Rules of the Holy Apostles

On the Rules of the Holy Apostles

In all collections of the canons of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the rules of the holy apostles hold the foremost place. From their title, one might infer that these rules are attributed to the holy apostles. However, there is no evidence to suggest that these rules, in the exact form and composition as they appear in the collections, were written by any of the apostles in a manner similar to the apostolic epistles. Likewise, in the codex of apostolic writings, the apostolic rules are not included.

Yet, the work of the holy apostles in spreading Christianity and establishing Christ’s Church was not limited to their written teachings and institutions. Far more than what is contained in the apostolic epistles was orally transmitted by them to the churches they founded, especially to the bishops, their disciples, and successors, who in turn were to pass on what they had heard from the apostles to their own successors (2 Timothy 1:2). From these unwritten but orally transmitted commandments and teachings of the apostles, the rules of the holy apostles were compiled and recorded, occupying the primary place in the collections of the Orthodox Church’s canons.

This conclusion is supported by the following:

1. The agreement of the apostolic rules in content and essence with the teachings on the same subjects found in the New Testament. Many apostolic rules bear a striking resemblance to the teachings of the Gospel and the apostolic epistles, not only in spirit and essence but also in their very expression. However, while the Gospel and epistles present commandments in a continuous narrative, the rules present them as distinct, separate prescriptions, akin to legal statutes. For instance, the Savior says: Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:9). Apostolic Rule 48 further specifies the consequences: If any layman, having put away his wife, taketh another, or one divorced by another, let him be excommunicated, and so forth. Similarly, in the epistles of the Apostle Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:2–13) and Titus (Titus 1:5–9), as well as in the epistles of the Apostles Peter (1 Peter 5:1–4) and John (3 John 1:10), the qualifications for those entering the clergy, along with their moral, familial, and ministerial duties, are outlined. These same requirements and prescriptions are found in Apostolic Rules 17, 25, 42, 43, 44, 61, and 80, which either prohibit admitting to the clergy those lacking the qualities specified in the apostolic epistles or mandate deposition if such qualities are found wanting after ordination. In the Acts of the Apostles (8:18–25), the story of Simon the Sorcerer is recounted, condemned by the Apostle Peter for attempting to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit with money. Apostolic Rule 29 subjects a cleric who obtained his office through money to deposition and final excommunication, explicitly referencing Simon the Sorcerer. The Apostle Paul, in his first epistle to Timothy (5:19–21), instructs the bishop of the Ephesian church regarding the judgment of a presbyter. Apostolic Rule 32 addresses the consequences of a presbyter or deacon being excommunicated by their bishop. The epistle lays the foundation, while the rule specifies its further implications.
2. This conclusion is further supported by the alignment of the apostolic rules with the ecclesiastical practices of the early centuries of Christianity. When comparing the apostolic rules with the practices of the early Church, it is evident that much of what is prescribed in the apostolic rules was actively observed. The apostolic rules consistently distinguish the three main hierarchical ranks—bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Saint Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-Bearer, Tertullian, and Irenaeus testify that such a division of hierarchy existed in the Church during their time, that is, in the first and second centuries. The apostolic rules prohibit admitting to the clergy those who have been married twice or have committed grave sins, forbid Orthodox Christians from communing with heretics or those excommunicated from the Church, prohibit repeating valid baptism or ordination, mandate baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and reject the baptism of heretics. They also prescribe fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as during Great Lent, but permit relaxation on Sundays and feast days, and they do not condemn marriage, the eating of meat, or the drinking of wine. Writers of the first three centuries refer to these practices and prescriptions as operative in the Church.
3. The holy fathers and local and ecumenical councils provide testimony to the apostolic origin and authority of the rules known as apostolic. The fathers and councils cite these rules as apostolic, base their decisions upon them, and reject customs that crept into ecclesiastical practice contrary to them. For example, Saint Basil the Great (Rule 3, 12), the local councils of Antioch (Rules 3, 9, 21, 23), Gangra (Rule 21), Constantinople (394), and Carthage (Rule 60) sometimes refer to the apostolic rules as ecclesiastical statutes, rules received from the holy fathers, apostolic traditions, ancient customs, or directly as apostolic rules. Even when not explicitly naming the apostolic rules, they follow the prescriptions expressed in them. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils not only provide numerous testimonies to the apostolic rules but also command all Orthodox Christians to accept these rules as apostolic. For instance, the First Ecumenical Council decrees the cessation of a custom contrary to the apostolic rule, prohibiting bishops, presbyters, or deacons from transferring from one city to another (First Ecumenical, Rule 15; cf. Apostolic Rules 14, 15). In its rulings on eunuchs, converts, the excommunicated, those ordained without examination and later found guilty of grave sins, and those who have fallen away from the faith (First Ecumenical, Rules 1, 2, 4, 9, 10), the Council of Nicaea adheres unwaveringly to previously established rules, which, in these cases, are Apostolic Rules 21, 80, 32, 25, and 61. The Second Ecumenical Council, in prohibiting bishops from arbitrarily transferring to other dioceses, refers not only to the Nicene rules but also to others, and the only rules older than those of Nicaea are the apostolic rules on this matter. The Third Ecumenical Council (Rule 8) explicitly cites the rules of the holy apostles in affirming the inviolability of each church’s rights and privileges. The Fourth Ecumenical Council bases its ruling on the inviolability of property left after a bishop’s death (Rule 22) on ancient rules, and no rule on this matter predates Apostolic Rule 40. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, in addition to clarifying and confirming certain apostolic rules (cf. Sixth Ecumenical, Rules 2, 3, 6, 30, 55; Apostolic Rules 85, 17, 18, 26, 5, 64), in its second rule commands all to observe the apostolic rules inviolably, threatening violators with punishment in these words: This holy council hath deemed it good and worthy of utmost care that henceforth, for the healing of souls and the curing of passions, the eighty-five rules received and confirmed by the holy and blessed fathers before us, and delivered to us in the name of the holy and glorious apostles, remain firm and unshaken… Let no one be permitted to alter or annul the aforementioned rules. And if any be found attempting to change or set aside any of these rules, he shall be liable to the penalty prescribed by that rule, and through it shall be healed of that wherein he hath stumbled. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, in specifically confirming certain apostolic rules (cf. Seventh Ecumenical, Rules 3, 5, 11; Apostolic Rules 30, 29, 38), testifies generally to the observance of all apostolic rules in these words: We joyfully receive the divine rules and steadfastly uphold their entire and unshaken ordinance, set forth by the all-praised apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and by the six holy Ecumenical Councils, and by those locally assembled for the issuance of such commandments, and by our holy fathers. For all they, enlightened by one and the same Spirit, have ordained what is profitable. Those whom they anathematize, we also anathematize; those whom they depose, we also depose; those whom they excommunicate, we also excommunicate; and those whom they subject to penance, we likewise subject.

Thus, the agreement of the apostolic rules in essence, and sometimes in letter, with New Testament teachings, their observance and application in the practices of the early centuries, and the clear acknowledgment of their apostolic origin and authority by the holy fathers and local and ecumenical councils leave no room for doubt that the rules known to us as apostolic are indeed apostolic.

In What Form Did the Apostolic Rules First Appear?

The apostolic rules, as commandments and institutions orally transmitted by the holy apostles to various churches, were not initially present in their current composition in all churches. Evidence for this lies in the ecclesiastical practices of the first two centuries, which show that some churches had customs not entirely consistent with certain apostolic rules. It would be difficult to reconcile these differences with the idea that a complete collection of apostolic rules existed and was universally applied in all churches during the first two centuries of Christianity. Therefore, the apostolic rules, in their entirety, should not be regarded as a code of laws issued all at once by the apostles in their full compilation. Rather, they are rules orally given by the holy apostles to the churches they founded or to their successor bishops.

When and by Whom Were These Rules Compiled and Brought to Their Current Form?

The following historical data and considerations address this question: By the early sixth century, two collections of apostolic rules existed—Dionysius the Small’s in the West and John Scholasticus’s in the East. In the first half of the fifth century, a collection of apostolic rules was also known, as confirmed by references in the Councils of Chalcedon (451), Constantinople (448), and Ephesus (431). The acts and rules of these councils provide clear evidence of the existence of a collection of apostolic rules at that time. Three rules of the Council of Chalcedon resemble apostolic rules (Chalcedon, Rules 7, 2, 3; Apostolic Rules 83, 30, 81), and it is certain that the Chalcedonian rules were drafted with the apostolic rules in mind. Likewise, the expressions of the Council of Chalcedon—“divine rules,” “succession of rules,” “holy rules”—refer specifically to the apostolic rules. The same character and significance apply to the references of the Council of Ephesus to ecclesiastical succession, rules, and ecclesiastical ordinances, as well as the references of the Council of Constantinople (448) to divine rules. In all these cases, the apostolic rules are intended, and undoubtedly a complete collection of 85 rules, as references apply equally to both earlier and later rules. A collection of apostolic rules also existed by the end of the fourth century, as evidenced by a reference from the Council of Constantinople (394), expressed as follows: as it is established by the apostolic rules. A collection existed in the first half of the fourth century as well, as councils of that time cite numerous apostolic rules. For instance, the Council of Antioch repeats the content of twenty apostolic rules in its own rules. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea also reiterates certain apostolic rules from various parts of the collection. It is evident that the collection of apostolic rules predates the rules of all councils, as councils refer to ancient rules established before them, while the apostolic rules contain no references to any prior rules except Sacred Scripture. In the absence of direct evidence regarding the time of the compilation of the apostolic rules, the most likely conclusion is that this collection was compiled in the late second or early third century.

Who Compiled the Collection of Apostolic Rules?

This question cannot be answered with even approximate certainty. The opinion of Beveridge that Clement of Alexandria was the compiler of the apostolic rules cannot be substantiated with solid evidence.

Regarding the Number of Apostolic Rules

The Western Church, following the Latin translation of Dionysius the Small, accepts only 50 apostolic rules, while the Orthodox Eastern Church accepts 85. This difference originally arose because the Greek manuscript used by Dionysius for his translation contained only 50 rules. Meanwhile, in the East, around the same time, codices with the complete collection of 85 apostolic rules existed, as attested by John Scholasticus. A number close to this—82 or 83 apostolic rules—is found in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic codices of the rules. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Rule 2) specifically prescribes that the eighty-five rules delivered in the name of the holy and glorious apostles remain firm and unshaken.

The apostolic rules primarily contain prescriptions related to the clergy. Of the 85 rules, 76 pertain to spiritual persons, and of these, only 4 also apply to laypeople.

1. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.

Zonara. In modern usage, cheirotonia denotes the performance of the prayers of ordination over one chosen for holy orders and the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon him, since the hierarch, in blessing the one being ordained, extends his hand. But in antiquity, the very act of election was also called cheirotonia. For when the people of a city were permitted to elect bishops, they would assemble, some desiring one candidate and others another. To ensure that the greater number of votes prevailed, those conducting the election would, it is said, extend their hands and count the voters for each candidate accordingly. The one favored by the larger number was deemed elected to the episcopate. From this practice arose the term cheirotonia. The fathers of the councils employed this term in the same sense, applying it also to election. For the Council of Laodicea, in its fifth rule, states: Ordinations ought not to take place in the presence of hearers. Here, the council designates elections as cheirotoniai, since it is more customary for many to gather for the ordination of a bishop, whereas at elections, due to the presentation of accusations against the candidates, certain persons are forbidden to be present and to hear these charges. This rule permits the ordination of a bishop by even two bishops. However, the fourth rule of the First Ecumenical Council mandates that the election of a bishop be conducted by all the bishops of the diocese.

Aristen. Two or three bishops ordain a bishop. The election of a bishop must necessarily be performed by three bishops, and no fewer, if it is impractical for all the diocesan bishops to assemble for this purpose. Consult also the fourth rule of the Nicene Council, the thirteenth of the Carthaginian, and the nineteenth of the Antiochian.

Valsamon. This apostolic rule speaks of cheirotonia performed by a hierarch in the church, as the great Paul also says: Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins (1 Timothy 5:22). It does not refer to election by the extension of hands, which occurred when elections of bishops were conducted by the city populace, as some have claimed, following unwritten accounts. Although the Council of Laodicea, in its fifth rule, states that cheirotoniai ought not to take place in the presence of hearers, and although some have inferred from this that the present rule also concerns election, it seems to me that they are mistaken. For even the cheirotonia performed in church involves mystical prayers, though it occurs before the eyes of many. Moreover, since the fourth rule of the holy First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea prescribes that the election of a bishop be carried out by all the bishops of the diocese, or at least by three, with the consent of the others expressed in writing, I am perplexed as to how some could assert that this rule, which speaks of the ordination of a bishop by two or three bishops, implies the election of a hierarch.

Slavonic Korimchaya. Two or three bishops ordain a bishop. Three bishops, without any impediment, must ordain a bishop, and let him not be deposed if it is impossible for all the bishops in the province to gather together in one place. On this matter, consult the fourth rule of the First Council in Nicaea.

2. Let one bishop ordain a presbyter, a deacon, and the other clergy.

Zonara. This rule entrusts to the bishop both the selection and the ordination of presbyters and deacons who are to be subject to him.

Aristen. One bishop ordains a presbyter and a deacon. This is clear.

Valsamon. This rule, continuing in sequence to give directions concerning ordination, urges that the preceding rule also be referred to the ordination of bishops, and not to their election. For we have no directive that a presbyter, or a deacon, or another cleric must first undergo election and then be ordained in that manner.

Slavic Kormchaya. One bishop ordains a presbyter, a deacon, and the other clergy. This is reasonable.

3. If any bishop or presbyter, contrary to the Lord’s ordinance concerning the sacrifice, brings to the altar other things—such as honey or milk; or, instead of wine, a drink prepared from something else; or birds, or certain animals, or vegetables—contrary to the ordinance, except new ears of grain or grapes at the proper time: let him be deposed from holy orders. Let nothing else be permitted to be brought to the altar except oil for the lamps and incense at the time of the holy oblation.

Zonara. The Lord, having delivered to His disciples the performance of the bloodless sacrifice, commanded that it be performed with bread and wine. Therefore the Apostles did not permit anything else to be offered for the sacrifice and forbade the use of any other kind of drink instead of wine, such as sikera. Sikera is the name for everything that causes intoxication apart from wine, such as drinks artificially produced by men—for example, the so-called hop drink and others prepared in a similar way. But they permitted the offering of grapes that have already become ripe, and new ears of grain—that is, those that have only just appeared—and vegetables that have already become fit for food (for this is what is meant by the expression “at the proper time”). However, they permitted these to be brought not as a sacrifice, but as the firstfruits of ripened produce. It is also permitted to bring oil, so that it may be used to kindle light to the True Light, and incense at the time of the holy oblation. Read the 28th, 32nd, and 57th canons of the Council in Trullo.

Aristen. A priest who brings to the altar milk, or honey, or sikera, or animals, or vegetables—except new ears of grain, grapes, oil, and incense—shall be deposed.

The enumerated things are forbidden to be brought to the altar: some because they belong to Hellenic custom, others because they belong to Jewish custom. But it is permitted to bring at the time of harvest the firstfruits of new produce, or of vegetables and grapes, as thanksgiving to God who gives them.

Valsamon. The divine Apostles, having forbidden the sacrifices performed in the temple according to the old law with blood and the slaughter of animals, commanded the performance of the bloodless sacrifice delivered by the Lord and determined that a priest who acts contrary to this command shall be deposed. Sikera is the name for everything that causes intoxication apart from wine. When you hear the words of the rule “except new ears of grain or vegetables,” do not think that a sacrifice from them is permitted, for this too is forbidden; rather, say that these are brought to the priest as the firstfruits of the annual produce, so that we, receiving them from the priest’s hands with a blessing, may send up thanksgiving to God who provides what is needful for sustaining life and for our service. Thus it is customary for grapes to be brought to the patriarch at the altar of the divine temple of Blachernae after the service on the feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. I knew a superior of an honorable monastery in the provinces who was deposed and deprived of his abbacy because he brought cheese and meat into the altar on the advice of an evil man who deceived him by saying that many illnesses had been healed thereby. Incense and oil are brought not for the sacrifice, but for the sanctification of the temple and as thanksgiving to the True Light and God. Read the 28th and 32nd canons of the Sixth Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. Things not required for the altar shall not be brought to it.

If any presbyter brings milk and honey, or in place of wine ale or mead, or any animal, or vegetables to the altar—except only young produce and grapes and oil and incense—let him be deposed.

To bring to the altar milk and honey, or ale or mead, or any animal, or vegetables: such things are Hellenic and Jewish, and therefore they have been rejected. But the firstfruits of new produce—that is, young and green vegetables and grapes—must be brought at the time of their ripening, as thanksgiving to God who granted them; thus it has been commanded.

4. The firstfruits of every other produce shall be sent to the house of the bishop and the presbyters, but not to the altar. It is understood, of course, that the bishops and presbyters will share them with the deacons and the other clergy.

Zonara. Ripened produce must be brought not to the altar, but whoever wishes to offer the firstfruits of them in thanksgiving to God must bring them to the bishop and the presbyters; and they, having received them, must use them not for themselves alone but share them with the whole clergy.

Aristen. Ripened produce shall be sent to the house; the superiors share it with those under them.

The firstfruits of other ripened produce, apart from grapes, must not be brought to the altar but sent to the house of the bishop and the presbyters, who share them with the deacons and the other clerics. But grapes must be brought into the church because of their superiority over other produce and because wine is obtained from them for the performance of the bloodless sacrifice.

Valsamon. Note also from this rule that only vegetables and grapes as firstfruits are brought into the temple for the bishop; but ripened produce and the rest are sent to the bishop so that through him fitting thanksgiving may be rendered to God. As for the manner in which what is brought to the prothesis in memory of the saints and the departed—and is called kanun or kutia, adorned with various fruits—is offered, you will learn this from the discourse of Athanasius the Great on the dead. But say that by this present rule bishops are urged to provide their clerics with support from the church’s revenues.

Slavic Kormchaya. Vegetables shall not be brought into the church, except grapes alone shall be brought into the church.

Every vegetable shall be sent to the houses; those who receive them first shall share them with those after them.

Interpretation. Apart from grapes alone, the firstfruits of any other vegetable must not first be brought to the church, but must be sent to the bishops and presbyters, so that they themselves may taste of them and then share them with the deacons and the other clerics. For grapes are brought into the church more excellently than any other vegetable, since wine comes from them and is used for the completion of the service of the bloodless sacrifice.

5. Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon not cast out his wife under pretext of piety. But if he cast her out, let him be excommunicated; and if he persist, let him be deposed from holy orders.

Zonara. In ancient times it was permitted for married persons to divorce even without fault, whenever they wished; but the Lord, as it is written in the Gospels, rejected this. Therefore, in accordance with the Lord’s command, the Apostles forbid it, and now, speaking of those in holy orders, they prescribe that one in orders who sends away his wife under pretext of piety must undergo excommunication until, of course, he is persuaded to receive her back. But if he does not receive her, he shall also be deposed: for in this there is usually a reproach to marriage, as though marital cohabitation produces impurity; whereas Scripture calls marriage honorable and the bed undefiled. The rule mentions bishops having wives because at that time bishops lived unhindered in lawful marriage with their wives. The Council in Trullo, called the Sixth, forbade this in its twelfth canon. Civil law also forbade divorces without cause and established specific reasons by which divorces must lawfully take place.

Aristen. A priest who casts out his spouse shall be excommunicated; and if even after this he does not receive her, let him be deposed.

If any presbyter or deacon casts out his spouse under pretext of piety without justifiable cause, let him be excommunicated. But if even after excommunication he remains uncorrected, let him be deposed. Seek also the twelfth and thirteenth canons of the Sixth Council held in Trullo, in which the same matter is discussed.

Valsamon. Until the Sixth Council held in the imperial palace in Trullo, bishops were permitted to have wives even after receiving the episcopal dignity, as presbyters or deacons ordained after marriage have them. Therefore, since until the 117th Novel of Justinian, placed in the seventh title of the twenty-eighth book of the Basilics, one who wished had the power to send a divorce to his wife for any reason whatever, this present rule says that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon has no authority to cast out his wife under pretext of piety. The prescriptions of this rule in relation to presbyters and deacons (for bishops, as has been said, cannot have wives after elevation to the episcopate) have lost their force, because now the marriage of anyone whatsoever is dissolved only for the reasons enumerated in the aforesaid Novel, which are the following: 1) conspiracy by either spouse against the emperor; 2) adultery by the wife; 3) attempt by one spouse on the life of the other; 4) if the wife, without her husband’s consent, feasted or bathed with strangers; 5) if the wife stayed outside her husband’s house and not with her own parents; 6) if the wife without her husband’s knowledge attended horse races; 7) if one of the spouses wishes to choose the monastic life, and certain other reasons set forth in the indicated Novel, which you should read.

Slavic Kormchaya. A presbyter or deacon who casts out his spouse shall be excommunicated. But if he does not take her back, let him be deposed.

If a presbyter or deacon casts out his wife under pretext of piety apart from justifiable cause, let him be excommunicated. But if even after excommunication he does not obey but remains uncorrected and does not take back his wife into his home, let him be deposed from his rank. Concerning this, seek the twelfth and thirteenth canons of the Sixth Council in Trullo in the palace, for they also say the same.

Book of Canons. Interpretation. The casting out of a wife is forbidden to persons in holy orders because, as Zonara explains, this would seem to be a condemnation of marriage. However, the continence of bishops from marriage is an ancient tradition, from which the Sixth Ecumenical Council noted a departure only in certain African churches and immediately forbade it by its twelfth canon.

6. Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon not take upon himself worldly cares. Otherwise, let him be deposed from holy orders.

Zonara. The persons enumerated in the rule are forbidden to involve themselves in worldly affairs; for the rule desires that they occupy themselves freely with divine service and not allow themselves interference in worldly matters and public disturbances; and if they do not fulfill this, it commands that they be deposed. Various conciliar canons command the same. Civil laws also forbid those in holy orders to involve themselves in worldly affairs and permit them to engage only in the guardianship of orphan children if they are called to this by law.

Aristen. A priest who takes upon himself worldly cares loses the priesthood.

It is not permitted to a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon to take upon himself worldly cares for the sake of acquiring shameful gain for himself, except if someone is called by laws to the management of the affairs of minors, or in some other way is summoned to take upon himself care for widows, orphans, and the sick. But if, having received a reminder to leave worldly affairs, he does not obey but continues to occupy himself with them, he shall be deposed.

Valsamon. Concerning clergy engaged in worldly services, we have written sufficiently in the thirteenth chapter of the eighth title of this collection. But since this Apostolic canon says that a cleric acting in this way shall be deposed, while the eighty-first Apostolic canon and other canons say “either let him cease or let him be deposed,” someone might ask: which should we follow? And I think that which is more philanthropic; for the holy synod also invited the most honorable great oeconomos Aristen, over the course of thirty days through threefold reminder, to refrain from a secular judicial office.

Slavic Kormchaya. Clergy and deacons shall not take upon themselves worldly cares.

A hierarch who takes upon himself worldly cares is not sacred.

Interpretation. It is not permitted to a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon to take upon themselves cares of worldly things for the sake of evil gain for themselves, unless they are called by law to manage the inheritance left to young and underage children by their parents, or are otherwise commanded to protect widows and orphans and the infirm and not allow their possessions to fall into the hands of those who would wrong them; but if they engage in other worldly things and, being forbidden to withdraw from them, do not submit but remain in their management, let them be deposed from their rank.

7. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon shall celebrate the holy day of Pascha before the spring equinox with the Jews: let him be deposed from holy orders.

Zonara. Some consider the spring equinox to be March 25, others April 25. But I think the rule means neither. For Pascha is often celebrated before April 25, and sometimes it is celebrated before March 25, so that (if the spring equinox is understood in this way) it would happen that Pascha is celebrated not in accordance with this rule. Therefore it seems that the venerable Apostles call the spring equinox something else. The whole command of this rule is as follows: that Christians celebrate Pascha not with the Jews—that is, not on the same day as they; for their non-festival festival must come first, and afterward our Pascha must be performed. A clergyman who does not fulfill this must be deposed. The Council of Antioch determined the same in its first canon, saying that the determination concerning the celebration of Pascha is a determination of the First Council of Nicaea, although no such canon is found among the canons of the Nicene Council.

Aristen. One who celebrates Pascha with the Jews shall be deposed. This is clear.

Valsamon. The divine Apostles do not wish us to celebrate together with the Jews, and therefore they determine that the Lord’s Pascha shall be celebrated by us after the Jews have performed their legal pascha. And since they celebrate pascha before the spring equinox—now the spring equinox does not occur on the twenty-fifth of March, as some say, or the twentieth, or on any other fixed day, but whenever it happens. For from the circular calculation of the solar and lunar cycles the spring equinox occurs now one way, now another. Moses legislated that the Jews should annually perform pascha, or passage from evil, in remembrance of deliverance from Egyptian servitude, and this not otherwise than before the spring equinox, when the moon in the first month—that is, March—has fourteen days. We also celebrate the Lord’s Pascha, or our deliverance from servitude to the devil, which Christ our God granted us by His suffering. But we celebrate Pascha not when the Jewish pascha is performed, but after it—that is, after the spring equinox occurs and after the fourteenth day of the first month or first moon of March in that very week, because then occurred both the suffering and the resurrection of Christ. Seek also the eighth discourse of our father among the saints John Chrysostom, which he wrote on Pascha. Seek further the seventy-third canon of the Council of Carthage and what we have written there concerning Pascha.

Slavic Kormchaya. Do not celebrate with the Jews. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon celebrates the holy day of Pascha before its time with the Jews, let him be deposed. This is reasonable.

8. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone belonging to the sacred order, when the oblation is performed does not partake: let him state the reason, and if it is justifiable, let him be excused. But if he does not state it, let him be excommunicated, as having become a cause of harm to the people and having brought suspicion upon the one who performed the oblation, as though he had performed it improperly.

Zonara. The rule desires that all always be ready and worthy of partaking of the holy things, and especially those in holy orders. Therefore it says that if any of them does not partake when the oblation is performed (that is, the prothesis), he must either state the reason and, if it is justifiable, receive indulgence; but if he does not state it, he shall undergo excommunication. For by this he arouses evil suspicion in the people against the priest who performed the bloodless sacrifice, as though he did not wish to partake from him, knowing something that hindered his ministry.

Aristen. A priest who does not partake must state the reason; but if he does not state it, let him be excommunicated; for he has brought suspicion upon the one offering the sacrifice.

A priest or anyone else of the sacred order who does not partake and does not declare the reason for doing so shall be subject to excommunication, for he brings suspicion against the one performing the bloodless sacrifice.

Valsamon. No one knows of a bishop or presbyter entering the altar, performing the sacred action, and yet not partaking of the divine holy things. But if any of them were found to have done such a thing, he should not only be excommunicated but strictly punished if he does not declare a most justifiable and evident reason hindering divine communion, lest some scandal arise from this. But among deacons we see very many who enter the altar but do not partake and do not even touch the holy things. Yet if any of them touches with his hand and does not partake, he shall undergo excommunication according to this present rule. Some have interpreted this rule in this way; others say that by this rule every clergyman who does not partake is excommunicated, even if he stands outside the altar: which is very severe.

Another interpretation. The content of the eighth and ninth canons some have interpreted one way, but we another. Therefore, combining what has been said about these canons, we say that those numbered among the sacred order and serving at the holy mysteries but not partaking when the oblation is performed are subject to excommunication if they do not indicate a justifiable reason. But clergy who do not touch the holy things in the altar and all faithful laypeople who do not remain until the end while the holy communion of the worthy is performed are subject to excommunication as disorderly. For it says that all of us—faithful laypeople and clergy who do not touch the holy things—must partake of the holy mysteries every time, or otherwise be subject to excommunication, which is neither in accord with the rule nor possible. Therefore in the ninth canon it is determined to punish the faithful who do not remain until the end, but it does not add “not partaking.” Interpret these canons thus, on the basis of the second canon of the Council of Antioch.

Slavic Kormchaya. A presbyter who does not partake must state the cause. But if he does not state it, let him be excommunicated. For he has made suspicious the one who offered the sacrifice.

Interpretation. A presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the priestly order who does not partake during the Divine Liturgy must state the cause for which he did not partake. Having declared a justifiable cause, he shall be pardoned. But if he does not declare it, let him be excommunicated, for he gives rise to evil thought against the presbyter who offered the bloodless sacrifice, as though he did not wish to partake from one who is unworthy of the divine service.

9. All the faithful who enter the church and hear the Scriptures but do not remain for the prayer and the holy communion to the end, as producing disorder in the church, must be excommunicated from the church’s communion.

Zonara. This present rule requires that during the performance of the holy sacrifice all remain to the end for the prayer and holy communion. For at that time it was required even of laypeople that they constantly partake. There is a canon of the Council of Sardica and another of Trullo, and yet another of the Council of Antioch, prescribing that one who, being present at divine service on three Sundays, does not partake shall undergo excommunication. Therefore this present rule subjects to excommunication those who do not remain for the prayer and holy communion, as disrupting order. The second canon of the Council of Antioch also speaks of this.

Aristen. Excommunicate the one who does not remain for the prayer and communion. One who does not remain in the church until the end but departs while the holy liturgy is still being performed and celebrated must be subjected to excommunication; for such a one produces disorder in the church.

Valsamon. The determination of this present rule is very strict. For it excommunicates those who are in the church but do not remain until the end and do not partake. Other canons similarly determine that all must be ready and worthy of communion and subject to excommunication those who do not partake on three Sundays.

Slavic Kormchaya. Those praying must remain in the church until the final prayer. Let those who do not remain in the church until the final prayer and do not partake be excommunicated.

Interpretation. Those who do not remain in the holy church until the final prayer but depart while the holy service is still being sung and performed—such as produce disorder in the holy church shall be excommunicated.

10. If anyone prays with one who has been excommunicated, even if it be in a house: let such a one be excommunicated.

Zonara. Those who are excommunicated are, of course, excommunicated for sins. Therefore no one ought to have communion with them. For communion would show contempt for the one who excommunicated, or rather an accusation that he excommunicated unjustly. Thus if anyone prays together with one deprived of communion—that is, with one excommunicated—even if not in church but in a house, he too shall undergo excommunication. The ninth canon of the Council of Carthage says the same.

Aristen. One who prays with one deprived of communion is subject to the same condemnation. One who prays together with heretics in church or in a house shall likewise be deprived of communion, as they are.

Valsamon. The expression “deprivation of communion” means excommunication. Thus whoever prayed with an excommunicated person, wherever and whenever it may be, must be excommunicated. This is written for those who say that an excommunicated person has been cast out of the church and that therefore if anyone sings together with him in a house or in a field, he will not be guilty. For whether one prays together with an excommunicated person in church or outside it, it is the same. But conversing with an excommunicated person is not forbidden. Read also the ninth canon of the Council of Carthage.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who prays with an excommunicated person shall himself likewise be excommunicated.

Interpretation. If anyone prays with heretics in church or in a house with those excommunicated from the church, he himself shall likewise be excommunicated.

11. If anyone belonging to the clergy prays with one deposed from the clergy: let him himself be deposed.

Zonara. For some who are deposed, only sacred ministry is forbidden. But communion with them or presence together with them in church is not forbidden; others, along with deposition, are deprived of communion and are subject to excommunication. Thus this rule must either be interpreted concerning one who is deposed and also excommunicated, and whoever prayed together with such a one must be subject to deposition. Or the expression “prays together” must be taken instead of “performs sacred ministry together.” For even if the deposed person was not excommunicated, yet if anyone performed sacred ministry together with him, he must be subject to deposition.

Aristen. One who prays together with a deposed person is subject to the same condemnation. One who prays or ministers together with a deposed person shall himself be deposed.

Valsamon. Some took the expression used here, “prays together,” instead of “performs sacred ministry together.” But I do not think so. For the rule is given concerning every cleric, not one priest alone. Others said that here the deposed person is also subject to excommunication, and that therefore prayer with him is forbidden. But it seems to me that the intent of the rule here is that every cleric who prayed together, whenever it may be, with any cleric who was deposed and after deposition performed any sacred ministry, must be punished. Therefore he is subject to deposition; whereas one who prayed together with any excommunicated person is subject not to deposition but to excommunication, as the tenth rule commands.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who prays with the deposed shall himself likewise be condemned.

Interpretation. If anyone prays—that is, if a presbyter ministers in church with a presbyter whom the bishop has deposed from rank—he himself shall be deposed.

12. If any cleric or layperson who is excommunicated, or unworthy of admission to the clergy, having departed, is received in another city without commendatory letters: let both the one received and the one who received him be excommunicated.

Zonara. The word “or” here must not be interpreted in the sense of exclusion, but it stands instead of “or” in the disjunctive sense. For the rule intends to speak of two kinds of persons: the excommunicated and the unworthy of admission; and it first speaks of the unworthy of admission. Some appointed to the clergy—for example, readers or singers—seek to be ordained as deacons or presbyters. Those who are to ordain them, investigating the circumstances concerning them and finding perhaps some doubts, postpone ordination until the doubts that have arisen about them are resolved. Meanwhile those seeking, indignant at this, go to others and are received by them. This is what the present rule forbids, and it commands that one whom one bishop does not recognize as worthy to admit to ordination must not be received by another without commendatory letters from the bishop under whom the investigation took place. Commendatory letters are those given to clerics or excommunicated laypeople, or readers, traveling to another city, in which information about them is communicated to the bishop there—that they have been released from penalties or are faithful. This is discussed more fully in the eleventh canon of the Fourth Council. But if anyone receives such a person, the rule subjects both the one receiving and the one received to excommunication. Read the sixth canon of the Council of Antioch and the thirteenth of the Council of Chalcedon.

Aristen. One who receives a person considered unworthy of admission in another place is himself even more unworthy of admission.

If anyone were subjected by some bishop to examination as to whether he is worthy of admission into the holy church of God, and while the examination concerning him was being conducted, he departed from there and, turning to another bishop, was received by him without commendatory letters attesting to the blamelessness of his faith and life, then both he and the one who received him must be subjected to excommunication.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who receives a person unacceptable elsewhere is himself unacceptable.

If some cleric is examined by a bishop as to whether he is worthy to be appointed presbyter in the holy church of God; but he, knowing his own transgressions and not enduring the examination, departs from there and comes to another bishop and is received by him without commendatory letters manifesting his blameless faith and life, let both be excommunicated—the one received and the bishop who received him.

13. But if he is excommunicated: let the excommunication be prolonged for him, as one who has lied and deceived the church of God.

Zonara. The preceding rule speaks of one unworthy of admission and not yet ordained and not excommunicated; but the present rule gives a determination concerning one ordained and excommunicated who, after excommunication, becoming indignant, came to another hierarch and was received by him in ignorance of the excommunication. The rule commands that the excommunication of such a one be prolonged.

Aristen. One who conceals his excommunication is most unworthy of admission. If anyone is excommunicated by his own bishop and, departing to another bishop, conceals the excommunication and is received by him, the excommunication must be prolonged for him, for he has lied before the church of God and deceived it.

Valsamon. One thing is an excommunicated person, and another is one unworthy of admission—that is, not received by a bishop for any office. For an excommunicated person is forbidden church gatherings; but one unworthy of admission is not received for many reasons. For the word “or” stands here instead of the disjunctive “or,” as is confirmed by the following (thirteenth) rule, which says: but if he is excommunicated, and so forth. Thus the present (twelfth and thirteenth) rules say that one who receives someone once recognized as unworthy of admission to any church office without commendatory letters from his own bishop must be excommunicated. Together with him, the one received must also be excommunicated. But if not one unworthy of admission but an excommunicated person is received, then the one who received such a person must be subject to excommunication, and the excommunication must be prolonged for the excommunicated person. Seek also the eleventh canon of the Fourth Council, the sixth of the Council of Antioch, and the thirteenth of the Council of Chalcedon.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who lies concerning excommunication is unacceptable.

If anyone, having been excommunicated by his own bishop and departing to another bishop, conceals the excommunication and is received by him, let his excommunication be greatly prolonged, as one who lied and seduced the church of God.

14. It is not permitted for a bishop to leave his diocese and transfer to another, even if urged by many, unless there be some justifiable reason compelling him to do this, as being able to bring greater benefit to those dwelling there by the word of piety. And this not of his own accord, but by the judgment of many bishops and by the strongest persuasion.

Zonara. Various conciliar canons forbid bishops to transfer from their own churches to others and prescribe that each remain in the church that received him, lest disputes arise among them. One must not think that the canons give contradictory prescriptions. But those canons legislate that bishops must not change churches and forbid changing; whereas the present rule discusses a bishop’s departure to another church in case of pressing need for teaching. It may be that the bishop of some church is not fully skilled in teaching, while the one called is perhaps more eloquent and skilled in discourse, for which reason it might prove necessary for him to come to that city. But the rule desires that even then he not depart on his own, but if he is called—or rather, if he is compelled to this by the judgment of many bishops. Thus the conciliar canons forbid a bishop altogether to transfer from his own province to another province and seize ecclesiastical administration of it, even if that church is widowed without a bishop, according to the sixteenth canon of the Council of Antioch. But the present rule of the holy Apostles does not forbid a bishop temporarily to depart to another province for the sake of teaching and discourse for the benefit of the people there, but even then not on his own, but if he is called and deemed worthy.

Aristen. Do not transfer from throne to throne unless you can consider yourself more useful to the Christians there as more teaching, and that by the judgment and persuasion of many bishops. A bishop must not leave his province and transfer to another throne unless he is tested and recognized as more useful to the Christians there as more teaching. And that by the judgment and persuasion of many bishops. But this rule has lost its force. For the sixteenth canon of the Council of Antioch permits a bishop who has no church of his own to be appointed to a church that has no bishop, only with the approval of a full council in the presence also of the metropolitan bishop. But for a bishop who has his own church to transfer to another city is in no way permitted—neither by the twenty-first canon of the Council of Antioch, nor the fifteenth of the Nicene Council, nor the first of the Council of Sardica.

Valsamon. The present fourteenth rule determines that a bishop has no authority to transfer from his province to another, even if he does this for the benefit of the people, even if compelled to it by the people of another province, except in the case where he does this by conciliar commission. The sixteenth canon of the Council of Antioch says that one who seizes a vacant church without the knowledge of the council is subject to deposition. But know that although the present fourteenth Apostolic rule does not punish one who teaches outside his own boundaries, other various canons subject to deposition those who performed any episcopal act outside their own boundaries. But making dispositions outside one’s own boundaries by imperial command is permitted. However, when one metropolitan who taught in various of his dioceses without the knowledge of the bishops was accused for this and justified himself by pointing out that there should be no irregularity in this because these dioceses are under his authority, because the present rule imposes no penalty on such a one, and because teaching and making dispositions may not be exclusively episcopal ministry—this was not approved by the great council. Therefore note what is written in the present fourteenth rule and also the interpretation on the twentieth canon of the Council in Trullo concerning a bishop who taught in a foreign diocese, and reconcile both rules.

Another interpretation. From the present fourteenth rule it is seen that a malicious transfer of a bishop from diocese to diocese is condemned; but a transfer that occurs with good intent, for a justifiable great reason and the strengthening of piety with the greatest persuasion of many bishops, is permitted. But since some say that by the present rule the transfer of a bishop is permitted, though from it only a temporary calling of a bishop for teaching is evident, let them hear: from what do they conclude this, when the rule says nothing of the sort? Furthermore, what benefit will there be to the people of a widowed church from the teaching of a bishop who imparts teaching in it once or twice or even a whole year, if he will perform no other episcopal act in it, even if such a calling of the bishop were with the great persuasion of many bishops? If the one called will not teach by episcopal right, no persuasion from many bishops is required; for even one person can preach piety. Whoever asserts the contrary accuses the great Gregory the Theologian and Saint Proclus and others of unworthy ministry after transfer to the Constantinopolitan throne or to other patriarchal thrones, which cannot be admitted.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop must not come from throne to throne without calling.

Do not come from throne to throne unless you are deemed better and more teaching for those there, and even then by the judgment and entreaty of many bishops.

It is not fitting for a bishop, having left his own episcopacy, to seize another unless it has first been tested concerning him and he appears to be of benefit to those previously in that city and as teaching and wise, yet even then by the judgment and election and entreaty of many bishops. But this rule is concealed. For the sixteenth canon of the Council in Antioch does not command that a vacant bishop who has no church be introduced into a vacant church that has no bishop except with testing and judgment of a full council—that is, all the bishops in the province, with the metropolitan also present. But for a bishop who is not vacant and has his own church to transfer to another city it in no way commands. Likewise the fifteenth canon of the First Council in Nicaea, and the first and second of the Council in Sardica, and the twenty-first of the Council in Antioch likewise do not command.

15. If any presbyter, or deacon, or anyone at all listed in the clergy, leaving his own diocese, departs to another and, having completely transferred, resides in another without the consent of his own bishop: we command that such a one no longer minister, and especially if, when called by his bishop to return, he has not obeyed. But if he persists in this disorder, let him there have communion as a layman.

Zonara. The sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon prescribes that no one be ordained without appointment, but to a diocese, or to some church, or to a monastery. Therefore, for one ordained in this manner, if he leaves the church to which he was appointed as a cleric and goes to another, this rule forbids ministry, and especially if, being called, he does not return. But he is permitted to partake as a layman. The sixteenth canon of the First Council and the fifth of the Fourth say the same.

Aristen. Every cleric who has departed from his own province and lives in a foreign one, if urged by the bishop but does not return, must be deprived of communion. If anyone from the clergy, leaving his own province, goes to another and does not return—even when called by his own bishop—such a one must not minister. But if he continues to persist in such disorder, he must be deposed. However, he must have communion there as a layman. Seek also the third canon of the Council of Antioch.

Valsamon. The sixth canon of the Council of Chalcedon prescribes that clerics be ordained not without appointment, but to a diocese, or to churches, or to a monastery. And without the knowledge of those over them, they cannot depart to another diocese and perform their duties there as clerics. The rule subjects one who does anything such to excommunication, and especially if they are called but do not wish to return to his former province. However, the rule does not forbid such a one to live in another city as a layman. Seek also the sixteenth canon of the First Council and the fifth of the Fourth. Therefore note that for a cleric wishing to live in another diocese and act as a cleric, not only a commendatory letter is necessary, but also a letter of release from the bishop by whom he was enrolled in the clergy. But if he does not present such a letter, ministry must be forbidden him. Seek also the seventeenth canon of the Council in Trullo.

Slavic Kormchaya. Clerics must obey their own bishop. Every cleric who leaves his own land and lives in a foreign one, and when entreated by his own bishop does not return, is deprived of communion.

If any presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the priestly order, leaves his own land and departs to another country and does not wish to return, and his own bishop begins to call him, and if he does not obey him, let him not minister. But if he does not return in repentance but remains in such disorder, let him be deposed from rank, and thus remaining as a simple person let him partake. Concerning this, seek the fifteenth and sixteenth canons of the First Council in Nicaea, and the fifth canon of the Council in Chalcedon, and the third canon of the Council in Antioch.

16. But if the bishop with whom such persons are found, disregarding the prohibition of ministry determined for them, receives them as clerics: let him be excommunicated, as a teacher of disorder.

Zonara. The preceding rule does not permit ministry to those who have left the province where they were ordained. But the present one subjects to excommunication the bishop to whom they have come if he receives them as clerics, knowing of the prohibition, for he produces disorder and confusion.

Aristen. One who knowingly receives such a person is subject to the same condemnation. A bishop who knows of the prohibition determined for such a cleric and receives him as a cleric is excommunicated, as a teacher of disorder.

Valsamon. See: the present rule subjects to excommunication a bishop who enrolls in his clergy a cleric from another diocese without a letter of release from his own bishop. A Carthaginian bishop alone may enroll in his clergy clerics from other dioceses even without a letter of release from those who ordained them. You will find this in the canons of the Council of Carthage. But the archbishop of Constantinople also has authority to act in like manner. For the third Novel of the emperor Justinian, or chapter 2 of title 2 of the third book of the Basilics, says precisely the following: if in pious monasteries we forbid transfer from one monastery to another, how much more will we not permit this to the most reverent clerics, for we consider such a desire proof of avarice and trafficking. But if ever your Beatitude, or sometimes the imperial authority of the time, deems it necessary to make some such transfer, it must be done not otherwise than in accordance with the number we have determined for this. This Novel was written to the then patriarch of Constantinople. Note that the emperor is also given the right to make transfers of clerics.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who knowingly accepts and retains such a person has condemned himself.

If a bishop, knowing the heartfelt prohibition upon some cleric from his own bishop, begins to retain him as a cleric and commands him to minister, let him be excommunicated, as a teacher of disorder.

17. One who after holy baptism has been bound by two marriages, or has had a concubine, cannot be a bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon, nor at all in the list of the sacred order.

Zonara. We believe that the divine bath of holy baptism washes away every defilement by which the baptized were stained before baptism, and no sin committed by anyone before baptism hinders the baptized from being advanced to the priesthood. But one who after baptism commits fornication or enters into two marriages is deemed unworthy of any degree of the priesthood.

Aristen. No one twice-married or keeping a concubine is sacred. No one twice-married is admitted to the priesthood, and still less one keeping a concubine.

Valsamon. One who after holy baptism has entered into two marriages or fallen into fornication is forbidden by the rule to be a bishop or to perform anything priestly, disregarding all sins committed before holy baptism, because it is the beginning of renewal and the work of the grace of the Holy Spirit alone. Read also the twentieth canon of Saint Basil. But I do not know how many readers who were in two marriages remained in their places and by episcopal decrees were advanced to higher degrees. Read also the 137th Novel of Justinian, placed in the first title of the third book of the Basilics, in which, along with many other ecclesiastical matters, it is determined how to deal with twice-married clerics. Read also the twenty-third chapter of the first title of this collection and what is contained there.

Another interpretation. In the present interpretation of the seventeenth rule we wrote that we do not know how twice-married readers are not deposed but are even advanced to higher degrees by episcopal decrees. But now, having examined more carefully the content of the laws and canons, we have come to the conclusion that the present seventeenth rule and the eighteenth discuss bishops, priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but not readers. For those, if they enter twice into marriage, whether before ordination or after ordination, are subject to deposition; but readers who enter into two marriages before appointment are deposed, while after appointment they are granted pardon but are not admitted to advancement to another, higher ecclesiastical degree. For the 137th Novel of Justinian, or chapters 31 and 32 of the first title of the third book of the Basilics, says precisely the following: if a presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon after ordination brings a wife to himself, he must be expelled from the clergy and with his property must be assigned to the class of that city in which he was a cleric. But if a reader brings a second wife or a first but a widow, or one divorced from her husband, or one with whom laws and sacred canons forbid a cleric to marry, he must no longer advance to another ecclesiastical degree; but if in some way he were advanced to a higher degree, he must be reduced from it and restored to the former. If you wish to apply this rule also to readers, say that one who was in two marriages before appointment cannot be or become a reader, but upon discovery of this is deposed. But for a reader who after appointment enters a second marriage, indulgence is shown, though he cannot be advanced to a higher degree. It is necessary to say further that by episcopal decrees twice-married readers are appointed to positions of domestics and other ecclesiastical offices. Thus we say that ecclesiastical authorities and offices are not called degrees in the proper sense. For in the proper sense a degree is the degree of priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers, while offices and authorities are honors and means of sufficient maintenance. Therefore one who has been a reader from childhood, even if he enters twice into marriage, may unhindered be appointed by decree as a cleric, churchman, domestic, or gatherer of the people, but cannot be a deacon or subdeacon. One who dares this is subject to deposition.

Slavic Kormchaya. No one twice-married or having a concubine is sacred.

Everyone who marries a second time is unacceptable to the priestly order, and still more one who has a concubine will not enter the order.

18. One who takes in marriage a widow, or one dismissed from marriage, or a harlot, or a slave woman, or an actress, cannot be a bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon, nor at all in the list of the sacred order.

Zonara. Even among the Jews the old law forbade their priests to enter marriage with harlots, or captives, or slaves, and with women who obtain means of life by keeping taverns or inns, as well as with those divorced from husbands. But if it was thus established by law for them, how much more for those who are to minister according to the Gospel. For behold, the church is greater here. Therefore the present rule also does not permit those to be ordained who enter marriage with a widow, or one dismissed by her husband, or a harlot, or a slave, or any of those participating in stage performances. For one cannot believe that such women remain chaste who live carelessly and shamelessly converse with every passerby. Thus the rule does not permit one who has taken one of the enumerated to be advanced to any degree of the priesthood whatsoever.

Aristen. A priest who takes in marriage one dismissed, or a widow, or a maidservant, or a want of restraint is not sacred. And one who takes in marriage an immodest wife and not a virgin, but one rejected by another, or a widow, or a maidservant, or one of want of restraint, must not be admitted to the priesthood.

Valsamon. Note the present rule: it desires that not only the one to be ordained lead a chaste life, but also his spouse. Therefore it forbids those to be ordained to be joined with women indicated in it, because their chastity is doubtful due to the evil circumstances of their lives. Thus if anyone is joined with such a wife, he must not be deemed worthy of the priesthood. But if after receiving the priesthood his wife falls into adultery and he retains her with him, he must be subject to deposition. Read also chapter 29 of the ninth title of this collection, the tenth canon of the Council of Ancyra, and what is written there in explanation of these two present rules.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who takes one dismissed and a widow and a slave and an actress cannot be a priest.

If anyone does not take a wife without blemish and a virgin, but marries one whom her husband dismissed, or takes a widow, or a slave, or a buffoon, or an actress, such a one cannot be admitted to the priestly order.

19. One who has been married to two sisters or a niece cannot be in the clergy.

Zonara. A marriage not permitted by law not only hinders being in the clergy but also subjects to penalties. Civil law also subjects those who enter unlawful marriage to punishment, with dissolution of the unlawful marriage.

Aristen. One married to two sisters or a niece cannot be admitted to the clergy. Such a one not only cannot be a cleric but along with this is subject to very severe penalties, with dissolution of the unlawful marriage.

Valsamon. A niece is the daughter of a brother or sister. Thus one who enters marriage with two sisters, or with an aunt and niece, is not permitted by the rule to be in the clergy, with complete dissolution of the marriage. But know that not only one who has done anything such, but also one who enters another marriage forbidden by reason of blood relationship or affinity, must not be admitted to the clergy but must further undergo penalties. What penalties for those who fall into incest you will learn from various canons of Basil the Great.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who takes two sisters or a niece will not enter the clergy.

Interpretation. If anyone marries the first and she dies and he takes her sister, or one who takes his own niece—such are not only unworthy of the priestly order but are subject to severe prohibition and are punished by civil laws, with prior dissolution of the unlawful marriage.

Book of Canons. This Apostolic canon was established for those who, having entered such a marriage while still pagans, remained for some time in this unlawful cohabitation even after baptism. But those who after baptism no longer remained in such marital cohabitation may, according to the fifth canon of Saint Theophilus of Alexandria, be tolerated in the clergy; for the sin of pagan life is cleansed by holy baptism.

20. One from the clergy who becomes a surety for anyone shall be deposed.

Zonara. Surety is given either for oneself or for another. One who gives surety for another does this either for gain or out of love, by which we are commanded even to lay down our souls for our brethren. Thus it is forbidden to stand in place of another or make oneself liable, for example, for a tax collector. Being a tax collector is an ancient evil; tax collectors are those who take on contract the collection of public taxes. If they have no ready property, surety is required from them, and they bring someone who pledges their property for them. Thus this and similar things are forbidden to clerics, so that they do not involve themselves in troublesome affairs, avoid disputes and judicial quarrels: for in such a case they give suspicion as though they undertake this for gain, and clerics must not be lovers of gain. Therefore such persons undergo deposition. But if a cleric, being summoned to court by someone, seeks surety for himself that he will appear in court for the judicial session, in such a case the one who gives surety will not himself be subject to penalty; since even the divine fathers assembled at the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the imperial counselors with them required from the Egyptian bishops surety that they would appear in court or, if any of them did not have such and requested a delay, ordered them to give an oath. But if a cleric encounters a person being led to court who requests surety that he will appear—or for something else—or a person being imprisoned because he cannot provide surety, and, moved with compassion for the sufferer, offers himself as surety for him, being swayed by the misfortune of the sufferer; in such a case, I do not think he will be deposed, but will be accepted by God and right-thinking people as having fulfilled the evangelical commandment. Civil law also commands that clerics subject to trial give surety for themselves.

Aristen. A cleric does not give surety; but if he does, he shall be deposed. A cleric must not take upon himself affairs and troubles in courts for the sake of some shameful gain. For if, for example, Paul enters a contract with the treasury or a private person, and if he is not trusted but surety is required from him, and a cleric becomes surety for him: such a one will be found guilty and must be subject to deposition, because he became a despiser of this prohibition for the sake of some gain. But if a cleric encounters a person in distress, held under guard, who can come out from there only if he provides some surety that he will not flee, and if the cleric out of compassion and philanthropy takes such a one and becomes surety that he will appear in court when required—in that case he will not only not be subject to deposition but will be deemed worthy of praise, as having laid down his soul for his neighbor. And when surety is required from clerics subject to trial that they will appear: this does not make them subject to deposition, because in the fourth act of the Chalcedonian acts the holy council and the most glorious officials sitting with it compelled the Egyptian bishops to provide surety for themselves that they would remain, and from those who could not provide surety they required an oath.

Valsamon. To give surety, according to some, means for a cleric to become surety for another, and according to others, for a cleric to provide a surety for himself. Thus, to say that a cleric who is not admitted to trial or to proceedings due to poverty or some other justifiable reason, and therefore employs sureties to free himself from troubles, is subject to deposition—is very harsh and unworthy of Apostolic philanthropy. But a cleric’s surety for another sometimes may be subject to punishment. For if a cleric becomes surety for someone out of gain, he must be subject to deposition, since such surety is shameful. But he will not be subject to deposition if he becomes surety for some poor person out of compassion and stands for another for some pious reason. And at the Fourth Ecumenical Council there were many bishops and clerics who required or from whom surety was required, and none of them suffered harm. Interpret thus what relates to surety. Read also the 123rd Novel of Justinian, found in the third book of the Basilics in the first title or the thirteenth chapter of this title, in which, among other things, it says the following: presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons who are called exclusively by right of kinship to guardianship or curatorship, we permit to accept such service. And a little later: but neither collector of public taxes, nor receiver of them, nor contractor of duties or foreign estates, nor manager of a house, nor advocate in court, nor surety in all these matters do we permit a bishop, or oeconomos, or other cleric of any degree whatsoever, or monk to be, either in his own name or in the name of the church or monastery, lest under this pretext harm come to the holy houses and lest there be hindrance to divine services. Thus also from these words of the Novel, in which it is said that none of the ordained is a surety in these matters—that is, the enumerated ones—it is well seen that a cleric may be a surety in other pious matters, just as he may himself engage in these matters. Seek also the ninth title of this collection, chapters 4 and 27 and what is written there, and the thirtieth canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

Slavic Kormchaya. Clerics must not involve themselves in worldly sureties and matters.

A cleric shall not give surety. But having given it, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. It is not fitting for a cleric to involve himself in worldly matters, nor to go to courts, nor to create disputes, for the sake of some sordid gain. As Paul says, if there is a dispute between two over some property or gold, and one begins not to trust the other and demands surety from him, and a cleric becomes surety for him and makes himself liable: such a one, as having been careless about his prohibition for the sake of some gain, shall be deposed. But if a cleric finds someone wronged or tormented and held in prison, or otherwise unable to come out from there unless he provides someone as surety for himself that he will not flee, and out of mercy and philanthropy he takes such a one upon himself and becomes surety to present him until he is sought: such a one will not only not be deposed from rank but will be called praiseworthy, as having laid down his soul for a friend. And for clerics who are sued to seek surety that they will not flee but will stand in court at the proper time: such surety, if a surety gives it, is not subject to deposition. Since it is found in the Fourth Council in Chalcedon that the divine fathers and the most glorious nobles sitting with them compelled the Egyptian bishops to give surety for themselves that they would not depart from the city of Constantinople before the appointed time. But if they do not find a surety, let them confirm with an oath; this is the thirtieth canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Likewise civil law commands that a cleric sued give surety.

21. A eunuch, if made such by human violence, or deprived of male members in persecution, or born so, and if worthy, let him be a bishop.

Valsamon. These four rules—that is, the present one and the following—show indulgence to those castrated before entering the clergy due to illness or enemy invasion, and enroll such in the clergy if, of course, they prove worthy. But those who castrate themselves after receiving the priesthood, even if compelled by illness, as well as those who before receiving the priesthood deprived themselves of generative parts not due to illness, are subject to punishment: the former are deposed, and the latter are not admitted to the clergy. Laypeople who castrate themselves not due to illness or violence are subject to excommunication for three years. Therefore more prudent people, before subjecting their children to castration due to their illness, mostly appear before the most holy church and declare the illness of their children, as well as the removal of their generative members. Civil laws strictly punish those who subject their children, or slaves, or anyone else to castration if they are not afflicted with illness. Read also chapter 14 of the first title of this collection, as well as the 60th Novel of the emperor Leo the Wise. There are three kinds of eunuchs: 1) those deprived in childhood of generative parts that may have been damaged by parents and rendered useless, 2) those who from birth have no generative parts, and finally 3) those castrated with iron. Eunuchs of the first two kinds must unhindered be admitted to the priesthood, for they were guilty of no evil act toward themselves. But the third, according to the above prescription, are sometimes admitted to the priesthood and sometimes not.

Aristen. One made a eunuch by human violence, or a eunuch by nature, receives the priesthood if worthy, but one who castrates himself does not. One castrated not by his own will is not subject to this rule, and this is no hindrance to his ordination if he is worthy. But if anyone voluntarily castrates himself, he is in no way admitted to the clergy, and if already in the clergy, he is deposed from it, as a malefactor against his own life and an enemy of God’s creation.

Slavic Kormchaya. A eunuch shall not be a priest unless he castrates himself.

One who by human necessity or from birth became a eunuch, and being worthy, let him be a priest. But one who castrates himself, in no way.

Interpretation. If anyone was not castrated, he is not subject to this rule. But if he is worthy to be a priest, because of eunuchhood he will not be forbidden. But if anyone while healthy voluntarily castrates himself, in no way let him enter the clergy. But if being a cleric he castrates himself, let him be deposed, as a malefactor to his life and an enemy to God’s creation.

22. One who castrates himself shall not be admitted to the clergy. For he is a suicide and an enemy of God’s creation.

Zonara. Castration, except in case of illness affecting the generative parts, is forbidden by civil laws, and indeed so that castrated slaves they command to be freed, and those who castrated them they subject to the same mutilation, confiscation of property to the treasury, and exile. Sacred canons also forbid this. However, one castrated is not deprived of the right to the priesthood if he did not surrender himself to castration, for one castrated by others, as having suffered violence, is more worthy of pity than hatred. Therefore such a one may be deemed worthy of the priesthood. Likewise one who by nature is deprived of generative parts (whom in the Gospel the Lord called eunuchs from birth) may unhindered be enrolled in the clergy. But one who resolves upon castrating himself not only cannot be enrolled in the clergy but, if he previously succeeded in becoming a cleric, must be expelled from the clergy. And if a layman surrenders himself to castration, he must be subjected to excommunication for three years; since such, because of the danger of this act, appear as malefactors against themselves and opponents of God’s creation. For God created them with the nature of a man, but they change themselves into another, strange nature, so that they become neither men, for they cannot perform what is proper to men and cannot generate a human, nor women, for they cannot by their nature give birth.

The same is prescribed by the first canon of the First Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. A layperson who cuts off his own generative member shall be excommunicated and shall not be a cleric.

23. If anyone from the clergy castrates himself: let him be deposed. For he is a murderer of himself.

Slavic Kormchaya. A cleric who cuts off his generative member shall be deposed. If any cleric cuts off his generative member, let him be deposed, for he is a murderer of himself.

24. A layman who castrates himself shall be excommunicated from the mysteries for three years. For he is a plotter against his own life.

Valsamon. The interpretation of these chapters is written above. Read also the discourse of Saint Basil the Great on virginity, the discourse of Saint Epiphanius, and from the Nomocanon of the Faster concerning the castrated.

Slavic Kormchaya. A layperson who cuts off his generative member shall be excommunicated for three years, as a malefactor to his life.

25. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon convicted of fornication, or perjury, or theft shall be deposed from holy orders but shall not be excommunicated from church communion. For Scripture says: Thou shalt not punish twice for the same offense. Likewise the other clergy.

Zonara. Those who fall into the indicated crimes are deposed, yet they are not at the same time subjected to excommunication, for deposition is deemed sufficient punishment for such crimes, and they must not be punished twice. But there are other crimes for which those convicted are both deposed and excommunicated—for example, those advanced to the episcopate for money or by the intercession of authorities.

Aristen. A priest convicted of fornication, or perjury, or theft is deposed but not excommunicated; for Scripture says: do not render twice for the same. For a priest convicted of adultery, or perjury, or theft, deposition is sufficient punishment, and he must not be subjected also to excommunication, lest he thus fall under double punishment, which is entirely contrary to philanthropy.

Valsamon. Do not say that the words “thou shalt not avenge twice for one” apply to everyone deposed for anything whatsoever. For those advanced to the priesthood by the intercession of authorities or for money are both deposed and excommunicated, as the twenty-ninth and thirtieth Apostolic canons say. But say that these words apply only to those deposed for the crimes indicated in the present rule and for other similar ones. Seek also the third, thirty-second, and fifty-first canons of Saint Basil. And thus note that bishops and clerics deposed from the clergy in this way are not excommunicated from communion with the faithful. Read also the thirty-second canon of Saint Basil.

Slavic Kormchaya. A hierarch who was in fornication, or in oath, or in theft shall be deposed but not excommunicated together.

Interpretation. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any cleric who is caught in fornication, or in oath, or in theft: deposition from rank is sufficient condemnation for him, and such a one must not be excommunicated, lest he suffer punishment twice, which is utterly unphilanthropic.

26. We command that of those who enter the clergy unmarried, only readers and singers may marry if they wish.

Zonara. Presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons are asked before ordination whether they wish to lead a chaste life and, if they promise this, they are ordained; but if not, they are given permission to enter marriage before ordination, and after entering marriage, they are ordained. But if the indicated persons after ordination take wives, they are deposed. Only to readers and singers, even after enrollment in the clergy, is it permitted to enter marriage and remain again in their status. But for them to marry a heterodox wife is forbidden by the fourteenth canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Aristen. One to be enrolled in the sacred order, if he wishes, let him enter marriage, but of those enrolled in the sacred order only a reader or singer may enter marriage.

No one after receiving the priesthood can enter marriage and remain in this rank. This is permitted only to readers and singers.

Valsamon. Before ordination all are permitted to marry wives, and thus such are ordained as presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons; but after ordination only readers and singers are permitted to enter marriage.

Slavic Kormchaya. To those who come to the clergy before marriage, we command readers and singers, if they wish, to marry.

Interpretation. It is not fitting for a presbyter or deacon to marry after appointment, but to come to marriage before consecration and then receive such a rank. Only to readers and singers, who were previously consecrated—that is, appointed to that order—and then to marry is fitting.

27. We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who strikes faithful sinners or unbelievers who have offended, and by this wishes to instill fear, be deposed from holy orders. For the Lord by no means taught us this: on the contrary, when Himself struck, He did not strike back; when reviled, He did not revile in return; when suffering, He did not threaten.

Zonara. Our Lord and God, giving commandments to His disciples, said: What I say unto you I say unto all (Mark 13:37). Among His divine commandments are those that command: to one who strikes the right cheek, turn the other also; and: to one who takes away the outer garment, give also the tunic (Matt. 5:39–40). If this is commanded to all, how much more must sacred persons observe it, so as to be an example to others.

Therefore this present rule forbids bishops and others to strike those who have sinned against them, whether faithful or unbelievers. For they are bound to reprove others who act unjustly and to defend the wronged, as the great Paul commands Timothy: Those who sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear (1 Tim. 5:20); but to avenge themselves is forbidden them. They must be imitators of the Lord, who, though able to repay those who reviled Him, yet did not repay but even prayed for them. But those engaged in trade in the temple, as sinning against the divine, He drove out with blows of a whip and said in reproof: Make not My Father’s house an house of merchandise (John 2:16). And the great Paul, prescribing what a bishop must be, says among other things that he must be no striker (1 Tim. 3:3). One must also read the ninth canon of the so-called First-and-Second Council held in the church of the holy Apostles.

Aristen. A priest who strikes a faithful or an unbeliever shall be deposed. A priest who strikes a faithful or an unbeliever who has sinned against him, and through fear thus instilled wishes to ensure that others do not commit similar offenses against him—since he acts contrary to the law that commands turning the other cheek if one is struck on one—shall be subject to deposition, because he strikes out of pride and unbridled anger. But one who prudently punishes with a whip one who sins against sacred things is not subject to deposition, as the Lord also with a whip made of cords drove out those selling and buying in the temple under the law. For this purpose church nomophylakes and ekdikoi are chosen, as persons appointed from ancient times by the fathers to punish such offenses.

Valsamon. Ministers of the altar must not be overcome by anger and strike those who have sinned against them—that is, the faithful or even unbelievers—and thus as it were avenge themselves and terrify others. Those who do anything such contrary to the Lord’s teaching, which determines: to one who strikes the right cheek, turn the other also, shall be deposed. But civil law determines the opposite when it says: it is permitted to repel force with force and weapon with weapon. Of course, what is said in this law must apply to laypeople, though the Lord’s commandment, as general, is pronounced for all. However, to punish moderately one’s disciples and those who sin and after admonition do not correct themselves is permitted to those in orders; for the Lord also with blows of a whip drove out from the temple those trading, who thus sinned against the divine. Read also the ninth canon of the council held in the church of the holy Apostles and called the First-and-Second.

Slavic Kormchaya. A hierarch who strikes a faithful or an unbeliever shall be deposed.

A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who strikes a faithful or an unbeliever who has offended him, and thereby instills fear in others so that they too do not sin similarly against him—such a one, as acting contrary to the evangelical law that commands: if anyone strikes thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also—shall be deposed, since out of pride and unrestrained wrath he inflicted a wound on his neighbor. But if anyone with prudent mind strikes one who unlawfully does something in the holy church or in holy places, such a one shall not be deposed. For our Lord Jesus Christ also, making a whip of cords and striking, drove out those selling and buying in the lawful church. For church guardians, called avengers, are appointed from above by the fathers to punish such.

28. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon justly deposed for manifest fault dares to touch the ministry once entrusted to him: let such a one be utterly cut off from the Church.

Zonara. The indicated persons, sinning after their rightful deposition and not relinquishing their former honor (I speak of sacred ministry), are justly cut off from the church for their extreme shamelessness and also because they can no longer otherwise be punished by the canons. Formerly they were deposed, but now they are cut off even from the church.

Aristen. One deposed in lawful manner who again touches the divine mysteries must be utterly excommunicated. One who after deposition following sufficient reasons for manifest crimes again touches divine ministry is, as a rotten member, utterly cut off from the church.

Valsamon. One deposed for manifest crime according to the canons, and thus unable to obtain aid even from appeal, if he dares to touch his former ministry, is cut off even from the church, as most shameless. But if anyone can still hope to obtain aid from appeal and the judicial decision against him is still in doubt, he will not be condemned even if he ministers. Civil law in the third book of the Basilics, title 1, chapter 1, says the following: a bishop deposed by a council and causing disturbance to occupy his episcopacy again must be settled 100 miles from the city from which he was expelled and must not appeal to the emperor. If he appeals in writing, let even this be useless to him. Whoever defends him, let that one also be in disfavor. Seek also the fourth, twelfth, and fifteenth canons of the Council of Antioch.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon justly deposed for manifest sin dares to touch the ministry formerly entrusted to him, let him utterly be cut off from the church.

Interpretation. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon deposed from his rank for a most righteous cause concerning manifest transgressions who after deposition touches the divine ministry—that is, begins again to minister—such a one, as a rotten member, shall utterly be cut off from the church.

29. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon obtains this dignity by money: let both he and the one who ordained him be deposed, and let them be utterly cut off from communion, as Simon the magician was by Peter.

Zonara. In the twenty-fifth canon it is said that one must not punish twice for the same; but here in both these canons double punishment is imposed because of the excess of the evil and the gravity of the sins. For nothing is worse than one who acquires the divine as a thing for sale by money or through secular authorities, or one who sells it. For in this the gift of the Holy Spirit is sold as something servile. According to the testimony of the conciliar epistle written by Tarasius, most holy patriarch of Constantinople, to Pope Adrian of old Rome, Macedonius and the other Spirit-fighters are far more excusable. “For these speak vainly as though the Holy Spirit is a creature and servant of God the Father, but those, it seems, make Him their servant.” For one who sells anything sells as lord of what is sold, and one who buys, wishing to be lord of what is bought, acquires it by the price of silver. So intolerable are these sins! Therefore those who obtain the priesthood through money or through the power of secular rulers, and those who confer it in this way, together with deposition from the clergy, are utterly expelled from the church. The encyclical epistle of Gennadius, most holy patriarch of New Rome, anathematizes such when it says the following: “and thus let him be and is rejected, and deprived of every sacred dignity and ministry, and subject to the curse of anathema” both the one receiving the sold grace of the Spirit and the one conferring it—whether cleric or layman.

Aristen. Canon 29. A priest ordained for money, together with the one who ordained him, shall be deposed and must, after the example of Simon, remain forever without communion. Here are two penalties, for such a one is deposed and remains forever without communion, because of the importance of the crime.

Aristen. Canon 30. One who becomes bishop through secular rulers shall after deposition be excommunicated. This one also, as having committed a great sin, is both deposed and excommunicated. For one to receive ordination as bishop must be appointed by all the bishops in the province; or, if it is inconvenient for all to assemble together, necessarily at least by three bishops with the consent of the absent.

Valsamon. The two present canons, 29 and 30, not only depose but also cut off from communion—that is, excommunicate—those who become bishops, or presbyters, or deacons for money, and likewise those who become bishops through the mediation of secular rulers. For the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, as has been said, is not sold. And the epistle of Saint Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, to Pope Adrian says that the heretic Macedonius, who blasphemed as though the Holy Spirit holds a servile position, is more excusable than one who sells or buys for money the bestowal of the All-Holy Spirit, because the seller sells as lord, and the buyer gives his money to become lord. The encyclical epistle of the most holy patriarch Gennadius subjects such also to anathema in the following words: and thus let him be and is rejected, and deprived of every sacred dignity and ministry, and subject to the curse of anathema both the one giving and the one receiving the sold grace of the Spirit, whether cleric or layman. And this is so. But perhaps someone will ask: since the thirtieth canon mentions only a bishop, and likewise the twenty-ninth does not mention subdeacons and readers; then, what if someone becomes a presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, or reader by the intercession of a secular ruler, or, having given money, becomes a subdeacon or reader? Resolution: they too must be subject to deposition and excommunication on the basis of the last words of this thirtieth canon, where it is said that not only the chief culprits of the evil are deposed and excommunicated, but also their accomplices. And the epistle of Gennadius, as has been said, subjects to anathema not only the ordained but also laypeople who did the same evil. Read also the second canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and the fifth chapter of the first title of this collection, and what is said there.

Slavic Kormchaya. Canon 29. Woe to one ordained for payment and to the one who ordained him. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives rank by possessions, let both he and the one who consecrated him be deposed.

Interpretation. Here it gives double prohibition together: to one ordained for payment and to the one who ordained him; for it deposes both from rank. And further it commands them to be forever without communion and cut off from the church for such a great transgression.

Canon 30. If any bishop by aid of secular princes or people receives a church, let him be deposed and excommunicated.

Interpretation. If any bishop, having been chosen by secular authorities and by their power receives the church of God—that is, becomes bishop in it—such a one, as having sinned a great transgression, shall be deposed and excommunicated; for it is fitting that one wishing to be appointed bishop be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But if it is not possible for all to assemble together, at least without any excuse by three bishops, with written agreement together from all the bishops who did not come.

30. If any bishop, using secular rulers, through them obtains episcopal authority in a church: let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him.

(see canon 29)

31. If any presbyter, despising his own bishop, holds separate assemblies and erects another altar, not having condemned the bishop by judgment in anything contrary to piety and justice: let him be deposed, as ambitious of power. For he is a usurper of authority. Likewise let the other clergy who join him be deposed. But let the laypeople be excommunicated from church communion. And this after the first, second, and third admonition from the bishop.

Zonara. Order sustains heavenly and earthly things. Therefore good order must be preserved everywhere and especially among church persons; and both presbyters and other clerics must be in submission to the bishop. But if any presbyter, not having condemned his own hierarch by judgment in anything—neither as though he sins against piety, nor as though he does anything else contrary to duty and justice—but out of his own love of power forms an unlawful assembly, separately arranges a church, erects an altar and ministers upon it, the rule commands such a one to be deposed—both him and the clerics who assemble with him, and the laypeople to be excommunicated. But the rule desires that bishops not be hasty in punishment, therefore it does not immediately command condemnation but thrice to admonish those forming such unlawful assemblies to abandon their disorderly undertaking, and to condemn them when they stubbornly persist in it. The sixth canon of the Council of Gangra anathematizes those who, without the knowledge of their bishop, hold assemblies not in the catholic church but separately. Similarly the tenth canon of the Council of Carthage.

Aristen. One who separates from the bishop without cause and erects another altar shall be deprived of rank together with those who receive him. If anyone condemns his own bishop without cause—that is, when that one has not erred against piety or against justice—separately gathers the people and erects another altar, such a one must be deposed: himself as ambitious of power, and the clerics who followed him. However, this must follow if he does not turn back after the bishop has admonished him twice and thrice.

Valsamon. In every city clerics and laypeople must submit to the local bishop, assemble with him, and participate in church prayers, unless they condemn him by judgment as impious or unjust. For then, even if they separate from him, they will not be condemned. But one who acts contrary to this, without sufficient ground to separate from his bishop and arranges a special church assembly, if a cleric must be deposed as ambitious of power, and if a layperson must be excommunicated. However, according to the determination of this rule, this must follow after the first, second, and third admonition. Read also the sixth canon of the Council of Gangra and the tenth of Carthage. Relying on this rule and others similar in content, local metropolitans and bishops are indignant against those who seek the establishment of patriarchal stavropegia in their territories. Therefore some of them, and that repeatedly, have appealed to emperors and patriarchs with requests to abolish the granting of patriarchal stavropegia, and those submitting petitions about this to the ecumenical patriarch are not even granted a word by them. But such petitioners have not been satisfied. And when those seeking abolition of stavropegia asked to be shown the canons permitting the issuance of such stavropegia, the attack from them (that is, the metropolitans and bishops) was directly repelled by the most holy great church with reference to the long-standing unwritten ecclesiastical custom, which from time immemorial and to this day has the force of canons in the church. Note that this present Apostolic rule determines that clerics may without danger separate from their bishops if they condemn them by judgment as impious or unjust. Accusation of injustice is new. But in no other way, even if the bishop or priest be the worst of all, must anyone separate from them, but rather believe that through even the most sinful priest or bishop sanctification is bestowed, for God does not ordain all, says Chrysostom, but acts through all. Read also Chrysostom’s interpretation on the second epistle to Timothy, and the thirteenth canon of the council in the church of the holy Apostles.

Another interpretation. After writing the interpretation on this present rule, I had conversation with some of the hierarchs indignant at patriarchal stavropegia and asserting that they are sent into their territories contrary to the canons, and I came to the thought that this is done justly and in accordance with the canons, and that local bishops vainly censure the arrangement of stavropegia; for by the divine canons territory is given not to a metropolitan, not to an archbishop, and not to a bishop, but all the territories of the four quarters of the world are divided among the five patriarchs; therefore in these territories their names are elevated by all the bishops of them. And this is clear from the sixth and seventh canons of the First Council, also from the second and third of the Second Council, by which it is determined that the patriarch of Alexandria has as his territory all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; the Antiochian—Syria, Mesopotamia, and Cilicia; and the other patriarchs—other dioceses. Therefore by the force of the indicated canons, having the right of ordinations in the territories determined for them, having the right of judgment over hierarchs administering in these territories and subjecting them to punishments according to the canons, the patriarchs by right may grant stavropegia in their cities and territories, and also freely take to themselves their clerics, as many as they wish. But nevertheless it is not permitted to any of the patriarchs to send their stavropegia into the territory of another patriarch or to appropriate his cleric, lest there occur confusion of rights in the churches.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who without cause separates from the bishop and erects another church shall be deposed together with those who receive him.

Interpretation. If any presbyter without cause leaves his bishop, not having found him sinning in orthodoxy or in any justice, and departing gathers a assembly of people by himself and makes another church, let him be deposed as a lover of power: himself and the clerics who followed him. But simple people shall be excommunicated. Such condemnation must be accepted if he does not turn back after his bishop has entreated him twice and thrice.

32. If any presbyter or deacon is excommunicated by a bishop: it is not fitting for him to be received into communion by another, but only by the one who excommunicated him; unless it happens that the bishop who excommunicated him dies.

Zonara. Concerning the fact that those excommunicated by their own bishops must not be received or released from penalty by other bishops, this has been said above, and the present rule again prescribes the same. But since it may happen that the excommunicating bishop dies either suddenly or while absent from his diocese, and the excommunicated remains under penalty, the rule adds: unless it happens that the bishop who excommunicated him dies, or: unless the one who excommunicated him passes away quickly and unexpectedly. This rule seems to permit that, in case of the death of the one who excommunicated, the excommunicated may be received by another. But the expression “another” is used here in this sense: that is, the successor to the episcopal dignity of the deceased; for a bishop of another province is not given the right to release one bound by penalty from another, except in the case where there is a conciliar investigation and it is found that the excommunicating bishop acted unjustly. This is permitted even if the one who excommunicated is still alive.

Aristen. One excommunicated by one bishop, while he lives, cannot be received by others. A presbyter or deacon excommunicated by his own bishop, while the excommunicating bishop lives, must not be received by another.

Valsamon. Some parts of this present rule have been explained previously in other rules. But in what manner one excommunicated is released from excommunication after the death of the excommunicating bishop, learn this now and say: if the one who excommunicated has ended his life, then the one who releases from excommunication is either the one who becomes bishop after him, or the one who ordained the deceased hierarch—that is, the patriarch or metropolitan—yet after investigation. But for a bishop of another province to release the excommunicated after the death of the one who excommunicated is not permitted.

Slavic Kormchaya. One excommunicated by another is unacceptable to him, while that one is still alive.

Interpretation. If any presbyter or deacon, having been excommunicated by his own bishop while the excommunicating bishop is still alive, comes to another, he is not worthy to be received by him.

33. Let no one receive foreign bishops, or presbyters, or deacons without commendatory letters: and when such are presented, let them judge concerning them; and if they are preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, provide them with what is needful, but do not receive them into communion. For many things are done by deceit.

Zonara. This rule does not permit the reception of foreign clerics departing to another country without commendatory letters. But even if they bring commendatory letters with them, the rule does not permit receiving them without investigation but prescribes examining whether they are orthodox (for it may happen that the one who gave the commendatory letter did not know that they err in faith), and if they prove to be such, to receive them and enter into communion with them. But if they prove doubtful in relation to the right dogmas, the rule commands to avoid cohabitation with them and, having provided what is necessary for them, to send them away in this manner. For to neglect them when they are in need of necessary means for life and thus dismiss them, the Apostles consider an act that is not philanthropic and at the same time exposes the stinginess of those who do not receive such persons.

Aristen. A foreign priest without commendatory letters is not received; but when he comes, he is subjected to examination and, if he proves orthodox, he is received; but if not, he is sent away after being supplied with what is necessary for the journey. Without commendatory letters a foreign priest must not be received; but if he brings commendatory letters, even in this case he must be subjected to examination. And if he is found undeniably pious, receive him; but in case of doubt, provide him with what is needful for life and send him away.

Valsamon. That foreign bishops, or presbyters, or deacons must not be received without commendatory letters, we have already learned previously. But now the rule determines that such persons, even if they have commendatory letters, must be subjected to examination in faith, and if orthodox, receive them into communion; otherwise refuse this if doubtful. But certainly do not deprive them of sustenance. Such is the content of this present rule. But from other rules you will learn that some, even if they have commendatory letters and even if there is no doubt concerning their orthodoxy, must still present letters of release from their bishops; otherwise ministry will not be permitted them. For in commendatory letters it is indicated only that they are ordained; permission for them to minister in a foreign province is shown not in these but in letters of release. Therefore, it seems, this present rule mentioned communion alone and did not mention ministry together, since for those who bring only commendatory letters, participation in church assemblies in a foreign province is not forbidden.

Slavic Kormchaya. A foreign presbyter without a commendatory letter is unacceptable. But if he has one, let him still be examined whether he is orthodox. If not, having received what is necessary for the journey, let him be dismissed.

Interpretation. Without a commendatory letter it is not fitting to receive a foreign presbyter. A commendatory letter is such as indicates of what city the bishop is, and what his name is, and what the name of the presbyter is, and whether he ordained him according to the holy canons, and whether he dismissed him in peace. But even if he carries such a letter, even then it is fitting to question and examine him, and if he is found orthodox without any accusation, it is worthy to receive him. But if he speaks or does anything contrary to orthodoxy, it is fitting to give such a one what is necessary for the journey and dismiss him.

34. The bishops of every nation must know the first among them and recognize him as head, and do nothing exceeding their authority without his consideration: but let each do only what concerns his own diocese and the places belonging to it. But let the first also do nothing without the consideration of all. For thus there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Zonara. Just as bodies move improperly or even become entirely useless if the head does not preserve its activity in a healthy state; so the body of the church will move disorderly and improperly if the foremost member in it, occupying the place of the head, does not enjoy the honor due him. Therefore this present rule commands that the foremost bishops in each province—that is, the hierarchs of metropolises—be honored by the other bishops of the same province as head and that they do nothing relating to the general state of the church without them, such as dogmatic investigations, measures concerning common errors, ordinations of hierarchs, and the like. But it prescribes that concerning these matters, assembling with him, they deliberate together and adopt the opinion recognized by all as best; while the affairs of his own church and the places subject to it each does separately by himself. However, the rule does not permit the foremost bishop, by abuse of honor, to turn it into dominance, to act autocratically, and without the common consent of his fellow ministers to do anything indicated above or similar to it. For the rule desires that hierarchs be of one mind, bound by the bond of love, and be an example of love and concord both for the clergy subject to them and for the people, so that thus God may be glorified, according to the words of the evangelical teaching: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven (Matt. 5:16). God will be glorified through the Lord, who revealed to men His name and established the law of love; glorified also in the Holy Spirit, for by Him the Apostles were enlightened and taught the nations.

Aristen. Without their foremost bishop the bishops do nothing except the affairs of each one’s own province, and the foremost without them—nothing, for the sake of due concord. Neither bishops nor metropolitans must do anything exceeding their authority without the consent of their foremost—for example, elect bishops, conduct investigations concerning new dogmas, or alienate any church property—but must do only what pertains to each one’s province and the places subject to him; but the foremost also cannot do anything similar without their knowledge; and thus the determination concerning concord is preserved.

Valsamon. Order sustains all things—both heavenly and earthly. Therefore this present rule determines that those ordained must render honor to those who ordained them. For these are the foremost and their heads. Therefore it is determined by common opinion that all things exceeding the circle of affairs belonging to each diocese, relating to the general ecclesiastical arrangement and considered to exceed the authority of a single bishop, must not be done without the knowledge of the foremost. However, the foremost himself is not given the right to do anything such without the knowledge of his bishops; for thus, it says, concord and love toward God will be preserved among them. Thus this rule is explained. For the explanation of the expression “exceeding authority,” say that many cities remaining without bishops due to invasion by pagans are by discretion entrusted to other bishops. Thus the foremost bishop under whose administration these cities fall will be subject to accusation if he makes a distribution of them without the knowledge of his fellow ministers. Such are actions exceeding authority, and concerning them the rule gives determination. But say that the prohibition to the foremost bishop to do anything without the knowledge of his bishops is understood not concerning everything he has to do, but only concerning what exceeds authority. For if you say this, the one ordaining will be placed below the ordained, since he will be entirely forbidden to do anything without the knowledge of his subordinates, while for them the presence of the foremost is necessary only in affairs exceeding their authority, which is inappropriate.

Slavic Kormchaya. Without the will of all the bishops even the eldest bishop does nothing. Without their eldest let the bishops do nothing: but only in his own diocese each one. And the eldest also does nothing without them, for the sake of profitable union for all.

Interpretation. It is not fitting for bishops, apart from the will of their eldest—that is, without the will of their metropolitan or archbishop—to do anything excessive: neither to appoint a bishop, nor to dispute concerning commandments or new canons, nor to sell or give away any church things. But only to administer what is fitting for each in his own dioceses and in the countries and villages subject to them. But neither the eldest—that is, the metropolitan or archbishop—can do anything such without the will of all the bishops. For those who act thus all preserve the commandment of union and love.

35. Let a bishop not dare to perform ordinations outside the boundaries of his diocese in cities and villages not subject to him. But if he is convicted of having done this without the consent of those who have authority over those cities and villages: let both he and those ordained by him be deposed.

Zonara. This rule also is set forth for the preservation of concord and good order. It permits no one to go into the territory of another and ordain without the knowledge and permission of the hierarch of that place. For even the metropolitan of a province is not permitted to come into the territory of any of the bishops subject to him and perform any action proper to a hierarch alone: the rule prescribes deposing both the one who ordained in this way and the one ordained. The same and in the same manner is prescribed by the Council of Antioch in its thirteenth and twenty-second canons, and by the Second Ecumenical Council in its second canon.

Aristen. Do not ordain outside one’s territory. But one who performs ordination without the consent of the local hierarchs shall be deprived of the episcopate, and the one ordained by him—of the priesthood. None of the bishops must ordain anyone outside his own territories. But one who does this without the consent of the local bishop shall be deposed: himself and the one ordained by him.

Valsamon. To ordain outside one’s own territory is forbidden; and one who does anything such without the knowledge of the local bishop the rule deposes together with the one appointed. The same must follow with foremost bishops who celebrate the liturgy in the territory of their bishops without their knowledge. Read also the thirteenth and twenty-second canons of the Council of Antioch, and the second canon of the Second Council. This concerns ordinations and other sacred actions performed within the altar. But if anyone outside his territory makes a disposition or performs anything else not among the actions performed within the altar, such a one, in the opinion of some, must be punished in some other way by conciliar decision. Seek also the sixteenth canon of the holy Apostles.

Slavic Kormchaya. Do not appoint from a foreign territory nor in a territory. But if without the will of the bishop of that place he does this, together with the one appointed by him, he himself is not appointed.

Interpretation. It is not fitting for any bishop to appoint outside his own territories, nor to come from foreign territories and appoint anyone—a presbyter or deacon. But if anyone does anything such without the will of the bishop of that country, let both he and the one appointed by him be deposed.

36. If anyone, having been ordained a bishop, does not accept the ministry and care of the people entrusted to him: let him be excommunicated until he accepts it. Likewise a presbyter and deacon. But if he goes there and is not received, not by his own will but by the malice of the people: let him remain bishop, but let the clergy of that city be excommunicated because they did not teach such a disobedient people.

Zonara. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, says the divine Apostle (Heb. 13:17). The same this present rule prescribes, for it commands that one called to the governance of a people not resist this but accept this divine ministry and governance of the people, or undergo excommunication if he resists and does not go to the place of ministry. The same concerning presbyters and deacons. But if a bishop does not go to the province appointed him, and the people of that province do not receive him out of their own disobedience and shamelessness, and not for any culpable reason on the part of the bishop, then the bishop remains in his status—that is, in rank—while the clergy of that province will be subject to deposition for not teaching this disobedient people. Thus see how clerics must be according to the rule: not only learned but teaching, able to instruct and correct others. Read the seventeenth and eighteenth canons of the Council of Antioch and the eighteenth of Ancyra. Seek also the fifty-eighth canon (Apostolic).

Aristen. One newly appointed who does not accept the ministry entrusted to him is excommunicated until he accepts; but if he is not received by the people, the clergy are excommunicated for not teaching the people, while he himself remains bishop. A newly ordained bishop who does not consent to accept the care of the people entrusted to him must be excommunicated until he accepts. But if he goes and is not received by the people not for his own fall but by their malice, let him remain bishop, while the clergy are excommunicated for not teaching the disobedient people.

Valsamon. Some took ordination here instead of election and said: it is astonishing how those now elected to certain churches can refuse. But the renowned Zonara in his interpretation of this rule took ordination both as ordination and as election. But it seems to me correct that the rule here calls ordination by the term ordination; for it mentions presbyters and deacons sent, according to ancient custom, to other countries for the teaching of the people. That deacons are ordained—that is, sealed—we know, but we have never heard that they are elected, as bishops are elected, and according to ancient custom priests also, as the thirteenth canon of the Council of Laodicea says concerning this. Thus this present rule determines: if any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon accepts the ordination of teaching and does not fulfill his ministry, he must be excommunicated until he consents to go where appointed. But if he goes and is not received by the malice of the people of that country, then the clergy, even if not guilty of this evil action, must be subjected to excommunication for not teaching the disobedient people, while the bishop preserves his status. Thus note how the clergy is punished for the ignorance of the simple people. Read also the eighteenth canon of the Council of Ancyra, the seventeenth and eighteenth of Antioch, the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus, the seventeenth canon of the First-and-Second Council held in the church of the holy Apostles, the second canon of the Seventh Council, and the twenty-ninth canon of the Council of Chalcedon.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop and presbyter who do not teach the people are subject to deposition. A newly appointed bishop who by laziness does not teach shall be excommunicated until he corrects himself. But if he is not received by the people, the clerics shall be excommunicated as not having punished the people. But the bishop remains.

Interpretation. If one newly appointed bishop or presbyter does not obey to accept the care entrusted to him and does not wish to pasture Christ’s flock nor teach the people subject to him, let him be excommunicated until he corrects himself and begins diligently to teach his flock. But if having come he is not received by the people of that city not for his own transgression but by the malice of the people, let the bishop remain. But the presbyters and deacons of that whole city and the other clerics shall be excommunicated, since they did not teach the disobedient people.

37. Let the council of bishops be held twice a year, and let them discuss with one another concerning the doctrines of piety, and settle the ecclesiastical disputes that happen to arise. The first time, in the fourth week of Pentecost; and the second, on the twelfth day of October.

Zonara. For the resolution of doubts that arise concerning doctrines, and for other ecclesiastical matters, and also on behalf of those subjected to excommunications by bishops, if they complain against those who excommunicated them, the holy Apostles deemed it necessary that the bishops of each diocese should assemble twice a year in one place, communicate to one another the doubts that arise, and resolve them. The present rule and the twentieth rule of the Council of Antioch designate the times of these twice-yearly councils as the fourth week after Pascha and the autumn season, that is, October, for this is Hyperberetaeus. But the fifth rule of the first Council of Nicaea prescribes that one council be held before Lent, and the other around autumn time. One might think that Lent was written by mistake in the transcription of the rules instead of Pentecost. But no one is permitted to think thus because of the reason given by the rule of the Nicene Council, when it says: “one before Lent, that when all displeasure has ceased, a pure gift may be offered to God.” Thus, the rules mentioned designate the times differently; but they agree in determining that two provincial assemblies should be held each year. The sixth Ecumenical Council and the second Nicene, on account of the difficulty and expense of travel, prescribe that bishops assemble once a year. In the present time, these councils are not held at all.

Aristen. Twice each year the bishops must assemble to discuss matters and doctrines: the first time in the fourth week of Pentecost, and the second on the twelfth day of Hyperberetaeus. The present rule has been restricted, for the eighth rule of the sixth council and the sixth of the second Nicene prescribe that councils of bishops in each diocese be held once a year between Pascha and the month of October.

Valsamon. For ecclesiastical questions that may arise in different regions, it has been deemed necessary that the bishops of each province assemble under their presiding bishop, and there resolve doubts. The present rule, the twentieth of the Antiochian Council, and the fifth of the Nicene speak of these councils of bishops being held twice a year. But the sixth Council and the second Nicene ordained that bishops assemble once a year. Likewise, chapters 20 and 21 of the first title of the Basilika, which are taken from Justinian’s novella, prescribe that councils be held once a year. Hyperberetaeus is the month of October. See also title 8, chapter 8 of the present collection.

Slavic Kormchaya. Twice in the year let bishops assemble for the sake of ecclesiastical matters and divine commandments. The first, in the fourth week after Pascha. The second, on the twelfth day of Hyperberetaeus (October).

Interpretation. That bishops assemble once in the year. This rule of the most glorious Apostles commands that a council be held twice in the year; yet this has been set aside. For the eighth rule of the sixth council in Trullo and the sixth of the second Council in Nicaea command that in each province a council of all bishops be held once in the year, concerning ecclesiastical matters and the discussion of divine commandments, and the resolution of doubtful and unresolved faults, and if any bishop has bound some with heavy penalties, that is, suspension or excommunication, that all the bishops judge concerning such matters also. They appointed one time for the council, between Pascha and the month of October. For Hyperberetaeus, in Greek and Roman, signifies October.

Book of Rules. Afterwards, for particular reasons, other times were appointed for councils. See the fifth rule of the first Ecumenical Council and the eighth rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council.

38. Let the bishop have care over all ecclesiastical property, and let him administer it as one who oversees before God. But it is not permitted to him to appropriate anything of it, or to give to his own relatives what belongs to God. If they are needy, let him provide for them as needy; but under this pretext let him not sell what belongs to the Church.

Zonara. This rule determines that bishops give no account in the administration of ecclesiastical property; for it is unfitting to withhold trust in the management of money from those to whom the care of souls has been entrusted. But the rule adds that they cannot, by the authority given them, turn any ecclesiastical property into their own possession (for this is what “appropriate” means), nor use what belongs to the poor as their own, or give it as gifts to their relatives. If they have needy relatives, it is permitted to give them what is necessary, as to the needy. But to sell ecclesiastical property for distribution to the needy is forbidden them, for what has been dedicated to God must not be alienated, and distributions should be made from the revenues.

Aristen. Let the bishop administer ecclesiastical property with authority; but let him give nothing of it to a relative unless he is needy. No account should be required of a bishop in the administration of ecclesiastical property; for it is permitted to him to dispose of it with authority, even to give what is necessary to his needy relatives.

Valsamon. It has been deemed improper to require an account of the property of the episcopate from those to whom, by the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, the care of souls has been entrusted. But let him administer it, says the rule, as one who oversees before God, according to his judgment. But if someone should say that, with such full authority, the bishop will sell ecclesiastical property and lavish it on his relatives, the rule adds that the bishop has no authority to give away these things as gifts to his relatives or to sell them. But it is permitted to him, from the church revenues, to take what is necessary for himself, and to give what is necessary for life to relatives if they are needy. However, Justinian’s 120th novella, that is, article 3 of chapter 15 of title 2 of book 5 of the Basilika, speaks literally as follows on this matter: “We forbid stewards, administrators, and chartularies of pious houses, wherever they may be, as well as their parents, children, and other persons close to them by blood or marriage, to lease, rent, purchase, or mortgage immovable properties belonging to these pious houses, either personally or through an intermediary, under penalty of the same punishments as those in this imperial city.” And if you wish to know what these punishments are, see chapter 5 of the same title and book, where the same is set forth and the following is added literally: “let them know that if anything similar occurs, what has been done shall be invalid, and we command that all the property of the persons themselves, of those who receive it, and of the stewards, chartularies, and administrators with whom they stand in the aforesaid relationships, shall pass after their death to that pious house from which they take this property.” Thus, gather all this and say that according to this rule and the novella, not only as a gift but in no other way whatever may a bishop, steward, or any of the persons listed above transfer to their relatives the property of churches or the immovable possessions of sacred houses.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let not bishops give ecclesiastical property to relatives. Let the bishop administer ecclesiastical property with authority, and let him give nothing of it to his relatives, unless they are needy.

Interpretation. It is not fitting to examine a bishop concerning the administration of ecclesiastical property, for it is worthy that he administer it with authority, as before the very face of God. It is not fitting for him to make anything of these his own privately, nor to distribute the goods of God’s house to his kin. But if they are needy, let him give them what is necessary, as to other poor. Under pretext of these, let him sell nothing of ecclesiastical property.

39. Let presbyters and deacons perform nothing without the consent of the bishop. For to him are entrusted the people of the Lord, and he shall give account for their souls.

Zonara. Presbyters and deacons who are under the authority of the local bishop are not permitted to do anything on their own, such as imposing penances and excommunicating whom and when they wish, or absolving excommunication, or shortening or prolonging it; for this belongs to episcopal authority. And unless they receive permission from the bishop, they are not permitted to do anything similar. On this, see also the forty-first rule of the Council of Carthage.

Aristen. Without the bishop, a presbyter or deacon does nothing, for to him are entrusted the people. A presbyter or deacon is not permitted, without the consent of his bishop, either to excommunicate people, or to increase or decrease penances, or to do anything else of this kind, since to the bishop are entrusted the people, and from him shall be required an account for their souls.

Valsamon. Take the words “let presbyters and deacons perform nothing without the consent of the bishop” not in a general sense, but say that they have no authority to perform anything belonging to the bishop without his consent, such as leasing immovable church property, collecting revenues due to the church, imposing penances, and the like. For the administration of episcopal matters, says the rule, and the souls of the people are entrusted to the bishop. See the twelfth rule of the second Nicene Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. Without the consent of their bishop, let presbyters or deacons do nothing, for to him are entrusted the people of the Lord.

Interpretation. It is not fitting for a presbyter or deacon, without the command of his bishop, either to bind people, that is, to excommunicate, or to increase or decrease penance, that is, suspension, or to do anything similar, unless written permission be given them by the bishop concerning it, that is, to receive into repentance, and to bind and loose; apart from this, they can do nothing. For to the bishop are entrusted the Lord’s people, and he shall give an account for our souls.

40. Let the personal property of the bishop (if he has personal property) be clearly known, and let the Lord’s be clearly known: that the bishop, when dying, may have authority to leave his personal property to whom he wishes and as he wishes, lest under the guise of ecclesiastical property the bishop’s estate be dissipated—he who sometimes has a wife and children, or relatives or servants. For this is just before God and men, that neither the church suffer any loss through ignorance of the bishop’s property, nor the bishop or his relatives suffer confiscation of property on behalf of the church, nor those close to him fall into lawsuits, and his death be accompanied by dishonour.

Zonara. This rule commands bishops who have personal property to declare it, lest it be mingled with ecclesiastical property, but that there may be manifest both what belonged to them before the episcopate and what might come to them after the episcopate from relatives, that is, by inheritance, bequest, or other similar means. For their personal property they may leave to whom they wish, provided only to orthodox Christians, while ecclesiastical property they must administer with the fear of God and distribute from it to the needy. If ecclesiastical and episcopal property be mingled, it may happen that after the bishop’s death the church or his heirs will have lawsuits. For debts on the bishop may be revealed, and creditors, to recover the debts, may lay claim to ecclesiastical property; or again, if debts are found on the church, the bishop’s heirs may be compelled to pay them, and if the episcopal property is insufficient, they may suffer loss even in their own property, and thus the memory of the bishop may be subject to reproach either from heirs or from members of the church.

Aristen. The property of the church and the property of the bishop must be known, that the bishop may dispose of his own, and the church suffer no loss. A bishop, upon ordination to the episcopate, must make an inventory of his personal property and declare it; likewise of the church’s property, that he may dispose of his personal property both in life and after death as he pleases, and the church preserve its own.

Valsamon. The divine Apostles, preferring justice above all, ordained that the property personally belonging to the bishop and that belonging to the church be kept separate, not mingled. In this, the bishop has authority to dispose of his personal property according to his will, both in life and in testaments for the time of death. Thus, the church will suffer no loss in case of debts of the bishop that may be revealed, nor will his last will, whether expressed in life or not, remain unfulfilled. Thus it appears that if a bishop does not make known his property, both what he had before ordination and what came to him lawfully after ordination which was not ecclesiastical, all his property will be retained and become the possession of the succeeding bishop and the episcopal church. Of course, in this case they will be obliged to pay the bishop’s debts if no inventory of his property has been made. In the latter case, it seems to me, what is laid down in book 35, title 14, chapter 117 of the law should be carried out. See also title 10, chapters 5 and 2 of the present collection.

Slavic Kormchaya. A newly ordained bishop must openly declare and record his property before all. Let ecclesiastical property and the bishop’s personal property be manifestly distinct, that the bishop may bequeath his own as he wishes, and the ecclesiastical remain unharmed.

Interpretation. It is fitting for a bishop, when they wish to ordain him bishop, to show openly all his property and record it before all, likewise the ecclesiastical, that both in life and after death he may give and bequeath from his own to whom he wishes. And the church shall have its own without harm.

41. We command the bishop to have authority over ecclesiastical property. If precious human souls ought to be entrusted to him, much more ought it to be commanded concerning money, that he dispose of all by his own authority, and provide to those in need through presbyters and deacons with the fear of God and all reverence; likewise (if necessary) let him himself take for his own necessary needs and for the brethren received as strangers, that they lack nothing in any respect. For the law of God has ordained that they which serve the altar should be sustained by the altar; likewise a soldier never bears arms against the enemy at his own expense.

Zonara. This rule also places all authority over ecclesiastical property upon the bishop, and commands that distribution to the needy be made through presbyters and deacons, that the bishop may keep himself free from all suspicion. For we provide for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men, as the divine Paul says (2 Cor. 8:21). And the rule permits the bishop himself to use church property, but only for necessary needs; not for anything superfluous, not for objects of luxury and indulgence may he take from it, but only for that by which life is sustained, which, in the words of the great Apostle, are food and raiment, and therewith to be content (1 Tim. 6:8), that thus he himself may be sustained, and the stranger brethren received by him lack nothing. Thus you see that a bishop ought also to be hospitable, as the Apostle commanded in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. The same is prescribed by the twenty-fifth rule of the Council of Antioch and by the great Cyril in his letter to Domnus.

Aristen. Let the bishop have authority over ecclesiastical property, as over souls, and let him administer as is pleasing to God. Clear.

Valsamon. The present rule is explained in the commentary on the thirty-eighth rule, which speaks of the same matter. Here the rule adds that the hierarch must be a lover of the poor, and that distribution to the needy should be made through his presbyters and deacons if he wishes to keep himself above all suspicion. See the twenty-fourth rule of the Antiochian Council and the epistle of Saint Cyril to Domnus.

Slavic Kormchaya. It commands bishops to have authority over ecclesiastical property. For if precious human souls are entrusted to them, much more ought property be entrusted to them, that they dispose of all by their authority, and give what is required to the poor by the hands of honourable presbyters and deacons, with the fear of God and reverence. It is also fitting for him himself, if he has need, to take for his necessary use what he wishes, and to receive and feed stranger brethren who come, and deprive them of nothing necessary. For the law of God also commands that they which serve the altar be fed from the altar, since neither can a soldier bear arms against the enemy at his own expense (cf. Deut. 18; 1 Cor. 9:13? error in original).

Interpretation. Though ecclesiastical properties are given to bishops in their dioceses, yet not for him alone to administer them according to his knowledge, but by the knowledge and counsel of his presbyters and deacons the divine rules command such things to be managed. And only necessary needs is it fitting for bishops to take from ecclesiastical property.

42. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon devoted to dice-playing and drunkenness, either let him cease, or let him be deposed.

(See the 43rd rule)

43. A subdeacon, or reader, or singer doing the like, either let him cease, or let him be excommunicated. Likewise also the laity.

Zonara. Bishops and all the clergy must urge all to virtue, be themselves the foremost pattern of it, and arouse to good works. But since even among them some may stray from good and give themselves to dice-playing or drunkenness, the rule prescribes that such either cease, or bishops, presbyters, and deacons be deposed if they do not cease, while subdeacons, readers, and singers, if they do not cease, be excommunicated, and likewise the laity who give themselves to dice-playing and drunkenness. For Scripture commands not to drink wine wherein is excess (cf. Prov. 23:20? Deut. 21:20? peculiarities retained), and again: Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess (Eph. 5:18). A cleric is not permitted, by the ninth rule of the Trullan Council, even to keep a tavern.

Aristen. Rule 42. A priest who is a gambler or drunkard, if he does not cease, must be deposed. If a presbyter or deacon devoted to gambling or drunkenness and not ceasing is subject to deposition, how much more those who have attained the higher sacred rank must be deposed if they give themselves to gambling or get drunk. Rule 43. A cleric and a layman, if he does the like, must be excommunicated.

Valsamon. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons devoted to gambling or drunkenness are punished differently from subdeacons, singers, readers, and laity. For the two present rules command the former to be deposed if they do not cease, and the latter to be excommunicated. See also the ninth rule of the Trullan Council and title 9 of the present collection, chapters 27 and 35, and title 13, chapter 29.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 42. A gambling and drunken hierarch, if he does not cease, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon gambles and jests, and mocks people, and gets drunk, if he does not cease from that, let him be deposed. Rule 43. A subdeacon, or singer, or reader, or lay person doing the same, if he does not cease from that, let him be excommunicated.

44. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who demands usury from debtors, either let him cease, or let him be deposed.

Zonara. This rule prescribes to bishops, presbyters, and deacons not to demand usury. The fifth rule of the Council of Carthage forbids every cleric to take usury. For if this is forbidden by the old law in the words: Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother (Deut. 23:19), how much more ought it to be prohibited to those who have vowed to live according to the Gospel to take usury. Therefore the rule prescribes that those who lend at usury be deposed if they do not cease. The seventeenth rule of the first council and the tenth of the Trullan also forbid this.

Aristen. A priest who demands interest on a debt, if he does not cease, is deposed. He from whom compassion toward others is required—when he himself takes even what is another’s through interest—is subject to deposition if he does not cease doing this.

Valsamon. The old law says: Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother (Deut. 23:19). Thus, following this, the present rule says that every bishop, presbyter, and deacon who takes usury is deposed if he does not cease. The fifth rule of the Carthaginian Council, the seventeenth of the first, and the tenth of the Trullan say that every cleric is deposed if he does not cease taking usury. See also title 9 of the present collection, chapter 27.

Slavic Kormchaya. This rule deposes a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who takes usury. A hierarch who takes usury from a debtor, if he does not cease from that, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. The Lord says: Sell that ye have, and give alms (cf. Luke 12:33). And again: Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (Matt. 5:7). And He brings forward: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon not only shows no mercy by giving from his own property, but moreover seizes what is another’s by taking usury from debtors, if he does not cease doing such things, let him be deposed.

45. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who has only prayed with heretics, let him be excommunicated. But if he has permitted them to perform any act as ministers of the Church, let him be deposed.

Zonara. This has been spoken of in the rules written above. See also the sixty-fourth rule and the seventieth.

Aristen. One who prays together with heretics is excommunicated; but he who acknowledges their clerics is deposed. A presbyter or deacon who has only prayed together with heretics is excommunicated; but if he has permitted them to perform anything as persons ordained and clerics, he is deposed.

Valsamon. Perhaps someone will ask: why are bishops, presbyters, and deacons who have prayed together with heretics not deposed, but only excommunicated, like one who has prayed with someone excommunicated, according to the tenth Apostolic rule? Resolution. You may say that here it is not meant that a bishop and other clerics prayed together with heretics in a church, for such, according to the forty-sixth rule, ought to be subject to deposition, as well as one who permitted them to perform anything as clerics. But take the expression “pray together” instead of “have ordinary communion” and “be more indulgently disposed toward the prayer of a heretic,” for such, as worthy of aversion, ought to be shunned, and not have communion with them. Therefore excommunication was deemed sufficient punishment.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who prays with heretics, let him be excommunicated. But if he receives them as clerics, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, if he only prays with heretics, either in a house or in a church, let him be excommunicated. But if he commands them to serve in the church as presbyters, or to perform anything sacred as clerics, such a one let him be deposed.

46. We command that bishops or presbyters who accept the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Zonara. The orthodox must avoid heretics and their services, and bishops and presbyters must especially reprove and instruct them, lest they recognize their errors and turn back. But if any bishop or presbyter accepts one baptized by heretics, or takes from them any offering brought as a sacrifice, he must be deposed, for he gives suspicion that either he thinks like them, or else he has not hastened to correct their evil thinking until then. For how could one who consents to their services reprove them and advise heretics to abandon them?

Aristen. A priest who accepts the baptism and sacrifice of heretics loses the priesthood. That bishop or presbyter who does not revile the baptism performed by heretics but acknowledges it, or accepts offerings from them for sacrifice, is deposed, because there can be no concord of Christ with Belial, and no part of a believer with an unbeliever.

Valsamon. The present rule ordains that bishops and priests who accept the baptisms and sacrifices of heretics be deposed. The great Council of Constantinople quite lawfully punished with deposition certain sacred persons who merely saw the writings of the heretic Irenicus but did not revile them or spit upon them.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop or presbyter, if he does not revile heretical baptism and takes anything from them for sacrifice, let him be deposed. A hierarchily hierarch who accepts heretical baptism and sacrifice is not sacred.

Interpretation. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, if he does not revile or mock heretical baptism but accepts one baptized by them, or accepts what they bring for sacrifice—that is, for service—such a one let him be deposed from rank. For what fellowship hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath a believer with unbelievers? (cf. 2 Cor. 6:15, peculiarities retained).

Book of Rules. This Apostolic rule relates to heretics such as existed in Apostolic times, who corrupted the chief dogmas concerning God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and concerning the incarnation of the Son of God. Concerning other kinds of heretics, further determinations are presented by the following rules: the nineteenth rule of the first Ecumenical Council, the seventh and eighth of the Laodicean, the ninety-fifth of the sixth Ecumenical Council, and the forty-seventh of the Great Basil.

47. A bishop or presbyter who rebaptizes one who truly has baptism, or who does not baptize one polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, as one who mocks the cross and death of the Lord, and does not distinguish priests from false priests.

Zonara. One baptism has been handed down to Christians. Thus, to rebaptize one who has baptism according to the Lord’s command and the tradition of the divine Apostles and Fathers (for this is what the expression “truly” means)—that is, from the beginning and fully, as they baptize those not yet baptized—is impious. Equally, not to rebaptize those baptized whom the rule calls polluted, because heretical baptism is unclean, brings greater responsibility. Therefore the rule has commanded that such be deposed—one for performing two baptisms contrary to church tradition, the other for not washing with the divine bath a person polluted by unlawful baptism, and mocking the Lord’s death which He suffered on the cross. For, in the words of the great Apostle, we are baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3). Likewise the cross itself, according to Chrysostom, is called baptism, for The baptism wherewith I am baptized, ye shall be baptized, says the Lord (cf. Matt. 20:23); and again: I have a baptism to be baptized with, which ye know not (cf. Luke 12:50). They are deemed worthy of deposition also because they make no distinction between pious priests and false priests infected with heresies. Thus, to baptize fully those already baptized is altogether forbidden; but to anoint them with chrism if they have suffered pollution is permitted, though even this is part of divine baptism.

Aristen. He who baptizes again one truly baptized, and he who does not rebaptize one polluted by the impious, loses the priesthood. No one is permitted to be baptized twice, and he who baptizes a baptized person again—that is, from the beginning and fully—is deposed. But some are sanctified with chrism after the manner of those truly baptized. He also is deposed who does not baptize one who has received baptism from the impious but accepts him as faithful.

Valsamon. Truly baptized is one who has been baptized once at the voice of the Lord in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thus, if any bishop or presbyter thoughtlessly baptizes again such a one from the beginning, he is subject to deposition; likewise he must be deposed who does not baptize again those baptized by heretics. The matter is this: suppose someone was taken captive by Persians and compelled to hear their abominable teaching and be polluted by their food. Upon returning from captivity, he related what happened to him, but the local bishop or presbyter admitted him to communion only after receiving baptism. The one who acted thus and rebaptized this person the rule subjects to deposition. Concerning the further determination of this rule, say the following: someone was baptized by an impious person (for this means to be polluted) and, wishing to be baptized again and enter communion with orthodox Christians, was not accepted by a bishop or presbyter who maintained that one who has been baptized once ought not be baptized again. In this case the rule says that the bishop or presbyter who does not rebaptize such a one but accepts him with unclean baptism is subject to deposition.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who baptizes a second time one baptized with true baptism, and one who does not baptize one polluted by the unbelieving, such a hierarch is not sanctified.

Interpretation. It is not fitting to baptize a person twice. But if any bishop or presbyter baptizes someone a second time with perfect baptism, let him be deposed from rank. There are some who, having happened to be faithfully baptized, are sanctified only by anointing with chrism; and he who does not perfectly baptize a second time one who has received first baptism from heretics but accepts him as faithful, let him be deposed from rank.

47. If any layman, having put away his wife, takes another, or one put away by another, let him be excommunicated.

Zonara. He who has not put away his wife but, having her with him, unites with another commits adultery in the strict sense; likewise a wife if, living with her husband, unites with another. But by civil law such a one is judged as fornicating. Following civil law, the Great Basil says: if a husband, cohabiting with his wife, remains with another, we regard such a one as a fornicator and leave him under penance for a long time. However, we have no rule to subject him to the charge of adultery if the sin was committed with one free from marriage. And the wife must receive her husband returning from fornication; but the husband puts out of his house a wife defiled. The reason for this is not easy to give, but thus it has been accepted in custom (Great Basil, rule 21). But he who has taken into his house one put away by her husband without fault is manifestly an adulterer according to the Lord’s saying, in which it is spoken: Whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery (cf. Matt. 19:9).

Aristen. A layman who has put away his wife and brought in another, or one put away, must be excommunicated. If anyone puts away his wife without any lawful cause and brings in another, he is subject to excommunication.

Valsamon. One who has put away his wife without cause cannot take another, otherwise he will be subject to excommunication. Likewise he is subject to excommunication who has taken a wife not free from marriage but put away (and one put away is she who is divorced from her husband not lawfully), and is condemned as an adulterer according to the word of the Lord Who says: Whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery (cf. Matt. 19:9). Thus, according to the rules, as some say, both the adulterer and the fornicator have excommunication as ecclesiastical punishment; but this does not seem correct to me. Read the rules of Saint Basil, in which a distinction is introduced between fornicator and adulterer. Know that a husband, while the marriage still exists, uniting with another free woman sins by fornication, not adultery; but if with a married woman, then he is punished as an adulterer. But a wife, while the marriage exists, uniting with anyone whatever is punished as an adulteress. And this is so. Justinian’s novella, placed in book 28, title 7 of the Basilika, says that if formerly either of the spouses could send a divorce in whatever way they wished, for the husband said: wife, do what you wish, and the wife: husband, do what you wish, but afterwards divorce occurs for certain causes. The novella indicates the various causes themselves. However, even in ancient times divorce was not performed arbitrarily but after judicial investigation, and he who married one put away not in this way was considered an adulterer.

Slavic Kormchaya. A lay person who has put away his wife and taken another, or married one put away, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation. If any lay person, apart from causes established by law, puts away his wife and takes another, or marries one put away by her husband, let him be excommunicated.

49. If any bishop or presbyter baptizes not according to the Lord’s institution, into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but into three without beginning, or into three sons, or into three comforters, let him be deposed.

Zonara. The Lord, sending His disciples to preach, said: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). Thus every orthodox person must be baptized according to this command, and not into three without beginning, or three sons, or three comforters; for this is contrary to church tradition and custom. For the church has learned to honour one without beginning, the Father by causality, and one Son by ineffable generation, and one Comforter, the Holy Spirit by procession.

Aristen. He who does not baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit but departs from this loses the priesthood.

Valsamon. This rule says that the bishop or presbyter who baptizes not according to the Lord’s command—in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—but into three without beginning, or three sons, or three comforters, is deposed. For there were certain heretics who admitted such blasphemy and baptized in this way. But we, believing in one Godhead in three hypostases, are baptized with one baptism through the invocation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The rule mentions only bishops and presbyters because no one else is permitted to baptize.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop or presbyter does not baptize according to the Lord’s command in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but baptizes into three without beginning, or into three sons, or into three comforters, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. The Lord, sending His disciples to preach, said: Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Every faithful person ought therefore to baptize according to this command into the three persons of one God without beginning, and not into three without beginning, nor into three sons, nor into three comforters; for this is outside church tradition and custom; for the church has received to honour one God without beginning: the Father, because He is the cause. And one Son begotten ineffably from the Father. And one Comforter, the All-Holy Spirit.

50. If any bishop or presbyter performs not three immersions in one mystagogy, but one immersion given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not: Baptize into My death, but: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Zonara. Three immersions the rule here calls three baptisms in one mystagogy, that is, in one baptism. Thus, the one baptizing pronounces one name of the Holy Trinity at each immersion. But to immerse the one baptized in the holy font once, and to perform this one immersion into the death of the Lord, is impious; and one who baptizes in this way will be subject to deposition.

Aristen. He who performs the mystery not with three immersions but with one into the death of the Lord (which the Lord did not command) loses the priesthood. The Lord commanded to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if any bishop or presbyter opposes the Lord’s command and baptizes with one immersion on the ground that baptism proclaims the Lord’s death, he will be deposed.

Valsamon. This rule is of the same force. For it ordains that the mystery of holy baptism be performed through three immersions, that is, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and one baptizes once, because of the unity of the Godhead and the threeness of the hypostases, or because of Christ’s death on the cross and His three-day resurrection. For the Apostle also says: We are baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3). And the word “baptisms” here, in my opinion, should be taken instead of immersions. Thus the rule says that he who baptizes with one immersion into the death of the Lord is deposed, for he does so contrary to the Lord’s teaching and manifestly impiously.

Slavic Kormchaya. In holy baptism those baptized are to be immersed, not poured upon. If any bishop or presbyter does not baptize with three immersions in one invocation, but with one immersion given into the death of the Lord, let such a one be deposed. For the Lord said not: Baptize into My death, but: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (cf. Matt. 28:19).

Interpretation. The rule commands to baptize with three immersions in one invocation, that is, one baptism. As the one baptizing at each immersion invokes the name of one of the Holy Trinity. For to baptize with one immersion in the sacred font and to invoke one immersion into the death of the Lord is impious, and one who baptizes thus let him be deposed.

51. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the sacred order, abstains from marriage and meat and wine not for the sake of ascetic discipline but because of abhorrence, forgetting that all things are exceeding good, and that God made man male and female, and thus blasphemes the creation: either let him be corrected, or let him be deposed from the sacred order and cast out of the church. Likewise also a layman.

Zonara. To abstain from marriage, from eating meat and drinking wine for the sake of asceticism is not forbidden. But to abhor these and abstain from them as harmful to the soul is not blameless. For in nothing created by God is there evil; but misuse is harmful. If wife, wine, and the rest were causes of evil, they would not have been created by God. Thus one who blasphemes God’s creations reviles His creative power. Therefore such a one needs correction; but if he is not corrected, he will be deposed and excommunicated from the church. For he is not only worthy of deposition but ought not be admitted to the church, as a heretic.

Aristen. Every cleric who abhors wine, meat, and marriage not for the sake of discipline, if he is not corrected, must be cast out of the church. That is: such a one is deposed and expelled from the church.

Valsamon. The church does not reject lawful marriage; for this reason God also created male and female. The church does not abhor those who eat meat and use wine, if they do all in due season and as sacred teaching hands down. For, it says, nothing created by God is evil; but all things are good in their season. But again it does not punish those who abstain from these for the sake of ascetic discipline. Therefore attention must be paid to the motives for which one abstains from these. And if one abstains regarding them as unclean, as the most godless Bogomils, because marriage, meat, and wine are causes of evil for those who use them ill, then he must be deposed when even after admonition he is not corrected; and even more—he must be publicly excommunicated from the church as one who blasphemes God’s creations. But if he abstains for the sake of discipline and piety, he must not be condemned. Therefore many monks, for the sake of asceticism not tasting cheese or eggs or wine for a considerable time, in certain seasons tasted them and thus removed all suspicion and scandal, as for example the blessed desert-dweller called Iron, and the monk Theodulus who was bishop of Elea, at a council, to remove scandals and the idle talk of certain evil people, tasted cheese and eggs.

Slavic Kormchaya. A presbyter or deacon who abhors meat or reviles marriage is cast out of the church. Every cleric and lay person who abhors wine or meat or marriage, unless only for the sake of abstinence, if he is not corrected, is rejected.

Interpretation. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the priestly order who abhors wine or meat or marriage not for the sake of abstinence but with hatred regarding them as abominable and harmful to the soul, forgetting the Scripture that says all things are exceeding good (cf. Gen. 1:31). For nothing created by God is evil; and again, that God made man male and female. But if he blasphemes and slanders God’s creature, let him be corrected, reproving and reviling himself. But if not, let him be deposed and utterly cast out of the church: likewise a lay person.

52. If any bishop or presbyter does not receive one turning from sin but rejects him, let him be deposed from the sacred order. For he grieves Christ Who said: Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.

Zonara. Our Lord, for the sake of sinners, bowed the heavens and came down. For He said: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13). Thus, he who does not receive one turning from sin opposes Christ our God; and one who opposes and does not obey Him is not His disciple; and not being His disciple, he is not worthy to minister sacred things. For how can he be accepted by Christ who makes himself an antichrist by opposing His will?

Aristen. He who does not receive the penitent ought himself much more not to be received. And such a one, if he is a cleric, is deposed; for he opposes the Lord Who said: Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth (Luke 15:7).

Valsamon. There is no sin that overcomes the lovingkindness of God. Therefore the Lord also receives all who repent and turn from evil to good. For He came down from heaven for the salvation of sinners, and said: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Luke 15:7). Thus a bishop or presbyter who does not receive those turning in this way but, like Novatus, abhors them, must be deposed, for he opposes the will of God Who said: Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth (Luke 15:7). Note from the present rule that the authority to receive confessions of people and absolve sins is given not only to bishops and monastic priests but to presbyters with the bishop’s permission. See also the sixth rule of the Carthaginian Council and what is written therein.

Another interpretation. From the fact that the present fifty-second Apostolic rule subjects to punishment bishops and presbyters who do not receive those turning from sins, and from the fact that the sixth, seventh, and fifty-second rules of the Carthaginian Council do not permit priests to receive confessions and absolve sins without the bishop’s knowledge, it is clear that the authority to absolve sins is given not only to monastic priests but to all priests in general. This is quite clear to me also from the fact that the divine and holy Apostles were not even aware of the monastic way of life. For monks were then regarded and called those who lived in deserts, such as the prophet Elijah, the holy Forerunner, the great Anthony, the holy Paul of Thebes, and others. But the present form of monastic life was revealed to Saint Pachomius by an angel after the first council, toward the end of the life of Saint Constantine. Thus I do not know why neither patriarchs nor bishops permit non-monastic priests to receive people’s confessions. I think it is chiefly from fear of disclosure. But I myself, when serving as a priest in great Antioch to clerics of this most holy throne, freely permitted many to receive people’s confessions and absolve sins.

Slavic Kormchaya. A hierarch—that is, bishop or presbyter—who does not receive one turning from sin but rejects him, let him be deposed, as grieving Christ Who said: Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth (Luke 15:7-8? peculiarities retained).

Interpretation. Our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of sinners bowed the heavens and came down. For He Himself said: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:30? peculiarities retained). But if anyone does not receive one repenting from sin, he acts contrary to Christ our God. One who acts contrary and opposes His commandments is not His disciple. But if he is not His disciple, he is not worthy to serve Him. For how can he serve who has made himself an antichrist and opposes the will of Christ? Let him be deposed.

53. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon on feast days does not partake of meat and wine, abhorring them and not for the sake of ascetic discipline, let him be deposed, as having his own conscience seared and becoming a cause of scandal to many.

Zonara. It has been ordained by rule not to fast on Saturdays, except the one Great Saturday, nor on Sundays and feast days. But certain holy fathers happened to take food after ten or twenty days or more, and some continued fasting even to forty days. But as they, keeping fast on Saturdays, were not regarded as transgressors of the canons; so neither will any other be regarded as a transgressor of the canons who wishes to abstain for a certain number of days and not partake of food during those days, even if a Saturday or other feast day falls among them. But if anyone fasts only on Saturdays, abstains from meat and wine, and does not partake of them even on feasts because he abhors them, such a one will not only not be regarded as an ascetic but will be deemed worthy of deposition, for he suggests that God’s creations are harmful, whereas on the contrary they are all good and ought not to be rejected. The fourteenth rule of the Council of Ancyra also ordains that clerics abstaining from meat should touch it—that is, taste it—and thus abstain again; but if they do not do so, it prescribes their deposition.

Aristen. A priest who does not partake of wine and meat not for the sake of ascetic discipline is deposed.

Valsamon. Every Sunday and every feast we do not fast, because we celebrate. But on all Saturdays except one Saturday—that is, the Great—we relax the fast, lest we seem to keep Sabbath in a Jewish manner. Thus a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who fasts on these days is subject to deposition if he moreover abhors what God has given him for food and thereby scandals the people. But if he abstains for the sake of ascetic discipline, he will receive indulgence. See also the commentary on the fifty-first (Apostolic) rule and the fourteenth rule of the Ancyran Council. A layman who keeps such an evil fast and weeps with the heretics—the Marcionites—is excommunicated on the basis of the last words of the fifty-first rule.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon on the days of the Lord’s feasts does not partake of meat or wine, abhorring and regarding these as abominable, and not for the sake of abstinence, let him be deposed, as having his conscience seared and being guilty of scandal to many (cf. Nikon 62).

Interpretation. It has been ordained by the holy Apostles and reverend fathers not to fast in any way on all Saturdays except the one Great Saturday, nor on all Sundays, nor on the days of the Lord’s feasts. But many of the holy fathers happened to fast for ten days or twenty or more. Some of them continued fasting even for forty days, as they judged that there is no transgression of the rules in fasting on such Saturdays and Sundays. Likewise if anyone wishes to abstain for appointed days and fast fully for as many, as they did, then even if a Saturday or Sunday falls in those days, or another Lord’s feast, such a one shall not be condemned as a transgressor of the rules. But if someone fasts only on Saturday or Sunday but eats on all other days, or as one abhorring meat or wine withdraws from them, not even wishing to taste them on the Lord’s feasts, such a one shall not be called an ascetic or faster but is worthy of deposition and shall be condemned, as implanting in many the thought that what God has created is harmful, whereas nothing of them is evil or to be rejected. On this see also the fourteenth rule of the Council in Ankyra.

54. If any of the clergy is observed eating in a tavern, let him be excommunicated, except when by necessity on a journey he rests at an inn.

Zonara. Those called by the lot of God ought to be a pattern of modest life to the laity and blameless in all things, that the name of God be not blasphemed because of them. But frequenting taverns shows that those who do this lead an immodest life and that their morals are corrupted not only in regard to food and drink but in all their conduct. For in taverns gather immodest men and women, and therefore one in their company will not remain unpartaken of their vice. For evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33). Therefore the rule commands that such clerics be excommunicated. But if a cleric on a journey, finding nowhere to stop—that is, to lodge and rest—enters an inn by necessity, such a one will not be subject to fault or punishment. The same is said by the twenty-fourth rule of the Laodicean Council and the forty-ninth of the Carthaginian.

Aristen. A cleric eating in a tavern without necessity occurring on a journey is subject to excommunication. If a cleric on a journey stops at an inn by necessity, indulgence is shown him. But one eating in a tavern without extremity is subject to excommunication.

Valsamon. The divine and holy Apostles, desiring that clerics be of blameless life and not scandalize others but rather encourage to good, ordain that they abstain not only from every reprehensible trade, as said in another rule, but not even enter a tavern to take food or drink. For they are for immodest people and worthy of great condemnation. Therefore the rule ordains that a cleric doing anything such be excommunicated; but one who stops at an inn on a journey out of necessity the rule does not subject to punishment, because this is done in extremity. Thus they speak ill who maintain that a cleric may trade in wine, or lease baths for trade, or engage in another reprehensible trade. For if a cleric is forbidden simply to enter a tavern, he will be subject to greater punishment if he himself engages in this shameful trade directly or through an intermediary. See also the twenty-fourth rule of the Laodicean Council and the forty-ninth of the Carthaginian. But since the forty-second Apostolic rule commands that a bishop, presbyter, or deacon devoted to gambling or drunkenness be deposed if they do not cease, while a subdeacon and all other clerics doing anything such, as well as laity, are subject to excommunication if they do not correct after admonition, I think that here also a cleric frequenting a tavern and not departing from this evil ought to fall under deposition after the first and second admonition. This is confirmed by the words of the rule: “If any of the clergy is observed eating in a tavern,” that is, if he has repeatedly done this evil.

Slavic Kormchaya. Church clerics must not eat or drink in taverns. A cleric who without any necessity frequents a tavern eating, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation. It is not fitting for clerics without necessity to eat and drink in a tavern or dwell there. But if one travelling a long way and unable to reach a city dwells in an inn by necessity, such will be pardoned. But if anyone without some necessity eats and drinks in a tavern, let him be excommunicated.

55. If any of the clergy insults the bishop, let him be deposed. Unto the prince of thy people thou shalt not speak evil.

Zonara. Hierarchs, being the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and regarded as the head of the body of the church, are worthy of greater honour. Therefore one who causes them offence is deposed. But presbyters and deacons, having the image of hands, since through them the bishop carries out the governance of the church, though worthy of honour, are not as the bishop. For head and hands do not merit the same care. Therefore one who causes them offence is punished less, for he is only excommunicated.

Aristen. Rule 55. A cleric who causes offence to the bishop is deposed.

Rule 56. One who causes offence to a presbyter or deacon is excommunicated.

Valsamon. These two rules, the fifty-fifth and fifty-sixth, ordain punishment for clerics causing offence; but the fifty-fifth says that a cleric who causes offence to the bishop is deposed; while the fifty-sixth ordains that a cleric who causes offence to a presbyter or deacon be excommunicated; doubtless because the bishop has greater honour. The canons thus distinguish punishment for clerics causing offence; but civil law ordains that every offender be subjected to dishonour and also pay a monetary fine. I think that dishonour is accompanied by deposition.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 55. If any cleric insults the bishop, let him be deposed, for it is written: Unto the prince of thy people thou shalt not speak evil.

Interpretation. Bishops, being in the image of our Lord Jesus Christ and regarded as the head of the church’s body, are worthy of greater honour: therefore if anyone insults them, let him be deposed. But presbyters and deacons, being in the image of hands, since through them the bishop carries out church governance: they also are worthy of honour, but not as bishops, for the head is more honourable than the hands: therefore if anyone insults them, he is punished less, only excommunicated. Rule 56. If any cleric insults a presbyter or deacon, let him be excommunicated. If he does not cease, let him be deposed.

56. If any of the clergy insults a presbyter or deacon, let him be excommunicated from church communion.

(See rule 55)

57. If any of the clergy mocks a lame, or deaf, or blind person, or one afflicted in the feet, let him be excommunicated. Likewise also a layman.

Zonara. Toward those who have certain members of the body impaired, one ought to show compassion and, as much as possible, protect and guide them, not mock them. And if the rule subjects laity who act thus to excommunication, what is to be thought of clerics who, as has been said many times, ought to be a pattern of every virtue to the people and an incentive to honesty?

Aristen. One who mocks a blind, deaf, or lame person is excommunicated.

One who mocks a blind or deaf, or lame, or having other bodily impairment is excommunicated, as blaspheming Him Who created them.

Valsamon. Both clerics and laity who show no compassion to anyone having a bodily defect but mock them, the rule subjects to excommunication. Yet very many find in this a pretext for laughter, and thereby oppose the judgments of God.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who mocks a blind, deaf, or lame person, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation. If any cleric mocks and laughs at a blind, or deaf, or lame person, or one afflicted in other bodily members, such a one let him be excommunicated, as reviling God Who created that person.

58. A bishop or presbyter who is negligent concerning the clergy and the people, and does not teach them piety, let him be excommunicated. But if he remains in this negligence and indolence, let him be deposed.

Zonara. Upon every bishop lies the inescapable duty to teach the people subject to him the dogmas of piety and bring them to right faith and honest life; for God says through the prophet to the leaders of the peoples: If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thine hand (Ezek. 3:18). Thus a bishop negligent in teaching is excommunicated. But if even after that he does not cease from negligence, he is also deposed. Likewise presbyters; for the rule requires that they also be apt to teach. And the great Paul commands a bishop to be apt to teach and sober (that is, sobering and watchful), not indolent and negligent. The very name of bishop urges him to watchfulness; for he is called overseer, and an overseer ought to watch, not give himself to carelessness. For this reason the throne for bishops is placed on high in the altar. This shows what he ought to be, and that from on high he should survey the people subject to him and oversee them more carefully. And presbyters are appointed to stand there and sit with the bishop, that they also from the high place may oversee the people and order them, as fellow-workers given to the bishop. The nineteenth rule of the Trullan Council also says: “The prelates of the churches ought every day, but especially on Sundays, to teach all the clergy and the people.”

Aristen. A bishop who does not teach piety is excommunicated, and one remaining unadmonished after that is deposed.

A bishop ought to teach piety to clergy and people. If he is negligent in this teaching, he is excommunicated; but if even after excommunication he does not fulfil this, he is also subject to deposition.

Valsamon. The episcopal dignity is a teaching one; and every bishop ought to teach the people the dogmas of piety and the rules of orthodox life. For he is appointed an overseer to oversee his people; whence he is called bishop. And presbyters ought to be such also because they sit near the bishops on high thrones. Thus a bishop and priest who does not do so but is negligent therein is excommunicated; and one remaining in negligence is deposed. Presbyters teach with the bishop’s permission, not arbitrarily.

Slavic Kormchaya. Bishops and presbyters must always teach the people, as also the nineteenth rule of the sixth Ecumenical Council says.

A bishop or presbyter negligent concerning his clerics and his people, and not instructing them in true faith, let him be excommunicated. But remaining in such indolence, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. Without any excuse bishops must teach the people under them the commandments of true faith, and instruct them in orthodoxy and pure life. For God said through the prophet (Ezek. 33) to the rulers of these people: If thou dost not teach nor speak, the wicked shall die in his wickedness, and his blood will I require at thy hands. Therefore also a bishop negligent to teach his people, let him be excommunicated. But if even thus he does not depart from negligence, let him be deposed. Likewise presbyters, for the rule commands that they also be apt to teach. And the great Paul (1 Tim. 3:2-3? peculiarities retained) commands a bishop to be apt to teach and sober, that is, sobering and watchful, not slack and indolent. For the very name of bishop stirs him to sobriety. For bishop means a high hill where a watch is kept. And if one standing on its top watches and looks this way and that, he is called bishop, which means guard or overseer: for a guard and overseer ought to watch, not be indolent. Therefore for bishops within the altar a throne is set on high. And this thing shows that they ought to look from on high upon the people and watch them and keep careful watch. And presbyters also are commanded to stand there with the bishop and sit, that they also because of the high seating are raised to oversight of the people and to their ordering, as helpers given by God to the bishop. This also the nineteenth rule of the holy council in Trullo commands.

59. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon does not provide what is necessary to one of the clergy who is in need, let him be excommunicated. But if he persists in this, let him be deposed, as one who kills his brother.

Zonara. Scripture calls ecclesiastical property the property of the poor. And it ought to be distributed to the poor. But if the prelates of churches ought to satisfy other needy persons as far as possible, how much more ought they to satisfy the clerics subject to them who are in poverty? One who does not fulfil this is excommunicated; and one remaining uncorrected after that is deposed, because through this he becomes a murderer of his brother. For if someone dies as a result of not having what is necessary for life, then one who has but did not care for him is of course a murderer, even if the needy person did not die, because Divine Providence supplied him with what is necessary for life from some other source.

Aristen. A priest who does not show beneficence to a needy cleric is excommunicated. And one remaining unmerciful after this is deposed. Clear.

Valsamon. We know that a bishop ought to distribute to the poor what remains from church revenues after meeting his just expenses and those of the church and the usual provision for clerics, for this remainder is called belonging to the poor. But now this rule ordains that bishops and presbyters care for providing what is necessary to needy clerics, and excommunicates those who do not fulfil this, and deposes those who continue thereafter to be such, as having become guilty of the death of brethren. Do not say that the rule punishes presbyters who do not share their own personal property with needy clerics. But suppose that a presbyter, perhaps holding the office of chorepiscopus or protopope, administered church property and from this acquired wealth, is obliged to give to the needy and especially to poor clerics. But if you do not say this, I do not understand how a presbyter who does not give from his own personal property to his fellow needy cleric would be subject to excommunication or deposition. And “to kill a brother” means not only when this is carried out in deed; for even if he did not die, yet in the intention of the bishop or presbyter it has already been committed.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop who is unmerciful is a murderer.

If any bishop or presbyter does not provide what is necessary to some poor cleric, let him be excommunicated. But remaining unmerciful, let him be deposed, as a murderer to his brother.

Interpretation. Ecclesiastical wealth is the wealth of the poor. Ecclesiastical wealth, the wealth of the poor, Holy Scripture names, and it is fitting to distribute it to the poor. For if the rulers of churches ought to distribute to other needy persons, as it is written, how much more ought they to show mercy to the clerics under them and give them what is necessary. Those who do not do this, let them be excommunicated. But those remaining uncorrected, let them be deposed, since they themselves have become fratricides. For not having what is necessary for sustaining life, he dies: but even if he did not die, from elsewhere Divine Providence granted him what is necessary for life.

60. If anyone reads in church spurious books of the impious as holy, to the harm of the people and the clergy, let him be deposed.

Zonara. Many books have been corrupted by the impious to the harm of the simpler, such as the Apostolic Constitutions written by Saint Clement the bishop, which for this reason were also rejected by a council. But some have been composed entirely by them and bear false titles as if written by holy fathers. These are called apocrypha. The rule commands that these books be rejected and not offered for reading. But if anyone openly brings them and attempts to read them in churches, the rule subjects him, if he has sacred rank, to deposition. The books of the Old and New Scripture which ought to be read are precisely enumerated earlier in the last rule of these Apostolic ordinances, then by the great Athanasius, and by the great and most wise father Gregory the Theologian, and by Saint Amphilochius (by both of these in verse form), and in the rules of the Council of Carthage. And the so-called sixth council, the Trullan, in its sixty-third rule says the following: “The stories of martyrs falsely composed by the enemies of truth, in order to dishonour Christ’s martyrs and bring those who hear to unbelief, we command not to be made public but to be committed to the fire. But those who accept them or attend to them as though true, we anathematize.”

Aristen. One who reads in church a book of the impious is deposed. One who reads in church books of the impious as holy ought to be subject to deposition.

Valsamon. Following the present Apostolic rule, other rules also ordain that books of the impious not be read but committed to the fire. See also title 12 of the present collection, chapter 3, and what is written therein. But since some corrupted pious writings or placed the names of orthodox on unorthodox compositions, as the heretic Pamphilus did, naming heretical ravings golden theological sayings, the rule ordains that a sacred minister who has done anything such to the perdition of the people be deposed. See also the last Apostolic rule, the heroic verses of Saint Gregory the Theologian, and the sixty-third rule of the Trullan Council, and you will learn which books the orthodox ought to read.

Slavic Kormchaya. Spurious books are not to be read. If anyone reads aloud before all in church false writings, books of impious heretics, as holy, to the perdition of the people and the church clergy, let him be deposed.

Interpretation. Many books have been corrupted by heretics to the harm of simpler persons, that is, the ignorant: as also the apostolic ordinances written by Saint Clement the bishop, which for this reason were rejected by a council. Some also have been composed entirely by heretics and bear false titles as if written by holy fathers, which are called secret: the rule commands that such books be rejected and not offered for reading. But if any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon openly brings these before the people and attempts to read them in church, let him be deposed, and the books be burned. The books which it is fitting to read, of the Old and New Testament, are precisely enumerated: first in the last rule of these Apostolic ordinances: and then by the great Athanasius: and by the great and most wise father Gregory the Theologian: and by Saint Amphilochius: and by all these they are written in verse.

61. If a faithful person is accused of fornication, or of adultery, or of any other forbidden act, and is convicted, let him not be admitted to the clergy.

Zonara. One convicted of adultery, or fornication, or any other shameful act is not only not admitted to the priesthood but not even received into the clergy at all. But to accusations against bishops and clerics neither heretics of whatever kind, nor schismatics having their own separate assemblies, nor those rejected from the church for crimes or outside communion are to be admitted, unless they first clear the accusations raised against them, whether they be clerics or laity; nor are those under trial admitted until they are shown innocent of the crimes, according to the sixth rule of the second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople.

Aristen. A faithful person convicted of adultery, or fornication, or other crimes cannot be in the clergy.

A faithful person accused of adultery, or fornication, or any other forbidden act and convicted therein is not received into the clergy. But if someone, while still unbelieving, fell into any of the enumerated sins, then was baptized, and after baptism led a blameless life, such a one is freely admitted to the clergy.

Valsamon. One accused and convicted of fornication, or adultery, or any other forbidden act, or condemned, does not become a cleric. Note this in regard to those who say that ordination cannot be permitted to those subjected to accusation merely because they were accused. For the present rule says that those convicted ought not be admitted to the clergy, not those merely accused.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who has committed fornication is unworthy to enter the clergy. A faithful person convicted of fornication, or adultery, or other sins, will not be a cleric.

Interpretation. If any accusation is made against a faithful person concerning fornication, or adultery, or other forbidden sins, and he is convicted, such a one is not admitted to the clergy. But if someone being unbelieving committed some forbidden sin, and afterwards is baptized, and after baptism keeps his life blameless, such a one freely enters the clergy.

62. If any of the clergy, fearing a Jew, or a Greek, or a heretic, denies the name of Christ, let him be cast out of the church. But if he denies the name of a minister of the church, let him be deposed from the clergy. But if he repents, let him be received as a layman.

Zonara. Those who have denied the name of Christ out of fear of punishment this rule subjects to complete rejection from the church. But those who have denied the name of cleric it commands to depose, and if they repent, to receive in the rank of laity. But the Council of Ancyra (rule 1) ordains that those presbyters and deacons who truly, and not by cunning and hypocritical preparation, feared torments and sacrificed to idols should enjoy honour and throne but does not permit them to perform anything priestly.

Aristen. One who denies Christ is subject also to excommunication; but one who denies the clergy, in case of turning back, is received as a layman. One who denies Christ out of human fear is subject to excommunication. But one who, being a cleric, denies not Christ but the name of cleric, is deposed; and upon repentance is received as a layman.

Valsamon. Though civil law allows indulgence to one compelled by fear or force to do something, church law desires that all orthodox be confessors of the faith. Thus a cleric who out of fear of punishment has denied the name of Christ ought not only to be deposed but cut off from the good work of the church as a rotten member. But if he denies the rank of cleric, he ought to be deposed. However, in both cases, if he repents sincerely, he ought to be received as a layman. Note from this that if those who have received the seal of tonsure and thereby been appointed to the rank of readers cast off the sacred garments and live as laity, they cannot perform anything assigned to readers even if they again take the clerical garments or even become monks, but must lead the life of laity. For if one who out of fear denied his status in the clergy is deposed and upon repentance received only as a layman, how much more one who did such denial voluntarily and mocked the holy garment ought not be honoured with former status in the clergy.

Slavic Kormchaya. A denier of Christ is rejected; one who denies the clerical name, and turning back again, is received as a simple person.

Interpretation. If any cleric out of fear of a Jew, or Greek, or heretic denies the name of Christ, let him be utterly cast out of the church. But if, being a cleric, he denies not Christ’s but the clerical name—that is, fearing, a bishop says: I was not, nor do I wish to be bishop; likewise a presbyter, and deacon, and other cleric, if he denies his name, let him be deposed from his rank. But turning back again and repenting, let him be received as a lay person.

63. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the sacred order, eats meat in the blood of its soul, or that torn by beasts, or carrion, let him be deposed. But if a layman does this, let him be excommunicated.

Zonara. This is forbidden also in the book of Genesis; for God, after the flood permitting people to eat all things as vegetables, added: Yet flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat (Gen. 9:4), such as, for example, strangled meat eaten by some. For in animals blood takes the place of soul. It is also not permitted to eat either that torn by beasts or carrion.

Aristen. A priest who eats strangled meat, or that torn by beasts, or carrion is deposed, and a layman is excommunicated.

Valsamon. Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat—this is ordained in the book of Genesis. Such is strangled meat. But it is not permitted to eat that torn by beasts or carrion. One acting contrary to this, if a cleric, ought to be deposed, and if a layman, ought to be excommunicated. On what ground some eat what is caught and strangled by birds of prey or dogs or tigers, I do not know. Thus note this rule regarding the Latins, who without distinction eat strangled meat.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the priestly order eats meat in the blood of its soul (Gen. 9), which is strangled meat. For in every animal blood is in place of soul. But if anyone eats strangled meat, or that torn by beasts, or carrion, let him be deposed from rank; for this also the law of Moses forbade. But if a lay person eats, let him be excommunicated.

64. If any of the clergy is observed fasting on the Lord’s day or on a Saturday, except only the one (Great Saturday), let him be deposed. But if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Zonara. Fasting is a good thing. But what is good ought also to be done in a good way. But if anyone fasts transgressing the ordinances of the Apostles or holy Fathers, he ought to hear that the good is not good when it is not done in a good way. Thus when the rule ordains not to fast on Saturday and the Lord’s day, but a cleric fasts, he is subject to deposition, and a layman to excommunication. But if anyone fasts on appointed days, perhaps for ten or eight days for the sake of ascetic discipline (as already said before), in such case Saturdays and Lord’s days are included in the appointed days. Thus many holy fathers did when they fasted even to forty days.

Aristen. One fasting on the Lord’s day or on Saturday except the one is excommunicated. One fasting on another Saturday except the great, or on the Lord’s day, is deposed; but if such is a layman, he is excommunicated.

Valsamon. On Saturday we do not fast, lest we seem to Judaize. The Lord’s day we celebrate because of the universal joy and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; for Saturday is a memorial of creation, and the Lord’s day of resurrection, or rather re-creation. But on the one Great Saturday, in which the Lord’s body lay lifeless in the tomb, we are commanded to fast according to the voice of the Lord Who says: When the bridegroom shall be taken from them, then shall they fast (Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35). Thus one acting contrary to this, if a cleric, ought to be deposed, and if a layman, ought to be excommunicated. Except for me the divine fathers when they fast for the sake of ascetic discipline even on these days; for they will not be subject to condemnation. See also the holy Apostles’ rules 51 and 53.

Slavic Kormchaya. One fasting on Sunday or Saturday except the one is deposed (Nikon 57).

Interpretation. If any cleric fasts on Sunday or Saturday except the one Great Saturday, let him be deposed. But if a lay person, such let him be excommunicated.

Book of Rules. The degree of relaxation of the fast on Sundays and Saturdays is determined in the church typicon and usually consists in permission of wine, oil, and taking food after the liturgy, without continuing abstinence until three-quarters of the day.

65. If any of the clergy or a layman enters a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deposed from the sacred order and excommunicated from church communion.

Zonara. The rule regards it as a great sin if a Christian enters a Jewish or heretical synagogue to pray. For, in the words of the great Apostle: What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath a believer with an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:15)? The synagogue of the Jews does not even satisfy them in regard to sacrifice, for they are forbidden to offer sacrifice outside Jerusalem. But if they, entering their synagogues, transgress the law, how much more a Christian praying together with the slayers of Christ ought to be regarded as a transgressor of the law. As for the assembly of heretics preaching contrary to the orthodox, the orthodox ought not to honour this assembly but rather reject it. Some say that those entering such synagogues to pray, as gravely sinning, this rule subjects to double punishment, that is, deposition and excommunication. But others say that the rule divides these punishments between clerics and laity, and to the ordained assigns deposition, and to laity excommunication. And John Chrysostom in his discourses against the Jews strongly attacks the Antiochenes because they celebrate together with Jews. The eleventh rule of the Trullan Council forbids all to eat unleavened bread with Jews and enter into friendship with them, or call them in illnesses and receive medicines from them, or bathe together with them; the ordained who do not observe this the rule subjects to deposition, and laity to excommunication.

Aristen. One praying with Jews is excommunicated. A cleric entering a synagogue of Jews or heretics and praying together with them is deposed, as thinking in accordance with Jews; but a layman is excommunicated. But if with heretics even in a house only a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon prayed together, he is excommunicated according to the forty-fifth rule.

Valsamon. In the forty-fifth Apostolic rule we explained how to understand the words “pray together with heretics.” Here the rule ordains that one praying in a Jewish or heretical synagogue, if a cleric, is deposed, and if a layman, is excommunicated. Thus the appointed punishment ought to be divided, because it is impossible to depose a layman. But if you say that a cleric acting thus ought to be both deposed and excommunicated, you will not err against what is proper. Read also the eleventh rule of the Trullan Council, ordaining that all bearing the name of Christian, that is, ordained and laity, keep away from Jews and not communicate with them even for healing or any other reason; otherwise some were to be subjected to deposition, and others to excommunication.

Slavic Kormchaya. Christians must not pray with heretics. One praying with Jews, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation. One entering an assembly of Jews, or a heretical or pagan church, and praying with them, if a lay person, let him be excommunicated. But if a cleric, let him be deposed, as thinking like a Jew. But if even in a house only he prays with heretics, a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, let him be excommunicated, as the forty-fifth rule of these Apostolic ordinances commands.

66. If any of the clergy in a quarrel strikes someone and kills with one blow, let him be deposed for his audacity. But if a layman does this, let him be excommunicated.

Zonara. The Lord gives to all the command that one struck on the right cheek turn also the left, and not repay in kind. Therefore a cleric who has struck someone in a quarrel, if the one struck dies even from one blow, is deposed as reckless; and a layman who has done this is excommunicated. By quarrel ought to be understood a brawl, not a war.

Aristen. A cleric who is a murderer is deposed; a layman is excommunicated.

Valsamon. Ministers of the divine sanctuary are commanded to bridle anger, as is clear also from the twenty-seventh Apostolic rule. Here the rule ordains to depose a cleric who, overcome by anger, has killed someone with a blow during a quarrel. But if someone should say: such a one ought not to be deposed if the one struck died from one blow, because this murder may have been involuntary; the rule adds that even one who killed with one blow ought to be deposed. Various rules of Saint Basil depose a cleric who has killed in any way whatever. Read also Basilika book 60, title 39, chapter 1, page 3, and chapter 5, page 2, and also chapter 26 of title 9 of the present collection: for there the indicated laws are cited. Read also Saint Basil’s rules 8, 11, 43, 54, 55, 56, 57—and in them pay attention especially to what concerns the soul; for wounds of the soul need more church healing than civil.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any cleric in a quarrel strikes someone and kills with one blow, for his audacity let him be deposed, but if a lay person, let him be excommunicated. Interpretation. If any cleric in a quarrel strikes someone and with one blow kills to death, let him be deposed because of his harshness. But if a lay person, let him be excommunicated.

67. If anyone violates an unbetrothed virgin and keeps her, let him be excommunicated from church communion. But it is not permitted to him to take another; rather he must keep her whom he has chosen, even if she be poor.

Zonara. One who forcibly defiles a virgin, if she was betrothed to someone, is punished as an adulterer; but if unbetrothed, the rule ordains that he keep her and not send her away, even if she be poor and perhaps unworthy of him. But by civil law he is punished differently.

Aristen. One who commits violence upon a virgin is excommunicated and must keep her, even if she be poor. One who commits violence upon an unbetrothed virgin and defiles her must be excommunicated; and it ought not to be permitted to him to take another, but he must keep her whom he has chosen, even if she be poor. But the eighth article, placed in chapter 81 of title 37 of book 60 of the Basilika, prescribes that such a one have his nose cut off, and a third part of his property be given to the virgin defiled and violated by him.

Valsamon. The present rule says that one who commits violence upon a virgin not betrothed to another is excommunicated and compelled to cohabit with her, even if she be poor, even if unworthy of his lineage, and not to separate from her and take another. And this is ordained by the present rule; for one who commits violence upon a betrothed is punished as an adulterer. See also the ninety-third rule of the sixth Council. But concerning the fact that one who commits violence should have the violated as wife, even if she be poor, and not marry another, investigation ought to be made. For why is it permitted that one who commits violence should thereafter have the violated as wife and not marry another, when the law (in book 60, title 37, chapter 81 of the Basilika) says: one who violates and defiles a virgin ought to be subject to having his nose cut off and give her a third part of his property? It seems that the present rule is understood following chapter 3 of title 37 of book 60 of the Basilika, in which it is ordained that one who has an honourable woman as concubine be compelled to take her into marital communion, and for the violence one who committed it is excommunicated, but for the salvation of the virgin he is compelled to marry her lawfully. Read also title 9 of the present collection, chapter 30, and what is written therein, and Basilika book 60, title 58, chapter 3, in which it is said: let not the abducted enter marriage with the abductor; but even if her parents consent to such cohabitation, they are subject to exile. And find no contradiction here; for one who abducts a virgin is punished differently from one who defiles a virgin by violence. And abduction is not excused because of the shamelessness of the abductor; but defilement committed through violence, if allowed by the one subjected to defilement, is excused. One who unites with a virgin by her desire is punished differently; for the law in book 60, title 37, chapter 80 says: “one who unites with a virgin maiden with her consent but without her parents’ knowledge, when the matter is revealed, if he wishes to take her as wife and the parents agree, let the union stand. But if one party of the parents, that is, of one or the other, does not wish it, and if the one who committed defilement is wealthy, let him give the defiled virgin one pound of gold; but if not wealthy, let him give half his property; but if he is utterly poor, then after corporal punishment and shearing of hair, let him be exiled.”

Slavic Kormchaya. One who by violence defiles a virgin must take her. One who commits violence upon a virgin, let him be excommunicated, and let him have her, even if she be poor (Nikon 13).

Interpretation. If anyone forces and defiles an unbetrothed virgin, let him be excommunicated. It is not fitting for him to take another, but he must have her whom he himself chose, even if she be poor. But the eighth commandment, in the seventy-eighth chapter of the thirty-seventh title of the sixty books imperial, commands that such a one have his nose cut off, and a third part of his property be given to the maiden defiled by him.

68. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives from anyone a second ordination, let him be deposed from the sacred order, both he and the one who ordained him; unless it be certainly known that he has ordination from heretics. For those baptized or ordained by such cannot be either faithful or ministers of the church.

Zonara. Concerning double ordination one may think variously. For one ordained a second time seeks a second ordination either because he condemns the one who ordained him the first time; or because from the one ordaining him the second time he hopes to receive some greater grace of the Spirit and be sanctified, since he has faith in him; or perhaps, having abandoned the priesthood, he is ordained again as if from the beginning; or perhaps for other reasons. In whatever way he has done this, both the one twice ordained and the one who ordained him are subject to deposition, except in the case where the first ordination was from heretics: for neither baptism of heretics can make anyone a Christian, nor their ordination make a cleric. Thus there is no danger in reordaining those ordained by heretics.

Aristen. One twice ordained is deposed together with the ordainer, if the first hand was not heretical. A bishop or presbyter who receives a second ordination, because he shows as if he abhors the first, is deposed together with the ordainer, if the first was not from a heretic.

Valsamon. In whatever way one is twice ordained to the same sacred rank, he is deposed, and not only he himself but also knowingly the one who ordained him. Since they show as if they condemn the first ordination, or the second is performed after abandonment of the first, which cannot happen. For one who once rejected the grace of ordination given him cannot thereafter perform anything priestly. But since ordination and baptism of heretics neither make clerics nor faithful, it is ordained without danger to ordain and baptize those ordained or baptized by heretics; for what was with them is regarded as not having been.

Slavic Kormchaya. Not to be ordained twice to the clergy. One ordained twice, and with the one who ordained him, let him be deposed, unless only the first hand was heretical (Nikon 63).

Interpretation. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives a second ordination from someone, abhorring the first, let him himself be deposed, and the one who ordained him, unless it happen that he was ordained first by a heretic. For from those baptism is no baptism: and ordination, no clerics.

69. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, or reader, or singer does not fast during the holy forty days before Pascha, or on Wednesday, or on Friday, except for hindrance from bodily weakness, let him be deposed. But if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Zonara. This rule strictly requires that the faithful keep in fasting the holy forty days before Pascha and Wednesday and Friday of each of the other weeks, except those who cannot fast because of bodily weakness. For fasting was devised for the taming of the flesh. But if the flesh is afflicted by illness or some other weakness, this taming through fasting is no longer necessary. The rule prescribes that the ordained who do not observe this be deposed, and laity excommunicated. It ought to be noted that the rule places Wednesday and Friday on a level with the holy forty days before Pascha.

Aristen. One who does not fast during the forty days, or on Wednesday and Friday, if he is a cleric, subject to deposition, and if a layman, subject to excommunication; except in the case where weakness hinders this. Clear.

Valsamon. The forty-day fast before Pascha was first handed down by the Lord, Who fasted such a number of days; then also by the holy Apostles in the present rule. For the rule says: if any faithful does not fast during the holy forty days before Pascha, and every Wednesday and Friday (for on these days likewise during the holy forty days dry eating is ordained for us); then if he is a cleric, he ought to be subject to deposition; but if a layman, he ought to be subject to excommunication. Except those who are sick. For if they relax to fish, they will be granted indulgence. But to meat no one ought to relax on any Wednesday and Friday, except the paschal and others in which relaxation is permitted, even if at the last breath. Except for me Wednesdays and Fridays of the week preceding Meatfare week, Cheese-fare week, and Paschal week; for in these weeks we relax, because in the week preceding Meatfare the Armenians fast for the Ninevites, and in Cheese-fare week the Tetradite heretics keep the great fast. And Paschal week is regarded as the greatest Lord’s day; for therefore every day then the morning Sunday Gospels are read. Likewise except for me from the forty days Saturdays and Sundays; for in like manner we relax on these days according to the sixty-fourth Apostolic rule. But when you hear of relaxation, do not say that this relaxation is to meat. For to eat meat during the great forty days ought not to be permitted to anyone, even if at the last breath. We know that at various times questions were raised about this at councils, but no relaxation was given. Note from the present rule that properly there is one fast, the forty-day before Pascha; for if there were other fasts, the rule would mention them also. However, if we fast also in other fasts, such as of the holy Apostles, the Dormition of the holy Theotokos, and the Nativity of Christ, we shall not be subject to reproach for this. Read also what we have written on the third question of the synodal responses in the days of the patriarch lord Nicholas.

Slavic Kormchaya. The great fast, and Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the year to remain in fasting. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon, or reader, or singer does not fast for forty days, that is, the great fast, and throughout the year on every Wednesday and Friday, let him be deposed, unless bodily illness hinders him. For to the weak it is forgiven to partake of oil and wine according to strength. But if a lay person does not fast, let him be excommunicated (Nikon 57).

70. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone of the clerical list, fasts with Jews, or celebrates with them, or receives from them the gifts of their feasts, such as unleavened bread or anything similar, let him be deposed. But if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Zonara. If one who prays together with one excommunicated or deposed is under penance according to the rules written before, then one who celebrates with Jews, or fasts with them, or receives from them any portions of their feasts (people not excommunicated and deprived of communion, but Christ-slayers and removed from the society of the faithful, or rather people accursed) how ought he not to be worthy—if ordained of deposition, and a layman of excommunication? For such a one, though not of one mind with them, yet gives many occasion for scandal and suspicion against himself, as if he honours Jewish rites. And at the same time it is thought that he is defiled by communion with those to whom God before the Christ-slaying said through the prophet: Your fasting and idleness and feasts My soul hateth (cf. Isa. 1:14, peculiarities retained). And the twenty-ninth rule of the Laodicean Council ordains that a Christian not celebrate on Saturday, and those who Judaize, it says, let them be anathema. And the seventy-first rule of the Carthaginian Council forbids celebrating and feasting with Greeks.

Valsamon. The holy Apostles, in other rules having ordained what ought to be with those who pray together with heretics or excommunicated, now command that those fasting with Jews, or receiving unleavened bread of their feasts or other gifts—clerics be deposed, and laity excommunicated. But do not say that these Judaize as if of one mind with Jews: for such would necessarily be subjected not to deposition or excommunication alone but to complete deprivation of communion, as the twenty-ninth rule of the Laodicean Council also commands. But say that such are orthodox but despising church traditions and living carelessly; and therefore they are punished more indulgently, as causing scandal. For this reason we also, who both believe and act not in accordance with Jews and other heretics, without doubt relax the fast when they fast, perhaps because of the Ninevite threat or for other their supposed reasons. And from the fact that those receiving from Jews gifts of their feasts, that is, unleavened bread and the like, are deposed and excommunicated, many conclude that those who perform the mystical sacrifice on unleavened bread are thereby convicted: for, they say, if merely tasting Jewish feast unleavened bread subjects to deposition and excommunication, then partaking of them as the Lord’s work and performing Pascha on them like Jews—what condemnation and punishment will it not be subject to? Thus note this rule and see the seventy-first rule of the Carthaginian Council.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any cleric of the priestly order fasts with Jews, or celebrates with them, or receives from them a portion of unleavened bread on the day of their feast, or does such, let him be deposed. But a lay person, let him be excommunicated.

71. If any Christian brings oil into a pagan temple or into a Jewish synagogue on their feast, or lights a lamp, let him be excommunicated from church communion.

Zonara. “Let him be excommunicated from church communion,” for bringing oil and lighting lamps he does because he honours the customs of Jews or pagans. But if he honours their worship, it ought to be thought that he also thinks as they do.

Aristen. Rule 70. A layman who Judaizes or thinks in accordance with pagans, excommunicate. Rule 71. A cleric, depose. One who thinks in accordance with Jews and fasts or celebrates together with them, if a cleric, is deposed, and if a layman, is excommunicated.

Valsamon. Elsewhere it is said that there is no communion of a faithful with an unbeliever (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14-15). Therefore the present rule also says that a Christian who celebrates together with any unbeliever whatever, or lights oil or a lamp at their false worship, is subject to excommunication; because such a one is regarded as of one mind with unbelievers. According to the present rule such a one is punished more indulgently, but according to others he is subjected to stricter punishments.

Slavic Kormchaya. If any Christian brings oil into a Jewish assembly, or into a heretical church, or into a pagan one on their feast, or incense, or lights a candle, let him be excommunicated.

72. If any of the clergy or a layman steals wax or oil from the holy church, let him be excommunicated from church communion, and let him add fivefold to what he took.

Aristen. One who steals church wax or oil is excommunicated, with restitution fivefold against what was stolen. The full text of the rules requires that not fivefold against what was stolen be restored, but only what was stolen and a fifth part thereof.

Valsamon. The rule says that every faithful who has taken wax or oil from the church is excommunicated. But do not think that this taking means theft. For one who has taken church wax or oil with such intent ought to be punished as a sacrilege. But say that here is punished one who simply took and turned to ordinary use what was brought to God, whether such a one has authority as overseer in the temple or is a servant therein.

Slavic Kormchaya. One who steals from the church shall restore fivefold. Let him be excommunicated who steals wax or oil from the church, and let him pay fivefold.

Interpretation. If any cleric or lay person steals wax or oil from the holy church, let him restore what was stolen, and five like parts let him add to this, and then let him be excommunicated.

73. Let no one appropriate a consecrated vessel of gold or silver, or a curtain, for his own use. For it is unlawful. But if anyone is found doing this, let him be punished with excommunication.

Zonara. What is set apart for God ought not to be turned to ordinary use (for it is sanctified), whether it be some vessel, or fabric (for by the name of curtain the rule designates every fabric), or oil, or wax. The bringing of these things into God’s temple sanctifies them. Thus from the church one ought not to carry away either wax, or oil, or any vessel, or fabric dedicated to God, nor turn them to any personal use. Those guilty of this are subject to excommunication. Achar took from God what was not yet brought or sanctified, but only vowed, and yet suffered punishment, being stoned with all his kin.

Aristen. One who appropriates sacred vessels for his own use is excommunicated.

One who turns sacred things to his own use—a vessel or consecrated curtain—ought to be subjected to excommunication, as a transgressor of the law.

Valsamon. The present rule ordains the same as the seventy-second, that is, that things brought to God and dedicated to temples—whatever vessels and utensils—ought not to be turned to ordinary use. For by the name of curtain every fabric is designated. Achar, who appropriated for himself a golden tongue from the spoil of gold vowed to God but not yet sanctified, was stoned with all his kin. See also the tenth rule of the First-and-Second Council held in the temple of the Holy Apostles.

Slavic Kormchaya. A vessel of gold or silver consecrated—that is, hung in the church—or a curtain, or golden stand, or silk cloth, let no one take anything of such for his own need. But if anyone is found doing such lawlessness, let him be punished with prohibition, that is, excommunication.

Interpretation. What is sanctified to God it is not fitting to profane, for they are sanctified. Whether a vessel or something else, whether a curtain, or golden stand, or silk cloth, or if it be oil or wax, for by their bringing into God’s church such things are set apart. It is not fitting therefore to take either wax or oil from the church, nor any other vessel, nor curtain, nor stand, nor silk cloth, nor vestment, nor cloth, for all these are dedicated to God: and it is not fitting to take them for one’s own need, for this reason they are subject to excommunication. For Achar stole what was not yet brought nor sanctified to God, but only vowed, and yet received vengeance, being stoned with all his kin (cf. Josh. 7).

74. A bishop accused of anything by persons worthy of trust must himself necessarily be summoned by the bishops, and if he appears and confesses, or is convicted, let penance be appointed. But if, being summoned, he does not obey, let him be summoned a second time through two bishops sent to him. But if even thus he does not obey, let him be summoned a third time also through two bishops sent to him. But if, disregarding even this, he does not appear, let the council pronounce judgment against him according to its discretion, that he may not seem to gain advantage by fleeing judgment.

Zonara. In the sixty-first rule also it is said to us that not everyone may accuse a bishop, but only persons blameless and orthodox. The present rule indicates this by the words: “by persons worthy of trust.” But even if a bishop is accused by such persons, he ought not to be condemned in his absence, but summoned, and when he comes he ought to hear what is said against him. And when he has heard, he ought either to acknowledge the accusations brought against him as just, or, if he does not acknowledge them, ought to be convicted, and thus judgment ought to be passed. But if, being summoned once, he does not come, the rule ordains a second summons through two bishops. But if he disregards this summons also, the rule commands that he be summoned to investigation a third time likewise through two bishops; and if even thus he does not come, the council is to pass sentence against him with one party only (that is, the accusing), lest by further delay of investigation and sentence shameless evasion of judgment prove advantageous to him.

Aristen. A bishop accused and summoned but not obeying ought to be summoned twice and thrice; but if he persists, let the council pronounce its opinion concerning him.

A bishop accused of some crime by men worthy of trust and summoned to court ought not at once to be condemned by the council, but summoned twice and thrice, sending with each summons two bishops to him. But if he persists, disregards, and does not appear in court, then the council ought to investigate the circumstances of the accusation with one party and pass sentence concerning him according to its discretion.

Valsamon. Concerning who may accuse bishops or clerics and who may testify against them, read, as I said above, title 9 of the present collection, chapter 1, and what is written therein, also chapter 2, and what is written therein. But the present rule ordains that a bishop accused of a crime ought by law to be summoned by bishops; for to condemn him in absence was deemed unjust, and if he is present and convicted by irrefutable proofs or his own confession, to impose penances according to the rules. But if he does not appear, to summon him again through two bishops, and even a third time; but if even thus he does not appear, then the council with one party only (that is, the accusing) declares its decision concerning him, lest, it says, from shameless delay the one disregarding gain advantage. In view of such ordinance contained in this rule, the question was repeatedly raised: does this rule give the council authority to subject a disobedient bishop also to deposition? And some said that it is harsh to depose a bishop for disobedience; but he ought to be subjected to some other punishment. For if, they say, it had pleased the Apostles to depose a bishop for this, they would have mentioned deposition also in this rule. But others said that according to the recently issued revered novella of the God-crowned, most glorious and holy autocrat our lord, every accused, if summoned to court and after three notifications invited to come by three written summonses, and yet does not come, is subject to judgment with one party only. Thus if a bishop also is accused by submission of an accusatory complaint—and with lawful written documents—and is summoned to court first by notifications, and then by three written summonses, and yet does not appear in court, he ought to be subjected to judgment with one party only (that is, the accusing), and may be subjected to deposition. The summons here is understood as ordained by laws, that is, through summonses in a thirty-day period, and not through written notifications in the course of a few days, as some said. This was discussed from various sides at the imperial court, and especially in the case of the Ecumenical bishop, and it was decided that an accused bishop ought to be summoned to court by three lawful summonses, and only after that condemned for disobedience.

Another interpretation. It is beyond dispute that according to the novella of the revered emperor lord Manuel Comnenus a disobedient bishop is subject to condemnation, for thus it was reasoned, as said, also at the sacred imperial court. But that the summons be performed by two hierarchs and not in some other way, as some said—this is in neither the law nor the thought of the present rule. For when it was written, the ordinance was still in force that judges and patriarchal notaries themselves were vested with trust, and therefore it was ordained that summonses of hierarchs to court be executed by two bishops. But now, when judges and patriarchal notaries are vested with trust, summonses necessarily performed by them ought not to be subject to dispute. Thus one summoned by them and not appearing in court rightly will be subjected to condemnation, since these summonses cannot be regarded as invalid because performed not by hierarchs.

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop slandered and summoned to court, and not obeying twice and thrice, let him be summoned by two bishops. But if he does not come, as the council wishes let it condemn such a one.

Interpretation. A bishop slandered concerning some transgression by trustworthy men and summoned by the council to court, and not obeying, it is not fitting for the council at once to condemn such a one, but twice and thrice to summon him. And let two bishops be sent with each summons. But if he remains negligent and does not come to court, let the council investigate the fault with one party, and according to the likeness of the fault worthily condemn him, that he may not seem to escape judgment by fleeing.

75. A heretic is not to be received as a witness against a bishop; nor one faithful person alone. For at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.

Zonara. A heretic ought not only not to be admitted to accuse a bishop but not even to testify. And one testifying against a bishop, even if faithful, ought not to be received. For the great Paul in his epistle to Timothy says: Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19). But I think that now in accusations by which sacred ministers are subject to loss of their rank, even two witnesses are not sufficient, though they be faithful and blameless.

Aristen. A heretic does not accuse a bishop, nor does one faithful person alone. One who made an abridgment of the present rule misunderstood it. That a heretic not accuse a bishop or testify against him is true; but that one faithful person cannot bring accusation against a bishop is false. For the testimony of one against anyone is not accepted, but accusation may be brought by one or many.

Valsamon. If you wish to know in what number and who testifies against bishops or clerics, then, as I said above, read title 9 of the present collection, chapter 2. But from the present rule you see that neither a heretic nor one faithful person alone is accepted as witness against a bishop. For at the mouth of two or three witnesses, it says, every word shall be established (cf. Matt. 18:16). However, do not understand this without distinction; but according to the precise meaning of the law say that if there be a monetary claim and it extends to one pound, it will suffice if two faithful and honourable witnesses testify under oath against a bishop; if to fifty pounds, three; if more than that, five. But if it be not a monetary claim but accusation of a crime, such accusation against a bishop is proved by five faithful and honourable witnesses under oath. Read concerning this also title 1 of book 21 of the Basilika, in which much is said about this.

Slavic Kormchaya. As witness against a bishop a heretic is not accepted: nor one faithful person only, for at the mouth, it says, of two or three witnesses every word shall stand (cf. Deut. 17 and 19).

Interpretation. Not only for slander is a heretic not accepted, but even for testimony, if one testifies, even if faithful, he is not accepted. For to Timothy also (1 Tim. 5:19? peculiarities retained) the great Paul writing thus says: Against an elder receive not testimony, except before two or three witnesses: but I think not for slander, by which loss of his rank is brought upon a bishop or presbyter, even two witnesses are not sufficient, though they be faithful and blameless.

76. It is not fitting for a bishop, to please a brother, or son, or other relative, to appoint as bishop whom he wishes. For it is not just to make heirs of the episcopate, and give God’s property as a gift to human partiality. One ought not to place God’s Church under heirs. But if anyone does this, let the ordination be invalid, and let him himself be punished with excommunication.

Zonara. Episcopal authority ought to be regarded as a gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thus in what way will someone transmit the grace of the Spirit to another as an inheritance to please him? Therefore bishops are not permitted in churches subject to them to appoint others in their place according to their wish. For those who have no right to leave to whom they wish property acquired during the episcopate (except property come to them by inheritance from relatives, as the thirty-second (thirty-first) rule of the Carthaginian Council says), in what way will they transmit the episcopate itself to others, as if leaving them heirs of pastoral authority and administration of the goods of the poor, and by human passion—that is, by friendship or kindred love—giving as a gift what is dedicated to God? Thus if anyone does anything such, by force of the rule both what is done is invalid and the doer is subject to excommunication; for it is ordained that bishops are appointed by councils. And the twenty-third rule of the Antiochian Council says: “A bishop is not permitted, even if at the end of life, to appoint another as his successor.” This was forbidden also to the Israelites, for Moses was reproached because he made Aaron and his sons priests; and if God had not confirmed the priesthood for them by signs, perhaps they would have been deprived of it.

Aristen. A bishop at the end of his life does not appoint a bishop in his place.

It is ordained by rules that one who is to be ordained to the episcopate be appointed by the bishops of the province. But for a bishop at the end of life to appoint another in his place—this introduces hereditary right, whereas no one ought to give God’s Church to an heir.

Valsamon. The present rule ordains that a bishop has no right to appoint in his place to the episcopate his relative and offer the grace of the Spirit as some human inheritance. Ordination thus performed it declares invalid, and the bishop excommunicates. But say that even if a bishop transmitted the episcopate not to his relative but to a stranger, the same ought to hold; for it is established that bishops be appointed by councils. Therefore also the late glorious metropolitan of Philippopolis, when resigning his metropolis on condition that the holy council appoint as metropolitan of Philippopolis in his place his steward, was not satisfied, but received this answer: if property acquired by a bishop after ordination from church revenues he cannot give or transmit to whom he wishes, how much more the episcopate. Read the thirty-second (thirty-first) rule of the Carthaginian Council and the twenty-third of the Antiochian, in which it is said: “A bishop is not permitted, even if at the end of life, to appoint another as his successor.”

Slavic Kormchaya. A bishop dying cannot appoint a bishop in his place.

Interpretation. For it is not fitting for a bishop wishing to die to appoint brother or son or other relative out of love to the episcopal rank whom he wishes. For it is not just to make heirs bishops, and what are God’s to give to human passions. For it is no benefit to place God’s Church under heirs. But if anyone does this, let the ordination be void; that is, the one ordained is not bishop. And the one who ordained him let him be prohibited by excommunication.

77. If anyone is deprived of an eye, or damaged in the legs, but is worthy to be bishop, let him be. For bodily defect does not defile him, but defilement of soul.

Zonara. The command given through Moses to the Israelites required that their priests be whole in body and have no defect; and no one maimed in any part of the body was admitted to priesthood. Even if after receiving priesthood any of the ordained suffered damage to a member or some small part of the body, such was removed from priesthood. But with us bodily damage is not regarded as hindrance for those wishing to minister; for it is required that such have a soul pure, blameless, and free from defilement. But if someone is one-eyed, perhaps, or has squinting eyes, or is lame, or has some other damage not hindering him in performing episcopal service, such is admitted to ordination, of course if deemed worthy of the episcopate. But if someone has both eyes damaged, or does not hear with ears, or has some other damage hindering performance of episcopal service, such ought not to be raised to the episcopate. For one not seeing or not hearing, or not possessing the right hand, how will he minister, how will he receive the holy mysteries with hands, or impart them to others, or perform some other episcopal service?

Aristen. Rule 77. A lame and one-eyed person becomes bishop if worthy. For bodily defect does not hinder raising to episcopal dignity one who leads a blameless life, except in the case where one to be ordained is deaf or blind; for such is not admitted to hierarchy, but not because he is defiled, but because he cannot perform church service without hindrance. Rule 78. A blind and deaf person cannot be bishop.

Valsamon. By the old law no one damaged in any part of the body was raised to priesthood; even more, one who after receiving priesthood suffered some damage from illness ceased to minister. But the divine Apostles ordained not to admit to priesthood only those who have some hindrance to performing sacred service, but those who can perform service, even if one-eyed or lame, commanded to honour with ordination. For they wish all to have a soul pure and blameless, not the body. Thus if after receiving priesthood someone becomes deaf or blind, or suffers some other bodily illness and cannot perform priestly service, ought he to be excluded from the sacred order according to the old law? Resolution. By no means. For it is uncompassionate and contrary to the precise Apostolic intention to condemn as unworthy one who is more worthy of compassion for his illness. And many hierarchs, priests, and deacons who lost sight or suffered some other incurable illness and were deprived of ability to perform any episcopal service were not excluded from the sacred order until the end of their life. And the law says in book 8, title 1, chapter 1, article 4: a blind person may administer justice, is not removed from the senate. New office is not entrusted to him, but what he had before the illness he retains.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 77. If anyone blind in one eye, or having harm in the shin, but worthy of the episcopate, let him be: for bodily harm does not defile him, but defilement of soul. Rule 78. A deaf and blind person will not be bishop.

A deaf or blind person let him not be bishop, not as defiled, but that church affairs remain unharmed.

Interpretation. By Moses the command given to the Israelites commands that those among them who are priests be whole in body and have no defect, and no one harmed in any part of the body is admitted to priesthood: but even after receiving priesthood if harm to a member or some part happens to a priest, he is deprived of priesthood. But with us for those wishing to be ordained priest bodily harm is not reckoned as prohibition: for it commands him to have a soul pure and unharmed and separated from defilement. But if one-eyed, or having squinting eyes, or lame somewhat, or having some other harm not hindering him in priestly service, and appearing worthy by judgment of all bishops, he is not forbidden to be ordained bishop. But if someone has both eyes blind, or ears deaf, or some other lameness because of which he cannot perform priestly service, such cannot be bishop. For not seeing or not hearing or having the right hand withered, how indeed can he serve or handle the holy things, or impart them to others, or perform other service.

78. But a deaf or blind person let him not be bishop, not as though defiled, but that there be no hindrance in church affairs.

(See rule 77)

79. If anyone has a demon, let him not be received into the clergy, nor pray with the faithful. But when freed, let him be received with the faithful, and if worthy, also into the clergy.

Zonara. One possessed is regarded as unclean, and at the same time there arises suspicion that if the demon had not found this person a dwelling worthy of himself because of his evil life, it would not have entered him. Thus in what way will such a one be admitted to any ordination? For if, in the words of the great in theology Gregory, chrism is not entrusted to a rotten vessel, how will the grace of the Holy Spirit be entrusted to a vessel of a demon? The present rule commands that the faithful not even pray with such a one. But the third rule of Timothy the patriarch of Alexandria, constituting an answer to one who asked: “If a faithful person possessed by a demon, ought he to partake of the holy mysteries?” says: “If he does not violate the mystery nor blaspheme in any other way, let him partake.” Thus apparently this contradicts the present rule? I do not think so. One must admit that the Apostolic rule speaks of one constantly possessed and having no lucid intervals: in what way will such a one be admitted to prayer? But Timothy’s answer has in view one suffering with lucid intervals. For such a one, when not suffering, ought to be honoured with the sanctuary. But when freed from the power of the demon, he may be received into the clergy if deemed worthy.

Aristen. One possessed is not received into the clergy and is not admitted to common prayer. But after cleansing he is admitted if worthy. One possessed does not become a cleric until freed from the demon; nor does he pray with the faithful. But when freed from this illness, then he is admitted both to prayer and numbered in the clergy if worthy.

Valsamon. One possessed is deprived of reason and will; and therefore by this rule it is forbidden both to number him in the clergy and for him to pray with the faithful, lest by doing something evil and unseemly and uttering demonic cries he disturb God’s people and hinder church praise. But when he comes to himself, he may be a cleric if found worthy. Though the third rule of Timothy patriarch of Alexandria says: “If a faithful person possessed by a demon ought to partake of the holy Mysteries,” yet it contains no contradiction to the present rule: for it refers to one possessed with lucid intervals who in time of sound mind understands the mystery of divine sanctifications; but the present rule speaks of one raving continuously. But if you say that this rule speaks also of one possessed with lucid intervals, even in this case there will be no hindrance to you. For one possessed with lucid intervals ought not to be admitted to the clergy, lest in time of possession the priesthood be mocked and blasphemy uttered against God.

Slavic Kormchaya. One possessed is not to be received into the clergy. One possessed will not be a cleric, nor pray with the faithful. But after cleansing, if worthy, let him be.

Interpretation. One having a demon cannot be a cleric until delivered from the demon: nor is he worthy to pray with the faithful. But if freed from the passion, let him be received to prayer, and into the clergy if worthy, let him enter.

80. One who has come from a pagan life and been baptized, or one who has turned from a vicious way of life, it is not right to advance suddenly to the episcopate. For it is unjust for one not yet tested to be a teacher of others, unless this be arranged by the grace of God.

Zonara. One who has only just come to the faith and been honoured with divine baptism ought not at once to be ordained bishop. For first he ought to give proof of himself, that he has sound faith and a blameless way of life; and this requires time: for in a short time it is impossible to know this. But to appoint as teacher of others one who himself has not yet been tested is both unjust and unreliable. The second rule of the first Ecumenical Council also forbids this and commands that one who acts thus be deposed. And the great Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, depicting in words one who is to be raised to the episcopate, says: Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). But the words of the rule: “unless only by the grace of God this be arranged” ought to be understood thus: unless there be a revelation concerning him that he ought to be raised to the episcopate, as for example it was revealed to Ananias concerning Paul, when the Lord in a vision said to him: For he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15).

Aristen. Neither one newly baptized nor one who has recently abandoned a vicious way of life becomes bishop.

One who has recently turned and been baptized, or one who has recently led a vicious life, for example, took part in theatrical performances or was a servant, ought not at once to be ordained bishop, but first subjected to testing, and thus after he has passed blamelessly through all the degrees of the priesthood, to be ordained also to the episcopate.

Valsamon. From the tenth rule of the Sardican Council and the seventeenth of the council held in the temple of the Holy Apostles, called the First-and-Second, you ought to know that even a faithful layman is advanced to episcopal dignity not otherwise than if he fulfils the ordained periods in the other degrees. But if a faithful layman becomes bishop not otherwise, how much more ought not one newly enlightened, or one who took part in theatrical performances, to be ordained bishop unless he spends sufficient time in the ordained degrees and is not admitted to teaching the mystery of the faith while still untaught. Thus he ought to be tested for a sufficient time, and if found worthy, ordained. See also the second rule of the first council, which ordains that one who acts contrary to this be deposed. And the great Paul forbids appointing not a youth but one recently baptized. The words: “unless only by the grace of God this be arranged” regard as spoken concerning revelation. For to the Apostle Ananias it was revealed concerning the great Paul: For he is a chosen vessel unto Me (Acts 9:15).

Slavic Kormchaya. One newly come from an evil life is not soon to be appointed bishop (Nikon 63). One who has come from a pagan life and been baptized, or from evil dwelling, it is not right at once to appoint bishop.

Interpretation. One newly come to the conciliar church and baptized, or one soon come from evil life to repentance, a player or jester having been, or some official, it is not fitting soon to appoint bishop: but first to test and know concerning his life, and thus when he passes all priestly ranks without stumbling—that is, appointed reader and singer, subdeacon and deacon, and presbyter—then it is fitting to appoint bishop.

81. We have said that it is not fitting for a bishop or presbyter to involve himself in public administrations, but to attend unceasingly to church affairs. Either let him be persuaded not to do this, or let him be deposed. For no man can serve two masters, according to the Lord’s command.

Zonara. The sixth rule of the present collection commands that sacred ministers who take upon themselves secular cares be deposed, and this rule provides an explanation to it. For the sixth rule also ought to be understood thus, that if he does not wish to obey and abandon secular affairs, then he ought to be subject to deposition. But if he desists from these affairs and no longer interferes in public administration, he will receive forgiveness for what was past. Therefore the present rule mentions the preceding one. See also the sixteenth (nineteenth) rule of the Carthaginian Council and the third of the fourth Council.

Aristen. A bishop who participates in public secular affairs is not a bishop.

A presbyter, or deacon, or bishop who involves himself in public administrations either ought to abandon them, or, if he does not obey, ought to be subject to deposition.

Valsamon. The sixth Apostolic rule indifferently commands that sacred ministers who take upon themselves secular cares be deposed. But the present rule punishes them more indulgently, for it says: “either let him cease, or let him be deposed.” Thus combine both rules into one thought for a more humane explanation and say that the sixth rule also ought to be understood in accordance with the present. See also the sixteenth (nineteenth) rule of the Carthaginian Council and the third of the fourth.

Slavic Kormchaya. The ordained must not involve themselves in secular structures.

A bishop is not a bishop who involves himself in the structure of secular things.

Interpretation. One adhering to the correction of secular things, and not devoting himself to church needs, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, either let him cease doing this, or not obeying, let him be deposed.

82. We do not permit slaves to be advanced to the clergy without the consent of their masters, to the grief of their owners. For from this arises disorder in houses. But if at any time a slave appears worthy of ordination to a church rank, as our Onesimus appeared, and the masters consent, and free him, and release him from the house, let him be advanced.

Zonara. The faithful ought to avoid what causes scandal in anyone. But to receive another’s slave into the clergy without the master’s will is to cause scandal and grief. Therefore the rule forbids this, for thus whole houses are disordered. For example, if a slave was manager of his master’s house, or overseer of the master’s workshop, or entrusted with money for trade, his ordination will therefore cause grief to his master. But if a slave is deemed worthy of priestly rank, the bishop ought to inform his master thereof, and if he also consents, then he may be ordained. For the great Paul Onesimus, the slave of Philemon, whom he deemed most useful for service to himself, did not venture to retain without the master’s consent, but sent him back to Philemon. But civil law says that for freeing a slave in order to number him in the clergy it suffices if his master knows thereof and does not object.

Aristen. A slave is not received into the clergy otherwise than with the master’s consent: one worthy is advanced after freeing.

Without the master’s consent a slave ought not to be received into the clergy; but after freeing he is received if he proves worthy of being numbered in the clergy.

Valsamon. Concerning slaves received into the clergy, read also chapter 36 of title 1 of the present collection. Here the rule, not wishing us to cause scandal to our brethren, does not permit advancing another’s slave to the clergy, even if he be most wise and worthy, unless the master consents and first gives him freedom. For example it is written what happened with Onesimus; for it is written that this Onesimus, slave of Philemon, the great Paul sent back to Philemon, though he seemed most useful to him for service, saying that without Philemon’s consent it is unjust for him to serve the preaching of the faith. Thus neither freedom, nor priesthood, nor anything else snatches a slave from under the master’s authority if he did not know thereof. The ordinance of the law that after freeing there is no return to former state refers not to these but to a slave freed by the will of an incomplete master.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 82 (Nikon 5). A slave is not accepted into the clergy except by the will of his masters. But one worthy, having been freed, let him be a cleric.

Interpretation. We command not to bring slaves into the clergy except by the will of their masters, to the offence of those who acquired them, for such a thing causes corruption of houses. But if anywhere a slave appears worthy of ordination to priestly rank and degree, as our Onesimus appeared, and his masters forgive him, and free and release him from the house, such let him be a cleric.

83. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who engages in military affairs and wishes to retain both—that is, Roman command and priestly office—let him be deposed from the sacred order. For Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Zonara. I think that here by military affairs the rule means not bearing and using arms, or [command] over wars; but administration of military property, for example, distribution of military pay, or issuing of allotted provisions to soldiers, or recruitment into troops, or other such offices which even in civil laws are called military. Thus ordained persons engaging in these affairs are, by the rule, subject to deposition, of course if they do not abandon this. For one ought not to mix what is not to be mixed—that is, Caesar’s and God’s. But the seventh rule of the Chalcedonian Council ordains that such be anathematized if they do not repent.

Aristen. A priest who commands in military affairs is not a priest; for Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

One wishing to retain both Roman military affairs and priestly service ought to be deposed, for Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Valsamon. Various Apostolic rules forbade ordained persons to engage in public affairs. But the present rule ordains that those engaging in military affairs—that is, managing military pay, property, and recruitments—be deposed. For, in my opinion, such military affairs ought to be understood here, and not with use of arms, since the latter is altogether forbidden. Read also the seventh rule of the Chalcedonian Council, which anathematizes such if they do not repent. But perhaps someone will ask: will not the condition apply here also: “either let him cease,” “or let him be deposed,” as we saw in the eighty-first rule? Or ought one ordained engaging in military affairs even before admonitions to be deposed for this? Resolution. I think that here also one engaging in military affairs ought to be subject to deposition if after admonition he does not cease; for all secular affairs have one and the same reason. Read also chapter 32 of title 9 of the present collection, and what is written therein.

Slavic Kormchaya. A hierarch who is a soldier is not sacred: for Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

Interpretation. A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon adhering to military structure, and wishing to hold both voivodeship authority and hierarchical governance, such let him be deposed. For the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things that are God’s to God.

84. If anyone insults the emperor or a prince unjustly, let him suffer punishment. And if such a one is of the clergy, let him be deposed from the sacred order; but if a layman, let him be excommunicated from church communion.

Zonara. The Mosaic law says: Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people (Exod. 22:28). And the chief of the Apostles Peter says: Honour the king (1 Pet. 2:17). And the great Paul commands to pray for kings and for all that are in authority (1 Tim. 2:2), and this even for unbelievers. Thus it is forbidden to insult all—both kings and rulers. But to reprove when they do something unbecoming is not forbidden, though words of reproof sometimes may be very sharp and regarded as offence by those reproved. To insult unjustly the rule does not permit, but on the contrary one ought to think that one who in a just cause reproves even kings and nobles is not subject to punishment. But chapter 13 of title 36 of book 60 of the Basilika says the following: when someone speaks ill of the emperor, he is not subject to punishment, but it ought to be reported to the emperor, for if this happened through frivolity, he is worthy of contempt, but if in madness—worthy of pity, but if because wronged—worthy of indulgence.

Aristen. One who unjustly insults a prince and emperor, if a cleric, is subject to deposition, a layman to excommunication.

One who insults an emperor or prince living piously, if a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Valsamon. The Mosaic law says: Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people (Exod. 22:28). Thus following this, the present rule also ordains that one who insults the emperor or a prince, if a cleric, is deposed, and if a layman, is excommunicated. And this is so by church tradition; but civil laws punish differently for insult caused to the emperor. Read chapter 36 of title 9 of the present collection. Some, explaining the words: “if anyone insults the emperor or prince unjustly,” said that often even just reproof is taken as insult. But I think this is explained in chapter 13 of title 36 of book 60 of the Basilika, which is placed in chapter 36 of title 9 of the present collection.

Slavic Kormchaya. Rule 84 (Nikon 10). If anyone insults the emperor or a prince unjustly, if a cleric, let him be deposed. But if a lay person, let him be excommunicated.

Interpretation. The law of Moses says: Thou shalt not revile the ruler of thy people. And the chief apostle Peter commands to honour the king. And the great Paul commands to pray for the emperor, and for all that are in authority, that is, in power, even more when they were still unbelievers (cf. Acts 4:7; 1 Pet. 2:17? 1 Tim. 2:2? peculiarities retained). To insult therefore the emperor or a prince is forbidden to all, but to reprove worthily is not forbidden, even if words of reproof are very harsh, they are reckoned as offence to those reproved. Unjustly therefore to insult the rule does not permit, as may be understood from the distinction: but one who justly reproves an emperor or prince is not worthy of torment. But the thirty-sixth title of the sixty imperial books, in chapter 13 thus says: if anyone speaks evil against the emperor, he is subject to torment: but it is fitting to announce concerning him to the emperor. And if he spoke through scantiness of mind, disregard him, or from madness, let him be pitied. But if also having been wronged, let him be forgiven.

85. For all of you who belong to the clergy and laity, let the following books be esteemed and holy: of the Old Testament, five of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Of Joshua the son of Nun, one. Of Judges, one. Of Ruth, one. Of the Kingdoms, four. Of the Paralipomena (that is, the remnants of the book of days), two. Of Ezra, two. Of Esther, one. Of the Maccabees, three. Of Job, one. Of the Psalter, one. Of Solomon, three: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Of the Prophets, twelve: one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, one of Ezekiel, one of Daniel. Besides these, let it be noted for you that your youth study the Wisdom of the most learned Sirach. But ours, that is, of the New Testament: four Gospels: of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John. Fourteen epistles of Paul. Two epistles of Peter. Three of John. One of James. One of Jude. Two epistles of Clement. And the ordinances addressed to you bishops by me Clement in eight books (which it is not fitting to make public before all because of the mysteries therein), and our Acts of the Apostles.

Zonara. The holy Apostles, having given ordinances how the faithful ought to live, finally added also which books they ought to read, and enumerated them. Enumerations of books appointed for reading are found also among various holy Fathers, as said somewhere above. And this they did because there were or still are various spurious compositions with false titles, and some corrupted, such as the Constitutions published by Clement; for these also were corrupted and spoiled by certain evil-minded persons. Therefore the sixth Ecumenical Council altogether forbade reading them in the second of its enacted rules. Some other enumerations, together with those enumerated here, permit reading also the Wisdom of Solomon, and Tobit, and Judith, and the Apocalypse of the Theologian.

Thus here are the eighty-five rules of the all-praised Apostles. In some books containing the rules there are found other rules inscribed with the name of each of the all-praised Apostles. But the council of 227 holy Fathers assembled in Trullo in the reign of the autocrat Justinian Rhinometus, called the sixth, which made an enumeration of the sacred rules, says thus: “This holy council deemed that there remain firm and unshaken the rules received and confirmed by the holy and blessed fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, eighty-five in number.” Then having said concerning the Constitutions written by Saint Clement that they ought not to be read, and rejected them because heretics mixed into them something spurious and alien to piety to the harm of the church, it mentions the conciliar rules—both of ecumenical councils and of local—and the rules composed by the divine fathers apart from councils, and to this adds: “Let it not be permitted to anyone to alter or cancel the aforesaid rules, or apart from the proposed rules to accept others composed with false titles by certain persons who dared to traffic in the truth.” When the second rule of the sixth Council makes such ordinance and nowhere made mention of other Apostolic rules besides the eighty-five, other rules called Apostolic ought not to be accepted, but such rather ought to be censured, convicted, and rejected as having false titles, as corrupted and outside those enumerated and approved by the divine and sacred fathers.

Aristen. Only the sixty-book canon is esteemed.

Among all clerics and laity let the following books alone be regarded as esteemed and holy: of the Old Testament, five: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; of Joshua the son of Nun—one; of Judges and Ruth—one; of the Kingdoms—four; of Paralipomena (books of days)—)—two; of Ezra—two; of Esther—one; of the Maccabees—three; of Job—one; of the Psalter—one; of Solomon three: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; of the Prophets—twelve. Besides these also the Wisdom of the most learned Sirach. But of the New Testament: four Gospels: of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John; of Paul—fourteen epistles; of Peter—two epistles; of John—three; of James—one; of Jude—one; of Clement—two epistles; and the Acts of the Apostles; and the Constitutions addressed by Clement the bishop in eight books, which it is not fitting to make public before all because of the mysteries therein. But the second rule of the sixth council held in Trullo altogether rejects these constitutions because something spurious and alien to piety was added to them by heterodox persons.

Valsamon. From the sixtieth rule we learned that books of the impious with false titles ought not to be read as holy. But now we learn which books we ought to read from the Old Testament and from the New. But know that though it is written here that we read the Constitutions of Clement, yet not making them public; the second rule of the sixth council forbade reading them because corruption was committed in them. Read the very second rule, which ordains that with certain other writings we read only the eighty-five rules of the holy Apostles and turn to no other rule even if called a rule of the holy Apostles. But what is written by holy fathers and confessors we ought both to read and accept as leading us to the true and orthodox faith.

Slavic Kormchaya. Let there be for all of you, both clerics and lay people, books esteemed and holy; of the Old Testament indeed five books of Moses: Genesis: Exodus: Leviticus: Numbers: Deuteronomy. Of Joshua the son of Nun one. Of Judges one. Of Ruth one. Four Kingdoms. Two Paralipomena. Two Ezra. One Esther. Three Maccabees. One Job. One Psalter. Four of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom. Of the Prophets, twelve. Besides these it is prescribed for us to teach your young children the books of the Wisdom of the most learned Sirach. But our books, that is, of the New Testament: four Evangelists: of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John. Fourteen epistles of Paul. Two epistles of Peter. Three epistles of John. One epistle of James. One of Jude. Two epistles of Clement and the commandments addressed to you bishops by me Clement in eight books; which it is not fitting to read before all because of the mysteries therein, and our Acts of the Apostles.

Interpretation. The honest Apostles having commanded in the rules how the faithful ought to live: finally they added which books it is fitting for them to read, and enumerated such, as also somewhere above it was said, and enumerations of books to be read are found among various holy Fathers; this they did because various alien compositions were or are with false titles. Others also corrupted, as also the commandments published and handed down by Clement, for these also by certain unbelievers were corrupted and distorted: therefore to read them altogether the sixth Ecumenical Council forbade in the second rule of those enacted by it. But certain from other enumerations to the books esteemed in this rule command to read also the Wisdom of Solomon; and Judith, and Tobit; and the Revelation of John the Theologian.

Book of Rules. Concerning the Apostolic Constitutions written by Clement, time and the providence of God revealed the need for a new rule, which is the second of the sixth Ecumenical Council.

 

 

source