Matthaeus Blastares

using the Greek tongue, and sending those who wish to examine their manifold and most numerous books on to them. So much I add now only, that as for the Attic tongue and its grace, the Egyptians used a coarser and more rustic interpretation; but the Phoenicians and Syrians, and even the Asians and Ionians, [did so] more cheerfully; and in every way they chose that which was smooth, easy, and altogether passionless and unexceptionable to the ears.

AROUND THE YEAR OF THE LORD 1332 MATTHEW BLASTARES. NOTICE.

Matthæus Blastares, or Blastarius, a hieromonachus, around the year 1335, composed an excellent work, a

Syntagma

(a) Hence Nicolaus Comnenus calls it a Nomocanon, p. 138, and Arcudius often. Also Labbe, p. 203, *Bibl. nov. ms.*, Cotelerius, and others. ^B He organized the canons. See the *Catalogus codicum Græcorum, Naples*, pp. 419 and 424. Paris, in the *Bibliothèque Publique*, twelve codices. See the Index to Vol. II of the said library. Venice, in the codex of the library of the Procurator Justiniani. See Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 483 C. Verona, ib., p. 490 C. from Maffei, *Verona illustrata*, part III, p. 242. Milan, in the Ambrosian Library, ib. p. 501 A. Which codex was written by the hand of Cotelerius himself. In three Mazarin codices, ibid. p. 1308 E, and p. 1318 D, and 1319 D. In the Escorial Library, see Plüer, *Itiner. per Hispan.*, p. 181. – Moscow, in the *Bibliotheca Synodalis*, codices 150, no. 1; 151, no. 1, 153, 154, no. 1, rendered into the more recent Greek language by Cunale Critopulus. Prefixed is the Prologue of Paisius Ligarides, Metropolitan of Gaza. – See Matthæus, *Notitia codicum Græcorum Mosquensium*, pp. 82, 83, 166, and 232. ^C Consult regarding Blastares, Henry Wharton and Robert Gery in the Appendix to Cave's *Historia litteraria Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum*, tom. II, p. 34 for the year 1335; Oudin in *Comment. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis*, tom. III, p. 828 seqq. for the year 1330; who also recounts more fully the writings of Blastares and their codices. Walch, in his *History of Heresies* (written in German), tom. X, p. 549. Christ. Godofr. Hoffmann, *Historia juris canonici*, lib. III, cap. 6, § 7, vol. I, p. 718, 2nd ed. Mart. Silberrad on Heineccius, *Historia juris*, p. 565.

(c) Or p. 986 seq. ed. Kollar. In codex 51, no. 10, the same, ibid. p. 1000, no. 4; in codex 52, no. 1005, no. 1, cod. 53. Ibid. p. 1023, no. 1, codex 55, in the appendix, and p. 1023, no. 2, codex 52. There are also certain writings of John, Bishop of Citrum, and others. In those codices are also found other writings of Matthæus Blastares, mentioned by Fabricius. The same *Syntagma* in the Imperial codex 46, no. 1, to which also adheres the "Donation of Constantine the Great." See Kollar, *Supplement to Lambecius's Commentaries*, I, p. 329 seqq., and in codex 53, no. 33. *Syntagma* in the Bodleian Library, codex Baroccianus 158. Ibid. in codex 115 of Thomas Marshall, excerpted from Matthæus Blastares and Iamblichus. In vol. II, p. 392, no. 2, is the *Nomocanon*, i.e., the *Syntagma*, etc.; and in the latter codex these two verses are prefixed to the prolegomena: "Matthæus, a wretch destitute of all virtue, [presents] this Table..."

^A In this *Syntagma*, p. 117, exists the *Donation of Constantine the Great*, which I have said elsewhere (vol. VI, p. 697, and note g there) was translated into Greek by Blastares. Also, *Questions and marital causes*, in Greek and Latin from the library of Ioannes Leunclavius, edited in Freher’s *Jus Græco-Romanum*, book VIII, pp. 478-518. The same [questions], which are in the *Syntagma alphabeticum*, p. 45 seq., title *Marriage*. [See Lambeck, VIII, p. 991 seq., no. 21, codex 51, and *On the degrees of consanguinity*, Paris, in the public library, codex 1555.] (HARL.)

A double political poem on the offices of the Great Church and the court of Constantinople, under the faulty title of "the monk Matthæus the physician," was published by Jacques Goar in Greek and Latin at the end of Codinus, folio, as I said in volume VI, p. 479 [see in vol. VII, p. 798, new ed.]. But Lambeck, from the Imperial codex (VIII, p. 469 (d)), taught that it should be read *oiktrou monachou Matthaiou thytou* ("of the miserable monk Matthæus, the sacrificer"); *hieronomachus* is *monachos thytes*, as Goar himself correctly observed. (FABR.) Likewise in the Vienna codex, Imperial 46, no. 3, where also, as in the Namianus codex cited earlier, the inscription is correctly: *oiktrou monachōn tauti Matthaiou thytou*. See Kollar, *Supplement to Lambeck’s commentaries* I, p. 331 seq. Paris, in six public library codices. Moscow, in codex 152, the double poem. See Matthæi, *Notitia* cited, p. 84, no. 5, 8. (HARL.)

A treatise on unleavened bread (*azymes*) against the Latins is cited by Allatius against Creyghton, pp. 450, 434. He cites Matthæus again, pp. 24, 551 seq., 335, 337, 575. Niccolò Comneno, page 306 of his *Prænotiones mystagogicæ*, cites the *Response to the arguments of the Latins*. There is also in the Bodleian library (e) the work of Matthæus Blastares *Against the Latins*, and *On the use of hot water in the Eucharist*, and other chapters concerning controversies with the Latins. Wherever the opportunity offers itself, he is happy to carp at the Latins; Arcudius also noted this, page 20 of his *Concordia de sacramentis*.

On the presentation of the *Colybo*, or cooked grain in the service for the dead. It begins: *Hē Hosiōtēs tēs kath’ hēmas ekklēsias hierarchia*, MS in the Bodleian library (FABR.) in codex Barocc. 63.—Paris, in the public library, codex 1293, no. 5. (HARL.)

*Synopsis Kanonikē*, or *Nomocanon* of Saint Ioannes Nesteutēs (on whom see above, p. 166, old ed.), MS Lambeck VIII, pp. 472, 479. And from the *Canonical responses to the bishop of Dyrrachium, Constantinus Cabasilas*, of Ioannes Citri (on whom see above p. 332, old ed.), 32 chapters, ibid., pp. 473, 479. (FABR.) See p. 988. Kollar, no. 11, codex 51, no. 1.—P. 990, no. 14, of the same codex. (See above, p. 269, concerning Constantinus Cabasilas;) p. 1000 seqq., nos. 1, 3. Our Matthæus’s *Syntagma of Canon Law*; *Catalogue of offices*, then the *Synopsis of the Nomocanon*. No. 6, from the *Canonical responses* of Ioannes, bishop of Citrus, twenty-four chapters, in codex 52.—The same works, p. 1005 seq., nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, codex 53.—Synopsis in the Moscow synodal codex 150, no. 5; and in codex 6 of the synodal press in 8vo. See Matthæi, loc. cit., pp. 82 and 334. Excerpts from the *Responses of Ioannes Citrii*, etc., in the Bodleian Library, codex Barocc. 158. Twenty-four chapters from the *Responses of Ioannes Citrii*. Paris, in the public library, codices 1537, no. 5; 1339, no. 4, and 1342, no. 6, and the *Synopsis* also in those three codices. Concerning the codex of Th. Gale, see what was noted a little earlier. (HARL.)

Also, a Latin-Greek juridical glossary, which begins *Adnoūmion, kat' onoma dierchesthai*, and is mentioned by Lambeck, pp. 477, 481 (g); Robert Gerus, in an appendix to Cave, attributes it to Matthæus Blastares. Labbe mentions a manuscript Rhetoric, p. 109, *Bibliotheca nova mss.* (FABR). Paris, in the public library, codex 2830, no. 8; *On rhetorical figures*, unpublished opus. (HARL.)

Fabricius again in volume XII: There follows the distinguished and copious [work] of Matthæus Blastares, *hieromonachus*, who lived circa 1335, an alphabetical work from two manuscript codices, first brought to light by Beveridge, of whom I have already spoken in vol. XI, p. 588 [and...].

Its title is: Σύνταγμα κατὰ στοιχεῖον τῶν ἐμπεριειλημμένων ἁπασῶν ὑποθέσεων τοῖς ἱεροῖς καὶ θείοις κανόσι, πονηθέν τε ἅμα καὶ συντεθὲν τῷ ἐν ἱερομονάχοις ἐλαχίστῳ Ματθαίῳ τῷ Βλαστάρῃ (An alphabetical Syntagma, being an ordered collection of all the subjects contained within the sacred and divine canons, both labored upon and composed by Matthew Blastares, the least among the hieromonks). ^B This *Syntagma alphabeticum*, in which all matters contained in the sacred and divine canons are digested under titles in alphabetical order, with civil laws also collated (such as those of Alexius Comnenus, p. 125 (*); Constantine Porphyrogenitus, pp. 232, 258; the Novels, p. 98; and the *tome of union*, p. 64; Leo the Wise, pp. 34, 52, 61, 62, 64, 66, 73, 104; Heraclius, p. 98; Manuel Comnenus, pp. 49, 101; Andronicus, p. 258; Alexius, pp. 76, 98; Isaac Angelus, p. 81; and Justinian passim), are laid out on pp. 1-272. ^C In the Preface, Blastares discourses at length on the writings themselves and the authors from whom he compiled his Syntagma: on the canons of the Apostles; on the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian; on Dionysius of Alexandria, whose epistle to the presbyter Novatus he brings forward; on the Council of Antioch; on the canons of Peter of Alexandria; on the Councils of Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Nicaea, the second of Antioch, Sardica, and Laodicea; on the canons of the holy Athanasius, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa; on the Councils of Gangra and Constantinople, that is, the Second Ecumenical; on the canons of the holy Timothy and Cyril of Alexandria; on the Council of Ephesus, or the Third Ecumenical, as well as the Councils of Carthage and Chalcedon, or the Fourth Ecumenical; on St. Gennadius of Constantinople; on the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the Quinisext in Trullo; on the Seventh Ecumenical Council, or the Second of Nicaea; on St. Tarasius of Constantinople; on the Proto-Deutera Council of Constantinople; on the council under Photius; ^D and on civil laws, their origin, and their constitution. In the work itself, among other things, the subject of heretics is discussed on pages 7-17. Furthermore, other writers are occasionally cited in addition to those already mentioned, such as Homer, p. 47; Josephus and Philo, p. 201; Isidore of Pelusium, p. 233; Photius, patriarch, and Theodore the Studite, p. 109; Theodore Tiro, on the miracle of the *kollyba*, p. 240; Zonaras, pp. 114, 254; Balsamon, pp. 36, 76, 77; the *Ecclesiastical History*, p. 158; Chrysostom, p. 232; the Second Epistle to Theodore, p. 193; his commentary on Matthew, pp. 152, 218; Homily 21 *On the Statues* (*ἀνδριάντων*), and the 6th *Against the Jews*, p. 173; the Second *On the Priesthood*, p. 179; on the Acts, p. 93; on the Epistle to the Thessalonians, p. 111; Gregory of Nazianzus, pp. 63, 71, 106; Cyril of Alexandria on Isaiah, p. 112; Paphnutius at the Council of Nicaea, p. 60; the poet's saying "Silence is an adornment to women" (*γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει*), p. 85; Chumnus of Thessalonica, pp. 48, 54; John the Faster, pp. 33, 164; the patriarchs of Constantinople: Lucas, pp. 46, 99, 166, 178; Nicolaus, pp. 49, 269; Chliarenus, p. 172; Leo Stypa, pp. 50, 51; Alexius, p. 232; Athanasius, p. 258; Michael, pp. 264, 269; Theodotus, p. 72.

Testimony concerning Symeon Metaphrastes

(*) Understand the pages to be those of the Beveridge edition, which I have expressed by larger numerals in the Latin text.

SYNTAGMA ALPHABETICUM OF ALL THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE SACRED AND DIVINE CANONS, ELABORATED AND COMPOSED BY THE LEAST AMONG HIEROMONKS, MATTHEW BLASTARES. PREFACE.

^A The substance of the sacred and divine canons flourished from the very beginning, if one may so speak, of the divine-human conversation of the Word in the world; from which, indeed, the venerable faith of the Christians, through the multi-vocal trumpet of the apostles, at the assistance of grace, has sounded throughout the whole world. It was augmented and expanded by particular additions, as the incidents of the Church, and the distinct causes and times of more recent events required, almost until the holy and universal seventh synod. Yet, by the grace of God, it has retained its integrity and vigor even down to our own times, suffering no detriment from the snares of time. For these seem to me to be precious stones, endowed with much variety and difference, but weaving together a single economy of the Church, set together and fittingly joined, against which our Savior declared that the gates of Hell would never prevail. ^B For indeed, since after the salutary proclamation had sprouted forth, the error of insane idolatry was fading and withering away, and was dissolving into nothingness, as was its nature—just as shadows vanish at the introduction of light—the wicked one, bearing this victory gained over him with difficulty, considered that he ought by no means to remain at rest. Having recalled his own cunning, and having insinuated himself into ruinous and impious men, he attempted in another way, namely by spurious and fraudulent doctrines, to prevail again over the truth, striving to conceal by these later efforts

^A what had occurred before. But a wolf was seen, as the proverb has it, gaping in vain. For the synods of the divine Fathers, both universal and local, were gathered as quickly as possible at their proper times, and they warded off the corruption of his madness. For the former received this name ^B because, by the command of the emperors who held power at that time—or, to speak more properly, by the command of the Holy Spirit—all the prelates of the Christian flock throughout the whole Roman Empire gathered into one city; while those who were unable to undertake such a journey employed their own messengers, so that by a public vote, or by a decree concerning the religious faith, they might send forth a more excellent trophy, or, with the common loss of piety expected, having fortified themselves with the weapons of truth, they might repel its destruction. ^C But the latter were called local, since the bishops of one province gathered to their own exarch, and not those called from all over the inhabited world, nor indeed was the inquiry about any common dogma, but rather for the confirmation of those things decreed in previous synods, or for the deposition of those who dared to act contrary to them, or concerning canons and questions contributing to the common good order of the Church. These men, one and all, did not only deign to apply the greatest diligence to excise those spurious doctrines sown among us ^D from their very roots, but they also deigned to constitute laws useful for life, correcting our holy polity, and instructing us in the accuracy of dogmas and also in a godly life, inflicting on the tyrant a double blow instead of a single one, as defenders of the sacred flock of Christ. Thus, he discovered that he had played the sophist against himself, and, like cunning beasts, was ensnared by his own arts. For in this way he unknowingly rendered the divine preaching stronger, as the Church defended itself with more fortifications, demonstrating his artifices to be no more than the darts of children. For so far were the prelate-shepherds of the sacred flock from being afraid to enter into conflict and struggle with him, that they regarded his wicked attempts as an occasion to demonstrate their own fortitude and virtue, and to obtain prizes. Thus they surpassed in promptness even those who run the back-and-forth races in the stadium of the crowned athletes, displaying a magnanimity all the more admirable, inasmuch as their struggle was for better prizes. For where they were unable to defend the truth in a bloodless struggle, they arrived at such a pitch of promptness and magnanimity that they almost complained of their own nature, because it was not possible to endure a thousand deaths for the truth, but after once tasting death, the desire for the glory to be acquired from such preparation was suppressed. So greatly did the defenders of piety overcome error, showing no trace of fear or terror even in their eyes. Therefore, the sacred and divine canons of such noble men gathered together, the Church reveres and honors to this day as divine oracles handed down from above, no less than the holy Gospels, since they are indeed, in an absolute sense, the fountains and roots of them. Nevertheless, whatever of the sacred

^A writings certain men—whose excellence of virtue time’s passage could not hide—have piously enunciated in letters composed in the manner of question and answer, bearing the character of a canon, the Church has accepted as canons, and has deservedly connected them to the aforementioned canons of the synods. For it was well-pleasing to the great and most excellent Basil, and to Gregory the Theologian, that those should be called and considered ecclesiastical canons which no one established by his own private judgment, but which many holy Fathers, gathered in one place, determined by common consent and careful investigation of matters. Yet, because those who wrote these things have always shone forth like stars, and it is established by very many testimonies that these were by no means constituted without a more divine inspiration, being nowise discordant with the synodal decrees, but rather demonstrating from afar an affinity to the subject matter at hand, these too are reckoned among the sacred canons.

It is therefore fitting for those who are nourished in piety to incline toward them at all times, to bind to them the restless movements of the soul, and to allow it not even a minute of time in which to abandon the genuine dogmas and slip into the adulterated; for thus, while it is perpetually occupied by good words and deeds, it will come to have divine imaginations even from dreams. For by these, so far as concerns dogmas, the straight is distinguished from the crooked, and the genuine from the spurious, more accurately than by any Lydian touchstone. These provide laws for masters and servants, for magistrates and subjects, for parents and children, for husbands and wives, for marriage and for celibacy, for abstinence and diet, for wisdom and ignorance. ^B Furthermore, while bidding emperors above all to honor them, they by no means intend that one should submit to their imprudent commands more than is fitting; much less to the commands of lower magistrates or commanders of armies.

Their greatest effort, however, is directed toward the royal priesthood of the Church, so that those who have been appointed to draw near to God may not be seen as unworthy of Him, in that they do not order their lives according to His will, but rather that they may reach such a height of virtue that they render the nobler part of the soul as similar as possible to the angelic powers that surround God, and manifest these things while in the flesh, not preferring the burden that surrounds nature. One would not be wrong to call these a common pharmacy, as they mix appropriate medicines for each of the sick. ^C And, indeed, for those who behave sluggishly in accepting the cure, they arouse some by threatening the most terrible things, while others they easily persuade by calling to memory the promises of things to come. Sometimes, however, they banish from the eternal inheritance, with more authority than any king, those who accept neither the medicines nor their injunctions, but who, through contumacy, have blocked off for themselves the harbor of repentance. ^D Hence, indeed, that saying of old by one of those outside [the Church] would, as it seems to me, not least apply to these divine institutions: for we are persuaded that these are a discovery and gift of God, a dogma of noble and God-bearing men, a common covenant of the Church, a correction of voluntary and involuntary sins, and a rule of life.

^A Wherefore, having gathered all the divine canons for the confirmation of saving judgment and for the useful instruction—as has been said—of all men, and having condensed their meaning, as well as the interpretation of those who have interpreted them with a God-loving mind, into a paraphrase as far as possible, I have been careful to leave out nothing of their thought, insofar as it has come to me; nor have I begrudged to those who encounter these [canons]—those things which perhaps were overlooked by their interpreters, but which occurred to my own mind as necessary and precious to God-loving souls—and I have compiled a treatise to the best of my ability. ^B Having distributed the power of all the collected canons into twenty-four titles, according to the number of our alphabet, and having correctly fitted the subject matter of each to its appropriate title according to the first letter of its own sense, and having indicated the names of their authors, and further pointed out the heads of the titles through arithmetical elements, I have marked out a path that is, if I am not mistaken, easy and concise, leading to their knowledge; I have thus removed the pretext of those who are reluctant to encounter them, who object that the prolixity of these [canons] overwhelms their mind, and further, that the canons of each subject are not arranged in one place. Moreover, I considered it worth the effort to append brief and concise chapters of civil law, which serve alongside and are consonant with the sacred canons, and which, out of abundance, bear witness to the appropriate chapters of the canons. ^C But the Fathers named their own decrees "canons," using the term tropically, taken from the metaphor of the straight piece of wood, which those occupied in mechanical arts are accustomed to use for the straightness of wood, or stone, or whatever other things; for when applied to these as they are being polished, it directs them and makes them level for precise fitting together. This appellation of "canon" is also used by many others skilled in the liberal arts; for those who work in the art of grammar, and philosophers, and physicians, and those who compose musical harmonies, and even those who have compiled civil laws, have applied the name of "canon"—not incongruously—to their own compositions. ^D There are also those to whom it pleases to call such things "terms," as they divide and distinguish and arrange them from others, lest anything supposititious or spurious be introduced into the things defined; just as it seemed good to Hippocrates to name the summary commentaries of his own works in that way. Whether, however, the appellation of "canon" is properly attributed to the writings of others, let that be left for others to consider. But the religious decrees of the Fathers, above all others,

^A have justly received this appellation, inasmuch as they direct those who obey them toward the right faith, and draw them unswervingly toward a life pleasing to God. It would be most opportune, and in order, as far as it is possible for us, to record when, by whom, and how each of the canons came into the light, and became a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths, as far as the direction of life is concerned. But in order that the discourse may proceed in sequence, one must make mention of each synod and of the Fathers who wrote individually, according to the succession of time, which also imposed an order upon them. One must also mention the emperors in whose times the authors of these divine canons flourished under God; for thus the discourse will be clear.

I. Concerning the canons of the holy Apostles

The eighty-five canons known by the name of the holy Apostles are most fittingly placed first, inasmuch as, as some say, they were written by Clement, the great among martyrs. ^B He was a companion of the great Peter, and indeed also of the divine Paul, as he himself implies; he who was named the third bishop of Rome after his teacher Peter, succeeding Linus, and who was crowned with the crown of martyrdom under the emperor Trajan. Some conjectured that Clement wrote these from the fact that he introduces his own person in the last canon, just as the divine Luke is shown doing in the Acts of the Apostles; for it is nowhere written that all the holy Apostles came together in one place and composed them by common counsel. And it is likely that the chief of the Apostles dictated them to him who had long enjoyed their presence, and ordered him to commit them to writing. To him they also ascribe the translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews into the Greek tongue; for there is much affinity, and both bear the same mold and character of language. I am not unaware that some of the ancients considered these canons of doubtful ^C authority, until the holy and ecumenical Sixth Synod, determining the number of all the sacred canons, which both ecumenical and local synods had established, and which also some Fathers who excelled in piety and virtue had composed privately, made mention of these first of all. For it says: "We also order that the eighty-five canons received and confirmed by the holy Fathers who preceded us, and delivered to us under the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, shall retain their authority, except for the Epistles and Constitutions of Clement; for these have been corrupted with much that is spurious and pernicious." Such a decree of such men and of such authority ^D completely removed, with supreme power, every doubtful thought from the minds of the faithful regarding the apostolic canons.

II. Concerning the Synod of Carthage

Of the universal as well as the local

synods, that held at Carthage is recorded as more ancient, having the great Cyprian as its exarch, and it was composed of eighty-four bishops. These issued but one decree in the form of a canon, namely, that those who have been baptized once by any heretics or schismatics whatsoever, if they come to the Catholic Church, must be baptized again; by schismatics, they imply those around Novatus, for at that time his heresy had insidiously entered the Church. The great Basil makes mention of this decree in his first canon, citing it for the sake of praise, but judging it to be obsolete for the sake of economy. Furthermore, the second ecumenical synod, in its seventh canon, decreed the opposite of this. For this reason, the sixth ecumenical synod says, "The canon set forth by those Fathers held good in their own localities only, according to the custom delivered to them." For this, as it seems, was useful for that time and for those circumstances; wherefore, the change in these matters also changed that canon, so that it is no longer in force. This great Cyprian received the reward of martyrdom under Decius. Decius was the sixteenth emperor after the aforementioned Trajan, one hundred and seventy years having elapsed since him.

Concerning the holy martyr Dionysius. ^B At that time also the great Dionysius shone forth, who wrote to a certain Basilides regarding various heads, and the Church received these as canons. This divine Dionysius was, then, a hearer of Origen in the fourth year of the reign of Philip, who reigned after Gordian. Upon the death of Heraclas, the thirteenth bishop of the Alexandrians, he received the oversight of this [see], and having presided for seventeen years—namely, the remaining three of Philip, and the one of Decius, and the one of Gallus, and of Volusianus, the son of Decius, in the twelfth year of Valerian and Gallienus his son (for they reigned for fifteen years)—he departed to the Lord by a martyr's end. Basilides was bishop of a certain parish in the Pentapolis of Libya, as Eusebius says in the sixth and seventh books of his Ecclesiastical History.

III. Concerning the first synod of ^C Antioch in Syria. After the aforementioned Valerian, Claudius reigned for one year, after whom Aurelian administered the empire for six years. In his times, therefore, a synod was held at Antioch in Syria against Paul of Samosata, who, being bishop of this city, had become the author of a wicked heresy. For he said that Christ, the true God, was a mere man, accounted worthy of divine grace just as the prophets were, and that the Son of God was a spoken word. Having learned of this, those who directed the churches of the East, not a few in number, flocked to Antioch; leading them were Hymenæus of Jerusalem, ^D Gregory of Neocæsarea the Wonderworker, Athenodorus his brother, Firmilian of Cæ-

Cæsarea of the Cappadocians, and Helenus of Tarsus. ^A And first, indeed, by exhortations and counsels, using proofs derived from the sacred Scriptures, they endeavored to turn Paul away from his depraved opinion. But when they saw that he was suffering from an incurable malady, then, having brought forward a unanimous vote, they stripped him of the priesthood and cut him off from the Church. When he resisted and held the office of the Church contrary to the laws, the holy synod appealed to the Emperor Aurelian, informing him of the contumacy of Paul. And he, although he was a Greek, decided that the one who opposed the vote of those of the same faith should be cut off from their communion, and thus be driven from the Church. However, he referred these matters concerning him to the bishop of the Roman Church and the prelates with him, so that they might examine whether he had been justly deposed and whether he should be excluded from the Church. Eusebius of Pamphilus ^B committed these things to writing. But the canons of this synod are not found, except for the epistle of the holy Gregory the Wonderworker alone, which contains twelve canons, which also became, as has been said, a part of this synod; and the great Gregory of Nyssa composed a special treatise concerning him.

Concerning the canons of the holy martyr Peter.

After the blessed Dionysius, as I have already said, who acted as the fourteenth bishop of Alexandria, Theonas received this charge, to whom succeeded Maximus, and after him, the great holy martyr Peter. ^C In his discourse on penance, fourteen canons are cited, regarding those who fell away during the times of the persecutions, and afterwards were led to penitence, concerning how it is fitting to receive them; furthermore, there are others from a different discourse concerning the holy Pascha, which the Church has also numbered with the remaining canons. He courageously finished the course of martyrdom under Diocletian. Diocletian was the fifth emperor after Aurelian, fifteen years having elapsed from that time.

IV.

Concerning the synod celebrated in Ancyra of Galatia.

On this subject, and at that same time, a synod was also piously gathered in Ancyra, a metropolis of Galatia, in which they inquired more accurately ^D as to how it was fitting to provide for those who were penitent after their abnegation. Presiding over this sacred assembly were Vitelius of Antioch in Syria, Agricolaus of Cæsarea of Cappadocia, and the martyr Basilius, bishop of Amaseia. They also wrote twenty-five canons concerning the same and other matters. This Basilius received the crown of martyrdom under Licinius.

V.

Concerning the synod held in Neocæsarea.

After this, the synod in Neocæsarea, which is a city of Pontus, was assembled. The holy martyr Basilius, bishop of Amaseia, was present at these, who also [drafted] the canons...

^A composed by the fourteen Fathers, which conduct to the right order of the Church.

VI. On the first and œcumenical synod held at Nicæa.

Furthermore, the first and œcumenical holy synod of the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers was assembled in Bithynia at Nicæa, in the tenth year of the reign of the great Constantine, and after the years from the Lord's incarnation and assumption into heaven [had equalled] the number of the Fathers, that is to say, three hundred and eighteen. Of these, Silvester and Julius, the illustrious presiding prelates of ancient Rome, were the leaders; but neither of them was present in person. However, each sent Biton and Vincentius in his own stead, in accordance with the time of their own priesthood, to be present at the synod. Alexander of Constantinople was there, and Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria, who also brought with him as his fellow-soldier the great Athanasius, who at that time presided over the order of deacons; [there too were] Eustathius of Antioch and Macarius of Jerusalem. They gathered against the impious Arius, who was by race from Alexandria and had been advanced to the grade of presbyter of the Church there, and who—O, the bold tongue!—had demoted the Son and Word of God to the status of a creature and a thing made. But the Fathers of the synod, having proclaimed to all the consubstantiality of the three persons of the God-ruling nature, subjected to anathema those of the party of the god-maddened Arius who did not concur in their opinion, [and who did not agree] with their dogmas. Therefore, ^B by this synod also, twenty canons were issued for ecclesiastical order.

VII. On the second synod held at Antioch.

Another synod was again assembled in Antioch in Syria under Constantius, the son of the great Constantine, five years after the calling of his father to God; and these [Fathers] issued twenty-five canons for the common benefit of the Church.

VIII. On the synod held at Sardica.

But also the synod at Sardica was assembled during the reign of the aforementioned Constantius. For this emperor, having joined the Arian heresy, made it his effort to alter the things dogmatized in the first synod; but when his brother Constans, who held the empire of older Rome, learned of this from the report of the Pope of that time, he threatened war by letter to his brother if he did not cease troubling the Church and destabilizing the orthodox faith. ^C Constantius replied to his brother by letter that he himself sought the precise faith and that he would apply the greatest diligence so that it might be confirmed. It seemed good, therefore, to both emperors that a synod of bishops should be held, and that the faith dogmatized by them should prevail; wherefore, by their command, bishops to the number of three hundred and forty-one were assembled at Sardica, the place called Triaditza, who indeed [commanded] that the things dogmatized by the Fathers ^D at the council in Nicæa [should remain firm, and the...]

that the sacred Symbol of the faith composed by them should be, most of all, kept safe; and that those who dared to alter it should be heirs of the anathema. Furthermore, they established twenty canons, providing security and simultaneously benefit to the Church in common.

IX. Concerning the council held at Laodicea. After the one at Sardica, another council of holy Fathers was assembled at Laodicea, the metropolis of Phrygia, and it set forth fifty-nine canons, which, taking into account the benefit of the Church, are in no way inferior to the ones before them. ^B

Concerning the great Athanasius. You may find, O ear studious of what is honorable, even in the present work, not a few things concerning the support of the Church, the great Father Athanasius, I say; who, having been present at the council at Nicæa, as has been declared, not long after took up the throne of Alexandria, succeeding the divine Alexander. For to the aforementioned holy martyr Peter succeeded Achillas, and to him this divine Alexander. But the earth—to speak with the oracle—is full of the trophies of the great Athanasius, and the sea is full. For he appeared truly more than human in the contests for the sake of ^C God.

Concerning the great Basil. But this Olympic victor of the life-stadium has departed, about to receive abundantly the rewards of his contests. Yet, that the phalanx fighting for the truth might not be left without a leader, the signal for the battle against the enemies of the faith is given straightway to the great Father Basil; and I think that no one of those who have even slightly tasted of his honey-flowing tongue is ignorant of how abundantly he surpassed them. He illuminated the Church with the liberal light of his discourses, more splendidly than the sun. For the sun yields to the night, but he gained the victory over the darkness of malice. ^D Nay rather, by as much as the rational nature differs from the inanimate, by so much is the difference in the operation of each. For the one, sending its rays upon the earth, grants confidence with joy only to the sentient animals; but the rays of his discourses, from the time they arose until this very day, not only [illuminate] the rational nature on earth, but cutting through the air and reaching up through the heaven, they fill even the choirs of the angels with much joy. For if there is joy in heaven over one sinner repenting, while he, both while living in the life and now departed, is seen daily drawing countless numbers to repentance by his discourses, who could deny that he constantly gladdens the angelic nature? The present syntagma brings his three canonical epistles to the holy Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, distributed into eighty-four canons, and certain other chapters besides these concerning various subjects.

Concerning the holy Gregory of Nyssa. To him, his brother Gregory was also an ally, who adorned the throne of Nyssa, or rather,

^A the whole world under the sun, he irrigated with the rich stream of his discourses; a man who was no less related by kinship to his brother than he was by the superiority of his virtue and his zeal for piety. In order to present, in brief, all the distinguishing marks of this man, the present collection includes his canonical epistle to Letoius, bishop of Melitene, alongside others.

X. Concerning the Synod of Gangra

The synod also in Gangra, which is the metropolis of the Paphlagonians, was convened after the first synod at Nicaea, against a certain Eustathius and those who were imbued with the same opinion as he. Now this Eustathius, as Hermias Sozomen records, is said to have administered the Church of Sebaste, which is a city of Armenia, and to have been the first to initiate monastic philosophy and the austere manner of living therein. He laid down rules concerning the foods that one ought to eat and abstain from, as well as concerning the clothing that one should wear, and became the author of precise conduct and ^B discipline, to such an extent that some maintain that the ascetic book which is ascribed to the great Basil as its father and founder was actually composed by him. But this falsehood is sufficiently manifest. For this book in no way fits him. Although the man was commonly celebrated in his sermons, and was admirable in his morals, and most apt at persuasion—to such an extent that he had led many of those who had indulged in debauchery to a temperate and honorable life—nonetheless, to speak the truth, the faculty of writing clearly did not belong to him (nor did he ever exercise that art). They say, therefore, that having fallen from the refined standard of discipline into absurd practices, he strayed completely from the laws and customs of the Church. There are those, however, who exempt him from the reproach, but blame some of his disciples as ^C calumniators of lawful marriage, affirming that all hope of salvation is cut off for those involved in it. Persuaded by them, men and women alike—the men would cast out their wives, and the women would abandon their husbands—in the ostensible desire for chastity, subsequently, not bearing the life of the unmarried, would slip into fornication. Furthermore, in the houses of those who were married, they would not deign to pray nor share in food, but they even despised married presbyters; they would claim for themselves the revenues of the churches, and they commanded others to shun the gatherings held within them, and instead to hold church in private homes, and to perform communion there. Moreover, they despised the sacred houses in which the relics of martyrs were deposited, as if they were profane; they neglected the appointed fasts, but persuaded [people] rather to fast on Sundays; they ^D abominating meats and those who ate them; they would not deign to wear the customary tunics and stoles, but instead used ones entirely strange and unusual. Among them, women would cut their hair and use garments befitting men; they counseled slaves, under the pretext of piety, to secede from their masters; and they asserted that those who abound in riches, and do not abandon them entirely, would be deprived of the kingdom of God; and they taught many other things

similar to these as novelties, and preached them as if they were dogmas. They say, therefore, that the neighboring bishops gathered against these persons, as we have previously mentioned, and that they are known to have issued nineteen canons against those who held such views; and they decreed that they were to be considered aliens from the Catholic Church unless they renounced all their practices according to the decrees of the synod. In that council, it is said that Eustathius declared that he had introduced these things not out of stubbornness, but for the sake of ^A pious exercise, and that he had decided to change his habit and to walk in no other way than the other clergy. For he believed that if he acted in this way at the end, he might be spared for his prior actions; yet he gained no advantage from this pretext, nor could he escape the punishment due to his daring acts, namely, deposition from the priesthood. But I know not why these divine Fathers, in every canon, applied not [merely] a separation, but anathema; I suppose they were wishing to repel the great onslaught of malice out of an abundance of caution.

Concerning anathema.

This anathema, the holy and universal fourth synod employed only against those ordained for money; but it applies this also to monks and ^B clergy who assume a military habit and have not repented. But the golden-tongued one, in his homily on the fact that one ought not to anathematize a faithful man, thinks that one should not at all utter anathema. For he says that this cuts one off entirely from Christ and hands one over to the devil, so that such a person no longer has a place for salvation. For he who has become anathema is separated from Christ and the society of the faithful, and is joined to Satan; and just as things dedicated to God are separated from common and human affairs, so on the contrary, those separated unto the evil one are drawn away from divine things. For this reason, the synodical decision, as it seems, which was made ^C under the rule of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Patriarch Alexius, which strikes with anathema those who revolt against the emperors, and take up arms against them, and practice tyranny, is abrogated, so that the words spoken by the great Father Chrysostom should prevail rather than those of the fourth synod and those of Gangra. But even these Fathers, conscious to themselves, if I am not mistaken, that they had extended the penalties beyond measure, say at the end of the canons: "These things we have decreed, not being angry at those who wish to practice asceticism, but at those who seek after asceticism with a proud disposition ^D and introduce things new and contrary to the holy Scriptures. For we admire virginity with humility, and we approve of continence with piety; and we praise withdrawal from secular affairs when joined with due modesty; and we honor honorable marriage; and we do not despise wealth when accompanied by justice and beneficence; and we do not dishonor simplicity of clothing; but those who wear long robes and are effeminate

^A in their dress we avoid; we reverence the houses of God, and we embrace the assemblies held in them as most useful, not boxing up our piety within these houses, but considering every holy house built in the name of the Lord to be venerable; and we accept the beneficence of the brethren toward the poor, according to the traditions of the Church; and, to express it in a word, we cherish what has been passed down by divine Scriptures, and furthermore what has been passed down by apostolic traditions in an unwritten custom, and we pray that those who do these things may never cease.

XI. On the second ecumenical holy synod.

After this, the second of the ecumenical synods assembled by divine will, in the second year of the reign of the great ^B Theodosius, lagging fifty-two years behind the first in Nicaea. This, then, showed the imperial city to be a holy school of learning; and one hundred and fifty holy men were gathered into it, having as leaders Timothy of Alexandria, and the admirable Meletius of Antioch, and Cyril of Jerusalem, and indeed also Nectarius, who, having just been separated from the flock of the catechumens, and having washed away the filth of life in the divine bath, now pure, puts on the pure dignity of the hierarchy; and at the same time he was styled bishop of the queen of cities, and president of the synod; with whom were present Gregory ^C, the bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, and he who is also named the Theologian from his works, who was still administering the throne of Constantinople; but when a sedition arose, being more ready than those who were to receive it, he yielded the throne to those who wished to take it, and, having struck the synod with his farewell address even more than before, he returns to his own fatherland, Nazianzus, and enjoys the rest for which he had long yearned; not long after which, Damasus of old Rome also showed that he confirmed the same things as the synod. This holy choir, therefore, having driven out the spirit-fighting Macedonius, who had long ago seized the throne of Constantinople by rapine, and having condemned with anathema those with him, ^D dogmatized that the Holy Spirit is of equal honor with the Father and the Son as the true God; and furthermore, having cast their vote against the mindless Apollinarius, they decreed that the Lord had assumed a rational and ensouled flesh; and the present *Syntagma* provides the seven canons of these men, which are all they issued.

On Timothy, Theophilus, and the great Cyril, who illuminated the see of Alexandria in succession.

But also, fifteen canons of the aforementioned Timothy of Alexandria are brought forward, in the manner of question and answer. Thus, when the great Father Athanasius had been deprived of the throne of Alexandria by the Arians, Gregory the Cappadocian, being of the Arian heresy, was surreptitiously introduced; and upon him paying a just penalty, the great Athanasius returns again, to whom Peter

^A succeeds, and upon him being banished by Valens, Lucas the Arian was substituted; and upon his passing away, Peter again seizes the throne. Then Timothy, the great, having been raised to the throne in the fourth year of the reign of Theodosius the Great, was also present at the aforementioned second ecumenical synod. After seven years he departed to the Lord, having as his successor Theophilus, of whom there are also two epistles and as many canons brought forward. His nephew, the great Cyril, I say, succeeded him; there are also two from his epistles, distributed into seven canons.

XII. Concerning the holy and ecumenical third synod.

^B The holy and ecumenical third synod was gathered in the thirteenth year of the reign of Theodosius the Younger, in Ephesus, a city of Asia, filled with two hundred bishops, with forty-one years counted from the second until this one. Among these, the appointed presidents were the most celebrated among the Fathers, Cyril of Alexandria, fulfilling both the person and the seat of Celestine, the elder bishop of Rome, Juvenalius of Jerusalem, and Memnon, the president of the Ephesians; who required the penalty of impiety from the execrable Nestorius, who originated from Antioch, but had impiously been entrusted with the throne of Constantinople; because he did not dread to slice the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons, ^C and in his senselessness, he fashioned the one as a mere man without the Word assuming him, and the other as God separately and naked of the assumption, but united to him only according to relation; and just as he stripped the Savior Christ of his divinity, so too he deprived her who is properly the Theotokos of the title of Theotokos. But the synod of the divine Fathers clearly decreed that the Word generated from God the Father was united to flesh according to person, and that there is one Son together with the assumed humanity, in two natures, but recognized in one person; so that the same is at once God and man, having perfection in both natures, and being abundantly free from confusion. And the maiden who remained a virgin forever, who brought forth without seed and in a supernatural manner, they declared to be truly and properly the Theotokos, consigning the delirious Nestorius to anathema for his own dogmas; and these also established eight canons.

XIII. Concerning the synod at Carthage.

^D But also at that time a synod was celebrated in Carthage, while Honorius was reigning in Old Rome, and in Constantinople the aforementioned Theodosius the Younger, with two hundred and seventeen divine Fathers gathered in Carthage from Africa and the regions subject to it. For Carthage is a part of Carchedon, and Carchedon is a province of Africa; and there are eight parts of Africa: the first, which Alexandria, and the Pentapolis of Libya, and that which is called the desert Tripoli complete; the second is that of Byzacium; the third, that of Carthage, which is also called proconsular, or anthypatica; then two of Numidia, the old and the new; then three of Mauritania, or Sarinsia, which also

Caesariensis, which is also called Caesariana, from its metropolis, Caesarea; Sitifensis, whose metropolis is Sitifi; and Tingitana, which has for its metropolis Tingis. Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, whom they also called pope, presided over the synod, along with the delegates sent by the Roman pope: Faustinus, bishop, and Philippus and Asellus, presbyters. Other delegates from the aforementioned provinces of Africa were also present, filling the places of those who could not come to the synod; whence also the name "delegation" [lit. *loca conservatio*] was taken from *conservare*, that is, to keep, or to fulfill the places of those who send them. ^B

XIV. On the holy and ecumenical fourth synod.

But before thirty years had elapsed since the third [synod], the holy and ecumenical fourth synod was gathered in the first year of the reign of the benevolent Emperor Marcian, in the celebrated Bithynian city of Chalcedon, and the number of bishops reached six hundred and thirty. Its presidents were declared to be Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenalius of Jerusalem; and indeed, also the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, along with the presbyter Bonifacius, holding the place of Leo, the most holy pope of elder Rome, whose fame was great, and whose zeal for piety was immense; who not only through his own nuncios, but also by his admirable letter, confirmed the decrees of the synod, which the Fathers even called a pillar of the orthodox faith. They condemned with anathema, on account of their impiety, Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople, and his defender Dioscorus of Alexandria, who, while purportedly fleeing the division of Nestorius, were commingling and confounding our one Lord and God, Christ, who is acknowledged in two natures, into a single nature. These [Fathers] also bestowed thirty canons upon the Church. Seek the things pertaining to this also in the first chapter of the letter E.

On the most holy Gennadius of Constantinople.

In the second year of Leo the Great, who reigned after Marcian, ^D the divine Gennadius was raised to the throne of Constantinople, succeeding Anatolius, and after fourteen years he departed to the Lord. A letter of his is circulated, written to the synod held at Rome, which shows that there is no absurdity, however great, that ordination conferred for money does not contain in itself.

XV. On the holy and ecumenical fifth synod.

As for the fifth and ecumenical synod, it concerned itself with no canon at all, except to subject to anathema those of the party of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who were striving to introduce pagan mythology into the Church of God. For they used to babble on about the pre-existence of souls, and that the same soul puts on many bodies, and that there would be an end to eternal punishment. For it was gathered in the eighteenth

year of the reign of Justinian the Great, being one hundred and two years after the fourth one which preceded it; and it established the Queen of Cities for itself as a sacred temple. It was strengthened by the concurrence of one hundred and sixty-five divine Fathers, over whom presided, first Menas, then Eutychius, who successively directed the high-priestly rudders of the ruling city; Apolinarius of Alexandria, Domnus of Antioch, and furthermore also Didymus and Evagrius, filling the place of Eutychius of Jerusalem. Vigilius of Rome was indeed present in the city at that time, but did not attend the synod; nevertheless, he confirmed the common faith of the Fathers by a libellus.

XVI. Of the holy and ecumenical sixth synod.

^B Furthermore, it was not deemed worthwhile for the sixth synod, properly so called, to write canons, as it directed its mind to other matters; it gathered one hundred and forty-nine years after the one that had preceded it, and it too established the imperial city as a sacred theater. Having one hundred and seventy divine men girded for the struggle, it clearly demonstrated the victory of piety in the thirteenth year of the reign of Constantine, called Pogonatus. The leaders of this were acknowledged to be George of Constantinople, and Theodore and George, presbyters, together with John the deacon, satisfying the place ^C of Agatho, the most holy Pope of Rome; for the Alexandrian, the monk Peter filled the place; George, a monk and presbyter, for Jerusalem. These indeed subjected Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, the impious prelates of Constantinople, and furthermore also Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, Theodore of Pharan, Stephen, and Polychronius, to the penalty of anathema, because they proclaimed that our Lord, even after the incarnation, had one will and one operation. But the Fathers of this synod declared and confirmed that our Lord, ^D after the incarnation, had two natural wills and similarly two operations, not in a division of persons, but because neither of the two natures in Christ was without will or without operation; lest, with these properties of each nature being removed—that is, the operation and the will—the natures themselves, of which these are the properties, might seem to be removed as well.

XVII. Of the holy and ecumenical quinisext synod.

Indeed, when Justinian the Second, namely Rhinotmetus, who was the son of Constantine Pogonatus, was ruling, by his command two hundred and twenty-seven bishops gathered in the place called the Trullus; this house was a most celebrated one, situated in the palace of the emperors of Constantinople. Their task was to confirm all that had been done in the prior synods, and to compose canons pertaining to the constitution of the Church; this one is also joined to the sixth, and has received its name; for it was not concerning faith and

^A doctrine ^B that any inquiry was made in it, such that it should be reckoned as a distinct synod on that account; but rather it might properly be called the Quinisext, in as much as it supplied the deficiency of the fifth and sixth, namely, the composition of the holy canons. It is also œcumenical; for the presiding officers in it were declared to be Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, George of Antioch, Anastasius of Jerusalem, John of New Justinianopolis, and Basil of the metropolis of the Gortynians in the island of Crete, who also occupied the place of the entire synod of the holy Church of Rome. For thus it is found in ancient ^C books, that after the emperor's subscription, each of the patriarchs and metropolitans signed his own name and rank by his subscription. Even though the Latins, being mortally wounded by this synod, strenuously contend that it was not an œcumenical synod, because it did not have the legates of the Pope of Rome, in as much as the sixth synod, to which he himself also consented, and which was gathered under Constantine Pogonatus, is a different one, while this one was celebrated a long time after, by the order of Justinian Rhinotmetus. But in the first place, such saintly Fathers would hardly have endured to be convicted of so manifest a lie, stating in their own canons: "This holy and œcumenical synod has decreed." And besides, the Pope had his legates, that is to say, representatives, who were indeed from our own region, so that they took his place in the common assemblies, it being difficult for him to arrive due to the length of the road; for they were not indeed ordained by him, as Constantine of Caesarea records. All of these, therefore, were present at the holy synod, I mean the bishop of Thessalonica, of Dardanis, of Heraclea in Thrace, of Corinth, of Ravenna, and this Basil of Crete, who signed that he was privately bringing the rights of the Roman Church; and these men composed one hundred and two ^D canons.

XVIII. Concerning the holy and œcumenical seventh synod.

One hundred and twenty years having passed, and it being the eighth year of the reign of Constantine and his mother Irene, the seventh synod also, just as the first one did of old, showed Nicaea, the metropolis of the Bithynians, to be the forum of piety. It was adorned by three hundred and sixty-seven holy men; it set forth as leaders of this sacred phalanx Tarasius of Constantinople, a man of great renown among the priests of God, Peter who held the primacy in the order of priests, and another Peter, a presbyter and abbot of the monastery of Saint Sabas, who had obtained the place of Pope Hadrian of Rome, as well as John and Thomas, presbyters and men shining with beauty among ascetics, who held the place of the patriarchs of the East, namely, of Apolinarius of Alexandria, Theodoritus of Antioch, and Elias of Jerusalem. This holy synod, therefore, by common vote, submitted to the indissoluble bonds of anathema those who—O foul tongue!—call the adorable images of Christ and His saints, by which the error of idols is driven away, idols; and for the benefit of the faithful, they [composed] twenty-two canons.

they composed: in the year of the world 6296, as that time ^A slipped away, by a common vote, they delivered over to the indissoluble bonds of anathema; and they composed twenty-two canons for the benefit of the faithful, in the six thousand two hundred ninety-sixth year running at that time.

*Of Saint Tarasius of Constantinople.* Furthermore, the aforementioned divine Tarasius sent a letter to Hadrian, the Roman Pope, in which he used not a few testimonies drawn from the Holy Scriptures, and demonstrated that to ordain for money contains within itself every impiety.

XIX. *Of the so-called First and Second Holy and Ecumenical Synod.* Another synod was also held at Constantinople in the famous temple of the holy Apostles, which is inscribed, "The Holy and Great First and Second Synod." They say that this was gathered in the days of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, when Basil the Macedonian held the scepter of the Roman empire, in the seventy-fifth year after the seventh synod had passed. For when some sedition had arisen in the first ^B meeting, a second gathering of the divine Fathers was necessary, in which the things decreed were confirmed and also committed to writing, so that from then on it might be distinctly termed one synod. And this one also composed seventeen canons.

XX. *Of the Synod held under Photius.* Moreover, three other canons were issued by the synod which finally installed Photius on the throne of Constantinople, after the translation of the divine Ignatius, with both of them having been previously cast out and brought back in again and again.

*Recapitulation of the Syntagma.* Here the order of the times of the holy synods after the divine apostles is handed down: and these were the causes of the gatherings. And these are the canons which each synod issued, and those which some of the divine men also wrote down privately. For since the multitude from the nations and from the Jews, through the incomprehensible and ineffable economy of the Incarnation of the Word of God, had been turned away from the deceit of the devil and from his tyranny, and had been attached to the true King and Lord of glory with a right faith and a sincere heart, it was necessary for them to be guided by divine laws toward better things, and for those who had fallen into vice to be led back. The divine Fathers, while declaring that the civil laws mightily prevail, ^D issued divine sanctions and canons directing the life and character of each person. For they did not think it right to treat those who sin in the way that civil laws do, and to punish them with stripes, and to subject them to most painful blows like irrational animals, as if they were battling against vice while choosing to harm the bodies of men, snatching them away at the final blow from true repentance. For they deemed these things to be plainly at odds with the mercies of God, who commands us to turn back the wanderer, to seek the lost, to strengthen the infirm as much as we can, and furthermore to deem them worthy of every grace and adoption, and to liberate them from the harassment of the law. Moreover, they wondered how the works of demons were not long ago in admiration

^A however, they judged that the putrid part of the limbs should be cut away altogether and openly with the sword of the Spirit, lest they might contaminate those nearby with the contagion of society, and that this was best and most conducive to the security of the community. Therefore, in order that pastors and teachers succeeding them might have a model both of doctrine and of spiritual medicine, they recorded the appropriate remedy for each disease in writing, having first deliberated on these matters with the Holy Spirit, who wisely dispenses and directs our affairs. Wherefore, those who do not at all occupy their thoughts with the works of these men in such matters are worthy of the utmost punishment, because they have stubbornly preferred human and base thoughts and unstable meditations to the true and firm laws of the Spirit, according to the oracle. But enough of these things. May it be that neither those who encounter this work miss out on anything useful, nor we on the ^B rewards of our labor. And may the time not be hidden from the readers, which brought this work into the light of the sun, having precisely measured out the course of time in the forty-third year after the six-hundredth.

Of political laws, whence they had their origin, and how they were constituted

Furthermore, nothing prevents us from discussing briefly the political laws, and from whence they too had their origin, as far as is possible to record; since we have thought it necessary to adapt some of these to the chapters of the sacred canons, as if they were certain auxiliaries. Around the first Olympiad, when the world had completed the four thousand seven hundred and eighth year, Romulus was ruling over Rome, after whom six others followed one another in number; and two hundred and forty-four years ^C measured out their reign. The city being governed by the mode of a kingdom, the kings administered political affairs, exercising the power next after the emperor, and what seemed good to them held the force of law in the state; for the law had not yet been committed to letters. But around the sixty-eighth Olympiad, the kingdom having lapsed into a democracy, and the kings having been removed from the midst, and the prefecture of consuls having been introduced, the Roman people used a certain indefinite law, or rather, to speak better, a custom. But before twenty years had passed, the people, having chosen ten men, of whom Appius Claudius was the chief, entrusted them to establish laws. These men, collecting the customs scattered here and there as if they were the laws ^D of Rome, and drawing also from Athens not a few of the Greek laws—which are boastfully claimed to be received from Solon and Draco, and which, according to report, Lycurgus, Minos, and the like also had as father—composed twelve books from these. For Solon, just as Lycurgus, was ancient. Indeed, he was known in the year of the Trojan destruction, when Proca Sylvius was ruling over the Latins. Solon, however, was bringing laws to the Athenians in the forty-sixth Olympiad, the laws of Draco, except for those that dealt with homicides.

The people used the aforementioned books until they were led by consuls and a democracy, as has been said. For every year the people would put forward two of the nobility to manage all civil and military affairs, whom they called consuls; and this form of government sufficed for four hundred and sixty-four years. ^B But when Gaius changed the consulship and democracy back into a kingdom, and as the state grew, it also happened that cases and public lawsuits multiplied, so that the state was in need of more kinds of laws and of more recent ones. For this reason, that most august Caesar Augustus, who ruled after Gaius, permitted not only those who were wiser than the many to propose laws, but also the people and the commanders; and whatever anyone said was examined by all, and if it appeared useful, it was immediately inscribed in the preceding laws. These, too, Hadrian, who ruled long after Augustus, gathered into one, and from all the prescriptions of others, he made a single work, distributed into fifty books, which he named *Digesta* or *Pandect*, as being collected—obviously—from many. And whatever the emperors had decreed privately, he wrote in twelve books, which he named *Codices* or imperial Constitutions. But even in this way, it was difficult to understand the laws, as they had a breadth that was not defined by clear reasoning, and especially because the emperors who held power at the time would insert into the codes what seemed good to them, regarding which no law had previously existed. Furthermore, the Latin diction and phrasing still hid the laws from those who were not able to understand it, strongly barring them out and depriving them of the benefit to be derived from them, confining it to one nation. ^C But the most renowned among the emperors, Justinian, having selected from the multitude of legal chapters only those that were useful for the time and for the affairs, and having, moreover, contracted the great size as much as possible, and having removed what had been set down twice concerning the same matters, translated both the codes and the *Digesta* into the Greek language. Furthermore, having made an introduction to the laws as a kind of first element, he named that book *Instituta*; for that signifies an introduction. But when he had composed the *Syntagma* and the *Epitome* of the *Digesta*, as has been said, it seemed to some that many things of great importance had been omitted in the elaborated compendium. For this reason, those called *Paratitla* were again established and perfected, which contain, in the individual titles, supplements of useful matters that had been omitted. But the emperor used not a few interpreters and assistants for these things. A certain Stephanus interpreted the *Digesta* in full; Thalelaeus the Censor published the codes in full; Theodorus Hermupolita wrote in a contracted manner, but Anatolius more contractedly, and Isidorus more narrowly than Thalelaeus, but more broadly than the other two. Being unwilling to change some of the old constitutions, the emperor studiously produced the "Novellae"—one hundred and seventy constitutions—and assigned to them their own place. For he changed the laws concerning marriages, the *Falcidia*, and matters of that kind. ^D

and indeed also those concerning illegitimate children, which the great Constantine, the first, had ordained, being more compassionate in his disposition toward such persons. These *Novellae* he set forth through a certain Tribonian, a man who was by nature otherwise capable and highly trained in every discipline, but who was demonically seized by avarice. Wherefore, even while he was occupied with writing them down, many of those who had cases to be judged corrupted him with money, persuading him to adapt these laws to their own advantage and to compile them in such a tumultuous manner that they were obscure and of double meaning. But the last of all, ^B that illustrious man among emperors, Leo the Wise, when he had created a single work out of all of them through a certain Sabbatius, a *protospatharios*, and had joined together those things which were dispersed by their location—the *Digesta* and the *Codices*, and many things from the *Institutes*, and the very *Novellae* of Justinian—he organized them into sixty books and six volumes, having rejected and removed everything that was contrary and of no use in practice, for it is not unlikely that many of the ancient institutions would have been disapproved of by posterity. Moreover, he took care that nothing superfluous or redundant should exist in the form of interpretation of those things which were selected. Then, he placed the matters that had been spoken of individually and sporadically concerning the same subject into the single compass of a title. This man, too, made one hundred and twenty *Novella* constitutions; however, not all of these are in force today. But this much is sufficient for now. We must, however, also transmit the chapters of the present *Syntagma* according to the alphabetical order, as in an index. (Look for matters concerning laws also in chapter 7 of letter N).

INDEX OF CHAPTERS.

13. Concerning those who seize women for the sake of marriage. 14. Concerning pederasty. 15. Concerning magistrates, what sort of men they ought to be. 16. Concerning women who are in the period of separation. 17. Concerning those who are underage. 18. Concerning excommunication.

^B Beginning of the letter B.

1. Concerning holy baptism. 2. Concerning infants about whom there is doubt whether they have been baptized. 3. Concerning the baptizing of infants of Hagarenes, and concerning those baptized by the unconsecrated. 4. Concerning those who are baptized from among the Jews. 5. Concerning the emperor. 6. When the emperor may enter into the holy sanctuary. 7. That one must not insult the emperor. 8. Concerning the degrees of marriage. 9. Concerning those who abhor lawful marriage, wine, meat, and other things. 10. Concerning violence and lordship. 11. Concerning the genuine and spurious books of holy Scripture. 12. Concerning those who are lost, that is, those who destroy themselves. 13. Concerning the bissextile (leap) year.

^C Beginning of the letter C.

1. Concerning degrees of marriage. 2. Concerning marriages permitted and forbidden. Law. 3. Concerning those who abhor lawful marriages. 4. Concerning men and women who are twice-married, thrice-married, or polygamous. 5. Concerning a woman who wishes to wed a second time when her husband has disappeared during ^D a journey or military expedition. 6. That the priest who performed the marriage service for a twice-married person should not eat with him. 7. That Christians going to a marriage should not attend to games. 8. Concerning virgins who are given in marriage against the will of their own parents. 9. Concerning unlawful marriages between relatives. 10. Concerning those who seize women for the sake of marriage. 11. Concerning those who take as wives women consecrated to God. 12. That one must not contract marriages with heretics. 13. For what causes a marriage is dissolved. 14. Concerning deaconesses and widows. 15. Concerning betrothed women, in which is also treated the subject of betrothal. 16. Concerning those who cast out their own wives under the pretext of piety or unreasonably. 17. That bishops must be separated from their own wives.

INDEX OF CHAPTERS

18. That priests must abstain from their own wives when they are about to handle holy things. 19. Concerning bishops or clerics who have women dwelling with them. 20. Concerning those who bathe together with women. 21. That women must not be made elder-presidents. ^B 22. That women must not enter into the holy sanctuary. 23. That women ought to be silent in church. 24. That a woman ought not to be clothed in male attire. 25. That a woman who has recently given birth is not strictly bound to keep the customary fasts. 26. Concerning him who has a wife possessed by a demon. 27. Concerning women in their separation, that is, those who are experiencing a flow. 28. Concerning women who take drugs for the sake of abortion. 29. Concerning a woman who is neglectful of her pregnancy, or who exposes her child. 30. Concerning those who rape virgins. 31. Concerning sorcery.

Beginning of the letter Δ

1. Concerning those who are possessed by a demon, or who pretend to be possessed. ^C 2. Concerning creditors, loans, and pledges. 3. Concerning divorce. 4. Concerning a testament. 5. Concerning deacons. 6. Concerning digamists. 7. How bishops and presbyters ought to teach the people. 8. Concerning justice. 9. Concerning courts, and clerics and laymen who have legal cases, in which section also concerning accusers and witnesses. 10. That one ought not to litigate twice for the same matter. ^D 11. Concerning those who persecute some for the sake of piety. 12. Concerning the freedom or inheritance of slaves. Laws. 13. Concerning gifts. Laws.

Beginning of the letter E

1. Concerning suretyship. Laws. 2. Concerning the unwritten customs of the Church. 3. Concerning Greek customs. 4. Concerning civil customs. 5. Concerning letters of peace. 6. Concerning divine icons. 7. Concerning arson. Laws. 8. Concerning emphyteusis.

INDEX OF CHAPTERS

9. Concerning vestments pertaining to those in holy orders. 10. Concerning pledges. 11. Concerning the honors and privileges which churches and bishops possess. 12. ^A Concerning the building and consecration of churches. 13. Concerning those who take refuge in the church. 14. That it is not permitted for one cleric to belong to the churches of two cities. 15. That it is not permitted to hold so-called agapai (love-feasts) or banquets inside the church, or to have a tavern within its sacred precincts, or to expose anything for trade, or to bring in a beast of burden without necessity, or for anyone to remain with a woman. 16. That the goods of the churches must be inalienable, and how bishops ought to administer them. 17. Concerning bishops. 18. That bishops must be separated from their own wives. 19. Concerning bishops who obtain the ^B church through the protection of the powerful. 20. Concerning a bishop who has been ordained but does not set out to the church which he has been allotted, or who has departed and has not been accepted, or who cannot travel there because the churches are held by pagans. 21. Concerning bishops of cities that become metropolises, ^C and that there ought not to be two metropolitans in one province. 22. That bishops ought to reclaim churches and monasteries if they have become common inns. 23. Concerning the private property of the bishop, and how he ought to administer the affairs of the church. 24. That a bishop ought to have an administrator for church affairs. 25. That a bishop ought not to build a monastery to the detriment of the property of his own church. 26. That a bishop ought to provide for the needy among the clergy from the property of the church. 27. That when a bishop dies, his goods ought ^D not to be snatched away by his clergy or by the metropolitan, but should be reserved for the one who is to be ordained. 28. That a bishop ought not to descend to the rank of presbyter. 29. That a bishop who acts like a monk falls from the priesthood. 30. That a bishop ought not to be appointed in a village or a small city. 31. Concerning chorepiscopi. 32. Concerning perjury. 33. Concerning guardians and curators. 34. Concerning eunuchs. 35. Concerning the order of prayers. 36. Concerning exorcists.

INDEX OF CHAPTERS

^A

Beginning of the letter Z. 1. Concerning the fervent water which is added to the divine mysteries. 2. Concerning the painting that harms souls through pleasure. 3. Concerning those who are beast-slayers, that is, those who have intercourse with beasts.

Beginning of the letter H. 1. Concerning superiors. 2. Concerning the age of those to be ordained as clerics. 3. Concerning the interval of the day.

Beginning of the letter Ѳ. 1. Concerning theaters and various theatrical games. 2. Concerning theology and the orthodox faith. 3. Concerning the holy Theophany. 4. Concerning clerics who stand at the altars against the will of their own bishops. 5. That it is safe for those in holy orders alone to ascend to the holy altar; but emperors enter when they are about to offer gifts at the holy table; but it is forbidden for laymen or women to enter.

Beginning of the letter I. 1. Concerning sacred vessels and sacrilege. 2. That it is not permitted to hold the so-called agape within the sacred precincts, or for there to be taverns, or to display anything for trade, or to bring in a beast without necessity, or for anyone to stay overnight with a woman. ^C 3. Concerning the divine liturgy. 4. Concerning Jews, and that the faithful must not have any communion with them at all.

Beginning of the letter K. 1. Concerning those bishops and clerics already deposed, and by how many bishops they are deposed. 2. Concerning churches or cities being renewed by emperors. ^D 3. Concerning innovations. 4. Concerning the Kalends, and omens. 5. Concerning ecclesiastical canons, and how many, and what sort of canons should be kept. 6. Concerning the canonical. 7. That a cleric must not enter a tavern. 8. Concerning the offering of fruits to the divine temples. 9. Concerning the accusation of bishops and clerics, and who are to be accepted as accusers, and who are not accepted. 10. Concerning catechumens. 11. Who ought to inherit the property of a bishop. 12. Concerning inheritance and disinherited sons or parents. 13. That those who are not descended from priestly lineage must also be ordained, if they be worthy.

14. That clerics ought not to be transferred. 15. That one ought to provide from the goods of the church to clerics who are in need. ^A 16. That clerics ought not to seize the property of a deceased bishop. 17. That a cleric ought not to be in two cities, or serve two churches in one city. 18. That clerics ought not to do anything without the consent of the bishop. 19. That clerics should not be ordained without a specific title. 20. That the clerics of churches and monasteries ought to be under the authority of the bishop. 21. That a cleric, in whatever sin he may fall, is only deposed, not excommunicated. ^B 22. That clerics who do not consent to ascend to a higher rank fall even from the one they now have. 23. Concerning theft. 24. That one ought not to communicate with an excommunicated person. 25. Concerning those who do not communicate at the holy liturgy being celebrated, or who delay communion for three Sundays. 26. That communion ought not to be given to the bodies of those who have already died. 27. That he who is about to communicate ought not to approach his own wife. 28. When one who has had a nocturnal emission may communicate. ^C 29. That one ought not to receive anything for the sake of divine communion. 30. Concerning those who hesitate to communicate with a presbyter who has married. 31. Concerning the order of presbyters and laity in communion. 32. That clerics or monks ought not to take up worldly cares, unless it be by command of the emperor. 33. Concerning curators. 34. Concerning trials, where clerics and monks ought to be judged, and concerning chosen judges. 35. Concerning those who spend their time in dice games and drunkenness. ^D 36. That on the Lord's Day bishops ought especially to teach the people. 37. That on the Lord's Day one ought not to fast, or kneel, or work, or have spectacles. 38. Concerning the codicil.

Beginning of the letter A. 1. Concerning those who become bishops from the laity. 2. Concerning bishops, or clerics, or monks who come down to the rank of laity. 3. That laymen ought not to teach in church. 4. Concerning the holy liturgy. 5. Concerning the Latins. 6. Concerning robbers who repent. 7. Concerning those who kill robbers.

^A 8. Concerning those who plunder the property of others. 9. That a man ought not to bathe together with women. 10. Concerning the childbirth of the Theotokos, who did not give birth in the manner of nature. 11. Concerning the dissolution of marriage.

The Beginning of the letter M.

The Beginning of the letter N.

Concerning the letter Ξ.

The Beginning of the letter O.

INDEX OF CHAPTERS

The Beginning of the letter Π. 1. Concerning theatrical performances. 2. Concerning clergymen who eat in an inn. 3. Concerning the resignation of bishops. 4. Concerning women who have chosen virginity. 5. Concerning fasting on Friday. 6. Concerning a deposit. 7. Concerning the holy Pascha. 8. Concerning the patriarch. 9. Concerning visitors, that is, exarchs. 10. Concerning the orthodox faith. 11. Concerning greed and robbery. 12. How spiritual fathers ought to manage those who confess to them. 13. That one ought not to eat strangled animals. 14. Concerning penalties. 15. Concerning fornication. 16. Concerning him who desired to commit fornication but did not do so. 17. Concerning procurers. 18. Concerning the prerogatives and privileges that archpriests and churches have, and concerning their parishes. 19. Concerning the rights that presbyters have. 20. Concerning dowry property. 21. Concerning traitors.

The Beginning of the letter P. 1. Concerning those things which happen to men and women by natural, involuntary necessity.

The Beginning of the letter Σ. 1. That one ought not to fast on the Sabbath. 2. Concerning stage performers. 3. That one ought not to draw a cross on the ground, and that existing ones ought to be blotted out. 4. Concerning contracts and agreements. Laws. 5. Concerning banquets. 6. Concerning those who avert the holy assemblies. 7. Concerning clergymen who have "introduced" women (syneisaktous). 8. Concerning those who are privy to the sins of clergymen and do not confess them. 9. Concerning the annual synods that are held. 10. Concerning letters of recommendation. 11. Concerning those who form conspiracies, factions, or seditions. 12. Concerning schismatics.

The Beginning of the letter Τ. 1. Concerning the order of clergymen. 2. Concerning burial. 3. That it is not permitted either to baptize the dead, or to share communion with their bodies. 4. Concerning the children of clergymen. 5. Concerning the holy Great Lent and the customs performed during it. 6. Concerning fasting on Wednesday.

7. That it is forbidden for clergymen to accept usury, and concerning usury. Laws. ^A 8. Concerning the Trisagion hymn. 9. That one ought not to adorn the hair of the head. 10. Concerning desecrators of tombs. 11. That it is not permitted for clergymen to strike.

Beginning of the Letter Y

Beginning of the Letter Φ

Beginning of the Letter X

15. Of the bishop ordained who refuses to go to his assigned church. 16. That a bishop is not permitted to perform ordinations in a district not subject to him. 17. That a bishop is not permitted to ordain a cleric of another diocese. 18. To which of the bishops it is permitted to receive foreign clerics and to ordain them in the churches under them. 19. That a cleric may be ordained even if he is not descended from a priestly lineage. 20. When even slaves may be ordained. 21. Concerning the ordination of readers. 22. That clerics were not ordained without a specific charge. ^B 23. That a catechumen who has sacrificed before his baptism is ordained. 24. That re-ordinations ought not to take place. 25. Concerning one who is subject to sins and yet is ordained. 26. That one who was baptized while in sickness ought not to be ordained. 27. Concerning those who swear that they will not accept ordination. 28. Concerning those who are ordained for money. 29. Concerning widows. 30. Concerning those who mock the physically infirm. 31. Concerning the holy chrism, and which of the heretics approaching the Church are received by anointing only. 32. Concerning Christianity. 33. Concerning chorepiscopi. Beginning of the letter Ψ (Psi). 1. How one ought to chant and pray. 2. Concerning cantors and readers. 3. That one ought not to go to the false-martyrs of the heretics. 4. How ballots are to be cast for those about to be ordained. Beginning of the letter Ω (Omega). 1. Who ought to wear an orarion.

MATTHEW THE MONK, OTHERWISE BLASTARES, ALPHABETICAL SYNTAGMA. PROLOGUE. Concerning the Orthodox Faith.

^A far as it lies within our power, to reduce these into a compendium, so that any subject might be the more easily discovered by those who seek it, we deemed it necessary to settle our arrangement thus: to place first those divinely inspired canons that fortify the Orthodox Faith. For it will seem beneficial, and not superfluous, for those who are firmly established upon its foundation that the rest of the canons also be set forth. But as for those who are alienated from the true faith, and have been despoiled of the treasury of upright dogmas, what concern for the sacred canons could they have?

Wherefore, it was by no means necessary that those things which are naturally prior should be subordinated to those which have been arranged according to the number and order of the letters. For just as the law of nature grants that those who share in life should take food, and we know that some of the divine men who have long persevered ^B even without desiring this have nonetheless survived; yet to those who have been deprived of life, food is, I think, superfluous and unnecessary for the sake of any further advantage to be gained therefrom, as the appetitive and participatory faculty has ceased—especially since tradition records in some places that some have been saved by faith, and historical accounts relay the same; yet regarding works, if faith has not preceded them, those who perform them gain as much benefit as those who have been deprived of their sight gain from this sunlight.

The first canon of the holy and ecumenical second synod ^C immediately judged that only that faith which the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers gathered at Nicaea proclaimed is authentic, as it is composed of sound dogmas; indeed, it bids all heresies that think otherwise than this to be gone, and consigns them to anathema. The fifth canon of the same synod praises those who gathered at Sardica, for the reason that they confirmed the decree of the Nicene Fathers concerning the faith.

The holy and ecumenical third synod, in its sixth and seventh canons, expels from the clergy, if they be clerics, and subjects to anathema, if they be laity, those who reach such a pitch of audacity as to compose another sacred creed besides that which was composed at Nicaea, and furthermore, those who accept the impious ^D dogmas of Nestorius, and attempt in this way to initiate those who are coming to the Church.

The holy and ecumenical sixth synod, in its first canon, enjoins that the faith handed down to us by the holy apostles be not innovated upon, and furthermore, that we should not transgress what was decreed in the first synod. Now these Fathers, having proclaimed to all the consubstantiality of the three persons of the Godhead, utterly rejected the impious Arians who would not give assent to their opinion; furthermore, they commanded that the things established in the second synod should be venerated. For this synod, having driven out Macedonius, the enemy of the Holy Spirit, and condemned his associates with anathema, handed down the Holy Spirit as equal in honor to the Father and the Son, as true God. Moreover, having condemned the demented Apollinarius

^A, it taught that the Lord had assumed a rational and ensouled flesh—and furthermore, it strove to confirm all that the third synod had decreed. For that synod proclaimed one Christ, the Son of God, after the incarnation, and declared the maiden who had given birth to Him without seed and in a manner beyond nature to be truly and properly the Theotokos, and it subjected to eternal anathema the delirious Nestorius, who divided the one Christ into two sons, through his own dogmas. Just so, it confirmed as valid ^B the sacred dogmas of the Fathers of the fourth synod, who, having expelled from the thresholds of the Church the impious confusion of Eutyches and Dioscorus, truly taught that the one Christ was composed of two natures, and was to be contemplated in two natures even after the union. For they justly hated those who embraced an impiety diametrically opposed to that of Nestorius—those who, imagining that the great mystery of the Economy was fulfilled in mere appearance, were the proponents of an impious division—together with those others who were proponents of a more impious union by confusion, and they cast them far from God. Furthermore, this synod ^C enjoins the acceptance of all that the fifth synod, inspired by the divine Spirit, taught, and that one should hold oneself apart from the pernicious ravings of those who had been condemned before it—I mean those of Origen and his followers. Moreover, the sixth synod—the one that confirmed and established the decrees of the holy synods that preceded it—in its aforementioned first canon, having established two wills and two natural operations in our one Lord, utterly destroyed the faction of Pyrrhus and Sergius, who had rashly preached one will in the Lord. They piously decreed that the faith of all those distinguished by piety should remain firm for all time; and they pronounced those who add anything to, or subtract anything from, the right and sound faith delivered to us to be worthy of anathema.

Consonant with these, the synod celebrated at Carthage, in its first and second ^D canons, mandates that the decrees of the divine Fathers gathered in the first synod, concerning both the consubstantiality of the adorable and holy Trinity and the faith we are to hold regarding it, be pursued with the highest honor, and it sets forth the sacred Symbol of faith word for word.

The civil laws define it in these same words: A Christian is he who believes there is one Deity in the equal power of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But he who thinks otherwise than what is stated is a heretic.

BEGINNING OF THE LETTER A

CAP. 1. Concerning those who have denied this immaculate faith of the Christians, and how those of them who show repentance are to be admitted.

It will be most timely hereafter to set forth how those who have been once illuminated (as the great Paul somewhere says), and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the

^A and have fallen away (oh, what a great loss!) and have denied the faith in the Lord, the holy Fathers, out of the depths of their ineffable mercy, travail yet again (let Paul provide these words for me) until Christ be formed in them; those, indeed, upon whom great repentance for their terrible imprudence has come. For the Fathers have observed many differences even in these things, and therefore have offered various remedies by way of penalties.

Therefore, the great Gregory of Nyssa, in his *Epistle to Letoius*, excelling in wisdom and spiritual knowledge, as he prepares to investigate the origin of all our sins, says in the very first canon that there are three things to be considered in our soul: the rational, the irascible, and the concupiscible; and that in these consist both the righteous deeds of those who pursue virtue and the falls of those who slip into vice. ^B And the virtue of the rational part, he says, is a pious opinion concerning God, and the knowledge that discriminates between good and evil, and the ability to know what is to be sought in all things and what is to be loathed and cast aside. Its vice, however, is the contrary: impiety regarding divine things—for example, if someone, denying the faith in Christ, has turned to Judaism, or idolatry, or Manichaeism, or has been caught going to sorcerers and magicians and those who promise to perform certain rites and apotropaic charms through demons; and, to speak in one word, to be mistaken in the judgment of things, calling light darkness and darkness light, according to Scripture.

Again, he says that the virtue of the concupiscible part is simply the longing for virtue, to cling to God with all the power of desire and with the entire disposition of the soul, and to hold dear above all else the love of Him from whom virtue and every perfect gift flows down to men, as the divine James says; whereas the perversion of this is the love of pleasure, the love of money, the desire for vainglory, and that beauty which is applied to the surface of the body, which, when meditated upon in the heart, ^C ends in fornication or adultery. Of these, he defines adultery as the plotting and the causing of injustice against another’s property, while he defines fornication merely as the fulfillment of desire, which does not break into a neighbor's marriage. And he says that pederasty and bestiality are tied to adultery, for he judges these also to be adultery against nature, as being an injustice brought upon that which belongs to another and is contrary to nature.

Indeed, the praiseworthy and natural operation of the irascible disposition is hatred toward evil, waging war against the passions, being emboldened with courage, and not fearing the threats of death; to hold firm, not trembling at the trial of painful tortures, and not becoming weak at being separated from the things that are sweet or familiar, ^D but remaining attached to faith and virtue. The deviation and fall from this, however, is to be envious and to bear grudges, and to engage in contentious quarrels, which sometimes end in blows and murders.

Concerning, then, the two faculties of the soul, anger and con-

- ^A cupiscentia, and the sins that consist in these, shall be spoken of in their proper place, as the order of the letters demands. But we shall now consider those sins which proceed from the movement of the rational faculty beyond nature; for these were judged by the Fathers to be more grievous and worthy of much greater attention, not the least of which is the denial of the true faith, concerning which I have proposed to speak. This, therefore, is judged not only by the difference of ways, but also by the distinction of times. For some were those who fell after being terrified merely by threats, or ensnared by flattery, or who, having experienced the bitterness of tortures, were unable to endure them. Moreover, some voluntarily embraced impiety, thinking that they would otherwise lose their goods; while others, after the renunciation of the faith, became—oh, the impiety of men!—persecutors. Among these, again, some exchanged truth for error when piety was still in its infancy and not yet well established, and when the persecution was burning violently and the tyrants, driven by rage, were subjecting the heralds of the truth to the most serious torments; whereas others [did so] when religion illuminated all the lands under the sun, and adorned kings no less than the diadem with which they are invested. ^B

Concerning clerics who denied the faith out of fear.

Concerning clerics who have fallen out of fear of danger, the 62nd canon of the holy apostles says: "If any cleric, on account of human fear, whether of a Jew, or a Greek, or a heretic, denies the name of Christ, let him be altogether cast out; but if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; and when he has done penance, let him take the place of a layman." ^C But the first and second canons of the synod of Ancyra order that presbyters and deacons who sacrificed out of fear of torture, but afterward struggled against it, that is, did penance, and confessed Christ before the tyrants, should indeed share in the honor and the chair, but does not allow them to perform any priestly function. Furthermore, the holy Peter of Alexandria in the tenth canon says: "Those who, he says, abandoned their own clergy and surrendered themselves to dangers, fired by the desire for the crowns of martyrdom, but, terrified by tortures, sacrificed—if it happens that they again struggle and confess themselves to be Christians before the tyrants, it is just that they should be deemed worthy of the communion of laymen and of that alone." He declares, however, that they are devoid of sense if they seek again the ministry from which they voluntarily fell away; for he who has once abandoned the clergy cannot, by a confession of Christ, merit grace again for his fall. ^D Moreover, the tenth canon of the first synod says: "Although those who have fallen and denied the faith have been ordained, whether their ordainers were ignorant or aware [of their fall], once they are later discovered, they are deposed, being in no way helped by that ordination."

Concerning laymen who have denied the faith.

^A Laymen who have yielded to impiety out of fear alone of punishment, or confiscation of goods, or exile, the sixth canon of the Council of Ancyra bars from the participation of the holy mysteries for six years. The third canon of the holy martyr Peter of Alexandria determines the same. His first canon, however, condemns those who offered sacrifice after experiencing unbearable torments to three years of penance. The second canon condemns those who were afflicted only by imprisonment to four years.

Thus, and in the same way, the fourth canon of the Council of Ancyra condemns such persons, as does the fifth; however, it punishes those who, after sacrificing, dined in more splendid clothing more severely than those who during their meal shed tears and were clad in mourning garments. Furthermore, the eighth canon of this same council excommunicates for seven years those who were forced to sacrifice twice or thrice.

Great Gregory of Nyssa in his first canon says: "Those who were tortured by grievous rackings and sacrificed, were punished for a fixed term of nine years." ^B The seventh canon of Ancyra commands that those who dined with pagans in an idol temple—even if they brought and ate their own food—since they appeared to be celebrating a feast with the infidels, should not be admitted to communion until after two years. Whence some say that ambassadors or captives who dine with pagans should be punished lightly, but those who do so out of contempt and indiscriminately are to be punished more severely.

Great Basil in canon LXXXI permits those who, having experienced torments and being unable to endure the sufferings, tasted of things sacrificed to idols and swore pagan oaths, to approach holy communion after six years. However, he extends the penalties for those who betrayed the faith without great necessity, and who reclined at the table of demons, to eight years.

Concerning those who have voluntarily denied the faith.

^C The first ecumenical council, in canons XI and XII, bars those who, without any necessity under the tyranny of the impious Licinius, abjured the Christian faith and later showed genuine repentance, from participation in the sacraments for twelve years. For even if they were unworthy of all human kindness, he says, it seemed good to the holy Fathers so to decree, aiming at that specific time and state of affairs: for at that time the persecution against Christians was raging fiercely.

But Great Basil does not hold the same judgment, nor does his brother in opinion, Gregory of Nyssa. ^D For he, in canon LXXIII, casts out those who have denied Christ from holy communion for their whole life, so that they may mourn and confess, and only at the end of their life are they to be deemed worthy of the sacraments.

^A Magnus the Great of Nyssa, in the first canon, says: "Whoever voluntarily denies the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and attaches himself to Judaism, or to idolatry, or to Manichaeism, or to any other of the many types of impiety, and then condemns himself, shall perform penance for the whole duration of his life. For at no time when the mystical prayer is performed is he permitted to worship God with the faithful; but he shall pray separately, and shall be altogether alienated from the communion of the holy things; but when death is imminent, he shall share in the divine gifts. However, if it should happen contrary to expectation that he recovers, he shall be liable to the same punishments for his whole life, remaining deprived of the sacraments until the very end."

^B Regarding those who, after denying the faith, also persecute others.

If any, says the ninth canon of the Council of Ancyra, have been so struck by the severity of the torments as not only to fall away from the faith, but to rise up against those who care for the faith, and urge them to sacrifice to demons, or denounce some who are unknown or hiding as Christians, or even drag those hidden out into the open, the perfect number of ten years shall measure out perfect forgiveness to these if they repent. For this canon does not discourse concerning those who have utterly denied the faith and have shown themselves to be manifest enemies of the Church and persecutors; for these, even if they perform penance, shall be subjected to graver punishments, if it be possible, than those which the two aforementioned canons decree. Therefore, it does not mean these, but those who still hold orthodox sentiments, but who, out of fear of torments, pretend to assent to the dogmas of the impious.

^C Magnus Athanasius in his letter to Ruffinianus: "Of the clergy," he says, "who have communicated with those who think with Arius, those who were led away by force are indeed canonically corrected, but they are not cast out from the office which they have obtained, especially if, as they said, they had no intention in agreement with them, and pretended to communicate with them by a prudent counsel, fearing lest, if they were expelled along with the religion, the Churches would be corrupted by the introduction of the impious. But those who not only communicated, but also, according to their power, were champions and patrons of impiety, if they repent, are not subjected to the aforementioned punishments, but, stripped of their priesthood, they are placed in the position of laymen. ^D To those laymen, however, who were seduced or suffered violence, pardon is granted after they have been canonically corrected, and have openly anathematized the opinions of the heretics, and have promised that they will hold in honor the orthodox faith confirmed at Nicaea. This judgment," he says, "not I alone, but the divine Fathers also, who gathered in local synods, have pronounced."

^A Concerning those catechumens who have denied [the faith]. The divine Fathers did not think it right to leave those catechumens who have stumbled unpunished. For the fourteenth canon of the first synod orders such men to undergo the penalty of "hearers" for three years, and then to return to their former rank and pray together with the catechumens. The twelfth canon of the Synod of Ancyra, however, mandates that those who sacrificed before baptism, once they have been baptized and thus cleansed from the defilement of sin, may be promoted to the priesthood.

Concerning those who were forced to deny [the faith] but did not yield. The third canon of the Synod of Ancyra judges those who flee from their persecutors—in accordance with the command which bids us flee when they persecute us—but who are entirely unable to escape and are caught, and are forcibly compelled either to take incense into their hands or to taste profane food with their mouths; and who, however, do not remain silent, but proclaim that they are Christians, being equipped with firm constancy—it judges that such men, as having sinned in the least, ought not to be barred from communion; nay rather, that they should be promoted to the priesthood without any hesitation, provided that the life they led before this has been above all reproach; for they have not missed the crown of confession. Saint Peter the Martyr decrees the same ^B concerning these in his fourteenth canon.

Civil Laws. Those who have been deemed worthy of holy baptism and who return again to Hellenism are subject to the gravest penalties. Those who depart from the faith of the orthodox and become heretics, or who sacrifice, or promise to sacrifice to any [god], cannot dispose of property by testament or make gifts, nor can they receive anything through a testament or from an intestate [estate].

CHAPTER II. Concerning heretics, and how those returning from heresies ought to be received.

^A from among the bishops or presbyters should be caught in some failing, be suspended from his ministry, and not enduring to submit to the canons, should claim for himself the presidency and the ministry, and those among the people who suffer from ignorance should go along with him, having left the catholic Church. It has been decreed, therefore, it says, from the beginning, to reject entirely the baptism of heretics, for regarding the very faith in God the difference in these cases is inherent. But as for those who have withdrawn and formed "parasynagogues," it is decreed that those who demonstrate their return through appropriate penance should be united again to the Church; and there are times when even those who had departed while in rank alongside the insubordinate, upon repenting, may return to their former station. But as for the Cathari—who are also among those who have separated—and the Encratites and the Hydroparastatae, it seemed good, he says, to those around Cyprian and our Firmilian, that they should all be rebaptized. For in Carthage, of which the great Cyprian was bishop, a synod of Fathers older than all others had gathered, ^B to whom it seemed good, by common vote, that all heretics and schismatics coming to the Church should be baptized. For they reasoned thus: Even if schismatics do not err regarding dogmas, yet since Christ is the head of the body of the Church, according to the divine Apostle, from whom all the members are enlivened and receive spiritual growth, and these have been severed from the structure of the body of the members, they no longer possess the grace of the Holy Spirit remaining in them. What, therefore, they do not possess, how could they impart it to others? But nevertheless, says this great Father, since it seemed good to some among those in Asia, by way of economy, to receive the baptism of the Cathari, let it be received.

Concerning the Encratites.

Concerning the Hydroparastatae.

^A But indeed, the seventh canon of the second ecumenical council clearly legislates how those who return from heresy should be received. For, dividing everyone into two classes, it decreed that some should be anointed with myrrh, and others should be rebaptized. The Arians, therefore, and the Macedonians, and the Sabbatians, and the Novatians (who call themselves "Cathari," and those who call themselves "Sinistri"), and the Quartodecimans (that is, the Tetradites), and the Apollinarians—inasmuch as they are perfected with the same divine baptism as we are—it does not consider it necessary to rebaptize, but, after they have anathematized all their heresy in writing, it orders that they be anointed with holy myrrh on their forehead, and eyes, and nostrils, and mouth, and ears, and, signing them, to say: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Concerning the Eunomians

Concerning the Arians

Concerning the Macedonians and Semiarians

Concerning Novatus

Of the Sabbatians.

Of the Sinistri.

Of the Quartodecimans.

Of the Quartans.

Of the Apollinarists.

Of the Eunomians.

Of the Montanists.

Of the Pepuzenis.

^A — to these people divorce was permitted, and abstinence from certain types of food was imposed; the date of ^A Pascha was moved to an improper time, and the holy Trinity was contracted and confounded into one person. They would also prick a child with needles and, mixing the blood with flour, would make bread, which they would then offer and partake of.

Of the Sabellians

Of the Paulianists

Of the Paulicians

Therefore, the two canons mentioned just now and recently [cont ]

the 7th of the 2nd Synod and the 19th of the 1st, the canon of the 6th Synod ^A uniting, and having used almost their very words, adds that it is necessary also to rebaptize Manichaeans, Valentinians, and Marcionists. As for Nestorians, they must present libelli, that is, documents defaming their own heresy, and by name anathematize Nestorius; and furthermore, Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus, who devised another impiety diametrically opposed to that of Nestorius.

Regarding Nestorius, it will not be spoken of yet; however, regarding Eutyches and Dioscorus, it must be spoken of now.

On Dioscorus and Eutyches

Dioscorus held the sacred rudder of the illustrious city of Alexandria profane-ly; ^B Eutyches, on the other hand, was archimandrite of the sacred monasteries in the queen of cities. These men believed our Lord Jesus Christ to be consubstantial with the Father, yet they spoke blasphemously regarding the incarnation, and, purportedly avoiding the division of Nestorius, who introduced two sons, they were thrust into the opposite precipice. For they impiously taught that the two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity, were mingled together after the union, and resulted in a single nature, and consequently that the divine sufferings, to which humanity was subject, were attributed to the divinity. ^C Furthermore, they invented that the Lord did not assume flesh similar to ours, nor was it fashioned from the blood of the Virgin, but that He was incarnate in an ineffable and more divine way. For this reason the 4th ecumenical synod, convened at Chalcedon and consisting of six hundred and thirty Fathers, deposed them.

On Severus

But Severus was bishop of Antioch, in no way inferior to Dioscorus and Eutyches in impiety; wherefore, having been expelled by the orthodox both from the throne and from the city, he reached Alexandria, where he composed a book filled with all impiety, in which he inveighed against the 4th Synod of Chalcedon and attempted to confirm that heresy which posits one nature in the Lord after the union; ^D this book he entitled *Philalethes*, that is, "Lover of the Truth," which is nonetheless dear to the father of lies. Those who are called Severians after him prefer it to the Gospels. These same people are also called Acephali, not only because there were many patrons and supporters of this heresy, but because they differ from one another in various opinions and do not entirely agree among themselves.

On the Manichaeans

They are called Manichaeans who honor the ravings of Manes. This Manes called himself the Paraclete, and taught that Christ appeared only by opinion and imagination. He posited two principles, evil and good, or rather God and matter. He reviled the Old Testament. He allowed the moon and stars to be worshipped as gods. He denied the resurrection of the flesh.

^A He taught the transmigration of souls, asserting that herbs, trees, and water are animate things.

Of the Valentinians, or Euchites

The Valentinians are the sect of the Bogomils, or Massaliani, which sprouted up in the times of Valentinian and Valens. Their name, if translated into the Greek tongue, signifies Euchites. Indeed, among them the name of prayer is highly prized, which they also forbid to be uttered in public. They are also called Enthusiasts from the very nature of their behavior; for, being seized by the agitation of a demon, they suppose it to be the Holy Spirit. For those who have completely succumbed to this disease avoid the labor of their hands as evil; and since they abandon themselves for the most part to sleep, they call the fantasies of their dreams "enthusiasms." They say that evils exist by nature, and that in every human being there dwells both a divine spirit and a demon. They claim that children who are brought into the light draw from the first father, Adam, not only their nature but also their servitude toward demons, and that a demon dwells ^B within each of them, associated with them and exercising power over them. They hold that baptism has no power to expel him or to pull up the roots of sins, but that only the intense prayer enjoined upon them can both expel that demon and purge those roots. And they say that when their more perfect members have attained a state free from passions, the Holy Spirit visibly descends upon them and frees their body from the agitation of passions, so that it no longer has need of the fasting that suppresses it, nor of teaching that serves as a bridle and instructs one not to walk disorderly. Furthermore, they say that they perceive the communion of the heavenly bridegroom, just as a woman perceives the intercourse of her husband, and that they see the holy Trinity with their senses—for they claim that it appears to the sight only to such people as these—and from this they foresee future events. They legislate by edict that no one should give anything to beggars, except only to their own people, saying that they themselves are those "poor in spirit" whom the Lord pronounced blessed. They dissolve marriages; they swear and perjure themselves without fear; and they contrive ten thousand other monstrous things and commit lawless acts, which it is not holy to offer to the ears of those who love God.

Of the Bogomils

The sect of the Bogomils did not arise long before our generation; it is a part of the sect of the Massaliani and agrees in most of its dogmas with them, though it has also added certain things of its own invention and increased the pestilence. ^C According to the language of the Mysians, "Bogomilus" would be one who draws to himself the mercy of God; for *Bog* is called God among them, and *mouli* is mercy. These people reject the books of the Old and New Testament, together with the God described in them, as having been written by the inspiration of Satan, except for only seven, among which is the Gospel itself. Yet even these they corrupt with a false interpretation, and by blasphemous and wicked understandings they pervert them to what seems good to themselves. They treat the divine cross with dishonor, as if it were the slayer of the Lord; and furthermore, they also ^D [treat with dishonour] the fearful liturgy of the Master.

^A Likewise, they call this sacrifice of the divine body and blood the sacrifice belonging to the temples of the demons; for they say that demons dwell in all holy temples. They call our baptism the baptism of John, but their own, the baptism of the Savior; they acknowledge only that one prayer, the "Our Father," and reject the others, calling them empty babbling. They call "God-bearers" those among them who have obtained the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as if they were giving birth to the Word in their teaching. They claim to see not only in dreams, but also while awake: the Father, as an old man with a very long beard; the Son, like one who has just recently passed the age of first beard-growth; and the Holy Spirit, as a youth with completely smooth cheeks—the demons thus deceiving them and teaching them that the Holy Trinity is unequal according to the difference of these forms. I omit many more of the impious dogmas of these men and of the Massalians, so as not to weary any further the ears of my readers; but whoever wishes to know their ravings ^B not in passing, but thoroughly, let him unroll the book that treats of them, and he will perceive them more clearly.

Furthermore, the 7th and likewise the 8th canon of the synod of Laodicea will that those who convert from the heresy of the Phrygians, of whom mention was made before, be re-baptized, even if they are thought to be in the clergy, and are called "great" among them as being superior to others and holding the rank of teachers among them. In a word, to speak, the holy canons decree that all who are baptized by heterodox individuals with a single immersion, and who come to the Catholic Church, are to be baptized again. ^C

And the aforementioned 1st canon of the 2nd synod, in the chapter concerning the orthodox faith, subjects to anathema the sect of the Eunomians, or Eudoxians, as well as that of the Semi-Arians, that is, the Spirit-fighters, and that of the Sabellians, and the Marcellians, and the Photinians, and the Apollinarists.

Concerning Eudoxius.

Concerning the Anomoeans.

Concerning the Marcellians.

Concerning Photinus.

^A How the Novatians ought to be received. The 8th canon of the first synod orders that those whom we have previously mentioned, the Cathari or Novatians, when coming to the catholic Church, should profess in writing that they will faithfully observe all the decrees of that Church, and that they will receive those who have returned after denying Christ; and they shall administer their affairs according to the times of penance ordained for those who have fallen, and they shall hold communion with digamists. If they agree to these things, it orders that they recover the ecclesiastical ranks which they had previously left, whether they happened to be presbyters or deacons; but if they were bishops, they are likewise to be restored to their own sees, provided that others have not in the meantime occupied them.

^B How the Donatists ought to be received. The 57th and 68th canons of the synod in Carthage decree that those who come from the sect of the Donatists to the orthodox faith, if they are laymen, should not be rebaptized, and that the clergy should retain their sacred ranks, so that by this foresight, greater numbers might in this way come to the catholic faith.

Regarding Donatus. The originator of their sect was a certain man named Donatus, who taught that one should not otherwise participate in the divine mysteries unless one held a human bone in one’s hand, kissed it first, and only then received the sacraments.

^C Regarding the Angelici. The 35th canon of the synod of Laodicea says: "He who abandons the Church of God, and names and calls upon angels, and performs gatherings for them, and devotes himself to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema." This is not because honor given to angels is idolatry, but because it was a certain craft of the Evil One at that time, persuading men to pay attention only to angels and not to call upon Christ, so that he might secretly draw those who obeyed him, little by little, into the pit of idolatry; for the Deceiver usually likes to attack from the right side. ^D For the initiates of this error claimed that one ought not to call upon Christ, but rather angels, for aid and for access to the Father, because—they said—to call upon Christ for these things is a greater matter than we, as mere little men, dare to attempt. The divine Apostle also mentions this heresy (for it was ancient) in his Epistle to the Colossians, saying: "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions." That is to say: let no one deal treacherously with you, while you are winning in the blameless faith and conduct, nor deprive you of the prize by leading you away into foreign traditions—that is, from the true faith to the worship of angels through false humility, as if calling upon the Lord and using Him as a conciliator to His Father were above our station. To "disqualify" (*katabrabeuein*) means not giving the prize to the one who has won it, but to another, the champion being wronged. And as the holy Epiphanius records in the book called the *Panarion*, there is another heresy called the Angelican, whose followers were so named because they believed that they lived like angels, or were instructed by angels in divine matters.

Concerning Maximus the Cynic.

^B Furthermore, the first and second canons of the third synod, as well as the third, fourth, and fifth, expel from the priesthood those bishops or clerics who favor the opinions of Nestorius and his like-minded associate, Celestine. Those whom Nestorius had expelled from the priesthood because they would not assent to his evil opinion, they command to be restored again to their proper ranks; as for those, however, whom Nestorius had uncanonically received into communion and restored to their proper ranks, despite the fact that they had been condemned by the synod or their own bishops and punished with deposition on account of unworthy deeds, they order those men to remain deposed nonetheless.

Concerning Nestorius.

^A published just as many other chapters to refute the error of Nestorius and to strengthen the orthodox faith; and likewise Ibas wrote an epistle. Between them there arose a very great disagreement, so that the synod passed a sentence of deposition upon those chief priests as well, inasmuch as they were suspected of leaning toward the views of Nestorius. Since, therefore, the chief priests had thus turned against one another, and there was a schism among them, the emperor summoned everyone to the queen of cities and ensured that both sides came to an agreement and embraced one another. Theodoret, however, not denying that he had composed the twelve chapters out of a spirit of contention, by their repudiation and abrogation cleared himself of the accusation, and reclaimed his former honor and rank; and by acquiescing to the acts of the holy synod ^B, he himself also gave his vote for the deposition of Nestorius.

Concerning Celestius

Celestius was a disciple of a certain monk named Pelagius. Both of them, as Photius of Constantinople records, originated from Carthage, and they introduced newer dogmas into the Church. For they maintained that from the beginning Adam was created mortal, and was not condemned to mortality on account of transgression; and that newborn infants have no need of baptism, since they do not drag with them the ancestral sin from Adam; and that there is a place intermediate between paradise and the hell of the damned, into which unilluminated infants are cast, and there live a happy life. These and six other chapters similar to these were promoted by those around Pelagius and Celestius, all of which this present third ecumenical synod, as well as the synod of Carthage, subjected to anathema. ^C Seek the canons of the latter which discuss these matters in chapter 1, letter B—that is, canon 109 and the three others following it; but seek also those in chapter 35 of letter E, namely canons 114 and 115 of the same synod. For what these men deem worthy of anathema, was foolishly taught by the others. Moreover, Great Pope Leo also commanded that those who are converted from the company of Pelagius and Celestius must anathematize their opinion in writing.

Canon 45 of the holy apostles excommunicates bishops or presbyters who pray together with heretics; but if they have allowed them to perform any of the duties of the clergy, it deposes them.

Canon 46 deposes those who accept their baptism—that is, those who are baptized by them—or [who accept] whatever ^D they offer for sacrifice.

Canon 64 deposes a cleric or layman who enters a synagogue of Jews or heretics for the sake of prayer; if the former, it deposes him, if the latter, it excommunicates him. For "what harmony," it says, "has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?"

And the canon of Laodicea casts far from the Church those who have fallen into heresies and are still held fast by them, and does not allow them to enter the house of God.

Canon 32 does not permit one to receive the blessings of heretics, or, to speak more appropriately, their curses.

Item 33 forbids us altogether from praying with a heretic or schismatic.

And 37 does not permit us to accept festal gifts sent by Jews or heretics, or to celebrate feasts with them.

The 9th and 34th [canons], regarding those who abandon the martyrs of Christ and go away to the false martyrs of the heretics, and to what are called their martyrdoms or cemeteries, as if alienating themselves from God, the one ^A excludes them from communion for a time, while the other anathematizes them. For it is probable that certain heretics, in times of persecution, struggled even unto death, and those who were of the same mind with them called them martyrs, and the houses in which their bodies were buried, martyrdoms.

Canon 9 of Timothy of Alexandria commands that heretics, while the divine oblation is being performed, should not be present at the prayers, unless they promise that they will do penance. For if this is not permitted to catechumens, much less is it to heretics. Nay, even those who promise shall stand in the place assigned to the catechumens; but if they do not wish to do penance, they shall be expelled even from that place.

That we ought to receive heretics who do penance at the departure from life.

The great Basil, in canon 5, commands us to receive all heretics who do penance at the departure from life, examining whether they show true repentance, ^B and whether they have fruits that testify to their zeal for salvation.

Furthermore, canon 22 of the Council of Carthage forbids bishops or clerics, in the inheritance of their own goods, to introduce an infidel or heretic at all, even if they are their own kin.

Canon 84 [of the same Council], says: To a bishop who, at the end of his life, makes a will and lists heretics as heirs of his goods, even if they are joined to him by blood, it shall be denounced that even after death he is anathema, and his name ought to be erased from the memory of the priests.

Civil Laws.

Furthermore, by various imperial laws, it is not permitted for heretics to become heirs, not only of goods belonging to bishops or clerics, but neither of those ^C which pertain to Christian laymen, even if they should be their children. But the children of heretics, if they become Christians, compel their own parents to provide them with food and clothing, and to give a dowry according to the measure of their estate.

Whoever does not believe that the holy Trinity has equal power in one Deity is not even called a Christian, but is insane, a heretic, infamous, and is punished.

He is a heretic and subject to the laws enacted against heretics, who turns away from the orthodox faith even by ^D a little. Moreover, heretics are not able to perform any military service, nor any public office whatsoever.

^A We decree that they may neither attain dignities, nor teach, nor perform ordinations, nor celebrate litanies. We affirm, however, that all those are heretics who do not communicate in the sacraments which are given by the priests in the Church of God.

Let the Manichaeans and Donatists not enjoy the privileges of the orthodox, but let them even be punished with the ultimate penalty. Likewise the Apollinarians, and those who do not obey the four holy councils, and whoever dares to say or teach anything against the fourth holy council. If a Manichaean is found living in a Roman region, let him be beheaded.

Regarding the Montanists specifically, let them have none of those who are called patriarchs or clergy among them within Constantinople. Let them also be prohibited from performing military service within it, or holding feasts, or trading in slaves. Let a heretic not testify against an orthodox person.

Additionally, let heretical women be cast out from the privileges which are granted to orthodox women. For they shall not be preferred to the prior creditors of their husband regarding the sufficiency of their dowry and pre-nuptial gifts, as orthodox women are. For since, he says, they separate themselves from the gifts of God and alienate themselves from the communion of the unpolluted Catholic Church, it is also equitable that they be alienated from the rights and privileges granted by us to pious women. For we have been constituted by God as pious benefactors and legislators for the pious, but not for those who value the healthy faith as of little account: for we have nothing in common with them. However, we do permit heretics to be committed to lawful graves.

CHAPTER III. How it is proper to celebrate those things called agapai, or banquets.

The eleventh canon ^B of the Council of Gangra denounces with anathema those who cannot endure the communion of those who, out of faith and piety, perform the so-called agapai (love feasts) in the Church and receive their brothers to a banquet in honor of the Lord, as if they were abhorring what is done. For although such things are forbidden by subsequent canons, yet sometimes it is permitted to those who do this with a good intention.

But the 74th canon of the Sixth Council, and the 28th of the Council of Laodicea, threaten excommunication to those who take dinner inside a church or a place belonging to the Lord, and eat the agape there, and dare to spread mattresses ^C for reclining. For every place consecrated to God is called a Lord’s house (κυριακός). It was, however, an ancient custom for the rich to set a common table for the poor after the participation in the divine mysteries. The great apostle Paul makes mention of this custom in his first Epistle to the Corinthians; and he calls this an "agape," either because it draws them together into love, or because it is done out of love. But because it became a cause of scandal later, the holy Fathers abolished it; ^D but reclining...

as they call it, signifies those elevated into the high place ^A in Latin. For reclining [ac-cumbo] among them means the same as lying down.

The same is also decreed by canon 42 of the Council of Carthage, which entirely prohibits holding banquets in the church, unless someone is traveling abroad and, lacking an inn, has entered the church out of necessity.

CAP. IV. On purchase and sale. Civil laws.

Purchase and sale consists in the moment when each of the agreeing parties concurs regarding the price: the one paying the price, the other delivering what is sold. But if earnest money has been given, and the sale is rescinded, if it is the buyer who dissolves it, he loses the earnest; but if it is the seller, he is compelled to restore double the earnest he received. ^B

He who has obtained an office in a province cannot buy movable or immovable property in it, either by himself or through another, unless from the treasury; for he both loses the property and cannot recover the price given.

He who has seized a thing or taken it by force, if he does not restore it, buys it to no effect.

If the treasury, because of fiscal debts, has auctioned the debtor’s goods, neither the debtor himself nor the creditor can offer the debt and reclaim the goods; for the treasury is preferred before all. ^C

If the tax collector, by order of the magistrate, has sold the land of one who defaults on the payment of taxes, the sale is not rescinded; but if the sale is made without the magistrate’s order, or by fraud, or without a just price, it is rescinded.

The immovable property of a minor is validly sold for his own debt, or for his father’s debt, or for the treasury, namely, after a manifest decree of the judge.

Although a minor may seek a pardon for his age, he does not sell immovable property without a decree, nor does he pledge it. But if he has sold it, not only he himself but also his heirs can reclaim the thing sold within a year after 25 years. Likewise, he who has poorly ^D purchased or exchanged can reclaim it within the aforesaid time, recovering the price paid. But the due restitution is also transmitted to his heirs.

But one seeks a pardon for age, the man from the twentieth year of age, the woman from the eighteenth. You should know, however, that the age of majority is from the twenty-fifth year.

A tutor, or curator, or proxy cannot buy the property of an orphan.

Minors validly rescind a sale which their guardians poorly made by fraud.

Pacts agreed upon without fraud, and which are not contrary to the laws, are valid.

Those who conspire against the supply of provisions while goods are for sale

or store them up, or await a time of scarcity, if they are merchants, are prohibited from trading, or are exiled; if they are of a lower condition, they are condemned to public works. ^A

The captive who is bought, if he is of means, let him pay the price given for him; but if he is in need, let him serve the purchaser for three years, and thus be released.

He who gives something through an unjust contract has no action to recover what was given.

CAP. V. Concerning those who commit irrational acts, that is, those who have intercourse with beasts.

Of those who have defiled themselves with irrational animals, the 16th canon of the council in Ancyra makes a wonderful division. For those who have committed this execrable act once, he says, not yet having completed their twentieth year, nor being married to a woman, and seeking medicine through repentance, let them not depart from the place of the substrati until the fifteenth year, and for another five years let them pray in the same place with the faithful, and thus be deemed worthy of communion, if they show a most fervent repentance. ^B But those who have indulged in this passion to satiety, let them undergo a long substration of twenty years, and standing with the faithful for another five years, let them afterwards approach communion. To those, however, who have been bound in this act, having passed beyond their youth, and having reached mature age, and living with a woman, he will measure out five times five years of substration, and another five years will engage them for the reception of the divine gifts. Whosoever, however, is fifty years old, or is already inclining toward old age, and, while using his own wife, is caught in this, let him be debarred from the mysteries for all the time of his life, and communicate only at the hour of death. ^C

The 17th canon of this same synod calls these men lepers; for so the Mosaic law called the unclean and the defiled, and it orders them to pray among the hyemantes. These are they who, by their inclination toward passions, close against themselves the tranquil harbor of the Church, and open the door to the spirits of wickedness, which raise up a myriad of storms and turmoil in the soul.

Great Basil, moreover, in the 7th, and also in the 63rd canon, excludes those who have committed irrational acts from communion for fifteen years after they have confessed.

Great Gregory of Nyssa, in the 3rd canon, extends the punishment for irrational vice to eighteen years.

Law. The civil law, however, says: Those who commit irrational acts, that is, those who have intercourse with beasts, are to be castrated. ^D

CAP. VI. Concerning Lectors.

The 33rd canon of the Sixth Synod: No one, it says, without tonsure and the mark of his own shepherd, let him read the sacred books in church from the ambo. He who

dares to do otherwise shall be subject to excommunication. The 14th canon of the Seventh Synod also does not permit one who has been tonsured from childhood or who has put on black clothing or monastic habit to do this, unless he has received the laying on of hands from the hierarch. It also says that it is permitted to abbots, who are graced with the priesthood, to ordain lectors in their own monasteries, if, I suppose, the monasteries are situated in the desert. This is also permitted for chorepiscopoi to do. See also chapter 4 of letter Γ and chapter 21 of letter X, and in chapter 5 of letter Δ, the canon of the great Basil.

Law. The Justinian Novel orders that no one shall be a lector unless he is 18 years of age. See also chapter 13 of letter K.

Chapter VII. On Anathema.

Chapter VIII. On Antiminsia or Pro-mensalia.

Chapter IX. On the traveling of bishops and clerics.

The 7th canon of the Synod of Sardica says: Let a bishop not dare to go to the king unless summoned by royal letters, especially for the sake of honors, which befit seculars no less than bishops. But if he intends to send to the king for the sake of helping those who are clearly wronged—widows and orphans—or to beg for pardon for those who have been deported into exile for faults or are liable to other punishments, he deserves praise rather than reproach from those who have sense.

^A The eighth canon of the same synod says that if the bishop makes his petition on behalf of those who take refuge in the church and are in need of assistance through a minister, he will not be liable to the reproach of the many, and he will escape the hardships of the camp.

The ninth canon says that letters sent to the king by a bishop, together with a synodal examination, ought to be read by the metropolitan of the city in which the king is residing at the time; if these do not appear troublesome, they should be delivered, but if otherwise, they should be returned to the one who sent them.

Canon 20 says: "Lest the priesthood be brought into disrepute on account of the impudence of a few, bishops who are traveling should be examined by the bishops who are appointed in the districts through which they pass, ^B by the metropolitans, I think, to whom all such persons are necessarily subject. For it is lawful for them alone to examine the bishops subject to them, and sometimes those not subject to them, when they undertake to do something contrary to the canon; not only so that they might not praise what has been done, but so that they might rebuke them, and as far as they are able, prevent them." For if they are traveling to the king, either summoned by him, or for the sake of the aforementioned reasonable causes, they should be given leave to travel, provided they show their letters of peace. But if they go to another city for the sake of foolish display, intending to instruct the people there and to put its bishop to shame, or to present their own petitions to the ^C king, one must not communicate with them, as they are deposed by the canon. For the eleventh canon of the Synod of Antioch declares that every bishop or presbyter, or whoever is at all under the canon, who dares to travel to the king—even for necessary matters, I say—without the judgment and letters of the provincial bishops, and especially of the metropolitan, is deposed and cast out of his dignity.

Furthermore, canon 16 of the Synod of Carthage does not permit a bishop to be sent on a long journey across the sea unless it is with the common consent of the provincial bishops. And it would be better, if he has a letter drafted and signed by the head of the synod, namely the patriarch or ^D metropolitan, which recommends him to those to whom he is traveling and speaks worthily concerning him.

Canon 71 of the same synod considers it not fair that a bishop should long abandon his primitive church and travel to another, wealthier parish established within his diocese, and stay there, sacrificing the salvation of his people for his own profit.

Balsamon. From this, some deduce that it is not lawful for one who has been ejected from his own bishopric by pagans to reside in another parish subject to him, nor for one who presides over a small and poor bishopric to descend desultorily into another more populous region that happens to be subject to him, unless the king con-

consents, and a synodal inquiry judges this to be necessary. ^A The twelfth canon of the synod of Sardica commands the bishop who goes abroad to his immovable properties, which are located in regions outside of his own eparchy, for the purpose of gathering his own produce, so that he may have the means to provide for those in need, to join the presbyter of that eparchy for three Lord's Days only, and to pray and chant with the faithful there, so that he may not transgress against the canon which excommunicates anyone who absents himself from his church for three Lord's Days—for this too is the twenty-first canon of this same synod—and furthermore, that he should not go frequently into the city of that region. For in this way he will suffer no loss, keeping careful watch over his own affairs, and the bishop of that region will not accuse him of vain glory and arrogance, as if he meant to shame him by teaching the people subject to him.

Balsamon. For the local bishop exercises episcopal rights over the immovable property of foreign churches. Only the Patriarch of Constantinople is permitted by long-standing custom to grant the right of fixing a cross, and to have the oblation and the mention of his name, not only on the estates he personally possesses, wherever they may be situated, and the immovable properties of the monasteries subject to him, but also within the parishes of his metropolises, wherever, that is, he may be invited by a person who has built a church.

What is translation, discessio, and invasio. If anything further, beyond a non-burdensome journey, should be innovated by bishops, this is called either translation, or discessio, or invasio. ^C Translation takes place when someone is transferred from a lesser church to a greater one that is widowed, provided that he excels in word and wisdom and is able to strengthen a faith that is in danger; as happened to the great Gregory, who was surnamed the Theologian, whom no one in his right mind would deny to be worthy of the highest praise. The fourteenth canon of the holy apostles judges this to be necessary, saying it is not permitted for a bishop, having left his own parish, to leap upon another, even if he should be urged by many, unless some necessary cause exists to move him to do so, such as if he is able to assist those living there in matters of piety; ^D and this ought not to be chosen on his own initiative, but with the judgment and fitting exhortation of many bishops.

Discessio is when some bishop, his church having been seized by pagans, removes to another vacant one with the consent of the bishops of that region, provided that he is imbued with a sound understanding of the orthodox faith and knowledge of the ecclesiastical laws and decrees. And this too is liable to no reproach, as the synod of Antioch discusses in the thirteenth and twenty-second canons, saying that a bishop ought not to set out to another province and perform ordinations, unless, as it were,

^A he is permitted by the bishop of that province. If he does so, then both the ordinations and other things performed by him are to be invalid, and he himself is to be subjected to deposition, as having been the cause of scandal and disturbance.

Invasion, moreover, is the taking over of a church—whether the see is vacant or has a bishop—by someone who is living in idleness, or by a bishop who has his own church, moving into a widowed church through an unreasonable intrusion. This was so loathed by the holy Fathers at Sardica that they determined that the perpetrator of this act should be alienated from the entire communion of Christians, and not even in his dying breaths should he be deemed worthy of the communion of the laity. ^B For immediately in the first canon, and indeed also in the second, they say thus: It is permitted to no bishop, once he has abandoned the city in which he was ordained, to move to another. For such a migration is proven to be, without qualification, a mark of pride and greed, and a desire for empty glory and the acquisition of more possessions. For if not, how is it that one would never find anyone who has moved from a greater city to a lesser one? Therefore, it is just that such a person be cut off from the gathering of the faithful. And if, he says, he is detected laying snares and plotting, and persuades some by means of money to corrupt others, so as to stir up sedition in the church while seeking its oversight for himself, he should not, even upon his death, be deemed worthy of the communion of the laity; for it is not to be tolerated that one who is of such a character should be counted at all among the number of the faithful.

The second canon of the Second Council ^C decrees that bishops are not to go uninvited to churches beyond their jurisdiction, to those lying beyond the limits fixed for each, thereby pointing out their disorderly and predatory incursion; nor are they to enter these for the purpose of ordination or any other priestly administration. Nevertheless, the ecclesiastical administrations, I mean elections, ordinations, and the resolution of doubts and disputes, in matters of excommunications and penalties and other such things, are to be administered by the synod of each province. ^D However, the custom is to hold for churches situated among barbarian nations, so that if anyone, being shining in discourse, is able to strengthen the rest, he may pass to the parishes of other churches without hesitation; this has been permitted to him because there are no bishops there sufficient to constitute a full synod.

The twentieth canon of the Sixth Council does not permit a bishop to teach publicly in a city that is not subject to him; however, he is not forbidden to teach one who asks him privately, or even publicly if the local bishop permits it, nor is he forbidden to perform ordinations. But if anyone is caught doing things contrary to these, he says, let him cease from the episcopacy, but let him perform the functions of a presbyter, undergoing the humiliation in the presbyterate as a counter-balance to the fault that sprang from pride; for we know that contraries are healed by contraries. For this sin is itself worthy of complete deposition.

^A The eighteenth canon of the Synod of Ancyra says: "Those who have received the laying on of hands as bishop and go off to the parish to which they were named, but are prevented by the people living there from entering within its borders, and from there dare to proceed to other places and do violence to the bishops in them, and stir up sedition, let them be excommunicated. If, however, they are content to be honored only with the seat of the presbyters, where they were previously presbyters, let them remain living in quiet. But if they are found stirring up sedition against the bishops who have been set over them, let them also be deprived of the honor of the presbyterate and be deposed from the Church."

The sixteenth canon of the Synod of Antioch says: "He who has been completely driven out by heathens from his own bishopric, and as though unemployed throws himself upon an empty church and snatches away its throne, without the permission of a perfect synod, let him be cast out of the priesthood, even if the entire people whom he has seized should choose him." It says a perfect synod is one at which the metropolitan is present; for it is not permitted for these things to be done by the provincial bishops alone.

The twenty-first [canon] decrees that a bishop must not transfer from his own parish to another, nor should he thrust himself in of his own accord, nor be forced by the people, nor be compelled by bishops, but he should remain in the church which he was allotted from the beginning by God, and should never depart from it.

^B The third canon of the Synod of Sardica says: "If more bishops have come together into any province, as if to attend to some ecclesiastical matter, let bishops from another province not approach them, unless called; but if called, let them not delay their arrival, on account of brotherly love."

The eleventh [canon] says: "If any bishop, well-instructed in the skill of rhetoric, goes to another city or province, and a question arises there concerning our religion, or worship and piety, let him not discourse continuously to the people with ostentation and foolish vanity, holding the shepherd of the region in contempt, causing him shame, and bringing forward arguments about words in an unpracticed manner; for this is a cause of disturbance and presents a suspicion that he who does so desires the throne of that city."

It is necessary, therefore, it says, to repel one who rushes in with unbridled impetuosity, and to confirm brotherly love. Therefore, let not the bishop altogether cast out his fellow bishop, for this is inhuman, foolish, evil, and impious. Nor let that one linger there for more than three weeks and abandon his own church. For if the unwritten canon excludes from communion ^C the layman who resides in a city and does not attend the common assembly of the church for three weeks, then by how much more does it not befit a bishop to be away from his own church for such a long time, without any grave necessity, and to abandon the flock entrusted to him? But indeed, later on, this unwritten canon was made the eightieth canon of the Sixth Synod.

The seventeenth [canon] again of the Synod of Sardica [concerning him who] unjustly...

it says, has been cast out of his own episcopate, either by heretical power, because he holds the dogmas of the right faith in high regard, or [because] he confesses the economy of the Incarnation and is cast out by idol worshippers, or [because] he applies himself to truth and justice and is driven away under the pretext of being cursed and assigned to punishment by those accustomed to doing evil to their neighbor, when in reality he is innocent, [decrees] that such a person is not to be prevented from staying in another city until he can return to his own, having escaped the fear of danger and been able to wash away the insult that appeared as exile. For it is harsh and inhuman that he who has been unjustly driven out of his own city should not be received kindly and hospitably by his fellow bishops.

Canon 18 of the Sixth Synod ^B commands that bishops or clerics who depart to a foreign region under the pretext of a barbarian incursion, or the inhumanity of tax collectors, or the necessity of famine, or any other cause, and who, once that cause is removed, are not eager to return, are to be excommunicated until they return to the church from which they migrated; furthermore, it subjects to excommunication the bishop who received them and attempts to keep them.

Canon 23 of the Fourth Synod [decrees that] clerics and monks who choose to live away from the churches in which they were ordained, against the judgment of their own bishop, on the pretext that they had not been entrusted with any administration by him, perhaps because he judged them unsuited for such things, and sometimes because they were even excommunicated by him, and who go to the imperial city or another city and spend a long time there, disturbing and agitating the state of the church and overturning the homes of some, living neglectfully, are to be expelled against their will by the local synod, so that they may return to their own places.

Canon 10 of the Sixth Synod ^C deposes not only the priest who moves from city to city, but also him who goes to the imperial city and performs sacred rites in the oratories of the nobility without the permission of his own bishop and the [bishop] of Constantinople.

Canon 5 of the Fourth Synod says that it is not permitted for clerics of any church to be enrolled in the church of another city, but they must be content with that in which they were deemed worthy to serve from the beginning, except for those who have fallen away from their own fatherland out of necessity. A bishop who receives another’s cleric is to be excommunicated until the cleric has returned to the church which he left.

Canon 13 of the Synod of Neocaesarea ^D does not permit presbyters ordained outside any city to enter them and offer [the sacrifice], or to bestow the divine communion upon someone, while the bishop or presbyter of the city is present. But if these are absent, and he alone is called to prayer, it does not forbid him to enter and to bestow the sacraments upon someone, if only from the

^A province which is subject to the city, and indeed this is the province; for it is not permitted for a presbyter of another province to minister without the consent of the local bishop, just as it is not for a bishop of another parish, if the true bishop does not permit it, even if he were invited by the people of that city.

Concerning the letters of commendation, dimissory, and pacific, which are given by bishops to traveling clergy.

The thirty-third canon of the holy apostles bids that bishops and other clergy coming from another region not be admitted to communion without letters of commendation. And even if they bring such letters, one should not communicate with them without examination; for it happens sometimes that some who err concerning the faith, through the deception of many, obtain letters of commendation from certain bishops, whose noxious dogmas regarding them were hidden; for we know that many things happen through surreptitious means. For to many who believed, a great misfortune has befallen, while for those who did not believe, it turned out well. If, therefore, it is shown beyond doubt that they are orthodox, it bids that they be admitted to communion; but if not, ^B that they be dismissed with the necessities for the journey, lest we brand ourselves with marks of infamy.

Concerning letters of commendation.

It must be said briefly concerning the letters which are given by bishops to those who are traveling away from their own cities or regions, of which some are called commendatory, others dimissory, and others pacific. And commendatory are those which are given by the bishops who ordained them to clergy departing for another region, commending them, that is, making known either the degree of priesthood these men have attained, or that they profess the true faith, or that a charge or calumny having been raised against them, and having been improperly objected, they bear witness that they lead an irreproachable life, and that they were innocent. Furthermore, they are given to laymen who had been subjected to excommunication, and who have need to depart to another region, commending these same men to the bishop of that place, as being those who have been loosed from the bonds of penalties.

Concerning dimissory letters.

^C Dimissory letters are those which show that it has been permitted by the judgment of the prelate for the bishop or cleric to change his see, and to discharge his priestly office there without any impediment.

Concerning pacific letters.

Pacific letters are also called those about which we have just spoken; for when a cleric delivers such letters to the one to whom he is traveling, the bonds of divine charity by which both bishops are bound to peace are in no way broken; for neither does he who receives another person's cleric become the author of scandal by distressing his fellow bishop, nor does he who ordained him from the beginning take it amiss, as if he were treated unworthily. ^D Those which are sent privately to fellow bishops are also called pacific, since the bearer of said letters has no business

^A of transport. A cleric, therefore, who chooses to travel abroad, ought to bring two letters, a commendatory and a dimissory; that he may use the former for a recommendation, that he holds the right opinion concerning the faith and is blameless in his manner of life, and also concerning the priestly rank he possesses; and the latter, that he may be permitted to perform sacred functions in another church without hindrance, or even be enrolled among the clergy thereof.

The 12th and 13th canons of the same holy apostles [ordain] that a cleric whom his own bishop does not deem worthy to ordain, perhaps deferring the ordination for certain causes until these are resolved, to seek out another bishop for this reason is forbidden; nor furthermore do they permit that other bishop to receive a foreign cleric without commendatory letters from the bishop by whom he was examined. Those who dare to act contrary to these [rules] shall both be subject to the same penalty of segregation, I mean both the cleric and the bishop who received him. But if the cleric whom the bishop received has been ordained, and is excommunicated for some fault, the excommunication is to be pressed upon him, but the bishop who received him is to be segregated.

The 15th, and indeed the 16th [canon], debar from ministry a cleric moving from parish to parish without the consent of the bishop who ordained him, and especially if, being called by him, he does not return; yet they do not forbid him to communicate with those who are there as a layman. As for the bishop who receives him, if he has not been ignorant of the things decreed against him, and enrolls him within his own clergy and permits him to perform sacred functions with impunity without a dimissory letter from his own bishop, he is, it says, to be subjected to segregation, as a master of disorder and sedition. If he has even ordained him to a higher rank, such ordination shall be held invalid; so that unless the cleric brings a dimissory letter, it is not permitted for him to perform sacred functions in a foreign land.

The 16th [canon] of the First Synod sets forth the same things, as does the 3rd of the Council of Antioch. However, it orders that one who persists for a long time in such disobedience be totally deposed, with no hope of restoration remaining.

But also the 13th of the Fourth Synod, and the 7th of the Council of Antioch mandate that foreign and unknown clerics shall not perform sacred functions without commendatory letters from their own bishop.

The 17th of the Sixth [Synod] subjects to the penalty of deposition both him who approached the bishop without commendatory and dimissory letters, and the bishop who received him, for disgracing, as far as they are concerned, the one from whom he received his ordination.

But neither does the 41st of Laodicea, and also the 45th, think that a cleric or one in sacred orders ought to travel at all without the permission of his own bishop, or his canonical letters. And the 106th of the Council of Carthage, with a dimissory...

^A letter of the metropolitan, commands the bishops to travel to the *comitatum*, that is to say, where the Count—or rather, the Emperor—is. Canon 59 of the same also enjoins that no bishop shall travel by sea without such letters.

Canon 8 of the Council of Antioch permits the granting of canonical letters—that is, commendatory and dimissory—only to bishops, to whom the rite of performing ordinations is also assigned; but not to the chief priests, because it is not permitted for these to perform ordinations. To chorepiscopi, however, in order that they may be free from all reproach, it is granted to send letters of peace to neighboring bishops, since the canons have also gifted them with other privileges.

Canon 11 of the Fourth Council also says: It is necessary that letters of peace be given to the poor who come to the Church and are in need of help, but not commendatory letters. For it is proper that these be given only to those persons who are under suspicion, as they bring their reputation to light; but those who wish to perform sacred functions, even in a foreign land, must bring along with these also commendatory letters.

Canon 5 of the same Fourth Council, and Canon 16 of the Council of Sardica, concern bishops or clergy who move from one city to another. The former ^B decrees that the canons of the holy Apostles enacted on these matters are to prevail; the latter commands that what has been decreed concerning those who go to Thessalonica and stay there for a long time must be observed.

Canon 15 of the First Council forbids a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon from moving from one city to another, even if it is in the same province. For in the case of a bishop, it decries the change of see, as I have said above; while in the case of others, it decries transitioning away from the church or monastery in which they were ordained to minister. For not even these accepted their ordinations absolutely at that time, according to Canon 6 of the Fourth Council, but in this church or that monastery; therefore, it renders such a transition void.

Canon 15 of the Council of Sardica says: If anyone, receiving a minister from another diocese without the consent of his own bishop, installs him in any rank of his own clergy, let such a constitution be held void and infirm.

Canon 93 of the Council of Carthage says: Whosoever in a church, even if he has read only once, has received the laying on of hands for this office, let him not move to another church so that he may become a cleric there. To the bishop of Carthage alone, however, it is ^C granted to enroll in his own clergy the clergy of other provinces, and this without the dimissory letters of those who ordained them. And you will know this more clearly from Canon 55 of this same council, which confirms the permission given above to the bishop of Carthage, so that he may with authority take from any church whatsoever the clerics he desires and ordain them in his own church; yet, for the sake of brotherly love, it presupposes that he does this with the knowledge of the bishops to whom they are subject. To the other metropolitans, however, the clergy...

^A of another diocese is not permitted to be received, nor is there permission to ordain a presbyter or deacon from among them, unless someone happens to be found useful for the leadership of the people; for it is granted that such a one may be sent to another metropolitan, if both consent, and he may be honored with the episcopal dignity. This is permitted, he says, because the ordination of priests and deacons is not as necessary as that of bishops, and because those who are capable of leading the people to the best things through their own action and speech are rarely found. Furthermore, it is not permitted to force a cleric who refuses the episcopal dignity; for it has never been known for anyone to be raised to such a leadership against his will and by force. ^B It was also a coveted privilege for the throne of Constantinople to receive from the churches subject to it whomever it wished of the clergy, and to add them to its own; and indeed this likewise applied to the bishop of Bulgaria and to [the bishop of] Cyprus, through the 30th Novel of Justinian, which you may also seek in chapter 11, letter E. It was also granted to the Emperor to make similar changes of the clergy.

Civil Laws.

We forbid the most God-beloved bishops to abandon their own churches and to go into other provinces; but if some necessity requires them to do this, let them not do it otherwise than with letters from their most blessed patriarch or metropolitan, or by the imperial command. ^C But let them not visit the queen of cities in any other way than this. But even if a bishop should travel in this manner to any place, let him not leave his own church for more than one year. As for the bishops who come to the queen of cities, as has been said, from whatever diocese they may be, before all else they must go to the most blessed archbishop and patriarch of Constantinople, and only thus enter into our serenity through him. But to those who travel abroad contrary to this our regulation, or who stay outside their own church for a time beyond the appointed year, we command, first of all, that no expenses be provided to them by the stewards of their own church, and next, that they be reminded through letters from the chief priests under whom they serve to return to their own churches; ^D and if they delay their return, let them be called again according to the divine canons, and if they do not return to their own churches within the defined time, let them be expelled from the episcopacy by the opinion, judgment, and proof of their own chief priest; and let others who are better be ordained in their place by the power of the present law. We command that these things hold also for clerics of whatever service they may be, and furthermore for monks; and let those who transgress fall from their own order.

But we see both of these [rules] neglected today; for the chief priests do not travel to the imperial city through letters of the patriarch, but rather they arrive spontaneously, and approaching its gates, they make their coming known to the...

patriarch; and thus, they enter the great city without danger. They remain there for a long time, and endure no harm, even though the illustrious emperor Manuel did determine not long ago that prelates should not remain in the great city for longer than the pious laws and divine canons have defined, unless there is some unavoidable impediment, or that even against their will they should be cast out of the city; but that their arrival at this place, according to the custom which has prevailed from of old canonically and legally, should take place. ^B We decree also that clerics who are subject to another province, and who besides the judgment of their own bishop move to another province, are by no means to be inscribed in a church, nor receive ordination. For because these things have not been observed, many churches have been filled with great confusion and error. But if anyone be found defying this present ordinance, if, having left his own province, he has been inscribed in another church, having received no degree of ordination, he shall be driven from that foreign church and return to his own bishop, even against his will. But if he has received ordination, let him be suspended from his ministry for three years, and at the judgment of his own bishop let him obtain pardon.

CAP. X. Concerning dimissory letters.

Concerning the dimissory letters which are given by prelates to clerics traveling abroad, enough has been said in the immediately preceding chapter regarding pilgrimage.

CAP. XI. Concerning bishops who seize churches that do not belong to them.

^C Furthermore, concerning those bishops who seize churches that do not belong to them, in the same chapter on the pilgrimage of bishops you will find some things interspersed; and to repeat them is outside the present business. However, the 53rd canon of the Council of Carthage says, "There are some who conspire with their own people, and tickle their ears, or flatter them, and steal the churches of others." These, however, it is necessary to take away from those who hold them by the authority of the prelates who hold the first places, namely patriarchs or metropolitans. The expression "tickle the ears" is taken from the Apostle, and it signifies charming the ears of certain people with deceitful words, by a metaphor taken from animals; for when they are rubbed, tickled, and handled by the hands of men, they become tame and manageable. Seek also the canon of the same in the 24th chapter of the letter X.

CAP. XII. Concerning those who stealthily steal the goods of others.

Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the 3rd canon, ^D decreed that he who plunders, and covets more, and also he who touches the property of others for the sake of shameful gain, is to be excommunicated and cast out of the Church of God.

^A exactly as it is established that sons who are cast out and disinherited from their father's estate for certain improper reasons are likewise treated. And he says that for some to dare, in the midst of such lamentation and such great weeping, while the barbarians are plundering everything—a time that is coming for the destruction of all—to think that it is a time for profit is typical of impious men and those hated by God, who have left no excess of absurdity undone. Hence, it was decided to excommunicate all such persons, lest the wrath come upon the entire people, and first upon those in charge, for not having diligently sought out and corrected these men; for those who desire to profit from the goods of the captives heap wrath upon themselves and upon the entire people.

By removing this greed, he shows that it ^B is much worse than that of Achar. For he says that he alone, by taking privately what had been dedicated to God, brought the wrath of God upon all of Israel; and for this reason, not only he, but all his household were stoned and perished. For if both he and these men plundered from the spoils, yet he took the property of enemies, while these men took the property of their brothers; thus, the lawlessness of these men is more grievous than that of the other. And yet someone might deceive himself, claiming that he found things abandoned and, since no one was claiming them, took them, perhaps ignorant of who the owner was. For it is not permissible for one who has found things in this way to profit and make the property of others his own; rather, he must keep it safe for the owner. For if the ^C ancient law commands that "if your brother or your enemy should lose his own property through negligence, and this in a time of peace, you shall not keep it, but shall return it to the one who lost it," then how much more is it necessary to keep safe the goods left behind by a fleeing brother or one who has been made a captive, and to restore them to him when he is in adversity?

It would be a sign of great madness, too, if one were to claim the goods of others in the place of one's own lost goods, thinking there is nothing wrong in this, even though nothing is lacking in the account of wickedness in these matters; for what the enemies have become to them, they are taking pains to become to their brothers. It has been reported to us that some, ^D who had escaped the hands of the enemies, are being forcefully detained by certain persons—men who are entirely faithless and impious, and who do not know God at all. Send some into the region to investigate this matter, lest thunderbolts fall upon those who do such things.

In the tenth canon, the same great Gregory decrees that those who have dared to enter the houses of others, if they are accused and convicted, are not even to be admitted to a hearing; but those who have confessed of their own accord and have returned what they stole, he orders to be made prostrate and to go out with the catechumens.

Laws. The law punishes the one who steals from a fire, or a shipwreck, or a collapsed house by compelling him to restore fourfold within a year, and after a year, to restore the simple value; and likewise the one who knowingly receives what has been stolen. But [regarding] the robbers, even if before the sentence that which was taken by them

has been offered, he does not admit it, but punishes them with the fourfold [penalty].

If anyone has taken mobile property by force, within a year he is held to a fourfold penalty, if the quantity and species of the goods are proven by witnesses; but after a year, to a single [value]. If, however, the violent robbery is proven, but the witnesses do not know [what] the stolen things [are], the one who suffered the violent removal takes an oath, and receives from the robber whatever he shall swear was stolen from him, [at] a single [value].

If anyone takes away an object without a judicial sentence, if he is the owner of the object, he falls from his ownership; but if the object is another’s, he gives both the object and its price. Therefore, even in this case, if the lawsuit is moved within a year, the penalty is paid; but after a year, [only] the object and the fruits.

Whoever steals land or moves boundaries restores double the [value of the] robbery.

Those who enter with arms and devastate the houses or fields of others are punished with death.

CAP. XIII. Concerning those who abduct women for the sake of marriage.

The eleventh canon of the Synod of Ancyra commands that girls betrothed to some, and afterwards abducted by others, even if the abductors have wickedly defiled them, be restored again to those to whom they were betrothed: provided, naturally, that they wish to receive them; for they shall not be compelled against their will.

But the 22nd [canon] of the Great Basil [says]: It is not right, he says, to admit to repentance one who has a woman obtained by abduction, before he is separated from her. And if she had been betrothed to another, she ought to be restored to his authority, if indeed he wishes to take her; but if she had not yet been betrothed to anyone, let her return to her parents, or to others who are related to her by blood. And if these desire the affinity of the abductor, let the marriage be established, provided only that she has consented; for otherwise she must not be forced. However, he who has defiled a woman, whether secretly with her consent or by using force, shall be subject to the penalty of fornicators; and for four years let him pass through the four states of repentance: one year indeed weeping outside the door of the church, one year standing among the hearers, another year falling [prostrate] in repentance, and the fourth year standing with the faithful, but abstaining from the holy mysteries; and only when that has been completed, let him be a participant in that which is perfect.

The 30th canon, moreover, decided that those who abduct women, and those who assist them, are to be outside the prayers for three years, and to stand among the hearers. But if the woman, he says, has willingly surrendered herself, when neither has defilement preceded—which is properly said regarding virgins—nor theft, that is, clandestine intercourse, he who has taken her shall not be subject to the penalties inflicted by the canon, inasmuch as no violence intervened; and especially if she happened to be sui iuris, a widow

has been, it remains in her power whether to follow or not. For, he says, we must pay no attention to the outward forms, that is, to the pretense and simulation; for sometimes a woman, being ashamed to give herself to her lover or the one she loves, has feigned being abducted, when in truth she followed willingly. If, then, the abduction has occurred by pretense, there will be no place for penalties, nor for the laws to which abductors are liable; but those who have taken them into their power will be held responsible to the fathers solely by an action for insult, for these indeed dissolve a marriage made against their will.

The 28th canon of the fourth council, and the 92nd of the sixth ^B declare it thus: that those who abduct women in the name of marriage, or assist or consent to the abductors, if they are members of the clergy, are to be deposed; if they are laymen, they are to be anathematized. For they are made subject to the same reckonings as those who choose to assist them, and very rightly so; for if the one man pretends that love for the abduction—even if it is a very weak apology—is what goads him to the illicit act and has become stronger than reason, what person of sound mind would grant pardon to the one who consents, who has nothing but his own wickedness urging him toward a most base action? This, beyond other absurdities, overturns the honesty and honor of the state. He is a co-worker who provides assistance to the abduction in the act; he who consents is the one who devises the schemes and plans. ^C

*Laws.*

Those who abduct a woman, whether she is betrothed, unbetrothed, or a widow, whether she is high-born, a slave, or a freedwoman—and especially if she is consecrated to God—and if anyone has abducted his own betrothed: if he committed the abduction with weapons, that is, swords or clubs, such a man is to be punished by the sword. As for those who serve them, know of it, or have received them into their homes, or have brought any zeal to the deed, they shall be beaten severely, shorn, and have their noses mutilated; since those who set out to abduct are also prepared to kill those who resist. But if they committed the abduction without any weapons, the abductor is to have his hand cut off, and those who assisted in any way, after being beaten and shorn, shall be sent into exile; this applies whether the abduction happened with the women willing or unwilling, and especially if they attempted to abduct those living together with their husbands. Moreover, even the parents of the woman, if they do not attempt to exact the due punishment from them, shall be confined. But if a slave is caught having assisted in the act, he shall be burned.

Those ^D who abduct, or solicit, or violate an ascetic, or a nun, or a deaconess, or any other woman holding a religious habit, they and their accomplices suffer the danger mentioned above from the law, and their property is assigned by the bishops and magistrates to the church or monastery of the woman who has suffered the violence; and she, along with her own property,

^A in the monastery is safely placed. But if she is a deaconess, having legitimate children, they receive her property according to the laws.

He who has abducted a virgin or a widow cannot marry her, even if her father consents and pardons the crime. Let not the abducted woman be married to him who abducted her; but if even her parents consent to such a union, they are deported.

He who abducts a young woman is punished in one way, and he who forcibly deflowers a virgin in another. For abduction is not pardoned, on account of the impudence of the abductor; but defloration committed by force, if it is accepted by the woman who suffered the violence, is pardoned, and it is permitted for them to dwell together.

The abducted woman profits from the goods of the abductor if she does not wish to be lawfully joined to him; ^B but if she wishes for this, her property, and that of the abductor, and that of those who gave aid in the evil deed, whether they be their parents or others, are confiscated.

Abduction is greater than adultery; and he who abducts a married woman or a virgin is punished with the extreme penalty, even if the accuser is a foreigner, and even if the father of the girl, having been entreated, pardoned the deed.

If a slave reports the abduction of a virgin, he is given his liberty, or if he convicts the abduction that was already pardoned.

He who abducts or hides another man's maidservant who is a harlot is held liable neither as a thief nor as a kidnapper. For he did not do this for the sake of theft, but for the sake of lust. Truly, he is fined in his goods by the magistrate and is chastised.

Justinian's Novel XVII, however, forbids the immunities of the law to be reserved for the abductors of virgins. Seek this in Chapter 15 of the letter E.

Moreover, on the days of Easter, the abductors of virgins are imprisoned and bound. Seek the laws also in Chapter 7, letter P.

CAP. XIV. Concerning Pederasty

The Great Basil, in his 7th canon, and also in the 65th, says: "He who has committed shameful acts with his own sex, and is led to repentance, shall be subjected to the due penalties of repentance for fifteen years, and after that shall be judged worthy of communion."

But the Great Gregory of Nyssa, in his 3rd canon, ^D extends their repentance to 18 years.

John the Faster says: "If a child is corrupted by some man, if he has received the flow of seed into his thighs, being conveniently corrected he may come to the priesthood; but if into the anus, he shall by no means be judged worthy of the priestly rank. For although he himself, on account of his age, did not sin, yet his vessel is ruptured, and he ought not to perform sacred rites; for he is defiled."

Law.

The impure, both he who acts and he who suffers, are to be punished by the sword, unless he who suffers is less than 7 years of age; for then the insufficiency of age exempts him from such punishment.

CHAPTER XV. On magistrates, and what sort of persons they ought to be. Laws.

^A The magistrate ought, as far as possible, to imitate the divine nature, to be compassionate toward all, to be forgetful of injuries, patient, free from anger, impartial, incorruptible by gifts, and not easily or without examination to give credence to accusations and insults. For because the magistrate is subject to the passions which are contrary to the enumerated virtues, many are frequently and unjustly brought into danger.

There are three characteristics of a good magistrate: humility toward those consecrated to God, simplicity in banquets, and, in judgments, not showing respect of persons and not being corrupted by gifts.

A magistrate should be affable to those who come to him, but not in such a way that he allows himself to be treated with contempt, nor should he engage in egalitarian conversation with his subjects; neither let him manifest either mercy or anger in his countenance. He should deal with advocates with prudence and not admit those who are prohibited.

Those who preside over provinces are called praetors; but he who is at Constantinople is called the prefect.

CHAPTER XVI. On women who are in separation.

The holy hieromartyr of Alexandria, in his second canon, prohibits women who are in separation from approaching the holy table and from partaking of the immaculate mysteries. For not even the woman suffering from the issue of blood dared to touch the Lord, but only the hem ^B of His garments. It is not, however, reprehensible for those so affected to remember the Lord and to implore His help for themselves. But for one who is not altogether pure, it is slippery and dangerous to approach the Holy of Holies. He says that those are in separation who are troubled by the flux of menstruation, and that for this reason they are separated from the seat of the others as being unclean. For the Hebrew women, when suffering this, sit in a private place and remain quiet until seven days have passed and the flux of menstruation has ceased. Such women nowadays, however, are made to stand apart, and are cast out not only from the altar—to which in olden times it was permitted them to approach—but also from the temple and from the porch of the temple.

And the 6th canon of Timothy says: It is not permitted to those women who are in such a state, before ^C they are purified, to communicate in the divine mysteries.

Law.

The 117th Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise says: We ordain, concerning women who have given birth, that those who are accustomed to be cleansed by the natural flux, if they are not suffering from any other dangerous infirmity, should defer for 40 days—those not yet initiated from illumination, and those already initiated from the reception of the divine mysteries. But if some disease should strike them, and threaten the termination of life, they shall be deemed worthy, the former of illumination and the latter of the sacraments, immediately. ^D

CAP. XVII. Concerning minors.

CAP. XVIII. Concerning excommunication.

^A perfect cognition of the matter is had, it is not fitting that he who is separated should impudently approach communion. Certainly, the other clergy, while showing the due reverence to the bishop, just as he himself owes them the rights of charity, should also rebuke him who is punished if he behaves contumaciously against the penalty, until the examination determines what is proper concerning him. But as for what the canon adds, that it is permitted to entrust the matter to a neighboring bishop in the absence of the metropolitan, the custom of our time does not admit it.

To this agrees also canon 139 of the synod of Carthage. For if any bishop, it says, prone to anger—which ought not to be—should in a sudden fit of passion expel any of the clergy subject to him from the church and communion, care must be taken lest he who is punished be cast out unjustly; therefore, let him have permission to approach the neighboring bishops, by whom the accusation shall be subjected to strict examination; and the bishop, indeed, ought to bear the examination with an even mind and humanely, and submit the matter quietly to the suffrages of the many, by which his ^B own sentence shall be made either ratified or void.

Moreover, the fifth canon of the First Synod, Against those, it says, whether clerics or laymen, who are segregated by the bishops in each province, let the canon which declares that those who have been cast out by some should not be admitted by others, remain in force. It is necessary, however, to provide against whether it happened that they were excommunicated through either enmity or contention. Therefore, they should be examined by the annual synods ^C into the things objected against them, and either he who unjustly segregated them shall be justly rebuked, or he who is indignant that he was segregated shall bear the penalty with an even mind.

Furthermore, canon 5 of the Seventh Synod says: The bishop who for the sake of filthy lucre extorts from the bishops, or clerics, or monks who are subject to him, gold or silver or any species whatsoever, inventing excuses based on sins (which are not, however, contained in the divine canons), and punishes with segregation those who do not easily give what is demanded; or for the sake of some other passion bars any of his clergy from their ministry, or closes a venerable temple, so that the customary divine services of God are not performed therein, expending his own madness upon ^D that which is devoid of sense, this man is truly senseless, it says, and shall be subject to the same penalties: the bishop shall be segregated by the metropolitan, and he in turn shall justly endure from the patriarch the penalty which he unjustly inflicted upon others.

Paul, therefore, the divine Apostle, as if laying down a canon, said to the presbyters of the Ephesians: "Silver or gold or clothing I have coveted from no one," and what follows. And again: "Children ought not to store up for their parents, but parents for their children." Nay, even Peter, the chief of the apostles, says: "Feed the flock of God that is among you, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God; not for filthy lucre, but eagerly; not as being lords over them."

but becoming examples to the flock. For it does not command that clergy be used as servants and ministers, but that he should feed and correct them without perturbation of soul or any force.

Canon ^A 29 of the Council of Carthage: He who, it says, on account of negligence—that is, some fault—has been separated from communion, whether he be a bishop or any cleric whatsoever, even if he thinks himself wronged, must not despise the censure until such time as the matters brought against him are confirmed by a fuller judgment. But if he is caught having communicated with others before the examination, he has already brought the full sentence of deposition upon himself.

Theodorus Balsamon: That one ought not to excommunicate anyone without a reasonable cause.

From this, some say that he who is excommunicated for a cause forbidden by the divine canons, but solely by the irrational will of the one excommunicating, will safely despise the excommunication; and rather, he who excommunicated him will be liable to punishment. For if it were granted to the bishop to separate clerics and laymen either rightly or wrongly, ^B and if it were necessary for those who are punished to fear and observe an unjust separation, the bishops would exercise tyranny and insult piety, and the divine canons would be the cause of many evils—which is most absurd. Therefore, the canon speaks with a qualification: "If anyone is separated due to negligence," perhaps because of a sin which the holy Fathers and the canons forbid.

This also the divine Dionysius the Areopagite says in his epistle: "For the Divine does not allow itself to be drawn by the irrational impulses of priests."

And canon 45 of the same council subjects to full deposition the cleric in Africa excommunicated from communion if, having crossed the sea to Rome, he dares to celebrate divine mysteries ^C before a full judgment has been had regarding him.

Canon 132, and also 133: If a bishop says that someone confessed a crime to him, for which he deserves to be cast out of communion, but the other denies having confessed anything of the sort to him, the bishop alone, bearing witness against the one who supposedly confessed, shall not be believed; indeed, he will even be compelled to communicate with him. But if the bishop, feeling distressed in his conscience and scandalized by the other, judges that he ought not to be admitted to communion, as long as he himself does not communicate with the one separated, neither shall other bishops communicate with him—so that the bishop may be more cautious not to say against anyone that which he cannot prove by ^D demonstrations before others. Seek also in chapter 9 of the present letter the apostolic canons 12, 13, and 16, and in chapter 12 of the letter pi, the canons of the Council of Neocaesarea 9 and 10, and canon 8 of Theophilus.

Laws. The Justinian Novel says: We forbid all bishops and presbyters to separate anyone from

^A the holy communion before the cause is shown for which the ecclesiastical canons command this to be done. But if anyone, contrary to these, shall separate any person from the holy communion, he who was unjustly separated from communion shall, upon being loosed from the separation by the greater priest, be deemed worthy of the holy communion; but he who dared to separate any person from it unjustly shall, by the priest to whom he is subject, be removed from communion for as long a time as it shall seem good to him, so that he may justly endure what he did unjustly.

It is not right for bishops or clerics to compel anyone to offer fruits, or to give forced labor, or to separate, or to anathematize, or to remove from communion, or not to baptize those who do not act in this way; for it is unlawful.

BEGINNING OF LETTER B.

CAP. I. On Holy Baptism.

Now that we have reached the next letter, I think it worth the effort to discuss things concerning holy baptism.

The 47th canon of the holy apostles commands that one who has been deemed worthy of true baptism, according to the Lord’s precept and the tradition of the apostles, should not be baptized again; but as for him who has been impiously defiled by the ungodly rather than baptized, let him be baptized again without any hesitation. But if anyone has already attained true baptism, and has been polluted by the ungodly afterward, let him only be anointed with myrrh; for this is also believed to be a part of the divine baptism. And he who does not act thus, whether he is a bishop or a presbyter, shall be sentenced to complete deposition, as one who mocks the cross of the Lord and treats His saving death as a laughingstock. ^B For the divine Apostle says: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," that is, cleansing through baptism; for Christ’s death is one, and the baptism that cleanses is one. The same thing is also decreed by the 4th canon of the Council of Carthage.

The 49th canon again of the holy apostles commands to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Lord’s word, and not into three without beginning, or three sons, or three comforters. For there is one Father without beginning, on account of His being uncaused, and one Son, on account of His ineffable generation, and one Comforter, the Holy Spirit, on account of His procession from the unbegotten. And those bishops or presbyters who do not act thus are subject to the penalty of deposition.

The 50th canon commands [us] to perform three baptisms of one mystery, that is to say, three immersions in one baptism, and at each of the immersions to pronounce one name of the holy Trinity; and not to give one baptism into the death of the Lord, that is, to immerse the one being baptized once, and to attribute the Lord’s death to one immersion, as the heresy of the Eunomians, full of madness, supposes; ^C of which the 7th canon of the 2nd Council also makes mention. For the Lord did not say,

^A my death, baptize ye; but, "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Any bishop or presbyter who acts otherwise, he deprives of the priesthood. Inquire also in chapter 2 of the letter A, canon 7, of the 2nd Synod, from which you may learn more clearly whom it is necessary to rebaptize, and whom it is necessary to anoint only with the holy chrism.

The 48th canon of the Synod of Laodicea commands those who are being illuminated to be anointed with the heavenly chrism; for this, being sanctified by prayers and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, sanctifies those who are anointed and makes them partakers of the heavenly kingdom of Christ, unless the impenitence of life and the wickedness of deeds render us alien to it. Some, however, say that the holy chrism represents the ointment poured by the harlot onto the feet of Jesus; for that, too, clearly denoted both burial and resurrection.

The 31st and 59th canons of the 6th Synod, and also the 19th of the so-called First and Second Council, depose by common vote the priest who baptizes in an oratory located within a house, against the will of the local bishop.

The 78th canon again of the 6th Synod, and the 46th of Laodicea, command that he who prepares himself for the saving baptism must first learn the mystery of the faith, and on the fifth day of ^B each week, repeat to the bishop or to the presbyter entrusted by him to catechize, what he learned during the week; so that, after being baptized, if he is not found firmly established in the initiation of our mystery, he may not be led astray by the spurious words of heretics.

The 45th canon of the same Synod of Laodicea does not permit one who has not been purified throughout the whole holy Forty Days by fasting and other exercises to be baptized on the Great Sabbath; for this was the law in the Church, that almost all the catechumens be baptized at that time, because baptism exactly depicts the burial and resurrection of the Lord; and that Sabbath is a middle ground between the burial and the resurrection. "For as many of us," says the Apostle, "as have been baptized, were baptized into the death of the Lord." And the three immersions signify his three-day burial and resurrection.

But if someone, says the 47th canon of the same synod, laboring under a disease and being ^C in extreme danger, should be deemed worthy of the divine baptism before being instructed in the articles of religion, upon recovering from the disease, he must learn the mystery of the faith, and how, by grace and gift alone, without having offered anything of his own, he was freed from the guilt of his sins and was deemed worthy of the knowledge of the true God through baptism.

The 12th canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea does not permit one who was baptized because of sickness, and who has recovered from it, to be ordained to the priesthood, as one who perhaps chose the good not by purpose, but by necessity, having pursued a pleasure-loving and fleshly life beforehand, unless perhaps on account of

- ^A gisset; nisi propter sequens in fide studium, et hominum inopiam, id ei indultum fuerit.

Canon 45 of the Synod of Carthage forbids baptizing one who has been deprived of mental health by disease or other cause, unless, as they begin to recover, they signify their will regarding faith and their due desire with their voice. But if it be testified that he sought baptism before he fell ill, and had deferred it for some reasons, he shall be baptized without any difficulty. Seek also in chapter i, under letter A, the 12th canon of the Synod of Ancyra.

Canon 6 of the Synod of Neocaesarea does not forbid pregnant women from being baptized when they wish. For the embryo has nothing in common with them in baptism, seeing that it has not from nature the choice of good and evil, and it is impossible for it to perform the things that it ought to promise in baptism. But infants, taken up by their sponsors and illuminated by their works, become participants in the sacrosanct baptism.

Canon 6 of Timothy of Alexandria: A woman who is a catechumen, he says, if on the day on which she had proposed to be baptized that which is customary for women happens to her, let the illumination be deferred until the following day.

Canon 1 of the same: If a boy, he says, who is a catechumen, or a man, while the holy oblation is being performed, approaches and becomes a participant in the holy gifts, the priest not knowing whether he is baptized or not, let him be baptized immediately; for he is called by God.

Canon 20 of Basil the Great: Heretical women, he says, who have not yet been deemed worthy of baptism, but still remain in the order of the catechumens, if they profess virginity and afterwards yield themselves to men, are not to be punished as having broken their profession. For whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law; but those who are baptized obtain forgiveness for all the offenses committed before baptism, since all who believe and are baptized are subject to no penalty whatsoever for sins preceding baptism. For these are the chief privileges of spiritual regeneration.

Canon 4 of Theophilus of Alexandria, concerning someone who was defiled with his own cousin: If, he says, he had intercourse with her before baptism, and after that abstained from her, let him remain a deacon; for the holy baptism has purged his former sins. But if he had her even after baptism, let him be cast out of the clergy; but to him who ordained him out of ignorance, no harm will accrue from this.

Canon 4 of Saint Cyril: If any of the catechumens, he says, being under separation, are punished for their faults and are at the point of death, let them be baptized, and do not let them depart from the living as participants without grace.

Canon 2 of Timothy of Alexandria forbids a catechumen possessed by a demon from being baptized before he is cleansed of the unclean demon. For it is wicked that he who has given himself to an impure demon as a dwelling-place by his inclination toward evil things, should also receive the light of the holy Spirit.

^A Yet if death should befall him, he commands that he be baptized, lest he depart from life empty, not carrying with him the provision of divine grace.

Canon 4 of the same says: If, however, a catechumen is not troubled by a demon, but has lost his mind through illness, so that because his voice is taken away he cannot answer, since he had previously shown his will to embrace the faith and had been enrolled among the catechumens according to his custom, he shall be baptized without any difficulty.

The canons of the Synod of Carthage, 109 and 110, strike with anathema those who say that Adam was made mortal from the beginning and that he would have died even if he had not transgressed the commandment, and that death did not enter through sin. ^B For the Church does not believe that he was created by God either mortal or immortal, but a state intermediate between greatness and humility, capable of both, as the eminent Theologian says, or as possessing both the greatness of the rational nature and the humility of the sensory nature. For the soul of man, having received its being through the divine breath, is found to be greater than this clay body; but having received the gift of free will, and having embraced evil instead of good, he exchanged life for death. Since, therefore, "through one man who transgressed, sin entered the world," as the Apostle said, "and through sin death, and thus death passed to all men," ^C indeed, just as a paternal inheritance descends to descendants. "In whom all," he says, "have sinned," neither are infants immune from the sin of Adam, inasmuch as their conception took place in transgression: for intercourse and the subsequent conception come from pleasure, and if law did not assist marriage, it would be reckoned as sin, since the love of pleasure and carnal appetite incite to it, however much it may serve the procreation of children. If, therefore, the generation of humans has fleshly concupiscence as its cause, newly born infants are not immune from the sin of the first parent, which must be purged by the divine bath of regeneration. For although infants have no sense because of the imperfection of their nature, yet through the faith of those who bring them, they receive the illumination of the Spirit. ^D The Lord clearly provided arguments for this matter also, when through the faith of others He liberated others who had become deprived of their mind through illness, not only from bodily infirmity, but even abundantly from spiritual infirmity. Therefore, infants ought to be baptized for the remission of sins. And the canons strike with anathema him who believes and acts otherwise, and judges the form of baptism for the remission of sins in infants to be feigned and not true.

Canon 111 says: The grace which is provided for us through baptism grants not only the remission of sins, but also bestows the power so that we might no longer sin, unless through the sloth of our own will—

^A and it hands over to the anathema those who do not think this way.

Canon 112: "Grace," it says, "by manifesting the knowledge of sins through baptism, provides help so that one may no longer sin, and so that one may know what it is necessary to seek and what one must avoid with all one’s might; furthermore, it secretly bestows the power so that we might love and be eager to perform what must be done." For both knowledge and love are a gift of God. And it consigns to the heirs of the anathema him who does not hold such a view, but only thinks that grace is given to us so that we may know what must be done, without also knowing that we must love what we ought to do; for "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."

Canon 113: It clearly inflicts anathema on those who say that we can perform the commandments even without the grace given through baptism—albeit more difficulty, since, according to them, it only makes the execution of the commandments easier. For all things are derived from divine grace, and without it we can perform none of the things that we must. For the Lord did not say, "Without me you can do something with difficulty," but, "Without me you can do nothing."

^B Canon 18 of the same synod directs that we should neither baptize those who have already departed this life, nor share the divine mysteries with them. For some, not understanding the power of the apostolic words in the first Epistle to the Corinthians—"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?"—were baptizing their own dead, while others were baptizing living persons in place of the dead. But the canon forbids this from happening. For the Apostle does not order us to baptize those who have already died, or others in their stead; but because those who are baptized, while learning the power of the mystery among us, are taught, along with other things, to hope for the resurrection of the dead, that is, of the bodies, and because the descent and ascent in the font signify death and resurrection, the Apostle says to those who have doubts concerning this: "If there is no resurrection, what shall they do who are baptized with the hope that the dead will rise?" They are laboring in vain, therefore, if they doubt the resurrection. For by the things they do, they confess that they expect the resurrection, while by what they now say, they deny it. For they are baptized in behalf of bodies that are dead by nature, believing that these same bodies will be transformed into incorruptibility; for the soul is immortal by nature and endless, whereas bodies are subject to corruption and change. And for this reason, what someone confesses with his voice that he believes, the priest demonstrates with his deeds, representing the truth in the water.

CAP. II. On children concerning whom it is in doubt whether they have been baptized

Canon 84 of the Sixth Synod, and also Canon 72 of the Council of Carthage, ^C concerning children about whom there is doubt as to whether they have received the holy baptism or not ^D

^A as they themselves, on account of their age, do not know it, and others can bear no firm witness regarding the matter, it orders them to be rebaptized without any controversy. For although we have been taught by the divine Creed to confess one baptism, yet because the Lord said: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,” we must be careful lest infants, being deprived of divine illumination and not dressed in a garment fitting for the heavenly wedding, be excluded from the bridal chamber and the kingdom simultaneously. For it is necessary that in doubtful matters the doubt be overcome by what is certain.

Chapter III. Concerning the baptized infants of the Hagarenes; and concerning those baptized by those who are not ordained.

^B It is possible to see, even in the deepest darkness of the impiety of the Hagarenes, the light of grace prevailing and not hidden or extinguished by it; for He has not withheld from the unbelievers the signs that lead them to divine knowledge. It is, therefore, the custom of most of the Hagarenes not to circumcise their infants before the Christian priests, who are tributary to them, are forced—even against their will—to baptize them. Concerning this matter, therefore, there was a dispute in the Synod in the Imperial City, when Lucas was occupying the patriarchal throne, as to whether it is necessary for such people, when they come to the true faith of the Christians, to be rebaptized or only to be anointed with chrism. And it was decreed that they must be rebaptized without controversy; for the baptism with which they were washed was not used for a pious purpose, but as some sort of sorcery or incantation, so that the temperament of the bodies of those about to be circumcised might not become diseased or foul-smelling.

^C This also was inquired by Manuel, bishop of Heraclea, whether one ought to receive as a believer a person who was baptized by one who was not ordained, but who feigned to be ordained (for this was happening in his province at that time), and the synod decreed that these also must be rebaptized. For since, it says, according to the sacred canons of the Apostles, the 46th and 47th, the administration of holy baptism was granted only to bishops and priests; and this is shown also from the 26th and 47th canons of the Council of Laodicea, the former ordering that those not advanced by bishops should not exorcise, and the latter, that those being enlightened should recite the faith to bishops or presbyters; furthermore, the aforementioned canons of the Sixth Synod and the Council of Carthage order that those about whom there is doubt as to whether they were baptized or not, are to be baptized without hesitation. ^D For it was neither right nor safe that one baptized by someone who did not receive the authority to baptize and to grant remission of sins through baptism (for baptism is a cleanser of these) should be numbered among the divine choir of the faithful. For the danger is not small, lest on account of such doubt, he himself be deprived of the cleansing of holy baptism, and we unknowingly communicate with one who is unbaptized. If, however, anyone should argue further, saying that because of the prayers said by a layman and the chrism of holy oil, the baptism given by one who is not ordained ought to be considered a true baptism, by the same reasoning one could say that those ordained by someone who is not ordained, and who simulates being a bishop, must be...

^A considered to be clerics after the matter has been detected: which is absurd, and contrary to the 4th canon of the 2nd Synod, which decrees regarding Maximus the Cynic that he should neither become nor be a bishop, and that those who were ordained by him derive no benefit from it, all that he did unlawfully being rendered void. Certainly, it is also contrary to the 18th canon of the council in Sardica, which utterly casts out from the clergy those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus, as they were unordained men, and reduces them to the status of laymen. Therefore, just as those men are unordained, so too will these be considered unbaptized; and just as the infants of the Agarenes who are baptized [simply] so that they might not smell foul are not deemed Christians, so neither are those who are anointed with chrism by the unordained, because it is not granted to such men to impart any sanctification whatsoever. But if anyone brings forward the contrary argument regarding what was done by great Athanasius when he was still a boy, let him consider the civil law which decrees that anything done contrary to the canons is not taken as a precedent, and the exceptional case is not the law of the Church. ^B

CAP. IV. On those who are baptized from among the Jews.

Regarding the stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart race of the Jews, the 8th canon of the 7th Synod decrees thus: If, it says, any of them from a sincere heart should choose the Christian religion and confess to us with all their heart, spurning the things it is customary for the Hebrew race to practice—so that others may be reproved and corrected—let such a one be accepted and deemed worthy of divine baptism, he and his children; and let him remain aloof from Jewish pursuits. But if he does not hold such an opinion, nor has chosen Christianity for the sake of the good itself, but instead, wishing to escape certain annoyances, or seized by the love of fleeting glory or human happiness, he makes a pretense of approaching the faith, such a one the canon does not permit to be baptized. But if any who are of such a mind have already been secretly baptized, and while they simulate the things of Christians, are detected privately observing the customs and rites of the Jews, neither, it says, let them enter into the church, nor be deemed worthy of any communion; nor let their children be marked with holy baptism, nor let them be permitted to purchase a Christian slave; but ^C let them be permitted to live openly according to the religion of the Hebrews.

Leges. The law says: A Jew who pretends that he wishes to be a Christian so that he may flee to the Church, as one awaiting an accusation against him or a suit for debt, let him not be accepted unless he pays his debts or is freed from the charge. Let not a Jew have a Christian servant, nor let him circumcise a catechumen, nor let any other heretic presume to do this.

CAP. V. On the king.

he favors neither out of partiality nor punishes out of hatred, but acts ^A in proportion to the virtues of those governed, like an umpire at a contest, rendering to each his own rewards, and conferring no new benefits to the detriment of others.

The goal set before the king is to protect and preserve through kindness the forces he possesses, to restore with tireless care those that are lost, and to acquire through wisdom and just methods and habits those that are missing.

The end proposed to the king is to benefit all; wherefore he is also named a benefactor, so that if ever he should fall short in beneficence, according to the opinion of the ancients, the royal character seems to be adulterated.

It is fitting that the king be most distinguished in orthodoxy and piety, and renowned for godly zeal.

CAP. VI. When the king should enter within the enclosure of the altar.

Canon 69 of the Sixth Synod: The constitution of the Church, it says, has granted the holy altar to priests alone; but the ancient custom of the holy Fathers, honoring pious kings, does not block their entry to this place (insofar as they are the Lord’s anointed, and are accustomed to promote patriarchs by the invocation of the holy Trinity), when they intend to bring the prescribed gifts alone to the holy table, and then only; but it has universally forbidden laymen to enter inside the septum of the altar. The Latins, however, who have set out to resist every ecclesiastical constitution, profane the holy altar not only by the entry of laymen, but even of women. ^B And they have come to such a pitch of madness that the men do not fear to sit within it, while those who perform the sacred rites are present; and the women, with shameless front, stand around the sacred table, while the priest is celebrating the sacred rites.

Let it not be permitted to any one among the number of the laity to enter inside the enclosure of the sacred altar; yet never is the royal power and authority forbidden when he wishes to offer gifts to the Creator, according to the most ancient tradition.

CAP. VII. That one should not treat the king with contumely.

Canon 84 of the holy Apostles: Whoever, it says, treats a king or ruler with contumely contrary to justice, if he be a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be excommunicated. For the Mosaic law also says: "You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people," which he suggests. And Peter, the chief of the apostles, says: "Honor the king"; and the great Paul commands to pray for kings and for all who are in authority, even those who are infidels. But from the fact that he added "contrary to justice" (for I have set forth the divine canon without any alteration), he does away with the apparent injury, ^D but not with just reproof, because those

who act in a manner unbecoming may be censured by anyone, even if the reproving words seem to them galling and injurious. ^A

Leges. He who treats the king with contumely is not immediately punished, nor does he suffer any other harsh or rough [treatment]; for he has spoken either out of levity, and is despised; or out of ignorance, and is worthy of pity; or as if he had been wronged, and is forgiven. These matters are referred to the king, and he himself judges according to the quality of the person whether he ought to be forgiven or punished. ^B Let him who is guilty of high treason, or who conspires against the king, be punished by the sword. Whosoever finds a libel against the king, whether in a sealed or unsealed document, and does not immediately burn it, but reads it, let him be subject to the same punishment to which the one who composed the libel was subject.

CAP. VIII. Concerning the degrees of marriage.

Division of Kinship.

Concerning fraternity through adoption.

Concerning relationship by blood.

^A

Concerning those who ascend and descend.

But if those who ascend are toward those who descend, even if they are not from lawful marriages, they are forbidden infinitely. For it is not possible for a grandfather to be joined to his granddaughter by the law of marriage. We say "infinitely" according to what is possible, not infinitely by nature, for generations are not immortal.

Concerning the seventh degree of consanguinity.

For those who are in the lateral line, the eighth degree permits marriage, since the seventh degree absolutely forbids it. For no one can take the daughter of a cousin [as a wife]. But previously, the seventh degree of consanguinity, if one were to ask about it, was indeed prohibited; but if the matter had been consummated in any way, it was not prohibited [retrospectively], though a penalty was imposed; and this was because the law, which only forbade up to the sixth degree, had passed over it in silence. ^B

Law.

For it says: "It is not lawful to take my brother's or my sister's daughter in marriage, nor their granddaughter, who is in the fourth degree; nor the daughter of an uncle, that is, a cousin; nor may my son take their granddaughter, who are called second cousins."

But since some, because of the severity of the penalties, were secretly contracting such marriages, the matter was referred to the synod at the time when that divine man, Luke, was governing the patriarchal throne. And the holy synod subsequently defined and decreed that such a marriage should by no means proceed or stand; but if it is asked about, it must be forbidden, and if it proceeds, it must be severed, and those who have contracted it must be excommunicated, and the priest who has performed the nuptial blessing, unless he was beguiled by ignorance, must be deposed. ^C And the constitution of the illustrious among emperors, Manuel, born in the purple, also confirmed this action taken by the synod. For this reason, it is not permitted for anyone to take the daughter of his own cousin, who stands in the place of a niece to him. For the law has placed natural justice, decorum, and modesty upon marriages as a kind of bridle.

Concerning the eighth degree of consanguinity.

If, however, marriage proceeds to the eighth degree of consanguinity, it is permitted; for taking the child of a second cousin, or the granddaughter of a cousin, has no hindrance whatsoever. For the civil laws, wishing to expand the legitimacy of the subjects and not to have kinship enclosed within a narrow compass, forbade marriages among those in the lateral line, so that by necessarily being joined to those outside their own kinship, they might cultivate genuine affection and goodwill toward them. ^D

Concerning those born of fornication.

That which is born of fornication does not have one single name, but this too is subdivided. For if a son is born publicly to someone having a woman in cohabitation, he is called natural, and he holds the second rank compared to him who is legitimate by nature, and in succession he is preferred

^A even to those who are ascending, to say nothing of those from a collateral line. But if he is manifest, yet not born of a woman who is in cohabitation with the man, he is named illegitimate; and if he is altogether obscure, he is called "dark," as Homer says:

"His mother bore a dark one."

Regarding whom we have no words; for there is no dispute in such cases regarding matrimonial contracts, nor indeed regarding inheritance.

Law

On Affinity

Law

Sixth degree not prohibited

the prelate of Thessalonica, Michael Chumnus, in his own decree, declares it permitted—for example, if a father and son, who are of the first degree, were joined to a small aunt and her brother’s daughter, who touch each other at the fifth degree. ^A

Sixth degree prohibited.

Sixth degree not prohibited.

Sixth degree not prohibited.

Sixth degree prohibited.

Seventh degree prohibited.

Seventh degree not prohibited.

^A **The seventh [degree] is prohibited.** If, however, it is seen to contain confusion, it is not allowed; for a grandfather and his great-grandson are prevented from taking two first cousins, lest these also be considered brothers-in-law. But the first marriage remains unmoved, while the one that follows is forbidden, or if it has already proceeded, it is dissolved. As for those marriages by affinity that exceed the seventh degree, one should not curiously inquire into them, nor should prohibitions be made, just as we see being done in those cases that exceed the eighth in terms of consanguinity. It is not rightly stated by some that marriages of the sixth degree by affinity are not prohibited when they have equal degrees on both sides, but are prohibited when they are unequal; for it has been shown from the matters indicated above that it is not equality or inequality, but confusion and the absence of confusion, that either permits or prevents the contract.

^B **That the same man ought not to marry two first cousins.** The Church has prohibited one and the same man from taking two first cousins as wives. For here the seventh degree by affinity is not gathered, as some think, but the sixth, because the husband and wife are counted as being contained in a single degree. For when this came into consultation in the time of the patriarch Nicholas, it was prohibited by the Church; at the same time an edict of the glorious prince Manuel was promulgated, which ordained that such a thing should never be done. But for what reason does it come about that marital contracts between those related by affinity, or rather through two lineages, are free in the seventh degree? Whatever is one, is so either by nature or by legal convention; for example, one man is one by nature. It is one by convention as a husband and his legitimate wife, whom affection and carnal conjunction have united, as we have read it written: “And the two shall be one flesh.” Therefore, when the kinship consists of blood and comes from one lineage, the relationship and the unity are natural; but when it is by affinity and from two lineages, the unity is by convention, and the kinship is not equal to that of blood; and for this reason, in the degree immediately below, and even before the eighth, such a kinship and union is dissolved; for they require ^C of distance for their dissolution, just as those that are less united require less.

**Concerning marriages from three distinct lineages.** Marriages from three distinct lineages also pertain to the categories of affinity, but through the intervention of a third lineage they become free more easily than those connected from two; for just as these [two-lineage marriages] are lower by two degrees than those connected by consanguinity (which are free in the eighth degree, while those contracted by affinity from two lineages are sometimes freely permitted in the sixth), so in turn, those constituted from three lineages, being ^D lower by two degrees than those from two lineages, begin the process of dissolution immediately in the fourth degree.

degree, even if it is much more the case that in these matters one should not take degrees, but rather seek whether they have not been expressly forbidden by the law. ^A And the fourth degree follows upon those that are most permitted.

Fourth degree permitted.

Law.

Third permitted.

fourth degree is required. For it is ^A necessary that the relationship of affinity be extended sideways a little, and then the marriage will be legitimate. For example, my wife’s sister’s husband is closely related to the intermediate family, just as I am to him. Therefore, our brother may marry her blamelessly, once my wife’s sister’s husband has died, or I may marry her sister—but it is not permitted to marry her herself. Again, I acquired a brother-in-law, my sister’s husband; I myself may marry his sister-in-law—namely, the woman who was once married to his brother—without prohibition, because she is found to be in the fourth degree, and is somewhat further removed from the relationship of the intermediate family. For the person who is closely joined to him is my sister, whereas I am from the side, and a little further away from the intermediate person.

Again, I acquired a son-in-law, the husband of my daughter; for me to take his former wife—who had once been married to his brother—as my wife is not permitted, as she is closely joined to the intermediate family; but her sister is not forbidden. Furthermore, a son-in-law and a brother-in-law, if they become widowers, by no means marry an aunt and her brother’s daughter. But for the one whose wife has died, it is permitted to take as a wife the sister of his fellow-son-in-law or of his fellow-brother-in-law. Also, the daughter of the first cousin of his former wife, and likewise the little aunt of his former wife—that is, the cousin of his mother-in-law [is not forbidden]. But it is forbidden to marry the daughter of the first cousin of his former ^B wife.

It is lawful for the brother and sister of two women who are married to two brothers to be joined together.

The decree of Patriarch Leo Stypes allows a son-in-law and a brother-in-law to marry two sisters, since it constitutes the fifth degree.

The same decree, as well as that of Patriarch Arsenius, determines that it is not at all prohibited for brothers to marry a daughter-in-law and the husband's sister.

An uncle and the husband of his brother’s daughter are not prevented from marrying two sisters, even though it constitutes the sixth degree.

Furthermore, a son-in-law and a brother-in-law are not prevented from marrying two female first cousins, even though it constitutes the seventh degree.

The opinion of Patriarch Michael permits John’s daughter, and the niece of his wife from a brother, to be joined to two brothers.

Some, however, have pronounced some of the aforementioned marriages to be illicit: namely, that a fellow-son-in-law should subsequently marry the sister of the one who was his fellow-son-in-law.

And, furthermore, that a brother-in-law should marry a woman who has for her own husband a brother of his own son-in-law: just as we also recounted that which the ^C Bishop of Thessalonica, Choumnos,

to dissolve by decree, that a father and son may take the lesser aunt and the niece. ^A

Law. For the law says: In marriages, we seek not only what is permitted, but also what is proper.

On Adoption. And this, then, is the regulation for marriages [arising] out of three different families. Furthermore, we have been taught by the sacred canons and religious laws that in the case of adoption, which occurs for the sake of succession, there must be treated in the same way as consanguinity: both with regard to the degrees of marriage and for the inheritance of parents.

Law. For the words of the law are: I cannot take as a wife my paternal or maternal aunt, even if they are adopted, since they hold the place of mothers; which [person] might have been adopted by the grandfather, held the place of a sister to the father, and of an aunt to me. Nor may the adoptive father [marry] the daughter or granddaughter of the adopted son; nor may the adopted son marry the wife, mother, sister, or granddaughter by a son of the adoptive father. ^B If, however, a guardian or one who was a curator wishes to adopt the husband of the woman who is under his guardianship or curatorship, the arrangement is invalid, though the marriage is not dissolved. But it is dissolved when someone adopts his own son-in-law.

The 24th Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise, in prohibiting those who are adopted from being joined in marital union with the children of the one who adopted them, adds: “But formerly it was not according to reason, whereas now, since adoption is performed according to a becoming and just law and through a sacred rite, with some being established in the position of parents, and others in the position of children, there remains no longer any reason why adopted children should be joined in marriage with the natural children of the one who adopts, nor that the name of brothers should be so transposed for the sake of marriage that sons-in-law should be called instead of brothers.” ^C

That eunuchs also adopt. Since the law says that adoption imitates nature, and for that reason forbids eunuchs from adopting anyone and having him under their authority, a Novel of the same emperor ordained that this too may occur without hindrance. ^D

That virgins also adopt. The 27th [Novel] also grants virgins the power to adopt, and [ordains] that those who are adopted, whether [they were] filiifamilias or emancipated, should have the right of succeeding to the virgins, and that they do not need an imperial rescript or a judicial act for this.

On [god]parenting from holy baptism. But adoption that occurs through [god]parenting from holy baptism does not enter into [the matter of] inheritance,

^A but is, as has been said, sought ^B only in the degrees of marriage. For the 53rd canon of the Sixth Synod says: "Since the relationship according to the Spirit is greater than the union of bodies, we decree that those who receive children from holy and saving baptism, and afterwards enter into marriage with their widowed mothers, shall first abstain from such cohabitation, and then be subjected to the penalties of fornicators; for he who does not readily abstain from this evil and confess it is judged as one who commits incest."

The Law. The law says: "He who has received anyone from holy baptism cannot afterwards take her in marriage, as she has already become his daughter, nor can he take her mother or daughter. Neither can his son do this; for no other thing can so introduce paternal affection and a just prohibition of marriage as such a bond, through which, with God mediating, their souls are united."

Some therefore assert that, since it is determined by the canon and the law that spiritual kinship is greater than kinship according to the flesh, those bound by it should observe the prohibited degrees ^C up to the seventh, that is, as many as are usually observed in blood kinship; but to most this has not seemed correct, but rather that the prohibition pertains only to those persons contained in the said law.

However, the degrees of both [types of] adoption are counted in a different manner than the degrees of blood kinship. For in the latter, the father is by all means in the first degree toward all brothers; but here, this spiritual father is in the first degree toward the child whom he adopted, and [is] in the second degree toward the child's carnal father, for he is considered his brother. And he is considered to be in the third degree toward the full brothers of his spiritual child; for he did not have them as children. The son is in the second degree toward his own carnal brothers, and in the first degree toward his own carnal father, just as also toward his spiritual father.

For this reason, it is permitted for one who wishes to take as wife the sister of his fellow-godparent. ^D But he who receives his own son from holy baptism is separated from his wife.

On marriages that are prohibited even without kinship. Sometimes marriage is prohibited even without the relationship of any of the five mentioned kinships; for example, he who is accused of adultery, even if he was not clearly convicted, cannot take that woman as wife; nor can a freedman take the wife of his patron after the latter's death; for it provides a suspicion that he had committed adultery with her even while he was alive.

On the guardian and minors. Neither does a guardian marry his ward, nor does his son,

^A nor his brother who is still under his authority, marry the orphan.

The guardian's mother, however, may marry the guardian of her own daughter even before this time. Since, moreover, those who are simply domestics under the power of another, even if they are not slaves or have never been, hold the place of freedmen, not even they, after the death of their own masters, can take their wives, so that they might not provide a suspicion that an adultery had preceded it.

Neither may a stage performer, that is, a public actor, nor his son, take the daughter of a senator. ^B

Law. For the law says that in marriages not only what is permitted, but also what is seemly, must be sought. For in cases of consanguinity and of holy baptism and of adoption, the degrees must be looked to, and marriages exceeding the seventh degree in these are free from prohibition. But in cases of affinity and of those related in the third generation, those things that are explicitly forbidden or that contain confusion must be guarded against; and in those things that lie outside of kinship, the consideration of propriety and decency must be held. ^C

54 Laws. Otherwise, she who has contracted an illicit marriage can dissolve the marriage and marry another afterward. Children who are born from forbidden marriages do not even obtain the title of bastards, nor do they succeed to their own father in any property.

He who has a companion with a free woman, who has not made gain from her body, is considered not to have a concubine, but a wife.

A curator can join his own daughter to the one under his care; but he cannot join his own son to the ward under his care without the emperor's command, since he is branded with infamy. ^D

Neither the father of the tutor nor his brother who is still under his authority can marry the pupil.

The wives of those who are mourned are forbidden to marry within the time of mourning, unless by the command of the emperor; but the wives of those who are not mourned, that is, those who have been condemned for high treason, are not forbidden.

She who bears a child while mourning her husband is still forbidden to pass on to other marriages; but she who has given birth within the time of mourning is not forbidden. For the legitimate time of mourning is established for two causes: so that there may be no confusion of seed, and because of the honor that is owed to husbands. Of these, the former is dissolved by childbirth, but the latter is not yet, on account of the reverence and honor that is owed to the husband. Therefore, the wives of those who are not worthy to be mourned, because they may have fallen into public

^A crimes, are not prohibited from marrying even during the time of mourning after childbirth.

A woman who hastens to a second marriage before the time of mourning has ended is marked with infamy, receives no profit from the first marriage, and cannot give more than a third part of her own property to a second husband, provided of course that she has no children. If, after the death of her husband, a woman gives birth in the eleventh month, this act is mere whoredom, and she is liable to the same punishments as one who contracts a second marriage during the time of mourning, specifically by forfeiting both her dowry and all the property of her husband.

CAP. IX. Concerning those who abominate lawful marriages, wine, meat, and other things.

The 51st canon of the holy Apostles says: "If a bishop, or presbyter, or any other of the clergy abstains from marriage, and meat, and wine, not for the sake of discipline and continence, but as if they were abominable, forgetting that God created man and woman, and that all things are very good, and blaspheming by slandering the creation of God, let him either be corrected, or deposed, and ^B cast out of the Church as one who puts himself in opposition to these correct dogmas. But if a layman should be of this same opinion, let him be excommunicated from the Church; for nothing that has been made by God is evil, but it is the abuse of these things that is harmful. If these things were the cause of evil, they would not have been created by God. Therefore, whoever slanders the works of God extends his blasphemy to the Creator Himself."

The first canon of the Council of Gangra condemns with anathema him who thinks that lawful marriage is unholy, and who abominates a respectable and chaste wife who has been united with her husband because of the custom of sharing the marriage bed, as if she were unable on that account to attain the kingdom of heaven. For the Apostle says: "Marriage is honorable in all, and ^C the bed undefiled." And again: "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received."

The fourth canon inflicts this same penalty upon anyone who calls into question and refuses to partake of the divine liturgy performed by a priest who is married, as if he were someone who abominates honorable marriage.

The 52nd canon also orders that the same anathema be applied to a woman who withdraws from her own husband, as one who considers marriage to be an abominable thing. For the Apostle says: "Defraud ye not ^D one the other, except it be with consent for a time." And again: "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband." But if she should choose to withdraw out of a desire for the solitary life, she is not to be blamed.

^A Likewise, the same penalty does the canon assign to him who cultivates virginity and has withdrawn from the society of life for the sake of abominating marriage, and not for the sake of the good and veneration of virginity itself.

The fifty-third canon of the holy apostles says: "It is not permitted, on festival days, be it a Saturday or a Sunday, or any other, to abstain from wine and meat as if they were abominable things." Anyone who thinks and acts in this way, as if his conscience were seared, and who becomes a cause of scandal to many, if he be of the clergy, let him be deposed; if of the laity, let him be excommunicated; unless perhaps some person, exercising himself in a determined cycle of days, keeps abstinence on Saturday and Sunday just as on other days.

The fourteenth canon of the synod in Ancyra commands those who abstain from meats for the sake of exercise, merely to taste them at the public gatherings; and thus, if they do not wish to admit to the eating of them, at least not to refuse the consumption of the vegetables cooked with them, so that by this means they may remove every occasion of scandal for those who think they abstain from such things out of a sense of loathing. And it is not least appropriate for them to feast on those days when certain heretics are accustomed to abstain from them by way of fasting, lest they appear to agree with their way of thinking, especially if they chance to be living in a city where the greater part is afflicted with this disease. If they do not obey the canon, if they are clergy, it strips them of the priesthood; if laity, it excommunicates them.

^B But the monks among the Latins, who abstain from meats but eat the fat of them indiscriminately with vegetables, do not seem to me to have any care for this present canon; for they clearly do this not to remove scandal, but to fill their bellies.

The great Basil, in his twenty-eighth canon, considers it ridiculous for anyone to vow to abstain from swine's flesh; whence he also commands that such a promise be made void, and that one should consider the use of meat as indifferent (for no creature of God is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving), and that in the future one should abstain from such inept promises as being ridiculous.

In one of his letters to saint Amphilochius, he says: "To the distinguished Encratites, in reply to their excellent objection, 'why do we ourselves not eat everything?' let this be said: that it is no wonder if we abstain from some things, since we even find our own excrement abominable. For in dignity, vegetables do not differ at all from meat; but regarding the discernment of what is useful, just as among vegetables we separate what is harmful from what is suitable, so also in meats we ^C distinguish the harmful from the useful. For hemlock is indeed an herb, just as vulture flesh is meat; yet no one in his right mind would eat henbane, nor would he touch a vulture, unless a great necessity were pressing. Wherefore, he who eats does not act unjustly."

The second canon of the synod of Gangra curses him who...

^A condemns the one partaking of meat with reverence and faith, without blood, or things strangled, or things sacrificed to idols, as though he who partakes of these had no hope of salvation. But the tenth canon also gives over to anathema the one who wears coarse clothing and despises those who use customary attire, or those who wear garments woven of silk with reverence and not from effeminacy or arrogance. The fifth canon brings the same punishment upon him who treats the house of God with contempt and abhors the assemblies held therein. For while the blessed Paul commands to pray in every place, it is not so that we should despise the assemblies and not approach the holy temples. And the twentieth canon condemns with anathema those who, with an arrogant mind, abhor the assemblies and liturgies celebrated in places where the relics of martyrs are stored. Look also for the sixteenth canon of this same [synod] in chapter 3 of the letter A.

Chapter X. On force and power.

Chapter XI. On the genuine and spurious books of Holy Scripture.

^A Moreover, the 66th canon appoints that the accounts of the martyrs' sufferings be read at their annual commemorations. For this reason, it is also necessary both to read and to embrace those things written by the holy Fathers and confessors, inasmuch as they lead us to the true and orthodox faith.

The great Athanasius forbids the reading of those books written by heretics and termed by them apocryphal; he then enumerates the aforementioned sacred books in a similar fashion. For we believe, he says, that these were written by divine inspiration. He also says that the books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, equal in number to the letters of the Hebrews. For he says that the four books of Kingdoms are two, and the two of Chronicles are one, while the books of the twelve prophets are one, and those of the four [major prophets] are four. To Jeremiah he adds the Lamentations and the Epistle of Baruch. ^B Counting also those of the New Testament, he adds to the aforementioned the Apocalypse of John; he judges it impious to add to or to take away from these. He says that the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Shepherd, and the Doctrine of the holy Apostles are outside the canonical books; the sixth synod, however, rejected this latter, as has been shown.

The great Theologian Gregory makes a similar enumeration of the sacred books in heroic hexameters, saying that the books of the Old Testament are equal in number to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews. He calls five of these metric: Job, the hundred and fifty Psalms of David, and the three of Solomon; and [he counts] as one the books of the twelve prophets, whose callings are: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonas, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. ^C He makes no mention of those which the great Athanasius calls non-canonical. Saint Amphilochius follows these, weaving a metric poem in iambics.

The 60th canon of the holy Apostles judges worthy of deposition any spiritual person or cleric who publicly reads for the ruin of the people and the clergy books falsely inscribed by the impious. For not only do those who value falsehood above most things attempt to confirm their own impious opinion with their own words, but they also insert their own material into the writings of the pious, as has been done fraudulently in the aforementioned Epistles and Constitutions of the holy Clement. ^D There are also those who have placed the names of saints upon their own writings for the deception of the simpler and more gullible, as though smearing the cup of poison with honey.

Furthermore, the 63rd canon of the Sixth Synod orders that martyrologies falsely fabricated by those who hold no sound opinions—thinking thereby to inflict a mark of ignominy upon the holy martyrs, and to turn those who encounter them away from the honor due to them—be committed to the fire; and that those who accept them as true be anathematized. For they, envying the contests and glory of the holy martyrs, have been driven to fabricate false and strange books concerning them, as has been indicated.

^A How worthy, then, of the highest commendation is the wondrous Simeon, who has earned the title of Metaphrastes more preeminently than others, and who, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has recorded with many labors and much sweat the contests of the holy martyrs for the sake of the truth, and has adorned them with vigor, eloquence, and wisdom, to the praise of our Lord Jesus Christ and the everlasting glory of the holy martyrs who contended for Him; and he has stopped every impious mouth, and has left no pretext whatsoever for doubt to the pious.

Canon 9 of the Seventh Synod says: If any cleric holds and conceals the books directed against the holy icons, in which their irrational opinions are contained, let him be stripped of his priesthood; if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. For, it says, such books differ nothing from childish toys, being the bacchanals of madness and debauchery, in which the venerated icons—alas for the madness of men!—are called idols. Whoever finds such books should send them to the palace of the Great Church, so that they may be consigned to perpetual obscurity or, as the civil law commands, be immediately burned.

Canons 59 and 60 of the Synod of Laodicea do not permit any books other than the canonical ones of the Old and New Testaments to be read in church, namely those which are contained in the Apostolic Canon; nor do they permit any private psalms other than the Davidic psalms to be chanted, ^B such as those which are said to be by Solomon or certain others.

Canon 19 of the Sixth Synod commands that on the Lord's days, when the people are accustomed to cease from their labors and attend the churches, the bishops should irrigate them with the stream of doctrine, culling from the aforementioned books of Holy Scripture words befitting the time and the occasion, and interpreting these according to the exposition of the holy Fathers, and not according to private meanings and judgments; and that they should rather be celebrated in these [things] than in things invented at home, lest perhaps at some point, stumbling, they might appear to be failing to rely on the scope of Scripture. From the doctrine of the holy Fathers, the people shall learn what they ought to choose and what they ought to avoid, and they will order their own life according to the norm of virtue, for fear of the threatened punishments, and they shall not be overcome by the vice of ignorance. ^C The present canon, however, does not punish a bishop who acts otherwise.

Apostolic Canon 58 excommunicates a bishop or cleric who neglects his own clergy and does not teach them piety, and if he persists in his sloth, it deposes him.

That one ought not to tear apart the sacred books.

Canon 68 of the Sixth Synod [decrees] that the divinely inspired Scriptures, both of the Old and of the New [Testament], and also the books of the approved and recognized Fathers and teachers, ^D be preserved...

^A and not shredded or destroyed, nor handed over to book-dealers or perfumers for extinction, unless indeed they have been rendered completely useless by moths, or water, or in some other way; and anyone caught doing such a thing is to be excommunicated for a year.

Laws. The writings of Porphyry and other heretics against the Christians are to be burned, as well as those of Nestorius, and all that does not agree with the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, and with Cyril of Alexandria, whose faith it is not permitted to depart from. And those who possess and read the aforementioned books are to be punished with the ultimate penalty.

Those astrologers who do not burn their books before the bishops, and do not approach the orthodox faith, are to be driven from every city. And if they are found in the cities, they are to be deported, that is to say, exiled.

Whoever possesses Manichaean books and does not bring them forth publicly to be burned is punished.

Those who possess the writings of Severus and do not burn them shall have their hands mutilated.

CAP. XII. Concerning those who inflict violence upon themselves, that is, suicides.

Law. He who has killed himself, or has attempted to kill himself, out of fear of a crime and not because of disease, is punished as one who has killed another, and his property is confiscated.

CAP. XIII. Concerning the bissextile year.

It happened, moreover, that this name was derived from another source. The Romans divided the days of the months into three [categories], naming some Kalends, others Nones, and others Ides, so called after three Roman patricians who nourished the Romans during times of famine. And "Kalends" ^C were what they called among themselves what the Greeks call new moons. In the months of March, May, July, and October, from the first day up to the seventh, the days immediately following these were called Nones up to the fifteenth, and the remainder Ides. But in all the other months, they counted the Nones from the fifth day of the month, and the Ides from the thirteenth. Because of this inequality, the priest [announces] to the people at each new moon ^D

convenerat, and made the day of the Nones and Ides known to them. Wherefore some think that the first day of the month is called the Kalends because the people were summoned at the same time by the priest. Moreover, as in other months, so also they named the first day of February the Kalends of February; the second, the fourth Nones; the third, the third Nones; the fourth, the eve of the Nones (for, as binary numbers were considered unlucky, they made no mention of them, and for this reason they always used the number greater or less by a unit); but the fifth, the Nones of February; the thirteenth, the Ides; the fourteenth, the sixteenth Kalends of March. ^A When, therefore, February had 29 days, they called the twenty-fifth day the second sixth Kalends, just as they called the twenty-fourth; but the twenty-sixth, the fifths; the twenty-seventh, the fourths; the twenty-eighth, the thirds; the twenty-ninth, the eve of the Kalends, and then come the Kalends of March. It was therefore called "bissextile" when February had twenty-nine days, because the sixth Kalends of March were said twice.

BEGINNING OF THE LETTER Γ

CAP. I. Regarding the degrees in matrimony. See chapter eight of the letter B.

CAP. II. Regarding permitted and prohibited marriages.

The 26th canon of the holy Apostles, and the 6th of the 6th Synod, and the 16th of the Council of Carthage, ^B permit those who are in the clergy, and are still readers and cantors, to contract lawful marriages. But not anymore, after they have been advanced to the grade of subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter. For those initiated into the priesthood who turn aside to marriage, they immediately depose.

Indeed, the first canon of the Council of Neocaesarea strips of the priesthood a presbyter who has been lawfully joined to a wife.

But the divine Fathers of the 6th Synod, abolishing that custom which had prevailed in the Church of the Latins—namely, that priests and deacons who are being ordained must first give promises that they will altogether refrain after ordination from the wives with whom they were lawfully joined before ordination—say, "We wish that the marriages of those who are found worthy of the priesthood ^C should remain firm even after ordination, lest we secretly bring insult upon marriages blessed by the presence of the Lord," and further, since He pronounced that "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." And furthermore, the Apostle says that "marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled," and again: "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed."

Wherefore, whoever deprives a deacon, or subdeacon, or presbyter of his association with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. Except, however, for a certain defined time, when they are about to handle holy things, so that, approaching pure as they are to the Pure, they may obtain their petitions. ^D

But also to some of those who were at Nicaea, the first

^A council they were holding, it seemed proper to introduce a law that bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and subdeacons, should not at all cohabit with the wives whom they had lawfully married before they were ordained. But Paphnutius, a bishop of one of the cities in the Thebaid, a man who from childhood had been reared in an ascetic cell and had perfectly cultivated every virtue, and was especially celebrated for self-control, and furthermore had been adorned with the crown of confession (for his eye had been gouged out for the sake of piety), opposed those who held such an opinion; calling marriage honorable, and cohabitation with one's own wife self-control. He advised the council not to impose such a law, declaring that it was a difficult thing for those living in the world to bear; for perhaps this would become a cause of incontinence both for them and for their wives. According to the ancient tradition of the Church, those who were unmarried when they joined the priestly order were not to marry again; but those who had been advanced to the priesthood after marriage were not to be separated from the wives whom they had. These things Paphnutius said, even though he himself was without marriage. The council praised the suggestion of the divine man, and proposed nothing concerning this as a law, but deemed that the matter should be left to the judgment of each individual, and not imposed by force. So God-fearing was this Paphnutius ^B that even miraculous signs were performed by him; and the Emperor Constantine held the man in great honor, and constantly sent for him to the palace, and would kiss his gouged-out eye.

^C But as for the 10th canon of the council of Ancyra, pay no heed to it, for it states that a deacon may marry even after his ordination, with the permission of his own bishop.

Law. For the novella of the Emperor Leo the Wise says that, even if, according to unwritten custom, it was permitted to the clergy to take lawful wives within a decade, ^D counted from the time of their ordination, yet this, as being forbidden by the canons, ought not to prevail.

He who ordains an unmarried man should ask him if he is able to live chastely without a lawful wife; and if he testifies that he will do this, let him ordain him. But he who permits a deacon to take a wife after ordination shall be expelled from the bishopric; and a presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon who contracts marriage after ordination is ejected from the clergy.

It is permitted to clerics to have lawful wives.

Singers and readers may lawfully marry; but subdeacons, and deacons, and presbyters are altogether forbidden; wherefore those of them who have entered into marriage fall from their priesthood.

Definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of male and female and a partnership in all of life, of divine and human law com-

- munion, whether it be contracted through blessing, or through crowning, or through contract; but things done otherwise than these are reckoned as not having happened.

Romans contract lawful marriages among themselves when they observe what is prescribed by the laws concerning marriages. It is necessary that males be puberal, and females be capable of marriage, that is, for the former to have passed the fourteenth year, and for the latter to be older than twelve years. We say this regardless of whether those coming together in marriage are their own masters or are under the power of another. Marriage does not occur unless both those being joined and those who have them in their power consent. It is not the sleeping of a man and woman together that constitutes marriage, but their matrimonial consent. A son who is emancipated and of full age marries even without his father’s consent.

The mourning of ascendants does not impede the marriages of the persons who are mourning.

He who lives in chastity should not be compelled by his own father to contract marriage, even if he be a son under power.

^B No one should be crowned privately, but in the presence of many. He who dares to do this shall be punished, and clearly the priest also, as having implicated himself in disgraceful matters, shall have the deserved penalties exacted from him, according to the ordinance of the ecclesiastical canons.

A deaf, mute, or blind person can contract marriage and is bound in the name of a dowry.

CHAP. III. Concerning those who abominate lawful marriages.

Seek chapter 9 of the letter B.

CHAP. IV. Concerning those who contract second, third, and multiple marriages, both men and women, and concerning those in holy orders who contract a second marriage.

The words of the 17th canon of the holy apostles are: He who, after baptism, has contracted two marriages, or has fallen into fornication, cannot be a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or in any way of the priestly order. For the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, through the mystery of holy baptism—a mystery that can neither be expressed in words nor conceived by the mind—having washed the baptized person from all filth and made him capable of light, does no longer prevent him from being gladdened by the pure light of the priesthood; but after that divine washing, there remains no other sacrifice for sins such that it could grant the priesthood.

Concerning lectors.

Wherefore, lectors who contract second marriages and still preserve their own order act contrary to the canons. The great Basil also makes mention of this canon in his twelfth canon, when he says: Those who have contracted a second marriage,

he has altogether excluded from the ministry of the priesthood, by which words he implies this canon. ^A The eighteenth apostolic canon says: "Neither he who has taken a widow, or one cast out by her husband, or a harlot, or a servant-maid, or an actress, who because they live dishonestly are not believed to be chaste, may be a bishop, or a presbyter, or in general among the clergy." With these two apostolic canons, the third canon of the Sixth Synod also agrees. ^B Laws. Let no one who has entered into a second marriage be ordained a presbyter or deacon, nor if he cohabits with a woman who has left her own husband, nor if he has a concubine; but only he who is the husband of one chaste woman, and whom he has taken as a virgin. But if anyone takes one previously joined in marriage, or a concubine, whether openly or secretly, let him immediately fall from the sacred order, and let him live a private life. ^C The seventy-ninth novella of the emperor Leo, surnamed the Wise, commands that clerics contracting second marriages should neither lose their habit nor their priestly function. For these are his words: "We do not approve the ordinance of the ancient legislator, who wishes that a presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, who after his ordination has been joined with a woman, should altogether depart from this habit and return to a common life; but we abrogate this decree, and we ordain that it should suffice for them as a penalty to cede the order in which they were recognized before the marriage was contracted. But it is not forbidden to touch the clerical habit and the remaining function in the churches." ^D Regarding laymen passing to second marriages. But the divine Apostle Paul, indeed, permitted younger widows to enter into marriages again, if they so wished, realizing the slipperiness of human nature. The divine Fathers also deemed that men who chose to enter into second marriages should not be forbidden, not being ignorant of the uprising of carnal desire; yet they did not allow them to do so without punishment. For the first canon of the Council of Laodicea says: "Those who have lawfully entered into second marriages, when a very short space of time has passed, and they have attended to prayers and fasts, let them enjoy communion by indulgence. But if, before they have performed the marriage lawfully, they have come together in secret intercourse, let them also be punished as those who have committed fornication." And the great Basil in his fourth canon says: "Some, he says, for one year, others for two, withhold from sacred communion him who contracts a second marriage." Regarding women who enter into a second marriage. In the forty-first canon, he says: A widow, if

^A she is without parents, is also not prohibited from flying by her own choice to a second marriage. For the words of the Apostle are: "If the husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord," that is, to be joined to a faithful husband. But if the parents are alive, under whose power she happens to be, if they do not consent, they can dissolve the conjunction of the marriage.

Laws. For the law says: A woman under twenty-five years of age, being under authority, intending to marry a second time, let her be married by the counsel of her father. A widow is compelled to wait for the year of mourning, on account of the confusion of seed, which does not have a place in a man. But one who has married before the year has been completed after the death of the husband is marked with infamy, and she cannot give to a second husband more than a third part of her assets, or leave it in a testament, when she has, clearly, no children: nor will she herself have anything from the inheritance, or legacy, or gift in anticipation of death; but these are received by the heirs of the one who left them. And if the former husband left anything to her, the ten persons, that is, those ascending and descending, and those who are on the side, up to the second degree, receive it according to their rank. But by intestacy, the heirs of their own kin only up to the third degree. She is also deprived of every dignity, and of those things which came to her from the first husband by reason of betrothal, or according to the will of the deceased. But by the command of the emperor, a woman can bring in another spouse for herself during the time of mourning. She who has given birth within the time of mourning can immediately place herself in marriage. Seek more on this matter in chapter 8, letter B. No one who is under the dominion of the Romans can have two wives at the same time. He who has two wives at the same time is to be beaten, and the superinduced woman is to be ejected along with the children born of her.

Regarding those who marry three times. That great Basil, in the 4th canon, says: "Concerning those who contract third marriages, we have accepted the custom that they be segregated for five years, yet so that the marriage itself is not dissolved." They no longer call these marriages, but a plurality of marriages; or rather, a restrained fornication, that is, not widely diffused, but contracted, and which is circumscribed in one woman. Therefore, the Lord also said to that Samaritan woman, who had had five husbands, one after another: "He whom thou now hast, is not thy husband." To such a degree it is not equitable that those who have lapsed beyond the mediocrity of second marriages should be called by the name of husband or wife. It is necessary, he says, not to keep them entirely from the church, but to have their punishment so mitigated that they consist only in the places of the hearers, and the co-standers, and not also of those who weep. Again, he says in canon 50: Regarding third marriages, the law says

^A that there is no law, that is to say, no ecclesiastical one. Indeed, we view such things as the filth of the Church. Yet we do not subject them to public punishments, as they are preferable to open fornication; for we do not condemn the act so as to dissolve the marriage itself, but rather we accept these persons according to the Tomos of Union, which we are about to explain, and its distinction and judgment.

The great Gregory, who is designated by the title of "the Theologian," says: "The first marriage is law; the second is a concession; the third is a violation of the law. What is beyond this is a swinish life, and it does not have many examples of vice."

Concerning the Tomos of Union.

For in the ancient laws, three marriages were recognized. ^B But the Emperor Leo the Wise, having proceeded even to a fourth marriage, was subjected to excommunication by the Patriarch Nicholas, from whom the emperor begged to be released from the bond. As he was altogether inexorable, he cast him out of the Church and appointed Euthymius the Syncellus, a holy man, as patriarch. Since he wished to decree that marriages might extend even to the fourth degree for those who so desired, he [Nicholas] hindered him with all his might, asserting, along with many bishops, that third marriages, let alone fourth ones, were illicit. For this reason a schism arose in the Church, and this sedition lasted until the reign of his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his father-in-law Romanus. ^C At that time the Tomos, which is called the "Union," was published in the year 6428, which dictates when and to whom third marriages are permitted, imposing an excellent bridle on the freer passions of lovers. This Tomos is read annually in the month of July from the ambo, and at the end it contains these words: "We decree that those who have reached their fortieth year and throw themselves into a third marriage, as being the defilements of the Church, should be excommunicate for five years; and when that time has expired, they should come to communion once a year, on the venerable day of the saving Pascha, purifying themselves as much as possible by the fast that ^D precedes that day. The priest, however, who dares to admit them to any sacred reception contrary to the term we have established, shall risk his own rank. We say these things when there are no children from their previous marriages for them; but if there are, the third marriage shall not be permitted to them. But if anyone who is thirty years old and has heirs from previous marriages should nonetheless, because of the intemperance of carnal lust, be joined to a third wife, let him be excommunicate for three years. And thus let him partake three times in the year—namely, on the day of the Paschal resurrection, on the Falling Asleep of the immaculate Theotokos, and on the feast of the Nativity of the Lord; since the fasts preceding these days are believed to wipe away the greater part of the stain fixed upon him. But if he happens to be childless, he obtains pardon on account of the desire to beget children.

^A

On Polygamists

The third canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea, concerning those, it says, who have fallen into more than three marriages, states that the determined time is clear; yet it is obscure, as none of the older Fathers has explained it. But the faith and conversion of those repenting knows how to shorten the time, it says. But the all-wise Basil, in his 80th canon, says: "The Fathers veiled the plurality of marriages in the darkness of silence, as being beastly and alien to honorable conduct. But to us it appears," that is, it is thought and judged, "that it should be punished more than fornication itself." And plurality of marriages is not having relations with many indiscriminately, but one man taking many wives, even if not all at once. For marriage ^B is not merely sleeping with a woman, as the common crowd is wont to speak, but the union of man and woman, and a partnership of all life, a communion of divine and human law, just as the laws declare. For it is known not from the union alone, but also from the disposition of those who have contracted it. They say that the reason it was passed over in silence by the Fathers is that a third marriage is recognized by the law, whereas plurality [beyond that] is forbidden by both laws and canons. For any contract that exceeds the bounds of a third marriage is clearly called polygamy; and he has declared it worse than fornication, and with very good reason. For the one who commits fornication brings the injustice only upon himself, ^C casting himself willingly into the abyss of intemperance. But he who pretends to contract a fourth or fifth marriage not only tramples upon the divine canons that forbid this, but also harms his legitimate children, by sowing illegitimate ones alongside them. Therefore, even after the cessation of such lawlessness and a sincere confession, he deems that they should be punished more severely than those who have committed fornication; for he extends the time to seven years for the latter, and to eight years for the former, if you carefully apply your mind to what the holy man has decreed. For if, having mentioned only two places of repentance, he decreed that four years must pass in them, surely in the two other places, which he omitted for the sake of brevity as being manifest, another four years must be passed before receiving the sacraments. ^D

Law

The words of the law are: "Let this be manifest to all, that if any person should dare to proceed to a fourth marriage—which is not a marriage—not only shall such a marriage be held as of no account, but the children born from it shall not even be considered legitimate, and they shall be subjected to the penalties of those defiled by fornication.

^A

CHAPTER V. Concerning a woman desiring to enter into a second marriage, whose husband has vanished while on a journey or military service.

Canon 31 of Basil the Great: A woman, he says, who, when her husband has gone abroad and does not yet appear, has not awaited his return, nor has learned from those who accurately know his affairs whether he is truly dead, and has thus married another, is held liable to the judgment of adultery.

Canon 36: The wives of ^B soldiers who have departed for a long time, he says, fall into the same charge of adultery; yet they deserve some indulgence on that account, because soldiers are always considered to be exposed to death, as those who are engaged in battles, dangers, and slaughters.

The Sixth Synod, agreeing with these two canons of Basil, made a canon of its own, the ninety-third, using his very words, and adds: A soldier who returns from a long journey, if he wishes, shall take back his own wife. Indulgence, however, is given both to that woman and to the man who has lawfully joined with her. For they are not punished, because of their ignorance. But the wife ^C of one who is not a soldier, if she has not awaited his return, does not obtain indulgence. But if the woman does not choose to live with the returned soldier, she will not be permitted to live with the second husband either. For if she should wish, after the return of the man, even if he does not receive her, to continue to live with the second, she shall be punished as an adulteress, and the marriage shall be immediately dissolved; for the Fathers say that those women are deemed worthy of pardon who readily withdraw from the second marriage and do not approve of the sin committed out of ignorance, not those who resist and persist in the intention of adultery.

Laws.

If a soldier is passing his time in an expedition, that is, in a public utility undertaking, no matter how many years it may be, his lawfully wedded wife shall wait for him, even if she has not received any letters from him. And even if she hears that he has died, not even then should she marry immediately, unless she first questions the record-keepers as to whether he has truly died, and they, with the holy Gospels set before them, confirm his death with an oath; and even so she shall wait for one more year, and then marry lawfully. But if she is married contrary to this provision, both she and the man who took her are punished as adulterers. And if those who testified are proven to have lied, they are discharged from military service; and the returned soldier has the license to take back his wife, if he wishes.

Concerning captives, the Novel of Leo the Wise decrees that marriage is not dissolved by reason of captivity, nor is it permitted to the party that remained free to look to another for marriage. But if she has even joined herself to another, the returned party has license

to recall his own member, and to dissolve the second marriage.

CAP. VI. That a presbyter who has blessed a marriage ought not to banquet with the one contracting the second marriage.

^A The seventh canon of the council of Neocaesarea does not think a presbyter ought to be present at the nuptial banquet of one who is marrying a second time. For how can he, who is about to rebuke him and exclude him from the reception of the divine gifts for a year, commune with him at a table at that very time, and by this act appear to be cooperating with what is being done? After the marriage, however, he shall not be forbidden to eat with him.

CAP. VII. That Christians who go to weddings ought not to occupy themselves with ridiculous games.

The 53rd canon of the council of Laodicea commands Christians who go to weddings to maintain the gravity becoming to them, and not to fix their attention upon those dancing or performing ridiculous acts. This mandate of the canon, however, at present lies neglected. Seek also in chapter 1 of the letter Θ, the 54th canon of this synod, and the 24th of the 6th synod.

CAP. VIII. Concerning virgins who marry against the will of their parents.

^B The 38th canon of Basil the Great punishes young women under paternal authority who have delivered themselves over to lovers for the partnership of marriage against the will of their own fathers as harlots. If, however, he says, the parents are reconciled with them, and approve of the cohabitation of their daughters with their lover and defiler, that which was at the beginning illegal seems eventually to be corrected and healed by the consent of the parents. Nonetheless, even by this means, because of the crime committed ^C previously, they shall obtain communion only after three years, with prayers intervening. Indeed, at that time, marriages existed by consent alone; but in our time, they cannot be established without sacred prayers.

Furthermore, canon 40 and 42 determine that a maidservant who marries without the will of her own master has nothing that does not fit a harlot. For the pacts of those who are under the power of others have no validity. Whence it comes about that weddings which are contracted without ^D the will of the masters are held to be fornications. But if one should have dared to contract such a marriage, whose master subsequently either approves of the marriage alone, or even bestows the gift of freedom, the marriage itself shall be blameless, but the prior sin, as fornication, will be justly punished. But a maidservant who has been joined in marriage to any free man, while the master knows and does not contradict it, shall not be held as a harlot. For his silence necessarily confers freedom upon her and delivers her from sin.

Law.

A daughter-in-power, or a son-in-power, cannot legitimately contract nuptials

without the consent of the one in whose power they are; unless perhaps the father has delayed to join his daughter in marriage to a man when she has finished her 25th year. For then, it is not forbidden that she be joined only to a free man. Seek also chapter 30 of the present letter.

CAP. IX. On nefarious and illicit nuptials of relatives.

Of those marriages which are not lawfully contracted, some are called illicit, such as those which occur between relatives or with heretics. Others are "nefarious" (paranomoi), such as those with a ward under tutelage. Still others are "condemned" (katakritoi), such as those with a woman consecrated to God. While the divine canons decree only that these be dissolved, the laws [also] decree that the goods of those who contracted them be confiscated, and that the parties themselves be sent into exile; and if they are of humble status, that they be beaten with whips. In the Latin tongue, the nefarious marriage is called *nefarius*, the condemned one *damnatus*, and the illicit one *incestus*.

On clerics contracting incestuous nuptials.

Therefore, the 19th canon of the holy apostles says: "He who marries two sisters, or the daughter of his wife’s sister, cannot be a cleric." For every incestuous marriage, whether by blood or by affinity, is dissolved; and he who is polluted by it is not only driven out of the clergy but also subjected to penalties.

Regarding the 27th [canon] of Basil the Great: he desires that a priest who through ignorance has fallen into an incestuous marriage—such as if he has, by chance, brought into his home one related to him by blood, or a nun who has renounced her sacred habit, or one whose guardianship his father held—should participate only in the seat among the presbyters, but abstain from the remaining ministries of the priesthood, repenting with tears throughout his life before God and men: before God, as the only one who can forgive sins, and before men, that they might ask for forgiveness and pardon for him from the Lord. He says that it is not fitting for one who ought to heal his own wounds to impart a blessing, either privately or publicly; for a blessing bestows spiritual grace and sanctification. But he who does not possess these on account of his transgression, even if it happened through ignorance, how could he impart them to another? And if so, how much less could he distribute the Body of the Lord? A sufficient forgiveness for him, on account of his ignorance, is that he not be punished, but even still partake of the seat.

The holy Fathers of the 6th Synod, judging that this canon was well pronounced, made it their own 26th canon, using his very words, with this alone added: that such an incestuous marriage shall undoubtedly be dissolved, and it is in no way to be permitted that the man enjoy her on account of whom he has been deprived of his sacred function. For if the incestuous cohabitation is not dissolved, he shall not possess his seat, but shall also be driven out of the Church along with the woman who is living with him unlawfully, and through the authority of the magistrates the marriage shall be dissolved. For he who, after recognition, perseveres in sin, shall be strictly punished.

Concerning Laymen contracting unlawful marriages

The Epistle of Basil the Great to Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, is filled with all wisdom and adorned with the power of rhetorical faculty. It treats of matters which, by the grace of God, do not enter the mind of any Christian man today. For Diodorus, having been asked by someone whether, upon the death of his wife, he might take her sister into marriage, had replied in writing that this is not prohibited. But when that great Father, Basil, ^A forbade such a marriage, this written opinion of Diodorus was presented to him. The holy man, having shown that he bore this with grave displeasure, composed this epistle full of great utility, by which he overthrows not only these, but all illicit marriages. For having used the general term of "impurity," he has briefly included all such marriages.

In Canon 25, he says: "Regarding those who take two sisters, what our judgment is, you will accurately understand from the very short epistle written by us, the copy of which we have sent to your reverence," indicating by these words this very epistle to Diodorus, which he also sent to the holy Amphilochius. "And to him," he says, "who has taken the wife of his own brother, a place for repentance shall not be given sooner than he departs from her."

Canon 54 of the Sixth Synod also makes mention of this epistle, and says: "Although ^B the holy man enumerated few of the prohibited marriages, and passed over many of them in silence so as not to defile his discourse with profane words, having indicated all unlawful marriages by the general designation of 'impurity' alone: we, however, define that he who contracts a marriage with his own first cousin, or father and son with mother and daughter, or father and son with two sisters, or two brothers with two sisters, shall fall under the seven-year canon, provided that they first depart from the unlawful union."

Further, Canon 67 of Basil the Great casts the man who has had relations with his own sister out of communion for twenty years, just as a murderer.

Likewise, Canon 68 says: "If it be discovered that a marriage is contracted from prohibited kinship, it shall incur the penalties of adulterers." These are: exclusion from communion for fifteen years, with the marriage first being dissolved.

Canon 75 says: "He who defiles himself with his own sister, born of the same father or mother, shall also be expelled outside the house of prayer," he says, "until he shall depart from the incestuous and unlawful intercourse. But when he has abstained and has rightly performed penance, after twelve years have passed, let him obtain holy communion."

Canon 76 says: "Let the same rule exist also for those who take their daughters-in-law as wives."

Canon 78: "Those who take two sisters into marriage ^D

even if at different times, after the incestuous marriage has been dissolved, are subject to the judgment of adultery. ^A Canon 79: Also those who defile themselves with their stepmothers are held by the same canon as those who defile themselves with their own sisters.

The second canon of the Council of Neocaesarea orders a woman who has married two brothers to be expelled from the Church until her death, if she is unwilling to comply by dissolving the marriage. However, if she should fall into a sickness that threatens death, and she promises that after she recovers she will dissolve the marriage, she is to be admitted to penance. But if death should come to either the woman or the man while they are still involved in such a transgression, difficult penance is left to the surviving person. For it is argued that they would not have departed from the ^B sin if the deceased person were still alive.

The 25th canon of the Synod of Ancyra was pronounced specifically regarding someone who had betrothed a girl to himself, but after having intercourse with her sister, had made her pregnant. After this, when he married his betrothed, the one who had been defiled by him, moved by grief, ended her life by hanging. Therefore, the Fathers decreed that those who were privy to this should be excluded from communion for ten years. "Privy" means participants in the crime, not those who simply had knowledge of the matter and were unable to prevent it. For in nefarious actions, those who assist in the deed are punished no less than those who are the authors of it.

Laws

Laws

Those who mix with their own blood, whether parents with children, or children with parents, or brothers with sisters, let them be punished by the sword. But those who commit ^C defilement with one another from another degree of kinship—that is, a father with his daughter-in-law, or a son with his father's wife (that is, his stepmother), or a stepfather with his stepdaughter, or a brother with his brother's wife, or an uncle with the daughter of his brother or sister, or the son of a brother or sister with their aunt, or someone who knowingly mixes with two sisters, or with a strange woman and her daughter—these, along with the women whom they have defiled, shall be scourged and have their noses cut off. Those who are joined in marriage or otherwise carnally ^D

^A intimate with their own kinswoman (gossip—that is, a godparent relation) or secretly involved with her, shall both have their noses cut off. And if she be already married, they shall also be scourged in addition to this.

CAP. X. Regarding those who abduct women for marriage.

CAP. XI. Regarding those who unite themselves in marriage with women consecrated to God.

The 4th canon of the Sixth Synod deposes the cleric who has intercourse with a woman consecrated to God—whether she be a virgin, that is, or a widow—and excommunicates the layman; but the Law inflicts another ^B penalty upon them.

As for the things about to be spoken of in the following canons, the vicissitude of events has indeed condemned them—not that they are to be held in use any longer: yet they shall be set forth nevertheless.

The 15th canon of the Fourth Synod says: Let no woman be ordained a deaconess before she has reached forty years of age. But if, after ordination, she does despite to the divine grace and gives herself over to marriage, she is to be anathematized, as well as the one who has had the custom of fornication with her.

Basil the Great, in his 24th canon, says: Even if no law is laid upon a man who has become a widower that forbids him from second nuptials, except only the penalty for digamy, yet the woman who has been enrolled in the order of widows and thereafter marries—the Apostle determined that she should be ignored, and not supported by the Church. However, a woman of sixty years, if she looks toward second nuptials, shall be excluded from communion until she has abstained from this vice, having abhorred the guilt and impurity of it. But if we ourselves have counted her among the widows before the year of sixty, the crime is ours, not the woman's.

Law.

Those who are ordained deaconesses, if they dare to...

^A disgrace their ordination by entering into marriage, or by following some other mode of life, shall be guilty of death, and their property shall be assigned to their monasteries or their churches. But those who dare to take them as wives or to ravish them shall be worthy of the penalty of the sword, and the treasury shall seize their property.

Concerning deaconesses and widows.

There was formerly another order of deaconesses, and another of widows; for the Fathers ordained as deaconesses those who chose the honor of virginity and provided proofs of a life of purity by their fortieth year; for, suspecting their vulnerability to deception and their inclination toward evil, they believed they ought not to be ordained before that time. But the Apostle decrees that those who are to be admitted into the order of widows should be not less than sixty years old. And with good reason, indeed. For those who have never tasted worldly pleasure, after such a long time has elapsed, will not easily be led astray by lust; but widows, having experienced the commerce of a husband, would be more inclined ^B toward lust, since the intimacy naturally irritates their carnal desire; therefore, they defined that a widow must be sixty, as one now inclining toward old age, at which time the flame of concupiscence is accustomed to fade. There were also others who had not yet reached their sixtieth year, who chose to live a continent life while in lay dress; the Fathers took greater care of these than of men who were living in widowhood; for they supplied them with food from the things of the Church, so that, by the pretext of indigence, they might not be compelled to look toward a second marriage, which men who have lost their spouses are not forced to consider, as they provide for their own livelihood in many ways. You will learn more clearly from the first epistle of the great Paul to Timothy what great care the Church deemed the widows worthy of.

How women deaconesses once performed their service ^C in the clergy is unknown to almost everyone today. There are those who say that they ministered to women being baptized, since it seemed forbidden for them to be seen naked by the eyes of men, once they were baptized and had reached an advanced age. Others say that they were permitted to enter the holy sanctuary and to perform the duties of deacons in a manner similar to them. But the later Fathers prohibited them from ascending there and performing that ministry, due to the involuntary flow of periodic menses. But that it was permitted for women to approach the holy altar in earlier times may be conjectured from many other things, and most especially from the funeral oration which the great Gregory the Theologian composed for his sister. However, that a woman might become a minister of the sacred ^D and bloodless sacrifice does not seem probable to me, as it is inconsistent with reason that those who are not permitted to teach publicly should ascend to the rank of deacon, whose task it is by means of doctrine to purify those of the unbelievers who are approaching baptism.

^A Furthermore, the ancient books in which the performance of all ordinations is accurately recorded, declare the age which a deaconess ought to be, namely 40, and the habit, which is that of a nun, and a complete one at that; and the life, in that she ought to emulate the virtue of men in the most excellent matters, and perform those things, with the exception of a few, which men perform. For when she is brought to the holy table, she is covered with a veil, its ends hanging down in front; and after it has been said, "The divine grace which heals the infirm," she does not move her feet, nor bend her knee, but only bows her head. And then the presiding bishop, laying his hand upon her, prays that she may blamelessly fulfill the office of the diaconate, cultivating chastity and an honorable manner of life, and may thus be constant in the holy temples. He does not, however, permit her to minister at the undefiled mysteries, or to handle the flabellum, as is the custom for a deacon; then the bishop places the deacon's orarion around her neck and under the veil, bringing its two ends out in front; and at the time of participation, she partakes of the divine mysteries after the deacons. Then, taking the cup from the hands of the bishop, she does not distribute it to anyone, but immediately places it ^B upon the holy table.

CHAPTER XII. Concerning the fact that one ought not to contract marriages with heretics. Regarding clerics.

The 14th canon of the fourth synod forbids orthodox clerics in any way to contract marriages with heretical women. As for their children, who have already lived together in the same household, it commands that they be brought to the Catholic Church. And if they happen to have been baptized by heretics—whose baptism is to be rejected by those who follow the sound doctrine—they must be baptized again; if not, they are to be anointed only with the holy chrism. But if they have not yet been signed with the seal of baptism, they are no longer to be baptized by heretics. Moreover, it ordains that they must not contract marriages with heretics, nor with Jews, nor with pagans. I call heretics those who embrace the mystery of our faith, but in some things wander from the orthodox; Jews, those Christ-killers; and pagans, those who are manifestly unbelieving and infected with an insane cult of idols. But if perhaps some heretic or unbeliever promises that he will accede to the orthodox faith, ^C the contract may proceed, it says; but the matrimonial union shall be put off until the promise is confirmed by deeds. This same thing is also required of the Latins, if any of them wish to take orthodox wives. Those who do not obey these things are liable to canonical penalties; for besides the dissolution of the marriage, the violators are also punished.

The tenth canon of the Laodicean synod says, it does not behoove those of the Church to join their own children in the bond of marriage indifferently with heretics. ^D And that of Carthage concerning the children of clerics

^A with pagans, that is, with infidels or heretics, forbids they be joined by the law of marriage.

Canon 72 of the Sixth Synod decrees word for word as follows: “Let it not be lawful for an orthodox man to enter into matrimony with a heretical woman, nor for an orthodox woman to marry a heretical man. Indeed, if it should appear that anything of this sort has been done by anyone, let the nuptials be considered void, and let the profane matrimony be dissolved. For things that cannot mix must not be mixed, nor should the wolf be coupled with the lamb, nor the lot of sinners with the portion of Christ. If, however, anyone shall have transgressed what has been defined by us, let him be excommunicated.” For if, according to civil law, matrimony is defined as a society and fellowship of divine and human right, how can those who disagree on the greatest affections of the soul agree ^B among themselves? who think contrarily concerning the faith? Wherefore, even after the dissolution of that profane matrimony, it wills that the transgressions be punished by the penalty of segregation.

And these indeed concern those who are already joined in matrimony, with one part addicted to heretical decrees, and the other cultivating the right faith. But if both parties, it says, when they joined in matrimony from the beginning, were alien to the assembly of the orthodox, and then one recognized the truth, while the other still serves the darkness of impiety, the matrimony is not dissolved on that account, as the great Paul determines in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: “For if,” he says, “the believing woman wishes to dwell with an unbelieving husband, or conversely the believing husband with the unbelieving wife, let them not be separated. For ^C the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife,” and vice versa. See, however, in what way this divine Apostle, using a kind of condescension, says, “If the faithful party wishes to dwell with the unbeliever.” From which it follows that if she does not wish to dwell with him, the matrimony is without doubt to be dissolved.

I am persuaded, however, that these were the things of the beginning and as it were the first principles of the preaching. But as concerns the present face of affairs, how is it possible that a baptized Jew or Agarene should any longer dwell with an unbaptized wife, or a baptized woman with one who has not embraced our faith? A case of which kind occurred in the time of Patriarch Theodotus. For a certain imperial trumpeter, having been baptized, was by patriarchal document separated from his wife, who was not willing to obey her husband, who exhorted her much to embrace the profession of piety.

Canon 31 of the Laodicean Synod says, “It is not fitting to contract ^D matrimony with any heretic, nor to give our sons or daughters in marriage to them, fearing lest we should learn their depraved opinion: but we shall rather deal with the matter if they promise that they will become Christians.” That which is said here, “It is not fitting with any heretic,” is just as if you were to say, “with no heretic.” For this is a peculiar manner of speaking in Sacred Scripture, as in this: “Fear not when a man becomes rich, for when he dies he will not take all things.” For it is impossible for him to take anything, and elsewhere: “For did you not vainly create all the sons of men?” for they are not

consequently, [that they were] created for nothing; for it is impious to deem this [true]. ^A

Law. Let no Jew take a Christian woman to wife, nor a Christian man a Jewess; nor let a heretic, being a stranger to the faith, contract matrimony with Christians upon any pretext.

73 CAP. XIII. From what causes marriage may be dissolved.

Law. Many laws in many places treat of the dissolution of marriage. But the Novella of Justinian is more perfect, explicitly setting forth the causes for which a husband or wife may send a bill of divorce, that is, a separation, to their spouse, and gain the dowry, while the ownership thereof is kept safe for the children born of that same marriage, or, if there be no children, let the innocent party also enjoy the ownership. For although formerly it was permitted to mortals, both by ancient laws and by long custom, to dissolve marriages with impunity, so that a husband might say to his spouse: "Wife, attend to your own affairs," and she in turn to him: "Husband, attend to your own affairs"—just as among the Hebrews it was once prescribed by law that a husband should send a bill of divorce to his wife—yet, as matters are now arranged, this has been abolished among Christians. ^B Indeed, the causes have been specifically enumerated by the religious emperors, for which alone it is permitted to dissolve a marriage; since without these it is a sin for it to be severed.

The woman’s cause. And the husband indeed sends a bill of divorce to the wife and gains her dowry, as has been said, for these causes: 1. If the woman is privy to any persons conspiring against the sovereign power, and does not disclose it to her own husband. 2. If an accusation of adultery be brought against the wife, and she be convicted according to the laws of having committed adultery. 3. If in any way she plots against the life of her husband, or, being privy to others doing this, does not disclose it. ^C 4. If she dines or bathes with strange men against the will of her husband. 5. If she stays away from the house against the will of her husband, unless it be perhaps with her own parents; or if he himself should drive her out without the aforementioned causes, and, her parents not being alive, she should pass the night abroad. 6. If she attends horse races, or theaters, or huntings for the sake of watching, while her husband is unaware or forbidding it.

The saying of Scripture, however, which is handed down, that she who is defiled by adultery is not to return to her own husband, must be understood concerning the husband who does not wish to take her back. ^D For if the husband pardons the crime, he may, without hindrance,

^A receive her back within a biennium, according to the Novel of Justinian and that of Leo the Wise.

Causes for the husband.

1. If he himself plots anything against the empire, or, being aware of others plotting this, does not reveal it to the realm, either by himself or through any person whatsoever. 2. If he in any way lays a trap for the life of his wife. 3. If, plotting against the modesty of his wife, he attempts to hand her over to others to be defiled. ^B 4. If the husband, having accused her of adultery, fails to prove it. 5. If he consorts with another woman in the same house or in the same city, and, when admonished by her or by her parents, or by anyone else, he is unwilling to abstain.

For these offenses, the husband does not only forfeit the prenuptial gift, but also loses a third of his other property, and undergoes the punishments which the wife would have suffered had she been condemned.

However, neither may the wife autonomously depart from her husband, nor he from her, without the judgment and decision of the judges, as diverse Justinianian Novels decree. Therefore, he who marries a woman not so divorced commits adultery.

Dissolution of marriage without penalty; and concerning marriage dissolved for the sake of asceticism.

Marriage is dissolved without penalty when, three years having passed, the husband is unable to cohabit with his wife, even if he himself does not choose the divorce; the prenuptial gift remaining with the husband, as he loses nothing of his own goods by way of penalty.

Marriage is also dissolved when one of the two parties gives themselves to ^C asceticism, passing over to a better path and choosing to live a life in purity. For then we command that both husband and wife, if they betake themselves to more honorable things, have the power to divorce and withdraw, with some small solace being left to the deserted party. For whatever the contracting parties agreed should accrue to the other in the event of death, this the deserted one ought to receive from the other, whether it be the husband or the wife; because he, in what pertains to his spouse, seems to have died, exchanging one path of life for another.

For indeed, the tonsure is rightly done even if one of the spouses is unwilling. We also say that the divorce occurs by mutual consent. The person who has been abandoned may also proceed to another marriage. But this, to the wife of a bishop

^A this is not granted. And therefore, the ordination must take place with her consent, and thus her departure must follow unavoidably.

Marriage is also dissolved when a husband or wife has been taken captive, and it remains uncertain for five years whether he or she is alive.

If, however, the text says, some dare to dissolve a marriage for reasons other than those defined by us, we command that, if they have descendants, whether from this same, or from another marriage, their estates shall be given to them, and they themselves be cast into a monastery for the entire duration of their lives, and a portion from their goods be bestowed upon the monastery. If they have no descendants, but have ascendants, these shall receive a third part of their goods, if they did not consent to the dissolution of the marriage; but if neither ascendants nor descendants exist, we command that all their goods be given to the monasteries into which they have been cast. Furthermore, we command that those who draw up such wicked instruments be subjected to corporal punishments and be sent into exile. If, however, those who have attempted to dissolve the marriage wish to come together again before they have been cast into monasteries, we grant them permission to do so, and we remit the aforementioned penalties, and they may retain their own estates. But if one person wishes to revoke the marriage, and the other person does not consent, the penalties shall hold against the one who refuses. We command that these things be done also under the providence of the most devout bishops. ^B

If the marriage has been dissolved by the consent of both parties or out of a love for temperance, we command that both parties immediately proceed to the solitary life, it being understood that they remain immune from penalties. If, however, any of them should proceed to another marriage or fall into fornication, their children shall receive all their property. If no children exist, the treasury shall succeed to it.

CAP. XIV. Of deaconesses and widows.

Seek the 11th chapter of the present letter.

CAP. XV. Of women betrothed: in which also betrothal is treated.

^C Canon 69 of Basil the Great: If a reader, he says, has had relations with his betrothed woman before the celebration of the nuptials, even with her consent, he is separated for the space of a year and returns to the office of reader, but is not promoted to a higher grade. If, however, he has had relations with a woman without betrothal, even if he perchance signified to her in words that he would take her as his wife, he falls even from the ministry of reader. But if a minister or a deacon has committed sin by this other vice, he is utterly cast out from his ministry.

The 98th canon of the Sixth Synod subjects him who takes into the fellowship of marriage one betrothed to another, while he who contracted the betrothal is still alive, to the crimes of adultery. If, however, not by the law of marriage, but by fornication, someone should be defiled with such a person, and this

^A one was ignorant of the betrothal, he is punished as a fornicator.

On Betrothals.

The legal authorities define betrothal as the mention and promise of future marriages. The Mosaic law deemed betrothal the equivalent of marriage, and one who defiled a woman betrothed to another was punished as an adulterer; and since the tokens of the betrothal linked them, it even called the betrothed woman "wife." "He has humbled," it says, "the wife of his neighbor," that is, he has deflowered his betrothed. Thus also the holy Virgin was styled the wife of Joseph: "Do not fear," He says, "to take Mary your wife." Among us in former times, the betrothal of those joining together was preceded by a kiss and an earnest, and it was permitted to dissolve it if the prescribed penalty was paid. While the betrothal was not yet dissolved, one who took the woman was rightly judged as an adulterer, as the aforementioned canon decrees. ^B But where neither betrothal proceeded, nor a kiss, nor the giving of an earnest followed, but only what are called the bonds of bare words, even if another takes the woman, he is not subject to the charge of adultery. But from the Novella issued later by the pious Emperor Alexios Komnenos, in the year 6592, the betrothal is almost equal to the perfect marriage, since it too is performed with holy prayers; and it is not dissolved in any other ways than those by which a completed union is rent asunder. For he says:

Novella of Emperor Alexios Komnenos on betrothals, enacted in the year 6592.

True betrothals have been established by us, as many as are recognized to have been completed with the holy blessing and at the time prescribed by us for us. The appropriate time for betrothal and marriage would be when the female has passed her twelfth year, and the male has exceeded his fourteenth. After the ^C holy chant of prayers, and the observance of the customary earnest and kiss, with a short or even longer interval of time having elapsed, as it may seem best to the contracting parties, we order that the legal marriage proceed without refusal, and not happen at the same time on the same day and hour. But if, before the time set by us has arrived, and without the aforementioned observances being applied, betrothals and contracts should take place, these are to be neither called nor considered true betrothals, even if a payment of a penalty is attached. For those that are strictly betrothals shall not be loosed by the payment of penalties, which shall no longer even be recorded in the contracts; because the betrothals are not strengthened by them, but by the invocation of God, and these remain ^D completely indissoluble, to be dissolved only for the reasons by which marriages are also dissolved. But since, according to the ancient custom of the laws, after the child's seventh year it was not right that betrothals

^A proceeded (for every one of those being betrothed, by frequent seeing and freedom of conversation, would more kindle the flame of love), we also decree this: that those contracts which occur regarding the seventh year of the contracting parties, up to the fourteenth or twelfth year of their age, as if in the form of betrothal, should not bear the standing of a fully lawful and secure betrothal, but should be judged and take effect only as secured engagements, according to the custom of other contracts; but the ancient law, which was published concerning betrothals, shall take effect in the case of those persons forbidden, solely regarding the repudiated fiancée, because of the state of life existing among Christians. For even if what is done is not, strictly speaking, a complete betrothal, yet because it seems to have the purpose of a betrothal, and the foundation of marriage is laid from it, it would be well that the persons forbidden by the law should remain forbidden, and that no one should take as a wife her whom the ancient law, once she had become someone’s fiancée, and the betrothal had been dissolved, did not allow to come together with another in marriage.

Concerning the betrothal of clerics.

^B Balsamon. Certainly, it is not permitted to anyone who holds an ecclesiastical dignity, and who has been separated from his fiancée before the marriage by death or another cause, to be joined to another woman. For anyone who is caught having done this, as one entangled in a second marriage, is deposed; and a reader who incurs such a thing does not advance to another rank.

But if the betrothal cannot stand, and if the person betrothed to one who wishes to become a priest has exceeded the sixth year of age, it will not be permitted to him who betrothed her to be joined to another woman and thus become a priest; for he will be considered a bigamist by reason of concupiscence, since at that age a woman is capable of love. But if the person betrothed to him was under six years of age at the time the betrothal agreements were rendered invalid, such a person can even be joined to another woman and perform the priesthood without being hindered by anyone. But this does not hold for laymen. For it is necessary that those who are established in an ecclesiastical dignity be husbands of one woman, and a virgin at that; indeed, they themselves must altogether boast of the praise of virginity before the marriage is contracted.

^C When the betrothal is perfect, even if before the man cohabits with his betrothed he has been separated from her by death, not even a layman can marry her cousin, or another person forbidden by the law; for it is not the union, but the consecration which is performed by the intervention of prayers, that causes the betrothal to be considered as a marriage.

Concerning him who has had the custom of fornication with his own mother-in-law.

Balsamon. Truly, if before the perfect consecration of the nuptials, with only the betrothal having been contracted, it should happen that the bridegroom has the custom of fornication with his mother-in-law, or with another blood relation of his fiancée, marriage will be forbidden ^D

for it is not right that incest, once known, should proceed. But if such a thing happens after the marriage is completed, the marriage is not dissolved, but those who are guilty of the incest are punished; for the words of the law are: Things which are valid from the beginning are not invalidated by subsequent events. ^A

Causes through which betrothals are dissolved. — Laws.

When, therefore, one of those enumerated does not undo the union, he who takes one betrothed to another, while the one who betrothed her is still alive, commits adultery. ^C

Laws.

^A authority, when their parents choose for them suitors who are unworthy and disgraceful in their behavior. But if they are not such, those who are being betrothed to them, even if the children choose to disinherit themselves only so that they may fulfill not the will of their parents, but their own, we decree that their decision is invalid for all time. For the laws determine that impulses toward one’s own ruin and destruction among the young must be restrained in every way. Should parents disagree regarding the choice, it is manifest that the father's judgment prevails. If a son under paternal authority dissents, a betrothal in his name is not made.

A father can dissolve the betrothal of a daughter under paternal authority, but not one who is emancipated.

She who appears to understand what is happening correctly contracts betrothal, that is, she who is not less than seven years of age. If, however, after a betrothal has been made, within the thirteenth year, any should dare to impart to the betrothed either the so-called benediction or the crowning, such persons, having become transgressors of the holy laws, shall immediately have the contracted betrothal, along with the union which has only a semblance of validity, dissolved; and they shall forfeit to the public treasury the penalties contributed by each party in the betrothal, bearing the loss on account of the crime committed; nor is the priest who dared to participate in such an act held to be free from blame, but is subjected to the severity of the holy canons. ^B

The mourning of a husband does not prevent a woman from becoming betrothed.

He who betroths a young girl to himself, and has not stipulated a time in the betrothal, is obliged to perform the nuptials within two years if she lives in the same province; but if she is absent, within three years. If he neglects to do so without a probable cause, the girl may be joined to another.

Governors in the province which they administer ought not to contract betrothals. But if they do, it is permitted to the girl and her parents, or tutors, or curators, to decline the marriage and to gain the earnest money; the same rule applying also to his sons, and grandsons, and relatives, and domestics, and assessors, and all who are his attendants and associates, if indeed they contracted the betrothal through the instrumentality of the governor. ^C If, however, after he has left his magistracy, the girl wishes to be united to him, the marriage is valid.

Therefore, you will note that the law forbids this contract only when the governor is still exercising his office, and can be formidable to the parents of the girl; whence it follows that if he was indeed a governor, but did not have sufficient power to intimidate the parents of the girl, the betrothal is not forbidden. ^D

Chapter XVI. Concerning clerics who put away their own wives under the pretext of religion.

The fifth canon of the holy apostles [decrees that] a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who puts away his own wife...

^A under the pretext of religion, is to be restricted, and if he persists, is to be deposed. For the Lord himself ordained this in the Gospels, that it is not lawful for anyone who observes the ancient law to cast away his own wife at his own pleasure, without a cause recognized by the prohibition of the law. For he seems to calumniate marriage, as if lawful intercourse were some kind of impurity. But Scripture pronounces marriage honorable, and the bed undefiled. The thirteenth canon of the Sixth Synod also mentions this in the very same words, without, however, the addition of the word "bishop." For this synod was the first which decreed that bishops should renounce their wives.

Concerning laymen who put away their own wives.

The ^B Apostolic canon subjects to excommunication the layman who puts away his own wife unreasonably, and takes another, or who takes to himself one who has been separated from another by divorce—that is to say, not according to the laws.

However, as for what the Holy Spirit ordained concerning this matter through the voice of the great Father Basil in his ninth canon, it would be extremely improper not to set it forth point by point. It was consistent, he says, according to the judgment of the Lord, that the marriage should be dissolved equally for men as well as for women on account of fornication. But it is evident that the custom of the Church is not so established. For as regards women, we find great strictness, since the Apostle says: "He who is joined to a harlot is one body with her"; and Jeremiah, "If she shall have become another man's, she shall not return to her husband, but by being defiled she shall be defiled," unless indeed the husband should desire to take her back. And Solomon in Proverbs: "He who holds an adulteress is foolish and impious"—that is to say, he who has dealings with a married woman, who is proven to be an adulteress. But he suggests that those husbands who commit adultery or fornication are to be borne with by their own wives. For whether someone should be bitter toward his wife and inflict beatings upon her, she must ^C endure this; or if he squanders their money, and she sees her dowry being spent, or is even jealous because the husband has a habit of having illicit intercourse with others, it is nevertheless not permitted for her to be divorced from the husband on account of these things. For if, in the case of one of the spouses being an infidel, it is not permitted for the other to be separated from him, according to the blessed Paul, because of the uncertainty of the outcome ("For what do you know, O woman," he says, "whether you will save your husband?"), how will she be without blame who dissolves the marriage for another cause? So that she who leaves her husband unreasonably, if she cohabits with another, is considered an adulteress. But she who is joined to the deserted husband lawfully? She is condemned neither as an adulteress nor as a harlot. If, however, the husband, having departed from his wife, has gone to another, he himself is also an adulterer, as one causing her to commit adultery, and she who cohabits with him is an adulteress, because she has transferred to herself another’s husband. But these things are so. And from the later ^D

published novella of Justinian, which the chapter placed above contains regarding the dissolution of marriage, this also is counted among the other causes for which it is permitted to women to dissolve their marriages: if, in the same house or city, the husband has a habit of fornication with another woman, and when the wife's relatives rebuke him and warn him to abstain from that habit, he does not obey. For then it permits the woman, on account of jealousy, to dissolve the marriage.

In canon 21, he judges that he who cohabits with a woman, but defiles himself with another due to lust, is guilty of fornication; and he indeed visits him with greater ^B penalties than one who, not cohabiting with a woman, was caught in the same crime. For to the latter, some pardon is granted on account of the necessity of nature; but the former does not obtain it, inasmuch as he has a lawful wife to soothe the tyranny of nature, and yet, on account of mere incontinence, he wallows in the mire of lust. Furthermore, he says, we do not have a canon that makes one who commits this sin while in a marriage subject to the charge of adultery, or that excludes him from the company of his own wife; so that the wife shall receive the husband returning from fornication, but he shall cast out the woman who had dealings with another from his house, and he shall not be compelled to receive her against his will. The reason for these things, he says, is not easy, but custom has so prevailed.

In canon 35: In cases where they dissolve marriage, he says, it is necessary to consider the cause. And if the woman has withdrawn from her husband without cause, she is judged worthy of punishment, but he is judged worthy of pardon; that is, so that he may communicate with the Church, but not that he may use another.

Furthermore, in canon 77: Whoever leaves a woman joined to him lawfully and takes another, is subject to the crime of adultery. Our Fathers, he says, have inflicted a seven-year penance on such, and thus judge them worthy of communion, if they have done penance with tears.

These things the Fathers of the Sixth Council, in canon 87, confirm, using the very words of the Saint; and they condemn as an adulteress her who leaves her husband without reason, while they grant pardon to the man and enjoin him to communicate with the Church. But him who leaves her who is lawfully joined to him and makes a marriage contract with another thereafter, him they hold subject to the judgment of an adulterer, according to the Lord’s sentence, and exclude from the sacraments for seven years.

Again, Saint Basil, in canon 46, speaks of one who was abandoned for a time by her husband for some grief perhaps, or dejection of mind, and married another out of ignorance, and was subsequently dismissed by him when the first wife returned from another region, perhaps; she indeed committed fornication out of ignorance, but from the marriage...

^A she shall not be excluded. For she was not dismissed by a legitimate husband when the prior marriage had not yet been dissolved, but rather she was released from fornication. It is better, he says, if they remain so; for it is not seemly that she who was called the wife of one should live with another. For the law says that in marriages we consider not only what is permitted, but also what is seemly.

In canon 48, it says: "She who has been left by her own husband unreasonably, in my opinion, ought to remain as she is." For the Lord, having said, "If anyone leaves his own wife, he makes her commit adultery," ^B excluded her from union with another; for it is not likely that the husband should be liable as the cause of adultery, while the wife should be blameless, she who by the Lord is called an adulteress on account of communion with another. But you have learned more accurately from the civil laws how these things are remedied.

Moreover, the one hundred and sixth canon of the synod of Carthage commands those who have dissolved the bond of marriage either to be reconciled to one another or to remain as they are, according to the sentence ^C of the Lord: "What God has joined together, let man not separate"; and that of the Apostle: "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a divorce." Seek also chapter 9 of letter B concerning those who abhor legitimate marriages.

CAP. XVII. That bishops must be separated from their own wives.

The divine Fathers of the sixth synod, in the 12th canon, forbid the archpriests after ordination to live altogether with the women who were joined to them by the laws of marriage before their ordination, and they say: "We do not decree this to abrogate those things ^D which were legislated by the holy apostles in the fifth canon, but because we are managing the improvement of the Church to a better state. For those divine apostles, when the Church had lately said a long farewell to the grossness of the Jews and the superstition of the pagans, allowed them in some things to use the customs of their fathers. For the archpriests of the Jews—as well as those of the Greeks—were not separated from their bed-companions; but today they say it is necessary, as the archpriests direct their lives toward accurate chastity, that they abstain from the company not only of others' wives but also of their own; for this leaves no occasion of scandal whatsoever to those under their authority; and they add the apostolic [injunction]: 'Be without offense, both to Jews and Greeks, and to the Church of God,' and so on; then they impose the penalty of deposition upon those who do not observe what the canon prescribes."

That the wife separated from the bishop must also have her hair shorn.

In the 48th [canon], however, they do not allow her who has been separated by mutual consent from him who is about to take the helm of the episcopate to live with him at all, but they command her to enter a monastery which is not situated in the neighborhood of the bishop's residence. For it is not possible that, continually seeing one another,

^A love for them is not kindled in them by the memory of their former life together. Yet even in that place, they deem her worthy to enjoy the bishop’s provision, if she be in need. For if it is not permitted to the bishop himself to spend more than what is necessary for himself out of the goods of the episcopate, much less will anything be given to her from the goods of the Church, if she has the means of living from her own resources. But if her life be honorable and grave, she is even advanced to the rank of a deaconess; but they order her to enter a monastery, because she must necessarily be tonsured. For it was indeed permitted to her before the ordination of her husband not to be divorced, and thereby the ordination and the tonsuring could have been prevented. But when she has consented to the ordination, it is necessary that the divorce be confirmed by the tonsure. This matter was debated during the time of the reign of Isaac Angelus, with three patriarchs present in the council, namely the Ecumenical, the Antiochene, and the Hierosolymitan, along with about forty metropolitans, who decreed that the wife of an ordained bishop must necessarily be tonsured without excuse, recording and confirming this in synodical letters. From this it is shown that it is not lawful for the wives of priests to contract second marriages. ^B But the thirtieth canon of this same [Council] is formally pronounced by the holy Fathers concerning the priests and deacons in the barbarian churches, who, under the pretext of piety, have agreed with their own wives to abstain from mutual relations. "We decree," they say, "that they no longer cohabit with them, so that they may provide us with perfect proof of their promise thereby. And we have granted this to them because of their foreign and barbarian character, and because of their weakness in the faith, and their lack of sufficiently solid constancy, and so that they may be strengthened in the counsel of continence they have undertaken, living far removed from their wives. For to cohabit with them will perhaps be an incitement to carnal intercourse." ^C

CHAPTER XVIII. That priests must abstain from their own wives when they are about to handle sacred things.

The third canon of the Synod of Carthage says that those who have been allotted the priestly office ought always and in all things to cultivate continence, chastity, and every other virtue, so that, approaching the Pure One as pure souls, they may obtain their petitions, being thus established as mediators between God and men; so that, while they perform the duty of intercessors before God, they may, as much as possible, render Him propitious to mortals and beg for peace for the world. But especially when the nature of the time calls them ^D to the handling and reception of the divine mysteries, they must show the reality of their chastity by their deeds, and must refrain from the intimacy of their own wives. But the fourth, as well as the twenty-eighth, and also the seventy-third canons of this same [Synod], being obscurely worded, concern those who are consecrated to the divine mysteries and...

^A enjoin them to abstain from their own wives, have given the Latins a pretext to demand of those who are about to be ordained that they separate from their own wives. But if such canons truly hold this view, they themselves would be more worthy of being removed by the sacred canons, both apostolic and synodical, as teaching things directly contrary to them. For the thirteenth canon of the Sixth Synod, which is set forth in the eleventh chapter of the present letter, clearly overturning this, threatens with excommunication those who both think and act in such a way. However, it judges it appropriate and holy that, at the time of the handling of the divine mysteries, those enrolled in the clergy should abstain from the company of their own wives, in obedience to divine Paul who says: "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer and fasting" [1 Cor. 7:5], clearly understanding the fasting in set times, when one is about to partake of the holy things, and the prayer enjoined with fervent tears, and not that to which we are commanded to attend unceasingly; for "Pray," he says, "without ceasing" [1 Thess. 5:17]. Indeed, it was commanded to the Jews of old, when they were about to hear the divine voices on the mountain, not to approach a woman for three days.

The third canon of the holy martyr Dionysius of Alexandria ^B appoints as competent judges for themselves those who are in holy orders, when they are about to approach the awesome mysteries, [enjoining them] to abstain from their own wives, yet by mutual consent, according to the word of that great Paul, that "the husband hath not power of his own body," and what follows [1 Cor. 7:4].

And the fifth and the thirteenth of Timothy of Alexandria exclude from the divine mysteries during the day, while the holy synaxis is being celebrated, those men and women who have been carnally united at night, as he also brings forward as a secure testimony the aforementioned saying of the Apostle; and he says that one ought especially to abstain from mutual company on the Sabbath and on the Lord's Day, inasmuch as the holy sacrifice is being offered to the Lord at such times.

CAP. XIX. Concerning bishops or clerics who have "subintroductae" women in their household.

The third canon of the First Synod ^C deems that a bishop, or anyone of the clergy, ought not to have a "subintroducta" woman in his household, unless perhaps it be a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or those persons alone who are exempt from all suspicion. And he calls "subintroductae" those who choose to cohabit with priests who lack a wife, while rendering to them service for their necessary needs.

The fifth canon of the Sixth Synod also makes mention of this matter, strictly forbidding such men to possess a woman or a maidservant, taking care not to give an occasion ^D of scandal; and it threatens with deposition him who transgresses. It also adds that it is most necessary that eunuchs observe this same thing, fearing the reproach that might arise from it, if they should wish otherwise; if

they are clerics, they shall be deposed, but if they are laymen, they shall be excommunicated.

The 18th Canon of the Seventh Synod bids those who are of the clergy, according to the Apostle, to be without offense, not only to the faithful, but also to those who have no concern for religion. Therefore, it commands that anyone who commits any ministry to a woman, slave or free, in an episcopal residence or monastery, be reprimanded, and if he persists, he shall be deposed. It further wishes that, when the bishop or abbot goes away to a private suburban estate where women perform the services, they should not be served by them, but by men; and that those women should dwell in another place until the bishop or abbot departs from that place. For if they should lodge in another’s suburban estate or a public inn, it is difficult, I think, for the things contained in the canon to be observed. The 19th Canon of the Synod of Ancyra forbids women [consecrated as] virgins to associate with some men as brothers.

Following these, that great trumpet of truth, the great Basil, having sent a letter to a certain presbyter named Gregory, lashes out at him with greater vehemence of reproach regarding the passion to which he had given himself over. "We are neither the first," he says, "nor the only ones to have legislated that women should not live with men; but read the canon published by our holy Fathers in the Council of Nicaea, which manifestly forbade the existence of 'subintroductae' or strange women." Celibacy’s dignity and veneration consist in this, that one is separated from female company. For if anyone, while professing it only in words, does in reality the things that those who live in the company of women are accustomed to do, he provides clear evidence of himself that he pursues the honor of virginity only in name, but does not abstain from the foulness of pleasure. "For I would not believe," he continues, "that a man seventy years of age lives lasciviously with a woman, nor have we decreed what we have decreed as if for some absurd crime that has been committed. But because we have been taught by the Apostle not to place a stumbling block before a brother, or anything that might be a scandal to him, and we are not ignorant that what is rightly done by some will become an occasion of sin for others; therefore we command, following the conversation of the holy Fathers, that you must be separated from the woman. ^D Therefore, cast her out of your house; place her in a monastery; let her be with virgins, and you make use of the ministry of men, so that the name of God may not be blasphemed because of us. But as long as you do these things, those myriads which you mention in your letters will be of no use to you, but you will die as one who has lived in folly, and you will give an account to the Lord of your own folly. But if, failing to amend yourself, you should nevertheless attempt to retain the priesthood, you shall be anathema to all the people, and those who receive you shall be excommunicated in every Church."

From this letter it is possible to gather that a presbyter who lives with a strange woman should not immediately be excommunicated

but if after getting a warning he refuses to separate from her. ^A

Laws. We do not permit a bishop to have any woman at all, or to live with one. If this is proven, let him be cast out of the episcopacy. Let no cleric who does not have a wife have a stranger in his house, except for a mother, daughter, sister, and others who are above suspicion. But if he does not observe these things, and having been warned twice by the bishop or fellow clerics does not cast her out, or if he is accused and proven to be living indecently with her, let him be deposed. Let a bishop not live with any woman; nor should a woman who performs the office of deaconess live with a man.

CAP. XX. Concerning those who bathe with women.

CAP. XXI. That women ought not to be presbyteresses.

Chapter XXII. That women ought not to enter the holy sanctuary.

Chapter XXIII. That women ought to keep silence in church.

Chapter XXIV. That women ought not to have commerce with men, nor wear men's clothing.

Chapter XXV. That a woman who has recently given birth is not bound to observe the appointed fasts.

Chapter XXVI. Concerning one who has a wife possessed by a demon.

Law.

It orders the husband, however, to wait for three years and not to dissolve the marriage with his insane wife within that time; and it does not permit the wife to be separated from her insane husband unless five years have passed. This is also decreed by the Novella of the Emperor Nicephorus Botaniates: Although, says the law, insanity ^A hinders the marriage, it does not dissolve one that has been rightly contracted.

CAP. XXVII. Of women who are menstruating, or who suffer a flux.

CAP. XXVIII. Of women who take drugs to cause abortion.

Canon 21 of the Synod of Ancyra, although it says, "The ancient definition thrusts those who receive abortifacients from ^B communion until death," yet we, using humanity, determine that a period of ten years is sufficient for their penance. Moreover, Canon 2 of the Great Basil sets this same measure of a decade for such women, and trusts the healing not so much to the time as to the manner of the penance. But since the Mosaic law, when an unformed embryo was aborted, imposed a monetary fine, but when a formed one fell out, it decreed the penalty of death, ordering him who struck the woman to be put to death; the saint, making mention of this law, says, "We make no distinction, whether the things that are cast out are formed or unformed. For we do not impose a monetary fine, but we condemn her who has done this for homicide, both because of the destruction of the embryo and because of the woman herself from whom it is cast out; for it happens ^C sometimes that along with the embryo, she herself happens to perish. Therefore, the seed injected into the womb is first turned into blood, then it solidifies into unformed flesh, and then thus it is molded and fashioned into limbs and parts of a human being."

But at the end of the 8th canon, he says: "And those who give and those who receive embryo-killing poisons are reckoned among voluntary murderers." Here, however, he imposes the ten-year period of penance for involuntary homicide upon such women, I suppose, because the fetus in the womb has not yet existence in the nature of things, and because she has not contrived death out of an inhuman disposition, but out of shame or a base fear—perhaps of parents, or a master, or someone else threatening danger.

Laws.

The Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise gives a man the ^A faculty to dissolve his marriage with a woman if she willfully causes the abortion of his seed. He who provides an abortive potion, if he is of low station, is condemned to the mines; if he is of honorable station, he is relegated after the forfeiture of a part of his property. If, however, anyone is killed thereby, the supreme penalty is inflicted, and this is permitted even if the abortive medicine was given without malice.

CAP. XXIX. Concerning the woman who neglects the fetus or exposes it.

The 33rd canon of the great Basil, as well as the 52nd, deems that one who has conceived on the road, if she has neglected the fetus when she could have saved it, must pay the penalties for homicide, even if another has picked it up and, acting humanely, has kept it alive, while the mother has acted brutally and inhumanely, perhaps having conceived it from fornication or adultery and striving to conceal her sin in this way. But if, on account of the lack of those who would assist, or the want of necessities, or because she is being led captive, or is hiding while fleeing an enemy, and the infant is wailing and she is in danger of being discovered, she was unable to save both herself and the one born, the mother shall rather obtain forgiveness for the affliction. ^B From this, there has often been discussion in the holy synod concerning those who expose their own infants at the entryways of temples; and it pleased that they be punished as murderers, even if another picks them up and, having taken care, keeps them alive.

Law.

He who kills the unborn is not only he who suffocates it, but also he who casts it away, and he who does not nourish it, and he who exposes it in public places to a mercy which he himself did not have.

CAP. XXX. Concerning those who force virgins.

The 67th canon of the holy apostles judges that he who forces an unbetrothed virgin is to be excommunicated (for who would say that he who treats with a betrothed woman is not to be punished as an adulterer?). He must keep her and not cast her away, even if she happens to be of the poorest sort and unworthy of his station.

Laws.

For the law says: He who is cohabiting with a temperate woman must be compelled to take her into the partnership of marriage. The canon, therefore, as it seems, decrees that he who has sinned is to be excommunicated on account of the violence, but on account of the virgin’s salvation, he is to be compelled to be lawfully united to her. However, it is not shown that the law decrees this in an action concerning violence. ^C

Laws.

For it says: He who brings force upon a girl and defiles her, let his nose be cut off, and let him give her a third part of his property. ^D He who has intercourse with a virgin girl, if she herself is will-

[The text begins with the continuation of the previous section, as fixed in the preceding page:]

...residing in ignorance, once the matter is known, if he wishes to take her as his wife and the parents consent, let the contract be made. But if the parents of one of the parties do not approve of this, if the ravisher is wealthy, let him give one pound of gold to the violated maiden; if he is poorer, half of his means; but if he is in extreme poverty, let him be scourged, shaven, and exiled.

The period of five years fixed for the crime of fornication has no place in the case of violation done by force; for it is handled indefinitely, since the violence is committed openly.

CAP. XXXI. Concerning Sorcery.

INITIUM LITTERÆ Δ. BEGINNING OF THE LETTER Δ.

CAP. I. Concerning those who are possessed ^A by a demon, or who feign to be possessed by a demon.

The 79th canon of the holy apostles ordains that a man who has a demon should not be made a cleric, nor should he pray together with the faithful; but one who has been completely freed from the demon may be advanced to the clergy, provided his life agrees with the dignity of that station; for it is impious that one who is insane at periodic intervals should be numbered among the clergy, lest in the time of his madness the priesthood be insulted and the Divine Power be openly blasphemed. For how can the pure light of the priesthood be entrusted to a man in whom ^B the impure darkness of the evil power dwells on account of his inclination toward evil? For surely no one with understanding would entrust ointment to a rotten vessel. For the soul that is freed from impure disturbances, and that rejoices in the holiness of good works, is believed to be fearsome to the wicked phalanx of demons. Furthermore, as the demoniac is deprived of reason and prudence, and performing certain base and indecent acts, and uttering demoniacal cries, he would be destined to disturb the people and hinder the divine service in the temple.

The third canon of Timothy of Alexandria allows one who suffers from madness not continuously, ^C but at intervals, to participate in the sacraments, provided that in the time when he is seen to be of sound mind, he does not inveigh against the sacred things, nor blaspheme the mystery, nor speak against the faith—like Judas did, who revealed to the Jews what he had been taught, not believing in the things that were done, and regarding his Master as a mere man and not as God.

His 14th canon says: If anyone, not being truly of sound mind, has inflicted death upon himself, let him be deemed worthy of an offering for himself and of the customary prayer; for it is not right that such a person be deprived ^D of the legal obsequies.

Furthermore, the 60th canon of the Sixth Synod determines that those who feign to be possessed by a demon, and because of the depravity of their ways, since they look toward gain, simulate the figure and habit of such persons, must be punished in every way, and subjected to such labors and hardships as those truly possessed would be subjected to for the liberation...

^A of the demon’s activity. For he who has chosen to live for God, and has neglected human affairs, ought to choose the path that is unerring and well-founded by the divine Fathers, and not one that is dangerous and a cause of scandal to many. For there is need of great sobriety for such persons, as one of the holy ones says, lest when they endeavor to pretend, they end up in self-deception, even if they chose this path with right reason.

Seek also in chapter 1, letter B, canon 45 of the Council of Carthage; and canons 2 and 4 of Timothy of Alexandria; and in chapter 12, letter E, canon 83 of the Council of Carthage; and chapter 26, letter I.

CAP. II. On creditors, and loans, and pledges.

he could have received. But if he also damaged the field, he is held accountable for this as well.

If a creditor loses a pledge through no fault of his own, he is not held liable. But the necessity rests upon him to prove that he did indeed lose it; for accidental losses are not at the risk of the creditor, but he may, having lost the object by chance, demand the sum owed to him. But if it was agreed between the contracting parties that the loss of the pledges should free the debtor from the debt, that holds valid.

CAP. III. On Divorce.

CAP. IV. On Wills.

The 32nd canon of the Council of Carthage: Those who have been advanced to the episcopacy ^C or to the clergy, who lived in want and poverty before this, but afterwards became wealthy so as to buy themselves fields and estates, since they appear to have acquired these from the goods of the Church, ought to leave them not to others, but to the Church, avoiding the charge of sacrilege. But if they have acquired some goods by donation, or inheritance from relatives, and not in any other way—namely for the redemption of captives, or the construction of temples—they must consecrate a portion of these also to the Church; if they do otherwise, they shall be judged unworthy of ecclesiastical honor. This shall hold especially against bishops, because perhaps there is no other way for them to acquire goods ^D except from the rights of the episcopacy. See also in chapter 2 of letter A of this same synod, canons 21 and 81.

Law.

and for the relief of the poor, and for other pious causes for the benefit of their own church; for whatever remains from these after their death ^A the church which they held claims for itself. They have the power to alienate those things which they are proven to have possessed before their episcopacy, and those things which have devolved upon them after their episcopacy from relatives, whom they are permitted to succeed intestate up to the fourth degree. These same rules prevail also regarding the rectors of other venerable monasteries. But if a bishop or cleric of any grade should die without a testament or lawful successors, their succession is assigned to the church in which they were ordained.

Laws concerning the testament.

A testament is a just expression of will regarding those things which one wishes to be carried out after his death. ^B In him who makes a testament, integrity of mind is required, not health of body.

A male who has completed his fourteenth year can make a testament; a female, her twelfth.

If a father or mother gives a daughter or son in marriage, and it happens that the child dies, they do not have the power to make a testament, whether it be dowry or donation before nuptials, while the parents are still alive. But if one part of them has died, he makes a testament regarding the goods of the deceased.

Neither a person under power, nor one under age, nor a madman, nor a prodigal makes a testament; but a mute and a deaf person can sometimes make a testament.

A prior testament is rescinded by a perfect subsequent one.

A testament shall not be abrogated by the expiry of a decade, unless another perfect one has been made, either in writing or without writing, indicating the contrary will of the testator, in the presence of seven or five witnesses.

If a testator dying swears that he possesses nothing else except those things which he disposed of in his testament, ^C it is not permitted for any heir to conduct an inquiry and to examine a slave by torture, or to demand oaths from the witnesses who are found in that same document; but he must also be compelled—even if unwilling—to credit the oath of the deceased, provided of course that the testator was not caught swearing differently at different times regarding the same matter.

An unwritten testament consists of when the testator declares his own will with seven witnesses found together. But if in the place where someone is making an unwritten testament seven are not found, he can make his will known before five witnesses and no fewer.

The scribe of the testament rightly becomes a witness in it.

A testament ought to have seven witnesses, but a codicil five. But he who has been wounded in battle, and he who is traveling on the road and is not far from death, can make a testament not only before three persons, but

also before two, on account of the situation that has arisen. ^A The Novel of the Emperor Leo the Wise says: We decree that in every region and city, testaments may be confirmed even by the unlearned, provided that the conduct of the witnesses merits trust. Furthermore, we do not restrict the number to five, but in those places where it is evident that persons worthy of trust are rare, we will that three also be admitted, and that their testimony not be rejected. Seek also chapter 38 of the letter K, and the laws in chapter 16 of the letter M.

Chapter V. On Deacons.

Canon 14 of the Fourth Council, and also Canon 15, defining the ages of those to be ordained, decree ^B that a priest must be thirty years of age, even if his life be abundantly in keeping with the dignity of the office. For it is necessary to look to the original pattern and the dispensation of our Savior, who, having been baptized at thirty years of age, immediately began to teach; the deacon, however, must be twenty-five, the deaconess forty, and the subdeacon no fewer than twenty. But they command that he who is ordained before the aforementioned years be deposed without fail.

Canon 16 of the Council of Carthage defines the same years for the age of the deacon, and Canon 15 of the Fourth Council for the deaconess. Seek more accurately concerning deaconesses in chapter 11 of the letter Γ.

And the 15th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, led by the homonymy of the seven deacons in the Acts, decreed that there should be no more than seven deacons, even if the city having the church should vie with the greatest cities.

^C But the 16th canon of the Fourth Council, reviewing the present canon and interpreting the passages of the book of Acts, and bringing forward Chrysostom, who explains the meaning of the words most accurately, shows that the divine Scripture does not here call those deacons who minister in the divine mysteries (for there were not yet bishops, or priests, or deacons, save for the Apostles alone), but rather those who provided food for those who were constantly coming to the Apostles with an eagerness to embrace the faith; from whom also an example of pious charity and liberality toward the needy has been brought down to our own times.

The canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, therefore, ^D being not aptly stated, was not kept even before the Fourth Council. For Justinian, who lived before this council, established sixty priests, a hundred male deacons, and forty women [deaconesses] in the Great Church; and Heraclius, who also lived before the Sixth Council, increased the number of these. This also happened in other churches, the canon of Neocaesarea having achieved nothing more than being written down.

And the 18th canon of the First Council [decrees] that the deacons [should not distribute] the Eucharist

^A to the presbyters, because it is not permitted for the deacons to offer the bloodless sacrifice either, nor indeed to touch the Eucharist before the bishops; for they fulfill the order of ministers toward the bishops and presbyters. Therefore, they must approach the divine gifts after them, [the bishops and presbyters] themselves distributing [the gifts] to them. Furthermore, it does not allow deacons to sit inside the holy sanctuary among the priests; and it orders one who does not obey to cease from the diaconate. But in synods held outside the sanctuary we see many deacons who hold offices sitting before the priests, which, as I believe, is not at all becoming to them.

Concerning the honor of the chartophylax

For it is given to the chartophylax alone, by the long-standing custom of the Great Church and by the written constitution of the illustrious Emperor Manuel, to sit even before the prelates in the ^B assemblies that take place outside the synod.

Canon 7 of the 6th Council [decrees] that whatever deacon, sitting with presbyters outside the sanctuary, is not content with a lower seat, but claims presidency for himself, showing contempt for the divine voice—namely, that "Everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled"—it orders him to be deposed; [or rather], not deposed, but demoted from the honor of his own office. However, if one is sent by his own prelate to some city to fulfill his place, he shall also occupy his see. This must also come to pass in the case of other holy orders, so that no one, relying on a secular dignity or an ecclesiastical office, may be lifted up above a superior—the subdeacon, for instance, above the deacon, or the latter ^C above the reader. For how unworthy it is that, while in secular dignities he who has obtained lesser honor is by no means honored before those who hold the principal place, we should appear worse than them in spiritual dignities, which far exceed the others, by being unruly in our conduct!

The same synod of Laodicea, in canon 20, decrees that a deacon must not sit before a presbyter unless he is ordered by him to do so. Certainly, deacons are also to have the same honor from the ministers and the rest of the clergy. See also the 21st canon of the synod of Laodicea in chapter 9 of the letter E.

Chapter VI. Concerning those twice-married.

See chapter 4 of the letter G.

Chapter VII. How bishops and presbyters ought to teach the people.

Canon 58 of the holy Apostles orders bishops and presbyters to teach those under their hands ^D the doctrines that direct [them] toward right faith and an honest life. To these God calls out through Ezechiel the prophet: "If you do not warn and do not speak, the wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will be required from your hand." Furthermore, the great Paul orders not only the bishop, but also the presbyter to be sober—that is, alert and not slothful—holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, and exhorting the people in sound doctrine, and [refuting] those who contradict.

^A For the bishop [episkopos] is so named from *skopein* (to watch), precisely as one watching from a high and lofty place over the affairs of the people. For this reason, the throne of the prelate is symbolically established in a high place within the sanctuary of the temple, and it is granted to the presbyters to stand there with him and to sit together with him; for the concern for the improvement of the people is a common work for both. He commands that those who are negligent regarding the instruction of the people should be excommunicated, and if they persist in their negligence, he ordains that they be punished with deposition.

These things are also guaranteed by the 19th canon of the Sixth Synod, which you may seek in chapter 11 of the letter B.

The 121st canon of the [Synod] in Carthage says: Bishops who neglect their own flocks and do not teach [what is] necessary for salvation, must be admonished by neighboring bishops to exchange their sloth for appropriate care. If a period of six months passes and they still persist in their sloth, the neighboring bishop shall entrust the region and the people to another, who can and is eager to guide them for the better through his teaching. But if the [bishop] says that he maintained silence for the sake of some dispensation [oikonomia], so as to entice some heretics to himself through this method and not to provoke them to disobedience, three bishops shall be selected by the primate of the province for the examination of these matters; and if it be shown that these things are so, he shall be restored again to the region. ^B

The 123rd [canon] also excommunicates the one who behaves negligently from the communion of the rest, after the passage of six months, if he does not teach sound dogmas to the faithful—and indeed even to the unbelievers—and does not testify daily regarding how matters of the truth stand, unless he happens to be hindered by sickness, or occupied with greater matters of the Church, or the magistrate who is the defender of these [heretics] is absent.

The 64th canon of the Sixth Synod imposes the penalty of excommunication for forty days upon a layman who publicly teaches dogmas concerning the faith and does not rather lend his ear to those who, by divine appointment, have opened a school in the church, even if he has attained the highest degree of all wisdom. Yet one shall not be forbidden to answer privately those who ask.

Law

CHAPTER VI [VIII]. On Justice

CAP. VII [IX]. Concerning judicial proceedings, and clerks and laymen having lawsuits.

^A The divine Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, saith: "Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because you have judgments one with another." ^B Likewise, the third canon of the Synod of Sardica saith: If two bishops have a dispute between themselves, let the bishops of that province rightly judge their cause, and let not any one of them dare to summon a bishop from another province; for he shall seem to condemn his own as ignorant or unjust. But if anyone condemned by them claims to be wronged again, let the bishops of the province send both to the Pope, writing what pertains to their cause; and it shall be in his power to determine whether the cause shall be given to judgment again, or whether what has been decreed shall remain firm.

The 107th [canon] of the Council of Carthage does not permit one bishop to judge [a case between] two bishops having a lawsuit against each other; nor indeed a clerk having a lawsuit with a bishop.

^C Furthermore, the 17th canon of the 4th Synod commands that parishes [dioceses] should remain firmly with the bishops who possess them, whether they be rural, that is to say situated in remote places and occupied by few, or local, as those being near to farms and villages and abounding in a multitude of people; and especially if they have possessed and administered them for a period of thirty years, without having forced anyone or snatched them from anyone. But if within that time any other bishop should contend regarding some parish, the dispute is to be resolved by the synod of the province. But if any of the bishops thinks himself wronged by his own metropolitan, it is permitted for him to be judged either before the exarch of the diocese, or before the throne of Constantinople, provided indeed that they are subject to it. For this one is not constituted the judge of all; since it is ordained that those of Syria should be subject to that of Antioch, those of Palestine to that of Jerusalem, and those of Egypt to that of Alexandria. The 25th canon of the 6th Synod treats the same matters.

^D The 121st [canon] of the Council of Carthage [saith]: It is not fitting, it saith, for a bishop, using his power, to seize a territory which is still held by another, as if it supposedly belonged to him, whether the people there desire it or not; but the matter should be referred to the council of bishops, and from it he should expect to recover what is his. But if he claims the right for himself, it is equitable that he should fall from his own right, being punished for what he seized by power. Nor indeed shall he who, after the commencement of the judgment, not awaiting the end of the sentence, attempts to seize the territory, even if he pretends to have received letters from the metropolitan of the province granting him the possession of the place, [escape penalty]; he falls from his right, unless he has received letters from him who then holds the people, through which it shall appear that he has peacefully obtained the territory that truly belongs to him, according to his opinion. And the judges shall be those whom either the primate of the province shall choose, or those whom both adversaries shall accept by consent, in order that they may [resolve] the causes...

accusations brought by each against the other. If any bishop should mismanage the affairs of his own Church, and surrender them to others of his province, even if official letters have preceded, the bishop who is to be ordained after him shall not be precluded from inquiring into the rights of his own Church, even if a long time has elapsed meanwhile. Seek this also in chapter 32, letter E, canon 10 of the great Basil.

The 9th canon of the 4th Synod orders ^B clerics and monks who have business and lawsuits with one another to be judged by their own bishop, rejecting secular courts; for he who runs to them appears to hold his own shepherd in low esteem and to insult him. Sometimes, however, by the will of the bishop, it is permitted that the judgment be carried out before those whom both opposing parties have chosen; but he who acts otherwise shall be subject to canonical penalties. If a cleric has a lawsuit with his own bishop, it says let the bishops of the province judge them. But if a bishop or cleric has a dispute with the metropolitan of the ^C same province, let the exarch of the diocese or the patriarch of the imperial city judge it; a "diocese" is said to be one that contains many provinces. The privilege of the exarchs, however, is not currently in use; for even though some metropolitans are called exarchs, they do not have other metropolitans in the provinces entirely subject to them.

The 15th canon of the Council of Carthage opens the Church’s court to all those in orders and monks, plaintiffs and defendants, whether the matter be criminal or financial. But if any of them should choose a civil court, despising that one, he shall, it says, fall from his own rank by the very act, even if he be shown to be innocent of the crimes or the financial claim in that court. If, however, bishops have delivered a sentence on some judgment, and it should happen that an appeal is made against them—which is accustomed to occur before higher judges, perhaps metropolitans or patriarchs—and the matter is closely examined, and the vote of the preceding judges is overturned, those who first gave the sentence ought not be harmed, unless it is proven that they had been corrupted by favor, or had delivered the sentence out of hatred for one of the parties, or were led by bias and ^D affection toward him who did the injury. But if both parties should choose judges, even if they be fewer than those defined in other cases—namely, twelve in the case of bishops, six for priests, and three for deacons—he who is condemned by them does not have the power to seek an appeal. Clerics must not choose civil judges, but ecclesiastics, so that they may not be subjected to canonical liabilities.

The 28th, and also the 125th canon, orders those clerics who do not accept the decision of their own bishop—as if it had not been delivered justly—to seat neighboring bishops as judges, with the consent of the bishop who has already judged. But if, even after these, they request an appeal

^A to the metropolitan of the province. But if they go across the sea to other provinces, they are to be excommunicated by those in Africa who do not admit them to communion. From this it is shown that it is not permitted for the Pope of Rome to examine the appeals of all churches. For if the canon does not allow him to examine appeals in Africa, which is situated across the sea in relation to Rome, much less will he have such a right in other regions.

The 104th canon also deposes those who have received holy orders, who go to the king and request that civil judges examine their case, thereby rejecting the ecclesiastical judgment; but it does not punish those who request an episcopal judgment from the king.

The 30th canon says: If two persons are litigating, and one of them, in the place where the tribunal is set up, declines the examination, fearing perhaps that the crowd, being favorably disposed toward his adversary, might make an attack upon him—inasmuch as he wields influence there—or might not allow him to produce witnesses, it is permitted to him to choose another location, and there to have the matters of the lawsuit examined; it must, however, be ^B in a place nearby, so that the journey may not be difficult for the judges, nor the production of witnesses for the adversary.

Law.

Justinian’s Novella 123

But if anyone who has been judged by bishops ^C objects to the matters decided within ten days, then let the local governor examine the case, and either confirm the judgment or rescind it; and it shall not be allowed for the one who has been defeated a second time in such a matter to appeal. But if the governor delivers a judgment contrary to the bishop, his sentence is subject to appeal, and it is referred and examined according to the law. But if the bishop judges by royal command or judicial order, the appeal should be referred to the one who sent the case. But if the matter is ecclesiastical, let the civil magistrates have nothing in common with such a case, but let the most holy bishops put an end to the matter according to the sacred canons.

The imperial and royal judgment is not subject to appeal, nor is it re-examined by another, ^D but is always re-examined by itself, just as Moses who saw God, while legislating, declared: "You shall re-examine your own judgments."

^A See also chapter 8 of letter Π.

No one established in any ecclesiastical rank, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or simply anyone from the priestly registers, do we permit to be brought before secular courts, whether willing or unwilling. For if someone should forcibly drag any of the ecclesiastics against their will to a secular court, he shall receive the appropriate correction from our serenity. But if a cleric should stand before a secular court of his own accord, or should even prefer the judgment passed there over the ecclesiastical tribunal, even if he thinks that justice is rendered to him thereby, he is condemned by the sacred canons. For where is he worthy to obtain that which he seeks, who from the beginning of the dispute is deposed for the injury brought upon divine decrees? ^B Furthermore, the novella of the emperors Heraclius and Constantine decrees that neither bishop, nor cleric, nor monk shall be brought before a civil or military judge for the sake of a pecuniary or criminal cause, but only before their own bishops, or metropolitans, or patriarchs.

The novella of the emperor Alexius says: "If a division should exist among litigants, and one of them is of the secular rank, while the other is enrolled in the divine clergy, the plaintiff in that case shall be entirely subject to the forum of the defendant, and each shall go to the appropriate court."

Judges to whom an appeal is made must be superior to those who judged initially.

Every action pertaining to a venerable house extends to forty years. For instead of the long-standing prescriptions of ten, twenty, and thirty years for the holy churches and all other venerable places, we order that only the forty-year prescription be imposed; the same being observed ^C also in the exaction of legacies and inheritances left for pious causes. See also in chapter 8 of the letter M.

We do not allow a nun or an ascetic for any cause of action to be dragged out of her own monastery.

Every cause, except for those that do not admit of delay, is subject to appeal, not once, but twice.

By the command of a judge, we justly possess that which comes to us from an allocation; but he who takes what is his own without leave of a judge, forfeits it.

Things which are wrongly judged and ordained, neither time, nor law, nor custom confirms.

We decree that it is permitted to no one, [regarding] the deceased's children or wife,

or the heirs, or the sureties, before the nine-day mourning period has elapsed, to accuse or harass them, or to drag them into court, whether in the name of a debt contracted by the deceased, or for any other cause pertaining specifically to the aforementioned persons. If, however, anyone within the nine days should dare to obtain any agreement, or promise, or surety from them, we decree that all these things are invalid; furthermore, that those who bring such charges are entirely alienated from [their claim to] the debt and the action. But if someone should be convicted of slandering the departed, let him pay to the heirs of the same as much as he demanded from him; after the passage of the nine days, if anyone should think he has any actions against such persons, let him exercise these according to the laws.

On Arbitrator Judges.

The 99th canon of the Council of Carthage says: If one who has appealed has chosen judges, and together with him also the one against whom he appealed, from then on it is not allowed for anyone to appeal from these. For if those who have a dispute among themselves choose judges by common consent, it shall not be allowed for them to appeal against the verdict rendered by them.

The 122nd [canon] decrees the same, and bids those who do not obey to be excommunicated.

Laws.

The arbitrator judge gives the sentence that seems fitting to him, and it is not the concern of the praetor what kind he gives.

Whether the arbitrator's sentence be just or unjust, it remains altogether binding.

The necessity of appealing from the sentence of an arbitrator is waived.

A compromise is close to an ordinary trial, and pertains to the finishing of lawsuits.

From a compromise, however, an exception does not lie, but a request for a penalty does.

If there are two arbitrator judges, and they disagree, they are compelled to choose a third one, and abide by his decision.

An arbitrator is not made with the security of oaths; but let the litigants choose them with a penalty, and have the necessity either to acquiesce to the verdict, or to pay the fine upon which both parties have agreed between themselves.

Although a penalty may not have been added to the compromise, if someone has promised to abide by the sentence, he is held indeterminately. But most valid is that which the chapter on fraud mentions.

CHAPTER VIII [X]. On bishops and clerics judged for their own crimes.

The 74th canon of the holy apostles says that a bishop who has been accused by trustworthy men must necessarily be called to the tribunal of the Church, with two bishops being sent to him; and if he obeys immediately and is not able to refute the crimes charged against him, and confesses or is convicted, let the due penalty be inflicted upon him. If, however, he does not obey immediately, let him be called three times; if, however, in disobedience

^A he persists, let the synod determine what it deems proper against him according to the nature of the crime, in no way remitting the penalty for his disobedience.

The 12th canon of the synod in Carthage says: It is fitting that a bishop who has fallen into crimes be judged by the whole synod to which he properly belongs. If, however, it should be difficult for all or the majority to gather, there should at least be no fewer than twelve; for thus, all doubt being removed, he shall not be held in contempt by his own people. Presbyters are judged by six bishops, and deacons by three. This synod, indeed, took care that the judgments of priests be handled more cautiously, having been held a long time after the synod of Antioch, which in its 4th canon decreed that the depositions of presbyters and deacons be made by one bishop, but those of bishops by a synod.

Synodal Action

Just as the 14th canon of the same synod in Carthage also decrees. For when there is a scarcity ^B of bishops, it says, sometimes a presbyter is judged by five, and a deacon by three, with their own bishop presiding over them, in such a way that those who have judicial power over them should be outside the established number of judges.

The 14th canon of the synod in Antioch says: If a bishop is being judged for certain crimes by the bishops of the province, and they disagree among themselves, some pronouncing him innocent and others guilty, the metropolitan of that province must summon others from the neighboring region, and the dispute must be resolved through them, being confirmed by the vote of the majority.

The 15th canon says: If, however, all have brought one and the same sentence against him, he is no longer to be judged by others, but the unanimous sentence of the provincial bishops shall remain firm.

This canon ^C has been abrogated by the 4th canon of the synod in Sardica, which states as follows: Whoever has been deposed by the common vote of the provincial bishops, and does not submit to the sentence but asserts that he is able to clear himself of the crimes, no one else is to be ordained to his throne before the Pope of Rome, having learned the details of the case, delivers a judgment and declares whether the condemnation is to be confirmed or overturned—that is, if the bishop belongs to the Western province, which alone is subject to Rome, where this synod was also assembled; for it is permitted to the one being judged to appeal twice.

The 5th canon says: Once a bishop has been deposed by the common vote of the provincial bishops, and has made an appeal to the Pope, and he ^D

^A has entrusted the examination of the case to neighboring bishops by letter, and he is condemned by them too, should he again seek an examination, if the Pope deems that what has already been judged is sufficient, let the judgment of the bishops stand. But if it seems proper to him that the bishop be judged again, the condemned man must not be compelled to go to Rome; rather, the Pope, having delegated his own authority to presbyters closely connected to him, and having sent them there with the local bishops, shall command the matters of the case to be examined, and thus let the judgment be finished.

The 19th canon of the Synod of Carthage says: He who accuses a bishop must institute the action before the primate of the region; but he who is accused shall not be excluded from his dignity before the full judgment. If, however, he is summoned to trial by letter and, within the interval of one month from when he received the letters, he has not appeared, he is segregated as a penalty for disobedience, and it shall not be allowed for him to touch any sacred ministry. But if it is shown that he was truly hindered by necessary causes, another month of delay is granted to him; if, once this has elapsed, he does not come, he is cast out from the communion of the faithful until the things held against him are brought to an end. But if ^B he has not cared to present himself either before the exarch of the province or the annual synod, he has brought the judgment upon himself, being subjected to deposition. The accuser, however, provided he is present at the trial, is not debarred from communion; if, however, he absents himself under a pretext, he himself is indeed segregated, and the bishop is released from the segregation. But if he shows that he was absent not out of pretext but for a reasonable cause, he shall not be prohibited from moving the action. But if he is suspect in his morals, it will not be permitted for him to institute an accusation that touches upon the dignity of a bishop; but he will not be prohibited from moving private and pecuniary actions against him. But today, the appointed days for the summons do not hold.

Law

Moreover, neither does the 88th canon permit that a bishop who has been accused or segregated be expelled from his bishopric until the things objected against him have been resolved by judgment. The same canon of the synod which is called the First and Second clearly appoints this, ordering that ^C no one be ordained to a church whose bishop, still living, has not yet been fully removed from his proper honor, even if some bring charges against him and he, perhaps in a dejected spirit, has made a resignation. For this is a cause of sedition and turmoil. But the clergy ought to avoid impropriety that incurs the hatred of all, and canonically examine the things objected against him, and if ^D

^A a declaration is just, or if he was canonically deposed for crimes, then ordain another to the episcopacy. But if someone, rightly established in his own honor, refuses to feed his own people and, withdrawing from his flock, remains in another place for more than six months, being compelled by no necessity, he shall be justly deprived of the honor and cathedra of his bishop.

The 20th canon of those in Carthage constitutes the bishop himself as judge for presbyters or deacons accused of certain crimes, together with others from the same province whom the accused may choose—six, namely, in the case of presbyters, and three in the case of deacons. This canon also clearly states that the appointed days and penalties are the same as those decreed in the preceding one concerning bishops. The complaints of the rest of the clergy, it says, their own bishop alone shall examine and bring to an end. The 79th canon, which says that a cleric whose case is not finished within a year should be excluded, is not in use today.

Law

Of those who accuse in judicial proceedings

^A ensure they incur the same penalty, in case, upon examination of the facts, they are convicted of slandering the bishop. And he who will not tolerate acting in this way, but rather has recourse to the emperor, or to secular authorities, or to an ecumenical synod, is not to be admitted to accusation at all; for he has insulted the bishops of the diocese, and has acted contemptuously against the sacred canons, and has thrown the good order of the Church into confusion. Consonant with this is canon 21 of the 4th synod, which says that accusers of bishops or clergy, whether they be of the clergy or of the laity, are not to be admitted for examination without their life and conduct first being proven. Moreover, canon 8 of the synod of Carthage does not permit one who is infamous in his conduct to accuse a bishop. And canon 128 [does not permit] one who is segregated and excommunicate, until he has been released from the segregation. Furthermore, canon 129 does not permit slaves to accuse, nor freedmen against the clergy who manumitted them, or their children, or heirs; but it allows them to accuse others; with the exception of those laboring under infamy, such as mimes, and those who fight with beasts, and gladiators. But stage ^B mimes, who perform in the forum and at public assemblies, are infamous; those, however, who perform with urbanity before the emperor for moderate entertainment are honorable. As for beast-fighters and gladiators, if they perform with a view to demonstrate courage and a love of glory, they should be considered excellent men; if, however, [they do so] for the sake of pay, they are infamous. For those who do not spare their own lives, but hold them as something for sale, can hardly be of commendable repute. Furthermore, it does not permit Jews or heretics to accuse, unless all of them are initiating an action in their own personal cases. Moreover, canon 130 states that one who brings many charges against a bishop or clergyman, and is unable to prove even one of them after the examination has been held, is not to be credited even regarding the others. ^C

Laws

It is better to leave crimes unjudged than to punish certain innocent persons. One ought not to put faith in the testimonies of those being judged, unless proof has made the judge certain. In spiritual sins, perhaps fathers give satisfaction for their children who are under their authority, but not in criminal matters. For fathers are not punished for their children; for the law says: "Sins follow the head."

Concerning witnesses in trials

The 75th canon of the holy apostles decrees that a heretic is not to be admitted to provide testimony, nor similarly even a single believer; for it says: ^D "By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." And the Apostle: "Against a presbyter receive not an accusation, except before two or three witnesses."

The canon of the Council of Carthage ^A 131 states: "Those who are previously prohibited from accusing, ought not to be admitted even to give testimony; but those who are honest in their way of life, whose testimony a past life will confirm, provided they are not underage—that is, within fourteen years, because their judgment is not yet firm—ought to be admitted." Furthermore, one ought not to produce as witnesses those who are domestic servants, or who are under one's power or subjection, whom one has the power to punish if they do not say what is in one's mind. But those who occupy a more honorable place in the household—I mean priests, deacons, and clergy, who are skilled in the sciences—will not be rejected from giving testimony.

Canon 59 states: "If clerics have been judged in the ecclesiastical court, consistent with the apostolic saying: 'Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?' (1 Cor. VI, 1), and one party condemns the sentence delivered, it is not permitted for the other party to drag the one who previously examined the case, or who was present at the examination, to the ecclesiastical court for the purpose of giving testimony, nor to produce witnesses who are related by family ties." ^B

Laws

Witnesses must be trustworthy. They may be produced in both pecuniary and criminal cases, if they are not prohibited by law or excused.

The testimony of one who has been condemned for publishing a libelous poem is not admitted.

Witnesses must take an oath before they give testimony; and more credence is to be given to the more honorable. The testimony of one sole person ought not to be admitted in any case whatever, even if he were a senator.

In an action against a bishop, if it is pecuniary, two faithful and honest witnesses shall give testimony up to one pound; if up to fifty pounds, three; if beyond that, five. But if the cause is criminal, it is proven by five faithful and honest witnesses who take an oath. ^C

A witness whom I can command to give testimony is not a suitable witness.

An accuser cannot produce witnesses from his own household.

Whoever, through calumny, accuses a bishop before a judge who has jurisdiction in the matter, shall pay thirty pounds of gold.

Calumny occurs in three ways, and is punished in three ways: for a person either engages in calumny by accusing falsely, or he betrays his own case by hiding true crimes, or he tergiversates by withdrawing entirely from the accusation. But one who does not prove what he claims is not in every case a calumniator; rather, it is in the discretion of the judge, once the accused has been acquitted, to inquire into this matter. And if he says, "You did not prove it," he has spared him; but if he says, "You have engaged in calumny," he has condemned him for calumny, even if he has said nothing about the penalty. But if he says,

^A "You have acted rashly"—that is, you have not proved it—he does not make him a calumniator, nor does such a person undergo a penalty.

A woman does not perform a man's office, nor can she be a witness in a testament, unless it be in matters where men are not summoned. Moreover, it is not permitted for them to plead a case publicly; but a woman—and a blind man—may plead a case only for themselves; and the latter can even dispense justice. But the 48th Novel of the Emperor Leo forbids women to give testimony in agreements and contracts; however, in cases of childbirth, and in those things where the sight of women alone is permitted, they are allowed to testify.

[Ex novella Iustiniani 123.] For the most holy presbyters and deacons, if they are discovered to have given false testimony regarding a pecuniary matter, but have not confirmed the lie with an oath, it shall suffice for them as a punishment to be separated from the divine ministry for three years and to be handed over to monasteries. If, however, they have added an oath to their lie, the canon cuts them off from the priesthood. But if they have given false testimony in criminal cases, being fined, as is defined by the holy canons, they are stripped of the clergy and are subjected to legal penalties besides.

Five witnesses are sufficient for proof if there are no writings; but if there are writings, that is, contracts, three alone suffice. ^B Witnesses should not give testimony from hearsay, saying: "We heard from someone that this man owes, or that man has paid," even if those who attest to these things are tabellarii [notaries]. For in criminal matters, it is strictly necessary for the witnesses themselves to be brought forward, and not their words. One must believe the witnesses and not the testimonies; for they are questioned in person by the judges concerning the crimes, and he who does not prove what he has asserted is banished. ^C

The poor are not witnesses; and a poor man is he who does not have a substance of 50 solidi. A freedman does not give testimony against his patron or his son. A person under twenty years of age cannot be a witness; nor one who has been condemned in a public trial and has not been restored to his former standing; nor one who is in chains or in public custody; nor one who has been convicted of having accepted money to give or not to give testimony; nor one who is condemned in a trial for adultery. A son [does not act] for a father, or a father for a son, as a witness. Nor anyone in his own case. A slave is not a witness; for one should not rashly place faith in servants speaking against their masters, because a slave is by nature an enemy to his master. He who has already given testimony against someone cannot again be brought forward against him. Those forbidden to give testimony are the unpubescent, the deaf, the dumb, the mad... ^D

^A a mute, an insane person, a prodigal; and a filiusfamilias, when his father has been written as heir by another in a testament.

The exception, according to the laws, is manifold, but according to the rhetoricians, it is fourfold: from absence, as when the father of a prodigal does not appear, and the son is accused of homicide; from excess, as when ten youths have sworn not to take a wife, and are accused of a bad life; or from that fact that one is not held for the things which others have done, as when a very brave man, whose image the enemies have erected, is accused of treason; or according to time, as when the son of a coward has performed a heroic deed, and he accuses his wife of adultery.

Concerning those who have been justly deposed.

The canon of the Synod of Antioch says: A bishop who has been deposed by a synod, and likewise a presbyter or deacon who has suffered this from his own bishop, if he should wish to perform any of those things which it is the custom for priests to do, it is not permitted for him, even if he claims that he suffers unjustly, ^B to approach another synod and seek that an examination be given to his case, nor should any place for a defense be allowed him. Those, moreover, who, knowing the sentence passed against him, have dared to communicate with him, are to be excommunicated from the Church.

The 12th canon forbids a presbyter or deacon who has been deposed by his own bishop, or a bishop by a synod, from approaching the emperor and seeking an examination from him, but rather to go to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to them the justice he believes he has, and to accept their examination and judgment. If, therefore, anyone, having despised these things, dares to be troublesome to the emperor, he shall have no place for defense ^C nor hope of future restitution. For although the help of the Church is granted to every person who is condemned and who believes that he is treated unjustly, yet since the sentences of the patriarchs are not subject to appeal, whoever attempts to make an appeal to the emperor after a sentence has been passed by the patriarch, is punished according to the present canon.

The 28th canon of the holy apostles orders that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who has been justly deposed for manifest crimes, and dares to lay hands upon the ministry taken away from him, be altogether cut off from the Church, both because of his perhaps extreme impudence and because one who is already deposed cannot otherwise be canonically punished.

The 65th canon of the Council of Carthage says: If a cleric has been justly condemned by ^D his own bishop, and this cleric no longer has the aid of an appeal, the synod should request from the emperor that those who use force and do not allow the bishop to inflict the sentence passed against him be subjected to a monetary penalty and loss of honor, whether such persons be ecclesiastics or laymen, and of whatever age or condition they may be.

The 50th canon also orders that bishops who do not submit themselves to the votes of the synod be handed over to the power of the magistrates; however, it is not right that the sacred

^A be handed over to secular magistrates for punishment unless they have first been deposed. This occurs either when the synod cannot put its own sentence into effect, or when the crime is a great one and it is necessary that the punishment of the magistrates should follow upon the censure of the Church. For if, by chance, one in holy orders were found plotting against the Emperor, in addition to deposition, he shall be handed over to the magistrates for examination, so that he may also denounce his accomplices, just as the aforementioned Justinian's Novel 123 decrees regarding such persons.

Laws. A bishop canonically cast out of the priesthood, if he proceeds to the city from which he was ejected or leaves the place in which he was ordered to reside, is confined in a monastery of another province. ^B A bishop deposed by a synod who creates a tumult in order to recover his bishopric must live one hundred miles from the city from which he was ejected, and he must not approach the Emperor. But if he should go and obtain rescripts, they shall be useless, and whoever defends him shall incur indignation.

CHAPTER IX [X]. That one ought not to punish twice for the same matter.

The 25th canon of the holy apostles says: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, convicted of fornication or perjury or theft, shall be deposed and not excommunicated; for you shall not punish twice for the same matter." Therefore, those who have attained the priesthood, even if they are deposed, are nevertheless not separated from the communion of the faithful, ^C whatever crime they may have been guilty of. However, solely those who have attained the priesthood or other leadership of the people through money or the power of magistrates befall both penalties on account of the magnitude of the crime; for the 29th apostolic canon, and indeed the 30th as well, subjects these men—and those who communicate with them—not only to deposition, but also to excommunication.

Furthermore, the great Basil, in canon 32, expounding the saying in the first catholic epistle of the evangelist and theologian John, which reads as follows: "There is a sin unto death, and there is a sin not unto death," says that clerics who commit a sin unto death—that is, one that has progressed to the act—fall from the rank of the priesthood, but they are not barred from the communion of the laity, in that they might pray with them; ^D for they shall stand in none of the three places of penance; for "you shall not punish twice for the same matter." For just as he says that a sin committed in act brings death to the soul, namely fornication, or homicide, or things of that sort, so that which proceeds only to consultation and consent is indeed not blameless, but yet it does not altogether bring about the death of the soul such as to induce deposition, according to the 4th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, which you may seek in the 15th chapter of the letter. For he would not be judged a fornicator who proposed to fornicate but did not perform the deed. Similarly, it must be judged regarding slaughter, as the great Theologian Gregory says: "If you condemn the homicide for slaughter solely from the fact that he thought about it, and"

the things that follow. Some, however, say that the sin unto death is that which brings upon the sinner the severance of the head and death, and ^A that the holy pontiff is judged to suffer nothing more than deposition, even if he has been the perpetrator of grave crimes, which indeed according to the laws also entail death and what is called capital punishment.

And in canon 51, the Fathers have decreed, he says, one punishment for all clergy who have fallen, namely, removal from their ministry, whether they happen to be in a rank and have received the ordination of presbyter or deacon or subdeacon, or in that of lector, or cantor, or doorkeeper; for they do not punish those who are of a greater rank more severely, and those of a lesser more lightly, but just as those are barred from the priesthood, so too are the lectors prohibited from entering the altar, or from reading from the ambo, or from advancing to a greater rank.

In harmony with these is also canon 27 of the Council of Carthage: Clerics who have been ^B convicted of grave sins, and for this reason fall from their own ranks, are not, he says, segregated from the gathering of the faithful, for deposition alone suffices for them as a punishment; but they are not able to receive any laying on of hands whatsoever to perform a ministry outside the tribunal, nor are they rebaptized in order that they might be cleansed from the crime, as some erroneously think, and advance again to a rank of clergy. For there is one saving baptism; and for this reason those who after deposition read from the ambo, or say prayers, or pronounce a blessing, do not perform holy acts. Seek also in chapter 9 of the present letter for canon 50 of the Council of Carthage. Seek also in chapter 15 of letter B for canon 3 of the great Basil.

CAP. X [XII]. Concerning those who persecute others for religion.

Seek in chapter 1 of letter A for canon 9 of the Council of Ancyra, and the epistle of the great Athanasius to Rufinianus.

CAP. XI [XIII]. Concerning the manumission of slaves, and admission to the clergy.

Canon 85 ^C of the Sixth Council decrees that for the manumission of slaves, no more than three witnesses are to be taken; for by two, as the Scripture says, or by three witnesses we know every word is confirmed.

But the 3rd canon of the Council of Gangra considers it altogether unreasonable for a slave, under the pretext of piety and asceticism, to despise his master and not to submit to him with benevolence and honor, and serve him; wherefore, showing righteous indignation, it strikes with anathema the teacher of such unreasonableness. For the divine Apostle, through the great Timothy, charges those who draw the yoke of slavery to consider their masters worthy of all honor: "But if the masters be faithful," he says, "let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but rather let them serve them, because they are faithful who [partake of/enjoy] their good work." ^D And again he writes to Titus

"Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well-pleasing in all things, not answering back, not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity." ^A

The 82nd Canon of the holy apostles, removing every occasion of scandal, does not permit a bondservant to be advanced into the clergy without the consent of his master; for this sometimes becomes the destruction of an entire household, and causes grief and dishonor to the master. For either that bondservant was the steward of the house, or he was set over a workshop, or money had been entrusted to his faith for trade. And if the household servant be judged worthy of priestly rank, the bishop ought to communicate regarding this matter with the master; and if he should find him agreeing, he may securely ordain the bondservant. For the great Paul did not think it right to keep Onesimus, who was Philemon’s bondservant, even though he judged his ministry useful to himself, without the master's consent, but sent him back to Philemon. ^B

Moreover, Canon 4 of the Fourth Synod commands that he who receives a bondservant into a monastery to become a monk without the consent of his own master be excommunicated.

Laws. The law says that for the freedom of a bondservant, it is sufficient that the master knew he was being co-opted into the clergy and did not contradict it.

However, the Novel of Leo the Wise says: "A bondservant who has been promoted to the clergy without his master knowing, and who becomes a monk or bishop, shall return against his will to his former master, gaining nothing from the ordination." Yet the master cannot recall him indefinitely, but it must be within three years, counted from the time he became aware of the event. ^C

The primary division of persons is this: that of men, some are free, and others are bondservants. And freedom is a natural faculty granted to everyone to do what he wishes, unless law or force hinders him; but servitude is an effect of ethnic law and the right of war, through which someone is subjected to the power of another; which is contrary to natural law, for nature brought forth all men free. ^D

Again, free men are divided into two: into the freeborn and the freedmen. And the freeborn is he who is free straightaway from the moment he is born, and has never tasted the yoke of servitude; but the freedman is he who is born of a manumitted bondservant.

Anyone can manumit his own bondservant, either in the most holy churches, or before the governor, or before five friends called for this purpose, or with three subscribing, or by letter, or in a will, or by any final testament whatsoever. And if he joins his own bondservant to a free person, or, hearing that he is being joined without his consent, puts up with it.

A bondservant who goes into military service with the knowledge of his master is manumitted. He who reveals the murder of his own master shall have his freedom as a reward.

The freedman who does not honor the children of his patron incurs penalties; and he who insults them is reduced to servitude by him as an ingrate. A freedman is compelled to support his patron if he is poor.

CHAPTER XII [XIV]. On donations. Laws.

BEGINNING OF THE LETTER E. CHAPTER I. On suretyship.

Since even in the fourth ecumenical synod the divine Fathers (as the thirtieth canon of that synod explains), along with those from the Senate who had met with them, demanded sureties from the bishops from Egypt for the sake of appearing in court, or, for those who were lacking in securities, the taking of an oath while they sought a delay of time—and no one suffered ^D any harm from this: for the thirteen high priests from Egypt were unwilling to confirm in writing the things decreed by the holy synod, even though they subjected Dioscorus and Eutyches, together with others, to anathema. For they refused this not because they disapproved of what had been done, but because they held the custom, as they claimed, of doing nothing regarding ecclesiastical matters without the decision of their own patriarch, that is to say, of Alexandria, whose throne at that time was vacant. Indeed, they requested that time be given to them until an Alexandrian bishop should be appointed. And although the divine Fathers of the synod, suspecting the delay, were inclined to vote for their deposition, the men of the Senate considered that they ought to remain in their own status if they provided securities

^A or, being unable to do so, took an oath of disclaimer; ^B which also pleased the Synod of the Fathers. An "oath of disclaimer" [exomosia] is to swear an oath outside the five species of oaths contained by the law, perhaps by the head of the Emperor or by one's own salvation. But these things have come about in this way. If, however, anyone should provide security for another for the sake of base gain, this is forbidden by both the holy canons and the laws; and it is shown by the 123rd Novel of Justinian, which ordains as follows:

₰ Law. But we do not permit a collector of public taxes, nor a receiver, nor a lessee of customs, nor a receiver of the possessions of others, nor a steward of a household, nor an agent for a case, nor a surety for these causes, to be a bishop, or an oikonomos [steward], or any other cleric of any rank whatsoever, or a monk, whether in his own name or that of the church or monastery; so that on this pretext damage may not be brought upon holy houses, and the divine services not be hindered. And this, indeed, is the Novel.

But if one is moved by charity, for the sake of which we are commanded to lay down our souls for our brothers, for example, if someone is being dragged away and is required to provide securities for some appearance, and because he cannot provide them is on the point of being sent to prison, if some cleric, having pity, gives security for him, he shall not only not be deposed, but he shall be deemed worthy of glorious rewards, I think, before the just Judge, as one who has fulfilled the evangelical command.

₰ Law. The civil law orders clerics who are summoned to court to provide security.

110. The aforesaid Justinian Novel orders clerics who are summoned to court not to give securities, but to make a sworn promise without an oath; but that bishops who are summoned to court should neither give securities nor make a promise.

CAP. II. Concerning the unwritten customs of the Church.

Few of us know that we are seeking our ancient fatherland, the paradise which God planted in Eden in the East. And we perform our prayers standing on the first day of the week, but not all of us know the reason. For we ought not only to seek those things which are above, as those who have risen with Christ, but also because this day seems to be, in a certain way, an image of the age that is expected, since it is the same day circularly returning, both the first and the eighth. Necessarily, therefore, we perform the prayers on it standing, so that by the constant remembrance of the life that will never end, we may not neglect the provision for that translation.

Concerning the Holy Pentecost.

Furthermore, the entire Pentecost is a memorial of the resurrection which is expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, multiplied seven times, ^B makes up the seven weeks of the sacred Pentecost. For this reason, that great Basil, having composed the propitiatory prayers concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit most excellently of all, as it befits a theologian, and having enjoined the people to bend the knee in a servile manner while these are being proclaimed in Church, thereby attesting to the authority of the divine nature belonging to the Spirit, did not think they should be read at the third hour of the Lord’s day of Pentecost, at which hour and day the all-holy Spirit descended upon the apostles. For it was not fitting that the interpreter of the mysteries of the Spirit and the lawgiver of the Church should abolish the privileges of the Lord’s day and Pentecost that are annexed to great mysteries. Therefore, he reserved the reading of these prayers for the evening of the same day, at which time the principal of days, namely Pentecost, ends, and the second day takes its beginning; for it is customary to reckon the beginnings of each following day from the seventh hour; for this seems right not only to the Church but also to the civil laws ^C and to those who are versed in astronomy; even though the reading of these prayers in the evening has led many into error, so that they ascribe the descent of the Spirit to the second day, which is the day after the feast, just as the remaining days of that week are. Moreover, on the day that the old law was given (and this was Pentecost), the descent of the Paraclete took place, whence it is indicated that the lawgiver of the Old and the New was one and the same. And he says again: "In every genuflection and rising, we show in reality that we fell to the earth on account of sin, and through the clemency of Him who created us, we were recalled to heaven." But as for the words of invocation in the showing of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing, which of the saints has left them to us in writing? For we are not content with those things of which the Apostle or the Gospel makes mention, but we preface and append other things, as having great power for the mystery, having received them from unwritten teaching. To bless the water of baptism, ^D and the oil of anointing, and furthermore the one who is being baptized, and the very anointing with oil, and the other things that are done at baptism; from which Scripture are these

^A that are done at baptism—the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Is it not from this unpublished and secret teaching, which our Fathers kept in undisturbed and quiet silence, well-instructed by them to preserve with silence the solemnities of the mysteries? For how was it reasonable that the teaching of those things which it is not even permitted for the uninitiated to behold should be paraded in writings? This is the rationale of the tradition of unwritten customs, so that the knowledge of the dogmas, by not being frequently discussed, might not become cheapened and held in contempt by the many through familiarity. For a dogma is one thing, and a preaching is another. For dogmas are kept in silence, while preachings are made public; and a form of silence is also the obscurity which Scripture uses, rendering the meaning of the dogmas difficult to contemplate, for the benefit of those who encounter them. Moreover, I consider it apostolic to remain in unwritten traditions. For instance, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle." D. Chrysostom, explaining this further, says: "Hence, he says, it is manifest that they did not deliver everything by epistle, but much also without writing." Likewise, both these and those are worthy of belief, so that we judge the tradition of the Church to be worthy of belief; it is tradition, seek nothing further. ^B

CAP. III. On Greek Customs.

The sixty-second canon of the Sixth Synod considers it ruinous for the faithful to engage in Greek customs. It mentions, therefore, the Kalends, and Bota, and the Brumalia, and other such things in which it was the custom ^C for the Greeks to perform rites. And the feast of the Kalends was celebrated annually on the first day of the month of January, because at that time the moon is renewed, and the foundation of it is calculated from that point, as they imagined they would spend the whole year with joy. The Romans divided the days of the months into three: some they called Kalends, others Nones, and others Ides. As for the Bota, they dedicated it to Pan, as the fable goes, as though he were the overseer of cattle and sheep. But the Brumalia or Rusalia, which even today seem to be celebrated by country folk after holy Easter, are those which were once performed by the Greeks to Dionysus. For Bromius is an epithet for him among them. The canon also wishes to be removed the feast celebrated on the first day of March (for this too was Greek), perhaps for the sake of the temperature of the seasons and the air. It also forbids the public dances of women, as inciting to licentiousness; and for men to wear women's clothing, ^D or women to wear that which is fitting for men, just as those who celebrated the festival for Dionysus used to do. Furthermore, it forbids putting on comic masks, which are used for mocking certain people, or tragic masks, which move the emotions and bring on mourning, or satyric masks, which are celebrated in honor of Dionysus by Satyrs and Bacchants. And the name of Bacchus in the wine-presses is invoked

and laughter is raised over the wine poured into the jars; how is this not absolutely impious? The canon therefore orders that those who knowingly do such things, if they be in holy orders, should be deposed; but if they be laymen, they should be excommunicated. ^B The sixty-fifth canon also orders that the practice of lighting bonfires in the squares at the new moons and leaping over them, as being seasoned with Hellenic impiety, should be entirely abolished. Whoever is caught doing this, if he is a cleric, shall be deposed; if a layman, he shall be excommunicated. That this was forbidden by the old law is shown by the fourth book of Kings, where it is read: "And Manasses built an altar to all the host of heaven, and caused his sons to pass through the fire, and used auguries and auspices, and made ventriloquists and multiplied diviners, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to wrath." Now, at the new moons it was the custom both for Jews and Greeks to celebrate a feast and bend the knee, so that they might pass the monthly interval successfully; concerning whom God also once said through the prophet: "Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth." Just as, therefore, in the present time by the grace of God, propitiatory prayers and sanctifications are performed to God by the faithful people, and we are anointed with the water of blessing. But those who kindled bonfires were leaping over them, thinking perhaps that the evils which had previously happened to them—as if burnt up—would vanish, and that auspicious things would spring up thereafter. However, by the host of heaven, the stars are to be understood. And those divine Fathers interpreted "caused to pass through the fire" as "commanded the children to leap over." But holy Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, explaining the prophet Isaiah, interpreted that as: "For this he offered a holocaust to his demons." A "sors" (or divinatory lot) is a divination by certain signs, when one wishes to learn one's own fortune. ^C An "auspice" is when the flights and cries of birds are observed; which indeed was called "augury" by the Greeks. Ventriloquists and diviners are said to be those who, being satanically inspired, predict those things which cannot be known, such as the women of the Athingani, and those who divine by means of barley. If, therefore, these things were considered wicked by those who received the less perfect law, and provoked the anger of the Lord, how much more does it behoove us, who have received the more perfect and spiritual law, to turn away entirely from them as unlawful and impious?

The seventy-first canon threatens excommunication even to those being taught in civil laws, if they continue to use Hellenic customs and put on garments (for those beginning their studies use a specific style, and those who have reached their end use a different one), or when they enter the theater; but they were also engaging in what are called *cylistrae*—whatever those may have been. For all these things, by the wishes of those divine legislators, are silenced today.

Chapter IV. On political customs.

usage ^A must be observed; but if this also be wanting, one must follow those things which most nearly approach and resemble the matter in question. If even this be not present, let the judgment of the wiser and the more numerous prevail. We employ the custom of a city or province when, in a controversy raised about that matter, it has been confirmed. Therefore, things approved by long custom and observed for many years are accustomed to have no less validity than things which are written.

Chapter V. De pacificis litteris.

Chapter VI. On sacred images.

Photii patriarchae et Theodori Studitae.

^A It is not the nature of anything depicted by imitation that is represented, but the person; and for this reason, the image of it is the same as its archetype, not in nature, but in person, or rather in the imitation of the person.

We set up sacred images so that, by seeing them, we may seem through them to see their archetypes, and so that they may become for us memorials and elicit a longing for their archetypes. For as often as the images are seen, so often are those who look upon them stirred toward the memory and desire of the archetypes.

Worship in spirit and in truth, which is called *latria*, is rendered by the orthodox to the blessed Trinity; but to the holy images, not *latria* in any way, but adoration, salutation, and honor. For even if the honor of the image passes to the prototype, *latria* belongs solely to the blessed Trinity, and not to the venerable images, lest we seem to be worshipers of creatures and matter.

To Christ himself belongs *latria* and natural adoration; for he who worships him worships also the Father and the Holy Spirit, the one nature in the Trinity, and this is the trinitarian adoration and *latria*. But toward the image of Christ, the adoration is relative and equivocal; for he who worships it does not worship the Father and the Son along with it, but only Christ in it, because he assumed flesh and is depicted according to his corporeal appearance, which is relative and hypostatic adoration. ^B

Christ is seen in his image, which also subsists in him, as a shadow in a body, from which it is impossible for it to be separated, even if it does not always appear. But just as a shadow appears through the shining of the sun, in the same way the image of Christ appears through the shaping of the material.

We do not worship images as gods, nor do we place the hope of our salvation in them, nor do we offer them divine worship, as do the children of the Greeks; but we show only the disposition and love of our soul, which we have for the prototypes, through such adoration. Hence, when the character is effaced, we burn the image, if it should ever become so, as useless wood. ^C

Concerning the cross.

With fear and truth one must approach and worship the holy images, and believe that divine grace resides in them, imparting sanctification.

Difference between the venerable images and idols.

^A of gods, but of demons, as the Prophet says, that “all the gods of the gentiles are demons,” whereas the prototypes of venerable images are all true. For of the one, [the prototype] is Christ; of another, the Mother of God; of another, the Forerunner; and of each, one or another of the other saints. But those whose prototypes are false cannot justly be called either images or idols, but simply vain and useless works of human hands, and deaf matter of the earth. Moreover, in images the forms of the prototypes are revealed, but in idols, not at all. For the prototype of the idol of Zeus is the ether; of Hera, the air; of Poseidon, the water; of Demeter, the earth; of Apollo, the sun; of Artemis, the moon; of Ares, rage; of Dionysus, drunkenness; of Aphrodite, lust; and similarly of the others, and especially of the twelve older ones. The idols, therefore, of all these possess human form, while the so-called prototypes of such idols are partly of different forms (I mean the elements) and partly altogether without form (I mean the passions); but all are lifeless and insensible. ^B

CAP. VII. Concerning Arson.

CAP. VIII. Concerning Emphyteusis.

^A We command that both the emphyteuta and the conductor lose the property given in emphyteusis and be fined the price imposed upon it; furthermore, those stewards who execute such an emphyteusis shall suffer as much loss as is adjudged against the house, in proportion to the loss of the price imposed that the emphyteuta himself underwent. But if the emphyteusis is performed according to reason, the emphyteuta shall fulfill the contract according to the force of the emphyteutic deeds.

The possessions of venerable houses can be leased and granted in emphyteusis, if all the monks or clerics consent to confirm the action, and show that what is done is fitting.

The emphyteuta and conductor, if he is ^B contumacious regarding the annual contract for two or three years, or renders the thing itself worse, shall be cast out from the emphyteusis, having no power to work in the field; yet he is not cast out when he pays the prescribed contract, even if it is an emphyteusis of public property.

The conductor cannot cast out the person who has rented against his will, even if another were to offer a greater rent for it, namely before the prescribed time, and even if he is stubborn about the rent which he promised to pay.

CAP. IX. On the vestments suitable for those in holy orders.

The twenty-seventh canon of the sixth synod says: Let no one of those who are enrolled in the ranks of the clergy put on a garment unsuitable ^C for himself, neither while living in the city nor while traveling on the road; but let him use that clothing which time and custom have taught to be suitable for the order of clerics. But let him who despises the custom of this suitable habit be excommunicated for one week.

The sixteenth canon of the seventh synod does not consider it fitting for a priest to use sumptuous garments: for: "All vanity," it says, "and bodily ornamentation are alien to the priestly order." Therefore, bishops or clerics who adorn themselves with florid garments must correct themselves; but if they persist in the evil, let them be punished; likewise those who are anointed with perfumes; furthermore, let those who mock those who are clothed in cheap and modest apparel also be punished with appropriate penalties. For from ^D ancient times, every priest conducted himself with moderate and modest clothing. "For whatever is taken up not for the sake of use, but for ostentatious display, incurs the reproach of luxury," said the great Basil. Therefore, they did not put on garments of silken textures, variegated by the curiosity of weavers; nor were any additions of a foreign color attached to the hems of their garments. For they heard the divine saying: "Those who wear soft things are in the houses of kings." Look for cap. 24 of the letter Γ.

The twenty-first and twenty-third canons of the Laodicean synod say: It does not befit a minister, or subdeacon, to

^A wear an orarion, but to guard the doors of the church, so that they may lead the catechumens and the penitents in and out. For this reason, even to this day, it is sung among them: "Stand, you who are faithful," that is to say, you who are about to see the sacrifice of the holy mysteries; "and depart, you who are not initiated in these." But neither should a reader or a chanter wear this, and thus read or chant. For to the latter it befell only to chant; to the readers, however, it did not, but rather to read the holy Scriptures for common hearing, although even now this is rarely done by them. For many ancient customs are changed into a different order. For to the deacons, and to them alone, was it granted to wear this publicly upon their shoulders. The orarion is named from *oro*, which means "I guard" and "I observe." For the deacons who wore it, assisting those who celebrate and observing the prayer of the sacred office, signal by the orarion to the deacons who are in the ambo the time when the proclamation of the petitions of the catechumens and the faithful ought to be made. ^B

113. CAP. X. On Pledges. Look for cap. 2 of the letter Δ.

CAP. XI. On the privileges and preeminences which churches and bishops have.

The thirty-fourth canon of the holy apostles commands the bishops of each nation to manage the affairs of the churches subject to them, and of the remaining places, each in his own manner. But when a question of great moment arises—which is wont to be moved rarely indeed, and which relates to the common state of the Church, whether perhaps it is necessary to inquire into some matter of dogma, or to ordain a high priest where there was none before, or to correct a common error, or anything of the sort—it is proper for the bishops ^C to acknowledge the metropolitan, who holds the first place among them, and to consider him as the head of the body of the Church, and for those who convene to him to consult regarding the emergent questions, and to determine what seems best to all. But it is not fitting that the metropolitan, abusing this honor, should change it into tyranny, and perform any of the aforementioned acts without the common consensus of his fellow-ministers; but rather, bound by concord and charity, they should look to public affairs. For thus they will be a common example to the multitudes subject to them, and God will be glorified through the Son in the Holy Spirit; since the Son has revealed the name of the Father, and has ordained charity as a law to men, and the Spirit has illuminated the nations through the apostles. ^D

The ninth canon of the council of Antioch agrees with this in all things, if not in words, yet in meaning. Look also in the fifth chapter of the letter A for the eighteenth canon of the first council.

From this you may understand which churches enjoy their own privileges. The sixth canon of the first council indeed judges that one ought to acquiesce to the ancient decrees of the Fathers, [who] regarding the

region of Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, assigned them to the Alexandrian bishop; and to the Antiochene [bishop], those of Syria, Cœlesyria, both Cilicias, and Mesopotamia; and to the Roman [bishop], the ancient law prevails over the Western [regions]. And it mandates that without the opinion of the aforementioned, none of the Church’s regulations may be performed by those under their hand, the climax of which is the election of bishops; for the canon mandates that the metropolitans under them must submit to the patriarchs, and to these, in turn, the bishops. If, therefore, one should be constituted bishop without the opinion of the metropolitan, it is decreed that this man is no bishop. For even if there was a time when the multitudes of the cities cast their votes for bishops, yet even then, he whom the metropolitan tested and selected from among the others was deemed worthy of the imposition of hands. ^B He says, moreover, that when a vote has taken place, as the Church’s regulations prescribe, and the majority agree, while two or three in a spirit of contention oppose them, the vote of the majority must prevail.

The seventh [canon] determines that the bishop of Ælia should preside over the cities in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia, yet in no way is the metropolis of Palestine, Cæsarea—which is also called Straton’s [Tower]—being surpassed regarding [114*] its own privileges and prerogatives, to which Ælia was sometimes subject, but in ancient times was separated. It is honored because of the saving passions of Christ performed in it. Formerly, indeed, and even now, Ælia and the entire region around it obtained the name of Palestine; but the city itself was from ancient time called Solyma and Jebus. From the time, however, that that most celebrated temple was built by Solomon, and the sacred [books] of the Old Testament were deposited in it, it was celebrated by the name of Jerusalem. But after it was overthrown by the Romans, the Emperor Hadrian, who was also called Ælius, having rebuilt it, named it Ælia.

The second canon of the second council determines that the bishop of Alexandria governs the [churches] in Egypt; but that the bishops of the other provinces [are to be] ordained by their own synods according to the ancient law; this, however, has been entirely abolished by the later regulations of the divine canons.

Regarding the prerogatives of the Constantinopolitan Church.

The third, moreover, says: We decree that the bishop of Constantinople shall have the privileges of honor after the bishop of Rome, because it is the New Rome. For Byzantium was an ancient city, governed by its own laws. But under Severus, the emperor of the Romans, having been besieged by the Romans for three years, it was eventually captured when those in it were suffering from a lack of necessities, its walls were razed, its civil rights were taken away, and it was subjected to the Perinthians. Perinthus, moreover, is Heraclea.

Why the patriarch is ordained by the bishop of Heraclea.

And from this, indeed, the ordination of the patriarch is assigned to the Heraclean prelate, as formerly it was the custom to be ordained by him...

^A. But the great Constantine, having raised up this city, situated in the most pleasant spot of the world, and having increased it to the magnitude and beauty to which it attained, bestowed upon it his own name, and designated it New Rome.

The twenty-eighth canon of the Fourth Synod says the same thing which the third canon of the Second Synod decreed: “We also,” it says, “ordain and establish that the throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople shall enjoy equal privileges with those of older Rome, since it is honored by the empire and the senate.” Therefore, it must be honored just as that one is with ecclesiastical privileges, taking precedence of all other churches, ^B but holding the second place after it. For we cannot understand it to be equal in all respects, although some, interpreting the preposition “after” in a completely affirmative way—and, for the most part, unlearnedly and ignorantly—have imagined that it signifies not a lower degree of place and dignity, but an order of time. For in the naming of names, it is necessary that one be pronounced first and the other second, as usually happens in assemblies and even in subscriptions. Zonaras says something remarkable about this: that the divine Fathers, foreseeing the future as if it were present—namely, that the Roman Church would be cut off from the completeness of the orthodox and banished from the fellowship of the faithful, having succumbed to heterodox dogmas—reckoned it as the first, and thus deemed it worthy of the same privileges as that one, because it was going to hold the primacy in all things, just as that one once did. ^C But the canon, having sufficiently ordained regarding the privileges of the Church of Constantinople, also proceeds to set forth the dioceses subject to it. It says these are the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. The Asian dioceses are those that extend as far as the Taurus mountains; the Pontic are those adjacent to the Euxine Sea, as far as Trebizond and beyond; and the Thracian are those as far as Dyrrhachium itself.

Why the Bishop of Thessalonica was the Legatus of the Pope

For although in times past the Pope had the bishop of Thessalonica and other Western bishops—I mean of Athens, Corinth, Patras, and Ravenna—as legates, as though "from his face" (for the Greek term signifies this) ^D so that when it was necessary for some from the parts of the Pope to be present at public assemblies, they might supply his place; yet they were from our own flock. For he did not have so many bishops outside his own borders subject to himself as to ordain them, as some have imagined. This was devised because of the length of the road, so that those sent from there to us across the seas might not grow weary from the journey; and this is manifest from the fact that it was not always these same men who were appointed from the face of the Pope, but sometimes also others, whom the Pope of Rome chose for the time being.

On the election and ordination of bishops.

The thirty-sixth canon of the Sixth Synod discusses the same matters regarding the privileges of the Church of Constantinople, voting in support of the second canon of the Second Synod, as well as the fourth [canon], and employing the same words as they do, so that the throne of Constantinople may enjoy equal privileges to those of senior Rome, being second after it; after which is numbered the Alexandrian, then the Antiochian, and after these, the Hierosolymitan. ^C

Why the patriarch sends stauropegia into the dioceses of metropolitans.

Balsamon. Since the regions of the entire world have been distributed among the five patriarchs, with the exception of a few churches, it is permitted to them to ordain metropolitans for the dioceses assigned to them, to examine them, to correct them according to the divine canons, and to have the proclamation and mention of their own names before all the metropolitans in those dioceses. For this reason, they also send stauropegia into their dioceses and take from them such clerics as they choose; ^D however, it is not permitted to any one of these to send a stauropegion into a province that is subject to another patriarch, nor to take a cleric from it, so that the rights of the Churches may not be confounded.

On the bishops of Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Iberia.

Those which are not subject to any patriarch are the Church of Bulgaria, which Emperor Justinian honored, as will be known from his novella which is to be cited; [the Church] of Cyprus, which the Third and Sixth Synods honored, as will be said immediately; and [the Church] of the Iberians, which the judgment of the Synod of Antioch honored, being previously subject to it; for the prelates of these were accustomed to be ordained by their own bishops.

The eighth canon of the Third Synod, that it should not...

^A be lawful for the bishop of Antioch to claim for himself the ordinations of the Cypriote bishops, on the pretext that in the past a military governor was supposedly sent there by the Duke of Antioch, but rather that according to the ancient custom the ordinations in that island should be performed by the bishops of the island, and that no other of the most God-beloved bishops should seize a province which was not his own from of old and from the beginning; and if he has forced any over to himself, he should return it, that the canons of the Fathers might not be violated; nor should the pride of worldly power creep in under the pretext of priestly office, nor should we, while incautious, gradually lose the freedom which Christ bestowed upon us with His own blood. But if anyone shall bring forward an ordinance contrary to these things now decreed, namely, an imperial constitution, it commands that this is utterly void. ^B The thirty-ninth canon of the Sixth Synod names the Church of the Cypriotes "New Justinianopolis," and grants it the rights of Constantinople, and that the bishop of the Hellespont and Cyzicus is to be ordained by him. But whether that canon was ever brought into effect, it is very difficult to discover.

The nineteenth canon of the Synod in Carthage forbids the bishop of the first see to be called "exarch of priests" or anything of that sort, or anything other than "bishop," cutting down, I suppose, the pride which clings to honor and authority, and enacting lowliness and moderation. For this reason, most of the patriarchs and other chief prelates, in their own subscriptions, call themselves lowly and humble. But the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, as it seems, not accepting this—being much later than that one—calls the metropolitans of the provinces "exarchs" in its ninth canon, which you should also seek in the ninth chapter under the letter A; in this way other synods also call them ^C exarchs. Therefore, seek also in the ninth chapter under the letter A the fifty-fifth canon of the Synod of Carthage.

Laws

The hundred and thirty-first Justinianic Novel, "We decree," it says, "according to the definitions of the holy synods, that the most holy Pope of elder Rome is the first of all priests, but the most blessed bishop of Constantinople, new Rome, holds the second rank after the apostolic throne of elder Rome, and is to be preferred above all others; and that the most blessed archbishop of First Justiniana, our native country, should always have under his jurisdiction the bishops of the provinces of Mediterranean Dacia, and Ripensine Dacia, Praevalis, Dardania, and Upper Moesia, and that they be ordained by him; but that he himself be ordained by his own synod, and in the provinces subject to him he holds the place of the apostolic see, according to what the holy Pope Vigilius decreed." A similar

We have granted the same right to the bishop of Carthage in Africa, from whom God restored it to us. ^A Canonical disputes arising in the whole of Illyricum should not be terminated without the opinion of the archbishop of Constantinople and his synod, which holds the privileges of ancient Rome. See also chapter 8 of the letter E.

The Edict of Constantine the Great.

^B But while I am at this point in my discourse, shall I pass over the edict of Constantine the Great in silence? And how could I not incur the reproach of ignorance, since I consider it equally absurd to narrate what ought not to be told, and to consign beautiful things to silence? For there is, I believe, nothing more religious, nor anything more worthy to be proclaimed publicly. For since it is a herald and a brilliant witness of all the things wondrously accomplished by the emperor with happy success, it shows in great abundance both the man’s fervent love for piety and, better than any monument, it declares with what privileges it was proper for emperors, who do not treat matters pertaining to religion in a perfunctory manner, to endow the Church of Christ. For this emperor, being destitute of no virtue in those things which pertain to God, was religious, and in those which pertain to men, he was just; so that by his external form the internal splendor of his soul was beautifully depicted. For he had a praiseworthy greatness of body, as the history concerning him relates, and an admirable beauty, and a very wondrous modesty seated upon his countenance. ^C For it is natural, as is generally the case, for the character of the body to be conformed to the pursuits of the soul; but not least because, burning with zeal for piety, he showed by his deed to all with what desires he was thoroughly possessed for Christ, being unable, of course, to embrace his beloved as he deserved (for even if he had gathered together all the wealth among men, if he wished to honor Him, it would be necessary for him to fall short of the worthiness). That which was second was that he strove to adorn his bride, the Church, whom He purchased with His own blood, with all his might, offering himself as a beautiful example of piety publicly to all. ^D He says, therefore:

We decree, with all the satraps of our kingdom and the senate, that the Roman bishop and successor of the first and prince of the apostles, Peter, shall have greater power over the whole earth than the royal majesty, and that he is to be honored and exalted by all far more than if he were a king, and that he is to be the head of the four patriarchal sees, and that those things which pertain to the orthodox faith are to be judged and decreed by him. We deliver to our father, the blessed Sylvester, and his successors our palace, the diadem upon our head made of precious stones and pearls, the omophorion which surrounds the neck, the purple chlamys, the scarlet tunic, and all the royal vestments, and the authority of the imperial horses, the scepters, and the remaining ornaments of the empire, and all the glory of our power. And them also

^A who are enrolled in the clergy of the most holy Roman Church we decree to be adorned with vestments similar to those of our own senate, and to ride upon horses covered with white linen, so that even the shoes of these horses are to be fashioned from white linen. And if any cleric should choose to be made of our senate, let him be hindered by no one. Moreover, since our most holy Father Silvester, on account of his humility of mind, refused the golden crown, for that reason we placed with our own hands upon his holy head the most splendid loros, which signifies the holy Resurrection. And assuming the office of a squire, holding the bridle of his horse, we departed from the area of his holy palace, full of reverence and fear for the sake of my lord, the holy Peter. We have also judged it altogether pleasing to God that the most holy Pope should depart from the city of Rome and from all the Western provinces and cities, and transfer the power of the empire to the Eastern parts, and occupy the city of Byzantium, situated in a most pleasant place under the sun, and exercise imperial authority there; ^B deeming it unjust for an earthly emperor to have power there, where the beginning of the Christian religion was given to us from heaven. Writing these things with our own hands, and placing them upon the tomb of my lord Peter, we make sacred oaths that we shall not transgress any of these things at all, but we also command that they be preserved inviolate by those who shall receive our empire, toward our Father the pope and his successors.

CAP. XII. On the building and consecration of churches.

The seventh canon of the seventh synod alienates from the priesthood him who consecrates a church without holy relics. And this, it says, happened at one time among other impious acts committed by the iconoclasts and accusers of the Christians, who used to blame the Christians for the worship of venerable icons, as if it were idolatry. Now, the consecration of a temple was accustomed to be done in this way. First, indeed, by the bishop of the province, its foundation was laid with prayer and the fixing of a cross; and when the structure was complete, the consecration and dedication and inthronization followed, and the placing of the antiminsion upon the holy table.

On antiminsia.

^C They are called antiminsia as being representatives and counterparts of many such tables that complete the holy Lord's table; then both the temple and all these things are anointed with holy chrism, and thus the relics of the holy martyrs are stored under the holy table.

The seventeenth [canon] desires that monks who, moved by a desire to command, have cast off the yoke of obedience, and attempt to build chapels which do not suffice for their perfection, be restrained by the bishop of that place. And he wills that this very thing be done ^D also in the case of clerics or laymen. But if those things which are to the perfection

are sufficient, may they possess what has been deliberated by them and lead it to a conclusion. ^B The 83rd canon of the Council of Carthage orders that oratories established in fields due to dreams or empty revelations be destroyed by the local bishops, unless the bodies of martyrs are deposited therein, or some of their relics, or an altar was erected there from ancient times; nor should crowds gather there, nor should they celebrate the memories of martyrs. And because of these things, it is necessary to drive away and silence by every means those women who, through the fraud and deceit of the demon, claim to tell the future, or men who pretend to be possessed by a demon and babble such things. Seek also in chapter 2 of the letter A, canon 34 of the Council of Laodicea.

Laws

CHAPTER XIII. Concerning those who take refuge in the church.

Laws

Those who have sought refuge may be safe up to the boundaries of the church before the public market, using the interior baths, or gardens, or small rooms, or porches, or courtyards; but they are prohibited from sleeping or eating inside the temple. They shall not protect themselves with weapons, but shall lay these aside before the bishop.

If a servant takes refuge while armed, he shall be cast out immediately; but if he resists, he shall be forced by greater power; and if he is killed while fighting, the master who attacked and killed him shall not be liable to any penalty. Neither for murderers, nor for adulterers, nor for ravishers of virgins, shall you grant safety in the church, but you shall drag them out from there and exact punishment. For it is not fitting to show leniency to those who commit such things, but...

rather to those who survive, so that they might not suffer such things from the more reckless. Moreover, the safety provided by sacred places is granted by the law not to those who do injustice, but to those who suffer it; and it would not be possible for the law to uphold with the security of an asylum both the one doing the injury and the one suffering it. ^B

No one shall be forcibly dragged out from one who has taken refuge in the church, but one shall make clear the cause of the refugee to the priest, and from him safely receive the one who has taken refuge, so that the matter concerning him may be lawfully inquired into and administered. If anyone shall attempt to drag a refugee out of the church by force, such a person shall receive twelve lashes, and then the refugee’s matter shall be investigated as is fitting.

It is necessary for refugees to be judged by competent judges, and not for their adversaries to be summoned by the church. Let it be the concern of the most holy bishops or the defenders to register the names and charges of those refugees and to demonstrate them to the magistrates, and let them decree the appropriate trial for them; so that those who are not registered are not refugees. ^C Seek also in chapter 7 of the letter Π (P).

CAP. XIV. That there ought not to be one cleric in the churches of two cities.

The 10th canon of the 4th Synod, and also the 20th, does not deem it right for one cleric to be enrolled in the churches of two cities; namely, in that in which he was ordained from the beginning, and in that to which he later fled as if to a greater one out of a desire for empty glory—perhaps from a bishopric to a metropolis, or from that to a patriarchate; but that he should be restored to that place where he first received his ordination. But if anyone, it says, had been transferred before this canon, it does not befit him to claim for himself the business of the church from which he was transferred; for whoever does this shall be deposed from his own rank. This, however, does not hinder those clerics who are appointed to two churches in a small city. ^D

Although the 15th canon of the 6th Synod prohibits one cleric from being appointed to two churches in large cities for the sake of shameful gain, it permits this only in external regions because of the scarcity of people there. For if, it says, the income of one church does not suffice for the necessities of life for someone, let him seek some other occupations, from which he might provide what is necessary for himself and for others. For the Apostle says: "These hands have ministered to my needs and to those who are with me." All these things, however, have been changed by the vicissitudes of time and circumstances.

CAP. XV. That it is not fitting to hold what are called agape feasts or banquets inside churches, or to have a tavern within their holy precincts, or to expose anything for trade, or to bring in a beast of burden without necessity, or for anyone to remain with a woman.

Seek chapter 3 of the letter A.

^A The 76th canon of the Sixth Synod, judging it altogether illicit to have a cook-shop within the sacred precincts of the church, or to offer food for sale, or anything else for the purpose of trade, subjects anyone who does so to excommunication. It did not say "inside the church"—for that, to anyone imbued with piety and in their right mind, would not even enter one's thoughts—but "the sacred precincts," signifying the entire enclosure of the church, including the courtyards and the vestibules. For, taking offense at this, the Lord also drove the sacrilegious hucksters from the temple with a scourge, and cast out the coin, that is, the money of the money-changers—namely, those who were selling small coins.

The 78th ^B canon deposes those who, without necessity, bring any beast of burden inside a church, if they are clergymen, and excommunicates them if they are laymen. But if anyone, it says, traveling perhaps in winter and lacking a small house for lodging, turns into the church and brings his beast of burden in with him, he will not incur blame, having done this not by choice but out of necessity, fearing that if the beast were to perish from the cold, he himself might be in danger, being unable to proceed further without it, even if he seems to have escaped death from the cold for the moment. For the Sabbath, it says, was made for man, that your servant and your beast of burden might rest; so that the rest of the beast of burden was ordained not for its own sake, but for the sake of the man, so that he might have it more vigorous after its rest. As the ^C great Paul also says, "Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" But it is also not fitting to bring in any birds, lest the holy places be defiled by their excrement.

The 67th canon decrees that those who cohabit with women and, regarding their reverence for divine things as of less importance, dare to dwell in the sacred places around the church and do not distinguish between the holy and the profane according to the oracle, are to be cast out from all these places and from what are called the catechumena; and if they do not obey, it subjects them, if they are clergymen, to deposition, and if they are laymen, to excommunication.

^D Law. For the law cited above also does not permit refugees to sleep or eat inside the temple. But also the 73rd novella of the Emperor Leo the Wise orders those who allow others to dwell in the catechumena to be punished.

CAP. XVI. That the goods of the church must be inalienable, and how bishops ought to administer them.

The 38th canon of the Holy Apostles orders the bishop to take care of all ecclesiastical property and to administer these things as with God looking on; and it is not permitted for him to appropriate anything from them for himself, or to bestow what is God's upon his own relatives. But if they are poor, he [may] provide for them in the same way as other poor [people].

^A However, he must not, under the pretext of [helping] the needy, sell off church property; rather, he should provide for himself and for them out of the revenues, for it is not holy to alienate things that have been consecrated to God.

Commenting on this word for word, the seventh synod ^B adds: If a bishop or hegumene alienates any of the possessions of the bishopric or the monastery and hands them over to a magistrate or any other person, such a transfer shall be void. If he alleges that the field causes damage rather than profit, he should not even so hand it over to magistrates, but rather to clergy or farmers. If, however, he uses deceit, and the magistrate buys the field back from the cleric or the farmer, in this case too the action shall be void, whether it be a sale or an exchange, and the field shall be restored to the bishopric or monastery. And the bishop or hegumene who has done this mischief—the one from the bishopric, the other from the monastery—shall be expelled as one who has badly dissipated what he did not gather; and in the expulsion is absolutely understood also deposition.

To this, the 26th canon of the council of Carthage also assents, which ^C wills that church possessions be inalienable, even if they bring in no revenue at all. If, however, some great necessity is pressing, the matter must be referred to the appointed twelve bishops, and especially to the primate of the others. If this cannot be done due to the absolute pressure of necessity, then it is necessary to call upon neighboring bishops as witnesses, to ensure that the synod is not kept ignorant of the pressing circumstances of that church; and if one is not ready to do this, he shall be alienated from his own honor as one liable to give an account to God and the synod.

The 36th [canon] forbids ^D presbyters and other clergy to sell any church property, whether movable or immovable, unless the bishop approves it by his sentence. Indeed, it is not permitted even to him to do this while the synod to which he is subject is ignorant of it, nor even the presbyters under him. For it is necessary that he have sufficient witnesses for the administration of church affairs, so that scandals may not arise against him. However, it is entirely forbidden to sell movable items, such as sacred vessels; but the bishop who, without the opinion of the clergy, sells things suitable for sustenance—namely, grain and various kinds of fruits—ought not to be condemned.

Mentioning the same matters, the 15th [canon] of the council of Ancyra adds: If it should happen that something belonging to the church was sold by the clergy while the church was without a bishop, the one who is later to be ordained shall reclaim what was sold; but it is left to his judgment whether or not the price should be returned to the buyer. For it is possible that, since the field was very fertile, it produced more fruit than the price given by the buyer.

Great Cyril, in the second chapter of his letter to Domnus, likewise commands that precious vessels and immovable possessions be kept inalienable for the churches; regarding the management of necessary expenses, he...

^A who administers the divine priesthood, to undergo. For that an account of the expenses which occur to them should be required of the bishop, whether it be from the revenues of the church or from produce acquired from elsewhere, will bring great sadness to the most holy bishops who are everywhere in the world, because nothing is lacking of extreme injustice. For each one of us shall give an account of his own times to the just Judge.

Laws.

Those who perform emphyteusis, or lease, or purchase, or by any means whatsoever receive immovable property from holy monasteries or simply from churches, ought to take great care that what they pay is expended on the necessary uses of the said churches or for the introduction of other properties of which they have need. But if what is paid by them is not administered in the said manner, but for some chance of other private needs, or simply outside of the advantage of the holy houses, those who have sold ^B or in any other way given them out shall spend those things which were paid; and the aforementioned holy houses and churches, instituting proceedings within forty years, shall recover their own in every way without payment; but those who have not taken the necessary care regarding those things received from them shall no longer receive [anything] from the holy house, as was said before; for it is enough for them to undergo no other penalty, because by their negligence they contributed to the coming of the ruin of the churches of God. Against those, however, who have converted them to their own private expense, or simply to outside the utility of the holy houses, they are able to have a cause of action.

If, contrary to those things which have been ordained by us, any contract is made regarding diverse matters, both movable and immovable, to one of the holy houses, the thing concerning which such a thing has happened shall indeed be restored to the same church together with the fruits of the intervening time; but let the purchase price, or the equivalent gift, or whatever was given for the sake of ^C exchange, or for any other cause, remain with him. And if an ecclesiastical thing should be given, it also shall be restored to the most holy church together with the fruits of the intervening time; but if a mortgage should be given besides these, the lender shall lose the debt and restore the same thing to the holy house. And the tabullarii who write out contracts upon such matters contrary to this our law shall be condemned to perpetual exile.

Indeed, the 120th Justinianic Novel, enacting these things, decrees not only unfruitful and ^D fruitless, but also...

^A immovable properties of churches or monasteries, and of the Great Church itself, and even those from which fruits and revenues are gathered, to be alienated and sold for the reasons declared therein. Furthermore, even sacred vessels may, when the times so dictate, be ^B alienated and exposed for the redemption, perhaps, of captives. But if there are many vessels which serve no necessary use, and it happens that some of the holy houses are burdened by a multitude of debts, and there are no other mobile goods from which the debts might be repaid, it shall be free for them, once a sale is established without loss (the bishop alienating before the metropolitan, and the latter before his own patriarch), to sell the superfluous vessels to other holy houses that have need of them, or to melt and sell them, and to give the price thereof for the debt, so that their immovables need not be alienated.

Holy houses that have no other means by which to fill the treasury may conveniently sell their possessions under the observation of the metropolitan, with the bishops and clerics consenting to him: then, and only then, are ecclesiastical immovables alienated, when there are no mobile goods at all.

By the laws, ^C *ekpoieses* (that is, alienation) is properly called the transfer of lordship, namely, donation, sale, emphyteusis, exchange, and the like: *ekdosis* (that is, elocation) is a transfer to certain persons for a defined time. Abusively, however, both *ekdosis* is called *ekpoieses*, and *ekpoieses*, *ekdosis*.

He who has given something through an illegitimate transaction has no legal action to recover that which was given.

CAP. XVII. Concerning Bishops.

Seek in the 7th chapter of the letter A for the 58th canon of the holy apostles.

Laws.

The bishop is the overseer and guardian of all the souls committed to him, having in his bishopric absolute power over priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers, cantors, and monks. ^D

It is the property of a bishop to converse with the humble, but to show disdain for those who are of a haughty mind; and then also to draw the pride of the arrogant to humility through both words and deeds, to undergo dangers for his flock, and to count its distresses as his own sorrows.

The command is given to bishops to report to the primates of the region the injustices of those who do injury.

Bishops shall visit those who are thrown into prison on the fourth day and on the Preparation (Friday), whether they be slaves or free, and shall cause the governors to act towards them in a way consistent with the laws; but if the governors do not comply, they shall report them to the Emperor.

Bishops ought to ensure that the governors liberate within twenty days the slaves who are thrown into prison, even if within twenty days their masters do not...

appear. Seek also cap. 8, letter U.

CAP. XVIII. That it is fitting for bishops to be separated from their own wives.

Seek chapter 17, letter G.

CAP. XIX. Concerning bishops who have obtained churches through the protection of rulers.

The 30th canon of the holy apostles says verbatim: "If any bishop, having used secular rulers, should by their means obtain a church, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him." By mentioning the name of the bishop, it includes, by implication, all the clergy subject to him. Although it is said in canon 26 that one must not ^B judge twice for the same matter (which see in cap. 10, letter D), yet because of the magnitude of the wickedness and the manifest enormity of the sin, it imposes a double punishment: excommunication in addition to deposition, and this [applies] to them and to those who were not afraid to ordain for money. ^C The 3rd canon of the 7th synod refers to this verbatim, and adds that any election of certain bishops, presbyters, or deacons made by rulers shall remain void. And concerning bishops, it speaks of the election which proceeds into effect by the authority of the rulers; but concerning presbyters and deacons, "election" is taken abusively for "ordination." Concerning the bishop, however, it commands that the ordination be performed according to the 4th canon of the 1st synod, which also seek in chapter 1, letter CH.

CAP. XX. Concerning a bishop who has been ordained and does not consent to go to the church that has fallen to him, or who has gone and has not been received, or who has not been able to go because the church is held by pagans.

The 36th canon of the holy apostles commands that the bishop who has been ordained and does not consent to arrive at the church entrusted to him and to take up the care of the people, be excommunicated until he consents. If, however, having gone, he is sent away not through any will of his own, but because of the wickedness of the people, he shall remain a bishop nonetheless, but the clergy of that city shall be excommunicated, for not properly instructing the people. ^D These things the 17th [canon] of the [synod] in Antioch also sets forth, and additionally the 18th; but they command the one who disobeys to await the judgment of the perfect synod, even if he happens to put forward a plausible cause; but the one sent away by the people is to be a participant in his honor and ministry, provided he causes no trouble to the affairs of the church in which he happens to be living. For as it is not permitted for this man to teach, or to perform ministry, or to ordain in a foreign territory, unless he be permitted by the local bishop, so neither is it lawful to misappropriate any of the things belonging to the church; rather, he too must await the determination of the perfect synod.

The 37th canon of the 6th synod [states that] he who is ordained to a church subject to barbarians, and refuses to go there, is manifestly...

^A refusing his departure for that place, and is avoiding the anticipated danger; yet it judges that he should not be deprived of any of the privileges accorded to prelates on this account. For it does not allow the pagan injury to be so powerful as to bring ruin upon the rights of the priesthood, nor [does it allow] the sacred power to be circumscribed by the surrounding violence of barbarians, just as it itself is not circumscribed. It is permitted to him also to ordain any clerics whatsoever, and to have the authority of the primacy according to its proper bounds; and everything which he shall canonically perform will be valid, just as if he were in the church which he had been allotted.

Search also in chapter 9, letter A, for canon 16 of the synod which is called the First-Second.

Law.

The illustrious Emperor Alexius Comnenus, by a written constitution, commands that those who have received the administration of some bishopric—of the Eastern churches, specifically, which are still held by barbarians—be received with large donations of tribute; for he confirms to them the prefectures of monasteries, and those things which are necessary for their annual sustenance, and other such things. ^B

CAP. XXI. On bishoprics that become metropolises, and that there ought not to be two metropolitans in one province.

The very serious 17th canon of the 4th synod threatens those bishops who, by imperial mandates, attempt to divide one province into two, and strive through pragmatic sanctions to have their own bishopric called a new metropolis. This, indeed, once caused trouble for the great Father Basil, when Cappadocia was divided ^C because of the new metropolis of Tyana; and it deprives of the priesthood any who dare such a thing hereafter. However, it decrees that all bishoprics which before this constitution had been honored with the title of metropolis by imperial command should enjoy only that honor, and that their prelates should be called metropolitans only in name, while the rights of the true metropolis should not be in the least changed, but should remain intact as they were before this constitution. But now, in our time, not all the decrees of this canon are observed; for we see that, by imperial mandates, not a few episcopal churches among us have been raised to the pinnacle of metropolitan standing.

The 17th [canon], indeed, says: If a city has been renovated by imperial authority and built from the foundations, or subsequently renovated and raised up, and has been honored by imperial and public ^D types—that is, by written mandates—which grant it civil privileges or the honor of a bishopric or metropolis, it is fitting that it should follow the imperial decrees in the administration of the parishes and ecclesiastical affairs, and be entered into the catalog of episcopal cities or metropolises. For the Fathers virtually say: Since we could not contradict the emperors, let the ecclesiastical order follow those who have been chosen by them.

^A

On Imperial Privileges. Novella.

It is permissible for the emperor to decree regarding ecclesiastical provinces, and to remove the privileges of certain ones, and to again honor episcopal cities with the rank of metropolises, and to appoint abbots, and to do other things of this sort. The 38th canon of the Sixth Synod also sets forth these things, using the same words and concepts.

The Emperor Alexius Comnenus, at once observing the fear derived from the canons and at the same time wishing to honor certain churches, decreed by a golden bull that a bishopric should not be raised to a higher throne unless the emperor of the time, moved by his own initiative, without any base human favor intervening, should wish to provide it with the superior and more eminent dignity, honoring it either because of its faith toward the holy Church, or because of the virtue of him who presides over it. For if the emperor should grant precedence to a certain church ^B for some such honorable pretext, it is also likely that the patriarch will assign to its prelate the appropriate rank in the synod gathered by him, having promoted him to the place of a metropolitan or perhaps of an archbishop.

Chap. XXII. That bishops must reclaim bishoprics and monasteries if they have become common inns.

The 13th canon of the Seventh Synod orders those who have made some churches, or bishoprics, or monasteries into common inns to depart from these, so that they may again receive their ancient form. But if they do not wish to do so, if they are clergy, they are to be deposed; but if they are laymen, they are to be excommunicated ^C and consigned to the worm that does not die and the fire that is not quenched, as those who have made the house of God a house of trade. Nor, indeed, does the length of time profit those who have converted bishoprics into secular inns; for the intervening time does not debar those who wish to reclaim these. Monasteries, however, do not easily revert to their possessors after a space of forty years, even if it was through the negligence of their previous holders that they came into their hands.

That seculars are not prohibited from receiving monasteries.

The canon, however, does not stand in the way of seculars who receive monasteries, if indeed they are concerned for the better disposition of the monastery's goods and for the greater increase ^D of the monastery. For the decree of Patriarch Sergius also permits this; but it expels from their possession those who make them secular inns.

Chap. XXIII. Concerning the private property of a bishop, and how he ought to manage the affairs of the Church.

The 40th canon of the holy Apostles orders a bishop who possessed private property before his ordination to make these things manifest, and not to mix them with the affairs of the Church, so that he may have the power upon his death to leave them to whom he wishes

provided they are Orthodox Christians; and so that the property of the bishop—who sometimes has a wife and children, or relatives or servants—does not perish on account of ecclesiastical affairs. For it is just before God and men that neither the Church should suffer damage through ignorance of the bishop's assets, nor the bishop or his relatives suffer damage on account of Church affairs—perhaps being subject to the weight of debts and falling into business dealings and lawsuits, and being pursued with curses upon his death. For if he does not clearly distinguish those things which belonged to him before his ordination and those which legitimately accrued to him after it, by a reasonable account, the bishop ordained after him shall lay claim to all his goods, taking upon himself entirely the payment of the debts.

The forty-first [canon] states that the bishop has power to administer the property of the Church and that it should be dispensed according to his judgment, using those deacons of the clergy who are chosen for their virtue and good reputation. ^B For if he is entrusted with the administration of precious and immortal souls, much more is the dispensing of material and corruptible things to be entrusted to him, so that he may provide these to those in need, and to the brethren who are traveling, and relieve all of them in their necessities. Furthermore, the bishop ought to be hospitable toward others; and he may use some of these things for his own necessary needs, namely, food and clothing, according to the divine Apostle—not, however, for luxuries and softness, and superfluous and senseless appetites. For the law has decreed that those who attend upon the altar should be fed from the altar; since, indeed, no soldier, one would suppose, would be willing to take up arms against the enemy at his own expense.

Following these two apostolic canons, the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth ^C canons of the Council of Antioch decree the same about these matters, and add: If the bishop is not persuaded to live on what is sufficient, nor to administer the revenues of the Church's property according to the opinion of those who are established in the clergy, and to make expenditures in the way that is fitting, but instead leaves their administration to his own relatives and converts the greater part to his own private uses, such that the accounts of the Church's property suffer damage secretly, it would be just that he render an account of the administration to the synod of the province, as to a calculator who cannot be deceived. If, however, the bishop and the presbyters with him are accused of spending the Church's goods upon themselves and not as is fitting, as a result of which the poor are destitute of necessary aid, while infamy ^D attaches to the ill-managed administration of affairs and those who administer them, these things also should be corrected, with the synod investigating what is equitable. See also chapter four of the letter Delta.

CHAPTER XXIV. That the bishop must have an steward of church property.

^A The twenty-sixth canon of the Fourth Synod says: It is necessary for the bishop who has been allotted a church to manage it, and to have a steward from the clergy, who is of honest character and superior to all profit and gain; but not from the laity, nor any relative of his own, so that with his counsel he may manage well the revenues of those affairs, and not traffic in the fruits of charity. For although the authority over all things is granted to the bishop, yet their administration must not take place without some witness, lest the affairs of the poor fall into suspicion of having been dissipated rashly and without consultation; so that a stigma not be branded thence upon the priesthood, as if the bishop were illegitimately squandering them. He who does not do this, he subjects to the corrections of the divine canons.

The eleventh canon of the Seventh Synod also decrees the same, and adds: If a metropolitan, who is of his own jurisdiction, is unwilling to appoint a steward from the clergy over affairs, then the patriarch of Constantinople, since the metropolis is under him, is able, by the authority he possesses, to appoint a steward for it. This is also granted to a metropolitan over the bishops who are subject to him. The same shall be observed also in monasteries.

^C Theophilus of Alexandria, in his ninth and tenth canons, decrees that the steward of the bishopric be designated by the judgment of all the priestly order, even if they have the consenting opinion of the bishop, so that by his care the goods of the church may be spent as is fitting, and distributed to widows, the poor, and needy strangers, and that he himself arrogate none of these to himself. For the minister of God, and the steward of those things committed to him, must be free from avarice. Look for the laws in chapter 10 of the letter E.

Law.

Justinian’s novella 5 says: It is fitting that the most holy patriarch for the time being, and the most reverend stewards, should spend the costs made from church revenues upon pious acts pleasing to God, and bestow them upon those who are truly in need and have no other source of livelihood (for these things are wont to reconcile us to the Lord God); and not upon wealthy men, so that the needy might not thence be defrauded of the necessities of life. For let the most reverend stewards know that if they do anything contrary to these, they shall be subject to penalties from God, and shall make restitution for the damage to the most holy church from their own substance. Therefore, those things which are sent to the wealthy and powerful under the name of brotherhoods and other grain pensions are not confirmed by the laws; but those which are sent to the needy are completely valid.

CAP. XXV. That a bishop ought not to build a monastery to the detriment of the goods of his own church.

^A The seventh canon of the First and Second Synod decrees that it is not permitted for any bishop to build a new private monastery to the ruin of his own bishopric; but if anyone is caught daring to do this, he himself shall be subjected to the appropriate penalty, and that which was newly built by him shall be assigned to the bishopric, becoming its own property as if it had not been a monastery from the beginning. For things done contrary to the laws ought not to overturn those things that are canonically established. And if that which was newly built is within the boundaries of the same bishopric, there is no doubt; but if it is in another diocese, the monastery and what pertains to it shall return to the bishopric, but the bishop of the region shall have only episcopal rights in it. If, however, he causes no detriment to the bishopric, whether he is building a monastery from its foundations, or renovating one that had decayed with time, he is worthy of praise rather than blame.

CAP. XXVI. That a bishop ought to provide for needy clerics from the goods of the church.

The fifty-ninth canon of the holy apostles orders that a bishop or presbyter who does not provide for a needy cleric from the goods of the church, but ignores him while he struggles with poverty, is to be excommunicated; and if he persists, he is to be deposed, as one who, as much as lies in him, is the killer of his own brother, even if provisions for sustaining life should reach him from elsewhere through divine providence.

CAP. XXVII. That when a bishop dies, his goods ought not to be plundered by his own clerics or by metropolitans; but rather reserved for him who is to be ordained next.

The canon of the Sixth Synod says that it is not permitted for any of all the metropolitans, when the bishop under him has died, to take away or claim for himself his goods or those of his church; but they are to be kept by the clergy of that church, or, if it has no clergy, they are to be guarded by the metropolitan, who shall return everything undiminished to the future bishop. The twenty-second canon of the Fourth Synod decrees the same—that it is not permitted for the clergy to plunder the goods pertaining to their own bishop after his death, nor for those who would take them, but that they must be preserved for the bishop who is to be ordained, with nothing missing, or those who alienate any of them shall come into danger regarding their own ranks.

Law.

The most religious Emperor Manuel, confirming these canons, issued a law in imperial decrees that things are not to be plundered by those who administer the public treasuries

^A when they change their life by death. See also the third chapter of the letter X.

CHAPTER XXVIII. That it is not permitted for a bishop to be reduced to the rank of a presbyter.

The twenty-ninth canon of the Fourth Synod considers that it is not right to reduce a bishop to the rank of a presbyter; for it says that this is clearly sacrilege, inasmuch as he is, as it were, seized and unjustly deprived of the priesthood. To him, however, who has obviously fallen into crimes, they take away the priesthood, nor shall a place even as a priest be given to him; but if he is innocent of crimes, it would not be just to deprive him of either the episcopacy or the priesthood; for the one follows the other.

Concerning the renunciation of bishops.

To these things, also, the holy Cyril gives his assent in the third chapter of his letter to Domnus: "For," he says, "it does not please ecclesiastical customs for priests to renounce their own churches. For if they are worthy to perform the sacred mysteries, they ought not to make a renunciation; but if they are unworthy, they should not depart through renunciation, but through the accusations brought against them."

If it should happen that someone renounces the episcopacy and abandons the flock committed to his care, it would be unjust to resume the administration again. For it is unreasonable for a bishop to shirk that which is troublesome and laborious in the ^B prelacy—I mean the instruction and the advancement of the people toward the better, and to restrain, as far as he is able, the impulse toward the worse—but to embrace and claim for himself those things which bring honor and veneration, valuing his own ease more than the care of souls.

It is demonstrated also from the sixteenth canon of the so-called First and Second Council how unnecessary is the folly of those who so decide, namely, that the high priests can renounce the episcopacies but retain the priesthood again. For this canon orders that he who has been absent from his own episcopacy for more than six months, not being prevented by any necessary pretext, shall lapse ^C from both the episcopacy and the priesthood. If, then, he who has sinned slightly is condemned in this way, how shall he who has utterly renounced the episcopacy and despised the care of the flock for his whole life not be punished much more, who, as much as in him lay, abandoned to the wolves the sacred flock committed to him by the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ, let alone having the privileges of the priesthood bestowed upon him as if they were rewards?

Concerning this, the tenth canon of the holy Dionysius also discourses. If, indeed, the canons deem that those who are called from the beginning to the governance of the ^D people should be excommunicated if they do not obey, who that is of sound mind would easily accept the renunciation of those who are established, and not rather, to the best of his power, restrain them with all his might? Besides, the name of episcopacy is indicative of a task and a function. He who has voluntarily cast off his function has likewise fallen from the calling. But he who cannot be called a bishop, how [shall he remain in] the priesthood

And how shall he be called a hierarch who possesses no clergy under himself, nor is a ruler of the clergy? For to whom the name of hierarchy does not belong, of the operation of this he is far removed. For he who does not partake of the name, certainly does not partake of the thing itself. Consequently, a resignation is not to be accepted simply, unless someone confesses himself unworthy of the priesthood. And this being demonstrated, together with the resignation, the one resigning shall fall from all priestly dignity. ^B

The Epistle of the Third Synod to those in Pamphylia.

CAP. XXIX. That a bishop tonsured in the manner of monks falls from the priesthood.

^A for that reason even after the tonsure they are not forbidden to perform sacred functions, since the canon has no place in these matters.

CHAPTER XXX. That it is not proper to appoint a bishop in a village or a small city.

The sixth canon of the Council of Sardica does not hold that it is proper for a bishop to be appointed in a village or a very small city, for which even one presbyter would suffice, ^B lest the dignity of a bishop be cheapened and held in contempt by many; but [he directs that they are] to be appointed only in those places where they were by ancient custom. But if any city, not previously famous for the number of its inhabitants, thereafter acquires many residents and is judged worthy of a bishop, let it receive a bishop, but with synodical approval, according to the apostolic canon which says that nothing great or of any importance is to be done by a bishop without synodical approval, which also seek in the eleventh chapter of the present letter. That bishops are to be elected by the people of the cities and ordained by the bishops of the province has been said also in various other canons, but at the present time it does not happen: for those who ordain them make their election through the provincial bishops.

The same is also decreed by the 57th canon of the Council of Laodicea: That in villages and rural districts bishops should not be appointed, ^C but visitors (periodeutai), whom we call exarchs, who travel here and there to attend to the faithful and to keep them in order, having no fixed see of their own. But if, it says, any were appointed as bishops in such places before this canon, they are to do nothing without the approval of the bishop of the city, by whom even they themselves were honored with such a rank; and the same applies to presbyters.

Consonant with these are the 58th and 59th [canons] of the Council of Carthage, which decree that in mean and small parishes bishops should not be appointed. ^D Yet if it should happen that they are, it must not be without the approval of the bishops who hold those parishes, and the one who has been ordained there must be content with that place alone, and not advance beyond it, nor wish to lay claim to others, as if they belonged to him. But that the boundaries of the bishops must remain fixed is still observed, according to the strictness of the canons. Moreover, it is not customary for a new episcopate to be established in parishes subject to other bishops, unless the Emperor permits this by letters; but not even to a great synod is it permitted to establish a new episcopate without an imperial decree.

CHAPTER XXXI. Concerning chorepiscopi.

Since, therefore, the divine Fathers did not deem it worthy for a bishop to be appointed in a mean and small village, they decided that chorepiscopi should be ordained in them. I do not think it inappropriate briefly to discuss here a few things pertaining to them, even if, with the passage of time, only the memory of this office remains.

The fourteenth canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, therefore, says: The chorepiscopi, it states, are in imitation of the seventy apostles, just as the bishops are [in imitation] of the twelve

^A to whom the Lord, when He had breathed [on them], said: “Receive the Holy Spirit; if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them,” and so forth; for they indeed were provided with the power to impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others as well. To the seventy, however, these things were not given; and it is clear from the fact that the book of the Acts records that Philip, being one of the seven deacons, went down to Samaria and baptized many there, but did not impart the Holy Spirit to them. For this reason, therefore, Peter and John were sent by the apostles, who, laying their hands upon those who had been baptized, granted the Spirit, for He had not yet fallen upon any of them. Since, then, the chorepiscopi fill the place of the seventy, they neither ordained presbyters nor deacons, inasmuch as they were unable to provide the grace of the Spirit; they are honored, he says, by this alone: by offering the divine gifts, on account of the care which they expended in assisting the poor by distributing to them the things gathered into the Church.

Of spiritual priests.

If, therefore, the chorepiscopi could grant neither the remission of sins nor the Holy Spirit, they who possessed privileges greater than presbyters, then these could surely not be able to receive confessions, or to loose and bind sins, unless they should receive this authority from the bishop. ^B

The tenth [canon] of the Council of Antioch orders that chorepiscopi be ordained by the bishop of the city in the region subject to him; but [it orders] that they themselves ordain neither a presbyter nor a deacon, but only readers, subdeacons, and exorcists; and those who transgress these [rules], it removes from the priesthood. ^C

The thirteenth [canon] of the Council of Ancyra states the same things, that it is not permitted for a chorepiscopus to ordain presbyters or deacons; but if he should be permitted by the letters of the bishop, he may ordain a presbyter in another village.

Great Basil also writes to the chorepiscopi subject to him, that they should not ordain ministers, or subdeacons, without his consent; because they laid their hands upon very many, even unworthy [men], without examination: “Know,” he says, “that anyone who has been enrolled into service without our consent will be a layman.” And as for the other things which are contained in the epistle of this saint, who could sufficiently admire them? ^D

CHAPTER XXXII. Of perjury.

The twenty-fifth canon of the holy apostles decrees that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon convicted of perjury, or fornication, or theft, should be deposed, but not excommunicated; for it is not for us to judge twice for the same [offense].

The tenth canon of great Basil says: Those who swear not to accept ordination should not be forced to perjure themselves. For even if some believe there is a canon which permits them to loose themselves again from the bond which they have foolishly imposed upon themselves, yet by experience we have learned that those who have perjured themselves [are in no way...]

[the already-published translation portion is repeated here to anchor the chain]

^A have perjured themselves, they are by no means accepted, nor are they judged to be friends of God. One must, however, consider the nature of the oath, the words, the state of mind in which they swore, and the minute additions in the wording, lest perhaps they were driven to swear out of pusillanimity and not out of a settled purpose. If no extenuating circumstance appears, I deem that they must be admitted. Hear what follows. A certain Longinus had a field named Mindala, which was subject to the bishopric of Misthia. A certain Severus, bishop of Masada, ordained a certain Cyriacus as presbyter for the church situated in that field, who swore that he would remain in the church and would be subject to his bishopric. But the bishop of that region prohibited Cyriacus from officiating, inasmuch as he had been ordained by another in a church which was under his own authority; wherefore Cyriacus left it and departed. Longinus, grieving, threatened to abandon the church and to level it to the ground. When the holy man was questioned, he judged it fair that the field where Cyriacus had been proclaimed should be subjected to the bishopric of Masada, even if it were in another region, and that Cyriacus should return there again. For in this way, he says, we will not appear to be acting against the canons, while being accommodating toward Cyriacus, and he will not violate his oath; for it is not added to the oath that he will never depart from the field for even a short time; and Longinus will not abandon the church, and he will not harm his own soul. See how the holy man tracked down the meaning through the examination of the words, so that he whom the oath had bound might not appear to be a perjurer. But as Severus was accused of having ordained beyond his diocese and was pleading forgetfulness, the holy man said: "We leave the vengeance to God, the knower and searcher of hidden things; but we receive him without discrimination and forgive the lapse due to human forgetfulness, ^C since we are not the judges of hearts, but we judge according to what we hear." For although he wounded the church in many ways, having ordained uncanonically outside his diocese, and having bound a man to an oath contrary to the Gospels, and having taught him to commit perjury by the fact that the presbyter was transferred—and he now lies in that he puts forgetfulness forward as an excuse.

In the seventeenth canon these things are discussed: "An infidel, having obtained power over those in Antioch, striking some of the priests there with threats, constrained them with such force and necessity that they swore to cease from the priesthood; one of these, Bianor by name, moved to Iconium, regarding whom the great Basil, being questioned by the holy Amphilochius, said: 'I have set forth a common decree and canon concerning the presbyters who swore in Antioch, that they should abstain from public assemblies but privately perform the duties of priests, so as not to provide a cause of scandal to those who know them to have sworn away the sacred rites.' But Bianor obtains the more license to perform the ministry, because it is not in Antioch, but in Iconium, that he is to celebrate the sacred rites. He is to be accepted, therefore, having been admonished by your piety so that he may repent for the readiness of the oath, which ^D he swore under the infidel man, since he was not able to endure the harassment of that small danger. But in...

the 64th rule he bars perjured laymen universally from the sacraments for ten years. However, in the 82nd distinction, he determines that those who perjured themselves out of necessity and violence may be received after a period of six years; but those who betrayed their own faith without necessity (for perjury is a denial of God) are considered worthy of holy communion after the eleventh year, once they have demonstrated sufficient repentance. These penalties are applicable to those who of their own accord have triumphed over their sin through confession and have sought a remedy; but not to those who are found guilty of perjury through the accusations of others. For the latter are punished by the Church both with a pecuniary fine and more severely; because, as has often been said, accusation doubles the weight of the sin, just as repentance lightens the scale. The sin of perjury is manifold, and therefore it is difficult to cure. For one who swore under injustice and perjured himself pays penalties in one way; he who did so under duress in another; and he who does penance in yet another; others again who do so for the defense and revenge of someone else. ^B But where will you place him who has done this with evil intent? Furthermore, where will he be ranked who has despised an oath for the sake of some trivial and contemptible matter? Moreover, what is to be decided regarding those who have transgressed a corporal oath or one written down? Such things must therefore be diligently examined and corrected according to our strength.

In the 29th, concerning those princes who swear to punish some of their subjects, he orders them to be healed in a twofold manner: in one way, that they themselves be taught not to swear rashly; in the other, that they not bring an evil and inhuman judgment to effect, but rather show repentance for the facility of their swearing: and not that they should confirm their own wickedness under the pretext of piety, specifically concerning the oath. For it did not help Herod to have sworn well, who, ^C thinking to avoid the snare of perjury, was caught in the noose of homicide, handing over to be killed by the sword the prophet who was worthy of everything. For every oath is absolutely forbidden and condemned, and it is by far to be expected that one taken for the harm of others is even more so. Wherefore, he who has sworn must repent, and not endeavor to confirm the unholy act. For even if someone should swear to gouge out another’s eyes, or to murder, or to violate any of the commandments, it must be examined which is better: to treat the oath as nothing, or to bring the evil to execution and violate the commandment. "For I have sworn," says David, "and have determined to keep the judgments of thy righteousness," ^D not to keep sin. For just as a commandment must be confirmed by immutable judgments, so sin must be completely invalidated and blotted out. But even he who has violated a lawful oath without any necessity is punished more than he who has suffered violence; but if the oath was not lawful, but one by which he would do some evil, or deprive someone of a good, or again, if someone should swear to a matter not worthy to be brought into an oath, then the breaking of it is

not subject to penalty, but he receives a moderate punishment at the discretion of the bishop.

^A But since those who perjure themselves are punished, while those who swear well are released, and thus swearing is permitted, someone might say, where then shall we place the evangelical command which forbids swearing altogether? But I believe that the Gospel, just as it has endeavored to eradicate, so to speak, the first sprout of sins, so too it has forbidden the oath, as being the door to perjury. Furthermore, that would be for those who have reached perfection—such as selling one's possessions and giving to the poor; for if everyone had the necessity to sell, who would be the buyers? Furthermore, there is the command to those who are struck on the cheek not to spare the other, and to give up one's cloak along with one's tunic, and whatever else belongs to the evangelical legislation which has no necessity for those commanded, but is a matter of choice; and those who keep them have honor and reward, while those who do not have no risk whatsoever. ^B But the lawful oath is second to that, and not to be rejected. Hence, those emperors who have been clothed in the purple of piety have permitted oath-taking to go this far, but have forbidden what is unlawful and inappropriate altogether. When a certain nobleman swore to abstain from meat entirely on the third day of the week, thinking thereby to honor the venerable Forerunner, and asked the synod if it were necessary to keep the oath of fasting ^C on the feast of the Nativity of Christ, should that day happen to be the third day of the week, that most holy patriarch Lucas, together with the synod gathered under him, replied that, although it is good to fast at all times, yet it is not right that such an oath should be preferred over the Feast of the Lord. For if the apostles punish one who fasts on the Sabbath or on the Lord's Day, or who bows the knee, who would tolerate one who prefers a privately made and voluntary oath of fasting over the Feast of the Lord and spiritual joy? Seek also in the 9th chapter of the letter B of this saint the twenty-eighth canon, and in the first chapter of the letter A the eighty-first canon.

The ninety-fourth canon of the Sixth Synod also makes mention of this, saying: ^D "Since," it says, "the fortieth canon of the Great Basil subjects to penalties those who swear by pagan oaths, such as by the sun and the like, we also decree excommunication for these."

Laws

By bishops and clerics, down to readers, swearing is altogether prohibited; but those things that are of an oath are fulfilled by them through a written agreement. In the elections of chief priests, and only there, a bishop who denies his own signature is deposed; but in other cases, he is not deposed, but fined according to the laws.

The 72nd novella of the Emperor Leo the Wise also says: "Every written agreement to which is inscribed the [oath] of the precious..."

^A vivifying cross, through the hands of him who entered into the agreement, ought to be valid and immutable, even if it is not confirmed by a penalty."

No one who swears by God is imperiled; for an oath has God as a sufficiently strong avenger; but he who swears by the Emperor in some rash manner is pardoned; however, he who commits perjury in the execution [of a contract] by the Emperor pays a fine, loses his own legal standing, and is branded with infamy.

In doubtful matters, the judge is accustomed to propose an oath and to judge accordingly. 136 I rightly allege that one has sworn by your salvation. For every legitimate oath, by way of inducement, is kept, and that which one has sworn according to his own religion: but what is sworn through an insincere religion is not kept.

He who, by judicial choice or by the petition of the adversary, submits to an oath in the church, touching the holy Gospels with his hand, if he is thereafter convicted of having perjured himself, let him be deprived of his tongue. The same applies to witnesses.

An oath is a discourse creating faith through its own truth.

CAP. XXXIII. Concerning tutors and curators.

The third canon of the fourth synod forbade clerics or monks to lease the possessions of others for the sake of base gain, which is to say, to handle secular affairs while neglecting the divine mysteries, unless someone is called by the laws to the unavoidable guardianship of orphans; for tutors are given to those under age, but curators to minors. ^C Those under age are males who are under fourteen years old; females under age are those who are under twelve years old. Minors are those who have passed the age of puberty, but are still under twenty-five years old, whether they be male or female.

The bishop of the city may even grant permission to such persons to manage ecclesiastical affairs, or the affairs of orphans and widows who are not provided for, and who especially need ecclesiastical aid, for the fear of God, as is recorded in the Acts, where the apostles were chosen to appoint the seven deacons, so that the widows might not be overlooked in the daily ministry; but it is not permitted for them to offer themselves voluntarily for such administrations for the sake of profit or glory. ^D Those who need aid are such as have fled to the churches to avoid the injury of powerful men, or those who have perchance committed some offense, or those who are being unjustly led into servitude, and who seek assistance, for whose sake also the *defensores* exist. And he desires that whoever transgresses this be subjected to appropriate punishments.

Therefore, all clerics and monks, with the permission of their own bishop, can manage not only ecclesiastical but also secular affairs, and may even undertake guardianship and curatorship. However, without external permission, it is not permitted for bishops and monks to perform guardianship or curatorship, even if they are called by the laws; but clerics, when

called by the sole right of kinship to guardianship or curatorship, we allow them to undertake the administration.

^A Laws. We do not permit the most religious bishops or monks, by any law, to become guardians or curators of any person; but we do not forbid them from undertaking the protection of matters pertaining to the soul when they are called upon to administer them. For it is especially the duty of bishops to intercede for transgressions. We allow presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons, when called by the sole right of kinship to guardianship or curatorship, to undertake the administration.

Those who are free but, by reason of their age, are unable to defend themselves are placed under guardianship according to the civil laws.

An alien slave is invalidly appointed as a curator in a testament.

Neither one who is older than seventy years nor one who is younger than twenty-five shall act as a guardian or curator; for how can one who needs the care of another provide curatorship?

Squanderers and persons of unsound mind, even if they are past the age of puberty, are taken into guardianship by their own relatives.

No one shall assume more than three guardianships.

A guardian is not given to the son of a captive, but a curator is given for his property; for when the father returns, the son becomes subject to him, just as if he had never been taken captive.

For one whose guardian is suffering from illness or is worn out by old age, a curator is given by the magistrate.

If guardians steal the property of minors, each of them is held liable for double the amount.

Males are preferred over females, provided they are of full age; for a woman does not act as curator nor does she undertake the administration of a guardianship, unless she happens to be the mother or grandmother.

The closest relative shall act as guardian; but if there are several in the same degree, all of them shall act as curators.

Seek also in the 15th chapter of the letter M.

CAP. XXXIV. Concerning eunuchs.

^D The twenty-first canon of the holy apostles says: "A eunuch, if he has been made so by the injury of men, or has been deprived of his virile members during a persecution, or was born in such a state, provided his life be holy and irreprehensible, let him be promoted to the priesthood."

The twenty-second canon, however, says: "He who has mutilated himself, let him not be a cleric; for he is his own murderer and shows enmity toward the work of God," by the atrocity of the deed, as it were, pledging death to himself.

And the twenty-third: "If any man, being a cleric, should mutilate himself, as one clearly wishing for death, let him be deposed."

^A The twenty-fourth canon: If a layman mutilates himself, let him be separated for three years, as a plotter against his own life. Moreover, since God created them in the nature of men, they transform themselves into an altogether different and strange state, so that they are neither men, since they have cast aside the seminal and generative power of their kind, nor women, for they do not have the nature to give birth.

The first canon of the first synod also determines the same things: namely, that he who has been operated on by physicians in sickness, or has been deprived of his generative members by barbarians, is not to be removed from the clergy. But whoever, while healthy, has deliberately mutilated himself, such a one is not only not to be admitted to the priesthood, but if he is enrolled in the clergy, he is to be cast out. Those, however, are admitted to the clergy who have been castrated by barbarians or masters, if they have followed a life consonant with the priesthood.

The canon of the so-called first and second synod also commands that he who castrates others—as if doing injury to the handiwork of God—whether by his own hand or by order, if he is a cleric, be deposed, and if he is a layman, be separated; unless a disease has befallen someone and compelled him to the excision of the sufferer. For we must not blame priests who order those laboring under a disease to be castrated, nor laymen who use their own hands for the castration. For we consider this to be a remedy for the disease, and not a plotting against the creature, or an injury to the handiwork.

Seek also in the nineteenth chapter of the third letter, the sixtieth canon of the sixth synod.

^D Laws. We command that no Roman be castrated, not even outside the land of the Romans, and that no one buy a castrated Roman; but that he who castrated, and he who bought, and the notary, and the tax collector who received any tax for this, be punished. However, let it be allowed to all merchants to buy and sell barbarian slaves who are castrated outside Roman territory; but if any slave is castrated among us, let freedom be given to him immediately, even if he was castrated on account of a disease.

He who castrates someone for pleasure or profit, if he is a noble, his goods are confiscated; but if he is of low status, he is subjected to the sword and wild beasts.

The novella of the Emperor Leo the Wise commands that a eunuch who is joined to a woman in the bond of marriage be subjected to the punishment for fornication, and that the priest who impiously joined them be stripped of his priestly dignity; but he allows eunuchs to adopt whomsoever they wish and to place them in the portion of sons.

CHAPTER XXXV. On the order of prayers.

says the Book of Leviticus, "make the sons of Israel," neither to use broken and irreverent melodies, nor superfluous variety in songs, and lascivious chants, which are much more suited to theatrical mummers than to the Church of God. By many patriarchs, these things have often been forbidden under very severe penalties. It has been permitted to use a simple and unvaried modulation of psalmody, and in vigils and the ceremonies performed for the dead, as the ancient and God-pleasing custom held; but nothing more than this has been done.

Concerning the Trisagion hymn.

I mean in the ^A prefaces, extending as far as the divine Gospels, and in the commending of the catechumens, through which the priests commend them to God, and in the laying on of hands, both upon those being ordained and those undergoing penance. But new prayers introduced by some should not be admitted. For whatever has not been approved by the judgment of the Fathers certainly involves doubt; and therefore it is to be feared, lest they introduce things that do not contribute to the right faith.

The nineteenth canon of the synod of Laodicea, indeed, states: The prayers of the catechumens, and of those undergoing penance, must be made first, and then those of the faithful; and afterwards it ordains that it is permitted only to those who are consecrated to enter the holy altar and to communicate. See also in chapter 9 of letter B, the 5th and 20th canons of the synod of Gangra.

Furthermore, the 114th [canon] of the synod of Carthage deems him worthy of anathema who imagines that the holy apostle John, when he exhorted us saying, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," spoke not truly, but for the sake of humility. For from the words immediately following in the Epistle, the opinion of the apostle is clearly shown, who adds: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, so that he will forgive them to us, and cleanse us from all iniquity."

The 115th [canon] similarly anathematizes ^B him who imagines that the saints speak the words, "Forgive us our debts," but exempt themselves from debts, as if such a petition were not at all necessary for them, but [necessary] for others who are sinners among the people. For that there was never any pretext of prayer or hypocrisy of humility in the saints, but a true contrition of heart, the great James shows, speaking at one point in this way: "In many things we all offend"; and David: "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified"; and Solomon in the prayer: "There is no man who has not sinned"; and Job: "That every man may know his own infirmity"; and Daniel: "We have sinned, we have done wickedly," and the rest. For who could endure the hypocrisy of those who think the opposite of their own words, who with their lips ask for the remission of sins, but in their heart think that they are guiltless, and are lying not to men, but to God Himself? See also in chapter 37 of letter K, the 20th canon of the 6th synod.

Law

SYNTAGMA ALPHABETICUM. — Z-H.

^A CAP. XXXVI. *Of Exorcists.* The twenty-sixth canon of the Synod of Laodicea says that those who have not been ordained to this office by bishops ought not to exorcise, that is to say, instruct. The tenth canon of the Synod of Antioch, however, permits chorepiscopi to ordain exorcists; see this also in chapter [...] of the letter E.

BEGINNING OF THE LETTER Z.

CAP. I. *Of boiling water being poured into the holy mysteries.* See the thirty-second canon of the Sixth Synod in the eighth chapter of the letter K.

CAP. II. *Of pictures that corrupt the soul through pleasure.* The one-hundredth canon of the Sixth Synod altogether prohibits the depiction on walls of shameful pictures, whose appearance excites the soul to immodest pleasures; because the senses easily pour into and instill into the soul of the unwary both those things which are seen through them and those which are heard. Therefore, "Let your eyes look straight ahead," and "With all vigilance, guard your heart," says Wisdom.

CAP. III. *Of those who have had relations with beasts, or have coupled with animals, or have committed bestiality.* See the fifth chapter of the letter A.

BEGINNING OF THE LETTER H.

CAP. I. *Of Prefects (Hegoumenoi).* Consult the sixth chapter of the letter A.

CAP. II. *Of the age of those who are to be ordained clerics.* See in the eighth chapter of the letter D the fourteenth and fifteenth canons of the Sixth Synod, the fifteenth of the Fourth, and the sixteenth of the Synod of Carthage, which decree that a presbyter should be ordained at thirty years of age, a deacon at twenty-five, a deaconess at forty, and a subdeacon at twenty. ^C The above-mentioned canons of the Sixth Synod command that those who do not wait for this age to be ordained should be deposed. The eleventh canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea says the same concerning the age of presbyters; which the aforementioned canon of the Sixth Synod also recites verbatim.

*Law.* The one-hundred and twenty-third Novel of Justinian says: We do not permit a presbyter to be ordained younger than thirty years of age; nor a deacon under twenty-five, nor a subdeacon under twenty, nor a reader under eighteen; and no woman is to be ordained a deaconess if she is younger than forty years, or has entered into a second marriage.

CAP. III. *Of the span of a day.*

*Law.* A day is reckoned from the seventh hour of the night until the sixth hour of the following night; and whatever is done in any of the twenty-four hours is considered to have been done within the day.

INITIUM LITTERÆ Θ. CAP. 1. De theatris et diversis scenicis ludis.

^A The fifty-fourth canon of the Council of Laodicea commands that those in holy orders or clerics, when invited to weddings or other feasts, should not turn their eyes toward the ridiculous spectacles that are accustomed to be performed at such gatherings for the purpose of inciting laughter, nor should they pay any mind to them; rather, they should depart before the actors enter.

In harmony with this, the twenty-fourth canon of the Sixth Council, in its decree, prohibits those in holy orders and monks from attending horse races or participating in scenic games; indeed, it sets out the aforementioned canon of the Fathers at Laodicea word for word. Those who are caught persisting in these things, it commands either to cease or, if they continue, to be deposed. See also the seventh chapter of the letter Γ.

^B The fifty-first canon of the same Sixth Council legislates that the so-called mimes, their theaters, the spectacles of the hunt, and the dances performed on stage are to cease entirely. For the precise way of life prescribed by the Gospel does not permit the faithful to lead a dissolute life, nor to pursue that which relaxes the vigor of the soul, but rather that which befits the saints. It calls "mimes" those who imitate the voices and characters of others to provoke the bystanders to unbridled laughter. By the "spectacle of the hunt," it does not mean hunting with dogs or in any other way—for that is work, not a spectacle—but that in the largest cities wild beasts, such as lions and bears, were kept, which were at certain times brought out into the theaters and allowed to fight now against bulls, and now against human beings—either prisoners of war or those condemned to death—so that they might tear them to pieces for the entertainment of the onlookers. ^C This canon condemns the great cruelty of those who exploit the ruin of others for their own pleasures and who take delight in the blood of men of their own nature. A stage is a feigned imitation; hence those who perform under acting roles are called scenics, and they represent themselves sometimes as slaves, sometimes as masters, or as generals and princes. Consequently, the canon forbids the scenic dances of men and women who act shamelessly and basely and who invite the spectators to lust, as well as the slaps to the cheek and the noises; to those who give themselves over to any of these things, it imposes deposition if they are clerics, and excommunication if they are laymen. See also the sixty-second and sixty-fifth canons of this same council in the third chapter of the letter E.

^D The fifteenth canon of the Council of Carthage has forbidden the children of priests to perform in spectacles. For by certain citizens, who were excessively fond of spectacles, horses were kept and trained for the competitions of the races, as well as wild beasts for combat. This canon commands that the children of priests should not only refrain from performing in these, but should not even go there to watch them; for they ought to be brought up in the instruction and law of the Lord; according to which...

^A the great Paul, writing to Titus, says concerning priests: "If any man have faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly," and to Timothy: "A bishop must be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity." And those who spend their time at spectacles do not escape the reputation of wantonness; for it is completely forbidden to all Christians to approach them, and they are commanded to turn away from those who are given to blasphemies, since they use shameful words and deeds.

The sixtieth canon subsequently forbids banquets at the memorials of the holy martyrs, and the detestable dances within them. For it happens that modest women do not approach the churches on this account, because those who are not ashamed to act shamelessly ^B attack them wantonly.

The sixty-first forbids equestrian spectacles on the Lord's Day or other festive days, or in the week of Pascha, so that Christians, occupied with these, may not make light of the assemblies in the churches. It orders, moreover, that none of the faithful be compelled to go to the spectacles.

The sixty-sixth canon of the sixth synod requires the faithful to spend the entire week of Pascha in the churches, rejoicing in psalms and hymns; for it forbade spectacles and horse races at that time. Look for this also in the seventh chapter of the letter Pi. Look also in the ninth chapter of the letter Delta regarding the hundred and twenty-ninth canon of the council of Carthage.

Law. The law judges as infamous all those who descend into the contest for the sake of gain, and those who come upon the stage for a price. But he who hires himself out for the art of staging, and does not perform, is not deemed infamous; however, he who has contracted himself to fight with beasts, even if he does not fight the beasts, becomes infamous, as one who, for the sake of base gain, throws away his own life.

CHAPTER II. De theologia et orthodoxa fide.

CHAPTER III. On the holy Theophanies.

Chapter IV. On clerics who set up altars without the consent of their bishops.

Chapter V. That only the ordained are permitted to ascend to the sacred altar.

INITIUM LITTERÆ I. — ARXΗ ΤΟΥ Ι ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΟΥ.

CAP. I. De sacris vasis et sacrilegio. — ΚΕΦΑΛ. Α'. Περὶ ἱερῶν σκευῶν καὶ ἱεροσυλίας.

The seventy-second canon of the holy apostles, as also the seventy-third, subjects to excommunication him who carries off from the church wax or oil, and furthermore him who puts to his own use and treats as common property a sanctified vessel made of gold or silver, or a linen cloth, if not as sacrilege, yet as an act of lawlessness. For Achar, when he stole things that had not yet been offered to ^A God, nor indeed sanctified, but merely promised, suffered the extreme penalty, being stoned to death with all his house.

But the tenth canon of the so-called First and Second Council, explaining the mind of these canons more clearly, says: "The apostolic canon excommunicates, and we also excommunicate, those who appropriate to their own use, or provide to others for an unholy purpose, vessels or vestments outside the altar—such as might have been dedicated for the adornment of the temple, for instance lamps, or furnishings—and we do likewise. However, those who plunder for their own gain, or use for an unholy purpose, the holy chalice, or the paten, or the tongs, or the venerable vestment, or what is called the *aer* (that is, the veil), or, in short, any of the sacred and holy vessels or vestments within the holy altar—for the former is a profanation, while the latter is to steal holy things—we subject to complete deposition, as having committed an impious deed."

And the great Gregory of Nyssa, in his eighth canon, says: "Sacrilege, in the divine ^C and ancient Scripture, was not considered unworthy of the same condemnation as murder. For in like manner, both he who was convicted of murder and he who stole things dedicated to God underwent the punishment of stoning. But the custom of the Church, using lenity I know not how, deemed the expiation of such a disease to be more tolerable; for it punished the sacrilegious for a shorter time than adulterers; indeed, it debars adulterers from communion for eighteen years." Consult also, in the sixteenth chapter of the letter Epsilon, the second canon of the holy Cyril, and the fourth chapter of the laws placed there.

Leges. — Νόμοι.

The crime of sacrilege is similar to the crime of high treason. ^D The law concerning sacrilege is set in motion against one who has stolen something from sacred things, or used these for his own needs, or plotted with evil intent to accomplish any of these. He who steals what is not yet dedicated to God is prosecuted as a thief; for to steal private things from the temple is not sacrilege, but theft. But he who steals what is consecrated to God, even if he steals it from a private place, is held liable for sacrilege. And since there are certain holy things not consecrated to God—as, for example, icons that belong to us privately, not yet dedicated to temples or monasteries—the law says for this reason that it is the location that makes it either theft or sacrilege. For he who steals a holy icon that is in our cell...

^A stealing, is not a sacrilegist, but a thief; for otherwise we would have to say that he who steals coins bearing the image of Christ or the Theotokos is to be held as a sacrilegist, which is absurd and false. A sacrilegist who ascends the altar at night and defiles or steals things sacred and dedicated to God should be punished by the sword; but one who steals something of moderate value from the church by day due to poverty should be beaten and exiled.

Chap. II. That one must not hold the so-called agapai within the temple precincts, nor have shops, nor expose anything for sale, nor bring in a beast of burden without necessity, nor remain with a woman.

Chap. III. Concerning the divine ministry.

Chap. IV. Concerning Jews, and that the faithful must not have any communion with them at all.

The 70th canon deposes a cleric who fasts with Jews, or keeps a feast with them, or receives from them the gifts of the feast, or unleavened bread, or anything of that sort; and it excommunicates a layman. For even if he insists that he does not hold the same views as they do, even if he acts in such a way, he nevertheless provides an occasion for scandal to many and gives rise to suspicion against himself that he honors Jewish rites—rites which, even before Christ was put to death, God is found to loathe, saying: "Your fasts and your holidays and your feasts my soul hates." For the canon does not punish those who live alongside Jews, but those who, by living indiscriminately, do not for the most part abstain from their communion.

Concerning unleavened bread; against the Latins.

The 71st canon subjects to the penalty of excommunication a Christian who brings oil into the temples of the gentiles, or into the synagogue of the Jews, or who lights lamps.

punishment of the congregation; for thenceforth their feasts will be considered honorable. ^A

All these things the canons of the Laodicean synod also bid us to depart from, canon 37, 38, and 39, which mention both apostolic canons in the same words and names.

The 11th ^B canon of the 4th synod subjects to deposition, if he be a cleric, or to excommunication, if he be a layman, one who does not refuse to eat with Jews, or does not despise their friendship, or, when in sickness, calls them for healing, or bathes with them in a bath. See also chapter 4 of the letter B.

The 29th canon of the Laodicean synod says: It does not behoove Christians, who have embraced the evangelical law, to adhere to Jews, who follow the shadowy and imperfect law rather than the more perfect, and, celebrating the Sabbath as they do, to condemn work on that day, but rather to work on it; but preferring the Lord’s day, they should rest, if they can, as Christians, ceasing from works to attend the churches. For he who, because of poverty or any other necessity, has undertaken indispensable work even on the Lord's day, as a thoughtless person, shall not obtain forgiveness; but those who do not renounce Jewish customs are manifestly subjected to the punishment of anathema. ^C

Laws.

Jews, on the Sabbath and on their other feasts, neither perform bodily service, nor do any work, nor are they accused of public or private crime, nor do they accuse Christians.

If a Jew possesses a Christian or a catechumen as a slave, and circumcises him, or dares to pervert the Christian conscience of anyone, let him be punished with capital punishment.

INITIATION OF THE LETTER K

CAP. 1. Concerning deposed bishops and clerics, and by how many bishops they are deposed. ^D

See in the ninth chapter of the letter A concerning those who are lawfully deposed. As also the canons of the Council of Carthage, which you will find, decreeing that a bishop must be deposed by twelve bishops; a presbyter by six; and a deacon by three. And in the eighteenth chapter of the letter A, the eleventh canon of the holy apostles. And in the ninth chapter of the same letter, the twenty-seventh canon of the great Basil.

The twenty-first canon of the sixth synod says verbatim thus: Clerics, who have been found guilty of canonical crimes, and are on that account subjected to complete and perpetual deposition, and have been thrust into the place of laymen, if they of their own accord, looking toward repentance, wipe away the sin on account of which they have fallen from grace, and make themselves completely alien to it, let them be shorn in the habit of the clergy; but if they do not choose this of their own accord, let them grow their hair like laymen, as being those who have preferred a secular conversation to the life of heaven.

For the canon is more lenient toward those who have made use of true repentance. For those who are deposed for certain manifest crimes, such as adultery or falling into sacrilege, are cast out into the position of laymen, nor is it permitted for them to administer any of the things which belong to priests. However, those who have engaged in second marriages are pardoned on account of the marriage, and they are not prevented from carrying out affairs outside the sacred tribunal, as the novella of the Emperor Leo ordains, which also seek in the fourth chapter of the letter Γ. Seek also in the sixteenth chapter of the letter Π the ninth and tenth canons of the synod at Neocaesarea, and in the seventh chapter of the same letter the first canon of the synod at Antioch. ^A

CAP. II. Concerning churches or cities newly constructed by emperors.

See the twenty-first chapter of the letter E.

CAP. III. Concerning innovations. Laws.

Someone does a new piece of work, either by building or by tearing down something, and thereby changing the previous appearance. ^B

He who is renovating an old house must not exceed the ancient form, nor diminish the light or the view of his neighbors, unless he happens to have a servitude by agreement or by inquiry granted to him, or one that permits him, as he wishes, to change the ancient form. When, however, two houses are opposite one another, there ought to be twelve feet between them, starting from the foundations up to the full height; for when this distance is observed, it is permitted to each one to raise his own house to an infinite height, and to construct in it windows for looking out. But he who is building a new house must not take away the neighbor’s view if he sees the sea directly ^C while standing or sitting in his own house; and he must not be compelled to turn himself to the side in order to see the sea. But if there is a distance of one hundred feet in the middle between the two houses, it shall be permitted to anyone who wishes to build without obstruction, and to take away the neighbor’s sea view. If, however, there is an agreement permitting someone to build, the agreement shall hold, even if it harms the neighbor regarding the sea view; for it is not fitting that servitudes which someone has should be removed by general laws. ^D

When someone builds his house in an alley or a street, even if the measure of the alley or street is wider than twelve feet, he must not remove what exceeds this and add it to his own house; for the enactment ordained the twelve feet not for the damage of the public, but so that the air between the houses might not be narrower than twelve feet. And when more than this is found, no one should take away from it, but the property should be preserved for the city. If, however, there are ten feet in the middle—and not fewer—then the builder must not make windows for looking out, unless he had them previously; but he should make windows admitting light, to be opened six feet from the pavement.

^A One of the co-owners cannot impose a servitude on common buildings without the consent of the other, nor can he demolish the common wall or repair it against the wish of the co-owner, since he is not the sole master. However, the servitude of prospect is not observed in the case of trees or gardens. If a neighbor's tree, planted in the middle of the courtyard, extends great roots and damages the foundations of my house, the neighbor shall be compelled by the providence of the magistrate to cut them out. No one rightly prevents his neighbor from opening a gate toward a public street under the drip of his tiles, provided that the act does not cause damage. If a fountain from which someone draws water dries up for a time, and later returns to its veins, the drawing of water from it is renewed for him as before. Neither an oven nor a hearth may anyone make in a common wall. Those who live in the upper parts of the house can prevent one building an oven from doing so if they are offended by the smoke, unless he has a right to direct the smoke there; and, conversely, those who dwell in the upper stories are forbidden to throw down water or refuse, and to harm those who dwell below them. For one is permitted to do something in one's own house only insofar as another is not harmed. If your wall has inclined half a foot toward my house, I can take action against you to have it straightened. ^B No one can throw refuse near another's house unless he has such a servitude. Whoever, without imperial command, obstructs a city street with his own buildings must, without controversy, restore the ancient rights to the city. According to the law, the width of a street in a straight line is eight feet, but in a curve, it is sixteen.

CAP. IV. On the Kalends and Divinations

CAP. V. On Ecclesiastical Canons, and how many canons ought to be in force

^C The first canon of the Fourth Synod says: We deem it right that the canons set out by the holy Fathers in every synod—that is to say, both the ecumenical and the local—as they have been set forth up to the present day for the establishment of the dogmas of the faith and for ecclesiastical discipline, should be observed. The second canon of the Fourth Synod ^D also enumerates in particular the holy Fathers who both privately and publicly composed the holy and divine canons; and it firmly decrees that those which they themselves declared by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and which the holy Fathers who preceded us received and confirmed and handed down to us for the healing of souls and the cure of passions, should remain, namely the eighty-five canons of the holy apostles (except the constitutions [set forth] through Clement; for in them many adulterations...

^A of the heretics, introduced in the manner of weeds, have been inserted), it commands to hold authority, as also those which the ^B three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers set forth in Nicaea; and likewise those which the second and ecumenical synod of the 150 Fathers in the imperial city established, and the third of the two hundred Fathers in Ephesus, and the fourth of the six hundred and thirty Fathers in Chalcedon, and those which the synod in Ancyra ordained, and furthermore those in Neocaesarea, and in Gangra, and in Antioch of Syria, and in Laodicea of Phrygia, and in Sardica, and in Carthage. One must also accept those written by Nectarius and Gennadius, who presided in Constantinople, as well as those of Dionysius and Peter, the holy martyrs, of Athanasius the Great, and of Cyril, Timothy, and Theophilus, who were presiding bishops of the great city of Alexandria; and not only these, but also those of Gregory of Neocaesarea, who is called the Wonderworker, of Basil the Great of Caesarea, of Gregory of Nyssa, of Gregory the Theologian, and of Amphilochius of Iconium. The canon, however, set forth by the holy martyr Cyprian, archbishop of the African region, and the synod under him, held force only in their own places. Whoever, therefore, dares to adulterate, or subvert, or abolish, or innovate, or receive others falsely composed by some ^C who have attempted to traffic in the truth, let such a one, it says, be anathema and alien to the Christian register.

The first canon of the seventh synod says: The divine canons, judging them to be a work worthy of truly great honor, we embrace gladly, as well those which the divine apostles clearly laid out, and which in turn the six holy and ecumenical synods, and furthermore also the provincial ones, established; add to this that certain wise Fathers, who excelled in piety and virtue, privately set them forth; and we decree that their entire and unshaken constitution be kept, as it is a procurer of eternal blessedness. For all, illuminated in mind by one and the same Spirit, have formulated and published the ^D regulations of the canons, which indeed one ought to honor with all reverence, as testimonies and accomplishments. They bear witness clearly and point out how we, living [well], ought to accomplish virtue; and for transgressors they pre-delineate the inevitable punishment that will come upon them. Therefore, borrowing the words of the God-seer Moses, we say: "To them it is not permitted to add, nor is it permitted to take away from them." And those of the Apostle: "If an angel should evangelize to you beyond what you received, let him be anathema." Anathema, therefore, we also pronounce upon those who are subjected to anathema by these divine canons, we depose those who have been deposed, and we exclude those who have been excluded; for indeed, for those whom punishments have subjected, we decree the same penalty.

Tomus of Union

The Tomus of Union, it says: To those who treat the holy and divine canons of our [Fathers with contempt]

who also sustain the holy Church and adorn the entire completeness of Christianity, leading toward divine piety, anathema.

Lex.

The 131st Novella of Justinian: "We decree," it says, "that the holy and ecclesiastical canons, which have been promulgated or confirmed by the seven holy councils, hold the force of laws: namely, the council of the 318 (Fathers) at Nicaea, in which Arius, whose surname was given to him from his madness, was struck with anathema; and that of the 150 holy Fathers at Constantinople, by whom the opponent of the Holy Spirit, Macedonius, was branded with infamy; and that at Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned; and that at Chalcedon, in which Eutyches along with Dioscorus was struck with anathema; in addition to these, the second at Constantinople, by which Origen together with his works, and certain other impious persons were disgraced; furthermore, the third at Constantinople, which, triumphing over many heresies, confirmed the holy decrees of the more ancient holy councils; and above all, the second at Nicaea, in which those who raged against the holy images were, in like manner to the primitive heretics, cast out from the Catholic Church of God; for we receive the decrees of the aforementioned holy councils just as the ^B sacred Scriptures, and we guard the canons as laws." But as many of the holy councils as the Novella mentions after Justinian, the emperor who made the recension of the laws added them. It is indeed necessary that the canons be of greater authority than the laws; for the latter were framed by emperors alone, and obtained confirmation from their successors; but the canons were written and confirmed by the holy Fathers, with the opinion and counsel and consent of the emperors of that time. Nevertheless, the venerable laws bring great weight to the divine canons: partly by agreeing with them, and partly by supplementing whatever is lacking in them, where there is need.

CAP. VI. Concerning the canonical.

See the laws placed in chapter 28 of the letter X.

CAP. VII. That a cleric should not enter a tavern.

The 54th canon of the holy apostles orders that a cleric found eating in a tavern, unless he has descended into a public inn ^C for the sake of necessity, be excommunicated. For clerics, since they are an example of holy life to the laity, ought to be blameless in all things, so that the name of God may not be blasphemed on their account. But one who delights in taverns as a rule is not free from the turpitude of the men and women who congregate there and live dishonestly. The same is also established by the 40th canon of the council of Carthage.

The 9th canon of the sixth synod says that it is not permitted for any cleric to keep a tavern. For if it is not permitted for him to enter a tavern, by no means

is it lawful for him to serve others in this, or to sell for a price. But if anyone should do this, either he must cease, or be deposed; for it would be a shameful thing to preside over this, and to receive those entering there ^A for the sake of honor. But if any cleric, possessing such an establishment, should let it out to another for hire, he is not subject to the bonds of the canon: for one might see this sometimes happening even among monasteries and churches. ^B The 24th [canon] of the Synod of Laodicea judges it iniquitous and utterly impious for presbyters, deacons, ministers, readers, cantors, exorcists, door-keepers, and those of the monastic order to enter a tavern, and altogether harmful.

Law.

CHAP. VIII. On fruits brought into the divine temples.

The 28th [canon] of the Sixth Synod deposes those clerics who receive grapes at the altar, joining them to the unbloody sacrifice of the oblation, and thus distributing both together to the people; but it commands that the life-giving oblation, celebrated for the remission of sins, be imparted to the people alone [separately], and that the grapes be distributed separately with a blessing, as first-fruits, so that those who partake of them may give thanks to the Giver of the annual fruits, by which our bodies are nourished and grow ^D according to the divine decree. And the cleric who does otherwise than these things have commanded is deposed.

The 7th [canon] of the Synod of Gangra, and also the 8th, subjects to anathema him who gives or receives by his own authority the first-fruits brought to the church, without the opinion of the bishop or the economos, inasmuch as he treats them as of little account.

The 37th [canon] of the Council of Carthage [commands that] nothing except bread

and wine be offered in the holy things: the bread in the type of the Lord’s body, and the wine of ^A His blood; for thus the Lord, giving it to His own disciples, said, “This is my body,” and again of the cup, “Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood.” And since not only blood, but also water flowed from the side of the Lord on the cross when it was pierced by the lance, it has necessarily been deemed fitting by the Church to commingle water with the wine in the holy mysteries. But as for honey and milk being offered at the mystery for infants, the sixth synod has forbidden it; for the 57th canon of this [synod] says: “It is not right that milk or honey be offered at the altars.”

Concerning the Hydroparastatae and the Armenians

^B Furthermore, the 32nd [canon] of this same sixth synod, describing two heresies that are diametrically opposed but equally impious—those, namely, who use only water for the ministration of the holy cup (who are called Hydroparastatae from their practice), and the Armenians, who do the ministration again with wine alone—for this reason it commands that water be mixed with the wine, and thus that the unbloody sacrifice be offered. And while that [former] was a heresy of long standing, that of the Armenians took its occasion or premise from the words of the divine Chrysostom. For that great Father, overturning the aforementioned heresy of the Hydroparastatae, says in his interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew, unfolding the passage in a manner worthy of the Spirit that is in him, which says, “I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine.” Why, when He had risen, did He not drink water, but wine? Rooting out another wicked heresy from its foundation. For since there were some who used only water in the sacred mysteries, he was showing that even when He ^C delivered the mysteries, He delivered wine, and when, having risen, He set a common table without the mysteries, He used wine, “of the fruit,” he says, “of the vine”; for the vine does not beget water, but wine. This error crept in among the Armenians, who thought the great Father was rejecting the addition of water in the holy sacrifice. The canon, therefore, fighting against these heresies, says: the brother of the Lord, the great James, to whom the throne of the Church of Jerusalem was first entrusted; and the great Basil, archbishop of the Caesareans, whose glory has spread over the whole world; and the golden mouth of the Church, having in writing delivered to us the mystical liturgy, have handed down that the holy cup is to be perfected of water and wine, and have left it as a kind of heavenly lot to the churches over which they exercised pastoral prefectures. He also makes mention of the aforementioned canon of Carthage. He who does not act thus, but proclaims the mystery as imperfect and innovates upon what has been delivered, let him be stripped of his priesthood, it says.

Concerning the fervent water that is cast into the divine mysteries

^D We must not blame the Latins, if at the end of the liturgy they [pour] fervent water into the cup

for this does not alter the union of wine and water in the chalice, since the nature of the water is not different from that which was previously cast in. The magnitude of the miracle is proved only by the fact that it convinces us by taste that the blood and water flowed not from a dead body, but from a living one. For blood does not naturally flow from a dead body while steaming; but from the Lord’s body, as from a living and life-giving one, life-giving things flowed—I mean the blood and the water. The fervent water is not introduced at the beginning of the union, lest if it should turn cold again by the time of the reception, it should return to its former state. The Iberians, indeed, though they are most strictly Orthodox, do not cast fervent water into the holy chalice, because, as they say, the custom has prevailed among them not to drink wine with hot water; but having been taught the power of the mystery, they were prevailed upon even themselves to do this.

The 99th canon of the Sixth Synod overturns another unsanctioned practice occurring in the region of the Armenians. For they used to boil parts of the sacrificed animal inside the sanctuary, and would distribute fragments of these to the priests in a Jewish manner, reserved and appointed for them—perhaps the head, or some other part severed from the body, which once held a place of sacrificial rationale for the Jews. This, therefore, the canon forbids; but it permits them to offer such things, whatever and as much as the offerers wish, outside the enclosure of the church, yielding to the custom that has prevailed among them. Whoever continues to do this, it bids to be excommunicated.

Concerning the puerperium of the most holy Theotokos.

The 79th [canon] forbids the boiling of the *semidalis* (fine flour) and sharing it with one another on the day following the feast of the holy Nativity of Christ, in honor, forsooth, of the puerperium of the undefiled Virgin Mother, as the custom obtains in the labor of other women. If clerics do this, it punishes them with deposition; if laymen, with excommunication, declaring that the birth of the holy Virgin was without puerperium, seeing that its formation was also without seed. Puerperium is the expulsion of the fetus with the pains of labor, and the subsequent natural flow of blood, things to which we do not believe the Theotokos was in the least subjected, but rather we hold firmly that she was not. For these things accompany those who conceive physiologically, but for the Virgin, since the conception was from the Holy Spirit and above nature, the birth itself was also exempt from the natural properties of birth. It is therefore an insult to the Theotokos, and not an honor, for anything to occur at her ineffable birth that is accustomed to occur at the birth of other women.

The 7th [canon] of Theophilus of Alexandria [decrees that] those things offered in the manner of a sacrifice, after the requirements of the law for the celebration of the mysteries have been consumed, the clerics are commanded to distribute among themselves to eat and drink; and for the faithful brethren to communicate in them, but for no one among the catechumens.

Seek the law in the eighteenth chapter of the letter A.

CAP. IX. Regarding the accusation of bishops and clerics, and who may be admitted to make an accusation, and who not.

See the letter A, chapter nine, regarding witnesses in judicial proceedings.

Law. If a father accuses someone of the murder of his son, and he is convicted of having acted in calumny, he suffers no ignominy. But a brother cannot bring a charge of a great crime against a brother, because he will not be heard, and he shall be subjected to exile.

CAP. X. Regarding the catechumens.

See the first chapter of the letter A. The fifth canon of Neocaesarea says: If any one of the more perfect catechumens sins, and ceases from sinning, let him stand among the hearers; but if he is among the hearers, and does not abstain from sin, let him be cast out from the church into the place of the weepers. For catechumens were formerly divided into two classes: into those who had already embraced the faith more perfectly, but deferred baptism; these remained in the church until the prayers for the catechumens, and when these were mystically recited, they knelt, and when it was announced, "As many as are catechumens, depart," they went out. And into those who had recently approached, who, as more imperfect, went out after the hearing of the divine Gospels. See also the first chapter of the letter B, the twentieth canon of the Great Basil, and the fourth of Theophilus, and the fourth of Cyril.

CAP. XI. Who ought to be constituted heirs of the property of a bishop.

See the fourth chapter of the letter A.

CAP. XII. Regarding inheritance, and disinherited sons or parents.

Laws. Those who descend, whether they be males or females, are preferred over those who ascend and those who are collateral. If an grandfather dies while a son and the descendants of another son survive, the descendants take the place of their own father, and together with the son—that is, their own uncle—they become heirs to the grandfather's property, receiving whatever their father would have received had he lived, whether they be males or females, and whether they be under control or of their own right.

When descendants do not survive, those who ascend are called, who are preferred over all the collateral line, except for brothers and the children of brothers born of the same parents; and among those who ascend, the one who is nearest in degree is preferred. In the same way also regarding those who are in the collateral line. If, however, all are of the same degree, they are called together to the inheritance.

If, upon the death of a person, those who ascend survive, as well as genuine brothers, and children of a brother of the same parents who died previously, all are called to his succession, whether they be females or males. For the children of brothers take the place of their own father, and receive whatever their father would have received, had he lived.

^A Brothers born of the same parents have the first rank in inheriting from their own brother; but so too do the children of the deceased brother, not only those who are of the same mother and same father, but also those of full blood. If there are no brothers or children of such brothers surviving, then brothers born of different parents inherit from the deceased brother. If someone dies leaving behind a brother born of different parents, and children of a brother of the same father and same mother, the children of the brother are preferred to the brother in the inheritance of that person. The mother inherits along with her own children from those of her children who have died—who are also the brothers of these others—receiving the portion of one brother. It is required that a man who does not marry a second wife receive a portion from the dowry as if by right of ownership, for the sake of the child. ^B When there is no surviving brother or brother's child, the remaining collateral kin are called, who are closer by degree; and if many are found of the same degree, they inherit equally. Children born of different concubines do not inherit if there are natural children, or a wife, or other successors of theirs. A boy born a bastard who has been legitimized becomes recognized only as the son of his own father, but no longer of the descendants, or the ascendants, or the collateral kinsmen of the father; he neither inherits from them, nor is he inherited from by them without a testament. ^C If a father, in providing a dowry for his own daughter, agrees that she should be satisfied with the dowry given for her and have no part of his inheritance, this agreement is not valid, nor is the daughter prohibited from inheriting if he dies intestate, while bringing the dowry to her brothers who remain under paternal authority. But even the gift given before marriage must, like the dowry, be brought into hotchpot if the one who gave it dies intestate, whether it be the mother or the father, or any of the ascendants, either on the father's side or on the mother's side. ^D Whenever a husband or a wife dies intestate, and they have no legitimate or natural successor among the ascendants, or the descendants, or the collaterals, then let the husband be called to the entire inheritance of the wife, and the wife to that of the husband. If a husband makes an agreement with his wife that, should she die, he will be her heir, the agreement is useless. See also in the seventeenth chapter of the letter II. See also in the fifth chapter of the letter Y.

A Novel Decree

^A of their estate shall receive lordship, and a third shall be spent for the commemoration of the departed, and the survivor shall receive the other part. And if the part of the one who survived also passes away, those who are related to him shall inherit according to law; but if no kinsman is present for the one who has departed, half shall belong to the public treasury, and half to the commemorations of that person.

We also command that the law be invalidated which ordains that men or women who have been bereaved of a child—and then the child also dies shortly thereafter—the surviving party should possess all the father's and mother's goods of the child. It is unjust that the parents of the deceased, in addition to the loss of their child, should even be deprived of their property; rather, a third of the dowry shall be preserved for the commemoration of the departed, a third for the parents, and a third for the surviving party.

If a part of an estate is bequeathed, the heir has the choice either to give a portion of the goods or their value; however, for all things that are indivisible or difficult to divide, he shall provide the value.

Concerning the Disinheriting of Children.

We decree that a son be disinherited from his father's estate for the following reasons:

1. If he raises his hand against his own parents; 2. If he inflicts upon them a grave and shameful insult; 3. If he brings accusations against them in criminal cases that are not against the sovereign or the commonwealth; 4. If he consorts with sorcerers as a sorcerer; 5. If he attempts to plot against the life of his own parents by sorcery or in any other way; 6. If he has intercourse with his own stepmother or with his father’s concubine; 7. If he becomes a delator against his parents and brings about significant losses for them through his own denunciation; 8. If, when they are lying in long-term illness or have reached old age and weakness, he neglects their care, and when summoned by his parents, refuses to provide them with care; 9. If the male children are not willing to provide security for their parents, as far as they are able, for debts under which they are accused; 10. If any of the children is convicted of having forbidden their parents to write wills, so that if they should be able to do this later, they have the license to disinherit such a child; ^D 11. If, against the will of his parents, he enrolls himself among mimes and remains in that profession; 12. If any of the parents becomes mad, and the children, or those who are judged to inherit from him intestate, are unwilling to provide him with worthy care—for once he is delivered from the madness, it is permitted to make them disinherited. But if he remains held by the affliction until death, and a stranger takes pity and provides care with his own expenditures

^A and calls the heirs by letter, and they refuse to arrive and be stirred to the care of the one who has become mad, the one who took him in and provided care to the end shall have permission to enter into his inheritance, with their succession annulled.

13. If any parents have been taken captive and their children do not hasten to their redemption, if he escapes from the captivity, it is permitted for him to accuse them of ingratitude and make them disinherited. But if it happens that he dies in captivity through the negligence of his children, or of those who are called to his inheritance in the absence of a will, we do not allow all these to come into his succession, but we decree that his assets be assigned to the church of the city from which he originates, and that it be expended for no other causes than the redemptions of captives. But if, even before the captivity, he had made a testament and written them as heirs, we completely invalidate such a testament. And we decree that this penalty shall hold against those who have completed the eighteenth year of their age.

14. If parents, being orthodox, perceive any of their ^B children adhering to heretical dogmas; if, however, the child, having returned to his senses, converts back to the Catholic Church, he shall recover his own estate, but he shall not demand the fruits of the intervening time. If, therefore, parents write one of the aforementioned causes against any of their children in their own testaments, and the written heirs demonstrate it to be true, we command that the testament have its own force.

Concerning disinherited parents

We decree again that it is not permitted for children to make their own parents disinherited in their testaments, unless they write the enumerated causes in them:

1. If the parents have given their own child for execution, ^C except for the cause referred to treason.

2. If they are proven to have plotted against their son by poisons, or sorceries, or any other method.

3. If the father has joined himself with his own son's bride or his concubine.

4-7. Likewise, also concerning the prevention of a testament, but indeed also concerning madness, and captivity, and perverted opinion, everything shall be observed here also, just as we decreed in the disinheriting of sons. Moreover, even he who possesses a deaf, ^D or mute, or foolish, or mad relative, if he does not show concern and protect their affairs, he cannot become their heir. The same applies also concerning captives.

CHAP. XIII. That it is necessary for those who do not descend from the priestly lineage to be ordained into the clergy, if they are worthy.

The thirty-third canon of the sixth synod, "Among the Jews," it says, "the Levitical tribe alone was allotted the priesthood, from which those who were to celebrate the sacred rites were chosen, and were named clerics because it is written in Deuteronomy, 'There shall not be for the Levites'

^A a portion and lot among the children of Israel; for the Lord is their portion and lot.' But it does not befit us to look toward the lineage of one who is about to be promoted to the clergy, but if he be worthy according to the prescriptions of the divine canons, let him be enrolled in the clergy, whether he had priestly ancestors or not. Nor let anyone read the divine Scriptures from the ambo unless he has received the tonsure with a blessing from his own bishop. And let him who acts contrary to these things be excommunicated.

CAP. XIV. That clerics ought not to be transferred.

CAP. XV. That it is necessary to provide for needy clerics from the resources of the church.

CAP. XVI. That it is not permitted for clerics to steal the goods of a deceased bishop.

CAP. XVII. That it is not permitted for one cleric to be in two cities, or to serve two churches in one city.

CAP. XVIII. That it is not permitted for a cleric to do anything without the opinion of the bishop.

CAP. XIX. That clerics were not ordained absolutely.

CAP. XX. That it is necessary for the clerics of churches and monasteries to be under the authority of the bishop.

⟩

^A CAP. XXI. That a cleric, having fallen into some sin, is deposed, but not excommunicated. See chapter 10 of the letter A.

CAP. XXII. That clerics who are unwilling to ascend to a higher rank fall from that which they currently hold. The thirty-first canon of the Council of Carthage deems that whoever has been promoted to any ecclesiastical rank, if he does not obey his own bishop who wishes to advance him to a higher one—perhaps shunning the labor therein—deserves to fall even from the grade which he did not wish to leave.

^B CAP. XXIII. On theft. Consult the 25th canon of the holy apostles in the chapter of the letter E.

The sixty-first canon of the Great Basil: He who has stolen, if of his own accord, moved by repentance, he confesses the sin, he shall be barred for one year from the communion of the sacraments alone; but if he is convicted, for two years. For the time will be divided for him between prostration and standing, but he shall not be among the weeping or the hearing.

The sixth [canon] of the Great Gregory of Nyssa: Whoever, he says, secretly takes away another’s property, if he is not armed with a sword so as to be able to kill one who resists, and if he has revealed his sin through confession, he shall cure the illness through almsgiving. But if he possesses nothing other than his body, he shall remedy the illness through labor, as the Apostle says: ^C «Let him who steals steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his own hands, that he may have something to give him who has need.»

Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus in the 11th canon: Whoever, he says, has found certain things in the field or in their own houses belonging to others, thrown there by enemies, if they are accused and convicted, they shall be subject to penance; if, however, they have denounced themselves, they shall celebrate prayers even with the faithful. But they ought to observe the commandments, removing all shameful gain, and taking absolutely no payment for information, nor for recovery, or by whatever other names they are wont to call such things.

Laws. Whoever steals in any city whatsoever, if they are free but poor, and have done this once, let them be beaten; but if they are wealthy, besides the restitution of the item taken by theft, let them return double ^D the quantity to the person who suffered the theft; but if twice caught, let them be sent into exile; but if they are found daring this a third time, let their hands be cut off.

That which is rashly snatched or foolishly stolen, if it be sold, is claimed back, provided the price set for it has not yet been paid. He who returns stolen goods does not exact the price he gave for them. He who takes the property of another that has been thrown away for the sake of gain, even if he is ignorant of whose it is, is held for theft, unless the owner has regarded it as abandoned; for then, even if a thief takes it, he is not held, because the master...

has ceased to be so. For theft does not occur unless there is someone undergoing the theft. But if he also considers what is not abandoned to be abandoned, he is not a thief. And if he took it with the intent of giving it to the master, he is not subject to the lawsuit regarding theft, even if he takes a reward for it.

He who steals in the camp, if it be arms, let him be beaten; but if a horse, let his hand be cut off.

The master of the thieving slave, if he wishes to have the domestic, let him make restitution for the harm to him who sustained the theft; but if he does not wish to, let him deliver him to him in full ownership.

Those who drive away the herds of others, if they have done this once, let them be beaten; for the second time, let them be sent into exile; but if they should be found daring such a thing a third time, let their hands be cut off, provided, of course, that the driven-away herd is restored to its own master.

Concerning highwaymen

Those who cut trees, and especially vines, are punished as highwaymen; and if many cut the same tree, each of them is liable for the whole, namely: double the value in the case of denial, and the simple value in the case of confession.

He who knowingly receives a stolen thing, and is privy to the sinner, is punished equally with him.

A thief is he who steals secretly and without arms, who undergoes neither the amputation of a limb nor death; but he who commits a crime by force with arms or without arms, in any place whatsoever, undergoes the penalties according to the laws. Consult also other laws in chapter 12 of letter A.

CAP. XXIV. That one must not have communion with the excommunicated.

CAP. XXV. Concerning those who do not communicate when the holy service is being performed, or who put off communion for three Sundays.

^A wishing that all should always be prepared and worthy of the participation in the divine mysteries, command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, when the sacred oblation of the divine mysteries is celebrated, if he does not communicate the sacraments to others, must state the reason; and if it is reasonable, let them obtain pardon, but if not, let them be excommunicated. For he gives the people cause for scandal and suspicion against the priest who has offered the unbloody sacrifice, as though he knew some impediment in himself against [performing] the sacred rite. But also, as for those of the faithful who enter and listen to the Holy Scriptures, but do not remain for prayer and the holy communion, let them be excommunicated as disorderly.

^B Consonant with this, the second [canon] of the Synod of Antioch also determines. For it judges it just that all who enter into the church and listen to the holy Scriptures, but do not communicate in prayer together with the people, or who turn away from the holy participation of the Eucharist, whether from arrogance, or perversity, or contempt, be expelled from the church until they show fruits of repentance through confession and obtain pardon.

Some say, however, that these canons decree these things concerning the priests who were performing the sacred rites at that time, and indeed concerning the laity who did not persevere until they became worthy by the participation of communion. For it is very burdensome and violent to compel everyone to partake at every [service], or be excommunicated. For how is it possible for one who moves in the midst of things and is defiled by worldly affairs, to provide a soul that is always a pure receptacle for the reception of the spiritual ointment? Yet it would be beautiful if one were to disregard and put aside all else, and set this one goal before oneself, and serve no other iniquitous desire, so that one might be able, with God as helper, to attain it.

I, however, judge that the faithful of old were no less diligent in living rightly than they were in believing rightly: for it is apparent that many things which were then issued by the canons stand differently than they do now. But negligent and dull life has so disposed us that we do not even believe that any of the faithful ever attained to such a degree of virtue. And I think that besides this threat of the divine canons, the distribution of the *antidoron* was devised, so that there would be a firm necessity for those not able to partake of the life-giving mysteries to remain until the end of the divine rite, so that they might receive it from the hand of the priest for ^C sanctification. See also in the seventh chapter of the letter L, the 66th canon of the sixth synod.

The 80th [canon] of the same [synod concerning] the bishops and presbyters living in the city, if they have been absent from their own church for three Sundays during three weeks without grave necessity; furthermore, also the laity who do not assemble in the church with the faithful, and do not communicate in the prayers, but have failed for three Sundays; those indeed

those indeed he removes. Consult also in the ninth chapter of the letter A for the canons of the Sardican Synod, 11 and 12.

CHAPTER XXVI. That it is not permitted to give communion to the bodies of those who have already died.

CHAPTER XXVII. That he who is about to communicate ought not to have intercourse with his wife.

CHAPTER XXVIII. When one who has been polluted in a dream may communicate.

The great Athanasius also writes the same in a letter to a certain Ammon, discussing it with many arguments, proving that nothing of those things created by God is by its own nature unclean. For man is a work of his hands, subject to natural excretions. For pores are given to the animal, so that through them each member may send out what is superfluous. The excrements of the head, therefore, are the hair, and the fluids emitted through the nose and mouth; the excrements of the belly are the wastes; those of the whole body are sweat; and those of the seminal pores are the seed; for these, when emitted and removed, are beneficial to the animal, but when retained, they are wont to do harm. And to those who are well-disposed, nothing is unclean by its own nature; but to those who are defiled, nothing is pure, but their mind and conscience are defiled, namely by sin, and by failing to think of them as is fitting. ^D For those skilled in medicine know how nature expels seed as something superfluous; but there is no sin if the superfluous is emitted.

Moreover, the great Basil, in his Ascetica, being asked

^A regarding whom the question was asked whether one who has had a nocturnal emission should be permitted to approach the communion, he answered: That for one who is in a state of impurity to approach the holy things, we are taught by the Old Testament to be a terrible judgment; and if it be thus in the sacred rites, the Apostle will show us that it is even more terrible, saying: "He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner, eats and drinks judgment to himself." But the saint named impurity not the emission of seed, which no one, I suppose, will ever fully escape, unless he be someone who is exceedingly continent, but the evil desire (concerning which the Lord said: "He who looks upon a woman," and so forth), which, being present, the sin of the mind is also accomplished through consent, or through the imagination that follows in sleep, and the emission of seed.

On Effeminacy.

If, then, a flow of seed caused by the consent of a nocturnal imagination is rebuked, much more shall the emission caused by effeminacy be punished, as it happens while fully awake and not from a state of nocturnal pollution. For John the Faster says: A cleric who is afflicted with the malady of effeminacy before his ordination, not thinking perhaps that he would be expelled from the priesthood solely on this account, if sufficiently punished beforehand, let him thus be deemed worthy of the priesthood. But if he falls into this after ordination, let him be suspended from the priesthood for one year, and having been brought to a sound mind through the appropriate penalties, let him return to the priesthood; but if after the acknowledgment of the sin he does this two or three times, let him cease from the priesthood and descend into the order of the reader. A layman, however, having committed the base evil of effeminacy, is excluded from communion for forty days, eating dry food during them, and performing forty-nine genuflexions each day. ^B But the effeminacy that occurs through mutual intercourse works a twofold evil, since it corrupts two souls, and therefore its perpetrator sustains a double punishment, being excluded from communion for eighty days, and extending the measure of his penance to one hundred, with the appropriate fasting. ^C But let this suffice regarding this matter.

Now, an efflux of genital seed that occurs because of a disease of the kidneys, such as gonorrhea, or that which occurs because of a stone in the bladder, is not subject to any reproach at all. For even if by the law of Moses those who suffered from gonorrhea were considered impure, that law, however, demonstrated in another way, through bodily sufferings, the diseases of the soul, and through involuntary things rebuked involuntary ones; for if natural things are thought to be in some way impure, much more so is lechery born of the will. For the law, containing a shadow in bodily things, exercised the Jews as if they were children, so that it might render them more fit for the reception of spiritual and perfecter commandments. ^D By these things it also teaches us that we ought to flee from their company, so that we may not be defiled by the impurity of the words proceeding from their mouths. Such are they who strive exceedingly to lead everyone into their own malady, like a pestilential infection, and to have many like themselves, so that in the community of evils they may avoid the disgrace of reproaches, as they might suppose. But our law admits those no less than the healthy, since he who is afflicted even with leprosy

^A who are healthy are received; for even those suffering from leprosy were driven away from them and from the camp as unclean, but to us they even assemble and pray together, being in no way hindered by the disease.

The twelfth canon of Timothy of Alexandria says: If a thought has kindled desire in one who dreams, and because this has lingered in the mind of the person, a discharge of semen has followed, communion must be deferred; for the assent has defiled the mind. But if none of these things has preceded it, it is manifest that it is a temptation of the devil, aiming to lead him away from divine communion; but let such a person approach the communion without any hesitation. For if the wicked one should succeed in his endeavor that the person should not partake of the sanctified gifts, he will not cease to plot against the man as often as he knows him to be preparing himself for divine communion.

CHAPTER XXIX. That one ought not to receive anything for the grace of divine communion.

The twenty-third canon of the Sixth Synod altogether forbids those who provide the immaculate communion to the people to exact obols or any other kind [of gift] from those who receive it; for grace, it says, is not sold; therefore, it ought not to be given for a price, but sanctification must be communicated to the worthy without charge. But if any of those enrolled in the clergy is caught exacting any kind of thing from those to whom they impart the immaculate communion, let him be deposed as an emulator of the error and wickedness of Simon; for he sought to purchase the grace of the Spirit with money.

CHAPTER XXX. Concerning those who are hesitant to communicate with a presbyter who has a wife.

Consult the fourth canon of the Synod of Gangra in the ninth chapter of the letter B.

CHAPTER XXXI. Concerning the order of presbyters and laity in communion.

The fifty-eighth canon of the Sixth Synod does not permit a layman to impart the divine mysteries to himself if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon is present. ^B And whoever does otherwise, he deems worthy to be excommunicated for one week, so that he may learn to be humble and not to take upon himself tasks greater than his own merit.

But the one hundred and first canon by no means admits those who, out of an ostensible piety and veneration for the sacred gifts, receive the divine gifts and communicate while using vessels fashioned from gold or silver or some other precious material; but [it commands that they] should shape their hands into the form of a cross, and by receiving the divine gift in them, communicate. For the hand of man, which was fashioned by the hand of God, ^C which is honored by the divine image, and is named the body of Christ and a temple of God according to the divine Apostle, is far to be preferred over any sensible thing. Therefore, he says, let each person receive the communion of grace with the hand; for no one is truly worthy of divine communion, but we are all made worthy of it by grace, just as we are saved by grace, as the Apostle says somewhere. But those who ^D

^A inanimate matter to the image of God, and attempt to communicate through such vessels, it is decreed that they be excommunicated. See also in the fifth chapter of the letter Delta the canon of the first synod, and the fourth chapter of the letter Gamma.

CHAPTER XXXII. That it is not proper for clerics or monastics to undertake secular cares, unless by the permission of the emperor.

The 6th canon of the holy apostles enjoins that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, not take upon himself secular cares; otherwise, he is to be deposed. For the canon wishes those enumerated to keep themselves away from all confusion and popular tumult, and to apply themselves undistractedly to the divine service. And the 81st, deliberately explaining this, says, "If they do not comply by withdrawing from secular cares, then they shall be deposed. But if they withdraw, so as no longer to attend to public administrations, they shall be granted forgiveness for those things which have already occurred." ^B And the 83rd places under deposition a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon—while still wearing the priestly habit—who is engaged in military service—that is to say, in the administration of military affairs (for it does not here refer to handling arms). For "no one can serve two masters," according to the sacred oracle. The 7th canon of the fourth synod commands those who are once enrolled in the clergy, or monastics, not to come to military service or to any secular dignity, casting off the sacred habit and donning what is customary to those others; and it deems those who dare to do this, and do not repent and again resume the habit befitting their sacred life which they had previously chosen before God, worthy of being anathematized. For one who dares such a thing ^C is no longer subject to deposition; since he has already pronounced this sentence upon himself even before his condemnation, having stripped himself of his priestly vestment and become a layman. See also the 13th chapter of the letter Epsilon.

The 11th canon of the so-called First-and-Second Synod, confirming the aforementioned canons and pursuing what is contained in them, adds that if any of the priests, or deacons, or those entirely enrolled in the clergy, should discharge secular offices and responsibilities, or accept stewardships, he is to be driven from his own clergy; for it is not possible to cling to two masters, as we have said. ^D The 16th canon of the one in Carthage enjoins that bishops, or presbyters, or deacons, should not become lessees of others' property, or procurators, or in other words, stewards and administrators, nor provide themselves subsistence from any shameful and dishonorable business. "For no one," it says, "serving as a soldier entangles himself in the affairs of this life," and what follows. It would be shameful, perhaps, to keep a brothel; and dishonorable to preside over a tavern. And the most holy patriarch Luke and myre-

-^A-riads of workshops or baths, has prohibited them from being operated by clerics, as being causes of shameful gain and falsehood.

Concerning Physicians.

Customs.

Laws.

The 123rd novella of Justinian says: "Let no one, leaving his own clergy, become a layman; for he shall be deprived of the status or military rank he had previously obtained, and shall be subjected to the will of his own city."

The 7th and 8th novella of the emperor Leo [decrees that] clerics and monks who have changed their form...

even against their will, are ordered to be restored to their former state.

CHAPTER XXXIII. On curators.

CHAPTER XXXIV. On the tribunals where clerics and monks ought to be judged, and on elected judges.

CHAPTER XXXV. On those who occupy themselves with dice and drunkenness.

Law.

CHAPTER XXXVI. That on Sunday it is especially fitting for bishops to teach the people.

CHAPTER XXXVII. That on Sunday one ought not to fast, or genuflect, or work, or have spectacles.

^A recounts this apostolic canon, and warns those who are in the city of the Romans not to transgress it, nor to fast on the Saturdays of the Holy Quadragesima, because of the offering made every Saturday for all the saints, on which day the Lord bound the strong man and plundered his vessels, even if the things in the canon are held by them to be for nothing. Thus, rather increasing the evil, they do not refuse to fast on the Saturdays of the entire season.

The 17th canon of the Synod of Gangra subject to anathema those who fast on the Lord's Day on account of an assumed pious exercise. For then we ought especially to be joyous and glad because of the Lord's resurrection and the raising of human nature from the fall of sin, and ^B by no means to show a downcast countenance or bear sadness because of fasting.

The 15th canon of Saint Peter of Alexandria says: We have received that we should fast on the fourth day, for the reason that the council was held by the Jews to betray the Lord; and on Friday, because He suffered on that day for us. But we consider the Lord's Day a day of exultation, on which we have received not even to bend the knees. Consult also concerning the Lord's Day in the chapter under the letter B, the 53rd canon of the holy apostles, and in the 18th chapter under the letter G, the 5th canon of Timothy.

Concerning the Holy Theophany

Theophilus of Alexandria, when the feast of the holy Theophany, on which we are accustomed to fast until evening, falls on a Lord's Day, commands that we fittingly distribute duties to each. For he says: ^C Both custom and propriety require us to honor every Lord's Day and to celebrate festive assemblies on it, since our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the glorious gift of His resurrection upon it. And for this reason it is even called "first" in the holy Scriptures, as it exists for us as the beginning of life, and "eighth," as it has surpassed the Sabbatism of the Jews. Since, therefore, it happens that this day of the Theophany is a day of fasting, let us proceed wisely toward each, and taking a few dates, let us at once both avoid the heresies that do not honor the day of the Lord's resurrection, and render what is due to the fast day, awaiting the evening assembly, which is performed here from the ninth hour.

That it is not right to genuflect while praying on the Lord's Day

The 20th canon of the First Synod considers that one ^D should not bend the knee on the Lord's Day, nor indeed on any of the days of Pentecost. The great Basil clearly unfolds the reasons for this in the 37th of his chapters to Saint Amphilochius, which also consult in the 2nd chapter under the letter E.

The 90th canon of the Sixth Synod also says: Since we are commanded by the divine Fathers not to genuflect on the Lord's Days, honoring the resurrection of Christ, it is necessary after the evening entrance of the priests into the altar on Saturday, that no one genuflect until

kneel until the vespers of the Lord’s Day, when the entry of the priests happens again; for from that time we bow our knees and offer prayers to the Lord. For we take up the night after the Sabbath as a forerunner of the resurrection of our Savior, and from then on we begin our hymns spiritually, transmitting the festival from darkness into light, so that we may celebrate for an entire night and day.

*That one ought not to work on the Lord’s Day.* Consult the 29th canon of the Laodicean synod in the third chapter of the letter K.

*Laws.* Let the Lord’s Day be a day of rest; for on it, no memorial is celebrated, nor are bonds of surety sought, nor taxes, nor private debt, nor is there legal judgment; nor is there theatrical spectacle, or hunting, or horse-racing. But even if the emperor’s birthday happens to fall on a Lord’s Day, the spectacle is deferred; and he who attends a show on the Lord’s Day is discharged from military service and suffers confiscation of property. However, it is permitted to make pacts, and to make and settle contracts on the Lord’s Day.

Elsewhere, however, the law demands unavoidable leisure on the Lord’s Day, except for farmers, who perhaps cannot find another day for tasks that are pressing, as it contributes to their work. But the 54th novella of Emperor Leo decrees that farmers, too, must rest on the Lord’s Day.

CHAPTER XXXVIII. De codicillo.

*Laws.* A codicil is a supplement to the incomplete will of a testator in a testament, and it is a final written intention regarding certain persons and missives which are either mentioned in the testament or can be mentioned, except for the heir and the inheritance. ^C But a testament differs from a codicil, because in a testament it is permitted to write into the record the heir and the disinherited, and legacies, and freedoms, and an appointment, and a substituted heir; but in a codicil, none of these.

Appointment is the first positioning of an inheritance, that is to say, the first rank of heirs.

Substitution is the transfer of the inheritance to another upon the failure of the first heir, as if someone were to say: "Let So-and-So be my heir; but if not, let So-and-So be."

A fideicommissum and a legatary are written in a codicil.

The codicil is confirmed by five witnesses.

INITIUM LITTERÆ Λ

CHAPTER I. Concerning bishops made by laymen.

The 80th canon of the holy apostles says: "He who has come to the faith from a Gentile life, or from a depraved manner of living, it is not fitting that he be immediately made ^D a bishop

^A for it is unjust that one who has not yet given proof of whether he is sound in the faith and beyond reproach in his manner of life should be constituted a teacher of others—unless, perhaps, by divine revelation grace has evidently entrusted the episcopacy to him, just as to the wise Ananias it revealed regarding the great Paul, declaring him to be a chosen vessel for Him by vision.

This is also required by the second canon of the holy First Synod: that a Gentile recently converted should neither be led immediately to the spiritual laver, nor, once baptized, be seated in the dignity of a bishop or presbyter. For time is required for the catechumen, and greater probation after baptism. For the divine Paul also, writing to Timothy and describing by his discourse the one who is to be set over the episcopacy, says this: "Not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the judgment and the snare of the devil" (I Tim. III, 6), indicating he who has been recently planted in the faith, not he who is of a young age; although in cases of urgent necessity, there are some even of those who are not to be rejected. But if, he says, as time proceeds, he is convicted by two or three witnesses of having a spiritual sin, he must cease from the clergy. And he who acts contrary to these things risks losing his own rank.

The seventeenth canon of the so-called First and Second Synod does not deem it right to raise a layman or monk suddenly to the dignity of the episcopacy, unless he has first passed through the hierarchical degrees, and having fulfilled the time prescribed for each, appears proven in all things. For even if some, not promoted in this manner, have shone forth in virtue and enlightened their own churches, yet, he says, we do not make the rarity of such occurrences a law of the Church; in the order of the Church, indeed, the monk who is called to a rank differs in no way from a layman.

The tenth canon of the Synod of Sardica forbids him who is from the forum and public confusion—even if he boasts of riches, and be a scholasticus, and applies himself to the art of rhetoric—from being suddenly ordained a bishop, unless he has served the sufficient time in each of the sacerdotal degrees, and has demonstrated his orthodox faith, the purity of his morals, and the firmness of his reason. For then, deservedly, he will be raised from the degrees of subjection to the height of pre-eminence.

The third canon of the Synod of Laodicea says: "It is not fitting that one who has been recently baptized be promoted to the sacerdotal order." That great luminary, however, Nectarius, having been recently separated from the flock of the catechumens, and having washed away the filth of his life in the divine laver, having already become pure, is clothed with the very pure dignity of the episcopacy, and simultaneously becomes bishop of the queen of cities and president of the holy and universal Second Synod.

Law. The one hundred and twenty-third novella of Justinian ^D does not deem it fitting that a bishop should be ordained immediately from among laymen.

but rather that he first become a cleric, and remain for three months being taught the Scriptures and the holy canons; and he who is not made so should be cast out of the episcopacy, and he who ordained him should be removed from the altar for a year. For it is shameful, he says, and sufficiently unreasonable that he who ought to teach others should himself be taught by others after his ordination. If, however, he should be apt to teach, and numbered in the lay order, and lacking nothing of those things which contribute to the benefit and edification of others, experience showed that for such a one this time need not be observed without danger. ^B

CAP. II. Concerning bishops, or clerics, or monks who come into the lay order.

CAP. III. That laymen ought not to teach in church.

CAP. IV. Concerning the divine liturgy.

CAP. V. Concerning the Latins.

CAP. VI. Concerning robbers doing penance.

CAP. VII. Concerning those who kill robbers.

Custom. But this seemed harsh to some, and not partaker of right judgment, that instead of the rewards which they ought to attain who risk themselves for the salvation of others, and who strive with zeal to clear out places of the annoyance of robbers, these should be subjected to penalties; and not only that, but also those who resist [the robbers], so that they might not be killed, when they attack them; for that text, "Everyone who has taken up the sword," would fittingly apply no less to the robbers than to those who handle them. But in the time of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Chliarenus, a question was [raised]

concerning this, and it was decided by the synod that if anyone was able to escape the snare of a robber, but, not content with this, of his own volition set upon him and killed him, he shall be punished as a murderer, and indeed more severely than the present canon seems to require. For perhaps, had the robber lived, he might have used repentance, and ceasing from his robbery, might have attached himself to the Lord; but if the robber who first drew the sword was the one against his own slayer, then the present canon shall have place.

If, however, someone, vehemently compelled by the common good, and anxious in seeking him out, eventually found and slew him through his own industriousness, he shall be held worthy not of punishment, but of rewards, both by civil and ecclesiastical ^B laws, inasmuch as he delivered many men from death and brought order to the region. Yet, for the sake of greater security, it was deemed fitting that they be condemned for a period of three years, just as those who have killed in war. Clerics, however, in whatever way they kill, are immediately deposed, no distinction being made whether it be enemy or robber or anyone else; as is also made manifest from the decree of the same patriarch.

Leges. He who kills an attacker when he is in danger of his life shall be unpunished; for in dangers it is necessary for each person to defend himself and not wait for the help of the laws. It is permitted to kill an approaching robber without retribution. An archpriest, however, who killed an Agarene (Saracen) who was drawing a sword against him during time of war was deposed by the synod. See in ch. 23 of the letter K.

CAP. VIII. Concerning those who stealthily abstract the property of others.

CAP. IX. That it is not fitting for men to bathe together with women.

CAP. X. Concerning the childbirth of the undefiled Virgin.

CAP. XI. Concerning the dissolution of marriage.