things taken from enemies do not become public." Note, therefore, that according to both the canons and the laws, not only are those who plunder or seize the goods of those who have been taken captive punished and held liable, but also those who say they have found an immovable object or something left ^D vacant, and do not immediately make the matter known, and do not guard it in the master’s name; these shall be punished according to the ecclesiastical law, and according to the civil law they shall be punished either as thieves, if the object is movable, or by the interdict concerning force, if it is immovable.

When, however, that which is found is neglected—what is called by the laws "abandoned"—the one who has taken possession of it is not punished in the same way; but if the object is movable, he is compelled to restore it, and only then, if he has not become its master, as a possessor in good faith, within three years; but if it is immovable, that which was held as abandoned, if he has not become its master, within ten years. There is a great difference between what is "vacant" and what is "abandoned." For what is vacant, we possess by intention, even if we do not possess it naturally; but what is abandoned, we possess neither civilly nor naturally; and therefore, from a good...

-faith possessor, its ownership is acquired. ^A However, these things have no place regarding those things that belong to captives; and therefore, those who hold them and do not restore them, as was said above, are strictly held liable and are punished.

ZONAR. That no one should deceive himself, as if he had found his brother’s property perhaps abandoned and lying neglected. For even if he should find it so, it is not permitted to make a profit from it and to claim the property of another as one's own, even if perhaps he does not know the master of the property; for he is obligated to take it and to keep it until the master thereof knows of it and seeks it. And he brings forward passages from Deuteronomy and Exodus, saying thus: If in a time of peace your brother or your enemy should lose his own property through negligence, it is not permitted to you, upon finding it, to make it your own gain, but the ancient law commands it to be kept for him who lost it; how much more, ^B if you should find property of your brother who has fled or who has been led into slavery, left behind by them, is it necessary to keep those things and restore them to the one oppressed by misfortunes?

CANON V

BALS. After the holy man ^C had replied in a fitting manner to those who said that they had found the property of the captives as if cast away and neglected, and for that reason had claimed them as their own; he now replies to those who were claiming for themselves what belonged to the captives in place of their own property which had been previously taken away from them by the enemies. For he says that this too is a deception and a vain pretext. For it is not just that those who suffered loss from the barbarian war should not bear it patiently, but that they themselves should become enemies of their brethren, and that others should be called barbarians toward them. Therefore, he says, we sent the brother ^D Euphrosynus to you, so that according to the pattern handed down here, or just as we have done here, he might give the pattern there also so that you may act thus. Then he says that the same Euphrosynus will teach [you] whom it is fitting to admit as accusers against others, and whom it is necessary to exclude from the Church and from the communion of the faithful.

ZONAR. Some, he says, having lost their own property and finding another’s, claim to hold them in place of what they lost, deceiving themselves. For what, he says, the enemy, the barbarians, were to them, this they themselves become to their brethren. The barbarians seized their property, and they [seized] that of their brethren. Therefore, he says, we have sent Euphrosynus to you, so that according to the pattern observed here, you also

may act there, and [know] whose accusations against certain persons you ought to admit, and whom it is fitting that you reject—that is, whom you should eject from the Church and separate from the faithful, so that they may not pray with them. Now, whose accusations one ought to admit, the sixth chapter of the second ecumenical synod teaches. What is written there must also be read. ^C

CANON VI. «Concerning those who by force detain captives from the barbarians. It has been reported to us that something incredible has taken place in your region, entirely [the work] of infidels and impious men, and of those who do not even know the name of the Lord: that certain persons have proceeded to such a degree of inhumanity and cruelty as to detain by force certain captives who have escaped. Send some persons into the region, ^D lest even lightning fall upon those who do such things.»

BALS. The saint learned that certain orthodox captives, having escaped the hands of the barbarians, are held by force by some [people] and are not allowed to return home. He says, therefore, to those to whom this epistolary letter was sent, that this seemed incredible to him; for it is the work of infidels and impious men. But if it has happened, it will not remain unpunished. And therefore they ought to inquire into these matters diligently, and to send those who will investigate them into the region. For he considers that a thunderbolt, or fire, is about to fall from heaven and consume those who do these things.

ZONAR. Some, he says, as we have learned, hold by force captives who have escaped from the enemies; these are entirely infidels and impious, and do not even have the knowledge of God. The holy man therefore requests those to whom he writes to send men into the region to inquire about the matter, so that, he says, fire may not fall from heaven and consume those who do these things. He said this to indicate the gravity of the crime.

CANON VII. «Concerning those who have been numbered among the barbarians, and who have dared certain absurd acts against their own kin. Those, therefore, who have been numbered among the barbarians and have joined them in captivity, having forgotten that they were Pontians and Christians, having become brutalized and turned into barbarians, so as to kill their own kin by wood or by strangulation, or to show ways or houses to the barbarians who are ignorant [of them]—they must also be restricted from hearing [the liturgy], until something is commonly decided concerning them by the gathered saints, and before them, by the Holy Spirit.»

BALS. Those, however, who after being taken captive have agreed with the barbarians, and have become like barbarians with them, and have killed their own Christian kin, or have shown the barbarians ways unknown [to them] that lead to Christians, or have made their houses manifest to the enemies—it is decreed that they are not to be admitted even to the hearing of the divine praises; but that they are to be stationed entirely outside the church in the place of the weeping, after their confession or condemnation, of course, until the saints gathered together commonly decide concerning them. He calls the bishops saints...

or the faithful simply, following the example of the great Apostle Paul. ^B And he added the words, "before them to the Holy Spirit," showing that whatever is settled in common deliberation by the bishops, or even simply by the faithful, the Holy Spirit suggests those things to those deliberating about them. And the ecclesiastical law punishes them in this way; but the civil law subjects such men to the charge of lèse-majesté. For it says in chapter 1 of title 13 of the 5th book: "The law concerning conspirators is similar to that concerning sacrilege. And he is held by it who has acted against the Roman people, and who has with evil intent ensured that hostages be killed without the order of the prince; or that armed men be in the city against the state, or that places or temples be occupied, or that a seditious assembly be formed, or that a magistrate be killed; and he who has sent a message, letters, or a sign to the enemy, or in any other way has brought aid to them, and has solicited or incited soldiers to sedition or riot against the state." And in chapter 3 of the same title and book: "He who has solicited the enemy, and has betrayed the state to them, is punished with death." ^C And thereafter the chapter discourses on certain other similar matters. And these things indeed concern those who were led into captivity and agreed with the enemies, and likewise those who were not led into captivity, but nevertheless agreed with the enemies and conspired against the Roman Empire. But those who have plundered together with those who ravage land and sea will be punished more, as it seems to me, because their wickedness is greater. For enemies prepare war with an open front and, as they say, with head bare; but robbers plot their unexpected slaughter secretly and in hiding. Therefore, by as much as the battle of foreseen danger is lighter than an unexpected evil, by so much is the assault of enemies more tolerable than the snares of robbers.

CANON VIII

^A BALS. After the saint has treated at length concerning those who have snatched away or found the goods of certain captured persons, so far as concerns the account of the penalties, he now begins to speak also of the forms of repentance, that is, of ecclesiastical penalties. And he immediately decrees that those who have snatched away such a property of a captive, and have not returned it, but have waited for accusation and conviction because of their denial, should not even stand with the hearers, but with the mourners outside the church. But as for those who have reported themselves and of their own free will have given back what they took before a lawsuit, he decrees that, on account of their repentance, they should pray together, that is, stay with the faithful; yet they are to be prostrate, because they are forced to go out with the catechumens. And the ecclesiastical law indeed punishes them in this way; but the civil law does not accept, even if they offer what was snatched by them before conviction, but condemns them to quadruple [the amount]. For the chapter 6, title 17, of the 60th book says: "The ravisher is not freed from the penalty by offering the thing before the lawsuit." And theme 7, of chapter 2 of the same book and title: "Within a year, the true value is quadrupled, but not that which is interest." What the saint says here, however, concerning those who return the thing before conviction and accusation, the law orders to be done for those who have taken something from someone due to fear. For the theme 4, of chapter 13, of title 2, of the tenth book says: "The lawsuit due to fear is permitted; and it is allowed for the person sued to restore the thing up until the verdict, and not to give the quadruple." There is also another difference between those who take away things violently and those who take something from someone due to fear: for the plunderers are branded with infamy along with the retribution of the quadruple, but those who have caused fear incur only some stain on their reputation. ^{B C} ZONAR. But those who have invaded strangers’ houses and snatched away possessions from there, these, he says, if indeed they have been accused and, denying it, are convicted, let them be prohibited—like those we mentioned above—from hearing, and let them be relegated to the rank of the mourners; but if they expose themselves, or before being accused confess the hidden crime and return the things that were taken away, let them be placed in the rank of those who are being converted from sin, that is, the order of the prostrate, who indeed pray with the faithful when they enter the temple, but for the rest leave in the manner of the catechumens. ^D

CANON IX.

^A or which were not taken away by the barbarians, or which were even thrown away along the roads, perhaps because of their weight, if they restore the found items in good faith, they ought to stand in the perfect rank with the faithful. But if they are condemned, they are to be placed with those who are submissive, that is, to leave with the catechumens. Given that these things are so, one might say that it is most just that those who await condemnation for the sake of restoring the found item should be punished in this way, since they are also held by the action for theft, according to the law which says: "He is a thief who handles another’s property against the will of the master, knowing that it is troublesome to him." But that he should stand with the faithful, yet not be deemed worthy of the sacraments, even though he reported himself and dutifully returned the found item, is something new; for he is rather worthy of the Eucharist, as one who has saved the captive’s property and restored it. And for this reason, some say that he should be placed in the station with the faithful, and should tacitly attain the participation of the sacraments.

ZONAR. The barbarians, while plundering the region, seized goods; and then, either having met with better men, or being burdened by the weight and unable to carry what they had seized, they threw some away in the fields, and deposited some in the houses of certain people, where perhaps they found better things. Whoever, therefore, it says, found something in the fields or in their own houses, these, if they are accused and convicted, let them be placed among the submissive; but if they report themselves and return what they found, let them also be deemed worthy of the prayer: that is, let them stand with the faithful until the end of the prayer, only being kept away from holy communion; that is, until they show repentance and be deemed worthy of this also.

CANON X

BALS. Having approved the good will of those who reported themselves and dutifully returned the found item, the saint adds that if they wish to be considered observers of God’s commandment, they must return the found item without any shameful gain. For it has been decreed that he who finds should not demand from him who was a captive any reward for information, or for custody, or for finding, or anything else, because the loss did not occur through the negligence of the masters or even by chance, but through a great calamity and a barbarian incursion. For those who find goods lost through the negligence of masters or by chance, and restore them, rightfully demand a reward for finding, just as this is apparent from the laws set down above.

ZONAR. The saint ^D determines that one should act more kindly toward those who declare the found property belonging to another.

he decreed. But lest those making known the recovery of goods demand a reward, or whatever one might call such a thing, he added that one ought not to demand anything from someone who is benevolently returning the property of another, but rather fulfill the command without base gain. For it is truly a shameful gain to demand something from a person who has lost their own property during times of distress, and not to return them for free. ^A

CANON XI. • Weeping or mourning is outside the gate of the oratory, where the sinner must stand and ask the faithful who are entering to pray for him. ^B Hearing is inside the gate in the narthex, where the one who has sinned ought to stand until the catechumens reach, and from there depart. For he says that he [should be one who is] hearing the Scriptures and the teaching, let him be cast out, and let him not be counted worthy of prayer. Prostration is to stand inside the gate of the temple, and to depart with the catechumens. The standing is so that he may stand with the faithful, and not depart with the catechumens; lastly is the participation of the sacraments. ^C

BALS. The present saint, while having outlined the five places of those doing penance, did not declare the times of their exercise, nor indeed the sins on account of which the penance was defined. But the great Basil, in his canonical epistles, handed these things down with precision. Yet even he left the healing of punishments to the episcopal judgment. ^D

OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE TO AMUN THE MONK

All the works of God are good and pure; for the Word of God has made nothing useless or unclean. For we are the good odor of Christ in those who are being saved, according to the Apostle; but because the darts of the devil are many and manifold, and he prepares those who are simpler in mind to be troubled, and wishing to turn the brethren away from their accustomed exercise, he sows into them evil thoughts, come, let us briefly purge the deceits of the wicked, by...

the grace of our Savior, and strengthen the resolve of the simpler ones. For all things indeed are pure to the pure; but to the defiled their conscience and all things are defiled ^A. I marvel, however, at the sophistry of the devil, who, being himself corruption and ruin, suggests thoughts that appear to be full of purity; yet what is occurring is a snare rather than a test. For, as I said before, to distract the ascetics from their customary and salutary meditation, and that he might seem to prevail, he stirs up such trifles as these, which bring no use to life, but only empty questions and chatter, which one must reject. For tell me, O beloved and most reverend one, what sin or impurity is there in a natural excretion? As if one were to wish to make a charge out of the mucus discharged through the nostrils, or the spittle emitted from the mouth; and we could mention even more of these, the excretions of the belly, which are necessary to the animal for life. ^B Furthermore, if we believe that man is the work of God’s hands according to the Scriptures, how could a contaminated work come forth from such a pure power? And if, as is read in the Acts of the Apostles, we are the offspring of God, we have nothing in ourselves that is unclean. For we are defiled only when we perform a deed of the foulest odor, namely, sin. But when some natural excretion happens involuntarily, we endure this, like the others, by the necessity of nature, as we have said before. But since those who wish only to argue against what is correctly said—or rather, against what is created by God—misinterpret even an evangelical saying ^C (as that things which enter do not defile a man, but things which go out), we must by necessity refute this madness of theirs—I will not call it a question. For first, being unstable men, they distort the Scriptures according to their own ignorance. But the divine oracle says this: when some were disputing about foods, just as these people are, the Lord himself, clearing away their ignorance and exposing the deception to all, says: Not things that enter defile a man, but the things that go out. He adds after this, and from where they go out: from the heart. For he knew well that the evil treasures of profane thoughts and other sins are there. But the Apostle, having been instructed in this, says more briefly: Food will not commend us to God ^D.

Commentary on the Letter of St. Athanasius

if the organs were fashioned by the Creator? To this, let us silence them with an interrogative, saying: What use are you speaking of? Is it the lawful one, which God also permitted, saying, "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth," ^A which the Apostle also approved, saying, "Marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled"? Or do you mean the common usage, practiced secretly and adulterously? Since we find differences in other matters occurring in life; for example, it is not permitted to kill, yet in war to slay one’s adversaries is both lawful and praiseworthy. Thus, those who distinguish themselves in war are judged worthy of great honors, and pillars are erected for them, proclaiming their achievements. So it is that the same thing, in a certain respect and at a certain time, is not permitted, but in another respect and at the fitting time, it is released and allowed. The same logic, therefore, applies also to sexual union: "Blessed is he who in his youth," having an "unfettered yoke," has used nature for procreation; but if it is for lust, the punishment written by the Apostle for fornicators and adulterers will overtake them. For since there are two ways in life regarding these things—one more moderate and worldly, I mean marriage; the other angelic and surpassing all, I mean virginity—if someone chooses the worldly one, that is, marriage, he is indeed free from blame, but he will not receive such great gifts. For he will receive them, since he himself also bears the fruit of thirty. But if someone embraces the chaste life that is superior to the world, even though this other way is more rugged and difficult, nonetheless he is to be presented with more excellent gifts; for he has brought forth the perfect fruit, that is, the hundredfold.

Therefore, their unclean and wicked questions have their own solutions, long since brought forward from the divine Scriptures. Strengthen, therefore, O Father, the flocks under you, exhorting them with apostolic words. Soothe them with the Gospels, give them counsel from the Psalms: "Quicken me," you say, "according to thy word," and His word is this: that we may serve Him with a pure heart. For knowing this, the same Prophet, as if interpreting himself, says: "Create in me a clean heart, O God," ^C so that unclean thoughts may not disturb me. Again, David says: "And with a princely Spirit strengthen me," so that, if ever thoughts disturb me, a strong power from You may strengthen me, acting as a foundation. Therefore, advising these and such things, say to those who are slow to obey the truth: "I will teach transgressors thy ways," and trusting in the Lord that you will persuade them to abstain from such vice, sing: "And the ungodly shall be converted unto thee." May it come to pass that those who seek with evil intent may cease from such vanity; and those who, due to simplicity, are in doubt, may be strengthened by the princely Spirit; and as many as firmly know the truth, hold it unbroken and unshaken in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father be glory and power, with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

^A BALS. That most excellent Zonaras has wisely and skillfully interpreted this epistle, which deals with the fact that the natural excretion of semen—provided it happens either through illness or through a nocturnal vision that is involuntary and devoid of passion—is not unclean, and no one could have said it better; therefore, we deemed it superfluous for us to write anything concerning this. But gathering our thoughts, we say that if the natural flow of semen occurs from an involuntary nocturnal vision and without a preceding passionate desire, it is entirely free from condemnation, just as the epistle of Saint Dionysius to Basilides, which was set down above, discusses. ^B But if some passion has preceded it, perhaps from evil desire and assent, it is unclean, and he who has endured this shall be barred from the sacraments, and medicine shall be administered to him according to the judgment of the physician of his soul. For since there are three ways by which we are attacked by Satan—suggestion, assent, and result—if a nocturnal vision has occurred from suggestion alone, we shall be punished more lightly; but if, along with the suggestion, there has also been daytime assent, and thus a nocturnal vision has followed, and the result of excretion, we shall be punished more severely, according to the holy Scripture which says: "He who has desired a woman in his heart has already committed adultery with her." But if he who has a flow of semen in a nocturnal imagination resulting from assent is punished in this way, much more will an excretion occurring through self-abuse, which happens while awake and not while dreaming, be punished.

^C However, a flow of semen which occurs from nephritic disease, of the kind that includes gonorrhea and stones, is entirely blameless. For even if, according to the Mosaic law, those who suffered from a flow of semen were considered unclean, yet in another way, as far as our law is concerned, they are considered pure: since even those who suffered from the disease of leprosy were, according to the ancient law, cast out as unclean, but among us they dwell in the church and pray together, hindered in no way by the disease, but rather even welcomed.

^D Zonaras’ interpretation, however, is not set down here, because it looks more to the interpretation of Scriptural words and not to canonical teaching. To us, however, in this interpretation, there was no concern at all for rhetorical composition, or for the adornment and elegance of words, but for the interpretation of the words of Scripture, for canonical and legal doctrine, and for the interpretation of laws and canons which seem contrary, while passing over the rest, as they do not pertain to the present time and institution. Whoever, therefore, wishes to find the interpretation and explanation of the apostolic words, or of others pertaining to Scripture, let him resort to Zonaras or to other interpreters of them.

ZONAR. Being asked whether the natural excretion of semen is unclean, this great Father replied to the question that nothing of what has been made by God is unclean. But because thoughts are "sub-sown," that is, sent in by the evil demon, and...

the souls of ^A the simpler-minded are disturbed, let us, in a few words, dispel in God the deception of the evil one, and instead of trusting in God, let us establish the understanding of the simpler-minded.

Therefore, he begins his discourse by adducing a testimony from the Epistle of the holy Paul to Titus, and he says that "to the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled their conscience also is polluted." Now the blessed Paul says these things concerning the Jewish observance in foods, that of the things created by God, nothing is unclean by its own nature; but that to those who are defiled, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled; and they are defiled by sin and by thinking things that are unbecoming. Having by these words thus prepared the foundation, the great Athanasius adds his own writing: "I marvel," that is, I wonder, "at the devil's sophistry," that is, his deception, in that, being corruption and bane, he instills thoughts that seem to be of purity. But that which proceeds from him is an ambush, that is, a hidden scheme, and not a test. For in order that he may lead the ascetics away from their habitual—that is, their customary and beneficial—care, and seem to conquer them, for this reason he stirs up such "bombylia," that is, terrors or bugbears, which only produce a buzzing noise. For what, says he, has sin or what is unclean in a natural excretion? ^B It is just as if someone were to blame men for other excretions as well, such as for the mucus of the nose and spit, and whatever things are excreted, that is, cast out and voided, through the belly, which things, when excreted, are beneficial for life.

He also attempts another argument. For if we believe, he says, that man is the handiwork of God, how is it possible that anything unclean and polluted could be created by God? And if we are the offspring of God according to the Acts of the divine Apostles, we have nothing unclean within ourselves. For in the book of the Acts, the great Paul is recorded as speaking to the Athenians, and among other things saying this concerning God: "For in him we live and move and are, as also some of your own poets have said: For we are also his offspring." Now this was said by Aratus concerning Zeus, but the Apostle captured the meaning for the true God. The great Athanasius therefore used this for the support of his own discourse; as if to say, if we are the offspring of God, as is said in the Acts, we have nothing polluted or defiled. For we are defiled when we sin; but a natural excretion, occurring from the necessity of nature, does not defile.

^C As some people were objecting and bringing forward the evangelical words which say, "Not what enters defiles a man, but what comes out," he stands against this too, showing that the words are not well understood by those who object; and he says that when some were hesitant—that is, timid or wavering—about foods, as if they were defiling those who used them, the Lord, dissolving their ignorance, says that what enters does not defile or pollute, but what comes out...

indeed proceeds from the heart. And the Apostle also says, "Food will not bring us close to God." Having confirmed his discourse with these arguments, this great Father then adds: "Someone might now say, quite reasonably: 'A certain natural excretion does not at all lead us to punishment.' And truly, physicians, he says, will respond about this, that nature expels semen as a kind of excrement. For to the animal are given passages, so that through them each member may cast out what is superfluous. The excrements of the head, he says, are the hair, and the fluids emitted through the nostrils and mouth, and the evacuations of the stomach or even of the whole body; but the excrement of the seminal passages is the semen. What sin, then, he asks, is there in the emptying of this semen, in the way that God, who formed man, willed and ordained?" ^B But that no one might object against these things, saying: "Since, as you say, there is no sin in the discharge of semen, as it happens naturally, neither shall its true use, namely intercourse, be reckoned as a sin; because the organs serving it were fashioned by God"—he questions the supposed objector: "What use do you speak of? The legitimate one, or the one practiced secretly and lustfully? For the legitimate one God permitted, saying, 'Increase and multiply,' and the great Paul has granted it, saying, 'Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled'; but the other use is forbidden." This, he says, we shall immediately find to be the case in many other actions of this life. For example, killing is forbidden, but in war to slay enemies is praiseworthy and held worthy of great honors. Thus, the same thing is in one respect not permitted, but in another it is permitted, and it admits of a difference of times, persons, and other circumstances. ^C Such, therefore, is the case also regarding intercourse. And he brings forward scriptural usages for this. Then he discourses also about marriage and virginity; and he says there are two paths, namely, marriage and chastity. If, therefore, someone chooses marriage, he has no blame, nor will he be condemned for this. Nevertheless, he will not receive as many gifts as he who has lived in virginity. For he too, he says, will receive, since he bears the thirtyfold fruit. For if, according to the great Paul, "Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled," he who has lived chastely in wedlock, and has served the command of God through the procreation of children, He who said, "Increase and multiply," and who endures cares and toils because of his offspring, so that he may nourish them and educate them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, he also bears the thirtyfold fruit, just as the blessed Paul says that women will be saved through the bearing of children. ^D But if someone, he says, should embrace the pure and heavenly path, he will receive more marvelous gifts; because the path is, at the first approach, rugged and very difficult. And by "at the first approach" is to be understood either the already mentioned path of marriage, or from the beginning. For he who chooses to live in virginity, while the flesh happens to be prone to pleasures, and especially regarding those of intercourse, undergoes necessity from the beginning, as nature yearns towards the passion; and more so when a person is young and

flourishes; therefore it was said "compared to the former." ^B But when it inclines toward old age, even if the fire of the passions is not extinguished even then, it does, however, become softer. Having said these things, he adds that their impure questions have already been resolved by the divine Scriptures, and he exhorts the one who asked to strengthen those under him, and he uses various Scriptural citations; then, having turned his discourse to prayer, he completes the epistle. These things, then, the great Athanasius says regarding the natural excretion of semen.

Dionysius of Alexandria, in his epistle to Basilides, says these things: "Those who have experienced an involuntary nocturnal discharge should follow their own conscience, and consider within themselves whether or not they are in doubt regarding it. Just as with foods, the one who doubts, he says, if he eats, is condemned; so in these matters too, let every one who approaches God be of good conscience and possess liberty of speech, according to the thought conceived in his mind." ^C What he says is of this kind: that he who has undergone the flow of semen should examine himself; and if some passion has preceded it, perhaps from an evil thought and consent, and this way the flow of semen followed, he who has suffered this is by no means pure; but if nothing of the sort preceded it, nor is he in doubt because of anything of the sort, and his conscience is not defiled, let him approach the holy things.

Some, however, say that the great Basil forbids those who have suffered something of this kind from the reception of the holy things. For this holy man, being asked, as it is written in his Ascetic writings, whether one ought to dare to admit to the communion of the holy things a person to whom something happens from custom or nature, replied: The Apostle taught that he who in baptism was buried together with Christ is superior to nature and custom: sometimes saying that "Our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that we might no longer serve sin"; ^D and at another time commanding, "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry, for which the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience"; and at another time laying down a limit in saying, "Those who are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and desires." I, however, know that these things were corrected by the grace of Christ in men and women by a sincere faith in the Lord; but that one who is in uncleanness should approach the holy things, we are taught even from the Old Testament of the formidable judgment. And if there is more here than in the temple, then it is evidently more fearful. The Apostle will instruct us, saying, "He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself." From this response, therefore, some have opined that the great Basil considers the flow of semen to be uncleanness; but this is not the case. For he does not speak concerning a flow without imagination, nor even of one that occurred with imagination, but without any passion, from which no desire preceded; or even if it did precede, it did not remain, but was sent away when the better [faculty] prevailed.

so that not even an act of assent occurred, nor was the mind defiled by this. ^A And this will be understood by one who pays attention to the very writing of that great Father. For the steps of the Apostle, which he used for the establishment of his own argument, make mention of sin and impurity and evil desire. Regarding these, he secures his own judgment, saying: "That one who is in a state of impurity should approach the holy things," and the rest. One would not say that the great Basil named the seminal discharge, which happens without passion, an impurity. For to say that is a slander against the flesh; yet in many discourses he philosophized that the body is not an evil, nor the source of wickedness, as some might think. Nor should anyone think that he speaks in opposition to the great Athanasius, whose words all the holy Fathers reverently admire above all else. But in any case, the great Basil did not name the seminal discharge an impurity, but rather the evil desire; when this is dominant, sin in thought is also completed through consent. And thus a fantasy occurs during sleep and a discharge of seed. And from his saying as well that "I know that these things were set right by the grace of God in men and women," it is shown clearly that he speaks of a discharge of seed occurring with fantasy, preceded by the passions and sin in thought. For this is a virtuous achievement: to escape the consent, and the defilement of the mind through it, but not the not-desiring, which is not to have an initial impulse of thought. For that belongs to nature or to stupidity; but not to bow down to desire, nor to consent to the thought, nor for the sin in thought to be completed—that is both virtue and an achievement. Nor will it be considered an achievement for someone not to have a discharge of seed. For this is natural; and thus, when it happens, it is blameless; but also, I think, no one will avoid the natural flow entirely, unless someone be extremely stupid.

Of the same, from his thirty-ninth festal epistle, mutilated at the beginning.

^D But since we have made mention of the heretics as dead, and of ourselves as having the divine Scriptures for salvation; and because I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, a few of the simpler ones might be led away from their simplicity and purity by the craftiness of certain men, and henceforth begin to read other books which are called apocryphal, deceived by the similarity of these titles to the true (80) books, I ask you to bear with me if I write of those things you know well, acting in this way because of both necessity and the usefulness of the Church. And as I am about to mention these, I shall use for the confirmation of my own bold intention the form of the evangelist Luke, saying also myself: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken" to set down for themselves the so-called apocryphal books, and to mix these with the divine…

Scripture, which has been inspired by God—in which we have been fully instructed, just as they delivered them to the Fathers who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word—it seemed good to me also, being prompted by true brethren and having learned from the beginning, to set forth in order the books that are canonized and handed down and believed to be divine, so that each man, if he has been deceived, might condemn those who led him astray; and he who has remained pure might rejoice, being reminded again. There are, then, of the Old Testament, in number all the books twenty-two; for so many, as I have heard, are the elements also that have been delivered to be among the Hebrews. And in order and by name each is as follows: First, Genesis, then Exodus, then Leviticus, and after this, Numbers, and next, Deuteronomy. ^B Following these is Jesus son of Nave, and Judges, and after this Ruth; and again in order, the four books of Kingdoms; and of these, the first and second are counted as one book; the third and fourth similarly as one. After these are the books of Chronicles, first and second, similarly counted as one book again; then Ezra, first and second, similarly as one. After these is the book of Psalms, and next Proverbs; then Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. In addition to these is Job, and then the prophets, the twelve being counted as one book; then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and with him Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle; and after him Ezekiel and Daniel. Up to this point the books of the Old Testament stand. ^C But it is not to be shirked to speak also of those of the New; for these are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John. Then after these, the Acts of the Apostles, and the seven so-called Catholic Epistles of the apostles—thus, of James one, of Peter two, then of John three, and after these, of Jude one. In addition to these, there are the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, written in this order: first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians; and after these to the Galatians, and next to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians, and to the Colossians; and after these, two to the Thessalonians, and the one to the Hebrews; and immediately, two to Timothy, and to Titus one; and lastly, the one to Philemon; and again, the Apocalypse of John. ^D These are the fountains of salvation, so that the one who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles within them; in these alone is the school of godliness proclaimed. Let no one add to these, nor take anything away from them. Concerning these, the Lord put the Sadducees to shame, saying: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures"; but He exhorted the Jews, saying: "Search the Scriptures, for they are they which bear witness of me." But for the sake of greater accuracy, I add this also, writing it of necessity, that there are also other books outside these—not indeed canonized, but framed by the Fathers to be read by those who have recently come forward and wish to be instructed in the word of godliness: the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. And yet, beloved,

even while those are canonized and these are read, there is no mention of the apocryphal books ^A anywhere, so that they might not have a pretext for deceiving the innocent.

BALS. The last apostolic canon enumerates the books of the Old and New Testament that ought to be read. But here the saint, as it seems, having learned that some, wishing to deceive those who are untarnished in piety—that is, those who have nothing lacking, nor anything complex or twisted, but are simple—say that there are also certain other books ^B which are of perverted doctrines and are called apocryphal; he himself wrote down the books which ought to be read. Do not marvel, if you find that the apostolic canon enumerates other books as well: but read what is written in the aforementioned apostolic canon.

ZONAR. Here the great Athanasius makes an enumeration of the books of both the Old and the New Scripture that ought to be read by the faithful, so that some, being deceived, might not read the so-called apocryphal books—which are not sound and from which the untarnished ^C—that is, the guileless and easily deceived—are harmed. The eighty-fifth canon of the holy apostles also enumerated these before him. But this Father, as far as their number is concerned, does not agree in all respects with that last apostolic canon in his enumeration. For the apostles counted Esther, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Maccabees; but he has omitted these. And among the books of the New Scripture, the divine apostles enumerated their own Constitutions written by Clement; but he has omitted these. He did, however, add the Apocalypse of the Theologian. ^D After his enumeration, he says that there are other books outside of these, not canonized, but read, which he says are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobias, and the doctrine called of the Apostles, which they say are the Constitutions of the Apostles written by Clement, which the so-called Sixth Synod does not permit to be read, as they were forged and corrupted by heretics. But those called apocryphal books, he says, are neither found among the enumerated books, nor among those ordained to be read outside of them—that is, the non-canonical ones. The saint designates the "canonical," or books brought into the canon, from the "canon" or "rule," which is a piece of wood that craftsmen use for the straightness of wood or stones. For by applying the rule to the things they are working on, if they find any obliquities, swellings, or protrusions in them, they scrape them away to straightness and thus rectify the work. This, therefore, is what reasoning does in the case of these books like a rule, distinguishing them from those that are not sound, but are perverted: admitting and approving the former and proposing them to the pious to be read, while [rejecting] the others.

them condemns, and forbids by law. Seek also what are written in the last canon of the holy apostles.

EPISTLE TO RUFINIANUS

To my lord son and most desired fellow-minister Rufinianus, Athanasius sends greeting in the Lord.

Thou indeed, as befits a beloved son toward a Father, writest; and so, drawing near to me through thy letter, I have embraced thee, most desired of all to me, Rufinian. But although I could have written to thee, as to a son, in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end, I refrained, that recommendation and testimony might not be made manifest through letters. For thou art to me a letter, as it is written, ^A known and read in the heart. So therefore believe, and feel thyself to be loved, and believe it. I greet thee and exhort thee to write; for not a little, but greatly dost thou delight me by doing so.

Since, however, thou hast asked in a scholarly and ecclesiastical manner, as befits thy piety, concerning those who have been drawn away by necessity, but have not been corrupted in their faith, and hast wished me to write what was decided concerning them in the synods and everywhere; know, my most desired Lord, that in the beginning, when that violence had ceased, a synod was held, with bishops from the outer regions present; another was held also among thy fellow-ministers residing in Greece, and likewise among those who dwell in Spain and in Gaul; and it pleased them, as it did here and everywhere, that for those who have fallen and were leaders of impiety, ^B pardon should be granted if they repent, but that no place in the clergy should be given to them; but to those who were not leaders of the impiety, but were drawn along by necessity and violence, it was decided that pardon be granted, and that they should have their place in the clergy; especially because they brought forward a plausible defense, and it seemed that this was done in a way that was economical. For they affirmed that they had not changed over into impiety; but that, lest certain most impious men, having been appointed to the episcopacy, should corrupt the Churches, they preferred to concur with the violence and bear the burden, rather than that the peoples should be destroyed.

We deemed that they did not speak these words without reason; because they especially brought forward, as an example, Aaron, the brother of Moses, ^C as having concurred in the desert with the transgression of the people; yet that he had this excuse, namely, that the people might not return to Egypt and remain in idolatry; for this certainly seemed agreeable to reason; since, remaining in the desert, they could make an end of the impiety, whereas if they had entered into Egypt, they would have been involved and increased in impiety. Therefore, on account of these things, their return to the clergy has been granted; for to those who were deceived and suffered violence, pardon is easily given.

These things I signify also to thy piety, trusting that thy holiness will accept what has been decided, and will not condemn the leniency of those who thus assembled. Deign to read these things to the clergy ^D and to the people who are under thee, so that they too, knowing these things, may not find fault with thee for being thus disposed toward such persons. For it would be unbecoming for me

^A to write, when thy reverence is able to announce our disposition toward them, and to supply all that is lacking. Grace be to the Lord who has filled thee with all speech and all knowledge. Those, therefore, who do penance should openly anathematize, explicitly by name, the perverse doctrine of Euzoius and Eudoxius. For they, as patrons of the Arian heresy and blasphemers of Christ, have written that He is a creature. Let them also confess the faith declared at Nicaea by the Fathers, and prefer no other council to this one. Greet the brethren who are with thee; those who dwell with me greet thee in the Lord.

Commentary on the same Epistle to Rufinianus

BALS. Concerning those who have eaten of things sacrificed to idols and those who have sacrificed to idols, the council of Gangra and the canons of the holy Peter, archbishop of Alexandria and martyr, treat ^B more amply. The present letter of the holy Athanasius deals with those who have communicated with heretics and are now approaching the Church. For the saint, writing to Rufinianus, who had asked him, says that those who did not fall away and communicate with heretics, nor did they become leaders and advocates of the impiety, are indeed admitted to penance; however, if they are clergymen or otherwise in holy orders, they are not deemed worthy of the priesthood. But those who were not authors of the impiety, or who did not by their own authority and will communicate with heretics—but were dragged by force from piety into impiety—if they are clergymen, they are deemed worthy of pardon, and are not alienated from the clergy; and all the more so, because they assert that they were not brought over to the impiety, that is to say, they did not agree with the opinion of the heretics, but communicated with them by a certain plan, so that, if they were expelled from the churches, other impious persons would not be introduced in their place to corrupt the orthodox people. They seemed, therefore, he says, ^C to say these things plausibly, using also the example of Aaron. For he, when Moses had remained longer upon the mountain, and the people of the Hebrews were seeking gods, yielded to their transgression and permitted a molten calf to be made for them. He did this, however, so that the people, having returned into Egypt, might not remain in Egyptian idolatry, reasoning that, since they were in the desert, they would be able to desist from impiety: but if they were in Egypt, they would be even more impious, following the customs of the Egyptians. And concerning those who have taken holy orders, he says these things. To those laymen, however, who have been deceived or have suffered violence, pardon is given, when they are received and canonically provided for by the bishops, as they are beholden to anathematize the things of the heretics openly, that is, in church, and to confess the orthodox faith of Nicaea. ^D *Ekecheiria* (armistice) is called rest and cessation of work, which is also called *vacatio remissa* (remitted leisure), from the holding back of hands, as it is a holding back of the hands. Note, therefore, from the present letter, that they are punished in one way who alone communicated with heretics by force, in another way those who agreed with them and defended the impiety, in another way those who fled to the impiety, in another way those who communicated with them and sacrificed, in another way those who ate things sacrificed to idols by force, and in another way those to whom force was applied for this very purpose, that they might eat.

and, to speak once for all, these require a great examination, since they are also difficult to cure.

ZONAR. ^A This question is not about those who sacrificed to idols and thus fell, but about those who communicated with heretics, namely, the Arians. For the Arians, having as their allies the emperors Constantius and Valens, and from this being very powerful, forced many to join their opinion. After these later repented and approached the Catholic Church, Rufinianus, being a bishop, asked what method ought to be observed in admitting men of this kind. To which interrogation the great Athanasius replied that, many synods—local ones, that is—having been held concerning these men, it was decreed that regarding those who had fallen by communicating with the heretics, and who confessed that they held the same views as them, and not only this, but were also the ringleaders of the impiety—that is to say, those who were its champions and patrons, and who strove to persuade others that their opinion was safe—if they repent and join themselves to the orthodox Church, there is indeed a place for penance and pardon; but they shall by no means be admitted to obtain a place in the clergy. ^B For even if they had perchance been bishops or clerics, they shall in no wise be received into the rank of sacred men, but shall be as laymen.

But as for those who were not the authors of the impiety—that is, who did not communicate with the heretics out of their own authority and voluntary intent, but were dragged into it by necessity and force, or rather, who consented to the impiety by force and were drawn away from piety (for just as one who is swept away by a violent rush of water is not carried by his own choice, but is dragged along by force; so too, those who were overcome by the violence of the heretics were swept away and succumbed)—it was decided, he says, that pardon should ^C be granted to those who repent, and that the place of the clergy should also be assigned to them. And it is not only because they succumbed under force that they are pardoned, he says, but because they also offer a plausible defense, by which it seems that their yielding to the heretics was done out of prudent management. For they confirmed—that is, they proved clearly—that they had not been in the least led into impiety, that is, that they had not acquiesced to the opinion of the heretics, but had held to the right faith; but that they only communicated with the heretics so that, when they themselves were driven from the churches, other impious men would not be introduced ^D who would corrupt the churches, that is, the orthodox people. And for this reason they chose to yield to the force and bear the burden of the penance, because of the appearance of having submitted, rather than to ruin the people.

These men, he says, therefore seemed to speak with plausibility, using also the example of Aaron. For he, when Moses tarried on the mountain and the people of the Hebrews were seeking gods, yielded to the transgression of the people and permitted a molten calf to be made for them. He did this for the purpose that the people, having returned to Egypt, might not persist in the Egyptian idolatry, reasoning with himself that, being in the desert, they would be able to depart from impiety; but if they were in Egypt, they would act more impiously.

when they can; but when they have come into Egypt, they follow the customs of the Egyptians more, lest they be impious while imitating the manners and rites of the Egyptians. For this reason, he says, they are admitted even into the clergy. But forgiveness is granted to those who have been deceived and have suffered violence. These things must be understood concerning laymen who have been deceived by heretics, or forced and have consented to their dogmas; to whom, he says, if they repent and approach the Church, forgiveness is granted, and they are received and ordered according to the laws prescribed by the Fathers, namely the ^B canons. ^B And these things I have written, he says, trusting that what has pleased us will also be approved by you, and that you will not condemn those who have thus assembled for ^C an armistice ^C. The meaning of these words is as follows: That you will not condemn us who have assembled in this way, that is, for the purpose of deliberating concerning those who have communicated with heretics, as having assembled in vain, idly, and for no purpose, as if we perhaps had determined nothing timely regarding them. For an armistice (ἐκεχειρία) is inactivity and idleness, derived from "holding back the hands" (ἐπέχειν τὰς χεῖρας), being a kind of cessation of activity. Then he adds what those who repent ought to do, saying: Let them openly—that is, publicly, in the churches—anathematize these things and profess the faith defined at Nicaea. And what follows.

OF OUR HOLY FATHER BASIL, ARCHBISHOP OF CAESAREA IN CAPPADOCIA, TO AMPHILOCHIUS, BISHOP OF ICONIUM, FIRST CANONICAL EPISTLE.

^D Το the foolish man who asks ^D, he says, [*] wisdom shall be imputed. But the interrogation of a wise man, it seems, makes even a fool wise; which, by the grace of God, happens to us as often as we receive the letters of your industrious soul. For we become more learned and more prudent than we were from the very interrogation, learning many things which we were ignorant of; and the care of answering serves us in the place of a teacher. Certainly even now, when we have never hitherto reflected anxiously upon the things you have inquired about...

we are compelled to examine them accurately, to recall whatever we have heard from the elders, and to ^A calculate for ourselves the things akin to what we have been taught.

ZONARAS

CANON I

The fullness of the Church, as Paul says in the Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, is Christ, from whom the whole body, supplied and compacted through the joints and ligaments, grows with the growth of God, that is to say, with the supply and communication made to the members united to one another from the first to the last. He, therefore, who first cuts himself off from the whole body does not immediately depart from it entirely; because he is not yet united to another, but still clings to that from which he was severed—for such is the nature of those who are divided. But he who is subsequently added to one who has been severed is cut off and completely disconnected from that body to which he had clung. For it is not possible that the same person be united to two things at once. And just as a member torn from the body dies, as the life-giving virtue is not supplied to it from thence, so also this man, being dead, ^D that is to say, to the priestly spirit which he had received and to which he was united, falls from the grace, and becomes henceforth a layman in relation to him to whom he attached himself, receiving no longer the priestly grace—not only because he is incapable of it, being now dead in another way, but because he to whom he has approached cannot confer it. For the communication occurs through the joints and ligaments. But having cut himself off from those to whom he was joined and bound, he possesses what he received, but is not able to receive anything else, and consequently cannot communicate it to others; not only because he does not possess it, but because he is not even naturally constituted to communicate—neither his own, for he is severed from those, nor another's, because it is impossible. For how could a member of the body communicate any efficacy to another member, or to one that has been cut off from its own body?

^A For the ancients decided to accept such baptism as departs in no way from the faith. Whence they termed some things heresies, some schisms, and others parasynagogues. Heresies are those who have been completely severed and alienated in the very faith; schisms, those who have dissented from one another for certain ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions; and parasynagogues, the assemblies held by insubordinate priests or bishops and by uninstructed laity. For instance, if one, having been examined for a fault, is suspended from his ministry and does not submit to the canons, but usurps the presidency and the ministry for himself, and some people go away with him, leaving the Catholic Church, this is called a parasynagogue. A schism, however, is to differ regarding repentance from those who are of the Church. Heresies, on the other hand, are such as those of the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionists, and these very Pepuzenians themselves; for the difference concerns the very faith in God itself. It seemed good, therefore, to those of old ^B to entirely [reject the baptism of the heretics].

[The commentary text continues in the Latin column:]

But surely he would never have used such indulgence, if he had believed that baptism departs or does not depart from the faith according to whether the form prescribed by Christ is violated or observed. Finally, he decrees in canon 47 that the Encratites are to be baptized, even though they say, "We were baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." He rejected that baptism, therefore, not because the rites of baptizing were violated, but because the Encratites, as he witnesses in the same place, considered God the author of evils, just as Marcion and other heresies did. ^C ... [regarding] "and schisms." Some codices have "and parasynagogues."

...[did Basil] understand? Firmilian, or his predecessors, or his successors? He does not speak of Firmilian; for he sets forth his opinion, which differs not a little from this one, below. If he speaks of his successors, there will be nothing ambiguous, nothing that is not accurately stated. For since Firmilian had made no distinction whether baptism was given in heresy, or in schism, or in parasynagogues, as is evident from his letter to Cyprian and from this very canon; some portion of that severity was later refined, and that distinction which Basil mentions was introduced. But Basil seems to designate bishops older than Firmilian. For these words, "those of old," indicate quite aptly those who were the first to deal with baptism. ^D Furthermore, Basil expresses wonder that Dionysius, who was a contemporary of Firmilian, departed from this distinction in receiving the baptism of the Pepuzenians. He believed that this had already been in force even then. Now, this opinion of the holy doctor is not only unlikely of its own accord, but is refuted by Firmilian himself, who testifies that he had received his opinion from his elders. "Nor do we remember," he says in in the letter among the Cyprianic [letters] 75, p. 149 in the new edition, "that this ever began among us, since it has always been observed there, that we should acknowledge only one Church of God, and we should count holy baptism only as belonging to the holy Church." Firmilian therefore believed that the distinction between heretics and schismatics in baptism was unknown to his elders: it seemed far otherwise to Basil. Whence it is evident that those highest of men, Firmilian and Basil, were in error while each traced his own opinion further back than was just, one from the apostles themselves, the other from times passed before Firmilian.

^A to reject them, but to admit those of the schismatics as if they were still of the Church; yet to have those who were in the parasynagogues, once they are improved by worthy repentance and conversion, join the Church again, so that often even those who were invested with a rank, having been led astray along with the insubordinate, may be received into the same rank after they have repented. The Pepuzeni, therefore, are clearly heretics, for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, wickedly and shamelessly applying to Montanus and Priscilla the title of the Paraclete. Whether, therefore, they are to be condemned for deifying human beings, or for insulting the Holy Spirit by comparing Him to human beings, they are in either case liable to eternal condemnation, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. What reason, therefore, is there for the baptism of these people to be accepted—those who baptize in the name of the Father and the Son ^B and Montanus or Priscilla—since those who were baptized into things not handed down to us were not baptized? Hence, even if great Dionysius overlooked this, we must not follow the imitation of error. For how absurd this is, is manifest from the outset and evident to all who possess even a slight capacity for reasoning. The Cathari are also themselves among those who have separated. However, it seemed good to the ancients—I mean those around Cyprian and our own Firmilian—to subject all of these, the Cathari, the Eucratites, and the Hydroparastatae, to a single verdict, because the origin of the separation took place through schism, and those who departed from the Church no longer had the grace ^C of the Holy Spirit to give to others. For the gift of the Spirit ceased when the transmission was interrupted by those who were the first to have apostatized; for those who had fallen away had become laymen, and they had no power either to baptize or to ordain, nor could they bestow the grace of the Holy Spirit upon others, from which they had themselves fallen away. Therefore, those who were baptized by them, being baptized by laymen, were ordered to be purified by the true baptism of the Church, as if they had been baptized by laymen. But, as I have said, the holy fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council determined that certain heretics should be received as if they were returning to the Church, through the anointing with the holy myron, as we have often said, while others—those who are not of this sort—should be baptized as if they were pagans. One must therefore examine the specific nature of each heresy, and thus decide according to the canon of the great Basil and the decisions of the later councils.

^A For the grace of the Holy Spirit had departed, since the transmission was broken by the interruption of the succession. For those who first withdrew from the fathers possessed ordinations, and through the laying on of their hands held the spiritual gift; but those who were broken off, becoming laymen, had the authority neither to baptize nor to ordain, no longer being able to bestow on others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen. Therefore, since those baptized by them were baptized by laymen, they ordered those coming to the Church to be cleansed by the true baptism of the Church. But since it seemed entirely to some in Asia, for the sake of economy for the sake of the many, that their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted.

But we must understand the evil deed of the Encratites (12), that in order to make themselves unacceptable to the Church, they proceeded to forestall their own reception with a baptism of their own; and from this, they corrupted their own custom. I think, therefore, that since there is nothing clearly laid down concerning them, it is our duty to reject their baptism; and if anyone has received it from them, when he approaches the Church, he is to be baptized. (If, however, this should be an obstacle to the general economy, one must again make use of the custom, and follow the Fathers who dispensed the things concerning us. For I fear, lest, while we wish to make them reluctant to baptize, we might be an obstacle to those who are being saved because of the severity of the injunction.) But if they keep our baptism, let this not cause us confusion. For we are not bound to repay them like for like, ^B but to serve the exact observance of the canons. But let it be fixed by every argument that those who come from their baptism (14) are to be anointed in the presence of the faithful, clearly, and thus approach the mysteries. And I know, brothers, that we have received Izoinus (15) and Saturninus, who were of that order, into the seat of the bishops. So that we can no longer separate those who are joined to their order from the Church. ^C

^A Thus, we have issued a kind of canon regarding communion with them, by receiving the bishops.

BALSAMON

ZONARAS

^A In this place the great Basil teaches what heresy is, what schism, and what a parasynagogue; and he says that the baptism of heretics was altogether rejected, but that of those who have broken away is admitted. As for those who conduct parasynagogues (that is, illicit assemblies), he maintains that if they convert with worthy repentance, they are to be joined again to the Church, and indeed joined to the Church in such a way that they are often, that is to say sometimes, admitted to even the same rank. He demonstrates that the Pepuzenes, since they are openly heretics, must be baptized if they present themselves to the Catholic Church. For those who are not baptized according to what is handed down to us—namely, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—do not seem to be baptized at all. For how would someone who calls Montanus and Priscilla the Paraclete have been baptized according to the tradition of the Catholic Church?

But he says that it seemed right to Cyprian and to our own Firmilian (he calls Firmilian "our own," since he was bishop of Caesarea) that the Cathari, the Encratites, and the Hydroparastatae should all be re-baptized. For at Carthage, of which Cyprian was bishop, in a synod held most anciently of all, it was decreed that all who come to the Church, whether heretics or schismatics, should be baptized; for although schismatics are not deceived in any dogma, yet because they have been severed from the body of the Church, they no longer have in them the ^B abiding grace of the Holy Spirit. If, therefore, they do not have it, how will they communicate it to others? Nevertheless, this great Father says that, since it seemed good to some out of economy to receive the baptism of the Cathari, let it be accepted; and the second ecumenical synod, as has been said before, deemed it acceptable.

Regarding the Encratites, however, he asserts that their baptism should by no means be accepted. Yet he says that one should make use of the custom and follow the Fathers who managed our affairs, lest by too much rigor we make them more reluctant to approach the Catholic Church. And it is not the case that because they observe our baptism, we too, out of a sense of shame, must observe theirs. For we ought not to render favors to them, but to maintain exactness. In the meantime, however, those who come to us from them, he says, should be anointed with the holy myrrh, and so let them participate in the sacred mysteries.

The opinion of the Encratites was this: they abstained from all animal life and rejected marriage, calling it Satanic. Furthermore, they are said to hold the opinions of Marcion as well. "But since," he says, "we have already admitted into the see of bishops this man and that man who are from their number—namely, from the Encratites—we may no longer segregate and separate from the Church those who are joined ^C to their order, that is, those who are of the same mind as they. For having admitted their bishops, we have as if established a canon and a pattern for admitting the others through them." ^D

ARIST. A heretic is one who errs regarding the faith; but one who errs regarding some remediable question is a schismatic. Those who are disobedient, who gather...

^A themselves into parasynagogues. Baptism celebrated by a heretic is not to be received; but that which is celebrated by a schismatic or one in a parasynagogue is to be received. The Pepuzeni call Montanus the Paraclete; wherefore those who are baptized into him are not baptized. The baptism of the Cathari, the Hydroparastatae, and the Encratitae, even though it is not to be received because of the lack of the Holy Spirit among them, is nevertheless to be accepted for the sake of the economy.

Those who do not communicate with the Catholic Church are divided into three kinds: into heretics, into schismatics, and into those who gather in parasynagogues. And heretics, indeed, are those who have entirely alienated themselves from the faith in God; such as the Pepuzeni, the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionists, and many others. For the Pepuzeni call ^B Montanus the Paraclete, and they hold the two women who were joined to him in adultery, Priscilla and Maximilla, as prophetesses. They dissolve marriages indiscriminately; they pervert the Pascha; they confound the three subsistences of the consubstantial Godhead into one person; and they hold other impious opinions of this kind. The Manichaeans introduce two opposing principles, endowed with equal power; and they think that one is the cause of light, and the other of darkness. They deify the sun and the moon; they call the devil the prince of matter; they call marriage a command of the demon; they judge the distribution of alms to the needy a sin; they suppose that the Lord, having become incarnate, took on nothing human; and they disparage the cross, the death, and the resurrection as having never occurred in truth; and they proclaim myriads of other impious dogmas. The Valentinians deny the resurrection of the flesh; they reject the Old Testament, reading the prophets and interpreting them according to their own perception; they craft certain mythologies; and they say that Christ brought his flesh from heaven, and that he passed through the Virgin as through a pipe; and they utter other blasphemies of this kind in their ravings. The Marcionists are those who are interpreted as Messalians and Euchites, ^C whose heresy is multiform and has many names. Accordingly, all these, having turned from their heresy and approached the true faith, are baptized, because their baptism is regarded by us as nothing.

But schismatics are those who have separated themselves from the Church: such as the Donatists, and those who are called Cathari, and the Hydroparastatae, and the Encratitae. For if these return to the Catholic Church and anathematize their heresies, they are accepted as being already baptized, and are anointed only with the holy chrism. And those who gather in parasynagogues are bishops or presbyters who have been condemned ^D for certain crimes and have been removed from the ministry, and, not submitting to the canons but defending themselves with authority, have set up another presidency, and another liturgy, and another altar, and have persuaded others to be of their mind, so that they follow them and abandon the Catholic Church. For such men, when they perform penance and, through a memorable repentance and conversion, become better, are joined again to the Church as one body.

CANON II

BALSAMON. Regarding those who commit fornication and destroy their own fetuses by drugs or in some other way, it has been spoken of in chapter 10 of title 13 of the present work, and in canon 21 of the synod of Ancyra. The present canon, ruling that those who do such a thing are subject to the penalties of murderers, adds that there is no difference in the abortive fetus: for whether the thing aborted is unformed, or whether it is formed and bears the human character, the principle is the same. This was said on account of those who say that, since the seed cast into the womb is not immediately formed into a human being, but is first as it were blood, then hardens into human flesh, and then is modeled and formed into limbs and parts, there is no murder committed when abortion of a fetus that is not yet formed takes place. The saint further adds that the retribution for murder occurs not only because of the destruction of the fetus, but because of the plot which the pregnant woman prepared against herself. For in most cases, mothers also perish along with the miscarriage. ^C He says that the penalty should not be extended until the end of the life of the one who committed the murder, but limited to ten years. And such a time, even if it has been canonized, nevertheless requires that the remedy be defined not by time, but by manner. That is, if she who has sinned is disposed with contempt toward repentance, not only will the ten-year period be completed, but she will be further penalized; but if she acts earnestly, the ten-year period will also be shortened. And such is the present canon. But you should read canon 91 of the synod in Trullo, and what is within it, and the end of canon 8 of the present epistle; and you will learn that not only is she who destroyed the fetus subject to the canonical penalty of a murderer, but also she who gives embryo-killing poisons, and she who has them, and she who received them, even if they did not kill the fetus. ^D Since the present canon punishes such a woman with a ten-year penalty, consistently with canon 21 of the synod of Ancyra, and with canon 56 of Saint Basil, saying thus clearly: "He who has involuntarily committed murder shall not be a partaker of the sacraments for eleven years"; some say that she who has deliberately corrupted the fetus that was in the womb commits involuntary murder. To me, however, it seems that she also commits voluntary murder, as this [can be gathered] from the end of

^A the eighth canon, and she rather places herself in the position of a suicide [alt-version omitted] if she ends her life by such a means; yet she is not subject to the penalty for voluntary murder because that which is being carried is not [yet fully] in the nature of a fetus, and because the murder was not plotted out of evil intent, but out of fear—which is not ignoble—perhaps of a parent, a master, or someone else threatening danger. That there is a destruction both of that which is being carried and of the infant that has come to the light ^B is evident from the book of Exodus; for that Mosaic book says: "If two men fight and they strike a pregnant woman, and the child comes out unformed, he shall be penalized exactly as the woman's husband shall impose. But if it is formed, you shall give life for life" (Exod. xxi, 22, 25). And from Canon 33 and Canon 52 [it is clear]. For it says that the one who has been negligent of the fetus shall be judged as for murder. But indeed, she who casts off the embryo out of negligence, as a murderess of her own embryo, is not subject to the penalties of murderers ^C.

ZONARAS. Certain women, having had illicit intercourse with men, conceive; but out of fear of parents, perhaps, or masters, or certain others, they endeavor to cast off the embryos by drinking certain drugs or by other methods, and they destroy the products of conception. Therefore, he decrees that those who do this are to be punished as having committed murder. Since, however, of the things that are cast off, some are still unformed, while others are formed and preserve the features of the human form (for the seed, when cast into the womb, is first turned into blood, then congeals into unformed flesh, then is fashioned and shaped into limbs and parts of a human), we do not, he says, scrutinize with precision whether the embryo that was cast off was unformed or whether it was shaped. For it is not the destruction of that alone ^D that is being punished, but also the plotting against the woman who is pregnant; for most of the time, he says, the women themselves also perish alongside the embryos, dying from their expulsion. Therefore, because of the plot against herself, and because of the destruction of the embryo, she is condemned with the penalty of a murderer; yet she will not be subject to the penalty until the end of her life, but for a period of ten years. And one should not limit repentance by time, but by manner: so that if she who has sinned is disposed with contempt toward repentance, not only will the decade be completed, but it will also be extended; but if she applies herself earnestly to the disposition of her sin, even the decade will be shortened; and he entrusts the whole matter to the judgment of the one overseeing her. In the end of the eighth canon, moreover, he also subjects those who provide the abortifacient drugs to the penalties of murder. He determines here the time for involuntary murder, while establishing this fine against women of this kind. For the fifty-seventh canon has this: "He who has killed involuntarily shall be for ten years excluded from the reception of the sacred mysteries."

^A We, however, says the saint, do not curiously scrutinize whether the fetus is formed or unformed. For these things are indeed consigned in the book of Exodus: "If two men fight and they strike a pregnant woman, and the child comes forth not formed, he shall be fined as much as the woman's husband shall impose. But if it is formed, he shall give soul for soul." Since, therefore, the ancient law, when the fetus was not yet formed, imposed a pecuniary fine for the abortion, but when it was formed, punished with death by ordering the one who had struck the woman to be killed—the saint, making mention of this law, says: We make no distinction whether the things being cast out are formed or unformed. For we do not impose a pecuniary fine, but we condemn the woman who did this for murder, both on account of the destruction of the fetus and on account of the woman from whom it is cast out, since it often happens that she herself also perishes along with the fetus.

ARIST. She who has intentionally destroyed a fetus, however she may have destroyed it, is held liable for homicide.

A pregnant woman, whenever she takes poison to destroy the child in the womb, is guilty of homicide, and we do not accurately examine whether the fetus is unformed or formed, because as a general rule the women themselves also perish together with the fetus, and so far as concerns their estimation, a twofold homicide is committed: one, that of the pregnant woman; another, that of the fetus. ^B Such women, therefore, are subjected to ten years of penance: for two years they shall be among the weepers, for three years among the hearers, for four years among the prostrators, and in the year [following] they shall be established with the faithful; and thus, after the decennium, they shall be partakers of the divine sacraments.

CANON III

A deacon who has committed fornication after his ordination shall indeed be cast out of the diaconate, but, having been thrust into the place of the laity, he shall not be barred from communion: because it is an ancient canon that those who have fallen from a grade be subjected to this one kind of punishment only; the ancients, as I think, having followed that law, "Thou shalt not avenge twice for the same thing," and also for another reason, that those who are indeed in the lay order, [having been] cast out of the place of the faithful, are again received into the place from which they fell; but the deacon has once, which suffices, the judgment of deposition. Since, therefore, the diaconate is not to be restored to him, they stopped at this punishment only. These, indeed, are the things which are gathered from the constitutions. In summary, however, the truer medicine is withdrawal from sin. Wherefore, he who for the sake of fleshly pleasure has treated grace with contempt, by means of the affliction of the flesh and ^C every kind of servitude according to the prescription of temperance, by withdrawing from the pleasures by which he was assailed, shall provide us with perfect proof of his cure. We, therefore, ought to know both things—both those which pertain to the highest law and those which pertain to custom: to follow, however, in those matters which do not admit of the highest law, the tradition which has been handed down.

^A BALS. The twenty-fifth apostolic canon, and the present one, speak regarding a bishop and a deacon; but the thirty-second canon of Saint Basil decrees that anyone initiated into sacred orders, if he has committed a sin unto death, is to be deposed only, but not separated from the communion of the faithful—that is, from assembling in the church. Here, however, the saint gives two reasons for this: one, the saying, "You shall not avenge twice for the same thing"; and the other, that while laymen, because of their sins, fall out of the assembly of the faithful and are restored again through repentance to the place from which they fell, those initiated into sacred orders do not return again to the priesthood from which they have fallen. Therefore, as they have in their deposition a punishment sufficient for their sin, they are not kept from communion. But these things, he says, belong to types or canonical constitutions. The true medicine of sin is to withdraw from it. For even if he who has committed fornication has been deposed, he does not appear to be punished in such a way as to also obtain mercy from God, if he persists still in his sin and does not appease God through other contrition. Therefore, the physician of these spiritual wounds must know indeed the highest law—that is, the punishment of a cleric who has committed fornication by deposition—but also that this does not necessarily follow so as to leave unpunished one who commits fornication after his deposition, as if he were already punished by the deposition; but rather that he should also separate him, even though he has taken the place of a layman, and punish him otherwise, according to the capability of the one to whom the medicine is administered. Read also the fifty-ninth canon of this epistle, which punishes one who commits fornication for seven years. ^C ZONAR. He asserts that deacons who commit fornication are indeed to be cast out of the diaconate, but are not to be kept from communion; and he adds the reasons: one, which is contained in the twenty-fifth apostolic canon—"You shall not avenge twice for the same thing"—and the other, that while laymen cast out from the fellowship of the faithful for crimes are restored through repentance to the place from which they fell, those initiated into sacred orders are no longer admitted into the sacred order from which they were cast out. As [they] therefore pay enough punishment for the nature of the admitted crime because of the imposed deposition, they are not forbidden from communion. But these things, he says, are found in the ^D constitutions, that is, they are defined by long-standing custom. Truly, he says that the universal medicine of sin is to withdraw from sin, and to bring the flesh into servitude through temperance and bodily afflictions—that is, to restrain and to tame it. It is necessary, moreover, for those who care for souls to know both things: those of the highest law, and those of custom; and if those who have sinned accept the things of the highest law, to deal with them according to its prescription; but if they harden themselves against the strictness—that is, against the extreme rigor—then to follow the handed-down type, that is to say, the custom.

^A ARIST. A deacon who has committed fornication, and has been demoted to the rank of the laity, shall not be barred from communion. The deposition of deacons is a sufficient judgment, since he cannot hope to receive back the rank from which he has fallen. And for this reason, no second penalty shall be imposed upon him, but he shall be deemed worthy of the divine communion without let or hindrance.

CANON IV

^C BALS. This great Father, having said that the ancient Fathers did not even call trigamy a marriage, but polygamy, or rather a restrained fornication—that is, not a scattered and reckless one, wandering without any discrimination, but one contracted and bounded within a single woman—and having ^D established from scriptural sayings that one who has fallen from the priesthood should partake of the holy things: if, however, even after the deposition he continues to sin, from that time forth he shall be punished as a layman who is sinning, and he shall be cast out even from the standing of the faithful, or he shall have some greater penalty. The so-called Tome of Union says these things regarding a third marriage: Those who are forty years old and marry for the third time, as a grief to the Church, shall be excluded from communion for five years, and when this time has passed, they shall approach communion once a year, on the day of the holy Pascha of the Savior, purifying themselves with the fast that precedes it as much as possible. We say these things when there are no children for them from the previous marriages; but if there are, the trigamy is unpardonable for them. But if someone who is thirty years old and has, from the marriages that have preceded, a succession of children, should be joined to a third wife, he shall be excluded from communion for four years, and thereafter he shall partake three times in the year: on the day of the Resurrection, Pascha, and in the Dormition of the Theotokos, and in the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, with the fasts preceding these believed to wipe away the greater part of the stain. But if he be childless, he is deemed worthy of leniency, choosing the third marriage for the desire of procreating children, and he shall be healed by the customary penalty, being barred from communion for three years. Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 5, tit. 3.

^A And since the holy Basil, having previously determined that trigamy is not a marriage, added that it too should be punished proportionately to digamy, it is evident from this passage that trigamy, like digamy, is not treated as a nullity ^B or dissolved, but is punished. Digamy, however, is punished for two years, but trigamy for five years; and let the trigamist stand in the place of the hearers for three years, and after that take his stand with the faithful for the remainder of the five-year period. Then, after he has shown fruits worthy of repentance, let him be restored to the place of communion. These are the words of the holy Father.

Regarding the Tome of Union

The Tome of Union, which was made under Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Romanus—while Constantine was emperor, and his father-in-law Romanus held the authority and dignity of an emperor's father—in the year 6428, indiction 8, and which is read annually from the ambo in the month of July, says this toward its end: "Henceforth, by common sentiment and judgment, we declare that from the present year, which is 6428, indiction 8, no one shall dare contract a fourth marriage, but it shall be considered utterly to be rejected; and if anyone wishes to enter into such a union, he shall be deprived of every ecclesiastical assembly and be a stranger to entering the holy temple itself, as long as he remains in that union. For this also seemed good to the holy Fathers who preceded us." And we, making our decision more explicit, cast him out as a stranger to the Christian commonwealth.

And so much for the fourth marriage. But in order that the regulations for other marriages may be established more decorously, and that the Christian life may have no unworthy arrangement, we also decree concerning the third marriage that it shall not be performed absolutely or as it happens. For it was permitted by the Fathers as a defilement, the act not yet being committed at that time as shamelessly as it is now, nor spread abroad so widely; but just as if someone, having neglected a heap of filth often lying in a corner of a house, later, when it has gained the freedom of the whole house and he considers it a matter of no shame or pollution to allow it to grow in volume, it has rightly seemed good to cleanse it; just as we would in no way allow an indecency not merely cast into a corner, but spread about the house, but we cleanse it and cast away the loathsomeness that results from it; so, yielding to human weakness while taking care of the decorum befitting the Christian life, we decree that this shall be observed in third marriages. Therefore, if anyone who has passed the fortieth year, neither reverencing nature ^C nor taking thought for the orderly life which is owed by Christians, but overcome by the sole perturbation of lust, throws himself into a third marriage, he shall be with all diligence and observation kept apart from the participation of the sacrament for five years, and by no means shall the time be shortened for him. For he who after his fortieth year has loved to be or to be called a person in the Church of Christ, what argument for a better life will he provide, for the sake of which the time of participation in the sacraments ^D should be shortened for him? But even after he has been judged worthy of the unpolluted participation,

^A it will not be permitted to him to approach the communion at any other time than only at the salutary resurrection of our Christ and God, on account of the purgation, as far as possible, by the preceding abstinence of the fasts. We say these things when there are no children present from previous marriages for those who, after their fortieth year, have chosen to take a third wife; for if they have children, a third marriage is in no way permitted to them. For it is very wicked to indulge untimely lust, but not to provide for the children of previous marriages so that they may be secure and removed from the molestation and perturbation and the rest of the things which usually befall men from the rearing of many children. ^B And if anyone, being thirty years of age, and having children from previous marriages, should be joined to a third wife, he too, with no pardon granted to him, shall be deprived of the communion of the holy things until the fourth year; because it is clear that he is moved by nothing else but intemperance, and that it is as a slave of carnal lust that he has come to such a marriage. And even after he has attained the participation of the mysteries, he shall be judged worthy of the enjoyment only three times in the year: once at the salutary resurrection of our Christ and God, a second time at the Dormition of our unpolluted Lady the Theotokos, and a third time on the birthday of our Christ and God, because in these [seasons] also there is a preceding fast, and the benefit from this. ^C But if there are no children surviving, since it is not unpardonable to desire the procreation of children, then such a marriage shall be judged worthy of pardon, and it shall be healed by only the penance that from the beginning and until now has been observed. These things [are said] also concerning a third marriage. Yet we do not leave even the second, nor the first, without given caution, but we decree that those also be contracted in such a way that they have no evil cause, whether from abduction or from a preceding clandestine cohabitation; but [that they be contracted] lawfully, and by those who are clean from such pollutions and fornicatory impurity. If anyone, therefore, having neglected the aforementioned rules, proceeds to the matrimonial ^D custom, whether first or second, the Church of Christ, which is pure, and immaculate, and without wrinkle, subjecting him to salutary examinations, will not admit him to the participation of divine mysteries before it has learned that he has diligently fulfilled the time defined for fornication (unless perhaps a necessary departure from life urges it), that is to say, until the seventh year has been completed. But a priest who has dared, contrary to the defined term, to judge someone of this kind worthy of divine participation, will jeopardize his own rank, seeing that the one who has been judged worthy of holy communion contrary to the defined rule is returned again to excommunication until the completion of the seventh year. But these things indeed, as has been shown, were done by those who reigned of old; now, however, by the good pleasure and grace of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and by the intercessions of the most pure Mother of God and of the great Prince of the heavenly host, those who ninety years ago, for the cause and occasion previously shown, were cut off—priests, and monks, an excellent

^A kingdom of our divinely crowned emperors, Romanus and Constantine, joined together and united, and made one Catholic and Apostolic Church; whence it is necessary that those who have accomplished such a God-pleasing and noteworthy work should be proclaimed and magnified. Since the canon and the Novel have ordained these things, the Church hitherto, in these our days, has not permitted the contracting of a third marriage.

ZONARAS

ARISTENUS

Not from a canon, but from custom, the great Basil, understanding that trigamists were segregated for five years, accepts this himself; yet he orders that they not be completely cast out of the Church and placed with the weepers, but that for two or even three years they be deemed worthy of the hearing of the divine Scriptures. Afterward, he permits them to stand with the faithful and ^D to participate with them in prayers alone; but to abstain from the communion of the good, and so to show some fruit of repentance.

to abstain from good [things]; and thus, having demonstrated some standard of repentance, [they are] to be restored to the place of those who partake of the Lord’s body and blood.

CANON V. Those of the heretics who are at the point of death and repent must be received; ^B they must be received, however, obviously not without judgment, but by examining whether they demonstrate true repentance, and whether they possess the fruits that testify to their zeal for salvation.

BALS. The present canon ordains that heretics who are at the end of life and ask for repentance should be accepted, having been examined beforehand as to whether they are truly repenting—that is, whether they depart from their own dogmas and demonstrate fruits of repentance. Other canons also command that heretics who are in health, [when they] approach and are examined, are to be received in like manner.

ZONAR. Some were in doubt whether heretics who are said to be at the exit of life and seek repentance should be accepted. To this question the saint answered that they must be received, but not just as things happen; rather, by examining whether they are truly repenting—that is, whether they depart from their own dogmas and demonstrate fruits of repentance.

ARIST. A heretic repenting at the end of life is to be accepted with discernment. ^C It is not proper to receive a heretic coming at the extreme of life and repenting without judgment and inquiry, but one must explore his repentance—whether it is true, and whether he brings forth fruits that testify to the zeal for salvation. For what [is this]? That he should triumph over his heresy, confess his sins with tears and a contrite heart, perform alms-deeds, and demonstrate other such salutary [works].

CANON VI. The fornications of those in canonical orders are not to be reckoned as matrimony, but their union must be broken by every means; for this is useful for the security of the Church, and it will not give heretics a handle against us, as though we were drawing [people] to ourselves for the sake of the liberty to sin. ^D

BALS. He calls "those in canonical orders" those who are enumerated in the canon—that is to say, clerics, monks, nuns, and those who have professed virginity. If, therefore, anyone from among these commits fornication, he shall not be permitted to continue sinning. For it is probable that the canonic who had sinned and been removed from the priesthood on account of fornication might have said, "Since I have fallen from my dignity, I shall at least enjoy the pleasure; and let the woman with whom I have sinned be with me in conjugal cohabitation." For the law says in book 28, title 4, chapter 16: "He who has companionship with a free woman, who for no sake of gain makes the power of her body available, is considered to have her not as a concubine, but as a wife." This, he says, is not to be permitted, but their union must be broken by every means, and they must be separated from one another, because the laws have place [only] among the laity, and this is useful for the Church. If they

^A be alienated from [such] desire, then others will not dare to do any such thing, since they are not permitted to sin after the removal of their ecclesiastical dignity. But also, no occasion will be given to the heretics against us to say that, for this reason, those who commit fornication are permitted to sin after their fornication, so that those from other religions might be seduced and dragged toward our own [people] by the pleasure of the body. And this is indeed rightly defined as far as the clergy are concerned. But as for nuns, and virgins, and monks who are not in holy orders, since the removal of dignity is not imposed [upon them], one might rather say that these men are justified, and that the laws laid down from above were for the perversion of their [the heretics'] reasoning, and that the provisions of the present canon were established [for them]. Regarding the fornication of monks and virgins dedicated to God, read the fourth canon of the Sixth Synod, the eighteenth, twentieth, and first canons of the holy Basil, and the first title, fifth chapter, of the fourth book of the Basilics, which was set out in the fourth chapter of the ninth title of the present code; read also the seventy-eighth chapter of the thirty-seventh title of the fifth book. ^B

ZONAR. He calls those "canonical" who are examined in the canon, namely the clergy, and the monks, and the nuns, and the maidens who have professed virginity, as is set down in the forty-sixth canon of the Synod of Carthage. If, therefore, any such person commits fornication, he will not be permitted to be corrupted with the woman with whom he sinned, as if perhaps [such] an illicit commingling might be considered as a marriage. For it is probable that a cleric who had fallen from the dignity of the holy order due to his committed sin might have said, "Since I have already fallen from my rank, at least let me enjoy the pleasure, and let this woman with whom I have sinned be joined to me in the union of marriage." This, therefore, he says, we must not permit, but we must completely break their union and separate such persons from one another. For this would be useful also to the Church, while others, too, lest they dare such things, will be restrained. For thus they were thinking: "It will not profit us anything, even if we sin, if it is not permitted that we live with the woman with whom we were corrupted, even though we have fallen from our honor": nor will the heretics have a handle against us to say that, for this reason, we permit the delinquents to live with the women with whom they sinned, and give them the power to retain them in the place of wives, so that by this reason they might attract some of those who are addicted to a different religion—that is, entice and draw them—since they permit them to continue in sin, nor do they dissolve the illegitimate marriages, which fornication preceded. ^{C D}

ARIST. A canoness, if she has been joined in marriage, is to be separated. She who has professed virginity and renounced marriage, and has preferred a life lived in holiness, if she despises her professions and gives herself over to libidinous pleasures, and is joined to a man by the law, as it were, of marriage, this marriage shall not be judged to be [a marriage], but [rather] fornication: or rather, according to the eighteenth canon of this [holy Basil]...

^A of the great Basil, fornication. Therefore, let their union be broken off in every way.

CANON VII

BALS. Other canons of the holy Father define how and for how many years those who are included in the present canon ought to be punished. But the present canon, although it says they are worthy of the same condemnation, is not to be understood as referring to the types of penalties; for they are punished in one way or another, and it is clear that it has deferred the condemnation of them to the form that follows. And it was said that they are held worthy of the same condemnation because they all are subject to the four places of penance and are punished in similar fashion in that regard. But since some who had committed incest through ignorance (for this is the impurity included in the canon, and not the other sins, which cannot in their own nature be committed through ignorance), having performed penance for thirty years, wished to be admitted, the holy man ^C says that they should be received from that time on, bringing forward also reasonable causes. But you ought to understand "idolaters" here to be sorcerers; for Christians who have offered sacrifice to idols of their own free will must perform penance for their whole life. Now, those are said to be given over to Satan who are separated from the communion of the faithful. Those, therefore, who have been separated for so long a time were, as it were, given over to Satan.

ZONAR. Those who lie with males and with dumb beasts, and adulterers, are punished for fifteen years; but voluntary murderers and sorcerers for twenty. He does not, however, say that the idolaters are those who [worship] idols... ^D [The scholion continues in the note of Guill. Beveridge:] Masculorum et animalium initores et adulteri quindecim annorum spatio substernuntur: homicidæ autem et venefici annis viginti. Idololatras autem eum dicere opinor præstigiatores et divinatores; si quidem et ipsi aliquo modo idololatræ sunt, dæmoniorum appellationibus utentes; quoniam qui ab initio idololatræ fuerunt, pœnitentia ducti et baptizati, protinus recipiendi sunt: qui autem Christum sine violentia abnegarunt, et idololatræ facti sunt, tota ipsorum vita lugere debent.

^A For those who have been idolaters from the beginning, and have approached the faith and been baptized, they are immediately numbered among the faithful and partake of the holy mysteries; or, if they were Christians and sacrificed to idols, they ought to perform penance throughout their entire life. The holy man does not seem to speak here of such idolaters, but he has called those who are sorcerers and practitioners of curiosities idolaters, inasmuch as they use invocations of demons in their sorceries, and seek help from them, and consequently give a certain appearance of venerating and worshipping them. When he says that they are deemed worthy of the same condemnation, he does not mean that they are punished by an equal number of years, but that they are subject to a long-term penance, each according to their own specified limits. ^B But as for those who have performed penance for thirty years for the impurity which they committed in ignorance (for it may happen that someone has had relations with a relative, not knowing the kinship, or with some woman, not knowing that his father also had relations with her), concerning such as these, he says, there should be no doubt about their reception, since they have many excuses for which pardon can be granted to them: the ignorance, the voluntary confession (for they voluntarily confessed a crime committed in ignorance), and the extended duration of time. For they have been surrendered to Satan for almost the entire span of a man’s life, so that they might learn to abstain from shameful things. On this account, therefore, he considers them worthy of being received.

^C It will not be irrelevant to insert something here into the discourse, and to resolve a certain question for some: the great Apostle, writing to the Corinthians and discussing the man who had committed fornication with his own stepmother, says: "Deliver such a one to Satan, that the spirit may be saved." Some therefore say that the fornicator was turned over to the power of a demon, while others say he was turned over to the scourge of a disease. Yet the doubt is resolved from the very Epistles to the Corinthians, and it is made clear that to be "delivered to Satan" is to be segregated and cast out from the assembly of the faithful. For in the first [Epistle], where he condemned the one who had sinned to be delivered to Satan, he says: "And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you." ^D For what else does "taken away from among you" signify, than that he should be cut off and held as a stranger to you? And one who is segregated and not united with the lot of the faithful is indeed cut off. But in the second Epistle he says: "Confirm your love toward him." How then would they have been going to confirm love toward one possessed by a demon, or toward one afflicted with leprosy or such a disease? For one who suffers in such a way ought rather to be pitied than hated. But he meant clearly this: that him whom you turned away from on account of his sin, and cast out of the Church, receive back again, so that he might not be swallowed up by excessive sorrow. And the Apostle himself explains and clarifies what has been said. But if anyone opposes more contentiously, let him be persuaded by this wise and great Father.

^A noticing how he used those words here, "delivered to Satan," calling the separation and expulsion from the gathering of the faithful a "delivery to Satan." For he who is excluded from the fellowship of the faithful no longer has the grace of the Holy Spirit with him, but is stripped of it; and having fallen from this grace, he is delivered to Satan. For the enemy, finding him stripped of divine grace, takes possession of him and henceforth lords it over him. And the golden-mouthed John also interprets this in the same way in his commentaries on the Epistle to Timothy.

ARIST. Corruptors of males and of animals, and adulterers, [shall be received after] fifteen years; murderers, poisoners, and idolaters, twenty years, according to the ancient form. Clear. ^B

CANON VIII

He who because of anger has used an axe against his wife is a murderer. You have rightly reminded me, and as befits your wisdom, to speak of these things more broadly, because there are many distinctions between voluntary and involuntary [acts]. For it is entirely involuntary, and far from the intention of the one who began it, [for instance] when a stone is thrown at a dog or a tree, to strike a human being. The intention was to drive off the beast or to knock down fruit; but he who happened to be passing by accidentally received the blow, wherefore this is involuntary. And it is also involuntary if someone, wishing to punish another, strikes him with a lash or a rod that is not hard, but the one who is struck dies. For the intention is considered ^C here, that he wished to correct the sinner, not to slay him. And it is also ranked among the involuntary [acts] when someone, while fighting, repels another with a stick or hand, delivering the blow ungovernably upon vital parts, so as to hurt him, but not altogether to kill him. But this already approaches the voluntary. For he who has used such an instrument for his own defense, or who has delivered a blow without restraint, it is clear that he did not spare the man because he was overcome by anger. Similarly, he who has used a heavy stick, or a stone larger than is appropriate for human strength, is numbered among the involuntary, as one who intended one thing but did another. For out of anger he delivered such a blow that he even killed the one struck, although perhaps his purpose was [only] to crush him, not altogether to kill him. However, he who has used a sword or anything similar to it ^D has no excuse, and especially he who has thrown an axe. For it is evident that he did not strike by hand, so as to be able to moderate the blow at will, but he threw it, so that by the weight of the iron, and by its sharpness, and by its travel over a long distance, the blow would necessarily be lethal. But that which is again completely voluntary, and having no doubt, is that which is done by robbers or in warlike incursions. For these kill for the sake of money, avoiding detection; and those in wars who go to slaughter have as their manifest purpose neither to frighten nor to punish, but to kill those who oppose them. And indeed, even if someone has mixed a curious potion for some other reason, and kills, it is voluntary.

shall do it, we account it as voluntary; as women often do, who, by certain incantations and amulets, try to draw others to their love, and give them drugs that cause darkness of the mind. Such women, therefore, if they kill—even if, wishing for one thing, they achieved another—are nevertheless reckoned among voluntary ^A murderers, on account of the curious and forbidden nature of their practice. And so, those who provide drugs that cause abortion are also murderers themselves, as are those who receive the poisons that kill the fetus. These things, then, go so far.

BALS. Being asked by the saint whether a man is a murderer who threw an axe at his own wife and struck her, he pronounced him to be a voluntary murderer. Then he makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary homicides: and he calls him an involuntary murderer who threw a stone at a beast or a tree ^B but by chance struck a man passing by, and him who struck someone with a leather strap or a light rod for the sake of discipline, if the person struck dies. But he says that he who, in a dispute, struck someone with a harder rod or, in striking, did not spare the hand, even if he did not wish to kill the person struck but only to harm or repel him, approaches closely to him who committed a voluntary murder, if the person struck dies. He also defines as an involuntary murderer him who used a heavy piece of wood or a large stone against someone and killed him, when he did not intend to kill. But he declares him to be a voluntary murderer who used a sword or anything else after the manner ^C of those waging war or of robbers; just as also those who give curious drugs and those who perform abortions. And these are the contents of the canon. But you should read the twenty-sixth chapter of the ninth title of the present code, and what is written therein for the sake of murderers. Likewise, read also the second canon of this same saint. And since the thirty-ninth title of the sixtieth book treats not a few things concerning murderers and poisoners, read that as well. But the second theme of the same title and book states these things expressly: “He who had the intention to kill, even if he does not kill but wounds, is a murderer; and he who did not wish to kill, even if he should kill, is not a murderer: but the disposition is proven by the instrument with which he struck.” One might say that the present canon contradicts such ^D a chapter, decreeing that he who threw a stone at a dog or a tree and by chance killed a man is subject to the charge of involuntary homicide. We say, therefore, that the aforementioned law, which teaches concerning voluntary homicide, does not name him a voluntary murderer who did not kill with intent. But such an one is an involuntary murderer, just as this present canon also decrees, and he is punished according to the antepenultimate theme of the sixteenth chapter of the ninth title of the sixtieth book, and according to the fifth chapter of the thirty-ninth title of the same book, defining that even he who kills through pleasure and sport is to be exiled for five years. Thus reconcile the chapter of the law and the canon. And note from the canon and the law that the involuntary murderer is condemned on account of the result, that is, the homicide, but the voluntary one on account of just the propo-

- ^A sition. For even if he should not commit murder, he is punished as a murderer solely on account of his intent. And the 12th chapter of the aforementioned 26th title also says: "It makes no difference whether one commits murder or provides the cause for murders." However, the penalty for voluntary murderers is declared from the penultimate theme of the 3rd chapter of the 36th title, which says: "The penalty against murderers, in the case of those who are of honorable reputation, is relegation and total confiscation of property; but in the case of those of low and base station, being subjected to the sword and beasts."

Concerning voluntary murderers, a Novel was issued in the month of April of the 14th indiction, by our pious, most powerful, and holy emperor, Lord Manuel Comnenus, ^B which I also keep in memory and which says as follows, after the proem: "It therefore commands all those who are judges in the themes, and the military forces that are in them, and their commanders, that wherever a voluntary murder occurs, and such a deed is dared by anyone, that all should immediately bestir themselves to capture the murderer, and send him in bonds to the imperial notice, or, if this be absent, to the prefect of the God-guarded queen of cities, so that he may be introduced into public prison, and punished in both his body and his goods, according to the power of the laws and the Novel constitutions, and undergo other tortures; knowing, all of these, that if it is proven that anyone was able to apprehend a murderer and did not do so, he is to be condemned no differently than if he had conspired against the emperor. But if perhaps someone should lie hidden and take refuge in the most holy Great Church of God, after the ecclesiastical penalties have proceeded against him ^C according to legal observance, if the one who holds the rule of the queen of cities is present, he shall be sent by him into such region as he may judge, so that he may spend the whole time of his life there, and not flee from there to return to the place in which he committed the execrable crime of murder. But if the emperor happens to be absent, he shall be exiled by the prefect, as has been said, into some more remote region, and there shall he spend the time of his life. But if he should have perpetrated the murder not only voluntarily, but also with premeditated and settled counsel, he shall not be compelled by the aforesaid royal constitution to be tonsured. For if canonical strictness does not immediately admit to the tonsure him who comes to it of his own accord, but having measured out a sufficient time for him, and having examined by it the firmness or infirmity of his mind—if indeed it finds the man ^D persisting in his first intention, and zealously preparing himself by the monastic institute and the mortification of the body—from that time it brings upon him the complement of the good work, having received him into the monastic way of life and state: how would it not be contrary to reason and discordant with spiritual laws to forcibly tonsure someone, and that a murderer, whom God has left to such a point that he has even defiled his hands with fraternal blood? For there is fear lest, having entered upon an angelic life against his will, and having taken it up by force, he might use the venerable habit for mockery. For those men who have fallen into a lighter form of madness, they set upon the worst and most perverse actions by their own nature: therefore, in place of...

^A the tonsure, my imperial majesty has ordained that he who has committed a premeditated, voluntary murder shall dwell in prison for the whole time of his life, and never be brought out from there, not even by an imperial order that may perhaps be issued through forgetfulness. As for their property, let it be dealt with as the aforementioned emperor ordained. But since most murderers, having committed murders by meditation and deliberation, afterwards approach the holiest Great Church of God, and make their confession not as the murder was actually committed, but as it serves their own advantage, concealing the truth, my imperial majesty decrees that a letter be written by the most holy patriarch of the time to the bishop of the region and the clergy under him, and indeed also to the regional judge, with the threat of punishment; and just as he shall learn from their reply that the murder was committed, so let him also avenge it, and let not him who commits murder by deliberation, on account of a false confession, undergo the same penalties and the same punishments which one who falls into such a crime by chance and unexpectedly would undergo. If, however, any murderer who had ^B taken refuge in the holiest Great Church, and had been condemned to perpetual exile, or was ordered to be in chains and in perpetual confinement for the whole time of his life, is found walking at liberty in the place where he committed the murder, he shall be sent in chains by the regional official to my imperial majesty; and whatever property is found on him at that time shall go to the profit of the official, and to him who informed on the murderer, being divided equally between them. Moreover, it shall be the business of those who are in the holiest Great Church, the judges of such cases, to punish crimes of murder with appropriate canonical severity, and not to shorten the times rashly, nor to show themselves mild and clement ^C beyond what is meet in matters where it is not befitting. Copies, however, of the present decree of my imperial majesty, inscribed by those who preside over the courts and sent to the churches in the regions, shall be deposited there, so that all may have knowledge of what has been ordained, so that they may act in accordance with the summary of these things. If, however, he who has committed the premeditated murder of his own will chooses the tonsure, he shall not be enrolled among the monks without examination, but having been examined and approved with great accuracy and scrutiny for the sufficient time according to the canonical regulations, ^D he shall be compelled to remain in a monastery even against his will for the whole time of his life, and shall never be permitted to exit therefrom. The monastery, moreover, shall be in another province, and not in that land which, opening wide, received the blood of the dead man evilly.

ZONARAS. The saint was questioned regarding voluntary and involuntary murders, and from this he demonstrated that the man who threw the axe and struck his own wife with it was a voluntary murderer, as is anyone who uses a sword or any such thing against someone. He makes a distinction.

^A regarding voluntary and involuntary homicides: he calls the person who threw a stone at a beast or a tree, but who hit a man passing by there by chance, or one who struck someone with a strap or a light rod for the sake of discipline, an involuntary murderer without question if the one struck dies. But he says that the person who, in a dispute, struck someone with a sturdy rod or with his hand sharply upon vital parts—even if he did not intend to kill the one struck, but only to harm him and defend himself—approaches a voluntary murderer if the one struck dies; and it is defined that he who used a heavy piece of wood or a large stone against someone and killed him is, perhaps, an involuntary murderer. But he declares that the one who used a sword or anything of that sort, and robbers, and those who make warlike incursions for the purpose of seizing money, are voluntary murderers. Moreover, he also counts among voluntary homicides those who give drugs to some people—even if the one who mixed the drug did not intend to kill, but wished to bring someone to love him—if the potion kills the one who drank it, or corrupts the mind of the man, having driven him to insanity. He calls those women murderers, too, who give drugs that cause abortion, and those who receive them, just as he already determined in his second canon about these matters.

ARIST. A murderer is one who used an axe against his wife. An involuntary murderer is one who threw a stone at a dog and hit a man by chance, or one who chastises with a strap or a rod. But one who, in a fight, struck with a piece of wood or his hand upon vital parts and killed, is close to a voluntary one. He who used a sword or the like is absolutely voluntary. And the robber, and the enemy, and he who gave a drug for another reason, if he kills, is voluntary; and so are those who give abortifacients, and those who receive them.

^B Of homicides, some are voluntary, others are involuntary, and others are almost voluntary. For he who attacks someone with an axe and kills him, and he who uses a sword for killing, and robbers, and enemies (for the former kill for the sake of money, while the latter plainly wish to kill their opponents) are judged to be voluntary murderers. Likewise, those who give embryo-killing drugs, and those who take them; and those who wish to draw someone’s love to themselves and mix a drug and deliver it to him, so as to cast darkness over his intellect—if they kill the recipient, they are judged to have killed voluntarily. But he who throws a stone at a dog or a tree with the intention of defending himself against a beast or shaking down fruit, and accidentally kills a man; or he who strikes someone who is sinning with a strap or a rod in order to correct him and kills him, are accounted among involuntary murderers. But he who, in a fight, deals a blow to someone with a piece of wood or his hand sharply upon a vital place and kills him, is close to being a voluntary murderer. For even if he did this as a defender against the one fighting with him—so as to harm him, but not absolutely to kill him—nevertheless, it is apparent that he was overcome by the passion of anger, and therefore the man by means of a piece of wood ^D and because of this having dealt the blow to the man sharply with a heavy piece of wood; and it will not be...

^A altogether involuntary.

CANON IX.

The decision of the Lord, according to the logical train of thought, applies equally to men and to women, that it is not permitted to depart from marriage, except for the reason of fornication. But custom does not hold this way; rather, in the case of women we find much strictness, since the Apostle says, "He who is joined to a harlot is one body"; and Jeremiah, "If a woman shall be with another man, she shall not return to her husband, but being polluted shall be polluted"; and again, "He who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious." But custom also commands that adulterous men and those who are in states of fornication be retained by women. So that I do not know if she who lives with a man who has been sent away can be called an adulteress. For the crime here touches the woman who has dismissed her husband, [to ask] for what cause she departed from the marriage. Whether, if she is beaten and cannot bear the blows, it were better to endure it than to be separated from her cohabitant; or if she cannot bear the loss of money, not even this is a worthy excuse. But if it is because he lives in fornication, we do not have this observation in ecclesiastical custom; but rather a woman is not commanded to separate herself from an unbelieving husband, but to remain, because of the uncertainty of the outcome. For what do you know, O woman, if you will save your husband? Therefore she who has left is an adulteress if she has gone to another man. And the one who has been left is worthy of pardon, and the one who lives with such a one is not condemned. If, however, the man, having departed from the wife, has gone to another, he himself is also an adulterer, because he causes her to commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another woman’s husband to herself.

^B BALS. Should the saint be asked what ought to be done regarding spouses if one of them goes to another marriage, or even commits fornication, he made his reply from various scriptures, and from the custom that was then prevailing. But since the 117th Justinian Novel, which is located in the 7th title of the 28th book, has almost entirely altered the things found in such a canon, read it, and likewise the 111th Novel, and simply [read] from the 1st chapter of the same title up to the 6th, and you will learn by how many ways marriages are dissolved, and how those of the spouses who commit adultery, or even fornication, are punished by the civil law; and furthermore also those who quit their life together without reason. Read also the 96th canon of the council in Trullo, and the things written upon it. Read also the laws which are set forth to the very end of the 1st chapter of the 11th title of the present work, ^C and likewise the interpretation of the 5th chapter of the same title, and from all these you will understand the matters concerning these things at length.

ZONAR. The Lord has declared that marriage is not to be dissolved except for the cause of fornication. This decision therefore ^D

^A this great Father asserts, is equally applicable to men and women, so that it is permitted for neither a husband to send away his wife, nor for a wife to withdraw from her husband. But custom does not hold in the same way regarding men who leave their wives as it does for women who do the same. For the woman who separates from her husband and joins herself to another is judged an adulteress and will no longer be received by her husband unless he should wish it. Yet the wife cannot leave a husband even if he has fornicated or committed adultery. And since, after being left, he lives his life with another, the one who joins herself to him, he says, will in no way be judged an adulteress. For the crime belongs to the woman who abandoned her own husband: for it is not permitted for her to withdraw from her husband. But whether he treats her bitterly, she must bear it; or if she suffers the loss of money, seeing her dowry being consumed; or if she is touched by jealousy because the husband is being corrupted with others, she must endure it and not separate from the husband. For if, when one of the spouses is an infidel, the other person is forbidden to separate from him against his will, according to blessed Paul, how will he be guiltless who dissolves the marriage for another reason? ^B Therefore, the woman who has departed from her husband, if she has lived with another man, is judged an adulteress. But she who is lawfully united to the abandoned husband is condemned neither as an adulteress nor as a fornicator. And the man also, having sent away his own wife and brought in another, is an adulterer, and he makes his wife an adulteress, as she is mingled with another. And she who lives with such a man, not being ignorant that he had sent away the wife he had, is an adulteress. For she has drawn another woman’s husband to herself. But this great Father says these things according to the ecclesiastical custom that was prevailing at that time. But from the Novel of Emperor Justinian regarding the dissolution of marriages, which was issued afterward and placed in book 28 of the Basilica, tit. 7, among other causes for which it is granted to women to dissolve marriages, this one is also added: that if the husband should have intercourse with another woman in the same house or city, and being warned by his wife, he does not in any way abstain from her company, it is permitted for women to dissolve the marriage on account of jealousy. ^C ARIST. According to the Lord’s word, perhaps both a man and a woman are condemned if they are separated apart from the cause of fornication; but custom does not separate the adulterer and the fornicator from their spouses. If any woman, having dismissed her husband, has been joined to another, perhaps she is not an adulteress; for the fault is to be cast upon the one who dismissed him without reason; or she is an adulteress if she is joined to another. But the one who is dismissed is worthy of forgiveness. He who has left his own wife and has gone to another is himself an adulterer, and he makes her commit adultery, as does the woman who has dealings with him. ^D Even if the Lord condemns equally the man who has separated from his own wife (except for the cause of fornication) and the woman who has been separated from her own husband without reason; nevertheless, ecclesiastical constitution orders this to be done otherwise; for it...

commands that a husband, even if he be a fornicator and adulterer, be held onto by his own wife; but it allows for the woman, if she be defiled by another man, to be cast off and no longer be held by her own husband. Therefore, if a woman leaves her own husband on the pretext that he lives with her in fornication, and he takes another woman, the accusation and the charge lie against the woman who cast off her husband, whom she ought to have held onto even while he was committing adultery. ^A For the husband is pardonable for having gone to another woman. Likewise, the woman who has been joined to him, while he is separated from his wife, shall not be called an adultress; but she who left him, if she be joined to another, is undoubtedly an adultress. But if, on the contrary, the husband departs from his own wife (except for the reason of fornication) and takes another woman, he also is judged as an adulterer, because he causes her whom he abandoned to be defiled, if she should come to another man; and the one who lives with him is an adultress, because she has taken another person’s husband. And this is the teaching of the canon; because at that time there was also license allowed by the laws for those joined in marriage to separate from each other even without a reasonable cause, through formal words. But today, neither husband nor wife can dissolve the marriage, unless some reasonable cause intervenes, concerning which the Justinianic Novel expressly legislates. ^B

CANON X

Those who swear that they will not accept ordination, and who retract their oath, should not be compelled to perjure themselves. For although there seems to be a canon which allows this to such persons, we have learned by experience that those who have perjured themselves do not have happy outcomes. But one must also consider the form of the oath, and the words, and the intention with which they swore, and the details added to the words; so that if there is absolutely no reason for leniency, such men should be dismissed entirely. However, regarding the matter of Severus, namely the presbyter ordained by him, this seems to me to have a certain such leniency, if it also seems so to you. That field which is subject to Mustia, to which that man was attached, order it to be subordinate to Vasodis. For thus, neither will he perjure himself by not departing from the place, ^C and Longinus, having Cyriacus with him, will not abandon the church, nor will he condemn his own soul through sloth. And we shall seem not to be doing anything contrary to the canons, by using accommodation regarding Cyriacus, who, although he had sworn to remain with the Mindani, accepted the transfer. For the return will be the preservation of the oath. And his yielding to the economy and ^D

[Guill. Beveregii notes. (6) *Those who swear.* A double comment is apposed to this canon in the Amerbachianus codex: the first is as follows: Severus was bishop of the Masadeni; but Mindana was a field belonging to a certain Longinus, but subject to the oversight of the bishopric of Misthia, into which the presbyter named Cyriacus, ordained by Severus, was sworn not to depart from it. But because it was not permitted to him who had been ordained by Severus to perform priestly duties in a foreign territory, he was transferred from there. And Longinus, loving Cyriacus, railed against the men of the Church on account of his transfer: but Cyriacus seemed to perjure himself, transferring himself from Mindana. The other is thus: Another scholion. The commission of evils arises from the neglect of good things. Therefore, reviling and reproach against the Church are also rightly called idleness and idle speech.]

^A If he should yield to the dispensation, it will not be reckoned to him as perjury, since it was not added to the oath that he should not depart from the lands of the Mindani even for a little while, but rather that he should remain there thenceforth. As for Severus, who pleads forgetfulness, we shall grant him pardon, saying that He who knows secret things will not overlook His own Church being corrupted by such a man—a man who acted uncanonically from the beginning, who bound others with an oath against the Gospels, who teaches [others] to perjure themselves through the means by which he was transferred, and who now lies by pretending forgetfulness. But since we are not judges of hearts, but judge from what we hear, let us leave vengeance to the Lord; and let us receive him without hesitation, granting pardon to a human weakness, namely, forgetfulness.

^B BALS. Certain persons, when called to be ordained, swore an oath that they would not accept the ordination. The saint says, therefore, that such persons must not be forced to perjure themselves. For although it may seem to those who have sworn of their own accord, or who have imposed some obligation upon themselves—such as not to eat meat, or not to drink wine, or not to do this or that—that it is permitted to loosen the bond again of their own accord and to desist from the oath; yet we have learned by experience that those who have perjured themselves do not walk on the right path, but are allowed by God to be tempted on account of their perjury. It is necessary, he says, in such cases to consider the form of the oath, whether the one swearing mentioned God or something else; [to consider] the words of the one who swore, and the disposition with which he swore, and the minute additions in the words. For it is reasonable, from the quality of the oath, and from the words, and from the disposition (whether, perhaps, he swore out of faint-heartedness and not with a settled mind), to observe and understand whether the one who swore is or is not forbidden to desist from the oath. But if, upon considering these things, one cannot find any justification for desisting from the oath, such persons must be released [from their duties], so that they do not perjure themselves. ^C The affair, or rather the action and the case regarding Severus, was as follows: A certain Longinus had a field called Mindana, which was subject to the bishopric of Mesthia. Severus, however, being the bishop of the Masadeni, ordained a certain Cyriacus as presbyter of the temple that was in the field, having previously bound him by an oath that he would remain in the temple, or rather, that he would be subject to the bishopric. But the bishop of the region to which the field was subject prohibited Cyriacus, who had been ordained by another, from performing sacred rites in a church belonging to him, and for this reason Cyriacus left it and was transferred elsewhere. ^D Furthermore, Longinus, being vexed at this, threatened that he would leave the church deserted. The great Basil, therefore, having been asked about this matter, replied that the field to which Cyriacus had been assigned—that is, the one for which he was named presbyter—ought to be made subject to the bishopric of the Masadeni, even if it were of another region, and that Cyriacus should return there. For in this way, he says, neither will that man act contrary to his oath, nor will Longinus desert the church—that is, leave it deserted or even destroy it—nor will he condemn his own soul to idleness, or rather subject it to it, such that he has no time for prayers and divine hymns, but desists from them. We

^A From these things, we too, he says, by arranging matters regarding Cyriacus and permitting him to return to the church in which he swore to persevere, shall not appear to act contrary to the canons, nor will he be judged to violate the oath. For by returning he seems to keep the oath, since it is not added to the oath that he would not depart from the field of the Mindanoi even for a short time. See then how, from the examination and scrutiny of the words, the saint hunted for the meaning so that he who swore might not appear to perjure himself. These things, then, concerning Cyriacus.

But Severus, being accused because he ordained someone in a field subject to another diocese, said that he had done this out of forgetfulness, not knowing that the field was subject to another. Since, therefore, he says, he pleads forgetfulness for his defense, he must be forgiven and left to the judgment of God. For since we are not knowers of hearts, but we judge as we hear, let us leave the retribution to God, having forgiven him because of the forgetfulness, which is a human weakness. And the canon consists of these things. But you read chapter 18, of title 13 of the present work, and what is written in its interpretation regarding the discussion of oaths. ^B Have in memory also that which was written by the saint concerning the fact which occurred during the ordination of Cyriacus, and the perjury which was supposedly committed by him. And note that, for this reason, as is likely, the bishops of the region who celebrate holy rites in certain patriarchal churches are forgiven. For if the excuse of ignorance had not aided Severus, he would have been deposed for performing an ordination outside his diocese. Concerning priests who have testified falsely, read novel 76 of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise, which contains that, if a priest has sworn and given false testimony, he is deposed. But if an oath was not involved, he is separated to a monastery for a three-year period, and is thus restored to his own rank.

ZONARAS. Certain men, called to be ordained, swore that they would not accept the ordination. Such men, therefore, the canon says, ought not to be forced to commit perjury. Even if it seems to them, he says, that it is permissible for those who have sworn of their own accord, or imposed some bond upon themselves, such as to abstain from meat, or from wine, or to omit this or that, to dissolve that bond again by their own authority and to depart from the oath: ^D yet we have learned by experience that those who have sworn falsely, that is, those who have done something contrary to what they swore, are not well-pleasing—that is, they are not accepted by God, nor are they deemed approved or friends by Him. The canon says one must, in the case of such men, look also to the type of oath—whether he named God while swearing, or something else—and at the words of the one who swore, and the disposition from which he swore, and the minute additions in the words. For it is likely that from the quality of the oath, and from the words as well as from the disposition—if, for instance, he swore out of pusillanimity and not out of a constant purpose—it may be discerned by those who think more attentively whether the one who swore is to be prevented from departing from the oath. But if, these things being considered, it is not

possible to find any excuse by which they might be released from their oath, such persons ought to be dismissed, lest they entangle themselves in perjury. ^B Now, the matter relating to Severus, that is, the action and its hypothesis, was of this kind. A certain Longinus had a field named Mindana, which was subject to the bishopric of Misthia. But Severus, being bishop of the Masadans, ordained a certain Cyriacus as presbyter for the temple that was located in the field, who also swore that he would remain in the temple, or rather, would be subject to that bishopric. But the bishop of the region to which the field was subject was barring Cyriacus from performing sacred duties in the church, which was under his own jurisdiction, since he had been ordained to sacred orders by another. Because of this, Cyriacus left it and departed elsewhere; and Longinus, grieving for this reason, threatened that he would leave the church desolate. ^C Accordingly, the great Basil, being asked about this, replied that the field to which Cyriacus was appointed, that is, the one for which he was named presbyter, should be subject to the bishopric of the Masadans, even if it were of another region, and that Cyriacus should return thither again. For in this way, he says, neither will that man violate his oath, nor shall Longinus make the church desolate—that is, abandon it deserted or even destroy it—nor will he condemn his own soul to inactivity, that is, subject it to the state of not having leisure for prayers and divine hymns, but rather of ceasing from them. And we, he says, by decreeing these things regarding Cyriacus and permitting him to return to the church in which he swore he would remain, shall not seem to act against the canons, nor shall he be judged to violate the oath. For by returning, he will seem to observe the oath, since it is not even added to the oath that he would not depart from the field of the Mindani even for a short space of time. See, therefore, how from the very inspection and consideration of the words, the holy man discovered a judgment by which he who had bound himself by an oath might appear to be free from perjury. These things, therefore, are concerning Cyriacus. ^D Furthermore, Severus, being accused because he had appointed someone over a field which was subject to another province, alleged that he had done this out of forgetfulness, because he was ignorant that the field was situated under another's jurisdiction. Since, therefore, he says, he pleads forgetfulness, it is necessary to forgive him and to transmit him to the judgment of God: for since we are not searchers of hearts, but judge from those things which we hear, let us assign the vengeance to God, forgiving him on account of forgetfulness, which is a human failing.

ARIST

^A CANON XI. Whoever has committed involuntary homicide has sufficiently satisfied justice in eleven years. For it is manifest that, in the case of those who have been struck, we shall observe what Moses willed: that we shall not consider him to have been killed who, on account of the wounds he received, took to his bed, but subsequently walked leaning upon his staff; but if he did not rise after the blows, yet the one who struck him did not intend to kill him, he is indeed a homicide, but an involuntary one because of his intention.

BALSAMON. The fifty-seventh canon of this holy Father separates for ten years those who have done involuntary homicide from the participation of the divine sacraments. But the present canon says that he who has not communicated in the sacraments for not only ten, but even eleven years, has done more than enough to satisfy for involuntary homicide. Then he adds that he is not to be condemned as a homicide who struck someone, even if he inflicted a lethal wound, provided it was not with the intent of killing; but one must, he says, according to the Mosaical law, have regard for the one who was struck; and if, after he took to his bed from the blow, he did not recover, but died, the one who struck him is necessarily held liable to the charge of involuntary homicide; but if he arose from the blow, and walked leaning upon his staff—that is, if he was not perfectly delivered from the illness—and then died, the one who struck him is not to be reckoned a homicide. Wherefore, note also from this, just as we said in canon 8, that involuntary homicide is shown by the result. For that reason we do not busy ourselves with the blow, whether it was small or large, but with the death ^B that proceeded from the blow; just as voluntary homicide is judged by intention alone, even if the result, that is, death, does not follow. Note, however, from the present canon that in cases of involuntary homicide, some are wrongly over-curious, asking on what day the wound was inflicted and after how many days death followed for the one who was struck. For even if a long time has passed since the blow, yet if the one who sustained the blow died from that cause, we say nonetheless that an involuntary homicide has occurred. Read also the 8th canon of this holy Father, and his interpretation.

ZONARAS. Someone committed an involuntary homicide and spent eleven years separated. The saint was therefore asked whether he ought to be loosed from that bond; and he replied that in the space of eleven years he ^C had sufficiently satisfied justice, that is, the punishment. He mentioned eleven years, not because he who kills involuntarily is punished for so long a time—for a decade is established for such men by the fifty-seventh canon of this great Father as a penalty—but because that was how the state of affairs stood for this man. Then he says that in the case of those who are struck and die, we shall observe, that is, we shall keep, the Mosaical law, which decided that a man who is struck by someone and forthwith takes to his bed, if he afterwards rises from his bed and walks ^D

^A supported by a staff—that is, even if he has not been completely freed from his infirmity, but walks only so far as to lean upon a staff, as if still retaining traces of the infirmity—and then dies, he is not to be judged as killed, nor is the one who struck him to be considered a homicide. These, then, are the things which Moses decreed. The saint then adds that if he does not rise after he was struck, but lies where he is and expires from the blows, the one who struck him shall indeed be judged a homicide, but an involuntary one; for he had no intent to kill him, but to strike him.

ARIST. Let the involuntary homicide be subjected to ten years [of penance]. This is clear.

CANON XII

BALS. Here the holy man calls the seventeenth canon of the holy Apostles a canon, and by ministry he means the ecclesiastical clergy: and read the said canon.

ZONAR. In this place the saint means the seventeenth apostolic canon, which is ordained thus: He who has been involved in two marriages after baptism, or has acquired a concubine, cannot be a bishop, or a priest, or a deacon, or in any way be counted among the clerical order.

ARIST. A digamist shall not be a cleric. And many other canons debar the digamist from the priesthood.

CANON XIII

BALS. By the present canon the saint suggests in an advisory capacity that those who have committed killing in war should abstain from communion for the whole of three years; even if the Fathers have granted them pardon and have not reckoned them among murderers—those who have fought for piety and temperance for the sake of the faithful who were about to be reduced to slavery. Here ^D Guill. Beveregii note. Under patriarch Constantine Chlarenus a synodical sentence was passed, that if indeed someone, on escaping a robber's ambush, should then kill the robber, he is to be punished as a homicide: but if the robber first raised his sword against him, then the one who killed him shall not be punished. But whoever, for the sake of the public good, when greatly entreated, has sought out and put to death a robber, shall be held worthy not of punishment but of rewards; yet for the sake of caution, it was decided that these too should be condemned for three years. But for clerics, who have committed any killing whatsoever, it is right that they should be punished immediately, with no distinction made between whether it was an enemy, or a robber, or anyone else. Whence it happened that a bishop who had killed an Agarene, who had drawn his sword against him in time of war, was deposed by synodical sentence. Harmenop. epit. can. sect. 5, tit. 3. Moreover, in the Amerbachian code this brief scholium is attached to this canon: "See how the saint himself trusts that which is now decreed. For it is absurd for anyone to undergo punishment for the sake of the defense of piety and temperance."

^A Now, this canon was issued in a manner worthy of the holiness of the divine Father, yet it is not in use; for if it were permitted, it would result in soldiers, who are entangled in constant wars and slay their enemies, never being able to partake of the divine sacraments, which is insufferable. It is written that when the Emperor Phocas sought to have those who are slain in wars numbered among the martyrs, the prelates of that time used this canon to silence the imperial demand, saying: "How shall we count those who fell in the wars among the martyrs, when the great Basil, on the grounds that their hands were not pure, has forbidden them the sacraments for three years?" ^B However, when many priests and even one bishop had stood before the synod by imperial order, and had confessed that they had engaged the enemy and killed many of them, the divine and holy synod, consistently with this canon and with others of the same saint and other divine ordinances, wanted to forbid them from ever celebrating the sacred rites again. But the majority, and especially those who were more military-minded, insisted that they were actually worthy of rewards. Moreover, many who had killed men at the time of a mock-fight with rods were counted among voluntary and involuntary murderers, since such a game is not one of the five games recognized in law—which are also called struggles and contests, namely: boxing, racing, jumping, the discus, and wrestling; so those who kill in such games are not subject to the prejudice of this law.

^C ZONARAS. The holy man does not say that those who have killed in wars must abstain from communion for three years by way of a command, but by way of counsel. Nevertheless, it seems to be an onerous counsel. For it could happen, as a result of this, that soldiers would never receive the divine gifts, especially those who show courage and excel beyond the rest. Indeed, they would never have the opportunity to rest for three years. If, then, those who are occupied with constant wars and who kill the enemy are kept from communion, they will be deprived of participation in the Good for their whole lives. This is an unbearable punishment for Christians. ^D Yet for what reason are those who contend for the sake of the state and their brothers, lest they be captured by enemies or to liberate those taken into slavery, to be judged as not having clean hands? For if they are wary of killing the Barbarians, as though thereby defiling their hands, everything will perish, and the Barbarians will gain control over all things. The ancient Fathers, reflecting on this point, did not rank those who had killed in war among murderers, granting them pardon if, as the saint here says, they contended for the sake of temperance and piety. For if the Barbarians gain the upper hand, there will be neither piety nor temperance. They will abolish piety, establishing their own worship; and no one will be permitted to practice temperance, but everyone will be forced to live according to their laws. And that great man of divine things, Athanasius, in his canonical...

epistle, says these things expressly: "It is not allowed to kill; however, to kill adversaries in war is both lawful and worthy of praise." Therefore, I think that this counsel of the great Basil was never observed at all. Yet, at a certain time, it was useful to those who were fighting for ecclesiastical traditions. For when the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, as has been recorded, demanded that those who had fallen in the wars be numbered among the martyrs, and that they be praised and honored according to their example, the high priests of that time objected, saying that it was not just for honors of this kind to be paid to such men. And since they could not persuade him, they finally used this as though it were a canon, saying: "How shall we count those who fell in the wars among the martyrs, whom the great Basil, as if they bore impure hands, excluded from the sacraments for a period of three years?" ^A

ARIST. He who fights for piety, even if he defends himself, let him abstain from communion for three years. Homicides committed in wars have not been reckoned as homicides by the Fathers, just as the great Athanasius writes to Ammoun the monk, saying that those who have acted most bravely in war ought to be deemed worthy of great honors, and that pillars should be erected for them, proclaiming their achievements, as they who destroyed the adversaries and performed a lawful deed worthy of praise. Nor does this great man disapprove of their judgment, since it is for the sake of modesty and piety that the warrior defends himself. Yet he advises that it is good for such a person to abstain from communion alone, because he does not have clean hands. ^B

CANON XIV.

BALS. The forty-fourth canon of the holy apostles determines that bishops, or presbyters, or deacons who practice usury must desist or be deposed; the seventeenth canon of the first synod orders all clerics who practice usury to be deposed. Read, therefore, the interpretations of those canons. But because the civil law does not punish laymen who practice usury, but rather even permits them to lend at interest, and some, as is likely, practicing usury, wished to be advanced to the holy orders, and because of this shameful gain they were not permitted, the saint says, therefore, that such men are also to be admitted to the priesthood, if they have spent what was collected from interest on the poor, and have vowed to do this no more. ^C

ZONAR. The seventeenth canon of the first synod in Nicaea orders those who practice usury, if they have been initiated into the sacred orders, to be deposed. But this great Father says, if he distributes the profit from interest to the poor, and from then on abstains from practicing usury, he can be admitted to the sacred order. Perhaps, therefore, someone may think that the present canon is contrary to the canon published by the Fathers at Nicaea; but it is not so. For that one [the Nicene] ^D

^A regulates those in holy orders who practice usury, whereas this one concerns laypeople; and it states that a layman who abstains from usury and distributes the gain derived therefrom to the poor is in no way hindered from being promoted to holy orders.

ARIST. He who takes interest, if he is corrected, is admitted to the priesthood. His correction is this: that he expend on the poor the unjust gain collected from usury, and promise no longer to fall into such a disease of greed.

CANON XV

I marvel, indeed, at your literal subtlety regarding Scripture, in that you ask and suppose that the expression is forced, as if it were an interpretation expressing only what is well understood by itself, but not translating what is properly signified by the Hebrew word. But since it is not right to pass over idly the problem raised by a studious man: the birds of the air and the fish of the sea obtained the same generation in the creation of the world. For both ^B kinds were brought forth from the waters. The cause, however, is that both have the same property. The latter swim through the water, while the former swim upon the air. Therefore, he mentioned them together. The figure of speech, as applied to the fish, was rendered improperly, but as applied to everything that lives in the waters, quite appropriately. For the birds of the air are subject to man, as are the fish of the sea, and not they alone, but also everything that makes its way along the paths of the sea. For if something ^C is aquatic, it is not necessarily a fish, such as sea-monsters, whales, hammer-head sharks, dolphins, and seals, and furthermore sea-horses, dogfish, sawfish, swordfish, and sea-cows; or if you like, sponges, scallops, and all shellfish, none of which is a fish. And everything that traverses the paths of the sea—so that there are three kinds: birds of the air, fish of the sea, and all those aquatic creatures distinct from fish that likewise traverse the paths of the sea.

CANON XVI

"Naaman was not great before the Lord, but before his lord"—that is, he was one of those who held great power ^D under the king of the Syrians. Give heed, therefore, strictly to the Scripture, and you will find therein the solution to the question.

BALS. The present two canons, the 15th and 16th, as they do not provide any common canonical tradition, but only explain the words of Scripture, have not been interpreted by us, as we have not proposed to explain the sayings of Scripture, but canonical and legal precepts.

ZONAR. in can. 15. The question is not clearly explained; but it seems, as far as one may gather from the response of the great Basil, to be of this kind: How is it that David mentioned the birds of the air and the fish of the sea together, and again said: "The things that traverse the pat-"

- ^Ahs of the seas"? This addition indeed seems to have been superfluous. Therefore, in reply to the fact that he mentioned both birds and fish at the same time, he says that both were produced from the waters and had their origin thence; and that this is clear from the fact that the very same characteristic is inherent in both birds and fish. For fish swim in the waters, while birds swim, as it were, in the air; and the former swim by the movement of their fins, and use their tail as a rudder; birds do likewise, flying with their wings, while using their tail for turning and for directing their movements. And in response to why the Psalmist did not speak casually when he said "fish and things that traverse the paths of the seas," he says that not all things that dwell under the waters are meant by the name "fish." For neither are whales called fish, nor are shellfish, nor other certain things like cuttlefish, octopuses, and things akin to them. Thus there are three genera: birds, fish, and whatever things are indeed aquatic but are not counted in the genus of fish.

ZONARAS on can. 16. The saint was asked how Scripture says that Naaman was "great before his lord," and he said that Naaman was not great before God, but before his own lord; that is, he was one of those familiar to him and one who possessed great power under him.

ARISTENUS on can. 15. The Scripture mentions the birds of the heaven and the fish of the sea together, because the origin of both is from the sea. But it added, "things that traverse the paths of the seas," on account of the ^B cetaceans and shellfish, of which no one is a fish.

ARISTENUS on can. 16. "Naaman was great before his lord": not before God, but before his own lord.

In these two chapters, namely 15 and 16, there is no interpretation, since these are rather interpretations of the Scriptural words spoken by Saint Amphilochius to Basil the Great. For he gave an answer to the questions about which he was in doubt.

BY THE SAME CANONICAL EPISTLE II

^{C D} CANON XVII. Since I have previously responded to the questions proposed to us by your piety, I did not send the document, being detained partly by a long and dangerous illness, and partly by the lack of servants. For there are few among us who are both experienced in the way and prepared for such services. Wherefore, having learned the causes of the delays, forgive us. We were, however, amazed at your

of delay, grant us your pardon. We admired both your love of learning and your humility; and in that you deign to learn, being entrusted with the order of teaching, and to learn from us, to whom nothing great is present for knowledge. But nevertheless, since you deign for the sake of the fear of God to do a thing which is not easily done by another, it is fitting that we, too, should assist your alacrity and good zeal even beyond our strength.

You asked us about Bianor the presbyter, whether he can be admitted into the clergy, because of an oath. I, however, remember that I have already set forth a certain common rule for all those who took an oath together with him to the clergy at Antioch; namely, that they should abstain from public assemblies, but perform the duties of presbyters in private. This same thing also grants him freedom for the performance of his own office, because his priesthood is not at Antioch, but at Iconium; which city, as you yourself wrote to us, he exchanged for Antioch for his dwelling. Therefore, that man can be received, provided your piety requires him to repent for the ease and readiness of his mind in swearing, which he swore in the presence of an unbelieving man, unable to bear the trouble of that small danger. ^B

BALS. It is likely that some priests of Antioch, of whom Bianor was one, swore an unlawful oath because of the threats of some unbeliever; and from this they scandalized the orthodox, as men who did not endure the trouble caused by the unbeliever. When, therefore, Bianor had moved from Antioch to Iconium, and Saint Amphilochius, who was the bishop at Iconium, had asked the saint whether the same Bianor was acceptable for the clergy, the saint replied that he had set forth a common rule, or canon, concerning those priests at Antioch who had sworn, that they should abstain from public, or common, assemblies, but privately perform the duties of presbyters; which Bianor has permission to do—and even more so, because he is not going to celebrate sacred rites at Antioch, and therefore will not scandalize those who see him celebrating after the oath, but in Iconium, where he moved; and perhaps he will not even be a cause of scandal, since the many do not even know the form of the oath. Nevertheless, he says, even if he is acceptable to perform sacred rites, yet let him be required to repent for the ease of the oath, that is, for having sworn so easily and readily, having yielded on account of the fear of a small danger. ^C

ZONAR. This response is obscure, since the question is not clear. In the meantime, however, it is narrated that a certain unbeliever forced some of the presbyters at Antioch by threats to swear not to perform the duties of priests. One of these moved to Iconium, about whom Saint Amphilochius also posed the question. The great Basil therefore replies that he has set forth a common rule, that is, a canon and pattern, concerning all those at Antioch who had sworn, that such men should abstain from common assemblies, but in private should perform the duties of presbyters. He decreed that they should abstain from the assemblies, lest they be a cause of scandal to many,

who, knowing that they had sworn never to perform sacred rites, might observe them offering sacrifice publicly. ^A He affirms the same thing regarding Bianor: that he should have the power to minister, that is, to exercise sacred offices. Especially since he is not going to perform sacred rites at Antioch, where he swore, but at Iconium, to which he moved afterwards. But, he says, let him be required to repent for the facility of his oath; that is, because he swore so easily and readily, moved by the fear of a small danger. But to those who know that they have sworn not to perform sacred rites, they will say ^B—

ARIST. A presbyter, Bianor, having sworn and being led by repentance because of the levity of the oath, is to be received.

This presbyter, having been affected by an injury from someone and not being able to bear his harassment, swore in contempt that he would no longer perform sacred rites. Afterward, led by repentance, he desired to perform the priesthood: and the great Basil, being questioned about him as to whether he should be received, commands that if he repents for the levity of the oath, he should be admitted; but that he should not celebrate sacred rites in public ^C assemblies because of the scandal to many, but should perform those things which pertain to presbyters in private.

CANON XVIII.

Concerning fallen virgins, who have professed a chaste life to the Lord, and then, vanquished by the lusts of the flesh, make their pacts void, our fathers, while they accommodated themselves simply and gently to the infirmity of those who lapse, judged that they could be admitted after a year, making a judgment concerning them according to the likeness of digamists. But it seems to me, since the Church, advancing by the gift of God, becomes stronger, and now the order of virgins is multiplied, that the matter itself must be diligently considered, as it is manifest to one who considers it, and the judgment of Scripture, which can be found by logical consequence. For widowhood is inferior to virginity; therefore, also, the transgression of widows is far less than that of virgins. Let us see, therefore, what has been written to Timothy by Paul: *But the younger widows avoid. For when they have grown wanton against Christ, they wish to marry, having condemnation, because they have made void their first faith.* ^D If therefore a widow is subjected to a most grave judgment, as one who has made void her faith in Christ, what must we think concerning a virgin, who is the bride of Christ, and a sacred vessel dedicated to the Lord? It is indeed a great sin, even for a slave girl giving herself over to clandestine marriages to fill a house with lewdness, and by a worse life to offer injury to her master; but it is by far more grave for a bride to become an adulteress, and, bringing disgrace upon her union with her spouse, to give herself over to unchaste pleasures. Therefore, a widow indeed, as a corrupted slave girl, is condemned; but a virgin is subjected to the judgment of an adulteress. Just as, therefore, we name him an adulterer who is with another man's woman, not admitting him to communion before he has ceased from sin: so, in truth, even—

^A regarding the one who has a virgin, we shall feel disposed. But it is necessary for us to settle this now in advance, that a virgin is called such, who has willingly offered herself to the Lord, and has renounced marriage, and has preferred a life in holiness. We approve professions from that time when age has the completion of reason. For it is not fitting to consider childlike utterances altogether valid in such matters, but rather that one who has passed sixteen or seventeen years of age, being mistress of her own reason, having been examined at length, then having remained steadfast, and having entreated with supplications to be accepted—only then is it necessary that she be enrolled among the virgins, and that the profession of such a one be ratified, and its violation be inexorably punished. For parents, and brothers, and some of her kinsmen often bring women ^B before they are of age, not moved by them from within toward the single life, but managing some worldly advantage for themselves. Such are not to be admitted easily, until we have openly investigated their own volition.

BALS. We have said in various places that women, virgins, and widows, approaching the churches in lay attire, would profess, some virginity, others continence; and as those dedicated to God, they were deemed worthy by the bishops of every bodily provision. The saint, therefore, being asked what ought to be done to virgins who fornicate, said that the elders decree that these are to be punished as bigamists, and are to be deemed worthy of holy communion after a year; but I, seeing the Church progressing toward the good, and the number of sacred virgins multiplying, say that they ought rather to be punished as adulteresses. And he confirms his own teaching from this, saying that widowhood is inferior to virginity. If, therefore, as the Apostle says, widows have judgment—that is, condemnation—who make their profession void, much more will virgins be condemned. Likewise, he likens the widow to a handmaid, but the virgin to the bride of some head of a household, and so he concludes ^C from all these things that it is correct for virgins who have fallen to be held to the charge of adultery. Then he adds that he is speaking about those virgins who of their own will have offered themselves to the Lord and have renounced marriage at the age of sixteen or seventeen years. But as for those who make professions at a lesser age, he says they ought not to be admitted. For he says that parents often bring them even against their will, on account of poverty or some other cause. While the canon decrees these things, do not say that it is to be understood as applying to monastics or ascetics (or virgins dedicated to divine meditation); for even if they have put off their worldly hair at a lesser age, her profession will be firm, as it seems to me, for that which follows thereafter.

ZONAR. As for those who have professed virginity, and thereafter have fallen and rendered their agreements, that is, their promises, void, the earlier Fathers, being more indulgent and ^D acting more mercifully, as this holy man says, ordained that they be set apart for one year, and after this is fulfilled, be admitted according to the manner of bigamists. But this man.

^A subjects them to the penalty for adultery and constructs his argument from this, saying that widowhood is inferior to virginity. He calls those widows who have professed continence and have been enrolled by the Church in the order of widows. Since, therefore, widowhood is inferior to virginity, the sin of such a widow is also lighter if it is compared with the sin of a virgin. Nevertheless, he says, Paul, writing to Timothy concerning widows who had fallen because they did not keep their continence, declared that they have judgment. Now, since the widow is subject to judgment, that is, to condemnation, as one who has violated the faith pledged to Christ, without doubt the virgin will be subject to a greater one, for she holds the place of the bride of Christ and is, as it were, a holy vessel dedicated to God. This saint, therefore, affirms that the faith in Christ is violated by the widow who has fallen; ^B others, however, have interpreted the "first faith" as the profession of virginity. If a maidservant, he says, commits fornication, she brings contumely upon the master’s house and upon the master himself. But if the bride of that master’s servant commits a sin, she is an adulteress, and a heavier contumely is branded upon him who has that bride through her. Now, since he has proposed the maidservant and the bride as an example, he compares the widow who has sinned to the maidservant, and the virgin who has fallen to the bride; and he condemns the former as a corrupted woman, that is, as one who has committed fornication, but the virgin as an adulteress. And just as, he says, we consider him who is corrupted with another man’s wife to be an adulterer, and unless he ceases from ^C the adultery, we never admit him to penance, so too neither do we admit him who has sinned with a virgin consecrated to God. After he has established a severe penalty against the fallen virgins, he defines which are to be considered as virgins dedicated to God, and says that they are those who offer themselves willingly to the Lord, and having repudiated marriage, profess virginity, and make that profession in the sixteenth or seventeenth year of their age. But before these ages, he says, one ought not to admit such professions easily, until they openly declare their intention that they wish to embrace life in virginal purity; having been examined, moreover, after they have become possessed of reason. For often, he says, parents or relatives offer them against their will, ^D seeking for themselves some temporal gain; perhaps because a dowry to get them married is entirely lacking, or also for other causes, they compel them, though unwilling, to profess virginity and celibacy. These, therefore, he says, are not to be easily admitted.

ARIST. After a year had passed, the Fathers used to receive virgins who had fallen after their profession. But because the Church has now become stronger, we call her an adulteress who, having professed virginity, falls, and him who keeps such a one an adulterer. A woman professes virginity who is seventeen years old, and has been tested, and earnestly requests to remain in that rite. Since he calls her an adulteress who offered herself to the Lord and renounced marriage, and

^A if she transgresses her professions and dishonors her union with the Bridegroom, Christ, by abandoning herself to lascivious pleasures, she shall not be received by the Church otherwise than by ceasing from her sin and dissolving the unlawful cohabitation. For by breaking this off and repenting, she shall fulfill the time of her sin regarding this adultery, so that for fifteen years she shall be excluded from the sacraments—four of these fifteen years she shall spend in weeping, five among those who hear the divine Scriptures, four prostrate, and two standing with the faithful and participating in the prayers—and after the fifteenth year, she may attain to perfection and be deemed worthy of the divine communion. Although this canon requires that she who desires to be admitted into the order of virgins be over sixteen or seventeen years of age, so that, since she is then mistress of her reasoning and possesses full capacity of judgment, if she violates her promises, she may undergo inexorable punishment; yet the fortieth canon of the sixth synod in Trullo admits even one who is ten years old, if he is about to take upon himself the monastic yoke, so that the Church may become stronger, and the assembly of the faithful may be made firm and stable by divine grace for the observance of the commandments. ^B

CANON XIX

We have not known of men's professions, except for those who have enrolled themselves in the order of monks; these appear by their silence to accept celibacy. Yet I consider that it is necessary, even in their case, that they should be questioned, and that a clear profession should be received from them, so that when they turn to a flesh-loving and voluptuous life, they may be subjected to the punishment of those who commit fornication. ^C

BALS. Note from the present canon, which says, "We have not known of men's professions, except for those who have enrolled themselves in the order of monks," that in the 18th canon he did not speak of monks, but of virgins separated to God while in the lay habit. Read the 6th, 44th, and 126th canons of the Council of Carthage. He says, however, that monks, even if they appear tacitly to profess to live in chastity, must nevertheless be questioned and profess celibacy, so that if they lie, they may be punished as fornicators. ^D Since these things are so, do not say that monks who have not made such a profession will be kept free from blame. For even if one has not been tonsured, but has worn the habit (rasa), he will not be able to change his habit and proceed to marriage, but will be compelled against his will to return to the monastic life, as we have often said. The same shall be the case for nuns and for all those of the clergy. For they all, too, appear to profess tacitly that they will not contract marriage after their ordination; and those who transgress the canon are deposed. I inquire into the canon of the holy apostles...

26, the canon of the synod in Ancyra 10, and in the Trullan canon 6.

ZONARAS. From this canon ^A it appears that the great Basil, in what he decreed concerning virgins, did not speak of virgins living in a monastery, but of those who offer themselves to the Lord and promise to spend their lives in virginity. For such were they of old, as the synod at Carthage discusses in canon 6 and 44. Nor were these deaconesses, but from among such women deaconesses were appointed. One must therefore read the 126th canon of the aforementioned synod, and what is written therein. For by saying, "We do not know of the professions of men, unless some have numbered themselves among the order of monks," he shows that what he said was by no means meant for women living in a monastery, but for virgins set apart for God according to the custom prevailing at that time; although perhaps some might interpret these things as referring also to those in a monastery. He says that monks also tacitly promise chastity; but he believes that they too ought to be questioned and to profess celibacy openly, so that, if they deceive their profession, ^B they may be punished as fornicators. Nor does this tacit profession occur only in the case of monks, but also with deacons or subdeacons. For unless those who are to be ordained first declare and testify that they are unable to remain celibate, and take wives before they are ordained, they may not enter into marriage after their ordination. For they seem to promise and vow celibacy tacitly. Seek the 26th apostolic canon, and canon 10 of the synod of Ancyra, and the 6th canon of the so-called sixth synod in Trullo.

ARISTENUS. And let him who renounces marriage be questioned regarding celibacy, and let him clearly profess it, so that if he should change his mind, he may be punished. Concerning men who renounce marriage and choose to live as celibates, it is fitting that they be questioned by the bishop of the region as to whether they truly embrace such a life, and that he receive their manifest profession, and... ^C

Note of William Beveridge

^A

CANON XX.

Whatever women, while they were heretics, professed virginity, and then afterwards preferred marriage, I do not think they ought to be condemned. For whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are in the law. But those who have not yet submitted to the yoke of Christ, do not even know the legislation of the Lord. Therefore, they are to be received by the Church along with all, and because of this, they have remission from their faith in Christ; and in general, things done in the catechumenal life are not brought to judgment. It is clear, however, that the Church does not receive such persons without baptism. Wherefore, the privileges of generation ^B are most necessary for them.

BALS. As is probable, heretical women used to profess virginity, and then gave themselves up to men; but when they approached the Church, they were rebuked as having lied. The saint, therefore, says that they are not to be condemned for the things about which they lied before they believed. Then, in summary, he lays down a canon that those who have believed and have been baptized are not to be punished for the sins they committed before baptism. But by heretics, understand those who are not received otherwise than by being baptized. For there are some heretics who are acceptable even without baptism, being anointed only with the holy chrism. And read the 7th canon of the Second Synod, and the 17th canon of the holy Apostles. ^C

ZONAR. Heretical women used to profess virginity, and then gave themselves up to men. If these women approach the catholic Church, this saint by his opinion judges that they are by no means to be condemned for having deceived their profession. For whatsoever, he says, the law speaks, it speaks to those who are in the law. But those who have not received the yoke of Christ and do not recognize his command are, from then on, acceptable to the Church, obtaining pardon for this crime also from the fact that they have believed in Christ. Then he lays down a rule in general, that whatever things are committed in the catechumenal life are not brought to judgment—that is, they are not punished at all. Furthermore, he says, the Church does not receive such ^D people without baptism; but when they are baptized, they have complete forgiveness of all faults committed before baptism. For this is what he adds, that to such people the privileges of generation are most necessary; that is, that for those being baptized, the privileges of generation necessarily follow thereafter—the preeminent gift, namely, of the generation in baptism, or regeneration, which is the forgiveness of things previously committed. By "heretics," we must understand either those who are not received unless they are baptized, or infidels. For there are some heretics who are acceptable even without baptism, being anointed with the holy chrism alone, as the 17th canon of the Second Synod ordains. One might say that the great Basil contradicts himself with this canon by the fifth canon of the Synod in Neo-Caesarea,

^A which says: "If a catechumen entering the church stands in the order of the catechumens, he sins. If he is kneeling, let him hear, provided he sins no more; but if while hearing he continues to sin, let him be cast out." But this is not the case. For that synodical canon speaks of those who are currently sinning, whereas the great Basil speaks of those who have sinned but have already ceased from sinning. And he does not even say that such persons will not be punished at all, but rather that they will not be held to account. For just as all sins committed before holy baptism are forgiven to the one being baptized, so too all that one sinned while he was a catechumen, he will not be brought to account for these either. Read also the 17th apostolic canon.

ARIST. A virgin who has fallen into heresy, then repents and converts, is not liable to punishment; for whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law. ^B Faithful women who have professed virginity and then violated their vows are subject to the penalty for fornication; but those who were under heresy and promised virginity, if they afterwards chose marriage and came to the Church, are not condemned, but remain unpunished having been baptized. For those who have not yet borne the yoke of Christ do not know his law.

CANON XXI.

If a man cohabiting with a woman, after having taken no pleasure in the marriage, falls into fornication, we judge such a one to be a fornicator ^C and we burden him with heavier penalties; yet we have no canon to subject him to the charge of adultery, if the sin is committed with one free from marriage. For the adulteress, he says, by being polluted shall be polluted, and shall not return to her husband; and he who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious. But he who has committed fornication is not excluded from cohabitation with his own wife; so that while the wife will receive back her husband returning from fornication, the husband will cast out of his house her who has been polluted. And the reason for these things is not easy, but custom has thus prevailed.

BALS. Regarding fornication and adultery, read chapter 5 of the 13th title ^D of the present work, and the canons and laws contained therein. Here the holy man calls one who has a wife and commits lewdness with another free woman a fornicator, not an adulterer; but he calls a married woman who has had relations with any man other than her husband an adulteress, adding that the husband will not be compelled against his will to receive her into his house, but will be separated from her henceforth. But fornication does not separate a man from his lawful wife. And for what reason these things have been thus legislated, he says it is not easy to understand. Note, however, from the present canon, that fornication is not of one kind only, nor is it cured by the same penalties. For he ought to be punished more who

^A has a lawful wife and has committed fornication. But the greater part of the penalty is left to the judgment of the physician of the soul.

ZONAR. A man, he says, who has a wife, if he sins with another woman who has no husband, is a fornicator, but not an adulterer. Yet the penalty is extended further for him, that is, he is punished more severely than one who does not live with a wife and commits fornication. For to the latter, some indulgence is granted because of the necessity of nature. But he who has a wife lacks this excuse, since he possesses a lawful spouse as a relief from natural necessity, and yet sins out of intemperance and lust; and for this reason he is punished more and for a longer time. Yet, nevertheless, his wife will not repudiate such a man. But a woman who has a husband and has had relations with another is an adulteress; and her husband shall cast her out, and he shall not be forced to take her back unless he wishes. For so, he says, has custom prevailed that these things are judged. But the reason and cause for which it has been customary for this to be so, he says, is not easy to understand.

ARIST. A man who has committed fornication shall be received back by his own wife. But a man shall send away a wife who has been defiled by adultery. For ^B he who, being joined to a wife, has had relations with one who is unmarried, is a fornicator, not an adulterer. A man who cohabits with a woman and sins with another who is free from marriage shall not be judged an adulterer, but a fornicator. And therefore he shall not be subjected to the penalties of adultery, but shall be punished as more than a mere fornicator. But this happens because of the custom that has prevailed. For the law orders a woman who has been defiled by another man to be put away by her husband. But it orders a man who commits fornication not to be put away by his wife, but to be retained.

CANON XXII

Those who have women by abduction, if they have carried off those who were betrothed to others, they ought not to be admitted until they are taken away from them, and it is in the power of those to whom they were betrothed whether they wish to take them back or to desist. But if anyone has taken a woman who was disengaged, he ought indeed to take her away and restore her to her own people, but to defer to the will of her relatives, whether they be parents, or brothers, or whosoever else is in charge of the maiden; and if they wish to give her to him, let the marriage be established; but if they refuse, no one shall be forced. However, he who has a woman whom he has violated either by force ^C or by stealth must necessarily be given the penalties for fornication; for the punishment prescribed for fornicators is four years. Moreover, in the first year they ought to be cast out from the prayers and

Guill. Beveregii note.

Regarding this canon he observes, that the civil law, severely punishing him who has abducted a woman, does not even permit that the abducted woman be joined to him in marriage, even though the girl's relatives wish it. Harmenop. Epit. can. sect. 5, tit. 3.

^A And the rule is: the first time, they must be cast out from the prayers, and they must weep at the door of the church. The second time, they are to be received into the station of the hearers; the third time, into the station of repentance; the fourth time, into the station of the faithful, standing with the people while abstaining from the offering. Afterwards, they are to be allowed to partake in the communion of the good.

BALS. Canon 27 of the Synod of Chalcedon, which is exactly the same as canon 92 of the Sixth Synod, determines what must be done to those who abduct women under the name of marriage. But the present canon orders that those who have abducted a woman betrothed to another ^B are not to be admitted to repentance unless they first give back the abducted, so that their bettors may take them, if they wish; if not, they are to be with their own relatives. And as for those who have abducted a free woman, or one not betrothed to anyone, it orders that she likewise be taken away from him and delivered to her parents, or to those who otherwise pertain to her: so that if they desire, they may join her to the abductor with her consent; but if they do not approve of this, it is not to be done. However, whatever the state of the matter might be, even if the abductor is indeed joined to the abducted woman, he will be liable to the penalties of fornicators; and not only will the abductor be punished in this way, but also he who secretly deflowered the girl. It also defines the penalties for fornicators as lasting four years. And in these points the present canon consists. But civil law punishes abductors in another way, and does not in any manner allow the abductor to be joined to the abducted. ^C And read the aforementioned canon 27 of the Synod of Chalcedon, and canon 92 of the Sixth, and canon 67 of the Holy Apostles, and chapter 4 of title 9 of this present work, and what is contained in them. But when you hear the present canon saying that the woman is given in marriage to the one who abducted her with the consent of her parents or relatives, do not say that the consent of the parents alone is sufficient. For whenever a legitimate marriage takes place, the consent of those who are being joined is also necessary, whether they be under another's power or be their own masters. For the second chapter of title 4 of the 28th book states these things expressly: "Legitimate marriages do not exist unless those who are joined have consented, and those who have them in their power." If, however, according to this law, the consent of those in power is necessary in marriages, then much more will a marriage of those who are their own masters not take place, unless they themselves also consent.

ZONAR. Those who have abducted women, he says, and keep them, if those women had previously ^D been betrothed to others, will be admitted to penalty only if they first have the abducted women taken away from them, and then it is fully granted to those to whom they had been betrothed to take them, if they wish; but if the abducted person had not yet been betrothed to anyone, the canon orders that she also be taken away from the abductor, and be delivered to her parents or to others who have the care of the woman. So that if those people wish to join her to the abductor in the bond of marriage, the marriage stands, provided, of course, that the woman herself also consents.

^A However, her consent is indeed necessary in other cases, but not as against a father who has her under his power; for she cannot contradict her father, unless perhaps he betroths her to someone stained in his ways or unworthy, according to the civil laws. But if the woman does not wish it, even if her relatives do, the marriage shall not be established; yet if the woman also wishes, and those related to her, to establish a marriage union with the one who corrupted her, whether secretly or by force, the corruptor shall be subject to the penalty for fornication, which the canon rules to be for four years; and further it recounts how the one who sinned is to be managed during the quadrennium. These, then, are the contents of the canon; but the civil law, punishing the woman-abductor most severely, does not ^B even allow the abducted woman to be joined to him in marriage, even if those related to her wish this. For it says in Book 60, Title 50, Chapter 8: Let the abducted woman not be married to the one who abducted her, but even if her parents consent to such a marriage union, they are restricted.

ARIST. He who abducts a betrothed woman shall restore her to the one who betrothed her; but if she was unbetrothed, he shall restore her to her relatives, and the marriage unions shall proceed according to their opinion, if they indeed wish. He himself, however, shall undergo the penalty of fornication.

The present canon requires that the woman who was not yet betrothed, and was abducted by someone, be restored to her own people, whether these be parents, or brothers, or others who attend to her care because of her orphanhood. It gives them ^C permission from that point on, if they wish, to contract a marriage with the one who abducted her. But the fifty-eighth title of the sixtieth book of the *Basilica* does not allow this to happen, even if the abducted woman desires to be joined in marriage to the abductor, and even if her parents desire it; indeed, it orders that such parents who consent to such a marriage union be punished. The ninetieth canon of the Sixth Council in Trullo subjects to anathema the layman who abducts a woman under the name of a marriage union. And one must understand that canon according to the force of the present canon; for it too commands that the one who has possessed a woman by abduction not be admitted into the Church before he restores her, if she had been betrothed, to her own betrothed or, if she were unbetrothed, to her own parents or brothers or those otherwise in charge. For after he has restored her, the anathema will have no place. ^D However, the man who, before the marriage, secretly or by force corrupted a woman, and then was legally joined to her, is under a necessity to acknowledge the penalty of fornication for four years. In the first, he shall be lamenting at the doors of the church; in the second, he shall be received with the hearers; in the third, with the prostrators; and in the fourth, he shall be gathered with the faithful and be a partaker of their prayers; and thus, after the four years, he is to be deemed worthy of the communion of the Good.

CANON XXIII

the copy we have sent to your reverence. But he who has taken the wife of his own brother shall not be received before he has withdrawn from her.

BALS. ^B The sin of incest, like other sins, is cured by ecclesiastical treatment after the withdrawal from the evil. The saint, therefore, having been asked what should be done regarding those who have had relations with two sisters, and conversely, said that he had written a letter about such things: this is the one which he wrote to Diodorus, and therein it is shown what is to be done. In the meantime, those who have contracted such an unlawful marriage ought to withdraw from the evil, and thus inquire concerning the cure. Read, therefore, the letter to Diodorus, and the things therein, and the 2nd chapter of the 13th title of the present work.

ZONAR. The little letter, of which the saint makes mention here, was sent to Diodorus, in which he forbids someone, once his wife had died, to bring her sister into society of marriage, and confirms the matter with many and weighty arguments. Which, indeed, we shall explain in its own place. He who also took the wife of his brother, that is to say, after he had finished his life, will not be admitted to penance unless he puts her away and dissolves the unlawful marriage.

ARIST. It is impossible for a brother to marry the wife of a brother. Clear.

CANON XXIV ^C A widow who has been enrolled in the number of widows, that is, who has been supported by the Church, the Apostle decreed should be disregarded if she marries. But for a widower, no law is imposed, but the penalty for digamists is sufficient for such a one. However, a widow who is sixty years of age, if she wishes to live with a man again, shall not be deemed worthy of the communion of the Good, until she has ceased from the disturbance of impurity. But if we have enrolled her in the number before sixty years, the fault is ours, not the woman's.

BALS. ^D Just as virgin women were placed in the churches with a lay habit and were supported from the revenues of the church, so also widows were enrolled with the same habit. The saint therefore says that the great Paul decreed that such a widow, or rather the one who has remarried after being enrolled in the Church, should be disregarded, that is to say, should be expelled from the Church; and if she herself has remarried before the sixtieth year, she will endure that penalty alone. For she is worthy of pardon as one who was compelled by younger age to remarry, and rather those who enrolled her before she accomplished the sixty-year period are to be blamed, as having transgressed the apostolic constitution which says: "Let a widow be chosen not less than sixty years old" [1 Tim. v, 9]. But she who, after the sixty-year period, has weakened in continence and remarried, will be separated from the holy communion, until she has abstained from impurity with the man. For the saint called marriage in that age impurity. The man

however, who enters a second marriage, the law, he says, does not punish in any other way than through the penalty for bigamists, which is separation for one year. But since the saint mentioned the apostolic precept, you ought to know that the great Paul, writing to Timothy, says: "Honor widows who are widows indeed." And after a few words: "But she who is really a widow, and left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers." And again, after some words: "If any believing man or woman has widows, let him relieve them, and do not let the Church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are widows indeed." And again: "Refuse the younger widows." And these things are for the sake of those women who are widows and have been enrolled in the Church. ^B And if such widows, whenever they marry a second time, should fall under the penalty of bigamists, just as men do, read also the 2nd chapter of the 13th title of the present code. Do not wonder why the canons did not ordain that men who have become widowers should be enrolled in the churches in the lay habit. For the Fathers had greater concern for women than for men. For women, not possessing the means of providing what is necessary for life, perhaps incline out of necessity to second marriages, even while wishing to live temperately; and for this reason the Church helps them, so that they might not marry a second time on the pretext of poverty. But men, who in many ways provide what is necessary for sustenance, cannot use poverty as a pretext for warding off the censure of a second marriage; and for this reason they are not accepted or supported by the churches. Consequently, according to this reasoning, do not say that women who have married a second time ought to remain unpunished, as some say, but rather that they too are subject to the penalty of those contracting second marriages. For you will learn from the 14th title of the 28th book that women who marry a second time are punished even more than men who have taken wives a second time. ^C

ZONARAS: The great Paul, writing to Timothy, says: "Honor widows who are widows indeed"; and after a few words: "But she who is really a widow, and left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers." And again, with a few words intervening: "If any believing man or woman has widows, let him provide for them, and do not let the Church be burdened, that it may provide for those who are widows indeed." And again: "Refuse the younger widows." Therefore, according to the command of the Apostle, those who were widows indeed were enrolled in the churches, and were fed from there. For these reasons, therefore, the great Basil says that if a widow enrolled among the widows supported by the Church—that is, whom the Church fed and to whom it ministered—inclines toward marriage, she will be disregarded, and will no longer have provisions for maintenance from the Church. To men who have become widowers, however, no law lies; that is to say, no spiritual law punishes men who engage in second marriages. ^D For the penalty of bigamists is sufficient for them, which is separation for one year. But a widow, having reached sixty years of age, and consequently...

^A enrolled among the widows in the churches, if she chooses marriage, she shall be separated from holy communion until she has abstained from the man. For the holy man called the union in old age "impurity." If, however, we should reckon her among the widows of the Church before sixty years of age, and she should fall by being united to a man, the crime is ours, not the woman's. For we, he says, are justly to be blamed as violators of the law promulgated by the Apostle, which says: "Let a widow be enrolled [who is] not less than sixty years old," whereas she is worthy of pardon as not having yet reached old age.

ARIST. If a widow enrolled in the diaconate marries, she is disregarded. But a widower who marries shall only know the penalty for those twice-married. A widow, however, who marries after sixty years of age shall be deprived of communion until she has ceased from the impurity. But if anyone enrolls someone before sixty years of age, he shall be bound by her crime.

Widows who are enrolled in the number of widows and are supported by the Church, if they come to marriage, are no longer deemed worthy of any provision by the Church, but are disregarded. Therefore, one must not enroll those who have not yet reached their sixtieth year into the order of widows. But if a widow who is sixty years of age chooses to cohabit with a man again, she shall not be deemed worthy of communion of the good until she has ceased from the passion of impurity.

CANON XXV

BALS. "Defilement" (stuprum) is properly spoken of regarding virgins and the underage. The holy man says, therefore, that he who has deflowered a ^C virgin not yet betrothed to him in lawful marriage, even if he wishes to have her as a wife after the defilement, he will not be helped to avoid the penalty for defilement. For he ought first to have brought it about that she was betrothed to him, and thus to have union with her; but having not done this, he will fall under the penalty for defilement, but he will be permitted to have her as a lawful wife. This will happen, however, if her parents also consent. Now the penalty for defilement is three years, by which both he who deflowered and she who was deflowered are punished in like manner. And read the 58th canon of the present holy man. These things have place in the case of those who are under power. For those who are sui juris (their own masters) indeed fall under the penalty, but according to the laws they are joined together if they consent. But if the man does not want to take her whom he has deflowered as his wife, it shall be done according to chapter 3 of title 37 of book 60 [Basilika], which says thus: "He who keeps a respectable and noble woman in concubinage and does not make this manifest by a public declaration, or take her as a wife, if refusing this he commits a transgression of ^D wantonness, it is not, however, adultery, in that he does not make profit from his own body." See also book 28, title 4, chapters 12 and 13, and book 47, title 6, chapter 37.

^A ZONARAS. If anyone should deflower a virgin not betrothed to him, and after the deflowering uses her as a wife, he shall indeed be liable to the penalty for deflowering, but the woman shall not be taken away from him, clearly provided that her parents, in whose power she is, permit the woman to live with him. For if they do not wish it, he shall also be punished according to the civil law, if she who was deflowered was a virgin.

ARISTENUS. He who has her whom he deflowered, being permitted to have her, shall acknowledge the penalty. Whoever wishes to have a woman whom he deflowered before marriage shall be permitted to keep her; but he shall undergo the penalty for the deflowering for four years, just as it was written in the twenty-second canon.

CANON XXVI

BALSAMON. After the holy man said what ought to be done to him who deflowers a virgin, he now determines also concerning those who have come together in a way of fornication; and he says that fornication is not regarded as marriage, nor as the beginning of marriage, so that the one is compelled to be joined to the other matrimonially. But it is best that they be separated, that is to say, that the matrimonial union be not permitted to exist between them, because the foundation of such a marriage is lawless and damnable. But if they are so absolutely pleased with their life together that they cannot be persuaded to depart from one another, let them be punished indeed as fornicators, but let them be permitted to live together, lest something worse happen—that is to say, lest if they are separated they should again commit fornication secretly, which is to say, lest being joined to other persons they might not remain in legitimate marriage but commit adultery, or lest, being prevented, they might lay violent hands upon themselves ^C because of the vehemence of their love. These things, it seems to me, had place when marriage was contracted by consent alone, but not today, when marriage is constituted by the sacred office and the divine participation of the body and blood of Christ. For how can those who have been penalized for fornication, and are not participants in the sacraments, be joined together matrimonially? But if you say that, after the penalty has been imposed upon those who have fornicated for a full three years, that they should not fornicate, you are not prevented from granting them leave to be joined together in legitimate marriage three years later.

But someone might ask: Why does the holy man decree that the virgin, after the deflowering, should be lawfully joined to the deflowerer, but does not permit those who have fornicated to be joined easily in marriage, but only with a distinction?

Solution. Perhaps no one will want to take the virgin into marriage after the deflowering brought upon her, and if it is not permitted for her to marry him who deflowered her, she will be left dishonored and worthy of pity; but she who has fornicated is not so much harmed if she is not married to him who fornicated ^D with her, for she was already deflowered by another. If, therefore, there is no great evil present from the...

separation of those who have fornicated, and those who have fornicated do not apply themselves to matrimony with their whole soul, separation is to be preferred, and through it, abstention from evil. Furthermore, someone might ask: Since chapter 3, title 37, of book 60 ^A ordains that one who has an affair with an honorable woman in concubinage is compelled to marry her, how does the present canon decree that those who have participated in fornication should be separated? Solution: There is a difference between a concubine or mistress, and a fornicatress. For the former, that is, the concubine who sins with only one man, is even recognized by the law. But she who has fornicated with many is not recognized by the law, but is even expelled from the fornicator's house, as the aforementioned chapter states. The present canon, therefore, speaking of a fornicatress, rightly and in accordance with the law, decrees with a distinction that those who have fornicated should be lawfully joined. ^B

ZONARAS. If someone secretly has intercourse with a woman, it shall not be considered a marriage, nor an occasion for marriage, so that some might say: "Since he has had intercourse with her, he should be allowed to have her as his wife." But it is certainly the best counsel that they be separated from each other, since the foundation of such a marriage is unstable and illicit. But if both parties desire to retain their mutual life together plainly—that is, with a hardened spirit—and do not allow the established union to be dissolved, let them be subjected to the penalties for fornicators, but let the faculty of contracting matrimony be given, lest something worse occur—namely, that being separated they secretly have intercourse again and are involved in the crime of fornication; ^C or lest the woman, joined to another, but loving him by whom she had been corrupted, slip into adultery; or lest, driven by mutual love and having been deprived of the power of marriage, they kill themselves on account of the vehemence of their love and their mutual separation.

ARISTENUS. If one who is joined through fornication is separated, it is better. But if he is joined indissolubly, let it be granted to him, having undergone the penalty. Marriage is then venerable and honorable when it is pure from fornication. And for this reason, fornication is neither marriage nor the beginning of marriage, but a sin and a transgression of the divine law. So that if anyone is defiled with a woman through fornication, to depart from her, ^D if it is possible, is best. If, however, they can in no way be torn from each other, and wish to live together from then on with a marital disposition, let them undergo the penalty for fornication. But let it be permitted to them to be together, so that something worse does not come to pass.

CANON XXVII. Regarding the presbyter who, through ignorance, has been involved in a nefariuous marriage, I have defined what ought to be: that he should indeed remain a participant in the chair, but abstain from other actions; for pardon is sufficient for such a one. But that he should bless others, who ought to be tending to his own…

traumata ἀνακόλουθον. Εὐλογία γὰρ ἁγιασμού με ^A ἀδοσίς ἐστιν. Ὁ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ ἔχων διὰ τὸ τῆς ἀγνοίας παράπτωμα, πῶς ἑτέρῳ μεταδώσει; Μήτε τοίνυν δημοσίᾳ μήτε ἰδίᾳ εὐλογείτω, μήτε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατανεμέτω ἑτέρῳ, μήτε τι ἄλλο λειτουργείτω, ἀλλὰ ἀρκούμενος τῇ προεδρίᾳ, προσκλαιέτω ἑτέροις καὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ, συγχωρηθῆναι αὐτῷ τὸ ἐκ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἁμάρτημα.

^B ΒΑΛΣ. Εἰς τρία διαιροῦνται οἱ κεκωλυμένοι γάμοι, εἰς νεφάριον τὸν λεγόμενον παράνομον, ὡς ὅτε λάβῃ τις εἰς γάμον τὴν ἐπιτροπευθεῖσαν παρὰ τούτου ἢ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἢ τὴν οὖσαν ὑπὸ τὴν πρακτορικὴν ἐξουσίαν τούτου ἢ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ· εἰς δαμνᾶτον, τὸν λεγόμενον κατάκριτον, ὅς ἐστιν ὁ μετὰ μοναχῆς ἢ ἑτέρας ἀνατεθειμένης τῷ Θεῷ γάμος· καὶ εἰς τὸν ἔγκεστον, τὸν καὶ ἀθέμιτον λεγόμενον, δηλονότι τὸν μετὰ συγγενικοῦ προσώπου κεκωλυμένου προβάντα. Τινὲς γοῦν ἱερέως ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ γάμον ἀθέμιτον συναλλάξαντος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαζυγέντος, καὶ καθαιρέσει ὑποπεσόντος, ἠρώτησε τις τὸν ἅγιον εἰ ὀφείλει ὁ τοιοῦτος ἱερεὺς μετὰ τὴν καθαίρεσιν ἱερατικόν τι ἐνεργεῖν. Ἔλεγον γάρ τινες ὡς, ἐπεὶ ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ ὠλίσθησεν ὁ ἱερεὺς, οὐχ ὑποπεσεῖται καθαιρέσει· εἰ δὲ καθαιρεθῇ, τῶν μὲν ἐντὸς τοῦ βήματος ἐνεργειῶν κωλυθήσεται, τῶν δὲ ἐκτὸς οὐκ ἐμποδισθήσεται. Φησὶ τοίνυν ὁ ἅγιος ὀφείλειν τοῦτον καθαιρεῖσθαι, καὶ μετὰ τὴν καθαίρεσιν τιμῆς μὲν μόνης μετέχειν, ἤτοι συγκαθῆσθαι μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν ἱερατικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἀπέχεσθαι, ἤγουν μήτε εὐχὴν λέγειν δημοσίᾳ, τουτέστιν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, μήτε ἰδίᾳ, τουτέστιν ἐκτὸς τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τὰ ἅγια μεταχειρίζεσθαι, καὶ ἑτέροις μεταδιδόναι αὐτῶν, μήτ' ἄλλο τι ἱερατικὸν ἐνεργεῖν. Ἀρκεῖσθαι δὲ τῇ τιμῇ τῆς προεδρίας, τῇ φιλοτιμηθείσῃ αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν. Εὐλογεῖν μέντοι ἑτέρους τὸν τοιοῦτον οὐ δεῖ· ἡ γὰρ εὐλογία μετάδοσις ἁγιασμοῦ ἐστιν. Ὁ δὲ μὴ ἔχων ἁγιασμόν, κἂν δι' ἄγνοιαν καθηρέθη, πῶς τούτου μεταδώσει ἑτέρῳ; Συγγνώμη δὲ δίδοται αὐτῷ, οὐ μόνον διὰ τοῦ συγκαθῆσθαι ^C μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τοῦ μὴ τιμωρεῖσθαι ἀλλοτρόπως. Εἰ γὰρ ἂν εἰδήσει ἔλαβεν εἰς γυναῖκα τὴν ἀφιερωθεῖσαν τῷ Θεῷ, ἢ τὴν συγγενῆ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀλλοτρόπως, χρηματικῶς δηλονότι καὶ ἐγκληματικῶς, ἂν ἐκολάσθη, ἅτινα οὐκ ἐπάγονται αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν. Καὶ ἀνάγνωθι τὸν ις' τίτλον τοῦ κη' βιβλίου· μετὰ μέντοι τὸ ἀπαγορεῦσαι αὐτῷ πᾶσαν ἱερατικὴν ἐνέργειαν, φησὶν ὁ ἅγιος, προσκλαιέτω ἑτέροις καὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ· τῷ μὲν Κυρίῳ, ὡς δυναμένῳ ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτήματα, τοῖς δὲ ἑτέροις, ἵνα κἀκεῖνοι ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ δέωνται τῷ Κυρίῳ συγχωρηθῆναι τούτῳ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀθέσμου γάμου ἀνόμημα. Ἐρωτήσει δέ τις, ὡς ἐκ τριῶν τρόπων κολαζομένων τῶν ἀθέσμων γάμων, καθαιρεθήσεται καὶ ὁ ποιήσας παράνομον γάμον, ἤγουν καὶ ὁ τήν ποτε παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπιτροπευθεῖσαν, ἢ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, εἰς γάμον ἀγόμενος; Λύσις. Ἐπεὶ ὡς παράνομος καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτος γάμος διασπάται, ἐξ ἀνάγκης μετὰ τὸ διαζύγιον καὶ οὗτος ὡς πορνεύσας

πορνεύσας ^A shall be deposed. And if she who is joined to him contrary to the laws was previously under his tutelage, he shall not even be deemed worthy of his seat, as one who cannot allege ignorance. But if she was under the tutelage of his father, the plea of ignorance may also bring him aid; he shall be pardoned and shall be deemed worthy of his seat according to the present canon. Read also the twenty-seventh chapter of the first title of the present work, and the ninth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea and what is therein, and the twenty-first and twenty-sixth canons of the Synod in Trullo. But since there appears to arise a contradiction in these (for some of these canons say those who are deposed are cast down into the rank of laymen, others that they may exercise only those things which are outside the chancel, and still others that they partake only of the seat), make a distinction and say: that those who sin knowingly and are convicted are punished in one way; others who sin knowingly but of their own accord desist from the evil, in another way; others who sinned through ignorance and confessed, in another way; and others who were ignorant of the sin but did not desist from it until they were condemned, in yet another way. Note also the difference in the sins and the persons, and say that by the judgment of the bishops, sometimes those who are deposed are pardoned, and sometimes they are not, and thus the contradiction which appears to be in the canons is resolved.

^C ZONAR. The holy man judged that a priest who through ignorance has fallen into an unlawful marriage should partake only of the seat, but abstain from the rest of his functions; that is, to sit with the presbyters and to be held in honor equally with them, but to perform no other priestly office. For it suffices him, he says, that he is granted pardon because of his ignorance, but such a man ought not to bless another. For a blessing is a certain communication of holiness. But he who lacks holiness on account of a sin, even if it was committed through ignorance, how shall he communicate it to another? And he is not permitted to bless publicly, that is, in church, nor privately, perhaps within the walls of a house, nor to distribute the holy gifts to others, nor finally to perform any other priestly office. But, he says, being content with the honor of the first seat, let him weep both before others and before the Lord; before the Lord, as One able to remit sins, and before others, that they also may pray to the Lord for him, that the transgression from the unlawful marriage may be forgiven him. These things, however, apply if he withdraws from such an unlawful marriage. Unlawful marriage is to be understood as either the union with a relative, or with a nun who has renounced her habit, without the man who took her into his house knowing of this, and other like things.

^D ARIST. A presbyter who through ignorance has fallen into an unlawful marriage shall enjoy only the presidency, being deprived of his function. If anyone before receiving the priesthood took a woman, not knowing that she was a widow, or a madwoman, or one of those on the stage, or any other of those prohibited to the ordained, and then was promoted to the degree of priesthood, and [found out]

^A regarding the illegitimacy of the marriage, shall share only in the honor and the presidency of the priests, but shall be altogether prohibited from performing the ministry; for pardon through ignorance is sufficient for him. But that he who should take care of his own wounds should also bless others is not consistent. For a blessing is a communication of sanctification; and he who does not possess this on account of a fall from ignorance, how shall he communicate it to others?

CANON XXVIII

CANON XXIX

BALS. The present two canons command that oaths made by some to the effect that some evil may be done, or even something ridiculous, be rendered void; for they say that he who has vowed or sworn not to eat swine's flesh, or to do evil to those subject to him, should be taught to abstain from such foolish and uneducated oaths, and that to swear at all is prohibited; but that ^C one is permitted to eat swine's flesh, and to transgress the oath, and not to do the evil under the pretext of not perjuring oneself. And he made use of the example of Herod, who swore to behead the Baptist, and because he did not wish to perjure himself, committed murder. For he ought, he says, to have come to his senses—that is, to repent—and to despise the unjust oath, and not by the act to confirm the impiety. Read chapter 18, title 13, of the present work, and what is in it. But when the canon of the holy ^D

^A Basil, and the 82nd, and the 103rd, punish the perjured, while other canons contained in the aforementioned chapter decree that those who have committed perjury are not to be punished, just as those pre-existing canons also command, someone might say that the canons are contrary to one another. But to me it does not seem so; rather, whenever someone violates a lawful oath without any necessity, or swears falsely, he shall be punished more severely. But when he does this under duress, he shall be punished more lightly, according to the 82nd canon of the present holy Father. But if the oath is not lawful, but proceeded from something absurd being done, or a good thing not being done, or if someone swore a thing that ought not to be brought into an oath, then the violation of this is unpunishable. Nevertheless, hearing the holy one saying that such people also must be taught not to be prone to swearing, and that swearing is altogether forbidden, I say that even those who bind themselves with such oaths, even if they perjure themselves without danger, will not be entirely unpunished; but they shall be moderately censured according to the discretion of the bishop. ^B And since from the fact that the canons decree that perjurers are to be punished, it appears that those who do not transgress their oaths are not punished, and from this it is also shown that lawful oaths are permitted, do not say that these things are in some way defined against the evangelical precept, which says: “I say to you not to swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool,” but for us to say “yes, yes,” and “no, no.” ^C For this is for those who are very perfect, but that is secondary and not to be rejected, since it is lawful; of which sort is also that: “Sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and follow me.” For if all were compelled to do this, who would buy them? Furthermore, if every oath were forbidden, not even the Prophet would have said: “I have sworn, and have firmly decided to keep your commands,” nor would the orthodox emperors who composed the laws have issued laws that permit the rendering of oaths. Wherefore, not every oath is forbidden, whether lawful or unlawful, but only that which is unlawful and inept. But when a certain nobleman on the third day of the week ^D said to our powerful and holy emperor that he ought not to eat meat, although it was the feast of the Nativity of Christ and our God, because he had sworn to abstain from meat on the third days of all the weeks of the year in honor of the venerable Forerunner, our God-crowned emperor decreed that inquiry be made synodically whether it is canonical for this oath to be kept, and to abandon the Lord’s feast, which is Paschal in nature, leaving it uncelebrated. And the inquiry having been made, that most holy patriarch, lord Lucas, with the synod which was present, when he had said that it is good to fast at all times, added that one ought not to prefer this oath to our Lord and God. For if the apostolic canons punish him who in any Sabbath or Lord’s day bends the knee or fasts, much more will he be punished who fasts on the Paschal feast of Christ, lest the oath

^A which he voluntarily took be contemned. And he granted the noble lord permission to eat meat. The same patriarch also, regarding Tzitas the eunuch, who had been bound by an oath to go to the holy places in Jerusalem for adoration but did not go, since he had been led to repentance, absolved him synodically from the perjury, imposing a moderate penalty and providing a remedy. But concerning the words of the canon, which are as follows: "For no creature of God is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving," do not say that it was granted for us to eat of all beasts; but say that the canon is discoursing about those things which are eaten by the orthodox by custom and ecclesiastical tradition.

ZONARAS. On Canon 98.

ARISTENUS. Canon 28.

Someone was vowing to abstain from pork. This man is ridiculous, as one praying and promising in an unlearned manner. For no creature of God is to be rejected, if it is taken with thanksgiving. One must, therefore, allow him the partaking of the meats from which he vowed to abstain, but he must be taught not to make unlearned professions to God.

ZONARAS. On Canon 29.

is forbidden; nay, it is even to be condemned if a person swears to do evil. ^A Hence, one who has sworn such an oath must change his mind—that is, must deliberate differently and think the contrary, or repent. For someone swore to kill: he must therefore change his mind, that is, think otherwise and have a change of heart, meaning, not to kill; but he must not confirm the impious act by the deed itself. For if anyone, he says, has sworn to gouge out his brother’s eyes, it must be examined which is better: to disregard the oath or to carry out the evil. And if anyone has sworn to transgress a command, it is better to set aside the oath than the command. For I have sworn, says David, and have set myself to keep the judgments of your righteousness, not sin (Ps. CXVIII, 106).

ARIST. Can. 29. If it is forbidden to swear, it is rather so to swear for the sake of doing evil; so that you should not only prevent the deed, but also [abhor] the very oath they belch forth. The remedy for this consists of a double admonition: not to swear, and to restrain what appears as an oath. To perform what was sworn, if it be absurd, is wrong.

Let not those in authority find a pretext for injuring their subjects through an oath. For what if someone has sworn to afflict with disease those who are under his authority, and under the guise of piety wishes to confirm his own wickedness? ^B Apply, then, a double remedy to such a one: in one way, teach him not to swear readily; in another, not to persist in oaths directed toward evil. For it did not profit Herod to have sworn; for, lest he perjure himself, he became the murderer of the Prophet. For one ought to keep inviolate that oath which one has sworn in order to observe the judgments of God’s righteousness; but that which is directed toward sin and the injury of someone, it is necessary by all means to invalidate and destroy.

CANON XXX

Concerning those who abduct, we have no ancient canon, but we have put forward our own opinion that both they and those who abduct with them should be outside the prayers for three years. ^C But that which is not done violently is subject to no penalty, when neither rape nor theft preceded the matter; for the widow is autonomous, and it is in her power to follow. Therefore, we should have no concern for outward appearances and pretexts.

BALS. In the 67th Apostolic canon, in the 27th of Chalcedon, in the 92nd of the Synod in Trullo, and in the 22nd of the present saint, we have written various things concerning those who abduct women and those who cooperate with them. Read those, and chapter 30 of Title 9 of this present work. But the present canon decrees that abductors and those who cooperate with them are to be outside the prayers for three years, that is, to stand with the hearers. ^D But if, he says, the woman has voluntarily given herself, without any preceding rape or theft, that is, clandestine intercourse, he who has taken her is subject to no crime;

Likewise, he who takes a widow who is her own mistress in this manner is also not liable. As for the phrase, "We are not to concern ourselves with appearances," it is of this sort: If a woman, perhaps blushing to give herself to a lover or a beloved who is a low person, feigns to have been raped, but in truth has voluntarily followed him, we do not concern ourselves with the appearance, that is, the hypocrisy, but we attend to the truth. And read Canon 50, which concurs with such an interpretation. ^B However, understand the statement that he who has abducted a woman by her own will is not liable, in such a way that no canonical penalty is to be inflicted upon him. For he who has committed an abduction of a woman who is her own mistress or who is under the authority of another, whether by her consent or solely by his own will, is held by the law concerning abduction for the sake of punishing the disorder of the many and restraining others; just as the first chapter of the 58th title of the 60th book says at the end, saying thus: "Let all the punishments of the ordinance be against those who have abducted and against those who have brought aid to them in the abduction." Those, however, who were privy to it and served it, and those who received them, or brought them any zeal whatsoever, let them be subject to the said punishment, whether the women were willing or unwilling that the abduction occurred. ^C And this was judged thus also in the imperial tribunal in the case of Seth, who had abducted the daughter of one who had recently been illuminated. But if you wish to say that a rape did not truly occur against the woman, but happened by pretense, as we said above, neither will the canonical penalties have place, nor the laws that punish abductors, but only those who have taken those who were under authority will be held by a lawsuit for insults to the fathers, in such a way that the marriage which took place between them, being against the will of those under whose authority they are, shall be dissolved. And read the 38th canon of this saint, and the 41st and 42nd. The saint, however, rightly mentions defilement and theft. For defilement properly occurs with a virgin, but theft, or stealthy intercourse, with a free woman who is not of that sort. And he mentions both, because even without a rape occurring, both the defiler and the fornicator are punished.

^D ZONARAS. This holy man decreed that those who abduct women, and those who assist them, are to be for three years outside the prayers; that is, to stand in the narthex with the hearers. But if a woman willingly gives herself, without any preceding defilement, nor theft—that is, clandestine intercourse—he who has taken her is not liable, inasmuch as no violence intervened, provided that the woman was, for the time being, her own mistress. For if she was under another's authority, by giving herself to a man without the consent of the one who has authority over her, it is not considered that she is contracting a marriage. For if he who holds authority wishes it, he will tear asunder the union, as the 38th canon contains, and the 41st and 42nd. Whence he says, if she is a widow who is her own mistress, and it lies with her—that is, in her own will—to follow a man, he who takes her is not made liable. As for the phrase, "We are not to concern ourselves with appearances,"

^A one must understand it thus: that widows of that time likely had some specific style of dress—perhaps of a mourning nature, or at least different from the kind worn by women subject to husbands. This can also admit another explanation. ^B Just as in our own day, those who transition into the monastic life are not tonsured immediately, but first change their habit and only after a certain period of time has elapsed are tonsured; so too it was customary in those days that widows who were to be enrolled in the order of widows, and who were supported by the resources of the Church, would first change their habit, and then, after an interval of time, would be counted among the order. If, therefore, a widow who has changed her habit takes a husband before she is officially enrolled among the widows of the Church, we are not, he says, to concern ourselves with the appearance, nor shall she be punished for this change of habit—a practice which is also observed among monks today. For even if a person changes their habit, provided they have not yet been tonsured and have not yet bound themselves with promises to God, but then succumbs to the hardships of monastic discipline and departs, they shall suffer no penalty for this. This same Great Basil, in his own Ascetical Constitutions, while giving his opinion regarding boys who were taken into a brotherhood, orders that they should be educated, taught crafts, and habituated to every virtuous exercise; but once they have grown in reason and a greater faculty of judgment has developed in them, only then should the profession of virginity be admitted, when they have reached the perfection of reason. Furthermore, he says, if one does not acquiesce to living a life of virginity, inasmuch as he cannot be anxious for the things of the Lord, let him be released in the presence of witnesses. I believe, however, that it is better to understand the phrase "We must not concern ourselves with appearances" in this way: that if a woman, perhaps hindered by modesty from giving herself to a lover or a beloved—because the man is of low standing—pretends that she was abducted, when in reality she followed him of her own accord, we are not, he says, to concern ourselves with the pretext, that is, the simulation, but we pay heed to the truth. One should also read the 53rd canon of this same saint. ^C

ARIST. He who abducts shall be subject to three years of prostration. But if the widow follows him, the evil is not liable to penalty.

To what penalties he who abducts a woman is liable was written in the twenty-second canon of this present epistle, and in the 92nd canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo. The present canon, however, adds also this: that both he who abducted her and those who gave him aid in the abduction are to remain outside of the prayers for three years, and are to be placed with the prostrating. And this punishment they must by all means undergo after the abducted woman has been returned to her own people. For otherwise they shall not be received into the Church. And these things are concerning her who was abducted. But if a widow, without defilement or force, follows a man, this is not liable to any penalty.

CANON XXXI

She who, when her husband has departed and does not appear—before ^D

^A a certainty of his death has been established, has cohabited with another—commits adultery.

BALS. The present canon was explicitly set forth in canon 93 of the Synod in Trullo; and since it is expounded there, read what is in it.

ZONAR. If a man has gone abroad and does not appear—that is, does not return after a long time—and it is uncertain whether he is alive or has died, if his wife, before she has been reliably informed of the death of her husband, unites with another man, she is judged an adulteress. The laws of the city severely punish such a woman.

ARIST. She who, before being made certain that her husband has died, marries another, commits adultery. It is clear.

CANON XXXII Clerics who commit the sin unto death are indeed cast down from their rank, but they are not barred from the communion of the laity. For you shall not punish twice for the same thing.

BALS. The saint commands that clerics who commit the sin unto death be deposed, but he does not deprive them of the communion of the faithful, that is, he does not excommunicate them. For you shall not, he says, punish twice ^B for the same thing. Now some say that the sin unto death is the act itself, distinguishing this from the will and the consent; for they say that these are not sin. To me, however, it seems that a sin unto death is every sin which brings about a capital punishment, that is, death for the sinner; and that the saint commands that if any cleric has been condemned for any sin whatsoever—even if it is not a light one, but one resulting in the ultimate penalty, that is, the capital one, which is called such because it brings about death, or another that is equal to death—he shall only be deposed, and he shall not be punished further by the ^C Church. Some were saying, as it seems, that a cleric would be deposed only for fornication or theft or certain light sins of this kind, but that for murder or some other greater sin he would not only be subject to deposition, but would also be excommunicated; which the saint did not admit. And for this reason he determined that one who has been deposed should not be excommunicated, even if he were condemned for the ultimate sin, which is unto death; for deposition is a sufficient punishment. That some are also punished even with the ultimate penalty for mere counsel and consent is clear from Title 56 of Book 60, which teaches about those who plot and determines by the law of ^D treason that those are guilty who have formed any plan against the emperor or the city or a magistrate, even if they have not carried out the act. But when you find canons (such as the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 65th Apostolic canons) that at once depose and excommunicate some, and at times even sever them from communion or from the Church, do not say that [alt-version omitted] the present canon is in conflict with them.

[Note 10 remains unassigned to a specific location in the text column, but follows the content:] (10) *A sin unto death is, namely, the sin of the soul, or one that has progressed as far as the act; whereas that which progresses only to the point of willing and consenting is not unto death.*

against the present canon. For they are special cases, and special cases are not drawn into a precedent; but say that they hold force among those with whom they were issued, while in other places the present canon must be observed. ^B Except for me those who are condemned for dogmatic reasons. For in those cases, that which is to be determined synodically must be done; since the sins of heresies are reduced neither to sin nor to crime, but are worthy of greater castigation.

ZONAR. The great Apostle and Evangelist John, in his first Catholic Epistle, says: *There is sin unto death, and there is sin not unto death.* Therefore, that is said to be sin unto death which progresses as far as the deed. But that which rests in contemplation and consent is not unto death, being surely of the mind. For he would not be judged a fornicator who, although he has consented to fornication, has nonetheless abstained from the deed itself. For the fourth canon of the synod in Neocaesarea says: If anyone desiring a woman purposes to sleep with her, but his desire does not proceed to the deed, it appears that he has been delivered by grace. And although the consent is not irreprehensible, yet he who has only provided consent by no means will be judged worthy of deposition. Nor, indeed, will he who has deliberated about killing some man, and persisted to some extent in this consultation, but afterwards desisted from it and did not set his hand to the work, be judged a murderer. And let the great Theologian Gregory grant us faith concerning this matter, saying: If you condemn the murderer for homicide solely from the fact that he thought about it, and what follows. ^C In like manner also the great Basil, as has been said, explaining the words of the Evangelist, says that clergymen who commit sin unto death fall from the grade of the priesthood indeed, but are not barred from the communion of the laity—that is, from praying together with them. For they shall stand neither in the place of the hearers nor in that of the kneelers; since, *You shall not take vengeance twice for the same thing.*

ARIST. A clergyman who has committed a sin unto death communicates with the people, being only cast down from his grade; for, *You shall not take vengeance twice for the same thing.* A sin unto death is one that brings about the pleasure of the flesh. If, therefore, any clergyman commits fornication, he is cast down from the grade of the priesthood, but is not prevented from divine communion, but communicates with the laity.

CANON XXXIII

BALS. A certain pregnant woman having set out on a journey gave birth on the road; and when she was able to keep the offspring alive, she neglected it. The saint therefore says that she is entirely held by the crime of homicide, even if the infant is not dead but was kept alive by another. For that she falls into the crime when the infant is dead is beyond ^D dispute.

But if it was not in her power to keep the infant alive, because she was perhaps being dragged by enemies as a captive, she shall not be punished at all. And read the 52nd canon of this same holy man, which interprets the present canon as well. Whether or not those women who expose their own infants at the entrances of divine temples should be punished was discussed in various ways in a synodal assembly; and it was resolved that they should be punished as murderers, even if the infants are nurtured by others. Read also chapter 4, title 6, book 31, which says: He kills the fetus not only who suffocates it, but also who abandons it, and does not feed it, and who exposes it in public places to a mercy which he ^B himself did not possess. Read also the whole of title 2, book 31, which decrees that those who are exposed, even if they are slaves, are rendered free by that very act. However, such a woman ought to be punished for a great negligence which is equated to malice, which the jurists call gross negligence (lata culpa). For perhaps while she was otherwise diligent and careful in domestic matters, she was negligent in raising the infant. For if she were likewise negligent in domestic matters, or as one born of noble rank, and knew not how care should be taken of infants, or was otherwise by nature unsuited for these things, and it happened in such a way that the infant was not kept alive, she will not be punished, as I suppose.

ZONAR. If a pregnant woman journeying is overcome by labor pains and gives birth on the road, and being able to keep the offspring alive and safe, she neglects it and abandons all care for it, she is condemned as if she had killed it; even if perchance someone else found the infant, took it up, and having exercised care, kept it alive. But if it was impossible to provide for this—for perhaps she was being led away as a captive and gave birth on the road, or was fleeing from enemies and gave birth while fleeing, and could not save both herself and the one born, since perhaps she would have been discovered if hidden, owing to the wailing of the infant ^C—she shall be granted pardon.

ARIST. She who gives birth on the road and neglects the one born is a murderess. Clear.

CANON XXXIV

Those women who have been defiled by adultery, and who confess out of piety or are convicted in any way, our Fathers have forbidden to be brought to public notice, lest we provide a cause of death to those convicted; but they ordered them to stand without communion until the time of their penance is fulfilled.

BALS. Adulterers, according to the 58th canon, stand for four years with the weepers, five with the hearers, four with the prostrators, and two with the standers, without communion. The holy man says, therefore, if any woman who has been adulterated confesses the sin, or is convicted in any way, it is not fitting to bring her to public notice, that is, to place her in the locations of the aforementioned penalties. For whoever sees her standing outside the divine enclosures of the church, or even ^D departing with the catechumens, will at first glance certainly understand that as a penalty for the crime of adultery this punishment has been enjoined upon her, and

^A that this correction might become a cause of death, since upon the husband's return—which may well happen—he might perceive how matters stand. She is, therefore, permitted to stand and pray together with the faithful, but is excluded from the communion of the holy gifts until the time of repentance is fulfilled. The saint determined that such humanity should be shown to women for the reason we have already stated. For men who confess adultery are subjected to the aforementioned penalties without compassion, because the same fear does not exist regarding them as was mentioned regarding women, who are presumed to be perhaps also liable for other crimes and are rightly punished.

However, as to the phrase "in any way whatsoever the women are convicted," you should not interpret this as referring to public demonstration, but to the proof of the woman’s conscience—that is, whether the woman confesses of her own accord, or even as one compelled by the danger of the birthing process, or in any other way privately and not publicly condemns herself and declares it. For if you say that the proof is made public, and the adultery is as it were carried in triumph, then all the penalties will rightly be heaped upon her. For indeed the canon has no place in this, because she has been published once for all, and no suspicion of murder arises from the husband's return on account of the proclamation of the penalties.

From the fact that the saint says, "Lest we give to women convicted by penalties a cause of death," do not say that it is conceded for husbands to kill their own adulterous wives. ^B For a husband can kill an adulterer only in his own house, when found in the act, and if he be a stage-player or some other infamous person. And read chapter 26, title 37, book LX, [chapter] 27, and other chapters. But understand the word of the saint to mean that the penalties should not become the cause of great scandal between husband and wife, and perhaps even lead to her unjust murder.

ZONAR. If a woman, he says, has committed adultery, and confesses the sin, fearing—that is, dreading—the future judgment, or is convicted otherwise, such as by the swelling of the womb or by childbirth occurring during a long interval while her husband is away, he says it is not proper to publish her; that is, it is not proper to place her in the places of penance, namely, [those of] the weeper, the hearer, and the substratus. For this is to make the crime public. ^C For whoever sees her outside the circuit of the church, either in the vestibule or going out with the catechumens, will undoubtedly know that she has sinned, and above other sins that of adultery will be attributed to her, and this penance will become a cause of death for her. For if her husband learns of this, he will perhaps kill her. For, according to Solomon, "The spirit of her husband is full of jealousy" (Prov. vi, 34). For this reason, she is permitted to stand and pray with the faithful, but is barred from the communion of the holy mysteries until the time of penance has been fulfilled. ^D

ARIST. Women defiled by adultery, and convicted

^A either by confessing their sin out of piety, or by being convicted in some other way by their spiritual father, ought not be publicly exposed, nor recognized as an adulteress by her husband, lest this become a cause of death. The Fathers command that she remain excommunicated, standing with the faithful women, until the time appointed for one who has sinned through fornication has been fulfilled. For if she is placed with the weepers and the hearers, she will fall under the suspicion of her husband, and perhaps she will be killed.

CANON XXXV

In the case of a husband who has been abandoned by his wife, one must consider the cause of the separation; even if it appears that she departed without reason, he is worthy of pardon, but she of punishment. However, pardon shall be granted to him so that he may commune with the Church.

BALS. This present canon is clarified by the interpretation made by us in canon 87 of the synod in Trullo; read that, and also the second canon of the holy Father, and the twenty-first.

ZONAR. She who has abandoned her own husband, if she has departed without reasonable cause, is punished; but the husband is pardoned—not so that he may take another, but so that he may not be separated from the Church. ^B Yet in the ninth chapter this holy man did not judge [that being beaten by the husband, or suffering a loss of money, or even perhaps the husband’s fornication, or his being an infidel, were] reasonable causes for a woman to abandon the marriage.

ARIST. If a woman has departed without reason, she herself is not free of guilt. She who has left her own husband and departed from him without reason shall be subject to penalties; and the more so if she has gone to another man, for then she is judged as an adulteress according to the ninth canon. But the husband, abandoned by her, is worthy of pardon, and for this reason, if he takes another wife, he cannot be blamed.

CANON XXXVI

Soldiers’ wives who, ^C when their husbands are not to be found, have married, are subject to the same reasoning as those who, because of their husbands’ long absence, have married without waiting for their return; but the matter admits of some pardon here, because the suspicion of death is greater.

BALS. This canon also, being explicitly set forth in the ninety-third canon of the synod in Trullo, has been interpreted there.

ZONAR. And the wives of soldiers also, if when their own husbands are not appearing, they join themselves to others, are punished in the same way as the rest of the women who, while their husbands were traveling for a long time, have married others. But, he says, the soldiers' wives have a certain ^D pardon, because it is more readily suspected that the soldiers have died, those who are among wars and slaughters and dangers and are tossed about. But there might be pardon, in that the time of...

penance ^A is, perhaps, shortened for them.

ARIST. The wives of soldiers who, because of the disappearance of their husbands, are joined to others, are more worthy of pardon than others, who do not wait on account of [simple] travels abroad.

Both these women are subject to the same penalty for fornication: both she who is the wife of a man who is neither a soldier nor away on account of a journey, and who, before his death is confirmed by certain proofs, has married another; and she who is the wife of a soldier, if she too, before having accurately learned the details concerning her husband's death, is joined to another. But how the wives of soldiers, when they have learned that their own husbands have died, ought to investigate their death, ^B the hundred and seventeenth Novel of Justinian determines, which is placed in the seventh title of the twenty-eighth book of the *Basilica*; the force of which is also written in the ninety-first canon of the Council in Trullo. The present canon, however, deems the wives of soldiers worthy of some indulgence, more than the wives of those who are otherwise away on travels, if they should enter into a second marriage when their husbands have disappeared; because these are more likely to be dead, and their absence gives great suspicion that they have either died or been killed.

CANON XXXVII

BALS. Here the canon calls "another's" a woman who has been legally married or betrothed to someone. If, therefore, someone commits adultery, ^C having usurped another's wife into his own possession under the law, as it were, of marriage, and is separated from her with a legal condemnation, and is joined to another: he shall indeed be punished for adultery according to the canons, but concerning the second wife, who is free from a husband, he shall not be held liable. And these things were defined by the saint for the sake of those who said that an adulterer ought not to be joined to a second wife, as one who had fallen into a capital condemnation and could not contract [marriage] according to the old law which was observed in the time of St. Basil, that is, before the reformation. For even if someone is subject to capital punishment on account of adultery, he is not, however, prohibited from contracting marriage, and therefore he shall not be punished for this; ^D and much more will such a one nowadays not undergo punishment, because capital punishment has been abolished, and the adulterer is punished only by the cutting off of his nose and the confiscation of his property. And read chapter 82 of title 37 of book 51, and the 32nd Novel of the emperor, our lord Leo the Philosopher. But these things had place, as it seems to me, when marriage was constituted by intention alone. But now, when marriages and betrothals proceed with holy prayer and sacred ministry, an adulterer shall not be joined to a woman in any other way than if he has been freed from the penalties of adultery, which are declared in the 58th canon of the present saint.

ZONARAS. If anyone has taken as a wife someone else's betrothed, who was afterwards taken away from him, and when that one was taken away he has married another woman; for the offense committed against the former he shall be punished as an adulterer, but with respect to the second wife, who is free from a husband, he shall be liable to no penalty.

ARISTENUS. He who has dismissed someone else's [betrothed] and taken a free woman, is to be punished for the first, but is blameless in regard to the second. If anyone marries a woman who has been dismissed by another, and then, dismissing her, is legally joined to another free woman; for the first he is liable to the penalty of adultery, because even he who marries one who has been dismissed acts as an adulterer; but for the second he is free of crime.

CANON XXXVIII

BALSAMON. Here the saint calls those who are "in authority" girls. He states, therefore, that if any girls give themselves over to their lovers against the will of their fathers, and are corrupted by them, even if they appear to be joined in marriage, they fornicate, because a marriage of one who is under authority cannot exist without the will of her father. But if their parents are reconciled to them and wish them to cohabit with their lovers, the matter is deemed to receive a remedy by this reasoning. For that which was done badly from the beginning seems to be repaired by the subsequent consent of the parents, so that the fornication is moved into marriage. But such a person is not immediately acceptable to communion, but only after three years.

But do not here suppose that the girl was abducted. For you learned from the 30th canon and from others that, if an abduction has occurred, whether with the will of the woman or against her will, the marriage does not stand, even if those who have them in their power consent. But [in this case] suppose that the one who is under authority followed her seducer without an abduction; for precisely because of this, the subsequent consent makes the marriage free from guilt. These things, as it seems to me, had their place when marriage consisted in consent alone. But today, since it is performed with a sacred blessing, even if the parents consent, the marriage does not take place with the sacred blessing unless the three years of penance have been completed, or they have been reduced to a shorter time by the bishop according to his judgment. When, however, a blessing—which could not consist in the case of an under-age girl—had been performed, and afterward those who were married by blessing were also joined in marriage, it was questioned whether those who are born of them are legitimate and lawful children. For some said that, since the marriage did not consistent from the beginning on account of the girl's immaturity (and those things which do not stand from the beginning are not confirmed by subsequent events, just as the law says), necessarily, unless a second blessing occurs, one might say that these are not even legitimately joined.

^A Master Constantine of Nicaea, of happy memory, used to say that in the case of those under authority, a second blessing is not required, as only the contempt of the person—that is, of the father—had occurred, and this was removed by [his subsequent] consent. However, in the case of one who is underage, he desired that a second blessing take place, because a common legal principle had been violated, which could not be corrected in any other way except after a penance; but this does not seem right to me, out of respect for the holy blessing.

ZONARAS. Whatever girls, he says, have followed their lovers—that is, have voluntarily surrendered themselves to them against the will of their parents, under whose power they are—they are committing fornication. But if their parents become reconciled to them, and wish for them to live together with their lovers and defilers, the situation seems to be remediable. For the subsequent consent of the parents ^B appears to remedy that which was done badly from the beginning, so that the fornicator might be brought into matrimony. However, such a one shall not be admitted to communion immediately, but after three years have passed.

ARISTENUS. She who has followed [a man] against her father's will is judged a fornicator. If, however, the parents are reconciled, the event seems to have a remedy; nonetheless, let her be subject to a three-year penance. Those who are under authority cannot contract marriage against the will of those under whose power they are; but if they do contract it, they have done nothing, and the contract is void. Girls, moreover, who have followed certain men against the will of their fathers are subjected to the punishment for fornication. Even if the parents later admit the union which was begun against their will, and wish it to remain indissoluble, nonetheless, because it was not done with their will from the beginning, they shall not be received into communion immediately, but shall pay the penalty for three years.

CANON XXXIX

BALSAMON. A certain woman who had committed adultery and was living with an adulterer was punished; but when her husband had died, she wished to be united with the adulterer. Therefore, the saint says that this shall not happen, but that so long as ^D she lives with the adulterer, she must undergo penance, even if the fifteen years of penance for adultery have already passed. For only those who abstain from evil are seen to have undergone the penance given for repentance and to obtain forgiveness. Those, however, who persist in evil are liable to the same penalty, even if they have undergone it a thousand times. Thus, therefore, interpret the canon; and do not say that every woman who cohabits with an adulterer is an adulteress. For his legitimate wife, cohabiting with him, is free from reproach, as is any other woman apart from the adulteress. And the ecclesiastical law determines these things; but civil law in no way permits the adulteress to be united with the adulterer. He says

^A He says, in fact, in chap. 66, tit. 57, lib. 10: Whoever once committed adultery, if she afterwards becomes the wife of him who committed adultery with her, it is not extinguished by the pretext of a marriage which was contracted after the adultery. And chap. 13, tit. 42 of the same book: If, on account of a wife's adultery, I am condemned and then marry her, even if she herself is not condemned, the marriage is not valid; but even if I shall have written her in as my heir, or she me, the inheritance is confiscated. Neither can anyone, making a military will, write her in as heir who was taken after defilement and was his concubine; but if any such thing happens, the place is given to the public treasury. And according to theme 3, chap. 10, tit. 5, lib. 26: He who is accused on account of his wife's adultery cannot take her as a wife.

^B ZONARAS: Unless one desists from sin, it is not credible that he repents, nor is he admitted to penance. For penance is a man who has sinned feeling remorse for what he has sinned, and being stung on account of these things. But he who persists in sin is believed neither to feel remorse nor to be stung, but rather to take pleasure in it. She, therefore, who has followed an adulterer and lives with him, is an adulteress for the whole time she lives with him, because she is practicing evil, and she will not be accepted into penance.

ARISTENUS: She who lives with an adulterer commits adultery throughout that life.

Therefore, such a one is also not to be accepted by the Church; for after she has ceased from the sin, then she undergoes penalties and corrects her lapse; but if she persists in the adultery, she is uncorrectable and not to be accepted.

CANON XL

BALSAMON: A certain bondwoman was joined matrimonially to a certain free man against the will of her own master. But when some time had passed, either she was gifted with freedom, and held as a free marriage that which she had contracted with the former man, or even her master consented to the marriage that had been contracted earlier but was invalid. The saint was therefore asked whether the union that took place between them should not be punished, and he said that, because the consents of those who are under the power of others are weak and cannot persist, therefore it was not established as a legitimate marriage during the time of servitude; and if the master's consent followed afterwards, or the same bondwoman, having been manumitted, betook herself to the former marriage, it does not seem that what was done is even in itself legitimate on account of the subsequent consent, according to the law which says: Things which are void from the beginning are not confirmed by things which happen afterwards. For this has no place in those things which do not exist. And ^D therefore, for the former evil of fornication, the penalty of fornication will be imposed upon them; but the cohabitation after this shall be without penalty. And these things are so whenever that which is invalid...

^A in a slave's marriage is confirmed either after her manumission or through the manifest consent of the master, which even a tacit liberty necessarily entails. But what if a slave woman, who is truly joined in marriage with the master knowing it and not objecting, is considered as a fornicator because the master did not consent, or not?

Solution: Chapter 47, Title 4, of Book 26, states this expressly: "If anyone has given his own maid in marriage, and he who is free, having pledged faith to the one giving her, has taken her, and perhaps even with marriage contracts drawn up, or even if not drawn up, but the matter was conducted by his own will, it would not be just not to confirm such a marriage, but rather that a tacit liberty should accrue to either the husband or the wife. And when such a thing has been done by the master, we decree that both he and she be seized into the status of free-born, and the matter be judged as it is for free and noble persons."

^B But if the master of either of the persons does not constitute the marriage, yet knows what is being done, and intentionally conceals it so that he may later stitch together a matter against one of the other joined parties, we punish such a crime—if it is clearly demonstrated—and we take away the lordship of those who have devised so wicked a plan, and let this indeed be a marriage, just as if he who possessed the authority had consented from the beginning. And let him indeed fall from his lordship, while the slave person is seized again into the status of free-born. ^C When such a result occurs—or if the owner acted wickedly—it is also clear that those born from such marriages will be free and noble according to this our law. And since from this it appears that a slave woman who has married a free man with the master's tolerance is seized into liberty, those thus joined will be preserved without punishment. For as far as the old law is concerned, which decides that a marriage is established by consent alone, such a union is also completed through the tacit consent of the master. If, however, anyone says that because the blessing ^D has not been performed according to what prevails today, such persons will not escape the penalties, even if they were joined in marriage with the master seeing and allowing it, he shall hear that, insofar as the rationale of the penalties is concerned, the intent is considered more than the strict law of the Novels.

ZONARAS. If a slave woman gives herself to a man against the will of her master, she commits fornication. For being under the power of another, they do not have the capacity to make agreements, that is, covenants. For they are invalid and of no effect. But if afterwards—that is, after having committed fornication—having been granted liberty, or with her master permitting it, she uses a free, that is to say, a manifest and public marriage, she will then be considered as a legitimate wife, and not as a fornicating woman.

ARISTENUS. A slave woman who gives herself to a man commits fornication; but she is joined in marriage if she does it with the master's consent. For the things done by those who are subject to another's power are invalid.

CANON XLI

BALS. A certain widow wished to be joined in marriage to another man, and she was not permitted to do so, or even if joined, she was punished. The saint was therefore asked about this, and he replied that it is within the power of a widow to be joined to another man, if she is at that time of her own right. However, this shall be observed only in the case of a second marriage; for the saint does not permit a third marriage. Rightly, therefore, the widowed woman shall marry a second time, and being married a second time she shall not be punished, ^B provided that she is not under power. But if she is established under the power of a parent, since he who has her under his power can dissolve the marriage, she also, as one who has committed fornication, shall be punished. But women also who enter into a second marriage are subject to the penalty for digamists, as we have often said. When you hear the saint saying that the widow has leave to marry whom she will, do not say that she can be joined to an impious person or some other person unworthy of her station; but say that she ought to marry a second husband in accordance with the laws and canons. For the first chapter of the fourth title of the ^C twenty-eighth book says: "Marriage is a union of a man and a woman and a communion of the whole of life, a partnership in divine and human affairs." And the thirty-first canon of the Council of Laodicea, and the seventy-second canon of the Council in Trullo, forbid the orthodox to be joined with heretics; and the second theme of the seventh chapter of the first title of the twenty-eighth book says: "A marriage is not valid for a daughter or granddaughter of a man of senatorial rank with a freedman or an actor, or the son of an actor or actress." Our powerful and holy Emperor, when marriages of certain noble women had been contracted with men of low birth, ^D dissolved them and punished those who had been joined together severely. This is just what he also did to the imperial grammarian, lord Theodore Mesarites, who had taken the daughter of the sebastos Bryennios as his wife without the Emperor’s knowledge. However, what is added to the canon, saying, "only in the Lord," was added on account of the infidels. For she who marries an orthodox person contracts a marriage in the Lord, but she who is joined with a heretic does not.

ZONAR. A woman who is widowed and is not under the power of parents, so as to require their consent for a marriage, is beyond reproach in contracting a second marriage; if there is no one who can dissolve the cohabitation, that is, if there are no persons who have power over her, such as a father or a grandfather, who are able also to dissolve the union formed by marriage, if they have not consented to...

it. Then the holy man adds testimony from the apostolic words. ^A

ARIST. A widow who takes a husband is free from reproach. A widow is under her own authority when her husband is dead; therefore, if she takes a husband, she is not liable to accusation, provided it be in the Lord, according to the Apostle.

CANON XLII.

Marriages which take place without those who have authority are fornications. Therefore, neither while the father nor the master is living are those who unite [without consent] free from accountability, until the masters [or those in authority] concede to the cohabitation. For then the marriage receives its validity.

BALS. This canon is, as it were, a summary of the two preceding canons. It says that if a daughter of a family or an ancilla (bondservant) has contracted marriage with someone without the consent of those who have them in their power, such an act is deemed fornication, as it cannot stand. Wherefore they shall be punished as fornicators, and the marriage, as ^B being unable to stand, shall be dissolved. But if those who have authority over them concede, that is, if they accept and wish for the marriage, then it shall be considered firm. Interpret what is said regarding the consent of those in power and of the masters according to the canons just interpreted.

ZONAR. This canon is a summary of the two preceding canons of his. For he says that if a daughter or a bondservant, subject to the authority of others, has entered into marriage with someone without the knowledge of those who hold authority—that is, those who have power over them—such a thing is considered fornication, and those who have thus joined themselves are not free from accountability. For they shall be punished, and the marriage shall be dissolved. But if those who have them in their power concede, that is, if they accept and wish for the marriage, then it is considered valid.

ARIST. Those who are under the power of others, a son or a slave, who join themselves [in marriage] without their masters, are subject to guilt.

CANON XLIII.

He who has dealt a lethal blow to his neighbor is a homicide, whether he struck the first blow or acted in self-defense. ^C

BALS. Someone struck and killed a person, and when he was ordered to give an account of why he had killed him, he said: "I was not the cause of the slaughter, but the one who was killed, as he made the beginning of the fight and struck me first." Being asked, therefore, concerning this, the saint said that a homicide is he who in any way has killed a man, whether he struck the [one who was] killed in the first place, or [whether he did so] in defending himself against him, as one who had struck him first, he inflicted the blow. And indeed the canon consists in this. ^D Yet someone might ask: since the law says in the sixtieth book, title 39, chapter 1, at the last theme, "One shall kill with impunity him who forces or compels either himself or his own to indecency"; and in title 17 of the same book, "It is permitted to repel force with force, and arms with arms," how does the canon say that he who has struck and killed in self-defense

^A be punished as a homicide? Solution. Ecclesiastical penalties do not punish, but sanctify and heal. And therefore the canon decides that whoever, through the permission of God, has in any way fallen into homicide, and even those who have killed in war, should receive medicine for the soul: though one has need of greater medicine, as [in the case of] one who kills voluntarily, while the other has need of less, as one who kills involuntarily, or in self-defense, or in war. But the civil law punishes, it does not heal. Whence it punishes him who has the disposition to kill as a homicide, but it does not punish him who kills involuntarily; and him who has killed one using violence against him, it keeps unpunished, as one who was not led to kill out of his own will, but through the cause [provided] by the one killed. I believe, however, that he who has killed in self-defense will also be kept unpunished according to civil law when he has killed one who inflicted a mortal wound upon him, or similar violence; not, however, one who inflicted upon him a light or curable wound, or moderate violence, which he could have escaped without homicide. In that case, he will be punished as a homicide. For chapter 14 of title 59 of the 60th book says: "He who has killed one who attacked him in a way that put his life in danger is not guilty of homicide." And according to the theme of the same, it is permitted to kill a robber who is attacking without danger [of legal penalty]. I have seen a priest deposed synodically because he detained another priest who was taking a book from his church against his will, and because he contentiously took his own book back from his [the other's] hand; and from this it happened that the priest [from whom the book was taken] fell into a faint, ^B and died immediately. Another monk and priest from the monastery of Sterios was deposed similarly because he insulted back quite harshly a certain monk who had insulted him, and it happened that the one thus insulted, as soon as he heard the insult, groaned and gave up his spirit. A bishop also who killed an Agarene who was brandishing a sword against him in time of war was deposed similarly.

ZONARAS. He who has struck another mortally, so that the one struck expired from that wound, is a homicide; and he is not freed from the crime by the fact that he did not begin the striking, but was previously wounded by the other, and thus struck him, avenging himself against the one who struck.

ARISTENUS. He who strikes for death, whether the challenger or the avenger, is a man-slayer.

If someone in a fight inflicts a mortal wound upon someone, threatening death, even if he was the first to begin the wounding, or if he was wounded by the one [he killed] and, avenging himself, struck mortally, he is a homicide; and whether both were voluntary or involuntary, they shall be judged from the instrument of the one striking, and from the other marks which [the canon] has handed down in the eighth canon.

CANON XLIV

A deaconess who has fornicated with a Greek Gentile is not to be admitted to communion; but she shall be admitted to the oblation in the seventh year, provided she lives in chastity. But the Greek who, after the faith, again approaches sacrilege returns to his own vomit. We, therefore, of the deaconess

's body, as being consecrated, do not permit it to be in carnal use.

BALS. You have learned from various canons how and what kind of woman becomes a deaconess. Therefore, a deaconess who has wickedly had intercourse with a certain Greek was not only deposed, but also excommunicated; and the Greek who had intercourse with her, having become a believer, wished to take her as his wife, as one who had been cleansed from Greek impurity by holy baptism, and as he was allegedly not prevented from being lawfully joined to her, since she had laid aside her diaconal rank through her previous fornication and was, as it were, free. The saint was therefore asked about both, and he replied that the deaconess who had fornicate, and was therefore deposed, should not be excommunicated in such a way that she may not be in the church, but she shall be admitted to prayer and to the standing with the faithful. For it is said in his thirty-second canon that clerics who commit a sin that is unto death are only deposed, ^B not also excommunicated. For you shall not punish twice for the same offense. Thus, a deaconess deposed for fornication shall not be excommunicated from the ecclesiastical assembly. For deposition is sufficient for her as any penalty. But because those who fornicate are not partakers of the holy mysteries for three years, the saint ordained that she, because she had had intercourse with a Greek, should be punished the more, and that after seven years she should partake of the holy things, having completely abstained from the fornication. He subjects the Greek who has believed and seeks to have the one who was once a deaconess to the condemnation of sacrilege, if he defiles by intercourse the body of the deaconess which has been once dedicated to God; ^C indeed, he even calls him a dog returning to his own vomit, that is, to his former infidelity through illicit intercourse. Wherefore, he does not permit her who has once been dedicated to God, even if she has been deposed, to be joined to anyone, because her body is consecrated and must be kept from all intercourse and all carnal use according to the universal rule which says: "What is holy does not become defiled." Note these things, therefore, for the sake of clerics and monks who change and alter their habit, and indeed also nuns and ascetics, who desire to be joined to lawful wives or husbands. I believe, however, that from this second canon it is rightly ordained that the wives of priests also be prohibited from contracting a second marriage, just as those who are ordained and reject the priesthood ^D are not permitted to live as laymen and contract a second marriage; for the wives of priests, having been called "one body and one sacerdotal flesh" through the lawful union of the priesthood, and for that reason being, as it were, consecrated, shall not be profaned by second nuptials. Priests, moreover, who have once rejected second marriages because they are consecrated to God, and have indeed made this profession to God, shall not be permitted through carnal desire to repudiate the sacerdotal dignity, and to weaken the profession which they made to God, and to serve carnal lust; but even if they have once renounced the priesthood, their bodies

^A which have once been consecrated to God, they shall be forbidden to profane by second marriages.

ZONAR. If a deaconess be corrupted by a Greek, she shall be admitted, he says, to communion. By the name of communion, in this place, one must understand the being with the faithful in sacred prayer. But she shall be deemed worthy of the reception of the holy gifts only in the seventh year. For because she has fallen from the diaconate, she is not for that reason excluded from prayers, nor is she condemned to stand in the stations of the penitents; but because she is considered the bride of Christ, and is thought to have betrayed her own honor, she is punished more severely. For while the penalty for fornication is four years, this is extended to the seventh year; and this, provided she abstains from the sin and lives in chastity. But if the Greek who had relations with her, having come to the faith, again ^B makes himself unclean with sacrilege (for he calls this congress with a deaconess sacrilege), he asserts that he returns to his own vomit. For the body of the deaconess is consecrated; and therefore it will not be permitted to be in carnal use, that is, for anyone to use it for the pleasure of the flesh. Perhaps also, on account of the congress with an infidel, the deaconess is worthy of greater reproach.

ARIST. A deaconess who has fornicated with a Gentile, and repents, let her be subjected to a seven-year penance. Behold here two punishments: for the deaconess is removed from her rank, and undergoes penance for seven years, and is deprived of the divine sacraments, because she fornicated with a Gentile.

CANON XLV

BALS. Some infidel, having been baptized and deemed worthy to be called a Christian, ^C had indeed the orthodox faith in God, but did not act according to the works of Christians, but perhaps despised ecclesiastical traditions and canonical definitions, preferring the works of the infidels, and in that way insulting Christ. The saint was therefore asked whether, on account of these things, such a person is cast out from the gathering of the faithful, or rather if he should not be accused at all, as one who has chosen the orthodox faith; and he said that for someone to receive the name of Christian through baptism does not profit him, unless he conducts his life in all things, as is fitting, according to the orthodox. ^D Therefore, it is necessary that he be cut off, like a putrid member, from the integrity of the sound body of the Christ-named people; that is, he shall neither attend church with the Christians, nor shall he be numbered among the sheep of the Christian flock. But if you wish to interpret the canon in another way also, that he is not strictly a Christian who does not perform the commands of Christ, nothing will prevent you. For the holy James, the brother of God, also says in his Epistle in this way: What is the profit, my brethren, if any one says he has faith, but does not have works? Can faith save him? And the Apostle...

^A: Faith without works is dead.

ZONAR. He who has believed in Christ and has been called a Christian must live according to the divine commandments, and in this way God is glorified through him, according to what is enjoined in these words: Let your light so shine before men, and so on. But if anyone is called a Christian, yet transgresses the commandments of God, he insults Christ, from whose name he derives his title, and he will have no benefit from that appellation. These things the great Basil states, agreeing with the holy James, the brother of the Lord. For he, in his Epistle, says: What is the profit, my brethren, if anyone says he has faith, but does not have works? ^B Can faith save him?

ARIST. A Christian who treats Christ with contumely derives no benefit from his title. Faith without works is dead; for no gain arises from the name to a Christian who disregards the mandates of Christ and tramples upon His divine laws, and treats Him with actual contumely.

CANON XLVI

BALS. This canon is placed in the context of the 93rd canon of the Council in Trullo; and because matters concerning this are interpreted there more broadly, read that, and the 9th canon of the present holy Father.

ZONAR. ^D In the ninth canon, this holy man, discoursing about a woman who has left her own husband, says: She who has left her own husband is an adulteress if she has come to another man. However, the one abandoned is worthy of pardon, and she who lives with such a one is not condemned. But here, he says that she who married the man who was abandoned for a time by his wife, but was dismissed when the former returned, has committed fornication, yet in ignorance. How, therefore, in that text does he not condemn the woman living with the man abandoned by his wife, whereas here he says she has committed fornication, although in ignorance? If that woman has fornicated, it would follow that the man who married her should also be judged as a fornicator. How, therefore, will he be worthy of pardon? I think, then, that in the ninth canon the great Basil speaks of a man who has been absolutely abandoned by his wife, and who cannot by any means be persuaded to return to him; and for these reasons he grants pardon to him, and does not condemn the woman who marries him in a second marriage. But in the present canon, he speaks of a woman who has left her husband because of some sorrow; and for this reason he added "for a time." If, therefore, the woman who entered into second nuptials with him knew of this temporary separation of the wife from the husband,

^A and thus cohabited with the husband who had been abandoned, she is an adulteress, because she usurped another woman's husband, as the end of the ninth canon contains. But if she was ignorant of this—for perhaps she was from a foreign land and the circumstances regarding him were unknown—and after some time the wife who had abandoned him returned to the husband, and on this account the marriage with the second wife was dissolved: the saint says that this woman committed fornication, yet in ignorance. He says she committed fornication, because the prior marriage had not been dissolved. But the first not being dissolved, how could the cohabitation with the second woman be considered a second marriage? And if it is not a marriage, it will certainly be fornication. And the man will be judged a fornicator in the proper sense, but the woman is said to be a fornicatress, yet in ignorance. For it was not her intention to commit the sin of fornication, but to contract a lawful marriage. But the matter turned out such that it was not considered a marriage, because the first marriage still remained. Since the union with the two women is not regarded as marriage, what else could that union be called than fornication, albeit committed in ignorance? Therefore, the canon also added: "She shall not be barred from marriage." For she is not considered as having been dismissed by a husband. For if that were the case, and she had been joined to another man, she would have been judged an adulteress, according to the ninth canon. Because the cohabitation with the second woman is not considered a marriage in the proper sense, for this reason the woman is not barred from marriage. But as to the woman who was called the wife of a man, if she should not be joined to another while he is still alive, she will do better, says the saint. For it is not seemly for the woman who has been called the wife of a man to cohabit with another while the man is still alive; for the law of the state also says that in marriages we do not consider what is permitted, but what is seemly.

ARIST. A certain woman married a man who had been dismissed in ignorance; afterwards, the first wife appeared. The woman who was dismissed is reckoned a fornicatress through ignorance, and if she wishes, she marries; but it is better if she does not marry. A man was abandoned by his own wife "for a time"; he, however, as if he had been dismissed by her, took another, who did not know that he had been abandoned "for a time." The first returned to him, and he, receiving her back, dismissed the second. The woman who was dismissed is judged as a fornicatress, yet through ignorance; and therefore, if she should wish to be joined in the communion of marriage to another, she will not be prevented. For she is not considered to have been dismissed, since he who dismissed her was not strictly her husband. ^B But if she should wish to remain in celibacy, and not go to another marriage, this would be better. ^C

CANON XLVII

^A reason for this may have force, since their heresy is like a growth of the Marcionites, who abhor marriage, turn away from wine, and say that God's creation is defiled; therefore, we do not admit them into the Church unless they have been baptized in our baptism. For let them not say, "We have been baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," those who indeed suppose God to be the maker of evils, like Marcion and the other heresies. Wherefore, if this pleases, it is necessary for more bishops to meet, and so to set forth the canon, that both he who has done so may be free from danger, and he who replies may be considered trustworthy in his response concerning these matters.

BALS. Who the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Apotactites, the Novatians, and the Marcionites are, and what the kinds of their heresies are, has been stated in various canons. The present canon, however, does not need interpretation, because it was not written by the saint as an enactment, but as an expression of opinion. For he referred the legitimate institution to a synodal definition. But do you read the 7th canon of the Second Synod, and you will learn which of the heretics are baptized after they are received, and which are not.

ZONAR. In this place, the holy man decrees that the Novatians also, along with others, whenever they present themselves to the Church, are to be baptized, inasmuch as they perhaps adhere to the tenets of Marcion. But the 7th canon of the Second Synod, while it enumerates those who are to be admitted by chrism alone, counts the Novatians among them. But one must absolutely abide by the definition of that canon, inasmuch as it is both later and issued by a synod; and because not even the great Basil pronounced this as a canon, but, being asked, disclosed his own opinion; then he added, just as he himself had ^C not fully explored what he thought regarding the proposed question, in these words: "Wherefore, if this pleases, it is proper for more bishops to be together, and thus to set forth the canon, so that through the canon set forth by more bishops it may be without danger to the one who acted," and in the same way, clearly, no danger may attend the one baptizing the aforementioned ^D men, as if he had acted against the canons, and the one who answers those inquiring about such things may be considered trustworthy because of the established canon. Furthermore, whatever pertains to the heresies of the Marcionites and the Encratites has been written above in the explanation of the canon.

ARIST. You shall rebaptize the Encratites, and the Saccophori, and the Apotactites. For although they assert that they were baptized into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since they impiously affirm God to be the author of evils, after the manner of Marcion, they are not to be received unless they are baptized anew.

In the first of his canons, this great luminary of the Church [set forth] the baptism of the Encratites and Novatians, or Cathari, according to the principle of

^A economy. But here, correcting what was admitted there by economy, he decrees that the Encratites and the rest must be baptized again, because their heresy is a shoot of the Marcionists, who, like them, loathe marriage, loathe wine, and say that the creation of God is defiled. However, the seventh canon of the Synod of Laodicea, and the seventh of Constantinople, and the ninety-fifth of the sixth Synod in Trullo, receive the baptism of the Novatians, and Cathari, and Quartodecimans, if they come to the Church and anathematize every heresy, including their own. But they are anointed only with the holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, ^B nose, mouth, and ears.

CANON XLVIII

BALS. As seems probable, the saint was asked whether a woman who has been unreasonably separated from her own husband ought to be joined to a lawful husband. He said, therefore, that because the Lord pronounced her an adulteress who was put away by her husband for a reason other than fornication, if she were to be joined to another at all, such a woman ought to keep quiet and not be joined to another. Confirming his own statement, he adds that although she did not give the cause for the abandonment, but the husband did, yet if she does not endure the unreasonable divorce and return to her own spouse, but is joined to another, she shall be condemned as an adulteress; but he says her husband is guilty, as being the one who became the cause of the adultery. ^C And in these points the canon consists. But do you read the eighty-eighth canon and the ninety-third of the Synod in Trullo, and what has been written by us concerning these matters, regarding those who have abandoned their own husbands, and the opposite.

But someone might ask, to what penalty is the husband of the woman who has been unjustly abandoned, and who has entered into a life together with another, subject? Solution. Some have said that he is guilty of the crime of adultery; but it does not seem so to me. For since it is situated in the will of the woman whether she herself be joined to another, and thus commit adultery, or [whether she] endure it, and adultery not happen, how will the husband, who has not committed adultery, be punished as an adulterer? I think, therefore, that he will not be punished as an adulterer, but he will be proceeded against as one who has issued a bill of divorce without reason, according to the fourteenth chapter of the thirty-fourth Justinian Novel, or the fourth chapter of the seventh title of the ^D

^A twenty-eighth book, which is as follows: Since some are eager to transgress our law, in which we specifically enumerated the causes from which alone a divorce may be issued, either by the husband or by the wife, we command that, apart from those causes, divorce may in no way take place, nor may what is done be confirmed, nor may they dissolve marriages by mutual consent and forgive one another’s offenses. But if, against the causes determined by us, any persons shall dare to dissolve a marriage, we command that, if they have descendants, whether from this or from another marriage, their estates shall be given to them according to the order of the laws, and that both the husband and the wife shall be thrust into a monastery for the whole time of their life, and that from the property of each, about four ounces shall be set aside for the monasteries into which they are placed; the husband, clearly, not even having the use of the portion which is given to the children. But if they have no descendants, but ascendents are found, they themselves shall receive a third part of the property, unless they consented to the impious dissolution of the marriage. But two parts shall be set aside for the monasteries into which each is cast. If, however, there are neither descendants nor ascendents, or if the ascendents even consented to what was done, we command that all the property be given to the monasteries into which they were cast, so that neither through such a device may the judgment of God be held in contempt nor our law be transgressed. Moreover, we command that those who compose such nefarious contracts be subjected to corporal ^B punishments and sent into exile. If, however, those who have attempted to dissolve the marriage wish to join themselves together again in marriage before they are cast into the monasteries, we give them permission to do so and pardon them the aforementioned punishments, and we grant that they may have their own property, and that they may live together just as if they had committed no such sin. But if one person wishes to revoke the marriage and the other person does not consent, the punishments shall be maintained against the one who does not wish it. We command that these things be observed in this royal city and in the provinces, both by the Count of the Private Estate and the school of the Palatines, and by the governors of the provinces and their subordinates, for they must know that if they conduct themselves sluggishly in the event of such a sin being committed and do not observe all these things, they will undergo both exile and confiscation of property. We command that these same things also be observed by the most holy bishops of each place, so that, through their ^C providence, the persons who have been handed over shall be cast into the monasteries, and from their assets that which has been determined by us shall be provided to the monasteries.

ZONARAS. He says that the woman who has been dismissed by her husband is required to remain unmarried, or if she joins herself to another man, she is to be judged an adulteress; and he brings forward the sentence of the Lord, who says: "Whoever shall dismiss his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery"; for this reason, he says, because she has been named an adulteress by the Lord, she is forbidden ^D to enter into marriage with another man.

^A

ARIST. She who is dismissed by a husband let her remain so. For if she commits adultery, according to the word of the Lord, she is excluded from communion with another. He who marries a woman who has been dismissed commits adultery; even more so is the woman an adulteress, who also makes the man an adulterer through the communion shared with her. And for this reason, she who has been dismissed by her husband ought to remain unmarried.

CANON XLIX.

BALS. The present response was issued for the sake of a certain maidservant who underwent force by her own master. For he says that, since all other rapes which occur by necessity and force—clearly [those committed] by enemies against those taken captive, and by those in authority against those whom they govern—are [not penalized], so also of necessity the maidservant who has been forcibly defiled by her own master will not fall under the penalties for fornicators. Read the first canon of the holy Dionysius, archbishop of Alexandria, from his discourse on Pascha. These [provisions], as it seems to me, will hold insofar as those who have been defiled are not to be punished for the fornication of rape. For if anyone falls by force or ignorance into a matter that keeps him away from priestly ministry, ^C he will not be helped by the fact that he did not fall into this evil by his own will, so as to continue to be with the ordained; but he shall be deposed. And read the first canon of the Council of Ancyra, and the [first] canon of the present holy Father. For this reason, as I think, not even those who are tonsured by imperial authority can be transformed or change their habit by citing this present canon of the holy Basil; but they will be monks by necessity, even if they were tonsured by force. Just as she who has been forcibly defiled, if she were a deaconess, she will not indeed fall under a penalty, but she will exercise nothing further of the diaconate, because by the permission of God she fell into the evil, which removes from her the rank of deaconess. ^D

ZONAR. One should not consider rapes committed against women by force as a sin. For if someone does violence to his own maidservant, and she, against her own will, submits to the will of her master, she will not be punished as one who has fornicated; nor [will this be the case] if someone has been seized by someone against her will and corrupted, and [the same for] however many have been corrupted in a similar manner.

ARIST. Corruption admitted by force is free from blame; and a maidservant forced by her master is free from blame. The maidservant who has had force brought against her by her own master is not subject to censure.

CANON L.

is not conducted. However, we view such things as pollutions of the Church; yet we do not subject them to public condemnations, as they are to be preferred over unrestrained fornication.

BALS. When you hear the saint saying that there is no law in a third marriage, do not say that a third marriage is also prohibited by civil law; for it has been allowed by the law. But understand "law" here to mean ecclesiastical law; and call the "civil law" the ancient one which was in force before the holy Father, not, however, that which was promulgated many centuries later, namely the decision of the Porphyrogenitus and the lord emperor Constantine, which is set forth in the fourth canon of this saint, and which you should read, as Zonaras says. For it is impossible to say this, as it could not have entered the mind of the saint, given that it happened many centuries later. And that a third marriage was allowed by the old law, read Book XXVIII, title 8, chapter 63, thema 6, and title 14, chapter 4. Note also that it appears from this present canon that a third marriage is not dissolved as being done against the laws. For he says that third marriages are counted entirely as pollutions of the Church, as things not permitted by the Church if they were requested. But they are not subjected to public condemnations, that is to say, to manifest separations, because such marriages are better than fornication. For those who have married in this way commit a restrained sin on account of the polygamy; but those who fornicate commit an unrestrained and profligate sin, as they pass indiscriminately from one woman to another.

^B ZONAR. Also ^C in the fourth canon, this saint said that a third marriage is named polygamy and not marriage, but rather a "chastened fornication"; and in this place he named it a pollution of the Church. But he says, we do not condemn it publicly—that is, openly and without hesitation—to the point of even dissolving such a marriage. And it is not dissolved because, in comparison to unrestrained fornication, that is, the sheer profligacy which passes from one woman to another, it is to be preferred, as being fornication indeed, but chastened, since the man is content with one woman. Moreover, when you hear that there is no law for a third marriage, understand it as an ecclesiastical and spiritual law. For by the Novella of the Porphyrogenitus and Constantine, a third marriage is permitted, provided it be not without a mark ^D and many penances.

ARIST. The one who contracts a third marriage transgresses the laws. But these things, as pollutions of the Church, are not to be publicly denounced, being judged more tolerable than unrestrained fornication. The civil law indeed recognizes third marriages, and regards the children born from them as legitimate, and calls them to inheritance. But third marriages are not admitted by the canons, but are held to be a pollution of the Church. But since, as compared with unrestrained fornication, that is, the licentious, they are to be preferred, they are not subjected to public condemnations; that is,

is, that is, the trigamist is not ranked with the penitents, nor does he celebrate a public triumph as one condemned. Otherwise, he pays the penalty for five years; in two, or even three, he is deemed worthy of hearing the Divine Scriptures while standing in the royal porches. In the other two, he is stationed with the faithful and communicates with them in prayers, and thus he is restored to the place of those who partake of the Divine Mysteries. ^A

OF THE SAME: TO THE SAME, THE THIRD EPISTLE

CANON LI

As regards the clergy, the canons have issued an indefinite ruling, decreeing that one punishment is to be assigned to those who have fallen: namely, removal from the ministry, whether they be in a degree of order, or whether they persist in a ministry given without the laying on of hands. ^B

BALS. In the 32nd canon, the saint decreed that for every sin, the clergy are to be punished only by deposition. But since some said that those who have received ordination are to be reckoned as clergy, but not those who are placed in ecclesiastical degrees only by the character—for they wished the latter to be punished more severely—the saint defined by the present canon that all clergy are to be punished alike by deposition alone, that is to say, by removal from the sacred ministry which pertains to them, whether they be ordained, such as presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, or whether they have the priestly operation by the character alone, such as readers, cantors, custodians of sacred vessels, and the like. And this much concerning the clergy placed in ecclesiastical degrees by ordination or by the character. ^C

But if someone having only a tonsure from a bishop or an abbot should fall into some offense, is he to be punished in another way? Response. Such a person is also a cleric, and he shall be condemned like the other clerics. For he shall be prohibited from performing any work of the kind that those who have tonsures perform; just as he shall not ascend the platform, he shall not read from the ambo, he shall not advance to a priestly degree. ^D Yet I marvel how some who have been deposed perform ecclesiastical chancellery tasks, which only ordained men perform. Likewise, I marvel how those who have only tonsures, and who sin

are examined and punished simply as laymen. For I have seen this handled in various ways. Note, moreover, from the present canon that since administrative offices are bestowed by means of a seal, they are also ranks, and those who are cast out of their offices by bishops without judgment, or are insulted while in their stations, are wronged. Nor do the bishops have the power to act against them after the seal, which they cannot do in cases of diaconal dignities.

ZONARAS. He says that the canons punish all clerics, whether they have the imposition of hands or serve without the imposition of hands, if they fall, by deposition from their rank or from their ministry. For he does not punish those who are of a higher rank more severely ^B — such as presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, who also have the imposition of hands, that is, ordination — and the lower ones more lightly, whom he calls "without imposition of hands," as they are made such only by a seal and not by the laying on of hands; rather, all are punished equally by deposition from rank and ministry.

ARISTENUS. Clerics who fall into sin also lose their grades, whether they serve or are ordained. Ministers of the Church, whether they be in the rank of presbyters, deacons, subdeacons, chanters, and readers, or whether they are not ordained — such as doorkeepers, candle-lighters, and those entrusted with the custody of the holy gates of the altar — if they fall into fornication, have this one punishment: that they fall from their ministry. ^C

CANON LII

BALSAMON. In the 53rd canon, the saint established a narrower determination concerning one who gives birth on the road and neglects the fetus; but now ^D he treats the kinds of neglect more broadly. The epitome of this canon runs as follows: "She who lost her offspring because of isolation or the lack of necessities deserves pardon." Regarding this epitome, the Scholiast notes: "She who lost an infant unintentionally is condemned by the Faster to one year. She who collapsed upon a sleeping infant and smothered it, to three years. She who neglected her offspring, so that it died through her own fault, pays the penalties of voluntary murder. Likewise, when an unbaptized child has died through the fault of its parents, the parents are condemned to three years. As for those who expose their own infants at the entrances of temples, the matter was proposed in the holy synod, and it pleased them that they be punished as murderesses, even if another person took them up and, having provided care, kept them alive."

^A Now he sets forth the kinds of negligence more broadly, and he says that if a woman having conceived secretly from fornication or adultery, or having given birth, and fearing discovery, has made haste to cover up the sin by the killing of the newborn, or has even acted in a beast-like, that is, inhuman manner toward the product of her womb—that is, like wild beasts which devour human flesh and do not spare them—and has not shown pity for it, she must render an account as a murderess. But if she wished to save the infant but could not because of the wilderness and lack of necessities, and it perished on that account, she shall be deemed worthy of forgiveness. ^B Since, however, in the thirty-third canon we said that the woman who gave birth by the way, and who acted negligently or even deceitfully toward the newborn, is judged as a murderess—not only if the fruit of the womb perished, but even if it was kept alive by another—we say again that this is shown by the things we wrote there, but it is no less apparent also from the present canon. For there the saint introduces the contempt or deceit of the woman, and he does not add the destruction of the fetus, but says that the mother is to be judged as for murder; that is, even if the fetus has not been slain, she is to be condemned because of her evil disposition. For if the child had been slain by her deceit or sloth, she would have had to be condemned as a murderess without dispute. But when he says that neither negligence nor deceit proceeded from the mother, he says that she is to be excused, and he adds that the newborn perished from the wilderness or the lack of necessities. ^C For if it lived, and no negligence proceeded from the mother, how could anyone say that she is to be held liable? And take the phrase "to be disposed in a beast-like manner" according to the present interpretation, and not, as some have said, according to the maternal nurture of wild beasts. For the majority of wild beasts carefully tend, feed, and brave danger for their own cubs, and deceitful and slothful mothers should not be compared to them. For even a lioness takes such care of her whelps that, when going out of her den, she confuses the tracks of her feet with her tail and does not allow her den to be tracked by a hunter, and her young to be killed.

ZONARAS. The saintly man promulgated a decree in the thirty-third canon also concerning the woman who gave birth on the road and neglected the newborn. ^D Now, however, he defines it more clearly, saying that if she, being able to save that which was born, neglected it in order to cover up the sin—having perhaps conceived from fornication or adultery—or even inhumanly and in a beast-like way contemned the one born; and he has used this expression instead of 'cruelly and mercilessly.' For wild beasts do not act in this way, but rather, when they have brought forth, they behave carefully toward their cubs; they tend, feed, and brave dangers for their young. If, therefore, he says, she has thus despised the one born, let her be condemned as a murderess. But if she did wish to save the infant, but could not because of the wilderness and the lack of necessities, or because of fear, she shall perhaps be forgiven.

CANON LIII

ARIST. She who has neglected her offspring because of wilderness or the lack of necessities is free of blame.

A widow who is an ancilla has perhaps not sinned greatly in choosing a second marriage under the guise of an abduction. Therefore, she ought not be accused on this account. For it is not the outward forms that are judged, but the intention. It is clear, however, that the penalty for digamy remains for her.

^B BALS. An ancilla, says the holy man, who is a widow and wishes indeed to contract a second marriage, but is perhaps delayed from doing this because she would be condemned by her children or by the kinsmen from her first union, and therefore pretends to have been abducted by her future spouse, cannot be held culpable, because it is not a true abduction, but one veiled under the pretext of a second marriage. It is equitable that no one be condemned based on a pretext or simulation, but based on affection and intention. Thus, if the consideration of a second marriage did not underlie it, and she pretended to be abducted for the sake of fornication, she would have been punished as one who has committed fornication. But do not call the woman both a widow and an ancilla; rather, she was indeed an ancilla at one time, but is now free. For she is able to contract a first and a second marriage, but not an ancilla, who is not recognized by the law nor by legal contracts. Since some, having applied the canon to an ancilla, have said that the master consented to the second marriage after the simulated abduction, and thus perhaps thought they could escape the charge of fornication, as if the marriage were confirmed by the consent of the master; let them hear that, ^C since the first marriage of the ancilla with a free man took place, and the consent of the master necessarily followed at that time, it is superfluous, or rather inadmissible, to suppose that she was still an ancilla at the time of the simulated abduction. For from the first marriage, which was made with the master's consent, the ancilla was tacitly freed, and no longer needed the consent of him who was once her master for a second marriage. Should someone ask, since the laws and canons, as has been said often, do not permit abductors to be legally joined to those who have been abducted, even if the abduction occurs by the will of the abducted, how the present canon says that a second marriage is not hindered by a simulated abduction? Answer: In this case, an abduction was not committed by the man, nor was there any act that would constitute an abduction, but the woman, wishing to enter a second marriage, simulated the abduction for the reasons stated above. ^D For if a true abduction had occurred, not even a marriage would have been established between them; but they would have been subjected to the penalties concerning abductors and fornicators.

ZONAR. An ancilla, when she was a widow, was abducted by someone—or so it appeared. For she gave herself of her own will to the one who abducted her, and was legally joined to him in marriage. This great Father therefore affirms that such a woman chose a second marriage through the simulation of an abduction, and indeed she simulated the abduction for the sake of the marriage. We judge not the hypocrisy,

but the intent. For she did not consort with the man simply to enjoy a fornication-like union, but for the sake of marriage; and therefore she ought not to be accused as having committed fornication. However, she will not escape the ^A penalty for bigamy. And since the canon called such a woman a slave, we must assume that her master consented to the marriage after the simulated abduction. For if this were not so, what occurred would be fornication according to the 40th canon of this saintly Father.

ARIST. A great crime should not be imputed to a widowed slave who is abducted for a second marriage; but she shall bear the penalty for bigamy. Since slaves cannot contract marriage without the opinion of their masters, therefore a widowed slave does not seem to have sinned greatly by simulating that she was abducted by someone, desiring to be joined to him in marriage. Furthermore, the provisions concerning the abduction of free women will have no place in her case; because, even if she simulated being abducted, she followed [him] by her own will; and the canons judge not the simulations, but the intent. The marriage contracted with her shall therefore be valid, if her master also consents; but she shall be made to acknowledge ^B the penalty for those who are bigamous.

CANON LIV. I know that some time ago I wrote to your piety, as best I could, concerning the distinctions of involuntary homicides, and I can say nothing more than those things. It is, however, for your prudence to intensify or remit the penalties according to the properties of the circumstance.

BALS. And again the saint was asked how those who have committed involuntary homicides ought to be penalized. And he answered that “I cannot say more than what I said in the [eighth] canon concerning involuntary homicides.” But he granted to him whose office it is to judge concerning one who has committed involuntary homicide, to either increase ^C or decrease the penalty according to the property of the circumstance, that is, according to the mode and the cause of the death, and according to the quality of the person who killed and their disposition. That involuntary homicides are punished in various ways—that is, sometimes severely, and sometimes lightly—is clear also from the faults that occur every day concerning infants who often die in their mothers' arms. For if a mother, having been overcome by a heavy sleep from drunkenness, left the infant uncared for and gave cause for the death, she shall be bitterly punished. But if through evil...

Notes by Beveridge:

^A is deeply asleep in health, and has induced the sleep of death upon the infant, she shall be punished more lightly. But I have seen a certain woman, wealthy and delicate, whom I have punished severely because, by herself and not through wet-nurses, she suckled the infant at her breast, and through ignorance, nursing it untimely, she fed it, instead of milk, with a deadly draught. Note this for the sake of mothers who, through carelessness, suffocate their nursing infants.

ZONAR. Above, in the eighth canon, he wrote concerning involuntary homicides, and asserts that he has nothing more to say beyond those things. But he permits him whose duty it is to judge concerning him who has committed involuntary homicide, to increase or remit the penalties according to the specific nature of the circumstances—that is, according to the manner and the cause of the homicide, and according to the quality of the contrition of the person who committed the homicide.

ARIST. The penalties for homicides are increased or diminished according to the nature of the circumstances.

This great teacher of the Church gave definitive penalties for voluntary and involuntary homicides: but to extend or diminish them, according to a necessity that may arise, is committed to the judgment of him who has received the power to bind and to loose.

^B

CANON LV

BALS. In the thirteenth canon the saint defined advisory-wise that those who had killed in war should abstain from communion of the sacraments for three years complete. But here, those who have opposed themselves to robbers and have killed them, if they are laymen, he excludes from holy communion. But he subjects clerics to deposition; and he says that he has defined this according to the Scripture which says, Everyone who takes the sword shall perish by the sword. ^C And he calls the sword, and death, the deposition and the deprivation of the sacraments. For to those who are wise, these are considered a deadly punishment. But because some said that the thirteenth canon was issued in the guise of advice, and does not carry necessity, and therefore is to be disregarded, we say that from the present canon, which indiscriminately punishes those who defend themselves and kill robbers, it is apparent that the former canon also carries necessity. ^D And indeed the ecclesiastical law punishes them in this way; but the second theme of chapter 50, title 39, of book 6, speaks thus expressly: It is permitted to kill a robber who is making an attack, without danger. Now, in the time of that most holy patriarch, lord Constantine Chliarenus, when certain soldiers had come to the most holy Great Church of God, and said that they had encountered armed robbers in the enclosure of Saint Basil, and had killed them, and wished to know what was to be done, it was discussed synodically whether all those who kills robbers...

should be punished without distinction; and some said that if someone, being able to escape the snare of a robber, did not do so but killed him deliberately, he should not be punished according to the present canon, but should be punished even more severely as a murderer. For who knows, they say, whether the robber who did not attack him, might, by the providence of God, have desisted from robbery and joined himself to the Lord? They also used the ancient law provided above, which says that if one could not escape safely, no crime is imputed. But if the robber raised a murderous hand against the one who killed him, it shall be as the present canon ordains.

Moreover, the aforementioned law also has it: But if the one who killed did not pursue the robber, nor, being pursued by him, did he defend himself, and yet he killed him; but for the sake of the common good, at the request of others, he undertook it and killed him, he shall be punished neither legally nor ecclesiastically. For such a person, it says, is even worthy of rewards, as one who has freed the souls of many from death, and has tamed the place which was choked, as if by thorns and briars, by the ambushes of the robber. They also backed up this point from the law placed in the first title of the eighth book, which rules that he who, for the sake of showing courage, has fought with wild beasts and has received a reward for fighting against a beast destroying the province without the hunting of dogs, is not to be marked with infamy. ^B It seemed good to the synod that, concerning the laws of the Church, both those who defend themselves and those who kill robbers on account of the public good at the request of others should be punished just as those who kill in war are punished; but the one who kills a robber when he could have escaped his robbery should be punished more. According to legal norms, however, the aforementioned division is not to be rejected.

And these things are concerning laymen. For clerics, in whatever way they kill, are deposed, with no distinction being held between enemies or robbers, or any others. Read also the synodical note made on the 15th day of the month of May of the third indiction, in the days of the most holy patriarch, the lord Constantine Chliarenus, which is placed at the end of this book, and treats all these matters. Read also chapter 23, title 15 of the present work.

^D ZONARAS. This canon also has some harshness, as it bars from holy communion for three years the person who has killed someone, by the same reasoning as the one who has killed in war. For those who sally forth against robbers, or stand against them when they attack so that they may not be killed; even if they kill the robbers, they are worthy of pardon—that is, the laymen who even lay down their own lives for others, so that they may purge the regions of robbers and free those traveling through from dangers. And such men are not only to be pardoned, but are also worthy of rewards, inasmuch as they do not spare themselves for the salvation of others. And these things are said concerning laymen.

^A ARIST. Those who oppose themselves to robbers, if they are outside the communion, are kept away from the good; as for clerics, they are deposed from their rank. Since, according to the Lord’s voice, *All who take up the sword will perish by the sword* (Matt. XXVI, 52), those who oppose themselves to robbers and kill them will be subject to penance. And if they are laymen, they shall not partake of the divine mysteries; but if they are clerics, they shall be deposed.

CANON LVI

He who kills voluntarily, and afterwards repents, shall be for twenty years excluded from the sacrament. But the twenty years shall be ordered for him in this way: For four years he ought to weep, standing outside the doors of the house of prayer, and begging the entering faithful to offer up prayer for him, proclaiming his own iniquity. After four years, he shall be received among the listeners, and for five years he shall go out with them; and for seven years he shall go out with those who pray in the position of prostration. For four years he shall stand only with the faithful, but he shall not be a partaker of the oblation. But when these are completed, he shall be a partaker of the sacraments.

CANON LVII

He who kills involuntarily ^B shall for ten years be excluded from the sacraments. But the ten years shall be ordered for him in this way: He shall weep for two years, and for three years he shall continue among the listeners, and for four years he shall be prostrate, and in one year he shall stand only, and hereafter he shall be received to the holy things.

BALS. The present two canons describe how those who have committed voluntary and involuntary homicides ought to be punished. They also define the modes of the penances.

ZONAR. This holy man commands that he who kills voluntarily, and then betakes himself to repentance, be segregated for twenty years; but he who kills not of his own will, for ten years. And hereafter, he designates for both, for each individual place of penance, a most distinct time.

ARIST. Can. 56. Let the voluntary homicide be prostrate for twenty years; the involuntary for ten; the adulterer for fifteen; the fornicator for seven; virgins who have fallen after confession for fifteen.

^C He who kills anyone voluntarily, and afterwards does penance, shall be excommunicated from sanctification for twenty years. But the twenty years are ordered for him in this way: He ought to weep for four years, standing outside the doors of the house of prayer, and beseeching the entering faithful to pour out prayers for him, openly declaring his sin. After these four years, he shall be received to the listeners, and for five years he shall go out with them; and for seven years he shall go out ^D with those who in submission [...]

pray; for four years he shall stand only with the faithful, but he shall not partake of the oblation. And when these are completed, he shall partake of the holy things.

ARIST. Can. 57. He who kills someone involuntarily shall be excommunicated for ten years: that is, two years weeping, three years listening, four years falling down, one year standing with the faithful, and following this, he is received to the holy things. Clear.

CANON LVIII

CANON LIX

BALS. Even if what is decreed in the present two canons is most clear as to its phrasing, yet in practice they are altogether most difficult; for no one is healed according to their summary, and were it not for the ineffable mercy of the philanthropic God, all flesh would have perished. But let not the 22nd canon of the holy Father seem to you to be contrary, ^B saying that those who violate women by abduction are to be punished for four years. For there the holy man declared the ordinance of the Fathers who preceded him; but now he has brought forth his own opinion.

ZONAR. In the 22nd canon, this holy man, while legislating concerning those who violate women taken by abduction, and proceeding further, says: "The penance for fornication is set at four years. He must in the first year be cast out of the prayers, and mourn at the door of the church; in the second, be received to listening; in the third, to repentance; in the fourth, to standing with the people, abstaining from the oblation; then he shall be permitted the communion of what is good." But here he ordains a seven-year penance for fornication. ^C It seems, then, that he is contrary to himself; but I do not think so. For...

Guill. Beveregii nota.

(15) “The fornicator, the Faster condemns for two years, if only he fasts until evening each day, and eats dry food, and performs 250 repentances.” The Faster condemns the adulterer for three years, if he only fasts, and eats dry food, and performs 250 repentances. Harm. ep. can. s. 5, t. 3. ^D

^A For he brought in the four-year period as a regulation from those before him; and this is made clear from the words: “There is the penalty for fornication determined in four years,” that is, decreed by those before us; but he introduced the seven-year period as his own judgment, punishing fornication more severely, as he did also with many other sins.

ARIST. Can. 58. The adulterer shall not communicate for fifteen years: four weeping, five hearing the word, four kneeling, and two standing without communion. It is clear.

ARIST. Can. 59. The fornicator, seven: two weeping, two hearing the word, two kneeling, and one standing; at the eighth he shall be admitted to communion. It is clear.

CANON LX

Whoever has professed virginity and has fallen from her vow and profession shall fulfill the time of the sin of adultery in the dispensation of her life. The same applies also to those who profess the monastic life and fall.

BALS. We have often said that virgins were dedicated to the churches in lay attire and were nurtured by the bishops, as those who professed to remain virgins and to reside in the churches. ^B This virgin, then, who professed these things and has fallen, that is, has committed fornication, the holy man decrees is to be treated or punished as an adulteress. And not only them, but also nuns and monks, likewise, are to be treated after conversion. But let not the 19th canon of the Synod of Ancyra appear to you to be in opposition, which ordains that virgins who have fallen are to be subject to the penance of digamists. For it has been abolished by the present canon, which is much more recent: read also the canon of this present holy Father, and note that from the present canon, monks who fornicate and are not deposed, as they do not have the rank of lector from their superior, or episcopal ordination, are punished as adulterers after their fall. Likewise also ascetics and ^C nuns. Read also title 11, chapters 5 and 9 of this present work.

ZONAR. Behold, here too the holy man punishes more severely, by a multiple degree, the one who had professed virginity and been false to her promise. For since the nineteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra is clearly established in these words: “Whoever professes virginity and makes their profession void, let them fulfill the definition of digamists”; this one, he says, shall fulfill the time of the sin of adultery. Now, the penalty for digamists is exclusion from communion for a year, but for adultery it is extended to fifteen years. Consult the eighteenth canon.

ARIST. She who has professed virginity and has fallen shall fulfill the time of the adulterer. The same is to be observed also ^D for those who have professed the monastic life and have fallen. It is clear.

CANON LXI. IN LETTER OF S. BASIL CANONICAL III

^A CANON LXI. He who has stolen, if of his own accord he is moved by repentance and accuses himself, shall be kept back for one year from the communion of the holy things alone. But if he be convicted, he shall be kept back for two years; the time shall be divided for him into the status of the prostrate and the consistent, and then let him be deemed worthy of communion.

BALS. The divine canons punish those who confess their own sins more leniently. And therefore, the great Basil decrees that he who has confessed the theft he committed should be kept back only from the participation of the holy things for one year, but that he who is condemned as a thief or caught in theft be punished for two years, and that he shall stand neither in the place of the weeper nor of the hearer, ^B but in the place of the prostrate and the consistent, and after the passing of the two years he shall be deemed worthy of the communion of the holy things. And the canon consists in these things. Do you, however, pray that the present canon not be understood according to the definition of a thief that says: "A thief is he who, against the will of the master, handles another’s property, knowing that he is causing him trouble." For, as it seems to me, almost no one of those who are occupied in life would communicate in the sacraments if this were granted; for even the ministers of monasteries, even if they are most pious, without the consent of their superiors, take something small for themselves from their ministries for the sustenance of life, or transfer it to others, and children steal from their parents. ^C I omit the debauchery of servants, the clandestine thefts, indeed, of those things which belong to their masters. These are an Iliad of evils, and they enlarge the evil; but let this canon be understood as directed at impudent thieves. Read also chapter 66 of title 12 of book 60, which says: "A thief, even if having been moved by repentance he returns the object to the master, does not cease to be a thief."

ZONAR. He who spontaneously confesses a theft that was hidden is kept back for one year from the communion of the holy gifts alone; but he who has been convicted or caught stealing is punished for two years. And he shall not stand in the place of the weeper nor of the hearer, ^D but in the place of the prostrate and the consistent; and in these two places the time of two years shall be divided for him, and thus he shall be deemed worthy of the communion of the holy things.

ARIST. He who has stolen and repents, one year; but if convicted, another year as well. To him who has stolen and not repented of his own accord, and did not confess the theft he committed, but was convicted by others, the penalty of two years shall be divided for him in this way: that he shall stand one year with the prostrate, and the second with the faithful.

Guill. Beveregii note. The epitome of this canon: "He who has committed theft and has confessed it, shall be kept back for one year; if convicted, for two." The Faster condemns such a one to 40 days; but him who is convicted, to six months, during which he ought to eat dry food and perform a hundred penances daily.

to be established among those who fall; and the second among the faithful, and to communicate with them in prayers; and thus after the passing of the two years, to be deemed worthy of communion. ^B

CANON LXII

CANON LXIII

BALS. The holy man defines that those who lie with males and all those who have intercourse with brute beasts are to be punished as adulterers, after they have clearly departed from the evil and made confession. And regarding those who lie with males, read also the last chapter of title 60 of book 6, which says: "Let those who have intercourse with brute beasts, that is, who mount beasts, be castrated."

ARIST. Can. 62. He who lies with males, as an adulterer. Clear.

ARIST. Can. 63. He who exposes his own turpitude in the intercourse with brute beasts, similarly. Clear.

CANON LXIV

BALS. Concerning perjurers, read chapter 18 of title 13 of the present work, and what has been written by us therein. ^C

ZONAR. These canons are clear and do not require explanation.

ARIST. The perjurer for ten years; two weeping, three hearing, four prostrating, and one year standing; and then he shall be deemed worthy of communion. Clear.

CANON LXV

BALS. Witchcraft (præstigiæ) is, in fact, the performing of any act through mere incantations and the invocation of demons; but poisoning is to prepare something edible or drinkable through noxious drugs and to kill a man with poison. And read chapter 20 of title 13 of the present work, and what is therein, and chapter 25 of title 9 of the same work, and what is therein. ^D

ZONAR. ^A Sorcery is to cause something to someone for the injury of others by means of incantations and the invocation of demons, such as for the paralysis of limbs, and for a chronic condition, or even for an abiding bedridden state, and for other similar things. Poisoning is that which is done by means of noxious drugs or that which makes some people lose their minds, which henbane also can do; for this is a herb whose seed is deadly, or otherwise harmful. Rightly are these persons censured like murderers, because sorceries contain invocations of demons; and poisonings either kill, or cause people to lose their minds, and make death desirable to the sufferer, if he should ever recover his senses—if not for him, at least for those who are related to the man. By the time of the murderer, he means the one who has dared to commit willful murder; that is to say, twenty years.

ARIST. ^B The sorcerer and the poisoner, like a murderer. These shall acknowledge the penalty of the willful murderer.

CANON LXVI

BALS. Concerning violators of sepulchers, read chapter 23 of title 13 of the present work, and chapter 27 of title 9 of the present work.

ZONAR. ^C A violator of a sepulcher is one who opens graves and plunders what is buried with the dead; and it could also be one who removes the stones of the graves. Look also for the seventh canon of Nyssen.

ARIST. He who violates a sepulcher, for a decade, like the perjurer.

CANON LXVII

CANON LXVIII

BALS. ^D Read chapter 29 of title 9 of the present work, and chapter 2 of title 13, and book 60, title 37, chapter 77, saying: "Those who are joined for marriage, or otherwise carnally entangled, being first cousins, and the children born of them, and this alone, or even father and son with mother and daughter, or two brothers with two sisters, or two brothers with mother and daughter, or a nephew with the woman who has become the wife of his uncle, or an uncle with the woman who has become the wife of his nephew, besides separation, let them also be beaten." And these things indeed are thus. Further, since in the interpretation of chapter 2 of title 13, among other things we show that a royal command has been issued...

^A forbidding the same person to be joined legally to two second cousins; and although this has not yet been promulgated, the Church nonetheless prohibits such a marriage; you ought to know that after we wrote these things, during the time of the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, lord Theodosius, on the 30th of July of the 12th indiction, a synodal note was made which reads word for word as follows: "The most holy metropolitan of Aprus, brother and concelebrant of our mediocrity, Romanus Artabasdus, having brought forward a synodal document, which word for word contained the following: 'A certain girl, who is called Irene, contracted betrothal with a certain John, when she was ten years of age. But since those betrothals of hers were said to be illicit, a judicial declaration was made permitting those who had contracted such betrothals—because, as has been said, they were betrothals made contrary to the laws—to separate. Irene, therefore, wishes today to be legally joined to Theodorus, who is the second cousin of John, and she asks if he has any impediment; she requested our mediocrity and the holy brotherhood to learn from it whether there is any impediment to the contract regarding which the document was made.' Therefore, having heard from her and from the assembly of brothers present, it was determined that such a contract is in no way prohibited. For since the betrothal concluded after this, being invalid, was dissolved because of Irene's youth, Irene may rightly be joined to his second cousin by the law of marriage. ^B For Theodorus does not consider Irene to be a relative, nor is he bound by the bonds and limits of kinship, because he has gone beyond the sixth degree of kinship."

ZONARAS. If anyone contracts a marriage with a relative with whom it is forbidden by the laws to unite in marriage, he shall be punished with the penalty for adultery, and the marriage shall be dissolved.

ARISTENUS. Canon 67. He who has intercourse with his sister, [shall be punished] as a murderer. If the sister with whom the brother has intercourse is of the same parents, born of the same father and the same mother, he shall be punished for twenty years as a voluntary murderer, after he has desisted from the illicit and lawless act. But if the sister is of ^C one parent only, either from the father alone or from the mother alone, he shall be subjected to penance for three years, and in the tenth year he shall be received with the faithful, and after having stood with them for another two years in prayer, from that time he shall be judged worthy of the communion of the Good, as the seventy-fifth canon provides.

ARISTENUS. Canon 68. A marriage forbidden by consanguinity is punished by the same penalty as adultery. Whoever is forbidden by the law of marriage to take a woman because of consanguinity, if he sins with her, he shall receive the penalties of adulterers. But since the punishments of those who fall under the judgment of adultery are different, according to the closeness of the kinship,

they are not punished as one who commits adultery with a married woman—that is, for fifteen years—but are barred from communion for seven years: one year weeping, two years listening, three years kneeling, and in the seventh standing with the faithful.

CANON LXIX

BALS. When a certain reader had intercourse with his own betrothed before marriage with her consent (for this is what the term "cohabit" signifies), the saint was asked whether such a person ought to be punished after the marriage as one who has committed "secret marriage." For some said that, since a betrothal is not a perfect marriage (for the party who accepts the earnest money, which constitutes the betrothal, can return it doubled and dissolve the betrothal), the reader is judged not to have slept with a lawful wife, but with a free woman, and is therefore to be numbered among those who have committed secret marriage. The saint says, therefore, that this reader, because he was joined carnally with his own betrothed before marriage, and not with a woman who was entirely a stranger, will not be considered to have committed fornication. But because he did not wait for the mystery of perfect marriage, he shall be punished for his pusillanimity, that is, he shall be segregated for one year; then he shall be admitted to be a reader only. For he shall not be raised to higher advancement, that is, he shall not become a deacon, nor a priest, and much less a bishop. But if, he says, a reader were to cohabit with some woman who had not been betrothed to him, even if he had perhaps been speaking to her about taking her as his wife, and even if he took her as his wife after the intercourse, not only will he not be advanced, but he will also be subject to deposition for this very act, being in no way helped by the fact that he later took her as his lawful wife. The same shall also be true for a server or subdeacon. For he, too, if he has committed secret marriage in such a way, shall be deposed. ^D As to the one fact regarding secret marriage, refer to what is determined for the deacon, though not regarding his advancement, after he has cohabited with his own betrothed or otherwise. For it is not permitted to a subdeacon, just as to a reader, to betroth a woman and contract marriage after ordination, because Canon 26 of the Holy Apostles holds this: "Of those who have entered into the clergy unmarried, we command that only readers and cantors who desire to do so may marry." But if anyone, having committed secret marriage, has subsequently become a server, let him be expelled from his rank.

And this, indeed, is according to that way. However, one must know that the matters concerning such a canon were discussed in various ways in the synodal court; and some said that these had place while betrothals were contracted and dissolved by consent. But now, since they are not contracted or dissolved otherwise than by the modes and causes by which a perfect marriage is also contracted and dissolved, all these have become obsolete. Whence it is not permitted to any of those who are of the clergy, having been separated from his own betrothed before marriage by death or some other cause, to be joined to another woman; and he who has done this is to be deposed as a bigamist: likewise, also, a reader who has fallen into such a thing is not to be promoted to another rank. ^B Some, however, wished that even he who today has had relations with his own betrothed should have done so with impunity, because betrothals cannot be dissolved. But when that *augustus* and grand drungarios, lord Stephen Comnenus, was to be joined in marriage to the lady Eudochia, daughter of that *augustus* and great domestic, lord John, and was being prevented because her own sister, the lady Irene, had been betrothed to that *augustus*, lord Alexios, son of that first-venerable lord John, the renowned *sebastokrator*, who was the first cousin of the grand drungarios, and it was impossible that two first cousins should be joined to two sisters, it was synodically discussed in the days of the most holy patriarch, lord Nicholas Mouzalon, whether the contract of the grand drungarios was impeded by this. And it was judged not to be impeded, because betrothal does not hold the place of a perfect marriage. Moreover, the most holy patriarch, lord Theodosius, also granted to the Mesopotamian lord Michael—to whom a certain Maria had perhaps been betrothed, and who, because she died before the marriage, had taken another—that he might, without prejudice, be joined to another after her death, especially since he also had children and had exceeded the age of thirty, ^C saying that this was not to be reckoned as a trigamy, inasmuch as betrothal does not suffice in place of a perfect marriage. But these things were thus judged because no union had been spoken of or had taken place between the betrothed. For if a union had occurred, such a thing would not have been judged, lest a manifest incest and illegitimate marriage be permitted. Wherefore, even when no union has occurred, since it is shown from the ninety-eighth canon of the Council in Trullo, and from the second chapter of the fifty-eighth title of the sixtieth book, and from the third theme of the twelfth chapter of the thirty-seventh title of the same sixtieth book, that one who has married a woman betrothed to another is held liable for the crime of adultery, when even then betrothals were dissolved by the payment of a penalty and were not, as today, equivalent to marriage—I say that such unions are not without danger, the authority of the present canon also confirming it. ^D

ZONARAS. If a reader has had relations with his own betrothed before marriage, even if she consented (for this indeed...

marks the moment that he who has been separated for one year is readmitted, though he is by no means to be promoted to a higher grade. If, however, he should encounter a woman without an engagement, and even if he may have spoken words to her such that he might take her for his wife, and should even have joined himself to her after these things, he falls from his ministry. He says the same thing also regarding a minister, that is to say, a subdeacon. Furthermore, that which is said regarding the subdeacon must be referred to a single fact: namely, his falling from the ministry if he has entered into marriage in a clandestine manner. For it is not permitted to a subdeacon, after the imposition of hands, to betroth a woman and to contract marriage with her. For the twenty-sixth canon of the holy apostles says these things: "Of those who have entered into the clergy unmarried, we command that only readers and singers, if they wish, may take a wife." If, however, anyone having married clandestinely has subsequently become a minister, he shall be cast out from his grade once the offense has been identified.

ARIST. A reader who has had intercourse with his betrothed before the nuptials, after being received back for a year, shall remain a reader and not be promoted further; but he who has entered into a clandestine marriage shall be expelled. Likewise also for a minister.

A reader who betroths a woman and is corrupted with her before the marriage shall remain idle for a year, and thus shall be received back to reading, not proceeding to higher promotion, but remaining in the same grade. But he who has even before the betrothal committed carnal sin clandestinely shall be entirely removed from his grade. The same punishment shall also hold for those ministers of the Church who have had no imposition of hands.

CANON LXX

BALS. The holy canon decrees that a deacon or priest who has been defiled in his lips and has confessed his sin is to be barred from sacred ministry, but not indeed to be prohibited also from participation in the sacraments, but [rather] that he is to be permitted to communicate within the holy sanctuary with priests or deacons of equal rank to himself. But him who has not sinned to that extent alone, but has fallen even further, it wishes to be deposed. Since the canon defines these things, it has been asked many times, "What does it mean for a consecrated man to be defiled in his lips?" And some said that it is for someone to have sinned with a woman by a lascivious and amorous kiss, according to the evangelical saying which is: "He who has looked upon a woman in order to desire her has already committed adultery with her." Others said that some, being ardently inflamed by the fire of Venus, use the female pudendum as a cup, and through it (O [the] execrable ...

[original-script column: see facsimile]

^A beverage [of the] pour out, and pollute their lips. Others say that some, seized by a mad love, kiss the female pudendum, and are not ashamed, but say: "Our lips are our own; who shall be lord over us?" But I, reading Julius Pollux, found in the second book of his *Onomasticon* that he names *myrtocheilides*, and *cremnomata*, and *pterygomata* as the parts and members on this side and that of the female pudendum. And the most wise Aristotle, in his physiological account of the parts of animals, also names these "lips." Many ^B too, who have written erotic works, say that these parts gape, and spit, and are equipped with little tongues. I think, therefore, that a man in holy orders who is in any way defiled by such lips, as he has committed a most hateful act, shall be suspended for a time; but since he has not committed the perfect sin through coitus, he shall not be deposed. And because some say that he who is defiled by the lips and confesses must be deposed, because the Saint says he should not minister, we say that the Saint did not intend this. For even if the punishment of him who is defiled by the lips appears more severe, in that no definite time is fixed for the prohibition of the ministry, yet it does not ^C at once appear as deposition. For he decrees that he who has perpetrated something greater through coitus should be deposed.

ZONARAS. This canon possesses ambiguity, and is therefore understood in one way by some, and differently again by others. For some interpret "defiled by the lips" as him who has proceeded even to a lascivious and erotic kiss with a woman. For this also is a pollution. For if mere consent to sin is considered enough to defile the soul, much more would there be impurity if someone proceeds as far as a lascivious kiss. They say therefore that such a one should be prohibited from the ministry—that is, suspended for a time and barred from the functions of the diaconate—but should be permitted to participate in the sacraments only ^D with the deacons, as if it were a sufficient punishment for him to be barred from the ministry for a time. And for the confirmation of their view, they adduce the words which follow in the same canon, by which, if anyone has sinned more, he orders him to be deposed. Asserting that from this the mind of the holy man is declared, namely, that he decreed a temporary prohibition, and permitted the time of that prohibition to be short, depending on the discretion of him who is charged with the care of amending sins. Others, however, assert that the prohibition is perpetual, and that the deposition is beyond doubt. Therefore they say that no time has been fixed at all; but that the power of communicating with the deacons was granted to him due to the lightness of the crime; but that to him who has sinned more seriously, the holy man decreed deposition, indicating by the word "deposition" the perpetual casting down of him who sinned from his own rank. For such a man is not even to partake within the sanctuary with the deacons, but with the laity. I, however, incline to the former opinion, both as being more humane, and because of the canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, which says: "If"

anyone proposes in his mind to desire to sleep with a woman, but the thought does not arrive at his action, he is judged to have been rescued by grace. If, therefore, he who desired to sleep with a woman, and proceeded even as far as the bed, but did not slip into the act, but rather, before the intercourse, came to himself and leaped away, and abstained from the work, is believed to have been rescued by grace, then he who was defiled only by a kiss, and proceeded no further, would all the more be believed to have been rescued by grace. And how could anyone condemn him whom grace has rescued? And that with such a heavy condemnation, namely, the loss of his own rank?

ARIST. ^B If a presbyter or deacon has confessed that he was defiled by his lips, let him be removed from the ministry, but let him be a partaker of the sacraments; but if he is found to have sinned anything more than this, he shall be deposed. The meaning of being "defiled in the lips" is interpreted in various ways. However, it is not proper to hand it down in writing because of the indecency of the matter. But if any of the deacons or presbyters should fall into such a sin, he shall receive the punishment according to the present canon.

CANON LXXI. Whoever has been conscious of each of the aforementioned sins, and has not confessed, but has been convicted, shall himself also be punished for the same length of time for which the doer of the evils has been punished.

BALS. ^C The holy [father] decrees that those who are conscious of some persons committing certain sins, and do not confess these things of their own accord to the bishops, but conceal them, are—after a lawful accusation—to be punished equally with those who have committed the evils. But do not call him "conscious" here who merely has knowledge and is unable to prevent it, nor him who gave counsel without malicious intent; but [call] him who cooperated, or assisted, or gave counsel with guile, or who had knowledge and was able to prevent it, and did not prevent it. For the second lemma of chapter 48, title 11, of the 6th book says that "he who knows of a thief, even if he does not denounce him, is not a thief. But he who hides the thief is a thief." And the second lemma of chapter 51 of the same book and title: "It is done by zeal and counsel, when it is done due to hatred for the one from whom something is taken by theft. For just as theft, so also zeal is not done without malicious intent. And he indeed 'counsels' who encourages the theft; but he is 'zealous' who provides some effort and assistance toward the theft." And chapter 63: "He who has shown the way to one fleeing is not a thief." And chapter 5, title 6, of the same book: "He who has counseled without guile is not liable, nor he who [acts] in sport." And the ancient [canon], chapter 11 of the same book and title: "For from counsel alone, no action for theft arises." The sacred psalmist David also does not punish him who looks upon a thief or an adulterer, but him who runs with the thief or brings him aid, and him who shares, that is, makes common the sin with the adulterer. Whosoever, therefore, merely has knowledge of the evil, and cannot prevent it, and he who counseled without malicious intent, ^D

^A will not be subjected to penance. But he who knows, and is able to prevent it, and does not prevent it, and he who counseled with malicious intent, and much more he who co-operated, shall be punished. Note also that everywhere confession lightens the punishment, while proof increases it.

ZONAR. Since the holy man has hitherto discoursed concerning the sins of presbyters and deacons and others who are established in ecclesiastical orders, now he also makes a ruling concerning those who are privy to their sins, saying that if anyone is conscious of crimes committed by those we have enumerated, and has not confessed them and revealed them to the bishop, but rather has covered them up, and has been convicted of knowing ^B and keeping silent and hiding them, he himself shall be punished for the same length of time as he who committed the sin.

ARIST. He who is privy to another's sin, and conceals it, is subjected to the same punishment. If anyone is privy to anyone committing any one of the aforementioned sins, and does not confess it, but is convicted of concealing the sin, he shall undergo the same penalty, and for such time as the perpetrator of the evils himself shall suffer.

CANON LXXII

He who surrenders himself to diviners, or to others of such kind, shall himself be punished for the time of murderers.

BALS. In chapter 35, title 9 of the present work, and in chapter 20, title 13, we wrote much ^C concerning diviners, magi, and the like; read these, and the canons and laws declared in those same chapters, and you will learn how these are punished both civilly and ecclesiastically. But now the holy man decrees that those who surrender themselves to such persons are to be punished for the time of murderers. Because, however, some, interpreting the present canon, said that those who approach women who profess to reveal certain uncertainties or even future events through barley ought also to be punished in this way, I say that there is a difference between diviners, sorcerers, and the old fortune-telling women who deceive the simpler folk through enchantments. For the former invoke demons; ^D but the latter, rather feigning virtue and holiness, with divine hymns sometimes write down the future and reveal the obscure through barley, as do those who are called secret-readers, and those who wear sacks and rags, well-bearded and long-haired monks. For these, both deceiving and being deceived, prophesy the future as if taught by angelic revelation. Therefore, those who have not denied God, but feign holiness through wickedness, ought, as it seems to me, to be punished more mildly and not like those who have denied God. But if you say that the barley-readers and the sorceress old women invoke demons, these too must necessarily, like magi and diviners, be punished with the ultimate penalty. Also read the 83rd canon of the present holy man, and what is in it.

ARIST. He who gives himself over to diviners or others of this sort shall be assigned the duration of the homicides.

He who gives himself over to diviners, or sorcerers, or makers of philters, in order to learn their evil arts, shall be punished as one who kills voluntarily. But he who places faith in such people, and brings them into his own house for the discovery or purging of sorceries, or the revelation of certain secrets, shall be punished for six years; as the 61st canon of the Sixth Synod in Trullo determines, as also the 83rd [canon] of this third epistle of the great Basil which is at hand.

CANON LXXIII

He who has denied Christ, and has transgressed the mystery of salvation, ought to lament for the whole time of his life, and it is fitting that he should confess; and at the time that he departs from this life, he should be deemed worthy of the holy things, through faith in the philanthropy of God.

BALS. The canon is clear. It decrees that those who have denied our Lord Jesus Christ, and have not accepted the mystery of his economy in the flesh, are to lament and confess for the whole time of their life, and only at their final breaths are they to be deemed worthy of the participation of the holy things. ^C But since the Synod of Ancyra and the holy hieromartyr Peter do not subject anyone to the ultimate penalty of excommunication, being [thereby] as it were in opposition to the present canon, say that the Fathers established penalties befitting their own times. For they were in times of vehement persecutions, when the faith was not yet firmly established, and for this reason they dealt more mildly with those who lapsed, sympathizing due to the necessity forced by the persecutors. But the great Basil, being in a time when the faith had spread and become more firm, dealt more harshly with those who denied the faith. Or say that the Fathers indeed legislated regarding those who denied Christ through tyrannical force, and therefore they mitigate the penalties; ^D but the present canon legislates regarding those who denied Christ voluntarily and without any necessity, and therefore it inflicts a heavy punishment upon them. And regarding "lamenting" and "confessing" for the whole of their own lives, some say this is not to be taken to mean that they are placed in the [category of] those lamenting: for this, they say, is out of the compassion of the Saint,

^A and of the philanthropy of God which overcomes every sin. Therefore, they demand that these [penitents] both lament and confess the sin throughout the whole of their own lives, but accomplish the places of penance in accordance with the canons of the synod in Ancyra; however, they shall not be deemed worthy of the communion of the holy things, except in the final breaths of life. I myself agree with this opinion, as being more philanthropic, and because it does not even appear from the words of the Saint that he who has sinned in this way is to be placed in the station of the lamenters.

ZONAR. ^B This holy man, without distinction, orders all those who have denied Christianity to be excluded from communion for the whole of their lives and to lament. But the Archbishop of Alexandria and martyr, Peter, makes many distinctions in his canons concerning those who have denied the faith, and determines different times for them to undergo punishments; yet he excludes no one from communion for the whole of their life. Also, the synod in Ancyra, which is more ancient than the holy martyr Peter, makes many divisions regarding those who offered sacrifice, and assigns different periods of penance to different ones; but it determined that no one should be prohibited from communion until the end of life. Yet someone might say that the Fathers established the penances in proportion to their own times. For some lived in times of violent persecutions, when the faith had not yet taken firm root, and therefore they acted more mildly toward those who had lapsed, ^C descending [to their level] on account of the necessity of the persecutions. But the Great Basil, living in times when the faith had spread far and wide and become more secure, while the affairs of the Greeks had been greatly reduced, showed himself more severe toward those who had denied the faith, as they had lapsed voluntarily and without force, and therefore he ordered them to remain excluded from communion for the whole of their lives.

ARIST. He who has denied Christ is to do penance throughout his life. He who has denied Christ ought to lament for the whole time of his life; but at the departure from life, let him be deemed worthy of communion.

CANON LXXIV If, however, any one of those who have been involved in the aforementioned sins proves himself zealous in confessing, he to whom the power of binding and loosing has been entrusted by the grace of God, if he becomes more lenient—seeing the great intensity of the confession of the one who has sinned—so as to shorten the time of the penances, is not worthy of condemnation, since the history which is in the Scriptures signifies to us that those who confess with greater labor more quickly attain the philanthropy of God.

BALS. ^D Lest anyone be afflicted with sadness on account of the length of the temporal penances, the Saint says that the regional hierarch, who, just as the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted by God to Peter, the most preeminent among the apostles, and the power to bind and to loose,

if he sees that someone who has been subjected to penance for some sin has accepted the remedy of the penances with thanksgiving, and is showing forth repentance with more ardent zeal, he shall shorten the time of the penances, not fearing ^A condemnation, as if he were supposedly violating the canonical precision concerning the time of the penances. For Scripture teaches us that the mercy of God quickly lays hold of those who confess with greater labor. And the canon is in these terms. But you refer to the 39th chapter of the 9th title of this present compilation, and the laws established therein, and you will learn that there is a difference between judges who pronounce corporal punishments against those liable for criminal offenses, and the bishops who ordain ecclesiastical penances against those who confess sins of the soul. For the former can neither increase nor diminish the punishments defined by the law without an imperial order; but the latter, who take upon themselves the burdens of our sins, as those who are about to render an account to God for us, both increase and diminish the penances ^B according to their own judgment. And for this reason, it is in their power not only to shorten the times of the penances, but also to exchange the penances themselves. For even if, for example, it has been ordained that someone who has committed such and such a sin may not eat meat, nor stand with the faithful, and likewise may not partake of the divine mysteries for three years, he who has received the confession, in accordance with the quality of the person upon whom the penance is being imposed, and the fervor of his confession, and the zeal of his repentance, may moderate these penances, but multiply others. Thus, the canon should not be interpreted, as some have said, as referring only to the shortening of the time of the penances, but to every kind of penance. And regarding a certain soldier who had fallen into the crime of voluntary homicide, and was released in writing ^C after a very moderate amount of time by a certain high priest, our mighty and holy emperor, being displeased at what had occurred, ordered that in the days of that most holy patriarch, lord Luke, it should be considered synodically whether the acquittal from penances had been rightly granted to the soldier, with such haste and, so to speak, not with sympathy, but with partiality. And with the high priest putting forth this present canon and others that seemingly alleviated the heavy lightness that was being brought against him, the holy synod, interpreting the canons rightly according to the most divine illumination which was in them from the All-Holy Spirit, both subjected the soldier again to the fetters of canonical penances, and punished the high priest with a moderate suspension from his liturgical duties, saying that while it is permitted to high priests to increase and decrease canonical penances, it is not ^D granted to them to bind with spiderwebs what ought to be bound with thick ropes. It is said, moreover, that also on account of the case of this soldier, our mighty and holy emperor issued the Novel concerning voluntary murderers; read that which is set forth at the back, and which, among other things, discusses also these matters: Now, regarding those things which are done by them after they have fled to the most holy Great Church of God, my imperial majesty does not know perfectly, yet it hears things that are not good.

^A ZONAR. After the great Basil has enumerated various times of penances adapted to the variety of crimes, he finally commits the whole matter to the discretion of the bishops. For to them has been entrusted by God the power of binding and loosing; and if these, he says, perceive that those confessing are earnest and show fervency in their repentance, and on this account shorten the determined times, they shall not be worthy of condemnation. For the Scripture teaches us, he says, that the loving-kindness of God quickly lays hold of those who confess with greater labor; which is recorded to have happened in the case of Manasseh, and of Hezekiah, and of many others besides.

ARIST. He who has been entrusted with the power of binding and loosing, when he sees great contrition in any of those who have sinned in the aforementioned ways, shall shorten the time. Penalties have indeed been decreed for each sin; but he who has been entrusted by God with the power of binding and loosing, looking to the confession and contrition of each person, if he shall diminish the time of the punishments, shall not be worthy of blame. ^B

CANON LXXV

He who has been defiled with his own sister by the same father or the same mother, must not be permitted to enter the house of prayer until he ceases from his iniquitous and nefarious action. But after he has come to a sense and consideration of his horrendous sin, let him weep for three years, standing at the doors of the houses of prayer, and beseeching the people entering for prayer, so that each one may compassionately pour out intense prayers for him to the Lord. After this, let him be admitted for another three years to hearing only, and while listening to the Scripture ^C and the teaching, let him be cast out, and let him not be considered worthy of prayer. Then, if he has sought it with tears, and has fallen prostrate before the Lord with contrition of heart and strong humiliation, let a prostration be granted to him for another three years. And thus, when he has shown the fruits of repentance worthy thereof, in the tenth year let him be received into the prayer of the faithful, without an offering; and when he has stood for two years in prayer with the faithful, thus henceforth let him be considered worthy of the communion of the Good.

CANON LXXVI

The same decree applies to those also who take their own daughters-in-law.

BALS. The present two canons ordain how he is to be punished who has intercourse with his own sister. ^D The Faster, however, condemns such a person to three years, with fasting, and eating of dry foods, and five hundred prostrations each day. But as for him who takes a daughter-in-law, for two years with500 prostrations, and likewise also him who takes a mother-in-law. But as the matter stands now, the synod condemns such persons to six years, along with sorcerers and murderers.

^A ...even if she is not joined by both parents, but by one (which is also called half-sister), and [speaks of] how he who is defiled by his daughter-in-law is punished. And they say that these are to be driven away from the Church until they abstain from the sin; but after they have desisted, they are to be managed according to the four places of penance, and thus be accounted worthy of the holy communion. And the four places are completed through twelve years. Read also the second chapter of the thirteenth title of the present work; and note that punishments are assigned to those who desist, and not to those who still remain in sin. For to these, the things of the faithful are utterly uncommunicable.

ZONAR. He who has been defiled with his own sister, even if the relationship is not from both parents, but from one only, is utterly cast out of the Church until he abstains from such sin. But having abstained, he is managed as the canon ordains: weeping, listening, ^B prostrating, and standing with [the faithful]; and thus he is accounted worthy of the communion of the good.

ARIST. Can. 75. Let him who is defiled with his sister by father or mother not enter the house of prayer until he makes amends; then, having recovered his senses, let him spend three years weeping, three years listening, three years prostrating, and in the tenth year let him be received without the oblation, and [after] being with the faithful in prayer for two years, let him then be accounted worthy of communion. This canon was interpreted along with the sixty-seventh canon.

ARIST. Can. 76. The same things are decided also concerning those who take their daughters-in-law. Clear.

CANON LXXVII. He who leaves the woman lawfully joined to him and takes another, according to the sentence of the Lord, is subject to the judgment of adultery. And it has been canonically decreed by our Fathers that such persons should spend a year weeping, two years listening, three years prostrating, [and] in the seventh [year] stand with the faithful, ^C and thus be accounted worthy of the oblation, if they perform repentance with tears.

CANON LXXVIII. The same pattern shall be observed also in the case of those who take two sisters in marriage, even if at different times.

CANON LXXIX. They who lust after their own stepmothers are subject to the same canon as those who lust after their own sisters.

BALS. The saint in the 75th and 76th canons decreed that he who has been defiled with a half-sister or his own daughter-in-law is to be punished for twelve years. But now, that is to say in the 76th, ^D and also in the 79th canon, he commands that those who leave their own spouses and take others for marriage, and furthermore also those who take two sisters in marriage—namely, after the death of one, and...

those who remain with their stepmothers—shall be punished as adulterers. He adds, moreover, in the 77th canon, that he who leaves his own wife and joins himself to another shall be punished by the Fathers for seven years, and that if he then performs penance with tears, he shall be deemed worthy of the holy communion. Since these things are thus, one might ask: seeing that the 58th canon punishes the adulterer with fifteen years, and the present canon declares that those who leave their own wives and join themselves to others are to be punished by the Fathers for seven years, what are we to follow? Solution: Follow those contained in the 77th canon. For here the saint did not set forth the determination of the Fathers as a decree, but as a remembrance, and so that we might know what has been previously ordained by them, and what has been fixed by him; and this is signified by the fact that the saint says they ought to be punished as adulterers. If, however, anyone brings forward a general dictate of law, saying that "express things are of more value than silent ones," he shall hear that, if it were a canon of some other saint that punished adulterers for fifteen years, his argument might perhaps have some basis; but since both canons are ^B by the same saint, we are of necessity bound to pay attention to that which was defined by him later, as it was already proclaimed through this 77th canon. Regarding those who leave their own wives, read also the 87th canon of the present holy Father, and the final theme of the last chapter of book LX, title VI, which says: "He who attempted to have two wives, not by law, but by act of will, is rightly subjected to the charge of adultery." But she who was married to him afterwards, if she did not know that he had a lawful wife, shall be forgiven. Read also the 2nd canon of the council in Neocaesarea, which says that such persons are to be expelled from the Church until death. And let it not seem contrary to you; but say that the canon of the aforementioned council was established for those who persist in the evil, while the present one is for those who have ceased from it and have confessed. And for this reason, the former are condemned to total excommunication, but the latter are punished for fifteen years. Note, moreover, from the present canons, that not only in these sins, but also in the rest, cessation gives place to penalties. For he who persists in evil, even if he should be punished a thousand times, and as many times do good, has an incurable wound, which is not bound together by bandages that induce a scar. Note ^C further, that the things contained in the old law, apart from those which the Church has explicitly accepted, have ceased, and he who uses them judaizes. For behold, it is apparent that even among the holy Fathers, those laws were accepted which forbid marriages by reason of affinity. And the old law, which permits the brother of the deceased to take his wife, so that he may raise up seed for his brother, has become void; and the Latins also, who indiscriminately contract marriages which are forbidden by reason of affinity, offend against the canon.

ZONARAS: On canon 77. He says that those who leave their own spouses and take others for marriage, as adu-

adulterers, are condemned by the Lord. For the Lord says in the Gospels: "Whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt. v, 32). Our Fathers, he says, ordained that such persons be punished for seven years, and thus be admitted to the communion of the oblation, if they have repented with tears. But having set forth the penalty imposed upon them by decree of the Fathers, he added nothing further, deeming it sufficient that he had shown the crime to be adultery according to the Lord's words. For it follows that the time fixed by Him for the instruction of those who commit adultery is as for adulterers.

ARIST. Can. 77. He who dismisses his own wife and takes another, being an adulterer, shall be subject to the seven-year penalty. And this canon has been interpreted along with the sixty-eighth canon.

ZONARAS. The second canon of the synod held at Neocaesarea says: Unless he dissolves the marriage, he shall be cast out of the Church until the point of death.

ARIST. Can. 78. Let the same standard apply also to those who take two sisters, even if at different times.

ARIST. Can. 79. He who acts madly toward his stepmother, as one who acts madly toward his sister.

CANON LXXX

The Fathers omitted polygamy in silence, as being beastly and entirely foreign to the human race. To us, however, it is evident that it is a greater sin than fornication, and therefore it is reasonable that such persons should be subjected to the canons; that is to say, after they have wept for a year, and been subject to submission for three years, that they should then be received.

BALSAMON. When the saint in the 4th canon had defined regarding trigamists and polygamists those things which the Holy Spirit saw fit to describe beautifully through his right hand, he now says that the Fathers indeed said nothing about polygamy, but by design passed it over in silence, as being beastly and alienated from human conduct. But to him it seems to be worse than fornication. Wherefore he also decreed that he who is bound by the impurity of polygamy due to a lack of reason should be subjected to canonical penalties: namely, that he should stand for a year with the mourners, be for three years in prostration, and go out with the catechumens, and thus be admitted. But someone might ask, since the aforesaid fourth canon contains the trigamy and polygamy punished as being named fornication by the Fathers, and equates them in all things, how does the present canon say that polygamy was passed over by the Fathers in silence, and that its sin exceeds that of fornication? Solution. Trigamy is recognized by the law, but quadrigamy and beyond are neither by the canons nor by the

laws accepted. Therefore, every marriage that exceeds the limits of trigamy is called polygamia ^A. There, then, the holy father, establishing laws concerning trigamy, did not label trigamy itself as fornication, but rather trigamy, since the latter is recognized by the law and is not separated from the Church, as the tenth canon states. Here, however, in establishing laws concerning polygamia, he has declared it to be worse than fornication, and with good reason. For he who commits fornication injures only himself, as one who willfully casts himself into the bottomless pit of intemperance. But he who enters into a fourth or fifth marriage not only dances upon the divine canons and the laws that forbid this shameful work, but he also injures his own legitimate children by sowing, as it were, the tares of illegitimate and spurious offspring among his own legitimate seed. In order, therefore, that the faithful might abstain from such lawless marriages, the saint decreed that they be punished more severely than those who commit fornication, after they have confessed and ceased from the evil. Furthermore, someone might ask: since fornication is punished for seven years, as is shown by the 59th canon, how can the present canon, which names polygamia as worse than fornication, punish it with only four years? Answer. Some, solving this ambiguity, ^B said that fornicators are to be punished for four years, using also the 22nd canon of the holy Father. But you should read the 9th canon and its interpretation, and say that the fornicator is punished for seven years, but the polygamist even longer than seven years. For since there are four stations of penance, and it is decreed that he should weep for this [period] for one year, and then fall down in three for a proportional time, he will be compelled to serve in the remaining stations as well—namely, that of the hearer and that of the consistentes—and even if these are not extended for a longer time, they will at least be brought to the duration of four years, so that the total years of penance are eight. But let those who have here called polygamia, which indiscriminately pervades, by the name of fornication hear that marriage is not only a union in the looser sense of the term, but the conjunction of man and woman, and the consortium of the entire life, and a partnership in divine and human law; and that marriage does not consist merely in the conjunction, ^C but also in the disposition of those who have contracted it. For it is said in chapter 4 of title 4 of book 41: A dowry makes a marriage, but dowries do not make a marriage; rather, the mutual disposition of those dwelling together does. Regarding trigamy, read also the law of union placed earlier, which was made in the days of the emperor, our lord Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

ZONAR. He asserts that polygamia, that is, when someone takes many wives, even if not all at once, is a beastly thing and not human: or even when someone is joined to many, and practices indiscreet and wandering intercourse, which is also proven—that is, is estimated and judged by us—to be graver than fornication. Therefore, it is consistent with reason that such men should be subjected to the canons; and he goes on to add the times of the penance, which seem to be four

years. But how comes it that, whereas the holy man has called polygamy graver than fornication, he has perhaps determined the same time of punishment for both? For fornication is punished according to the Fathers' decrees with a four-year term. I, indeed, am of the opinion that in this place the time is gathered [to be] longer than four years. For it is decreed that the one who has committed fornication shall weep for one year, attend among the hearers for a second, perform penance for a third—that is, abide in the state of prostration and depart with the catechumens—and in the fourth [year] stand with the faithful, and after this be deemed worthy of the divine gifts, as may be seen in the twenty-second canon. But he who has sinned by polygamy is ordered to weep for one year, then to submit for three—which is to say, to stand with the catechumens and depart with them—and in this manner to be received, that is, for the state of standing alone, in order that he may remain there for such period as the one to whom his care is committed shall judge; and thus, too, he seeks that there be an opening for him to the communion of the holy gifts also, as the third canon of the synod of Neocaesarea [notes]. ^B

ARIST. Polygamists are beastly. Nevertheless, let them be received after four years. These men, [once] turned from their wickedness and dissolving their unlawful marriage, shall be punished for four years, even if the sin is greater than fornication; for they shall weep for one year, and for three they shall be prostrate, and thus they shall be received. ^C

CANON LXXXI

Since many have violated the faith in Christ during the incursion of the Barbarians, having performed heathen oaths and tasted some defiled things offered to idols which were presented to them by means of magic, let these be dispensed according to the laws and canons already set forth by the Fathers. For those who endured grievous necessity from tortures, and not bearing the sufferings were drawn to the denial, let them not be received for three years, and [then] let them hear for two, and when they have been in the state of prostration for three years, let them thus be admitted to communion. But those who, without great necessity, have betrayed the faith in God and have touched the table of demons and sworn Greek oaths, let them be cast out for three years, hear [for the next] two, and after they have prayed in a state of prostration for three years, and for another three have stood with the faithful for the prayer, let them thus be admitted to the communion of the good. ^D

BALS. The synod of Ancyra has sufficiently defined what ought to be done for those who, through tyrannical force, have sacrificed to idols or even eaten of detestable things. Consequentially to those [decrees], the great Basil says how those who have done such a thing ought to be punished, either as those who were afflicted by tortures beyond measure, or as those who betrayed the faith in Christ without great force. But since in the canon the holy man determined that he who has denied Christ and transgressed the mystery of salvation should weep throughout his whole life, and be deemed worthy of the sacraments at his dying, and the canons seem to be at variance, say

^A that it is not the same thing to deny Christ and to sacrifice to demons, or to taste of things sacrificed to idols, or to swear Hellenic oaths. For the former is a complete abrogation of the faith, while the latter are a defilement and a semblance of abrogation, and for this reason the former is punished more severely. Or one might say that in that canon the saint ordained concerning those who have deserted to denial of their own accord and without necessity have abrogated the faith, whereas in this present canon he prescribes concerning those who have been overcome by the intensity of tortures, and those who have suffered violence, even if not very intense, and have yielded; whence he has also outlined milder penances here. ^B Perhaps some might say that the contents of the present canon have no place, because the faith, by the grace of God, is firmly established upon the rock of orthodoxy, and the tyrants were stoned by martyr-stones many years ago; but even today many, having been captured by the hands of the impious Hagarenes and tortured, sometimes abjure the orthodox faith, and sometimes swear to the impious religion of Muhammad, while others even throw themselves of their own accord into the pit of infidelity. All these, however, shall be healed according to this present canon after confession and appropriate repentance. But concerning those who have eaten abominations, read the various canons of the Council of Ancyra, and you will learn how they too are punished.

ZONARAS. ^C Some, having been captured during an incursion of Barbarians, tasted certain forbidden things—that is, things sacrificed to idols and things magical—that is, things consecrated by magic rites—and swore Hellenic oaths, naming either idols or Hellenic gods, or the sun or other stars, whom they worshipped as gods. The Fathers therefore decreed that these persons should not all be dealt with in the same way; but they ordained that they should be treated differently from those who have been cruelly tortured and overcome by the bitterness of the violence, and differently again from those who, without great violence, have betrayed the faith and touched things sacrificed to idols, and turned to swearing unlawful oaths, according to the distinction prescribed in this present canon. ^D In the seventy-third canon, the saint decreed that he who has denied Christ and violated the mystery of salvation should weep throughout his whole life, and be deemed worthy of the sacraments at his dying. It may be said, therefore, that it is not the same thing to deny Christ and to sacrifice to demons, and to taste of things sacrificed to idols, and to swear Hellenic oaths. For the former is a complete abrogation of the faith, while the latter are a defilement and a semblance of abrogation; and for this reason the former is punished more heavily. Or you might say that the former canon decreed concerning those who had deserted to the denial and had abrogated the faith without necessity, whereas this one concerns those who have been overcome by the intensity of tortures, and those who have suffered violence—even if not very intense—and have yielded, and for this reason he appointed milder penances for them.

ARISTENUS. Those who have violated the faith through tortures,

^A suffered the difficult necessity during the incursions of the Barbarians, and, unable to bear the torments, have transgressed the faith in God, performing ethnic oaths and tasting certain things forbidden among the idols—these, having repented and turned back with tears and contrition of heart, shall spend three years with the hearers, and another three years with the prostrators; and thus they shall be appointed to communion. But as for those who, without great necessity, have become betrayers of the faith in God, partaking of the table of demons and swearing Hellenic oaths: these shall weep for three years, they shall hear for two years, and they shall continue for three years in prostration, and in another three years they shall stand with the faithful for prayers, and thus in the tenth year they shall partake of the communion of the good.

CANON XII

BALS. The laws set down in chapter nineteen of the thirteenth title of the present ^C codex are sufficient to show you what oaths are to be reconsidered, and from these you shall learn who are the perjurers. But the sixty-third canon, and this present one of this great saint, do not teach what oaths are to be reconsidered, but how those who have perjured themselves are to be punished. And in the sixty-fourth canon, indeed, the saint indefinitely subjected the perjurer to a ten-year excommunication; here, however, he makes a division of perjurers, and decreed that those who were compelled to perjure themselves by necessity are to be accepted after six years, but those who did so without necessity, after twelve, having demonstrated worthy repentance. And the canon consists of these things. ^D But do you say that those perjurers are to be chastised according to the present canon who have voluntarily triumphed over the sin through confession and have requested a cure; but not those who have been condemned as perjurers by the accusation of others. For those shall be punished by the Church even more, along with a monetary penalty; for proof, as has often been said, doubles the debt of the sin, and repentance lightens the scale of the punishment. Know, moreover, that the sin of perjury is manifold, and therefore also difficult to heal. For one is punished in one way who has sworn and perjured himself out of negligence, in another way one who did so out of force, in another one out of repentance, in another one for the sake of vengeance, in another one through guile, in another one who rejects an oath that was made for

^A anything trifling or to be discarded. In another way does a person violate a bodily oath, and in another a written one, and, simply put, the remedy for perjury lies in the discretion of the one who receives the confession. For I saw many who had sworn to go to Jerusalem and who perjured themselves, but were preserved without being subject to any punishment; and others who had sworn without written record upon the head of the emperor, and were bitterly punished; and others who swore under force, and were not punished at all. And how many did I see who, struck by the madness of love, bound themselves with oaths and trampled them underfoot without danger! Therefore, it is necessary that matters concerning these be examined precisely, and corrected worthily.

ZONAR. In the sixty-fourth canon, the saint indiscriminately punished the perjurer with the penalty of excommunication ^B for ten years, but here he makes a distinction among perjurers, and decreed that those who were forced by necessity to perjure themselves should be received after six years; but those who did so without necessity should be separated for eleven years, and thus be admitted to the communion of the body of Christ, after they have demonstrated worthy repentance.

ARIST. He who perjured himself under force shall be received after six years; but one who did so without necessity, after twelve. If someone swore not to do something—perhaps a judge, not to sign a sentence brought against someone—and later, being forced by a higher authority, violates the oath, this person is subject to lighter penalties on account of the force; for he shall be punished for six years. But he who violates what he swore without any force shall be stationed for two years with the weeping, for two years with the hearers, for five with the prostrate, and in another two he shall be received with the faithful and will communicate in prayers with them; and thus after the eleventh year he shall be deemed worthy of the body of Christ.

CANON LXXXIII

Those who practice divination, and follow the customs of the nations, or bring some people into their own houses for the discovery of witchcraft ^C and for purification, let them fall under the canon of six years: having wept for a year, and having listened for a year, and having been prostrate for three years, and standing with the faithful for a year, let them thus be received.

BALS. Often, some of the simpler and more foolish folk, who are suffering from severe illnesses and are not being cured in a timely manner, think that they are being affected by magical imposture or witchcraft; and therefore they approach certain Gentiles, asserting that they will bring into the open the hidden witchcraft which is overturning the bodily health of the sufferer, and thus purify the sick person from that defilement. Those, therefore, who divine in this way, and do not believe that all disease and all infirmity, and every act of witchcraft and satanic imposture, are healed ^D through the invocation of the name of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Mother of God and all the saints, and are expelled from the faithful by the power and presence of the precious and life-giving cross, but rather—

to be driven away from the faithful by the sign of the cross, but ^A rather those who follow miracle-mongers, sorcerers, and the customs of the heathen, and who introduce such persons into their houses for the sake of supposedly cleansing a malady arising from sorcery, the saint says they are to be punished for six years. Someone might say that this canon conflicts with the 65th and 72nd canons. For those ^B decree that such persons are to be punished as murderers—that is, to have a penalty imposed upon them of twenty years like voluntary murderers, or ten years like involuntary ones—whereas this present one specifies six. I believe, however, that there is a difference between these canons. The 65th canon legislates regarding the practitioners themselves, that is, magicians and sorcerers, and likewise the 72nd regarding those who surrender themselves to fortune-tellers, or who think the same way as they do. This present canon, however, discusses those who have followed, through error, those who claim to be able to heal and to loose magical bonds and maladies, but who have not departed from the faith. Thus, there is a difference between those who have practiced these things and surrendered themselves to the demons in such a way as to deny the faith, and those who have not departed from the orthodox faith, but have slipped by coming to such persons at all; and for this reason the former are punished for more years, while the latter are punished for fewer. Read also the 2nd canon of St. Gregory of Nyssa from his epistle to Letoius, which distinguishes these things in this way. From the canon’s mention of people consulting oracles, it appears, as I think, that those who have misused the evil will be punished for six years. But those who have perhaps been led astray once, and have abandoned it, will be more moderately treated. I myself, in fact, saw this happen in reality. For when the wife of the blessed in the Lord, that pious and religious lord Alexios Komnenos, ^C son of the renowned sebastokrator, had fallen into a severe illness, and the physicians had despaired of her health due to the complexity of her manifold diseases, certain heathens promised to cure her, as though she were suffering from magical sorcery, and caused many and wonderful women of hers—and even men—to be unjustly examined for it. They would secretly throw waxen images into corners and satanically signaled the discovery and finding of these things. And they committed ten thousand other terrible things in contempt of God and to the torment of many people; and those impious wretches themselves, when they could not achieve their goal, vanished. That most noble woman not only obtained no help but, tormented by a long-standing disease, departed this life, having taken with her as provision ^D the indignation of the divine canons against herself, which may the Lord God be pleased to lighten on account of her other good works. After her death, during the time of the most holy patriarch lord Leon Stypes, some of her kinsfolk and subjects were severely punished, as those who had most often consulted oracles and had believed with their whole soul in the satanic and nefarious operation. Others, however, were cured by a moderate penalty, as those who had not often nor from the heart followed that evil. The canon, therefore, must be heeded, and the care of the sick must be left to the judgment of God, who binds and looses with a word alone, and one must not surrender oneself to satanic impostures, which do not

^A only take away the health of the bodies, but also that of the souls. Read also the twentieth chapter of the thirteenth title of the present code, and the twenty-fifth chapter of the new title, and the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Ancyra.

Another interpretation.

ZONAR. In the sixty-fifth canon, those who confess to magical arts or sorcery are subjected to the penalties of murderers. Yet those whom he mentions here, he orders to be segregated for six years. Nor is the holy man in disagreement with himself; rather, there he made a ruling concerning those who practice magic arts themselves, and mix poisons for the ruin of men, or even those who use the efforts of others for such matters: but in this place, he speaks of those who believe in divinations, and use ^B soothsayers for the discovery of sorceries, and for the cleansing, as it were, of the stain which resulted from sorcery, and for the averting of the evils brought about by such things, and for the medicine to be applied to diseases through such imported means. Moreover, the twenty-fourth canon of the Council of Ancyra decrees a five-year segregation for such men.

ARIST. Those who trust in soothsayers or introduce them into their own homes for the discovery of certain sorceries, let them spend one year weeping, another hearing, let them be prostrate for three, and when they have stood with the faithful for one, let them be received. It is clear.

CANON LXXXIV.

BALS. In the [sixty-fifth] canon, the holy man defined that the time of penance is to be moderated for those who perform penance diligently. But here he says that those who perform their penances negligently are not to be liberated from punishment. For he establishes that punishments are to be increased for them. As for those who do not desist from evil after confession, but persevere in it, he orders that no account be taken of them. For we hear, he says, from the Scripture: *Save, save thy soul.* You see, lest you yourself perish by associating with those who cannot be corrected. Note, therefore, two most excellent things from the ^D present canon, that just as penitential punishments are lessened for those who diligently attend to their confession

so also they are increased for the negligent; and that those who depart from evil are punished, for those who persist in their desires are condemned by total excommunication. ^A

ZONAR. To all these things which the great Basil has ordained, he adds this: Although we have defined times of penance for the expiation of sins, still we do not judge penance by the length of time, such that it is necessary to admit them entirely once the time ordained for each of the sinners has elapsed. Rather, we examine the fruits of penance and attend to the mode, that is, the disposition of the penitent; so that from this place the intent of the seventy-fourth canon also may be perceived: namely, that for those who truly repent, the time is to be greatly shortened; but for those who are negligent and despise it, ^B it is to be prolonged. "If any, however," he says, "cannot be led away from their own habits, and do not desist from their sins, with such persons we have nothing in common. For we hear in the Holy Scriptures, 'Save, save your own soul': that is, 'Beware lest you yourself perish if you associate with the wicked.'" And subsequently he makes an exhortation to the bishops, to whom has been given the faculty of binding and loosing sinners, which is as follows: "Let us not, therefore, be persuaded to perish with such men, but fearing the grave judgment and the formidable day of the retribution of the Lord, and having it before our eyes, let us not wish to perish together with the sins of others; for if the terrible things of the Lord did not instruct us, ^C nor could so many adverse things persuade us—that we were abandoned by the Lord because of our own licentiousness, and delivered into the hands of enemies, and that the people were led away captive by the enemies and scattered far and wide, and dispersed, because those who carried the name of Christ dared to commit such things—if they have not known nor understood that for these causes the anger of God has come upon us, what is the common reason for us with them? But we ought to conjure them day and night, both publicly and privately; however, let us not in any way allow ourselves to be led away by their wickedness, having it indeed in our prayers, in the first place, to gain them over and snatch them from the snares of the devil; but if we cannot do this, ^D let us at least strive to save our own souls from eternal damnation."

ARIST. Do not judge the punishments by time, but by the mode; if they persist in their sins and contradict, you, however, save your own soul.

Penalties indeed have been defined as they have been written; but one ought not to look to the time of the penalties, but to the mode of penance. And if sinners make their confessions with tears and contrition of heart and serious humiliation and diligence, and desist from evil and seek the Lord with their whole heart, it will be permitted to him to whom the power of binding and loosing has been entrusted to shorten their time; but if those who offend are not easily torn away from their own habits, and from sin and certain pleasures which, O Lord, to serve...

prefer to serve the flesh rather than the Lord, and do not accept the life according to the Gospel, there is no account of punishments for them. For we have been taught to hear, in regard to a disobedient and gainsaying people: *Save, save thy soul.* ^A

CANON LXXXV.

Let us not therefore induce ourselves to perish with them, but, fearing the grave judgment and holding the terrible day of the Lord’s retribution before our eyes, let us not wish to perish together with the sins of others. For if the terrible things of the Lord have not taught us, and if so many blows have not brought us to our senses—realizing that on account of our iniquity the Lord abandoned us and delivered us into the hands of the Barbarians, and the people were led away captive to the enemy and handed over to dispersion because those who bore the name of Christ dared these things—if they have not known nor understood that on account of these things the wrath of God has come upon us, what point is there in our speaking to them? But we must bear witness to them, both night and day, and publicly and privately; yet we must not consent to their wickedness, rather wishing to win them over and snatch them from the snare of the evil one. But if we cannot do this, let us at least endeavor to save our own souls from eternal condemnation. ^B

BALS. These are words of exhortation to the high priests and all who have the power to bind and to loose. For he exhorts them not to consent to those who sin, nor to endure the communion of those who persist in sins, and thus perish with them, but to admonish them perpetually so that they might desist from evil and to pray for their salvation. But if, he says, you are often unable to correct them, endeavor to alienate yourselves from them; and thus you may be saved from eternal punishment as well. ^C

OF THE SAME, FROM ANOTHER SERMON, AN EPISTLE TO THE BLESSED AMPHILOCHIUS ON THE DIFFERENCE OF FOODS. CANON LXXXVI.

To the distinguished Encratites, in reply to their prominent objection, "Why do we, too, not eat all things?" let this be said: that we abhor even our own excrement. For while, in terms of dignity, meats are to us as a potherb of grass, yet with regard to the discernment of what is beneficial, just as we separate the harmful from the suitable in potherbs, so too do we discern the harmful from the useful in meats. For hemlock is a potherb, just as vulture flesh is meat; yet no one in his right mind would eat hemlock, nor would ^D he touch a dog, unless forced by great necessity. Wherefore, he who eats has not acted unjustly.

BALS. The Encratites, who were perhaps pursuing continence, abhorred the eating of meat, and when it was said to them that they were not acting rightly, they would object to the Orthodox: "You too abhor some foods, and for that reason abstain from them." To this, the saint replies that it is not strange if we abstain from some things or abhor them; for we also abhor our own excrements, even though they come from the substance of our own flesh. By excrements are meant urine, dung, the humors discharged through the mouth and nostrils, and anything of this sort. Just as, therefore, we turn away from those things, so too do we not admit of some foods. For all greens are considered meat by us, in that we eat everything as green herbs; but we use what is not harmful, distinguishing and separating away what is harmful. And just as there is hemlock and henbane among green herbs, yet we avoid them because they are harmful, so too in meat there is vulture flesh and dog flesh; yet no one would taste of dog, unless he were famishing. But he who has tasted of it under necessity has not sinned. ^B

OF THE SAME TO DIODORUS, BISHOP OF TARSUS, CONCERNING HIM WHO TOOK TWO SISTERS IN MARRIAGE

BALS. The saint made mention of this letter in his canon. It was sent to Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, who, having been asked by someone whether, upon the death of his wife, he could take her sister in marriage, replied in writing that he was not prohibited. But since the great Basil prohibited such a marriage, Diodorus’ written response permitting the aforementioned marriage was shown to him. Hence, he sent these words to him: "Letters came to us having the inscription of Diodorus; but what follows thereafter is suitable to someone else rather than to Diodorus. For it seems that some cunning man assumed your persona, so as to make himself credible to his listeners in this way; one who, when asked by some if it were lawful to take in marriage the sister of his deceased wife, did not abhor the questioning, but bore the hearing of it with an equable mind, and very energetically and with great contention brought aid to his lecherous desire. If, therefore, I had the letter, I would have sent it to you, and you would have sufficed to defend both yourself and the truth. But because he who showed it has taken it back again, and carried it about as a trophy against us, who had prohibited it from the beginning, by saying that he had the power granted in writing, I have now sent to you, that with a double hand we may come against that adulterous speech and leave it no strength, so that it may not be able to easily harm those into whose hands it falls." ^C

BALS. Being about to refute the things written by Diodorus, the saint proceeds with the refutation artistically, and sets forth his statement in such a way that he might not seem to suffuse him with shame, and thus might render him sharper for pursuing the matter, and says: "The letter had indeed been written under your name; but it seems to me that one of those who craftily contrive such things,

wishing to make his own discourse authoritative, has inscribed your name upon the letter. ^A He who, having been asked if it were permitted—that is, if it were lawful or just—to take in marriage the sister of his own deceased wife, lent assistance to the questioner in that impious interrogation, that is to say, by permitting the intemperance and lust, he himself also seems to have been a participant in the act. If, therefore, I had had the letter, I would have sent it to you, and you would have defended yourself and the truth, or rather, you would have provided relief, so as to speak and write against the illicit things of which you were perhaps falsely accused, which touches both you and the truth: the truth, as that falsehood was preferred to it, and you, as having permitted things which ought not to be. But since he who showed it took it away again, and carried it about as if it were some trophy against us. ^B A trophy is a certain sign given to the victor in war, so that from it, it may be manifest which side has defeated the adversary. Whence, from the enemies being turned, while they give their backs or turn to their adversaries, it has been named a trophy (from the Greek verb *trepo*, which signifies 'to turn'). Since, therefore, I do not have the letter, I have now written to you, that we might approach together, that we might contend with a double hand, my own, namely, and yours, against that adulterated discourse of his, which is foreign and fabricated, and give it no strength, that it may not easily harm those who encounter it and read it.

CANON LXXXVIII

^C The first thing, therefore, which in matters of this kind is the greatest, is that we can put forward our custom, which has the force of law, because the regulations have been handed down to us by holy men. That custom is of such a kind that, if anyone, having been overcome at some time by the vice of impurity, should fall into the forbidden union of two sisters, let this not be considered marriage, nor should they be admitted at all into the assembly of the Church before they are separated from one another. Wherefore, even if nothing else could be said, the custom itself would be sufficient for the protection of what is good. But because he who wrote this epistle has attempted, by a spurious argument, ^D to induce such a great evil into the morals of men, it is necessary that we should not omit even the aid of reasoning, although, in matters that are very manifest, the preconception which everyone has is more powerful than argumentation.

It is written, he says, in Leviticus: "Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other, while she is yet alive" (Levit. xviii, 18). From this, therefore, he says it is manifest that it is permitted to take the sister of a deceased wife. To this I will first say that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are in the Law; otherwise, we would also be subject to circumcision, and to the Sabbath, and to abstinence from foods. For we should not, if we find something that is agreeable to our own pleasures, subject ourselves to the yoke of the servitude of the Law; but if anything in the legal requirements seems burdensome, then we shall flee to the freedom which is in Christ. We have been asked if it is written that a woman may be taken after her sister. We have said what is safe for us

^A us and true; that it is not written. But to infer what has been passed over in silence by a process of reasoning is the task of the legislator, not of one who merely recites the law; for in this way, it would be permitted to anyone who wished to commit a crime to take a wife’s sister while his wife was still living. For this very same sophism applies to that case as well. It is written, he says, "You shall not take a rival," and thus it did not forbid taking her when there was no rivalry. But anyone who would patronize lust would declare that the nature of sisters is free from rivalry. Why, then, if the cause for which he forbade the marriage of both has been removed, would there be anything preventing the marrying of sisters? But we shall say, "These things are not written." Yet neither are those things specified. However, the logic of the consequence gives the same permission to both.

It was necessary, however, by ^B recurring a little to the matters that precede the legislation, to be freed from the difficulty. For the legislator does not seem to include every type of sin, but specifically to forbid the customs of the Egyptians, from whence Israel had departed, and of the Canaanites, to whom they were moving. For the wording goes thus: "According to the customs of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the customs of the land of Canaan, into which I shall bring you, you shall not do, and in their statutes you shall not walk." Levit. XVIII, 3. It is therefore probable that this type of sin was not widespread among the nations at that time; wherefore there was no need for the legislator to take care to guard against it, but it was enough for him to provide an untaught custom to condemn the wickedness. How, then, having forbidden the greater, did he pass over the lesser in silence? Because the example of the patriarch seemed to injure many of those who were self-indulgent, ^C as they lived with sisters who were still alive. But what must we do? Should we speak only what is written, or should we more accurately investigate what has been passed over? Straightway, that a father and son should not use one concubine is not written in these laws, but by the Prophet it is considered a matter of the highest accusation. For he says, "The son and father went in to the same young woman." Amos II, 7. But how many other types of impure passions has the teaching of the demons devised, while the divine Scripture has been silent, not choosing to defile its own holiness with the appellations of shameful things, but instead rebuking the impurities with general terms! Just as the apostle Paul also says: "But fornication and all impurity—let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for the saints." Ephes. V, 3. By the name of impurity, he includes the unspeakable acts both of men and of women. So ^D that silence by no means brings license to the pleasure-seeking.

But I say that this matter has not been passed over in silence, but that it has been very strongly forbidden by the legislator. For the passage, "You shall not approach any kinswoman of your flesh to uncover their nakedness," Levit. XVIII, 6, is inclusive of this type of kinship as well. For what could be more kith to a man than his own wife, or rather, his own flesh? For they are no longer two, but one flesh. So that through the wife

^A the sister passes into the affinity of the husband. Just as he will not take the mother of his wife, nor the daughter of his wife, for the reason that he would not take his own mother, nor his own daughter; so neither may he take the wife’s sister, for the reason that he would not take his own sister. And conversely, it will not be permitted for a woman to join herself to the husband’s kindred. For the rights of affinity are common to both sides. I, for my part, testify to everyone consulting me about marriage that the fashion of this world passes away, and the time is short, *that those who have wives should be as though they had none* (1 Cor. vii, 29). But if anyone wrongly recites to me that, *Increase and multiply* (Gen. i, 28; ix, 1), I laugh at one who does not distinguish the periods of the laws. A second marriage is a remedy for fornication, not an occasion for lasciviousness. *If they do not restrain themselves, let them marry*, he says (1 Cor. vii, 9); yet let them not, in marrying, violate the law.

They, however, whose mind is bleared by the vice of turpitude, do not even look toward nature, which long ago distinguished the names of the kindred. From what kind of kinship will they name their offspring? Will they call them brothers, or cousins? For indeed, either name suits them on account of the confusion. Do not, O man, make the stepmother an aunt to the infants; nor let her whom duty binds to cherish them in a mother’s place be armed with implacable jealousy. For the race of stepmothers alone extends hatred and enmity even after death. *Nay, other enemies are reconciled to the dead; stepmothers begin to hate after death.* The sum of what has been said is this: If anyone desires marriage lawfully, the whole world lies open; but if he is driven by lust, for that very reason let him be all the more excluded, *that he may learn to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of desire* (1 Thess. iv, 4). The measure of the epistle restrains me, though I am eager to say more. I pray, however, that our admonition may either overcome the vice, or that this defilement may not creep into our region; but let it remain in those places where it has been admitted.

^B BALS. The epistle of the Great Father to Diodorus, even if it is full of all wisdom and true eloquence, and utters the voice of the Holy Spirit, yet it is not to be inquired into at the present time. ^C For it decrees that two sisters should not be taken by anyone into the society of marriage, a thing which, by the grace of God, does not today even enter into the mind of a Christian man, and therefore it has needed no further interpretation. Yet keep this divine epistle constantly in memory. For even if that which is defined in it is not currently at issue, yet the things that are contained therein—the epicheiremata, enthymemata, and epenthymemata, or rather, all those things which were composed and opposed ^D both from the Old Testament and from the great apostle Paul, contribute greatly to other cases.

^A Observe then from this that even unwritten ecclesiastical customs, like written canons, possess an inviolable authority and that we are not bound to pay heed to Mosaic legislations. Note also many other things from this epistle that are of primary importance and highly useful.

ZONAR. After the saint had prepared the discourse, and had shifted the writer as if into another person, he now proceeds to the refutation of what is written. And first, he brings forward custom and asserts that it has the force of law, since rites or statutes handed down are decreed by holy men. ^B Indeed, even the civil law mandates that a prevailing custom should have the force of law, even if the things deemed legal for citizens were not decreed by holy men. For book 2 of the *Basilika*, title 1, chapter 32, says: Concerning matters for which no written law exists, one must observe habit and custom, and what follows. And again: An ancient custom is kept in place of law. And again: Long-standing custom prevails in place of law where no written law exists. This holy Father calls "custom" that which is active in the Church. For if, he says, one were to illegitimately mingle with two sisters, he is not sooner received into the Church unless those who have been defiled in this way separate from one another, as such a crime is not even to be reckoned as a marriage. ^C Even if, therefore, we had nothing else to say, this custom is sufficient for the overturning of this evil. But since he who defends this evil through the epistle, he says, uses the old law which says: "Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister as a rival, to uncover her nakedness, while she is yet alive," and from this concludes that it is permitted to take the sister of one who has died; first, the saint says that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law. For otherwise we would also be circumcised, and we would observe the Sabbaths, and we would abstain from various foods. For we shall not abstain from those things that bring us pleasure on account of the old law; ^D but we shall abstain from those things which contain something burdensome, and we shall then take refuge in the liberty granted to us through Christ. For the law of Christ has liberated us from the heavy burdens of the law—that is, from circumcision, and from the abstinence from forbidden foods, from judging as unclean him who has suffered a flux of semen, and him who has touched the dead, and him who has been struck with leprosy, and many other things. I was asked, he says, if it is written to take a wife over a sister, that is, if it is permitted for anyone to take the sister of his wife; and I said that it is not written. Which is true, and also safe. But to draw an inference from that which is passed over in silence—namely, since the law said, "Thou shalt not take a wife over her sister as a rival, while she is yet alive," it is a consequence that after death it is not forbidden to take the sister of the wife, as there would no longer be any rivalry—this, he says, is to legislate and to introduce one's own laws, not to state what the law says; for if we allow, after the death of the wife, the sister

^A of the deceased to be taken by the husband, because the passion of jealousy no longer has room to exist, then he will also take her while the other is still living, if the sisters do not feel the passion of jealousy toward one another. But someone will say that this is not written; yet neither is that written—namely, that after the death of the wife the husband of the deceased may take her sister as his wife. He then adds that if you examine the things that follow the legislation, that is, the things that lie behind it, you will be rid of your trouble. For the legislator, he says, did not intend to include therein every species of sin, but rather the sins of the Egyptians, among whom the people of the Hebrews had previously temporarily resided, and of the Canaanites, to whom they had crossed over and migrated; and this is plausible. And he says that he prohibited this species of sin—that someone should take the sister of his ^B own wife after her death—because the profligate men had the patriarch Jacob as an example, for he lived with two sisters at the same time, Leah and Rachel. He says many things are passed over in silence by the law, yet are forbidden nevertheless; such as that a father and son should not use the same concubine. The law did not mention this; but the prophet condemned it as an unlawful act, saying: "The son and the father went in unto the same young woman." And he says that the demons taught many kinds of unclean passions; but the divine Scripture passed these over in silence and embraced them under the generic name of uncleanness, so that its holiness might not be defiled by the naming of shameful things. And the Apostle says, "But let all fornication and uncleanness not even be named among you," ^C embracing every kind of unspeakable act under the name of uncleanness, so that absolutely no license is given to the lustful to act basely by reason of silence. Then the holy man employs a stronger argument, saying that this part or species of this sin has not been passed over in silence by the law; for since it is written in it, "You shall not approach any of the kin of your flesh to reveal his shame," this kind is also forbidden. For if the wife and the man are one flesh, according to Scripture, one might well consider that there is a great kinship between a man and his wife's sister. And just as one will not take the mother of his own wife, nor the daughter born to her by another man, because of the kinship, nor indeed his own mother or daughter, ^D thus also will he not be joined to the sister of his wife; for he is not joined to his own sister. And he says the same about a woman, that a woman shall not be joined to the brother of her deceased husband, nor to others related to him by affinity. Afterward, he cites the Apostolic words, and regarding those who object with that, "Increase and multiply," he says, "I ridicule those who do not distinguish the times of the legislations," saying this: that God spoke that "Increase and multiply" to the first-created, when there was not yet a multitude of men, and it was absolutely necessary for the children of Adam to be joined to one another. According to this reasoning, therefore, even now to one another

will they be joined as brothers? ^B And further, he says, that second marriage is a remedy for fornication; that is, so that men might not be cast into fornication. For this reason second marriage was permitted, but not so that it might become a pretext for wantonness. And he brings forward the great Paul, who permits a second marriage, saying, *If they cannot control themselves, let them marry*, and he did not add, he says, that those who marry are acting against the law. Then he also establishes from elsewhere the absurdity of the deed, saying, “He who takes the sister of his departed wife, and has children by both, what title will he assign to the children? And how will the children call one another? Brothers, as having come from one father, or cousings-german, as being born of two sisters?” But often among the ancients, those called by the name of cousins-german are found. For both designations, he says, that of brothers and that of cousins-german, fit them because of the confusion of their kinship. ^C And he still contends with the argument, saying that he who takes the sister of his former wife makes her the stepmother of his own children from the first marriage, whom she ought to cherish as children of a brother; he arms her against them with jealousy. For just as some natural passion of jealousy is innate in stepmothers toward the children of their own husbands from another marriage, and for enemies, indeed, the hatred is dulled once their adversaries are dead, yet stepmothers begin their enmity against their rivals after their deaths. The sum, he says, of what has been said, that is, for me to state the whole thing briefly, is this: if he who seeks to remarry wishes to contract a lawful marriage, the entire inhabited world is open to him, and there will not fail him a woman with whom he might live according to the laws; but if {he seeks it} due to passion and perhaps, being erotically disposed toward this specific one, is thus hastening to be joined to her, for this very reason let him be excluded all the more, so that he may learn ^D to possess his own vessel, and the remaining words of the Apostle. I wished, he says, to write more, but the measure of the epistle holds me back, that is, it hinders me; for letters ought not to have prolixity of words. But I pray that either this exhortation may become more powerful than the passion—that is, to prevail so much as to dissolve the passion—or that this defilement may not be fastened upon our region, that this pollution may not proceed into our diocese; but where it was dared, there let it remain.

OF THE SAME TO GREGORY THE PRESBYTER, THAT HE BE SEPARATED FROM THE WOMAN WITH WHOM HE WAS COHABITING. CANON LXXXIX.

I read your letter with all patience, and I wondered how, when you are able to plead your cause before us briefly and easily by your deeds, you choose to persist in the things that are blamed and attempt to cure incurable things with long speeches. Neither the first nor the only ones, Paregorius, have we decreed that women should not cohabit with men. But read the canon from our holy Fathers

^A in the Nicene Synod, which clearly forbade the existence of *syneisaktous* (women brought in). Celibacy in this matter has its dignity, in being separated from the life with a woman. For if someone professes it in name, but in deed does those things which belong to those who are married, he is clearly pursuing the dignity of virginity in name, but not at all abstaining from unbecoming, carnal pleasure. Therefore, you ought all the more easily to have yielded to our request, just as you say that you are free from every bodily passion. For I neither believe that a man seventy years of age lives licentiously with a woman, nor have we ordained what we have ordained because some shameful act had been committed; but because we have learned from the Apostle ^B not to place a stumbling block for a brother, leading to scandal. We know, however, that what is done healthily by some is for others an occasion for sin. For this reason, following the ordinance of the holy Fathers, we have commanded that you be separated from the woman. Why, then, do you accuse the chorepiscopus, and make mention of ancient enmity? And why do you complain against us, as though we had ears easily inclined to receive slanders? Rather than against yourself, who cannot bring yourself to withdraw from the company of the woman? Cast her out, therefore, from your dwelling, and place her in a monastery; let her be with virgins, and let men serve you, so that the name of God may not be blasphemed because of you. As long as you do these things, the myriad things which you write through your letters will profit you nothing; but you will die in idleness, and you will give an account to the Lord for your own idleness. And if you dare, without amendment, to claim for yourself the priesthood, you will be anathema to all the people; and those who receive you will be excommunicated throughout the whole Church.

^C BALS. A certain presbyter, Gregory, had a certain woman serving him: when the saint learned of this, he asked the presbyter to expel the woman from his house. He, however, wrote to him in his own defense regarding this matter; and Basil the Great in turn wrote back to the presbyter. It is likely that the presbyter in his letter had asked the saint to read his letters with long-suffering: to whom the Father wrote back, that: With all long-suffering I read your letters, and I marveled that, being able to answer briefly by your actions, that is to say by sending the woman away, you remain in those things of which you are accused, namely in the very matters for which the accusation was instituted; but ^D you defend yourself with words. Then he says that: Neither we, nor the only ones, have established that women should not cohabit with men, namely with those who are in holy orders; but read the canon of the Nicene Synod, which forbade there being *introductitiae*. The third canon of the said synod calls those *introductitiae* who are introduced into the houses of consecrated men who have not taken wives, and cohabit with them. But those who have professed celibacy, he says, will have praise, or if not so, glory for their continence, if they are separated from women. If anyone, however, professes virginity, but cohabits with women,

^A he has the name only, but not the thing itself. Since, therefore, he says, you say you are free from every physical passion, it was all the more necessary that you should consequently submit to our request and send the woman away. He did not say "at the order" or "at the command," but "at the request," out of modesty. For he says, we have not decreed her expulsion because you are passionately inclined toward the woman, or because of any unbecoming act. For I do not believe that a man who has lived seventy years cohabits with a woman passionately; but I do so because of what was said by the Apostle, not to give a stumbling block or scandal to a brother. For that which is done by others healthfully or holily will be an occasion of sin to others. For you, he says, perhaps cohabit with the woman without passion; but another, taking you as an example, will cohabit with a woman not without passion, or will harbor ill suspicions about you, and this will be to the dishonor of the priesthood. Why, then, do you blame the chorepiscopus? It seems, therefore, that the matter concerning the introduced woman was reported to the saint by the chorepiscopus. And why do you blame us, as if we readily accept slanders, and not rather yourself, who cannot bring yourself to be separated from the woman? Station her, therefore, he says, in a monastery, and let men minister to you; as long as you do these things, the many things that you write will profit you nothing, but you will die in idleness, that is, you will not serve as a priest until the end of your life, ^B being segregated, and you will give an account to the Lord for your own idleness, as it was brought upon you for this very reason. But if, without having corrected yourself, you dare to perform sacred rites, you shall be anathema, and those who receive you while you perform sacred rites shall be cast out from the entire congregation of the faithful. Read also the fourth canon of the Council of Antioch, and the fifth canon of that in Trullo, and the third canon of the first in Nicaea.

And these things are so. But since some, using the third canon of the first council and the words of this present letter, wish that bishops and clerics should not cohabit with their own kinswomen who are beyond suspicion, even if they have women for service, saying that the canons are rendered void if, under the name of a kinswoman who is not suspected, those who are ordained offend the faithful by cohabiting with other women, we say that bishops, indeed, are forbidden to cohabit with any woman whatsoever by the Novella of Justinian, which has been set forth by us in the interpretation of the third canon of the first council. As for the clerics, I would indeed wish that they too might live holily and abstain entirely from dwelling with any women whatsoever. But if they cannot do this, as it seems to me, they may safely reside with mothers and sisters and other persons who are beyond suspicion, even if these women possess other women who are useful for service. For this great Father, ^C aiming to remove the cause of scandal for many, decreed that the woman should move away from Gregory, not laying down a rule that an ordained man may not cohabit with persons who are beyond suspicion if they have other women with them. And since [there is a risk that], when a priest lives with a person who is beyond suspicion, every scandal ^D...

habitant. ^A For every scandal of suspicion is removed (for they do not say that these are strange women, but his kinswomen: but since he lives with a woman under suspicion, that scandal which arises from wicked suspicion lays hold of the ministry), the ordained man may live without impediment with persons not suspected, even if they have women under them; but if there are no such persons with whom he lives, his cohabitation will not be blameless. Moreover, if it were conceded that a priest should not cohabit with any unsuspected person who has other women, every ordained man would be compelled neither to live with his father, nor with his own children, nor to be served by anyone for any matter pertaining to his livelihood: for most of these have bondswomen, or even free women, who minister to them. Or shall we say that all such persons are poor, and sufficient unto themselves for every service, which is absurd? Furthermore, for a woman to serve a priest, even if he cohabits with an unsuspected person, is wrong, and is not to be permitted by the canons, nor by the present epistle, and therefore is to be punished. Read also the 5th canon of the Council in Trullo, and the 12th. These things having been thus resolved, someone might ask, ^B since the epistle decrees to Gregory that he should lead away the woman cohabiting with him into a monastery, is he compelled to tonsure her, or not? Solution. Some, starting from the 48th canon of the Council in Trullo, say that a necessity lies upon him to tonsure her who cohabits with him. For it is not, they say, decreed by the saint that a monastery should be assigned to her in lieu of a prison and punishment. But to me it seems that there is a great difference between a bondswoman and a lawful wife, and for this reason the bishop in that case was compelled to take thought for the bodily and spiritual salvation of his wife; but in this case, the priest has only the necessity of removing the scandal through separation. But not even the woman herself, I say, can reasonably be compelled to undergo tonsure against her will. Therefore, I understand that only separation is necessary, and not ^C also tonsure. But if this happens by the will of the woman, the good is doubled, and it becomes better. Since, however, some have said that from this epistle every man initiated into sacred orders cohabiting with a strange woman is excommunicated even before a formal warning, I say that this did not please even the present saint. For behold, when he himself knew that Gregory was cohabiting with a woman, he warned him by edict to remove the woman from his house; and if Gregory had done as he was warned, he would not have fallen into excommunication. Wherefore neither shall another be excommunicated, unless after a warning he persists in cohabitation with a strange woman. ^D

BY THE SAME, TO THE CHOREPISCOPI, THAT MINISTERS BE NOT APPOINTED WITHOUT HIM, CONTRARY TO THE CANONS. CANON XC.

and I fear that, if this indifference progresses little by little, the affairs of the Church will fall into complete confusion. The custom formerly observed in the Churches of God was to admit as ministers of the Church only those who had been examined with all diligence; and their entire conduct was scrutinized: whether they were slanderers, whether they were drunkards, whether they were prone to fighting, whether they restrained their youth, so that they might be able to exercise holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord. ^B And while the presbyters and deacons who lived with them would examine this, they nevertheless reported [it] to the chorepiscopi, who, having received the votes of truthful witnesses and having reminded the bishop, thus enrolled the minister into the ranks of the clergy. But now, in the first place, you have pushed us aside, and not even deigning to report to us, you have transferred the entire authority to yourselves; then, neglecting the matter, you have permitted presbyters and deacons—whomsoever they might wish, without an examination of their life, according to an affection of the mind, or [one] arising from kinship, or from some other friendship—to introduce unworthy persons into the Church. ^C Therefore, many ministers are indeed numbered in each village, but not even one is worthy of the ministry of the altar, as you yourselves testify, being in want of men in [our] voting. Since, therefore, I see the matter now progressing toward an incurable evil, especially now, when many, for fear of military service, cast themselves into the ministry, I have necessarily had recourse to renewing the canons of the Fathers; and I order you to send me the register of the ministers of each village, and by whom each one has been introduced, and what his manner of life is. Keep also the register yourselves there with you, so that your copies may be compared with the records deposited with us, and so that it may not be permitted for anyone to inscribe himself whenever he wishes. Thus, indeed, if any who have been introduced by presbyters after the first notice are found, let them be cast back among the laity. Let their examination be made anew by you; and if they should be worthy, let them be admitted by your vote. Purge the Church by driving out its unworthy members, and for the future, examine those who are worthy and admit them; but do not enroll them before you have reported them to us; or know that he who has been admitted into the ministry without our judgment shall be a layman.

BALS.

ZONAR.

establishing ministers, and having transgressed the custom which he says had obtained, so that they might be appointed by chorepiscopi with the approval of the bishop; and he demands that the canons be renewed for the future, that is, after the first indiction. ^A He calls the indiction "indiction," and that they themselves should examine and approve those worthy, but not ordain them into the clergy unless they first refer matters concerning them to him. And he threatens that those not ordained in this way will be thrust down into the rank of laymen. Whether such a custom obtained at that time, I do not know; but such a canon is not found in synods older than him; but rather the tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch, which is older than this holy Father, grants to chorepiscopi [the right] to appoint subdeacons, who are also called ministers, and readers and exorcists; but it decrees that chorepiscopi shall not ordain presbyters and deacons, unless with the approval of the bishop to whom they are subject. But the fourteenth canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea says that chorepiscopi hold the type of the seventy apostles. ^B

BY THE SAME (AUTHOR)

TO THE BISHOPS SUBJECT TO HIM

That there should be no ordaining for money.

CANON XCI.

The baseness of the matter about which I write, by the very fact that it has come into suspicion at all and has become a subject of talk, has filled my soul with pain; up to now, indeed, it seemed incredible to me. ^C Therefore, let him who is guilty of this work receive what I write concerning it as a healing; but he who is not guilty, as a precaution; and he who is indifferent—which I pray may not be found among you—as a protestation. And what is it that I say? It is said that some of you receive money from those being ordained, and veil it under the name of piety. This is even worse. For if anyone does evil under the guise of good, he is worthy of double punishment; because he both does that which is not good, and uses something good, as I might say, as a helper to commit the sin. If these things are so, let them not happen hereafter, but let them be corrected; since it is necessary to say to the one receiving the money what was said by the apostles to the one who wished to give, that [he might acquire] the participation of the Holy Spirit—

^A “Your silver be with you unto perdition.” For he who wishes to buy out of ignorance is lighter than he who sells the gift of God. For a sale has taken place; and if you sell what you received for free, you will be deprived of the grace, as if you had sold yourself to Satan. For you are introducing huckstering into spiritual things, and into the Church itself, where the body and blood of Christ are committed to us. These things ought not to be done. And there is a trick, I say. They think they do not sin by not taking beforehand, but by taking after the ordination. But to take is to take at any time. I entreat you, then, to put away this income, or rather this path leading to hell; and do not, by staining your hands with such gains, make yourselves unworthy to celebrate the holy mysteries. And forgive me. First, as one who did not believe, and then as one who is convinced, I threaten. If anyone after this letter of mine shall commit any such thing, he shall withdraw from the altars here, and he shall seek where he can sell what he again buys of the gift of God. For we and the Churches of God have no such custom. ^B I will add one thing and cease. These things happen because of avarice. For avarice is the root of all evils, and it is called idolatry. Do not therefore prefer idols to Christ for the sake of a little money; nor again imitate Judas, by handing over for gain the One who was once crucified for us. Otherwise, both the fields and the hands of those receiving the fruits of these things will be called Aceldama. ^C

BALS. How those who ordain and those who are ordained for money are punished was stated more broadly in the interpretation of the 29th canon of the holy apostles, in the 2nd canon of the 4th synod, in the 22nd canon of the 6th synod, and in the 5th and 19th of the 7th synod; and read these and their interpretations. Since, however, the present letter, as also the canons, subjects to deposition both those who ordain and those who are ordained, whether they accept or give money before the ordination, or after the ordination: ^D join these things together, and with the spiritual sword, which is understood as the trouble of avarice, root it out as much as possible. Moreover, the fields which are bought with such money will, as he says, be called Akeldama, which is Hebrew, and being translated into Greek, is interpreted as the price and field of blood, as is said in the book of Acts. This is what it means, that as the field, which was bought with the money for which the Lord was sold by Judas, was called the price of blood, so also the moneys taken from those who sell the gift of God, and the parishes, and the villages in which those who give are ordained, will be the price of blood and will be so called.

ZONAR. He wrote to his own (a) bishops

having heard that they receive money from those ordained by them; and I thought the matter incredible, he says. But the mere fact that it was even suspected caused me pain, saying as much as that it is a grief to me that you are such as to have such things said about you. For there is a nature of accusation, according to some wise man, that is not capable of being aimed at everyone; as if someone, he says, were to accuse Ajax of fornication. But these things which I write, he says, let him who is conscious of such a thing in himself accept as a remedy for the evil; but let him who is pure from it accept them as a prophylactic. For medicines are given by physicians to those who have fallen into sickness for the sake of cure and release from the illness, but for those who are not yet ill, prophylaxis is provided so that they may not fall ill. ^B Whosoever, he says, is indifferent—that is, whosoever does not even think he is doing any evil when he receives from those ordained by him—which sort of indifference, indeed, I pray may not be found in you, let him receive what is written as a testimony, or as an admonition, as an epiphonema. And he rightly prayed against indifference. For he who sins and knows that he is doing evil, it is hoped perhaps that he may abstain from the evil; but he who commits evil and does not even consider that he is doing evil will never come to repentance, nor will he abstain from sin. But what I say, he says, is that some claim that you celebrate ordinations while accepting money; and you "obumbrate"—that is, you conceal—the evil under the name of piety. This is even worse. For he who commits ^C evil, he says, and pretends that he is doing something good, is worthy of double punishment: both because he does the evil, and because he uses the good—or rather, the name of the good—for the cooperation of the evil; for he does not use the good itself. If these things are so—that is, if they are true—let them be corrected. For it is necessary that to those who ordain for money be said that word of the holy Peter, which he pronounced to Simon, who brought money and sought to have the grace of the Spirit given to him, which is: "May your money be with you for destruction." Then he also magnifies the sin, saying that those who buy ordinations sin somewhat more lightly than those who sell them. For the former buy through inexperience that which they do not possess; but he who sells, sells what he received freely. ^D As one sold to Satan—that is, as a hired slave who has become the devil's—he brings down the grace of the Spirit to hucksterism, that is, to trade. For trade is called hucksterism, and especially that filthy sort which, he says, introduces filthy trade into the Church, where we have been entrusted with the most precious things, or rather things that exceed all price, which are the body and blood of Christ. Having said above that "You obumbrate the evil," he now also says how they obumbrate it. They think, he says, that they do not sin because they do not receive [the money] at the same time as the ordination, but after this. But to receive is at any time to receive. For even if one does not receive it beforehand, or when he ordains, but after some time, because of the ordination, it is the same sin.

^A I exhort you, therefore, to put away this gain, or rather this access to Gehenna; for gain acquired from such a cause leads him who employs it to Gehenna. And do not, by soiling your hands from the receiving, make yourselves unworthy of handling the holy mysteries, that is, of performing the sacred office and offering the body and blood of Christ.

And because the saint had turned his discourse into threats, saying at the beginning of the epistle that he deemed the matter incredible, he asks for pardon. The threat is that whoever, after this epistle, commits anything of this kind, shall no longer be permitted to celebrate at the altar. For such a one, he says, shall depart from the altars which are here—that is, he shall be prohibited from celebrating the sacraments in this place—and shall henceforth seek another region in which he may purchase the gift of God and sell it in turn. ^B To these things he adds the apostolic words: “For we and the Churches of God have no such custom” (1 Cor. xi, 16). Then he says that the selling of the grace of the Spirit comes out of avarice, which is the root of all evils and is called idolatry. Therefore, do not prefer idols to Christ for the sake of a little money. For since avarice is idolatry, he who sells the gift of God for the sake of avarice prefers idols to God, and imitates Judas. For just as he, for the sake of gaining money, betrayed Christ, so do these men willingly betray Christ a second time, He who was once crucified for our sake. ^C And he says that those who sell the grace of the Spirit imitate Judas to such a degree that the very estates purchased by this money—that is to say, the parishes and villages in which those who are ordained in this manner are appointed—and the hands which receive these fruits, shall be called Akeldama, which is Hebrew, but when translated into Greek signifies the price and field of blood. It is mentioned in the book of the Acts. This, therefore, is what he says: that just as the field which was bought with the silver pieces for which the Lord was sold was reckoned and called the price of blood, so also the money received by those who sell the gift of God, and the regions and villages in which those who have given [the bribe] are ordained, shall be, and shall be called, the price of blood.

OF SAINT BASIL FROM CHAPTER XXVII. Of those things concerning the Holy Spirit, TO BLESSED AMPHILOCHIUS. CANON XCII.

^A Of the dogmas and proclamations kept in the Church, some we have from written teaching, but others we have received from the tradition of the Apostles, handed down to us in mystery; both of which have the same force for piety. And no one will contradict these, at least no one who has even a slight acquaintance with what the Church’s institutions are. For if we should undertake to reject unwritten customs as having no great importance, we would inadvertently injure the Gospel in its very essential parts, or rather, we would reduce the proclamation to a mere name. For instance, to mention first the most primary and most common one: who has taught us by writing to mark with the sign of the cross those who place their hope in Christ? What Scripture has taught us to turn to the East when we pray? Who among the saints has left us in writing the words of invocation when the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing are being celebrated? For we are not content with those things which the Apostle or the Gospel mentions, but we also say other things, both before and after, as having great importance for the mystery, which we have received from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of anointing, and indeed the person himself ^B who is receiving baptism. From what writings? Is it not from that silent and secret tradition? And who has taught by any written word the anointing with oil itself? And from where is the custom of triple immersion of a man? And all the other things that are done in baptism, such as renouncing Satan and his angels—from what scripture do we have these? Is it not from this unpublished and secret teaching, which our fathers kept in quiet and uncurious silence, having clearly learned that the reverence of the mysteries is preserved by silence? For how was it fitting that the doctrine of these things, which it is not even lawful for the uninitiated to behold, should be published in writings? ^C Or what, after all, did those things mean?

COMMENTARY

^A This is the reason why some things were handed down without being written, so that the knowledge of the dogmas, by not being neglected, might not become an object of contempt to the many through familiarity. For a dogma is one thing, and a proclamation is another. For dogmas are kept silent, while proclamations are made public. There is also a kind of silence in the obscurity which Scripture uses, rendering the meaning of the dogmas difficult to understand, and this for the benefit of the readers. For this reason, we all look toward the East when we pray, though few of us know that we do so while seeking our ancient homeland, namely, the paradise that God planted in Eden in the East. ^B We likewise perform our prayers standing on the first day of the week, but not all of us know the reason. For we not only remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing on the day of the Resurrection, as if we had risen together with Christ and were required to seek the things that are above, but also because that day appears in some way to be an image of the coming age. And because it is the beginning of days, it was not called the "first" by Moses, but "one." For he says: "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day," as one that often recurs. Therefore, the "one" is the same as the "eighth," manifesting through itself that singular and true eighth day, of which the Psalmist also makes mention in certain inscriptions of the psalms, signifying by itself the state that will follow this time—the day that will not end, that knows no evening, that has no successor, that endless and ageless age. Therefore, the Church necessarily teaches its children ^C to complete their prayers standing on that day, so that by the constant reminder of that everlasting life, we may not neglect to prepare provisions for that migration. Moreover, the entire period of Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the next age. For that one, first day, multiplied seven times, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost. For beginning from the first, it ends in the same, having revolved fifty times through similar days in between. Thus, it imitates eternity by its similarity, as if in a circular motion, beginning from the same starting points and ending at the same. On this day, the rules of the Church prefer the standing posture for prayer. ^D Note of Beveridge. Interpreting that saying, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our Epistle," he says: "From this it is manifest that not everything was handed down through the Epistle, but many things also without writing. And these things, like those, are worthy of trust; so much so that we also consider the tradition of the Church worthy of trust. It is tradition; seek nothing more." The same man, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, in the eleventh discourse regarding those who divide the Church, speaks as follows: "A certain holy man said that not even the blood of martyrs can wipe away this sin." After this scholion, in the manuscript code there is contained an interpretation by Zonaras on the present canon, which we append after the interpretation of Balsamon, as it has not been published before.

^A erecting our position for prayer, the rites of the Church have taught us, indeed by a clear reminder, as it were, transferring our mind from present things to future ones. Moreover, as often as we bend our knees and rise up again, we show by the very act that we have fallen to the earth because of sin, and through the human kindness of Him who created us, we have been recalled to heaven.

Day will fail me if I proceed to recount the mysteries of the Church handed down without writing. ^B I omit the rest: the confession of faith itself in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from which scriptures do we have it? For if, because from the tradition of baptism, according to the succession of piety, as we are baptized so we ought to believe, we exhibit a profession similar to baptism: let them also grant to us that, according to the same consequence, we may pay a similar glory to the faith. But if they reject the manner of glorification as not handed down in writing, let them produce for us the proof from the Scriptures both of the profession of faith and of the rest which we have enumerated. Furthermore, since there are so many things which have not been brought forth in writing and yet have so much weight for the mystery of piety, will they not grant one little phrase that has come to us from our ancestors, which we have found remaining in the Churches—which are not perverse and corrupt—from an unaffected custom, having no mediocre reason, and contributing no mediocre support to the power of the mystery?

^C BALS. Regarding the unwritten customs of the Church, read the third chapter of the first title of the present work, and what has been written by us therein. Now, what this epistle says is of this kind: Since the Pneumatomachi (that is, the adversaries of the Holy Spirit) were saying that the all-holy Spirit ought not to be glorified together with the Father and the Son, because this has not been handed down to us in writing; the saint, after having recounted various unwritten customs which by all necessity ought not to be dissolved but ought to continue to be observed perpetually, adds also the causes for which some of these are handed down without writings, and says why it is that, looking toward the east, we pray, and why we pray standing on the first day of the week ^D; and that not everything is indeed committed to writing, the reason is that it is not fitting for dogmas to be published and known by all. For preachings, he says, are published; but dogmas are kept silent, so that they may not be disdained from custom, by being agitated too often—that is, by being frequently meditated upon and used. For obscurity is also a species of silence. For what is stated obscurely, so that it is not understood even by many, is considered to be kept silent; for just as no one knows what another has in his mind, so also what has been stated obscurely is unknown to the majority. This, therefore, the saint says is the cause why not all things have been handed down to us in writing. And as to looking toward the east when we pray, he says the cause is that we are seeking our ancient fatherland, namely, paradise, which God planted in the east. But not to bend the knee on the first day of the week, which is the Lord's day, is handed down because on it we have risen again with Christ,

He indeed rising from the tomb, but we being raised from the ancient fall through Him: and that we ought to seek the things which are above, and not to be inclined towards earthly things subject to decay; and that the Lord's day is an image of the future age, which, while it is the beginning of days, is not called by Moses "first," but "one," ^A as one that revolves, and being one and also the eighth, it represents that eighth day, that is, the future age, which is ceaseless and without end, of which David also made mention in the inscriptions of his psalms, inscribing them "for the eighth." Therefore, he says, the Church necessarily teaches those she has nourished—that is, the faithful whom the Church has reared—to stand upright while they pray, so that, by frequently looking upwards, they may be reminded of the life to come, and prepare the provisions for it.

Furthermore, he speaks also concerning the days of Pentecost, that they too signify to us the expected resurrection. Since the first day of the Lord's resurrection, multiplied seven times by the intermediate days, brings about Pentecost; for it begins from the Sunday of Pascha, and arrives at the other Sunday, the common ^B one, and from that again to the following Sunday, and thus revolving and unfolding itself through the seven weeks, it ends in Pentecost, and imitates eternity, beginning from the same days and returning to the same, as in a circular motion. For the line that forms the circle, which is also called the circumference, ends where it begins. Therefore, in the days of Pentecost, the customs of the Church, or the laws and ordinances, have taught us to prefer to pray standing upright, rousing our mind, as it were, from earthly things to heavenly things through an active, or manifest, reminder. For by the erect posture, looking upwards, we are reminded of future and heavenly things. But not even the genuflections are without symbolic meaning for us; for the inclination to the earth signifies that we, by sinning, have fallen, or collapsed, to the earth; but the rising up, or resurrection, from the earth signifies that we have been restored from our fall through the grace of God, who has used clemency toward us.

"And why," he says, "do I recount these things? If I wished to recount all the mysteries which we have received without writings, the day would fail me," that is, I would not have sufficient time for the exposition. ^C

Then he adds another thing also unwritten, saying, "I pass over the rest. But to confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whence do we have this in writing? For if it is from the tradition which is in baptism—that is, from the fact that Christ said to the apostles, 'baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'—as we are baptized, so also we ought to believe, and therefore we set forth a confession similar to the baptism: let them give us the right, as we confess, so also to glorify, that is, to believe or to sing the doxology. But if they say, 'We have not received it in writing to glorify in this way,' let them give us the proofs in the Scriptures," that is, let them show in writing the confession of faith ^D and the other things enumerated. The saint discourses on these things with the Pneumatomachians (that is, the adversaries of the Holy Spirit).

^A who could not endure that the Holy Spirit should be glorified together with the Father and the Son, as if they deemed Him a servant and not equal in honor; and they said that they had not found it written that the Church handed down that He should be glorified together with the Father and the Son, and the saint adds these things. Then, since there are so many things that are unwritten, and which possess such power for the mystery of piety, will they not allow us a single expression that has come down to us from the Fathers who were before us? And what follows. What he says is of this kind: Since there are so many things that we have received without writings, and which are so powerful for the faith, will they not grant to us one expression, not introduced by us, but which we found from ^B usage that was unstudied, that is, artless, and which simply remained in those churches that are not perverted—that is, the orthodox—those not depraved by the heretics, which has great reason and offers no small utility or aid to the power of the mystery of faith, that is, which can greatly aid the mystery of faith?

ZONARAS

OF THE SAME FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH CHAPTER OF THE SAME TREATISE. CANON XCIII.

^A As for the objection that the glorification with the Spirit is unevidenced and unwritten, we say this: if nothing else is accepted without Scripture, let not this be accepted either; but if very many mysteries are currently observed by us without writing, then along with those many others, we shall accept this one also. I believe it is truly apostolic to adhere to unwritten traditions as well. "I praise you," he says, "that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you." And also, "Hold the traditions which ye have received, whether by word, or by epistle": of which this present one is also a part—the one which those who originally ordained it passed on to their successors, and which, as use has always progressed with time, they have firmly rooted in the Churches through long usage. If, therefore, as if in a court of law, being at a loss for proof by written documents, we were to produce for you a multitude of witnesses, would we not obtain from you a verdict of acquittal? I certainly think so: "For at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." And if we also clearly demonstrated to you the long passage of time that is on our side, would we not seem to you to be saying reasonable things, and that this lawsuit against us ought not be brought? For ancient dogmas are in a certain sense venerable, possessing, by reason of their antiquity, a certain grey-haired dignity. ^B

BALS. The Saint further confirms his own argument, saying to the heretics: "If truly nothing else unwritten has been delivered, let not this be admitted either; but if there are many things which are observed without writings in the Christian republic—which things he has enumerated—then let us admit this along with the others." Then he shows that it is also apostolic to keep what has been delivered, and he cites the very words of the Apostle, and says that this too is one of the traditions, namely, that concerning the Holy Spirit, which they rooted in the Churches, ^C and instead of "they established it firmly," they delivered it. For just as plants that have taken root are not easily pulled from the earth, so too the Churches will not easily lose this, nor will they betray it. Furthermore, he argues, saying: "If we had perchance been brought by you to judgment, and we did not have at hand for the charges brought against us an abundance of written proofs, but we produced witnesses for you, would we not be justified by the voice of the witnesses?" And he brings forward also evangelical words for the confirmation of his own argument. "But even if," he says, "we put forward the long passage of time, as by this means overcoming an adversary, as those who have for a long time possessed what is claimed by him, ^D

and if we demonstrated this openly, would we not ensure that the suit would not be admitted to court at all, but rather excluded? For ancient dogmas are held in veneration, since men revere them on account of their antiquity; and just as gray hair acquires veneration for the elderly, so does antiquity for dogmas. ^A

CANONICAL EPISTLE OF SAINT GREGORY, BISHOP OF NYSSA, TO LETOIUS, BISHOP OF MELITENE IN THE SAINTS

CANON I

^B This too is one of the things that contribute to the holy feast, if we understand the legitimate and canonical stewardship regarding those who have sinned, so that every spiritual ailment that happens because of some sin may be cured. For since this is the universal feast of creation, which is celebrated in the fixed circuit of the annual cycle, throughout the whole world, every year, on account of the resurrection of the one who had fallen—(for the fall is sin, but resurrection is the raising up from the fall of sin)—it would be right on this day not only for us to bring to God those who are undergoing transformation through the grace of the laver, but also to lead by the hand those who are ascending from dead works to the living way through repentance and conversion, toward the hope that saves them, from which they were alienated because of sin. ^C Nor is it a small task to manage the words regarding these matters in a right and approved judgment, according to the command of the Prophet, which orders that one must dispense words in judgment, so that, as the divine oracle has it, he shall not be moved forever, and the righteous shall be in eternal memory. For just as in bodily healing the purpose of medicine is one, to cure the one who is suffering, but the form of care is varied (for according to the variety of diseases, the method and discipline of medicine is aptly applied to each individual ailment), so too, since there is much variety of affections in the diseases of the soul as well, the medical cure must necessarily be multiform, exercising its medicine according to the reason of the passion. That it may be, then, by some art preceding ^D

^A the problem proposed, we shall distribute our subject in this way.

Three things are observed in our soul according to the first division: the rational, the concupiscent, and the irascible. In these are found both the successes of those living according to virtue, and the falls of those slipping into wickedness. Wherefore, he who is about to apply the appropriate therapy to the diseased part of the soul ought first to examine in what the passion consists, and then to apply the remedy appropriately to the one suffering, so that, through ignorance of the therapeutic method, the part that is ill may not be different from the one receiving the treatment—just as we certainly see many doctors who, through ignorance of the underlying part that is suffering, aggravate the disease by the very means that they apply for healing. For since an illness often arises from a prevalence of heat, because for those afflicted by an excess of cold, what warms and stimulates is beneficial—that which is applied according to reason to them—if one should thoughtlessly apply the same thing to those inflamed by an immoderate degree of heat, they make the passion difficult to cure. As, therefore, the knowledge of the nature of the elements is deemed most necessary for doctors, so that the correction of that which is affected contrary to nature might be effected for each of those things ^B that are well or ill-constituted; so we too, reverting to this division of the things observed in the soul, shall make the general theory the beginning and foundation of the appropriate cure of the passions.

Therefore, the nature of the soul’s movements having been divided, as we said, in a threefold way—into the rational, the concupiscent, and the irascible—the success of the rational part of the soul is a pious opinion concerning the Divine, and the knowledge that discriminates between good and evil, and the having of a clear and unconfused opinion regarding the nature of the things underlying it: what is to be chosen among existing things, and what is disgusting and to be rejected. And, again, from the contrary, the vice in this part will certainly be observed when there is impiety regarding the Divine, and a lack of discrimination regarding what is truly good; but the opinion concerning the nature of things is changed and erroneous, so as to set light as darkness, and darkness as light, just as the Scripture says. The virtuous movement ^C of the concupiscent part is that which is directed towards what is truly...

[Guill. Beveregii note: ...] ^D ...if you wish, they are thus: "Since, as I said, the city is divided into three types, so also is the soul of each one; it is divided in a threefold way, as it seems to me, and indeed there is another demonstration. What is this? This: there being three, there are also three pleasures that appear to me, one proper to each. Desires likewise, and principles. How do you mean?" He said: "One we say is that by which a man learns; another, that by which he is angered; the third, by reason of its multiformity, we have not been able to call by any name of its own, but we have named it after the greatest and strongest thing in it. For we have called it the concupiscent, by reason of the intensity of the desires concerning food and drink, and sexual matters, and all other things that follow these."

^A And if there is in us any erotic faculty and disposi-tion, to have it wholly occupied there, in being persuaded that nothing is desirable by its own nature except virtue, and the nature which causes virtue. But the perversion and sin of such a part occurs when someone transfers the desire toward groundless vainglory, or toward the color-tinged bloom on bodies; whence arises love of money, and love of glory, and love of pleasure, and all such things as depend on this sort of vice. Again, the proper accomplishment of the irascible disposition is hatred of evil, and warfare against the passions, and the soul’s preparation for courage in not quailing at the things thought fearful by most people, but, even to the point of blood, standing against sin; and to despise the threat of death, and painful punishments, and the union with most pleasant things, and, in a word, all things which by some habit and preconceived opinion hold many captive in pleasure, to be superior, contending for faith and virtue. But the falls of such a part are manifest to all: envy, hatred, ^B anger, abuse, scuffles, and contentious and vengeful dispositions, which extend the remembrance of injuries to a great length and incite many to murders and bloodshed. For when the foolish and unlearned reason does not find how it might profitably use its own arms, it turns the edge of the iron against itself; and that which was given to us by God as a defensive weapon becomes deadly to him who uses it badly.

[BALS.]

Guill. Beveregii notes.

^A and by the grace regarding the pollutions which, through wickedness, were rubbed onto him. He says that it is necessary, at the time of Pascha, to bring forward not only these, but also those who are repenting and returning from dead works to the living way. Now this was said by the great Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, who called "dead works" those things that fill the soul with a foul odor and make us unclean. For just as in the old law he who touched a dead body was considered unclean, so also he who touches dead works is judged unclean by God; but having been cleansed through repentance, he returns to the living way. The living way that leads to God is that which procures for us the life to come, which separates us from works that are dead or that render us dead, or from those that alienate us from the saving hope—that is, the kingdom of God—which, by being hoped for, saves those who hope for these things, living according to the commandments of God, so that we may not fall short of it.

He says that it is no small task to manage the discourses regarding these men—that is, those repenting—with upright judgment, according to David, who says concerning him who fears the Lord, "He will manage his words in judgment," and the rest. ^B And he says that just as for those who are physicians of bodies the goal is, by the art of medicine, to heal the one who is sick, yet the procedure is not the same for all the infirm, but they provide the care according to the differences in the bodies of the sick, observing the differences in ages and the properties of bodies and of seasons and of places; so also must he who treats the maladies of the soul, of which there is a great variety, bring to bear a manifold treatment, observing the causes of the passions and the disposition of each of those who are repenting.

Upon these things, he creates a technical doctrine concerning those who sin, and says that there are three things observed in our soul: the rational, the concupiscible, and the irascible, which are also called the faculties and properties of the soul; and he says that from these spring the right actions, that is, the virtues, and the falls, that is, the sins. And the physician of the soul's passions must look to see from which of the faculties of the soul the sin consisted, and thus to apply to the one being treated the medicine that is appropriate and suitable to the passion, so that out of inexperience ^C one thing may not be the suffering and another the thing being treated, or that he may not attempt to treat the psychical malady in one way when it should be treated in another. This, he says, is what unskilled physicians do: if someone is suffering from an excess of heat, and it is necessary to bring to him something cooler, if they should instead inconsiderately bring things that heat him, they have made the passion difficult to cure. For contraries are the remedies for contraries; and for those who suffer from a predominance of cold, the appropriate treatment is that which warms and fosters; but in the case where heat has exceeded its limit, it is necessary to apply the contrary, which is the cold. And just as it is necessary for the physicians of bodies to understand whence the one who is suffering is affected, and so to apply to that malady the convenient medicine, so also for those who treat the diseases of the soul, it is necessary to consider whence the sin, to which the medicine must be applied, is born. Since, therefore, the faculties of the soul are, as has been said, divided into three... ^D

the reasoning part, the spirited part, and the appetitive part—he says that the virtue of the reasoning part is a pious conception concerning the Divine, and the discernment of good and evil, and a view of nature and an opinion of the subjects presented to it that is clear and unconfused. ^A And one is said to see clearly who sees purely and without any error, and who understands what is seen as its nature truly is. And he sees unconfusedly who, having the faculty of sight, does not see one thing while imagining that he is seeing another. When, therefore, someone understands the nature of the subjects presented, and judges steadfastly and without danger of error what is good and what is evil, and what one ought to prefer and what one ought to abhor, then he is said to have a clear and unconfused opinion—that is, notion—meaning that he judges things well and forms a safe opinion about them.

Having spoken of what is the virtue of the reasoning part, he now also speaks of its vice, and teaches that it is to be understood and known from its contraries. He says that the vice of the reasoning faculty is impiety toward God—that is, to conceive of something unworthy of the divine nature—and not a right, but an aberrant judgment concerning things, such as to consider what is good to be evil, and what is evil to be good. For this is what it means to call light darkness and darkness light; this is that "woe" which Isaiah pronounces upon those who do such things.

The virtue of the appetitive part is said to be the movement of our desire toward that which is truly beautiful and good and rightfully desirable, and to be persuaded that nothing else is desirable—that is, worthy of appetite or desire—by its own nature, except virtue and the nature that pours forth virtue, namely God; for the divine nature is the fountain of virtue and the guide toward it. ^B The saint said that nothing is desirable by its own nature except virtue alone, meaning that the other things which appear to us to be desirable and objects of appetite are not such by their own nature, but because of our erroneous judgment and opinion. And he immediately introduces the desire for glory, the desire for the beauty of bodies, avarice, licentiousness, and similar things, which he shows to be a swerving and a sin of the appetitive part of the soul. For the one who judges these things to be desirable swerves and misses the mark—that is, he fails regarding what is good and the right judgment. He says that the love of glory, and the love of money, and the love of pleasure, and things similar to these, arise from vainglory and from the "bloom" that is applied to bodies. For if someone is vainglorious, such a person wishes to be glorified because he is praised for his achievements, and he who desires the "bloom" of bodies slips into the love of pleasure or the love of money. By the "bloom" of bodies, one must understand the beauty of human bodies, or the good color of gold, and the splendor of jewels, and the brightness of pearls, and the varieties of fine woven garments, and the things that follow from these; for these things are also corporeal. ^C Either, therefore, he loves human beauty and is overcome by lust, or he desires the luster of gold and other things, and becomes a lover of money. From these, moreover, one is devolved into innumerable other vices of every kind. For whoever appetites glory falls into envy and the detraction of those who are his equals in honor, wishing to be superior to everyone. But he who is a lover of beauty falls into incontinence. But he who [loves] money...

falls into injustice. And indeed, ten thousand other and varied evils are naturally produced from these, which to enumerate and name would require a long composition. All of which are reduced to the wickedness that arises from the turning aside of the concupiscible faculty of the soul, just as species are to a genus.

The saint called vainglory "unsubstantial," because human honor is called [*doxa* (glory)], as it is merely an opinion, having nothing real, neither certain nor permanent, but happening to be only an appearance and a fantasy. And the very name of vainglory is a more revealing demonstration of what is said. For it teaches that these are empty opinions and not true.

He says that the virtue and right duty of the irascible part of the soul is hatred of vice, and to fight against the passions of the soul, and not to submit or be enslaved to them, and for the soul to be steeled for courage; this is to be fearless and confident. The word is taken from iron. For just as tempered iron is unbending and cuts through everything that it encounters, so also is he who is of a great and noble spirit; he is not turned aside by any of the things that seem terrible, but is of a good and confident spirit toward everything. For he does not fear death, nor torments, nor is he enervated by pleasures, nor enslaved by habit; but he despises all such things, holding fast to the faith and to virtue, so that he might not fall from these, scorning every painful thing and rejecting the most pleasant.

He says the "falls" of the irascible part of the soul, that is, the turnings away from the good, are envy, hatred, wrath, insults, and the others that have been enumerated, and even more than these. For he says that he who is unlearned, ^B that is, he who has not attained the learning to know where one ought to use wrath usefully as a weapon, uses it against himself, turning the edge, that is to say the sharpness, of the iron toward himself; and thus the weapon which was given to us by God for defense, or for help—this is anger—becomes for those using it badly, a means of destruction, that is to say, a harm to both soul and body.

CANON II

These things, therefore, having been distinguished in the manner mentioned, whatever sins touch the rational part of the soul were judged by the Fathers to be more grievous, and worthy of a greater, more lasting, and more laborious conversion; for example, if someone has denied the faith in Christ, or has appeared to have turned aside to Judaism, or to idol-worship, or to Manichaeism, or to any other such kind of impiety. He who has voluntarily rushed into such evil, and then has condemned himself, has the whole time of his life as his time of repentance. For he is never deemed worthy, when the mystical prayer is being celebrated, to worship God together with the people, but he shall pray alone; from the ^C

communion of the holy gifts he shall be entirely alien; but in the hour of his departure from life, he shall then be deemed worthy of the portion of the sacrament. But if it should happen, contrary to expectation, that he lives, he shall again live under the same judgment, remaining without part in the mystical sacraments until his departure. ^A But those who were tortured by torments and grievous punishments are punished for a fixed time, the holy Fathers having used clemency toward them, as if the soul had not fallen, but the bodily weakness had not resisted the torments. Wherefore the measure of those who sinned in fornication, and the transgression forced by pain, has been meted out in the same space of time upon [their] conversion.

BALS. Having said after the prologue, ^B as if in a preface, that to each of the faculties of the soul there is properly assigned each of the achievements or failings, he now treats of the punishments for these sins; and he says that those which affect the rational part of the soul are worse than the others and have been judged by the Fathers to be worthy of more laborious medicine, from which he says there comes the fall from the faith; as when someone, having denied the faith in Christ, declines into Judaism or Hellenism, or into some forbidden heresy, or into any other kind of atheism. ^C He called both Judaism and heresies a kind of atheism, because even if the Jews confess God, they deny Him by their deeds. For having not received the Son, they are not believed to honor the Father, according to the great apostle John, who says: "Everyone who denies the Son has neither the Father" (I John II, 23). And heresies also lead to atheism. For those who separate the Son from the paternal essence and glory, and teach that the all-holy Spirit is a creature and a slave, err concerning the Divinity, holding right opinions neither about the Son nor about the Spirit, and they would rightly be called atheists themselves, as not having the fitting opinion concerning God. ^D One would find this to be true in other heresies as well. Therefore, the saint makes a division of those who err in the faith; and he says that those who have defected, that is, who have voluntarily and without necessity denied the true faith in Christ, and then have come to repentance, are to be segregated for their whole life, so that they may never be deemed worthy of the participation of the holy gifts, unless when they come to the end of their own life. And if any of them, being at the point of death, is deemed worthy of communion, and then escapes the danger and lives, he shall again be excommunicated until he dies. And he says that not only is this segregation imposed upon him, but neither is he to stand with the orthodox, and pray, when the mystical prayer is being performed, namely when the priest prays that the bread and the cup be sanctified by himself. Yet, he says, he who is doing penance will not be forbidden to pray separately, that is, by himself; but he will not be permitted to stand with the faithful, but he shall stand outside the temple with the catechumens. These things, therefore, he says concerning those who without coercion denied by their own will alone. Whosoever, however, he says, submitted through necessity, not until the end of

^A the tortures and grievous afflictions and punishments being able to hold out, such persons were punished by the Fathers for a definite time, just as he who has committed fornication is punished. Which time, going forward, he says is nine years. He says that the Fathers showed clemency toward those who denied under duress, because their soul did not consent to the denial, but by the tongue alone they fell from the good, and the disposition of their will was preserved unchangeable for them. Such then are the punishments he says are to be imposed upon those who have stumbled regarding the right faith. Concerning those, however, who go away to sorcerers or soothsayers, he says these things.

CANON III

BALS. He says that those who go away to sorcerers or soothsayers, or to those who promise to perform certain purifications and averruncations through demons, must be examined and questioned with precision. Now, sorcerers are those who are also called enchanters, who through certain magical incantations either bind wild beasts, or do certain things for the injury or benefit of men, as it seems: for injury, indeed, bringing on diseases or madness or paralysis; for apparent benefit, however, producing loves or friendships, or successes by the invocation of demons. Soothsayers, however, are those who, by certain methods—and these not without the invocation of demons—predict certain things future, or reveal things unknown. And purifications are said to take place when someone thinks he has been harmed by bewitching eyes, or by some curiosity, and from this is either falling ill, or failing in his affairs, or suffering some other evil. For there are some who profess to perform purifications of such afflictions through an operation that is entirely satanic, and averruncations, that is, turnings away and drivings off of such evils. One must, therefore, he says, answer those who approach such people, instead of being asked with precision how they approached those who do such things, by asking if some pressing necessity was driving them—such as some affliction or illness or the anger, perhaps, of some potentate or master, or an insupportable loss—and how they approached them, whether having condemned [the act of] trusting in...

the faith, they ran for the help of demons. For if they have acted as having defected from the faith, and not believing Christ to be God, nor hoping for help from Him, they have called upon the aid of demons, they shall be treated as those who have transgressed and voluntarily denied the faith; but if it was out of faint-heartedness that they called upon the aid of demons, when some grave necessity had fallen upon them, which due to faint-heartedness they could not bear, deceived and hoping to be helped, they too shall be punished, just as those who sacrificed to idols because they could not endure the tortures for the sake of confession. ^A

CANON IV

^B Of those sins which are committed out of desire and pleasure, the division is as follows: the one is called adultery, and the other fornication. Now to some of the more precise [interpreters] it has seemed proper to consider the sin of fornication to be adultery as well, because there is only one lawful union, both of a woman with a man and of a man with a woman. Therefore, whatever is not lawful is entirely unjust and contrary to the law; and he who does not have his own, possesses that which belongs to another. For to man only one helper has been given by God, and to the woman one head has been assigned. Therefore, if someone possesses his own vessel, as the divine Apostle terms it, the law of nature grants him ^C its just use. But if someone has turned outside of his own, he will be, in all respects, with that which is another’s; and to each person, everything that is not his own is "another’s," even if the one who is the master does not acknowledge it. Therefore, fornication has been shown by those who examine the matter a bit more accurately not to be far from the sin of adultery, since the divine Scripture also says: "Be not much with another woman." Yet, because some concession was made by the Fathers for the sake of those who are weaker, the sin has been distinguished by this general division: that fornication is said to be the fulfillment of desire or lust, which occurs without the injury of any other person; but adultery is the treachery and injury that is brought upon another. ^D In this [latter] category they also count bestiality and pederasty, because these are also adultery against nature. For the injustice occurs in that which is another’s and contrary to nature. Since, therefore, this division has been made in this type of sin as well, there is a universal remedy, that a man may be purified from the madness incited by such pleasures through repentance. But because for those who are defiled in fornication, no injury is mixed with this sin, for this reason the time of conversion prescribed for them is double that of those who are defiled in adultery, and in other forbidden evils likewise, such as bestiality and the madness against males. For in these, as I have said, the sin is doubled: one part consists in the illicit and nefarious pleasure; the other part consists in the injury that is done to another. There is, however, a certain distinction in the logic of repentance, and for those who sin out of pleasure...

^A or of their own accord, he who has impelled himself to the confession of sin, and who has accepted of his own accord to become the accuser of his own hidden deeds—as one who has already begun the healing of his passion and has shown a sign of his transition toward the better—is treated with milder penances. But he who has been caught in the evil, or has been convicted against his will by some suspicion or accusation, is kept in a more intensive period of reformation, so that, having been ^B cleansed through an exacting process, he may thus be admitted to the communion of the holy sacraments. The canon, therefore, is of such a nature that those who have been defiled by fornication are altogether excluded from prayer for three years; for another three years they shall share only in the hearing of the word, and for another three years they shall pray together with those who are falling down in [the state of] conversion, and only then shall they partake of the holy sacraments. But in the case of those who have engaged in repentance more zealously, and who by their life have demonstrated a return toward the good, it is permitted to him who administers the ecclesiastical economy for the sake of the benefit, to shorten the time of hearing and to lead them more quickly to repentance, and again to shorten even this time and more quickly restore [them to] communion, so that by his own testing he may discern the state of the one being healed. For just as it is forbidden to cast pearls before swine, ^C so it is absurd to deprive of the precious pearl him who has already become a human being through the cleansing of himself and his freedom from passion. The lawlessness that occurs in adultery, or in the other kinds of impurity, as has been said before, shall in all things be healed by the same judgment by which the defilement of fornication is healed, but the time is doubled. In this case, there shall also be observed the disposition of the one being healed, just as in the case of those who have been involved in the defilement of fornication, so that the participation in the good may be brought about for them either more quickly or more slowly.

BALS. ^D Now the Father is discussing the sins that originate in the appetitive part of the soul, from which he says adultery and fornication proceed, and he adds that by some of the more subtle [minds] even fornication is called adultery: because the lawful union is between a husband and a wife, but if anything else happens beyond this, it is something unlawful, and whoever does not use his own [thing] is using the belonging of another. And all that is not proper to someone is another’s, even if it does not have an owner. For this reason, fornication did not seem far removed from adultery. The saint says that these things are argued in this way by those who bring fornication up to the sin of adultery; but for the weaker of those who sin, he says that there has been some condescension on the part of the Fathers, that is, a concession of economy. And the saying is taken from the Proverbs. For Solomon says among them: "He who does not accommodate himself to his own house shall inherit winds"; and that the sin of unlawful union is to be distinguished, meant instead of being divided; and that fornication, [if...]

^A of which there is no injury to another man—that is, committed with a woman free from a man—is one thing, but adultery is the approach to a woman living with a man. For he who approaches a woman having no husband sins, indeed, because he does not use her lawfully; but he injures no one. Whereas he who approaches one living with a husband injures that woman's husband, claiming for himself what belongs to another; and he often also plots against that woman's husband—and this is clear from the case of David. And they have also viewed ^B both bestiality and pederasty as equal to adultery, because nature is injured by those who sin in such a way against nature, and because he who sins so uses what belongs to another; for the nature of beasts and of males is alien to this. For God made male and female. The saint, therefore, names the universal remedy for such sins—that is, the one fitting for all who sin—to be the cleansing of such madness by the person becoming repentant, that is, condemning the sin and departing from it. For if one does not depart from sinning, how could he be considered to be repenting? Since, however, injustice ^C is not added to fornication, but is added to adultery and the other things mentioned—as I have already said—in addition to the illicit commixtion, the time of the penance for adultery, bestiality, and pederasty is doubled in relation to that of fornication. Furthermore, he introduces a certain distinction regarding those who confess the same sins. If, he says, one comes forward of his own accord and confesses a sin that was unknown, he shall be treated humanely; but he who did not come to confession willingly, but was found in the sin, or was known by suspicion, or was accused ^D and convicted, even if he proposes to perform penance, is punished more severely, and the penance becomes extended, that is, lasting for a longer time, so that, having been cleansed in this way, he may be received into the communion of the holy things. Then he also enumerates the times of the penance for fornication, and says they are nine years, and adds how they are to be managed. But he leaves everything to the discretion of him who governs the sinners, and commands him to shorten or extend the time of the penances according to the diligence or negligence shown in the penance. For he says that, just as one must not throw pearls before swine—according to the Gospel, calling the holy body of the Lord and the precious blood pearls, and calling those who live viciously and are wallowing in the mud of their passions swine—so it is absurd to deprive of the communion of the precious pearls those who, through repentance, have cleansed themselves of their passions and have been changed from swine into humans through that purification. Having said, then, that the penances for fornication are of nine years, he says that in the case of adultery and bestiality and pederasty, that time is doubled; but that its dispensation is similar to the dispensation for fornication. For that is what that phrase means: in the same judgment, that is, in the same sentence, in the same penalty. It is only in time that it is doubled. For since in each place of the penances there is a triennium defined in fornication, a sexennium in adultery and the rest.

^A Moreover, that the time of the penalty may be shortened or increased, he leaves to the judgment of the one administering [penance] to those who are in repentance.

CANON V

It remains, in addition to these, to set forth for examination the irascible part of the soul, whenever, having slipped from the good use of anger, it falls into sin. Since there are many sins committed through anger, and evils of every kind, it pleased our Fathers, in other cases, not to be overly precise, nor to consider it worth great concern to treat all the transgressions that arise from anger—even though Scripture forbids not only the wounding of the soul, but also every insult, or slander, or whatever else of this kind anger produces—but they made provision only for the defilement of murder through the penalties. ^B This evil is divided by the difference between voluntary and involuntary, in which categories murder is voluntary. First, that which is dared by preparation, by one who has readied himself for this very thing, in order to perform the wicked deed. Then, that also is reckoned among voluntary acts when someone, in a struggle and fight, striking and being struck, deals a death-dealing blow by hand. For he who is once mastered by anger, and yields to the impulse of rage, nothing of those things that could cut off the evil comes into his mind. Wherefore, in that case also, the event of murder which resulted from a brawl is brought under a voluntary act, and not as an accident. Involuntary acts have manifest signs, when someone, while applying effort to something else, accidentally commits some very grave evil. ^C In these cases, therefore, murder is extended to a triple length of time for those who bring a remedy to the voluntary crime through conversion. For there are three sets of nine years, with a nine-year period of years defined for each degree, so that in the perfect segregation he must pass a nine-year time forbidden from the Church; for as many other years he must remain in the hearing, deemed worthy only of the hearing of the teachers and of the Scriptures and of conversation with the people; and in the third nine-year period, praying with those who have fallen down in repentance, so as to arrive at the ^D participation in the sacrament, that is. And in the same way, the same observation will remain for the one who administers the Church, and in proportion to the repentance the extension of the penalty will also be curtailed for him, so that instead of nine years at each degree, there are eight or seven or six or even five only, if the magnitude of the repentance conquers the time and surpasses, in the zeal of correction, those who sluggishly wash away the stains they have taken on in the long time previously appointed. The involuntary act was judged worthy of pardon, but not laudable. And I have said this so that it might be clear that even if someone becomes involved in the stain of murder involuntarily, the canon has declared him as already profane, having become such by the pollution, to be cast out from priestly grace; and however much time is for purification for simple fornication, such also it was deemed right for those who had committed involuntary murder to have; since

[A] it is judged good in this case as well that, when the intention of the penitent is tested, if the conversion is seen to be worthy of faith, the number of years should not be strictly observed, but rather, by shortening the time, the penitent may be brought to restoration in the Church and to the participation of the good. But if anyone should depart this life before completing the time prescribed by the canons, the kindness of the Fathers commands that, having been made a participant of the sacraments and not being devoid of viaticum, he be sent forth upon that final and long journey. But if, having become a participant of the sacrament, he should return to life, he must wait for the appointed time, remaining in that rank in which he was before the communion given to him by necessity.

BALS. After this great Father has spoken about the two faculties of the soul, he now adds the remaining one as well, namely the irascible. He says that many are the sins that are born from anger, such as blows, insults, revilings, and blasphemies, all of which are forbidden by Holy Scripture. For the blessed Paul, writing to the Colossians and enumerating the works of the flesh, alongside other things, brought in enmities, strifes, jealousies, anger, discord, sedition, and murders, and said that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. ^B But even if, says this saint, all these things are forbidden by Scripture, it has somehow pleased our Fathers not to be overly scrupulous or to act with the utmost strictness in other matters. The phrase "it has somehow pleased" is that of one who denies and is as if ignorant of the reason why the Fathers did not wish to be scrupulous in these things, nor did they think it of great importance to treat such things. But he judged that the crime of homicide alone should be visited with penalties, that men might be on their guard not to commit murders, fearing the penalties imposed. ^C The sin of murder is divided into voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary murder is that which is undertaken with preparation and intent, for which someone had been prepared and equipped. He calls voluntary also that which, though not done with intent, occurred in a struggle and dispute, when someone, in anger, strikes the one resisting him in a vital part of the body. For even this kind of murder is not judged by the saint to be accidental, but voluntary. Involuntary murder is defined as occurring when someone is doing something else, such as wishing to ward off a beast or knock down the fruit of a tree, and he strikes a passing man whom he did not see, and the one struck dies. ^D For voluntary murder, therefore, twenty-seven years is set as the time for the penalty, and he divides it into three parts, so that each part has nine years. And he calls the "complete segregation" the state of standing outside the church and weeping; and after he has wept there for the ninth year, let him stand for as long a time again in the place of the hearers, and from there proceed to the place of the prostrators; and thus, the twenty-seven years being measured out, let him be deemed worthy of the communion of the sacraments. Everywhere he gives the steward of penitence the authority to shorten the time of the penalties.

^A if he sees the penitent showing forth the abundant fruits of repentance. But involuntary homicide, he says, has been judged to be worthy of pardon, yet it is not praiseworthy, or rather, it is not so tolerable that it should be entirely exempt from punishment; for if anyone commits homicide involuntarily, he shall not attain to the priesthood, and as one defiled by homicide, he shall be cast out from it. He says the time of penance for involuntary homicide is set to be the same as that which is appointed for simple fornication; and this, according to this holy man, is nine years. He termed "simple fornication" that which is committed with a woman who has no husband. And after he had stated the time of penalty for each offense, he now adds that, if the one undergoing the penalty has not yet completed the time of penance, but is still separated and is in great danger of death, the Fathers, exercising clemency, have decreed that such a one should be a partaker of the sacraments, ^B so that he might not depart for the long journey destitute of viaticum. "Viaticum" is the name given to what is supplied to those who are on the road for those who need it. And it is believed that the participation in the sacraments contributes greatly to the faithful. But if one who is under penalty and in danger of death is deemed worthy of the divine gifts, and then escapes the danger and recovers, he shall again be excluded from the communion, and shall stand in that degree in which he was even before the danger, until the appointed time has been measured out.

CANON VI

The species of idolatry — for so the divine Apostle ^D calls avarice ^C — I know not how it has been overlooked by our Fathers without any remedy of punishment. And yet it seems that such an evil is an affection of the three [faculties] of the soul's constitution. For both the reason, erring in its judgment of the good, imagines that what is good is in matter, not looking toward the beauty separated from matter; and the desire flows down toward things below, sliding away from that which is truly to be sought. And even the contentious and irascible affection of the soul receives many occasions from this sin. And to speak generally, this disease agrees with the apostolic definition of avarice. For the divine Apostle declared it to be not only idolatry, but also the root of all evils; and yet this species of the disease has been overlooked, unexamined, and uncared for; wherefore such a malady abounds in the Churches, and no one inquires regarding those who are brought to the clergy whether they have been defiled by such a kind of idolatry. But concerning these matters, since it has been passed over by our Fathers, I think it sufficient to heal these affections of insatiable avarice by the public reason of doctrine, as some disease arising from repletion, purging them by speech. We consider only theft, the rifling of sepulchers, and sacrilege to be vices, because the tradition to us from the succession of the Fathers regarding this has been thus.

^A And yet, in divine Scripture, both the accumulation of wealth and interest are prohibited, as well as drawing other people’s property into one’s own possession by some power, even if this happens under the pretext of a contract or transaction. Since, therefore, we are not worthy to attain the power of the canons, we shall add to what has been said the canonical judgment on matters that are confessed to be prohibited. Theft is divided into robbery, that is, depredation, and the rifling of walls. The intention of both is the same, namely, to carry off what belongs to others; but there is a great difference in their judgment regarding the mind. For the robber even adopts murder as an ally to the task he is pursuing, preparing himself for this very thing with both arms, numbers, and the opportunity of the place, so that such a person is subjected to the judgment of murderers, even if he should return to the Church of God through repentance. But he who usurps another's property by secret removal, if he later reveals his sin to a priest through confession—the desire for the vice having been changed into its opposite—will cure the infirmity; I mean by bestowing what he has upon the poor, so that, while he pours out what he possesses, he may openly show himself to be free from the disease of avarice. But if he has nothing else but only his body, the Apostle commands him to heal such a disease through physical labor. The context of the passage is as follows: "Let him who steals steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." (Eph. 4:28)

BALS. ^B The saint asks how the vice of the desire to have more, or avarice, was passed over by the Fathers without any medicine, and no penalty imposed upon those who are held by it, especially when the Apostle has called it idolatry. And yet, he says, it seems that there are also three faculties of the soul that suffer in this and are turned away from rectitude. For the reasoning faculty of the soul does not judge rightly, but falsely and wickedly. For it strays, he says, from the judgment of the good, that is, it does not attain it, nor does it look to the beauty that is separated from matter, namely, to the understanding of God, as far as is possible, and to the enjoyment of future goods; but it imagines the good to be in matter. The saint appositely named the deceived opinion and lying estimation "imagination," that is, thinking that the good, and wealth, and other similar things, consist in money. ^C And the desiring faculty, falling away from the truly desirable, that is, the divine nature and the heavenly things, is led by the earthly and fleeting [objects].

^D (26) Regarding the rifling of walls: The epitome of this canon by Constantine Harmenopoulos is as follows: "The rifler of walls who confesses his crime shall also distribute his own goods to the poor." To this epitome, the following scholion is attached: "The Faster condemns such a person to a three-year penance." The following are also from the same Faster: "If anything unclean should fall into a well, or into wine, or into oil, he who tastes this shall abstain from meat and cheese for three days, and shall not commune for seven days. He who vomits after the sacred participation shall abstain from holy communion for forty days, chanting the fiftieth Psalm daily, and performing fifty prostrations, in whatever manner this may have happened."

^A cultivating what is truly to be sought after—that is, the divine nature and heavenly things—it desires earthly and fleeting things. The irascible faculty also finds many occasions to be kindled toward contention. For because of the desire for money, there arise disputes, enmities, and wars, and according to the divine Apostle, "The root of all evils is avarice." ^B But even though this passion is like this, he says, it has been left by the Fathers unobserved and untreated. Whence it also abounds in the Church, since many are afflicted by it, and of those who are being brought into the clergy, or who are being ordained, no one investigates whether they are defiled by such idolatry. But since this was passed over by the Fathers—that is, left unpunished and in no way corrected—it behooves us to bring a remedy to it as much as possible through public teaching; that is, let us publicly teach the people and make an onslaught upon it, cleansing the diseases of avarice through discourse as if they were certain plethoric ailments arising from over-repletion. When the saintly man said that the passion of avarice corrupts the faculties of the soul and that many and various passions arise from it, he compared these to plethoric affections—having most accurately grasped the theories of medicine, as it is possible to know from his own writings. ^C Plethora (that is, repletion) is termed by physicians [the state] when the four humors, of which bodies are composed, have grown and increased beyond proportion to the bulk of each humor, and the affections that arise from the repletion of the humors gathered together at the same time are called plethoric diseases. Therefore, this wise Father deservedly named the affections rising from avarice "plethoric," as they subvert all the faculties of our soul and increase them to the detriment of the soul. Other diseases of avarice, he says, we shall cure by the discourse of teaching; but theft and sacrilege, and indeed also the digging up of tombs, which have been deemed worthy of canonical penalties by the Fathers, we shall add to what has already been said. Although, he says, in divine Scripture both usury [fenus] and interest [usura], and the joining of others’ property to one’s own possession through some person of power, are prohibited. ^D For usury [fenus] is when someone gives to another grain, or wine, or oil, or anything else, so that he may receive in the same kind more than he gave: as if someone gave fifty measures of wine, so that he might receive seventy or even more. But interest [usura] is said to apply to money. And he said "through the power of someone," because even if someone does not usurp others' property through his own power, but does this through some other powerful person, that person also will be held to the same judgment. For the prophetic word says: "Woe to those who join house to house, and field to field, that they may take something away from their neighbor." But although these things are forbidden in Scripture, he says, we shall not impose canonical penalties upon them, because our authority is not deemed worthy of the power of the canons, in that we are not judged worthy of canonical authority—that is, to have the power of applying canonical penalties to those who sin. Regarding theft, however...

and assigns to transgressors fixed canonical penances. Having spoken of theft, he divides it into robbery and housebreaking. And he says that there is one aim for those who rob and those who break into houses: the taking of others' property. But a great difference must be observed between them. For robbers ^A prepare themselves even for murder, carrying weapons and occupying suitable places to assist them; and they even gather a multitude—that is, they recruit many as accomplices—and are ready for slaughter. Those, therefore, who have turned to repentance for such deeds, he says, are to be punished with the judgment of murderers. But he says that the one who steals others' property secretly, and confesses the sin, should be treated with the opposite disposition. That is, since he stole others' property out of avarice, he ought to give his own to the poor, so that in this way he may appear to abstain from avarice. For he who does not spare his own will not crave that which belongs to others. But if he has no money, he says, to give, he must heal the passion by laboring ^B—that is, by working—and from what he acquires through his labor, share with those in need. And this is an apostolic command. For the divine Paul says: "Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need." These things, therefore, concern him who steals property secretly. But if this man also uses a sword, and is ready to use it against him who resists, he too, I think, will be punished with the same penalty as the robber, because he had a similar intent.

CANON VII

The digging up of tombs is also divided into that which deserves forgiveness and that which does not. For if someone, sparing the religion of the dead ^C, leaves the covered body untouched, so that the obscenity of nature is not exposed to the sun, and uses some of the stones that were cast before the tomb for the construction of some task, this is not even laudable; yet custom has made it pardonable when the material is transferred to something better and more useful for the public good. But to examine the dust of the flesh returned to the earth, and to move the bones in the hope of gaining some ornament buried with the deceased, is condemned by the same judgment as simple fornication, as the division was made in the preceding discourse, provided that the steward—considering the life of the person to whom the remedy is applied—administers the medicine so as to be able to shorten the time period established by the canons.

BALS. As he divided theft into two, so he divides the digging of tombs into two. ^D For if someone, he says, has taken away only stones from a tomb, so that the covered body is not seen, sparing the religion of the dead—that is, the honor owed to the dead—and has used them for the construction of something better and more useful for the public good, not even so will he be free from some crime

^A but he will however be worthy of pardon. But as for the stones which are placed before a tomb, they are not those that cover the buried corpses themselves. For if anyone removes such stones, he entirely allows the hidden body to be seen and makes the mysteries of nature public, and he is no longer worthy of pardon, but seems to fall into another type of tomb-desecration, which is to open tombs, to dig dust out of corrupt flesh, and to move the bones of those lying there, seeking to obtain from there some ornament with which the dead were clothed. This type of tomb-desecration, then, he says should be condemned in the same judgment as simple fornication. By simple fornication, he meant the intercourse of a man with a woman unattached. Here, too, he gives the steward of the penitent the power to shorten the time of the penalty, if he perchance sees his repentance to be fervent. These things, then, the saint says concerning tomb-desecrators. ^B The civil law, in book IX, title 23, ordains these things: "Those who remove materials from tombs shall be subject to the charge of sacrilege." And again: "The crime of tomb-desecration brings infamy." And further: "If anyone removes from a tomb either stones, or columns, or marbles, or any other material, he shall pay twenty gold pieces to the public treasury," and what follows.

CANON VIII. Now sacrilege, in the ancient Scripture, was not considered more tolerable ^C than the condemnation for murder. For similarly both he who was convicted of murder and he who stole things dedicated to God underwent the punishment by stoning. But in ecclesiastical custom, I do not know how some concession was made, and some indulgence, so that the purification for such a disease was considered more tolerable; for in a shorter time than for adultery did the tradition of the Fathers decree the penalty for such persons. Everywhere, and in the case of any transgression, it is necessary before all else to look at this: what is the disposition of the one being healed, not to think that time is sufficient for healing—for what healing could ever come from time alone?—but [to look at] the resolve of the one who heals himself through conversion. These things, oh man of God, I have composed for you with much haste from sources at hand, because one must obey the commands of the brethren, and I have sent them with haste. But do not cease offering your habitual prayers for us to God. For you owe, as a grateful son, to him who begot you according to God, the sustenance ^D of prayers in his old age, in accordance with the commandment that orders one to honor his parents, so that it may be well with you, and you may be long-lived upon the earth (Exod. xx, 12; Deut. v, 16; Matth. xv, 4). It is clear that you will receive this letter as a priestly symbol, and you will not despise the hospitality, even if it be less than what befits the excellence of your nature.

BALS. Having spoken about theft and tomb-desecration, he now teaches also about sacrilege, and says that the Old Scripture punishes equally the murderer and the one who stole things dedicated to God, [by] stones

^A commanded to be cast upon them. This is what happened in the case of Achan, who had pilfered from the spoils of Jericho, all of which had been dedicated to God, both gold and woven cloth; for he was stoned to death by all the people. But the Church does not punish the murderer and the sacrilegious person in the same way; rather, it is disposed more leniently toward the sacrilegious person. I do not know how, he says, beyond the simple fact that I am ignorant of the reason. For it is handed down, he says, by the Fathers, that the penalty for sacrilege should be determined in a shorter time than that for adultery. In every sin, one must before all things consider the disposition of the one repenting and being treated, and not attribute everything to the duration of the penance, as though it were sufficient for purification. For no matter how much time passes, it will be of no benefit toward healing. But one must observe the intention of the one repenting and his zeal in repentance, so that if he shows a repentance appropriate and corresponding to the sin, he may shorten the time of the penalty; but if he is lax and behaves more negligently, he should even increase the time of the penalty. But it is questioned by me how this saint says that the vice of greed was left by the Fathers without any remedy, ^B when Gregory the Thaumaturge speaks thus in the third of his canons: "Greed is a grievous thing, and the things said by divine Scripture cannot be explained in a single letter, in which not only is stealing declared to be something to be fled from and a dreadful thing; but entirely that one should be greedy and desire what belongs to others for the sake of base gain": and, "Whoever is of this sort is cast out from the Church of God." How then was it overlooked that that which is judged to be cast out from the Church of God is without remedy? And that this canon of the Thaumaturge was observed is clear from the letter of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, to Bishop Menas, who wrote that those who had separated from the communion the woman who was perpetrating injustice, and who was unwilling to cease from her injustice, had done a lawful thing.

CANONICAL RESPONSES OF TIMOTHEUS, MOST HOLY BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

One of the 150 Fathers who were gathered in Constantinople, to the questions put to him concerning bishops and clergy.

CANONICAL RESPONSES OF TIMOTHEUS, MOST HOLY BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, Who was one of the 150 Fathers gathered at Constantinople, to the questions put to him concerning bishops and clergy.

Question. If a catechumen, say seven years old, or even a full-grown man, happens upon an oblation being made and, in his ignorance, partakes of it, what should be done regarding him?

Response. He should be illuminated, for he has been called by God.

Bals. This Father was asked whether, if a child or even a perfect man who has been placed among the catechumens and has not yet attained holy baptism happens, when the oblation is being made—that is, when the mystical sacrifice is being offered—to be there at an opportune time, that is to say, if he has encountered an appropriate moment and has become a partaker of the sacraments, being ignorant that he ought not to partake before baptism, yet not having a contemptuous disposition toward them, what ought to be done? And he answered that he should be baptized. For since he acted without malice ^A

Notes of William Beveridge. (1) Canonical Responses of Timotheus. Regarding this Timotheus, bishop of Alexandria, a certain scholion found in the Amerbachian codex is conceived in these words: "It must be known that after Dionysius the Great, the fourteenth bishop established at Alexandria, the episcopal offices were fulfilled by Theonas, Maximus, Peter the holy martyr, Achillas, Alexander, Athanasius, Gregory the Arian from Cappadocia, Athanasius again, Peter (expelled by Valens), Lucius the Arian, and Peter again. ^B Afterward, this great Timotheus was promoted to the throne in the fourth year of the reign of Theodosius the Great; he was present in the fourth year of the reign of Theodosius the Great at the synod of the 150 holy Fathers, which was gathered against Macedonius, the opponent of the Spirit. After seven years he departed to the Lord, having as his successor Theophilus."

^A

He approached the communion of the holy gifts and obtained an opportunity, not being hindered by anyone—perhaps because those present among the faithful, and indeed the one who gave the communion, were ignorant that he was a catechumen—he appears to have been called by God. And that which the holy apostle Peter said regarding Cornelius and those with him, when, although they were catechumens, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and they spoke in tongues and glorified God, as it is written in the book of Acts: "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts X, 47). This is almost exactly what Timothy also said: that one called by God and judged worthy of the holy things ought to be enlightened.

Interrogatio. «If a catechumen is possessed by a demon, and he himself or his own people wish for him to receive holy baptism, ought he to receive it or not, and especially if he is near death?»

Responsio. «If he who is possessed by a demon has not been cleansed of the unclean spirit, he cannot receive holy baptism; but at the moment of departure from life, he is to be baptized.»

BALS. He who is possessed by a demon is considered a dwelling-place ^B of a demon. For it is judged that if the unclean spirit had not found the man a suitable dwelling-place for himself, he would not have dwelt in him. But he who is baptized, through baptism, receives the grace of the Holy Spirit to dwell within him. How then is it possible for the same person to become receptive to two opposites? For this reason, the Father judged that the catechumen who has not been freed from the demon harassing him is not worthy of divine baptism. But if he is dying, he says, he shall be baptized, so that he may not depart from life lacking the grace of baptism, be deprived of this provision, and depart unsealed.

Interrogatio. «If anyone who is a faithful Christian is possessed by a demon, ought he to be a partaker of the holy mysteries, or not?»

Responsio. «If he does not divulge the mystery, nor blaspheme in any other way, let him be a partaker; yet not every day. For it is sufficient for him to do so only at fixed times.»

BALS. Judas is said to have divulged the mystery, as one who, although taught by the Lord, revealed it to the Jews as if he did not believe them, and did not apply his mind to the one teaching these things as God, but as a mere man. But as for the one who is possessed by a demon, if he is totally insane, he shall neither be deemed worthy of the holy things, nor shall he be condemned for divulging the mystery and blaspheming, as he does not know what he is doing. But if he has intervals, and in the time when he is of sound mind he assails the mystery and blasphemes, he shall not only not partake of the holy things, but he shall not even pray with the faithful or be numbered with them. Therefore this divine Father, concerning the one possessed by a demon and [having] intervals

says: If, therefore, when he is not being acted upon by the demon, he says nothing against the faith, he shall be a partaker of the sacraments. ^A

*Interrogation.* "If any catechumen, being infirm, becomes of disordered mind, and cannot himself confess the faith, and his own [people] urge that he should receive holy baptism while he lives; ought he to receive it, or not?" ^B

*Response.* "He ought to receive it, if he is not being tempted by an unclean spirit."

Bals. The interrogation was concerning a catechumen who, because of illness, has become of disordered mind, so that he cannot answer the questions asked at baptism, whether one ought to baptize him. But the response is that it is necessary to baptize him even in such a state, and with good reason. For since he was a catechumen, he showed a disposition—that he embraces the faith—and even if he does not answer during the baptism, he has already manifested his own intent. But if he is being tempted by an unclean spirit, he shall not be baptized, he says, but it shall be done for him as was stated above.

*Interrogation.* "If a woman has relations with her husband at night, or a husband with a wife, and intercourse takes place; ought they to communicate, or not?" ^C

*Response.* "They ought not, the Apostle shouting: 'Do not deprive one another, unless by consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer; and come together again, so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.' (I Cor. VII, 5)."

Bals. The interrogation is concerning those who cohabit lawfully, whether they ought to communicate having come together at night. ^D The response is that they ought not. And for the substantiation of his own argument, he used the words of the great Paul.

*Interrogation.* "If a woman who is a catechumen has given her name so that she may be enlightened, and on the day of baptism her customary womanly flow has occurred; ought she to be enlightened on that day, or to defer, and for how long ought she to defer?"

*Response.* "She ought to defer until she be purified."

*Interrogation.* "If a woman sees her customary womanly flow, ought she to approach the mysteries on that day, or not?"

*Response.* "She ought not, until she be purified."

Bals. Those who were to be deemed worthy of the divine baptism were enrolled by those serving in the Church. If, therefore, he says, a woman who has been enrolled, as

should fall into the flux of menses, when must she be baptized? And this divine Father replied to this, that she should do so when she has been purified. For until the prescribed days have passed, she is judged to be in a state of impurity, and she will neither be baptized nor deemed worthy of the divine mysteries.

*Question.* If a woman has given birth, ought she to fast during Pascha and not drink wine, or is she absolved from the fast and permitted to drink wine because she has given birth?

*Response.* Fasting was devised so that the body might be humbled. If, therefore, the body is in a state of humiliation and weakness, it ought to partake of food and drink, as much as it wishes and is able to bear.

Bals. He was asked whether a woman who has given birth during the Paschal lent ought to drink wine and be absolved from the fast. And he replied that the fast was ordained for the humiliation of the body. If, however, the body is humbled and infirm, it has no need of the discipline of fasting from another source, but rather has need of strengthening and restoration. Therefore, she who has given birth during Pascha—that is, during the fast which is kept for the sake of Pascha—ought to make use of both wine and food.

*Question.* Ought a cleric to pray in the presence of Arians or other heretics; and does it harm him in any way when he performs the prayer, that is, the offering?

*Response.* In the divine oblation, the deacon declares before the kiss of peace: "Those who do not communicate, depart." They ought not, therefore, to be present, unless they profess that they will do penance and avoid the heresy.

Bals. The question was put concerning a cleric, whether he ought to pray in the presence of heretics, that is, to offer the bloodless sacrifice; and he replied that when the Holy Things are about to be brought to the holy table, it is said to those who are not initiated: ^C You who do not communicate, walk away; that is, let the catechumens depart. If, therefore, catechumens are not allowed to be present while the sacrifice is being performed, how will heretics be allowed? Unless, he says, they profess that they will do penance and depart from the heresy; and even then, I think, they will not be permitted to be inside the temple, but outside with the catechumens; but if they do not profess that they will depart from the heresy, they will not even stand with the catechumens, but will be driven out.

*Question.* If someone is sick and very much attenuated from great weakness, and holy Pascha arrives; must he absolutely fast, or does the cleric absolve him to take what he can, or even oil and wine, because of his great weakness?

^A *Answer.* The invalid ought to be absolved to take both food and drink, as much as he is able to bear. For it is just that he who has once been weakened should be a participant in oil.

BALS. There is an inquiry concerning someone who is ill and has been consumed by infirmity: must he absolutely fast during the fast for Pascha—that is, inexcusably and without any commiseration—or take wine and oil because of his infirmity? The answer says that it is just for him who has been consumed by sickness to take both wine and oil, as much as he can endure, that is to say, either entirely, or on certain days, according to the judgment of him who is administering the dispensation for him. It should be noted, therefore, from this canon and from the eighth, that the fast of the Quadragesima of Pascha is a diet of dry foods, and also abstinence from wine. Some, however, say that in both of these canons the fast in Pascha refers to the week of the holy Passion, and not the entire Quadragesima.

*Interrogatio.* If someone invites a cleric to bless a marriage, but hears that the marriage is unlawful, or an incestuous union—that is, if the woman to be wedded is the sister of his deceased wife—is the cleric obliged to attend, or to perform the oblation?

*Responsio.* Say once for all: If the cleric hears that the marriage is unlawful. If, therefore, the marriage is unlawful, the cleric ought not to share in the sins of others.

BALS. Clerics, he says, who are called to the mystery of the celebration of marriages, in order to pray and join the bridal pair, if they hear that the marriage is unlawful, must ^B neither go away, nor pray, nor offer, and thus share in the sins of others.

*Interrogatio.* If a layman has had a dream and asks a cleric whether he ought to permit him to communicate, or not?

*Responsio.* If the desire for a woman underlies it, he ought not. But if Satan is tempting him, so that by this pretext he may be alienated from the communion of the divine mysteries, he ought to communicate. For the tempter will not cease, at the time when he ought to communicate, from attacking him.

BALS. Concerning those to whom apparitions appear in their dreams, and for whom perhaps a discharge of seed occurs, this Father says that if, before this, a thought of desire for a woman attacked the one who dreamt, and his mind remained fixed upon that desire, and he dwelt upon it, and thence the ^C fantasy [arose], and the emission of seed followed, he ought not to communicate. And with good reason: for the assent of him who dreamt polluted his mind, and how shall he approach the Holies with such a thought? But if nothing of the sort preceded, it is, he says, a temptation of the devil, so that he may thus alienate him from the divine communion; and he ought to communicate. For if the Evil One knows that he is being ^D successful in this way in ensuring that he is not a participant ^C in the sacrament: he will not cease…

^A plotting against the man, whenever he knows that he wishes to partake.

Question.

Response.

Question.

Response.

BALS.

Question.

Response.

BALS.

impossible for him to come together, and he says he is self-controlled, but wishes to take another wife lawfully. The answer is that he can say nothing. For it is adultery if, while the marriage stands, the man brings another woman into cohabitation. But by the novella of the Emperor, Lord Leo the Philosopher, it is granted to the husband, if the wife is suffering from perpetual insanity, to dissolve the marriage; once the marriage is dissolved, it is permitted to the husband lawfully to take another wife. ^A

Question. If someone who is fasting in order to receive communion washes his mouth or swallows water in the bath unintentionally, ought he to receive communion? Answer. Since Satan has found an opportunity to keep him from communion, he will do this more frequently. ^B

Question. If we hear the word of God frequently but do not act upon it, are we liable to judgment? Answer. Even if we do not act, it is not possible not to accuse ourselves, because we hear but do not heed; and to accuse oneself is a part of salvation. ^C

Question. From what age are sins judged by God? Answer. According to everyone’s knowledge and discretion. Some from the age of ten, some even from a greater age.

BALS. He says that sins are judged by God according to everyone’s knowledge and discretion. For those children who are of a keener and more alert nature discern good and evil more quickly; but those who are of a duller and more indolent disposition are slow to the knowledge of what is required. Therefore, he said that sin is reckoned to the former from their tenth year, but to the others from a greater and more mature age. ^D

ADDRESS OF THEOPHILUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE HOLY THEOPHANY FALLING ON A SUNDAY.

Both custom and propriety require us to honor every Sunday, and to celebrate it, since our Lord Jesus Christ bestowed upon us in it the gift of [His] resurrection from the dead. Therefore, in the Holy Scriptures, it is both called "the first," as being the beginning of life for us, and "the eighth," as having surpassed the sabbath-keeping of the Jews. Since, therefore, it has happened that this day of the Holy Theophany must be observed with fasting, let us use discretion and proceed in a knowledgeable manner for both, so that, by consuming a few dates, we may at once avoid those heresies that do not honor the day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and render what is due to the day of fasting, awaiting the evening assembly, which, God willing, is celebrated here. Let us then assemble here from the ninth hour.

THE COMMONITORIUM OF THE SAME, WHICH HE RECEIVED FROM AMMON, CONCERNING LYCO

CANON I

Regarding those who have communicated with the Arians and to this day hold onto their churches, let it be done as is the custom; yet in such a way that others be established who may be attested as orthodox, and let those be set aside. And let these matters be ordered in such a way, as the orthodox bishops in the Thebaid have done in other cities; and let those who were established by Bishop Apollos, and who have communicated with those [the Arians] holding the churches, be rebuked, if they have done this by their own will; but if they were merely obedient to their own bishop, let them remain, even if they were unaware of what is just. And if, indeed, all the people reject them along with the others, let others be ordained; but if they retain them along with those with whom they have communicated, let them also experience the same custom which all the orthodox bishops ^B in the Thebaid have observed.

CANON II

Regarding Bistus, who was established as a presbyter in Ereba, inquiry must be made; and if it is found that he committed violence against a woman who had separated from her living husband, he must not be allowed to be a presbyter; for he ought not even to communicate as a layman, since the Church is accustomed to separate such persons. Moreover, this brings no prejudice to Bishop Apollos, if he ordained him through ignorance, since the holy synod has ordered that those who are convicted of a crime after their ordination be expelled.

[BALS.] Bistus had been ordained presbyter in Ereba by Bishop Apollos; and this region is in Egypt, just as is Lyco. It was said concerning him that, before his ordination, he had done violence to a woman who had separated from her living husband. Concerning this, then, being questioned, Theophilus said: Let it be investigated, and if it is true that he did violence to the woman, let him not be permitted to be a presbyter. For how could he be a presbyter, he who is not even permitted to enter the church as a layman, being separated on account of his sin? For the Church thrusts out and separates such persons from the faithful. But this was not said by Theophilus in accordance with the ^C canons; for the twenty-fifth canon of the holy apostles, and the third and thirty-second of the great Basil, and the twenty-second of the Synod of Carthage, do not exclude from communion clerics who have sinned and been deposed. But the fact that he was ordained brings no harm to the bishop who ordained him, being ignorant of the sin; for the synod has decreed that those who are convicted of crime even after ordination should be cast out. This is the ninth canon of the first Synod of Nicaea. The phrase, "having separated from her living husband"—

"—this applies to a certain one, just as that other phrase does, for it implies violence. For even if he had simply had intercourse with some woman who was not separated, even if he did not commit violence against her, deposition would still be brought upon him. ^A

CANON III. Regarding Sur, since Bishop Apollo has affirmed that he both dismissed him and removed him from the Church, let it be as the bishop has pronounced; provided that [Sur] uses his own legal defenses if he wishes, and complains about the bishop’s decision. BALS. Sur was a cleric of Bishop Apollo; and the bishop affirmed that he had removed him from the clergy—that is, expelled him. Let him be, he says, in accordance with the judgment of the bishop delivered against him, an alien to the clergy. But if he accuses the judgment of the bishop, let him use his own defenses before the synod, to which, of course, the bishop also belongs. ^B

CANON IV. Regarding Panuph, who was ordained as a deacon in Lyco, one must inquire. And if he is found when he was a catechumen, to have accepted the daughter of his own brother into the communion of marriage, and then after baptism to have been accepted into the clergy, let him remain in the clergy if she has departed this life, and if after baptism he did not have relations with her. But if, when he was already a believer, he accepted the same daughter of his brother into the communion of marriage, let him be an alien to the clergy. For there is no prejudice against Bishop Apollo if he ordained him out of ignorance. ^C BALS. It was said that Panuph had taken the daughter of his own brother as his wife before he was baptized; but after he was baptized, he was ordained a deacon. Theophilus says, therefore, that if the woman has died, and he did not use her after his baptism, let him remain a deacon, since holy baptism washes away all preceding sins. But if, being a believer, he had her after baptism, let him be cast out of the clergy. But to the one who ordained him out of ignorance, no harm shall come of this. Now the remark, "If the woman has departed this life," he says, is because that is how it is said to have happened. For even if she had been living, and after baptism Panuph had not known her, but had even dismissed her, he could still have been a deacon. ^D

CANON V. Regarding Jacob, one must inquire. For if he was a lector, and was shown to be liable to the crime of fornication, and was cast out by the presbyters, and then this man was ordained, let him be cast out, after an accurate examination has been made, and not merely from whispers or from suspicions arising from slander. But if he is not found to be liable to the crime, let him remain in the clergy; for one must not pay attention to vain slanders. BALS. A certain Jacob was said to have been a lector, and to have been accused of fornication, and cast out of the clergy, and then later to have been ordained to a higher rank. Therefore he writes

^A that if, after a precise examination has been conducted, it is found that he has sinned, he should be cast out of the clergy; for it is not fitting that someone should be condemned on the basis of whispers or clandestine remarks, or from suspicion arising from accusations or overt insults. But if, when the matter is examined, he is found to be blameless, let him remain in the clergy.

CANON VI

BALS. He gives a pattern for those who are to be ordained into the clergy, and says that it is necessary for the one who is to be ordained to be chosen by the entire priestly order, that is, for him to be approved and preferred by unanimous consent; and when such a selection has been made regarding him, then he is to be examined by the bishop, and when the man appears suitable to him for ordination, then he is to be ordained with the consent of the priestly order, with the people also present. But why did he say to ordain him with the consent of the priestly order? For since he was chosen by the priestly order, consent at the time of ordination would not appear to be necessary. But it is likely that some time may have passed after the election, and in the interim those who judge the one to be ordained may have learned something that would prohibit his ordination. Therefore, he says that they should consent even while he is being ordained, and that the bishop should at that time inquire of the people, asking if they bear witness that he is worthy of ordination. He dissuades, however, from clandestine ordinations. For since, he says, there is peace in the Church, that is to say, since the people is not now divided, having ceased from heresies, but all are of the orthodox party; all will be of one mind, and it is fitting that ordinations take place in the church in the presence of the saints, or the faithful. He called the faithful "saints," taking this from the divine Paul; for he also addresses the faithful in his Epistles in this way. These things, then, he seems to say regarding those who are in the cities. But regarding those in the region, that is, in the villages, he says that since many communicated with heretics even against their will, and many of these had been of one mind with the faithful, or joined and agreed with them: if anyone of such is to be ordained into the clergy, he is to be ordained in no other way than with the approval of those clerics who are clearly orthodox, with the bishop also present, and inquiring of the people, as was said above. He says this is to be done so that no circumvention may intervene, that is

fraud or being snatched away, and that someone may not be ordained who holds unsound views regarding the faith.

CANON VII.

BALS. If any of those things which are offered by the faithful for sacrifice remain in abundance, after what is consumed for the divine mysteries, he says it is necessary that these be distributed to the clergy, so that they may be eaten and drunk by them, and also by the faithful laity; but let nothing of them be given to the catechumens. For since they were brought to the altar, and portions were taken from them for the divine gifts, and those things were sanctified, how shall they be given to be consumed by those who are less perfected? Now, the things offered for sacrifice are bread and wine; for nothing else is permitted to be offered at the altar. Read the 3rd Apostolic Canon, and the 28th canon of the synod in Trullo, which is called the Sixth. ^C

CANON VIII.

BALS. Someone was ordained a cleric, and then was accused as though he had committed fornication. A certain Hierax, therefore, said that he ought not to be in the clergy; but he who had ordained him maintained, or rather insisted, that he had not been accused by anyone. Therefore, Theophilus said: Let the man be examined, and if some accuser is found who is worthy of trust, or who is to be admitted to an accusation (for it is not permitted to everyone to accuse those who are in holy orders, according to the 6th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the 21st canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council), let him be cast out of the Church after proof; but if nothing of the sort is proven, let him remain in the clergy. ^D

CANON IX.

BALS. The same [Theophilus] gave the opinion that the steward of the bishopric must be made by the judgment of the whole priesthood, if the bishop also consents to the judgment of the clergy; and that a steward must be appointed so that the goods of the Church may be spent on what is necessary by his care. And the following chapter reveals what the expenditure on necessary things is, which is the spending on widows, strangers, and the poor. For it is permitted to no one to appropriate the goods of the Church for himself, because it is dedi-

to transfer; for it is right that the minister of God be free from avarice; and it is not granted to an ^A bishop to use the things of the bishopric for his own personal use, unless for those things which are entirely necessary, and then only when the bishop lacks his own means at home, in accordance with the 41st canon of the holy Apostles. See what is written therein, and also the 24th canon of the synod of Antioch.

CANON X. Let widows and the poor and visiting strangers enjoy every rest, and let no one usurp the things that belong to the Church as his own.

NARRATION BY THE SAME ON THOSE WHO ARE CALLED CATHARI

^B Your piety has declared to me that certain of those who call themselves Cathari wish to join the Church. Since, therefore, the great synod which was held at Nicaea by our blessed Fathers decreed that those who come over should be ordained, wish to receive those who desire to join the Church according to this form, provided that their life is upright and nothing opposes them.

BALS. He was questioned regarding the Novatians (for these are they who are also called Cathari), and the answer was that if they come to the Church of God, since the great and first Nicene synod decreed that they be ordained, do you also ^C act according to this form, or according to this canon, and ordain those who come over, unless some impediment from their life opposes them. Now the canon concerning the Novatians is the eighth of the first synod.

BY THE SAME TO BISHOP AGATHO

Maximus asserted that, being ignorant of the laws of the Church, he had been joined in an illicit marriage, ^D and because it troubles him that he is not acting rightly and in an orderly fashion, he affirmed that, as one who acted against the laws through ignorance, he would abstain from that illicit union of life by mutual consent, with her also willing this. If, therefore, you prove that they are doing this by consent, and are not deceiving—because the time is decennial—if you consider that they ought to associate with the catechumens, for the present, dispense them in this way. But if you see that he wishes to deceive, and that there is still need for severity in this matter, do that which God shall suggest to you; always following that

according to the rigor which God shall suggest to you, do this, being guided in all things by that which prevails. For, being on the spot, you are better able to know their minds. ^A

BALS. A certain Maximus, having been joined to a woman in an illicit marriage, was excommunicated and barred from the congregation with the faithful. He said that he had acted against the laws through ignorance and was prepared to withdraw from this marriage, the woman also being willing; and he sought that, upon separating, he might be received back. To these things, therefore, Theophilus says: If upon examination you find that they are withdrawing from the marriage by mutual consent—that is, by common counsel—and are not deceiving, for they have lived together for ten years, and perhaps their separation might be considered difficult for them, and [you fear] lest they be deceiving; if you consider—that is, if you judge that they should stand with the catechumens for the time being—that is, for the present—order him thus. But if you perceive, he says, that they are saying these things out of deceit, and that they still require a [more] rigorous correction—that is, harsher penalties—do that which God shall suggest to you—that is, what He shall sound in your mind, what God shall put into your heart—always following that which is in use and which has established force, that is, what is most valid and binding. ^B

TO THE SAME, TO BISHOP MENAS

The presbyters in the village of Geminus have done a lawful thing, if the woman who brings the letter of Eustathius speaks the truth. ^C For she says that they separated Cyradium from the congregation because she was doing wrong and was unwilling to stop the wrongdoing. Since, therefore, I have found that, in seeking to remedy her own evil, she desires to commune, desire to prepare her to put aside the wrongdoing first, and to be persuaded to repent, so that in this way, if you perceive that she approaches out of the law of God, desiring the congregation, you may permit her to gather with the people.

BALS. The presbyters who were in Geminus excommunicated from the Church a certain woman called Cyradium, who was doing wrong, because she did not abstain from the wrongdoing. ^D She, however, on account of the excommunication, promised to bring a remedy for the wrongdoing, and wished to be admitted to communion. Theophilus therefore writes to the bishop of the region: See to it that she first puts aside the wrongdoing—that is, that she returns what she acquired unjustly—and repents, that is, is remorseful for the sin of the wrongdoing, and prays to God that her sin may be forgiven her. And when she has done these things, if you perceive—that is, if you know that she approaches by the law of God, that is, with a good conscience that cannot bear to be separated from the congregation of the faithful for the sake of God, and not for the shame of men—then permit her to have communion with the faithful people and to join in the hymns.

OF OUR BLESSED FATHER CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, CANONICAL EPISTLE ON THE HYMNS. Cyril to Domnus.

^A Every one of our affairs, when it proceeds according to canonical order, engenders in us no disturbance, but delivers us from the backbiting of some, or rather procures for us the praise of those who are right-minded. For who would not receive with open arms, as they say, a sentence pronounced on matters which does not incline this way or that? Or how could that which is judged rightly and lawfully not be beyond all reproach, or rather full of all praise?

And these things I write now to your piety, because in the letters sent to me and to our most holy and most godly brother and fellow-bishop Proclus, while you name the most devout and most God-loving Peter as bishop, he himself laments, and says that he was cast out from the Church attributed to him without reason. Yet it was consistent that he should either have the name of the priesthood along with the reality, or, if he were not worthy to preside over the divine altar, he should not be considered worthy of the very title of bishop. But perhaps what I say will appear to your God-loving self ^B to be somewhat harsh and lacking in charity. But the matter in truth is not so. For we think we show mercy to the old man if we leave him only the name; but it would have been much better to consider other things as well. For he says that he is indeed able to prove his cause, but that no time for defense was given to him, nor was a canonical hearing granted to him. But had such a thing occurred, the very production of the records would have convicted him as guilty of the crimes laid against him, and there would be nothing for him to complain of as having been treated unjustly; or, by declaring him acquitted, it would have granted him again to preside over the Church which was subject to him. Since, however, nothing of the sort was done, he cries out with a loud voice ^C regarding the matter, and says that he has received an intolerable injury and has been unrighteously cast out, adding that all his personal goods have been stolen from him.

Therefore, let your holiness, considering both what is decreed by the divine canons and what is fitting for the Church and for those who have been initiated into the sacred ministry, and, in addition to these things, being moved by our letters, cause the old man’s tears to cease. And if he should choose to contend in judgment against those who bring accusations against him, let him litigate before your holiness according to custom, with the most godly bishops under your authority being present of course, unless perhaps he objects to ^D some as being suspect. For no one of the most godly bishops...

^A do we believe to be disposed with enmity toward a brother. But so that this may not become a pretext to dissolve the judgment to be held concerning him, so that it may not appear to have been done unjustly, it is not burdensome that those who are suspected by some should be absent from the assembly.

BALSAMON. THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF SAINT CYRIL TO DOMNUS

The proem of the epistle has this meaning. The saint says: Our affairs, that is to say ecclesiastical matters, or simply human ones, when they proceed according to canonical rectitude, do not stir up commotion for us, nor do they bring us the insults of others, but rather procure us praise. For a judgment that does not incline or lean to one side or the other, but is most upright, is to be accepted by all; and to judge rightly is not only worthy of being free from blame and accusation—that is to say, unassailable and not deserving of reproach—but is even worthy of being praised. ^B Having thus used a proem, he says: "I write these things because you sent to us the most reverend presbyter, naming him bishop," while he, in the meantime, weeps and says that he has been ejected from the church he possessed, or rather expelled from the bishopric given to him. Now it was consistent that he should have both the name of bishop and the reality, that is to say, the bishopric and the office of the bishop; or if he was not worthy to preside over the altar, he should not even be called a bishop. But perhaps what is said may seem harsh to you, and I who say it also seem unmerciful; yet this is not so. For we certainly think we pity the old man. He uses the plural here in his speech, as if also saying what he says about himself, so that the speech might be less offensive and might not appear to have been made for the harassment of him alone. ^C And, he says, as if we pitied him, only the title of bishop was left to him. But it would have been much better to observe something else. What is that? That no time for defense had been given to him, nor had a canonical defense been proposed, or a synodical judgment. For he says that he is able to prove his case, that is, to show himself innocent. If these things had been done, the very records which were made at the investigation would have convicted him, either as one caught and liable to the charges, and not able to say that he has been wronged, or, if he had appeared blameless, the leadership of the Church would have been given back to him. But because nothing of the sort was done, he cries out that he has been wronged and ejected contrary to the laws, also saying that whatever money he had was seized. ^D You, therefore, the saint writes to Domnus, knowing both the divine canons and what is fitting for the Church and the ministers of God—namely, acting justly—and also taking account of our letter, restrain the old man's tears, and if he wishes to contend in judgment with his accusers, let him be judged before you and the bishops who are under you; but if he has some of the bishops as suspect, as not being well-disposed toward him, and he refuses them, let them not be present at the judgment. For we, he says, do not believe that any of the bishops holds enmity against a brother, nor for this reason do we prevent them from judging with us; but so that this may not be an excuse for him not to act in the judgment, let them withdraw from the assembly.

^A And it is just that the money taken from him unjustly be returned for two reasons. First, because such things ought not to happen at all; and because it grieves the most God-fearing men who are everywhere on earth, and casts them into the deepest despondency, that they should be required to give an account of their administration of the expenses falling upon them, whether from ecclesiastical revenues, or indeed from the fruit produced by others. For each of us will give an account of his own evils to the Judge of all. For the precious vessels and immovable possessions must be preserved for the Churches; but it is right that the administration of the expenses that occur should be securely entrusted to those who at the time act as the divine priesthood.

BALS. He says that the things which were taken away should be returned for two reasons: one, that the very fact of their removal is unjust; and another, because it greatly grieves all bishops and casts them into despondency that they should be required to give an account of the administration of the incidental—that is, the occurring—expenses, from wherever the money might come, whether from ecclesiastical revenues, or from the harvest, or from any offerings. For each of our bishops, he says, will give an account to God concerning the management of the affairs of his Church for his own time, that is, for the time during which he was bishop. For while it happens that the precious vessels of the churches—that is, the sacred items and other offerings and immovable properties—are inalienable and are preserved for the churches, the administration of the expenditures in the churches ought to be trusted—instead of "trusted with confidence"—to the bishops of the time. ^C

And he says that the libelli of resignation were not presented of their own will, but as if by necessity and fear and the threats of some. And it is also another matter that does not please the ordinances of the Church, for some priests to present libelli of resignation. For if they are worthy to perform the sacred mysteries, let them remain in this; but if they are unworthy, they should not depart by means of a resignation, but rather should be condemned for deeds, of which one might make a great outcry, as having run outside of all due order. Greet the brotherhood that is with you; the one that is with us greets you in the Lord.

BALS. Also, the resignation of the bishop—of which this great Father wrote—was brought forward. He says, therefore, also concerning this, that the bishop says that he did not give the document of resignation of his own free will, but by necessity because of fear and the threats of certain persons. Then he adds that even otherwise, if we should think that he resigned of his own will, even this is invalid, as not being pleasing to the ordinances of the Church—that is, that priests should resign their churches. For if they are worthy, he says, to perform the sacred rites, let them remain in this, and let them not be accepted as resigning; and if they are unworthy, do not let them depart by means of a resignation, nor let them withdraw as those who are resigning, but rather as those condemned for ^D matters...

matters for which one might raise a great outcry, that is, matters worthy of such outcry, as they do not observe ecclesiastical accuracy and consistency; or else the phrase "for which one might raise a great outcry" shall be understood to be said rather concerning those who renounce their status.

TO THE SAME, TO THE BISHOPS IN LIBYA AND PENTAPOLIS.

Certain men who have recently married, and who have, as it were, just left the bridal chambers, seize upon some of the most God-beloved bishops, and, with no one to report the facts regarding them, are ordained as clerics, that is to say, as presbyters. Others, again, being cast out from these same monasteries as unruly and insolent, seek out ordinations once more; and, having become clerics, they enter into those very monasteries from which they were cast out, and wish to perform the offering and to do all things that are the custom for clerics, insomuch that some of those who know them avoid the synaxes and cannot bring themselves to communicate when those men are officiating. ^C Since, therefore, as I said, all things must be done by us for the edification of the people, let your piety observe these things: if any cleric is to be ordained, let inquiry be made into his life, whether he has a wife or not, and how and when he took her, and whether he is one of those who have been cast out by a most holy bishop or from a monastery; and only then let him ordain him, once he has been found blameless. For thus shall we keep both our own conscience pure, and the holy and venerable mystery blameless. But if any have endured separation, having been punished for faults, and then are about to die as catechumens, let them be baptized, lest they depart from human life without participation in grace, that is, lacking communion. For this also seems to adhere to the custom of the Church. Salute the brotherhood that is with you; the brotherhood that is with us salutes you in the Lord.

^D BALS. When the holy man speaks of "lacking communion" here, he is not speaking only of the holy participation—for they would not be deemed worthy of the divine mysteries before baptism—but

even speaks of baptism itself. For before he is baptized, he shall not attain to standing with the faithful; which also is described as communion in various canons. And therefore he added this too: "For it seems that this also adheres to the rites of the Church." For this, he says, is lawful and ecclesiastical, that catechumens or those upon whom a penalty is imposed should not stand with the faithful in the prayers.

OF SAINT GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN, FROM HIS METRICAL POEMS, ON WHICH BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT OUGHT TO BE READ.

But that your mind may not be led astray by alien books (For many falsely inscribed and spurious ones wander about), Take this certain number from me, friendly reader. Twelve books of the Old Covenant are all Historical. Genesis is the first book. Exodus next, Leviticus, Numbers, then the second laws. After these, Jesus, Judges, Ruth, and the double ^B Books of Kings. There follows the book that is called Paralipomenon. The last of all is Esdras. Five consist in meter: Job, David, three of Solomon, The Preacher (Ecclesiastes), the distinguished Songs, and the sacred Proverbs. Five again are books of the prophetic Spirit, in one Twelve seers are joined, whose names are: Oseas, Amos, and Michæas the third, then Joel, and Jonas, Abdias the sixth, and after him Naum, and Habbacuc the eighth. Then Sophonæus, Aggæus, then Zacharias, and the last of these, Malachias. One book comprises them all; Esaias is the second, Jeremias the third, Ezechiel the fourth, and Daniel in the fifth place. Hence it is given to number twenty-two books, Just as many as there are elements of the Hebrew tongue. Continue now to number the books of the New Covenant. Matthæus wrote Christ’s miracles for the Hebrews, Marcus for the Ausonians, Lucas for the Achæans, ^C Joannes for all, penetrating heavenly things with his mind. Then follow the renowned deeds of the apostolic class. Then twice seven Epistles, which by divine Power Paul wrote. There follows one of Jacob, And a double one of Peter, three again by the blessed author Joannes; and that of Judas is the seventh. These are All the genuine volumes of the divine page. Whatever is beyond these, is not to be lodged among the certain.

BALS. ^A That you may not allow your mind to be deceived by foreign books. For many are falsely inscribed; receive, O friend, this number from me, which has been tested, approved, and confirmed. There are indeed twelve books containing histories of the Old Scripture, and the books of Kings, even if they are four, are gathered and counted into two; and the twelve books of the enumerated prophets are, he says, reckoned as one. Four other prophets, each one, are reckoned as one. Furthermore, he wrote twenty-two books of the ancient or Old Testament, which correspond to the letters of the Hebrews, that is, they are equal in status and equal in number. For the preposition *anti* (against) is taken to mean "equal"; just as we say *antitechnon* (rival craftsman) to mean one who is of the same craft. And the elements among the Hebrews are said to be twenty-two. Having enumerated the books of the New Testament also, the saint added: that if anything is outside of these that have been enumerated, it is not considered genuine, but spurious. ^B

OF SAINT AMPHILOCHIUS THE BISHOP

FROM THE IAMBICS TO SELEUCUS ON THE SAME SUBJECT

But yet, it is most fitting for you to learn this: Not every book is secure, Which carries the venerable name of Scripture. For there are, there are sometimes pseudo-epigraphical Books; some are indirect, and neighbors, As one might say, to words of truth. But others again are spurious and very dangerous, Like counterfeit and base coins, Which carry the king's inscription on their face, But are fake, being alloyed with dross. On account of these, I will tell you of each Of the spirit-inspired books; and that you may learn clearly, I will first mention those of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch has Genesis, then Exodus, And Leviticus holds the middle book, After which are Numbers, then Deuteronomy. To these add Joshua, and the Judges. Then Ruth, and the four books of Kings, And the pair of Chronicles— Ezra follows immediately after them, the first and then the second. Next, I will tell you of the five books in verse; Job, around whose head many wrestling matches of sufferings are crowned, ^{C D} 180 and adding to these, Joshua; soon follow Judges, Ruth then, and the four books of Kings at once: To these add the two books of Chronicles: And the twin book of Ezra follows these immediately. Then you have the five books composed in verse, Job, around whose head many wrestling matches are entwined,

and the book of the Psalms, a soothing remedy for the soul, and again the three books of the wise Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. ^A To these, add the twelve prophets: Osee first, then Amos the second, Micheas, Joel, Abdias, and Jonas, the type of the three-day passion itself, and Nahum after them. Then Abacuc, and the ninth, Sophonias, and Aggaeus, and Zacharias, and the twice-named angel Malachias. After these prophets, learn who the four are: the intrepid herald, the great Isaias first, then the compassionate Jeremias, and the mystic Ezechiel—and lastly in place, Daniel, most wise in deeds and in words alike. ^B Some include the book of holy Esther with these.

Now it is time for me to speak of the books of the New Testament. Receive only four evangelists: Matthew, then Mark, to whom you add Luke third. Count John as fourth in time, but first in the height of his dogmas; for I rightly call him the son of Thunder, who resounded most greatly for the Word of God. Receive also the second book of Luke, which narrates at length the Acts of the Apostles. Next, add the vessel of election, the Apostle, who was ever the celebrated herald of the nations, and who wrote skillfully fourteen Epistles to the Christians: one to the citizens of Rome, ^C he wrote two to the citizens of two-sea-bordered Corinth, one he sent to the Galatians, and one to those dwelling in Ephesus; one to the Philippians, and then the one written to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, and one each to Titus and Philemon, and finally one to the Hebrews. Some say the one to the Hebrews is spurious, ^D not speaking well, for its grace is genuine.

Well then, what remains? Some say that there are seven Catholic Epistles, while others deny that more than three should be received: the one of James, one of Peter, and one of John. Others desire that three be received, and in addition to them, two of Peter, and as a seventh, that of Jude. Again, some assert that the book which reveals many mysteries of things should be inserted into the sacred Code; the greater part, however, says it is spurious. This would be the certain Canon of the inspired Scriptures.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF GENNADIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, AND OF THE HOLY SYNOD ASSEMBLED WITH HIM, TO ALL THE MOST HOLY METROPOLITANS AND TO THE POPE OF ROME.

^A To his most religious fellow-minister, N. Gennadius, and the holy synod which has been gathered in the God-beloved royal city of Constantinople.

Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, having entrusted the preaching of the Gospel to His holy disciples, and having sent them forth as teachers to men throughout the entire world, commanded them expressly that that which they had received from Him freely, they should also give freely to men, without acquiring for themselves by way of it copper, or silver, or gold, or any other property at all that is material or earthly. For there is no ratio by which heavenly and spiritual gifts may be exchanged for earthly and perishable ones. This commandment He gave not only to them, but also to us, through them, whom He has deigned to substitute in their rank and place. And it is necessary, just as they did then, for us also now to keep and observe it accurately, and not to use sophistic craft where it does not admit of sophistic devices, nor to cast a dangerous die. "Freely," He says, "you have received, ^B freely give; do not provide gold, nor silver, nor brass for your purses." The account of this commandment is simple and clear, having nothing varied, nor anything difficult to grasp, nor anything needing sophistic interpretation. "From Me," He says, "you have received the dignity of the priesthood. If, for it, you paid Me anything small or great, and this has been sold to you by Me, you also sell it to others. But if you have received it freely, you also give it freely." What is clearer than this commandment? And what is more profitable to those who obey? Woe in truth to those who imagine that they acquire the gift of God, or give it, for money. For into the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity ^C they are held fast by their own malice, according to the judgment of the holy Peter.

^A Hence also the canon concerning this, from the holy and blessed Fathers of the holy and great ecumenical synod gathered at Chalcedon, corresponds to this law of the Lord, which is clearly set forth for us in these very words:

• If any bishop should perform an ordination for money, and bring down to sale that grace which cannot be sold, and ordain for money a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other of those who are numbered among the clergy, or should appoint for money an oikonomos, or an ekdikos, or a paramonarios, or any at all of the clergy, for the sake of his own sordid gain: let him who attempts this, upon being convicted, be in peril of losing his own rank; and let the one who is ordained gain nothing from the ordination or promotion, which is in the guise of merchandise, but let him be foreign to the dignity or the office which he obtained for money. And if any one also appears as a broker or intercessor in these sordid and unlawful gains, if he be a cleric, let him be degraded from his own rank; but if he be a layman or a monk, let him be anathema. •

^B BALS. The precepts of this canon of the holy Fathers are most beautiful and very pious, casting off and cutting short every satanic invasion and diabolical attempt that is directed against the spiritual gift. For it does not wish the promotion of an ordination to be made or received for money in any way whatever, neither by him who performs it, nor by him who receives the promotion of the ordination; nor does it allow money to be given for the ordination either before the time of the ordination, or after the time of the ordination, or during the very time of the ordination; for it declares that the giving of bribes in this matter is in every way filthy and a corruption of gifts.

Since, however, although these things are so openly prohibited, some have been detected in the Church of the Galatians, out of sordid gain and avarice, neglecting and trans- ^C gressing these saving and humane precepts, it has seemed good to us also to renew these very things, together with the holy synod which is presently active in this reigning New Rome, so that, without any invention, and without any pretext or crafty device, we might utterly cut out this abominable and hateful custom which, I know not how, has crept into the most holy Churches; so that, when the declaration of those who are being ordained is made by the high priests in a pure manner and without any huckstering, the grace of the Holy Spirit may come down from above. For I know not whether to those who make their promotion through money, and who operate with a hand that is not pure, the grace of the Holy Spirit comes down, according to the voice of the Gospel, to the person being promoted, or whether it is not rather withdrawn.

Know therefore, O man most religious and in every respect most holy, that whoever is convicted of such a thing, whether bishop, or chorepiscopus, or visiting presbyter, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other person at all of the canon, or from the laity, ^D is condemned by common decree of the high priests and by common vote, just as the preceding canon of the holy Fathers also speaks concerning this. For it is necessary that grace be

the grace, and nowhere allow money to intervene. ^A Let him therefore be, and indeed he is, excommunicated and alienated from every priestly dignity and ministry, and subject to the curse of anathema, whether he be one who thinks to acquire it through money, or one who promises to provide it for money, whether he be a cleric or a layman, and whether he be convicted of doing so or not. For it is not possible that things which cannot be reconciled should ever be joined together, nor that Mammon should agree with God, or that those who serve the former should serve God. This is the Lord’s decision, which cannot be gainsaid: "You cannot serve God and Mammon."

Relying on these things to the best of our ability, and obeying them, together with the one who said these things, we have passed sentence against those who act unlawfully in these matters. ^B Let your holiness also take care, by exercising every precaution, to make these things known through transcribed copies to the most holy bishops under you, and to the, and to all others, so that in one spirit and one soul all of us Christians together, having fortified ourselves against the common enemy, may, with God’s help, be able to root out the root of avarice which has been planted in us by him, along with all the shoots of their evils. I greet all the brotherhood that is with you in Christ. Being strong in the Lord, pray for us, most holy brother.

To this epistle, together with Gennadius himself, ^C seventy-three others also subscribed.

FROM THE EPISTLE OF SAINT BASIL THE GREAT TO THE NICOPOLITANS

183 EX EPISTOLA MAGNI BASILII AD NICOPOLITANOS.

The epistle treats of sustaining and bearing temptations with a calm mind; then it adds: "What evil have we suffered? Unless perhaps this is a sad thing, that we have suffered nothing, nor have we been deemed worthy of sufferings for the sake of Christ. But if the fact that some person ^D holds the house of prayer, while you worship the Creator of heaven and earth under the open sky, causes you distress, consider that the eleven disciples were enclosed in an upper room, while they who crucified the Lord were performing the Jewish cult in the famous Temple. For Judas, who preferred to end his life by hanging rather than to live with disgrace, showed himself, perhaps, better than those of the present day who have hardened their faces against all condemnation by men and for this reason are shamelessly disposed toward all base things." Only do not be deceived by the false speeches of those who profess the correctness of the faith. For such people are hucksters of Christ, and not Christians, preferring that which is always useful to them in this life to living according to the truth. When they thought they could acquire this vain authority, they attached themselves to the enemies of God; when they saw the people aroused, they again pretend to hold the correct faith. I do not know if they are bishops, nor would I number among the priests one who has been promoted by profane hands to the oversight of this, for the dissolution of the faith. This

^A is my judgment. But as for you, if you have any share with us, then obviously you should think the same as we do. But if you are using your own counsel, each man is master of his own opinion. We are innocent of this blood.

EPISTLE OF TARASIUS

^B To our most holy and blessed brother and fellow-minister, Lord Adrian, Pope of Old Rome, Tarasius, by the mercy of God bishop of Constantinople, New Rome, sends greeting in the Lord. We are taught in many ways and by many methods, evangelically, apostolically, and paternally, etc. (You have this very long epistle in our volume XCVIII, col. 1441-1452.)

^D 185-188 BALS. This epistle is composed from Scriptural and canonical proofs, discussing how those who perform ordinations for money and sell the grace of the Holy Spirit sin more grievously than the enemies of the Holy Spirit. For the latter say that the Holy Spirit is a servant of God, but these men make Him their own servant for the sake of the sale. For a man sells what is his own. It also compares them to the traitor Judas, inasmuch as they dare to sell the Holy Spirit, who is consubstantial with Christ and our God. But you ought to know that the phrase, "Priests, speak to the heart of Jerusalem," is from the prophecy of ^C Isaiah; and that, "If the watchman sees the sword," and the rest, is from Ezekiel; and that, "We are pure from the blood of those"

are from the blood of those who transgress the canonical regulations, from the Acts of the Apostles, or from the great Paul’s ordinance to the presbyters of the Ephesians. ^A That “Simon Magus is to be condemned” refers to those who are ordained through money; it is taken from the 29th Apostolic Canon. That “Now the Lord says, ‘But I will glorify those who glorify me,’” is from the beginning of First Kings. That “What they have not received, neither do they have,” is from the First Epistle to the Corinthians. That “You have no part nor lot in this matter,” is from the Acts of the Apostles. That “A bishop must be blameless,” is from the First Epistle to Timothy. That “Let us hear all these things and give ear,” is from the Epistle to the Hebrews. That “We were redeemed not with corruptible things, silver or gold,” is from the first Catholic Epistle of Peter. That “Go up into the high mountain,” is from Isaiah and Hosea. That “The priests shall flourish like a palm tree,” is from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians; and that “The Lord has taken away your iniquities from you,” is from Sophonias. ^B

189-215 INTERROGATIONS OF CERTAIN MONKS WHO WERE EXERCISING THEMSELVES OUTSIDE THE CITY; AND THE RESPONSES MADE TO THEM BY THE HOLY SYNOD IN CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE DAYS OF THE MOST HOLY PATRIARCH NICHOLAS, WHILE THE RENOWNED EMPEROR, LORD ALEXIUS COMNENUS, WAS REIGNING; UPON WHICH ALSO INTERPRETATIONS WERE PRONOUNCED BY THE PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, THEODORE BALSAMON.

^C INTERROGATION I. Is it fitting for a monk to enter into the holy sanctuary? For the 33rd canon of the holy synod [in Trullo] prohibits this, which also does not allow any monk who has not received the tonsure/character to read or sing from the ambo. Likewise also the 15th canon of the synod in Laodicea, and the 14th canon of the second synod in Nicaea.

RESP. To perform the office of a reader without ordination, just as if the monk were a lector, is prohibited.

But as for entering the altar to light tapers or candles, I do not think that a monk who is held back by no crime should be prohibited, on account of the honor of the monastic habit.

^A INTERPRET. Since the holy synod responded correctly and in accordance with the tradition of the divine canons to the question, some have said that it is not clearly distinguished that monks who have not received the character of a reader should not read from the ambo; however, that anyone clothed in the monastic habit should enter the altar will not be accepted without distinction. But since the 69th canon of the synod in Trullo decrees that the holy altar is inaccessible to laymen, if someone has been deemed worthy of the monastic habit and has also attained to tonsure, he shall enter the holy altar without any hindrance. ^B But if, for the sake of probation according to the canons, he has put on monastic garments, which he is permitted to lay aside within three years, he shall not enter the holy altar for any reason, as one who has not yet been admitted into the order of monks, but is still a layman. But it seems to me that no one who has put on sacred garments in any way should be able to cast them off and treat them with mockery. For he ought not to be probated in monastic vestments, but in the habit of a layman; and therefore, for all who are clothed in the sacred garment, there will be access to the holy altar without any prejudice, as those who cannot come into the place of laymen. Read also what we have written on the 7th canon of the 6th synod.

INTERROGATION II

^C INTERPRET. The venerable response briefly dissolves many contradictions. ^D For it said that since bending the knee on the Sabbath was not expressly prohibited by the holy Fathers, as fasting is prohibited, he who bends the knee shall not be considered to be opposing ecclesiastical traditions, and much more so if he does this for the sake of spiritual exercise. But since the Sabbaths have been almost entirely equated by the holy Fathers to the Lord's Days, and those who fast on them are punished, neither will he who does not bend the knee be prejudiced; for it states a certain legal precept in this way: Not everything that is not prohibited is permitted.

INTERROGATION III

INTERPRET. Concerning this fast, it was once inquired before our powerful and holy lord and emperor, in the presence of that most holy patriarch

^A Luke and the bishops who were with him. Some said that we are not obliged to fast because of the variation indicated in the response. Others, on the contrary, argued that since the holy synod states without any doubt that a fast existed at this time, but that it was moved, and since it is not declared where and how the translation took place, we ought necessarily to fast. The patriarch and the bishops pronounced that the August fast is inexcusable, and for the confirmation of their argument they also made use of the tome of union, in which it is said that those married three times are to be participants of the sacraments three times in the year, namely at Easter, at the feast of the Dormition of the most holy Theotokos, and at the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ: this is because a fast preceded these days, and because of the benefit of it. As some were doubting even then, because the quantity of days of such a fast is nowhere to be found prescribed, the same most holy patriarch said that since the days of this fast and that which is before the birth of Christ are not declared by any writing, we are compelled to follow the unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, and we ought to fast from the first day of the month of August and from the fourteenth day of the month of November. But if we are compelled to break the fast on account of bodily infirmity, by ^B episcopal permission the days declared in August shall be shortened; for this also has been approved by unwritten ecclesiastical tradition. And these things were said at that time. But I, having afterwards considered whence and how these two fasts were delivered—namely, those of the Dormition of the holy Theotokos and of the Nativity of our Lord and God Jesus Christ—and also the fast performed before the feast of the holy Apostles, and the fast before the Transfiguration, and whether we are necessarily obliged to fast during these and for how many days, I say that the fast of these four feasts is indeed inexcusable; but its quantity is not the same for everyone, as it is in the Great Quadragesima. Rather, for seven days before each of these feasts, all the faithful—that is to say, both the laity and the monks—are obliged to fast inexcusably, and those who do not do so will be removed ^C from the communion of orthodox Christians. But the monks who by the constitutions of their own foundations are compelled to fast longer—that is, from the feast of All Saints and from the fourteenth day of the month of November—will be compelled even against their will to follow the statutes of their foundations, since this is canonical and salutary; just as the laymen who fast in this way of their own accord will be held worthy of thanksgiving. Since, however, we have confirmed the causes of all these things, God favoring us, by the divine sentences of the Scriptures and by doctrines, and in the Epistle which we wrote to the most venerable monk, the lord Theodosius Sarpiotes, who is enclosed on the hill of Saint Auxentius, read it. It is not placed here, because it is prolix. The same epistle, with nothing at all changed, was written also to the clergy and the others who are in the great throne of Antioch. ^D

^A INTERROGATION IV. Whether one who is possessed by a demon ought to communicate of the holy things; for the holy Timothy, in the questions proposed to him, spoke otherwise, and the holy apostles otherwise, and later ones otherwise.

RESP. If someone is disturbed by black bile, so that he appears to be possessed, he shall not be hindered; but if he is in truth possessed, he shall by no means be deemed worthy of the holy things; for there is no fellowship of light with darkness.

INTERPRETATION. It seems to me that the holy Timothy has allowed the participation of the divine sacraments even to him who is a demoniac by intervals, at the time when he is of sound mind, and especially if, at the time when he is stirred by fury, he does not blaspheme against the holy things. For just as one who is vexed by a more melancholic humor, if he does not know the grace of the sacraments, nay, and what is greater, blasphemes, shall not be permitted to partake, lest the divine things be insulted thereby; so also he who is mad by intervals, if he is worthy, and does not blaspheme against the divine mysteries during the time of his madness, shall not be hindered from partaking of them at the time when he is sober. But in the final breaths, I think all ought to be deemed worthy of the divine and holy viaticum; for even holy Timothy decrees that these should be baptized at that time, if they have not been baptized before.

^B INTERROGATION V. Whether the priest ought to eat the things offered in the Church, such as the offerings and the liquids, without distinction, and as he pleases; and whether he ought to eat these as common bread; and if many such things have been collected, what ought to be done with them?

RESP. The fragments of the exalted oblation by no means [are to be treated so], but they must be eaten in the church alone, until they consume them all; but what remains of the others, not with milk, and cheese, and eggs, and fish, but separately and by themselves.

INTERPRETATION. ^C Consistently with the 7th canon of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, which is set in his allocution on the holy Theophany, and which expressly defines these things: "Let the clergy distribute the things offered for the purpose of the sacrifice after those things which are consumed for the use of the holy things, and let neither a catechumen eat or drink of these, but rather the clergy and the faithful brethren who are with them," the holy synod answered. But the canon indeed does not define concerning the fragments which remain from the holy exalted bread and the rest, nor did it command how one ought to use them. The response, however, divided their consumption into two. But the holy synod indeed answered concerning the offered wine; ^D Theophilus, however, decreed that this also, in like manner to the breads, should be consumed; and rightly, as I think. For the wine is not exalted, but only sanctified.

Read the 72nd canon of the holy apostles, and the 7th and 8th canons of the Council of Ancyra. Observe, moreover, what is contained in the present response, and mourn to see how the consumption of the exalted offerings is neglected by almost all priests; for most of them even eat them with meats and profane them in other ways. ^A

INTERROGATION VI.

RESP. He ought to tell the superior the reason why he is harmed; and if there is clear danger from this, he should withdraw from that place and pay no heed to the bond.

INTERPRET. The third canon of the First and Second Council held in the Church of the Holy Apostles decrees that a monastery superior who does not diligently seek his runaway monk shall be excommunicated; and the fourth canon of the same council excommunicates a monk who departs without a just cause, and him who receives him. Whence the holy synod also replied that not inconsiderately, and because of the offense that has appeared to him, is it lawful for any monk to depart from the monastery where he was tonsured; but he must inform the ^B superior of this, and if he does not obtain a correction, he may depart from the monastery and pay no regard to the bond of his superior. Take "pay no regard to the bond" to mean that he should not fear any danger befalling him because he departed before the bond was loosened; it does not mean that he may absolve himself on his own authority. For he will be compelled to go to the bishop of the region and be absolved from the bond, either when the one who imposed it is present, or even in his absence, after he has been summoned and has not appeared.

INTERROGATION VII.

RESP. The bond lacks reason, and for this reason is invalid; and the bound person will be absolved by approaching the bishop and explaining his case.

INTERPRET. The 32nd canon of the holy apostles says that one who has been excommunicated by a bishop is not to be received by another, except by him who excommunicated him, unless by chance the one who excommunicated him should die. Therefore, according to the summary of this, the holy synod replied that the irrational bond of a deceased superior is to be loosened by the bishop of the region, and by him alone. For it is not permitted for the ^D bishop of another region to loosen the bonds of a superior who is not subject to him. And an unjust excommunication shall be loosened in this way. Moreover, regarding him...

^A who has been censured for a matter that cannot be done, or for a cause that is manifestly unjust and uncanonical, this must be examined. Consult the tenth decree of the fifth chapter, title 1, book VI of the *Basilica*.

INTERROGATION VIII

INTERPRET. The twenty-seventh canon of Saint Basil says that a priest who has contracted an illicit marriage unknowingly should be deemed worthy of the chair alone because of his ignorance, but he does not permit him to bless others. The ninth canon of the Council of Neocaesarea says these things expressly: "If a presbyter should have sinned with his body before he was promoted, and confesses that he sinned before his ordination, he shall not offer, but he shall remain in his other duties because of his otherwise good conduct." And the 79th Novel of the Emperor Lord Leo the Wise decrees that whoever is joined to a woman after ordination shall indeed be deposed, but he shall not be entirely condemned to alienation from the habit of the clergy and other ministry in the churches, which is ^B not illicit to touch. ^C It seems to me, therefore, that these things can be reconciled based on the difference of ecclesiastical operation. And those who are thus not permitted to function shall be deprived of the things that pertain to priests through entry into the holy altar, but they shall not be deprived of functions that pertain to clerics who are outside the sanctuary.

INTERROGATION IX

INTERPRET. Ecclesiastical blessings are all things which are done or given by bishops or priests ^D in the churches for the prayers and strengthening of the faithful people. Therefore, let each one, according to the proportion of his own fall, be deprived of the ecclesiastical blessing.

INTERROGATION X

INTERROGATION XI

has destroyed many. Therefore, those who are in the knowledge of the good and yet fall because of this, let them be corrected.

^A INTERPRET. These two responses are clear. We see, however, that very many who hear the confessions of men govern themselves according to that canon. Pray, therefore, that this salutary response may be properly carried out. We see in act that those who are prohibited from participating in the divine sacraments do not receive the fragment of the exalted bread. I believe, however, that women, even if they have been prohibited from communicating in the holy things, will not be prevented from receiving the fragment of the exalted bread. For in various canons, the holy Basil says that women who have lapsed, and on account of this are held under the penalty of ecclesiastical excommunication, are indeed to be alienated from the holy participation, but are not to be removed from the ecclesiastical assembly—just as with the men—so that they may not be held in bad repute and on that account be made a spectacle. ^B If, therefore, the fragment of the exalted bread should not be given to them while they are attending church, the evil for which they are deemed unworthy of the holy participation would be immediately recognized; which the Saint does not want.

CANONICAL QUESTIONS OF THE MOST HOLY PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA, DOMINICUS MARCUS, AND THE RESPONSES TO THEM BY THE MOST HOLY PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, DOMINUS THEODORE BALSAMON

(From Leunclavius, *Jus Græco-Romanum*)

^A The seer of God and prophet Moses says: "Ask your father, and he shall tell you; your elders, and they shall inform you." Now, the most holy Patriarch of Alexandria, our beloved brother and fellow-minister of our mediocrity, Lord Marcus—being a Father of Fathers by the grace of God, and an elder of elders, and thus having this elegant prophetic word directed to him amidst the many ecclesiastical questions with which he struggled—took up another prophecy from that same lyre of the Spirit, saying: "Behold, what is good or what is pleasant but for brothers to dwell together in unity?" Therefore, like a psalter—an instrument requiring musical care—he set forth a written question and handed it over to our mediocrity; and he requested that the canonical problems and inquiries contained therein be discussed in common and that this little book be elegantly written out by way of a fraternal response. The writing composed by his holiness therefore expresses these things precisely:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Questions which Christians, who dwell in the land of the Saracens and under their dominion, desire to have answered; asked by Marcus, the least among the patriarchs of Alexandria, in the days of the reign of our most pious and Christ-loving emperor, Lord Isaac Angelus, and in the time of the most holy and oecumenical patriarch, Lord George, whose ^B

^A years may God increase to a great length of days. In the month of February, of the 15th indiction, in the year after the incarnation of our Lord, and God, and Savior Jesus Christ, 1205.

RESPONSES TO THE INTERROGATIONS OF MARK

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

Res. The great apostle Paul, that orator and teacher of the holy Churches of God, writing to the Corinthians, says: "Brethren, I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. I, 10). We say, therefore, that we have not been taught either by holy Scripture or by any canon published by a synod ^B that a rite of divine service was handed down by the holy apostle Mark. Only the 32nd canon of the holy and oecumenical synod gathered in the Trullo of the great palace says that the mystical sacrifice was composed by the holy James, the brother of the Lord. However, the 85th canon of the holy and all-praised Apostles, and the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea, while enumerating the books of the Old and New Testaments and the apostolic books themselves which ought to be in use among us, make no mention at all of the sacrifice of Saint James or Saint Mark. Nor does the catholic Church of the most holy and oecumenical throne of Constantinople recognize these liturgies in any way. We pronounce, therefore, that they are not to be received. For even if they were composed by them, they are ordered to be excluded from all use, just as many other things are. And this is evident from the 85th canon of the holy and all-praised Apostles, and from the 2nd canon of the holy and oecumenical synod gathered in the Trullo of the great palace. For the former—the apostolic, that is—ordains that the two epistles of Clement and the constitutions ^C of the eight books of his may indeed be read, but not made public, because of the mysteries hidden within them; the latter, however, wills that they not even be read, because many things—spurious and alien to piety—have been interpolated into them by heretics. For this reason, all the Churches of God should follow the custom of New Rome, that is to say, of Constantinople, and celebrate the divine services according to the traditions of the great teachers and luminaries of piety, Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil. For the 41st chapter of the 1st title of the 2nd book of the Basilika says: "Regarding those matters for which no written law exists, the custom which Rome uses must be observed." ^D

Inter. 2. Various books are found in the eastern and southern regions; some are named "Precepts of the Holy Apostles," others, "the Visions of Saint Paul." I ask, therefore, are we to read them?

^A

Res. Since our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ says in the Gospels, "Take heed that no man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and the time draweth near," we also proclaim that the Church of God knows and confesses the books indicated in the 85th Apostolic Canon, and believes them to be the voices of the heralds of God; and besides these it knows no other Apostolic commentary. It must be observed, therefore, that we should turn away from the falsehoods fabricated by the heretics. For they are more bitter than wormwood, even if they present a honeyed cake through the inscription of the names of the holy Apostles.

Inter. 3. The sixty chapters of the *Basilica* have not reached our regions; therefore, as far as they are concerned, we walk in darkness. We ask, therefore, whether we are condemned on this account.

Res. "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are in the law," according to the great Apostle. Those, therefore, who boast of an orthodox life, whether they be from the East, or from the region of the Alexandrians, or elsewhere, are called Romans and are compelled to live according to the laws; yet they are not bound by the law which says, "A Roman man must not be ignorant of the law." For only those who dwell in Rome—the royal city, that is, which is fortified with similar ramparts and abounds in many jurisconsults—are held by their iron shackles. And so, if these allege that they are ignorant of the law, they do not obtain pardon, ^B even if they are manual laborers, or some among them are itinerant peddlers, and illiterate; for they can learn the purport of the laws from their fellow citizens. But those who spend their time outside Rome—the country folk, that is, and the rest, and much more so the Alexandrians—deserve pardon if they are ignorant of the civil law. It is good, therefore, that these too should inquire and learn the legal precepts; but if it is difficult, they shall be deemed worthy of pardon.

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

Res. The Mosaic law says, "Thou shalt not lend thy money at interest to thy brother"; but the civil law recognizes centesimal and triental interest. For it ordains that senators receive triental interest, namely, four *nomismata* for every pound. But common merchants and the rest, half-centesimal interest, namely, six *nomismata* for every pound. And those who contract maritime loans, twelve *nomismata* for every pound. But as for how interest is called "centesimal" when the quantity of the pound does not amount to one hundred *solidi*, but to seventy-two, this is not the time to speak, lest the incidental become the work itself. And these things apply to the laity. But for the clergy, lending at interest is entirely forbidden. For he says ^{C D}

^A by name the 44th canon of the holy Apostles: "If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon exacts usury from those to whom he has lent, let him either cease or be deposed." And the 17th canon of the holy and ecumenical First Synod sets forth these things: "Since many, who are enrolled among the clergy, pursuing greed and base gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says: 'He has not given his silver to usury;' and they exact interest as they lend, the holy and great Synod has deemed it just that if anyone be found after this statute to take usury in lending, or otherwise pursue the matter, or demand one-and-a-half times the principal, or devise any other thing for the sake of base gain, he shall be deposed from the clergy and be alienated from the canon." The 4th canon of the Synod of Laodicea says the same things, and others besides.

Inter. 5. Is it without danger for orthodox Syrians, Armenians, and also believers from other regions to celebrate the sacred rites in their own language, or are they entirely compelled to function in the priesthood with Greek scripture?

Res. The great apostle Paul, writing to the Romans, says: "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." Those, therefore, who are orthodox in all respects, even if they are entirely devoid of the Greek language, shall perform the sacred rites in their own dialect, having copies of the customary holy prayers that are undeviating, as being transcribed from the contacia elegantly written in Greek characters.

Inter. 6. Someone has betrothed a woman to himself, and he died before he was blessed with her, as is the custom, and before he was united with her: may his brother marry her with impunity, or not?

Res. ^C That which is good is not good, unless it is well done. If, therefore, the betrothal, that is, the pledge, was completed according to the stipulation of the novel constitution of the illustrious emperor, lord Alexios Komnenos, with the performance of the customary holy prayers, the woman being twelve years old and the man having completed his fourteenth year, his brother shall not take her as his wife. For an engagement thus completed is in all respects matched to a lawful marriage. But if, according to the prevailing custom which (as we have learned) obtains in almost all parts of the South and the East, he had in another manner pledged the survivor while he was dying: his own brother may lawfully be united to her.

Inter. 7. ^D Will one, who after the death of the woman betrothed to him, has taken another wife, be deemed worthy of the diaconal or priestly degree without prejudice, or will he be prevented as a bigamist?

Res. If, indeed, he had betrothed the deceased fiancée according to the form of the aforementioned novel, then having been joined to another woman after her death, he shall not be deemed worthy of any degree of the altar. For he is reckoned a bigamist. But if [the betrothal was made] outside the scope of that [novel]...

^A proceeding, he shall be ordained without hindrance, as one not reckoned a bigamist.

Interrogation 8. If a priest is tonsured, shall it be permitted to him to sacrifice after the tonsure, or not?

Res. Since the second canon of the holy and ecumenical synod gathered in the most holy throne of Constantinople pronounces these things specifically: "Even if until now some of the high priests, to the monastic habit descending, ^B strove to remain in the status of the high priesthood,"—but this holy and ecumenical synod, correcting also this negligence, and reducing this disorderly action to ecclesiastical regulations, decreed that if any bishop or any other of the pontifical dignity should wish to descend to the monastic life and to fulfill a place of repentance, he shall no longer usurp the dignity of a high priest. For the professions of monks have the purpose of subjection and of learning, but not of teaching and presidency; nor do they profess to shepherd others, but to be shepherded. Therefore, as has been said before, we decree that no one who is enrolled in the catalogue of high priests and shepherds shall lower himself to the place of those who are shepherded and who are doing penance. And if any one shall dare to do this after the proclamation and declaration of this present judgment, he who has deprived himself of the episcopal grade ^C shall no longer return to the former dignity which he despised by his deeds. But it is understood that before the promulgation of this [decree], not only those of the sanctuary—namely, subdeacons, deacons, and priests—but even the high priests themselves [were allowed] to sacrifice after the tonsure. Since, therefore, the high priests were, with canonical gravity, alienated from the priesthood, because after the tonsure they came to the place of disciples and penitents, and thence became alienated from the teaching dignity, the priests and simply those of the sanctuary shall necessarily perform the rights pertaining to their grades without hindrance even after the tonsure. For even before the tonsure, likewise, and after it, they were and are disciples and subject.

Interrogation 9. If a layman has had a nocturnal emission, does he deserve on that same day the participation ^D of the divine sanctifications, or not? And if a priest has suffered the same, shall he perform the sacred rites on that very same day of the vision, or not?

Res. The high priest who offers (says the holy Scripture) gifts and sacrifices, is taken from among men, and just as he offers for the people to God, so also [he does] for himself; for the weight of carnal infirmity lies heavily upon him too. But also through Moses, the Lord said, "Let the clean approach the clean." But he who has a blemish in his soul shall not enter under my veil, and shall not draw near to my altar. Whence also three most holy patriarchs of the throne of Alexandria—the holy Dionysius, namely, writing back to the bishop Basilides, and the great Athanasius, prescribing a rule for a certain monk named Amoun, and the holy Timothy—answering those who questioned them regarding such a matter...

have consistently set forth the things concerning laymen according to these divine Scriptures. For the response of the holy Dionysius says: "If he is subjected to the desire of a woman, he ought not [to partake]; but if Satan is tempting him, so that by this pretext he might alienate him from the communion of the sacraments, he ought to partake." For the tempter will not cease at that time to lay snares for him. Therefore, we also, while defining these same things for laymen, do not determine that the same rule holds for bishops, deacons, and priests who have experienced a fantasy through mere satanic ^A assault; rather, we decree that the performance of the sacred ritual is to be withheld from them only on the day of the nocturnal emission, on account of the reverence due to the priesthood. Unless, perhaps, the postponement is dangerous, or because of the solemnity of the day, or the utility of the matter. For at night the snare of the tempter might be broken, yet the power of the sacred ^B liturgy would be exalted.

Question 10. Whether one who has been carnally united with his legitimate wife should be considered worthy of the participation of the holy things on that same day, or not?

Response. The herald of God, Paul, the great doctor of the Church, says: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. XI, 28). And again: "Do not deprive," he says, "each other, except by consent, for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer" (1 Cor. VII, 5), when they are about to approach the holy communion. And David and those with him, ^C seeking to eat of the showbread, were first questioned by the high priest as to whether they were clean from the bed of a woman. But also in the Mosaic book of Exodus these things are explicitly instituted: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, testify unto this people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow. And let them wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down upon mount Sinai, in the sight of all the people." And again: "Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified them; and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, Be ready against the third day, and do not approach a woman." The most holy patriarch of ^D Alexandria, Timothy, being asked about this, said: "Couples who have been carnally united ought not to be deemed worthy of the participation of the divine sanctifications on that very day of their carnal union." Therefore, we, following these definitions, say that the perception of the holy things is not to be granted to couples on the day on which they were carnally united. We add, moreover, that since the same great Timothy, when asked on what day of the week couples ought to abstain, answered: "On the Sabbath and the Lord's Day, because on these the spiritual sacrifice is more especially offered to the Lord," therefore, couples must of necessity be separated from mutual communion on the day that they partake of the divine sanctifications, not only before the ministration itself, but also after it. And we desire that what is...

done wrongly, and contrary to the divine ordinances and teachings concerning the bringing of the bride to the bridegroom, be corrected. For after they have been joined in the holy rite and have been deemed worthy of the divine sanctifications, those who have enjoyed the delights of marriage hasten to carnal union, not reflecting upon the power of the holy rite, and the contempt of the sanctifications. Therefore, couples must, on the day they are to partake of the divine sanctifications, keep themselves continent without excuse, not only before the participation in these, but also after the participation. And if they do not do this, they will be subjected to more severe penalties.

Question 11. If a priest bathes, is he able to perform the liturgy on the same day? And may a layman, after having gone to a bath, be permitted to partake of the mysteries on the same day? And on the contrary, after the priest has performed the sacrifice, or the layman has been deemed worthy of the divine sanctifications, may he bathe, or undergo bloodletting, or not?

Answer. Galen, the most learned among physicians, says that the bath, the sun, and the gymnasium excite to motion the excrements which were previously at rest. Therefore, none of those things about which you asked should be done. For the incisions of the veins also reveal the vices and properties of these, according to the teachings of Hippocrates: sometimes producing dispersal, and sometimes rather constriction. Why, then, should we attach a perhaps expected evil to the saving participation in the sanctifications, and overshadow the light of our salvation with sloth? ^C Since a just reason compels those who perform the sacrifice, both before and after the sacrifice, to kneel before God with all compunction and reverence, and to give thanks for the participation in the Lord’s body and blood, and not to indulge in softness and sprinklings of warm water. But if a deadly disease urgently requires bloodletting, it shall be performed for the sake of the life of the sick person.

Question 12. If someone vomits after holy communion, by what tradition shall he be corrected?

Answer. He who keeps ^D the holy things in a holy manner shall be purified and sanctified; but he who betrays the grace shall be defiled. If, therefore, someone who has partaken of the divine sanctifications has fallen into vomiting through gluttony, he shall be corrected with more severe penalties; but if it has occurred through the affliction of a sickness that has chanced upon him, he shall be corrected more moderately according to the discretion of the bishop. For this is a work of abandonment.

Question 13. Will one perform the liturgy, or administer divine baptisms without danger on a ship or in a house not consecrated?

Answer. God indeed said through Moses to Israel: In Jerusalem and in no other place shall you celebrate the feast.

^A From this, clearly implying the complete cessation of the Jewish Pascha because of the singularity of the place. However, the canon of the holy and ecumenical synod assembled in the Trullo of the Great Palace, and the 84th canon of the synod of Carthage, subject to deposition him who performs divine baptism in an oratory. For they decree that baptisms ought to take place in catholic churches. But also both the canon of the synod in the Trullo, and the 12th canon of the synod assembled in the Church of the Holy Apostles, ordain that even in oratories baptisms may be performed with the permission of the bishop. The illustrious Emperor, the lord Leo the Philosopher, seeing the orthodox faith flourishing like a vine, and growing like the shoots of olive trees around the table of his churches, defined in his 4th and 15th Novella that not only in catholic churches, but also in oratories, sacred ministries and baptisms should be performed without distinction. Therefore, according to the import of these, he who celebrates, or baptizes, with an antimensium in an oratory—not having been consecrated through initiatory dedications, and the solemn inauguration of the throne, and furthermore through the deposition of holy relics (for these are the treasures and elevations of the catholic churches), but in a private house set aside for the prayer of the faithful, or in the small cabin of some ship dedicated to God and adorned with holy icons—shall not be prejudiced as if he were a transgressor of the canons and indifferent. For so, too, the clergy who are in the retinue of the Emperors are considered to perform the sacred rites in desert plains under a silken tent ^B which is considered an oratory.

Interrogation 14. Will someone perform the sacred rites or vows without danger together with heretics, namely Jacobites and Nestorians, in their church or even in ours, or shall he share a common table with them, or act as a godfather in the holy baptism, or perform commemorations for the dead, or distribute the divine sanctifications to them? For the narrowness of the place causes many such things. I ask what is to be done.

Answer. Do not give what is holy to the dogs (the Lord and our God has said), nor store up pearls before swine. For this reason, the 64th canon of the heralds of God, the holy Apostles, says: If any cleric or layman enters into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deposed and excommunicated. And the 33rd canon of the synod of Laodicea, and also the 6th and 34th, say these things regarding the permissibility granted to heretics remaining in their heresy to enter the house of God: that it is not fitting to pray together with a heretic or a schismatic; that it is not fitting for a Christian to abandon the martyrs of Christ and depart to false martyrs—that is, heretics, or those who have previously become the aforementioned heretics. For these are alien to God. Therefore, let those who go to them be anathema. And for this reason ^{C D}

^A we decree that not only should laymen and clergy who pray together in the church of the orthodox or of heretics, or wherever they pray together with them in a priestly manner, or even eat together, be subjected to excommunication and deposition, but also that they should be punished more severely, according to the import of the aforementioned divine canons. For the narrowness of places and the multitude of heretics do not change the integrity of the orthodox faith.

Inter. 15. Latin captives and others come to our catholic churches and request to become partakers of the divine sanctifications: I wish to know if this is to be granted to them.

Res. "He who is not with me is against me," says the divine Gospel, "and he who does not gather with me, scatters." Since, therefore, many years ago the renowned assembly of the Western Church (I mean Rome) was divided from the spiritual communion of the other four holy patriarchs, and strayed toward customs and dogmas alien to the Catholic Church and to the ^B orthodox: for this reason, neither is the Pope held worthy to be mentioned in the divine sacrifices in the common recitation of the patriarchal names, nor ought the Latin race to be sanctified by priestly hand through the divine and immaculate mysteries, unless he first renounces abstaining from Latin dogmas and customs, and is instructed according to the canons, and is made equal to the orthodox.

Inter. 16. Is the participation in the divine sanctifications discretionary for all monks, clergy, and laymen who are not prohibited, so that they may be sanctified by it almost daily? Or is the gift weighed as if by a balance? And among those who gather for the congregation, is the participation in the good necessary, or is it discretionary and voluntary?

Res. As it has been legally established that honors are to be given to the worthy, so also are holy things to the saints. Whoever, therefore, has smoothed for themselves the way to divine participation through the integrity of their life will be received without impediment. For surely they will not approach it ^C as some ordinary thing, if they consider the height of grace and the greatness of the mystery.

But it is not pleasing that anyone should be forced to receive the divine sanctifications. For even if some people, using the apostolic ninth canon—which says, "All the faithful who enter and hear the Scriptures, but do not remain for the prayer and the holy communion, as those who bring confusion into the Church, ought to be excommunicated"—wish to compel those who gather in church even against their will to receive the divine sanctifications, we do not interpret the canon in this way. For the faithful [must] ^D attend until the end of the divine sacrifice, and

the final prayer of the one officiating, and the participation of the antidoron, we decree; and against those who do not do so, we brandish the indignation of the canon. We do not, however, ^A compel them to participate, on account of the torment of conscience. One must attend, therefore, according to the summary of the aforementioned canon, that those who are assembled for church do not withdraw from the divine service in a disorderly fashion; but since this [service] is magnified with one identity from both the Old Testament and the New, and until the proclamation of the holy Gospels, the psalmodic songs of the Davidic lyre celebrate the power of the mystery: after this, the entrance to the unbloody sacrifice is opened, allowing the high priests to lay aside the omophorion, which was fashioned in the figure of the lamb, and to handle the mystery of the true and life-giving Lamb. If those assembled for church withdraw of their own accord immediately after the holy Gospels, they shall not be blamed; but if [they withdraw] after the beginning of the unbloody and mystical sacrifice, they shall be justly excommunicated as disorderly persons and scandal-mongers. ^B

Question 17. Must the deacons who concelebrate with the high priest or with the priest receive communion without excuse, or not?

Answer. The 8th canon of the holy apostles says thus: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any [member] of the clerical catalogue, when an oblation is being made, does not communicate, let him state the cause. And if it be reasonable, let him obtain pardon. But if he does not state it, let him be excommunicated, as one who has become a cause of harm to the people, and who has given suspicion against the one who offered, as though he had not offered properly. It must be observed, therefore, that subdeacons and deacons, and more so those who have touched the sacred things, should receive the divine sanctifications; or indeed let them state the reason for which they abstained from this good. For if they do not do this, they will be excommunicated ^C according to the summary of the aforementioned canon.

Question 18. Is it without danger for the distribution and reception of the divine sanctifications to be done with cold wine and water; or is it non-negotiable that boiling water be put into the holy things at the time of participation?

Answer. Since the 32nd canon of the holy and ecumenical synod, gathered in the Trullo of the great palace, subjects to deposition those who do not complete the divine and holy cup with wine and water, some heretics do not allow boiling [water] to be poured into the holy and divine cup, on the grounds (they say) that the matters concerning this were not comprehended in the canon. But they should hear that the boiling [water] added to the holy blood does not alter the union of the water and wine of the holy cup, since it is nothing other than water. It is poured in, however, so that ^D it may be established that these are life-giving—those [things] which flowed from the holy side of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, at the time of his saving passion, namely the blood and the water, which flowed out boiling as if from a life-giving deified body. Those who do not do so, therefore,

^A and do not magnify the magnitude of the miracle, but perform the participation in the divine mysteries with cold water and wine, do not believe that even after the saving death of the Lord, the Godhead remains in His holy body, but that it departed from it and that it is like our own bodies. Which is a piece of babbling of a great heresy. For the great John Damascene among the saints says: "In the tomb bodily; in hell, however, with the soul, as God; in paradise, moreover, with the thief; and on the throne, O Christ, You were with the Father and the Spirit; filling all things, You who are uncircumscribed." Those, therefore, who do not perfect the divine chalice with boiling water, as heretics, shall be cast out from the portion of the orthodox.

Interrogation 19. May a secular priest rightly receive the confessions of certain men with the permission of the bishop, or not?

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

Interrogation 20. Do monks pass without prejudice from the monasteries where they were tonsured to other monasteries, or not?

Response. If he who has deposited his own confession before a man is compelled to fulfill it, how can he who has deposited it before God be compelled to invalidate his own deposit? Therefore, also according to the fourth canon of the holy and ecumenical synod gathered in the temple of the holy apostles, styled the first and second, which explicitly pronounces these things: "If any monk, fleeing from his own monastery, shall pass into another, or shall petulantly enter into a secular dwelling, likewise also he who receives him ^C shall be excommunicated, until he who fled returns to the monastery from which he wrongly departed." If, however, the bishop wishes to transfer certain monks, having testimony of piety and honesty of life, to another monastery for the settling of the monastery, or to establish them in a secular house for the salvation of the inhabitants, or if it pleases him that they preside elsewhere, he makes neither the receivers nor the monks guilty of blame. Those, therefore, who pass without episcopal permission into other monasteries from those where they were tonsured, and much more those dwelling in secular houses, and those who receive them, shall be ^D excommunicated and cut off until they return to the monasteries in which they have given their pledges.

^A Interrogation 21. Is it permitted for someone to be ordained as a cleric in different churches, or not?

Res. The Lord said in the Gospels: "No one can serve two masters; for he will either hate the one and love the other, or he will be loyal to the one and despise the other" (Matt. 6:24). Whence the 15th canon of the holy and ecumenical 7th Council sets this forth word for word: "From this time forth, let not a cleric be enrolled in two churches; for this is characteristic of trafficking and base profit-seeking, and is alien to ecclesiastical custom." For we have heard from the Lord's own holy voice that no one can serve two masters; for he will either hate the one and love the other, or he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. Everyone, therefore, according to the apostolic word, "in whatever state he was called, in that let him abide" (1 Cor. 7:20), and reside in one Church. For those things that are done for the sake of base profit in ecclesiastical affairs are alien to God. But for the needs of this life, there are various professions. From these, therefore, if anyone desires, let him procure the things necessary for the body. For the Apostle said: "These hands have provided for my needs, and for those who were with me" (Acts 20:34). It must be observed, therefore, that this divine canon be preserved inviolate; for there has been great contempt for it.

Interrogation 22. An ancient custom has prevailed in the region of the Alexandrians, that deceased priests and high priests are anointed with holy myrrh and thus buried; and we seek to learn if this is done without prejudice, for there has been much contempt for it.

Res. It is an evangelical command that those who have believed be baptized once in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For this reason also, the 47th canon of the holy Apostles says these things: "If a bishop or presbyter baptizes again one who truly has had baptism, or if he does not baptize one who has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, as mocking the cross and death of the Lord, and not distinguishing priests from false priests." And the canon of the Council of Carthage sets this forth: "If any cleric is ordained, he ought to be admonished to observe the decrees; and that the Eucharist should not be given to the bodies of the deceased, nor baptism." Those, therefore, who anoint with myrrh the deceased priests and high priests, or any others, and bury them in this way, are worthy of great punishment, either as condemning the orthodox by whom they were baptized, or as not having full assurance that these were participants with the orthodox, and condemning them before the judgment.

^C Interrogation 23. Would a maimed or one-eyed person be considered worthy of the priestly rank? Or if one is mutilated after the priesthood, shall he continue to perform the sacred rites after the affliction, or not?

Res. We have said elsewhere that such persons are not to be promoted to the priesthood, in accordance with the Mosaic law. But the 78th canon of the holy and all-praised Apostles says this: "If any man be maimed in an eye or ^D crippled in a leg, but is otherwise worthy of the episcopate, let him become one. For it is not the bodily blemish...

^A that defiles him, but the defilement of the soul." And the same canon of the same holy Apostles speaks thus: "He who is deaf and blind, let him not become a bishop; not as one defiled, but lest ecclesiastical matters be hindered." Therefore, those who are prevented by the infirmity of certain diseases from performing the rights of the priestly ranks shall not be deemed worthy of ordination. But those who, after ordination, have suffered such things miserably are not prevented by the disease from performing holy rites, and even though they are in such a state of infirmity, they shall perform holy rites without hindrance. For it has seemed good to the heralds of God that no one should be prohibited from the performance of holy rites on account of a bodily blemish. But if the urgency of the disease hinders the priesthood, the sick person shall cease from activity, yet he shall not be alienated from his rank; but rather he shall be pitied, and he shall enjoy his former honor, and he shall also have those things which suffice to sustain life, and the rest, according to former custom.

Inter. 24. May a priest or deacon without danger become a money-changer, or a merchant, or a physician, or an astrologer, or not?

Res. The canon of the holy and all-praised Apostles says this: "Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon not undertake worldly cares; otherwise, let him be deposed. For no man can serve two masters." And the 81st canon says: "We have said that it is not fitting for a bishop or presbyter to commit himself to public administrations, but to be occupied with ecclesiastical needs. For no man can serve two masters," according to the Dominical word. ^B Let him therefore be persuaded either not to do this, or let him be deposed. And the 4th canon of the Synod of Carthage defines that those who are consecrated must not procure their sustenance from an infamous or shameful business. And the 10th canon of the same synod defines that clerics must be ready for the instruction of children and the reading of the Scriptures, and not be occupied with worldly and temporal cares.

There is also an order of the renowned emperor, the lord Manuel Comnenus, issued in the month of November, indiction 15, upon the suggestion of certain money-changing clerics, insinuated into the secretariat of the domestics in the month of November, indiction 15, and ^C commanding these things expressly: "To whomever such bankers' shops have come by purchase, my majesty gives the power of transferring them to any honest and Roman person who may be found. For it is not lawful for you, since you are consecrated, to practice such a craft, because you cannot be coerced by suitable correction if you do anything beyond the prefectural definition, since you are consecrated. Whoever among you, therefore, have acquired these by purchase, as has been said, let them bring forward worthy persons to the prefect, both so that he may admit them, and so that he may [appoint] bankers for them gratuitously and without the customary fee... ^D

or payment of any kind. However, the 36th canon of the synod in Laodicea says this: “It does not behoove those who are holy or clerics to be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or astrologers, or to make the so-called amulets, which are indeed the shackles of their souls; and those who wear such things we have commanded to be cast out of the Church.” And chapter 22 of title 20 of Book 60 of the *Basilica* sets these things forth: “Geometry is indeed taught publicly, but the mathematical art is condemned.” And the Vetus says: “’Mathematical’ signifies astronomy.” Therefore, if clerics, and much more those who serve the altar, should dare to undertake the performance of public services, or manage the duty and administration of corporations, having perhaps become money-changers, or sellers of provisions, or sellers of wine, and even they themselves the astronomers, they shall give a pledge that they will refrain from these illicit arts; but if they do not obey, they shall be subjected to deposition.

Moreover, the art of medicine, although it is defined by the philosophers as the conciliator of health, does not necessarily achieve this. For the counsels of men are fallacious, and the judgments of the many are perverse, according to the ancient proverb. Why, therefore, should a cleric, and much more a priest and a deacon, depart from the irreprehensible and secure ministry assigned to him, and cast himself into what is slippery and ambiguous, and often even dangerous? ^B

Interrogation 25.

Res. “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of heaven,” says the holy Gospel. Therefore, according to the 14th canon of the holy and ecumenical synod at Nicaea (which sets forth these things word for word: “Concerning the catechumens and those who have fallen, it has seemed good to the holy and great synod that for three years they should only be hearers, and after this pray with the catechumens”), it is sufficient for the one who has so ^C shamefully fallen, and who is tossed now hither and now thither, if he is received according to the tenor of the canon; for he shall not be deemed worthy of the priesthood.

Interrogation 26.

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

^A have written explicitly and elegantly in their 7th canon regarding these matters: "Those who have once been enrolled in the clergy, and monks, we have decreed shall not enter military service nor accept a secular dignity; but if they dare to do so, and do not repent so as to return to that which they had previously chosen for God's sake, let them be anathema." Also, the 83rd canon of the holy Apostles states these things: "Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who occupies himself with military service, and wishes to retain both—that is, the Roman authority and the priestly ministry—be deposed. For the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God." Therefore, what has been defined in such canons will henceforth be applied to monks and others who conduct themselves well in the same manner.

Inter. 27. A married couple, perhaps by mutual consent and for the sake of their soul’s advantage and pleasure, have chosen the monastic life. But because they are again living in the same house, using the same provisions and the same table, I seek to learn what is to be done in these matters.

Res. The divine canons of the holy and ecumenical synod which gathered in the temple of the holy Apostles, known as the First and Second, define that tonsures in monasteries must be performed in such a way that they cannot be shirked, and the agreements of those who are tonsured must be received by sureties. Therefore, whoever does not live in the monasteries ^B in which they changed their habit and were tonsured, but in worldly lodgings, shall be compelled by the bishop of the diocese, under pain of excommunication and the harshest penalties, to return properly whence they departed improperly.

Inter. 28. High priests who ordain deacons or priests, and also those who sanctify children of the orthodox or even certain heretics through the divine bath; likewise those who administer divine sanctifications to some people—do they act rightly if they demand certain monetary sums from them as a reward for their labor, or not?

Res. The Apostle says, "Soldiers are not supported at their own expense." And through Moses, God said, "You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain." If, therefore, through some moderate offering ^C and by the free will of the one being ordained or otherwise sanctified, the priests and high priests who ordain or baptize seek to receive some comfort, they do no evil. For it has been established by custom that those who ordain should receive comfort. But if they do not seek such customary gifts, but rather demand greater gifts, such as might constrain the means of the one being ordained, they shall not only not be heard, but they shall also be subject to deposition. For the 2nd canon of the holy and ecumenical synod says: "If any bishop shall perform an ordination for money, and shall bring the unsellable grace down to a sale, and shall ordain for money a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any other of those who are numbered among the clergy, or shall promote for money an oeconomus, or an advocatus [defensor], or a paramonarius, ^D

^A or any person whatsoever from the canon, for the sake of base gain, let him who has attempted this, being convicted, be in danger regarding his own rank; and let him who is ordained, be helped nothing by the ordination or promotion which is sold like merchandise, but let him be estranged from the dignity or office which he obtained for money. But if any person should appear acting as a mediator and intercessor for such base and illicit gains, this one also, if he be a cleric, let him fall from his own rank; but if he be a layman or even a monk, let him be anathematized. And the 23rd canon of the holy and ecumenical synod gathered in the Trullo of the great palace follows these things: That no one, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, ^B while offering the immaculate communion, should exact from him who communicates, for the sake of such participation, an obol, or any species whatsoever. For grace is not for sale, nor do we impart the sanctification of the Spirit for money; but it must be imparted without cunning to those who are worthy of the gift. But if any of those who are numbered in the clergy should appear exacting any species whatsoever from one to whom he is imparting the immaculate communion, let him be deposed, as an emulator of the error and malice of Simon.

Interrogation 29. Those who approach the orthodox faith through true knowledge, namely Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, and other heretics, ought they to be initiated only by the holy chrism, or also by the divine bath [baptism]?

Resp. Canon 95 ^C of the synod in Trullo, following the 7th canon of the holy and ecumenical 2nd synod, contains these things word for word: Those who approach orthodoxy and the portion of the saved from heretics, we receive according to the subjoined sequence and custom. We receive the Arians, indeed, and the Macedonians, and the Novatians, who call themselves pure [Cathari], and those who are on the left, and the Tessaresdecatitæ, that is, the Tetraditæ, or even the Apollinarists, giving libelli and anathematizing every heresy which does not think as the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God thinks, being sealed, that is, anointed first with the holy chrism—the forehead, and the eyes, and the nostrils, and the mouth, and the ears. And sealing them, we say, "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit." ^D But regarding those who have followed the Paulianist sect, and then have fled to the catholic Church, a decree has been set forth that they should be all entirely rebaptized. We receive the Eunomians, however, who are baptized into one immersion, and the Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who hold the doctrine of the Son-Father [huiopatorian], and do other grievous things; and all other heresies, since there are many here, especially those springing from the region of the Galatians—all those from them who wish to join themselves to orthodoxy, we receive as Greeks [pagans]. And on the first day we make them Christians, and on the second, catechumens, then on the third, we adjure them, at the same time also breathing three times into the face and ears, and thus we initiate them, and [cause them] to spend a long time in the church

and to listen to the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. Furthermore, it is necessary that the Manichaeans, and the Valentinians, and the Marcionites, and those of similar heresies, ^A be required to produce libelli (written statements) and to anathematize their heresy, and Nestorius, and Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and Severus, and the rest of the leaders of such heresies, and those who hold their views, and all arising heresies, and thus become participants in holy communion. According to the summary of such a canon, then, some of the heretics are sanctified by baptism, while others are perfected by the holy chrism alone.

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

Res. The 68th canon of the holy apostles determines that those who come from a pagan life to the orthodox faith and are baptized may even be deemed worthy of episcopal dignity. Therefore, since the former priesthood is considered sacrilegious and as if it had not happened, if he who has thus become orthodox, having been at one time a profane priest, is judged with canonical precision and has shown himself to be blameless in his subsequent life, he may be deemed worthy not only of priestly ^B rank, but also of episcopal rank, being promoted through the completely customary degrees to the height of the teaching office.

Inter. 31. If the wife and children of a heretic who has come to the faith of the orthodox, or even his other relatives and domestics, do not become orthodox but cling to their former heresy, will he who has been initiated, as we have said, through baptism, be prohibited from ascending to a priestly or episcopal grade; or will he be deprived of such a good because of their malice?

Res. The 46th canon of the Council of Carthage says that a bishop, presbyter, and deacon are not to be ordained before they have made all those in their house orthodox Christians. However, the 72nd canon of the holy and ecumenical Council in Trullo defines these matters in this part explicitly: "But if any who are still unbelievers, and not yet added to the flock of the orthodox, have been joined to one another in lawful marriage, and then one of them, having chosen what is good, has run to the light of the truth, while the other is held fast by the bond of error, not wishing to fix their eyes upon the divine rays, and the unbeliever ^C is content to cohabit with the believer, let them not be separated, according to the divine Apostle. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, or the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband." The apparent contradiction, therefore, between these two ^D canons is canonically resolved.

^A answering canonically, we say that he who, being orthodox from birth, has been united with a heretical woman, is not to be deemed worthy of being enrolled in the clergy, unless he also makes all the members of his household orthodox Christians; for he is also separated from ecclesiastical communion, as one who has entangled the lot of a sinner with the portion of Christ. But he who was a heretic from his swaddling clothes, if he chooses the orthodox faith, justly, unless some other cause prevents it, should be counted worthy of priestly ordination. For what do you know, says the great Apostle, if you, O believer, might lead an unbelieving spouse to the faith? Therefore, he who has come to the orthodox faith from the superstition of heretics may rightly be deemed worthy of priestly rank, according to the canons, even if his wife and children do not become orthodox.

^B Interr. 32. Are the receiving of children by Latins, Armenians, Monothelites, Nestorians, and others of that kind performed without prejudice, or is it rather a thing worthy of hatred and to be abhorred?

Resp. Thema 2, cap. 10, tit. 1, lib. 1 of the Basilika says: He is a heretic, and is subject to the laws concerning heretics, who deviates even a little from the orthodox faith. Since, therefore, all those who have been enumerated in the present question have strayed from the Church of the Orthodox, not by a small distance, but by a great and impassable span, they certainly will not share with us the grace of receiving spiritual children, which is mediated by holy prayers and many sanctifications, lest we also be condemned with excommunication, according to the canon which says, "He who communicates with one excommunicated is himself excommunicated."

^C Interr. 33. Orthodox women are joined, perhaps by marriage, with Saracens or with heretics, and they wish, as [though] thinking rightly of the faith, as they steadfastly maintain, to partake of the divine sanctifications; we ask, therefore, to learn what is to be done.

Resp. The 70th canon of the Council in Trullo says these things: It is not permitted for an orthodox man to be joined to a heretical woman, nor for an orthodox woman to be coupled to a heretical man. But if anything of this kind should appear to have been done by any of all [people], the marriage is to be considered void, and the unlawful cohabitation is to be dissolved. For things that are not to be mixed ^D should not be mixed, nor should the wolf be coupled with the sheep, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ. And if anyone transgresses what has been decreed by us, let him be excommunicated. Therefore, how could she, who because of this unlawful communion with a heretic has been cast out and excommunicated, be considered worthy of the divine sanctifications? In no way at all, unless she turns away from the evil and is set right by canonical corrections.

Interr. 34. Certain superiors of women's monasteries seek episcopal permission to receive the confessions of the nuns subject to them. We ask, therefore, if it is possible for this to happen.

VARIÆ LECTIONES.

^A Resp. We have said elsewhere that it is permitted only to priests, with episcopal permission, to receive confessions. If, therefore, a non-ordained superior cannot do this even with episcopal permission, it will be allowed to a female superior much less, even if her virtue shines brighter than the sun.

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

Resp. In times past, the orders of deaconesses were recognized by the canons, and they even had a rank at the altar; but the impurity of menstruation expelled their ministry from the divine and holy altar. However, in the most holy Church of the throne of the Constantinopolitans, deaconesses are appointed, not having any communion at the altar, but in many things having a gathering, and ecclesiastically directing the assembly of women. ^B

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

Resp. Both canons and various laws forbid those who are ordained to be joined to women after their ordination. But since such a canonical decree was, it seems, being disregarded, the renowned and most wise Lord Leo among the emperors corrected the vice through a Novel decree. For his third Novel states these things expressly in part: We command that ordinations proceed according to the ancient and heaven-delivered custom of the Church. For it is not worthy that those who have been lifted up from bodily abasement by spiritual ascent should fall back again to the filth of the flesh; but conversely, it is more fitting that the divine ministry should ascend from the bodily filth as if to some higher grade. Wherefore, no one among those who serve the altar shall, after ordination, boldly be joined to a woman by the law of marriage. And if anyone does this, he shall be deposed. For it was permitted to him before ordination to do that which, after it, he has so evilly dared. ^C

Interr. 37. Is it permitted for those priests who are superiors, or protopapas, and for prelates, to be adorned with cuff-sleeves (epimanikia) and genuals (epigonation), or is it forbidden?

Resp. The most holy vesture of cuff-sleeves and genuals has been granted only to prelates, as they hold the image of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ; and from this source they also forgive the sins of men and do other greater things in imitation of Christ, which have not been given to priests. Wherefore, they shall not be deemed worthy of the vesture of cuff-sleeves or genuals. For the cuff-sleeves are a type of the fetters that were bound upon the hands of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ when he hastened to his voluntary ^D

^A passion. And the genual is a figure of the linen towel with which the Lord girded himself when he washed the feet of his disciples. Just, therefore, as the gifts of grace granted to patriarchs through vestments—the saccos, namely, and the polystaurion (for it is decreed that they be adorned by these, as being related to the remotest parts of the inhabited world)—are not given to any other bishop, so too shall the privileges granted to bishops not be given to priests; so that there may not arise a confusion of ecclesiastical privileges, and the creature say to the Creator, "I am equal to thee."

Interr. 38. By an ancient local custom, the remains of the orthodox are buried in the churches of our region. I ask, therefore, to learn if this is done without prejudice.

Resp. There is a great difference between churches consecrated through the initiatory dedications, the inauguration of a throne, the anointing of holy chrism, and the deposition of the holy relics of martyrs, and those which are not so sanctified and hold instead the place of an oratory. Therefore, in those churches where, evidently, the relics of martyrs have been enshrined and the anointing of holy chrism has occurred, no human corpse of any kind shall be buried, according to ^B chapter 2 of title 1 of book 5 of the Basilica, which says: "Let no one bury a dead person in a church." And according to the old rule lying outside it, which says: "It is not permitted to bury anyone in a church where, evidently, the body of a martyr is deposited." But in those called holy oratories, which are not consecrated in this way, the remains may be buried without risk.

Interr. 39. The inhabitants of certain parishes, rejecting the ordinations of their own archbishops, approach the bishops of other dioceses and receive ordination, as each one desires. I ask to learn if they do this safely.

Resp. The lectors, indeed, who have rejected the ordinations of their own bishops and have attained a higher degree in other provinces through episcopal imposition of hands, the canons subject to the penalty of excommunication; and not only them, but also those who ordained them, just as the matter is set forth by canon 54 of the synod of Carthage, which contains ^C these things word for word: "Clerics serving in a church, as we have already defined, are not permitted to be appointed in the church of another city, but are to be content with that in which they were first deemed worthy to minister; except for those who, having lost their own homelands, have moved to another church by necessity. But if any bishop, after this definition, receives a cleric belonging to another bishop, it has seemed good that he be excommunicated, both the one received and the one receiving, until the cleric who migrated returns to his own church." Regarding the laity, it was once debated before this holy synod of the Church of the Constantinopolitans, while the most holy among patriarchs and most wise lord Michael Anchialus was patriarch, and in the month of November, in the indiction

a synodal record was made, composed from various canons regarding the oblation; it also decreed that the layman who ordains someone from another diocese against the will of his bishop, and the person himself who has been ordained, should be punished. ^A

Interr. 40. Can deacons, against the will of their archdeacons, receive the priestly grace, or not? Resp. The providence for this matter has been granted to the bishops by the grace of the all-holy Spirit. Therefore, they shall be ordained [as] deacons with their consent, [with] the archdeacon [being present] only as a fellow-brother.

Interr. 41. Shall laymen who have contracted a second marriage, or another—namely, a third—be accepted as legitimate, or not? ^B Resp. The ancient law recognized even a third marriage as legitimate, and held those born from it to be heirs and under the authority of their parent. But the canons of the divine and holy Fathers not only do not recognize a third marriage, but also subject the second to a moderate penance. But because, during the reign of the most renowned sovereign, Lord Leo the Philosopher, a great schism occurred among the Churches of the whole world, because the sovereign not only contracted a third marriage but also a fourth, a synodal assembly was held of almost all the bishops of the dioceses everywhere, in the eighth indiction of the year 6428. And it was discussed which marriage contracts are to be avoided, and which are to be allowed as legitimate, during the reigns of the most renowned sovereign Constantine Porphyrogennetos and his father-in-law, Lord Romanos. After many altercations and an exact investigation, a synodal tome was elegantly written, confirmed also by the sovereign's customary signature, [stating] that the fourth marriage indeed is to be rejected and not permitted; but that the third is, at times, to be permitted, and at times not to be permitted. For it is decreed that those who have not yet completed their fortieth year, if they are twice-married and childless, may contract even a third marriage as a remedy for childlessness, ^C except that they are to be under censure for a full five-year period, so that they may not partake of the divine sanctifications. But after the five-year period, they may partake three times a year. And to those who are thirty years old, even if they have children, the power of a third marriage was granted on account of the infirmity of [that] age, provided that these too must be for four years deprived of the divine sanctifications; and after this is finished, they shall be participants in the divine sacraments three times in the year. But to those who have exceeded the fortieth year, the divine Fathers have proclaimed by oracle that a third marriage is in no way to be conceded. And this indeed is what this decision of the union defines. But the Church, in our own age, has not permitted a contract of third marriage. ^D

^A Interr. 42. Is participation in the divine sanctifications to be permitted to those living in concubinage, or not? Resp. Basil, the great among the high priests, in his various canons, does not give permission to those who are fornicating to partake of the divine sanctifications. But in his 80th canon, he determines that a fornicatress who has refrained from fornication should not partake of the divine sanctifications immediately, but after three years.

^B Interr. 43. Up to what degree is the spiritual kinship between godparents prohibited? Resp. The 54th canon of the holy and ecumenical synod, which was gathered in the Trullo of the great palace, forbids godparents to be joined in marriage with the mothers of the children received from the holy baptism, and, even after the cessation of the evil, subjects them to the penalty for those who are fornicating. But the last verse of chapter 5, title 28, of the 28th book of the *Basilika*, extends the punishment further. But because both the declared canon and the aforementioned law state that spiritual kinship is greater than physical union, a synodical notation was issued in the time of that most holy patriarch, Lord Nicholas, in the month of May, in the fifteenth indiction, upon the interrogation of that most honorable lord, Gregory Xeros, defining that the spiritual kinship which is contracted through spiritual parenthood is to be bound and explained by the same terms by which physical kinships are circumscribed.

^C Interr. 44. The region of the Alexandrians is populous and expanded by many myriads of generations, yet it is straitened for Orthodox Christians. We seek, therefore, to learn whether it is permitted to contract a marriage even within the sixth degree, due to the necessity of the matter. Resp. The divine and sacred canons and laws, being of one mind in all things regarding nuptial contracts, and having limited nuptial contracts by God-pleasing intervals and precepts, have in no way permitted these to be transgressed. But they have decreed that the nuptial bond is entirely prohibited among those in the ascending and descending lines, and they have legally narrowed the kinship among those from the transverse lines up to the seventh degree. But they have released the kinship through affinity, that is, spiritual parenthood, at the sixth degree. ^D Therefore, the Alexandrians must also contract marriages in this manner, and not put forward the scarcity of Orthodox Christians as a justification for sin. For a marriage contracted contrary to these rules shall be annulled, and those who have contracted it unlawfully shall be subjected to the penalties of adulterers. But since, by the decision of that most holy patriarch, Lord Sisinnios, two first cousins may not take two sisters, and this even though the contract is brought to the sixth degree of affinity, learn what is contained in it, lest, through forgetfulness, you act against the custom of the Church to the detriment of your soul.

VARIÆ LECTIONES. b extendi finibus

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

Resp. A master has the power to sell his own slave woman whom he has defiled, and to profit from her price. For that slave woman is then deemed worthy of freedom, having been defiled along with her master, when, up to his final breath, he has provided no sign of selling her. For the second chapter of the nineteenth title of the book says these things explicitly: "If someone has a slave woman in his own cohabitation, not having a wife, and remains with her until death, whether he has had children from her or not, and has said nothing about her in his own will, she becomes free."

*Interr. 47. If an orthodox man has had illicit intercourse with a Jewish or Agarene woman, shall he be corrected by penance, or shall he be rebaptized?*

Resp. ^B The forty-seventh canon of the holy and all-praised apostles says this: "If a bishop or presbyter baptizes again one who has true baptism, or if he does not baptize one who has been defiled by the impious, let him be deposed, as one who mocks the cross and death of the Lord, and does not distinguish priests from false priests." Perhaps, therefore, someone might say that the orthodox man who has had illicit intercourse with an impious woman has been defiled, and ought to be rebaptized. But this is not true. For he is defiled by the impious who, of his own will, washes away and strips off the divine and holy baptism and puts on the baptism of the impious. Therefore, by a more severe penance, according to episcopal discernment, he shall be corrected, both as a fornicator and as one who has become a participant in the satanic communion of the impious, but he shall not be rebaptized. ^C *Interr. 48. At what age should a man or woman be admitted to confession?*

Resp. The laws say that the sins of those who are under age are to be pardoned. Those under age are males who have completed their fourteenth year, and females, those of twelve years. Perhaps, therefore, someone might say that after the twelfth and fourteenth year of their age they ought to declare their sins, inasmuch as they are subject to the judgment of transgressions, and have become capable of fornication and of the effects of other certain sins. But we, from experience itself, and also from what has been pronounced synodically at various times for the sake of such matters, advise that after the sixth year both males and females ought to be corrected through confession and sanctified. Because even a certain cleric, who through written pledges betrothed a seven-year-old wife, and after her death was joined to another ^D woman, did not obtain synodical permission to attain canonical ordination, as being a bigamist. For the holy synod in Constantinople said that a seven-year-old woman is capable of love, [VARIE LECTIONES. c stupri consuetudinem habuerit. d stupri consuetudinem habet.]

^A a fact from which she suffers corruption and is caught by the reasonings of fornication. And if these things are rightly philosophized concerning a woman, they will be decreed much more concerning a man.

Interr. 49. If spouses be carnally joined on the evening of the Lord’s first day, will they be punished as transgressors of the law, or not? Resp. It has been said above that spouses ought to abstain from carnal intercourse on Saturday and Sunday, because on those days the spiritual sacrifice is offered to the Lord; just as the great among the saints, Timothy, Patriarch of Alexandria, replied to those who questioned him concerning this. Those, therefore, who do not practice continence on these days, how will they then, by mutual consent (as the great Apostle has said), attend to prayer and supplication to God? Absolutely not at all. Wherefore, those who have sinned in this way shall be corrected through moderate penances.

Interr. 50. If spouses do not practice continence during the forty days of the fast, will they be deemed worthy of the communion of the divine sanctifications on the world-saving feast of the great Pascha, or not? Resp. If we are taught not even to eat fish, nor simply to break our fast throughout the whole of the holy Forty Days, and on every Wednesday and Friday, much more will they be compelled to abstain from carnal intercourse. ^B Spouses, therefore, who have transgressed in this way, and have exchanged into a satanic incontinence that saving repentance which comes from fasting and from liberation from carnal desires (as if the circuit of the whole year did not suffice them for the fulfillment of their carnal desires), shall not be deemed worthy of the divine and holy communion on the feast of the holy and great Pascha; but they shall also be corrected by penances.

Interr. 51. Is it safe to go to the bath on the Lord's day and wash in warm baths, or not? Resp. That the faithful ought to abstain from every work on the Lord's day is what the divine Fathers have taught, and the 54th Novel of the emperor lord Leo the Wise has justly decreed; for it says in part: ^C We also decree, according to that which pleased the Holy Spirit and the apostles instructed by Him, that all should refrain from labor on the day that is holy and on which our integrity was restored; and neither the farmer nor any other man should take up any disallowed work on this day. For if the ancients, honoring the shadows and the types, held the day of the Sabbath in such honor that they abstained from all work whatsoever, how is it fitting that those whom grace and the truth possess as servants – that they should not honor the day which the Lord has enriched with honor, and which delivered us from the corruption ^D and...

^A indignity? Or how is it not utterly unconscionable, there being seven days, of which one is raised to the honor of the Lord, that we are not content with those which have been set aside for work, and to keep that one inalienable for the Lord; but that this one also should be made common, and considered a time for our own labors? Therefore we too say: since every activity of merchants, and indeed of farmers themselves, has ceased, as has been said, and all are compelled to occupy themselves in the churches, and to glorify God all the more on this day named for the Lord, because on it we the faithful have seen the Sun of righteousness shine forth—neither, therefore, shall those who operate the furnaces of the baths, and the baths themselves, and other such things, provide service for these, nor shall any faithful person be ^B held worthy of pardon who abstains from prayer and withdraws from the much-celebrated glorifications and teachings of the Lord’s day, and clings to and busies himself with hot water; but he shall be corrected by epiphanies of discipline according to episcopal discernment.

Interr. 52. Is one who breaks the fast with meat, cheese, and egg on the Wednesdays and Fridays of the whole year worthy of pardon, or not?

Resp. The sixty-ninth canon of the holy Apostles says: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or cantor, does not fast during the holy Quadragesima of Pascha, or the Wednesday, or the Friday, let him be deposed; unless he be hindered by bodily infirmity. If he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. Whoever, therefore, breaks the fast on Wednesdays and Fridays without bodily infirmity is punished according to the summary of this kind ^C of canon. But when one is forced by infirmity to break the fast, he shall moderate the severity of the ailment with fish or oil. For to touch meat, or cheese, or egg is not to be permitted, even if one be breathing one's last, neither in the great Quadragesima, nor on any Wednesday or Friday whatsoever; for it suffices for him who is under necessity and ought to honor the Wednesdays and Fridays through dry-eating, to soften the illness through oil and fish. Except for me the Wednesdays and Fridays of Apokreo, of Tyrophagos, of Diakinesimos, and of the Dodekahemeron. For on these we break the fast even with meat without danger; because during the Dodekahemeron the Armenians fast on account of Artziburion; during the week of the first Apokreo, on account of the Ninevites; and during the week of Tyrophagos, the heretical Tetradites observe ^D a great fast. We, therefore, doing the opposite of these, break the fast, so that we may not seem to be of the same mind as them. However, this also happens when one dwells among Tetradites or Armenians. For if one lives in a region where there is no such person, he shall merely taste meat or cheese, and will dispel the suspicion through self-restraint, not through gluttony.

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

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

Resp. The holy synod in Constantinople, in the days of that most holy patriarch..., being asked whether one ought to perform the fast of the month of August, responded that this fast had been moved so that it might not coincide with pagan fasts which occur at that same time. Many people, however, still observe this fast. But we, having considered the matters pertaining to this, maintain that fasts necessarily precede these four feasts: namely, the feast of the holy Apostles, the Nativity of Christ, the Transfiguration of Christ and our God, and the Falling Asleep of the holy Theotokos, but only for seven days. ^B For there is only one forty-day fast, that of the holy and great Pascha. If, however, anyone fasts for more than seven days around the feast of the holy Apostles and the feast of the Nativity of Christ, whether voluntarily or driven by a foundation's rule, he shall not be blamed. Furthermore, how and why we ought to fast for seven days before each of these four feasts is declared in the synodal decree made by us concerning this. Therefore, those who do not fast before each of these four feasts, according to what is absolutely mandatory, shall be corrected by great penalties.

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

Resp. Strictly speaking, self-restraint is fasting, because it is called a "killer of passions," not a "killer of men." If, therefore, those who live in self-restraint find they need a second meal for the sustenance of the body, they will suffer no prejudice. For they will not dishonor the whole-day self-restraint ^C by evening intemperance. But if they do this, they will be punished.

Interr. 55. In expectation of the resurrection from the dead of the righteous Lazarus, and on the feast of the holy Forty Martyrs, may one celebrate the perfect sacrifice safely, or not? Likewise, is it permitted to baptize, or to perform wedding blessings and betrothal ceremonies during the whole holy Quadragesima, or not?

Resp. The fifty-second canon of the holy and ^D ecumenical synod held in the Palace, says this: In all the days of the [index: entries preserved]

holy Quadragesima of the fasts, except for Saturday and Sunday, and the holy day of the Annunciation, let the sacred ministry of the presanctified take place. And the forty-ninth canon of the synod in Laodicea sets forth these things, ^A that one ought not to offer bread in the Quadragesima, unless on Saturday and Sunday only. And the fiftieth canon of the same synod says that one ought not to celebrate the birthdays of martyrs in the Quadragesima, but to perform the commemorations of the holy martyrs on Saturdays and Sundays. And the fifty-first says that one ought not to celebrate weddings or birthdays in the Quadragesima. The next canon of the same synod provides that one ought not to be admitted to illumination after two weeks of the Quadragesima. Those, therefore, who act contrary to the scope of these things by performing baptisms or nuptial benedictions throughout the whole holy and great Quadragesima, or by celebrating the perfect sacrifice, except for the Sabbath, Sunday, and the Annunciation alone, act unjustly, and will be corrected by ^B heavy penalties, as having committed faults which deserve no pardon. However, it has been canonized that baptisms are to take place on Great Saturday. But if the end of life presses for the initiation of divine baptism, the laver shall be exhibited even on another day of the Quadragesima; for the mystery of death helps even those who are extremely punished and condemned to perpetual excommunication toward the participation of the holy mysteries.

Interr. 56. May the ordinations of sub-deacons, deacons, priests, and pontiffs be performed without danger during the holy and great Quadragesima, or not?

Resp. It has been canonized (as we said above) that no perfect sacrifice should be performed throughout the whole forty-day fast, except for the Sabbaths and Sundays alone, and the feast of the Annunciation. Therefore ^C on these days, when the mystical and perfected sacrifice is performed, ordinations may be performed without any transgression; but on the other fasting days, when no perfect sacrifice is performed, neither will any ordination of the clergy take place, and much less will an episcopal ordination be performed. For an ordination is a time of public assembly and of the glorification of God, bestowing spiritual dignities upon those who are worthy.

Interr. 57. By whom shall the items of any kind that are offered by some in the holy Churches of God, or even provisions, be received and managed? And what ^D and of what kind are those things that are canonically given annually to priests and pontiffs?

Resp. The golden and silver vessels and furnishings which are offered to God, are without a master, even if they are offered to God through the bishops; but the foods and drinks which, according to custom, are brought to the church in the commemorations of the saints and for [the repose of] the souls of the departed, and those [given] for the sake of spiritual distributions, to the cler...

clerics and to the strangers received into hospitality and to other brothers oppressed by poverty, it has been canonically decreed that they be given to the bishops, and be distributed by them according to their discernment. For the third canon of the holy apostles states these things expressly: If any bishop or presbyter, beyond the ordinance of the Lord concerning the sacrifice, brings other things to the altar, either honey, or milk, or instead of wine a manufactured strong drink, or birds, or any animals, or legumes, beyond the ordinance, let him be deposed; except for new legumes at the appropriate season. And let it not be permitted that any other thing be offered at the altar, except for oil for the light, and incense at the time of the holy oblation. But all other produce should be sent home, that it may be firstfruits for the bishop and the presbyters, but not to the altar. It is clear, however, that the bishop and the presbyters will distribute [these] to the deacons and the other clerics. And the 7th and 8th canons of the synod of Gangra prescribe these things: If any one wishes to receive or to give the fruits offered to the church, beyond the opinion of the bishop, or of him to whom the care of such things has been entrusted, and does not wish to act with his judgment, let him be anathema. And the 72nd apostolic canon says these things: If any cleric or layman takes away wax or oil from the holy church, let him be excommunicated. And the 73rd canon says: Let no one convert a sacred gold or silver vessel or a veil to his own use; for it is illegal. And if any one is caught, let him be punished with excommunication. And the 10th canon of the holy ecumenical synod assembled in the church of the Holy Apostles subjects those who contaminate the sacred things of the sanctuary to deposition; but those who convert sacred vessels existing outside the sanctuary to profane use, it excommunicates; and those who plunder them, it condemns as sacrilegious persons. ^B And the great Cyril in the letter written to Domnus says these things: Each one of us will render accounts of his own times to the Judge of all. For it is right that treasures of vessels and immovable possessions be preserved inalienable for the churches, but that those who for [their] time fulfill the divine priesthood should have the administration of the expenditures entrusted to be dispensed with confidence. Look also at book 54, title 3, chapter 2. Concerning the amount, however, which must be given for the canonical [dues] by the laity, the canons indeed define nothing, but the command of that memorable emperor, the lord Isaac Comnenus, outlines many things which are to be given to the bishops by the laypeople who have established their seats in their dioceses. ^C And since the irregularity of affairs and [their] scarcity have obscured the description of these things (for not even one-thousandth part of them does anyone give to the bishop), we are content with custom and the free choice of those who give. ^D

^A Interrogation 58. An Orthodox man, having been captured by the Hagarenes and having been forced to abjure the Orthodox faith and been circumcised, laments his uncleanness almost without ceasing, and joins the Orthodox in secret, and calls upon salvation. But since he also wishes to participate in the holy things, we ask what ought to be done.

Response. The crowns belong to those who struggle, and our Lord and God Jesus Christ says: "Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven." Therefore, how could one foolishly receive an unclean vessel for the reception of the ointment, because it was stained by an alienation of the mind? For this reason, he who repents in this way and wishes to change into a good change will be worthy of episcopal consolation and other spiritual discourse; but he will not be held worthy of the holy sacraments. For he must first wash away the defilement of his impiety, and thus be received; and after the prescribed time, he will become a participant in the holy communion also.

Interrogation 59. A crowd of villagers presents to me one who seems to them worthy of episcopal or priestly dignity; and they ask that he be proclaimed and ordained bishop, or priest, or deacon without refusal. I seek, therefore, to know whether we are obliged to follow the voices of the crowds.

Response. In times past, the ordinations of bishops and of the rest of those initiated into sacred offices took place through the election of the multitude and of those who ruled at the same time. But the thirteenth canon of the synod in Laodicea and the third canon of the holy and ecumenical seventh synod have alienated such ordinations from the ecclesiastical order. For the former says that the crowds are not to be permitted to make the elections of those about to be established in the priesthood; and the latter expounds these things: "Let any election that takes place by the rulers, for a bishop, or priest, or deacon, remain invalid," according to the canon which says: "If any bishop, having used secular rulers, obtains a church through them, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all those who communicate with him." For it is necessary that he who is to be advanced to the episcopate be elected by bishops, just as it was decreed by the holy Fathers at Nicaea, in the canon which says: "It is fitting that a bishop be established, most of all, by all those who are in the province; but if this is difficult, either because of urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, then three ^D at least must gather in the same place, with those who are absent also casting their vote and agreeing through letters, and then perform the ordination. But the confirmation of what is done is to be given to the metropolitan of each province."

Interrogation 60. Will children born from second marriages, and those born of slave women and concubines, be judged worthy of the priesthood, or not?

Response. The children of second marriages, for no reason

^A are forbidden to be ordained. For the synodal decision made in the time of the emperor Lord Constantine Porphyrogennetos made second marriages equal to first ones in all respects. Therefore, they are also lawful heirs to their father. But also those born of slave women, and those granted freedom, and likewise those born of concubines, shall not be forbidden to be ordained. For their mothers fell under the penalties for those committing fornication, but they themselves sinned nothing, and for this reason, they are not subject to penalties. Therefore, just like other men who have sinned nothing, they too shall be judged worthy of priestly honor according to the canons.

Interr. 61. A reader, having received authority from a prior ^B to manage monastic properties, wishes to take precedence over the priests and other clerics there, and in the holy sacrifices to have his commemoration made after the superior or prior. I ask, therefore, to learn if he rightfully contends for this.

Resp. Order governs things heavenly and things earthly. And so our Lord Jesus Christ, restraining the vanity of vainglory, said, "When you are invited to a wedding by someone, do not recline in the place of the first seat, but recline in the last place, so that you may hear from him who invited you: 'Friend, come up higher.' And thus there will be much glory for you." The reader, therefore, who wishes to sit before the priests and to be commemorated after the superior opposes the Dominical precepts. But if, as you narrate, the reader is traveling in a region ^C acting in the place of the superior, he contends without danger, or rather meritoriously, to sit and be commemorated before the priests, as one holding the place of him who entrusted the duty to him. And this is shown from the seventh canon of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod, assembled in Trullo of the great palace, which treats these matters in part: "We have learned that in some of the Churches, some deacons, having used arrogance and license, dare to sit before presbyters; we determine that a deacon, even if he be in a rank, that is, in any ecclesiastical office, must not sit before a presbyter, except if, acting as the representative of his own patriarch or metropolitan, he is present in another city on some matter ^D. For then, as filling his place, he shall be honored."

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

Resp. He who is ignorant of the fact, whatever he may be, is excused by the laws; but he who is ignorant of the law does not obtain pardon. Since, however, by the Novella constitution of the illustrious emperor, lord Constantine Porphyrogennetos, third marriages are in part worthy of pardon and in part not (for those who have children from a first or second marriage, and those who have passed the fortieth

year of their life, cannot contract a third marriage): we say that a priest who has performed the blessing of such a forbidden third marriage must be deposed, for his ignorance of the law is gross. Simple country folk, however, since they are ignorant of the subtlety of the law, are sometimes excused, though not if the laws are manifest to all. ^A

Interr. 63. A certain woman, being compelled by her own father to be lawfully joined to a man, and seeing that the marriage was secured by the father through binding legal documents, indicated what had rightly been done to a certain person who was amorously inclined toward her. He, however, as one desperately in love, without any hesitation, with some of his companions who were ignorant of the matter, broke into the woman's home on a certain night, and having seized her—though she was willing—he carried her off to his own house, situated within the bounds of another territory. I ask, therefore, to learn whether those who have contrived such an abduction can be canonically joined through a sacred blessing, especially since the girl's parents now wish for this to happen. ^B

Resp. The third chapter of the 58th title of the 60th book of the *Basilica* states this expressly: "Let not the abducted woman marry him who abducted her; but even if her parents consent to such a cohabitation, they are punished with exile." And the 27th canon of the holy and ecumenical Fourth Synod says this: "The holy synod has decreed that those who abduct women in the name of marriage, or who assist or co-operate with those who abduct, if they are clerics, shall fall from their rank; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized." Therefore, we too, following these matters as they have been lawfully and canonically ordained, say that if the situation is as you have set forth in your inquiry, neither will there be a marriage between the abducted woman and the abductor, even though her father approves of what has been done, nor will those who were privy to this abduction escape its penalties, but they shall be punished with the ultimate penalty. ^C

Interr. 64. A certain woman, suffering from a severe illness and, as it were, defending herself against the affliction of the evil in the night time, threw herself into death, and drained the cup of death. Her husband, being a reader then and still being one today, asks whether for this reason he cannot attain to the sacerdotal dignity.

Resp. If matters are as you narrate, the reader shall be ordained without obstacle. For just as the sloth of a negligent person does not harm the diligent, according to the opinion of the divine canons, so the sin of his wife shall not prejudice the reader. For everyone is constrained by his own chains (as is commonly said). ^D

THE OFFICE AND DEFINITION OF A BISHOP.

THEODORE BALSAMON PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH MEDITATIONS OR RESPONSES

THEODORI BALSAMONIS PATRIARCHÆ ANTIOCHENI MEDITATA SIVE RESPONSA

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

Your petition came before me, most holy man, and it was received, accepted, and became familiar to me. For it was not clothed in unseemly rags, nor in garments unworthy of your liberal wisdom; but in ones that were noble and decent, such as priestly lips are accustomed to weave, which speak righteousness and seek the truth. Receive, therefore, the talent of friendly response which you asked to obtain from me through it. You requested that I should explain in writing whence and how the pentad of the most holy patriarchs was constituted, and what privileges they have been deemed worthy of, and if there is any difference among them, as some claim.

We write, therefore, to your holiness, that before all other patriarchs, Evodius the Antiochene was ordained by the holy apostle Peter over the great city of Antioch; and shortly after, by the same herald of God, the holy Mark was set over the Church of the Alexandrians; the holy James over the Jerusalemites; and the holy Andrew over Thrace. But some three hundred years later, the great among the Fathers, the holy man Silvester, by the holy and apostolic peer, the great Constantine (who had only recently embraced the true doctrine), was named Pope of the throne of ancient Rome, as the religious history and the other ecclesiastical histories relate.

But that great throne of Constantinople, famous indeed in both fact and name, was subject to Perinthus (and Perinthus is the western Heraclea) and was overseen by a bishop. For Constantinople was not yet called a great city, but a small town, and Byzantium. But when the scepters of the empire were transferred from ancient Rome to it, by divine and ineffable Providence, as if from a wild olive into a cultivated olive tree, ^B the holy Metrophanes, who was then presiding ^C with pontifical authority over the throne of this church, was renamed from bishop to archbishop. For this reason, the first holy universal synod, having made mention of the throne of Constantinople...

attributed to it the privileges of ancient Rome ^A, because it was (it says) a New Rome, as is also indicated regarding this by the second and third canons of the same synod. But that the most excellent matter of good order might be preserved also in the heads of the Churches, just as it is in the heavenly orders, the divine and universal holy synod gathered in the Trullo of the great palace, which is also called the Quinisext, decreed these things expressly:

Renovating those things which were ordained by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who gathered in the God-watched and imperial city, and by the six hundred and thirty who gathered at Chalcedon, we decree that the throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal privileges with the throne of ancient Rome, and in ecclesiastical matters shall be magnified as it is, being second after it; after which shall be numbered the ^B throne of the great city of Alexandria; then that of the Antiochenes; and after this, the throne of the city of Jerusalem. Wherefore, in accordance with the summary of this, from that time until now the great high priests of these five most holy thrones are venerated in this way across the whole world. For the just cutting off of the Pope of ancient Rome from the Churches did not at all abolish the canonical order. Furthermore, the first does not exalt himself against the second, nor the second against the third; but since they are held among the Christian people as the five senses of one head ^C (which are said to be such in number, yet are not divided into parts), they are nonetheless equal in dignity in all things; and because they are justly called the heads of the holy Churches of God throughout the whole world, no distinction established by men can have place among them. Nor is injury done to the Roman Pope by the opinion of some—who bring forward matters of no great importance—that because he himself, because of the letter R, is third in the order if we consider the arrangement of the letters, while the Constantinopolitan is honored by the letter C ^D and obtains the prior place. Nor has an open window for offense been created between the Alexandrian and the Antiochene on account of the letter A, as if either of them were claiming the place prior to himself: but just as that quinary of the senses corresponds to the formation of God the architect and creator, and sight, for example, does not hostilely attack smell, nor hearing the touch or taste, for the reason that their names are perchance pronounced by us in such a sequence; so too, none of the most holy patriarchs, to whom the first place has been attributed by divine canons, arrogantly exalts himself against the second, and the one next to this. Since, however, some say that it is not permitted for the Alexandrian or the Antiochene, for example, to make a journey to the imperial city or to another diocese with a patriarchal lamp or torch, except for those provinces which were attributed to them by the canons. For the

^A duty of a teacher, they say, is an office. But to teach outside one's province is not permitted to a prelate, according to the twentieth canon of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod held in Trullo. And in order to confirm this reasoning of theirs, they even use the words of the Gospel, saying: "Let your light shine before men."

Let them hear that kings and patriarchs are indeed magnified by the dignity of teaching because of the power of the holy chrism; for from this it happens that the faithful sovereigns and emperors discourse in a catechizing manner with the Christ-named people, or offer incense as priests, and seal with a double wax. But it is not for this reason alone that they are girded about with lamps, or distinguished by silver and gold (so to speak) crowns; rather, it is because, like that celestial giant, they illuminate the center of Orthodoxy with their beams, and their going forth shines from the end of the heavens, and their orbit reaches to the end of the heaven, and there is no one who can hide himself from their heat. ^B For if the splendid rite of such torches had been devised only for the dignity of the office of teaching, then the empress of any given time would justly have been left without such illumination by this privilege. For it has been ordained for women to be silent and not to teach. Yet we see that these also, in this way, are honored like the kings.

Moreover, all the local prelates would likewise perform the episcopal and other processions; and one might perhaps see the bishop of Athyra, or someone far more undistinguished than he, traversing [the processions] of his own diocese on foot and walking, yet puffed up with the honor of a patriarchal torch, because they too are clothed in the teaching dignity. What could one call more novel, or rather, more disagreeable? But if no one has ever seen this happen in any of the metropolitans or archbishops, let alone the bishops—except only for the autocephalous archbishops, I mean those of Bulgaria and ^C Cyprus, and a few metropolitans who have received this right from the special munificence of the emperor—it follows that this right has been granted only to kings and patriarchs by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, and by ancient tradition and good order, for the reasons already stated.

Now, whereas the aid of the emperors extends to the enlightenment and sustaining of both soul and body, the greatness of the patriarchs is restricted only to the benefit of the soul (for they have very little concern for things pertaining to bodily comfort); and likewise, the care and concern of the empress for her subjects extends only to the prosperity of the bodily life (for no help for the soul is to be expected from women)—the lamps of the kings are twofold ^D

and are girdled with twin golden crowns, while those of the patriarchs and the empress are enclosed by a single enclosure. ^A But someone will say: "Be it so. Let it be granted that the patriarchal lamps are kindled by the fire of so many tradition-bearing appearances. But whence did the power proceed that they should be adorned with silver? It would have sufficed that majesty be added to the heads of the churches through lamps, and meanwhile that those who wander in exile and are poor should not be troubled on that account." We respond that the most pious emperors and the quinary of the most holy patriarchs are like laborers standing in the center of a grain-giving threshing floor, and with the winnowing-fan of the anointing they cast out iniquity like chaff and gather up virtue like grain; or they are like compasses that level the surface of a circle righteously and illuminate the center with rays of justice; or like the masts and sails of a seagoing ship, which, through imperial counsels and spiritual precepts, keep the skiff of this world safe. Through this it comes about that, comparing small things with great, the most religious emperors and those who are preeminent among the holy Fathers rightly determined that the great high priests must be attended in this manner, and that the rich and the poor must be held in equal regard: so that those who follow the right doctrine, ^C when they see that great and august pomp displayed only for emperors and patriarchs, may offer to the Lord a grateful thanksgiving like a pleasing incense, glorifying the defenders of this [faith] who are within the center of worldly beauty; and that with bended knee they may ask the Lord that the whole earth under the sun might be illuminated by imperial trophies, and earthly things brightened by patriarchal prayers. But the followers of different opinions, who rely on their own power and boast in their own riches (for the idols of the nations are silver and gold), are blinded to what is seen and think these to be vain and useless works of smiths, and gifts of worldly opinion. And these things are concerning the patriarchal lamps. But since the staff, and the saccos, and the polystaurion, and the sticharion written upon with letters, ennoble the patriarchal holiness alone, and some wish that certain of the patriarchs sometimes are not adorned with some of these: come, let us also discourse briefly concerning these things. Incline your ear, most holy one, and listen to me. For I will not open my mouth in parables, ^D but I will bring forth questions from the source, which the grace of the divine Fathers has taught me. We acknowledge the five most holy patriarchs (for even still, as the ivy to the oak, so do I cling tooth and nail to the concord of the Pope of Rome, and I am torn in spirit because of his separation, and I daily expect his excellent return) as the one head of the body of all the Churches of God, just as from above...

^A it has been said: and believing them to be perfected by the unction of holiness, we name them the Lord’s Anointed and most holy, and inscribing them among our holy and God-bearing Fathers, and embracing them with affection, we are assured that through them the doors of the kingdom of heaven are both closed and opened to us, and that God speaks future things through their lips as if by His own mouth. For it is not flesh and blood, but the heavenly Father and our God, who said: "In those days will I pour out of my Spirit, and my servants shall prophesy," who reveals to them things present and things to come. For thus Saul was also among the prophets, and Caiaphas prophesied unwillingly, saying: "It is expedient that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." For the former was inflamed by the unction of royalty, the latter by the grace of the high priesthood. For he was, he says, the high priest of that year. Therefore, also, as occupying the place of our Christ and God, they rightly and with dignity represent His voluntary sufferings and the insults brought upon Him for our salvation by the ungrateful Jews before the cross and the resurrection. But what these are, let your holiness hear. For even if it is a labor before me until I enter into the sanctuary of God, and understand what is in it and about it, nevertheless the grace of the all-holy Spirit, prefigured in the patriarchs, announced beforehand in the prophets, ^B founded in the apostles, perfected in the martyrs, and adorned in the hierarchs, will provide the word in the opening of my mouth.

The epimanikia of the holy patriarchs glorify the shackles of the Lord, which He willingly endured for our salvation when He was led as one to be scourged before Caiaphas. The epitrachilia are that leash which dragged Life to death. The sticharia with their running stripes represent the streams of blood and water which distilled from the divine side. The coverings of the knees are the testimony of that towel with which the Lord wiped the feet of the apostles. The sacci are that pallium of insult and reproach. The omophoria are the passage of the first-created man from Hades to heaven. The phelonia with their many crosses represent the universal glory and power of the precious cross. The triangles on these represent that cornerstone, Christ our God, Who joined those things which were divided. The staves represent that reed which excellently depicted the salvation of the human race. And a faithful witness in heaven. Seeing, therefore, [these men] thus gloriously honored, and standing as an image of the true Christ and our God, who would be so daring and bold-hearted as to take away ^C any priestly right whatsoever? Truly, no one. For he shall hear from the God-father David: "But you have pushed away and brought to nothing your anointed, and have profaned His sanctification." As, therefore, it is not permitted for anyone to say about the one Christ and our God that He is present and magnified in one way in this region of the world, and glorified in another way in that, lest he render himself guilty of extreme madness and depart into impiety, so also no one [may despise] the patriarchal sacred

^B majesty as something to be divided, and as something passing over into greater or lesser privileges. For this reason, it has been decided in every church, around the Euphrates, and the Tigris, and the very Ocean reaching out, that their names be reported together. For they have received, as we read in the scriptures, the regions of the nations; and their thrones are as the complete moon, and as the sun before me.

But someone will say: Since the divine and sacred canons have distributed the four parts of the world to the patriarchs as if by a measuring line of allotment, how does it come to pass that you, yourself transgressing the statutes once for all, wish these to be held as one province, and wrongly to confuse things that have been rightly divided? We therefore answer this objection by saying that it is possible for these also to retain their own force, just as they have been decreed by the holy Fathers, and yet for the identity of the union not to be confused. ^C The Creator of all things, God, having formed man according to his own image, and having established him as king of those on the earth, being ruled from above, is praised indeed both for the other transcendent harmony of the creature, and for how he organized the vessel out of immortal and mortal mixture, and—though circumscribed in place by reason of the density of the flesh—in mind reaches out to things that exist even by the Pillars of Hercules. And no less majesty is attributed to him from the fact that he was willing for the life of men to be conducted through five senses, [each] claiming its own distinctiveness while not denying their mutual fellowship. For even if sight, for example, performs the function divinely enjoined upon it only for its own part—discharging a kind of debt, in which it is not at all hindered by the related senses—it is by no means separated from their society, but wishes them to be partakers of its dignity ^D and to provide mutual aid as faithful handmaidens, for the care of the body to which these senses have been given. Moreover, it is a matter of wonder how he doubled each of these, so that even if it should happen that one is removed, the remaining one might fill its place, and the senses that are still whole might not grow arrogant toward it, but rather sympathize with it, lest the head of the household be held in mockery. For if it should happen that one of the ears be rendered useless, the man is no longer called the most beautiful creation, perfect and sound, and such as God created; but he is considered as some abortion, not being helped by the remaining four senses, even though they be healthy. Just as, then, each of the senses fulfilling its own operation, we do not deny the utility of the rest, nor do we condemn them for impropriety and uselessness because they do not operate in a dual way as they were formed, but rather we even gather them together (since for one of them to be completely atrophied, as has been said, the whole body is rendered useless and is not even counted among men); so too, the pentad of the patriarchs will be rightly and securely managed. For each of these will perform the administration assigned to him in a uniform manner, so that the privileges of the holy Churches may not be confused; while the [rights] of the honor of God and the rights given from of old to the...

patriarchal sacred amplitude, shall be despoiled by no one. For if such a thing should come to pass, and someone were to despoil the Alexandrian [patriarch], for example, who is staying in the queen of cities, of his patriarchal privileges because he is not dwelling in his own province, he would render the head itself useless, as if it were deaf, or blind, or possessed of only four or three senses. For this very reason, it is believed to have been ordained long ago that patriarchs who do not possess their own holy thrones, which have been assigned to them, on account of the hostile incursions of the pagans—I speak of the Antiochene and the Hierosolymitan—should undoubtedly be established by election.

For even if they were cast out from the glory of their thrones, yet the spiritual grace, according to David, shall not grow old. Rather, our God shall come visibly, and shall not be silent; ^B so that He may gather to Himself His holy ones, who have established His covenant. Therefore, those patriarchs who have been despoiled of their most holy Churches and who reside as exiles in the diocese of another patriarch are to be embraced with love and not dishonored. For it has been decreed by the canons that we should console them and treat them with all care and hospitality, and not treat them with insults on account of the inconstancy of human affairs, which is worthy rather of tears than of begetting arrogance. Furthermore, since the holy Scriptures and the traditions of the Fathers call the bishop of Rome Pope, and likewise call the Alexandrian, and also the Constantinopolitan, and the Hierosolymitan, ^C archbishops, but the Antiochene alone patriarch: how can it be that the Church of the Antiochenes does not suffer injury, seeing that the others are also publicly called patriarchs? This happens entirely because of the identity of honor, and because these five patriarchs hold the place of the one head of the whole body—that is, of the holy Churches of God.

Because, indeed, some maintain that there is no impediment to pontiffs constituted anywhere enjoying the same honor and amplitude as the patriarchs, since they also have been deemed worthy of the dignity of teaching, and stand in the holy of holies like Moses and Aaron, and offer the bloodless sacrifice: we answer that by the divine and sacred canons, the tracts of the inhabited world have been conceded solely to the patriarchs. ^D Whence it follows that no other person has a province by his own right, or any other priestly right; but he performs his priestly duty only in that part of the diocese which has been conceded to him by the sacred patriarchal amplitude. Whence, as those being sent by the patriarchs, and fulfilling the place of the divine and holy apostles, they have been deemed worthy of apostolic privileges (for they bind and loose by themselves, and perform ordinations, and offer the bloodless sacrifice), yet they have not obtained patriarchal rights. For they do not wear the sakkos, nor the polystauria, nor the sticharia with letters and triangles. These things are done in this way, because the divine assembly of the holy apostles itself [was subject] to the scourge, and wiped the feet of the disciples with a towel, and was clothed...

^A according to the example of Aaron with the ephod, the tunic reaching to the feet, and the breastplate, which signified the ancient mantle of the Adamic mass; but blood and water did not flow from their side, the place of which is filled by the gamma-markers (9) on the tunics. Nor were they clothed in a robe of ignominy. Nor was any one of them called the cornerstone, as is our Lord and God. Nor was the talent of the faith extended by any one of them into the whole world, but one conveyed the streams of doctrine to Rome, another to the Indians or Britons, and another to the Gauls. But Christ our God alone was present everywhere, and filled all things with joy. Whence it happens ^B that the most holy patriarchs, who occupy the place of God as head of the holy Churches, put on sacks, and tunics with rivers and triangles, and upper garments (phelonia) with many crosses, and are mentioned by name in all the Churches in the same way. By the staff, just as Christ our God was by the reed of ignominy, they act with dignity. Other pontiffs and overseers [act] like that rod of Aaron which blossomed for the signification of a great mystery, or like that great apostle Peter, who heard from God, "Feed my sheep." And since it is likely that someone might ask what the meaning of "pope" is, and what a "patriarch" is, and what an "archbishop" is, and why the authority and privileges of these five heads are the same, as has been set forth, when their names are nevertheless different: we thought it necessary to touch upon these matters as well in summary.

Among the Latins, "pope" is called Father (Pater). And among the Jews, "patriarch" is called leader or Father of the families. Similarly, "archbishop" will be Father of the bishops. Although, therefore, the meanings of pope, patriarch, and archbishop are different by reason of language, they do not differ in any way in power. For which reason all are also called by the common name of patriarchs. Indeed, the holy Silvester, who first held the pontificate in Rome, and Evodus, who was the first pontiff in Antioch, were not without reason called Fathers. For as yet there were no patriarchs, who are instituted by the Fathers. Similarly, the Alexandrian was also called pope, because the holy Cyril at the third ^C synod received the privileges of the Roman pope, namely Celestine. But when religion had already permeated the ends of the earth, so that almost every city had obtained a bishop: the very reason of piety demanded that honor should also be paid to Jerusalem, on account of the most holy sufferings and the sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ. For that great city of Constantinople had already obtained honor before, as was said above, because the sceptres of the Roman empire had been transferred to it. It was renamed ^D

^A accordingly, and those who held the episcopate in these regions were called archbishops; that is to say, they were the principles and heads of many bishops. It is the same thing, moreover, to say "Fathers" and "patriarchs." From this, there is no real difference between them. For the father of any given nation is the father of both the priestly and the laic tribe, even as Jacob was [the father] of the twelve tribes of Israel. And a ruler of bishops is necessarily a father of both bishops and laics; but the prelate of Gothia is called an archbishop not because he is a ruler and ordinator of bishops, but as a starting-point [archē] of bishops. For it was decreed by the holy Fathers that dioceses which possess many cities governed by bishops should be administered by metropolitans, whom the canons also call "firsts"; but those which do not have cities under them governed by [other] bishops should be presided over by archbishops—so that these [latter dioceses] are inferior to the metropolises, but superior to the bishoprics.

Having thus resolved this ambiguity, I wished to say why the Pope of Rome is called "universal Pope," and likewise the Archbishop of Constantinople the "universal patriarch," whereas the other patriarchs, even though they are of the same order, calling, and honor, are not accustomed to be proclaimed in this way. But when that evil genius of ambition plucked the Roman Pope from the assembly of the other most holy patriarchs and confined him to the West alone; while in the meantime they see the Constantinopolitan ^B adorning himself with none of the Pope's privileges (for he is not crowned with the imperial diadem, according to the decree believed to be that of the holy Constantine, nor is he displayed in public with scarlet shoes, as is ordained in that same place, nor does he usurp any other privilege of ancient Rome—and for this reason his feet stand in straightness, and his head, according to David, has grown white with every kind of prudence; and indeed he does not magnify his own signatures as a universal father, even though he is so named and celebrated by us)—I pass over the discussion concerning this as fruitless.

However, I apologize to those who boldly maintain that the [patriarchs] of Antioch and Jerusalem ought to be stripped of their patriarchal dignity. For it has been canonized, they say, that those who do not go off to their sees occupied by Barbarians, even at extreme peril, or do not snatch up the crown of martyrdom, should not even be reckoned among the high priests. If they are laics who have conceived such things—like some foolish miscarriage—against the holy heads, they will deserve pardon ^C through our singular moderation. For it is written: "A Roman man must not be ignorant of the laws" (and the same must be said of the canons). Because even if a man is a craftsman or of the lowliest dregs of the populace, he is not permitted to say that he is ignorant of the laws or the canons, but rather that those who study them like diligent money-changers are the ones meant, [much like the poet says]:

As many as are the leaves and flowers that come in the time of spring. ^D

^A And placed at the disposal of any who desire them, and open to all, is a generous and effortless feast. Without a doubt, the wormwood of their ignorance can be sweetened by the honey-mixed wine of this teaching. But if they are numbered among the sacred catalogue of the high priests—alas! how could anyone express or describe the condemnation brought upon them? For what forgiveness will he deserve, who professes to teach the canons, yet does not see the thickness of the canons, which almost exceeds Mount Athos itself? Absolutely none. Rather, he will hear from God the Almighty: "You have rejected justice, and I shall reject you, that you may not serve as my priest." Therefore, leaving aside all dispute regarding this, I shall insert in this present writing, to remove every scandal, the 37th canon ^B of the holy and ecumenical synod assembled in the Trullo of the Great Palace, which is commonly called the Quinisext, and which reads word for word as follows: "Since on various occasions barbarian incursions have occurred, and many cities have thereby fallen under the power of the impious, so that from that time forward the prelate of such a city, after his ordination, has not been able to take up his own throne and be established there in his priestly status, and thus, according to the prevailing custom, to perform ordinations and all other things that pertain to the office of a bishop, and to manage them: we, protecting the dignity and reverence of the priesthood, and in no way wishing that the injury caused by pagans should be to the detriment of ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that those so ordained, and who on account of the above-stated cause do not occupy their own thrones, shall have their right preserved without ^C prejudice, so that they may perform the ordinations of various clerics according to the canons, and enjoy the authority of their presidency according to their own rule, and finally, that every administration proceeding from them shall be firm and valid. For the law of dispensation shall not be restricted by a precision circumscribed by a time of necessity."

In addition to this canon, I advise readers of the present writing that there also exists an edict of the memorable emperor, Lord Alexius Comnenus, published in the month of November of the second indiction, and inserted into the public and ecclesiastical secretariats. This edict established ^D that not only should high priests be elected without any impediment to the Eastern Churches held by the pagans—even if those who are appointed to them are unable to take up the thrones assigned to them because of the malice of the pagans—but also that after their ordination, they should retain whatever rights they held before it in the Great City, namely, abbacies, rations of brothers, and the rest. And we, as we have been requested, have written these things. But may the God of peace, who said through the prophet David: "If my people keep my commandments, I will visit their enemies with a rod, and their iniquities with scourges,"

^A but my mercy I will not remove from those who love me, nor will I profane my covenant: He shall indeed scatter the infidelity of the pagans like dust from the summer threshing floor, but He shall gather together His holy ones, and shall give them the regions and tribes of the pagans. And let all the people say: Blessed be the Lord for ever. Amen, amen.

BY THE SAME

Meditation concerning those two offices, namely that of the Chartophylax and that of the Protecdikos.

Since that great teacher of the Church and divine herald Paul says, "No man should take this honor to himself, but rather he who is called by God," the protecdikos ought surely to have been content with what was granted to him and to follow in the footsteps ^B of his predecessors, most of whom, as he himself knows, were by the grace of God adorned with all manner of learning, and held the highest dignities of the most holy Great Church of God, and some of them, like genuine eaglets, assumed wings and attained to that great throne of Constantinople; and he ought not have made haste to alter what had been confirmed over the course of time beyond memory, after the manner of cuttlefish in a single day, and so dangerously to offend and be offended; but rather he should have desired peace for the people of God and for His saints. But since I know not how, by inciting scandals against those of the past, and likewise against those things which have been canonically established against those who inconsiderately violate any longstanding ecclesiastical custom (for it has been decreed that such custom must be held as valid as the sacred canons), and by overstepping his bounds, he wishes to shake the privileges of the chartophylax ^C and to conjoin them with the functions of the defensor, in the manner of those who combine bodies of a different nature by inserting them into one another; and since, for the sake of justifying his institution, he makes use of the canons of the holy and ecumenical fourth council, and furthermore of certain words from the book which is kept in the secret archive of the holy defensive office: I shall myself, by means of this my present writing, as I have been requested, put forward that which, in my judgment, will not be beside the point to stop his mouth, and which will truly reconcile for the chartophylax of the time the veneration due to him.

For the protecdikos claimed for himself a flimsy support from the 23rd canon of the 630 holy Fathers who met at Chalcedon, for the purpose of judging the idiosyncratic behavior of monks and clerics, and inquiring into their wanderings, and condemning them as servile fugitives. For nearly one hundred years, a little more or less, before that most illustrious Emperor Justinian, who ^D laudably constructed this Church as if by a heavenly work, this canon was published, at which time there was no talk of defensors from the sacred order, but laymen were always given to the churches for the purpose of advocacy. And this is evident from the 101st canon of the Council of Carthage, which explicitly sets it forth thus: "Concerning the advocacy of the Churches, which ought to be requested from the emperor; it seemed good to all to ask from the emperors..."

on account of the affliction of the poor, by whose burdens the Church is incessantly molested, that defenders be chosen for them, with the intervention of the oversight of the bishops, against the tyranny of the wealthy." ^A

Likewise, this is evident from the 15th novella of the emperor Justinian, which exists in book VI of the *Basilica*, title XVIII, to this effect: "Defenders are to be chosen in turns from the inhabitants of each city, even if some be illustrious and most distinguished; and they are to hold the office of defense for only two years." Therefore, since defenders are chosen, as has been said, and their office is restricted to a certain span of time, those are babbling in vain who claim that the assertion of the *protodefensor* finds support from the indicated canon.

But the words of the book concerning the office of the *protodefensor*, which are almost to this effect: "It is necessary for you, if any of the presbyters and deacons has a lawsuit with anyone, to summon the one who is accused a third time, according to the indicated manner, and to condemn him if he does not appear." I say, these words neither at their root, nor in respect to their branches or bark, overturn the jurisdiction of the *chartularius* over all who are initiated into the sacred orders, nor do they transfer it to the defenders. ^B

For they are not to be understood, according to the opinion of the *protodefensor*, as if he could compel even against their will those who are summoned by certain deacons and presbyters—perhaps even laymen themselves—to plead their cause before him, for which they are requested. For this is rash, and not even granted to the patriarchal sacred amplitude, as it is contrary to the laws, which desire that plaintiffs follow the forum of the defendants. ^C But if anyone, approving the mind of the *protodefensor* (for, as they say, sometimes even those acting maliciously are spoken well of), shall with vain pride suggest that the indicated words speak of two parties which are not distinguished by diverse pursuits, but which are joined together by the profession of a common priesthood, he will hear that in this way a rash cessation and suspension of justice is proclaimed, not only to the jurisdiction of the *chartularius*, but also to the most sacred patriarchal tribunal itself. For if this were granted, the *protodefensor* would judge boldly—nay, with supreme authority—against pontiffs, deacons, and the rest of the clergy, who are sometimes distinguished by great dignities, which transcend the jurisdiction of this same *protodefensor* diametrically. Nay, he will also attempt to claim for himself those of the episcopal household, as one who has obtained the account-keeping of the bishop. ^D Which, indeed, as it is absurd, does not even deserve to be spoken. Furthermore, as to what some man says, that those who are dragged to court before the defenders by some of the tribunal on account of any matter, whether civil or criminal, must be summoned through three notifications, and condemned if they do not appear (for this is entirely necessary to come to pass if it were granted, through the aforementioned words of the *protodek-

^A*edikos to receive permission to judge deacons and priests in any matter together with those who oppose them), how is this not unworthy of the wisdom of the *protodek*edikos? For indeed, how many most divine laws are abolished by this being granted! How many decrees of orthodox emperors, how many dogmas and teachings of the holy Fathers, which gather the accused in every way, and call them back ^B by thirty-day proclamations, and suspend their condemnation by way of two appeals! Certainly many, and almost exceeding any number. It is gathered, therefore, without passion, that the obscurity which appears from these words is supposedly harmonized well with the rest of the writing of the book concerning liberties; and that those dragged by presbyters or deacons before the most God-fearing *ekdikoi* for the sake of those claiming liberty or being enslaved, and not being persuaded to come after three summonses, are to be condemned unilaterally, because of the holy divine decrees, which cherish liberty above almost everything, and determine that the inquiry into this should take place levelly, and that those who have thus schemed a condemnation against themselves should not profit from the fact that the advocates of liberty are the judges. But with these things being so, the *protodek*edikos will justly be permitted, for those seeking the ^C help of the Church for the sake of liberty, to intervene with jurisdiction; but to defend the cause of the remaining refugees, just as and where it has been provided by law: and thus rather to assist them, and to defend them from those who inflict injury upon them, just as the reason of his very name demands. For by doing so, and having religiously kept sacred things, he will deservedly be regarded as holy. And these things have been written sufficiently for the overturning of the things proposed by the *protodek*edikos, and tearing away the rights blamelessly held by the *chartophylax*. But we must also speak of the things that establish the *chartophylax*. Let the mouth of truth, and the sun of righteousness, say these things rather. For we shall not bring forth a fable of our own, like those who have itching ears, because of the discourse about what is expedient for them, and who, like those who test ambiguous things by water (*ad aquam*), ^D will propose all these things simply, without all pretense, which long usage, and the exercise of long time, and the reading of the holy Scriptures have taught us. We must begin, therefore, where it is better to begin: and one must progress from power to greater power.

On the Head of the Great Church

^A and to entrust the administration of these to ministers. For it was by no means fitting that the patriarch himself, bearing so remarkably in all things the appearance of a bridegroom, should be occupied with handling a rake or dealing with slaves. Hence, therefore, even to this day, these matters are administered by five presiding officers, whom we call *exokatakoiloi*, as if by five senses: namely, the Great Oikonomos, the Great Sakellarios, the Great Skeuophylax, the Chartophylax, and the Sakellion. The Great Oikonomos has the oversight of ecclesiastical properties; the Great Sakellarios has the care of the monasteries within the city and those situated further away (for the thirteenth region of the Queen of Cities is its outermost region); the Great Skeuophylax is concerned with the holy treasuries; and the Sakellion has the administration of the catholic churches, as well as of the emphyteutic properties.

The Chartophylax, however, directs on his own behalf alone those matters which pertain to the patriarch by right of his high priesthood. How the appointments of the other four presiding officers are set to be made, and how many subordinates for their labors each of these possesses, and how many *sekretikoi* ministers, is not the time to say. For we did not set out to speak about these things now. But from where, and in what manner, that veneration is attributed to the Chartophylax, such that he is called the "mouth and hand" of the patriarch, must be investigated. And since some wish to derive the name of the *chartophylax* from his guarding of membranes, that is, codices, the scandal arising from this must be removed before all else. The Chartophylax is not, as some suggest, a guardian of the secretum or a doorkeeper (for that is the ancient profession of the *ostiarioi*), but a qualified administrator of episcopal rights. For thus we also speak of the *nomophylax* and the *skeuophylax* of the imperial camp. But if those who vehemently deny this ask why the presiding officers of the other *sekreta* are not called "guardians," when they are in fact administrators of affairs; and why one is called "Great Oikonomos," another "Great Sakellarios," and another "prefect of the Sakellion": let them hear that it is the same thing to say *oikonomos*, *phylax* (guardian), *sakellarios*, and *sakellion*. For among the Romans, *sakellum* is so named from administration and custody. And hence also the patriarchal *sakella*, where evildoers are guarded, is named from no other source; just as the *sakoulion* is. Thus, the *sakellarios* is called the administrator of the monasteries; and the *sakellion*, by a diminutive, is the caretaker of the catholic churches. But lest this pentad of presiding officers be called by the same name, it was decreed that they should be distinguished by the names of various offices. Thus it happens that, while they are the same in the scope of their actions, they are distinguished by the titles of their offices. In this way, with the doubt which could have silently arisen against the Chartophylax being rightly removed, the remaining matters also come to be declared. The office of the Chartophylax is various and manifold. Therefore, the most holy patriarch for the time being, choosing him as a second Aaron, says with Moses to the Lord: "Let him look"

to the Lord, the God of the spirits and of all flesh, for a man over this congregation who may go out before my face, and who may come in before their face, and who may lead them to me, and who may lead them from me; and thus he lays his hands upon him and gives him his own glory, so that the sons of Israel may hear him. He also entrusts to him a golden ring, so to speak, just as the Lord said to Moses: "And you shall place the breastplate upon the breast of Aaron, and you shall make a golden ring, and you shall fasten it to the lips of the breastplate, by which the names of the sons of Israel are to be inscribed through him." And who is this? It is the patriarch’s seal, which is, according to custom, suspended at the breast of the Chartophylax, as to a vessel established for every sort of rational study (for "dignities," they say, "must be granted to the worthy"), by which he protects those who were once subject to destruction with a seal and with grace, converts sinners with pen and ink, defends those burdened by afflictions with a staff and a reed, and finally deems those who are worthy fit for priestly gifts of the Spirit; those who are outside the sanctuary he makes clerics, and those who are within, he makes perfect. Through him, the ^B Patriarchate also records and grants stauropegia throughout nearly the entire world, and transfers the ecclesiastical heads of many cities to the palace of the primary see. Through him are also given to the Chartophylax the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as they were given by the Lord to the beloved disciple Peter. For the great high priest says to him, as it were: "Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in the heavens." And what is more novel than all this is that not only has he attained the gift of such great power, but so too have those who receive this grace from him. For he grants to monks who are priests the power to hear the accounts of men and to tear up the handwritings of their sins, which otherwise is granted only to bishops by the all-holy Spirit. But if you see him in a synod, formulating in a conciliar manner whatever Moses would speak if he were speaking, and uttering like a fountain whatever the summit of his head supplies like ^C a cloud and water, you will not desire to see Aaron reciting the words of the divinely written tablets, nor Baruch skillfully recording the captivity of Judea; but you will be content with the things done by the Chartophylax, which bring the law to completion. Furthermore, you should marvel at how, while the sacred canons have permitted the authority to teach the people only to high priests in the cities, the Chartophylax has nevertheless obtained the power to teach the people in the church in a catechetical manner; how he commits the patriarchal decisions to writing, and fortifies them with his own signatures and seals; how he presides over the great tribunal and administers justice ^D against every person, of whatever fortune or sex they may be, regarding ecclesiastical questions and the correction of the soul’s transgressions; and then, indeed, over priests and monks in any criminal or civil cause. For indeed the jurisdiction of the Chartophylax extends even as far as Gades itself, if one would concede it—and even there...

some might reside who are subject to the throne of Constantinople.

^B Now, as to the fact that he himself presides over the twelve patriarchal notaries who possess the same authority as the twelve notaries of the Vela and of the Hippodrome judges (for I pass over the mention of a double twelve, since the kindness and condescension of the patriarchs is not dragged in to destroy things that have been in use from ancient times), and similarly that he presides before the metropolitans in the elections of bishops for vacant churches, and in those public meetings which occur outside the patriarchal tribunal—nay, even in public festive ceremonies and assemblies, not only within parts of the church but in any place whatsoever, which is permitted to no deacon, because it is expressly forbidden by the eighteenth canon of the first holy and ecumenical synod—where, I ask, most prudent listener, would you place this? You would surely admit that the power over all these things is attributed to him because he is considered to be the mouth, the lips, and the hands, in a certain sense, of the patriarch. The ready impulse of my mind carries me away to state and accurately declare for what reason the Chartophylax alone, above other presiding officials, is magnified by two ecclesiastical orders, namely, the episcopian and the secretic. But since there is an illustrious foundation for the institution of these, and the matter itself requires that this very thing be examined for the sake of revealing the truth: let us delay for a little while that discourse in which we shall inquire into the aforementioned orders, and let us say: for what reason, beyond what is contained in the sacred canons, does the Chartophylax, though counted in the number of deacons, sit before the pontiffs? This widely discussed question has at various times stirred up many scandals, and a great investigation of this matter has taken place between the Chartophylax and the pontiffs of the throne of Constantinople. ^C And since the patriarchal judgment, favoring the pontiffs, would obliquely smile upon them, because of the opinion of the aforementioned canon, an edict of the most illustrious prince, Lord Alexios Komnenos, was produced, which contains these things word for word:

Decree of the Emperor Alexios Komnenos

"My Majesty, ^D taking care for ecclesiastical decorum and seeking good order in every civil state, and furthermore being zealous that it be observed even more in sacred matters, desires and deems it just, most holy Lord, that the privileges granted long ago to each of the ecclesiastical ranks, and the status which has hitherto flourished in them, should continue and remain immutable henceforth, just as they have been accepted for so many years, observed for a long space of time, and confirmed and established brilliantly by perpetual successions from one age to another up to the present day without change."

which has been examined and well confirmed. But since my Majesty has now learned that some of the bishops, impelled by a certain ambition, are attempting to diminish the privilege of the chartophylax, and are bringing forward canons in public, arguing through them that he does not have the right to preside above the bishops whenever they are required to gather for some business and sit together in an assembly before access to your Holiness, ^A it has seemed intolerable to my Majesty that a matter tested by such a long passage of time, and accepted by established patriarchs and other bishops of yore—and even by these very men themselves, who are now disputing for no just cause—through long-standing silence, should be abolished for no urgent reason, and torn down as if it were some neglected thing.

Therefore, it also decrees a matter most reasonable and absolutely just. For if, on the one hand, the bishops should choose not to move the immovable, nor those things determined by the Fathers before them—which have even to them seemed good through long silence and forbearance until this day—it would be well, and a cause for gratitude that, having set aside the desire to contend, they have preferred peace. But if some, still usurping the words of the canon (while being far removed from its true intent), attempt to establish their own will and pervert order into disordered confusion, my Majesty ^B sends for the text of the canon to be interpreted and explained, which is most easy to grasp and judge for those who are imbued with subtlety and who touch upon the canonical meaning. Yet my Majesty censures this in the bishops: that, although they knew the canon and had examined its steps with precision, they nevertheless trampled upon their own conscience without reason, endured the disregarding of the canon, and embraced a lower session beneath the chartophylaces of earlier times. And therefore, in accordance with the content of the sacred canons, it grants them this reward—that they be removed to their own Churches; my Majesty insisting in this part also on the footsteps of the ecclesiastical canon, and producing the sacred canons themselves as a defense against those who despise the canons.

^C And since, after this promulgation, those things which had grown strong through long custom became even more firmly established by the emperor's edict, the chartophylax sits to this day before any bishop, even though he might happen to possess a dignity granted by the emperor himself, such as that of hypertimos or protosyncellos. And at that time, therefore, this supposed ambiguity was resolved. But I, just as I assent to the imperial sanction as is accepted by the laws, so I by no means approve of the opinion that establishes the first session for the chartophylax through the sole unwritten custom of a most long time, which is—as we have written before—taken in place of law. ^D For I know that long-standing custom prevails in place of law only when it has been strictly examined by a judicial process, provided that laws and canons are not abolished thereby. I say, however, that the chartophylax has the presidency...

^A according to the scope of the divine canons, which the divine imperial oversight voluntarily passed over in silence at that time. For even if the aforementioned canon of the first council of Nicaea ordains that a deacon may not partake of the mysteries nor sit before the priests, yet the 7th canon of the holy and ecumenical Sixth Council commands that he who holds the station of a patriarch or simply that of a bishop, should sit before the priests. Therefore, the great and holy Cyril also, the pope of Alexandria, wore a golden band upon his head when he presided over the holy and ecumenical Third Council. For he was holding the place of Celestine, who then ruled the Church of Rome, as this is made manifest from the acts of the said Third Council. And even as he was glorified, according to the decree of the holy and great apostle-like Constantine, made toward the holy Silvester, when the sceptres of the empire were, by the providence of God, transferred from old Rome to this queen of cities, and it was ordained that the head of the holy Silvester and of the Roman pontiffs after him should be ^B adorned with a gold-embroidered *loros*, so too was he adorned in like manner. And hence, those who after him exercised the pontificate in Alexandria, for the eternal memory of what was then decreed, are likewise adorned until this day, recorded as such. And while all others perform holy services with bare heads, the patriarch of Alexandria alone performs the divine office with his head covered by the aforementioned band. Moreover, we see those twelve cardinals of the Pope similarly adorned with golden coverings ^C as representatives of the Pope, and as those who uphold his rights. For *cardo* among the Romans means the doorposts. It is therefore consistent to truth to say that those who testify are indeed correct, who claim that the chartophylax of each epoch also made use of such a golden tiara some few years ago, in certain public assemblies, which were held not only in the churches, as is the custom, but also in processions and in public squares. And I am myself fully persuaded that such a gold-embroidered covering is still stored until the present day in the chest of the chartophylax; and the passage of time is not long or remote, but the memory of the thing is recent. Nor did ignoble envy or, forsooth, an unskilled piety abolish the great privilege of this office. For, I adjure you by Truth herself, by fraternal charity, by love toward God, tell me: what would have been a greater thing worth doing, ^D than to see the chartophylax sometimes proceeding through the square with a gold-embroidered tiara, riding upon a mule, and adorned in the patriarchal manner with a white linen cloth, just as this also was ordained by the aforementioned decree, and accompanied by a bodyguard of *excubitores*? If not someone

^A be wishing to say that more honor is to be deferred to the head than to the hand, or to another member of the body. For this comparison, as foolish, is not established. But we must return to where the discourse strayed, and inquire for what reason the presidents of other secretariats make use only of *secretic* servants, whereas the *chartophylax* is magnified by two orders of ministers. We say, therefore, that the rights of the *chartophylax* are cleansers of psychical pollutions and remedies for bodily diseases. Hence it has been ordained that these be directed by ministers of two orders. If, therefore, he presides as a judge, and filtering judicial thoughts, he links laws with legal sanctions and harmonizes canons with canons, and if, arguing a case, he forges propositions and objections, and files down some by the touchstone of discernment, while accepting others; and finally, if he weighs the judgments of the patriarchal notaries, he is magnified by the ministrations of the *secretic* officials, and more so when the court is concerned with these matters alone. But if he presides as one applying the cure of psychical ailments, and examining the malignancy of festering wounds, by cauterizing with iron the hidden core of the passion in one place, and in another sprinkling mild medicines, he is served by the order of the *episcopianoi*. ^B Indeed, if at any time by patriarchal decree any of these privileges are shaken, I, for now, do not know it, and I shall merit pardon as one teaching the ancient tradition.

These matters, therefore, being thus well clarified, as I suppose, it seemed necessary for me also to make a just petition to the *chartophylax* of the time. My lord *chartophylax*, let not the talent entrusted to you by God almighty be buried through your sloth, lest you be called a wicked and ungrateful servant; nor let the coin of its great privileges be betrayed by your great mildness, but let it be distributed to the money-changers, and it will be doubled. God has established you as a second overseer through episcopal hands. Hence it is that to your mouth all enter into the house of God almighty, and by your mouth they depart. Do not, therefore, say, "What can be given to me, and what can be added to my perpetual care?" Nor be silent, ^C nor be lenient, nor speak as one wishing to please men, as said the great apostle Paul, like that wicked hireling who whispered to himself: "Let what is failing fail, let what is scattered not be gathered, and let what is broken not be restored. For the day's own distress is sufficient." But rather, in the apostolic manner, preach the truth in the sight of God. Be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, be patient, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. And perhaps, having thus youthfully finished the good fight according to what is required, and having preserved your ministry free from snares and undiminished, in no way humiliating those who oppose, you shall say: "I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness," which shall also be given ^D to you by God

Almighty both in this age and in the future, and that in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion unto the ages. Amen.

BY THE SAME

A Judgment concerning the question debated in the synod, whether one and the same person ought to be joined to two second cousins.

^B The natives of Athens, as well as the strangers residing there, had leisure for nothing else, as the great Paul says, than to tell or to hear some new thing. But the Church of God—or rather, the divine court of the most holy Great Church of God—confirming the decrees of the holy Fathers, uproots from the root every sort of innovation having the appearance of superfluity, and desires the harvest of truth to grow to bear a hundredfold. For it prospers by the grace of God in every discourse and matter acceptable to God. For this reason, that which was asked in the synod not long ago, namely, whether one and the same man ought to be joined to two second cousins, it did not consent to let fall into some corner, neglected as something novel; but as a matter of some importance and highly useful, it proposed it for public examination. And since its most holy spouse, and most vigilant meditator upon the canonical traditions, desired us also to be sharers in this good work, we say that some have opened a wide and—as they say—harmless path for Demetrius, who had been the husband of a certain Maria, to marry her second cousin, who is called Theodora. And being asked whence and how they recommend this, they say that the making of this contract reaches to the seventh degree, because Demetrius and Maria, his deceased wife, constitute two persons, and consequently two degrees, even if they were considered as one flesh on account of their consent and mutual love. For Maria, they say, had the sixth degree with Theodora, but not Demetrius, as he is carried over to the seventh person, and a degree of the same number. But the second theme of chapter 32 of title 5 of book 28 of the Basilica, and the 54th canon of the holy and ecumenical synod assembled in the Trullo of the Great Palace, have restricted marriages contracted both by affinity and by consanguinity up to the sixth degree. Those beyond this, they permitted to be joined without fear. And even though a synodal tome was recently published, confirmed also by imperial edict, it is ordered that those who are of the seventh degree by consanguinity should not be joined [in marriage], but it did not restrict those who have an affinity of such measure by way of relationship. For there is a great difference between the bond of blood and relationship of kinship in the simple sense; and a great principle is established between these, joining some and separating others. And most of these, both by syllogistic arguments and through the logical reduction to the impossible...

fortify their reasoning. ^A For they say that if it were granted that Mary and Demetrius became of one degree after the union, many absurdities would occur; for instance, that Demetrius, who is called Mary's husband, and son-in-law of her father, would be called both the son of the latter and the brother of the former, on account of the identity of degree; and that in this way the marriage would have to be dissolved, as it would tend toward the union of brother and sister. To this absurdity they add that they would also claim for themselves successions of intestacy, both of the parties between themselves and of their parents, nay even of their relatives. Similarly, they state that those who are related by affinity only on one side cannot be joined to one another, just as the laws of affinity ordain; but that the same rule must be applied in these cases as in marriages involving blood relations.

But they say that in Roman custom and in the ecclesiastical state, the contrary is practiced today. ^B For an uncle and a nephew, together with an aunt and a niece, are joined without impediment, even though they hold the sixth degree of affinity; whereas the Tome of the most holy Patriarch Sisinnius forbade first cousins to be joined to two sisters. Moreover, they insist that no impropriety, nor anything that confuses names, arises from the fact that the same man is joined to two cousins; for then, they say, the accurate distinction of names is maintained, and the confusion of these is avoided when servile status intervenes in the kinship; ^C but not when legitimate marriage, as allowed by the laws, acts like a root from which suitable branches are generated. For if it were granted that in these cases too, the propriety and non-confusion of names must be observed, the prohibited union would be restricted even toward second cousins and their successors, so that those born from them would not be called brothers and fourth-cousins, which is not held to be the case. And these are their arguments. But we shall consider first whether the laws and the canons judge that spouses are to be reckoned as two degrees, and therefore whether the contract in question should be permitted. Let us therefore discuss this, and proceed as though returning to the very beginning of the matters that must be spoken of. ^D Some say that the voice of the Lord, which states, "And the spouses shall be one flesh," is not to be understood as referring to identity, but to affection and concord. For if the Lord’s oracle is not interpreted in this way, those joined in marriage would have to be called brother and sister, not spouses; and henceforth innumerable evils would follow, increasing the absurdity of the question. Let them hear, then, that false propositions do not reach the truth through syllogisms, nor, if they are led to the impossible, do they change the nature of the subject; but rather, the sun of truth rises from admitted and error-free premises. For if someone were to say,

that through the conjunction of persons, confusion is produced ^A and that the marriage is being transformed into fraternity—thus perhaps concluding that which is absurd—he has gathered a tongue-trap, not truth. Since this is the case, and since the natures of both parties remain intact after the union, no one should be so bold as to call the spouses themselves brothers, for the sake of rebuking the divine word of Him who said, "And the spouses shall no longer be two, but one." For just as the wild olive is not called an olive tree simply because its branch has been grafted onto an olive, so neither shall we call the father of the girl the girl's father-in-law.

Since this has been established through a sure and irrefutable demonstration—as we believe—it will neither be permissible to call either one of them to the inheritance of the deceased, or of any of those related to him by blood (for how could this be? since the possessors receive their holdings by law), nor will it be blameworthy or abominable if one says that marriages contracted by affinity and those by consanguinity are bounded by the same limits. For so it has been canonized. ^B Now, that an aunt and a nephew may not join with a paternal aunt and a niece is not, as some say, a "victory" of unwritten custom, nor a trophy of an unhanded-down ecclesiastical institution; but it is a divine mandate of the illustrious emperor, lord Alexios Komnenos, issued upon the memorandum of a certain Bardas called Xeros, and recognized in the public and ecclesiastical archives and codes, which declared such marriages free, in accordance with the authority given to emperors from heaven. Therefore, the accurate state of the Church is not to be slandered. For marriages by affinity always restricted, and still restrict, up to the sixth degree, just as do marriages by consanguinity, in which it follows the statutes of both laws and canons, and the Tome of that most holy patriarch, lord Sisinnios. ^C For the just judge did not wish the proclamation issued by the imperial sacred majesty for the subversion of this to come into effect, as those who are initiated know, and they are not led into error.

"Nevertheless," the adversary objects, "not even the fact that confusion and shame of names is introduced because of the close relation of the degrees will hinder Demetrios from taking the cousin of his first wife." For this happens even to those who are related by blood, when those who touch one another in the eighth degree are joined, while we shamelessly call those whom nature acknowledges as the children of cousins "spouses," and we treat their children as brothers, though by nature ^D they are the offspring of cousins. Why, therefore, should it be new or insolent for this same thing to be said and done in the present question? But let those who gather these things together hear this: that just as things lying within the boundaries of Gadeira are both strictly defined and registered,

^A while those that are situated beyond Gadeira cannot be penetrated: so also marriages which are contracted within the sixth degree are condemned by the very reason of natural equity and honesty; whereas those which are outside these degrees are neither dissolved nor hindered, except for the seventh degree of blood connection alone. For imperial sanction, as well as the synodal tome, has made that [seventh degree] equal to marriages of the sixth degree.

Since, therefore, we have discussed sufficiently the arguments which some allege in this question, as to whether spouses are to be referred to one degree or not, come, let us also bring forward that which has occurred to our mind regarding the question proposed. The jurists who teach concerning prohibited marriages in Book XXVIII, Title V of the *Basilica*, divide blood relatives in two ways: into ascendants and descendants—that is to say, children and parents—and into those who are in the transverse line, I mean brothers and other blood relatives. And for [the line of] ascendants and descendants, whether they are legitimate, natural, or adopted, they prohibit marriage to infinity; but for those who are blood relatives, up to the sixth degree. ^B After they have explained these matters subtly and have placed before the eyes the deep and difficult-to-penetrate obscurity of the degrees (for they say that the discovery of degrees in the transverse line is most difficult and not easily grasped), they add also these words explicitly: "There are also other marriages, not proceeding because of the right of kinship, but because of affinity." Affinity is a certain relationship of persons joined to us through marriage, without kinship. Therefore, they do not clearly teach what degree spouses claim for themselves after marriage has been contracted; however, they add that no one may take to wife his daughter-in-law or stepdaughter. ^C Nor, likewise, a stepmother or mother-in-law, since they are in the place of mothers. The theory of the degrees must therefore be considered before all else. For thus the steep inequality of the question itself may be leveled.

The degrees of kinship were named from the steps of a ladder. For just as those, beginning from a flat surface and tending upwards, serve us for descending or ascending, so also these degrees, as branches of the same nature departing from a root—that is, the first parent—bring kinship to completion. ^D Let us see, therefore, what root and beginning intervenes between a man and his wife, so that one must revert to it, and from it, as by a step, come to them. None exists at all. For no one can say: "Peter begat Demetrius. The same [man] also procreated Mary: whereby it happens that these are joined by a kinship of two degrees." For this is a most manifest lie. Much more will anyone take care not to say that two persons are of one degree. Indeed, two generations produced them.

^A And those who weigh them by degrees—according to whether they are weighed, measured, or numbered—are like those who are asked: "How many layers of marble enclose this floor?" and answer, "Two." For a leek-green stone surrounds it, and cedar wood clothes it. It is therefore appropriate for us to say that spouses are neither traced to the kinship of two degrees (for how could they be, since they do not have the same root and birth, and are not for that reason divided even by nature?) nor are they of one and the same degree, on account of their carnal union, as if they were mixed like honeyed wine (for how could that be possible, since the persons remain intact?). ^B But we believe and confess, on account of the divine and salutary voice of our Lord, and God, and Savior Jesus Christ, who said to the disciples questioning Him whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, and who added these words explicitly: "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall be into one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh." For this reason, we confess that one almost unanimous human being, perceived in two persons, is to be reckoned as spouses by reason of marriage. But the stream of our discourse must be allowed to turn to another timely point.

^C The incomprehensible condescension toward us of the Only-begotten Son of God, and the pledge of the salvation of the human race, is magnified not only by many other mysteries, but is also glorified not a little by the nuptial blessing. For because the union subject to sin had been given over to the entire mass of mankind after the envy of the dragon and the transgression of the divine command, and because that evil had proceeded to other greater evils, the regeneration and restoration of us was a care to the benevolent God. Thus, when the Only-begotten Son of God became man like us, for our sake, and had fulfilled every other dispensation so that we might recover our pristine blessedness, He also blessed the marriage celebrated in Cana of Galilee, and changed the water of despair into the wine of true knowledge of God; ^D making men more certain through this, that women shall no longer bring forth children in pains, nor shall those who are born of matrimonial copulation speak in the ancient manner, "In sin my mother conceived me," but by keeping the commandments of God, just as that first parent of ours kept them before the transgression, they shall be deemed worthy of the same honor and glory with which the first parents were adorned before the disobedience. For marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled, and it grants salvation. Since these things are so, and since the divinely written tablets say, "You shall not go in to any near of kin of your flesh, to uncover their nakedness," and when our first parent answered elsewhere, "Now at last my wife is..."

bones of my bones, and flesh of my flesh": ^A for my part, I dare not say that married persons are of one flesh and another, even if I see them in two persons; lest I be justly condemned according to the custom of those who reject the written and unwritten traditions, which are the pledge of the holy Churches and of our salvation. But I judge rather that they should be considered as one flesh, and that the husband should be constrained by the same legal and canonical precepts—at least as far as marriage union goes—by which his spouse is also bound; and vice versa, that the same holds true. And for this reason, Demetrius cannot take Theodora to wife, who is held to be his cousin, because of his marital union with Maria. I also agree with those who forbid such a marriage contract of Demetrius by reason of the laws, whose words are: "In marriages, not only what is permitted, but also what is honorable, must be considered." For I observe that it is most dishonorable that he who has until now been called a kinsman by the cousin, should afterwards be called her husband. ^B And since some, using the words of a synodal document published on the 30th day of the month of July, in the twelfth indiction, when that most holy lord Theodosius was patriarch, and we were serving in the office of chartophylax, in which document towards the end are written these words: "Since the betrothal celebrated with John is dissolved as having no substance, because of the non-age of Irene, Irene will rightly be joined to her cousin by the law of marriage. For neither does Theodore consider Irene a kinswoman in the direct line, nor is he bound by the ties and constraints of affinity, ^C because she exceeds the sixth degree of affinity."

Using these words, they wish us to be silent, since we have already decreed the contrary. First, we answer that the chartophylax of any given time, who is held to be the mouth of the patriarch, says and writes those things which the head of the church—like a cloud and water—supplies to him. Therefore, no one will think that we are to be either blamed or praised for having perhaps written well on the present case, or on the contrary, written poorly. For we performed the office of scribe after the manner of Baruch, noting down whatever Jeremiah lamented in his lamentations; and after the manner of Aaron, we have spoken whatever Moses spoke in his speaking. Moreover, in order to cure the smallness of our understanding at that time regarding such a question, it was written by us in the second chapter of the thirteenth title of the Nomocanon. ^D For we said, in interpreting that chapter, that the marriage in question was also forbidden by imperial edict, even if it had not been entered into the records, and the Church does not sustain its promulgation. Then we add that when ancient notations and similar ecclesiastical writings are brought forward, they strain out even the tiniest gnat of such a question, and denounce it as most unlawful.

^A And no one, unless he closes his eyes to the glaring truth, will judge this with leisurely indifference, and that too when they have not been explicitly repealed by the present synodal memorandum; but whatever is contained therein, he will equate with canonical and legal teachings. Looking therefore to the Author and Consummator of our faith, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, I say again: since the great Paul says, "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). The divine and holy canons and tomes, regarding him who has been joined in marriage with a widow as a digamist, do not permit him to arrive at any ecclesiastical rank, nor indeed do they allow the spouse of a deceased priest to enter into a second marriage, entirely on account of the identity of their bodies, as is made manifest by chapter 31 and 32 of the first title of the third book of the *Basilica*, and by the 44th canon of Saint Basil, in which it is said towards the end: "We therefore do not permit the body of a deaconess, as having been consecrated, to be any longer for carnal use." I judge it therefore to be canonical and legitimate that it be forbidden by ecclesiastical authority for one and the same person to be joined to two cousins, and vice versa; and if anything of this kind has been done in secret, it should be deliberately dissolved and corrected with a penalty. ^B

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

Epistle regarding the incense which is accustomed to be given by the patriarch on the day that the catechesis is held.

You, indeed, most beloved son, most glorious judge and prefect of the courts, saying with David: "Ask thy father, and he will declare to thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee" (Deut. XXXII, 7); you have rightly desired to learn from us for what reason incense is accustomed to be given to the people by the most holy patriarchs of each age after the catechesis has been held. But I, draining the chalice of my affliction in exile, have until now delayed in responding. But since I have learned that one ought to give to everyone who asks, and at all times, both with tongue and hand, I answer these things to your questioning on the spur of the moment. ^{C D} The highly exalted circumspection of the divine emperors and the magnificence of the patriarchs were rendered even more august in times past by, among other things, the annual largesse of gold coins and the distribution of palm branches. For the patriarchs and emperors of each age used to sit annually, and through these things invited their subjects to goodwill. The most ample order of the conscript fathers knows these things, and perhaps also some who live in this age of ours. For they were not invented with trifles before the times of Euclid, nor are they the fables of dreaming old women; but even until the reign of the lord Constantine Ducas, that august custom endured in the palace of God himself as well as that of the emperors, and this good thing was entirely propagated even to us, from ancestors to grandsons, from generation to generation spread abroad. But if, which may it not be—

^A I imagine that even this has been swallowed by the abyss of oblivion, and that the refreshing water of Castalia does not proclaim the providence of the rulers of that time, at least the membranes of historical books and the records of imperial ordinances will proclaim these things in the manner of Stentor. ^B You also, who are the most sharp-witted interpreter of any learned writing, will even in this question of no small importance be superior to many, and you will assist me, the old man, in my discourse. Furthermore, the most holy edicts of the emperor, Lord Constantine Monomachos, by which the offices of the prefect of the courts and of the nomophylax were ordered, and which decree that they ought every year, among other things, to receive by way of *roga* a certain quantity of gold, together with the customary *baia*—these are not in heaven, nor beyond the sea, so that one might say, "Who will bring these to me?" But they are in your hand, and in your heart, and in your mouth. And you will altogether collect the truth of the matter from these by the sharpness of your mind. ^C Since, moreover, the emperors and the patriarchs, as has been said, manifest their magnificence through *baia* and *rogai*, it was right that the patriarchs, who maintain the ancient custom even to this day and measure out gold coins to the clergy, should also give *baia* to them, as was previously indicated. But since we no longer see this happening, I know not for what reason, but in the days of the catecheses they give only incense to the people in place of *rogai* and *baia*, it must be considered before all else what is the meaning of the word *baia*, and sought out the cause for which incense is given on the day of catechesis, and on Great Wednesday candles and incense, and finally candles with crosses on that Sunday on which the *baia* are borne. ^D Now, what sort those *baia* were, which were formerly given by emperors and patriarchs, I for my part have hitherto remained ignorant. For neither has my hand ever received any *baion* along with a *roga* from an imperial or patriarchal hand, although I am otherwise continually enriched by them almost every day, nor have I learned their quality from others. Yet I see that men hold branches of palms and myrtles, and honor the day of the *baia*-bearing. And of what language the word *baion* is, and what meaning it has according to the Romans and the Greeks, shall be indicated. *Baion* according to the Romans is neither a branch cut from a tree, nor a rose gathered from a rose-bed, nor a lily; but it is a transition of the human mind from one opinion to another, whether good, to be sure, or evil. Hence it comes that we call the tutors of boys *baiuloi*, as those who transfer the infant minds of children toward virility. And we call those *praevaricatores* [prevaricators] who are turncoats like the rainbow, and who betray their clients. Thus, when Judea and Jerusalem had been made subject to the Roman empire, after Julius Caesar had exercised sole monarchy, (so

^A indeed it happened, that Pilate judged the Lord, and Caesar Augustus registered Judea, and Paul, when he was being condemned, said: "I must stand before Caesar," [Acts 25:10],) the ancestral language of the Jews was bartered for the Roman. For they had mingled with the Gentiles, and learned their practices. When, therefore, the elders of the Jewish people and the assembly of the scribes saw our Lord and God, who sits upon the cherubic backs, riding in condescension upon the foal of an ass, yet being escorted in a kingly manner by those going before and following after, and magnifying Jerusalem (for He loved the city of Zion above all the tabernacles of Jacob), and saw also the crowds casting their garments on the ground and making the ways softer, and the children carrying branches and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes," they did not say with the prophets, "Praise the Lord, O ye children," [Ps. 112:1] nor, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, proclaim the glory of God, O Jerusalem, for behold thy King comes to thee, meek and saving, riding upon a foal of an ass, the son of a beast of burden" [Zech. 9:9]. For, He says, "Having a mouth they shall not speak, having eyes they shall not see, having ears they shall not hear," [Ps. 113:13-14] because a veil of the law and of ignorance lies upon their hearts.

They were incensed as sinners, and were kindled with anger, and gnashed their teeth, and wasted away, and said, "Go out, O nations, go out, O peoples, and see how the whole world goes after him." Hence, not understanding the carrying of the branches, they cried out like madmen, "Babai! ^B all are seduced, all have become useless, and have turned aside." Proh! The Mosaic laws and precepts have become a *baion* beyond expectation—that is, according to their madness, a leading to destruction. Since the meaning of the word *baia* (palm branches) has thus been well explained, in my opinion, it should also be stated how and why, after the catechesis, the most holy patriarchs distribute incense on the day of the carrying of the palms, as well as crosses and tapers, and again on Great Wednesday, tapers and incense, and on holy Easter, salutations and three-headed candles.

We say, therefore, that since the race of the Jews has been blinded to the light, and has called salvation destruction, as has been indicated (for it is accustomed to happen that to those suffering from jaundice, honey is bitter), we, feeling and doing the contrary to them (for we gaze upon the sun with eyes that do not blink), celebrate our assembly with the carrying of branches, and, exhibiting their madness as if in a triumph (for they have become a spectacle to mortals), we confess and by no means deny that we have become a *baion* ^C of faith; but from shadow to truth, but from mortality to immortality: and we are not ashamed to call those branches *baia*. The most faithful emperors, holding the same opinion, used to combine *baia* with their annual ceremonial wands, fashioned perhaps from silver or gold. For they congratulated those who received these as being orthodox toward God, and benevolent toward the emperors themselves. But since the emperors’ wands, and the flowers of the palms that spring up with them, ^D

^A ceased many years ago for the cause which we have indicated; since the palms of the patriarchs are still in public use, and the palm which is customarily given on the day of the casting off of meat has been so changed that it falls on the anniversary ecclesiastical palm-day of the great Tuesday, just as the ancient Palm-festivals express: for this reason the patriarchs give to the people after the catechesis incense, in place of palms; as if admonishing those who receive them to abandon their perverse manner of life, as they have been instructed, and through the conversion of a few days to acquire for themselves that eternal kingdom. Furthermore, by these incenses of low price, in the manner of frugal and avaricious men, they do not diminish the majesty of the Spirit (for how could they do such a thing, they who ensnare the whole world with various benefits, and plow every barren field, and reap the rich ears of beneficence?) but they wish to indicate the occult power of that day, as if to teach through these things those who receive them, what the state of mind ought to be in one who observes the fast, what the holocaust of penance is, and the incense of prayer. And then, indeed, they thus direct the course of the fast. But on that joyful Lord’s day of the bearing of the palms, sitting according to custom as those distributing prizes (for, say the Sacred Letters, "He sat who judges justice"), they receive those who have conquered in the contest of the fast ^B by the sanctifications of precious and holy crosses, and by the gifts of light-bearing wax tapers. For the faithful do not wish to fight with shadows, in the manner of the foolish, but as those who already behold the Sun of Justice, who illuminates the new Zion through the foal, they exhort them through these things that, the Lord’s fast of forty days now completed, and the clouds of vices having been expelled, they should arise together with this giant (which is to say, the Sun). ^C They hold palms in their hands because they have been led across from a vicious and perhaps profane life to a more sublime and incorrupt one; but they hold candles and crosses because they have struck down, together with the light of the truth, the author of all evil and their own adversary, Satan. And what other gift could be given to those who, through continence, have been victors in that great contest of the fast, more precious than the most desired holy cross, which crushed the masticating teeth of the all-devouring hell and opened the gates of life to the human race? Absolutely none, unless one wishes to say Jesus Christ our God, who through the cross acquired salvation for us. And since it is not permitted to receive a king, who is surrounded by many dominions and attendants, immediately or in a sordid state: "Now indeed," says that great pontiff, "be numbered among the infantry, take your stand in the rank of the slingers, march with the archers, and prostrate yourselves with the trophy-bearers. But after a small interval of time the royal palace itself will be opened to you, and you will see the King of heaven and earth, the unlimited Lord and our God being circumscribed carnaly by the hands of the righteous, and bestowing upon you life ^D without end in place of palms." And indeed, on that joyful Lord’s day of the venerable palm-bearing,

they illuminate the starless sphere of ignorance, or as faithful servants bearing lamps and traveling about the crossroads, they make more splendid the arrival of the Bridegroom, and triumph over the leprosy of the heretics sitting in darkness. ^A After the third day, that guardian of human souls, I mean the patriarch, having as it were calculated within himself, lest anyone should unworthily handle the prizes of the saving passion (for even honey, if taken otherwise than is beneficial, is often wont to turn its sweetness into vomit), like a vigilant keeper rising earlier than the dawn, gives incense to the faithful, wishing by this to indicate and admonish that they should not undertake the curriculum of the following days in a festive manner, but in the manner of pugilists. For although, he says, you have without danger crossed the great sea of the fast, buoyed up by the sail of the cross, and have arrived at the divine harbor of the holy sufferings of Christ our God, yet you have not obtained the priceless pearl, like that prudent merchant. ^B For still the ravagers and thieves greedily lie in wait for the Lord in the darkness, and having woven a net of homicide, they look for the opportunity of His capture. Let us therefore keep watch from now on, and let us keep vigil with the watching Jews. For they indeed will sail the sea in darkness, casting their nets in vain; but let us walk in the day, and we shall obtain the works of light. They will reach for spikes with hooks, but let us gain the catch. They will cover the pearl in a stone, but let us store it away in earthen vessels. When an offering of incense had thus been made in this manner, and the people had again directed their hands for a prosperous crossing of the sea of the fast, and had illuminated the night of the holy sufferings of Christ with lit torches (for those who walk in the day, as is the custom of those who walk in darkness, can in no way perform nocturnal journeys): then indeed the Bridegroom of the Church, rising again like a morning or evening Arcturus, on the festive Lord’s day of holy Pascha, like another inspired Moses, takes the people of Christ into his bosom. ^C And as if congratulating them for having shaken off all Egyptian wickedness and having drowned the persecutor Pharaoh, he says: "Come, see, you merchants of orthodoxy, you who have crossed the sea of the fast without danger, where the great wave of envy threw away the treasure of life; where a storm-driven whirlwind hid, as in an oyster-shell, that sleepless pearl in the sepulcher. And when you have seen the wrapper moved by the power of divine lightning, and the pearl having come forth by its own authority, exposed for buyers without any price, take it and make it your own, and store up eternal life for yourselves." And perhaps, too, like a loving father who for the first time sees his blameless children return safely from a long and dangerous journey, he welcomes them with a holy kiss in a state of great joy. ^D [alt-version omitted]

And having opened the treasuries of His blessing, He receives them with coins—few in appearance, but many in the meaning that is understood. For, looking upon Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, our true God, He pledges to them through these things as a deposit the visitation of the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit were coming upon them. ^A

Thus have we, as elder architects, written to you, oh wisest one, and shown you the foundation of an apology. But you, as another Bezalel, shall build upon it the truth. For "no one," he says, "can lay any foundation other than the one that is laid, Jesus Christ," to whom be glory and power unto the ages. Amen. ^B

BY THE SAME

A Meditation, concerning the calling which is made to the holy houses of monasteries, by three signals.

Since I see some inexperienced persons, and those who are fit for nothing useful, but only for saying and hearing some novelty, calling the calling of monks to the holy houses, which is performed by three signals for the sake of hearing the divine doxologies, vain and full of scandal (for they say, "It would have sufficed for them to be gathered together by one single signal, and not for there to be a mocking and derision of the holy Churches of God by the impious who surround us, and from this a proverb among the nations, nor for the monastic state to be held up for show as if in a triumph, as if they do not compose themselves properly at a single warning"), I therefore demonstrate by this present writing that it was conceived neither because of the chattering of the impious, nor because of the complainings of the monks, that divine doxologies are proclaimed by three signals: but because of a most important reason, handed down through the ages from antiquity. ^C

For since the daily and nightly doxologies performed in the Church, according to the oracular pronouncement of the prophet David, which says: "In the evening, and morning, and at noon I will tell, and report, and the Lord will hear my voice," are completed from the two Testaments, that is to say the New and the Old, according to the tradition of the holy and God-bearing Fathers; it was ordained before all things that God be glorified by the holy lyre of the God-father ("For I will open," he says, "my riddle on the psaltery"), and after the unfolding of this, that the holy bee-hive of the Church be exerted through the comb of evangelical teachings, with the sting illuminating the darkness; and through the honey of the apostolic writings, offering sweetness to the ends of the world; and finally through the narratives about the martyrs, which magnify the dispensation in the flesh of Christ our God. And therefore, for the sake of those six psalms of the God-father, and the rest which are sung in the morning doxology each time before the Hagiopolite, and those which are sung customarily during the divine mysteries, and the evening prayers, ^D

before the apostolic and evangelical readings, and even those included in the verses, the monks are summoned by a certain small ^A sign, as though more lowly and obscure. For those things which were outlined as if by shadows in the Old Testament were a type of things to come, and images.

But for the sake of the proclamation of the divine Gospels, and the reading of the remaining books pertaining to public assemblies, and simply for the whole order of the Hagiopolite, a great sign was devised. For the profit coming from these has reached into the whole earth and to the ends of the world. And since these things are performed in a way pleasing and religious to God, it was appropriate for the Lord’s people to be reminded of the future judgment, for which reason we kneel and pour out our prayers. ^B It was decreed, then, that Christians ought to be reminded of that last day by a bronze sign. For it is written: “God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet.” Likewise, “The angels of God shall sound with a trumpet, and the dead shall rise, and to each one shall be recompensed according to his works.”

But that in the general churches of the cities the multitudes are not summoned by three signs, but by one great one, is not an overturning of the ecclesiastical order. For the artisan is summoned, and he who is occupied with spade and plow. ^C It is, therefore, desirable that he should assemble at the public meeting, when the readings of the New Testament are recited. And to us, who by the grace of God keep every ecclesiastical tradition unchanged, it has seemed right to walk in this order. But to the Latins, who have been evilly separated from us and whose hearts have been hardened by Satan—although in their words they may be smoother than oil—a certain other custom for summoning the people to the holy houses has been handed down. ^D For they use only one sign, I mean the bell, which is named from the *campus*. For just as the *campus* (as they say) lies open and unobstructed to those wishing to set out on a journey, so also the high-reaching utterance of the bronze-mouthed bell is spread out and accessible to all. And the Latins and Italians certainly have no need of many signs, because they do not use the Hagiopolite psalmodies, but only the lyre of the Prophet-King.